Newbie and not-so-newbie biting

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Not everyone wants to be a janitor...

Re: [WikiEN-l] Newbie and...

Apoc 2400

18 Sep 2009 18 Sep '09

6:04 p.m.

...

This isn't a new issue by any means, but here's a nice post by someone who's been contributing occasionally since 2004, about how daunting "wikibullying" can be for newbies and other editors who aren't well-versed in the procedures and processes. http://travel-industry.uptake.com/blog/2009/09/04/bullypedia-a-wikipedian-w… Unfriendliness is built into the system, even when admins and others who enforce the rules are perfectly civil and try to be friendly at an individual level.

This is really something everyone here should read. I think the problem is that on Wikipedia, anyone can be a cop. When we see ex-wikipedians complaining about abusive admins, they often didn't meet actual administrators, but self-appointed gate keepers. Just like open editing attracts a mix of good editors and vandals, open policing attracts a mix of good administrators and people with a thirst for power. While we have always been very good at dealing with the obvious negative consequence of "anyone can edit", vandalism, we have been completely unable to reign in on the flip side of "anyone can be a cop": bullies and people with a need talk down on others. An overzelous rule-enforcer is still seen as a basically productive member of the community. If a newbie somehow figures out how to complain about being bitten, we assume he or she is a vandal until proven otherwise. In the beginning there was so much vandalism that we had to welcome anyone willing to deal with it, whether their motivations were pure or not. Over the past years the number of vandals and other simple troublemakers has dropped and our technical means of dealing with them have improved. We still have the army of hobby-cops and they aren't going to sit around idle. So we get the situation that writer above faces. /Apoc2400

Show replies by date

Emily Monroe

18 Sep 18 Sep

10:42 p.m.

...

When we see ex-wikipedians complaining about abusive admins, they often didn't meet actual administrators, but self-appointed gate keepers.

Any way to make admin status more obvious? I mean, I know being an admin isn't supposed to be a big deal, but obviously a newcomer (or even an oldcomer) may get mistake an experienced editor for an admin. This makes a difference in not only semantics, but the tasks that an editor would be expected to take on, etc.

...

While we have always been very good at dealing with the obvious negative consequence of "anyone can edit", vandalism, we have been completely unable to reign in on the flip side of "anyone can be a cop": bullies and people with a need talk down on others.

You're right. I know this is a controversial opinion, but I believe this to be a consequence of a consensus that "All civility blocks are bad". No. A few civility blocks might be bad, but civility blocks are needed. I think this spills over into other consequences of being uncivil, like desyopping and civility parole. After all, any civility- related consequence is such a Big Deal that we need to leave that up to ArbCom.

...

If a newbie somehow figures out how to complain about being bitten, we assume he or she is a vandal until proven otherwise.

I personally try not to assume a newbie is a vandal--mistaken, perhaps, but not a vandal. I can see people ABF toward newbies though, and that's frightening! Emily On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:04 AM, Apoc 2400 wrote:

...

stevertigo

11:04 p.m.

Emily Monroe <bluecaliocean(a)me.com> wrote:

...

When we see ex-wikipedians complaining about abusive admins, they often didn't meet actual administrators, but self-appointed gate keepers.

Hm. Very good point. Maybe a little template for admin sigs ("template:adsig") would work as a requirement for admins who are acting/commenting in an administrative capacity. Or else it can be an all-on requirement in prefs. Likely not being the first, I actually thought of this sort of thing for other officers. The idea there is that officers need to signify which of their comments are made in an official capacity. Jimbo's most important function was just *the spreading of good will* by making considered judgments in the field, backed up largely by the authority given to him through public trust. While the latter responsibility ("lights") has fallen to the Foundation, the *earlier responsibilities* have fallen to Arbcom. Thus the only issue with making them mobile and active, is resolving any ostensible conflicts of interest that apparently inhibit their mobility. -Stevertigo

stevertigo

11:10 p.m.

stevertigo <stvrtg(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

While the latter responsibility ("lights") has fallen to the Foundation,

Huh. This line refers to text I removed from my message, so I should have taken this out too. I had referred to 'keeping the lights on' as one of the inheritable responsibilities, but took it out just to keep it brief. -Stevertigo

Charles Matthews

11:25 p.m.

