User:Mr. Wick/Editor Coaching

Okay, here's the page where will have have our editor coaching. Normally in my coaching experience I would start by asking you the three standard RFA questions, but I want to try this from a different angle this time. Instead, let's start with these questions below. Once you've answered them, we can determine the direction this editor coaching will go.

1. What areas of the encyclopedia do you enjoy editing? Which WikiProjects, if any, are you active in?

   Im am most active in WP:VG. But im also a part of the Harry Potter Wikiproject, the Novels Wikiproject, and the Young Adult Literature Wikiproject. I usually only edit those kinds of articles except for when Random Editing.

2. Would you consider yourself to be any of the following: Content adder, WikiGnome, or WikiFairy?

   I would say Im a wikignome. I dont really look for fame. I am only thinking about making the best articles I possibly can

3. Do you do any background or behind-the-scenes work? Possible areas for this could be: WP:XFD, WP:AIV, WP:ANI, WP:UAA, WP:ER or many other places.

   I dont exactly stay active with discussions about deletions but I pretty much stay active with deletions. I currently am trying to delete Prophecies in Percy Jackson. As for vandalism, I revert it whenever I catch it but recently learned when and where to request a block. I have had a ER but it recently closed(feel free to browse it). Um, bad usernames wise, I have notice unexceptable ones but didnt know what to do about them.

4. I'm going to keep one of the three standard RFA questions here, after all. Have you been in any disputes and how did you handle it?

   As for disputes, yes. My first one was a small one with Metros. I thought he was just bulling me by deleting my articles so I asked him why he was being so mean. We went head to head a couple of times but later settled of differences and moved on. Then I had one with Orangemike which was really small, we settled it by simply coming to an agreement about a AFD. Then my only big one and most recent one was with Kieferskunk. I had been constantly picked on over at WP:VG and Kiefer kinda overflowed the bucket and I blew up. I cursed him out on the page and we broke into a full fledged refute taking place on 3 pages. But in the end we decided it wasnt worth it and I gave him his own full applogy.

I took a look at your ER from last month, it sounds like you had it a little rough as a new editor due to the steep learning curve here at Wikipedia. That dispute with KeiferSkunk apparently was resolved satisfactorily. If you have a tendency to sometimes get emotional over something, perhaps take a look at my essay (the only essay I've written) at User:Useight/LetItGo. I've been called "hard as nails" because my head rules my heart. Also, I looked through your subpages. You have a lot of sandboxes, and a fair number of them are empty, would you like any of them deleted? A list of all your subpages can found here. You also created this userbox and this essay during the heat of that dispute. Do you still feel that way or do you want them deleted? Useight (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the empty subpages can be deleted and so can the userbox and that essay.Gears Of War 17:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

How about this one? Useight (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Avtually that one can be kept. I will finish that essay only to help editors learn about things to watch out for.Gears Of War 17:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Gaining respect as an editor

Here at Wikipedia, there is no hierarchy, nobody is above anyone else, there's no social standing. But, there are some editors that people pay more attention to and listen to more carefully when they speak. These people are typically involved, articulate, civil, intelligent, and have good judgement. These are excellent traits in an editor. To show these traits, an editor must begin with two things, as I see it: 1) Word choice; and 2) Writing ability. When writing a comment or adding content to the encyclopedia, choose your words carefully. Don't just type the first thing that comes to mind. Read your comment a couple of times (I know, not being speedy at times results in an edit conflict, but that's not really a big deal). Are you saying what you really wanted to say? Are you conveying what you intended to convey? Also, for point two above, grammar, spelling, capitalization, punctuation, all matter. I've made these technical errors many a time, especially when I'm in a hurry, but always go back and fix them if you notice them. Professionalism counts. Useight (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. But sometimes, I think because I younger(12),that i give snap judgement. And if im mad, sometimes i'll say something completely out of line, but I also belieave that I can gain respect through my edits, which prove to be quite inpresive and just keep getting better. And right now, there are multiple articles that I have helped alot with that are on their way to GA status and I think that further defines me on Wikipedia.Gears Of War 18:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing I want to say here, at the risk of being too blunt and reopening old sore spots, is that your age is really not very important here. Whether you're 12, 18, 50 or 6, if you're on here and editing, you need to make sure you follow the same rules that adult editors are expected to follow. I've noticed you have a tendency to play the age card quite a bit, and that's frustrating for the rest of us. Statements that essentially boil down to "I'm 12 years old, I didn't know any better" get very old very quick, for two major reasons:

One, it's all right to make mistakes. Nobody's perfect. But when you make LOTS of mistakes, and furthermore when you overreact to things (like creating the "ageism cabal" in response to the RfA discussion), it ceases to be believable in the frame of honest mistakes, and starts looking much more like a need for attention. I've seen a number of established editors and admins give you the benefit of the doubt for weeks, but as I said elsewhere, this is starting to wear thin, and we're not going to keep doing so indefinitely.

