Has anyone been treated badly by administrators/Wikipedians?

[ArsenalFan]

I have been reading about complaints about Wikipedia administrators. I've seen stories of people who get treated harshly and poorly by the admins. And I have been treated that way.

I edited as an IP in 2016, changing the date format on a British musician from the American date format to the British date format. A Wikipedian with the username of Garchy reverted it because they thought it was unconstructive. Then they reverted two other good faith edits without explaining why, which is against Wikipedia policy.

Then, in 2017, my account got blocked by Bbb23 because my IP address was doing abusive editing. I requested unblock, and had all my requests declined. Bbb23 even ignored my unblock request after he seemed like he could help me. He lied about it "his responses were not ignored" in a WP:ANI post. He is a d:ckhead. I told Wikipedia it was my friends who did the disruptive editing. But they wouldn't care, the Wikipedia user Only threatened me with consequences after I kept convincing them to unblock me.

A few months later, since that account was indefinitely blocked, Bbb23 blocked me again because of "abusing" multiple accounts. He deleted my draft on the Pieology pizza place that I worked days on, along with plausible redirects I created. What an abusive checkuser!


That's my story. Anyone else been cyberbullied by the admins?

[Poetlister]

ArsenalFan. I'm afraid that your story is very common and a large proportion of posters here can say that they've experienced the same or worse.

[The Garbage Scow]

Always save a copy of your draft in MS word or Notepad.

[collect]

The Rule rather than the exception - though some of the worst admins have "retired" there are enough left for whom "animus" is too gentle a word.

[Kumioko]

The Rule rather than the exception - though some of the worst admins have "retired" there are enough left for whom "animus" is too gentle a word.

I would say some have left but there are still a lot. Bbb23 has been a long term problem for years. Unfortunately he heavily pushes the house POV, blindly supports his fellow admins and has the support of the elitists.

[Beeblebrox]

Easier to evaluate these situations if we know the name of the account involved... Is it maybe User:Patriots50217 (T-C-L)?

[Ansh666]

A Great Catholic Person (T-C-L)
68.228.254.131 (T-C-L)
IP range that I believe the vandalism was on (1 2?)

So, Garchy incorrectly reverted some of your edits in 2016: 1 2 3. (I agree, two of the three were bad reverts.) Why did you then, almost a year later, before your first block, start doing this? That's unambiguously disruptive and, IMO, rather childish, and it's what ultimately got you blocked for good.

There's a lot more to the story, but I'm just really curious why you thought this in particular was a good idea.

[Beeblebrox]

Yeah, the premise, that some users are treated poorly by some admins, is valid but this particular case doesn't look to be an actual example of it.

[Poetlister]

Obviously, we get a very biased and slanted view on here of what admins do. Undoubtedly many admins do wrong and unfair things, and sometimes other admins collude with and protect them. However, I expect that most blocked users have done some bad things, even if a permablock may be excessive.

[Kumioko]

Obviously, we get a very biased and slanted view on here of what admins do. Undoubtedly many admins do wrong and unfair things, and sometimes other admins collude with and protect them. However, I expect that most blocked users have done some bad things, even if a permablock may be excessive.

I would say that's a fair assessment. The biggest problems stem from when the abusive ones do something they shouldn't and the others either dont do anything for help them because it suits their narrative.

[rhindle]

I personally wasn't but saw many who did which led me to check out the old WR and it confirmed my suspicions. Abuse of power was rampant. There definitely was a protected class and if you crossed them you either knew your place or get blocked and/or banned. Lifetime administrator ship really could create a toxic environment. There was also no due process(even once admitted) so many times the first person who complained to an admin usually got their way even if they were the real problem.

[ArsenalFan]

A Great Catholic Person (T-C-L)
68.228.254.131 (T-C-L)
IP range that I believe the vandalism was on (1 2?)

So, Garchy incorrectly reverted some of your edits in 2016: 1 2 3. (I agree, two of the three were bad reverts.) Why did you then, almost a year later, before your first block, start doing this? That's unambiguously disruptive and, IMO, rather childish, and it's what ultimately got you blocked for good.

