Kumioko

[Zoloft]

*goes back to monitoring other things*

[Jim]

And yet, under the "big happy tent of love and respect" that Wikipedia claims to be, there is absolutely no room for him.
(But there IS room for 15 million sockpuppet accounts, most of whom perform no edits at all.)

Oh, absolutely.
Once you've been "of the body" and removed from the body, you are marked. There is a huge (flawed) institutional memory for "wrongdoers".
It's as though an antibody is released into the system, which patrols for repeat behaviour.

Trouble is, it's a shit antibody, because it usually just results in high fever and gnashing of teeth if it detects a "return", and that detection can easily be a false positive.
It's also trivial to fool the immune system because it relies on imperfect tests, often-biased "intuition" and guesswork.

When you combine paranoia, group stupidity, bloody-mindedness and just trolling for fun, this is what you get. Any good is submerged.

[Kumioko]

Ironically, the way many of the rules are written on Wikipedia it only harms the law abiding citizen so to speak. If I, or anyone else for that matter, wanted to simply lay low and come back we could just create a new account and come back with no limitations and would probably be an admin. But when an excommunicated member of the community comes back, under the rules, they are hobbled by restrictions and sanctions and watched. Some members of the community have this high handed hope that they are doing the project good when in fact the vast majority of the time, they are only driving these banned editors underground through their "once banned always banned" mentality.

I often wonder how many of the long list of people on linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... nned_users[/link] actually obeyed the rules and how many simply waited a few months and returned unhindered. Many of those on that list have been banned since 2010, 2005 and even 2003 when Wikipedia was a still a novelty website. Certainly some of these have returned and I can't help but wonder how many have comeback to become admins or even infiltrate the Arbcom itself.

[Poetlister]

(But there IS room for 15 million sockpuppet accounts, most of whom perform no edits at all.)

If they've never edited, why should anyone notice or care about them?

[Triptych]

Ironically, the way many of the rules are written on Wikipedia it only harms the law abiding citizen so to speak. If I, or anyone else for that matter, wanted to simply lay low and come back we could just create a new account and come back with no limitations and would probably be an admin. But when an excommunicated member of the community comes back, under the rules, they are hobbled by restrictions and sanctions and watched. Some members of the community have this high handed hope that they are doing the project good when in fact the vast majority of the time, they are only driving these banned editors underground through their "once banned always banned" mentality.

I often wonder how many of the long list of people on linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... nned_users[/link] actually obeyed the rules and how many simply waited a few months and returned unhindered. Many of those on that list have been banned since 2010, 2005 and even 2003 when Wikipedia was a still a novelty website. Certainly some of these have returned and I can't help but wonder how many have comeback to become admins or even infiltrate the Arbcom itself.

If Wikipedia administrators have a single unifying characteristic, it is that they are bullies. No of course I'm not saying they *all* are. I don't think Alison is. I don't think some others are. But if there is a form of government among the sock blockers and arbitrators and those regulars inhabiting WP:AN/ANI, it is a cyberbullyocracy.

Oh they are not the sort that pushed the little and awkward kids around the playground when they were 5 or 10 or 15. That's a different kind of bully. The arb and WP:AN/ANI crowd tend to have a minimal intelligence level, they're not entirely stupid, and they know enough to do a bit of blah-blah-blahing where they spout key words and phrases like "battleground" and "badger" and "not here to build an encyclopedia" and so forth. They can say these things meaninglessly and incorrectly because the other administrator bullies are never going to call them on it, and if a common editor disagrees there is always the block button.

And that's an interesting thing sociologically. There is always the slight chance a bullied child on the playground will turn the tables on the bully. Stop being intimidated and respond with confrontation. But on Wikipedia, the bullies have the full power of blocking. The victims can't confront the bullies on Wikipedia because they are blocked and then ganged up on. So when I look at the crowd at WP:AN/ANI and the arbs, I see an interesting experiment of what would happen if playground-type child bullies got together in a big gang and derived all their pleasures from stomping on whomever they chose. Kumioko knows what that feels like, and so do thousands of other fine editors.

