2151:), I do think that aversion to clarifications by citing a consensus of 1-2 weeks ago is insufficient. To be clear, I think there are only just a handful of ambiguities left in the current version. I've worked on new and established policy guidance before, and these ambiguities are things that should be addressed, and they could easily be fixed now without too much discussion as generally it's contradictions and clarifications to be made. Anyhow, as noted in the section directly below I have two issues with the nominator's sub-section, one in the related processes section, two in the the before nominations section, also a concern about the wording of allowing blocked editors into discussion, and possibly some rewording of the community restrictions bit (though not terribly important). I'd like to be
1887:
discussion, and that the last 24 hours or so have been marked by a large number of edits by you and by NJA that changed the content a lot from what had been a hard-won consensus, and did so without really justifying it to the rest of us. NJA and I have talked at my talk page, and I tentatively am hopeful that we are now in agreement on all of the questioned points. Some of the changes you made have been helpful, including some clarifications of wording and the creation of sections. However, I'm trying to run interference between those of you who want to spend a lot more time revising, and others who very understandably are beyond-impatient to get things going at last. It seems to me that we
1997:
5.4 came from a self-weakening spread of polls, and was unclear on a major point. It was no wonder so many people were taking the mick out of 'us' - we were seriously running ahead of ourselves, and it was very much them/us thereafter. These things are simply done when they are done. We can't do a non-proposal RfC now (for obvious reasons – though it seems to be what
Jehochman wants), but tomorrow I'm going on a personal fact finding mission to see what some of the more vocal critics actually want at this point in time. I just want comments which are honest and/or productive, and not semi-cryptic comments, which are mainly taking the piss out of (or plain ignoring) us.
1092:
highly unlikely that 10 editors will open a CDA on a truly inactive admin, and if that actually happened, it would likely be a serious matter of 'discovered' CDA-worthy behaviour in an inactive admin, from someone who could theoretically re-appear at any time. But rather than change to "all administrators (whether active or not)", I think we should just say "administrators" let the matter play out. Regarding the 'inactivity' paragraph in "What the
Process is not", I don't think anyone is really likely to confuse CDA with the matter of culling long-gone admin, and detailing it just raising difficult (and unnecessary) questions on what is active and what isn't.
2188:
above. I agree with that entirely. I've also read carefully all of NJA's comments here and on my own talk, and I want to say very sincerely that they are frequently eye-opening for me, in that they often rightly point out things to which my own eyes had simply glazed over and could no longer see. NJA has done us all a very great service in this regard and I, for one, am grateful. I acknowledge that Matt may also have been trying to draw attention to some of the same things, but I somehow understand it from the way NJA communicated it, whereas I didn't "get it" from Matt. I'll make separate comments below about the issues NJA raises below.
2281:
parts, the passages that sound to you colloquial or predictive, we disagree. I guess you seem to see it from the perspective of writing law, whereas I see it from the perspective of telling fellow editors, some of whom may come to the eventual CDA page in anger and in haste, to understand what they should not be getting into. It's the way I think we communicate on-Wiki. These are not things that would (I think?) become the basis for a
Wikilawyering complaint, so it's not a matter of making them airtight as policy. Rather, it's a way of grabbing an angry editor by the collar and saying wait a minute. I don't suppose
2520:: Question: How many Wikipedians does it take to screw in a light bulb? Answer: However many are online. The first Wikipedian will put the light bulb in, and then each of the others will say how they could have done it better. MacDui observes above that the process can go on forever unless someone says there is a deadline. And I didn't even do that. I asked editors to make a good faith effort. If anyone has a problem with that.... In the mean time, I suggest people calm down and actually try to ask and answer the remaining concerns. It's not that difficult. --
2234:
less precise. Next we have the "possibly backfire spectacularly bit", which is very poor wording for policy guidance, as we don't know if that is true, but we do know if the core issue isn't addressed then it will fail (which is what the revised wording says). The third sentence was just filler, as it's already been made clear that if the core issue isn't addressed the process fails (ergo its purpose has failed). So why mention it, particularly mid-way through the paragraph? Moving along, I suppose the words 'pattern' and 'history' are interchangeable,
282:, I have shuffled everything around in order to consolidate discussion to the CDA guide pages and the RFC draft pages. This should help with the confusion that people have been having when coming into this late in the game. Meta discussion about the RFC itself goes here, discussion about the process under proposal goes on the RFC draft talk page. It's kind of backward I guess now that I write it down, but that was what we had discussed. If someone wants to swap them, that would be fine with me. Just keep the archives with this page.
2438:
concern that good administrators, doing the ugly tasks that administrators have to do, will be dragged through the mud of a bad nomination by editors who have an ax to grind but who do not have a valid basis for CDA. Even if such a nomination fails, or even if it is rejected in the subsequent poll, the community, rightly, wants to minimize the number of good administrators put through the process. Now, think about the upcoming RfC. This concern will come up again and again, for sure. The language I'm endorsing was discussed thoroughly
1139:
it. What the 'inactive admin' paragraph actually does is raise doubts on what an 'active' admin actually is. Why have that ambiguity when it is not needed? The parag is full of irrelevant stuff on consensus too, and is part of the remaining cruft that takes the shine off CDA as a serious stand-alone proposal imo. All the unnecessary third-level (in one day) reverts and rewriting now is doing, is making the thing more verbose and less fluent. Why? We have to try not to grind each other down.
1631:". I agree it should be retained and I have a caveat. This is not an issue in which (to the best of my knowledge) any of those who have been consistently active have much expertise. Even if I don't agree with them, when folks like NYbrad and Elonka turn up suggesting issues relating to this statement be cleared up I sense a need for caution, yet attempting to become proficient in this complex area of Knowledge is not practical in the short term. How about this as an alternative?
2195:: my somewhat derailed attempt to get a good plan on announcing the RfC on watchlists whenever it does open, and the sometimes trollish, sometimes valid discussion about how to format the RfC page. I'm not advocating wading into the distracting nastiness, but I do think we need to make sure we are all on the same page about what we will actually put forth. I remain hopeful that we can work through all the various issues within a few days, and still go live pretty soon.
1738:
lower case would be better? And about the "terms and restrictions", yes, let's delete it unless a cogent argument for it comes up. And as for the sort of complicated rewrite of the related paragraph, I'm leaning towards thinking that we are over-thinking it. Maybe we should just go forward with the present language for that paragraph, and treat it as something that will be refined after implementation. I don't see it as something that will make people vote "no". --
2206:. Where NJA says just above that two people (MacDui and I) shouldn't decide, well, OK, but neither should NJA and Matt, and the fact remains that there were quite a few editors who looked carefully at it in the talk I just linked. My concern here is that we may be undoing a consensus wording to satisfy just NJA, and I do not really understand why. Please explain, specifically, what problem(s) the newer language is trying to fix, because I just do not see it. --
355:"Thus, for an Administrator to be de-sysopped, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether both a minimum of 50 editors and a general consensus supports de-sysopping. Consensus is sometimes difficult to ascertain and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb, above ~80% support for de-sysopping would be acceptable; while support below ~70% would not be, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion."
1324:. NJA seems to be a lawyer (which could have obvious uses here) and an admin, and I'm happy he wanted to work on the changes I made last night. The combined edits represent a few hours work, and I think the result is a much better edit to work from than the previous harder-to-follow edit. I actually think NJAs copy edits improve the language significantly. It is at a stage now where we can really just focus on the outstanding details, imo.
2446:, less blunt. My preferred language will be better suited to answering the criticisms that will arise at the RfC. The community does not want genteel language about this. They want it to be blunt, to be attention-getting, to get the attention of editors acting in anger and haste, to cause those editors to pause. If we choose the prissier language, I feel this proposal will go the way of Obama's health plan. --
1561:
in good standing" language would present problems to ArbCom: persons who had perhaps very mild or unrelated sanctions, perhaps long ago, asking to have their "good standing" restored. The "good standing" language has now been clarified, and I think has consensus in the present form (?). However, other language was added as well as deleted, and I think some confusion remains. It is in the section about
2126:
guess these issues when the question we are asking is about the overall principle. No matter what is said someone will disagree with the specifics. I do not believe that it is our role to start including new issues or debate old ones that were not raised during the extensive earlier discussions. They are simply debating points that both common sense by
Bureaucrats and actual experience will iron out.
91:- I'm possibly the longest serving admin still active and I have NO issue at all with this process. I just read the guide and whoever wrote it (apologies for not researching who that was/they were) has clearly put some deep thought into what is a much-needed and long overdue process. At the moment I can't see any concrete objection I have to any of it. Sure the process is at some risk of
2420:
sticking with the professional copy throughout the text, and use bullets/sub-sections etc where they clearly help (which is most places). Put the right points in the right sections (not in brackets where people wouldn't expect them!!). Make the page readable, clear, and as professional looking as possible. If it looks like it is already policy, it could be half way there.
696:
1456:. You clearly don't want the text you are happy rolling with changed, but you should have respected the work of others. What is the sense in alienating people by reverting so much work unnecessarily? There was never any "consensus" on the text - you have just assumed that there is because nobody apart from you up until now has fiddled with it. It
1271:"An Arbitration member or Bureaucrat may withdraw the validity of an editor, or editors, who are considered to be potentially unreliable nominees. This is generally done in extreme cases only, and usually when the nomination has been submitted. One full day is to be allowed for any replacement nominee(s) to be found."
1045:
only way to highlight it (and effectively get it in) was amongst a general tidy up. I've always had the strong impression that people haven't been properly reading through the actual CDA proposal (or even reading it at all). I admit that I'd only been scanning it periodically myself, as it just didn't easily flow.
2535:
Please let's not mention any dates at all until we are all happy. With all the travelling gone on etc, I'm more than happy not to jump before the 3rd - it's only right and fair given the commitment those people have put into the project. If it does suddenly fall together before the 3rd, I promise not
2370:
right. Nominations that do not address that issue will likely fail. If this is not the issue in your case, then you are in the wrong place. In all but the most extreme cases, there should be a demonstrable history of unacceptable behavior(s), and not just one single incident. This process will result
2125:
I have addressed both of the above two remaining issues named by
Tryptofish. We are agreed about the 3 bullet points, I don't see a specific reply or alternative suggestion re the single bullet point issue. I see no need to continue to discuss the others. There is imply no purpose in trying to second
2034:
PS. Unfortunately MacDui reverted that last edit. I expect it was to his favoured edit (though he seemed to have stepped back), but I think even this is problematic, because we are essentially a small crowd offering support within ourselves, and consequently pissing each other off. I did hope someone
1996:
I just wish we went through all this stuff at some less nerve-wracking point in the past, instead of right before the inevitable 'zero hour'. But when could we have done it? For me the whole
January deadline thing was a really bad idea. By Jan 10th we were only half way up the mountain, if even that.
1871:
Good man, it's been good advice. I'm having a break right now too. It can't be too far off now, despite these disagreements. My main worry is 80%. I'll go with 80 if I have to (as I personally don't mind it), but I've just got a horrible feeling we'll regret it on the day. We need more arb type input
1560:
After the rather too-hectic round of recent edits, I think it has come back to something pretty close to what the community has been telling us they want. There is, however, one section where things are not entirely clear to me yet. Recently, Newyorkbrad raised some concerns that the previous "editor
1360:
CDA always was a little bit nuts! (since I've been watching it anyway). 3 editors working together is not untypical in 'article space' - I suppose we need to see it as similar to general editing this point. I think it was heading for a period like this, as it needed a good tidy as well as the various
1044:
Losing the "in good standing" proviso (which appeared throughout) seemed to become consensus in the draft page talk - nobody was fixed on keeping it, and we all could see problems with it. Regarding my parag that addressed NewYorkBrad's concerns (which I copied here in the section above) - I felt the
190:
I'd rather see this than anything else put forth, but I'm still a bit skeptical of it. Honestly, I'm not sure why what we've got doesn't work—ArbCom seems even more likely than in the past to desysop when needed, and honestly, I think the amount of deliberation and warning that leads up to that point
110:
I have not been around nearly as long as
Manning Bartlett, but I am hardly a noob and I am an admin, and I support this. I never cared for "recall" as it was too easy to game. Not naming any names, but the criteria on some of the recall pages is impossible to meet. I second all of Manning's statement
2303:
Agreed. The language is very odd to me (I've done other policy work on wiki), and it isn't common terminology I'd use. I try to keep the law out of things, but as a younger lawyer in the UK we are trained to use unambigious language, and to make things as clear as possible, particularly when dealing
2233:
First sentence: it's the process that is addressing the issue of trust, not the nomination itself. The nomination is simply part of that process. As for the second sentence, I believed administrator sounds better as that's what being questioned, but I suppose the generic term account is okay, though
1600:
The first bullet was in place of the sanctions (etc) detail, which is widely worried about, and could ruin the proposal. I suggest we discuss it without it in, as nobody heas really objected to its removal. The second bullet solved an ambiguity, the third bullet was initially just text (which is now
1138:
Do you really both think that 10 editors will try and get together to use CDA to clear up inactive admin? If they have found a valid reason to start a CDA, they would have to have massive proof of consistent wrongdoing, so they may as well have a go. And where is this 'consensus' anyway? I challenge
2485:
a "strong and growing sentiment" that this is "going on indefinitely" at all! There is a strong feeling that we getting close now, but still have to iron a couple of things out. Yet again you and MacDui are simply speaking for yourselves. For heavens sake, think of the wider community and show some
2465:
Per comments by me and by Ben MacDui above, I'm going to say that we should set a goal of settling the remaining questions in this talk by late in the day on
Wednesday, February 3. I'd like to ask involved editors to make a good faith effort to ask/answer remaining questions between now and then. I
2391:
right will likely fail, and possibly backfire spectacularly. If this is not the issue in your case, then you are in the wrong place. In all but the most extreme cases, there should be a demonstrable history of repeated unacceptable behavior, and not just one single incident. Processes like this one
2229:
Out of the serious concerns noted below, this is the big deal? Okay cool. But it does appear that any change of the text is being heavily resisted, which just isn't what this is all about. All I was trying to do is add clarity and remove odd language not commonly used in policy guidance or by other
2187:
Hello all. After sleeping on this, I've gone over all the comments since I was here last, and I'm going to offer, here and below, my best thoughts on it as of now. On the specific question I raised at the top of this talk thread, I see it the same way that Ben MacDui does in his most recent comment
1958:
written. I just can't imagine that there is any consensus at all for it being an actual 'text'. Some of the points in it may represent consensus (like points previously polled, though I do contest some points really represent the community, like the 'inactive admin' matter - and some of those polls
1737:
At the moment, I am one of those persons who are put off. MacDui, I've made the link to
Stewards (and Jimbo); please check if that was the same as what you intended. About that capital D, I could go either way, and it's no big deal. It refers to a section heading above it. Maybe quotation marks and
1405:
I'm going to comment that I at least largely agree with
Jusdafax about that, and I say that with sorrow. There have actually been some edits that were helpful, but I've just had to expend an excessive amount of time undoing a lot of damage. But the solution to bad editing, is good editing. There is
1315:
As you also undid an hour of someone else's work this morning, I'm going to put it back. It was just too difficult to clean it up an then make the c/e changes. Sorry, you'll have to read through it - but it's actually worth looking at it with a slighly fresh eyes. If it helps; this is my diff again
889:
I apologise for undoing a lot of what you did here but as they all came after a large and un-discussed change it was going to be very difficult to sort out which changes applied to the previous version and which were changes to the changes. I will have a look at them as soon as I can and see what I
151:
The thing is, if we get enough admins supporting this - one of the few times I'll say that this is more important than non-admins accepting it - then perhaps we can get a critical mass. I think editors without +sysop might leap at any process that isn't going to be quashed as "too easy to game" by
2437:
Thinking about this some more, I was also drawn to thoughts about it being really hard-fought at the RfC. Think about the comments from editors who oppose it, and think about comments from editors who tend towards support but who have had reservations. Time and again, there is the not-unreasonable
2240:
I think history captures the fact that it's been repeat (ie there's a history of it), thus it just makes the wording cleaner. The (s) after behaviour is obvious. The last bit: I think it's also clearer, and the wording 'bright light you are about to shine' sounds very regional. This is en-wiki, so
1720:
I know you didn't like the fact that I made the my changes in one edit, but it meant that I made changes that worked across the article. Tryptofish has fixated on the old version, and made 20 changes one after the other. He has made a couple of errors really, which I don't think is fair as much as
1421:
Excuse me Tryptofish, but what "damage" exactly? You like to stand in the middle in these matters I know, but I'm not here to do any damage, and nor do I. I'm not a punch bag either. I've been a copy editor by trade - please show me my bad editing. Regarding the parts you disagree with - just deal
1091:
I've removed all references to both the activity and inactivity of admin, to leave things more flexible, and avoid people raising the question "what is active"? I think around 800 admin are classed as 'inactive' (by someone's criteria), and I think it is simply best not to go into it at CDA. It is
975:
No -there was nothing crazy about my edit, and I've discussed the major changes here and on the draft page too. I've worked a lot on this matter now, so please show some respect here! With respect to you both, you have to take the time and look at the page afresh - too much work has gone into this
836:
There's a section on speedy closures, and then there's two sentences (at the end) of the 'before nomination' section. The former section says any uninvolved admin or crat can close, whilst the latter two sentences are un-clear who closes. Can we get some clarification and possibly merge these into
784:
Secondly, it's said that nominees must personally sign, but we allow for block users to discuss. Therefore shouldn't a proviso be added that uninvolved admins or crats may sign on the behalf of a blocked user where the CGDA is relevant to their block (and of course they meet the same 3 months, 500
751:
Under the discussion sub-section, the paragraph titled 'Anyone can participate in discussion', a proviso is made that blocked editors can comment if the CDA is about their block. This is obviously a good thing, however it should not mean that they are allowed to evade the block to do so. Something
167:
I have not yet gone through the details, but I have no doubt at all that the general principle - that admins must be subject to community sanctions if they fail to meet the standards required - is important and that some such system is necessary. Doubtless there will be admins who will disagree,
2419:
I'm not a fresh face, but I have a strong point. I think CDA could be really hard-won at the RFC, and that it has to be as professional-looking and watertight a proposal as possible to get through. People might want to put in colloquial language if it gets through, but that is whenever. I suggest
2335:
Yes, agreed. (Young, a lawyer, and in the UK: I'm zero for three with those!) I'll try to make the agreed-upon changes described in the sections below. (I looked back at your user-draft, and noted that you seem to think I or others were pushing back against changing the in-good-standing language.
2280:
reply also below. (I'm typing as fast as I can, really! (smile)) Anyway, this is now the first time that I could understand your thinking. Some of the minor copyedit things, such as pattern/history, are, well, minor, so we can certainly just agree about that. On what I see as the more substantive
1915:
hard to navigate (I myself could not find the proposal for ages). They are not exactly seamless now, but there is little more we can do to rectify that. Secondly, the proposal simply wasn't an inviting read (again I'm using myself as a benchmark). Thirdly, people keep either owning up to the fact
1022:
Huge reverts are I'm afraid the consequence of huge and undiscussed changes. I am sorry this has become so difficult but it is not just that I have not read the big change you made - its that it includes significant changes that have not been agreed. If you spell them out clearly I'd be happy to
1706:
I've given an argument above and elsewhere. One bullet was exisiting text (which I've just removed the duplication of again), one bullet was an alternative to the sanctions stuff which is so problematic, that it should be discussed while it is temporarily removed from the proposal (which is the
1676:
Matt, I do assume GF. You have worked hard on this proposal and I admire your diligence. If you make points worth considering everyone will listen. If you repeatedly make changes without any serious attempt to discuss them it puts people off. As I said above I don't see the need for these three
1635:
The RfC states at the end that "If the RfC ends in consensus to implement, such implementation will then be subject to review by the Bureaucrats". It would be possible to add a short Q in the FAQ asking why this is necessary along with an answer that this in particular is an area where we might
1886:
Thank you. I appreciate that. Please understand that what I am very concerned about (and I infer that Ben MacDui and Jusdafax are too) is that we have had a document here that a very large number of editors have (hopefully) looked at in the course of some very lengthy and thorough polling and
990:
Well to be fair I didn't take notice of the large changes. I just finally got around to reading through it and I felt the wording (as I read it) had a lot to be desired. My main concerns are addressed here, ie two issues with the intro, the speedy close statements, and this sub-section on the
1891:
within a day or two of being ready to go live, but the recent edits have too often seemed unneeded, and seem to set us back from being able to move forward. I've spent much of my day today trying to make sure the page remains what editors have said they want. It wasn't that I wanted to undo
129:. There are several efforts going on directed in this area - and I think if everyone works together, it might help improve things. If we all work together, to learn, grow, and make the in and out of "Admin." a bit less dramatic - perhaps it can improve the overall state of the project. —
95:
type attacks, but then what WP process isn't? The only people who might object are the clerks (of which I am one) because of the increased workload. (But choosing the clerks to handle the paperwork does make good sense, given the remit of the clerks in general.) Well-done to all concerned.
1834:. You've made a battle out of far more than you have a right to. And for what? Where is this existing consensus for the format of the page? You could see the time people had spent last night and today finally updating this, and you are squbbling over almost nothing. It is very close to
1023:
discuss them. NJA - I am truly sorry you have wandered into this morass - I certainly appreciate your efforts, but without a stable platform from which to discuss changes the process has just become circular. I'm glad you think the major points you have raised are still easy to see.
1910:
I think "have (hopefully) looked at" are the key words here. You say a "very large number of people", but I honestly don't think all that many people have had much more than a quick run through it, and many haven't read it at all. Firstly, the various CDA pages were for a long time
191:
is probably a good thing, as is having a body accustomed to dealing with the unavoidable complexities of such matters. So, my questions before supporting this would be: What is the actual problem, and why is this (rather than taking the offenders to ArbCom) the optimal solution?
976:
now. Huge reverts are not helpful unless there is a specific detail-based reason. I reverted back to NJAs additions and ce's to my edit of last night. It really is easier to work from now, and I think NJA proved this, as he's been the first 'ouside' editor to tackle this page.
1436:
A lot of my copy edits had to undo the damage of your copy edits. And copy edits are one thing, but making major changes to the meaning on the whim of the moment, in the face of a couple of months of consensus to the contrary, is far from copy-editing. I stand by what I said.
337:"Nomination by the Community at large requires the signatures of no fewer than 10 editors in good standing (defined below), within a period not longer than 3 days. Signatures must be placed in the nomination area of the requests, as a simple signed bullet point."
1338:
Sorry this is nuts. We now have three different editors adding new material. The process has become all but incomprehensible. If you want to make changes of significance you should be proposing them and adding them in piece meal not as a huge diff. End of story.
2466:
think there is strong and growing sentiment that this discussion cannot go on indefinitely. If at all possible, we will try to "go live" with the RfC shortly after that, and therefore, not be able to continue to respond to pre-RfC concerns beyond that time. --
1856:
I am giving myself the same advice I so often have had to give you: to drop it. Other editors can look at this and decide what the best wording would be. And, no, I don't intend to report you. If I did, I would have said it on your talk page, not here.
1803:
reversion, I object because Matt has unilaterally changed it to his preferred language, which, at this point in this talk, appears to be favored only by him, against a large number of editors who have agreed to the earlier wording. I favored leaving
2155:
and use common sense to clarify them, though I'm not up for having clarifications undone again just because 2 weeks ago it looked okay. What makes sense to those who've been working on it for weeks, does not necessarily make sense to everyone else.
1830:(before you think a little bit and edit it). I simply don't want to edit in this playground. I didn't notice I hit 3RR, but seeing as you've put it like that Tryptofish - I actually won't do anything. I don't think you've behaved very well today
435:
Dispute resolution should proceed through the normal channels. Disputes with an administrator should be discussed first with that administrator, and then via the normal channels of third opinion, mediation, request for comment, and arbitration.
1752:
You are cheesed off? You have run rough shod the past few hours. You might not have liked what you saw, but I wish you could see that you can't just methodically revert. We have to be gentler with each other. We disagree on a number of points.
2066:
I think at this point the issues under debate are only those marked "need to be discussed" although in some cases I am not at all sure why. Perhaps this could be spelled out. Let us hope that these can be dealt with in a collaborative spirit.
1953:
So I really believe that the majority of people (outside of the really committed) haven't fully read all the details, and most of those who have, will have assumed it is to be tidied up, revised and re-written, partly because of the way it
1214:
I can't see an answer on your Talk. Why would someone sign again? Do you mean all the first lot of 'nomination' votes are put aside, and there is a second phase of voting, which can be added, removed or changed during the discussion phase?
1640:"The following terms and restrictions also apply:" I have not found the thread or logic behind the inclusion (which may be lack of diligence on my part), but I agree that it serves no genuine purpose and is bordering on instruction creep.
1916:
that they haven't read it, or that fact becomes clear in their comments. One person told me they would vote for any form of CDA, so wasn't concerned about the actual details. Others have postponed it, like NJA who finally read it today.
1451:
I actually thought you said "largely disagree" - but "largely agree" with what Judafax just said?!? I'm really not happy with that at all, and I'd like you to take it back. I can see now all your edits today really have been very much
2035:
new and less jaded would come in and edit next, whatever that edit was. We desperately need more people imo, and I hope NJA still sticks around. The hard-to-avoid tl;dr aspect is another reason perhaps - has everyone even got to it?
1119:
I agree with Christopher. Such a change has never been discussed, and there is no reason to make it unilaterally. In fact, there is no reason to make it at all: the existing language creates no problems, and is just common sense.
1838:, as you feared yourself on your talk page. By all means report me - a block would at least get me out of this utter foolishness. I do want to help see this bouncy rail cart through to a professional CDA proposal, but I don't
1361:
detail changes. Getting things in is often a jolt. The 'catch 22' for me was that I would have had to make about 5 proposals to lay up acheiving what I wanted. Of course, I'll accept any detail/copy changes you want to make.
1578:
There is also a newly-added passage called "The following terms and restrictions also apply:" with three bullet points of its own. I propose that it be deleted. It is partly redundant, and partly a solution in search of a
691:
refreain from referring to this as "deadminship"? Using "de-adminship" shouldn't really be that difficult, and it avoids the issue that "deadminship" often reads as something like "dead man ship". Thank you for your
2554:
that time, it won't be me, and I won't like it. Yes, let's discuss in between, that's all I'm saying, but let's do it with an understanding that there has to be a resolution. We're very close to that resolution now.
1170:<-- Stale? Either they were signed by editors with 3 months and 500 edits standing within 7 days, or they were not. Either remove, or please clarify what this means and when it would apply? Thanks (NJA) --: -->
1229:
I've re-worded it. This really isn't so difficult. You can't have a failed nomination sitting around for months waiting for a tenth editor to finally show up, if the first nine editors have lost interest.
512:
Repeated resubmissions of failed RfDA's may result in measures taken to protect the project from repeated frivolous submissions that may include, but are not limited to, suspension of editing privileges.
1107:
The language appears to have been restored, quite appropriately. There is no consensus to remove the sysop right from inactive accounts and CDA should not be an end run around this general principle.
946:
OK - thanks. It is not that you need "permission" to make changes as that very shortly prior to an RfC it is pretty crazy for a previously fairly stable page to undergo large and undiscussed changes.
817:
I've moved the relevant blocked user detail into the Nomination section, and added the various proviso's there. And I've pointed the detail on blocked users (etc) in the section below to point to it.
1601:
duplicated). I don't understand how you can just assume the 'community' is behind the all existing wording-- most people couldn't even read it - and that's an absolute fact. It HAS to be readable.
1380:
It sure seems to me, as it has for some time now, that Matt's agenda for Cda has grown increasingly unilateral and disruptive. The entire Cda process is in danger of collapse, in my view.
2439:
2378:
2286:
2203:
1489:
2536:
to put it forward before that date. I'm sure there are things we can discuss in between, and really - who knows about dates right now anyway? We need to be very careful and cautious.
407:
11: No serious opposition (although little support for) adding: "without the permission of the Arbitration Committee or another person or group empowered to lift those restrictions."
466:
In all but the most extreme cases, there should be a demonstrable pattern of repeated unacceptable behaviors, not just a single incident. Processes like this one usually result in
241:
1707:
sensible way to do it I think), one bullet is information on a blocked editors, in the place people would actually expect it to be (instead of in brackets in the section below).
2199:
415:
15 Limited support for "Parties to the CDA process may legitimately contact other editors to provide input, but must at all times do so in strict accordance with WP:CANVASS."
2481:
I stongly object to this, and I think it's been done for all the wrong reasons. There are serious matters we simply havent resolved yet. It is done when it is done! There is
2244:
Saying all this, if it's a concern then we can discuss it, but regionalisms and telling people outcomes will backfire spectacularly and such is not policy guidance language.
1812:
reversion, my reasoning is it is easier for the reader to not have to search for another section to find out what is being said. And, again, it was the existing language. --
208:
2192:
152:
administrators. I suggest gradually (very gradually) inviting other people over to look at this, and make any necessary tweaks before making it more widely known.
1192:
As answered also at my talk: they become "stale" after 7 days. There are 7 days to collect the signatures for nomination, and after that, one has to sign again. --
1573:" at the end. I propose that it be retained. There was no need to delete it, and it clearly reflects the wishes of the editors who have been commenting all along.
1279:
Regarding the new section formatting - it is largely for the RfC. The section headings (ie the '='s) can be reduced if need be, if the CDA proposal gets through.
1293:
Yes- I undid all that as I neither support the changes nor could make any clear sense of the diff. Better to suggest changes first and avoid these large diffs.
2366:
Note that the purpose of this process is to address the core issue of whether the community as a whole does or does not trust the administrator to have the
2360:
So, for those without a scorecard, here are, as of the present, the two alternative wordings under consideration. NJA's wording, currently on the page, is:
1808:
sets of language, indicating the areas of disagreement, and discussing it to decide which to use. You can still see both in the link just above. And about
237:
1785:
to the version that shows both sets of language, with both labeled as needing to be discussed, before Matt edit warred it to his preferred version. --
1562:
212:
2387:
Note that nominations that do not focus on the core issue of whether the community as a whole does or does not trust the administrator to have the
602:
457:
Consider that nominations that do not address the core issue of whether the community as a whole does or does not trust the account to have the
279:
1959:
have been seriously disputed in terms of representing consensus) – but much of the general content I really do not think represents anything.
1166:
all have signed the nomination personally, within the 7 day period. 'Stale' signatures are invalid, and must be re-signed to be made valid."
685:
OK, this is probably slightly off topic, for which I apologize, but I have a heartfelt request to make of all "listeners" here. Could people
236:
This initial process is now complete and the next step will most likely involved the creation of a next step here under a page title such as
17:
360:
606:
126:
125:
I'm a relatively new admin., but I have no objections to this. I left a note for Uncle G., that you/we may want to list this over at:
2103:
If we are using that 'template', I'm going to add it to 80% as my last edit tonight. Whatever happens, it certainly can't be ignored.
116:
2396:
scrutiny of all involved parties. The bright light you are about to shine on a particular administrator will reflect on you as well.
470:
scrutiny of all involved parties. The bright light you are about to shine on a particular administrator will reflect on you as well.
2147:
Two people shouldn't decide what is and what is not a current issue. While I do not agree with Mr Lewis on some things (as noted
2137:
2078:
1688:
1651:
1350:
1304:
1034:
957:
901:
736:
670:
654:
628:
582:
545:
392:
319:
255:
226:
179:
1422:
with them. You have actually made a large amount of copy edits of your own now. I think I deserve a little more common respect.
2202:. I don't see it discussed below, and I remain concerned, as I indicated at my talk yesterday, that it goes against discussion
55:
to ArbCom. The requirement of 10 editors in good standing is a high enough threshold to avoid frivolous or malicious requests.
2276:
Thanks again, and I appreciate the prompt reply. Actually, amid all the prompt replying, you have probably by now seen that I
215:. I hope this is self-explanatory. Please feel free to amend or comment. No idea if it has legs, but I think its worth a try.
1484:
I've just now noticed that someone deleted a word from the section on canvassing, and I've added it back. Please note that
32:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2336:
Actually no, I was the one who asked Brad about it to begin with, and I made some of the changes myself.) Thanks again. --
269:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
643:
Not clear to me what this was intended to amend. Perhaps a default statement about using standard RfA procedures needed?
1111:
64:
1263:
1) I removed all reference to "of good standing" regarding the 10 editors, per the emerging draft page talk consensus.
871:
I think Speedy closure is better in its own section. It will need clarifying though, if it's not made good already.
101:
2320:
2260:
2172:
1523:
1007:
931:
853:
801:
768:
531:
2442:
and no one complained that it was colloquial, predictive, or blunt. Ultimately, NJA's language differs in being
2381:, but modified now by me to account for some of the simple copyedit type issues about which NJA and I agree is:
1488:
does not allow one to contact other editors to provide specific input, and please note the previous discussion
461:
right will likely fail, and possibly backfire spectacularly. Determining that is the purpose of this process.
2564:
2545:
2529:
2511:
2495:
2475:
2455:
2429:
2411:
2345:
2329:
2298:
2269:
2215:
2181:
2142:
2112:
2098:
2083:
2044:
1905:
1881:
1866:
1851:
1821:
1794:
1776:
1762:
1747:
1730:
1721:
anything. The old edit very was hard to read, and no way sacrosanct. We have to give each other some space.
1693:
1671:
1656:
1610:
1592:
1547:
1532:
1501:
1469:
1446:
1431:
1415:
1399:
1384:
1370:
1355:
1333:
1309:
1288:
1239:
1224:
1201:
1183:
1148:
1129:
1114:
1108:
1101:
1068:
1054:
1039:
1016:
985:
962:
940:
906:
880:
862:
826:
810:
777:
741:
720:
675:
633:
587:
550:
397:
324:
291:
260:
231:
197:
184:
161:
145:
120:
105:
83:
69:
56:
46:
2304:
with international speakers of English. Anyhow, let's point out the differences and see what people think.
2148:
2486:
patience. The criticism of 'railroading' is ever-present, and is always teetering on the brink of truth.
2285:
would pass muster with your analysis either, but this is the right way to say it, I think, as did others
97:
2371:
in intense scrutiny of all involved parties, thus realize that your conduct may be questioned as well.
2241:
let's get to the point of the sentence without odd language, ie your conduct will be considered too.
2560:
2541:
2525:
2491:
2471:
2451:
2425:
2407:
2341:
2294:
2211:
2132:
2108:
2094:
2073:
2040:
1901:
1877:
1862:
1847:
1817:
1790:
1772:
1758:
1743:
1726:
1683:
1667:
1646:
1606:
1588:
1543:
1497:
1465:
1442:
1427:
1411:
1395:
1366:
1345:
1329:
1299:
1284:
1235:
1220:
1197:
1179:
1144:
1125:
1097:
1064:
1050:
1029:
981:
952:
896:
876:
822:
731:
665:
649:
623:
577:
540:
387:
314:
298:
250:
221:
174:
138:
112:
2089:
Thank you! From my perspective, the issues are what I said at the very top of this talk section. --
157:
79:
304:
The following are the results from the Draft RfC discussion as at 11:45 am GMT on 9 January 2010.
716:
597:
Suggestion and general agreement that wording be tightened: "A CDA request may be initiated only
192:
42:
2507:
1485:
92:
74:
I'd be happy for this to be in place - if I do something outrageous, I should be recallable
1677:
bullet points but if you can muster a cogent argument for them I will be happy to read it.
1624:
Before nomination: "note of Dispute resolution" - I don't think this needs a capital 'D'.
2556:
2537:
2521:
2487:
2467:
2447:
2421:
2403:
2337:
2290:
2207:
2127:
2104:
2090:
2068:
2036:
1897:
1873:
1858:
1843:
1813:
1786:
1768:
1754:
1739:
1722:
1678:
1663:
1641:
1602:
1584:
1539:
1493:
1461:
1438:
1423:
1407:
1406:
no reason to conclude that anything is collapsing. The sky has not fallen, nor will it. --
1391:
1362:
1340:
1325:
1294:
1280:
1231:
1216:
1193:
1175:
1140:
1121:
1093:
1060:
1046:
1024:
977:
947:
891:
872:
818:
726:
660:
644:
618:
572:
535:
382:
309:
245:
216:
169:
133:
1087:
Active and inactive admin: is CDA for both, just active ones, or should it leave it open?
446:
and you believe the conditions listed there have been met, they should be reported there.
51:
I also support this. The community needs a way to remove adminship without having to go
2152:
1662:
See my above comment. And please AGF in the sense of reading the changes thoughtfully.
1276:
I actually don't mind if little like this is there at all, but I put it in to work on.
287:
153:
75:
2191:
Let me draw attention, particularly MacDui's, to what's smoldering near the bottom of
2313:
2253:
2165:
1835:
1767:
Matt, you are now in violation of 3RR. I suggest that you self-revert immediately. --
1569:
You will see a bullet point that I added back, after it had been deleted, that says "
1516:
1453:
1381:
1000:
924:
846:
794:
761:
702:
525:
443:
439:
111:
above (btw ty for writing that out!) and feel this is a step in the right direction.
88:
38:
1390:
Please make these childish comments on my talk page. I'm growing tired of them now.
37:
I support this, but expect a lot of opposition once the admins find out about it. --
2503:
1896:. It was that I wanted, and want, to preserve what so many editors have vetted. --
890:
think can be usefully put back. I'll also take a look at the questions you raise.
2198:
Now let me return to the specific issue being discussed here. I note NJA made
911:
I didn't realise there was a big change before I edited. I re-added a few of
491:
be discussed first with that administrator, and then via the normal channels
2518:
Tryptofish's All-Purpose and Absolutely Brilliant Law of How Knowledge Works
1492:, where you need to read carefully what it says under oppose and neutral. --
283:
1636:
specifically ask the 'crats to discuss and if necessary amend the wording.
377:"Instead, allow for more discussion and not simple bulleted !votes." This
2305:
2245:
2157:
1508:
992:
916:
838:
786:
753:
521:
507:
I would like to see wording at the end of the notice along the lines of:
1627:"may not be subject to Arbitration enforcement editing restrictions" - "
366:
Unless there is a reason for it I (MacDui) suggest removing the tildes.
1618:
Good work - things are not quite as chaotic as I feared. A few points:
463:
If this is not the issue in your case then you are in the wrong place.
242:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall#The way forward?
168:
but I think you will find that there are many who support the idea.
2282:
568:
Discussion about the conflict between nominations and WP:CANVASS.
381:
shows how I addressed this issue. Needs a few more eyes I think.
498:
third opinion, mediation, request for comment, and arbitration."
1266:
2) I added this parag per NewYorkBrad's (and others) concerns:
438:
Mild or one-time only incivility should instead be reported to
601:
substantial community discussion at a suitable venue, such as
1260:
in one go. Most were cosmetic, but two were very important.
1159:
RE: "When a nomination is made by 10 editors, those editors:
480:
I regard the following as a friendly amendment to the above:
476:
Tighten wording regarding prior discussion with administrator
617:...after say 5 CDAs. Done, although I made up the wording.
915:
clarifications, leaving out the other contested changes.
1827:
1809:
1800:
1782:
1321:
1317:
1257:
378:
571:
On re-reading I don't think this requires any action.
1460:
to have those various copy and content changes made.
1621:First mention of "Stewards" could do with a link.
2502:We've got the time & the space, let's use it.
2377:The wording that I favor, based on the discussion
2402:What do other editors, with fresh eyes, think? --
659:11:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Small changes added.
1320:, and this is the diff of NJA's edit after mine
503:Tighten wording regarding multiple resubmissions
209:Knowledge:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall
2193:Knowledge talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
278:As per the meta-meta discussion at what is now
8:
348:The only proposal with genuine support was
334:Proposal 3: Community Support for changing:
517:Wording, of course, is open to suggestion.
306:These changes have been all been addressed
370:Possible outcomes short of full desysoping
359:More on this subject needs to go into the
238:Knowledge:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
1842:to have to deal with all this nonsense.
609:, has failed to produce a resolution."
433:Dispute resolution or other discussions:
1252:Tidy and significant safeguard changes
1174:Yes, what makes the signatures stale?
2289:. Let's see what others think now. --
1059:Broadly, I agree with MacDui here. --
603:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard
18:Knowledge talk:Community de-adminship
7:
1507:I'm not too bothered by it. Cheers,
752:needs added or clarified there, no?
693:
442:. If the administrator is listed at
361:Knowledge:Community de-adminship/FAQ
28:The following discussion is closed.
991:confusion regarding blocked users.
607:Knowledge:Requests for comment/User
127:Knowledge:WikiProject Administrator
1826:I think your language betrays you
534:) about positioning of final one.
423:These specifics received support.
308:prior to going to the RfC itself.
24:
2550:If anyone makes it fall together
428:Under "What this process is not":
694:
484:"Disputes with an administrator
351:5.4 Add to the current wording:
265:The discussion above is closed.
1872:regarding the sanction stuff.
560:Suggestion to spell this out.
363:currently under construction.
213:Talk:WikiProject Administrator
1:
837:one clear statement? Cheers,
444:Administrators open to recall
340:to "not longer than 7 days".
292:02:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
261:19:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
198:06:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
2565:23:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
2546:23:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
2530:23:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
2512:23:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
2496:23:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
2476:23:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
2456:20:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
2430:23:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
2412:19:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
2346:19:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
2330:19:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
2299:19:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
2270:18:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
2216:17:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
2182:09:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
2143:09:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
2113:00:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
2099:23:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
2084:23:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
2045:00:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
1906:22:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1882:22:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1867:22:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1852:22:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1822:21:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1795:21:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1777:21:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1763:21:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1748:21:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1731:21:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1694:21:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1672:20:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1657:20:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1611:20:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1593:20:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1548:20:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
1533:13:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
1502:21:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
1470:00:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
1447:20:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1432:20:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1416:18:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1400:20:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1385:18:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1371:11:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1356:10:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1334:10:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1310:09:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1289:01:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1240:20:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1225:20:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1202:19:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1184:12:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1149:19:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1130:19:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1115:18:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1102:15:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1069:19:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1055:11:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1040:10:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
1017:10:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
986:10:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
963:10:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
941:09:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
907:09:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
881:12:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
863:09:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
827:13:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
811:09:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
778:09:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
742:18:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
721:00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
676:18:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
613:Proactively scheduled review
325:18:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
232:19:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
185:19:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
1556:After the most recent edits
634:16:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
588:16:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
551:15:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
398:16:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
162:08:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
146:05:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
121:00:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
106:05:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
84:12:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
70:01:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
47:18:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2583:
747:Statement on blocked users
453:Under "Before nomination":
556:Reasons for speedy close
267:Please do not modify it.
30:Please do not modify it.
2461:Goal for finishing talk
593:Before a CDA nomination
564:Certification vs Quorum
1828:in your comments above
53:running to our parents
1629:needs to be discussed
1571:needs to be discussed
725:Quite agree myself.
344:Concrete percentages
1256:I made a number of
520:All done. Will ask
403:Clarify restoration
2392:usually result in
2230:english speakers.
1538:Good, resolved. --
1109:Christopher Parham
31:
2327:
2267:
2179:
1530:
1014:
938:
860:
808:
785:edit threshold).
775:
440:Wikiquette Alerts
374:Support for 8.2
196:
144:
119:
29:
2574:
2312:
2252:
2164:
2140:
2135:
2130:
2081:
2076:
2071:
1799:With respect to
1691:
1686:
1681:
1654:
1649:
1644:
1515:
1480:About canvassing
1353:
1348:
1343:
1307:
1302:
1297:
1155:Stale signatures
1037:
1032:
1027:
999:
960:
955:
950:
923:
904:
899:
894:
845:
793:
760:
739:
734:
729:
717:talk to Ohms law
699:
698:
697:
681:Language request
673:
668:
663:
657:
652:
647:
631:
626:
621:
585:
580:
575:
548:
543:
538:
513:
497:
490:
471:
447:
419:Improve language
395:
390:
385:
322:
317:
312:
258:
253:
248:
229:
224:
219:
195:
182:
177:
172:
143:
141:
130:
115:
67:
63:
59:
2582:
2581:
2577:
2576:
2575:
2573:
2572:
2571:
2463:
2358:
2138:
2133:
2128:
2079:
2074:
2069:
1689:
1684:
1679:
1652:
1647:
1642:
1558:
1482:
1351:
1346:
1341:
1305:
1300:
1295:
1254:
1157:
1089:
1035:
1030:
1025:
958:
953:
948:
902:
897:
892:
834:
832:Speedy closures
749:
737:
732:
727:
695:
683:
671:
666:
661:
655:
650:
645:
641:
629:
624:
619:
615:
595:
583:
578:
573:
566:
558:
546:
541:
536:
511:
495:
488:
465:
437:
421:
413:
405:
393:
388:
383:
372:
346:
332:
320:
315:
310:
302:
276:
271:
270:
256:
251:
246:
227:
222:
217:
205:
180:
175:
170:
139:
131:
113:KillerChihuahua
65:
61:
57:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2580:
2578:
2570:
2569:
2568:
2567:
2515:
2514:
2499:
2498:
2462:
2459:
2400:
2399:
2398:
2397:
2375:
2374:
2373:
2372:
2357:
2354:
2353:
2352:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2323:
2318:
2310:
2263:
2258:
2250:
2227:
2226:
2225:
2224:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2196:
2189:
2175:
2170:
2162:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2115:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1934:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1797:
1779:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1638:
1637:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1581:
1580:
1575:
1574:
1563:the nominators
1557:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1526:
1521:
1513:
1481:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1403:
1402:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1274:
1273:
1253:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1187:
1186:
1168:
1167:
1156:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1088:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1010:
1005:
997:
968:
967:
966:
965:
944:
934:
929:
921:
886:
885:
884:
883:
856:
851:
843:
833:
830:
815:
814:
804:
799:
791:
771:
766:
758:
748:
745:
700:
692:understanding.
682:
679:
640:
637:
614:
611:
594:
591:
565:
562:
557:
554:
515:
514:
505:
504:
500:
499:
478:
477:
473:
472:
455:
449:
448:
430:
420:
417:
412:
409:
404:
401:
371:
368:
357:
356:
345:
342:
331:
328:
301:
295:
275:
274:Reorganization
272:
264:
204:
201:
165:
164:
35:
26:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2579:
2566:
2562:
2558:
2553:
2549:
2548:
2547:
2543:
2539:
2534:
2533:
2532:
2531:
2527:
2523:
2519:
2513:
2509:
2505:
2501:
2500:
2497:
2493:
2489:
2484:
2480:
2479:
2478:
2477:
2473:
2469:
2460:
2458:
2457:
2453:
2449:
2445:
2441:
2436:
2432:
2431:
2427:
2423:
2418:
2414:
2413:
2409:
2405:
2395:
2390:
2386:
2385:
2384:
2383:
2382:
2380:
2369:
2365:
2364:
2363:
2362:
2361:
2355:
2347:
2343:
2339:
2334:
2333:
2332:
2331:
2326:
2324:
2321:
2319:
2317:
2314:
2311:
2309:
2306:
2302:
2301:
2300:
2296:
2292:
2288:
2284:
2279:
2275:
2274:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2266:
2264:
2261:
2259:
2257:
2254:
2251:
2249:
2246:
2242:
2239:
2238:
2231:
2217:
2213:
2209:
2205:
2201:
2197:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2178:
2176:
2173:
2171:
2169:
2166:
2163:
2161:
2158:
2154:
2150:
2146:
2145:
2144:
2141:
2136:
2131:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2114:
2110:
2106:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2096:
2092:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2082:
2077:
2072:
2046:
2042:
2038:
2033:
2032:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2027:
2026:
2025:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2020:
2019:
2018:
2017:
2016:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1988:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1957:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1914:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1890:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1802:
1798:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1778:
1774:
1770:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1695:
1692:
1687:
1682:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1655:
1650:
1645:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1630:
1625:
1622:
1619:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1577:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1564:
1555:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1529:
1527:
1524:
1522:
1520:
1517:
1514:
1512:
1509:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1479:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1383:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1354:
1349:
1344:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1308:
1303:
1298:
1291:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1277:
1272:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1264:
1261:
1259:
1251:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1165:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1137:
1136:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1113:
1110:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1086:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1038:
1033:
1028:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1013:
1011:
1008:
1006:
1004:
1001:
998:
996:
993:
989:
988:
987:
983:
979:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
964:
961:
956:
951:
945:
943:
942:
937:
935:
932:
930:
928:
925:
922:
920:
917:
914:
910:
909:
908:
905:
900:
895:
888:
887:
882:
878:
874:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
859:
857:
854:
852:
850:
847:
844:
842:
839:
831:
829:
828:
824:
820:
813:
812:
807:
805:
802:
800:
798:
795:
792:
790:
787:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
774:
772:
769:
767:
765:
762:
759:
757:
754:
746:
744:
743:
740:
735:
730:
723:
722:
718:
714:
713:
709:
705:
690:
689:
680:
678:
677:
674:
669:
664:
658:
653:
648:
639:"All editors"
638:
636:
635:
632:
627:
622:
612:
610:
608:
604:
600:
592:
590:
589:
586:
581:
576:
569:
563:
561:
555:
553:
552:
549:
544:
539:
533:
530:
527:
523:
518:
510:
509:
508:
502:
501:
494:
487:
483:
482:
481:
475:
474:
469:
464:
460:
456:
454:
451:
450:
445:
441:
434:
431:
429:
426:
425:
424:
418:
416:
410:
408:
402:
400:
399:
396:
391:
386:
380:
375:
369:
367:
364:
362:
354:
353:
352:
349:
343:
341:
338:
335:
329:
327:
326:
323:
318:
313:
307:
300:
296:
294:
293:
289:
285:
281:
273:
268:
263:
262:
259:
254:
249:
243:
240:. Please see
239:
234:
233:
230:
225:
220:
214:
210:
202:
200:
199:
194:
193:Seraphimblade
188:
186:
183:
178:
173:
163:
159:
155:
150:
149:
148:
147:
142:
136:
135:
128:
123:
122:
118:
114:
108:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
86:
85:
81:
77:
72:
71:
68:
60:
54:
49:
48:
44:
40:
33:
19:
2551:
2517:
2516:
2482:
2464:
2443:
2434:
2433:
2416:
2415:
2401:
2393:
2388:
2376:
2367:
2359:
2328:
2325:
2315:
2307:
2277:
2268:
2265:
2255:
2247:
2243:
2236:
2235:
2232:
2228:
2180:
2177:
2167:
2159:
2065:
1955:
1912:
1893:
1888:
1839:
1831:
1805:
1781:Here is the
1639:
1628:
1626:
1623:
1620:
1617:
1582:
1570:
1559:
1531:
1528:
1518:
1510:
1483:
1457:
1404:
1379:
1292:
1278:
1275:
1270:
1265:
1262:
1255:
1169:
1163:
1158:
1090:
1015:
1012:
1002:
994:
939:
936:
926:
918:
912:
861:
858:
848:
840:
835:
816:
809:
806:
796:
788:
776:
773:
763:
755:
750:
724:
711:
707:
703:
687:
686:
684:
642:
616:
598:
596:
570:
567:
559:
528:
519:
516:
506:
492:
485:
479:
467:
462:
458:
452:
432:
427:
422:
414:
406:
376:
373:
365:
358:
350:
347:
339:
336:
333:
305:
303:
297:Update from
277:
266:
235:
206:
189:
166:
132:
124:
109:
87:
73:
52:
50:
36:
27:
2356:Most recent
207:Please see
2557:Tryptofish
2538:Matt Lewis
2522:Tryptofish
2488:Matt Lewis
2468:Tryptofish
2448:Tryptofish
2422:Matt Lewis
2404:Tryptofish
2338:Tryptofish
2291:Tryptofish
2208:Tryptofish
2105:Matt Lewis
2091:Tryptofish
2037:Matt Lewis
1898:Tryptofish
1874:Matt Lewis
1859:Tryptofish
1844:Matt Lewis
1814:Tryptofish
1787:Tryptofish
1769:Tryptofish
1755:Matt Lewis
1740:Tryptofish
1723:Matt Lewis
1664:Matt Lewis
1603:Matt Lewis
1585:Tryptofish
1540:Tryptofish
1494:Tryptofish
1486:WP:CANVASS
1462:Matt Lewis
1439:Tryptofish
1424:Matt Lewis
1408:Tryptofish
1392:Matt Lewis
1363:Matt Lewis
1326:Matt Lewis
1281:Matt Lewis
1232:Tryptofish
1217:Matt Lewis
1194:Tryptofish
1176:Matt Lewis
1141:Matt Lewis
1122:Tryptofish
1094:Matt Lewis
1061:Tryptofish
1047:Matt Lewis
978:Matt Lewis
873:Matt Lewis
819:Matt Lewis
411:Canvassing
280:/Archive 2
93:WP:CANVASS
2200:this edit
330:Publicity
203:Draft RfC
154:Fritzpoll
76:Fritzpoll
2435:Comment:
2417:Comment:
1579:problem.
1382:Jusdafax
532:contribs
299:WT:CDADR
187:(admin)
89:Apoc2400
39:Apoc2400
2504:GoodDay
2394:intense
2153:WP:BOLD
1258:changes
496:such as
468:intense
98:Manning
66:Windows
2552:before
2283:m:DICK
1836:WP:OWN
1832:at all
1454:WP:OWN
1112:(talk)
688:please
486:should
117:Advice
58:Fences
2444:nicer
2389:sysop
2368:sysop
599:after
459:sysop
62:&
16:<
2561:talk
2542:talk
2526:talk
2508:talk
2492:talk
2472:talk
2452:talk
2440:here
2426:talk
2408:talk
2379:here
2342:talk
2295:talk
2287:here
2212:talk
2204:here
2149:here
2109:talk
2095:talk
2041:talk
1913:very
1902:talk
1878:talk
1863:talk
1848:talk
1840:want
1818:talk
1810:this
1806:both
1801:this
1791:talk
1783:link
1773:talk
1759:talk
1744:talk
1727:talk
1668:talk
1607:talk
1589:talk
1544:talk
1498:talk
1490:here
1466:talk
1443:talk
1428:talk
1412:talk
1396:talk
1367:talk
1330:talk
1322:here
1318:here
1285:talk
1236:talk
1221:talk
1198:talk
1180:talk
1164:must
1145:talk
1126:talk
1098:talk
1065:talk
1051:talk
982:talk
877:talk
823:talk
526:talk
489:must
379:diff
288:talk
284:Gigs
211:and
158:talk
134:Ched
102:talk
80:talk
43:talk
2483:not
2316:(t/
2308:NJA
2278:did
2256:(t/
2248:NJA
2237:but
2168:(t/
2160:NJA
2139:Dui
2134:Mac
2129:Ben
2080:Dui
2075:Mac
2070:Ben
1956:was
1894:you
1889:are
1690:Dui
1685:Mac
1680:Ben
1653:Dui
1648:Mac
1643:Ben
1519:(t/
1511:NJA
1458:had
1352:Dui
1347:Mac
1342:Ben
1316:is
1306:Dui
1301:Mac
1296:Ben
1036:Dui
1031:Mac
1026:Ben
1003:(t/
995:NJA
959:Dui
954:Mac
949:Ben
927:(t/
919:NJA
903:Dui
898:Mac
893:Ben
849:(t/
841:NJA
797:(t/
789:NJA
764:(t/
756:NJA
738:Dui
733:Mac
728:Ben
672:Dui
667:Mac
662:Ben
656:Dui
651:Mac
646:Ben
630:Dui
625:Mac
620:Ben
605:or
584:Dui
579:Mac
574:Ben
547:Dui
542:Mac
537:Ben
522:Avi
394:Dui
389:Mac
384:Ben
321:Dui
316:Mac
311:Ben
257:Dui
252:Mac
247:Ben
228:Dui
223:Mac
218:Ben
181:Dui
176:Mac
171:Ben
2563:)
2555:--
2544:)
2528:)
2510:)
2494:)
2474:)
2454:)
2428:)
2410:)
2344:)
2322:c)
2297:)
2262:c)
2214:)
2174:c)
2111:)
2097:)
2043:)
1904:)
1880:)
1865:)
1857:--
1850:)
1820:)
1793:)
1775:)
1761:)
1746:)
1729:)
1670:)
1609:)
1591:)
1583:--
1565:.
1546:)
1525:c)
1500:)
1468:)
1445:)
1437:--
1430:)
1414:)
1398:)
1369:)
1332:)
1287:)
1238:)
1230:--
1223:)
1200:)
1182:)
1147:)
1128:)
1120:--
1100:)
1067:)
1053:)
1009:c)
984:)
933:c)
913:my
879:)
855:c)
825:)
803:c)
770:c)
719:)
710:*
706:=
701:—
493:of
290:)
244:.
160:)
140:?
137::
104:)
82:)
45:)
2559:(
2540:(
2524:(
2506:(
2490:(
2470:(
2450:(
2424:(
2406:(
2340:(
2293:(
2210:(
2107:(
2093:(
2039:(
1900:(
1876:(
1861:(
1846:(
1816:(
1789:(
1771:(
1757:(
1742:(
1725:(
1666:(
1605:(
1587:(
1542:(
1496:(
1464:(
1441:(
1426:(
1410:(
1394:(
1365:(
1328:(
1283:(
1234:(
1219:(
1196:(
1178:(
1143:(
1124:(
1096:(
1063:(
1049:(
980:(
875:(
821:(
715:(
712:R
708:I
704:V
529:·
524:(
286:(
156:(
100:(
78:(
41:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.