User:Pedro/Admin Coaching Wisdom89

This sub page is for helping out whose excellent work so far can only benefit from having admin access

Reasons for Failure

 * Premature RFA
 * Project space Contribution

Reasons for Failure

 * Haste in certain actions
 * Understanding of CSD

Actions

 * Sufficent time needs to go past since last RfA. A recommendation of 4-5 months seems to be excessive. Generally three months is seen as acceptable. Timtetable therefore to work to an RfA during the middle of April
 * Address all concerns of haste/CSD/project space
 * Demonstrate sound policy knowledge through CSD / WP:XFD contributions
 * Maintain work at RC patrol
 * Continue article work (this has never been mentioned as a concern, but will still need to be demonstrated

Wikipedia areas to consider working in

 * CSD tagging
 * WP:XFD
 * RC Patrol
 * WP:RFPP when identified during RC Patrol
 * WP:AIV when required
 * WP:HELPDESK to proove policy knowledge
 * WP:RFA to keep an understanding of the (ever changing) current criteria for adminship

Next Steps
Hey Pedro, thanks for creating the subpage for my Jedi Training - I really appreciate your services : ). There really doesn't appear to be anything you've missed. You pretty much nailed it. My first nomination was premature, with a paucity of Wikipedia namespace contributions, while the second RfA demonstrated "trigger happy mouse buttons" (for lack of a better phrase). Since my last RfA, I honestly believe I've tempered those impulses and refined my understanding of WP:CSD. I've broadened my activity as well by working at the help desk, reference desk, WP:RFPP and WP:ANI (in addition to my WP:UAA and WP:AIV). I've also made it a point to consistenly linger around WP:RFA (and cast my vote/give comments) to make sure the community gets a chance to recognize me and also to keep current with what people expect of applicants, not that foresee any drastic general criteria changes in the next 2 months or so. If you want to get an idea of what I've been doing take a gander:

Now that I've said all that, perhaps you'd like to give me a series of scenario like questions, or just general questions to check my current understanding of policy. That's totally up to you though. I don't want to take away from your busy schedule.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 14:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do have a few questions of my own:


 * 1.)Is it appropriate for non-admins to close AFD's per WP:BOLD or WP:SNOW? If so, how exactly is that done?
 * 2.)I've been monitoring WP:RFPP quite a bit lately, and some comments on the talk page seemed to indicate that non-admins could decline obvious articles which do not meet the criteria for protection - e.g full protection for anon vandalism. Is this true?  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 05:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3.)Also, according to the bureaucrat noticeboard, non admins may close RfAs if they are withdrawn or per WP:SNOW. Exactly how is this done?

Sorry for all the questions, these are the things that I could never figure out - and I didn't want to mess with the system : )

Moving On then
I think those two areas are actually excellent to demonstrate need for the buttons, as well as saving admins some workload as well. So for WP:AFD here are situations where you can help;

The actual mechanics of closing the afd is pretty easy.
 * Sometimes an article is speedy deleted but the deleting admin does not close off the AFD. You'll see this as a red link on the page. Click the red link and get the time of the deletion from the warning. If it's been more than a few minutes then you can close with the text speedy deleted by User:ADMINX per WP:CSD (or whatever reason was quoted). Non admin closure. And sign you name.
 * Clearly the only debates a non-admin can close other than these are Keeps (technically you can nominate it for CSD in the event of a snowball but I'd leave those alone - better to let it run it's course and for an admin to do it direct).
 * Where it is a snowball keep then go ahead and close it - here's the type of situation I would say is acceptable;
 * Nominator withdraws request after article is improved / substantial keep votes
 * Clearly bad faith nomination
 * 1) Click Edit for the debate
 * 2) At the very bottom insert {{subst:afdbottom))
 * 3) Remove the line that says "remove this template when closing
 * 4) At the very top (before the name of the page enter {{subst:afdtop| Keep (your reason for keep). Non admin closure. And sign.
 * 5) The phrase "The result was" is filed in for you. Click preview, check it's okay and save it.

