Sandstein thinks using the term "legacy admin" is blockable offense

[Wikiguy.DC]

Sandstein (T-C-L) recently blocked Tewdar (T-C-L) for 48 hours for making personal attacks because Tewdar used the term "legacy admin." Tewdar requested an unblock but 331dot (T-C-L) rejected it.

The matter is now at Wikipedia:Administrative action review (T-H-L) where basically everyone agrees the block was bad but Sandstein continues to argue in favor of it.

Fun fact, Sandstein has been an admin since 2006 and definitely qualifies as a "legacy admin." (331dot has been around for a decade but only passed RFA in 2018; Nihonjoe of all people is the 'crat who closed that RFA)

[AndyTheGrump]

Jeez. Why don't they just make Wikipedia:Everything here is perfect, and anyone who says otherwise is an enemy of the people (T-H-L) a policy and be done with it?

[Giraffe Stapler]

So legacy admin demonstrates the term by making ridiculous block?

[The Garbage Scow]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Request reason:

There was no 'personal attack', and certainly not on user Pepperbeast. (2) A block for merely using the term 'legacy admin' seems disproportionate and unreasonable. But, I will be sure to avoid this term in the future if it is considered offensive. Tewdar 08:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As you admit you intended the term to be disparaging, it is a personal attack. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Based on their decline comment, I'm assuming 331 didn't read the request, just glanced at it and declined as fast as they could.

Sandstein is an actual living Vogon. Oh, and he also claims the thread at Administrative action review is "forum shopping".

[Pelican]

Such a Sandstein thing to think. The jokes really write themselves with this one.

[sásamh]

What's the status of the proposed community recall for admins? That dead on arrival? These two would be some of the first to get the boot.

[No Ledge]

The "community", if you can even call it that, is so warped these days. Increasingly dysfunctional.

Out of one side of their mouth they say, Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA:

Editors are reminded that the policies on civility and personal attacks apply at RfA. Editors may not make allegations of improper conduct without evidence.

Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks.

Out of the other side of their mouths, they always loudly complain every time anyone actually is blocked for incivility.

The "modern" community has next to no respect left for administrators, yet remains clueless as to why it can't coax more editors into applying for the job.

[rnu]

The "community", if you can even call it that, is so warped these days. Increasingly dysfunctional.

Out of one side of their mouth they say, Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA:

Editors are reminded that the policies on civility and personal attacks apply at RfA. Editors may not make allegations of improper conduct without evidence.

Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks.

Out of the other side of their mouths, they always loudly complain every time anyone actually is blocked for incivility.

The "modern" community has next to no respect left for administrators, yet remains clueless as to why it can't coax more editors into applying for the job.

Maybe the community is so dysfunctional because admins made it that way? Maybe people don't respect admins because they have seen again and again and again that many of the worst people on Wikipedia are admins?

[Zoloft]

The offending comment: link

I think at this point Sandstein has passed thin-skinned and is now almost translucent. That's not the path to transparency we were looking for.

Also, still valid:

I'll repeat what I said at WR long ago.

If there was an apartment building on fire and the tenants were fleeing for their lives, Sandstein would be the cop giving them tickets for jaywalking.

[Jester]

What's the status of the proposed community recall for admins? That dead on arrival? These two would be some of the first to get the boot.

We're at about a month so they'll hopefully be closed soon. The first will almost certainly pass, but with a caveat that it needs a follow-up before implementation since it's so vague. Second looks good.

However, I have little doubt we'll have an RfC overturning the results within a year if either/both passes.

[ArmasRebane]

The offending comment: link

I think at this point Sandstein has passed thin-skinned and is now almost translucent. That's not the path to transparency we were looking for.

Also, still valid:

I'll repeat what I said at WR long ago.

If there was an apartment building on fire and the tenants were fleeing for their lives, Sandstein would be the cop giving them tickets for jaywalking.

Sandstein's value is at AE where rules lawyering is more advisable (since you're essentially almost always dealing with 'problem children' of some sort or another) and few people actually want to deal with it. Anywhere else, he's a liability.

[greenday61892]

The "community", if you can even call it that, is so warped these days. Increasingly dysfunctional.

Out of one side of their mouth they say, Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA:

Editors are reminded that the policies on civility and personal attacks apply at RfA. Editors may not make allegations of improper conduct without evidence.

Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks.

Out of the other side of their mouths, they always loudly complain every time anyone actually is blocked for incivility.

The "modern" community has next to no respect left for administrators, yet remains clueless as to why it can't coax more editors into applying for the job.

I am a firm believer that admins let incivility from long-time editors slide more frequently and even I think it's a massive stretch to call this block-worthy incivility, especially since Sandstein used a template at the top of Tewdar's talk page saying templated talk page comments will be ignored as an excuse not to even give a warning (not even talk page comments in general, literally just templated comments, which is tenet supported by "don't template the regulars")

[Vigilant]

331dot must be wiki-leet-speak for 'idiot'.

[Vigilant]

Fucking wow.

Blocking admin's comment: Thanks to all who left feedback above. I'll take it into account the next time I'm about to block somebody.
It underlines (again) the very significant disagreements surrounding civility and its enforcement in our community. I'm quite aware that I'm at the strict end of the spectrum in this respect. In my view, civility and the expectation underlying WP:NPA - comment on the content, not the contributor - are of essential importance for making an international, mostly anonymous, collaborative project work, and for attracting and retaining good editors. In my view, Tewdar's conduct at issue, in which they disparaged others as a "legacy admin", did not live up to these expectations, and merited administrative action. And if people post flippant notices on their talk pages telling us that "I probably wouldn't give a ha'penny fuck about whatever it is you're complaining about!", they take the risk that they will not be warned before any block because such warnings would be ineffective - by their own account, and because the tone of the message indicates that they are not someone who would take any kind of warning seriously in any case.
I understand that many here take a different view. Regardless, as long as we as a community don't come to an agreement about the degree of civility we are willing to expect and enforce in practice, I think that we must live with the fact that individual admins will apply their individual standards in deciding whether to block (or not block) somebody, which will result in uneven enforcement. In this respect, I see my approach as somewhat counterbalancing that of the admins who will not take action to enforce our community standards, especially if doing so against the wrong people would make them unpopular.
I do take Aquillion's point, though, that admins, as people exercising authority, must remain open to criticism, which must not be sanctioned as lèse-majesté - even though admins, like all editors, have a right to be treated civilly. In my view, this concern does not apply here because the person who was attacked, Pepperbeast, is not an admin.
Procedurally, I believe that this review request is out of process and should be closed. Per WP:XRVPURPOSE above, XRV does not apply to "an action with a dedicated review process". That is the case here, as Tewdar used the dedicated unblock review process, and their unblock request was reviewed and declined by 331dot. This review request is, therefore, forum shopping. Sandstein 10:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

No. XRV is for community review, whereas unblock reviews are a blocked editor's appeal to be unblocked. I'm rather saddened that you would wikilawyer in an attempt to get this thread shut down, when there is a lot of precedent in using this process to review blocks. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm disappointed in the reply, to be honest. This venue exists primarily for this kind of review, this is 100% in process. You do not understand the sentiment here, and using up good will fast. Most of us hoped this was a one-off error, but your comment seems to be doubling down. I don't see this as satisfying WP:ADMINACCT at all. You seem to be justifying a bad block because YOU think that the civility policy should be enforced more than the community does, and the community's expectations are just getting in the way of your superior judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
(after edit conflicts) Sirfurboy did not have anywhere else that he could bring this for review, so no, there was no forum shopping. I was about to post in this thread suggesting no further action, but Sandstein's post above convinced me that this admin has no intention of following WP:ADMINACCT. There may be other reasons to block Tewdar but in this case there was clearly no personal attack or breach of civility. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Time for Sandstein to go see ARBCOM.

[Vigilant]

Bad block, and Sandstein's response is disappointing and unsatisfactory. If we really want to wikilawyer this (and I don't, but whatever), I'll say the block review process failed and could also be reviewed here. 331dot (talk · contribs) declined the unblock request on the grounds that ""As you admit you intended the term to be disparaging, it is a personal attack."" That's stretching WP:CIVIL to prohibit criticism in general, and a poor response to Tewdar's request. Mackensen (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between negative criticism and disparaging someone. This is on top of someone who(at the time) indicated that they didn't give a "fuck about whatever it is you are complaining about", which came off to me at WP:IDHT. I may say more later, but I too will take the advice here. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding that I agree this discussion is supposed to be here/is not out of process. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Take Idiot ARBCOM too.

FFS, en.wp, police your police.

[Vigilant]

Finally, a non-Vogon.

@Tewdar: would you like me to add a 1 second block to your block log saying "per [link to this AARV discussion], the previous block was found by the community to have been inappropriate"? It will be clear it is referring to Sandstein's block, so I wouldn't namecheck him again. And I wouldn't be waiting until April first. If you say "yes", I will; if you say "no", I won't; if you want the message tweaked or delayed, I'll leave you to bargain with another admin. I wish there was a cleaner way to make this note than a new block, but there currently isn't (AFAIK). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

Holy shit! It keeps delivering!



"I'm the victim here!!! No, really!"

19 hours in, I'm still waiting for Sandstein's response to his initial incorrect claim that this was forum shopping (and a proper response to the community will, in general). As I said before, I do not feel his response was adequate under WP:ADMINACCT, which I view as a serious problem. I'm shocked to be here like this, Sandstein was not in my top 10 list of admins I have reservations about, but here we are and I feel his response to the overwhelming opposition is underwhelming, ie: the likelihood that he might happen again seems unacceptably high. We shouldn't have to keep asking or hounding to get a proper reply, making us look like the bad guys, when it was his misread of global consensus that brought us here. This board and Arb are the only two places that we can find resolution, and I think everyone would rather walk away from here feeling confident that he gets it. The time for reflection has passed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown, your conduct here, with unwarranted threats of arbitration, is now becoming abusive towards me.
I didn't write the rules for this forum, I merely try to apply them. They provide that this forum is not for appealing actions that have dedicated review processes. That applies to blocks, which per WP:UNBLOCK are to be appealed with a talk page unblock request or to UTRS, where in each case another admin will review the block, as was the case here. Likewise, WP:BP#Unblocking provides: "An uninvolved administrator acting independently reviews the circumstances of the block" (emphasis added). Policy is therefore clear that block reviews are in the purview of individual reviewing admins, not of this forum. In my view, 331dot's block review therefore precluded an appeal to this board (as it would have if 331dot had unblocked Tewdar). Clearly the others commenting here disagree, but you can't fault me for merely citing applicable procedural rules. Instead, you should seek community consensus to amend the blocking policy to allow further appeals to this forum if you think this is needed.
Likewise, WP:ADMINACCT merely requires that I explain my actions when asked to, as I have done here, on my talk page and on Tewdar's talk page. It doesn't require that I agree with you or any and all criticism of my actions or even opinions on appeals procedure. It is clear to me that consensus here thinks that my block was a mistake, and I will take the expectations of the community, as expressed here, into account going forward. More than that cannot be asked of me under ADMINACCT. Sandstein 06:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

[eppur si muove]

Sandstein has learnt nothing about being a human being in the past decade.

[Zoloft]

Sandstein has learnt nothing about being a human being in the past decade.

Now, now, he may be good with animals and children outside of Wikipedia.

[Kraken]

I guess it all depends on what was meant by legacy Admin.

If you meant to compare me to After Midnight (T-C-L) for example, well, sorry buddy, amma gonna take that shit real wp:personal like. Comment on the content, or take your chances.

[Randy from Boise]

Actually, having reviewed the original snide comment and Sandstein's predictable Vogon response, I'm pretty sure that Sandstein is the one on the side of the angels (errrr, ruling bureaucrats) on this one...

A couple days ago I was reading over the gargantuan morass that is the so-called "Code of Conduct" — the Big Hammer in the toolbox of the Wales/churchlady/civility-trumps-competence set...

This policy is approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project....

Every Wikimedian, whether they are a new or experienced editor, a community functionary, an affiliate or Wikimedia Foundation board member or employee, is responsible for their own behaviour.

In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events, behaviour will be founded in respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship. This applies to all contributors and participants in their interaction with all contributors and participants, without exceptions based on age, mental or physical disabilities, physical appearance, national, religious, ethnic and cultural background, caste, social class, language fluency, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex or career field. Nor will we make exceptions based on standing, skills or accomplishments in the Wikimedia projects or movement. * * *

Harassment includes but is not limited to:

• Insults: This includes name calling, using slurs or stereotypes, and any attacks based on personal characteristics. Insults may refer to perceived characteristics like intelligence, appearance, ethnicity, race, religion (or lack thereof), culture, caste, sexual orientation, gender, sex, disability, age, nationality, political affiliation, or other characteristics. In some cases, repeated mockery, sarcasm, or aggression constitute insults collectively, even if individual statements would not.

Basically, yeah, uh, anything that Vogon Nation deems to be "name calling," including "sarcasm" is a tossable offense in the Brave New World.

Just say, "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" to Sandstein and move along.

t

[Alalch Emis]

Sandstein has my full moral support.

[Zoll]

Boomer admins unite

[Midsize Jake]

It seems fairly clear to me that this guy is using the term "legacy admin" to distinguish between admins who were active in the early days of WP and had (and might still have) that "must grow the database at all costs" mentality, as opposed to more recently-promoted admins who better understand that Wikipedia is now much more of an ongoing maintenance problem than anything else.

In effect, he's simply saying that a realistic, rational, level-headed person wouldn't look at a group of related articles about how other countries are named or alternately-spelled in various languages and dialects (i.e., exonyms (T-H-L)) and think, "we absolutely have to keep all of these, except maybe for this really obscure one that I don't personally like very much." Instead, a rational person would say, "these are all stupid and should be deleted en masse, but if you're going to keep any of them, you should keep all of them."

