The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2018-07-31. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Thank you for the detailed arbitration report. However, I disagree with the photo caption. One of the themes that emerges from our close-to-finalized decision in the German war effort is a reaffirmation that beyond enforcing basic policies and user-conduct expectations, ArbCom does not decide the content of articles, even on a sensitive topic like the one in this case. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. At the risk of parsing words with a practicing attorney, "how we talk about" doesn't (just) mean article content; it was intended to reflect the on- and potentially off-wiki editor interaction that indirectly shapes the article content. Maybe I should have said "how we talk about how we talk about...", but the non-attorneys would probably be annoyed by that. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I would dispute ArbCom's claim of not deciding the content of articles - by intervening in a content dispute ArbCom is choosing the winner of the dispute. Many of the user conduct issues which look likely to result in one person being blocked and another to suffer a topic ban have occurred during the ArbCom case and have been caused by the ArbCom case. If you wish this to happen then at least be honest about it and not pretend that you are not choosing sides.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Good stuff. There should be more dialogues like it. Apwoolrich (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Following the discussion at Meta, on 27 August admins will lose their rights to edit sitewide and user JavaScript and CSS pages. This does not affect user JavaScript subpages, such as user scripts. Admins will lose their right to edit other people's user JavaScript and CSS subpages. No one, admin or not, will lose the right to edit their own user JavaScript and CSS subpages. Anomie⚔ 20:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 22:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I made it more clear that it's for other users. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have particularly found this section interesting. Thanks for writing it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Many years ago, when I was a very new user, I tried to edit my JSS file to implement some enhancement, and locked myself out. With no idea of what to do, I contacted a user I trusted, who in turn contacted an admin she knew. The admin at first was uncertain that he could edit my JSS, but found out he could, and fixed it. WP is cluttered enough with policies, guidelines, how-tos, essays, etc., but we may need a notice accessible to inexperienced users explaining how to contact an interface admin without being logged in. - Donald Albury 13:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Donald Albury: You can bypass your own JS with safemode=1. To edit your own common.js without it interfering, you can go to //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MyPage/common.js&action=edit&safemode=1. (This should probably be mentioned somewhere more prominent.) --Yair rand (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Love me a quality WP:HTD essay in the morning.--Catlemur (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think there's any possibly involved in the statement that WP is bigger than Jimmy Wales. Carrite (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

...and in a week or two...no, wait, that’s a month or six now, with the Signpost on life support as it is...there’l be the other sort of essay, the one complaining that there aren’t enough writers. Phaughh. Qwirkle (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

agree w/ Qwirkle--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• It would misunderstand this essay to take the "you" as a generic you. Obviously, Wikipedia depends on the volunteer contributions of the people that use it; in that sense, Wikipedia does need "you" (the readers of Wikipedia in general). On the other hand, this essay claims that Wikipedia does not need you specifically. I can't speak on behalf of the author, but my interpretation is that the essay is a sarcastic quip at editors who falsely threaten to "retire" or quit editing as a means of getting what they want, or editors who think their contributions are so valuable that they can't be blocked for behavior. Mz7 (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

That message could as easily be conveyed as “Wiki needs you, but check your baggage at the door”; this essay can have other implications. Qwirkle (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia may be the only nonprofit, volunteer-run organization I know that publishes and re-publishes essays saying that those volunteers are not needed. Yes, you are replaceable and that goes for everybody. I contribute very little as I don't have the time and don't miss contributing. But that is not what Wikipedia should be telling people in the Signpost. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, I agree with the sentiment of bringing humility to one's contributions, but when I think about other editors, I'm filled with the idea that Wikipedia does need them. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Ha! Well put. Avg W (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps you hadn't noticed, Figureofnine, The Signpost is not Wikipedia. All it does is share the same space. Start your own newspaper? But just don't include any comic relief... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm...how much are you paying Wiki for the use of the server? For the ads on everyone’s watchlist? For the exclusivity? Really, when you think about it, there might be some anti-trust violation here...perhaps we should make sure Wikipediocracy also gets a link on the watchlist? Qwirkle (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't find this essay to be comical. Condescending, yes. Comical, no. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, well. At least the magazine is free and we work here for nothing to keep you informed and entertained. I see you all have absolutely no sense of humour whatsoever. What it must be like to share an office with you guys in RL. Yes, perhaps you're best off hanging out on the Wikipedia hate sites. Probably more fun, n'est-ce pas?Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't like the essay. Don't take it personally. Maybe you're the one who needs a break? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep those essays coming and I am sure they will.--Catlemur (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• The Featured Topic listed (2006 Pacific hurricane season) seems to have been promoted in 2010. Is this the intended item? Chris857 (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You are correct; it was just listed in June for some reason. Removed from the featured content report. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

In June the topic moved from being a Good Topic to being a Featured Topic as it changed to have 50%+ Featured articles/lists. --PresN 18:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Why, I wonder, are we stirring this particular pot again after all these years. Pending changes protection has been a reality for a long time now. The sky hasn't fallen, but PC remains a clumsy, confusing tool that some of us prefer to avoid. I tend to unwatch articles when PC is applied, but occasionally one slips onto my watchlist. When that happens, I may berate my computer, but I no longer grumble about any of my fellow Wikipedians. They did mean well, after all. The bumbling, heavy-handed tactics and borderline intellectual dishonesty that marked certain phases of the move to implement PC are, I think, best forgiven. I, for one, had mostly forgotten them. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• PC as discussed there only applies if a page has explicitly been PC-protected. There are much stricter anti-vandalism measures (i.e. PC by default applies to all pages) on other wikis. And they work, too. Much ado about nothing. --85.179.52.47 (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• de.wp has had issues with backlogs as a consequence of their FraggedRevs implementation. "And they work" implies there are no or minimal backlogs. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 02:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not about Pending Changes: illustrate the eccentricities of our system for obtaining consensus, rather than pending changes itself. His experience motivated him to later pen his excellent essay "The perfect policy proposal" . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I totally got that. But it referenced a specific series of discussions on an especially controversial topic. One can't publish an essay about the flora and fauna of Bikini Atoll and expect readers to forget the fact that it's radioactive, after all! In no way did I mean to slight the validity of Beeblebrox's experience trying to herd cats seek consensus or the value of recounting it, and I should have made that clear in my earlier comment. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• I've never used pending changes once in all the time I've been an admin (partially cause I have no idea to to implement the tool and partially because it seems too stupid to use a tool when no one can agree on its use), but I can relate the idea of trying to get so massive a group as this Wikipedia collectively to actually agree on anything. I've tried one or two big-ish things of this nature and gotten the exact same results as Beeblebrox and Coca-Cola. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Any requirements you have for being editor in chief? --Nerd1a4i (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I just peeked at your userboxen, and maybe half tongue in cheek: 10,000 hours editing Wikipedia English! We'd love to see newcomers in the Newsroom if you need to log some hours ... the U.S. work year is 2,087 hours so five years is about 10,000 hours ☆ Bri (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• A good monthly beats a bad weekly which beats a bad "allegedly weekly but actually produced irregularly." There might also be a case to be made for semi-monthly frequency. Thanks for all the work on this issue everyone who was involved, looks good. Carrite (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep The Signpost, even with reduced frequency as a monthly or, if necessary, quarterly publication.--FeralOink (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Come on people! It is a lot of fun and we will help you! Not Editor-in-chief, Barbara ✐  ✉ 21:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• I always check the signpost for a flavour of what is going on as a first stop on my visit to WP, everyone has done a amazing job over the years!

Surely there must be journalistic courses requiring intern placements - maybe nobody knows about the signpost out of the dwellers of the WP underground? thank you again to all signpost contributors/curators! Lee∴V 18:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Lee∴V, other types of courses might benefit/help out, such as technical communication, and even a proofreading course might need a real-life way to practice... I'm sure there's a list of things that need to get done. So, take that and match it up with possible course subjects, find out where communication gets a lot of attention in those groups and seek advice there on how to find the teachers, students, and student clubs that might help out.

And use my favorite, me-created method of finding the help I need when all seems lost and so do I: "I know you're not here to help me with X, but could you tell me somewhere I can get closer to finding someone who can?" Hey, I didn't even know I was disabled until I found my way to Disabled Student Services through this method! It only took me three groups at my college before I went there, and wow! They were there for me, because I WAS disabled! I thought I was just ill!

Buuut this is probably all the help I can give due to my aforementioned real-life limitations, so I hope something I said was helpful. I'll be thinking about you guys! Go Team US GUYS! —Geekdiva (talk) 05:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Um, ps. Do we use bullet points to start each comment? Lee, I fixed it so that your paragraphs are now on the same level, and then bumped mine up a notch to match. Thanks! —Geekdiva (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• There are several important aspects to the "decline" in Wikipedia.

A) For the most part I think we are victims of our own success. We are approaching 6 million articles. The vast majority of things that people like and find fun already have articles. Articles that don't exist tend to be on topics that are obscure or "boring" or very scholarly subjects. The low hanging delicious fruit is gone! The work in improving existing articles tend to be grind work like adding references or copy editing; these activities are more demanding exercises requiring more Wikipedia experience than casual site visitors have. No matter what we would have done, a decline would have occurred eventually. We just should have planned for it better. And this decline was foreseeable: unending sustained growth is impossible. Yet, as with so many businesses and now Wikipedia, we made the critical error of assuming growth will occur forever. This was dumb. We should have planned for an eventual steady equilibrium that maintains what we have while slowing improving the overall encyclopedia. Just too bad it's hard to raise money with such a prosaic yet practical and realistic pitch.

B) That said, there were several events that harmed the site. One was the tightening of policy and enforcement of content in 2006/2007. The deletionism that accompanied that alienated many editors and they never returned because they felt like they had wasted their time. Further the new tools that helped revert edits ended up making the experience for first time editors less friendly and gave them bad first impressions. This, in turn, gave rise to a myth that editing Wikipedia is a waste of time because "elite" editors will just revert your changes. For the most part, I think we did the right thing in 2006 and it helped build a better encyclopedia. Regardless, whether the change was good/bad, it was done in good faith with the hopes of improving the encyclopedia. Nobody is to blame for this.

C) There is however a self-inflicted wound on our site that I do feel is deserves some finger pointing. This involves our handling of gender imbalances on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does have gender imbalances but I believe that the Wikimedia Foundation's former executive director Sue Gardner handled this very poorly and her approach was detrimental to the project and we are still feeling the repercussions. She tried to solve this problem very publicly by issuing WMF statements and talking about it in various conferences or in the media. Similar to the Streisand effect, there's the so-called cobra effect, where your solution to a problem causes more harm than good. Bringing the problem to the public's attention so forcefully added an unfair sexist stigma to the public's understanding of Wikipedia culture. This severely harmed the reputation of the encyclopedia in a way from which we haven't yet fully recovered. The approach I think probably dis-inclined women from being new editors rather than encouraging.

Sorry for the long comment. This are each big issues and would require much more to fully elaborate my ideas. The most important point I make is A because we are not going to experience a sudden surge of new interest that brings back the glory days of Wikipedia. Our strategy should be to provide the best tools to editors to build the encyclopedia and provide support that causes self-motivation to edit. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2018

Jason, Our strategy should be to provide the best tools to editors to build the encyclopedia and provide support that causes self-motivation to edit.
Not 'our' but the WMF, but try convincing them. With vast surpluses of funds, they appear to spend their development time on helpful but non essential convenience gadgets rather than a proper welcome/splash page that we have been begging for, and a far more modern skin to the Wikipedia. One only has to look at wikiHow, just for example, to see how much more attractive its pages are, and how much more user friendly its editing and article creation is. It runs on MediaWiki. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't understand this, see italicized portion:

  While nevertheless avoiding being too critical of what we all work for... it is an opportunity to make a broader audience, including the world's established media, aware of the things that Wikipedia is not and what is required from its corporate owners to do something about it.

  Who are these corporate owners? Wikipedia is operated by the WMF, which is a non-profit organization. Does Wikipedia have corporate owners? If not, please explain a bit about what is meant instead.--FeralOink (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

FeralOink, please look up corporate in a dictionary, then you'll understand. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Canada Day (aka Dominion Day) should be listed as an "Independence Day". It strikes me as more a day of Canadians joining together to become a more important part of the British Empire. Note that I'm not a Canadian and I expect a few Canadians might disagree. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It's gone back and forth; see Talk:List of national independence days. I liked the picture and, heck, Canada needs more exposure. ☆ Bri (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It's nice to know that people actually read the Gallery page, Smallbones, it rarely gets any feedback. Let's have a bit of latitude for our columns, though, or we'll just drive away what few contributors we have left to keep the magazine running ;) France is on this page too but it's nothing to do with independence either. The main thing to understand is that worldwide, July is a month for many large national events, and that's our focus here. As a Brit, I have to live with the fact that The United Kingdom has no national day holiday marked and/or celebrated for its formal founding date or any of its historically important events, and neither do any of its constituent countries. Even worse, England as the major one, is the only one not to even have its own assembly! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's just when Britain liked to handle letting go of various bits of its empire? Summer recess so no parliament to disrupt the handover. Nosebagbear (talk)

So what's the equivalent of ANI's WrestleMania? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 01:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Where and when can I watch ANI on TV with live commentary? Or are we doing live streams on the internet already? Thanks, Redalert2fan (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is what I do to simulate the existence of live commentary. First, you have to use the Chrome browser and add the extension called 'Read-aloud'. Once you have that installed, load up any of the hundreds of archived ANI discussions, click the little megaphone icon at the top of the browser window and you're good to go. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 12:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Nah, it's not quite the same without Jim Ross commentating. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 23:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It gets even better streaming it through your Bose Tower at 95 decibels. Your favorite editors sound like God. Barbara ✐  ✉ 21:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Well-meaning Wikipedians suffer from a myth that the corruption on our site consists only of business owners and the like trying to push their companies. These are the most clueless commercial editors, but not the most dangerous. As the WP:Orangemoody scandal illustrated, the big bucks come in where people threaten to delete companies' articles. Because a company will value an article that it knows exists and has had some effect more than one it has only talked about. Wnt (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi guys, I just want to quickly mention that the Portuguese Wikipedia also was part of the blackout. I can't find sources in English, only DW.com in Portuguese. https://www.dw.com/pt-br/parlamento-europeu-rejeita-controversa-reforma-de-lei-de-direitos-autorais/a-44540868

Link to announcement: https://pt.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Wikip%C3%A9dia:Comunicado_de_5_de_julho_de_2018

User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 20:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• I wonder if we couldn't do something like automatically sign up users to receive the Signpost when they hit 100 edits or something like that. --Izno (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• I support auto signup for The Signpost as Izno suggests. I think adding The Signpost to lists of nuts&bolts tutorials, policies, and essays could be an enthusiasm builder to fuel the climb to competency. A leg-up into institutional memory. Perhaps a special Signpost collection of articles picked from previous issues could open the user talk page for each newly registered editor. — Neonorange (Phil) 04:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

  An alternative might be for a bot to deliver the most-recent copy of the Signpost, and then point users to the place where they can sign up if they are interested. --Izno (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thegooduser - How is the rival newspaper coming along? If the Signpost faces new journalistic pressures, we may need to diversify our barnstars - WikiPulitzers, anyone? Stormy clouds (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

  Stormy clouds Have not started it yet, but willThegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 22:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

  We can't even get enough users for 1 paper, I don't know if Wikipedia can handle 2! — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 22:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

  When anyone even makes one edit, there should be a checkbox for them to select subscribe to Signpost because I would hate to have anyone miss the most recent Humour article. Barbara ✐  ✉ 21:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  A challenger has risen (permanent link), and so it begins. I fear our days are numbered now, that final death knell soon to be rung. It was fun while it lasted! —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• In other news, the Wikimedia Foundation redesigned the website, as announced here. As seems to be the case in every project the Foundation undertakes, the new website has come under some fierce, yet justified criticism -- an example -- that anyone familiar with the history of the Wiki[p|m]edia movement could have foreseen. A request for comment from ED Katherine Maher was not answered because she was out of the office. -- llywrch (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• I've been back to Wikipedia for several weeks now and only JUST found out about the existence of the Signpost by finding it listed on someone else's User Talk page. Signed up right away... Something I'd like to add to the idea of a "welcome" message is the idea that I'd actually benefit from a Wikipedia Jargon Dictionary. Terms like RfA, RfC, RfD and such confuse me in Wikipedia parlance. Does such a glossary or dictionary exist? --TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 02:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

  @TadgStirkland401: Where you would expect. --Izno (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Izno: It might be a good article in the Help space called simply Dictionary with a redirect from Glossary. --TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 02:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

  Perhaps this will help, TadgStirkland401? —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Nøkkenbuer: That’s perfect. Is there a redirect from Dictionary or Glossary? I can’t imagine anyone searching for Wikispeak. —TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 17:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

  Well, the WikiSpeak page is actually a humor page; I only linked it for some levity given the apt context. More seriously, Izno's mention of Wikipedia:Glossary is where any such redirect should go. Wikipedia:Dictionary is already a redirect, so unless that redirect is overwritten, that is not available. Given what links to the redirect, I'm not comfortable with simply boldly overwriting it. Regardless, any reader who needs to peruse such lingo can turn to Help:Glossary; any editor can turn to Wikipedia:Glossary. There are also directories and indexes and the reader's guide to Wikipedia, among others.

