Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 71

1325:

is often not so. Many administrative actions (and even normal editorial actions) can be interpreted as ways to modulate behaviour, with the facilitator being the Wiki. This can be extremely sophisticated to handle, especially when the Wiki only presents an economy of partial information. Some Wikipedians I have talked to in person, say they do not want to deal with the consequences of being an administrator, even though they are confident they can carry the role. Additionally, after observing all the sorts of things that can occur as a consequence of using this Wiki, that has both myself, and other well meaning people constantly tiptoeing when contributing to this project. This feeling is relentless might I add, and to avoid exhaustion, it is sometimes more managable to be silent than to do the Right Thing. Concerning it is, and systemic it has become. We need a better mechanism of accountability and transparency, and we need better ways of seeking out those users who can carry administrative roles professionally to join the ranks. I might even cautiously suggest that administrators voluntarily classify themselves as being familiar with specific areas of Wikipedian policies and guidelines. These administrative communities would be effective at identifying current trends, and would provide the community with an implicit sort of leadership, without compromising the existing stratification of users. It could be as simple as setting up "WikiProject - admins who specialise with image deletions" et cetera. We have policy pages, but no cohesive and visible communities around them. It's probably more than time enough to grow them and recognize that such structures can complement that which already exists on Knowledge. --

3183:"RfA is broken" equates approximately with "RfA does not always yield the result I think it should". Life is tough like that. Perhaps it is life that is broken. I do not agree that replacing a free, open and dynamic process with something else is likely to be an improvement, and nor do I agree that failing to promote everyone that Editor X thinks should be an admin is implicit of failure in the process. You don't always get the answer you want. I also do not suppose that the way we have RfA is necessarily optimal. But I have not seen any suggestion (ever) that would actually improve on the way it runs at the moment. People suggest hard quotas of time/edits: they are obviously wrong because if you're one edit or one day below the quota it just looks silly. People suggest obliterating the support/oppose sections. People will write support and oppose anyway. People suggest delaying !voting for a few days: it'll happen anyway, just a few days later. 1362:

admin WikiGnomes. There are a handful who have been promoted, but have hardly used (or even completely not used) the tools at all. Instead, they use the perceived authority of an administrator to mitigate edit wars and diffuse complicated situations where the more vocal or abrasive approaches would not be effective. They also spend tremendous amounts of time helping new users, especially those who are struggling with the software, but are tremendously influential in real life. These admin WikiGnomes have such an capacity for patience and listening and work nicely in those niche places on Knowledge, but would probably not survive the current RfA promotions process. The issue is that lack of perceived activity can be interpreted as inability in the current RfA climate, when this is not necessarily the case. The difficulty is that it is difficult and time consuming to properly identify and acknowledge these very different situations. --

2684:, and I'm sure that there are many others. Just because they don't have a userpage or a long talk page doesn't mean that they are not active contributors. Even if you look at their edit count and see a low number, this does not mean they have only made these many edits. I can tell you that my IP address changes all the time. So, yes, I think we should allow anons to participate in RfA, although if we see an oppose vote such as "this user is a jerk and I'm suing Knowledge if he becomes an admin" then, of course, delete it as you would any other. But if an anon leaves a vote that says "support. good edit summary usage, and contributions to articles. Unlikely to abuse the tools" why not let it stay? - 2645:. Recently i've noticed (Well its always happend) users striking out an anonymous users oppion (ie. "striking out anon !vote") -- Efectivley this is censoring and there may be some valid reason why a user would state there opinion anonymously (ie. a) They may want to remain anonymous and not get on the bad lists of those that may support the user up for RfA or vice-versa, b) They may be a some what active contributor who does not wish to have an account and/or has ran into the user who is up for RfA and would like to help build consensus and state there opinions; Are we trying to say only the oppinions of those people who wish to register have valid opinions and annons efetivley dont count?) 487:

more passive. By voting neutral I am saying "I explicitly do not want to my vote to determine the outcome of this vote, but I do have concerns that could sway my vote one way or another if new evidence comes to light." I do this usually because there is a single issue that is preventing me from supporting, but that I don't believe it severe enough to block. I will list my concerns about the user, but that doesn't mean that I won't go along with consensus either way. My concerns are therefore not sufficient to make a binding conclusion. I have at times waited as a neutral vote until more evidence has come to light to sway me one way or another. --

2805:

maybe 1 RFA removed per week from someone who has no chances of success, either by lack of edits or time. On the contrary, there may be users with two months that have spent a good amount of time fighting vandals, maybe previously as anonymous and now registered, and if they believe they need the tools, and if the community trust them, why not leave them try? Also, I believe this will invite instruction creep... in some months the line would read "Nominees for adminship must have, at the time of their nomination, 3 months of experience, over 5,000 edits, at least 25% of edits in the Knowledge namespace, a good knowledge about fair use handling..."

