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

untitled

You make it sound like you want to block ppl who personally verbally attack you, and that it's very unfair that you can't? is that the case? I think that is most odd. While WP:NPA is policy, that policy page also includes Wikipedia:Npa#Responding_to_personal_attacks You seem to feel like it's some kind of outrage that that exists and admins (gasp! no! not admins!) are expected to follow it. You haven't blocked the hypothetical guy before the NPA, why do you suddenly want to so badly after? Isn't it not at all clear that unilateral blocks by anyone are an appropriate response to to a PA? Isn't there in fact an entirely wrongheaded culture of using PAs as block material rather than focusing on content? And don't you think admins have blocked in revenge rather than in service to content issues? Doesn't that have something to do with notice board brouhahas? What interesting thought process leads you to believe that editors who are not admins get more out of the NPA policy than admins do!? Are they free to place blocks on the guys or something?! 86.44.42.182 (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

First rule about being an Admin: you don't talk about being an Admin. And you don't write essays about it either. -- llywrch (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

See Folks don't like people documenting differences in policy and culture. Toddst1 (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Required reading....

I wish I'd had this a while ago. Some of it I intuited, others I've run afoul of. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines to becoming an admin

A lot of this is highly pertinent reading for aspiring admins. --Kudpung (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

So when you get tired and retire...do you go back to writing content?

I mean in theory, we're here to make an online encyclopedea. If you get tired of the moderator gig, why not try writing an article? TCO (talk) 05:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Some admins do, some don't. Toddst1 (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Insulting section

I've just come across this essay and I'm flabberghasted at the tone set in parts. Pop star articles "They tend to attract the weakest editors in the project."? Owned by "rabid fanbois"? Accusations of walled gardens, and that policy enforced in these areas will result in the admin being pilloried. Most admins ignore the area?

The tone is insulting to those hard working editors who've created featured articles such as these ones. Would you say Celine Dion was created by weak writers? How about Aaliyah, Kylie Minogue or Gwen Stefani? There's hundreds of good articles on these areas too.

Suggesting that it's full of "fanboys" is just as derogatory (rabid fanboys even more so) - Yes, there are fans, but I've yet to see these fans be brought before arbcom. They are not and should not be considered as tendentious as the worst nationalist editors.

Overall, I find the entire section problematic, especially considering it's included in an essay which talks about the ways things actually work. It does nothing for admin/editor relations, stereotypes hard working editors and encourages ad hominem disagreements. Worm^TT(talk) 08:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that, Toddst. Worm^TT(talk) 10:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

NP. Toddst1 (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Bad advice: being attacked doesn't make you involved

@Toddst1: I'm concerned that new Admins might think this is correct, and of course it isn't. It takes a lot more than that to be considered involved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 11:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)