User:Linuxbeak/RFA Reform

200:

almost never hamstrung by its own rules. We don't accidentally exclude a good editor from making an important comment because they have 999 edits rather than 1000, for example. It also exposes those who are being trolls — and it doesn't matter if your RfA gets trolled since good users and 'crats should see through it (and if you can't swallow a troll, then what are you doing R'ing A?). Of course, the more sophisticaed trolls will slip by such sanity checks, but then they would do in any system. In its simplistic brutality, RfA can be pretty sure it is an effective process for weeding out mose of those not up to the task. As long as the 'crats get things right, too, of course. -

2736:

unmanageable amount of them. The Confidence Voting rules itself should be tuned so to be not a big deal if the admin is obviously right, but to be a big deal if the admin is wrong. There should not be 80% supermajority required, probably just a 50% majority. The gun shy sysadmin maybe a problem, another possible problem maybe a War Reverting. Then a sysadmin A reverts sysadmin B not for good of the Wikiproject, but to trigger Confidence Vote of the sysadmin B, that he for some reason dislikes (OTOH, A would go this way in the direction of his own Confidence Vote, so there should be reasons).

1470:, they can significantly increase the probability of success. Maybe I am paranoid, but I am surprised how much interest some disruptive users (with very short history of content creation) have in the RfA process. The talk page of a user whose blocklist is almost of the same length as the list of contributions is filled with wishing success and congratulations for some admin-candidates and mustering oppose votes for the other. I would speculate that people who are often blocked and/or often fill frivolous complaints have vested interest in administrators. 1249:

editor. Most contributors are not perfect, and if one voter who researches candidates more than the other voters do uncovers a bad edit, a pretty good candidate can have their RfA fail rather quickly. I suspect this might be because some voters, while well-intentioned, still vote somewhat blindly and don't research what else the candidates have done. (I'm not calling out individual users on this, since I read votes rather than the user names they're attached to, but I have noticed this pattern on several failed RfA's during the last several months.) --

2186:

blocks is a bad indicator of disruptiveness, but we do not have something better yet. Thus, lets use something like the average number of edits in the article space between blocks (that is divided by the number of blocks plus one) should be more than 500..1000, or even better would be to use the number of bytes inserted into the article space (counting revert as one byte). This way, even if a some sort of cabal would be formed it would not be at least the cabal of disruptive non-productive users (aka trolls and vandals).

2156:(This one is REALLY radical!!!) Scrap consensus for this! Make it out and out voting, but votes are weighted by how much money you contributed to the foundation in the last year, or by money and time, or by how many articles you had make it to featured status, or any of several others (these all are getting at the idea of a meritocracy... the more useful contributors (by whatever metric, there are lots of metrics possible) get more say. after all corporation stockholder votes are weighted this way) 213:). This creates exactly what is going on right now. There appear to be at least a couple informal "alliances" of people who are entrenched in their own culture, and wish to perpetuate it. The very nature of the current process ensures that nobody will "rock the boat" and that change is less and less likely to happen with each new administrator created. Having a hard, defined threshold for when consideration is possible means that people can be judged on the basis of their contributions in 850:

trust him because he supported someone who later opposed them, thus misleading stray users who would vote "oppose" because the candidate is "too controversial if he generated so much opposition" and repeat the fables that we have "dozens other worthy candidates", while actually in some areas (e.g., Eastern Europe) dedicated contributors capable of a large-scale patroling work may be counted with fingers of my right hand, as they say in Russia.--

1497:

consideration as well. See the "problems with voters" section for a more complete list, but "me too" votes, "why not" votes, no-reason-given votes, "I support|oppose everyone" votes, votes from people themselves unfamiliar with Knowledge policy, etc. are too often given the same weight as more substantial votes from known users who give valid reasons for their vote.

476:. Also note that the success rate of admin nominees with more than 10,000 edits is 78%, which is inline with the success rate of 2-3k, 3-4k, and 4-5k edits success rate. This data disproves Ghirla's assertion that it's easier for someone with 2001 edits to get promoted than users with >10,000 edits. -- 1261:

If that is a recent bad edit, one may question future admin's ability to judge things well. You don't want somebody as an admin who would abuse his tools even 10% of the time. That is, it makes a lot of sense to vote oppose for such a person. Of course, this is a rule of thumb, but I would be against

1230:

I recall an admin who wrote excellent articles but eschewed editing controversial topics. Several weeks after promotion, he was dragged into a dispute, started frantic revert warring, got blocked and then was astonished to learn that Knowledge had some sort of dispute resolution procedures at all. In

86:

intended to be a vote, people are familiar with the concept of voting to support or oppose a candidate. Because of this, users would likely be more comfortable with the current process than one which was more focused on discussion and consensus. As the history of RfA has shown, a vote can often be a

2606:

Frankly, the only way to decrease the number of administrators who are abusing their tools is to make it easier to get rid of such administrators. One of the ways to do it is to have some re-voting after a fixed term (a year, or two years). It should not be 80% consensus voting (God forbid, no good

2324:

Instead of having separate "support", "oppose", and "nuetral" areas, have a single discussion thread, similar to the way that AfDs, for example, are done. This makes it harder for people to do a quick vote count and pile on their own vote, and it encourages people to actually read through everyone's

2185:

Alternatively, we can introduce some suffrage, removing disruptive people, sockpupets and people voting due to loyalty to some non-Knowledge organizations (been it a wikiboard, language wiki or an outside internet forum). The number of edits is a bad indicator of the productiveness and the number of

2159:

I don't think we can get away with scrapping consensus (nor do I think doing so would be a good idea), and, besides, I'd be worried that basing the process on financial contribution is a potential privacy concern. And judging based on number of articles you've contributed to that make it to featured

2146:

Would kill the project outright. The idea of a "cabal" is not a particularly popular one, and it's not in the interests of the project to create a caste system. Doing so would only alienate newcomers and increase tensions between editors. In all honesty, this invites problems far more dangerous than

2112:

Recertify every so often (time driven at a min, or if the above call on not upholding happens). With 800 admins we don't have a shortage, do we? The recert would be a different process, involving providing several representative actions for evaluation. (the admin to supply some, and the community to

1606:

This is the model I've supported for some time. Compare the second Kelly RfC to the first. If we had say five days of "evidentiary" editing, followed by two days of "polling" I'm sure we'd get more nuanced outcomes. If we had a template to fill in, "evidence of understanding policy", "evidence of

1478:

Since I succeeded in derailing Halibutt's nomination after dozens people voted in support, I feel that Alex is right. Another example. Once I voted "neutral" and quoted a diff, which led four or five other people to vote either "neutral" or "oppose", citing that diff as their reason. Then I received

1185:

I'm with Alex Bakharev here. Being currently on RfA nomination myself, and having followed that of Ramallite (and a few others), I really get the impression that anyone who has a long history editing "controversial" topics, no matter how impeccable their behavior, has received a "kiss of death" for

875:

No, I mean, it should be required that everyone opposing a candidate should provide diffs to the nominee's controversial edits, not just generalizing that "the candidate is too controversial" or "is likely to push his POV", as we've seen in some recent votes. We need stubborn facts rather than one's

326:

doesn't seem to apply to the RFA process I don't know, but it does worry me. That said, we need to be looking more carefully at the potential for abuse, potential for error, and potential for benefit from each adminship candidate. Opinions and personal grudges need to be removed from said standards,

2475:

through bogus blocks and page protects, and being positively obnoxious to other admins who tried to straighten him out (case was settled in IRC negotiations). This fellow learning on the job ran off one truly excellent, vastly experienced, wikipedian, and nearly ran me off too. Learning on the job

2447:

I didn't take it easily when one new-promoted admin "learned on the job" by blocking myself when I fended off Bonaparte's socks. Another admin (whose nomination you supported) issued his first block to Mikkalai, despite his previous 50,000+ edits. This "learning on the job" will be long remembered,

