User:Ned Scott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


While I try to keep up to date with discussions I'm in, it's very possible for me to miss something. For this reason or any other, feel free to send me an extra poke via e-mail or AIM, for anything, trivial or important (or to just say hi).
Help track images! User:Splarka/watchimages.js Cut and paste the script into Special:Mypage/monobook.js, and you'll get a link in the toolbox (on the side bar) that lets you add all images included in an article to your watchlist. Changes to the image description page, new uploaded versions, and deletions will be displayed on your watchlist.
Wikipedia
en This user is a native speaker of English.
AF This user can make high quality audio files.
{{t|c}} This user can use and program conditional templates.
Mixer-icon.jpg This user is an audio engineer.
WikiProjects
DIGI This user is a member of the Digimon work group.
Wikipe-tan head.png This user is a participant of WikiProject Anime and Manga.
Wikiproject:Television This user is a participant of WikiProject Television.
The WikiProject Council logo This editor participates in the WikiProject Council.
Miyajima-Torii-Modified.jpg This user is a participant in
WikiProject Japan.
Gamepad.svg This user is a member of
WikiProject Video games.
Stargate-color.png This user is a member of the
Stargate WikiProject.
Schwarzbeck UHALP 9108 A.jpg This user is a member of the B.E.a.T. Taskforce.
Definition of Free Cultural Works logo notext.svg This user is a member of WikiProject Free images.
List This user proudly participates in WikiProject Lists
Graduation hat.svg This user is a member of WikiProject Classroom coordination.
Technical
Power Mac G5.jpg This user edits/views Wikipedia with a Power Mac G5 (10.5), a MacBook Pro(10.6, W 7) and an iPod touch)

sfri This user contributes using Safari.
Mozilla Firefox logo 2013.svg This user contributes using Firefox.

I am User:Ned Scott on all Wikimedia Projects with the exception of wikinews:es:User:Ned Scott. I'm in my late-twenties and live in Arizona, USA. My main focus on Wikipedia is working on articles about entertainment and fiction (particularly anime and science fiction, which is probably not a big surprise), though I do enjoy working on much more than just those kinds of articles. Lately I've been more active in meta space than in article space, focusing on discussions and technical features such as templates. I'm also very interested in applying some of the methodology of Wikipedia to other wikis around the internet, which lead me to start up WikiProject Transwiki.

Unfortunately my personal time is being consumed by some other stuff lately, and I'm not nearly as active as I once was. Don't let that stop you from leaving me a message or asking for assistance if you feel I can be of some help! I will always be a Wikipedian, and look forward to always having at least some level of contribution to this great project. I also plan on getting more active again to at least finish a number of projects/ideas that I've either had or was involved in.

Useful links


List templates

Projects

Transwiki

  • User:Ned Scott/transwiki - A rough rough draft and collection of thoughts for guidelines and advice about transwiking articles.

External contact project

Lets you find users who have external contact info. For use with WP:CATSCAN

Discussion tracking

Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
Notice Fiction/entertainment guideline notices
More issues and discussions at the fiction notice board
Delsort
Delsort categories
RfC/General notice
XfDs
Other
Village pump sections
Policy
post | watch | search

To discuss existing and proposed policies

Technical
post | watch | search

To discuss technical issues. For wiki software bug reports use MediaZilla

Proposals (persistent)
post | watch | search

To discuss new proposals that are not policy related. See also: perennial proposals.

Assistance
post | watch | search

To post requests for assistance not covered by the Help desk or the Reference desk

Miscellaneous
post | watch | search

To post messages that do not fit into any other category


RfCs - Art, architecture, literature and media

Talk:Cyrano de Bergerac

I would like to propose a change to the title of this article and Cyrano de Bergerac (play). I believe that the most famous “Cyrano de Bergerac” is the play, not the writer, or, at least, that they are of equal fame. In either case, the writer is not more famous than the play.

