Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 60

733:

being a registered user. If this were a vote, any registered account would cast a vote and that would have to count, and the only possibility of it being discounted would have to be sockpuppetry (because it would be the same individual voting twice). But that's not how it works (or at least how it can work) on RfA: a user's participation may be discounted in the end for various reasons, such as a user's history of disturbing Knowledge (e.g.:WP:POINT issues). We often flag participating accounts that were created in the same day as they have supported/opposed a candidate, or accounts with only a handful of edits that suddenly find their way to an RfA. That's not how it works in a vote: if you have, for instance, a minimum age, it doesn't matter if the individual's birthday is on the very day of the vote, it can not be discounted because of that. Besides, in a true vote rationales are not relevant, since the percentage of support votes cast is really all that counts. To make a parallel with a very recent issue here on RfA, in a true vote it is perfectly possible to refuse a candidate because you have issues with his ethnicity or his religion (I'm talking about the reasons for voting: in most democracies, no one can be barred from

1500:

there. After he becomes an admin, he will realize how powerless admins are. He will either have the option of taking the janitorial route (which I think isn't what he looked for) or try to force POV in an article. Even the latter would be difficult in popular articles and since disputable content is added after discussion based on merits, he will feel powerless. He couldn't even block those who oppose him as most regular users know their way to ANI or some other experienced user. All he can do is bite the newcomers; again a risky thing to do. Overall, I think he will refrain from using it wrongly for the fear of losing admin power for something so cheap. What I feel is that he will leave Wikpedia as a satisfied user having satisfied his "ego" or just save it for the rainy days (i.e. some eventuality that actually would never arise), in which case he will need to keep coming back doing some serious edits. Hence, anyway it won't harm Knowledge. If we can get 2,000 good edits per account in return of boosting a person's ego, is it really such a bad deal? I think we should welcome more COLINs. :D -

1038:

extremely strong and well reasoned. But that doesn't happen either, even though I maintain that it would be right to promote if it does. Whenever there is less than 75% support there really are always substantial, well reasoned opposition comments. And I think the community has fairly clearly spoken that the less than the threshhold promotions weren't the greatest in hindsight. There really is a decent difference between 75 and 80% if you're counting. 75 is 3 supports for every oppose and 80 is 4. And Blnguyen I take it you were referring to the less than 75% supports being promoted, because freestylefrappe was in that category if I recall and there have been quite a number of people passed within the 75-80% range. And there I go talking all about numbers when that isn't what it needs to be about. It's about can the candidate be trusted to use the tools well and not abuse them. More well reasoned comments in the candidacies that make it clear the candidate has been well evaluated to determine if they can be trusted will always be given better weight. -

952:. The only such rule we have on RfA is that a person needs to be registered to participate. There are no limitations or predefinitions in terms of how experienced, well-versed, etc. a person needs to be in order to participate. In terms of building consensus, the community decides subjectively if a rationale should carry any weight, and be decisive for the outcome of the RfA. In a vote, every vote has the same weight: one person, one vote. In a vote, voters are not required to provide reasons for their position, it is a simple "yes" or "no" and then count the votes (be it a ballot cast or hands raised). In RfA, no one is required to provide a rationale either, but without it, that vote may loose importance, and, depending on the circumstances, even end up disconsidered. That can not happen in a vote. 2479:(feel free to edit that with more suggestions). I'd also suggest that we make an opportunity for the candidate to make a statement if he wishes, below the nomination, where the long Lorem Ipsum is in my example. As it is, the only way for a candidate to express himself when it's not a self-nom is in the questions, which are completely general, and yet specific, so the candidate can't just say what he wants. I'd hope that this statement by the candidate may eventually even phase out the automatic questions, and only direct questions would be asked. This would discourage things like " 979:

candidates for RfA, then yes, I would fail that RfA, numbers be damned, and I hope everyone else would to. But that just doesn't happen. People don't get 80% support in that situation because people do take others arguments into account. And to the extent that people take other's reasoning into account, that's what makes this different from a vote. Because that scenario doesn't happen and will remain hypothetical that means there just aren't that many situations where votes need to be discounted. Do we reserve the right to do so when needed though? Of course. -

3022:(edit conflict)I would not worry about XFA votes. Someone who has never written a featured article, yet votes in many FAs giving solid justifications for his votes, should get (hopefully) a support vote even from them. The same goes for someone who spends his time tidying up articles, if not developing them, or someone who has expanded an article following the guidelines from a stub into a GA one. Spend a week checking the FA nominations, and you will be able to pick up four or five names of extremely intelligent people who know about the matter. -- 2794:. I think this is a bad idea for several reasons: it gives the impression that the exact edit count matters, and it causes a lot of editing of an RFA, which is not just pointless but also a bit irritating to the people who have it on their watchlist. I just reverted one of those incidents, then I realised that I made the situation only worse (another pointless edit ;)) - but am I completely missing the point of having completely up to date edit counts here? It doesn't really help that the links that are provided with some of them look like this: 1004:

rebutt some of the opposes. Also there were about 8 "weak" opposes, longer impassioned please from supporters. Also the opposes where not due to fear of abuse, but rather redundancy. Also I suspect that Anwar's recommendation was likely ignored. As for any lower numerical cases of 'crat inervention, I don't think so - see the AzaToth case, which I now regret opposing - got about 73%, and the opposition was because he edited templates rather than the mainspace directly - which lead to the resignation of Francs2000.

31: 1630:

good idea (and Mathbot's stats checked less pags and therefore turned out to be even LESS fair). The user is a vandalfighter, and the reverts are marked as minor, among most of the other edits. With only a handful of edits not marked as minor, missing only 1-2 will cause a very low % for article edit summary use for major edits. Stats are useful for a lot of things, but this kind of stuff is starting to appear more than I'd like to see.

804:, I think you have hit the nail on the head with your comment. The community has not agreed on a clear set of criteria for admin. This vacuum makes it hard for the 'crats to eliminate votes unless they are practically an abuse of the system type vote. Even then the votes are not necessarily publicly set aside, especially if the candidate has a clear margin of support. The system looks more like a vote than it would otherwise. 693:(edit conflict) Contrary to a "real life" votation, here you can switch your vote on the fly several times based on other's opinions. It is not as "pure" consensus as FACs or AFDs, but it is a consensus between the "voters" and the "candidate", and between the voters themselves. I would not call it a pure votation because people is able to switch from oppose to support based on a personal consensus with the candidate. -- 1186:, but most importantly is their failure to understand that admins don't have much special force in content arguments. If an admin tries to POV push they will be opposed and fail to gain consensus. Admins are opposed in their article editing opinions all the time. Any admin that tries to throw their weight around to push a POV will be discovered and if attention is drawn to it as necessary they will be unsuccessful. - 2161:

that you belive would help improve the wiki because they dont 100% fit your hard and fast rules that is wrong, as is the opposite supporting an rfa when you believe they wont use there admin powers effetivley because they fit within your hard standards. Now personally i take great time in analysing someone before suporting or opposing an rfa and take great care not to be a pile on opposer here, consequently i dont

2717:

for that). Note that currently only two clicks (one on the TOC and another in the "Discuss here") are needed to cast a vote, and you can do that skipping discussions. If you remove the link, people would have to go to the RFA in "view" mode. That way they will have two opportunities to review (one at the RFA page, another at the candidate RFA) before they are able to edit the page to add their own vote. --

2035:

standards are, in fact, rising. (The other possibility is that the distribution of users is shifting as total numbers increase, and we're actually losing admin-worthy users faster than they're getting replaced from the pool of users still learning. I can see this happening enough to hold promotions steady rather than increasing, but I can see it actually decreasing them.) --

1868:

several candidates are being opposed because of a single incident in their entire WIki career. Combining this with the extremely high admin per article & non admin users that we have here at en.wiki, and the very big number of inactive admins, and I humbly believe that the current rate of successful RfAs is more or less appropriate to our needs. Just my 2 cents.

