User:Dennis Brown/RfA/TransporterMan

Review of TransporterMan

This is an editor review for TransporterMan. Please do not modify it. Unlike most of my reviews, this is less an RfA review, and more of a highly detailed editor review that was requested, with the goal of helping TM in his goals as a non-admin. I'm using the admin template solely because that is the one I have, and it still provides a great deal of information.

TransporterMan (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Stats

• First edit: 08/2007, effectively 11/2009
• Total SUL edits: 12,100
• Article contribs:19%
• Project space:22%
• User rights: reviewer, autoconfirmed
• Summaries:99%+
• Block log:clean

Recommendations

Some of these are just observations, things that might get noticed and you might have to explain at RfA, not necessarily critical but they might stand out a bit and need explaining as a candidate. Some areas may be intentionally blank if there is nothing to add about that area.

CSD

No log, you should enable in Twinkle.

PROD

No log, you should enable in Twinkle.

AFD

111(typical), 94% are delete votes (higher than 80% is high), vote out of consensus 11% of the time (better than average). Nothing unusual except you don't seem to participate unless something needs deleting, which some may mistakenly view as "deletionist".

NAC AFD

None

Copyright

Sanctions (via [1])

None

Monthly contribs

Normal variations.

Admin area experience

Dispute resolution, and lots of it. One of the best we have at Wikipedia. Only see one statement at Arb, which I thought was very insightful and well thought out. [2] (have to open hatted portion) You have a few comments at AN/ANI and three 3RR cases [3] all of which were insightful and neutral. Even when Kuru said to hold off, you deferred responsibly. You aren't the most experienced on all the boards, but when you do go, you have something to say, which I think is a good thing.

Articles created

Three, not your strong point.

User talk

12% of your edits. Most of your discussions are at DRN, and I'm not worried since communicating with others in a professional manner is likely your strongest skills. One of the best Wikipedia has to offer.

Automated edits

11.66%, similar to my own. Rare but good thing for it to be so low. This means you spend more time talking with people rather than templating them.

Talk archive

Have since 2009. No problems.

WP:MEDCOM

Simply being accepted into MedCom is impressive and indicates a long history of successful dispute mediation. You are new there, and I will dig up some stuff there later.

Misc.

Summaries, userboxes, signature, all the little things are fine.

Personal

Previous RFA[4]

Questions

1. Since it is the topic du jure, indulge me by offering your opinions on the topic of "civility", as it applies to Wikipedia. This is intentionally free-form, take it in whatever direction that best explains your position on any aspect.

