Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the new administrators

Since I opposed on the grounds of no discussion, I thought I should start the discussion. My generally-fuzzy feelings about this are:
 * Biting is generally unnecessary.
 * Administrators should expect to be held accountable for every one of their admin actions.
 * Administrators should have a sound grasp of a policy before deploying admin powers to enforce it.
 * Administrators should have a sound grasp of guidelines, too.
 * Administrators should take into account the 'way we do things' by reading around before doing it themselves, whilst still being WP:BOLD.
 * When admins get it wrong, they should expect to find it reported on WP:AN/I or similar. They should not feel put-upon when this happens; we have to have some way of reversing mistakes quickly and it is not uncommon for a user to log off having done their stuff for the day.
 * People should nevertheless understand that "to err is human", and politely pointing out an admin's mistake on their talk page will usually suffice.

In sum, then, I do not think a new policy or guideline is needed since the above is all fairly obvious (and certainly should be to any potential admin). It is basic Wikiquette, with a helping of admin-responsibility and accountability added in. -Splash 20:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ahem, go to WP:AN/I. MTG seems a bit bitten by Tony Sidaway. Yes admins probably should have a firm grasp however the buttons are just so shiny, and you don't get better until you get worse. They have to protect their first page and delete their first article and block their first user at some point, no? I'm sure even Angela has made mistakes, albeit years ago. I just mean let's not report admins in their first week and to warn them first. And no this policy idea hasn't been obvious to many as newbie admins are bitten often. Think of it this way, if you get promoted to a new job, you're not gonna know all the aspects of that job. I'm sure you'll make a mistake or two there. Redwolf24 20:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I figured MTG was what you had in mind, and I followed that debate in near real-time. Tony Sidaway was well within process to take the issue to AN/I, although he could perhaps have used more mellow language in places. I do not think that having "shiny buttons" is an excuse for pressing them. And for not reporting admins in their first week: do you mean we should leave their mistakes in place for a week? How else to help correct them (esp. when there are so many as in the MTG case) than to publcize them. I'm sure I would make mistakes, yes, but I would want to be told about them, and hope people would help fix them. However, that is no kind of an excuse for not reading the policy in detail before being attracted to your shiny new buttons. It's one of the reasons I oppose RfA's for lack of experience; it causes less stress after the award of the buttons if the new admin knows how to use them in the first place. -Splash 21:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well yes the admin is warned, like a newbie who made a mistake. Yes admins are expected to be more experienced but do you honestly expect a newbie admin to automatically be as good as our most experienced admins just because they read the admin reading list? Redwolf24 21:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The admin's reading list is of less importance (imo) than things like WP:DP, WP:CSD and WP:BLOCK since they will generally cause the biggest hiatus if done incorrectly. I do think that reading those carefully will make a difference, how can it not? It will not make you an Admin God, of course, but it will help smooth the initial bumps and lumps which is what we're talking about here.
 * Note that I do not oppose the principle of the suggestion here: "give the new guy/gal a break &mdash; (s)he screwed up and (s)he's sorry". I think the suggestion is so obviously correct that it shouldn't need a poll (I'd prefer that to just be closed, but will not be so bold). I'm perfectly happy to be sympathetic toward new admins; if I were not I should not be editing WP. But I don't like the implication that it's not ok to use WP:AN/I for a week, or whatever, or that you should not message a new admin if other people already have (on the assumption you have something new to point out). In this respect, I was particularly impressed by Essjay' request that his immediate deletion log be checked over by someone, and that is a proposal that might be worthwhile. -Splash 22:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear you were impressed, however, I think Tony was completely out of line in what he said. If he had been a professor in my department when I was a department head and had attacked a new TA or prof the way he attacked MTG, I would have had him on the carpet and out the door. That kind of behavior is inappropriate in the real world, and it is inappropriate on here. Perhaps Wikipedia would be better off if everyone who has contributed since the "experienced admins" started here left, all contributions made since that time were reverted, and no new users were accepted. That is the statement that actions like the ones over MTG give: If you haven't been here since 2002 and you don't know everything right now, you aren't welcome here. This policy is a greatly needed wake up call to the old timers, particularly given that first time vandalizers are given a nicer warning than MTG was given. Had Tony warned a newbie with "I shouldn't have to follow you around cleaning up your mistakes" he would have been burned at the stake; as it is, he's being consoled that he wasn't successful at getting MTG to quit the project. -- Essjay ·  Talk 22:05, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * There is something of a "bow to old timers" attitude around in places, this is true, although that is most easily ignored by being WP:BOLD. The main reason for my opposition in the "poll" is that there is no need for a poll in the first place. Equally, presuming this is eventually supported, as it should be, it could never become more than a guideline, just as WP:BITE has not. There is a subtle but important difference between guidance and policy. -Splash 22:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the poll... Then don't vote! I thought that was the point of polls are evil. Abstain rather than Wolf Vote. Plus guidlines such as WP:NPA have kept Wikipedia a great place. Redwolf24 22:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ahem, my mistake. NPA is a policy. However WP:BITE is probably the best known guidline and most practiced. Regardless of its title its still widely practiced, as this should be too. Redwolf24 22:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a good idea. Please reword it as necessary whenever there are significant objections on the talk page. It is not generally necessary to hold a poll to establish a guideline, especially if it's common sense (and therefore I've removed it). Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 21:23, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well WP:BITE and WP:NPA seem like common sense but there was a time at which they had to pass too I'm sure. Anywho his objections are based on he doesn't think we should make anymore pages, so I can't change accordingly. Redwolf24 04:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neither of those was actually put to a vote. Nor, in fact, were most guidelines. And I was referring to objections to this proposal, rather than objections to any proposal in general (on grounds that there are too many pages here, for instance). The latter aren't particularly relevant to this case, and I'm sure people would realize the irony of proposing that there shall be no further proposals. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:25, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not proposing "no new proposals". In fact, my rephrasing of this proposal leaves me fairly happy with it. It asks that people be nice to new admins, but that new admins tread carefully in exchange (which seems only reasonable). I am slightly dubious of the need to separate this from WP:BITE, but that's already quite a long page so perhaps it is better separated. It ought to be linked from it, though to give it some publicity. So yes, I essentially reverse the effect of my final sentence of my first comment way back up top. -Splash 15:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

