Meta talk:Admin handbook

Proposed guideline

Status:    Withdrawn

Thoughts, comments, copyedits or opposition for this proposed guideline? ~riley (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Did some copyediting, nice summary. Succinct yet informative. No objections for it to be a guideline. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Support it is not just helpful for admins, but also helpful for new and active crosswiki patrollers too. The name is a bit too, you know, unsuitable IMO. Perhaps we can find a better name? Thoughts? Masum Reza^📞 17:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  Meta for Dummies? Meta 101? Survival Guide for Meta? Just kidding, maybe Sysop / Patroller handbook?--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  Idea for name stolen from Steward handbook but open to other options. ~riley (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  That said, do we have a handbook for autopatrolled users? --Super Wang hates PC _{You hate, too?} 06:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  We do have this {{autopatrolled granted}} / Meta:Autopatrollers which should be more than enough information. One thing to add is to not anyhow tag / edit other user userpages without good reason. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe we can add this one to Meta:Autopatrollers : "Autopatrollers shall not rush through anything that are supposed to be accomplished by advanced users (for example, stewards)". How's that? --Super Wang hates PC _{You hate, too?} 11:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• This is an essay, not a guideline. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose any sort of formalization of this into a guideline or policy. It's overly bureaucratic just for the sake of it. And adding addendums like shall not is just straight up wikilawyering. Praxidicae (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Just a note that the conversation above involving "shall not" is about Meta:Autopatrollers and has no relevance to this conversation. ~riley (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose This is not and should never be anything remotely binding. It is simply a user-created guide to help new administrators who may not be very comfortable making actions on Meta. It is advice, not a series of commands, and any attempt to implement it as anything other than advice will severely restrict administrative discretion and generate unnecessary bureaucracy. Vermont (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I will also note that it does not need to be a guideline for it to be helpful for new administrators and editors. It's the opinion of two administrators (myself and ~riley) on what new administrators should know when starting out, and can be read and absorbed without being a guideline. The net benefits of making it a guideline are nil, and the costs are increased unnecessary bureaucracy. Vermont (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Withdrawing this as a proposed guideline. Cost benefit approach has clear negative effects that I did not initally account for. This is why discussion and consensus exists, folks. ~riley (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Late to the party. I like the page and think it should definitely exist with essay/non-binding guideline status. I think it would be a tad bureaucratic to formalize these as requirements for sysop action, but it works well as a standalone guide, particularly for new admins without much previous experience. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)