User talk:Computerjoe/Admin coaching

Introduction

First off hello! I hope you find this a useful experience, whether or not you ultimately decide to brave another RFA.

We'll generally keep talk about the coaching itself to this page, with the actual coaching happening on the main page (me and Lar like to keep things tidy like that!)

Could you outline what you are hopeing to get out of this admin coaching? Are there any areas you feel need work? Of course at any point feel free to ask any questions and we'll do our best to answer them.

Cheers, Petros471 17:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, ty Petros for your reply. The main concerns in my last RfA was my lack of participation in the encyclopedia (with only 2000 mainspace edits), and too much in the community. Also, people criticised my judgement over CCD/CJ's actions. Also, it did not help that all of CCD was reorganised at that time, and many unpopular (and later deleted) programs were created, such as Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard. My RfA had a snowballs chance in hell of reaching a consensus (either way). Computerjoe 's talk 17:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

As I keep getting disconnected every few seconds and you've probably missed 3/4 of what I said tonight I'm leaving it. We can try again another time. Petros471 18:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can discuss it here? Computerjoe 's talk 18:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about if you lay out on the main page some questions you want answers to (that's usually the reason questions get asked...), and then me and Lar can answer at our leisure (i.e. after some time to think up some decent answers ;) ? Petros471 18:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few things

I put an introduction about me on there, encourage you to do the same Computerjoe (Petros and I did this for another coachee). I also put an agenda on... what is it you hope to get out of this? ++Lar: t/c 20:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new agenda items

I see you added these

How to proceed as a user
How to proceed with CCD

Can you elaborate on these? What do you mean about how to proceed, and do you see these things as being germane to being a better admin? A bit confused here. CCD and adminning don't seem related to me, at least not directly, and as for "as a user" I would think just being a good user is a good thing... ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my last RfA, the key problem was CCD's existance. I'm after on advice on how to proceed with CCD, and which areas to be more active in as a user. Computerjoe 's talk 20:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just went and reviewed Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Computerjoe_3 and there are two main themes there, one being CJ/CCD and the other your contributions to the encyclopedia itself. The contributions question is not something that can be coached in, I don't think, it requires that you work on encyclopedic things that interest you, and on other things that help make things run. You've been around longer than I have, since 2004 so hopefully it's not a big surprise that people want to see what you've contributed. Keep contributing and that will take care of itself, I think.

As for CJ/CCD... well what do YOU think? Is the Concordia effort starting to pay off? From what I see it's still thrashing around a bit. I agree with your assessment that a good deal of blame for CJ's mission and ineffectiveness was laid at your feet in your RfA 3... do you think that was valid? If so, what would you do to make sure that's not an issue next time? If not, why not?

I'd note that this is quite a bit afield from what I expected to coach prospective RfA candidates on, as it's not really about the things one does as an admin. I hope it's helpful to you, but I shold note that it's not exactly the function of this process to help you "pass" an RfA, per se, it's more the function to help you understand what adminning is like, get you to think critically about situations you may be faced with as an admin, and so forth... this is far afield indeed. Petros what do you think? ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realise this isn't helping to pass an RfA. The key reason I ask is because people think that this shows poor judgement. I believe perhaps I could've led CJ better, but I don't think it was a ground to oppose. An RfC into CJ would've being more appropiate. Computerjoe 's talk 19:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(after would be edit conflict, I've been writing this very, very slowly...) I said some of this stuff on IRC, but I think a lot of it got in my (lack of) internet connection. In my eyes CJ was founded on the good basis that civility is 'a good thing' but the problem is that you can't force people to be civil. You can warn and enforce blatant personal attacks and 'real bad' incivility, but the more 'run of the mill' stuff just needs good editors out there, setting a good example, always being civil whatever the situation, and maybe having a word with individual editors when they need to be more civil. That doesn't need an organisation to do. That's just my opinion though. As Lar said, you need to decide what you think. As you already know I don't think you should have got so much RFA opposition based on CJ/CCD, but I can't do very much about that.

Being an admin requires acting both on your own and with consensus. You have to be trusted to do the majority of blocks, deletion, page protections etc in the right way without discussion with others over every situation. However the flip side is that you must be aware of when you should discuss things before going ahead and getting consensus before doing something. What that means is we can help you try and learn how to do some things, but we can't tell you how to do everything.

