Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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.
If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}}

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 seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 366 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Shortcuts

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.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

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 is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need 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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 29 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_WP:RECALL_a_policy?

(Initiated 18 days ago on 28 October 2024) Discussion has slowed for the last week. I think the consensus is pretty clear, but I'm involved. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 98 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 58 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 48 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 39 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 38 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:David Lammy#RfC: First sentence

(Initiated 32 days ago on 15 October 2024) Discussion has died down. The last vote was on 4 November. Khiikiat (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence#RfC on causes in the summary field

(Initiated 31 days ago on 16 October 2024) Legobot has just removed the RFC template and there's no new comments since November 7. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 13 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	19	19
TfD	0	5	5
MfD	2	6	8
FfD	1	1	2
RfD	6	42	48
AfD	0	0	0

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 304 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... may take a crack at this close, if no one objects. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 16 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --Jayron 32 01:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --Jayron 32 19:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 . Ϣere SpielChequers 05:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree, I do definitely get what you're saying overall. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear, thanks!Jeppiz (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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). Ϣere SpielChequers 08:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Ϣere SpielChequers 06:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - Like this? - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - @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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Autopatrolled rights for paid editors

What should we do if we find that disclosed paid editors have autopatrolled rights? I've already removed them from User:BiH and User:Worthywords per recent COIN threads as it was obvious they shouldn't have the rights, but I couldn't find any relevant guidelines other than to report to ANI. I'm asking because User:BeenAroundAWhile (who discloses that they are currently being paid for a different article here) created Fletchers Solicitors which has been deleted as drafts of another paid editor (see 1, 2, 3 and an SPI). Personally, I'd like all paid articles to be reviewed at AFC and the right is potentially very valuable to paid editors to avoid NPP. Is there already a consensus on what should be done in cases like this? SmartSE (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with any consensus. In my opinion, if an editor is still creating articles that pass quality standards, there is no reason to remove it based on a COI/Paid decleration. If the article is one they are conflicted on, but it still meets the standard of quality expected from an autopatrolled editor, New Page Patrol isn't going to catch the sort of subtle COI issues that we worry about. If the article would get fixed by NPP, the issue isn't that they have the COI, its that they aren't producing articles of acceptable quality. But then I do have a much more Laissez-faire attude with regard to good quality COI/Paid editors than many people. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:SmartSE for notifying me of this discussion. I agree with User:Monty845. Some other editor was kind enough many years ago to make me an autopatroller — I don't know why because I didn't ask for it — it simply makes it easier for me to check over problematic articles, so I think I should simply keep on keeping on. As for "What should we do if we find that disclosed paid editors have autopatrolled rights?" well, I think nothing. I am not sure what the point of the question is except to make life difficult for a particular class of editor. Raising this question certainly is not going to improve the encyclopedia. Anyway, the proper place for this discussion, I think, is at Wikipedia_talk:Autopatrolled. Yours in Wikidom, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a discussion worth having; having a check over an article written by a paid editor doesn't sound unreasonable. That said, I think I agree with Monty, if an editor is creating articles bad enough to need the kind of check that NPP carries out, the editor shouldn't have autopatrolled regardless of COI. Sam Walton (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't they have autopatrolled rights if they are complying with policies and writing quality articles? GregJackP Boomer! 21:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's the issue- they were making good articles, then they started being paid for articles, and the article quality declined. They should never have autopatrolled rights, as getting articles by paid editors checked can only be a good thing. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Joseph2302, but I am greatly offended, since I am the one being discussed here. My article quality has not declined, and I defy you to point out where it has declined. In fact, I have refused contracts where I would have been paid to lower Wikipedia's standards. I am being paid by people who agree with me that WP standards should be maintained. If not, I don't accept their contracts. But having looked up just what this WP:Autopatrol thing is all about, I certainly don't need it, and I agree that any article written on contract should be vetted by the community, but that stricture should be spelled out at the relevant page, and not here. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I think I am being singled out for attack, and I am not about to stand for that, because I have BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BeenAroundAWhile: My sincerest apologies, the complaints about article quality were 100% not directed at you. They were about Worthywords and BiH, per some discussions at WP:COIN- in my opinion, they have been sacrificing article quality in order to get money. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion all COI-borne article creations should be done through AFC. All of them, without exception. I don't care if the oldest and most productive account in Wikipedia is involved - if they have a COI then someone else should give the article the green light. This is already encoded in WP:COI, although unfortunately that's a guideline and not a policy. And it applies to all editors, regardless of the quantity or quality of their contributions. In this particular case I make no distinction between someone with 10,000 edits and someone with 10. All new articles should go through AFC, all non-trivial edits should be done per WP:EDITREQ, period. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with this, the more scrutiny that the community gives to paid articles the better. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dodn't believe we currently have a policy on this particular issue, nor do we need one. Case-by-case basis should on admin discretion, or by case-by-case consensus should there be a discussion of an individual case should be able to handle it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I agree. In general, paid editors should not have the autopatrolled right. All articles created by declared paid editors should be subject to the most rigourous possible examination at all times. BMK (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that paid editors should not have the autopatrolled right. They are subject to special disclosure requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use, and creating articles violates the "bright line rule" that Jimbo has invoked frequently. Removal of autopatrolled rights is a minor step when viewed against that backdrop. Coretheapple (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's suggestion of a bright line rule is about paid advocates. Few people people (perhaps only you) are really gunning to prevent librarians and professors from editing. WilyD 14:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That stuff about "professors and librarians and widows and orphans and Nobel Prize winners" being paid to edit is one of the hoariest loads of bullshit the pro-paid-editing crowd put up to excuse the paid editing mills. But just to clarify, yes, I am talking about paid advocates. God forbid we should prevent other paid editors from doing their good work. Coretheapple (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, every time the discussion comes up, a few editors are backing saying librarians and math professors should be banned. This isn't your first dance, if you mean paid advocates why do you insist on not saying paid advocates, but something else you know means something else? WilyD 09:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we used to have disclosed paid editors who are administrators. I do not think this is an issue at all. If the editor is clearly familiar with the policies, they should be autopatrolled. If they are not familiar with the policies, they should not be autopatrolled regardless of whether they ever received anything for their edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given what RfA is at this time, I don't believe any disclosed paid editor could becomes an admin today. Undisclosed paid editors could, but if their status as paid editors came out afterwards, I feel certain it would be brought to ArbCom. The feeling about paid editors has, I think, turned arounded in a way many old-times don't seem to recognize. We are no longer a strugging upstart trying to make our way on the Internet, we are (at least for the moment) the premiere first choice for information online. That means our reputation for NPOV is more important than ever, that we will attract more and more paid editors -- some of whom are totally uninterested in being neutral, and it's more important than ever that their contributions be vetted all along the way. A paid editor being auto-patrolled removes one iniital layer of vetting, making it more likely for NPOV articles to slip by.

I like the idea of paid articles being required to pass through AfC, but that would require that AfC examiners be of a generally higher level than they are now. Perhaps we need a specific AfC for paid editors, something modeled on GA or FA procedures but with emphasis on NPOV, balance, notability and reliable non-biased sourcing. Subsequent exposure of the writer's paid status should then result in mandatory AfD for that editor' articles.

The problem of paid editing is not a small one, and it cannot be fluffed off with "well, it's worked OK up until now," because it hasn't worked OK, it's just been hidden by non-disclosure by paid editors. We need a clear-cut well-defined procedure that enables Wiki-knowledgeable editors to create NPOV articles for which they are paid, but nevertheless keeps them under the watchful eye of the community. Blowing the whole thing off as insignificant sure as heck isn't the answer. BMK (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, currently there is no policy that gives explicit guidance one way or the other. And we aren't in th eight place to do anything about that. An RFC or WP:VP/P would be more appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, just floating ideas. BMK (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On topic: According to WP:Autopatrolled"

It means that the user can be trusted not to submit inappropriate material, deliberately or otherwise, and that the user submits new material often enough that it is more efficient to mark it all as approved preemptively.

I believe that basic contention is that once an editor is paid for their efforts, they now serve two masters, Wikipedia and its policies, and whoever is forking over the cash. Under these new conditions, it can no longer be assumed that whatever their knowledge is of Wikipedia policies and guideliness, that they will follow them if they come into conflict with the needs of the people paying the bills. Therefore it seems quite logical to remove the autopatrolled right from any declared paid editor until they have shown they have earned it back. This requires no new policy and no debate. Any admin can remove the autopatrolled right from any editor at any time (actually, for cause, as they have to justify it in the discussion that will follow). Having become a paid editor should be sufficient cause, the change in status introducing conflicting allegiances. BMK (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a reasonable way forward. Hobit (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it a good policy. The only people who will be adversely affected in a way that might seem unfair is those paid editors who also edit in the field on interest as a volunteer. The only real purpose of autopatrolled is to decrease the number of clearly good article that need to be patrolled, and the number here isn't large enough to matter. Inconvenience to the editor is very minor--such articles will be quickly patrolled and accepted. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, except that as noted, being an admin (and perhaps, some of the fancier groups, like founder), means you couldn't take it away (though perhaps that means they're already trusted - certainly I would think so for founders). WilyD 09:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem with paid editors having Autopatrolled, if they meet the standards set out on WP:AUTOPATROLLED, which check that editors can be trusted to create articles in line with policy. I would strongly oppose any move to routinely remove autopatrolled from editors who meet the standard. bobrayner (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better control is needed all round, especially over what paid editors might or might not be doing. NPP has a huge backlog and one or two more articles to patroll won't hurt. NP Patrolling however requires no experience whatsoever and is therefore nowhere near done as thoroughly as it should be. It's nevertheless better than nothing. AfC is a mess and shoud be disbanded. The huge amount of constant discussion about what to do with individual submissions is a clear indication that even with the 500 edit/30 days qualification I introduced, the reviewers appear to be even less knowledgable than the NPPers. Add to that the COI artists who add themselves as AfC reviewers! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does someone have a better idea for what to replace AfC with? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does it need to be replaced? Wikipedia has a shortage of many things, but new stubs on low-notability topics (which need hard work from other editors) are certainly not in short supply. bobrayner (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with User:Beyond My Ken. An additional issue is we also have people on Elance trying to buy the accounts of Wikipedians. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed BeenAroundAWhile's auto patrolled right for reasons set out on their talk page. Nick-D (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep an eye on this user

