User talk:Dusti/AFD Coaching

How this page came to be

Please note: The following is a discussion that took place on Keeper's talk page on April 10th, 2008, following a series of events on Dusti's talk page. If you wish to see these events, have fun digging through Dusti's archives.

now back to your regularly scheduled AFD coaching

Some may object to this, and I hope you don't, but I feel that this is the best way to continue. I am going to sit down, calm down, and start over. I would like for you to agree to be my "AFD Coach" if you will, and help me through the Non-Admin AFD Closing process. The way this will work is exactly like what we have done before. I come to you with a list of AFD's that I feel should be closed (as a keep obviously) and you either reject or support my decision. If its rejected, then instead of telling me why, I have to tell you why (to build on my knowledge). What do you think? I'm trying to build myself here instead of accepting defeat. I wish to help with AFD as the expierence will be great if I ever have a successful RFA. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My immediate thoughts. Right now, you've (right or wrong) attracted some negative attention from a slew of editors/admins. In a way, I have been your "AfD coach", informally, for the last couple of months, before this latest group of reversed closures. I will agree to this with two conditions:

1. We don't start for one month. No closures for one month, regardless of how obvious "keep" they are. During that month, I want you to do something else. I want you to participate in the discussions instead of closing them. I want you to help "save" articles that are nominated by finding sources, and help "delete" articles that are unsourcable/violate policy. Not just "!vote per nom" type stuff, but actually using your growing policy knowledge to prove that you have opinons on the topics and not just opinions on the closing of the discussions.
   
2. After that month (assuming it goes well), I'll do what you've asked me to do, which is support or reject your proposed non-admin closes. We'll do that a couple of times per week for a couple of months. Twice per week, for 8 weeks, or 16 sessions, maybe 3-5 potential closes per session. If that goes well, I'll co-nom you for adminship myself (assuming your actual admin coach feels you are ready in other areas that I'm not aware of or participating in).
   

What do you think? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, sounds great to me!!! Dusti^{talk to me} 17:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Month One: April 10th thru May 10th, 2008

Participating in discussions: (My comments on first group from April 11th:)

4/11/08

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Harmon Institute of Technology

   Excellent. Good suggestion. (Great movie BTW, great school title...)

   Thank you

2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4 Deserts

   Good. I like to see you participating early, proof that you are evaluating articles, not just !voting what you already see happening

   Just to show that I am serious and am trying!

3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Age (cricket)

   Just closed this as keep, good suggestion on the bottom. Keep in mind though, that even though the vast majority of "withdrawn nominations" get closed as keep, its not automatic if there have been a lot of editors that want to delete other than the nom, and for different reasons.

   I placed the comment because there were other !votes after the "withdraw". I kept what you said above in mind while doing so, however, there were only two !votes for delete, and they never commented anywhere else.

4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Experiments in Art, Information, and Technology

   Getting anywhere working on this article? Making an offer to fix an article in an AfD is a big deal. I would be focusing on this if I were you, or you may not be taken seriously when you propose this again later. (False promises get remembered...)

   going to start tonight (if I get a chance)

5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Say hello to my little friend!

   Again, good to see you getting in early, and also good to see you change a stance if warranted. Digging in your heels does nobody any good, and usually ruins your shoes.

   I like my new shoes!

6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tour de g'ville

   Already deleted! (Although, technically, OrangeMike closed this as G4. If you read WP:CSD#G4, it specifically says its not for things that were previously deleted by speedy, only for things that were recreated after an AFD discussion. If this is ever contested, DRV would likely overturn the result.)

   How did you like my reasoning?

   Your reasoning was very good.

7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hell Demonio

   Have you tried looking for sources to back up your claim? Improve the article!

   Will do so, again, hopefully tonight but no promises :)

8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Regular Guys

   There seems to be a new dispute brewing about radio shows/radio personailities. I've seen a flurry of nominations from the same nominator, and they've closed both as keeps and deletes, usually with the same batch of !voters...these could get ugly.

   I noticed that as well

9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hootanany‎

   You haven't commented

   No, but I closed it:-)

4/14/08

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joint (building)‎

   Excellent suggestion (speedy keep). I'm not sure what the nominator means by telling you WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS either. You made no mention of "other articles" in your statement. Looks like it will close as keep, barring unforeseen mass delete !votes.

2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minolta TC-1‎

   It's perfectly valid to be neutral if you're unsure.

3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schism (film)

   Good recommendation, redirect would be better than deletion seeing as how the parent article already has a "reaction" section that this one sentence article could be moved into

4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WebCanvas

   Interesting. 10 minutes after you said "speedy delete", it was "speedily deleted" and the title was protected from recreation (see WP:SALT to learn what that means if you don't already know. Apparently, an admin agreed with your recommendation.

4/15/08

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wham City (2nd nomination)

   Very good, thorough analysis

2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kryptic Enigma

   SWik78 is right, anyone (other than the author) can remove a speedy tag, even an IP. Author's are limited to adding the "hangon" tag, which may or may not by them more time.

