Wikipedia talk:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

10 December 2006 discussion

By starting the list over, you would be allowing people to skip in line in front of people who have been on the list for weeks.  The Transhumanist   01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, stop! I know your intentions are good, but overall, they're harming the efficiency of this system. As I've suggested in two places now, (maybe 3) you should leave the old requests where they are and make short comments for each in the new system, removing old/expired requests. What you're doing isn't fair on anyone, because it's making the page un-usable - there really need to just be short summaries! Martinp23

How is it harming the efficiency of the system? The list is still a vertical linear list. A queue, with everybody in the same order that they were before. Also, it makes no sense placing active message threads (in which the posters may be expecting a reply to their post) in an archive. You generally don't archive active discussions, and the ones who haven't been replied to yet are definitely active (awaiting responses). Please stop disrupting these discussions.  The Transhumanist   01:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You can see what I've been evisioning for the page at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching/Requests/Proposed (protected page). Clearly, we're not on the same wavelength, and, from what I can see (misguided as I may be), you're attempting to use this requests listing as an open Q&A&Advice page - which it isn't! Hence my feeling that you may be starting to violate WP:POINT. However, I'm willing to WP:AGF and am trying to discuss instead (though you do seem unwilling, failing to abide by the WP:1RR rule on this page earlier and only responding to two of my many comments). I hope that you'll come to understand what I mean by efficiency on the page, with short requests and not long "threads" (as you call them, many not "active" for weeks). For now, I'm going to post a short proposal at the main talk page about what's happening, and would ask you to, as I will, abide by any consensus gleaned there. Thanks, Martinp23 01:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the page. Each entry has a comment, and some ask quesitons. It is only natural to reply to them. And because messages have been being posted on the requests page since November 1st, it seems disruptive for someone to come along and disallow that out of the blue without prior discussion. Did anyone contact the people on the list and ask them if they just wanted to be an impersonal number on a list? Having an impersonal numerical list in which discussion is disallowed seems a bit bureaucratic, especially for Esperanza the main point of which is for users to help other users. Esperanza isn't about impersonal approaches. If users want to make comments to the entrants on the list, or if entrants want to ask questions, we should let them. Mutual support is what Esperanza is all about, and so such interaction should be nurtured, not squashed.  The Transhumanist   02:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

(responses after edit conflict) Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but when a system changes as radically as it has done (nope - I mean as it had, until reverted by yourself), there are inevitably going to be some loss as the system is changed. Seriously, I'm getting a little annoyed now. I've asked you time and time again to discuss, yet you continue to go against apparent consensus by simply copy and pasting the old requests to the new sub-page, which goes completely against the intention of the system! Can I put forward an idea? You work through the archives (perhaps move it to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching/Requests/Old or something, so the stigma about archives is lost) with your system, until it's all sorted, and put a section link to unopened requests in the appropriate place on the original verison of this page, according to date filed (so put requests above newer ones). This seems to be a workable solution, and I pray that you agree, and decide to follow it through {If you do, be sure to use the "move" function on /Archive rather than copy-pasting, then paste what you've added on this page over that, before reverting this page to an earlier version! Thanks , Martinp23 01:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't changed radically. It has merely been split into subpages. That's a simple change. Also, having message threads going on while the people wait in line isn't a bad thing, especially considering the waiting time is measured in weeks. Discussions have been taking place since November 1st, with the last reply being posted a mere 10 days ago. The problem is and has always been that the assignment status of those on the list is not obvious, but that's easy to fix. Whether or not an entry is "old" is irrelevant - those waiting in line knew there would be a long wait - and so it is logical to assume that the requests are still active and that requesters have yet to be assigned coaches. Messing up the order of the line isn't fair to those who have been patiently waiting in line. I'm in the process of writing a proposed set of instructions which I will place on the main discussion page.  The Transhumanist   02:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Updating the status

As far as I can tell, almost all of the entries on the list are active requests. A few got assigned coaches out of order. In order to find those that already have coaches, each entry needs to be checked. Most coachees have a subpage for their coaching assignment. It is fairly simple to look up a listing of each person's subpages to check to see if they have a coaching subpage. If they do not, then they probably haven't received a coach yet. I'm in the process of checking now, as per Fang Ali's request for assistance on my talk page.  The Transhumanist   02:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Format

This page looks awful. In order for it to function at all, it needs to be reduced to a very simple numbered list. All discussion should be moved elsewhere. I'm sorry if this is coming across badly, but I really don't see how anyone can make sense of that huge string of comments. It should be a simple matter of adding #~~~~ to a list. Right now there's no way to even keep track of who has been contacted and who has been matched, and assigned people should be removed from the list. I was going to make a list of the old requests and add them to the new list I had created. --Fang Aili ^talk 06:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing inactive users

I think we should remove users who have been inactive for a while--say, 2 months? Is that too short? --Fang Aili ^talk 19:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

2 months is probably OK, unless the user has indicated why they're away (and that they'll be back soon). We don't want this page to become a list of inactve users :) Martinp23 19:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Is anybody receiving coaches?

I'm still seeing requests as old as November check that, July on this list. Are the administrators just not paying any attention? I made my request in mid-December, and here I am in February with about twice as many edits that I had when I made the request, and still almost nothing has happened. Diez2 03:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the oldest request not yet handled by me personally is from September (WIZARD826), and the next request is from December. (The previous requests all have italicized notes after them.) I know it this is a long waiting list, but the whole program depends on having available admins. And as noted on the main page, while I do attempt to match students and coaches, you are not required to wait for me. You can look at the status page and find an available coach on your own, if you like. I can only post so many messages before I utterly lose track of it all, and right now I am waiting to hear back from a few people. But yes, I am paying attention. Just look at the history for the request and status pages. Thanks, Fang Aili ^talk 15:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. actually, I took another look, and it looks like some of the dates are out of order (one December before October.. bummer). But the other stuff I said applies--the program can only move as fast as.. well, as fast as coaches are available and matched. Thanks for your interest in the program. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just so the editors who request coaching understand, I'm not the right coach for every candidate so I let my coaching statement speak for itself and wait for people to approach me. Durova^Charge! 02:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And there are too many people who are not ready for admin coaching, but rather adoption. These candidates should be removed and referred to adoption instead because I wasted too much time the other night looking for viable candidates only to see people 5-6 months away minimum... and without any track record to evaluate them.Balloonman (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you like detective stories?

I received a reminder today that this page is backlogged. Although I already coach several students I could take on a couple more. The work I do is specialized and we definitely need more sysops who sleuth down the sneaky vandals and perform complex investigations. Once in a while it even vindicates a user who got indef blocked by mistake. I'm not the sysop to choose if you're interested in the worthwhile chores at WP:AFD and RC patrol, but if you enjoy Dashiell Hammett and Agatha Christie and Walter Mosley and want to solve some actual wikimysteries, drop me a line. Durova^Charge! 03:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Renewing my offer to take on more people: if you're looking for a coach and want to become a Wikisleuth, look me up. Durova^Charge! 01:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Messed up the formatting

I have no idea what I just did. I tried to add a comment that I had contacted a user and somehow, my comments left on his talk page showed up in addition to the short note I wrote. I tried to fix it but cannot? I've never seen anything like this. Is this page linked to his talk page? The entry is near the top, the user is User:Mac Davis/Sig. JodyB 12:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Figured it out...please disregard my panic! JodyB 12:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

huh?

