User:Xenocidic/admin coaching

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was skip coaching, go directly to RFA (do not pass go, do not collect $200). xenocidic (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching request

I've been debating with myself whether or not to seek an admin coach, based on the various discussions about its utility, but looking at what you've done convinced me that the net positive would outweigh the negative. I understand if you're full right now and am willing to wait in line. I'm not overanxious - but I feel that as an administrator, I would be able to better achieve my main goal of being on Wikipedia, and that is to advance knowledge and help others to do the same. Thanks for your time and consideration. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 16:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take a look, but it may take a few days... I've pretty much extended myself to the limit.Balloonman (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Again, if you just want to put me in a queue, that's fine with me. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 16:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hey there Xenocidic, I've looked over your edits (per the Editor Review) and think you can be ready for a run for RfA in about a month or so. If you are still interested in having me as a coach, let me know and create a coaching page User:Xenocidic/admin coaching. The first thing that I'm going to do is ask you to answer the 3 questions asked of admin candidates. I picture this being an easier/higher level coaching as you are all but ready without the coaching. If you accept, please realize that there are some people who are currently opposed to coaching a may vote oppose for no other reason than you went through coaching. But I think the benefits outweigh those few possible opposes.Balloonman (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: At first, I will likely stick to what I know best, blocking persistent vandals reported at AIV, protecting pages that are being routinely vandalized, and deleting pages that clearly meet CSD criteria. I would also be adding myself to Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles as it is my opinion that contributors should be granted the ability to take their work elsewhere or improve upon it such that it meets inclusion criteria. After completing Admin school, I would branch out and help with administrative backlog. I would, of course, continue to assist other users with any questions they may have as well as do my best to defuse conflicts between users.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: A lot of my work is somewhat behind the scenes and wiki-gnomish (copy-editing and such), but I think the most visible would be the major cleanups I completed on Realtime Worlds and WeMix.com (the latter still needs work but I saved it from a 'blatant advertising' CSD tag as the initial contributor had a conflict of interests, but I felt the article satisfied notability criteria). I also completed a major overhaul of Adopt-a-user, in particular helped to reduce the backlog of those seeking adoption from over 120 down to zero (this is starting to grow again, will have to do another adopter tree-shaking run). I do create articles whenever I'm the first on the scene with breaking news, as with Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X.. I'm also particularly pleased with two of the templates I designed - {{Truestatus}} & {{Statustop}} - which are used to effectively customize StatusBot and visually display said status, and allow other users to easily do so as well (for the latter I must credit Chetblong for the visual design). An overview of my contributions can be found at User:Xenocidic#Contributions. Lastly, I feel the interactions between myself and my adoptees has been helpful - for both adopter and adoptee - as it has prompted me to expand my horizons.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I've been involved in a couple conflicts, but most of the time I try to resolve it with talk page resolutions, either directly with the editor, or on the talk page of the article. In the past, I may have let my preference for the Xbox 360 somewhat colour my contributions as with the video game platform infobox order conflict (it was my opinion that the order listed by the press release should be used, others inferred this was to preference the Xbox 360), this is something I'm seeking to avoid and have conceded to the "alphabetical" argument advanced by seemingly disinterested contributors. Conflicts like this I've often taken to the Video games wikiproject for a wider range of opinions. In the future, I've been steering clear of these conflicts altogether because they often tend towards lameness anyway. On the subject of lamest edit wars, I've tried my best here and here to try and act as a facilitator to resolve the "Niko's nationality" debate listed at lamest edit wars.

Again, if you had a few more months of experience, I would have no problem noming you. That being said, getting some coaching won't hurt. My philosophy of coaching is that it should be an extended Editor Review. I'm going to be reviewing your edits in even more detail than I've already done. Just as an FYI, I'm going to take a very close look at your CSD's. Personally, I am not a big fan of CSD'ers because they can chase off quality editors. That being said, I have nom'd several quality CSD'ers... but I do pay especially close attention to anybody who wants to work in CSD. I'm also going to take a closer look at your interactions with your adoptees. This could be a great thing to differentiate you from others. That being said, right now, I want you to continue doing what you've been doing.Balloonman (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I am typically loathe to nominate articles for CSD myself - I agree that they tend to discourage editors. Most of my CSD nominations were for patent nonsense, attack pages, blatant advertising, or A7/autobio stuff. Whenever the article seemed like a good faith contribution, I tended to work with the contributor a little more closely rather than a quick tag'n'run, as you can see with Keith, I copied and pasted the work onto his talk page and answered his questions and suggested where his contributions might fit. With Spatial organization, I worked on the article with the editor and helped convert all the refs into proper format. With WeMix.com, I decided the article could satisfied inclusion guidelines with a major overhaul and did my best to make it encyclopedic. On the subject of deletion, I wanted to point out that I had a user category I created nominated and successfully deleted, during the discussion I got somewhat defensive, so I just thought I would bring it up in case it needs to be addressed Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/February 2008#Category:Wikipedians who are Xbox Ambassadors. (Looking back, I now see why it was not a worthwhile or useful category). xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 13:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Coaching Terminated

Sorry I can't coach you...Balloonman (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You're ready. Go for it. When you do go for it, make sure that you wait until you are going to be online for 2-4 hours after transcluding the nom. People expect the nom to be able to respond to queries right away... if you don't respond to questions right off, people start getting ancy. They don't mind waiting if the question is posted a few hours after the nom, but you really do want to respond to early questions. Also, you might want to review this It's an essay I wrote on the RfA process. Good luck.Balloonman (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That was a surprise! Thank you for your well-prepared nomination. xenocidic (talk) 00:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I kept reading your contributions thinking, "He's not at six months... he's not at six months... but he's ready... eventually, I decided that it was a bigger travesty to make you wait a few weeks than to have you run a few weeks early." Don't forget to transclude your nom when you are ready...Balloonman (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.