Wikipedia talk:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives

Dec 06 to Feb 08


Contents

[edit] INSANE Requirements

Holy shit. Practically none of the requirements listed on the page actually have much to do with admin tools. Some of the requirements might cause me to flat turn down a candidate and NOT nominate them. (especially over 2000 edits. How the heck am I going to check all 2000 edits to see if a candidate is suitable? :-P )

I do understand how we got here. It's a form of out-of-control inflation after all.

But seeing as that this is the state of access to admin tools, we should kill the entire current admin program and start from scratch.

Just to cover the bases:

  • No. I don't think the requirements are too high
  • No, I don't think they're too low, either
  • Nope, That does not mean that I think they're just right. either.
  • Yes, I actually think they're insane, as in that they have no objective demonstrated connection to reality. Does that make sense?
  • No, that does not mean I think the people who wrote them down are insane. I think the people who wrote them down fell victim to particular forms of inflation.
  • No I probably would not like to change them.
  • No, I don't want to make them higher.
  • No, I don't want to make them lower.
  • My proposal is to start over, determine what skills an admin actually needs, and then walk everyone who wants the bit through each of those skills, finally checking/testing to see if they really master them. If/when mastered, we can provide the admin flag. Which part of that process does NOT sound like it will work?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If the requirements are not too high, not too low, but not quite right, what do you pinpoint the problem to be exactly? I ask only because it's a little muddled. Starting over is a tall order. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 %-) I pinpoint the problem as being that the requirements listed here are arbitrary, and bear at best only a passing relationship with the actual responsibilities of having admin tools.
If you feel that I am in error; I give you the following challenge: for each criterion, I challenge you to point out which admin tool is linked to that criterion, and how the criterion conclusively shows the candidate's suitability to use that tool. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I give you this challenge... do some research into what is expected and what the people's various guidelines are for admin. You will find that these "insane" requirements are actually on the low end of the expectations! Nobody expects you to look at every edit of a candidate---but it is assumed that after 3-5000 edits/6-12 months a user has been around the block enough that you can get a good idea how they will behave with the tools.Balloonman (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, yes, the fact that this list makes the insanity visible for all was just covered below with MBisanz. Now when I became admin, people were expected to look at every edit of a candidate. People quoted specific edits and edit summaries that they liked.
But that's not relevant to my argument. What you are saying is that you are taking a gamble. There is nothing in the criteria that you mention that has anything remotely to do with the admin tools. Delete button? No. Rollback button? No. Grant revert rights? No. Block button? No.
So what is it that you are actually measuring? Nothing. Statistical odds, perhaps. Does it have anything to do with adminship? No. ---Kim Bruning (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well there is possible validity to statistics. If as a community scales, it notices that most people becoming admins through the examination of every edit process, then it can generalize that those people have "it" that amorphous trait that makes a good admin. And I'd say the XfD and content contributions do link to adminship in that someone who is against consensus on 99% of XfDs, probably won't know how to close one. And someone whose never written an article, probably isn't a good judge of notability. MBisanz talk 05:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm in doubt about that. You only really need *one* XFD where you stand up against everyone else, and actually win everyone over, to prove that you'd be a GREAT admin. And oppositely, if you've been writing articles about marginally notable subjects, you still won't be able to decide what's notable. (but is notability of articles a really good example?). So just having done those things is not enough. Doing them well is what's important. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that was the message being conveyed - even semi-regular/average participation in WP:XfD gives an editor a pretty clear apprehension of deletion policy. As such continuously contributing to even non-notable articles helps garner understanding of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOTE. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Clearly it does not. I recently had the dubious pleasure of having to deal with an admin who in fact did not understand the background behind (in this case) certain MFD practices; I assume that person was granted the bit based on similar criteria to those you mention.
Many people take a while to grasp the correct balance between neutrality, reliable sources and notability. But more importantly, people often don't quite learn that these rules are actually in constant tension with the fact that wikipedia is a wiki (and thus that you should first and foremost just plain edit,edit, edit, and you'll get there automagically). The latter is a much bigger problem, because some newer admins have this dreadful tendency to protect pages too often, thus harming the wiki-process. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
No, that's why people want to see a breadth of experiences and participation. While a single mistake can kill an RfA, one good argument/FA will not cut the mustard. People want to see patterns and trends of positive work. They want to see experience. If you want to change the RfA process, you're welcome to make suggestions. There are several places where such discussion are occuring---but this isn't one of them.Balloonman (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I logically started the discussion here, because this is where the best documentation of requirements exists.
Experience and participation are also not measured by any current RFA criterion listed here (please show which criterion measures it accurately if you disagree). I'm not even sure if that is as important as actual ability to use the actual tools responsibly though. For some reason, I think that determining ability to use the tools might be somewhat important. ;-)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I yet again understand where Kim is coming from. To quote Charlie Wilson's War

