Wikipedia talk:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching

Archives

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{historical}}?

I believe it might be time to tag this as historical. Many administrators don't believe in coaching, and it has been months since any new coachees have been taken. I believe it is time to put this to rest. I am listed here, I know, but after thinking this matter, I think it is hopeless. So I propse:

To close this offspring of WP:ESPERANZA, as all interest in it is lost.
To fund a similar project, with a different approach. Mentorship can lead to positive results. A different method may bring new, responsible administrators. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 10:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel that "all interest in it is lost". I know that I started admin coaching as a result of visiting this page. However, if you were to provide some more details about what you would envisage for a "similar project, with a different approach", then I would be happy to comment on that. How would a different project work? How would it attract more interest in this area? What method would you suggest we use?

Having this here as an active project does no harm, and even if only a few people per year receive admin coaching (although I prefer the term "mentoring" myself), then it's worthwhile being here. If we had a while when no one was either adding themselves to the list, or where the Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status was not updated, then I'd agree with you - but the latter page has been updated recently (I think 3 coachees have been added in the last 3 months, if I remember correctly). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal I was thinking about, about is was a somewhat complicated one, was to set up an "admin sandbox," but that would need to be checked with developers. By "admin sandbox," I mean to set up a namespace were selected users could use the admin tools freely, without the possibility of damaging or disrupting in any way the encyclopedia. This would prove very useful for 3 reasons:

Users with admin access in said namespace would have the opportunity not only to test the tools, but also to learn when, and how to use them.
It would add an extra level of evaluation at RfA.
As opposed to coaching, the user would be able to exercise and practice his own judgement, rather than being "fed" with what policy means. I'm talking, in essence, about field training.

Of course, such proposal would need to be very well structured. I'm probably just making up castles in the sky. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 12:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting idea (and I mean that!) - but I'm not sure if it's technically feasible on enwiki. It might be possible to have a new wikipedia set up for this (although you'd need the WMF to agree with this, plus community approval for it) - it could be something like admintest.wikipedia.org I suppose. As I say, I'm not sure how feasible it would be. Let's see what others think here! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and in response to your comment about coachees being "fed" with what policy means, I don't feel that that is how coaching works (which is why I think "Admin mentoring" would be a better name). For example, my coach gives me scenarios (e.g. AfD is an important part of Wikipedia's maintenance, and is critical for keeping out non-notable and problematic pages. As an admin, you'll likely end up closing some AfDs here and there. A crucial part of closing discussions properly is being able to correctly evaluate a debate and interpret consensus. However, as you probably know, not all "votes" should be taken with the same amount of consideration. Here are a few examples of hypothetical posts, and I want you to identify the weaknesses and strengths of each argument) and just asks me what I would do, and to explain myself. If my responses are within the guidelines of the policy, I'll be told so - if I was to ever make a "mistake", my coach would point me to the policy section and get me to re-read it, and then re-answer. My coach hasn't given me any "answers" or "fed me" any policy meanings (if you want, you can look at the User:Phantomsteve/Coaching page - I don't look at others' coaching pages in case they might have questions which my coach will give me later! You'll see that my coach isn't going into detail about the policies, and isn't "feeding" me anything! I'm assuming that other coaches follow the same kind of pattern. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry for that. Guess I haven't read WP:WHATCOACHINGISNOT. In any case, I think we could structure better that proposal above. Another benefit would be that users willing to be admin would get a taste of what being an admin is like, a better way to understand what WP:TROPHY and the rest mean... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 13:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From this discussion and what PhantomSteve said to me further up the page I think that there is interest enough in the idea admins helping non admins to better use Wikipedia but that many are put off by the notion that it is a fast track approach to becoming an admin.

There are many editors who could do with assistance to help them get the most out of Wiki but who may not ever be candidates for admin. I believe there are also admins who would sacrifice a little time to assist so maybe this project would be better renamed to show that editors should come here to ask for help in learning how to best use Wiki without them thinking they are on the road to adminhood because of it? Weakopedia (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We already have the essay Wikipedia:Mentorship (mainly for editors who have had problems, so they can get help in being a more productive editor - we also have Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab) and there is Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. As such, there are venues where either problematic or newish editors can receive the kind of learning you suggest, Weakopedia. If an editor is more established, and wants feedback (and advice on how to improve), there is Wikipedia:Editor review.

The purpose of this project is specifically for those who would like to consider running for adminship sometime. I'd have no issues with these pages being renamed to Wikipedia:Admin mentoring. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Admin coaching" name is fine. Mentoring is more general and coaching is more targeted. THere is a new admin training school, but there could also be a yearly diff of the important policies that admins need to know so that rusty admins can get up to date. Somewhere there is a test wikipedia where it is really easy to become an admin just by asking. But the actual use of admin tools is not that hard. The difficult part is knowing when to use them and how to deal with the humans involved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2012 redux

Consider the following:

the above conversation ran out of steam two years ago and not one single edit has been made to this talk page in all that time. there has been no actual discussion at the project's main talk page since late 2009, and the only edits to the main project page have been a slo-mo edit war on this very subject

it's unclear when the last time was that this project actually paired a coach with a student, and even less clear when such a student actually passed RFA

there are requests from 2008 in the "current requests" list, I'd hate to think what is in the "older requests" lists

there is a strong perception in the community at large and among RFA regulars in particular that Admin coaching is actually a bad thing as it is seen as "teaching to the test," that is, preparing a user for RFA, not for actually being an admin

So, for all those reasons I would again like to broach the subject of admitting that this project is effectively dead and should be marked as historical so that admin hopefuls don't waste their time here. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the problem is not in the idea itself, but the execution of it. You don't major in something to pass a test. You major in it to learn the content. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point though, is not really about the ideals or goals of the project but rather the fact that it is obviously inactive. Rightly or wrongly this process has acquired a bad reputation and it isn't helping anyone, rather it is wasting their time with false hopes that somebody might actually give them some admin coaching. That's not a good thing, and marking this thing as historical will fix that. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support then. Let's actually start from scratch on this, so we can be more successful. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with Beeblebrox, one should not be trained just to pass an RFA. I suggest merger of this project with Adopt-a-user program or marking it historical and starting a new project based on teaching interested editors important Wiki policies. --SMS ^Talk 09:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think we'll get more responses if we open an RfC. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this decision needs an RFC, we are just talking about marking an inactive project as historical. If a week or so goes by with no serious objections being raised we can just do that. Staring an alternative program would be a separate discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I think it's clear at this point that here is no interest in keeping the facade up any longer, I've marked the projects pages as historical and removed all requests for coaching. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.