And in fact, that's exactly what Mr. Pepperbeast was trying to do, so what Mr. Sandstein actually did in this incident was to encounter an example of Wikipedia working fairly well, and make it an example of Wikipedia not working at all.

Unfortunately, now that I've written out this explanation, I have to admit that neither approach to the exonyms article-group really makes any sense and that the only truly rational solution is to delete the entire database and shut down Wikipedia altogether.

Either way, the decision to block Mr. Tewdar was indeed stupid, capricious, and counter-productive, and once again shows that Mr. Sandstein is excessively officious and thin-skinned, even for a Wikipedia legacy admin.

[Ron Lybonly]

It seems fairly clear to me that this guy is using the term "legacy admin" to distinguish between admins who were active in the early days of WP and had (and might still have) that "must grow the database at all costs" mentality, as opposed to more recently-promoted admins who better understand that Wikipedia is now much more of an ongoing maintenance problem than anything else.

In effect, he's simply saying that a realistic, rational, level-headed person wouldn't look at a group of related articles about how other countries are named or alternately-spelled in various languages and dialects (i.e., exonyms (T-H-L)) and think, "we absolutely have to keep all of these, except maybe for this really obscure one that I don't personally like very much." Instead, a rational person would say, "these are all stupid and should be deleted en masse, but if you're going to keep any of them, you should keep all of them."

And in fact, that's exactly what Mr. Pepperbeast was trying to do, so what Mr. Sandstein actually did in this incident was to encounter an example of Wikipedia working fairly well, and make it an example of Wikipedia not working at all.

Unfortunately, now that I've written out this explanation, I have to admit that neither approach to the exonyms article-group really makes any sense and that the only truly rational solution is to delete the entire database and shut down Wikipedia altogether.

Either way, the decision to block Mr. Tewdar was indeed stupid, capricious, and counter-productive, and once again shows that Mr. Sandstein is excessively officious and thin-skinned, even for a Wikipedia legacy admin.

Not all legacy admins are bad. Generally, if they weren't jerks 15 years ago, they're unlikely to be jerks now although there are jaded exceptions.

I dislike people using "legacy admin" as a perjorative to negatively stereotype all long-tenure admins.

That said, one hallmark of a jerk admin is to have a thin skin about stuff, including people using the term, "legacy admins". Just let it slide.

[Ming]

"Legacy admin" is like "legacy admission": it carries the impression that the person wouldn't get the bit if they hadn't gotten in when standards were mostly nonexistent.

[greenday61892]

I don't think anybody uses the term "legacy admin" to disparage the entirety of the block of administrators who had successful RfAs before the 2010s. Anybody who is aware/active enough to know of the term "legacy admin" is also aware that there are plenty of admins who have been such since before the 2010s who have kept up to date on the ever-changing policies and can do just as good a job as the fresh new faces who have been put through in the last several years. "Legacy admin" is solely reserved for people who still hold on to the bits while not being able to do the job satisfactorily to today's policies and would easily not pass RfA today.

[tarantino]

Speaking of legacy admins, Swatjester (T-C-L) has come storming back and inserting himself all over the place, after being mostly absent for the last twelve years.

[Ron Lybonly]

Speaking of legacy admins, Swatjester (T-C-L) has come storming back and inserting himself all over the place, after being mostly absent for the last twelve years.

All the basics are the same as 2007 but the culture has shifted, mostly for the better. The editing standards are higher. Reliability has improved. While the basics have stayed the same, policies and guidelines have become more complex as a result of lessons learned.

That complexity and push for more reliable text has led to the most negative development: increased difficulties for newcomers including a lot more biting by the regulars.

An admin often works at the edges of policies and guidelines- the places where there’s trouble. They have to understand the procedural details and current cultural nuances.

A returning admin would be best served to edit as a regular editor for several months before resuming admin work. Watch and learn at ANI and AfD.

[greenday61892]

Speaking of legacy admins, Swatjester (T-C-L) has come storming back and inserting himself all over the place, after being mostly absent for the last twelve years.

All the basics are the same as 2007 but the culture has shifted, mostly for the better. The editing standards are higher. Reliability has improved. While the basics have stayed the same, policies and guidelines have become more complex as a result of lessons learned.

That complexity and push for more reliable text has led to the most negative development: increased difficulties for newcomers including a lot more biting by the regulars.

An admin often works at the edges of policies and guidelines- the places where there’s trouble. They have to understand the procedural details and current cultural nuances.

A returning admin would be best served to edit as a regular editor for several months before resuming admin work. Watch and learn at ANI and AfD.

I would definitely add recent RfAs to required reading for returning admins as well, to get an actual gauge of what the community expects out of current admins.

[Mojito]

"Legacy admin" is like "legacy admission": it carries the impression that the person wouldn't get the bit if they hadn't gotten in when standards were mostly nonexistent.

Yeah, so they should be grateful that they received their special powers back when RfA was a rubber-stamping exercise.

If they have a problem with the term "legacy admin", the obvious way to shake the tag is to hand in the tools and nominate for a new RfA...

[Kraken]

Tbh, given the facts on the ground, it's hard not to take "legacy Admin" as a slur. Especially if you're one of the good guys.

The vast majority of current Administrators were promoted quite a long time ago. Seen in that light, the legacy Admins, if it implies potentially being out of touch, complacent or lacking in trust, are a pretty large group. It is widely agreed the only reason RfA is such an ordeal for candidates now, with the idea that it's no big deal to be an Administrator being far in Wikipedia's rear view mirror, is the poor performance of this bulk component of the Admin corps. Their failure to keep the standard.

To be the standard.

Inherent in which was to uphold the standard within their own ranks. On what planet should there have ever even been more than 5 ArbCom cases to desysop an Admin in the entire history of Wikipedia? If they had the required character and integrity, falling on one's sword as a result of peer pressure, should be the standard means by which Admins were removed.

It makes no sense when you actually think about it, that an Admin should be so poor as to even find themselves before ArbCom. Sandstein is a perfect example. Or perhaps not. Is the reason he has never been dragged before ArbCom, because he is quite often right in policy and is clearly trying to defend Wikipedia? And the legacy Admins who hate him for it, fear the BOOMERANG? Who can say.

It's been the hallmark of this bulk category of Admins to be long on threat, short on action. High on aspersion, short on diffs. Not really what the manual says to do if you have beef. And it's not like that was a recent addition. It was there when they were promoted. They just have the luxury of not really having to give a shit. Admins don't get taken to ArbCom for such mediocre behavior. They gotta shoot someone on Fifth Avenue. In broad daylight. And it has to have been an innocent bystander too.

Furthermore, adding to their collective shame, these are the people promoted (and tbh still reflect) the era when there was less (no?) awareness of the fact the Wikipedia community was a very white very American sausage fest. It's not uncommon to see AN/I reports about racism or abuse directed at an editor being dealt with exclusively by Admins you already know aren't in any way equipped to be empathetic. To know what that's like to be talked down down as a woman. Because you're a woman. To be berated, to be subjected to the tough love. To be told you had it coming.

Going further back, legacy Admin is a powerful reminder of the problems that were baked in by making Adminship a literal of job for life. People like David Gerard are truly awful. Not as an Administrator, as a human. Take a look at his RfA, from 2004. Never even got asked a question. Barely a third of those literal voters are still around, and that's applying a generous standard of activity.

It's been quite obvious for a very long time that most of Admins from this era are abusing the system, retaining the tools simply so they can view deleted material or use them for their own convenience. Most of their Wikipedia careers follow the same usual pattern. They were promoted as a reward for a burst of activity in Wikipedia's peak years, but their interest has waned. They barely edit these days.

The drive to remove inactive Administrators has revealed what a good Administrator from this period actually looks like. Someone who recognizes they no longer merit the trust of the community, so they voluntarily hand in their badge.

So if you're an Admin from this period and you're not being what I would call an active Administrator. If you're not using your soft and hard power as an Admin, if you're not regularly (at least once a month as a bare minimum) attending to a matter that requires an Admin, but which you didn't just happen upon in the course of your daily editing. Then you probably shouldn't grumble if someone uses the term legacy Admin to imply you are a lazy useless sack of excrement, who is probably only retaining their rank for very bad reasons.

Something my studies of the Admin recruitment crunch, where the number of active Admins is falling at a rate of 14 a year and they have at most, being generous, 200 active Administrators, has shown is that for the most part, legacy Administrators are Wikipedia's hidden shame.

They're there, they're registering as active. They are Admins in the only way that matters to a user. They can block, delete and protect. Some, albeit a tiny minority, are still very active editors. But they're not doing anything useful as an Administrator. Which of course leads to situations where every now an again, one of them does something truly horrific. They have been fed after midnight.

Most of the people who voted for them are long gone.

So yes, to echo Mojito, if you're a legacy Admin who thinks of themselves as a one of the good guys, how about you find some way to prove that? If only to yourself. Because the odds are against you, and you may well be one of the bad guys, but the fact you've got a badge and a gun means nobody has ever felt like they can tell you. Or more likely, those who did, you dismissed as a vocal minority. Or was beaten to a pulp by your Admin Academy classmates.

It's never tracked, logically, that a good Administrator with a long service, couldn't possibly pass RfA. He will have attracted too many enemies. How so? A good Administrator surely doesn't have many enemies. They surely know when to step back from a dispute where they're causing strife sufficient to cause deep seated and long term animus. All their disputes should have ended with happy customers. Satisfied victims and reformed miscreants, happy to have been shown the error of their ways. Or banned customers. That is their job.

Reform or eject the trouble makers. On behalf of the community. If they have done this well, the community would reflect that. Especially given how thorough RfA is these days, its skill in detecting when an incident is being blown out of all proportion, or when it is indicative of a wider pattern of failure. It's skill in detecting whether someone is or is not learning from their (by that time hopefully already infrequent) mistakes.

You have nothing to fear but fear itself. Or the mob, if in reality, you are a cruel oppressor who they would very much like to overthrow. Or a clueless buffoon they would like to fire. Or a POV-pusher or a grifter. You just didn't know it. Or perhaps you did. Whatever their view, it is their right. Community members. If you hate that they could hold your rank in their grubby little peasant hands, perhaps you never were Administrator material. Perhaps you signed up for different reasons.

Better still, do something for the greater good. Get together with the other good guys and bring about meaningful reform of a clearly broken system. Don't take no for an answer, demand proof. Demand the people obstructing reform prove claims such as this bizarre idea that a long served good Admin could never pass RfA today. No proof, no opinion.

Test their assumptions. Have a trial. Pick one of the so called good guys, and have them stand for re-election. See what happens. And if the results confirm your theory, adjust your policies and practices.

The Wikipedia way.

That's what a good guy would do.

If there is not one among you who would submit to such a trial, for the good of the community you claim to serve, then we shall know the truth. And you will have to not infrequently wear the badge of shame that is the slur, legacy Administrator. Or you will have to look to Sandstein to protect your honor.

And if the peasants (and your peers) really are an insane mob who wouldn't know a good Administrator if one spat in their grubby little peasant faces, so be it. What's the worst that could happen? The current system collapses under the weight of expectation and forbearance, and being an Administrator returns to being something a little more janitorial.

A technical power, easily granted and easily removed. No big deal. Because it's really not the janitor's job to unilaterally ejecting people from school grounds for littering or swearing or advancing Israeli propaganda. Shit probably started to go wrong right about the time the Admin role as a unilateral function ceased to be about taking out the trash.

[Vigilant]

Time for a word limit for Crowken.

He just can't seem to control himself.

[C&B]

Mr Pollock, that must be your biggest yet!

[stedil]

"Time for the speeches," announced the king as the plates were again removed and everyone looked glum. "You first," he commanded, pointing at Milo.

"Your Majesty, ladies and gentlemen," started Milo timidly, "I would like to take this opportunity to say that in all the-"
"That's quite enough," snapped the king. "Mustn't talk all day."
"But I'd just begun," objected Milo.
"NEXT!" bellowed the king.

"Roast Turkey, mashed potatoes, vanilla ice cream," recited the Humbug, bouncing up and down quickly.
"What a strange speech," thought Milo, for he'd heard many in the past and knew that they were supposed to be long and dull.
"Hamburgers, corn on the cob, chocolate pudding - p-u-d-d-i-n-g," said the Spelling Bee in his turn.
"Frankfurters, sour pickles, strawberry jam," shouted Officer Shrift from his chair. Since he was taller sitting than standing, he didn't bother to get up.

And so down the line it went, with each guest rising briefly, making a short speech, and then resuming his place. When everyone had finished, the king rose.
"Pate de fois gras, soupe a l'oignon, faisan sous cloche, salade endive, fromages et fruits et demi-tasse," he said carefully and clapped his hands again.
The waiters reappeared immediately, carrying heavy, hot trays, which they set on the table. Each one contained the exact words spoken by the various guests, and they all began eating immediately with great gusto.

"Dig in," said the king, poking Milo with his elbow and looking disapprovingly at his plate. "I can't say that I think much of your choice."
"I didn't know that I was going to have to eat my words," objected Milo.
"Of course, of course, everyone here does," the king grunted. "You should have made a tastier speech."

The Phantom Tollbooth (T-H-L)

[Randy from Boise]

Time for a word limit for Crowken.

He just can't seem to control himself.

I thought it was an interesting essay.

It's a three minute read.

t

---------
I think the missing piece of the puzzle is that the nature of administrators has changed. No Big Deal™ wasn't just a green light to a speedy, unanimous RFA process, it was based upon a notion that the buttons weren't anything sacred or even special and that if the average Friend of Wikipedia had the occasion to use them against the random Enemy of Wikipedia (vandals, in particular, which used to be a big problem) even once in every great while, it was all to the good. Having buttons was a step in the direction of decentralization and mass self-government of more or less equals and the notion that BOLD™ applied not only to content, but to moderation. They were just buttons sitting ready in the tool kit.