[Kumioko]

Actually I think you are on to something but I have a different take on it. I think they are bullies because they were the ones getting bullied in real life and now that they have what they think is power, they want to keep it and use it.

I don't think most of them intentionally "bully", but I do think they do it out of instinct and their desire to keep what they have now that they are the cool kid so to speak. The thing to remember is that most editors on Wikipedia have a social ineptitude that causes them to not really fit in with real life. Not all of course, but many. So they live on their computers in their awkward little worlds and they beaver away at admin tasks on Wikipedia because it makes them feel important. It makes them feel needed and and it gives them a sense of purpose that working at Taco bell or whatever (if they have a job at all) does not.

Many of the current arbs have never experienced life outside college. Sure they may have lived away from mom and dad for a couple years and sucked bong water and played beer pong, but they haven't experienced life. They are by most definitions children and they act as children on the site. When someone tries to take away their toys or act up and someone like me tells the teacher or the other students about their shenanigans, they react violently to prevent their little worlds from imploding. They use terms like "not here to build an encyclopedia", talk about whats good for the project or delete spam and block vandals but they cannot see beyond their narrow POV. Anyone who doesn't share that POV or attempts to break them of their bad habits is just "trolling" or [insert your favorite Wikipedia policy, guideline or essay here].

The bottom line is, many of these so called admins wouldn't really know whats good for the project because they only care about how the project is good for them personally. How it makes them feel and how they would feel without it. They have no idea how to think strategically about where the site should/could be in a few years and how to get it there. Most don't care.

[eagle]

Would a reasonably sized group of supervisors/customer relations specialists solve this problem? There are many other websites with customer relations staff. If Wikipedia could frame these bad interactions as customer relations challenges, then there could possibly be a path toward a solution. Once users have an avenue for resolution of admin abuse issues, most admins will stop the bullying. (Kumioko would predict that they would quickly find the admin role unsatisfying and leave.) In content disputes, the person who is most persistent wins, so taking those conflicts out of the hands of the editors and placing them in the hands of trained professional staff would ease tensions on the edit war front.

Either Wikipedia would become a nice boring place for content generation, or the customer relations staff would become just as toxic as the voluntary admin staff. The outcome would depend on the talent of the leaders of the customer relations staff.

[thekohser]

...they spout key words and phrases like "battleground" and "badger" and "not here to build an encyclopedia" and so forth.

Don't forget "harassing", "stalking", "whinge", and "<user> has been given ample opportunity to <improve / change / shape up / refactor / address our concerns>".

Etc., you know the drill.

[Jim]

...they spout key words and phrases like "battleground" and "badger" and "not here to build an encyclopedia" and so forth.

Don't forget "harassing", "stalking", "whinge", and "<user> has been given ample opportunity to <improve / change / shape up / refactor / address our concerns>".

Etc., you know the drill.

Did we miss "abusive admin"? and "little boy"? How did we miss that? This site is going to the dogs. I swear I despair.

[Kumioko]

Would a reasonably sized group of supervisors/customer relations specialists solve this problem? There are many other websites with customer relations staff. If Wikipedia could frame these bad interactions as customer relations challenges, then there could possibly be a path toward a solution. Once users have an avenue for resolution of admin abuse issues, most admins will stop the bullying. (Kumioko would predict that they would quickly find the admin role unsatisfying and leave.) In content disputes, the person who is most persistent wins, so taking those conflicts out of the hands of the editors and placing them in the hands of trained professional staff would ease tensions on the edit war front.

Either Wikipedia would become a nice boring place for content generation, or the customer relations staff would become just as toxic as the voluntary admin staff. The outcome would depend on the talent of the leaders of the customer relations staff.