  Perhaps we can make these resources more visible, though I'm not sure how. Adding them to welcoming templates is an option and not too difficult to do. Template:Wikipedia editor navigation is a massive template that basically has all the links to major pages any reader or editor will ever need, including links to the glossaries, appendices, and indices. That template is already added to many pages. What else needs to be done?

  To be clear, the reason why it's called a glossary is because that is what the section of a work that contains definitions to certain technical terms is called, including in encyclopedias. Although glossaries are also dictionaries in a sense, a dictionary is usually understood to be a book of definitions for words, often based on common usage among the general dictionaries. For anyone familiar with what an encyclopedia is, such as a print copy of Encyclopædia Britannica they used in school for an assignment, they will probably also be familiar with a glossary is.

  This discussion is venturing out of the scope of The Signpost, especially the News and notes feature, so it may be best to continue this elsewhere if you wish to do so. For a more general audience, the village pump may be the best place to go. Otherwise, Wikipedia:Glossary's talk page is another option. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 10:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm currently working this summer at an amusement park as a ride operator (so yes, I can operate a roller coaster). I do not recall ever being harassed or asked fifty questions by my colleagues while I was being trained for the operator positions. I do recall having my supervisor talk to me about the controls, what each button and switch did, what the indicator lights meant, what to do in certain situations, and then had me sit behind the controls under his watchful supervision, giving me advice as I went and telling me what I was doing well and what I wasn't doing well (and most importantly, how to correct it). He asked me a lot of questions to test my knowledge and to see if I was paying attention, along with a few trickier questions that taught more than humiliated. Although the training was about three hours in total, the bulk of it came from my supervisor watching me as I worked the lower attendant positions and seeing how I performed at those. Not once were past issues about me ever brought up; nobody scrounged through CCTV footage looking for whenever I picked my nose while I was on the job; nobody went around asking my colleagues about the thing they disliked about me the most. In short, it was much easier (and possibly much more enjoyable, since I got along well with my supervisor) to get certified to be an amusement park ride operator (a position that can badly injure or even kill someone if I'm not paying attention) than it was to become a Wikipedia administrator. Just my thoughts... and something for anyone who reads this to think about. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• I generally try to stay to the same standards that there were when I successfully made my run in 2007. Which were pretty much "Have you been around long enough for us to know how you operate? Do you have a decent range of experience across various areas on Wikipedia? Do you avoid doing stupid things? If you have done a stupid thing, did you quit doing it and learn from your mistake?" If the answers to those were yes, great, have a mop, start cleaning up crap. Admin actions are all reversible at the click of a button, so I think we take it far too seriously. Doesn't mean we should hand the bit out like candy to everyone, but if someone's been around the block enough to know what they're doing and generally shows they have a clue and can play nicely with others, that should really be all the qualification we need. And quite honestly, I'd rather see someone who has screwed up a time or two, apologized, learned from it, and moved on, than someone who's seemingly flawless. We all make mistakes sometimes; what's important is how you handle them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• I actually think the process itself for RFA is working fine. I rarely find myself disagreeing with the outcome of an RFA, be it successful or unsuccessful. Generally speaking, the RFAs will fall into these sorts of boxes:

  1. User has experience (including some content creation), and no civility issues, but a questionable need for the tools. Usually these pass with at least 75%. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pbsouthwood was a recent example of that - there was significant opposition due to "no need for the tools", but not enough to tip it into no-consensus territory. That sort of RFA may be stressful as there will be arguing over the opposes, but ultimately the "right" result will still prevail and the candidate will be promoted.
  2. Same as (1) but adding in a definite need for the tools and experience in particular admin areas will push you towards almost-unanimous territory, which was how it was the recent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sro23. There's no stress involved at all at that stage.
  3. Civility issues regarding past behaviour raised and not adequately explained or apologised for by the candidate, with evidence that the issue will not recur. Usually these fail, and as much as I wish everyone here well, and assume the best in everyone, it's probably best if civility issues are dealt with before the user assumes the mop. These users will have a stressful time at RFA, and it's difficult for them, but looking at it from a glass-half-full perspective, it is useful to have the issues brought out into the open, and with the will, that user could seek to behave differently in future and then enjoy a successful RFA.

  Where there is more of an issue is with getting candidates to RFA in the first place, and that is probably partly due to the perception of it being a nasty place. IMHO most of our experienced Wikipedians probably fall into box (1) or (2) above and should have nothing to fear from the process. We should therefore be seeking to improve the prospects of those editors applying and demystifying the process for them. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Well, you teased my opinion(s) in the intro and then didn't include them or link to them. So, here they are again — minority view though it may (or may not) be...

The reason for the ongoing administrative attrition is pretty simple, albeit convoluted. We see a steady upward creep of "minimum" standards — from the NOBIGDEAL of days of yore we have devolved into a REALLYBIGDEAL world, in which you might as well forget it unless you've been around three years and amassed 50K edits without ever losing your temper and going off on anyone while authoring multiple Feature Articles™® and being willing to play 20 questions with any trivia quizmaster that comes along (not to forget the need to score 100%+++ in the game) all the while having your entire edit history picked apart. Guess what: there aren't many people willing and able to endure being buried beneath a twenty foot high wall of pyroclastic dogshit for a week to gain the luxurious ability to perform unpaid site maintenance for a multimillion dollar corporation while gaining the enmity of anyone whose wikipedia ox has ever been gored...

Nothing is going to be fixed until the crisis comes, and as long as there are a few hundred more or less serious administrators to get the work done, the crisis isn't yet arrived. But it is coming, make no mistake. Then we will see some combination of (a) a serious discussion about loosening standards; (b) WMF taking over more and more administrative duties with paid staff.

The best idea in this thread is that there should be an elected "Administrative Committee" to co-opt qualified candidates, thereby foregoing the wretched, overdramatic, gotcha quiz of overqualified candidates that continues to put up failing grades, year after year. You administrators are yourselves the cause of the lack of administrators. You and your exclusive club... When there's actually a shortage of administrators and you're ready to get serious about actually fixing the problem, let us know.

This still strikes me as on-point. Your mileage may vary. Carrite (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable interpretation. Maybe expecting people to put up with dodgy oppose rationales and some of the things that pass for questions is expecting more from Wikipedians than most users are willing to deal with. I also think that "but they'll meet more jerks along the same lines as admins so if they can't handle them now they shouldn't become admins" is a handwave pulled out of thin air. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

'Proving themselves' is not what RfA is for. It's not a training course for the SAS or an MI5 field agent. I was particularly moved by the comments by Bishonen and Spinningspark. And of course the quotation from long time doyen of Arbcom, Risker, should certainly not go unheeded. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

As of August 10, 2018, 515 of the 1,211 administrators are truly "active" (defined as 30 or more edits during the last two months); 493 are "semi-active" (defined as fewer than 30 edits in the last 2 months but at least one edit in the last 3 months); and 202 are "inactive" (no edits in the last 3 months) and headed toward being desysopped for being inactive for over a year (defined as making "no edits or administrative actions for at least 12 months"), although they can be resysopped on request, without having to file a new RfA, for the following 2 years. Wikipedia:List of administrators.

Thanks to Kudpung กุดผึ้ง for the important and informative series of articles. Donner60 (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

+1 on the thanks to Kudpung. A few thoughts to ponder: 10 year term limits with mandatory evaluation at RfA at year 3 and 6, and then they step down after 10 years. They can reapply after a 2-yr break, if they wish. That's the only way it's ever going to be fair because oftentimes - not always - close friendships and longterm alliances are formed among the ranks. Alliances tend to compromise the integrity of accountability which is why an extra layer of checks and balances is needed. By eliminating the concept of "forever yours" and adding mandatory evaluations, one trickle down positive may very well be a reduction in the hesitancy and concerns that make RfA feel like sitting through a root canal. Another concern is that ArbCom may be passing the buck far too often to individual admins for issues that were once under their jurisdiction, particularly DS enforcement where decisions should be made after careful consideration over time by several rather than a single admin making an on-the-spot decision to block or t-ban an editor. While careful selection of admins and ArbCom candidates is paramount, so is making sure that they have the time to devote to the responsibility which help avoid snap-judgments that are made without careful evaluation of the evidence. I also believe that it's time to start allowing non-admins an opportunity to serve on ArbCom, and as a CU which will serve as another layer of checks and balances. While I very much appreciate all the work our admins do to keep the project running smoothly, there is no denying that we occasionally have a few bad apples in the bunch, and mandatory evaluation with term limits can only bring a positive result. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The 3, 6 and 10 program has a great deal to recommend it. MPS1992 (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Evaluating admins is not a bad idea -- and indeed, there is nothing to stop you or anyone else now.

However, "term limits" could have severe negative consequences. The key thing to bear in mind is that the long tail of rarely-active admins provides a potential "constitutional" mechanism to protect Wikipedia against sudden changes, for example domination by a specific reputation management company. If anything too crazy hits the news, they might step forward and provide deep tradition. Whereas if you get rid of all the old admins and then a single group manages to game the process for a few years, the whole project could be lost. Wnt (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a mild clarifier that this point isn't right: it's time to start allowing non-admins an opportunity to serve on ArbCom. There's nothing preventing non-admins serving on Arbcom, indeed around half the Arbcom candidates each year are non-admins. 2018 elections are coming up, so now is a great time to start thinking about nominating. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• One of the interesting parts of Wikipedia history is the decision to drive away "fan cruft" related to many popular cultures. I have always thought that this was a partial mistake, certainly as far as well referenced material goes, because there were enough active people interested in the subjects to curate the content. Of course the communities created their own wikis, many of them on Wikia, driving advertising revenue for that site (and containing many back-links to Wikipedia).

It seems to me that one of the motivations was to avoid Wikipedia being seen as a fan-site, or at least as not serious, perhaps by avoiding the type of claims discussed in WP:Wikipedia has more... Well the claims came anyway, and no-one in the mainstream press (including the BBC interview with Jimbo, but excluding Peter Thonemann in the TLS) questions the ipse dixit statements.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC).

Perhaps the decision you refer to ("to drive away 'fan cruft'") was made prior to 2006, when I became a very active editor, but this is news to me. I'm not aware of any (current) Wikipedia policy or guideline that says that popular culture topics aren't allowed to have their own Wikipedia article if well-referenced - does such a policy or guideline exist? Formerly existed? Otherwise, exactly how would one "drive away" those inclined to put up a well-referenced article about popular culture? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I think he's talking about things like the infamous decision to delete all articles on individual Pokemon and collapse a fraction of the content into List of Pokémon; there was a major push against so-called "fancruft" in the 2000s. Conveniently, of course, this drove fannish editors onto ad-clogged Wikia. I think inclusion guidelines have softened since then, but I'm sure a lot of people would like them to soften further. ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 20:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Even then, there's still a problem with the 'fan cruft' when you use the Pokemon test vs. pro wrestling. The most notable difference: One of the more controversial decisions in the pro wrestling wiki 'fan cruft' claims would be the deletion of the NXT tag team Street Profits' wikipedia page, with the argument "they haven't made a WWE main roster debut, so they're not notable enough.' A few weeks after this decision was made, WWE 2K19 announced the roster who will be in the game, and since WWE games often involve the top stars from NXT, the two members of Street Profits made the video game cut. By Wikipedia's arguments, Street Profits are more notable as video game characters than they are as real people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:AB00:D0:34A8:CCB0:BFEE:77D0 (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Nice article, thanks for the time you put into its creation. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 21:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• I think this is a very well written and good article and I agree with almost all of it, I'm a WPWrestlng editor myself and I agree that wrestling storylines and the "shoot" events should be separetd in articles, like for exaple I think there should be a split in "kayfabe" and real life accomplishements in articles. But I do have one probem with this, that is that I don't think it's true that modern wrestling in any way presents itself as an actual competitive sport in modern day, that just isn't accurate.★Trekker (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with this comment. They only really present it as being "real" during the shows themselves, where it can be considered in-universe. Outside of shows, the industry is pretty clear that it's a show, albeit an art form with some unique conventions. oknazevad (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Nice article! I loved learning more about research about Wikipedia. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-07-31/Technology report

Disappointed that "we live in a society" wasn't linked to George Costanza. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amory: Sofixit? :) — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)