User:Pedro/Mentoring

What this page is about
Welcome to this mentoring programme! This programme intends to provide a collegial atmosphere for editors who wish to discuss difficult situations they were previously involved in. Issues relating to the use of admin tools and also complicated situations in general are welcomed. This page is aimed at experienced editors looking to receive constructive feedback and to discuss procedures and processes that they are unsure about; specifically, things that are not made clear on policy/guideline pages. Please also see "What this page is not" below and view ongoing discussions to get an idea about what this page's intended purpose is.
Are you in the right place?	Using this page
This page is for collaborative working between experienced editors and administrators to provide open and on-going feedback, as well as to provide advice, after the fact, on how situations could or should have been dealt with. If you are seeking a general review of your edits please see Editor Review. If you are seeking one-on-one assistance towards the goal of adminship please see Admin Coaching. If you are seeking mentoring for general editing please see Adoption. Before requesting mentoring, please see below, for what this page is not. Please do join the mentoring process if you believe you can help Wikipedia by becoming a good administrator. Please do not join the mentoring process with the sole aim of becoming an administrator.	Everyone is welcome to provide constructive feedback to those requesting mentorship; in particular if you are being mentored here, please remember this is a collaborative and open environment and your input to others being mentored is valued. Before requesting mentorship you should already be an experienced Wikipedian. Although most metrics are frowned upon, it is requested that editors with less than 2,000 edits and/or three months tenure do not make a request. If you wish to be mentored create a new section for your self below. Insert your user name at the bottom of the page in a level two heading ==[[User:Example]]==. Underneath enter you username again with full links by typing{{Userlinks|YourUserName}} and a brief desciption of what you are seeking to achieve through this programme. As your mentorship progresses, please use level 3 sub headings under your user name to seek input on specific points.
What this page is not
This page is expressly not a "how-to" guide to pass RfA. This page is expressly not a process to gain adminship for its own end. In addition, this page does not replace the proper venue for active discussion or incidents. This page is for discussion and reflection of your actions, after the fact, not the actions of fellow editors. Please do not abuse this process to get undue attention to a specific issue you are concerned with or currently in dispute over.

Current Discussions

Pedro's good advice

Pedro gave me some very helpful suggestions when I was interested in becoming an admin, but I think there is one piece of advice that stands out above all the rest, because it has such general application and will stand anyone -- admin or non-admin -- in good stead. Here it is, very simply put -- "Keep the editor." In any situation in which you're dealing with another editor, whatever the circumstances, one of the end products of the situation must be that everyone remains as a contributor to the wiki. I think it's generally true that any contribution to Wikipedia indicates that the person has a desire to contribute SOMETHING, even if it's absolutely not useful in the slightest. No matter what you must do to that content to make/keep Wikipedia as a useful source of information, the spark that urged that person to contribute can be fanned and encouraged. I'm not saying it's always possible... heaven knows that some people just don't want to be useful under any circumstances... but encouraging that desire to contribute usefully is always a good thing to keep in mind in any situation. I call it "Pedro's First Law", and I bet, being the modest man that he is, he will be embarrassed to see it called that!!

I think "Pedro's Second Law" is -- "Everybody -- EVERYBODY -- needs to vent sometimes. Be there for your fellow editors when they need that from you, and let it pass unremembered when it's over."

Any other general principles -- like Geroge's Law (?), which paraphrased is "The likelihood that a new article will need speedy deletion increases with the lack of proper spelling and particularly when a person's name in the title is uncapitalized" -- that anyone can think of? Accounting4Taste:talk 21:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

*blushes* Pedro :  Chat  07:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice summarisation, there. Nice summarisation. Rudget (Help?) 17:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Editorofthewiki

Editorofthewiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I want to see how I can become a good and helpful admin. I know I had a block 4 months ago but I want to show the community I've reformed. I would specifically work where I am needed. I have had a few incidents with users in the past and I want to know how I can start not overreating so much. I would say that is one of my weakest points.

