Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Admin school

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. >Radiant< 09:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Admin school

• See also: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Crash course KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This looks official, it isn't, and that's bad. Chick Bowen 17:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum to my nomination, I'd like to point out that The Transhumanist has added links to this project (I've since removed a great many of them) at any number of official places--it is clearly his goal to make this look like an official process. If that's the case, it needs to be voted on first. If this exists at all, it needs to be userfied or else it will inevitably be misconstrued as having been approved by the community. Chick Bowen 00:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

true, but it looks like a useful resource; is there a template to say "this is NOT policy"? --User24 17:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It can be transformed into a sort of advanced Help, but in its current form it is absolutely inappropriate and all such officiality or mentions of adminship need to be removed. —Centrx→talk • 17:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It also should be in user space, I think. Chick Bowen 18:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If it is intended to be run by one editor, then it should be in userspace. If it is meant to be a joint effort (which is what it appears to be), then it should remain in WP space. --Richard 18:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• If the problem is just looking official, just make things clear that it's unofficial. This sounds like a refreshing, plausible idea that was too quickly implemented, so tentative keep whilst it may be merged/converted into something more puralistic. - Mailer Diablo 18:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to WP:ESP/AC (expanded), or userfy. - Mailer Diablo 15:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I think this is a really good idea. Perhaps it can be improved but it is a step in the right direction. Clarifying that this is not official would be a good idea. --Richard 18:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A solution looking for a problem. Having admin school like this implies that users are not suitable to be admins without prior learning. This is false. Therefore this page is redundant and the time that people would spend putting into this project could be better served be channeled elsewhere. --Lord Deskana (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep pending clarification from The Transhumanist. It looks like it was created as a way to manage his Admin coaching obligations, for one or two or ten users. If it is intended to be just his, userfication seems appropriate. If it's meant to be a "shortcut" around Admin coaching's backlog, I'm not so cool with that... -- nae'blis 18:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  Changed to Delete, maybe allow it to reform as an informal adjunct to Admin coaching under Esperanza, but my worries about it being a fork/one-man's project have not been alleviated. -- nae'blis 19:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching (or userfy or delete - just not keep)--Doc^g 18:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching -- Agathoclea 20:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Move, rename, whatever - just don't delete! This is a really good project and it's been so helpful to me, it just needs a more appropriate space! --Missmarple 20:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete adminship isn't a promotion, badge of honour etc. etc. I see adminship as being an option when you've worked on the project and find that you could use the extra buttons and are familiar enough with when they should/shouldn't be used etc. Not something you train for. --pgk 21:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• But in order to be an admin, you must first be voted on to become one, so if someone is truely dedicated to editing Wikapedia and wishes to do more with it, they would require knowledge. I restricting this information is damaging because if we don't have these opinions around, no one on Wikapedia would be good enough to actually BE an admin. However, if there is in fact an alternative way of presenting this, it would be best to change it. Repku 22:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Your comment would seem to get a big part of the problem--that this is not admin school, it's RFA school. We have a thousand admins, and all of us became admins by editing, dealing with problems as they arose, and being recognized at RFA for how we dealt with those problems. Formalizing that process implies that there's more to it than there really is. If any editor wants to have his own opinion in his own userspace about admin standards (and many do), then that's great and that's helpful to people. But a "school" is not needed. Chick Bowen 23:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not official. It's miscellany. A "non-official" template should be enough. SupaStarGirl 22:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; alternately, merge per Doc, userfy, or completely rewrite. These pages should not be in Wikipedia space since they are fundamentally misleading. The "crash course" manages to go on for thousands of words about the "essence" of Wikipedia without ever mentioning fundamental concepts like NPOV (though it does cover edit summaries, fighting the "ongoing battle" against vandalism, and totting up AWB edits to "acquire experience"). Christopher Parham (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't think a redir to Esperanza is a good idea either. Editors either have, or do not have, what it takes to be admins. To have a "school" is counter-productive, in that it teaches how to "game the system" - and perhaps incorrectly. A Bad Idea all the way around. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• An even worse problem is that this has been advertised all over the place, including the Community Portal and the Reference Desk(?). The user's "Objective" on Wikipedia is "To become an admin". —Centrx→talk • 00:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I disagree with KillerChihuahua's assertion that one cannot learn to be an admin (we can all learn to do wonderful things we never would have thought we could do, if we have good teachers), but having it run by non-admins would certainly not work towards that. I also agree that such a "school" might tend towards just teaching how to "game the system", which is not what we want. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 00:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  Perhaps I was unclear, my apologies. I did not mean to assert that one cannot learn the rules, the techniques, the skillset, etc. I meant that one cannot learn the basic qualities - intelligence, reason, maturity - and this "project" seems designed to somewhat obscure that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  No, you were clear enough. However, I still don't really agree. Intelligence is not as fixed as we once thought, reasoning can certainly be taught, and maturity not only grows with time, but can be cultivated with the help of a dedicated mentor. Perhaps you could say that I agree with you in theory, but feel that the number of people who do not and could never have it in them to become admins is exceedingly small. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom and above. -- Ned Scott 01:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• SPEEDY AND VERY STRONG KEEP - This deletion nomination is totally out of line, and appears to have been made without a clear understanding of the policies which cover project- and indeed page-creation, and therefore is ill-conceived and lacks good faith. Projects, like the other pages of Wikipeda, do not require preapproval. You are trying to set a very bad precedent here. This project is modelled closely after the help forums Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, the Wikipedia:Help desk, and the Wikipedia:Reference desk, none of which ever went through any preapproval process prior to creation. Nor did those pages need to seek "officiality" in any way. They immediately became official help forums of Wikipedia by virtue of existing! Like those pages, this page is a forum page, for the open discussion of help topics. It is as official as any and all of the Wikipedians who participate are officially Wikipedians. I started a portal awhile back, called Portal:Thinking, which was nominated for deletion because it was not preapproved. That deletion failed, and so will this one. I have the right, like all Wikipedians to create projects and other meta-pages on my own initiative. And this I have done again and again. That is a fundamental element of Wikipedia. Deletion must be discussed based on the merits of a page or the lack thereof. Officiality only applies to policy and guideline pages, of which this forum clearly is not. It is a Wikipedia project, set up by users for users to help other users. It is as "official" as the Wikipedia:Department directory, the Wikipedia:Tip of the day project, and the Community bulletin board all of which I either created (or in the case of WP:TOTD, resurrected) without preapproval. And those pages are about as offical as you can get, being intregal components of Wikipedia and its operations!   The Transhumanist   01:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Your uncivil attitude here does not help. – Chacor 01:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I have remained quite civil, and have expressed my opinions in a straight-forward and honest way. If there is a point I have made that you disagree with, please discuss it. --  The Transhumanist   01:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Saying the nomination was in bad faith is most certainly not civil. – Chacor 01:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
        • How is that uncivil, since the point was made specifically in relation to the nom's "officiality" issue.   The Transhumanist   02:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • So is this your school, or is it open? What differentiates this from Esperanza's Admin coaching program? -- nae'blis 04:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • How could it possibly be my school? Please look at the original header (before the changes made to accomodate the desires expressed in this discussion), and you will see that it was presented as an "open forum". I also placed notices all over the place including on pages frequented by admins. It has been completely open from the start. What differentiates this from the admin coaching program is:

