User talk:Zappa.jake/admin coaching/rfa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've posted my comments in red, you want to post them in another easily-identifiable color? Thanks, zappa.jake (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm glad you're putting so much thought and effort into this. I'll put my comments in green to go with my sig. I'll reply to the things that aren't that repetitive. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 23:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't have a ton of time tonight to reply to this all, I will tomorrow. Thanks a ton, zappa.jake (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the long wait! Long wikibreak - real life vacation. I leave again on Saturday for a week - sorry! This time I will probably be able to check my email and Wikipedia and stuff while I'm gone. Anyways, I guess we've realized that I've overcome some things and still are not all the way complete with others. I realize I need more article talk, project, and project talk edits - that's what I'm mainly trying to go for. Also, I archived my talk page. Really clean. I figure if you archive it, people think you're more important or something. Sorta needed to be archived anyways... So. Have any advice for me besides working on the t/wp/wpt edits? I'm approaching 3k edits, that should be fun. I think I'm going to go look at the RfA standards, and post that on User talk:Zappa.jake/admin coaching/standards. While I'm at it, I'm going to move the RfA comments to User talk:Zappa.jake/admin coaching/rfa. Thanks, later, zappa.jake

(talk) 20:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Passed 3k edits, around 3100 now. -zappa.jake (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 bad things 1.1 reasons for oppose votes 1.2 reasons for neutral votes 1.3 reasons for support votes

[edit] bad things

[edit] reasons for oppose votes

• in project-total edits ratio (my criteria is 15%), by the below count it's around 11%
  • currently at 9.227%, as of 04:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Not many people have this specific a criteria, but they like to see lots of Wikipedia space edits. (see below)
• not enough experience
• Very few project edits (currently under 200) suggests low knowledge of Wikipedia's policies. Would like to see him more active in such projects like AfD
  • 252 project edits, 13 project talk edits, as of 04:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • As I said above, sometimes raw number of Wikipedia space edits are more important than percentages. I think you'll be fine if you get this up above 400, but they also have to be in "quality" places, not just the coffee lounge. WP:AFD and WP:RFA are good places to do this, and are also good places to start to recognize fellow Wikipedians and have them start to recognize your name. Also, a good way to get Wikipedia talk edits is to keep track of Template:Cent.
• Low article (not user) talk page edits (currently under 100) suggests a need for a bit more communication with other editors
  • 131 article talk page edits, as of 04:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • This should be enough, just keep commenting on talk pages whenever something comes to mind, or you make a major edit on an established page. Also, the more articles you have on your watchlist, the more conversations you'll find yourself in.
• Only 5 months of experience (I usually prefer 6 or more)
  • ~7.333 months of experience, as of 04:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You'll almost always have some experience opposes...the only solution here is to be patient and wait for the time to re-nom.
• I would like to see some more experience
• your statement on staying "out of policy changes, AfDs, RfAs, and such, because that can lead to making enemies, not friends" discourages me from changing my vote to support, since one of an admin's major duties is to handle and deal with Wikipedia's policies
  • This was a bad thing to say during my RfA. What I meant at the time is I did not like to do things that divide users. This didn't mean that I wasn't willing to do so if I was promoted - I realized I would have to, my point was just that I don't like to make enemies if I don't have to.
    • Yeah, not the best choice of words, but I totally understand where you're coming from. I don't like to get in conflicts very much at all, and would much rather make friends. However, most people don't take things that personally. You can still get involved in RfA without opposing anyone (there are a lot of good candidates), and if you feel the need to oppose/neutral, make your comments well-reasoned and appropriate, and people won't take it personally. Also, you'll rarely find that you make enemies on AfD, as long as you're willing to be open minded. With only a few exceptions, the people who get most upset at AfDs tend to be new users who don't know quite yet what Wikipedia is all about.
• experience
• I just don't think this user has enough editing experience generally
• I'd like to see him participating more in discussions of policy, AfD, RfA, etc
• This makes me question intellectual maturity
  • I think you failed to grasp the issue that the debate was not about foreign policy stances toward Iran, nor whether they actually have WMD, but whether the title implied or led the reader to believe that they do. I'd like admins to be able to understand such nuances of meaning (intellectual maturity)
    • I still don't get this...
      • This was a strange one, but I guess the idea was that your last sentence was really all the subject was talking about, and your first couple sentences were a little off-topic. A lot of times straight to the point is the best way to go.
• Two of first three "beliefs" userboxes on user page (anarchocommunism, 9-11 conspiracy theories) concern me slightly
  • Taken care of, I don't have any userboxes on my page anymore, it's very clean and minimalist. I do have User:Zappa.jake/userboxes, which I maintained for a while, but I no longer take care of it, and it is not linked to from anywhere. On that page, I still have some strong opinions listed, but there's a disclaimed about my unmaintanance.
    • If you'd like, I can delete this page for you, so you don't have to worry about it at all. Of course, if you feel like keeping it, you're welcome to do that as well.
• Most mainspace edits are minor
  • No way to really check, but I think I'm making more major edits now than I was before.
    • Based on the number of pages you've created, I'd say so.
• Needs to show more breadth in editing
• bulk of edits consist of tagging articles
  • Again, I'm doing more than just that now, and yes, I'll admit, that really was the bulk of my edits a while ago.
• Need more editing and experience with Wikipedia I'm afraid
• you seem to lack a broad range of involvement
• fails 1FA
  • Still fail that, unless you count correcting a spelling error on a page before it was FAed...
    • Dont worry about this one...I haven't written a Good article, much less a Featured One. I don't think Mailer Diablo uses this one any more. Writing FAs are a great plus, but in general not writing one won't be a minus.
• you just don't seem ready yet
• [adminship] does require a fair amount of experience before you'll do a good job
• Needs more experience
• I feel you need more experience
• you have an aversion to activities where you might make enemies
• the user likes "to stay out of policy changes, AfDs, RfAs, and such, because that can lead to making enemies, not friends"
• You've been on the project scarcely three months. Very short time to gain experience
• Needs more experience
• due to lack of experience
• I usually put the threshold at 2000-2500 edits
  • 2731 edits, as of 04:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, just keep being active, and you should be fine.
• more experience is needed
• I'm not seeing a lot of major contributions outside of Trinity School at River Ridge and related articles
  • Check out User:Zappa.jake/created articles.
• I'd encourage some more meatier contributions to the encyclopedia space first
• Not enough edits
  • editor's own admission is many of these edits are on Esperanza's coffee lounge
    • Not really active a ton there anymore...
      • Well, you don't have to give up the coffee lounge. ;o) Just try to get more "substantial" Wikipedia space edits as I discussed above.
• Not enough expreience
• experience
• I've known you to be hasty, rash, and forgetful, both here and in other wikipedias, eg Vicipaedia
  • this is mostly due to your youth, and relative inexperience with structured collaborative productive engagement, and not due to any malintent, or permanent inability
    • I still don't get this. I asked the user for a further explanation, or a specific incident, and he didn't reply. I have no clue, really...
      • No worries...most RfAs have one or two completely unexplainable opposes. Bureaucrats will ignore a lot of these.
• Give it a little time
• keep learning about procedure
• increase the breadth of your editing
• I believe you need more experience
• experience is required
  • Not just threading through the intricacies within Wiki, but experience to see the wider overall picture
• I commented to Zap that he lacked the experience to see that he lacked experience, and I have the feeling he doesn't know what I meant
• not quite experienced enough yet
• Fails Diablo Test
• lack of experience with the project
• Needs more experience

