User:BusterD/Admin coaching

My approach
Even though I'm interested in adminship if I'm the right kind of user; I want to continue to focus on content creation. My Wiki heroes are Hlj (my adopted wikimentor), Scott Mingus (content creator supreme), and the legendary Brian0918. I'm a big fan of those Marines too (who doesn't love a Marine?). I try not to bother them (they're busy creating high-level content), but do ask them to help with consensus issues.

My weakness is that I've said a few harsh words to one user, and keep his talk page on my watch list, the only such watch on a page I didn't personally create. I just have found him to use bullying behavior (lots of newbie biting), and have been developing mature strategies for dealing with his particular logic. I have also watch/have-tweaked an article with which I have some professional association (but not to glorify or sell--ok I glorified a litle bit, but my primary effort was to remove the linkless tag). I guess another personal weakness is that I tend to start things and need help to finish (see my sandbox). One of the things I've discovered here is others are glad to jump in, and nothing's ever finished. It's the best kind of mob rule.

I've disagreed with actions of administrators (but never seen any reason to disrespect one), but have never personally had any real problems that consensus couldn't solve. Perhaps it's my gnome-like nature. I do have a temper, but have found a neutral voice here in the last few hundred edits.

I spend about an hour or two every day on the pedia (mornings and evenings). Lately I've been reading more than writing. After Wikimania, I'm developing a sense of the community, and am interested in teaching seminars on wiki projects through my workplace. BusterD 14:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Gearing up

 * Your coaches are Shell Kinney and Voice of All. Exactly what form the admin coaching takes is up to you and the coaches to decide, but a general piece of advice I give is to set up a user subpage (for example User:BusterD/Admin coaching) to keep coaching discussion together. That prevents things getting split up over three talk pages, which can get confusing! Let me know (on my talk page) if you have any questions. Cheers, Petros471 13:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, though there is much more than vandalfighting. You may want to start by adding this script to give you rollback. If you really want to focus on RC patrol, I suggest that you read WP:CSD and WP:PROD for dealing with junk pages, and WP:AGF when it comes to iffy edits. Voice -of- All  04:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not really experienced using web code and some of the terminology you're using escapes me a bit. I understand you're offering me some tools and I've been doing some reading on monobooks to undertand this, but I'm hopelessly non-geeky (though I fix computers for a living). I've created the space at User:BusterD/monobook.css and am just not seeing success. Could you help me with these first steps so I can understand what you're asking? I'm running a modern Mac version of Firefox (v.1.5.01). BusterD 00:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've moved it for you - scripts like the one Voice of All was pointing you to go in User:BusterD/monobook.js. User:BusterD/monobook.css would be used for style sheet changes to tweak the way Wikipedia looks for you.  I'm going to a day or so to look over your contributions and see where we can help you; feel free to ask any other questions and if you'd like I can also be contacted via IM (all listed on my talk page). Shell babelfish 03:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Java Scripts. (slapping forehead). Some this must be so obvious. Is there a training admin's glossary somewhere? BusterD 03:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really :) Here's a few helpful things though: Hopefully those will help some and just remember, it will get easier the more you work with it.  Its like tossing yourself into France to learn French - nothing makes sense at first, but it grows on you. Shell babelfish 04:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Shortcuts - Ever wonder what WP:D stood for? Here's a list of (most) all of them.
 * WikiProject User scripts - Almost all the information you could want on using javascript extensions.
 * Administrators' reading list - A list of most of the things admins are expected to know about.
 * I now have some new tabs, a nifty popup, and a whole slew of new tools in my toolbox (first: Filter recent changes, last: Live spellcheck. I almost reported myself. I'm now really nervous about clicking on the date and time thing in the upper right corner, which appeared to try to clear my watchlist when I pressed it. So I'm still a bit nervous about touching too much. Will read and explore. If I crash the wiki, please revert. BusterD 17:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Deep breaths ;) Actually clicking on the clock will purge the server cache of the page you're on - no worries there.  All recent changes, filtered recent changes and recent IP edits give you a running list of the changes going on - the filtered list shows you recent edits with "badwords" in them to help catch vandalism, recent IP edits only gives you anon contributions.  Monitor my watchlist does the same running list of changes but only for pages on your watchlist.  They're actually rather fun tools, especially for vandal fighting.  Play away - reverting is easy. Shell babelfish 17:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I can see why you guys talk about rollback. Very cool and very quick and easy. Will try not to hurt anyone. BusterD 23:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, rollback can only be used on obviously bad edits (very obviously bad) :). Voice -of- All  17:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been practicing using the popup, by watching recent ip edits and after viewing the summary displayed, visit the diff and if I see what I suspected in the preview either click AGF or vandal, depending. I haven't really been doing more than skimming and looking for frequent uses of "poo" or other epithet. Easy calls. Filtering doesn't seem to get all of this stuff, so I'm looking at every summary for brief periods. Sort of exploring the tools. The popup is a very cool thing that many users would like. Skimmimg ip edits is actually quite heartening; very few are actually destructive. Some are artful. Fun to watch happening. Little positive ants, most trying to add a little something. BusterD 01:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh no, don't get me started on Wikipsychology - you'll be here for a long, long time. It is really interesting to watch people interact with each other and the wiki - strange things happen some times.  I'm glad you're enjoying the tools and finding good uses for them.  I finally found that Glossary I was looking for earlier.  Its not just admin stuff, but it has a long list of the terms people throw around - its especially helpful when you try to read the admin noticeboard. (which you should by the way). Shell babelfish 03:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added the trinty to my watch list, and will start to pay more attention. (I've been putting off facing into the firehose for long enough.) I'm going to finish constructing the portal, let the task force break it/fit it, then I can pay more attention on this stuff, once consensus has settled things. Thanks both of you for getting me started. I'm trying to watch what other admins do. BusterD 12:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Know about which you speak

