User talk:Pseudo-Richard/Admin coaching

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Admin coaching[edit]

Hi Richard. I've been asked by Petros471 to take on a new trainee. I've checked a few requests at the Esperanza/Admin coaching project and found your profile interesting to me in order to coach you. Please check my reply to Petros. So please, if you are ready, just Wiki me up™ -- Szvest 17:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coaching offer - gratefully accepted[edit]

Hello and thank you for offering to coach me. I was pleasantly surprised by your offer since, as you know, I am 24th on the list and I wasn't expecting to be assigned a coach for at least another 2 or 3 months.

First, some trivial questions to resolve guesses that I have made from looking at your User Page...

I'm confused about your user name vs. real name. What is szvest and what is FayssalF?

I would guess that Fayssal is your first name. Am I right and can I call you by that name?

I would guess further that you are from an Arab country (judging from your name, the flag of the Arab League on your User Page and the fact that you speak Arabic). Which country are you from? I would guess that you are Moroccan living in Birmingham, England.

But why then do you support France and Italy in the World Cup? Why not Spain or England? In any event, it was a good call since France and Italy are in the final match for the WC. (NB: Don't let this prattle fool you. Being an American, I don't track soccer much and I only know a little about the World Cup from the web site.)

What was it about my profile that interested you? You mentioned to Petros that you "checked his contribs and found them interesting and somehow similar to my orientation". I checked your contribs (well just the article titles) and didn't find a lot of overlap. So I'm curious to know what you found interesting about my contribs.

I wonder if you saw my involvement in the Carthage article. I ran across that on the RFC page which I like to watch. Some anon editor (Marduk of Babylon) was insisting that there be no positive treatment whatsoever of the claim that Carthage practiced child sacrifice. I joined a group of editors (most notably User:Vedexent) in trying to find an NPOV way to suggest that there was evidence to support the claim but that a final determination was impossible. I now count User:Vedexent as a WikiFriend.

What I enjoy most is jumping into a controversial edit war and trying to help find an NPOV resolution. I don't mean joining one side or the other but rather trying to broker a truly NPOV resolution.

I think the best example of this has been Expulsion of Germans after World War II. I think this one article is the best example of my work. The article needed help in organization but more importantly in helping to find an NPOV resolution to some conflicts. I think my participation helped push the article closer to being NPOV and I hope I've earned the respect of the other editors of this article. An understanding of how I think about Wikipedia can be obtained by reading my comments about WP:V,WP:RS and WP:NPOV on Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II.

I'm also proud of work that I've done on Hernan Cortes,Aztec,Spanish conquest of Mexico and Siege of Tenochtitlan. These articles needed a lot of work in copyediting and reorganiztion and I joined a group of people who have helped to make a substantial improvement on these articles. I have made a number of WikiFriends through my work on these articles as well.

I'm also proud of the role that I played in saving Adaptation to global warming and Crime in Mexico from deletion.

I've not done so well with Criticism of the Catholic Church or Criticism of Judaism. Part of my lack of success is lack of a real passion for the topics and part of it has been lack of interest in arguing against strong POV pushing by other editors of those articles. Or maybe I just got exhausted. I think it's important to "pick your battles" and work on those articles where there is hope of making a valuable contribution.

I think it could be argued that I actually violated WP:3RR at one point with the Anti-Catholicism article [1] (see my edits of May 10 around 8:22AM). Fortunately, nobody "called" me on the violation but I realized it afterward and now I try to remember how easy it is to violate the rule without realizing it.

Which leads to my current "stess point/failure" regarding the Shockwave (roller coaster) article. I was drawn to this article by a request for help on Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) (see the section titled "Is this vandalism?") I am flummoxed by this anon editor who keeps reverting to a version of the article that has a {{fact}} tag after practically every sentence. I would like to find a way to resolve this issue peaceably and in an Esperanza-like way. Unfortunately, I've been busy and all I've had time to do is to revert the anon editor's reverts. Other editors (registered and anon) have also done the same which has helped me to avoid a revert war with this anon editor. However, this is not resolving the issue except possibly by exhausting the anon editor. There must be a better way.

Well, that's a pretty verbose self-introduction. I hope you now know more about how I think about Wikipedia.

How does the "admin coaching" process work? Do you have a set curriculum of topics that we should cover? Or is it more of a free-form Q&A?

I am really looking forward to this. Thank you once again for choosing me for coaching.

--Richard 08:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard. Glad to see your interest in becoming an admin and coming thru this way to realize it. I'd first wish you good luck.
First, let me introduce myself. Yes, my real name is Fayssal. Call me Fayssal than. I am an Arab Moroccan living in Casablanca. I'd spent a few years abroad, including Manchester, UK. I missed the Birmingham Wikipedia meeting 'cause i had to come back to Morocco unexpectedly 2 days before that date. Anyway. I am 32 Y.O. and work as purchasing manager at a Spanish multinational construction firm (Fadesa Inmobiliaria). Well, i first supported Spain, Argentina and England in the WC but as they were eliminated i opted for Italy and France. I am not a fan of Brazil and Germany anyway.
I went thru the list and found your profile interesting though you've been in the 24th position.
Well, you are wondering how i choosed you instead of the first 23 in the list. I checked all the profiles and contribs of all those and decided to go for your account because of the following reasons:
  • You speak 4 languages that i m fluent at (except my lack of experience w/ Italian). This helps as there are article translations and other stuff related to other wiki versions.
  • I see your edit here and think of NPOV. The added section is a sign of your interest in maintaining a NPOV in WP.
  • Many articles that you edit got something in comon w/ what i edit.
I followed your edit on the 10th of May 2006 regarding Anti-Catholicism and i appreciate how you could provide the relative reference. Good job.
Well, regarding the coaching process, i'd suggest that you give me a list of the issues related to adminship (i.e. policies, guidelines, etc...) that seem odd to you or that you find it complex to follow or to execute. In other words, it is not about a tutorial, class lessons, etc... I am open to your questions and requests. It is you that came to this place asking for assistance. So, the soccer ball is in your camp. Whistle the kick-off. You can also email me -- szvest at gmail. -- Szvest 14:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]

