User:Agent c/ReportReport

Purpose
The purpose of our study was to


 * Establish what problems exist within the Nukapedia community
 * Establish what problems exist within the Nukapedia wiki itself
 * Establish if possible the origins of these problems (in a non accusatory or confrontational way)
 * Come to a view on what can be done to solve these problems

Truth and reconcilliation
The goal of this project is not to come to a view if any person, or persons are responsible for the problems highlighted by the research. Our purpose is to uncover what has occurred, and what is still occurring, regardless of the personalities involved.

This will not name any personalities involved in any previous decisions or actions. We believe the problems that exist are bigger than any personality, and have been going on so long and are so entrenched it is simply not possible to fairly attribute them to any one person.

The only personalities we will name are those who participated in the study as participants in that capacity, and will not attribute any comments or views directly to any specific participant.

Although some discussions did at times discuss the actions of individuals, participants were encouraged to look at issues in the abstract, disregarding what personalities have been involved in the past.

Whether or not that has turned out to be the right action is what we do seek to establish, rather than whether or not the person believed it was right. We do not endorse the use of this report in any sort of disciplinary or rights removal process, but hope it is used to fix the structural problems that exist.

Methodology
16 wiki and/or discord users were invited to participate. This was designed to include a cross section of past and present wiki users, including special rights users, regular users, and those who had received disciplinary action against them. We intentionally sought the views of conflicting groups in the community, including users who had a history of conflict with each other. One user refused the invitation, and two left part way through the study.

These were joined by 4 facilitators and the project leader. The project leader encouraged participants to view themselves in a flat structure. Users were assigned to one of three focus groups (Alpha, Beta, and Charlie), as well as a general chat channel across all participants. In the focus groups, users were given topics and points to discuss by the project manager, whilst the general chat was more freeform and allowed to take its own course.

Facilitators assigned the users to their focus groups, and provided very light touch moderation as neccessary (this was limited to encouraging users to treat each other with respect when neccesary and refocusing the conversation if needed - only sparodic use of the tools was neccessary). Facilitators did some limited participation in the focus groups to encourage conversation as well as participated in the general chat.

Pikushi was also invited

Participants
Users


 * Gilpo
 * Mr Pie*
 * Saxleel12
 * The Appalachian
 * The Mug Monarch
 * Aiden4017
 * Chris The Saiyan
 * Echserah
 * Intrepid359
 * JBour53
 * SaviorDJ
 * Sigmund Fraud
 * Tagaziel*
 * Finndablair
 * All yur Favourites
 * 1 Refusal not named

Asterisk denotes Fandom employees

Facilitators


 * Bleep196
 * Richie9999
 * The Dyre Wolf
 * Agent c
 * Sakaratte

Project Co-Ordinator


 * The Gunny

Discussion 1 - The state of Nukapedia
Do you agree with the following statement "The site "Nukapedia" currently exists in a state of relatively high disfunction centered around a high level of toxicity between individual users, discontent between users and administration, as well as conflict within the administration itself.

Alpha

There was broad agreement with this statement, in particular with there being toxicity between individual users, and users and administrators.

One paricipant believed that the issues could be traced to ideals and factionalism that develops. This factionalism in turn leads to some edits being protected, and others being rejected.

Another paricipant identified that there was an obsession over returning to a "perfect" era for the wiki centered around certain individuals which they suggested may not have ever existed.

Beta

There was further agreement with this statement.

Members of this group identified problems with users not being given input into decisions, and what was described as "cult of personalities" rising around certain figures, and others being vilified even from people they do not know for being in the wrong group, and special rights users developing into a "military like structure"

Charlie

One participant denied there was any disfunction beyond "toxic former users", and conflict between staff only existed "where trust was broken", and that discontent between users and administrators did not occur until recently and come down to people breaking the rules.

