Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Admin coaching/Archive01

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

From Project page

I've been thinking along the same lines, but believe that what we need is a more general program than specifically training for admins, just simply a training for Wikipedians (who would naturally become excellent admins once they had followed a lot of the training). My proposals (written before I heard about this one here) are for a User:Brusselsshrek/Wiki School (can't get this link to work!! gonna sign up pretty soon to whatever's going!). I would be glad to merge ideas, though there are certain ideas in what I have written which I think are important which I would not like to see lost, and would rather fork than lose them. Nonetheless, we basically have the same goals/aims so if we can create a single great Wiki training base, then fantastic.Brusselsshrek 09:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing's happening?

There's nothing but new requests happening here for long. What happened? --Deryck C. 08:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Great idea!

Can I make a suggestion to coachers? I think that we should be emphasising that those who write articles, and those who make real attempts to get articles to FA status should be coached first, then the rest afterwards (after all, there aren't that many coaches to go around!). - Ta bu shi da yu 06:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Has anything happened at all here apart from more people signing up Philc TECI 22:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
That and about a third of the coaches going on Wikibreak. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching not for prepping for the RfA?

User:Drini wrote Admin Coaching is not a program to train users in order to pass RFA. It's a program where experienced users help people to learn the wiki ways. So if you come here looking for a personal coach in order to pass RFA, you're at the wrong place

Then what's it for? Why not just call it "Wiki School"? Calling it "Admin coaching" is a misleading misnomer.

Seriously, I'm proposing a rename and a move of this page to Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Programs/Wiki School. Any objections?

Richard

It's not, in my view (as someone who didn't get coached but who is now thinking of volunteering TO coach in a month or so, if the current coaches thought there was value in that) a way to "pass the driving test" it's a way to "learn to drive". That is, it's a way to learn about and practice the skills needed to be a good admin, in an environment where feedback is gentle and immediate. All IMHO anyway. SO I think it's properly labeled. If it were about coaching to pass RfA it would properly be called RfA coaching. (And I would oppose existance of such a program... we don't need folks gaming the RfA process.) ++Lar: t/c 05:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC) PS, please sign your posts with 4 tildes, it helps know who and when....
Actually, Drini's description is perfectly accurate. Here's what was previously agreed:

it was certainly pitched as training for RfA

From the main page:

In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins.

and from the "Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #3"

The Administrator Coaching program is a program aimed at preparing Wikipedians for Adminship or helping them understand the intricacies of Wikipedia better.

Someone should really get this sorted out - Glen TC (Stollery) 06:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, it is intended to help prepare the new generation of admins, it just doesn't guarantee successful RfAs. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh, I never claimed nor even stated anything about a guarantee, but rather pointed out the statement "Admin Coaching is not a program to train users in order to pass RFA." is a complete antithesis of "grooming the next generation of admins" and "The Administrator Coaching program is a program aimed at preparing Wikipedians for Adminship" - claims made on the original page and Esperanza newsletter. - Glen TC (Stollery) 20:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Requirements and other things

    • First off, it is necessary to explain that Admin coaching will not give free adminships. You still need to be a good candidate, as well as to earn the community's trust.
    • As well, it is necessary to make clear that Admin coaching is not an admin academy. I've gotten complaints from a few coaches that the pressure that some coachees are giving them is excessive; a few coachees are expecting that after admin coaching, they will pass RfA as if it were a walk in the park. It isn't, and it is not fair to hold coaches accountable in case of a failed Request for adminship.
    • Also, some coaches wonder about the nature of the program, and have asked if it is just a clearing house for nominating admin candidates. Not necessarily; some coaches prefer to look at every single edit that the coachee has produced, while others prefer to be available to answer questions from the coachee, to help them understand Wikipedia and learn the unwritten rules of Wikipedia. Both methods are equally valid in my opinion, and they're just a matter of coaching style.
    • Finally, I'm making one change. In order to speed up the process, any editor who has not made an edit within two weeks will have his/her coaching request archived and the coaches will be available to take new coachees. Also, I have one request for coaches: please make sure to contact either me or EWS23 if you think you are finished with your current coachee and want another. We'll still go around asking coaches if they're willing, but if you tell us it makes it much faster.
    • I'm still considering whether it is necessary to put some sort of criteria to weed out users who wouldn't have a chance of passing RfA, and I'd like further input about the issue. I've been thinking of something like this:
      • 1 month editing
      • 500 edits
      • No blocks for incivility/vandalism/disruption/3RR
    • These are not passing criteria by any means, but anyone who doesn't meet them will clearly have his/her nomination snowballed by a bureaucrat.
There were no objections to those clarifications and requirements, they just need to be clarified. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
(And yes, I do object to a rename.) Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Are these requirements admin coaching requirements now 'official'? Petros471 17:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Per the link from above:
After discussion here and in the last AC meeting, I'm now implementing the changes. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
So, yeah. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Since it's possible to develop a list of "coachees" and look up the status of their RfAs, it is theoretically possible to develop a list of failed coachees and the reasons that sank their RfA applications. Thus, I don't think it would be an invasion of privacy to ask what sorts of complaints failed coachees have had about their coaching experience. (Naming names isn't necessary.)

What I'd like to understand is what kind of coaching is given and what the gap was between the coaching and the RfA failing. Was it lack of knowledge or something else? An Admin Coach can only go so far in helping a candidate deal with a history of edit warring, incivility and blocks.

I had suggested putting together a "self-study" guide for prospective admins but I haven't gotten much response, positive or negative. Would this help the coaching process?

--Richard 20:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bandwidth of Admin Coaching is too narrow to satisfy demand...

The list of prospective coaching recipients continues to grow and it seems the number of new coaching assignments is not growing (despite the fact that there are 31 volunteers and only 24 current assignments). With a 2 1/2 month backlog containing 54 requests for Admin Coaching, I think we can say that this process is clearly inadequate.

This suggests that the current system of Admin Coaching may be of use to some coaching recipients but that there is far more demand for coaching than there are coaches available.

It seems obvious that a major part of the problem is the one-on-one (or, in some cases, 2-1 or 3-1) ratio of coaches to coaching recipients.

What we need is a way to get the information to more people in a faster, more efficient way.

I have just finished researching adminship and the RfA process and have put together a guide called "So you want to be an admin?"

I hope to put it into Wikipedia space someday but, for now, it is a subpage of my user page. Specifically, it is here User:Richardshusr/So you want to be an admin. Please take a look at it and comment on it here User talk:Richardshusr/So you want to be an admin.

NB: I am not an admin so everything in my guide is based on stuff that I culled from Wikipedia pages and the WP:RFA page.

I thought about providing sample answers to the questions but then I figured that would just give prospective admins an incentive to cut-and-paste answers rather than coming up with their own answers.

I am contemplating another article that would cover things like WP:AfD, WP:AIV and WP:RCU. I'm assuming that these are the sorts of things covered in the Admin Coaching process.

NB: I have not been a recipient of Admin Coaching so I can only conjecture as to what sorts of topics are covered in that process.

My thought is that Admin Coaches could share what sort of topics they cover with their coaching recipients and we could document those as a sort of "pre-coaching" guide for prospective admins.

It would also be useful to hear from coaching recipients about their experience and to find out what they found useful and not so useful about the coaching process.

I know all of this info is available on Wikipedia but I would guess that you have to read 10-20 articles to absorb it all. Your thoughts are welcome.

--Richard 08:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to have some 'mini-guides' to help with admin coaching. I'm sure a lot of the things I've prepared whilst doing my current and first coaching assignment will be easy to re-use, reducing the workload for when coaching future people. Another idea I had was having a list of admins who would be willing to be approached for advice (on a ad-hoc basis, rather than being assigned specific people). I think that's all some people want admin coaching for- someone to 'go to' with questions. I think having a specific list of admins (or other experienced users) willing to answer questions would help reduce the need for people to sign up for the full coaching program. Petros471 17:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Petros471, I am planning on moving my guide "So you want to be an admin?" into Wikipedia space once I figure out a good name for it. Is there anyone who feels that this would not be a good idea? Anybody have a good suggestion for an article title?
Please consider sharing some of the stuff that you developed for your coaching assignment.
I agree with Petros471 that ad-hoc "go to" coaches might be more effective than one-on-one coaches. I'm thinking that there could be a self-study course that includes things like RC Patrolling, AfD, RCU, New pages, etc. The idea is we say something along the lines of "A good admin candidate should be familiar with these janitorial tasks and have shown a willingness to participate in them. If you have not shown an interest in doing janitorial work, people will be less likely to give you a mop."
As a prospective admin works through the self-study course, they can post a request for help and an available coach could contact them.
--Richard 18:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
There is actually an existing Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, so if you plan to move yours into the mainspace, it might be best to use that page's talk page to discuss merging them. I rather like the idea of a self-study course. We could create an overview of what an admin does, obviously with links to relevant other pages (to prevent too much duplication of effort), and then let people ask questions if they need to. Petros471 18:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't know about that page. It's pretty well written says more or less what my guide says but more verbosely, more formally and without specific examples. Nobody else has commented positively or negatively on my guide so I'm probably going to backburner it for now since it doesn't seem to fill any screaming need at the moment.
--Richard 07:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment about prior discussion and purpose of admin coaching

