Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 69

822:, and numbering the votes is an easy way to see what kind of a consensus there is. When you a tally "75 support, 3 oppose, 5 neutral" you can say "okay, there is a general consensus that this guy/gal should become and admin. However when you a see a tally of "40 support 32 oppose 10 neutral you can say "Hmm..there is majority support here, but it's obviously no consensus. For now, this guy/gal shouldn't ba an admin." Not numbering the tally makes for unnecesary hassle in the nomination closing process that can easily be elminated (not to mention it makes the whole nomination process more confusing). In addition, not numbering the votes can lead to many unfair outcomes. For example: Suppose Jim Bob Smith was running for admin, and he ended up with a final tally of 55/15/10 and was denied adminship, but just the day before, Billy Bob Johnson became an admin with a final tally of 55/20/10. There was more of a consensus tht Joe Bob should've been and admin, but he was denied the oppurtuniy! I know that this could still happen occasionally now, but this new change would make that sort of thing much more common. Let's not be paranoid that we may be doing something against 1550:

tool shows how many small and AWB edits a user made, which kills any AWB distortion. This is a good thing. Some things however can be misinterpreted and I've seen people oppose over such mistakes. For example, my tool used to count deletion tagging, but because deleted pages don't show in the contribs, then people get punished for flagging page for deletion that often actually get deleted (a good thing usually). I removed that count from it, and I hope that any other edit counter no longer includes that either. Additionally, certain stats are useful for getting a snapshot of the user's edits and where they focus. However it is only one factor, and is not enough to prove readiness/experience. Unless the counts are very very low, it is not usually enough to oppose over either. They are just a factor.

2401:"...there are only 24 bureaucrats and 21 stewards, amounting to 45 editors, who cannot possibly stem the horde of vandals that Knowledge faces everyday..." - I think you totally misunderstood the suggestion. I'm not suggesting limiting the ability to block to those Bct and above. I'm suggesting that the ability to block be separate from the "package deal" of being an admin, and Bct and above can grant it (by what process it is granted should be discussed, whether by a RfBlock page, or by concensus of Bcts, or whatever). I'm suggesting that all current admins lose the ability, and basically we "start over", and have the 45 you mentioned assign the ability to whomever the community/they feel is worthy of those tools. And agreeing wholeheartedly with both SBS's comments : ) - 4078:

ratified his capabilities and granted him sysop status only to find that he doesn't deliver. I am also a bit sad to see that many editors still see RfA as a "show of strength", getting praises from the community, and after becoming succesful, never (or rarely) touch the buttons. I have seen many such editors in the past, and am sure all of you would have. This is the reason I keep telling people that they should only go for RfA only when they need the tools. Guess I am a strong follower of Essjay's philosophy that: "If your edit doesn't make Knowledge a better place, its better to not perform that edit". Consequently, I feel that people with no interest in sysop chores should think twice before submitting their RfA. —

3546:, discounting sockpuppets, of course, but nobody else even if their reasoning seems spurious. We should create a strict limit of two-thirds or three-quarters of the participants, and use that as an absolute divider between who passes and who fails. The role of a bureaucrat is a strictly formal one (which gives them more time for renaming users, checking bots, and writing articles). Incidentally, this system is in use in most other-language Wikipedias that have a formal adminship system, and it works fine there. Most dissent on RFA is because of its vagueness; a strict borderline may be somewhat arbitrary, but at least it is open, egalitarian, and fair. Nothing else is. 2266:

quick block. If only bueraucrats had blocking power or gave blocking power to a select few, it would simply take too long to protect the encyclopedia in the case of vandalbot/AOL attacks and create an unnecessary division between administrators, sort of like creating a "senior" admin group. Blocking, along with protection and deletion are necessary tools that are needed by administrators every hour, maybe even every minute. If someone cannot be trusted with one part of the admin tools, they shouldn't ge them in the first place, and if they misuse them, arbcom shouldn't hesitate to act as they see fit.

3593:(both support and oppose) on their merit, and discount all that have no bearing on adminship. This is a difficult task, but that's what we elect bureaucrats for. RFA should not resemble anything like a vote; instead, a few people should make brief, sourced arguments on why the candidate may or may not be suitable. People who have nothing to say but "me too" or "support per that user" should stay away, they're not contributing to the process. Also, comments should not be signed - it's the argument that count, not the person who makes it. 1333:' suggestion. An explicit statement that nominations which don't meet the stated minimum suffrage will be removed as invalid seems to be a positive step. Removal for failure to meet the suffrage should be permissible for all editors. The threshold should be low to allow genuine borderline cases, but high enough to weed out joke/frivolous/malicious nominations. Beyond those minimum criteria, everyone can still apply their own personal metric if that's how they operate in assessing candidates. -- 2683:

defend yourself, even if you may have done nothing wrong. Now Arbcom may sort out the mess (and I've been reading quite a few cases where they have.) But it's just something that can be so easily avoided. And with so many other "willing" admins, I'm sure that admins might be less frivolent with things like the edit summary when blocking. (Read through the current list, and think of how many of those could be a bit better described. Also, how many sound like a shout of frustration?)

31: 2552:" admins, and that may sound less than trustworthy, however the rogues may define it. Perhaps it's the apparent current belief that policy is made through saying it is, rather than attempting to discuss it (apparently discussion has become as evil as voting, in many instances). Perhaps it's the curtness, the ignoring, and in several cases, the simple lack of civility, or worse, personal attacks that is becoming more prevalent from admins. 1774: 719:, complete with colours to show who is statistically passing. Where is the discussion in this? It is wrong, wrong, wrong. '#' encourages people to say '#Support--~~~~, which isn't a discussion and should immediately be discounted anyway. The numbers just have to go if we are to move the discussion forward. We need a change of climate in RfA, and since we'll never agree a new system, lets start with this minor change int he template.-- 1696: 1770:) showing RfA success rate over time in support of a discussion occurring on here on WT:RFA at the time. It being six months since then, I thought it might be interesting to revisit the data and see where we stand now. The chart below shows the RfA success rate over time from July 2005 through August 2006. Nominations for editors with less than 1000 edits at time of nomination have been removed from the data set. 810:--~~~~ because the nomination says it all. It's just a way of expressing that you would like to see a user become an admin, but you really have nothing to add to that besides possibly "per nom" or "per all above". Discounting this vote is extremely unfair, because it hurts the nomination process and tells Wikipedians "your opinion doesn't matter as much as this guy's does". Also, keep in mind that this indeed is 2706:

sense. A better analogy with regard to blocking would be soldiers fighting zombies, in which situation you would actually want as many sane people as possible to have a gun. Also, what makes you think someone who can't be trusted to block should be trusted with any of the other admin tools? Either the admin is trustworthy and intelligent, and they get them all, or they're not. —

3426:

not really change anything; Knowledge is not a political system, and the administrative position is not political. I WOULD support evaluations every six months; if the evaluation is very negative, a second "vote" can be opened. In the workplace, employees are evaluated every few months, and if they are seen to be performing poorly, their fate is determined by the management. —

3393:- increased politicking by the candidate doesn't seem to be the answer. I don't see where SBS's comment follows from the example, as it seems to explicitly leave the RfA open indefinitely. In a perfect world, this would be a good idea, and admins having a talk subpage to collate criticisms might be a good informal implementation of this, but...nah. -- 788:

support has never passed and having greater than 80% support has never failed definitely has vote aspects. The foundation of our community is consensus and that requires establishing agreement, which can be measured and quantified. I'm sick of "Its not a vote", being taken as a mantra as if ever quantifying opinions will destroy civilization.

2062:

exactly that we expect RfA to achieve and any assessment of the current process' shortcomings, any effort to 'reform' RfA is going to be a shot in the dark. What makes this process any better than the umpteen ideas that have been suggested over the last few months? Nobody knows because nobody's done any foundational pre-evaluations. --

2965:(further response to Durin). I really don't see major changes happening to RFA, so the only real way to fix it is to make small changes and see how they work. I consider this to be little more than a proceedural change. I don't think it fixes the entire process, although it would definantely improve the workings of that process. - 3047:

more than one, as this has a lot of discretion) decide whether each criticism has been met successfully, and if there are no problems, the candidate is promoted. This way, the '<200 MediaWiki Talk' criticisms are ignored, and the 'is a vandal' criticisms would block a promotion no matter how many sockpuppets are in support. --

3583:

a hostile edit warrior in the past or escalated a dispute by handling it wrongly is likely unsuited for adminship; a candidate who has a limited field of interest perceived as trivial or ludicrous, or who is in disagreement about an issue important in the real world but unrelated to adminship, would likely be a good candidate.

563:

suggesting changing how bureaucreats decide RfA's. Personally, I think it's up to the closing bureaucrat to formulate his own evaluation criteria (which should be published somewhere on Knowledge). The cosmetic change would simply allow for the "note a vote" ideology to become practise, rather than just something we say

818:, which ultimately makes them "non-binding" anyway. Also, in democracy, a simple majority is all that is needed for something to pass (in the vast majority of cases, anyway). If this were the case, then somebody who got 51% support on their RfA would become and admin. But that's not what we do is it? No. We aim for 153:, not that he/she support it or reject it. The user have thou an option now to add a comment with reasons against the nomination, or some neutral comment covering the nomination/nominee, but he/she may not simply add a comment with the sole purpouse saying "I support this nomination", because that's irrelevant. 4196:

I see no immediately apparent problem with most of them. Not specifically relating to Nishkid's rfa, but in general, these sorts of questions can help users verify that the candidate is knowledgeable enough to perform duty X that they listed in q1 by asking them to comment on a specific example of X,

3596:

After some flexible amount of time, several bureaucrats should discuss with one another whether there are, in their best judgment, any compelling reasons not to promote the candidate - and if not, perform the promotion. No single bureaucrat should make this decision, if only for the sake of perceived

3425:

would dislike this system. Second, I agree with what Rama said - it is important for leaders and people with special tools to be bold, even if they are unpopular for a week or two. Overall, it's a concept that would require micromanagement, "vote sorting", and other problems. Extending the time would

2692:

As for Bureaucrats gra/rev piviledges "at will", that was a suggestion of a possibility if necessary. There is a page on meta (I can't find it at the moment) in which editors from sister projects/language projects request for "temporary" abilities in order to perform some task. This is no different.

2597:

From my interpretation of your answers, I still cannot see why we should force admins to reapply for the blocking privilege. You mention that only "a couple dozen admins...are actually doing the majority of the blocking." This does not justify revoking the privilege for everyone else. Do we eliminate

2445:

Another bonus coming from this idea would be that Bcts could give temporary blocking powers as they see fit (to handle certain situations, or for a set length of time), so if there was a sudden outbreak of vandals, The Bcts act, giving out temporary blocking ability as needed for the crisis, which go

2092:

I'd venture to say that the majority of us feel that RfA is broken. If we do not do any sort of disciplined process to craft a system intended to fix RfA, we will have no way of knowing if it can in fact work. It's like a bad component for the Space Shuttle. Alright, perhaps we can all agree its bad.

2084:

I know, and I feel bad that I've not been able to dedicate time to this. I've said several times that this is the kind of work that needs to be done, but have yet to lay out a roadmap as to how it can be accomplished. It's a bit time intensive, and I've not had the time to do it. The best direction I

1876:

Thanks, and interesting data as always, Durin. I suspect the declining percentage of support may also be due to several anomalies, such as a number of near-unanimous RfAs a few months ago, combined with some unusually low promotions more recently (Carnildo, etc.), though I think that it (the line) is

1486:

I applaud any effort to eliminate editcountitis and refocus on trust, but I'm baffled why your plan to eliminate it includes a hard editcount numerical standard. That's editcountitis in the extreme because someone with 1500 category adding edits gets in while a person with 1000 extremely well thought

1380:

1500 edits that bases the oppose on too little experience will be ignored", regulars at RfA would come up with some vaguely equivalent stance that had to do with experience, and not focus on trust. Focusing on trust requires some heavy lifting (read: going through a heck of a lot of diffs to evaluate

1371:

Edit counts are absolutely meaningless, always have been, and are especially meaningless in the context of a number of semi-automated tools now available to editors. Give me a few hours and I can rack up 2000 edits no problem (stub sorting, fair use vio's, etc). Give me a few hours and I can write an

1367:

I fear that if we do place such an instruction, and peg it at 1000 edits and 2 months, that two years from now it'll be 3000 and 6 months. Currently, 3000 and 6 months is when the editcountitis types stop having a negative influence on RfAs (per various studies I've done). Thus, until it reaches that

1180:

I don't put much credence in edit counts themselves, I prefer to look at the breakdown. (Counters like Voice of All's or mine can give more detailed information). I also look at the contributions by hand (especially seeing where the Knowledge:-space edits are and how inflated the mainspace count is).

