Wikipedia talk:Administrators' best practices

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:Administrators' best practices

Is this really included in the project space?

To interested parties: if you have any problems with editing my copy please feel free to revert (I will do so, unless I do not really want to edit the war including my own edit), according to the Wikipedia guide on thick cycles, return it, discuss it. My personal inclination is toward kegesitan = intelligence, and I think in an essay that aspires to be a highly respected guide, a more formal tone is more effective in communicating the message. I realize that others may feel different. isaacl (talk) 07:47, November 25, 2015 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Administrators' best practices

Good start

Two subtopics are eligible to continue refreshing:

1. Threats and threatening admin behavior are interpreted as bullying. Admin often threatens users without the first AGF and approaches the subject of editorial behavior in a civil manner. You have touched the use of threatening templates that the community has been trying to mitigate in recent years with the development of more civilian notifications. However, in many cases, the first respondent admin tends to retaliate with a heavy hand, not the required velvet glove, and very often escalates the problem.
2. Pathological obsession with processes and bureaucracy above and above simple solutions and easy fixes. Adminship attracts people who have an unusual and abnormal obsession with rules and processes, to the detriment of human interaction, communication, and dispute resolution. Admin is a different kind of person, who feels 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 is solved, perpetuates systemic bias through fundamental ignorance and refusal to solve problems before they deteriorate, and rampant degrading to individuals and personalities, and refusal to distinguish between good and bad values.

Later. Viridity (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your number two points can not be more wrong, There are so many admins I know that WP: IAR is the most important rule we have. The problem is if we dare to say that we ignore the rules, some members of the community will jump into our throats not in slavery to obey the proper rules of the rules. I find that tendency more frequent in new pages and vandal patrollers, who see themselves as police-wikis and angry at the admin when they will not remove something or block someone based on the patroler's assessment of the situation.

The threatening, on the other hand, is a valid matter. The essence of it is that threats and warnings look almost the same. When an admin tells someone that if they follow what they do, they will end up blocked, what they usually try to do is help that person avoid blocking .

I'm on both sides of this coin. I remember a time when an admin informed me that what I thought was a harmless talkshow comment was a bloc and that he would block me if he was not involved in the same discussion. When I asked him to explain what the problem was because I really did not see it, he refused to do it and asked me (demanding, really) to outline my motivation in posting comments. I refused to do that because I did not see a problem with it, and he made like he would then go looking for an irresponsible admin to block me. Fortunately he did not do that or did not work, but to this day I do not know what the real problem is.

Such a thing should be avoided, but at the same time we need to notify users when they are headed for trouble so they have an honest chance of avoiding it. This, again, is not an administrative problem and is often seen coming from new pages and patrol vandalism. I have to apologize to the beginners for their overzealous behavior on many occasions.

TLDR version: this problem exists but is not limited to admins only. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

src: i0.wp.com

Review

Like teachers who are labeled as criminals by wrong schoolchildren, they are obliged to reprimand, the admin is always attacked from the editor they warned or blocked - and then also from some that they did not (loosely described as uncoordinated architypes and not cohesive from the anti-admin brigade - only those who identify with this group need to feel ashamed).

This essay will be taken with a little cynicism by its target audience. Written by a non-admin, and by an editor who can not possibly know what it's like to be a sysop, this essay has a very clear spin on the admin and comes up as a finger-dripping footprint heralded by someone who has an ax to do something. I am not so fascinated by a bit about handing out punishment. All sanctions should be preventative and these rules are respected by most admins although the reason I became interested in what the administration was all years ago was because I was bullied by two teenage admins (because fortunately either down or grow and find a new hobby away from the Wiki).

Beeblebrox, a long-term professional writer and front-line admin, made some important observations, while it's hardly surprising to find strong support from other users who share the dim view of admins, but apparently fail to understand why they are the subject of some administrative sanctions. My advice to writers is to run the administration; he seems to be completely qualified but if he fails, it's not a big deal, if he succeeds, it's also not a big deal, but unlike the leopard, he will almost certainly change his position. This work is clearly a biased opinion and therefore unfit for the nickname 'guidance'; TL; DR, it actually belongs in user space. I will add a link to WP: RFAADVICE but even there, I think it will be considered with certain scepsis by most mature candidates. Kudos stick to excellent style and use of English - something that is unfortunately generally less on id.Wiki. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 08:05, December 6, 2015 (UTC)

I commend the admins who have commented here because they have shown amazing professionalism and refrained from what appears to be a lump-summed, all-out attack on administrators. Although I have shared the problem of unwarranted acts of one or two admins over the years, common sense tells me there will always be occasional bad apples in each group, as well as unprofitable admissions decision takers. I imagine walking in the shoes of the admin and can not help but respect the position. I still believe there are more GF admins who are sincerely trying to do the job well than the problem. Disclosure: I try my best not to comment here because of my previous history with its creator; However, this essay is a blatant slap on the faces of administrators who I feel are obliged to express my opposition to it. I really hope to see more sensitivity to the potential impact that may come from this essay. I agree with the way Kudpung describes it. This essay is not anywhere near ready for a namespace, and can even create unnecessary annoyances for administrators. Does this even fit WP: PAG? I would definitely support the MfD but should resign as a potential candidate. Atsme < soup> ?? 00:02, December 7, 2015 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia