Process: Material is placed and developed here. There may be exercises, things to read, questions posed and answers given, etc. Use the talk page for more ephemeral stuff like process related questions, comments, concerns, and so forth
Place introductions here please.
My name is Larry Pieniazek. I've been doing things online for well over 20 years now, and am a keen student of communities and how they do things. There's some bio stuff on my talk page... I live in Michigan (in the US) with my wife and 2 kids and I like LEGO. I've been an administrator in other communities in the past. I have been an administrator here at en-wikipedia since mid May 2006, and a Checkuser since August 2007. I am also an admin, bureaucrat, oversighter, and checkuser on commons, and an admin, bureaucrat and checkuser on Meta, an admin at Wikisource and I stood for Steward in 2006 (unsuccessfully) and 2007 (successfully) As it said in my RFA questions especially #1, my focus is on things other than vandal fighting. I've been trying my hand at just about everything that admins do, though. In real life I work for IBM as a system architect (figuring out how software projects and systems can best be organised and carried out). I think Wikipedia is the neatest and most important thing that has been done on the internet yet! (I mostly cribbed this from a few previous coaching pages... mostly still true) ++ Lar: t/ c 02:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am John. I have been editing here since January 2006 and have over 46 000 edits. I've been an administrator since August 2006. I have made 895 blocks and 2046 deletions since then. I like to edit articles on aerospace, history, geography, football, punk music and popular music in general.
I generally copyedit articles and format them to wiki norms; it's amazing how many articles still misuse capitals in section headings for instance. I have a bee in my bonnet currently about the misuse and overuse of national and state flags in infoboxes ( here's an example of what I mean). Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags is an essay I have helped work on which became a sub-page of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
In real life I am a 43-year-old male from Scotland living in northern California.
Hello, a quick bit of information about me - I'm 26, male and I live in Brrmont (also Vermont, for those in warmer weather). Vermont is a small state, so if I posted here what my job is it would take someone about 2 minutes to find out exactly who I am ;-).
I was initially drawn to Wikipedia, if I remember correctly, by an article in the New York Times. I read most of that paper on a daily basis, and caught the Essjay article. That led me to my first view of the "meta" side of Wikipedia, and gave me a somewhat greater understanding of what it takes to create and maintain something like Wikipedia. Wikipedia presents a vision that is easy to get excited about, obviously, and it is peculiarly satisfying to feel as though I occasionally contribute meaningfully to something that is so useful for so many. Unfortunately, I am one of those people that knows a little about a lot - so it can be difficult to actually add new information. Still, information people don't read, don't understand or don't believe has little value - so copy-editing for clarity, adding references, etc. are important tasks. Since many of my contributions center around the metapedia side of things, particularly the discussions at the administrator noticeboards, my goal as an admin would be to continue to contribute usefully in these ways and explore what other ways I might be able to help. Avruch T 00:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
List of things we should try to achieve: (let's jointly develop this list together but here are a few things to think about, we three will restructure this as needed... Please also answer some of these below)
(discuss the agenda/checklist here ... WHY do you want to be an admin is one I harp on but is this where you want to go?... the idea here is to add or remove items/themes/questions so that the coaching fits the candidate's needs)
Note: Avruch chose to actually answer these questions. :) Talk about jumping the gun! ++ Lar: t/ c 02:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
1. Why do you want to be an admin? You should have a clear understanding of this. It's not all wine and roses, it's hard work... so why?
2. What does an admin do and is it interesting to you? what areas are most interesting? what areas are least?
3. exercises - I have seen exercises and will be reusing some of them, things on deletion, on blocking, etc. For the most part it's not that there is a right answer, it's that you are comfortable with why you came up with the answer. Adminship is a combination of the need to respond really quickly sometimes, and the need to be very deliberate and thoughtful sometimes. Part of being a good admin in my view is knowing which is which. How do you tell?
Well, I would say err on the side of being deliberate and thoughtful. Few situations are truly emergencies, and when an emergent problem must be dealt with it is often still possible to very quickly check your judgment with someone else. It beats doing more damage by making the wrong call. On the other hand, sometimes it makes more sense to take a temporary action such as blocking or deleting if the threat of harm is significant enough - all actions can be reversed, but some real world consequences cannot. So, I guess the answer is, there is no easy way to tell - you have to use your judgment in each situation about the best response. Avruch T 00:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
To get you started... Here are a few things to read and think about from Lar (Guinnog may add more)
Out of left field:
Think about some of those and see if any of them color your thinking... You may have read some of them already. You don't necessarily have to read every single one in the entire admin project (although if you want to, you'll be much better informed). What I am interested in is a discussion on what one or two of them meant to you, whether you agree or disagree, and why, and so forth. These can be a springboard for good discussion. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
(pick one and dissect it. We want to know how you think)
(this is the part our coachees hate the worst. We are going to pick something, ask you about it, and then pick at your answer... again and again... then we'll do it with something else)
This is one that I have been thinking about for a while. I am interested in your opinion as that of another experienced Wikipedian, and I am also interested in how you deal with it as a prospective admin.
The question is this. One often hears about "uninvolved" admins. What, in your opinion, does that actually mean? Is someone who has previously blocked a user to be regarded as "involved" with that user for ever more? Is someone who has disagreed with a user on a content issue in January prohibited from blocking that user over another matter in July? Where would you draw the line, and what would you do if you are in doubt about the line in future? -- John ( talk) 16:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
What do you think about WP:SPADE? Discuss how it can coexist with WP:AGF on the same project. -- John ( talk) 16:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you support the idea of WP:BADSITES or something similar? Please give reasons for your answer. -- John ( talk) 20:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Would you be willing to add yourself to it? -- John ( talk) 18:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
What are the most difficult aspects of being an administrator? Do you think there are issues that I particularly might have difficulty with? Is there a reason, for me or in general, why you might say "I don't know that becoming an admin is a good idea, it causes this and that and the other problem and you might not find it worth it" ? Avruch T 20:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
These are a bit more concrete but not as mechanical as some of the "exercises" that we may ask you to do as well.
(We may or may not give you any of these)
I'm reading through the edit history on the talkpage at the moment. So far, my impression is that the editor is probably young and quite touchy about criticism. The always at the bottom issue is strange. Avruch T 21:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The 4:54 edit from John is probably not the way I would've gone there, particularly with the have a cup of tea ;-) Avruch T 21:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
First thing is clearly that using wikilinks and acronyms for policies is not going to work for this user. Additionally, I think the approach of commenting on multiple violations in a short period of time probably erased the likelihood of any one of them getting resolved satisfactorily. Not that I blame John, they did crop up and seemed to be part of a pattern. Now that a template warning has been issued, and WP:STALK introduced, it might be tough to get progress here with the same participants.
Next steps probably should include a general comment from a 3rd party about recent problems, how her contributions are valued and that we would like to continue to benefit from them but the conflicts and communication style is making it difficult to resolve what otherwise would be minor problems. The policy/guideline disdain is potentially problematic (and, strangely, unusual). I'm in favor of totally ignoring the WP:MOSDATE problem, in favor of focusing on the communication style and talkpage usage problems. Make sense? Avruch T 21:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
(We may or may not give you any of these)
You may want to read John's, Lar's, or browse some of the successful and unsuccessful ones from the past. Take your time and remember that it is (probably) worse to neglect to mention something that others may consider important, than to talk about even the most egregious errors or disputes, as long as some time has passed and you can show evidence of having learned from it.
(with acknowledgment to Gwernol) You are an admin. Another user draws your attention to this page; we'll pretend it is in the mainspace. What, if anything, do you do? -- John ( talk) 02:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
(with acknowledgment to Malinaccier) Label each statement as either having a neutral point of view or not:
On the Nietzsche one, its hard to know if its neutral point of view without reviewing the sources. That is a problem with some of the similar quizzes like this going around - this one was even posted on an RfA recently. Taken completely out of context, without references or background information, its tough to determine whether a particular sentence or phrase is representative of a neutral point of view. Regarding the Darwin sentence - recently there has been a lot of controversy over this, and many editors have started using a parallel standard of scientific point of view (SPOV) that aims to more carefully represent the view of the mainstream scientific community without giving undue weight or recognition to its critics. I was thinking to myself the other day, that if I got something like this on my own RfA I would have to consider pretty carefully whether I wanted to answer. Avruch T 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Pick your 10 finest diffs, list them, and say why they were good. Think of it as a mini-RfC on yourself and do the investigation thoroughly. What you choose is up to you, whether a particularly civil defusing of a difficult situation, a BLP correction, policy, removing greengrocer's apostrophes. In fact I am interested in which ten you choose. Or think of it as "2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?" if you prefer. I have looked through your contributions, and will continue to, but you know them best. In your own time. -- John ( talk) 05:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Process: Material is placed and developed here. There may be exercises, things to read, questions posed and answers given, etc. Use the talk page for more ephemeral stuff like process related questions, comments, concerns, and so forth
Place introductions here please.