Charlie Wilson: What is U.S. strategy?
Gust Avrakotos: Most strictly speaking, we don't have one. But we're working on it.
Charlie Wilson: Who's 'we'?
Gust Avrakotos: Me and three other guys.

When I came here a week or so ago, there were over 80 backlogged request for coaching on a rather ugly looking page. Talking with Ballonman, we decided we needed to do something to make this project work. Given that we couldn't fix the RfA process (too big a challenge), we changed the admin coaching process to try and balance what we all "know" is required for RfA and what the coaching program's capacity is. So we set a bar below which people are asked to go to Adoption or do other tasks to get enough experience to get close to RfA. Then they can spend a couple months with a coach and go to RfA. By defining what WP:RFA purposfully leaves vague, we were hoping to avoid these SNOW RfAs and the bad sentiments that result. For instance, has anyone in the last 24 months passed RfA with less than 3,000 edits? Has maybe 1-2 passed with 4,000? Woud a good coach send their player into the game if they had a 5% chance of passing? And with the goals we have set now, how many drive-by !voters would Oppose someone whose met them?

I agree we need to start over, but I'd say we need to start over with RfAing, not Coaching. If tomorrow RfA required 7,000 edits, our rough definitions would change to meet them. If we lowered our XfD guide from 200 to 10, some guy with 10 would still fail RfA. And in any event, Coaching right now is based on a consensus of 2, so its easy to chance (find 3 more people and its done), but I'd say changing RfA consensus would be far harder. Also, I agree that almost none of the criterion link to a person's ability to use the Bit. But if the goal of this project is to train people into how to perform as expected by the community for the RfA process and in acting as an Admin, I'd say these guides (rules is a dirty word) pretty well reflect exactly what people look for in !voting. I've pushed in the past to break up the Admin tool kit to give it out on an as-needed basis (deleting, blocking, etc). But thats ben rejected. I think it could work, but as a proposal at WP:RFA, since even a consensus of 5 here, would mean almost nothing to a No Consensus at RFA. MBisanz talk 01:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting answer. So basically you just made the insanity visible. ;-)
And perhaps we don't need to be that pessimistic. Doesn't rollback get handed out separately now?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, when I first heard of RfR, it gave me hope, then the debate that followed that required the chair of the board and the founder to weigh in, killed that hope. I still hear people talk of holding a new poll on the three-month anniversary per Anthere's comments. And I've tried long and hard to figure out why Special:Unwatchedpages shouldn't be combined with Rollback, but I'm not one to jump out in front of a speeding train (I know I went through a niceRfA so I shouldn't talk).
Making insanity visible, thats a good neologism I'll have to remember. Ironically, if we had more admins to coach people, we wouldn't need guidelines on who to coach. MBisanz talk 02:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Another thing to remember Kim, is it's a guideline... we added it because there were a lot of people who were coming on board... and then sitting around for months with no activity and wondering "why hasn't anybody selected me?" Consider the guidelines a first step in 'coaching'. We tried to cover the issues that people look for in RfAs. Some admins, perhaps you are one, like to take people with virtually no experience and nurture them from the beginning. Others are looking for candidates who are 1-3 months away from going up for their RfA.Balloonman (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering what the coach would still be teaching in the latter case. If you haven't picked things up by your third month, there's something not quite right, IMHO --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
A lot of people who have been here for a few months are unaware of many of the PnP's. Personally, I think the person who is the most in need are the people who have been here 4-6 months and are starting to get a grip on what is going on, but not in total control of everything.Balloonman (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Does that have more to do with adminship itself, or more with general wikiskill? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Kim, you bring up a dichotomy that has driven me nuts for 3 months. There is no real way of determining if a person would be a good admin other than watching them be an admin... and by that time, it's too late. I have railed against editcountitis ever since it stymied my first RfA. But there's nothing I can say that will communicate to others here what my qualifications are. I have done a bunch of stuff in RL but 1) you can't know that and 2) there's no reason to believe me about it. So the question comes: How do you decide an entity is ready to control a process? You can't. Other than showing a person a problem and asking what they would do in that instance can you determine what a person would do in that instance. To me, that's coaching. Padillah (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It does seem to be an interesting approach. The remaining problem is that what you need to teach someone to be a sane admin is very different from what you need to teach them to pass RFA. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is a certain amount of jumping through hoops to become an admin... tenure/edit count/GA/FA/XfD's etc, they are hoops that one has to jump through that may or may not relate to real world necessity. But, the same thing happens in the real world. In order to graduate from HS you probably had to take a certain number of science and math courses, a foreign languge, PE, etc. You may never need them or use them, but they are expected of HS graduates. Similarly with College, you have to jump through certain arbitrary hoops that are expected of college graduates---even if you are drama major you still had to take a certain number of math/science courses. Then you enter the job market---again, you have to acquire/possess certain skills to get jobs where those skills may never be used. Applying for an RfA is no different from applying for a job---you may not agree with the requirements, but if the company/hiring manager has them, then you have to get them. These expectations are often derived from experience of "what has worked in the past?" Many companies require "college graduates" even though the job doesn't require one---why because of experience and expectations. Here the Wikicommunity is the hiring manager and the prevailing sentiment is that there are certain expectations as to the expected background of admin candidates. These expectations may not match reality, but that's life.Balloonman (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Consider this discussion our first step towards changing the world. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll be quick: I'm with Kim on all the line. Of course I thanks the users who took upon theirselves the duty of putting again in motion this useful program. I must however give my two cents on some of the guidelines:
  • XfD: One hundred XfD? That's really a lot. I'm not sure I satisfy this today, and I doubt that even one user of those I nominated successfully for adminship had half that recommended minimum. To me, putting up in writing such a high criteria looks like encouraging the future admins to go down the list of AfDs and vote everywhere.
  • As for the article writing, be aware that I passed my RfA without having ever written a single line of content on any Wikimedia project (as of today I've made a content edit on the Italian Wikipedia and created a stub article there as well and that's all).
  • Number of months: I think it's too high. I haven't got any statistic on the subject, but I'm quite sure that nowadays it's not reason why the community turns candidates down.
  • History of incivility and such: I think that every coach has his own ideas about who take as padawan lerner. Would I myself be a coach, I wouldn't take at all a user with a history of incivility, as I fell that users without it deserve priority.
  • Breadth of exposure: Don't you think that writing damn good articles, being able to fruitfully communicate with fellow wikipedias is enough to qualify a user for adminship? And if s/he doesn't know how to use the tools, he'll learn, he'll learn.
Anyway, such requirements are up to the common ideas of the coaches, as it's them who accept or decline the coaching. So, if such requirements are established practice among the coaches, there's not much that non-coach can do, but I would invite them to reflect anyway on the ideas pointed out. Snowolf How can I help? 07:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I tend to concur with Kim and Snowolf. The XfD requirement in particular is daunting. I doubt I commented in 50 XfDs when my RfA came around, and I was lauded for my knowledge of policy in XfDs regardless. While we certainly want to be realistic about candidates while considering them for coaching, we do want to encourage them to join. IMHO, the current table would turn off many a prospective candidate that a coach wouldn't mind taking under their wing. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Would maybe a lower XfD requirement combined with a diversity of XfD requirement suit better. Like 50 XfDs with at least 10 in AfD, 10 in DRV, and 10 in some other _fD? I'll admit I had a single DYK to my name when I went up, so I am flexible on that rule, as well as some of the months rules. MBisanz talk 07:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Diversity is not necessarily needed I think. The grand majority of people comment at AfDs anyways, and it tends to work itself out that way. 50 sounds like a good number though. As for article writing, I admit to not being a good judge, considering I had a crapload of accolades in that regard when I went to RfA, but I've seen candidates without a single DYK, GA, or FA to their name get on. Changing it to perhaps "History of significant edits to articles, possibly including DYKs and GAs." I think the recommended featured article is fine though. I'm more ambivalent towards the months requirement, but I would think six months would be a recommended figure, and three to four a minimum for RfA. The civility, vandalism, and blocking issues look about right, considering how long that stigma lasts. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] revised guidelines