1133:

The current process favors editors who stay out of edit/revert wars or any contentious issue. Then they are expected to uphold bans, decide on vandal bans, 3rr bans, use discretion after arbcom decisions etc. RfA candidates shouldn't be expected to get involved in wiki fights, but they should show

954:

Indeed. RfA is almost always the subject of reform discussions. The current system has gone through the crucible of time and countless reform suggestions. It's done a pretty good job of evolving over time. I spend way too much time trying to get people to root their reform ideas in factual evidence

199:

I like that simple usage of an over-used expression. To me (and not necessarily to Grue), it means this: That, by being very simple, very open and very transparent up until a bureaucrat closes, it is a very free process. A very free process is unlikely to make colossal errors very often since it is

2586:

functions. Janitors can learn on the job; police can't. I'd vote a lot more RFA's through if police functions were only granted after say 3 months of adminship in good standing, as determined by bureaucrats. (Speedies are another dangerous power, but that should be solved through a 'tag and bag'

2429:

I said it in several other places, so sorry if this is the second or third or fourth time you see it. But electing admins who are not so experienced is not the biggest problem. People learn on the job. The big problem is that there is too much tolerance for admins abusing their tools. And they are

2177:

It looked stupid, but the more I think about it the more it make sense. In the courts of law the verdict is not done by voting of friends of the plaintiff and the defendant. Instead we randomly choose people to hear the proceedings and decide who is right. Maybe we should do the same with the RfA?

1118:

Agreed. But, there's no way to fix it which is community friendly. If you had a panel of people charged with reviewing candidates for RfA, cabalism claims would be made left and right. You can't force people to review candidates; they either do or they don't. I do, which is why I don't vote often;

849:

Voters are not entitled to quote diffs supporting their opinion and vote, i.e., what they found so helpful or repulsive among the candidate's contributions. The current procedure leaves a door wide open for the trolls who start generalizing that the candidate is a "likely POV-pusher" or they don't

708:

What Cecropia said. Especially using tabs, I can promote in about 5-7 minutes, and close without promoting in less. This is hardly the biggest concern about the system (at 5 minutes average, 10 RfAs a week is under an hour - compare that to the time used in, say, closing VfDs and other maintance

594:

You might think someone who votes opposed based on a lack of edit summaries is voting in bad faith. You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but a number of people feel this is a valid criteria. It's fine if it's not a criteria for you; you're welcome to your own standards. I wish you would allow

2194:

I like this idea. Perhaps create a 'voter pool' that anyone over 500 edits and a certain amount of time can put their name in. After for-and-against arguments are presented, a BCat picks 10 or so random voters to give their say. I'm sure a query could be written to provide a BCat with an entirely

1932:

counts. Then require voters to introduce themselves and specify their main contributions to Knowledge. Also the opposite side of the debate could provide examples showing the destructive behavior of voters. The closing bureaucrat can use the info to dismiss some votes, also the voters may use the

1288:

A single diff causing the wreckage of an RfA certainly happens. But, there's good reason for it. There's some essay somewhere that notes that RfA isn't really an affirmation of positive editing; it's the opposite. "We haven't found anything bad, so we'll promote". Sometimes, single edits can be a

1165:

I agree, but people who were involved in wiki-fight have some history to be judged on. People who were involved only in noncontroversial topics (e.g. tropical fish) and avoided any confrontation maybe a perfect editors but their behavior as admins is absolutely unpredictable as admins deal mostly

807:

75% or higher than 80%. For example, an RfA with 90 support votes lacking reasons and 10 well-reasoned oppose votes would almost certainly pass under the current system. This is an extreme example, but the main issue is that, in practice, bureaucrats really only use their discretion in the 75-80%

2243:

Hmmm... how would the voting go within the jury itself? Would you need to get a simple majority of the jury, or a larger percentage of approval? Could we force jurors to recuse themselves where they may be involved in a conflict with the user? Would we have reserve jurors to fill in their spots?

321:

I think some of the standards are too low, and some of them are too high. Standards based on editcountitis are inherently flawed IMHO. That doesn't mean editcounts are useless as a qualifier, but only so much as they make the bar high enough that its hard for sockpuppets of malicious users to be

2735:

are right and it may be a disaster if the details are wrong. Since I do not have the first-hand experience as sysadmin, I can only guess the right numbers, we could select the right values based on the past experience, so choosing the numbers that would generate some Confidence Votes but not an

2680:

edits in a fixed time frame (say 10 controversial actions in 30 days) should survive a vote of confidence. If they survive (that is receive a community support for their actions) the count of controversial actions should be reset. Obviously, if a sysadmin acts against the consensus of the other

1759:

Until this weekend, I had less than 1000 edits. I'm atypical (a relatively casual wikipedian who frequents project space), but I had a grasp of what was going on around here by 700 edits or so. I'd think 500 would be sufficient to tell someone is not a newbie, and really, if we require reasons,

1650:

meets criteria; it's a forward-looking process. By contrast, most RfA behavior is backward-looking, at bad/controversial edits that may have been made in the past and cannot be changed. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", and all of that. I'd change it to 4 days comment and 4 days

273:

In my opinion, standards are lower than they should be. I expect admins to be at least somewhat familiar with process, because they will likely end up working with it. This familiarity is lacking in several of the recent candidates, that are probably best described as friendly and enthousiastic

2703:

Oooooh. This is an interesting idea to play around with a little. How would we run the scheme? Would we allow e.g. one 'free' reversal each time before we add points to their license? The particularly interesting thing about it is that the (fairly small) set of admins would be key to this ever

2270:

Let's start with a simple majority, but clear guidelines on what qualities an editor needs to have to be given admin responsibilities. If, in spite of the guidelines, there are persistent issues of administrator problems due to too many jurors taking the guidelines too lightly, we can consider

1957:

Many societies use a nomination committee charged with finding good candidates. If the rules are democratic, voters are not restricted to the committee's choices, but they may find them helpful. Perhaps--and I'm brainstorming here--we could create some voluntary committee or project devoted to

1299:

that I found that he'd made about a week before his RfA began. But, even if the diff had been from months before, I would have found it objectionable to treat people like that, most especially newcomers. I didn't have a problem with my vote and still don't. I was, however, shocked that his RfA

1248:

In my time watching RfA candidacies here, I've seen several candidates whose RfA's were going well for the first several days but failed after one oppose voter brought up one diff. Often, the diff is of an old edit (>6 months ago), and sometimes even of vandalism they did while still a new

431:

I was not talking about myself. Since I first came to Knowledge ten months ago, I always repeated that I do not seek adminship and declined nominations. Neither do I state that the number of edits is important for a potential admin. I just say that it's easier for less experienced users to get

2577:

editors. Any other abuse can be rapidly overturned by another admin. It may seem a frivolous complaint, because a block can also be overturned (albeit with much more effort, since you're blocked). However, we _do_ lose good editors over it. And we irritate many more immensely. To me, the

2085:

I can't imagine how this would work. You could probably improve the boilerplate questions that all admin candidates currently have to respond to, and doing so might provide a better picture of "basic competency," but a formal (or even informal) "test" just doesn't seem workable to me. –

2129:

I think we need to give up on this. Knowledge may not be a democracy, but every time someone tries to propose a way to "de-democratize" our processes they seem inherently flawed, either because the proposals are just too complicated to be workable, or because they're far too open to (real or

1570:

I'm inclined to agree. In theory, this proposal is all well and good, but obvious problems begin to emerge if you stop to think about borderline cases. Even well-meaning bcrats are likely to be put in a position of earning public disfavor and sparking counterproductive controversy. Plus, I'm

1496:

While vote counts can be important, they are too often treated as the most important metric of the current nomination. The problem is that all votes are generally treated as equal, when they definitely should not be. While obvious sockpuppets are excluded, other factors should be taken into

2487:

Since there isn't any way for a user to use admin functions without being an admin, there's no way in which they can learn everything they need to understand without doing it on the job. RfA isn't failing on this point. What's failing is the lack of training for new admins, and the lack of

460:

Durin's data didn't verify nothing at all. It is all the same whether you have 3,000 and 5,000 edits IMHO. In my experience, those wikipedians who actually write a lot make much better admins than those who do not and therefore seek to interfere with those who do (e.g., Oleg Alexandrov).

