Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:18, 8 November 2006

• ]

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 _TC 22:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That and about a third of the coaches going on Wikibreak. Titoxd 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages better.

Someone should really get this sorted out - Glen _C (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 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 _C (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 Misplaced Pages and learn the unwritten rules of Misplaced Pages. 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 06:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

(And yes, I do object to a rename.) Titoxd 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 22:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So, yeah. Titoxd 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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) Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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. . — Jun. 30, '06 <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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages". 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 Misplaced Pages". --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 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 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 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 16:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Name change proposal

Perhaps "Admin" should be dropped from the page name.  The Transhumanist   00:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)