Apoc 2400 wrote:

...

Over the past years the number of vandals and other simple troublemakers has dropped and our technical means of dealing with them have improved. We still have the army of hobby-cops and they aren't going to sit around idle. So we get the situation that writer above faces.

Having looked deeper into what [[User:Mckennagene ]] has been talking about, I don't think that's correct on either count. The vandal problem hasn't gone away: admins deal with those vandals we have more harshly in the past (and no one cares). And the cited complaint piece is pretty misleading in its way. The [[Kettlebowl]] article would have been a useful addition to [[Bryant, Wisconsin]] (which isn't much to look at); the comment on creation "one of the most significant activities in the Antigo, WI area" is pretty odd when a link was created in [[Antigo, Wisconsin]] and not in [[Bryant, Wisconsin]]. With directions for how to get there from Antigo by bus. Whatever User:Mckennagene has said, this is promotional (aimed at people in the county town). Further, [[Talk:Kettlebowl]] shows no signs at all of bullying: discussion of notability, of the geographic feature of the hill being encyclopedic while a small skiing area may not be. It is certainly a weakness of our discussions that a single instance is so often taken as indicative of something people want to believe. Charles

Emily Monroe

19 Sep 19 Sep

12:46 a.m.

...

The vandal problem hasn't gone away: admins deal with those vandals we have more harshly in the past (and no one cares).

Is that, or is that not a good thing? I honestly, sincerely ask this question not out of spite, but of curiosity. Emily On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Charles Matthews wrote:

...

Apoc 2400 wrote:

Charles Matthews

1:02 a.m.

Emily Monroe wrote:

...

The vandal problem hasn't gone away: admins deal with those vandals we have more harshly in the past (and no one cares).

Is that, or is that not a good thing? I honestly, sincerely ask this question not out of spite, but of curiosity.

It is composed of two things. Firstly, that powers to ban indefinitely have been devolved (sort of) from ArbCom to the admins as a group (the qualification being that ArbCom cannot ban anyone indefinitely). This is fundamentally good. It means that there is no need to review formally and at length the evidence on a particular case of vandalism, because by now there is no real doubt about the standards to apply. And then there is the part that some admins (probably not particularly representative) are happy enough to run someone off the site either with little chance to show they can reform, or by using more weaselly versions of "disruptive" behavior on the same level as vandalism (which is basically malicious damage to the site). This is not good, but it is hard to get anyone not directly concerned to care about abuse within that part of the system. In short, the checks and balances can fail where people are unscrupulous and/or are too vested in getting rid of a particular editor who is not a classic vandal but something else. Charles

Emily Monroe

1:11 a.m.

...

Firstly, that powers to ban indefinitely have been devolved (sort of) from ArbCom to the admins as a group (the qualification being that ArbCom cannot ban anyone indefinitely).

First off, thanks for the history lesson. No, I'm not being sarcastic, really, thanks.

...

In short, the checks and balances can fail where people are unscrupulous and/or are too vested in getting rid of a particular editor who is not a classic vandal but something else.

Good point. This actually interferes with accessibility to people who are disabled (usually cognitively or emotional disabled) or from different, perhaps non-English cultures. Both of these can interfere with competence required to edit Wikipedia, and also with being accepted in Wikipedia. Emily On Sep 18, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Charles Matthews wrote:

...

Emily Monroe wrote:

The vandal problem hasn't gone away: admins deal with those vandals we have more harshly in the past (and no one cares).

Is that, or is that not a good thing? I honestly, sincerely ask this question not out of spite, but of curiosity.

George Herbert

1:20 a.m.

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Emily Monroe <bluecaliocean(a)me.com> wrote:

...

Firstly, that powers to ban indefinitely have been devolved (sort of) from ArbCom to the admins as a group (the qualification being that ArbCom cannot ban anyone indefinitely).

First off, thanks for the history lesson. No, I'm not being sarcastic, really, thanks.

In short, the checks and balances can fail where people are unscrupulous and/or are too vested in getting rid of a particular editor who is not a classic vandal but something else.