Per the above conversation and some research I've revised the criteria downward---how does it look now?Balloonman (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the feedback that we're looking for. I lowered it to 40/100. Does that work? The reason why we made it "guidelines" rather than requirements is because we recognize that different people have different standards/expectations for what they are looking for. As for time, yes, I've seen people rejected who have only been on wikipedia for 6 months. 6 months seems to be the magic minimum---but most people tend to want 10-12 months. But I am more than open to discussing those numbers as well.Balloonman (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Revised numbers work for me. I'd like to see Min RFA edit counts more like 4000/1500, but I'm felxible. MBisanz talk 07:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the list, but it was not my intent to shoot the messenger. :-) If the values are realistic, then they are realistic. How to change people's minds? That's the tricky part. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New program image

Courtesy of User:Kasuga: I'll add to the pages later today. MBisanz talk 14:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What steps are we taking regarding the Older Requests section?

With the guidelines settling down and the table working well I think we need to address what we are doing with the applicants in the Older Requests section. MBisanz mentioned sending out notices at one point. Some mention of dropping those that have not visited the page for X months... Oddly enough, I have no problem with getting rid of any old requests that don't show significant interest. I think a notice that if you don't move your entry into the table within a week you will remain in the Older Requests section and most likely not be considered for coaching. I think three months should be a cut off for removing them completely but this must be accompanied by a talk page post notifying them that, due to lack of participation, they are no longer being considered for coaching opportunities. Thoughts? Concerns? Padillah (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As of now, the group above the hidden line break have not been notified of anything. I wanted to avoid having all 80 people try to re-request the same day (and ec and fight over order, etc). I'll try to send out such a notification to them tonight or tomorrow. The ones below the line were notified a week (2weeks?) ago, I'd say after 45 days of not responding they should be dropped. On a going forward basis, I'm not sure what we should do. MBisanz talk 16:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
All now notified. I'll give it 2 weeks and then start clearing out. MBisanz talk 07:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The current requests table

is just ever so slightly misaligned. Thought I'd tell you. --Gp75motorsports REV LIMITER 16:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coachees below the "minimum"

There are multiple future coachees under the current requests section of this page that are not close to meeting the minimum guideline and cannot be benefitted by coaching. I feel that these should be removed, but I am unsure whether this would appear harsh or WP:BITEy. What are other opinions on this? Malinaccier (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We've discussed this before... I think the fact that the problem persists lends itself to removing them. I think when we do so, we should have some sort of "encouraging" word or guidance to leave the person, but I'm in favor of removing them.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I usually use this template, which doesn't feel too bitey User:MBisanz/Coaching#Admin_coaching_request_status MBisanz talk 21:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
As a prospective coachee, I would like to throw my $.02 in here. I would rather a coach tell me that I'm just not ready for coaching so I have some sort of goal in mind. Even if it was something along the lines of "I just don't feel you're ready, in the meantime you may want to work on (example)". MBisanz's template is a good one, I think. TN‑X-Man 21:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm in support of MBisanz's template. It's not bitey, and gets the point across. However, the template states that the requirments for coaching are to have greater than 2,500 edits (whereas on the requests page, it states that 1,000 will suffice), and I did not have that many edits when I submitted a request, and was accepted. Perhaps this should be altered a bit? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 21:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the inconsistency should be fixed. Basically it's up to the coach to decide who he coaches (whether they have 1,000 edits or 10,000). I just don't think that people with 50 edits should be left on the lists expecting a coach to get them ready for RFA in less than six months. Malinaccier (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. There is a certain amount of experience needed before an editor should pursue coaching. I will go and change the template now, if it is acceptable. Thanks, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC).
Personally, I think anybody with fewer than 1750 edits (give or take 250) should be removed.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) That seems fair. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Even though its in my userspace, feel free to edit it to make it more consistent. MBisanz talk 23:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll update MBisanz's template to reflect 1,750 edits and do the dirty work of removing and notifying people on the list. Malinaccier (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll make sure to check an updated version of their edit count to be sure, and in close cases I'll give more personalized suggestions below the template. Malinaccier (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Y Done, with personalized suggestions for each person. Malinaccier (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 00:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)