Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Admin Coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This page is a subpage of Esperanza.

Notice: Esperanza is currently being reformed. Please note that all programs, the Advisory Council and the Charter are affected. Further details can be found on the Esperanza talk page.


Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin Coaching

[edit] Issues

  • The program as it seems to be run is a beneficial one. However, the outside view seems to be that the program is about coaching editors in how to become admins, which is seen as "gaming the system" and not what admins should be about. What is needed is some change to clarify that this is a program geared towards making good editors, not promoting Esperanzans for RfA and thus bringing down accusations of cliquish behavior and factionalism. --Jayron32 04:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any issues with this program?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 04:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty much gaming the system. It certainly encourages mobs of Esperanza members to come out and vote support in RFAs. --Cyde Weys 05:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few stream of consious thoughts. How about those that go through the coaching program cannot get votes from esperanza members? If they're good enough they would not need those votes anyway. Admin candidates who are ready usually get over 90%. When i watch the RfA's it always seems there is a club of core voters come in with the great user! support. I had also thought it was an IRC thing but maybe its a Esperanza thing? The fact is that this program caters for those that are too keen to be admins. If they just got out there and edited on the topics they find interesting they would learn the rest a long the way. Instead we end up seeing candidates with squeeky clean contributions in all the admin areas but very few article edits (I don't count vandalism reverts). i would like to see admin coaching emphasise actual editing and then coach them out of problems that might arise. Admins need on the job training not perfectly balanced contributions. David D. (Talk) 06:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
More stream of consciousness: What we need is clearer statements what good coaching should be so that it is not perceived as a means to push esperanzans in positions of power. Coaching should cover such aspects as:
      1. How to correctly use references to write an article
      2. How to cite properly
      3. How to write accessable prose
      4. How to find articles in need of fixing
      5. How to categorize properly
      6. How to cross-reference and wiki-link and external-link well
      7. How to maintain NPOV, even in potentially controverial articles
      8. How to manage and use templates and charts and images
      9. How to name an article, how to manage disambiguation
      10. How to use logic and rhetoric to defend a position in AfD and similar discussions
      11. How to admit when you are wrong and change your position gracefully in light of new evidence
      12. How to handle vandals and other disruptions
      13. How to manage conflict
While all of the above would make good articles for the tutorial drive, they should also be the focus in discussions between a coach and a coachee. A coach should be reading the edits of their coachee, and making suggestions or demonstrating how to be a better editor, with a mindset of ONLY BEING A BETTER EDITOR. If adminship is the goal of an editor, they should not be better suited as an admin because of coaching, except only as a secondary result of being a better editor. Also, it shouls be a program promoted OUTSIDE of Esperanza so that we can help make better editors out of ALL Wikipedians, even those with no interest in joining Esperanza themselves. --Jayron32 06:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Spelling things out more could certainly alleviate some of the problems. Admin coaching is not meant to "game" the system, and it doesn't, but if it's clear what it's purpose is, then hopefully everyone will realize that. -- Natalya 21:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a point to consider. Admin coaching wouldn't be seen as "gaming the system" if RfA's weren't seen as so much of a "contest" in the first place. Whatever happened to the Mop being "no big deal"? --RoninBKETC 15:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

I don't know exactly what how the current system works or the future one will work, but I suggest this: If certain users want to "take credit" or just do significant coaching of a candidate, they sign their names to a list somewhere. Then, when the actual request comes around, the nominator or first supporter on the list (Or the candidate!) can say something like "Full disclosure: This user was coached by some community members, see [[WP:EA/AC/User:X#Coaches|this list]]. If this is well understood before hand (During coaching), coachers could be made to realize that if they vote, they'll be easily noted as having a vested interest and being in the same group as all others on that list that vote. This (should) give them an incentive to ensure that their comment (One way or the other) doesn't read as "me too!", such as by giving a detailed reason, describing the candidate's abilities, personal knowledge of their strengths, etc, etc.