One didn't need to prove one's "Administratorness" by hitting a quota of administrative actions, the buttons were just there like a handgun in the gun safe, just in case it was ever needed during the course of ordinary editing life.

There were, quite literally, thousands of people with the buttons at Wikipedia.

We know that No Big Deal™ had a very negative consequence though: Cowboy administrators who would use power unwisely and wheel-warriors who would use tools or the threat of using tools to win content battles.

No Big Deal™ is long gone and the bad administrators have, by and large, grown up or been removed or gone away. Now, as I have noted on my user page, RFA resembles a week-long proctological examination, during which some or many of the examiners attempt to cause rectal trauma. It is not a process for the faint of heart or the average editor who might want a handgun in the gun safe just in case. Only people who want to make their Wikipedia career around administrative actions have any reasonable need to go through that shitfest...

t

[Vigilant]

They're ALL 3 minute reads.

Even when all he has to say is, "Yeah."

If there were occasional 3 minute posts, it would be fine.

He is the second coming of Abd right now.

[DanMurphy]

Speaking of legacy admins, Swatjester (T-C-L) has come storming back and inserting himself all over the place, after being mostly absent for the last twelve years.

Dan Rosenthal, finally far enough removed from his employment by the Wikimedia Foundation, to return to his main account. So it goes.

[tarantino]

Speaking of legacy admins, Swatjester (T-C-L) has come storming back and inserting himself all over the place, after being mostly absent for the last twelve years.

Dan Rosenthal, finally far enough removed from his employment by the Wikimedia Foundation, to return to his main account. So it goes.

He's an attorney, but now working as a game producer for Maxis/Electronic Arts. I've scanned his contributions for conflicts, but he's been a lot more careful about it than Joe Monson.

[Ron Lybonly]

Time for a word limit for Crowken.

He just can't seem to control himself.

I thought it was an interesting essay.

It's a three minute read.

t

I agree, Tim.

[jf1970]

I thought it was an interesting essay.

It's a three minute read.

I agree, Tim.

Me too, one of the better mini-essays. But "get together with the other good guys and bring about meaningful reform of a clearly broken system" is easier said than done, and demanding reform won't get them far if nobody knows how to make a system that works.

[bittersweet_symphony]

I remember Sandstein starting a couple of years after I did. 2006 was around the time individuals, who I would call the carpet baggers, started appearing on Wikipedia at an alarming rate. The golden years of just writing articles for the love of conveying information to the world was drawing to close.
Very soon anything could be condemned for being [[WP:V]], [[WP:OR]], or [[WP:NPOV]].
Rules became more important than content (and that is how Wikipedia remains today).
As soon as the likes of Sandstein (who couldn't wait to become an admin) started laying down the law and dictating what could be written in articles they had not written, the new normal was admins and editors (who didn't have to have serious mental health issues and character disorders) but it certainly helped.
Sandstein was part of the vanguard that turned Wikipedia into a microcosm of global politics. Cliques, hypocrisy and pointless wars with mass casualties.

One of the funnist things about Sandstein has been their ceaseless battle to keep the porn history of Sibel Kekilli out of her article (it's all here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sibel_Kekilli). Their determination is profoundly psychotic.

[Randy from Boise]

I remember Sandstein starting a couple of years after I did. 2006 was around the time individuals, who I would call the carpet baggers, started appearing on Wikipedia at an alarming rate. The golden years of just writing articles for the love of conveying information to the world was drawing to close.
Very soon anything could be condemned for being [[WP:V]], [[WP:OR]], or [[WP:NPOV]].
Rules became more important than content (and that is how Wikipedia remains today).
As soon as the likes of Sandstein (who couldn't wait to become an admin) started laying down the law and dictating what could be written in articles they had not written, the new normal was admins and editors (who didn't have to have serious mental health issues and character disorders) but it certainly helped.
Sandstein was part of the vanguard that turned Wikipedia into a microcosm of global politics. Cliques, hypocrisy and pointless wars with mass casualties.

One of the funnist things about Sandstein has been their ceaseless battle to keep the porn history of Sibel Kekilli out of her article (it's all here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sibel_Kekilli). Their determination is profoundly psychotic.

Welcome to WPO.

Interesting take. Of course, to hear Larry Whatshisname tell it, cliques and infighting started almost instantaneously. His
Golden Year is probably 2001 or something like that.