My personal (non-admin) opinion on this proposal is that noob admins should be very cautious with their new toys, and if I was writing the proposal, it would not be about new admins, but for admins, and would be titled something like "Dont @#$! up on your first day". Almost all new admins do a good job, but I think that every new admin still needs some sort of reminder to be careful. Blank Verse  &empty;  09:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was why I rephrased it a bit from its original form. I don't think this guideline should be hide-behindable (though people would just ignore it if it were, I think). -Splash 15:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig's thoughts
I have to say, although I very much respect where this proposal is coming from, I don't see that there is a glaring need for policy proposal here. I've reviewed the comments on AN/I regarding MTG...I have to say that I thought Tony was not out of line there -- he seemed calm enough to me, and when Snowspinner complimented MTG's hard work, Tony was quick to agree. I think Tony may have been a little stronger on MTG's talk page, but I think there is an important distinction there -- if I was going to choose a place for stronger rebuke, and a place for more restraint, I'm glad Tony chose restraint in the more public forum.

In general (much as it pains me to say it, since I'm apparently an "old hand" these days, or close enough), I don't think we'll have as many problems from old hands barking at the new admins, as we will from old hands feeling skittish about confronting new admins if this rule is in place. All admins, newest to oldest, need to recognize that any non-admin is wary of them -- our "special powers" make many mistrust us. We need to be extra vigilant that we are careful with those powers. I don't believe that anybody should be personally abused here. But I think that, if a new admin appears to be going off the deep end a little, a few stern words are a reasonable response. To use Essjay's analogy, if a professor had observed me as a new TA (back in the day) tossing perfectly good term papers in the wastebasket without grading them, I'd expect some harsh words. Not insults to my mother, of course, but harsh words. I agree that we should be careful about not overwhelming people with rebukes when they're well-meaning and just a little green. But that's Civility and Wikilove, and I'd like to have it granted to me too as an "old hand" if I have a momentary lapse.