There's a lot more to the story, but I'm just really curious why you thought this in particular was a good idea.

To get revenge. Even if it seems disruptive, I want to know how Garchy would feel if what they did to me happened to them. I still think A Great Catholic Person was unjustly blocked (the first one).

Also, even if Patriots50217 may be using the same IP address as A Great Catholic Person, what if the IP was shared? Checkusers shouldn't completely assume the Patriots fan is a sockpuppet of the Catholic.

[Instant Noodle]

I think wikipedia would be better off if admins had terms of office rather than an unlimited position. There are too many admins who let the "power" go to their heads and become generally dickish but not egregious enough to be de-adminned under the current setup.

[Beeblebrox]

I've said before that I would support a 10-year term with a required reconfirnation through some new process and not a traditional RFA. Other efforts have been made to weed out "bad old days" admins who cling to the bits that were basically handed to them in the pre-"RFA as a weeklong torture test" days. There's not as many as there once were, but no group of people of that size is going to be all great people with only the best motivations.

That being said, if the great power of being able to delete things and block people really appeals to you, you need a therapist. Wikipedia is the only environment I've ever encountered where administrative work is viewed as some great privilege. Having done it in the real world as well I certainly don't feel that way.

[Ansh666]

That being said, if the great power of being able to delete things and block people really appeals to you, you need a therapist.

Delete and block? Who cares? viewdelete is the best thing ever, and I'd fight anyone who says otherwise. (I'd probably lose, but still.)

To get revenge. Even if it seems disruptive, I want to know how Garchy would feel if what they did to me happened to them. I still think A Great Catholic Person was unjustly blocked (the first one).

Also, even if Patriots50217 may be using the same IP address as A Great Catholic Person, what if the IP was shared? Checkusers shouldn't completely assume the Patriots fan is a sockpuppet of the Catholic.

For more on how CU works, see this thread. It's a lot more than just IP, as plenty of people smarter than me already tried to tell you.

As to the rest of what you said...I think I'll just let that stand on its own.

[Beeblebrox]

That being said, if the great power of being able to delete things and block people really appeals to you, you need a therapist.

Delete and block? Who cares? viewdelete is the best thing ever, and I'd fight anyone who says otherwise. (I'd probably lose, but still.)

Amateur. viewsuppressed is where it's at.

Actually a lot of it is very boring and/or horrible.

[doggie015]

I have a long history of admin mistreatment. I managed to get one of the badmins desysopped via a lengthy arbcom case, but their arbitrary punitive restrictions and lies led to me being punitively community banned.

I am active in editing via a new account, of course, but I am sticking to purely positive contributions, so if I am busted, it will just be evidence against the alleged preventiveness of the community ban.

[Vigilant]

I've said before that I would support a 10-year term with a required reconfirnation through some new process and not a traditional RFA. Other efforts have been made to weed out "bad old days" admins who cling to the bits that were basically handed to them in the pre-"RFA as a weeklong torture test" days. There's not as many as there once were, but no group of people of that size is going to be all great people with only the best motivations.

That being said, if the great power of being able to delete things and block people really appeals to you, you need a therapist. Wikipedia is the only environment I've ever encountered where administrative work is viewed as some great privilege. Having done it in the real world as well I certainly don't feel that way.

One year term with annual review.
Any shenanigans at all and the bit is removed.
All advanced permissioned accounts report to a WMF community manager.

[turnedworm]

I've said before that I would support a 10-year term with a required reconfirnation through some new process and not a traditional RFA. Other efforts have been made to weed out "bad old days" admins who cling to the bits that were basically handed to them in the pre-"RFA as a weeklong torture test" days. There's not as many as there once were, but no group of people of that size is going to be all great people with only the best motivations.

That being said, if the great power of being able to delete things and block people really appeals to you, you need a therapist. Wikipedia is the only environment I've ever encountered where administrative work is viewed as some great privilege. Having done it in the real world as well I certainly don't feel that way.

