User talk:Gaia Octavia Agrippa/Admin coaching

Welcome
I see that you found this page and started answering the questions. That's great. I had planned to leave you a message first to introduce myself to you but, since I didn't think you would find the page right away, I had put it off.

Since you've already gotten started, I now have to play "catch up".

Please continue answering the questions so that I can understand better what your Wikipedia experience is and where you could use additional experience.

Your recent RFA
I looked at your recent RFA. You characterized it as "close". I'm sorry to say that it wasn't anywhere near close. I don't say that to be hurtful but you need to have a realistic assessment of where you stood so that you can determine how to be successful on the next try.

The !vote was 22 support, 28 oppose and 11 neutral. The approximate threshold for passing an RFA is 75% support. That means that you need three times as many supports as opposes. You had 44% support which is not enough by a long shot.

I will be looking more closely at your RFA answers and also at the nature of the oppose !votes to determine how I can help you do better the next time around.

Soxred's analysis of your edits
The analysis below can be viewed here

Article 3049 47.77%

Talk 545 8.54%

User 1382 21.65%

User talk 1035 16.21%

Wikipedia 302 4.73%

Wikipedia talk 50 0.78%

File 4 0.06%

Template 13 0.20%

Category 1 0.02%

Portal 2 0.03%

Just looking at the edit counts, it looks as if you have enough edits to be considered for adminship. However, I note that the ratio of 545 Talk space edits to 3049 Article edits is a bit low. This suggests that you don't have much experience interfacing with other users about article content.

The higher count for User talk edits suggests that you might be spending a lot of time talking to users about stuff that is not necessarily related to article content.

Now, there may be valid reasons for the skewed edit counts. For example, if you are WikiGnome, you might make many unobjectionable edits that don't require much discussion, if any. Similarly, you might have a high number of User Talk edits because you have warned a lot of users about vandalism.

In any event, you should be aware that these kinds of questions will arise when people look at your edit counts using this analysis (it's a standard part of the RFA template). You should be prepared to explain the reasons for the skewed edit counts.

You can also make an effort to spend more time in the areas that have relatively low edit counts and thereby shift your statistics a bit.

In particular, RFA contributors are going to look at your 300 edits in Wikipedia space and say "Not enough experience in project space". Now, to be honest, you could learn a lot about Wikipedia policies, guidelines and processes by reading lots of pages without ever editing one. Thus, you would know a lot but never have it show up on the edit count. So, the edit count method is broken but still lots of RFA contributors use it and you have to be aware of what they might read into your edit counts and how to focus your experience to avoid having those issues raised.

The easiest way to get more experience in project space (Wikipedia) is to work in WP:AFD or other so-called xFD pages (e.g. WP:CFD, WP:IFD, WP:TFD, etc.

You should also become familiar with WP:RFC, WP:RFM and WP:RFARB. It's not likely that you would make many edits in these pages but it's important to know what these processes are, what their scope is and how they work.

That's enough for one sitting. Chew on that for a while and then let's talk some more.

--Richard (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)