3052:

with Featured Articles, do not believe that being involved with at least one FA's rise to that status is essential for a solid candidate. If anyone wants to get involved with FAC, all the better. Absolutely go for it, we can always use more Featured Articles. But it is not a steppingstone for Adminship, and a candidate should not expect promotion

722:

the numerical result because they know it will cause a scandal - even passing on 76% (which the guildlines say is completely fine) causes problems (usually of the "if you passed him on 76%, why didn't you pass XYZ?" type). We need to give our buros more room to do their job - we selected them because we trusted them, so why don't we show it? --

1899:"Very ig number of inactive admins" appears to be just a myth, and one that I used to believe too. 89% of sysops are active (this month); I've anaylized the stats. Thats means there are about 840 active admins, if "active" mens "edited this month". 73% of admins are active if you define it as "edited 3 days ago at most". 709:

had b'crats tell me that no one over 80% (discounting socks and dupes) can fail RfA. With their hands so tied, it's hard to really buy that they're doing anything more than counting beans in RfAs not in the 75-80% range. Anyway most RfAs aren't in that range. And I don't really care about whether I'm popular or not :-) --

762:

when it obviously is. 6 months ago an RfA with 30 participants was average... now it hardly ever happens. In 6 more months, we might hardly ever see an RfA with under 100 participants. And I'm pretty sure it will blatently be a vote at that point (similar to the last Arbcom elections)... whether we like it or not. --

1120:

pass than other users; the personal cost of confronting another admin on rules violations is, unfortunately, often quite high. If we don't give admins who start to "correct the right-wing bias on Knowledge," or whatever other agenda, a free pass when they start breaking rules, then here's what'll happen:

966:

doubt you ever will. This is where RfA is a vote... because the person succeeded by getting enough votes, pure and simple. If we want RfA to not be a vote, we'd need to somehow give b'crats a lot more leeway in making decisions and weighing arguments... though I don't know if we actually want to do that.

2925:

I dunno. It's not like it's hard to get a nomination. You can go on IRC and mention you'd like one, and I'm sure someone will nominate you unless you have a lot of blocks or under 1,000 edits or something. How is that so much better than a self-nom? It's actually worse IMO... it's like you want to be

2726:

Thanks Durin. ReyBrujo: As of right now, the discuss here (which used to be vote here, before a bit of vandalism by me) is basically the only way to go to the RfA's page (AFAIK, since I hit the edit button then click on project page; is there another way?). Once the header is changed to link to the

2716:

It is either moving the discussion above the votation, or removing the "Discuss here" link. When you click it, you are taken to the RFA in "edit" mode, thus people find it easier to add their vote than read comments in raw wikitext (in fact, instead of "Discuss here" it should be "Vote here", exactly

2630:

I'm not a fan of collapsing sections for RFA, but Rory's suggestion is good. While we're at it can we have the header changed to link to the RFA rather than the candidates userpage? (I brought this up before and it seemed to get support, might as well put all changes together if it all gets support.)

2591:

I agree with most of what Rory has said. I reckon the first question that each candidate receives could be mentioned in a statement. We could have like some area which serves as a guideline and refers to what you should put in your introductory statement. The second and third questions are a bit more

915:

going to say that if there were set criteria, there'd be no need for a vote or discussion at all, since it'd just be a matter of if they pass the criteria. But I realized this isn't really true, cause there are set criteria for articles, and we still need AfD. (Though, to flip again, those are mostly

883:

Strongly disagree that no community-based criteria should exist. This leaves the possibility that some users are stating their opposition to a nom for the same reason that other users give for supporting the nom. The 'crats are left to either discount all voters that conflict one way or the other, or

739:

That being said, there is something that's quite accurate about Knowledge's inner workings: the more people we have willing to participate in the decision-making processes, the more those processes tend to approach a vote system. RfA is going through a similar instance: over the last year or so, the

732:

We have never denied that RfA has characteristics bearing a resemblance to a vote. But it is not really one. In a vote process, anyone who fulfills the criteria (enfranchisement) is allowed to cast one vote and have it count towards the final result. Our basic criterion for participation on RfA is

708:

Well that's what I'm saying. People (the very ones who say this isn't a vote) would be screaming for blood if a B'crat didn't promote a candidate with 100 support uh, comments, with no meaningful support arguments made, and 5 very compelling oppose comments. It's just not a possible outcome, and I've

593:

I know we're all votephobic here, but consider the definition of the word vote... "A formalized choice on matters of administration or other democratic activities" (Wiktionary), "a usually formal expression of opinion or will in response to a proposed decision; especially : one given as an indication

2412:

If you ask questions about policy, people will expect candidates to give the "right" answer, which basically means reading the relevant policy page and summarising it. Anyone can do that, it doesn't say anything about your understanding of the policy. It's like the question for buros about when to

2182:

So it sounds to me, from the above two comments, that some of the concerns are not that the standards are too high, but that they are misdirected, tending to only promote certain types of admins (vandal-fighters). I have noticed that combatting vandalism seems to be particularly emphasized in RfAs.

2160:

One thing im finding a bit dis-conserting are pepole applying hard rules as to wether someone gets there support or not, take for example the 1FA, sevral holes have alredy been pointed out in that theroy, im not saying an rfa regular having guidelines is a bad thing but when your opposing a candiate

1812:

We do need more admins, but I think that we will never get enough, as now that WP is a part of culture, we will get more dumps, and the increase in the number of dumpers will outstrip the increase in serious contributors at any rate. It will simply mean that the serious users and admins will have to

1712:

SCZenz is right. I was looking at WikiMedia statistics yesterday, the English Knowledge has one of the highest articles/admin ratios of all Wikipedias. It's something like 1588 articles for each admin, whereas other version among the top 10 versions have something like a 600 article per admin ratio.

1629:

I am kind of bothered that people are still voting stricly based on edit summary use, even though looking at the original stats, you can see why that may not be fair. I went further so as to analyze the stats in more detail and explain why using major article edit summary use alone may not be such a

1157:

If administrators were required to provide their identity to the Foundation confidentially, it would obviate this potential problem. I understand that anonymity has been a tenet of Knowledge but, by the time a user becomes an administrator, s/he should have sufficient trust in the organization so as

988:

What about the situation in the reverse ? Sam Vimes's RFA barely survived because some people thought that not warning the vandals is a major issue. IMNSHO, it is a frivolous excuse to oppose a prolific editor. All that was probably needed was getting an assurance from him that he would do so in the

968:

As for enfranchisement, I think we all know blocked users, those with <50 edits, and sockpuppets will always have their votes crossed out (if caught), I mean you're never going to see an RfA sunk because 5 people with no prior edits voted oppose, right? Even if these aren't written into policy...

721:

I think the main reason we say RfA isn't a vote is because not all opinions are treated equally. A badly explained vote by a newbie won't be given as strong a weighting as a well explained vote by a respected member of the community. The problem is that buros are generally too scared to go against

2366:

seem largely irrelevant to the process as they potentially could yield answers unrelated to Knowledge. Also, I believe it's wrong for people to support a candidate, but then still ask questions since clearly the answers to the questions have nothing to do with the vote. I wish people would only ask

1762:

Probably an indication that en.wiki is getting loaded with cruft and the like. Most people who would add questionable articles will just cruise in, put some stuff on their favourite band, their CDs, favourite computer games, and then leave again - whereas in the other wikis, they are less populated

1499:

Do we really need to bother if someone is trying to make his way to admin status. Just think about it...He will have to make atleast 2,000 non-minor edits to stand a chance at RfA. If someone did that, he certainly has helped Knowledge a lot, even if it is addition of stray names and dates here and

1262:

The funny thing is, if we made Colin an admin for a month and then took it away, and asked him to "earn" it back over the next few months, he'd probably decide to not bother to work for it, once he realized how little power an admin really has. (Let me know if I violated the official "admin secrecy

1228:

I think it's basically an information inclusion bias. As long as they have good sources to cite, either side can keep the negative information about their opponents in an article. And we have enough people on all sides of the spectrum to ensure that everyone gets smeared ;-). I find it amusing that

947:

What I was talking about the rules of enfranchisement in a real vote, and why RfA is not one: Those rules are set in advance, those who fulfill them have a right to vote, and to have that count towards the result; those who don't fulfill the requirements are denied from the start a right to vote.

823:

Also, any attempt to define hard criteria that can or can't be a valid vote just seems like a bad idea. The whole reason we have humans making decisions in the first place is because you really can't pin down in a checklist what makes a good administrator... each candidate is going to be different.

629:

a set amount required to pass, and that pure "votes" without reasoning may not be considered as strongly as elaboration. You're right that if an RfA gets 100 support votes, with no discussion at all, its still gonna pass, even if it has, say, 5 well reasoned opposers. (In general. It would be up to

2281:

Personally I think the extra questions way too often result in votes of the form, "I don't like or disagree with their answer to X so oppose". Opposes based on purely political issues like that are very bad, almost as bad as, oppose, less than x % of edits in my preferred namespace. Both amount to

1037:

Same Vimes RfA didn't barely survive. He had a large amount of strong, very well reasoned support, while most of the opposition was stated as weak. And no, I don't see a reason to promote on the low end of the threshold <75% unless there were no solid opposes at all and all of the supports were

1003:

I thought that the only other 75-80% that ever passed were Karmafist and Freestylefrappe and they were later impeached in very high-profile cases. So I'm guessing that Sam survived because he had two arbitrators (who typically avoid RfAs) and a bureaucrat write long support statements and tried to

936:

What we need to do is decide what types of arguements are valid (eg. can you oppose someone for insufficent portal talk edits?), RfA then decides if those arguements are true in this case, and if they outweigh the other true arguements. It's balancing things that should be the main job for people

578:

There are currently a number of close nominations. Please spend extra time looking into these candidates to discover if they can be trusted with the extra tools and give expanded reasoning as to why you think they should or should not be promoted so that a consensus can be developed. Thank you all

3051:

Just to clarify: active involvement in the FA process is a criterion that some users adopt in deciding on whether to support or oppose a candidate, but it is not a prerequisite for Adminship. Other users have said that they, on the opposite direction of those who place importance on involvement

2727:

RfA, it would be a lot easier to get there, so I guess it could be removed. Or maybe it should be moved down to where the poll is, next to where the tally is now, so people read the discussion before hitting discuss here (though they could always hit the section edit or edit this page buttons). --

2456:

I'm conflicted about the addition of a set of "standard" questions and/or whether nominees should feel obligated to answer "optional" questions. I felt that the optional questions asked during my RfA were very appropriate to why I wanted to become an admin (mainly to deal with images); however, I

2250:

Okay. I can't believe this didn't dawn on me prior to this evening, but better late than never. How is it that we don't have any standard questions on process or basic ideas surrounding consensus? Certainly, as an admin who'll be expected to close discussions, delete articles, and block users,

2045:

One thing to consider is that we don't promote many people who have been here under 4 months. So whenever there is a sudden surge in new members, we have to wait for a number of months before a bunch of users from that group are qualified to become admins. Right now, we are still mostly promoting

2034:

The number of users is clearly increasing. That would imply that the number of users meeting any given criteria is increasing, which would in turn imply that we should be promoting more admins. This is not happening, in fact the opposite is happening. The only reason I can see for that is that

1196:

Well, I haven't seen it personally, yet, but I would hope that an admin abusing their power to attempt to bypass policies would end up getting demoted before too long. On another note, do many people actually feel that Knowledge leans to the right? I'm an opinionated moderate, so I've found that

1119:

The key point is that we should rely on some people known a user and his contributions, and we should weigh question #3 very heavily; a user who's never had a conflict isn't a good admin candidate anyway. However, I think we also need to end the culture of giving our fellow admins more of a free

785:

The trouble with RfA is that the 'crat cannot decide for sure if an argument carries weight. If an oppose "vote" for a candidate with 2 months experience is "Not enough experience", the 'crat cannot decide on its own if the objection is valid or not (unlike XfDs where criteria exist and debate is

761:

But I do agree with your assertion that as the number of people involved in a debate increases, it tends to increasingly resemble a vote. That is definently something I've observed all over the project. I'm just unsure of the wisdom of trying to bury our heads in the sand and say it's not a vote,

1867:

I strongly disagree, dear George. I've been looking at old successful RfAs from October 05 til now, and the editcountitis has severely increased both in the quantity of edits required and the importance given to numbers by many voters. New objections have appeared, like Mailer Diablo's test, and

1790:

I concur with your analysis, but not the diagnosis. If other wikis have more committed users, there is less need for *fds, deletions, protects etc and by extension, less need for admins. If en.wiki is getting loaded with cruft, it calls for more, not less, intervention by admins and hence we are

1207:

I would hardly take that statement at face value. If anything, Knowledge has a politically negative and anti-establishment bias, by which I mean that it is much more inclined to report negative things that can be said about any politician than positive... then again, I think most politicians are

965:

My point is on how much discounting of votes actually happens. In a hypothetical RfA with 81% support from non-sockpuppets with substantial edit histories, are you ever going to see it fail because nearly all of the supports gave no reasoning whatsoever, while every oppose voter did? I seriously

276:

I think that RfA is from someone who doesn't fully understand the rules and customs of Knowledge, possibly a young person. The opposers seem to have all missed the point in that regard, and are piling on reasons to oppose, criticisms, and accusations of bad faith. I think this is sever, albeit

2388:

I don't know about others, but I don't ask questions to try to interrogate. I ask, such as in Alan's case, when I don't feel his required question answers give enough of an idea to decide on a vote. By asking more questions, it gives users a chance to explain themselves further. The subsequent

978:

It just doesn't happen that way. In an even more severe hypothetical situation with 80 some percent support where all the supports were weak support from very new editors and all of the opposes were well articulated and vehement opposition from longstanding editors with a history of evaluating

753:

I must disagree that various restrictions and disqualifications makes it cease to be a vote. In the US, felons are not allowed to vote in most situations, and people who registered incorrectly in any number of ways are also routinely denied a vote. Even people who forget to bring valid ID to a

598:

a vote. To call it purely a discussion is simply not accurate... it implies that vote-like qualities are not present. We can talk about consensus all day... but we still all know that 70% always fails and 90% always passes. That's about getting enough votes, and consensus is only an incidental

3107:

Morally I encourage people to self-nom once they're ready, but I find a lot of people who self-nom haven't assessed themselves according to the current RfA voting standards, so they aren't really "ready" yet, and hence more self-noms than other-noms get "thrashed". Per Blnguyen, no different

1665:

I know that is not a very desctiptive title, but I think RfA standards are dropping. I have noticed that everybody is becoming an admin. If that continues, the position "admin" will mean nothing because everybody will be one. I just have noticed that more people are voting support in rfa's.

2915:

Hunger for power is sometimes considered a bad thing. Other than that, a big part of Adminship (such as the power to block users) requires interaction with other users. If the Admin hasn't interacted with other users enough to be nominated by someone else, that's potentially a weakness.

948:

If you must be of a certain minimum age to vote, you will vote if you are at least that old, and if you aren't you will not vote. Picture this: if a vote system worked like RfA does, we could have people arriving at the pools and having the people who work there decide something like

1698:

It isn't supposed to be "mean something" except that we have confidence the user will use the tools for the good of the wiki. I don't believe our admin pool is growing faster than our number of users or our number of articles, either; if anything, I'd suspect it's growing slower. --

630:

the closing B, of course). A better example can be seen in AfD though, where there's generally only 10-20 people commenting - AfDs often go against the majority vote, because the other side has made compelling points based on policy - so the vote count isn't as relevant as that. -

2222:

RexNL got quite a few opposes for not doing anything else, but I think he work on the Dutch wiki was enough to counter that. Deskana, you might not of written many articles, but looking at your contribs, you're very active in the WP namespace. You don't just revert vandalism.

1931:

A lot of admins only use them if somebody "attacks their territory" - that's a bit of a problem as putting up rubbish which needs to be deleted isn't really attacking anyone's territory. The problem is not cleaning vandalism or blocking vandals, but mainly cleaning up rubbish

2926:

an admin so bad you'll fish around for a nomination just so you don't get oppose votes for a self-nom. I'd rather someone just be honest and nominate themself. Anyone who accepts a nomination obviously wants to be an admin anyway... so I don't see the power-hungry thing. --

2138:

From my experience there are a too many people manning the vandal bot output like VP and CDVF, but non-blatant vandalism is a problem due to not enough watchlisting. Also there is a general shortage of "investigators" who look out for hoax articles or examine articles for

2615:

This is a very good idea. It would make people have a closer look at the candidate before getting overwhelmed by the votings. Collapsing is also a good suggestion, and even if it doesn't work in all skins, if things appears correctly, there should not be any problem.

1955:) it seems clear that admin approvals are going down and rejections are going up right now. Over the history of the project it has gone in cycles, so at some point we may start cranking out admins again (like the record 67 admins that were promoted in December). 2344:

I completely agree, and the "optional" (but you get opposed if you don't answer them) generic additional questions are almost as bad. If someone wants something answered, they should ask a direct question, not tons of uselessly general stuff given to everyone.

786:

done on borderline cases). So unless the community comes up with a mininum qualification (which seems unlikely) and clear-cut definition of what constitutes civility (for oppose based on civility issue), the RfA is doomed to be a vote rather than a discussion. -

2367:

questions to elaborate on certain things brought up by the candidate or voters (such as a blocking incident) instead of overloading the candidate with philosophical or especially abstract questions. This is a request for adminship, not an FBI investigation.

2413:

promote - it's a completely stupid question because anyone can read the answer from the policy page (and worse than that, it encourages the idea that buros are robots that make decisions based on numbers and aren't allowed to think for themselves). --

2891:

I don't understand. There are a significant number of votes that oppose one's RFA on the basis of a self-nom. Why should a user, who could do the community a lot of good as a sysop as soon as possible, have to wait for another user to discover

1791:

woefully short of admins (assuming that other wikis have the right no. of admins, which need not be true). There are several people working dedicatedly in the nooks and crannies of WP, some of whom could definitely be good admins in future. --

1680:

Well, look at Kimchi.sg. There is a lot of scrutiny of one terse comment. In the old days people just said : "I nom this person. he is good. he has 3000 edits". You will get into trouble for that now. See also Sam Vimes2. I disagree actually.

1429:

Images can be undeleted by any admin, AFICT (haven't tried myself), but only if deleted after 03:35 June 16, 2006. So, the only unreversible action an admin can do is to merge page histories (this also can be undone, but not automatically).

1846:

I've noticed, if you look at the page history there a lot of admin candidates that are opposed by everyone. To be honest, I think if every trustworthy user was an admin, it wouldn't be a problem, it would be the way it was inteded to be.

2328:

With nothing, nobody opposes because the answer was too short. They just look at their contribs to figure it out. This also invites people only seeing if they understand policy from one question, and not look at their contribs at all.

611:

Yes, that's what's it about. This is a simple voting proceedure. Its all about a popularity contest and how many chaps you've got in the east box. To claim this is a "reasonable and concensus-based proccedure" is a blatent falsehood.

2935:

Basically, there is nothing wrong in self-nominating oneself. The user's intentions could be positive to Knowledge in nature. For example, these users show a considerable amount of initiative to help Knowledge. of course, this is

1142:

Two key points are to participate in Articles for Deletion and Request for Adminship fairly regularly. When you do this, you should err on the side of deletion and support votes respectively, but generally go with what others

2393:(such as mine in that RfA) is not because they didn't answer the optional questions, but because I didn't feel they answered the required questions sufficiently - the optional ones were to give him a 2nd chance, as it were. - 2192:

Pure vandal-fighters often don't get promoted. A lot of people oppose for not having a balanced enough edit history. You need to do a bit of everything, really, or at least explain why you concentrate on what you do.

200:

If possible, sometime in the future the parser should actually probably be changed to generate ;Comments, etc. rather than '''Comments''', etc. It is a much cleaner and simpler style, yet has the exact same appearance.

531:

IPs can't be promoted. Well, either promote none, or promote them all... so effectively, IPs can't be promoted. An IP who wants to be an admin needs to register first, then continue making good edits as that new user.

2095:

I share this concern that the standards are being ratcheted up, or appear to be. Some standards are good, but people almost seem to be coming up with new standards every day and I think it's a bit disheartening.

2124:

The question I would ask is "Are there enough admins to keep up with their responsibilities?" Does it really matter if standards are going up or what the statistics are if we have an answer for that question?

1585:

maybe but I challenge you to produce a cite for that outlandish claim!... ok, seriously, I've seen this essay and variants of it before... surprised it took almost month to surface after being posted this time

2251:

those questions would be at least as important as "What articles are you proud of?" I'm not sure how to word them, but considering that they're such an essential part of the mop, why aren't they addressed? --

1274:

WHAT???!? Admins have very little power?!?!?? Oh man, I thought adminship would be my ticket to taking over the world, or at least to joining the cabal. *sigh* I'm going to have to rethink my adminship then.

740:

number of people participating in the process of appointing Administrators has boomed considerably. It is up to us to keep it from becoming a simple vote process, which would not be good for Knowledge.

754:

polling place can be turned away in some jurisdictions. Plenty of restrictions can be put in place and it's still a vote. It doesn't matter who is being allowed to vote so much as the fact that they

2471:

How about we move around the things in RfA to encourage reading of questions and discussion? I think we should move the comments and questions up above the actual poll. It would look similar to

1763:

so only serious people who put noteworthy info are there, so there is more admin material. I just can't see where to find another 1300 editors who are ready for RfA to get the ratio working.

2358:

I'm completely against more questions. I understand that users want to get a good grasp of the candidate's experience and knowledge, but sometimes I feel people go too far. Some RfAs, like

2046:

people who arrived in 2005. The number one factor in how many people we promote is how many qualified people apply for the job. At this moment there are only 7 candidates listed at WP:RFA.

1970:

seems to agree), and tons of perfectly good candidates getting rejected or barely passing (a userpage that displays your religious views too much isn't a reason to fail an admin). Look at

221:

The semicolon syntax was already partially supported, but not one with spaces. I've updated the regex to handle this - it should work fine in the current version (RfALib 1.09d). Cheers,

183:

Sorry, I changed those headers - I've always preferred that style - it's less boated and generally nicer. I didn't realise that it would be a problem, but I'll know in future. Regards, —

2291:

Woudln't one's ability to demonstrate their understanding of consensus and process be a reason to judge trust, though? It's certainly more worthwhile than what we're doing now, no? --

989:

future. Has there ever been an instance of an RfA being promoted despite getting less votes than the threshold because the b'crats considered the oppose arguments not sound enough ?

563:

I've closed it. I'm not yet convinced it needs to be deleted, but it's certainly not helping to build an encyclopedia, so I'm not against anyone deleting it if some others agree. -

1067:

On a somewhat related note, would you say that Herostratus' RfA barely survived? There were long-time editors on both sides of oppose and support, and I would call it a close one.

1197:

conservatives think I'm liberal, and liberals think I'm conservative. I imagine Knowledge has some of the same problems when editors try to report facts without taking sides.

1967: 2493:

RFAs are too big to handle, I think we should just surrender and let everything happen. Although people seem to base votes on other peoples votes so perhaps they should get

858:

Now while these qualifications may not be the most permissive, I'm confident that enforcing them henceforth will ensure that our admins are only of the highest caliber. ;-)

165:

one, breaking the tool. Can anyone with skills (and access if needed) check the autogenerating thing (if it exists, mind you) is generating the correct section headings? --

2011: 2202:

Tell that to RexNL, he was a pure vandal fighter and made 20,000 contributions in month or so and was promoted instantly, he didn't have a lot of edits before that. —

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 2578:

It's not that the collapsing doesn't work in all skins, the show button doesn't appear at all (but it still collapses), so if it was done, people couldn't view RfAs

1229:

so many people think that negative information about a politician in a Knowledge article is going to help defeat them, it has a lot less impact than people suppose.

2510:

Change might confuse some at first, but they'll eventually get used to it, and hopefully RfA will benefit. In the very beginning, we might have a

277:

accidental, newbie biting—which I think might lose us a potentially-valuable editor—and I really think someone should put a stop to it and smooth things over. --

2739:

Introducing a candidate statement and moving votes to the bottom are fine by me. As Joturner said, proposal would make RfA extremely conducive to discussion. ~

2364:"Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." Expound in 300 words or less, with specific references to Knowledge politics. (12 points) 342:

I have removed the RfA as impossible to succeed. But a good thing is we didn't clobber him with 30 oppose votes with no supports (which has happened before).

1979: 937:"voting" in RfA (are 3 barnstars enough to counter a block for 3RR 18 months ago? Does 15000 main space edits counter having only 10 WP space edits? etc). -- 2022:). Coincidence that we're just having candidates that aren't as good recently? I think not. Even in the past week, our standards have noticeably risen. -- 2019: 1983: 1537:

Well, for that, I'm changing your username. See how long it takes you to get blocked and how much power you have when your username is Death on WHEELS!! -

1488:

I like your boldness, being the only non-admin to join this sub-thread. Don't forget to file the permission slip you received permitting you to do so ;).

1999: 463:. I just wanted to make note that I removed this. I don't think much explanation is needed other than that... I'm assuming it was just some sort of joke. 353: 2748:

I support the order suggested by Rory as well; I think it will bring the questions/answers to more users' attentions before they place their comments.

2524:(edit conflict) If you want to encourage reviewing the questions and discussions before voting, maybe you should collapse the votes with a Nav div. -- 2457:

find many of the optional questions to be ridiculous and usually they are the person posing the question trying to make a point versus anything else.

