User talk:Pedro/Mentoring

Minimum Requirements
A balancing act is in process here. This page is expressly not a "how to pass RFA" guide. However it has to be recognised that for an editor to be a high quality administrator as well they do, in fact, have to pass RfA. As well all know, editcountitis aside, no-one with 2,000 edits and three months tenure is likely to pass RfA. I don't want this page to perpetuate myths or create standards, but I am convinced that for it to be effective we really want people who are on the cusp of passing and need input so that when they pass they'll be up and running straight away, and able to help Wikipedia effectively. Input is desired on "minimum requirements" however. Pedro : Chat  08:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Using myself as an example, 1,237 edits and 1 years service, it would be safe to assume such a page wouldn't be for me? I consider myself quite active, although I have never had an editing style which lends to volumes of edits. One reason for that is something I saw Avi mention... lots of time researching an Rfa candidate that only leads to a "silent neutral" (no edits). I personally totally understand your min reqs, but I could see how other editors similar to me might see this as exclusionary, and most certainly editcountitis. Just a thought. While I agree is it virtually impossible to pass with under 2k edits, I don't know if this page should reinforce that this is becoming a fact... when there still may be some under 2K candidates who are qualified (not saying I am one). Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're edit count is wholly ironic seeing as how I've prodded you towards adminship myself (at least once that I recall)...In my mind, you are already an admin, Gwynand, because you act like an admin and several editors have already assumed you were one. You just haven't passed RfA yet to get the tools.  This I think would be an excellent venue where I can see you being both a mentor and a mentee (but not a mento - although I find you quite refreshing...)   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  17:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say "there is an exception to every rule" :).What I don't want is a page with 50 people who are all "wanabee admins". What we do want is a place where editors like Gwynand can hone their skills, learn about any areas they may be lacking knowledge in, and recieve collaborative input with the ultimate aim of being granted sysop permissions for the betterment of Wikipedia. It is a tricky balancing act. I also don't want an bureaucracy surrounding this (votes etc etc). The idea is that this is a sounding board, a forum for the most commited Wikipedians to help them learn not how to pass RfA but how to be a really great and effective administrator. Pedro : Chat  18:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Namespace
I'm thinking that after tinkering this ought to live in the namespace. Of course, one downside is that WP:MENTOR exists. As this is more releated to admin areas I was thinking a nice short cut might be ..... WP:AMEN ..... :). Pedro : Chat  10:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Amen to that ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC) (Sounds good, in other words.)
 * I actually don't think mentoring is really a great term for what you have here. It actually seems very different from mentoring. Something more like WP:ADVICE. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How about something similar to "Professional Development", since that seems to be what those taking part will be doing from the point of view of wikipedia administration? If a term like that were adopted, the scheme could then be expanded to deal with post-RfA development at some future stage. One may have to take steps to separate the (professional) duties of writers and administrators (and restrict it to adminstration duties), but that could probably be done fairly easily in the opening paragraph.  DDStretch    (talk)  13:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sold on "Professional development" personally. It smacks me as a bit too formal for what I'm seeing this as an attempt at. (correct me if I'm wrong Pedro and your envisioning something really formal).  "Pro-D" sounds too agenda driven (reminds me of my old school marming days, when "Pro-D" was required, ridiculous, stuffy, agenda'd to death, with a powerpoint presentation to match...or maybe I just have baggage...)  I like the idea of "ADVICE", and I'm actually very comfortable with the term "mentor", which carries a much less formal overtone to it.  More of a "Hey, Mentors, I screwed this up I think?  What should I have done instead"  Responding along the lines of "Well, here's this bluelink and this essay, and really you didn't screw up that bad anyway."     Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'd have to disagree with using the term "Professional", technically speaking, editing or even becoming an admin doesn't make one a professional in any field, nor should it be implied that it does. The problem I have with mentor is that it connotes a one-on-one, uh, mentorship, with an editor who likely knows more than you. This is going more for a wide discussion on tough topics that will not only help the editor who asked for help, but others as well. In many cases, there may be very little mentoring, and more open discussion with the goal of development. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Fair enough. All I can say is that my own experience of the activities coming under the term "professional development" is nothing like the experience you are describing, but does fit rather more closely in with the aims described here (25 years in various academic departments, by the way. On reflection, it did become a bit more administratively constipated as time went on and as more "management-driven" initiatives or whatever buzz-phrase was popular at the time, came in.) However, if that is the way it is generally perceived, then that would be a good reason for not using it. "Advice" strikes me as being a bit lacking in focus and too general for the rather specific aims as they are at the moment.  DDStretch    (talk)  15:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Any leverage in just dropping the "professional" then, perhaps replacing it with "Administrator Skills" to become "Adminstrator Skills Development" or even "Administrator Skills Knowledge" to give a neat acronym: ASK, because we all know that sometimes, the acronym means more than the phrase 8-) I take what is said about "professional", and yet I see that it is specifically used in the crieria for FA status of articles, which does mean that some use of it could be justified.) I think "Mentor" is too one-on-one as you said, and I already said why I don't like "advice".  DDStretch    (talk)  15:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I agree that "Development" is probably the best term we have came up with yet, although WP:ASK would be cool. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember we can have several terms that link to the same namespace. I recommend WP:ASK, WP:AMEN and WP:ADVICE as they are all terms which are likely to be remembered and looked up. Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 16:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ASK is taking by an appropriate venue. WP:ADVICE is nice, also taken.  WP:AMEN I don't like as much, for the overtones mostly, and because unless it is an explicit acronym for whatever this little venture is called, and we seem to be moving past the MENtor part), would be more appropriate for a WikiProject.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  17:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if we're gonna use "Skills", I would prefer to use the American spelling, Skillz. (Since we have "Programme" from everyone's favorite Brit....:-)   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  17:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:MADSKILLZ. (just checking for a redlink... Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  17:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Given we're not that fussed about acronyms, it is however important to convey what we're trying to achieve in the page name. I do like "Administrator Skills Development" (WP:ASD ?]] as it seems as neutral as we can get. Anything like "progression" and stuff implies exactly what we don't want - that adminship is some kind of reward or status. And yes, this is an informal process. I see it as clean of bureaucracy as possible. Pedro : Chat  19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Semantics
Hey Pedro, I actually really like this whole mentoring premise. However, I think I'd like a major rewrite of the front page. I feel like the major goal is to just tell people how 1: this isn't admin coaching and 2: this shouldn't be used for the sole goal of becoming an admin. Tons of semantics. What exactly this page is needs to be clearer, semantics need to be removed. Is it basically a place where an editor can post a tough situation they had to deal with and get advice from others? This isn't clear. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I've got too much focus on what it's not, and not enough in what it is. I've knocked up a smaple of what I'm thinking of here. You've summed up what my aim is - a place for experinced editors to discuss problems/mistakes/issues after the fact and get feedback and advice. A place where people can learn to "hone" the skills required to be a good admin. I appreciate your input - feel free to play around with the box! Pedro : Chat  12:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the page is fairly explicit about its purpose, and how it differs from adoption, ER, and admincoaching. Considering the major pitfall of Admincoaching was the synthetic manufacturing of applicants to pass RfAs, the nots presented here are absolutely essentially and in line with the goals of this project.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Admins?