A. As for my own conduct, I hope that the closest I ever come to incivility is being too objective and not warm/welcoming enough on occasion. One of the nicest things anyone ever said about me here (and one which I brag about on occasion), is that I was once called "relentlessly nice". But that's not what you're asking about. My feeling is that incivility should be a reason for sanctions basically in three situations. First, when the record shows that there is a clear appearance that it is more than merely incidental or emotional, but is being clearly and consciously used in a specific discussion or situation to derail or manipulate the Wikipedia process. Second, certain instances in which an editor has made a direct request that it stop. I've not worked out those instances exhaustively, but the only ones which I've thought out so far are: the use of "serious" vulgarity / cursing (and that might require a kindergarten-like list of what terms are acceptable and what's not) and the use of racial/sexual/ageist/religious/etc. slurs and epithets. (This presumes, by the way, that there are a considerable number of other behaviors which are actionable under existing policy, e.g. legal threats, harassment, threats of harm, and others which don't need to be reinvented in a civility policy.) In both the first and second cases, the sanctions applied should be no more than is needed to cause the behavior to stop in particular instances. Moreover, there should be no more than a single warning issued for the first (manipulation) case and none at all for the second (vulgarity/slurs; but provided the request to stop the behavior was made in a sufficient manner). The sanction sequence should be topic-ban focused, not block-focused, should be limited to the specific discussion or article where the conduct is taking place, and should be specifically predefined by policy (perhaps something like a 12-hour ban, a 36-hour ban, and then an indefinite topic ban terminable upon an express agreement to stop the behavior, followed by a "permanent" topic ban; site bans should not be available for individual instances and blocks should be only used to enforce the topic bans). Third, if enough sanctions of the first or second type accumulate to indicate that a user's use of incivility is habitual and incorrigible then increasing sanctions up to a site ban ought to be applied. While the application of those sanctions should take into consideration the value of the editor's positive contributions to the encyclopedia, if the behavior proves to be incorrigible then the sanctions should prevail over the value of the contributions. Having said all that in theory, I'm not at all certain that Wikipedia is capable of either developing the necessary details of that theory or applying it on a clear and consistent basis. Supplement: Perhaps I ought to go on to say the general principles that I hope that I've implied with the foregoing. Wikipedia is a tough place and requires a tough hide and people who work here need to be prepared for that. It can be really difficult, especially but not only dealing with newcomers, to keep discussion focused on edits not on editors. Generalized insults about one's motivations or good faith or (at least until they become slurs about disabilities) intelligence and the like which are thrown out naively or trollishly should not ordinarily be cause for sanctions beyond mere admonishments, but we ought not to allow them to be intentionally used to manipulate the process. Similarly, vulgarity and racial, etc., insults are always inflammatory. While many people use them casually or unthinkingly, if they continue to do so after someone objects then that so sufficiently suggests that they're trying to manipulate the process that it's really a specific case of the no-manipulation rule. (And I wholly discount as nothing more than an empty excuse the claims such as "Where I live [insert curse word] is just a part of everyday speech and you're stifling me by making me not use it." Nonsense.) Both of those should, however, be dealt with on a case by case basis except that if an editor shows that his/her temperament is such that they repeatedly and regularly cannot control themselves enough to avoid sanctions over those matters then they need to go. There are literally millions of potential editors out there and no one editor is valuable enough to keep him/her here if they don't have the temperament to not manipulate the Wikipedia process in such an easily-avoidable manner. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

2. Imagine you are rich so you don't need to go to work, and Jimbo has given you everything up to the Founder's bit, so you have access to all the CU/OS/Ad/Crat tools. You have all the time in the world and all the powers of the Wiki. How would you spend your time at Wikipedia?

A. My answer to question 3 probably ought to be read before this one. The very first thing I'd do would be autocratic: Just as Jimbo created ArbCom and MedCom by fiat, I'd create a method of binding content arbitration which would allow for full participation by the community but which would make some final decisions on thorny content matters when the community cannot decide them through the regular processes. After a lot of thought on that subject my current best take on that process can be found here. Why by fiat? Because this is one of those areas where (see my comments in #3) there will never be consensus, but which WP needs in order to avoid some of the problems caused by the real world coming in conflict with the wiki ideal. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

3. What, if anything, is holding Wikipedia back from reaching its full potential? What could be done to fix it?

A. The question presumes that WP has not already reached its full potential and I'm not sure that's the case. Wikipedia's nature as an wiki-encyclopedia defines it, but also limits it. That is, in my opinion, a good thing, but one of the things it implies is that there is only so far that it can mature and only so far that it can expand to continue to be an encyclopedia. Another thing that it implies is that there are natural limits and consequences imposed by the wiki model. Taking the latter first, to me, one of the more disturbing things about Wikipedia right now is the frequency with which major and significant proposals, issues, and initiatives end in no consensus. From a purist wiki point of view, that's probably a good thing, but there's also a frightening sense of the madness of crowds about it. Moreover, even though many of those matters attract hundreds of editors to the discussion the number who participate are a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of active editors and I find myself being concerned that those who are strongly in favor or strongly against the matter tend to dominate the discussion in a way that leads to a no-consensus result whereas there are many editors who might feel otherwise about it (or even the same way) who do not participate in the discussion either because they do not know that it is going on or because they don't care to become involved in those generalized discussions. The same is true about RFC and AFD discussions. In short, too many things get decided by too few people and too many of them are folks who have too much of a particular interest in the matter being discussed. More abstractly, the size and popularity of WP has caused the ideals of the wiki model to butt up against the reality that there a lot of people here who are interested in things other than what is best for Wikipedia. That, however, is the reality of the wiki model and it would, I think, do more harm to change it than to live with it. As for Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopedia, it seems to me that every encyclopedia — consider Encyclopedia Britannica — reaches maturity and that WP may be there. That's not a death knell, but it means that the focus must shift to keeping current, refinement and improvement, and format of presentation more than addition. There's a lot of room for all of that. Wikipedia does a pretty good job of sorting the wheat from the chaff and providing quality information on "serious" articles, the kind that might well be in Britannica, but there's a lot of poor quality when we move into the other kinds of material which is included here (movies, TV shows, toys, lists, and on and on). There needs to be some method, and I'm not sure what it would be, of focusing more attention by serious editors on those kinds of articles without diminishing the quality of attention paid to the serious articles. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