[edit] reasons for neutral votes

• very few edits
• still rather new
• if you become a bit more active
  • Like with an edit-per-month ratio, I'm just about as active as I was before, if not just a tad less because of a busy summer schedule.
    • Edit/month ratio isn't a big deal, especially since the toolserver has been down and that's harder to check. Once you get to a certain # of edits, as long as you've been editing a few times a day (not necessarily every day) in the last couple of months, you'll be fine.
• I find his lack of experience slightly worrying
• give it at least 5 months then try again
  • 5 months might be a bit much, but based on current trends, I recommend you wait at least 3 months (i.e.- September 1st). Unfortunately, people get kind of snippy nowadays if you only wait 1-2 months.
  • only 5 months of Wikipedia is generally not enough for adminship
• I suggest becoming active in vandal-whacking
  • adminiship is basically advanced vandal-whacking powers which wouldn't be that useful to a normal editor
    • I haven't gotten involved in WP:CVU, but I would still say I'm a pretty good vandal-whacker.
      • RC patrol isn't a necessary, though it might be good to try it out once or twice, to see how you like it.
• not enough experience

[edit] reasons for support votes

• such an inexperienced user
• I suggest you get an Admin to nominate you next time - you may get a better response
  • *cough, cough*
    • *wink*
• The user is still pretty new
• you need to have more edits and experience
• I am slightly worried about age
  • I turn 15 in December! No really, I do, I swear! That's like almost grown-up!
  • There's really no way to fix this, so I'm striking it.
    • True. This shouldn't be a big problem. We have a lot of young admins. You handle yourself as well as any of them.
• I'd like to see higher quality (e.g., featured article) contributions
• I would still like to see more Wikipedia namespace edits
• get involved in some more Wikiprojects
  • Not really an active member of any Wikiprojects, but I'm still officially a member of a few...
    • What these kind of comments typically mean is "get more mainspace edits." Finding a Wikiproject and a focus is an easier way to do this.
• new