User:Tom Morris/ADCO

Welcome!

Welcome to admin coaching! Over the next few months I'll be quizzing you and hopefully polishing up your contributions. Before we start, please answer these questions:

• Why do you want adminship?

  The super-modest answer is that I don't so much "want adminship" as there are certain tools that admins have that would make the WikiGnomeish tasks I often do easier. There are also times of the day (5-8am GMT) when reporting stuff to, say, WP:AIV doesn't get a quick response. I think I would make a good admin as I know policy, and I think I'm pretty much a level-headed, honest and trustworthy person.

• If appointed as a sysop, what work do you intend to do?

  The usual anti-vandalism and cleanup stuff: AIV, RFPP, CSD. I'd also handle PROD and AfD: I've already been doing some non-admin closures at AfD in cases where the closure is uncontroversial and I keep an eye on new AfDs as they come to sort them with deletion sorting. I am active on Commons and occasionally transfer free files from local filespace to Commons and in those cases, it'd be easier to delete files rather than CSD tag them.

  I'm not really into theatrics (although when something does something irredeemably stupid and obtuse, I have been known to chuckle rather loudly about it): I already avoid getting involved in dispute resolution or controversy and very rarely participate in RfC's, arbitration/mediation, DRN/3O, as the issues either end up being extremely straightforward but unresolveable as a non-admin (3RR–block 'em for 24 hours!–oh, wait, not an admin), too trivial for me to be able to spend time on (date delinking, tree shaping etc.) or so complicated that I'd need the patience of a saint or to spend a few weeks mediating on something. User:Steven Zhang tells me that I should try more dispute resolution stuff, but he has aforementioned saintly patience.

• What do you want to achieve with the admin coaching process over the next few months?

  I'd say a mixture of things: I'd like to be exposed to a wider range of things that I haven't really gotten involved in that may be important to deal with as an admin and I'd also like to brush up on my content contributions (I've had one DYK - Black Bear Ranch, but haven't produced a GA, although I've reviewed a few). I haven't yet had any major content disputes with anybody, and while I'm not itching to start a fight, I haven't ever really seen consensus in action (at Wikipedia, I did see it work very occasionally at Citizendium), which is a bit of a problem if as an admin, my role would involve making calls in dispute resolution processes.

A bit more!

Good! Now, answer the following and we'll be good to go (I just want to get an idea of your experience so I know what to focus on during this coaching program).

Have you ever:

• !voted in an RFA?

  Yes, quite a few—RobertMfromLI (diff), Fluffernutter (diff), Drmies (diff), HJ Mitchell (3) (diff),

  I've also participated in an RfB (Hersfold - diff) and questioned the appropriateness of a question in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/N5iln.

• requested a page to be protected at WP:RfPP?

  Quite a few times.

• had an editor review?

  No.

• used automated tools/.js tools such as Twinkle, AWB, or Huggle?

  Yep, all of the above.

• contributed to an XFD?

  Yes, I've nominated a number of things for deletion, and participated in a few, closed a few and frequently participate as an AfD deletion sorter. See User:Tom Morris/AfD for a list of the stuff I've participated in.

• answered a question at the help desk?

  Don't think so, but I have helped on #wikipedia-en-help

• uploaded an image?

  I've uploaded lots to Commons, and I've uploaded a few non-free images to Wikipedia, primarily of logos of think-tanks and other political organisations.

• mediated or otherwise acted as a neutral party in a dispute?

  Not in any depth. I've made one post on WP:DRN and I've answered a WP:3O.

• participated in discussion in WP:AN or WP:ANI?

  A few times on each.

• taken a look at meta philosophies? I'm interested in knowing what philosophies you believe you adhere to.

  I see myself as neither deletionist nor inclusionist but I lean more towards inclusion than most people. A lot of people outside the project seem to think there is no reason to ever delete anything but I think that in rather a weird way you can bootstrap notability on the back of WP:UNDUE, which itself is a practical outcome of trying to adhere to neutrality. We break with neutrality if we give undue weight, and that applies at the level of whether we give an article for a subject too. That seems a much better reason why we should delete articles.

  Going down the rest of the list, I lean slightly towards eventualism than immediatism, but can see the case for the latter in both important articles and BLPs. On communityism vs. encyclopedyism: I'm both, and think that sometimes mild personal attacks can be tolerated. If someone has been repeatedly failing to get a clue about something, saying "You really are a bit dense" is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

  I'm definitely an adherent of "sysopism": there are some people who have absolutely nothing to contribute to the project at all, and we should shuffle them off to oblivion or Conservapedia or wherever. I've seen a lot of people's time, energy and patience wasted trying to help people who fall between incompetent and malevolent. That's a poor use of volunteer time.

  As for my own wikiphilosophy, I have an essay on how we could speak in a more intelligent and reasoned way about sources called The Reliability Delusion and another on the fallacy of people trying to find a "definition" of something in order to resolve debates about inclusion (in lists) or naming or categories (etc.) called The Definition Delusion. One of these days, I'll finish the trinity and write one on notability called 'The Notability Delusion'!

• helped out on the Account Creation Toolserver Interface?

  No, I registered for it ages ago, but my request was turned down on the basis that there were enough people to handle account creation requests.

• requested and received/been denied for Rollback?

  Yes, requested, was given it and use it frequently for anti-vandalism work.

• had a previous RFA?

  No.

• Written a good article?

  No.

• Created any featured content?

  No.

• Interested in writing more DYKs??

  Possibly. In retrospect I should have put Maurice Généreux forward for DYK when I created it.

And a little bit more

It might be a good idea, just to get started, to try commenting on some current discussions on ANI. Don't necessarily try and fix all the problems yourself - but try and add some helpful commentary. Post in diffs below and I can get a good idea of what you're like in disputes (and so can you!). Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

My most recent ANI participation - here. I find I have difficulty just jumping into ANI and participating because a lot of the time I just don't or can't find the disputes worth my time to deal with. Just started a new job, so haven't got time to jump headfirst into ANI. May have another go at the weeekend. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, are there any categories in which you would like to write? Anything specific that you are good at or highly knowledgable in? Do you have access to tools that other users dont such as Lexis Nexis? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Just based on your answers above - I would also recommend putting yourself forward for an editor review. They give you a really good sense of where you are and where you can improve going forward as an editor and admin candidate. I've had two! Also, once you've done the homework above - I will post some exercise questions so we can get a feel of how you would handle certain situations. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Example Explanation

As per our discussion on IRC:

Blocked

92.7.4.36: you have been blocked for 48 hours for repeated violations of the talk page guidelines. Your comments have been removed. Wikipedia is not a place for you to spread your political opinions: the talk pages exist for constructive, consensus-based discussions of how to improve the article, not for political or partisan back-and-forth. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Could alternative be

Blocked

Hey there! You may notice that you have been blocked for 48 hours. This is due to your repeated violations of the the talk page guidelines. The comments you have previously made have been removed, and you will not be able to edit within this time. However, we understand that Wikipedia can be a confusing place. Whilst you're blocked, why not take the time to read more on what Wikipedia is not about and how we deal with issues regarding strong opinions. Of course you are welcome to edit in the future, but please bear these guidelines in mind. If you do not, you may well be blocked again. If you need any assistance in understanding Wikipedia's guidelines and rules, please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page and I will be more than happy to assist you. Happy editing! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Examples

Right, now, as you mentioned before, there is the aforementioned 'saintly patience' aspect of being an administrator. Of course, no one is expecting you to become a mediator if that isn't your strong point, but you will be required to make difficult decisions which will upset some people over the course of your tenure. The examples below are meant to be tests of both your knowledge of policy and your ability to diffuse or lighten a situation. I'll respond to your answers, either with more hypotheticals, or with a small critique saying that you are awesome/not awesome, depending. (P.s. - all of these things really happened somewhere on-wiki. I've paraphrased to avoid stealing, but seriously, they all happened) (P.p.s. - these are meant to be tricky, so if you don't know the answer, or you're unsure, just say!)

The angry relative

You notice that an IP address has been removing large swathes of references text from an article about a deceased individual. They are not attempting to engage with other editors on the talk page, but they also appear to be doing this sporadically. They've made 6 changes over two months - always removing the same type of information, regardless of sources. You look at their talk page and there is a level 3 heading for both months, asking the person to stop. There is a reponse below the last warning which reads thus:

My father was a great man, and my aunt is just jealous of all of his success so she keeps adding these horrid things to the article. I know they're not true, but she keeps adding them back anyway! It's just to spite him and his memory. I'm very ill at the moment so I can't work on it too much, but please remove this filth otherwise I may have to seek help from elsewhere

What do you do?

That's a difficult one. The policies are easy to recite here: the IP editor has a clear conflict of interest. Worse, the IP editor skirted very close to outing another user's real-life identity by saying that they are related to the subject of the article. Rules must be tempered with the everyday, practical demands of common sense and justice. This is one of the many reasons we must always keep WP:IAR in force!

I steer clear of BLP matters on Wikipedia, and so although this isn't a BLP, I'd probably find an admin who is used to dealing with BLP issues and ask them to handle it. Given that disclaimer, let's have a try.

I'd try and explain the relevant policy to the IP editor on their talk page and ask them to try and provide reasons on the talk page (or via their user talk page) why the sources are problematic. I'd politely warn them about edit warring.