Can anyone explain why Sobar just put in a request on june 4, yet that is the first name on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helgers7 (talk • contribs)

I did not confirm this was the case, but the list really is irrelevant. You do not have to "wait in line". Use the status page to find an available coach, and contact him/her directly. Thank you! --Fang Aili ^talk 15:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case, why do the instructions say Coaches will contact people at or near the top of the list, to ensure older requests are attended sooner. If in fact those looking for coaching are supposed to contact the coaches, there shouldn't be a list of "current requests" at all. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure when that was added, but I assume it means that coaches will generally look at the older requests first, just because those people have been waiting longer. But really, it's up to both coach and coachee to find eachother. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay

I dont know what i did but i messed up the page im a try and fix it but it was an accident NOT VANDALISM! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ko2007 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Page Not Being Updated

I've now taken it upon myself to take out the Requests that are older than Six Weeks and Move them to the Inactive Section. I'll now get to work on re-arranging the ones that are newer into the Correct Date Order. I think it needs to be Explained a little better so that people know where exactly to insert their Name, as they names are all over the place. There were some from August near the bottom and others from the beginning of November at the top of the list. I should be finished by tomorrow, hopefully. I'll try to fix the inactive ones into logical date order, but there's so many it'll take me a while. Just letting you all know. :) PookeyMaster (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Should the people be in order of there last update or their original request? Besides me there are others on this list that have been waiting for some time now but since we just recently updated the still interested info we are at, or near, the bottom of the list. Now that so many are moved to inactive there are libel to more of these situations where the original date was some number of weeks ago but the update date is recent and, therefore, at the bottom. What do you suggest? Padillah 13:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know when the format changed, but to me it seems overly complicated. The "inactive requests" includes one from early October (clearly not that old), and for some reason it's been moved to the "inactive" slot, even though I'm pretty sure SpawnMan would still like a coach. I think it is unreasonable to expect people to come back here every couple weeks and put down "still interested". The previous system didn't work perfectly either, but it was at least simpler. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I intend to revert, as I don't really see October 11th as inactive. Especially since you should not sort by the date it was reconfirmed, but by when it was originally esablished. For instance, my request was made August 17th. I should be towards the top of the list before anyone in September or October, not in November, because the requets was originally made in August. With the exception of the very fist listing, the "current requests" were in order. I (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that requests should have been left in chronological order; anything else makes it way too complicated. But that's only my opinion, and I don't have time to go through and fix the page now. I would love to have an semi-automated system where you could just enter your name and it would be put in a big table, but I do not have the programming knowledge for such a thing. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That's why I started the Discussion. From this it seems that it should be in chronological order with those who still show interest remaining at the top of the list (a mistake I now realise). How long should a Name remain on the list before it is declared inactive. I followed what the page says, which is Six Weeks. PookeyMaster 06:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

For instance, applications from August should probably be moved now that it is December. Perhaps 8 weeks or 12 weeks is a better time limit before a user has to re-confirm their interest? PookeyMaster 06:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We could compromise and do 10 weeks, or roughly two and a half months. I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to come back and renew less than every 8 weeks. I would support removing them from the inactive list after 20 weeks, or five months. I (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I just visited the page looking for somebody to coach (eg you) and basically ignored anybody who hadn't updated their interest in over a month. I looked at you explicitly because you had just a day or two earlier indicated a desire to have a coach.Balloonman 07:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should make people re-confirm at all. The only reason they should be removed from the list is if they have been inactive for a long time, explicitly states that he/she is no longer interested, or don't reply to an offer to be coached. It is a simple matter to ask the user if he/she wants to be coached. If there's no response, the user is removed from the list. Easy. There isn't supposed to be a "line" mentality either; this is not about who is in line first, or who signed up when. --Fang Aili ^talk 22:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible tables

What I would like to see, as an admin who might be looking for a coachee, is something more legible/easier to read. Something like:

User Name	Date of Original Request	Last Date page visited	Wiki areas of interest	Article areas of interest	Total number of edits	Date of first edit	Admin Comment
Jane Doe	1 Jan 07						Contacted no response 10 Jan 07 Admin_john
John Smith	8 Aug 07	3 Dec 07	DYK, AFD, WQA, RFC	diverse	27,354	1 Mar 2004
Suzy Que	3 Nov 07	23 Nov 07	Vandal fighting		10,234	Sept 1 2007	No edits outside of vandal fighting Admin_Jane Nov30 07
Baby Jane	12 Oct 2007	5 Nov 2007	RFC, AFD, 3o, WQA	Plants and animals	5,375	Jan 2007

I like the idea of a table. I wonder if there's some way we could combine the "status" table with the request table. I can't envision just how, though. There should also be a space for requestor's comments. (We can discuss just how many columns we can/should have.) --Fang Aili ^talk 01:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User name	Date of original request	Reconfirmed interest date	Requestor comments	Contact log	Matched?
Jane Doe	1 Jan 07		I'd like to be an admin so I can delete pages.	Contacted no response 10 Jan 07 Admin_john	No
John Smith	8 Aug 07	3 Dec 07	I'd like to block vandals.		Yes - Fang Aili talk 01:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What do y'all think of the above table? I simplified it a bit; I don't think we need so many columns. Also, once the list becomes longer than the page, the headers are off-screen, and it can be easy to forget what you're looking at (especially when dates are involved). The "matched" column isn't really necessary when you consider we also have the status table (which would still need to be updated), but I've found that it's nice to see who's currently matched. I kept the "reconfirm" column because Balloonman said he found it helpful. Thoughts? --01:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I like yours better than mine. I DEFINATELY would keep the renewed interest tab on there. I think we should delete anybody who hasn't updated in at least 3 months. But once they are matched, the matchee should delete their entry.Balloonman (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so we remove the "Matched" column, because the matchee should remove his/her info upon being matched. I still don't think we should remove anyone just because they haven't entered a new date, but that's not a critical point right now.

One problem I just noticed is that the date sorting function doesn't seem to work--which would eliminate much of the point to converting to a table. Do the dates have to be in a certain format in order to work? --Fang Aili ^talk 14:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to be contradictory but, they work for me in FireFox 2.0.0.11 What browser are you using? Padillah (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I bet that's the problem -- I'm forced to use IE. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Now this IS just to be difficult - it works for me in IE too. Sorry. I'm using v6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.070227-2254CO with Javascript enabled. I can't test v7.x because of some conflicts with WindowsUpdate. Hope that helps. 199.67.7.151 (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The above was posted by me. I just forgot to sign in under IE 6. Padillah (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Padillah. I have just about the same version you have, I'm not sure how to check Javascript, but I assume I have it because, well, other stuff works. I will have to figure this out later. But it's good to know that it seems to be a problem on my end and not a problem with the table code. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the first table. I think it lets an admin know if a user shares the same interests with them. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 03:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The table is an excellent idea. Is it going to be implemented soon? PookeyMaster (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Sasha, I respect your opinion. My concern is that by making the table more lengthy and more complicated, we are introducing instruction and process creep. A lot of people don't know how many edits they have off the top of their head, or the date of their first edit. And I am afraid if we put in an "edit count" column, we will be accused of supporting "editcountitis". This project has already been attacked by people thinking we are trying to game the system. Perhaps we can compromise: keep the "Wiki areas of interest" and "Article areas of interest" columns, and replace the "Edit count" and "date of first edit" columns with an "Editor comments" column. Requesters often put their edit counts in their comments anyway, so this would be where they can put it. (See mock-up below.) What do you think? --Fang Aili ^talk 00:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

User Name	Date of Original Request	Last Date page visited	Wiki areas of interest	Article areas of interest	Requestor comments	Contact log
Jane Doe	1 Jan 07		CFD	Birds	I have around 5000 edits.	Contacted no response 10 Jan 07 Admin_john
John Smith	8 Aug 07	3 Dec 07	DYK, AFD, WQA, RFC	diverse	I've been editing since July of 2005 and I think I could be close to adminship.	I contacted User:Greatadmin - Dec 5

No problem fang, I wasn't too concerned about those two columns anyway. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 01:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Way cool. I think we're all agreed then. I'll try to get the conversion going soon. In the meantime, if there are objections, please raise them now! Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 03:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching/temp. If there are any issues, please tell me now before I put any more time into it. :) --Fang Aili ^talk 05:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's good, for the most part. But the dates don't sort right. Do they need to be in a certain format? I (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't see why the dates don't work I looked at the help page, but it didn't have anything wiki/Help:Sorting#DatesBalloonman (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was having trouble with the dates too (see discussion above), and it probably has to do with your browser. It works fine when I'm using Firefox, but not IE. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I use Firefox... so that's not the reason. And I can get it to work properly on the sorting page.Balloonman (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Then.. you've stumped me. --Fang Aili ^talk 02:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, everyone! Read this, please!

