The history of administrators Options

[Peter Damian]

In 2001 Larry wrote here http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikip...May/000123.html in a reply to Crocker, who had written:

There is no such thing as an "administrator" in Wikipedia in the sense of someone responsible for its content, nor should there be. Nupedia has those (and should); Wikipedia just has us, and we are just as responsible for its content as anyone else. It does have a few folks to set policy, but even they have been very respectful of the community process of content creation and not tried to subvert it by establishing "control" or "ownership". Further, it is obviously impractical to have an infintely scalable content-creation method with non-scalable editing and expect to keep up. Wikipedia CANNOT work unless EVERYONE is an editor and administrator as well as an author. "

Larry replied:

Notice, there is no one claiming to be editor-in-chief or even editor of Wikipedia. A wiki, by its design, doesn't need one. Wikipedia needs people to act as "gardeners" (in Jimbo's metaphor). The reason Wikipedia is so successful at creating content is that there aren't any editors standing in the way of content creation. This means there's a lot of garbage that needs cleaning up, and the whole thing is a work-in-progress, but a lot work *is* done, and we *do* have a lot of very good articles and many that are improving.

It was a little like that when I started contributing in 2003. Quite a friendly place, even.

(1) When was the concept of 'administrator' devised? It seems to be built into the concept of the MediaWiki. Was it part of the original Ward-Cunningham design? Is it related to the administrator concept in computer systems design?

(2) When did the role become important, and when did the divide between editors and admins begin to get bitter?

(3) Who was the first editor to be banned? My research suggests an eccentric IP beginning with '24', who they called '24'.

(4) Who were the first rogue admins?

[Kelly Martin]

The original wikis did not have administrators within the software; everyone was equal in the eyes of the web app. There were no users, and if you wanted to make a change anonymously you just didn't sign your edit.

Of course, the web app itself had maintainers who installed and ran the software on hardware they controlled, and those people could, by virtue of their direct control of the app and its database, arbitrarily and nontraceably remove or alter content, at will. Doing so, however, is fairly tedious, and doesn't scale well.

[Rufus]

The original wikis did not have administrators within the software; everyone was equal in the eyes of the web app. There were no users, and if you wanted to make a change anonymously you just didn't sign your edit.

Yeah. Correct me if my memory fails, but the administrator role was fairly quickly devolved to a cadre of people nominated by Jimbo and quickly vetted over the mailing list (~2002). At first they could only delete, then they acquired the power to block. As the nominating process via Jimbo grew overly slow, Ed Poor (as a developer only for the purpose of promotions) took over most of the work of promoting new admins via RfA. Eventually, a little before Ed got in hot water (2004) and flamed out, that role was in turn devolved to the broader group of bureaucrats and taken away from the devs. And, in turn, the bureaucrats developed their own election process and thick encrusted shell of procedure.

I guess the surprise is that it stopped there--in 2007 or so I would have guessed that the stewards would seize the crown and power would keep evolving upwards along that same track, but instead it moved laterally into new permissions like CU and oversight. You never can tell!

[EricBarbour]

In 2001 Larry wrote here http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikip...May/000123.html in a reply to Crocker, who had written:

Wikipedia CANNOT work unless EVERYONE is an editor and administrator as well as an author.

That brings up another item: Lee Crocker was the second free-culture pseudoanarchist in Wikipedia.
He just wasn't as douchey as Cunctator--Lee actually wrote some good articles. What did Cunctator
do, other than act as Wikipedia's own Mommie Dearest?

As for the first admins: I've looked into that, and frankly, the database prior to 2003 is such a mess,
I'm not sure you can find anything substantial.

[EricBarbour]

This is the oldest known list of administrators, from Sept 2002.

-- April
Andre Engels
AstroNomer
AxelBoldt
Brion VIBBER
Bryan Derksen
Chuck Smith
Clifford Adams
Danny
Ed Poor
Enchanter
Isis
J Hofmann Kemp
Jheijmans
Jimbo Wales
Karen Johnson
Koyaanis Qatsi
LC
Lee Daniel Crocker
Magnus Manske
Manning Bartlett
Mark Christensen
Maveric149
Mirwin
Peter Winnberg
PierreAbbat
Robert Merkel
RoseParks
Scipius
Sjc
Stephen Gilbert
Tarquin
Taw
The Cunctator
The Epopt
Tim Shell
Timshell
Toby Bartels
Vicki Rosenzweig
WojPob

Please note:

Performing these functions requires "administrator" or "sysop" access. Current Wikipedia policy is to grant this access fairly liberally to anyone who has been a Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and active member of the community. If you would like such access, send an e-mail to the Wikipedia mailing list giving your Wikipedia login name and requesting access.

