User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).



[edit] Coaching

Current active participants are Nol888, Extranet, Luckyluke, Vox Rationis, Dweller, Anthony_cfc, and The Rambling Man.

This section is for exchanging advice on improving participant's Wikipedia-related skills, experience, and expertise. If you'd like others to look over your contributions and give you feedback on your activities and experience, or would like some advice on a specific area in which you would like to improve, let us all know below. Everyone is encouraged to help everyone, so feel free to jump right in and help. You'll learn a lot by analysing the contributions of others. Please add new subsections to this section at the top, rather than at the bottom. Thank you. See also: Wikipedia:Peer review.

[edit] General assignments

Hi everyone! In this section are general assignments for you to complete, to avoid having to repeat them over for each of you. Of course, you can stll expect to receive individualized assignments.

  • If you aren't yet completely familiar with proofreading and copy-editing, be sure to read those articles. Hone these skills. And be sure to read Wikipedia:How to copy-edit too.
  • Participate in VC Lesson #1. Tell us about the interfaces you use. Note that there are 2 sections: be sure to explain both your external interface and your internal interface.
  • Create a workshop page for yourself, for example [[User:your username/Workshop]]. After doing so, put the link to it at the top of your user page and talk page so that you can access it easily.
    Your workshop is an all-purpose link page that you can use for just about anything. You can use it to store your task list of articles you want to work on or create, organize the links to the pages in your userspace, jot down ideas on various projects, store your purge buttons and other controls, etc. See my workshop as an example.
  • Drag this link to your browser toolbar. Then rename it to "EC" (edit counter). In addition to this, copy the link to your workshop.
  • Until you are extremely familiar with them, you should spend some time out of each of your Wikipedia edit sessions studying the following pages and every page linked-to from them (especially the pages presented in the navigation bars across the top of each page). They will help you immensely in finding your way around Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community:
  • The same goes for the menus on the sidebar, and the submenus linked from there. Explore each link and each command until you know exactly where each one goes and what each one does. Spend extra time on "Special pages", because it has a lot of items - but the most useful one there is "All pages".

[edit] Jasz

Hi Jasz!

Welcome to the virtual classroom.

I hope you enjoy it here.

[edit] Some questions for you...

In order to gauge how rigorous your training should be, and to determine what areas to focus upon, I've got some questions for you:

How much time do you spend on Wikipedia (per week)?

about 7 hours

What have you learned to do so far on Wikipedia?

I can't remeber all of them. I know something about vandals and to fight them.

What areas do you work on the most these days?

mainly on spellchecking and deletion of bad things from articles.

What areas are you most interested in learning about?

anything good.

What subjects are you most interested in within the encyclopedia? They can be general or specific. (e.g., Geography, dogs, Joan of Arc, etc.).

countries,scientists etc.

That should be enough to get started. I'll have some more for you based upon your answers to the above. Cheers. The Transhumanist   10:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Assignments for Jasz

  • Be sure to check the general assignments section above. Those are just as important as the ones I'll be posting here...


Based on your level of participation and experience, my feeling is that your efforts would be best applied in working on articles.

With respect to countries, are you familiar with these:

v • d • e
Rankings through lists of countries
Geography Area* · Coastline · Highest point* · Lowest point · Compactness · Coast/area ratio · Northernmost point · Southernmost point · By continent
Demographics Population* (graphical · by density) · Population growth rate* · Life expectancy* · Infant mortality rate* · Fertility rate* · Birth rate* · Death rate* · Homicide rate* · Human Development Index* · Income equality* · Literacy rate* · HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rate* · Unemployment rate* · Employment rate · Population living in poverty* · Immigrant population · Suicide rate · Undernourishment rate*
Economy Current account balance* · Imports* · Exports* (per capita)

GDP

nominal* (per capita*) · PPP* (per capita* · per capita per hour) · past (nominal · PPP) · future (nominal · PPP · PPP per capita) · growth (real) · sector composition*  · demographics comparison

Debt

external* · public*

Consumption

electricity* · natural gas*
Politics and society Political rights and civil liberties* · Press freedom* · Privacy* · Perception of corruption* · Bribe Payers Index · Property Rights* · Economic freedom* · Ease of doing business* · Economic competitiveness* · Date of independence · Legal drinking age
Military Military expenditures* · Number of active troops* · Possession of nuclear weapons* · UN peacekeepers currently deployed
Environment * includes mapCarbon dioxide emissions* (per capita*) · GDP per emissions
v • d • e
Lists by country
Lists of topics Main article on each country · Country portals · Country categories · Country topics
Economy · Geography · Maps · History · Politics · Country subdivisions* · Culture · Transport · Tourism
Codes Country calling codes · FIPS country codes · Internet TLDs · IOC country codes · ISO country codes · Ship prefix
Names and symbols Adjectives · Country name etymologies · Country native names · Coats of arms · Flags · National anthems · National emblems
Politics and government Election results · Incumbents · Intelligence agencies · National leaders · National legislatures · Political parties · Sovereign states · State mottos · System of government · UN member states · Voting systems
Other data by country Abortion law* · Airlines · Armed forces · Authors · Battles · Cathedrals · Cemeteries · Cities · Colleges and universities · Companies · Currencies · Death penalty* · Education · Emergency contraception · Forex rates · Historical capitals · Homosexuality laws* · Islands · Light-rail transit systems* · Music · National capitals · National parks · Newspapers · Official languages · People · Common family names · Popular tourist regions · Railway companies · Schools · World Heritage Sites
Other lists * includes mapEU states by accession · EU states by political system · Oldest person · Tallest structures

And with respect to scientists, are you familiar with these pages:

The Transhumanist   11:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've not given you extra tasks yet, as you're yet to finish the above. --Dweller 11:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nol888

Welcome!

Well, based on your messages on my talk page, I guess you want to get right down to your first set of assignments...

[edit] First, I have some questions for you

  • Why do you want to be an admin?
    The main reason I want to be an admin is because I want to help the Wikipedia community. I want to be able to help Wikipedia and make it a good resource for years to come. I feel that the extra tools I gain as an administrator will help me achieve that goal.
  • Do you think like an admin? If so, how so?
    I'm not sure if I think like an admin, but I try to always maintain a calm composure while replying to comments and editing articles.
  • Do you act like an admin? What activities and chores do you engage in that are administrator-like?
    I am pretty sure I act like an admin. I actively participate in XfD discussions, RfA, and the like. Often I scan through the Articles for Creation page and clean that up. I participate on the noticeboards sometimes, and nominate articles for speedy deletion.
  • In what ways do you help other users?
    I help other users, by most of the time, not adding substantial content (although I do have my share of good contributions), but by reverting vandalism and keeping that content the way it is supposed to be.
    How do you help other editors?
  • What departments on Wikipedia are you involved with?
    I'm involved with several Wikiprojects. I am part of the Anti-Vandal Unit, and I participate in the Welcoming Committee. I've recently joined the Aviation Wikiproject, and am always looking towards other ways I can participate in Wikipedia.

[edit] Assignments for Nol888

  • Participate at Wikipedia:Editor review, by asking the editors questions and by reviewing as many of them as you have time for.
  • I'm trying to review the editors as well as possible, but I'm afraid I'm not really good at giving constructive criticism.
  • That's what practice is for. Just keep at it. You might try different approaches, like comparing them with yourself to see what they are doing different. In each case of difference, which approach is better? That might give you some insight into how they can improve. You could recommend your way of doing things if your way is more effective (faster, more efficient, higher quality, etc.). You could also compare them with more experienced editors, for additional insights. The Transhumanist   08:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Good job so far. Be sure to look at their actual contribs, and not just the edit counter.


