User:Nathan/Admin coaching

• This is for admin coaching of Avruch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Process: Material is placed and developed here. There may be exercises, things to read, questions posed and answers given, etc. Use the talk page for more ephemeral stuff like process related questions, comments, concerns, and so forth

Intros

Place introductions here please.

Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

My name is Larry Pieniazek. I've been doing things online for well over 20 years now, and am a keen student of communities and how they do things. There's some bio stuff on my talk page... I live in Michigan (in the US) with my wife and 2 kids and I like LEGO. I've been an administrator in other communities in the past. I have been an administrator here at en-wikipedia since mid May 2006, and a Checkuser since August 2007. I am also an admin, bureaucrat, oversighter, and checkuser on commons, and an admin, bureaucrat and checkuser on Meta, an admin at Wikisource and I stood for Steward in 2006 (unsuccessfully) and 2007 (successfully) As it said in my RFA questions especially #1, my focus is on things other than vandal fighting. I've been trying my hand at just about everything that admins do, though. In real life I work for IBM as a system architect (figuring out how software projects and systems can best be organised and carried out). I think Wikipedia is the neatest and most important thing that has been done on the internet yet! (I mostly cribbed this from a few previous coaching pages... mostly still true) ++Lar: t/c 02:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hi, I am John. I have been editing here since January 2006 and have over 46 000 edits. I've been an administrator since August 2006. I have made 895 blocks and 2046 deletions since then. I like to edit articles on aerospace, history, geography, football, punk music and popular music in general.

I generally copyedit articles and format them to wiki norms; it's amazing how many articles still misuse capitals in section headings for instance. I have a bee in my bonnet currently about the misuse and overuse of national and state flags in infoboxes (here's an example of what I mean). Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags is an essay I have helped work on which became a sub-page of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

In real life I am a 43-year-old male from Scotland living in northern California.

Avruch (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Hello, a quick bit of information about me - I'm 26, male and I live in Brrmont (also Vermont, for those in warmer weather). Vermont is a small state, so if I posted here what my job is it would take someone about 2 minutes to find out exactly who I am ;-).

I was initially drawn to Wikipedia, if I remember correctly, by an article in the New York Times. I read most of that paper on a daily basis, and caught the Essjay article. That led me to my first view of the "meta" side of Wikipedia, and gave me a somewhat greater understanding of what it takes to create and maintain something like Wikipedia. Wikipedia presents a vision that is easy to get excited about, obviously, and it is peculiarly satisfying to feel as though I occasionally contribute meaningfully to something that is so useful for so many. Unfortunately, I am one of those people that knows a little about a lot - so it can be difficult to actually add new information. Still, information people don't read, don't understand or don't believe has little value - so copy-editing for clarity, adding references, etc. are important tasks. Since many of my contributions center around the metapedia side of things, particularly the discussions at the administrator noticeboards, my goal as an admin would be to continue to contribute usefully in these ways and explore what other ways I might be able to help. Avruch ^T 00:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agenda/Checklist/what you want out of this

List of things we should try to achieve: (let's jointly develop this list together but here are a few things to think about, we three will restructure this as needed... Please also answer some of these below)

• Why do you want to be an admin? You should have a clear understanding of this. It's not all wine and roses, it's hard work... so why?
• What does an admin do and is it interesting to you? what areas are most interesting? what areas are least?
• Some reading to get you started is often helpful.
• exercises - I have seen exercises and will be reusing some of them, things on deletion, on blocking, etc. For the most part it's not that there is a right answer, it's that you are comfortable with why you came up with the answer. Adminship is a combination of the need to respond really quickly sometimes, and the need to be very deliberate and thoughtful sometimes. Part of being a good admin in my view is knowing which is which. How do you tell?

Agenda/Checklist discussion

(discuss the agenda/checklist here ... WHY do you want to be an admin is one I harp on but is this where you want to go?... the idea here is to add or remove items/themes/questions so that the coaching fits the candidate's needs)

• I'm guessing that you are OK with the agenda and checklist? If not please propose new items to add (the talk page can be used for this too) ++Lar: t/c 02:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Answering the questions raised on the checklist

Note: Avruch chose to actually answer these questions. :) Talk about jumping the gun! ++Lar: t/c 02:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Why do you want to be an admin? You should have a clear understanding of this. It's not all wine and roses, it's hard work... so why?

