User talk:Akradecki/Admin coaching

Pause
Hey, guys, it might be a day or two till I get into this. I'm crew chief on a medevac helo, and our sister ship crashed last night with the loss of three of my colleagues, so things are a bit chaotic right now. Akradecki 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry to hear that. Clearly, you've got your prioroties right, this is a hobby! This process is all about pacing. You should know that Guinnog and I may also have times when one or both of us needs to throttle back. There's plenty to look at if and when you pick up again, so not to worry... if we're not responding right away (I have 2000 pages on my watch list and may miss the change) feel free to ping us. Meanwhile I hope everything works out ok for everyone concerned, and my condolences to your colleagues families. ++Lar: t/c 20:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Endorse Lar's comments above and echo his condolences. That's a tough job you do; motor-cycle courier and high-school chemistry teacher are the most dangerous ones I've had. I lost colleagues in both and in my experience it makes you realise the true priorities of life. Take your time and come back to us when you're good and ready. Best wishes --Guinnog 20:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ping
Hi... just a short touch base to see how things are with you, did you want to resume the process after the first of the year? Let Guinnog or I know. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 00:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, yes I'd like to get back into it. A few days ago, I started catching up on some editing backlog. I'll be doing some reading on the admin list this weekend. Akradecki 01:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi and season's greetings! --Guinnog 02:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ping again...
It's been a while and I haven't heard from you. I'm going to assume that you are no longer pursuing this coaching? Please advise. If I don't hear from you I'll mark this as inactive. I know that the rush of the real world meant I didn't pay much attention but since you didn't ping back I have to assume that dormancy is the desired outcome. ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Lar, thanks for the ping. I've been mulling over in my mind whether to pursue this, and maybe some input from you would help. In reading through various RfAs, I get the impression that admins are strongly expected by the community to spend the majority of their time working the various backlogged tasks. While I would be more than eager to spend some of my time with mop in hand, I don't know that I'd want to have it take over all my wikitime. I have a long list of articles I feel would be important to write, and still more that really need substantial expansion, and I don't know if I want to give up the time to work on them (as it is, reviewing my rather long watchlist for vandalism has already had a serious impact on my time). So I guess my question is, do the admin tools help streamline the vandal fighting process enough so that I'd have time to do some mop work while still being able to do my first love, writing? How do your balance your time as an admin? Thanks! Akradecki 18:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, a hard question, but a very good one!


 * Being a good admin takes a significant chunk of your time. It is, after all, a committment to the community that you will be a servant or janitor... A majority of your time? Not necessarily. However... some of the tools do make things more efficient, but I think you either will not do very much admining, or you will see a decrease in your article production. Further, some editors will therefore feel they are contributing more to the project than some admins... Do you have to spend ALL your time on admininsh stuff? No. Many admins do not. But you are perceptive, the community does expect significant help from you, and if they sense that you are just going through the motions, they may well decide against granting you the bit. All of that should not scare you, I'd encourage you to make that commitment if you are so willing, as it is a wonderful project, and we do direly need additional admins that have the time to help. But... look inside yourself and if you are not willing, it is best you not put yourself through the exercise of an RfA. That is not bad. That is not good. It just is. We all volunteer here and we all do what we can do, and what we want to do, and what we have time and energyt to do, and no one should expect more. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 02:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Lar, thanks for the candid reply. After mulling it over for the last week, and especially with the huge hole in the Aircraft project that user:Chrislk02 now that he seems to be gone, it seems that there's an even greater need for an additional hand, regardless of the time sacrifice issue. Therefore, I'll put aside my other projects for now and concentrate on this, if you have the time and willingness to help me get up to speed. Akradecki 22:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do it because you want to, not out of a sense of obligation, with 1000 admins, things will get done, usually. Eventually. That said, sure... you should ping Guinnog as well, he's back around after having taken a bit of a break... Are you ready for some more thought starter exercises, or more reading or ? Let me know. ++Lar: t/c 03:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, it's not a sense of obligation so much as a realization that it's just time. That having been said, let's do some of both - thinking is always good, and reading stimulates it. Ultimately, I see myself focusing my attentions at CAT:CSD, AIV, and dealing with image issues, so maybe we should head in that direction initially? Roger on the Guinnog.... Akradecki 21:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. CSD is to me, quite arcane... there are a lot of codes and so forth to learn so I never really do much there... If you either keep a ref handy or have a knack for memorization, it's easy enough to use the right code and recognise if someone else used a bad one. I'm not sure that I'm the right guy for a lot of "drill" in that area. Guinnog maybe can though... but really maybe it's not as needed... What I think is more interesting is AIV. Not all vandals are rescuable and knowing what to do about listings there is a bit of an art requiring a deft hand. Let me think about some exercises. Or better yet, I'll point you at some of what I did and you can critique it... thinking about how to do things better is a good exercise in its own right. How's that sound? ++Lar: t/c 23:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds good. I've had a few occasions to list a vandal there, and the biggest frustration I've faced is the delay in anyone getting to the situation. Typically, when I'm patrolling my watchlist for vandalism, if the vandalism comes from an IP address, I usually won't bother with warnings, unless it seems that the IP is pretty much a single user. When it's a registered user, I generally follow the sequence of warnings at WP:TUSER, and if it goes all the way, then I list at AIV. Usually what I've come across is pretty cut and dry vandalism, but I'm sure there's plenty of cases of "gray" areas. While we're doing this, maybe you could share your feelings on sprotecting an article. I've come across some that seem to be frequently used by school kids doing research, and during certain periods, it's not unusual to revert IP vandalism several times a day, if not more. There seems to be a lot of reluctance to sprotect, but I'm curious what the rule of thumb threshold for vandalism frequency is? Akradecki 23:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, both of you. I have almost never used sprotection. I protected the Scotland page recently to stop an edit-war; it is a really good way to get people's attention and get them to step back and talk sometimes. On this occasion it has worked, so far. I'll think about an answer to the CSD question above. Best wishes --Guinnog 04:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The guideline is, as I understand it, to by default never protect anything. If the article isn't getting loads of persistent vandalism (what that means I am not quite sure, more than a dozen a day?) there are people that will unprotect things you protect. I've only used protection a very small amount... on Jennifer Granholm and Richard DeVos during our recent election, we had anon IPs that traced back to the campaigns "assisting" .... dunno if that helps. Myself I tend to favour dealing with the contributors rather than the article. I will put another thing for you to think about on the page (rather than here) ++Lar: t/c 15:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

PS ... what do YOU think? Is that policy of almost never protecting right? Wrong? why or why not? (this is a "no right answer" question) ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In pondering your question, I went and re-read the policy. I don't know if I'd characterize it as "almost never protecting", as there are some fairly clear situations presented where protecting is appropriate. I think maybe the better question is, "is the current thresholds for protection too much or too little?" In answering it, I want to make it clear that I understand that as an admin, I'm expected to follow and uphold policy whether I agree with it or not. That having been said, though, I do have opinions on some of the grey areas that the current iteration of the policy has. I, personally, would like to see the policy allow sprotection to be used more to fight vandalism. It seems to me that we have a handy vandalism-fighting tool at our disposal but are disinclined to use it. Blocking IP addresses to combat vandalism often is ineffective, both because many times such addresses are dynamic, and also because often other users get blocked who've not done anything. Why rely on such a poor method when by sprotecting articles with persistent vandalism problems can be so much more effective? If someone really wants to contribute a meaningful edit, let them register like the rest of us did. I'd like to see "persistent" a bit better defined, and I've gone so far as to make suggestions to that end on the policy's talk page (I was rather surprised to go back through the archived talk pages and see that the subject has been discussed several times in general terms but without anyone every suggesting an actual threshhold, so I was bold and suggested that such a thing be considered). Akradecki 04:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we are done....
Guinnog and I talked. We think you're ready to be nominated. You've got what it takes, unless we are much missing our mark or unless there are some deep dark secrets we missed :) and I would be happy to be a nom or co-nom, as would he... if there are specific things you want to dig into more, practice more, ask about more, or whatever, we can do that but we also don't want to waste your time needlessly, you seem better prepared mentally than the average candidate already. Let us know what you want to do next. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow...I'd be most honored if you would nom/co-nom (if Guinnog wants to join in). Your comments are certainly appreciated. I feel like there's more to learn, but it's all how-to stuff. I really appreciate the time you've put into this coaching session. This should be interesting.... 00:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Expect that I'll let you know by email fairly shortly that it's ready for you to once-over, answer and accept, I have someone else's to do as well, first. Make sure your email is working (you can test it yourself...) :) ++Lar: t/c 05:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Test successful...will be looking Akradecki 14:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'd be happy to co-nom. Drop me an email if you like. --Guinnog 16:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)