I'd check to see if the material that he's been removing gives undue weight and whether the sources match up to the claims being made (been there, done that, traced the dodgy reference and got someone indef blocked). If I remove the material and give reasons why on the talk page, then the ball goes back in the court of the other editor (the alleged "aunt") to justify inclusion of the material.

If the IP editor comes back and reverts without explanation, I'd give them a final warning and then give them a short block if they continue.

But before I get to blocking anyone, I'd try and find a creative solution to the problem: one might be to see if there was a WikiProject that handles the topic in question (if the subject was a doctor, WikiProject Medicine; if the subject was of a particular nationality, the WikiProject for that country or region) and ask them to have a look and come to a preliminary judgment. The nub to this case seems to be that admins aren't supposed to make content decisions, but in this case, what exactly is needed is a content decision, to come to some kind of sane pre-judgment of the content issue. If the two parties want to have a discussion on the talk page, that's fine, but in case that doesn't happen, we need to get temporary relief of the content issue in order for the behaviour issue to go away. But admins, as I've said, aren't arbiters of content disputes and have no more power to resolve a content dispute than anyone else. And if you aren't interested in that topic, the best you can do is to try and get a third opinion from a neutral party, but without canvassing.

Afterwards, I'd take an aspirin and go do some mindless wikignomin' to recover. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The frustrated editor

A user in good standing with the community has been involved in a dispute with a new editor who is insistant on reverting content. The user in good standing has reverted 4 edits over a week and the new user has been reverted 10 times by various editors, and yet they keep making the same edits to the page, with edit summaries along the lines of 'just adding helpful information'. You look at the talk page and notice that a lengthy discussion has been taking place in which community consensus obviously falls against the new users. However, the new user has been nothing but polite and courteous, if not argumentative, whereas the editor who contacted you has resorted to light-name calling (.e.g you're stupid! Why don't you get this you idiot? etc.).

What do you do?

Okay, first let's start with the newbie. I'd have a look at their contributions outside of the page in question: if there are examples of vandalism or spam or other negative behaviour on pages other than the page in question, I'd give them a warning then resort to a block if they don't abide by the strong warning. But the tone of the question suggests that the newbie isn't being malicious anywhere on the site, so let's presume that there aren't any negative contributions outside of the page in question.

The next step is I'd have a look at the talk page of the article to see if the user has read them, and I'd also check the user talk page to see if other users have made him or her aware of the discussion on the talk page: if they've had a non-templated, non-rude warning from another user pointing them to the talk page discussion and explaining consensus, they'd now be at final warning stage for me. I'd leave a note explaining that there is an established consensus on the talk page, but that if they have sources or reasons that might convince the community to change the consensus to post it on the talk page and if necessary seek dispute resolution noticeboard advice or a third opinion if the other editors aren't responsive to good-faith efforts to seek consensus.

If the newbie hasn't been given any notification as to the discussions on the talk page, I'd treat them with good faith, leave a note on their talk page explaining the WP:BRD process and asking them to participate in the talk page discussion before editing again. If they continue on inserting the information, I'd leave a final warning and if they do so again, I'd put a short block on to prevent them from editing. If I had any doubts as to whether the blocks are a good idea, I'd ask an experienced admin in private before implementing them.

Now we come to the experienced user. If it is a one-off, I'd leave them a note basically telling them to be civil. If they persist beyond minor incivility and become disruptive, I'd block them for a short time per policy. If it isn't a one-off, I'd leave a warning asking for explanation and a commitment to changing his or her behaviour. If that doesn't garner change, I'd bring the issue to WP:WQA or even WP:ANI. Ideally, it would stop long before a block or noticeboard thread was required! —Tom Morris (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The lawyer

An user who has previously been indefinitely blocked comes to your page, asking for assistance with a dispute they have been in. They have been edit warring in the past week, as has the person they are disputing, but there have been no reverts in the last 24 hours. The previously indef blocked user was unblocked on the condition that they seek administrator assistance rather than edit-war in future. Both parties are being incredibly incivil to each other, to the point where swearing is involved. The user who originally came to you for assistance is insisting that he is following the terms of his unblock, which he is, but only to the letter. What do you do?

My immediate reaction would be "following the terms of your unblock isn't all you need to do, you also need to act with civility". An unblock that comes with terms doesn't mean that the rest of the sites rules fade away and your only commandment is to abide by the terms of the unblock, any more than in real life, if you are on probation, and you decide to commit credit card fraud, the judge would look amicably at a plea of "well, nothing in my probation requirements said anything about not breaking the law on fraud" etc.

This answer is unfinished. Sadly, I have to do some work now. Will finish later.