Titoxd said above that we should have some criteria for coachees of this AC, in which one of them says No blocks for incivility/vandalism/disruption/3RR. I strongly disagree this being put into the rules, as doing so means those who has previously done wrong has no way to repent. I suggest that this statement be changed to No blocks for incivility, vandalism, disruption or 3RR within 3 months.

Moreover, Drini claimed that AC is not a place to train people to pass RfA. I personally agree this point, although I believe training for RfA can be part of the coaching. However, what made me feel frustrating is that I've got a feeling from the discussion about that AC is not a place for people to learn how to be a good admin.

If that's the case, why call this AC?

From my POV AC is a place to teach people how to be an admin, but not necessarily how to become an admin.

PS. I definitely need some coaching in the near future as I'm recently elected admin at the Cantonese (zh-yue) Wikipedia. I need sb to teach me how to work. --Deryck C. 06:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is training to be a good admin, as you said, but it is not a place for users to demand a successful adminship and blame the coaches for failure, which is what prompted the change. :It also isn't a place to do miracles. Users have opportunities for reform, so a block that wasn't done in good faith won't affect the user's request, nor it will something from a long time ago. However, a previous block is a red flag in many a RFA, so it does require a bit of discretion in approving. I've seen users being opposed for a 3RR block that happened a year ago, so that's why there's the no-blocks condition, although I reserve the privilege of accepting anyone in the program who has a stain in his/her record blurred by the passage of a lot of time. However, I wouldn't object to the time clarification iff it is discussed in the main Esperanza talk page, where it can get more eyes, instead of here. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps priority should be given to existing admins

Some of the applicants for admin coaching are existing admins. Perhaps those should get priority on the premise that an existing admin who feels a need for coaching probably needs it a lot more than someone who is planning to apply for adminship.

English Wikipedia has 900+ admins and a fairly stringent RfA process. It may be that other Wikipedias have less stringent RfA processes due to the fact that they are younger, smaller and thus in more dire need of admins.

I propose that the selection process be canted in favor of existing admins with preference being given to admins of the English Wikipedia first and then admins of foreign language Wikipedias second.

--Richard 06:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

At the same time, you could make an argument that someone who is trying to be an admin needs to learn the ropes like those who already have the sysop bit on have, so it can cut both ways. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
It is interesting to note that although the enwiki has a stringent admin selection process, the admin ratio here is (i believe, as i didn't check every) the lowest of all wikis. For instance, on the Cantonese wiki, 1.05% (=5 ppl) are admins. --Deryck C. 15:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
There are less admins on en. because imho, I think that it is more popular, so there are more "casual users" who just drop in and put something there on their favourite band, etc and leave again.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

But the ratio is still severe: 1.05% compared to 0.06%: 17-ply in the ratio. --Deryck C. 04:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What is it?

