2196:(Not sure how this never came to my attention) I can confirm that I'm still an admin and have no intentions of resigning. Haven't used my admin functions a whole lot in the last couple years, but that has nothing to do with any feelings of disillusionment with Knowledge; if you don't already know where I've been during that time, it should be fairly obvious. Nonetheless, it seems like there's more of a need than I realized for admins to take these issues on, and to the extent that I can I'm willing to throw myself back into the fray. I can't say that I've ever found it stressful to manage Knowledge disputes (the ACTRIAL mess aside, I'm still sore about that and probably will be for as long as I edit), and as an autistic with no intentions of getting involved with things like having a girlfriend or kids I have no problem creating time in my life to handle Knowledge issues. The goal of providing easily accessible and accurate information to everyone remains important to me, and if doing it means I have to take a more active administrative role I'm willing to do it. I find it helpful to remember that Knowledge exists in the world and, to quote
2395:. This cooled the heels of some of the worst offenders in that case and helped clarify that administrators/admins were going to get serious about sanctions for groups of editors creating cabals within WikiProjects that formulated their own idiosyncratic rules for any article which they deemed to be within the scope of their project and then tried to enforce them by fiat and canvassing through the wikiproject. And that ruling did cool the heels of some of those editors who were engaging in this kind of (clearly inappropriate) behaviour, but after two years the effect is starting to wear off. Go to to the talk page for the article of most any composer today and you'll find that the ownership attitudes are alive and well. Now they've morphed into a new attitude that articles can have "main editors" who have special privileges to determine the outcome of content disputes (!?), in blatant defiance of all policy and community consensus on such matters (and indeed the most basic principles of Knowledge ideology).
2163:
collaborated with, and can't see the disruption in them). At the same time, most of those few of the more appalling abuses of our general conduct principles that I've seen from admins have occurred fairly recently -- and my observation of those contexts has me suspecting that this is partly explained by the decreased self-policing amongst admins as they dwindle in number and become busier with routine disruption. To some of those who have accused recent ArbCom rulings of being heavy-handed, I'd say the bigger problem is that sometimes very contentious issues or problematic editors aren't handled very well in the space that takes place between an issue requiring an ANI or two and one necessitating an ArbCom case; I won't speculate on how common this scenario is in general, but I can say I've observed more than once that it can be very hard right now to get an admin willing to take on another problematic one, in particular.
2113:
experience creating and expanding articles if one is going to be busy in closing AfDs but what if a potential admin wants to focus on fighting vandalism and SPIS? I think one negative element of RfAs is not that the standards are too high it's that there is the expectation that potential admins have a great deal of experience in so many different areas, so much so that an editor would have to be heavily involved for many years to accumulate it all. Also, areas like working at the
Teahouse, Help Desk, Reference Desk or Dispute Resolution don't seem to be valued at all when they clearly are the areas of WP that most involves working with new editors and readers. Since the bulk (67%?) of WP edits are done by casual editors, shouldn't it be important to have admins that understand the confusion that newbies have navigating WP, particularly noticeboards? Just a thought, amid many others on this page.
1322:
explaining how to make things right, speedy blocks that are showing a sort of inflation in severity, abuse of revision deletion, and a sort of clique arrogance among those who have The Sacred Tools vs. those who do not. So no tears shed here. We have broken processes, yes â Articles For
Creation should be shut down immediately as absolutely detrimental to The Project. But what does that have to do with the hard life of administrators? The queue at New Articles seems to be lengthening? Again, what has that to do with the count of administrators? It's a matter of better coordinating the volunteers we have... (I don't think Dennis' departure has much of anything to do with the climate here, for what it's worth... Nor can BoingSaidZebedee be blindly racked up as one who turned in his gear because of the unwashed masses allegedly picking on him...)
1058:
The result is a disheartening dichotomy wherein certain "veteran" users (including an admin here and there) are allowed to trample all over our behavioural policies with impunity, while newer users sometimes find themselves on the receiving end of sanctions which are disproportionate to violations which are not long-term and which might have been rectified by more moderate means. And because the backlog for other necessary work is so massive, admins (understandably) just seem to be telling themselves "Well, why get involved in that hornet's nest of unending nastiness, when I could just spend some time on the technical backlogs?" Maybe the solution is to try to isolate the roles played by admins in some fashion, so we always have a diverse selection of active admins, and baseline number active in each critical area.
2056:, I don't ever recall seeing an admin leave because of spam or the need to delete garage-band articles from newbies. People complain, but nobody resigns over it. Departures are precipitated by experienced editors (including other admins), not by newbies. Think about it: if some newbie leaves a rant on your talk page that says you're a horrible person after you deleted an article, then you might remove the rant or ignore it, but it's just some unknown, probably clueless person who doesn't understand the difference between an encyclopedia and an advertising page. Who cares what that newbie thinks You know you're right and you know the rest of the core community will back up your action. But if your wiki-friends say the same thing, then it hurts a lot more.
1576:
editors who sign into the system. Editors will decide how to distribute the money based on the most important backlogs. On at least an annual basis (perhaps quarterly or monthly) the pot is split amongst the editors who worked on these targeted backlogs, proportionate to the amount of work each volunteer did. Volunteers are paid as independent contractors. Watch out for http://newslines.org/ ''Newslines'', which operates under a model of this sort. Imagine how quickly the
Articles for Creation backlog will clear if you start paying people to clear it. I have a limited appetite for helping to Wikify the vanity articles created by editors who have no interest in helping Knowledge beyond writing their vanity articles. Offer money though, and my appetite might grow.
1742:, such as cultural and local content from emergent regions, which are currently shunned by the current policies of what is or isn't encyclopedic. These policies were shaped by the western-centric original editors and doesn't necessarily serve best other demographics. Allowing relatively new editors to become guardians of subprojects with their own quality standards, and out of reach from the old-school gatekeepers, would allow the project to grow again in these seleted areas and editors to form their own sub-cultures adapted to their own needs. This is the only way to revitalize the project - by building new specific projects outside the area of influence of the current, rather dysfunctional culture that takes care of the fossilized 1.0 version.
1763:
tools? That sounds utterly untenable to me. Even allowing permissions to reinstate deleted pages via this method would lead to so much mayhem we could never keep it straight. Likewise I question how the project would be improved by letting it fragment into little content fiefdoms where everyone creates their own idiosyncratic rules and no standards are ever established because everyone has tools and anyone can buck consensus. The reason we have admins is that we understand not everyone internalizes the priorities and best interests of the community and the project at the same rate, such that we can say any one person is a safe bet with those abilities to manipulate the content of the project (including meta content and user rights).
1290:. It's quite difficult to become an admin -- and to some extent you have to allow for people to voice their concerns in that process, but people need to be mindful that no one starts out a perfect editor -- but it's even more difficult to lose adminship or even face censure in general once you get it. Those standards ought to be flipped. Neither should be exactly easy, but those who show potential and (crucially) have the right disposition, should be given a shot, and also encouraged towards the position more. Wheras (in addition to blatant cases of abuse of privileges), those admins who can't keep a baseline respect for behavioural standards should also be asked to hand in their mop.
2302:
demonstrated they can use properly. WP has long been a meritocracy in almost every way other than adminship, which has devolved (quite a long time ago, like the late 2000s) into a weird popularity contest, which amounts to "have you ever pissed anyone off on WP? No? Then you are now an admin, even if you are a questionably competent semi-noob. Yes? Then you will never be an admin, even after many years of productivity, because some grudgeholder will canvass against you via e-mail". It's a totally unworkable system, as our plummeting RFA and active existing admin numbers demonstrate.
1078:
if we're lucky. If we're even luckier, we might continue to be a relevant force in that trend. If we don't first just become another example of nothing good ever lasts. I've never really before been concerned by that, but lately it just feels like it's not just that we're losing good people, but that we're losing them in an escalating fashion because everyone agrees there's just so much work to go around. Talk space in particular just feels desolate to me, and sense of community running right alongside the work is key to keeping morale up and conflicts down, in my opinion.
1048:
encyclopedia". Lately I've seen a sharp uptake in comments during contentious discussions and in user spaces of implying such contributors are here merely for "social" purposes. It's ugly and a part of a larger (and cyclical) problem that results from the feedback of admin/experienced editor attrition and a break-down in general civility. Of course, mind you, one or two severely bad apples amongst the admins (amongst the numerous admirable and indispensable volunteers) can do more damage than any three dozen non-priveleged editors, no matter how uncivil the latter.
2251:
productivity in technical development, and a significant reducer of admin backlog (other than for full-protected templates, no more editprotected requests are necessary from competent editors of templates, and any such editor can fulfill such a request from a non-geeky editor on a template that's protected only to templateeditor level). There's really no reason that other editors who know what they are doing shouldn't be able to help out with other processes that are restricted technically to admins, or limited to them by tradition. Admin closure of
1816:
new potentially useful content instead of being summarily deleted. The Draft space had a small window of opportunity to become that backroom dirty area, but it was killed by adopting the
Incubator rules that remove old content merely for being old, without a chance to be rediscovered in a distant future by someone interested. If the Wikimedia Foundation wants to create a healthy environment that revitalizes the project, their best bet is to create separate spaces for independent user populations that can't be dragged down by the current user base.
2259:, etc., generally really do not need an admin to reach a decision other than that consensus hasn't changed or wasn't reached (the only thing non-admins can close with, last I looked); it only needs an experienced editor who can objectively view the discussion, properly analyze the policy, sourcing, and common-sense arguments presented (on their merits, not as a vote-count), and not inject their own views to misinterpret consensus (a description that not all admins fulfill, alas). Hardly any process on WP actually requires a great deal of
1827:
making trouble for fear of getting the privileges removed and having to do a formal RfA to regain them; and vandalism from "autoconfirmed administrators" would be kept in check by the same process we remove content common vandalism from autoconfirmed users now, by the power of revert tools. Only those really destructive actions that can't be easily reverted should be kept away from this general pool and given to a small group of highly trusted users - but wait, isn't that what we do already with oversight permissions and the like?
160:
1233:
coming up with ridiculous criteria all their own, many of which have nothing whatsover to do with being an effective administrator, and opposing anyone who doen't meet them or doesn't give the absolutely correct answer to some "magic bullet" question they've come up with. Some people say that making adminship easier to remove would alleviate this problem, but in my experience the truly terrible admins do end up being removed, either by being convinced to retire or the other way.
926:
120:
110:
233:
820:. The community, however, continues to promulgate the notion that content is king (a notion with which I agree), and nothing else is worth doing at allâin other words, if you are not a content contributor, you really have no place here. That is categorically untrue; backlog busters and behind-the-scenes workers pave the way for content contributors to contribute content. When that work is not done, the encyclopedia suffers.
36:
1593:, I had not heard of http://newslines.org/ ''Newslines'' before but I just checked it out and looked at some of their "articles" which are more like blurbs. Boy, they do dispise Knowledge and they aren't shy about talking about it in their editor information and their blog. Their goal is to take over Knowledge's place in the Top 10 visited news sites but looking at the quality there, I don't think WP has to worry.
130:
90:
140:
100:
1935:. The community voted quite strongly to bar extremely new users from creating new articles a few years back; that consensus was vetoed by the WMF, which refused to implement (or allow to be implemented) any such restriction. Unless/until the WMF indicate a change in their position, the community could vote for it until the cows come home and it wouldn't make any difference.
2298:
violations. We probably lose more non-anon editors over short-duration blocks (which are virtually impossible to appeal before they expire, even when glaringly wrongheaded) than for any other reason, besides the general attrition factor of editorial burnout, which is mostly self-inflicted by seeking disputes to obsess over (there's not much we can do about that one).
1432:
log 100 actions a year, but barely a handful of us who log 100 a dayâthere's a very small number of people doing a disproportionate amount of the work, and when one of them leaves, it's noticeable. A couple of dozen extra admins logging a few actions most days, or a handful doing 100 actions a day would really make a significant difference.
876:. Although all left or significantly decreased their activity under different circumstances, their respective departures leave a void in all kinds of admin areas of the encyclopedia, some of which we probably have yet to fully discover. They did the work no one else would, and now that work is not getting done.
2301:
We don't really need more admins. If anything, we need fewer of them, with a much higher trust level, but for their special roles as admins to be limited to things that actually require that level of trust, and everything else farmed out to a much larger pool of competent editors given bits they have
2297:
A lot of the anti-admin sentiment could be rectified by doing away with discretionary sanctions, and no longer permitting blocks and other editing restrictions without a community consensus for it in that particular case, except in unambiguous cases of recalcitrant, repeat editwarring or other policy
2228:
I've long favored a privilege level below full admin (assistant admin, apprentice admin, ...) that could be awarded more freely and would serve as a training ground and evaluation period for prospective admins. A smaller broom could still clean up most of the backlog and dispute resolution situations
1883:
It seems to me that the main problem with new page patrol is that 90% of new pages proposed by newbies are crap. Why not just have a rule that editors cannot start a new page until they have at least 100 main space edits on at least 10 different articles (or some other reasonable threshold that will
1047:
I daresay it goes even deeper than that. There's a growing trend (more pronounced across the project this last year than I've ever seen it), for users (admins or otherwise) who contribute widely in conflict resolution or other procedural areas to be broadly decried as "not really contributing to the
801:
of which administrators are regularly accused. And it is not just newbies angry that their first article was speedily deleted; editors who are generally respected take swipes at administrators that, if the roles were reversed, would prompt cries of personal attacks, admin abuse (the other kind), etc.
2334:
that article. This is where the "you're not really contributing to the encyclopedia" crap is coming from. What it really means is "you edit a lot an a policy or guideline I don't like, or deleted an article I wanted to keep, or blocked one of my buddies, or reverted me making inimical changes to a
1733:
The obvious solution would be to turn it around and make adminship work like autoconfirmed status, granting permissions to all users who pass the first trial edits and show interest, yet removing it at the first sign of being problematic. This would put all regular users on equal grounds again, just
1244:
As to admin retention, it is really just a normal part of any job, especially one you don't get paid for, that some people burn out and don't want to do it anymore. Their reasons are varied because they are a varied group. I don't think focussing on admin retention is the answer, replacing admins as
1077:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm as proud of this community for the way it has developed a means of getting on with one-another and getting things done as I am with the encyclopedia or any of the other projects. I think the open-collaborative method is the way of the future in general,
1057:
But the problem is not just that administrators leave, it's also that many of those who remain seem to feel intimidated by the scope of the problems they have to wrangle, with often ambivalent support from the community as a whole, and so avoid the more contentious issues or users like the plague.
848:
And when administrators and other editors try to help in this area, they frequently subject themselves to undue grief, accusations of bad faith, etc. No wonder we see burnout, admin resignations, etc. at such high levels. Sure, the instance of TParis and my commentary thereof is anecdotal, but it is
2377:
be promoted to a full and independent guideline with its own namespace. (Unfortunately, like most all other notions of projects of significant scale that I've wanted to proceed on this last year, its been repeatedly shunted to the side in favour of smaller efforts as my time for editing has become
2305:
We need to model our system more closely on that of free software development: If you are competent to do the work, you are permitted to do the work, and how well you kiss a is largely irrelevant. Such project still have their gatekeepers, but they do not micromanage the way WP admins are tasked to
1857:
this would be more than compensated for by the amount of bad admin work that had to be detected and done over. It is much easier to properly look at ten articles and decide on deleting them, than to try to deal with one improperly deleted article. Almost all new users whose first article is deleted
1815:
A unified set of standards would be a great thing to have if we had separate "official" and "dirty" spaces; all those quality rules could be applied to the visible side of the project, and content that doesn't abide by them could be kept and continue evolving in the background, constantly giving us
1638:
For those who think that we can't remove admins or that its very difficult to do so, that's actually incorrect. After petitioning for a desysopping procedure for a few months, I learned that it's possible to ban an admin from using the tools (such as at ANI) if the community has consensus to do so.
1575:
of it. Drop the mindset of paid staff being employees with supervisors looking over their shoulders and being evaluated on how well they performed top-down assigned tasks determined by management or the board. Give the volunteers a bucket of money to be awarded by transmission to Paypal accounts of
1431:
Thanks for writing this, GP, it does provide some food for thought. I do agree with
Beeblebrox to some extent, that it's a fact of life that people come and go as they lose interest; it's sad, but it's life. But we desperately need more active admins. There are hundreds of admins who probably don't
899:
Perhaps the answer is rethinking the entire process of adminship. Perhaps it is unbundling of some kind. Perhaps it is in recruiting more people to runâmy RfA was not bad at all, although others obviously have different experiences. Perhaps it is in creating a de-adminship process that has the side
883:
Realize that we have a problem ... before we can do anything else, we have to recognize that the loss of active administrators poses a clear and present danger to the credibility of the encyclopedia and its future. This danger manifests itself in many ways, some of which I have outlined, others of
218:
The fact that editors can make intentional attacks and then play it off like they had no idea it would or could be offensive, even denying the history of the attack, is one of the major contributions to the failure of the civility policy. It has created an expressway out of the civility policy: say
1762:
for certain content permissions you could do this, but can you imagine how much pandemonium would ensue once trolls/sockmasters realize all they need to do is create an account, wait a certain amount of time, make a certain amount of edits, stay under the radar and then they'll eventually have ban
2413:
how this attitude will begin to seep into projects even when there isn't an explicit and conscious effort to form a clique to enforce these rules (though, surely this happens as well). I think a good starting place on creating a bulwark against these kinds of attitudes and behaviours -- and one
2143:
What I think matters most is the entrenched fallacy that admins are somehow "different" from the rest of the community. We don't need admins who swagger about - never have done - but those of us who have been admins for a decade have seen this meme (that's just what it is) promoted as deflection,
1826:
admin permissions are removed after only three strikes, just like we block vandals now, only good faith editors who understand collaboration would keep them. If admin permissions were removed by making a controversial block, admins would think twice about abusing blocks. People would refrain from
887:
Recognize administrators for doing unpleasant work ... a simple "thanks" or just hitting the thank button often will do the job. Elaborate barnstars, awards, etc. are not always necessary. Yes, administrators do sign up for a "thankless" job, but that does not mean community members cannot and
2112:
Thinking about your overall argument, it might be more important for potential admins to have experience in the dispute resolution area than in having 5+ GA/FAs. From what I see at ANI, many disputes are related to personal conflicts and not about content creation. I think it's important to have
1949:
Yes, I remember that. But now that we can show WMF that allowing it is causing this problem, perhaps they would be willing to reconsider. Or, in the alternative, maybe having the huge backlog at article creation is not really a problem. Maybe some text could be added at the top of the article
1609:
I don't view them as a direct competitor for most of
Knowledge's content, but perhaps a subset of it focused on pop-culture BLPs. Content that Knowledge would never need to pay for. Evidently it's viewed as a more female-friendly site. Their reasons for paying editors (as a way to entice help in
1530:
I think you'll find it's more complicated than that. When you pay people to do "janitorial" work, then the volunteers stop doing it. "Why should I keep doing this? Paid Guy will get to it tomorrow." That sets up a vicious cycle that continues until all of the volunteers have moved on. Other
1232:
Part of the problem is that the era where adminship is "no big deal" is long over. It was already over when I passed my own RFA six years ago. The community at some point decided it actually is a big deal and that standards should be almost absurdly high. That and many RFA regulars seem to enjoy
808:
However, certainly most would agree that TParis did not fall into that category, and when heâa soldier with a thicker skin than mostâgets tired of personal attacks, perhaps it is time for the rest of us to take notice and rectify the problem. "I don't feel I can turn in the admin hat without the
1663:
I should also note that while good-faith admins who make significant contributions to this project genuinely deserve our respect, that doesn't mean that we should stay quiet when an abusive, uncivil, or otherwise policy violating admin comes along, right? For example, an isolated case or two of
1321:
Points for originality and food for thought, etc., but y'know what? I still see examples of menacing behavior by administrators, the locking down of "bad" contentious versions of pages with full protection because they can, absolutely inexcusable biting of newcomers with "bad" usernames without
1067:
As regards those areas that seem to be agreed to be particularly taxing on admin stamina, I really do believe there's a type of personality out there who have just seem to have unending reserves of that kind of forebearance -- the type of people who have just learned to "bend like a reed in the
1811:
of what we can achieve. But those standards also have a detrimental effect, to get rid of the quick and dirty "let anyone add anything, we'll care about quality later" spirit that got us where we are now, and which is essential to keep the project growing and generating new content. The "best
2408:
But even if we managed to stamp out the existing hotspots for this kind of ownership behaviour, I fear we will always be dealing with more unless we establish very explicit top-down rules. Because this is an emergent property amongst some editors of a certain level of basic experience and a
2250:
It's going to have to happen eventually. It's the only way out of this downward spiral. We need to move to a competence-based system. The creation of the templateeditor bit was the second major step in this direction (after the initiation of non-admin closures). It has been a massive boon to
2162:
Yeah, I'm of two minds on this too. I don't disagree that a certain decent threshold of complaint can be easily discounted as sour grapes and hyper-sensitivity, maybe stemming from a personal run-in or watching someone else be censured (some people just have blind spots for those they have
1509:
We need a new class of editor: the paid editor who does "janitorial" work that volunteers don't want to do. That is, pay editors to do the work that no one else likes to do. WMF has lots of money and funds all sorts of experimental projects. Why not fund the upkeep of its core project. --
2409:
particular mindset who fail to understand how broad community consensus integrates with local consensus. They figure that if there is consensus on these two levels that they are entitled to create another tier of idiosyncratic rules in-between, at the
Wikiproject level. You can see
1727:
Admin attrition is just the natural outcome of its cultural model: very hard process to gain the status, which provides a sense of membership in a select elite. Administrators behavior is scrutinized because they *do* pertain to a group of users with power above that of regular
991:
1136:"my RfA was not bad at all, although others obviously have different experiences." That's the main problem, IMHO. Many people turn RfAs into a horrifying, degrading process for editors willing to spend their free time helping the encyclopedia. Who wants to go through that?
190:
Now that we have that out of the way, let's pivot to the real problem: when respected administratorsâand for that matter, experienced editorsâresign or even decrease their activity due to burnout, abuse, under-appreciation, or disillusionment, the entire encyclopedia is hurt.
1068:
wind", to get poetical. We need to find them, vet them thoroughly and get them familiar with privileges. I'd say there should be new accountability standards for admins too, but hopefully just having more robust numbers will keep things more uniformly on the up and up.
2418:
into a stand-alone guideline that makes it clear that WikiProjects and similar spaces are for organizing editorial work in a given thematic space, not for making "junior policy" to be forced upon any article that the project's members decide is withing their domain.
93:
2382:
issue which -- and I think I can say this without being too hyperbolic -- significantly threatens the continuity of policy and the collegial atmosphere across significantly-sized areas of the project. This cliquish attitude, predicated as you say on collective
1925:
1131:"Recognize administrators for doing unpleasant work ⊠a simple "thanks" or just hitting the thank button often will do the job." Good point. I try to remember to thank admins when they help with something, though I must admit sometimes it slips my mind.
113:
2410:
1342:
admin. Boing's reasons for departure had far more to do with experienced contributors gunning after a specific colleague than any general feeling of malaise. Although he did think that aspect typified what was going wrong in a more general sense. -
2310:
backlog that WP has. Their backlog is the same backlog our content editors have: that of writing and assessment (we call it writing articles and assessing for GA/FA, for them it's coding and QA testing). That's a backlog should really be working
1459:
Then, with respect, admins should get nominating! A couple of weeks vetting a candidate before nominating (perhaps less for one you already know decently well) potentially repays massive relative dividends in terms of administrative work hours.
1639:
If the admin violates the ban, they're simply blocked, and if they use the tools to unblock, they're uncontroversially desysopped. How simple is that? Also, it allows an admin banned from using to the tools to appeal just like any other ban. --
2335:
guideline I thought no one was watching very closely, so I'm going to denigrate your contributions, no matter what your actual content-editing ratio is". You're right that this is a growing problem, it's just nastier than you've realized.
1737:
Surely this solution would be squarely rejected by the existing user base as it might make the project less stable, but that isn't necessarily the bad thing most editors think it is. It would allow the project to grow on areas affected by
198:
and related pages, left in part because he had "lost interest" and stamina, as well as having received unwarranted abuse from various editors. TParis's reasons for leaving typify
Knowledge's problems with how it treats its administrators.
2016:
I feel bad that administrators are being treated badly. People should remember that, like the rest of us, they too are but volunteers that are (very much for the most part) trying to improve and aid
Knowledge. God bless the admins.
1415:? This is what is done (for example) in bullying, or recognizing abuse in general: recognizing words or actions that can lead to unhealthy relationships and feelings. Just a suggestion for one path to halting problematic behavior.
1028:
Like you say, it's not just an admin problem; it's
Knowledge-wide. Not dealing with in-person communication makes it easy to allow emotions to escalate to the point where words become abusive. I'm not sure what is the solution.
1964:
I've tried and failed to understand what you are supposed to do as a AFC reviewer. If the instructions were clearer, you might find more people doing it. I have to say the quality of the reviewing I see is often pretty poor.
1840:
For a start, this "easy come, easy go" model of adminship I described (i.e., exactly the opposite of what we have now) would get us rid of the eternal laments of overwhelmed, declining admin caste. Isn't that an improvement?
809:
issues I was involved in as an admin not haunting me and paying me special visits," TParis wrote. Surely for a project that purports the notion that "adminship is no big deal", a sentiment like that should be a wake up call.
133:
1238:
In other words, it's not entirely that the RFA process itself that is broken, it's the people who participate in it that often make it look that way. The solution is a cultural change, but how to bring that about, I don't
202:
It is time that, as a community, we recognize that admin abuseâeditors abusing admins, the reverse of the typical concernâis a problem. Yes, admin abuse is a major problem that is hindering the quality of the encyclopedia.
103:
143:
1995:
if the material is a copyvio or impossibly promotion or otherwise hopeless, list it for deletion. All the rest of the system and all the templates and formalities are irrelevant; there is no need to even use them.
1218:. 2014 was the seventh straight year in which the number of active administrators declined. In December 2007 there were 993 active administrators. In December 2014 there were 583, a decrease of more than 40%. --
1181:
1734:
as it was intended at the beginning of the project; thus providing us with the amount of users required to work on the current backlogs that needs admin privileges, by removing the adminship request bottleneck.
894:
Make adminship not suck. TParis wrote, "I'm sorry for what the hell I've encouraged them to volunteer for," in regards to his recruitment of new administrators. How do we make adminship at least a non-hellish
1549:) - this fails, and sometimes spectacularly. We aren't just giving platitudes when we say that the community is irreplaceable - those functions simply can't be performed by paid staff. It's a terrible idea.
2294:
as "delete" should qualify, too, but I'm seriously beginning to doubt that; anyone with a couple of years of experience can probably handle that properly, and many of our admin have far less experience than
1950:
creation page that says something like, "if we don't get to your proposed article by the time you are , then you can, at that time, brush it up and post it yourself." Then, concentrate on other things. --
1202:
Aww geez. Dennis retired? I liked his advice he gave me after my RfA. It's revelations like this editorial that show how much of a problem it is for admins or people wanting to become an admin themselves.
1837:
page where changes are reverted within the first ten minutes; and if you think we don't have people creating their own idiosyncratic rules, you haven't visited the policies and guidelines talk pages much.
2320:
I daresay it goes even deeper than that. There's a growing trend ... for users ... who contribute widely in ... procedural areas to be broadly decried as "not really contributing to the encyclopedia".
1884:
ensure some likely level of competence), and then they can start new pages? The encyclopedia has enough pages; it needs to improve (or delete) the ones it has â and I'm mostly an inclusionist! --
1545:
Quite. The web is cluttered with examples of failed communities that thought they could replace volunteers with paid staff. It almost never works. In almost every case - going back to AOL (
1812:
interests" you mention is the layer of unending policies that killed this culture of joyful contribution and got us the hostile atmosphere of entrenched battlegrounds that we enjoy today.
2326:. There's a re-factionalization going on, a semi-organized attempt by wikiprojects to seize control over content editing, such that editors who are not part of the proper scope-claiming
2223:
827:
submissions take months to be processed, it is incredibly disconcerting to new contributors, whom we try to recruit to replace our ever increasing population of retired contributors.
696:
417:
774:
709:
495:
430:
1436:
might help to illustrate the amount of work being done and those doing it. Those are all-time stats (I don't know of any by-week/month/year stats), but they're still illustrative.
2035:
If the community consensus is to disallow page creation by new users, but WMF won't implement it, then perhaps the solution is an addition to the CSD combined with an adminbot.
1193:
553:
274:
76:
912:. He primarily focuses his editing on sports articles, and only occasionally dabbles in admin areas. This editorial is written in his capacity as a Knowledge editorânot in his
805:
It would be disingenuous for me to say that admin abuseâin its general usageâdoes not occur, and that there are not administrators who are a net negative for the encyclopedia.
187:. Perhaps I am a curse, but none of the three are still administrators, a testament to the problems Knowledge faces in retaining volunteers willing and able to fill this post.
1382:
1276:
735:
456:
1166:
891:
Recruit new administrators with requisite experience ... this may also mean fixing a broken RfA process, a likely unpleasant and daunting task, but one that needs to be done.
1149:
1558:
1540:
761:
670:
657:
644:
566:
540:
527:
482:
391:
378:
365:
287:
261:
248:
2356:
2187:
2044:
2153:
2369:. Actually (and unfortunately) this is another issue that I've also been encountering frequently over the last few years. So much so, in fact, that I've for some time
1944:
2238:
980:
1959:
1585:
1525:
1227:
2440:
2205:
2065:
1683:
1482:
1368:
1364:
900:
effect of giving those who retain adminship increased credibility and respect within the community. Perhaps it is none of these things, or some combination thereof.
722:
443:
1850:
1787:
1718:
1312:
1919:
1500:
1450:
975:
748:
469:
2083:
1751:
1658:
1404:
1254:
1209:
1124:
1100:
2138:
2026:
1974:
2414:
which would hopefully save admins a great deal of time in setting editors with a middling level of experience straight on these matters -- would be to augment
1424:
1331:
1006:
970:
960:
579:
300:
1869:
1352:
123:
2101:
1793:
The reason we have admins is that we understand not everyone internalizes the priorities and best interests of the community and the project at the same rate
1110:
2124:
2007:
1623:
1604:
955:
943:
683:
618:
605:
592:
404:
339:
326:
313:
879:
All of this is to say we, as a community, need to address some underlying problems and important questions if we want to be a functional encyclopedia:
30:
Recent retirements typify problem of admin attrition: Go Phightins! shares his thoughts on admin attrition and the size of the administrative backlog.
812:
On a partially related note, there is such a backlog of administrative work to be done and few administrators ready, willing, and able to do it. The
937:
797:
I read a lot more administrator talk pages and noticeboards than I comment on, and what I see there is frankly appalling, especially the level of
55:
44:
1893:
1610:
catching up to the market leader) differ from reasons Knowledge should pay volunteers. Another fledgling news aggregation site is Larry Sanger's
1038:
965:
70:
1928:
903:
Regardless, the retirement of TParis underscores the problem of admin attrition, and as an encyclopedia, it is time we seek to find solutions.
172:
2392:
2511:
1694:
Abuse-of-powers situations are fairly straight-forward. Making a case for censure on other behavioural grounds is a whole other animal.
1391:
Silly idea perhaps: creating a place where admins can complain about abuse so that uninvolved third parties can take appropriate action?
1215:
1180:
From my anecdotal observation admins get many more thanks than they dish out. As far as pleasant/unpleasant work, (un?)fortunately the
2330:
can blockaded from any editorial "rights" to change anything at an article unless they're part of the special little inner circle that
2217:
2208:. And finally, one of the very few memorable comments I ever made seems somewhat applicable, instead of trying to recreate it just read
1807:
pedia, which is largely what we have now, to shape a subset of pages to showcase to the world as the crown jewels of the project, the
1531:
communities have tried it (e.g., for moderating posts), and it is usually a short step from this to total collapse of the community.
2391:. These kinds of behaviours received a warranted and necessary check in the (well-considered) Arbitration Committee ruling on the
1547:
COI alert: I was previously on staff in the community action team there and attended the "wake" for their community leader functions
2209:
1820:
Even allowing permissions to reinstate deleted pages via this method would lead to so much mayhem we could never keep it straight.
1373:
I'm sure the author noticed the problem long ago. We shouldn't quit talking about this just because it is a long-standing issue.
1011:
21:
2486:
995:
2481:
2476:
2455:
2213:
1157:? :) But seriously, it is a crap shit over there, and frankly at this point no amount of talk is going to solve the problem.
861:
1018:
2129:
Pointing out that Blade and Writ Keeper both still have mops in their cupboards according to their user rights listings.
1360:
2471:
2229:
often do not need the bit. I know this is on the list of perennial suggestions, but the problem is perennial as well.--
2271:, and imposition of editing restrictions like topic bans and interaction bans, either as the result of a consensus at
2347:
1488:
2144:
quite consciously, by a few. It should be recognised as divisive site politics: always has been, always will be.
813:
1614:â I think these sites have a tough road competing with professional news sites that we use as reliable sources.
2090:
historically and up to the present, about 1/2 of all articles submitted are immediately or eventually deleted.
1269:
1142:
2387:
perspectives but also, I would add, a deep disregard for the principles of both broad community consensus and
2466:
925:
49:
35:
17:
1378:
2202:
in the whole wide world there's no magical place, so you might as well rise and put on your bravest face
2149:
817:
1831:
letting it fragment into little content fiefdoms where everyone creates their own idiosyncratic rules
1264:
1175:
1137:
2388:
2234:
1858:
never return. We need a continuing flow of incoming users musuch more than we need administrators.
1554:
1518:
1412:
1224:
853:
1940:
1245:
they retire from the job is a more achievable goal, although likely to still be quite difficult.
845:
languish awaiting closure, it undermines the consensus building processâthe fabric of Knowledge.
194:
TParis, an administrator for several years who was particularly active in de-escalating drama at
2415:
2374:
2061:
2040:
1536:
1374:
1189:
2344:
2145:
1664:
incivility is understandable, but when it becomes a pattern, you start having a problem... --
1445:
884:
which I have decided not to outline, and most of which, I probably would never have imagined.
1991:
If the article would not, advise the contributor in specific terms what might make it so.
916:
role or as an administrator, although an admittedly inactive one that rarely uses the tools.
2492:
1915:
1846:
1747:
1674:
1649:
1433:
1398:
1250:
1204:
1120:
8:
2438:
2307:
2283:
discretionary sanctions. An argument can be made that speedy deletion and closure of non-
2268:
2245:
2230:
2182:
2079:
1782:
1713:
1550:
1511:
1479:
1309:
1220:
1162:
1097:
2284:
2201:
2022:
1955:
1936:
1889:
153:
2370:
2327:
2134:
2057:
2036:
1970:
1903:
1619:
1581:
1532:
1496:
1420:
1327:
1185:
1034:
1002:
869:
184:
2364:
2338:
2280:
1437:
1348:
865:
2264:
1911:
1842:
1743:
1665:
1640:
1393:
1246:
1116:
1910:, there is very little chance they would agree to a more stringent requirement.
834:
turns into a weeks or months long process, we become an incubator for potential
2420:
2315:
2164:
2075:
1764:
1739:
1695:
1565:
When you pay people to do "janitorial" work, then the volunteers stop doing it.
1461:
1291:
1158:
1079:
2505:
2384:
2331:
2287:
2272:
2256:
2097:
2053:
2018:
2003:
1951:
1932:
1899:
1885:
1865:
1834:
842:
835:
831:
824:
798:
195:
2276:
2252:
2130:
1966:
1615:
1590:
1577:
1492:
1416:
1411:
Might one step be to document the kinds of language that denotes unhealthy
1323:
1030:
908:
Go Phightins! is a Knowledge administrator and a co-editor-in-chief of the
857:
1833:
Excuse-me, but isn't that what we have today? You've just described every
1359:
This problem has been around for YEARS. Why are you just now noticing it?
159:
1344:
1111:
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 167#Entertainment industry versus Knowledge
873:
180:
176:
167:, leading to adminship being described at times as being "given the mop".
2204:. If you can stomach my writing, I also briefly summarize my thoughts
2197:
1154:
2378:
sporadic). But in any event, I wholeheartedly agree that this is a
1214:
I suggest, for those wanting a larger sense of the issue, looking at
710:
RFAs and active adminsâconcerns expressed over the continuing drought
431:
RFAs and active adminsâconcerns expressed over the continuing drought
219:
your attack, deny it's background, and good faith will protect you.
2114:
2092:
2070:
Actual New Page Patroller here; most articles created by newbs are
1998:
1860:
1594:
749:
Efforts to reform Requests for Adminship spark animated discussion
470:
Efforts to reform Requests for Adminship spark animated discussion
163:
Knowledge's administrative tools are often likened to a janitor's
762:
News and notes: Arbitrators granted CheckUser rights, milestones
483:
News and notes: Arbitrators granted CheckUser rights, milestones
775:
Featured picture process tweaked, changes to adminship debated
554:
Editors discuss Knowledge's vetting process for administrators
496:
Featured picture process tweaked, changes to adminship debated
275:
Editors discuss Knowledge's vetting process for administrators
528:
Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators?
249:
Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators?
541:
Jimbo's NFT, new arbs, fixing RfA, and financial statements
262:
Jimbo's NFT, new arbs, fixing RfA, and financial statements
1795:
And that's what I see as a problem. Why should there be a
684:
AdminCom: A proposal for changing the way we select admins
405:
AdminCom: A proposal for changing the way we select admins
164:
723:
RfA drought worsens in 2010âwikigeneration gulf emerging
444:
RfA drought worsens in 2010âwikigeneration gulf emerging
1611:
632:
Recent retirements typify problem of admin attrition
353:
Recent retirements typify problem of admin attrition
71:
Recent retirements typify problem of admin attrition
1987:if the article would probably pass AfD, accept it.
1184:donât tell us which edits editors are thanked for.
1016:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
523:
2184:-I take all complaints in the form of rap battles-
1784:-I take all complaints in the form of rap battles-
1715:-I take all complaints in the form of rap battles-
736:Experimental request for adminship ends in failure
457:Experimental request for adminship ends in failure
2503:
849:one that is repeated with disturbing frequency.
697:Is the requests for adminship process 'broken'?
619:Has the wind gone out of the AdminShip's sails?
593:The last leg of the Admin Ship's current cruise
580:The Collective Consciousness of Admin Userpages
418:Is the requests for adminship process 'broken'?
340:Has the wind gone out of the AdminShip's sails?
314:The last leg of the Admin Ship's current cruise
301:The Collective Consciousness of Admin Userpages
1983:What you have to do a tAFC is 3 things only:
151:
2306:do, and they thus do not suffer the kind of
171:Last May, three administrators nominated me
1216:Knowledge:List of administrators/stat table
888:should not thank them when they do it well.
658:Requests for adminship reform moves forward
379:Requests for adminship reform moves forward
852:Recall the formerly active administrators
567:Administrator cadre continues to contract
288:Administrator cadre continues to contract
206:In his departure comments, TParis wrote:
2308:procedural, administrative, bureaucratic
1551:Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation
158:
2275:or another noticeboard, or pursuant to
1019:
14:
2504:
2454:Explore Knowledge history by browsing
1803:pedia? I see those as benefitial to a
671:Adminship from the German perspective
392:Adminship from the German perspective
54:
29:
1571:, they will not stop, but rather do
211:
2512:Knowledge Signpost archives 2015-02
2393:WikiProject Composters/Infobox case
27:
1924:Nikki beat me to it, but: Because
924:
780:
767:
754:
741:
728:
715:
702:
689:
676:
663:
650:
645:Another admin reform attempt flops
637:
624:
611:
598:
585:
572:
559:
546:
533:
501:
488:
475:
462:
449:
436:
423:
410:
397:
384:
371:
366:Another admin reform attempt flops
358:
345:
332:
319:
306:
293:
280:
267:
254:
231:
56:
34:
28:
2523:
1001:These comments are automatically
816:continues to expand, as does the
2371:been planning to make a proposal
2214:The Blade of the Northern Lights
1902:: because if the WMF refuses to
862:The Blade of the Northern Lights
631:
352:
138:
128:
118:
108:
98:
88:
2314:PS: To respond to a comment by
1937:A fluffernutter is a sandwich!
1012:add the page to your watchlist
13:
1:
2322:' â It goes deeper even than
2239:17:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
2224:04:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
2188:10:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
2154:07:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
2139:22:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
2125:21:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
2102:03:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
2084:03:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
2066:22:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
2045:02:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
2027:18:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
2008:04:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
1975:17:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1960:16:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1945:16:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1920:16:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1894:16:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1870:04:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
1851:17:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1788:16:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1752:16:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1719:16:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1684:15:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1659:15:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1624:18:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
1605:17:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
1586:16:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
1567:" No, no, no. If you pay the
1559:12:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
1541:22:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1526:13:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1501:19:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1483:13:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1451:13:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1425:12:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1405:11:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1383:16:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1369:10:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1353:09:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1332:07:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1313:13:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1277:05:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1255:05:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1228:04:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1210:03:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1194:17:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
1167:10:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1150:03:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1125:03:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1101:12:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1039:03:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
987:
18:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost
7:
606:What do admins actually do?
327:What do admins actually do?
10:
2528:
1904:try requiring users to be
1487:Admin stats for February:
2441:23:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
2357:16:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
1447:Penny for your thoughts?
818:general Knowledge backlog
2263:. These clearly include
1413:expressions of dominance
2019:Tharthandorf Aquanashi
1009:. To follow comments,
929:
814:administrative backlog
236:
168:
39:
928:
825:articles for creation
235:
162:
38:
1176:AgnosticPreachersKid
1005:from this article's
843:requests for comment
854:Boing! said Zebedee
1908:to create articles
1799:set of rules in a
996:Discuss this story
981:Arbitration report
930:
237:
169:
45:â Back to Contents
40:
2389:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
1809:crĂšme de la crĂšme
1375:Mellowed Fillmore
1272:whisper in my ear
1145:whisper in my ear
1020:purging the cache
791:
790:
560:26 September 2021
281:26 September 2021
226:
225:
50:View Latest Issue
2519:
2495:
2434:
2431:
2428:
2425:
2368:
2355:
2249:
2220:
2185:
2178:
2175:
2172:
2169:
2146:Charles Matthews
2122:
1832:
1821:
1794:
1785:
1778:
1775:
1772:
1769:
1716:
1709:
1706:
1703:
1700:
1681:
1672:
1656:
1647:
1602:
1523:
1516:
1475:
1472:
1469:
1466:
1448:
1442:
1403:
1396:
1305:
1302:
1299:
1296:
1274:
1223:
1207:
1179:
1147:
1093:
1090:
1087:
1084:
1023:
1021:
1015:
994:
976:Featured content
948:
940:
938:18 February 2015
933:
782:
769:
756:
743:
730:
717:
716:14 February 2011
704:
691:
678:
665:
652:
639:
638:18 February 2015
626:
613:
600:
587:
574:
561:
548:
547:28 December 2021
535:
509:
508:
503:
490:
477:
464:
451:
438:
437:14 February 2011
425:
412:
399:
386:
373:
360:
359:18 February 2015
347:
334:
321:
308:
295:
282:
269:
268:28 December 2021
256:
240:
239:Related articles
234:
212:
156:
142:
141:
132:
131:
122:
121:
112:
111:
102:
101:
92:
91:
62:
60:
58:
57:18 February 2015
2527:
2526:
2522:
2521:
2520:
2518:
2517:
2516:
2502:
2501:
2500:
2499:
2498:
2497:
2496:
2491:
2489:
2484:
2479:
2474:
2469:
2462:
2451:
2450:
2432:
2429:
2426:
2423:
2416:WP:Advice pages
2375:WP:Advice pages
2362:
2353:
2336:
2291:
2243:
2218:
2183:
2176:
2173:
2170:
2167:
2115:
1830:
1819:
1792:
1783:
1776:
1773:
1770:
1767:
1714:
1707:
1704:
1701:
1698:
1675:
1666:
1650:
1641:
1595:
1519:
1512:
1473:
1470:
1467:
1464:
1446:
1438:
1394:
1392:
1338:Blade is not a
1303:
1300:
1297:
1294:
1270:
1219:
1205:
1173:
1143:
1091:
1088:
1085:
1082:
1025:
1017:
1010:
999:
998:
992:+ Add a comment
990:
986:
985:
984:
941:
936:
934:
931:
832:new page patrol
794:
793:
792:
787:
768:6 February 2006
742:13 October 2008
690:15 October 2012
677:22 October 2012
664:21 January 2013
586:31 January 2019
489:6 February 2006
463:13 October 2008
411:15 October 2012
398:22 October 2012
385:21 January 2013
307:31 January 2019
244:
243:
238:
232:
227:
157:
150:
149:
148:
139:
129:
119:
109:
99:
89:
83:
80:
69:
65:
63:
53:
52:
47:
41:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2525:
2515:
2514:
2490:
2485:
2480:
2475:
2470:
2465:
2464:
2463:
2453:
2452:
2449:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2443:
2401:
2400:
2399:
2398:
2397:
2396:
2351:
2325:
2289:
2262:
2246:ArnoldReinhold
2226:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2157:
2156:
2141:
2127:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2068:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2033:
2032:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1838:
1828:
1817:
1813:
1735:
1730:
1729:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1485:
1454:
1453:
1428:
1427:
1408:
1407:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1356:
1355:
1335:
1334:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1258:
1257:
1241:
1240:
1235:
1234:
1230:
1221:John Broughton
1212:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1170:
1169:
1133:
1132:
1128:
1127:
1114:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1042:
1041:
1000:
997:
989:
988:
983:
978:
973:
971:Traffic report
968:
963:
961:Special report
958:
953:
947:
935:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
897:
896:
892:
889:
885:
795:
789:
788:
785:
784:
778:
772:
771:
765:
759:
758:
752:
746:
745:
739:
733:
732:
726:
720:
719:
713:
707:
706:
700:
694:
693:
687:
681:
680:
674:
668:
667:
661:
655:
654:
648:
642:
641:
635:
629:
628:
622:
616:
615:
609:
603:
602:
596:
590:
589:
583:
577:
576:
570:
564:
563:
557:
551:
550:
544:
538:
537:
531:
524:
521:
520:
512:
506:
505:
499:
493:
492:
486:
480:
479:
473:
467:
466:
460:
454:
453:
447:
441:
440:
434:
428:
427:
421:
415:
414:
408:
402:
401:
395:
389:
388:
382:
376:
375:
369:
363:
362:
356:
350:
349:
343:
337:
336:
330:
324:
323:
317:
311:
310:
304:
298:
297:
291:
285:
284:
278:
272:
271:
265:
259:
258:
252:
245:
241:
230:
229:
228:
224:
223:
220:
216:
209:
147:
146:
136:
126:
116:
106:
96:
85:
84:
81:
75:
74:
73:
72:
67:
66:
64:
61:
48:
43:
42:
33:
32:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2524:
2513:
2510:
2509:
2507:
2494:
2488:
2483:
2478:
2473:
2468:
2460:
2458:
2442:
2439:
2437:
2436:
2435:
2417:
2412:
2407:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2394:
2390:
2386:
2381:
2376:
2372:
2366:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2349:
2346:
2343:
2341:
2333:
2329:
2323:
2321:
2317:
2312:
2309:
2303:
2299:
2293:
2286:
2282:
2278:
2274:
2270:
2266:
2260:
2258:
2254:
2247:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2236:
2232:
2227:
2225:
2221:
2215:
2211:
2207:
2203:
2199:
2195:
2194:
2189:
2186:
2181:
2180:
2179:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2155:
2151:
2147:
2142:
2140:
2136:
2132:
2128:
2126:
2123:
2120:
2119:
2111:
2110:
2103:
2099:
2095:
2094:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2081:
2077:
2074:that crappy.
2073:
2069:
2067:
2063:
2059:
2055:
2052:
2046:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2028:
2024:
2020:
2015:
2009:
2005:
2001:
2000:
1994:
1990:
1986:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1972:
1968:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1957:
1953:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1930:
1927:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1907:
1906:autoconfirmed
1901:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1862:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1839:
1836:
1829:
1825:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1786:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1761:
1760:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1736:
1732:
1731:
1726:
1725:
1720:
1717:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1685:
1682:
1680:
1679:
1673:
1671:
1670:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1657:
1655:
1654:
1648:
1646:
1645:
1637:
1625:
1621:
1617:
1613:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1603:
1600:
1599:
1592:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1524:
1522:
1517:
1515:
1508:
1507:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1484:
1481:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1452:
1449:
1443:
1441:
1435:
1434:WP:ADMINSTATS
1430:
1429:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1409:
1406:
1402:
1401:
1397:
1390:
1389:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1361:68.10.122.226
1358:
1357:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1341:
1337:
1336:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1320:
1319:
1314:
1311:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1289:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1278:
1275:
1273:
1268:
1267:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1243:
1242:
1237:
1236:
1231:
1229:
1226:
1222:
1217:
1213:
1211:
1208:
1201:
1200:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1177:
1172:
1171:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1148:
1146:
1141:
1140:
1135:
1134:
1130:
1129:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1113:(July 2014).
1112:
1108:
1107:
1102:
1099:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1027:
1026:
1022:
1013:
1008:
1004:
993:
982:
979:
977:
974:
972:
969:
967:
964:
962:
959:
957:
954:
952:
949:
945:
939:
932:In this issue
927:
917:
913:
909:
906:
905:
904:
901:
893:
890:
886:
882:
881:
880:
877:
875:
871:
867:
863:
859:
855:
850:
846:
844:
839:
837:
833:
828:
826:
821:
819:
815:
810:
806:
803:
800:
786:
783:
777:
776:
770:
764:
763:
757:
755:23 April 2007
751:
750:
744:
738:
737:
731:
729:9 August 2010
725:
724:
718:
712:
711:
705:
699:
698:
692:
686:
685:
679:
673:
672:
666:
660:
659:
653:
651:15 April 2013
647:
646:
640:
634:
633:
627:
621:
620:
614:
608:
607:
601:
595:
594:
588:
582:
581:
575:
569:
568:
562:
556:
555:
549:
543:
542:
536:
530:
529:
522:
519:
518:
517:
516:More articles
511:
510:
507:
504:
498:
497:
491:
485:
484:
478:
476:23 April 2007
472:
471:
465:
459:
458:
452:
450:9 August 2010
446:
445:
439:
433:
432:
426:
420:
419:
413:
407:
406:
400:
394:
393:
387:
381:
380:
374:
372:15 April 2013
368:
367:
361:
355:
354:
348:
342:
341:
335:
329:
328:
322:
316:
315:
309:
303:
302:
296:
290:
289:
283:
277:
276:
270:
264:
263:
257:
251:
250:
242:Reforming RfA
221:
217:
214:
213:
210:
207:
204:
200:
197:
192:
188:
186:
182:
178:
174:
173:for adminship
166:
161:
155:
154:Go Phightins!
145:
137:
135:
127:
125:
117:
115:
107:
105:
97:
95:
87:
86:
78:
59:
51:
46:
37:
23:
19:
2457:The Signpost
2456:
2422:
2421:
2379:
2339:
2319:
2313:
2304:
2300:
2296:
2269:WP:CHECKUSER
2210:the original
2166:
2165:
2117:
2116:
2091:
2071:
2058:WhatamIdoing
2037:DPRoberts534
1997:
1992:
1988:
1984:
1905:
1882:
1859:
1823:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1766:
1765:
1758:
1757:
1697:
1696:
1677:
1676:
1668:
1667:
1652:
1651:
1643:
1642:
1597:
1596:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1546:
1533:WhatamIdoing
1520:
1513:
1463:
1462:
1439:
1399:
1339:
1293:
1292:
1287:
1271:
1265:
1186:Ottawahitech
1144:
1138:
1081:
1080:
956:In the media
950:
944:all comments
915:
911:
907:
902:
898:
878:
870:Dennis Brown
851:
847:
840:
838:violations.
829:
822:
811:
807:
804:
796:
781:27 June 2005
779:
773:
766:
760:
753:
747:
740:
734:
727:
721:
714:
708:
703:18 June 2012
701:
695:
688:
682:
675:
669:
662:
656:
649:
643:
636:
630:
623:
617:
612:29 June 2018
610:
604:
599:31 July 2018
597:
591:
584:
578:
573:31 July 2019
571:
565:
558:
552:
545:
539:
532:
526:
525:
515:
514:
513:
502:27 June 2005
500:
494:
487:
481:
474:
468:
461:
455:
448:
442:
435:
429:
424:18 June 2012
422:
416:
409:
403:
396:
390:
383:
377:
370:
364:
357:
351:
344:
338:
333:29 June 2018
331:
325:
320:31 July 2018
318:
312:
305:
299:
294:31 July 2019
292:
286:
279:
273:
266:
260:
253:
247:
246:
208:
205:
201:
193:
189:
185:Dennis Brown
170:
2493:Suggestions
2365:SMcCandlish
2340:SMcCandlish
2318:, up top, '
2285:WP:SNOWBALL
2198:a great guy
1440:HJÂ Mitchell
1182:thanks logs
1003:transcluded
895:experience?
866:Writ Keeper
625:24 May 2018
534:16 May 2024
346:24 May 2018
255:16 May 2024
2328:WP:FACTION
1912:Nikkimaria
1569:volunteers
1395:The Banner
1247:Beeblebrox
1206:GamerPro64
1155:Masochists
1117:Wavelength
872:. And now
82:Share this
77:Contribute
22:2015-02-18
2487:Subscribe
2316:Snow Rise
2281:WP:ARBCOM
2076:Ironholds
1288:Precisely
1159:TomStar81
1007:talk page
951:Editorial
799:bad faith
68:Editorial
2506:Category
2482:Newsroom
2477:Archives
2459:archives
2265:WP:BLOCK
2054:Ssilvers
1952:Ssilvers
1933:Ssilvers
1900:Ssilvers
1886:Ssilvers
1835:WP:OWNed
1822:Why so?
1728:editors.
1612:Infobitt
914:Signpost
910:Signpost
124:LinkedIn
104:Facebook
20: |
2332:WP:OWNs
2257:WP:RFCs
2131:Peridon
1967:Johnbod
1756:Ehhhh,
1740:WP:BIAS
1616:Wbm1058
1591:Wbm1058
1578:Wbm1058
1493:Diannaa
1417:kosboot
1324:Carrite
1031:kosboot
966:Gallery
864:, even
858:Toddst1
114:Twitter
2385:WP:OWN
2273:WP:ANI
2253:WP:RMs
2219:話ăăŠäžăă
1805:stable
1797:single
1669:Biblio
1644:Biblio
1345:Sitush
1340:former
874:TParis
183:, and
181:Secret
177:TParis
134:Reddit
94:E-mail
2472:About
2380:major
2373:that
2295:that.
2277:WP:AE
2261:trust
2098:talk
2004:talk
1866:talk
1843:Diego
1759:maybe
1744:Diego
1514:Green
1491:. --
1239:know.
841:When
830:When
823:When
16:<
2467:Home
2411:here
2324:that
2235:talk
2206:here
2150:talk
2135:talk
2080:talk
2062:talk
2041:talk
2023:talk
1971:talk
1956:talk
1941:talk
1929:this
1916:talk
1890:talk
1847:talk
1801:wiki
1748:talk
1678:worm
1653:worm
1620:talk
1582:talk
1573:more
1555:talk
1537:talk
1497:talk
1489:here
1480:talk
1421:talk
1400:talk
1379:talk
1365:talk
1349:talk
1328:talk
1310:talk
1251:talk
1225:(â«â«)
1190:talk
1163:Talk
1121:talk
1109:See
1098:talk
1035:talk
868:and
144:Digg
2354:â±·âŒ
2350:âœâ±·Ò
2311:on.
2292:FDs
2288:WP:
2231:agr
2093:DGG
2072:not
1999:DGG
1861:DGG
1266:APK
1263:+1
1139:APK
836:BLP
196:ANI
165:mop
152:By
79:â
2508::
2337:â
2267:,
2255:,
2237:)
2222:)
2212:.
2200:,
2152:)
2137:)
2121:iz
2100:)
2082:)
2064:)
2043:)
2025:)
2006:)
1993:3/
1989:2/
1985:1/
1973:)
1958:)
1943:)
1931:,
1926:of
1918:)
1892:)
1868:)
1849:)
1824:If
1750:)
1622:)
1601:iz
1584:)
1557:)
1539:)
1499:)
1444:|
1423:)
1381:)
1367:)
1351:)
1330:)
1253:)
1192:)
1165:)
1123:)
1037:)
860:,
856:,
222:â
215:â
179:,
175::
2461:.
2433:w
2430:o
2427:n
2424:S
2367::
2363:@
2352:ᎄ
2348:Âą
2345:â
2342:âș
2290:X
2279:/
2248::
2244:@
2233:(
2216:(
2177:w
2174:o
2171:n
2168:S
2148:(
2133:(
2118:L
2096:(
2078:(
2060:(
2039:(
2021:(
2002:(
1969:(
1954:(
1939:(
1914:(
1888:(
1864:(
1845:(
1777:w
1774:o
1771:n
1768:S
1746:(
1708:w
1705:o
1702:n
1699:S
1618:(
1598:L
1580:(
1563:"
1553:(
1535:(
1521:C
1495:(
1474:w
1471:o
1468:n
1465:S
1419:(
1377:(
1363:(
1347:(
1326:(
1304:w
1301:o
1298:n
1295:S
1249:(
1188:(
1178::
1174:@
1161:(
1119:(
1115:â
1092:w
1089:o
1086:n
1083:S
1033:(
1024:.
1014:.
946:)
942:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
