User:Pseudo-Richard/Admin coaching methodology

Traditional RFA questions

 * What admin areas do you intend to work in?
 * What conflicts have caused you stress and how have you dealt with them? How have you learned from them?
 * What do you believe are your best contributions?
 * What do you believe are your best contributions?
 * What do you believe are your best contributions?

Checklist
Next, I give them the checklist. This allows you to figure out what to focus on and tells you more about the user. Do they elaborate their answers? Do they provide diffs and examples?


 * !voted in an RFA?
 * Listed a vandal at WP:AIV?
 * Requested page protection at WP:RPP?
 * Tagged an article for speedy deletion, PROD, XFD?
 * Critiqued another user at WP:ER?
 * Had an editor review yourself?
 * Received the Signpost or otherwise read it?
 * Used automated tools (TWINKLE, popups, VandalProof, .js tools, etc.)?
 * What XFD's have you participated in?
 * Posted or answered a question at the Reference Desk or the Help Desk?
 * Uploaded an image?
 * Welcomed a user?
 * Mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
 * Participated in discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI?
 * Joined a WikiProject?
 * Written a DYK, GA, or FA?
 * Expanded a stub or otherwise cleaned up an article?
 * taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to.
 * helped out on the Account Creation Toolserver Interface?
 * Uploaded an image?
 * Welcomed a user?
 * Mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?
 * Participated in discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI?
 * Joined a WikiProject?
 * Written a DYK, GA, or FA?
 * Expanded a stub or otherwise cleaned up an article?
 * taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to.
 * helped out on the Account Creation Toolserver Interface?
 * Joined a WikiProject?
 * Written a DYK, GA, or FA?
 * Expanded a stub or otherwise cleaned up an article?
 * taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to.
 * helped out on the Account Creation Toolserver Interface?
 * taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to.
 * helped out on the Account Creation Toolserver Interface?
 * helped out on the Account Creation Toolserver Interface?
 * helped out on the Account Creation Toolserver Interface?

Question time
Although a recent "innovation" of mine, I feel this is my favorite and most effectual part when it comes to admin coaching. Basically, you open a time where your coachee can just ask all the questions they have about Wikipedia. Some users are very inquisitive. Others are very experienced, and probably know more than you do. Whatever the case, you should encourage the user to ask questions and answer them yourself as thoroughly as you can.

Essay
Formerly, I had an activity where the coachee would write an essay about policy or whatever. Unfortunately, it never really took off. I suppose if you have a very active coachee, it could work, but for most cases it's too much like a term paper and just busywork.

Editing habits
I also like to ask my coachees what they do when they open up Wikipedia and what they look at. The people I've asked have given remarkable similar answers.

GA
I'm planning to introduce a project in which I collaborate with the coachee to write a GA. Since writing a GA doesn't require an extraordinary amount of effort but still greatly enriching, I might do this with those who are gnomes, vandal fighters, newpage patrollers, maintenance workers, or people who are just unsure about their skills.

Questions
The bulk of admin coaching is analyzing how well your coachee will do by asking questions. You can tell volumes about how well a coachee would do as an admin or as an editor by how they answer their questions. Since I don't want to put my secrets here for a coachee to kiss up to me, I'll just create a compendium of questions here. Remember to remind your coachees to be truthful. Although you can usually tell when someone is cutting and pasting answers, you should definitely encourage them to be honest to you.


 * How do you feel you've improved from your previous RFA's? Do you feel like you've addressed all of the problems pointed out? (Note: Obviously only applicable for those who have previously failed an RFA)
 * Would you place yourself on CAT:AOR? Why or why not?
 * What are your personal criteria for an admin?
 * What's the difference between a ban and a block? Under what circumstances would you ban a user?
 * Let's say an administrator removes a chunk of information from an article you've been working on, citing BLP concerns, but you feel that it doesn't violate BLP policy. What would you do?
 * What do you believe are your weaknesses? If you were made an admin, what would you need to read up on? What tasks do you believe you would totally avoid?
 * Why is wheelwarring a bad thing, and how can you prevent it?
 * You find out that an editor, who is well-known and contributive, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
 * If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia without any opposition, what would it be?
 * Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an XfD? If so, what is that number? What about an RFA?
 * At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
 * What is your opinion on WP:IAR? How do you apply it to your contributions? How would you apply it if you were made an admin?
 * Suppose that you were made an admin, and then desysopped later due to some controversial event. Would such an impact like this still lead you to edit Wikipedia?
 * What is your area of expertise? What subjects do you feel you could contribute the most to? Have you ever joined a WikiProject based on your area of expertise?
 * Do you believe that "fun" and humorous items belong in Wikipedia? Do you believe that editors matter? How should a balance be struck between "fun" and "serious" activities? What side do you believe you take regarding the positions detailed in User:Jayron32/Orthodoxy and heresy at Wikipedia?
 * What do you feel is an appropriate amount of time to block a final warned IP? What about subsequent violations?
 * How long do you feel an article should be semi-protected for the first time?
 * An administrator speedy deleted an article under G11. Later, you notice that an anonymous user has recreated the article. Should you delete the article under G1, G4, both, or do something else?
 * Why is wheel warring a Bad Thing and how can you avoid it?
 * How would you deal with an extreme POV-pusher who has not committed any vandalism?
 * How is biting the newcomers a bad thing, and what can you do to avoid it?
 * Have you used, or do you currently use alternate accounts?
 * Where do you see Wikipedia in the next three years?
 * How do you feel should essay policies and guidelines be treated?
 * What do you feel are the qualities of a true Wikipedian?
 * A user requests a block to help enforce a Wikibreak. What is your response?  Where do you direct them?
 * If unsure about making a block, what should you do?
 * You come across a Vandalbot while patrolling for vandalism. After immediately blocking it, what steps do you take?
 * Another administrator blocks a user, but you disagree with the block. What do you do?
 * A user threatens to sue Wikipedia over article content. What actions do you take?
 * What is a POV Fork? How would you deal with one?
 * Label each statement as either being neutral or not, and explain why you labeled them so:
 * Scientologists hold the belief that living cells have a memory. This is based on an interpretation of the work of Crick and Watson in 1955. This interpretation has been heavily criticised by notable cell-biologists such as...
 * Darwin's theory of natural selection is the most widely accepted scientific explanation of the diversity of life we see today.
 * Nietzsche spent much of his life arguing (among other things) that God does not exist.
 * Abortion is wrong because it kills god's children.


 * When should a page be SALTed? Why?
 * Should you protect a Today's Featured Article? First state the correct policy, any extenuating circumstances, then state your view on the matter.
 * A user requests for their user page and talk pages to be semi-protected. Do you protect only the userpage? Only the talk page?  Both? Or neither?
 * What votes would you disregard when closing an AFD?
 * When filling in the "Reason for deletion" text (basically the edit summary for the deletion), what should not be included?
 * Why is account security so important to administrators? Is your password secure?
 * Why is it important for an admin to make themselves available to E-mail?
 * What would your approach be toward vandals upon becoming an admin? (fair but tough? lenient? strict? etc.)
 * What is your view on IRC? Should administrative decisions be made on admin IRC?
 * What does this image symbolize? Do you agree with it?  Why or why not?
 * What is your opinion on re-confirmation RFA's? (An admin having another RFA to see if the community still trusts them)
 * In your opinion, should bans on the En-Wikipedia transfer over to the Simple English Wikipedia? Why or why not? (See this for a discussion on the Simple English Wikipedia.)
 * Should there be an age limit for editing Wikipedia? For requesting adminship?  Bureaucratship?
 * Is Wikipedia failing? Or not?
 * In your opinion, should registration be required for editing?
 * Do you think that adding your name to the oppose section with a "Strong oppose" heading is acceptable? Is this not violating WP:CIVIL?  WP:AGF?  WP:BITE?  Why or why not?  Furthermore, should there be a guideline about this?  Should users be reprimanded for doing these things?
 * Do you think Esperanza was a good thing? Do you agree with its disbanding? (Applicable only to those who were in it or were active at the time)
 * Are you active in any other Wikimedia projects, Wikias, or any other Wikis?
 * Take a look at Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies. Which philosophy do you think you fall under?
 * Wikipedia, along the years, has often been derided as a place where experts are bullied away by amateurs. Do you believe this is the case? If so, how can you stop it? If not, why not?
 * Generally, do you feel younger editors are less, equally, or more mature than older editors?
 * Try taking the User:Filll/AGF Challenge. How did you think you did on it?
 * Read the discussion here. Do you think that this is the case?

The history of admin coaching
Admin coaching was created in January 2006 as a project of Esperanza, the noted Wikilove organization, by Titoxd. Early coachings came in a wide variety of styles. Some early examples can be seen here, here, here, and here. After the decentralization of Esperanza, admin coaching was moved to project space. Coordinatorship moved from Titoxd to Highway Cello to Fang Aili, who remained coordinator after the demise of Esperanza. As of the present, there is no coordinator, and no one has pursued the task of being a coordinator, presumably because the position is a remnant of Esperanzian "bureaucracy."

As can be seen, methods of coaching have been diverse. If a user influential to the process must be pointed out though, it would probably be The Transhumanist. Although he was not an admin, he coached 14 users with his "Virtual classroom," complete with assignments and quizzes. Coaching today now mainly consists of posing questions and scenarios to the candidate, a much more open process than a simple quiz or assignment. More weight is put on open-ended questions now than before. Another notable user in the methodology of admin coaching would be Malinaccier, who created the four-phase system. In it, coaching is divided into four phases: the "acquaintancing" phase where the coach gets to know the coachee, the policy phase, the Wikiphilosophy phase, and a final "mop-up" phase. Yet another style is Balloonman's, which is more scenario-heavy.

Why do I coach?
I started admin coaching around November 2007, when I felt I had accrued enough administrative experience to begin teaching others about it. I had not expected coaching to be such a massive thing; I thought it would just be sort of casual. But then I saw other people's coaching pages and I realized it was something serious. So when I coached my first user, Useight, I made sure that I structured it so that I could get to know the candidate and that I could assess them for their strengths and weaknesses. At the time, RFA was not as strict as it is now. My primary motive was to get people to know what they could about administrative tasks so that they would become better equipped to wield the tools.

After some thinking now, I still think that that goal still stands. However, with the tightening of RFA standards, I have seen many users who are fully capable of RFA, it's just that the process intimidates them. I have taken it upon myself to find these users and give them the confidence they need to face RFA. I still assess them and see what they should improve, but for these users, my primary goal is to build their self-confidence. The other primary motive is to improve simply as a contributor. My logic is that if you improve to know about the Wikipedian state of mind, you improve as a user. In this regard, admin coaching is editor coaching. I see no need to rename my coaching "editor coaching" because improving towards adminship is improving as an editor.

I have a mission to get those who deserve adminship and who would improve the wiki with every deletion, block, protection, and rollback their due.

The supreme criteria
In the olden days, RFA voting was heavily based on trust and judgment. Was the user capable of using common sense? It was accepted that admins knew what they wanted to work in, and that if they wanted to branch out, they had the ability to learn what they needed to know. Experience was necessary, of course, but the main criterion was community trust and clear judgment. How far has RFA fallen since then! How arbitrary the standards, and how many trustworthy users denied over mere trifles!

Yet these users remain unaware of what they are doing. They assume that the user must know everything before they are given the tools. They assume that the user must have written an FA or a GA, or worked disproportionately in areas of adminship. And yet they believe RFA is at fault because of its process! Does the process set up the hardened de facto criteria by itself? Does the process create the constant nitpicking that is seen all too often? RFA is not perfect as a process, but it is certainly imperfect in the atmosphere that the main group of !voters has set.

We are here to build an encyclopedia. That is true. However, we too commonly equate good article writing with good sense. Although experience has shown that most good article writers have good sense, that does not mean that people who do not extensively write article do not have good sense. This is the most pernicious fallacy and the saddest failing that RFA !voters have perpetrated. Look back at our past RFAs. Many of these admins passed have not written so much as a GA. Yet we have had very few desysoppings and only a very few problematic admins. Many of these admins continue to be well-respected members here because of their common sense.

Therefore, I urge the Wikipedia community to return to its roots. Wikipedia is probably the only community based on common sense rather than the letter of the law, and it is important that every user we have exhibit this virtue.