Can you provide diffs for your interactions that you've felt have been "overreactions?" Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate providing diffs, as they take forever, but my most recent one was probably the one with Metros at the AN/I discussion. I did get a little heated with User:Otolemur crassicaudatus after he reverted some of my edits and called ma a troll (see the User talk edit history). Lets see... I might have overreacted when I redirected Princess Eléonore of Belgium despite the afd, even though myself and User:Charles agree that days old babies should not have articles. I know, I went against concensus on that one, but that was only because most of the Keep voters didn't vote on any policy whatsoever. I had a particularly bad encounter with User:BHG back in March, and while there was bad faith on both sides, I did accuse her of "inherant bias". I was blocked in January when I was new for violating WP:POINT on User:Misza13. All of which I am sorry for my bad conduct, and I hope the Wikipedia community will look past these shortcomings (we are all humans) and recognise the good content I have contributed, particularly my FA and my DYK?s. Editorofthewiki^{review my edits here!} 21:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is where I feel another admin should reply. I asked a question, surely, and in good faith, EOTW replied, and now another admin/strong editor should reply. Otherwise, it will easily devolve into me "coaching" EOTW. Do I have this right Pedro? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed fully the above, but you absoloutely do have that right. This process is not a replacement for one-on-one coaching. Some editors will respond better to that. Others will hopefully find that open collaborative guideance is useful. Pedro :  Chat  07:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be my guess Keeper. I am no administrator, but I'd like to make one small time-related comment (similar to one below) regarding being blocked/participating in drama before running for RfA. From what I gather/have seen, 6 months at the least should lapse between a block/incident that may come under intense scrutiny at an RfA. That's the recommended time alloted for the community to see gradual reformation after evaporated trust. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree 6 months at least prior to applying for formal adminship. You can however, be a terrific admin prior to your Rfa EOTW. Just be a good editor, more often than not, high quality editing (be it meta, article space, wiki space, talkspace), usually leads people to saying "Wait, you're not an admin?". That's a good sign you're on the right track. As for RfA though, Wis is right. 6 months. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(exdent for convenience) I wanted to return to the point in the first paragraph -- "How can I stop over-reacting so much?" My own experience tells me that, the minute my emotions are aroused in any Wikipedic situation, common sense and usefulness goes out the window. So I now try to take a 12- or 24-hour break -- when I get mad, I stand up and walk away from the computer for a pre-determined period of time. It's not quite self-punishment -- more like a way of enforcing a breathing space. The other point I'd suggest is that, instead of being in situations where over-reaction is more likely -- such as situations where people are likely to disagree with you -- I'd recommend trying to put yourself in situations in which happy, pleased responses are more likely. For instance, answer a help desk question or help a newbie. I do a lot of new page patrol and I find that in many cases, I can either clear the offending page out of the way or, if I so choose, I can take a lot of extra time and trouble and make a specific new editor very happy and likely to stay around. Yes, it's a lot of extra time and trouble -- but it's very unlikely to get you into an emotionally-rousing situation, it generates goodwill, and it gives you just as much experience in interpreting policy and making appropriate references as any AfD. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

^-What that bloke said-^. A4T hits it on the head. e.g. - See a good stub up for deletion under A1? Fix it!! Pedro :  Chat  22:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Cyclonenim

Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I'd like to know, in the honest opinion of my fellow wikipedians, if they'd believe I could pass another RfA. If so, may I know why? And if not, may I know as well? Please note that I had an RfA a month ago (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyclonenim) and I wouldn't consider applying again until at least next month.