Well, for a few reasons I suppose - some that are likely normal, and some that are of the sort that people don't necessarily own up to. I am as irritated by vandalism as anyone, but I think we actually take pretty good care of vandalism these days and there isn't a lot I can add there. Actually, I hope it won't be long before some overly bright programmer comes up with an automated method for identifying and removing vandalism that is so slick and stable it could be written into MediaWiki (or at least, locally at en.wp) so that editor intervention is only minimally required.

I think I could usefully contribute in situations of complex abuse or disruption that require or could use admin intervention. There is a lot to be said for the folks that work to keep the environment clear so that others can do the work that makes Wikipedia what it is. That isn't to say that all contentious situations require an admin action - often all that is needed is a level head and a reasonable suggestion towards resolution, and as you've noted no doubt it is sometimes more effective if the level head belongs to an administrator. I'd like to stay involved in WP:AN and AN/I, and perhaps WP:AE and mediation as well. So far, I wouldn't class much of what I've done in this area hard work! Mostly, actually, its intellectually entertaining in the same way as logic problems or legal disputes can be.

Also, while the adage is that "Adminship is no big deal" and certainly there are many contributors who are important to the project who aren't administrators... It still sometimes happens that the admin flag makes a real difference in the weight attached to arguments, and folks unconsciously or consciously sometimes treat non-admins in certain areas as second-class participants. This is a foreseeable side effect of giving the flag to trusted editors, of course, and not completely wrong in principle. Folks whose commitment and contributions are proven and have the approval of the community are rightly given due consideration in various situations and afforded the freedom to act with less immediate second guessing (see my recent creation of the WP:AN/Betacommand subpage as an example of what I mean). I would like both to demonstrate my trustworthiness to the community and to have it recognized. Maybe this paragraph isn't fully calculated to help me in an RfA, but its true anyway. Avruch ^T 00:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

2. What does an admin do and is it interesting to you? what areas are most interesting? what areas are least?

Well, I think I've mostly answered this one above - but as for which admin areas are the least interesting, it might be responding to AIV ;-). The mechanical work is very important, but as a volunteer contributor its hard to get excited enough about it to join in!

What do admins do in general is also not something I addressed directly: Admins use admin tools in certain situations, where warranted, including blocking, protection, deletion, etc. Because admins are identified as trusted editors and have the ability to delete, they are also charged with determining consensus in deletion discussions. Admins intervene against persistent vandalism, persistent disruptive activity, and provide a sort of institutional memory about policies and past practices that facilitates the resolution of many problems. That last isn't solely an admin function, but its something that most admins engage in anyway and many non-admins do not. While all editors are supposed to obey 'pedia policies with respect to content and conduct, some persistent or egregious violations require admin intervention. Admins also respond to OTRS tickets (although I'm not sure being an admin is required), and all checkusers/bureaucrats/oversighters/Arbitrators are admins. Avruch ^T 00:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Some reading to get you started is often helpful.

3. exercises - I have seen exercises and will be reusing some of them, things on deletion, on blocking, etc. For the most part it's not that there is a right answer, it's that you are comfortable with why you came up with the answer. Adminship is a combination of the need to respond really quickly sometimes, and the need to be very deliberate and thoughtful sometimes. Part of being a good admin in my view is knowing which is which. How do you tell?

Well, I would say err on the side of being deliberate and thoughtful. Few situations are truly emergencies, and when an emergent problem must be dealt with it is often still possible to very quickly check your judgment with someone else. It beats doing more damage by making the wrong call. On the other hand, sometimes it makes more sense to take a temporary action such as blocking or deleting if the threat of harm is significant enough - all actions can be reversed, but some real world consequences cannot. So, I guess the answer is, there is no easy way to tell - you have to use your judgment in each situation about the best response. Avruch ^T 00:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin reading list & discussion

To get you started... Here are a few things to read and think about from Lar (Guinnog may add more)

• User:NoSeptember/The_NoSeptember_Admin_Project is an amazing array of resources on adminship. In that array I would look through a lot of things... browse around! but here is User:NoSeptember/RfA_talk_topical_archive_index a good list of things for further reading
  • Find one thing in there you think John may not be aware of, and why. Ditto for Lar... it's an amazing array, surely we've both missed something good from there. :) ++Lar: t/c 02:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• User:CatherineMunro#Why am I here? one of my favorite essays, period. Think about what it means, think about adminship as merely one thing, one tool, one process that helps us do the overall goal. How does it fit?

