RfA Notes:
Tools I have: Account creator, Autopatrolled, File mover, Pending changes reviewer, Rollbacker.
Where I often wish I had the mop:
- Revdel, protecting users who are attacked or outed, and protection of BLPs
- RPP, oftentimes, quick action ratchets down drama and gets people to collaborate and compromise if they aren't edit-warring
- Closing assorted discussions that have run their course - those only admins can close. Keeping things open too long generates more heat than light
- Blocking obvious vandals
- BLP violations in general
Why do I want to be an admin??
- To address issues and problems directly rather than reporting them and waiting. Protecting articles and blockomg an obvious vandal, deleting or undeleting a page.
- Afd: I tend to be an inclusionist, but for that reason, if I think it's a "delete", I suspect that my decision would be upheld if appealed. I would probably have to recuse on any AfD involving cricket or soccer players from Sri Lanka, as that's sort of my litmus test for GNG.
About WP:INVOLVED
- Easy for me to decide I need to recuse; I am quick to acknowledge my own biases. Up front, I won't be able to use the mop for most horse-related articles, though I may discuss the parameters of this restriction, it would be most helpful to semi-protect articles or block vandals who do obvious vandalism like this, this, or this.
- That said, recusal and WP:INVOLVED doesn't mean that an admin does not begin to opinions based on the circumstances and needs to make a decision that will most likely make at least one side unhappy. There is a need for considerable discretion, but having stepped in for the first time as an admin doesn't mean you don't form an opinion. That opinion doesn't make you "involved" if you have no previous involvement.
On the other hand, an admin sometimes can act as an ordinary user, but must not use the mop in such a situation. I learned this lesson from working on some articles involving the New Kadampa Tradition, a new religious movement that some consider a cult. I thought that, because I am not a Buddhist, but had familiarity with the issue as someone interested in Tibet and human rights (I've been a member of Amnesty International from time to time) so I could be neutral in my analysis. Turned out that I tried really hard to be objective, but ultimately came down on one side and became an advocate for that position. Had I been an admin, I would have needed to recuse myself from using the mop and could only comment and contribute as an ordinary user.
Pages of wisdom:
Ideas for replies: 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I can step in where needed in a variety of areas. I am very interested in revdel and protecting BLP articles. I am interested in vandal blocking, would be willing to do CSD and XfD closes. Discuss block/unblock requests
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Content!
- With over 75,000 edits, I have become familiar with all the aspects of the encyclopedia.
- I created the pony prize
- I did a few WP:3O cases a few years back and found it rather unrewarding, as usually the parties just were bringing a win-lose drama attitude to 3O and had little interest in actually meeting in the middle, each hoped to be found to be "right". I have recently begun participating at DR/N to participate in another forum where there was a need for me to be a neutral third party who could remain calm and helpful in situations where I had no previous involvement. Though I have only done a couple rounds of mediation and the parties were not able to reach an agreement, I do think I did well to remain fair to both sides, "sharpen the horns of the dilemma" to clarify the issues in dispute and suggest some ways to look at the impasse that might break it loose.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: In nine years of editing, I have dealt with numerous disputes and often considerable stress! Sockpuppets, trolls, tendentious editors, POV-pushing and so on. I have different approaches to stress, depending on the context:
- I feel I have risen to my best in learning how to navigate the FAC process, which is tedious, painstaking and requires that I put my own feelings aside about "my" work in order to bring an article up to a high standard; I am "involved" in having put dozens of hours and hundreds of edits into an article, yet have to let go of all that to stay calm and neutral throughout a month-long process. Originally I could only do this in concert with a team, where I had to have others help peel me off the ceiling at certain points. Over the years, I began to work on FA-class articles mostly on my own, especially about race horses and have been particularly proud of handling the BLP issues that surround the people who are connected to these animals, most recently the now-GA-class article Ahmed Zayat, and his horse American Pharoah; Zayat is very, very controversial (read the article for why) and there was some edit-warring and drama about the article that I think would up being handled very well. I sought collaborators, I learned to trust and work well with people I had not worked with, I brought in other users with relevant expertise when a question arose where I lacked sufficient background to answer. I also had to request page protection and deal with some trolls who had issues linked to Mr. Zayat's various controversies.
- I have a very different approach where I am mostly or completely neutral. Where I am trying to sort out a dispute, I take some time to review both/all sides, but I eventually form a "theory of the case" that helps me see if there is a way to resolve matters and move forward. Sometimes, I may form an opinion but I can also see it's going nowhere and then I just have to walk away. It is not easy for me to do so, but I find it easiest when I have started out on middle ground or with no preconceived opinion.
- I have learned a lot about myself from these conflicts, and recognize similar traits parallel my real life: When I am not "involved," I try to be fair to everyone, listen to all sides, but I will offer my analysis and views of the situation as I see it. When I am "involved," I will defend myself and my colleagues quite fiercely when under attack, but that if an admin steps in, and I can trust that admin to not rush to judgement, to be fair and neutral, (even when they - inevitably - protect the "wrong version" LOL) I am willing to take a deep breath and step back, refocus, and start to work toward a solution. I think this is one of the main reasons I actually would like to become an administrator; I've seen both good and bad admins, I'd want very much to be one of the good ones.
- I've probably had the most trouble with the infamous "infobox wars" and with certain types of edits to horse articles. In both of these situations, the problem was that the parties quickly devolved into personal attacks and not focusing on content. Naturally, I feel that the other side started it and they felt my side started it, but the real problem was that attribution of motive and failure to AGF.
In terms of dealing with conflict, this is another reason i want to be and admin and help others in situations such as those I have dealt with personally. I have discovered the best solutions tend to occur when a third party step in who can gain the trust and respect of both sides.
I intend to continue to use these solutions, though I hope I become ever more adept at choosing the right mix.