User:Mindspillage/admin

My general philosophy is to be conservative in the use of admin powers. A few thoughts on the use of admin rights:

Blocking
Many people on Wikipedia seem too block-happy, calling for blocks for every garden-variety vandal who walks into the wiki.

Blocking is not a punitive measure. We don't block to punish users for transgressions against the wiki. If someone vandalizes a page, the first step, always, should be to warn them. The vast majority of nonsense added to pages is by newbies testing things out and bored schoolkids. Unless it's blatant, fast-moving vandalism (page-move vandals, mass insertion of disgusting images or hate speech), step through the test templates. All of them. (I recall reading another user saying that she did this, and rarely had to block anyone.)

What does it cost you? A few minutes of refreshing someone's contributions page to see if they're still at it. If they've stopped vandalizing before you have to block, great! The aim was to stop damage to the wiki, not to punish the "offender". If they've gotten a clue after test3&mdash;or simply gotten bored&mdash;then the effect is the same as if you'd blocked. Blocking someone who's already stopped vandalizing, as a punitive measure, creates animosity: "hey, I stopped 15 minutes ago after I was warned and now I'm getting blocked!"

Even if it is obvious vandalism, be polite. What kind of response does "quit vandalizing, you moron!" get? If it is just a particularly clueless newbie, they get the impression that wikipedia is a hostile environment, and they don't stick around to learn how to edit, nor do they ever come back. A bored schoolkid will take this as a challenge: "ha, I got a rise out of them, let's see if I can do it again!" And a vandal who knows the game won't take any heed of a warning, polite or otherwise, though someone who's looking for ammunition for a future tirade against "rogue admins" will gladly save the diff.

Relatedly, I will not block at anyone's request unless I would have made the block without prompting. If it's my name on the block log, I am responsible for that action, no matter who asked me to do it.

I do take requests for unblocking; I am liberal with this for anyone who requests sincerely and indicates that s/he understands what happened and will not repeat the behavior. In this case, the block has served its purpose and does not need to continue. Abuse my assumption of good faith, however, and I shall not be lenient toward you thereafter.

3RR
I will rarely block for 3RR violations, because I just don't want to be dragged into the mess of distinguishing between reverts, complex reverts, and different edits. In clear-cut cases it is easy to find someone to perform the block, and in more difficult ones it takes too much time for too little benefit, to me. The 3RR rule, while well-intentioned and effective in theory, is so prone to gaming and abuse that I will not under ordinary circumstances block under it.

As a personal guideline, I prefer to follow WP:1RR, as many others have.

Admin wars
Following the example of silsor, I will not perform the same admin action more than once. That is, I will not reblock a user I have blocked if someone else unblocks; I will not remove protection from a page someone else reprotects&mdash;even if I think it needs to be done. Admin wars do more harm than failing to do or undo an action; if there are others reverting me then my position is not so clear-cut that I should stubbornly redo it; if the person who undid my action stands by his/her action, and no one else wishes to undo it, then perhaps it's not that good an idea.

Rollback and reverting
The admin rollback tool should be used only for obvious vandalism and nonsensical test edits: *not* the removal of good-faith addition of content.

Manual reversion, whether by admins or regular users, should include an appropriate edit summary. "Rv vandalism" is not appropriate on a simple "newbie test"; if there is any doubt, a simple "rv" will suffice. Calling a well-meaning (if bad) edit vandalism is worse yet; it's enough of a blow to have your good-faith additions removed, but called vandalism, too? Be gentle, and explain your reverts when they are removals of content.

Conflict of interest
It's important to avoid even the appearance of using admin rights to sway disputes you are involved in. This includes:
 * protecting a page you have made non-trivial edits to or expressed a strong opinion on
 * deleting a page you have voted to delete
 * undeleting a page you have edited or voted to keep
 * blocking a user you personally dislike, have had disputes with in the past, or are currently edit-warring with
 * unblocking a user you are known to be personally friendly with

If your decision is sound, someone will back you up; nothing terrible will happen if it takes you five minutes to find reinforcement instead of 10 seconds to do it yourself. Preferably, the party you choose will be neutral and disinterested.

Dirty laundry
Why are people so inclined to rush to WP:AN/I at the first sign of trouble rather than trying to talk to the other user first? Why make problems public and request outside intervention until you have tried and failed to resolve it privately? Surely if you have a gripe with someone it's better to try to clear it up with only that person, unless s/he is unwilling to cooperate.

Nominees
I have nominated nine people for adminship so far:
 * Requests for adminship/Antandrus
 * Requests for adminship/Bratsche
 * Requests for adminship/JesseW
 * Requests for adminship/Kelly Martin
 * Requests for adminship/Kmccoy
 * Requests for adminship/RobertG
 * Requests for adminship/Tznkai 2
 * Requests for adminship/Wgfinley
 * Amgine Requests for adminship/Amgine

All passed except for the last&mdash;and the last, in my opinion, came out absolutely wrong.