User:ThaddeusB/Admin coaching/MichaelQSchmidt

Preliminary review
The following are areas that either I or the community generally views as important to have demonstrated competence in before becoming an administrator. They are roughly ordered from the most basic to the most advanced.

Dedication to Wikipedia
- no issues here --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Minimum: 3 months & 3000 edits
 * Recommended: 6 months & 6000 edits
 * Actual: roughly 15 months since first "real edit" & 13000 edits

Article space involvement (good policy based editing)
- no issues here --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Minimum: A reasonble number of article space edits (500?) that demonstrate competence
 * Recommended: Several DYKs or 1 GA and no recent errors
 * Actual: 3200 edits, 17 articles created, at least 15 DYKs, and no recent errors I'm aware of

Good communication skills
- no issues here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Minimum: Has a clear handle of on the English language; Doesn't show signs of unprovoked anger; Doesn't insult, attempt to bait, or otherwise demean author editors.
 * Recommended: Above skills plus the ability to make eloquent and convincing arguments and the ability to explain one's self clearly.
 * Actual: In recent times, has always treated others with respect and rarely, or never, initiates conflict. Always explains himself clear when asked to do so.

Appropriate use of user and/or article talk pages
- Your stats indicate to me that you prefer direct communication to article talk page comments. That is certainly an acceptable method of resolving conflicts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Minimum: Some use (~10% of article edits use of article talk pages & a bit more use of user talk pages (~10% of total edits). That is enough to show editor is communicating with others.  Constructive comments in the vast majority of such posts.
 * Recommended: Several multi-comment discussions that show conflict resolution.
 * Actual: ~11% article talk usage & ~26% user talk space usage. Regularly has extended conversations in attempts to resolve disputes

Remains civil in the face of uncivil opposition (dispute resolution)
- At one point this may have been a weakness, but it has turned into one of your greatest strengths. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Minimum: no recent examples of "losing one's temper" or least acceptable apologies for an such instances
 * Recommended: Several examples of remaining civil in the face on uncivil opposition; no indication of making things personal without provocation
 * Actual: In recent time, has always remained amazingly civil even if the face on uncivil opposition that implies he should be banned from AfD or inappropriate accuses him of vandalism.

Appropriate use of warning templates and rollback (if applicable)
- no issues here --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Minimum: For vandal fighters, a clear demonstration of when it is and when it is not appropriate to skip steps. For users who have rollback, very little or no misuse of the tool (i.e. used only for vandalism, not reverts of good faith editing).
 * Recommended: Near perfect usage for vandals fighters; some usage for others (i.e. enough to demonstrate knowledge of their existance). Use of personal message for regulars (WP:DTTR).
 * Actual: Rarely has need for warning message, but uses person ones when needed.

Articles for deletion
- Easily one of your main strengths, which is not surprising since AfD is your main area of activity. Despite accusations to the contrary, I find the vast majority of your votes to be inline with existing notability guidelines (and all arguments to be well reasoned). --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Minimum: A large amount of thoughtful participation for users expressing an interest in closing AfDs; basic knowledge of how the process works for others
 * Recommended: Evidence of strong argument rationales (no recent Arguments to avoid usage) and no evidence of "rapid fire" voting for everyone; 100+ !votes for those wishing to close AfDs. A demonstrated willingness to change one's opinion in the light of new evidence is a big plus, especially for prospective AfD closers.  Attempts to work on articles rather than just voting is also a plus, as is refraining from engaging in WP:BATTLES.
 * Actual: Extremely active in AfD for a long period of time; always give strong rationales whether argument for deletion, merger, or keeping. One of our top "article rescuers" in the sense of actually improving articles rather than just voting.  Has shown willing to change his opinion when needed: .  Almost always succeeds at avoiding a battlefield mentality even when the other side tries to BAIT him.

Assignment 1
Please work through this page and indicate how you'd handle these speedy deletion candidates. For each, you may delete under provided reason, a different reason, or decline speedy deletion. Feel free to add any additional things you'd do with the article. If the case isn't clear cut, add a sentence or two about your reasoning.

If you feel you need more information to judge any given article, or are unsure of your answer, please indicate as much so that my responses will be as helpful as possible. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Assignment 2
Please answer standard RfA question number one on this page so that I may best judge how to proceed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Assignment 3
Some RfAs don't see a single copyright question asked, while others are derailed by mis-answering a copyright related question. Irregardless of whether it comes up at your RfA or not, it is a good idea to be familiar with our copyright policies. It is difficult to determine someone's copyright knowledge without asking direct questions, so I have collected some here. Some come from actual RfAs, others I have made up just now.

The point of this exercise is primarily to increase your awareness of these important issues, so feel free to review WP:Copyrights, WP:Non-free content, and Image policy to help you increase/refresh your knowledge. If you are unsure about an answer, it is perfectly acceptable (and encouraged) to say so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)