One year term with annual review.
Any shenanigans at all and the bit is removed.
All advanced permissioned accounts report to a WMF community manager.

I agree with all these points.
The general disagreement to 1 year term with annual review would be "the amount of work for the community" - but if you leave it as a default to remain, then there is little or no work to be done, unless the admin has been falling short.
In conjunction with simple removal for shenanigans would mean that the stupid high standard for adminship, and veneration that goes alongside it would disappear. We'd have more people able to do the work, all held to a higher standard.
As for the WMF community manager, we are volunteers and every layer of the community is voluntary. That's no way to make sure things get done consistently.

[Kumioko]

There definately needs to be a way to get rid of admins like floquenbeam, highinbc and the other bums dragging the system down.

Admins absolutely need to be held accountable and should have to follow policy and neither currently happens consistently or functionally. The status quo isn't working and the argument that the community can be trusted to hand out the tools and to ban an editor but not remove the tools is a copout.

Reporting to a WMF community manager seems like a good idea on the surface however the people that currently work in the areas that would be in charge of this are incompetent. The trust and safety section lacks the trust of the community, legal doesn't care about the community other than the admins and functionaries, etc.

[Vigilant]

Reporting to a WMF community manager seems like a good idea on the surface however the people that currently work in the areas that would be in charge of this are incompetent. The trust and safety section lacks the trust of the community, legal doesn't care about the community other than the admins and functionaries, etc.

Hire someone from Blizzard who was a community manager for WoW.
Simple.

[Kumioko]

Yes it seems simple, but that person wouldn't be hired because the WMF isn't competent to hire a competent person. All they know how to do is hire admins from the projects, gender warriors and new college grads with little to now experience who are willing to work cheap.

The other and probably bigger problem is the sites culture. A competent community manager would be hogtied from day one by the community, the WMF and the board. They wouldn't be allowed to do a lot fo things they would want and would need to do. Additionally, a lot of the community regulars would revolt because they are doing the things that a competent community manager would toss them off the site for.

It works on WoW because WoW is largely fee for service, since the WMF's projects are all volunteer and the WMF doesn't really care about the volunteers unless they are cutting checks as donations, there isn't anything they are willing to do.

[Poetlister]

Also, even if Patriots50217 may be using the same IP address as A Great Catholic Person, what if the IP was shared? Checkusers shouldn't completely assume the Patriots fan is a sockpuppet of the Catholic.

The trouble is that anyone found socking could claim it was a shared IP. It's not unreasonable to put the burden of proof of innocence on the suspected sock.

[Vigilant]

Also, even if Patriots50217 may be using the same IP address as A Great Catholic Person, what if the IP was shared? Checkusers shouldn't completely assume the Patriots fan is a sockpuppet of the Catholic.

The trouble is that anyone found socking could claim it was a shared IP. It's not unreasonable to put the burden of proof of innocence on the suspected sock.

All IP edits go to pending changes.
Real name accounts only for editing BLPs and contentious areas.
EMail disabled by default with a whitelist maintained by the owner of the account.

Most of the trash is because they won't even consider the easiest useful changes.

[Alex Shih]

Meh, in regards to Bbb23 (despite of how meritless this thread is), I feel like I should say I've always enjoyed working with them, despite of the fact they receive preferential treatment (a recognised fact), will always blindly and blatantly speak in favour of establishment (the shoulder has been mildly tapped in that GiantSnowman case) and immediately goes missing when something involves them. But I've never think of them as a problem, more of a symptom of the system (like everything else, really).

[Kumioko]

Meh, in regards to Bbb23 (despite of how meritless this thread is), I feel like I should say I've always enjoyed working with them, despite of the fact they receive preferential treatment (a recognised fact), will always blindly and blatantly speak in favour of establishment (the shoulder has been mildly tapped in that GiantSnowman case) and immediately goes missing when something involves them. But I've never think of them as a problem, more of a symptom of the system (like everything else, really).

