Wikipedia talk:Admin coaching/archive02

Who needs a coach? List your name here.

The list has been moved here. --Fang Aili ^talk 21:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the main list. The Transhumanist 00:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just my two cents- I really like the subpage system that Fang Aili set up. It looked much simpler on the main page, and kept things very organized. I know it may require watching a couple more pages, but I really prefer it. Other input and comments is definitely appreciated and necessary, of course. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 00:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we try the method I've proposed below, using "(assigned)"? The Transhumanist 00:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted my revert, and have added live requests bac to the request list. The Transhumanist 00:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly sorry to have had to do this, but I've reverted your addition of 67369 characters of text (the whole requests section) to the requests listing. The best way to list unassigned ones is to make a very concise listing for each prospective coachee on the requests page, using the details at the archives. The aim of the new system is efficiency, not to have the same old mess! Please, help with the transefferal of active requests rather than disrupting the whole page to get your sole opinion of using one system across. Thanks, M a rtinp23 00:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply trying to preserve the order in which people are waiting in line, and active message threads (it is generally considered inappropriate to archive active discussions). I'm in the process of checking the status of each entry. By the way, it's still very simple, because it is a linear list. The Transhumanist 01:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project page revamp ideas

When I get a little time here in the next few days/weeks, I'd like to revamp the project page.

The coaching box is redundant with the status page.
The volunteers should be listed on their own page.
The coaching requests should be listed on their own page.

Basically I would like to simplify the project page so it's easier to navigate. If you have any objections/ideas please let me know. I will probably scrap the coaching box, because the status page lists that information and more. And separate pages for volunteers and requests will make the main page easier to read, and requests can be easily removed once they are fulfilled. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did it. Comments welcome. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a lot more organized to me. Thanks for your efforts. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno why The Transhumanist reverted, but is there any explanation (before an edit war ensues?). M a rtinp23 00:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked on his/her talk page. M a rtinp23 00:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I just lost all my messages to this page in an edit conflict. Oops. Basically, the forum page method works well, but was only partially implemented - the part that wasn't implemented yet was to simply place "(assigned)" next to each student as they get a coach. It then becomes a simple matter of working down the list. This retains the message threads, which makes the program much more organic. The Transhumanist 00:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, as the page (as it was, and is) will scare off any potential admin helper (it scared me!). If you take a look at the new reqeusts page, you'll see that Fang Alai is planning to get those unassigned fromt he old list and add them, in a simple way, to the new. As the page (now and proposed) is a requests listing, it shouldn't really be treated as a forum, lest it becomes too unweildy (as it is now!!). Can I please encourage you, Transhumanist, to revert back to the subpage version and help by adding to the list of unassigned coachees? Thanks, M a rtinp23 00:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You're right, the subpage system is simpler. I just couldn't find the message threads earlier. I've restored them to the request page, and will help Fang Ali update the assignment status as she requested on my talk page. The Transhumanist 00:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query

I'm wondering, I used to be an admin coach but removed myself when I left the wiki for a few months. I'd like to help out with this program again, so my question is, since I am no longer a member of Esperanza would it be a fallible assumption that I can just re-add myself to the active coaches page? KOS | talk 00:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, being a member of Esperanza has never been a requirement for coaches or students. Feel free to re-add yourself- we always need as many coaches as possible! EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 01:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can be a coach. The Transhumanist 01:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing coaching techniques with others

In order to assist coaches, I've created a new page: Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching/Potential coaching techniques. I hope that this page will grow with many suggestions from former and current admin coaches about what works best for helping students. I've added a couple of my strategies on there already, and I invite you to do the same. Comments and questions about this page and its potential usefulness/uselessness are welcome. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 01:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. The Transhumanist 01:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new instructions

Here's an idea for you to think about: we could write some simple instructions for coaches, so that they can process the request list as they become avaiable to coach. There's lots of coaches compared to coordinators, so shifting the burden to them spreads the work out so it doesn't overload one or two people. (That has contributed to the bottleneck). For example, the instructions to coaches could read something like this:

To select a coachee and begin his or her training, follow these steps:

During a shortage of coaches please take on as many students as you believe you can comfortably handle. Also keep in mind that coaches can team up to share one or more students.
Starting at the top of the request page, find the first entry that says "(unassigned)".
Change the status to "(assigned)".
Add a note just below the heading that says "paired with ___________." (Fill in the blank with your username.
Contact the coachee to inform him or her that you are his or her coach.
If it turns out they already have a coach, then make a "paired with" note of the assignment on the request page, and move on to the next available entry.
Once you've received confirmation from the coachee, set up a subpage of his or her userpage called "Admin coaching". If you have or expect to have more than one coachee, set the subpage up under your own userpage and instruct your students on that page. Make sure they know where their training shall be taking place.
Add a link leading to the admin coaching subpage you've created on the central list at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching/Coaching advice pages.

So instead of contacting the coachees, we should contact the current coaches on the list with an email pointing to the new instructions. New coaches will automatically see the instructions wherever they sign up. This will free up coordinators so they more easily oversee that everything is running smoothly.

Any thoughts? The Transhumanist 05:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have several concerns.

I disagree with the (unassigned) and (assigned) stuff because I do not think the request list should be handled that way. It should be a simple numbered and dated list. Please see the requests talk page for more about this. The current Requests page is a complete disaster area, and no potential coach will want to wade through it.
I think most coaches use a "admin coaching" subpage, but it shouldn't be required.
There's no mention of the status page, which is where the whole project is managed. It's from the status page that we know if we have any coaches available and who is being coached--basically everything in the program. Coaches should update their status there, and choose to participate in coaching advice pages if they wish.

I have a few other concerns, but basically the Requests page is broken and we need to fix that before writing instructions. --Fang Aili ^talk 06:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin coach, I agree that few admin coaches are going to wade through that mess. I would expect that the coordinators keep an organized list, and that list is definitely not organized. I also don't think there should be instructions to take on as many trainees as possible; we aren't churning out admin trainees; I'd prefer quality over quantity. Is it better to train 5 great potential admins or 30 half-trained ones? I much prefer the 1-on-one (or even two-on-one) approach. This also has a hint of instruction creep to it. Admin coaching was always supposed to be informal, as far as I know. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, when I handled the program, I kept the list of users and coaches in an Excel spreadsheet, and assigned coaches that way. The coaching box was a summary of the assignments I made. Currently, the requests page is a mess, and I sure wouldn't want to go grab someone from there. Tito xd^(?!?) 07:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That assumes a coach a) wants to use a coaching subpage; b) is watching this page, to begin with; c) wants to coach a user alone, without any assistant coaches (which I do not consider adequate) and d) that the page won't get stuck when an unacceptable candidate comes to the top of the queue and no one wants to coach them. Tito xd^(?!?) 07:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry about the edit conflict). These are all excellent points, Titoxd. Regarding mandatory assignments... some of the coaches on the list specifically signed up with the proviso they could turn down potential trainees. Requiring coaches to take the next case will likely only cause a bottleneck, or cause coaches to leave the program. Although I had only one admin coach (and she was very good), I recognize not everyone will be so lucky. Furthermore, as we are all volunteers, and admin coaches are just as likely to go on wikibreak as anyone else, it would be good to have more than one coach assigned to each trainee. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good argument for coaches to pick their own assignments. The Transhumanist 10:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have around 53 unassigned requests, and 15 coaches waiting for an assignment. We need to come up with at least 38 more coaches, or take up the slack in some other way. Should there be a limit on how many students a coach should have? The Transhumanist 10:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titoxd, since you ran the program for awhile, would you mind sharing the procedures you followed when doing so? How did you decide who got assigned to who, how long did coaching assignments last (until the coachee became an admin, or until the coach thought they were trained?), and what did you do when an admin or student dropped out and left the other without a partner, etc.? How long of a wikibreak breaks the asignment. Anything you can tell us could be helpful in bringing important considerations to light. Can anyone coach, or did you turn some volunteers away? (Did you use a screening process, criteria, or just go by a general impression of whether they were experienced enough to be a coach)? And anything else you can think of. The Transhumanist 10:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like to keep the "Admin coaching" subpage with the coachee since I team coach. Also I don't think I would want to have coachees intermingle their responses. ++Lar: t/c 20:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment - Request page options

Regarding coach requests lists, do you refer:

Option one, or
Option two

Prefer option one

Prefer option two

Fang Aili ^talk 18:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a potential admin coacher, I wouldn't dare even think of bothering to read through the first one! M a rtinp23 18:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Option 2, but would like to see each user entry have a bolded entry that explains what's going on with them. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My idea was to insert temporary bolded notes for the in-between-stage people. (Between listing him/herself and actually being coached.) For the older requests especially, there's a need to contact users to see if they are still interested. Users who have a coach get removed. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly. Either one is fine though. Whichever is easier for the maintainers... ++Lar: t/c 20:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the 2nd better because we are trying to eliminate the role of the maintainers as much as possible. What we'd like to do is have the program more or less run itself, and by providing a numbered list we can direct coaches (via an instruction page) to contact a student from or near the top of the list, rather than waiting for a coordinator to do the pairing. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one is neater and easier to read through. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 01:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I prefer this form. Am I assuming correctly that after a request is fulfilled the name is removed from the list? If so, this works for me. :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either is fine. We should wrap this up and move on to formulating the instructions. The consensus that had been forming concrning instrucions was to keep them simple. Any ideas? The Transhumanist 22:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (posted by 67.183.16.236 - if this is you Transhumanist, please confirm by logging in :D). Thanks, M a rtinp23 22:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Ok, option 2 then. I will move it from its subpage. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name

