User:Pedro/Mentoring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What this page is about

Welcome to this mentoring programme! This programme intends to provide a collegial atmosphere for editors who wish to discuss difficult situations they were previously involved in. Issues relating to the use of admin tools and also complicated situations in general are welcomed. This page is aimed at experienced editors looking to receive constructive feedback and to discuss procedures and processes that they are unsure about; specifically, things that are not made clear on policy/guideline pages. Please also see "What this page is not" below and view ongoing discussions to get an idea about what this page's intended purpose is.
Are you in the right place? Using this page

This page is for collaborative working between experienced editors and administrators to provide open and on-going feedback, as well as to provide advice, after the fact, on how situations could or should have been dealt with.

  • If you are seeking a general review of your edits please see Editor Review.
  • If you are seeking one-on-one assistance towards the goal of adminship please see Admin Coaching.
  • If you are seeking mentoring for general editing please see Adoption.
  • Before requesting mentoring, please see below, for what this page is not.
  • Please do join the mentoring process if you believe you can help Wikipedia by becoming a good administrator.
  • Please do not join the mentoring process with the sole aim of becoming an administrator.
  • Everyone is welcome to provide constructive feedback to those requesting mentorship; in particular if you are being mentored here, please remember this is a collaborative and open environment and your input to others being mentored is valued.
  • Before requesting mentorship you should already be an experienced Wikipedian. Although most metrics are frowned upon, it is requested that editors with less than 2,000 edits and/or three months tenure do not make a request.
  • If you wish to be mentored create a new section for your self below. Insert your user name at the bottom of the page in a level two heading ==[[User:Example]]==. Underneath enter you username again with full links by typing{{Userlinks|YourUserName}} and a brief desciption of what you are seeking to achieve through this programme.
  • As your mentorship progresses, please use level 3 sub headings under your user name to seek input on specific points.
What this page is not
This page is expressly not a "how-to" guide to pass RfA.


This page is expressly not a process to gain adminship for its own end.

In addition, this page does not replace the proper venue for active discussion or incidents. This page is for discussion and reflection of your actions, after the fact, not the actions of fellow editors. Please do not abuse this process to get undue attention to a specific issue you are concerned with or currently in dispute over.


Contents

[edit] Current Discussions

[edit] Pedro's good advice

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

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

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

*blushes* Pedro :  Chat  07:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Nice summarisation, there. Nice summarisation. Rudget (Help?) 17:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:Editorofthewiki

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

Can you provide diffs for your interactions that you've felt have been "overreactions?" Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I hate providing diffs, as they take forever, but my most recent one was probably the one with Metros at the AN/I discussion. I did get a little heated with User:Otolemur crassicaudatus after he reverted some of my edits and called ma a troll (see the User talk edit history). Lets see... I might have overreacted when I redirected Princess Eléonore of Belgium despite the afd, even though myself and User:Charles agree that days old babies should not have articles. I know, I went against concensus on that one, but that was only because most of the Keep voters didn't vote on any policy whatsoever. I had a particularly bad encounter with User:BHG back in March, and while there was bad faith on both sides, I did accuse her of "inherant bias". I was blocked in January when I was new for violating WP:POINT on User:Misza13. All of which I am sorry for my bad conduct, and I hope the Wikipedia community will look past these shortcomings (we are all humans) and recognise the good content I have contributed, particularly my FA and my DYK?s. Editorofthewikireview my edits here! 21:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This is where I feel another admin should reply. I asked a question, surely, and in good faith, EOTW replied, and now another admin/strong editor should reply. Otherwise, it will easily devolve into me "coaching" EOTW. Do I have this right Pedro? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't reviewed fully the above, but you absoloutely do have that right. This process is not a replacement for one-on-one coaching. Some editors will respond better to that. Others will hopefully find that open collaborative guideance is useful. Pedro :  Chat  07:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be my guess Keeper. I am no administrator, but I'd like to make one small time-related comment (similar to one below) regarding being blocked/participating in drama before running for RfA. From what I gather/have seen, 6 months at the least should lapse between a block/incident that may come under intense scrutiny at an RfA. That's the recommended time alloted for the community to see gradual reformation after evaporated trust. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree 6 months at least prior to applying for formal adminship. You can however, be a terrific admin prior to your Rfa EOTW. Just be a good editor, more often than not, high quality editing (be it meta, article space, wiki space, talkspace), usually leads people to saying "Wait, you're not an admin?". That's a good sign you're on the right track. As for RfA though, Wis is right. 6 months. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] User:Cyclonenim

