Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 20 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 75 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

new closer needed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first. If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC) I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be. Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC) I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC) In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content. However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC) There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 53 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 52 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 51 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 49 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

(Initiated 39 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"

In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.

I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".

I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.

The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

(Initiated 35 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	9	20	29
TfD	0	0	0	2	2
MfD	0	0	0	3	3
FfD	0	0	0	4	4
RfD	0	0	4	33	37
AfD	0	0	0	14	14

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 53 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.

(Initiated 51 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

(Initiated 24 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 23 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 43 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#Multiple page move of David articles

(Initiated 29 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 27 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 26 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#2018–2019 Gaza border protests

(Initiated 20 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Maddy from Celeste. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)#Poll:_Should_the_article_include_a_political_position_for_the_Republican_Party_in_the_infobox?

(Initiated 15 days ago on 14 May 2024) The topic of this poll is contentious and has been the subject of dozens of talk page discussions over the past years, so I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close this discussion. Cortador (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

On the brink of collapse

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)

Pointillist, please explain this. Imagine that I've got expert knowledge about copyright law (clearly a hypothetical scenario ;-). Imagine that I've never created an article and don't have much interest in doing so. How will my hypothetical lack of experience in writing articles impair my ability to apply WP:COPYVIO correctly, including (if necessary) blocking a user who persists in adding wholesale copyright violations to Wikipedia?

I'm not actually arguing for unbundling (e.g., so that copyvio experts can delete but can't block). I'm trying to figure out how not being proficient at writing articles would make me (the hypothetical copyvio expert) be incompetent at handing copyvio-related admin tasks, i.e., at handling an admin task that has nothing to do with writing articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, if the hypothetical expert were purely performing deletions of 100% copyvio material, without any discussion and without any blocking, it might be OK. But that's an extreme scenario. We would be giving all the tools to the expert, but trusting that he/she wouldn't use them any purpose other than copyvio deletions. It is in effect unbundling but based on a promise by the user rather than technical means, similar to Trappist the monk's RfA, where the candidate requested adminship basically on a temporary basis pending the decision about creating the unbundled Template editor user right. Nevertheless, the candidate was expected to demonstrate "clear, civil communication skills" and "articles to which they've added reliably sourced content" (see support !vote by WereSpielChequers (talk · contribs)). The thing is that it's hard to trust someone without having seen them working with other people on articles, so I would recommend that your expert show some willingness to contribute in that way. In the answer to his RfA Q2 Trappist the monk said "I have done enough content creation to know that my interests lie elsewhere". That's all we need to know. - Pointillist (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I would be concerned if we had an admin or indeed anyone removing copyvio without "clear, civil communication skills". I suspect that copyvio is often a "goodfaith" error made by people who need to be guided into writing things in their own words and citing them to reliable sources. So I can make a stronger case for an admin specialising in copyvio removal needing to communicate how to put things in your own words and reliably cite them than someone like me who fixes typos, deletes vandalism and actions user requests for U1 and G7 deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 17:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Entirely agree with your good faith + communication points. Personally I don't believe a purely "Yup, another copyvio at AFC, push the delete button" admin role really exists, but I was sidestepping that issue to make a wider point about single-purpose admins. - Pointillist (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that communication skills are necessary. What I don't agree is that it is necessary to create article content to be able to do the necessary things for working in this area, which are:

1. accurately determining whether or not an edit is a copyright violation,
2. deleting pages that must be deleted because of copyright laws,
3. communicating with the editors who made the copyright mistakes, and
4. (yes, actually) blocking editors who persist in flagrant copyvios despite ample education on the subject.

So let me repeat my question, perhaps more clearly: If you had an otherwise perfect admin candidate, except that this candidate had never created so much as a stub (but had made tens of thousands of edits to clean up other people's copyvios), then which of these four steps would the candidate be incompetent at?

1. The one in which he uses expert legal knowledge? Nope, that's not it.
2. The one in which he pushes a button to delete the page? Nope, that's not it.
3. The one in which he talks to people? Nope, a brief glance at ANI proves that's not it, because we have lots of "content creators" with poor social skills and many "non-content creators" who are great at dealing with editors (especially new ones).
4. The one in which he pushes another button to prevent people from continuing to cause legal problems? Nope, that's not it.

That's the end of my list. His "failure" to create articles doesn't seem to be relevant to any of these. You are claiming not only that this candidate would be bad at something in this process, but also that if he wrote a couple of GAs, then he'd suddenly have some important skills and knowledge that would help him perform these four tasks. I'd like to know exactly what directly relevant skills he acquires through the content creation process, that he cannot have any other way—what skills he does not have, but must have, so that we could justify treating this as a "requirement", even informally.

Alternatively, you could perhaps conclude, as I did, that content creation is logically not especially relevant for every single admin, and that therefore we should not speak of it as a "requirement", even informally. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing writing content and creating new articles can be very different things as far as RFA is concerned. We have millions of articles that could be expanded, improved or just referenced. I vaguely recollect one oppose !vote for a candidate who had never started a new article, I've seen several oppose votes for candidates who had created new articles that were good enough for a newbie to have done but insufficient for an admin, and I'm sure there have been RFAs that have failed for that reason. So to answer your specific question, the fact that your candidate had never created a completely new article would be irrelevant. Whether or not they had demonstrated sufficient communication skills to be an admin should be easily determined from looking at their talkpage and other interactions - you don't need to have written content to have demonstrated sufficient communication skills to be an admin, and there are some very good content contributors who are not admins because of their lack of tact and diplomacy in dealing with other editors. But knowing how to explain reliable sourcing to someone who has contributed CopyVio is best judged by looking at the content that they have cited to reliable sources, and the way they have responded to people whose contributions they have removed. To pass RFA your candidate would need to convince the community that they know how to do this. An admin who specialises in removing copyvio will get lots of queries from people who want to learn how to do edits that will be accepted. Those of us who want to make the pedia a less bitey place know that candidates such as the one you described have to be checked and only made admin if they can be trusted to communicate our sourcing standards clearly and civilly. ϢereSpielChequers 09:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that I agree with this. First of all, a person need not explain "reliable sourcing" to explain "copyright violations"; copypasta and close paraphrasing aren't about the reliability of the sources. Secondly, I'd have thought that "knowing how to explain reliable sourcing to someone who has contributed CopyVio is best judged by" looking at how the candidate actually explained that subject (and more importantly, quotations and close paraphrasing) to people who contributed copyvios, rather than by "looking at the content that they have cited to reliable sources". It sounds like you're using content creation as a marker for the skill that you want, when you could be directly assessing the skill that you actually want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, I found another example that might help this discussion. In 2010, DeltaQuad's first RfA failed 65/34/12, principally for lack of content creation. At Oppose !vote #6 Kraftlos (talk · contribs) gave a vivid summary of my view: "It's not so much that you rack up experience or have certain barnstars or awards. It's just that someone who does not contribute to articles shouldn't be making authoritative decisions about content such as AfD, vandalism, or any number of other disputes that required admin attention. It is all about empathy. Besides, we're all here to build an encyclopedia. Admins should at least know how to do that." Now the reason I mention this is that in DeltaQuad's second RfA a year the same concerns were expressed but the candidate had worked so effectively in SPI and UAA in the interim that there was much more confidence in how they would engage with the community. The RfA succeeded 103/13/1. So it's not impossible for candidates with very little content experience to succeed, but only if they have demonstrated all the admin skills beyond reasonable doubt. Hope this helps - Pointillist (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

So you would rather not have an admin who is an expert on copyright laws but doesn't create content, because you believe that person would not be sufficiently empathetic to people who create copyvio-filled content. I don't share that POV, but I can understand it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing copyvio cleanup is most certainly not a good example. Someone who racks up several thousand edits cleaning up copyvios does have a content creation track record. Copyvio cleanup necessarily includes rewriting, which is why the backlog at WP:CCI is now growing to 5-6 years. Merely flagging stuff with the copyvio template doesn't count as cleanup, just identification. Not that identification isn't critical, but someone who would only flag copyvios without ever rewriting a single sentence would not get my !vote, as I would be hard pressed to see any practical experience that would help guide another user towards proper paraphrasing. I should know, I got my bit in 2009 mostly on copyvio cleanup. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio can also be addressed through blanking. It's not necessary to create content (and certainly not to create GAs and FAs) to address copyright violations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't necessarily figure out how to excise and paraphrase on some CCIs and blanking did not seem like a good answer either. Some topics were obscure to me and I felt too uncomfortable trying to tackle them. After several fruitless attempts and lost time, I moved away from it in lieu of going where I might be more effective. Admittedly, the long backlog there gave me the impression that it was a lost cause. Hat's off to those who work in that arena. Correct me if I'm wrong but the admin tools aren't necessary to participate in CCIs.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that not all copyvios are best addressed through blanking, but I know you also agree that a WP:VOLUNTEER can't be forced to do what s/he feels uncomfortable doing, so it's still possible for someone to contribute significantly without creating content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

How much content experience should an admin have?

@WhatamIdoing, I do not support any suggestion that admins should have GA/FA creation experience. On the contrary, as Kraftlos recorded me saying five years ago [7] [8] "I'm not expecting candidates to have moved mountains—I just want to see some substantial edits, some real references and some collaborative discussions on article talk pages that result in article improvement... My logic is like this:

1. The purpose of this project is to build encyclopedic content.
2. Admins have wide powers that affect content and the editors who contribute it.
3. Therefore being an admin requires a reasonable minimum level of content competence.
4. Therefore admin candidates/nominators should demonstrate this competence."

I'm open to counter-arguments and I proactively offered Trappist the monk's RfA and DeltaQuad's first RfA to support your line of thinking. But I think you're wasting your efforts. Notwithstanding a few special cases like those, in general principles like mine will survive, because they summarize the feelings of most contributors and are simple enough for journalists to present in brief. If the opposite point of view is that the WMF finds it inconvenient to have so few admins then we get into a potentially divisive debate about who runs the 'pedia and how the foundation has accumulated far more cash than it need to run the servers and is now run by someone who has never made an edit. Is that where you want to go? - Pointillist (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have skipped the step, "The only possible way to acquire 'content competence' is to create, source, and discuss long-form, text-based content. No other form of contributing to the project is an acceptable substitute".

By the way, I'm here in my capacity as a WP:VOLUNTEER who has made about seven times as many edits as you. Whether or not some part of the WMF cares about RFA has nothing to do with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi WhatamI, that step sounds like a quote, is it from one individuals guide to RFA? I can think of at least one RFA where the candidate got through largely on the strength of their participation in the cleanup of unreferenced BLPs - prodding the non notable and referencing the notable ones. I don't recall if they had much experience of creating content as opposed to sourcing stuff that others had written, and as that was some years ago I wouldn't care to predict whether or not someone could squeak through RFA now on that basis. I'm one of those who considers that our admins need an understanding of our sourcing policy, and I don't know of an alternative way to demonstrate that other than by sourcing content and telling others how to source content. So to get back to your copyvio specialist; If we had a candidate who specialised in dealing with copyvio, and could show several good examples of them guiding people who had contributed copyvio to put things in their own words and cite their facts from reliable sources, then it would be interesting to see if they could get through RFA, I might even support them myself. But I wouldn't nominate them without some record of creating cited content, if only because I don't think we should encourage people to run until we think they are ready and likely to pass without serious dissent. But do you now understand why several of us have indicated that we don't regard excellence at spotting and removing copyvio as sufficient qualification for adminship, unless accompanied by the other skills that such an admin would need? ϢereSpielChequers 10:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Not entirely arbitrary break

(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. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 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

• 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

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)

Hammersoft,

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)

I still find it remarkable that that out of, what, 1300 "active" admins, that top 50 admins do 3/4 of the heavy lifting. No wonder there is a problem with burnout, especially if the admin actions aren't noncontroversial and routine but involve difficult blocks or AfDs/deletions.