Great essay. Maybe if you take her tumbler analogy... Some rocks don't tumble well; they need to be sanded down a bit, or removed, or just repositioned. Admins do that. Avruch ^T 01:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• User:Mindspillage/admin one of my favorite essays on adminship. Could you be this good of an admin? I'm not sure I myself am, but it is something to strive for.

Most of this seems like common sense that has worked its way into policy or general custom anyway. I hadn't read it distilled in quite that way before. I'm not sure I could measure up to Kat's dedication, though. Avruch ^T 01:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This essay was written a while ago, now. It's still a favourite of mine. What parts if any do you think no longer apply, and why? ++Lar: t/c 02:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It all seems to still apply, really. Not using admin tools in a content dispute, or against/for someone you have a strong history with, not using rollback for good faith edits (which is really just about the edit summary, and that can now be changed using a script I've got), not wheel warring, etc. All basic good advice for any admin. Avruch ^T 14:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• User:Essjay/Neutrality Another take on how to be a good admin. Neutrality, impartiality, fairness. These are so important! Look within yourself and see if you really think you can do things this way. If not, perhaps adminship is not right for you (generic you, no comment on anyone in particular intended) It is really a shame that this page was deleted, it's really very good. I placed it on a user page for a previous coachee, Akradecki, see User:Akradecki/Admin coaching/Essjay neutrality ... That stance is not necessarily for everyone, but it's a thought provoking read.

It is an interesting position to take, but not one that I really agree with or can see myself adopting. An Arbitrator is assumed to be a level headed sort, one with background in resolving disputes (particularly a MedCom member) and containing problems. Controversial subjects and situations of dispute generally benefit through the involvement of this type of person. Withdrawing from controversy as a rule, whether out of personal preference or as a perceived obligation based on a position in the bureaucracy, is in my mind a mistake. Arbitrators don't check their opinions at the door - they aren't judges, exactly, and we don't expect them to be impartial (or I don't). They are supposed to be partial to the greater benefit of Wikipedia first, and in many cases this might be achieved through the intervention of an Arbitrator before a case has begun. I also don't see the benefit in preventing an Arb from usefully contributing in any situation - the idea behind "assume good faith" is that we would assume that while Arbs may have a point of view, they also have the interests of the 'pedia in mind while acting in their official capacity. Anyway, to sum up: Neutrality is a content principle, not a contributor principle. People simply aren't neutral, and expecting that sort of neutrality (or aspiring to it) is unreasonable. Avruch ^T 01:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Tangentially: What makes an admin "uninvolved"? We have seen some disputants asking that uninvolved admins make determinations. Is this a good or bad practice? Give examples of when it's reasonable, and when it is not? ++Lar: t/c 02:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've at least partially addressed this below in the question from John - did you want me to expand my answer? Avruch ^T 14:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to. I was looking at that and was hoping you'd come at it from a different angle then you did in that answer but it's not that critical. ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think if you define an involved administrator as someone who is a participant in the dispute at issue, then it is generally not a good idea for that admin to make a determination as part of that dispute. Normally this shouldn't be difficult - in most cases it is relatively easy to see when an admin should recuse from taking action. This breaks down at WP:AE more than anywhere else, I think, because the complex situations there basically demand that admins involved in AE become involved and stay involved in particular disputes (Troubles, Armenia/Turkey/Azerbaijan, Tokdo/Liancourt Rocks etc.). But you could still usefully describe the line there as between "referee" and "participant" where a participant takes a side, inflames the dispute rather than calming it, etc. Who determines whether someone has crossed the line from referee to participant? Well, clearly not other participants.

• If BHG blocks someone involved in the Troubles areas, I would be concerned (I have no idea how often this happens, if at all) because I have seen BHG invoke strong opinions on related issues. Any action taken before discussion by someone who is seen to have taken a side in the Troubles cases is likely to cause a problem - probably more significant than whatever was intended to be resolved. On the other hand, if Avi blocks someone in the Troubles dispute without ever having expressed on opinion or interest in the subject I would say he's free to continue to work in that area as an admin. Does this help? How would either of you answer this question yourselves? Avruch ^T 20:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of left field:

• Wikipedia:Tip of the day/July 8, 2006 What does this rule really mean? What is the spirit, not the letter? How do you enforce spirit when trolls and trouble makers are going to want the letter, and then want to twist it around on you and wikilawyer?

Well, first I should say that I think the 3RR noticeboard is a terrible waste of bytes. Last I checked, the rules were pretty byzantine and any technical violation of report formatting gets your report reverted. Ironic, for the revert rule noticeboard! I think reverting edits is a good way to piss people off, and makes it hard to actually make progress. Sometimes I will revert something one time and explain why, and if its reinserted I'll leave it and come back to it at some later point. Multiple reverts are pointless and disruptive. As far as the "substantive" versus "technical" reversion arguments on the rule - my understanding has been that a revert that substantially removes the same material as a prior revert contributes to 3RR, but if you revert two entirely different items in a single article it may not necessarily be considered part of 3RR. The "electric fence" phrase is cool, but like in most situations an individual evaluation is necessary. The purpose of the rule is to prevent disruption of the editing process, and vandalism reverts are exempt because they don't violate the purpose of the rule. Enforcing a technical 3RR block on someone who was not being disruptive (e.g. three largely unrelated reversions on 1 article spaced out over 24 hours) is a waste of time and is more likely to disrupt editing than the technical policy vio. Policies aren't clubs, or rules obeyed in a vacuum of judgment - they are enforced when it makes sense, and ignored when it makes sense. Avruch ^T 01:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetical (which has happened to me)... you block someone for clearly edit warring, and they say "but I didn't actually revert 4 times, it was different each time". Why are they wrong? When are they right? ++Lar: t/c 02:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert-warring on an article, whether its over identical insertions or otherwise, is disruptive and antithetical to the collaborative editing process. Blocking isn't always the best solution (personally if the revert warring includes more than couple of people I'd prefer a short protection to blocking people), but assuming I've already blocked this person... The 3RR policy is a limit, not an entitlement. Its intended to prevent edit-warring, not identical repeated reversions only - and 3RR isn't the only policy under which you can be blocked for edit-warring. I guess to answer "When are they right?" Well... It says they were clearly edit warring, so I guess in this situation there isn't a way for them to be right :-P If someone makes 3 or 4 completely different reversions on single big article spread out over a day or so (not including vandalism reverts) then that is probably not a situation in which I'd issue a block. Sound right? Avruch ^T 20:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Think about some of those and see if any of them color your thinking... You may have read some of them already. You don't necessarily have to read every single one in the entire admin project (although if you want to, you'll be much better informed). What I am interested in is a discussion on what one or two of them meant to you, whether you agree or disagree, and why, and so forth. These can be a springboard for good discussion. ++Lar: t/c 02:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading list discussion

(pick one and dissect it. We want to know how you think)

(see above, Avruch picked quite a few ++Lar: t/c 02:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

Thought provoking questions

(this is the part our coachees hate the worst. We are going to pick something, ask you about it, and then pick at your answer... again and again... then we'll do it with something else)

Question 1

This is one that I have been thinking about for a while. I am interested in your opinion as that of another experienced Wikipedian, and I am also interested in how you deal with it as a prospective admin.

The question is this. One often hears about "uninvolved" admins. What, in your opinion, does that actually mean? Is someone who has previously blocked a user to be regarded as "involved" with that user for ever more? Is someone who has disagreed with a user on a content issue in January prohibited from blocking that user over another matter in July? Where would you draw the line, and what would you do if you are in doubt about the line in future? --John (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I point towards the mysterious "uninvolved admin" somewhat regularly, and I generally know what I mean when I say it - but its a subjective description, and its argued about pretty frequently at AN/I and Arbitration. Involved, to my mind, means as a participant - so if the administrator has participated in the dispute, then that makes him or her involved. An earlier and/or unrelated block doesn't necessarily or even generally qualify (although blocked people often disagree). If the earlier event led to a particularly acrimonious and personal dispute between the editor and admin, though, the admin should take care that future actions aren't based on latent anger. Obviously it isn't cut and dry - individual situations need to be evaluated individually, with the idea that erring on the side of caution leads to better outcomes and costs nothing.

I wouldn't say that an involved admin can't make an objectively correct decision, they can. But even the right decision by a participant can turn the heat in a dispute way up, which effectively negates any value in a "correct" action. Since very few problems on Wikipedia need to be addressed in a rush with an admin action, my expectation of myself and others would be to ask for an outside opinion if I am likely to be seen as a participant. Avruch ^T 16:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice answer. I asked you this because it was an issue for me recently. Some problematic users will use this to try to wikilawyer their way out of the consequences of their bad behaviour by asking continually for fresh input from a previously uninvolved admin. The time commitment can rapidly become untenable. What would you do in a situation like this, where, say, it is only the user you are sanctioning who believes you are "involved", and you suspect them of filibustering to avoid sanction? --John (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Most blocked users at least quibble with the blocking reason, and many write long essays about how they are innocent and the blocking admin is against them/for someone else/crazy etc. Editors in both groups are sometimes, but usually not, right. It isn't the responsibility of a blocking admin to endlessly explain and justify a block to a blocked user. An appropriate block with an explanation on the talkpage and the block template should be enough initially. Following up to questions or complaints once or twice is fine. All blocked users can use unblock-en-l, arbcom-l and the unblock template. If someone else, editor or admin, thinks that a block (or other admin action, focusing on blocks here because its the most common situation where this comes up) of mine is faulty in some way then I'd be happy to participate in a reasonable discussion about it on my talkpage or AN/I. At some point, if I don't see the "light" so to speak, and no other admin decides to undo my actions, the point of reasonable discussion will be passed. Even if an admin does undo a block of mine... Well, people have different judgments of what is necessary and very little is served by arguing about something past the point where some sort of action will be taken. Avruch ^T 19:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I take it then that you do not plan to get involved in any Zomg-wheel-warring then? --John (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't in my current plans, no ;-) I try to remind myself that there is a small slice of the universe that exists outside Wikipedia, and even if Wikipedia disappeared that little sliver would remain. Avruch ^T 20:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Question 2

What do you think about WP:SPADE? Discuss how it can coexist with WP:AGF on the same project. --John (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes when we rely on acronym'd essays to teach people common sense, that common sense conflicts with itself - or appears to. These aren't principles of Wikipedia, although some unfortunate people think they are. They're principles of life, articles of interaction central to being an adult. I don't see promoting these principles at the same time as a problem - making an honest assessment of behavior, without under or overstating the case, doesn't conflict with assuming generally that folks contribute in good faith. Assuming good faith doesn't mean continuing to assume it in the face of evidence to the contrary, its just a good starting point for any interaction. Once the assumption of good faith goes out the window, the requirement to be civil continues to govern. Plus - not assuming good faith isn't the same thing as assuming bad faith. We can infer that someones motive isn't only to improve the encyclopedia - but we have no idea what the actual motive might be, so its generally smart to avoid imputing motives to folks you don't know well. Avruch ^T 17:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice answer. I would say in addition that an essay like WP:SPADE is trumped by a guideline like WP:AGF. I sometimes wonder if WP:SPADE actually does more harm than good as people occasionally use it in an unhelpful way. Otherwise I really liked what you said there. --John (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Question 3

Do you support the idea of WP:BADSITES or something similar? Please give reasons for your answer. --John (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, there are two components to this - WP:BADSITES as it might apply to article content, and WP:BADSITES as it might apply to everything else. For article content, I think our current policies are sufficient - external links must be relevant and useful, and citations must be to a reliable source. Rarely will either standard allow a link to something that could be termed an "attack site." With non-article content, again I think we have policies sufficient to fulfill the intention of this proposal. What we do not want to do is get into the habit of policing speech based on its opinion of Wikipedia. There are a lot of different types of speech that we prohibit, mainly on the grounds that it isn't constructive to building an encyclopedia. I don't think criticism of Wikipedia is amenable to exclusion on those grounds, and whatever attack sites do - criticism is generally part and parcel. This isn't to say that some uses of links or references to attack sites aren't prohibited - we already have policies about civility and harassment that govern those sorts of problem events. I think we stray into the ridiculous, though, if we ban all and any references to a particular place simply because that place does something we don't like. We don't ban references to Stormfront - heck, I'm sure we have an article. The recent Encyclopedia Dramatica (still a red link!) deletion review discussion is a case on point - while the entire huge debate was about ED, no one was allowed to post a link to the place itself because of an ArbCom restriction. What legitimate purpose does that serve? Not supporting EDs Google page rank might be the only one that occurs to me. Avruch ^T 21:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Are there any gradations in "everything else" (other than article content). How much leeway should a user get in their own user space? If they're new? If they're a long time contributor? ( see meatball:VestedContributor ) ++Lar: t/c 02:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Question 4

What do you think of Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Would you be willing to add yourself to it? --John (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Question for coaches

What are the most difficult aspects of being an administrator? Do you think there are issues that I particularly might have difficulty with? Is there a reason, for me or in general, why you might say "I don't know that becoming an admin is a good idea, it causes this and that and the other problem and you might not find it worth it" ? Avruch ^T 20:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Great question. For me, although I am still very happy that I am permitted to serve in this capacity, the hardest thing has been when others, especially other admins, have not supported me in a difficult situation where I have been trying my best to improve things. Being an admin is not a magic bullet and we are not permitted to block others we are in dispute with. I'll give you an example of what I mean. There is an article where I have had serious problems with (what I believe to be) the overuse of fair use images, and also with some of the writing style used. Any efforts I have ever made to clean these up have been thwarted by another user, who feels the images do conform with our rules. As he has written a large proportion of the article, it is a clear case of WP:OWN, and yet the efforts I have made to centralise discussion have never so far borne fruit. The other user is a good faith editor and is generally pretty polite in his implacable disagreement with me. I have had to walk away from it as I was getting nowhere. Being an admin has earned me precisely zero extra traction in that dispute, which is exactly as it should be. It is frustrating though; you might imagine all your hours put into problem-solving, reverting vandals, etc, should give you an extra voice. Luckily the state of this one article is not particularly important to me. If it was, I imagine I might easily have got myself into the same sort of trouble another long-standing admin has. As it is, I am content that someone else will eventually fix the problems I wanted to fix. That kind of patience (bordering on fatalism) is not a natural trait for me, and I sometimes have trouble with this kind of situation. Luckily (so far at least) there is always a band article needing copyedited and/or decrufted, and I just get on with that. --John (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC) amended at --John (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Great question indeed. To John: That admins don't get any "extra traction" in content disputes is precisely how it's supposed to be. :) Sometimes the temptation exists to throw one's weight around but it's better to rely on others (see meatball:defendEachOther for more on that topic) John knows this very well, he is a very impartial and fair administrator but I'm sure he is frustrated by it. Myself I tend not to get too enmeshed in content disputes relating to my own writing, most of what I work on is very non controversial. But someone has to do it or we would be not a complete encyclopedia. To Avruch: The most difficult aspect for me is the time aspect. I get a constant stream of people turning up on my page, or in my emailbox, asking for things. Almost always they are important things that do need doing and often I am the best (or even the only) person to address them. These things take one away from the simple joy of writing articles. But they're what you signed up for. Where to draw the line, where to say "I'm sorry, I don't have time to deal with this thing" is hard. And unpleasant, and even a little guilt inducing. There is so much to do here you could work 24/7 and never get anywhere near the bottom of it all. That can be frustrating. ++Lar: t/c 02:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. My answer as originally written was a little tongue-in-cheek, but it masked a serious point in light of some of these serious matters that admins sometimes get themselves into. I am sure every admin (well, almost every admin) stands with good intentions. But every single time you get into a dispute with someone, be it over content or conduct, or both, there will be the ethical dilemma on how to best deal with it. I am sure every single admin knows (or at least knew at the time of their RfA) that one shouldn't take admin actions in areas one is personally involved in, but in the details of that lie many good admins' demise. As someone said,

• • We need admins that can make snap judgements, and then go back and gracefully change what they did if it turns out wrong (that is very important, this is a wiki and we are making it all up as we go along), and at the same time admins who can think long and hard about complicated things and make the right decision on the first try, and admins who can tell which approach is needed in which case.

• • I can't put it any better myself after all this wiki-time. --John (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Scenarios

These are a bit more concrete but not as mechanical as some of the "exercises" that we may ask you to do as well.

