Wikipedia:Editor review/Dusti 2

Dusti
Hello! I've been away for some time, and since my return, I just want to make sure I'm on the right track with changes in policies, procedures, etc. It's Wikipedia - and things change.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 01:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My primary contributions to Wikipedia have, and always will be, vandalism reversion. I run Huggle as well as AWB, and I've always found it to be my strong suit. There's not too much that can go wrong, is there? Recently, I've also been working at AfD. A quick note about it - there's been an eyebrow raised or two at some NAC's, however, I tend to stand by my edits - with the exception for AfD. I know I'm not an admin - and therefore, I always subject myself to scrutiny of my closures. NAC's are supposed to be non-controversial, and when controversy does happen, it's best to revert, back away, and let an admin take a look.
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * The latest dispute, if you wish to call it that, was at AfD. There were some editors who had questions regarding why I closed an AfD the way I did. One admin agreed that it came down to my judgement, another offered a different perspective. It's the great thing about Wikipedia - everyone is free to offer their viewpoint. I had no qualms with the way the AfD's were closed (two ended in delete). There was also question as to why I relisted a debate, as the editor appeared confused as to what res-listing a debate actually did.
 * 1) What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
 * Primarily, I want feedback as to where others think I am. Am I on the right track, if you will. RfA is always there, and it's no big deal to me at this point. Would I run for it in a year or so? Maybe. I don't see myself actually passing though, not with the way things currently are at RfA.

 Reviews 

I also saw that you've had a few CSD nominations declined recently, so a more administrative task you could work on would be improving the accuracy of your CSD tagging. Feel free to ask me if you need advice about it! One more thing - I checked your edit count and saw that you have a few really long breaks in your editing history. That's fine for now, but I'd recommend you stay around consistently for a year or so before thinking about RfA. Plus, that'll give you a lot of time to really cement your knowledge and application of policy in administrative areas and to get intimately acquainted with the content creation process. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 21:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Dusti! My interactions with you on-wiki, on other wikis and on IRC have always been really positive and I feel you are heading in the right direction. My only suggestion is to not make yourself overly controversial with NACs before you run for adminship in the future. Other than that, I don't see any problems with your editing. I can see you running for adminship in 2014 and being successful. Good luck. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  23:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Dusti, sorry it took me so long to get to this. I think you're doing pretty well editing. I would, however, suggest that you spend a little more time in mainspace. I couldn't find any DYKs, GAs, or FAs that you've done, so perhaps that would be a good goal to work for. I know you're interested in working on LGBT-related articles, so maybe taking one of those to GA would be a good idea.
 * Looks like you're doing good work in Wikipedia; I like your AfD decision regarding Fiona Ayerst which seemed reasonable and fair-minded imho.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)