We're planning to convert the requests page into a table. To see what it's going to look like, click here and scroll to the bottom. This is where I've started converting the current requests. The advantages to converting to a table format are:

1. The information is better organized. "Old" and "New" requests can stay on the same table, which is easily sorted by date.
2. Requestors can add a "reconfirmation" date, and coaches can sort by that date if they choose.
3. There are columns for wiki interests, requestor comments, and contact log/notes, all which have been deemed useful in the discussion above.

If you have any strong feeling against this, please raise them now. If you think the table can be improved somehow, now is the time to speak up. I'm hoping to implement the table in about 1 week. Thanks! --Fang Aili ^talk 15:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have the same problem as above with the Date Sorting Issue (using Firefox 2.0.0.11). Also, shouldn't the unactive ones from 2006 be removed??? PookeyMaster (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Date problem too. perhaps we could just go by number, with 1 being the first. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 04:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, having sortable dates is most of the reason for converting to a table. So if lots of people are having trouble with them, we need to come up with a new idea. --Fang Aili ^talk 03:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for help over here. In the meantime, it appears that I could format the numbers as YYYY-MM-DD and the sorting would work. But that format is not very readable. --Fang Aili ^talk 03:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've received help, and the latest table attempt is over here. Looks like the dates sort properly, but my method (use of {{dts}}), introduces useless wikidate links (which I really dislike). Let me know what you think. --Fang Aili ^talk 04:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The dates sort in that section for me. I think the table is perfect. I (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Old Requests

I think we need to do a house cleaning while we are at it. There are number of people who haven't edited in 3-7 months! A few that have coaches... and it would nor surprise me if some might be admins. Requests should not be permanent. They should be updated sporatically or removed. Several of the accounts that I spot checked, that are old, are from people who are so utterly unprepared for adminship that it isn't even funny.Balloonman (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I go through the list sometimes and pick out people who are inactive (other people check too). If you find someone who has been inactive for 3 months or more, go ahead and remove him/her. Regarding old requests -- perhaps we could move requests that are over 6 months old to an "older requests" subpage. --Fang Aili ^talk 03:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should wait that long. Make it a policy that people have to update every 3 months---heck, to a certain extent, I think if somebody goes 3+ months w/o a coach, it is their own fault. They can solicit a coach. But these 3+ (or even year plus) results make this page look inactive or like a waste of time. If you don't think it is fair to get rid of an older person due to it not having been a policy then, then I say leave them a note but stll get rid of them.Balloonman (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, they can solicit a coach themselves, but it isn't particularly easy. The status page is sometimes woefully out of date, and it's hard to know who one should ask. I think that in the future, three month old requests should be moved to an older area (subpage or other section). As for users that are already there, I'd suggest moving them to wherever we will have old requests, and then maybe make a note on all of their talk pages, so they can move them back if still interested. I (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

<--outdent-- such is the interest in this page all round that it's become a mess; those who expressed an interest in coaching over three months ago, I suggest would have followed it up by now. Likewise, existing admins do not seem to come here soliciting acolytes. It's all very well advising solicitation of a coach, but some editors do not see a wide range or admins, nor of admin activities, to know who is approachable in this regard. What I propose to do, being bold, is to 1. post a comment on WP:AN; 2. come back within a reasonable timeframe, say seven days, and remove any application older than three months, and undertake to notify those editors whose applications have "lapsed". If this proposal seems egregiously inappropriate, please feel free to let me know. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Process-oriented question: Is there any need to have the "Matched" section? If applicants are matched with an existing admin, their interest is noted and their application deleted from the applicants list. Perhaps a "Category:Editors being admin coached" would be useful here? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we could do more. I think we should ask that all admins/editors who have indicated they wish to coach here to remove their name from the list if they might not want to coach, so that a user desiring coaching can be sure that list is accurate and up to date. Also, an update of the status page would be great. As for this specific proposal, I support it. But I'd rather keep the matched requests for now until the status pag is up to date. seresin ^{wasn't he just...?} 23:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. Rather than post here, I will add it to my post on WP:AN.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• You are quite welcome to remove any stale requests (say, older than a month) and inactive coaches from the list. After all, that would make the list more practical. If requests are unlikely to be responded to in general, it may be the best idea to consider this page {{historical}} for the time being. >Radiant< 00:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well my mention of this over at WP:AN has received as much interest as a Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young reunion tour; I'll let this run for a week to allow for anyone interested to comment, then be bold about it.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As someone looking for coaching, I've given up getting a result from this page. I've given up being coached at all. I made a request back in October, updated it in November and have not gotten any response whatsoever. I've tried to solicit coaches only to be ignored or told "go to AfD". I think this whole "coaching" concept should be re-thought. Is there any type of curricula? Is there a list of Things to Teach? I also agree with saresen that the status page needs to be kept up-to-date. I see pressure on the user to find a coach but I don't see equal pressure on the admins to be open to coaching. I also do not advocate for moving old requests anywhere, even a seperate list on the same page (as is now). If someone wants to coach take the oldest name on the list and leave them a message, if that person is no longer interested move on to the next. How much problem is it to leave a message? Heck, I bet if you talk to Ioeth he could add it to Friendly and it could be automatic. I see a lot of discussion about how to make the list smaller and no talk of addressing the requests on the list. After 3 1/2 months of nothing it's a bit galling. Please forgive any vitriol, I'm just trying to help by offering the "other side" of the argument. Padillah (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Padillah, did you by any chance notice the guidelines on the page about what people are looking for in RfA candidates? You don't even come close to meeting them. Even 4 1/2 months later.Balloonman (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attack but that still doesn't address my issues. In fact it only goes to illuminate my point: I'm obviously missing something and intervention by a coach might be able to point me in the right direction. Or it may be a case of me not wanting to do something that is a standard admin duty and, therefore, I should be counseled to stop since I am not willing to contribute fully. None of this can be known without talking with me and finding out if I've "notice the guidelines on the page about what people are looking for" or any number of other questions. To dismiss a candidate out-of-hand because they do not have the edit history you want is at the very least presumptuous and rude. I don't mean a lengthy, months long marriage from which we both emerge changed, I'm talking about 20mins of "Have you tried this, this, and this? Then go do it and come back in 3 months and we'll look again". Another great example - I never heard of an edit review until the guy that was coaching me asked if I'd had one. Without that coaching effort I would still not know this was a possibility. My point is that coaching shouldn't be something that people ready for an RfA do for two weeks just to secure the nomination. It should be something that is offered to everyone as a path, however long or short, to obtaining adminship. To disregard editors simply because it would take an actual effort to coach them is not what this program needs and if it's being reduced to that then it's not going to be any real help to anyone. Padillah (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I did notice the checklist and what part am I missing?
1. Set up an email account for yourself. (have that)
2. Have sufficeint edits and/or have been referred here by another user. (Since there is no established criteria for "sufficient edits" I came anyway. BTW sufficient was misspelled.)
3. Ensure you are regularly using edit summaries (it's been on in my preferences for a while).
4.Understand Wikipedia's basic policies. (I have never had any reason to think I do otherwise).
5. Involve yourself with multiple 'areas' of Wikipedia. (The one item on the list I fall short on, thus the request to have someone help me figure out what I'm doing wrong).
6. If you have a track record of issues... (but I don't)
So, with that being said where am I so woefully failing that I should have understood that I have no business being coached? The only two points that have any contention would be #5 (which I want coaching help with) and #2 (which is sufficiently vague as to deny qualification). Padillah (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Guess what, it isn't a personal attack to say that somebody isn't ready for adminship or to express the opinion that they aren't ready for coaching. Admin coaching is something that should be done when a person is getting close to being ready, but isn't really sure of what gaps they have in their background. It is something that most coaches view as a 1-3 month process. I've just taken a candidate that I suspect is at least 3 months away from being an admin. But he's close. In my opinion, you are not 1-3 months away---you're at least 4-6 months away. (I will post on your talk page why I say this.) Admin coaching is for the person who is preparing for an RfA, not to learn the ins and outs of wikipedia. There are other avenues for learning the ropes. As for sufficeint edits, that is being discussed elsewhere on the talk page. It was a criteria added by a single person without prior discussion.Balloonman (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking for a coachee

