Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 01:57, 21 March 2017

"hard to find an online community more focused on ritual abasement than wikipedia" "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute."

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: With over 75,000 edits, I have become familiar with most aspects of the encyclopedia. I have created over 200 articles, have been a significant contributor to 20 featured articles, a couple dozen additional GA-class articles and recently reached the 50 DYK mark. In the process, I've performed countless non-admin wikignoming tasks on the backside of the wiki. There is an ongoing need to deal with vandalism, for wikignoming tasks, to enforce BLP policies and quickly protect editors who are being subjected to outing or other inappropriate attacks. I wish to help address issues and problems directly rather than reporting them and waiting, particularly with the following administrative tools:

1. Page protection
2. Using revision deletion to remove BLP violations about the subjects of our articles and/or our fellow editors.
3. Article protection, especially as a tool to bring parties in dispute to the table to work out their differences.
4. Wikignoming and assisting the mass of behind the scenes work that needs to be done every day, particularly putting articles into the DYK queue; I've filled prep sets from time to time and frequently been alarmed to see that there are no queues filled with a DYK update only a few hours away.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: Content! I enjoy creating and improving articles, from the fellows who formed one of the first high-tech firms in Silicon Valley to oddball topics such as horse roundworms or the Evans Cherry trees in my front yard. As many people know, my primary focus has been articles within the scope of WikiProject Equine.

• To give RfA !voters a sense of my work, my most recent big effort, in conjunction with some excellent other editors, was American Pharoah, which was ITN when he won the Triple Crown and was just recently promoted to FA. In addition, we also upgraded a related article about the horse's owner, Ahmed Zayat, to GA class. That article tuned out to have some unexpected drama due to the scrutiny Mr. Zayat was under during the Triple Crown season (read the article and talk page to see the details); it was a BLP that had to be handled with a great deal of care and discretion.

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: I have been an editor for over nine years and have dealt with many editing conflicts and stresses. I've handled some things calmly and effectively, while other times I've gotten frustrated, lost my cool and otherwise was not at my best. At the end of the day, I have never been blocked and I have never given into the temptation to put up a "retired" tag. My strengths and weaknesses stem from the same set of traits; I do not easily give up and I tend to stick to something until it's fixed. I do firmly believe in using process; most conflicts can eventually be resolved if people will face frustrations and work through their differences.

• One thing that I think is crucial to being a good administrator is to understand the importance of WP:INVOLVED. I absolutely would not use or threaten to use the tools in any situation where I am already in an advocacy role; if I'm editing and find myself embroiled in a dispute, it is critical to have a neutral party handling the mop. I clearly understand that there are certain areas and individuals where I just simply will not and cannot use the tools.

DISCLOSURES: I have two alternate accounts, User:MontOther, which I created as a space for materials I use for testing, training and demonstration purposes. I also have a "vanilla" sample user alternative account with default settings, User:Breadedchicken, which I use to show new editors how things look to them when they begin editing.

Notes

• Good example of me with neutral hat on are DYK qpq and GA reviews. Most FAC reviews also.
• I tell other editors that Misplaced Pages does imitate life, and my on-wiki life has been a full one: I've often risen to the occasion and stayed calm when everyone else is panicking, I've often worked through a problem until it was solved. But other times I've been frustrated, I've been impatient, I've lost my temper, and I've allowed myself to get drawn into unnecessary dramas.
  • I feel I have risen to my best during 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" because I've put dozens of hours and hundreds of edits into an article, yet I must 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 others to help peel me off the ceiling when my frustration reached the boiling point. Over the years, I began to work on FA-class articles as a lead editor, but it is never a solo process and I've been grateful to the other wonderful editors out there: I've sought collaborators, learned to trust and work well with people I had not worked with before, and brought in other editors with relevant expertise when a question arose where I lacked sufficient background to answer.
  • I decided to identify as a Misplaced Pages:WikiGryphon because I like to fix problems and willing to use a myriad of methods to do so. The flip side is that I am sometimes too quick to rush to the defense of others when I think they are being unjustly attacked. I am learning, slowly, to discern when quick action will stop a problem from snowballing and when it is better to sit back and watch a situation develop before stepping in; many problems actually solve themselves.
  • 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. Sometimes you do have to make a tough decision (where it is protecting the WRONGVERSION or instituting a block) and it will mean someone is unhappy. I am willing to make the tough calls when needed. When I am mostly or completely neutral and am trying to sort out a dispute, I take 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. As an admin, I think it is important to not rush to judgement, to be fair and neutral, to help others 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.

RfA Notes:

Tools I have: Account creator, Autopatrolled, File mover, Pending changes reviewer, Rollbacker.

Why do I want to be an admin?