2740:

stupendously large majority, such a class of user. (There are exceptions, but they choose to be so in possession of this knowledge in advance.) It doesn't really matter what they know about Obscure Article X; it's not going to be of assistance to the RfA (except ultra-occasionally) whereas it could very well assist the AfD. The sociological differences are sharp between the two processes. Couple this with the fact that sockpuppetry gets much harder to easily spot once anons get involved and there are grounds enough for excluding them from RfA - making someone an admin is more serious an issue than deleting or not an article. -

3605:(ec) As I once explained, adminship is divided into three parts. Before, during and after nomination. Just like when an article goes first to peer review, then to good article, and finally featured candidate, the same way could be said about editors. I see an editor review independant because people can request a review anytime, any number of times, without losing chances of becoming an administrator. However, the RFA is a bit tighter, and someone who requests adminship more than once in a couple of months is likely to get his second request closed per the SNOW clause. -- 4326:

contribute, some come, and some go. Just like Peer Review doesn't always give feedback (I posted the Goldmoon article was listed for 3 weeks and got only one review, and then Riverwind, which has been there for two weeks without a single review), I believe people should edit only when they are willing to take a time to check everything, not only add a note about something the editor did. At least, that is what I think the link in the signature means at a first glance. --

2446:. Manytimes, an editor will be opposed based on one incident, or a couple of harshly-worded comments. Civility is to make sure we get along, not to give trolls and idiots policies to hide behind when somebody points out that their arguments are crap in a decent and factual manner. I personally believe that the only incivility that's an issue is incivility that rises to the level of a block. The word is thrown around far too much, and this needs to stop. — 2197:. Actually achieving the standard now seems to involve; lots of low risk edits, clearly lots of minors rather than anything substantive and running away from anything contentious because any conflict regardless of its management because conflict itself is am mistake. It's also becoming the classic vicious circle, as more of the social networkers get through then they're more likely to hang around rather than move onto actually working on WP. 31: 1739: 3904:"And maybe we are all being watched, but not in the direct context of an RFA run..." - When you submit an ER, I would presume that you would undergo scrutiny. The moment you run, I would presume that anything you do will undergo scrutiny. You make it out as if there is something to greatly fear about editors who post on RfA, as opposed to those who post on ER? Or am I misunderstanding you? - 3843:"and what does strongly suggest mean anyway? If people don't, will it be held against them? Who's strongly suggesting it? If it's not mandatory (which it shouldn't be), then it's just more instruction creep on the page." - Well, personally, I prefer "require". I only suggested "strongly suggest" due to comments here. Note that it's no different than the "strongly suggested" reading of 208:

less vote-like. It would increase visibility for minor viewpoints, but it would also keep their relative strength in check. Most importantly, the RFC style helps keep temperatures down, by helping to keep discussion from progressing past debate into heated arguments and disruptive disputes, simply by keeping threaded discussions to a minimum on the RFC page itself. -

1500:(Inserting a reply to this point here) Yes, I can change it to the last 2000 trivially; the diff-generator is quite timeconsuming (it takes about 1 minute with 1000 edits, and will take me about 4 minutes to run when checking 2000 edits), but I'll update it as such. I've stopped counting all the edits on RfAs for probably the same reasons as you disagree with them. -- 2713:

up (similar editing habits, etc), but with only IP addresses to go on, no-body would even think to request a checkuser. Anons can comment on RfAs, in the comments section, but they can't vote, and their opinions shouldn't be used to gauge consensus (although others may use their comments to aid their own decision, which will count towards the consensus). --