Update - 11 July[edit]

Hi Fayssal,

Just wanted to let you know that I'm still here even though it's been a couple of days since I responded to your offer to coach me. I just got back from vacation on Sunday and so I've been busy catching up with non-Wikipedia tasks like paying bills and responding to correspondence. In addition, I wasn't really expecting to get started in my preparation for adminship and RFA for a few months so it will take me a little bit to get that mindset revved up.

One of the first things I plan to do is to take the message written on your Talk Page by Williamborg and create a version of it tailored to my own situation. Like Bill, there are a number of admin chores that I have not generally been interested in (e.g. RCPatrulling). I will write up my version of Bill's self-analysis and ask you to review it for comment. If the assessment is that I don't have the right attitude to be an admin, I might not actually put in for an RFA right away. On the other hand, I suspect that there are a bunch of Wikipedia techniques that would be useful even for non-admins who want to help out.

It may take me a few days, maybe even a week to get to this so please don't take my silence as a sign of lack of interest. I have the interest, just not the time at the moment.

In the meantime, let me ask you a personal question for my own personal education. When you first left me a message, I thought "Hmmm... interesting, I've never heard of anyone named Fayssal before."

However, today I was thinking "I wonder if Fayssal is just another way of writing Faisal (as in King Faisal of Saudi Arabia) in Roman letters". So, did I make the right connection or is Fayssal a different name in Arabic from Faisal? What does it mean anyway? Does it have an actual meaning or is it just the name of a famous historical figure?

Best regards, --Richard 19:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Richard for this late reply. Of course i have this page on my watchlist and had checked for any updates before you wrote your message above which i didn't spotted it 'till now.
I think you are right and take your time. It's a good idea to prepare a self-analysis. There's no rush anyway.
My name is the same as Faisal. Correct. It is the French transiteration if Faisal. Morocco uses a dual language naming. I mean once you are born, your name has to be in Arabic and in French. Same for Moroccan passports and identity cards. You can note the double use of the letter S. In French, Faysal would sound like Fayzal so an S id added to sound as it should be. Fayssal is very rare in occidental Arab countries though.
As for its meaning, that depends on the context. Here are some meanings:

Self-Assessment of Qualifications for Adminship[edit]

This section has been moved to User talk:Richardshusr/Adminship self-assessment

Responses to Questions[edit]

This section has been moved to User talk:Richardshusr/RFA questions

Welcome back[edit]

Hi Richard. Nice to see you back.

I've read your self-assessement w/ interest and got a few notes for you:

Weaknesses[edit]

  • You aknowledges that you sometimes get really steamed and it takes a bit of self-control to keep a lid on things. Well, that's normal and human. It is not expected from anybody here to be 100% clean! The important is to be keen of avoiding that in the future. It is like whenever you feel being heated just go for another non-controversial article and fix it if it is needed. It's just a matter of changing air.
  • You say that you have little interests in images. Well, fair enough! You can't be a bot! The important here is that you accomplish the common tasks. There are many other wikipedians who are into wikiprojects dealing w/ pics. So there's no need to worry about.

Strenghts[edit]

  • Articles for deletion is a complex matter. We hear about inclusionists and deletionists but that is irrelevant as there's a community vote and opinion.
  • You haven't mentioned your language skills. That's a plus. Sometimes it is important for conflict resolution.

FA[edit]

  • You don't have to participate in a FA in order to become an admin. Personally, i've never participated in anyone.

Williamborg case[edit]

  • I see that you learned a lot from Williamborg's experience and that's a very good thing. The point you discussed in your WHY I WANT TO BE AN ADMIN section is very interesting. The problem w/ Williamborg's RFA is that he seemed not interested in a sense. That confused the voters. Try to be clear and consice as you showed in your WHY I WANT TO BE AN ADMIN.

Does content removal qualify as vandalism?[edit]

As it sounds, YES! This would include content blanking. However, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether the new data or information is right, or false but well-intentioned, or outright vandalism.

Back to our case. Where does it stand? Well, obviously it is a kind of a controversial change. It is part of an edit warring related to a content dispute. Kdbuffalo could be right if he tagged the uncited edits w/ a fact tag. He just removed the content under justifying his action by teh section being unsourced. He could have tagged it and wait for a few days to see if someone could bring any verifiable source. If not, he could then delete the unsourced material.

Still that is not vandalism. The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all affected by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. Though inappropriate, this is not vandalism.

Now, to sort that out, editors should avoid being blocked by not respecting the 3RR. Editors should discuss the issue at the talk page while it is possible to tag the article NPOV while waiting for a consensus. We can refer to ANI in case the edit warrior doesn't want to discuss the matter at the talk page. In extreme disagreements the page can be protected until a somehow deal is reached between the parties involved. -- Szvest 15:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pseudo-Richard/Admin_coaching&oldid=1080774096"