User:Bri/AN-twelve

According to the newsletter above, we lost twelve administrators last month, including recently-active stalwarts like Nosebagbear (RIP), Hog Farm, Rschen7754 and TonyBallioni. I believe the last time there were so many desysoppings in one month, excluding times when the activity requirements changed, was October 2016. There were a range of reasons, and hopefully for at least one of them (Tamzin) it will only be a short leave of absence, but still, it's sad to see. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey you still got me right? RIGHT? Seriously, it's a thankless task and I can understand why some admins want to turn in the mop at times. To those who did, thanks for the help and hopefully we will see you back again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * From my noobie perspective.
 * When you look at how much abuse admins get on a daily basis, along with the same old questions from new editors every single day, having to make difficult calls on behaviour (sometimes from long standing editors), having to be the one to keep your cool when someone questions every judgment you make and not to mention the (imho) frankly abusive mire at RFA, it is a wonder why any of you do it. Anyone who manages admin roles AND real life should be commended regardless of their length of service. Knitsey (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to say that the collective reason these admins left is specifically due to increasing toxicity at Wikipedia (in what volunteer environment should one be thankful to receive death threats, vandalism, and 100 abusive failed login attempts?), but it would be useful to know where some major problems originate and what possible ways we have to address them. It's unfortunate that anytime we try to fix the problem, the vastly diverse (and vocal) interpretations of how Wikipedia should operate results in nothing being done. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  15:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought I had read a few conversations about unbundled admin rights WaltClipper, I couldn't remember where I had seen them. Handy link, thank you.
 * I do think that there are pros and cons with some unbundled admin tools. I've thought on a few occasions that having specifically trained (sub? Not sure that's correct) admins just dealing with AIV and UAA would help but the amount of oversight that would need, it probably isn't practical. RFPP is another area that could alleviate admin pressure, again, oversight would probably create more work.
 * Admins, for the most part, seem to cope well with the pressures mentioned above but it would be really interesting to find out if there is an average 'shelf-life' for admins? Knitsey (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Leafing through them only two appear to have left for reasons other than inactivity or their personal lives. As for the other two CorbieVreccan was involved in a minor scandal and did the "quite before they fire you" thing (despite it being far from clear that they would have been desysopped) and Rschen7754 is a leader of the extremist wing of the roads wikiproject who left wiki en-mass in protest of our notability standards. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This comment is a perfect illustration why the administrators feel under constant attack, underappreciated, and lose motivation to do anything here. Ymblanter (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I have to agree with Ymblanter. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  16:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This statement is not appreciated. Seems like the last part potentially equates Wikipedia to a WP:BATTLEGROUND.  The Night Watch     (talk)   17:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * BATTLEGROUNDs have warring factions, not moderates and extremists within a given spectrum. What term would you use instead? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Horse Eye, jesus man--kick a guy on his way out, why don't you. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Who is down here? Rschen7754 wasn't kicked out. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone exercising the right to fork (though I don't know the details and if it's a true fork as described by FAQ/Forking); it is that same "extremism" that gave us the wonderful LibreOffice. I wish their roads project well and genuinely hope it prospers. - Aoidh (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody said there was something wrong with forking, I encouraged the fork and fully support it. Perhaps this is just political science terms being misunderstood but the forking element is extremist by definition, the moderates stay with the core project. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not a protest to, when consistently told that the content you wish to write about is incompatible with a project, create a project that is compatible with the content you wish to write about. Finding a reasonable solution to the issue they faced regarding the content they wanted to write about is not a protest of anything. - Aoidh (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am mistaken but a number do seem to be leaving wikipedia writ large in protest. When a group says that they are "seceding" and throws around some pretty strong language on the matter I take them at their word. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've seen that TikTok and it came across to me as a video made from frustration, and is I think where I got the forking thought from, as an open source enthusiast I took seceding to mean forking. I don't see the extremist wing of the roads wikiproject who left wiki en-mass in protest of our notability standards but rather a group of editors who were constantly told that their efforts were incompatible with the project, and so found a solution by making a new project for their work. I think we're saying the same thing, just differently is all. - Aoidh (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm mistaken forking does not generally involve resignations etc. I don't see why they couldn't just fork roads and continue to edit other areas of wiki. IMO thats the difference between seceding and forking, one is a political act and one is a technical act. They aren't just forking, they're abandoning wikipedia. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) If I was told I wasn't allowed to edit in the only area I enjoyed editing, I don't think I'd continue editing either... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Who was told they weren't allowed to edit in the only area they enjoyed editing? I don't remember any topic bans but there may have been some. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You just said "I don't see why they couldn't just fork roads and continue to edit other areas of wiki" - i.e. "I don't see why they couldn't just [not edit roads - the one area they enjoy editing] and continue to edit other areas of wiki." BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What part of forking means that they're no longer allowed to continue editing roads articles on wiki? We don't ban forkers from editing the forked topic, there's nothing wrong with it... It should be encouraged. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You told the road editors "I hope you continue editing the non-roads parts of wikipedia even if your roads related editing moves to a new project" - How is that supposed to be interpreted any other way? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What they said. Plus if you joined Wikipedia to write articles about goblins, but after years of doing that a bunch of people who never really got involved in little green creature topics but had Strong Feelings about notability as an abstract concept suddenly turned up to say hey, you know what, we actually don't want all these articles on goblins, wouldn't you consider leaving to start Goblinpædia? It's a rational, understandable decision that does not at all change the fact that this project has lost a prolific admin with eighteen years of experience. We really do suck at valuing people around here. You're only as good as your last mistake. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * How would one have prevented that exactly? Making our notability standards and overall quality worse in order to retain people who demand it be as such? Silver  seren C 18:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Would not mercilessly attacking content creators and admins have made Wikipedia worse, though? (that's at least how they felt - and I've had poor experiences that feel like that as well) We should overall improve how we treat admins and content creators, in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if all editors behavioured in a more civil manner to each other. I fear this discussion isn't going to help that cause. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think bringing up "must meet GNG" is "mercilessly attacking content creators". You do try and bring up the past situation of you arguing that GNG doesn't matter frequently, friend. It's not actually a good argument. Silver  seren C 19:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Its not simply saying "must meet GNG" but also rude remarks like that above by Horse eye's back and relentless attempts to delete articles and tighten further notability standards again and again and again which is what drives editors away. As for "mercilessly attacking," that was the exact words of what one road editor told me offline what they felt was happening to them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And yet that tightening in almost every case is just properly enforcing a requirement of having a single reference of significant coverage in an article, sometimes two. Because for the longest time we weren't enforcing referencing standards in all topic areas. That we've now moved as a community to do that enforcement of long-standing rules and requirements is not some onerous new strictness. Silver  seren C 19:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The encyclopaedia was always going to contract to a certain extent as the project matured and the community gained a clearer idea of what they wanted Wikipedia to be. But calling people who have worked hard on the articles that are now falling victim to that contraction "extremists", instead of working with them to preserve what we can, is not beneficial to the project's long-term health. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  21:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What gives you the impression that I haven't worked with them to preserve what we can? They're leaving because they refused to compromise with the community, not because the community didn't compromise with them (it did, see the Maps RfC for one such comprise). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering that there is no such requirement (see WP:NEXIST), you might be able to see why suddenly beginning to enforce it has alienated a lot of people? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's driving me away. In one setting after another, I'm seeing a baffling combination of wiki-lawyering and simultaneously treating GNG as holier than policy. To me, there's no list of three or four bullet points that can sum up how to decide what goes in an encyclopedia that covers every sphere of human activity. General advice exists to be refined or overridden when more specific experience is available. But I'm burned out of arguing that the GNG is not in all times and circumstances the operating principle we should shape our thoughts around, so nowadays I only edit to fix things that are pretty obviously broken. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Would not mercilessly attacking content creators and admins have made Wikipedia worse, though? Nobody is mercilessly attacking content creators and admins. People are just saying "articles should demonstrate notability", which isn't exactly a high standard given that all we require is WP:GNG.
 * Yes, even this low standard will cause people to leave, but just as the exodus of people who wanted OR on Wikipedia made Wikipedia a better place, the exodus of people who want articles on non-notable topics will make Wikipedia a better place. BilledMammal (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, there's more to it then just saying "articles should be notable" - harassment, stress from the same group of editors over and over again trying to delete your hard work, etc. - I'm largely in agreement with SounderBruce's comment below. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to distinguish between reviews of articles in a topic area and reviews of articles created by a single editor. The former may be stressful for those whose articles come up again and again, but it isn't harassment, and it is necessary - we have a responsibility to curate the encyclopedia and that does mean that these topic area reviews must take place and editors shouldn't be criticized for doing them.
 * The latter is more complicated; it is permitted by our policies ("correcting related problems on multiple articles"), but it is also more stressful for the editor whose articles are being reviewed and can feel like harassment. However, in some cases it is necessary; when an editor has engaged in mass creation, and their mass creations are problematic, the only practical way to address them is by reviewing their creations together - LUGSTUBS and LUGSTUBS2 are examples of this.
 * I would also note that it's not only editors who hold your position who have felt harassed over this. I, for example, have been subject to hounding by some who disagree with my position on notability. BilledMammal (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless those articles about Goblins don't meet our notability standards (including the specific Goblin ones endorsed by the WikiGoblin community) nothing is going to happen to them. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Continued harassment of several editors in good standing who merely have some disagreements on notability is definitely what drives people away from this project. The fatigue that sets in from putting out the fires (drive-by taggings, AfDs, and endless discussions) prevents us from doing what we do best: create content and manage it more effectively. The cherry on top is labeling people as extremists for just wanting some peace of mind and complying with the wishes of the deletionist bloc here. This is how communities die.  Sounder Bruce  19:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no deletionist block here, this was an argument between people who wanted stand alone articles for all state highways (those who rejected WP:GEOROADS, specifically the word "typically") and people who thought that some state highways were better covered on other pages (those who supported WP:GEOROADS). Its two different approaches to inclusionism (even if the deflationists did pile onto one side). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Some statistics: not a single month this year have we had a net gain of administrators, and so far all but one have had a net decrease, some large - per the admin's newsletter: January: +3, -11, net -8; February: +1, -5, net -4; March: +1, -2, net -1; April: +1, -1, net 0 (only month without negative net); May: +1, -4, net -3; June: +1, -3, net -2; July: +1, -8, net -7; August: +1, -4, net -3; September: +2, -4, net -2; October: +1, -12, net -11; Overall: +13, -53, net -40. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are worrying numbers. Knitsey (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, that has been the norm for some time. There were 2004 admins appointed between 2002 and 2011, compared to 220 since 2012. We're still slowly working through a long tail of inactive admins from that early boom, and until that's done with we can't realistically expect net gains. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * One could say that we should already count all of the inactive admins as negatives anyways, since they aren't actually acting as admins and haven't been for years in most cases. Counting them as part of the administrator group right now is just pretending there's more admins than there are.


 * At the same time, their inactivity despite the rest of the admin areas working fine means they weren't needed in the admin numbers in the first place. So that's the other angle to things. Lower admin numbers doesn't mean anything if they weren't doing admin actions in the first place. Them just existing as admins isn't beneficial to the wiki as a while. Silver  seren C 19:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I was coming here to say the same thing. If we lose inactive Admins it’s not a bad thing, and the two who resigned during a dispute over their use of the tools weren’t very active. Doug Weller  talk 19:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's basically a situation of if we have 100 admins, but only 10 are doing admin work, then we only have 10 admins. And removing those 90 others is not actually affecting our available admins in any real way, other than numerically. Silver  seren C 19:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * While true, we're still not replacing the ones who become inactive. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 21:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I've really never understood people who ask to be desysopped and then stick around anyway, even in reduced capacity. There's no actual rule that you have to "act as an administrator" every day, and even at 2% normal editing rate the extra buttons can really come in handy. I've had months where I maybe made 5-10 edits, but even then I could just block a spammer instead of going through the rigmarole of getting someone else to do what I could have. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 01:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, there's nothing in the admin policy which dictates that. Apart from the possibility that maybe they want a period of time where they don't feel obligated to do admin activities, the only thing I can figure is that some admins want to feel like they have control over their own destiny. Thus if they foresee inactivity, even for a brief period of time, they would much prefer hang up the tools on their own terms rather than have them automatically removed by a bot. I'm trying to think of the instances in which an admin asked for the tools back after having them taken away mechanically, and the discussions I do recall on WP:BN weren't very flattering. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  12:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The general issue there is becoming out of touch... Tools, policy, and guideline are all constantly changing and we've generally treated being active with staying current on changes. Better I think would be a feature that let someone pause being an admin rather than the binary of mop/no mop. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We're still slowly working through a long tail of inactive admins from that early boom, and until that's done with we can't realistically expect net gains To me, that assumes you're always going to have a net loss, forever, which still hurts us in the long-term. Though I'd be interested to see what the correlation is between the dates of loss versus the dates that said admins were appointed. I'm not entirely certain that all of these net losses are attributable just to a baby-boom type of effect. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  12:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't crunched the numbers, but my impression looking through Former administrators/chronological is that the vast majority of desysops in any given month are for inactivity (this month was unusual), and the majority of those are of admins that passed RfA before 2012 (when the number of successful RfAs per year stabilised at current levels). But it's not forever. Eventually we will get through that huge backlog, and at that point the net gain/loss will be a meaningful indicator of growth/reduction in the number of available admins. Until then, as I said, I don't think it's the right metric to look at. The discrepancy between RfA rates in the project's early days and now is just too enormous. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Numbers mean nothng. What matters is how much the admins that we have are supporting the community. Most are, but some are not, so it's no problem if the latter go. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do we actually have statistics of the dynamics of (i) total admin actions; (ii) admin actions per say active admin somewhere? Of course admins who lose the tools because of the inactivity are inactive, but at some point before they from active become inactive, and this is not reflected in these statistics. Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The reality is that most admins do very little admin work. Here are the adminstats for the past 3 months.  This table doesn't include items such as closing discussions or Main page tasks, but I still think it provides good insight into the current situation. We've got maybe 100 admins doing 95% of the work.  -  F ASTILY   20:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm apparently 38th most active, despite not even having been an admin for the entire period. And I'm 24th-most-active since I became an admin. Are there really only 20 people (and 3 both) doing more than what I had though was a relatively paltry share of the work? * Pppery * it has begun... 23:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You're doing great work PPP. There are many reasons the stats aren't perfect, but I also see you being very involved in tasks that the stats don't account for, like closing discussions (that don't end in a deletion). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that I'm 21st most active on that list (18th if you ignore the bots) is somewhat worrying considering that I'm only sporadically active because of work and (when not at work) I spent much of August on holiday! Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The desysopped admins had almost 2000 actions between them in the last three months. Those are 2000 actions someone else now has to do (though I remain hopeful that Tamzin will return soon). Even marginally active admins are doing things that other admins don't need to do. We have a considerable corps of editors who both carp at the admin backlogs at SPI or CCI, but then habitually oppose RFA candidates over peccadillos, and scream blue murder about any admin behavior that falls short of perfection. Small wonder that qualified RFA candidates routinely decline nominations, and that established admins experience burnout. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think another interesting (and not great) statistic is that at the start of 2023 there were 495 "active" admins ("active" here is just a low bar of >30 edits in the past 2 months) which has now dipped to 453 (-42).  VickKiang  (talk)  21:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * A concerning thing here is that despite RFA being a dramatically more civil place than it was a few years ago, and most nominations very easily pass, a lot of editors are now unwilling to nominate to become an admin. It would be good to get back to something resembling the old mindset that being an admin isn't a big deal. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much more civil it really is. This year, the community successfully piled on MB hard enough to convince him to leave for good. Hope everyone who took part is happy about themselves. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that 68% support is really piling on. The outcome was unfortunate, but part of standing at RFA is that you have to accept that some editors may not trust your judgement. Also, maybe attacking "everyone who took part" is part of the problem? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The last day of that RfA was an exercise in watching people twist a knife, and from a lot of the same people who I've seen write jeremiads about the state of RfA in other places. I'm sure you would agree, admins don't exactly have access to the nuclear football. On a better note, the latest RfA went through about as well as anyone (especially a conominator!) could've hoped for, so perhaps there's some hope. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * SFR, your own RFA is a perfect example of how our standards about casting aspersions get tossed out the window when experienced editors are commenting on admin candidates...a decent number of your opposers stuck to rational and civil comments, but just as many did not. And I don't think we should hesitate to call them on it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The process for becoming an administrator probably discourages most good applicants. Who wants to defend themselves to a hundred or so random editors? And there's no problem with idiots who have kept their edits to wikignoming from qualifying. One editor became an administrator to help colleagues write about Eastern Europe in a biased way. That got to ARBCOM twice, most recently about Poland and the Holocaust. Another editor became an administrator and created hundreds of redirects with the word "boobies" in them. Both of course were desysoped.
 * We might consider automatic appointments, as is already done for reviewers and rollbackers. If someome has extensive experience and hasn't been blocked recently, they probably are more capable than most recent editors who want to be administrators. Of course, being an administrator does not mean they would all carry out those tasks.
 * TFD (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The big hangup with that is arbitration enforcement. There is a lot of trust required to hand someone that mop. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * One option would be to create two tiers of adminship; appointed and acclaimed. The former would not be permitted to sit at AE or enforce contentious topic restrictions, while the latter would be.
 * Further restrictions on what appointed admins could do would also be appropriate; to suggest just two, perhaps they would not be permitted to reverse blocks or bans imposed by an acclaimed admin, and perhaps they would not be permitted to block any editor who is extended-confirmed.
 * It may also serve to smooth the path to "full" adminship; if an editor has performed well as an appointed admin for a year there would hopefully be less opposition to making them a full admin. BilledMammal (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * An alternative would be requiring all major admin actions to have two admin endorsements, a Robert's Rules first and second so to speak. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)