Therefore:

  • Option 1: Move Cyrano de Bergerac to Cyrano de Bergerac (writer) and Cyrano de Bergerac (play) to Cyrano de Bergerac. (Support)
  • Option 2: Move Cyrano de Bergerac to Cyrano de Bergerac (writer) and leave Cyrano de Bergerac (play) as it is. (Neutral, may support as a compromise)
  • Option 3: Leave them both as they are. (Oppose)

Option 1

  1. Support - Not familiar with the author or play, but after a quick search engine test, I would concur that "the most famous “Cyrano de Bergerac” is the play". Thus, per WP:COMMONNAME, it would seem that dis-ambiguous Cyrano de Bergerac should point to the play, and not the author. NickCT (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)

there's plenty of queer couples in walking dead, should we classify as lgbt related? http://www.metroweekly.com/2014/08/the-walking-dead-will-introduce-gay-character/

172.56.7.18 (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Fire Emblem Fates

This RfC is relevant to the issue above, but it needs to be separate due to both its nature and the fact that the above conversation has become unproductive. There has been some contention over whether to include the category "LGBT-related video games". This is the first title in the Fire Emblem series to feature the option to foster a same-sex romance between your player character and a different character. These sources have a more detailed description of both the character options and the original interview with Nintendo that revealed this information. Regardless of any media controversy present due to interpretations of the relationship options via translations of Japanese version, two or more editors (see above) feel that due to the optional nature of the romances, the category should be removed. They seem to have yet to give satisfactory reasons related to relevance on the cite or Wikipedia policies for the category's removal. Please voice your Support or Opposition to its inclusion below, or have sensible Discussion about the issue. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films

How should classify the film Baahubali? This is both for the main table and for whether it should be included in any of the subtables.

Tamil and Telugu

  • Support both Tamil and Telugu as explained below. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:I'm Coming Out

Copyright rules of Wikipedia, like WP:NFCC, would be enforced to discourage using more than one image. Therefore, we must keep just one of three: the US vinyl sleeve, (turns out to be Belgian) two: French cover art, and German cover art. Which one? If neither, how about US side label? --George Ho (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Finally (CeCe Peniston song)

The song is sung by an American singer. We currently have the American cover artwork consisting of just a sunflower and the French cover artwork consisting of a female singer's face. Shall we keep both images or just one of them? If just one, either a sunflower (U.S.) or a headshot (French)? [EDIT: There is a 1992 UK edition, different from both of them. I'm not going to include it, but you decide.] Relisted. George Ho (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Sailor Moon

Due to the fact that many protagonists/antagonists of the franchise are LGBT, as well as many episodes dealing with LGBT issues, are the LGBT anime categories suitable for this article? Boaxy (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (software)

The essay Notability (software) is currently used in some discussions about the notability of articles. On the other hand, it's been five years since this essay was written and the suggestions may be behind the times. There do exist other guidelines on notability of similar topics (ex. WP:PRODUCT and WP:Notability (web)), thus the best path forward may be to keep this as an essay and avoid having specific rules for software notability. This RfC is to get more feedback on software notability, on whether or not the community feels a need for a formal guideline, and whether there are changes in consensus, etc. New comers to this topic may choose to take a look at this essay's talk page as well as the talk page of WP:Software notability for a feel of the general consensus in 2010. This is not a vote on promoting or rejecting this essay. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 09:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography

Does calling a killing "murder" on Wikipedia, in the body, infobox or categories, presume the suspect(s) in a resulting and ongoing/upcoming murder trial is/are "murderer(s)", contrary to the presumption of innocence bit of WP:BLPCRIME? 16:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Black Belt Patriotism

I am unsure as to whether this article's neutrality problem has been solved and am seeking consensus. Rubbish computer 13:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Demoscene

Proposed merge of Demoscene compo, Demoparty, and List of demoparties, after removal of unsourced material, to Demoscene. These have all be flagged for cleanup for years, and it's not happening, but one combined article might actually make it to B class or better. At very least, Demoscene compo and List of demoparties can merge, leaving two aticles, Demoscene and Demoparty. Demoparties are simply a subtopic of demoscene, and this article is not long enough (and after merge would still not be long enough) to require splitting per WP:SUMMARY. Even more so for compos; this isn't even really a proper subtopic, it's just mostly what demoparties are about. The list of demoparties is short. If kept as a list, its difficult-to-edit table format should be replaced with normal list format. It would actually be better to reuse the material in chronological order, combined with the existing history material, to form four normal-paragraph blocks of history content (1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s). By way of analogy, this is mess is much like having an article on Drum and bass music, and then content-forking like mad to have separate articles on Drum and bass dancing at clubs, Drum and bass clubs, and List of drum and bass clubs. Dancing, and clubbing, and dance clubs as entities are all sourceable parts of drum-and-bass electronic music sub-subculture, but it's unhelpful to micro-fork articles in this way. It leads to trivial cruft, and to unsourced, WP:COI/WP:POV/WP:OR-inflected edits, and to a fragmentary approach to coverage of the topic that makes it harder to understand for readers, and harder to maintain or improve for editors.

This proposal excludes demoscene-related articles that are on distinct topics, like software, specific notable demoparties as events, demogroups as art collectives, etc. These four particular articles are simply increasingly nit-pickily forked, lagely-unsourced stubs on the demoscene as an organized subcultural activity, which is essentially a single topic.

PS: I find it perturbing that, above, there are proposals to create things like List of Assembly demo and intro competition winners, when that can simply be an embedded list in Assembly (demoparty). This fork-everything-into-the-ground approach has to stop. But do note that proposal, and the entire thread up there (among others on these talk pages, along with the few sources), illustrate the that compos are part of the parties and are thus subtopics thereof; the compos at parties like Assembly are not distinct topical entities with their own names and histories. (By contrast, if I may make some further comparisons, the World Artistic Pool Championship, which is held under amid the VNEA International Pool Championships for shared venue convenience, is a separate event, including for WP purposes, being organized by unrelated organizations, rather like the common practice of having a bank branch inside a supermarket or a chain restaurant inside a huge retail store. Not true of compos at demoparties.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bella and the Bulldogs

Are the sources reliable enough and the controversy notable enough for a small section on the main page? All information has been provided under Controversy.FauXnetiX (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Debut

I have tried to get help in resolving what I see as a very embarrassing WP problem. When linking the word debut in an article about a first time performance or publication, one has arrived at this page without a short description of the common general meaning of a word [which] can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context (quoting our guideline again). Very surprising lack of information. Can anything be done to keep the current short description of the common general meaning of a word which keeps getting removed? I have now been warned for edit warring in trying to keep it and/or trying to get help to solve the problem in some way. I apologize to anyone who feels I've been disruptive. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:SEMA

There is a list of cars that debuted at SEMA by year. There is a debate as to whether this information is WP:IINFO. 217IP (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Empire State Building

A while back there was a lengthy discussion over the floor count of the Empire State Building. There seemed to be interesting debate from both sides. When the building was erected, a disembarkation floor was built to tether airships to the spire. This is now commonly known as the 103rd floor. As of July 2015, the floor count is officially listed on the Wikipedia page as 102 floors and there is a separate paragraph explaining what is above that. Leoesb1032 (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


RFCs - Wikipedia style, referencing, layout and WikiProjects

Talk:Rod Steiger

I am opening this request for comment about the lack of inclusion of an infobox. From my account of it, it appears that some of the editors on this article are against infoboxes entirely. I would like to hear some discussion from additional users on why an infobox should or shouldn't be included. Jcmcc (Talk) 21:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ragnvald Knaphövde

This discussion is important on principle to all Wikipedia users who add images. Perhaps it's been had before, but I can't find anything on it.

Friends and associates of mine and I since 2008 have contributed thousands of images to Commons, about half om them historical, and added many of them, and others, to hundrerds of articles on English, French, German, Spanish and Swedish Wikipedia. In order for us to continue to do so, and so as not to feel we need to remove many images like this, I need clarity:

1. An image by a known artist is inappropriate if its historic authenticity cannot be proven, even if it's explained in the caption that it is the artist's rendition of the subject.
or
2. An image by a known artist is appropriate even though its historic authenticity cannot be proven, as long the question of historic authenticity is clarified in the caption.

Please, which is it? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography

Does calling a killing "murder" on Wikipedia, in the body, infobox or categories, presume the suspect(s) in a resulting and ongoing/upcoming murder trial is/are "murderer(s)", contrary to the presumption of innocence bit of WP:BLPCRIME? 16:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Microsoft Surface

* This is sort of over two related issues; one is what the article for the original Microsoft Surface with Windows RT tablet should be called ( which should really be handed in a RM, though there was a no-consensus fairly recently -- and I don't think those that have been involved had changed opinions one way or the other so not sure anything other than no-consensus would happen in the immediate future. ) and the other is how to refer to it with in articles. Please see the previous albeit longly worded section for my opinions; which boil down to "Surface RT" for article name and just "Surface" where it is clear form context in prose and extra words as necessary where it is not. PaleAqua (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


RFCs - Wikipedia policies, guidelines and proposals

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books)

There are two versions of "Bibliographies" section: previous version and current version. If neither version is working, what is your proposal for the section? --George Ho (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Regulation Committee and alternatives to consensus

Examining the alternatives Wikipedia editors have to consensus, and exploring the possibility of creating a Regulation Committee to solve issues when the community fails to come to a proper consensus. 04:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists

The subsection § Common selection criteria appears to be a little ambiguous in intent. I don’t find it ambiguous myself—I read it as “these are what we usually end up doing”—but some editors have interpreted it rather differently, as “these are your only options.” So whichever way it’s meant to be, could we add a short explanation to that subsection, above the list? And is there any reason that list is presented #ordered rather than *unordered?

(Note: Some of this was briefly discussed earlier, but no resolution was reached.)

67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Redirect

Should users be permitted/encouraged to change links via redirects to piped links or direct links? A user in the Bypassing redirects thread argues that what-links-here is more useful when all or most links go directly to a page, and that if people routinely changed such links page moves would be less likely to create double-redirects which might be forgotten. Other users have argued that the display of "[Redirected from XXX]" is helpful to a reader who clicks on a link via a redirect, and is not available via a piped link, and that What-links-here actually gives better information by showing how pages have been linked. WP:NOTBROKEN currently advises not changing such links in fairly strong terms, specifically saying "While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, there is otherwise no good reason to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. Doing so is generally an unhelpful, time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace redirect with redirect". Should this be changed to permit or even encourage such changes in smoe or all cases, and if so, in which cases? The previous discussion was too small and too polarized to form a consensus. I now request comment from editors more generally on the matter. DES (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mat (Russian profanity)

How much "poetic freedom" do our policies give to wikipedians in their translation of poetry, song lyrics, highly idiomatic prose, etc., when there are no good references with the translation of the text in question? (For a seasoned wikipedian the second part of the question is redundant, but I want to cut off some trivial answers.) -M.Altenmann >t 04:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Corvette leaf spring

Based on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Performance Corvette articles, should Corvette leaf spring remain as an article, be merged or be deleted? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ragnvald Knaphövde

This discussion is important on principle to all Wikipedia users who add images. Perhaps it's been had before, but I can't find anything on it.

Friends and associates of mine and I since 2008 have contributed thousands of images to Commons, about half om them historical, and added many of them, and others, to hundrerds of articles on English, French, German, Spanish and Swedish Wikipedia. In order for us to continue to do so, and so as not to feel we need to remove many images like this, I need clarity:

1. An image by a known artist is inappropriate if its historic authenticity cannot be proven, even if it's explained in the caption that it is the artist's rendition of the subject.
or
2. An image by a known artist is appropriate even though its historic authenticity cannot be proven, as long the question of historic authenticity is clarified in the caption.

Please, which is it? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Sockpuppet

@Bbb23, Salvidrim!, Mike V, Ponyo, Reaper Eternal, and Callanecc: Do we have a consensus to restrict the usage of this template (and similar) only to admins and SPI Clerks? If we do have a consensus, we should edit the template documentation to explicitly say that the template should only be used by admins and clerks. This template is very often misused by users. Some users tag other users' pages with this just because they suspect them being sockpuppets, before any investigation is concluded. THe wording of the template does encourage them, I know ("An editor has expressed a concern"). But, it is a very bad way to express your concern. First of all, it is WP:UNCIVIL to alter other user's page with such a strong accusation without first discussing it at WP:SPI. And, second, even if the user is a sockpuppet, it is often not useful to tag him per WP:DENY. So, I think we should make a consensus and alter the documentation so to explicitly say that this template should only be used by admins and clerks, and to say it right at the top (currently, the documentation says that the tag is placed "usually by patrolling administrators at SPI" low in the body of the text). Vanjagenije (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Should the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) guideline be restored or remain the redirect it has been for most of the time since 30 October 2009? most recently restored version -- PBS (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Recent years

There are several major issues here that have been discussed at this talk page but do not appear to have been the recent subject of an RFC. Several editors above called for an RFC, and thus I pose the following questions to the community:
  1. Does the current guideline reflect a consensus such that it should be considered a guideline as opposed to an essay?
  2. Does the current guideline for births and deaths—requirement of a certain number of non-English Wikipedia references (possibly 10, based on talk page comments)—correctly implement a standard of notability that reflects broad community consensus?
  3. Does the current guideline for events correctly capture the types of events that should be included here and the types that should not? 19:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Harassment

Should Wikipedia have:
  1. No policy specifically addressing sexual harassment (Oppose)
  2. A sexual harassment policy or a part of the harassment policy focused on sexual harassment. (Support)
  3. A harassment policy that specifically mentions identity-based harassment (including, but not limited to, sex, gender, race, age, ability, etc.) Added by EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography

Does calling a killing "murder" on Wikipedia, in the body, infobox or categories, presume the suspect(s) in a resulting and ongoing/upcoming murder trial is/are "murderer(s)", contrary to the presumption of innocence bit of WP:BLPCRIME? 16:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

I propose the following changes to the first two sentences of the third paragraph of the BURDEN section of the policy. Removed material is struck through and colored red new or replacement material is underlined and colored green. Proposed changes:
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should must not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source[1]. Whether and how quickly this should happen material should be initially removed for not having a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article.

Notes

  1. ^ And the edit restoring the material must also contain the citation; restoring the material and later providing the citation is not allowed.

Note that there are actually three separate proposals here, each of which is independent of the other two:

1. The change from "should" to "must" in the first sentence.
2. The addition of the clarifying footnote at the end of the first sentence.
3. The clarification in the second sentence that it only applies to initial removals, not to restorations.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

There is an argument going on created by a user who believe that many planetary images are speculative and inappropriate for use on an encyclopedia. I do not want to argue with him so I'm seeking everyone's opinion and I want to do it in a democratic way. Do you want to keep or remove images like the one below (which are only a sample) from article pages and lists. Currently only selective pages are having the images striped and I belive either all the speculative images go or none. All the non speculative images can stay. The current definition of a speculative image from this persion as I understand it are "Images that contain unconfirmed details, patterns, or features of a planet or substellar object (Brown Dwarf)."

Sample of considered speculative (that needs to go if remove is chosen):

Kepler-69c- Super-Venus.jpg Kepler22b-artwork.jpg Gliese 667 Cc sunset.jpg

Sample of considered non Speculative (those that can stay if remove is chosen):

Exoplanet Comparison Kepler-186 f.png KIC 12557548.jpg

So what do you think should artists impressions go or not? Note the images are not a complete list there are more. Vote Keep to keep them or Remove to remove them. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Consensus

Some disputes when editing an article involve discussions as to whether material should be covered at all because after some discussion editors fail to agree as to whether it is relevant or notable. In these situations editors should attempt to classify the material as being in the following classes:-
  1. Essential content
  2. Non-essential but valuable
  3. Superfluous but verifiable and not harmful or POV
  4. Clearly unhelpful, irrelevant and distracting

Editors will disagree on the classification of material, but usually only by one level in the above scheme.

In the first instance editors should remove any material they consider class 3 & 4. But if that escalates into a dispute, then they should accept class 3 content, and trust the reader to determine its relevancy. Class 4 material always needs to go. But it is generally better to err on the side of leaving in some sub-optimal material than to remove useful content.

