Wikipedia talk:Adminship coaching with tools RfA reform proposal

Outstanding work setting this up.

No development required

The way the proposal is outlined it sounds like no development is needed, which is a plus.

Per Nuclear Warfare there is some precedent for limited adminship where from a technical perspective they get the bit in the same way as a regular admin - also touched on here: meta temporary adminship model.

But it might be worth checking if a developer is available, as if an admin only screen could be created to hand out the rights piecemeal (e.g. first delete, then enhanced move, then protect/unprotect, then block) that would further enhance the process and allay concern about the tools being granted without RFA. View deleted could probably wait until after the full RFA.

Coachee Qualification

The rules here seem a bit strict can could maybe be tweaked a little. Isnt it really easy to raise an RFC against someone even if they've done nowt wrong? FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I set the criteria high because I felt that it needed to be uncontestable that the person was likely to be a solid candidate... I also put in the piece about the 'crat being able to use discretion here. But, as always, I'm open to discussion.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that coachee qualification be left up to individual coaches. Let crats oversee who can do the coaching, and the coaches should have the wisdom to see who would be a good idea and who wouldn't. → ROUX ₪ 15:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To a certain extent I agree, however, we are talking about fast tracking the granting of admin tools to people. This means that there needs to be a higher set of standards/guidelines if we are going to get foundation support and community support to give people permission, I think we need some minimal guidance on who can ge the bit.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give this some weight, if we left it up to individuals, then what is to prevent somebody from taking a person with 1 months experience and 1000 edits as a coachee and giving them the tools? We've had some people state that they beleive that is enough experience to be an admin. Most disagree... if a person were granted the tools after only a month and 1k edits, it would likely doom the process.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see with crats having to vet coachees is that the coachees are then getting a stamp of approval from the very people whose job it is to weigh the consensus at the subsequent RfA. There's a stark conflict of interest there, and accusations of cabalism could easily happen--best to avoid those I think. Plus, this proposal (with which I agree in substance, if not all the particulars) is liable to result in coached users getting an almost automatic pass at RfA/being seen as better candidates... so then it will really become much like crats just choosing admins. (Which, honestly, might not be an awful idea). → ROUX ₪ 17:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The crats don't vet the coachees. They verify that the coach is in good standing. The only time the proposal has 'crats vetting candidates is in regards to two issues. First, if the candidate had a recent RfA, they have to determine if the RfA should preclude the granting of tools or if the concern was merely about experience and coaching would be advantageous. Second, if the RfC is an exception.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I had the wrong end of the stick there. In that case I'd support this, subject to Godwin's input on the matter--has it been sought? → ROUX ₪ 15:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has, apparently. Amalthea 15:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed that in the walls of text. Any response? → ROUX ₪ 15:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None yet, but will give him a few more days before sending a follow up inquiry.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(←) How about just, has clue and approval by a 'crat (or maybe two) (which I would assume would be the ones giving out these temp adminships).--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 13:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'crats don't have the time to vett every potential candidate nor should we ask them to, I think that becomes somewhat a conflict of interests. Which is why I put the responsibility on the shoulders of the coach.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion

This is an excellent proposal. This proposal allows potential administrators to give the tools a try, and let the community have 2-3 months of watching the candidate use them. Disclaimer: I'm not an administrator. iMatthew ^talk at 18:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, I love the idea of this. It's a hands-on approach to admin coaching, with additional restrictions and safeguards. I'd like to see this put into action if consensus is established and a technical viewpoint can be found. Disclaimer: Me neither. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 19:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love it and hate it. This pushes back against the lone-wolf-admin model that wouldn't be so prevalent if we didn't have a male geek bias; that's a very good thing. But there are so many problems here.

It's inconceivable to me that this will be enough to overcome Mike Godwin's objection.
Decisions are made by WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia, including the decision to give someone admin tools or give someone the the authority to hand out the tools. This is a Foundation principle, and policy since Day One.
The usual problem with proposed tweaks to RFA is that we overshoot, and that's what's going on here. We will be fortunate if we can get people to accept one new level in the hierarchy (which is how it will be perceived): coachee. The odds that people will simultaneously approve two new roles (coach) even for an experiment are small. Our job is to find the minimum change that might produce the result we want; that will be easiest to sell and hardest to crash.

Couldn't we fix these problems by doing this without an official coach role? Just have a page where anyone who wants to coach can sign up as a participant. Giving someone the tools has to be a community decision; why not do it at RFA? Let RFA have 3 possible outcomes rather than two: fail, succeed or provisional (coachee). A coachee has either all the admin tools or a subset for a limited time; WP:WHEEL doesn't apply to them (any admin can undo their admin actions); and they have to cooperate with the pool of coaches who are keeping up with all of the coachees. - Dank (push to talk) 01:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the morning light, my comments seem a little harsh. I'm glad Balloonman thought of this, and as long as there's no official "coach" position, only a coaching page, I think his idea is superior to mine ... if it works, and if we can get approval for this or some variant of it, it would get more people doing admin work faster with acceptable risk. - Dank (push to talk) 11:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The extent that a coach would be official would be to the degree that an admin (any admin) in good standing says, "I trust user:X enough that I am willing to accept the responsibility to monitor his/her usage of the tools."---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe by nod allowing them to undelete or view deleted revisions we can overcome this. If they delete something on accident, then they can just say something along the lines of "Oh shit, I've just deleted the main page! Can you undelete it for me?"--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 13:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(On either WP:ANI, WP:AN, or their coach's talk page.)--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 14:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this gains legs and the community decides to move forward with this idea, then we would have to get the foundation lawyer's input on this (which has been requested). He will either say the controls in place statisfy them or "noway." If he says noway, then we have to approach a developer to see if they could create a version of admin wherein the ability review/restore deleted content is not available. If we do that then there are two other things the developers might be able to do: 1) make it so that admin/crats could take that power away (ala rollbacker) and 2) put a timer on it so that the person can't keep it for more than 4 months.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support this, like I do any proposal that will give those who wish to be admins (e.g. myself) a chance to learn what they are doing beforehand. Any idea if/when we'll know about the legal issues? Irbisgreif (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the concept, suggested improvements

As a formalization of your "agreement between coaches and coachees," I suggest coaches and coachees have a "contract" in place before the bit is handed out. As a group, interested coaches should draft a model coaching contract, but unless there was a consensus any particular item was a "must do" it would be a guideline. Coaches would be free to come up with their own contracts, bearing in mind any "must do's."

If I were an admin coach, some items on my contract would be

self-reporting: Give me a report of all uses of the bit within an agreed-upon time, typically 24 hours, unless you had a gap of editing shortly after using the tools, in which case I want the report when you get back. Among other things, this demonstrates your ability to use log tools and be organized. Of course I would check this against the logs.
Initially limit the use of the bit to particular uses and a low number of uses per day. Once you get experience I would raise the limit. Because you are self-reporting you'll know if you are at your limit.
Random justifications: I would pick a few of the less clear-cut uses of the tool each day and ask you to both justify using the tool and make an argument why the use could be called into question. OR, I would invite you to present some cases where you considered using the tool but did not, and present arguments pro and con. I would also ask, for each of these cases, whether it is better to act boldly or get a second opinion. Hint: when in doubt, if there isn't a fire ask for advice. If there is a fire, WP:IAR. The goal here is twofold: Teach you that in some cases, there really is only one right answer, and to teach you that in some cases, the decision is less clear-cut.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended extensions

Even if legal approves it, I'm against coachees seeing deleted material. Deleted material is deleted for a reason. This will require a technical fix.
Coachees should not be accountable to only one person. I recommend the following:

Any admin can revoke a coachee's bit at any time and drop a note to the coach to review. This would generally be non-punitive, but rather "you need to talk to your coach, he'll give you your bit back when he's explained the situation." I would expect this to pop up from time to time when an excited new bitholder started doing things he thought was okay but, perhaps unknown to him, was the subject of a discussion and the activity was under a temporary moratorium.
Two or more admins would monitor the coachee's progress weekly. If both thought the person's coaching experience should be terminated, it would be terminated. This would be with some degree of prejudice - the coachee would have to wait a period of time before any RFA-process could start again. They would also serve as a guide to the coach: If the coach were beginning to have doubts, and one of the two monitors also expressed doubts, the coach could pull the plug with a clearer conscience. I expect this to be an issue with not-quite-now candidates and candidates who continually demonstrate immaturity/poor judgment that doesn't show up in normal editing.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]