My name is Larry Pieniazek. I've been doing things online for well over 20 years now, and am a keen student of communities and how they do things. There's some bio stuff on my talk page... I live in Michigan (in the US) with my wife and 2 kids and I like LEGO. I've been an administrator in other communities in the past. I have been an administrator here at en-wikipedia since mid May 2006, and a Checkuser since August 2007. I am also an admin, bureaucrat, oversighter, and checkuser on commons, and an admin, bureaucrat and checkuser on Meta, an admin at Wikisource and I stood for Steward in 2006 (unsuccessfully) and 2007 (successfully) As it said in my RFA questions especially #1, my focus is on things other than vandal fighting. I've been trying my hand at just about everything that admins do, though. In real life I work for IBM as a system architect (figuring out how software projects and systems can best be organised and carried out). I think Wikipedia is the neatest and most important thing that has been done on the internet yet! (I mostly cribbed this from a few previous coaching pages... mostly still true) ++ Lar: t/ c 02:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am John. I have been editing here since January 2006 and have over 46 000 edits. I've been an administrator since August 2006. I have made 895 blocks and 2046 deletions since then. I like to edit articles on aerospace, history, geography, football, punk music and popular music in general.
I generally copyedit articles and format them to wiki norms; it's amazing how many articles still misuse capitals in section headings for instance. I have a bee in my bonnet currently about the misuse and overuse of national and state flags in infoboxes ( here's an example of what I mean). Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags is an essay I have helped work on which became a sub-page of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
In real life I am a 43-year-old male from Scotland living in northern California.
Hello, a quick bit of information about me - I'm 26, male and I live in Brrmont (also Vermont, for those in warmer weather). Vermont is a small state, so if I posted here what my job is it would take someone about 2 minutes to find out exactly who I am ;-).
I was initially drawn to Wikipedia, if I remember correctly, by an article in the New York Times. I read most of that paper on a daily basis, and caught the Essjay article. That led me to my first view of the "meta" side of Wikipedia, and gave me a somewhat greater understanding of what it takes to create and maintain something like Wikipedia. Wikipedia presents a vision that is easy to get excited about, obviously, and it is peculiarly satisfying to feel as though I occasionally contribute meaningfully to something that is so useful for so many. Unfortunately, I am one of those people that knows a little about a lot - so it can be difficult to actually add new information. Still, information people don't read, don't understand or don't believe has little value - so copy-editing for clarity, adding references, etc. are important tasks. Since many of my contributions center around the metapedia side of things, particularly the discussions at the administrator noticeboards, my goal as an admin would be to continue to contribute usefully in these ways and explore what other ways I might be able to help. Avruch T 00:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
List of things we should try to achieve: (let's jointly develop this list together but here are a few things to think about, we three will restructure this as needed... Please also answer some of these below)
(discuss the agenda/checklist here ... WHY do you want to be an admin is one I harp on but is this where you want to go?... the idea here is to add or remove items/themes/questions so that the coaching fits the candidate's needs)
Note: Avruch chose to actually answer these questions. :) Talk about jumping the gun! ++ Lar: t/ c 02:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
1. Why do you want to be an admin? You should have a clear understanding of this. It's not all wine and roses, it's hard work... so why?
2. What does an admin do and is it interesting to you? what areas are most interesting? what areas are least?
3. exercises - I have seen exercises and will be reusing some of them, things on deletion, on blocking, etc. For the most part it's not that there is a right answer, it's that you are comfortable with why you came up with the answer. Adminship is a combination of the need to respond really quickly sometimes, and the need to be very deliberate and thoughtful sometimes. Part of being a good admin in my view is knowing which is which. How do you tell?