578:

whose opposing votes are habitually acompanied by silly comments that the candidate doesn't use edit summaries frequently enough for his liking. IMHO such phony votes have nothing to do with the candidate's potential admin performance and should be discarded by Bcrats in the future.

1937:

User with 10 edits can create a long useful article, maybe priceless contribution a voter with 3000 edits can bring little effort, nothing useful and a lot of distractions (e.g. by participating in revert wars), this format will make the distinction, a simple edit count will not.

1145:

People involved in dispute resolution are very valuable as future admins. People who are involved in disputes, and behave badly, are not wanted as admins. :) So, being involved in wiki-fights is good on a future admin's resume, as long as that person behaved properly. :)

294:

Good point, but there is no good solution. Any hard requirements as the minimum number of support votes, or minimum requirements for voters, or other recently circulated ideas are not going to solve it. What would help things I believe is less tolerance for abuse of admin powers.

2448:

as Mikkalai does not edit Knowledge since then. Plenty of other examples of "learning on the job" come to mind. But you cannot escape the fact that the majority is not satisfied with current RfA and deadminship procedures. See the ongoing poll and the history of RfA talk page. --

996:

As I said many times before new editors are too unexperienced to vote judiciously. I suppose that new editors come here to edit and to write articles. If they come to Knowledge and start with voting, it makes a bad impression on me. Some sort of RfA suffrage is indispensable.

2649:"Votes of confidence" would be an unnecessary bureaucratic complication. The problem is not affirming existing good admins (which are the greatest majority), but to make it easier to get rid of existing admins who abuse their tools. But I don't know how to make that work. 2081:

Competency test. Some sort of process/procedure exam to be given to ensure basic competency in areas (decided by consensus) are important for all admins to know. A "passing grade" would be required, or alternatively, the score would be provided as an evaluation criterion.

2325:

reasons. It would also promote discussion more: not only would everything be sequentially arranged, but there would be more pressure to write a "reasoned vote" than in the current system in which all you have to do is add an entry to the end of "your camps" vote block.

2071:

I agree, but what kind of distribution did you have in mind? 100 non-minor article edits (just as a random number)? One way or the other, we need to come up with a broad guideline, if not hard-and-fast rules, to determine what qualifies as "good distribution." –

1716:. Any votes without any elaboration are discounted. And "half-ass" votes such the classics, "I never met him", "I don't like him", "I know him from another website" are to be discounted as well. Diffs should also be strongly implemented to back up one's POV. - 2116:

I think this would probably create too much overhead. I would support a "vote" (if you'll pardon the term) of confidence in situations where the admin has been accused of misusing his or her position, but "term limits" seem to be a little too much. –

1186:

promotion. Well, that's an exaggeration: Ramallite squeaked by, and I might too. But generally, you can't try to promote NPOV on politicized topics without gaining "enemies" among those who want articles to push a particular and strident political POV.

2178:

Lets randomly select 10..20 people among wikipedians in good standing (say more than 500 edits in the article space since the latest block or ban). Lets all the interested parties to present their evidence and discuss the admin-candidate. Then lets the

2618:

to participate in some sort of 'vote of confidence' for existing admins, since they will likely have become more familiar with that person compared to their time as an ordinary user (I hope that made sense). That being said, limiting it to admin-only

1300:

collapsed after that point and finished up at 43-22. I think what that served to highlight more than anything was that quite a number of people who were voting were not checking his editing background, even through a couple of weeks into the past. --

390:

Perhaps to correct this it would be good to either have term limits (so that a correction can be made if somebody loses sight of the "lack of specialness" that adminship has), or better screening during the RFA process to find out what a user is

1645:

This actually seems very reasonable. On reflection, I can't figure out how to 'tally' RfA discussions in a purely FAC-like system. When you're editing an article for Featured Status, you can go and make changes/improvements so that the article

1911:

Elaboration cannot be necessary since every edit to Knowledge is voluntary. If someone has already provided the 'elaboration' of your first bullet point, why should someone be able to invalidate their 'vote' by asking for further explication?

385:

to have adminship. Almost all the responsibilities they have can be accomplished through non-admin interfaces. Adminship seems to foster the need to crusade through the wikipedia looking for things to "fix". Ah, the saying I'm looking for is,

984:

Any standards for voters will be very hard to implement in a consistent manner. Besides, I don't think it would be fair. New users, unless they are sockpuppets, fully deserver to participiate in voting for admins, just like any other people.

26:

The goal: By the end of this week, I would like to see a rough draft of a modified RFA system. If the community agrees, we will take the new RFA out for a test drive, and then let the community decide on whether or not to keep it.

2392:

I think it's funny specifically because of that. Yes, the whole thing was inapropreate, against policy, caused bad database problems, etc. But it was a slightly amusing ordeal (especially when watched from the sidelines). —

955:

rather than suppositions. See my comments above regarding the success rate of nominations for example. People can postulate what's wrong all they want. Refuting comments by basing such refutations in fact is time consuming. --

2713:

Possible drawback - admins becoming gun-shy about reversing bad actions by other admins. I'm just playing the devil's advocate, since this is the best and freshest idea to come down the pike in a dog's age. ] to Alex! -

360:

It has been said that long-time users that aren't admins yet, have accumulated too many enemies to ever have a chance at adminship, despite the fact that their behavior is not better or worse than that of existing admins.

1858:

Please be careful over use of the word consensus. How does one provide a 'consensus' for one's standpoint? The process itself generates a consensus, and a consensus cannot, by definition, be rested on a single editor's

1618:

anyone interested would probably have been watching the page anyway. I'd bet that the S/O/N ratios don't change much past the first two days except for those unfortunate cases where a single diff brings a nom crashing

162:

I like the sections (oppose, support, neutral, comments); it helps conformity, and it keeps opinions and views in an organized manner. Also allowes the closing beuracrat easier decision making regarding the nomination.

2095:

Take an oath to uphold the Wiki. The last step after everything else is complete, is an affirmation of intent to abide by the 5 pillars, put on a page somewhere (with the corrolary that people could call admins on it)

1651:

voting or something similar, but I like it. It makes for a pretty good incremental improvement over the current system, without throwing out the old. It also may temper some of the snowball effect both on the oppose

2053:---> I was hoping some other people might comment too, these are meant as brainstorm starters. Should I move them to the individual sections where they apply, move them to the talk page, or not worry about it? ++ 1166:

with controversial or at least confrontational. May be they would be perfect admins, maybe they will through a tantrum maybe they will continue to ignore anything remotely controversial (not the best scenario).

1014:

impact on their RfAs, not a positive one. RfA regulars look very poorly on campaigning both on Knowledge and #wikipedia. I find the voting spam comment to lack merit in a role of affecting the outcome of RfAs.

2235:

Perhaps to reduce the overall load of picking new jurors every day...a set of jurors is picked for a week, and they vote on all RfAs that happen to fall within that week. Then they go back into the jury pool.

2495:

Looks like we have two problems, then: the voters themselves and the candidates. We have unqualified voters and unqualified candidates. Good show, Durin, I think you just identified what we were looking for.

838:. One new Bcrat promoted someone at 72% after a different new Bcrat edited the Bcrat page to say 70%-80%. If we want Bcrats to use broader discretion, we can straw poll it to accumulate community opinion. -- 404:

The current procedure is tuned so as to make it easier for users with 2,000 edits to get promoted than users with, say, 20,000 edits. That's why unexperienced and clueless admins seem to predominate in the

327:

and replaced by objective examination of a candidate's edit history (history, not count!), their dealings with others, and their participation in at least one process which would be aided by admin tools. -

1942:

To much stress on bureaucrat - it is difficult to tell users that their contribution does not worth the problems you created, so your opinion does not count. Also the RfA could degrade into a flamefeast.

671:

It's not that much work in the long run (such as to merit more bureaucrats at the moment) but it's just annoying (especially since I've just performed my first batch of renames since last August. —

1479:

apologies from the candidate and voted in support, but the votes of others, based on mine, remained valid. Moreover, other editors later opposed because the candidate appeared too controversial now. --

2012:

Ahhh, but you never specified Robert's Rules (in fairness, I know you weren't trying to present a full proposal in one paragraph). This makes more sense now, but I'm still not sure it's needed. --

1231:

other words, we don't have a method to decide whether a candidate has admin skills and really knows how Knowledge works. Three questions practiced today are not exams if you know what I mean. --

2263:

I say that if anyone comes up with a conflict of interest (with cited evidence), then a juror should be dismissed. At which point, I supposed we'd just pull the next name from the pile. --

1868:

I agree. Having a minimum amount of edits for sufferage is risky at best. If there *was* to be some type of sufferage, make it something like 50 edits or at least a week of experience.

2607:

admins will get it), but 50% or 67% maybe expected (maybe only admins should vote in the confirmation voting, as many of the details of the admins work are not visible to non-admins).

1983:

The problem is not just rejecting approved candidates, but having the option to approve rejected (by the NomCom) candidates. An open process means no one can be excluded unfairly from

2301:

Got that right! ;-) Well, I just want to make sure the jury won't ignore good reasoned editors. My guess is that most will be judging in good-faith, but you can never be sure. --

2038:

some ideas from Lar... not all necessarily compatible with each other, not all necessarily practical here (although I've seen some used elsewhere) but intended as thought starters. ++

33:: Make sure you sign your comments. Also, if a comment already exists, don't just go "me too" and sign it; make sure you write out the entire thing. No half-donkey comments :-) 2202:

I support the jury-style voting, provided that other users are allowed to present evidence in the RfAr style. It is better than a mob curcus scene which RfA reminds me these days.--

1670: 377:

While I agree with this statement in principle, I think that it misses a finer point -- that despite everyone saying adminship should not be special, or viewed as a promotion, it

2068:

The vote part of Suffrage should not be just a count test, it should be a demonstration of a good distribution. 1000 user page edits and nothing else shouldn't count for much.

310:; for fairness and uniformity, and to support the voting committee, standards or guidelines will be needed. The problem with standards is that they tend to be (too) rigid. 1289:

peak behind the curtain, so to speak. It can give us more insight into the true attitude/behavior of the nominee than 1,000 edits by the editor. Case in point; I voted on

2672:

As a brainstroming idea: Abusing of admin tools is likely to be redone by another admin and quite often is undoing of another admin actions. Lets define admin actions as

642:

Yeah, but once you get used to it, it becomes like riding a bike: you don't really need to think about it too much, just watch out for lampposts and slick spots. --

2467:

I'd like to second this. I've been blocked once. It was by an admin promoted after 3 months, on 'no big deal' grounds. He then wheel-warred on the block. It

887:

Ahhh, but I thought this section was talking about current practice problems, not solutions (as of yet). That's why I was confused; thanks for clarifying. --

322:

accepted as admins. None of the admin actions are irreversable, and truely rogue admins have been historically rare, even when standards were much lower. Why

2290:: Before the jury deliberates, there is an opportunity for "all the interested parties to present their evidence and discuss the admin-candidate", including 1290: 913:

Of course one better provide diffs for serious accusations. But the fact of the matter is that some people are indeed too POV pushing to make good admins.

2511:

that if adminship is no big deal, de-adminship should likewise be no big deal. There's also the problem of "adminship" encompassing all of the roles of

1462:

A relatively small group of 15 or even 10 well-organized users can have a huge influence on the results of voting. Voting in the consolidated manner as

1392:

Voters who oppose candidates because they don't like the way the wiki presently works (regardless of whether the candidate had anything to do with that)

719:

Once again, it's not time that concerns me (5 minutes! Why that much?) Just having to have like 6 tabs open just to promote is akward at times. —

1865:

Editcountitis can be fatal. It's no good as a raw, unadulterated measure in a forum like RfA since it takes no account of the quality of those edits.

1622:

This would also help alleviate those. Often a bad diff shows up, theres a pulse of opposes, but then some sensible discussion nullifies the diff but

2681:

admins, he would be a frequent subject of the confidence voting. The additional benefit would be some curbing of the Wheel Warring between admins.

1119:

time consuming. When I make a nomination myself, I spend considerable time reviewing candidates. Few RfA nominators go through the same trouble. --

2760: 1546:

The cons to such a method might be that the bureaucrats have a greater say in that case, and CABAL conspiracy theories start popping up. —

2480:

a big deal when you have a bad admin, no matter what Jimbo says — I suspect he's never been the victim of an admin 'learning on the job.'

2507:

Durin is insightful as always, Ghirla's example of the perils of "learning on the job" above notwithstanding. There's a strong reaction on the

2722: 2220:

Well, I find it intriguing, but then we are not allowing everyone to express their opinion. Say, for example, I had a huge problem with you,

1976:

Well, it's a brainstorm: feel free to improve the idea. But you did catch that I said voters should be free to reject the nomination, right?

1681: 1640: 209:

There's a problem with this. If the process is made subjective, then only those who are fit in the eyes of the community will be "promoted" (

124: 2623:, and fixed time reconfirmations, are both bad ideas IMO. A (valid) complaint triggering a Vote of confidence might not be bad, though (see 432:

promoted, and that's a fact. If you want a bet, I may start another account and get that account promoted within three to four months. --

2624: 42: 54: 1582:

A spinoff of the FAC method; people provide agruments for and against for a certain amount of time, then a period of voting. —

2471:

pissed me off, to an extent that has since amazed me. This admin was later hauled before arbcom (by another admin) for running off

1862:

There is not always a need for diffs. It is, e.g. adequate to oppose someone as being too new (imo) and that has no diff possible.

1571:

concerned that the increased complexity here seems to be a guaranteed recipe for creating an unworkable logjam of RfAs. –

2378: 1784:

Thank you. It just felt funny that ArbCom election requires only 150 edits, and you were talking about one or two thousand. --

618:

While the process itself is simple, it takes bureaucrats 5 edits (I think) all on different pages just to close an RfA —

971:

Absence of suffrage results in proliferation of voting spam on user pages both here and in the alternative wiki projects. --

2763:. I think this idea has merit, and I agree that the main problem is not in the promoting, but in the lack of demoting (per 1626:

the oppose votes. They don't come back to look at the chat, and the nom fails. This would allow any poison to be purged

1187: 1134:

some familiarity and interest in dispute resolution when that is their most discretionary decision involving real people.

420:

That's a silly comment. Yeah, you do have 20575 edits, but edits are not everything when deciding who should be an admin.

2430:

not always newbies; rather they may be people who have been here for a while and may think that what they do is right.

1895:

I'm pretty sure, from the discussion over at RfA talk, that he means users under the subject of an RfAr cannot vote. --

596: 381:, and is presently being used to drive struggles between "warring" cliques. I'm not sure what valid reason people would 2224:. So you decide to try for Adminship and I'm not on the jury. Do I get a say? How do I know my opinion gets heard? -- 473: 1037: 2731:

I feel the devil would be in details. The idea might be useful if the numbers to trigger and the procedure of the

2720: 2697: 2654: 2438: 2386: 2062: 2047: 1679: 1673:. It might be required to have it be two transcluded sub-pages, one protected at a time. Edit away everyone! - 1638: 1267: 1151: 1078: 990: 918: 665: 544: 425: 300: 122: 2103:

much, in the larger picture, but I certainly don't think it would hurt, and is probably good principle. –

105:

Very low rate of false negatives (promotion of unsuitable admins). Only a few admins have ever been de-admined.

2307: 2288: 2258: 2230: 2182:

decide. The bureaucrat may act as the judge stopping unrelated discussions and explaining the jury their duty.

945: 2676:

if it is undoing of actions of another admin or if it was undone. Admins who made more than a fixed number of

2126:

Come up with a different name for the process of providing input so people stop calling it "voting". :-)

1254: 1930:

votes of people with demonstrated history of contribution to Knowledge who were not exceedingly distributive

1690:

How about a purely evidentiary method, with the ability to override certian findings through consensus? -

745: 1345:

All those are definately problems (I'm tempted to edit 'your ad here' to add something humerous) —

1250: 2472: 2453: 2207: 1484: 1278: 1236: 1214: 1002: 976: 881: 855: 584: 466: 437: 410: 2633: 2541: 2433:

So let adminship be "no big deal", and let people be deadminned more easily if they abuse their tools.

2018: 1993: 1901: 1790: 1766: 1661: 1050: 893: 867: 556: 452: 1970: 1852: 1841: 1831: 1778: 1748: 1744:

500 + edits or more. No ifs, ands, or buts, no conditions. Keep out the trolls and clueless newbies. (

1717: 1401:

Voters who say "the candidate is too controversial" or "we have plenty less controversial candidates"

164: 2715: 2650: 2434: 2382: 2245: 2160:

status seems to do little more than transfer the problems of the RfA process to FAC process. –

1674: 1633: 1263: 1147: 1074: 986: 914: 661: 575: 540: 421: 296: 117: 2143:

Scrap community consensus entirely (OK this one is radical). Formalise a cabal and let them decide.

1031:

Many votes originate from the existing vote--that is, people vote because of who has already voted.

2501: 2399: 2351: 2302: 2291: 2283: 2253: 2225: 1889: 1873: 1804: 1588: 1552: 1540: 1418: 1351: 1135: 1098: 940: 824: 813: 779: 773:

I don't know many of the users recently popping up and it takes a long time to investiage. —

725: 678: 624: 508: 253: 193: 137: 110: 92: 76: 38: 1614:

if the facts are laid out people could make a more informed recmomendation in a shorter time, and

935:

People are constantly try to fix it, wasting valuable editors' time and effort. (Not an attack on

550:??? Elaborate please? isn't the RfA on the person, not the process/policy/POV being soapboxed? -- 2771: 2737: 2682: 2608: 2187: 1944: 1523: 1471: 1375: 1167: 1073:

Demi's right! From here on it is downhill, expect a bunch more comments agreeing with Demi here!

472:

I updated the data to reflect nominations from June of last year through current. You can see it

365: 278: 238: 1847:

When an editor is (politely) inquired to explain his/her standpoint, viewpoint, an elaboration

2409: 2361: 2002: 1814: 1798:

Yes, wouldn't this make it seem like Rfa is more important than the ArbCom election? —

1598: 1562: 1428: 1361: 1293:. Prior to my voting, it was 36-0 and well on the way to a very successful RfA. Then, I voted 1108: 1059: 789: 735: 713: 688: 634: 518: 147: 2704:

actually going through to a 'recall', and it is thus (we hope) harder to troll around with. -

2628: 2536: 2449: 2203: 2013: 2006: 1988: 1977: 1959: 1896: 1785: 1761: 1695: 1656: 1519:, create a section for "arguments in favor" and another for "arguments against". No voting. 1480: 1274: 1232: 1210: 1045: 998: 972: 888: 877: 862: 851: 580: 551: 462: 447: 433: 406: 395:

seeking it for. "I want to help stomp out vandals and RC patrol" is not a very good reason.

332: 1453:

Voters who oppose for reason of "We don't need any more admins" (I've seen this, amazingly)

1262:

overlooking major errors of judgment of a future admin, even if that is a single instance.

2588: 2481: 1317:

Voters who have no concept of whether the person they are voting for has a clue what to do

571: 570:

There is a number of bad-faith editors who destroy great nominations by voting to prove a

499: 2497: 2161: 2148: 2135: 2118: 2104: 2087: 2073: 1885: 1869: 1732: 1572: 820: 809: 444: 249: 189: 116:

That's an indictment on dispute resolution and arbcom processes, not praise for RfA. -

106: 88: 72: 34: 17: 2768: 2764: 2693: 2508: 2339: 2326: 2058: 2043: 1536: 1520: 1516: 1498: 1372: 1339: 839: 643: 396: 362: 323: 275: 218: 188:

I think I know where you're going with this, but could you clarify it a little more?

2005:, nominations in addition to those of the nominating committee are always in order. 1398:

Voters who oppose because the candidate once supported some user who they don't like

2404: 2394: 2356: 2346: 2295: 2272: 2264: 2237: 2221: 2214: 2196: 1809: 1799: 1593: 1583: 1557: 1547: 1423: 1413: 1356: 1346: 1103: 1093: 784: 774: 730: 720: 710: 683: 673: 629: 619: 513: 503: 311: 142: 132: 803:

RfA, they almost always go by raw votes when the support percentage is lower than

1969:

Absolutely not. Too much risk of POV pushing and more of that "Cabal" nonsense. -

2705: 1913: 1691: 1437: 328: 201: 71:

Simple process. Users just provide a reason (in theory) and sign their comment.

1092:(after Edit conflict, darn it Oleg!) Support what Rudolf and Demi said — 2489: 2131: 1301: 1120: 1016: 956: 861:

Can you clarify "not entitled to quote diffs"; do you mean not encouraged? --

600: 527: 477: 1655:

support sides, and gives newer voters something to base their opinion on. --

131:

Relatively easy for bureaucrats to decide whether or not to promote. —

2249: 1830:

No rfar voting. Strong POV and "revenge" basis. Best to stay in the white. -

1032: 808:

support range. Outside of that, it's basically a simple tally of the votes.

660:

We need more bureaucrats then, to have individual people work less. :)

178: 2774: 1526: 1378: 368: 281: 1933:

info to decide if they want to believe the judgement of preceding voters.

1607:

dispute resolution", "evidence of incivility", that would be good as well.

2689: 2054: 2039: 799:

Although Bureaucrats may have the authority to make a judgement call on

1436:

Probably meaning those who do not wish to reveal their genders.—

1320:

Voters who want to see if they can push the poll numbers to a new high

1409:

Voters who oppose based on gender, race, religion (or lack thereof)

2113:

supply some as well). Would not necessarily be a pleasant process!

443:

it may be silly, but it's been empirically verified at least once:

1881:

What is RfAr voting? All but about 12 of us cannot vote in RsfAr.

1450:

Voters who blanket vote (support or oppose) without giving reasons

237:

All other possible ways are not. If it is not broken ain't fix it

2377:

I don't think that's funny. That if you remember the deletion of

876:

opinions in order to judge the candidate's previous behaviour. --

1712:

Providing clear reasons and concensus for one's standpoint is a

1395:

Voters who support everybody because their nomination is also up

306:

What about guidelines rather than standards? I like the idea of

1699: 336: 87:

decent approximation of consensus (whether it exists or not).