You should wait generally at least three months between applications. Otherwise you may be hit with "power hunger" opposes and the desire to only desire the bit. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wisdom, without even looking at RfA#1, that doing RfA#2 too soon is seen as a detriment to your purpose here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. So, if I were to leave it several months, what advice would you give in regards to my habits on Wikipedia? Sorry if this seems a rather large question to ask. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 21:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What you are asking, Cyclonenim, is a rather vague question. The purpose of this particular setup of Pedro's, as I see it, is to get advice from specific incidents as an editor, with specific replies. What you seem to be looking for is something that an admin coach, or adopter, or individual mentor, could offer. I don't see this as the right forum for your question, if I'm being honest. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps so. I was being admin coached by Pedro anyway, not sure if this is still ongoing with the production of this project. Thanks for the advice. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 22:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Broadly, I'm hoping to gracefuly drop out of "admin coaching" and focus on this page instead. I believe potential admins are now suffering at WP:RFA because of many "perceived" negatives of coaching (very specifically being coached to pass RfA and not guided to be an effective admin after an RfA passes which is the purpose of this process.) I find that saying "go comment on 20 AfD's and I'll review" or similar is against the whole spirit of things - why comment on an AfD unless you're interested? Commenting for the sake of it seems pointless and unlikely to add true value. I'd like you to carry on doing what you're doing, review current RfA's if you wish to see areas you may need to work on, but use this forum,. as Keeper rightly sugests, as a "sounding board" wether other editors (with the admin bit or not) can provide insight or pointers to useful guidelines, essays or past cases. Pedro :  Chat  07:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely on board with this Pedro, if you'll have me. I am also strongly considering "dropping out" of WP:ADCO once finished with the two excellent candidates that I'm currently working with. If the very act of being "coached" defeats the purpose of "coaching", what's the point? It doesn't necessarily make a better editor, and now it seems it doesn't make an admin either in many cases. My goal, in helping anyone with any issue, is to make them a better contributor, regardless of what "tabs" are on the top of their page. I very much like the design of this page, you should be receiving several barnstars for it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that really necessary though? I mean future admins are still going to need people to talk about the here-and-now with, since this isn't a place for bringing ongoing disputes. If a coachee needs advise with how to deal with a situation, admin coaching is still useful. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 17:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see that side of it two Cyclone. Honestly, I think ADCO has begotten a bad rep, whether it is deserved or not. The problem is that there are some editors that go to ADCO because they view adminship as some sort of trophy or whatever, and use ADCO as a ladder to reach their goal of adminship, instead of focusing on what is supposed to happen on Wiki, which is article improvement, article improvement, and last but not least, article improvement. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Wisdom89

Wisdom89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Well, I suppose that even though this is a work in progress, and I trust my fellow Wikipedians to give sound advice, that I'd happily drop my name down. I think most might be familiar with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wisdom89 3. I've received much advice and commentary during and after the previously failed RfA, especially on my talk page. There may not be much more to say, but any feedback would be desirable. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to specify. Should I concentrate my actions where I have been, help desk, AIV, UAA, CSD etc..etc.. but, also switch gears a bit and build up some articles as I've done in the past? It was interesting to note that a few editors opposed based on lack of article contributions, which I found vaguely odd considering the breadth of mainspace contributions, and my strong editorial experience with a FA and GA, and a handful of others. Am I too bureaucratic? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, as much as I know that your query is in good faith, it strikes me as too vague. I envision Pedro's quest here as "reactive", to specific situations, diffs, scenarios, etc. I think you will make a great admin, Wisdom. That being said, I don't personally think this is the right venue to get the "general" feedback you are desiring. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think people treated you a little harshly in the previous RfA, no one seemed to assume any good faith whatsoever. Not much you can do about that, unfortunately, but my advice is just to contribute a little more to the areas outside of where you are now, but not leaving them altogether. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 22:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the feedback guys. Keeper, I see what you're saying about vagueness. However, am I to understand that if I were to encounter a specific situation (say a faulty report, or a clashing response from another editor), I should bring that here for advice regarding how it relates to adminship, or extrapolate the situation to a hypothetical scenario where I am an admin to see if I handled it correctly? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Specific is always better, and easier to address and easier to learn from, gets away from "hypothetical world", which general only has "hypothetical answers" that may be right or may be wrong without a given real context. Be careful though, to bring things here only if they are "past actions", not "ongoing disputes". A one-on-one coach would be better, and encouraged, for ongoing disputes (or for really serious stuff, WP:DR, WP:ANI, WP:MEDCOM, WP:RFC...you get the idea)...Again, Pedro tell me if I'm not seeing this the same way you are. I see this for "Ok, I did this. Then this happened, then this happened. It's over now. Is there anything I could've done differently?" and not "Ok I did this. Then this happened. Now I have an angry editor. What should I do next?" Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And to answer your last question, Wis, an emphatic No, I do not think you're too Bureaucratic. You are an asset to Wikipedia, with a broad range of solid, meaningful, and respected contributions. In my mind, you're an admin already, just lacking a button or two that (some days) I wish I didn't have anyway, as they lead to more problems than they solve in some cases. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Gwynand

Gwynand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) So I'd thought I'd take a shot over here, although probably in a different way than those above. I have a specific situation I was involved in (nothing too controversial or juicy, sorry), but I'd still like to discuss and get feedback on my actions. Of course, if anyone wants to comment on me otherwise, feel free. The situation doesn't really have much to do with admin tools, but I feel like it involves difficult judgment that would be a great trait in an admin.