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

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

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

A lovingly crafted advertisement. Once the PR crap is blasted out, it is a lot shorter but better for it. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement??? Did you even bother reading about Cogmed before removing 80% of article incl. the history of Cogmed and all supporting research??? Cogmed is the most reputable memory training program and it is used by millions of people around the world as an alternative to ADHD medication. Virtually every mental health professional in the US and Canada recognizes and supports Cogmed training. It is the only program supported and recognized by American Psychological Association (APA). There are over 45 independent peer-reviewed research studies from top universities and research centers supporting benefits of Cogmed training. So far there is only 3 negative studies for Cogmed, but these are dis-proportionally inflated in popular media - being an alternative to ADHD drugs, Cogmed is jeopardizing profits of Big Pharma... I have absolutely no association with Cogmed, but as a psychotherapist who treats ADHD patients, I am very upset with your actions. I urge you to revisit the article and reconsider your edits. There is no point with going into editing wars with admin but I suggest that other admins (especially ones with psychology background) look into this issue.Wiki-shield (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. And I have a decade of Wikipedia experience covering tens of thousands of edits on thousands of articles. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. An advertisement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And Wiki-shield apparently thinks the problem is a 'rogue admin' [8]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like it's pointless to argue with admins in Wikipedia... As a professional, I am deeply disturbed that non-professionals like you manipulate public opinion making edits without even investigating the subject. Yet, I don't want to waste my time here - with admins like you improving Wikipedia is an impossible task Wiki-shield (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are a number of paid COI editors who do excellent work and have no problem getting their work into the encyclopedia. All it takes is the courage to put Wikipedia first and to inform the client that following Wikipedia's rules is the only way to make changes that don't get reverted. There are plenty of corporate articles full of errors or unsourced claims by the corporations enemies. A good disclosed paid COI editor can turn those articles into neutral, well-sourced articles, which is usually money well spent. What they can't do is turn them into advertisements or PR fluff pieces. For that you have to find a website that accepts paid advertising. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I solidly agree with Guy Macon. See the history and talk page for our Tony Blinken article. Bgluckman, employed by a PR firm, did a wonderful job of improving the article while carefully following our COI standards: we started with a rather crummy page with a bunch of errors and content cited to sources that didn't support the content, and he helped us turn it into a far better article. If everyone with conflicts of interest worked like Bgluckman, the issue of paid editing wouldn't even be seen as a problem. Nyttend (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GuyMacon and @Nyttend, what are you talking about and how is it related to the topic?Wiki-shield (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-shield claimed that for paid COI editors like himself, "improving Wikipedia is an impossible task". Nyttend and I pointed out that others not only manage to do it, but to make a living at it, by actually improving Wikipedia instead of trying to misuse Wikipedia as a place to run ads without paying for them. What's the problem with saying that? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:CorporateM treads this fine line well, IMO. Wiki-shield not so much. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A clear case of Wikipedia:Forum shopping): user has already brought this up on ANI 2.0. Drmies (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think a topic ban is called for for wiki-shield. Not only is this an obvious red flag name, but wiki-shield is a WP:SPA whose sole purpose here is to make partisan edits to a walled garden of articles around the questionable practice of brain training. For example:

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict with Andy) Perhaps you should have dug even further. Your assertion is without merit. Taeyebaar has no power to delete articles; that editor is not an administrator, so cannot do so. At least in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LearningRx (2nd nomination), a formal process involving a number of different editors, that editor's assertion was to keep, not delete the page. BusterD (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that user seems to be the creator of the modern version of the Cogmed page. BusterD (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like an edit war happened between Wiki-shield and Taeyebaar for the Cogmed page, which got dropped Original Cogmed Article Revisions. Doesn't appear like neutral editing.68.232.66.174 (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of 'exclusive' editing histories, Beardocratic, is this account your first one (with an edit history consisting as it does of nothing but posts to this thread), or have you previously contributed under another name? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks everyone who replied to my message above: I received 17 emails with examples of abuse and proposals to collaborate in less then 2 hours! Looks like there are still quite a few honest admins/editors here who want to make Wikipedia a better place. Wiki-shield (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that's supposed to help your case? Guy (Help!) 15:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will certainly help, Mr. Chapman. I just learned from my friend's assistant that you managed to insert 791 links to your personal site from different WP pages using your profile signature and then changed the profile - nice job! :) BTW, both sites that you claim to help with are also linked from WP pages - somehow I'm not surprised here... Wiki-shield (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP poster above also looks very suspicious--Taeyebaar (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to dredge up the Ecopave spammer's nonsensical claims of affiliate marketing while you're at it. That's always good for a laugh. There are actually 792 links to my website on Wikipedia, quite a few of which were not added by me at all. I did indeed link my website in my sig for a short while in 2005, but stopped as soon as someone pointed out this was frowned upon. It would pain me not a bit if they were all removed.

What you're doing, you see, is exactly what you've been doing all along: deciding you're right, that everybody who disagrees with you is evil and corrupt, and then looking for data to support your preconceived conclusions. That's a great way to be wrong, to keep on being wrong, and to get more and more wrong over time. I do not give a toss about Cogmed. I do not give a toss about Luminosity either. I have to look the names up by scrolling up thread because they are not even significant enough to me to be able to reliably remember the names. Just because you are here solely to wage war over this, don't assume that anybody else is. Wikipedia, as a body corporate, has no dog in this fight at all. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This can't be good... Zhanzhao (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

That's another good one... I just learned from another editor (sorry, I am new to WP) how you linked my account and account of my business partner John. Did any of you wise guys considered that more than one person in the office (or even household) can contribute to Wkipedia? As for your "do not give a toss about XXX" statements above, probably you shouldn't edit articles where you have no interest nor knowledge... Wiki-shield (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BROTHER. We have been round this loop many times with many different people. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But do be on the lookout for that hard-hitting NYT editorial exposing the grungy back-room dealings of Wikipedia! I know that the Times is always looking for a {hummm-ha-um, oh, excuse me, just bored myself there) breaking story like that to latch on to. We should be seeing it right after they expose (for the 300th time) just what goes into hot dogs. (Incidentally, threatening to go to the press is yet another one of the "chilling effect" threats which should be met with an indef threat.) BMK (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly doesn't do much for an editor's chances of getting what he wants (unless what he wants is a ban). Guy (Help!) 16:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

ANI thread with no opposition archived with no close

Hey, what happens when an ANI proposal receives unanimous agreement but gets archived before iy could be closed? The proposal requires a change to an EDR involving me so it would definitely be a no-no for me to implement the proposal myself, and probably also for the others who !voted their support. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the archive bot is a bit trigger-happy these days, it archives anything that has no new additions for a rather short time. Please request closure at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure in the XfD section. Kraxler (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've increased the time for archiving from 60 hours to 72 hours (3 days). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing talkpage comments.

User:Bosstopher alerted User:Bbb23 of discretionary sanctions. User:FreeRangeFrog has disregarded WP:TPO guidelines. per WP:BLANKING a user is allowed to blank the warnings and it is still considered that it is read, it also further states that if another objects to the removal or editing another individuals comments to stop. I am objecting, my contention is that Bosstopher being a long term contribute is not doing it in bad faith and Bbb23 is sufficiently experienced to manage their own talkpage. I have attempted to explain that I object to this twice [9] and [10] inappropriate removal and the response was that I can not revert the inappropriate action [11]. I made one reversion prior to this but being an admin does not give you special nanny privileges, FreeRangeFrog needs to play by the same rules as all the little people. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to enlighten us as to how any of this has anything to do with creating and maintaining an online encyclopaedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HiAB is becoming a net detriment to the project, and (a) restoring a pointy and misguided notification, then (b) going to ANI suggests that some kind of break from Wikipedia would be beneficial for the community. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Posting the notice is just being diligent, but going this far to ensure that it stays on the page seems to be a bit much. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but is there a history with User:Bosstopher I'm not familiar with? I see an editor here for at least 4 years, I assume he has a good reason to leave a template. I see what appears to be over zealous protection of another admin. I bring the relevant attention to the admin I revert once. I discuss more and with no further reverts I asked for a review here. I'm not asking for punitive action, I just think that a user that has been here that long knows what they are doing and it's not my business or anybodies but Bbb23's to respond. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HIAB, it should've been left up to Bbb23 to decide if they actually want the content there or not. Bosstopher's warning was perhaps misguided, maybe it wasn't; one could say the same about FreeRangeFrog's removal (which would probably have been a lot better had they not accidentally hit enter whilst writing out the edit summary). HiAB, trout yourself for wasting your own time with the reversion, and for wasting everyone's time with this fairly frivolous ANI thread. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a non issue I apologize but I really despise removing comments that are legitimate. This seemed like a very reasonable response [[12]]. So with all this mandatoriness and all of notifications for DS or TPO, who is exempt? What level of editors can give those notices and who are suitable to receive those? I'm sorry I'm just the type of person I like explicit guidelines that we can all follow. Maybe that just isn't the case. I've explained my position if it's the communities decision that FRF actions were above board I can hardly complain as we all live by consensus. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From my POV this seems like a done and dusted event. I certainly didn't mean to be threatening or POINTy, at least I dont think I was making a disruptive point, I just didn't want the other alerted editor to feel like they were being unfairly targeted. I (and quite a few other editors who watch the page) tend to give sanctions alerts to everyone who comments on the Talk:Gamergate controversy page, but it seems like alerts are approached differently in most other topic areas. It definitely was not meant as a warning, as if you look at the talk page history Bbb23 and me have mostly been in agreement on the topic. Bosstopher (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other user has been editing for a month and has a total of 16 edits, all regarding a single purpose. There is no need to issue sanction notifications to experienced editors in a case like that, particularly given that one of your edits (diff) pointed out "You can't call a BLP racist in wikipedia's voice" (that is, at least some of the new user's text was blatantly inappropriate). For the record, the old text (before the new user arrived) looks more DUE to me, and the recent activity seems to be the usual whipping-up of indignation about a recent and very minor "controversy". Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bosstopher: It was never my intention to cast aspersions at you or your experience, etc. If I came across as such then I apologize. My only point was that the warning was unnecessary. That might be a point of disagreement and a topic of wider discussion of course (does a CU really need a DS warning or is that just taking the bureaucracy a bit too far?) , but unfortunately it just generated more dramaz. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeRangeFrog: It's fine I don't feel slighted or insulted in the slightest, and it didnt come across like that. Was just trying to explain the point of view from which I was approaching this. Tbh this seems like a done and settled issue to me. Bbb23 has read the alert, the other editor has been permabanned (which is a slight pity because they seemed to be slowly learning proper editing style), and I've had the odd pleasure of having the number 4 appear in my red notification box for the first time. I'd be fine with this being closed, as long as User:Hell in a Bucket doesn't have any issues he thinks still need to be discussed.Bosstopher (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BAsically Bbb23 solved it for us and I appreciate the comment by FRF but it's obvious it's an issue the community doesn't really care about so close away. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal/Modification of restrictions on editing on Talk:Gamergate controversy

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

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

Our policies are not a suicide pact and we place high value on not becoming a harbor for character assassination against living people. The ongoing coordinated disruption efforts by a troll harassment group merit unusual protections to ensure our ability to improve the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)This page-level sanction an interesting experiment that Zad68 is attempting. I'm not sure how effective it will be but I'm curious to see how it will turn out. At Wikipedia we are committed to open access and assuming good faith, but that commitment, as the saying goes, need not be a suicide pact. For nearly a year, parties have openly colluded offsite to attempt to manipulate the Wikipedia articles regarding this subject. They have harassed and doxxed editors off-site, not to mention the low-level harassment of constant drive-by attacks on the talk page. This seems a reasonable restriction given the specific circumstances of this page, and one we can revisit when it has been in place long enough that we can judge its effectiveness. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but it has been a long time since it has been the encyclopedia where anyone can edit any page at any time for any reason, otherwise we should just unprotect the main page now. Gamaliel (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned everywhere, this restriction is to my detriment as I am a bit of a slow editor. That being said, I am fully in favor of it as likely to produce a better article. I am, however, hopeful about the elegance of Zad68's (and now Gamaliel's) solution of subpages. Perhaps an unrestricted subpage could be created? I am not sure if the signal to noise ratio would be worth it, and I am mindful that it's veering close to WP:FORUM territory. Also, of course, there are WP:BLP concerns. But maybe it would be a way to stop (or at least slow) the meta-page discussions? Just a thought. Feel free to tell me how wrong I am! Dumuzid (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also interested in seeing how this works out as we do need to be prudent in protecting the encyclopedia despite my concerns. However, using IAR/extenuating circumstances to justify extraordinary action on what is supposed to be a discussion page and not an article is a slippery slope as it risks undermining our core principles of discussing changes and generating consensus for a short term gain. The largest red flag I see with the current system stems from removal of otherwise legitimate comments that further stimulate and contribute to discussion (1 2 and other removals in the history) simply because of a user not meeting an arbitrary threshold. I would like to see some way to allow useful comments/discussion without the blanket removing/rejection of comments, my first thought was something like the Huggle Whitelist but I'm not sure it would be practical. I see the 500 edit/30 day requirement as causing too much collateral damage for a talk page that is supposed to allow open discussion and invite differing viewpoints in how to structure the article. Mifter (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"collateral damage"???? The theoretical "collateral damage" of a good faith account having to wait 20 more days to join a topic against the actual repeated damage of throwaway accounts spreading libel and aspersions against living people. The option supporting the betterment of the encyclopedia is quite clear. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mifter, I don't think it is possible to compare this article to other articles seen as "controversial". Take an hour and wander through the 38 archived talk pages and look over the circular debates, the questions that are asked over and over and over (X30), the drive-by name calling and insults that were commonplace on this talk page. And this is 38 pages over a period of TEN months. I don't think you can underestimate how divisive this talk page once was. At this point, the sources have been examined and reexamined in detail, and nothing revolutionary is going to happen. Gamergate was an event that is over and right now only exists on message boards. It's a matter of polishing up the article and protecting it from vandalism. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted this restriction was enacted in response to an arbitration enforcement thread [13] alleging battleground behavior by TheRedPenOfDoom. As best I can tell the closing administrator's motivation was to limit potentially triggering behavior, to the extent possible. 107.107.58.254 (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest respect, the core principle has already been undermined. The Encyclopedia Everyone Can Edit is here being transformed to the encyclopedia that any well-organized and well-funded PR organization can subvert. Gamergate tactics have involved recruiting an apparently endless stream of new, IP, and zombie accounts which appear in campaigns, organized offsite. Often, these campaigns reopen questions that had been settled before -- two week intervals have been very common -- under the pretext that the “new” editors could not have participated in them. The result has been well over a million words of Talk Page, literally dozens of BLP violations including persistent discussion of the sex lives of women in the software industry, dozens of bans and blocks, an ARBCOM case, an extraordinary amount of admin work, and newspaper coverage that has ranged from highly critical of Wikipedia to derisory. The suicide pact in this case contemplates the suicide of the project, nothing less. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like the worst possible system, except for all those others which have from time to time, been tried. Let it run for a while and see how it goes. While it might be tempting to make WP:AGF exceptions, that would, I am afraid, be much more likely to open the door to rampant gaming of the system, as has been seen consistently to date with this subject. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a former arb who worked on the nightmare that was the gamergate arbitration case, I agree with Guy. This is by no means an optimal situation, but we have an exceptionally problematic topic area here. Anyone who is both brand new to editing here and drawn like a moth to the flame to this topic at this late date is probably an extremist of one type or another. Is it possible this is preventing good-faaith newbies from particpating? Yes. And that's a shame, but exceptional circumstances call for exceptional solutions. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As one involved, I did agree that at the present the 500 edit/30 day limit is a reasonable step to prevent what has been a problem - people that have well-intended issues with the article but that do not have a good feel for how difficult is has been to write this topic within WP policies, while they aren't necessarily disruptive, they aren't helping too much at the time. It is also the case there is known organization of people off site to try to influence the WP article and even if that is well-meaning, that's not the way the encyclopedia is build. But at the same time, we do have problems with editors being overly defensive to a point of page ownership and battleground mentality about closing off any avenue of discussion that is not in line with keeping the page in their desired view, which is creating the hostility and the desire of new editors to come and ask about improvements. The 500/30 restriction should clearly stay or at lest until it has time to try out but this also has to be balanced against editors vigoriously trying to blacklist any discussion that they don't want to deal with, to maintain the openness of the process. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Where is the evidence for this alleged off-site organized "campaign" and "collusion" users keep speaking of? There seems to be no such campaign, and that this is a scare tactic and excuse to attack newer users who see the article is (obviously) grossly biased and inaccurate and comment on the discussion page. 50.255.103.205 (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@50.255.103.205: "Having an open mind doesn't mean you have to let your brains fall out." James Oberg (paraphrased) via Carl Sagan in The Demon-Haunted World (1995). BMK (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have, I assume, heard of reddit and 8chan? (I will not link to specific forums or boards.) Since October, both sites have had many discussion threads devoted to the editing of Gamergate-related Wikipedia articles including discussions about specific editors who they think are opposed or sympathetic to their position. It's not collusion in terms of an organized campaign but there is a lot of criticism, complaining and strategizing of ways to approach editing these articles. It might not be as prominent as it was 6 months ago but it still occurs. But I don't think this information is news to anyone who has spent some time editing this subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"discussions about specific editors / a lot of criticism, complaining and strategizing of ways to approach editing these articles" sounds a lot like ANI/article talk pages. If they're discussing ways to vandalize wikipedia or break the rules that's a different story and we should be prepared - could you copy and paste some quotes if you don't want to link them? 216.155.129.27 (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the evidence is, in part, all those IPs who manage to comment on everything related to this topic area. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mifter's approach is obviously good in general, but there are several extraordinary features of the gamergate issue that require unusual solutions. I have only occasionally glanced at what is going on yet have noticed a large number of new and reactivated accounts who repetitively repeat recently settled issues, and who will not be dissuaded from telling the world their version of gamergate. Almost all such activity is extremely civil, yet unproductive and exhausting for general editors with an interest in the encyclopedia. I have seen several accounts created as early as 2007 with under 500 edits, and which have been reactivated to engage at Talk:Gamergate controversy—AGF says their views should be individually considered with a week spent explaining the intricacies of WP:BLP and WP:RGW to each of them, but that is not possible in practice. Off-wiki campaigning (and WP:ARBGG) has trained activists in how to be civil in the hope of provoking sanctionable responses from editors who defend the articles. I tried a Google search so I could illustrate that without linking to anything too ugly, but got distracted by rationalwiki which has all that is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disturbing post on my talk page

Can an admin take a look at User talk:Happysailor#Comlife Investments- removal of the article and suggest a solution? It threw me a bit and wasn't sure what to do from here. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 16:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Very odd. I'm not an admin but this seems to relate to 'regulator warnings' apparently from the authorities in Cyprus and Hong Kong which has resulted in the page being vandalised and blanked. The editor who is requesting deletion on the basis of 'threats' wrote 'Some false links and defamatory notes have been left on this page, which are libelous in nature. Hence, requesting speedy deletion of the page'. Links don't appear false, though. AusLondonder (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a police matter, rather than anything anyone here can do. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious about this edit. Happysailor, could you explain your reasoning here? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems clear enough to me. A person who claims to be a prosecutor who is going after people in relation to this company obviously has a massive conflict of interest and should not be editing that article or anything even vaguely related to it or the ongoing case. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article was created in 2009 by the user claiming to be the 'prosecutor', User:JoannaG20. That revision, and all revisions until recently indicted the association of 'Joanna Gomulka' with the company. AusLondonder (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not saying I believe they are personally prosecuting anyone, but claiming to, along with the rest of their editing history, does strongly point to a serious COI. In any event, I have nominated this for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comlife Investments. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)JoannaG20 had been removing the regulator information as 'false links' and 'defamatory notes' and then nominated the article for speedy deletion as a result of their inability to maintain the non-existence of such information on the page. AusLondonder (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JoannaG20 certainly is not prosecuting the company, as they are the creator of the original, highly promotional article in 2009. AusLondonder (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Happysailor: Don't lose any sleep over it, the claims made to you sound like b.s. to me. BMK (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it seems the editor created the article as a promo job, then things have gone pear-shaped with financial regulators, has now tried to get article deleted using any story AusLondonder (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still, out of an abundance of caution, anything involving threats and/or prosecution (especially threats o physical harm) should be automatically forwarded to WMF, without a second thought given towards the plausability of it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I just wanted to share with Happysailor that they shouldn't put great stock in what JoannaG20 said. BMK (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, this whole megillah just points out why WP:NLT needs to be expanded to deal with any attempt to cause a chilling effect in editing. In most NLT cases, it's "Do what I say or I'll bring legal action against you", in this case it's "Do what I say or bad people will do bad things to me and you'll be sorry you didn't listen to me." The second is not a "legal threat" per se, but it most definitely is an attempt to influence editing for reasons that are entirely extrinsic to merit, factuality or policy. NLT wouldwell be to recast as "No Chilling Effect". BMK (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. I think she's connected the the company, and made the article as 'PR', however wasn't liking the way it was going (and that she didn't have 'ownership' of it) thus the blanking/speedy noms (thus the COI tag). Her last post just threw me for a loop there for a bit and wasn't sure where to go forward. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 17:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User Zoltanmd2 claiming to be multiple people

BLOCKED

Zoltanmd2 blocked by Huon. (non-admin closure) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I recently came across Zoltanmd2 (talk · contribs). In browsing the contribs, I was disturbed to find that this user has claimed to be several different real-world identities:

Kevin Cameron, guitarist of the band I Killed the Prom Queen: "I am K Cameron. I want that my wiki page should exist"
Hernan "Eddie" Hermida, singer of the band Suicide Silence: "I am H Hermida, and I manage this page"
The brother of Scott Underwood, former drummer of the band Train: "I am the brother of Scott Underwood, and the subject must be on wikipedia"
Sonny Wilson, a Dutch singer whose main claim to notability seems to be having performed on the song "Booyah": "You can't revert this page. I am Sonny Wilson. I want to have a wikipedia page."
The manager of the band Angels & Airwaves, who as far as I can tell are really Rick DeVoe and Chris Georggin of Rick DeVoe Management.
Ellington Lee Ratliff, drummer of the band R5: "You can't delete this page because I'm Ellington Lee Ratliff"

In each case, Zoltanmd2 has made these claims in an attempt to argue that a stand-alone article on each of these musicians should exist. Each time he has been challenged by other editors on the basis of notability, and for creating pages that are copyright violations (text copy-pasted over from some other website). It seems clear that Zoltanmd2 is repeatedly lying about his identity in a flimsy attempt to claim notability for subjects he thinks should have articles. I'm not sure where this falls under Wikipedia's conduct policies, so I'm posting it here under the general noticeboard, but I'm reasonably certain we don't tolerate hoaxing or fraud. What action should be taken in light of this behavior? --IllaZilla (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is an odd form of disruptive editing, but it is disruptive editing. There are competency issues in thinking that claiming to be the person will have any effect of keeping an article (since, if the claim were true, it would be conflict of interest). It doesn't fall within the policy on sockpuppetry, because it is sort of the reverse of sock-puppetry; in sock-puppetry, one person claims to be multiple editors, and here one editor claims to be multiple people. Not here to collaborate may also apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support an indef for reasons stated above. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it's true, shared use of an account is not permitted and is an automatic indef-block. I'm going to assume good faith here, ie assume the user isn't blatantly and repeatedly lying in order to gain a petty advantage, and correspondingly block the account. Huon (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AGF is well and good, but I think it's pretty obvious these are lies. The musicians the account has claimed to be have very little in common (not sharing the same label or management company, of varying genres, hailing from places as disparate as California, the Netherlands, and Australia), and it's highly unlikely they would all collude to write Wikipedia articles about themselves through a single role account. This quacks like a duck. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indef as disruptive - We have no need for this persom. BMK (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline against going into details on ways of being abusive

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

Are you looking for something like WP:BEANS? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, that seems to have the essence of it. I think it might have to be polished up a bit to be taken seriously. At the moment, it seems to be a gallery of unfortunate buttons plus a nursery story. Is this state of things something we're quite attached to? I was hoping there might be something more straightforward and polished like "WP:Avoid teaching disruptive behaviours". Samsara 01:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there were, it would probably be in the "See also" section there; since there isn't, I'd say we don't have one. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Security through obscurity is weak. Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't respect WP:BEANS but to try to elevate it to guideline status would be problematic. There are lots of reasons it may be useful to discuss potential methods of being abusive, and it would involve lots of complexity to try and thread a line between useful discussion aimed at protecting Wikipedia, and harmful discussion that unnecessarily discusses methods of abuse. (or information useful to those looking to be abusive) Given how well people tend to obey WP:BEANS already, I think the status-quo is fine, we are effectively not talking about them, without having to have a prohibition. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kerckhoffs's principle applies here. You cannot hide information like "what is the most effective way of disrupting Wikipedia?" -- it will simply be published at http://wikipediocracy.com/ if you try. Having the information hidden from those who fight vandalism yet easily discoverable by any vandal who knows how to use google is a bad thing, not a good thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are things we can't reasonably keep secret. And there are details that we need to mention publicly, partly necessary for reasonable transparency. However, anything that isn't simple to figure out, public knowledge, or necessary to inform the public of, we don't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody seems to always wrongly assume that this is an argument about obscurity as a binary property. It isn't. It's a question of entropy. If you widely disseminate an instruction, even to the marginally interested, you'll get more takers. Samsara 10:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily so. This is like the old fear that if you teach children sex education, they'll start having sex. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant Signpost piece. Samsara 11:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can you block my IP address please?

Go find somewhere else to play. —DoRD (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

And set it in the way that I can create account and edit while logged in? I just don't want anyone to put my IP address in page history. Thanks. 68.80.111.119 (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that if someone else gets assigned that IP they won't be able to edit. We only do short blocks on IPs and only to prevent current disruption. Chillum 15:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am the host, and I don't want others to edit using my IP without being logged in. If they want to edit, they can create an account and log in. 166.170.0.83 (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While you are welcome to put any sort of controls on your side of the IP it is Wikipedia's preference that IPs are allowed to edit. You have not really provided us much information about why the IP needs special consideration or why you are an authority for the IP. Chillum 16:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we won't be able to do that. If the IP address is dynamic or if you change service providers, the block will affect an unintended individual. If you are using a static IP, only those who access your internet service will edit through this IP address. If you are worried about others editing Wikipedia this can be better managed on your end by requiring a password to access the internet service, install a web filtering program that controls access to Wikipedia, or simply inform those who visit or reside in your household of your wishes. Mike V • Talk 16:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it is, in theory, possible for you to prove that you control an IP address (for example, I control 216.92.247.137 and can prove it), the very fact that I control 216.92.247.137 means that nobody else can edit Wikipedia from that IP address. In the case of 68.80.111.119. you do not control the IP address. It is a dynamic address controlled by Comcast cable,[14] and they can assign it to someone else and give you a new IP address anytime they feel like it. I doubt that the new user would appreciate being blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note the OP (presumably) posted from two different IPs:

JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Football transfer rumours/vandalism causing backlog at RPP. Any admin who's got some spare time?

Due to it being time for the football transfer rumours again, a lot of football-related articles are getting hit with a mixture of well-meant but problematic edits (changing clubs when nothing's been confirmed yet, etc.) and outright vandalism. As a result, about half the RPP-backlog currently exists of football-related articles. The current list of football articles—some of which were protected during the time of writing this post—at RPP is

but many, many more articles are also effected to some degree or another, just not reported to RPP (yet). Is there any admin with some time to keep a bit of an eye on RPP for similar such requests the upcoming few hours? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) The first is already protected. 2) The second is not eligible because the amount of activity today is not normally the level we protect things, and we don't usually pre-emptively protect articles 3) The third probably shouldn't be protected: a single editor caused the major disruption, and is already blocked. 4) The fourth has had only one edit today, and only few editors who reverted yesterday. Again, reverts are keeping up just fine, protection not needed. I've given up checking the rest. I understand we anticipate some increased activity, but we need to weigh that anticipation against a lot of good faith increases of activity among new editors, and not pre-emptively protect articles like this. We should invite new edits, and help them by improving good faith but badly formatted or referenced edits where we can. Protection should be used sparingly and as a last resort where normal levels of reverts become a nuisance, and we can't keep up. I am not seeing that here. --Jayron 32 20:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that they are not reported there by me. I just noticed the severe increase in such reports today alongside various articles dealing with these issues as I was vandalfighting with Huggle, and I figured that it'd be best to point out the increased number of reports and issues so that the backlog remains manageable. It's up to the admins whether the requests are accepted or denied, as always, but I figured it'd be useful for the admins to know there were a lot of such requests to accept/deny and that more are likely to come in the rest of the day or so, thus RPP being a bit more busy than usual thus it being helpful if admins keep a bit of an eye on it. (And yes, RPP shows up on the whole administrative backlog stuff, but since RPP is there practically half of the time or so in my experience, it's not too useful in this case) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards