Grants:IdeaLab/Reduce harassment by eliminating the power of elitist "editors" to harass and ban users. This power is frequently abused.

Reduce harassment by eliminating the power of elitist "editors" to harass and ban users. This power is frequently abused.
please add a 1-2 sentence summary after 'summary='
Hex icon with lightning white.svg
idea creator
ProfGiles
Hex icon with hexes white.svg
developer
Acsteitz
join
endorse
created on13:37, Wednesday, June 15, 2016 (UTC)


Project ideaEdit

What is the problem you're trying to solve?Edit

Elitist moderators are given free reign to harass and ban editors. This power is frequently abused. These moderators are granted profile space to brag about their many "edits" and win badges for them, thus encouraging them to change other editors' edits. This creates a set of powerful moderators who can harass and band other users at will without accountability,

What is your solution?Edit

  1. Reduce harassment by eliminating the power of elitist "editors" to "own" articles and censor other users' contributions.
  2. Eliminate all badges and other awards and incentives to harass other users through edits.
  3. Eliminate the ability to edit another users' profile page.

Project goalsEdit

Get involvedEdit

ParticipantsEdit

  • Developer I am a web developer but use mostly Microsoft technology so my ability to contribute development work to wikimedia/wikipedia will require some ramp up time Acsteitz (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

EndorsementsEdit

  • Support. Savvy editors can often abuse their friendships with likeminded administrators to allow articles to slant in one direction or another. Spudst3r (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Points 2 and 3 make sense. Point 1 will need some more details about implementation. Perhaps adding a _vote / review_ button next to the _thank_ button on the page history, which provides/creates some facility that summarizes a page's edits by contributor, and the reviews that their edits receive. Magic5ball (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. This has never happened to me but I have seen it happen to other editors. A snob, smug, chip-on-the-shoulder moderator "picks on" an editor because the moderator doesn't like something the editor said or did, regardless of whether the editor has actually violated any wikipedia TOS. When the editor asks questions to get clarification about their ban the moderator sees this as a "personal challenge" and steps up the harassment. This has discouraged me from contributing sometimes because I don't want to irritate a moderator and end up banned. Beyond eliminating incentives for moderators to act irresponsibly, there needs to be a way for editors to "down vote" a moderator's action and if the moderator gets enough down votes their moderation privileges are temporarily suspended until reviewed by a panel of other moderators AND NON-moderators (to prevent "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" among moderators). Acsteitz (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I have that problem on Finnish Wiki. The admins are a clan they will always attack together agianst single user, they will always vote together, they will always support each other. After some attacks, baseless edit wars, and completely baseless bans - they become accustomed to herassment. They can classify Absolutely ANYHTING under "Disruptive editing" Absolutely anything goes under it. Also there is no other meaningful counterweight user community so the admins can single out users and kill them. There is no way of EVER get rid of any admin, because thay all vote for each other. There should be a downvote for each admin that users can submit. after certain amount of downvotes admin rights should automatically be removed.Dmitri 152 (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  •   Strong support. Here is a quick analogy that has some degree of basis. Within the United States Department of Defense there is a statute allowing for a maximum 4 year time-on-station (TOS). TOS can be extended to 6 years but must be approved by multiple direct supervisors (Chain-of-Command). But after a 6 years the assignment MUST change. The TOS is in place to avoid abuse of power, corruption and immoral behavior. Wikipedia should have some type of policy in place to avoid bullying (immoral behavior) within this platform. Allowing an admin to carry on with 'no limits', makes no sense and leads to the current acceptable 'bullying' allowed within the wikipedia domains. Vwanweb (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Expand your ideaEdit

Would a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation help make your idea happen? You can expand this idea into a grant proposal.

Expand into a Rapid Grant
Expand into a Project Grant
(launching July 1st)