Even if you are granted access, we ask that you exercise care in using these functions, especially the ability to permanently delete content and to ban users.

Needless to say, they were really damn sloppy with admin powers back in 2002. They squabbled over the wording on that page for months.
Jimbo just handed out the password to anyone who asked (and kissed his ass). Typical.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Peter Damian]

Thank you for these. I've left a message on Brion_VIBBER's page http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Br...diaWiki_history for more history on the software aspect.

Who was the first really out of control admin? Or is that a silly question?

[Peter Damian]

The two links below explain everything, I think. Jimmy explains what a sysop is, and why it isn’t really a big deal. ‘Just means you aren’t a vandal’. Then Brion Vibber replies to people complaining that this is against the spirit of an essentially egalitarian project. How times changed.

It seems clear that the sysop function was introduced in January 2002 as part of the new php rewrite, although there was some kind of protection before that, as discussions about main page vandalism in 2001 make clear.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikip...rch/001692.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikip...rch/001693.html

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Peter Damian]

Research (and a discussion with Brion Vibber) confirms that there was a basic admin capability under the original UseModWiki system, but the "sysop" function as we know it arrived with the new software in January 2002.

The interesting thing is that everyone who was provably not a vandal was eo ipso a member of the 'community' and could simply ask for adminship, and it was always given, at least for the first half of 2002. This was used purely for blocking IPs. The idea of blocking a member of the 'community' was unthinkable. Then some problem users turned up, and the question was raised whether at some point it would be necessary to block logged in users. Jimmy gave this wonderfully cheesy reply:

I hope it doesn't sound too corny, but I think that the wiki spirit of love will prevent this ... Now I realize -- build it in a spirit of trust, and only do something about problems when they come up, always resisting the temptation to solve problems that don't exist, or to over-do the solution. If vandals start logging in, we'll have to do something about it. But until that happens, maybe our trusting nature will make it less fun to vandalize us.

Jimmy, yes it does sound really corny and cheesy, what were you thinking of?

The idea of not blocking users actually did survive with the concept that admins should never block other admins (no "wheel war" as they idiotically called it). But that simply proves that the real 'community' was the admins all along, whatever rubbish they talk about the whole community, and being an admin not that special blah blah.

The other interesting thing that came out of that period was the great extent they went to in order not to block or ban obvious trolls. E.g. the IP called '24' who was clearly deranged, plus another person who would write articles consisting of perfectly correct sequences of pi. From this there evolved the Wikipedian idea that you try as hard to keep people in the community, until all efforts fail. Then the offending heretic is cast into the outer darkness, labelled and vilified and marked as a leper etc etc.

Wales comes across clearly as a sort of Jesus figure, and perhaps he thought of himself that way too, in some way at least.

[edit] I think the user called 'CARROTS' goes down in history as the first actual user to be banned. Later on there was someone called Helga. After that, many many others, of course.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[EricBarbour]

Jimmy, yes it does sound really corny and cheesy, what were you thinking of?

That's the joke. He doesn't think.

I think the user called 'CARROTS' goes down in history as the first actual user to be banned. Later on there was someone called Helga. After that, many many others, of course.

Where did you find the CARROTS reference?

[Peter Damian]

Jimmy, yes it does sound really corny and cheesy, what were you thinking of?

That's the joke. He doesn't think.

I think the user called 'CARROTS' goes down in history as the first actual user to be banned. Later on there was someone called Helga. After that, many many others, of course.

Where did you find the CARROTS reference?

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikip...ril/001841.html

April-May 2002 was the big discussion on the mailing list about banning, with much excruciating hand-wringing and outpouring of hypocrisy from people like the Cunc and Dan Mayer about the evil of hierarchies and so forth.

Then there was the decision to ban 24 by Jimmy, and also the first outing http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikip...ril/001913.html , which was by Jimmy himself.

