Wikipedia talk:Online Ambassadors/Mentors/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Initial observation

The mentor list is said to be alphabetic, yet it is not. What gives here, the title or the randomness? My76Strat 23:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• You can alphabetize it or remove the note if you like. I probably messed it up when I added mine (I think I noted that in the edit summary). Protonk (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm not sure what the best way to organize it is. I think Frank started it by saying "alphabetical" because that's how it is on German Wikipedia's mentoring program, Wikipedia:Mentorenprogramm. But we can do it however we want. I'm thinking maybe a better way would be, once students start signing on with mentors, to rotate it manually so that people with fewer mentees or who would like more get moved to the top and get a little more exposure. Then again, maybe alphabetical is aas good as any other method. --Sage Ross - Online Faciliator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • We could always do it the Microsoft way.  ;) Protonk (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • There really isn't a need since I've made the table wikisortable so you can click the little square next to "Name" to have it sorted in alphabetical order.Smallman12q (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• I find it hilarious that half of us have pics of the real user and the other half have either antique paintings or random images. Fortunately, nobody's put up an image of a trained monkey on a typewriter. —fetch·comms 02:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • BRB training monkey. Protonk (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Should I be changing mine to an antique painting then? Most of the ones I can find that are actually of women are, well, not what I'd like to portay ;) sonia♫ 20:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I like the piano keys. Obviously if you're going to use an old painting, it should keep with the ♫ theme.--Sage Ross - Online Faciliator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Foreseeable confusion

I am concerned that when a new user chooses a mentor, unintended consequences will ensue. Currently, when they click "choose a mentor", they are taken to an edit screen which implies they are leaving a message for the mentor of their choice. They have no reasonable expectation to know they are about to publish their response to a wider audience. Furthermore, the are invited to include information which could better be kept in confidence. I wonder perhaps if this contact might better be suited for email delivery. At minimum, some text advising these users to exercise caution, in that their response will be visible to others besides the mentor they could reasonably believe is the sole recipient of their response. I am keenly interested in other opinions in this regard. Thanks. My76Strat 04:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have just realized that some mentors edit screen appears differently than others. Therefore My initial concerns are based upon the action achieved when choosing me as a mentor, or Sage Ross, whose template I used for an example. Still a bit concerned. My76Strat 06:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that heads-up. For my page edit notice, I've added a warning note about it and an option of emailing. Bejinhan talks 06:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I modified it so it added a section to my talk page in This edit. I guess that should be standardized, Sadads (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, the students we'll be working with will already have some preparation; the Campus Ambassadors will have been in class to explain Wikipedia in broad strokes and let them know what to expect when they begin editing. Most of them will also probably have explicit instructions on how to get started. But yeah, we should still do what we can to reduce confusion here.--Sage Ross - Online Faciliator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've redone the edit-intro based on my welcome template. Feel free to improve.Smallman12q (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

IRC

Will an irc channel be set up for Public policy...something like #wikipedia-en-uspublicpolicy ^connect?Smallman12q (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

ANowlin and I were talking about using #wikipedia-en-ambassadors ^connect as a place to actually work with students. For general discussion of the project, I think #wikimedia-outreach ^connect is the place to go for now at least. If traffic becomes heavy, it might makes sense later on to create a specific channel for WikiProject US Public Policy.--Sage Ross - Online Faciliator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that irc://freenode/wikipedia-en-publicpolicy has also been reserved for this project as well as irc://freenode/wikipedia-en-ambassadors . Ambassadors will be voiced at these locations. It is recommended that ambassadors stalk !ambassador and !ambassadors from within the IRC. My76Strat 18:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't used IRC in a decade. Is there any simple resource which will get me up to speed on how to use it? Protonk (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My advice is to come on in and begin learning. User Chzz is a valuable resource for much information on this matter as well and is often available at irc://freenode/wikipedia-en-help . Hope to see you there. My76Strat 20:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This also has some useful walkthroughs: Wikipedia:IRC/Tutorial.--Sage Ross - Online Faciliator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to set up something more newbie-friendly such as a aim/yahoo/etc. chatroom? Most students will probably have experience with an IM client than with IRC.Smallman12q (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that is why they created the facebook group, and many of the ambassadors have offers on their blurbs to give the students more information for chat such as gchat or facebook chat,Sadads (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Etherpad