Unless it is just proxy blocking, I've found it unnerving to consider how many admin acts are conducted by bots. What other actions do they take, do they block editors or delete articles? Because those acts should have a human being okaying them unless a decision has been made by an admin and it's just a technicality that the bot did the actual deed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

As I just mentioned at WP:VPI, whenever all of this turns into one or more RfCs, it will be perfectly okay but not necessary to repeat any or all of this in those RfCs, we'll be reading everything relevant and taking it all into account. Just a reminder ... the goal of the RfCs will be to address everyone's concerns, not to decide who wins and who loses. To do that, we'll need to know what the concerns are, so guys, when possible, don't just tell us what solutions you favor, tell us what problem you're trying to solve ... even if it's just a possible problem, even if you're not sure. Of course ... even better is data that supports a claim, or an argument or position that's acceptable to a wide range of voters - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• What is the intention with one or more RfCs? If it's not focused, it's just going to turn into a complaints forum. I do agree that problems need to be identified. Soooo many times I see people come up with "solutions" that fail to address any specific problem, but they're damn sure it will make things better because...well, because! You can't solve a problem if you don't know what it is. You might be able to contain it, but not solve it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Are votes a good idea? In some ways, but there's always a cost ... more time spent on unproductive stuff, more people who get the sense that they're not being heard or that the system doesn't work. Are votes inevitable? Yes. Are they necessary? Probably, from a closer's point of view, because consensus has clearly changed over the last year, but it wouldn't be wise or fair to make a call on how it's changed until everyone gets their say. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Related to my above comment, almost anything purporting to solve everything ends up ringing as true as Da Tongshu. While acknowledging it may be the autism and resulting severely impaired gestalt perception talking, my suggestion for improvement would be to find small things to work on. Fixating on your personal vision of the admin system as a whole isn't going to get anywhere, since everyone has their own ideas and there's no possible way they can all be reconciled in one large discussion. All the energy you save can then be put into working on something you care about, and everyone will be more satisfied for it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

If they are significantly affecting content, problems need to be addressed. If they are for the most point internal, they need not. Really, that is the only test in my mind. Few if any of the tourists who visit Notre Dame care about internal discussions about wages and conditions in 1322 (or whenever), what is important is ... there.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, among all these discussions, the one recurring theme is that "backlogs are real". They don't happen all the time, but they definitely do happen. And, really, we need AIV and RFPP, at least, to have as minimal backlogs as possible. On my end, I sometimes wonder if the backlog issue actually relates to an uneven distribution of en Wiki Admins across time zones – has anyone even gathered any data on how many (active) Admins we have operating by time zone?! Not having enough Admins in certain timezones might be one factor as to why backlogs on the Noticeboards accumulate at certain times of the day. --IJBall (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Maybe a database report can be compiled, which finds out the time zone preferences that each admin uses. Epic Genius (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't mind me but I'm just looking at recent RFAs and noticing people are opposing for some very (IMO) petty and irrelevant reasons. The general school of thought seems to be that content creation matters most and all your semi-automated edits mean nothing, using Twinkle too much can even be a reason to oppose !vote alone which is ridiculous. Content creators aren't right for admin work, they're builders and proud of that but admins have always been maintenance workers and you don't need to know how to build a house in order to keep it clean. The whole "mop" thing? You don't build things with mops, you maintain. The job of being an admin has nothing to do with how you might !vote in an XfD or how much you've written, we shouldn't even want content creators because their strengths are better spent creating given how there's evidence that eventually they won't use those tools because they have nothing to do with building the encyclopedia as goes the prime directive for some. If you mostly spend your time in Wikipedia space then you should be seen as doing work that needs doing as an admin but we still seem to be stuck in the 2007 mindset that content creation matters in any way, editcounts matter and the more of them that are manual and in articlespace the better, none of which will matter whatsoever for an admin doing requested moves, clerking at RFPP or closing RFCs. That was then when we didn't have as much content and needed to grow so we elevated the ones making stuff to the top, that made sense then but eight years down the line and the site has matured to a state where we need admins who can clear backlogs and the lousy rote work far more than the sort of editor the old guard wanted, basically themselves. tutterMouse (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I've long thought that it is important to completely unlink content creation from administration. The one and only admin power useful to content creators is the ability to impose redirects through the software when they are automatically prevented — I run to an admin a few times a year for that. It's minor. Similarly, the people who need tools for vandal fighting or new article queue maintenance don't necessarily need to be able to research and write. I personally think the answer is creating some sort of community-vetted status for advanced editing, which includes auto-confirmation of new starts and ability to redirect over the software — then people could strut their featured article stuff or whatever for validation there, if they are needy for that, and the RFA process could be more narrowly focused on the deletion and blocking tools and who is capable of handling them appropriately without any nonsense about content creation coming into the equation. My two cents. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Carrite: The primary reason content creation and becoming an admin became linked was not because content creators had greater need of the admin bit, but because there was a somewhat widespread feeling that admins were treating established content editors with insufficient empathy. So an admin who only did/does gnomish stuff, may have less empathy for the impact of deleting someone's hard work on an article at AfD than an admin who themselves had put lots of hard work into building articles, and had faced the prospect of them being deleted themselves. Monty₈₄₅ 15:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Carrite, back in 2010 there was a proposal to have a new non-admin user right that could perform one-hour blocks, but only of IP addresses and unconfirmed users and purely for vandalism. More controversial blocks—of confirmed users or for longer periods, for gross incivility, edit warring etc—would still require an admin. The idea was to take content creation out of the equation for the most urgent vandal prevention tasks. What would you think of that approach now? - Pointillist (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, unbundling a tool to delete redirects with non-empty history is a good idea and may have a chance. Has it ever been discussed? As far as I am concerned it might be even given as a tool to an existing group, for instance rollbackers.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It would probably be better as a separate "right" ("Article movers"?...) – this doesn't seem to fit in well with either the existing "Rollback" or "Pending reviewer" rights. Just my $0.02. --IJBall (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This is also fine with me, but I agree that keeping this only available to administrators is not a good idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Suppressredirects? It was discussed numerous times at WP:VP and is being discussed even now (permalink. Personally, I think article moving and the suppressredirect ability is a good idea, except it requires a very high level of trust, like template editors or edit filter managers. Epic Genius (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Just an idea that came to me as I was browsing this thread, & I'm throwing out only because it seems no one has proposed it: why not require anyone who want to be an Admin to participate at RfA? Yes, it runs the risk of making Adminship a closed group accessible only by being co-opted in. However, it could effect some moderation in the discussions by diluting the usual voices who simply oppose candidates for bad reasons, from grudges against specific persons to trivial objections to tall poppy syndrome -- which seem to be why the environment there is so toxic. -- llywrch (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

A lot of RFA candidates do participate in a few RFAs before running their own, and I'd recommend that anyone considering a run starts voting there. But I'm uncomfortable adding another arbitrary hurdle to the process, I'm pretty sure we have recent admins whose only RFA involvement was their own run and I wouldn't want to make things more difficult for people like them. ϢereSpielChequers 08:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The "toxicity" extends across much of Wikimedia, from the biggest projects (eg this one) to the smallest ones (eg Wikispecies). It is an inherited trait from the earliest days of Wikipedia and is unlikely to change soon. If you participated in the recent Board elections, you may have noticed that they have a very different format, essentially getting you to click radio buttons expressing either support, neutral or oppose without being able to see anyone else's !vote. I'm not going to make allegations but I think the board are aware of potential comments that might be made by the more "politically active" users. I very much doubt such a system would be accepted here though. Green Giant (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Admin-bots as proxies could lighten the workload

When used in obvious/no-brainer cases, many "admin" tasks require little or no thought. However, the tools are wisely are not availalbe to most editors because they can be abused.

A lot of these simpler tasks can be offloaded to experienced, trusted non-admins through the use of proxy admin-bots.

For example, experienced vandal fighters and other editors in good standing could be added to an authorized-to-use-the-bot list that allowed them to call on a speedy-deletion admin-bot which, under certain conditions, such as "1) newly created page by a relatively new editor, 2) at least 1 hour has passed since the initial request by an authorized editor with no edits since or (except for the article's creation) no edits in the last 5 minutes, and 3) at least 2 authorized editors have requested speedy deletion," would delete the page.

Another example would be an "AfD close bot" for clearly-non-controversial DELETE-closes. Such a bot would delete only if, say, 3 people on the bot's user list who did not participate in the discussion said "yes, delete this," none said "no, don't," AND there were no more than, say, 1 "keep" !votes and at least, say, 5 "delete" !votes. Note - due to to longstanding En-wiki tradition and/or long-ago declarations from ArbCom and/or the Foundation, access to this bot would likely have to go through a community-approval process similar to RfA. However, community approval for an editor to be added to the "AfD-bot use" list is much more likely than approval for full adminiship.

These are just an examples of the kinds of things editors with experience in a given area and who are in good standing can do through an admin-bot acting as their proxy, without having to know everything they need to know to be a good admin. Bots such as these will free up admins to do things that require the broad experience, good overall judgement in all areas (not just in one specialty), and other factors that make a good admin. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Backlog: Too few active administrators to handle the workload?

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requests for comment has a bunch of unclosed RfCs that are over 70 days old and one that is 98 days old. Should I start recruiting experienced non-admins to start evaluating and closing them on the theory that we have too few active^[Note] administrators to handle the workload?
(Note:Actually active as administrators, not the bogus "30 or more edits in the last 2 months" statistics we often see quoted.) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

In the old days we only had RFCs here and there, it seems we have them all the time now. Chillum 18:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Experienced editors are actually allowed to close RfCs, but should only do ones that don't require an admin action. Sam Walton (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Right. There are actually no formal rules for closing discussions. Most discussions don't even require closure and closures can be performed by any uninvolved editor, not just admins. With RfCs though I would think uninvolved editors can review and close them where necessary. They don't even necessarily have to determine the consensus. If they're stale, just deactivate them. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 18:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Per all of the above, closing discussions is not an admin function. Any experienced, uninvolved editor may close any discussion. If an admin action is needed specifically, ping the admins here at the board. But if something doesn't need protecting, deleting, or blocking, just do it. It doesn't need an admin. --Jayron32 18:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Huh. I've never tried to close one of those... It looks like it's mostly the same process as closing an ANI thread (plus removing the {{rfc}} tag) – is that correct? --IJBall (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Basically. Only big difference is there is a larger variety of subject matters and possible outcomes, many that don't require the mop to carryout. Many are also really looking for a conclusion, whereas many NACs in the AN space are discussions that have run their course, with the close just wrapping it up, whereas RFCs will usually ask for direct judgement of Consensus. (AN related NACs can do that, but typically those are the ones closed by admins) Monty₈₄₅ 18:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yikes – in looking a couple of those, I wouldn't even know where to start. It looks to me like the "Macbook" one is "no consensus" (and there seems to be not be much headway on the associated follow-up RM discussion either...). The first one especially is a massive tl;dr discussion, that should probably only be tackled by one of the editors who's already gone through it... Bottom line: I can definitely see why these ones stay open for months at a time – they're not "easy"!! --IJBall (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The Meghan Trainor one has already been closed at the Talk page, so at least one of those can be "closed to go"... (I'm not going to do that one myself, because I'd like to see someone else do it, so I can see the process.) --IJBall (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

General thoughts – This probably gets back to the issue of whether AN and ANI should have official "Clerks". I gather such a proposal was already shot down, but I think that was years ago, and I wonder if it's a proposal that should be revisited?... --IJBall (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Non admins often do clerking duties regularly at ANI such as yourself and Liz what effect would establishing official clerks have? Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I dunno – if you have a "title", it's actually like having a "job", and you'll take it more seriously? (Isn't this basic psychology?... I wouldn't know – I never took psych!) I can only speak for me, but I only "pick" at ANI closes on days that I don't have a lot of time to devote to Wiki (certainly not enough time to do proper "content creation"), and closing ANI threads is something I can do relatively quickly and painlessly when I want to blow off steam. OTOH, if I were an "official clerk" (and I ain't saying I wanna be!!...), I'd take it more seriously, and do things like take the much more time-consuming plunge into the backlog mentioned in this thread... Anyway, that's my $0.02... But I dunno if there's any interest in reviving the AN/ANI "clerk" proposal. --IJBall (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Generally the question becomes what will the clerk do, that a non-clerk can't already do now, and how will that make the process more efficient. The obvious answer would be to allow clerks to close things, and then have admins do any necessary tool use. But in the absence of a strong consensus in favor of having admins defer to the decisions of the clerks on certain matters, the admin remains fully responsible for the tool use, and thus must repeat any work the clerk did to verify the outcome is correct and thus that the tool use is correct. I wonder if we could achieve such a consensus for some less controversial admin tasks, but I don't think AN or AN/I would be a good place to trial such move. Monty₈₄₅ 19:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I think lots of admins stay out of RfC closures deliberately, for a variety of reasons: Some RfCs have been opened to make a WP:POINT and then got a lot of comments which have only a tangential bearing on the matter, that makes it difficult to evaluate what it is about and what the actual outcome; some RfCs have a lot of different opinions, with very long explanations of each, and many people (including admins) wouldn't have, or take, the time to read it all, that leaves the discussion open for a considerable time; and many RfCs have been hotly debated, and whatever the result assessed by the closer, the whole thing will go through closure review right here. I've been a little busy IRL last week, but I'll have a look at some of the long-text RfCs next week when I'm free. However, I couldn't close the CfD which has been open for 98 days because I !voted in it. But I made a suggestion at the pertaining thread. Kraxler (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I only close ANI cases in a couple of situations: a) an admin has taken action on the original complaint (a page is protected, an editor blocked), b) if there is a case where proposals are floated but none has a consensus and the thread is stale and likely to be archived soon or c) the OP has withdrawn the complaint or says that the situation is resolved.

It seems like there are a fair number of NACs of RfCs that bounce back to WP:AN (initial alphabet here) because at least one editor wants an admin to review the closure, on the assumption, I guess, that the outcome would be different. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Back to the specific issue at hand – I personally can't close the "USSTATION" RfC's because I voted so I'm "involved", but they were opened by Dicklyon who's subsequently been blocked for socking, and I don't think there's been a follow-up reply in weeks, so I think all of those can be closed. My guess is that they can pretty much all be closed as "No consensus" (though there may have been a general consensus for "[Stationname] station" with a lowercase "s" for "station" for article titles, I can't remember) or closed in the direction of the WP:USSTATION guideline conforming in its totality (i.e. with no exceptions, like there have been in the past) to WP:AT. FWIW. --IJBall (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The backlog at the head of the page was close to zero and then a bunch more got added. When they are listed on the top of this page, they get dealt with - unless they are the kind that requires the patience of Job to unpick a 63kb argument on which shade of blue an infobox should be. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've done what I can with the RfC's backlog (thanks also to: Stephan Schulz, Esquivalience and Alsee!). Guy had actually already closed a number of these on May 26, and it just hadn't been logged here. I closed a couple more "easy" ones. The rest fall in to two broad categories: 1) complicated ones that are going to require an Admin (or someone far more experienced with these than me!) – some of these look to this untrained eye as "no consensus" cases, but other ones will require a deeper look; and 2) those that have had comments within the last couple of weeks and thus aren't really "stale" enough to close yet. --IJBall (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there any chance someone could 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 really helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I looked at that one. My reading of the situation was that the basic consensus was for "No parameter (inclusion)" in those cases where there was "no religion" (e.g. agnostic, athiest, or areligious). I'd be willing to close that one, but only if I get some confirmation from others that my reading of this one is correct. (And, if my reading of that one is correct, I'd think its consensus would likely extend beyond BLPs.) --IJBall (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much. The root of the problem, IIRC, is a small group of people trying to crowbar in their assertion that atheism is a religion, which view is clearly rejected. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Our original problem was, specifically, a small group of people trying to crowbar in their assertion that atheism is a religion into the BLPs of politicians, presumably to influence voters. Those editors appear to have abandoned that effort. Now I have another problem; when I wrote the RfC I clearly specified that "this RfC only applies to biographies of living persons, not organizations or historic figures", but the threaded discussion (with far fewer participants) was unanimously in favor of removing "religion = None" from the infoboxes of fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, political parties, etc. Unless an uninvolved closer evaluates those comments and writes in the closing statement that there is a consensus concerning those other pages I need to post a new RfC to determine consensus. Which I don't mind doing, of course; I just need to know. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: you have specifically asked for an Admin to close this RfC (in several places) – would you be OK with a (semi-)experienced non-Admin editor closing it instead? (I get the impression that a number of Admins have voted in it and so are "involved", and those that haven't may not want to deal with the hassle of closing this one...) --IJBall (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

That would be fine. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

ANRFC's "backlog" is artificially created by a few edits like this one. We have one or two editors who have appointed themselves the unnecessary task of listing 80% to 90% (ninety percent!) of all expired RFCs on that page, including RFCs that have no actual content or whose consensus is so blindingly obvious that it's stupid to ask some other editors to some waste time writing, "100% of respondents vehemently agreed both with each other and the major relevant policies, so I guess that's consensus". An actual majority don't need a formal close by anyone, much less by an admin. If you want to stop having a backlog at ANRFC, it's easily solved: Just create a rule that anyone listing an RFC must either have participated in it, or actually asked the participants if they wanted to have the discussion listed for formal closure (and not listed it unless there is at least one response by a participant that approves of listing it). This would take us back to the days when not only (almost) "anyone can edit", but (almost) "anyone can be assumed to be capable of figuring out the consensus for the discussions they participate in". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

One problem, WhatamIdoing, with RfC is the same as most maintenance discussions including for example, AfD and RfA: most voters are drive-by, they don't return to see how the debate is develping. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Some voters are drive-by, but there is almost always someone watching an RFC – and if it's ever true that nobody is watching the discussion, then I'm sure you'll agree with me that posting a closing statement is a complete and utter waste of time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I'll reiterate again: MOST voters are drive-by, they don't return to see how the debate is develping. They fly by, dropping their comments like pigeons flying over the crowd at Trafagar Square, and often with about as much intelligence. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

On the main questions here and at WP:VPI#Identifying new admin candidates, it looks to me like things are dying down. The traffic on this page is high enough to discourage watchers who might otherwise participate, so I'll try to get a thread going at WT:RFA#RFCs. - Dank (push to talk) 11:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Appeal for Wikignomes and admin watchers

Quite a few of the backlogged items are done. You could help by marking them done in the backlog list, and maybe cruising the project lookign for others. Oh, and anything with fewer than five or six people opining, that has remained open for more than 60 days, where debate has tailed off over a month ago and the matter is of no importance? Feel free to non-admin close it as "moot, due to passage of time, please feel free to start a new RfC is issues remain" or some such. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

This advice and the simple permission to just close long stale RFCs is enormously helpful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• IIRC, some years back WP:AN had a table showing the number of tasks of various kind awaiting admin attention, with color-coding indicating extent of backlogs in each category (CSDs in various categories, unclosed AFDs, RMs, unblock request, unanswered 3RR and RFPP reports etc). Is such a consolidated list still available somewhere, or is my memory faulty? Abecedare (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Are you sure you aren't thinking of the Bureaucrats' noticeboard? If such a chart was on AN, it must have been before my time. BMK (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Can't vouch for when and where I recall seeing them, but I am thinking of tables like the ones here but more comprehensive. They provide an admin with a few minutes on their hand a quick guide as to where their attention may be best directed. Abecedare (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• FWIW, I think something like that (here) would be a good thing. --IJBall (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Abecedare, would it be Template:Admin dashboard? I like Reaper Eternal's console...I've been meaning to steal it for myself but lurking works, too.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Those are certainly the type of tables that I recall. I too will lurk for now, and possibly steal/personalize the design at some point. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixing the scripts

As an admin, I would do a lot more for the backlogs, but I won't until someone will fix some of the scripts that sem-automate some processes, such as, for example, closing AfD. I really like the challenge of closing some of those AfD that even seasoned admins won't touch, but so long as it would take me 20 minutes with my slow INternet and the incredibly slow Wikipedia server (often 5 mins to load a single Wikipedia page or even 'show preview' ) just to mess with all the templates/transclusions to close one, I'd rather be doing something else. All of our most useful scripts and tools were developed by volunteers and are available to admins through extensions such as Twinkle, but many of those editors have long since retired and no longer maintain theier scripts. I firmly believe that with all its millions of surplus $$ it's time the WMF started adopting some of these tools and commit themselves to maintaining them. I hear some WMF employees/contractors complaining that there are no budgets for this kind of thing. I'm afraid I do not and cannot believe this for an instant. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js for AFD closure. It's regularly updated and works great. Nakon 02:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

In the 2015-2016 financial year the Wikimedia Foundation plans to spend $28.9 million on engineering and another $12.6 million on community engagement. (Signpost Coverage) Perhaps somewhere in those budgets the foundation can find the time and resources to create and maintain scripts critical to Wikipedia. This seems significantly more productive than converting the tiny village of Esino Lario (population 772) into an internet connected center for Wikimania. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

What we'll probably get is a bunch of "improvements" in the way of new "features" that no one asked for, that no one really wants, that will be poorly implemented and turned on without notice, that you can't opt out of, and that someone will have to write code to remove from your account. That's been the pattern, anyway. BMK (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't go into more detail in my post above, but I have to admit that Winner 42 and BMK echo my opinions entirely. Not to mention the WMF junkets that are slid into the expense accounts of the many, many, many departments of the WMF. The cost of just one round-trip flight across a couple of states for one telecommuting contractor to spend a day in the office in SF would cover a lot of the cost of examining the exasperating problems with scripts, gadgets, and tools, and of course those software solutions that nobody wants. Like any NGO or non-profit, one thing the WMF is extremely good at is wasting donors' money. Until admins get more of the reliable kind of tools they need, and the sooner the WMF can wake up to the need of WP:ACTRIAL, the sooner we will see a serious reduction in backlogs and a pool of active admins who can cope with them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I'd be willing to have a go at fixing up some of our user scripts. From your post it sounds like we need somewhere to systematically list requests for new scripts and for script updates. We used to have Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Requests, but that was marked as historical. Perhaps we should start a new page for it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius:, I'm not 100% sure that all the scripts need fixing, but on installing the script for AfD closures recommended by User:Nakon I now realise that for some reason all the scripts in my User:Kudpung/vector.js have stopped working. Is this due to some MediaWiki 'upgrade' I didn't hear about?. Using FireFox 37.0.2 on OSX 10.10.3. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not just you Kudpung, I was away for a few months and I came back to find that some scripts and gadgets don't work any more and that includes the delsort/close afd/admin dashboard stuff as far as I can remember. —SpacemanSpiff 20:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm relieved to hear that SpacemanSpiff. I've also noticed that since yesterady, among other things, PopUps have stopped working too although the sorely missed Wikimarkups have magically reappeared at the bottom of my editing window. None of my other scripts are working although I have checked all my preferences. Perhaps we must take Mr. Stradivarius up on his kind offer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

