Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 165

There should be a page prefix exclusively possible for WikiProjects. They clutter the search for “Wikipedia:” and need to be separated. E Super Maker (😲 shout) 00:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support, seems common sense to me and I can think of no drawbacks. Sophivorus (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree....policy and gudlines should aswell....so we can search them like the MOS.--Moxy 🍁 03:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is. Project namespace seems to be correct for all of this. (And, of course Project: is an alias for Wikipedia:, so Project:GERMANY redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany). Or do you want to remove all WP: shortcuts for Wikiprojects? That would break 15 years' worth of links, no thanks. —Kusma (t·c) 08:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

No, It wouldn’t remove WP: shortcuts, because some of them redirect to mainspace pages. E Super Maker (😲 shout) 00:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes it would, WP: is a redirect to Project: (localized as Wikipedia:). We would have to keep every single page and turn it in to a cross-namespace redirect to maintain that (or retarget WP: and that is even worse). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Kusma, this is more trouble than its worth. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@E Super Maker: can you be more specific? Here is an example project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. What are you proposing it be renamed to? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Think he is proposing it to be WikiProject:Military history. Happy Festivities! // J947 ^(c) 03:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Correct! E Super Maker (😲 shout) 13:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Any prefix can already be created in any namespace. It seems they're proposing to create WikiProject "namespace". I am not convinced this is a good idea though. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• I assume the idea is to be able to more easily sort thorough policies or other pages in the "wikipedia:" namespace? It would be helpful to understand why the proposal concerns wikiprojects in particular (would you want separate namespaces for essays, policies, etc?). Is the "clutter" making it difficult to find a specific kind of page? I think the proposal would benefit from a bit more explanation/specifics. Forbes72 (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• OPPOSE Poorly thought out and explained proposal. For what I do understand, I see no need. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 13:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose now that this has been clarified that this isn't about a naming convention, but about creating an entirely new namespace just for "wikiprojects". Not to mention having to move at least many thousands of pages (these) and breaking the WP: namespace shortener. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I’m not really seeing how this would break WP:. E Super Maker (😲 shout) 14:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@E Super Maker: "WP:" goes to "Project:" which goes to "Wikipedia:" So WP:MILHIST goes to Wikipedia:MILHIST, so at the very least you'd have to leave all those pages in Wikipedia space (thus not shrinking the pages in it at all) and make redirects to this new namespace - or break things. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: There's no reason why you can't redirect from WP:MILHIST→WikiProject:Military History. Cross-namespace redirects from the Wikipedia namespace are allowed. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ahecht: oh sure, but it means that you won't get rid of the page "Project:Military History" at all, and the result is that now you have two pages. With the proposal goal of removing "clutter" on namespace 4 - this wouldn't remove anything. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like a really good thing for a bot to do. E Super Maker (😲 shout) 15:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not, really, understand why projects would be deemed important enough to deserve their own namespace; while some—MILHIST, mentioned above for example—are superlative, "industry-leading", of their kind, many projects are effectively moribund. ——SN54129 14:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per others. No real need. Happy Festivities! // J947 ^(c) 19:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support CNR – We don't have to move anything anywhere, we can have a namespace alias WP:CNR like MOS:. And it would be very useful to have one (WikiProject:), though I'm not sure what the abbreviation should be (PJ:? WPJ:?). There are so many confusing shortcuts. For example, WP:TERRORISM goes to WP:WikiProject Terrorism, but WP:TERRORIST goes to WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels. WP:RACIST points to the same section, but WP:Racism goes to WikiProject:Discrimination. WP:MUSIC goes to a notability guideline; MOS:MUSIC to the MOS section; what's the shortcut for WP:WikiProject Music? It's WP:WPMU... not exactly the first think you'd think of, eh? But unlike WP:MUSIC, WP:ALBUM doesn't go to the notability guideline; instead it goes to the WikiProject; the notability guideline is WP:NALBUM. I think it's technically possible to have a namespace alias so I'd support a CNR like WikiProject:Foo (or WPJ:Foo or something for short) that would point to "Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo", and then we could have WPJ:TERRORISM, WPJ:MUSIC, WPJ:RACISM, and it wouldn't be confused for the WP: (policy or guideline, including notability guideline) or MOS: (manual of style) prefixes using the same shortcut. So WPJ:MUSIC would point to the WikiProject, WP:MUSIC to the notability guideline, and MOS:MUSIC to the MOS section. – Levivich 19:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Levivich: please note, MOS: is not a "namespace alias" it is a collection of CNRs and are all in the article namespace. I have a feeling that some wiki-technical phrases are getting confused in this discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  Xaosflux, thanks for clarifying. I thought a CNR and a "namespace alias" was the same thing. What's the difference? We could probably all benefit from an education in the terminology. But semantics aside, replace "namespace alias" in my comment with "CNR"-what do you think? – Levivich 03:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Levivich: so, the main name for pages that are in namespace 4 (NS_PROJECT) is Project:, for example you can go to Project:Administrators' noticeboard. "Wikipedia" is a namespace alias that also goes to NS_PROJECT, and is also our localized name for NS_PROJECT. Additionally "WP" is another namespace alias for NS_PROJECT. All those "MOS:" pages are in the main namespace, and are just standard redirects that redirect the link back in to the project namespace. You could create more mainnamepace redirects such as WPJ:MILHIST that go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history - but it will still be the same target - in the same namespace. It is possible to create new custom namespaces, and localized names and aliases for them - that appears to be what Sophivorus is proposing here. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  P.S. namespace aliases such as WP=>Project are done automatically and are fixed, whereas things like MOS: are just normal redirects and must be created and maintained as pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  Ahh I see, thanks for the explanation, I've updated my !vote. It seems CNRs are a very easy way for any WikiProject that wants to to create a shorter or clearer shortcut. I just created WikiProject:Music and WPJ:Music redirects to WP:WikiProject Music. I would support that becoming a convention (with WPJ: being for WikiProjects, MOS: for MOS pages, and WP: for policies, guidelines, and essays). – Levivich 04:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  There's a consensus as mentioned in WP:CNR for no new mainspace CNRs. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  From six years ago; consensus can change, etc. – Levivich 04:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no indication of any problem this proposal is attempting to solve. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support Namespaces are actually pretty cheap; we've got about 10 currently on enWiki (Portal, Book, Draft:, TimedText:, Module:, and their talk namespaces) and another 6 defined-but-unused namespaces. Why would we want to create a new namespace? mw:Manual:Using_custom_namespaces#Why_you_would_want_a_custom_namespace gives the main reasons, but some use cases I see here:

Search all and only WikiProjects; useful for new editors (or old editors trying to find the Domestic Pigeon Task Force)

No more conflicts between shortcuts; just as H:R and WP:R go different places, we could have PJ:M go to MilHist and WP:M go to Wikipedia:Mediation.

Links will be categorically shorter; WikiProject:Linguistics is shorter than Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics

They aren't life changing gains, but there are tangible benefits to this idea. I don't see any real downside either besides the set-up cost of migrating the existing pages. Xaosflux seems to think that's more trouble than it's worth, and usually they know better than me on things like this. However I don't think the goal is shrinking Project:, but reducing shortcut conflict among other stuff I mentioned above. So if we get the benefits of a new namespace, I'm not concerned about leaving redirects behind to prevent breakage because we've done it a number of times before: we left CamelCase redirects behind after switching from UseModWiki (see {{r from CamelCase}}), and we kept redirects from Wikipedia:Wikiportal/* after the move to the new Portal: namespace until an RFD 5 years later found consensus to delete the redirects. I'm opposed to handling this using CNRs from mainspace like MOS: pages because that's a mess that honestly should also be fixed by adding a new namespace. This may actually be an opportunity to figure out how we would do that. Wug·a·po·des​ 11:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support per Wugapodes explanation above. I always dislike seeing arguments for not doing something because "a lot of pages will move". We do that every day; we also have moved thousand of articles when needed (such in a recent election NC change). If that is the only reason not to do something, that is a pretty weak reason. I also agree with Leviv that the current project namespace is a mess with similar redirects using MOS/WP and being inconsistent to where they redirect. This too can be easily solved with the move proposed. --Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The MOS issue is probably its own can of worms given my question at User talk:Xaosflux#MOS namespace. It's probably best to consider what to do about MOS redirects on their own at a later point in time. Wug·a·po·des​ 13:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose cross-namespace redirects, we don't need to clutter mainspace with more of them. For that matter, the cross-namespace redirects WikiProject:Music and WPJ:Music created during the course of this discussion should be deleted. Very weak oppose about an actual new namespace; I don't think it'd be wrong, it just seems rather pointless. When it comes to search clutter, I find much more of that from archives of old deletion discussions and such than I do from WikiProject pages. In practice I've seldom seen confusion over whether a shortcut refers to a policy or a project, as context is usually sufficient. But if confusion really is a concern, you could as well encourage the use of shortcuts like WP:WPVG over WP:VG instead of asking for a whole new namespace with associated shortcut when the existing WP shortcuts will need to hang around for some time anyway to avoid breaking links in old discussions and edit summaries. Anomie⚔ 14:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose solution in search of a problem. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose new namespace as the saved keystrokes don't justify the overhead of a new namespace (with associated guidance etc) - there are already 30+ namespaces to select from when using Advanced Search, having "Project" namespace and "WikiProject" namespace would confuse newbies (we already see confusion of portals vs wikiprojects), we'd potentially get forks of wikiproject in other namespace, there would be questions about whether task forces belong in that namespace ... DexDor ^(talk) 22:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Just a heads up that there is a discussion at RfD concerning the redirects that Levivich created. Merry Christmas! // J947 ^(c), at 23:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support per Wugs. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I've often wished I didn't have to type all of "WP:WikiProject". And, having it broken out as its own namespace means I can search just in that namespace. Makes sense to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• Super hard oppose. WikiProjects are dying (like Portals) and we're proposing to give them their own space? It's not like they need the room to grow. People who want to search in that namespace can do something like Special:Search/Wikipedia: intitle:WikiProject. We also do not need an XNR for this, as previously agreed (no new XNRs). Most WikiProjects, if they need it, have a shortcut. Inconsistencies in shortcuts can and should be remedied at WP:RFD, not by adding another new namespace. In short, I really don't see a problem here that needs a solution. --Izno (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• oppose as the Wikipedia space is supposed to be for things like wikiprojects. You don't have to type all of "WP:WikiProject" as normally when you have to type it is a template that point to a project, and that is in template space. Anyway the prefixes are already excessively cluttered with useless things that make life difficult when you do a rename. (for draftification, userfication) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• If I were going to recommend potentially disruptive page moves, I'd suggest moving AFD to another namespace. That's a h-u-g-e percentage of pages in the Wikipedia: namespace, and it's almost never what you want (or you only want those pages, and the rest is in your way). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  Wow, I did not realize AFD pages were >40% of all Wikipedia namespace pages (435000 out of 1065045). Does make sense though, with ~50-100 AfDs a day for >15 years. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support for AFD and WikiProject: It would remove the "wikipedia" namespace clutter. DrewieStewie (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, solution in search of a problem. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support I have myself thought of this need for years; seems an easy fix. Can't think of any problems it would cause. --Jayron32 13:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for mostly what xaos said above and a dash of WAID. Killiondude (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because of how much chaos it could cause, and early opposers make good points. >>BEANS X2t 13:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and delete per above. ―cobaltcigs 17:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - A solution looking for a problem, Also opposing due to this proposal not being at all informative as to the whys or the benefits. –Davey2010^Talk 13:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think the potential advantages (thanks to Wugapodes for listing them) are outweighed by the addition of unnecessary complexity. The Wikipedia: namespace is intended for administration of the project, and WikiProjects are part of the administration of the project. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose having additional namespaces is quite confusing. The WP/MOS difference was already annoying enough. No need to add to the complexity. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support. I see no reason not to. this is an excellent idea. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Alternative suggestion - Change the software to allow "Partial page name aliases" similar to these but where the alias is expanded by the software, so WPP:foo would be expanded to Wikipedia:WikiProject foo and WPT:foo would expand to Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject foo. This would require a change to WikiMedia software, so it would be many months away after it was approved as a proposal here. If this is desired, I recommend staring a new proposal. (edited after other users added more comments) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:BROKEN. What problem does having these in the Wikipedia namespace cause? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The January 27 Signpost "From the editor" column describes the several years-long and ongoing paid advocacy abuse by Status Labs (formerly Wiki-PR), including their community ban from the English Wikipedia, their global ban imposed by the Foundation, a cease-and-desist letter sent in 2013, and six recent and ongoing paid advocacy abuses reported by the Wall Street Journal last month. Foundation officials told the Signpost that they would only take further action if the English Wikipedia community requests such "through its usual governing processes." Accordingly, this RFC asks the Wikimedia Foundation to enforce the Terms of Use against Status Labs violations, such as by reporting infringement of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, seeking civil penalties for those violations, and any other actions which the Foundation's attorneys believe will most likely halt the ongoing abuses. 07:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

1. Support as proposer. EllenCT (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. The reputation of Wikipedia for trustworthiness relies, at a fundamental level, on our ability to enforce WP:NPOV against attacks from commercial interests. Undisclosed paid promotional editing by Wiki-PR and its peers threatens that. Strong action is needed to address this existential danger, and the WMF seems well positioned to provide it. Sdkb (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Support per WP:TOU. ——SN54129 09:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Support, this is a clear case where a community ban is not fully effective and WMF can assist in ensuring the abusive editors do not return. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
5. Support clearly the community's attempts to prevent their abuse have failed, so we require action from the WMF. SmartSE (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
6. Support yes please - David Gerard (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
7. Strong support: this isn't a rogue IP-hopping troll, but a large-scale company making it very clear they have no interest in Wikipedia's mission and even less respect for following our Terms of Use. Though our volunteer editors in this area do an exceptional job, it's one of the most boring and frustrating and least rewarding tasks on Wikipedia—it's a clear place for the WMF to step in and make sure things get enforced. We should give them a mandate to do so. If legal action against Status Labs will make them less likely to continue editing, great. If it has a chilling effect on other PR companies or companies looking to turn us into an advertising platform, great. — Bilorv (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)#
8. Strong Support - community efforts can only really act as mitigation, further action is needed. UPE, in this co-ordinated wilful breach style, is probably the biggest threat to Wikipedia. It also is an issue that the Community is happy to work with the WMF on, making it both clear-cut and a priority for the off-wiki "San-Fran Hammer". Good hunting. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

   This should also be taken to support action against any successor organisation, including but not limited to self-claimed links, shared directors, multiple shared operators etc etc. Nosebagbear (talk)

9. Support based on my reading of the C&D and the Signpost, and the assumption the situation has been accurately reported. SportingFlyer T·C 11:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
10. Support I insist that the WMF start spending its profit on lawyers to stop Status Labs, and all their affiliates, and all successor organizations to same. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
11. This should also apply to First Page Management LLC as well and not just Status Labs or maybe any LLC based in Austin Texas to prevent this spam from happening again— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.152.244 (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "First Page Management" and "Blue Land Partners" both share the same address in Austin, TX with Status Labs and are mentioned in the press with Darius Fisher (Status Labs CEO) or similar. Blue Land Partners is not a real estate company, but a digital marketing firm which works on Facebook. There will be lots more names. BTW i checked the Wiki-PR website for an address - none given - but it's still running, you can still send in your email address to contact them, still the old Wikipedia advertising on offer. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
12. Support wholeheartedly Csgir (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
13. Support, this shouldn't still be an issue. >>BEANS X2t 13:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
14. Support per above. I would have expected WMF to act earlier, given they were aware of the situation, but anyway. Time to teach other ToU violators a good lesson. Brandmeister^talk 14:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
15. Support. No questions asked. They have violated the neutral point of view policy, the policy on paid editing, and have circumvented blocks repeatedly. They should be shut down by any means necessary, in defense of the encyclopedia. I would suggest a WP:SNOW close, but I think this should go the full thirty days just to make sure that the strongest case possible can be made against Status Labs. Invalid^OS (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
16. Support It's about time the WMF showed some spine on this, instead of leaving the unpaid community to try and clear up after these well-funded promotional outfits. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
17. Support The WMF needs to enforce their ToS and get these wastes of time off the site permanently. --moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 14:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
18. Support: For the benefit of the project, support making this request. Also, if not already done, please inform the community liaison, the ARBCOM, the Executive Director, and the Board, especially Jimbo Wales and Doc James of this discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
19. Support The volunteer editors of Wikipedia have donated our time and energy to make and maintain an educational resource. For all of Wikipedia's known shortcomings, it is increasingly respected as that most remarkable achievement in the Internet of 2020, not being a commercial dumpster fire. Status Labs and all their ilk are parasites upon the Wikipedia community. We owe it to our readers to oppose these hacks by any means within our grasp. And the Foundation owes us their aid. XOR'easter (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
20. Strong support - my full view is at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-01-27/From the editor (add) I'll post this RfC there and at WP:COIN Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
21. Support - The situation has gotten this bad because of lack of enforcement. It's like graffiti when not cleaned up encourages more graffiti. -- GreenC 15:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
22. Support, and as we like to say around here, my support is for taking action against Wiki-PR/Status Labs broadly construed. I support action against Status Labs and any successor organizations, subsidiaries, etc. They have acted contrary to the ToU and to community policy and haven't shown any indication of wanting to play by the rules, so time to escalate. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
23. Support per all of the above - Argento Surfer (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
24. Strongest possible support I don't know why we even need an RFC for this. This type of paid editing is beyond the small time fiverr garbage and is a completely deceptive and fraudulent practice. By not pursuing this, it sends a message that the policies are just there to scare people, rather than to be enforced. The hard work is already done, they know the identities of these violators, now do something about it. Praxidicae (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Praxidicae: Re why do we need an RFC for this: I am very much not comfortable with the WMF independently taking this on without community approval. Even if the community decides to delegate to the WMF the authority of taking legal action against such groups in general, it should come from a community decision originally. This should be part of a category of things which are ultimately up to the decision of the community (with Legal having veto power, I would guess), and this RFC sets a good precedent. --Yair rand (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
25. Strong support. We need help with this. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
26. Support - The way Status Labs/Wiki-PR etc. behaves is unacceptable. They are continuing to do what they used to do, despite all the actions and warnings of the WMF and the community. And it's not just them, their activity may encourage other PR companies to start working on Wikipedia. For years, the community has been trying to stop this - now, I think we should expect the Foundation to take a strict action against this. Ahmad^talk 17:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
27. Support - yes, please enforce the TOU on this group.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
28. Support. Allowing continued abuse like this not only erodes our trustworthiness, but drives away legitimate volunteer contributors. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

    Note: you can transclude User:RoySmith/TOUSL banner on your user page to help publicize this. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

29. Support. This is a large-scale organization based around abusing Wikipedia, and causing substantial harm. I would also recommend that the WMF pursue this partly with the aim of deterring future actions by similar organizations. --Yair rand (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
30. Support. Not only should the WMF enforce the terms of use as stringently as possible, but possibly pursue monetary damages as well. oknazevad (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
31. Support no-brainer. buidhe 18:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
32. Support - no doubt they'll just close down and spawn another company to continue on as before, but we have no other recourse. Apart from, you know, the WMF actually prioritizing software development competently. MER-C 18:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
33. Support, obviously. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
34. Support The Foundation exists to help volunteers by taking institutional actions volunteers cannot. Clearly the community needs help in dealing with this issue and we have struggled to protect the encyclopedia with the tools we have. The Foundation should seek compensatory and punitive damages to offset the cost of protecting the encyclopedia from their violations of the terms of service, and to deter future organizations from violating the terms of service in a similar manner. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
35. Strong support Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
36. Support I commented at The Signpost article. We have a case of multi-year exploitation of Wikimedia community resources, including volunteer labor, financial pool, and good will. If the barrier to enforcement is the Wikimedia Foundation legal team seeking Wikimedia community encouragement, then take that encouragement now and protect us editors and our readers with enforcement of our terms of use. I would also appreciate the Wikimedia Foundation legal team investing in the creation of cultural products for the Wiki community to understand what to expect of legal services in this and other cases. I often push back at Wikimedia Foundation investment in its own staff. However, for legal services, I would not want to crowdsource this, and I am happy for the WMF to manage this centrally, and I appreciate attention and engagement from WMF legal in the scope of its responsibility. Of the activities in which the WMF engages, legal services is one with greater encouragement from the wiki community. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
37. Support--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
38. Conditional support but only with concurrence of the WP:Arbitration Committee. This can be by a simple resolution, no need for them to open a new case. I see cases like this in the future, so I want to set a precedent for ARBCOM involvement. Having ARBCOM on board does two things: 1) If there are reasons NOT to go to the WMF that are not public, they can put the break on this before it gets to the Foundation, and 2) having both the "elected representatives" and the community explicitly on board with this will speak louder to the WMF than only having one or the other. I will discuss "future situations" in the discussion below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
39. Support after reading the Signpost article, I was alerted to the severity of this problem. Taewangkorea (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
40. Strong support - Enough is enough, If they're not going to listen to the advice on wiki and ignore the cease-and-desist letter than they should feel the full force of the law, We as a community and WMF as the organisation should not have to put with this. –Davey2010^Talk 20:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
41. Support - The English Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and undisclosed paid editing is against our terms of use. Status Labs (or whatever they change their name to in the future) should not be violating their ban and continuing to violate our terms of use. Clovermoss (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
42. Support -- Hopefully enough people sign on to force this to become its own subpage. -- llywrch (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
43. Support - The community needs to give the Foundation a very strong mandate and deliver to the entire world a message that we believe in our mission. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
44. Support GMG^talk 21:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
45. Support obviously.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
46. Support this is the kind of thing I want the foundation to do. Protect our interests when the community can not. Applause to the foundation for asking the community even though it seems like there may be snow here. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
47. Support as they've clearly shown—many times over—they have no intention of working within the established policies and guidelines. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
48. Makes sense, but I support this with the understanding that it's up to the WMF's lawyers to determine which legal course of action, if any, has any prospect of obtaining effective relief. May I also say that I find it somewhat amusing that we, the Wikipedia community, are now in corpore climbing the Reichstag to make legal threats? Sandstein 21:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