I think something like this might have been suggested before, but perhaps this should be renamed? I was thinking renaming it from "admin coaching" to "editor coaching". I'm not suggesting any other changes, just altering the title to reflect what the page is really about, coaching people to be good editors, and so doing to clear up some misconceptions. --bainer (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Admin Coaching. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A recap of that (perhaps slanted)... some folk think thats a good idea. Others, including myself, think it's a bad idea because this program is NOT about coaching people to be better editors. There are other programs for that. This program is about helping folks do the soul searching to know if they have what it takes to be a good admin, and helping them understand what the tasks they face are like. Admining in my view (again, biased, some do not agree) has nothing whatever with being a good editor or writer, except that some writing skills are required. If this program's name is changed, I'm out, as I have no interest in editor coaching. ++Lar: t/c 13:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Lar said. I don't know why people keep wanting to change the name. I specifically did not sign up to teach people how to edit the encyclopedia or improve their edits. There is already an Editor Review area. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you and Lar sign up to edit at all? Giano 21:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many article edits woud be enough to satisfy you? I think you miss the point of my comments. ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ron, my point entirely. Giano 21:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm? I think I edit pretty regularly. Not sure what else you could mean. Feel free to elaborate. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 21:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you feel should be the highest priority of an administrator helping to govern an encyclopedia currently being written? Giano 22:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an honest question, or one for which you already have the answer? Judging by this recent edit where you indicate Lar isn't writing "enough" of the encyclopedia you already have an answer. However, your worries are misplaced: I have created nearly a thousand articles, around 350 or so relating to extinct fauna. I'm currently working on a project to add pictures to hundreds of them. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you! - What is the answer to my question - What do you feel should be the highest priority of an administrator helping to govern an encyclopedia currently being written? Giano 22:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone join in? The answer of course is improving the encyclopaedia. In whatever way seems right at the time. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man! That was on the tip of my tongue. You beat me by a few seconds there... Not that I'm complaining... Firsfron of Ronchester 23:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good guess Guy and almost correct. However, the answer is producing the encyclopedia, without writing editors there is no encyclopedia, no encyclopedia means no need for admins. You just keep writing Ron you are doing a good job. Giano 23:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) However, I should point out that even if everyone suddenly stopped writing the encyclopedia, it wouldn't go away: there would still be an encyclopedia. In fact, an argument could be made that it is more important to, say, revert vandalism since uncontrolled page blanking would reduce the content of the encyclopedia. Fixing copyvio is also an important aspect, as this threat jeopardizes the whole project. So I'm not quite sure I agree with you the "most important" activity is writing articles; we do have over 1.5 million of them already. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 00:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The recap above missed out my point that "Admin coaching" is ambiguous. It can mean coaching in the skills needed for administration, it can mean coaching by administrators, and it can mean coaching of administrators. I suspect the 'coaching' bit of the name is not quite right either, as this soul-searching that Lar talks about is not really coaching. It is more mentorship. I suggest renaming it to something like Mentoring of aspiring admins or Aspiring admins mentorship, with this proviso added to make the system stronger and less prone to accusations of trying to churn out admins: nominations at RfA for people who are mentored under this program must be made by the mentor. This means that a succession of failed RfAs will reflect badly on the mentor, who is of course, free to not nominate if they feel the candidate will not succeed. Carcharoth 00:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, I don't feel that the training programs are skills oriented enough, they appear to be role-playing Q and A sessions (from my reading of coaches asking questions and such) and this rightly or wrongly gives the impression that the student is being taughted to say the politically correct things and such. I would much rather, for example that practical exercises, such as image-tagging were put in place, as even the vast majority of admins do not know the image deletion criteria and there is often a 7 day backlog on the image deletions with usually about 20 people doing all of them. I don't know about anybody, else but when I look at candidates, I don't consider whether they've done the coaching Q&A session, I want to see the debate appropriately on AfD, tag images properly, etc, rather than saying what hypotheticals they would do. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nod. but that mechanical stuff can be taught, if there's an aptitude. The philosophical stuff can't be. Parroting back the right answers is always a problem, how do you know the person has the right outlook? but it's something that pointing at an essay and asking for critical thought about that essay can give you a feel about. ++Lar: t/c 06:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat what I have said in the past, I don't think there's anything wrong with this program (other than perhaps some functionality issues that are currently being dealt with). There seem to be two main threads of discussion; One, the program's name. Yes, perhaps the name "admin coaching" is ambiguous in a way, but such names as "Mentoring of aspiring admins" or "Aspiring admins mentorship" is unnecessarily wordy. All information that needs be known is on the main project page. Also I agree that admin coaching is not "editor coaching". It's about moving towards adminship. Two, the proposed addition of various instructions or guidelines. I am against any sort of instruction creep. This program is very individual: when a coach and student are matched, it's up to them how to proceed. Not all coaches make use of theoretical scenarios or whatnot. The project (i.e. its coordinator or another 3rd party) does not tell the coach/coachee what to do. If, in the future, we have problems with a certain admin coach somehow doing a bad job, we can discuss that. But thus far I have not heard any complaints. And at the end of the day, a user's RfA is his/her responsibility alone. --Fang Aili ^talk 21:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Exactly. And at the end of the day... I feel like we've already had this conversation. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 21:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see it renamed. I have no background with esperanza though, so you may consider me an outsider. I don't see why people should be coached into becoming admins. There is no significant difference between people who are admins and those that aren't other than enough members of the community trust you with some extra tools. Editor coaching is nice, people may need help with specific tasks, as they have been here they will obviously learn what admin tools are available, and if they think they need them can become admins, as the consensus allows. This whole thing makes it seem like some sort of game, which is also one of my main gripes with esperanze in general. I'll leave you all with this quote. - cohesion 02:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.
I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.
I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.
— Jimbo Wales, wikimedia.org archive entry, gmane archive entry

The point was that we don't want editors to have to learn how to use the tools after promoted. While the current RFA climate may prevent that, we don't want any editor to think, "I'm an admin. Now what?" The point of the program when it was created was to teach someone about the unwritten rules of Wikipedia, when to do something, when not to, to round and polish a user's knowledge of policy. Part of admin coaching is to teach that having the word "sysop" in the user_rights field of one's entry on the user table means only that there's more responsibility placed upon one's shoulder, not that suddenly you got a sheriff's badge put upon your shoulders. Admin coaching is (or at least should be) a way to dispel that idea of "admin = power". Editor coaching and admin coaching are complementary in that aspect. Admin coaching is much more in line with that quote from Jimbo than you may expect... Titoxd^(?!?) 03:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. Just like Titoxd said, preparing potential administrators for tasks they might encounter is a great thing; that way, if they do become an administrator on their own accord, they will have a solid grasp of what to do.-- Natalya 03:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. As long as the coaches always make that clear, it shouldn't be that much of a problem. Worse than newly-minted admins who go "now what?" are those who when they become an admin suddenly change their behaviour, gain confidence, and start throwing their weight around. Sometimes with disastrous consequences (they get burned and scale down their activity). I have no problem with confident admins, but I would like to see them be confident and throwing their weight around as editors before they run for adminship. Carcharoth 01:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are fine sentiments, but I think the problem is the perception that a small group of people are coaching new users into thinking like they do, with the carrot of adminship hanging over the whole affair. This was an even bigger concern when this was a part of esperanza, since it was actually a club actively coaching its members into more responsibility. It can easily be perceived as a power play. I'm actually pretty relieved with Titoxd's response, and would be happy to disabuse myself of the idea, but I don't think I'm alone in that perception, and any hint of exclusion with this is very troubling. The fact that the first two people to respond are sporting their esperanza armbands doesn't ease my fears at all. I really don't say that to be mean, and hope it isn't taken that way, but that it how I have always felt when I see them :( - cohesion 04:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I've heard of claims of exclusion (who is being excluded? Anyone can sign up), "coaching" users into thinking a certain way (I've always stressed civility in my coaching sessions, but that's a pillar of the encyclopedia, and really probably should be pretty universally accepted), or a "power play" (Who has the power? The vast majority of those who pass an RFA don't come from the Admin coaching program). Feel free to give examples; you're not an outsider here, Cohesion. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I think I may have overstated my feelings. I don't think this makes me feel like an outsider, I just mean I don't follow it that much, so i actually am an outsider to the admin coaching process etc :) I certainly am not criticizing how anyone actually does the coaching, because I don't even know! The feeling of it being a little clubby was just my impression from being someone removed from the process, and should be taken with a grain of salt, sample size=1 is never ideal. :) - cohesion 05:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The people who are coaching are, for the most part, admins. They should have developed a thick skin by now, so if there is criticism for how anyone coaches, we should really just address/fix it. Anyway, glad you don't feel excluded. When I saw you had written "outsider", my heart kinda jumped into my throat. No one should feel like an outsider; the process should always be open. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Projectspacetized

Per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza, I have projectspacetized this. Enjoy being in main WP space. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job. Thanks for the smooth process. Asterion^talk 18:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, unless we want to steal one of ArbCom's shortcuts, we need a new one. My WP:ADMINCOACH is too long, I think. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:COACH? - Mailer Diablo 21:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone stole that one! :-) Carcharoth 03:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I think that was the best possible outcome. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although there were many !votes to keep this program, there were also four people who specifically supported deletion of this project. I've sent out a couple of talk page messages asking for clarifications so we know what to avoid during admin coaching. Suggestions and ideas for improvement to the program are welcome. Also, as a side note, I like the WP:COACH shortcut, but don't know how anyone else feels. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't comment on the mfd, but under this name I specifically support deletion of this. My entire opposition would dissolve though if it were named something like "Editor coaching" or better yet "Editor advice". Adminship is no big deal. We are all editors. If people feel they need admin tools then they can request them at WP:RFA. - cohesion 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with you; as much as it's denied, some of the requests indicate that people think this is going to make you an admin if you do well. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the admin coach's (or whatever the name ends up being, it's not as relevant) job to indicate that. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that the blatent disclaimer on the front of the page doesn't make it clear: "Admin Coaching does not guarantee that you will pass the RfA. Ultimately, this is your responsibility, not the responsibility of your coach. So if you come here looking for a personal coach in order to pass RFA, you're at the wrong place." seems to make it pretty well known that this isn't a way to gurantee a good RfA. -- Natalya 03:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but instead of correcting a misleading title, why not change the title? I'd actually now object to calling it Editor Coaching, as I think there should be an editor coaching program for those editors who never want to be admins and who want to concentrate on editing while snapping their fingers for admins to tidy things up. :-) Carcharoth 01:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your statement Carcharoth, but I don't see what's misleading about the title "Admin coaching". Coaching anyone on anything does not guarantee success. Football coaches cannot guarantee wins, reading tutors cannot guarantee literacy. It's pretty simple. --Fang Aili ^talk 01:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this discussion before. :-) The phrase coaching doesn't imply success, that is not what I pick up on when I read the title. An Editor Coaching program would be interpreted as coaching people to be good editors. An Admin Coaching program would then be interpreted as coaching people to be good admins. The first questions would be "how do I become an editor?" (easy) and "how do I become an admin so I can join the admin coaching program?" (well, that's the wrong question actually). In fact, aside from those points, my main point is that the distinction between administration (the job) and administrator (the noun) is lost with the abbreviation "admin". People talk about admin tools, and admin tasks. Anyway, I think I've come up with a workable idea. See below. Carcharoth 01:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Wikipedia:Coaching

How about the whole thing becomes just Wikipedia:Coaching - to provide one-on-one coaching for all aspects of Wikipedia life, and then two or three subsections can be set up: 'Editor coaching' and 'Learn admin skills', plus maybe 'Help for admins'. Thus the 'coaching to become an admin' associations are removed, though the coaching bit of the name is retained in the 'Editor coaching' bit, and the emphasis shifts to learning the skills (and ethos) that many editors want to see in admins. Finally, new or inexpereienced admins can call here for initial coaching (probably from admins) through the initial stages after their RfA. Carcharoth 01:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I'm still in favor of keeping it where it is, but of the suggestions that have been given out for this issue, this is one of the better ones. -- Natalya 02:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second Natalya's comment. --Fang Aili ^talk 02:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would make Wikipedia:Coaching a redirect to here, but seeing as User:The Transhumanist created the shortcut WP:COACH pointing here, and then changed it to point to the Virtual Classroom, I think I'd better create Wikipedia:Coaching as an overarching page before this gets silly. Carcharoth 03:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A self-running program

I was bold and updated the project page with further instructions. Basically I would like this program to more or less run itself. It really should not stalemate whenever I or another coordinator takes a vacation. I think it would be ideal if people could make connections themselves. The only problem I can see is that some people have been waiting a while for a coach. Maybe I can write a spam message to all the requestors that they should take matters into their own hands. But to put it simply, I do not always have time to message people just to ask if they are still interested in being coached. Please indicate if you have any major problem with the new instructions. --Fang Aili ^talk 00:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to restart?

Early this year I was a coachee of this program, but later left Wikipedia due to health problems (eye diseases). Now I'm back fully immersed in Wikipedia, and would like to ask whether it is possible to restart the coaching. My original coaches seem to be inactive, in which kimchi.sg is on a Wikibreak. I've already left a message for EWS23. Much thanks if any coordination could be made. --Der yck C. 09:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, early last year. I forgot that 2007 has come. --Der yck C. 09:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quicklinks

I broke the quicklinks box out as a separate page, Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Quicklinks, and transcluded it on a lot of the other pages in the project. revert me if you think that's bad but I think it's nice to have a navbox to speed you around from place to place. ++Lar: t/c 21:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see this was removed from one page as squishing the big three links over... I'm wondering if the "big 3" links that many pages wear could be balled into this template as well, perhaps as the first three and in a larger font? I guess I like standard navigation boxes that take you everywhere you need to go, in standard places on pages within a project. ++Lar: t/c 17:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quicklinks box looks good to me. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 21:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of this program

I'm sure it's been addressed before, but I want to bring it up again because Wikipedia:Editor review is getting some scrutiny over it's "RFA-prep" aspects. So: Why is the name of this program "Admin coaching" rather than "Editor coaching"? And why should the following line even be in the second paragraph: Admin Coaching does not guarantee that you will pass the RfA.?

I suspect the answer to the second question is that it wouldn't make sense to title the page "Admin coaching" and not talk about improving one's chances to pass an RfA. But that begs the real question: if the title were changed, then why would that sentence even be there?

In short, now that this isn't an Esperanza program, I think it's time to fix this problematical aspect. Editor coaching is what you do; just one possible motivation for someone coming to the program shouldn't be embedded in tht program's title. John Broughton | ♫♫ 18:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've been over this subject about 23 times. Please read the discussions above. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I missed the obvious. Now for the slightly less obvious: Here's the opening paragraph of the project page, immediately following the page title ("Admin Coaching") :

is a program for people who would like the special attention that only one-on-one coaching can provide. People are matched with experienced users (often, but not always, admins) who are willing to offer coaching. This program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. Some might like suggestions about how to learn vandal patrol, or mentoring on taking an article to featured status, or guidance with a proposal they plan to make at the Village Pump, for example.

Not a single word about administrators(?!). Not until the middle of the second paragraph does "admin" actually appear.

So, "editor coaching" isn't a good title because this is more advanced coaching. Fine, then what about "Advanced coaching". Or something else? I do hope you guys take this seriously; there are some discussions over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship about MfDs. John Broughton | ♫♫ 20:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, "admin" is in the 2nd sentence. (??)

I don't feel like making the same arguments again just now (re: the name of the program, the validity of the program, etc, etc). But if someone wants to put this program up for MfD, I would hope they at least want to discuss why they'd want to do that here first. Thanks for notifying us, though. --Fang Aili ^talk 21:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading the intro a few times, I thought you were right about the intro being unclear. So I've reworded it to make it clearer. Your thoughts? --Fang Aili ^talk 21:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that defintly makes things clearer, and hopefully makes things clearer for all participating too. It's important for coaches to know that they should be thinking "what can I help this editor learn about administrator activities", rather than "how can I help this editor become an administrator". They will become an administrator when/if it is right for them; we are just here to prepare them for the job that they will be doing. Right? -- Natalya 01:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right! (Oh, and I agree the modified wording works better). Firsfron of Ronchester 02:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a notice. Being one of the twenty earliest coachees of Admin Coaching (my first lesson started in early 2006 when Esperanza was still in place), I could tell that in the earliest day of admin coaching coaches really took pushing coachees to RfA as their primary aim. --Der yck C. 11:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it seems like we have to make sure that isn't happening anymore. It's not really productive; people will pass RfA when they are ready, and what we should be doing is getting them ready for what they will do as an administrator. Do we think this is clear enough with the program, or should coaches be given an "introduction" or something when they start coaching? I doubt people would do that on purpose, but they may just not have seen the purpose. -- Natalya 12:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to provide an introduction. That goes against the "let the program run itself" concept, besides just adding instruction creep. I think we have to trust people, coaches and students alike, to conduct themselves properly. A student can always tell his/her coach to back off. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that I'm running against the tide. You can see my coaching page for an example. When AC offered RfA coaching in the past, I refused the offer and asked for adminship knowledge; now that I want to prepare for RfA is true and this is no longer offered. --Der yck C. 14:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your dilemma. I'll be your coach if you like. My current student is about to become an admin anyway. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firsfron has already volunteered to be my coach, in replacement of my previous coaches, EWS23 and kimchi.sg, who are both on leave from Wikipedia. However, it's my pleasure if you'd also become my coach. Thanks. Also, thanks for spelling my name correctly. --Der yck C. 15:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I'm sure Firsfron has things in hand. :) But if y'all would ever like a 2nd opinion let me know. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to thank Fang Aili for being so hard-working. Should we give him a prize? --Der yck C. 08:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's a she. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 14:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's a "Miss Fang Aili". At any rate thanks for her nice work! --Der yck C. 15:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just knew that Aili is a Chinese. I should've decoded this earlier, since in Chinese, "Aili" is a very feminine name v.v --Der yck C. 15:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MFD

Having read the discussion above and participated in threads at Wikipedia_Talk:Editor review, I plan on nominating both this page and Wikipedia:Editor review for deletion on WP:MFD. I do so because any admin-preparatory aid goes against our Wikipedian principles fundamentally and irreparably, and this page is highly redundant in all good aims with other pages listed at Wikipedia:Coaching. As I have described on the talk page of Editor review, this page and that both advocate deplorable principles completely contrary to Wikipedian philosophy: by working these pages, we are institutionalizing the creation of cookie-cutter users and fostering editcountitis and related illnesses. I believe these issues to be fundamental to the nature of this very unnecessary and deleterious page, and that deletion is the best possible end for it. I also think this matter warrants a more centralized and open discussion that MFD would provide, for action must made by the community. You'll note that I have posted a similar message at Wikipedia_Talk:Editor review (against my better judgement) for last minute objections, but we shall all discuss this in one place soon... -- Rmrfstar 02:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this, I kinda sorta (not really) understand. But since when was Editor review only for adminship? -Amark moo! 02:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It "quickly devolves" into admin-prep., and is in its more general faculties redundant with many other pages. -- Rmrfstar 02:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but I don't have time to discuss anything right now. Nominate them for MfD if you please, but definitely do not attempt to lump them into one discussion. -Amark moo! 02:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence have you that this page institutionalizes "the creation of cookie-cutter users and [fosters] editcountitis and related illnesses"? I don't believe edit count has been brought up here, and, in fact an automated search for phrases like "edit count" and the like pulls up no results, outside of your message. The Admin coaching talk Archive also doesn't appear to mention it. So... I think this is a bit odd. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before you nominate it to MFD, give some evidence supporting your assertion. Otherwise, I shall just disregard it. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. You give little credit that people may be willing to listen to your concerns and either alleviate them or fix whatever is concerning you. MfD should only be a last resort. Additionally, I echo the previous comments made; how does Admin Coaching encourage editcountitis? Time and time again, it has been said that admin coaching is not about passing RfA, it is about learning the skills that one would need if/when one becomes an administrator on their own accord. -- Natalya 04:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I misunderstand this page completely, in which case, of course, I shall not nominate it for deletion, Admin coaching is a system to become an admin. It is designed, "for administrator hopefuls". It acts as though its sole purpose is to help users pass RfA: "Admin Coaching does not guarantee that you will pass the RfA. Ultimately, this is your responsibility". This goes against our Wiki policy and philosophy, which encourage every trusted user to become an admin. Instead it promotes the idea that such coaching is helpful and even necessary. As a matter of fact, any thing that can be learned at this page can be learned from other pages at Wikipedia:Coaching.

At Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Potential coaching techniques, it encourages the prep of users to politic their way through RfA, where honest and direct answers should be given to its questions. Admin coaching superficially preps inexperienced users in specific areas of Wikipedia that happen to be used as poor gauges of admin-readiness, such as number of edits in each namespace. I see such values as opposed to Wikipedian philosophy and policy; but where I can't change the minds of RfA voters (I've tried), I can attempt to halt the official endorsement of these values. This is how I see the matter, I encourage you to prove me wrong! -- Rmrfstar 11:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Potential coaching techniques has seen a grand total of 4 edits since its creation? And you can hardly argue that its contents are harmful--the standard RfA questions, and a speedy delete exercise. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so how about some discussion, please, Rmrfstar? --Fang Aili ^talk 05:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I expected you to read my extensive arguments (and those that agree with me) at Wikipedia talk:Editor review, when I mentioned that my reasoning was there: it is almost all applicable to this page too, which promotes the values fundamentally contrary to traditionally Wikipedian ones. But I'd prefer not to post the same information twice: please see the discussions there labeled "Something has gone horribly wrong..." and those below it. -- Rmrfstar 11:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to repeat yourself. I will not attempt to respond to your comments over there, and I would rather not summarize your argument for you. You can cut/paste your objections if you like, and that way we can respond here and keep the conversation manageable. (FYI, I may not have much time in the next few days to participate in discussion, but I'm sure others will.) Thank you, Fang Aili ^talk 14:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my observation about the discussions, if editor review is "devolving" to RfA preparation, then admin coaching is "evolving" from RfA preparation to mentorship scheme. In the past AC was fundamentally quite a RfA coaching class, but as time goes on many found this direction incorrect. It turned from how to "become" an admin to how to "be" an admin. The "evolution", using your terminology, further speeded up after Esperanza was dissolved and AC became independent. As one of the earliest-starting coaching programs, my coaching page User:Deryck Chan/Admin coaching is quite a good example to explain this shift. A few weeks ago, when I asked my coaches to "review" my RfA statement draft, they refused - this shows that AC has completely moved out of the shadow of "RfA coaching". --Der yck C. 12:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I am sorry that there is the impression that Admin coaching is about helping someone to pass a Request for Adminship, because that is highly what it is not about, and it has been made clear time and time again. The front page makes this very clear outright: "Admin Coaching does not guarantee that you will pass the RfA. Ultimately, this is your responsibility, not the responsibility of your coach. So if you come here looking for a personal coach in order to pass RFA, you're at the wrong place." pretty much puts it out there that Admin Coaching is not about passing an RfA. It is about editors who may one day become administrators learning about the skills they will need once they are an administrator. It's nothing about making these editors good candidates for an RfA; it is up to them to be of administrator quality and become administrators on their own. By going through Admin Coaching, however, they can learn about what to expect as an administrator, so that if/when they acquire the tools, they will feel more comfortable taking up the tasks of an administrator, and will be better able to benefit the encyclopedia with their knowledge of the tasks expected of them. -- Natalya 17:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some somewhat redundant arguments

Something has gone horribly wrong on Wikipedia, when this page exists to promote the idea that adminship is a goal in and of itself. Too many users have forgotten why we are here, namely to write an encyclopedia, and enjoy doing it. This page has nothing to do with this encyclopedic goal, in fact, it encourages superficial editing (high edit counts) and arbitrary standards for the RfA process. I view this page as a serious detriment to this encyclopedia, albeit indirectly. Users who request Admin Coaching seek to design themselves according to these arbitrary standards; to be coached to fit an arbitrary model. To quote Wikipedia:Administrators:

“

In the very early days of Wikipedia, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should... From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else. However, they are equipped with a few more tools to do some chores that would potentially be harmful if everyone were entrusted with them.

”

Adminship today is too far removed from this ideal. As I stated, it has become an end itself, and not merely a set of tools given to anyone proven to not abuse them. To pass RfA today, users must be well-rounded (as if those were the users that make this encyclopedia great) and do many hours of chores. We should not, with our ever-increasing population, be so afraid of abuse of admin powers that we construct these arbitrary standards. This page represents the general acceptance of this attitude, and moreover, institutionalizes it; and this page is not a separate issue from this. I think I must nominate this page for deletion in good conscience; though I'd rather spend my time writing articles, I really must. -- Rmrfstar 01:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And if in fact this page has nothing to do with admin prep, it is simply redundant with other pages. -- Rmrfstar 01:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I am having trouble understanding how our explanations of the functions of Admin Coaching still give such an impression. Where has there been one impression that Admin Coaching "encourages superficial editing (high edit counts) and arbitrary standards for the RfA process"? Admin Coaching has absolutely nothing to do with that. Until there are concrete reasons for this reasoning, it is very hard to understand where this view is coming from. It is very evident that many of us are happy to discuss your concerns with you, but at least to me, it does not seem like our explanations are being considered.

There is no disagreement that editors attempting to pass an RfA must be well rounded. There is no disagreement that they will be doing many hours of chores. The whole point of Admin Coaching is to prepare users for these chores. To prepare the users to help the encyclopedia through administrative tasks. This is stressed over and over again. -- Natalya 02:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, there are disagreements over such matters you consider closed. I and a significant number of others do not agree that admins must be well-rounded or must do many hours of chores. These beliefs, in my opinion, oppose the philosophy of this project: admins are developing into a special subgroup of Wikipedians who meet these two criteria; and, this page reinforces it. -- Rmrfstar 00:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brief response: I want to respond to these comments on a point-by-point basis, so I'm going to break up the sentences. I hope you don't think it's rude.

Something has gone horribly wrong on Wikipedia, when this page exists to promote the idea that adminship is a goal in and of itself.

I see nothing wrong with the goal of becoming an administrator. In fact, we'd have very few (if any) administrators if people didn't actively decide to run for adminship, rather than stumbling onto RFA and deciding to submit their names on a lark.

Too many users have forgotten why we are here, namely to write an encyclopedia, and enjoy doing it.

Which of the users here doesn't spend most of his/her time here writing the encyclopedia? Seems to be an unfounded claim.

This page has nothing to do with this encyclopedic goal, in fact, it encourages superficial editing (high edit counts) and arbitrary standards for the RfA process.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, there is no mention of "edit count" on this page on in the talk archives (aside from your own allegation that this page encourages editcountitis). An automated search for "edit count" turns up more than two dozen on WP:RFA. It appears to me, then, that your comments here are misplaced, and your reservations about people placing too much of an emphasis on edit count belongs on the RFA talk page.

I view this page as a serious detriment to this encyclopedia, albeit indirectly. Users who request Admin Coaching seek to design themselves according to these arbitrary standards; to be coached to fit an arbitrary model.

Which arbitary model would that be? Have you looked in at coaching sessions? From your comments above, it doesn't look like you have. I feel like I'm discussing colors with someone who has never seen them, or describing music to someone who can't hear.

To pass RfA today, users must be well-rounded (as if those were the users that make this encyclopedia great) and do many hours of chores.

Again, something that should be brought up at RFA. I've been saying this for at least six months.

We should not, with our ever-increasing population, be so afraid of abuse of admin powers that we construct these arbitrary standards.

The standards were not decided at Admin Coaching; they came from RFA. If you want to help loosen the restrictive adminning process, the proper channel is through the RFA talk page, not an MFD here.

This page represents the general acceptance of this attitude, and moreover, institutionalizes it; and this page is not a separate issue from this.

Where exactly on this page do you see calls for stricter standards, fewer people being granted adminship, etc? It is not here. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you have more of a problem with the RfA process than admin coaching, Rmrfstar. If you think RfA is about "arbitrary standards" with which you disagree, then go to the RfA talk page and try to change these standards. The fact is that there are certain typical standards for an RfA; however, the admin coaching program has little or nothing to do with those standards. People sign up for a coach because they want to be better Wikipedians. They want to help with the administrative, janitorial tasks, as well as write the encyclopedia. If you don't think administrative tasks have encyclopedic value, you haven't been here long enough. In sum, I don't understand why you're railing against us when you should be arguing elsewhere. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated above, this page and others like it are products of these beliefs which I abhor. They are, however, more than mere symptoms, for they do exacerbate the problem. This page encourages the view that adminship is a goal in and of itself. It does not aid in producing our encyclopedia but encourages merely meeting the requirements of adminship; thus does it encourage editcountitis etc. -- Rmrfstar 00:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how does this page encourage the view that adminship is a goal in and of itself? Furthermore, why can't adminship be a goal all on its own? Seriously. Why can't I say "I want to make X a Featured Article, I want to add three new images to Y, I want to fix the vandalism on 47 articles tonight, and I want to become an administrator"? Each of these are goals is, in my opinion, admirable, and I'm not sure what you see that you "abhor" so much.

You stated it doesn't aid in producing the encyclopedia. In actuality, before Admin Coaching began, we actually had admins who did not even know what a diff was. I cannot claim every current admin is fully trained. But it is nice to know that editors have a place to come to if they do want a little coaching or advice. And as Fang Aili hints above, if we did not have administrators, this site would quickly fall apart. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need more administrators, not less: I think regular users should be admins, not specially trained, well-rounded ones. And, as I have stated above at least once, there are already plenty of places for Wikipedians to go if they need "a little coaching or advice", See Wikipedia:Coaching. -- Rmrfstar 01:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone benefiting from the programme right now, I can't really understand the problem. I am learning from an administrator how to carry out administrator tasks in the hope that I can benefit Wikipedia by being better equipped to be an administrator when, hopefully, the time comes. Without the training, I would undoubtedly have made mistakes when I first became an admin. Before I started on admin coaching I hadn't a clue about vandal fighting and I still don't have a clue with copyright issues. This is what I will be learning. Just as a side issue, I notice that you haven't participated in any RfA's recently which, if you don't mind me saying, is a little strange if you want to see more admins. Malla nox 02:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rmrfstar said, "As I have stated above, this page and others like it are products of these beliefs which I abhor." Which beliefs do you abhor, exactly? The idea that admins should be familiar with admin tools before they become admins? That admins should have a range of Wikipedia experience? That janitorial tasks (admin cleanup activities) are encyclopedic and necessary? --Fang Aili ^talk 21:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, it seems you're putting Editor review and Admin coaching on the same vessel, when they're two entirely different beasts. At least, that is the impression I'm getting. Many of the issues you bring up about admin coaching are not actually about admin coaching, but are rather systemic issues with RFA itself, so here isn't really the place to argue about them. There is no indication here that users working here actually encourage the application of those standards.

If a user wants to become an administrator, there's two possible reasons for that: either they find the tools useful to help in the encyclopedia, in which case, AC's purpose is to help the user familiarize him or herself with administrative areas and processes. You appear to have the common misconception that Admin coaching ends after a user has his or her RFA; it doesn't. The new admin then gets help getting acquainted with both the technical and political aspects of being an administrator.

On the other hand, there's also users who want to become admins for the sake of becoming admins, and who see adminship as a badge. AC's role there is to try to bring them to the "bright side", if you want to call it that. Now, I don't see why the intentions of the users working here are diametrically opposed to the purpose we're all here, which is to work on an encyclopedia. We're not robots, after all. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the features?

Hi ,What are the main features of admin coaching, I understand what it does I just need a bit more info on how it works. Cheers.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 17:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tellyaddict, sorry for the delay in response. Admin coaching is very free-form, meaning there really aren't any rules for what you must do. Basically, you are matched with an experienced user, and you and s/he can talk together about Wikipedia. I think of it as an opportunity for you to pick someone's brains about the inner workings of Wikipedia. You can communicate on-wiki, over e-mail, on IRC, whatever. Your coach may offer to give you quizzes, like the speedy delete exercise. Does this help? --Fang Aili ^talk 16:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Maintenance

I have created Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Maintenance. Feel free to comment on its talk page. --Fang Aili ^talk 00:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Information.

Hello,

Following a RFA withdrawal, another editor suggested that I come here for assistance on possible ways to improve. Any constructive feedback would be greatly appreciated. --Aarktica 06:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Coaching still happening?

I note that the traffic here has slowed way down and there are quite a few people who seem to be on the waiting list for coaches. Is this still an on-going project or am I missing something? Pig^man 19:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The project is driven by you. Try to find a coach by going to the status page, picking a coach who does not have coachees, and contacting him/her. Cheers, Fang Aili ^talk 20:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I did notice this but apparently read it without really registering what it meant. A little slow on the uptake on occasion. Pig^man 17:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreaking

I have gone on extended wikibreak, therefore I am removing myself as project coordinator. My continued thanks to all coaches and coachees who continue their involvement in this program. --Fang Aili ^talk 22:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]