1. The admin coaching program is one-on-one, and is therefore bottlenecked, subject to long lines and even longer waiting times. An open forum would provide the opportunity for multiple people to answer each participants' questions. And the waiting time would be minutes or hours as opposed to weeks or months (as is the case with the admin coaching program).
2. Admin coaching takes place on user page subpages tucked away all over user namespace. These discussions are not typically visited by anyone other than the coach and the coachee. An open forum which should supplement rather than replace the activity of one-on-one coaching, affords the opportunity of error correction by others if erroneous advice is given.
3. Admin coaching affords no cross-communication between students. In an open forum, students can easily see the advice given to other students and learn from it, and more importantly students could take on the dual role as coaches by answering those questions the answers of which they know. Sharing of strengths. I hope these points answer your question.  The Transhumanist   13:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Another comment - anyone who uses the amount of boldface typing you did up there, along with the capitalised phrase "SPEEDY AND VERY STRONG KEEP", has failed to understand how deletion debates should proceed. Admins are expected to be able to assess a debate without the need for distracting "look, my argument is really important" labels. The fact that some of them aren't able to do this might be an argument for an admin school, but the trainee admins certainly wouldn't learn this from you. Carcharoth 07:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I wasn't communicating to the closing admin, but to the others participating in this discussion, and any new participants who happen to arrive. I add emphasis to text to show how I feel. I format text for emphasis. For example, how would it come across if I phrased and formatted it like this: Take all the time you need and think about maybe keeping this page. By holding formatting and phraseology over others' heads, you really are pressuring them to change the context of their messages. And I believe that is highly inappropriate, especially in an open discussion such as this one.  The Transhumanist   13:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Concur. This is extremely poor behavior for someone who considers themselves appropriate to give advice on how to be an admin. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 11:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • How is honestly expressing myself poor behavior? I am not a conformist, so please stop trying to turn me into one. Thank you!  The Transhumanist   13:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • YELLING AT PEOPLE LIKE THIS is poor behavior. Striking it out later doesn't change that fact. You certainly wouldn't get my vote at an RfA. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 08:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, no place for more bureaucracy around here. – Chacor 01:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's a place to get questions answered. A help forum. A place for users to go who are seeking assistance. Nothing more. How is this bureaucracy?   The Transhumanist   01:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • "If you are a beginner, you have come to the wrong page. Go to the Help desk" A place to get questions answered, really? This is about as much instruction creep as you can get. – Chacor 01:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, it is a place to get questions answered. Beginners have a forum designed specifically for them (Wikipedia:New contributors' help page), and so I thought one for intermediate users wouldn't be out of place.   The Transhumanist   02:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • The page was made in the spirit of helping. If the page needs to be altered in order to convey this better, then let's fix it, rather than delete it.   The Transhumanist   02:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Anybody with a signature like that wouldn't be getting my support at an RfA. Doesn't the school tell you these things?! --kingboyk 15:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete although I do like Rock School. •Jim62sch• 01:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't much like the idea of a coaching service personally, but am outright opposed to one in the Wikipedia namespace. We do not need an editor/administrator monoculture, which seems to be what this has a potential of leading to. It's the unique approaches that each contributor has that makes the Wikipedia what it is. It also makes it appear as though users need the coaching to be proper administrators, which is unacceptable (among things, adminship isn't supposed to be a big deal). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • And add to that Chick Bowen's RFA school comment from above. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin_coaching. —BorgHunter (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete just encourages this weird idea that becoming an admin is some sort of 'good Wikipedian' badge. Also a potential source of tit-for-tat supports that will only make the signal-to-noise ratio worse than it already is. Never mind the irony that a good fraction of the people posting here, including the originator, are on the wrong side of WP:SIG. Opabinia regalis 03:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

admins aren't good wikipedians? --User24 03:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but maybe put it in userspace, and maybe template 'non-offical' it, if possible --User24 03:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All schools are notable....er... Userfy Clearly a well-intentioned effort, but adminship shouldn't be something people aim for. This sends the wrong message in WP space. JChap2007 03:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ugh. Like we don't have enough noise around here. Robovski 03:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I have to support the Transhumanist in this. As long as Editor Review, the Kindness campaign, The Signpost, Concordia, Esperanza (and especially it's associated Admin coaching service), and any and all other collaborative Wikipedians helping Wikipedians projects exist, so should this one. Considering the LARGE amount of essays in project space, I cannot fathom the rationale of thinking that this does not belong there as well. I also strongly disagree with the conveyed idea that admins "either got it or they don't". I think anyone can learn, and become better Wikipedians... As a matter of fact, isn't that already part of the WP:AGF? : ) - jc37 03:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I for one would happily wave goodbye to Concordia, Esperanza and the Admin Coaching service. Esperanza in particular seems to me to be a backslapping exercise in social networking. --kingboyk 15:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

    Best comment yet. I'm in strong agreement here. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 08:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

    • Have you seen Wikipedia:Esperanza/Coffee Lounge? I'm tempted to take on all-comers at one of those boards games (the one I know how to play to a fairly high standard), but I'm here to build an encyclopedia! :-) Carcharoth 17:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above, although it should probably be re-named to something less official-sounding. --Carnildo 04:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I haven't yet decided which way to vote here, but I'm uneasy both with the way this page has been set up and is being run, and how it has been targeted for deletion. Let me explain. Firstly, after reading through the page, it comes across as somthing like Wikipedia:Editor review, with The Transhumanist contributing much of the feedback. Lots of the advice from The Transhumanist is good, but some of it comes over as authoratitive when it can be misleading or just wrong. Some of the users are going to be very disappointed when they have to unlearn things they learnt at "admin school". I suggest that some of the problems can be solved with a rename calling it a help desk and losing the words "admin" and "school", along with a rename of the Esperanza "admin coaching" page. Plus it needs to be made absolutely clear that it is perfectly possible to edit Wikipedia and become a respected and valued contributor of content, without ever needing admin tools. Adminship should not be a target to aim at, but should be seen as a dirty but necessary job given to those considered responsible enough to handle the tools. As for deletion, I don't think that is entirely appropriate. Recreation should be prevented in the future, as someone else is bound to think of this again. Also, the page is a useful directory of pages that are worthwhile (and more people should be aware of), and also makes people aware of some pages that need extensive rewriting or deleting (eg. the "crash course" page Christopher Parham mentioned). I would also like to point out that The Transhumanist (who I first encountered in a previous incarnation as 'Go for it!') has a (self-admitted) history of setting up organised areas like this, some of which are very good, and some of which meet resistance. I would suggest that the community try to advise The Transhumanist on the best way to approach this sort of thing in the future, to save stress both for The Transhumanist, and for the community. My big concern is that the initial look of such areas are greatly influenced by The Tranhumanist's views and opinions, with what is effectively sometimes a walled garden created from disparate policy and/or help pages, though more often the area ends up being a helpful re-organisation of such pages. There is a lot of energy and good ideas here, but there are plenty of examples of people doing things too enthusiastically and too fast and just annoying a section of "the community". Slow and steady is sometimes better than being bold. Carcharoth 04:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Carcharoth, you've made some statements about my performance without providing any concrete examples, which makes it impossible to tell if your statements are accurate or merely opinion. And if I have made mistakes, I certainly would like to know about them, so that I can correct them. Please point out the "walled gardens" which you referred to. And what advice have I given on the page in question that is "misleading or just wrong"? Also keep in mind that every page I've written is unprotected and is subject to editing at anytime by anyone with editing privileges on Wikipedia. Also keep in mind that any mistakes a "coach" makes in an open forum can be easily corrected by others, while mistakes made in more private one-on-one coaching arrangements don't afford such convenience. It much preferable to have this type of discussion out in the open, which one of the main reasons the page was created.   The Transhumanist   06:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I could provide concrete links about your past behavior and projects (some of which I supported), or rather, link to an RfC on one of your previous accounts, but that would probably be inappropriate here, as this is a discussion on the specific page in question. I agree that having discussions out in the open is much better (though there are times when having a word with someone on their talk page is better), so I hope you don't mind if I go and respond to what you have been writing over at the "admin school". Neither of us are admins, so the spectacle of us debating things at something called an admin school may seem rather ludicrous! :-) As for the 'walled garden' comment, that was referring to my worry that sometimes the areas you set up can appear to beginners like they all make sense and link together, and that the "community" has done this by a wiki-process, when sometimes it is mostly just your work. This is more a general worry I have with the wiki-process, but it is most obvious in cases like this, where contributions are skewed towards one contributor. Carcharoth 07:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I struck out the first bit above, as a closer look at User:The Transhumanist's user pages reveals that this is all already openly mentioned. Apologies for implying anything different, and apologies for mentioning stuff from the past. Carcharoth 02:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Thank you for your feedback. The subject matter of the Admin school forum page is exactly the same as the subject taught in the Esperanza Admin coaching program. Therefore, precedent is already established for the subject matter. The only thing that differs between the Admin coaching program and this page is the format. Admin coaching was suffering from a major bottleneck and very long waiting times. The forum format solves those problems without requiring that those who prefer one-on-one coaching have to go without. Both programs can exist side-by-side in a supplemental reinforcing way. The forum format also has strong precedent on Wikipedia as is evident by the numerous help desks and discussion pages that exist on Wikipedia.   