Granted that all relies on the vital assumption that the list will be able to provoke that feeling. If there are ways for it to be warped, I suggest that the system suggested above, or its implementation, etc, be modified to ensure that that vital assumption functions. 68.39.174.238 05:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I support the above ideas. But I think it would be a great idea if we gave a different name to this program.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that the word can mean two totally different things like that. "Administration preparation" maybe? 68.39.174.238 06:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. A better name (and maybe even a better focus) is coaching by admins, not coaching for editors to become admins. Laurənwhisper 16:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Impartiality

I'd like to propose that all RfA candidates from Esperanza renounce membership if they are nominated for adminship or if they nominate themselves. Members of Esperanza should also be prevented from voting, though a statement of support (or objection) could be written by a nominated person within the group and submitted to the RfA. I've got a couple of reasons for this, certainly, I want to see the Esperanza gaming of the RfA system stopped dead right now, but I'm also concerned that decent Esperanza RfA candidates could be rejected in the current anti Esperanza climate. If this is practical, it would naturally be rolled out across the other sub-communites within Wikipedia, such as Concordia. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 16:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to this for two reasons. 1 It kinds of goes against WP:AGF, and 2 If there will be no more members list, which it seems like there won't be, how will it work? Thε Halo Θ 16:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You make good points, but I don't think that's the right answer. Renouncing membership when you're Rfad? That's...well...to put it bluntly, and no offense meant, stupid. Barring Esperanzans from voting? Think; Ah yes, a group of people who know me best shouldn't vote. That's like asking Canada to pick the US President. I understand the idea of playing the system, but I think before we take such radical measures we should see how some Esperanza Rfas go. Making someone choose between adminship and Esperanza is wrong. But, A) Don't put it at the EA talk page and B) Don't blatantly advertise to your friends. A simple message on your userpage is fine. Right now it's blatant adverting; your proposal is blatant restriction. I think a happy medium is best. DoomsDay349 16:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
How would this even solve the issue? Titoxd(?!?) 07:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Instead of having one-to-one coaching by experienced editors, we could create general tutorials of what an admin is supposed to do, guidelines etc. This wouldn;t be gaming, and with a one-time investment, we could reap the benefits of the previous system. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 17:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

My only concern with that suggestion is how close would this be to the Admin School idea which was recently deleted for....gaming the system? Thε Halo Θ 18:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts

If the purpose of admin coaching is to educate users on how to edit, but everyone else is accusing you of gaming the system (which I think happens and will continue to happen, simply because Esperanzans who see someone who has gone through AC and is up at RfA will immediately vote for them), why not delete this program and point everyone to adopt a user, which does largely the same thing? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