I know that one of the early lines of criticism at Wikipedia Revew, maybe trickling over into the first years of Wikipediocracy, was that Wikipedia was comprised of a bunch of power-tripping teenagers playing a Mass Multi-Player Online Roleplaying Game. People were at Wikipedia just to be able to block and taunt and revert and generally act like a mean-spirited content policeman, it was argued. They had all the time in the world to play the game, being teenagers, and got off making other people feel like shit because it made them feel powerful and mature.

I thought that was a BS argument then, undescriptive of reality, and it's an argument that can't even rationally be made a decade or more later — because teenagers don't stay teenagers forever.

There have historically been, and continue to be, a certain number of WP Administrators who are power-trippers, however.

I have called Sandstein "the black-hooded executioner of Wikipedia." He actually has his purpose. Not the guy one wants to see coming if one is on the wrong side of policy, however.

t

P.S. You forget [[WP:SYN]] as one of the great content crimes that incompetent content cops enjoyed levying. Few could even describe what the Mortal Sin of Synthesis even was, making the allegation even more useful. I haven't heard that Crime Against Wikipedia alleged lately, fortunately.

P.P.S. Sandstein's first edit came July 31, 2005. He was made an administrator Nov. 30, 2006. The interval of 487 days is not particularly short — slightly more than average for this period, actually.

[SarekOfVulcan]

If they have a problem with the term "legacy admin", the obvious way to shake the tag is to hand in the tools and nominate for a new RfA...

And have a large percentage of the opposes be "opposing because this is a meaningless ego-boosting exercise".

[Ron Lybonly]

One of the funnist things about Sandstein has been their ceaseless battle to keep the porn history of Sibel Kekilli out of her article (it's all here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sibel_Kekilli). Their determination is profoundly psychotic.

I wonder what’s motivating this focus?

Sandstein is Swiss and has 5,000+ edits on the German Wikipedia (vs. 186,000+ on the English Wikipedia). They’ve only made 3 small edits to the German Sibel Kekilli article and talk page.

The German talk pages for Kekilli (former stage name Dilara) are extensive enough to require multiple archives.

The English article started as a brief porn star stub.

Perhaps Sandstein was drawn to the article by some BLP dispute and it’s just been on his watchlist. Not an obsession with Kekilli per se, just a determination to see the article kept his way.

I’m always interested in editors’ and admins’ motivations for doing stuff I can’t relate to.

[greenday61892]

If they have a problem with the term "legacy admin", the obvious way to shake the tag is to hand in the tools and nominate for a new RfA...

And have a large percentage of the opposes be "opposing because this is a meaningless ego-boosting exercise".

imo, this could all be solved by either allowing people to call for recall votes (rather than having legacy admins volunteer as such) and tightening up enforcement of activity policies--or if it's already strictly enforced, RAISING the bar for activity to keep your bits.

[Midsize Jake]

I thought that was a BS argument then, undescriptive of reality, and it's an argument that can't even rationally be made a decade or more later — because teenagers don't stay teenagers forever.

Most of the rules and conventions put in place by those teenagers and freikulturkinder 18 years ago are still in place, though. They haven't changed much in response to the rule-makers having "grown up." What's more, people don't become more mature over time on the internet the way they do in real life — look at me, for example.

And you actually can stay sixteen forever, under the right conditions:

[The Garbage Scow]

If they have a problem with the term "legacy admin", the obvious way to shake the tag is to hand in the tools and nominate for a new RfA...

And have a large percentage of the opposes be "opposing because this is a meaningless ego-boosting exercise".

imo, this could all be solved by either allowing people to call for recall votes (rather than having legacy admins volunteer as such) and tightening up enforcement of activity policies--or if it's already strictly enforced, RAISING the bar for activity to keep your bits.

Apostate!

[Randy from Boise]

I thought that was a BS argument then, undescriptive of reality, and it's an argument that can't even rationally be made a decade or more later — because teenagers don't stay teenagers forever.

Most of the rules and conventions put in place by those teenagers and freikulturkinder 18 years ago are still in place, though. They haven't changed much in response to the rule-makers having "grown up." What's more, people don't become more mature over time on the internet the way they do in real life — look at me, for example.

And you actually can stay sixteen forever, under the right conditions:

I'll one-up you...



t

[greenday61892]

If they have a problem with the term "legacy admin", the obvious way to shake the tag is to hand in the tools and nominate for a new RfA...

And have a large percentage of the opposes be "opposing because this is a meaningless ego-boosting exercise".

imo, this could all be solved by either allowing people to call for recall votes (rather than having legacy admins volunteer as such) and tightening up enforcement of activity policies--or if it's already strictly enforced, RAISING the bar for activity to keep your bits.

Apostate!

Oh right sorry, hold on let me try again

*Ahem*

Fuck all the complainers it doesn't matter what standards have changed they earned their mops let them keep them!!!!

Sorry, that should be better