User:Gaelen S./Admin coaching

Introduction[edit]

I'm going to structure this more or less like my own admin coaching, as well as various bits that I think have worked well with previous users that I have coached. If there are any particular areas that you'd like to work on, please let me know. I'll be watching this page, but if you could buzz me on my talk page or through email once you've finished each section, that would be grand.

Checklist[edit]

This is a checklist of some things that people look out for in a prospective admin. Check off any that you have already done with the {{done}}. You don't have to do all of these yourself (I've never answered questions at the Refdesk, for instance), and you don't have to do them right now, but doing tasks that interest you on here will give you a good breadth of experience.

Done !voted in an RFA (other than your own)?
Done Listed a vandal at WP:AIV?
Done Requested page protection at WP:RPP?
Done Tagged an article for speedy deletion, PROD, XFD?
Not done Critiqued another user at WP:ER?
Done Had an editor review yourself?
Done Received the Signpost or otherwise read it?
Done Used automated tools (TWINKLE, popups, VandalProof, .js tools, etc.)?
Participated in XFD:
- Done AFD
- Not done TFD
- Done CSD
- Not done MSD
Not done Posted or answered a question at the Reference Desk or the Help Desk?
Done Uploaded an image?
Done Welcomed a user?
Doing... Mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
Done Participated in discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI?
Not done Joined a WikiProject?
Not done Written a DYK, GA, or FA?
Done Expanded a stub or otherwise cleaned up an article?

Some general questions[edit]

What is your favourite contribution to Wikipedia (not necessarily your best, but your favourite)?

This is a tough question. I would have to answer this somewhat like I did in my Rfa, I guess. I really like finding bits and pieces of misleading information that actually could be mistaken for the truth and either deleting it or rewriting it.

Are there any areas of participation on Wikipedia that you feel you don't know that much about, or are ill-equipped to handle?

Frankly, I do not know much about article creation or the procedure that you have to follow when writing an article since I have done very little when it comes to that.

Can you think of any reasons (apart from those brought up in your last RFA) why people would oppose your next candidacy for RFA?

This was only briefly brought up in my Rfa which surprised me since I figured it was going to a be much bigger topic of conversation than it actually was. A few weeks back right after I had received the rollback tool for the first time I made some reverts to edits that were not blatantly vandalism and had my permission removed. I have however proved myself worthy of it once again and have had it now for about 2 weeks during which time I have been using it responsibly. It still seems interesting that it was not as big a deal as other items since I expected that would be the kind of thing that many people would look for.

You mentioned in your RFA that you have many more months of experience than what you have on this account; are you comfortable divulging what that experience entailed and what usernames (if any) that you might have previously had?

I have edited under unlisted ip addresses before but as I stated, it was nothing major. Mostly spelling corrections to various articles and the occasional addition of extra content. I have only done that maybe 20 or 30 times and the hassle that would be involved trying to find that ip would be enough that it really doesn't make that much sense to pursue. I think it would probably just be better to prove myself under the account I have now.

Some thoughts[edit]

I've taken the opportunity to have a brief look at your statements at the last RFA. I'm sure that I do not need to tell you that some of the comments you made during the discussion did not do your chances of promotion much good. Like it or not, the RFA process is quite a conservative one, and proposals that are out of the ordinary are unlikely to be well received. Flashy or loudly opinionated candidates often have trouble getting through RFA, being a solid, dependable, and reliable editor over an extended period of time is the best way to get the mop. Also, the suggestions you made are perennial proposals, while I personally think that some form of probationary period is a good idea, this is not a view that the community has been able to come to a consensus on.

I'd also like to discuss the areas that you'd like to work in. In your nom statement, you stated that you wanted to work at WP:AIV, and with the edit filter as well. I've had a look at your contributions here, and they look fairly solid. Might I also suggest you emphasise your dispute resolution credentials (such as medcab), where your opinions seem to be well-researched, commonsense, and valuable. Dispute resolution is something that is very relevant to adminship, and you should be happy to say "Hey, I have on-wiki dispute resolution skills!", something that not many candidates are able to do. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, and you need to play to the obvious strengths that you already have.

User:Cyclonenim has said a lot of what I wanted to say quite well here, so I won't bother to repeat it, only to say that you should carefully read and understand what he said. My most important advice for you right now is to continue with the good work that you were doing before the RFA; continuing to contribute to the project is the best possible indicator that you've moved on, accepted the results of the discussion, and want to better yourself for your next tilt at the job.

I'll have some more exercises and the like for you in the coming week. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

I must say that in some ways the whole RFA affair has put me off the idea of running again enough that I just happy that I am going to get some good advice on how better to contribute. Though it was all pretty rocky I think I will come out of this whole experience as a better editor because of it. - Regards, Gaelen S.^Talk ^• ^Contribs 00:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That's good to hear... remember that you certainly don't have to be an admin to make a useful contribution to the project. I also noted this edit which I think was a good step and a good contribution, not only because it was a nice thing to do, but because it might defuse any concerns about your temperament if and when you go at it a second time.

I've also noticed that you've made a few speedy nominations in the past few days that were successful; although SEGi University College would probably have better been a G12 or a G5, your tagging was appropriate. I'm not sure that Fireaway met the technical definition of A3 though, even if the deleting admin did agree. Make sure that you're very conservative with speedy taggings, because if you appear a bit overzealous it will be used against you. Articles that have no place but which don't fit neatly into a CSD category are usually best dealt with through {{prod}} tags instead, in my opinion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC).

CSD Zoo[edit]

Okay, given your recent dabbling in the area, lets look at CSD tagging. 90% of CSD cases are straight open-and-shut cases, but there are of course, always borderline cases. It is important that admins are able to get these right, as there is not really any oversight or checks on admin powers in this area. I'd like to take you through some scenarios of situations that may or may not require admin intervention.

Please go to User:Lankiveil/CSD Zoo, and review the eight scenarios listed. These are for the most part based upon actual examples of articles that have been nominated for speedy previously. Assume you are an administrator on speedy patrol, and you come across these examples. Please summarise, on this page, for each example, what actions you would take, and why (and please don't edit the pages themselves). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC).

Coma (song): This particular article does not need to be deleted, it just needs to be cleaned up and added to. It has been identified as a stub which means that it is not been recognized as a complete article. In addition, the actual nomination for deletion needs to be more specific. A more appropriate nomination would be CSD A9. The article could still work, it just needs grammatical corrections and expansion.
Reasonable call - it could be fixed up. The article explicitly can't be deleted A7 (because songs are not eligible under that criteria). A9 is a better call, although some might argue that being by a notable band is an assertion of importance.
John Smith: I personally would delete this article per CSD G10. The context may be relevant, but it includes personal information about the person which violates Privacy of personal information and includes defamatory and biased wording. Also, there is not enough content to warrant cleanup, so the best solution is to delete the article and if the same author or someone else still sees the relevance of the topic, they can create a new, more appropriate article.
Excellent call, 100% correct.
Electric Grandpa and the Haunted Goldfish: This band does not meet WP:BAND as far as I can tell. The warning template is quite vague and should have been reposted as CSD A9 as well, but I think that the article should be deleted in any case. They released one album which was not published by a major record company and quite a bit of the article needs substantial cleanup and grammatical corrections. In addition, it has no references whatsoever to back up any of its claims.
Nope, A9 is only for "musical recordings", not for bands or ensembles themselves. There is a criteria that it could be speedied under though...
Would it be CSD A7 with this more specific template?
哀鸽: Correct me if I am wrong, but this appears to be from the Japanese Wikipedia. If that is the case than it should not be deleted as patent nonsense. If I could tell what it meant than I would either decide to delete it under CSD A2 or suggest to the author that he or she rewrite the article in english. That is my closest interpretation of the situation.
Haha, excellent call, I had not thought about A2, but you're very correct there (it's from zh.wikipedia actually, but same effect). Assume for the sake of argument that it's not just a copy-paste from another Wikipedia... what should be done then?
You would post it on WP:PNT, correct?
Jane Smith: I think that this article should not be deleted. It does indicate it's importance, it just needs cites to prove some of its assertions. In any case it includes banners which warn possible readers of the subject matter. I would say that as long as this article has some references within a month or so, it is of quality suitable for preservation.
Homework: I would definitely say that this article should be deleted. It contains very little content, poor grammar, and for all intents and purposes seems to be gibberish. It could be deleted under CSD G1 but could also be deleted under A1 and A7 to name a few.