If this is not for coaching existing admins and not for coaching people to become admins nor apparently for people to get coached by admins, what on earth is it for? And if it is for what it is for, mightn't a name change make a world of difference? -Splash - tk 17:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's coaching* by admins** for potential admins***.
* - This coaching is provided "as is" and any expressed or implied warranties, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose, are disclaimed. In no event shall Esperanza, its coaches, or its members be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or consequential damages (including, but not limited to, failure to pass an RFA, past, present or future) arising in any way out of the use of this training.
** - Or non-administrators who, by virtue of prior status or other experience, are suitable to provide said training.
*** - Used without prejudice towards the potential goals of trainees; no particular intent on the part of trainees in the program to become an administrator shall be implied by this description.
Pretty simple, in my opinion ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I usually hate 'the small print', but think that pretty well sums it up :) We also get the occational existing admin wanting training as well, but then I've suggested one or two experienced admins they can go to for help with a particular situation rather than a general coaching program. Petros471 17:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
No, you see, the "potential admins" bit directly contradicts the first sentence of the green warning: "Admin Coaching is not a program to guide users through the RFA process". Given that the program openly disclaims being this, I suppose we must reduce your opening sentence to: "It's coach by admins". And temper that by the small print:
It's coaching of anyone by anyone for anything.
Hm. -Splash - tk 14:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Well technically anybody (who isn't specifically prohibited by arbcom from re-applying for adminship) is a potential admin, but whatever, cf. [1]. — Jun. 30, '06 [18:10] <freak|talk>
Aha! That means that noone can add their name to this list and fit within its claimed purview. -Splash - tk 23:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, anyone who wanted to learn more fit within its purview until there were complaints about coachees pressuring their coaches and blaming them about failed RfAs to the point where the coaches complained to me. At that point, the fine print came in, where we told the coachess that the same thing would be done, but to not blame us for their mistakes. Titoxd(?!?) 23:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I just posted this at Wikipedia talk:Editor review, but I have been trying to find places to refer another editor for assistance with some sort of guidance, mentoring, or coaching (call it what you will), suitable for someone who is relatively new. There does not seem to be any sort of equivalent to Editor Review or Admin Coaching for less experienced wikipedians. Editor review might be too harsh a process for someone trying to learn in the early stages, and Admin Coaching is far down the road. Whether or not "Admin Coaching" is intended to help editors become admins is beside the point; the name probably discourages editors who are not looking to be admins yet, but to be editors. If people could brainstorm for some sort of "wikicoaching" or "wikimentoring" program, it might help develop and assist a lot of new users. Agent 86 04:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

It reads, "It is a program where experienced users help people to learn the ways of Wikipedia". In that case this is not an "admin coaching", but merely a "wiki school". I think we should change this sentence to "It is a program where experienced users help people to learn the proper behaviour and work of a good admin on Wikipedia". --Deryck C. 15:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it a bit to reduce the emphasis on 'not a RFA passing program' message. The way I see it the focus is on learning how to be an admin, but not a 'RFA passing school'- there is a difference. Petros471 17:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I've now merged in the two intro paragraphs, as the original one was a bit out of data (talking about the program before it started). Further suggestions for how to clarify it further are of course welcome! Petros471 19:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for a coach

Does anyone want to volunteer to be my coach, I like nice coaches, and hopefully you will help me become a better editor. Any volunteers to be my coach —Minun Spiderman 11:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

(this user has been banned). --TT 01:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is a shortage of coaches, which means the waiting time for admin coaching is quite long. Stick around though, keep editing (you can always ask someone personally for help with a particular situation), and your turn will come :) Petros471 18:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Assignment

Are coaches assigned by a third party or do they take volunteers on themselves? The preamble to the 'Requests' bit says "before you are assigned coaches" (emphasis mine), but there's no list of assigners so that bit of the process isn't at all clear. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

They are generally assigned by a third party. It was initially done almost exclusively by Titoxd, if memory serves, but myself and Petros have handled duties at one time or another. Petros has been doing the most recent assigning, but is currently on a couple week wikibreak, and left me with several notes about who is available to coach, etc. Based on these notes, it doesn't appear there are any coaches currently available, so I haven't made any new assignments in the past week or so. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 01:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just added myself. Maybe a list of current assigners could be added to the page to make that clearer? --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that EWS- I left you with a load of requests and no coaches! I've updated the page a litle bit to put myself as current co-ordinator (now that I'm back off holiday). The main non-green paragraph at the top could probably due with updating as well. Petros471 17:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Blurb not quite right?

The first couple of paragraphs in the lead section of the project page may be confusing. They speak of things that I'd characterise as "good editorship" rather than "good adminship". The scenarios I've been running with prospective admins relate to things like when to warn, when to block, what to do about certain difficult situations that require judgement and so forth, and little or nothing to do with, for example, getting an article to FA. I'm loathe to change a high traffic page like this one without consensus. What do others think? ++Lar: t/c 14:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the bit about featured articles is particularly misleading. For this program to be successful I believe it should stay relatively focused, with that focus being on training people to be admins (that's not the same thing as training them to pass RFA!). Apart from the occasional !voter on RFA, I don't believe most people think featured articles have got a lot to do with admins. So I'm quite happy to remove that particular reference if there isn't aren't any objections. Any other suggesting for clarifying the introduction? Petros471 15:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd question this bit "or guidance with a proposal they plan to make at the Village Pump" as well. It is, again, not necessarily an admin function, although policy creation has been used as a metric. To me coaching means two things: Increasing skills.. which is easy enough with drills and scenarios, and helping the candidate determine if they themselves are suitable, and really want adminship. (Not every editor is a good admin to be, and that's OK). The latter is much harder to do but can be done with thought provoking questions and good discussion around WHY they are answered the way they were. So that's stuff I'd like to see touched on... ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

central database?

Hi - might I recommend that each group of coachs and pupil create a subpage under WP:ESP/AC for their training, so that a central database is built? This will help keep track of things, allow observers to see how well the program is working, be better organized, etc. Rama's arrow 21:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Forum while they wait

Since the page seemed bottlenecked, I've started answering any questions that were posted, and for the rest have been leaving general recommendations. It's better than just sitting around waiting. I've converted the numerical list (toward its end) into a heading style, one heading per request, like the Help desk. It's still easy to find the requests, but now replies are easier to read. --  The Transhumanist   15:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been clearing back lists in the archives, but after the two members that are unassigned, I'll start pecking down the list. Would you like to be a coach (hinthint)? Highway Grammar Enforcer! 16:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Name change proposal

Perhaps "Admin" should be dropped from the page name.  The Transhumanist00:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Due to the strong opposition presented, I withdraw my suggestion. Because of this proposal, my admin coaching subpage is being miscontrued as an attempt to remove or reduce or replace the admin coaching program, which is simply not the case. The Transhumanist 00:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, based on a few of the comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Admin school being applicable here too. I'd also suggest that consolidation is better than splintering, as regards pages of instructions/forums both. --Quiddity 06:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The editors who I have coached have gone into this believing the coaching will hopefully prepare them for Adminship. Without the word "Admin", you sort of lose the main purpose of this program. Then it's just "coaching". There's already an editor-improvement suggestion area elsewhere. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
At the moment, the title is misleading. It is not clear immediately (and it should be clear from the title alone) whether this is coaching for admins, coaching for those wanting to be admins, or even whether it is coaching by admins. All three of these are valid interpretations of the title. Admins should be constantly learning even after they have become admins, so something like this should (ideally) be for both admins and non-admins to learn from, and for both admins and non-admins to contribute to to teach others. As such, "coaching" with no "admin" in the title, is a better way to put this. See this Virtual Classroom for an example of something that achieves the same aims, without an unhealthy emphasis on "aiming" for adminship. Carcharoth 11:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Why should it be immediately clear from the title alone what the program is for? Isn't that what the explanatory text below it is for? Seriously, if someone is confused by the title (and I don't think it's all that confusing), they could read the text underneath it, which explains the program in some detail. Admins are certainly learning even after they become admins; that is beyond the scope of this project. This program has been successful for many months. Replacing it with some untested "Virtual Classroom" that is somehow supposedly more "healthy" just doesn't make sense. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I interpret "admin coaching" to mean coaching of admins. Simple as that. The title is misleading. Ask anyone what they think the phrase "admin coaching" means. Also, the contraction "admin" can be taken to mean "administrator" or "administration". So is this coaching on how to carry out administration, or is it coaching for administrators? The title really is not clear. Can you not see this? Carcharoth 15:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I cannot see that. The text directly underneath the name explains what the program is for; if people have to actually read the text to understand what the program is for, they should do so. In fact, I seriously advise it. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The ideal would be both. Have a clear name and clear text following it. Also, remember that others might want the name you have used. If someone wants to set up a school where admins can come to learn advanced admin skills, should that be called "admin coaching" as well? But seriously, a name change is not something to get too worried about. If a suitable alternative name can be found, would you still oppose changing the name? Carcharoth 15:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, reading the comments on the rest of the talk page, more graduated stages might help. Something for absolute beginners. Two levels of "more experienced" (with the top level probably being suitable for going to RfA - with the guiding qualifications still being responsibility and trust - those users who are too irresponsible, impulsive and temperemental to be admins can still learn valuable skills in these programs). I say two levels because there is a wide range of experienced users between beginner and the most experienced, and those with breadth (and not just length) of experience are even rarer. Generally, the top level of "experienced users" would be those who have contributed over a wide range of areas, rather than specialising. Finally, there would be a top level for the most experienced users and admins to ask questions and help each other, though this top level might not be needed. Experienced users tend to have found their own support network by that time. Carcharoth 15:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I find this all really weird. There's nothing wrong with the program the way it is right now, including the name. First, the whole point of admin coaching is to prepare someone for adminship. "Admin coaching" is exactly what it says. Second, the addition of 'levels' or 'regulations' would just add needless complexity and hand-holding. Admin coaches work the way they want to work, and there's really no reason we should tell them how to do that, or place coachees into subsets of "beginner" or "more experienced" or whatever. "Beginner" coachees would just have to be coached for a while longer--no big deal. One of the great things about this program is that it's very one-on-one, and I would really dislike instruction creep added to the mix. Thanks for listening, Fang Aili talk 20:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. This is the very definition of instruction creep, with multiple levels, etc. Admin coaching was always supposed to be (and is) very informal. While I appreciate the ideas behind this proposal, there's no need for all this other stuff. Please see Avoid instruction creep. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The program is fine as it is. I don't understand your premises for proposing a total revamp of the program. Also, your Virtual Classroom has nothing to do with the Admin coaching program. Your "classroom" deals with Wikipedia-related stuff such as monobook and such, while this deals with helping users reach their goals for adminship, and also become better editors at the same time. Nishkid64 21:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggested that one word be changed. Revamping is somebody else's idea, and I don't support nor oppose an overhaul, as the program is fine the way it is except for the exceptionally long waiting period to be assigned a coach. The scope of the page is perfect, whether the title of the page matches the page's description or not. I've respectfully withdrawn my name change proposal. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 00:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I see the Transhumanist has withdrawn the initial proposal, but please let me carry on arguing the case for a name change. I suggest something like "Administration coaching", to distinguish from "Administrator coaching". Regarding my suggestion of 'levels' of coaching, I agree now that this is not suitable, and a more flexible approach is best. But my main concern is the quality of the coaches. Any 'graduates' of this program will only be as good as the quality of the coaching they recieve. Are there any check in place to ensure that bad coaches are spotted and something done to correct such situations? Carcharoth 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Volunteers

