Wikipedia talk:Admin coaching/Guidelines

Table
The original table emphasized numeric count a lot. Thus X edits for coaching, Y edits minimum for RFA, Z edits normal for RFA.

This creates a problematic "clone structure" of users measuring according to count, exactly what is not wanted. And yet some indication is useful.

The solution I have gone for is to alter the last two criteria to a discussion format, explaining what people look for, and the rough sort of standards that might come up, in a way that de-emphasizes pure "count".

FT2 (Talk 18:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits
I've replaced 8,000 with a more realistic 4,000. People do occasionally pass with fewer than 4,000 edits but they are taking a risk. 8,000 manual edits and no red flags is more WP:100 territory.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know where the original discussion was, but this chart was discussed by several editors and the values that were stored there since last November are not what people discussed. Fastily made those changes, but those changes exceeded what people expected at the Time of RfA, let alone coaching.  One of the big points at the time was to make the /guidelines at the lower end of the spectrum because different people had different excpectations.  When those numbers were selected, there were some who felt that they were more than they expected, but could live with them.  They should be lower than those expected for an RfA.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've no particular concern with your changes, my key concern was that the 8,000 figure might have been deterring some fully qualified candidates from running.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed... those numbers were ridiculous.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)