User:Gazimoff/Coaching proposal
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Admin coaching is no longer seen as a good thing. It is proposed that it is redesigned into a form of advanced editor coaching and inregrated more closely with other editor support mechanisms |
The problem
[edit]Currently, administrator coaching is seen in a bad light. Some forms of coaching were seen as an attempt to game the Requests for Adminship process, while others caused actual harm in areas such as Good Article nomination. As a result, potential candidates tend to avoid the process, while potential nominators tend to seek candidates that have developed their skills outside of that process. In addition, there is now a shortage of coaches as administrators and seasoned editors distance themselves from the process. Consequently there is currently a feeling that good administrator candidates are becoming harder to identify and encourage.
Existing support
[edit]New editors are wncouraged to participate in the Adopt a User programme in order to learn the basics of Wikipedia from a more seasoned editor. This process does not require admin support and provides both the mentor and the mentee with opportunities for development. Anyone can volunteer to become a mentor and no quality control or standardisation is used. Once complete, an editor is said to graduate from the scheme.
Wikiprojects are also a mechanism for editor support. Although underused, wikiprojects provide support on specific subject areas such as media and arts, sport, humanities and so on. They also provide collaborative support to article development and a form of quality control through article assessment.
Editor Review provides a method of obtaining feedback on performance and capabilities up to the point when the review is started. Although this allows for editors to recieve wide ranging reviews from previously uninvolved editors, the process is often backlogged and feedback can often take a while to trickle through.
Identifying the gap
[edit]With the above information in mind, there is a clear need to offer ongoing editor development to those who desire it, particularly in areas such as article quality development, dispute resolution, application of policies (including IAR), and other non content related functions.