I hate to keep coming back to Garrett (who accepted the criticism very well, and has, as far as I know, done a splendid job since), but that's the reason this exists. And I feel part of the trouble was that Garrett wasn't quick to respond to talk messages. It wasn't one mistake that 15 people piled on. It was multiple mistakes, and notes over several horus while mistakes continued to crop up. Once Garrett responded to the criticism, as far as I can tell, the maelstrom ended. So I don't think it's a real problem -- the indication to me is that, had Garrett responded immediately on his talk page, only 1 or 2 of us would have ever contacted him. I did apologize to Garrett if I offended him (I do so again now), but I don't think the reaction was unnaturally fierce.

In short, I think everybody should be cut a little slack, but that administration is a vital job here that needs to be handled with care. If newbie admins are getting out of line and then feel they're smacked around too hard, I'd humbly suggest we do a better job of preparing them for the task they are accepting, rather than trying to stifle criticism -- as yet, I haven't seen it be an enormous problem. Sorry so long-winded, Jwrosenzweig 07:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That's gotta be the longest note I've ever read at wiki as I normally skip over em... Anyways you raise some excellent points I must admit so now Im rather neutral... Redwolf24 23:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I really can't decide what to say. My mind hasn't been changed in the least. I'm sorry I missed where it said "No personal attacks unless the attackee makes an innocent mistake." -- Essjay ·  Talk 12:29, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I respect you and your judgment, Essjay, so I'd like to know more about your response, if you don't mind my asking? Which particular comments raised themselves to the level of personal attacks?  I don't recall having seen any that I felt qualifed as such, but I fully and freely admit that I may have read too hastily, or missed a forum in which they occurred.  If that did happen, you're right that it's completely wrong.


 * But I would still argue that this policy is unnecessary. If somebody personally attacks an admin (new or old), that's a violation of WP:NPA anyway you slice it.  I don't think anyone (certainly not me) is suggesting that it's okay to personally attack another admin.  All I'm saying is that being an admin is not always an easy thing, and it's the responsibility of an admin to let another admin know when they think policy isn't being followed.  If it appears no one is listening to your concerns, you make a bit more noise.  New and old admins alike need to recognize that actions like blocking users and deleting pages can have serious consequences (even if they are easily reversible in most instances).  What I'm saying is that normal Wikipedia standards of civility apply to new admins, but that they don't (shouldn't, at least) need kid glove handling.  New users...they need to figure out how this place works, and they can't do that unless they fiddle with things a bit.  New admins, though, clearly know this place, know something about policy, and have experienced users who trust them (enough to support their RFA, at least) to ask questions of.  And if their early actions as an admin reveal a misunderstanding of policy, I think they need to be told pretty directly (though, I fully agree with you, not rudely).


 * If I'm missing a point you're making, please tell me. This may be a topic on which we'll have to disagree.  But I suspect it won't, since as far as I can tell what upsets both you and Redwolf (rightly) is the idea of new admins being personally attacked, and I agree that that is already against policy and furthermore is outright wrong.  I hope we can continue to chat about this here -- thanks for being willing to discuss this. Jwrosenzweig 22:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

First, I want to make apologies to MTG, as this entire discussion has been something of a "behind the scenes" discussion of his situation. Anywho, with my apologies for discussing him ad nauseaum:

From WP:NPA:
 * Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. (Emphasis added.) Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse.


 * Remember that disputes on talk pages are accessible to everyone on the Internet. The way in which you conduct yourself on Wikipedia reflects on Wikipedia and on you. Stay cool.


 * Specific examples of personal attack include but are not limited to:
 * Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."


 * It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. Personal attacks against any user - regardless of his/her past behaviour - is contrary to this spirit.

There were commments made on MTG's talk page that included phrases like "I shouldn't have to trail around cleaning up your mess.," "You don't have to be an administrator if you don't want to take on the responsibilities associated with the job," "[C]arefully read the deletion policy and try to follow it." I feel that each one in itself is a "negative personal comment" and thus violates NPA, but more so is, as my mother would have said, the tone in which it was said. (Another reason to be careful of what you type, since the nonverbal elements are not present to make your meaning clear.) When I read those comments (and again when I re-read them in order to paste them here) I see this message "between the lines": You aren't good enough to be an admin, you obviously can't handle the job, you never should have been given powers, and Wikipedia would be a better place if you just left.

Do the comments necessarily have to say that? No. However, to someone who just took the job (and at the time, I was in that boat too), had been at it less than eight hours, and was trying to be bold and cleanup the problems that everyone complains about but does little to fix (an admirable quality in admins, perhaps if some of the old guard spent less time criticizing the new admins and more time fixing problems, Wikipedia really would be a better place) that is exactly what it can say (and that's exactly what it said to me.) As I've said, if those comments had been directed at me, I would have left the project, period. I know that my first days were filled with worries about being an admin: ''Am I going to make the wrong decision in closing a VfD and spend the rest of my time at Wikipedia being hated by everybody else? Am I going to be overzealous with blocking and end up at RfAr? Am I going to protect a page, only to be called an idiot by everybody at AN/I? Am I going to be the sixth person 'ever to be de-Admined? Being a new administrator is a time of anxiety, and the solution that has been proposed is don't use your admin powers until you know what you're doing'', but we learn by doing.

I don't think new admins need kid glove handling, and I would never support a policy of "let the new admins do what they want and don't say anything about it." What I do support is a policy that says "Do not add to the existing stress of another user by being a dick because new admins represent valued contributors to this site and if valued contributors to leave the site because you are too much of a dick to be civil, then you should be dragged into the middle of the street, tarred, feathered, tortured, hung, drawn, quartered, crushed by elephant, and condemned to the ninth circle of Hell for all eternity."

What I am saying is: WP:BITE is meant as a reminder that the way new users learn is by making mistakes, and that if established users do not tread carefully, good contributors will be scared off by a grumpy user who screams You idiot, what the hell are you doing? By the same token, BITE-A is meant as a reminder that all admins were new admins once, and that new admins have enough anxiety, they do not need bad-tempered users who have lower user numbers than User:Jimbo Wales to jump all over them when they make a mistake. The best policy for addressing new admins is: fix the problem, and then calmly and courteously alert the new admin that what they did was problematic, and offer your assistance if they have further questions, just like you would for a new user. To paraphrase one of the attacks on MTG: "You don't have to correct new administrators if you don't want to take on the responsibilities associated with helping them learn the job."

I hope this helps clarify. I respect Jwrosenzweig a great deal, and I respect the view that this policy proposal restates policy that is already in existance. However, there is quite a bit in the project namespace that is redundant, and we mantain it because it makes our point more clearly to say WP:DICK than Civility and to say WP:BITE rather than WikiLove. The point here is, sometimes it would be appropriate to say Please do not bite the new administrators. I think the most concise statement of the policy and my position are the words of my grandmother, burned into my memory: "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." -- Essjay ·  Talk 05:21, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Gaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! Too long. Have anyone of you heard of short and sweet! I want to read this, but it's way to long to read. Howabout1 Talk to me! 05:27, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * S'ok, I'll read it for you. -Splash 05:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

No prob. I'll avoid commenting in future. -- Essjay ·  Talk 06:44, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please don't! You made excellent points.  If people don't want to stop and read our conversation, that's fine, but I for one appreciate the time and care you took!  Below is what I was editconflicted in posting after you posted this. :-) Jwrosenzweig


