Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator abuse on Wikipedia

Administrator abuse on Wikipedia

Administrator abuse on Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some of this material undoubtedly belongs in the article Criticism of Wikipedia, where it was previously merged and then undone. Some of it belongs nowhere on Wikipedia (e.g., attacks on non-notable living persons who happen to also be Wikipedia administrators). None of it belongs in a separate article, unless it can be established that the topic of "Administrator abuse on Wikipedia" is notable in and of itself - high quality sources being a requirement, and being in my opinion quite unlikely to be found. Note, this nomination is not intended to be a forum on Wikipedia's administrators, on Wikipolitics in general, or on any particular adherent of any particular sort of Wikipolitical viewpoint; rather, by our own normal standards for which subjects deserve articles, this subject does not deserve a separate article, and in the case of self-referential material like this, we ought to enforce contents more strictly rather than less so. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Correction - The merged material from the "Abuse" article is still in the "Criticism" article; only the redirect of the "Abuse" article to "Criticism" has been reverted. If "Merge" is the consensus here, it's already been done, all that would remain is to restore the redirect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC) I've unmerged the material, pending the outcome of this AfD: the "Abuse" article has now been heavily edited, so the material should be re-merged if merge is the outcome of this AfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia or rename to Criticism of Wikipedia administrators; title has got to go per WP:NPOV. Some of the content may be worthwhile, but the use of the loaded word abuse is clearly an NPOV violation. --Jayron32 04:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Merge The substantive material has already been merged to Criticism of Wikipedia where it belongs - the subjust is not notable enough in and of itself to require a separate article. This then should become a redirect, an option the two authors of the article are fighting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia. I do think that article is large enough to necessitate a split, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. Resolute 04:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as a POV fork, attack page, WP:POINT violation, or some combination of the above. The history of the authors interactions on Wikipedia does not support the existence of this article as a good faith creation. Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Keep and rename- The article is well sourced with high quality, reliable, verifiable secondary sources. Notability is met, verifiability and reliability are both met. The sources cited in the article include scholarly journals, news articles in mainstream media, and international conference presentations. I'm not sure what you mean by saying there is an attack on a non-notable living person who also happens to be a Wikipedia admin. Minor4th • talk 04:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Added suggestion per Jayron to rename to a title that doesnt include the word "abuse" because it's too inflammatory. Minor4th • talk 05:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note: Above editor is one of the two authors of the nominated article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note -- GregJackP and I know each other in real life and sometimes work on articles together. Since we are being called co-authors of this article, we would both be expected to vote keep irrespective of any off-wiki connection. Minor4th • talk 18:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Just to state the obvious, at the time of your original comment and my "note" to it, you and Greg were the only two editors to have made substantive contributions to the article, which the two of you put together in Greg's user space before moving it to mainspace. I thought that was sufficient to describe you as the "two authors" of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• I don't disagree, and I am not taking exception to the characterization. Minor4th • talk 19:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I intend the plain meaning (or at least the plain meaning in Wikipedia jargon) of each of those words. The article discusses specific living people, who happen to be Wikipedia administrators. While William Connolley is arguably notable, tho others mentioned are not. The living people mentioned are named only in association with attacks upon them. Per WP:BLP and WP:CSD#G10, that is not acceptable material for the encyclopedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

So edit his name out, but the context is appropriate. There is no rule that an article cannot mention something negative about a living person. The source is verifiable and reliable. Minor4th • talk 05:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia. There's no way this could be considered notable enough in scholarly and media sources to be able to stand alone, and I'm concerned that there's some WP:POINT issues in the creation of it as well. If we get a large number of sources that are specifically referring to "administrator abuse on Wikipedia" as a specific topic, then maybe it'd be worth an article. Right now, the sources are a laundry list of negative material about administrators and decisions that were interpreted by someone or another as being abusive, incorrect, etc. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Disclaimer: yeah, I'm an administrator. Apparently because of that, I don't have a neutral view of the article, according to one of the creators of this article. WP:AGF is being depreciated soon, then? Nice. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No reason to take offense at a request for disclosure of admin status. Support vote with policy and it becomes less of an issue. Minor4th • talk 05:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm concerned that the rationale for merger since it seems that the proponents have not actually read the article or the sources cited in it. It is notable on its own for a stand alone article as the 12 or so cited sources indicate. If there are sources that balance the article, include them. WP:MERGE says:

: There are several good reasons to merge a page:

1. Duplicate – There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope.
2. Overlap – There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. [/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary Wikipedia is not a dictionary]; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on [/wiki/Flammability Flammability].
3. Text – If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.
4. Context – If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. For instance, minor characters from works of fiction are generally covered in a "List of characters in <work>", and can be merged there; see also [/wiki/Wikipedia:FICT WP:FICT].

Merging should not be considered if

1. The resulting article is too long or "clunky"
2. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles
3. The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short

This is not a short article. The topic is notable in its own right, it does not require the context of the other article, it would make the other article too big and chunky, and it's not duplicative and does not significantly overlap (as evidenced by two editors' knee-jerk merger of the article in toto)Minor4th • talk 04:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Kindly retract "knee-jerk", thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• No. It was knee-jerk, as explained by the admin who merged it 30 seconds into the AN/I. Minor4th • talk 05:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• (ec)Please point me to where Jayron "explained" that his action was "knee-jerk". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• MY knees had no involvement in any actions. It was mainly my brain and my fingers, with some minor contributions from other parts of my arms which guided the fingers. --Jayron32 05:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Merge any well-sourced information into Criticism of Wikipedia and Delete the rest. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Isn't there a BLP violation here using Solomon's nonsense in the way it's used (I changed "according to the Financial Post" to "according to Lawrence Solomon'. We all know, hopefully including the person who added this, that Connolley did not use "his administrator privileges to create or rewrite over 5,200 articles, removed over 500 articles, and blocked over 2,000 individuals who, according to Lawrence Solomon, took positions that he disapproved of." Dougweller (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break 1

• Merge to CoW. Criticism is provable, it's in the refs, but abuse is something decided by consensus. The few cases of real admin abuse were notable enough to have their own articles, and there is nothing here to deserve it's own article. However, the Criticism of Wikipedia article is too long, so maybe if this article is merged there will be scope to split the CoW article up. I just don't see how, even if split up, one of those pages could be devoted to 'admin abuse'. (@Minor4th, none of the article sources mention the word 'abuse' even once) Weakopedia (talk) 05:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

On the AN/I I agreed that the word "abuse" is too loaded and should probably be modified. Minor4th • talk 05:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment -- I think any administrators voting or participating in this discussion should disclose their status as part of their comment, since they will not have a neutral view of this article. Weighing admin's votes should take the conflict into account. Minor4th • talk 05:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest that we also have everyone identify their political affiliations and religious beliefs, which can have a strong effect on people's viewpoints. Also, more weight should be given to those with higher IQs and more degrees. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Careful, you might just have invalidated yourself from commenting here. Weakopedia (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Then we shall frolic hand-in-hand together, my darling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think the person who uses the best sarcasm should have their vote given the most weight. --Jayron32 05:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I was not being sarcastic and there is nothing unreasonable asking for disclosure of status that indicates conflict since the article is about administrators. Minor4th • talk 05:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What an awesome catch-22 you have found. Just write an article about admins, and no admin can delete it, because they have a conflict of interest!!! What a great way to keep this article around forever. Since only an admin can close an AFD in favor of deletion, by your logic, no admin could act on this AFD to delete the article, so any article writen about admins, no matter what it is about, can ever be deleted. Brilliant!!! --Jayron32 05:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That's really not necessary. Can we keep this about the article and the deletion discussion please. Minor4th • talk 05:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you are the one who keeps insisting that admins can't be counted fully in this discussion because they are admins. If you didn't want the issue of admin involvment in this discussion, then why did you bring it up? --Jayron32 05:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I didnt insist that admins cant be counted fully. I said they should disclose their conflict. I'm certain admins will continue to vote and participate despite the apparent conflict, and they should try to actually support their votes with policy. Don't you think? If this were an article about a BLP, you would want the BLP to disclose his conflict if he is going to participate in the discussion right? Minor4th • talk 05:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Don't be a hypocrite, Minor. Why don't you disclose that your creation and work on this article directly followed your complaint against an administrator - a complaint that nobody else considers serious? If you wish to attach a scarlet letter to a group of people whom do not share your opinion, then you had better be willing to stand up and admit your own conflict of interest. Resolute 15:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - notable, well sourced. Negative material is well sourced by v/rs. Concur that admins discussing this should disclose their status, as it is an apparent WP:COI GregJackP Boomer! 05:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note: - The above editor is the other author of the nominated article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Can you give me fair warning if you're going to need blood type or other medical data? I'll have to go look that stuff up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• It's only fair to disclose that they are admins if it is fair to disclose who wrote the article. And can I have your blood type and complete medical records? GregJackP Boomer! 05:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Red" and "bad" Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• As per Minor above, GregJackP is also in conflict of interest, as long as we are interested in full disclosure, eh? Resolute 15:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sidenote, some said the info about the 2 admins was not true. The standard is verifiability, not truth, IIRC. GregJackP Boomer! 05:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• But information about living persons is required to be strongly sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed. Wikipedia does not republish information which is demonstratably false, even if it is published. The statement "Verifiability not Truth" means that something must be verfiably true, not "false, but printed somewhere". --Jayron32 05:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. I doubt there is much to merge, so just redirecting may be an option. Prodego ^talk 05:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You should read the article before weighing in. Minor4th • talk 05:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying that. How can you be so certain that everyone that votes for a merge or a deletion hasn't read the article. Perhaps they read it closely, considered the options, and arrived at "merge" as a reasonable conclusion. Please don't assume that people aren't reading the article before weighing in. --Jayron32 05:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware I was supposed to read articles before commenting on their AfDs. This is quite a revelation. Who would have thought? Prodego ^talk 06:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Now you know. Minor4th • talk 06:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break 2

• Merge The article title by itself is an attack on administrators and merging it with the criticism page would make the coverage less biased sounding. Otherwise it has some good points when the attacks are taken out. I wonder how long it will take until Fox News finds this discussion and writes an article on it with a subsequent debate by many "experts" in the field. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• We agree the title needs to be changed, and I'm not surprised to see that the article is being heavily edited, with at least one referenced statement removed and an unsourced discription on Connolley as following the scientific data, which is the opposite of what the cited source said. GregJackP Boomer! 06:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• As far as I know no sourced statement has been deleted, only unsourced statements. The description of Connolly was nonsense: "a proponent of global warming" means someone who is in favor of global warming. I changed it to a non-POV statement of what he is a proponent of, that is the scientific consensus that there has been anthropogenic global warming. That's not POV, it's an acurate statement of his position.

  The real problem here is that you guys feel like you got shafted, and you're pissed about it, and you wrote an article to support your POV. The whole thing starts from a non-encyclopedic place, and although you tried hard to make it NPOV and sourced, the real origin of the thing leaks through at every seam. It's not an article, it's your opinions masquerading as an article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• If it is accurate, then provide a source. The other username you deleted was specifically sourced and mentioned in the article. Also, please assume good faith - or would you prefer that i alleged that admins and their friends are doing their best to gut and delete the article because it reflects poorly on them? I am not saying that of course. GregJackP Boomer! 06:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Look up, then look down, you'll see that only you and your co-author have voted to keep; almost everyone else who has weighed in has said to merge, the rest say to delete. But here's a prediction: you keep reverting stuff taking out for BLP concerns, then your article is going to be deleted in toto, with no or only very minimal merging. You're obviously on a WP:POINTy mission (AGF doesn't mean we don't evaluate the evidence staring us in the face), so you may not care, causing a stink may be enough to satisfy you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Merge with Wikipedia:Administrator Reform and delete the resulting redirect. Wow. Lots of familiar names attached to this one. Now before I get outright dismissed, let me explain. The article that I propose merger with was discussed very little and has not been edited since 2008.

I AM NOT AN ADMIN, though I did nominate and withdraw myself once in 2005 or 2006. Consider me disclaimed.

As far as the article is concerned, the title and content are not instep with the NPOV policy. You can almost see the agenda oozing through the spaces. The issue is adequately discussed in a much more neutral way in the Criticism of Wikipedia article.

That said, this is obviously an important issue for some editors. I haven't been back to editing very long, but I have seen two RfCs involving admins (both of which I opined in, for disclaimer purposes) where edit conflicts and admin statements were pushed to dizzying heights in what I see as an attempt to visit the issue of admin "abuse". (Abuse is in quotes, as the term would obviously be a point of contention.) So, let them have their say and have a community discussion the issue. Movementarian (Talk) 06:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the disclaimer :) WP:Administrator Reform is an unsourced essay and is much shorter than the article being discussed. I don't see how they can be merged. I think merger into Criticism of Wikipedia wouldn't be a bad idea but merger of this article would create a totally unwieldy larger article. And the fact is, if this were not about administrators, this discussion would not be taking place because the article is well sourced and reliable and clearly meets the WP guidelines on its own. And by the way, I contributed to the article but I did not know that it was going to mainspace at this time and I had suggested to Greg that the title should be toned down as well. My participation should not be taken as a complete endorsement of everything in the article or the way it was written, etc. That said, it is not only an important issue with some Wikipedia editors, it is a subject that has received significant coverage in secondary sources, so let's not have any illusion that this is a pet issue important to only a few editors on Wikipedia. Minor4th • talk 06:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I know it is an unsourced essay and that what I suggested is irregular, but this really seems pointy. If you and Greg are pushing for a community discussion, then lets get to it. That is what WP:Administrator Reform was trying in 2008, very unsuccessfully, and that is why I suggested moving the content there. Movementarian (Talk) 07:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Move without redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia Administrators and then merge into Criticism of Wikipedia per the arguments above. The term "abuse" in an article's title lends to an inherently negative tone, and the current title is unlikely to be a useful redirect anyway. A merge discussion should be opened to discuss which parts are suitable to be merged into Criticism of Wikipedia (and the references should especially be salvaged), and the rest should be deleted. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

User:CIreland has helpfully pointed out that licensing issues prevents a page from being directly merged without redirect. In that case. I have reworded my !vote above accordingly. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sourced information is being removed, and I can't revert any more without running into 3RR. Minor4th • talk 06:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing is not a sufficient condition for the inclusion of content. This article is an excellent example of why that is so. CIreland (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense. The information that was removed was appropriate and in context and improves the article. It was well sourced and inexplicably removed. Minor4th • talk 06:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break 3

• Delete I'm an administrator. I'd also like to point out that the impetus for this article appears to be an RfC filed by the articles two main authors in regards to an administrator. Despite consensus that the RfC was without merit, they decided to keep it open and then began crafting this article. Jclemens sums up my reasoning for deleting this article quite well, so I won't repeat what he has said. AniMate 07:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. If there's any viable content relevant to the Criticism article, can go there. But no redirect...inherently POV title. I just read the "criticism" section of the article, which I assume to be the core of the topic itself (not intro/setup about what WP Admins are, etc.), and its cited sources...they don't support the context of their use in the article. In other words, the whole article is WP:SYNTH. They just support that admins have extra powers, both in general and over non-admin editors. I don't see support for the claim of "abuse" of these powers. (disclosure: I'm an admin, not that it matters--part of adminship is not using position of authority in content discussions) DMacks (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Agree with DMacks and JClemens well opined statements. Inherently POV. Off2riorob (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• keep appears well sourced, regardless of how some people might be trying to misuse policy to remove content. Just a reminder WP:BLP doesn't say we can't say anything negative about a person. It says it has to be well sourced.--Crossmr (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

To meet WP:NPOV and WP:NPA, however, it should be made clearer that the negative statements are criticisms which editors and others have raised about Wikipedia, and not the "opinion" of the article itself. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That is very easy to do without removal. A simple "According to Solomon etc".--Crossmr (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this much is simple, but as I mentioned below, even if you move the article to no longer include the word "abuse", the article is also an inherent violation of WP:NPOV as it focusses exclusively on the criticisms of wikipedia; if anything, a reduced version (only the most informative and encyclopaedic information) should be merged into Wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Given that convention is to handle criticisms about a subject on that subject's article rather than in a separate article, and in fact having distinct "criticism" sections within articles is also discouraged, I would argue that both Criticism of Wikipedia and some parts of this article, should simply be merged with Wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Due to the nature of this subject, I would request that an admin refrain from closing it. I think it should be closed by a member of Arbcom or a beaurocrat.--Crossmr (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Policy states that an admin should close AfD discussions; why should we make an exception here? You should assume good faith and trust the closing sysop to follow Wikipedia's fundamental principle of neutrality and close the AfD according to consensus. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

To avoid further drama? While policy states that an Admin should close AfD discussions, when the AfD discussion is an article about the admins, there is the potential to appear to have a conflict of interest whether or not one genuinely exists. Arbcom members are given a higher level of trust than Admins and in the interest of less drama and avoid WP:COI making an exception shouldn't be seen as assuming bad faith. its a suggestion to do the best thing for the encyclopedia. The people who decided on that policy may never have anticipated that there would be an article about the adminstrators themselves up for AfD.--Crossmr (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Since ArbCom itself is mentioned, and is comprised of admins, I don't see the benefit in wasting ArbCom's time with something which could and should be handled by an admin. I would urge the closing admin to remember WP:NEUTRALITY and make sure that there is a clear consensus before closing the discussion, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would this need someone other then an admin to close? Consensus is quite clear at this point and reading that consensus, with the overwhelming numbers, does not appear to be difficult or sway-able by bias at this point. -- ۩ Mask 15:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break 4

• Delete WP:POINTy WP:ATTACK page which is a clear WP:POVFORK and is born out of an RfC on an admin that has not gone their way. I am not an admin, but I do try to abuse them regularly. Verbal chat 09:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Articles on internal Wikipedia processes are extreme navel gazing, so even if this were somehow a neutral treatment I would oppose it. There are many examples of the media being completely wrong about how Wikipedia works, and we just do not put junk in articles "because it's sourced". Therefore this article can only contain statements of the bleedin obvious, such as "Complaints about abusive administrators are fairly frequent". Predictions of the downfall of Wikipedia are frequent from The Register, and their speculation about secret mailing lists is fun, but not encyclopedic. This warrants deletion because it is a POV coatrack from a failed RfC. I might support an article titled There is no perfect system of government, or Admins make mistakes too, but this "abuse" stuff is nonsense (of 1100 admins, how many "abuse" their power?). Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete WP:POINT, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Author (sock- or meatpuppet author team) failed RFC and appeal to Jimbo. So they returned with a mission: "I still intend to retire, but have one last article to complete", followed 14 minutes later by Administrator abuse on Wikipedia ‎(start article). DVdm (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

  Just as a side note (from an editor who is in favour of moving and then partly merging a small amount of the content of this article), I think it's unfair to refer to GregJackP and Minor4th as sock/meatpuppets. I have been on the receiving end of such accusations in a previous discussion, simply because myself, GregJackP, and Minor4th agreed on a subject. A sockpuppet investigation and checkuser of User:Dmartinaus was already carried out as a result of this previous discussion, and presumably any link between GregJackP and Minor4th would have been established by that if one had existed. As for meatpuppet: sharing similar views is not what meatpuppetry is, and you should consider the involvement of all users and their individual contributions before deciding that one or more are simply meatpuppets of another user. Having said that, I do feel that these editors have set out on a mission as a result of the failed RfC, and the result is an article whose very title fails WP:NPOV. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That SPI of Dmartinaus would not have determined or checked any connection between User:GregJackP and User:Minor4th, neither of those accounts were included in that report, checking any connection between them would need separate report. Off2riorob (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While the names weren't included in the report, the checkuser action revealed a couple of sockpuppets of Dmartinaus which hadn't been included in the report, which leads me to believe that the checkuser was carried out for everyone commenting on the AfD affected by the sockpuppetry, which would include myself, GregJackP, and Minor4th; since I can't state that with certainty, however, I won't pretend that it's impossible that the two users are socks. I would like to note that I have previously been accused of being a sockpuppet of both of these users simply because I agreed with them however, and I can state that this accusation was false, and accusing editors of sockpuppetry without evidence or even the willingness to file an SPI isn't very pleasant. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(without any opinion on the issue) Not as I understand it, the checkuser had authority to check Dmartinius and a couple more were turned up, there would or should have been no check crossing as you are understanding. Just because you commented on the SPI does not allow checkuser to add you to the bundle and you were also not named and would have not been checked. Off2riorob (talk) 11:10 am, Today (UTC+1)

Fair enough, I'm most likely misunderstanding how the process is completed by the checkuser. To clarify: no opinion on sockpuppetry, agree that this article was established as a personal mission, which is a bad enough start to warrant deletion on that basis, IMO. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Still as an aside, it clearly is a personal mission by a team of two usernames (GregJackP and Minor4th), one of which started here saying in his first edit: "I am new to editing wikipedia, so I will take some time looking around and familiarizing myself," and having become an expert editor in a mere few hours, as is evidenced here. DVdm (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Turn into an essay on the dangers of either admins abusing others, or others abusing admins; whichever. Of course, since becoming an admin is a personal choice, it's more Administrator self-abuse on Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete whiny in-universe attack piece by a person or people who didn't get their way. Lots of admins suck, this is true. Lots of people with power suck. So what? Maybe something like this could be done as an essay, but in mainspace? No.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Irretrievably slanted writing making use of dubious sources to attack living persons. We already have Wikipedia and Criticism of Wikipedia. This is a redundant POV fork by disruptive individuals with personal axes to grind. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - although I guess merge would be possible, if there's anything deemed worth merging. I'm very familiar with the academic sources being used, due to some off-wiki research I've been conducting recently, and I was very surprised to see how those sources were being misrepresented. I can give examples, but having cleaned it up as best I can, (so that the sources are, at least, better represented), I'm still more than a little uncomfortable with the result. At any rate, the topic doesn't warrant an inherently-POV article of its own. - Bilby (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break 5

• Delete This is an attack piece. This is a POV fork and reduntant. It also is in violation of biographies of a living person. This looks like sour grapes to me. The editors used synthesis to come to the conclusions. There is just so much wrong with this that I don't think there is anything worth merging. Delete is the only way to go since this is written against a lot of policies, names editors who are or were administrators. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as unbecoming navel-gazing. While the attacks on living people can be excised, it's fundamentally not an encyclopaedic topic. Guettarda (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep and rename Mark as essay too. This meets every major criticism above. The article does not, moreover, fall into any sort of general "criticism of Wikipedia" hence shoe-horning it there is not likely to affect much at all. Removal of material which is even universally disliked does not actually help WP. Collect (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BUTTHURT. Oh, damn, that doesn't exist? I guess noting that it is a cobbled-together mess, piecing together disparate criticism to create a cabal-like conspiracy of administrator abuse will have to do. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as a synth POV fork of Criticism of Wikipedia. Claritas § 15:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to circle jerk and/or navel-gazing. Barring that, delete. DS (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Do I really need a reason here? It's Pointy and an attack page by people who really should know better and seem to be wikilawyering all over the place ('The article should be restored to its status at the time the AN/I was opened' is especially absurd, thats not how things work and they've been around long enough to know this). The fact that its been taken to AfD rather then just being speedied and a WP:POINT block handed down is baffling. -- ۩ Mask 15:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• delete fundamentaly broken and inaccurate (and yes I'm mentioned) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Delete In the strongest and most empathetic way. A BLP violation. Further, ban authors forever. Hipocrite (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Don't hold back, tell us what you really think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a pretty good example of what I mean when I talk about the chilling effect of BLP. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 20:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Serious flaw in this debate Those who are administrators have a conflict of interest since they are voting on themselves. I have not decided at this point but my decision will probably largely be based on what the references say. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Those who are not admins and wish they were and anyone who has been blocked may also have a conflict of interest here. Actually, anyone who has interacted with an administrator could have a conflict of interest. AniMate 17:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Your argument rests on the false premise that all admins are abusive, i.e. "voting on themselves". Tarc (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• The fact is, admins are appointed by the community; an administrator is simply an editor who has earned the trust of the community to uphold the responsibilities placed on them, and make correct and effective use of the admin toolset. By suggesting that all admins are abusive or corrupt, you're implying that the wikipedia community is itself corrupt (and therefore that the entire community has a conflict of interest), and in that case, perhaps this article is better suited for a different medium, where such unsupported statements are freely permitted, and where the decision isn't made by the wikipedia community, given its apparent conflict of interest. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Users have been blocked for editing their own biography. The reason given is "conflict of interest". Similarly, administrators voting on their an article about administrators may represent a similar conflict. So are people who are not administrators but have been subject to alleged abuse. Again, the key question is to examine the references. The article is poorly written but quality is not supposed to be a factor. Notability, as defined by references, is the key. My guess is that the references are not good enough but I haven't researched them yet. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Seems like an attack page for anyone frustrated with WP to fling feces at the admins. If allowed to stay, the feces-flinging festival will grow and this page will be a total headache. Awickert (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED Eliteimp (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - _→AzaToth 18:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - looks like a pointy attack page to me (Disclaimer: Not an admin, two university degrees, three cats) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Delete To the extent that there is any notability to the topic, it is only so "in universe" and thus not a separate topic suitable for the encyclopedia. That it has been written (this time) by two who did not get community support for their recent "admin abuse" claims gives it less credibility even in universe. Oh yes, and per #37. Bielle (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete from article space. Could be retained as essay, possibly first in user space somewhere. For structural reasons I object to any self-referential article. --Pgallert (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note - Keep votes are being deleted [1] improperly. Minor4th • talk 17:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  That isn't a vote, it is an asinine personal attack. Tarc (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break 6

• Keep - I think this is a good idea and (unfortunately) I think it will be easy to expand it over the coming years. However, I also agree that this is currently an attack page. As a result, I think that the page should be locked so that only current administrators can edit it. Regular editors would be able to add comments and sources on the talk page, but then an administrator would have to actually place them in the article. In addition, admin user names should not be used in the article unless they are specifically mentioned in the references and pertinent to understanding the points raised. (Not an admin) Q Science (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a terrible solution. What about having an article on Queen Elizabeth where only the Royal Family can edit the article? Or an article about the United States Army where only Army officers can edit the article? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per blatant WP:SYNTH, attempting to spin old outdated sources and op-ed pieces in an attempt to push a particular POV. -- œ^™ 23:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as per Minor4th. Criticism of Wikipedia is already fairly long, so a merge then split later doesn't make too much sense. I think we all need to be able to look our shortcomings from a neutral third-party perspective. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. As a secondary choice if consensus prefers – merge any useful non-BLP content into Criticism of Wikipedia as others have suggested, and has already been attempted. It's an obvious synthesis of cherry-picked sources to push a particular attack / wounded-vanity POV. Allowing this article into the encyclopedia would be a sign we are taking ourselves too seriously, and exaggerating the importance of the "community" that writes this thing. (That's a judgement for others outside to make, not us.) Our internal politics, divisions, and squabbles aren't nearly as interesting or notable to the world as they are to the people who spend dozens of hours a week doing the squabbling. Antandrus (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Per Antandrus, not to mention it's a violation of WP:SYNTH. The creators also appear to have been blocked for disruption, and to that end, this article violates WP:POINT as well.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Keep — Notable subject, well-sourced. Material will be lost in a merge, as always (and I'm sure some people would like that very much!). "Merge" is the cow-ard's delete vote, and should never be permitted in AfDs. All merge votes should be stricken. 174.111.116.162 (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
  • CommentSince the merge !votes are not Keep, and most if not all would be Delete, are you sure that would be a good idea? I'm sure all those saying merge really love being called cowards. But since there's a long history of permitting such !votes, I guess we'll just leave them there. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment (edit conflict) For the record, my merge vote is basically a complicated way of saying salvage what little there is of value on this article into a more appropriate article and then delete it. I have no idea what sort of nonsense you're talking saying that merging an article is somehow "cowardly", as far as I'm concerned it's constructive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
    • (The previous comment was mine, from one of my IPs.) Yes, let people go ahead and vote delete and just be honest about it. I'm a longtime anti-merge guy; I belive merging is destructive to Wikipedia in most cases. Of course, I don't actually expect merge votes to be stricken - I just think we should stop allowing them, because they're a "soft"/sneaky/insidious method of content removal, and the honesty of outright deletion is preferable. If merge voters don't like being called cowards, I will call them cow-ards instead. I have redacted my earlier comment with this adjustment. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 10:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, merging is not destructive at all. Because, if done correctly, it retains useful content which would otherwise be deleted, and that obviously does not benefit our readers much does it? Your statement above tells me you care more about your editing philosophy and proving your point rather than actually improving Wikipedia by preserving encyclopedic content. -- œ^™ 10:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
        • The idea that "merge" !votes are really "delete" !votes in sheep's clothing is totally ridiculous. My comment above was the second "merge" in this debate, and I was (and am) quite capable of calling for deletion if I thought it was appropriate. A merge would allow whatever material in the article which is appropriate to be kept in a relevant article, and a redirect (a proper on, without "abuse" in the title) would direct interested readers to that material. Thus, a merge is essentially non-destructive, and is not in any way equivalent to a deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
          • We've all seen how it works - content gets moved to another article in a merge...and then gradually leached away over the months and years, on the grounds of "undue weight" or irrelevance, until nothing, or almost nothing, is left. At the very least, nothing useful will be added. Once an article is sucked into the gravitational pull of another article, it is usually all but destroyed. Articles are best left to blossom independently. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 19:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
            • I should note that this article does need significant re-writing and possibly a new title. As it stands, there is too much documentation of a specific, and illegitimate, grudge. We need more general coverage of the topic, not this crap. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 20:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:POINTY and not notable. (Was thinking of going with "Merge" until persuaded otherwise by Mr. IP's anti-merge argument above.) (Not an admin and never will be). Gandalf61 (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Good, an honest man! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 19:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note - Keep votes are being deleted [2] improperly Minor4th • talk 17:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Attack type uncivil comments like that can and will be removed. If the commenter wants to comment again, a bit more politely, he is able to. I will also note that adding that uncivil comment was the only contribution the account has made to wikipedia.Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Question - why are keep !votes being deleted? Granted, the rationale was piss-poor, but that is for the closing admin to determine, not someone who is participating in the debate, and especially on the other side of the argument. Could someone look into this [3]? GregJackP Boomer! 17:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have looked into it for you, its an uncivil personal attack against a group of editors here at wikipedia and it has been removed. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I also looked into if for you ;), but it is very apparent that it is a personal attack directed at sysops, and being that the vote was the account's only edit (all three edits were to this discussion) it would generally be stricken anyways as a WP:SPA. Best, Mifter (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, one keep vote was deleted, for the reasons given above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Are Wikipedia admins really so goddamned fragile that the phrase "disruptive scumbags" is too much for them and needs to be removed from the page? Also, is it really a "personal attack" when it is directed against a group almost 2,000 strong, and a powerful/dominant/elite group at that? Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 05:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – Just counting noses at this point, without regard to the quality of the arguments presented, I see:
  • Merge: 13
  • Delete: 27
  • Keep: 7 (+1 removed for NPA violation)sock
  • Keep as essay: 2 – Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment-- I agree that that particular vote would really carry no weight since it was an SPA and included an insult in the vote, but calling a group of people "scumbags" is not the same as calling them motherf-ckers or child molestors (although I've seen comments on an RfA accusing the candidate of pedophilia, and no one removed that comment or vote). But I don't think votes should be deleted from an AfD discussion by anyone except maybe the closing admin, and maybe not even then -- the closing admin can give it the proper weight it deserves. Minor4th • talk 18:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If a comment is grossly disruptive, and it would obviously carry no weight at closing, then removing it to prevent gross disruption is fine, since the close would not be affected. If you or GregJackP really want some record of that comment, you can move it to the talk page with an explanation that it was removed from the main discussion, but pure disruption has no franchise here. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Since I really just intended a nose count, and not any kind of adminish evaluation of quality, I've amended my count. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If anyone cares, that account along with several others has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Dunno who it really is; don't care. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, sockpuppet !votes are routinely deleted or struckout from AfDs and elsewhere, so I've adjusted again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I certainly have no problem at all with discarding the !vote of a sock. GregJackP Boomer! 20:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break 7

• Delete I personally think that the topic of admin abuse on Wikipedia is an important subject that needs to be delt with and is one that we've made some great progress on, I don't think that it should bleed over into our article space, I personally removed an unsourced statement that was an attack on admins from the article but the whole article is in many ways represents and internal problem not something that should be shown to our readers as it is our goal to provide the best most polished encyclopedia possible. Because, despite our internal struggles, out goal as editors, admins, b'crats, rollbackers, etc should be and is to present the best encyclopedia possible to our readers not to bleed out internal issues out into the rest of the encyclopedia. Disclaimer I do have an admin flag on my account All the Best, Mifter (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. An alphabet soup of acronyms could be quoted (SYNTH, POV fork, etc.), but really this is the exactly the sort of petty claptrap that's killing this project. Trees, meet Forest: this is an encyclopedia. Durova⁴¹² 18:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Delete in-universe navelcruft.   pablo_hablo. 19:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment In watching this article it has come to my attention that an out-of-process cut-and-paste copy (and copyvio) of this article has been created at User:Stillwaterising/Admin_abuse and this should probably be deleted. Verbal chat 20:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  Wait, a copyvio? Wikipedia material is released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License: there's no copyvio there. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  No, see WP:Copying within Wikipedia. It would nessesitate the keeping of this article (or its editing history at least). Hence it is out of process. The user should request userfication if and when the article is deleted. Verbal chat 20:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  I stand corrected. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  Actually, insufficient attribution can be repaired by use of the {{Db-histmerge}} or {{copied}} templates, as noted at WP:Copying within Wikipedia. The section specifically states that "While technically licensing violations are copyright violations, pages that contain unattributed text do not normally need to be deleted." GregJackP Boomer! 20:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  However, what we have here is an out of process copy of this article which would require this article not to be deleted in order to satisfy the copyright requirements. It should either be deleted at the same time as this article or deleted now and any user can request userfication in the usual manner after the AfD has closed. Verbal chat 20:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  Verbal, that is not what the policy states. It states what I quoted above, and I freely release my portion of the copyright under CC-SA-whatever to Minor4th and any other Wikipedia users that wish to use it. The policy states that an out of process copy can be cured by the methods listed in the above post, as well as other methods. Note that the only two editors of the version at Minor4th's user space are myself and Minor4th, so there is not an attribution issue. If you want it deleted, you'll have to come up with a different reason, since the policy you are quoting doesn't support that. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 21:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• I also release my copyright to my contributions to the article Administrator abuse on Wikipedia to any Wikipedia user for use on Wikipedia. Minor4th • talk 21:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  All editors of the page would have to give their permission to Stillwaterising. But that doesn't alter the fact that it is an abuse of process. The copyvio issue was an aside (it was in brackets like this). Verbal chat 21:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  Correct, all editors of the page up to the move would have to do so. In the case of Minor4th's copy, the only two editors that had worked on the article in the revision he copied were the two of us. And out of process or not, the policy you cited does not support deletion. The policy cited also lists other methods to cure an out of process copy - none of which require deletion. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 21:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  That is a very poor argument. What is to stop people copying the article to another name in mainspace? By your logic that would require a new AfD. Is that what you are intending? Verbal chat 21:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• There's a speedy delete rationale for recreation of previously deleted articles. Minor4th • talk 22:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No, if an article is deleted via AfD, it is vandalism to re-introduce the article unless the article is substantially different, not intended to circumvent the deletion process, and the reason for deletion of the original article is no longer applicable. GregJackP Boomer! 22:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note: there is also User:Minor4th/Copy Edit. DVdm (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Geez, I feel like someone has been snooping around in my medicine closet :) As one of the two authors of the article as it went to mainspace, I will attribute the other author prominently on the face of the article as it exists on my userspace and/or seek a written release of his rights to me. I will clean it up so that it exists exactly as it did at the time it went live on mainspace. That should take care of any potential copyvio. I'd also be willing to have it userfied to my space once it is deleted (as it looks like it will be). Minor4th • talk 20:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Guys, lets not bow to the letter of the rules to break there spirit, even if you release your rights to the text, I am fairly confident that an admin could invoke WP:IAR in order to delete the pages because using a loophole in the rules can be seen as violating the spirit of the rules thus allowing IAR to step in. Also, I'm curious, what exactly drove you to such lengths to create this article? (Not to be offensive) But, this article seems to be turning into just one WP:POINT, and I was wondering why you want to go outside Wikipedia internal process and create and article that some would argue is meant to create an argument and cause controversy over BLP and other things that can be construed as an attack? My motive for asking this is I am interested in what motivated you to go to such lengths and if it was a negative experience to try to prevent if from happening again. Best, Mifter (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

See this Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page, as it is really too long to post here, but the short version is that it is not my intent to game the system or break the spirit of the rules. GregJackP Boomer! 23:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not trying to break the spirit -- I wanted to make sure the copyright concerns were addressed properly. Clearly we could copy the code and store it elsewhere if that is the more appropriate thing to do, and no doubt admins could delete it if they were so inclined. My purpose in keeping the article in userspace is so I can work on expanding it into a broader subject about wiki governance. The soon-to-be-deleted article forms the basis of the "criticism" portion of such an article. The BLP issues were completely inadvertent -- neither of us had a clue who William Connolley was, and it was my assumption that it was some old timer who was no longer active. I learned differently. I certainly understand how the tone of the article is construed as an attack. Can't speak for Greg, but for me the article is somewhat borne of frustration and a perception of fundamental unfairness of process as well as the culmination of several unfortunate events on the heels of each other. Minor4th • talk 00:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - the article is sourced, and admins shouldn't be scared of such content if they're not doing anything wrong. SnottyWong ^talk 20:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break 8

• Delete How a page came to be created is not relevant (WP:ATA). But after careful review I cannot find evidence that this is notable.

Policies/norms:

1. While Wikipedia may be large, its active editing community is small and niche. We tend not to host articles on the goings on within small niche online communities unless they truly have gained wider notability (eg, we would be unlikely to have an article on Microsoft forum moderator abuse or Doctor Who wiki administrator abuse unless truly notable).
2. We also do not cover indiscriminately (WP:NOT) and would need genuine significant coverage by the wider world (WP:N).
3. The basic definition of "administrator abuse" on Wikipedia as stated is original research (covering whatever the author/s deem "administrator abuse" to mean) - ie unsourced/unverifiable/not agreed, and no reliable source is provided. Hard to write on a subject if it is too ill-defined.

Evidence is very poor:

1. This cite and this and this contain general (and for the most part neutral/positive) discussion of administrators and Wikipedia governance, they do not appear to show that "administrator abuse" as a subject in its own right has gained notability outside its niche;
2. This is a paid article that I can't read;
3. Cite 4 ("Konieczny, Piotr") is a writing by a Wikipedia administrator and does not seem to evidence "the world taking notice" of "administrator abuse".
4. Decentralization in Wikipedia Governance (Forte et al) is used to evidence that administrator powers have grown over time (which they have - admins can now perform community bans, operate edit filters, redact revisions, etc), but does not seem to evidence "administrator abuse" being a notable topic in its own right;
5. This cite is also restricted access only but the cited point seems to be that admins are less "on a par" than they used to be, which taken with the abstract does not suggest its authors considered "administrator abuse" to be a notable topic in its own right.
6. This cite states that not all readers are equally able to be aware of all pages as administrartors and that public statements and reality vary, but again does not suggest its authors considered "administrator abuse" to be a notable topic in its own right.
7. This cite is by a journalist with a well known reputation for seeking Wikipedia-related matters that could be described as "scandals" and portraying them in lurid tabloid style. (Past criticisms: a journalist whose writings should not be given much credence, and that is putting it politely [4] bizarre rantings [5] report[s] only those whose views serve [his] agenda [6] long-standing agenda against the project [7] (nested))
8. This cite cites from the same journalist's view in a brief mention of one case. There is no sign the author considered "administrator abuse" to be a notable topic in its own right. It gives only tiny coverage (114 of 2663 words on the last page) and even so going no further than a comment "There will always be discontent" (citing the above case as an example only) and "some disillusioned former Wikipedians gripe about such bureaucratic heavy-handedness";

The description of "admin abuse" is incredibly "thin", mostly "criticisms of Wikipedia culture that involved admins in some way", rather than "admin abuse":

1. In one case editors differed on a sanction which therefore wasn't enforced and was revoked - does not suggest "abuse" just disagreement;
2. Policies are enforced by administrator discretion - that users including admins differ in how they act, is widely agreed by the community; "admins having discretion" or "strictness of approach varies between people" is unlikely to be citeable as "abuse by admins" (although could be a criticism) unless reliable independent sources actually state it is "abuse";
3. Vandals get blocked without always being warned - also a long term community decision hence not a "decision by admins to abuse". (See for example: user accounts that do nothing but simple vandalism may be blocked without controversy Blocking policy, December 2003);
4. A writing of the same journalist above.