244:

I'm afraid that's conjecture, not fact. Please provide solid

2569:

I think the only really dangerous power is that of blocking

2147:

any perceived problems with the current RfA system. –

2625:

Knowledge:Admin_accountability_poll#Existing_administrators

2213:

Good idea. Anyone has arguments against? Let's hear them.

1332:

Voters who say "if User:Toadbrain says he's good, me too!

595:

others the same leeway. You might want to have a look at

1389:

Voters who don't say anything but simply oppose everyone

1838: 1745: 1297: 1294: 388:"When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail." 2195:

random list of 10 users in a 'voter pool' category. --

2130:

perceived) abuse. That said, I think "polling" (as in

1671:

User:Linuxbeak/RFA Reform/Adminship nominee discussion

1777:

I respectively change my opinion on suffurage then. -

2688:As a brainstorming idea this has a lot of legs! ++ 1958:finding and nominating good candidates for admin? 597:User:Durin/Admin_criteria_comments#Edit_summaries 498:People vote not on the candidates but to prove a 2535:. That's a lot of hats to assume "untested". -- 1447:Voters who support in response to an oppose vote 2488:any...ANY...feedback loop on admin behavior. -- 2338:Don't make the cure worse than the disease. -- 657:Do five edits, then regret a lifetime. :) 2134:) is probably a better term, anyway. – 8: 2587:approach, thus requiring agreement of two.) 1610:I know two days of polling isn't long, but 1314:Voters who like seeing their names in polls 830:Please, Carbonite, discretion is generally 263:What is not-so-good about the existing RFA? 2271:tightening the requirement to two thirds. 1723:Yeah, I would agree, though while I would 2614:It seems to me that admins would be more 1760:wouldn't cluelesness correct itself? -- 743:Meh...I wrote a script to automate this. 41:) 17:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC) See also 2761:Knowledge:Administrator Code of Conduct 2425:Existing RFA process is not the problem 1244:Waves of oppose votes based on one edit 1010:Candidates who campaign usually have a 1851:. However, hounding is unacceptable. - 307: 1535:I agree, either this or a customized 1466:they can stop almost any RfA, voting 1458:A small group can manipulate the vote 574:. The finest example I'm aware of is 7: 1058:I vote to support what Demi said. -- 61:What is good about the existing RFA? 43:Knowledge:Admin accountability poll 2476:is fundamentally unacceptable. It 2333:Consideration in proposing changes 1884:I'm confused on this one as well. 1326:Voters who say "won't do any harm" 1273:I tend to agree with Oleg here. -- 55:User:Linuxbeak/RFA Reform/Analysis 24: 2345:Let's delete RfA ;) — 1371:I'll take you up on that :) 232:It was demonstrated that it works 2578:solution is to separate out the 2099:I'm not sure this will actually 2441:) 03:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 2389:) 03:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 2379:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 1669:I've place a proto-template at 1270:) 03:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 1257:) 23:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1044:"Everybody likes a winner." -- 993:) 03:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 668:) 03:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 547:) 04:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 428:) 03:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 303:) 03:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 196:) 18:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 2657:) 17:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 2504:) 17:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC) 1892:) 18:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1876:) 18:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1209:Absolutely agree with Lulu. -- 1154:) 03:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 1081:) 03:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 921:) 03:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 827:) 18:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 256:) 12:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC) 1: 2710:03:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC) 2700:03:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC) 2685:00:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC) 2611:05:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 2492:17:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC) 2484:23:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC) 2342:16:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC) 2329:14:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC) 2298:20:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 2260:15:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 2240:15:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 2232:14:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 2217:08:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 2190:05:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 2050:18:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 2009:19:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1998:18:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1980:18:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1973:18:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1928:. Put in the rules that only 1855:17:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1795:18:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1781:18:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1771:18:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1720:17:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1702:- 10:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 1666:22:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 1603:17:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1567:18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1532:17:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1501:14:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC) 1474:04:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 1433:02:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 1342:23:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1041:21:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 939:page, just sayin' is all.) -- 884:07:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC) 872:21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 858:19:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 816:18:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 757:19:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC) 716:04:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 639:17:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 523:17:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 469:15:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC) 457:17:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 374:17:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 339:- 10:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 241:04:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 217:the opinions of their peers. 206:18:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 185:18:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 113:17:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 2780:14:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC) 2740:12:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC) 2724:06:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC) 2638:17:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 2591:17:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC) 2546:17:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC) 2456:16:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC) 2414:03:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 2366:03:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 2309:20:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 2275:20:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 2267:15:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 2210:16:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC) 2199:18:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 2164:21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 2151:21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 2138:21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 2121:21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 2107:21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 2090:21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 2076:21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 2065:16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC) 2023:20:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1962:18:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1947:12:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC) 1918:18:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1906:18:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1844:17:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1834:17:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1819:19:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1751:17:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1735:21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1692:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 1683:06:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC) 1642:02:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC) 1575:21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1543:17:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1505:Different ways of doing RFA? 1487:16:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC) 1440:02:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC) 1438:Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 1384:01:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC) 1366:00:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC) 1329:Voters who oppose from spite 1304:18:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC) 1281:16:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC) 1239:16:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC) 1217:16:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC) 1190:21:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 1170:04:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 1138:21:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1123:18:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC) 1113:03:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 1062:23:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1055:21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1019:18:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC) 1005:16:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC) 979:19:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 966:Lack of standards for voters 959:18:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC) 947:18:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 898:17:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 842:23:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 794:17:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 740:04:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 693:03:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 646:23:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 603:17:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC) 587:16:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC) 561:17:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 539:I don't see a problem here. 530:02:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 480:17:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC) 440:15:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC) 413:19:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 399:18:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 329:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 314:09:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC) 287:17:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 221:18:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 167:17:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 152:17:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 126:01:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC) 95:18:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 79:17:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 1539:page for RFA's. No voting. 2795: 1128:Focuses on wrong qualities 1323:Voters who say "nice guy" 1296:oppose because of a diff 177:Lacks instruction creep. 1727:diffs, I'm not sure I'd 1492:Encourages vote counting 1412:Lack of gender? — 1188:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 344:Unfair to veteran users 2244:Would the nominee have 493:Use of RFA as a soapbox 2246:peremptory challenges 2525:defender of the wiki 576:User:Oleg Alexandrov 211:it's nothing special 2582:functions from the 82:Even though RfA is 2473:User:Name withheld 2248:to jurors as in a 1952:Nomination changes 1849:must be necceasary 1837:No "spite votes" ( 2733:Confidence Voting 2709: 2533:deletion reviewer 2320:Merging all votes 2173:Jury-style voting 1926:Informal suffrage 1917: 1707:Tuning the voting 1510:RfC style changes 308:jury-style voting 205: 2786: 2778: 2718: 2708: 2412: 2407: 2402: 2397: 2364: 2359: 2354: 2349: 2305: 2286: 2256: 2228: 1916: 1817: 1812: 1807: 1802: 1677: 1636: 1601: 1596: 1591: 1586: 1565: 1560: 1555: 1550: 1530: 1431: 1426: 1421: 1416: 1382: 1364: 1359: 1354: 1349: 1291:NickBush24's RfA 1111: 1106: 1101: 1096: 943: 792: 787: 782: 777: 754: 751: 748: 738: 733: 728: 723: 691: 686: 681: 676: 637: 632: 627: 622: 521: 516: 511: 506: 372: 356: 355: 351: 285: 204: 183: 181: Grue 150: 145: 140: 135: 120: 2794: 2793: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2776: 2716: 2651:Oleg Alexandrov 2636: 2544: 2517:copyvio fighter 2435:Oleg Alexandrov 2427: 2410: 2405: 2400: 2395: 2383:Oleg Alexandrov 2362: 2357: 2352: 2347: 2335: 2322: 2303: 2284: 2282:In response to 2254: 2226: 2175: 2021: 1996: 1954: 1904: 1815: 1810: 1805: 1800: 1793: 1769: 1709: 1675: 1664: 1634: 1630:voting started. 1599: 1594: 1589: 1584: 1563: 1558: 1553: 1548: 1528: 1512: 1507: 1494: 1460: 1429: 1424: 1419: 1414: 1380: 1362: 1357: 1352: 1347: 1311: 1264:Oleg Alexandrov 1246: 1148:Oleg Alexandrov 1130: 1109: 1104: 1099: 1094: 1075:Oleg Alexandrov 1053: 1040: 1028: 987:Oleg Alexandrov 968: 941: 932: 915:Oleg Alexandrov 896: 870: 790: 785: 780: 775: 770: 752: 749: 746: 736: 731: 726: 721: 689: 684: 679: 674: 662:Oleg Alexandrov 635: 630: 625: 620: 615: 559: 541:Oleg Alexandrov 519: 514: 509: 504: 495: 455: 422:Oleg Alexandrov 370: 357: 353: 349: 347: 346: 297:Oleg Alexandrov 283: 270: 265: 234: 179: 174: 159: 148: 143: 138: 133: 118: 102: 68: 63: 51: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2792: 2790: 2782: 2781: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2726: 2725: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2632: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2540: 2513:vandal fighter 2505: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2426: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2334: 2331: 2321: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2268: 2211: 2200: 2174: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2066: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2017: 2003:Robert's Rules 2001:Just as under 1992: 1964: 1963: 1953: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1900: 1893: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1863: 1860: 1845: 1835: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1789: 1765: 1753: 1752: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1731:them. – 1708: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1660: 1643: 1631: 1620: 1608: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1544: 1541:Rx StrangeLove 1511: 1508: 1506: 1503: 1493: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1459: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1451: 1448: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1399: 1396: 1393: 1390: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1368: 1367: 1333: 1330: 1327: 1324: 1321: 1318: 1315: 1310: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1251:Idont Havaname 1245: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1140: 1139: 1136:SchmuckyTheCat 1129: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1056: 1049: 1036: 1027: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1007: 1006: 981: 980: 967: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 949: 948: 931: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 892: 866: 846: 845: 844: 843: 828: 796: 795: 769: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 758: 741: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 658: 650: 649: 648: 647: 614: 608: 607: 606: 605: 604: 589: 588: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 555: 534: 533: 532: 531: 494: 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 451: 441: 415: 414: 402: 401: 400: 345: 342: 341: 340: 319: 318: 317: 316: 315: 289: 288: 269: 266: 264: 261: 260: 259: 258: 257: 233: 230: 229: 228: 227: 226: 225: 224: 223: 222: 173: 172:Administrative 170: 169: 168: 158: 155: 154: 153: 129: 128: 127: 101: 98: 97: 96: 80: 67: 64: 62: 59: 50: 47: 23: 18:User:Linuxbeak 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2791: 2779: 2773: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2757: 2739: 2734: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2723: 2721: 2719: 2712: 2711: 2707: 2702: 2701: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2686: 2684: 2679: 2678:controversial 2675: 2674:controversial 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2637: 2635: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2617: 2613: 2612: 2610: 2605: 2604: 2590: 2585: 2581: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2545: 2543: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2503: 2499: 2494: 2493: 2491: 2486: 2485: 2483: 2479: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2455: 2451: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2440: 2436: 2431: 2424: 2413: 2408: 2403: 2398: 2391: 2390: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2365: 2360: 2355: 2350: 2344: 2343: 2341: 2337: 2336: 2332: 2330: 2328: 2319: 2308: 2306: 2300: 2299: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2287: 2281: 2274: 2269: 2266: 2262: 2261: 2259: 2257: 2251: 2247: 2242: 2241: 2239: 2234: 2233: 2231: 2229: 2223: 2219: 2218: 2216: 2212: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2198: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2189: 2183: 2181: 2172: 2163: 2158: 2157: 2155: 2150: 2145: 2144: 2142: 2137: 2133: 2128: 2127: 2125: 2120: 2115: 2114: 2111: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2097: 2094: 2089: 2084: 2083: 2080: 2075: 2070: 2069: 2067: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2051: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2036: 2022: 2020: 2015: 2011: 2010: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1999: 1997: 1995: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1981: 1979: 1975: 1974: 1972: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1961: 1956: 1955: 1951: 1946: 1941: 1936: 1931: 1927: 1924: 1923: 1915: 1910: 1905: 1903: 1898: 1894: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1882: 1880: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1866: 1864: 1861: 1857: 1856: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1843: 1839: 1836: 1833: 1829: 1828: 1818: 1813: 1808: 1803: 1797: 1796: 1794: 1792: 1787: 1783: 1782: 1780: 1776: 1773: 1772: 1770: 1768: 1763: 1758: 1755: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1743: 1739: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1721: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1710: 1706: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1682: 1680: 1678: 1672: 1668: 1667: 1665: 1663: 1658: 1654: 1649: 1644: 1641: 1639: 1637: 1632: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1604: 1602: 1597: 1592: 1587: 1581: 1574: 1569: 1568: 1566: 1561: 1556: 1551: 1545: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1533: 1531: 1525: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1513: 1509: 1504: 1502: 1500: 1491: 1486: 1482: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1457: 1452: 1449: 1446: 1439: 1435: 1434: 1432: 1427: 1422: 1417: 1411: 1410: 1408: 1403: 1402: 1400: 1397: 1394: 1391: 1388: 1383: 1377: 1374: 1370: 1369: 1365: 1360: 1355: 1350: 1344: 1343: 1341: 1337: 1334: 1331: 1328: 1325: 1322: 1319: 1316: 1313: 1312: 1308: 1303: 1298: 1295: 1292: 1287: 1286: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1271: 1269: 1265: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1256: 1252: 1243: 1238: 1234: 1229: 1228: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1189: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1169: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1153: 1149: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1137: 1132: 1131: 1127: 1122: 1117: 1112: 1107: 1102: 1097: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1061: 1057: 1054: 1052: 1047: 1043: 1042: 1039: 1034: 1030: 1029: 1025: 1018: 1013: 1009: 1008: 1004: 1000: 995: 994: 992: 988: 983: 982: 978: 974: 970: 969: 965: 958: 953: 952: 951: 950: 946: 944: 938: 934: 933: 929: 920: 916: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 897: 895: 890: 886: 885: 883: 879: 874: 873: 871: 869: 864: 860: 859: 857: 853: 848: 847: 841: 837: 833: 829: 826: 822: 818: 817: 815: 811: 806: 802: 798: 797: 793: 788: 783: 778: 772: 771: 767: 756: 755: 742: 739: 734: 729: 724: 718: 717: 715: 712: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 692: 687: 682: 677: 670: 669: 667: 663: 659: 656: 655: 654: 653: 652: 651: 645: 641: 640: 638: 633: 628: 623: 617: 616: 613:of efficiency 612: 609: 602: 598: 593: 592: 591: 590: 586: 582: 577: 573: 569: 568: 560: 558: 553: 549: 548: 546: 542: 538: 537: 536: 535: 529: 525: 524: 522: 517: 512: 507: 501: 497: 496: 492: 479: 475: 471: 470: 468: 464: 459: 458: 456: 454: 449: 445: 442: 439: 435: 430: 429: 427: 423: 419: 418: 417: 416: 412: 408: 403: 398: 394: 389: 384: 380: 376: 375: 373: 367: 364: 359: 358: 352: 343: 338: 334: 330: 325: 320: 313: 309: 305: 304: 302: 298: 293: 292: 291: 290: 286: 280: 277: 272: 271: 268:Low standards 267: 262: 255: 251: 247: 243: 242: 240: 236: 235: 231: 220: 216: 212: 208: 207: 203: 198: 197: 195: 191: 187: 186: 184: 182: 176: 175: 171: 166: 161: 160: 156: 151: 146: 141: 136: 130: 125: 123: 121: 115: 114: 112: 108: 104: 103: 100:Effectiveness 99: 94: 90: 85: 81: 78: 74: 70: 69: 65: 60: 58: 56: 48: 46: 44: 40: 36: 32: 28: 19: 2732: 2677: 2673: 2631: 2620: 2615: 2583: 2579: 2574: 2570: 2539: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2477: 2468: 2432: 2428: 2323: 2292:You know who 2184: 2179: 2176: 2100: 2016: 1991: 1984: 1939: 1934: 1929: 1925: 1899: 1848: 1788: 1774: 1764: 1756: 1741: 1728: 1724: 1713: 1659: 1652: 1647: 1627: 1623: 1615: 1611: 1495: 1467: 1463: 1461: 1336:Your ad here 1335: 1247: 1060:Rudolf Nixon 1048: 1026:Herd mindset 1011: 936: 930:Maintainance 891: 865: 835: 834:to 80%, not 831: 819:Good point. 804: 800: 744: 610: 554: 450: 405:community.-- 392: 387: 382: 378: 245: 214: 210: 180: 157:Organization 83: 52: 30: 29: 25: 2575:established 2500:(drop me a 2252:hearing? -- 2007:Jonathunder 1978:Jonathunder 1960:Jonathunder 1888:(drop me a 1872:(drop me a 823:(drop me a 709:tasks. -- 379:actually is 348:users": --> 252:(drop me a 215:addition to 192:(drop me a 37:(drop me a 2571:registered 2529:IP blocker 2132:straw poll 1740:Suffrage. 1309:The voters 768:Impersonal 502:. — 66:Simplicity 2777:>|< 2759:See also 2738:abakharev 2717:brenneman 2683:abakharev 2609:abakharev 2498:Linuxbeak 2250:voir dire 2188:abakharev 2162:Seancdaug 2149:Seancdaug 2136:Seancdaug 2119:Seancdaug 2105:Seancdaug 2088:Seancdaug 2074:Seancdaug 1945:abakharev 1886:Linuxbeak 1870:Linuxbeak 1733:Seancdaug 1725:encourage 1676:brenneman 1635:brenneman 1573:Seancdaug 1529:>|< 1472:abakharev 1381:>|< 1168:abakharev 821:Linuxbeak 810:Carbonite 526:So true. 371:>|< 284:>|< 274:newbies. 250:Linuxbeak 239:abakharev 190:Linuxbeak 119:brenneman 107:Carbonite 89:Carbonite 73:Carbonite 35:Linuxbeak 2629:nae'blis 2621:suffrage 2616:inclined 2537:nae'blis 2521:welcomer 2340:Cecropia 2327:Turnstep 2014:nae'blis 1989:nae'blis 1897:nae'blis 1859:opinion. 1786:nae'blis 1762:nae'blis 1657:nae'blis 1499:Turnstep 1404:My turn. 1340:Cecropia 1046:nae'blis 1012:negative 889:nae'blis 863:nae'blis 840:Cecropia 644:Cecropia 572:WP:POINT 552:nae'blis 500:WP:POINT 448:nae'blis 397:Avriette 219:Avriette 49:Analysis 2580:janitor 2296:Lambiam 2273:Lambiam 2222:Lambiam 2215:Lambiam 1940:Contra: 1729:require 1700:Comment 1515:As per 1468:support 337:Comment 312:Lambiam 2772:adiant 2765:WP:AAP 2706:Splash 2634:(talk) 2627:). -- 2584:police 2542:(talk) 2531:, and 2509:WP:AAP 2469:really 2450:Ghirla 2411:(Talk) 2363:(Talk) 2265:^demon 2238:^demon 2204:Ghirla 2197:^demon 2019:(talk) 1994:(talk) 1985:trying 1914:Splash 1902:(talk) 1816:(Talk) 1791:(talk) 1767:(talk) 1662:(talk) 1628:before 1600:(Talk) 1564:(Talk) 1537:WP:RFC 1524:adiant 1517:WP:FAC 1481:Ghirla 1464:oppose 1430:(Talk) 1376:adiant 1363:(Talk) 1275:Ghirla 1233:Ghirla 1211:Ghirla 1110:(Talk) 1051:(talk) 999:Ghirla 973:Ghirla 894:(talk) 878:Ghirla 868:(talk) 852:Ghirla 791:(Talk) 737:(Talk) 690:(Talk) 636:(Talk) 581:Ghirla 557:(talk) 520:(Talk) 463:Ghirla 453:(talk) 434:Ghirla 407:Ghirla 393:really 366:adiant 324:WP:AGF 279:adiant 202:Splash 149:(Talk) 2589:Derex 2490:Durin 2482:Derex 2396:Ilyan 2348:Ilyan 1987:. -- 1801:Ilyan 1775:Note: 1757:Note: 1619:down. 1585:Ilyan 1549:Ilyan 1415:Ilyan 1348:Ilyan 1302:Durin 1121:Durin 1095:Ilyan 1017:Durin 957:Durin 776:Ilyan 747:Voice 722:Ilyan 675:Ilyan 621:Ilyan 601:Durin 528:Redux 505:Ilyan 478:Durin 474:here 246:facts 134:Ilyan 16:< 2655:talk 2573:and 2502:line 2454:talk 2439:talk 2387:talk 2208:talk 2180:jury 2101:mean 1971:Zero 1935:PRO: 1890:line 1874:line 1853:Zero 1842:Zero 1832:Zero 1779:Zero 1749:Zero 1742:1000 1718:Zero 1714:must 1696:Talk 1485:talk 1279:talk 1268:talk 1255:Talk 1237:talk 1215:talk 1152:talk 1079:talk 1033:Demi 1003:talk 991:talk 977:talk 937:this 919:talk 882:talk 856:talk 825:line 814:Talk 750:-of- 714:aran 666:talk 611:Lack 599:. -- 585:talk 545:talk 467:talk 438:talk 426:talk 411:talk 383:want 350:edit 333:Talk 301:talk 254:line 194:line 165:Zero 111:Talk 93:Talk 77:Talk 53:See 39:line 31:Note 2767:). 2690:Lar 2055:Lar 2040:Lar 1840:) - 1747:) - 1653:and 1648:now 1624:not 1338:-- 836:70% 832:75% 805:70% 801:any 753:All 711:Pak 446:-- 84:not 2692:: 2527:, 2523:, 2519:, 2515:, 2478:is 2452:| 2381:. 2304:LV 2294:. 2285:LV 2255:LV 2236:-- 2227:LV 2206:| 2057:: 2042:: 1698:- 1694:- 1483:| 1277:| 1235:| 1213:| 1015:-- 1001:| 997:-- 975:| 942:LV 880:| 854:| 812:| 583:| 579:-- 465:| 461:-- 436:| 409:| 335:- 331:- 248:. 109:| 91:| 75:| 57:. 45:. 2775:_ 2769:R 2698:c 2696:/ 2694:t 2653:( 2437:( 2406:p 2401:e 2385:( 2358:p 2353:e 2063:c 2061:/ 2059:t 2048:c 2046:/ 2044:t 1912:- 1811:p 1806:e 1616:b 1612:a 1595:p 1590:e 1559:p 1554:e 1527:_ 1521:R 1425:p 1420:e 1379:_ 1373:R 1358:p 1353:e 1266:( 1253:( 1150:( 1105:p 1100:e 1077:( 1038:C 1035:/ 989:( 917:( 786:p 781:e 732:p 727:e 685:p 680:e 664:( 631:p 626:e 543:( 515:p 510:e 424:( 369:_ 363:R 354:] 299:( 282:_ 276:R 163:- 144:p 139:e

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index