To add to this - People who are causing a problem but have "aware friends" - people who know them and know AN and ANI and policy ok - rarely get driven off. Their friends post an ANI thread if they're blocked excessively, or go to the admin and advocate moderation, or go to another administrator and advocate moderation, etc. Once one becomes known to someone in that set of people, actually "driving someone away from Wikipedia" becomes exponentially more difficult, if anyone supports the problem case at all. What we are missing is that the vast majority of cases of someone getting run off aren't visible to anyone who's active or experienced enough. Nobody is generally following non-admins around looking for them being self-appointed gatekeepers who are behaving abusively, and there's little QA / review for admin actions practically except where the "aware friends" issue comes into play. I almost wish we had an admin action review board, whose job it was to say just quickly look at some fraction (10%? 1%?) of all admin actions and see if they're documented, justified, reasonable etc and give the admins feedback, request more writeup, ask for reconsideration etc. Key question - in terms of hostility, do people think that hostility to new editors is more from admins, more from self appointed gatekeepers, more from normal users interacting hostiley in a small article space? -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Emily Monroe

1:28 a.m.

...

I think that would happen to me if there was any attempt at all to drive me off. More than likely, since I talk about my disabilities on my user page, there would be an alert on the talkpage of WikiProject Accessibility at some point if it gets bad enough, and therefore the people who want me to get driven off would probably get a bigger subset of users who want THEM to get driven off instead.

...

I almost wish we had an admin action review board, whose job it was to say just quickly look at some fraction (10%? 1%?) of all admin actions and see if they're documented, justified, reasonable etc and give the admins feedback, request more writeup, ask for reconsideration etc.

Good idea. Maybe 10% for the first three months this is tried out, and then after that, 10% for the first three months of adminship and 1% for every other admin? Maybe there should be a special "recent changes" page for administrative actions? Emily On Sep 18, 2009, at 5:20 PM, George Herbert wrote:

...

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Emily Monroe <bluecaliocean(a)me.com> wrote:

Firstly, that powers to ban indefinitely have been devolved (sort of) from ArbCom to the admins as a group (the qualification being that ArbCom cannot ban anyone indefinitely).

First off, thanks for the history lesson. No, I'm not being sarcastic, really, thanks.

In short, the checks and balances can fail where people are unscrupulous and/or are too vested in getting rid of a particular editor who is not a classic vandal but something else.

David Gerard

1:35 a.m.

2009/9/18 George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

Emily Monroe

1:37 a.m.

...

I suspect that'd mean the arbcom, who are quite busy enough ... but hmm.

How about appointed by arbcom from a pool of people who were voted in with a super majority? Emily On Sep 18, 2009, at 5:35 PM, David Gerard wrote:

...

2009/9/18 George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>om>:

+1 This is a most thoroughly excellent idea. Reviewed by a stable group of reasonably known and sane people, not just whichever people have shown up at ANI that day. I suspect that'd mean the arbcom, who are quite busy enough ... but hmm. - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Ray Saintonge

11:08 a.m.

Emily Monroe wrote:

...

I suspect that'd mean the arbcom, who are quite busy enough ... but hmm.

How about appointed by arbcom from a pool of people who were voted in with a super majority?

Voting is evil. It starts by requiring people to run for the position, and that alone excludes perfectly suitable people who aren't masochistic enough to put themselves through an election campaign. Good criteria are elusive. Ec

Carcharoth

2:48 a.m.

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:35 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

2009/9/18 George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>om>:

It is possible to use "Special:Random" to bring up a random editor, but that is next to useless because of the number of inactive editors. Something to randomly generate active admins for review would be good, but probably not very popular. Better would be a random generator of admin *actions* for review. Trouble is, some type of admin actions are so voluminous and routine, that the 'bad' actions would still get lost in the volume. *Any* system relies on people being told how to appeal against admin actions, and it depends on them also having the confidence that they will get a fair hearing, and that depends on those reviewing the actions to genuinely review them, and not just rubber-stamp them. Again, the trouble is that the vast majority of appeals are rightly declined. So the volume overwhelms the few bad blocks and denying of unblock requests, and things get missed. Some of those end up at ArbCom, sent to the arbitration mailing list and ending up at the door of BASC (the Ban Appeals Subcommittee), but that is only a small fraction of an undoubtedly larger number of questionable blocks and actions that never get properly reviewed (and that in turn is dwarfed by the very large number of correct actions). Carcharoth

George Herbert

2:55 a.m.

