Wikipedia talk:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching/Archive 2

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 |undefined /  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 |undefined /  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)

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)

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

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)
 * I don't know how long ago this was(in days at least), but my request was moved to the Older Requests section. Regarding clearing out it, I was never notified, and, although I was not removed yet, I would like to clarify that I am still interested.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 11:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The current requests table
is just ever so slightly misaligned. Thought I'd tell you. -- Gp 75 motorsports  REV LIMITER  16:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is impossible to sort the table by date, as every editor used a different date format. What would be the most acceptable format that can be sorted by this tool? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The "best" format to sort by would be YYYY-MM-DD (2008-06-16) if we use month names they get sorted ahpabetically and that's no good. If we put the date first they get sorted by day-of-month, then by month and that's no good (e.g., June 1st, July 2nd, May 3rd). Should I be bold and reformat the dates? Padillah (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

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  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)
 * ✅, 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)

Not to get on my high horse again (but I've been there before so I might as well) but I'd like to rephrase the "denied" part of the template. First off it's very negative and we don't want to give the impression that we are stopping them from becomming admins. Second, we aren't actually "denying" them, if a coach wants to put in the effort they are more than welcome. We are simply expressing the view that they would benefit more from these other courses than from coaching at this time. I think the sentence can simply be dropped and go from the "coaching standards" to the suggestions of adoption or mentoring. What say yee? Padillah (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me. Malinaccier (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. After all, we don't want to sound WP:BITEy. -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  08:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching
One of the co-coordinators of Admin Coaching has semi-retired and removed himself from the position. I've said before I feel uncomfortable being the only coordinator. Would anyone else with some experience in the field be interested in helping out?  MBisanz  talk 16:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done a little coordinating-like work for ADCO, so I guess I fit the bill. Unless someone else wishes to co-coordinate, I'll volunteer my time. Malinaccier (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

cleanup proposal
I have a proposal for keeping the number of coachee requests down.
 * 1) We add 2 columns to the request page.
 * 2) A potential coach can come along and review a candidate.  The coach will review his/her edits and decide if they wish to accept the candidate as a student.  If they accept, then things proceed as normal.  If they decide not to accept the candidate then:
 * 3) The potential coach writes up a short "coaching memo" on the candidates talk page explaining why they were not chosen and offers constructive criticism on what the candidate can do to make themselves more viable.
 * 4) The coach then attaches a link to the first of the two columns.
 * 5) The candidate is left on the page.  A second potential coach can then review the candidate.  Again, if the coach accepts the student, things proceed as normal from there.  Again, if the coach rejects the candidate, then the coach writes up a coaching memo and again attaches a link to the page.
 * 6) A third potential coach reviews the candidate.  If the third coach rejects the candidate, then that coach removes the candidate from the page after leaving a coaching memo on the candidates page along with a note advising the candidate that they can re-request a coach in 3 months or at some specified time in the future.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 09:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the proposal, but one of the other problems causing a large number of coachee requests is that nearly every volunteer in the admin coaching project has one or more coachees (I have 4 personal coachees, one I'm co-coaching, and two on a wait list). I think that we should try this, but we should also attempt to recruit more coaches. Malinaccier (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, if we do implement this we should create a subpage for the "memos." Malinaccier (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Part of the theory behind this is that we could use this as a place for people to come to get a pre-rfa review. EG a little more explicit than Editor Review... this would be people who are explicitly thinking about adminship.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 02:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A mix between mentoring and coaching? Malinaccier (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but...
I would like to become an admin so I can maintain protected templates such as template:U.S. Roads WikiProject. I've had a few minor problems in my past (RFC, RFC 2, RFC 3, RFAr). Do you think I have a chance? --NE2 13:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a fine place to ask, but you might get a more thorough review at WP:ER. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  13:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)In the past we have had user pass RFA who focused primarily on editing protected templates. You may want to check the list at Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive and see if any of the users listed passed RFA after having an RFC. You also might consider an Editor Review to get some feedback on the community's view of your current behavior.  MBisanz  talk 13:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have created Editor review/NE2 2. --NE2 14:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding Categories to the Table
I would find it easier to navigate the list if there was an index number, perhaps on the left side, and a months of activity, perhaps on the right side. I'm just going to WP:BB and implement this as well as the ISO style date suggested in. :)--Thecurran (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm also tempted to remark on the project page that, as per User:MBisanz/Coaching, a minimum of 1,750 edits & 4 months of activity is suggested but I'll leave that for now. :)--Thecurran (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Decreasing the WP:ADCO/RFC section
On http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Requests_for_Coaching&oldid=233971643, just before I started on this page, the "older requests" section had disappeared despite internal textual reference to it. Now in response to increasing page edit load time, I plan to WP:BB and delete entries that are more than two quarters old. We are in 2009, 1st Quarter (JAN 1st - MAR 31st). I will delete all older requests whose last visit entry antedates 2008, 3rd Quarter (JUL 1st - SEP 30th). I think keeping an older request up six-nine months is sufficiently generous as users who wish to rejoin would probably at least be able to look up the last half-year they were on the list. By the way, I have constantly checked for people accidentally updating their visit within older requests rather than returning their entries to the current requests section, so I am sure noone will be surprised at any inconvenience. I am willing to message all users affected if anyone requests this. :)--Thecurran (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I have contacted the first five editors and requested response within a week. :)--Thecurran (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Status
See Wikipedia talk:Admin coaching. Cenarium (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Basic checklist
The basic check-list we refer to here is now gone. Why is it gone? :)--Thecurran (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Tidying up
I have done a bit of tidying up: all requests have been renumbered based on the date that they first placed their request - I have also emphasised the point that new requests use the next number after the last request, and no to re-use numbers from gaps or renumber the requests.

May I suggest that anyone who hasn't visited the page in 6 months be removed from the list? Have this at the top of the page (just below the "moving to old requests" bit).

I would suggest that we amend the Coaching management box from:

to:

If I don't get any objections within a week, I'll be bold and remove all requests over 6 months old, and add to the notice at the top of the page. Assuming that no one else adds their name to the list, and none of the current list change their "last visited" dates, this would bring the list down to 12 "Current requests" and 8 "Older" requests (instead of the current 110 older ones!).

Regards, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 00:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidently, I hadn't planned on contacting those that will be removed: if there had been a dozen or so, I would have - but with over 100, it seems a bit much. Obviously, if people think I should, I'll contact them --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 23:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I second the proposal. If something is not done about the amount of coahcees listed, it will eventually become impossible to maintain. On notifying the people removed, I would recommend a template, or at least writing a standard message to be copied and pasted. Would make notifications a less demanding actvity. I could support whoever takes that labor in his hands. > RUL3R >trolling >vandalism  04:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming there are no objections, when I remove editors tomorrow, I will leave them all a message on their talk page explaining that their entry has been removed, and why. If they then want to come back and re-submit a request, that is their choice. I will also notify the others about the change. Anyone who submits a request after that will have seen it on the main page, so no future notifications will be required: if a requester has not visited in 6 months, they will be removed from the list without notification (I'll modify the suggested message above to reflect this). --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidently, I will probably remove the old requests sometime after about 0800UTC tomorrow --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've created a template!
 * The format is
 * If the template is not SUBSTituted an error is generated otherwise. The template automatically adds a section header and your signature
 * The result is:

About your Admin Coaching request

 * Hope this is OK --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Updated: Header is now automatically included. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reworded following Weakopedia's concerns --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Tidying up: the results
I have amended the wording to the "coaching management" as per my suggestion above. I have also reworded the section about moving to older requests (and added details of removal after 6 months) in the "current requests" section.

I have removed all requests where the last visit was more than 6 months ago (a total of 89 requests). This leaves us with 15 current requests and 7 older requests.

These 16 editors (whose last visit was between 6 and 9 months ago), will be notified using the above template: ,, , , , , , , , , , , , and.

These 73 (whose last visit was more than 9 months ago), will not be notified: , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and.

I hope to try to check the requests every Friday (although perhaps not during the next couple of weeks because of the holidays) and moving requests with a last visit more than 6 weeks previously to the "older" requests, and removing any requests where the last visit was more than 6 months ago. I will also use the above template to let anyone who has been removed know the situation.

Regards, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: The 16 editors have had a message left on their talk page. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Your template gives the impression that it is the editors fault for not visiting his page regularly enough that they are being removed from the list. In fact it is due to the rather small number of admins willing to give up their time to the project, compounded by the fact that some of those admins who have signed on have set very restrictive limits on the type of work they are prepared to coach on.

To put that in perspective it seems that an interested editor would come here and put there name down for coaching. They might check back and back again, many times over a period of months and see no change. They get bored of checking, maybe reasonably assuming that if an admin becomes interested they will say something. And then six months later get a note to say that they didn't check enough and that their request is invalidated.

Right now the lead section to this project is inadequately worded. It gives the impression that the lack of progress is a recent thing and one which might be rectified. It isn't. Surely the lead paragraph should be reworded incorporating the warning of inactivity into the text to make the whole process more honest. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Weakopedia. I have re-worded the lead of the project and the template - I hope these address your points adequately.
 * Regarding the admins who are active who put limits on the work they are prepared to coach on: I should point out that firstly, they are all volunteers just like me and you; secondly there are only a couple IIRC - the problem isn't so much those, as the fact that there are only 7 active coaches at the moment. If there were 20, then 2 setting specific criteria wouldn't be so much of an issue. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for that - the text was a little confusing before and I think that now the interested editor has a better idea of what will happen. I fully accept your point about admins being volunteers, and I expect that many of them feel overworked as it is. According to statistics only 1% of Wikipedians are regular contributors, and only 2-3% of those are admins. However that 2-3% of the 1% still has to police the remaining 99% so I can understand that admins have limited time.

Might I ask if there is anything being done to draw some more admins into the project? Is this project widely advertised? I discovered it by accident when I spotted one of your templates on an editors talk page, otherwise I wouldn't have known about it. Thanks again for your response. Weakopedia (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't really answer this - I am not aware of any methods used to draw more admins into the project, but that doesn't mean there aren't any! As to how widely advertised it is, I don't know. I can't remember how I came across it, but I don't think anyone shouts about it from the rooftops!
 * It should be pointed out that some editors (and admins) do not regard admin coaching as a good idea - they feel that it is either a cynical attempt by someone to grab the "power" of adminship, or that admins-to-be cannot be coached (i.e. they are born not bred, I suppose!). Mind you, others feel that a self-nomination is a bad idea as it is proof of the power-hunger that the editor has! I am lucky enough to be being coached at the moment - although "mentored" is perhaps a better phrase - and I feel that even if I never go for adminship (my coach may actively counsel against it, or I may decide that I don't want the hassle!), hopfeully I will be a better editor as a result of the coaching - which is making me think about my attitudes to Wikipedia, about criteria for deletion, etc. So I feel that hopefully it is a win-win situation for Wikipedia: if I ever become an admin, then hopefully I will be a better one as a result of the coaching; if I never become an admin, then hopefully I will be a better editor as a result of the coaching!
 * Thank you for your interest in this! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 23:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Steve, this page is in, so it isn't that low-profile. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)