Has the use of Etherpad or other collaborative real-time editor been considered?Smallman12q (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Etherpad is great for some situations. I'm not sure there would be much reason to use it for our purposes, for now at least; real-time collaboration isn't likely to be necessary for most kinds of assignments. (It would be good for mentoring, except that since it's not on-wiki you can't see the relationship between markup and results.) It might a good tool for instructors who want their classes to draft articles in class as a group, as some have done.--Sage Ross - Online Faciliator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo Upload Question

Newbie here. I followed the instructions, but instead of my photo coming up with a thumbnail, it's just a link to wikicommons. Troubleshooting help anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yowitz (talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That's weird; I think you did everything right. It appears that MediaWiki is failing to create thumbnails for your photo. This may be related to the other thumbnail bug they are trying to solve on Commons. I would wait and see if it starts working within the next few days.--Sage Ross - Online Faciliator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons says There is currently a problem with the creation of thumbnails, and some may not appear at all. Please sit tight, do not remove the images from articles, and hopefully the technical wizards will get it fixed soon.Smallman12q (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Just curious...but is there any reason as to why you wrote your profile/description in 3rd person=P.Smallman12q (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ambassadors Principles

There's a draft set of Wikipedia Ambassador Principles up on the main Ambassadors landing page. Please take a look, edit and discuss!--Sage Ross - Online Faciliator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference...

...between "Available mentors" and "Additional Online Ambassadors"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

We have been using "Available" for people who can take on more students right now. Several of us already have a full load of 4 or 5 on top of other things so we move down into "Additional". Available transcludes onto pages which deal with Mentor selection,Sadads (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Students without mentors

Are listed here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

[1] Is it allowed to do that without certain... procedure? Diego Grez (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• I thought Ragesoss needed to approve people first... • Ling.Nut (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • With this edit Peter C added his name as an interested Wikipedian. It seems reasonable to assume procedure was followed. If you are suggesting that only Ragesoss add mentors, this is an interesting suggestion, but currently not the case to my knowledge. In fact I added my information after Ragesoss approved my application. It also seems reasonable to assume Ragesoss monitors this page and would likely react to an improper edit. Of course those are my assumptions. Cheers. My76Strat 16:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Yep. I'm going to say something about it soon, and actually I'm soon to contact you, Diego. Peter.C and a few others, including you if you want to join, are going to be online ambassadors-in-training and we're going to develop some training activities for teaching people to be effective mentors and welcoming teachers.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Been considering signing up for this myself over the last few days. Where exactly do I apply? It's not clear. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
        • See Wikipedia:Online_Ambassadors#Application_questionnaire. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Former ambassadors

Should there be a listing, somewhere, of former ambassadors? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll make a sub-page and add your profile.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Resetting mentee count?

Should we reset our mentee count since they're from the Sept-Dec 2010 term? Bejinhan talks 03:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I'll get to that soon if no one else does.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully I got it right. Bejinhan talks 13:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Mentees' choices

I see that the process for the current semester is, uh, proceeding. It takes me back to my schooldays, when some of us were reluctantly obliged to turn out for compulsory football training. We stood in a line and were chosen one-by-one by the two captains, and gradually the field was reduced to the oversized, the undersized, the ones with two left feet, the swots.... ah, well! --GuillaumeTell 01:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I would be more worried about being overworked this semester, and am not looking forward to working with more than 5 mentees + a class if we don't get some more Wikipedians actually. We have about 500 students potentially working with us, and about 50 or so mentors right now. Even if they break off into groups of two for every class (which many are not) we would have 5 articles apiece. Recruit your friends, we are going to need them! Sadads (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, Guillaume, some of the classes will not have students request mentors, but rather ask the ambassador program to assign mentors to the students. So that's how we'll ensure mentees are matched according to how many the mentors want to support.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In-training

Hello, I am an ambassador 'in-training'. I want to know when the next term starts, and how this training program exactly works. I couldn't find much relating to this on the Google Group. Regards, TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 05:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot you can do to help with the ambassador program as an ambassador-in-training. The biggest thing is to watch all the course pages and respond to questions and give help when it's needed on the course talk pages. Those are the main places we want to encourage students to go for feedback and help, and you can feel free to jump in and help at any time. Here's the list of course pages, most of which are already created but some of which aren't yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Courses

We're also going to be developing a training program, to make sure ambassadors in training have the skills to be fully effective mentors before they graduate to full ambassadors. That's still in the planning stages, but you'll hear more about it in the coming weeks.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Recommend review of Racepacket as a Mentor

After recent ongoing and very heated discussions with Racepacket I recommend that the members of this project review his conduct and if he displayed appropriate behavior reflective of a mentor. It is my opinion that he does not have the appropriate skills necessary to be a mentor of new users to Wikipedia. --Kumioko (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

We haven't gotten that far into the term yet, but Racepacket has been a great first face of Wikipedia for the students he is mentoring. I've seen a little bit of the dispute you two have been having lately, but maybe you could be more specific about why you think he won't be a good mentor.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well personally I believe he violated policy several times including Vote stacking, Campaigning and Forumshopping. On several occassions he misrepresented the facts of discussions when leaving messages for other users and projects with his own point of view which tainted the comments from them. Generally though I feel he acted inappropriately for someone who is representing Wikipedia as a mentor in the area of assisting new users. I can't say my conduct was perfect either however I am not acting as a mentor nor am I interacting with new users. If you want me to provide specific examples I can and again its just my opinion after dealing with him for the last 3 months. --Kumioko (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Please review Kumioko's contributions for today -- they may put the above paragraph in a different light. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific on that? Also, some here might want to check this out. Bejinhan talks 04:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"this" was an overreaction on my part. I failed to WP:AGF when making that call, and it was promptly overturned. I apologize to Kumioko. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

To answer Bejihan's call for more specificity, I was referring to, for example, this diff, which was repeated on quite a few State WikiProjects earlier. There was much related sturm und drang, as well, on WT:WPUS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If I may. I was blocked for leaving this Review recommendation. Also in regards to my activities as well as those of Racepacket I recommend looking at a wider breadth of discussions than just today. My loss of patience the last couple days was due in large part to the unending harrassment by Racepacket towards me starting back in November. I simply had enough. A quick review of our talk pages, contributions and the discussion on the WPUS should answer any questions about both our activities. --Kumioko (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been reading the AN/I discussion and I do see the merit of a review on Racepacket as a mentor due to the policy violations. Sage? Bejinhan talks 04:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Could I have a diff on what you see as policy violations, Bejihan? That's a pretty specific accusation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, that was a wrong word to use. But, I don't see how Racepacket can still be a mentor when he is having problems with other users, specifically not being able to collaborate. For most of our mentees, we are one of their first points of contact with Wikipedia editors and what kind of "impression" <I hope this word won't be taken out of context from what I mean. :) ) would this give them? Wikipedia is after all a collaborative project and I think that Racepacket should first resolve whatever outstanding issues he has with Kumioko first... Just my opinion. Bejinhan talks 05:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, how a person interacts with an experienced editor is not a good indicator of how that person will interact with a known newbie. For example, I extend far more patience and take much more time explaining things to a new editor who makes really basic mistakes, but I would not hesitate to smack a highly experienced editor for the same mistake.