Another paricipant denied any disfunction at all in the special rights holders or userbase or relations between them but went on to identify problems with people on fringe discord servers with a "Strange fascination with what is going on in this place" and "People with ego's too important and immature" and said that "In general, the amount of shit that is given to people volunteering to keep this place afloat, is just outright ridiculous."

Other participants disagreed, highlighting issued between the current administration, groups of banned users, and groups of former administration; noting that some of which are now also banned. Another user said they believed that special rights holders had become so agressive that there was no consideration made to good faith at all.

One participant believed that a users prior actions were key to understaind if they were acting in good faith, whilst another believed that this suggested unfair targeting of users.

Another said "There are some groups of users who left or were driven away for various reasons, but still believe the wiki "belongs to" them" who "will jump on any opportunity to discredit current rights holders and revert pages".

Discussion 2 - Observed complaints
'''Do you agree with any of the following complaints we have observed:


 * 1) Some users feel a lack of representation in the administration of the site.
 * 2) Some users feel distrust of the motivations and/or actions of site administration.
 * 3) Some users feel distrust of the motivations and/or actions of other users.
 * 4) Some users feel there are unresolved interpersonal conflicts that have a detrimental effect on the site/users.
 * 5) Some users feel that interpersonal conflicts that bleed from offsite have a detrimental effect on the site/users.
 * 6) Some users feel that there are groups, cliques, cabals etc. with nefarious ideals, goals and/or agendas.
 * 7) Some users feel personally targeted by these various groups.
 * 8) Some users have experienced attempts to defame or harm them, online and in their personal offline lives.
 * 9) Some users feel a reluctance to contribute or engage socially from fear of being targeted.
 * 10) Some users feel a high level of frustration at the high level of toxicity and either have or are considering leaving.
 * 11) Some users actively pursue ideas, goals and agendas with the intent to harass, harm, defame or drive other users away.
 * 12) Some users actively pursue ideas, goals and agendas with the intent to cause harm the site itself, either for their own gain, or simply to cause mayhem.

Have you personally felt of seen this on the wiki, Discussions, or discord? From off site? What would you add to the list, and do you think any of these are unfounded.'''

Alpha

All users agreed with all 12 points.

There was an agreement that there is a conflict between the "in " and "out" groups, and disputes over canon contribute to this, as well as unease at the removal content from sources that have been removed from canon status, rather than presenting the informatiomn and leaving it to the user..

The users suggested there should be appropriate markings so that information from sources are appropriately marked as "canon" "not canon" and if there is some status in between, as well as a need to come to a better consensus on issues rather than one personality, or a small majority having its way. There is concern that some of these issues has lead to a circle where wiki content used by Bethesda Developers without appropriate checking has become canonised simply because its on the wiki.

Beta

One participant agreed with points 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.

One participant agreed with points 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11

One participant agreed with 11, and recognised their own prior behaviour in 9 and 10, and appeared to implicitly agree with 12.

One participant agreed with all of the points, but especially 1, 7, 8, 10, and 11. This user relayed a personal story where they faced harrassment through doctored images which required medical intervention and effected their work as evidence of the toxicity they have found on the wiki.

One user brought up the ban on anonymous editors as a complaint that should be addressed.

One user highlighted on point 9 that there has been a drop in traffic, and attempting to restore removed content sees swift action to revert it and a ban. This was linked with personalities and the wiki merge.

This then brought to light changes made in policies, such as the canon policy, which appear to have been made without community input, much less approval.

Charlie

One participant agreed with 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 highlighting attacks on the admin team by people critical of those in the out group. That participant stated "Some users should be ashamed of themselves, over the lengths they go to harass people over a video game wiki."

One participant agreed with 1-10, agreed 11 had occured at least once but was no longer an issue, and said "maybe" to 12.

Other participants in this group did not indicate any direct view on this points. However a long discusion regarding allegations of using rights to gatekeep pages, and whether content management tools and tlak pages are being appropraitely used, and consensus being attempted.

