User talk:Hatmatbbat10/Coaching

Opening questions

Ok, here are my first two questions for you:

1. Why do you want to become an administrator?

I would like to become an administator so I can better help the Wikipedia Community with my contributions. I would like to help many of the backlogs that only admins can do. I would like to really help with closing speedy deletion tags and taking the apropriate acton against vandals.

1. What do you expect from the coaching experience?

I expect just some tips and advice from someone who has already experienced and passed an rfa. I don't really care how it happens, just a better knowledge and understanding of Wikipedia. Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 11:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

-GTBacchus^(talk) 07:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for those answers. You seem to be approaching adminship from a reasonable angle, which is good. Now... My RfA took place in December, 2005, when things were a bit different, but the basic required understanding of Wikipedia hasn't changed. They tend to want more mainspace edits now, but that's a pretty minor change.

The main requirements for adminship, then and now, are (A) showing that you have experience working on different aspects of the project, (B) showing that you understand the role of policy and process at Wikipedia, and (C) showing that you have the requisite people skills. I guess (A) is covered, if you show (B) and (C), so I'll set up sections for us to talk about those. If we think of something else to add to this outline, we can always do that, and add any sections that we want to the page.

For an initial outline, does anything strike you as missing? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Right now i can't find anything missing. I kind of have been getting myself familiar with rfa requiements. I've been looking at and voting in some rfa's and looking at people's requirements for when they vote on a rfa. Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 01:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Process and policy

If we're talking about policy and process, that means reconciling ideas such as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and Ignore all rules with all the darn bureaucracy and rules around here. Some projects within Wikipedia are more bureaucratic than others, and some rules are more appropriate than others to ignore, depending of course on the context.

So, what parts of Wikipedia have you done enough work to say you have some familiarity with "how things are done" there? Have you played much with any of the more formalized processes, such as XfD or RM? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well I know how most stuff on Wikipedia is done. I don't work with xfds as much as I would like, but I know how things go on there. Although, I have never put anything up for deletion using that method because all the articles that I think should be deleted are either qualifications for WP:CSD or WP:PROD. I actually don't really know much about WP:RM yet. I also know how a lot of other processes work such as RFA, GA and FA reviews. Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 01:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, I first learned about XfD when I was doing a lot of stub-sorting. That's actually a really good activity, because in working through fifty stubs, you have to deal with valid and invalid PRODs, AFDs, clueless newbies, and the whole stub category bureaucracy (which seems ridiculous until you consider the alternative). I think I learned a lot there. Requested moves is the process I probably know the most about, because I've done so much of it, and stubs would be second, but I've dealt in some way with most of the projects around here.

  Are there any particular areas where you want some pointers, as far as procedure goes? Would you be interested in closing some AfDs, and I can tell you what I think, and pull the trigger on any necessary deletions? Closing deletions and moves can be good practice in reading consensus, which can be tricky. (Moves have the added dimension of history repair that sometimes needs to be done, which I find fun; YMMV.) Does that sound like something you'd want to try?

  If you're more interested in helping out with some dispute resolution work, I've definitely got places I could point you where help is needed. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think that the afd closing would be great! Just to make sure I've got this right, you want me to find something in afd that has consensus and tell you and if you agree you'll close it? I think that would really get me some good experience. I would like to learn more about Requested Moves and find out all the stuff that goes on there, and I wouldn't mind helping out there. I don't really care much of what kind of work I do, I just would like to better understand all the policies so I can help out the Wiki community in any way I can. Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 01:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, that sounds fun. Why don't you go over to AfD, and find 10 or 12 discussions that have got about a day left. Put links to them in a list here, along with your thoughts on how you'd handle them (assuming nothing dramatic comes up at the last minute), and then I'll probably be able to get back to you before someone else closes them.

  I'll delete whatever needs deleting and you can practice the paperwork bit, closing the discussion and noting it on the talk page.

  Just pick a batch that have about one day left, counting from whenever you look at them, and then I'll check back within 24 hours after that to give feedback. Cool? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ok here's a list of some afd's that i think should be closed.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austin Cookins-consensus delete here
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warrior Records-isn't notable and consensus delete
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear Gravitation-consesus delete
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madakkavil (2nd nomination)-Was put up for afd a while ago with no consensus reached hoping to get more sources, over a year later still not much improvement and has consensus delete

    There's just a few that I thought should be closed, I'll try to keep adding more. Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 23:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, darn it. I took too long to get back to you, and they're already closed. It looks like the closers agreed with you in each situation, anyway. I'm really sorry about that, Hatmatbbat; my schedule has been rather mad lately, and while on Wiki, I've been caught up in a couple of dispute resolution situations.

Before you pick any more, I should warn you I'm going to be out of town and offline from Saturday the 29th through Tuesday the 2nd. That's Seattle time, so if you're across the globe... Anyway, after that I'm on Spring Break for the rest of next week, so I'll be around a lot more. Also, if you leave a note on my talk page when you've listed something here, that'll help me not lose it in my watchlist. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• That's fine, I understand about you being busy, that is good that all of them were closed the same way i thought they should.

  I'll try to add some more on Tuesday or Wednesday while your on spring break and I'll leave a message on your talk page when I do so. Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 02:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Communication/Dispute resolution

[nothing here yet]