4. Wikipedia has (a)Too much democracy. (b)About the right amount of democracy (c)Too little democracy. Briefly explain.

A. Democracy is a system in which all citizens have either a direct or indirect voice in the decisions that are made, typically through some form of voting in which simple majorities make decisions. If one concentrates on the first part of that definition, WP is one of the most democratic entities that exists; if on the second, it's the least because it's not majority voting but consensus which controls. I'm going to focus on the latter distinction. As I've said above, Wikipedia's consensus/wiki model (as I use them here both terms mean the same) suffers from a clash between idealism and reality. Essentially it's the same problem suffered by communism as a theory versus communism in practice: self-interest inevitably clashes with altruism. The same is true, going the other way, with democracy as a theory versus democracy in practice: sometimes the majority is an ass and that's the reason the Bill of Rights was added to the United States Constitution to protect the rights of individuals and minorities from the will of the majority. Is there or is there not enough voting, as opposed to consensus decision-making, in WP? My belief is this: most disputed decisions here are, in fact, made by supermajority voting characterized as, but not actually being, consensus decision-making. Why? Because real consensus requires an fair and frank evaluation of the quality of the arguments which is being made and when there is a dispute no one is willing — once again due to self-interest — to concede that the other side has the better argument: if they were, then there would be no dispute. Since we have no judges, no one invested with authority to make and enforce those decisions, that's the reason that dispute resolution is so important: the presence of a neutral third party morally compels the disputants to re-evaluate their arguments. Having said that, on the whole, the consensus system works quite well here in deciding content, with only a rare case needing something more such as, ahem, binding content arbitration. So, I suppose I'd say that except for the need for binding content arbitration that we have about enough democracy: what we need (as does democracy in America) is more participation, especially by experienced editors. — 16:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

5 Should articles that reach FA status receive some new type of permanent semi-protection that only allows experienced editors to modify them? Or something different?

A. To tell the unvarnished truth, because I'm not a content creator I've never paid much attention to the entire FA/GA matter, but my feeling about it is that an article is an article. Either the subject is notable and it can be here or it's not and it shouldn't. Once it's here, however, it should be subject to being constantly and continually edited, except for ordinary protection as needed to prevent acute problems. That's the model that Wikipedia is based upon. To give articles automatic protection because some group of editors feel that they're of some particular quality smacks to me of ownership. Those feelings are independent, however, of the idea that it would be semi protection and I believe the issue of IP editing in general is a different matter. I have to say that I'm one of those who feel that editors should be logged-in to edit, period, and I was one of the vocal objectors when the Wikimedia Foundation refused to allow a trial of only allowing article creation by logged-in editors. I have to wonder if this idea might not also draw opposition from the Foundation and even a refusal if programming is needed to make it happen. (I'm also a strong opponent of doing anything to attract new users which will interfere with or complicate the ability of experienced users to deal with vandalism or poor article creation or editing. I'm not at all convinced that the falloff in newcomers, and indeed the loss of experienced editors, doesn't have more far more to do with the changing and more technically-demanding demands resulting from WP's maturity than it does with WP being too hard to use and too mean or unwelcoming.) At the end of the day, therefore, I certainly would not campaign against such automatic protection, but I'd rather see IP editors cut off altogether. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

6 What do you think about having different levels of admin, with different tools? ie: "Moderators" with limited tools to protect, move, etc. and "Admin" to block, delete and maybe other new tools. This has been proposed in different forms several times, so without limiting it to these prior examples, or even just to admin, I would like to hear your view on how it would be best to distribute the tools in general, even if it is to only leave it as it is, or just grant some of the individual tools like we do rollbacker.

A. I may have too much of a COI as a failed RfA candidate to be entirely neutral on this subject, but I think that while the subject of which particular tools should and should not be reserved to admins, that particular issue should in my opinion really be a question of whether some of those tools ought to be given automatically or on simple request to experienced users (by which I do not mean merely autoconfirmed users) with perhaps additional rights being granted or available with additional experience and lack (or perhaps lack of recent) entries in the block log. As to which particular tools I have less of an opinion, but I certainly don't think the block, deletion, and full protection rights ought to be open to everyone and there might well be others if I thought about it long enough and looked into it more. What I do think, however, is that the RfA process is horribly broken and that the current state of every RfA commenter being able to create their own standards de jour is insane. My inclination is that a set of minimum, fairly-easily satisfied standards ought to be developed which focus more on experience and lack of bad behavior and that editors who want to be admins ought to go through a training and "offline" testing process, followed by a lengthy probationary period which can be ended by existing admins (not by editors in general) in the event of the intentional misuse of the tools or horrible incompetence, followed by a final review by the community which can only be failed by overwhelming opposition with little or no support. Perhaps that is naive. Do I think that the community would be willing to change to something like that? No, for the reasons set out in question 3. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I may return to this and edit or supplement these answers, so give me a day or two to think about them before taking them as final. When I'm done, I'll strike out this note. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That is fine, this isn't about right or wrong answers, it is about the thought process. Feel free to delete this comment as well when you do. I want to throw out a few more questions, as these are helping me pick a direction to move into and is providing a good sense of your editing philosophy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC) I'm done, I think, unless you have more questions. Thank you, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments by editors

• Let me be blunt, I thought you were an admin and wish you were. You are arguably one of the most talented dispute resolution mediators we have here, someone I've always tried to measure up to. Not trying to flatter you, but honesty is the hallmark of my reviews, both good and bad. Of course, the bit isn't really why you came here, direction and analysis is, which I will provide later. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Final by db

1. Let me throw out something you don't want to hear: You need to do a GA. I know that content isn't your forte and you will never be a content centered editor, but you need one. Why? Because it is an unknown to you. To me, too, which is why I'm working on my first as well. If you want to admin in content areas (and you are admining, you just don't have the bit) then it would help if you really understood the process, if you had empathy for the editors rather than sympathy. I don't think you are doing anything wrong, but if you want to improve at mediation of content, you need to understand the difficulty of not just editing, but of taking something to the next level. I'm no different, which is why I'm doing the same thing.

I suggest finding an article that is fairly complete and on a topic you are familiar with, then read up on the GA criteria, work the article as close as you can, submit for the GA, then take all the steps necessary to get it to pass, as advised by the reviewer. You don't need to start from scratch. This is going to have you putting your money where your mouth is when it comes to disputes and resolution, help you develop a better understanding of the frustrations, disagreements, and the joys of success. Take a few months to get the article up to speed, then a month or two at GAC. You don't need to stop doing anything, just devote a few hours a week on this project, along with your other tasks. Learning the entire process of GA, taking a few paragraphs of prose and turning it into a genuine Good Article, will make you a better mediator, and serve as a good personal challenge. If you ever go for RfA, it will also demonstrate that you understand content enough to create quality work, a requirement.

2. I think you have a pretty good amount of clue. We might disagree on some points, but you have given things a great deal of thought and you opinions are based on your solid experience. I think if you had the bit, your perspective on some things would change a little, they always do. I'm much closerslower to block than I thought I would be, as having the responsibility for the aftermath is real rather than theoretical. But I think you have an overall balanced outlook. Again, I think we would do well if you had the bit, but as you said, that isn't a short term goal.

