Wikipedia talk:Admin coaching/archive03

merge with WikiProject on Adminship

I just found an inactive wikiproject that has a subpage/group whose design is essentially the same as this one's I think that page which has 3 edits, should simply be merged here.Balloonman (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like its a proposal. "At this state in the WikiProject, we are trying to capture all useful ideas for changing RFA." I'd say a {{main|WP:ADMINCOACHIN}} on the training and main page and a Template:Proposed on the training subpage. Special:Contributions/Williamborg the creator is currently inactive, so we couldn't go that route either. MBisanz ^talk 09:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another merge

Saw this on WT:RFA: User:Snowolf/Admin_scout. Its similar to ACing, but its in the userspace and Snowolf is still active, so we'd probably want to check with him before proposing a merge. Maybe we can just grab his list of contributors and invite them to be ACs. MBisanz ^talk 21:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better approach would be to contact him and let him know that we are trying to revive AC. Snowolf has taken pride in his efforts and I don't think he would appreciate a forced merge attempt.Balloonman (talk) 07:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K, I asked him [1] so lets see where it goes. I think the idea of having other RfA regulars double-check someone before running is a good idea, but I'm not sure if The project has admins to spare. This nasty catch-22 of needing more admins to create more admins is rather annoying. MBisanz ^talk 07:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to MBisanz's kind notice on his talk page being unaware that it was being discussed here also. It's essentially a public (and up to date, I've just not been active in the field for sometime) list of my offers to nominate and how they ended. My idea was to broaden its scope by creating a place for the exchange of ideas between nominators, but in never took off. It's completely different from coaching, mainly because of how I search for candidates: I do not search users who wants admins, I try to discover the users who, in my opinion, could be great admins but never even considered the idea. From what I've seen, the users I've successfully nominated use the tools only occasionally, and one of the most common reason why they're opposed is that they're not interested in adminship and do not plan of changing their editing habits because of it.

While some of the users listed as members are admins, most aren't. When I started the list, I wasn't one myself. bibliomaniac is a coach, no idea if there are others, but I don't think so.

Personally, I won't list myself as a coach. I favor, without any disrespect to the wonderful work you're doing here, a more informal approach, if somebody pops up on my talk page asking for coaching, I'll surely consider his request, but probably won't go further than that. I may in fact share some of Kurt's ideas on adminship, at least ideally. That said, I don't really think that I can contribute much to a future admin's formations. Other people can do it much better than myself. (Note: I've withdrawn myself from the adopters' program some time ago as I felt that new users should be focusing more on writing than meta stuff - and I'm no good with the former)

Good luck, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your message and just hadn't gotten around to checking your list, but I do agree that non-admin coaches should only be entertained in the most unusual circumstances (Durova and The Transhumanist being 2 for me). Thank you though for the comments on the program overall. I hope that our attempts to redirect users with very little experience who really want the Bit, to adoption, will encourage them to become article contributors and not just wiki-gnomes. MBisanz ^talk 06:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do not agree that non-admins should under that circumstances be coaching at all, but whatever. Good luck with the efforts, I'll try to stick around, just don't take me to seriously. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

User:Scetoaux/awaitingcoach You're free to use this template if you like. — scetoaux (T/C) 19:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good template, I like it. MBisanz ^talk 19:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to nominate somebody for an RfA

I just wrote an essay on how to nominate somebody for an RfA. If you are interested, take a look at it (and feel free to help out with gramer and spelin.) Let me know what you think about it.Balloonman (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I intend to go up for RfA in May. This project seems to be pretty backlogged. Is there a point to filing a request for a coach? Thanks, Enigma ^message Review 14:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Admin Coach

I just wrote an essay on The Admin Coach, please take a look at it and let me know what you think. This is a first draft, but feel free to edit it as necessary.Balloonman (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vague statement

In the section where some recommended levels are stated for considering RfA, in the "edit count" area, the sentence reads

If you are primarily a vandal fighter, you can easily double these numbers.

Do you mean that that is the number for non-vandal reversal edits, and at least double those, if not far more, would be necessary for an editor who is primarily a vandalism fighter? Miquonranger03 (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC) :D[reply]

Yes. Manual edits to the encyclopedia dealing with content are often considered more important than vandalism reverts (though you should have some experience there if you are planning on having an RfA). Malinaccier (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status

There's not much activity around, no new requests or coaches, 'students' have discontinued their coaching. Admin coaching is largely regarded as a disservice to candidates and now appears to have come in desuetude... Time to mark this historical ? Cenarium (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something along the lines of {{inactive}} might be more charitable. Admin coaching has rightly gotten a bad rep, but those who have been actively involved have acknowledged the issues and recent coaching has been far less problematic. I don't think it's a widely held view that seasoned administrators sharing their experience with prospective ones is innately bad, just that spoonfed assembly line candidates are not in the encyclopaedia's best interest. In summary, it is salvagable if the right volunteers are there. Skomorokh 03:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, jettisoning this in favour of a new, less didactic structure is another alternative. Skomorokh 03:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am under hiatus now, but I will resist making it historical under all circumstances. Inactive, perhaps. Historical, no. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care to share your rationale? Skomorokh 03:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Inactive}} may be more appropriate, for now. As I said at WT:RFA, we shouldn't give those users requesting admin coaching in complete ignorance, false hopes. Cenarium (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balloonman (talk · contribs), Malinaccier (talk · contribs), and Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) are still active admin coaches. Of course, three admins can't sustain an entire process, but I'd say {{historical}} is more-or-less out of the question. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I'm not editing, I'm still watching my coachee, and I'm still planning to do more with him. X clamation point 05:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of feel that this page is historical, rather than the entire concept of admin coaching. I'm still being coached, as are many others, but lots of us found our coaches by asking them personally rather than through some scheme. That had the advantage of definitely having a coach who suited our abilities and could put the maximum effort into teaching us. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've more or less given up on Coaching... I think it is a vital and helpful process, but there are too many "anti-coaching" enthusiast with whom I am tired of debating. It is amazing that only on Wikipedia, can the process of seeking help and offering to help others be seen as a negative. I had best shut up now, because if I stated what I feel about this pervasive mentality here at WP...---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 18:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really coaching as it once was, I see a bit of nostalgia.. We should inform users requesting coaching that it's likely they'll never have one (65 as of now). There are no new accepted 'students' (although a few have been proposed since I raised the matter), and as pointed out, informal 'coaching' is done outside this process. The hard-line of this process can be moved to Wikiversity, and the rest can be done informally. Cenarium (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever taken a coachee from this process... every coachee I've had came to me directly seeking my mentorship.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 18:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, that's not true... I did seek out one or two now that I think about it... StephenBuxton suddenly came to mind.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 18:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I marked it as inactive. I was just looking at the status page and half the "active coaches" don't even edit Wikipedia anymore. Enigma^msg 05:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]