Wikipedia talk:Administrators' best practices

Does this really belong in project space?
This seems more suited for a userspace essay as it seems to be written from a fairly personal perspective. Be aware that if you lerave it here it could eventually, maybe fairly quickly, be altered in ways you never expected or desired. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with it being altered a lot. If it moves too far afield from what I think are "best practices", I will create a copy of my own advice in my own userspace. Frankly, the reason I wrote this was because I was a little surprised to find out that this kind of page never existed. If consensus is that this should be kept for a different set of explanations, I'm fine with that. I feel no more ownership of this piece now that it's been pushed out into WP-space. jps (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems a bit premature for project space, though, without having had more input yet. I think more feedback should be solicited. isaacl (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything premature about it. It's timely, relevant, and much needed. It's the opposite of premature. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are of course lots of different ways to develop community consensus on a set of best practices. It can be developed directly within project space, but typically would be flagged as under development until broader input had been received. In its current form, it has a strong informal, story-telling, editorial voice which is atypical for a community-consensus essay. I can make a copy-editing pass to make the text more direct and concise. isaacl (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's because it is an essay. Your "nothing but objections" appeal is a bit odd. Viriditas (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I never said "nothing but objections", so not sure why you've put it in quotes. Something labelled "best practices" is implying it gathers together the collective wisdom of the community, and so the essay would be more convincing with a voice that reflects this, rather than a more personal voice. isaacl (talk) 05:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See nothing but objections. Do you have any specific criticism of the actual essay? Viriditas (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't understand; I haven't raised any objections about the essay. I am interested in making it as clear as possible to communicate a strong message that reflects a consensus view, as is the key goal of any Wikipedia page. To that end, I believe a fruitful community discussion is needed to help establish consensus. isaacl (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read Essays. Essays that have community consensus are called policies or guidelines.  This essay is neither. Viriditas (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe we both wish to make this a useful guide for administrators, capturing best practices. Accordingly, I think it can benefit from more ideas than just the original author, or even the original author and you. However, if you'd rather not solicit additional feedback, that's OK, too. isaacl (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're changing the subject again. You are welcome to do whatever it is that you like.  I'm just responding to what I thought were strange comments about this essay.  I don't personally believe in the value and efficacy of Wikipedia administration in its current form, as I subscribe to a flat, democratic approach to debundling tools and solving problems, so I have little to say about admin best practices except to describe the devastation and destruction that they've caused.  Think of me as the lone survivor of a town that's been wiped off the map by an army.  That's the "best practice" I'm familiar with. Viriditas (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what topic you'd like to discuss, so I've just been trying to figure it out, because I don't think we really disagree on anything. Initially, I simply stated I thought more input was desirable. My statement regarding the presence in project space being premature is more of my bias towards building community essays, but as I said afterwards, there are lots of ways to go about it. I apologize if this is what you were referring to by trivial objections; I was not objecting to anything, but looking for more contributors to participate. We both know what essays, policies, and guidelines are, so I didn't think you really wanted to talk about that. I'm happy to discuss whatever issue you'd like to raise. isaacl (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Then let's recap: an individual editor created this essay. Think of it as an act of innovation.  An admin responded to the creation in a somewhat discouraging tone.  Then you responded, also discouraging it.  I responded noting that it was timely and relevant, and I provided areas for expansion (below).  Further discouragement from an admin followed.  If you're wondering why Wikipedia is stuck in 2004 and innovation has all but slowed down to nothing, look no farther than the current "best practices" of admins.  This is a pattern found in most online communities and organizations.  When you allow power to concentrate in fewer and fewer hands, the organization begins a slow descent into failure. Your initial response discouraging this new attempt is exactly what I'm talking about.  The blocking of new users, the deletion of new articles, and the discouragement of innovation are all hallmarks of a failed project. Viriditas (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I apologize. Personally I feel that soliciting input, which the original author said was welcome, is encouraging the community to continue to develop the essay. I can appreciate how others may feel differently though. Thus to be clear, I support having best practices written down, and encourage others to participate. (I have previously discussed capturing best practices for other roles, but I did not find sufficient interest to pursue the matter.) isaacl (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. You're not taking an evidence-based approach and analyzing admin actions and logs, you're just replacing the original editor's opinion with your own and deleting valuable information.  And like I said, I don't care; I've seen this tendency towards promoting bureaucracy and crushing innovation for too long. Viriditas (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that others prefer a more elaborate approach to laying background for their guidelines. Accordingly, I will revert my changes. isaacl (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to revert anything. And this is an essay, not a guideline.  But it would be nice if in your edits you could somehow preserve the meaning and tone of the original editor.  Of course, that isn't easy to do, as you have to put your mind in another's, and that's somewhat of a learned skill. Viriditas (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I stated, I did wish to alter the tone to a less conversational one. But as per consensus, if the desire is to keep the existing tone, that's fine. (I realize we disagree on how well the essence was preserved, so I'm happy with restoring the original text.) isaacl (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not concerned with the conversational tone, but with the general attitude and direction of the essay, in the terms set by the original editor. There is no need to restore the original text if you've managed to capture the essence and import of the original. Look, I don't believe in any of this, so I'm no going to keep responding. My point was that this essay should be given a chance to survive, like any new article. That's it.  And since I am completely irreligious when it comes to the subject of administration, I have no interest in continuing this discussion.  I am merely a metaphorical consulting obstetrician of words, who only wants to see this baby live. Viriditas (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

To any interested parties: if you have any issues with my copy edits, please feel free to revert them again (I'd do it, except I don't really want to edit war over including my own edits), in accordance with Wikipedia's guidance on the bold, revert, discuss cycle. My personal inclination is towards brevity = wit, and I think in an essay aspiring to be a highly-regarded guide, a more formal tone is more effective in communicating the message. I realize though that others may feel differently. isaacl (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Good start
Two subtopics deserve further fleshing out: More later. Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Threats and threatening admin behavior which is interpreted as bullying. Admins often threaten users without first AGF and approaching the subject of editorial behavior in a civil manner.  You've touched upon the threatening use of templates, which the community has attempted to mitigate in recent years with the development of more civil notices.  However, in many cases, admin first responders tend to reply with a heavy hand instead of the velvet glove that is needed, and very often escalate matters.
 * 2) Pathological obsession with process and bureaucracy over and above simple solutions and easy fixes. Adminship attracts people who have an unusual and abnormal obsession with rules and process, to the detriment of human interaction, communication, and dispute resolution.  Admins are a different breed of people, who feel at home in a rigid, militaristic hierarchy that most normal people tend to avoid.  There is an argument to be made that adminship causes more problems than it solves, perpetuates systemic bias through its foundational ignorance and refusal to solve problems before they fester, and its rampant disregard for individuals and personalities, and refusal to discriminate between good and bad values.
 * Your point number two couldn't be more wrong, A great many admins that I know know that WP:IAR is of the most important rules we have. The problem is that if we dare to say we are ignoring a rule, some members of the community will jump down our throat fdor not slavishly adhering to the exact letter of the rules. I find that tendency much more often in new page and vandal patrollers, who see themselves as wiki-cops and get mad at admins when they won't delete something or block someone based on the patroller's assessment of the situation.
 * The threatening thing, ont he other hand, is a legitimate problem. The crux of it is that a threat and a warning look pretty much the same. When an admin tells someone tht if they keep up what they are doing they will end up blocked, what they are usually trying to do is help that person avoid being blocked.
 * I've been on both sides of this coin. I recall a time when an admin told me that what I thought was a prefectly innocuous talk page comment warranted a block and that he would block me if he weren't involved in the same discussion. When I asked him to explain what the problem was as I honestly did not see it, he refused to do so and asked me (demanded, really) to elaborate on my motivations in posting the comment. I refused to do that since I didn't see the problem with it, and he made out like he was then going to go find an uninvolved admin to block me. Luckily he either didn't do that or it didn't work, but to this day I have no idea what the actual problem was.
 * That sort of thing is to be avoided, but at the same time we need to let users know when they are heading for trouble so that they have an honest chance to avoid it. This, again, is not soleley an administrative problem and is often seen coming from new page and vandalism patrollers. I have had to apologize to newbies for their overzealous behavior on many occasions.


 * TLDR version: these problems exist but by no means are limited to admins only. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes the second point is wrong. But the insertion of the word "These" at the beginning of the third sentence would make it right. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC).

Review
Like teachers who are branded as villains by the errant school children they are obliged to admonish, admins invariably come under attack from editors they warn or block - and then also from some they don't (loosely described as the uncoordinated and non cohesive architypes of the anti-admin brigade - only those who self-identify with this group need to feel embarrased). This essay will be taken with a pinch of cynicism by its target audience. Written by a non-admin, and as such by an editor who cannot possibly know what it is like to be a sysop, this essay has a very clear spin against admins and comes across as a patronising piece of finger wagging by someone who has an axe to grind. I'm not so enthralled by the bit about handing out punishments. All sanctions are supposed to be preventative and this rule is respected by most admins although the very reason I became interested in what adminship is all about all those years ago is because I was team bullied by two teenage admins (since fortunately either desysoped or grown up and found a new hobby away from the Wiki).

, a professional writer and long-term front-line admin, makes some important observations, while it is hardly surprising for it to find strong support from other users who share a marked dim view of admins, but who appear to have failed to grasp why they have been the subject of several adminstrative sanctions. My advice to the author is to run for adminship; he seems to be fully qualified but if he fails it would be no big deal, if he succeeds it would be no big deal either, but unlike a leopard, he would almost certainly change his spots. The work is clearly a biased opinion and hence not worthy of the epithet of 'guidance'; TL;DR anyway, it really belongs in user space. I will add a link to it on WP:RFAADVICE but even there, I think it will be regarded with a certain scepsis by most of the mature candidates. Kudos nevertheless for its excellent style and use of English - something that is sadly generally lacking on the en.Wiki. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I commend the admins who have commented here because they have shown an admirable amount of professionalism and restraint over what appears to be a lump-summed, all-out attack on administrators. While I've had my share of issues over the unwarranted actions of one or two admins over the years, common sense tells me there will always be the occasional bad apples in every bunch, as well as recipients of an admin decision that was not favorable. I've imagined walking in an admin's shoes and can't help but respect the position.  I still believe there are far more GF admins sincerely trying to do a good job than there are problematic ones.  Disclosure: I did my best to stay away from commenting here because of my prior history with its creator; however, this essay is such a blatant slap in the face to administrators that I felt obligated to express my opposition to it.  I actually expected to see a great deal more sensitivity to the potential repercussions that may stem from this essay.  I agree with the way  described it.  This essay isn't anywhere near being ready for namespace, and may even create unnecessary disruption for administrators. Is it even compliant with WP:PAG?  I would certainly support an MfD but must recuse myself as a potential nominator. Atsme 📞📧 00:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)