Well, I would say err on the side of being deliberate and thoughtful. Few situations are truly emergencies, and when an emergent problem must be dealt with it is often still possible to very quickly check your judgment with someone else. It beats doing more damage by making the wrong call. On the other hand, sometimes it makes more sense to take a temporary action such as blocking or deleting if the threat of harm is significant enough - all actions can be reversed, but some real world consequences cannot. So, I guess the answer is, there is no easy way to tell - you have to use your judgment in each situation about the best response. Avruch T 00:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
To get you started... Here are a few things to read and think about from Lar (Guinnog may add more)
Out of left field:
Think about some of those and see if any of them color your thinking... You may have read some of them already. You don't necessarily have to read every single one in the entire admin project (although if you want to, you'll be much better informed). What I am interested in is a discussion on what one or two of them meant to you, whether you agree or disagree, and why, and so forth. These can be a springboard for good discussion. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
(pick one and dissect it. We want to know how you think)
(this is the part our coachees hate the worst. We are going to pick something, ask you about it, and then pick at your answer... again and again... then we'll do it with something else)
This is one that I have been thinking about for a while. I am interested in your opinion as that of another experienced Wikipedian, and I am also interested in how you deal with it as a prospective admin.
The question is this. One often hears about "uninvolved" admins. What, in your opinion, does that actually mean? Is someone who has previously blocked a user to be regarded as "involved" with that user for ever more? Is someone who has disagreed with a user on a content issue in January prohibited from blocking that user over another matter in July? Where would you draw the line, and what would you do if you are in doubt about the line in future? -- John ( talk) 16:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
What do you think about WP:SPADE? Discuss how it can coexist with WP:AGF on the same project. -- John ( talk) 16:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you support the idea of WP:BADSITES or something similar? Please give reasons for your answer. -- John ( talk) 20:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Would you be willing to add yourself to it? -- John ( talk) 18:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
What are the most difficult aspects of being an administrator? Do you think there are issues that I particularly might have difficulty with? Is there a reason, for me or in general, why you might say "I don't know that becoming an admin is a good idea, it causes this and that and the other problem and you might not find it worth it" ? Avruch T 20:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
These are a bit more concrete but not as mechanical as some of the "exercises" that we may ask you to do as well.
(We may or may not give you any of these)
I'm reading through the edit history on the talkpage at the moment. So far, my impression is that the editor is probably young and quite touchy about criticism. The always at the bottom issue is strange. Avruch T 21:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The 4:54 edit from John is probably not the way I would've gone there, particularly with the have a cup of tea ;-) Avruch T 21:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
First thing is clearly that using wikilinks and acronyms for policies is not going to work for this user. Additionally, I think the approach of commenting on multiple violations in a short period of time probably erased the likelihood of any one of them getting resolved satisfactorily. Not that I blame John, they did crop up and seemed to be part of a pattern. Now that a template warning has been issued, and WP:STALK introduced, it might be tough to get progress here with the same participants.
Next steps probably should include a general comment from a 3rd party about recent problems, how her contributions are valued and that we would like to continue to benefit from them but the conflicts and communication style is making it difficult to resolve what otherwise would be minor problems. The policy/guideline disdain is potentially problematic (and, strangely, unusual). I'm in favor of totally ignoring the WP:MOSDATE problem, in favor of focusing on the communication style and talkpage usage problems. Make sense? Avruch T 21:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
(We may or may not give you any of these)
You may want to read John's, Lar's, or browse some of the successful and unsuccessful ones from the past. Take your time and remember that it is (probably) worse to neglect to mention something that others may consider important, than to talk about even the most egregious errors or disputes, as long as some time has passed and you can show evidence of having learned from it.
(with acknowledgment to Gwernol) You are an admin. Another user draws your attention to this page; we'll pretend it is in the mainspace. What, if anything, do you do? -- John ( talk) 02:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
(with acknowledgment to Malinaccier) Label each statement as either having a neutral point of view or not:
On the Nietzsche one, its hard to know if its neutral point of view without reviewing the sources. That is a problem with some of the similar quizzes like this going around - this one was even posted on an RfA recently. Taken completely out of context, without references or background information, its tough to determine whether a particular sentence or phrase is representative of a neutral point of view. Regarding the Darwin sentence - recently there has been a lot of controversy over this, and many editors have started using a parallel standard of scientific point of view (SPOV) that aims to more carefully represent the view of the mainstream scientific community without giving undue weight or recognition to its critics. I was thinking to myself the other day, that if I got something like this on my own RfA I would have to consider pretty carefully whether I wanted to answer. Avruch T 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Pick your 10 finest diffs, list them, and say why they were good. Think of it as a mini-RfC on yourself and do the investigation thoroughly. What you choose is up to you, whether a particularly civil defusing of a difficult situation, a BLP correction, policy, removing greengrocer's apostrophes. In fact I am interested in which ten you choose. Or think of it as "2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?" if you prefer. I have looked through your contributions, and will continue to, but you know them best. In your own time. -- John ( talk) 05:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)