And that brings me to my second point: We should not have to babysit you. Myself, at least three other admins, and several other general users, are spending a great deal of time explaining policy and simple common courtesy to you, having to monitor your use of tools such as Rollback, and otherwise having to keep an eye on the things you do because you've shown a pattern of being disruptive. It puts us in the same position as a teacher having to keep his/her eye on an unruly student, and we frankly have better things to do than that.

Take this however you wish, but my point is: This is a serious project, and there are a lot of people here who take it very seriously. Some more than others. But nobody likes having to keep watch over disruptive users. I realize you're still relatively new, but you've had plenty of time to learn the ropes, you've gotten way more advice than many people get(partly because you're so young), and we're running out of patience. You either need to learn how to cool it, or you're going to end up being told to go elsewhere.

I hate to be so up-front and blunt about this, but I don't see any reason to sugar-coat things here. When you do contribute to articles, you generally do a good job. But you have required a lot more of the community's attention than anyone should really need to, and that's not a good thing. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WT:RFA

Ah, an interesting day at WT:RFA. Arguments and insults flying back and forth, cabals forming...and none of it should've happened. Especially the cabal thing. Xp54321 even retired over today's incident. Comments like this and this are a really bad idea, whether you're gunning for adminship or trying to improve yourself as an editor. Right now, there aren't a whole lot of people on good terms with you, but I'm still here, trying to help you. But you've got to try to help yourself, too. When things like this come up, don't get heated up. Just walk away from your computer. Useight (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it been a long day. Yeah I lost lots of friends, and I atually walked away and cried about it. But again, I only further prove my point. I am starting to care less and less about adminship. Like you said, alot of people dont like me any more, and I cried about that but hey, what can I do? So really I will continue editing and maybe I'll earn up to admin, but I am here to edit now. Not accosiate. If anyone has a problem, then thats another friend ive lost today. I appreicate you still sticking with me, but no matter wether Im trying be be civil and get yelled at for it, or sticking up for what I think is right and then loosing tons of friends, hey im still here to edit and once again I almost left Wikipedia. So I will work on redeeming my name, and it will be tough.Gears Of War 03:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if you want to get back into good standing in the community, let's set some ground rules. Hopefully abiding by these will help you gain credibility and respect.

1. If you're ever in a situation where you want to use capital letters or bold font, don't say whatever it was you were going to say, regardless of any other factor.
2. Don't use any automated tools for a while. It is much easier to make a mistake when using tools and, right now, if you make mistakes, people might jump on you for them.
3. Spelling. If you're unsure of the correct spelling of a word you want to use, type it into Microsoft Word and make sure you spell it right. Also, always capitalize "I" and use apostrophes, such as "I'm" not "im". You want to convey an image of maturity and professionalism.
4. Avoid drama. If there's a controversy going on someplace, don't get involved. At least for a while.
5. Be agreeable. When having a conversation with people, find something, anything, to agree with. Compliment them with things like, "Excellent point", "Well said".

It's going to be tough to revive your image, but hopefully these ideas will help. Useight (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Right now im on a in-and-out status, and then sfter that I will be on vacation. But I will make sure I follow these rules. You are a big help. I am pretty much happier now and happy to say that I am happy where ever I end up on Wikipedia.Gears Of War 19:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Nice, use it carefully. Useight (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing.Gears Of War 19:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm really getting pissed now. iridescent removed my Roll Back because of three small mistakes, I'm pissed at him and he wont listen to me. He's acting like I did something huge. We were once friends but he's really started acted weird. Even when I'm civil, I get treted incivil, and when I try to delete vandalism, I get f up. I'm really tired of this BS.Gears Of War 19:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(Note:I will be re-granted Roll Back on July 20 2008)

That's not necessarily guaranteed. I have a question for you on this, though: Why is rollback so important? What does it allow you to do that you couldn't already do with the default editing tools? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you not know? If an IP made like 20 vandalism edits in a row, I could delete all 20 of those edits at one time. In other words, I could help out alot easier with Roll Back. I want it to be able to fight vandals. Why do you ask Kiefer.Gears Of War 22:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that in your stated example, reverting it the old-school way takes maybe ten seconds longer than rollback. Rather, just looking at some of your statements here and on your talk page, you seem to view the tool as a status marker, ranking you above editors without rollback. This is not the case, as having the tool is no more meaningful than having Twinkle.

