User:NoSeptember/admin policy

< The NoSeptember Admin Project

These are the policies or philosophies about how admins should interact with each other, as found on the user pages of various admins.

Some admins have extensive comments on their admin philosophy, usually contained in a user subpage. These pages are listed here.

AmiDaniel
I am not infallible. Regardless of any policies to the contrary, feel free to revert any of my actions if you believe them to be mistaken or unwise. If I believe you have wrongly reverted any of my actions, I will not revert again until we have discussed the matter.

Lbmixpro
I mostly use my admin powers for deletion, anti-vandalism, ban enforcement and unblock request handling. However, we all make mistakes. Other admins: If policy allows, feel free to revert any admin actions I have performed if you believe them to be mistaken or unwise.

Mel Etitis
Admins. The vast majority of admins with whom I've had contact have been helpful, considerate, and professional in their approach. They're human, though, and occasionally one will develop a blind spot with regard to some issue, or a far from disinterested approach, and act against Wikipedia rules. What seems to happen then is that either their behavior is ignored by other admins, or (especially when the clamour of ordinary users is loud) they're subjected to a mild finger-wagging. If non-admins had behaved in the same way, they'd likely have been blocked from editing for a while &mdash; either generally or on a specific article or topic. Simple fairness demands the same treatment for the same behaviour &mdash; but given that admins are in fact expected to behave better than ordinary editors, it would seem right that they should be treated more strictly when they fall well short. Now that I am an admin, I hold the same view, incidentally. Finger waggers. There's a small group of editors, mainly or wholly admins who have been here for a while, who seem to spend more time lecturing other admins than working on the encyclop&aelig;dia. Their edit histories typically show an articles-to-Talk/Wikipedia pages ration of 50:50 at best, often very much lower. Together with the many vandals and fanatics who try to take possession of certain articles, they make life here a lot less pleasant and productive than it could be.
 * Update. After a brief holiday from Wikipedia of a couple of months or so, I discovered that most of the main culprits had been de-sysopped in my absence.  One stress reduced...

See this comment on admin rollback.

Also see this entertaining thread.

NoSeptember
My Admin Policy: I trust that my fellow admin's actions are done for the good of Wikipedia. So if any of my admin actions are overturned I will not consider such an action to be a "Wheel War", but rather an attempt to improve Wikipedia. If I disagree with your action, I will try to discuss it with you or with the admin community, but I absolve you in advance of any presumption of acting improperly. We should all extend the same benefit of the doubt to our fellow admins, until they repeatedly prove that they are unworthy of such a presumption.

This policy was discussed here, and is currently being used by or was once used by these admins: NoSeptember, BigDT, Lar, B, and Rlevse.

the wub
I invite scrutiny of all my actions on Wikipedia, especially those that involve admin privileges. If you have concerns then please contact me. Note to other admins: feel free to undo or overrule any of my admin actions if you think it will benefit Wikipedia. It would be nice if you drop me a message telling me, but you don't have to wait around for me to reply and I certainly won't shout at you for "wheel warring".

Uncle Ed (Ed Poor) former admin, a statement by
With his usual self-deprecation and wry humour, this old fart will now weigh in.

Be bold can often work. I've tested the bounds and even gone over the bounds many times. But I've never gotten myself blocked. There are over 400 sysops, and I've never been blocked even for 3 minutes. And I've pulled some awful stunts, they tell me. But most of the time, I manage to bring it off.

Why does it work? Because everyone agrees that it works.

Why does it fail? It fails when too many people think that it's gone too far.

And when being bold is not enough, you simply have to back off. Leave it alone, or get help. But you can't be the Lone Ranger when the whole town wants to lynch you. And that was 's error. He never really cared enough about what other people think.

Now I'm not perfect either, and even though most of the time I am smugly sure that I know better than the whole lot of you:
 * I realize that I'm human and fallible
 * I really do care what you all think
 * I really don't want to hurt anyone's feelings
 * I care about the success of this project

When  will adopt one or two more of the above bullet points, he'll be able to come back. And I'll be the first to welcome him, and to take his part if anyone gives him a hard time. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 00:06, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Vaoverland
Briefly, here are some of the key points I feel pertinent to my role as an administrator for WP:

1. Setting an example - Over the past few years, we have been raising the bar for credibility of Wikipedia content, and I am embracing that. I feel that I need to set an example, while continuing to try to improve the quality and volume of my work. My activities include helping and sometimes leading efforts in specific projects and articles and making sure we have quality, verifiability, and timely results.

2. Assisting, mentoring - I have occasionally been contacted by other Wikipedians for advice, and I find such request flattering, since I feel I am still learning myself. If I can help, I am glad to do so, or direct the request to another Wikipedian who can. I have met some fine folks in this manner.

3. Mediation and assistance - I try to be very evenhanded in assisting other and mediating disputes. I strive for moderate and reasonable actions, and I will mediate conflicts and respond to communications with a willingness to say "I am sorry" and/or "You were right" as well as gently try to make any points or criticisms (hopefully constructive) necessary. I am thankful others take responsibility for more complicated matters of dispute, since I would rather work on content than conflicts, However, I realize that each is part of maintaining and improving Wikipedia.

4. User politics - Having retired from heading a business with a peak of 200 employees, I am not into power games. I do understand that, especially with volunteer organizations, participants who contribute their efforts tend to feel they have made an investment in the organization. In urging a user to "back down" in a conflict with another, perhaps we should always remind all parties that, while the rights and feelings of individuals within it do matter, the good and integrity of the overall organization must always be our highest priority.

5. Maintaining and watching articles - On my watchlist are several thousand articles, and for a far lesser number, I am flagged on the talk pages of many as a user who actively maintains the article. Those activities help me have some communications with other editors seeking to improve an article, etc. Unless I see something that is clearly vandalism, if appropriate, I prefer to approach the other from the perspective that we may accomplish more through collaboration that working independently.

Zoe
Philosophy of the moment I believe that Wikipedia admins need to spend more time talking to each other and less time reverting other admins' actions. I believe that Wheel war is an important guideline, and should be policy. I believe that, if admins spent more time talking to each other and less time trying to be first at reverting somebody else, there would be more collegiality and less stress around here.

User pages checked so far: From La - Mc