(We may or may not give you any of these)

Live Fire Exercise

I'm reading through the edit history on the talkpage at the moment. So far, my impression is that the editor is probably young and quite touchy about criticism. The always at the bottom issue is strange. Avruch ^T 21:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The 4:54 edit from John is probably not the way I would've gone there, particularly with the have a cup of tea ;-) Avruch ^T 21:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

First thing is clearly that using wikilinks and acronyms for policies is not going to work for this user. Additionally, I think the approach of commenting on multiple violations in a short period of time probably erased the likelihood of any one of them getting resolved satisfactorily. Not that I blame John, they did crop up and seemed to be part of a pattern. Now that a template warning has been issued, and WP:STALK introduced, it might be tough to get progress here with the same participants.

Next steps probably should include a general comment from a 3rd party about recent problems, how her contributions are valued and that we would like to continue to benefit from them but the conflicts and communication style is making it difficult to resolve what otherwise would be minor problems. The policy/guideline disdain is potentially problematic (and, strangely, unusual). I'm in favor of totally ignoring the WP:MOSDATE problem, in favor of focusing on the communication style and talkpage usage problems. Make sense? Avruch ^T 21:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. I don't want to influence you or lead you in a particular direction here, but while the user may well be young, they have over 5.5k edits to the project. WP:BITE is not an issue here. Anyway I'll shut up and let you get on with it. --John (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I did a deeper review and took a slightly different approach than I outlined above or in my e-mail. Rereading the above it sounds more critical than I intended, too, particularly in light of looking more closely at the history there. I don't know that either approach will really work, I guess we'll see. Avruch ^T 23:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Exercises

(We may or may not give you any of these)

Exercise 1; The toughest RfA question

• "Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?"

You may want to read John's, Lar's, or browse some of the successful and unsuccessful ones from the past. Take your time and remember that it is (probably) worse to neglect to mention something that others may consider important, than to talk about even the most egregious errors or disputes, as long as some time has passed and you can show evidence of having learned from it.

• This is a tough question. I've been involved in a number of conflicts, but not generally as a central participant. I entered into a conflict through WP:3O on the Warren National University article, and since then I've been somewhat involved in conflicts ranging from the Muhammad images issue to BetacommandBot and practically everything in between (even the Mantanmoreland and IRC arb cases, as a minor participant in cases pages). It sort of comes along with being an active participant at AN/I and AN, but I wouldn't say its caused me stress. I try to move problems constructively towards a solution, or at least minimize the disruption (see my creation of the WP:AN/B page). I do have some strong ideas (see my RfB % proposal, or my quote in today's LA Times article about advertising), so I'm sure in the future I'll be involved in more conflicts. Still, I don't view them as causes for stress. I think I can be invested in Wikipedia and Wikimedia without losing the sense of detachment that keeps me from becoming too emotionally involved in the debates. Maybe its because I played MUDs for a long time, I don't know - my past in online communities helps if I need some perspective in order to not get worked up. No one issue online is important enough to ruin my day, and getting heated and upset about a problem almost never leads to its resolution anyway. I should look into my editing history to remind myself of any other conflicts I've been in, the answer seems somewhat anemic ;) Avruch ^T 20:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Actually, I was criticized directly if I remember in the Archtransit conflict - for calling for his recall more or less immediately after the Jehochman block and its aftermath. Avruch ^T 01:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Exercise 2

(with acknowledgment to Gwernol) You are an admin. Another user draws your attention to this page; we'll pretend it is in the mainspace. What, if anything, do you do? --John (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

First thing I'd probably do is this. Second, I'd Google it, where I'd find that there are no mentions about this band outside of Wikipedia. (See: [1] and [2].) The MySpace link is a dead link, so there is a real possibility that its a hoax page. More likely, its a super non-notable band. Since the creator, in this case, is an active user account I'd probably post a PROD and then leave a prod notice on your talkpage. CSD#A7 would also apply, but there's less chance you'd be able to fix up the article before it was deleted. Avruch ^T 17:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Exercise 3

(with acknowledgment to Malinaccier) Label each statement as either having a neutral point of view or not:

• Some believe that cells have a living memory. This is based on an erroneous interpretation of the work of Crick and Watson in 1955. Not neutral
• 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... neutral
• Darwin's theory of natural selection is the most widely accepted scientific explanation of the diversity of life we see today. This is SPOV rather than NPOV, tough area to work in
• Nietzsche spent much of his life arguing (among other things) that God does not exist. Neutral
• Abortion is wrong because it kills god's children. Super, super neutral! (kidding)
• Abortion has been the subject of much controversy; many support the movement calling it pro-choice, and others oppose it based on the killing of unborn children... Not neutral

On the Nietzsche one, its hard to know if its neutral point of view without reviewing the sources. That is a problem with some of the similar quizzes like this going around - this one was even posted on an RfA recently. Taken completely out of context, without references or background information, its tough to determine whether a particular sentence or phrase is representative of a neutral point of view. Regarding the Darwin sentence - recently there has been a lot of controversy over this, and many editors have started using a parallel standard of scientific point of view (SPOV) that aims to more carefully represent the view of the mainstream scientific community without giving undue weight or recognition to its critics. I was thinking to myself the other day, that if I got something like this on my own RfA I would have to consider pretty carefully whether I wanted to answer. Avruch ^T 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it on a failing RfA and thought of you. No need to worry, those seem like good answers, and your comments about context and sources are well made. --John (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Exercise 4

Pick your 10 finest diffs, list them, and say why they were good. Think of it as a mini-RfC on yourself and do the investigation thoroughly. What you choose is up to you, whether a particularly civil defusing of a difficult situation, a BLP correction, policy, removing greengrocer's apostrophes. In fact I am interested in which ten you choose. Or think of it as "2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?" if you prefer. I have looked through your contributions, and will continue to, but you know them best. In your own time. --John (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still thinking about this. This is probably harder, at least for me, than the "conflicts" question. What makes a single edit good all by itself? I'm not sure. Avruch ^T 14:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I don't know about individual edits. Not making much progress there, so I'll go from my quick review and memory on what articles or other issues I've contributed to where I like my work. First of all, the now-GAs I've worked on - J. Michael Bailey, A Moral Reckoning and Norman Finkelstein. The JMB one is the first real article work I did, and the article isn't perfect I suppose, but its a lot better with respect to BLP and accuracy than it was before I did any work on it. A lot of my work on AMR was clerical - I created the article to move information from the main Daniel Goldhagen article, like I did with Hitler's Willing Executioners (previously a redirect), and then did some other work on the article content. Major credit there goes to the primary editor of AMR, though - Moonriddengirl. Norman Finkelstein was actually pretty enjoyable to edit, along with the connected Alan Dershowitz article. The editors involved in the long discussions on these pages, particularly Nishidani, are among the best I've encountered on Wikipedia. I also like the article Academic institution, even if it remains sparsely referenced. In addition to the GAs and other articles I've mentioned, I think I did well working with the folks over at Warren National University. My first foray into WP:3O and mediation of any type was probably inartful to begin with but I think it worked out OK in the end - although I was disappointed that one editor, Rkowalke, ended up blocked indefinitely. I'm even proud of the still minor contributions I've made to Giovanni di Stefano - a difficult BLP if there ever was one - and I have some plans to continue working on that article to get it up to standards.

• Regarding edits that aren't directly related to content, I take some pride in my work at WP:AN/I. My efforts there have mainly been to keep the page organized, identify areas where administrator intervention isn't required (particularly in disputes that are escalating on AN/I itself), and give input on how I think situations can be best resolved. I'm aware of the criticism that folks who spend too much time on AN/I are "attracted to drama" and I take it seriously, but I would venture that most of my work at AN and AN/I has been aimed at reducing drama and solving problems rather than exacerbating drama or creating more problems. An example was the creation of WP:AN/B - and idea that I think contributed to reducing the overall disruption of the issues related to BetacommandBot, even if solving the problem still required an Arbitration case. Not too long ago I was criticized for requesting a review of a block by an administrator of an administrator... I've taken that criticism on board, and I haven't been quite as active on the noticeboards since as I try to direct more of my work to content and other issues. A proposal that I made on WT:RFA, to reduce the bar for a successful RfB, saw pretty amazing participation (as a result of the many RfBs running at the time, I'm sure) and will lead, I hope, to a change in practice going forward. I would have been happy with it even if consensus was against the proposal, but I'm gratified that it seems the community saw the need for a change.