3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Sad Day on Pluto

   Recommending a "speedy keep" is sometimes viewed as bitey, as there can be an underlying assumption made that you don't think the nom did a very good job. Instead of saying speedy keep, I'd advise you to say "strong keep" in the future to avoid unnecessary "dramatic reactions" from other posters. Also, the google search you linked, while showing evidence that you've searched, doesn't really help if you don't explain which of the GHits you feel warrants a "speedy keep".

   Update on this one. You may be interested in revisiting your initial post and the comments that have followed. Not necessary, but in case you haven't watchlisted it.

   Revisited and commented, changed as necessary. Dusti^{speak and be heard!} 20:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

4/23/08

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drew and Mike

   Looks good.

2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arby 'n' the Chief

   This is not a speedy candidate. It does not meet A7, which specifically excludes products. A musician can be speedied, but not his album. A publisher can be speedied, but not its magazine. A director can be speedied, but not his film. Doesn't necessarily always make sense, it's just the way it is. Recommended reading: WP:CSD#A7.

3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of King George V Playing Fields (County Antrim)

   Looks good

4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reiner pepper

   WP:CSD#G1 specifically excludes hoaxes as "nonsense", but does allow them to be speedy deleted as vandalism in some cases, which would be WP:CSD#G3. Minor difference, but you should change that or it could get challenged.

already deleted under g3. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 18:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incheol shin

   Yeah, this was interesting. Your adoptee AfD'd. You changed it to Speedy, asked me about it. I speedy deleted it. Then Eastmain challenged the speedy, and having a second look at it, realized that their is at least an assertion of notability (being a professor at a major university), and therefore not an A7 candidate. I undeleted the article's history and I've reopened the debate (as you obvious have seen by now) We'll see how it goes. Recommended reading: WP:PROF.

Unrelated to AFDs

Hey Dusti, interesting day, huh? I've protected both articles that were being made by the new user(s) in stubbed form. A good essay to keep in mind when a legal threat comes from a new user when dealing with a WP:BLP is WP:DOLT. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's all that I can say. I was being blindsided by these users without a chance to see what was going on. The first thing that I wanted to do was protect my talk page so I could focus without being interrupted by annoying comments that were obviously coming from the same individual(s?). Now, looking at WP:BLP and in the history of the page, the information was pretty hmmm....whats the word to use? Slandering? You know what I mean. Thanks for coming to my rescue!!! If only I had those Admin tools to do it myself! Then again, I may have not been as nice as you were :). Dusti^{talk to me} 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Hey Dusti, just found this page (did you tell me about it, or am I stalking?:-). I've watchlisted it, and am currently looking at your contribs to see if/what deletion discussions you've taken part in. Also, adding the discussion that led to this page's creation

Congrats! You found the page! Ummmm....no, I don't think I told you. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to limit your daily intake of new AFD discussions to 6 at the most, per day, especially if you are planning on rescuing any like you offered to do above in at least one. You're going to get overwhelmed by them. Adding two many !votes to too many discussions will tend to water down your opinions. Choose carefully, and for subjects you're interested in! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Keep, for the above comments. I have tried to comment where you commented, and I will do so as you said above. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How many AFD dicussions would you like to take place in today? Also, I have commented more in this AFD than any others, could you review and offer your opinion? As far as my promise for this AFD, its not going so well. I have added what I can find, and am still looking. Dusti^{talk to me} 16:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So many questions!  :-).

1. How many per day? That's really up to you, but I would recommend no more than 6 per day. I used to do dozens per day. I found that !voting in that many creates the appearance of being "trigger happy" and not considering each nomination's merits. 6 is a lot. Keep in mind that beofre you cast any vote in a debate, you should search for notability/sources/whatever beofre giving your opinion, which it looks like your doing well.
   
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sovereignty Restoration Act‎. Wasn't this the one that started the whole AN/I stuff in the first place? I've read through it, you've made valid contributions to the debate. At this point, unless someone asks you a specific question in relation to your posts, I wouldn't contribute to it anymore. You've stated your opinion very strongly and precisely. Let the AfD run its course now.
   
