User:DangerousPanda/Essays/If

Purpose of this page
This is a collection of my not-so-random thoughts on adminship and how personal philosophy affects how we do things. It is a true depiction of the way that I would approach being an admin, should it occur. (Indeed, should I become an admin, feel free to let me know if I have breached my philosophy on any of my actions)

Philosophy
Whether we know it (or admit it) or not, how we interact as editors is based on our philosophy towards the Wikipedia project as a whole. As an administrator, this philosophy takes a sharper focus, as it shapes our decisions.

Although I have stated it many times, my philosophy was never formally attached to my userpage until recently: Everybody has something to add to Wikipedia: many just don't know it yet

This does not mean that I will ride the WP:AGF toboggan down the hill and into the trees. At some point, you need to conclude that the editor "just doesn't know it yet."

Application
I have stared writing several essays that directly flow from this philosophy:
 * Assume Ignorance of the Rules is a take on AGF that supports the requirement to Welcome users, and advise them of the community expectations. Although ignorance of policy is not an excuse for all behaviours, WP:AGF suggests that we should assume that it might be a part of the issue.
 * The S.M.A.R.T. concept, as applied to sanctions suggests that sanctions should be applied "to fit the crime", based on the well-known SMART criteria. Yes, it's been expanded to SMART-REP, but the meaning is still there.

Trust
Even as an editor, it's all about trust. Many people do not trust IP editors because of a history of vandalism. However, each IP editor is different.

It's even easy to start to recognize certain logged-in users as "non-trustable" because of past history. Everyone (and even every IP) can change.

To become an admin should not be a popularity contest, or a grilling on policy minutae, it should be a discussion of overall trust.

Areas of work
There are a lot of things admins do, or shall I say "can do." Indeed, an admin can do more damage to the project than a simple editor because of this. Heck, even this is a long enough list. The is one of the key reasons that AfD !voters like to see that potential candidates have spent some time hanging out in some of these areas. Not all admins specialize in all areas: the concept is to start with what you know, and expand as you learn.

ANI
I spend a lot of time here, and plan to continue doing so.

Really, this is a catchall of things from WP:BLP to WP:CIVIL. Personally, I get tired of threads that start out as "User:IAmSureHeIsAVandal needs to be blocked because they did X and Y." No, that's not the approach, because you're already being subjective. Start out with what happened, and let the community decide what is appropriate - don't get upset of the decision is to do nothing.

That said, because of what comes into ANI, you need to understand the policies that come up, AND the appropriate locations for resolution, if they exist.

AFD/CSD/DRV/REFUND
I do like to consider the "D" in AfD to stand for "discussion", although that discussion is often heated. In the past, I have done a number of non-admin closures there, but I've gotten out of that habit: so many times, the "easy" ones are already gone, and admin action will be required. Yes, I have voted many many times on AfD's.

CSD is a challenge: it becomes one or two people's decision that something is either not encyclopedic, or is problematic. This needs to be as objective as possible. I am personaly neither a deletionist nor a rabid inclusionist. Each case is different.

DRV and REFUND are important follow-up processes to deletion, and need to be maintained (and respected) accordingly.

BLP/N
Let me admit: I once made a comment that although it had been said on numerous TV shows and pressrooms around the world, it was a BLP violation. I had my butt handed to me because of it - and rightly so.

BLP's are very sensitive - a single word can lead to major ramifications, not just for Wikipedia, but for the subject themself.

When in doubt, get rid of it.

UAA/CHU
Yup. Usernames can be a problem. Copycats, insults, offensive ... I'm no prude by any means, but sometimes there's an issue.

AIV
We all work against vandalism on a day-to-day basis. I've had rollback for some time, and use it very carefully.

Admins can also assign rollback to others: again, this is something to be done carefully, and the user needs to be instructed on its proper use and then monitored for at least a little while. After all: you're responsible for those whom you empower.

Articles!
That's what we're all here for. I have created a whack of stubs, some longer articles from the most wanted list, and even one that made it to WP:DYK. On New Year's Day I ran some AWB stuff to fix some problems, something that I do every so often as maintenance (especially when/if hungover ;-) ).

The admin tools are that: tools slightly above what a regular editor has because admins too are editors.

Sensitivity
An editor who comes to someone with a problem honestly feels that they have a problem. We need to be sensitive to their issue, not immediately dismissive.

Getting help
Nobody will ever know everything. As an editor, I have never been beyond asking for help. If I were an admin, there would be - of course - some areas where I would need to build new strengths. As such, I would always ask for help when needed.

Open-ness
My actions must always be transparent, and open to questions by the entire community. I actually appreciate admins (especially seasoned ones) who occasionally post "request for community verification of my actions" in WP:ANI. As an editor, I open up my actions to scrutiny - as an admin, it would be even more important. I am human: I can never be perfect.

On cabals
Nope, not part of one. Although I consider myself "friendly" with some other editors, I know none of them as "friends". I sit at my computer alone, and thus I fail to suffer from "groupthink", or "pack mentality." The only "pack" or "group" that truly counts on Wikipedia is the community as a whole.

Things to remember / work on
I am willing to listen to politely worded commentary and critiques. Here are a few things I am noting from my most recent WP:RFA:

Remember

 * People have a lot of faith in you: don't break that faith and trust
 * Remain clueful, level-headed, introspective, helpful, patient, AGF
 * Continue to reduce drama and reduce conflict overall
 * Remember: they're just buttons
 * In all things be a net positive

Work on

 * Caution with jokes, including both content (such as sarcasm) and timing
 * "How I get to the point" (will follow-up on this one)
 * Communication "style" at times
 * Can I help make WQA more "respectable"?
 * some CSD concerns