The Transhumanist   05:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Quote: "The only thing that differs between the Admin coaching program and this page is the format." - wrong - the venue is different. A subpage of Esperanza is wholly different from having its own page in Wikipedia namespace. You wouldn't expect to see the Esperanza Coffee Lounge to be in Wikipedia namespace at Wikipedia:Coffee Lounge, and ditto for something that you seem to have spun off the Eperanza admin coaching pages. I suspect that if you had created this whole thing at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin school, no-one outside of Esperanza would have noticed, and this discussion would have been avoided. That might have been a bad thing, as maybe something similar to what you've created is needed, but at the moment, what you've created doesn't satisfy some elements of the community - you don't see this sort of heated discussion about the Help Desk or Reference Desk (though maybe there was when they started). Carcharoth 07:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I've changed the offending text in the header, providing links to pages intended for beginners in case they wind up on the wrong page.   The Transhumanist   05:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - one rather disturbing thing that has occurred with respect to this deletion discussion is that access to the deletion notice was restricted by the removal of links to the page. I think that it is entirely inappropriate to remove the links to a page (and therefore to its deletion notice) during an ongoing deletion discussion. I've restored all the links, so that everyone who might have a say or who would have normally found the page are given the opportunity to contribute to this discussion. To remove the links or the notice from the Community Bulletin Board would be a manipulation of the deletion discussion process. Sincerely,   The Transhumanist   05:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Not at all when the links were inappropriate there in the first place. This is by no means official, and we've had discussions about the links at WP:AN. They do not belong there; in no way does them not being there hurt this debate. Conversely, indeed, one could say that your insistence that it is linked is effectively "a manipulation of the deletion discussion process" by getting more people here, possibly to "vote" keep. – Chacor 05:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • But the links existed before the deletion nomination took place.   The Transhumanist   06:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • If you are worried that not enough people are aware of this debate, then mention it somewhere general (hence no bias) like WP:RfC or WP:VP. Carcharoth 07:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Adminship is not be the goal here, building a encyclopedia is. —Mira 06:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Consumed Crustacean: It's the unique approaches that each contributor has that makes the Wikipedia what it is. Editors should contribute wherever they are best able. We should not be telling people how to change their behavior, where to participate, or helping them fine-tune their answers all for the goal of a successful RfA. As KillerChihuahua points-out, this kind of superficial grooming is akin to gaming the system. Reading lists and public Q and A are, it seems to me, better than the Admin Coaching project, but at least it is tucked away in Esperanza's space. ×Meegs 06:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with KillerChihuahua. We need to base RFA on editors natural editing not something that is designed through a special class. Honestly becoming an Admin is not hard. Be friendly and helpful while following Wikipedia policy and any editor will be fine. FloNight 06:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I just want to make the note that I saw the Admin School earlier today (when I was at work) when it was on the Community Portal, and went looking for it later (when I was at home), only to be extremely frustrated at all the work I had to do to find it. If nothing else, I like the collection of resources and the "prerequisites" that are listed there. I'm not an admin, and I really don't have an opinion as to whether or not people should "strive" to be admins, but I do appreciate the effort that has gone into this little endeavor, and the usefulness of the page. --Wolf530 07:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but refine Good tips on better writing standards and can help people in the right direction if embraced by the community. Will not work if only one user takes charge. People always want help to get to their goal, and if becoming an admin is their goal why not make a resource out there specifically to help them? -- UKPhoenix79 08:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Something like this needs community support FIRST. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unneccessary bureacracy. Being an admin really isn't that difficult as long as you have a modicum of common sense (which is no doubt why I struggle, heh). --kingboyk 12:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Having this sort of project in the wikipedia space is a very bad move. The admin school, right now, seems to be an attempt to find a "quick-fix" solution to months of hard work, gaining trust, and learning the rules of wikipedia. I also don't understand why this would be needed for "intermeditate-level to advanced" questions. There is no shame in going to the Help Desk if you're not sure about something, even if you are an experienced user, and Editor Review is there for anyone wanting feedback on how to be a better editor, so I really don't see the point. Sorry. Thε Halo ^Θ 13:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Very bad idea for reasons mentioned above. -- Steel 13:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Lord Deskana says it best. Rama's arrow 14:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant, not a good idea and a redirect is not a good idea at all. I don't see any good reasons why should this stay. There's enough admin training pages on Wikipedia. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 15:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but make less official sounding. Also agree with UKPhoenix79's comments above. Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 16:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with esperanza/admin coaching, or delete.
  The adage "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach" is meant to be ironic, not advice! --Quiddity 19:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Instruction creep, and per Pgk. Snoutwood (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The less awful, officious, and process-obsessive tripe like this, the better. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 21:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please be civil. Clearly, from the discussion above, we've seen that the page was created with the best of intentions. Your language is completely uncalled for. --Wolf530 (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Ha. Ha. Ha! Transwiki! - This could potentially be useful on Wikiversity. —this is messedrocker (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Burn with fire. Ral315 (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We are here to build a vibrant, unique excyclopedia, not to manufacture admins on an assembly line. Admins are not taught by users; they are taught by experience and by trial and error. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I think Physicq's opinion is expressed too strongly here. I think that forcing each Admin to relearn the job is wasteful of everyone's time, & that creating a compilation of the acquired experience of Admins would help everyone. (This is not to say that this particular page is the best method, though.) -- llywrch 06:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit bewildered at how you can make the comment "expressed too strongly". I completely and totally agree with Physicq's comments, and I do so very strongly. -- Ned Scott 06:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Too strongly? Nay, I think I did not express my opinion strongly enough. I believe that this "school"/admin-breeding program is not only pointless, but a dishonest way to cheat an RfA. Did the 1000+ current admins waste our time? No! Is this thing necessary? No! Is it beneficial to Wikipedia? Hell no! That last thing anyone wants to see is a robotic admin who knows nothing more than what he learned in school (aka a wikibookworm). Your comments serve to reinforce the image that you take RfA as a trophy to glorify one's [lack of] achievements, which is antithetical to what Wikipedia is all about. Sorry if my language is strong, but I believe that now I got my opinion across. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