3. Generally speaking, I think if anyone stays in one area too long, they become stagnant and bored. I get the feeling you are feeling a little bit of both, which may be why you are here, and why you sought MEDCOM. A little antsy, wanting more. I'm not exactly sure where the best place to go would be, but I do think that if you did a little volunteering at the help desk and the teahouse, it would likely be rewarding and help give you more perspective on what it is like being a new editor around here. Since those are usually low drama places, it would likely be a welcome change of pace to spend an hour or two there a week, just helping someone.

We are all human, all inclined to get ourselves in a rut, which sometimes means we need to force ourselves into something completely unknown. Helping others is a tremendous way to hone your own skills, as it forces you to "remember" the basics, where things are, what the policy really says, and firms up your foundation. Since you already have the communications skills, it would likely be an easy part time transition. Often, we find other areas along the way that strike our fancy, yet we never thought about them before. You get a question about copyright, and you go ask at WP:Copyright problems, and two weeks later you are patrolling the place. If all else fails, spend a week patrolling each of the links on the noticeboard header found at every admin noticeboard. It sounds like you need to shake it up a bit, and you just aren't sure where to go. Of course, this doesn't mean moving away from mediation, something you are very good at, it means mixing it up with the goal of keeping your interest and making you even better at those tasks.

I'm still pondering...more to come.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

About the GA, I've done one: Pont-y-Cafnau. It wasn't very extensive or the slightest bit controversial, but it is what it is. But I take your point, though, and probably need to do a more substantial one. What do you mean by that you are "closer to block than I thought I would be"? Do you mean that you're more reluctant to block someone? Thank you for your other comments, not to mention the nice things you've said, and I'll wait for more. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I corrected myself now, I meant "slower to block". After becoming an admin, I found my views on blocks to become much less rigid. I think the big point to take here is that you are a mediator, and you likely will always be a mediator, but you need to change things up to keep yourself from digging yourself into a rut. I think broadening out is the key, which has the benefit of making you a better mediator. It is a matter of simply broadening your education as to the total functioning of Wikipedia. My experience has been that immersion is a good way to do so, jumping in with both feet. Clerking a little at WP:RFPP is yet another way. It isn't just learning the clerk part, it is the other stuff you run across when there, the warring, dealing with editors before they decide to get mediation, etc. As for working on the GAs (plural), I think that is the best way for you to stay connected to content since it is so focused, working on one or two a year. As I assume adminship is down the road eventually, that is the best way to prove your editing ability while not focusing all your time on editing per se. I do think you would make an excellent admin now, but agree that there would be difficult passing RfA right now due to the low content count. A few GAs would counter that.

As a final note, I do think that you should consider putting together a program to help others learn mediation skills. You would be the right man for the job. Maybe an actual Wikiproject as to get a dozen others with experience to help you. If you really want to make a lasting difference here, I think this would be a good way. Developing a series of essays that explain it, help new admins and admin hopefuls learn some basic mediation skills. This is the reason I say that dabbling in the other areas will help you as well, to give you a rounder set of experiences to work from. I would even be interested in becoming a member. I would recommend pinging User:NE Ent, User:Kim Dent-Brown, User:AGK and you know the rest. There is a lack of real mediation skills at Wikipedia and while they wouldn't like me saying so, it is my opinion that at least half of our admin are not effective mediators. Not necessarily bad, but could use some additional training. What would it look like when complete? What is the best structure for a project like this? I have no idea, that would be the job of the members to figure out. I'm glad you are focused on mediating, and I think this would be a way to have a larger impact on Wiki while leveraging those same skills. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, again many, many thanks for taking the time and effort to give me the overview you have. Now comes the hard (but fun) part: putting it into practice. I like your ideas and will move in that direction. You're a good man, Mr. Brown. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, and please let me know if you start a project. I would happy to be a small part of a mediation group, since that is something I also focus on. I think you knew most of this, and needed to hear it from someone else, and maybe hear a few new ideas as well. Thank you, by the way, as you really do make a big difference here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)