  • I'd like you to get further policy exposure at by proofreading the pages on the List of policies. You'll be killing two birds with one stone - reading and improving the policies. To begin with, focus on fixing typos and grammatical errors. (If you want to change the meaning or content of the policies, please make suggestions on their talk pages.) I'll be watching your contribs so I can provide comments, guidance, etc. Work on them a little each time you log on.
  • I'm about 1/4 way through the policies, there are quite a few typos.
  • Where are your fixes for the typos you encountered? I couldn't find them in your contributions. The Transhumanist   08:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry 'bout that. You mentioned "lots of typos", so I was looking for a big block of typo fixes. Good work. Cheers. The Transhumanist   00:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Shift the emphasis in your edits away from your userpage and user talk pages, to editing articles in the encyclopedia. In my opinion, you should have at least twice as many edits in the Main namespace as you have in any other namespace. Stay focused to a high degree on Wikipedia's articles.
  • I'm already not editing my user page and changing my status, and focusing towards the mainspace and other places.
  • Drag this link to your browser toolbar. Then rename it to "EC" (edit counter). In addition to this, copy the link to your workshop.
    Done. I actually have my edit count bookmarked, and a quicksearch to look up other users' counts.
  • Click on the EC link you just created. It should take you to Interiot's edit counter. Enter your name, and look over your edit analysis. Especially notice your mainspace namespace edit count. You need more exposure there.
    Mainspace experience...hmmm... I guess I'll try to contribute more there.
  • Maintain composure at all times. It will be expected of you when you are an admin.

As you complete the above assignments, I'll provide you with some more.

 The Transhumanist   22:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Dweller here. I'm another "coachee" and The Transhumanist has asked me to help out here. My task for you is to visit WP:Peer Review. Take a look at some well-developed (or recently archived) Peer Reviews and then please come back here and list five issues you find that frequently crop up. --Dweller 15:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extranet

Ready to get started?

An implementation of your user page menu bar, in which the icons are linkified, can be found at: User:The Transhumanist/User page design/Menus.

Skim Wikipedia's Help pages. Then let me know which area you are most interested in improving first.


The Transhumanist   09:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

For your first reccomendation about the user page menu bar, I have already tried this and it goes wierd when loading the page. The linked images actually go off the bar - I don't know whether its a browser glitch, but I left a message at the help desk and they simply told me not to use them. I am off to work now (I live in Australia) so I will follow up your second question of which area I need improving. Also, many thanks for being my tutor - it's much appreciated. Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 20:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
As for my areas for improvement, is there any places you would suggest? Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 05:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The main namespace. That is, editing articles (including lists and glossaries). Please pay special attention to "See also" sections and how they link articles together. The Transhumanist   03:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I'm game to improve and be coached on that area. Let me know what I have to do. Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 12:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Start with proofreading and copy-editing. Hone those skills. And be sure to read Wikipedia:How to copy-edit too. The Transhumanist   07:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
With the copy-editing, I seem to go well with doing that. A few diffs include 1 and 2. I will try to do some work on proofreading. Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 07:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
On your first diff, you included a reference to the Gameplay section of the article. You should use section links for those, instead of quotes, like this: [[#Gamplay|Gameplay]]. The Transhu   20:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Thanks for that recommendation. I have been busy with work this week but I hope to get some things done on the weekend. Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 11:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Dweller here. I'm another "coachee" and The Transhumanist has asked me to help out here. My task for you is to visit WP:Peer Review. Take a look at some well-developed and recently archived Peer Reviews and then choose an article newly listed there and give a detailed critique on its Peer Review page. Then please come back here and let us know where we'll find your posting. --Dweller 16:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would actually enjoy doing that quite a bit. My first critique is at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Gabriel_Ferrari. Tell me how to improve if you wish. Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 06:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
A nice start. If I was being critical (which I suppose I need to be), I'd note the following:
  1. Bulleted or point by point comments make it easier for the nominator to respond / deal with the issues
  2. Specific comments are the most useful - request for a photo is easy for the nominator to respond to, but "this article needs a fair cleanup" is vague. Try "Have you asked for a third party copyedit?"
  3. If I read that an article I'd worked hard on was "around a 4/10", I'd find it disheartening. Your rating isn't really what's needed - it's what suggestions you have for improving the article
  4. My Peer Review for that article would start by requesting more citations for claims made in the article. I'd also be asking about his life outside of football and I'd note the redlinked Category, and the fact that there must be more Cats that are appropriate.
However, those comments notwithstanding, it was a pretty good first stab and I've seen many worse. Best of all, you got the overall tone right. You didn't hector and you were clearly trying to be constructive. Doing the opposite in Peer Review, Editor Review or the FA/GA nominations is a big no-no. I'm interested to see the nominator's response.
So, a good start, well done. As your next task, I suggest you visit a dozen or so well-developed Peer Reviews and come back and post half a dozen "frequently made comments" by reviewers. --Dweller 15:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for not replying so swiftly as I do have work during the week. Six frequently made comments that I came across on most Peer Reviews were:
  1. "The article needs a fair cleanup"
  2. "You could add some pictures to describe the topic more"
  3. "Maybe if it is too much of a stub, you could merge it with another well-developed article"
  4. "The start of the article could be extended more as per WP:LEAD"
  5. "The article needs to be slimmed down to reduce page size"
  6. "Include more references for extra information sources"

I compiled this list throughout the past reviews in the archives. Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 11:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice one. Three new tasks/questions:
  • a) Of those six, which one do you think was the least helpful to the editor/s working on the article?
  • b) WP:LEAD is an important policy, often neglected by newbies possibly because contravention of it doesn't lead to deletion(!) Fine three peer reviews for articles that you believe contravene WP:LEAD in different ways. Make your comments and then come back here to point to what you've done.
  • c) Pictures are a hot topic and tricky to get your head around. I know, because I've only just got my head around it... and I'm not convinced I fully "get it" yet, either. Have you successfully uploaded any images to-date? --Dweller 11:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are the replies to your questions:

  • A) Of those, the third one ("Maybe if it is too much of a stub, you could merge it with another well-developed article") would be the least helpful because some people do find merging a very hard task (as per personal experience).
  • B) I couldn't really understand your question quite correctly. I know you asked for three, but two peer reviews I looked over need consideration of WP:LEAD. Constitution_of_Belarus (review) and Crash (song) (review).
  • C) Yes, I have uploaded a few pictures to Wikipedia. Some include the following:

Lightning strike in Sydney, Australia

South Bank Lagoon

South Bank Vine

ADSL modem chip

--Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 09:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luckyluke

Hi Luke,

Thanks for choosing me as your coach. I hope you find my assistance, and that of the other participants here, helpful.

I've taken a look at your edit count breakdown, and it shows lots of experience in the main namespace, which is good. Now that you would like to get more involved in Wikipedia's administrative side, you should focus more attention (than you have been) on editing (proofreading, maintaining and improving) pages in the Wikipedia namespace.

I'll do a more thorough examination of your contributions as I find time.

I've posted some tasks for Vox below, and based upon what I've seen so far of your contributions, all initial six tasks I assigned to him apply to you as well. Number 5 is a fairly long-term endeavor, but the other five go very quickly. Let me know here when you have completed those (except #5), and I'll take a look.

When you are done with those 5, I'll have some more for you. Each day that you log-on to Wikipedia, you should devote some of your time to #5 (reading/proofreading policies), until you are very familiar with them.

Have fun...

...and may the Force be with you.