Can admins also get some insight on their admin actions? Considering the nature of this project, it wouldn't be too hard to implement.  weburiedoursecrets inthegarden  21:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What, did you already screw something up, Webur? An admin for an afternoon, and already looking for help.  Sheesh.... ...:-)   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  21:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, if you want insight into you admin actions I promise you WP:ANI will be more than enough - make a couple of bad blocks and delete a high school and a professor under WP:CSD - that will get you all the review of your admin actions you need! :) Pedro : Chat  22:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That response Pedro just made me spit room temperature Diet Mountain Dew on my keyboard. Excellent.  Webur, (I'm not sure why I started callin you that, by the way, stop me if the first five letters of your ridiculously long username aren't a good shortcut), I'm hoping that you take the time to read through the schooling available to you as an admin.  Very enlightening.  Very practical.  That said, you really should be getting ready for your Standards.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's only seven letters, jeez =P I've done all of the practical activities in the new admin school now, and I've deleted a few nonsense pages (basically, I've started).  And I'm already halfway through my Standards, I'm coping.  And by the way, Webur is fine, but feel free to call me WBOSITG, or even Joe ;)   weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  08:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * =P No, it was a serious suggestion, lol.  But yeh, AN/I will do for now...  weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  22:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Traffic
Hello, is anybody there? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am, but I don't contribute much here, sorry. I think this idea is slowly sinking, to be honest.  Pedro and Keeper might violently disagree.  weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  18:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is kind of sinking. It shouldn't, it's a really good idea, but until there is wider participation and more people willing to give advice then it's not really going anywhere :( Regards, CycloneNimrod talk? contribs? 19:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Yeah, not sure if it is sinking, or just never got going. I kind of feel silly posting situations. I guess it's really not clear how people should comment, or what the goal is. I'm actually not using it with anything in relation to adminship... which might not be a big deal, but then again this is probably not in line with the program's goal. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I violently disagree. Good call Webur.  I don't think it's sinking, although it could use a bit more traffic for sure.  This is why I like this page vs. formal coaching.  It's situational, not ongoing.  Used when needed.  Doesn't overwhelm a coach/coachee, doesn't smell of cabalism, just good editors helping good editors.  It's in my watchlist (and obviously others), and when I think of it I add a link where appropriate.  So, no, not high traffic, but also, no not "sinking" either.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  19:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suppose it was. I've begun admin coaching, and I must say that I was the one overwhelmed at the stress of it all, answers flying at me left and right.  This does seem the way to go, we just need to initiate the idea to the best of it's worth.   weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  19:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any thoughts on how we should go about asking for advice? I've done it twice... one, a tediously long post asking several different questions, the other, barely anything. Both expect the reviewers to read a lot, unless they were already involved (like Keeper usually is for me). I feel like people are unsure as how to respond to my posts, they are just so general in nature. Almost like asking for an editor review. To get more traffic, we need more discussion. More discussion means more responses. More responses would require a little more direction as how to do this whole thing. I'm still not at the 2k minimum threshold, btw :)) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * True. Ok, so it's not sinking, but it is difficult to get advice.  My advice would to be to ask specific questions here, like "how was my conduct here?" or "was I right to tag this for deletion?" or something along those lines.  The traffic is not low (as this thread has proved), it is simply difficult to help with vague questions.   weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  19:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have failed to put energy into this page, which I intend to rectify. Perhaps a WP:BOLD move into main space might be one thing, but yes, some direction from within ourselves as to the aims and methods to achieve those aims would be good. I've not abandoded the idea, and will try and work harder to see where we can take it. Pedro : Chat  22:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Great idea, Pedro. Now we need an acronym ;P   weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  22:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm quite fond of Pedro's earlier suggestion of WP:ASD for Administrator Skills Development.. I doubt we'll get much more appropriate than that. Regards, CycloneNimrod talk? contribs? 22:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I like something more like situation review, or situation discussion so WP:SIT or something like that. In a way, this is a form of editor review, but I think what we are aiming for is to list a specific situation that the editor dealt with and have a collective discussion on it. That kind of thing doesnt really happen in admin coaching (one on one discussion) or editor review (just a review). What about WP:SITDOWNANDISCUSS, or for short WP:SDAD? (Dont make it WP:SAD, that wouldn't be good.) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note, but Gwynand eloquently sums up exactly what the "point" of this little project is. After the fact discussion with a view to gaining input and advice from multiple view points in a collegial atmosphere. Pedro : Chat  15:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion, Input, Learning, Deliberation, Output. Hmmm ... WP:..... Maybe not. :) Pedro : Chat  15:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Pfft. Got something on your mind there, Peds?   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh! Me? In seriousness, a move to mainspace may help us out here. I'm convinced the concept would run, but it does need to be pretty defined. I'm concerned it never turns into the "how to pass an RfA" thing. And I'm concerned it doesn't become WP:ANI MARK II. But it could be so useful, to point editors in the right direction. Pedro : Chat  15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * More seriously (but barely, I's keeper after all), I think the key factor in this is that the discussion is past tense. This happened, not this is happening, help me through it.  Situational discussion.  What about WP:REFLECT?  Is that taken?   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose I could just WP:REFLECT check. Looks red to me.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And, yes, move it to Wikispace anytime!  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree to move it to wikispace soon, but we really need to change the intro. I just don't see "This process is for editors who wish to gain administrator permissions and tools" going over well. In fact, I didn't realize that's what it said, I certainly don't think Im using it for that reason (my questions really haven't had much to do with tools, maybe block). Does this project really need to have such a focus on becoming an admin? I think we are really on to something here without all the adminship mentioning. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be completely ok with the word "admin/adminship" being completely banned from the page. Editor/mentoring/reflection/situational advice.  A "go-to" place for editors to get feedback from other editors.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  16:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to change it Gwynand. And in to Keeper above, I'd be delighted to see the dread RFA acronym banned from the page entirely as well. Pedro : Chat  17:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OK guys, take a look at my changes here. Thoughts? I realized I used the good 'ol American spelling of program, but using the single diff makes it easier to see the changes. That of course can be changed. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ready to move to project space?