I myself was just recently granted rollback, and I made darn sure that I had read all of the guidelines on using it, and understood its purpose. It is used for reverting vandalism and other blatantly nonproductive edits only. When I first received the tool, I was very paranoid with it, made sure I was using it correctly. If I ever wondered whether I should use rollback on a certain edit or not, I opted to undo it instead, as it's always better to be safe than sorry.

This comment is in no way meant to put you down, it was instead used to give you something to think about, when (if) you get rollback again. Remember to always be careful. Thanks. Artichoker^[talk] 23:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, stop treating me like I'm power hungry. I'M not!Gears Of War 23:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my comment was construed as power hunger, because that is sincerely not what I meant. But it would probably help if you stopped accusing people of things and instead focused on improving your faults; I think you can be a great editor if you do. Cheers, Artichoker^[talk] 23:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

← I'd also like to add that as an admin, I have automatic access to the admin's version of Rollback, and I very rarely use it. I most often use Twinkle to do the same thing, since it prompts me for an edit summary, and less often I'll use Undo, which I believe everyone has access to by default. At the outset, the only difference between TW's capability and Rollback is how efficient the process is - TW is more flexible and often friendlier to other editors (you get to explain why you rolled someone back), but Rollback is more efficient since all the processing takes place on the server.

That said, I do agree that even if you're not "power hungry", you do seem to regard these advanced tools as some sort of status symbol. Just like with adminship itself, that's not what they're there for. Even if it's a little less convenient, you can still do the same sorts of reverts without Rollback, and even without TW or anything else special - in fact, I'd say having to do a little more manual work to do reversions and such is a good thing, because it'll make you think about what you're doing and make it less likely that you'll make an honest mistake.

On exactly what constitutes vandalism: Vandalism is a little subjective, but Wikipedia's vandalism policy goes to great lengths to state exactly what the community considers vandalism, and what is acceptable to revert without question. And it's pretty narrow. What I think we'd all like to see from you is to practice doing manual reverts for a while, to show that you understand what's okay to revert and what's not. You might check out the Recent Changes Patrol, as that's a great place to look for open vandalism. I'll also put together a sample page in a sandbox to help point out some things that are considered vandalism, vs. things that aren't. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is really easy to lose. Many admins won't hesitate to take it away after a matter of only a few errors. But on the positive side, the regular Undo function is better, in my opinion, because it allows for an edit summary. With rollback, you have to be certain that the change you are reverting can in no way be construed as a positive, or good faith, edit. Useight (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Examples of things that can be reverted

Okay, I'd like you to check out the revision history of User:KieferSkunk/Sandbox1. I set up that page with some notes at the top and a copy of the Lunar Lander (arcade game) article, then proceeded to do a whole bunch of edits to it to show examples of both vandalism and good-faith edits that can legitimately be reverted. Take a look at each of the diffs in the revision history, and read the edit summaries on each. The vast majority of these can normally be reverted outright, but when in doubt, do it in such a way that the original user understands your reasoning. (In other words, use Rollback sparingly - manual reverts are usually better.)

Generally speaking, if you aren't sure whether something is actually vandalism or not, you should assume good faith by assuming it's not vandalism. You can still revert it if it's clearly not helpful, but most editors will prefer that you do so manually or with Twinkle (or another script that asks you for an edit summary) so you can explain why you're reverting it. Blatant vandalism and nonsense, you can just revert straightaway with no explanation.

BTW, I invite other editors to comment on the Sandbox's talk page and/or provide more examples. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Using a sandbox like that is actually a brilliant idea. Be sure to take a look at the history linked above, it's a good resource. Useight (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kiefer, that was very helpful, and I understand now that editing is editing, with special tools or not, but also I realize that I really want to be more into fighting vandalism. And yes, the sandbox is brilliant :P.Gears Of War 11:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Continuing

I see, according to your userpage, that you'll be on a vacation for the next little while, so in the meantime, I'll figure out what to do next on this page. Useight (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Gears of War ^{Go 'Skins!} 01:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Aw, man, you're in Hawaii? That's just unfair. Useight (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know. Too bad for you! I get to spend about three weeks in paradise...aw...life is good. :P. Gears of War ^{Go 'Skins!} 02:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Next section

Okay, I figured out what we can do next. I've got a couple questions for you:

1. In your opinion, what is the most important policy on Wikipedia and why?

   By far, the blocking policy is most important. With out it, Wikipedia would be in chaos.