I'm guessing volunteer translates to "coach." If so, why are non-admins on the volunteer list, that doesn't seem to click with me. Yanksox 21:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Because the intro says "People are matched with experienced users (often, but not always, admins) who are willing to offer coaching." I think it's really great that non-Admins are willing to work as mentors. I do worry, however, that people who have never been admins before may not be able to help their trainees in some areas. I'm not sure "what browser do you use?"-type conversations, for example, will be all that helpful to someone ready for Admin coaching. These are good editing tips, but don't help with questions an admin coachee might have concerning admin-related tasks. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
But this is admin coaching, we have village pump and other things for general advice, and making friends never hurt. So I'm starting to see a problem with letting non-admins work here, or a problem with the purpose of this page. Something isn't right. Yanksox 21:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
At the very least, maybe it would be better to have the non-Admins paired with an Admin? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, but this page is odd, and there has been recently this scary emphasis on adminship. It is totally drifting us afar from the true goal of the project, in an ideal world, we would only need very few admins. Yanksox 21:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Scary emphasis on adminship? One part of the road to adminship is becoming a better editor on Wikipedia. Not everyone who passes through the program is going to become an admin, but at least they have become an ideal contributor to Wikipedia. Nishkid64 21:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Make them a better editor. If you look around, though, you see people trying to earn brownie points for some extra buttons. You see people stating an intent for RfA, people caring more about adminship than articles. It's sad. Yanksox 23:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Well said hoopydinkConas tá tú? 23:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest a name change and a shift in the program's identity. That is, we shouldn't be trying to help people get a few extra buttons; we should be trying to help people become better contributors and have a more enjoyable and productive overall experience with volunteering for Wikipedia (becoming an administrator certainly does not equal becoming a better contributor by any stretch of the imagination). hoopydinkConas tá tú? 23:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
As long as the scope of the page stays the same as it is now (coaching to become a better editor), I neither support nor oppose your stated objective (WP:NPOV). I'm for Wikipedia and Wikipedians, regardless of whether they want to become admins or not. Viva la encyclopedia! --The Transhumanist 00:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You do know you are misapplying WP:NPOV, right? WP:NPOV applies to POV in articles. It does not apply to being neutral about someone's proposal about process for a section of the administration and community pages of the encyclopedia. That generally requires WP:AGF. Carcharoth 19:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
In response to Nishkid's: "Not everyone who passes through the program is going to become an admin, but at least they have become an ideal contributor to Wikipedia." - if there are people out there who want to become admins for the sake of being an admin (and human nature being what it is, there will always be people like that), then they will succeed or fail independently of this program, and if this program doesn't help them and they fail an RfA, they may just decide to leave. I still think the title gives people the wrong initial impression, despite the introduction correcting such misunderstandings. Carcharoth 19:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching bashing

What's with the bashing of admin training? I really don't understand why aiming for Adminship is frowned upon. It's an obvious goal to shoot for, and the reward is tools and privileges that other editors do not have, like editing protected pages, improving Wikipedia's interface, moving category pages, deleting one's own user subpages, being able to immediately fix problems that you come across during normal editing and browsing (like tangled renames, fixing cut & paste moves), etc. I've needed such abilities for the past 10,000 or so edits (I'm now over 16,000 edits). Some RfAs have gotten turned down simply because the admin hopeful nominated himself! If acquiring adminship is no big deal, then why is aiming at it considered to be so? The Transhumanist 00:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Adminship is not a goal, nor is it a reward. -- Steel 00:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it is a set of tools. Tools which some editors, especially experienced ones, need often. And to get those tools, one needs to acquire adminship, hence the goal/reward relationship between adminship and admin tools. To deny this relationship exists is, to put this delicately, denial of reality. The Transhumanist 00:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I can think of several experienced editors who are not admins and have no need for the tools. -- Steel 00:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
(Note: Transhumanist edited his comment after I posted mine. See here for what I responded to -- Steel 00:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC))
it was an edit conflict - I was editing my post, but he answered before I was done. --The Transhumanist 01:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
But your initial statement that adminship is not a goal nor a reward is blatantly mistaken when considering that for many Wikipedians it is a goal, because they want the reward (tools and access to certain types of pages). And if it is a goal for some, then it fits the definition of the word "goal". It may not be a goal for you, but to impose your opinion on all the others for whom it is a goal and an award seems both unfair and problematic. --The Transhumanist 01:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Adminship is a goal for a lot of people. That is exactly the kind of attitude people are trying to change. These admin schooling programmes of yours do nothing to facilitate that. -- Steel 01:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been trying to shift the effort away from admin schooling specifically, and focus instead upon advanced editing skills in general. Hence the rethink in creating a non-admin specific subpage rather than the typical "admin coaching subpage", and my proposal to change the name of the Admin coaching program to reduce the emphasis on admin coaching as a target. If others still make it a target, there isn't much we can do to change their minds. Each person has their own will. --The Transhumanist 01:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It's one thing to give half a darn about the tools, it's another to obsess about adminship like you are. Yanksox 00:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I've obsessed over every project I've worked on at Wikipedia so far! Philosophy, Contents, Portals, etc. etc. etc. Why should I put less than full effort into training projects and help desks? If I want to spend all my time here for awhile helping others to reach their learning objectives, who are you to object? I'm a volunteer. Are you proposing to limit volunteers in the amount of effort they apply to the projects they choose? Are you proposing a cure to Wikipediholism? If I wanted to be cured, I would have asked. --The Transhumanist 01:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't play that card, please. You're not a wikiholic, I think you're someone that is eager to gain somesort of "power," that comes with adminship. To be honest, there is no power, it makes you a target on Wikipedia and affects RL negatively. Yanksox 01:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Now you are just being paranoid. So, you don't think I'm a wikipediholic? 16,000 edits in a year isn't wikipediholism? Reducing sleep to be able to spend more time on Wikipedia isn't wikipediholism? I'm a textbook case! --The Transhumanist 01:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not being paranoid. Almost all of your edits recently have been in regards to adminship. Seriously, get off this page and the idea of adminship and just help the project out. This is a total waste of time. Yanksox 01:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
As for adminship, the only reasons I would be going for that (if I ever do) would be for the tools and to gain access to restricted areas, as listed above. And if you want to call that "power", then that's alright with me. But my goal on the adjacent page and in the virtual classroom is to learn and help others learn, about adminship, and about advanced methods in general. The reason most of my edits have concerned "adminship" lately is because I started coaching. I saw a backlog of people waiting in line, so I jumped in an started helping. I'm now a coach, and I've been doing my best to keep it general, but the admin questions keep coming in. I've also been trying to demystify the adminship granting process and the controversy surrounding the pursuit of adminship. So I've shifted from seeking adminship to helping others both seek it and become better editors in the process -- which is exactly what the Admin coaching program is for. The Transhumanist 01:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm a coach as well, but it makes a tad bit more sense for me to be an admin coach, since I am an admin. Look, if people need to become better editors not learn potentional for adminship. Yanksox 12:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This program has very little exposure