(couldn't resist)

The Transhumanist   20:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Transhumanist,

Thanks for being my admin coach and helping me getting started. My progress so far as to the initial five tasks:

  1. Working on it.
  2. Workshop page has been created @ User:Luckyluke/Workshop. In addition, I have also added an adapted navigation bar to my userspace, from Vox Rationis.
  3. Edit count link has been created and appears on the Workshop page.
  4. Have reviewed my Wiki edit history as provided by the edit count link.
  5. Always taking taking the time out of each log-in to look at the list of policies.
  6. Should I still sign up for an editor review if I've recently had one?

Luke! 05:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm sure we have a lot to teach each other. Don't hesitate to provide me with observations or advice. I can use as much of it as I can get.
Since your original Editor review didn't have much feedback on it, I've put it back up on the ER page. Be sure to reread the instructions for the department, cuz they've changed some. I've also added some questions to your ER.
So you'd like to be an administrator, eh? Lesson #1: Train your eye. Whenever you visit a page, answer the question "is this page fulfilling its mission?" If not, determine how it is falling short, and then prioritize the work that needs to done on it in relation to the other things you are working on for Wikipedia. Work on highest priorities first. There are three approaches to helping any page:
  1. work on it personally
  2. call other Wikipedians' attention to it
  3. both
So if you don't have time to work on it, maybe you can find others who do.

Hi Transhumanist, I noticed that you re-added the {{VC Assignments}} template back on to my user talk page. I understand that one of the conditions you set out was that I display it on one of my user sub-pages. I've already added the template to my Admin Workshop subpage. Is it ok there or do you prefer it on my talk page? Luke! 22:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's perfect. I didn't see it there. Good work. The Transhumanist   03:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

So, it has been pretty quiet here on my front. Just wondering if there is anything else that I should be paying attention to besides the one's I'm working on below? Luke!

I've not given you anything further, as you've not yet reported back on your existing assignments. --Dweller 11:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Assignments Progress:

  1. Have studied and will continue to study edit histories of experienced editors.
  2. Pretty much same as number 1.
  3. Answered the questions on Editor Review.
  4. Gave Dweller a question.

Luke! 19:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further assignments for Luckyluke

  1. One method of advancing your wikiskills is from role models. So during your training, from time to time pick an experienced editor or two and study their contributions. Don't just look at the contribution list, study each contribution. Try to understand why they did what they did. Also use your edit counter to help you analyse their contributions. Be sure to study their logs too (the links to the logs are located at the top of the contribs page).
  2. To find role models adapt the suggestion at User:The_Transhumanist/Virtual_classroom#Asking users directly.
  3. Check out your Editor Review - there are some new questions there for you.
  4. (Dweller being cheeky) Grill me more. Your first attempt was excellent. --Dweller 13:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vox Rationis

Welcome, Vox Rationis, we're glad you can join us...

Here are your initial assignments:

  1. Help us grill Dweller, in his section below. That is, ask him questions about his Wikipedia skills and experience.
  2. Create a workshop page for yourself, for example User:Vox Rationis/Workshop. After doing so, put the link to it at the top of your user page and talk page so that you can access it easily.
  3. Drag this link to your browser toolbar. Then rename it to "EC" (edit counter). In addition to this, copy the link to your workshop.
  4. Click on the EC link you just created. It should take you to Interiot's edit counter. Enter your name, and look over your edit analysis. Especially notice your Wikipedia namespace edit count. You need more exposure there - see the next task...
  5. Proofread the pages listed at List of policies. Don't worry, you don't have to complete them overnight. But portion a decent percentage of your wiki-time to proofreading them. Fix typos and grammatical errors. (If you want to change the meaning or content of the policies, please make suggestions on their talk pages.) I'll be watching your contribs so I can provide comments, guidance, etc.
  6. Sign up at Wikipedia:Editor review.

If you have any questions, well, that's what this section is for. Ask away!

The Transhumanist   21:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Nice job one your user page header. Very useful. By the way, it's a requirement for admins to be accessible by email, so I was very pleased to see that yours is activated. The Transhumanist   21:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've had intentions of improving it (and my whole userpage, now that I am learning tidbits of basic HTML via Wikipedia) with graphics, but haven't really had the need or desire to do it, since the one I now have works fine...I've started reading through policies, most of them I've skimmed or read minor sections of in the past, but I already finished WP:3RR (hopefully my fixes were appropriate, I tried my best to support them by looking in the Manual of Style and various grammar websites). Also, may I ask what my "Workshop" page will be used for?--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 21:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Generally, while a sandbox is for tinkering and draft-writing, a workshop page is for linking. It serves as both a bookmark page and notepad. You can use it to store your task list of articles you want to work on or create, organize the links to the pages in your userspace, jot down ideas on various projects, store your purge buttons and other controls, etc. It is an all-purpose link page that you can use for just about anything. See my workshop as an example. The Transhumanist   18:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
And please don't overlook #1 on your task list. Dweller is definitely an advanced user. Analysing experienced Wikipedians will give you lots of insight into your own activities and ways to improve them. I consider #1 the most important task on your list. Use the edit counter on Dweller, go to his user page and look over his contributions (clicking "User contributions" on Wikipedia's toolbox menu), etc. Find something to ask him about. Ask questions about his opinions, his wiki-philosophy, his activities, particular edits, etc. Anything Wikipedia-related. Your questions will also help Dweller practice presenting himself and get used to being scruitinized, which is exactly what happens at RfAs, RfCs, Wikipedia's various reporting boards, etc. The Transhumanist   19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Your proofread/edit of WP:3RR was excellent. The only thing I need to point out is that we generally don't change acceptable British spellings to American spellings. And they don't change our spellings to theirs. All major varieties of English are acceptable, because the English Wikipedia has English editors, Canadian editors, Australian editors, etc. We peacefully co-exist. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). The Transhumanist   08:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for the long delayed response. I have been on an unofficial wikibreak due to school, vacation, and my recent upgrade to Windows Vista Ultimate. Now I have mostly returned and will pick up where I left off. I understand the British brawling rules from the Manual of style, however, I had a bit of reasoning behind my spelling changes. I changed the word ”behavioural” because the policy was under the " behavior ” policy group, and it was spelled in the American Standard, so I assumed that we would want eight uniforms spelling as mentioned in the Manual of style. Also I change "libelous" to the American spelling because Wiktionary refers to the for spelling as being ” commoner British spelling", so I assumed that it was not a standard for spelling, and should be changed. Also, the article on the libel uses the American spelling, so I figured we want the two to match. I realize that I may have extrapolated some of the guidelines of the Manual of style beyond what they are intended to, but that was my rationale nonetheless. On a different note, now that I received Windows Vista I can use " voice recognition” technologies to better write Wikipedia's articles. We shall see how well it works, because it has been known to create some inaccuracies. (There may be some such inaccuracies in this reply right here, as it is being dictated.) Also on another subject, now that I have a headset for my computer, I was considering volunteering for the "spoken Wikipedia" project. Over the next couple days, I will be catching up on my watch list, and once have completed that I will get back to the tasks that you assigned me.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 04:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've not given you any additional tasks, as you've yet to complete the above. --Dweller 11:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dweller

Ready for the 3rd-degree? Okay, here goes...

  • What's your favorite aspect of Wikipedia (the thing you like to work on the most)?

This changes, from day to day, hour to hour. It's also changed as I've gained experience here. If you don't mind, I'll meld in the Why to this section, because I'm going to be awkward and give more than one answer.

Currently, I very much enjoy putting in quality spadework to get articles promoted to FA. I've done 2 and a third is close to FA status. I've worked in collaboration with some cricket WikiProject editors but my greatest partner in crime has been the indefatiguable Rambling Man, who (let's be fair about this) has done most of the work on the 3rd article.

From these activities, I derive considerable enjoyment. FA is the highest level of approval available in Wikipedia for an article's quality, as opposed to the merit of its topic.