Bbb23 is the perfect example of what happens when a system goes unchecked. He knows that he can do almost anything, especially if it doesn't involve another admin and he does. He believes he is infallible and irreplaceable and his conduct towards new editors is reprehensible. I really have nothing good to say about bbb23. It's admins like him that drive out the real editors trying to improve Wikipedia and creates the wiki gangs that have to band together for self protection.

If he stopped editing tomorrow it would be the single best thing he ever did to improve the project and ai hope he reads this. He doesn't improve or build anything, he has built up his status through fear and the destruction of others. He is a troll, vandal and bully.

[Poetlister]

Nobody becomes an admin by being a good content editor. The sort of person who becomes an admin is, almost by definition, not a typical good editor jogging along peacefully. That's not to say that only nasty bullies become admins - we only need to see present company. But they are among the likeliest people to get the job.

[rhindle]

... (despite of how meritless this thread is)...,

Why is the thread meritless? Because it's obvious that admins mistreat people all the time and why waste everyone's time stating the obvious or do you actually think this isn't a problem?

[Poetlister]

... (despite of how meritless this thread is)...,

Why is the thread meritless? Because it's obvious that admins mistreat people all the time and why waste everyone's time stating the obvious or do you actually think this isn't a problem?

Because we've discussed the issue ad nauseam time and time again?

[rhindle]

... (despite of how meritless this thread is)...,

Why is the thread meritless? Because it's obvious that admins mistreat people all the time and why waste everyone's time stating the obvious or do you actually think this isn't a problem?

Because we've discussed the issue ad nauseam time and time again?

yes, I'm sure many are just sick of talking about his over and over again but it's good to have it documented and if bad actors continue to run amok, then it will keep being talked about.

[ArsenalFan]

Meh, in regards to Bbb23 (despite of how meritless this thread is), I feel like I should say I've always enjoyed working with them, despite of the fact they receive preferential treatment (a recognised fact), will always blindly and blatantly speak in favour of establishment (the shoulder has been mildly tapped in that GiantSnowman case) and immediately goes missing when something involves them. But I've never think of them as a problem, more of a symptom of the system (like everything else, really).

He is the biggest cyberbully on the Internet. You're saying that you enjoy working with him because you're an administrator. Admin bias at its best. Typical lying by the admins, in fact Bbb23 is meritless.

[ArsenalFan]

Meh, in regards to Bbb23 (despite of how meritless this thread is), I feel like I should say I've always enjoyed working with them, despite of the fact they receive preferential treatment (a recognised fact), will always blindly and blatantly speak in favour of establishment (the shoulder has been mildly tapped in that GiantSnowman case) and immediately goes missing when something involves them. But I've never think of them as a problem, more of a symptom of the system (like everything else, really).

Bbb23 is the perfect example of what happens when a system goes unchecked. He knows that he can do almost anything, especially if it doesn't involve another admin and he does. He believes he is infallible and irreplaceable and his conduct towards new editors is reprehensible. I really have nothing good to say about bbb23. It's admins like him that drive out the real editors trying to improve Wikipedia and creates the wiki gangs that have to band together for self protection.

If he stopped editing tomorrow it would be the single best thing he ever did to improve the project and ai hope he reads this. He doesn't improve or build anything, he has built up his status through fear and the destruction of others. He is a troll, vandal and bully.

YES! I hate Bbb23 more than Democrats hate Trump. He has less than zero interest in assisting people who aren't Wikipedia admins. I wouldn't say he is a vandal, because admins aren't supposed to vandalize Wikipedia. But he is any profanity out there.

[Dysklyver]

See the reason I don't hate Bbb23 so much is that he hasn't blocked me.

[Earthy Astringent]

The 23 in Bbb23 is the number of types of dicks he is.

[Kumioko]

The 23 in Bbb23 is the number of types of dicks he is.

I just thought it was his IQ, thanks for clearing up my misconceptions.

[ArsenalFan]

The 23 in Bbb23 is the number of types of dicks he is.

The perfect insult to a terrible username.