User:Padillah/Admin Coaching

Welcome
Here we go! A little about me. I went through my request for adminship in May 2007, after about six months on wikipedia. As far as admin tasks go, I tend to go for the mop-and-bucket type (mindless maintainence tasks) rather than the more controversial aspects - but that's just me. I am a pastor in the Lutheran church - feel free to either call me by my username, or just call me David, whatever you are comfortable with.

As I noted earlier, I am going to be away from my computer for most of this week. Let me offer you some opening reading material.

Reading List

 * The NoSeptember Admin project is loaded with material. Browse through it, it will help you get a feel for the adminship process.
 * The speedy deletion criteria and the deletion policy. If you are ever going to use the delete button, you need to be able to know these two documents in and out.
 * Blocking policy. Same as above, different button.
 * Consensus. A must-understand document, whether you are closing XfD's or involved in content disputes.

Reading list questions

 * 1) You come across an article on a non-notable piece of software. Do you use AfD, Prod, or Speedy? Why?Having established that it needs to be deleted (non-notable), I would use CSD because it would constitute blatant advertising (G11). If the author posted a  I would present my investigation into the articles notability (google searches, lack of magazine reviews, etc.) and request they provide assurance of notability. I would then tag the article as a stub needing expansion. Padillah (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) *Response (sorry for the delay). Note that an article on a non-notable product may or may not qualify as spam.  Note also that the speedy deletion criteria for non-notability only applies to "a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" (WP:CSD).  Products, albums, songs, etc, are not elegible to be speedy deleted under A7 (in fact, it is the most common misuse of the A7 speedy deletion tag).  Watch for the confusion on that one, and be aware that prod or AfD is a perfectly acceptable alternative. Pastordavid (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Have a look at this AfD that I closed. What is the consensus on the page? How would you close it, and what rationale would you provide?The consensus, by my count, was even (8-8). As for how I would have closed the AfD, that's a tough one. I would rather leave an article for a time and delete it only when notability had failed or editing has stopped for a significant amount of time. However we have WP:NOT and WP:NOTE to contend with. I don't think the controversy is something to run from, but we can't ignore the attacks that are bound to heap up on this page. All that being said, I think I would opt on the side of caution and keep the article. Tiamat and other editors put some good work in and it seemed like it was getting into shape after a concerted effort. I would keep it under  and review the status in a month or two.
 * 4) *Response. I think you have provided a good rationale here, addressing the deletion concerns while not getting caught up in everything else.  Note that consensus (especially on a contentious AfD) is more than vote-counting.  It is especially important to look at the strength of the arguments for both sides (is it keep because I like it, or because it is verifiably notable; is it delete because it is a vandal target or because notability hasn't been established; you get the idea) which you did. Pastordavid (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Have you done an editor review?No, I have not. Do you want me to review another editor or do you want me to apply for someone to review me?

more to come

Other Questions from Coach

 * 1) What was your motivation for your first RfA? What went wrong? &mdash; What prompted my first RfA was a notable lack of admins when I went looking. I was editing a TV show article and it was becoming increasingly difficult to deal with all the fans that wanted their opinions included. We eventually had to resort to  to get the cruft out of the article. While trying to semi-protect the article I ran across several indications that there are not enough admins to attend to the various admin-level problems. Being a vertean of the old time BBS services as well as an actual network admin (for my job) I figured I'd lend a hand. As for what went wrong: Editcountitis. I didn't have more than 1000 edits so I couldn't possibly present a serious RfA. (Please do not spare any sarcasm or contempt in reading that last sentence.)
 * 2) *response. I understand your frustration, really I do. But allow me to make a few comments.  First, no one's real-life experience counts here on wikipedia (see Essjay controversy, if you are unfamiliar with it, for an example of an editor who succeed in using real world creditentials on wikipedia, and why the community distrusts such claims to credentials).  Thus, the only means we have to evaluate an editor is their on-wiki actions - their edits.  A small pool of edits indicates a limited amount of experience with wikipedia, perhaps accompanied by less understanding of wikipedia policies than is desirable.  I won't claim that there is no editcountitus in the RfA process, but it is always best to assume good faith.  Pastordavid (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Why do you want to be an administrator? &mdash; As I said above, to help. I hear all the commotion about not having enough admins so I figured I'd chip in. No lofty purpose, just wanted to help.
 * 4) What admin tasks do you see yourself taking part in? &mdash; In the begining I think I would simply help mop up and handle some of the protection requests. I've noticed a tendancy to protect and then leave the page, even when contacted for unprotecting. I'd like to see that process expand to be a kind of 3O+, the protecting admin helps the users through the conflict so we can get the page unprotected and get back to editing. Of course this falls afoul of the "not enough admins to do the job" situation and is probably not very pragmatic right now, but one can dream. I'd also like to eventually champion some reform of the RfA process. It's been noted by more than I, just what kind of shape this process is in and I'd like to help in that reform.
 * 5) If you were voting in an RfA, what would you look for in a person's edit count, edit history, and previous experience? Why? &mdash; I'd look at a persons edits, not edit counts. I'd look for conflict resolutions (I think everyone should engage in one of those), I'd look for 3RR's, I'd look for contributions that expand either WP's content or it's respectibility (fighting vandalism, cruft, and the like). Despite the dream of no big deal it's been demonstrated through the years that being an admin is a big deal, at least to those that are not admins and think it's a big deal. As such I'd like to see someone that had demonstrated the ability to handle being "looked up to". I'd like to see if the person really is trying to help or is looking to "cash in", as it were, on being an admin.

Questions from Coachee?
Here's a question: What would you do in this case? The user has agreed to mediation but continues to make the same contentious edit. I looked at his contribs and they are all regarding nudity. He has constantly made attacks through the edit summaries, he has refused to discuss the conflict for more than a few sentences and even then it's after having reverted the conflicting image... I don't want to go off the deep end but it appears to me that this guy is POV pushing with no regard for the efforts of others. Let me know what you think and what steps it looks like I should take. I was thinking of taking this to AN/I but he has agreed to mediation (of course, he heedlessly continued on his course, unabated). Do I let mediation take care of the single issue or do I bring in others to discuss what I perceive to be a larger issue of disregard for other editors? Padillah (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, I don't mean to be hurt feelings, but should we just call it quits with this coaching effort? It's been almost 10 days since you've updated this page and over a week since you've even made a contrib to WP. I think it's clear you don't have time right now. I appreciate the help and thanks for the references. They were a big help but I need to get a few more things straight before I do an RfA and I need to be free to post an RfD and not step on toes. Again, thanks for the help but I think it's more important for you to take care of your personal life first. Padillah (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. I completely understand.  My only parting suggestion would be to do an editor review, spend some time on Recent changes patrol, and at AfD.  Best of luck.  Pastordavid (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)