3927:"anyone putting their name on RFA will (should) expect their contribs to be examined." - and someone putting their name up for an ER doesn't expect that? As for "page bloat", I disagree, as noted above. I think if the editor reviews are on a higher traffic page, and are limited to 5-14 days, then not only will the reviews be plentiful 2244:(c.f. "Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Knowledge. Administrators must be courteous, and exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others."). Some people seem to do fine with the tools themselves, but are so abrasive otherwise that they don't really 1230:

up". There are numerous editors who express opinions on RfAs' each has their own idea of what they are looking for in a candidate. Are you proposing that we add proces by standardizing RfA requirements and remove the element of individual judgement? I thought that was the opposite of what you were calling for in

3137:

alone, I'd say this is a safe conclusion. If there's disagreement as to whether or not we currently have a problem, we can back up a little bit, and come to agreement on that first. However, if the process was working as it should, I seriously doubt we'd have as many people finding fault with it as we do now. -

587:

buidling/seeking process-- I believe I owe it to the 'crats and the rest of the community to give some sort of rationale. If I'm going to not support, I believe I owe it to the nom's to help them better themselves. Oppose reasons should not be a form of bullying or punishment. They should be a learning tool.

3946:"If there's no consensus that RFA is broken then why are we trying to fix it?" - I didn't say that there was or wasn't. What I am saying is that this proposal is a "good thing" irregardless. This proposal just has the added benefit of possibly "fixing" several things that others see as "broken" on RfA. - 3667:: if you stripped out the ones longer than 2 weeks, you are left with 26. If you strip out those longer than 1 week, you are left with 13. And consider that many of those may declare that they only want their ER to be 5 or 7 days in duration. So no, I don't think it would be "too long". Do you still? - 3026:

What "bureaucratic bullshit" do you think I suggested? I simply ask that those who want to change the current process to justify their complaint that its broken. That's not adding "bureaucratic bullshit", its simply asking that we don't change somthing unless we have evidence that it needs to change.

2648:

Now there are valid reasons for stopping some annons posting to RfA (ie. trolling) but all to often I see good users being stiken off the list; Efectivly if it is trolling then strike it out -- but if it is a good user offering valid reasons to help build a consensus then we should not strike them, I

2270:

to be held to very high standards, but the mechanism by which they are held to these standards and consequences for breaking these high standards are rather unclear, and both seem to boil down to being chided by other admins who in turn get chided by yet other admins for chiding the standard-breaker.

1920:

The practice the Arbitration Committee has adopted of using "administrators" as administrators of mechanisms such as probation is probably part of the problem. Considerable maturity and discretion is required. These mechanism were adopted to give us some alternative to banning, but have the effect of

1544:

1.) That bureaucrats may ask any commenter to further explain their vote (like dropping a note on the commenter's talk page), and that bureaucrats may remove/discount unexplained votes, at their discretion. I believe that they already have this ability, but I think it should be re-affirmed, in order

1496:

I strongly liked: "Random diffs from last 1000 edits (with ais523's edit counter):". (though not the adjoining edit count tool, for the same reasons as above, though I think the breakdown was better than most). I think giving random diffs on the nom's talk page is a great way to "nudge" editors to do

1290:

I think Durin has some good statistics on the issue. I do agree with David that the RFA header is rather too verbose. But other than that, if the perceived problems are (1) too few candidates and (2) too high standards, the obvious solutions would be (1) to find someone suitable and nominate him, and

1278:

I interpret this differently. Knowledge's growth slowed in the early part of this year after what had been several years of essentially exponential growth. I suspect that the fall off in RFAs (now several months later) is in part a symptom of this more generally slowed growth, and not necessarily a

515:

comments, although often negative, are comments that someone feels they need to present, but that don't sway them sufficiently to make it into a support or oppose vote. I think we should respect that, even when they are downright negative - if they are that bad, then other people will oppose on those

4342:

And as for merging ER and RfA... not sure it would work. ER is a great tool for people who want feedback on their actions, especially new users. Perhaps branch ER into people who are actually looking for adminship, and people who just want others' thoughts? I am fairly active on both ER and RfA, and

4221:

I don't like merging the two pages, however, I do like the idea of a strong encouragement to particpate in ER first, at least given the current "ADMINSHIP IS A REALLY BIG DEAL" climate here. Keep in mind though, that ER is designed to be used for other things - general editing improvement for one. -

2995:

I'm sorry, but I fundamentally disagree that "we can determine consensus exists on is that there are broad problems with the Request for Adminship process". Just asserting this does not make it so. I see a few editors who consistently complain that RfA is broken, but that's not the same as consensus