Different people have different editing skills. You need to show a wide range of experience, but ultimately what you end up spending most of your time doing is up to you. It's no good me saying 'be a x' if that's not what you are. Petros471 20:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where to from here

So we've given some food for thought, but what next? It's been a few days and it seems like we haven't gotten to concrete yet on what to do. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 05:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know, to be frank. I'd welcome any ideas :) Computerjoe 's talk 08:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we go through Lar's suggested admin reading list along with anything we want to add, to try and explain what being an admin actually is? Petros471 10:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read ARL, numerous times! Computerjoe 's talk 10:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not just this, rather things like essays on adminship, that sort of thing. Lar in the process of putting together a list of them from various people's userspace. Petros471 10:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see! Computerjoe 's talk 10:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urp, I haven't actually pulled together a formal list and am on a short wikibreak... let me see what I can do. See below and let's discuss any you like. Hopefully some of them raise questions as to what is meant etc. Critical thinking is the goal of posting these. ++Lar: t/c 13:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resource list

Here are a few things to read and think about.

User:NoSeptember/The_NoSeptember_Admin_Project is an amazing array of resources on adminship. In that array I would look through a lot of things... browse around! but here is User:NoSeptember/RfA_talk_topical_archive_index a good list of things for further reading
User:CatherineMunro#Why am I here? one of my favorite essays, period. Think about what it means, think about adminship as merely one thing, one tool, one process that helps us do the overall goal.
User:Mindspillage/admin one of my favorite essays on adminship. Could you be this good of an admin? I'm not sure I myself am, but it is something to strive for.
User:Essjay/Neutrality Another take on how to be a good admin. Neutrality, impartiality, fairness. These are so important! Look within yourself and see if you really think you can do things this way. If not, perhaps adminship is not right for you (generic you, no comment on anyone in particular intended)

Out of left field:

Wikipedia:Tip of the day/July 8, 2006 What does this rule really mean? What is the spirit, not the letter? How do you enforce spirit when trolls and trouble makers are going to want the letter, and then want to twist it around on you and wikilawyer?

Think about some of those and see if any of them color your thinking ++Lar: t/c 13:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts is that I already know most of this. I'll read them fully later. Computerjoe 's talk 14:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I guess once you've read them what I was looking to do was foster some discussion about what they MEAN... and how you implement the principles, and talk about cases where it's not clear what to do. ++Lar: t/c 11:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise! Perhaps you could give me some scenarios, and I'd say how I would react and you comment on the correct re-action. Computerjoe 's talk 15:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on scenarios

I would like to see some scenarios from Petros too, I guess... I'm not sure the ones I've been giving you are good ones because you're giving good answers (good answers are good!!!! ... but it means you don't necessarily need coaching in the area that the scenario was about, if you see what I mean). Because of that, I think I need some more feedback on whether we're coaching you about the right things or not... maybe you were right when you said "hey, I read all that stuff already"... This is my first time trying to coach someone using this mechanism and my first admin coaching (although I do a fair bit of teaching, training, and mentoring for work) so I'm learning too.

Maybe, Joe, YOU should try outlining a scenario or two, one where you thought you had some concerns about what the right thing to do is? Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a valid point Lar, however I expect I'm a bad student! Some scenarios I have trouble with are regarding copyright, I sometimes find fair use hard to understand. Also, I find it hard to work as an advocate or mediator in complex disputes (as sometimes I cannot fathom out what they are debating!). I shall think of some scenarios, thanks. Computerjoe 's talk 14:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember answering this but do not see it! Must not have hit save effectively. Anyway, give us particulars of one that confused you and what you did. For more reading see Durin's RfC about this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Durin_and_fair_use_image_removals... ++Lar: t/c 12:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this must have slipped through my watchlist. Remember to give me a yell on my talk page if that happens again. I'll try and some scenarios for you tonight. Petros471 12:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I cannot Lar :( How useful... Computerjoe 's talk 14:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. what did you think of Durin's RfC? It presents the case for FU removal and why it's an issue pretty cogently. ++Lar: t/c 13:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that any fair use image must have a close link to the article! Computerjoe 's talk 17:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What next?

Suggestions? Computerjoe 's talk 18:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure! Petros, what do you think? I liked the answer that you gave above about fair use... there was something I saw recently in one of your RfA comments I maybe wanted to dig into but I'm not sure I actually want to. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was it? Computerjoe 's talk 18:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away for last few weeks (wikibreak and holiday), hence my slow reply. Give me a day or two too see if I can think of anything new. Lar: you can't make a 'tempting' comment like that and not say what you were refering too... (you can email/IRC us if you want it to stay off-wiki). Petros471 22:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man I can't even remember what I was thinking about any more. Sorry. Must not have been that bad. ++Lar: t/c 14:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck ??

Well this is at least partly my fault but I think we're stuck. I like most of the answers to the scenarios and stuff but I'm not sure this is delivering the coaching that's needed to get Computerjoe to where most people would be comfortable supporting his candidacy. What is bugging me here is that to delve into why that is... might be rather unpleasant for everyone, and maybe unfair and untrue too, if (for example) I let biases slip in. Petros, help me out here, what do we do next? ++Lar: t/c 17:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

I'm busy today, I shall do questions tomorrow. Computerjoe 's talk 14:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]