User:N/admincoaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Dgies has gracefully accepted my request for admin coaching, even though they have real life obligations limiting wiki time.

• Co-coach currently pending.

• Wikipedia:Editor review/Nardman1 --previous editor review
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nardman1 --previous RfA attempt

Wannabe Kate stats for N

Previous objections to adminship:

• Arguing that non-free licenses were actually free (I have come to accept that freedomdefined.org's definition is very strict)
  • Being confused over copyright is understandable. It's how you handled the situation that matters. —dgies^t_c 17:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Well I was arguing over moral rights as opposed to economic rights...but since U.S. law doesn't respect moral rights it is a moot point on Wikipedia. Moral rights are also apparently what's holding up approval of the CC 3.0 licenses. -N 18:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• use of edit summaries (now almost 100%)
  • Not a particularly big deal, but easy to correct with the reminder in your user prefs —dgies^t_c 17:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• low mainspace contributions (getting better, I am now actually making article edits)
  • Not exceptional, but probably adequate. —dgies^t_c 17:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• temper (again, getting better, am now using talk pages to resolve things more)
  • This is a big one. Admins have to deal with conflict all the time and any temper-tantrums in the last couple months could seriously sabotage a RfA. Learn to proof read your comments when angry and try to imagine what they would look like to an uninvolved third party and rewrite them to be calm and avoid escalating the situation. —dgies^t_c 17:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• controversial userbox (removed, but some of the current ones might need to be re-examined)
  • People usually only object it it is really offensive, mean-spirited, or if the whole userpage evidences immaturity. —dgies^t_c 17:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• WP:BITE, nominating a user page for deletion (now actively fighting this, contributed a new section to WP:UP to combat this, tried in vain to save a contributing editor from being driven off the project (need to dig out proof of this, is excellent example of dispute resolution skills).
  • A single instance of WP:BITE can probably be explained away if you are upfront about it and it is not part of a larger pattern. —dgies^t_c 17:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Invalid AIV reports (in some cases not enough warning was issued, in some others cases were complex and AIV declined to act)
  • Please do learn policies and practices for when to warn versus block. As for the overly-complex cases, that's just bad procedure, not bad judgment. These reports should be taken to WP:ANI for a fuller discussion. —dgies^t_c 17:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible roadblocks:

• Inappropriate creation of UWT to "warn" admins for "improper" deletions.
  • I can't find info on this. What was it and how long ago? —dgies^t_c 17:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • See [1] and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_27. Notice I withdrew the DRV and closed the discussion myself, indicating I had learned a lesson. -N 18:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• low mainspace contributions
  • Borderline but probably OK. —dgies^t_c 17:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• A Week in the Woods conflict
  • If the you came upon that article today (as it was on March 20), would you still nominate it for deletion? Why or why not? What did you learn from the conflict? Can you point to evidence of more recent AfDs where your involvement turned out better? —dgies^t_c 17:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I would probably not nominate it for deletion, because I probably wouldn't pay it much attention. I've learned that A7 does not apply to books and that it is not a repost because there was no priot XfD. I've also leaned that WP:BOOK sets a lower threshold for inclusion for books than for other things. I've also learned that book covers are quasi fair use and I shouldn't try to nominate the article's image for deletion after a WP:SNOW keep on the article! I'm still bothered by the inclusion based on "awards" that haven't been proven to be notable. It's not just this article, it's bothered me in other AfDs as well and it's why I started Wikipedia:Notability (awards) because of another article I saw where a "blogger award" with unproven notability and reliability is being used to prop the article up. -N 18:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles I've started or re-written

• China Poblana (complete re-write, translated Spanish article [have to finish, actually])
• Hey, Shipwreck
• Slow Children At Play
• United Nations Billion Tree Campaign
• Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama
• Duty Officer
• {{Second Life screenshot}}

• (not many and most are just stubs, sadly, I prefer to edit and debate rather than write).

[edit] Some general questions

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I have some general questions to start?

1. Why do you want to be an admin?

   I want to become an administrator because I am captivated by Wikipedia's goal of being a freely licensed repository of human knowledge. It is a huge project that really can benefit from everyone's contributions. I want to further my participation in the project the project by helping moderate disputes that erupt in edit wars. I also enjoy tracking sockpuppets and I would like to go through sockpuppet reports since they are frequently backlogged and block people causing disruption.

2. What types of admin activity are you interested in participating in?

   Tracking sockpuppets, helping with image deletion backlogs, moving images to Commons as appropriate (I know, any user can do this), and identifying edit wars early and helping people see the need to reach consensus. -N 18:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)