2362:'s, will have ten or more questions, several laughably labelled "optional" (we all know a long unanswered question doesn't look well). Questions like 2067: 2003: 1987: 3004:

helped me out with a few pointers when I asked him, it might be worth dropping a line. Also, try the IRC channel, plenty of helpful people there. --

421:(been removed now) Made by one ip, about another ip, and seems to be signed by a user, but that could be fake. Could someone.. uh.. do.. something. - 2431: 2015: 2007: 1995: 1991: 950:

you are 18, but you are turning 18 today, so you may vote, but your vote probably will not be considered in determining the outcome of the election

124:

I can't figure out what's wrong with it & Tangotango doesn't seem to be around. Due to the error it seems to be screwing up the display of the

1975: 106: 2057:

Have we had a sudden surge? I thought numbers were increasing steadilly, so the delay before people are ready shouldn't make much difference. --

594:

of approval or disapproval of a proposal, motion, or candidate for office" (Webster). Even with the ambiguous 75-80% thing, RfA still obviously

625:

You could say the same thing about all decision-making on Knowledge, but it wouldn't make you very popular :). The idea is, though, that there

3112: 3102: 2994: 2909: 47: 17: 1289:

Can admins even do any real damage? Maybe with image deletions, but I was under the impression deleted images can be retreived by devs. --

3092:

Nothing - I just read their userpage and record more carefully to see that their statement is accurate, but I don't apply higher standars.

1307:

They just took away our last significant power, now that images can be undeleted by admins, it doesn't even take a developer to do it :p.

653:

I'll never be the popular lad again, despite my good looks and devilish charm. The work of us unpopular folk is never done, I tell you.-

516: 360: 332:. Having it out there isn't good for the community's relationship with Jake, and he doesn't seem to be around to withdraw it himself. 125: 3035:

Drop me a line when you bring something to peer-review or FAC (or any other time for that matter) and I'll give it a thorough look. —

2977:

Ah, that helps. I'm thinking of applying after I help get an article to FA status.....though I'm not sure how to go about that......

1903:

active they are is another question. As Durin's stats suggest that the top active few admins do the majority of the admin tasks here.

3082: 2990: 2905: 1971: 460: 410: 2444:

I wrote that in a single day some three months ago, and I see it needs quite a bit of fine tuning. But thanks for reading it :-).

2423:

The fact that this conversation is taking place calls suggests that the process as it currently stands fosters an environment for

485:

From what I understand, it is not possible to promote IP addresses to adminship. Well, it can be done, but you would need to make

2776: 2551:

Move the questions above the comment section AND collapse the comment section, even if it does not work in all skins, that's ok.

2511:

comment to tell people that the RfA was created correctly and that it shouldn't be edited to be closer to the current version. --

2674:

I'm for Rory's re-ordering as well. It puts more focus on the discussion rather than "voting" aspect of requests for adminship.

2213:

And me. I've never really written any articles. I've added information to articles, copyedited, but never really written any. --

2070:

despite over twelve-thousand good edits, because he didn't have enough in wiki or talk spaces. Standards slipping? I think not!

771:

In the US there are set rules for who can and can't vote. In RfA there aren't. That's the point Redux was making, I think. --

2475:, but they would still be bold, not subheadings (otherwise the main TOC would be huge) and the comments would be on top, like 113: 2266:

Consensus varies on circumstances, forcing a potential admin to set down what he thinks constitutes consensus would violate

187: 1394:

Given geni does a lot of image-related work, I think unprotecting all the images on the Main Page would be more like it.

2445: 2400: 2047: 1956: 1952: 1489: 1460: 1362: 1308: 1264: 1230: 923: 884:

make a criteria decision that should be made by the community. This is happening on some RFA's that are borderline now.

677: 637: 443: 428: 2811: 1318:

Not quite true. However any admin who did do something simular to what I'm thinking of would be neutralised instantly.

2305:

But is one question really enought ot demonstrate understanding? It's best if users review the candidate's edits. --

916:

about interpreting the criteria, which would be much simpler to lay out for admins than for all the various policy) -

1644: 1566:

I seem to have lost my permission slip. Will you take an affadavit from my dog saying I'm more or less a nice guy? —

1140:

The only part I did not really like from that "essay" is the one stating that, in order to become an administrator,

38: 2644:. In other skins than monobook all you see is the title of the section and it is impossible to see the content. — 1263:

pledge" here, I don't want to discourage people from working hard for adminship, we always need more workers ;-).

2570: 2115: 1717: 1605: 1298: 2118: 2039: 1893: 1674: 1435: 225: 3129: 3086: 3060: 3042: 3026: 3013: 3009: 2971: 2953: 2930: 2920: 2880: 2848: 2829: 2780: 2761: 2743: 2731: 2721: 2709: 2686: 2667: 2658: 2635: 2625: 2610: 2586: 2573: 2546: 2537: 2528: 2515: 2505: 2487: 2461: 2438: 2417: 2403: 2379: 2349: 2333: 2323: 2319: 2309: 2300: 2296: 2286: 2274: 2260: 2256: 2227: 2217: 2197: 2187: 2169: 2149: 2129: 2085: 2061: 2026: 1942: 1926: 1917: 1851: 1823: 1795: 1773: 1745: 1728: 1703: 1691: 1654: 1608: 1570: 1553: 1541: 1532: 1518: 1509: 1483: 1474: 1454: 1439: 1424: 1398: 1387: 1356: 1338: 1322: 1302: 1284: 1256: 1223: 1201: 1190: 1171: 1162: 1152: 1135: 1113: 1071: 1042: 1014: 998: 983: 973: 956: 941: 926: 894: 862: 828: 814: 795: 775: 766: 744: 726: 713: 697: 680: 657: 640: 616: 603: 583: 567: 554: 541: 523: 499: 470: 446: 431: 399: 390: 379: 369: 346: 336: 313: 304: 295: 281: 265: 255: 233: 214: 205: 195: 178: 169: 152: 134: 2967: 2267: 1352: 1148:

But I trust voters will examine votes and realize when someone decided to join a waterfall just because. --

512: 1523:

Gurubrahma, I am blocking you for 1 year for making a threat. Ah... that felt great! Better than coffee! --

1431: 3039: 2940:

always the case as there are sel-nominations who nominate themselves for no serious purpose whatsoever. --

2621: 2502: 2476: 1905: 1725: 1632: 1550: 1527: 1505: 1449: 1382: 1279: 1244: 1095: 1088: 791: 536: 456: 157:

Apparently it worked. Since this is the latest added RFA, I am now worried that the generator is creating

3005: 2501:, although changing stuff does confuse people. In other words: ignore me and do whatever you feel works. 2315: 2292: 2252: 1459:

We just have to fake it. We are admins at the 16th biggest website in the universe! We MUST be powerful.

649:

Oh fiddlesticks I say! Nonsense! I'm already quite an unpopular fellow; take a gander at my talkpage and

550:(though it got blocked the minute I created it, I'm sure someone would unblock). I'd support for sure. -- 436:

It's been removed from the page now, but this subpage still exists if something needs to be done to it. -

3099: 2791:

Apparently a new phenomenon is emerging: updating the candidate's edit count during the RFA, like here:

2558: 2553: 2204: 2146: 2103: 2098: 1939: 1820: 1770: 1688: 1593: 1588: 1011: 547: 2282:

failing to evaluate the intangibles of a candidate and if they can be trusted to use the tools well. -

2483:, answers to questions aren't long enough." and would allow for more candidate-specific discussion. -- 2772: 2603: 1966:

The thing is, the candidates aren't changing. If anything, we've had less stupid noms recently (and

994: 230: 1361:

It's pretty pathetic when "knowing" what one can do is one's power, not actually doing anything ;).

3126: 3094: 2942: 2833: 2683: 2678: 2675: 2641: 2435: 2376: 2371: 2368: 2141: 1934: 1884: 1815: 1765: 1683: 1651: 1006: 859: 192: 184: 2927: 970: 825: 763: 710: 600: 520: 2963: 2951: 2874: 2165:

comment on a lot of rfa's, but id like to think when i do its not because the stats look pretty.

1348: 892: 812: 508: 140:

Reviewing the tool source code, I think the problem lies with the sub sections. The tool expects

2270:(as it may make him start vote counting) and discourages individualized judging of consensus. -- 3078: 3074: 3036: 2986: 2982: 2901: 2897: 2845: 2728: 2664: 2653: 2617: 2583: 2543: 2534: 2512: 2484: 2346: 2330: 2306: 2271: 2184: 2126: 2023: 1722: 1714: 1547: 1524: 1501: 1446: 1379: 1294: 1276: 1251: 1198: 801: 787: 654: 613: 551: 533: 497: 310: 292: 291:

list the RfA BEFORE the user accepted, then people opposed because the user didn't accept? --

262: 252: 2640:

Collapsing sections are out of the question for RfA's. We went through this trying to edit

2424: 2397: 2080: 1668: 1567: 1480: 1419: 1332: 1218: 1108: 920: 674: 634: 507:

They added it to the bottom of Mtz206 or whatever it is. I would probably vote support for

440: 425: 1208:

corrupt, and have set up a system that feeds their corruption, so who am I to say? Cheers!

2917: 2807: 2768: 2757: 2740: 2594: 1792: 1515: 1344: 1183: 990: 222: 210:

Easy enough. Just have to make sure Tangotango's tool can support it before it's done. --

1813:

spend more time clearing the dump rather than putting proper info into noteworthy topics.

1182:

There are several errors in the person's methodology, which we don't need to detail per

3109: 3001: 2632: 1869: 1742: 1395: 1159: 1068: 465: 343: 329: 301: 1514:

Ambuj, how do you know that admins are powerless? wait till one of us blocks you ;) --

3122:

Please provide your feedback on a proposed modification of the RfA process posted at

3023: 2947: 2869: 2718: 2566: 2525: 2458: 2359: 2111: 1601: 1149: 885: 805: 694: 166: 149: 670:

Actually, my comment was to the original poster, an edit conflict got it mixed up. -

3070: 2978: 2893: 2842: 2646: 2214: 1848: 1471: 1290: 1248: 490: 396: 385: 376: 364: 248: 211: 202: 175: 129: 120:

There was an error parsing the RfA. It has 1 sections, even though 5 are expected.

850:

No history of blocks, warnings, complaints, or angry messages on their talk page.

2394: 2283: 2071: 1700: 1538: 1410: 1328: 1209: 1187: 1132: 1099: 1039: 980: 917: 671: 631: 580: 564: 437: 422: 375:

I fixed it. It was someone using a different font face for their oppose vote. --

278: 174:

It hasn't been changed. The whole RfA was probably created malformed by hand. --

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2663:

Oh right, I remember that proposal, and I meant to do it. I'll do that now. --

3057: 2801: 2749: 2706: 2414: 2224: 2194: 2166: 2058: 2036: 1479:

Are you guys being funny? I think there's a policy against that somewhere... —

953: 938: 772: 741: 723: 333: 1923: 1470:

Can you not feel that aura of admin power? I can... it's... intoxicating. --

1319: 1168: 112:

Something seems to be wrong with the formatting of this RFA. When I run the

2533:

Good idea, but it doesn't work in skins other than monobook, I believe. --

1581:"16th bigggest website in the universe!" In the UNIVERSE??? Ahem. Here on 2863: 2562: 2314:

no, but one question is much better than the none we've got right now. --

2107: 1597: 1126:

They'll be noticed and forced to stop when they drop their "deep cover."

359:

This RFA has some formatting problems & this is messing with the

328:

Similarly to above, I'm asking a bureaucrat to archive Jake0geek per

3069:

Thank you. I'll try to go thru with all of the advice given here.--

1582: 1409:

It's too late!!! You're stuck with the work, ha ha ha ha ha!!!

25: 453:

Bah, edit conflict. I was trying to say that I removed that:

758:

engaging in a process that is indistinguishable from a vote.

300:

No, the user listed it, I removed it, Deskana re-listed it.

2962:

Some people, including myself, actually prefer self-noms. —

148:. I will be bold and try doing the replacement by hand. -- 1347:

POLICE ARE BEATING ME WITH BLUNT STICKS oh ow ow ow help —

1444:

NOOOOOOOOO!!!! </ Luke and Anakin Skywalker mode: -->

1098:, but that they are probably correct in their analysis. 1094:

The problem is not necessarily that someone would write

3123: 2821: 2815: 2792: 2472: 1375: 1146: 650: 519:), but I have no clue who this 149.151.192.145 guy is. 3124:

Knowledge:Village pump (proposals)#Knowledge jurors.

1968:

User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological)

2841:

where the 'Update' is read as a request by some. --

459:added a request for adminship of an IP address at 1922:how about carried out an admin action this month? 1741:Which means, we aren't promoting enough admins? 272:Can a bureaucrat please archive Sean Gorter....? 2592:direct and should still be asked as questions. 1650:It happens. What do you plan to do about it? -- 461:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/68.39.174.238 411:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/68.39.174.238 2886: 2767:I agree with this. It seems only sensible. — 309:Ah, k. Anyway, it was closed a while ago. -- 8: 287:Speaking of this RfA, is it just me, or did 1343:Oh! Oh! I know what it is! It's AAAAAH THE 1243:I thought this sounded familiar, it's from 3056:because s/he has been involved with FAC. 1145:which goes completely against my beliefs. 354:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Doktorbuk 489:IPs sysops, you can't promote just one. 107:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/9cds 2 1123:Somebody will make 1000+ useful edits. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3118:Proposed modification to RfA process. 2542:Yeah, doesn't work in other skins. -- 116:on it, it gives the following error: 18:Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship 7: 2887:What's the big deal about self-noms? 2246:Expanding the standard question area 1158:to be comfortable taking this step. 1167:And how hard would that be to fake. 969:we know they're going to happen. -- 853:Is personally vouched for by Jimbo. 455:On the same request for adminship, 324:Bureaucrat please archive Jake0geek 251:doesn't support this format yet. -- 2068:DLJessup was just denied adminship 1951:If you look at the monthly stats ( 417:An IP has added their "own" "RfA" 363:'s display. Can someone fix it? -- 24: 1972:Knowledge:Recently created admins 847:Minimum of 100 featured articles. 161:sections instead of the expected 29: 2432:NoSeptember was right after all 737:an election for those reasons). 1089:This is somewhat disconcerting 1: 599:byproduct of that at best. -- 419:to the bottom of Doktorbuk's. 247:I've reverted the change, as 2861:for a better interpretation. 1546:You don't have the guts... 3145: 2467:Moving around stuff in RfA 2268:m:don't vote on everything 2054:12:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1963:11:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1496:16:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1467:16:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1374:Blocking Jimbo is soooooo 1315:15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1271:15:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 546:He could always log in as 128:. Can someone help out? -- 3130:03:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 3113:04:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 3103:03:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 3087:20:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 3061:19:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 3043:18:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 3027:18:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 3014:17:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 2995:17:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 2972:17:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 2954:17:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 2931:17:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 2921:17:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 2910:17:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 2881:20:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 2849:20:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 2830:21:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC) 2781:02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 2762:04:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC) 2744:00:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC) 2732:21:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2722:18:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2710:15:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2687:12:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2668:20:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2659:23:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2636:08:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2626:06:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2611:06:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2587:05:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2574:05:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2547:04:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2538:04:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2529:04:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2516:04:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2506:04:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2497:before being thrown into 2488:04:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2462:00:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC) 2452:23:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2439:17:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2418:12:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2404:12:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2380:12:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2350:03:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2334:21:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2324:10:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2310:03:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2301:03:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2287:03:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2275:03:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2261:02:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2228:13:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC) 2218:08:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC) 2198:17:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2188:16:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2170:01:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2150:02:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 2130:23:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 2119:22:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 2086:21:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 2062:14:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 2040:12:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 2027:14:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1998:), then a bit shaky 87% ( 1986:)— then immediately 99% ( 1943:02:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 1927:02:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 1918:20:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1894:11:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1852:06:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1824:08:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 1796:08:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 1774:06:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1746:06:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1729:06:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1704:06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1692:05:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1675:05:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1655:17:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 1645:03:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1609:16:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1571:02:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1554:23:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1542:22:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1533:18:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1519:18:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1510:18:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1484:16:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1475:16:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1455:16:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1440:16:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1425:15:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1399:01:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1388:01:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1369:01:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1357:23:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1339:23:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1323:23:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1303:15:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1285:15:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1257:21:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 1237:15:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1224:22:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 1202:21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 1191:21:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 1172:23:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1163:21:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 1153:20:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 1136:19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 1114:19:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 1072:14:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1043:12:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 1015:06:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 999:06:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 984:23:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 974:22:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 957:22:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 942:22:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 927:18:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 895:18:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 863:18:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 844:Minimum of 250,000 edits. 829:18:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 815:17:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 796:17:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 776:22:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 767:17:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 745:16:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 727:15:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 714:17:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 698:15:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 681:15:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 658:15:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 641:15:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 617:15:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 604:15:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 584:18:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 568:18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 555:22:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 542:17:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 524:17:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 500:17:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 471:17:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 447:17:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 432:17:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 400:10:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 391:10:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 380:10:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 370:08:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 347:21:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 337:21:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 314:03:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 305:03:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 296:03:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 282:19:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 266:04:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 256:21:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 234:09:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 2705:Good suggestion Rory! -- 215:20:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 206:10:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 196:10:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 179:07:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 170:05:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 153:05:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 135:05:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 2787:Updating the edit count 1376:six or seven months ago 2477:User:Rory096/BetterRfA 1247:on Knowledge Review. 574:Grey zone nominations 261:OK, Mathbot works. -- 42:of past discussions. 2828:contributions as of 579:for your efforts. - 144:, while the RFA has 2758:Leave me a message! 