Discussion 3 - Basic Wiki Principles
Which of these statements is closer to your overall view of the site.
 * 1) Nukapedia is a wiki that has social elements that help support the community and the wiki.
 * 2) Nukapedia is a social site that has many elements for fans to engage, one of them being a wiki.

Please give your thoughts on the basic wiki principles that Fandom outlines in their community guidelines: Do you agree with all these? Do we do some of these better than others? Worse? The full descriptions of these can be found here.
 * Jump right in!
 * Collaboration is key.
 * Practice open-mindedness & assume good faith.
 * Be nice.
 * Welcome new users.
 * Spread the word!
 * Ask for help.
 * Don't plagiarize content.
 * Don't use the wiki to spam your own links.
 * Don't feed the trolls.
 * Don't make personal attacks.
 * Always remember online communities still involve real people.
 * Never forget to have fun!

Alpha

One user identified Nukapedia as a wiki first, with things (such as discussions) tacked on and not built well.

One user disagreed with both positions, saying "Nukapedia as it currently stands is a site dedicated to providing information and community to its users".

Another user rejected the dichotomoy, saying that its been close to both extents over time, but is presetly closer to the first position, citing the current ban on anonymous edits.

One user agred with all guidelines.

One user identified issues with how new editors are treated and protectionism saying "There's this aggressive protectionism and then when someone gets their hand smacked and asks for help, they are often just pointed to the policy page with a RTFM".

Beta

This group didn't offer any specific comments at the time, but in a later conversation one user claimed: "People use us as a wiki, very few use us as a lore databank...people want to know the location of bobble heads, or magazines, not know the entire lore of deathclaws"

This view was not agreed by others in the group with another participant saying "It is alarming to see that you and likely others think that readers are not interested in lore". When confronted with another page that had its content reduced from three paragraphs to three lines even they conceeded "yeah that feels too short".

Charlie

One user identified the social aspect becoming more important over time, but believed it was first and foremost a wiki at its core.

One user felt that the wiki community needed to improve at collaboration, open mindedness, and godo faith, and tha tpersonal attacks and forgetting that online communities involve real people is a problem, along with general toxiciity.

Other users didn't offer any specific views.

Discussion 4 - Forward looking
Today's talking point is a simple one: What is your greatest fear regarding Nukapedia's future?

Alpha

One user expressed a fear in one particular user (another participant) returning to the wiki, and that the current divisions regarding scope, organisation, and referencing would not be resolved. When asked if this was down to culture, structure or policy, they said all three.

One user expressed a fear in a return to the status of the wiki in 2020.

Beta

One user expressed a fear in freedoms for people acting indivudually, and said "going against the status quo gets you met with intimidation and insults" as well as bans. Another user agreed, identigging the moderator channels as acting like a "Circle Jerk".

Charlie

One user said "To end up being treated like I was when I first showed up there or have other new editors treated the same way. It was horrible and caused me to have a mental break more than once"

Another said "My greatest fear is this cycle continuing where one group of toxic editors drives out the preceding group of toxic editors and then drives away newcomers." and that they were afraid to speak up and openly about it out of fear of retaliation.

Echoing those comments, another cited a never ending cycle of toxicity, with good editors driven away.

A fourth also cited new editors being driven away by drama.

This group explored whether Discord had a factor. One user had seen a lot of evidence of questionable behaviour on Discord, but relatively few instances on the wiki, and concern over unofficial discord server and asked if wiki work on discord should be ended. However another user highlighted that these issues existed before discord, and is a cultural thing (although it may have been exacerbated by it).

This group also explored anonymous editing as a part of this. It was revealed that 10% of Fandom Wikis (the vast majority of these tiny) have anonymous editing blocked.

Discussion 5 - The Cause
Considering there is at least some evidence of the presence of all 12 of the listed issues, what do you thing are some of the core causes of those problems?

Alpha

One user identified exsting bias against other users, and this being projected onto others, as well as the anon block limiting new users joining the wiki and bringing in a fresh insight and perspectives.