What strikes me about this complaint is that Kumioko has been tied up in a huge dispute involving solely experienced editors, and he comes here to assert—without evidence—that his fellow disputant is poorly behaved in an unrelated area. No matter how sincere Kumioko is, or how merited the complaint might be, the timing and the sweeping nature of the complaint feel very SLAPPy to me. Regardless of actual intention, it looks very much like Kumioko was hoping to win the other dispute by forcing Rackpacket to spend time defending himself elsewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats a fair assessment. Not my intention at all but I can see how the conclusion could be draw. I don't claim that my actions are or were above reproach but I am also not nor do I assert claims to be a mentor. I am very direct and that is evident in the discussion. To be clear though I left the WPUS project because of Racepacket's fillibustering of the discussion but he continues to try and push his views upon the project eventhough the project members have attempted to casually, calmly and politely (as I started to months ago) that they would decide what their scope and direction would be. That is, excuse the term, evidence number 1. To answer the questions directed by Bejinhan though let me explain. Since this activity dates back to November it may be a bit long so I apologize but I will sum it up as much as I can without losing the context of a very very long discussion.

Back in November Racepacket as well as 3 or 4 other users came forward with concerns about the scope and intentions of WPUS after I submitted a message to the other projects to collaborate by using 1 banner. I knew that many of the State and US topic projects to be Defunct, inactive or Semiactive and it seemed at the time to make sense that using one banner, {{WikiProject United States}} would make things easier to pull these misc. projects together and allow them to collaborate in a central location if necessary until the defunct or inactive projects were active again. I also knew that there would be some, perhaps most, that would not want too. And that was fine. The message was taken way out of perspective and perceived as a hostile takover of the other projects by WPUS. After repeated compromises and discussions about the scope of WPUS and what articles would be tagged Racepacket continued to attempt to restrict and confine WPUS into a smaller and smaller roll so that they would only be allowed to add articles in the scope of National importance further pressing that even the state level articles (Ohio or Virginia for example) were out of scope. Even after myself and other members of the projects attempted to inform him and after the other editors who started the discussions with him had left, that the members had the right to set the scope and direction of the project and that any project had the right to tag an article with their banner without an outside edior or project telling them they could not.

This gave Racepacket the perception that the project, myself in particular where being aggressive and dismissive of others comments and Racepacket then continued to leave more and more messages and comments in what appeared to be a Wikistyle fillibuster of the topic until myself and he were embroiled in what has been termed by others as a "Slugfest". In the last couple weeks though things have been getting more and more negative and in the last few days especially Racepacket has been displaying more and more innapropriate tactics and it was most recently IMO when he violated policy. He apparently did not like how the discussions were going so he attempted to Forumshop by adding links to the discussion to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council soliciting comments. He also begain canvassing and attempting to votestack by leaving comments on the User pages of those that he new shared his views and by leaving comments on all the project pages (as can be seen by his contributions here on the Project pages and here on the user pages even encouraging a couple of users not to give up. It actually got to the point were other users including myself got fed up and began to leave the project. As I can see including myself about 6 users have left the project in the last day.

