Gazimoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've been thinking long and hard about this approach, as there seems to be an impasse at this point after someone starts editing Wikipedia. I've been through a form of adoption with Krator, who helped to guide me through my early days here. Although I didn't have any structured adoption programme, I've been mostly feeling my way, asking questions as I go. I started of working on WikiProject Video Games, branching from there to the occasional AfD and performing a mass of cleanup work on articles that had unclear notability, either by prodding/nominating them for deletion, or by sourcing and structing them. My single GA, 24: The Game came from that work. From there I moved on to the Warcraft taskforce and created Gameplay of World of Warcraft, while cleaning up World of Warcraft as a result. I've also done the occasional peer review and GA review, again for videogame related articles.

More or less parallel to this I started taking an interest in the processes of Wikipedia, partly due to the banner messages people recieved and partly because I felt I could help. I started researching the structures upon which WP was built and the processes that supported them. It was then that I offered to help with WP:RfA by putting together the RfA review process. This work is still incomplete and is something I've hit a bit of a brick wall with, moving back to article work while I overcome the block. I also perform vandalism reversion when I'm not doing article work or reading, mostly using Huggle. I only tend to revert and warn blatant cases of vandalism - if it's unclear I'll let a subject expert handle it - which is why my AIV count is so low. I also use IRc to keep track of the help requests channel and respond to {{helpme}} or helpdesk requests where I can. I'll occasionally do template work as well, usually on request. I've also recently started helping out at WP:ACC, again in order to try and assist the project when I'm not working on other items or to take a bit of a break.

So, why look at mentoring, rather than an editor review? Well, I went through one a short while back, where several of the responses seem to have been to encourage me to plan for an RfA. While it's encouraging to receive such feedback, since then the RfA climate has changed and I feel that I have become reasonably critical of the process, something that will probably do me no favours. More than that though, I would like to explore ways in which I can support and assist the community through the use of tools accessible to editors. I also didn't feel that admin coaching was appropriate, as I don't really want to see adminship as a goal to aim for. I'm hoping that this will work as a middle ground - to pick up where my addoption left off, while not pushing me along a career path. I would also like to look at developing my skills in three key areas:

• Behaviour - this is about testing out how I react in given situations, keeping calm and reasonable in the face of difficulty
• Knowledge - Looking at areas that I'm not exposed to, or have a poor understanding of and could do with improving
• Mediation - This is about working with others, building consensus, resolving disputes etc

It's important to note that I do not see adminship as a goal of mentoring, or as a goal in general. My only wish is to help the project and enjoy myself while doing so, either by developing articles or by helping people. Anything else, as they say, is a bonus.

How do I see this working? Well, getting a programme set up would be great, with some guidance or areas to look into as a start. Other than that, I'm open to ideas or suggestions. I should probably say that I don't see this as a single mentoring thing - as there are many people who have good advice and who spot me doing stupid things at different times. So, if you feel you have something to add, please feel free to add it!