I think this would help actually. Even if this role was simply one that fell on the Bureaucrats if not the WMF, having a meaningful way for people to report abuse would be a great imrprovement. Unfortunately it also needs to be taken seriously. The culture of Wikipedia has developed to assume bad faith on most newcomers for not knowing the rules and protocols for Wikipedia and even if valid complaints are raised, its likely that they would be disccounted in favor of keeping a bad admin who has been on the site and paid their dues.

I also agree that having qualified people is key and preferably for something like this having no ties or former associations with the community would actually be a benefit. This is something that Wikia does a bit better that Wikipedia, they have a group of people you can complain too that have the power to do something.

I will say I think at first it might be a little rough because people are used to the wild wild west and anything is allowed if your an admin so you would inevitibly have some quite or resign, but the end state and long term improvement would be beneficial to the site. Because the liklihood is high that the ones who quite aren't the ones that should be admins anyway and only do it for the freedom to be dicks.

[Scott5114]

Problem is, WMF already has community liaisons, and we've seen how good of a job that they do. Since this is WMF, these new "customer relations" people would probably be hired from the admin pool they're supposed to be overlooking. Bam, instant regulatory capture.

[eagle]

Problem is, WMF already has community liaisons, and we've seen how good of a job that they do. Since this is WMF, these new "customer relations" people would probably be hired from the admin pool they're supposed to be overlooking. Bam, instant regulatory capture.

That is certainly a danger and requires a good hiring process and good supervision. Suppose hypothetically the WMF hires 20 people at $40K (a total of $800,000) Each hire would be assigned 300 admins to supervise (a total of 6,000 could be covered.) Suppose that the job description included one review and written evaluation of each admin during the year. That would be a little more than one evaluations per day (plus some crisis interventions.) Most people (even volunteers) would stay within the lines of acceptable conduct knowing that they would be subject to an annual external review. There would be a few supervisors of the 20 who would do quality control on the review process. If a complaint is logged against an admin and its disposition would be documented and included in the annual review process.

The staff could be set up in a number of ways, but accountability and oversight would have to be built into whatever structure is implemented. I am not positive that any particular system would work, but I am convinced that the present system is failing.

{edited}

[EricBarbour]

Suppose hypothetically the WMF hires 20 people at $40K (a total of $800,000) Each hire would be assigned 300 admins to supervise (a total of 6,000 could be covered.) Suppose that the job description included one review and written evaluation of each admin during the year. That would be a little more than one evaluations per day (plus some crisis interventions.) Most people (even volunteers) would stay within the lines of acceptable conduct knowing that they would be subject to an annual external review. There would be a few supervisors of the 20 who would do quality control on the review process. If a complaint is logged against an admin and its disposition would be documented and included in the annual review process.

And with the current management and staff of the WMF, the chances of this happening are precisely zero. Fixing it will require a complete, utter, to-the-scorched-earth purge, from Jimbo down to the unpaid interns. Because any of the FOJs who remain in there will try to sabotage any kind of management reforms.

[Triptych]

...they spout key words and phrases like "battleground" and "badger" and "not here to build an encyclopedia" and so forth.

Don't forget "harassing", "stalking", "whinge", and "<user> has been given ample opportunity to <improve / change / shape up / refactor / address our concerns>".

Etc., you know the drill.

Did we miss "abusive admin"? and "little boy"? How did we miss that? This site is going to the dogs. I swear I despair.

What Kohser and I were doing was discussing the meaningless and unevidenced cliches that are typically thrown around by administrative types looking to block somebody. On the other hand "little boy" was me criticizing Mason's maturity level for saying I lied that he had any responsibility for Kumioko's ban, when it's a matter of record and I linked it. And "abusive admin" is a fair description for the majority of them at Wikipedia.

You're being facetious, irritating, and not funny again, Jim. I'd ask you, if you just want to read your own words, yet have nothing intelligent to say, reconsider. Instead of posting this kind of stuff here, just type it out in a text file, or write it down on a pad of paper at your desk. And then you can review and giggle about it any time you like, without involving the rest of us.

[Triptych]

Suppose hypothetically the WMF hires 20 people at $40K (a total of $800,000) Each hire would be assigned 300 admins to supervise (a total of 6,000 could be covered.) Suppose that the job description included one review and written evaluation of each admin during the year. That would be a little more than one evaluations per day (plus some crisis interventions.) Most people (even volunteers) would stay within the lines of acceptable conduct knowing that they would be subject to an annual external review. There would be a few supervisors of the 20 who would do quality control on the review process. If a complaint is logged against an admin and its disposition would be documented and included in the annual review process.

And with the current management and staff of the WMF, the chances of this happening are precisely zero. Fixing it will require a complete, utter, to-the-scorched-earth purge, from Jimbo down to the unpaid interns. Because any of the FOJs who remain in there will try to sabotage any kind of management reforms.

Yeah, it's a noble idea, but WMF is not going to do anything like that. It's too busy distancing itself from the community for purposes of lawsuit deflection. It won't jump in there like that.

[Triptych]

Problem is, WMF already has community liaisons, and we've seen how good of a job that they do. Since this is WMF, these new "customer relations" people would probably be hired from the admin pool they're supposed to be overlooking. Bam, instant regulatory capture.

Yeah, Philippe Beaudette is supposed to be doing that, but all he's good for is shredding checkuser identifications and running errands for Lila.

"Please get us all some more coffee, Phillipe. And would you mind running off another 10 copies of tomorrow's meeting agenda?"

[Jim]

You're being facetious, irritating, and not funny...

Yeah, I'll agree with that. On this occasion I was. (although I wasn't really going for "funny")
Pointless, too, and I really should know that by now.
I'll not comment on your postings again.

[thekohser]

Yeah, Philippe Beaudette is supposed to be doing that, but all he's good for is shredding checkuser identifications and running errands for Lila.

Now, now... I'm sure that Q2 Consulting would disagree with you. Philippe did an excellent job landing them (his former employer) a research contract with the Wikimedia Foundation paying the bill. (Note, the infamously "open" and "transparent" WMF still refuses to disclose the cost of that study. Maybe Lila would be more likely to look it up and reveal. Someone should ask her on her Talk page, or at the next "office hours" on IRC chat.)

[Kumioko]

Problem is, WMF already has community liaisons, and we've seen how good of a job that they do. Since this is WMF, these new "customer relations" people would probably be hired from the admin pool they're supposed to be overlooking. Bam, instant regulatory capture.

Your exactly right but that is because they only have the "title" of community liaison. In reality the title they were given was a not so subtle attempt to hire a few unemployed or underemployed and popular members of the community (in other words, a hookup). The WMF never really took the positions seriously nor were they intended to be am enforcement body. I do agree though that my interactions with them were largely of the "we don't really have any power or authority" type so I don't have any respect for the positions themselves.

[Notvelty]

You're being facetious, irritating, and not funny again, Jim. I'd ask you, if you just want to read your own words, yet have nothing intelligent to say, reconsider. Instead of posting this kind of stuff here, just type it out in a text file, or write it down on a pad of paper at your desk. And then you can review and giggle about it any time you like, without involving the rest of us.

If we limit postings to people who have something intelligent to say, I've got a tenner you're one of the first who's out of luck.

[Zoloft]

You're being facetious, irritating, and not funny again, Jim. I'd ask you, if you just want to read your own words, yet have nothing intelligent to say, reconsider. Instead of posting this kind of stuff here, just type it out in a text file, or write it down on a pad of paper at your desk. And then you can review and giggle about it any time you like, without involving the rest of us.

If we limit postings to people who have something intelligent to say, I've got a tenner you're one of the first who's out of luck.

All three, move on.
If you see a post by another member that is devoid of meaningful content, please just hit the 'report post' button.

[EricBarbour]

PHILIPPE SUCKS.

(Inserted for dramatic effect only.)

[Zoloft]

...and with that, this topic grinds to a fetid close.

I'd like to see people behave a bit better.

I'm leaning so hard towards muting a member or two.

Look at this topic and be ashamed, folks.

Shame! Shame! Shame!