 * For your sake, I shall continue my commentary. ; - ) -- Essjay ·  Talk 08:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Essjay, I don't agree that all three of those are necessarily personal attacks as defined by policy (the third doesn't rise to it, in my opinion, unless I forcibly assume an excessively harsh tone), but I agree that the first two could (and should) have been said in much different ways. The first two definitely (and perhaps the 3rd....though I really don't see that particular comment in the way you do) aren't good examples of Wikilove, I grant you.  I guess being a new admin when I was one (back in the days when wild poodles roamed the Earth and Wikipedia's Main Page urged us to shoot for the goal of 100,000 articles) was a lot more stress-free....I don't remember feeling any of those things, at least.  Well, with your opinion so clearly stated, I'll hesitantly agree that a policy like this one is a good idea.  I'd still argue that policy needs to do more to cut both ways -- to encourage care on the part of new admins (which I don't think is sufficiently emphasized....I think most new admins do a stellar job, but it only takes one going nuts every few months to reinforce the poor image all admins get tarred with) as well as rightly emphasizing good conduct towards new admins on the part of old ones.  Being bold is all well and good, but I think when you're new on the job, stopping and getting feedback after your first few deletions, blocks, protections, etc., will really go a long ways to making everyone's wiki-experience better.  I personally dislike negatives and prefer positives in policy here (I have never in my life referred anyone to WP:DICK and only once to WP:BITE, as I recall...I always prefer to promote Civility and Wikilove because I think that gives us something to strive for rather than to avoid), but if new admins feel this would make their jobs easier and their pulses calmer, I'm all in favor of both goals.  Perhaps this offers a sort of compromise between my viewpoint and yours, emphasizing the need to deal gently and fairly with new admins while simultaneously asking of them an elevated level of care and a more considered pace?  I'll await your reply with interest. Jwrosenzweig 06:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember the order the three comments came in, but assuming that I put them in order, #3 assumes the tone of #1 & #2, and I see the intent as "You were obviously either too lazy to read the policy or too stupid to follow it." Nonetheless, I know my first few days were very stressful, and I was very careful to ask where I thought I should, avoid what I wasn't sure of, and in general pratice good CYA. I certainly agree that new admins should excersise caution in thier duties, and my intent was not (and I think I said this somewhere, but I don't remember where) to suggest that MTG was innocent of any judgement lapses. My point was simply that an innocent (read: good faith) mistakes should not be treated with anywhere near the hostility that one would direct towards the return of Willy on Wheels. I fully support adding a strong caution for new admins that they should be very careful of what they do. Honestly, I think an idea that should be considered is automatic review of every new admin's logs for a set period of time (e.g. first day's logs, first three day's logs) just to keep an eye on them, but the caveat must be rigorously enforced that when correcting a new admin, it must be done with civility and perhaps, greater care towards the user's feelings than one would normally excercise.

I agree with the view towards neagtives; while I don't see WP:BITE as a negative, this discussion is the first time I've made reference to WP:DICK becuase I think refering someone to it borders on being a personal attack. (It automatically implies "You're a dick" which is a PA.) I used it here because it conveyed the pure hatred I have for any action which serves to attack and/or drive away good contributors. I don't think there is a devergence in our opinions at all: We both believe that new admins should strive to avoid mistakes, that they should be strongly cautioned to do so, and that when the inevitible mistakes does occur, it must be corrected, but must be corrected with compassion, rather than hostility. (Suddenly I find myself thinking "WWJD: What Would Jimbo Do?") I think we both believe that good contributors are essential to our project, and that every effort must be made to avoid biting any editor (except vandals, of course). The difference in opinion, if one exists, is that I believe incivility that has the potential for costing our project valued contributors should be a capital crime. A betrayal of our core values on the level of driving away valued contributors is treason and should be treated as such. Now, where did I put my guillotine? -- Essjay ·  Talk 08:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC)