Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:ANB)
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators.

Sections older than 48 hours
are archived by ClueBot III.

  • Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.
  • If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email directly with your concern.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~ to do so.

Centralized discussion


Requests for closure

These requests for closure are transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.


ANI proposal to dissolve IBAN between me and Catflap08[edit]

This proposal received no opposition, was supported by one of the subjects and three other users; the other subject was neutral. But the thread got archived no result by a trigger-happy archive bot. It's not really a close request so much as a request to read the discussion and remove the WP:EDR entry accordingly. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#History of the WWE - Long-running edit war[edit]

No comments for a couple of days bar my bump, consensus is pretty clear. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • (Initiated 11 days ago on 18 May 2015) Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 23[edit]

There are two open discussions that were open almost a month ago, and nobody has commented on them in over 3 weeks, and to me, the conesus seems pretty clear on both of them. JDDJS (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  • (Initiated 36 days ago on 23 April 2015) Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Messy RfDs about Ottoman princesses[edit]

There are two expired RfDs on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 4 which seem to have arisen from a botched move / fork sequence. I'm not sure I know what the best course of action is - can we have a fresh pair of admin eyes to close this and perform the appropriate remedial actions? Deryck C. 22:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • (Initiated 25 days ago on 4 May 2015) Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

CfD backlog[edit]

There are currently many open discussions, including some going all the way back to December. Please see the list at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Discussions_awaiting_closure. - jc37 17:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

As of 12 May, December is done but there are three remaining from January, 9 from February and over 70 from March. – Fayenatic London 07:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 February 21[edit]

There are twelve discussions of Feb 21 still open while it's nearly two months later. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • (Initiated 97 days ago on 21 February 2015) Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Down to ten discussions as of now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't think so, I still count 12. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, but it's now down to 9. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Now down to two. Some of the usual CfD closers can't close these as they have participated in the discussions. – Fayenatic London 16:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


Please disposition Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_3#Template:2010s_controversial_killings_of_African_Americans, which has been open for over two weeks without relisting. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • (Initiated 26 days ago on 3 May 2015) Steel1943 (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion backlog[edit]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 25 April 2015) WP:TFD now has a backlog stretching back more than one month (April 25, 26, 28; May 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). Could an uninvolved admin please help close some of the discussions? Thanks, Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested moves[edit]

Requested moves backlog

Anyone have a mop? Some of the discussions there are backed up all the way from early February. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: situation is much improved, but there's still a six-week backlog of move requests. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Masjid al-Haram#Requested move 1 May 2015[edit]

The move request was withdrawn about half a month ago (on 8 May 2015), and there have been no more comments since that day. Khestwol (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • (Initiated 28 days ago on 1 May 2015) Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Rodney Moore (pornographic actor)#Requested move 27 April 2015[edit]

This discussion has been open for almost a month now. Could someone please close it already? The article is WP:Move protected, making WP:Non-admin closure impossible. (Initiated 32 days ago on 27 April 2015) Rebecca1990 (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Cytherea (actress)#Requested move 27 April 2015[edit]

This discussion has been open for over a month now. Could someone please close it already? (Initiated 32 days ago on 27 April 2015) Rebecca1990 (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Requests for comment[edit]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#RfC: Do list items need their own WP article in order to be sourced in list articles?[edit]

This discussion, begun April 27, has reached a point of repeated arguments by the same few editors. It is over 26,000 words long after fewer than 10 days. If it's left without closure for much longer, it will be the size of a small novel and daunt any attempts at closing it. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

  • (Initiated 32 days ago on 27 April 2015) Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It's two weeks since the initial request, and the time-consuming morass is worse than ever. Respectfully requesting closure, with the acknowledgment that it might be a challenging task. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm the originator of the RfC. I agree, and came here to request formal closure by an uninvolved admin. The issue is contentious and consensus remains unclear; It may also have wiki-wide implications. The RfC discussion is quite lengthy, so a summary of the RfC (i.e. a concise outline of the main points presented by both sides of the issue) is here. Lapadite (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
This RfC's introduction is essentially flawed: It does not propose two (or more) options to choose from, neither does it make a proposal which may me supported or opposed. This led some !voters to support or oppose a large variety of things without being clear how these thing stand in connection with what other !voters support or oppose. Other !voters said yes or no, while the introduction actually presents different positions (for or against) concerning the inclusion of different things, to wit: non-notable, non-sourceable, and/or no-wiki-article-having awards. That makes it even more difficult to know what these !voters actually said yes or no to. For that reason, the usual closers active in this area have so far refrained from tackling this thread. Kraxler (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I've looked through this and attempted to find a conclusion, but unfortunately that is no consensus to do anything due to lack of clarity. Unless someone else finds a better one, it looks like this is the likely close to be implemented. Mdann52 (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Mdann52 and Kraxler:, as it states in the "Summary of RfC" section linked above, the RfC asked: "[per WP policies and guidelines] do items in list articles - such as awards in "List of awards and nominations received by (film or person)" articles - need to have their own WP article in order to be sourced in list articles? The RfC was focused on awards in List of awards and nominations articles." It was also clarified in the RfC intro that it was not a proposal but a question to be answered/clarified per current policies & guidelines. Editors responded to various elements of the issue. That summary section, and perhaps the section below it, encapsulates the entire lengthy discussion. As you may gather from the older discussion(s) linked in the RfC intro and in the Summary, this is a long-standing issue, particularly with the wikiproject, and there never has been a proper community consensus to refer to, one way or another. Some editors have insisted on guidelines changes (e.g., objective & restrictive criteria for all list articles) to support an objection to policies & guidelines that allow awards/organizations without WP articles to be reliably sourced in lists articles; but formal proposals of course are outside the scope of the RfC (and a wikiproject). I'm not sure what more can be clarified here. I can only point to the summary section for the outline of points presented in the entire discussion. Lapadite (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bengali people#List of people in the collage[edit]

An RfC and a survey was opened following inconsistency and edit-war for place in the collage at infobox top. After long discussion a list of 30 people and a resulting collage image was made. This process started on March 31. A total of 122 nominations were made, 29 editors voted, 14 editors discussed, 2 filter systems were discussed and merged, 11 editors have agreed to ratify it, 3 editors complained, 1 editor remained apprehensive. This is time for closing this long discussion. An non-involved admin would be the right person to do it. –nafSadh did say 06:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • (Initiated 59 days ago on 31 March 2015) Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:MacBook (2015 version)#Merge Discussion: MacBook (2015 version)→MacBook[edit]

Would an uninvolved editor please close this merge request? PaleAqua (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  • (Initiated 70 days ago on 20 March 2015) (This was when the section was created, but it has since been renamed.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Proposal to add global JavaScript and redirect all IRC help links through a disclaimer page[edit]

RfC has run for 30 days. Note that there are two parts to this RfC, the disclaimer and the JavaScript. Consensus about the disclaimer seems pretty clear, but people might disagree about the clarity of the consensus related to the JavaScript. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

  • (Initiated 47 days ago on 12 April 2015) Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion[edit]

I would like to have an experienced admin close the RfC at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. The consensus for BLPs is pretty clear, but additional guidance on whether I need to post another RfC for fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, etc., that contain "religion = None" in the infoboxes would be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • (Initiated 38 days ago on 21 April 2015) Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Damat Ibrahim Pasha#Nomenclature[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Damat Ibrahim Pasha#Nomenclature (Initiated 70 days ago on 20 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins) (Initiated 70 days ago on 20 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Meghan Trainor#RFC: Describing Trainor[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Meghan Trainor#RFC: Describing Trainor (Initiated 38 days ago on 21 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:G. Edward Griffin#RfC on admissibility of additional sources[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:G. Edward Griffin#RfC on admissibility of additional sources (Initiated 39 days ago on 20 April 2015)? Please consider Talk:G. Edward Griffin#RfC on sources in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:MyWikiBiz#RfC on possible BLP issues[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:MyWikiBiz#RfC on possible BLP issues (Initiated 50 days ago on 9 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Elizabeth Warren#RfC Native American Ancestry Controversy section[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Elizabeth Warren#RfC Native American Ancestry Controversy section (Initiated 50 days ago on 9 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:History of economic thought#How to improve article navigation, does anything need removing[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:History of economic thought#How to improve article navigation, does anything need removing (Initiated 67 days ago on 23 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory)#How to remove bias[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory)#How to remove bias (Initiated 66 days ago on 24 March 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Should be article be redirected, or kept and improved?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Advanced capitalism#Redirect to Capitalism section?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Advanced capitalism#Redirect to Capitalism section? (Initiated 66 days ago on 24 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Cerne Abbas Giant#RfC: Does WP:MOSUNIT not apply to this article?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cerne Abbas Giant#RfC: Does WP:MOSUNIT not apply to this article? (Initiated 60 days ago on 30 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Minority language#Minority languages ​​in geographical articles[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Minority language#Minority languages ​​in geographical articles (Initiated 55 days ago on 4 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I question if this RFC is in the right place. It probably should have been done at MOS as its asking for more than just the article in question. An admin should probably weigh in on this one. AlbinoFerret 22:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Cold War II#Add "Terminology" section?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Cold War II#Add "Terminology" section? (Initiated 29 days ago on 30 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Malta#Which map should we use in main infobox?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Malta#Which map should we use in main infobox? (Initiated 27 days ago on 2 May 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:World War I infobox#RfC (14 April 2015)[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:World War I infobox#RfC (14 April 2015) (Initiated 45 days ago on 14 April 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the Emirate of Jabal Shammar be included in the infobox as a co-belligerent of the Central Powers?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Places in Bangladesh)#Request for Comments[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Places in Bangladesh)#Request for Comments (Initiated 41 days ago on 18 April 2015)? Please consider Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Proposal for WP:NCGN#Bangladesh in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Proper noun#Merge?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Proper noun#Merge? (Initiated 60 days ago on 30 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Cyclone Pam#RfC: Extreme Weather[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cyclone Pam#RfC: Extreme Weather (Initiated 75 days ago on 15 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Foie gras/Archive 6#RfC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Foie gras/Archive 6#RfC (Initiated 68 days ago on 22 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Magneto (power generation)#RFC on the Status of This Article[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Magneto (power generation)#RFC on the Status of This Article (Initiated 57 days ago on 2 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Tensor#RFC: is V = V**?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tensor#RFC: is V = V**? (Initiated 47 days ago on 12 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Broke with Expensive Taste#RfC: Should the ratings template repeat a score discussed in prose?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Broke with Expensive Taste#RfC: Should the ratings template repeat a score discussed in prose? (Initiated 49 days ago on 10 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jimi Hendrix#RfC: Adding acid rock as a genre in the article's infobox[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jimi Hendrix#RfC: Adding acid rock as a genre in the article's infobox (Initiated 49 days ago on 10 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jimi Hendrix#Death of Jimi Hendrix article merge[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jimi Hendrix#Death of Jimi Hendrix article merge (Initiated 38 days ago on 21 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Federalist (website)#RfC: Is this content suitable for inclusion?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Federalist (website)#RfC: Is this content suitable for inclusion? (Initiated 37 days ago on 22 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music#RFC re Paul Whiteman[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music#RFC re Paul Whiteman (Initiated 37 days ago on 22 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of cities proper by population#RfC best resolution of definition of title and content[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of cities proper by population#RfC best resolution of definition of title and content (Initiated 72 days ago on 18 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Misconduct in the Philadelphia Police Department#RfC: Should this be a list of cases or a discussion of PPD misconduct? If a list, what are the inclusion criteria be?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Misconduct in the Philadelphia Police Department#RfC: Should this be a list of cases or a discussion of PPD misconduct? If a list, what are the inclusion criteria be? (Initiated 59 days ago on 31 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Campus rape#Request for Comments (RFC) on Campus Rape article.[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Campus rape#Request for Comments (RFC) on Campus Rape article. (Initiated 39 days ago on 20 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Barelvi#RfC: Should the definition of Intercession be included?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Barelvi#RfC: Should the definition of Intercession be included? (Initiated 56 days ago on 3 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Soften the notification number[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Soften the notification number (Initiated 44 days ago on 15 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Uniform tables[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Uniform tables (Initiated 34 days ago on 25 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 51#RfC: putting more emphasis on description in WP:CONCISE and across WP:AT[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 51#RfC: putting more emphasis on description in WP:CONCISE and across WP:AT (Initiated 66 days ago on 24 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Easy Living (1949 film)#Hatnotes (or the equivalents)[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Easy Living (1949 film)#Hatnotes (or the equivalents) (Initiated 59 days ago on 31 March 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions (Initiated 52 days ago on 7 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#RfC: Should the USSTATION convention be rolled back?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#RfC: Should the USSTATION convention be rolled back? (Initiated 44 days ago on 15 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#RfC: Should the USSTATION capitalization advice be adhered to, using reliable sources for what is an official station name?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#RfC: Should the USSTATION capitalization advice be adhered to, using reliable sources for what is an official station name? (Initiated 44 days ago on 15 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule (Initiated 97 days ago on 21 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiBullying#Recent changes to the essay[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiBullying#Recent changes to the essay (Initiated 69 days ago on 21 March 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:WikiBullying#WP:RfC: Should the page be changed back to its previous version, partially or wholly? in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC: Expanding the permissiveness around ethnicity or sexuality[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC: Expanding the permissiveness around ethnicity or sexuality (Initiated 56 days ago on 3 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Siege of Kobanî#RfC: Icons used in prose[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Siege of Kobanî#RfC: Icons used in prose (Initiated 40 days ago on 19 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol#Proposal for a "wait" tag[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol#Proposal for a "wait" tag (Initiated 52 days ago on 7 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Freenode#RfC: Template modification[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Freenode#RfC: Template modification (Initiated 53 days ago on 6 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#Proposed change[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#Proposed change (Initiated 36 days ago on 23 April 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

On the brink of collapse[edit]

Lately, especially in the last days, it feels like we're on Titanic after already hitting the iceberg and taking in water, but before starting to sink. Everywhere we look, there are backlogs building up. I just had a look at WP:SPI where there are open cases stretching back to April. WP:ANV looks good right now, but I've frequently seen a 10-hour backlog during which vandals manage a lot of damage. At WP:ANI, more and more discussions are never closed. I'd say an unclosed report is always a bit of a failure; many are not good but could be still be closed. We've come to a situation where backlogs are now feeding themselves. For instance, the lack of a attention to a user's unblock request led to a rant on WP:ANI [1]. (The request was perhaps unfounded, but then it could have been turned down). Despite the pointy cabal accusations, the subsequent discussion showed that many users (and admins) have noted this same problem. Same thing today, again a post on WP:ANI about the lack of attention [2]. In fairness, it was dealt with rather quickly, but it was such an obvious case it could have been quicker. These are just a few examples, but I see more and more such examples and, worryingly enough, more and more good, serious users as well as admins commenting on it [3], [4], [5], [6]. I'm not saying there's one single case that is very serious (I haven't seen it) and I certainly have launched no unaddressed report myself that would require immediate admin intention. But the general picture is beginning to look worrying. Admins do a fantastic job here, an unpaid and voluntary job and the usual "thanks" is abuse and insults and accusations. The last thing I intend is to accuse any admin, and I don't think any other established user do either. Notwithstanding that admins do all they can, though, if this situation continues, Wikipedia will be in problem. The whole structure is reliant on vandals, socks, conflicts and disruptive users being addressed quickly. The more time it takes, the more damage is done which in turns require more time to sort out, and which can push serious users away, and we're quickly entering a downward spiral. Not calling for any quick fix, nor for admin attention to any specific issue, but for a good discussion about what we can all do.Jeppiz (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Your links are helpful, thanks. The two most recent discussions I'm aware of are WP:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_120#Proposed_user_right:_Vandal_fighter and WP:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_119#Last chance for a while. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, those discussions are very relevant. I agree with the premise. Given the current situation, I think extending some responsibilities to established users in rather straightforward matters would free up some time for admins to focus on the more complex issues.Jeppiz (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • While we can certainly use more admins, I disagree with some of what your pointing to. To start with AIV, it is rare for a blatant case of vandalism, were the vandal was fully warned, (4 escalating warnings followed by another act of vandalism) to not result in a quick block. If there is a report there more than 60 minutes old, it is almost always a more ambiguous case. For example, I'm very cautious about blocking genre warriors reported to AIV, because my own understanding of Genre sucks; not in a position to make a judgement either way, genre warrior reports pile up, and may not be actioned for a few hours, creating an appearance that AIV has a long backlog, when it only sort of does. As for reports on AN/I not being closed, until a year or two ago, reports at AN/I were not regularly closed unless it was a specific proposal that needed a consensus determination. Not every thread on AN/I needs to have a definitive outcome, sometimes they just fizzle out and the issue doesn't arise again. There are real backlogs, but its typically not critical time sensitive things like active vandalism, but things like RM, where another month is annoying, but wont be the end of the world. Monty845 19:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I would probably describe it more as "on the decline" than "on the brink of collapse". I don't really have any "big picture" solutions for you though. I've just been trying to do my part, ie I've recently learned and started contributing to CSD for the first time in these last few months. Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I spend some time at AIV, and Monty's assessment is in the right direction. The majority of the backlog isn't accounts that need to be blocked, it's bad reports that need to be declined. I'd say that, most days, far more than 50% of the reports I respond to are not valid AIV reports, and I have to spend a considerable amount of time crafting an explanation as to why they are being declined, usually some variation of "Vandalism is not a synonym for edits I disagree with". Most of the old AIV reports are simply ones admins have looked at and decided no block was needed, but didn't bother to write a decline rationale. You can know this by watching the history of AIV, where the really obvious vandals often only remain mere minutes, but the "This guy keeps changing the genre and I don't like it!" stuff hangs around a long time. The backlog would go away at AIV (and I suspect many other boards) if over-eager vigilantes would stop biting the newbs and creating frivolous reports that have to get dealt with. --Jayron32 01:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Jayron, I take your word for it and I'm sure there are lots of bad reports, possibly even bad faith reports. As I said, none of what I address here is a criticism of any admin decision, there is no particular case that made me comment but rather a thought building up over several weeks. I have seen some obvious vandals (who eventually were blocked) remain much longer, but could it perhaps also be a matter of time zones? While English Wikipedia is fairly global, I'd still guess there could be times when there are less admins around than at other times. As as I also said, AIV is probably the least worrisome of the different places I mentioned.Jeppiz (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Jayron, would a verbose but standard template be useful to you in declining those inappropriate reports? I'm thinking about something that includes a Venn diagram drawing, to explain that vandalism is only one type of unwanted ("bad") edit—"edits that create problems" and the subset of "edits that create problems and the editor was intentionally trying to create problems". Or maybe we should try better instructions. I have some ideas; I'll post them at WT:AIV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't believe in templates. If someone is worth talking to, they're worth my time to directly talk to them, not templating. I never use user talkpage warning templates. If I feel the need to explain something to someone on their user talk page, I have the decency and respect to leave a personalized message, TYVM. --Jayron32 19:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • There are a few things that could be done. The most logical (and, unfortunately, the most unlikely) would be to tighten registration procedures to ban IP editing and require some sort of significant registration process to edit. This would reduce vandalism by an enormous percentage, lightening workload. Second would be an unbundling of tools to enlarge the anti-vandalism force. Third would be an expansion of the pool of administrators through an easing of the RFA process. We approved a record low 22 new admins in 2014 and are on a pace to set a new record low in 2015. Desysopping of inactive administrators will once again top the 50 mark. There are less than 600 administrators with 30 or more edits in the last 2 months, which is a very loose definition of "active." The question is: how many are really needed? Carrite (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with the IP aspect. A vast majority of the vandalism and misconduct I have to deal with comes from IPs who feel they can hide behind the veil of anonymity. As long as registration is free, I personally don't think that it violates the "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" mantra, though from what I've observed, there's quite an opposition to this though, correct? Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • There are two theories here that could do with being tested and proved, qualified or refuted. The first is that allowing IP editing is the secret sauce that built this site, partly because a large proportion of goodfaith editors start with a few IP edits before they create an account. The second is that most vandals will do the minimum necessary to vandalise wikipedia - so if we require them to create accounts they will do so and thereby become harder to spot, and the editors we lose by requiring registration will predominately be goodfaith ones. Personally I'd expect to see either theory if properly tested would give sufficient grounds to justify continued IP editing. But if someone persuaded the WMF to do the research and both theories were tested and refuted then I would be willing to change my view . ϢereSpielChequers 05:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Monty, well argued disagreement is always the best thing. Support is nice, badly argued disagreement annoying, but well argued disagreement is both nice and instructive. I agree that I've only rarely see AIV with a big backlog, though those rare occasions are all recent. I agree it's not the my main concern. About AN/I, I would argue that closure is always a good thing. Quite a large number of unclosed cases tend to come back sooner rather than later. I'm not saying that does not happen with closed cases, but if a case has been closed and comes back without any major development, it's a very easy close by just referring to the old one. Even though closing cases take some time, I'd posit it may be a time saver in the long run. And Sergecross73, of course "on the decline" is a more accurate description than on the brink of collapse, pardon my somewhat dramatical exaggeration. But ideally, we would not want decline either, right? Carrite, I think you nail it, thanks for those very relevant (and slightly worrying) statistics. With an already low number of active admins, and an actual decline in the number of admins both in 2014 and (on current trends) in 2015, it's little wonder the situation is becoming more difficult. While I agree with Sergecross73 about decline rather than collapse, it's not rare than a slow decline rapidly becomes a large decline when a critical point is reached. The harder it gets to edit and admin, the less admins and good users are likely to stay, making it still harder to edit and admin, and downwards we go.Jeppiz (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, I do definitely get what you're saying overall. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Good to hear, thanks!Jeppiz (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The backlog issue has been going on for sometime. The 10hr backlog mentioned in the lead is nothing compared to the one at WP:CFD which goes back to 17 January (as of typing this). I'd like to invite the latest appointments at WP:RFA, namely Jakec, Opabinia regalis and Ritchie333 to help out. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
How is this their problem in particular, out of all the people who might help? I'm thinking of the 500 to 600 admins who are still editing regularly, the Wikipedians who could probably become admins if they ran at RfA, and non-admins, who only differ from admins in not having extra buttons to push. Who would want to run for RfA if being a new admin makes you responsible for problems that aren't yours? - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
No backlog is anyone's problem, but all these alluded to helping out with backlogs, and surprise surprise, none of them have stepped up to the challenge. I picked those three as they were the most visable. You'd expect them to at least being active. I guess not. And speaking of the other 500 to 600 admins - what the hell are they all doing? I bet if anyone started a thread on this very board questioning one of them, it would be locked down in no time at all, but when there's work to be done, they're nowhere to be seen. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, my goal here isn't to get this page "locked down" when you or anyone says something uncomfortable about what admins are or aren't doing; you're asking reasonable questions. There's work to be done here that's not getting done, and there's a wide range of approaches the community might take to make the workload a little easier or get more people doing the work ... I don't have a position on that, and I'd prefer to stay neutral. Until the community makes some progress on this, the best we can hope for is to at least avoid various negative feedback loops that might make the problem worse. For instance, if new admins become scapegoats for the larger problem, then obviously, we'll have fewer new admins. (Not that you're scapegoating them, but that's the risk of focusing on the newest admins.) OTOH, it wouldn't be inappropriate to get the word out to all active admins, and to everyone else who might be willing to help, that we're falling behind on some things that we probably don't want to fall behind on, and help would be appreciated (help of any kind that lightens the load or gets more work done ... for instance, help with triage, or making the jobs easier, or figuring out better ways to delegate work, or increasing throughput at RfA). - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Everyone is a volunteer here, not an employee. The problems are not the fault of the 500-600 remaining admins, they are the fault of the stupidity that is RFA. Of course there's going to be a gradual reduction in admins; people lose interest, get jobs, have families, and all the other things that reduce their time to edit here. When I passed RfA in 2007 I had plenty of time to edit Wikipedia; now I don't. I get a few minutes here and there, or if I have a bit of time I hit the AfD backlog for a little while. But the facts are these; in 2014 there were 34 succesful RfAs ... in 2007 there were 408. Until the community gets its act together and makes RfA easier to pass (or gets rid of some of the stupidity that causes admins to not bother any more), the situation will continue to deteriorate. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
22 in 2014, and we're on track to produce fewer this year. It's not as bleak as it sounds, but there are decisions that need to be made. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I would run for RfA and reduce the backlog if someone could only convince me that one of the following isn't true: [A] I would go through hell during the RfA, and [B] I would almost certainly lose the election. In other words, I would tolerate going through hell if I thought that there was a chance of winning, and I would take my chances despite almost certain failure if doing so did not involve going through hell. I just want to help the encyclopedia in wikignomish ways and have zero desire for "power" over others.
BTW, I know exactly how to become an admin. Stop getting involved in discussions at AN, ANI, RSN, etc,, stop mediating at DRN, pick a poor-quality, uncontroversial article that nobody seems to be editing or watching and create high-quality content, withdrawing and moving on if anyone disagrees with me in any way, and repeat that pattern for at least a year. In other words, avoid anything that in any way resembles what an administrator is asked to do. Again, I do want to help but the price is too high. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC).
I agree with User:Guy Macon. The procedure to become an admin has become one of avoiding all controversies and bringing a few articles up to FA status; but bringing articles up to FA status has nothing to do with how the mop is used. The RFA process is seriously broken, and gives too much attention to editors who have Enemies Lists. The English Wikipedia community is not about to come up with a consensus on how to fix RFA. It is time for the WMF to do something, but the WMF thinks that the English Wikipedia is a grand success story, which it is if one looks only at the numbers of articles and editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the community as collectively misbehaving or slow-witted, on this or any issue. I think we decided in previous RfCs that the best course was to avoid any drastic changes ... and, knowing as little as I know, I'm not in a position to say that was the wrong call. I'm not sure how we proceed if a future RfC determines that something should be done, but we can't agree on what to do; that's going to require some finesse. - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
That's all true, to be an admin you have to do things which you wouldn't expect an admin to do and even then do you really want to go through an RFA only to receive your new toys but with a higher scrutiny and a reluctance to ever use them because someone is waiting for you to trip up? I don't gnome in any big way, stuck to RFPP these days but I'd still like to take on the dumb mundane tasks nobody else wants to, we need admins who'll do gruntwork other admins wouldn't because they were selected as content creators, not for their skills in actual areas where an admin is necessary. I wouldn't ever pass an RFA as it stands now so most of this is moot besides the fact we really have no clue how to gain new admins that'll use the tools anymore than how to retain editors. tutterMouse (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: I've checked the logs for the three new admins you mention, all have easily enough logged admin actions since their RFAs to qualify as active admins, so I think it unfair to single them out - may I suggest you strike your "none of them have stepped up to the challenge. I picked those three as they were the most visable. You'd expect them to at least being [sic] active." We do have admins who have yet to perform a hundred logged actions, none of those three are in that group, and I suspect some who are are among the admins who got the bit in order to get rollback before it was unbundled. We may once have had new admins going through RFA and then not using the tools, but I don't see that happening now. ϢereSpielChequers 16:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Nice of you to check that and reply on their behalf. I guess they're far too busy to come here to reply in person. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
That assumes they knew they you were criticising them and they had something to reply to. How did you inform them of this thread? I don't see a note from you on their talkpages. ϢereSpielChequers 07:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
They were linked in my initial post with the username template, so the notification system would have alerted them to this thread. So they either don't have that function turned on (which would be odd in their role) or they've chosen to ignore this. I'll go with the latter. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Your ping to User:Opabinia regalis would not have worked because you corrected the user name in a second edit—notifications do not respond to such edits because that would re-notify any correctly listed users. In addition, there have been reports of apparently correct notifications not being received, so in general they should not be relied on. Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I love how they're being defended to the bitter end. You'd think a board titled Administrators' noticeboard with the heading "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators" would be looked at by administrators on a regular basis. C'mon, lets hear the next poor excuse for them. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I did get a ping and looked at some of the entries in WP:CFD, but decided the oldest needed too much background knowledge for me to make an effective judgement call on any of them. I meant to report this back but got sidetracked with real life. Lugnuts, you could always try stepping up to the mantle and request an RfA nomination yourself, particularly if you've identified an area of deficiency. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • There are inevitably parts of a 5,000,000 article domain (not to metion so many multiples of administrations) that never stood up, so collapse is not possible. Effective triage still occurs, but whole swathes are built not to be cared about. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Fundamentally, a consensus driven organization where everyone can participate will never be efficient. It has wonderful virtues, but efficiency is not one of them. If one has to be efficient, one needs fixed authority, and thebest part of our approach to vandalism is some purely mechanical operations, such as the edit filters. I think that part of the problem is our tendency to prefer discussion to work. Looking both here and at ANI, for example, or at some of the other noticeboards, we are spending an inordinate amount of time to decide simple questions, including repeating ones. Some of it is inevitable because we have no way of permanently fixing decisions nor is it easy to think of how a consensus based system could do so. (NOT PRINT is a handicap here, not a help; with print, what is printed is printed & the discussions are limited to the new items) . But some of it could be helped by an agreement on focus and time limits. There are too many of us (myself sometimes included) who often seem to be here primarily to show off how well we can argue. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't improve on what Jeppiz said above: "The harder it gets to edit and admin, the less admins and good users are likely to stay, making it still harder to edit and admin, and downwards we go." The question for me is whether any kind of negative feedback loops are kicking in yet, and if so, what we can do about that, before people get discouraged and the problem becomes harder to solve. Does anyone want to offer to look at supply-and-demand problems concerning admin-related work over the next month or so and make some kind of report? Does anyone want to offer to help close some relevant RfC in about a month? - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC) (I don't mean this should be formal, only that it would be nice to give everyone a month so everyone gets a chance to have a say and no one is rushed, just as we do for RfCs.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    • The sad part is that, were I to become an admin, working on various backlogs is pretty much the only admin work I would do. I really have no desire to deal with difficult editors and their behavior problems using any tool other than persuasion. Boring, repetitive work, on the other hand, is very relaxing to me after my real-life job of dealing with disputes between engineers. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there a level of adminship that would allow a worker drone to be upgraded to have powers of deletion? I'm guessing not, but Guy highlights a good point that would help. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Deletion is harder to unbundle than blocking. I can't remember the last time we had an RFA fail because the candidate had been making overzealous AIV reports, but we get plenty of RFAs fail because the community doesn't think the candidate is ready for the deletion button. I can think of several RFAs that have failed because the candidate had been overzealous with tagging for speedy deletion at Newpage patrol. ϢereSpielChequers 09:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Difficulty of unbundling certain tools seems like a problem, but it really isn't. If we as a community decided that we wanted to unbundle deletion, we could simply have RfAs for no-deletion admins, have them promise not to delete, and desysop them if they do. There are all sorts of things admins are not allowed to do that are technically allowed by the Wikimedia software. This would simply become one more of them. There are zero technical obstacles to unbundling. The only obstacle is that we have not agreed that unbundling is something that we want to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the successful unbundlings such as template editing, file mover and of course Rollbacker, there are some common threads. These are tools that can be used independently of the rest of the admin toolset, there are people who wouldn't pass RFA but we would trust with that tool and the solution was to actually separate the tool so it could be given out on its own (I don't know why, but there are a number of RFA !voters who will oppose candidates who give undertakings that they will never use certain parts of the toolset). Blocking new and unregistered vandals fits all those criteria, and non admins can judge whether the block was a good one or not. Unbundling deletion would be a very different kettle of fish - I can't see how anyone could be trusted to delete but not to be an admin, non admins cannot check deleted pages to see if they agree with deletions. ϢereSpielChequers 08:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've been keeping an eye on RFA numbers and admin numbers for several years now, and at first glance we have a huge problem with RFA having collapsed in early 2008. But first glances are notoriously misleading, the early 2008 change at RFA came immediately after the unbundling of Rollback, we have since had thousands of rollbackers appointed, and many of us support the flip side of that - "good vandalfighter" is no longer sufficient qualification to pass RFA, some examples of adding reliably sourced content are now required. If Rollback had been unbundled a couple of years earlier I believe many vandalfighting admins would never have gone through RFA. Of course the logical corollary of that is that we should also unbundle "block Ips and Newbies" so that vandalfighters can block vandals but only admins can block or unblock the regulars. The subsequent decline is more troubling and has put us below replacement level, but the good thing is that once people become admins they usually stick around for a long time. So whilst I think the current situation unhealthy, and it can't be a good thing that eventually we will have insufficient admins, but at present I worry more because of the wikigeneration gulf that has emerged between an admin cadre dominated by people who have been admins for many years and an active editing community many of whom rightly or wrongly see adminship as out of reach. To me we will have entered a negative feedback stage when our remaining admins start giving up the tools because the number of stray requests on their talkpage to use the admin tools interferes with their hobby of editing, and from my own experience that is not even close. That said new and returning admins would be welcome, there are plenty of active editors who could easily pass RFA if they ran (if you think that might be you feel free to email me). ϢereSpielChequers 08:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think there is probably a tipping point for successful RfAs. Candidates need experience, and that bar has risen substantially over the years, but the longer someone has been here the more chance there is that they have upset some people and that those people will come out of the woodwork. I am an extreme example but there is a running gag about how many sockfarms and POV pushers would turn up at any RfA by me. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • There used to be a theory that if you hadn't made admin before you completed 10,000 edits you never would, that theory has been long disproved, now we even have one or two !voters who will oppose candidates who have done less than 10,000 edits. As for the idea that the longer you are editing the more wiki enemies you acquire, I don't see RFA working that way, opposers who drag up old examples are likely to get a response along the lines of "thanks for demonstrating that the candidate wasn't ready two years ago, do you have any examples that would be relevant to this RFA?" though usually more diplomatically phrased. There are some issues that don't get an editor banned but would torpedo an RFA, however in my experience the RFA community is very focussed on recent months, things from years back are relevant if they show that someone has a skill, not if they used not to have it. ϢereSpielChequers 09:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It's pleasant that there is some social pushback against "ancient history" votes, but does a reply like that actually change the vote? After posting a comment like that, do you see people changing their votes from "I am voting against this candidate, because I'm still holding a grudge from five years ago" to "Sure, I guess I support that editor after all"? Or does it stay with "I'm still voting against that candidate, even if WSC doesn't respect my rationale"? RFA is fundamentally vote-driven, and bureaucrats can only exercise a limited amount of discretion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I honestly can't remember any votes that I would dismiss as "holding a grudge from five years ago". But sometimes yes challenging opposes does change a individual vote, more often it sways other !voters. Just look at how this one went from April 25/26 to the end result, yes at least one oppose was struck but more importantly the pattern of voting switched and it ended as a success. On that occasion one issue was whether we judge a former admin on her previous RFA or on the many admin actions she had done after that RFA. We had another one earlier in the year where a candidate was opposed partly because some of their early articles were recently deleted, unfortunately we weren't able to turn that round before the candidate withdrew, but one of the opposers did strike part of their rationale. I'm fairly sure that the opposers in that RFA were assuming that recently having articles tagged for deletion meant recently creating articles that merited deletion, and that the RFA would have gone differently if the nominator had had access to deleted revisions and pointed out that the candidate had created articles on some not quite notable subjects years ago but hadn't objected to them recently being deleted. The later you are in an RFA the harder it is to turn it round, but I have seen RFAs collapse on day 6 or 7, and also seen RFAS that were heading for no consensus turn into successes. ϢereSpielChequers 06:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Content creation work without the tools is incredibly painful. I would happily do piles of boring admin tasks just to have them back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Why? I don't see that at all. It is frustrating having to run around to find an admin but we cannot use tools where we are involved anyway, so there should be no pain due to lack of holding them. - Sitush (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    • There are lots of simple actions that you can do yourself where WP:INVOLVED does not apply because they are uncontroversial and undisputed. The most common is moving pages from your draft space to the mainspace. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Like this? - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Yeah, like that. It leaves behind a redirect. Like me, you have multiple sandboxes and intend to reuse it by overwriting the redirect with another article. But when you have multiple articles to move you have to resort to a CSD request to remove the the redirect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
          • @Hawkeye7: That is something I have been pushing for, allowing established users to suppress redirects. Things like phab:T76266 and phab:T71162 could help, but maybe a permission for it, or bundle it with another permission? I brought it up on meta, but there wasn't any support with the way I badly worded my proposal. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Isolated cases of vandalism don't seem to be an existential threat because the problem will tend to be self-correcting — when readers notice significant vandalism, they will tend to mobilise to correct it. The biggest issue seems to be structural problems which require deep knowledge and access rights to correct. For example, AFD is kept running by some mix of templates, bots, tradition and whatever-else. I have been patrolling it for years but still don't fully understand its ramshackle structure. Today, I was reviewing the daily contents at WP:AFD/T and noticed that the list of discussions had a huge list of other stuff embedded in it. I think I've found the cause but am not sure I should interfere. Anyway, my point is that structural glitches like that pose the biggest threat because they make it difficult for the general mass of readers and editors to engage with and resolve the individual detail problems. Andrew D. (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Vandalism is a massive problem and a very serious one for BLPs etc, which extends a lot further than articles just about individual people. AfD is trivial by comparison and is also "self-correcting" in the sense that unless an article is salted, it can be recreated. In fact, it can be recreated even after salting, just not under the same title. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    • One of my hopes for WP:Flow is to (eventually) replace the ramshackle deletion structures with a purpose-built workflow tool that does exactly what we want, automatically, every time, with very little need for bots and manually applied templates. (Also, if Commons' proposes to delete an image that is in use here, then I want to be able to read and participate in their deletion process without leaving the English Wikipedia.) Then we can focus on the actual content, rather than the infrastructure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If I were a closer in a relevant RfC, I'd have to pay more attention than usual to the mountain of text already devoted to the subject, and I'd be sifting through all the suggestions to try to find where they intersect in some kind of minimal recommended change, on the "do no harm" theory. - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    • And one more thing. (You can tell I'm a Wikipedian, I'm replying to myself.) Every time there's an RfC involving RfA, the throughput at RfA goes up ... and then drops down lower than before afterwards. So even if people are making the argument during the RfC that that month's numbers at RfA aren't worrying, the projected number of first-time admins for 2015 that I would be using if the RfC started today would be 12, because RfA has only produced 5 first-time admins over the last 5 months (along with 3 former admins who regained the tools at RfA ... that's an important number too, but it's a different number). - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I remember when I first started diving into doing a lot of editing back in 2013, I thought about trying an RfA. I even got a little encouragement. But after looking at a few respected editors' evaluation lists for RfA candidates, I didn't see how anyone who hadn't devoted themselves to extensively editing a wide variety of areas of Wikipedia for less than 3-5 years could ever pass. And that is assuming that they haven't made a lot of enemies! And that's really weird when you look at old RfAs and find editors becoming admins after three months of editing and less than 1,000 edits.
I look at Oppose votes in RfAs and sometimes they are cast as a result of a single bad call at an AfD or a bad encounter between editors, especially the Opposes that come later on during the week can seem a bit random and offer no explanation. Some editors see decent, qualified editors get shot down at an RfA and decide, "Why put myself through that?" It doesn't help that a fair number of editors who are unsuccessful at an RfA end up then leaving Wikipedia.
If I could change the RfA process, I'd make editing at places like the Help desk, the reference desks, DRN or the Teahouse just as important as writing an FA. It seems to me that being an effective admin relies more on people skills than content creation. Just my 2 cents. Liz Read! Talk! 22:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
There has long been a concern amongst some editors that admins in general don't adequately appreciate heavy content contributors,(and thus treat such contributors less favorably than we should when it comes to deleting their hard work, or blocking them) and that the solution is to recruit admins only from those who are themselves heavy content contributors. I think this as faded a fair bit at RFA in the last couple years, but even when it was still going strong, it was possible to get through RFA without a huge amount of content work. You just needed to be a good candidate in other respects, and proactively try to address their concerns. But then very few people are perfect, coming to RFA prepared, knowing what people are going to see as deficiencies, and being prepared to address their concerns goes a long way, even if it flies in the face of the no-big-deal mantra. Monty845 00:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I think Liz is right. If you want more admins, then you need to stop making RFA feel like a fraternity hazing program. It's not enough to point out the irony between the "no big deal" fairy tale and the reality (which is more like "preparing for the US presidential debate" than like "no big deal"). You have to actually stop punishing candidates for applying. And if you want good ones, then you need to focus on people who have specialized skills (e.g., tech or copyright) or who are good at dealing with people and dispute resolution. It's far more important for admins to be able to deal with people than to produce brilliant prose. People get desysopped for treating people poorly, not for grammar errors or boring writing styles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
We used to require at least one FA before an RfA, but when we tightened the FA requirements, it was felt that this was too tough on some editors who might otherwise become good admins. We should reinstate the requirement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The result of that short-lived requirement was a bunch of "featured portals" that nobody cared about enough to maintain. It was a pure hoop-jumping exercise, and I'm glad that the requirement was killed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Monty845 and WhatamIdoing, I don't recall RfAs that required candidates to be "heavy" content contributors. What I remember – and still support – is the principle that admins should have demonstrable hands-on experience of finding reliable sources, defending them on article talk pages and successfully incorporating them into articles. Candidate's specialized knowledge or people techniques are irrelevant if they don't have the basic skills we look for in every editor. - Pointillist (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be everyone. If only 5% of respondents personally choose to vote against anyone without "heavy" content contributions, then those 5% oppose votes will break some candidates (and discourage even more from applying).
I wonder, though, if you've really thought through your comment about "specialized knowledge". Does a Lua programmer actually need to know how to incorporate sources into an article to be useful to us? How about a copyright specialist? For a person whose intended role is saying "Yup, another copyvio at AFC, push the delete button" a hundred times a month, does it really matter if that person can create a well-sourced article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, I've thought this through plenty of times. What you are describing is an argument for unbundling in specialist areas such as copyright. Anyone who has the power to block a contributor should demonstrate that they can perform the basic tasks for creating article content. - Pointillist (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
(TL;DR the rest of this thread) Let's look at WP:ANV now. I count 27 pending reports in the version I am viewing while writing this. 27 vandals bouncing around breaking things. I do agree there seems to be a problem. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Speaking as a relatively new, semi-casual editor on the sidelines, I'd say I'd consider doing an RfA on the sole basis of helping out with some of the backlogs and other admin-related gruntwork that needs to be done behind the scenes because I just like doing that sort of thing, but I'm similarly deterred by the heavy emphasis placed on frontend content creation and avoiding squabblesome areas out of the way of mainspace... I'm not the greatest at doing more than gnomey edits and I'm not knowledgeable in topic areas that merit new articles, nor do I know enough to improve existing articles to GA or FA-- not to mention I only joined a few months ago, WP:NOTNOW or whatever, so in general there's a whole host of reasons I'd be turned down on the spot. But I just find myself void of things to do and dare I say it bored, after a couple edits and talkpage posts here and there in the articles I feel comfortable editing, which is frustrating when I know there are so many other parts of the 'pedia back-end that could use mopmeisters who are fine working backstage, but the process is so dramatic and unnecessarily latched onto things that don't determine administrative aptitude of an editor that it's not worth the trouble.
I'm pretty sure that this doesn't necessarily mean WP is "falling apart" per se, but it'll likely continue shambling along in a lumpy, broken mess unless a few things are tweaked. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 19:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I think BlusterBlaster put it perfectly. I would enjoy doing behind the scenes admin work, stuff like AIV requests and move requests that need admin closure to complete. I would like to call myself good at communicating with editors and the like... Sure I may not make the most articles, and I may not have been here very long, but I think my editing history shows I have good judgement and a solid knowledge of Wikipedia policies. But if I took that to an RfA, I would get a speedy not now closure with probably less than 10% support.
Speaking as an editor who's been here a reasonably long time (I've even come up at ANI a couple of times!)...I tend to come here to do gnomeish edits as a way of helping out without getting overly-involved (for instance, I tend to avoid WP on evenings and weekends). I'd consider throwing my hat in the ring at RfA (and my User page has indicated such for quite awhile now), but it seems like I'd be inviting a huge spotlight onto myself for, at best, the chance to help out in somewhat more meaningful ways, and at worst, the chance to attract all kinds of attention that I'm happy not to have in the course of my regular Wikipedia editing. It's a shame that editors who want to help, but generally only in a fairly-limited capacity, can't be given precisely the tools they need to do those jobs; perhaps that would diminish the drama somewhat. Anyway, these comments are worth pretty much exactly the amount you paid to read them. DonIago (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary tldr break[edit]

  • I'm confused on the question of how far we're falling behind in admin chores. Are some apparent backlogs not really backlogs? I don't know the best way to get at this; some kind of RfC where people could discuss problems and solutions might help, unless there's another way to get the information that isn't coming to me. - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    What is actually badly needed, recommended, but does not seem to be ever attempted is a real analysis of backlogs with the conclusion on where we are standing now. What I see already for a long time are just random statements of the type "look, we have an AIV 24h backlog, it is horrible - No, we have a CFD backlog of 3 month, it is the end of the world". From my experience, 24h AIV backlog is indeed horrible and means vandals are effectively not being stopped at the moment, whereas 3 months CfD backlog is certainly not the end of the world - there are too few policies about categories, most discussions inevitably turn subjective, and often opinions bale to shift the consensus are still coming after two months of discussion. I am not sure how and who can perform this analysis for different types of backlogs, but I would find it difficult to discuss unbundling without these data.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    Agreed, and I'd also like to know why we promote fewer admins every year. Is it okay with everyone if I spend some time surveying recent graduates of RfA, asking them what factors caused them to wait as long as they did? I'm asking because I don't want to compromise my neutrality, and miss a chance to keep helping as a closer. I wont suggest any answers, I'll just record and present the data. - Dank (push to talk) 00:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    push to talk, I see no problem with doing that, but I suspect that will be like asking people who just subscribed to a newspaper why there are fewer newspaper subscriptions every year. How about asking those who failed and those who refuse to run such as myself? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    (Btw, Guy, I didn't get pinged by that, you probably have to put "Dank" after the pipe character to ping.) I apologize, I've changed my mind, there's a risk of losing my job as closer if I do anything at all. I'm ready to help, but only in the end-stages of a relevant RfC. I can repeat here what I said at WT:RFA, though: if we do get 12 first-time admins this year, I don't imagine anyone would count on more than 3 or 4 of those, max, to be highly active after a few years. We've been losing more than 80 admins per year the past few years. There's no reason to believe that nothing can be done about this ... there are plenty of people who would like to help out in some way but don't see a role where they fit in. There are hard judgment calls to make, of course, and this is a hard subject to tackle. But the consequences of never tackling it are pretty obvious; the current trends aren't sustainable. It's hard to get everyone on board even with proposals that would make a small difference ... but hard isn't the same as impossible. Thus endeth the sermon. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    Correction: According to the figures at #Some limited data below, the number of active admins hasn't dropped over the last year. I should have mentioned that I only had figures through last November. - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    To clarify: this new data suggests that, over the past 12 months, the number of admins becoming inactive or leaving equalled the number returning from a period of inactivity. It's not likely that attrition has suddenly disappeared. Before the next RfC, we really need to know whether the recently active admins came back just to edit, or whether they're having an impact on whatever backlogs we've got, or something in between. If everyone votes assuming one answer and we find out halfway through that what everyone was assuming was wrong ... ugh. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Just find something you care about, be it an article or a particular administrative task, and pour your heart into it. That way all at once you'll enjoy yourself, you'll make a difference, and you'll be making an impact such that what seemed so insurmountable will quickly prove not to be so. A few years ago I took aim at the unreferenced BLPs, and the number at the time went from 450 to 150, all BLPPRODded, in a month and change. Obviously it didn't stay that way, and it also didn't change the fact that I had a good time resolving a serious problem with 350+ articles. Don't get all freaked out if other backlogs that you aren't working on build up, just focus on yourself; if you find you want to work on one of those then go for it, and don't ever force yourself to do something you really don't have your heart set on. There's always someone to do even those things everyone thinks no one wants to do—I don't know how many people have told me I'm crazy for my interest in sorting out the absolute worst of the ethnic conflicts—and there's no sense torturing yourself on the basis that you owe something to a volunteer effort. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Personally, I'd love to help fix some backlogs; but running the gauntlet of RfA is not apppealing. Like Sitush, I spend a lot of time working on controversial topics, which guarantees loud opposition at RfA, which tends to select for candidates who've rarely annoyed any other editors and, thus, by definition, it favours admin-candidates who have had less involvement in trying to fix en.wikipedia's most pressing problems.That's the system we've chosen. bobrayner (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • RfA is really no longer as bad as it was when it was suggested in 2011 by Jimbo Wales that that it is (or was) 'a horrible and broken process' . Unfortunately there are plenty of newcomers to Wikipedia since that time who don't understand the damage they are doing with their trollish and/or disingenuos votes and IP (mostly block evasion) users. An in-depth study of RfA found that the problem is with the attitude of the voters rather than with the process itself. It was found that the vast majority of RfA participants are one-off voters and the rest of the pool of fairly regular voters is in fact, over time, quite transient. Those who were or had been voting at the time of the study who are still voting regularly are extremely few and sadly among thm are some who still refuse to allow the process to become less of an ordeal.
The voters who vote consistently but far from every RfA and who display intelligence in their voting should be encouraged to vote on every RfA - some of the people commenting in this discussion don't even do that so how do they expect serious change to take place?
That said, the bar is neither too high nor too low - it's simply set anew for each RfA depending on who turns out to vote. RfA generally does what it says on the tin and editors who have read the advice pages before they run will be clearly aware whether or not they are going to be wasting the community's time, and of course their own, and whether the experience is going to be a week of hell or a walk in the park. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the fact that many of the current processes seem ridiculously inefficient is a factor, at least as much as the alleged gauntlet of RfA? Given the thankless admin workload, the contemptuous label 'mop' might almost have been designed to make diligent editors think twice about becoming candidates. Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better. From this point of view a really precipitous "downward spiral" (@Jeppiz's term) in the number of active admins could just what we need to cull (or automate) the most time-consuming sacred cows and raise the status of adminship. - Pointillist (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Interesting discussion. I don't have much to add, except that I remember a similar recent discussion (I think it was at the Village Pump, though darn if I can't find it...) in which the subject of creating a "bot" to automate the process of helping the current Admins search for suitable Admin candidates was brought up. That I think is an idea that might be worth pursuing. At the very least, it might be good if someone would take on the task of fixing (and updating?) Snottywong's Admin score tool as that, at least, might be something that could help people interested in being prospective Admins if they are even likely to qualify at an RfA or not. --IJBall (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Snottywong's tool, while interesting, is really not very useful. The things it checks for are very minimal, and give perhaps 10 pieces of a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle. Look at User:Elen of the Roads, former arbitrator. Her score? 238. User:Hersfold, another former arbitrator; 235. Former arbitrator User:Jclemens, 265. Former arbitrator User:Shell Kinney, who hasn't edited in 4 years...275. According to the tool, "Scores over 500 are generally regarded as good". It appears the tool looks at just 4 things; whether or not a person has a user page (why does that matter towards being a good admin?), whether or not they have other user rights, whether or not they've been blocked (and how many times), and edit count. You get full points for edit count if you have at least 25k edits, yet we have 325 administrators with fewer than 25000 edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, agreed – my point wasn't just to take Snottywong's old tool and use it as is (I think it's partially broken right now anyway, as I think some of the inputs it used to look for are gone...), but to take his old tool and improve it. And I don't view that as a "magic bullet" – but something (anything) that might be able to quantify how current editors might fare in at least some aspects of what comes up in an RfA would be all to the good. Because, right now, we've seen a bunch of comments in this thread from editors saying "Well I would help, but I'd never make it through an RfA..." which might not be as true as they think – if we could somehow "quantify" their Admin RfA potential, it might convince a few more people to give it a shot. (I've had separate thoughts on this issue, that I may share later, but it ultimately comes down to the Admins themselves deciding that there's a problem and then organizing a 'working group' to reach out to prospective candidates, and possibly also to reaching out to relatively inactive or semi-retired Admins to try to restoke their interest as well...) --IJBall (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm all for more data, but this kind of thing has a "you get what you measure" self-fulfilling prophecy effect. This tool apparently gives full points for 25k (!!) edits - not sure what data the score was based on, but in my recent re-RfA a few people suggested a minimum standard of 10k. Empirically, that seems reasonable - I didn't look closely but I couldn't find another recent successful candidate under that number at the time of their RfA. On an individual level, nothing wrong with sticking with what works. And yet, on a collective basis, standards-ratcheting is really bad for the health of the overall process.
Many capable candidates are now getting to RfA much later in their "wiki-careers" than they used to, despite being obviously qualified well beforehand. This pattern:
  1. deprives the community of months to years of admin activity by capable people;
  2. deprives the community of any admin activity by capable people who aren't realistically going to keep ahead of standards inflation*;
  3. selects for people with significant continuous volunteer availability, possibly perpetuating systemic bias and reducing the diversity of the admin corps;
  4. results in a lack of admins with any semi-recent knowledge of the new user experience; and
  5. communicates to new users that adminship is an inaccessible and bureaucratic Big Deal rather than just a way some trusted members of the community volunteer their time.
I've seen a few comments that the environment has improved since the bad old days, and I wasn't around to see the worst of it, but it does seem like you'll perceive an improved environment if the borderline cases don't run, leaving mostly clear passes and confused newbies. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
*This was a joke, but there's a point there: 10k edits at my pace would take around the same wall-clock time as getting a commercial pilot's license.
So basically, getting 25,000 edits, or a full 125-something-point edit score, would take as much time as the time required to get 2.5 commercial pilot's licenses? Epic Genius (talk) ± 18:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
On a serious note, it does look like RfA needs reform. We really do not need admins who were nominated mainly because their content work was good or because they never edited controversially. What we do need are admins who can make the right choices in blocking and page protection, and admins who, hopefully, can clear the administrator backlogs that are getting bigger each year. Adminship should not be viewed as a "super-user" status, but as a status in which dirtier tasks (such as page deletions, protections, and blocks) could be done without the backlog expanding to unmanageable proportions. Epic Genius (talk) ± 18:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Some limited data[edit]

Looking at the history of Wikipedia:List of administrators, we can track the number of active administrators over time. This is not the number of administrators, but the actual number of administrators who are active. "Active" is defined as 30 or more edits during the prior two months. Data points of note:

  • 26 May 2015: Today, we have 602 active administrators.
  • 26 May 2014: A year ago, it was 600.
  • 26 May 2013: 683
  • 28 May 2012: 707 (data missing for 26 May)
  • 26 May 2011: 759
  • 26 May 2010: 847
  • 26 May 2009: 921
  • 26 May 2008: 981

There's obviously been a decline, but it is interesting to note that we appear to have reached an equilibrium for the time being. There's been no net decline over the last 13 months (22 April 2014 was the first time it dropped to 600). This doesn't say anything about backlogs of course, but it does show the pool of administrators still active on the project has remained static for the last 13 months. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting data, but I'm starting to wonder if it doesn't paint the full picture. Because what I've noticed in my poking around the last month or two is how many of the "602" actually don't do much with their tools. I mean, in just that last little while, one high profile Admin (Swarm) has seemingly thrown in the towel (but would still show up as "active" as this happened recently...) while several others have had dust-ups at places like ANI which has apparently significantly diminished their enthusiasm and caused them to become much less active. And then there is the cadre of Admins who have had the bit for ages, but whose names I don't recognize and who seemingly don't use their tools much anymore... What would be really useful data is not the total number of "active" Admins according to the List of Admins (that definition of "active" is far too loose to be useful), but the number of truly active Admins – i.e. that number that have used their actual Admin tools 'X' number of times in the last 30 days, or whatever. I did check that recently, and most the usual names came up, but I didn't actually do a "count" to figure out how many of the "602" are really using their Admin tools actively... In any case, that is the data that would be truly useful to figuring out if there's a real problem right now or not. --IJBall (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, running that tool for April 26 through today (removing bots) I find (defining 'active' as performing at least one admin action in the 30 days surveyed):
  • 475 active admins.
  • The top ten most active of those are responsible for 41.8% of the administrator actions (67,665 actions)
  • The top 50 are responsible for 77.2%.
  • If you include bots in totals (103,438 actions) and percent of totals, bots do 34% of the admin actions.
  • Number of actions per active admin (burden): 142
For the same time period in 2014:
  • 490 active admins.
  • The top ten most active of those are responsible for 37.1% of the administrator actions (63,302 actions)
  • The top 50 are responsible for 75.6%.
  • If you include bots in totals (76,261 actions) and percent of totals, bots do 16.9% of the admin actions.
  • Number of actions per active admin (burden): 129
For the same time period in 2010:
  • 700 active admins.
  • The top ten most active of those are responsible for 38.3% of the administrator actions (93,853 actions)
  • The top 50 are responsible for 69.8%.
  • If you include bots in totals (101,537 actions) and percent of totals, bots do 7.6% of the admin actions.
  • Number of actions per active admin (burden): 134
Certainly the quantity of bot admin actions has increased dramatically over the years. Of note; the actual burden figure per admin has remained more or less static. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you for putting together these numbers. I'm not sure how to compare these, given the rise of the admin bot. Do the actions per admin include bot actions? How many of those older actions could have been done by a bot? If the number of admin actions taken (NB not "needed", which is impossible to measure) is more or less stable, are these actions now harder/slower/more complicated cases (because the bots did all the easy ones)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Minor point, here, but I think you and I may have different definitions of "active" in terms of Admin tools. While 476 Admins (including bots) used their tools at least once between 27 April and 27 May 2015, only 269 of those Admins used their tools 10 times or more in that month, and only 210 Admins used their tools 20 times or more. I was thinking more along the lines of a standard like that for "truly active", and I think that's the standard I'd use for comparing Admin "activity" over the years... --IJBall (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Distribution of the fraction of total admins taking a given number of actions in one year.
Distribution of the fraction of total admin actions taken by each admin in one year.
Here's some more limited data. I had a few minutes so I made some quick-and-dirty graphs of the statistics from the adminstats tool, comparing May 2014-May 2015 (blue) to May 2006-May 2007 (green). Result: the percent of admins taking at least 1 and fewer than 10 actions per year has greatly increased, but the percent taking over 100 actions has decreased. (Note this is admin actions, so that first category isn't necessarily just people making their obligatory one edit to avoid desysopping.) Of course, with fewer contributors, there's arguably less to do - and some formerly manual actions are being taken by adminbots - but the trend is clear enough. On the log graph you get a clearer sense that shares of the overall administrative burden used to be much more broadly distributed. We've concentrated admin actions in a smaller number of hands. This reduces diversity in administrative decision-making, increases the likelihood of burnout among the highly active admins, and makes the community vulnerable to backlogs and interruptions when those people do decide to reduce their activity levels.
There's plenty of discussion at the village pump about possible desysoppings as a solution to what appears to be a non-problem outside an isolated instance. Meanwhile the actual ongoing problem - concentration of the total administrative burden on a narrower base of editors - keeps going on. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
In 2006, there were admins running adminbots on their own accounts without bot flags. Technically this was a violation of the rules, but it was something of an open secret that we had both blocking and deletion bots operating. Dragons flight (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure getting more Admins (to broaden that base using Admin tools) is something that can be solved until Admins get more proactive about. As I said above (I think... or somewhere, recently...), I think if Admins really want to increase the RfA rate, you're going to have to organize a working group on your end to figure out which longer-term or higher-yield editors you want to try to coax into running and then reach out to them. (Right now, I get the impression that this process is really ad hoc, and not "planned" or "organized" to any great degree.) P.S. Thanks for the figures (esp. the first one – that is interesting data that I was not expecting...). --IJBall (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Something like this used to exist, but it turned into "RfA school". Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The figures are quite, um, interesting. Does anyone find it weird that the most active admin, who has six times as many admin actions this past month as the next admin, is a bot that blocks proxies? We've got to find a way to automate many admin processes. The top 10 admins have performed 59,000 admin actions in the past 30 days, with over half of them by that proxy bot which apparently runs on magic, but there's got to be a way that we can get more admins into Wikipedia today, even with fewer and fewer editors actively editing Wikipedia. The solution, I think, could be by having bots clear some backlogs, manually assisted of course, but the X for deletion process could probably be good places to start. Epic Genius (talk) ± 18:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Dragons flight makes a good point about the challenge of comparing current and past adminbot actions - though a lot of people would have had to do some occasional unauthorized botting in order to explain the size of the discrepancy, and the effect should be balanced by the fact that there are now ubiquitous scripts to speed up bread-and-butter non-bot admin actions that don't require technical knowledge to use.
The suggestion of increased automation raises a good point. If the problem is backlogs, do we concentrate on trying to recruit more active admins to clear them, or refocus on increasing the productivity of the existing set? My argument way above is, more or less, that there are underappreciated social costs to low RfA throughput independent of the state of the backlogs. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on this user[edit]


several users found be socks, blocked accordingly, issue seems resolved for the moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, I am requesting some caution with User:Wiki-shield. He/she has a history of trying to remove anything critical of Cogmed and accused me of being associated with Lumosity (cogmed's presumed market rival), which isn't true. This person has a very short history on Wikipedia and most of it is trying to remove anything critical of 'brain training' programs. Here are some of WS's latest edits.[7].

@Taeyebaar, I don't know what is the cause of your personal vendetta with Cogmed and other memory/brain training programs but your history of editing these articles shows crafting the text in negative manner and removing all positive references and all supporting research. As for your statement re Lumosity, interestingly enough I never said (or thought before) that you are associated with Lumosity... Yet, looking at Lumosity history I see now that this is the only memory/brain training program where you didn't do negative edits, assigned to Wiki Skepticism, etc. Should we read your message above as a self-confession in sock-puppetry...?Wiki-shield (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not accusing him/her of being associated with anything, but his defensiveness for cogmed (and possibly other programs) seems suspicious. I think a neutral admin or other admins should keep a close eye on this individual and his/her activity. Thanks.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

A lovingly crafted advertisement. Once the PR crap is blasted out, it is a lot shorter but better for it. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Advertisement??? Did you even bother reading about Cogmed before removing 80% of article incl. the history of Cogmed and all supporting research??? Cogmed is the most reputable memory training program and it is used by millions of people around the world as an alternative to ADHD medication. Virtually every mental health professional in the US and Canada recognizes and supports Cogmed training. It is the only program supported and recognized by American Psychological Association (APA). There are over 45 independent peer-reviewed research studies from top universities and research centers supporting benefits of Cogmed training. So far there is only 3 negative studies for Cogmed, but these are dis-proportionally inflated in popular media - being an alternative to ADHD drugs, Cogmed is jeopardizing profits of Big Pharma... I have absolutely no association with Cogmed, but as a psychotherapist who treats ADHD patients, I am very upset with your actions. I urge you to revisit the article and reconsider your edits. There is no point with going into editing wars with admin but I suggest that other admins (especially ones with psychology background) look into this issue.Wiki-shield (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes I did. And I have a decade of Wikipedia experience covering tens of thousands of edits on thousands of articles. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Yup. An advertisement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
And Wiki-shield apparently thinks the problem is a 'rogue admin' [8]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Well it looks like it's pointless to argue with admins in Wikipedia... As a professional, I am deeply disturbed that non-professionals like you manipulate public opinion making edits without even investigating the subject. Yet, I don't want to waste my time here - with admins like you improving Wikipedia is an impossible task Wiki-shield (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there are a number of paid COI editors who do excellent work and have no problem getting their work into the encyclopedia. All it takes is the courage to put Wikipedia first and to inform the client that following Wikipedia's rules is the only way to make changes that don't get reverted. There are plenty of corporate articles full of errors or unsourced claims by the corporations enemies. A good disclosed paid COI editor can turn those articles into neutral, well-sourced articles, which is usually money well spent. What they can't do is turn them into advertisements or PR fluff pieces. For that you have to find a website that accepts paid advertising. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I solidly agree with Guy Macon. See the history and talk page for our Tony Blinken article. Bgluckman, employed by a PR firm, did a wonderful job of improving the article while carefully following our COI standards: we started with a rather crummy page with a bunch of errors and content cited to sources that didn't support the content, and he helped us turn it into a far better article. If everyone with conflicts of interest worked like Bgluckman, the issue of paid editing wouldn't even be seen as a problem. Nyttend (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@GuyMacon and @Nyttend, what are you talking about and how is it related to the topic?Wiki-shield (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Wiki-shield claimed that for paid COI editors like himself, "improving Wikipedia is an impossible task". Nyttend and I pointed out that others not only manage to do it, but to make a living at it, by actually improving Wikipedia instead of trying to misuse Wikipedia as a place to run ads without paying for them. What's the problem with saying that? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
User:CorporateM treads this fine line well, IMO. Wiki-shield not so much. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually I think a topic ban is called for for wiki-shield. Not only is this an obvious red flag name, but wiki-shield is a WP:SPA whose sole purpose here is to make partisan edits to a walled garden of articles around the questionable practice of brain training. For example:

I thought you are a sock for Lumosity (based on your self admission), but it looks like you are too concerned about LearningRx. That explains things, unlike LearningRx which is a "Herbalife" of brain training, Lumosity is doing quite well and could afford to hire some rotten Wikipedia admin to promote it.

(diff) This is WP:ABF and very clear battlefield mentality. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Seeing that this individual realizes nothing wrong with removing reliably sourced material, I think a topic ban is now warranted. I just had to revert his vandalism on Arrowsmith School for the dozenth time. Should I report WS on the vandalism notice board.Taeyebaar (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any formal association with Cogmed. My reasoning is very simple, as a psychotherapist I see many ADHD patients who greatly benefited from Cogmed training. Some were even able to stop medications. Then 3 months ago I noticed how bad the Wikipedia article is and decided to contribute my time to improve it. After realizing what a mess Wikipedia is and how many content manipulations going on here I decided to stay longer and fight for a good cause. Then it developed into a hobby :)


. This person's words speak for himself (or herself).--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal[edit]

Wiki-shield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA whose edits serve to promote Cogmed. This editor has several times alleged (without benefit of evidence) that those who oppose his strongly partisan edits, are paid by Luminosity, a competitor. Both companies exist within a walled garden of articles on "brain training", an area rife with dubious and inflated claims. There are others who appear to be similarly conflicted, but Wiki-shield is an unambiguous partisan here with no other evident interest in Wikipedia.

I propose that Wiki-shield is banned from the topic of brain training, broadly construed, for a period of one year. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Strong support except I think it should be for good. His rude comments (see above samples) and edit wars -including the blanking of reliably sourced info from experts in the field of brain science- is enough to warrant a forever ban from these topics. If common sense prevailed on Wikipedia, he would have been banned the first few weeks after he (or she) joined. But by the minimum he should be banned permanently from these topics.

Being reverted by multiple editors, only to continue removing reliably sourced arguments from those qualified in brain study and instead leaving in unsupported (usually anecdotal) claims by marketers of expensive 'brain training' programs shows his defiance of WP:NPOV which is enough to be banned from Wikipedia altogether. But again this permanent topic ban should be the minimum he should receive, nothing less.--Taeyebaar (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • And by the way, I never removed counter-arguments made by the Arrowsmith School that they're program actually does work. Howard Eaton who runs the Eaton Arrowsmith School made dubious arguments supportive of the program he co-runs and I left it in. Wiki-Shield however likes to keep citations like that left in while blanking out citations from profs who have openly criticized the program which is a clear violation of WP:RS, WP:Vandalism and WP:NPOV--Taeyebaar (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note - the user who requested the ban on the user Wiki-Shield - Taeyebaar - appears to have a simple history adding exclusively "skepticism" to a group of similar articles - Cogmed, Arrowsmith School, Luminosity, LearningRX, etc. - apparently all connected to ideas surrounding "neuroplasticity", which they themselves have added most of the skepticism and criticism for accordingly for their edit history. Said user is clearly biased towards these subjects towards a specific viewpoint, and these articles are being considerably unbalanced by said users "reliably sourced edits". See WP:NPOV WP:BALASPS WP:UNDUE Instead suggest that Administrators monitor the unbalanced and opinionated activity of Taeyebaar (Unlike the attack on Guy who is obviously a long-term editor). I propose that Taeyebaar is also banned from the topic of brain training, broadly construed, for a period of one year. Neither Taeyebaar or Wiki-shield are unbiased editors for these subjects! They deserve unbiased editing from here on in. Beardocratic (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Digging a little further - it would appear that user Taeyebaar has been actively and systematically deleting articles - Cogmed, LearningRX, etc. in this space, in addition to unbalancing remaining articles with skepticism. Seems like said user is running a one-man war against brain training - it is tantamount to WP:Vandalism. They obviously have a specific viewpoint they are trying to push, at the cost of other editor's effort. Beardocratic (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Andy) Perhaps you should have dug even further. Your assertion is without merit. Taeyebaar has no power to delete articles; that editor is not an administrator, so cannot do so. At least in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LearningRx (2nd nomination), a formal process involving a number of different editors, that editor's assertion was to keep, not delete the page. BusterD (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
And that user seems to be the creator of the modern version of the Cogmed page. BusterD (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks to me like an edit war happened between Wiki-shield and Taeyebaar for the Cogmed page, which got dropped Original Cogmed Article Revisions. Doesn't appear like neutral editing. (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of 'exclusive' editing histories, Beardocratic, is this account your first one (with an edit history consisting as it does of nothing but posts to this thread), or have you previously contributed under another name? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I had enough of this nonsense. I don't want to waste my time fighting rotten admins and biased editors with hidden agenda. Wikipedia become a place where content is easily manipulated for personal purposes by a group of admins and long time editors who either satisfy their own ambitions to be "important" or just take money from interested parties for manipulating public opinion. The general public (like me) seems quite naive about Wikipedia perceived objectivity and "collective" editing process. Looks like all these things are in the past. I will be teaming up with my good friend who is a reporter for New York Times to prepare an editorial "Wikipedia: behind the curtains". The article will discuss abuse of powers by "old boys club" of admins, using WP technicalities to remove valid content in order to manipulate and misrepresent facts, bushing editors who speak the truth against authority users, etc. We will use the history of manipulating brain training programs as an example, so some of you will find yourself very popular soon. Hopefully, this editorial will educate readers that they CANNOT any longer trust Wikipedia content. For those admins who want to collaborate and provide examples similar to infamous Lumosity, Cogmed, Arrowsmith School, etc. please email me at Thanks for educating me on politics of WP and goodbye! Wiki-shield (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone who replied to my message above: I received 17 emails with examples of abuse and proposals to collaborate in less then 2 hours! Looks like there are still quite a few honest admins/editors here who want to make Wikipedia a better place. Wiki-shield (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
And that's supposed to help your case? Guy (Help!) 15:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It will certainly help, Mr. Chapman. I just learned from my friend's assistant that you managed to insert 791 links to your personal site from different WP pages using your profile signature and then changed the profile - nice job! :) BTW, both sites that you claim to help with are also linked from WP pages - somehow I'm not surprised here... Wiki-shield (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The IP poster above also looks very suspicious--Taeyebaar (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget to dredge up the Ecopave spammer's nonsensical claims of affiliate marketing while you're at it. That's always good for a laugh. There are actually 792 links to my website on Wikipedia, quite a few of which were not added by me at all. I did indeed link my website in my sig for a short while in 2005, but stopped as soon as someone pointed out this was frowned upon. It would pain me not a bit if they were all removed.
What you're doing, you see, is exactly what you've been doing all along: deciding you're right, that everybody who disagrees with you is evil and corrupt, and then looking for data to support your preconceived conclusions. That's a great way to be wrong, to keep on being wrong, and to get more and more wrong over time. I do not give a toss about Cogmed. I do not give a toss about Luminosity either. I have to look the names up by scrolling up thread because they are not even significant enough to me to be able to reliably remember the names. Just because you are here solely to wage war over this, don't assume that anybody else is. Wikipedia, as a body corporate, has no dog in this fight at all. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
This can't be good... Zhanzhao (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So, Wiki-shield is a sockpuppet. Someone uninvolved please wield the banhammer. Guy (Help!) 07:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That's another good one... I just learned from another editor (sorry, I am new to WP) how you linked my account and account of my business partner John. Did any of you wise guys considered that more than one person in the office (or even household) can contribute to Wkipedia? As for your "do not give a toss about XXX" statements above, probably you shouldn't edit articles where you have no interest nor knowledge... Wiki-shield (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
See WP:BROTHER. We have been round this loop many times with many different people. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
But do be on the lookout for that hard-hitting NYT editorial exposing the grungy back-room dealings of Wikipedia! I know that the Times is always looking for a {hummm-ha-um, oh, excuse me, just bored myself there) breaking story like that to latch on to. We should be seeing it right after they expose (for the 300th time) just what goes into hot dogs. (Incidentally, threatening to go to the press is yet another one of the "chilling effect" threats which should be met with an indef threat.) BMK (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't do much for an editor's chances of getting what he wants (unless what he wants is a ban). Guy (Help!) 16:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikishield has been indef'd as a sock of Mishash, Mishash has been blocked 1 week as a sockpuppeteer. There's no question in my mind that the users operating these accounts are not here to do general article development within Wikipedia's content and behavior rules. However they appear on User Talk:Bbb23 to be saying (with the blocked sock) that they're done editing anyway. Probably best to just ignore these accounts per WP:DENY, but if trouble returns in a week with the main account we can deal with it at that time. Zad68 16:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal/Modification of restrictions on editing on Talk:Gamergate controversy[edit]

I recently declined a request for the indefinite semi-protection of a talk page which led to a discussion on my talk page about the merits of protecting a talk page. While looking for information concerning this topic under a user's request to reconsider I noticed that Talk:Gamergate controversy is both semi-protected and subject to a restriction of needing 500 edits and a minimum account age of a month to even comment on the talk page. This has led to some interesting discussions (Talk:Gamergate controversy#Who Judges Which Is A Viable Source Or Not?) where in order to follow the discussion user has to read the diffs of otherwise valid comments that were removed simply because an editor has less than 500 edits. This restriction has also generated discussion (Talk:Gamergate controversy/Removal of comments from the talk page) about the removal of other's comments from the talk page where it was mentioned that it may be prudent to discuss removing these sanctions here or at AE (I believe that this is a wider forum than would be found at WP:AE).

As a community that welcomes anonymous editing, was built around the idea that "anyone can edit", and the fundamental assumption of good faith. Blocking anonymous/new users from even being able to suggest an edit or make a comment on the talk page is something I find contrary to our goal here. The talk page is not something a reader would normally see unless it was sought out and it is the forum for discussion to take place about changes to the article. As a member of the community and administrator, I believe it should remain open for that discussion in all but the most exceptional cases (WP:HUMAN and meta:Founding principles). Simply removing otherwise valid comments and leaving diffs simply due to an account being below an arbitrary threshold is in my opinion an extremely poor solution for discussion and makes the building consensus considerably harder. Therefore I was curious to see the thoughts of other administrators and editors about this restriction and discuss if there was a consensus by the community to perhaps remove or refine it. Best, Mifter (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Our policies are not a suicide pact and we place high value on not becoming a harbor for character assassination against living people. The ongoing coordinated disruption efforts by a troll harassment group merit unusual protections to ensure our ability to improve the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This page-level sanction an interesting experiment that Zad68 is attempting. I'm not sure how effective it will be but I'm curious to see how it will turn out. At Wikipedia we are committed to open access and assuming good faith, but that commitment, as the saying goes, need not be a suicide pact. For nearly a year, parties have openly colluded offsite to attempt to manipulate the Wikipedia articles regarding this subject. They have harassed and doxxed editors off-site, not to mention the low-level harassment of constant drive-by attacks on the talk page. This seems a reasonable restriction given the specific circumstances of this page, and one we can revisit when it has been in place long enough that we can judge its effectiveness. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but it has been a long time since it has been the encyclopedia where anyone can edit any page at any time for any reason, otherwise we should just unprotect the main page now. Gamaliel (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
As I've mentioned everywhere, this restriction is to my detriment as I am a bit of a slow editor. That being said, I am fully in favor of it as likely to produce a better article. I am, however, hopeful about the elegance of Zad68's (and now Gamaliel's) solution of subpages. Perhaps an unrestricted subpage could be created? I am not sure if the signal to noise ratio would be worth it, and I am mindful that it's veering close to WP:FORUM territory. Also, of course, there are WP:BLP concerns. But maybe it would be a way to stop (or at least slow) the meta-page discussions? Just a thought. Feel free to tell me how wrong I am! Dumuzid (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I am also interested in seeing how this works out as we do need to be prudent in protecting the encyclopedia despite my concerns. However, using IAR/extenuating circumstances to justify extraordinary action on what is supposed to be a discussion page and not an article is a slippery slope as it risks undermining our core principles of discussing changes and generating consensus for a short term gain. The largest red flag I see with the current system stems from removal of otherwise legitimate comments that further stimulate and contribute to discussion (1 2 and other removals in the history) simply because of a user not meeting an arbitrary threshold. I would like to see some way to allow useful comments/discussion without the blanket removing/rejection of comments, my first thought was something like the Huggle Whitelist but I'm not sure it would be practical. I see the 500 edit/30 day requirement as causing too much collateral damage for a talk page that is supposed to allow open discussion and invite differing viewpoints in how to structure the article. Mifter (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
"collateral damage"???? The theoretical "collateral damage" of a good faith account having to wait 20 more days to join a topic against the actual repeated damage of throwaway accounts spreading libel and aspersions against living people. The option supporting the betterment of the encyclopedia is quite clear. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Mifter, I don't think it is possible to compare this article to other articles seen as "controversial". Take an hour and wander through the 38 archived talk pages and look over the circular debates, the questions that are asked over and over and over (X30), the drive-by name calling and insults that were commonplace on this talk page. And this is 38 pages over a period of TEN months. I don't think you can underestimate how divisive this talk page once was. At this point, the sources have been examined and reexamined in detail, and nothing revolutionary is going to happen. Gamergate was an event that is over and right now only exists on message boards. It's a matter of polishing up the article and protecting it from vandalism. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It should be noted this restriction was enacted in response to an arbitration enforcement thread [9] alleging battleground behavior by TheRedPenOfDoom. As best I can tell the closing administrator's motivation was to limit potentially triggering behavior, to the extent possible. (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
With the greatest respect, the core principle has already been undermined. The Encyclopedia Everyone Can Edit is here being transformed to the encyclopedia that any well-organized and well-funded PR organization can subvert. Gamergate tactics have involved recruiting an apparently endless stream of new, IP, and zombie accounts which appear in campaigns, organized offsite. Often, these campaigns reopen questions that had been settled before -- two week intervals have been very common -- under the pretext that the “new” editors could not have participated in them. The result has been well over a million words of Talk Page, literally dozens of BLP violations including persistent discussion of the sex lives of women in the software industry, dozens of bans and blocks, an ARBCOM case, an extraordinary amount of admin work, and newspaper coverage that has ranged from highly critical of Wikipedia to derisory. The suicide pact in this case contemplates the suicide of the project, nothing less. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This seems like the worst possible system, except for all those others which have from time to time, been tried. Let it run for a while and see how it goes. While it might be tempting to make WP:AGF exceptions, that would, I am afraid, be much more likely to open the door to rampant gaming of the system, as has been seen consistently to date with this subject. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Speaking as a former arb who worked on the nightmare that was the gamergate arbitration case, I agree with Guy. This is by no means an optimal situation, but we have an exceptionally problematic topic area here. Anyone who is both brand new to editing here and drawn like a moth to the flame to this topic at this late date is probably an extremist of one type or another. Is it possible this is preventing good-faaith newbies from particpating? Yes. And that's a shame, but exceptional circumstances call for exceptional solutions. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • As one involved, I did agree that at the present the 500 edit/30 day limit is a reasonable step to prevent what has been a problem - people that have well-intended issues with the article but that do not have a good feel for how difficult is has been to write this topic within WP policies, while they aren't necessarily disruptive, they aren't helping too much at the time. It is also the case there is known organization of people off site to try to influence the WP article and even if that is well-meaning, that's not the way the encyclopedia is build. But at the same time, we do have problems with editors being overly defensive to a point of page ownership and battleground mentality about closing off any avenue of discussion that is not in line with keeping the page in their desired view, which is creating the hostility and the desire of new editors to come and ask about improvements. The 500/30 restriction should clearly stay or at lest until it has time to try out but this also has to be balanced against editors vigoriously trying to blacklist any discussion that they don't want to deal with, to maintain the openness of the process. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Some additional discussion of the topic, if anyone wishes to see more viewpoints: here and here Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Where is the evidence for this alleged off-site organized "campaign" and "collusion" users keep speaking of? There seems to be no such campaign, and that this is a scare tactic and excuse to attack newer users who see the article is (obviously) grossly biased and inaccurate and comment on the discussion page. (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You have, I assume, heard of reddit and 8chan? (I will not link to specific forums or boards.) Since October, both sites have had many discussion threads devoted to the editing of Gamergate-related Wikipedia articles including discussions about specific editors who they think are opposed or sympathetic to their position. It's not collusion in terms of an organized campaign but there is a lot of criticism, complaining and strategizing of ways to approach editing these articles. It might not be as prominent as it was 6 months ago but it still occurs. But I don't think this information is news to anyone who has spent some time editing this subject. Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
"discussions about specific editors / a lot of criticism, complaining and strategizing of ways to approach editing these articles" sounds a lot like ANI/article talk pages. If they're discussing ways to vandalize wikipedia or break the rules that's a different story and we should be prepared - could you copy and paste some quotes if you don't want to link them? (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Please don't. What they say is irrelevant - we see the results here. BMK (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the evidence is, in part, all those IPs who manage to comment on everything related to this topic area. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Mifter's approach is obviously good in general, but there are several extraordinary features of the gamergate issue that require unusual solutions. I have only occasionally glanced at what is going on yet have noticed a large number of new and reactivated accounts who repetitively repeat recently settled issues, and who will not be dissuaded from telling the world their version of gamergate. Almost all such activity is extremely civil, yet unproductive and exhausting for general editors with an interest in the encyclopedia. I have seen several accounts created as early as 2007 with under 500 edits, and which have been reactivated to engage at Talk:Gamergate controversy—AGF says their views should be individually considered with a week spent explaining the intricacies of WP:BLP and WP:RGW to each of them, but that is not possible in practice. Off-wiki campaigning (and WP:ARBGG) has trained activists in how to be civil in the hope of provoking sanctionable responses from editors who defend the articles. I tried a Google search so I could illustrate that without linking to anything too ugly, but got distracted by rationalwiki which has all that is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, damn those editors, coming back to Wikipedia after creating accounts the better part of a decade ago, endeavouring to improve an article that they feel is flawed, within the rules of Wikipedia! Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The fact that WP:CPUSH is within the rules of Wikipedia is the reason that WP:ARBGG was required, and the reason that there are 38 pages of archived talk, all created in the last nine months. Experienced editors with no axe to grind can see that the influx of new and reactivated accounts is nothing to do with "improve an article"—it's to WP:RGW regardless of what the reliable sources say. Johnuniq (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The data shows [10] more than half of those "38 pages" were created by the top ten editors, all long-term users, and more than 75% by the top 20. So you're wrong - new and resurrected accounts are not the reason there are 38 pages of archived talk. (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
<removed my own comment because I wasn't AGFing (not to mention I misread his comment as assumed he was counting since the restriction was placed, not before> Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 06:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm the admin who place the 500/30 minimum qualification. This discussion is interesting, but other than point any interested readers to what I posted on my User Talk regarding my thoughts, I'm just going to observe for the moment. Zad68 15:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Guideline against going into details on ways of being abusive[edit]

This recent thread reminded me to ask if we have any guideline that says that reminds users (esp. admins) not to give details beyond the specifics of a current case, of how to be disruptive. I think if this doesn't exist, it might be worth considering. Samsara 01:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you looking for something like WP:BEANS? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
You are right, that seems to have the essence of it. I think it might have to be polished up a bit to be taken seriously. At the moment, it seems to be a gallery of unfortunate buttons plus a nursery story. Is this state of things something we're quite attached to? I was hoping there might be something more straightforward and polished like "WP:Avoid teaching disruptive behaviours". Samsara 01:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
If there were, it would probably be in the "See also" section there; since there isn't, I'd say we don't have one. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Security through obscurity is weak. Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't respect WP:BEANS but to try to elevate it to guideline status would be problematic. There are lots of reasons it may be useful to discuss potential methods of being abusive, and it would involve lots of complexity to try and thread a line between useful discussion aimed at protecting Wikipedia, and harmful discussion that unnecessarily discusses methods of abuse. (or information useful to those looking to be abusive) Given how well people tend to obey WP:BEANS already, I think the status-quo is fine, we are effectively not talking about them, without having to have a prohibition. Monty845 03:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Kerckhoffs's principle applies here. You cannot hide information like "what is the most effective way of disrupting Wikipedia?" -- it will simply be published at if you try. Having the information hidden from those who fight vandalism yet easily discoverable by any vandal who knows how to use google is a bad thing, not a good thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
There are things we can't reasonably keep secret. And there are details that we need to mention publicly, partly necessary for reasonable transparency. However, anything that isn't simple to figure out, public knowledge, or necessary to inform the public of, we don't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Everybody seems to always wrongly assume that this is an argument about obscurity as a binary property. It isn't. It's a question of entropy. If you widely disseminate an instruction, even to the marginally interested, you'll get more takers. Samsara 10:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Not necessarily so. This is like the old fear that if you teach children sex education, they'll start having sex. Liz Read! Talk! 10:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Relevant Signpost piece. Samsara 11:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The plain truth is that choosing to not widely disseminate this sort of information is not an option that is available to us. We don't control the Internet. and if we try to suppress the information here on Wikipedia all we will accomplish is triggering the Streisand effect. Security through obscurity is one of those fundamental errors that seem like a really good idea but in practice is a disaster. Wikipedia instead needs to follow the principle of Secure by design and make all such information publicly accessible and easy to find. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that it is OK to allow a vulnerability to exist if few people know about it. Instead, do the right thing, publicize the flaw, and then work to make it so that the vulnerability no longer exists. For example. publicizing the fact that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is publicizing a security flaw: anyone can vandalize Wikipedia. Does this mean we should try to hide the fact that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? No. It means we should figure out better and better countermeasures to the vandalism. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Security through obscurity may be weak, but carefully publishing a list of all the exploits that are currently known to be effective, even if your context is "stuff we're fixing right now", is foolish. BEANS is really about not encouraging people to try deleting the main page just to see if it works (and in more contexts than just vandalism), rather than closing our eyes and pretending that so long as we're not aware of a problem being widely published, then no problems actually need to be fixed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
A lot of it isn't vulnerabilities that we can really fix, so much as policy compromises, or just common practice that leave room for someone to maneuver around them to avoid our first several lines of defense against disruption. As an example, it would be trivial for someone who wanted to vandalize to review how cluebot works, and vandalize in ways that wont trigger it. Now we have more lines behind that, but that doesn't mean we should just tell people how they would get past that first one for the hell of it. Monty845 19:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Frogger3140 claiming standard offer[edit]

Frogger3140 (talk · contribs) was blocked way back in 2008 for vandalism. Nearly seven years on, he's filed an unblock request saying he's now grown up a lot and is willing to play by the rules. Does anyone have any objections if I unblock him? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If they explain that they're interested in editing and what they plan to do when unblocked, then I don't see why not. Sam Walton (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest checking with Tiptoety - the block reason he gave indicates that he felt there was a disctinct similarity to Grawp/JarlaxleArtemis, which would need to be taken into consideration. Yunshui  11:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Must confess I'm not really seeing it myself, but I've asked Tiptoety to comment here. Yunshui  11:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't really remember this case, as it was 2008. But from what I can see, the block was the result of "Grawp like" page moves. An example can be found here. Tiptoety talk 22:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You mean it could be Grawp, Tiptoety? Surely not. I can't fathom why Grawp would take the trouble to try to get an old account unblocked. He can't have run out of open proxies, can he? I tend towards supporting an unblock. Bishonen | talk 20:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC).
  • Ah, no, that's not what I mean. What I mean is he was intentionally making edits to trigger the Grawp edit filters without explanation. In the grand scheme of things I don't see him as a big nuisance. Tiptoety talk 20:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Given the time that has passed, I would unblock, with a one-account restriction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

+1, and certainly with a one-account restriction. That's not an onerous bar to clear. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

User:AntonioMartin desysopped[edit]

For violation of policy in relation to the account User:Le Pato Frances; AntonioMartin is desysopped. They may only regain the tools through a successful request for adminship.

Supporting: Courcelles, Doug Weller, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, LFaraone, Roger Davies, Salvio giuliano, Seraphimblade, Yunshui

For the Arbitration Committee;

Courcelles (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#User:AntonioMartin desysopped

Talk:Silent Hills#Proposed merge with P.T. (demo)[edit]

In the future, please place closure request at their proper location, which is WP:ANRFC. Thanks! ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  23:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting consensus from an experienced editor. Been an inactive discussion for awhile. Also there has been probably a little too much improvement on the article to probably suppport the merge. Jhenderson 777 20:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll do it. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  23:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Percentage of an article written by an editor[edit]

And that is that. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I seem to remember a tool somewhere which would look at the history of an article and determine what percentage of the article was written by a specific editor (or all the contributors to the article). Anyone know what I'm talking about? Thanks for any help. Face-smile.svg ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

On the History page for each article, you'll see a "Revision history statistics" link. Hit that link then scroll down the page and you'll see percentages by number of edits and amount of text for the top 10%. BMK (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I knew it was somewhere, but it's been a while since I used it. Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
My pleasure! BMK (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What can you tag for if a BLP has only links to Youtube[edit]

Which is the case here Mišo Bojić, the person had them as refs which I moved them to EL's but not sure if it would go for deletion or what! Wgolf (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, unsourced BLPs should be deleted, not just tagged and left. --TS 00:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I do agree-but a few days ago a admin did delete some of the prods from articles that had no refs but just els (to the IMDB and other places like that) so as of late I'm not even sure anymore to put a BLP prod as of now...Wgolf (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

BLP unsourced issues seem to be different depending on the admin[edit]

Okay for example-several articles have been deleted with EL's to places while a few days ago I got a notice saying not to put a BLP prod up if they have ELs! (I even got a undo one time when the EL was to Linked in!) Like here: Paul McGill (actor)-was removed as there was a EL to the IMDB. I am getting too confused now over what to count as a BLP prod and not! Same with Jon McBride (filmmaker). Though others with EL's only to there are prodded so yeah. Wgolf (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

See WP:BLPPROD: " To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.)," If it has an external link, it is not eligible for BLPPROD. Anyone who deletes an article with an external link as BLPPROD is doing so against policy. That doesn't mean they need to be punished. It just means they need to be told to stop. --Jayron32 01:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I use to not put up BLP prods if there were el's but since I was seeing some getting deleted with EL's as of late it is getting crazy. (Though if the el is Twitter/Facebook/Linked in/stuff like that...) It does get confusing. Wgolf (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note that having an external link does not make an article immune to deletion. It just means that BLPPROD cannot be the rationale. There are many other reasons to delete something. If an admin is deleting things with the BLPPROD rationale, and there's an external link in the article, it shouldn't be deleted. Now, there are rationales like WP:CSD#A7 which require that the article doesn't make any credible assertions of importance. SO if an article said something like "Billy is a cute kid and sits next to me in math class" and nothing else, BUT included an external link to an article about Billy written up in a local newspaper, it would not be eligible per BLPPROD, but would be per A7. If, however, a credible claim of importance is asserted, and the article includes at least one reference or external link, it should only be deleted by more deliberative processes, such as regular PROD or AFD. --Jayron32 01:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"outdated" put on dozens of pages without reason.[edit]

Yes check.svg Done Black Kite (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Monu1009 (talk · contribs) vandalism[edit]

The user has signed up yesterday, vadalized a couple of page (here and here). He was given a warning by a bot on his his talk page, then vandalized another one. He was given another warning and then vandalized the same page, again, twice (here and here). His edits are exclusively for disruptive purposes and I think he should be blocked. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) a penny for your thoughts? 09:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - In the future, you can report simple cases of vandalism such as this to WP:AIV. Best, Tiptoety talk 09:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Edits from IP ranges[edit]

Can someone point me to the tools for seeing the contributions from an IP range? This works but the display is not very user-friendly. Abecedare (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Here you go, Abecedare, the IPv4 Range Tool and while we're at it, here is a good IPv4 calculator. What we need is a tool to see IPv6 ranges. Good to see that you are carrying the bit again. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Berean. That's exactly what I was looking for. Abecedare (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. Remembering a thread from a couple of weeks ago, Bishonen may like the above tools as well.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please redirect a duplicate page[edit]

Hello. Can an administrator please redirect Louis Auguste Say to Louis Say? It is a duplicate page. 'Louis Say' is his most commonly used name. The page creator agreed with me (see my talkpage). Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I have merged the two articles, but, since there were two bothers, both economists, Louis Auguste Say and Louis Baptiste Say, I have merged the two articles under the name Louis Auguste Say. I've put a "copied" template on it to indicate where the merged material came from, but it might be easier if an admin would do a history merge of Louis Say and Louis Auguste Say. BMK (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Where do you find Louis-Baptiste Say? There is just Louis Say and then Jean-Baptiste Say, as far as I know. 'Louis Say' is the most commonly used name for Louis, not his full name Louis Auguste, in all the research...Zigzig20s (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Zz20s appears to be correct that their is only one "Louis Say" - the brother is "Jean-Baptiste Say". However, he appears to be incorrect about the WP:COMMONNAME of the subject of the biography, which was clearly (especially given the naming conventions of the time) {Louis Auguste Say", so I remain of the opinion that this is the correct name for the article. If Zz20s's further research doesn't change his mind, it's a simply matter to start a RM. I see no reason for it, however. BMK (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)