Many thanks!Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've volunteered to help you through the knowledge bits, and I can help with some of the consensus-building issues from some of my more controversial exploits here. I guess it depends a) what you want to know/do and b) what knowledge you already have. So, what *don't* you know, or what *do* you know has to be the first question. I can review your contributions again (quick, I did this recently) or if you have any specific areas in mind, let me know! Fritzpoll (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, on the knowledge front, I think I have a working understanding of the verifiability and notability guidelines, along with what represents a reliable source. This is from my work on article building or cleanup, as well as working on AfDs. I've learned the username guidelines as well, through a couple of malformed reports. I'm also fairly conversent with the RfA arena, having studied it in depth. I've worked from time to time in the GAN space, and once on a FAN, but not much more. Other than that, I think my knowledge is fairly limited, particularly in the IfD/CfD/TfD/MfD space, MOS areas, dispute resolution and anything else I may have missed. What would you suggest from here? Gazimoff ^Write_Read 17:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Read everything listed on WP:ARL if you haven't, and run through WP:NAS even though you aren't an admin yet. The lesson there on dispute resolution should also be helpful because of the concerns you have there. By reading the ARL, you should be caught up on anything you didn't know about before. Malinaccier (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a leaf through it as soon as I get a chance. Trick is though, not only learning it but also being able to develop a working knowledge of it. These are two different things, as I tend to learn by doing rather than by reading. Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 12:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, it's a question of why you want to do this, because if you don't enjoy it, you shouldn't do it. The reason for this isn't some form of slefishness, but simply because we do a better job of things if we enjoy them, and the converse is also true. For example, I've never participated at any of the areas yo mention except for AfD, and I think at one CfD. Why? Because I find them dull. I was told to spend some time working on WP:SSP before an RfA - I tried, really I did, but it wasn't good. What you might want to look at is some new page patrolling - this links in with your AfD experience, because it does two things: one, it enhances your understanding of the deletion policies, and secondly it causes you to have to think about the editor at the other end of that speedy delete. Despite the way some people treat WP:CSD tags, you need to remember that the author may not understand out notability policies, etc. So WP:NPP is helpful as experience in policy and, if you do it right, editor management and retention. Any thoughts on this? Fritzpoll (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically, it's to become more helpful and to understand how to do more things. I'll take a look at WP:SSP and WP:NPP, although I'm a bit wary of CSD tagging as I appreciate how difficult it is to build an article, although there's still the attack page, advertising and junk page tagging that can be done. I should really get back into the habit of Prod patrolling as well, although I've gown lax on that front over the past few months. Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 12:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A sensible attitude to CSD. One trick I used was to spot a violating article, and watchlist it instead of tagging it straight off. Then give it a decent period of time, and reassess it after its had a chance. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've started using WP:NPW in order to process new pages. No probs so far. Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 23:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Opinions. Yes, I have them. Trouble is, they don't seem to do me any favours. I'm concerned that by expressing my opinions on a subject that I'm likely to alienate people. It's one of the things that makes me anxious about RfA - I'd rather be able to express my opinions confidently than have to moderate or check them out of concern not to damage any future RfA. It's one of the reasons why I find it easier to put adminship to one side and not contemplate it - by putting it out of my mind I feel I can say what I want rather than what I should, if that makes sense. Maybe it's a testament to the way it's become so politicised, but I feel more comfortable without having to worry about politics. Is this the right approach though? Gazimoff ^Write_Read 19:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I can write something on this one, with the caveat that it's my opinion, and others' may differ. I think it is very important to say what you mean to advance your point in a debate. That does, however, come with the usual caveats of civility, dealing with content and issues rather than individual editors, and not badgering people. Discussion in a debate is about advancing points and asking questions, not hammering one's opinion over and over again without apparently listening to others. Provided you stick to these very limited boundaries, as you always appear to so far, I'd say relax and make sure you let us know what you're thinking :) Fritzpoll (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I tend to tread carefully anyway, and rely on logic a fair bit, using policy etc to back up my arguments. I've not really encountered an instance where I've been able to use WP:IAR solidly in an argument yet, but I will probably find an occasion. Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 13:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's a question then: what does WP:IAR actually mean? Fritzpoll (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a tricky one, because it comes up so rarely. But if implementing a policy in a given circumstance causes a negative impact, the editor or admin should feel that they can use common sense to override implementing that policy for that circumstance. A good example was on AN/I recently, where someone created a bot that started tagging a large collection of assumed public domain images as unsourced. While he was enacting policy, it was being disruptive. Other users started reverting the tags, but he reverted them back, again citing policy. In fact, he mecame close to infringing WP:3RR because he was rigidly following policy, as well as causing disruption to other editors. In this instance, there is a very strong case for using IAR to stop tagging, revert the remaining tags, then set up a process to validate each image one by one. This causes a smaller amount of disruption, allows policy to be enacted slowly and most importantly allows the community to work in concert rather than conflict. Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 23:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the way I read it is if the application of a policy or guideline is detrimental to the project, then we ignore it. It is, however, on of our most misquoted principles, where people use "per WP:IAR" to ignore every rule that they find inconvenient. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about this, and wondered if you would care to read over Talk:Robert F. Kennedy assassination and its most recent archive. Disputes erupted a little over the reduction of content on the conspiracy theory front, and I think it might be helpful if you look at how it was handled, examine the dispute and decide what you would have done in either parties' shoes. I don;t mind if this means you decide that my approach was wrong - in fact, that would be quite good, as I too could learn! I'd just be interested in what you think you could learn from "observing" this dispute Fritzpoll (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that you handled things very well, working carefully and patiently with all those involved in order to create a solid, strong article about a historical event. No problems from what I can see, at all. Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 22:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