1140:

community trust. Make RFA focus on the latter. By choosing, for instance, two months and 1500 edits, we weed out the obvious beginners while keeping the barrier low for serious editors. This should make RFA less newbie-biting, less confusing, and more fair to those involved. Incidentally this is what

861:

True, but that wasn't exactly the point. There will always be exceptions. The point was, that one got more support than the other did (supposing that arguaments for both support and oppose were reasonable), but the one that got less support passed. It can happen as it is now, but if we move away from

715:

It isn't a vote. That should be agreed. WP isn't a democracy. 'crats are elected to use disgression, not for their abilities in statistical analysis. I think the above discussion shows why numbering is a terrible idea, because it is trapping otherwise intelligent people into thinking it is a vote and

4300:

As far as the ones I've added, I've caught 3 admins doing speedy deletes w/o realizing that the pages were vandalized into looking like attack pages. If they hadn't been on my watchlists, those pages would have disappeared into the void forever - not on anyone's contribution lists or anything. You

4037:

agree to substantial admin work you raise the bar on what is and is not an acceptable admin. Perfectly acceptable admins can be trusted to use the buttons wisely, yet very rarely actually use them. There isn't any reason why such people should not be admins. I nominated exactly such a person back in

3945:

My suggestion about "committing to specific chores" was just to illustrate that we would like admins to commit to helping rather than just having the buttons "for the heck of it". Since some have objected to the specific word "commit", we could change "do you anticipate helping with?" to "will you

3800:

That's my point. I've seen so many users who request adminship with such a bad idea about what administrators do. By removing "if any" it shows that chores are not an option, and it'll also require the user to do some research about it. Opposition should be made on grounds of another reason, not the

3582:

The basic definition of an admin is someone who can be trusted not to abuse the tools, and RFA serves to gauge the trust our community places in the candidate. Trust is, by definition, a subjective issue - however, there are certain reasons that are more valid than other reasons. A candidate who was

3451:

I don't like the RFDA element. Adminship should only be terminated "for-cause" and the current systems have enough safeguards - either for actions so grevious and destructive that they require emergency action by a steward, or for disruptive behavior that results in arbcom action. This allows admins

2991:

Seeing as RfA reform seems to be the hot topic at the moment, here's two pretty-much opposite proposals I've come up with. As always, comments are welcome. It would be interesting to see which one the community prefer. I'm not proposing either of these to be implemented for the moment, only to serve

2682:

Actually, how do you "undo" a 12 hour block? It'll likely expire before anything can be done, and if you pursue it after-the-fact, how does that make you look? A lot of what's going on is that people are playing the "perception" game. Once you are defamed by an admin, it's suddenly in your court to

2341:

Blocking is one of the powers given to Admins which I would use least, if ever. Admins should be aiming to resolve disputes - and using force is rarely a good way to do this. Blocking someone so they can cool down is a bit of an oxymoron. A skilled Admin can achieve a better result by communication.

2139:

One issue which folks raise is of RfAs being votes or discussions. Its not only a question of the way RfAs start and are conducted, but how they are decided. If you really want this to be a discussion, you need to have more than just a thumbs-up or thumbs-down, which is not workable if the candidate

1573:

I suggest that we apply the same standards as for board elections - currently 400 edits and 3 months. The only real purpose of edit counting as far as I can see is as a troll filter - to infer anything else from it would be unreasonable. If we can trust someone enough to vote in a board election, we

1424:

Hhmmm, well my first observation is that they are all 9+ months old. (Evolving standards?) My second reaction is to ask where were the edit count nazis when Orioane was going through? No one even brought up the issue, apparently. That, more than many things, strikes me as a sign of how arbitrary

851:

I agree in principle, but your example is flawed. A person with 55/20/10 support but mostly frivolous arguments against him or very good arguments in his favour might merit passing, where an individual with a 55/15/10, but significant concerns brought in near the end of the nomination (and hence not

2896:

Doesn't matter. As long as the margin is wide enough that we give a definitive answer, rather than "no consensus". 80% might be a little high. I'd be inclined to say 75% or even 70%. I've rarely if ever seen anything but a fail with under 60% though. I'm still watching some of the alternatives also

2705:

Also, your analogy doesn't make any sense either. Admins aren't managers firing people by blocking them, and even if they were any of the other managers could hire them back, and even if no one hires them back, the employee can just return under a different name and be hired again. Doesn't make any

2650:

Blocking blatant vandals is a clear-cut action; it is easier and less problematic than many of the other admin functions. Blocking an established user is going to be reviewed and can be undone. There is no problem with the current level of blocking access, and you seriously underestimate the number

2412:

What would happen in the time period when only 45 editors have access to blocking? I'd imagine that the vandalism would be most severe. Just because sysops don't use blocking every day doesn't mean that they don't need it. Also, as I said above, this would create an unnecessary class of "senior"

2313:

more admins, since I think the process would be less bogged down. I am only guessing, but I would guess that most of the blocking is done by less than 100 admins out of the 1000. I'm not suggesting that it need only be a "select few". But I do think that we don't need 1000 blocking admins, but we

1434:

Yes, evolving standards. A year ago I would have said 500 rather than 1500. I do not intend to forbid anyone to use any kind of metric for voting - however, this is a matter of educating new people: if at the top of the page it says two months, people will be less inclined to use a metric of eight.

1317:

If you are suggesting some firm minimum below which RFAs are automatically rejected, I'm not opposed to that in principle (for some value of minimum), but if you are calling on people to generally stop thinking about a candidate's edit count distribution, I think that is pretty much a lost cause at

3963:

you anticipate...". On the main point, I personally prefer the "if any" to remain for the reasons stated above. Despite the booby trap aspect, not every admin applicant will apply in order to do 'chores'. It may be expected of an admin, but they may want admin priviledges just so they can go about

3790:

I think the "if any" should stay. If someone says they aren't planning on doing much in response to that, it serves as grounds for opposition. It also shows the user that he or she is expected to perform admin. duties if promoted, and it shows the "voters" information that is required to form an

3586:

Many Wikipedians are quite capable of judging other people rationally, and estimating their efficacy in adminship based on past actions. However, several editors are less rational, and can be seen to hold a grudge against a candidate, or to oppose for reasons of principle, or to support because of

3535:

The basic definition of an admin is someone who can be trusted to not abuse the tools, and RFA serves to gauge the trust our community places in the candidate. Trust is, by definition, a subjective issue, and very personal. While most people can explain quite reasonably why they do or do not trust

2805:

A longer relist period? This seems to be a simple improvement that would help and which it might be possible to get the community to support. One caveat is that if it does drift to a threshold, the 'crats shouldn't close it immediately but wait maybe a day to see if it drifts back to no consensus.

2568:

And from the other side, give the "other" admin abilities more often, and more freely, because that question of trust is an easier "pill to swallow". (Deleteion and blocking are the two ways in which it can be viewed that something is "taken away". Only one of the two should be in any "package",

2265:

With all due respect and meaning no ill intentions, I believe that removing blocking power from administrators is an absolutely horrid idea. Administrators have to deal not only with disuptive editors where blocks may be problematic if handled incorrectly, but also dedicated vandals that require a

2123:

once proposed a "limited administrator," which could be a sister proposal of this idea. This plan, IMO helps resolve the distinct problem of an RfA with only 73% or 69% approval. This idea allows the candidate to improve without facing rejection, and provides a comfortable margin of discretion for

1790:

I don't know that those red curves can reasonably be called a plateau, but I'm wondering what evidently localised effects cause the sharp transitions? Presumably some highly controversial candidate(s) come along one week, crank up the edit count averages and then don't get promoted... or something

1231:

Looking at edit counts is bad for saying that the 10,000-edit user is better than the 5,000-edit user, but the fact remains that 1500 edits is a very low number if the person has been doing any administrative tasks that would demonstrate the experience and use for admin tools; it is indeed "highly

504:

And you believe Bureaucrats have trouble determining consensus when things are numbered and broken into sections? This is a cosmetic change, not a functional change. How we display "votes" is a seperate issue from how Bureaucrats decide RFAs. For my part, I'd rather display the information in a

453:

Personally, I like numbered and sectioned voting because it makes it easier to get a sense of the overall tenor of an RFA. Perhaps it is not a "vote", but I will rarely take the time to develop an "opinion" unless the "votes" suggest the candidate is potentially controversial. Oh, and the recent

4077:

Sorry if I sound too objectivist, but I would not like to see candidates who don't want to perform admin-tasks stand for RfA. Its not about their capabilities as an admin or admin-eliteness, but I just feel it is a waste of community time if nearly 50~100 people research a candidate's background,

3765:

The "if any" should go though, as it isn't an "if any" option - if you become an admin, you should become one for a reason. A user may write "I anticipate doing no chores, but would just like to be one" under this current question. I agree with Richard's point about it being worded more strongly.

3629:

This last paragraph about bureaucrats consulting with one another is not directly related to the "is a / is not a vote" dichotomy. I would urge you to remove/strike it out in order to avoid confusing the issue. The last paragraph converts the "not a vote" decision into a "a vote by bureaucrats"

3127:

This profoundly doesn't work. What happens when I say "has abused the tools in the past, shown no understanding of why that use of the tools was problematic, thus I do not trust the user not to abuse the tools again". Whatcha gonna do? Tell me who unearthily foolish I must be to disagree with the

3046:

RfA works similarly to now, except that supporting comments are not allowed; only criticisms. Anyone (the candidate or anyone else) can respond to a criticism. Duplicate criticisms are not allowed and can be struck by anyone. At the end of the RfA discussion period, the closing 'crats (preferably

2744:

The way this would work is that the RFA would remain open at least to its full term, and after that would be closed only when thresholds for passing or failing have been reached. No-consensus closes would be possible after either a week without further comment, or after 30 days of comment without

2725:

And the "zombie" reference as an anology to socks/ip vandals, is interesting, but I don't think it's as applicable in this case, else all admins would have checkuser, oversight, etc etc etc. (And for that matter, every user would have admin rights...) It's already a tiered system of rights. This

2282:

I agree with Naconkantari, but I believe the poster above is trying to make another point - RfA is indeed continuing to become ridiculous. On the other hand (and on a somewhat unrelated tangent) I don't like calling it just a "mop and a bucket", because the LAST thing we want to do is make admins

2203:

And one of the over-riding questions/discussions is about how do you as a manger get your employees to listen to you. Note the word "get". In a business situation, you need to manage your people effectively, and in the end, if you "need" to (if force of personality, whether positive or negative,

1549:

go away. People will always just run the data using Interiot/Essjay's tool. Often, just to make sure that it is not just some new user with <500 edits. Since the total edit count and namespace break down will also be out, it would be rational to try to stem misinterpretation of stats. My stats

115:

be able to discern the merit of that vote without ten meaningless responses which add little to the overall discussion and mostly question how much they can harass user(s) who dared to vote oppose on ridiculous/spiteful/evil grounds. Just throwing that out there. Perhaps the jist of that sentence

4281:

I find questions that havne't been asked before to be a good test of whether the candidate can think on their feet. The stock questions may have been answered weeks in advance, with reference to other answers (I know I thought about how and why others answered the stock questions when I answered

3539:

As such, it is impossible for any third party, such as a bureaucrat, to accurately interpret community consensus based on arguments - doing so will inevitably lead to the bureaucrat counting or discounting reasons based on his personal opinion, which, because of human nature, isn't any better or

3500:

Since our current RFA system is a hybrid, I'm going to list both extremes as a thought experiment. Comments welcome. Please don't assume that either extreme is my actual opinion; this is just brainstorming. Also, please don't be offended if the language seems harsh, they're called extremes for a

3158:

This doesn't have to be a problem. The criteria themselves can and should be debated beforehand, and agreed upon for this to work. Meaning, that there would be certian criteria required for an RFA to suceed, certian criteria that would require rejection, and some things that would require a full

3069:

standard reasons (overall edits, distribution of edits, time since signing up) should be included in the template from the start and people just discuss them without anyone having to make the critism in the first place. Any other critisms about edit counts would be immeadiately struck through. --

2537:

If you remove "block" from that group of rights, you still have an admin who can still perform the necessary tasks of Knowledge. They can still go through and help with the AfD/TfD/CfD/MfD/etc lists. They can still help with the Image issues, and/or copy vios. They can still use rollback, and

2061:

As with every other idea for RfA reform that's been proposed over the last few months (and there's been many ideas), there's no way to evaluate whether this idea is any use or not. It might be great. It might be bad. I again state that without there being any serious effort to discern what it is

1355:

Over the last year, we've had 18 successful nominations for nominees with less than 1500 edits. 4 of those have been nominees with less than 1,000 edits. The lowest was 767. To my knowledge (I could be wrong) none of these admins has been on the short end of an RfAr since being adminned. While I

437:

My "quotation" misrepresented my views, apologies. I was in a bit of a frenzy when typing it so I was rather hasty and made a mistake. Anyway, I like counting votes. 80% is the accepted standard for RfAs passing (though this "rule" varies) and I like to see how close RfAs to that threshold. This

3650:

This first of the standard questions given to every user has been bugging me for a while. The fact it says "if any" is totally pointless, because the whole idea of being an administrator is that sysop chores are helped with. I have tried to edit the template but found it to be protected, so I'm

2429:

I agree with Naconkantari. Not only does this proposal add an entirely new layer of unneeded bureaucracy, but it is a solution in search of a problem. While there were a few questionable blocks and a few fears of intimidation (I'm not an admin; do I suffer such fear?), to impose a broad-ranging

2045:

It is also possible to reserve 1-2 buttons from the candidate until he/she has earned the community's trust over a longer period of time. For example, if the main point of discussion is concern over the candidate's attitude on AfDs, reserve the power to delete and ask him/her to be consistently

148:

The nominator forst as usual apply a nomination for a nominee, another person or him/her self, and then the nominee approve or reject the nomination and as usual reply to some standard questions. The main difference is that now when a user have read the nomination, he/she has the option to sign

3141:

This is more related to bureaucrat judgement than voting. If, for example, you were to mention such abuse and cite some alarming diffs, perhaps late in the RfA, then it would be best for the bureaucrat to disregard a strong majority of support in light of the evidence. That is, to evaluate the

3068:

This gives a lot of power to crats, but crats are meant to be trustworthy, so that might not be an issue. "No duplicate critisms" could be problematic - is "Has less than 1000 edits" the same as "Has less than 2000 edits"? Are those the same as "Has less than 500 main space edits"? Prehaps the

2213:

I once proposed a lessening of this ability (on a page that was at the end of it's historical life, apparently...). But the more I see the fear to trust someone who claims to want to help in some way with "the backlog", because of unsurety of how they will use the "other" abilities (typically

1124:

Since everyone at RFA is free to make up their own metrics, we frequently get metrics all over the scale - should a candidate have nine months of experience? How about 200 edits to the wikipedia talk namespace? Maybe 10% of all edits to policy-related discussion? Or is it all "no big deal" for

787:

Crazy stuff, well thanks. Of course it is not a vote, that's what the reasons and discussions are for. Think about it, where else in this world is a "vote" accompanied by a record of your reasoning that can sway others. And of course it is like a vote. Any system where having less than 50%

562:

Sure, I definitely agree that the numbers should not be ignored, but the discussion format would lend to, well, discussion, and perhaps foster an environment that would allow more free-flowing opinions and comments to the candidate's merit. In regards to how bureaucrats decide RfA's, I wasn't

486:

I understand the view to keep the comments numbered and sectioned, but a simple discussion section without numbers would allow for bureaucrats to determine consensus based on the discussion that transpires. This way, RfA truly wouldn't be a vote. In this system, the quality of comments would

2636:

In addition, from what I've been reading, only about a third of admins are active, and only about a 10th of those are directly involved in blocking/vandalism on a consistant basis. Since that 10th is likely to re-receive the ability to block, I don't think that this transition is problematic

3292:

I say 50% here because we'd already have other means of opposition, various firm and not so firm grounds to refuse - the option to petition for denial is there to be a safety valve, and not there just as a way to continue the current process - once we have set guidelines for who is and isn't

3104:

308.9383483883838383 mediwiki space edits, etc" voting patterns look like absolute tomfoolery, because b-crats aren't going to be swayed by such....superficial criticism. It brings focus only to the issues that matter, while still keeping the admins in a very positive, role-modeling light. —

2169:

It's easy to pretend to be a good admin for 30 days and then turn evil, so it would help with determining trustworthyness. It might help with determining competancy, though. Removing certain abilities from certain admins would require a lot of reprogramming, and it probably isn't worth that.

1218:

Edit counting is a bad idea because it attempts to quantify something that is unquantifiable, namely experience. Your proposal is another manifestation of that bad idea. If you're looking for a unified experience metric, edit counts aren't going to work no matter how high you set the number.

3836:

It could work either way. With "if any", it gives grounds to oppose. If we delete it, it would make people more hesitant to answer and nominate themselves or respond to a nomination. Either way can act as a deterrant. Deleting it would possibly just mean fewer RfAs actually reaching the

2100:

It's fun, even easy to come up with alternative methods for how RfA can work. These methods often enough address issues that the proponent(s) feel are wrong with RfA. But, everytime that I've seen a system brought forth as the next saving grace of RfA I've been able to rapidly come up with

2632:

I take exception to the euphemism "punish". The across the board removal of block from the "package" does not "punish" anyone. Although it's interesting to note that "taking away" is immediately seen as "punishment", which immediately illustrates my comments about blocking and deletion.

1710:

The single trend line doesn't seem to fit. Just visually, it looks like an upward trend for the first 1/3, followed by a flat or slightly downward trend for the last 2/3rds. Isn't there a minimizing the square roots of deviations formula that can be applied for a non-straight trend line?

419:

It doesn't make it more difficult to read. All it does is make it more difficult to count votes, which is a problem why? A person can still see the relative magnitude of support and opposition, it just means they can't easily determine whether 51 or 53 people support, which is pointless.

401:" – that didn't quite... make any sense to me. Since it's not a vote, you don't even have to count any votes. Especially since you wouldn't find any votes to count were you to try anyway. How do the soothing little dots next to everyone's comments make them harder to read, of all things? 3103:

This idea is lightyears ahead of the other one. I don't want to see Knowledge turn into a political jokefest. B-crats are our most trusted users, and they DESERVE to be given such enhanced responsibility. Furthermore, this system makes those elaborate "200.5 wikipedia talk space edits,

2463:

The bureaucrats simply cannot act fast enough if there is a serious threat to the encyclopedia. It takes at least 5 minutes on IRC to get the attention of a steward and be sysopped on a wiki to stop vandalism, even more if there are none online that have access to the ja.wiki cluster.

3321:

RfA works similarly to now, except that RfAs never close. If a candidate has more than 65% support continuously for a week, they are sysopped (deliberately low percentage). If a candidate has less than 50% support continuously for a week, they are desysopped (so this has elements of

2628:

Yes, I know that that was the original intention. However, it's becoming/become a catchphrase into something more serious, to the point where that page is starting to look like misdirection (which is likely not it's original intention, but how it seems to be currently being used).

1487:

out large edits gets canned. Remove that, and anything else we can do to focus on the trust factor I would be for. I'd almost be for any comments referring to edit count get shot on sight so that people have to come up with something better, but I'll never get that one through. -

771:

in bold somewhere in their unlikely-to-be-more-than-a-few-lines comment. What edits Dragonsflight chooses to make is no reflection on the "intelligent people" you cite. Wrong, wrong, wrong is being trapped into thinking that people think it's a vote when they are saying it isn't.

4063:

Apart from the fact that removing two words won't change anything, its not a question of demanding that candidates do "substantial work." But "if any" implies that one is free not to do any, which is unacceptable. I'm pretty sure we are over-analyzing an otherwise mundane point.

3597:

fairness. To ensure accountability to the community, bureaucrats should serve terms of up to one year. Depending on bureaucrat judgment may be somewhat subjective, but at least it ensures that people are promoted or demoted for a good reason, which is only fair. Nothing else is.

2015:

I think the final call is not another vote, but the expression of any serious complaint regarding the editor's behaviour in the 30 days. Perhaps in this latter way we can avoid the possibility that some editors would oppose just because they don't like some of his/her decisions.

1866:

Each data point on the red lines in the above chart is based on the prior 20 RfAs for that data point. So, each data point is looking at the same number of nominations. This helps stabilize the data, at the cost of having some RfAs having an effect on more than one data point.

762:

making such a claim. In other sections? Very new users, perhaps, but that's just a matter of education. Replacing # with * isn't going to cause anything to shift. Furthermore, replacing the whole thing with a series of bullet points isn't going to stop people putting the word

4301:

can't even see what other pages an anon has vandalized similarly since they don't appear on the anon's contributions - only the negligent admins' deletion logs. To me, the possibility of losing more viable articles forever to lazy future admins is enough reason to oppose. —

110:

I'm going to go ahead and stand against popular belief: Beaucrats are not mindless drones. When a user, such as Spartaz, votes oppose on an RFA, such as The Halo, and the rationale is somewhat controversial, such as being based partly on the nominator, the closing beaucrat

1299:

I'd agree with Nae'blis's interpetation. All this notice/guideline would do is inform people that if they have less than a certain amount of quantitative experience, it will not be possible to fairly judge their qualitative experience, so we will be unable to pass them.

535:

Also, while comments about "quality" versus "quantity" are apprciated, I do not believe that looking only at the "quality" of opinions expressed while ignoring the amount of people who thought one way or another will improve the RfA process, rather the other way around.

2572:

And this is obviously not going to be something that suddenly happens one day. I'm sure that if it's implemented, there will be a list of whom will start with the ability to block, before the mass removal of the ability from all admins. A simple, smooth transition.

3019:

has correctly observed several times that we keep trying to reform the RfA process without knowing exactly where the problem lies. In any case, I think to do effective brainstorming, you should observe the complexities of RfAs and the overall place of admins in WP.

2327:

One must remember that there are only 24 bureaucrats and 21 stewards, amounting to 45 editors, who cannot possibly stem the horde of vandals that Knowledge faces everyday, let alone have time to block established users when warranted by ArbCom, Jimbo Wales, etc.

1722:

Sure, there's a variety of ways that you can do trend forecasts. I added this trendline the same as I added the one in the last graph for consistency. It's the same function as the last graph. Note that this trendline is considerably shallower than the last one.

4240:

This isn't really a recent trend, it happened a few months back. I disagree with 15 standard questions that people copy and paste onto every RfA, as was the case a while ago, but specific questions directed to a specific candidate should be encouraged.

220:

Be mindful of one thing - if people have negative or "pseudo-political" intentions, these will manifest in any system one devises in one way or another. There is a good chance for your idea to address some issues, but it needs to be clear and decisive.

792:

and democratic principles are a good way of working within a large organization. We don't just vote, and we don't just discuss. We do both and it is better that way. I don't believe that moving towards either extreme is going to improve Knowledge.

2767:

I like this idea. It would give people a chance to come back and review the discussion, which many people don't seem to do at the moment. A consensus can often take longer to emerge because many candidates are not known to the people who take part.

3347:

I would have to disagree with this idea in particular. Unpopular decisions are hallmarks of leadership. Aside from that, why should admin-editors be forced to ignore the job of building and maintaining an encyclopedia and act like politicians?

997:

I believe an honest discussion on whether the support/oppose/neutral fields should be in, and if the votes should be numbered, did not take yet place, rather, people were revert warring. So, is the current format what the community prefers?

1116:

and about problems we might solve from looking at the other language Wikipedias. It turns out that one of our persistent problems is mostly absent in the other languages, and that we could easily remedy it for us as well. I'm talking about

2917:

Should we go forward with this for now with the guidance to 'crats that either overwhelming support or widespread opposition are required to close an RFA (in otherwords the same rough thresholds they use now), and refine this as we go? -

3201:

During the week or so the RFA is posted, evidence and objections may be presented. This will be either evidence of disqualification, strong objections, or responses to either. The same objection may not be presented twice on the same

2308:

Forgotten? Not at all. I don't think that this would be a "tiny minority of a tiny minority". What I do think is that it provides an extra "check" (an extra "nudge", if you will) on admins, and would provide a way to see us gain

881:

Can you provide an archived example where a bureaucrat disregarded the count (owing to frivolous oppose arguments) to promote a person? As far as I'm aware, bureaucrats do hesitate a lot in deciding which argument is "frivolous."

156:

The logic for this system is "A user should be appointed administrator unless there are reason against that", valid reason could be that he/she havn't been on the wikipedia too long, have had receent uncivil discussions etc...

3369:

I think the RfA would end when one of the boundaries were crossed, allowing any unpopular actions to take place after that point. This has the advantage that it allows more time when the issues are not worked through quickly.

1378:

Putting a figure on who is acceptable here, while laudable for its intent to refocus attention on trust, isn't going to change the culture here. Even if we were very draconian and said "Any oppose votes for a candidate with :

4151:

do), I am content with the current wording. It allows candidates to express a preference for not doing 'admin chores', which is their right, and perhaps also their downfall. I concur with the points made by Durin above.

2220:

If for some reason someone believes that things such as intimidation, or block reversion warring doesn't go on, I'll reluctantly give them diffs, but at this point, I would rather not, if possible, for obvious reasons.

189:

This is quite a good idea. I have a question - can you elaborate on how the bureaucrat should come to a decision regarding consensus? Does he/she still have to count how many criticize the nominee and how many approve?

2446:

away after the crisis is resolved. This makes it intuitive, and useful. And again, I don't think we need 1000 admins who block, but I think we could definitely use more than 1000 admins with the "rest of the package".

1145:

I'm sure that someone will yell "instruction creep, we don't need no stinkin' metric", but I'd say that any metric that is reasonably agreed upon is better than dozens of random metrics depending on who is active this

3676:

I think it should stay as it is, as it helps people see if the person nominated intends on using the admin tools should they get them. No point in being an administrator if you're never going to help out, is there?

2538:

protect pages, and help in that way vs vandalism. They can still edit protected pages. They are also available to aid Bureaucrats with whatever, whenever the need arises. And simply any number of additional things.

2740:

While we all saw this isn't a vote, its historically been treated as one. I propose that we elminate, or at least restrict "no-consensus" closes, and require a clear pass or fail in all but truely deadlocked cases.

2450:

And as an aside, obviously anyone with checkuser or oversight would have the ability to block/unblock, since it's directly related. (I'm not certain why those with oversight aren't automatically checkusers, btw). -

4167:

There appears to be a recent trend toward users' putting "pop quiz" questions to candidates and then !voting or commenting based on the replies. I'd welcome discussion on whether this is a desirable development.

1464:

Sounds like a step in the right direction to me. Let's remember that anything an admin does can be undone. Also, if you would have said 500 a year ago, a year from now you might be saying 2500. Where does it stop?

2214:

implying blocking), the more I think that maybe the ability to block/unblock should be an additional right to be requested (to be given by bureaucrat level or higher), rather than just "part of the package deal".

3536:

someone, other people can understand the reasoning fully and yet disagree equally reasonably. No editor can rightfully claim that another editor is wrong on this or that his trust (or lack thereof) is invalid.

3293:

qualified to be an administrator, we should rarely have to use this, and for a reason to truely be strong enough to refuse adminship, but not be included already in the guidelines should almost never happen. -

2283:

look BAD or MEDIOCRE, because that ruins so much potential for role modeling and so on. We WANT users to learn from the actions of admins; we WANT new users to look up to experienced, community-approved users.

2603:

You also mention that admins are often criticized for their "curtness, the ignoring, and in several cases, the simple lack of civility, or worse, personal attacks." If this is true (and having been watching

3630:

decision. Whether one bureaucrat decides or a group of bureaucrats decides is a second-order question. The primary question that you seem to be asking is: "Is RFA a vote among all interested Wikipedians?"

2668:

Agreed. Additionally, your proposal of Bureacrats granting and revoking blocking privileges at will would turn into a giant confusing mess. We don't need a circus act every time we want to block an AOLer.

2612:

true), then we should look into the transgressors' behavior, not embark on an initiative that doesn't address the problem, which is admins being rude. Do we punish the masses for the transgressions of the

643:

Nah, just forbid signing your name in RfA discussions, so that they can't tell who said what. And require that the page be cut-and-paste moved prior to viewing by the bureacrat so he can't check history.

2825:

And of course we'd have endless debate about what thresholds constitute "consensus". Nice idea, but it doesn't address the core issue that we all dance around as to what consensus means in this context.

3208:

If strong objections are presented, then depending on the strength of the objection, and guidelines created by the community, the RFA is either rejected, or sent for a full debate much like the current

2548:

But at the same time, the community trust in admins has apparently become a bit strained. Perhaps it's all the recent controversies. Perhaps it's that several admins have decided to call themselves "

2252:

You've apparantly forgotten about vandals, the primary target of blocks and bans of all sorts. If you restricted the block ability to a tiny minority of a tiny minority, how would we keep up with the

1791:

like that. One trend would seem to be a lower threshold for success in the last few months but again, with such sharp variations, it's hard to see reliable trends. Interesting, nevertheless, though. -

693:}} because there are already ~5 reverts/conflicting changes in the last four hours to this important template. Pleaes come up with a concensus first until making further changes to the template. -- 1133:. By focusing too much on arbitrary metrics for experience, we lose sight of the important issue of trust. It also means we're disqualifying trustworthy people on the basis of arbitrary metrics. 3410:

Yes - I had assumed the example was more sensible ;-) I'd support the RfA ending when it was withdrawn or decisive, and the editor not becoming an Admin unless there was a consensus to promote.

1435:

Playing the Jimbo card doesn't cut it; if we were actually applying adminship liberally, we would give it to every serious user after a month or so, and remove it only after demonstrated abuse.

3520:

On the argument that RFA must be a vote, I don't think it's reasonable. For instance we would not want to force a bureaucrat to consider a ridiculous reason, even if it was genuinely held. --

2005:

He will be monitored by normal users as well as other admins and bureaucrats. Admin actions such as abusive blocks or deletions can be repaired, so its not like letting a wild animal loose.

4046:

commit to doing lots of admin tasks overlooks what adminship, at its core, is about. It's about trusted users being able to efficiently conduct the business of writing the encyclopedia. --

3899:

I don't think they should necessarily be commited to what they write, but I'm just saying "if any" is a redundant phrase because of course there will be chores anticipated to help with. --

1993:- if a person pulls between 65-75% of support, then why not let him/her have the tools for say, 30 days? This could especially be useful in dealing with the requests of ex-admins like 2359:

While I agree with you (I'm not an admin myself) that admins should use blocking as a last resort, removing the privilege to block will only turn Knowledge into a graffiti board; see

890: 1732:

How about a moving average (3 or 5 week, I'd say)? That would get rid of the weekly variations and show a trend without having to decide what shape the trend is going to be first. --

3987: 2163: 2148: 2132: 2054: 2038: 4275: 4260: 3837:

nomination page. If we keep it, it is possible for us to see how the user responds and allows us to evaluate whether or not they would use the tools given the possible exception.

3403: 1263: 229: 213: 198: 3881: 2384:

The question in my mind is whether blocks just treat the symptom, not the cause. A blocked vandal will just return another day. A reformed vandal can join the forces of Good.

4072: 3356: 3092: 2229:

This means that all current admins retain "the mop". (No "review" would be necessary - Arbcom can effectively deal with removal of blocking priviledges, and the admin would

1381:

someone). Few people want to wade through a few thousand edits on someone to discover problems. That won't change by having even a low barrier to being able to be nommed. --

1356:

understand the desire behind this idea, it sets a barrier to adminship that would have prevented these 18 individuals from being admins when they wanted to be. Adminship is

1294: 134: 3873:

Deleting two words will not change the fact that many admins will do less than others. Most nominees will know that. So just clean delete these words - don't overanalyze.

3515:, rather than what we think it should be. I used to think that RFA was a vote but on observing how recent RFAs were handled I decided that it isn't, even if it once was. 3257:

I find it interesting how much more support that this is getting compared to the rival suggestion below; maybe it is time to move towards a less voting-based solution. --

961:

that I made? I removed an extra "----" (horizontal line), merged two adjacent hidden comments into one, and added

2516:

As I mentioned above, a big part of the issue with approving admins is "trust". As it currently stands, Admins have several abilities (also known as rights or powers).

1842:

This may have already been posted recently, but I'm curious what the decline in total nominations has been. Might success rates go down when there are fewer to look at?

1404: 3084:

I think the problem of sockpuppetry is at least not a particular problem facing RfA. Admins (commonly) do a good job in tracking such cases down before they do damage.

2190:

But instead it's about the perception that being an admin is equivalent to being a member of "management". (With all that goes with it: power, prestige, control, etc.)

1408: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 4016:

I'm not sure if anyone would disagree, but it is appropriate to ask without assuming. Anyway it was just a minor thought addition - my main point was on the grammar.

3028: 1804:

The plateau at 45% is based on the average over the last two months. The curve has been dancing around that 45%, whereas the prior several months showed a decline. --

3275:

One thing you could do, as I mentioned above, would be implement a means by which a vote could be forced through a petition - as an example of how this might work:

3847:

There are far too many nominations that fail though. IMHO only the ones which are likely to succeed, or get lots of support should ever make it to the main page. --

1257: 438:

makes it unneccesarily diffcult for the people reading it and the bcrats evaluating it, since they will use the 80% threshold rule for 99.9% of the nominations. --

3691:

Actually, no, I think it should go. To leave it there might mislead candidates into thinking that they don't have to do anything at all if they have the tools.

924:

Oh, good lord, why not just leave the numbering in? We've already established that RFA is not a vote. The numbering is "for information purposes only". Sheesh. --

620:

We could also merge people's comments together into one very very long paragraph, to prevent people from just counting up the number of dots. That'll show 'em! --

1185:

will be met better if there is some way of discouraging very new users from applying, but am worried that people may apply as soon as they meet the threshold. --

1136:

Thus, what I propose is to make a unified metric for experience. Make it clear at the top of the page that to become an admin you need X months time and Y edits

2155:

On the possibility of whether a candidate would simply mask his/her behaviour to gain approval, I'd say its more likely to be effective in the current process.

1400: 1254: 1098:

and I have had a long discussion about this on our talk pages, if anyone wants to see how he arrived at that version. It is not an easy task to narrow it down.

1819:

plateaus near 90%, then it declines in early 2006, and now it seems to have plateaued at 80% since April. So we used to have a support/oppose ratio of about

2024: 1692:) was referenced in a discussion here on WT:RFA. At the time, it was voiced that it might be useful to have that graph update. Here's the updated version: 904: 4042:). Since he was given the admin abilities, he's used them eight times. That doesn't make him any less an acceptable admin. The idea that admin candidates 2562:, I note that it's primarily a group of a couple dozen admins who are actually doing the majority of the blocking (and how many of those are autoblocks?) 1260: 3452:

to perform their duties effectively without having to worry about lynchmobs showing up whenever they enforce the copyright or verifiability policies. -

2226:

1.) Remove the ability to block/unblock from all admins not of at least bureaucrat level (checkusers should probably keep it too, for related reasons).

4322: 4039: 3474:

Actually... further thought here. RFDA needs to be discussed seperately. Attaching it to any other proposal here seems like trying to sneak it in. -

1232:

unlikely" that an editor with such a number would be granted admin tools, if not impossible. The reason for the time length should be self-evident. —

1598: 1412: 145:

As I was thinking about that the nominatiopn process shouldn't be considered as a vote, I've came up with this idea for reformation of the process:

3964:

their normal business without the hindrance of queueing to get simple admin tasks completed. I think it is appropriate to ask if that is the case.

3159:

discussion and debate with a strong consensus. This would give the 'crats reasonable discretion, while leaving difficult cases to the community. -

4197:

or making sure they generally understand task/area X. However, I have seen at least two such "out-of-nowhere" questions, which, when not answered

3705:

They don't have to do anything at all if they have the tools. Like everything else on Knowledge, exercising admin powers is entirely voluntary. --

2565:

So, looking at it from one side, only give the ability to block to those who will use it, thus making those who have it more closely acconutable.

370:

to illustrate that it's not a vote? "Lets make it more difficult for everyone to read so they know it's not a vote". We know it's not a vote... --

2586:

Thanks for the information. Just a little note: perhaps you may realize that the "rogue" admin thing is a joke and is only intended for humor? --

3751:

Agree with Richard. It is necessary to perform sysop chores, but since people differ in their area of contribution, the question should stay. —

862:

the number, it will be more difficult to tell whether or not there is a consensus, and will also lead to lots more unfair promotions/denials. -

522:

I also fail to see how replacing the numbered lists (#) with unnumbered lists (*) will help in any way the bureaucrats deciding whom to promote.

126:

Can we have a few links to RfA decisions by bureaucrats that reflect their "model behaviour?" Are there precedents we can turn to for guidance?

4087: 4011: 3894: 3374: 2066: 1855:, you may get an idea. Total nominations haven't declined it appears, but that is without excluding the <1000 candidates as Durin has done. 1113: 914: 297: 258: 2499: 2101:

fundamental problems (from my view) that it does not address. Hope this helps. If I can get the time in the future to work on this, I will. --

47: 17: 3440: 3414: 2618:

While your proposal is well-intentioned, I cannot see how your rationales prove your argument. I stand by my opposition to this proposal. --

1304: 3389:

I agree with Rama's arrow, this has too much politics in it to be workable. Every de-adminship proposal I've seen has drawn concerns about

758:

But this is just so much standardised rhetoric. Who in e.g. this section of the page is even close to suggesting it's a vote? I do not see

3228:

Guidelines for when to require a full debate - for example, with previously desysopped users (assuming they have been cleared to reapply).

1069:

Reverting to an old version of the page from a week or so before the controversy started if there is a clear point before the controversy.

3540:

worse than anyone else's opinion. Thus, any RFA that is interpreted by a bureaucrat in any such subjective way, is by definition biased.

3217:

There are obviously some things we could tweak with this so that it provides the same safeguards over our trust - possibilities include:

2236:

This doesn't create a "middle" sysop between admin and bureaucrat, just a "right" that may be added, similar to checkuser or boardvote.

2204:

doesn't work) there is always the implied threat from the "hire/fire priviledge". Or even the direct threat, (though rarely necessary).

962:, because I think I remember one being placed at the bottom a few days ago. I assume no one has any problems with these; am I correct? 473: 4229: 4138: 4114: 4005: 3912: 3860: 3814: 3779: 3740: 3664: 2443:"What would happen in the time period when only 45 editors have access to blocking?" - I presume that that wouldn't last for long : ) 2289:

In other words: it's about balancing "object due to a mispelling in an edit summaru" ridiculousness with "Oh, here's the mop". :-) —

2086: 2242:

While I've seen a few suggestions that come close to this, I haven't actually seen this. Any comments/thoughts would be welcome. -

1640:

I felt that all recent proposals was lost in the talk pages, so I thought it was better if we all could create a "final" proposal.

2085:

can point you to is any knowledge of business planning practices. Or, alternatively, using problem solving mechanisms such as 8D (

1125:

everyone? All the differences combine to make RFA a haphazard and confusing place. Adminship is supposed to be about two things:

852:

considered by most participants) might not if those concerns were serious enough. Judgments must always be made case-by-case. --

1631:

Phewee we sure have had a lot of RfA reform proposals of late :) (not that yours is any worse/better than the others, mind). --

823: 469: 1767: 1920:

I don't know, I was just thinking out loud, wondering if other figures would confirm what Flcelloguy was speculating about.

1075:

version dated 16:04, 10 September 2006 by Voice of All as a temporary remedy until concensus emerge as of how to edit the {{

2430:

solution on a minute problem is not the way to go. I agree, however, that the RfA process has become a tad too intense. --

600:

Have we considered asking the bureacrats what they think? We should use whichever method they find more preferable imo. --

3205:

If valid evidence is presented that the RFA is disqualified, the RFA is immeadiately withdrawn as a disqualified outcome.

2184:

In going over the backlogs of failed and successful RfAs, I'm really starting to come to the following conclusion: FEAR.

671:

Done. I don't really feel like editing the one RfA that is like that though, so if somebody else would do that, great. -

205:

I mean, if there are a couple of criticisms while a larger number have a favorable opinion, what decision should emerge?

3337: 3268: 3058: 3007: 2817: 2523: 1921: 1897: 1856: 1852: 1828: 1712: 1689: 1223: 1196: 3421:

I am very firmly opposed to this. First, we don't overthrow unpopular (or briefly unpopular) government leaders — even

2722:

Just because admins aren't managers, doesn't mean that they are not perceived that way. Please read the analogy again.

1747:

I already tried it. It's unrevealing. The trend line's r^2 value is low and may be entirely useless because of that. --

3288:

If at the end of the RFA period, 50% or more of the votes are to oppose, the RFA fails as "rejected by the community"

2314:

could definitely use all 1000 admins working on the other areas of wikipedia. This would "jump start" that process.

2030:

To add, the general community and not just a couple of admins may act as "mentors" or watchdogs for such candidates.

3890:

I agree with Rama's arrow. However, I think it's restrictive to force potential admins to "commit" as per Richard.--

3955:

A grammatical point that has been bugging me for a while, and illustrated in the preceeding comment - the wording "

3718:

Remove the "if any". You could even word it more strongly and say "What sysop chores will you commit to doing?" --

1202:

Yes. I would prefer a higher metric, but surely everyone can agree to two months and 1500 edits as a lower bound. —

827: 38: 4291: 2342:

And I've reverted a few hundred vandalisms, and with appropriate communication, most of these have not recurred.

1048:

would allow the edit war to continue, which I believed would be very undesireable for this important template. --

1003: 541: 2239:

Gaining the ability could be implemented through an RfB page, or through bureaucrat/steward concensus, or both.

2187:

I agree with thet trust issue, and so on. I agree that it "should" just be about receiving a mop and a bucket.

4346: 4329: 4310: 4294: 4252:

Yes I agree. Anybody should be free to ask questions - I recommend using the RfA's talkpage for this purpose.

4245: 4235: 4205: 4191: 4182: 4172: 4156: 4144: 4120: 4050: 4020: 3968: 3950: 3940: 3918: 3866: 3841: 3820: 3795: 3785: 3760: 3746: 3722: 3709: 3700: 3686: 3670: 3639: 3623: 3572: 3524: 3505: 3487: 3465: 3306: 3251: 3172: 3153: 3136: 3118: 3073: 2978: 2960: 2940: 2931: 2910: 2889: 2880: 2862: 2830: 2798: 2772: 2761: 2730: 2717: 2697: 2673: 2662: 2644: 2622: 2590: 2580: 2506: 2486: 2475: 2455: 2434: 2424: 2405: 2388: 2367: 2346: 2332: 2321: 2303: 2277: 2260: 2246: 2174: 2105: 2079: 1975: 1911: 1891: 1871: 1846: 1808: 1799: 1784: 1751: 1736: 1727: 1704: 1673: 1664: 1635: 1625: 1587: 1564: 1530: 1511: 1500: 1491: 1469: 1459: 1429: 1419: 1394: 1385: 1348: 1322: 1243: 1226: 1213: 1174: 1102: 1083: 1058: 1038: 1025: 1007: 966: 947: 933: 866: 856: 838: 797: 780: 753: 723: 697: 684: 675: 666: 657: 648: 638: 624: 614: 604: 595: 575: 564: 545: 509: 499: 488: 480: 447: 431: 409: 392: 379: 355: 334: 314: 183: 120: 2794: 1249:

Radiant!< seems to be saying is, "Look. Anyone with less than 2 months time or 1500 edits is going to get

4202: 4179: 3411: 3371: 3282:

The closing date of the RFA is extended to a date 7 days from the filing (or certification) of the petition.

2769: 2385: 2343: 2119:

Yes, what kind of pre-evaluations do we need to do? I didn't mind throwing this idea into the mix - I think

1220: 963: 476:), which is one reason why it is nice to discuss these things in advance, so bots have a chance to adjust. 4216:

I think they are a good idea if a user wants to know more about the candidate, or a particular incident. --

3195: 1364:. By Jimbo's own desire, it should be liberally given to people who have earned the trust of the community. 4083: 3946:

help with?". I'm not hung up on this bit though. It would be sufficient to just strike the "if any". --

3936: 3756: 3521: 2640:

In any case, I appreciate your comments (and of course your opinion, whether for or against the idea). -

1552: 1496:

Can I have one of those guns with the magic silver bullet please? Oh, and a few cases of rounds too. :) --

928: 716:

it is about counting things, even as they deny that it is a vote. I mean, we've got crazy stuff like this

2097:

its bad and build a replacement we're quite likely to build a replacement that doesn't solve the problem.

573: 497: 4223: 4132: 4108: 3999: 3906: 3854: 3808: 3773: 3734: 3658: 2835: 2549: 1990: 1945: 1368:

level, there will be people advocating for this "standard" being higher. This entirely misses the point.

720: 3194:

has been nominated for, and will be granted adminship on or after 23:59, 27 November 2006, barring any

366:

Yes, this has annoyed me. It's not a vote, but is there any reason to make it difficult to count votes

2482:

I'm sorry, I still do not see the rationale behind your proposal. May you please elaborate? Thanks. --

3142:

reasons of your comment, not to value it as only one among several equal opinions in a strict vote. —

2619: 2587: 2483: 2431: 2364: 2329: 1883: 1343: 1054:

I think I was little bit tired and misunderstood Dragons flight's comment, just ignore my last bit --

999: 681: 537: 1266:, so I don't think it's particularly controversial, though I might lower the edit threshold to 1000 630:

A cunning plan, but we'd also have to remove the full stops to stop people counting those instead. -

4306: 4217: 4126: 4102: 3993: 3900: 3848: 3802: 3767: 3728: 3652: 3436: 3399: 3114: 2555:

Are all 1000+ like this? no, of course not, but it only takes a few active admins to set a "tone".

2299: 1648: 1609: 1426: 1391: 1319: 1290: 1274: 1141:

the Dutch, French, Italian, Norwegian, Polish and Russian 'pedias do, and it works fine with them.

1095: 1044:

I am open to revert to an much earlier version, before all these have started. Btw, not protecting

1035: 819: 794: 737: 506: 477: 281: 242: 167: 2413:

admins, much like the giving rollback to regular editors proposal that failed earlier this year.

2193:

However, from what I've read on actual explanation pages (policies/guidelines/essays/etc), that's

621: 4268: 4267:

I think rely on an RfA as a process of interview is a very good way to solve its present issues.

4253: 4065: 3980: 3874: 3600: 3549: 3502: 3349: 3085: 3021: 2839: 2156: 2141: 2125: 2047: 2031: 2017: 1952: 1436: 1151: 883: 406: 267: 222: 206: 191: 127: 3212:

If no signifigant objection is made within the week the RFA is posted, the user gains adminship.

863: 835: 672: 654: 2008:

The RfA remains open, with people encouraged to ask questions and keep interviewing the fellow.

4341: 4242: 4079: 3947: 3932: 3752: 3719: 3706: 3636: 3431: 3285:

A support/oppose poll is taken, with a simple majority able to deny the request for adminship.

3109: 2559: 2465: 2414: 2294: 2267: 1658: 1619: 925: 747: 443: 389: 375: 311: 291: 252: 177: 3187:

Administrator, 'crat, or other trusted user reviews that any standing qualifications are met.

2075:

How do you suggest we do foundational pre-evaluations of any useful sort? We're listening. --

2046:

active for 60-90 days on AfDs, while also keeping the RfA open. Just chewin' the fat anyway,

4188: 4169: 3479: 3457: 3334: 3298: 3265: 3243: 3164: 3147: 3133: 3055: 3004: 2970: 2952: 2923: 2902: 2814: 2789: 2753: 2711: 2656: 1796: 1579: 1237: 1207: 1193: 1045: 1031: 777: 635: 592: 425: 1773: 2877: 2528: 2120: 1878: 1334: 911: 815: 3979:

That clashes with the purpose of adminship doesn't it? Its not for personal convenience.

3238:

Anyway, this definantely needs some work, but the whole idea is really worth pursuing. -

4033:

Adminship was intended to not be a restrictive class. By insisting that trusted editors

3395: 1330: 1286: 1270: 662:

Sure. The numbered system seems the most convenient, which is what we should aim for. --

4302: 3928: 3891: 3696: 3682: 3428: 3323: 3313: 3106: 2291: 1986: 1951:

This could be interesting regarding the perennial RFA brainstorming. Opinions welcome.

1280:, even still - someone with a lot of experience on another language/wiktionary/commons 1250: 1182: 1080: 1064: 1055: 1049: 1022: 1018: 1014: 789: 717: 694: 327: 2200:

I've been through more than my share of management classes/conventions/what-have-you.

1695: 1507:'s. And here's where I wish I knew the color codes to get those to be in silver. :) - 4326: 4287: 3038: 2993: 2885:

And there begins the endless debate on what constitutes consensus, as predicted :) --

2605: 2360: 2253: 1994: 1843: 1099: 831: 402: 2210:

Hire/fire priviledge. In our case, that's the block/unblock ability (user right).

1253:

anyway, so why not state that explicitly?" All this does is describe why we've been

1248:

I don't think he's looking for a universal metric for experience, though. What : -->

4336: 3191: 2217:

I think that this would deal with nearly all the complaints/concerns on this page.

1780:

Observation: The success rate over the last several months has plateaued at 45%. --

1653: 1643: 1614: 1604: 1076: 980: 944: 742: 732: 690: 611: 458: 439: 371: 331: 286: 276: 247: 237: 172: 162: 2207:

So how do we deal with the perception that being an admin makes one a "manager"?

4153: 4017: 3965: 3838: 3792: 3475: 3453: 3331: 3327: 3294: 3262: 3258: 3239: 3160: 3143: 3129: 3052: 3048: 3001: 2997: 2966: 2948: 2919: 2898: 2811: 2807: 2784: 2749: 2707: 2670: 2652: 2257: 2076: 1998: 1792: 1575: 1527: 1508: 1488: 1301: 1233: 1203: 1190: 1186: 853: 773: 663: 645: 631: 601: 588: 421: 352: 46:

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

3326:

too). 'Crats can strike out sockpuppet or bad-faith votes, but nothing else. --

4047: 3924: 3422: 3390: 3234:

Possible safety-valves such as ability to call a full debate through petition?

3070: 3016: 2937: 2886: 2827: 2363:

if you want an example of the vandalism troubles this place faces everyday. --

2171: 2102: 2063: 1908: 1868: 1805: 1781: 1748: 1733: 1724: 1701: 1670: 1632: 1497: 1466: 1416: 1382: 994:

fields are gone, yet there is a tally (0/0/0), and that does not make sense.

908: 1030:

That would be so much easier if people like you would simply stop protecting

3692: 3678: 2727: 2694: 2641: 2577: 2503: 2452: 2402: 2318: 2243: 399:

It's not a vote, but is there any reason to make it difficult to count votes

2576:

I could probably write more, but before I do, does this better clarify? -

1375:. Which is more valuable to Knowledge? Neither and both; it doesn't matter. 3587:

reasons that may be laudable but have no bearing on adminship whatsoever.

4283: 653:

I am seeing no consensus not to number votes. Should I change it back? -

117: 814:

total democracy just because voting is involved. Remember that RfAs are

1896:

Perhaps a look at the median instead of the mean would be interesting.

3923:

Keeping the question would be akin to the "Found the image somewhere"

2569:

and deletion is more important for admins than the ability to block.)

2233:

have "the mop" to continue to help with that ever-present "backlog").

2124:

the nomination to clear nitpicky and frivolous oppose/support issues.

3501:

reason, and I mean no disrespect to anyone, bureaucrat or otherwise.

310:

Where was the decision made to start using * instead of # in RFA's?--

3591:

The only fair way to judge an RFA is to consider the given arguments

3279:

10 users agree that the nominee should not be made an administrator.

2534:

What is given in the "package" is merely a matter of programming.

1574:

can at least consider them on their merits and not their numbers. -

943:

Is anyone getting the top RfA to be doing weird stuff to the page?

2897:

though - doing away with voting altogether would be preferable. -

2838:

has some (possibly radical) ideas on the topic. Comments welcome.

2598:

college education because only a few can get a 2400 on their SATs?

729:

In the section above, I've made a draft for a change of process.

610:

I prefer sticking with the #. This doesn't mean it is a vote. --

4101:

So is there a concensus here, or should we do a straw poll? --

3544:

The only fair way to judge an RFA is to make it an actual vote

3483: 3461: 3302: 3247: 3168: 2974: 2956: 2927: 2906: 2757: 1583: 957:

Does anyone object to the minor formatting and hidden comment

25: 3646:

What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?

3222:

Multiple nominators, all of whom have to be in good standing.

2947:

Ok, then what's wrong with this? What harm does it cause? -

1181:

After all that, I usually don't vote! However, I agree that

1907:

Median of what value? The blue line? Want stdevs too? :) --

2545:

those things done. "Backlogs" are obviously not helpful.

234:

Perhaps a system where people can object to objections...

1815:

What jumps out at me is the dark blue line. In 2005, the

347:

Not his only bold action regarding "voting" recently...

4187:

Questions 7-9 on NishKid64's pending RfA are examples.

1373: 1072: 987: 986:

template has been the site of a recent edit war. As of

958: 465: 351:

Seems like some particularly pointed boldness to me. --

348: 323: 3231:

Guidelines for what constitutes grounds for rejection.

1390:

Could you link to the 4 below 1000 that you mention?

505:

way I find useful rather than mix them all together.

4150:

Aside from the minor grammatical change (would -: -->

2726:

isn't suggesting doing anything "beyond the pale". -

3931:. The question is: Do we need booby traps in RfA? — 3651:

commenting on here. Does anyone agree with me :-) --

1877:

an accurate indicator of the overall trend. Thanks!

806:(edit conflict) Often, there is nothing to say but # 587:

Oh of all the doubleplusgoodnewspeak I've seen.... -

2992:as a possible starting point for new ideas (an RfA 2876:80% = consensus, but what would be fail? <70% ? 468:) and active RFAs are not being friendly to bots ( 3511:Interesting, though I prefer to describe what it 1851:If you add the promotions to the rejections from 1505:Indeed! No permit needed, just lots of <s: --> 1405:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/NicholasTurnbull 1013:I have reverted edits which appearently violated 3196:WP:RFA/Process#Objections/signifigant objections 2745:reaching the thresholds for passing or failing. 1409:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Extreme Unction 2197:what being an admin is about (as noted above). 2140:is to take in criticism, improve and serve WP. 1597:I've made a initial draft about new process at 4282:them). So I support these, within reason... ++ 1688:Some weeks ago, a graph I made back in April ( 1425:and capricious the system can be about this. 1021:for future edits to that page? Many thanks. -- 1401:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Hermione1980 1372:article from scratch and do it with one edit 106:Beaucrats: Not mindless drones, a rant by EFG 8: 3801:fact the question possibly confused them. -- 2495:Be happy to, but it may take me a moment : ) 2317:I see many benefits, with no liabilities. - 388:Indeed, I share the exact same sentiments.-- 273:for a draft I made how I think it could be. 1112:I've been thinking about the statistics in 953:Minor formatting and hidden comment changes 905:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 4201:, led to a somewhat questionable oppose. 4178:What's an example of a pop quiz question? 4323:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/ReyBrujo 3190:RFA is posted with the following text. * 2011:Allow others to give him tips and advice. 3959:you anticipate helping with" should be " 1766:In February of 2006, I created a chart ( 1599:Knowledge:Requests for adminship process 1413:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Orioane 1284:conceivably pass at 1200-1400 edits. -- 2875:. I'm assuming that you would use : --> 330:. Not even an edit summary is there. -- 1114:Knowledge:Adminship in other languages 826:here. Let's instead take into account 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 116:could be added to the top of WP:RFA? 18:Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship 7: 151:that he/she have read the nomination 3992:Agree, it's to help the project. -- 972:Definite format of the RfA template 834:and do what makes logical sense. - 1268:(or less, per discussion below -- 939:RfA page not transcluding properly 24: 2651:of blocks that need to be done. — 2087:Eight Disciplines Problem Solving 2498:While you're waiting, check out 1772: 1694: 29: 2514:(responding to the query first) 1904:20:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 1768:Image:RfASuccessRate705-206.png 1719:21:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1278:22:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)) 1065:WP:PPol#Editing protected pages 1019:WP:PPol#Editing protected pages 1015:WP:PPol#Editing protected pages 992:Support/Oppose/Neutral/Comments 4347:05:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 4330:05:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 4311:18:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 4295:17:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 4276:23:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 4261:23:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 4246:21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 4236:19:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 4206:19:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 4192:19:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 4183:19:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 4173:19:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 4157:11:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC) 4145:11:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC) 4121:10:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC) 4088:05:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 4073:03:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 4051:02:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 4021:18:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 4012:18:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3988:18:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3969:18:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3951:18:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3941:18:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3919:17:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3895:17:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3882:17:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3867:16:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3842:16:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3821:16:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3796:16:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3786:16:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3761:16:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3747:16:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3723:16:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3710:21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3701:16:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3687:15:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3671:15:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3640:16:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3624:09:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3573:09:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3525:05:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 3506:09:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3488:21:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 3466:09:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3441:01:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3415:09:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 3404:18:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 3375:17:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 3357:17:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 3307:05:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 3252:09:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3173:09:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3154:05:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3137:02:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3119:01:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 3093:22:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 3074:14:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 3029:17:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2979:21:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 2961:21:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 2941:12:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 2932:10:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 2911:09:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC) 2890:19:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2881:19:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2863:13:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2831:11:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2799:09:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2773:07:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2762:07:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2731:05:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2718:05:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2698:05:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2674:04:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2663:04:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2645:06:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2623:05:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2591:05:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2581:05:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2507:04:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2487:04:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2476:04:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2456:04:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2435:03:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2425:03:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2406:03:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2389:03:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2368:03:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2347:03:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2333:03:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2322:03:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2304:03:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2278:02:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2261:02:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2247:02:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2175:11:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2164:01:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2149:01:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2133:01:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2106:13:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2080:01:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2067:01:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2055:00:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2039:00:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 2025:00:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 1976:22:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC) 1928:21:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 1912:21:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 1892:20:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 1872:18:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 1863:18:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 1847:18:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 1835:18:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 1809:18:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 1800:17:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 1785:17:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 1752:23:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 1737:22:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 1728:21:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1705:21:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1674:21:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1665:20:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1636:20:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1626:18:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1588:07:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC) 1565:22:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 1531:22:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 1512:21:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 1501:20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 1492:20:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 1470:00:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 1460:22:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1430:21:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1420:21:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1395:21:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1386:20:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1349:20:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1323:19:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1305:19:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1295:19:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1244:19:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1227:19:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1214:17:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1175:17:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1103:00:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 1084:00:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC) 1071:", I am inclined to revert to 1059:17:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1052:16:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1039:15:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1026:15:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 1008:15:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 967:01:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC) 948:22:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 934:14:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 915:16:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 891:13:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC) 867:02:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC) 857:02:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC) 839:02:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC) 798:02:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC) 781:01:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC) 754:01:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC) 724:01:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC) 698:01:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC) 685:01:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC) 676:00:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC) 667:00:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC) 658:00:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC) 649:00:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC) 639:00:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC) 625:00:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC) 615:00:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC) 605:23:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 596:23:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 576:23:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 546:22:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 510:22:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 500:22:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 481:22:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 448:22:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 432:22:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 410:22:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 393:22:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 380:22:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 356:00:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC) 335:00:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC) 315:21:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 298:18:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 259:18:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 230:17:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 214:17:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 199:17:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 184:16:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 141:New idea of nomination process 135:13:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC) 121:21:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC) 1: 1690:Image:NumberofRfAsPerWeek.png 1079:}} template. Any comments? -- 1017:, may everyone please follow 3476:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 3454:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 3295:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 3240:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 3161:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 2967:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 2949:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 2920:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 2899:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 2750:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 2093:But, if we don't understand 1576:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 2736:Making the outcome clearer. 4363: 3330:14:15, 22 September 2006 ( 3261:15:59, 23 September 2006 ( 3179:Possible process for this: 3128:bureaucrat on the point? - 3051:14:15, 22 September 2006 ( 3000:14:15, 22 September 2006 ( 2810:09:51, 22 September 2006 ( 1777: 1771: 1762:RfA success rate over time 1699: 1693: 1189:17:09, 19 September 2006 ( 2502:semi-related comment. - 1593:Proposal for new process 1108:Down with editcountitis! 487:overshadow the quantity 3578:RFA must not be a vote 2987:Two more RfA proposals 2001:. During this period: 1985:I tossed this idea at 4325:, please? Thanks. -- 3496:More food for thought 3225:Minimum requirements. 2836:User:Geogre/RFA-Derby 1991:user:Geogre/RFA-Derby 1946:User:Geogre/RFA-Derby 1329:I totally agree with 790:Voting can be helpful 42:of past discussions. 4321:Can an admin delete 2180:"A mop and a bucket" 2560:Special:Ipblocklist 1545:Edit counting will 3727:Yes, good idea. -- 3531:RFA must be a vote 3412:Stephen B Streater 3372:Stephen B Streater 2996:, if you like). -- 2770:Stephen B Streater 2529:m:Help:User rights 2386:Stephen B Streater 2344:Stephen B Streater 1221:Christopher Parham 4038:October of 2005 ( 3929:image upload page 3198:by the community. 1890: 1823:, now it is only 1817:average % support 1150:Comments please? 1147: 1046:the wrong version 1032:the wrong version 689:I've protected {{ 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4354: 4344: 4339: 4317:Deletion request 4273: 4258: 4232: 4226: 4220: 4141: 4135: 4129: 4117: 4111: 4105: 4070: 4008: 4002: 3996: 3985: 3915: 3909: 3903: 3879: 3863: 3857: 3851: 3817: 3811: 3805: 3782: 3776: 3770: 3743: 3737: 3731: 3667: 3661: 3655: 3620: 3618: 3616: 3614: 3612: 3569: 3567: 3565: 3563: 3561: 3434: 3354: 3112: 3090: 3026: 2859: 2857: 2855: 2853: 2851: 2608:for a while, it 2558:In looking over 2473: 2468: 2422: 2417: 2297: 2275: 2270: 2161: 2146: 2130: 2052: 2036: 2022: 1972: 1970: 1968: 1966: 1964: 1926: 1902: 1887: 1881: 1861: 1833: 1776: 1717: 1698: 1661: 1656: 1651: 1646: 1622: 1617: 1612: 1607: 1561: 1558: 1555: 1525: 1520: 1456: 1454: 1452: 1450: 1448: 1399:Sure. They are: 1346: 1341: 1171: 1169: 1167: 1165: 1163: 1144: 985: 979: 888: 750: 745: 740: 735: 571: 570: 495: 494: 463: 457: 306:Numbered voting? 294: 289: 284: 279: 272: 266: 255: 250: 245: 240: 227: 211: 196: 180: 175: 170: 165: 132: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4362: 4361: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4353: 4352: 4351: 4342: 4337: 4319: 4269: 4254: 4230: 4224: 4218: 4165: 4139: 4133: 4127: 4115: 4109: 4103: 4066: 4006: 4000: 3994: 3981: 3913: 3907: 3901: 3875: 3861: 3855: 3849: 3815: 3809: 3803: 3780: 3774: 3768: 3741: 3735: 3729: 3665: 3659: 3653: 3648: 3610: 3608: 3606: 3604: 3602: 3580: 3559: 3557: 3555: 3553: 3551: 3533: 3498: 3432: 3350: 3318: 3184:User nominated. 3110: 3086: 3043: 3022: 2989: 2849: 2847: 2845: 2843: 2841: 2738: 2469: 2466: 2418: 2415: 2295: 2271: 2268: 2224:Implementation: 2182: 2157: 2142: 2126: 2048: 2032: 2018: 1983: 1962: 1960: 1958: 1956: 1954: 1949: 1922: 1898: 1885: 1857: 1829: 1764: 1713: 1686: 1663: 1659: 1654: 1649: 1644: 1624: 1620: 1615: 1610: 1605: 1595: 1559: 1556: 1553: 1521: 1516: 1446: 1444: 1442: 1440: 1438: 1344: 1335: 1161: 1159: 1157: 1155: 1153: 1110: 1000:Oleg Alexandrov 983: 977: 974: 955: 941: 884: 752: 748: 743: 738: 733: 566: 565: 538:Oleg Alexandrov 490: 489: 461: 455: 326:. Looks like a 308: 296: 292: 287: 282: 277: 270: 264: 257: 253: 248: 243: 238: 223: 207: 192: 182: 178: 173: 168: 163: 143: 128: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4360: 4358: 4350: 4349: 4318: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4279: 4278: 4264: 4263: 4249: 4248: 4238: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4164: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4092: 4091: 4090: 4054: 4053: 4030: 4029: 4028: 4027: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4023: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3943: 3885: 3884: 3870: 3869: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3647: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3632: 3631: 3579: 3576: 3532: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3517: 3516: 3497: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3469: 3468: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3342: 3341: 3317: 3310: 3290: 3289: 3286: 3283: 3280: 3273: 3272: 3236: 3235: 3232: 3229: 3226: 3223: 3219: 3218: 3214: 3213: 3210: 3206: 3203: 3199: 3188: 3185: 3181: 3180: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3156: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3063: 3062: 3042: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 2988: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2963: 2944: 2943: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2893: 2892: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2822: 2821: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2737: 2734: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2677: 2676: 2648: 2626: 2625: 2615: 2614: 2600: 2599: 2594: 2593: 2532: 2531: 2526: 2515: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2496: 2490: 2489: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2448: 2447: 2444: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2409: 2408: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2336: 2335: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2263: 2225: 2181: 2178: 2167: 2166: 2152: 2151: 2136: 2135: 2115: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2098: 2090: 2070: 2069: 2058: 2057: 2042: 2041: 2013: 2012: 2009: 2006: 1982: 1979: 1948: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1915: 1914: 1864: 1837: 1836: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1763: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1685: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1641: 1602: 1594: 1591: 1572: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1427:Dragons flight 1392:Dragons flight 1376: 1369: 1365: 1352: 1351: 1326: 1325: 1320:Dragons flight 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1216: 1200: 1109: 1106: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1036:Dragons flight 973: 970: 954: 951: 940: 937: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 896: 895: 894: 893: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 844: 843: 842: 841: 801: 800: 795:Dragons flight 784: 783: 756: 730: 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 618: 617: 585: 584: 583: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 515: 514: 513: 512: 507:Dragons flight 478:Dragons flight 451: 450: 417: 416: 415: 414: 413: 412: 383: 382: 363: 362: 361: 360: 359: 358: 340: 339: 338: 337: 322:Centrx did it 307: 304: 303: 302: 301: 300: 274: 261: 235: 217: 216: 202: 201: 160: 142: 139: 138: 137: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4359: 4348: 4345: 4340: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4331: 4328: 4324: 4316: 4312: 4308: 4304: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4293: 4289: 4285: 4277: 4274: 4272: 4266: 4265: 4262: 4259: 4257: 4251: 4250: 4247: 4244: 4239: 4237: 4233: 4227: 4221: 4215: 4214: 4207: 4204: 4200: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4190: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4181: 4177: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4171: 4163:"Pop quizzes" 4162: 4158: 4155: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4142: 4136: 4130: 4123: 4122: 4118: 4112: 4106: 4089: 4085: 4081: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4071: 4069: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4052: 4049: 4045: 4041: 4036: 4032: 4031: 4022: 4019: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4009: 4003: 3997: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3986: 3984: 3978: 3970: 3967: 3962: 3958: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3949: 3944: 3942: 3938: 3934: 3930: 3926: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3916: 3910: 3904: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3893: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3883: 3880: 3878: 3872: 3871: 3868: 3864: 3858: 3852: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3840: 3822: 3818: 3812: 3806: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3794: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3783: 3777: 3771: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3758: 3754: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3744: 3738: 3732: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3721: 3717: 3711: 3708: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3698: 3694: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3684: 3680: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3668: 3662: 3656: 3645: 3641: 3638: 3634: 3633: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3622: 3621: 3598: 3594: 3592: 3588: 3584: 3577: 3575: 3574: 3571: 3570: 3547: 3545: 3541: 3537: 3530: 3526: 3523: 3519: 3518: 3514: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3504: 3495: 3489: 3485: 3481: 3477: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3455: 3450: 3442: 3439: 3438: 3435: 3430: 3424: 3420: 3416: 3413: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3402: 3401: 3397: 3392: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3376: 3373: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3358: 3355: 3353: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3339: 3336: 3333: 3329: 3325: 3320: 3319: 3316:point of view 3315: 3311: 3309: 3308: 3304: 3300: 3296: 3287: 3284: 3281: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3270: 3267: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3249: 3245: 3241: 3233: 3230: 3227: 3224: 3221: 3220: 3216: 3215: 3211: 3207: 3204: 3200: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3186: 3183: 3182: 3178: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3157: 3155: 3151: 3150: 3145: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3135: 3131: 3126: 3125: 3120: 3117: 3116: 3113: 3108: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3094: 3091: 3089: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3075: 3072: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3060: 3057: 3054: 3050: 3045: 3044: 3041:point of view 3040: 3036: 3030: 3027: 3025: 3018: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3009: 3006: 3003: 2999: 2995: 2986: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2962: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2946: 2945: 2942: 2939: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2895: 2894: 2891: 2888: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2879: 2874: 2870: 2869: 2864: 2861: 2860: 2837: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2829: 2824: 2823: 2819: 2816: 2813: 2809: 2804: 2800: 2797: 2796: 2792: 2791: 2787: 2786: 2781: 2780: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2771: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2746: 2742: 2735: 2733: 2732: 2729: 2723: 2720: 2719: 2715: 2714: 2709: 2699: 2696: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2675: 2672: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2660: 2659: 2654: 2647: 2646: 2643: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2624: 2621: 2617: 2616: 2611: 2607: 2602: 2601: 2596: 2595: 2592: 2589: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2579: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2563: 2561: 2556: 2553: 2551: 2546: 2544: 2539: 2535: 2530: 2527: 2525: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2517: 2508: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2488: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2474: 2472: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2454: 2442: 2441: 2436: 2433: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2423: 2421: 2411: 2410: 2407: 2404: 2400: 2399: 2390: 2387: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2369: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2348: 2345: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2334: 2331: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2320: 2315: 2312: 2306: 2305: 2302: 2301: 2298: 2293: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2276: 2274: 2264: 2262: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2245: 2240: 2237: 2234: 2232: 2227: 2222: 2218: 2215: 2211: 2208: 2205: 2201: 2198: 2196: 2191: 2188: 2185: 2179: 2177: 2176: 2173: 2165: 2162: 2160: 2154: 2153: 2150: 2147: 2145: 2138: 2137: 2134: 2131: 2129: 2122: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2107: 2104: 2099: 2096: 2091: 2088: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2078: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2068: 2065: 2060: 2059: 2056: 2053: 2051: 2044: 2043: 2040: 2037: 2035: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2023: 2021: 2010: 2007: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1980: 1978: 1977: 1974: 1973: 1947: 1944: 1927: 1925: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1913: 1910: 1906: 1905: 1903: 1901: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1888: 1880: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1870: 1865: 1862: 1860: 1854: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1845: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1834: 1832: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1807: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1798: 1794: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1783: 1778: 1775: 1769: 1761: 1753: 1750: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1738: 1735: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1726: 1721: 1720: 1718: 1716: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1703: 1697: 1691: 1684:RfAs per week 1683: 1675: 1672: 1669:Final????? -- 1668: 1667: 1666: 1662: 1657: 1652: 1647: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1634: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1623: 1618: 1613: 1608: 1600: 1592: 1590: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1566: 1563: 1562: 1548: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1532: 1529: 1524: 1523:As does this. 1519: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1510: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1499: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1490: 1485: 1484: 1471: 1468: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1458: 1457: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1428: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1393: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1384: 1377: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1363: 1359: 1354: 1353: 1350: 1347: 1342: 1339: 1332: 1328: 1327: 1324: 1321: 1318:this point. 1316: 1315: 1306: 1303: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1293: 1292: 1288: 1283: 1279: 1276: 1272: 1269: 1265: 1262: 1259: 1256: 1252: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1241: 1240: 1235: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1225: 1222: 1217: 1215: 1211: 1210: 1205: 1201: 1198: 1195: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1173: 1172: 1148: 1142: 1139: 1134: 1132: 1128: 1122: 1120: 1119:editcountitis 1115: 1107: 1105: 1104: 1101: 1097: 1085: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1057: 1053: 1051: 1047: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1005: 1001: 995: 993: 989: 982: 971: 969: 968: 965: 960: 952: 950: 949: 946: 938: 936: 935: 932: 931: 927: 916: 913: 910: 906: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 892: 889: 887: 880: 879: 878: 877: 868: 865: 860: 859: 858: 855: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 840: 837: 833: 829: 825: 821: 817: 813: 809: 805: 804: 803: 802: 799: 796: 791: 786: 785: 782: 779: 775: 770: 766: 761: 757: 755: 751: 746: 741: 736: 728: 727: 726: 725: 722: 718: 699: 696: 692: 688: 687: 686: 683: 679: 678: 677: 674: 670: 669: 668: 665: 661: 660: 659: 656: 652: 651: 650: 647: 642: 641: 640: 637: 633: 629: 628: 627: 626: 623: 616: 613: 609: 608: 607: 606: 603: 598: 597: 594: 590: 577: 574: 572: 569: 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 554: 547: 543: 539: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 521: 520: 519: 518: 517: 516: 511: 508: 503: 502: 501: 498: 496: 493: 485: 484: 483: 482: 479: 475: 474:Tango summary 471: 467: 460: 449: 445: 441: 436: 435: 434: 433: 429: 428: 423: 411: 408: 404: 400: 396: 395: 394: 391: 387: 386: 385: 384: 381: 377: 373: 369: 365: 364: 357: 354: 350: 346: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 336: 333: 329: 325: 321: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 313: 305: 299: 295: 290: 285: 280: 269: 262: 260: 256: 251: 246: 241: 233: 232: 231: 228: 226: 219: 218: 215: 212: 210: 204: 203: 200: 197: 195: 188: 187: 186: 185: 181: 176: 171: 166: 158: 154: 152: 146: 140: 136: 133: 131: 125: 124: 123: 122: 119: 114: 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: 4320: 4280: 4271:Rama's arrow 4270: 4256:Rama's arrow 4255: 4203:Picaroon9288 4198: 4180:Picaroon9288 4166: 4124: 4100: 4080:Ambuj Saxena 4068:Rama's arrow 4067: 4043: 4034: 3983:Rama's arrow 3982: 3960: 3956: 3933:Ambuj Saxena 3877:Rama's arrow 3876: 3835: 3753:Ambuj Saxena 3649: 3601: 3599: 3595: 3590: 3589: 3585: 3581: 3550: 3548: 3543: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3522:Tony Sidaway 3512: 3499: 3427: 3394: 3352:Rama's arrow 3351: 3291: 3274: 3237: 3192:User:Example 3148: 3105: 3088:Rama's arrow 3087: 3024:Rama's arrow 3023: 2990: 2872: 2840: 2793: 2788: 2783: 2779:Yes. Please. 2778: 2777: 2748:Thoughts? - 2747: 2743: 2739: 2724: 2721: 2712: 2704: 2657: 2649: 2639: 2637:whatsoever. 2635: 2631: 2627: 2609: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2564: 2557: 2554: 2547: 2542: 2540: 2536: 2533: 2518: 2513: 2470: 2449: 2419: 2316: 2310: 2307: 2290: 2288: 2272: 2241: 2238: 2235: 2230: 2228: 2223: 2219: 2216: 2212: 2209: 2206: 2202: 2199: 2194: 2192: 2189: 2186: 2183: 2168: 2159:Rama's arrow 2158: 2144:Rama's arrow 2143: 2128:Rama's arrow 2127: 2114: 2094: 2050:Rama's arrow 2049: 2034:Rama's arrow 2033: 2020:Rama's arrow 2019: 2014: 1984: 1953: 1950: 1923: 1899: 1858: 1830: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1779: 1765: 1714: 1687: 1596: 1571: 1551: 1546: 1522: 1517: 1437: 1361: 1357: 1337: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1267: 1238: 1208: 1152: 1149: 1143: 1137: 1135: 1130: 1126: 1123: 1118: 1111: 1094: 1068: 1043: 996: 991: 975: 964:Picaroon9288 956: 942: 929: 926:Deathphoenix 923: 886:Rama's arrow 885: 811: 807: 768: 764: 759: 714: 619: 599: 586: 567: 491: 452: 440:Lord Deskana 426: 418: 398: 390:Jersey Devil 372:Lord Deskana 367: 312:Jersey Devil 309: 225:Rama's arrow 224: 209:Rama's arrow 208: 194:Rama's arrow 193: 159: 155: 150: 147: 144: 130:Rama's arrow 129: 112: 109: 78: 43: 37: 4189:Newyorkbrad 4170:Newyorkbrad 4040:see his RfA 2524:user rights 1981:Trial admin 1924:NoSeptember 1900:NoSeptember 1859:NoSeptember 1831:NoSeptember 1715:NoSeptember 1518:This works. 1506:</s: --> 816:straw polls 454:changes to 36:This is an 4125:Anyone? -- 3925:booby trap 3423:John Locke 2994:brainstorm 2878:Themindset 2873:great idea 2871:This is a 2620:physicq210 2588:physicq210 2519:See also: 2484:physicq210 2432:physicq210 2365:physicq210 2330:physicq210 2121:Grenavitar 1879:Flcelloguy 1853:this chart 1251:avalanched 1127:experience 903:How about 682:physicq210 470:DF summary 98:Archive 75 90:Archive 71 85:Archive 70 79:Archive 69 73:Archive 68 68:Archive 67 60:Archive 65 4303:Wknight94 4231:review me 4199:perfectly 4140:review me 4116:review me 4007:review me 3914:review me 3892:Lkjhgfdsa 3862:review me 3816:review me 3791:opinion. 3781:review me 3742:review me 3666:review me 3312:From the 3202:evidence. 3037:From the 2795:criticism 2256:board? -- 1362:exclusive 1358:inclusive 1096:Winhunter 1081:WinHunter 1056:WinHunter 1050:WinHunter 1023:WinHunter 820:consensus 695:WinHunter 568:hoopydink 492:hoopydink 349:See here. 268:RfA/Draft 4327:ReyBrujo 3503:Radiant! 3391:mob rule 3209:process. 1995:Carnildo 1844:Marskell 1331:Nae'blis 1100:Agent 86 680:Done. -- 403:Dmcdevit 4243:Rory096 3948:Richard 3839:Michael 3793:Michael 3720:Richard 3707:Rory096 3637:Richard 3484:Comment 3462:Comment 3429:Deckill 3324:WP:RFDA 3314:WP:VINE 3303:Comment 3248:Comment 3169:Comment 3107:Deckill 2975:Comment 2957:Comment 2928:Comment 2907:Comment 2758:Comment 2541:And we 2471:kantari 2420:kantari 2292:Deckill 2273:kantari 1987:WP:RFAP 1584:Comment 1255:closing 1183:WP:BITE 959:changes 945:JoshuaZ 808:Support 765:support 622:W.marsh 612:Ligulem 466:history 332:Ligulem 328:WP:BOLD 39:archive 4335:Done. 4154:Jim182 4018:Jim182 3966:Jim182 3328:ais523 3259:ais523 3144:Centrx 3130:Splash 3049:ais523 3039:WP:VIE 2998:ais523 2936:No. -- 2808:ais523 2785:Werdna 2708:Centrx 2671:tjstrf 2653:Centrx 2606:WP:ANI 2361:WP:AIV 2258:tjstrf 2254:WP:AIV 2077:tjstrf 1999:Chacor 1825:4 to 1 1821:8 to 1 1793:Splash 1528:tjstrf 1509:Taxman 1489:Taxman 1411:, and 1360:, not 1336:Cactus 1302:tjstrf 1258:newbie 1234:Centrx 1224:(talk) 1204:Centrx 1187:ais523 1129:, and 990:, the 912:(Talk) 854:tjstrf 830:, and 774:Splash 769:oppose 760:anyone 664:tjstrf 646:tjstrf 632:Splash 602:tjstrf 589:Splash 422:Centrx 353:tjstrf 4048:Durin 3957:would 3603:: --> 3552:: --> 3071:Tango 3017:Durin 2938:Durin 2887:Durin 2842:: --> 2828:Durin 2550:rogue 2467:Nacon 2416:Nacon 2269:Nacon 2231:still 2172:Tango 2103:Durin 2064:Durin 1955:: --> 1909:Durin 1886:note? 1869:Durin 1806:Durin 1782:Durin 1749:Durin 1734:Tango 1725:Durin 1702:Durin 1671:Durin 1633:Durin 1554:Voice 1547:never 1498:Durin 1467:Durin 1439:: --> 1417:Durin 1383:Durin 1282:might 1264:early 1154:: --> 1146:week. 1131:trust 909:ALoan 907:? -- 16:< 4338:Yank 4307:talk 4225:talk 4219:Alex 4134:talk 4128:Alex 4110:talk 4104:Alex 4084:talk 4044:must 4035:must 4001:talk 3995:Alex 3937:talk 3908:talk 3902:Alex 3856:talk 3850:Alex 3810:talk 3804:Alex 3775:talk 3769:Alex 3757:talk 3736:talk 3730:Alex 3697:talk 3683:talk 3660:talk 3654:Alex 3619:< 3568:< 3480:Talk 3458:Talk 3400:blis 3299:Talk 3244:Talk 3165:Talk 3149:talk 2971:Talk 2953:Talk 2924:Talk 2903:Talk 2858:< 2790:talk 2754:Talk 2728:jc37 2713:talk 2695:jc37 2658:talk 2642:jc37 2613:few? 2578:jc37 2543:need 2504:jc37 2500:this 2453:jc37 2403:jc37 2319:jc37 2311:many 2244:jc37 1997:and 1989:and 1971:< 1660:Toth 1621:Toth 1580:Talk 1557:-of- 1455:< 1415:. -- 1291:blis 1275:blis 1261:RfAs 1239:talk 1209:talk 1170:< 1073:this 1063:Per 1004:talk 976:The 864:Mike 836:Mike 832:this 828:this 824:this 749:Toth 673:Mike 655:Mike 542:talk 444:talk 427:talk 376:talk 368:just 324:here 293:Toth 263:See 254:Toth 179:Toth 113:will 4343:sox 4284:Lar 3927:in 3699:|| 3695:|| 3685:|| 3681:|| 3396:nae 2195:not 2095:why 1560:All 1379:--> 1340:man 1287:nae 1271:nae 1138:and 1077:RfA 1067:: " 1034:. 988:now 981:RfA 812:not 767:or 721:Doc 691:RfA 459:RfA 118:EFG 4309:) 4286:: 4241:-- 4234:| 4228:/ 4222:| 4143:| 4137:/ 4131:| 4119:| 4113:/ 4107:| 4086:) 4010:| 4004:/ 3998:| 3961:do 3939:) 3917:| 3911:/ 3905:| 3865:| 3859:/ 3853:| 3819:| 3813:/ 3807:| 3784:| 3778:/ 3772:| 3766:-- 3759:) 3745:| 3739:/ 3733:| 3693:jd 3679:jd 3669:| 3663:/ 3657:| 3635:-- 3513:is 3486:- 3482:- 3478:- 3464:- 3460:- 3456:- 3305:- 3301:- 3297:- 3250:- 3246:- 3242:- 3171:- 3167:- 3163:- 3152:• 3134:tk 3132:- 3010:) 2977:- 2973:- 2969:- 2959:- 2955:- 2951:- 2930:- 2926:- 2922:- 2909:- 2905:- 2901:- 2826:-- 2806:-- 2782:— 2760:- 2756:- 2752:- 2716:• 2693:- 2669:-- 2661:• 2610:is 2328:-- 2170:-- 2089:). 1884:A 1867:-- 1827:. 1797:tk 1795:- 1723:-- 1700:-- 1601:. 1586:- 1582:- 1578:- 1526:-- 1465:-- 1407:, 1403:, 1300:-- 1242:• 1212:• 1121:. 1006:) 984:}} 978:{{ 778:tk 776:- 644:-- 636:tk 634:- 593:tk 591:- 544:) 472:, 462:}} 456:{{ 446:) 430:• 378:) 271:}} 265:{{ 94:→ 64:← 4305:( 4292:c 4290:/ 4288:t 4082:( 3935:( 3755:( 3617:t 3615:n 3613:a 3611:i 3609:d 3607:a 3605:R 3566:t 3564:n 3562:a 3560:i 3558:d 3556:a 3554:R 3437:r 3433:e 3398:' 3340:) 3338:C 3335:T 3332:U 3271:) 3269:C 3266:T 3263:U 3146:→ 3115:r 3111:e 3061:) 3059:C 3056:T 3053:U 3008:C 3005:T 3002:U 2856:t 2854:n 2852:a 2850:i 2848:d 2846:a 2844:R 2820:) 2818:C 2815:T 2812:U 2710:→ 2655:→ 2300:r 2296:e 1969:t 1967:n 1965:a 1963:i 1961:d 1959:a 1957:R 1889:) 1882:( 1655:a 1650:z 1645:A 1642:→ 1616:a 1611:z 1606:A 1603:→ 1453:t 1451:n 1449:a 1447:i 1445:d 1443:a 1441:R 1345:✍ 1338:. 1289:' 1273:' 1236:→ 1206:→ 1199:) 1197:C 1194:T 1191:U 1168:t 1166:n 1164:a 1162:i 1160:d 1158:a 1156:R 1002:( 930:ʕ 772:- 744:a 739:z 734:A 731:→ 540:( 464:( 442:( 424:→ 420:— 407:t 405:· 397:" 374:( 288:a 283:z 278:A 275:→ 249:a 244:z 239:A 236:→ 174:a 169:z 164:A 161:→ 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 69 - Knowledge

Index