118.160.164.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

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

---

I have blocked this user for refusing to communicate in English. We had a previous IP who had the same issue. Wondering what others thoughts are? Feel free to unblock if you think it was too harsh. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

They also appear to be calling me a "nazi" in this edit but not sure. [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't figure out what this guy was trying to communicate either... it's not that it wasn't English, it's that it wasn't anything processable by humans, WTF... Zad68 15:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is a interesting form of shorthand. Do you remember the other IP that did this User:Zad68? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Calling it "shorthand" is an admirable application of WP:AGF! I don't remember another IP doing this... Zad68 15:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I recall another user with the same writing style, I believe he claimed he had Carpral Tunnel Syndrome or something like that. I'm searching now to see if I can find that same person, it's a very distinct style of writing. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sven70 (talk · contribs) and it does look the same. Ravensfire (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes check out this dif [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Tough situation. I've declined the IP's unblock request, which was also pretty well incomprehensible. If this is a situation where the user physically can't type, I'm very sympathetic, but I'm not sure that they're equipped to function here if they can't communicate in a comprehensible manner, no matter what the reason for that. To be able to collaborate, we need to be able to discuss, and right now we can't do that. We certainly owe any disabled user our best efforts to work with and accommodate them, but we cannot help with input on their end, and if their input is incomprehensible, everything down the line will also be. We have no way to deploy an accommodating mental filter that will enable Wikipedians to understand idiosyncratic shorthand. If we could, I think we happily would...but until then I don't think this is a workable situation. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ravensfire Yep, that's him ! KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)FWIW, attempted translation of this diff: 1. Discriminating users who remove RS tags (?) 2. "Being silly/no English" but he gets it 3. Abusing admin rights for BULLYING and POV pushing 4. Meting out (?) in disproportionate measure 5. People talk WODEVALEC (?) to their talks... great project!. So it does appear to be some form of shorthand I have never encountered before, at least. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Even Steven Hawkings is able to write in English. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we have a | Serial sock pupeteer on our hands. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Sven70, I remember him. @Salvidrim!: 1 would be "Discriminating against RSI users". I think 5. is "People talk With Out DEVALEC (this one bollixes me)..." Blackmane (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James: His comments to you were 1. Bold (presumably WP:BOLD in here = offense. 2.You underlink 3. It'd be once a paragraph. Userfriendliness 4. I don't need to show off, I am an MD / Dr, ta 5. I'd like to meet a smart Canadian, an oxymoron, alas. His subsequent reply is 1. Yes, you are a disabled hater 2.Learn grammar 3. Go live in your natural habitat, you dum(dim?)wit. and "We" are a bunch of hounding nazis (something like grammar nazis?), cheers Blackmane (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Impressive :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Evidence of misspent time on the internet. Blackmane (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This is very clearly Sven70 (talk · contribs). Doc talk 07:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Side note

I don't disagree with the result of this by any means, but...I thought IP addresses couldn't be indeffed. Or is it a different circumstance when socking is involved? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Which IP is listed as indeffed? Doc talk 06:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I think he should be. He came back as 36.231.118.169 | and tried to troll my page and a few other individuals. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 10:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently helping others parse his text means I'm a DISABLD8INSKUM. Blackmane (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, everyone here hates the disabled, according to Sven70, and we are therefore disabled-hating scum. This is a long-term abuse troll. He often targets the most highly-watched pages to launch his inane accusations and attacks.[11],[12],[13] Right now he is 114.45.227.171 (talk · contribs), and someone should take the talk page privs away. @Erpert - The operator of Sven70 (et al) is indeffed, but we do not indef IP addresses, only named accounts. Some people believe we shouldn't even tag IP addresses, but I disagree and will continue to tag the IP talk pages of him and his ilk. Doc talk 19:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

One more thing: there was a RfC nearly 5 years ago which ended when he was indeffed at AN/I. It was then proposed that he be banned but it did not take. Doc talk 20:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I recall that, yet another victory for the overextension of AGF. BMK (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

We generally don't indef IPs because the IP is likely to change hands eventually, and if dynamic, it could be quite quickly. Once it does change hands, anyone being blocked from editing is collateral damage. But from a technical standpoint, we do have the ability to indef IPs, and there are in fact about 83 that are currently blocked indefinitely, with a handful more blocked for 10+ years. Regulars at AIV will generally block for a max of 1-3 years when we see years of vandalism coming from an IP, just to limit the potential collateral damage, and to verify every 1-3 years it sill needs to be blocked when the vandalism kicks off again. See also WP:Blocking_IP_addresses#Indefinite_blocks. Monty₈₄₅ 04:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I may relaunch a ban proposal for this character. edit summary ... this is a troll. Doc talk 06:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I thought he should have been banned at the time. Obviously I was outvoted by the soft parade. BMK (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ban Proposal

Since the original site ban discussion nearly 5 years ago , Sven70 (talk · contribs) has used at least two dozen socks to disrupt the project. Instead of flying under the radar, he continues to respond with attacks and insults when confronted about his unacceptable "shorthand" style of communication.[14] It is time that he be formally banned, and a long-term abuse report is on its way. Many diffs of his malfeasance available upon request.

• Support as proposer. Doc talk 22:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support indef ban of Sven70 and sock (IP address of course only get blocked for brief periods as they change frequently). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - this degree of sock puppetry is not acceptable. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - as before BMK (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Contributing to Wikipedia requires the ability to communicate in English, and the willingness to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Request Admin Eyes at Talk: Zeitgeist (film series)

There is ongoing controversy at Zeitgeist (film series). There was formerly an article on The Zeitgeist Movement, which is a response to the films. It was merged into the film series article, but some favor splitting it back out. A content dispute was taken to the dispute resolution noticeboard. After one unsuccessful effort at mediation, two Requests for Comment were posted at Talk: Zeitgeist (film series), and the DRN thread has been closed as being handled by the RFCs. Threaded discussion of the RFCs has become heated, and has gotten to the level of personal attacks. I am requesting a few admin eyes (two would be good, four would be better, six would also be better) at the article just to deal with the personal attacks. Since the film series includes a theory that September 11, 2001, was all part of a World Order master plan, disruptive editing may be subject to WP:ARB911. Disruptive editing will become more clearly subject to discretionary sanctions in a few days, when the American politics decision is finalized. Thank you in advance to anyone who watchlists. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Do the 'personal attacks' in question include the gross violations of WP:BLP policy regarding assertions concerning the founder of TZM which have repeatedly been made on article talk pages? If so, it is about time - they have been repeatedly ignored when raised at WP:ANI. Or am I right in assuming that the community considers it OK to accuse someone (based on no sources whatsoever, naturally) of "brainwashing" or "neuro linguistic programming and meme control", as well as accusations of concocting a political movement for personal profit, as long as they aren't a contributor? Judging by past experience, that would seem to be the case, which tells us a great deal about the narcissistic concerns of Wikipedia, and just how little its proclaimed 'neutrality' matters when it comes to minor articles about political movements of marginal notability that nobody much likes. The failure of the community to address this is of course symptomatic of the larger issues that have led to the ArbCom cases - and frankly I very much doubt that ArbCom is going to resolve the issue either. While 'adnmin eyes' on the thread in question might be welcome, what is actually needed is a viewpoint from further back - one that looks at the root causes, rather than the overt symptoms, and which actually addresses the underlying problem, rather than relying on 'discretionary sanctions' fixes which merely paint over the cracks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump - The way to raise issues about gross violations of BLP against Peter Joseph is by raising issues about gross violations of BLP against Peter Joseph, not by accusing other editors of insanity. As I have recently explained to a few less experienced editors, civility is not a nice-to-have in Wikipedia; it not only is required, but it works better than invective. A stubborn editor who is attacked is very unlikely to respond positively. A stubborn editor who is reasoned with may or may not respond positively. BLP violations are taken very seriously on article pages; I haven't seen a claim about BLP violations against Peter Joseph on Peter Joseph or Zeitgeist (film series). If you want to complain about BLP violations on talk pages, do you want the specific violations redacted, or do you want a policy shift in general to enforce BLP more strictly on talk pages? The one issue that possibly could be within the remit of ArbCom would be to clarify that there should be stricter BLP enforcement on talk pages. I would suggest to you, Andy, that you aren't likely to get ArbCom to take up a case just by over-the-line against BLP violators, at least not without getting sanctioned for your own personal attacks, which were over-the-line. You didn't even say BLP when you called the other editor crazy. Maybe you should have. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I can see no evidence whatsoever that anything 'works better than invective' - the facts of the matter are that Earl King Jr's repeated violations of WP:BLP policy have been repeatedly raised at WP:ANI - and repeatedly ignored. And no, I am not asking for a more strict BLP policy. I am asking that the existing policy - which explicitly states that it applies on talk pages - be enforced. Along with a requirement that contributors actually comply with the 'neutrality' they repeatedly accuse other of breaching, and that they don't use article ledes to promote their half-baked and contradictory conspiracy theories. And no, I don't see why I should have to mention WP:BLP policy explicitly when I point out that EKJ is using Wikipedia talk pages to accuse a named individual of a conspiracy involving "brainwashing", and concocting a political movement for personal financial gain. I would assume that anyone with basic skills in comprehension would understand why it was a problem. Maybe I am expecting too much though, and should cite Wikijargon in every sentence, just for the benefit of those who view this project as a MMORPG exercise in amateur bureaucratics, rather than as an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. There are actually people demanding that we characterise these as documentaries. Because obviously the gubmint did 9/11. Obviously. Attacks on Merola, we do not need. I would even step in to prevent attacks on his brother, propagandist for the vile Burzynski Clinic. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it. Would you also step in to stop people engaging in off-topic guilt by association commentary? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Block this editor?