Ok, I just had my first coachee pass an RfA and I'm waiting for number 2 to go through the process. I am currently willing to take on a coachee or two... but too many of the people who are listed on this page do not meet my criteria. If you are looking for a coach and meet my minimum guidelines, let me know. Balloonman (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul

We've talked about this in the past, but never really did anything. I suggest that we reset this, and related pages. I propose that we remove everybody from this list; moving to an archive in order to keep them somewhere might be fine, but just remove them from this page. We'll then post a talk page message to everyone who was on this list, making note of what happened, and encouraging them to add themselves again to the list if they are still interested. We could try to keep the order from before we emptied the page, so that we know whose been waiting to longest, but dealing with the logistics might not be fun.

Then we'll notify everbody on the coaches and status page, and ask the people who said they'll help to list themselves again if they are still interested, and anybody who is currently coaching someone to relist in the table on the status page.

In regards to this, do we think it's a good idea to set a minimum standard for requesting here, i.e. they must have the absolute base requirements that would be needed to pass an RfA? I don't really have an opinion, but it's something to think about. seresin | wasn't he just...? 06:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

i've been going through candidates and removing those that don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing an RfA anytime in the near future. I've been leaving a message on their talk page:

I just noticed that you had a request for Admin Coaching on the Admin Coaching Page. I have removed the request because you are not ready to become an admin. Please see the general guidelines for what most people are looking for in an admin here or my guidelines. If you don't know what your edit history looks like, please check out Kate's Tool. I encourage you to come back to the coaching page when you get closer to being qualified for adminship.

as for people meeting the minimum requirements, I'm not too worried about it IF they can meet the minimum guidelines in 4-8 weeks. Eg I want to see 3500 edits of my admin... but a coachee doesn't need that many.Balloonman (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking about a overhaul for this page. I put in a part that a user should have at least 200 edits and that they might want to consider adoption if they dont (I added some other qualifiiers, so take a look) just because it seems like that would be te lower limit of knowing you want to be a admin. Now that we're getting a better idea how may Coaching slots we have available, I'm think the "Matched requests" section should be replaced with a link to the Status chart. The Current Requests an Older Requests sections seem like they need "something" done to them, I just can't figure out what. Also, I'm thinking of sending out a mass message asking everyone on the "Older Requests" to relist under "Current Requests"? Other ideas? MBisanz ^talk 14:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you've notified the admins on the volunteer page. I think that's a good idea. But I think we should remove all entries on the status page that haven't been updated since you sent out the message, so that we know they aren't stagnant. Didn't fully read the status page; I see you have done something else that works just as well. I think sending a mass message to everyone on the list who hasn't "renewed" the request in the past month or so would be a good idea, and before that is done we should move the old requests to an archive. seresin | wasn't he just...? 18:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Right now we have 86 requests and 16 coachee spots. Any idea on who should get first message-spam; Current requests or Older requests? MBisanz ^talk 03:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if done with AWB, will there be any significant time lapse? If so, I suggest the current ones. seresin | wasn't he just...? 03:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If I do it at the right time, like 1AM my time, only a few users should be on. I just want to avoid having 30 users reaffirm their request, and only have 16 spots to give them. I'll probably do current requests tonight and see what happens tomorrow. Hopefully some of our coaches are work-place editors and just haven't see my reconfirmation request. MBisanz ^talk 03:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's my proposed message

==Admin coaching request== You have previously expressed an interest in undergoing the Admin coaching process. We're currently engaged in a program reset to help things move more smoothly. If you are still interested in the program, please go to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching and re-list yourself under Current requests, deleting your entry from Older requests. Also, double-check to make sure coaching is right for you at Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Requests_for_Coaching#Checklist_before_requesting_coaching; WP:Adoption or WP:Editor review may be more appropriate depending on your situation and aspirations. We should get back to you within a day or so once a coaching relationship has been identified. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Only 16 spots? Why is there a restriction? Also, are you actually assigning coaches to students? I think we should decide on the below issue first, though. As for the message, I think it seems fine. Before you send out the message though, it would probably be best to archive all the requests. seresin | wasn't he just...? 06:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you've jumped the gun a little too... we had discussed the possibility of using one of the boxes described above. When I received your message, I had assumed with your message that we were implementing one of those boxes or that you were implementing the changes we discussed above---not being bold. You've restarted a broken process without fixing the problems.Balloonman (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the 16 spots was based on the number of open spots at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status's new capacity column. I wasn't trying to be bold, I checked it here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_coaching_project before doing any changes. I agree with the above that we need overhaul, and thats why I added the 200 edit thing (ok, maybe that was bold). So far though I haven't heard any complaints about the reset. I think some edit req. level, I like 500, 1000 is also good, would work, and some time requirement, 3 months probably, would be a good rule. That should probably be implmented before I send out a note to those in the Old requests section. MBisanz ^talk 06:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the way I get 3 months as a good timeperiod, is that Keeper76, me, and WJBscribe took about 5 months before successful RfA, so 3 months would be an acceptable time to get things like FAs and AWB apps in order, and I'd say by 1,000 edits, a user knows the place well, but probably needs some guidance of more focused coaching. MBisanz ^talk 06:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think 3 months and a thousand edits are sufficient. As for your actions, I don't think you've been too bold. I usually read new AN threads; guess I just missed that one. As for 16 slots, I don't think we should only have requests to match the slot capacity. We can have a bit of a backlog. seresin | wasn't he just...? 06:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As of now, even applying 1000 edit/3 month limit, we'd have a backlog, so that will be with us for some time, but we have had some coaches chomping at the bit for a coachee, so at least they'll have something to work on. Also, FWIW, I had about 300 edits when I entered this program, and it worked well for me. Granted I found it on my own, but if someone has a failed SNOW RfA and every comment is "Seek WP:Admin coaching" it might be a mixed message to deny them. Thats basically the reason I incorporated that 30-day thing into my standard welcome User:MBisanz/Coachingmatch if their just here and then leave, we won't be stuck with them filling up capacity (I'm an accountant, so yes, I do use annoying terms). MBisanz ^talk 06:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is why I would go with HIGHER criteria, what is the purpose of Admin Coaching? To help a candidate become an admin. Coaching should culminate with the Coach nominating the coachee for adminship. Working backwards from there, what are generally the minimum guidelines for an admin? Absolute minimum of 6 months and 3000 edits (5000 if you are primarily a vandal fighter.)... If you don't have both of those, then you might as well not even try. So working backwards, the typical coach will be willing to invest 1-2 months (maybe 3) into a candidate, then those minimums should be obtainable in 1-2 months. If you need more than 3 months, you should probably seek adoption rather than admin coaching. Furthermore, there has to be enough history that the potential admin coach can check out the prospective candidate. A coachee also has to have enough of a history that as a potential coach that I can evaluate him/her. How has the individual responded to conflict? Is there a history of uncivility? When you nominate a person, you are placing your name on the candidate that you think he/she will be a good one and that you checked out their history. 3 months isn't enough time to make that assessment.Balloonman (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Since we have such a backlog I can agree to some higher edit count, are 2000? 2500? acceptable? Maybe a namespace basis like 750 Mainspace, 750 meta-space? Could we handle the time period from 3-6 months on a case by case basis, some active users probably meet a 5000 edit level in 3-4 months. If we don't include a rule that you can be referred here though, we'll have to make it very clear at RfA that they shouldn't refer people who don't meet the checklist. Also, what do you think of these generic notification templates User:MBisanz/Coachingmatch? MBisanz ^talk 08:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

One thing I am finding highly irritating is the cry for new admins, the clamor for editors that want to be admins, but every avenue to becoming an admin is being obfuscated. I can't say I agree with the current push to shut down admin coaching (or even restrict it). I'd rather see people get coached. If coaching means telling the editor to "get X number of edits and Y months of experience under their belts and then come back and see me", then that's what a coach should do. Individual editors needs are too varied to say "you must do this in order to be an admin", that's why the RfA process is by consensus vote rather than an automated qualification process. I think coaching should be done on an individual basis and this overhaul doesn't look like it is headed that way. Having said that, as a person looking for a coach I would like to mention two things: To begin with, I'd feel a lot better about these criteria if more admins bought in to the consensus. I mean, no offense but, right now you've displayed a consensus of 2. Also, if you cut off this avenue for people that want to progress then please provide a clear-cut avenue for them to use in order to progress to the point they can get here. In other words, don't just come up with guidelines that shut down coaching. Replace it with something for those that don't meet your requirements and make it blatant that anyone that does not meet the coaching requirements is not deficient but simply coaching is a short-term review to ensure an editor is ready for RfA, then suggest a longer term solution for those not ready for coaching. Padillah (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. I think the primary problem is that very few admins participate in the coaching program. If we had 100 admins doing this program, we probably wouldn't need any Checklist items. That means 1.There are a limited number of coachee spots available, 2.There are very few admins willing to do the housekeeping of the program. Right now we're trying to work towards redoing the Checklist, so that a user could come here, see they don't have enough experience (like not enough edits, experience, etc), and then come back when they do. Also, I'm hoping to add some more instructions pointing users at things like Adoption and Editor Review, as well as some other areas. Also, as the instructions say, you are free to contact any administrator (volunteer here or not) and request coaching, its an individual relationship thing, so its all individual admin choice. Even when I pair a coachee and an admin, its still up to the admin to confirm the relationship. MBisanz ^talk 04:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I might add that I did drop a line to the Admin Noticeboard that I'd like to work on a major overhaul of this program. I know Ballonman and Seresin came here from different directions than that, but I'd say 3 admins trying to overhaul this is pretty good, considering we only have 25 admins participating. If you can think of other ways to bring more admins here, short of WP:CANVASSING, I'm all ears. MBisanz ^talk 08:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and understanding, it does help in this (sometimes) uphill battle. I can imagine it's just as frustrating for you guys to have people confirmed admins and then they don't participate. If there is anything I could do please let me know. Padillah (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Declinations

I went through all the names in the Old Requests section. I'm proposing these user be declined for admin coaching for the listed reasons. There are others with less than 2500 edits, that we will deal with, but these all have fewer than 1000 or have not edited in 2008. If we agree, I'll send out the message later tonight/tomorrow.

1. User talk:Wiki Raja-blocks
2. User talk:Jaakobou-blocks
3. User talk:Roosterrulez-blocks
4. User talk:wikidpete-inactive
5. User talk:Axel8-inactive
6. User talk:Demyx9-inactive
7. User talk:Socks 01-inactive
8. User talk:Beano, listed as BeanoJosh-inactive
9. User talk:Haysead-too few edits
10. User talk:JLAC-too few edits
11. User talk:Rankun-too few edits
12. User talk:Holmes.sherlock-too few edits
13. User talk:KBW1-too few edits
14. User talk:Desalvionjr-too few edits
15. User talk:Ko2007-too few edits and inactive
16. User talk:Ks0stm-too few edits
17. User talk:Jamessugrono-too few edits
18. User talk:Liscobeck-too few edits
19. User talk:Cartman0052007-too few edits
20. User talk:Warrior4321-too few edits
21. User talk:Pookeo9-too few edits
22. User talk:Pewwer42-too few edits found coach
23. User talk:Nothing444-too few edits low edit count, but very active, will look in more detail
24. User talk:CJMiller-too few edits
25. User talk:Scetoaux-too few edits another one I need to look into

These 5 users have very strong edit histories (>10,000), so they would probably be the best for a coach looking for a candidate who could go to RfA within a month or so.

• User talk:Epbr123-Very good candidate He's at RfA and it looks like he could've used a coach.
• User talk:Mitchazenia-Good candidate already admin
• User talk:Sjones23-Good candidate
• User talk:Michaelbusch-Good candidate
• User talk:Spawn Man-Good, but blocks history

MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd support dropping the above... I was basically working on that the other day... but looks like you've gone to the next level :)Balloonman (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll tackle these tonight (14 hours from now) using the standard template, tweak a bit for those with block-heavy pasts. MBisanz ^talk 09:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not set in stone, but I'm going to list 4 months and 2500 edits on the checklist, just so users aren't too confused when I send the decline message. MBisanz ^talk 21:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to reitterate my opinion that if you are declining someone from Admin Coaching you give a specific reason and offer an alternative path for what stage they are prepared for. This will help with bad feelings if you are simply telling them they are in the wrong place rather than they are not good enough. Believe me, that's the message most will hear. Padillah (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the message they got User:MBisanz/Coaching#Admin_coaching_request_status. Is it enough? MBisanz ^talk 21:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

While I have no problem with removing somebody who has less than 1000 edits/repeated blocks/inactive, I'm not sold on the notion of putting the 2500/4 months out there yet in stone. That's basically *MY* guideline... and I think it is very defensible based upon expectations at RfAs. But, we've only had 4 people respond to this discussion (three admins and Padillah.) There is improving the process, but that should be done via some sort of consensus. But I do think we need some sort of guideline to eliminate those eager beavers who have no track record and then wonder why nobody is asking them to be a coach. It would also help as it would enable prospective coaches to better identify serious candidates who only need a little guidance before going up for nomination.Balloonman (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Okey, I'll hold off on the 1000-2000 level notifications. I'm going to try to write a mini-coaching thing of all the things an inexperienced user can do on their own (like a list). I should have it done later tonight. MBisanz ^talk 04:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And if your looking for some easy RfAs, try User:Sjones23 or User:Michaelbusch, I'd say they'd be ready with 1-2 weeks of coaching tops. MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't deny anybody who has over a 1500 edits... while I think we should establish a higher criteria going forward, I would grandfather users like Padillah who may not meet the "new guidelines" and only deny the obvious ones!Balloonman (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Recruitment