In summary, I can't see any evidence that any sources outside the "Wikiverse" have treated "Administrator abuse on Wikipedia" in a manner that suggests genuine notability. It does not appear to be treated as "worthy of notice" in its own right by reliable independent sources outside the niche online community of wiki-editors. It does not appear to meet policy standards or communal norms. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment -- Perhaps a better topic as far as notability would be "Wikipedia Polity" or "Wikipedia Governance" and the article can be expanded to include both positive and negative aspects. Looking at the availability of secondary sources on the topic, the issue of governace does seem to be more notable than the niche issue of "abuse" or problems within the structure of governance. Minor4th • talk 20:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an even better idea would be to edit the Criticism of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia articles to introduce information you feel is not being covered. We don't want to do too much navel gazing here. AniMate 00:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so. But each of those articles is about 3Mb already.Minor4th • talk 01:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• With all due respect, since we haven't written the new article, how would we know that it's not notable or needed? GregJackP Boomer! 00:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• With all due respect, you have not demonstrated there is a need for a new article. Rather than creating a fork you should work on the articles I suggested and then decide with others who regularly edit those articles if there is a need for a new one. We edit here collaboratively, and perhaps my suggestion is a better tactic than the one you have been using so far. AniMate 02:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• With all due respect, that's crap, and you really shouldn't be telling people what articles they need to work on. Why don't you look at the articles he's created and edited rather than maligning his whole experience here? You don't like this article, but that doesn't make every other contribution of his or mine "ill-advised" or "ill-conceived" or whatever it is y'all love to say. We both said we would scrap this article and work on something more Wiki-appropriate, so why don't you ease up? It's that attitude that spawns articles about unpleasant Wiki culture. Dang. Minor4th • talk 02:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Seems like a pretty tacit admission that you and your buddy created this article out of spite. Attitudes don't spawn articles. Tarc (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I spelled out my purpose and the genesis of the article very clearly above in response to Mifler's very direct question. Nothing tacit about it. Minor4th • talk 03:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(reinserting inadvertently deleted comments)

• AniMate, I know how to write articles. I have written 18, with 1 being a GA, and I expanded another one to GA status. I have 2 more I was working on, both of which will go to GA, and 1 may make it to FA. This is the first one I've had go to AfD, and it's because I wasn't calm when I wrote it - which was my error. With all due respect, it is not your place to tell me what I can or cannot write - I'm not under an ArbCom topic or article ban. If we cannot make an article relevant and notable, we'll abandon it, but I would request that you AGF and see what we come up with first. GregJackP Boomer! 03:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Geez, calm down, no one is telling you what you can and cannot write or edit, just giving you opinions about what might be better or worse choices. I would doubt that an article on "Wikipedia governance" or "Wikipedia polity" would pass muster for notability, although they could make an interesting essay. Remember, the audience that the encyclopedia is aiming for is the general public, (which could really give two hoots about the internal mechanisms of Wikipedia) while it seems that you really are writing for Wikipedia editors, inwhich case an essay is the better way to go. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep The specific topic --- abuse by Wikipedi administrators --- is notable, having been covered in many blogs and major media:
  • Bullypedia, A Wikipedian Who’s Tired of Getting Beat Up. Gene McKenna, sep/2009, UpTake Travel Industry blog
  • Slashdot summary: "CNET reports that the volunteers who create Wikipedia's pages, check facts and adapt the site are abandoning Wikipedia in unprecedented numbers, with tens of thousands of editors going 'dead' — no longer actively contributing and updating the site...
  • Why I don't contribute to Wikipedia anymore, by Par Ploum
  • definition of Wikinazi in Urbam Dictionary blog
  • Have you stopped editing Wikipedia? And if so, is it doomed? Jack Schofield, The Guardian UK
  • Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages Wall Street Journal, NOVEMBER 27, 2009

So it seems that the whole world is aware that administrator abuse is rampant in Wikipedia. Unfortunately the abusers now seem to have become the majority, and to have gained the favor of the Foundation; so (as the above discussion shows) they now define themselves as the heroes who are saving wikipedia, and refuse to look at the numbers which clearly say the opposite. Yes, editors are leaving Wikipedia in droves; especially the best editors, those that used to contribute and edit contents. On the other hand, few if any new editors are joining. Those who remain are mostly doing robot-assisted formating tweaks, that add absolutely nothing to wikipedia's value or quality; or guys who get their kicks by writing bizantine rules, defacing articles with disparaging tags, deleting perfecly good work because it does not fit their tastes, and generally bullying other editors. The steady decline since 2006 is strikingly different from the steady growth from 2001 to 2005; and that abrupt change coincides with a fundamental change of attitude by the admins. The "abusecracy" that has been dominant since 2006 is the only plausible explanation for the exodus of old editors (confirmed by many anecdotal cases I have witnessed) and the dearth of new ones. Five years ago Wikipedia could be defined as "1.5 million articles that anyone can edit"; now it is best described as "a decadent social networking site for wannabe chief editors of the Britannica, whose 1500 1200 1100 1000 members have 3 million articles to play with". Sadly the Wikipedia management is still in full denial mode, insisting that all is well and downplaying the decline with euphemisms like "saturation", "maturation", "consolidation phase", etc.. Sigh. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as a pointy POV fork of Criticism of Wikipedia. Any allegations of "admin abuse" are POV by their very nature and any encyclopedic coverage of this material should be placed within an article with a more neutral subject (ie: Criticism of Wikipedia ThemFromSpace 04:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep: Those objecting to this article might try to contribute some substantial comment within the article, rather than trying only to eliminate it. The article documents difficulties in a pretty low key manner, but any other purpose appears limited. I'd like to see some additions in the nature of proposed remedies. The section Attempted solutions is in the right direction, but is mainly historical. I'd suggest this aspect be expanded to look at the role of proposed guidelines like WP:ESCA and how they have been treated, and experiments like those on Global warming or Climate change, where attempt was made to control Talk pages and article editing without involving administrators unduly. The object should be to identify ways that try to handle the issues and to document how they have been received by the Admins and the community. That could turn out to be an asset for helpful evolution of the editing environment on WP. Brews ohare (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My comment seems to fit in with that of Minor4th. Brews ohare (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)