Talk:Admin activity review/Archives/2014

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Massive edit to policy needs approval

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Issue was resolved, let's move on, nothing to see here. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

A user made extensive copy-editing changes to the policy. I have reverted, and would suggest that anyone seeking to edit policy like that (massively, suddenly) self-revert and request review. I did look over the changes and noticed nothing other than alternative wording, some of which may be improvements, but "improvements" may introduce changes that may not be noticed. I did not review the history of this policy, but presumably the policy, as drafted, was approved as-is and *not* as amended. The ordinary time for copy editing would be before approval.

There is no requirement that policy be maximally correct, grammatically or otherwise in expression. What is important is that it be clear in interpretation. Nevertheless, I certainly would not have reverted a spelling correction!

It's fine if anyone but the original editor revert me. I am not asserting that there is anything wrong with the revision by the user. I'm just standing for what the page itself says: This page has been elaborated and approved by the community and its compliance is mandatory for all projects. It must not be modified without prior community approval. "Modified" means modified, in any way. Prompt self-reversion would be a way to submit a copy edit for approval. -Abd (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That is a really unnecessary and unadvised change on your part, for if nothing else other than to say that you do not disagree with the change. It's just wikilawyering to change back regular copyedits. And no one is expected to conform to the strange behavior of self-reversion and lengthy wall of text meant to wear out others just because they do what they think is right for the wiki. You contradict yourself when you say "Nevertheless, I certainly would not have reverted a spelling correction!" followed by "'Modified' means modified, in any way." You could at least have shown some sign of good faith that you "did look over the changes", by actually examining and then selectively reverting which of my five total changes (yes, five edits broken up for your convenience) instead of wholesale reinstating the grammatically incorrect and poorly written policy page as is. This is rules for the sake of rules. And it assumes my edits were done in bad faith. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
(editconflict)Well, following this logic you might as well have reverted to revision 5653595 instead, as that was the date the policy was implemented, and because it was already changed substantially to this revision before I got here to make copyedits. Instead you conveniently only revert my revisions to the page. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The version that was approved was Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders/Summary, which is slightly different. I think TCNSV's edits do not change the meaning of the policy. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the link PRS, did not know that that page was there to compare with. Abd, I think you can judge for yourself, and I recommend you 'self-revert' so you can submit your 'disagreement' for review. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
PRS may certainly implement his opinion ("I think...*) by reverting me. It only takes a moment. Anyone who has carefully reviewed all the changes and is willing to take responsibility for there being no substantial change may also properly revert me. I'd prefer it be a steward, by the way, but it's not required. TCNSV refers to prior edits, as if I were objecting to the very fact of edit. No, I would not have reverted isolated edits, such as the edits removing the description of the approval process. Those were easy to review.
Personally, I would not have advised TCNSV to make *any* edits, because if they don't change the meaning, what is the point of requiring others to review the edits? Just to make the language more perfect? However, TCNSV did this, and has a right to have his changes reviewed. What I set up requires that review and approval, as required by policy about policies. If nobody else signs on to the edits, by reverting me, the policy stays as-is, being closer to what was already approved, if not exactly so.
TCNSV's comment suggesting I self-revert appears to completely miss the point of requiring a review of substantial changes. I reverted to support policy, and I'm done. I propose, I do not dispose. It's up to the community.
He also suggested that I should have reviewed each change, individually. In other words, I should have taken much more time. There are two cases: either there is no change in meaning introduced by his changes, in which case the matter is not worth spending time on, the existing policy is fine, as-is, even if the language is not perfect according to someone's opinion, or there is a change, in which case the edit is dangerous. Both point to requiring a review and approval before accepting the change, whenever massive changes, more than a couple of easily understood edits, are made at once or in a very short time. There is, however, no claim of impropriety, hence no assumption of bad faith. Had I assumed bad faith, I'd have acted quite differently. --Abd (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
So now attempts at showing civility and common decency to another user - like doing the review yourself instead of being absolutely lazy and calling someone else - are now considered things "not worth spending time on"? Abd, in what world do you live in where this is suddenly not a requirement for everyone to function collaboratively? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Would someone else please explain this matter to TCNSV, because he's obviously not going to get it from me? I've already spent way too much time on this issue, explaining what I did, that should not have required any more than my original revert, edit summary, and explanation above. However, if the changes don't change the meaning, just how much are they worth? How much effort should the community invest reviewing them? I did review the changes, once through, and, to me, first impression, the original language was correct and the changes were alternate expressions, also correct. So what is the fuss about? The community will accept the change, or not, and that's that. --Abd (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
What is the fuss about? That the undo button only be used when you disagree with someone and not for the sake of adhering to rules. If you do not disagree with the changes, the page would not be your concern as it would not affect you, and if you did disagree with it, you would outline such disagreement with the other party to explain your revert. These things are common sense. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Here you go, w:Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary:

You should generally avoid reverting. Revert vandalism upon sight but revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration. It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit.

TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
What TCNSV suggests should be policy (Undo only to be used when you disagree with the changes) isn't policy, and I know this by long experience. There is, in fact, a defacto policy that changes to policies should be approved before being made, so if a "disagreement" is wanted, it would be that this policy was violated by his edits. It's explicit on the page. There is very sound reason for the policy, it is not merely a rule for the sake of rules. We make an exception for simple, easily reviewed changes, but the exception does not change the rule. TCNSV's changes were complex enough to not be immediately and easily reviewed. Editing policies is not like editing ordinary articles, else why the explicit prohibition on the page?
I'm also wary of encouraging editors to take it on themselves to "improve" policy pages as he did. It creates more work, possibly for many users, and to what end? How will this improve the projects, if, indeed, there is no change in meaning, as claimed?
TCNSV quotes Wikipedia guidelines that have no application to edits of policies, either on Wikipedia or here or on the other wikis. And he is arguing tenaciously here, and to what end? How will this argument improve the projects? I find it important, on occasion, to stand for policy, and that is what I did. The policy is sound. I'm done here. --Abd (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Your responses to me in the third-person often convey a tone of seeming self-detachment and condescending arrogance, and it has resulted in putting off many an editor before. I suggest you develop a more direct form of address for the sake of both convenience and civility.
"We make an exception for simple, easily reviewed changes, but the exception does not change the rule. TCNSV's changes were complex enough to not be immediately and easily reviewed." What, did you consider each and every individual edit complex enough that you had to revert all of them? I had already explained that I broke up the change into five individual, revert-able edits for this very purpose. By themselves, the copyedits and spelling corrections do not make any complex modifications requiring review, and if only one of them was judged to have done so, that singular one would be judged and reverted individually. Yet you are still unwilling to see what was wrong with throwing out all the changes I've made to the change.
I'm wary of having to explain again the justifications of my edits to each individual person on this website until a 'consensus' can be formed for a stable version of the page. It takes just as much work endlessly proposing changes, constructing paragraph-long arguments about them on the talkpage, and going nowhere on the matter while the page languishes in its badly written state, all merely for the sake of observing policies and processes. How is that supposed to improve the project? On the other hand, any change to tighten the wording of the policy and make it easier to parse and read can be implicitly agreed upon by everyone reading the page simply by lack of reversion and discussion on the matter. What you again could have done to express good faith on the matter is review each individual change and gradually implemented simple ones that did not change the meaning of the page at all, like changing 'however' to 'but', and instead you choose the easy way out by demanding the community to decide on little things like this and arguing with me 'policy comes frist'. That is countless man hours that could have been spent improving both this page and other pages that you instead choose to waste time on 'finding it important to stand for policy'. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
It's obvious that this discussion has gone on for long enough. I have reverted the revert. If either of you disagree with my action, let me know. @MF-W: what do you think? The template might say all edits need changes, but de facto that is not common for stuff like this (at least on Meta). Anyway, done. Regards, PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for the reversion PRS. And sorry for having involved you and wasting so much of your time. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
@Abd: you know I'm not a steward, right? ;) PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I did get the idea somehow that you were.... Thanks for correcting me. --Abd (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the revisions by TeleComNasSprVen increased readability, which is important for a multi-lingual wiki. I also don't believe that we should strictly adhere to bureaucratic principles and rules. Strictly adhering to such principles and rules tends to hamper progress. "Wiki" means "quick", and behaving bureaucratically makes us less quick, less wiki-like. Making revisions without permission is the wiki way. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Michael. The "wiki" idea, raw and unexperienced, is generally opposed to policy, relying on w:WP:IAR and the like. However, here, there was no demand that policy be "adhered to." There was no disapproval of the extensive copy-editing, other than to note that, on the face, policy was violated. Nevertheless, the good faith effort of the user was respected, and what my revert did was to ensure that policy was followed, and the only reason that extensive discussion arose here was the objection of the user to a normal revert seeking the approval that policy required. In itself, my revert was also wiki. Absent that objection, and with assumptions of good faith, this would have been extremely quick and easy. It was still pretty easy. I have now seen two users explicitly approve of the changes. That's enough to establish a default to accept the changes, and that's what PRS implemented, and a notice was placed on SN by him, totally proper. This has now been done right, and the result of our cooperation has been both improvement to the language and satisfaction of a policy that saves a lot of debate and conflict when followed. w:WP:BRD explicitly refers to policy edits as an example of when BRD may be appropriate. The material in BRD that seems to disapprove of reversion if one doesn't see a problem with the edits was written in consideration of (1) article edits, not policies, and (2) relatively minor edits, not massive revisions that can't be understood quickly. I have *always* made massive edits, when there could be controversy over them, or they were policy edits, with self-reversion. It usually works. --Abd (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I have taken huge offense to the multiple things you have done or failed to do here:
  1. You have reverted my edit not based on the fact that you disagreed with it but because of strict adherence for the sake of complying with the rule that I must propose and discuss my changes on the talkpage before enacting the change when they are in fact basic copyediting. It is far, far more efficient to let someone else who actually disagreed with the changes revert me and bring it up either on this talkpage or on my talkpage since I made the changes. This stupid and pointless discussion, worth a page and a half on this very talkpage, would not have existed if an actual disagreement been brought up with me, and hampers progress by having to wait around for someone to eventually come around on a very low-traffic page to approve edits. As Michaeldsuarez said before, "making revisions without permission is the wiki way." Waiting around for someone to patrol my edits to a low-traffic talkpage and having the page in questions stay poorly written for our end users in the meantime is very inefficient.
  2. You don't revert even partially some of my changes, which I've broken up so as to let someone else see my work, and if they disagreed with particular changes they could revert one of the five individual edits. That is sheer laziness and applying Wiki-bureaucracy simply to make a laziness - rather than reviewing each individual change and seeing if the basic spelling changes and word order changes merit discussion on the subject at all, a wholesale reversion obviously implies neglect for the copyeditor's work in question. Ignoring this basic sign of common decency and civility not only sends the message that "your change was not accepted", the one who reverted also proceeds to wave a big giant policy page in his face, as if to insult him! Obstructing progress in the name of justicedue process as usual.
  3. Throughout all of this, you've chosen to acknowledge or even completely ignored the fact that I pointed out I already did send this document to someone else for review before it was marked stable enough for translation. Who funny enough is the same administrator that now reverted you on the page in question, indicating his assent that it was acceptable. So why put it through the review process toward the same person twice, if nothing else except for wiki-bureaucracy? You only accept his second review of the page and reversion of the page, and did not even acknowledge his first review when he marked it for translation. How hypocritical. Then you loudly scream now, even after at least one other person has accepted my change, that it demands "community consensus", from the community of "stewards" no less because it is a global policy, to approve the change before it is enacted. On a low-traffic page like this, requiring everyone from every corner of the wiki and all stewards to pay attention to you while they are working on organizing the SE2014, is highly disrespectful.
  4. Lastly, and this is the most important point, you seem to be incapable yet of dropping matters which do not concern you. You've proclaimed above that "I find it important, on occasion, to stand for policy, and that is what I did. The policy is sound. I'm done here." The reversion is done, someone else may read it and disagree. We should have the page changed, and move on with our lives doing something else more productive as I have been doing, yet you seem insistent on harping on a dead horse and unable to let the issue go. Have you done anything remotely useful on this wiki, Abd? Who are you to stamp around policy pages when you have not contributed to this wiki in any other significant area at all? Because despite saying "I'm done here" you're still useless spending countless amounts of time replying on this talkpage to Michael and spending countless amounts of time on your talkpage to have it your way, when you could have easily reviewed yourself which edits warrant keeping without the needed discussion and when you could have worked on other projects on Meta. You are incapable of letting this matter drop.
This latest incident also appears to be the result of your "patrolling" (read: stalking) of my recent edits which you've so selectively reverted that you've left the other changes in place, despite them differing significantly from the original approved version. I am considering calling this a form of harassment now Abd, and I expect you to drop the stick. Do not reply to this talkpage unless you have a specific issue with the page, which is what the purpose of a talkpage is for, or are you incapable of doing that too? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

At the time of this writing, Abd has once again refused to let the matter drop and has to insert one last useless comment about the issue despite being "done" with it, and without having had any substantial contributions to Meta-Wiki otherwise. It reflects his tendency to engage in tendentious disputes over the simplest of matters with other people while being incapable of backing away from the issue when asked, instead of contributing to proper wiki affairs like everyone else. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Both of you should stop arguing about this and try to get along. This talk page is not the right venue for this discussion anyway, as it has very little to do with admin inactivity. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, PRS. This page was the proper place to ask for approval of the changes, and that's what I did, ensuring that policy was followed. Then there were objections that have nothing to do with the changes. What belonged here has been completely resolved. If there is anything else, this is not the place for it, I agree completely. --Abd (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Yet more useless comments from Abd reminding us about an issue we'd like to have forgotten thirty minutes, and interrupting my work. Does his tendentious argumentation ever stop? (By the way, I have this page watchlisted and check Special:Watchlist every once in a while.) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
For clarity, it was never about admin inactivity in the first place, I don't know what's the right venue for discussion about mere copyedits to a page, but apparently the talkpage is being (ab/mis)used to talk more about changes then it is about the actual content of the policy page. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
You're just continuing to argue about this. (And Abd also posted to my talk page FWIW.) I hope both of you stop soon. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I reverted some changes which changed the meaning. However, for translators' and translations' sake, I would also like to urge everyone not to make pointless wording changes like changing a headline from "Reason" to "Explanation" or changing "but" to "however" or vice versa in a sentence. Every change causes the Translate extension to make translators recheck everything. --MF-W 17:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, MF-W! Sorry for missing these slight changes in meaning, I had better things to do and will probably be a little busier than usual in the near future. Sorry for missing that mistake, TCNSV/Abd, I hope you realize that I did check the changes, just didn't notice any difference in meaning. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
That is fine, but in my opinion translation is a work in progress that we volunteers should be free to choose to do or not to do, and it's a work I am proud of and enjoy participating in. Perhaps not for translation administrators, but for translators minor wording changes matter to make an approximation as grammatically close to the original as possible as well. The changes are fine; however regarding this edit and the accompanying edit summary stating its intent, I am highly concerned that because of English's possibility for multiple semantic interpretation that that was how I originally took that statement. Other people might take it the same way. This needs to be specified: "it was decided to establish... a maximum inactivity time without community review of two years" can mean either "without community review of two years, a maximum inactivity time" or "a maximum inactivity time of two years, without having had community review." You say that it is the latter, but the fact is that same sentence that is now in the lede can also say the former as well. My proposed alternate wording then would be "A requests for comment from April to June 2013 decided to establish a maximum inactivity time period spanning two years for administrators and other "advanced rights" holders who do not have local community reviews for those rights." One other thing that I have also been greatly confused with as a translator working on this document is the difference between "maximum inactivity" and "minimum activity", and I think that should also be clarified, but I do not know how to do so. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Re the translation extension, I was careful to select "Do not invalidate existing translations" on all units. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, MF-W, I had similar concerns, i.e, I wondered if improvement in expression, i.e, "more correct" language, was worth the trouble of review or risk of inadvertent change. But a user had gone to considerable trouble, which is why I reverted inviting review instead of just arguing for rejection. --Abd (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Then you need to say so, because to anyone and especially to new editors a revert is generally the equivalent of an outright rejection of the changes. Anyway, your work is done, you've raised your objections on the talkpage so unless you're going to provide some useful comments about how best to move the discussion and changes along, or even better change the page yourself, I suggest working in a different area. For future reference, rather than waste some bytes and the time of the person who has to review these talkpage comments, the Thanks feature commonly found in pagehistory next to the undo button is sufficient in displaying gratitude. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, since I keep seeing this pop up, there are the two versions:
Original: "In a requests for comment from April-June 2013 it was decided to establish, for administrators and other advanced right holders, a maximum inactivity time without community review of two years."
Proposed Change: A requests for comment from April to June 2013 decided to establish an inactivity review for removing the rights of administrators and other "advanced rights" holders who have not had local community review for at least two years.
The proposed change actually changes the meaning of that paragraph. The original establishes a maximum inactivity time, absent community review. The changed version doesn't mention time of inactivity, but triggers the inactivity review based on the time since a community review.
The difference shows up in the process. Consider a wiki with no review process. If a user with advanced permission is inactive, defined as zero edits and zero administrative actions, for a two year period, a process is initiated to address the inactivity.
With the proposed change, just from reading the first paragraph, what triggers the steard review process is not inactivity, per se, but lack of community review.
Yes, the language could be improved. It's also not exactly correct. I.e, the "maximum time" will, by the time the process is done, exceed two years. However, bottom line, it's unclear to me that the effort to improve the language is worth it. Stewards will know, from the policy, with the original language, what to do. "Good enough" may be exactly that.
What the policy establishes are trigger conditions, i.e., if there is two years of inactivity, and no community review of the user, at the time of the "annual or semi-annual process", then certain actions will be taken to notify the users in question, the users may be expected to take certain actions, and then stewards will review this and decide whether or not to remove the privileges. As described, the time without activity and without removal could be as great as three years plus about a month, or even longer under some conditions.
The proposed change was less clear than the original. However, the language "maximum inactivity" is indeed potentially confusing. There is no maximum inactivity, there is merely a level of inactivity which triggers steward action at the time stewards run the review. An inactive user is not violating any policy.
But there is no ambiguity in the policy itself, which authorizes a procedure, and the procedure is clear. The ambiguity is only an issue with the explanation. The new proposal is worse. I recommend letting it go. Working on this language here will not improve the projects. --Abd (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's how the proposed change interpreted the current wording's ambiguity. I foresee such conflicts later in the future over steward and community interpretations of the current policy's lede sentence. We should correct it now while we still have the time. I proposed an alternate wording above that would make this distinction clearer and closer to the intent of the original:

"A requests for comment from April to June 2013 decided to establish a maximum inactivity time period spanning two years for administrators and other "advanced rights" holders who do not have local community reviews for those rights."

Again, if you do not find this discussion about tightening the wording of this policy constructive, I suggest you invest your volunteer time on some other area of Meta-Wiki. There is lots to be done, and debating and responding to this discussion as you have done without intent of improving the page is about as constructive as working on the page itself. I'd like you to explain why, when the community is actually reviewing it, as you had so loudly called for before, you now seem to be now declaring it as "not improv[ing] the projects". TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Continual complaint about my involvement isn't improving anything. I have confirmed what MF-W wrote above, I would also like to urge everyone not to make pointless wording changes ... The community is actually reviewing it, as I simply called for, it wasn't "loud." And it does appear that there were problems, as I suspected might be the case. I have, so far, found no actual ambiguity in the policy itself, as to what will be implemented. This is not a general behavioral guideline where clarity of expression is far more important. There is nothing there that could cause a steward to misinterpret it, as far as I've seen, and this policy only affects steward behavior. TCNSV apparently misinterpreted the policy, and, then, good-faith, implemented in his improvements his incorrect interpretation. But his approach was different from that of a steward. A steward would be looking at the process established, and the described process makes it clear what is to happen. It is possible that the notice described could be confusing.
So we can focus on the "notice of maximum inactivity." An exact text should be drafted and approved, to save time and avoid confusion. I created a subpage, placed a link to that subpage in the policy, simplified the language of that section, and then self-reverted to allow review. (Undo [1] to accept the change.) I am creating the subpage as Admin activity review/Notice of inactivity, so that the notice may be drafted immediately as a separate process. There is at least one other change that will be obvious to make if my proposed change is accepted. --Abd (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
We already have such texts: Admin_activity_review/2013/Notice_to_communities, Admin_activity_review/2013/Notice_to_inactive_right_holders. --MF-W 22:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd not have expected to find the standard notice on the 2013 subpage! In any case, those are fine notices, detailed and accurate explanations, and though there are at least two clear grammatical errors in the user notice, it will still be understood. I have requested speedy deletion for the page I created.[2][3] Thanks. --Abd (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
MF-W is right, that other notice page is superfluous since we already have one in place, which coincidentally I have been trying my best to translate, and I recommend speedy deletion for Abd's version. This thread is getting terribly off-topic. @MF-Warburg:, if you could follow this thread, could you please make a response to my concerns above, which are more directly about improving the page? Here it is duplicated for visibility and ease of access:

The changes are fine; however regarding this edit and the accompanying edit summary stating its intent, I am highly concerned that because of English's possibility for multiple semantic interpretation that that was how I originally took that statement. Other people might take it the same way. This needs to be specified: "it was decided to establish... a maximum inactivity time without community review of two years" can mean either "without community review of two years, a maximum inactivity time" or "a maximum inactivity time of two years, without having had community review." You say that it is the latter, but the fact is that same sentence that is now in the lede can also say the former as well. My proposed alternate wording then would be "A requests for comment from April to June 2013 decided to establish a maximum inactivity time period spanning two years for administrators and other "advanced rights" holders who do not have local community reviews for those rights." One other thing that I have also been greatly confused with as a translator working on this document is the difference between "maximum inactivity" and "minimum activity", and I think that should also be clarified, but I do not know how to do so. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Admin_activity_review/Archives/2014&oldid=19223325"