WP:RFPP I see that there has been discussion here on non-admin input. I would suggest IMHO that this is a good thing. I would view it as a "clerking" role, similar to that at Chaging Username. For example, making useful comments such as "no vandlaism in 24 hours" or "editors are now discussing on talk page" - basically adding value to the request. Just simply putting it in as a " Note - semi-protection expired one day ago - same IP's now edit warring again" or whatever.... e.g. anything that the requestor did not put in that can help, without overloading the page.

WP:RFA snow closures. Machnically they are similiar to AFD using {{subst:rfar}} However I'd advise not to even go near them at the moment. There are plenty of old hands who will do that - I think I've closed two ever to be honest.


 * Ok, I've taken your advice regarding WP:RFPP, although admittedly I had already taken up the role of "clerk", except I use comment instead of note hehe. As for the closing of AfDs, you were right, the mechanics of closing them are quite simple. I went ahead and closed two that were overt keeps - but I was careful - both were AfDs that I started where the notability was demonstrated through discussion and consensus. Can I add that to the list of acceptable circumstances to close an AfD? Not that I planning on having anymore inappropriate AfDs mind you =). As for closing RfA, yeah I'm not gonna touch that. I don't want to step on any admin toes.  Wisdom89  {{sub|( T }} /  {{sup| C }} ) 05:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Some more questions from your favorite padawan
Superb Questions. To answer;
 * 1.)Is it appropriate (as an administrator) if you notice a vandal who has disrupted wikipedia after their final warning, but has not been reported to WP:AIV, to circumvent/bypass the reporting and straight up block them? This question also applies to WP:UAA. If an admin notices a blatant violation by perusing the new user creation page, can they block them on sight?
 * 2.)How involved are administrators in tackling WP:3RR violations when no report/case has been filed? Do they wait, or can they try and mitigate neutrally if they observe it occurring?
 * 3.)Hanging out at WP:ANI, I notice that a lot of the times administrators will respond to incidents reported by other users by replying with something along the lines of "..... I've looked into it and the user has been blocked". Is this typical behavior/practice?  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, totally. WP:AIV is a non admin method. I probably decline about 50% of requests there as they are inappropriate. If you are of the opinion a block is justified in policy then you block. AIV is not relevant. Ditto UAA if the username is blatantly a problem.
 * Again, a report is not necessary, however I personally exrercise extreme care. Never fully protect an article you have worked on (excepting minor vandalism reversions) but if you see a problem through RC patrol then act - a lot of our newer editors may be trying to defend against vandalism without knowing what WP:3RR is or how to report it.
 * At ANI a cool head is in order. If another admin has taken action then reporting that fact may help prevent an extended thread - in particular if the incident is slightly dated and action has been taken. You may also like to consider marking such threads as "resolved" using if it seems no further input is required or would help (caution - don't mark active or contentious threads this way !!)

Quick evaluation
Hey there Pedro, didn't want there to be a long abeyance of activity here and have you think I was done listening to your valuable advice : ). Anyway, I was wondering, would it be possible for you to give me just a quick miniature evaluation on my efforts by going through my most recent contributions. You don't have to dig deep, but I want to make sure that I'm not making the same errors I was in the past. If you have the time, or when you get the time, feel free to comment on the following:


 * 1.)Recent CSDs
 * 2.)Participation in AFDs to ensure that my nominations/comments are legitimate.
 * 3.)Recent AIV reports
 * 4.)Recent UAA reports
 * 5.)Participation at RfA

Thanks a bunch. Also, one last question, do you feel that I am manifesting too much of a deletionist standpoint? I ask because I tend to participate heavily in CSDs, AFDs (both voting and nominations), and prod noms. However, users sometimes forget that Prod and CSD aren't really deletionist activities, but following policy/guidelines. I just don't want this to weigh heavily against me in my next RfA. Cheers dude.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, to address in order;

CSD

Excellent work. I noted |this declined speedy. That was extremly marginal IMHO as to the assertion of notability, but it was there. WP:CSD is probably the tightest criteria there is so I suggest a brief review of it. Even the slightest hint of assertion of notability basically rules it out. Other than that all looks good.

AFD's

Good stuff again - no issues here

AIV / UAA

No problems. Just keep on remembering to give appropriate warnings, and not to report unless a vandal is active at the time reporting. Stale reports don't go down too well.

RFA/ANI

I keep seeing your comments everywhere and they seem thoughtful and insightful. I've also noted "clerking" work at ANI which is great.