I base this decision in part on my research which leads me to believe
that 24 is Craig Hubley, whose writings you may see here:

http://poetpiet.tripod.com/2001/CraigHubley2.htm
http://poetpiet.tripod.com/2001/CraigHuble...ic_prntvrsn.htm
http://poetpiet.tripod.com/2001/six-styles-of-capital.htm
[that site seems to be dead but see http://let.sysops.be/wiki/Craig_Hubley

The basic principle, which later led to the downfall of Wikipedia, was by Jimmy when he laid down a complete separation of sysop powers and content dispute. This was after Mayer blocked a troll in a content dispute.

After that, it was inevitable that a divide would grow between those who were doing daily policing work and anti-vandalism, which is basically unskilled labour, and those who were in the business of writing an encyclopedia, which requires minimal reading and writing and comprehension skills.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[EricBarbour]

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikip...ril/001841.html

April-May 2002 was the big discussion on the mailing list about banning, with much excruciating hand-wringing and outpouring of hypocrisy from people like the Cunc and Dan Mayer about the evil of hierarchies and so forth.

Then there was the decision to ban 24 by Jimmy, and also the first outing http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikip...ril/001913.html , which was by Jimmy himself.

That's it, the smoking gun. I knew it had to be in the mailing-list archives somewhere in early or mid 2002.
If there wasn't so much utter crap in there, it would have been easy for anyone to find.

I wonder....if the wikipedia-l archives are the next thing they will delete, so no one else can research
Wikipedia's beginnings. You came in just under the wire.

Oh, and:

Of course, if you ask me, the whole of wikipedia is impossible. :-)
No one could possibly put up a well-advertised and open site that anyone
can edit without it quickly degenerating into a battleground for trolls
and counter-trolls. It's impossible.

Except, it obviously isn't, since it's working great. :-)

--Jimbo

That belongs on his tombstone.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[EricBarbour]

I have saved all the wikipedia-l archives from 2001 thru 2007 to my hard drive.
Anyone needing them is welcome to a copy. It comes to 13.6 megabytes.

I think I'll make a chart of the text quantities over time.....

It's funny, there's a big jump in July-December 2002, right after that "business". And a smaller-but-big jump starting in January 2005, right after Larry Sanger's first public criticism of Wikipedia. Most of that "hump" consists of lengthy arguments over how to deal with Wikipedia's "problems", complete with Wikipedia's leading trolls loudly claiming "there is no problem". David Gerard said:

The thing is, it's blindingly obvious that Wikipedia is going to be THE
encyclopedia. Wikipedia, not some other open-content web-based
encyclopedia, will have the brand identification Britannica had in the 20th
century. We are it. We are the one. Anyone else catching up is as unlikely
as FreeBSD taking over market share from Linux, even as its fans swear by
it.

The annoying aspect of this is that (a) the POV warriors have a point: this
is the popular one they need to hit to push their POV as NPOV; (b) people
annoyed at Wikipedia don't form a fork with different policies, they're
going to try to change this project instead. So Larry Sanger doesn't talk
about forming another project with policies to his liking - he talks about
how to put a spanner in the works of this one before it's too late.
- d.

What an ass. Another quote that belongs on a (his!) tombstone.

And there was a smaller hump, during the Essjay scandal.
Then traffic on wikipedia-l dropped off dramatically.
Presumably the really disgusting arguments went to IRC, other mailing lists, or Facebook.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Peter Damian]

Some 'did you know' facts about administration.

The first block policy http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...y&oldid=1012721 was written by Martin Harper on 8 June 2003. Shortly afterwards, Camembert creates the first RfA page. Very sweet and no suspicion of the hellhole to come. "If you want to become an administrator then add your name to the list below. Other users can comment on your request - they might express reservations (because, for example, they suspect you will abuse your new-found powers), but hopefully they will approve and say lovely things about you." Oh how nice.

The first RfA to fail was towards the end of June 2003. Someone called G prime, who is still at school and whose user page says this

i am a bit of a computer nerd.. i know several different computer languages including: VB (visual basic), C, java, HTML, JavaScript and i know how to program graphics calculators just to name a few. i have one sister and i have a german shepard dog called markus, and a persian cat called sooty. i will add some other stuff later....

is rejected not because he is obviously infantile, but because he does not have enough logged-in edits. "Stick around for a few months, then ask again." We've heard that a few times!

August 15 2003 sees the first request for de-sysop. User:172, who was later banned anyway, for being an evil sockpuppet.

And did you know that the first sockpuppet template was created by our old friend David Gerard? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=27876133 It's a lovely looking sock there, David.

And the first 'suspected sockpuppeter' tag is designed by our other friend Essjay http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=42953591 in March 2006.

Lovely.

[Detective]

The first RfA to fail was towards the end of June 2003. Someone called G prime, who is still at school and whose user page says this

That's G Prime (T-C-L-K-R-D) with a capital P.

After editing regularly in June, July and August 2003 he suddenly stopped, no doubt peeved at failing RfA. Interestingly, he returned only a few weeks ago after almost exactly eight years, no doubt by now grown into an adult. All he did was wipe his user page and talk page, and then disappeared again. Could he have got wind of PD's researches?

[Manning Bartlett]

Research (and a discussion with Brion Vibber) confirms that there was a basic admin capability under the original UseModWiki system, but the "sysop" function as we know it arrived with the new software in January 2002.

Under UseModWiki there were three "admins" - Larry Sanger, Jimbo and Tim Shell. They could delete a page but not block an IP.

I created the first "Page Titles to be deleted" page around October 2001. We'd list nonsense pages there and Tim would delete them (neither Larry nor Jimbo ever did admin stuff as far as I recall.)

[radek]

I think the user called 'CARROTS' goes down in history as the first actual user to be banned. Later on there was someone called Helga. After that, many many others, of course.

This is old stuff, and it's more out of personal interest, but you got any info on this Helga?

Edit: nm, I dug it out myself. Those old archives are an interesting read.

This post has been edited by radek:

[EricBarbour]

Under UseModWiki there were three "admins" - Larry Sanger, Jimbo and Tim Shell. They could delete a page but not block an IP.

I created the first "Page Titles to be deleted" page around October 2001. We'd list nonsense pages there and Tim would delete them (neither Larry nor Jimbo ever did admin stuff as far as I recall.)

We need to talk to you.....

[Selina]

I was just reading this thread and thinking, the only one I recognise there is Manning... and lol (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

MB seems to be one of the few really really long-term admins that haven't turned into "policy" wonks like Raul and still follow the original ideals of Wikipedia, per my reply here:
wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Manning_Bartlett#AN_post.
+and the subject below that

.....along with the the recent Newyorkbrad stuff on WP:AN/WP:ANI - wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#An_overall_concern_about_AN_and_ANI - I think there's rumblings of a revolution to finally reform behaviour and force people to be more professional, maybe, just maybe, if the momentum keeps going and enough people give a damn to not just let the status quo fester out of laziness... and get rid of the "them and us" privileges on insulting people from positions of power whilst others who do it don't last long - or even people who REPORT abuse, like me -.- I remember my original ban was never any kind of community thing, it was just a few admins putting their foot down when I dared criticise them, and deciding they would bully anyone who stood up... but I think things are starting to become more open now, as things are bigger it's too big for any one group to control anymore. Now they have to deal with the corrosive nature of internet culture in general. One thing that struck me when I looked at Baseball Bugs' talk page is he really is just a symptom of the internet in general, it's the whole "chan mentality" he's got the troll smiley and it really just made me think, yeah, it's just another one of them that happen naturally, Anonymous can do great things but largely you can only do good things on the internet if there are enough good people t regulate the clowns.

This seems largely focused on attacking admins who are usually good, rather than dealing with the real problem users who seem to have most of their communication in Wikipedia about collaborating with others to conflict against others or trolling boards: wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement
• I think it was on wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard that I saw people are talking about starting up a second more general case?

This is an interesting discussion I just found when googling civility arbcom trying to find the recent case thing they are doing, it's actually much older:
mail-archive.com/gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org/msg01325.html
• I can definitely get what they are talking here: mail-archive.com/gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org/msg01331.html - where they're saying the psychology about the continual abuse on WP seems to be about power, I think that's totally right, it's the same kind of tribal dominance behaviour you get in any group of humans especially males, just due to thousands of years of evolution to be that way and hormones: ssl.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbwssl.cgi?Gw="lord+of+the+flies"+"william+golding"

[Manning Bartlett]

Who was the first really out of control admin?

Ed Poor.

<subsequent edit> Or The Cunctator.

Hmmm... it would be one of them.

The Cunctator still edits, by the way.

This post has been edited by Manning Bartlett:

[Selina]

I edited too, need to use preview more. Grr, keep saying that. Fast Reply is too tempting