I like to counter-point this (sometimes wearing) work with a mix of RC patrolling/Vandal bashing/Welcoming newbies/Conflict resolution and what I think of as "librarianship" at some of the ref desks. The first three are usually fairly easy to "get through" with a modicum of time invested, in other words, they're the exact opposite of the FA work - small investment for a small improvement here. Conflict resolution is something I find deeply satisfying. I like to do this from time to time. It takes a lot of time and effort and I try hard to be smart, so as not to antagonise situations further. My style is to be unilateral and make an effort to come out of left field. There are plenty of formal systems for this and currently, I'm not too interested in joining them. I hope I'm making a difference. Finally, the much-maligned Ref Desks. I think these are great. I dip in and out and make use of my own general (and specialist) knowledge and my Googling/WP-searching abilities. I spice it with a modicum of humour. I've learned not to make the first answer to a well-intentioned question too jokey.

I hope that just about covers What and why. Feel free to query me and point out where I'm outta line.

  • Why?

See above.

Ah. I'm rather low-tech. I've been using pop-ups for a while. I find it pretty useful, but it has some rather irritating aspects during editing, particularly when trying to cut and paste text that includes wikilinks. I had a comment from Glen that I should subst my warning messages. The ensuing debate (my atttidue here is slightly cocky, but I stand by it) led to him trying to boost my wikielbow by giving me "non admin tools". My monobook looked fabulous, the tools seemed brilliant... for the 0.3 seconds I could access Wikipedia before my humble laptop crashed. Again and again. Sadly, I've reverted back to simple pop-ups and I'm frankly reluctant to try out too much with my monobook. I am tempted to try downloading Firefox and give that a spin, but as I only own one of the machines I access WP from, I'll only tinker with that one. I occasionally make use of an edit counter (I placed a shortcut on my user page). I find this moderately interesting in an admittedly slightly self-absorbed manner, but I'm hardly obsessed with edit count etc. Mostly, I it's because at heart I'm a bit of a geek who likes stats. Recognise the cricket fan in me?

Glen's intervention was hugely welcome and disappointingly abortive. I recognise from pop-ups weedy abilities the utility of some of the tools that are out there, but I'm a little afraid of pushing my creaking kit too hard.

  • What areas do you think you need the most improvement in?

Policy, policy, policy. In answer to the next question, yes, I've read them, but reading em and absorbing em is two different fish. I recently was rightly upbraided for speedy tagging repost on a reposted article that hadn't been to AfD. I wasn't aware of the issue, though I've read the speedy criteria umpteen times... I must have just missed the detail, which is worrying. Interestingly, I then found it interesting that an admin can salt an article that's being reposted without having been to AfD. I find that contradictory. Ho hum. Anyway, my main point is that I was shocked to have made such a basic mistake.

I've been participating in XfD to hone my antennae. My modus operandi has been to find debates where I'm the first opinion, or at least an early one, so I'm unaffected by others' opinions, other than the nom. When I first came to Wikipedia, I was definitely inclusionist, but I now find myself more of an appropriatenessist.

Other than that, I think I'm pretty good on civility. I have had a very occasional aberration. I am very keen to reduce those to a nil level as an ongoing platform. Whether it's my fault or not, I pride myself on apologising for even an accusation of incivility and doing my best to redress the situation. In my opinion, if I've upset someone, my intentions at the time are irrelevant and at the least I'm guilty of clumsiness. This of course applies to good faith editors. I'm polite to vandals (I try to encourage them if I detect a chance of redemption... I quite like the {{silly}} tag, as it is less confrontational than others...

Interesting question. No. Many are not relevant to me. For example, I will never run a Bot and rarely participate in Bot related interaction.

Obviously, I've read the most relevant policies (3RR, Vandalism etc) which apply to work I do. But what I've found is that I read the policies as I uncover a need to use them. For example, I've recently discovered WP:RFCN and before I began interacting there (nice debating chamber) I read WP:U, as you'd hope (and expect!).

More to the point, if I might redirect the gist of your question, I find myself querying whether I really understand the policies and can apply them correctly. As I've already indicated, I have cause to question myself with these big questions. My best options, all of which I've undertaken, are:

  1. Keep re-reading the policies
  2. Interact vigorously and using justification (few "per nom" comments from me) at places like XfD, WP:AIV, WP:ANI and WP:RFCN
  3. Occasionally drop in to respected admin's talk pages and suggest what I think an appropriate course of action would be and check they agree (and if not, why not)
  4. Editor review
  5. Erm... admin coaching. <Grins>

Fortunately, I would modestly say that I respond well to constructive criticism and indeed welcome it (I seek it out - see 3, 4 and 5 above). I have learned tons since my first tentative steps here (check this for an embarrassing early edit, although in good faith of course) and I fully expect to continue learning, possibly by making mistakes and possibly after any successful RfA. I have heard that admins are human and occasionally get things wrong... --Dweller 11:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's a start. More questions to come after you've answered those. The Transhumanist   05:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for this. I'm raring to go and hope to learn lots, so please find my weaknesses! I'll be kicking this off, most likely, tomorrow (Monday). --Dweller 10:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Glad to have you here. I hope you have fun. You can post your answers above, indented under each question. And more questions will be coming! The Transhumanist   17:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Email activated. Good. The Transhumanist   21:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Some comments on the answers you posted above...

Understanding of policies lies in their context. Some ways to understand policies better are to:

  • Read a policy's talk page and talk page archive. The archive may provide the initial discussion and reasoning for why the policy was created (though you might have to search further afield to find them). But what you will find for sure are endless debates over each policy's purpose and the justifications and criticisms of it and its various clauses. I.e., a policy's context.
    • Yes, you're right (of course). I'd worked this one out, but I've been too lazy. Some of the policies and guidelines have masses of back history. I've had some interaction at WT:N (can't remember the detail) - it's a hotbed of antagonism between the inclusionists and deletists in particular! (10 pages of archive). If you don't mind, this will be one option I'll be leaving till later in the process, though I definitely appreciate the rationale, which is clear and sound.
  • To be exposed to policy context in general - and the attitudes, principles and philosophies that underlie policies - you could regularly read and participate in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).
    • Great idea. I'll make a point of doing that. I've added it to my watchlist.
  • Another very good place for learning policy context is to see how they are actively applied and enforced at Wikipedia:Administrators' notice board.
    • Yes. Until pretty recently, I was deterred by its name and <blushes> thought non-admins shouldn't post there. I know, I know. Funny, because I have plenty of edits to AIV and ANI. Perhaps because they're more task-focused. (Actually, on reflection, I was very nervous when first posting to ANI).
  • Content-related policies are discussed a lot in Wikipedia:Deletion debates and at Wikipedia:Deletion review.
    • I'm increasingly interested in these. I stepped up my contribution to XfD a couple of months ago and that has naturally led to interest in those areas.

The Transhumanist   18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


To track down the cause of your laptop crashes, add one tool at a time to your monobook.js, and use it for awhile before adding the next one.

Yup. I tried that in reverse (see the history) but might try it forwards too. I also cleaned up my hard drive a fair bit, so may get a better result.

Some more questions for you:

  • When you need to find a particular word in the edit window of a long article, how do you do it?
    • Control F
      • You mean that finds them in an open edit window (after you've clicked "edit this page")? Wow! what browser do you use? The Transhumanist   00:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I thought for a moment that I'd written something stupid, but I just "Control F"d to find the word "Control" in order to respond :-) I'm using IE version 6.0 on this particular machine. --Dweller 09:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What methods do you use for searching and relacing?
    • Yes, you asked me that on my talk page. Do you mean within text? I don't do an awful lot of that. I'd use Control F. I don't run AWB or any automated tools if that's what you're asking.
  • Do you spellcheck the articles you read, edit, and create?
    • Yes. I'm quite pedantic about typos and glitches.
  • How?
    • Well, I don't use the Preview option as much as I should, although a recent decision to try to remember to do so is paying dividends! I have a certain amount of, shall we say, "expertise" at proofing. I'm surprised when someone else needs to pick up on a typo of mine, though always pleased it's been corrected. (So long as it's not a fallacious correction!)
  • What methods do you use for finding what you are looking for on Wikipedia?
    • Gosh, that's a broad one. Well, the search box is quite useful <grins> but I supplement that with using list articles, Categories and links within relevant articles. I also resort to Googling sometimes.
  • What browser(s) do you use?
    • IE v6.0
  • What browser extensions do you apply to studying and working on Wikipedia?
    • Just Pop-Ups at the moment, for reasons I've already documented :-( --Dweller 09:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • What I meant was browser "plug-ins". (Firefox calls them "extensions").
        • Sorry, that's my lack of tech skills. None, I think. --Dweller 09:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Transhumanist   19:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Question from Luckyluke:

  • Hello, I'm one of the newer students that Transhumanist has taken on. A policy-related question for you, as an admin, should you choose to, you will have to close AfD discussions. You have mentioned above that you wish to become more involved in XfD's to better understand policies. Since my time on Wikipedia, October 2004, I have seen a growth in articles about educational institutions (public high schools, private schools, private universities, public universities, etc.), what are you views on the notability of schools given that the formerly proposed notability guidelines for schools were not adopted? Luke! 05:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi. That's a really good question. When I first started coming across these (very early in my time here - indeed, my first ever edit was to a school article) I found it quite easy to apply WP:N and WP:ORG criteria. It's blatantly apparent that there are highly notable schools. It's equally clear to me that the nursery school round the corner from my gaff isn't notable.
    • I saw WP:SCHOOL and it's talk page and found myself inclining with those who disagreed for the need for the guideline. If anything, all that was needed was a gloss to WP:RS, but I'm not even sure of the need there. Any school that's notable will have been the subject of comment in a reliable source or two.
    • Claims of notability are of course more controversial and I'd be looking for clear consensus at AfD if the only claim was something like "<notable person> attended <this school>." (but I think that'd be enough for me to disallow a speedy) if that were the sole claim for notability. In essence, distilling my ramblings, speedy keep/delete options would be reserved for the clearer, less contentious issues where there is consensus (Shimeru's summary here is handy).
    • I'd make no distinction between the notability requirements for private and government-funded schools.
    • In terms of colleges and universities, I believe that properly accredited colleges and universities (which should almost certainly carry heavyweight WP:V anyway) are pretty much automatically notable. The difficulty comes with the proliferation of "send a cheque and your PhD is in the post" institutions. These are a minefield and I'd handle with extreme care. Indeed, I'd rather not touch 'em. I've come across these before in RL and they're slippery eels. However, heavyweight RS won't be verifying them. In short, I'd not close any speedy or AfD for a university unless it was a Keep based on heavyweight RS. For Delete, I'd avoid speedying but would consider an AfD WP:SNOW close... but it'd have to be a veritable blizzard. Admins should know their shortcomings.
    • Thanks for the excellent question. --Dweller 10:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for Dweller, round 2

Please provide the links to your FAs so we can learn from your activities and progress there. -TT

Hi there. Sure... I'm proud of them. All three (to-date) have been collaborations with User:The Rambling Man. Here they are, with some comments:

  1. West Indian cricket team in England in 1988. Our first effort. An article I began shortly after arriving at WP, which got on the main page as a WP:DYK, something I'd found immensely satisfying. We had a little help from the Cricket WikiProject.
  2. Paul Collingwood. We responded to an "advert" by User:Blnguyen (yes, it's a redlink), asking for help getting some cricket bios to FA in time for the impending World Cup. This was the first of two that we did. Blnguyen helpfully pointed to a bunch of bios with decent usable photos - one of the biggest problems to overcome. TRMan chose "Shep". There was considerable help from the Cricket WikiProject, in the enthusiasm garnered by Blnguyen's ad. Incidentally, TRMan and my posts at the WikiProject page stimulated the creation of a WikiProject "collaboration of the month".
  3. Adam Gilchrist. In all fairness, TRMan did most of the work on that one, with me chipping in. We had much less help from Cricket WikiProject members.

We're also close to taking Ipswich Town F.C. to WP:FAC. It's currently at peer review. We're waiting for a copyedit, as we dislike taking material to FAC until we're confident it's close to "approvable". Finally, we've just started work on our latest project, Norwich City F.C. --Dweller 11:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What have you learned about getting articles through FA, that isn't covered in the instructions? -TT

Gosh. Lots. I'll try to distill it all. Some of this is in the instructions, but is worth picking out.

  1. Don't take an article to FAC until it's really, really good. A bunch of serious opposes begin to fill the page and make it look like a bad nomination. A good long time at Peer Review is best.
  2. Work on detailed responses to detailed objects/comments at the article talk page, for the same reasons as 1.
  3. Get the photos assessed by a photos specialist before going to FAC, to make sure all aspects of their licensing are OK. The shenanigans over the recent Main Page article Cricket World Cup losing all of its images on the very day it was featured was a horrible embarrassment to the cricket WikiProject and Wikipedia itself, IMHO.
  4. Deal with every comment and criticism without rancour. Remember that the purpose is to get the best possible article, not to bulldoze an almost-ready piece through. For that reason, thank your critics - they're doing you a favour.
  5. Number 4 does not mean that you need agree with every criticism. But have a very good reason for disagreeing. And don't do it often.
  6. Respond promptly to comments/criticisms, even with a placeholder "Good point - I'll look into it"#
  7. Be prepared to delete things (or comment them out) if they're POV or unsourcable. Even if they're (to your mind) important or really good bits of prose
  8. Be persistent. You'll get there.
  9. Ask expert editors on the topic to come and comment. Also, ask total novice editors on the topic. A cricket article must be satisfying to cricket lovers and half way understandable for everyone else. A brilliant recent Main Page FA that I (surprisingly) really enjoyed was 0.999.... I don't "get" maths, yet the article was challengingly digestible.
  10. Images help make an FA, but they can be hard to find, with the right licenses. Charts and other graphics, on the other hand, are much easier and if you can't do them yourself, ask for help from someone who's made one on another article.
  11. Start the process by adding {{cn}} tags to every single claim in the article. Then go back and replace them with proper inline citations - the "citeweb" methodology is preferred, it would seem. Position your references at the end of sentences/parags, after the full-stop.
  12. You need to read and understand WP:DASH. It's a bore, but you'll get opposed otherwise.
  13. Similarly for WP:MOS and WP:LEAD

Might add more, as I think of it. --Dweller 11:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the perfect start for a lesson. Want to convert it into one? "Dweller, on Featured Article Development". Just say the word, and I'll transfer the above to a subpage, where you and our copy-editors can work on it. That reminds me! I've got to post the new lesson.  :-) The Transhumanist   22:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Excellent idea. I'd be honoured. I'd guess that TRMan would have an opinion or two! :-) --Dweller 17:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Question from Luckyluke:

Given that we are all aspiring to be adminstrators and that you have participated in RfA discussions a fair bit, do you have a general criteria of what constitutes a successful RfA? This may sound like a stupid question given that if we all knew the criteria we wouldn't be here coaching each other. However, you are well experienced and I am interested in your views. I am most interested in the criteria you use to judge other editors - what do you look for, what pleases you, what doesn't, etc. Are there any special instances where an RfA can proceed successfully beyond the normal conventions (ex. would it be possible for a low edit count user to successfully pass an RfA, etc.)? Luke! 23:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assignments for Dweller

Until you're comfortable with policy and confident in your application of it, I recommend that you spend roughly half of your Wikipedia time on the following:

  • Join the Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates and take on mediations. You'll be forced to interpret policy every step of the way.
  • Read and keep up with Wikipedia:Administrators notice board. It's a base camp from where policy is actively enforced. And don't be shy. You can participate in the discussions there too.
  • Read/participate in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) regularly.
  • Read all of Wikipedia's policies, and their talk pages and talk page archives. (You'll find yourself looking things up a lot in relation to your activities above, but a straight read through of all of them is important as well).

The other half of your time should be spent in the encyclopedia itself. After all, encyclopedia articles are the entire point.

The Transhumanist   18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I've kicked off a new FA hunt with The Rambling Man. We're working on Ipswich Town F.C.. Our third FA was passed overnight - Adam Gilchrist (though TRM did most of the work on that one). --Dweller 15:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Update. I have now installed Firefox on one of the machines I use. I have installed a copy of your monobook and it's working (better than!) fine. I'm restricted to IE on other machines I use, so it remains to be seen if they'll tolerate the tools. Advice on "extensions" is welcomed. --Dweller 13:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have a couple of recommendations. The first, is a feature of Firefox itself, rather than an extension: tabbing. There's a section about it on my tools page. Tabs are like windows, but they're within Firefox. See Interiot's suggestions on using it in the interface section on this page, below.
The best tool I've found to enhance tabbing is Linky.
"Tab" is just another name for "window". Try the following: Select text with about 100 links in it, click your right mouse button, click Linky on the drop down menu, click "Load selected links into tabs", uncheck any links you don't want to open, click "Open selected links", and then switch to another window and do something else while those links are loading. Then come back and look at the first tab (each tab contains a seperate Wikipedia page). When you are done looking at or editing that page, press Ctrl-F4 and it instantly disappears, and the next tab is displayed. When you need to see what you are doing, tabs + Linky is faster than AWB. Tabs + Linky + a macro program is a powerful tool, and complements AWB.
Another extension I recommend is Translator. It is fantastic for viewing other-language Wikipedia's, which in turn serve as portals to the WWW pages in that each language. That is, the German Wikipedia is a great portal to the German Web.
And of course, ChatZilla. Enjoy. The Transhumanist   04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Some more assignments for you:
  • You mentioned you joined the AMA. Good for you. If you'd like to see how I've been handling my first mediation assignment, see Paytakaran. I never actually joined AMA, instead I was tapped on the shoulder by an advocate who asked me to help. I was asked to participate here, I replied both here and Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/Grandmaster here, and got started here.
    • I've reviewed the case. My goodness. I think you've done such an outstanding job, it's rather off-putting; I'm not sure if I'm as wise as you! But I'm keen to give it a shot. I'll dive in today. If you don't mind, I'll notify you here about it and ask you to keep an eye on what I get up to. Sound advice is always welcome. For that matter, I welcome it in any area of my contributions. --Dweller 12:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I recommend not setting up an AMA desk page, as it just splits up the discussion. Rather, I advise taking each case right to the talk page of the article at issue, and mediating right there.
    • Yes, seems sensible. Much like my experience of working on FAC articles. Totally agree. Will amend my AMA member details and nuke my desk. --Dweller 12:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony cfc

Hi Anthony. I admire your interest in becoming a Wikipedia admin, and I'd be happy to help you prepare yourself for that responsibility. Keep in mind that preparing for adminship isn't any different from learning Wikipedia better. They are one and the same. So concentrate on improving your Wikipedia skills in general, and more importantly your involvement in Wikipedia, and eventually someone will nominate you for adminship. Adminship is granted to those who are trusted by the Wikipedia community and who also need the tools. Examples of need include editors who are heavily involved in administrative activities like vandalism reverting. Going for adminship just because it's there, like a mountain to climb, is generally frowned upon. Adminship is an outgrowth of your Wikipedia activities, not the other way around.

So let's get started. In order to help you better, it would help us (everybody involved with this page) if you told us a little about yourself, like what your strongest areas of knowledge are, about your interests, and your Wikipedia activities and goals....  The Transhumanist   01:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

First off let me start by thanking TT and everyone involved here for accepting me, despite the fact I had to turn down the initial opportunity due to illness. Cheers a lot!
So, who am I? Well there's not much to know about me, that's not on my user page - I am almost completely internet anonymous except for my forename and home town. Who am I on Wikipedia is another matter, however. I generally vary my time on Wiki between the mainspace and the maintenance side of Wikipedia; on mainspace I am involved with Portal:Trains (Wikiproject British Rail and Wikiproject Trains) and with the article Cambuslang railway station. I have recently nominated Paddington railway station as a Good Article; I also carry out WP:GNOME duties - for example, I recently archived Talk:Spyware. Away from mainspace, I am a member of the WP:AMA, of Esperanza, the Recent Changes Patrol and the Med Cabal. I am also currently under nomination for the Med Com. In addition to this, I am a Checkuser (clerk).
My Wikipedia goals - I have only one, simple aim. I aim to change the encyclopedia in my own, small but effective ways in a civil and friendly manner.
Anthonycfc 12:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. It looks like you would make a better teacher than a student. But here, we're all teachers and students at the same time. I have a few questions for you...

  1. In what small but effective ways would you like to change the encyclopedia?
  2. Are there any other subject areas you are interested in working on? (If so, what are they?)
  3. What wiki-skills would you like to acquire or improve?
  4. And which wiki-activities do you feel strong enough in that you could write about them with expertise?

The Transhumanist   12:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are some examples of small but effective ways I have changed the encyclopedia: (a); Paddington station - GA status; and I've deleted around 5 articles (such as Jed (artist). Although these contributions are small, I feel they are effective and I am rather proud of them.
I am interested in writing for the Wikipedia Signpost - in actual fact I see around 3 or 4 stories that could be added to "Wikipedia In The News" and I also have ideas about setting up an interview system, where we could interview 1 key member of the community each week.
The main wiki-skills I would like to aquire is a thorough knowledge of Wikipedia policy - perhaps even write a central location for them all: the pages that exist only cover the main policies.
Wikipedia activities I feel strong enough that I could write about? Wikicode (<begingloat>DYK it only took me 1 day to write out my user page that I am rather proud of :)<end gloat>); neutrality; and soliving disputes.
Anthonycfc 14:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You've edited 1017 pages. That's a lot. Each taken by itself may be considered a small contribution, but taken as a whole it shows that you are systematically improving Wikipedia, and that is no small task. Thank you.

At Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/About it states: "A Newsroom was set up to facilitate discussion of stories among the contributing editors. Anyone can contribute articles to the Signpost. Suggestions and news tips from the wider community are also welcomed at the newsroom's tip line."

I just checked the newsroom, and there are requests for articles in there. The page where stories are discussed and developed is Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Other. It's a little short notice for this issue (tomorrow), but it's probably not too early to start discussing next week's issue, or articles in general. Good luck.

Please check Wikipedia:List of policies and Wikipedia:List of guidelines, and let me know if those are complete.