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

You should wait generally at least three months between applications. Otherwise you may be hit with "power hunger" opposes and the desire to only desire the bit. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Wisdom, without even looking at RfA#1, that doing RfA#2 too soon is seen as a detriment to your purpose here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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

What you are asking, Cyclonenim, is a rather vague question. The purpose of this particular setup of Pedro's, as I see it, is to get advice from specific incidents as an editor, with specific replies. What you seem to be looking for is something that an admin coach, or adopter, or individual mentor, could offer. I don't see this as the right forum for your question, if I'm being honest. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps so. I was being admin coached by Pedro anyway, not sure if this is still ongoing with the production of this project. Thanks for the advice. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 22:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Broadly, I'm hoping to gracefuly drop out of "admin coaching" and focus on this page instead. I believe potential admins are now suffering at WP:RFA because of many "perceived" negatives of coaching (very specifically being coached to pass RfA and not guided to be an effective admin after an RfA passes which is the purpose of this process.) I find that saying "go comment on 20 AfD's and I'll review" or similar is against the whole spirit of things - why comment on an AfD unless you're interested? Commenting for the sake of it seems pointless and unlikely to add true value. I'd like you to carry on doing what you're doing, review current RfA's if you wish to see areas you may need to work on, but use this forum,. as Keeper rightly sugests, as a "sounding board" wether other editors (with the admin bit or not) can provide insight or pointers to useful guidelines, essays or past cases. Pedro :  Chat  07:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm completely on board with this Pedro, if you'll have me. I am also strongly considering "dropping out" of WP:ADCO once finished with the two excellent candidates that I'm currently working with. If the very act of being "coached" defeats the purpose of "coaching", what's the point? It doesn't necessarily make a better editor, and now it seems it doesn't make an admin either in many cases. My goal, in helping anyone with any issue, is to make them a better contributor, regardless of what "tabs" are on the top of their page. I very much like the design of this page, you should be receiving several barnstars for it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Is that really necessary though? I mean future admins are still going to need people to talk about the here-and-now with, since this isn't a place for bringing ongoing disputes. If a coachee needs advise with how to deal with a situation, admin coaching is still useful. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 17:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I can see that side of it two Cyclone. Honestly, I think ADCO has begotten a bad rep, whether it is deserved or not. The problem is that there are some editors that go to ADCO because they view adminship as some sort of trophy or whatever, and use ADCO as a ladder to reach their goal of adminship, instead of focusing on what is supposed to happen on Wiki, which is article improvement, article improvement, and last but not least, article improvement. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wisdom89

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

Just to specify. Should I concentrate my actions where I have been, help desk, AIV, UAA, CSD etc..etc.. but, also switch gears a bit and build up some articles as I've done in the past? It was interesting to note that a few editors opposed based on lack of article contributions, which I found vaguely odd considering the breadth of mainspace contributions, and my strong editorial experience with a FA and GA, and a handful of others. Am I too bureaucratic? Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, as much as I know that your query is in good faith, it strikes me as too vague. I envision Pedro's quest here as "reactive", to specific situations, diffs, scenarios, etc. I think you will make a great admin, Wisdom. That being said, I don't personally think this is the right venue to get the "general" feedback you are desiring. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think people treated you a little harshly in the previous RfA, no one seemed to assume any good faith whatsoever. Not much you can do about that, unfortunately, but my advice is just to contribute a little more to the areas outside of where you are now, but not leaving them altogether. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 22:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the feedback guys. Keeper, I see what you're saying about vagueness. However, am I to understand that if I were to encounter a specific situation (say a faulty report, or a clashing response from another editor), I should bring that here for advice regarding how it relates to adminship, or extrapolate the situation to a hypothetical scenario where I am an admin to see if I handled it correctly? Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Specific is always better, and easier to address and easier to learn from, gets away from "hypothetical world", which general only has "hypothetical answers" that may be right or may be wrong without a given real context. Be careful though, to bring things here only if they are "past actions", not "ongoing disputes". A one-on-one coach would be better, and encouraged, for ongoing disputes (or for really serious stuff, WP:DR, WP:ANI, WP:MEDCOM, WP:RFC...you get the idea)...Again, Pedro tell me if I'm not seeing this the same way you are. I see this for "Ok, I did this. Then this happened, then this happened. It's over now. Is there anything I could've done differently?" and not "Ok I did this. Then this happened. Now I have an angry editor. What should I do next?" Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
And to answer your last question, Wis, an emphatic No, I do not think you're too Bureaucratic. You are an asset to Wikipedia, with a broad range of solid, meaningful, and respected contributions. In my mind, you're an admin already, just lacking a button or two that (some days) I wish I didn't have anyway, as they lead to more problems than they solve in some cases. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:Gwynand

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

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

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

  • 1. I was the first oppose, a bit strong worded. A few of the other opposes were per me. I was the first to go to his talk page to comment on the RfA, I was the first to recommend withdrawal. Thoughts on the tone of my oppose, my actions in the RfA, and my somewhat early suggestion of withdrawal?
  • 2. The candidate did something that I thought was pretty serious. After there were a few opposes per the answer to an optional question, the candidate deleted his answer altogether and changed it to something less likely to garner opposes. I chose not to immediately inform those in the RfA, primarily because it was already doing poorly. I thought first of reverting him on my own, or making a strongly worded comment within the RfA, letting know everyone what he had done. It felt like either would just be an (unfair) additional pile on to an already doomed RfA. At the same time, if the RfA is still open, I feel like it was the community's right to know that he had made this poor form change to his optional question.
  • 3. ...and of course what I did, I told him he was wrong on the talk page (same thread as I linked above). Here's the tough part... he didn't agree with my concern, and I'm not backed by official policy on this. How should I have continued my conversation with him at that point? I hate being snooty, or (eeeegaaadz) uncivil, and after someone decides to refute you on an etiquette point, it's a tough road from there.

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

Seeing as how I've pestered you at least twice about running for admin (and likely prematurely), and seeing as how I'm a co-nom of yours, I'll recuse myself. That said, I was watching what you said on Carter's talk, and on Carter's RfA, and I will say that I was extremely impressed that you kept things away from RfA once it was particularly evident that the RfA was going nowhere and in a hurry to get there. Nice work. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd support, perhaps would like to nominate Gwynand for RfA. I've seen his work before this particular RfA, which was already of a high standard but the recent opine on my talk page was the cherry on the cake. I'd be happy to, as lond as Gwynand would. Rudget (Help?) 10:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Unless I'm good enough to go through with under 2k edits, it'll probably have to wait. Only at a little over 1,600 now. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Really? I was sure you had more.... Hm. Keep it in mind anyway. :) Rudget (Help?) 15:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
At least a few more months of solid editing and I'll see how I feel then about it. I really want to continue to help out at ANI and try to establish myself as a neutral editor who can help evaluate tough situations. I will keep in mind yours--and of course Keepers--offers, for the future. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
You know that you can always count on at least my silent neutral. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the episode with User:Carter I think you did the right thing addressing it on his talk, as the RfA was clearly failing. If the RfA had been more marginal it may have been diferent. Although perhaps you were quite forceful in your comments, you displayed a tactfullness in the way you went about it. I wouldn't be concerned about this "hanging over your head" or similar. I allways read your comments at RFA with interest as they bring real value and research to the table. Pedro :  Chat  09:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gwynand and the first bad but now good admitted sock

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

I was way too involved in that one myself to really objectively "rate your activity", but overall I thought you handled yourself terrifically, maturely, civilly. I was most impressed that you were able to get one particular editor (an admin) to "see reason" when others (myself included) were only able to get that editor's defenses raised. (I'm not talking about PF, I'm talking about the editor that characterized things as a "lynchmob" at one point.) The key thing that I need to remind myself more is the newspaper analogy. Today's drama is tomorrow's litterbox liner. It's a lot tougher (and sensitivity is of course necessary), when it involves editors and not articles. But most drama involves editors and not articles, doesn't it? You handled yourself very well. I've noticed the editor parade on your talkpage has continued offering nominations for adminship for you. Makes me laugh when I see them now, because I know your edit count :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
May I butt in and say that I agree? Fantastically handled by yourself, especially in comparison to some other contributors to the thread. I was glad I wasn't involved, looked so difficult, yet you pulled it off beautifully. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)