1715:
it's possible to do huge numbers of edits in a matter of days (if one puts in the time) to post "welcome" messages to the thousands of people who register every day, with very little further interaction. On the other hand, some editors are the type who do not save every little change or two that they make to an article and only actually save their work on
Knowledge after completely finishing all of the work that they planned on doing to the article. Thus, the creation of a lengthy, new article or a major revision to an important article may take place in a single edit. In short, the
1174:) may feel that any admin candidate must be experienced with that process. However, most editors focus on only a few types of contributions to Knowledge, doing little or nothing in other areas, and for any given process, a substantial percentage of existing admins have no involvement with it. There are few, if any, processes, besides editing and interacting with other editors, that a potential admin
95:
1693:
35:
120:
1714:
to revert vandalism and issue warnings, something that (while valuable) requires neither editing skills nor much interaction with users (Knowledge vandals typically are of the hit-and-run type). Some edits, such as ones that use a script, can create multiple edits in a single mouse click. Similarly,
1038:
At the top of the comments section of each RfA, it reads "If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review
Special:Contributions/..." Snap decisions based on the number of edits, whether overall or in a particular namespace, work on featured articles or in discussions, without taking
1034:
Users often gain useful experience as they rack up edits. Particular contributions, such as involvement with a WikiProject, participation in various processes such as FAC, AFD and RFA, or discussion on talk pages, can not only give the user experience which will prove useful as an administrator, but
1808:
Third, editors contribute to
Knowledge in many different ways. Helping with copyright problems with images is different than identifying problems with new articles, and both are different than helping mediate disputes among editors, yet all three are things that demonstrate valuable skills that are
1792:
First, counts in a namespace can come from a variety of things: a high amount of Talk edits may be an indication of experience interacting with users, or simply semi-automated tagging for WikiProjects. A high number of User Talk postings may be dealing with problematic editors (a challenging matter
1673:
Many excellent users are ready to take on administrator tasks, yet for whatever reason have not been nominated by another editor. If a candidate has demonstrated clearly that they have what it takes to be an administrator, then the sooner they become an administrator, the better for everyone. Thus,
484:
Criticisms should be constructive and polite. They should give the candidate an idea of what they should change in order that you could trust them. If the change could be made quickly and easily, consider proposing it to the candidate on their talk page and waiting for a response before commenting
1267:
Every editor was once a new editor who was struggling to figure out
Knowledge, and every editor made mistakes during that process. Many good editors and valuable admins have made significant errors or even been blocked at one time or another. Editors should generally place more emphasis on recent
1739:
In short, an RFA participant who looks only at the total edit count may well get a wrong impression of the candidate's contributions. To say something meaningful about the candidate, it's important to look at the contributions themselves, not just their number or distribution (as discussed in the
808:
Sometimes, a user has already expressed your exact thoughts on an RfA, and in these cases it's reasonable to state that you fully agree with them. On other occasions, you might find yourself in broad agreement with various points made, and in these instances, it's very useful if you state exactly
1734:
content and (where appropriate) new articles. It's difficult to validly judge the quality of a candidate by looking at disambiguation pages or double redirects that they have fixed; it's much easier if the candidate has been a significant contributor to articles (particularly controversial ones)
480:
Comments in opposition to an RfA are usually subject to greater examination than comments in support of one. It is particularly helpful if comments are precise, give examples and/or diffs, and explain why the examples presented give rise to the conclusion that the user cannot be trusted with the
318:
RfA is not a popularity contest, nor is it designed to force potential administrators to meet arbitrary criteria. It is not designed to judge whether a potential administrator holds the correct view on a controversial issue—which is different from asking whether they will apply a current policy
1796:
Second, a particular skill (interacting with other editors, for example) can be demonstrated in several different namespaces, including user talk pages, article talk pages, Knowledge and
Knowledge talk pages. Similarly, the ability to understand policy (and make good arguments about it) can be
1821:
in an area that may be considered basic: editing, working with other editors, or understanding something about
Knowledge policies and the Knowledge community. But opposing a candidate simply because they do not contribute in the same way that a participant does, or in the way that an "ideal"
1772:
Different tasks generate different numbers of edits in different namespaces. Someone who spends a lot of time reverting vandalism or tagging unused non-free images will have a disproportionately high number of user talk edits because these actions, when properly done, include adding warning
1709:
First, a very high number of edits isn't a guarantee of trustworthiness. There are editors with tens of thousands of edits who have been blocked multiple times, as evidenced by their block logs. There are also editors with many thousands of edits who have racked these numbers up by using
1700:
One of the more problematic "arguments to avoid" is the improper use of the number of edits (usually determined by looking at the results from an edit counter). Certainly an editor with only 100 edits is too inexperienced to be an administrator. But the negation argument—that a
1793:
to do well) or posting vandalism warnings to mostly anonymous IP talk pages (not so challenging, though still needed). Postings to
Knowledge and Knowledge Talk pages may be helpful, or simply chattiness; RfA and AfD postings may be insightful or simply bandwagon postings.