Ooh, wikicode. I could never figure out where to find lists of all the codes you can enter after "style=", for instance. Can you point me to those? And where are all the "classes" defined? I found them once, but I didn't make note of the page, and I've not been able to find it again since.  The Transhumanist   19:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't actively refer to a list of code - WikiFormat comes to me as easily as <nowiki> comes to most users, but I'll dig around or, failing that, try to compile a list at my user page. Anthonycfc [T • C] 12:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Can you think of a reason why I only have one barnstar? It seems to me that some users get loads and others get one (yours truly). Do you think I am doing something wrong? Anthonycfc 15:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you are not doing anything wrong. Keep in mind that barnstars are not scientific nor are they systematically applied. It's part luck and mostly it's just a matter of accumulating them over long periods of time. If you get a barnstar for every 2500 edits (not including user page edits), you're doing pretty good. The users with large collections of barnstars tend to have tens of thousands of edits under their belts, and have been contributing to Wikipedia a long time. So don't worry about it. Just do your best and others will recognize this and reward you accordingly. But remember, barnstars are more about giving than receiving. It feels good to be appreciated, and that's what barnstars are for: they are a fun way to let others know their efforts are appreciated. You can't control what others give to you, but you are in full control of what recognition you give to others, and in my opinion it feels just as good to give a barnstar as it does to receive one. So be sure to reward others whenever and wherever the reward is due.  The Transhumanist   18:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony cfc, assignments

Your current assignments are:

  1. Sign up as an admin coach, and help out on this page.
  2. Drag this link to your Firefox toolbar. Then rename it to "EC" (edit counter)
  3. Load Linky, and use it to load 50 tabs. Then use the Firefox tab commands on those tabs (see User:The_Transhumanist/Tools#Tabs_and_tabbing). Ask questions if you have any.

Let me know when you've completed those. The Transhumanist   15:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sir :P a minute or two.. anthonycfc [talk] 16:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New assignment

Now that you have Interiot's edit counter easily accessible, use it to look up each of the new students above. As you find the time, use the edit counter and the "user contributions" command on the sidebar, to do an "Editor review" on each of them, posting your observations in their respective sections above. Study their contributions, including the actual edits they made to the best of your ability.

Since each would like to be an admin someday, give them advice on what areas you believe they need to work on to prepare them for that responsibility.

The Transhumanist   21:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I relish the oppurtunity! Further note, I already had the edit counter up in my toolbars :) Regards, anthonycfc [talk] 21:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review Me!

Could you do an admin-relevant review for me, like what happened for The Rambling Man (prev. Budgiekiller) earlier on? anthonycfc [talk] 21:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. By the way, I just posted myself at Wikipedia:Editor review, to get first-hand experience of and insight into that process. Maybe we should overhaul it. The Transhumanist   22:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis of Anthony's contributions

Upon looking at your edit count, my eye is instantly drawn to two things:

1) Your Wikipedia namespace count, which is relatively low. And...

2) Your User page edit count, which is relatively high.

Therefore, slow down on user page edits, and focus more on the Wikipedia namespace.

Upon looking over your contributions, I noticed very little activity on policy pages. This is a major factor in advancing as an editor and becoming an admin, so you should really become more involved in those pages. They can be found on Wikipedia:List of policies.

I hope that helps.

Oh, and let me know if those relaxation techniques work. They sure work wonders for me. I've been using them for years.

The Transhumanist   23:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got a sockpuppet for user page edits (I often feel the need to perfect my userpage) so the only edits should be to my monobook.(j/cs)s. Any reason why I am appear "hyper"? anthonycfc [talk] 21:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It was just that the impatience you've expressed recently for your next RfA, was making me feel hyper. No big deal. I was just teasing, with the pendalum and all. As an admin, you will need to stay calm in the face of some pretty irrate jerks. I'm impressed with your composure. It wasn't meant as a test, but if it was one, you passed it admirably.
Can you channel the OCD? That would give you an incrediable advantage. Like, if you could pick an area on Wikipedia that is backlogged, and get obsessed with that? Just curious.

The Transhumanist   09:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can do that :) I think that's entirely possible, it's just that I have no control over what I obsess over, if you see what I mean! However, I was active at WP:GAC up until my break, and I cleared the 8-article Transportation backlog! Hopefully, I can use that sort of Obsession more! anthonycfc [talk] 21:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further assignments for Anthony cfc

Here are some suggested assignments:

  1. Participate as a reviewer over at Wikipedia:Editor review. You can even review me, if you want, 'cus I'm on the list!
  2. Look over the questions I've posted for the various editors at WP:ER, and ponder your answers to them.
  3. Each day that you log on, answer one question at the Help desk. Later on, as you get more experienced, take turns between the various desks (WP:VPT, WP:RD, etc.).
  4. Take a permanent link snapshot of each of your user page designs (as you complete them), by substituting all the templates, and then saving. In the edit summary include "permanent snapshot", and your name for that design, or a version number. Then revert. You could do the same for your user pages too, cuz their just as cool.
  5. Store your permanent links on a subpage, for easy access to them, and perhaps to display them on your user page by transcluding that page.

The Transhumanist   09:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA standards

The standard is that there is no standard. For an example of this, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/A-D.

The last chart on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards shows how articles are growing faster than adminships. It will be harder and harder over time for Wikipedia's admins to keep up with their responsibilities, unless an effective way to approve admins is found and adopted.

Another chart on there shows how long editors wait before going for their RfAs and their success rate. Based on this chart, it doesn't help much to wait.  The Transhumanist   02:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMK152

Hi AMK. As part of my coaching assignment, I've been monitoring your edits. I'm impressed with the sheer volume of work you've been doing. I'm also glad to see you pull away from SpongeBob Squarepants from time to time (specialization is good, but some diversification is good too). You expressed interest in preparing yourself for adminship, and one of the things that come up in RfAs is whether or not the editor needs the admin tools. Based on your editing activities, it is clear that you do not need them at this time. You get along perfectly fine without them. There isn't anything in your editing routine that really requires the mop. There's nothing wrong with this. It's just that the mop is generally handed to those who are immersed in Wikipedia's administrative chores, like closing AfDs, monitoring recent changes and fighting vandalism, departmental chores like WP:POTD, helping out at peer review, requests for feedback, third opinion, etc.

Admin rights can be particularly helpful for working in certain areas of Wikipedia:

But if you aren't interested in working in these areas, then the admin tools may not be of any use to you. There are many janitorial-like chores on Wikipedia which do not require admin tools, and these are listed in the editorial department section of the Wikipedia:Department directory. Performance in those areas are used as a guide to project how well one will perform as an admin. But before you go for adminship, you will need to know what you want to do with the admin tools.

So, if you are still interested, perhaps you should shift your efforts. Begin exploring and working on Wikipedia's "blue pages". Helping out on Wikipedia's backlogs is also greatly needed. Take a look at the Community portal and the Wikipedia Department Directory, and let me know what areas interest you the most.

 The Transhumanist   12:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General learning tip

Learn from the example of others. Pick some mentors. Choose some experienced Wikipedians you admire, and study their recent contributions (now that they are experts). You can find the most prolific and experienced Wikipedians at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Read their user pages, and when you are there, click "User contributions" on the sidebar's toolbox menu. Use the diff command to study their edits. To learn what admins do, study the best admins.  The Transhumanist   00:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Me too!

Same goes here- CattleGirl talk | e@ | review me! 23:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an easy one. Continue editing articles and reading help pages. As you proceed, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's style guides, templates, and categories. As you become more experienced in editing articles and participating in article discussions on their talk pages, delve into Wikipedia's blue pages more and more (especially Policies and guidelines and choose areas you find interesting from my reply to Budgiekiller, above). Get to know your way around the encyclopedia (see Wikipedia:Contents and Wikipedia:Navigational templates) and the Wikipedia namespace {get to know Wikipedia:Community portal, Wikipedia:Shortcuts, and the Wikipedia:Department directory like the back of your hand). In about 6 months to a year, you'll be an obvious candidate for adminship. When you feel you are ready, read all the pages on the recommended reading list above. And of course, start using the tips posted on this page and at the Wikipedia:Tip of the day project. One of the fastest ways to learn is to teach, so putting in time at the Help desk and Wikipedia:Reference desks will improve your learning curve (be sure to browse their archives too). And throughout all this, remember, be supportive of your fellow Wikipedians (see Wikipedia:Welcoming committee, Wikipedia:Barnstars, and Wikipedia:Esperanza. Enjoy yourself, and edit away!  The Transhumanist   00:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Rambling Man: Analyze me!