No one "needs" the admin tools to edit, but wikipedia needs admins. Over the years I have been frustrated from time to time by administrative backlogs or an inability to perform certain non-controversial wikignoming actions. I also have a desire to be able to quickly protect editors and BLPs that are being subjected to vandalism of other egregious attacks. In short, I want to become part of the solution, to be more involved in helping solve problems rather than simply coming to the boards and reporting problems. Here are examples:

1. To address issues and problems directly rather than reporting them and waiting, such as:
   • Protecting articles, quick action often ratchets down drama and gets people to collaborate and compromise if they are prevented from edit-warring.
   • Blocking obvious vandals
   • Revdel, both protecting users who are attacked or outed, and protection of BLPs
   • Acting upon BLP violations in general
   • Resolving 3RR and editing disputes. DR/N has been an interesting place, but it is limited by the willingness of participants to actually resolve disputes, more often both sides just continue yelling at each other over who is right. Sometimes you have to have more teeth than persuasion alone can provide.
2. Wikignoming and assisting the mass of behind the scenes work that needs to be done every day, particularly:
   • Deleting or undeleting a page.
   • Moving files that need admin help to move
   • Category cleanup, moving, deleting, and so on
   • Put articles into the DYK queue, not just building prep sets
   • Closing assorted discussions that have run their course but only admins can close. Keeping things open too long generates more heat than light

About WP:AFD: I have usually been at AfD to try and save articles I thought were unjustly being nominated for deletion, particularly on women. Less often I have sought to delete those I really thought were a waste of bandwidth - usually ones in violation of WP:NOADS -and needed to go. So most of my participation has been in an advocacy role rather than an adjudicatory one. Many of my !votes at AfD have been nuanced: "Keep but merge", "Delete but merge", "Merge and redirect" and so on. As a hangout, I'm not particularly interested in Afd, though I tend to be an inclusionist to the extent I am generally reluctant, but not entirely unwilling, to remove articles from Misplaced Pages. But if there was a backlog where they put out an APB for admins to help, if I did assess that consensus determined an article to be a "delete", I suspect that my decision would be upheld if appealed, I would be quite careful to assess not simply the polling, but the content of the comments; an IDONTLIKEIT or ILIKEIT !vote carries less weight than a clear discussion of the merits.

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 editor, 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 editor.

Pages of wisdom:

• User:Kudpung/RfA criteria: "This all needs some editors who can be trusted with some special tools, and to use them intelligently, with reasonable accuracy, and in the best interest of the encyclopedia and not to their own ends"
• User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content

Where have I worked over the years: I've popped in and out of a lot of different areas, and in many cases leave with a sense of, "wish I had the mop for that."

• DYK: I am relatively active in article creation, and this is a place I've been around for years, on and off. I'm credited in the stats for over 200 "real", non-redirect articles and have about 50 DYK credits as creator or co-creator. I occasionally nominate, mostly for newbies. I take qpq very seriously and I also try to do prep sets. In fact, one of the big reasons I'm seeking the mop is to be able to move prep sets into the queue. They need more helpers over there.
• CCI: I first discovered CCI when a major sockpuppet hit several articles I worked on and was busted, leaving over 700 articles to review for copyvio and other problems. I have now helped with perhaps a half-dozen of these, usually the big ones where there are a lot of hands needed on deck.
• SPI: Related to the above issue, I've become interested in figuring out if behavioral evidence matches people who abuse multiple accounts.
• RM: One reason I want the mop is to make uncontroversial article moves and to be able move the contested articles once consensus is reached.
• NPP, some, not a lot I used pop by a few times a year, work through 10-20 articles. I see the value of NPP, but I'm more interested in reviewing just the ones that have been flagged for speedy deletion and such. I think I would be quite fair about not being too quick to delete and willing to point out ways to salvage potentially useful articles.
• 3O ( a few years ago) and DR/N (recently), both after reasonably good experiences being on the editor side of the process, the volunteers there are sincere, hardworking folks, but it is challenging to be the neutral party with no toolset beyond the seat of on's pants. While a few people there are sincerely trying to work it out, most are still in an "I'm right and you are wrong" mindset, plus, sometimes there is a larger conversation going on elsewhere that renders any attempt at a fix doubly difficult. An admin is, in many ways, a blend of the two, neutral in evaluation, but ultimately may have to offer an opinion and sometimes even enforce it. RfC is probably a better process for thorny content disputes even though it's lengthy and often brings in a lot of not-previously-involved editors instead of just single mediator.
• RfC: have seldom filed one but have participated in many. More often than not, the "right" outcome is eventually thrashed out, sometimes with much sound and fury, but eventually it gets there.
• AfC: I've approved maybe a half-dozen or so articles there; I find the process to be unhelpful, the technical process a bit cumbersome for reviewers, the backlog horrendous, and I tend to recommend that newbies avoid it in favor of sandboxing in their own userspace and seeking mentors. I'd be curious to know if AfC has actually reduced the AfD caseload significantly or not.

Random thoughts:

• ANI and related boards. I've been on all sides, filer, filed upon, commenting on one side or another, occasionally uninvolved but offering an opinion. Not a fun place for people to be, I can still recall how I felt in my early years on wiki; it's a scary place for a lot of editors and needs to be handled with grace and a good sense of when to close a case before it starts generating more ill feeling than is helpful.

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 editors 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 an 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.

I am very willing to not touch the mop on articles where I am in a dispute over content and also to recuse at any time my involvement actually meets WP:INVOLVED (though examples of egregious vandals such as , or are things where I think I could use the mop even on "my" articles). As another editor said recently, there are thousands of administrative tasks to do on wiki that are completely unrelated to any issue where I might be involved with as an editor.

Timeline of thinking things over: 5 May to Sept 15.

• Brilliant. Must remember this one: "Misplaced Pages is never a replacement for a stress ball."