Knowledge (XXG) talk:Moderators/Straw poll/2013

562:: Having quasi-admins able to deal with most backlogs but unable to clobber other users with blocks, and other definitely-big-deal authority, would be a great boon to WP. It's why this sort of proposal comes up 10x per year every year. People tend to fixate on one or another tiny flaw in each proposal (like the first one raised here, about page protection) rather than on finding a solution of this sort more generally, whatever the nitpicks, to problems of the declining number and activity levels of active admins and the rise in proportion of new seekers of adminship being either a) too inexperienced to be trusted with the full-on tools, or b) too POV-warrior in temperament to be trusted with any of them, including the once countenanced here. I'm entirely in favor of a proposal that gives some authority the former and helps them gain experience enough to be good full admins, but still denies the latter type of editor access to power they can abuse. — 1739:

cognitive cost on all contributors. If we say "well, he/she is a moderator", what does that mean? Every user now has to get it into their heads what that means: what extra rights they have, what social authority they have in places like ANI or DRV etc. etc. And for what? A vanishingly small number of people who want to have the ability to delete pages but not block people because they subscribe to a Knowledge (XXG) version of pacifism regarding user rights? Imposing the extra cognitive tax of keeping track of more user rights on everyone is a much higher cost than I'm willing to pay to satisfy a strange and (to my mind) unreasonable request. It's not an AK-47, it's some extra buttons on a website. Show me that the number of people who want this user right can be counted into the double digits and I might reconsider. —

944:. Like some of the supporters, I agree flexibility is good. I also think some form of Trusted User / Admin-Lite userright that could truly become No Big Deal would be a good thing; and I appreciate the thoughtfulness in sorting out what the constituent privileges could be. But I also value simplicity and Solving Real Problems. Someone who has passed the RFA gauntlet and is trusted to use the full suite of admin tools is quite free to decide to not use certain parts of the toolkit and we don't need the complexity of a separate usergroup to achieve this. And if the goal is for the moderator userright to be Less of a Big Deal than admin, then the process to receive it needs to be less onerous than that to get all the current admin tools. 1652:

group only seems to me a circumvention of the RfA process, in that it would essentially create a looser review process, since "stronger" powers aren't bundled. Incnis Mrsi summarises the problem this would create quite well. It wouldn't take away from the admin work-load, but create more work since moderators would only be allowed to do so much and whatever's left to do has to be cleaned up by the admins. I used to support de-bundling, indeed, I was a vocal supporter of it, but it just doesn't work in practice. Even in principle there are still a lot of kinks needing to be worked out.

886:. Nobody is forcing administrators to use tools against their wishes, so it is completely unnecessary to provide a means for standing administrators to unburden themselves of access to tools they don't want to use. Therefore, the only way this proposal makes sense to me is as a backdoor toward making it available to non-administrators. If that is the goal then that is what the proposal should say, and not say that it is an option for administrators only. If that is not the case then I don't think administrators need this sort of mechanism to say "stop me before I push the button". ~ 1718:- I support unbundling the tools as a general concept, however I don't think this will work - in general, the way to go so far seems to have been to split off individual tools or small groups of tools, not split adminship down the middle. Admins are under no obligation to use all the tools available to them, and in practice, many of the tools included in this package would still require an assessment of user behaviour in some cases, so I don't think a divide along those lines will work. Also, I'm not sure "moderator" is the right word here. 1455:- I would be in strong favor of a "mini-admin" truncated set of tools to be made available to editors who are not yet admins, but I see no real point in asking present admins if they would like to have a truncated set of tools. Who would do that? If they do not want to use a tool, they do not have to use it. I also cannot favor a proposition that seems to have conflicting policies. Blocking, unblocking, and article deletion should not be considered for this in my opinion. I would be in favor of such things as page protection however. -- 363:

easier and now can't be unseated. I mean, to be fair to our admin corps, it does generally consist of well-meaning people, because that's what RFA produces: well-meaning people. Not people who're fit to manage a complicated project that requires tact, delicacy, discretion and judgment. Not people with any actual relevant experience or knowledge. But well-meaning people. Still, well-meaning isn't the same as fit to manage the project, and we can't continue like this, because the project's decline is no longer gradual.

1535:- I find myself in agreement with those who suggest this might be a solution looking for a problem to solve. I do understand the "moral objection" argument but for me, that's like a Catholic who refuses to eat red meat on Fridays. So on Friday, they only "make use" of their fish, they don't throw out their beef and lamb each Thursday night because of a moral objection to eating it on Friday. If you object, then object. No one is going to try and de-sysop an admin for refusing to use certain tools, even publicly. 1756:- I'm all for unbundling the Admin toolkit to "lesser" editors per NOBIGDEAL, but in making this a lesser toolset for Admins who are no longer active, this totally misses the point and is a solution looking for a problem. If the religious aspects of some people, like Quakers, prevent them from having access to the block button, good bloody luck becoming a moderator - you still have to go through the meat grinder of RfA to get this limited subset. I am sorry. - 985:

want to protect pages, then he should simply not protect pages. For instance, I have never assigned a user right to an editor. I don't have a particular aversion to handing out user rights, I just have little interest in working in that area of Knowledge (XXG). So I don't. It's as simple as that. There is no requirement or expectation that I hand out user rights, and there is no need to take those tools away just because I'm not using them.

1598:- seems remarkably pointless to me. Anyone who passes RFA is inherently trusted with the admin tools, and should have no need to dispose of some of them; any admin who chooses not to use some of those tools is free to do so, but we don't need to create a new userright for that reason. If this was a 'junior admin' position open to non-admins, I'd probably support it, but as a position only open to former admins I can't see the use of it. 1148:

created it blocked. this will actually create more work as these "half admins" will have to ask the real admins for help in the numerous situations they will not be adequately prepared for. If an admin is not capable of determining who should and should not be blocked they should not be an admin at all, but they can just not use the tools they are not competent with, nobody is making them issue bad blocks.

1886:. I just don't see the point of unbundling. I've used the block button exactly twice in the last 2½ years. I am one of those who finds it "drama-filled," but if having the button somehow induced me to use it even though I don't want to, I should not be an administrator. Also, as I've argued at previous unbundling discussions, protecting and deletion are closely related and 259:—being that initially only existing admins could request this package, it would allow the community time to make any necessary refinements to the moderator package. Something along these lines has been requested by large numbers of editors for quite a while, so any positive steps taken to get there are A Good Thing™. 1338:

of a vandal hacking an inactive admin/mod account, I think this proposal could be actively dangerous, as malicious blocks are likely to be noticed quickly, while deletions are much less thoroughly patrolled. And as DGG points out, the ability to view deleted content is one of the most sensitive of the rights bundle.

1556:- I disagree with both factors. First of all, as Sue Rangell said, why would an admin ever be given a truncated set of tools? If they've done something bad enough to be de-sysoped, the community/ArbCom probably wouldn't want them to have any admin-related rights. About a "moderator" role, adminship is 1651:

the argument that certain users are intimidated by RfA and that the process is daunting holds no water, for the moment at least. Given that reforms, while needlessly slow, are still under discussion. RfA requires the candidate to be capable, trustworthy and good-faith assuming. Creating a "sub-admin"

1337:

as an option for existing admins. I think this is a solution seeking a problem. As an admin whose activity has always fallen mainly within the content field, I have no problem with having block/protect buttons I rarely use, and don't feel that the community is pressurising me to use them. In the case

1317:

particularly because of the delete/undelete provision, which is as sensitive as anything at WP. I also agree with Scottywong's reasoning that this is unnecessary for admins who want to not do something, because they already have the right to stop doing something. Whether there could be a more limited

1300:

I am sympathetic to proposals to unbundle the admin toolkit. Administrators get a lot of tools for use in a large variety of situations, and I can readily appreciate that someone might be qualified for only some of those situations. Unbundling the toolkit may also make it easier for people to get the

1180:

I normally support these, but in my opinion we're beyond the stage where this would be useful. The only answer now is to rip up the current system (i.e. adminship itself) and start again, and to hell with those opposed to it. I'm sorry if that is overly blunt, and accept that the way I phrase it goes

1147:

Tje reason the admin tools are bundled is because dealing with problems that require admin intervention often involves using multiple tools and/or choosing the right one. Sometimes blocking is needed, sometimes protection is a better option. sometimes an article needs to be deleted and the person who

1065:

to tools that can block website users, well... then, I guess they just can't be admins. Sorry, but we can't cater to every last peculiarity of fringe religions. Somehow I doubt this will make a big dent in our admin numbers. As for the Asperger's Syndrome example, this proposal would not help with

666:

If a person retains the privilege to delete pages and restore versions, s/he may inflict a considerable damage. More serious one than potential threat of illegal (un)blocks and page (un)protections. All such accounts must be monitored (and, in fact, are) to ensure that the owner did not get crazy and

477:

make me more inclined to support the proposal. I opposed it on the basis of the religious/conscience examples given which I didn't think were strong enough - if you choose not to use something then you choose not to use something. But I hadn't really considered the idea that there might be a category

1918:

If it's just for people who have passed an RfA, then I would oppose this as unnecessary; all they have to do is just not use the tools. However, if it becomes possible to specifically file an RfM and there are a significant number of users who are perfectly competent at content issues but are either

1357:

As has been pointed out, view-deleted is the most sensitive and potentially damaging admin tool: a blocked user can be unblocked but once libellous or otherwise legally sensitive deleted material is shared, there's no way to put it back. Even setting that aside, I would imagine it would be a pretty

984:

Admins are not "forced" to do anything. If I become an admin and I don't block anyone for 5 years, no one is going to come to me and say "hey, you're not fulfilling your obligations as an admin." If an admin doesn't want to block people, then he should simply not block people. If an admin doesn't

545:(was considering Oppose). I now see that limited tools could be used for an admin on "probation" as well as optional, less-dangerous admin accounts, while allowing for moderator "tools" or even an "apprentice adminship" with partial powers until promoted to full admin. Numerous uses and advantages. - 482:

spam, COI and the like, no amount of good faith is going to get us past the fact that even some maintenance tasks (like deletion) will have behavioural (heightened social interaction) aspects to them. I'm perhaps not quite there yet - I supposed I would need to be convinced that there was a group of

362:

Although I don't see any prospect of this passing, I also think it's important to support it. My view is that virtually anything would be better than the status quo, where Knowledge (XXG) is governed by a random set of people who passed a popularity contest several years ago when the standards were

1002:

There is absolutely no need to create yet another user group for such a frivolous reason. If there are actually users out there who have passed an RfA but refuse to be an admin because the block and protect tools are bundled into it, then quite frankly... I would honestly question whether they are

758:

Now, suppose that some "former admin" gradually ceased to use its account (which retained the "moderator" flag), then this account was taken over by a relative, who used it without attracting much attention. But subsequently, this relative lose (or sell) it to an advanced troll. What pandemonium of

447:

says, "An increasing technological society has opened up niches for people with Asperger syndrome, who may choose fields that are highly systematized and predictable. People with AS could do well in workplace roles that are system-centered, and connect with the nitty-gritty detail of the product or

1830:

Yeah, the difference is if I was putting together an RfC I thought should pass, I'd spend some time gathering evidence to back up my claims (nothing personal but that's where the "not thought through" rationale came from). Do you have answers for either of my questions, i.e.: how many users do you

1477:

If you don't want to use bits of the tools then don't use them, and put a big message on your userpage and or user talk page saying that you will only listen to requests for deletion, or edit request, or page moves. As others have said these rights are bundled because they are often used together.