I would like Ani Admins. to block AndyTheGrump from editing Wikipedia because of his disregard for basic civility which is a cornerstone of editing here. Example [15] example taken from a request for comment on the Zeitgeist film series page. Another example from my user page [16] There is no doubt that he would not deny calling me a little shit also previously. Bringing up those old Ani's is probably not a good idea either. All of them were thrown out or dismissed. I am not saying I am the world best editor or that I do not make mistakes. Talk page discussions should not be dredged up from last year to prove some obscure point either about my being somehow violating editing guidelines. Discussion on a talk page should be free ranging for better articles. Personal attacks that are vicious, blatant and possibly designed to intimidate should not be used to make points. Andy has an extensive block record for doing what he is doing. I think another block is in order. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Accusing a named individual of engaging in "brainwashing" for personal financial gain is not an "obscure point" about "somehow violating editing guidelines" - it is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy. And as for 'civility', I recommend looking at EKJ's routine harassment of any individual he considers sympathetic to TZM - which usually consists of a lecture on 'neutrality' combined with unrestrained vitriol concerning the movement. The term cognitive dissonance springs to mind... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Block Abusive editing does not win the day. Making another personal attack here, on top of the Zeitgeist film series recent one at the RFC and the personal attack on my user page by Andy seems almost like he is asking to be blocked from editing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Pointing out that you have violated WP:BLP does not in any shape or form constitute a personal attack - and neither does pointing out your hypocrisy in supposedly espousing 'neutrality', while posting rants like this [17] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that pointing out BLP violations is not a personal attack. There were personal attacks, which are not permitted, there appear to have been BLP violations, which are not permitted, and there were comments about BLP violations, and those are necessary. Within a few days, when ArbCom decides a few details, enforcement will go to Arbitration Enforcement. In the meantime, personal attacks on editors are still forbidden, and attacks on the subjects of BLP articles are still BLP violations that are not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy brought all that up after the fact and his given zero examples. Here we have Andy exaggerating liberally what ever point he is trying to make to the degree of again personally attacking he considers sympathetic to TZM - which usually consists of a lecture on 'neutrality' combined with unrestrained vitriol concerning the movement. The term cognitive dissonance springs to mind... How could it be that Andy thinks this is a good way to communicate his ideas? It shows a very comfomfortable mode of long extended personal attacking that for what ever reason no one has stopped permanently. Look at Andy's block history for more information. Its about time this person is stopped for trash talking other editors. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"Trash talk"? as in this [18] example of bizarre logic where you cast aspersions on the validity of a source on the grounds that the journalist responsible was probably paid to write it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Bizarre logic Andy you will not let up. You can not make a point without adding personal diatribes which when gathered together end up being a vicious attack on the Zeitgeist page and my user page, as you have done here and elsewhere over a long period of time. It is not a reliable source was the point. Past consensus on the article agreed it was not a reliable source. Journalists normally get paid. Free ranging talk within reason on discussion pages is a non starter. Trying to make that into some kind extreme case by comments about users is not a good way to discuss things on the article, my user page or here to make any points you are trying to make. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The suggestion that a source is unreliable because the journalist responsible for it receives payment for his work is bizarre by any reasonable standards. That is what journalism as a profession entails - and your attempt to denigrate the journalist responsible by pointing out that he was probably paid for it was clearly intended to denigrate him as an individual. Just another example of the systematic bias you show with regards to anyone who doesn't accord with your personal enmity towards Joseph and TZM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I really think there is no place for your style of editing. I did not denigrate anyone. I pointed out that the Huffington Post thing is a blog. The past consensus on the page was to not use it. The current consensus is probably close to the past one. Why are you making up stuff like this Andy, Just another example of the systematic bias you show with regards to anyone who doesn't accord with your personal enmity towards Joseph and TZM. end quote. Is it in the best interests of editing for you to claim that? No I don't think so. What if I told you I find the Zeitgeist page and its supporters comical and I have no particular feeling about them beyond that? Why do you think you can diagnose peoples people on Wikipedia and make statements about their mental health? You continue an onslaught of bad will and tendentious infighting over something like a comment about a blog, blowing it out of proportion where you are constantly being an amateur Dr. of Psychology, do you think you are exhibiting cooperative editing skill? I understand rhetoric and your use of extreme highlighting of insignificant mentions on the article. All this reinforces my opinion that you are way over due for a site ban or long block. The larger point is that it is a non notable blog that is best left behind in regard to using good reliable sources. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware that you pointed out that the source was a blog. That is however irrelevant, since I haven't debated the fact. The simple verifiable and relevant fact here (which everyone can see I haven't been 'making up') is that you also suggested that because the journalist was probably paid to write it, that was also somehow grounds not to use it - an argument which were it to be accepted and applied elsewhere would decimate the referencing for almost every article on Wikipedia. Irrational by any definition. As for the remainder of your comments, I see no point in debating with you - your enmity towards Joseph and TZM is self-evident... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You lost the debate Andy when I posted the links on the Zeitgeist film page and my user page. Personal attacks and harassment seem to be a way of life for you as an editor [19] Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

And that is a personal attack. BMK (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that nobody has offered the slightest support for you call that I be blocked from editing, I would have to suggest that your judgement of how this 'debate' has been going is somewhat open to question... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, Robert noted that you made personal attacks on me, but he is an involved person so is not going to do much except mention it here. Again your debate on my judgement is something you did in your personal attacks which I will repeat now over and over [20] and [21] since this Ani did not really start out as a call to block probably people are not focused that way. And, because of your personal attacks on me I am saying that you have lost the debate, lost credible interpretations of any kind of goodwill editing and have a long history of doing that kind of thing and should be taken off the project. I hope that is perfectly clear. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed blocks

• Recommend block for both Earl King Jr. and AndyTheGrump for using WP:AN as a forum to exchange hostility. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any length for those proposed blocks in mind?--67.68.29.99 (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That does not seem fair at all. I just complained about Andy making personal attacks on me. How does that deserve a block or topic ban? I gave examples. I would be perfectly happy if he just said he was sorry and would move on. If someone calls you bat shit crazy etc. why should that be tolerated. If someone calls you 'a little shit' at these things why is that tolerated. Since this was brought here and not by me I made some comments. Andy seldom edits that topic area so a topic ban would not even affect him to any degree. If you want to deescalate this lets just ask Andy to stop insulting people. What he does is way beyond grumpy. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose BMK (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. It should be noted that it was Robert McClenon who started this thread - to accuse me (or Earl for that matter) of using it 'as a forum' would therefore seem to imply that he thinks we have no right to respond. That, as far as I'm aware, isn't Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed topic-ban from Zeitgeist (film series)

• Neutral as to topic-ban for both, as alternative to block. This is getting nowhere and they both need to be stopped, either by blocks or by topic-bans. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. A topic ban on us both would be fine by me - since I withdrew from the topic some time back, and only became involved again as a result of EKJ's further abuse of Wikipedia talk pages as a means to further his personal enmity towards Joseph and TZM, and as a consequence of observing his repeated attacks on the integrity of other contributors at WP:DRN. If Earl is topic-banned, I will have no reason to involve myself further in this colossal time-sink. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It can be noted Robert McClenon who started this thread - to draw attention to the page and its problems was acting in a positive to help the article. Being penalized for discussion here would therefore seem to imply that he thinks we have no right to respond. That, as far as I'm aware, isn't Wikipedia policy. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Big old sock farm, lots of articles affected

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#ADDgrammar, brought by the valiant Brianhe and please see admin Yunshui's comments there. SPI case is here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Factsonlyplease39. Displaying my ignorance here, but is there some way to "roll back" the edits (and new article creation) by this sockfarm, or do we really have to work through what appears to be maybe (?) a hundred articles? The number not at all clear to me at this point, but this looks like days and days of work and i would rather not spend my WP time cleaning up a pile of dogshit this big. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

left out Joseph2302's key role in bringing that SPI case, sorry.Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I've glanced over about 40 of them, and almost all of them fall into the category of just about notable CEOs, with lots of puffery, women's baseball players from c.1950 with very few sources, or other people/books by people that are generally spammy and questionably notable. Although lots of the CEOs do seem to just about meet Wiki standards, and the baseball playes do meet WP:NBASEBALL, I would also support deleting the lot, and then they can recreated properly without the spam.

For correctness, it was User:Yunshui not me who created the SPI.Joseph2302 (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the corrections. but is there something that can be done here? Thx. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks to me as if a manual repair job is the only option. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• I endorse block deletion as obvious abuse and probable promotion. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Having looked through loads of them, it seems there are some good, notable articles, and some sports one that pass relevant guidelines (WP:GRIDIRON, WP:NBASEBALL, WP:TENNIS). Also, lots of the bad ones are up for AfD now, and seems quite a few of them are being cleaned up well by editors. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note I'm more than a little suspicious (based on technical and some of the behavioural evidence) that these socks do in fact belong to Ronn Torossian's 5WPR company (see previous discussion here and this SPI). I'd be grateful if someone more familiar with this group's modus operandi could take a look. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Are they known for copyvio? See this and I suspect many others. SmartSE (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC Review at Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 9

In November, a Request for Comments asked whether Ayurveda, a form of traditional Indian healing, should be categorized as Pseudoscience. In December, I closed the RFC, concluding, for reasons that I listed in the closure, that it should not be, because it was developed at least a millennium before the concept of modern science, and was therefore neither science nor pseudoscience. I was asked today (4 June) by User:Kww to review my close. Kww noted that multiple editors taking part in the RFC were sockpuppets of User:OccultZone. I concur that the outcome of the RFC was corrupted by sockpuppetry, with multiple copies of the same editor offering the same arguments. I have stricken my own close and the !votes of the sockpuppets. I am aware that I edited an archive, that says not to edit it, but this appears to have been a case of WP:IAR in response to an extraordinary misconduct.

The RFC outcome is therefore cancelled. There was never a valid consensus of the community that Ayurveda is not pseudoscience. I do not plan to perform another close. One possibility would be for another closer to close the RFC; however, some editors in good standing were influenced in their !votes by the sockpuppets. My recommendation is that a new RFC be opened. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd second the proposal to open a second RfC. The original one was tainted not only by OccultZone and his alternate accounts, but also by what appears to have been limited participation on the part of those who do not actively edit Ayurveda-related articles. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean that there was too much outside participation, or that there was too little outside participation? Outside participation is invited by a bot. The amount of it varies greatly from RFC to RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I actually came to revisit my post here, because I think I phrased it poorly. What I meant is that I think the majority of participants were biased in favour of Ayurveda, and were therefore not equipped to determine whether it can be considered a pseudoscience in an impartial manner. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a procedural comment — when you close something and then come to believe that it shouldn't have been closed that way, you're just almost always free to change things, regardless of the "this is an archive" bit; the only exception I can think of is if the discussion's been reviewed, because you can't overturn the review's decision yourself. Not a good case of IAR, because you followed the rules :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• The socks are irrelevant to the discussion. Even with full protection the WP:LEDE now says "Modern ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific.[15]" We don't need another RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 9#Should this article be categorized as "pseudoscience"? was previously reviewed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Closure Review Request at Talk: Ayurveda#Objection to improper closure, which I closed as "There is no consensus to overturn the close."

  I agree with Nyttend that Robert McClenon is free to withdraw his close, especially in light of the sockpuppet accusations. (The closure review I closed did not reach a decision either way to endorse or overturn the close.)

  I also agree with Robert McClenon and Kurtis that a fresh RfC untainted by sockpuppetry would be helpful in resolving the question of whether Ayurveda should be categorized as psuedoscience. Cunard (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sock accounts endorsed the closing. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Closure Review Request at Talk: Ayurveda#Objection to improper closure. The close was influenced by socks. QuackGuru (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sock comments in close review have been marked as struck. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru has initiated a new RFC, which is in progress. The action that was needed was restarting the RFC. I think that this thread is ready for closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Technically, I did not start a new RfC. I was making an edit request. I was initially against starting a RfC yesterday. I now support starting the RfC to move the discussion forward. QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru is correct that he did not start a new RFC, in that he didn't put the RFC tag in it. I thought that he had forgotten to put the tag in, so I put the tag in, so it is now an RFC. You can blame him or blame me. In any case, I think that we are in agreement that the previous RFC was invalidated by sock-puppetry, and the cancellation of its closure after the fact was appropriate, and the new RFC is the way forward. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• If the new RfC comes to the opposite conclusion then what does that say about RfCs in general? It appears there is broad support for the cat. See Talk:Ayurveda#Category:Pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I would argue that the socks affected a lot more than just that RfC, so the article as a whole - not just one category - would benefit from fresh attention. bobrayner (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Bfpage and her block

Liz, IJBall, Beyond My Ken, MrX, EvergreenFir, Euryalus, NinjaRobotPirate, Viriditas, Winkelvi, this message is being sent to out of courtesy since you were part of the discussion or were pinged in this ANI discussion. Administrator Kevin Gorman has removed my block.

I regret that I was not able to participate in the discussion, but it was not possible to answer any of your questions since I was blocked. I was not ignoring your questions, nor did I intend to make you think that I was behaving in an uncivil manner by ignoring your comments. If you would like to see the results, rationale, conditions and guidelines that resulted in my request to be unblocked please see User talk:Bfpage/guidelines that administrator Kevin Gorman has created for that purpose. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think you were ignoring questions when you were blocked. But I do question placing this post on WP:AN rather than on your talk page. It's not an issue that warrants the involvement of administrators. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The instructions at the top of this page states: This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators...Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.

It was my intent to convey information to the involved administrators and other interested editors about the block review that occurred in the ANI referenced above.

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I'm stating this here because I prefer not to comment on Bfpage's user talk page or user subpage talk page, and because I think we should both get clarification on this... Via email, I told Kevin Gorman that what is currently number 3 at User talk:Bfpage/guidelines is confusing; it states, "If BF notices that Flyer has edited an article, BF wil[l] refrain from editing that article for at least a week." It's confusing because Bfpage‎ is generally restricted from interacting with me on the talk page. What if Bfpage‎ makes an edit to an article and I contest the edit? If I revert, there is no point in directing Bfpage‎ to the talk page to discuss the matter. After all, number 3 limits the matter to a week and I've noted before that (while Bfpage‎ does a lot of good work for Wikipedia) I'm generally not a fan of Bfpage‎'s editing styles. I am likely to revert Bfpage‎ if it's an article that I care a lot about. So how are Bfpage and I to interact with each other if I revert Bfpage or Bfpage reverts me at an article? If it's a matter that needs discussion, are we to not even try to discuss the matter? Are we to post to the talk page and indirectly respond to each other? And I note "indirectly" because number 5 states, "[...] BF won't directly respond to comments made by Flyer22 unless it's necessary for the flow of the discussion/needed to improve the article, etc."

My other thoughts on this matter.

Furthermore, at User talk:Bfpage/guidelines, Bfpage notes a future WP:ANI thread about our edits when analyzed via the Editor Interaction Analyzer tool. If that happens, I will feel the need to comment on the matter since it will concern me. I noted in the latest WP:ANI thread about Bfpage (linked above in this section), when speaking to Beyond My Ken (BMK), that some of our article overlap is due to our use of WP:STiki, but I was also explicitly clear (my "00:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)" post) that "WP:STiki edits aside, there are edits that show that [Bfpage] clearly followed me to articles. Again, I pointed to this in the previous WP:ANI thread about [Bfpage]." Before that first WP:ANI thread, Bfpage had already acknowledged keeping up with my edits, including on the now-deleted subpage User talk:Bfpage/Following me around, but did not consider that stalking or following me around. It should be clear at User talk:Jytdog/Archive 10#Advice on potential WP:Hounding behavior why I stated that Bfpage was following me around. Until Bfpage showed up at the Sexism article, there was never any interaction between us. Bfpage was not into editing the types of articles I edited, and did not edit nearly as much as Bfpage edits now. And as for lately, I already stated what I had to state on that in the most recent WP:ANI discussion about Bfpage. Having to address this again, when the Editor Interaction Analyzer tool/WP:STiki was never the main thing used to argue that Bfpage was following me around, is unneeded drama and more stress. Also, regarding Bfpage not replying in the WP:ANI threads... While there was little time for Bfpage to reply in that first one, there was plenty of time for Bfpage to reply in the second one. Bfpage did not comment until after being blocked by Kevin Gorman. And it was very soon after being blocked by Kevin Gorman. In both WP:ANI cases, I feel that Bfpage simply withdrew from the matter, hoping that it would cool down and quickly go away. I often don't know what to think of Bfpage (for example, as mentioned by others, I don't see where Bfpage has ever acknowledged wrongdoing regarding the barnstar matter), and I would rather not have to interact with this editor or discuss anything concerning this editor. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC) One more thing: And as for User talk:Bfpage/guidelines, Bfpage proposed similarly before. And as we can see from that, Bfpage did not get to three months as pledged. Flyer22 (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC) I struck through part of my comment above because I see that Bfpage acknowledged wrongdoing in this section. We clearly do not interpret the second WP:ANI case the same way. I am certain that Bfpage watches some of the articles that I edit, including the Sexual intercourse article, since Bfpage took an interest in editing those articles. Considering that I re-edit those articles, how could Bfpage be unaware of me editing them? Do I think that Bfpage forgot all of the articles that I edit? No, I don't. I have a huge WP:Watchlist and I am still able to see who edits what article, though I may occasionally miss something. Simply put, I will never fully agree with Bfpage on these matters. Anyone thinking or indicating that I am being paranoid, as Bfpage has done, should think again. I have several years of experience dealing with all types of Wikipedia editors, including those who try to interact with me or up the chances of interacting with me when I don't want them to.

On a side note: Kevin Gorman cannot yet participate in this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• I am glad that Bfpage has agreed to stop the egging-on barnstarring/thanking behavior. I am concerned on the same issue that Flyer22 raises. Bfpage said very clearly that she intended to start following Flyer22 around (cannot provide a diff b/c she moved that discussion to a subpage and then had it deleted per User talk:Bfpage/Following me around) -- and then did so, going full-bore into articles I will characterize as being about gender-related disputes, or about reproductive health (call it "X"). It appears to me that prior to her encounter with Flyer22, Bfpage's editing included little to no activity on X. I don't know if Flyer22 would agree that this adequately describes the locus of disputed topics but there would be a much greater chance for peace in the project if Bfpage withdrew from X topics rather than focusing on interactions alone. Flyer22 how would you characterize X, and do you think this would be a more useful way to go? Jytdog (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think Bfpage was clear about tracking my edits. But Bfpage didn't truly acknowledge it as following me around. When Bfpage created User talk:Bfpage/Following me around, Bfpage says that it was a way to know which articles I edit and to avoid those articles so that we would not interact; as noted in the first WP:ANI discussion about Bfpage, I found that annoying as well. In "My other thoughts on this matter." piece above, I did note that Bfpage was not interested in the types of articles that I edit until the encounter with me. I think this partly concerned me and partly concerned Bfpage wanting to help improve the poor state of many of these articles. As noted at User talk:Jytdog/Archive 10#Advice on potential WP:Hounding behavior, that is what Bfpage essentially told me. It seems that our interaction inspired Bfpage. This is not the first time that an editor has gotten inspired by me in a way, whether it's because they like the work that I do, and/or want to edit alongside me, and/or think that they can do a better job at it than me. I welcome those who can help improve these topics, especially since I am generally lazy at improving them these days due to so much Wiki burnout, but only as long as they are not disruptive and do not try to antagonize me. In Bfpage's case, as we know, we just don't mesh well together. I understand that Wikipedia is a working environment, but there are some editors who are better off apart instead of together; I believe that's the case here. But I don't want to try and keep Bfpage from editing such topics; I just want it so that we usually don't need to interact. And, as noted, Bfpage and Kevin Gorman have attempted to come up with a solution for that. Flyer22 (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, you have been consistently looking for more of an Iban than topic ban. I hear you. Jytdog (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think that it may be helpful if editors concerned can present their views on any aspects of their own editing priorities that may raise contention relative to the other editors worldview. I think that it would be great if editors can contribute to the presentation of views that present positions and understandings. I also hope that both parties concerned can be open to amicable working relationships. We are an editing group and editors need to be able to openly work together. We need to be able to talk and work together on content issues and IBAN's between editors that work on similar contents blatantly do not work. Editors need to be able to interact directly and openly while we all endeavour to present clear and fair arguments and presentations of information. GregKaye 20:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Greg, maybe you should go into dispute resolution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Liz On what issue? An editor's editing of some categories has not been cited as raising any content dispute. Despite this the editor was been banned for six months. It all happened in the context of in a process in which other editors have been able to make various comments about the editor concerned and in which the editor has been denied the possibility of reply.

Jytdog how do you propose that an Iban can work between editors working on the same content? GregKaye 02:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I am concerned about a few things surrounding Bfpage's unblock agreement and its guidelines:
  • First, the unblock conditions clearly state Bfpage is to cease mentioning a couple of other editors in her user space: Flyer22 and Jytdog. Yet, when one looks at the guidelines talk page, she refers to them more than once.
  • Next, it was my understanding that Bfpage had already agreed to the terms of the unblock, yet she is now questioning the conditions and seemingly has issue with some of them. Why weren't these concerns brought up before she agreed and was subsequently unblocked?
  • Last: Based on the above, haven't the terms of the agreement already been violated? If nothing else, she was told to stop worrying about the other two editors, but I believe the comments she has made at the unblock guidelines talk page show quite the opposite is true. From my vantage point, it would seem some of the same behaviors still exist, indeed, they were never abandoned. At least, that's what I see. If anyone else has a different perspective, I'd be interested in reading it, because what I think I see happening is disturbing to me. Especially without the blocking/unblocking admin currently available to keep an eye on things. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi thanks for your thoughts on that and for looking out in Kevin's absence. It is pretty borderline in my view, especially in Kevin's absence. I struggle with the last comment not so much about who but what. As noted at User talk:Jytdog/Archive 10#Advice on potential WP:Hounding behavior she set out to start following Flyer22 around... but this is an admin matter. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Request

In regards to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#MOS:IDENTITY clarification, are there any neutral non involved admin who would be willing to preform the closure when it comes? I bring this up because I see it is a heated (personal for some) debate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Preferably someone who is not a sports fan, for reasons expressed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#To the closer: survey is statistically invalid. Skyerise (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Depending on how editors feel, we can include up to 3 admin closers if it is too much for one. I saw your post but don't think being a sports fan would matter if the person is uninvolved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh it matters insofar there is plenty of ridiculous logic being spewed around the discussion. I'm somewhat concerned some are trying to force editors to use specific pronouns on the talk page, and are threatening sanctions using a very unique interpretation of the discretionary sanctions. How would,one get a clarification on this? It's clearly an attempt to chill speech.69.143.188.200 (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Kangaroo court

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

---

This thread is largely presented in regard to potential practices in AN/I and right of reply

• To my mind ANI fits one of the central definition as presented at kangaroo court "a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice". The problem, as I see it, is exacerbated in Wikipedia in that there is, as I see it, a failure in the provision that such a court "often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides". A Wikipedia form of justice and punishment can be customarily dispensed without even a word being permitted from the plaintiff by way of, for instance, presenting mitigating evidence of extenuating circumstances.

• Please note in real world situations when a person is arrested that person may typically be presented with their rights as:

- You have the right to remain silent when questioned.

- Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law.

- You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.

- If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish.

In what seems to me to be extraordinarily contrary behaviour within Wikipedia, while real world situations give a right to silence, Wikipedia admins (even in cases where others have started speaking negatively about an editor) can unilaterally silence an editor from that discussion and while real world situations go to an extreme of providing representation for a person, Wikipedia can deny a person even the right to represent themselves.

Surely a right of reply can at least be something that Wikipedia can protect. Surely no one has the right to silence someone at just the point that they are being brought to trial. I a court a judge might include in the beginning of proceedings the question: "How do you plead?" In Wikipedia an admin may decide to, in my view, race ahead and place the person in effective house arrest.

A lot of this relates to the two reports as related to Bfpage the first of which lasted for 2 hours and 19 minutes prior to closure and the second of which Bfpage was not allowed to contribute because she had been blocked.

I great concern in these things relates to reconciliation and openness between editors. I also advocate that "Incidents" should be renamed to "Incident resolution".

I would also implore involved parties to consider the potential effects of various technical closures of threads with issues that may be raised by Closure (psychology) and the development of understandings in relation to the effects on people involved in various cases. This may potentially also have great relevance in cases in which Ibans are imposed. GregKaye 06:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

While you may raise some legitimate concerns here, I would point out that nothing on Wikipedia approximates to a court, tribunal, or similar legal or quasi-legal system of adjudication - and to make such analogies is both misleading and frankly grossly overblown. This is a website, owned by a not-for-profit foundation but in practice run almost entirely by volunteer contributors, with the sole purpose of providing an online encyclopaedia. It is not a court, kangaroo or otherwise. As with any website open to public editing, it proves necessary from time to time to restrict access to individuals who appear not to be contributing usefully. Given that nobody has any legal right to edit Wikipedia pages, the suggestion that withdrawing such a supposed right is some sort of 'legal injustice' is therefore a red herring, and has no real bearing on any proper discussion on how we deal with problematic editors - or with suggestions that individuals have been dealt with inappropriately. A sense of proportion seems necessary if we are to deal with actual problems in a rational and considered manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree entirely with AndyTheGrump. Well said. BMK (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

But ANI (and AN, for that matter) are noticeboards, not a judicial tribunal or assembly. In fact, in most cases, administrators don't even bring cases to ANI, they just impose a block, hopefully, with an edit notice that explains the cause of the block. At least when a complaint is brought to ANI, "the community" (that is, the random group of regulars who happen to read ANI that day) can weigh the arguments and offer their opinions. And while I don't think an editor should go through a case, especially at AE while they are blocked, it happens. And when it does, the editor posts comments on their talk page which are transferred to the case page.

It is a terrible mistake to compare doing administrative work on an internet website to the processes of law and order, I guess, in the United States (even though the internet is a global environment). It's more similar to being a moderator on a message board than being a lawyer presenting evidence against or for a client where a master's degree and a license is required to practice and entails legal and ethical obligations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Liz Re: "in most cases, administrators don't even bring cases to ANI, they just impose a block" and this is quite right. The thing that I recommend is that perhaps either the block can be placed after the discussion has come to an end or that remit can be given for the relevant parties in the discussion so that they retain a right to be respond to comments made in the discussion within which they are a major focus. GregKaye 15:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• As Andy says, there is no comparison. This is a private website owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. Enforceable rights are limited to: the right to fork, and the right to leave. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

...to fork, and to fork off, in fact...?! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy nor a quasi-judicial body. Giving WP:ANI-reported editors rights normally conferred by real-world courts of law just doesn't make sense in a open encyclopedia. Esquivalience ^t 15:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• The last thing blocking should be ever considered is house arrest. A more accurate description would be the ancient Greek form of ostracism. Blackmane (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course there is comparison. Editors are called to account for actions. Evidence is presented. A consensus is sought. A verdict is pronounced. In every other situation that I know of, the accused has a right of reply. I absolutely agree with AndyTheGrump that "As with any website open to public editing, it proves necessary from time to time to restrict access to individuals who appear not to be contributing usefully." This is in no way disputed. What I am saying here is, if accusations are being made against an editor and if comments are baing made about an editor, that the editor facing the accusations and who is being commented upon should have a right of reply in the place in which the accusations are being made and in the location where the comments are being placed. Clearly WP:ROPE may also apply in this situation as a lot may depend on what the accused and commented on party actually says. Blackmane's point about Ostracism is totally irrelevant at the point at which a discussion is taking place as to whether or not a form of ostracism should be imposed. Sure Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy but this does not mean that, while an editor is being accused or being commented on, that the editor can't have a right of reply. Sure ostracise/cast out editors when such action is called for - but, while it is being called for, give the accused the right of reply. Within a block, editors are typically restricted to edits on their talk pages and, in some cases, may have email privileges (which I think should actually be the first thing to go) taken away. The result is, if anything, more severe than house arrest. Within an imposition of house arrest the so arrested party may typically be able to make correspondence. Our penalties are, arguably, more severe. Obviously there will be situations in which such penalties will be required - but, within the decision making process as to whether to impose such a penalty, surely the accused may fairly be given a right to reply. There may regularly be more than one side of a story and I think that we should be open to what editors have to say. GregKaye 19:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"The result is, if anything, more severe than house arrest"? No it isn't. Not even remotely. If you want to be taken seriously, drop the ridiculous hyperbole... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump On what basis would you say that it is less severe? GregKaye 02:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

On the basis that I'm not a complete fucking imbecile... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump With respect I never said you were. In your knowledge of house arrest you will know that, in many cases, the person arrested may still be allowed to communicate relatively freely with other people with the only proviso that the persons captors may check content being sent or that there may be a limit to the number of people that the person can contact simultaneously. In the Wikipedia system a blocked editor is typically limited to the generation of pings. Clearly, in this situation, the pings will only work both if the Wikipedia system is running as it should and if the blocked editor knows to generate the completed ping and their own signature in the same edit. In effect, a blocked editor in Wikipedia is reduced to a parallel of an old fashioned and potentially faulty pager system as it might have been used in the real world. In all of this time an AN/I or other preceding may continue and yet the Wikipedia contributor facing the accusations is permitted to say nothing in his or her own defence. GregKaye 15:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Having been on Wikipedia editing for eleven years now, I can say that there have been some very unfortunate cases over the past decade where I've seen ANI being used as a weapon. Eight or nine years ago the problem was much worse and I recall in those days some editors were deliberately targeted with ANI used as a means to run them off this site. I think the poster of this thread makes some very good points but also this is the Internet and not the real world so any hope of a courtroom legal norm will not be achieved. In my early days I ran afoul of ANI a few times myself, but now that I'm older and wiser the best advice is to identify editors who are likely to use ANI as a means to attack others and just try to stay away from them. -OberRanks (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy could not be more correct. BTW WP:APPEAL, WP:UTRS and WP:SO are available to editors who have been blocked. MarnetteD|Talk 19:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD that's all great but why not also permit an accused/commented on editor to reply to accusations and comments when they are first made? Why not? GregKaye 02:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"The result is, if anything, more severe than house arrest", " Our penalties are, arguably, more severe", Wait, being blocked from a fucking website is more severe than house arrest. I'm pretty sure Daw Aung Sang Suu Kyi would beg to differ. The late Nelson Mandela would definitely beg to differ. Blackmane (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC).

Blackmane in other scenarios an accused person has a right to, at least, represent themselves and have a right of reply. This is something that is frequently lacking in our proceedings. GregKaye 13:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I like how you shift your goal posts. Your point is that being blocked is more severe than house arrest, it is not. Your follow up point is that our penalties are more severe, and no they are not. Being blocked in no way threatens your livelihood, your freedom or your life for that matter. As AndyTheGrump has said, drop the ridiculous hyperbole. You may have a point, somewhere, but it's lost in your manifestly absurd comparisons. Blackmane (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

This editor appears to fall into a class of editors who feel very strongly that Wikipedia is a deeply terrible place, and that they must spend considerable energy in venting. Do they do this because they really feel that with a little reform, Wikipedia can be great, so that their energy is well-spent, or are they just venting anger? Unlike some other truly terrible places, Wikipedia is optional, and has a mission, which is to build an encyclopedia collaboratively. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon What I feel very strongly is that, if other editors are discussing a fellow editor, the editor that is being spoken about should be able to respond. Please do not read into this more than is reality. My concern is for editors that may have things to say in their own defence or that may permit resolution with other editors in the "discussion". Robert, can I please ask you a question? If there was someone making comments about you or a group of people making comments about you, might it be possible that you might want to reply? Is there any possibility of that? (No I do not think, in any way that Wikipedia is a terrible place). GregKaye 16:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

If you feel that, argue the case directly, and stop making ludicrous comparisons to house arrest. Wikipedia is not a court of law, it has no ability to administer any legal process, to deprive anyone of their liberty, or to do anything other than (attempt to) prevent people posting on a particular website - something which nobody has any specific legal entitlement to do anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Andy, they are real world comparisons.

You do not see them as relevant. I do.

AN/I is a location within which decisions regarding editors rights of access are made and in which editor conduct is discussed. I do not tell you what you can and cannot say and have given my best justification for things that I have I believe fairly said here. Wikipedia is described as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." People get into the habit of editing and then, often without being given the chance to give their side of a story, they may be "ostracised" from the apparently all encompassing category of that may have previously been regarded to include anyone. Please do not now drag this thread into a mindless dispute over that last statement. The issues are simple: "right of reply" as well as a desire to keep as many editors connected as possible while facilitating hopefully positive (whenever possible) routes towards editor reconciliation. GregKaye 17:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The only rights anyone has as regard to Wikipedia are the right to fork, and the right to leave.Nobody has a right to edit Wikpedia. Anything else is a matter of what we choose to do when dealing with situations where it appears that people aren't contributing positively. Those are the only terms on which any discussions regarding appropriate procedure need to be based, regardless of how many mindless comparisons you make to legal process, and how many imaginary 'rights' you drag into this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I demand my legal right not to edit Wikipedia!!! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think ANI falls within the remits of the Geneva Conventions, seeing as it's not a criminal court. Even if it did, I don't see Roland Freisler or anyone of his ilk partaking here. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect reasoning from metaphor

It occurred to me, shortly after my comment about User:GregKaye, what his error is. He has made an understandable but completely incorrect extension by analogy. He thinks that a Wikipedia editor should have the same rights as a citizen does in a real political community that is a representative democracy. One does not, and that analogy is plausible but completely wrong. Wikipedia is not a political community, and it certainly is not a real political community (and virtual political communities may or may not provide the rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or by national bills of rights, which only apply to real life). Wikipedia is an electronic workplace. A paid or volunteer worker in any sort of workplace does not have the well-defined rights of a citizen of a political community. In particular, there is no guarantee of the right of reply, nor the unrestricted right of free speech, in a workplace. A paid or volunteer worker, in any workplace, who is disruptive may be fired without the right to full political due process. Courts in various countries have granted varying degrees of rights to due process with regard to termination of paid employment, because paid employment provides a conditional right to property. There is no guarantee of the right of due process when one is not at jeopardy of liberty or property. Wikipedia is an electronic workplace, not a community, and a disruptive volunteer employee can be fired (blocked or even banned). That is why it makes sense for the subject editor to have only limited procedural rights. Human rights in the United States apply to life, liberty, and property, and they are similar elsewhere. Any argument from analogy to provide full procedural rights for a political community fails for those reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

To summarize, ANI doesn't violate the standards of law and justice because the standards of law and justice, which guarantee human rights, do not apply. There is no human right to participate in an electronic community. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Which is what I said in my first post... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Whilst I concur with AndyTheGrump and Robert McClenon, anyone who loosely describes ANI as a Kangaroo Court is sadly often not far off the mark. Until the forum can be restored to its rightful owners and the peanut gallery, vengeance seekers, trolls, wannabe admins, and Anti-Admiship Brigade members and other univolved drive-bys can be persuaded to leave the place alone, I don't see much change on the horizon, and I therefore don't see much motivation for more admins to want to work there. Catch 22? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

While I have some sympathy with your comments, I would have to suggest that the suggestion that any particular subgroup within the Wikipedia community 'owns' ANI is questionable to say the least. Legally, the WMF owns it, and amongst the Wikipedia community, there are no 'rightful owners' - participation is voluntary, and I see no evidence that the community has ever handed over 'ownership' of it to anyone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The only error that I have now seen in the "house arrest" analogy is that a blocked Wikipedia editor is only restricted from interacting and being seen outside (in relation to their user page and talk page home environments). The blocked editor can still wander, look around and see the sights so, in this, the analogy does not fit. Otherwise the metaphor is perfectly reasoned. Its a metaphor. I am not trying to ascribe simile but, at most, made passing mention of a metaphor which other editors then latched onto. I was perfectly entitled to present the reasonable view presented as I did in my edit on 06:28, 5 June 2015. I said, "In Wikipedia an admin may decide to, in my view, race ahead and place the person in effective house arrest." I talked about about "my view", I talked about "effective house arrest". Clearly there is a difference between paid and voluntary establishments and, as I have had a very long history of volunteering, I think that I can comment on the ethos of these some of the organisations. If these organisations ever had a system of judgement in which all members were permitted to come together with otherwise open doors - which presented as a fair metaphor of effectively open doors of open access by editors to AN/I - then I cannot imagine any but most extreme situations in which an accused member would not also be able to come and present their side of a story. If a worker were to get canned in relation to a misdemeanour it is fairly certain that that people in the authoratitive structure of the firm would have face to face discussions with the person concerned prior to any finalisation of termination. Why? Because otherwise, as far as I know, they may break any number of employment laws.

Everything that I have said has been reasoned. Please can editors not resort to ridicule or to unsubstantiated attack / slurs such as being "a complete fucking imbecile". If you have a reasoned argument to make then please make it. Otherwise please keep your fucking mouth shut ("mouth" here being fairly used as a metaphor). GregKaye 05:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

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

NOTICE: Persondata has been deprecated and is subject to removal in the near future

As administrators, you are likely to receive questions about persondata in the next few days. Template:Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who entered accurate data into the persondata templates of Wikipedia biography subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs in order to preserve accurate data. Here are three examples of Wikidata for notable athletes: Ryan Lochte, Mary Wayte and Dara Torres. I'm not an expert, but I have received a crash course in Wikidata over the last three days, so if you have any practical questions about the persondata removal, transfer to Wikidata, etc., please ping me. I have found that User:Jared Preston is also a Wikidata administrator and has been a valuable resource for answering "how to" questions about Wikidata over the last several days. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't suppose a bot can be made to do this? bd2412 T 19:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

1.23 million articles. Wooooo.... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 24. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Good to know. In the meantime, can someone point me to a list of articles with information to be ported to Wikidata? Or should we just start going down the "what transcludes" list at Template:Persondata? bd2412 T 20:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"Impending mass deletion"...words you don't like to read. It would be comforting if this all appeared to be a well thought-out plan instead an announcement that there is an emergency need "to preserve accurate data". Why the rush? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Why is a template with that amount of usage being deleted at all without an accompanying plan to migrate the data? What is going on around here, have people taken leave of their ability to think things through to the end? Is there an equivalent of a temporary injunction to stop the deletion? BMK (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Well the shortest bios of living people will soon have a massive change then-currently the number 1,000th has 797 bytes Wikipedia:Database reports/Shortest biographies of living people-kind of a shame for this reason as only a year ago the number 1,000th has 711 bytes-in other words the articles keep on getting longer there, either way looks like a massive drop will happen! Wgolf (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

In case any of you missed it (as I did) here Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 122#RfC: Should Persondata template be deprecated and methodically removed from articles.3F is the RFC that has lead us to where we are now. MarnetteD|Talk 03:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, the "Rough Plan" which resulted from the RfC was that deletion of the template was not to take place until after all the data had been migrated, but some deprecation hard-liners are trying to force it to be done immediately, under the rubric "deprecated is deprecated". BMK (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I am having a very difficult time believing that this can reasonably be construed as 'delete good information collected over many years without saving it somewhere' That's just an absurd construction, and an absurd action. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Quickly browsing the link MarnetteD provided, I'm surprised at some of the names who opposed the deletion of the template. They include some tech-savvy names, the ones who know "deprecated" does not mean "has been killed with fire" but "still works, but not supported & any bug reports will be laughed at, so you are strongly encouraged to stop using it". Unless a reasonable time is given for this data review & migration, the result will be a very unpleasant mess & the people who have been beaten up over Visual Editor will find immense schadenfreude in. -- llywrch (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Old Policy - Can't Find It

Good morning everyone. I've been seeing a bit more lately that on AfD votes, page moves, and general votes for consensus a lot of time the nominator will state their nomination then vote right below it.

Delete this article. It is a bunch of crap -User X

*Support per nom. -User X

I remember many years ago seeing some policy that said people shouldn't be doing this as it is in a sense "voting for yourself". Does anyone know where it specifically says this? Point of order, I am not stating anything about a particular user who has done this, I just am curious where the policy is so I can link it on my user page. Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is a specific policy on the subject, but the key is avoiding confusion, per nom suggests the nominator is someone else, and its a second voice being added to the discussion, which is bad. Often people will say just leave it to the closer to notice, but its still frowned upon. Note though that Support as nom. -User X is much more common, is rarely objected to, and in some cases, such as unsigned RFC proposals, is necessary to make it clear who is even proposing something. Monty₈₄₅ 15:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Might you be looking for Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? It's not a policy per se but an essay that some users refer to in AfD discussions. Support per nom/user is used to state that someone shares the same view without having to restate it again, although some find it less convincing if the original opinion is not policy based. Fuebaey (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it would make a lot more sense to say Delete as nominator. It should be very clear to the closer. Chillum 17:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It was not a deletion discussion OberRanks was referring to, it a was move discussion, so "Support [move] as nom" would be the equivalent of "Delete as nom" in a deletion discussion. BMK (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@OberRanks: Please don't be disingenuous, this didn't just pop into your head randomly. Your inquiry comes immediately after a disagreement between us expressed on my talk page [22] and on two article talk pages. [23], [24] Your pretense that your question is not about "any particular user" is just that, a pretense. I expected more in the way of intellectual honesty from you, and I am honestly disappointed. BMK (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Uhhhh, yeah....I was curious where the policy was because yours was about the fifth case I've seen in the past few weeks where the nominator put a vote right below their nomination. But I wasn't "reporting" anyone to the ANI and didn't mention you or the votes you're conducting in anyway....you did that. Try WP:AGF a bit and have a great night. -OberRanks (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

So if someone "reminded" you of a policy you'd "forgotten", you're saying that you wouldn't have posted that on the talk page discussions, in another attempt to convince me to "merge back" my "Support as nom" vote back into the opening statement? Just so you know, I'm not in the market to buy the Brooklyn Bridge, either. (And, BTW, RMs have been known to be open for all sorts of reasons, so it's not a foregone conclusion that the nominator is in favor of the move.) BMK (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I keep a list of useful policy links here. If we ever locate one which spells out the format for voting/page move/afd pages, it would be a welcome addition. -OberRanks (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: Ronn Torossian company ban

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#Ban_on_Ronn_Torossian_to_be_extended_to_his_company.3F

This discussion seems to have been archived without any resolution. Was there a decision to impose a company ban or not? I would like to suggest that the consensus was to impose a company ban, but there was no consensus to include User:Judae1 in the ban, and there were editors who felt that he should explicitly exempted from such a ban.

Closure is needed because there is currently a discussion at WP:COIN regarding an editor who is apparently employed by Torossian. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly how would this work? How is it known who is working for his company? Which accounts? What if they don't go by their real names? What if an employee doesn't edit articles that have anything to do with the company, why should they be blocked on the assumption that they might? Its an unworkable proposition. Blocks and bans are meant to prevent disruption, they don't anticipate disruption when there is evidence of none nor are they imposed on editors who have not been shown to have committed misconduct. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I neither agree nor disagree with you. I just note that there was a discussion on this, a consensus developed, but the discussion was archived before a decision was reached. And, as I note, the decision is relevant to the discussion currently underway at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ronn_Torossian. If there is a company ban on employees of Torossian, it means that user Cada mori would be banned if there is a consensus that he is a paid writer working for Torossian. If there is no company ban, then some lesser sanction (or no sanction) might be appropriate. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Cynefin article

Could I ask for some admin oversight on Cynefin. I'm personally involved as the article concerns a model I created. The article was not created by me (for obvious reasons) and most of the work has been done by other editors. I've added references or made factual changes as needed. Recently changes were made by an SPA account (other that two changes to Cynefin his draft articles both elaborate his own organisation and model neither with third party references) took a single case for a software product and attempted to link it as criticism of Cynefin, an extension of a series of campaigns he is conducting in social media. I've done my best to play it by the book and summarised the issues here which seemed to deal with the matter. But now we have another inexperienced editor who has overruled by consensus on Welsh People joining in without engaging on the talk page commentary and making a deliberately derogatory change from scholar to salesman. Dave Snowden has also been subject to periodic attack by sock puppets so I am used the the perils of being an active editor on wikipedia who doesn't hide his identity. But I realise the dangers of being personally involved hence the request for some oversight. If anyone thinks my editors have breeched a line then please tell me. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

No, you've not violated anything (except the spelling rules for "breached" :-) in your actions. The statement "In 2014 doubts were raised regarding the solidity of the approach when the IRC" is definitely not supported by http://www.irc.nl (in other words, it's a hoax), and while the other source mentions you repeatedly, it never addresses the concept of "Cynefin". Either the stuff dependent on the second source is a hoax (i.e. the article never touches on the subject) or it requires original research; I can't tell, because I'm not familiar with the subject, but it doesn't particularly matter because both are prohibited. I've left warnings for the other two editors and protected it for 24 hours, lest another editor come along and attempt to restore the hoaxing. Please re-report if problems continue after protection expires. Nyttend (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate the intervention. Apologies for the spelling - mild dyslexia, if the spell checker does not pick it up neither do I! ----Snowded ^TALK 19:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

that article appears to be one big violation of WP:SELFCITE and most of it is WP:SYN - stringing together a bunch of PRIMARY sources to tell a story. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Importtext

The content of this page is incorrect and misleading. Import of pages has been enabled since 2009 and pages are frequently imported per Special:Log/import. This page was last updated only in 2008 by MBisanz. 103.6.159.179 (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I've never seen that page before. How did you find it? Nyttend (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't remember. Found it sometime ago. But I just checked the "What Links here" for that page and saw it's linked from User talk:Graham87/Import, where that user seems to be offering some explanation. Are you sure with the deletion? 103.6.159.179 (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "are you sure with the deletion?" Could you clarify? Perhaps you mean "are you sure you should have deleted it"; to that I say yes, I think it's better with the lesser warning than with the lesser and the greater warnings. Perhaps you're not familiar with MW pages (if you are, I apologise) — MediaWiki default pages, including MW:Importtext, are always here: we can't get rid of them without significantly modifying the core software. We can, however, modify them by creating a new page at the same title, and whatever's in the newly created page will always override the default page. It's possible to delete the newly created page, but when that happens, we don't lose everything: we just lose the modification. Does this answer your question? Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Concerning IP edits

Have seen this a few times.

• First IP adds vandalism [25]
• Second IP edits shortly after to clean up half the vandalism [26]

I am not sure if this is being done to hide the half that is remaining? It appears to protect it from User:Cluebot Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I've seen it too. I think the theory is that a casual glance will make it appear that the second edit cleared up the vandalism, so that the remaining vandalism will stick around until someone comes across it haphazardly. I've seen it work too. Sometimes I just make sure by going back to the pre-vandalism edit as the "Last Good Version" (LGV). BMK (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes BMK that is my feeling aswell. It is a little hard to AGF of the second IP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Named accounts do this too. Evlekis went through a phase of doing this with good hand / bad hand socks. bobrayner (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Temporary injunction regarding open Lightbreather arbitration case

The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Lightbreather arbitration case:

Lightbreather and Scalhotrod are placed under a temporary full interaction ban (sans the usual exceptions). They may comment on each other only on matters directly affecting this case and only on the relevant Workshop or Arbitration case talk pages. They may comment on allegations of off-wiki misconduct only by email and such emails must be directed only to the Arbitration Committee. This temporary restriction may be enforced by any clerk or administrator by means of immediate redaction of potentially problematic material and blocks of up to seventy-two hours. Appeals may be made only by the sanctioned user(s), are to be made to the Arbitration Committee only by email. This temporary restriction will expire when the case closes and supersedes any other provisions regarding permissibility of comments.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Temporary injunction regarding open Lightbreather arbitration case