As of now we have 25 coaches and 70 people (including those above I propose declining) who want coaches. I think we need to do some sort of recruitment drive to get more admins to join, there are something like 900 active admins, and I suspect there are at least 25 more out there who would take on such a project. Any ideas? MBisanz ^talk 08:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have considered helping out here, but I am somewhat daunted by the process of locating good matches. I wonder if it would be helpful to have potential admin coaches register somewhere with their qualifications and requirements and let admin-coach wannabes approach them? Just a thought. I've never hung out in this neighborhood. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess you could start by picking a coach from the status page and asking them some questions. Padillah (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks, I'll do that. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Prerequisites for RfC

I would like to get some other feedback on this. I had an exchange with Balloonman in which he posted this on my talk page:

• Hey there Tan, two things, first, the comments/questions that you posted on the admin coaching main page probably would be more appropriate on a talk page---either yours, mine, or the Admin coaching page. But basically, I personally think you are at least 3-6 months away from being a moderately viable candidate. Yes, you've made a large number of edits, but a general minimum guideline is 6 months of activity on Wikipedia... but even at 6 months you are barely meeting people's expectations. Generally successful RfA's invovle people who have been active for 9-12 months---minimum. I was going to scratch you off the list, but I decided that somebody else might be willing to coach you despite your lack of tenure. Over eagerness is also something that can be a mark against a potential candidate. The fact that you started editing in December and immediately requested coaching is a red flag in many people's books.Balloonman (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, with all due respect to Balloonman (and I essentially agreed with most of his comments in my reply), this is in contradiction to the "Checklist" presented on the mainpage, which is a short list of very simple things (Have an email address, 200 edits, be aware of the policies, etc). Balloonman, in saying that he was going to scratch me off the list (with 3 active months of experience, lots of passive observation and 4200+ edits) makes it seem like one essentially needs to be completely qualified to submit a RfA before asking to be coached. I was under the impression that this coaching program was to work with moderately new people like me for several months to prepare me for the RfA process and hopefully make it a successful one.

I'm not trying to make waves here, I know I have time to go and I need a lot more experience - but I'd like a third opinion, as it were, or a clarification from Balloonman. Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If you hadn't indicated this was regarding admin coaching, or if he didn't mentioned "scratching you off the list", I would have been certain Balloonman was referring to the criteria that a current WP:RFA candidate would need. This is the polar opposite to what the admin coaching process is all about. At least in my opinion. Users should not be discouraged from submitting a request to be coached because they aren't "ready", especially not a user who has over 4,000 edits. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't scratch him because he had a decent number of edits, but is not even close to being ready---he may have over 4K in edits but he has only been around for 2.5 months... and made the request when he had less than one month of experience. Admin Coaching is not a vehicle to get introduced to the policies and procedures of wikipedia---there are other avenues for that. There are different vehicles for newbies to gain exposure to wikipedia. Admin Coaching is an avenue for people who are close to being ready RfA, but not quite there to get there or would like a refresher first. As a prospective Admin coach, I'm looking for somebody who is 'near' being ready for an RfA---not somebody like PwnerELITE who in February doubled his most productive month and still has less than 150 edits. Somebody who in 1-2 months could go for an RfA, but may need direction. Tanthalas, isn't ready, but I can see him being reading in 3 months---and another coach may be willing to take him with a 3 month window or it may take 1-2 months for somebody to accept him--or may have different expectations. But one of the problems with the list is that too many people aren't even close to being ready. If a person doesn't meet certain minimum standards, they should be removed from the list by whatever prospective admin coach looks at their background. (Eg less than 2500 edits and 4 months of edit history.) Otherwise the list wastes time as every prospective coach ends up reviewing the same newbie.Balloonman (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I should also note, that the 'qualification' to which you reference above about 200 edits, was added unilaterally by a single user without prior discussion just 2 days ago. 200 edits isn't nearly enough... 4 months of history and 2500 edits should be a minimum. A 1000 edits can be obtained in a month by a vandal fighter---and is relatively meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 06:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I tend to agree that one does not need to have many qualifications before requesting coaching here. I think one thousand edits and two months of experience to indicate that an editor is probably going to stick around would be good benchmarks. But that's just me. Since we seem to finally be doing an overhaul of this page, I think it's a good idea to decide. seresin | wasn't he just...? 06:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not nearly enough time... an RfA requires 6-9 months MINIMUM... a coachee should be ready in 1-2 months. If a person hasn't been around for at least 4 months, then they should seek adoption. A 1000 edits isn't that much for a vandal fighter.Balloonman (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think what Balloonman did constitutes coaching. He saw what the editor needed to progress toward admin status and told the editor to get the requisite experience. Why isn't that considered coaching? If you go to a baseball coach and tell him you want to play ball they don't (generally) turn you away because you can't play, if you could play you wouldn't need a coach. I don't understand the propensity to only coach people that are ready for RfA. Isn't that what coaching is for? To help get you ready for RfA? If the editor is already there then what's the need for coaching?Padillah (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Coaching isn't for the person who is currently ready, I just took a coachee that I feel would have zero chance of passing an RfA today. But I can see him passing one in 2-3 months---if he starts applying his efforts a little differently. He has the tenure and the edit count to be an admin, but he lacks the experience and breadth of knowledge. Coaching is for people like him who are almost ready, but not quite there and need somebody to help them learn the ins-outs of the process. It is a place to smooth out the rough edges and make sure the candidate is ready. It is not, IMHO, a place to go for somebody who is 4-9 months away from a viable candidacyBalloonman (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

But your humble opinion of who is 2-3 months from RfA is tenuous and vague (not to mention unaccessible to most other editors). Given the lack of concrete qualifications for admin status I think coaching should be open to all and dealt with on a case by case basis. I see MBisanz trying to place arbitrary qualifications on coaching and I think it reeks of editcountitis. I appreciate that others are not participating but that does not give you two the right to co-opt this process to suit your needs. I also don't think it's your place to determine what is or is not a valid coaching request. As hopeless as you find my request, I have had several admins offer to help, and even a formal offer for coaching (it didn't work out for RL reasons, not anything to do with me or my abilities). I point this out only to accentuate the fact that there are others that would have no issues coaching a person that you disparage. This process is too central to the education of new admins to be co-opted into something it's not. Padillah (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've posted another notice asking more users to come and comment on these proposed changes. I'm open to discussing what standards we apply, but I do feel some standard is required. A user who hasn't been active in 2008, IMO, shouldn't be assigned a coach. A user who is currently blocked, shouldn't be assigned a coach. Edit counts are somewhat arbitrary, but I think it serves as a quality control device (using the limited resources to process those who need the least time coaching). Put a different way, if a user has 600 edits, and would take 5 months of continuous coaching to reach RfA level, it seems more practical to have them work through other mechanisms and have a coach spend 3 of those 5 months getting another user who is closer to RfA through coaching. MBisanz ^talk 21:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually no. It isn't tenuous and vague. As a general rule of thumb, a person who has less than 3000-3500 edits will not pass an RfA (and Vandal Fighters need to double that number.) Likewise a person who has less than 6 months of edit history will find it difficult to pass an RfA. (And even at 6 months and 3500 edits you are going to get opposes based on lack of experience.) Blocks/bans/vandalism will generally disqualify a candidate for a year. Thus, identifying people who could be ready in 2-3 months is academic. Yes it does have some editcountitis... but guess what, that's reality. Start paying attention to RfA's and see what happens when somebody lacking sufficeint experience is nominated.Balloonman (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fairness to all editors

I don't really think its fair for people to add their names to the list half way up when there are people who have been waiting longer. Is there something that can be done about this, because its a little frustrating when you wait for over a month only to see other people adding their names further up the list. Although in good faith i assume these people meant no harm it still is something that needs to be looked at. Seddon69 (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would merely be bold and move their name to the proper spot on the list. Tanthalas39 (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The current list should reflect the order in which people edit the page. The order of the Old requests lists should not be changing. Feel free to fix this nicely if you see it. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Mission of this proceess