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Experiments in Art, Information, and Technology. I noticed in your contribs that you added a couple of "notable people" from this organization to the article. Part of my reasoning for making you "keep your promise" of expanding this article is that I had a sneaking suspicion that it would be rather difficult to do without using primary sources. Keep looking though, and if you in good faith really can't find anything to warrant inclusion in the article, don't be afraid to revisit the AfD and state (with an apology) that you are unable or no longer willing to expand the article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, thanks so much for your help. I am going to participate in some discussions now. Do you want to add them here or do you want me to add them? (for us to review) Dusti^{talk to me} 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You add them, makes it easier on poor old keeper (I won't hafta dig through your contribs then). Just make new list similar to the one I made above. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I like this a lot better than closing the AFD's. I tend to stay out of trouble when just suggesting something :) Dusti^{talk to me} 18:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hooray!!!!. You have know I idea how much I wanted you to say that. Closing AfDs sucks. Participation in AfDs can be a lot more rewarding. You get to evaluate articles, kill articles, save articles, improve articles... (and in a weird way, it's kind of like a good Step 1 to being a GA or FA article evaluator). None of that happens when you're simply mopping up after discussions. I'm sure you've watched basketball games -- an admin is nothing more than the guy who runs out onto the floor with the white rags and mops the sweat off the floor after the players roll around after the loose ball. Much more interesting to roll around after the loose ball. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were going to say like the guy who runs up and down the court with a striped shirt and whistle and gets booed at :) j/k. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we do that too. :) But the good admins don't blow whistles and cry foul, they mop floors. Many good editors (and admins) exist that make excellent referees, true, including these guys, these guys, and these guys. No striped shirts needed. :) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> Sweet! I really want to become an Admin soon!! High hopes, serious doubts about the RFA though :( Dusti^{talk to me} 18:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it, and I'm glad you did first, but an RfA would not go well right now (I would likely not support one myself) :(. Let's get through these three months (I'm not going anywhere) of AfD work. I'll say right now that I'm very encouraged by your enthusiasm with this little side project, and happy to be working with you. Another thing you can be working on meanwhile is to build up some articles by doing some stub expansion. Stub expansion is as good, if not better, than starting a new article from scratch. Just find a topic you like, an article that is seriously lacking in content but not in danger of deletion, find some sources, and make the article sparkle. That's also a good way to get some recognition too! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Another question unrelated to AFD's

I'm looking for a new admin coach, as Rlevse and I aren't working out in my opinion. He has given great adivce, but he just doesn't seem to be on when I am. Since we have already been working together for some time now, could you take over as my official AC? Just checking to see what you say. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 17:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I've been turned off of the whole "formal admin coaching" bit. Once I'm finished with DHMO (effectively finished already as he's at RFA right now) and Tanthalas39, I'm retiring from the program altogether. I've instead been trying to focus my energies on finding qualified, uncoached editors that are ready for adminship right now, and nominating them. See this page, I've had some success with it. I'm happy to continue with the AFD coaching if that area still interests you, but I won't be doing any other formal coaching after that. In other words, it's not you, it's me :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you like for me to begin phase two of this coaching, with 2 current AFD's that should be kept? Dusti^{complain/compliment} 18:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I know what the dates say up there, but since you missed a month, I'd rather we did 4-6 more of the other kind. Find 5 or so open AfDs, from today, that have had little to no "votes" on them, and add your opinion using policy and active searching for notability as your guidelines. We'll watch them (I won't participate, comment, or close them myself), then after they are done we'll go on to phase 2. Sound good? (I know you're just itchin to close something, but a couple of other editors got some serious grief over NACs while you were gone...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but I went ahead and got two together that maybe you would want to go ahead and close:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fearnhill_School (withdrawn)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred De Luca (consensus to keep?}

Both good calls, I closed them both. Ping me on my talkpage when you've added the discussions here (use the format from above) Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I will go and see what discussions I can participate in Dusti^{complain/compliment} 18:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Other Discussion

Keep, I'm getting bored and have gone to the Test Wiki site. While there, I've been a Sysop, 'Crat, Steward, and currently Temp Staff. I've enjoyed all of them and think that I might go for a self-nom RFA......thoughts? Dusti^SPEAK!! 18:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you would be rushing it and I think you wouldn't pass. In real life right now, you have been having (I presume) a really good day. Don't let Wikipedia ruin it for you. You need more article work/building, you need more experience in other Wikipedia related areas outside of AFD, and you need to further distance yourself from the goofs from earlier this spring and your disappearance for a month. I can't stop you of course, only advise you. I tell you "No, not yet" because I love you babe and don't want to see you get hurt. Sorry man. Wikipedia is a whole different world from Test Wiki, with hugely higher standards. We're a top ten website, RFA is frickin brutal and right now, I think you'd get closed as "notnow" within a day. More time Dusti, and more patience. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me also add that if you are bored with "editing", you'll be bored with "adminning" too. The novelty wears off, trust me. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

How about an updated ER? Maybe that could be beneficial right now? Dusti^SPEAK!! 19:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly wouldn't hurt! It would perhaps get some fresh eyes on your contribs and give you new ideas about where to go/what you might enjoy. Go for it! (keep in mind ER is really backlogged right now - again, patience...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I know a couple that I'll ping to review...Dusti^SPEAK!! 19:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Excelente. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Gracias Señor Presidente. Yo pensaba, como usted es un "coach" de las minas, que sería uno de los editores para revisar mi usuario:Dustihowe/editorexamen? Dusti^SPEAK!! 19:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No hablo Español. Lo siento. Something about your editor review, and I only know that because you linked it :). And apparently I'm the President. Other than that...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked you if you would be one of the individuals to comment on my editor review. Dusti^SPEAK!! 20:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I figured as much. Give it a week, you know already how I feels about yous. Let someone else have a say first.  :)Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes Dear ol' Keep, I know how you feel. Your only one of a couple that I am going to ask to comment. Dusti^SPEAK!! 21:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)