    I'm glad someone appreciates the irony. It's difficult for me to, after looking at some of the things which the legal department has been spending money on. I hope this is at least a light at the end of the tunnel and might give us some options to deal with the Upwork freelancing issues. EllenCT (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

49. Support This is one of the very few things we actually need the foundation for. it's bad enough when they waste resources on unnecessary or counterproductive projects, it's worse when they do not support productive projects, but refusing to do the critical actions needed to protect the community and the projects is the bottom line. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
50. Support per Sandstein. Interesting, perhaps we must all now cease editing per WP:NLT. Or perhaps this is politely reporting a legal problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
51. Strongest possible support. It is blatantly obvious that this situation is an epidemic and that the organization that banned Fram have an obligation to Wikipedia's editors and readers to deal with this as harshly as possible. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
52. Support. If there is any action that the Foundation can take that they are not already doing, I urge them to take it. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
53. Support Wikipedia is known as a site to help combat misinformation on the internet by providing unbiased facts. We shouldn't let Status Labs change this. Daylen (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
54. Support 100000% needed, 10000% wanted. Also WMF, if the name of the company changes this should not deter your efforts to pursue legal action. This needs to stop. This is why the TOU was changed, so please do something about it. I know a case may be expensive, but this needs to stop. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
55. Strongest possible support. IHMO, all paid editing should be banned. Catgirllover4ever (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
56. Support obviously. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
57. Strong support this and similar organisations are a critical threat to Wikipedia's ability to provide unbiased information. – Teratix ₵ 02:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
58. Support As far as I'm aware, the WMF typically trys to avoid suing people who contribute, for better or for worse. I'm generally in agreement with this position, as legal threats aren't something anyone editing in good faith should have to worry about. I also despise unnecessary invocations of the CFAA, especially since TOU violations have been found to not be CFAA issues, Aarron Swartz notwithstanding. However, this group is not editing in good faith, and we as the community have exhausted all of the options available to us. It is up to the WMF to use resources we alone can not to deal with this pervasive issue. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
59. Support for the widest ranging and most thorough-going action against this particular outfit and all similar corrupters of the encyclopaedia that WMF Legal considers possible. It has to hurt before these people will get the message. Mccapra (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
60. Support - fighting promotional editing is a rather useless exercise with WMF's floodgates wide open, and no proper follow-up from WMF on the more egregious cases. This at least will make a statement (though the larger companies will likely not care even a little bit, they will just continue under a different flag) which may make some companies think twice. But WMF, can you finally make an effort in upgrading our system to be able to better handle/combat these? This is surely not the only company that does this. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
61. Support - if the WMF has resources to sue the NSA and Turkey, why can't it take action against a company clearly violating its Terms of Service? Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 05:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
62. I'm just going to pile on here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
63. Support. Something must be done about this problem. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
64. Support. Pretty obvious something needs to be done at a higher level here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
65. Support, obviously.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
66. Support. We need to send an unambiguous message to WMF that we want them to do this. It is fair for this to be necessary before they act, as they have acted against the community preferences before, raising shitstorms of note. By making this a clear request from the community, we indicate that in this we are on the same side and they can act on our behalf with our support to do the job they are there to do. I see this RfC as both necessary and sufficient for WMF Legal to throw the book at Status Labs. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
67. Support Our encyclopedia needs to be protected from those who want to misuse it for their own commercial gain. PamD 08:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
68. Support. If someone is violating the law and profiteering from it, the WMF needs to pursue all legal options to stop this. Regards SoWhy 08:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
69. Support. In this circumstance, it's beyond our (WP community) power to enforce your (WMF) TOS to the extent necessary to protect your mission. DMacks (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
70. Support. This is the perfect example in which WMF should get involved to support its projects and its communities, and spend some money to defend them; instead of squandering donors' money in 'rebranding' nonsenses nobody asked for. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
71. Support - Seems like more drastic measures are needed at this point. Kaldari (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
72. Support Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
73. Support This is an area where action by WMF is clearly wanted and necessary, because they are the only one who can take legal action in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs)
74. Support Obviously. The community has no recourse here other than WMF action. shoy (reactions) 15:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
75. Yes please. In more generality, paid editing is one area where the WMF could possible help WP editors, as privacy issues make the fight one that is very difficult to do in the open. —Kusma (t·c) 15:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
76. Support absolutely. WMF should legally pursue this, and all other companies that profit by breaching our Terms of Service – and have a proactive approach of doing this on an ongoing basis. ‑‑Yodin^T 15:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
77. Strong support In this situation, we should err on the side of being too aggressive in removing these, and taking legal action. If a company is notable, genuine editors will create articles and there will be no loss of knowledge. Paulmlieberman (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
78. Support - a ban only makes sense if enforced, a un-enforced ban is a call for others to do the same. - Nabla (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
79. TOU enforcement is exactly the kind of support that the WMF could and should be providing to its communities, and $100 million a year pays for enough lawyers to get it done. Levivich 18:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
80. Support When the ToU was re-written, more attention was placed to prohibit harmful activity. Here, the community position that a corporation's activity was harmful, and so the WMF should be acting on the community's behalf to get an end to the activity. The banning of the corporation should be enough to engage the WMF for any enforcement; having RfCs should be un-necessary. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 18:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
81. Conditional support per davidwr. While having the WMF take action on its own would be great, it would be a slippery slope to allow for WMF to act in the name of the community at large without an RfC to demonstrate consensus. Even if this RfC and/or an ArbCom declaration seem to be mere formalities, we should not delegate the decision of what is and is not important to the community to the WMF entirely. <RetroCraft314 /> 21:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
82. Support Integrity requires maintenance and this is more than volunteers should handle. Johnuniq (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
83. I'm not clear why the community has to ask the WMF for this, but if we do, then I so ask.—S Marshall T/C 23:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
84. Support Inasmuch as this RfC constitutes the "normal governing process" referred to by the WMF (are all TOU violations enforced through RfC's?) then yes, it should be used to send this message.  Spintendo  00:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
85. Support per Integrity. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 00:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
86. Support Like S Marshall above, I'm not sure why we need to put pressure on the WMF about this, but hey... Pichpich (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
87. Something needs to be done with this. J947 ^(c), at 04:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
88. Support Enough community time and resources have been wasted on dealing with this same group, and they've flouted their willful violation of our terms of use with the press. It's clear that they have no respect for our policies or practices, so asking the foundation and their legal team to step in on our behalf is, unfortunately, the last option left. OhKayeSierra (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
89. Support per all of the above, this abuse must stop. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
90. Support for the sake of eliminating the ridiculous "waiting for the community to request" excuse for the WMF not enforcing its own Terms of Use. Yes, we want you to enforce it. Let the lawyers work out the details. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
91. Support: Wikipedia's ability to serve its basic function as a provider of reliable, neutral facts is imperiled by this sort of abuse. Do everything that can be done to stop it. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
92. Support The only useful thing the Foundation does for the project is to protect and support the project where its volunteers cannot. This is a perfect example of what they should be doing to protect the project. --Jayron32 17:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
93. Support OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
94. Support although I'm doubtful as to how much effect this will actually have on WMF's eventual decision. --Joshualouie711^talk 01:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
95. Support - It is high time the Foundation spent the donations given to it to properly support and defend the community that makes those donations possible. This should have been a no-brainer. Any paid-editing firms discovered in the future should meet the same legal fate, otherwise the Terms of Use serve no real purpose. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
96. Absolutely. While it could lead to a game of "whack-a-mole" it could also serve as a warning to others and prevent future abuse. Regardless, should be done. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
97. Absolute 100% Support - if not, what are the options for volunteers? Maybe, pick one of the following: (1) continue doing what you've been doing and ignore paid editing, (2) stop editing WP all together in protest, (3) find a way to be compensated for your work, (4) encourage WMF to eliminate anonymity for editors who create/expand business articles and (5) create a Business WP. Just throwing out some initial thoughts...^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

    Comment - it's good idea to come up with ideas for new policies, e.g. "eliminate anonymity for editors who create/expand business article." If done right that could really help, e.g. we could know that an employee of the company "General Gunk" was editing the General Gunk article and perhaps ban them and the company. But if they keep on coming back with new socks, what do we do them? Site banning? But what if they keep on coming back with new socks. Sooner or later, somebody would ultimately have to take them to court if they just keep on defying the rules. That's what needs to happen with the Wiki-PR case. Six years is just too long to wait! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

    @Smallbones: while I agree that it is good to come up with new ideas, I would be against a policy that would require some schoolkid working on a project that involved creating or writing an article about a business to have to give up his anonymity. It would have a large chilling effect. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

    Sorry if I wasn't clear, my point was not that "eliminating anonymity for business articles" is the perfect idea for a new policy (any new policy will have pluses and minuses), but that ultimately, when you have a policy-violator who just won't quit, that strong enforcment of the policy is needed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

98. Strong support - every wasted second editors and admins spend on weeding out the garbage to defend Wikipedia's already oft-questioned integrity is time forever stolen that could've been better spent creating reputable, informative articles. Please do whatever is necessary to help. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
99. Support The WMF is the only body that can take plausible and effective legal action against these spammers, through its legal counsel. They should act against any and all present and future business entities and all involved individuals who own, operate and manage these sockpuppet farms. And the WMF should publicize those legal actions as a deterrent against bad actors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
100. Support fully. I can't imagine why one would not want the community consensus enforced to the greatest extent possible. For further rationale, User:Bri/What's wrong with undisclosed paid editing. This entity's product is the worst example of the ill coming from UPE, and their business model is entirely based on UPE. There is no conceivable circumstance under which they would be welcome editors. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
101. Support It is clear that policy changes and administrator upkeep can keep Wikipedia only a little bit clean. Without enforcement against repeat (and in this case corporate) rule breakers, we cannot hope to seriously tackle improper edits. Llemiles (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
102. Support ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

1. This would be a waste of money. Legal whack-a-mole. The costs would dwarf any actual outcome and the TOU are technically unenforceable anyway. If we are asking the WMF to spend cash to pursue legal action, then it needs to be against named individuals with long histories of harassment of editors and admins, of which the WMF is well aware of, before we start on the paid editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

   That is something that the WMF should follow legal advice about. They have said that the reason for not taking action is that the community has not asked them to, not because the advice that they have received is that such action would not be successful. We are in a position to remove that barrier to action. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

2. Oppose per OID. I think shutting down promotional spammers is something everyone can agree on, so I'm not sure that an RFC saying "go get 'em" is what WMF is referring to with regards to "usual governing processes". I think they want something a bit more substantive indicating against which specific parties the enforcement should take place and the manner in which said enforcement is to be carried out.--WaltCip (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

   The specific party and manner is specified in the RFC statement. 2601:647:5E80:1850:A400:BF31:236E:767B (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Clearly this group of undesired individuals likes changing their name. Would a tweak to the RfC to in effect create a standing request to act against any future form of this organisation be beneficial, or is it better to just run a new RfC each time a new variant is identified? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd say it covers successor organisations as is - David Gerard (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Include all present & past employees as defendants; that would close one loophole. -- llywrch (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Is this only an "English Wikipedia" problem? The information above suggests this may be a "global" problem, if so I'm a bit confused as to why WMF legal is asking that they get a request from only the enwiki community? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Although it is a global problem, I'm glad the WMF sees itself as serving the community, not dictating to it. If I recall, a few years ago they tried to push down something to one of the national Wikipedias and the pushback caused a huge uproar. They rolled back their change and thankfully seem reluctant to make that mistake again. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Davidwr: is enwiki the only sizable project affected here - or is this going to have to be repeated over and over at eswiki, dewiki, ptwiki etc. Perhaps these global type issues should go on meta-wiki so it can get global audiences? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't think it makes a difference whether it will also affect other projects. We're asking for these actions based on the effect this is having on enwiki alone. I think that other projects could make similar requests to the WMF without requiring consulting enwiki, and that the WMF could take legal action based on issues from any individual project. --Yair rand (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
        • @Yair rand: obviously WMF legal team is a very limited resource - and if they are really taking a stance of needing each community to buy in the could become exhausted in having to file the same request over and over for each community to the same respondent. I'm all for fixing our local problem - but this really seems like a think-of-all projects situation. Is there a specific attributable response from legal that this has to be dealt with project-by-project? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
          • My guess is that they need a minimum of one community to request action with plausible cause. The size of the community may not be critical, but large can't do any harm. We could ask. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

WMF legal team can be supplemented by outside counsel. It would be different if this were 2001 and there wasn't the money. DGG ( talk ) 22:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Xaosflux. I believe the plaintiff would be the WMF itself and not each community. As the WMF and its servers hosting all projects are under US jurisdiction this works well because so is Status Labs which is in Texas. It should be sufficient that en.wiki reaches a consensus and WMF should be able to carry out the suit for all of its projects which are under the same Terms of Use. Consensus here is a catalyst to get the ball rolling.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but enwiki !=US wikipedia anymore then it is Australia wiki, nor any less then the Spanish Wikipedia wouldn't have standing in the United States. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

If they are acting on breach of WMF terms of use, it should not matter which projects are involved, only that they have requested WMF to do something about it, so that it is clear that WMF legal is not encroaching on the community self-governance and has community support. I think this is the right way for them to go about it. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I see other promotional companies trying to do this in the future. I recommend starting a new RfC or two for how to handle future cases like this. The first RfC would be to decide what we as a community should do to deter, fix, and disrupt such editing in the future. As just one idea, articles about certain companies or industries and their products could be put under mild "discretionary sanctions" regimes, with the remedy being that such articles can be placed under WP:Protection policy#Pending changes protection or WP:Protection policy#Extended confirmed protection in response to suspected WP:Paid editing or other WP:Spamming. The second RfC would discuss setting up a quick-response communications channel between the community, probably but not necessarily by way of the WP:Arbitration Committee, and a representative of the WP:Wikimedia Foundation. This way, if it became clear the community wanted the Foundation to take legal or other action against a different spam-house beyond what can be done "locally," the process would already be in place. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • We could do with a third RFC, specifically requesting technology improvements that increase capacity for dealing with this crap. The WMF should commit to spending whatever proceeds there are from the lawsuit on such improvements. MER-C 21:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm all for spending money on technology improvements whether there is any lawsuit or not. I don't think an RfC is required for that, but it might help get their attention. Also, I'm not sure I want to "bind the hands" of the Foundation when it comes to lawsuit proceeds. For example, they may want to "not look greedy" (appearing greedy is bad for PR) and pledge in advance to donate net proceeds of any lawsuit to an unaffiliated organization. I don't want to interfere with that if they choose to make that pledge. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Far as I'm concerned, if they make a real dent in the spamming, they can take the money and go get wasted in Bermuda for all I care. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
        • I mean, if I thought that would encourage rapid legal action (somewhat contradictory), I'd downright suggest it! Nosebagbear (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Would a maintenence category for articles which have been affected by paid whitewashing be useful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbsouthwood (talk • contribs) 09:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • We already have Category:Wikipedia articles with undisclosed paid content and Category:Wikipedia articles with possible conflicts of interest. SmartSE (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• While I certainly agree that WMF should be pursuing legal action against persistent corporate TOU violators who are profiteering off our volunteer efforts, there's also more that we can be doing internal to enwiki. We need to be more aggressive about deleting spam. It's disheartening to see arguments at AfD along the lines of, Everything is backed by WP:RS, so it has to stay. All that says is, As long as it's well-written spam, it's OK. Even worse is the WP:BOGOF crowd, who seem determined to legitimize the abuse. There must be some kind of self-hate thing going on there. For the most part, we're not stupid. We recognize spam when we see it. A brand new user (plus or minus the autoconfirmed threshold) drops down a perfectly formatted, carefully referenced, 1000-word puff piece, complete with studio-quality publicity photos. There should be a WP:CSD for that. And if that's too far a leap for people, then we should at least be working hard to change the culture at AfD to get those things gone fast. We've got, for example, 600-ish entries from 2019 in Category:Wikipedia articles with undisclosed paid content. That's 600 commissions paid to spammers. We need to hit them where it hurts. If their articles don't get published, they don't get paid. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• I often do a kind of negative variant of WP:BOGOF on corporate articles at AfD: if the article looks unsustainable I add such references as I can find or at least mention them in my AfD rationale, this being so that the AfD deletion has demonstrably taken account of the best possible evidence, so that this can be extended to subsequent CSD G4 or 2nd AfD after a repost. Regarding RoySmith's point about the balance, I do think it can be made more harsh, so that the client perceives negative consequences as soon as their commissioned spammer's effort has been deleted at AfD. The community has put in the scrutiny effort once, so post-AfD why shouldn't the article automatically be blocked from re-creation other than by admin action? AfC should be the only way back (and should take full consideration of the AfD consensus). And would it be possible to provide a search return to Google etc. not of the deleted article but of a simple text such as "An article of this name was deleted on grounds of non-notability", as a further disincentive to spammers' clients finding themselves with a lot less than they thought they were purchasing? AllyD (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey all. Will share this with the rest of the board. Undisclosed paid promotional editing is something I have long considered a serious threat to the reliability of Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, much appreciated! If you're able to, please let us know how it's received. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This reduces the number of administrators that probably have no use for the tools. Interstellarity (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: just for reference, the following 62 admins have not made a "log entry" in over 5 years:

Could we also get the total number of admins (and/or "active admins"), against which we can callibrate the figure of 62 below? Britishfinance (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

{{NUMBEROFADMINS}} → 840; WP:List of administrators says 501 active, 423 semi-active, 215 inactive. —Cryptic 05:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support, and it's about time we implemented such a rule. BD2412 T 01:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support, five years is reasonable. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comparing this to WP:INACTIVITY, is this also temporary thing, to be reversed upon request? Or, "You need to run the WP:RFA gauntlet again"? I assume we'd want the same one-month/several-days alerting. And, if we do this, I'd certainly update WP:INACTIVITY so all this information is on one place. And, Five years is too long. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think those are inconsistent positions. I could see a rule where no activity for a year opens the door to the WP:INACTIVITY protocol, and no activity for five years leads to a straight no-warning desysop. BD2412 T 03:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
    • If desired, we could use the existing inactivity process - just have the bot add a column for "logged admin actions" and change the rule from "1 year or anything" to "1 year of anything or 5 years w/o an admin logged action". — xaosflux ^Talk 04:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

      @RoySmith: IMO, I think adminship should only be restored via a new RFA. Interstellarity (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  • As per current policy described at Wikipedia:Administrators § Restoration of adminship, after five years without performing any administrative actions, the former admin is no longer eligible to regain administrative privileges solely on request, and must file a new request. isaacl (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• This needs some detail: per RoySmith, is this reversible on request?; is the admin notified beforehand and what about gaming the system? Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• I am sure there is a definitive number somewhere, but a quick look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=500&group=sysop turns up between 1000 and 1500 admins. There are 63 on the inactive list above. That amounts to around 4 to 6 percent of the total number of admins. Personally, that is too small a slice of the population to be concerned above considering the goal here is to reduce the # of admins who have no use for the tools. Now, if the % was up around 15% or 20%, I'd be on-board. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  We have 840 current admins. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Worth considering is that there are certain administrator-restricted actions that don't create a log entry. I recall that there are some Main Page tasks that can only be carried out by administrators (as I recall, because they involve editing through full protection of some kind), which are not logged actions; however, there are several administrators who specialize in this area and probably don't have a lot of (or possibly any) logged admin actions. There are also some "actively editing" admins who may be using other aspects of the admin permission (e.g., looking at deleted revisions for appropriate purposes, such as rescuing useful references). I think probably more value would come from increasing the minimal total activity level (edits + admin actions) per year in order to maintain admin tools. On the other hand, when looking at compromised admin accounts (which is the main justification for removing the bit), there was no particular correlation between activity of the account and likelihood of compromise. Risker (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  The "the only admin thing I ever do is look at deleted versions" admin seems to be a bit of a unicorn, I've heard of this, but can't recall ever meeting one. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  There are at least two that I know of, one of whom is on the list above. I'd also suggest it's the primary use of admin tools of a bunch of others (including a certain Mr. Wales). I do recall at least two admins who temporarily gave up the bit saying that the only thing they really missed when they continued editing without the bit was not being able to see deleted stuff; they didn't mind not feeling obligated to do the general mop work. Risker (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  Admins who only want tool access to do non-logged actions should probably not have the tools in the first place. They are called 'tools' for a reason. The expectation and obligation is that they will be used to do the general mop work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Only in death: - that seems dubious. The system could have been set up to record any fully protected edit as a logged action, but it would still be the same work. More relevantly, I would count handling the administrative bit around DYK as as general mop work as my closes in AfD. There is more than one way to serve. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  FWIW editing through protection is recorded by Special:AbuseFilter/942, created by xaosflux for this very purpose, I believe. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose so as long as we don't have ways to count unlogged admin actions. Which include (but not only that) edits to protected pages and denials of admin actions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose- What Jo-Jo Eumerus said. Editing protected pages, investigating deleted articles, and such are admin actions but if they're not logged it's misleading. I'm also not a fan of pressuring admins to make a token action every now and then just to hang on to the tools. Reyk _YO! 10:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• VPI? - this is a good idea, but perhaps should have a stint in VPI to resolve potential issues. There'd be a single initial irksome bump, but we could handle this by communicating to any admin getting close and either they can just make that action, or if they can point to non-logged admin work, then they can just be strained out of the list to remove. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose All admins have a use for the tools ie building an encyclopaedia. Since we are talking about users who are active, no harm is done by therm possessing them, even though they may not be actively engaged in admin work. There is no cap on the number of admins. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support any time frame. My prefernce would be 6 months. The admin flag isn't a trophy, it's a tool. If the user stopped being admin, for any reason, then they should not have the flag. I've also seen admins who actively log in once a year around the same date and do 1-3 edits. I'd even support a clause that prevents gaming the system, which can be verified on a case-by-case bases. --Gonnym (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Reyk and Hawkeye. Perhaps gently ask people to help out with some backlogs that require admin tools, but no need to force them. The only use for the proposal I can see is that we wouldn't overestimate the number of admins willing to block, protect, or delete, but I don't see anyone using the admin number for anything serious anyway. —Kusma (t·c) 20:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• Striking for now as I did not understand the proposal, and now that I do, I would like more time to think about it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 13:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC) Oppose If the users are active, find a backlog and ask if the admin would mind chipping away at it. Odds are, if they are still active, they are using the tools, just not taking logged actions. If the editor is not active, I think this is moot because inactivity requirements would kick in before this. Wug·a·po·des​ 11:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Wugapodes: I think this is aimed at admins that are making trivial edits-per-year just to stay admins, those that may no longer meet the requirements for restoration if they were to have access removed. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  They'll have to make one edit and delete/undelete a user subpage if this proposal passes. Won't make a substantial difference to people who do the minimum required to stay admins, but will de-admin those who refuse to game the system. —Kusma (t·c) 11:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  Ironic, considering I would rather retain the admins who refuse to game the system even if they aren't making a ton of logged actions. I think I'm still leaning oppose at the moment. People who game the current system will probably continue to do so if we change the requirement from X edits in Y days to X logged actions in Y days. The only casualties of such a change will be people who have some kind of moral conviction against gaming that new system. That's the opposite outcome from what I would want. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  Apply this immediately, with no warning period. Then there can be no gaming. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support Except the waiting period is too long. I actually like the idea of 6 months, proposed by Gonnym. Puddleglum ^2.0 04:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Jo-Jo. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose in its current form. Although I agree that administrators should use their tools to keep their tools, I think that the issue of logs not counting all admin actions means I cannot support this. To clarify, I think that viewing deleted edits is an administrator action which deserves counting, as they may be emailing users the deleted content when appropriate or using it for improvements to non-deleted pages. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose too many issues brought up for me to support this in current form. DrewieStewie (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The concept is flawed. Many uses of the admin toolset are not logged, so there is no way to verify that an admin is not using it or not. Editing through protections, for just one example. The tools should not be removed unless it is shown they are being abused or misused. --Jayron32 20:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support In my experience administrators who rarely if ever use their administrative powers are usually not involved in admin-related work, and are often quite out of touch with accepted standards, so that when at last they do make a rare admin action it is often way out of line. A significant proportion of them, in my experience, have been admins since the early days of Wikipedia, when virtually anyone who had been editing for a couple of months or so could become an administrator, and many people did so, without any relevant knowledge or experience, and without any interest in doing admin work, and have never been involved enough in administrative areas to be aware of policies and accepted practices. Of course the number of such administrators has declined over the years, but there are still some of them around, and from time to time I have seen one or another of them do things which are unacceptable.

Some of the objections listed above on the face of it appear to make sense, but in fact don't stand up to examination. For example, the remarks about administrators who only deny admin actions, not perform them. Yes, it is true that a decision that an admin action should not be performed is as much an administrative decision as a decision that it should be performed, but to be realistic what kind of administrator only ever decides not to take action, and never to take action? In the very unlikely event that there is someone who does that, I would be very interested to have his or her explanation as to how that can be constructive. Then we are told about administrators whose only use of the tools is to view deleted content. In my opinion that is a very good reason for the proposal, not against it. Administrators are given the power to view deleted content in order to be able to perform administrative tasks that require such viewing, not just as a kind of special privilege. If someone is an administrator purely so they can use that power for their own use, not in order to perform administrative tasks, then they should not be an administrator. And yes, of course people can think up possible justifications, such as "they may be emailing users the deleted content when appropriate or using it for improvements to non-deleted pages", but how realistic is it to suggest that there really are lots of administrators who use their admin powers for uses of that kind sufficiently frequently to make a significant impact, while never doing any other admin tasks, over the course of many years? It could happen, and just conceivably there may be someone somewhere who does that, but it is unrealistic to imagine there is a large enough number of such administrators to outweigh the very real damage done by the out-of-touch admins that I mentioned above. Likewise, it is correctly stated above that "Editing through protections" (presumably meaning admin-only protections) is an admin action that is not logged, but again, how realistic is it to suppose that there are administrators who use that ability often enough for it to be a significant useful contribution, while never doing any of the far more common and significant admin tasks? JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 20:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

As I write below, editing the main page is a service that isn't formally logged. Another reason for looking at deleted articles would be to check the deletion was in policy. For example, I just did a bunch of look-ups regarding the arbitration case open on RHaworth. It would be possible to patrol deletions and bring errors to deletion review without ever hitting undelete. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support and explicitly reject the red herring that "not all admin actions are logged". If we're talking in the short term, this is a real factor. If we're talking about a period of years it is not. An admin who is only using the viewdeleted right or other unlogged admin rights for five years isn't doing admin work, and that's what the community gave them the extra permissions for, so if they aren't doing admin work, they don't need the tools. One of the inactive admins who was just removed had one admin action in all of the 2010s, a single revdelete, and they didn't even do it right. This is exactly the kind of thing we should be actively curtailing with reasonable requirements like "maybe do some real admin work once every five years or so." Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose What problem is this trying to solve? There are processes to remove inactive editors, and rogue admins. Therefore, the people this would be seeking to remove the tools from are active editors who have not transgressed. Their trustworthiness was tested when they became admins, and they have done nothing to break it since. --Scott Davis ^Talk 21:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support I would support 3 years also. Likewise we should not count using admin tools less than one in let's say half a year, otherwise admins could game the system and make an admin edit every once in a while, just to avoid having their admin rights removed. Debresser (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per User:JBW. I really can't add anything to his thoughtful analysis. Except perhaps that two or three years would do me also. Bishonen | talk 21:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen I too think 5 years is longer than necessary, and 3, or perhaps even 2, would be better, but I think getting the change in some form, no matter what the time limit, would be a great improvement on the present situation. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 21:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@JBW: Yes, we really don't want this to fail because people suggest different lengths of time. That is not the focus of the discussion, and I hope the closer here counts all supports, no matter the time, together. Bishonen | talk 21:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC).

• Strong support although I would also support a shorter length of time as a few others have mentioned. I support reasonable activity requirements for every permission beyond extended-confirmed. It's sensible. Things change, and the only way to stay current is to be actively involved. Extra permissions are granted for those editors to make greater additional contributions beyond the editing that everyone can do. If they're not making those contributions, they don't need the permissions. Schazjmd (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Not ready to support or oppose yet, but I was concerned about the possibility of demoralizing a useful editor who maybe isn’t using their tools but is at least contributing, so I checked edit histories. We have 2 sysops with 0 edits in 2019, 9 with 1, 6 with 2, 6 with 3, 8 with 4, 8 with 5, 7 with 6, 7 with 7, 1 each with 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 21, 29, 40 edits in 2019. (I’m not going to post names, but if anyone wants to check my work just email me and I’ll send it.) --valereee (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unless unlogged actions such as editing the main page are included. There are several competent, active admins who serve primarily in that capacity and rarely if ever use the other components of the toolset. I do, however, take JBW's points on looking at deleted articles & declining requests for admin action; while these are administrative actions, if one never undeletes a wrongly deleted page or deletes a correctly speedy-tagged article over 5 entire years then something is going wrong. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support I do not think any administrator who has no logged action in five (5!) years is using their tools effectively at all. A simple look at ANRFC, CAT:RFU shows that there is work to be done, that is not being done. I do not understand the "unlogged admin actions exist" rationale as I cannot imagine being granted a toolset for the explicit purpose of using them and then choosing to do none of it for 5 years, it makes absolutely no sense. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  Just to clarify as Bish and JBW wrote above, I am acceptable to a 5-year period (as proposed). --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support; I think the suggestion that there are highly-active admins who never delete, undelete, block, or protect anything is somewhat of a red-herring. Also support any period of 2 years or longer. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support: admin status is not a right; admin should demonstrate active use of their tools. Support any range above 2 years; 5 years seems too long. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Personally, I honestly don't really know if I've taken particular advantage of logged admin powers recently - does reviewing deleted histories count, for example? I think the real consideration should be whether admins have stopped editing. I'm not a "red herring." For me, 5 years isn't that long a time, by the way. I've been editing Wikipedia for nearly 20 now. --The Cunctator (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  You deleted a page just a few months ago. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  While we're on the subject, are statistics on other admin actions such as page moves, file moves and template edits being kept? They are not listed as admin actions by the edit counter, but are still part of the admin tool set, and are frequently used. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support if DYK(+cascade) recognised, weak oppsoe if not - If the full-protected edit abuse filter is used, then I'd be on board (that is, either a logged action or an edit to a protected page). I'm reticent to think an appreciable amount of admin work could be done (in the scale of a multi-year timespan) purely by looking at deleted content. Preference for 2 years, support anything for 2+ years. I do however, feel that those editing protected (usually DYKers) need exemption, there's a filter log but it doesn't track cascaded protection. If they can be "caught" then I think it's a good positive, otherwise it's a weak negative . Nosebagbear (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Question: I see some editors are commenting about main page and DYK pages. If we have a group of admins only editing these pages and don't actually use the tools for other admin actions, won't a better solution be to create a new user-group that gives them the right to edit these pages? --Gonnym (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Gonnym: I know at least one editor that is working on a "main page editors" group proposal. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Support – If "need for the tools" is a primary concern and experience in using them important, then there should be a requirement that admin actions be taken regularly (and removing the privilege after a lapse of five years too lenient). However, what does some arbitrary time limit solve? If unused admin accounts are a security risk, there needs to be other action taken. If inexperienced admins start blundering about, there should be other, quicker ways of addressing the problem. I note that all the editors on the lapsed list above have edited in the 2018–19 time frame, even if their total edit counts are often surprisingly low. I don't like potentially driving away experienced, careful editors by applying some arbitrary time limit that doesn't really solve anything. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support assuming filter 942 hits are considered admin actions. Only using the view deleted content part for 5 years sounds unfeasible, but if this hypothetical person comes to BN asking for their bit back shortly after desysoping just go ahead and grant it. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  After seeing more and more people trying to find the unicorns and failing I would be fine with remocing it without checking the edit filter as well, but if someone comes complaining at WP:BN that the bit was removed when they were using it for deleted contribs. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support per JBW. -FASTILY 00:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support You're simply not an admin if you haven't done anything on the project for five years. I'd also strongly support it being brought down to two years, seeing as admins lose their rights after one year in any case. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose in its current form. Concept works, but there are problems with unlogged admin actions. Also, I a not sure about being an activ/e admin/user. >>BEANS X2t 13:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: a solution in search of a problem. Yes, there are issues with tools being kept by inactive admins, but just a few percent of admins fall under the scope of this proposal and this issue is relatively small compared to the enormous existential problem we have that there are too few admins, not too many. If you want to debate adminship, try talking about how to increase the number of RfAs or how to increase admin retention. — Bilorv (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• You are right Bilorv, but maybe the better solution is to show a more realistic view to the community of true number of admins in WP? Why inflate our perception of the size of the admin core when a material percentage have been missing for 5 years? Britishfinance (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Inflate by 62? I certainly didn't know the current number of admins to within 62 people before reading this discussion. I'd rather not waste more time arguing over what I continue to view as a solution in search of a problem, so I appreciate the ping but I'd prefer to receive no further pings in this discussion. — Bilorv (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Does it really matter either way? If someone is not using the tools then what does it matter whether they have the theoretical ability to do so? Surely a much greater problem would be that of admins who do use the tools, but use them badly? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Per JBW; perhaps definition of activity can be tightened to capture more actions, but as per JBW's comments, these are still pretty unlikely scenarios, and the core problem of non-functioning admins reviewing confidential information/making out-of-date actions, is a problem. It would also help to clarify how many admins we have in WP. Britishfinance (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• oppose, a solution looking for a problem. What is the problem, really? If someone has admin tools and they do not use them... the problem is...? The only significant problem I can see above is statistical, the list of admins are inflated, and yes that may be a problem, as some already explained. The simpler solution is to improve the stats about admins. Instead of only "we have 1000 admins", or "we have X active admins", make list of how many did at least N blocks / deletions / undeletions / revdels / etc. in the previous M months.(I am an admin, not very active, mostly a few deletions a month). - Nabla (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support as long as it is (a) with ample notice; (b) with right of refusal ("no, I'd like to keep this bit, I view deleted articles and such often enough that I find the bit useful"); and (c) without prejudice, so the removed status will be restored upon request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. As @K.e.coffman: made it perfectly clear: adminship is 100% a privilege. I just gave the administrators access to a list of 34 provisional admin candidates, and we should make good use of it to renew the admin pool. Perhaps two years will suffice? ミラP 04:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Two years seems long enough to me, but five years makes it pretty obvious that you're mostly just wearing a hat, not helping with backlogs. Another consideration is the principle of least privilege, which suggests that accounts should only have the privileges they need. The more accounts we have with admin access, the easier it is to find one with a terrible password and compromise it. Our website has been subject to brute-force attacks in the recent past, so this isn't just some obscure, theoretical issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. To User:Risker, User:Espresso Addict, and anyone else posing the hypothetical of admins using non-logged privileges to improve the encyclopedia without ever performing a logged action, I issue a challenge: I would like to see some real examples, please. Because I'm not finding them. I started going through the logs of users who had edited the main page recently, then similarly for DYK queues, and found no examples that did not have a logged delete/protect/block within the past several months, much less for the multiple years proposed as the new standard. Frankly, if these people exist, I would expect them to be coming forward themselves, to point out the protected edit requests they fulfilled, the bad deletions they have raised at DRV (or ANI or wherever), the WP:G4 deletions they have declined after looking at deleted material, etc. All without a single logged action for multiple years. I am willing to go so far as to assert that no such admin exists; prove me wrong if you can. Also to be clear, if someone has examples of privileged users reading deleted edits without connection to any sort of admin work, I would consider those to be examples in favor of this proposal. We do not want users to be able to creep through libels, copyright violations, and exposed private information unless they need to do so for administrative tasks. That is why this is an advanced privilege in the first place! Indeed, for anyone saying this is a "solution looking for a problem", I say the opposite: unchecked, unmonitored eternal access to deleted edits is a problem posing as a solution, a problem that should never have been built into the system in the first place. It is time we fixed that problem. --RL0919 (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@RL0919: I'm mainly thinking of the admins who maintain the main page. There was a long period, not recently, when I rarely if ever performed a logged admin action but did patrol main-page errors, copy edit DYK queues and update ITN. There doesn't seem to be a way to analyse logged actions for an admin in the way the edit counter displays edit count by month; that would be interesting. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

That would be interesting, but more important is that with the edit filter mentioned above, we do have a way to identify protected page edits that are not included in the standard logs. A formal RfC to establish a new standard for admin actiivty should include that. Which means the main things missing are reviewing deleted edits and denying requested admin actions, so the scope for the hypothetical untrackable admins is even smaller. --RL0919 (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The proposal as written seems to exclude actions captured by the edit filter but not the log. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support 5 years, only counting actual admin logged actions. This would align more with the cut off for reinstatement at BN. A bot could check for these, perhaps monthly. Don't bother with any countdown warnings. The real test of this would be shown after it is implemented: how many admins get removed via this process that re-request at WP:RFA and pass shortly after? If this become a significant number, revisit. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - solution in search of a problem, and an overall net-negative. Anecdote: I used to be an administrator here, and went on a year-and-a-half hiatus. When I came back, I no longer had admin privileges. I'm not going to ask for them back - I'm not that active here anymore, nor do I really want to be. But if I had still had the bit, I probably would have probably used it occasionally to the benefit of the project. Removing the bit from inactive administrators doesn't really help anyone. Rami R 19:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comments
  • This proposal looks a little loose and it is unclear what the outcome would be because of introduced caveats and the nature of the proposal seems to have changed. Unclear wording. Some are supporting leaving no notice which is flawed and a bit rude. If the proposal called for leaving a talkpage notice, and emailing the admins for those that have it enabled, asking them to post at the bureaucrats' noticeboard justifying why they should keep the tools then that would be more satisfactory to the community. Accommodating for some of the concerns in the comments above, this would also allow the opportunity for the odd cases of admins that never make any logged actions to still be heard. If they explain themselves adequately then they could retain the tools but the matter could be left to the consensus of the bureaucrats. I still think that the wording needs to be refined.
  • The !voting above is still a local consensus. If the wording were well-adjusted then you would need to setup an RfC and advertise at AN and CENT. I think it is premature for that.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

    @Berean Hunter: This RfC is held at a centralized venue and listed at CENT, thus consensus here is not LOCALCONSENSUS. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support Per JBW. I have come close to the 1 year mark of no admin actions in the past but I still think some time limit is needed. I think 6 months is too short and five years absurdly long. 1-2 years seems about right. Inactive admins (not using the buttons) are also a security risk and clearly a consideration in this matter. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't count unlogged actions, such as Main Page updates. If I shifted my admin work away from AIV to focus just at T:ITN, then my tools would be removed under this standard. Spencer^T•C 20:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Spencer: No system is going to be perfect, but I have to question how relevant this specific reason is. Is there evidence that there has ever been an admin who would've been desysopped because literally the only thing they did for three straight years was update the main page? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Not that I can think of, and I'm not familiar with any of the names on the list being active at ITN (can't speak to DYK). That said, I think that if we're going to be taking away tools, that the criteria need to be well constructed. Additionally, for further rationale, I believe this proposal is a solution in search of a problem. Best, Spencer^T•C 04:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: There's Gatoclass who uses the tools to edit fully-protected pages for DYK and made no logged admin actions from 2016 until 2019 [1].-- P-K3 (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, it's not like we have a limited number of admin slots. As long as someone is not abusing the tools and has not left Wikipedia entirely (which we already handle), there is no harm in them continuing to have them. Besides, such a measure would only require a token gesture, such as creating a userspace subpage and deleting it, to get around. We only desysop for inactivity when the admin apparently has no interest at all in editing Wikipedia for an extended period, and that's exactly as it should be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Personally I'd prefer 1-2 years over 5, If the user for whatever reason hasn't used their tools for 5 years then they should be removed. –Davey2010^Talk 21:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support Per JBW. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bilorv, this is indeed a solution in search of a problem. The real problem is the dearth of RFAs, not the retention of unused tools by a minuscule minority of admins. GAB^gab 04:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how addressing one problem precludes from addressing the other. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Inactivity removal for inactive admins already exists. This proposal just tells active admins who mostly edit articles to "go block a vandal" or "go delete a spam page" every five years. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not sure what this proposal is supposed to accomplish. As long as a sysop is not abusing their privileges, who cares how frequently they use it? As is, there already is precedent for removing sysop rights based on inactivity, so there isn't really anything to gain by making this procedural. The nom themselves stated that this would only apply to a grand total of 62 users, out of over 1000 sysops. Clearly, this isn't a very pressing issue. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Because there is a provable, recurrent problem with admins who haven't been doing admin work for a prolonged period suddenly deciding to dive back in and misusing the tools or misunderstanding current norms for their use. I have seen cases of admins who haven't used their tools in over a decade, but so long as they make one edit every year, they keep their adminship. There was one extreme case where a user had never used the tools, yet had them for something like 12 years, and could've just dove in and started blocking people and deleting content at any time right up to the day they were finally removed for total inactivity. And even then, under policy at that time, they would've had two years to ask for the tools back and they would've been granted. Does that really seem like a good idea? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It doesn’t sound good, and that is why I’m fine with sysop rights being removed on a case by case basis. However, making this into a rigid procedure is a bit overkill. We’re essentially worried about a problem that is easy to fix after the fact, and that is only applicable to a grand total of 62 users, simply because of a few incidents in the past. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 03:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support per what he said. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 04:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The "solution in search of a problem" has not been disproved. This along with the continual "deadmin those who don't edit enough" proposals being reduced further and further indicate what I consider a disturbing trend. Getting rid of more and more sysops simply makes those who hold the position more and more of a clique power-group who wield more power than they really should. Originally the admin bits were to be no big deal - and yet this site continues to make it a bigger and bigger deal with proposals such as this. Not that I really care for myself, but be careful what you wish for. — Ched (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support (with comeback restrictions) . If the admin decided to comeback they should not be allow to use admin tools for a short time. (5 year admin inactivity = 5 week no special admin tools no exceptions) Regice2020 (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support Security 101 actively vet your admins and remove inactive admins. We provide anyone that wants a list of inactive admin accounts to take over - the list of 215 admins that have not done anything for the past 3 months. A good security improvement would be to remove admin after 3 months inactivity, to be automatically returned on request when coming back to activity... And give admins a reasonable number of returns e.g. 5 returns before loss of rights - lots of people have gaps in there support of wikipedia - we all have alternative lives :) But there does need to be some protection. RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support It's bad practice to allow the list of admins to become contaminated with those who never act in that capacity: (1) it encourages hat-collecting/retention; (2) it makes it more difficult for users who need to talk to an admin to find one who is actually active; (3) it gives power to people who don't have up-to-date knowledge of the tools and (even more important) the community; and (4) it provides users with a spurious aura of power/respect to which they are no longer entitled. I'd say that five years is far too long; two would be better but I'd go along with five. No concerns about the 'unlogged admin activity' issue; that is a real edge-case. The number of people usefully acting as an admin for five years without ever doing anything that gets logged as an admin action must be vanishingly small. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Hi everyone! I'm one of those "unicorns" that xaosflux doubts exists. My most frequent use of my Admin powerz is to look at deleted pages. Once in a while I'll move a page because when I created it I screwed up the name. But I rarely use the other powerz in part because I don't look for fights where I can flaunt those abilities & intimidate other users. I'm here to do something that might surprise people: write & improve content. (This is the kind of selfless, benevolent effort that made Wikipedia one of the top 10 websites. Not fancy software or spending 2 years drafting a 2030 strategy plan.) I do keep them at hand as I in case they are needed, but often I can find another way to solve a problem. BTW, I believe I'm fairly up-to-date on policies & whatnot, & if I'm a little rusty I know where to go to refresh my memory. (Hmm. I ran for ArbCom lately, & no one acted as if I didn't know that stuff.) As someone else said above, this is a solution in search of an answer, & all this does is create Yet Another Hoop for me to jump thru just to contribute. -- llywrch (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Llywrch: sorry, but I think I'm going to have to confiscate your horn - while you are certainly on the light side for logged admin power usage you are well outside of the 5 year threshold I mentioned. Not only have you certainly logged admin activity in the last 5 years, but you have indeed logged admin activity in each of the last 5 years (Here are some spot examples from your own log: 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015). — xaosflux ^Talk 00:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  Not only safe for a 5-year threshold, but even for a 2 or 3 year limit. I think this speaks to a lot of the unspoken concern that may exist among admins who worry that they could lose access easily, almost accidentally. The reality is that even if you think you aren't very active, just being around to comment on this discussion means you are almost certainly more active than the people who would be affected by this proposal or any largely similar proposal. --RL0919 (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support – activity requirements serve two purposes: they increase security, and they encourage people to use the tools they have been given. We already have activity requirements for bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, stewards, and OTRS, all of which are way more stringent than one action in 5 years. There's even talk of having activity requirements for non-admin perms such as new page patrol and AfC. One logged action in 5 years is not too much to ask. – bradv🍁 03:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  We already do already have activity requirements for new page reviewer namely 12 months, same for page mover and probably others. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support I would join the oppose side if anyone made an argument for the correct amount of time. If not 5 years, is it 7, 10, or what? We take enough care with the management of admin rights that it seems reasonable to me to remove them when not in use after a certain amount of time. I recognized that there are unlogged admin rights, but to me, making at least 1 edit every 5 years (or whatever is the appropriate amount of time, whether longer or shorter) is a reasonable bar to demonstrate awareness that we monitor the userright. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support It's pretty simple: if the community trusted a user to have extra tools it was with the understanding that those tools would be used to improve the project. Keeping the tools "just in case" they might find them useful or just because they like the status or just to look at otherwise-hidden pages is not using them to improve the project. Even the "non logged admin actions" argument is largely illusory, as Llywrch's experience above demonstrates. I don't see anything in all the arguments above to indicate that an admin using the tools only in ways that are escaping the logs is actively improving the project. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Well Xaosflux may have made a persuasive point, but there is one other non-logged function Admins perform that has not been mentioned here: closing discussions, both at WP:AN/I, & those listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Which is where I've been most recently been working -- or at least until I was forced to cut back on my activities here 15 months ago. (And there is another non-logged function -- speaking offline as a representative of en.wikipedia -- where being able to mention having the Admin bit gives one a bit more credibility than simply saying "I have made a lot of edits". But were there a way to acknowledge Wikipedians who are more involved for longer periods than others, I'll admit that this would not be an issue.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support – I do think that the current administrator inactivity policy is too lenient. In general, administrators should be expected to use the tools they are given on a regular basis. Not doing so may be harmful because policies and best practices may change over time as Wikipedia matures and develops a better understanding of the best administrative responses to various situations. One logged action every five years is probably still too lenient, but it is stricter than the lenient policy we currently have. Mz7 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – for those interested in more of these "unicorns", Gatoclass and Art LaPella are two more examples. It is only a bit of an exaggeration to say that they trigger filter 942 more times in a month that they've ever made logged actions. I think I understand the motivation behind this proposal, but I'm not particularly certain what problem it will solve. It is still trivial to game – one edit per year plus one logged action per five years. It feels like it will add another layer of bureaucracy to an already bureaucratic process. If we agree that lifetime appointments are not a Good Thing, then we should go about fixing the systemic issues instead. With the current system, it's unwise to let one's admin powers lapse, because RfA is not very pleasant or easy to go through. So, if an admin hopes to be more active in the future, then it makes perfect sense to make token edits to avoid the issue (but as we know, not all dreams come true). The current inactivity system is very specific-numbers-oriented because it doesn't really involve community review (it's largely done by a bot overseen by a few bureaucrats). If there were to be more community oversight (think like a steward confirmation on meta), then the cases of last 50 edits date in the past 5-10 years would not sneak through. It also really depends on what the community wants admins to be. In terms of raw numbers of users with the sysop bit, I think the majority is from a time where No Big Deal meant "you've been around for a while and we trust you not do anything dumb, so here's +sysop if you ever need it" whereas now we generally expect RfA candidates to demonstrate competency in a variety of administrative areas to have any chance of passing. It's also important to note that most inactivity proposal have failed in the past. I, for one, am not a fan of what we have already. I think either just not bothering with inactivity desysops (recent compromises have been of abundantly active accounts) or doing a more thorough admin-by-admin review (hopefully coupled with a lower bar at RfA...) are better than the system we have right now. Maxim_(talk) 15:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Maxim: I think my dreams of unicorns are getting stretched a bit :) Originally this referenced an admin who claimed to only ever look at deleted content - but extending it to protected editing isn't too hard - as it was only meant to be an absolute cut off for why there are no logs at all. Both of your example admins have logged admin actions within the last 3 months. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  Xaosflux, oooops, I'm sorry for misinterpreting you... :-/ I got totally focused on the logged actions part. Maxim_(talk) 15:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose no need, more bureaucracy, discourages users from returning to such work. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think there is a problem. I do know that I have gone at least two consecutive calendar years without a logged action, but I was in the top half of active admins in number of logged actions in calendar 2019. If I lost the mop, I don't know that I would want to put myself through the current process of RfA. - Donald Albury 20:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per bradv🍁 and  Beeblebrox - Occasional use of privileges is a reasonable expectation for administrators, and a reasonable baseline for security. Category:Administrative backlog shows that there is no shortage of tasks, simple or complex, for an admin to take on if they have a free hour or so in a given 5 year period.Dialectric (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The admin toolkit is a privilege based on trust, not a job with obligations. If someone is participating in the community, and has earned the trust to use advanced tools, there is no need to remove them unless they are misusing them, showing the trust was misplaced. Enough with the Chinese water torture of trying to find bureaucratic ways to remove adminship from people; seems there's a new proposal in this direction every month or so! If someone with a rusty "admin" label, however you choose to define it, is not causing any harm, why not just let them be and perhaps some day they will use the tools to the net benefit of the encyclopedia? Martinp (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• @JBW: wouldn't this proposal create the very problems you're suggesting? The 1st thing someone who gets a message about loosing their tools is going to do is go straight to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and possibly preform bad deletions. And I don't think we could remove tools without warning (and I wouldn't support that). Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  Sure we could. We could put it in ADMINNEWS, wait a month, then do it. Everyone doesn't really need an engraved invitation. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support Over 60 people are still admins with advanced permissions that they have not used since those advanced permissions were given much more freely, they haven't used them in over five years, they don't need them, things are very different on the wikipedia and the www since then, remove them immediately would be my position. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• oppose I have some concerns on the actual logging of some aspects of admins using tools as described above, there are some solutions in the pipeline for part of that but they arent here. The other issue I have is that as volunteers we take on roles for the community, some of these roles can cause COI most of us manage those periods of potential COI with no fanfare. I've just stepped down after 6 years in a leadership role President/Vice President of an affiliate, during that time there were a lot of demands on my time for the community that restricted my on WP activity. In those 6 years I still followed changes and shifts in policy, edited articles, ran workshops, and other things using the mop but also in balance with my role serving the Affiliate as a volunteer at times meant that there were many areas where it wasn't prudent to act as admin blocking/unblocking, deleting/restoring, protecting or not despite the correctness of such action because they could be conceived as giving the affiliate an editorial control over content. Yes I did log activities like account creation, cleaning up post workshops, deleteing images uploaded as a demonstration, there are many other things in a persons life that may cause an active editor to stop using the mop for periods of time after 5 years. I accept that the a question could be asked lets have a clear process of discussion over time, that starts before then, rather than create a group hunters stalking, waiting for the foot over the line moment to bag 'em selves an admin. Gnangarra 13:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Gnangarra: hi there Gnan. I see good faith users with concerns around long term non usage of advanced permissions, you say you see hunters stalking, waiting for the foot over the line moment to bag 'em selves an admin. please assume good faith wp:agf thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Govindaharihari: heres the interesting thing why cant we also assume good faith in the admins, if they are doing no harm then why take the mop away. 15 years experience on here, tells me that this isnt an issue but the stalking will be. I also said lets have a clear process of discussion that starts before 5 years. What I propose at 3 years just a simple notice by bot something like its has been 3 years since the system recorded any admin actions from your account, if you no longer need them please contact a Bureaucrat to remove them. You can reapply at any time for the mop to be reinstated without issue.. Then repeat the message at 4 years also add If you have been using the mop please contact WP:BN with a diff to report there may an issue logging admin actions.... then at 4 years 6 months It is has been 4 years 6 months since you logged an admin action please post to WP:BN to confirm you still need the mop"... finally at 5 years It has been 5 years and you have not performed a recorded admin action, you may soon find that the mop has been removed without prejudice. you have 14 days to post at WP:BN the reason why you need the tools, or can request bureaucrat to contact you by email if there is reason that cant be made public. A Bureaucrat will review your activity then contact you by email to confirming the removal of the mop. Should the user convince the bureaucrat to continue holding the mop the crat would put a time limit on how much longer they should be given to perform an admin action at which stage the bot would notify at WP:BN that time is up and the mop should be removed. The process is then a minor procedural action that happens in the background notification are automated by a bot supervised by Bureaucrats, its not something editors need to commentate on. For those who have currently passed the 5 year mark they should given the 4 year 6 month notice in good faith recognising they have served the community for a long time and let the process commence from there. As has been said by Govindaharihari the process is it not a hunting party looking to bag 'em selves an admin is it? Gnangarra 04:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
      • @Gnangarra: thanks for the reply. I support your proposals in many ways, I am just of the opinion that long term advanced users rights without use should be removed, regards. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I just saw the list above of people with the Admin bit who haven't used it in 5 years. (My first reaction is of surprise that some of these people are still around: 6 of them joined Wikipedia before me!) As Gnangarra points out, some do contribute in inobvious ways, such as Mindspillage who is a former member of the Board of Trustees. At the vary least, if this proposal is implemented they deserve a warning that if they don't perform an admin action in the next 30 days it will be removed. (Some might simply consent to losing it if asked.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• No thanks. It feels like we are getting a constant stream of these proposals now. Once, administrators served for life and this rule became ill-fitting when Wikipedia started maturing. We changed the rules so that inactive accounts could no longer be administrators. Then we changed it once or twice more, as we watched the rule play out in practice and needed to refine it. That sort of fixed the whole problem of administrators never losing their permissions. It should not have opened the door to a constant tinkering with what is "good enough" from an admin. We decide that sort of thing in the course of events, not by trying to pre-set an arbitrary threshold and constantly changing its definition. Things here are fine. AGK ■ 13:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, this appears to be a solution in search of a problem. Is there any evidence of actual harm caused by non-use of admin privileges? I see no benefit to instituting yet more bureaucracy to fix a non-existent problem. older ≠ wiser 14:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Not all admin actions are logged. This isn't really solving any issue. -DJSasso (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with removing privileges from fully-inactive accounts, but if someone is active in the community, there's no reason to remove the bit because it might possibly be used incorrectly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per many arguments above. Furthermore: the biggest problem we face is attracting and retaining admins, not removing them. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. To me, adminship is about trust, civility, and knowledge. If a person, who I previously thought to be trustworthy, civil, and knowledgeable hasn't done anything to provide evidence of no longer being so, then the status quo remains. Useight (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per user:Seraphimblade and user:Reaper Eternal -- PBS (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose in current form though basic reasoning is correct (and I have not given fullest scrutiny) Proposal needs to be framed as a modification of WP:INACTIVITY. From a security viewpoint leaving inactive admins around just increases the attack surface. With absolutely no disrespect to anyone a long length of inactivity may in some cases mean capability, currency and/or judgement may have become impaired. But RL commitments do come up people and quite rightly they may need to stand back for a while. Key point is any modification needs to be in the context of a specific change to WP:INACTIVITY in my opinion.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per JBW and Beeblebrox. Doing one logged action every five years is hardly an onerous demand. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Do we actually have a problem with inactive admins forgetting how the tools work? This seems like it would lead admins to do some pointless token admin action every 5 years, and I can't see how that would benefit the project. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per many well-reasoned arguments above. I would support a shorter time period as well, but five years is a nice low bar to start. CThomas³ (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Making no edits or anything at all is one thing, but this seems like a solution in search of a problem that provides little-to-no benefit to the project. Master of Time (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per JBW et al Levivich 03:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Meh The ancient (in Internet terms) problem this is trying to solve is admins are simultaneously "just editors with some extra buttons" and authority figures. Separate the two as much as practical, and the problem vanishes. There is no fundamental reason why deleting a page (which doesn't annihilate the data; it just sets a database flag) and passing judgment on users need to be linked. It's simply path dependence. UseModWiki had "superuser" functions protected by password (simply copying standard Unix permissions), and then when MediaWiki was cooked up to replace it, it copied this "ordinary user and superuser" construct, and then this ossified because of standard human cognitive biases (status quo bias, change aversion). This has already been implicitly recognized by separating out some functions like checkuser and template editor, but only because the status quo became untenable enough to get people to acquiesce to the changes. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly support concept but understand that it's "not do-able as proposed" since we don't log all admin-required activity. How about a counter-proposal: Administrators who do not use the tool for 2 years and every year thereafter they would be notified and asked if they wanted to keep the bit. They would also be notified that if they did not say "yes" or did not use the tool in a way that is logged, they would automatically be desysopped after 5 years of their last logged action or the last time they said "yes, I want to keep it," whichever is later. They would get additional warnings every month for at least 6 months prior to being desysopped. No admin would be desysopped under the proposal for 5 years after the approval of this proposal, but they could still be desysopped for overall inactivity under current rules. Oh, personally, I think the term should be 2 years, not 5, with the first notice given after 1 year of "appearent non-use," but 5 years is much better than forever. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unless/until we can detect and incorporate non-logged administrative actions including viewing deleted files, closing AfDs, etc. There are many different ways of using the administrative tools and we shouldn't force out the ones who are doing useful administrative editing in non-logged ways. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not entirely against stripping admin rights away but it would be nice to check in with those users that have been inactive for a long period(s) of time. Maybe require some form of two-factor authentication for admins? (That would toss the security concerns to the wayside, IMO.) Five years of inactivity is pretty long but I'm against discouraging potential returnees from working on Wikipedia again. Back Home (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not everything an admin has access to is logged, so it's impossible to fully know whether or not the admin tools have been used. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: if there are concerns over the counterproductive removal of administrator tools from editors who use them for non-logged tasks, such as editing through protection or viewing deleted content, why not simply allow these editors to provide evidence of this to avoid losing the kit? For example, when notified that admin permissions are due to be revoked, an editor who works in Main Page-related content could provide a recent diff of an update to a protected template, or one who reviews deleted articles could name one they checked recently, and the timer would reset. – Teratix ₵ 09:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Strongest Support Admins have to go through the RFA process. This means that they actively chose to request the tools. They were granted them. Five years is a really long time. That's 1/4 of the entire time that Wikipedia has existed. Jerod Lycett (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support because this is true: "administrators who rarely if ever use their administrative powers are usually not involved in admin-related work, and are often quite out of touch with accepted standards". This on the other hand, "Many uses of the admin toolset are not logged, so there is no way to verify that an admin is not using it or not" is basically irrelevant; it is not feasible that someone is actively working as an admin yet never once in five years peforming a single admin-logged action. This isn't about percentages, so heavy use of non-logged tools doesn't matter. And if it came down to it – if it turned out that enacting this would cost us a couple of actual active admins – just change the logging to have fewer gaps. This is a website, not an archaeological site, and we can bend it to our needs on-the-fly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Still have concerns per those listed (See change of !vote below and comments): Per Jo-Jo Eumerus (no way to count unlogged admin actions), Hawkeye7 (no harm is done and no cap on the number), DrewieStewie (too many issues with this), Jayron32 (flawed), ScottDavis (there are ways to remove inactive editors, and rogue admins), Bilorv (a solution in search of a problem. ...there are too few admins, not too many), Spencer (focus' on T:ITN), Llywrch (unicorn that helps), Martinp (it is a position of trust not obligation), and finally per Gnangarra (assume good faith in the admins, if they are doing no harm then why take the mop away). Comments: I will add that while I feel some of the "Supports" have good faith reasoning (especially SMcCandlish I feel it is somewhat misplaced. Is there not procedures in place to recall admins? If so then why seek to "automatically" remove them? That is my issue! I have been here just a little while (compared to some) but mostly have trust in Admins and have voted for them on that premise not on how active they may be. If there is an issue with one or more then lets discuss it at the proper venue on a case-by-case basis. Shouldn't that really be how it is done? Otr500 (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

More comments: This will not be just a cut-and-dried !vote as issues of the maximum timeline have evolved that will likely involve yet another RFC. I am a non-admin so have a very neutral opinions. If any editor(s) wishes to curtail the inactive admins (62 seems like a lot) ping me at the proper place. We can discuss it, ping the admin, see what is going on (or get no response), and make a community based decision if there are net positive reasons for removing the tools.

For some likely strange reason that seems a better solution. If they were "automatically" given the rights then maybe let's discuss "automatically" removing them. Otr500 (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Otr500, what "procedures in place to recall admins" are you talking about? We fairly notoriously don't have procedures in place to recall admins, which is the primary reason this proposal exists in the first place; at the moment the only three ways admin status can be removed are (1) following a full-scale arbitration case, (2) by the WMF as an office action (something unlikely ever to happen again given the backlash on the one occasion they tried it), or (3) as a temporary emergency measure under Level I/II in the case of an obviously compromised account or an account which is causing disruption and has not provided an explanation of their actions. ‑ Iridescent 14:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there are no recall procedures. Some admins voluntarily agree to abide by some, when they were doing their RfAs, but the community never developed any, and, well, people can change their minds, so it wouldn't be binding anyway, even if we did. And most admins did not tacitly agree to such things, anyway. As for ArbCom, our official "active desysopping" channel, they only do it in cases of egregious actual abuse, not risk. The proposal here is consistent with other means the community has enabled for auto-desyopping inactive admins under various (time-lengthy) conditions. It's not a punishment, it's a basic security measure. Any admin simply inactive as one (or entirely) for 5 years due to real life would be welcomed back without any big deal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support An admin who does not perform logged admin tasks, in most cases will not need the admin-rights. A shorter term is - in my opinion - advisable but as a courtesy an admin should be warned after six months. The Banner talk 14:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support; I find the opposes completely unconvincing. The only reason anyone has admin status is to use it for the benefit of the project; some hypothetical admin who's managed to go a whole five years without a single logged action and is too lazy to spend the five minutes it would take to wander over to CAT:CSD and accept/decline a single deletion request, but nonetheless wants to cling on to the toolset solely so they can snoop through deleted revisions isn't just not a positive to Wikipedia, they're a security risk and an active net negative. As far as I'm concerned five years is still ridiculously lax and we should be thinking more in terms of six months, but if we're going to start we have to start somewhere. ‑ Iridescent 14:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  I agree entirely but didn't want to be the one to put it into such sharp relief. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support - five years is a very long time to go without a single logged admin action, for all practical purposes such admins are not using their advanced permissions for the benefit of the community. Realistically they are also out of date with current usage practices. In fact I would say that 2-3 years would be probably more reasonable limit.--Staberinde (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Very Weak Support I do support this kind of policy to be in place. However, a 5 year time seems like a lot to me. I would say about 2-3 years, as Staberinde said above. I also do support a system that another user said above that some admins will make a few edits at the same time each year to keep the system the same. I would support a system to prevent admins from doing that, as I would call that Gaming the system, as a user stated above. If the time does change, I may do a stronger support. However, considering the usefulness of a policy like this in place, I will opt to do a very weak support, and not go with an oppose or a neutral. --TFFfan (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support (change of !vote): Per User:SMcCandlish (Any admin simply inactive as one (or entirely) for 5 years due to real life would be welcomed back without any big deal.), and User:Iridescent ("cling on to the toolset" and "if we're going to start we have to start somewhere"), and agree "five years is still ridiculously lax". Otr500 (talk)

Comments and concerns: Can someone provide clarification: What is the end result of Slight tweak to lengthy inactivity policy and the closing of "admins who have not used the admin tools for a prolonged period (5 years is mentioned) will usually be required to reapply via Wikipedia:Requests for adminship."? If that still stands would this proposal clarify the "tweek" or just add mud to the water with the addition of "(maybe 5 years)"?

Concerns: I saw above mention of AFD and not being admin logged actions. If this is true and an AFD closure requires Admin action (use of tools say per deletions) why is that not recorded as a logged Admin action? Why are other "uses of the tools" not counted as logged actions? It would seem that any "use of the tools" (actions a regular editor cannot make) would be counted. How hard would it be to "log" Admin edits to the main page?

My misunderstanding was the removal of tools for inactivity. "Inactivity" is only if an Admin has "no edits (deleted or otherwise) or log actions for one year". I do not think Adminship should be a lifelong "appointment" or a trophy "if" the tools are not used for the benefit of the community. We give the tools to those we trust ---but--- that is surely with expectations that they will be used. I still have concerns over non-logged Admin actions and wonder how many on the list that would actually include. Concerns of an Admin gaming the system (logging an action "just to retain the tools") should be a concern and reasons to consider a solution. I saw that none of the names in the list were linked to and since those on the list may assuredly be affected by this is there a reason they wouldn't be notified (pinged) of this discussion? Otr500 (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)