1132:
able to being able to view deleted content which requires a process equivalent to RfA. One of the big concerns to RfA is that it can get focused down on excessive criteria. What about setting up group of permissions above this level which would all effectively be types of admins. For example their could be a
Janitor Admin ( similar to the permissions proposed for here, just no blocking / unblock for example ), and a Moderator Admin ( one that can block and unblock ). The various types of admin would be all just considered admins ( and really in most thing and discussions admins are just other editors ). To be able to get any of the roles a perspective admin needs to pass RfVD ( request for view deleted ) which would replace and be the equivalent of the current RfA process, but more focused on the key issues on if the editor should be trusted to view deleted content. Once an editor has pass RfVD they should be able to make requests for permissions similar to how page mover or template editor are requested but those would be granted by bureaucrats. This has the advantage that it keeps mostly the RfA process but refocusses it to a more clearly defined question while allowing candidates that are intimidated by things like not wanting to worry about the stress of dealing with behavior issues such as blocks.
1315:
than the whole admin package: "If I trust them with some, I trust them with all". it's probably one of the most ridiculous arguments around. we have researchers, importers, checkusers, oversighters and so on, this is no different. And follow that up with: "I won't approve anything unless RfA is changed". Thing is, we still have RfA requests, will we stop any new requests because RfA is broken? We haven't so far. So would we stop a bot owner for doing an RfA for less user-rights than the whole admin package, because of the current state of RfA? We haven't with that either. So with all due respect to all involved, I think I'll just
1343:
by the idea that someone else has more editorial rights/privileges here than they do. Others are elitists and want to see stricter regimentation in this regard. The majority probably recognize that the system has problem, but are afraid to try anything different for fear of making things worse. These are all different angles. Then there are those who don't like that WP has rules, those tho appreciate the rules, but don't like that we have an admin class instead of just ANI enforcing them, those who hate
1353:
someone who wants more admins punishing more people for violating some wikiproject's rules), etc. There's a habit among both admins and admin-reform proponents here to suppose that there are a) those who support the current system and want to entrench everything about it, and those who would tear it all down, and they cast aspersions on each other's motivations. This is a false dichotomy, an illusion that leads to a lot of chest-beating and nothing practical.
728:
1804:
1267:
nobody came up with an alternative proposal. All they did (particularly the ones known for anti-adminism and general vociferous belligerence), was to massacre the GF intentions of the messengers. I'd list the names, but it would be a gross indiscretion and probably cost me my bit. They come out of te woodwork for every RfC of this kind though.
1401:. This would seem to reduce the usefulness of this user group for answering protected edit requests. It is a bit counterintuitive, but to edit cascade-protected pages you need the protect user right. This is because if you can edit a cascade-protected page, it is possible to protect any other page simply by transcluding it there. —
1621:
data, then deliberately step back and remove that option, and then have a discussion about how ECP worked in that timeframe / should that option be allowed permanently? (Or at least as permanent as anything in
Knowledge (XXG) is...) I pulled back from listing that on the main proposal page, but maybe this belonged there instead?
1438:
There is an unwanted side effect from the proposed user group including delete and undelete but not protect. If you delete a page and then restore it, then its protection status is reset. This would effectively allow moderators to unprotect pages, even though they are not supposed to be able to alter
1352:
of these points. E.g., one can be a big fan of WP having centralized rules but be thumbs-down about the adminship system because it is malfunctional. Another can be wiki-anarchist across the board, opposed to both rules and admins. Another can be a decentralizer of rules, yet also an elitist (i.e.
1266:
probably wouldn't fly, because like BARC which was run due to a spate of complaints a) It's too difficult to desysop a badmin, and b) That's why not enough admins are being promoted, it turns out that it wasn't what the broader community wanted at all, and most importantly, where they had the chance,
619:
A "moderator" is usually defined as "a person given special authority to enforce the rules on a forum". This user group explicitly does not include any traditional 'moderation' rights like protection and blocking of other users. Something like "janitor" would be more appropriate. This is really what
1342:
Re: #4, it's not one faction. There are editors soured on the adminship concept because of enmity with some particular admins, but others observing serious problems with the system who have professional or other deep experience with organization governance. There are also "wiki-anarchists" offended
1314:
3.) pretty much true of jut about anything regarding anything related adminship or any userirghts related to admins. I mean look at this straw poll - I wonder if in this environment that the concept of bots would have ever gotten consensus. Much less bots being able to run at RfA for fewer abilities
1131:
I've been thinking about an alternate approach that is many ways similar to this one. Currently there are several task focused permissions that sort of fall between extended confirmed editor and admin. These permissions can be granted and removed by an admin. But full admin permissions require being
326:
I think the forum definition of "moderator" is a very common interpretation of the word. I.e., someone who (1) monitors discussions and deals with any misbehavior, including blocking, or (2) looks at each post before adding it to the thread. So there is that potential for confusion. Then there's the
918:
A left-field option would be to make a page to list expired prods that have been reviewed - the page would be protected and require editprotected to edit (or something else that is agreeable to others) - then an adminbot could process it, the bot would be able to check the revisions and perform the
380:
I had the same thoughts on seeing the term. Moderator is commonly associated with those who deal with forum behaviour. Funny enough, admin would be the better name for the proposed group, and moderator for those with the tools to deal with behaviour issues, but nobody would accept a complete switch
1538:
Yep, protection level could be made to persist after deletion/undeletion, but I'm guessing that it not persisting might be regarded as a feature, not a bug. It might also be possible to make the persistence a setting which could be set differently for different wikis. If any change in this area is
1347:
rules and want all or many rules to set by wikiprojects on a topic-by-topic basis, and those who want more rule centralization and an end to wikiprojects and topical guidelines, and the majority who think our rule system works fine as-is. These are all also different camps. The intersections can
1319:
and just presume that they aren't thinking this through. The state of RfA has nothing to do with this proposal. Honestly the devs could easily create this usergroup (it's easy in the software), this is merely whether we'll allow people to ask for this package (which the WMF said must be through an
973:
Yes they can see deleted material with the 'browsearchive' (page name of a deleted page), 'deletedhistory' (deleted page histories) and 'deletedtext' (text of deleted pages) rights. They can also material and delete material which has been revision deleted with the 'deleterevision' right (but that
1620:
This is obviously a significant move on which there are enough opinions on each option to question if a consensus will be reached in any significant timeframe. Rather than make a once-and-for-all decision is it not possible to allow an option to be put in place for a period of time to get enough
1199:
Third, every discussion I've seen concerning the block tool, the community wanted the editor to be able to have other abilities in conjunction with block, such as view deleted, in order for the blocker to make informed decisions of when to block, and to have other options as appropriate, such as
89:
I was told (granted this was literally years ago) that there was something technical with "editprotected" that required "autoconfirmed" to be in the same package. I added the other two (extended autoconfirmed and skipcaptcha) in that vein. If they are not needed, I'm fine with the removal. : ) -
1019:
In the section above the inclusion of revision deletion was raised. While I see that it might be useful for dealing with copyright vios I'd rather it wasn't included in this package given it's primary used to deal with behaviour (BLP/bad personal attacks etc) I'd prefer it stayed in the admin
840:
The above was my response to a similar request in a previous proposal of this. Please feel free to read that (albeit lengthy) talkpage for more examples. Besides this, I'd have to dig, but I remember this coming up whenever toolset subset discussions happened, like a a VP discussion ages ago
112:
For ease of discussion and comparison (not every commenter is going to go through the userrights like you or I : ) - let's leave them there for now, the redundancies can easily be removed upon implementation on the technical side. Also, if things ever do change, this at least allows for this
1507:
I have just tested it. Edit, move and upload protection is reset after deletion and restoration, but pending changes status persists. Create protection is also reset on page creation and deletion, so moderators would also effectively be able to unprotected create-protected pages. —
1591:
What's to stop them from abusing the tools given? The same thing that stops admins and anyone else given additional tools and responsibilities by the community - a.) loss of community trust, and thereby, loss of said tools. and b.) nearly every action (including deletion) is
1276:, and then we'll have enough admins to work on the backlogs but no one yet has attempted (or dared) to start an RfC on those lines. The real reason for the failure to create more admins is the most open secret on Knowledge (XXG), but the community acts like ostriches.
1251:
1. No disrespect intended, guys, really not, but this is all beginning to look like a video game: 'Pick up the trophies here, then move up to the next game level'. A boon for the hat collectors and those who love
Knowledge (XXG) because it's the biggest MMORPG in the
1330:
5.) No worries. In my opinion though, sometimes we need to continue to tilt at these windmills. If we don't continue to try consensus it won't stay the robust living thing it is to be on
Knowledge (XXG), and what's more, developmental change will never happen : ) -
1169:
Suppose however example started causing trouble. A single bureaucrat should be able to easily just drop them back down to only the view deleted permission or lower if warranted and then a discussion could be held or it could be brought to arbs etc. for a long term
1159:
Example would either then request
Janitor permission or would have as part of the RfVD. A bureaucrat ( possibly a different one ) would consider if Example meets any required criteria and takes comments made during the RfVD etc. into account before granting
960:
Doubtless this shows my complete ignorance of rights and levels, but would the ability to see and undelete deleted material mean that these moderators would be able to see
Revdelled stuff? Or even have the ability to Revdel themselves? Happy days,
752:
So applicants for this permission group would have to go through a full RfA to get half the admin tools? Why wouldn't they got through the RfA, get ALL the tools and just use the ones they were interested in? Not getting the point of this at all.
620:"administrators" should have been called in the first place. Maybe we can abolish the "administrator" package in the future by splitting it into a "janitorial" package (what is being proposed here) and a "moderator" package (block + protect). —
890:
That is extremely unlikely to be supportable - the primary reason is that the software doesn't know what a "prod" is (it is just edited text) - and more challenging - it would not actually keep tack of it it is really expired or not. —
1059:
That said, if "deletedtext"/"browsehistory" would allow to see the text of said deleted revisions (the admin version) then I suppose there would be little need for the Mod to have the deleterevision userright. (copyvio is one, as you
813:
Since you ask, while there have indeed been several comments in similar discussions in the past, I suppose the easiest answer would be to check out several commenters in the support section. There's also a comment from an OTRS person
1310:
2.) nod, we've asked them follow up on that several times and they've re confirmed that several times (Which is part of why I restricted RRA to be as much like an RFA discussion as possible, so it reflected what they currently
1320:
rfa-like process). If someone doesn't like the proposal, fine, that's their right to express in the consensus model. But opposing because of some process which will be there whether this passes or not, is ridiculous imnsho...
578:
I was avoiding having "admin" in the name due to confusing newbies, but maybe, by not having admin in the name, this is less-than-clear to all. (Looking over the oppose section, I think this is showing as a misunderstanding
1070:
Also, technically, if you can delete, you can delete revision - just delete the whole page, and restore only selected revisions. So I'm not sure if there's a point to separating the userright out, since it's mostly just a
874:
I have a technical and somewhat tangential question. Is it technically possible to create a user-right that will only allow a user to delete pages with expired prod tags (but not to perform any other kinds of deletions)?
77:
Please review - then they should just be able to be removed. The only good reason too keep these double-listed would be if we planned on revoking these from everyone else (at which time they could always be re-added). —
936:. I've seen them deleted at the rate of 1 every two or three seconds - that's even faster than I can load and read some of them. I'm sure some admins even hover over them with a mouse waiting for the clock.
187:
No problem with adding them, then. The idea is to allow editing but to not allow for adding said protection. Is that possible in the others? or does extendedconfirmedprotected (for example) allow both? -
1153:
Other users would support/oppose/neutral based on how trustful
Example would be admin like privileges. Criteria for individual permissions could also be discussed but would not be the focus of the RfVD.
529:
I like
Curator, but as I noted below, there seems to confusion over whether such users should be considered "admins". I think if I work on proposing this sometime in the future, it'll be something with
1573:
Would the process of becoming a moderator be less rigorous than that for becoming an admin, consistent with this role being a sort of ersatz admin who has some but not all of the rights of an admin?
1281:
5. I'd help if I could, seriously, folks, but after all these years campaigning for RfA reform, I've run out of ideas. I sadly only know the ones that probably won't work just as someone else's GF
823:
815:
1570:
Would moderators be able to delete any page they wanted (or at least any page admins can, i.e. those w/less than 5k revisions)? If not, how do you prevent them from deleting pages they shouldn't?
327:
fact that we may decide to have an unbundled function like (1) for talk spaces at some point in the future—even pipe dreams come true occasionally—and moderator would be the obvious name for it.
1389:
I just want to point out that with the currently proposed permissions, moderators wouldn't be able to edit cascade-protected pages. That includes anything transcluded on the Main Page, such as
1257:
2. Bureaucrats are adverse to anything that would force duties on them beyond the terms of theitr current mandate: "We weren't elected for that, and it's not in the job description er ran for'.
795:
Is there some data to back up this statement? Or at least some specific examples of such requests? If yes, could you (meaning the proposal's author) please provide the relevant links? Thanks,
1812:
500:"Curator" is a good word for the function(s). But there are so many WP words a new editor must try to learn. "Junior admin", (jr.admin) would be self-explanatory. Or "mini-admin"? --
1101:
is needed. Deletion with selected restoration does not preserve attribution in the page history, so it shouldn't be used in most cases. Exceptions include history merges and splits. —
1527:, notes above, any mod intentionally abusing the tools that way is likely to lose the tools. Presumably easy enough to restore protections and warn, and if necessary, tool removal. -
1235:, work something up and start a proposal. What I am proposing here doesn't prevent a blocker userright package being approved. (They are not mutually exclusive.) I hope this helps. -
173:
semiprotected. It doesn't make sense to give out editprotected and make the users request template-editor as separate action. (I'm pretty sure it doesnt automatically override). —
65:
I'm going to boldly strike out redundant rights that the group should not need to duplicate (because they are already included in "user", "autoconfirmed", "extended confirmed"). —
1324:
1228:
If it helps, I've been there. I actually tried to propose something very much like what you're proposing, but found out through the discussions that that wasn't going to work.