998:

That tradition is still alive, and this proposal does not enhance or extend that tradition. Just because a user has a tool does not mean that there is an obligation or even an expectation that they use that tool. Therefore, they are free to contribute at whatever level they are comfortable with,

991:

No one is "keeping trusted individuals" from doing anything. If a trusted individual wants to close XfD's but doesn't want to block users, then we say, "Here you go, trusted individual. These are the admin tools we're giving to you. They include both deletion tools and blocking tools. If you'd

917:

That is an interesting perspective. I don't see a bright-line distinction between the power to block someone's contributions and the power to delete them, but I can appreciate that some people might see it as a meaningful difference. However, being a contentious objector to some activities in real

1612:

I see it, as The Devil's Advocate does above, as a nice way to experiment and get a handle for how it would work. If there are no unforeseen problems with creating the user group, then we can consider having a separate selection process, RfM. Since you support the junior admin position, would you

1165:

Firstly, everyone needs to adhere to behavioral guidelines, admins and non-admins alike. Secondly, this recalls the famous quote "Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." I see little net gain and just another usergroup to further confound and confuse. Adminship is not

902:

Please reconsider. There are individuals who, for philosophical or religious reasons, refuse to accept any tools that give them power over others, but who would have no problem with tools that only involve content. For those individuals, having the power but choosing not to use it is not a viable

2011:

I also share the view that this isn't really useful as proposed, I doubt it would be used much, though I also don't see the harm in it. If this passes, I look forward to the first candidate at RFA to make a voluntary pledge to immediately resign as an admin in favor of this package if promoted.

1981:

I have never had an interest in going through an RfA before, expressly because all of the drama associated with blocking and sockpuppets holds absolutely no interest to me, but seems to dominate RfA discussions. If a Mod toolkit were enacted with adminship as a prerequisite, I would probably go

1967:

I share King of Hearts' opinion. I like the choice of userrights included in this bundle, but it seems to make little sense to require the user to have adminship previously. I am such an editor (I'm an administrator, but never blocked a user, don't participate AN/I, etc.) and I feel no pressure

2053:

Allow anyone in any user group to request that one or more user-rights be removed (and later, restored), with the only limitation that some specific user-rights may have prerequisite or co-requisite user-rights when common sense or technical limitations require it. If this counter-proposal is

1060:

the whole package. If someone is part of a religion that disallows them from blocking people on a website, then they can simply ensure that they don't use the block tool. Having access to a tool does not imply an obligation or an expectation that it be used. We could even give them a simple

855:

Well, I would hope that if the problem with an admin involved use of the same tools that a moderator would posses that people would opt for the normal desysop. However, if the problem was a contentious block but there was no issue with other actions then I see no issue with allowing use of the

1853:

discussions following that, it's become clear that the user group "admin" (sysop) should not be split for various reasons. But instead it would be preferred if other packages instead are created. And many lessons have been learned from the past, such as block and protect are considered to be

1738:

I can sort of vaguely see why someone might want some but not all admin tools. For me, the question boils down to "are there actually a reasonable number of people who want to be half-admins or moderators or whatever?" Creating a new half-admin class with some unbundled user rights imposes a

1301:

tools they need. If this proposal was to create 'moderator' as a stand-alone user right then I would likely support it. But this proposal is for something completely different, and instead attempts to address a non-problem. If you don't want to use a tool you have access to, don't use it.

1862:

former admins. Lurk around WP:BN for awhile and you'll see similar.) So consider if they didn't have to deal with all of that. They could help out in ways they prefer, without what they consider the "stress" of the behaviour related tools. And this isn't just my assertion, this has been

1846:

a.) Yes. As I noted, this isn't this first time I have suggested this package, and this package is a result of asking about other packages. I started asking others about these things several years ago in response to several users wanting the "blocker" tools split from adminship. Through

589:. This is exactly the sort of toolset that editors who do a lot of maintenance work - but have no interest in all the drama of adminship, or the RfA process for that matter - would love to have available; I would be first in line as soon as it was expanded to non-admin applicants. The 1166:

supposed to be a big deal, RfA shenanigans notwithstanding, and creating admin-lite will just further entrench the idea that admins are "special" (well they are in that they volunteer their own free time to help us all out, but that makes them good people, not super editors). --

982:"Forcing an admin to carry tools related to assessing editor behaviour, when they may merely want to help out on the content side of things, just seems wrong. Some editors just don't want to carry such tools or to have any of the potential responsibilities that go with it." 1070:

tools), before they can be given the moderator status. If someone has a condition that makes it very difficult to interact socially, it's highly unlikely that they will pass an RfA successfully, and therefore they will be ineligible for the moderator user group.

1866:(In your place I'd ask for links to discussions at this point. Please spare me sifting back through years of diffs to try to find things at the various VPs and WT:RfA, amongst other places, and please accept that I am sincerely being honest and forthright : ) - 431:

There was a recent off-wiki discussion (they actually used an obsolete method called "face to face speech" -- how crazy is that?) among some Quakers. The majority opinion was that accepting a position as a Knowledge (XXG) administrator would violate the Quaker

1986:

that others would do the same, but I would guess that there is significant potential for other maintenance/wikignome editors to follow suit, especially if RfA for Moderation showed signs of being a lot less dysfunctional and personal than regular RfAs.

1577:

admin tools are a question of trust. If he's trusted, give him the tools, don't give him some reduced form of it. And if he's not trusted, he shouldn't have the admin toolset nor part of it. There is no problem that I'm aware of with the admin toolset.

798:

Actually, I do not object to flexibility and some devolution of privileges. But I am not happy with this populist rush where the people (including very developers of such proposals) does not think about potential flaws. They just do not think, period.

448:

the system." On the other hand, the difficulties in social interaction that are sometimes associated with AS makes these individuals a poor fit with the user blocking aspects of being an administrator. I would note that the above only describes

1003:

sufficiently competent for adminship. If this really is a serious problem that I am trivializing, then a much easier solution to the "problem" would be to develop a very simple javascript that hides whatever buttons you don't want to see.

1061:

javascript or css file that hides the block button for them, if it would make them feel better, or if it would prevent an accidental use of the block tool. If their religion is so restrictive and unreasonable as to prohibit them from even

483:

such people "waiting in the wings" (as it were) prevented from visiting RFA because of uncertainty about their use of particular tools. I would also have concerns about the first person to run for such a package with a public message -

918:

life myself, I recognize and accept that I am circumscribed from some activities to which I do not object because they are bound up with things to which I do object. The price of conscience is great, but not greater than the benefit.

1627:

I still rather doubt there'd be much interest in it (as opposed to a junior admin position that you can get straight from being an ordinary user), but what the heck, OK. In the spirit of experimentation, I'll switch to support.

1490:

to ask for sysop back do the jobs then request moderator back when they've finished. What about users who don't want to delete pages but do want to block and/or protect, should be create a new user group for this as well?

667:

that account is not compromised. The "moderators" proposal is aimed to increase the number of potentially dangerous accounts, but will impose foolish restrictions on some of them which do not serve any reasonable purpose.

776:

That aside, you're opposing this, because an admin's account "could" become compromised? Then by that logic, you should oppose every RfA. You, of course, are welcome to that opinion, though I will admit it baffles me. -

681:

Huh? I'm confused. These are editors that the community has already entrusted with adminship, including the abilities you note. So I honestly do not understand your comments in this light. I welcome clarification. -

856:

deletion tool. Personally, I would like to see more specialized sysop positions such as "patroller admins" to handle tedious and uncontroversial anti-vandalism work, but that would be a discussion for another day.--

593:

community could really use this set of permissions, not to mention all of the productive but anti-social Asperger's editors we have. Quite frankly, it's disheartening to see so many in opposition to this proposal.

1686:

Oppose per Monty's second point (although he's neutral): "I look forward to the first candidate at RFA to make a voluntary pledge to immediately resign as an admin in favor of this package if promoted." - Dank

1700:

I don't see any need for this. Any admin can just not use any tool they have - or even not use all of them for a whole year. No one requires any particular action of them at any time. We are all volunteers.

1034:, for example. Of course, you're free to sideline quakers and anyone else you disagree with. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. I just personally think that it is incredibly asininely stupid to sideline 1857:

b.) for some, adminship can be stressful. And dealing with blocking and or protecting, is considered by some "drama-filled", and "not worth it" on "a volunteer project". (yes I am paraphrasing comments by

1181:

against the very fabric of Knowledge (XXG), but I genuinely believe that we are at that stage. And I wouldn't mind betting that Jimbo has hinted at unilateral action because he at least partially agrees. —

512:(switched from Oppose), basically per Devil's Advocate above. I suspect there wouldn't be much interest in this, but it's not likely to cause much harm and may lead to more significant reforms in future. 436:

by giving one person power over another. Like being a police officer, this is something that (some) Quakers have no problem with someone else doing, but choose not to do themselves for religious reasons.

2128:

I don't find this very useful if it's only for admins. Would admins desysopped by ArbCom (or any other circumstances) be able to become Moderators of they wish? Why non-admins cannot apply for this?

529:- A realistic approach to increasing the number of people who have access to (some of) the administrative tools. Less responsibility hopefully means a lower threshold for passing with the community. 1794:

section is subjective speculation, how would this nudge a former admin to become more active? "Hey guess what, you could request your bit back with a few less buttons! What are you waiting for?!"

1277:

If potential admins don't want to use all of the tools, then they can apply for the full toolkit and simply never use the ones they don't want. I don't see what the benefits of this proposal are.

1906:

I am in favor of unbundling tools, very strongly, but not only is "moderator" an erroneous title since this has little to do with moderation, but I feel that unbundling block is more important.--

161:

First time I have supported an unbundling proposal. Adminship should be no big deal, and this might help reinstate that situation. I respect also people may desire not to have certain powers.

2030:

I forgot to mention, I think the name needs to be reconsidered as well. Moderator denotes a special authority to control discussions, which I think is likely to be misleading and cause drama.

1854:

inter-related and the community feels they should not be separate for various reasons. And yes, wikignomes and others have long requested an admin-like package which does not include blocking.

478:

of people unable to make that choice and effectively excluded from the "maintenance" tools of adminship because of potential issues with "behavioural" tools. That said, with the prevalence of

1560:. If we had a moderator role, adminship would be even more idolized, and if a user qualifies for moderator they probably qualify for adminship. It would also make things more complicated. 1919:

unwilling or unable to deal with user issues, I would support. Also, protection ought to be included in the package to salt deleted articles (or at the very least, editprotected). --

1041:

Are people not allowed to choose for themselves? And do you not see how this could be a way to provide an opportunity for some former admins to be active in helping out with at least

1038:

trustworthy for adminship, especially for the ridiculous reason of "that's what the package happens to consist of, so take it all or none". And we're surprised that some say "none"?

978:- This proposal is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of adminship on Knowledge (XXG). I disagree with the following statements included in this proposal: 459:. Whether we like it or not, people can't help but be influenced by experiences with other websites where administrators regularly ban those who dare to disagree with them. -- 1056:

Your rant has not convinced me of anything. Yes, I am advocating that we "force" admins to "carry the whole package". Note that this is very different from forcing them to

876: 1672:

The notion that the proposed set of tools requires less responsibility is, I think, mistaken. Power is still power, and still tends to corrupt, even when it is less power.

199:- I'm in favor of unbundling blocking buttons. Make the No Big Deal aspect of Adminship No Big deal and continue close scrutiny over the granting of the Big Deal parts. 1999: 606: 2132:, not admins moving onto a lesser class of toolkit; that is counterproductive. We need more users able to press the buttons, not admins able to press less buttons. — 992:

prefer not to use the blocking tools, then simply don't use them. You can even put a userbox on your user page that says 'I'm an admin but I don't block people.'"

411:

Yep. Editors who don't want to or don't have the skills to judge and modify the behaviour of others should be able to contribute in the other sysop areas. --

870: 444: 245: 231:

I like the idea of this eventually being something non-admins can request, but this is a nice way to experiment and get a handle for how it would work.--

58: 2054:

adopted, a former admin who is eligible to regain adminiship without RFA could do so, then immediately ask that rights he did not want be removed.

1408:"? If they don't want to use them, they don't have to. It's not like every admin must use each tool by the full moon or they turn into a pumpkin. 307: 1996: 603: 793:

The "moderators" proposal is aimed to increase the number of potentially dangerous accounts, but will impose foolish restrictions on some of them…

21: 251: 1130:. I don't see the real-life problem that this is solving - where are all these admins saying "I want to be prevented from blocking people"? -- 1188: 989:"...arbitrarily keeping trusted individuals from certain other tools because they refuse to carry "the whole admin package" seems foolish..." 2111: 1945: 52: 1933: 1890:

be separated from each other. Anyone working in deletion should be ready to carry out BLP policy, which might involve the use of any tool.

1205:

implies, former admins tend to have had enough of Knowledge (XXG) and wandered off to do something else. This isn't solving a problem. --

352: 322:. This would allow a variety of skilled contributors the tools they need to play an even greater role in Knowledge (XXG) maintenance. 576: 223: 1765:

Fail to see the substantial problem which this solves. The alleged moral issues would affect a vanishingly small portion of users.

1026:

And then you question his or her competence because they wish to make such a choice? Since when do we decide someone else's ethics

455:

People treat you differently when you have the power to block them. This is an easily observed phenomena, despite the existence of

82: 1782:

This doesn't seem like it's been thought through, what number of users do you expect to use this downgrading? Also the claim that

1478:

Using Beeblebrox's example a moderator would have to delete a page which has been repeatedly recreated by socks, list the page at

1958: 1215: 966: 378: 1787: 125: 1507: 865: 240: 1972:

more useful for editors who have never been admins than to wikignome admins who only wish to perform content-related tasks. --

43: 1182: 2165:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2098: 2066: 1464: 1437: 1391: 1235: 1135: 1266: 1096: 1066:

that situation. This proposal requires that users first pass an RfA (which means they must be qualified/trusted to use

485:"I have Asperger's, but you should trust me with squishy half a mop even though I might not trust myself with the stick" 299: 17: 1090:

Agree with Scottywong, also, RfA should get improved, not another user-right made to make a RfA-lite no big deal. ~~

133: 1248:. This just adds bureaucracy (no pun intended) without solving any real problem. Are people really so against being 857: 232: 1816:

been discussions regarding these things. Just because you didn't bother to look, doesn't mean it doesn't exist : )

487:. It would take incredible bravery and require revelation of the sort of information we don't ordinarily ask for. 2070: 1344: 920:

In any event, my objection to using this proposal as a backdoor, as several supporters advocate, still stands. ~

166: 27: 1928: 1433: 1387: 1202: 1131: 645:

If they feel the want to protect pages, they can always request the full admin package be returned to them at

996:"We have a tradition on Knowledge (XXG) that people contribute at whatever level they are comfortable with." 347: 285: 129: 1495: 1618: 416: 1831:

expect to use this? (Have you asked any?) And how would this nudge a former admin to become more active?

1557: 590: 1982:

through the hassle of an RfA with the express purpose of immediately desysoping to a Moderator. I don't

1910: 1757: 1541: 1461: 804: 764: 672: 636: 570: 493: 433: 399: 342: 220: 1784:

Believe it or not, such a user-right group has actually been requested repeatedly for a very long time.

456: 440: 1956: 1744: 1358:

small list of users trustworthy enough to be a "moderator" but not trustworthy enough for adminship.

1339: 1213: 1153: 1077: 1009: 963: 374: 267: 163: 2155: 2123: 2105: 2076: 2043: 2025: 2004: 1976: 1960: 1939: 1913: 1894: 1872: 1841: 1825: 1804: 1774: 1760: 1748: 1730: 1710: 1692: 1681: 1664: 1637: 1622: 1607: 1588: 1569: 1548: 1527: 1469: 1441: 1427: 1395: 1377: 1349: 1329: 1309: 1292: 1272: 1240: 1217: 1193: 1175: 1157: 1139: 1120: 1109: 1051: 1014: 970: 953: 929: 912: 895: 842: 808: 783: 768: 688: 676: 661: 640: 611: 581: 554: 537: 521: 500: 468: 420: 406: 382: 357: 336: 314: 276: 226: 208: 191: 172: 146: 136:

user-rights, as an option for administrators to request instead of requesting removal of the entire

113: 1923: 1920: 1726: 1561: 1503: 1285: 925: 908: 891: 464: 186: 1819:

This isn't even the first proposing of this package, just a different suggested usage for it... -

2036: 2018: 1991: 1838: 1801: 1790:, but I've not seen it ever suggested under these very specific circumstances. In fact the whole 1706: 1633: 1603: 1386:, it's for users who are already admins to be able to switch to a smaller set of admin tools. -- 598: 535: 517: 109: 816: 479: 439:

Another group that this might apply to is to is (some but not all) Knowledge (XXG) editors with

2094: 2062: 1614: 1229: 1171: 949: 550: 412: 331: 204: 1479: 2149: 2133: 1907: 1891: 1770: 1677: 1536: 1457: 1259: 1104: 800: 760: 754:’s history, where several its revisions got detached and appeared under an unrelated title. 668: 632: 565: 488: 393: 217: 2102: 1791: 1483: 2110:

I don't support it. I'm much more interested to see the version of this that jc37 has now

1949: 1740: 1318:

package of rights to be granted on a more flexible basis than RfA is a separate question.

1206: 1149: 1072: 1004: 960: 366: 262: 1487: 646: 391:

especially if a similar group were created for "backstage" work (blocking and the like).

2119: 1719: 1688: 1523: 1499: 1409: 1359: 1278: 921: 904: 887: 623:

Do you propose to allow them deleting pages and specific revisions, but to disallow to

460: 452:

Knowledge (XXG) editors with Asperger's syndrome rather than being a blanket statement.

181: 759:

destruction may rise in the place which was once occupied by English Knowledge (XXG)?

2031: 2013: 1988: 1833: 1796: 1702: 1629: 1599: 1384:

users trustworthy enough to be a "moderator" but not trustworthy enough for adminship

1325: 827: 595: 530: 513: 105: 2090: 2055: 1581: 1303: 1226: 1167: 995: 988: 981: 945: 546: 323: 200: 2089:

Ended up here because I can argue both sides but see no possibility of consensus.

1023:

the admin to carry the whole package regardless if he or she would prefer to not.

2142: 1973: 1766: 1673: 1254: 1225:

Can't see the point. If you don't want to use some of the tools, don't use 'em.

1091: 1968:

whatsoever to use the tools I don't want to use. The Moderator status would be

1045:

admin duties? (rant off) I guess sometimes I am just amazed at what I read. -

1655: 365:

In short, we've got to do something, and this is something, so let's do this.—

2115: 2114:

where one is not required to be an admin first, but could go through a RfM.

1868: 1821: 1519: 1116: 1047: 779: 684: 657: 142: 1948:, the "RfA without the blocking" option is not currently being proposed. -- 773:

All that (and more) can be done if the admin had kept the admin user group.

958:

Unsure as to what problem this is supposed to be solving, to be honest. --

42: 1320: 820: 443:. In general, they would be a good fit with the proposed user right. As 1786:

is misleading—admin-lite has been requested many times, it's listed at

727:

Select "interesting revisions" from deleted revisions and restore them;

628: 1613:

consider changing to support this proposal as a test run for that? --

96:

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

1404:

sense, if anything. Are there really admins sitting around saying "

756:

AFAIK, without accessing the database it cannot be fixed at all.

788:

Do not pose that you didn't read (or understand) what I wrote.

140:

user-right package. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. -

1944:

I agree with this sentiment. But as has been discussed on

1031: 68:

Before commenting, please read the proposal thoroughly.

655:, it's about giving former admins another option. - 627:

pages? It likes a physician who is licensed to make

216:- I don't see why not. Flexibility is a good thing. 81:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

91:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1486:to have them blocked; or they would have to go to 28:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Moderators/Straw poll - 2013 1482:to request a salting, and list all the socks at 791: 8: 1201:Don't see the point of this proposal. Like 445:Sociological and cultural aspects of autism 104:This proposal is closed as unsuccessful. 631:, but disallowed to prescribe any drug. 828: 341:I see no real likelihood of damage. -- 1518:A solution in search of a problem. -- 750:The output is a severe disruption of 7: 1406:I wish I could access less features! 1400:In that case, I'd say it makes even 741:Restore all remaining revisions of 706:with several interesting revisions; 35: 1809:Or at least, so you speculate : ) 1019:And so in your comments, you are 126:Request for Comment on a proposal 2161:The discussion above is closed. 41: 649:. That aside, this isn't about 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Moderators 999:without complaint from anyone. 1: 1030:them? You might want to read 173:20:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC) 2156:05:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC) 2124:00:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC) 2106:00:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC) 2077:02:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 2044:04:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC) 2026:20:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC) 1895:04:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC) 1873:18:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC) 1842:08:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC) 1826:00:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC) 1805:23:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC) 1775:15:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC) 1761:21:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC) 1749:01:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC) 1731:13:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC) 1711:00:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC) 1693:13:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC) 1682:13:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC) 1665:10:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC) 1638:00:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 1623:16:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC) 1608:14:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC) 1589:09:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC) 1570:00:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC) 1549:14:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC) 1528:00:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC) 1470:21:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC) 1442:05:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC) 1428:05:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC) 1396:21:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC) 1378:05:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC) 1350:00:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC) 1330:01:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC) 930:15:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC) 913:18:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC) 582:07:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC) 555:17:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC) 538:15:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC) 522:00:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 501:22:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC) 469:19:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC) 421:16:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC) 407:04:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC) 383:00:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC) 1977:17:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 1961:14:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 1940:06:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 1914:05:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 1310:23:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 1293:23:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 1273:22:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 1241:19:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 1218:14:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 1194:12:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 1176:04:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 1158:03:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 1140:01:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 1121:00:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 1110:23:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC) 1052:00:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 1015:22:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC) 971:22:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC) 954:22:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC) 896:21:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC) 877:19:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC) 843:15:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 809:18:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC) 784:17:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC) 769:17:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC) 689:17:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC) 677:17:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC) 662:17:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC) 641:16:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC) 358:06:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 337:00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 315:22:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC) 284:There is no reason not to. 277:18:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC) 252:18:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC) 227:17:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC) 209:17:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC) 192:16:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC) 180:Looks like a good attempt. 147:14:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC) 132:with an abbreviated set of 2180: 2005:11:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 1792:Why would anyone want this 612:10:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 114:03:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC) 1510:) 00:23, 12 January 2013‎ 2163:Please do not modify it. 1382:The proposal is not for 1114:This isn't "RFA-lite" - 88:Please do not modify it. 1788:WP:Perennial proposals 795: 434:Testimony of Equality 1252:to block people? -- 860:The Devil's Advocate 235:The Devil's Advocate 2130:We need more admins 1434:Boing! said Zebedee 1388:Boing! said Zebedee 1203:Boing! said Zebedee 1132:Boing! said Zebedee 441:Asperger's syndrome 83:request for comment 76: 2075: 2074: 2041: 2023: 2002: 1729: 1512: 1498:comment added by 1432:Yep, I agree. -- 1348: 1108: 730:Move what is now 609: 579: 381: 313: 190: 176: 75: 74: 62:of this proposal. 36: 26:(Redirected from 2171: 2153: 2147: 2140: 2060: 2059: 2051:Counterproposal: 2037: 2034: 2019: 2016: 1995: 1954: 1936: 1931: 1926: 1836: 1812:Actually, there 1799: 1785: 1725: 1722: 1663: 1658: 1584: 1567: 1564: 1545: 1511: 1492: 1468: 1467: 1425: 1422: 1419: 1416: 1375: 1372: 1369: 1366: 1342: 1290: 1283: 1269: 1262: 1257: 1238: 1232: 1211: 1107: 1102: 1099: 1094: 1080: 1075: 1012: 1007: 997: 990: 983: 942:Regretful oppose 873: 868: 862: 840: 839: 835: 831: 825: 602: 580: 575: 574: 533: 497: 405: 402: 396: 373: 371: 355: 350: 345: 334: 328: 310: 304: 297: 294: 289: 275: 272: 265: 248: 243: 237: 184: 171: 128:to create a new 90: 45: 38: 37: 31: 2179: 2178: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2150: 2143: 2134: 2081:Could support: 2040: 2032: 2022: 2014: 2003: 1950: 1934: 1929: 1924: 1903: 1834: 1797: 1783: 1723: 1656: 1653: 1582: 1565: 1562: 1543: 1493: 1460: 1456: 1423: 1420: 1417: 1414: 1373: 1370: 1367: 1364: 1340:Espresso Addict 1286: 1279: 1271: 1267: 1260: 1255: 1236: 1230: 1207: 1192: 1103: 1097: 1092: 1078: 1073: 1011:| communicate _ 1010: 1005: 875: 871: 866: 858: 837: 833: 829: 821: 753: 744: 737: 733: 723: 719: 712: 705: 698: 695:Make a sandbox 620: 610: 569: 563: 531: 495: 473:Must say, this 404: 400: 394: 392: 367: 353: 348: 343: 332: 324: 308: 300: 290: 287: 271: 268: 263: 260: 250: 246: 241: 233: 158: 121: 86: 33: 32: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 2177: 2175: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2126: 2108: 2085:Could oppose: 2079: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2038: 2020: 2009: 2008: 2007: 1994: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1916: 1902: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1864: 1855: 1817: 1810: 1777: 1763: 1751: 1733: 1713: 1695: 1684: 1667: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1572: 1551: 1530: 1513: 1472: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1410:Andrew Lenahan 1360:Andrew Lenahan 1352: 1332: 1312: 1295: 1275: 1265: 1243: 1220: 1196: 1186: 1178: 1160: 1142: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1039: 1024: 1000: 993: 986: 973: 956: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 881: 880: 879: 864: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 813: 812: 811: 796: 789: 774: 751: 748: 747: 746: 742: 739: 735: 731: 728: 725: 721: 717: 714: 710: 707: 703: 702:Choose a page 700: 696: 619: 616: 615: 614: 601: 584: 557: 543:Strong support 540: 524: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 453: 437: 423: 409: 398: 386: 360: 339: 317: 279: 269: 254: 239: 229: 211: 194: 178: 177: 157: 154: 152: 150: 149: 120: 117: 102: 101: 100: 99: 98: 77: 73: 72: 71: 70: 64: 63: 46: 34: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2176: 2164: 2157: 2154: 2152: 2148: 2146: 2141: 2139: 2138: 2131: 2127: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2112:written about 2109: 2107: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2078: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2057: 2052: 2049: 2045: 2042: 2035: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2024: 2017: 2010: 2006: 2001: 1998: 1993: 1990: 1985: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1975: 1971: 1966: 1962: 1959: 1957: 1955: 1953: 1947: 1946:the talk page 1943: 1942: 1941: 1937: 1932: 1927: 1922: 1917: 1915: 1912: 1909: 1905: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1882: 1874: 1871: 1870: 1865: 1861: 1856: 1852: 1851: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1840: 1839: 1837: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1824: 1823: 1818: 1815: 1811: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1803: 1802: 1800: 1793: 1789: 1781: 1778: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1762: 1759: 1755: 1752: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1737: 1734: 1732: 1728: 1721: 1717: 1714: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1699: 1696: 1694: 1690: 1685: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1668: 1666: 1661: 1659: 1650: 1647: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1596: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1576: 1573: 1571: 1568: 1559: 1555: 1552: 1550: 1547: 1546: 1540: 1539: 1534: 1531: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1514: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1476: 1473: 1471: 1466: 1463: 1459: 1454: 1451: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1426: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1376: 1361: 1356: 1353: 1351: 1346: 1341: 1336: 1333: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1322: 1316: 1313: 1311: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1299: 1296: 1294: 1291: 1289: 1284: 1282: 1276: 1274: 1270: 1264: 1263: 1258: 1251: 1247: 1244: 1242: 1239: 1233: 1228: 1224: 1221: 1219: 1216: 1214: 1212: 1210: 1204: 1200: 1197: 1195: 1191: 1190: 1184: 1179: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1164: 1161: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1146: 1143: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1126: 1122: 1119: 1118: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1106: 1100: 1095: 1089: 1081: 1079:| verbalize _ 1076: 1069: 1064: 1063:having access 1059: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1050: 1049: 1044: 1040: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1022: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1013: 1008: 1001: 994: 987: 980: 979: 977: 974: 972: 969: 968: 965: 962: 957: 955: 951: 947: 943: 940: 932: 931: 927: 923: 916: 915: 914: 910: 906: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 893: 889: 885: 882: 878: 874: 869: 863: 861: 854: 844: 841: 836: 826: 824: 818: 814: 810: 806: 802: 797: 794: 790: 787: 786: 785: 782: 781: 775: 772: 771: 770: 766: 762: 757: 749: 740: 729: 726: 715: 708: 701: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 687: 686: 680: 679: 678: 674: 670: 665: 664: 663: 660: 659: 654: 653: 648: 644: 643: 642: 638: 634: 630: 626: 622: 621: 617: 613: 608: 605: 600: 597: 592: 588: 585: 583: 578: 572: 568: 567: 561: 558: 556: 552: 548: 544: 541: 539: 536: 534: 528: 525: 523: 519: 515: 511: 508: 502: 499: 498: 492: 491: 486: 481: 476: 472: 471: 470: 466: 462: 458: 454: 451: 446: 442: 438: 435: 430: 429: 427: 424: 422: 418: 414: 410: 408: 403: 397: 390: 387: 385: 384: 380: 376: 372: 370: 361: 359: 356: 351: 346: 340: 338: 335: 329: 327: 321: 318: 316: 311: 305: 303: 296: 295: 293: 283: 280: 278: 274: 273: 266: 258: 255: 253: 249: 244: 238: 236: 230: 228: 225: 222: 219: 215: 212: 210: 206: 202: 198: 195: 193: 188: 183: 179: 174: 169: 168: 165: 160: 159: 155: 153: 148: 145: 144: 139: 135: 134:administrator 131: 127: 123: 122: 118: 116: 115: 111: 107: 97: 94: 93: 92: 89: 84: 79: 78: 69: 66: 65: 61: 60: 55: 54: 49: 48: 47: 44: 40: 39: 29: 23: 19: 2162: 2151: 2144: 2136: 2135: 2129: 2086: 2082: 2050: 1983: 1969: 1951: 1887: 1883: 1867: 1859: 1849: 1848: 1832: 1820: 1813: 1795: 1779: 1753: 1735: 1715: 1697: 1689:push to talk 1669: 1654: 1648: 1615:Anthonyhcole 1594: 1593: 1580: 1579: 1574: 1558:WP:NOBIGDEAL 1553: 1542: 1537: 1532: 1515: 1494:— Preceding 1474: 1452: 1413: 1405: 1401: 1383: 1363: 1354: 1334: 1319: 1314: 1304: 1302: 1297: 1287: 1280: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1222: 1208: 1198: 1187: 1162: 1144: 1127: 1115: 1067: 1062: 1057: 1046: 1042: 1035: 1027: 1020: 975: 959: 941: 919: 883: 859: 832: 822: 792: 778: 755: 683: 656: 651: 650: 624: 591:WP:WikiGnome 586: 564: 559: 542: 526: 509: 494: 489: 484: 474: 449: 425: 413:Anthonyhcole 388: 368: 364: 325: 319: 301: 291: 286: 281: 261: 256: 234: 213: 196: 162: 151: 141: 137: 103: 95: 87: 80: 67: 57: 53:the proposal 51: 1908:Jasper Deng 1892:Chick Bowen 1458:Sue Rangell 1189:FL wishlist 1074:‑Scottywong 1006:‑Scottywong 801:Incnis Mrsi 761:Incnis Mrsi 669:Incnis Mrsi 652:disallowing 633:Incnis Mrsi 566:SMcCandlish 457:WP:INVOLVED 395:WikiPuppies 264:Imzadi 1979 218:Writ Keeper 1952:Ritchie333 1741:Tom Morris 1209:Ritchie333 1150:Beeblebrox 903:option. -- 369:S Marshall 167:Farmbrough 130:user group 59:discussion 22:Straw poll 1888:shouldn't 1720:CT Cooper 1500:Callanecc 922:Ningauble 905:Guy Macon 888:Ningauble 461:Guy Macon 292:Strikeout 288:Automatic 182:Ajraddatz 2103:Join WER 2083:Why not? 2067:contribs 1835:Jebus989 1798:Jebus989 1703:Rmhermen 1660:• 9:57pm 1630:Robofish 1600:Robofish 1563:Vacation 1538:Stalwart 1508:contribs 1496:unsigned 815:*cough* 734:back to 629:ectomies 577:Contrib. 532:James086 514:Robofish 490:Stalwart 480:WP:PROMO 389:Support, 106:Chutznik 20:‎ | 2091:DocTree 2056:davidwr 1921:King of 1901:Neutral 1583:Snowolf 1480:WP:RFPP 1305:Hut 8.5 1227:Yunshui 1021:forcing 946:Martinp 709:Delete 625:protect 587:Support 560:Support 547:Wikid77 527:Support 510:Support 426:Support 320:Support 282:Support 257:Support 214:Support 201:Carrite 197:Support 156:Support 2071:e-mail 1974:Waldir 1911:(talk) 1884:Oppose 1780:Oppose 1767:Stifle 1754:Oppose 1736:Oppose 1716:Oppose 1698:Oppose 1674:Mangoe 1670:Oppose 1649:Oppose 1595:Oppose 1575:Oppose 1554:Oppose 1533:Oppose 1516:Oppose 1484:WP:SPI 1475:Oppose 1453:Oppose 1355:Oppose 1335:Oppose 1315:Oppose 1298:Oppose 1246:Oppose 1223:Oppose 1199:Oppose 1163:Oppose 1145:Oppose 1128:Oppose 1105:report 1036:anyone 976:Oppose 884:Oppose 872:cntrb. 618:Oppose 349:unique 247:cntrb. 2033:Monty 2015:Monty 1992:Isaac 1863:said. 1758:T.I.M 1657:James 1488:WP:BN 1326:talk 1281:David 1101:~~ → 817:BEANS 716:Move 647:WP:BN 599:Isaac 571:Talk⇒ 354:names 333:TALK 138:sysop 16:< 2120:talk 2116:Nurg 2099:cont 2095:ʞlɐʇ 2087:Why? 2063:talk 1984:know 1869:jc37 1860:many 1850:many 1822:jc37 1814:have 1771:talk 1745:talk 1727:talk 1707:talk 1678:talk 1634:talk 1619:talk 1604:talk 1524:talk 1520:John 1504:talk 1438:talk 1402:less 1392:talk 1345:talk 1288:1217 1250:able 1172:talk 1154:talk 1136:talk 1117:jc37 1048:jc37 1043:some 1032:this 967:7754 964:chen 950:talk 926:talk 909:talk 892:talk 867:tlk. 819:. — 805:talk 780:jc37 765:talk 685:jc37 673:talk 658:jc37 637:talk 573:ɖכþ 551:talk 518:talk 475:does 465:talk 450:some 417:talk 401:bark 242:tlk. 205:talk 187:Talk 164:Rich 143:jc37 110:talk 56:and 50:See 2145:ΛΧΣ 2069:)/( 2065:)/( 2039:845 2021:845 2000:Vex 1989:Van 1970:way 1544:111 1421:bli 1371:bli 1321:DGG 1261:YPN 1256:YPN 1183:WFC 1168:Avi 1098:123 1093:Ebe 1068:all 1058:use 1028:for 823:Hex 720:to 607:Vex 596:Van 496:111 326:dci 119:RfC 2122:) 2101:) 1997:WS 1938:♠ 1773:) 1747:) 1709:) 1691:) 1680:) 1636:) 1621:) 1606:) 1526:) 1506:• 1462:✍ 1440:) 1424:nd 1418:ar 1415:St 1412:- 1394:) 1374:nd 1368:ar 1365:St 1362:- 1328:) 1185:— 1174:) 1156:) 1138:) 961:Rs 952:) 928:) 911:) 894:) 838:❞) 834:?! 830:(❝ 807:) 767:) 675:) 639:) 604:WS 553:) 520:) 467:) 428:. 419:) 344:No 330:| 306:• 207:) 170:, 124:A 112:) 85:. 2137:Ṙ 2118:( 2097:· 2093:( 2073:) 2061:( 2058:/ 1935:♣ 1930:♦ 1925:♥ 1769:( 1743:( 1724:· 1705:( 1687:( 1676:( 1662:• 1632:( 1617:( 1602:( 1566:9 1522:( 1502:( 1465:✉ 1436:( 1390:( 1347:) 1343:( 1324:( 1268:✡ 1237:水 1234:‍ 1231:雲 1170:( 1152:( 1134:( 948:( 924:( 907:( 890:( 803:( 763:( 752:X 745:. 743:X 738:; 736:S 732:X 724:; 722:X 718:S 713:; 711:X 704:X 699:; 697:S 671:( 635:( 549:( 516:( 463:( 415:( 379:C 377:/ 375:T 312:) 309:C 302:T 298:( 270:→ 224:♔ 221:⚇ 203:( 189:) 185:( 175:. 108:( 30:)

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

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Moderators/Straw poll/2013 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index