User:Jayron32/Observations from a new Admin

Observation 1: Admins don't respond to demands

The job of "Admin" is no less a volunteer job than any other at Wikipedia. As such, admins are under no obligation to do anything. Admins do not have to protect any pages, or block anybody, or delete anything. They can if they choose, help out as they see fit, and use the admin tools as they see appropriate. No one forces you to edit articles, and no one forces admins to use their tools. If you start making demands of admins, saying things like "You must block so-and-so for doing this" or "It is unacceptable that you allow such-and-such to continue to edit", you will be ignored. No one likes being bossed around, least of all people who have no obligation to do anything, and are working strictly on a volunteer basis. If you want something done, convince others by providing evidence, and ask nicely. Demands made to admins are ALWAYS ignored, and may even backfire, since admins are likely to see your own bad deeds, and take action on those instead.

Observation 2: Admins only deal with the worst problem facing them

The noisiest cricket is the one that gets stepped on. If you are the biggest problem in a situation, you are likely to be the only one that gets sanctioned. If you are involved in an edit war, and you are acting like the biggest dick, then you, and no one else will be blocked. Also see Observation 1, as it ties into this. If you get blocked, and then demand that someone else be blocked because only blocking you is "unfair" you WILL be ignored, because you are a making a demand, and thus are instantly making yourself the noisiest cricket. If you get blocked, and deserve it, you still deserve it even if someone else gets away for the same thing. That other people are disruptive and abusive does not give you liscence to be so, and your violation of any Wikipedia rules is not excused only because someone else did it.

Obeservation 3: Your little brother didn't do it

Don't even try. And if he really did, he's your little brother. Go kick his ass. But don't tell us about it, cuz we don't care.

Observation 4: Don't call it vandalism

Unless someone adds PENIS PENIS PENIS in giant capital letters to an article, its NOT VANDALISM. Much of the stuff people scream the loudest about as "Vandalism" should really be called "Stuff I disagree with". If its coherant english and relevent to the article, even if its wrong, its NOT VANDALISM. Its a content dispute. Take it to RFC to request outside input. Neutral editors, who are uninvolved in the article, can see who is right and who is wrong very easily. Once consensus exists, you have strength to work from. But if you call a content dispute "vandalism", you're only going to make yourself the noisiest cricket. See observation 2.

Observation 5: You are always right

Everyone thinks that the position they are defending is "right". No one would keep defending a position they accept is wrong. So saying "My position is right" is no defense for bad behavior. If you revert an article over and over, and your only defense is "But I am right", you still get blocked. Being the noisiest cricket means that people only notice the chirping. Read WP:DICK. Being a dick means that your "rightness" will get ignored because it is overshadowed by your "dickness". Instead, let other people be the noisiest cricket. Let them get blocked instead. Also, build consensus by asking the opinions of uninvolved editors. If someone, who has NO IDEA what the background of the conflict is, quickly agrees with you, then guess what, you may have REALLY been right. If many people who have no idea what the conflict is about, all tell you that you are wrong, guess what? You're wrong...