1196:
Second, telling the community that the discussion is "only" to entrust "view deleted", but then handing out the block tool, would appear to the community as to be dishonest.
1640:
How does this proposal square with the WMF's position that the access to deleted content should only be granted to administrators selected by a rigorous vetting process?
1663:
It would be fine with the WMF, because, as proposed, this usergroup will go through a similar (if not identical) process that potential admins go through, i.e. RfA. —
350:
I seem to recall "content-admin" as one proposal in the past. But I think we really should avoid "admin" in the name to avoid any chance of newbie confusion. -
1218:
You can try, in the proposal, to have it potentially removed by one or more bureaucrats, but as I mentioned in the fourth section above, that likely won't fly.
1323:
4.) you made me chuckle @ ostriches : ) - Personally, I'd add the anti-admin/anti-rules factioneering to my list of reasons of why I think RfA is what it is,
1285:
didn't achieve anything spectacular and there is even growing concern that it actually multiplied some of the negative features it was intended to combat.
1455:
I obviously can't speak for the rest of the
Committee, but I'd see this type of intentional gaming the system to be cause for removal of the permission.
1566:
I think this would probably be a good idea in theory, but there are two issues I would like to see addressed before I will be convinced it is feasible:
647:
Would the granting process be the same as the existing RfA process, or something else. If same process, same (0-65%; 65-75%, 75-100%) result bands? —
145:
The above notwithstanding, I was/am trying to not be redundant with the admin-granted user-rights. But otherwise, I would be fine with the addition. -
1163:
Later, Example encounters a regular troll that they end up good at spotting and are convinced to try to get moderator to help block the trolls socks.
47:
1225:, my last attempt to put together something that allowed for the community to remove adminship more directly. I may re-propose it at some point.
1020:
package. No issues with moderators being able to see revision deleted material, but I don't see that they'd have too much of a need to use it.
387:? That's the name we already give to those who do small tasks, avoiding the glare of drama, but quietly protecting and repairing the project.
1796:
1147:
How this might work: suppose User:Example decided/(or more likely got convinced) that they should help out with some of the admin backlogs.
1398:
1479:
Sounds incredibly dicey. I'm assuming this resets edit, move, upload, and create settings? And autoaccept too? (pending changes reset) —
1203:
Fourth, if I remember correctly, having a bureaucrat have sole discretion to remove admin tools has been tried and has failed consensus.
1739:
1681:
1497:
792:
The proposal mentions that: "Believe it or not, such a user-right group has actually been requested repeatedly for a very long time".
741:
257:
156:
For that one, as you are giving the editprotected, it is a "higher" level - and the most high risk templates are that level already.
1365:
919:
delete. That being said, that is a lot of work for someone who could have instead just pressed "delete" if they had permission. —
1718:
1045:
Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, there's a difference between "deleterevision" and "supressrevision". (See
841:
concerning those who call themselves wikignomes not wanting to have any part in the behaviour-related responsibilities/tools. -
766:
571:, someone with this pkg should be considered an admin, not something lesser, junior, or minor, simply due to the fact that they
210:
allows edit/move/create/upload (not autoaccept) protection of pages at all levels, which is separate from the protection levels
41:
1466:
1031:
989:
32:
1064:
642:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
422:" (the exhorter of 'quiet please', in days gone by...) - So I dunno if that would fly, based upon what we're seeing so far.
732:
701:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
582:
With that in mind, maybe this needs to be a name to match "what's in the tin" directly, and we should come back around to
1113:
17:
1215:
user-right package. Due to point #3 above, if would likely need to go through an rfA-like process to be handed out.
706:
Well actually, that was 4 years ago, and no doubt Geoff is back from holiday, so it would be worth checking again.
453:
might work, except that such an individual doesn't quite "sound" neutral to my ear (as a closer would need to be).
444:
1272:
4. It's actually very rare for consensus to change - you have to wait for user attrition for that. I still say:
1702:
If the process is the same, why anybody would want to go through the same process but not to get the full set?
1820:
1002:
Note, this would not apply to "suppressed" items deleted by oversighters (which admins can also not see). —
1732:
1674:
1577:
1490:
419:
250:
1808:
1166:
The would post a request for moderator and a bureaucrat would evaluate it and likely give the permission.
434:
430:
426:
1542:
1511:
1470:
1442:
1404:
1390:
1362:
1035:
993:
1815:
until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
1394:
1282:
1063:- If that's clear as mud, I apologise. I'm finding that the help files aren't clear on this point. (
1050:
1622:
1462:
1027:
985:
558:
505:
1816:
1179:
1137:
757:
602:
396:
339:
1046:
1150:
Example would run an RfVD and optionally indicate they they are seeking the
Janitor permission.
553:
Some alternatives that came to mind: Attendant, Aide, Para-admin (along the vein of paralegal)
1722:
1707:
1664:
1645:
1574:
1480:
1294:
941:
711:
240:
231:, but it isn't strictly true, because a week-old 100-edit account that happens to be granted
1769:
1539:
desired, that would probably be something to be discussed on the wikitech-l mailing list. —
1356:
1107:
1089:
is for Oversighters and hides the content from admins. RevDel'd content can be seen without
1824:
1789:
1744:
1712:
1697:
1686:
1650:
1630:
1605:
1580:
1549:
1533:
1518:
1502:
1474:
1449:
1427:
1411:
1374:
1337:
1316:
1298:
1263:
1241:
1232:
1222:
1183:
1141:
1118:
1080:
1039:
1008:
997:
975:
967:
945:
925:
911:
897:
884:
861:
847:
832:
804:
779:
760:
745:
715:
689:
678:
653:
626:
606:
592:
562:
524:
509:
495:
469:
410:
399:
371:
356:
344:
315:
303:
273:
262:
194:
179:
165:
151:
140:
119:
107:
96:
84:
71:
1211:
First, you'd want to go through all the user-rights and figure out the bare minimum for a
907:
880:
857:
800:
1074:
I wonder if there's a dev out there who might know the concrete answer to all of this? -
517:
sounds good, since it doesn't imply any sort of involvement in personal conduct issues.
1813:
Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 29#Knowledge (XXG):Moderator
1691:...this proposal requires the basically the same process as RfA, so that part is ok. —
1524:
1523:
well, if pending persists, then I presume this may be fixable by devs? That aside, as
1457:
1022:
980:
622:
554:
501:
1692:
1422:
1175:
1133:
1003:
963:
920:
892:
754:
684:
648:
598:
490:
405:
389:
330:
298:
174:
135:
102:
79:
66:
770:
447:, and such, but I don't think variations on "exec" (like executor) would fly either.
1703:
1658:
1641:
1418:
1290:
1056:
From what I read, one is what admins can do and see, the other is for oversighters.
937:
707:
1780:
to the proposals than I had initially realised. You learn something every day : )
1777:
218:. So this moderator group has no protect / pending changes abilities as proposed.
1102:
518:
450:
404:
I think it is eswiki that calls +sysop "librarians", maybe along those lines? —
767:
Knowledge (XXG):Moderators/Proposal#So_why_would_anyone_want_to_request_this.3F
933:
903:
876:
853:
796:
159:
To make sure I understand, "it" applies to editprotected or templateeditor? -
1785:
1601:
1529:
1333:
1237:
1076:
843:
828:
775:
674:
668:
So, as I understand it, whatever the criteria is for a successful RfA, this
588:
540:
486:
478:
465:
415:
367:
352:
311:
269:
201:
190:
161:
147:
115:
92:
1765:
to everyone who commented here and positively joined in the discussion(s).
456:
I suggested implementer, above, which is pretty much what this is, I think.
101:
As far as I can tell, duplicating the permissions is no longer required. —
31:
1803:
1307:
1.) for video game hat collecting, look no further than WP:PERM... sigh
482:
1208:
Ok, so we know the issues with this, here are some possible solutions:
902:
Hmm, OK, thanks. Pity that the software does not provide this option.
236:
538:. Maybe Curator can be its alternate name, like admin and +sysop. -
481:"clerk" is used on many other enwiki processes already, how about:
460:
383:
826:
as well. I'll leave it to you to assess the various comments. -
771:#Have people actually been requesting this kind of a user-right?
788:
Have people actually been requesting this kind of a user-right?
974:
would be needed to deal with things like copyright vios (see
184:
Ah ok - things have developed since I last proposed this : )
113:
consensus to apply to them as well, if deemed necessary. -
1193:
First, per the WMF, the process needs to be just like RfA.
425:
Wikignome is interesting, but I hesitate to wade into the
1190:
If I read the above correctly, there are a couple issues.
1772:. I think what I was most surprised at is that the word
822:
further down the page; and Guy macon left some comments
819:
663:
1807:
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
1783:Again, thanks to you all, and happy editing : ) -
932:One place where there is rarely a backlog is the
267:Thank you very much for the clarification : ) -
1417:That may be a good thing - protects pages like
1397:, etc., and also any templates transcluded on
870:Technical question - expired prod delete only
8:
615:This right should not be called "Moderator"
329:I'd suggest something like deputy admin. ―
132:Edit protected templates (templateeditor)
724:the WMF's annual leave entitlement...?!
569:For the tools and responsibilities given
440:That said, I'm all ears on naming ideas.
1596:
1399:Knowledge (XXG):Cascade-protected items
1795:"Knowledge (XXG):Moderator" listed at
534:in the name. Hence the example below,
1274:Fix the voters and RfA will ix itself
773:, below for some reasons/examples. -
7:
725:
638:The following discussion is closed.
381:around. How about some variation on
1421:that could be very disruptive... —
575:need to go through the rfa process.
206:As I understand it, the sysop flag
1156:A bureaucrat would close the RfVD.
24:
1065:Knowledge (XXG):Revision deletion
459:But as an alternative, how about
297:(related to page move/delete). —
1802:
1595:As for your other question, see
726:
697:The discussion above is closed.
30:
1811:. The discussion will occur at
1385:Editing cascade-protected pages
172:extendedconfirmedprotected: -->
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Moderators
1:
1825:11:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
1636:Delete content viewing rights
1354:
1790:11:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
1768:I definitely now have some
221:It's generally agreed that
1840:
1745:21:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
1713:20:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
1698:20:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
1687:20:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
1651:20:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
1221:As for removal, check out
1809:Knowledge (XXG):Moderator
1631:13:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
1616:Try an option as a trial?
1606:00:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
1581:15:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
1550:03:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
1534:06:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
1519:05:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
1503:04:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
1475:03:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
1450:03:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
1428:03:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
1412:03:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
1375:17:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
1338:20:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
1299:12:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
946:11:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
833:23:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
780:00:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
761:17:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
627:14:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
607:04:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
597:Sounds good to me, FWIW.
593:19:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
563:12:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
525:20:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
510:22:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
496:17:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
470:15:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
445:Consensus decision-making
411:13:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
400:07:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
130:You may want to include:
1797:Redirects for discussion
1242:22:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
1184:21:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
1142:20:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
1119:22:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
1081:16:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
1051:mw:Manual:RevisionDelete
1040:14:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
1009:18:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
998:13:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
968:12:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
926:18:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
912:15:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
898:12:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
885:11:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
862:00:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
848:23:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
805:23:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
746:11:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
716:02:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
699:Please do not modify it.
690:22:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
679:22:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
654:22:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
640:Please do not modify it.
429:, even though I believe
372:03:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
357:22:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
345:22:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
316:21:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
304:21:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
274:00:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
263:00:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
235:cannot edit a page like
195:22:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
180:22:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
166:21:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
152:21:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
141:21:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
120:21:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
108:21:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
97:21:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
85:21:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
72:21:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
61:technical rights bundled
1562:Thoughts on feasibility
1439:protection settings. —
309:Added, thank you : ) -
1047:mw:Help:RevisionDelete
171:templateprotected: -->
1761:I just wanted to say
1592:undo-able/reversible.
1434:Indirect unprotection
1391:Template:Did you know
437:far predate the rest.
1395:Template:In the news
443:I've been looking at
239:(which is ECP'd). —
1597:#granting criteria?
1067:isn't much better.)
659:Out of my hands : )
1127:Alternate approach
641:
632:granting criteria?
170:editprotected: -->
58:
1117:
1015:Revision deletion
820:Quinn1's comments
672:have the same. -
639:
228:extendedconfirmed
216:extendedconfirmed
57:
56:
51:of this proposal.
25:
1831:
1806:
1770:food for thought
1743:
1735:
1717:Most looking at
1710:
1695:
1685:
1677:
1662:
1648:
1628:
1625:
1545:
1544:Mr. Stradivarius
1514:
1513:Mr. Stradivarius
1501:
1493:
1445:
1444:Mr. Stradivarius
1425:
1407:
1406:Mr. Stradivarius
1373:
1105:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1087:suppressrevision
1006:
934:Cat expired PROD
923:
895:
731:
730:
729:
687:
651:
522:
493:
420:authority figure
408:
392:
342:
337:
301:
296:
261:
253:
234:
230:
229:
225:
217:
213:
209:
205:
177:
138:
133:
105:
82:
69:
34:
27:
26:
1839:
1838:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1800:
1759:
1733:
1729:
1719:this subsection
1708:
1693:
1675:
1671:
1656:
1646:
1638:
1626:
1623:
1618:
1564:
1543:
1512:
1491:
1487:
1443:
1436:
1423:
1405:
1387:
1371:
1291:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
1231:But who knows,
1129:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1017:
1004:
958:
956:Simple question
938:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
921:
893:
872:
790:
737:
727:
703:
702:
685:
649:
644:
634:
617:
520:
491:
406:
390:
340:
331:
324:
299:
294:
251:
247:
232:
227:
223:
222:
215:
211:
207:
199:
175:
136:
131:
103:
80:
67:
63:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1837:
1835:
1799:
1793:
1758:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1637:
1634:
1617:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1593:
1584:
1583:
1571:
1563:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1477:
1435:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1386:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1369:
1351:
1346:
1328:
1321:
1312:
1308:
1302:
1301:
1287:
1286:
1278:
1277:
1269:
1268:
1259:
1258:
1254:
1253:
1247:
1245:
1244:
1229:
1226:
1219:
1216:
1209:
1205:
1204:
1201:
1197:
1194:
1191:
1187:
1186:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1167:
1164:
1161:
1157:
1154:
1151:
1128:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1095:deletedhistory
1091:deleterevision
1072:
1068:
1061:
1057:
1054:
1016:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1000:
957:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
916:
915:
914:
871:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
838:
837:
836:
789:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
750:
749:
748:
733:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
666:
660:
645:
636:
635:
633:
630:
616:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
580:
576:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
457:
454:
448:
441:
438:
423:
377:
376:
375:
374:
328:
323:
320:
319:
318:
295:(mergehistory)
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
233:templateeditor
224:templateeditor
219:
212:templateeditor
185:
128:
127:
126:
125:
124:
123:
122:
62:
59:
55:
54:
53:
52:
48:the straw poll
35:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1836:
1827:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1805:
1798:
1794:
1792:
1791:
1788:
1787:
1781:
1779:
1776:was a more a
1775:
1771:
1766:
1764:
1756:
1746:
1741:
1738:
1736:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1720:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1711:
1705:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1696:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1683:
1680:
1678:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1660:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1649:
1643:
1635:
1633:
1632:
1629:
1615:
1607:
1604:
1603:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1582:
1579:
1576:
1572:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1561:
1551:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1532:
1531:
1526:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1499:
1496:
1494:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1478:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1459:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1433:
1429:
1426:
1420:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1384:
1376:
1367:
1364:
1361:
1359:
1349:
1344:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1336:
1335:
1329:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1313:
1309:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1289:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1270:
1265:
1261:
1260:
1256:
1255:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1243:
1240:
1239:
1234:
1230:
1227:
1224:
1220:
1217:
1214:
1210:
1207:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1195:
1192:
1189:
1188:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1174:
1168:
1165:
1162:
1158:
1155:
1152:
1149:
1148:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1126:
1120:
1115:
1112:
1109:
1104:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1079:
1078:
1073:
1069:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1055:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1024:
1014:
1010:
1007:
1001:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
982:
977:
972:
971:
970:
969:
966:
965:
955:
947:
943:
939:
935:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
924:
917:
913:
909:
905:
901:
900:
899:
896:
889:
888:
887:
886:
882:
878:
869:
863:
859:
855:
851:
850:
849:
846:
845:
839:
835:
834:
831:
830:
825:
821:
817:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
802:
798:
793:
787:
781:
778:
777:
772:
768:
764:
763:
762:
759:
756:
751:
747:
744:
743:
742:
738:
736:
723:
719:
718:
717:
713:
709:
705:
704:
700:
691:
688:
682:
681:
680:
677:
676:
671:
667:
665:
661:
658:
657:
656:
655:
652:
643:
631:
629:
628:
625:
624:
614:
608:
604:
600:
596:
595:
594:
591:
590:
585:
584:content-admin
581:
577:
574:
570:
567:
566:
565:
564:
560:
556:
543:
542:
537:
536:content-admin
533:
528:
527:
526:
523:
516:
513:
512:
511:
507:
503:
499:
498:
497:
494:
488:
484:
480:
477:
471:
468:
467:
462:
458:
455:
452:
449:
446:
442:
439:
436:
432:
428:
424:
421:
417:
414:
413:
412:
409:
403:
402:
401:
398:
397:
394:
393:
386:
385:
379:
378:
373:
370:
369:
364:
360:
359:
358:
355:
354:
349:
348:
347:
346:
343:
338:
336:
335:
321:
317:
314:
313:
308:
307:
306:
305:
302:
275:
272:
271:
266:
265:
264:
259:
256:
254:
246:
245:
244:
238:
220:
203:
198:
197:
196:
193:
192:
186:
183:
182:
181:
178:
169:
168:
167:
164:
163:
158:
157:
155:
154:
153:
150:
149:
144:
143:
142:
139:
129:
121:
118:
117:
111:
110:
109:
106:
100:
99:
98:
95:
94:
88:
87:
86:
83:
76:
75:
74:
73:
70:
60:
50:
49:
44:
43:
38:
37:
36:
33:
29:
28:
19:
1801:
1784:
1782:
1773:
1767:
1762:
1760:
1731:
1724:
1723:
1673:
1666:
1665:
1639:
1619:
1600:
1575:Everymorning
1565:
1541:
1540:
1528:
1510:
1509:
1489:
1482:
1481:
1456:
1441:
1440:
1437:
1419:Module:Yesno
1403:
1402:
1388:
1357:
1332:
1273:
1246:
1236:
1212:
1130:
1110:
1075:
1071:convenience?
1021:
1018:
979:
962:
959:
873:
852:OK, thanks.
842:
827:
812:
794:
791:
774:
740:
739:
734:
721:
698:
673:
669:
646:
637:
621:
618:
587:
583:
579:throughout.)
572:
568:
552:
539:
535:
531:
514:
464:
418:is also an "
395:
388:
382:
366:
362:
351:
333:
332:
325:
310:
292:
268:
249:
242:
241:
189:
160:
146:
114:
91:
64:
46:
42:the proposal
40:
1778:poison pill
1599:, above. -
1358:SMcCandlish
1345:centralized
1325:listed here
1099:deletedtext
765:Please see
662:Please see
451:facilitator
363:implementer
1348:happen at
1283:WP:RFA2015
683:Thanks. —
361:How about
1774:moderator
1763:thank you
1757:Thank you
1525:Callanecc
1458:Callanecc
1170:solution.
1060:mention).
1023:Callanecc
981:Callanecc
720:Have you
555:Blackmane
502:Hordaland
487:archivist
435:Wikifairy
431:Wikignome
427:WikiFauna
416:librarian
39:See also
1721:then? —
1694:xaosflux
1624:Laughing
1467:contribs
1424:xaosflux
1200:protect.
1176:PaleAqua
1134:PaleAqua
1032:contribs
1005:xaosflux
990:contribs
922:xaosflux
894:xaosflux
755:for (;;)
686:xaosflux
650:xaosflux
599:Donner60
492:xaosflux
407:xaosflux
391:SilkTork
334:Mandruss
300:xaosflux
176:xaosflux
137:xaosflux
104:xaosflux
81:xaosflux
68:xaosflux
1725:Andy W.
1667:Andy W.
1659:Ruslik0
1483:Andy W.
1213:blocker
1093:; only
964:Lindsay
818:; and
735:Muffled
708:Johnbod
515:Curator
483:curator
243:Andy W.
208:protect
1704:Ruslik
1642:Ruslik
1627:Vulcan
1578:(talk)
1317:WP:AGF
1264:WP:RRA
1252:world.
1233:WP:CCC
1223:WP:RRA
1103:JJMC89
976:WP:RD1
758:(talk)
293:Also:
237:Israel
1817:Aasim
1085:Yes,
904:Nsk92
877:Nsk92
854:Nsk92
797:Nsk92
532:admin
461:clerk
384:gnome
226:: -->
16:<
1821:talk
1786:jc37
1734:talk
1709:Zero
1676:talk
1647:Zero
1602:jc37
1530:jc37
1492:talk
1471:logs
1463:talk
1334:jc37
1311:do.)
1295:talk
1238:jc37
1180:talk
1138:talk
1077:jc37
1049:and
1036:logs
1028:talk
994:logs
986:talk
942:talk
908:talk
881:talk
858:talk
844:jc37
829:jc37
824:here
816:here
801:talk
776:jc37
769:and
722:seen
712:talk
675:jc37
670:must
664:this
623:Ruud
603:talk
589:jc37
586:. -
559:talk
541:jc37
519:Tito
506:talk
489:? —
479:Jc37
466:jc37
463:? -
433:and
368:jc37
365:? -
353:jc37
322:Name
312:jc37
270:jc37
252:talk
214:and
202:Jc37
191:jc37
162:jc37
148:jc37
116:jc37
93:jc37
45:and
1740:ctb
1682:ctb
1498:ctb
1372:ⱷ≼
1368:≽ⱷ҅
1350:any
1262:3.
1160:it.
978:).
485:or
258:ctb
1823:)
1473:)
1469:•
1465:•
1393:,
1355:—
1297:)
1182:)
1140:)
1053:).
1038:)
1034:•
1030:•
996:)
992:•
988:•
944:)
910:)
883:)
860:)
803:)
714:)
605:)
573:do
561:)
521:xd
508:)
134:—
1819:(
1742:)
1737:·
1730:(
1706:_
1684:)
1679:·
1672:(
1661::
1657:@
1644:_
1500:)
1495:·
1488:(
1461:(
1370:ᴥ
1366:¢
1363:☏
1360:☺
1327:.
1293:(
1178:(
1136:(
1116:)
1114:C
1111:·
1108:T
1106:(
1097:/
1026:(
984:(
940:(
906:(
879:(
856:(
799:(
710:(
601:(
557:(
504:(
341:☎
260:)
255:·
248:(
204::
200:@
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