A little background: about 12 hours ago, I saw a new RfA pop up. I jumped right in and started researching the candidate. Pretty quickly, I noticed major issues. I typed up a strongly worded oppose with diffs and posted. Within a few hours the opposition had piled up and it looked virtually impossible that this RfA could pass.

Seeing the way the opposes were going, which were quite harsh per a BLP vio the candidate made, I went to his talk page and started this thread. So here is what I want to discuss:

• 1. I was the first oppose, a bit strong worded. A few of the other opposes were per me. I was the first to go to his talk page to comment on the RfA, I was the first to recommend withdrawal. Thoughts on the tone of my oppose, my actions in the RfA, and my somewhat early suggestion of withdrawal?

• 2. The candidate did something that I thought was pretty serious. After there were a few opposes per the answer to an optional question, the candidate deleted his answer altogether and changed it to something less likely to garner opposes. I chose not to immediately inform those in the RfA, primarily because it was already doing poorly. I thought first of reverting him on my own, or making a strongly worded comment within the RfA, letting know everyone what he had done. It felt like either would just be an (unfair) additional pile on to an already doomed RfA. At the same time, if the RfA is still open, I feel like it was the community's right to know that he had made this poor form change to his optional question.

• 3. ...and of course what I did, I told him he was wrong on the talk page (same thread as I linked above). Here's the tough part... he didn't agree with my concern, and I'm not backed by official policy on this. How should I have continued my conversation with him at that point? I hate being snooty, or (eeeegaaadz) uncivil, and after someone decides to refute you on an etiquette point, it's a tough road from there.

I know this isn't really anything too serious... I was going to wait until I found myself in some crazy drama, but it just hasn't happened yet. I'm involved at ANI a lot, but not as a party in the dispute, just as a commentator. Any comments on me, my actions, options, or just general observations about anything are welcome. Thanks, and sorry for boring everyone. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 00:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how I've pestered you at least twice about running for admin (and likely prematurely), and seeing as how I'm a co-nom of yours, I'll recuse myself. That said, I was watching what you said on Carter's talk, and on Carter's RfA, and I will say that I was extremely impressed that you kept things away from RfA once it was particularly evident that the RfA was going nowhere and in a hurry to get there. Nice work. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd support, perhaps would like to nominate Gwynand for RfA. I've seen his work before this particular RfA, which was already of a high standard but the recent opine on my talk page was the cherry on the cake. I'd be happy to, as lond as Gwynand would. Rudget (Help?) 10:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm good enough to go through with under 2k edits, it'll probably have to wait. Only at a little over 1,600 now. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? I was sure you had more.... Hm. Keep it in mind anyway. :) Rudget (Help?) 15:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

At least a few more months of solid editing and I'll see how I feel then about it. I really want to continue to help out at ANI and try to establish myself as a neutral editor who can help evaluate tough situations. I will keep in mind yours--and of course Keepers--offers, for the future. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You know that you can always count on at least my silent neutral. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the episode with User:Carter I think you did the right thing addressing it on his talk, as the RfA was clearly failing. If the RfA had been more marginal it may have been diferent. Although perhaps you were quite forceful in your comments, you displayed a tactfullness in the way you went about it. I wouldn't be concerned about this "hanging over your head" or similar. I allways read your comments at RFA with interest as they bring real value and research to the table. Pedro :  Chat  09:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Gwynand and the first bad but now good admitted sock

Thought I'd ask for some further mentoring (and maybe try to help keep this project alive). I'll try less wordiness on my part this time, just let you guys review. Check this ANI thread out from last week. After that, it spills on to Baseball Bug's talk page. I have involvement in both discussions. If people want to ask what I would do were I an admin, feel welcome. Thoughts? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was way too involved in that one myself to really objectively "rate your activity", but overall I thought you handled yourself terrifically, maturely, civilly. I was most impressed that you were able to get one particular editor (an admin) to "see reason" when others (myself included) were only able to get that editor's defenses raised. (I'm not talking about PF, I'm talking about the editor that characterized things as a "lynchmob" at one point.) The key thing that I need to remind myself more is the newspaper analogy. Today's drama is tomorrow's litterbox liner. It's a lot tougher (and sensitivity is of course necessary), when it involves editors and not articles. But most drama involves editors and not articles, doesn't it? You handled yourself very well. I've noticed the editor parade on your talkpage has continued offering nominations for adminship for you. Makes me laugh when I see them now, because I know your edit count :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

May I butt in and say that I agree? Fantastically handled by yourself, especially in comparison to some other contributors to the thread. I was glad I wasn't involved, looked so difficult, yet you pulled it off beautifully. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Matthewedwards

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
It was suggested to me yesterday that I ask for some extra tools. My hesitation is that I don't participate in XfD as either a !voter or nominator, and that I'm not much of a Vandal Fighter (I find the tools too complicated to bother with), except for when something blatant pops up on my watchlist. I know these are things which admins are expected to participate in but to be honest, I have no real interest in either, and I think the admins that do take care of that stuff do well enough anyway.

Should I become an admin the biggest advantage to me would be that I would be able to edit the syntax of protected templates which fall under WP:DOC, CAT:SHORTFIX and User:Matthewedwards/Nowrap problems and instead of having to leave a note on the templates' talk pages. Other stuff I'd be happy to participate in would be CAT:COMMONS, WP:CP, WP:PUI, CAT:CSD (esp WP:CSD#U1 as I'm an abuser of that and always feel a little guilty when I'm distracting an admin away from something that is probably more important!), WP:ACC/ADMINS, CAT:NCT and WP:UFAA.

If I were to decide to put myself up, I'd first like to know what other admins think of my wikipedia contributions in general, and what else I should/could be doing to both help address any issues and prepare me for an RfA.

When you say you find the counter vandalism tools "too complex" what do you mean by that? I find it an interesting comment! I wouldn't get hung up about not participating at XFD - if it doesn't interest you don't worry about it. As I said yesterday I'd recommend using edit summaries 100% - even if it is stuff in your user space. Blank edit suammries can be a pain for RC patrollers, but more importantly every action should have a little note for the sake of clarity. Pedro :  Chat  12:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to use edit summaries more often. I always use them for mainspace edits, but admittedly my talk and project edits could be better; they usually consist of "r" or "reply", "s", "n", "o", "support", "neutral" or "oppose" (I always thought that they'd be enough though) and my own userspace edit summaries are non-existant. Re anti-vandalism tools, usually I just read the userguide of the tools and think "this is too much for me". Perhaps if I had the program open at the same time I would think differently. Which is why I've downloaded VandalProof and Huggle today. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, I'm probably going to ask some questions to get some more specific info. First, would you feel comfortable blocking a user if need be, or might you generally avoid this part of adminship?Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

At first I don't think I'd block anyone. There are many admins who do this so well that it probably won't be something I do often. Although I don't comment, I do watch pages such as WP:ANB, WP:AIV, WP:ANI and WP:RFP, so I know the "rules" and acceptable lengths of a block. I assume I would have to do it at some point, I'd just keep watching other admins until that point I think. Feel free to ask any more questions. I'm in a writer's block right now so for the last month or so I've just milling around with not much to do. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good answer. I don't need you to be blocking someone every day, or even often (or maybe even ever), but I'm glad you mention you understand some of the protocol on it. I think when one becomes an admin, they don't need to be involved in the drama areas per se (ANI, AN), but should be aware of them, check on them occasionally. See who is getting blocked for what, for how long, etc. An admin, even the uncontroversial heavy-in-to-article-writing types can get mixed up in some serious drama. It would be good that when they do, they have a solid footing in the murky waters. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Echoing Gwynand, I often peruse not just places like WP:ANI but also places like Category talk:Candidates for speedy deletion. Reading and learning, whilst not identifiable directly through edits, are vital to be effective. An example - recently WP:CSD#A7 has been modified slightly so that an external reference can be seen as an assertion of notability, even when the text in the article makes no assertion. I never commented on the change but I am aware of it through following the debate. I bet a lot of editors aren't even aware of it. It's so easy for new stuff to "slip under the net". Pedro :  Chat  08:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I missed your comment here Pedro, sorry. I'll take a look at the links. Meanwhile if anyone has anything new to add/ask, please do. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Gazimoff

Gazimoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've been thinking long and hard about this approach, as there seems to be an impasse at this point after someone starts editing Wikipedia. I've been through a form of adoption with Krator, who helped to guide me through my early days here. Although I didn't have any structured adoption programme, I've been mostly feeling my way, asking questions as I go. I started of working on WikiProject Video Games, branching from there to the occasional AfD and performing a mass of cleanup work on articles that had unclear notability, either by prodding/nominating them for deletion, or by sourcing and structing them. My single GA, 24: The Game came from that work. From there I moved on to the Warcraft taskforce and created Gameplay of World of Warcraft, while cleaning up World of Warcraft as a result. I've also done the occasional peer review and GA review, again for videogame related articles.

More or less parallel to this I started taking an interest in the processes of Wikipedia, partly due to the banner messages people recieved and partly because I felt I could help. I started researching the structures upon which WP was built and the processes that supported them. It was then that I offered to help with WP:RfA by putting together the RfA review process. This work is still incomplete and is something I've hit a bit of a brick wall with, moving back to article work while I overcome the block. I also perform vandalism reversion when I'm not doing article work or reading, mostly using Huggle. I only tend to revert and warn blatant cases of vandalism - if it's unclear I'll let a subject expert handle it - which is why my AIV count is so low. I also use IRc to keep track of the help requests channel and respond to {{helpme}} or helpdesk requests where I can. I'll occasionally do template work as well, usually on request. I've also recently started helping out at WP:ACC, again in order to try and assist the project when I'm not working on other items or to take a bit of a break.

So, why look at mentoring, rather than an editor review? Well, I went through one a short while back, where several of the responses seem to have been to encourage me to plan for an RfA. While it's encouraging to receive such feedback, since then the RfA climate has changed and I feel that I have become reasonably critical of the process, something that will probably do me no favours. More than that though, I would like to explore ways in which I can support and assist the community through the use of tools accessible to editors. I also didn't feel that admin coaching was appropriate, as I don't really want to see adminship as a goal to aim for. I'm hoping that this will work as a middle ground - to pick up where my addoption left off, while not pushing me along a career path. I would also like to look at developing my skills in three key areas:

• Behaviour - this is about testing out how I react in given situations, keeping calm and reasonable in the face of difficulty
• Knowledge - Looking at areas that I'm not exposed to, or have a poor understanding of and could do with improving
• Mediation - This is about working with others, building consensus, resolving disputes etc

It's important to note that I do not see adminship as a goal of mentoring, or as a goal in general. My only wish is to help the project and enjoy myself while doing so, either by developing articles or by helping people. Anything else, as they say, is a bonus.

How do I see this working? Well, getting a programme set up would be great, with some guidance or areas to look into as a start. Other than that, I'm open to ideas or suggestions. I should probably say that I don't see this as a single mentoring thing - as there are many people who have good advice and who spot me doing stupid things at different times. So, if you feel you have something to add, please feel free to add it!

Many thanks!Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've volunteered to help you through the knowledge bits, and I can help with some of the consensus-building issues from some of my more controversial exploits here. I guess it depends a) what you want to know/do and b) what knowledge you already have. So, what *don't* you know, or what *do* you know has to be the first question. I can review your contributions again (quick, I did this recently) or if you have any specific areas in mind, let me know! Fritzpoll (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge

Ok, on the knowledge front, I think I have a working understanding of the verifiability and notability guidelines, along with what represents a reliable source. This is from my work on article building or cleanup, as well as working on AfDs. I've learned the username guidelines as well, through a couple of malformed reports. I'm also fairly conversent with the RfA arena, having studied it in depth. I've worked from time to time in the GAN space, and once on a FAN, but not much more. Other than that, I think my knowledge is fairly limited, particularly in the IfD/CfD/TfD/MfD space, MOS areas, dispute resolution and anything else I may have missed. What would you suggest from here? Gazimoff ^Write_Read 17:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Read everything listed on WP:ARL if you haven't, and run through WP:NAS even though you aren't an admin yet. The lesson there on dispute resolution should also be helpful because of the concerns you have there. By reading the ARL, you should be caught up on anything you didn't know about before. Malinaccier (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a leaf through it as soon as I get a chance. Trick is though, not only learning it but also being able to develop a working knowledge of it. These are two different things, as I tend to learn by doing rather than by reading. Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 12:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, it's a question of why you want to do this, because if you don't enjoy it, you shouldn't do it. The reason for this isn't some form of slefishness, but simply because we do a better job of things if we enjoy them, and the converse is also true. For example, I've never participated at any of the areas yo mention except for AfD, and I think at one CfD. Why? Because I find them dull. I was told to spend some time working on WP:SSP before an RfA - I tried, really I did, but it wasn't good. What you might want to look at is some new page patrolling - this links in with your AfD experience, because it does two things: one, it enhances your understanding of the deletion policies, and secondly it causes you to have to think about the editor at the other end of that speedy delete. Despite the way some people treat WP:CSD tags, you need to remember that the author may not understand out notability policies, etc. So WP:NPP is helpful as experience in policy and, if you do it right, editor management and retention. Any thoughts on this? Fritzpoll (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically, it's to become more helpful and to understand how to do more things. I'll take a look at WP:SSP and WP:NPP, although I'm a bit wary of CSD tagging as I appreciate how difficult it is to build an article, although there's still the attack page, advertising and junk page tagging that can be done. I should really get back into the habit of Prod patrolling as well, although I've gown lax on that front over the past few months. Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 12:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A sensible attitude to CSD. One trick I used was to spot a violating article, and watchlist it instead of tagging it straight off. Then give it a decent period of time, and reassess it after its had a chance. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've started using WP:NPW in order to process new pages. No probs so far. Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 23:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Behaviour

Opinions. Yes, I have them. Trouble is, they don't seem to do me any favours. I'm concerned that by expressing my opinions on a subject that I'm likely to alienate people. It's one of the things that makes me anxious about RfA - I'd rather be able to express my opinions confidently than have to moderate or check them out of concern not to damage any future RfA. It's one of the reasons why I find it easier to put adminship to one side and not contemplate it - by putting it out of my mind I feel I can say what I want rather than what I should, if that makes sense. Maybe it's a testament to the way it's become so politicised, but I feel more comfortable without having to worry about politics. Is this the right approach though? Gazimoff ^Write_Read 19:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I can write something on this one, with the caveat that it's my opinion, and others' may differ. I think it is very important to say what you mean to advance your point in a debate. That does, however, come with the usual caveats of civility, dealing with content and issues rather than individual editors, and not badgering people. Discussion in a debate is about advancing points and asking questions, not hammering one's opinion over and over again without apparently listening to others. Provided you stick to these very limited boundaries, as you always appear to so far, I'd say relax and make sure you let us know what you're thinking :) Fritzpoll (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I tend to tread carefully anyway, and rely on logic a fair bit, using policy etc to back up my arguments. I've not really encountered an instance where I've been able to use WP:IAR solidly in an argument yet, but I will probably find an occasion. Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 13:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's a question then: what does WP:IAR actually mean? Fritzpoll (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a tricky one, because it comes up so rarely. But if implementing a policy in a given circumstance causes a negative impact, the editor or admin should feel that they can use common sense to override implementing that policy for that circumstance. A good example was on AN/I recently, where someone created a bot that started tagging a large collection of assumed public domain images as unsourced. While he was enacting policy, it was being disruptive. Other users started reverting the tags, but he reverted them back, again citing policy. In fact, he mecame close to infringing WP:3RR because he was rigidly following policy, as well as causing disruption to other editors. In this instance, there is a very strong case for using IAR to stop tagging, revert the remaining tags, then set up a process to validate each image one by one. This causes a smaller amount of disruption, allows policy to be enacted slowly and most importantly allows the community to work in concert rather than conflict. Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 23:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the way I read it is if the application of a policy or guideline is detrimental to the project, then we ignore it. It is, however, on of our most misquoted principles, where people use "per WP:IAR" to ignore every rule that they find inconvenient. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Content disputes

I was thinking about this, and wondered if you would care to read over Talk:Robert F. Kennedy assassination and its most recent archive. Disputes erupted a little over the reduction of content on the conspiracy theory front, and I think it might be helpful if you look at how it was handled, examine the dispute and decide what you would have done in either parties' shoes. I don;t mind if this means you decide that my approach was wrong - in fact, that would be quite good, as I too could learn! I'd just be interested in what you think you could learn from "observing" this dispute Fritzpoll (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that you handled things very well, working carefully and patiently with all those involved in order to create a solid, strong article about a historical event. No problems from what I can see, at all. Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 22:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

One thing I would say is that I overquoted policy/guidelines without really linking them to the matter at hand. For new and inexperienced users, this can be unfair or unproductive, since they may not understand. The lesson there is to understand your audience in a debate and be prepared to explain things in a detailed manner Fritzpoll (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Was anything wrong on this article talkpage thread [1] and this thread on my talkpage [2]?

Well, you tagged for a copyvio, so the editor's grievance against you in terms of improving the article is without foundation. Copyvios are a threat to the project in legal terms, so speedy deletion is the best way to go. There are always issues with the speed of notability-related tagging, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the author to provide reliable sources. Your handling of the dispute seemed fine to me. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has now escalated, with the editor reporting about it at length on his blog. Despite the fact that he fails to take responsibility for introducing a article that was a copyright breach, and despite the fact that he then proceeded to discount advice on how to prepare articles. Really makes me despair sometimes. Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 23:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and someone should really tell him that I am not an admin, but just a volunteer editor just like him. Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 23:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, don't let it get to you - some editors get a puff of righteousness, and spend days baying for blood. In a project of tens of thousands, there's bound to be a few. You've said all you can say, and I'd leave it at that unless something else comes up that noone else handles. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I noticed the AN/I thread this morning, and responded to that. The trouble is, he assumes that I didn't consider if the article could be improved. I did consider it, but it was an unreferenced copyvio of a 1 day old organisation. There's not much to draw on to improve it other than proving it exists, not that it's notable. I raised the tag after considering potential improvements, wighing all these things up. But still, what's done is done. Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly right. What you have to remember is that you can't please everyone - noone would like their article to be deleted or tagged as such. For them, it is the culmination of effort, and they're bound to be annoyed. What you did was correct, and you can see my full opinion in my reply on the AN/I thread Fritzpoll (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Well, with the matter looking to have moved on do you think I could have handled anything any better? Is there anything you could suggest that would make this smoother should it reoccur? Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 10:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I think you did pretty well, actually. It can be frustrating for both sides in this kind of dispute anyway - them because they perceive a slight, and you because you're doing your best according to general community consensus in the form of guidelines. Nonetheless, you kept your cool, and didn't make the mistake of being overly repetitive in your arguments; such repetition wins few arguments, because it assumes that the other editor hasn't read it to begin with. Your willingness to engage the editor in this kind of dispute is an excellent trait on Wikipedia. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA

So, I decided to stand for RfA, with the results being 119 supports, 4 neutrals and 5 opposes. While the supports were very encouraging, the oppose and neutral statements were also packed with useful feedback. I've gone through the responses, and managed to pull out the fllowing points:

• Positives
  • Thoughtful/clueful/civil
  • Good attitude/respectful/responsible
  • Empathy
  • Strong article building/collaboration
  • Willing to listen to feedback
  • Communicative/helpful
  • Quick learner/enthusiastic
• Negatives
  • Understanding the balance between policy and judgement
  • Low experience
  • Narrow mainspace contributions (vandal fighting and WP:VG mostly
  • Seeing adminship as gaining a level
  • Socialising with RfA regulars

With all this in mind, over the next few weeks, I'm going to be looking at building a plan to address these reasonable concerns. If you have any thoughts, opinions or suggestions on either how the RfA progressed or any recommendations on how to address these areas, I'd greatly appreciate it. I'll be inviting all those who participated in my RfA to offer there thoughts here as well, should they have any further feedback. Once again, many thanks for your responses. Gazimoff 20:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:LAAFan

LAAFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)I would like to know if there are any areas I should participate in more on Wikipedia. I primarily write articles, CSD articles, and revert vandalism, but are there any areas that I should start to work on, or are there any areas I need improvement on? Please be honest. Any feedback would be much appreciated.--LAAFan 16:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Small note, when you participate in AfDs your edit summary should include what your stance is, rather than "Participated in AFD." This is minor, however :). On another note, I believe you have a great understanding of Wikipedia as of now and do not need to have an adopter. In preparation for an RfA (which I would suggest waiting on until you've been editing for maybe 8 months) I would take a look at WP:ARL and continue doing what you're doing. Keep up the good work! Malinaccier (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User:SparksBoy

SparksBoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am interested in running for adminship (I heard this is better than coaching), however I would like to know what I should improve on, what I need to do before I submit a RFA, and what other areas in the wiki would be helpful to learn before becoming an admin. So far I have participated in a few WP:AFD including a couple non-admin closures. I am active in the WP:AFC process. For a long time I have been fighting vandalism, and I just started to work at WP:UAA. I finally got started on the backlog wikifying pages thanks to Earwig. I've done some WP:CSD work, although I can't say I am experienced at all. I am aware of the problem that many of my edits are semi-automated. Anyhow I would like some mentoring to move closer to a RFA. Thanks SparksBoy (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I am also interested in content building, but am kind of confused where to start with that.. I thought I would ask since this is "mentorship" SparksBoy (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)