This IMO is not the conduct of someone who should be representing WP to newcomers. Aside from how they may act to newcomers, if a newcomer were to view the mentors edits to learn how to act and learn the trade so to speak from the mentors own activities it would not only reflect poorly on WP and the mentor (and me as well of course) but would likely have a negative affect on the conduct of the new users. --Kumioko (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope someone has monitored Racepackets activities the past few days. Is this how a mentor should act? Is this someone new users should learn from? I realize that some would argue I am trying to do this in reprisal but I suggest that someone look into this. --Kumioko (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Even though he has been assertive in bringing his opinion and other editors to the table, I admire the degree of rhetorical restraint he has exercised throughout the disagreement. Though I respect your frustration Kumioko, and realize that Racepacket's approach to the debate has been a little unorthodox and possibly undermining the project integrity of Wikiproject United States, I can hardly say I think that reflects on his ability as an Online Ambassador, many of us who have been around Wikipedia and have opinions have been embroiled in one of these long and drawn out opinion battles before, myself included. However, personally, I would ask that Racepacket, once the current set of policy discussions is completed on WikiProject United States, however long that takes,make an effort to let the project settle and focus on some less controversial community issues such as working with his mentees (which will require much more supervision in the next couple of weeks), and generally developing content with good faith in mind. As much as I understand the point of organizing Wikipedia's community structure, we have to remember that we are all here to develop the encyclopedia, not create complex sets of hoops for contributers to jump through, so it seems like both of you are wasting an incredible amount of time negotiating something that hardly affects our audience:the encyclopedia reading audience. I hope my opinion helps, and I know it can't smooth over all the problems that have evolved over 3 months of conversation. Happy editing! Sadads (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Although I respect your opinions its more than just being assertive or a simple dispute and does reflect repeated misconduct (although perhaps not that egregious as you put it). He has on several occassions violated policy, has attempted to Fillibuster the WPUS disussion page, tied up several of us in unending discussions to force us to implement his ideas to the point were we can do very little editing, etc. I just think his conduct sets a bad example thats all. IF the mentees start perusing his edits they might be led to believe that things like Forumshopping and Campaigning are accepteable behavior or that if they feel strongly enough about a topic they can just bombard the discussion wiht comments so that anyonen who disagrees simply leaves in frustration. Also since Racepacket does very few actual edits aside from his activity in discussions, DYK's and reviewing things like GA nominations I can't see what can be gained by his mentorship (unless you think these students will be reviewing GA's or DYKS that is). There are just so many other available and better qualified candidates IMO to choose from. IN the end its not my decision to make and its not something I am willing to fight over I just thought that his conduct over the last three months warranted dropping a note. I will leave it to you all to decide whether an example needs to be made or if the program members conduct is above reproach. --Kumioko (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that if the Ambassadors don't kick him out, they're condoning everything he ever did on Wikipedia? I really don't think that's what this board is for.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No I am not saying that but I don't agree with the indication that what happens away from the Ambassador program doesn't pertain to them either. I'm not saying that they should only allow admins or not allow anyone who has ever received a block or anything that definative. But I do not think that his record is such that would make him a good mentor. Neither has mine of late but Im not trying to be a mentor. Aside from your comments I am not the bad guy here. I have been fighting with this disruptive editor for the last 3 months and somehow I have been made out to be the bad guy because after three months I got frustrated by his incessant discussions and failure to listen. I am not going to continue to comment about what is obviously an unimportant matter. If the ambassador program doesn't care then fine, but I thought it was necessary to mention it in case they did care. --Kumioko (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to say that barring egregious misconduct, we shouldn't consider on-wiki disputes as means enough to color the reputation of an online ambassador. Partially this is because the campus ambassadors, professors and students don't usually see or care about inside baseball issues, but a far more important principle is at stake. We don't want the online ambassador program to become a de facto "best wikipedian" award. We want (speaking in the plural here, even though I can only truly speak for myself) the online ambassador program to attract people who can help newcomers to wikipedia learn the ropes. That is it. If we tack on a behavioral constraint that an ambassador needs to be free of problems across the entire wiki then we get a perverse result. Instead of keeping the program free of politics we import every possible wiki-political dispute into our selection and retention process. And because we have generated a heightened expectation for ambassadors we elevate them to a position of implicit privilege making it yet more likely that folks outside the program will want a say in who receives that additional privilege. I don't mean to say that Kumioko's concerns are parochial or trivial; instead I want to make clear that it behooves us (from a game theoretic perspective) to convincingly firewall the ambassador program from most wikipedia disputes. Protonk (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree, largely the disputes which constitute misconduct of online ambassadors should be focused on those which represent an overt hostility towards users, especially new users, and a stubborn argumentiveness when consensus clearly drives for certain changes in Content (which shows signs of inability to help students negotiate the consensus driven content development parts of wikipedia). On wiki organization or policy discussions are largely irrelevant to the role of helping students, Sadads (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Its funny you say that Sadads because that last part of your argument "a stubborn argumentiveness when consensus clearly drives for certain changes in Content " is exactly the sort of thing thats been going on with his edits on the WPUS discussion page. --Kumioko (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the disagreement is about on-wiki coordination (scope of Wikiproject and communication with other wikiprojects and users) and has nothing to do with developing articles or negotiating processes like DYK, AFD, and GA, which directly affect content. Wikiproject issues are a matter of organizing the community not content development, they only effect content indirectly, Sadads (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I just wanted to let you know. --Kumioko (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Racepacket has been indefinitely blocked for copyright violations. Bejinhan talks 07:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I hate the CCI process, it is never very open, nor very clear that blocking is the right course of action. Can anyone explain the block? Sadads (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you've seen this, but I think it's best explained in the very last part of this thread. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Anna, Thank you, I hadn't seen that particular evidence, I had read that section earlier, Sadads (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a more significant problem than anything I'd seen before with Racepacket. It may be a moot point if he remains blocked, but I'm going to propose to the rest of the steering committee that Racepacket be removed as an ambassador. Now we need to find people to take over for his mentees.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be willing to take one of them. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! How about you introduce yourself to the first one and let them know you'll be taking over as their mentor? (Sure you don't want two? ;) )--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Another of Racepacket's mentees just asked me to be their mentor, so I removed her name from Racepacket's list. There are still two students who are listed as mentees of Racepacket -- I don't know if anyone is coordinating trying to get them reassigned. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I left a note on their talk pages (as well as for the mentee who has since contacted you) saying that Racepacket was not currently available and that they should ask someone else. It looks like those two haven't been on-line in the last few days. We can't do much until they sign on and see the message. -- Donald Albury 02:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have taken on one of Racepacket's remaining mentees. That leaves one left, and he has not edited since 2 Feb, so presumably still doesn't know about the situation, yet. -- Donald Albury 21:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for Online Ambassadors