I placed links to Admin coaching at the following locations, but they have been systematically removed by somebody:

I've also placed a see also reference in the lead paragraph of Administrators' reading list, but I don't know how long it will last.

Should this program be listed anywhere, and if so, where?

The Transhumanist   04:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that link is relevant to an admin reading list so I took it off. Overall, I don't really think so much focus should be placed on being an admin as a goal. It should (and will) happen naturally as a result of editing/writing articles, commenting on policy pages, vandal fighting etc. I agree with some of the comments above regarding atitudes about becoming an admin. Rx StrangeLove 05:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The RfA stats page sums it up neatly. You need two things to become an admin. Experience and Trust. The prospective admin needs to have experience of Wikipedia, and needs to gain the trust of the community. A 'school' or 'classroom' can help with the former, but gaining experience is a goal in itself, not something that should be tied to adminship. And it should be made clear that no matter how experienced you are, you will not become an admin unless the community trusts you to handle the tools. Carcharoth 12:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

kill five birds with one stone: Wikipedia:Editor review

Hiya,

I haven't looked for overlap among the contributors to this program and Wikipedia:Editor review. But I think you can kill at least five birds with one stone by making that page a part of this process:

  1. Tutees (I love that word) can be required> volunteer to contribute reviews.
  2. This helps them consider their own editorship as well: critiquing others helps sharpen one's self-awareness.
  3. AS a part of the review, the tutees could uniformly say "my name is xxx and I am doing this review as part of my Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching. So there's free exposure for this program.
  4. Tutors can then comment (publicly or privately) on the tutees' reviews. What did they overlook? Did they make any wrong calls? This benefits the tutees; it's part of the training.
  • I think public comment is better than private, but that's up to you. It would be one more bit of info for everyone involved in both these programs.
  1. This also benefits Wikipedia:Editor review, who seem to be short-handed.

It's a win-win-win proposal; everyone wins.

later, --Ling.Nut 19:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A Wikibook that might be of interest

A Wikimedia Administrator's Handbook is a new how-to book project aimed at explaining how the tools work, their appropriate use on the various projects, etc. Just a few of us working on it now, but it could be a good resource for this project once properly beefed up.

We especially need help on modifying MediaWiki namespace pages... none of us knows what they all are, though I've modified a few on wikibooks. Right now we also really need people to just read through and ask questions, so we can include the answers in the handbook.

Page history merges and splits need some help too: I've done merges, but not splits. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 23:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Where’s my listing?

I am curious to know why I was removed from the list of volunteers. Is it because I am not an Esperanza member? I don’t really mind, but I was just surprised to see that I had been quietly kicked out of the club. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And I am especially curious, as I expressly approved any member of Wikipedia in good standing, not just admins, and not just Esperanzians, to be admin coaches. Titoxd(?!?) 05:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's the diff. Feezo (Talk) 06:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for finding that. Well, it’s not a big deal—I probably don’t have time to do the position justice anyway these days. Carry on! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Out of the loop, but..

I haven't been following Esperanza lately, and I don't know if anyone's managing this program. But my coachee has been incommunicado for about a month, and I'm assuming he's away for a while. Thus, I'm available to be an admin coach again. So, #Whoever is the project organizer can match me up with a new "coachee", or #Someone who wants a coach can contact me.

Thanks muchly, Fang Aili talk 14:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:BradBeattie contacted me, so he's my new "coachee". --Fang Aili talk 15:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Esperanza/Admin_coaching/Archive01&oldid=1149982992"