Wikipedia:What you won't learn in new admin school

No Personal Attacks doesn't apply to talking about admins.

While policy states otherwise, our culture makes it completely ok for users to make baseless accusations against you as an admin. You, as an admin, will be accused of abuse, bias, harassment and myriad other things. Typically such accusations are not actionable. These attacks pretty much come with the territory – get used to them.

Through our culture, we encourage folks to make such accusations.

When a user makes such a claim, they are to some extent immunizing themself against action by you by making you an "involved administrator." Unless you want to open yourself to a gory discussion of your actions on WP:ANI or WP:Arbcom, you should probably not take action related to that user at that point.

Admins need to develop thick skin fast.

It’s all grey

Administrative action often seems black-and-white, but in reality, it’s almost all a shade of grey. No matter what action you take (or don't take), someone may and often will interpret that shade of grey differently, criticizing and often vilifying you.

If you can't handle this (often extreme) criticism, you should turn in your mop.

Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents is a lousy place to solve anything but the simplest problems

Ochlocracy is not your friend or anyone else's. Many an innocent person has met an ugly death at the hands of an angry mob. As an admin, if someone questions your actions on one of these boards, people will enjoy piling on.

Never underestimate the incompetence, bad judgment and naïveté of folks commenting on ANI. If an issue is anything more than patently simple, chances are that folks there won't bother trying to understand the entirety of it which frequently leads to rather unfortunate outcomes.

Many editors have issues with authority

"A high proportion of Wikipedians have issues with authority. That's why many people are attracted to Wikipedia in the first place. Keep this in mind if you become an administrator, for you may have just become, unwittingly, what these people most resent; and no matter how good a job you do," they'll find something that you've done that they see as the biggest crime against humanity.

Never action an established editor without a discussion on WP:AN, WP:ANI or some other public forum.

By established user, I mean someone with about 2,500 edits. We could argue what the number is but it’s not an absolute.

While there is no cabal,‹The template Fake citation needed is being considered for merging.›  there is a strong double standard here at Wikipedia. Once someone has been here a while, WP:CIVIL is a mere suggestion and even seriously disruptive sockpuppeteers aren’t typically blocked for any substantial period of time if they're established editors, despite having policies in place that state the contrary.

If you want to discuss a seasoned editor’s action on ANI or other drama board, document every statement with a diff and explain the context concisely and carefully. Even then, people will still often fail to grasp what you're saying and ochlocracy can take root very quickly on any issue.

Wikipedia culture encourages repeat offenders.

You will come across established editors that have been blocked for edit warring and/or attacking other users a dozen times. Generally, our culture does not support long blocks for established editors.

Because we frequently do not ban these repeat offenders and blocks are not meant to be punitive, we actually encourage this behavior.

Experienced editors usually have buddies

Then there are the asshats who look out for their buddies on ANI. They'll do their best to ensure their pals get away with murder ensuring the double standard is applied, policies be damned.

As stated above, ANI is a lousy place to solve problems.

See also: Vested Contributor

Stay the hell away from the numerous ethnic/political conflicts waged documented on Wikipedia.

Examples of these conflicts:

• The myriad Balkan conflicts and their derivatives
• India-Pakistan relations
• The Arab–Israeli conflict
• etc.

These folks have been fighting in many cases for centuries – don’t expect them to play nicely on Wikipedia.

Do what most admins have done here (and will publicly deny) and just let them keep fighting amongst themselves. You might issue a block or two, but they’ll likely be incredibly painful because the person you warn or block has a bunch of wiki-skilled partisan buddies that will lodge numerous complaints about anything you do in the situation.

About the partisans to these conflicts here on Wikipedia

• Many people editing pages related to these conflicts are extremists, hence their interest.
• There are a large number of partisans keeping an eye both on the subject and their partisan buddies.
• Many are extremely skilled wiki-politicians and will work the system to your disadvantage.
• These conflicts attract nut cases.

Folks don't like people documenting differences in policy and culture.

Many feel uncomfortable confronting these realities. There's a good chance that you're getting pissed off right now.

Question your own participation on Wikipedia

Chances are, that you’re spending far too much time and energy on Wikipedia. Unless you’re bedridden or in prison, there is almost certainly something better you should be doing:

• Your homework
• Your work
• Paying attention to your spouse/significant other
• Looking for a spouse/significant other
• Spending time with your kids
• Walking your dog
• Cleaning your house
• etc.

At the end of the day, none of this matters. Go get a life and live it. It’s better than editing Wikipedia.

You will eventually get sick of WikiDrama

Then you will either retire or semi-retire, or maybe even go out with a blaze of glory like Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). He was one of the best.

Whatever you do, don't be a WP:DIVA.

See also

• New Admin School
• Advice for new administrators
• Observations on Wikipedia behavior