 * Glossary
 * Shortcuts - Ever wonder what WP:D stood for? Here's a list of (most) all of them.
 * WikiProject User scripts - Almost all the information you could want on using javascript extensions.
 * Administrators' reading list - A list of most of the things admins are expected to know about.
 * WP:CSD
 * WP:PROD
 * WP:AGF

creeping and crawling phase
I don't mean to be making excuses, but a sudden change of job responsibilities at work has taken much of my creative energy, so I'm sort of wikicoasting right now, and finding myself making the pedia a slightly lower priority for the nonce. When my life settles down, I'll be making more contributions. I'm actually enjoying reading stuff and seeing how things are constructed. I have a few wikihobbies: the portal (mostly finished but my recent sloth is not helping), ip patrol, working the ACW task force bio redlink list, and tagging and assessing bios. That's where things stand as of this datestamp. BusterD 13:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

John Mercer Brooke
Not only are you acting correctly, but you've been incredibly patient with a user who is displaying some serious ownership problems. You're right to be concerned, the user is systematically blanking his talk page and doesn't appear to be interested in learning from other editors trying to help him out. He's obviously trying to use policy to his advantage while ignoring it when applied to himself. He does appear to be well meaning with regard to article edits, but doesn't work well with others. Unfortunately, editors like these far too frequently end up leaving the project, either because they become frustrated at being unable to control what they're working on or because they're finally forced off by blocks.

Sometimes they can be clued in to the problems with their behavior through persistence; sometimes a series of short blocks (called the cattle-prod approach) will get them to understand that they need to work productively with others. Sometimes there's really nothing that can be done to help them out and they'll be happier finding some place better suited to their skills. I'll try leaving a note on his talk page to see if having a few people talking to him at the same time might help. Shell babelfish 16:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm considering creating a talk archive for this user account so that a complete record exists on one or two pages. I get the impression that this is an older person who's just not that willing to grow into procedure. I'm cool with that, but this profile could also be someone who is rules lawyering (as you suggested). Pretty harmless, but I wonder what this user would do if confronted with Rjensen or some even less sympathetic editor. BusterD 17:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In view of the evident personal hostility expressed by that user here on this demi-private page, I'll deign not to assemble the talk archive myself, or at this time (motives would very easy to misconstrue on a line-by-line basis). Someone should do. I've already said plenty and will stick to trying to do the right thing. User has given no evidence he/she is a bad user, just an uneducated one with rather low tolerances. Too bad. BusterD 21:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on this experience, I can see some sense in creating a personal "incidents" archive, so this stuff has an appropriate filing space. Perhaps folks just put this in their normal talk archive. What's SOP, or is there such? BusterD 00:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think at this point, given the response here and on his talk page, that we're dealing with willful ignorance. He obviously knows policy since he quoted it quite well when trying to find reasons you should stay off "his" page but suddenly can't remember it when we're talking about applying it to him.  Unfortunately as much as we would love to have his contributions, especially since he's writing in an area we don't have a lot of experts on, its just not OK for him to blow up at others as a result.
 * Personal incident archives have some history. For instance, the ArbCom ruled on them here - the general idea being a completely factual list of edits with diffs is acceptable in user or user talk space for dealing with disputes.  In my experience,  editors you have a dispute with tend to check your contributions (hence Maury finding his way here) and sometimes incident subpages can further irritate an already tense situation; personally I keep a text file on my desktop for any current problems I'm tracking, but either method is perfectly acceptable.
 * I know its difficult, but try not to let this incident affect you personally. People who are admins or considering adminship are always easy targets - editors you interact with who disagree know they just can say "you're a bad admin (candidate)" - almost always when an editor says this, they don't have a leg to stand on with their actual disagreement with you so they try to distract people  by saying something you can't possibly defend against.  I've said before and continue to believe that the more people are running up and calling you a bad admin, the better you're actually doing following policy and defending Wikipedia - they couldn't come up with any legitimate reason to critcize you.  So be proud, you've joined the elite ranks of good adminship and haven't even had your RfA yet!
 * Through this entire incident your comments have been very well thought out and worded carefully. I completely agree that there's nothing to apologize for and it probably won't make a difference, but sometimes it doesn't hurt to apologize anyways; you can sometimes apologize for the misunderstanding or that the other person's feelings were hurt and restate that you were just trying to help them improve the article.  The internet is a difficult communication tool - important cues like body language and tone of voice are completely absent; in real life, I'm an incredibly sarcastic person - I've had to learn to completely curb that tendancy online because the difference between funny sarcasm and mean comments is a thin line that doesn't ever come across well in print.  Sometimes being able to say "hey, I wasn't trying to attack you, this seems to have completely gone off the wrong direction" is enough of a cue that an editor will go back and read your discussion with a different eye and realize that their first impression was wrong.  People will always assume you are being more harsh than you intend, so always be nicer than you mean to be :)
 * On another note, your comment about me having a reputation for kindness absolutely made my weekend :) Being able to think about others and give compliments in the middle of a dispute says a lot about your character. Shell babelfish 12:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't feel much personally affected by this incident, except as a learning opportunity. Odd ducks don't bother me, but perception does. I appreciate your validating my actions; I feel supported even if I were to err. That feels like good coaching to me. On his part, the conflict has devolved to vandalism (blanking article and talk pages under his apparent ip alias), making open threats (I'll take my ball and leave) and veiled ones ("...those who would think twice facing me in real life"). To evaluate my own behavior, I might have avoided using judgemental terminology (ex: "older person," "passive agressive") and used specific wordings (ex: "red flags in blanking his talk history" instead of "red flags"), knowing it likely everyone might read every post. Definitely makes one more cautious about casual use of language. I think in the future I might go to my normal wiki mentor folks for assistance instead of dragging you into it (and thus avoid making my interest in growing in the pedia a potential issue of itself). As it is, I've put a cleanup tag on the article, and if no else fixes it, I'll do in a week or so. I'll ponder what words might soften the situ on talk pages, but my patience well with this user is running low. BusterD 13:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore III
I'd love to hear some feedback from either or both of you how I dealt with that situ. Look at my recent contribs for history. BusterD 16:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw this on the personal attack noticeboard; I don't believe you were being incivil or that you attacked the other editor. His article and notability are such a borderline case, but I think current consensus is more in favor of your interpretation - he's not really a public figure so certain information should not be included.  I might have done more to involve other editors in the discussion, especially since you felt it was important to keep the information out of the article while the discussion was on-going.  Sometimes you have to very nicely stick to your guns and call in the calvary and sometimes, no matter how nice you are other editors are going to make blanket accusations to support their side. Shell babelfish 00:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Active?
Is this coaching active, or has it stopped? H ig hway Ringo Starr!  10:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think of this as a long term process. I consider myself under wing, but haven't needed a bunch of help recently. If I could get a few basics down (some image edits and finish the portal), I'd feel good about entering the wider world. My goal was end of the year before I run. I've had offers from a few folks to nominate, but I've asked not yet. I really need to understand procedure better. I learn by watching other admins, including the careers of my coaches. BusterD 12:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Buster, just wanted to let you know that I'm going to list your coaching as completed and help take on some of the newer requests for admin coaching. I'm always more than happy to discuss any incidents that come up or concerns that you have or just chew over policy interpretation questions.  Best of luck and happy editing! Shell babelfish 12:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)