User talk:MyNameIsNotBob/Admin coaching

Introduction

First off hello! I hope you find this a useful experience.

We generally try to 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!) Another general point, whilst we will be keeping this page on my watchlist, and all admin coaching related discussion should go here to keep it together, you might need to drop a quick note on my talk page to let me know something needs my attention (I've got a very big watchlist, so things can slip through it!)

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. Petros471 09:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Hi, and welcome... your checklist sounds more like things to make yourself a better editor. Are you sure that admin coaching is what you are actually seeking? thanks! ++Lar: t/c 11:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A list of things to make yourself a better editor seems to suit exactly what is described on the admin coaching page. Is not admin coaching a programme whereby admins assist people who have a fair idea of wikipedia procedures but wish to fine tune around the edges and broaden their capabilities? Have a read of the description WP:ESP/AC. Cheers! MyNam e IsNotBob 11:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. My checklist outlines what I believe will put me on track for RfA... if my aim is off let me know.

The coaching I've participated in so far focuses on admin related things... when to block and why, how to help resolve reversion wars, nuances of policy, and so forth. (see, for example, User:Computerjoe/Admin coaching and the talk page with it) I'm not sure I personally agree with the way that WP:ESP/AC is written right now, but I see what you mean about what it says. It talks about things like bringing an article to FA status. Irrespective of some people's criteria while commenting in RfAs I just don't see bringing an article to FA status as having much direct bearing on admin related skills. I note that you also have an editor review page, and you are getting comments there so you do have an avenue to become a better editor. I'd like to hear from Petros too. ++Lar: t/c 11:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think MyNameIsNotBob has correctly read the AC page- whether or not that page is written correctly is another matter... To be honest though, I don't think we can help you much with research/featured articles (well I can't anyway!) as we're more 'metapedians'- i.e. involved with the more process side of things than article editing. I'd be very happy to help you improve on things like vandal patrol, or any one of the other processes that always could do with help (like deletion, copyright problems etc.) You ok with that? Petros471 12:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm fine with that. If you would prefeer to focus on the vandal patrol/deletion/copyvio side of things, thats where I'm going to get the best out of the programme. I'll revise the checklist this afternoon. MyNam e IsNotBob 20:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)A[reply]

p.s. I would like to hear your opinion on how ready I would be in terms of RfA.

I'd say so far so good, the RC patrol answers were good I thought (commented on them), but we have more to do. What's your contrib history/counts (note that checking this is useful to evaluate users for vandalism etc although usually just recent contribs is enough) like? (answer in your own words rathre than quoting numbers). ++Lar: t/c 14:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What next?

is anyone in this process waiting on me for anything? ++Lar: t/c 19:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably good to do a deletion excercise to complement RC patrol one. I'll have a go at pulling that together soon. Maybe you could do your admin reading list with a few questions thing? Petros471 08:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good thinking in both cases. Deletion is tricky, there are nuances that many current admins don't always get right, so good stuff. As for the reading list... I can just go crib that so should have it today. I'm also interested in !Bob's take on our comments to the first part, of course... ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same question again, haven't seen any activity in a while, is anyone waiting on me for anything? ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for MyNameIsNotBob to finish the CSD exercise and have a go at some of the questions you've asked. Maybe you could drop a reminder note on !Bob's talk page? Petros471 08:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]