Hello all, if anyone is interested in helping out our graduate level Environmental Law Course at the University of San Francisco, please post your username on our Course Page. We would really appreciate a few more mentors as we have a class of 25 students and only 3 Online Ambassadors thus far. The students are just now picking their article topics because our only class started a week ago. This class only meets for 4 sessions (every other Saturday from 9-4 over a 9 week period) and it is always a challenge to fit everything in over such a short time period. Feel free to reach out to students if you are interested in their article topic. I have told students that they can also feel free to reach out to our volunteer online mentors. Thanks!!! Jodi.elizabeth (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Opening Mentorship to GLAMs

I would like to propose that we open up the Online Ambassadors mentorship program to representatives of GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives & Museums) as mentees - see WikiProject GLAM for background. This would of course only be for those Online Ambassadors who would wish to take on such additional responsibilities, and there is also some discussion of this at outreach:GLAM/Discussion#Taxonomy of Ambassadors.--Pharos (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What do folks think about me adjusting the front side of this page to allow GLAM mentees to sign up on a trial basis?--Pharos (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Paste it on a new line below the first "|-" in the table

Shouldn't this read "Paste it on a new line below the last "|-" in the table"? Aren't we to add our names at the bottom of the existing list? Perhaps I'm not Mentor material after all.--Wetman (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the top. That way, the new people are the first ones students see when they start choosing mentors. It's arbitrary, though; you can place your profile wherever you wish.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a new Wikipedia Campus Ambassador,and I am looking for an online ambassador to support that class I am working with. This is a graduate course at the University of Washington called Housing and Social Policy. If you are interested, please post your user name on our Course Page. The class has about 25 students and begins this Wednesday. The first Wikipedia assignment is due in a couple of weeks. Thanks. Jktanaka (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Two tables

Can someone explain to me the difference between "online ambassadors" and "additional online ambassadors"? Perhaps we can find better terminology to distinguish, if there's a difference at all. Rob SchnautZ (WMF) ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)