Note that this does not refer to the creation of new pages. Tuntable (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats

Since a similar proposal is running regarding administrators, I think now is a good time to solicit wider opinion on whether the following text should be added to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats document:
Bureaucrats are expected to exercise the duties granted by their role while remaining cognizant of relevant community standards concerning their tasks. In addition to the "Inactive bureaucrat accounts" requirements, if a bureaucrat does not participate in bureaucrat activity[1] for over five years, their bureaucrat permissions may be removed. The user must be notified on their talk page and by email one month before the removal, and again and a few days prior to the removal. If the user does not return to bureaucrat activity, another bureaucrat may request the removal of permissions at meta:Steward requests/Permissions. Permissions removed for not meeting bureaucrat activity requirements may be re-obtained through a new request for bureaucratship.
  1. ^ Bureaucrat activity is widely construed and includes acting or commenting as a bureaucrat at any venue including WP:BN/RFA/RFB/RFBAG/BRFA and responding to requests in their capacity as a global renamer or subscriber to the bureaucrats' mailing list or signalling that they remain actively engaged and available for bureacrat tasks.

xenotalk 21:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

I'd like to finally start an RfC that is a follow on from this Idea Lab discussion, regarding increasing the requirements for activity for a user to retain their administrator rights. In 2011 a discussion came to the conclusion that admins who had not performed any edits or admin actions over a period of one year should be desysopped. These editors can request their tools back without a new RfA during a period up to 3 years of inactivity, after which a fresh RfA is required. The current wording of WP:INACTIVITY states that "Admin accounts which have made no edits or administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped."

There has recently been concern regarding those administrators who make very few administrator actions per year - some editors feel that a higher level of activity is expected of administrators to ensure that they are up to date on Wikipedia policies and practices. Others are concerned about the lack of accountability of those administrators who only make one or two actions per year and are otherwise inactive. Another issue is the tracking of the number of administrators on Wikipedia; varying activity means that the number of admins does not accurately represent the number of admins actively carrying out administrative tasks.

Some statistics will be useful in addressing this issue, which I primarily got from this tool query (that link can take a minute or two to open/run, be patient!). There are, as of the time of this posting, 1347 users with administrator rights on the English Wikipedia. Of those, 918 (68%) have made at least one loggable admin action over the past year. 609 have made more than 10 admin actions, with the other 738 (55%) contributing a total of 1092 actions over the past year (about 0.1% of all 1,101,983 actions). Put another way, out of interest, 45% of administrators carry out 99.9% of all administrator actions.

My proposal is this: Changing the text of WP:INACTIVITY from "Admin accounts which have made no edits or administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped." to "Admin accounts which have made no more than 10 administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped." Sam Walton (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


User sub-pages

Ned Scott Ned Scott/Editcounter Ned Scott/FICT
Ned Scott/FICT/Aug07 Ned Scott/FICT/Dec07 Ned Scott/FICT/Feb08
Ned Scott/FICT/July07 Ned Scott/FICT/June08 Ned Scott/FICT/March08
Ned Scott/FICT/Nov07 Ned Scott/Infobox Digimon character
Ned Scott/Navbox/core Ned Scott/Template:Track list
Ned Scott/Template:Wpp1 Ned Scott/User categories
Ned Scott/Wikipedians who use StatusBot Ned Scott/arbcom
Ned Scott/header
Ned Scott/monobook.css Ned Scott/monobook.js Ned Scott/recent update
Ned Scott/sandbox Ned Scott/sandbox2 Ned Scott/sandbox3
Ned Scott/sandbox4 Ned Scott/sandbox5 Ned Scott/sandbox6
Ned Scott/sandbox7 Ned Scott/sandbox8 Ned Scott/subpage
Ned Scott/transwiki Ned Scott/unicode Ned Scott/watchlists
Ned Scott/watchlists/all Ned Scott/watchlists/arbcom Ned Scott/watchlists/fiction guidelines

User talk sub-pages

Ned Scott Ned Scott/Archive 13 Ned Scott/Archive 14
Ned Scott/Archive 15 Ned Scott/Archive 16 Ned Scott/Archive 17
Ned Scott/Archive 18 Ned Scott/Archive 19 Ned Scott/Infobox Digimon character
Ned Scott/archive
Ned Scott/archive1 Ned Scott/archive10
Ned Scott/archive11 Ned Scott/archive12 Ned Scott/archive2
Ned Scott/archive3 Ned Scott/archive4 Ned Scott/archive5
Ned Scott/archive6 Ned Scott/archive7 Ned Scott/archive8
Ned Scott/archive9 Ned Scott/archive current Ned Scott/sandbox
Ned Scott/sandbox/IncidentArchive405 Ned Scott/sandbox/IncidentArchive406