Wikipedia talk:Admin coaching/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 10 December 2006 discussion 2 Updating the status 3 Format 4 Removing inactive users 5 Is anybody receiving coaches? 6 Do you like detective stories?

[edit] 10 December 2006 discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Updating the status

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

[edit] Format

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

[edit] Removing inactive users

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

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

[edit] Is anybody receiving coaches?

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

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

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

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

[edit] Do you like detective stories?

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