good idea--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Sadly, there isn't enough interest Wikipedia-wide to accomplish that. Titoxd(?!?) 08:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As the original coordinator of the program, let me state clearly the goals of Admin Coaching: its primary intentions are to teach the unwritten rules of Wikipedia. That was the proposal when first stated, and what was originally approved. Its secondary objective is to train users with high potential and desire to become administrators by providing them with enough information to have a "head start". To put it bluntly, I put in the minimum requirement of edits and other criteria to prevent unacceptable candidates from clogging the program, and from going to RFA, failing miserably, and making fools of themselves.
  • As for the canvassing votes issue: if a user is canvassing "Esperanza votes", then it is also the obligation of Esperanzians to research the candidate independently, to use their own criteria, and to comment against or in favor of a candidate if they believe it is necessary. Remember: that a user went through Admin Coaching does not mean that he didn't piss off his coach. Usually, canvassing votes is an automatic oppose from me, and I've gotten a habit of opposing Esperanzians who I believe are not ready for an administrative role, or simply are not suited for it. For the nth time: We're not the "Green Party of Wikipedia", nor there should be any desire so. If that occurs, that same day I am out of here. So, there is no reason why any members should feel pressured to vote in favor of a candidate they think is unsuitable. If you really are feeling coerced to do something, contact a bureaucrat via Special:Emailuser, as they'll happily investigate your complaint and take action accordingly. Titoxd(?!?) 08:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
If there's enough Esperanzans to accomplish this program, why wouldn't there be enough Wikipedians (as I presume all Esperanzans currently involved in admin coaching would go there) to do it? Regarding vote-stacking, while it is an Esperanzan's obligation to check out the candidate, you know that doesn't happen a lot of the time. It would better to withdraw all programs that tempt the user into votestacking, do you not think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Historically, there's never been enough. Titoxd(?!?) 20:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at what admin coaching is about, the name in itself turns me off it. I voted delete on the recent admin school stuff and I guess I'd take a similar view on this from just a superficial look. Adminship is not about promotion, badge of honour, reward etc. "No big deal" is perhaps a thing of the past, but in the sense I believe it was meant ties in with this. It should be no big deal to become an admin, and indeed should be no big deal to not become an admin. Admin Coaching and similar come across to me that we are suggesting this should be an active goal of wikipedians (arguably it's the reverse many great editors have done little editing since becoming admins, potentially to the detriment of the encyclopedia.). My own view is that adminship comes about when you've been here a while got pretty familiar with the way things work and would now be able to use the additional tools with a fair degree of competence and confidence. As admins you come across all sorts of situations, it's the broad base of experience which helps deal with those. The idea that you can teach that experience is not a notion which works for me. The idea of being available to help, advise or simply explain some decision is imporatant and does help people learn and become more faimilar with wikipedia, it's a fine goal. So perhaps a rename and deemphasis on adminship as the goal will help. But we have other areas of wikipedia which already do that, we have areas like the helpdesk, the help pages new user help etc. And I guess this is the problem I perceive with Esperanza as a whole, the good stuff should just be part of wikipedia life anyway, why do we need a branding exercise on it? in fact in some instances it means we may well end up with duplication of effort, I'd far rather see something like this as emphasis on being a better wikipedian (rather than an admin, who I'm sure we all know aren't necessarily better wikipedians), and fully integrated with the other help mechanisms. --pgk 14:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The idea is much more similar to what you are saying. :) Basically, we don't want to generate new admins, we want to allow the candidates who would pass anyways to have a head start on their learning curve, the unwritten rules stuff. The deemphasis on adminship might help, though. Titoxd(?!?) 20:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

At its core, I feel Admin Coaching is a good idea. It helps somewhat experienced editors learn how to take on different roles, such as vandal patrol, taking an article to featured status, etc.

However, I personally feel that while it is some editors' goal to make admin status, this kind of project should not be focused on "grooming the next generation of admins." While it is certainly not "gaming the system", nor harmful, I feel that it is territory that Esperanza should not be treading into.

I personally feel that the focus of this program, especially in explicit statements, should be shifted from achieving adminship to improving already experienced editors. While this does remove some of the focus of the project, it would remove almost, if not all of the contention surrounding what seems to be a worthwhile effort.

While I realize that this would completely change what the program is, I think that most of the arguments against Admin Coaching would fall apart if it was changed from focusing on admins to a larger population, and it could help a much greater number of people than just coaching those with aspirations to be administrators.

As always, I feel that I have articulated this no where near as well as I could have, but I think I've gotten my point across. --Limetom 22:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As for "grooming the next generation of admins" — that's really not something that Esperanza should be doing. Esperanza is a social group, and it really doesn't have any qualifications on, say, training admins. The right people for "grooming the next generation of admins" would be the actual admins. I just don't see what admin coaching has to do with Esperanza. --Cyde Weys 23:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That is what I said - training new admins is not the purpose of the program, but rather to teach likely candidates the things they would learn after getting the sysop bit anyways. Titoxd(?!?) 02:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Then it should say "grooming the pool of editors from which the next generation of admins will be drawn" - do you see the difference between that and "grooming the next generation of admins"? The latter statement implies that those being groomed will become admins, a highly prejudicial implication. And what is wrong with admins either learning on the job (they've been deemed trustworthy anyway), or those who pass RfA going through a (maybe voluntary) admin finishing school before being given the bit? I know some people who shy away from adminship because they want to be sure they are right for the job. If they knew there was a bit of a 'holding hands' guidance period, that would probably encourage more people to apply to RfA. It would also address the problem of people being told they don't have enough experience. Instead of been thrust back into the wild world of Wikipedia, they could be directed to a more structured way to gain experience. Indeed, there is a case for saying that RfA rejects are a good source of people wanting Admin Coaching. Carcharoth 02:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
What is wrong with having "on-the-job training"? It's the entire reason the RfA criteria have become unnecessarily stringent. A fuck-up of major proportions can cost us a prolific contributor, as has happened in the past. An admin making a bad on-the-job mistake causes future admins to have to confront added resistance to new admins, especially inexperienced admins. Also, making this program mandatory has been shot down previously... see the WikiProject on Adminship for more details about this. Whether this should be a general, project-wide process is a completely different beast; if there is consensus for that, then I don't see why this page can't be moved there. Titoxd(?!?) 02:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that inexperienced admins can be a problem. Over-confident admins are also a problem as well, and various other problem admin incarnations. But does the current form of this admin training centre really help? I'm personally all for separating the technical and trust qualifications of RfA. (1) Use the standard RfA process to get community input on whether a user is level-headed, trustworthy, and can deal with disputes, etc. Require those voting to provide a diff to show that they have interacted with the user, and as an example of why they think the candidate would/wouldn't make a good admin. (2) Have a separate process to show that a candidate has the experience to handle technical and policy issues - similar to the candidate statement and answering of questions we see at the moment. The candidate could provide, or be asked to provide, diffs showing how they handled a certain case, or an example of how they performed a certain action. In effect, this is just a formalisation of what RfA already does (or should do) in one go, but puts more emphasis on the candidate and those voting to provide evidence. Really though, both pre-RfA and post-RfA coaching is probably needed. Carcharoth 03:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's what we're trying to discuss here. What should we change to make it more effective? Unfortunately, I'm not sure changes to RfA would be welcome here, as they're routinely rejected on WT:RFA. Titoxd(?!?) 03:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I did segue into a different discussion, didn't I! I actually think there is nothing much wrong with the current program that a name change and de-emphasis on the 'aiming for admin' thing wouldn't fix. I wrote more below in a different thread. The concept is sound. It just needs to be done better. And a venue change probably would help. Cyde is right that Esperanza is not really suited to doing this sort of thing, but the ethos needs to change before such a move would gain acceptance. So carry on with the reform, and prepare the ground for a hopefully relatively painless detachment of the program from Esperanza at some later date. Carcharoth 04:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading the above discussion (and the MfD, of course), I think the concept is a good one, it just doesn't have the best of choices for a name. We already have Editor review, why don't you just call this program Editor Coaching? The two could even supplement each other. Expanding on that last thought, I think that it would be fruitful for you to enter into a discussion with "Editor Review and see about taking it under Esperanza's wing, as it were (or perhaps keep them both separate from esperanza, with a note to all esperanzans to help out on those pages). I presume that ER could use the influx of editors/helpers. (No opinion yet on whether "Adopt-a-user" should be suggested to be merged with "Editor Coaching".) - jc37 00:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need to brand stuff as Esperanza? Is editor review some how failing where Esperanza is succeeding? Are we just trying to replace wikipedia with Esperanza? To me Esperanza should take more focus on what it itself is about, we have plenty of help systems, editor review etc. I can't see how Esperanza "muscling in" on these territories helps anyone, a better plan surely is to actively encourage Esperanza members to participate in these other programs. The exclusionary complaints don't fly if the programs are standard wikipedia ones where everyone is free to participate (on either side) regardless of some affiliation. --pgk 08:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
For the first part, I presume that editor coaching is different than editor review. Though I do think that the two systems could easily supplement/support each other. For the second: "Membership is open to any Wikipedian with about one hundred and fifty (150) edits, who has stayed at Wikipedia for at least two weeks and is willing to follow this charter. Esperanza is committed to the Wikipedia community; our members should be as well." - I don't think that that's exclusionary, I think it's just to keep out impulsive vandals. And for the third: "...everyone is free to participate..." - I agree (notice my parenthetical above). - jc37 10:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I noticed your original suggestion, I was adding my view that the idea of keeping it separate to Esperanza was (to my mind at least) the significantly better option. As to the exclusionary stuff, I guess you didn't read the MFD, understand the concerns those outside Esperanza have? Yes it is exclusionary because believe it or not, not everyone wants to sign up to Esperanza, just saying "it's easy" doesn't help. I've been here for plenty long enough and made plenty enough edits, I have never had any desire to sign up to Esperanza and won't just so I can offer to help other people , I don't need to stick a little green e in my sig to recognise the value of civility etc. etc. Where is the focus of Esperanza, what is Esperanza's goal? Are you just wanting to collect lots of little subprojects behind some branding exercise (or worse some sort of empire building). What additional value does being "Esperanza/Editor Review" offer? Why would Editor Coaching be any worse for being simply Wikipedia:Editor Coaching? There seems to be a mentality that there is something magical about a certain naming or phrasing, same thing with CVU where many argued somewhat bizarely that without the name CVU we'd be overrun with vandals and so on and so forth, whereas the name is absolutely nothing it's the people who matter and no one was ever suggesting we stop people reverting vandals, just we looked at a different approach and image. --pgk 13:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to wait until the "Admin school"-caused hostility calms down, though? I don't see a problem moving this outside of the Esperanza project space, but if it's going to be considered a duplicate copy of the other program (which is much more inclined to put adminship as a goal, not as a benchmark along the way), then it's better to leave it here, don't you think? Titoxd(?!?) 16:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You've a good point there, though I think if a move is generally felt to be a good thing then doing so sooner rather than later is probably better, I'm sure the community will support some proactive discussion on such a move. --pgk 17:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the calls for renaming, and have argued this elsewhere as well. Mainly on the basis that admin can mean either "administrator" (the role of administrating) or "administration" (the act of administrating). I'd also like to point out that "Editor Coaching" implies coaching of editors to be better editors, but that "Admin Coaching" can wrongly imply coaching of admins, or coaching to be a better admin. Simply call it "Editor Coaching" and a lot of problems will go away. State upfront that experienced editors are more likely to be approved by the community to be admins, and that editor coaching is one way to learn from the experience of others, and avoid repeating the mistakes of others. Also make clear that adminship requires gaining the trust of the Wikipedia community, and that no amount of training or coaching will provide this (though it may be helpful to set people off in the right direction and show what you are doing wrong). Civility is best taught by the role-model process of 'learning' - watch other people being civil and learn from their examples. Discuss with a coach, but civility and being able to engage with others is something that comes from experience. There really is no substitute. Carcharoth 00:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I really do think this project needs to be deleted altogether. There are Wikipedia wide initatives, such as editor review and adopt a user that perform exactly the same thing. My view is that once an Esperazan program is adopted across Wikipedia, that Esperanzan program should disband, as its role is done. MANY comments on the MfD expressed high concern at Admin coaching, and I don't see why it should contnue to exist as a source of division. Its reputation has been tainted, and if Esperanza is to ever restore its image it needs to be seen to jettison all programs that are disapproved of by the Wikipedia community at large. Admin coaching is one of them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It also received considerable support from many users, as well, not just from Esperanza, so that assertion ("disappproved of by the Wikipedia community at large") doesn't make any sense. I don't think anyone is actually seeing it as a source of division, they just want to modify it slightly, so trying to destroy everyone's work in this page so far is just not acceptable. Titoxd(?!?) 16:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think enough criticism regarding votestacking and other aspects have been raised on the MfD that I will not answer this. I would advise you to read it, instead. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
If all the discussion here about how to correct the problems of perception isn't enough to make you see that there is still some backing behind this idea, then I don't know. Or perhaps, you haven't read it either. Titoxd(?!?) 16:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't convince me because the massive amount of effort that would have to go into changing people's perceptions would distract so much from actual editing that it would completely fulfil the criticism that people spend more time playing around with Esperanza than they do editing. And that, I think is not an accusation you want laid at your door for longer than absolutely necessary. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Would there be any way to create a few "dummy" pages (one article, one discussion) for admin coaching candidates to try to complete after finishing "training"? I'm thinking of something like the Kobayashi Maru from Star Trek, maybe not as critical though, where the person being tested gets one or more of a series of serious situations, some editorial, some conflict resolution, and then have a group of auditors, who would not include the coach of the candidate, rate the candidate's performance. This "grade" could be referred to in the candidate's RfA, if it were to follow shortly thereafter. The possible disadvantages would be someone tipping the candidate of to which specific kind of problems he might face and someone "freezing" in the field. Personally, I'd like to know if a candidate would freeze, so I wouldn't think of that as a disadvantage, The tip-off could be avoided by having a group of pages/situations available for being used as the test for any given candidate, and having some randomization program choose which specific one he might face. There still might be a slight problem in someone studying all the previous situations. That could be addressed by either having a large enough set of potential "tests" to make studying them impractical, and/or revising each one after being used a set number of times, so that looking over the previous "tests" would be effectively worthless. Doing this would certainly reduce the likelihood of wikipedians thinking Esperanza admin coaching is "rigged", if they can trust that the test being given was one where the candidate couldn't be "taught the test" in advance. Badbilltucker 01:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not a bad idea Bill, but most RfA candidates know exactly what they need to say, do and how they behave to pass the RfA process and creating a non critical article which they can process correctly isn't any way to decide on potential candidates. Perhaps Esperanza admins can sample, say, 100 edits from various points throughout the editors history and provide some form of rating based on what they've seen, especially looking for a changes in behaviour closer to the date the RfA process began. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 02:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure it's a good idea myself, as noted it would be a lot of work to keep them all unique without more or less stock answers (like there are for most of the questions posed on rfa) It would be subjective as to the grade anyway, why would those doing the grading be considered to be better able to grade than anyone else? That aside I would certainly suggest it fell well outside the remit of admin coaching, not every admin candidate take this on in its present form, nor would I suggest so in whatever the result of this discussion is. Anything like this should be uniformly available across all admin candidates, so WT:RFA is probably a better forum to be proposing this on. (I guess this is more of my view (soapboxing?) that you should be wary of stuffing everything under Esperanza, but consider where it best fits, i.e. no more than we should stick it under Wikiproject on India (say)) --pgk 18:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Dummy articles and dummy cases have been created for the purposes of practicing on already, but they were created for working admin related problems, NOT for testing writing skills. See the coaching examples I give below. I think those commenting that have not actually looked at a few coaching sessions before commenting might want to consider doing so. ++Lar: t/c 12:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Having looked at some of your coaching, I think it is very impressive. My concern is, and always has been, who decides who does the coaching? If there was an equal chance of there being bad coaches as well as good ones (like you), then I don't think that is a good thing. I'm all for different coaching styles and levels and speciality, but is there (a) a minimum set of criteria to be a coach; (b) a system in place to deal with coaches that might need, ahem, retraining? Carcharoth 04:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coaching vs. gaming the system vs. adopt an editor

I admit bias, I've volunteered to coach and have had several coachees. I do not think the program as it has been executed with my coachees is gaming the system. I worked with Petros471, and the things we posed to our prospective admins were reading assignments, often philosophical in nature, (read this essay, what do you think it is saying about how to be a good admin, WHY do you want to be an admin, and are you prepared for what it means?) or were intended to tell if the coachee had good judgement about problems that admins faced. At least one of our coachees, at the end of the process, we decided perhaps was not really admin material, and I think it better that this was found out early (I won't be saying which candidate per se). Here's a sample of what sorts of things were carried out: User:MyNameIsNotBob/Admin coaching (and the talk page with it as well), and here is another User:Computerjoe/Admin coaching (and again, the talk page as well). I just don't see this as really congruent with Adopt an Editor, totally different goals. Of course, we may have executed it differently than other coaches did. So, I'd like to see the program stay. I don't see any real need for it to be associated with Esperanza, per se. Hope that perspective is of some use. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution

[edit] Keep

  • I favour the program. I don't care if it stays part of Esperanza or not, and in fact if debranding it would lead to wider acceptance that should be considered. ++Lar: t/c 13:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that I don't care about a rename or a decouple, as long as the name conveys that it is coaching/soul searching for those who are considering being ADMINS. I have zero interest in general editor coaching, that's a completely different program. To see why, look at the samples I provided or other ones out there. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment People have a problem with this because it focuses on admins, because they (and I) feel that it is wrong for Esperanza as an organization to be coaching people to become admins. Wider acceptance could only become a possibility, especially among outside admins, if we shift the focus from training admins to training editors. --Limetom 21:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well of course the problem is that this program is supposed to be about adminship. Hence the name. Renaming it is missing the point. I've little interest in coaching better writers, I leave that to those who think they are better writers than myself. See above, other people get what I was trying to achieve with my coaching... again, being coached should not result in a free pass to adminship because of vote stacking or whatever. Rather, the outcome may well be that the candidate runs screaming in the other direction, realising what a hard and thankless job adminship is, and realising that the candidate can better serve the encyclopedia and themselves in other ways. Not everyone is cut out for adminship and better to find out before standing, or before failing on the job. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, per Lar. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 07:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This program helps build an encyclopedia, so why not? NauticaShades 11:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, it's function is the important part, we should be sure to save it. We can deal with anything else later. -- Natalya 16:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, has been useful to others.__Seadog ♪ 19:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I see nothing wrong with it.--Húsönd 21:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. As I stated above, I don't mind it being moved outside Esperanza, but two things have to happen before that:
    1. This is discussed in WT:RFA, so more users and coaches can enter the program
    2. The anti-Admin school climate subsides.
    Until then, it's better for it to stay here. Titoxd(?!?) 21:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This is a program that if implemented right can justify Esperanza's continued existence on Wikipedia. We need to make it known that our services are not solely offered to Esperanza members. As for the "gaming the system" complaint, I believe it's a systemic bias in the current RfA system, polluted by editcountitis and other perceived criteria that have no bearing on whether an editor should receive the Mop. We can help change people's perceptions by acting in a civil manner, and make sure that the program continues to produce quality nominees. --RoninBKETC 21:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per Lar, but I also wouldn't be opposed to a name change. Thε Halo Θ 15:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Oh, so this is where the discussion was. I decided not to participate in the overhaul of Esperanza--I just did not need that stress in my life. However I think this program is important and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. By the way, I have taken over its coordination since HighwayCello went on wikibreak. --Fang Aili talk 21:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep but Rename

Please suggest a new name, if you agree with this proposal

  • The intentions are good, but the name is very misleading.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 04:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • From the description sound like a rename would match the reality of the program better and may help ease some of the other concerns. Consider debranding from Esperanza (not essential, and as above may need some care/input from the wider community) --pgk 20:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • "Editor Coaching" seems fine, not too fussed but get rid of the "admin" word.--pgk 11:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, possibly a name with "Editor" instead of "Admin". --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 09:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC) moved to keep, but no rename section, per Lar. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 07:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but Rename to something like "Editor coaching". Possibly separate it from Esperanza (Something like: Wikipedia:Editor coaching). - jc37 09:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename Yeah, "Editor coaching" is fine with me, but please make it differ from the editor review. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename - 'Admin coaching' can mean different things to different people. Carcharoth 14:53, 1 December 2006
  • Support Rename to "Editor Coaching". The current name is simply going to cause trouble. --Limetom 01:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename - since this is not really about teaching people to be good admins but to be good editors and general citizens of WP then perhaps we should call this "Editor Coaching" or "Citizenship Coaching". The two go hand in hand really - you want people to know how to edit correctly and how to cite/reference/etc but you also want good "citizens" of WP. Skills like conflict resolution, negotiation and even tolerance should be promoted. --Nicko 22:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If you want a program like that, start one, please, (heck, it might even be a good idea to have one, not sure) but don't rename this program into something it isn't. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename. Personally, I feel Mentorship Program or something similar would make for a better name. I'm sure that in addition to editors who wish to know more about the work admins do and the nuances of policy, there are also editors who would appreciate assistance in learning other areas of Wikipedia or perhaps support and guidance to resolve issues brought up during an RfC or Editor Review. You can't teach someone how to be a good admin, so "Admin coaching" was always a bit of a non sequitur for me. Shell babelfish 04:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/s/p/Wikipedia%7EEsperanza_Overhaul_Admin_Coaching_5858.html"