2642:MediaWiki:Edittools 2425:m:Instruction creep 1624: 1096:something like this 841:Of course you can: 361:RFA Analysis Report 3000:Getting FA help? 2879: 2582:on other skins. -- 2210:07:16 June 24 '06 1131:So no problem. -- 548:User:68.39.I74.238 384:Thanks Deskana. -- 3012: 2862: 2650: 2503:MichaelBillington 2322: 2299: 2259: 2206:The King of Kings 2012:Samir (The Scope) 2002:), but then 90% ( 1890: 651:"vandalism spree" 114:RFA Analysis tool 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3136: 3108:standards here. 3008: 2950: 2945: 2877: 2872: 2866: 2860: 2856: 2837: 2824: 2818: 2754: 2681: 2657: 2648: 2608: 2607: 2600: 2597: 2556: 2450: 2374: 2318: 2295: 2255: 2209: 2207: 2101: 2078: 2052: 1974:. There's 77% ( 1961: 1914: 1911: 1908: 1889: 1887: 1882: 1879: 1873: 1720: 1673: 1671: 1641: 1638: 1635: 1591: 1494: 1465: 1417: 1367: 1313: 1269: 1254: 1235: 1216: 1106: 951: 890: 810: 495: 468: 228: 190: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3144: 3143: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3120: 2943: 2941: 2889: 2875: 2870: 2864: 2858: 2857:is now read as 2854: 2834:Interiot's tool 2827: 2822: 2816: 2799: 2789: 2750: 2679: 2645: 2605: 2604: 2598: 2595: 2554: 2469: 2446: 2372: 2248: 2205: 2203: 2099: 2072: 2048: 1957: 1912: 1909: 1906: 1885: 1883: 1877: 1871: 1718: 1669: 1667: 1663: 1660: 1639: 1636: 1633: 1627: 1625:Winhunter's RfA 1589: 1490: 1461: 1411: 1363: 1309: 1265: 1252: 1231: 1210: 1100: 1092: 949: 886: 879:Seriously now. 806: 591: 576: 491: 466: 457:149.151.192.145 414: 357: 326: 274: 226: 188: 110: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3142: 3140: 3119: 3116: 3090: 3089: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3046: 3045: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3017: 3016: 3006:badlydrawnjeff 3002:User:Linuxbeak 2975: 2974: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2923: 2888: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2839: 2838: 2805: 2788: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2713: 2712: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2661: 2628: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2468: 2465: 2454: 2453: 2421: 2420: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2383: 2382: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2316:badlydrawnjeff 2293:badlydrawnjeff 2278: 2277: 2253:badlydrawnjeff 2247: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2133: 2132: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1707: 1706: 1695: 1694: 1662: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1626: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1442: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1327:Block Jimbo? — 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1194: 1193: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1124: 1091: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 967: 960: 959: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 860:Kirill Lokshin 856: 855: 854: 851: 848: 845: 834: 833: 832: 831: 818: 817: 783: 782: 781: 780: 779: 778: 759: 748: 747: 738: 719: 718: 717: 716: 703: 702: 701: 700: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 663: 662: 661: 660: 644: 643: 622: 621: 620: 619: 590: 589:Is RfA a vote? 587: 575: 572: 571: 570: 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 505: 504: 503: 502: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 413: 408: 407: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 395:No problem. -- 356: 351: 350: 349: 325: 322: 321: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 273: 270: 269: 268: 245: 244: 243: 242: 241: 240: 239: 238: 237: 236: 219: 218: 217: 109: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3141: 3132: 3131: 3128: 3125: 3117: 3115: 3114: 3111: 3105: 3104: 3101: 3097: 3096: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3067: 3062: 3059: 3055: 3054:especifically 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3044: 3041: 3038: 3037:Laura Scudder 3034: 3033: 3028: 3025: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3015: 3011: 3007: 3003: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2964:Bunchofgrapes 2961: 2960: 2955: 2952: 2949: 2946: 2939: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2929: 2924: 2922: 2919: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2882: 2878: 2873: 2867: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2847: 2844: 2835: 2831: 2825: 2819: 2813: 2812:Contributions 2809: 2803: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2793: 2786: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2753: 2746: 2745: 2742: 2733: 2730: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2720: 2715: 2714: 2711: 2708: 2704: 2703: 2688: 2685: 2682: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2666: 2662: 2660: 2655: 2651: 2643: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2634: 2629: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2609: 2602: 2601: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2572: 2568: 2564: 2561: 2560: 2557: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2545: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2536: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2527: 2523: 2522: 2517: 2514: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2466: 2464: 2463: 2460: 2451: 2449: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2437: 2433: 2428: 2426: 2419: 2416: 2411: 2410: 2405: 2402: 2399: 2396: 2392: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2381: 2378: 2375: 2370: 2365: 2361: 2360:Alan Liefting 2357: 2356: 2351: 2348: 2343: 2335: 2332: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2308: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2285: 2280: 2279: 2276: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2245: 2229: 2226: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2216: 2212: 2211: 2208: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2196: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2186: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2171: 2168: 2164: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2151: 2148: 2144: 2143: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2131: 2128: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2106: 2105: 2102: 2087: 2084: 2083: 2079: 2077: 2076: 2069: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2060: 2056: 2055: 2053: 2051: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2038: 2028: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1964: 1962: 1960: 1954: 1950: 1944: 1941: 1937: 1936: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1925: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1916: 1915: 1902: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1891: 1888: 1880: 1875: 1874: 1853: 1850: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1825: 1822: 1818: 1817: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1797: 1794: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1775: 1772: 1768: 1767: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1747: 1744: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1730: 1727: 1726:(Drop on in!) 1724: 1721: 1716: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1705: 1702: 1697: 1696: 1693: 1690: 1686: 1685: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1672: 1656: 1653: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1643: 1642: 1610: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1596: 1595: 1592: 1584: 1580: 1572: 1569: 1565: 1555: 1552: 1549: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1540: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1531: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1517: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1498: 1497: 1495: 1493: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1482: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1473: 1469: 1468: 1466: 1464: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1453: 1452: 1448: 1443: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1423: 1422: 1418: 1416: 1415: 1408: 1400: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1386: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1368: 1366: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1349:Bunchofgrapes 1346: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1336: 1335: 1330: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1321: 1317: 1316: 1314: 1312: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1283: 1282: 1278: 1273: 1272: 1270: 1268: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1255: 1250: 1246: 1236: 1234: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1222: 1221: 1217: 1215: 1214: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1200: 1192: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1173: 1170: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1161: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1151: 1147: 1144: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1134: 1130: 1125: 1122: 1121: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1112: 1111: 1107: 1105: 1104: 1097: 1090: 1087: 1073: 1070: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1044: 1041: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1016: 1013: 1009: 1008: 1002: 1001: 1000: 996: 992: 987: 986: 985: 982: 977: 976: 975: 972: 964: 963: 962: 961: 958: 955: 946: 945: 944: 943: 940: 928: 925: 922: 919: 914: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 896: 893: 891: 889: 882: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 864: 861: 857: 852: 849: 846: 843: 842: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 830: 827: 822: 821: 820: 819: 816: 813: 811: 809: 803: 800: 799: 798: 797: 793: 789: 777: 774: 770: 769: 768: 765: 760: 757: 752: 751: 750: 749: 746: 743: 736: 731: 730: 729: 728: 725: 715: 712: 707: 706: 705: 704: 699: 696: 692: 691: 690: 689: 682: 679: 676: 673: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 659: 656: 652: 648: 647: 646: 645: 642: 639: 636: 633: 628: 624: 623: 618: 615: 610: 609: 608: 607: 606: 605: 602: 597: 588: 586: 585: 582: 573: 569: 566: 562: 556: 553: 549: 545: 544: 543: 540: 539: 535: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 525: 522: 518: 514: 510: 509:68.39.174.238 501: 498: 496: 494: 488: 484: 483: 482: 481: 472: 469: 464: 462: 458: 452: 451: 450: 449: 448: 445: 442: 439: 435: 434: 433: 430: 427: 424: 420: 416: 415: 412: 409: 401: 398: 394: 393: 392: 389: 387: 383: 382: 381: 378: 374: 373: 372: 371: 368: 366: 362: 355: 352: 348: 345: 341: 340: 339: 338: 335: 331: 323: 315: 312: 308: 307: 306: 303: 299: 298: 297: 294: 290: 286: 285: 284: 283: 280: 271: 267: 264: 260: 259: 258: 257: 254: 250: 235: 232: 229: 224: 220: 216: 213: 209: 208: 207: 204: 199: 198: 197: 194: 191: 186: 182: 181: 180: 177: 173: 172: 171: 168: 164: 163:'''Support''' 160: 156: 155: 154: 151: 147: 143: 142:'''Support''' 139: 138: 137: 136: 133: 131: 127: 126:Reporting bot 122: 121: 117: 115: 108: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3121: 3106: 3093: 3091: 3053: 2976: 2937: 2890: 2840: 2790: 2751: 2747: 2738: 2618:Ambuj Saxena 2593: 2579: 2552: 2499:the opinions 2498: 2494: 2480: 2470: 2455: 2447: 2429: 2422: 2390: 2363: 2249: 2215:Lord Deskana 2185:Sxeptomaniac 2162: 2140: 2127:Sxeptomaniac 2097: 2094: 2081: 2074: 2073: 2049: 2033: 1958: 1933: 1904: 1900: 1881: 1876: 1870: 1866: 1849:Lord Deskana 1814: 1764: 1682: 1664: 1631: 1628: 1587: 1528: 1525:Deathphoenix 1502:Ambuj Saxena 1491: 1472:Lord Deskana 1462: 1450: 1447:Deathphoenix 1420: 1413: 1412: 1383: 1380:Deathphoenix 1364: 1333: 1310: 1280: 1277:Deathphoenix 1266: 1242: 1232: 1219: 1212: 1211: 1199:Sxeptomaniac 1195: 1141: 1109: 1102: 1101: 1093: 1005: 935: 912: 887: 880: 807: 802:Ambuj Saxena 788:Ambuj Saxena 784: 755: 734: 720: 626: 595: 592: 577: 537: 534:Deathphoenix 506: 492: 486: 454: 418: 397:Lord Deskana 388: 377:Lord Deskana 367: 358: 327: 288: 275: 246: 162: 158: 145: 141: 132: 123: 119: 118: 111: 78: 43: 37: 3071:The ikiroid 2979:The ikiroid 2894:The ikiroid 2448:NoSeptember 2050:NoSeptember 2018:) and 99% ( 1980:Herostratus 1959:NoSeptember 1953:Admin stats 1670:GeorgeMoney 1492:NoSeptember 1463:NoSeptember 1365:NoSeptember 1311:NoSeptember 1267:NoSeptember 1245:this thread 1233:NoSeptember 36:This is an 2918:AnonEMouse 2823:Block Logs 2769:Simetrical 2741:PseudoSudo 2020:Crzrussian 1793:Gurubrahma 1516:Gurubrahma 1432:Liberatore 98:Archive 65 90:Archive 62 85:Archive 61 79:Archive 60 73:Archive 59 68:Archive 58 60:Archive 55 3110:Kimchi.sg 3100:rant-line 3083:Advise me 2991:Advise me 2906:Advise me 2633:Petros471 2495:the facts 2147:rant-line 2006:), 100% ( 2000:Cuivienen 1994:), 100% ( 1990:), 100% ( 1984:Sam Vimes 1940:rant-line 1821:rant-line 1771:rant-line 1743:Kimchi.sg 1689:rant-line 1396:Kimchi.sg 1160:Accurizer 1069:Kimchi.sg 1012:rant-line 467:Cowman109 344:Kimchi.sg 193:tianpower 159:; support 146:; Support 3127:Folajimi 3095:Blnguyen 3024:ReyBrujo 2777:contribs 2719:ReyBrujo 2526:ReyBrujo 2459:Sue Anne 2436:Folajimi 2430:Perhaps 2142:Blnguyen 2014:), 96% ( 2010:), 98% ( 2004:IanManka 1988:Pilotguy 1982:), 78% ( 1978:), 79% ( 1935:Blnguyen 1932:dumping. 1872:Phædriel 1816:Blnguyen 1766:Blnguyen 1684:Blnguyen 1652:Folajimi 1548:Death on 1345:WP:BEANS 1184:WP:BEANS 1150:ReyBrujo 1007:Blnguyen 888:FloNight 808:FloNight 735:entering 695:ReyBrujo 517:contribs 167:ReyBrujo 150:ReyBrujo 2948:iva1979 2928:W.marsh 2892:them?-- 2729:Rory096 2665:Rory096 2584:Rory096 2544:Rory096 2535:Rory096 2513:Rory096 2485:Rory096 2347:Rory096 2331:Rory096 2307:Rory096 2272:Rory096 2066:Hello? 2024:Rory096 2016:Fir0002 2008:Silence 1996:DVD R W 1992:Gwernol 1886:tell me 1291:tomf688 1249:the wub 971:W.marsh 826:W.marsh 764:W.marsh 711:W.marsh 601:W.marsh 552:Rory096 521:Kotepho 493:Prodego 386:Srikeit 365:Srikeit 330:WP:SNOW 311:Rory096 293:Rory096 289:Deskana 263:Rory096 253:Rory096 249:Mathbot 212:Rory096 203:Silence 176:Rory096 130:Srikeit 39:archive 2859:Source 2855:Update 2843:Joanne 2832:using 2676:joturn 2606:(Talk) 2580:at all 2481:Oppose 2395:Goldom 2391:oppose 2369:joturn 2284:Taxman 2075:bd2412 1976:Mtz206 1723:rbil10 1701:SCZenz 1568:D-Rock 1551:WHEELS 1539:Taxman 1481:D-Rock 1414:bd2412 1329:Centrx 1213:bd2412 1188:Taxman 1133:SCZenz 1103:bd2412 1040:Taxman 991:Tintin 981:Taxman 918:Goldom 672:Goldom 632:Goldom 581:Taxman 565:Taxman 438:Goldom 423:Goldom 279:SCZenz 223:Tangot 3058:Redux 2802:Where 2752:EWS23 2707:Durin 2599:eagle 2596:Noble 2415:Tango 2225:Tango 2195:Tango 2167:Benon 2059:Tango 2037:Tango 1907:Voice 1715:RyanG 1661:RfA's 1634:Voice 1583:Earth 1299:email 954:Redux 939:Tango 881:: - ) 773:Tango 742:Redux 724:Tango 627:isn't 334:moink 16:< 3079:desk 3075:talk 3010:talk 2987:desk 2983:talk 2968:talk 2902:desk 2898:talk 2817:Logs 2808:Talk 2800:See 2773:talk 2654:talk 2647:Mets 2622:talk 2473:this 2434:... 2320:talk 2297:talk 2257:talk 2163:vote 1924:Geni 1910:-of- 1637:-of- 1506:talk 1436:2006 1378:. -- 1353:talk 1334:talk 1320:Geni 1295:talk 1253:"?!" 1169:Geni 1143:say. 995:talk 792:talk 655:Zero 614:Zero 513:talk 302:NSLE 2938:NOT 2804:'s 2649:501 2563:Lar 2427:. 2398:‽‽‽ 2139:nn. 2108:Lar 1913:All 1901:How 1640:All 1598:Lar 921:‽‽‽ 913:was 756:are 675:‽‽‽ 635:‽‽‽ 487:all 441:‽‽‽ 426:‽‽‽ 231:ngo 185:Cel 3098:| 3085:) 2993:) 2970:) 2908:) 2820:▪ 2814:▪ 2810:▪ 2779:) 2775:• 2760:) 2624:) 2565:: 2345:-- 2329:-- 2223:-- 2193:-- 2145:| 2110:: 1938:| 1892:- 1847:-- 1819:| 1769:| 1687:| 1666:-- 1600:: 1508:) 1445:-- 1438:) 1434:, 1355:) 1337:• 1301:) 1297:- 1275:-- 1010:| 997:) 911:I 824:-- 794:) 596:is 532:-- 515:• 189:es 94:→ 64:← 3081:· 3077:· 3073:( 3040:☎ 2989:· 2985:· 2981:( 2966:( 2944:S 2904:· 2900:· 2896:( 2876:e 2871:H 2868:. 2865:G 2846:B 2836:* 2826:) 2806:( 2798:* 2771:( 2756:( 2684:r 2680:e 2656:) 2652:( 2620:( 2616:- 2571:c 2569:/ 2567:t 2559:+ 2555:+ 2401:⁂ 2377:r 2373:e 2116:c 2114:/ 2112:t 2104:+ 2100:+ 2082:T 1878:♥ 1719:e 1606:c 1604:/ 1602:t 1594:+ 1590:+ 1529:ʕ 1504:( 1451:ʕ 1430:( 1421:T 1384:ʕ 1351:( 1331:→ 1293:( 1281:ʕ 1220:T 1110:T 993:( 924:⁂ 790:( 678:⁂ 638:⁂ 612:- 538:ʕ 511:( 444:⁂ 429:⁂ 227:a 201:- 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 60 - Knowledge

Index