128:
Users contribute to
Knowledge in different ways. Don't deny Knowledge a valuable administrator simply because a user contributes in a different way than you do. Regardless of whether you support or oppose the candidate, be sure to also provide good reasons for your
2281:
182:
1780:
balance—a desirable percentage in
Knowledge namespace (policy understanding), mainspace (article editing), user talk space (user interaction), and talk space (working constructively with other editors), for example. Sometimes this argument involves
497:
Activities off-wiki are not usually considered as part of an RfA—even if a candidate takes part in activities in real life or elsewhere on the internet which you find objectionable or highly admirable. Further, voters need to consider the
1553:
actually have a good reason for supporting or opposing the nomination, it may not be self-evident to other users. In addition to the diff, you should give some explanation of why the diff shows that the user is good or bad for adminship.
1763:
a certain level of contribution from anyone. If a candidate can benefit the project by using their admin tools for just 10 minutes a week, that's 10 minutes more of useful admin work that
Knowledge gets that it otherwise would not.
1039:
into account the quality of these and other contributions and their relevance to adminship are not helpful. If you are tempted to leave a comment along these lines, consider whether you can take the time to check out their edits.
1160:
Knowledge benefits from having as many trustworthy administrators as possible. RfAs are intended to establish whether a particular user can be trusted with the tools, not whether they will use them to their maximum potential.
488:
If you oppose an RfA, your rationale may well be questioned or challenged. If possible, consider the points raised in response to your objection, and reply politely as to whether or not you stand by your initial rationale.
955:
Conversely, providing a brief rationale allows you to explain your reasoning, carries more weight in the bureaucrat's consideration of the candidacy, and may even convince others to change their views on the candidate.
2297:
233:
1822:
candidate would, is counterproductive: it can deprive Knowledge of a good administrator, forcing existing administrators to focus less on the administrative task they prefer to do and more on what they feel they
1668:
1454:
RFA votes should never focus on "getting back" at the candidate for AFD-ing the article you started, opposing your proposal, or anything of the sort. Inversely, support votes should not be given as rewards.
678:– user has been very active in the debate on our usage of fair use images; even though I do not agree with their position, their reasoned approach shows that they can keep a cool head in a heated discussion.
1719:
of edits needs to be taken into account—a participant who does not consider an editor's contributions in detail should not simply support or oppose a candidate based on the edit count (too high or too low).
595:
If a comment in support or opposition relies on a user's support or opposition to a particular issue, it is particularly useful to make clear why this may affect their suitability to be an administrator.
2079:
301:
intended to be binding policy, nor is there an expectation that editors who comment on RfAs should be familiar with it; it is, rather, to be an informative guide to useful participation in the forum.
2251:
599:
A candidate may have a strong opinion on a topic but can be trusted not to abuse admin tools to further their philosophy. For example, many administrators with opinions which could be described as "
167:
1776:
Sometimes a candidate receives opposition based on the balance of edits between the various namespaces. The extreme (and most problematic) of such arguments is that the candidate fails to have the
192:
2031:
1943:
2276:
187:
2307:
228:
1813:
required to be good at everything; in fact, most administrators tend to focus on what interests them: they're not being paid, of course; why work on what is tedious or uninteresting?
1726:
candidates (and discourages potential candidates) who spend significant time improving articles and creating new ones. Finding sources and exercising good editorial judgment takes
2266:
353:
152:
2302:
2261:
1166:
If a trustworthy person does not use the tools at all, there is absolutely no harm done. If they use them even once to good effect, then their adminship has served a purpose.
545:
In extreme cases, or where it may provide useful information in addition to a comment based on the user's contributions to Knowledge, off-wiki activities can be of interest.
322:
It is particularly helpful to give examples when commenting. The best way to do this is usually to link to the page or the diff showing the behaviour you are commenting on.
223:
177:
2333:
1730:, and while Knowledge needs vandal fighters and fixers of typos and editors who tag problems, the true value of Knowledge comes from those who improve the encyclopedia by
368:
363:
254:
1678:
on the fact that the candidate is self-nominated. However, some users do not agree with this and hold a self-nomination to a higher standard than a non-self-nomination.
2074:
2271:
2241:
2145:
1164:
While it's great if administrators are active and use the tools they have, a contributor who uses the administrators' tools once a month still benefits the community.
197:
157:
2064:
2059:
358:
249:
1924:
1958:
1970:
736:
If you are tempted to leave a comment like this, consider whether you could leave a comment based solely on the merits of the user's activities on Knowledge.
2220:
2026:
378:
2016:
2011:
418:
2343:
2256:
1953:
1931:
1010:
661:– user has stated that they believe the criteria for speedy deletion should be broadened, and that they will interpret the guidelines that way anyway.
607:" only make deletions in the most obvious and uncontroversial of cases, where reasonable editors are highly unlikely to disagree with their actions.
172:
1532:– This candidate is very encouraging to newcomers, and frequently leaves WikiLove messages for them when they add sources and follow the rules about
915:
Votes that provide no rationale at all do not give constructive feedback to the candidate, nor do they contribute to the consensus-building process.
1998:
1867:
1835:
1517:
1845:
423:
610:
The question should be whether a candidate can be trusted not to let personal opinions lead to an action that is against consensus or policy.
1914:
1090:– user states that they want to focus on deletion, but they have only commented in two AFDs, and they didn't seem to understand the process.
2091:
467:
207:
2051:
1963:
1948:
1936:
280:
1233:
1196:
54:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
2122:
1376:
Arguments in RFAs should be made on the merit of the candidate alone, without even mentioning others, which could be construed as a
432:
55:
1751:
One final twist on editcountitis is concluding that the candidate is experienced enough but arguing against the candidate based on
2213:
1897:
388:
47:
2132:
2127:
2086:
1975:
1840:
887:– looking at all the discussion, and through the editor's contributions, I see no reason to oppose and particularly agree with
872:
when they say that the candidate has too few edits in the user talk space—what has that got to do with being an administrator?
202:
106:
1341:– This user's work demonstrates ongoing confusion about fundamental policies, as can be seen in these diffs from last month:
409:
2348:
2117:
1244:– even though the user has little experience of dealing with vandals, their contributions to various talk page discussions
797:
577:– in addition to their great work on Knowledge, the user has an exemplary record as an administrator on ThisProminentSite.
441:
1229:– user has no experience of any deletion-related processes, so I cannot judge whether they can be trusted in this field.
710:– even though they are a great contributor, user writes like a twelve year old so they couldn't be a good administrator.
2186:
1860:
373:
2206:
1304:– Someone complained about the editor at ANI, and if they were a good editor, then no one would ever have complained.
1364:
1349:
1323:
1308:
1293:
1255:
1211:
1130:
1098:
1072:
1057:
997:
978:
948:
933:
903:
876:
842:
827:
781:
761:
750:– even though they are in their thirties, the contributor keeps playing immature jokes, removing text from articles,
729:
714:
684:
667:
643:
628:
583:
566:
538:
523:
2338:
2112:
1705:
of edits is needed to really know Knowledge (and that this is critical for adminship)—has two different problems:
2328:
340:
1722:
Second, setting an arbitrary threshold—say, 3000 or 4000 or 5000 edits—as a "minimum" to demonstrate experience
1120:
but has engaged in constructive discussion about them, and has many good contributions to the project namespace.
1889:
1268:
behavior and on the editor's response to their errors than on whether any error can possibly be found. Avoid
460:
2175:
1853:
1687:
273:
1207:– user says they are mostly interested in deletion and don't intend to get involved with blocking vandals.
2006:
1879:
600:
2043:
604:
109:
which is aimed mainly at new users, or users new to voting at RfA. It is strongly advised to read both.
2107:
138:
2155:
453:
312:
59:
2150:
2140:
1650:
1143:
1017:
868:
highlights their tendency to get into long arguments on talk pages. However, I don't agree with
266:
69:
800:: In fact, "editors are free to use age as a personal rationale for opposing adminship on RfA".
772:– user is from Wisconsin, and has been the core of the Wisconsin WikiProject, helping new users
505:
If a user's contributions to Knowledge are constructive, many off-wiki issues are unimportant:
1513:
696:
If a user can't change something, it is almost never helpful to bring it into a discussion.
1797:
demonstrated in a number of places, not all in the same namespace. In short, namespaces and
1755:: that "this candidate doesn't contribute frequently enough". For all practical purposes,
1711:
1289:
and only people who have been continuously perfect since their first edit should be admins.
499:
43:
1360:– This user is mature enough to own up to and resolve his mistakes without creating drama.
1035:
also enable you to determine whether they are likely to prove trustworthy with the tools.
305:
562:
to delete the main page and block every user in London if they become an administrator.
308:
tools?" Making a decision whether to trust an unfamiliar candidate is often difficult.
1533:
864:
makes a good point about the candidate's lack of experience in deletion debates, while
1876:
Advice, requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives
2322:
1633:
1613:
1377:
1171:
294:
62:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
1637:
1617:
1588:
1573:
1537:
1521:
1494:
1482:
1470:
1442:
1430:
1411:
1399:
1395:
1361:
1346:
1320:
1305:
1290:
1252:
1230:
1208:
1193:
1127:
1095:
1069:
1054:
994:
990:
975:
945:
930:
900:
896:
892:
888:
873:
869:
865:
861:
839:
824:
778:
758:
726:
711:
681:
664:
640:
625:
580:
563:
535:
520:
1696:
It is unhelpful to keep counting beans once you know that you have plenty to eat.
1068:– user has worked on five articles which are now featured, so they must be good.
1740:
next section). And certainly a decision to support or oppose a candidate should
17:
1053:– user only has ten Knowledge talk: namespace edits which isn't nearly enough.
105:
This is one of two important advice pages for RFA voters. The other one is
1692:
1319:– This user always adds an edit summary and has never misspelled anything.
1009:"WP:NOTENOUGH" redirects here. For Knowledge is not done enough essay, see
993:
above, this user also has a demonstrated history of content contributions.
725:– user is from Wisconsin, and we need more administrators from Wisconsin.
1674:
many people believe it is counter-productive to oppose a candidate based
1735:
where they have had to interact and explain and make a case for changes.
304:
The question posed with every RfA is "Can this user be trusted with the
1410:- Opposers have been very rude, and that makes me like this candidate.
1441:- I support this candidate because of their work in fighting vandals.
639:– this user gave a really witty response to someone I disagreed with.
315:", bearing in mind that admin actions can be undone by another admin.
2198:
1669:
Knowledge:Why self-nominated RfA candidates could be more competent
1691:
1493:- They have given me lots of barnstars and have been really nice.
1272:
emphasis on minor problems or errors made a very long time ago.
1616:; if made an admin, they will probably make too many bad blocks.
1398:
supports, and I don't trust them, so this candidate must be bad.
1788:
There are at least three problems with this type of opposition:
2202:
1849:
1372:
Using another's opinion or name to cast a contradicting opinion
1371:
809:
which points you agree with (and any with which you disagree).
1512:- The candidate nominates obviously-notable articles, such as
114:
89:
29:
1809:
important to an administrator. Knowledge administrators are
1429:- I oppose this candidate because they need more experience.
1612:, this user has the tendency to make problematic reports at
2298:
List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates
293:
This is intended as a guide to getting the most out of the
1344:
1342:
1287:
1759:
editing Knowledge is a volunteer; it's inappropriate to
1109:– the user has not only worked on five featured articles,
2282:
in place and transportation related deletion discussions
1785:
of namespace: AfD discussions, RfA discussions, etc.
1919:
1907:
1902:
1658:
1629:
1610:
1607:
1585:
1569:
1249:
1247:
1245:
1151:
1125:
1123:
1121:
1118:
1116:
1114:
1112:
1110:
1093:
1091:
1025:
971:
776:
773:
756:
753:
751:
679:
662:
578:
560:
77:
1801:
are not the same, so failure to have many edits in a
1251:
convince me that they can be trusted with the tools.
1817:
It's appropriate to oppose a candidate who has done
1481:- The candidate's nominator blocked me in the past.
2290:
2234:
2100:
2042:
1991:
1888:
1192:– user sometimes disappears for a month at a time.
234:
Policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates
1005:Must have 10,000 edits, three featured articles...
1469:- Candidate nominated my article for deletion.
1170:Editors who work with a certain process (e.g.
502:policy before discussing off-wiki activities.
2308:How to save an article nominated for deletion
2214:
1861:
461:
274:
229:How to save an article nominated for deletion
8:
970:– user behaves immaturely, as demonstrated
624:– user disagreed with me in an AFD debate.
2221:
2207:
2199:
1868:
1854:
1846:
1805:namespace proves very little, if anything.
559:– user has threatened on a bulletin board
468:
454:
329:
281:
267:
134:
2334:Matters related to requests for adminship
2303:Arguments to make in deletion discussions
1286:– This user made a mistake six years ago,
1011:Knowledge:Knowledge is a work in progress
224:Arguments to make in deletion discussions
1836:Knowledge:When not to link to WP:NOTNOW
1518:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Example
823:– as per most of what they said above.
775:and initiating discussions on policies.
534:– I know this user and they are great.
431:
408:
386:
339:
332:
241:
215:
144:
137:
989:– in addition to the points raised by
899:in their evaluation of the candidate.
755:and redirecting them inappropriately.
7:
1618:Protect Knowledge against bad blocks
1971:Advice for asking questions at RfA
60:thoroughly vetted by the community
56:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
25:
2252:in source reliability discussions
1632:shows the user truly understands
2344:Knowledge essays about adminship
118:
93:
33:
1841:Knowledge:Advice for RfA voters
1773:templates to user talk pages.
1999:Requests for adminship by year
1137:
519:– user was rude to me on IRC.
168:Source reliability discussions
102:Reading time: approx. 14 mins.
1:
1710:semi-automated tools such as
193:Template deletion discussions
183:Place/transportation deletion
2277:in file deletion discussions
1944:Optional RfA candidate poll
1365:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
1350:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
1324:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
1309:01:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
1294:01:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
1256:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
1234:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
1212:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
1197:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
1131:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
1099:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
1073:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
1058:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
998:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
979:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
949:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
934:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
904:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
877:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
843:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
828:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
782:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
762:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
730:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
715:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
685:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
668:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
644:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
629:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
584:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
567:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
539:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
524:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
2365:
2181:Current bureaucrat count:
1685:
1666:
1648:
1483:I Don't Like The Nominator
1471:I Don't Like The Candidate
1141:
1015:
1008:
788:Of course, requiring that
208:But there must be sources!
67:
27:Essay on editing Knowledge
2166:
1949:Advice for RfA candidates
1545:Diffs without explanation
1306:GuiltyUntilProvenInnocent
911:Not providing a rationale
379:Perennial deletion review
188:File deletion discussions
2247:in adminship discussions
1538:Teahouse hosting is fun!
326:Comments opposing an RfA
313:adminship is no big deal
297:(RfA) procedure. It is
255:Redirects for discussion
126:This page in a nutshell:
2267:in deletion discussions
2123:Inactive administrators
1688:Knowledge:Editcountitis
804:Exactly what they said!
591:User supports/opposes X
311:It is often said that "
2262:in feature discussions
1898:Requests for adminship
1697:
1138:Doesn't need the tools
48:Requests for adminship
2170:Current admin count:
2133:Desysoppings by month
2128:Former administrators
2087:Bureaucrat discussion
1695:
481:administrator tools.
369:Common outcomes (TfD)
364:Common outcomes (RfD)
359:Common outcomes (AfD)
295:request for adminship
250:Articles for deletion
203:Subjective importance
163:Adminship discussions
145:Arguments to avoid in
139:Knowledge discussions
107:Advice for RfA voters
58:, as it has not been
2349:Knowledge discussion
1606:- As you can see in
1589:Positive Diff Finder
1495:I Like The Candidate
1347:WorkReflectsTheAdmin
433:Proposals and policy
419:Guide to arbitration
410:Arbitration (Arbcom)
391:Bureaucratship (RfB)
153:Deletion discussions
2272:in deletion reviews
2242:On discussion pages
2092:Bureaucrat activity
1549:While a given diff
1516:for deletion. (See
1450:Revenge and rewards
1362:MaturityResolvesAll
1263:User made a mistake
493:Off-wiki activities
442:Perennial proposals
389:Adminship (RfA) and
198:On discussion pages
178:Feature discussions
2235:Arguments to avoid
2229:Arguments to avoid
2071:Unsuccessful RfBs
2023:Unsuccessful RfAs
1981:Arguments to avoid
1698:
1557:Unhelpful comments
1458:Unhelpful comments
1400:GuiltByAssociation
1383:Unhelpful comments
1275:Unhelpful comments
1194:Ever-presentEditor
1181:Unhelpful comments
1042:Unhelpful comments
976:Logicalandcoherent
918:Unhelpful comments
812:Unhelpful comments
798:perennial proposal
699:Unhelpful comments
665:StickToThePolicies
613:Unhelpful comments
508:Unhelpful comments
401:Arguments to avoid
374:Overcategorisation
354:Arguments to avoid
2339:Knowledge culture
2316:
2315:
2196:
2195:
1976:Advice for voters
1768:Namespace balance
1638:CSD A7 identifier
1231:JudgeByExperience
901:InformedSupporter
874:ReadTheDiscussion
581:ProminentSiteUser
478:
477:
291:
290:
216:Arguments to make
133:
132:
113:
112:
104:
88:
87:
16:(Redirected from
2356:
2329:Knowledge essays
2223:
2216:
2209:
2200:
2113:Adminship reform
2056:Successful RfBs
2003:Successful RfAs
1883:
1870:
1863:
1856:
1847:
1661:
1645:Self-nominations
1595:Helpful comments
1574:This Diff Is Bad
1501:Helpful comments
1443:VandalVanquisher
1418:Helpful comments
1412:PolitenessPolice
1330:Helpful comments
1218:Helpful comments
1154:
1079:Helpful comments
1028:
959:Helpful comments
849:Helpful comments
739:Helpful comments
650:Helpful comments
626:ABitDisagreeable
548:Helpful comments
470:
463:
456:
333:Common decisions
330:
283:
276:
269:
158:Deletion reviews
135:
122:
121:
115:
100:
97:
96:
90:
80:
37:
36:
30:
21:
18:Knowledge:NONEED
2364:
2363:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2355:
2354:
2353:
2319:
2318:
2317:
2312:
2286:
2230:
2227:
2197:
2192:
2162:
2141:User rights log
2096:
2038:
1987:
1964:Self-nomination
1932:RfA nominations
1884:
1877:
1874:
1832:
1770:
1753:edits per month
1748:on edit count.
1690:
1684:
1671:
1665:
1664:
1657:
1653:
1647:
1642:
1596:
1593:
1558:
1547:
1542:
1502:
1499:
1459:
1452:
1447:
1419:
1416:
1384:
1378:personal attack
1374:
1369:
1331:
1328:
1276:
1265:
1260:
1219:
1216:
1182:
1176:absolutely must
1158:
1157:
1150:
1146:
1140:
1135:
1080:
1077:
1043:
1032:
1031:
1024:
1020:
1014:
1007:
1002:
960:
953:
919:
913:
908:
850:
847:
813:
806:
786:
740:
734:
700:
694:
689:
651:
648:
641:EasilyImpressed
614:
593:
588:
549:
543:
509:
495:
474:
393:
328:
287:
242:Common outcomes
119:
94:
84:
83:
76:
72:
64:
63:
34:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2362:
2360:
2352:
2351:
2346:
2341:
2336:
2331:
2321:
2320:
2314:
2313:
2311:
2310:
2305:
2300:
2294:
2292:
2291:Good arguments
2288:
2287:
2285:
2284:
2279:
2274:
2269:
2264:
2259:
2254:
2249:
2244:
2238:
2236:
2232:
2231:
2228:
2226:
2225:
2218:
2211:
2203:
2194:
2193:
2191:
2190:
2179:
2167:
2164:
2163:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2153:
2148:
2143:
2135:
2130:
2125:
2120:
2115:
2110:
2104:
2102:
2098:
2097:
2095:
2094:
2089:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2077:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2062:
2054:
2048:
2046:
2040:
2039:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2029:
2021:
2020:
2019:
2014:
2009:
2001:
1995:
1993:
1989:
1988:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1973:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1961:
1956:
1946:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1922:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1905:
1894:
1892:
1890:Administrators
1886:
1885:
1875:
1873:
1872:
1865:
1858:
1850:
1844:
1843:
1838:
1831:
1828:
1815:
1814:
1806:
1794:
1769:
1766:
1737:
1736:
1720:
1683:
1680:
1663:
1662:
1654:
1649:
1646:
1643:
1641:
1640:
1620:
1597:
1594:
1592:
1591:
1576:
1559:
1556:
1546:
1543:
1541:
1540:
1524:
1503:
1500:
1498:
1497:
1485:
1473:
1460:
1457:
1451:
1448:
1446:
1445:
1433:
1420:
1417:
1415:
1414:
1402:
1385:
1382:
1373:
1370:
1368:
1367:
1352:
1332:
1329:
1327:
1326:
1311:
1296:
1277:
1274:
1264:
1261:
1259:
1258:
1236:
1220:
1217:
1215:
1214:
1199:
1183:
1180:
1156:
1155:
1147:
1142:
1139:
1136:
1134:
1133:
1101:
1096:Ms.Deletionist
1081:
1078:
1076:
1075:
1060:
1044:
1041:
1030:
1029:
1021:
1016:
1006:
1003:
1001:
1000:
981:
961:
958:
952:
951:
936:
920:
917:
912:
909:
907:
906:
879:
851:
848:
846:
845:
830:
814:
811:
805:
802:
790:administrators
785:
784:
764:
741:
738:
733:
732:
727:ILOVEWISCONSIN
717:
701:
698:
693:
690:
688:
687:
670:
652:
649:
647:
646:
631:
615:
612:
592:
589:
587:
586:
569:
550:
547:
542:
541:
526:
510:
507:
494:
491:
476:
475:
473:
472:
465:
458:
450:
447:
446:
445:
444:
436:
435:
429:
428:
427:
426:
421:
413:
412:
406:
405:
404:
403:
395:
394:
390:
387:
384:
383:
382:
381:
376:
371:
366:
361:
356:
348:
347:
337:
336:
334:
327:
324:
319:consistently.
289:
288:
286:
285:
278:
271:
263:
260:
259:
258:
257:
252:
244:
243:
239:
238:
237:
236:
231:
226:
218:
217:
213:
212:
211:
210:
205:
200:
195:
190:
185:
180:
175:
170:
165:
160:
155:
147:
146:
142:
141:
131:
130:
123:
111:
110:
98:
86:
85:
82:
81:
73:
68:
65:
53:
52:
40:
38:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2361:
2350:
2347:
2345:
2342:
2340:
2337:
2335:
2332:
2330:
2327:
2326:
2324:
2309:
2306:
2304:
2301:
2299:
2296:
2295:
2293:
2289:
2283:
2280:
2278:
2275:
2273:
2270:
2268:
2265:
2263:
2260:
2258:
2255:
2253:
2250:
2248:
2245:
2243:
2240:
2239:
2237:
2233:
2224:
2219:
2217:
2212:
2210:
2205:
2204:
2201:
2188:
2184:
2180:
2177:
2173:
2169:
2168:
2165:
2157:
2154:
2152:
2149:
2147:
2144:
2142:
2139:
2138:
2136:
2134:
2131:
2129:
2126:
2124:
2121:
2119:
2116:
2114:
2111:
2109:
2106:
2105:
2103:
2099:
2093:
2090:
2088:
2085:
2081:
2080:Chronological
2078:
2076:
2073:
2072:
2070:
2066:
2065:Chronological
2063:
2061:
2058:
2057:
2055:
2053:
2050:
2049:
2047:
2045:
2041:
2033:
2032:Chronological
2030:
2028:
2025:
2024:
2022:
2018:
2017:Chronological
2015:
2013:
2010:
2008:
2005:
2004:
2002:
2000:
1997:
1996:
1994:
1990:
1982:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1974:
1972:
1969:
1965:
1962:
1960:
1957:
1955:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1947:
1945:
1942:
1938:
1937:Request a nom
1935:
1934:
1933:
1930:
1926:
1923:
1921:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1913:
1909:
1906:
1904:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1896:
1895:
1893:
1891:
1887:
1881:
1871:
1866:
1864:
1859:
1857:
1852:
1851:
1848:
1842:
1839:
1837:
1834:
1833:
1829:
1827:
1825:
1820:
1812:
1807:
1804:
1800:
1795:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1786:
1784:
1779:
1774:
1767:
1765:
1762:
1758:
1754:
1749:
1747:
1743:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1718:
1713:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1704:
1694:
1689:
1682:Editcountitis
1681:
1679:
1677:
1670:
1660:
1656:
1655:
1652:
1644:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1624:
1621:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1608:
1605:
1602:
1599:
1598:
1590:
1586:
1583:
1580:
1577:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1564:
1561:
1560:
1555:
1552:
1544:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1528:
1525:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1508:
1505:
1504:
1496:
1492:
1489:
1486:
1484:
1480:
1477:
1474:
1472:
1468:
1465:
1462:
1461:
1456:
1449:
1444:
1440:
1437:
1434:
1432:
1431:BuddingNovice
1428:
1425:
1422:
1421:
1413:
1409:
1406:
1403:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1390:
1387:
1386:
1381:
1379:
1366:
1363:
1359:
1356:
1353:
1351:
1348:
1345:
1343:
1340:
1337:
1334:
1333:
1325:
1322:
1321:Perfectionist
1318:
1315:
1312:
1310:
1307:
1303:
1300:
1297:
1295:
1292:
1288:
1285:
1282:
1279:
1278:
1273:
1271:
1262:
1257:
1254:
1250:
1248:
1246:
1243:
1240:
1237:
1235:
1232:
1228:
1225:
1222:
1221:
1213:
1210:
1206:
1203:
1200:
1198:
1195:
1191:
1188:
1185:
1184:
1179:
1177:
1173:
1168:
1167:
1162:
1153:
1149:
1148:
1145:
1132:
1129:
1128:AnotherFACFan
1126:
1124:
1122:
1119:
1117:
1115:
1113:
1111:
1108:
1105:
1102:
1100:
1097:
1094:
1092:
1089:
1086:
1083:
1082:
1074:
1071:
1067:
1064:
1061:
1059:
1056:
1052:
1049:
1046:
1045:
1040:
1036:
1027:
1023:
1022:
1019:
1012:
1004:
999:
996:
992:
988:
985:
982:
980:
977:
973:
969:
966:
963:
962:
957:
950:
947:
943:
940:
937:
935:
932:
928:
925:
922:
921:
916:
910:
905:
902:
898:
894:
890:
886:
883:
880:
878:
875:
871:
867:
863:
859:
856:
853:
852:
844:
841:
840:VeryAgreeable
837:
834:
831:
829:
826:
822:
819:
816:
815:
810:
803:
801:
799:
795:
791:
783:
780:
777:
774:
771:
768:
765:
763:
760:
757:
754:
752:
749:
746:
743:
742:
737:
731:
728:
724:
721:
718:
716:
713:
709:
706:
703:
702:
697:
691:
686:
683:
682:KeepACoolHead
680:
677:
674:
671:
669:
666:
663:
660:
657:
654:
653:
645:
642:
638:
635:
632:
630:
627:
623:
620:
617:
616:
611:
608:
606:
602:
597:
590:
585:
582:
579:
576:
573:
570:
568:
565:
564:BoardInLondon
561:
558:
555:
552:
551:
546:
540:
537:
533:
530:
527:
525:
522:
518:
515:
512:
511:
506:
503:
501:
492:
490:
486:
482:
471:
466:
464:
459:
457:
452:
451:
449:
448:
443:
440:
439:
438:
437:
434:
430:
425:
422:
420:
417:
416:
415:
414:
411:
407:
402:
399:
398:
397:
396:
392:
385:
380:
377:
375:
372:
370:
367:
365:
362:
360:
357:
355:
352:
351:
350:
349:
346:
344:
338:
335:and arguments
331:
325:
323:
320:
316:
314:
309:
307:
306:administrator
302:
300:
296:
284:
279:
277:
272:
270:
265:
264:
262:
261:
256:
253:
251:
248:
247:
246:
245:
240:
235:
232:
230:
227:
225:
222:
221:
220:
219:
214:
209:
206:
204:
201:
199:
196:
194:
191:
189:
186:
184:
181:
179:
176:
174:
171:
169:
166:
164:
161:
159:
156:
154:
151:
150:
149:
148:
143:
140:
136:
127:
124:
117:
116:
108:
103:
99:
92:
91:
79:
75:
74:
71:
66:
61:
57:
51:
49:
45:
39:
32:
31:
19:
2257:in edit wars
2246:
2182:
2171:
2156:Meta old log
2101:Useful pages
2075:Alphabetical
2060:Alphabetical
2027:Alphabetical
2012:Alphabetical
1992:RfA analysis
1980:
1823:
1818:
1816:
1810:
1802:
1798:
1787:
1782:
1777:
1775:
1771:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1750:
1745:
1741:
1738:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1716:
1702:
1699:
1675:
1672:
1625:
1622:
1603:
1600:
1581:
1578:
1565:
1562:
1550:
1548:
1529:
1526:
1509:
1506:
1490:
1487:
1478:
1475:
1466:
1463:
1453:
1438:
1435:
1426:
1423:
1407:
1404:
1391:
1388:
1375:
1357:
1354:
1338:
1335:
1316:
1313:
1301:
1298:
1283:
1280:
1269:
1266:
1241:
1238:
1226:
1223:
1204:
1201:
1189:
1186:
1175:
1169:
1165:
1163:
1159:
1106:
1103:
1087:
1084:
1065:
1062:
1055:TalkTalkTalk
1050:
1047:
1037:
1033:
1026:WP:NOTENOUGH
995:Miss Helpful
986:
983:
967:
964:
954:
941:
938:
926:
923:
914:
884:
881:
857:
854:
835:
832:
820:
817:
807:
793:
789:
787:
769:
766:
759:StraightFace
747:
744:
735:
722:
719:
707:
704:
695:
675:
672:
658:
655:
636:
633:
621:
618:
609:
601:inclusionist
598:
594:
574:
571:
556:
553:
544:
531:
528:
521:Mr. Offended
516:
513:
504:
496:
487:
485:on the RfA.
483:
479:
400:
342:
321:
317:
310:
303:
298:
292:
162:
125:
101:
41:
2052:Noticeboard
2044:Bureaucrats
1778:appropriate
1291:Unforgiving
605:deletionist
42:This is an
2323:Categories
2118:RfX Report
2108:RFA reform
1686:See also:
1667:See also:
1659:WP:SELFNOM
1209:TheBlocker
779:Cheesehead
712:Patronizer
536:GoodFriend
424:Principles
341:Deletion (
1959:Miniguide
1744:be based
1724:penalizes
1630:This diff
1584:Based on
1570:this diff
1152:WP:NONEED
838:– agree.
825:Agreeable
692:User is X
173:Edit wars
2187:list all
2176:list all
2151:Meta log
2007:By month
1925:Archives
1920:new post
1915:RfA talk
1830:See also
1757:everyone
1651:Shortcut
1623:Example:
1601:Example:
1579:Example:
1563:Example:
1527:Example:
1507:Example:
1488:Example:
1476:Example:
1464:Example:
1436:Example:
1424:Example:
1405:Example:
1389:Example:
1355:Example:
1336:Example:
1314:Example:
1299:Example:
1281:Example:
1253:ATrustee
1239:Example:
1224:Example:
1202:Example:
1187:Example:
1144:Shortcut
1104:Example:
1085:Example:
1063:Example:
1048:Example:
1018:Shortcut
984:Example:
965:Example:
939:Example:
924:Example:
897:ExampleL
893:ExampleK
889:ExampleJ
882:Example:
855:Example:
833:Example:
818:Example:
767:Example:
745:Example:
720:Example:
705:Example:
673:Example:
656:Example:
634:Example:
619:Example:
572:Example:
554:Example:
529:Example:
514:Example:
70:Shortcut
46:on the
2146:Old log
1826:to do.
1819:nothing
1717:quality
1626:Support
1582:Support
1534:WP:NPOV
1530:Support
1491:Support
1439:Support
1408:Support
1358:Support
1317:Support
1242:Support
1107:Support
1066:Support
987:Support
946:Pile-on
942:Support
931:Silence
885:Support
836:Support
770:Support
723:Support
676:Support
637:Support
575:Support
532:Support
129:choice.
78:WP:AAAD
1880:search
1803:single
1799:skills
1761:demand
1746:solely
1732:adding
1712:Huggle
1676:solely
1634:CSD A7
1614:WP:AIV
1604:Oppose
1566:Oppose
1510:Oppose
1479:Oppose
1467:Oppose
1427:Oppose
1396:User X
1392:Oppose
1339:Oppose
1302:Oppose
1284:Oppose
1227:Oppose
1205:Oppose
1190:Oppose
1178:know.
1088:Oppose
1070:FACFan
1051:Oppose
968:Oppose
927:Oppose
858:Oppose
821:Oppose
794:adults
748:Oppose
708:Oppose
659:Oppose
622:Oppose
603:" or "
557:Oppose
517:Oppose
500:OUTING
2137:Logs
1954:Guide
1908:watch
1783:parts
1742:never
1270:undue
796:is a
44:essay
1903:edit
1824:have
1728:time
1609:and
1568:Per
1536:. –
972:here
895:and
870:0005
866:0005
862:0003
2172:850
1811:not
1703:lot
1551:may
1522:XYZ
1520:).
1514:ABC
1172:AfD
991:XYZ
792:be
345:fD)
299:not
2325::
2183:15
1636:.
1628:-
1587:.
1572:.
1394:-
1380:.
974:.
944:–
929:–
891:,
860:–
2222:e
2215:t
2208:v
2189:)
2185:(
2178:)
2174:(
1882:)
1878:(
1869:e
1862:t
1855:v
1013:.
469:e
462:t
455:v
343:X
282:e
275:t
268:v
50:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.