My only interests promoting the compilation is to improve the ability of the Administrators. Would it be fair to assume that both Ned Scott & Physicq believe, based have written, that Admins waste their time in reading WP:AN, WP:AN/I, their archives, or the materials in the Wikipedia namespace, & should only spend their time hunting down vandalism & banning troublemakers based on their own limited experience, & ignore any worry over making a mistake? That is exactly what their comments convey to me. One can be critical about this page, yet believe that some book-learning (written by the right person), would help people to be better Admins. And I say this with over three years of experience as an Admin -- that's longer than both of you together have been Wikipedians. Do either of you think that I might have the experience to know what I'm talking about? And I take offense at Physicq's implication that I see the job of an Admin as only "a trophy"; but the haste by which he wrote this only confirms my opinion above. -- llywrch 20:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

To what extent will this "compilation" serve to benefit the community? We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to become administrators, a point of contention in which you have not addressed. We are not here to build "model admins" in record time. While, yes, every good editor has done some book-learning (and I do not contest that), the image in which your convey suggests that book-reading trumps experience acquired in editing articles, participating in discussions, and making an occasional mistake or two (and apologizing for them). While I admit that I have perhaps expressed my opinions a bit too strongly, I resent your use of appeal to authority which serves no purpose in bolstering your argument. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You have argued vociferously against me, yet in this paragraph agreed with everything I have said: one should not rely only on personal experience to become a better Admin. That's all I said in my original post, but were quite sure that I said something else. BTW, I don't see where I was making an appeal to authority: you had argued that experience is the only way to learn, & my response was that experience has taught me that if Admins record what they learned, newer Admins would be able to learn faster. Nowhere in what I wrote did I claim that "book learning" alone would make for a capable Admin; saying that I did is itself a logical fallacy -- a straw man argument. -- llywrch 20:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? Perhaps I should have been more clear, because I never said that one should rely solely on personal experience, if you so wish to get into semantics. I certainly do not wish to do so. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• WP:AN, guidelines, pages on the project namespace, are things that one would use as an admin, instead of using them to become one. Major difference there. Granted, one could learn how to become an admin from such pages, that is not the reason such pages exist. I'm not opposed to any "admin education", but I'm opposed to the approach used on Wikipedia:Admin school.

I take offense to the comment about how being an admin for longer than I've been a user. My time as a user does not change my argument in this discussion. In the same way my shoe size does not change my argument, no matter how big it is. If a newer user brings up a rational argument, then it's a rational argument, regardless of who brought it up. -- Ned Scott 08:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

First, if you are going to criticze what I say, read what I write, not what someone else thinks I mean. Second, if you are offended that I have more experience at Wikipedia, deal with it: there will always be someone with more experience that you in whatever you do. (That's something experience has taught me.) Third & last, it is true that the quality of a rational argument trumps the quantity of experience -- but that's not the case here. You said that you agree enthusiastically with what Physicq wrote above. Your agreeing is not a rational argument; further, what Physicq wrote wasn't an argument -- it was a statement or thesis. You seem to be obsessed in disputing whatever I write; prove me wrong by walking away from our exchange -- as I am doing now. -- llywrch 20:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't criticize what you said, I was disputing a misleading statement you made about what I support. Second, I never said I was offended by you having more experience, I said I was offended by you using such an argument to make yourself and your argument "more important". That's totally un-wikipedic of you to say. You need to stop being so rude and immature. "YOU SAID THAT TOO STRONGLY, MOM!!!! HE SAID THAT TOO STRONGLY" or "I'VE BEEN HERE LONGER THAN YOU HAAAVE, YOU CAN'T BE ON MY LEVEL BECAUSE I WAS HERE FIRST". Do you really think that by saying these things you are making your argument look better? It doesn't, it makes you look like a dick. Also, I'm not obsessed in disputing anything you write, just the absurd stuff. Now prove me wrong by doing 50 push-ups. -- Ned Scott 03:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per everyone above. And as an aside, I find the prerequisites for participation exclusionary and inconsistent with the Wiki-way. We don't set prerequisites for participation elsewhere...even the admin, 'crat, policy etc pages are open to all. Allowing such a page would be a Very Bad precedent. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Eww. – Gurch 01:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This page is fucking retarded. Bad idea and the uncivil and unnecessarily combative nature of its creator don't sit too well with me either. I recommend deleting this page and then blocking that "Transhumanist" malcontent for at least 48 hours in order to get our message across that his disruption shall not be tolerated any longer! Policratus 02:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Indefinitely-blocked disruptive troll. – Chacor 02:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per pretty much everyone above (who moved for deletion). -- Kicking222 02:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone and Sarah Ewart, who put her finger on what it was that bothered me about this. FreplySpang 02:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone... artificial unproductive meta processes in general are unhelpful. But this one in specific, wow, this project treats adminship like a trophy to get for its own sake, going so far as to provide advice on gaming RfA and not even mentioning such principles (you might have heard of them) as assuming good faith, verifiability, NPOV and god knows what else that are a lot more important for admins and all of us to know about than edit summaries and using AWB to inflate your edit count, the topics this project seems to emphasize. --W.marsh 02:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - now. Khoikhoi 02:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep with strong reservations. This is an excellent idea. Editors do indeed need training and mentorship before attempting to be admins. The lack of this program has led to the current crop of admins, an often-sorry lot. Such a program, done well, cannot possibly fail to do much good. On the other hand, I must object strongly to the way that this page's creator has gone about it, including what looks like pretty blatant OWNership. If this page is kept and the creator does not let it be improved by the community, I will argue to delete the next time it comes up here. On the gripping hand, I'm probably asking for too much when I hope that a pet will be let go. Userfication (with no prejudice to a new implementation) is the simple answer. John Reid 04:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well said. --Wolf530 (talk) 04:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I understand the concerns about Ownership. The creator has indicated a willingness on the page for additional volunteers to help. I would urge everyone to give this program a chance. --Richard 05:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• "Ownership" doesn't apply here. Please let me explain. I have reverted no one. I placed notices everywhere with the intent to attract people to get involved, admin and non-admin alike. I tried to give the program a jumpstart, by copying relevant threads to give the page some substance/momentum (it's better than arriving and seeing a blank page). With respect to the header and "crash course", I figured it would be easier for others to edit existing pages than try to convince them to create them from scratch. If the people in this discussion took an active interest, the concept could easily work, and shine. I am very surprised at the reaction of admins, who were basically invited to participate once the page was up and running. What good is an admin school without admins to instruct there? I'm very disappointed in all of you, because you can't see beyond the initial effort to what you could turn it into with just a few minutes of each of your time. If you were to participate rather than shoot it down, you could create a very supportive and effective learning environment. I just provided the seed. But you can do with it what you want. Though crushing the seed was not the option I thought you would choose. It wouldn't be a difficult matter to edit the project - there's not that much text involved. Just a few lines. The page's name can likewise easily be changed. I in all honesty I do not understand your objection to the overall concept when the concept is entirely subject to your edits. If the amount of effort that was spent on this discussion was instead applied to the project, there would be no problem, and the community would have a well-designed support program benefitting from all of your input and great ideas.  The Transhumanist   09:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If it does get deleted, just keep a copy offline and bring an improved version back if you manage to generate support for the idea. It might not have seemed like it from the other examples (RD, HD, etc.) but this is definitely something that needs to be introduced slowly, for the community to get used to the idea. Or kept within Esperanza. Re: John Reid's comment about OWNership, the impression is given of that because you generate a lot of activity in a small area, and that can give the impression that you are dominating the contributions. Something for the community like this needs to br truly worked on, from the beginning by several different people. Carcharoth 10:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not rocket science. And it's not a lot of text. The header has 5 sentences in it. The project description 4 sentences. Carcharoth, you could personally edit them in ten minutes.  The Transhumanist   10:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, as a concept, although I do find the name "school" with certain associations objectionable. But the practices are actually understandable in spirit of modern RfA ultra-conformism. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Notice - I've removed most of the page identity text, and have changed the title at the top of the page. I'm not sure exactly what you all want. Is that a better title? Do you have any suggestions for a better name? Please feel free to edit the page and its header further. The header can be edited at Wikipedia:Admin school/Header.  The Transhumanist   12:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't say about others, but personaly for me it looks better. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 13:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, mostly per KillerChihuahua. This page focuses too much on the perceived idea of the "perfect administrator", which is actually a "perfect RfA candidate", distracting from the fact that it's the overall improvement of the encyclopedia that counts. The number of sections where the answer is about edit count shows this quite clearly. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 14:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's hard enough seeing past the RFA "benchmarks" to determine if a candidate has the experience and personality to make a good admin, without a page in the project space informing users that the benchmarks are the admin. If The Transhumanist wants to make this into his personal take on adminship, I would have no problem with userfication. - BanyanTree 16:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Adminship not a trophy. If this is going to exist at all, it should be a Wikiproject. I object to teaching people how to game the system out in the open. That's what e-mail is for. This is bad for the image. Nothing wrong with the Esperanza program, but as it stands this is a bad idea, even without the ownership concerns. Transhumanist, stop shouting at people. Whatever this MfD is, it isn't "totally out of line". Moreschi 17:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  "I object to teaching people how to game the system out in the open. That's what e-mail is for." - I am hoping that you were making a joke about double standards, and possibly explaining that such gaming does exist already through that joke-example? - jc37 21:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  Yes and yes, I'm joking. Obviously such gaming of the system does exist. But it's small-scale and probably justifiable (psst my friend with 6000 vandal-reverting edits: we both know you'd be a great admin but you need to spend a week at AfD to keep everyone at RFA contented) : to do this on potentially a grand scale is a bad idea and to do this right out in the open is to make a mockery of Wikipedia and is just awful for the image. Deadpan, eh? Cheers, Moreschi 21:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  I mean, can you imagine what they'd say at Wikitruth or Dramatica??? And with justification, too. Moreschi 21:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  However, it is the system which is broken in the first place; people having to game it is just a symptom. And criticism is better reduced by fixing causes rather than hiding symptoms. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 05:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This is completely the wrong way to improve admins and will help make RfA even more of a mess than it is at present. Adminship should be 'no big deal'. Lets get back to that. --Bduke 21:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, agreeing with many others above. I do not like what this would do to the RfA process if people start taking it seriously. I foresee unworthy candidates accepted because they took pains to follow the School's instructions, and worthy ones passed over for not having done so. Andrew Levine 02:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per FloNight and others. This "school" is simply designed to help users overcome RFA, not to ensure they become good administrators.--cj | talk 03:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; this seems to be run primarily by one guy (who I've never heard of before), and it really doesn't belong in project space. --Cyde Weys 04:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Check my user page, that'll jog your memory.  The Transhumanist   08:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This seems to be about gaming the system. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-06 06:28Z

The following thread was moved from the top of this discussion to somewhere closer to its place in the discussion - it is important to keep a rough chronological order in discussion such as this, as otherwise they are harder to follow. Carcharoth 10:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• If I may be so bold as to put this at the top as it may change matters, the following has now been added to the top of the main page:

• If adding this to the MfD in this manner is inappropriate I sincerely apologise, and do not hesitate to remove (of course). Just for the record I only came across this 30 minutes ago, however I do see an honest attempt at a community trying to help each other, and as such I created the "disclaimer" (for want of a better term). With this additon, my opinion is to Keep the page (with further work to alleviate other concerns as well.) Hope this is helpful Glen 07:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Glen, the main problem I see with this is the "principal" and head instructor of the school is not an administrator. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Tho in saying that the reason I came to it was to offer my assistance (tho that may increase the likelyhood of deletion! lol) More than anything I felt without a clear statement showing the page's actual status it was a complete given it needed to go. So, one concern hopefully has been addressed (in some way) at least. Thanks Glen 07:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

End of moved thread. Subthread discussion continues below.

A few problems with the wording of your header. I'm not going to edit it over there, and I'm not actually going to comment over there on what I think are some of the misunderstandings there, as it looks likely the page will be deleted - though I do think the people who are engaged in legitimate discussions over there should have the discussions moved to their talk pages. I also think that the page should be gradually closed down, rather than deleted. But back to your header. "is a real initiative" - seems designed solely to placate those who think it is not a real initiative, and any real inititive shouldn't need to say this. "our team of ever so helpful" - this comes across as sarcasm, though this probably wasn't intended. "simply an informal WikiProject of sorts" - it either is a WikiProject or it isn't. I think it is trying to be a help desk. There could be a legitimate place for a help desk for admins (if one doesn't already exist) as a subpage of WP:AN, or as a subpage of WP:HD. Carcharoth 11:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I do like to think this was done in good faith, but I'm afraid I don't like the sort of culture it promotes, nor the layers of red tape it implies. Not to beat a dead horse too much, but for all the myriad risks a number of editors have already outlined, is there anything here that couldn't be accomplished just as well by expanding or improving core pages including Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list, Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide, Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, and of course the Wikipedia:Help desk? Rather than building up a new bureaucracy and dividing our efforts by re-inventing the wheel, time and again, why not work with and refine what we already have in place? Luna Santin 07:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete we already got a page where if people need "help" to become an admin, they can go there. Plus, the idea of where someone needs schooling to find out how not to screw up and become an admin is something that really bothers me. Future admin candidates should choose their own path, that is what makes us special. We cannot all be vandal fighters, and having 100's of admins doing the same thing is not a good thing. Plus, you do not need a school to learn how to behave and to work with others; if you need a school like this, then Wikipedia is a place you should not belong. Even when you get done with the "schooling" and get the adminship, the ball game changes and as anyone can tell you, you throw the book out the window and do what is best for WP. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Well wow. I think that this discussion must have touched on the ["RfA is broken"/"No, it's not"/"Yes it is"/"No one's ever shown what's wrong"] nerve. Maybe some "dispute resolution" is required here. ("Anyone for a nice cup of tea?") Anyway, as for the rest, personally, I think we could argue that Editor Review and Admin coaching potentially game the system as well, if this is merely admin coaching under a different format, then I don't see the problem. As for Ownership, I dunno, but there seem to be quite a few people concerned. All-in-all, this concept sounds like a good idea, but it also sounds like those here didn't like how it was presented. However, I don't think it will matter either way, since the POV that it's "gaming the system" has pretty much pre-determined that it will be deleted. I hesitate to suggest anything to the Transhumanist at this point (since he's decided to not talk to us, and is choosing to withdraw from the discussion, as, I presume, is his right), but I think a solution might be to just make this an Esperanza sister page to Admin coaching (with the only difference being the talk page format like Editor review, rather than like the 1:1 admin coaching, if I understand correctly). Anyway, I hope everyone has a great day, and takes the time to smile at someone today : ) - jc37 08:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I was referring to the deletion discussion, not the page. If you need help wrapping up, let me know.  The Transhumanist   11:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Close down and discuss what sort of approach is needed here, if anything. Do not delete until the good-faith discussions there are concluded and archived somewhere appropriate. The approach might be wrong, but the discussions over there should be preserved - if only to correct any misunderstandings that people might have gained. Carcharoth 11:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As I tried to explain before, the discussions there are copies from the admin coaching page. They are all in the history of the Esperanze admin coaching page, except for the last 3 message threads.  The Transhumanist   11:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • OK. Thanks for clarifying that. Carcharoth 12:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep / revise / merge - While I agree that there are various things which could be improved, stated better, redesigned and/or combined with existing pages I also note that this page was started all of four days ago and has comments on the page itself, on talk pages, and in edit summaries encouraging people to do just that with any sections they have problems with. Where such changes have been made they have been accepted or discussed towards finding a consensus. The charges of 'ownership' thus seem entirely groundless and, along with claims that links in various public spots were meant to 'bias' the result of this MfD (despite the links pre-dating the MfD), speak less than well of the users making them. The root purpose here seems to have been, 'have a discussion board for giving people advice on working towards adminship'. I see nothing particularly wrong with that, and find the various false and 'faith lacking' reactions to it even more disturbing than the (legitimate) concerns about this leading to more 'formulaic' RFAs and/or 'gaming' of the system (though it seems to me more a symptom of such than a cause). Such concerns could be addressed by getting involved and helping to shape the effort, but apparently it is easier to stomp and/or malign. Yet that isn't really going to solve any of the perceived problems... all of which existed before this page and will continue to exist if it is removed. --CBD 12:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  Well said :) Very well said in fact... Glen 12:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  Responding to CBD: part of the root cause of the problem is that "working towards adminship" is something that many people feel is overdone. In some very real way, people shouldn't "work towards" this. They should concentrate on learning the editing tools, on finding ways they can best contribute to building the encyclopedia, on interacting with the community, on demonstrating a responsible and mature attitude, on showing that they understand policy and how to apply it, and on gaining the trust of the community. After all that, if they need admin tools, the community will likely grant such a user the tools. And the process is continual. Keep learning. Keep being responsible. This is a requirement for a particular attitude (demonstrated by a user's actions), and cannot be taught. Carcharoth 13:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  Hear, hear. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-06 14:39Z