Beta

Two users agreed that the problems cause each other. They felt tose in power felt emboldened to engage in bad tactics as their fellow rights holders would give them the geen light. This they said leads to people feeling harrased and chased off the wiki; those that remain they say have no trust for the staff and a mob mentality.

Another user highlighted power structures that create perverse incentives to retain power., highlighting the following comment from another user


 * The system worked relatively well until the release of Fallout 3 and other titles, upon which the fanbase grew exponentially and so did the number of users and editors on the wiki. Long story short, a system that was intended to provide transparency and democratic governance turned out to be incredibly vulnerable to manipulation by determined groups of users. Worse, it promoted the emergence of competing groups of interest, interested less in the quality of the content and more in gaining power, gaming the voting system to their benefit - including various reconfirmation requests that ultimately were used in bad faith to intimidate rights holders and threaten them with removal if they take any action a group sees as disagreeable (essentially paralyzing any decisionmaking)...the formalization automatically elevates admins and bureaucrats, as noted above. It creates a hierarchy and encourages building cults of personality, which disrupts the community, rather than encouraging cooperation, and encourages negative selection: Elections, votes, term limits, and other requirements will ensure that only the most determined - not necessarily the most qualified - people will gain these rights. 

Charlie

One recent user believed it was a handful of bad apples, but conceeded their idea that the wiki has been well managed has been challenged. Another user echoed this, saying that they had confused a calm wiki for a healthy one.

One user highlighted the Us vs Them mentality betwen rights holders and non rights holders, and championed some sort of indepented review system or ombudsman to settle disputes over rights of tools.

Discussion 5 - Ombudsman
Following an idea floated by Group Charlie:

'''It has been suggested that the fallout wiki use at least one ombudsman charged with the specific role of investigating and mediating conflict when a leadership team member is involved. Do you believe this is a good idea? And if so, what sort of structure would that take?'''

Alpha

One user disgreed, indicating they believed it to be a "staff" responsibility to mediate, and that if a staff member can't be unbiased then there is a larger problem.

Another user liked the concept, but expressed skepticism over its practicality and it becoming a skapegoat or seen as an extention of staff.

The idea of the omudsman being the wiki rep was also floated, but the group seemed unsure if this was within their job description, and how willing they would be to get involved in all disputes.

The issue of inactivity was also discussed, and the utility of inactivity rules. Whether or not these were the solution, or a problem to the community. A user cited that it looking like there were more mods that there are created a perception that more mods were not needed when they were.

A limitation on appointment length (with the need to rerun) was floated. There was concern that this would result in further gaming of the system and politicisation, and a discussion on whether or not votes are a good way to show a consensus, or simply the only way the wiki knows how.

Counting the votes was also consdiered, and whether or not this should be on a numbers basis, or the number of neutrals and rationals considered.

Beta

One user said that before any sort of ombudsman should be considered, the number of roles needs to be simplified and streamlined, removing a structure that makes getting rights and end to itself. This user advocated for votes as a last resort.

One user felt an ombudsman wasn't neccessary as admins should be doing that, but would not get involved if it involved someone "on their team" doing the wrong thing.

One user expressed corrupt leaders abusing a pseudo-consensus achieved on discord rather than with the community. THis concern about the use of discord was also echoed by other users, however one user suggested Discord is a better way to ensure the user is aware of important notifications

Charlie

One user believed there already was a process, but that noone is using it. When asked what it was, they pointed to no confirmation. This view was challenged by demonstrations of it not working.

This lead to a discussion as to wether policy is what's written, or whether what is written describes policy, and when in conflict which is correct. Some users felt what was published is policy, others said that the distinction doesn't matter if its not followed.

This lead to concerns from one user, which was rejected by another, that rights users have effectiely formed a majority voting block.

This lead to a revelation where it was revealed that one participant had their rights removed incorrectly. It was identified that the person removing the rights was made aware of the mistake but for some reason did not correct the sitation. Corrective action has since been taken.