(formerly known as "Budgiekiller")

As I asked above, can you, from my contributions, tell me where I'm most likely to be considered weak if making an application to become an admin? Cheers! Budgiekiller 17:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As I answered above, that depends upon your approach or how you are presented. Many RfAs of specialized editors succeed on their strengths by emphasizing those strengths in the nomination. I believe that is the best (and most honest) approach. Vandal hunters are by far the most favored type of specialist at RfA, because Wikipedia needs as many vandal hunters as it can get. Trusted vandal reverters who can block vandals are in high demand.
If you still want to take the generalist's approach, then work on Categories, Portals, templates, and pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Some Wikipedia namespace activities you can try are more deletion discussions (especially the types you haven't tried much WP:MfD, WP:CfD, WP:TfD), volunteer at Wikipedia:Peer review, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Editor review, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Help desk, Wikipedia:Reference desk, participate in the discussoins at the Wikipedia:Village pump (any or all), Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (providing useful commentary and not just "support"/"oppose", etc.
When you spot a red-linked username or an IP contributing to a page send them the an appropreate greeting from the Wikipedia:Welcoming committee. Engage in policy and guideline discussions (found on the talk pages of policies and guidelines). Edit/cleanup/improve Wikipedia's help pages (some of which are in the Help namespace, and some in the Wikipedia namespace); those in the help namespace must be edited at Wikimedia (a link is always provided), except for the Wikipedia-specific portions.
Wikipedia's daily departments, such as the features on the Main page (picutre of the day, etc.) need constant volunteer support (to select and schedule the contributory pages).
Install an admin navigation bar on one of your userpages (see the one at the top of User:Rich Farmbrough's or the Go for it user page, and start frequenting the pages those link to. Hang out at Wikipedia:Administrator's notice board. And close some deletion discussions.
Basically, general involvement in a wide variety of activities on Wikipedia's "Blue pages". The more areas you have experience in, the better. Put in a couple thousand edits, amongst the areas from those just mentioned which you've participated in the least, and you should be fine. But don't resign from the article namespace. Articles are the raison d’être of Wikipedia.  The Transhumanist   00:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My areas of weakness

Hi, well here goes! Your original advice to me was to get into some of the tools for vandal hunting and also to participate in the non-admin closure of AfD's. So far I've managed to convert to a PC (from my iBook) in order to get Lupin's pop-ups working without killing my browser, and I've been approved for, and am using, VandalProof with, I think, some degree of success - approximately 1000 edits in the past three or four days.

Unfortunately it appears that VP is a bit buggy at version 1.3, I'm hoping it'll be fixed soon so I can back on it.

So, I guess my first question is: looking at my contributions, can you identify areas which I need to work on right away? I must confess that vandal hunting is my primary contribution at the moment, but I have created over sixty articles so my non-vandal mainspace edits aren't too shabby either.

Anyway, let me know what you think, and thanks for agreeing to participate in coaching me! Cheers! Budgiekiller 12:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I too would like you to look through my contributions and tell me my weaknesses as well. Thanks. -AMK152 12:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

My advice: emphasize your strengths, rather than worry about shoring up your weaknesses.

It is true that some nominees get denied admin status because they lack edits in one area or another. I think this is rather short-sighted of the people who happen to be "voting" at the RfA when this occurs, because there is no reason why a particular editor couldn't specialize and still be considered a valuable member of the sysadmin team. Wikipedia needs editors of all types and with different strengths, and that applies to sysadmins as well. I don't see the logic in demanding that system admins spread their edits out equally amongst the namespaces nor throughout the activities on Wikipedia. A sysop who specializes in vandal hunting, for instance, would most likely have more expertise in this area than an admin generalist with the same number of overall edits. And that's a good thing. If Wikipedia only had generalists, then the highest levels of expertise in each area would be lower. And that's not as good. Therefore: Viva la difference!
I've taken a look at your contributions, and both of you are very strong editors. There is no reason why you shouldn't go for adminship on your current strengths. Trust is the major factor by which editors should be judged to be worthy sysadmins. But the reality is that users participating in RfA discussions can lend their support or object for any reason they see fit, and the reasons run the entire spectrum from the on-target issue of trustworthiness to minor peripheral tastes. I've seen RfAs turned down for lack of edits (based on one's overall total and on section totals), lack of participation in a specific area like AfDs, lack of consistent use of edit summaries, for grudges held by those they conflicted with in the past (such as on AfDs, etc.), and even based on a person's voting record at RfA, or for the fact that they nominated themselves! I've been informed by some that they wouldn't vote for me because of my colorful signature, or because of the way I emphasize my VERY STRONG DELETE or VERY STRONG KEEP votes (I'm sorry, "opinions") at deletion discussions (they said it represented a bad attitude and annoyed them because it meant I was shouting). And even though this situation exists, preparing openly specifically to overcome these potential objections is frowned upon as "gaming the RfA system". There is even criticism of aiming to become an admin in the first place.

On the other hand, I've seen RfA's of extremely narrowly specialized individuals succeed with great support. So there is hope. It's pretty much the luck of the draw in terms of whomever happens to be participating on the RfA page when you make your request or are nominated.

Wikipedia needs more sysadmins. The team of sysadmins we have now cannot keep up with their maintenance duties, and the backlogs continually grow. Therefore, my best advice is to seek nomination and run on the strengths you currently have, and emphasize your strong interests in those areas in which you truly have strong interests. If you are turned down, then deal with the objections by correcting anything they've pointed out, and then ask your nominator in a few months to nominate you again, and explain at the RfA that you've worked on the areas pointed out to you the last time.

In my opinion, you are both ready to become sysadmins now. If you feel you must prepare more first, study the pages listed on the recommended reading list above.
In the meantime, there's no reason to discontinue receiving coaching here, or ever, because there is little difference between those who wish to become better editors and those who wish to become admins. Great editors make great admins, and generally get nominated sooner or later in recognition of their contributions and their integrity. Take a look at the most prolific accounts on Wikipedia, and notice the proportion of those who are sysadmins, and you will see what I mean. Being an eventualist is by far the least stressful way of becoming an admin: that is, recognize that it will happen naturally anyways.
I will continue to add new subjects to this page for your benefit and the benefit of all. I'm planning to create new sections in the future for sharing expertise on countering vandalism, running bots, AWB techniquies, approaches to resolving conflict, monitoring the state of the 'pedia, and more. If there are other specific areas you are interested in, please let me know. Sincerely,  The Transhumanist   08:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The only difference between admins and other editors...

Note that there is only one thing that differentiates between administrators and other editors. And that is trust.

Administrators gain their position because the Foundation and the Community trust them enough to allow them the use of powers which could -- potentially -- be harmful to the encyclopedia. Otherwise admins are much like other editors: some know a lot about policy and get involved in enforcing it and some don't. While it's all very useful to learn about policy whether you are intending to be an administrator or not, that isn't the critical factor in passing an RfA. The critical factor is getting the community to like and trust you and that requires showing involvement, good judgement, people skills and commonsense above all. In short you have to be seen as an active, useful and likeable member of the community. Sure, knowledge of policy helps with that but it is only part of the formula. In the end Trust is the big thing you have to gain if you want to be an admin. Lose it and you won't remain an admin for long. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/User%7EThe_Transhumanist_Virtual_classroom_Coaching_0a0c.html"