Although the instruction can continue to be improved, my personal concerns over this being considered a veiled attempt at coaching are gone. I think a good next step will be to move it. Agreed? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * .......where is it going? Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I like the redirect from WP:REFLECT, but as for the title of the page? I'm not sure. I don't think Mentorship is really the most accurate description of what we have here. "Situation Discussion"? "Editor Situation Discussion" "Advanced Discussions" ... not really sure. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What about: "The Café"? I love coffee.  weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  21:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I like it, although it would probably piss of the Brits, what with all their tea drinking... Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  21:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm British, and I don't like tea :P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  22:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wine dinking :). Seriously, my concern with "situation discussions" is it sounds like ANI. Also, I see no reason why hypothetical situations shouldn't be addressed. I quite like "advanced discussion". In essence it's an idea bounce session for editors to request input .... e.g "I requested this to be speedied and it was declined - I'm sure it meets A7". That type of thing. Helps editors be effective with admin tools and be effective without them. Still stuck on deciding on a defining title though (: Pedro : Chat  22:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[exdent] Someone above suggested that the purpose here was "good editors helping good editors". That seems to cover most of what this is about and I thought it was felicitously phrased. If you feel "good" is a value judgment, then leave that word out. Accounting4Taste: talk 22:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. I still like the Cafe though.  :P  weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  22:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Advanced Discussion"
So, trying to move this along a bit, I think this title is both functional and concise. Things like "The Cafe" are fun and friendly, but a large part of what we are trying to do at this point is make it clear to the community what this page is. The tough part about that is that clearly it's still evolving. Started as an idea to polish off strong admin candidates, to a specicifc situation review, then Pedro suggested that it be open to hypothetical discussion, which I strongly agree with. So, the page is wide open and has a lot of goals, but I think one thing we are really going for is that this is discussion for more complicated things where there is no easy/obvious answer. The exact reason we need a discussion. I even edited the "rules" section a bit to discourage people from posting a question like "What does blocking policy say on X?" So, "Advanced Discussion" will, I hope, encourage people to discuss tougher issues and hopefully shy away some of the clear-cut newbie stuff (of course, forums for that are needed, just don't want to clog up this page). I'm obviously biased towards this title, I suggested it, but how bout it? Or something similar that is functional, gets the point across of what we are trying to do? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I like it. My only concern is that there are differing levels of "advancement", and differing degrees of difficulty.  If an established editor asks "What does blocking policy say on X", because they truly don't know/can't find precedence/can't find resources, and someone else responds with, that's not an "advanced" level question, you've pretty much told them they've asked a stupid question.  I'm hoping that we're still leaning towards "situational discussion", past tense (in other words, events that have happened, not that are happening or might happen).  While I appreciate the need for a venue for those, that feels to me to be more along the lines of a one-on-one coaching/adoption line.  So to sum this all up, I like "Advanced Discussions".   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  14:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As the culture of the page develops, I certainly hope we will never be dismissive. If a question is somewhat simple, then a simple answer can be given and then maybe a "Resolved" check can be put up. For example, if someone says "Should I be indef blocking Ips?", its really no big deal to give the quick answer, in fact it seems stupid to go through the effor of telling them to leave. Also, my generic "What does blocking policy say on X" wasnt a great example, because depending on "X", it could obviously become quite advanced. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)