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

[...] *Any* system relies on people being told how to appeal against admin actions, and it depends on them also having the confidence that they will get a fair hearing, and that depends on those reviewing the actions to genuinely review them, and not just rubber-stamp them. Again, the trouble is that the vast majority of appeals are rightly declined. So the volume overwhelms the few bad blocks and denying of unblock requests, and things get missed. Some of those end up at ArbCom, sent to the arbitration mailing list and ending up at the door of BASC (the Ban Appeals Subcommittee), but that is only a small fraction of an undoubtedly larger number of questionable blocks and actions that never get properly reviewed (and that in turn is dwarfed by the very large number of correct actions).

To add in a step - if you're blocked, the block message says to contact unblock-en-l first, and a few people a day (10 avg? 20?) do. Some of those are just goofing off and have no intention of contributing positively. Most were caught in wider blocks or IP autoblocks that had side effects. Some are problem editors we can reason with. Sometimes, they're problem editors we can't reason with, and unfortunately those are the ones we punt to arbcom as the next appeal step (per policy...). Unblock-en-l isn't officially a peer review or actions review process step - it functions as one, to a minor extent, because if we see a possibly bad block we usually discuss with the blocking admin and follow up. But it's not titled as a review per se. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Ray Saintonge

11:01 a.m.

George Herbert wrote:

...

People who are causing a problem but have "aware friends" - people who know them and know AN and ANI and policy ok - rarely get driven off. Their friends post an ANI thread if they're blocked excessively, or go to the admin and advocate moderation, or go to another administrator and advocate moderation, etc. Once one becomes known to someone in that set of people, actually "driving someone away from Wikipedia" becomes exponentially more difficult, if anyone supports the problem case at all.

In the real world that might be called corruption, or in some cases nepotism. Perhaps when there is a dispute between an admin and a non-admin leading to disciplinary action for both being at fault, the penalty for the admin should be doubled.

...

That's a possibility. Included among these sins could be impersonal behaviour and messages full of jargon.

...

Key question - in terms of hostility, do people think that hostility to new editors is more from admins, more from self appointed gatekeepers, more from normal users interacting hostiley in a small article space?

Probably a combination of the first two. The gatekeepers will often see themselves as future admins. If they know about the RfA process they will quickly learn what it takes to become an admin. The gauntlet that must be run there imparts adminship with highly prestigious status. Oldtimers can keep repeating that adminship is no big deal, but the actual process tells a different story. I would place the bulk of the responsibility for perpetuating hostility with the admins. They should know better; they should set the example; if they fail to do so they should be treated more harshly. The "normal" user expressing hostility within a narrow set of articles is less of a problem; his adversaries are often as well versed in the topic area as he is. His biases are more easily identifiable, in contrast with the one who reacts impersonally across an unlimited range of articles seeking strict application of rules over areas where he knows nothing. Ec

David Goodman

10:05 p.m.

The best practical way to audit admin actions is to become an admin oneself. Admins have just as many conflicts among them as any other active people here. There are people I watch, and people who watch me. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

...

George Herbert wrote:

That's a possibility. Included among these sins could be impersonal behaviour and messages full of jargon.

Ray Saintonge

20 Sep 20 Sep

12:30 a.m.

David Goodman wrote:

...

Perhaps so. And maybe I should have taken steps to become an admin way back when joining the mailing list was a prerequisite to becoming one. Now, I would just not run myself through that gauntlet; it's not worth it. To be successful would require too much equivocation, or agreeing to put too much effort on those parts of adminship which do not interest me at all. Ec

5333

days inactive

5334

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

17 comments

9 participants

tags (0)

participants (9)

Apoc 2400
Carcharoth
Charles Matthews
David Gerard
David Goodman
Emily Monroe
George Herbert
Ray Saintonge
stevertigo