I think I'm noticing a discrepancy between editors regarding the mission of this process. I was under the impression this process was a voluntary one (on the part of both parties) and the goal was to take an editor from whatever point they are at to a point they would realistically pass an RfA. Given that there are no qualifications for passing an RfA I don't understand the logic behind placing quantifiers on this process. If a coach feels they can handle an editor it shouldn't matter how some other admin feels about it. Am I missing something? Why must some limits be set? When participation with any given editor is at your sole discretion, what function do these limits serve? Padillah (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I predict these questions to be very hard to answer, especially (and by fiat, only) by consensus. Users like Balloonman are seeing the coaching process as a final polish on an already esteemed editing career, while other coaches are far less stringent in their criteria and are willing to take on promising users with much less experience. In reality, I wouldn't call this a bad thing - a range of opinions will cover the range of applicants in a self-correcting way. Should the process be more structured? Possibly. However, I would balk at setting strict limits - let the coaches themselves set their own criteria; the RfA results will speak for themselves. I think the salient need here is for more coaches. Tanthalas39 (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is a very easy question to answer. Let me make a few observations:

• A new editor comes to this page and adds their name to the list thinking, "Hey, someday I'd like to be an admin." Said editor has less than a thousand edits and just started editing that month. Nobody takes them under their wing because this isn't adoption, but admin coaching. Said editor thus, sits on the list for months and starts to reiterate their interest---sometimes making snide remarks. But they become frustrated because nobody is accepting them as a coachee and they don't know why. Before long there are a dozen users with no experience wanting a coach, but none of them are close to being ready for an RfA. 4 months down the road, the user may have garnered a decent edit history, but they are not being considered because visiting potential coaches look at the candidate and wonder, "I wonder what is wrong with that candidate that nobody has offered to be his coach?"
• An admin comes to the board thinking, "Hey, I'd love to take somebody under my wings teach them the ropes and sponsor them through adminship." The admin is thinking 1-2 (maybe 3 months) of mentoring and then an RfA. The look at the list, which now has users waiting 3 months and griping about not having enough coaches. So they look at the first candidate, and discover that said candidate has only been on wikipedia for 3 months and made 500 edits. So they look at the second candidate, ditto. They go through 6 candidates without finding anybody who is anywhere close to being ready for an RfA. They then conclude that this project doesn't work and they leave.
• An experienced editor comes to this page, they are close to being ready for an RfA, but they don't know what to expect. They also know that they need some help, but they don't really know where or what they need. They look at the list and realize that there are people who have been waiting for months to no avail. They decide to move on, because the project doesn't work. Perhaps they go out and ask an admin buddy of theirs to coach them. Perhaps they run for adminship on their own. Either way some of the best prospects, rather than becoming champions of the project, leave here thinking it is a waste of time.
• Another admin comes to the page looking for a diamond in the rough... they start going through the list of users looking for a candidate that is 1-2 months away from being an admin, but can't find anybody who is close to being ready. Now here's the rub, they KNOW that they are looking up the edit histories and backgrounds of users who somebody else has already rejected! They leave thinking this project doesn't work because it doesn't---and they don't come back!

Ultimately, the success or failure of this project rests upon the volunteer admins who are willing to mentor a prospective candidate---if they feel like they are wasting their time, they are not going to come back.

There thus has to be a mechanism to get rid of candidates that are not ready. Without it, everybody looses.

Do you leave it up to each prospective coach to "decline" a prospective user or do you establish some sort of objective criteria? If it is subjective then this page would be litered with, "why was I denied?" type posts. Objective criteria protects the coachee from a coach who has stricter criteria in what they are looking for... it makes it possible for one admin to say, "I don't think CandidateX is ready, but per the guidelines, I need to leave him/her here in case somebody else is interested in coaching candidateX."Balloonman (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good walk-through of the situation, I'd say it accurately represents the situation. My $.02 are that many people new to the site see Admins and think of it as a promotion in the real world (think of all the 100 edit RfA SNOWs) and want to achive it as quickly as possible. So they come here and ask for a coach. And lets say they found one. But by the third month of coaching with rather mundane tasks like AFD voting, reverting vandalism, and cleaning up the backlog, they realize that Wikipedia editing isn't a status symbol and go inactive. Now a coach has wasted 3 months on a user who didn't have the dedication/drive to work on WP:ENC. Second, at any given time there is a range of editors who want/need coaches to refine their style. Some are days from RfA, some are months. Assuming their a good user, they'll be able to continue editing without hurting their reputation. So it makes sense for coaches to handle those nearer to the RfA date since they'll need the least amount of time coached. So instead of an admin coaching one user for 8 months from 700 to 4700 edits, they might be able to coach 3 for ~2 months a piece from 4000 to 5100 edits and successful RfAs. MBisanz ^talk 04:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, ok, ok. As a programmer I know well the impact of managing expectations. Let me explain my fears and maybe they can be allayed. My biggest fear is pretty much the opposite of Balloonman's first example:

• A new, well intentioned user comes here thinking "Hmm, let me prepare for adminship and see what needs to be done." They get here, see this page with all the criteria but the RfA page says there are no criteria and get confused. They are then told that they have been denied coaching because they aren't even close to passing RfA (which they knew in the first place). They get discouraged by getting stopped before they even get started and loose all interest in becoming an admin.
• An older user wanting to be an admin comes here, sees the numbers for qualification and thinks "with my numbers, I'm a shoe-in for RfA". His edits are not the best and he has some habits that are not very welcome, but his numbers are clean. Halfway through his RfA someone nominates the request for WP:SNOW, the user fights back "I have more than double the numbers to qualify, what's wrong?" Now he thinks people don't like him and are out to get him. Get a couple of these and users that are looking for an RfA start feeling like the process is completely arbitrary and doesn't even abide by it's own Qualification Criteria.

In short how do we overcome the bad-will generated by "denying" people and how do we rationalize placing qualifiers on a process that prepares you for a process with no qualifiers? Could we have coaches describe a level of editor they are willing to accept? We can have maybe four or five levels and a coach can say "I don't handle anyone with specs under L3". This would eliminate the need for denying people but still help manage expectations and yet allow anyone to participate. It would also allow for the establishing of trend data such that if every coach starts at L3 and stays that way for 6 months then we can say "Coaches have shown, unambiguously, that they don't consider a editor with fewer than X edits" and have the data to back that up. The template that MBisanz made is an awesome step in elucidating the various programs that WP has to offer. I still think the qualifications need to be much looser than have been expressed so far. After all, there are successful RfA's for editors with less than 1000 edits, so where do we get the idea we can unequivocally place these kinds of restrictions? Padillah (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points. I know at WT:RFA its been discussed from some time putting an absolute lower floor (1000 edits I think) into the instructions or as like a big red warning when someone has an RfA edit screen up. At the nominate page now Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate#To_nominate_yourself there is language like

There is no minimum requirement, but self-nominated candidates who have fewer than 1,000 edits are not likely to succeed. More importantly, candidates should have contributed substantially to different areas of Wikipedia and should demonstrate a thorough understanding of Wikipedia policies (e.g., deletion policy). If you have doubts about proceeding, admin coaching is worth exploring.

So I sorta see that as saying "Look anyone can run for Admin, but there is a soft requirement system and if you'd like more help with understanding it, go to Admin coaching" Here at admin coaching we're trying to make admins who will pass RfA with certainty, so of course the standards would be higher than the lowest edit count ever to pass RfA. Has there been a non-reconfirm RfA in the last 24 months that was less than 1,000 edits? Less than 3,000? and passed?