On "being a deletionist". Inevitably ones deletion based works appear more in the contribution history. However looking at your logs you mark a lot of articles as patrolled. I don't recall this being bought up in an RfA yet, but I would argue that this demonstrates you are also watching over the good content as well as the bad. Therefore "deletionist" concerns can be prooved incorrect. I also noted a number of AFD keeps - this is good.

So, so far - all is great. Don't forget the mainspace and keep on going! Pedro : Chat  10:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Potential co-nominators
Pedro, could I possibly add a co-nomination to the nomination when it eventually goes 'live'? I also understand that Tiptoety has also expressed an interest in continuing with the same also. I know three co-nom's can look a little much, but I've found that if you have three or less it's okay. Regards, Rudget  ( review ) 15:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Three seems a perfectly formed number! Let me review and we'll look to set a date.... Pedro : Chat  15:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think, given RFA2 was at the very end of January, my counsel would be to wait three more weeks, to show a full three months to the commentators at RFA. Any one else have an opinion ? Pedro : Chat  15:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, three months is perfectly adequate. Rudget  ( review ) 15:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm on board for that, as I mentioned elsewhere, I've seen the three month timetable touted before. Sounds good to me, although I don't really have a say as to when you nominate me : )  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 17:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 3 more weeks sounds good to me as well. And when 3 weeks is up, I will be happy to co-nom! Tiptoety  talk 18:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, end of the month then. Wisdom, are you happy with that? April 28/29 ish ? Keep up the good work until then (well after then actually!!) and I'll steal the gig with Rudget and Tiptoey fighting over first co-nom ! :) Pedro : Chat  20:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * *desysops Pedro* :) Rudget  ( review ) 10:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's fine by me. Before that time though (and I suppose relatively soon heh), I'd humbly request if you or one of my potential co-nominators would give me a final re-evaluation - for my own benefit of course, and also to ensure a smooth RfA, whatever the outcome might be. In the meantime, I'll give some thought to those voluminous questions that always seem to spring up. : )  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 21:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll do an evaluation Monday/Tuesday ( WifeOfPedro, SonOfPedro, and EmbryoOfPedro need some attention this weekend !) and we can move from there, if that's okay. Don't hate me if my evaluation is harsh BTW ...... Pedro : Chat  21:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The harsher, the more candid..the more candid, the easier to learn from. : )  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said, sir. Pedro : Chat  21:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

UAA
Hey there just wanted to voice one little concern that I noticed recently. When reporting to UAA unless they are blatant violations that clearly show they are not here to constructively contribute it is probably best to leave them a little message first asking them to change it, discuss it, or what not. But cases like this, could are a bit borderline and could probably have used a message to the user in question before reporting. Just thought I would let you know so that there will be no reason to oppose your RfA Wisdom, and just wanted to let Pedro know as well. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 21:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this was touched upon briefly when I made the report to UAA. Sometimes the mind looks at terms such as "jackass" and immediately forms an opinion. I have left the appropriate template on the user's talk page about my concern, as I have been doing after this slight misstep in judgment. I will be more careful from now on, although, I thought I was : ). Kinda stinks that I had to make those errors so close to my next RfA, but that's life. We all make mistakes. Thanks dude.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 21:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, we all make mistakes, and guess what? Life still moves on. Making a mistake is the best way to learn anyways. Trust me, I have made plenty of mistakes. I would not worry about it too much. Tiptoety  talk 21:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The time is coming
Okay, I think we're ready. I'll try and prepare the RFA tomorrow (18th). That gives some time for you to complete and answer the questions, and the other guys to add their nominations.
 * Okay, I'm pants and ran out of time. Will try to sort over the next couple of days but I'm heavily commited (or should I just be commited for having kids?) this weekend. Tuesday at the latest, in order to go for a run at month end. Pedro : Chat  12:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good Pedro. My questions, as I indicated on your talk page, are pretty much ready to go. Is it sometimes bad that I dream about Wikipedia? : ) Anyway, yes, that's adequate time for preparation.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 13:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 3
Alive and kicking. I will adivse your co-noms. Pedro : Chat  22:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if this is a bad thing (which I doubt) but I've co-nommed as well. Good luck Wisdom.   weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  09:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)