  I understand and indeed was speaking to that with my comments about 'formulaic' RfAs. However, the framework I was trying to put around it is... that isn't reality. Yes, it would be nice if people were given adminship when the community recognized them and knew them well enough to trust them with the tools. But that isn't what usually happens any more. I find that I have never heard of or can remember nothing specific about most of the people coming up for adminship. The same is doubtless true of most voters, and thus the reality has become that people are more often promoted to admin based on various criteria... number of edits, types of edits, featured articles, edit summary percentage, fancifulness of signature, phase of the moon, et cetera. Users responding to that by trying to meet the criteria actually used is inevitable and has been going on for a long time. I've seen users who have been around and know the procedures and need the tools denied adminship because they didn't follow more recent 'cookie cutter' criteria. For a long time I was the only 'complex template specialist' promoted to admin - and that only because I also liked to work on featured articles, vandal fighting, mediation, and other things which are closer to the 'formula'. If we don't want people to 'work towards adminship' the system should not be designed so as to encourage it... which it currently is. Killing a page which could facilitate that (as the Esperanza page and various others already do) does nothing to make the problem go away. Indeed, a discussion page on becoming an admin could be a place for encouraging movement away from that mindset. --CBD 17:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  Indeed. --Wolf530 (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  Good points. Speaking of RfA reform, I assume everyone taking part in this discussion has seen this one? Carcharoth 20:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Bad idea all around. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per KillerChihuahua and FloNight. AnnH ♫ 22:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to concerns about this project being seen as a way to "game the system", and also its redundancy given the existence of programs like Wikipedia:Editor review. As has been said before, becoming an administrator is a process that should require the gradual building of trust in a given user, developed over a considerable period of time. --Kyoko 23:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Admin coaching#Name change proposal - Perhaps the word Admin should be removed from the Esperanza Admin coaching program, so that it becomes the more generalized "Esperanza coaching program". Just a thought. I've posted a proposal to do so on its talk page.  The Transhumanist   00:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • ...and why should others change their longstanding program to conform to your proposal, and not the other way around? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • ...what do you mean, "not the other way around?" I was all for the name, of both pages! I'm just going with the flow here, and am merely suggesting that since there was such opposition, expressed above, to focusing on adminship as a goal, that the "Admin" aspect of the Esperanza coaching program be de-emphasized. I'm sorry I didn't make that more clear. Thank you for pointing out that I wasn't clear enough.  The Transhumanist   05:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. It would also open up their potential audience: non-admin-aspiring editors might want coaching too. --Quiddity 06:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Virtual classroom - I'm trying a different approach, where everybody is both a student and a coach, at my Esperanza subpage. It's a general learning environment for honing, fine tuning, and improving Wikipedia skills. We are currently comparing the user interfaces through which we make use of Wikipedia. I'm sure everyone there would be most interested in reading about how you navigate and edit Wikipedia. Please stop by and share your methods.  The Transhumanist   00:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Now, that, I like! :-) Making it simply an "advanced skills" classroom, and removing (nearly) all reference to people wanting to attain admin 'status' makes it much more palatable. I'll try and find time to pop by. I've spotted some very useful tips there already. Carcharoth 01:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, or expand. I'm not really comprehending the negativity towards all these help tools. Crash course isn't really concise, although it takes a fun look at Wikipedia, but this is basically a reference desk for Wikipedia. Either keep or expand to an "advanced skills" would be better. bibliomaniac15 Review? 04:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, rename, and redesign - The Transhumanist 05:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with proposal - If this page, an intended help desk to show & give information about admins, is so problematic, then create a page which is official, is Wikipedia policy that it exactly this page, but accepted. That way delete this page & we shall use the new page. The page's idea is great, but since it isn't official, create one that is. This page isn't doing any harm & doesn't look to be bad intentioned, rather goodwilled in fact. Spawn Man 05:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename. Some users have said that this implies that users can't be an admin without proper 'admin schooling', however, I think that this page can do well with a lot of work. Firstly, we need more admins or experienced editors to help the people who post there. Secondly, it needs some more work to make sure that it doesn't affect any user's decision to become an admin. I think this page should be kept, as it can help a lot of users who in the future may want to be an admin, or are not sure about what else they should do to have a successful RFA. I can't think of any other pages on Wikipedia that offer this, however a note saying that it is not Wiki policy is probably warranted. Definite keep. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@ | review me!} 08:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps move to The Transhumanist's Virtual Classroom- merge into that article? CattleGirl ^{talk | e@ | review me!} 06:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.