One thing I would say is that I overquoted policy/guidelines without really linking them to the matter at hand. For new and inexperienced users, this can be unfair or unproductive, since they may not understand. The lesson there is to understand your audience in a debate and be prepared to explain things in a detailed manner Fritzpoll (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Was anything wrong on this article talkpage thread [1] and this thread on my talkpage [2]?

Well, you tagged for a copyvio, so the editor's grievance against you in terms of improving the article is without foundation. Copyvios are a threat to the project in legal terms, so speedy deletion is the best way to go. There are always issues with the speed of notability-related tagging, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the author to provide reliable sources. Your handling of the dispute seemed fine to me. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has now escalated, with the editor reporting about it at length on his blog. Despite the fact that he fails to take responsibility for introducing a article that was a copyright breach, and despite the fact that he then proceeded to discount advice on how to prepare articles. Really makes me despair sometimes. Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 23:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and someone should really tell him that I am not an admin, but just a volunteer editor just like him. Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 23:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, don't let it get to you - some editors get a puff of righteousness, and spend days baying for blood. In a project of tens of thousands, there's bound to be a few. You've said all you can say, and I'd leave it at that unless something else comes up that noone else handles. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I noticed the AN/I thread this morning, and responded to that. The trouble is, he assumes that I didn't consider if the article could be improved. I did consider it, but it was an unreferenced copyvio of a 1 day old organisation. There's not much to draw on to improve it other than proving it exists, not that it's notable. I raised the tag after considering potential improvements, wighing all these things up. But still, what's done is done. Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly right. What you have to remember is that you can't please everyone - noone would like their article to be deleted or tagged as such. For them, it is the culmination of effort, and they're bound to be annoyed. What you did was correct, and you can see my full opinion in my reply on the AN/I thread Fritzpoll (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Well, with the matter looking to have moved on do you think I could have handled anything any better? Is there anything you could suggest that would make this smoother should it reoccur? Gazimoff_{(mentor/review)} 10:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I think you did pretty well, actually. It can be frustrating for both sides in this kind of dispute anyway - them because they perceive a slight, and you because you're doing your best according to general community consensus in the form of guidelines. Nonetheless, you kept your cool, and didn't make the mistake of being overly repetitive in your arguments; such repetition wins few arguments, because it assumes that the other editor hasn't read it to begin with. Your willingness to engage the editor in this kind of dispute is an excellent trait on Wikipedia. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So, I decided to stand for RfA, with the results being 119 supports, 4 neutrals and 5 opposes. While the supports were very encouraging, the oppose and neutral statements were also packed with useful feedback. I've gone through the responses, and managed to pull out the fllowing points:

• Positives
  • Thoughtful/clueful/civil
  • Good attitude/respectful/responsible
  • Empathy
  • Strong article building/collaboration
  • Willing to listen to feedback
  • Communicative/helpful
  • Quick learner/enthusiastic
• Negatives
  • Understanding the balance between policy and judgement
  • Low experience
  • Narrow mainspace contributions (vandal fighting and WP:VG mostly
  • Seeing adminship as gaining a level
  • Socialising with RfA regulars

With all this in mind, over the next few weeks, I'm going to be looking at building a plan to address these reasonable concerns. If you have any thoughts, opinions or suggestions on either how the RfA progressed or any recommendations on how to address these areas, I'd greatly appreciate it. I'll be inviting all those who participated in my RfA to offer there thoughts here as well, should they have any further feedback. Once again, many thanks for your responses. Gazimoff 20:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)