As to the second point, I'm fairly certain there is a warning on the main admin coaching page that says "Admin coaching is no guarantee of passing RfA". If a user is mistaking Admin Coaching's project norms as being the community at-large's norms, I'm fairly certain they haven't investigated the project-space much, as it becomes rather obvious that similar processes like PROD and AFD have vastly different norms, despite being confusable. Of course I'm open to a warning like "these are the checklists we look for in evaluating strong admin candidates, they do not bind the RfA community" And we could set the edit count standard to 1500-2000 or even 1000-1500. MBisanz ^talk 17:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How about something like this?

A quick glance at the RfA mainpage will quickly reveal that there are no official requirements to becoming an Admin. Anybody can apply regardless of their Wikipedia experience. Reality, however, is completely different. While anybody can apply a quick review of failed RfA's will quickly show that the community has many unwritten expectations.

The purpose of the Admin Coaching Project is to help ensure that potential candidates are adequately prepared for adminship. Generally your admin coach will review your edits and provide insight as to areas where you need to grow before submitting an RfA. Your coach will help you to assess potential stumbling blocks and help prepare for your RfA.

If you don't meet the basic criteria, you might want to consider applying for adoption. Meeting these criteria does not mean that you will be accepted as a coachee or pass an RfA. Similarly, failure to meet these guidelines does not mean that nobody will accept you as a coachee or fail an RfA.

Description	Guideline for starting Admin Coaching	Recommended minimum for an RfA	Suggested target for an RfA	Comments
Number of Edits	2000	3000-3500	5000	If you are primarily a vandal fighter, you can easily double these numbers.
Number of main space edits	500	1000-1500	2000	A candidate with 10,000 edits, but negligible mainspace edits may find it hard to pass an RfA
Participation in XfD's	Desired, but not required.	100 XfD's	200 XfD's	XfD's are viewed as one of the keys toward evaluating a potential admin.
Article Writing	Should have a history of editing/contributing articles.	DYKs and preferably a Good Article.	Good articles and possibly a featured article	While not required, having helped an article reach FA status is very helpful.
Policies and guidelines	Prospective coachees should demonstrate an understanding of policies and guidelines.	Prospective candidates should be able to research and find the appropriate policies and guidelines.	Should be able to answer and assist others with their questions/issues.	If you act like an admin, answer people's questions, you will be seen as an admin.
Number of active months on Wikipedia	4 months	6 months	10-12 months	Active months are generally viewed as 150+ edits.
History of incivility	4 months without incident	6 months without incident	10-12 months without incident	Incivility is one of the quickest ways to fail an RfA.
History of vandalism	10 months without incident	12 months without incident	12 months without incident	If you've vandalized an article, it will generally be a year before people trust you with the tools.
History of being blocked.	4 months without incident	6 months without incident	6 months without incident	This assumes the block was valid and the candidate deserved the block. Valid reasons or overturned blocks can shorten/eliminate this guideline.
Breadth of exposure.	Should have exposure to 1 to 3 projects/tasks/etc.	Should have exposure to 4 to 6 projects/tasks/etc.	Should have a wide breadth of exposure to many areas.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 04:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC) 

I like this a great deal. 2 points I'd change. For a regular contributor, I'd say 8-10 months for RFA (instead of 10-12). I'll use myself, WJB, and Keeper as people who did it in far less than that, and right now it looks as people with civility issues only need the same time as those without. The second thing is that 1 GA = 2-3 DYKs to many people. Maybe "Been a principle writer on a Good Article or several Did You Knows" with 1-2 GAs and 4-5 DYKs instead of 2-3 GAs. Other than that, it looks ready to go. Do we want to wikilink terms in the table? MBisanz ^talk 04:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We should... I also want to state that I'm not married to the criteria listed above... it's a FIRST stab at the suggested criteria... I want feedback...Balloonman (talk) 04:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Okey, some other ideas I'll toss in, do we want to mention the Rollbacker flag? Can we combined the GA/FA lines into something like "Recognized content contribution (FA/GA/DYK)"? Instead of just "200 XFDs" maybed "200 XFDs across several methods". I think we should link to the terms we use like "Policies", etc, it'll help people who don't know we have 500 policies that there are more beyond NPOV/5 Pillars. Since we can't message every RFA voter to tell them to reccomend Adoption over Coaching, should we add something in about people being referred here from there? I personally would like 6000 edits instead of 5000. And we might consider some number of unique articles edited. 500 edits to you userpage or 1000 clearings of the sandbox will hurt someone. MBisanz ^talk 04:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has just started the long and winding road of being coached (thanks Balloonman!), I think the table is an extremely good idea (and I'm not just saying it because my coach happens to be the one who created the table). When I first put my name up for admin coaching, I was not aware of any absolute criteria as to what would be needed at the RfA stage. As I discover here, it isn't so much criteria but a rule of thumb, as it were. Just a couple of comments though, firstly regarding being paired up.

For ages, it looked like nothing was happening. For all I know, a number of coaches were checking out my work, and deciding that I was not yet ready for coaching. As nothing was said to me, or posted on here, I could only assume that nothing was going on. Might I suggest that if a coach does review a potential trainee and determines that they are quite a way off editing (i.e. even after 3 months of coaching, SNOW would still apply at RfA), a post is left on the user's talk page with what they need to do before re-applying for coaching? In addition, a comment is added to the original request to state that someone has reviewed the application and their reservations as to why they did not get picked. This will stop other coaches from wasting time going over the same reviewing of activity. Having the table or similar will hopefully stop the flow of unsuitable candidates.

My second comment is about the table - specifically the Incivility requirement. It appears a bit ambiguous - do you mean the coachee should have at least 4 months of being incivil to people, or 4 months without incident? I suspect the latter, so I have altered it. Anyway, I'd best get back to doing some reading before my coach notices that I'm not doing my homework (grin) StephenBuxton (talk) 12:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolute support! The heading explains what the situation is, and what the mission of coaching is for. It makes sure users know this is not a replacement for RfA and acceptance or denial here does not translate to success with an RfA, and adhearance to the recommendations does not mean ineligibility for coaching. The table uses terms like "Recommended" and "Suggested" to keep away from imposing limits that can't be supported by RfA. All around great compromise! Nicely done Balloonman. Padillah (talk) 15:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It says that on the mainpage of AC now, but since this page is going to look prettier with these tables, it probably could be added, especially via transclusion, which will make the editting window easier to use.

I'm also gonna suggest a block would be viewed far more harshly than incivility. I'd say its on par with vandalism in killing an RfA. MBisanz ^talk 02:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen blocks aren't as bad as incivility... people get blocked for silly reasons sometimes and sometimes admins block too quickly. I'd say they are about on par with one another... but that is my opinion... I'm open to others saying otherwise.Balloonman (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Mini-Coaching

I'd like to insert this either under the Checklist or on the main WP:Admin Coaching page. Comments? MBisanz ^talk 06:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I definately like the idea... and would support it with one minor change. Until we establish a 'checklist' I would leave it off.Balloonman (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed I hope. This is why I love templates. I'll drop it in around lunch time (+11 hours). MBisanz ^talk 06:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sortable table makes it so much easier to sort users. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 07:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That is brilliant! Huge list of varied activities, doesn't place blame, gives several clear paths... this is great. Thank you for this. Padillah (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd add the help and reference desks, though that's a minor point. It looks good here! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see that the reference desk is there. Good on you, then - looks fine to me. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought up some more important pages to add, and HD was one of them. So its done. I guess I need to put a big warning that I don't mind people editing my userspace, but I do mind threaded discussions messing up formating, so thats why I used transclusion here. MBisanz ^talk 14:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)