2. If you could change any policy without any restrictions, what would you change?

   Okay there are a few things I would change. One, I would not let IP's edit Wikipedia. They cause to much trouble and iterupt important editing time. Next, I would encourage the cool down blocks. I personally think discouringing them is very stupid. We need those blocks. Finally, I would change the fact that so much crift(extra uneeded) stuff is aloud into Wikipedia. But I need not mention this, though I have been critisced for saying this, I would remove the right to add non-english ref to the English Wikipedia. It's just common sense. King Rock (Gears of War) 13:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I've heard somewhere that IPs are responsible for 97% of the vandalism on Wikipedia. But, I've also heard that 50% of IP edits are not vandalism. Sorry, I don't have any sources to back up that data. Preventing IPs from editing would, indeed, greatly reduce vandalism, but we'd also lose valuable contributions. But, on the other hand, perhaps those IPs that would've contributed as IPs would be induced to create accounts. Could go either way. As for cool-down blocks, again it could go either way, depending on the individual that was blocked. Perhaps they would, indeed, take some time to "cool off" and relax. But, perhaps the block would only make them angrier. I know when I was blocked here, wow, that was a stressful hour. Useight (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have thoguht about the downside of each of my changes but still say that cool down blocks will piss a user off, but hey, thats sometimes how it is. I know, that is cool downs were encouraged, I would have been blocked minths ago. But I am so addicted to Wikipedia, that even if I tried to be mad about, as soon as I got done, I would go on editing and get over it. Thats just how I see it. King Rock (Gears of War) 11:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - What's behind the "King Rock" sig? Are you changing your username? Useight (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol, no. I was formerly Kingrock and then changed my username. King Rock (Gears of War) 11:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing/Closing RFAs early

To withdraw early from an RFA that is not going the way you'd like, the best way to do so it to make a note stating you want to withdraw on the actual RFA. Or you can cross out your acceptance of the nomination. Something to that effect. Or you can let another editor know (preferrably one who is both online and already aware of the RFA).

Now, to close an RFA early, here's what you have to do:

1. Put {{subst:rfaf}} at the top
2. Put {{subst:rfab}} at the bottom
3. Remove the part near the top where it requests editors to add to the discussion
4. Make sure the tally is accurate and write "Final X/Y/Z"
5. Also put the date and time it was closed and the reason, such as withdrawn or snow.
6. Remove the RFA from the main RFA page
7. Add a link to the RFA in both archives of unsuccessful RFAs (there's a chronological one and an alphabetical one). The link to this archive can be found at the top of the main RFA page
8. If the RFA was closed per SNOW or NOTNOW, inform the candidate that you closed it early (if the candidate withdrew, they already know, so no need to inform them).

I hope that makes sense. If I didn't write some of the steps out clearly enough let me know and I'll try to clarify. Useight (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does make sense thanks. Is it the same to close one thats not yours? Gears of War 2 00:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's generic. Those steps can be used to close any RFA that is withdrawn or snowed. RFAs, though, that are going to be successful, or otherwise are running to completion, will not be closed by just any editor, but by a bureaucrat. The closing 'crat, will, however, close it the same way as this (but use a different template if it's successful and archive it among the successful RFAs), along with giving the candidate the +sysop flag. For our intents and purposes, this should only be used on snowing or withdrawn RFAs. Useight (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I gotta log out so see you later. Gears of War 2 00:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What else?

Hmm, I'm not real sure where else to go with this? Can you think of any other questions that I could help answer? Do you know how to close AFDs? Useight (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I am not firmiliar with how to do that. Could you teach me? Gears of War 2 02:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't do it very often, but here are the steps. Put these templates on the top and bottom, respectively, of the AFD: {{subst:at}} and {{subst:ab}} . You'll have to put in a reason as to how it's being closed, also you'll have to put "non-admin closure" since you're not an admin. There will also be a template on the AFD that says to remove it. Remove it. And also tag the talk page of the article with {{Oldafdfull}}.

Also, it's very important that as a non-admin you only close non-controversial AFDs, such as one's where a bunch of people showed up and all !voted keep. Also, as a non-admin, only close AFDs that have run for the full 5 days (or really close to that). Non-admins can't close AFDs as "delete". Useight (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Helps" page

One idea I have to is create a page that you can use to assist you. It can contain links to tools, lists of templates, etc, that you might want to keep in one place. I have one at User:Useight/Helps. Perhaps you might find some kind of page like that useful as well. Useight (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I guess my coaching is over huh. We went over alot. Gears of War 2 04:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions

My question was answered by User:Masem but when I get new questions I will post them here.-- Gears of War 2 (NGG) 18:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Useight (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)