2817:

If we know for a fact that a given de facto standard is being enforced almost universally by the actions of participants, why not save some time for everybody concerned? Also, I think adopting "fixed" standards over time will probably discourage the reliance on much stricter individual standards nat

2764:

AfD is less voting based - the reasons given are more important. Lots of people giving the same reason doesn't count for as much as two people giving two distinct reasons (if those reasons are true and valid). I think the source of the difference is primarily the difference in number of participents

2712:

It's impossible to tell if one person is voting (or !voting, or expressing an opinion, or whatever) more than once if they do so without being logged in. If someone makes two votes from different accounts which have both been reasonably active, there is a good chance of someone noticing something is

2475:

A little while back, I put up an imaginary RfA on this talk page as a test. Sure enough, a frequent RfA voter took the bait and told me I didn't have enough edits in "process" or something. (You can read the unintentionally hilarious details on my user page.) Since the imaginary RfA was just a goof,

2471:

I've thought about a self-nom on RfA. Then I actually read the page. No way I'll put myself through that crap. Why bother? I can revert vandalism and warn vandals manually, though I guess the shiny buttons would help. And it would be nice to have the good housekeeping seal of approval. But otherwise

2430:

It just occured to me that the whole issue of civility or perceived incivility is a minefield given the number of social cultures, and age differentials, within which editors exist. As a Scot I'm cynical and use sarcasm and irony a lot I also have an extremely dry (arid) sense of humour, frequently

2389:

An additional point - the lack of an "official" minimum requirement for admins (e.g. x months y edits) leads to many nominations by enthousiastic but inexperienced novice users, which are (rather obviously) opposed a lot. This could easily lead people to think that RFAs in general are opposed a lot.

2314:

There is the additional benefit that increasing the availability of admin facilities should encourage a more reasoned level of debate in some areas, because scurrying off to get an admin to arbitrate will be a less viable option. It might actually encourage use of the mediation and advocacy schemes

2133:

The problem with voluntary recall is that the (few) admins for whom recall would actually be necessary could simply refuse to volunteer. AOR is weakly worded and easily gamable: an admin whose standards are "if at least twenty people with at least 7000 edits each complain, the admin will voluntarily

2067:

There are of course none :-) But some are more prone than others. If there is to be a mechanism, it needs the Hard Decisions Committee at the far end. Therefore it needs to be something to make their lives less busy, since committees don't scale. (When the AC was created because Jimbo doesn't scale,

1569:

In my proposal to keep it open, I only suggested keeping it open if there was a chance of it going either way - in other words, require clear consensus or a hopeless deadlock to close an RFA. The nominee should retain the option to withdraw, so this shouldn't be an issue - if they don't like how its

1521:

While I support the idea that a bureaucrat should be able to suggest that an RfA stay open longer than the 7 days, in order to more clearly determine concensus, I strongly oppose leaving an RfA open for longer than 2 weeks. I think could create a hardship for the nominee. During the whole time, I

1324:

I'm not sure if those are necessarily the problems. Other issues I can think of: For example, I hesitate to nominate Wikipedians for adminiship now, because I am not confident that they will want to handle the (sometimes unwritten) complexities of being one. Although being an admin can be simple, it

1260:

I've actually lowered my "standards" to better conform with the rest of the community. I don't think it's unreasonable to be able to feel comfortable about supporting a candidate. And some who failed recently clearly weren't ready. Perhaps we need a way to develop and encourage some of the long term

1229:

Gosh, I guess the eight current candidates must all be mirages, then? Seriously it does appear that there are fewer candidates in recent months, but I'd like to see the real data before drawing conclusions. Also, which guidelines are you refering to? There are no RfA guidelines to get "pushed up and

1013:

OK, I just want to be clear: I did not raise this as a possible RfA criterion. I just wanted people to look at the page and figured people here might be interested given the volume on this talk and that FAs have been raised previously. That's all. (And that's a non-admin's point-of view as well, for

314:

I agree with you on this. Careful evaluation is needed, both of the problems and the proposed solutions. However, the posts here, and elsewhere seem to indicate a general agreement that we do have problems - so allowing the current status quo to continue through inaction and infighting could be just

4285:

The main problem I see is scalability. As is, RFA already has a problem that as Knowledge grows larger and gets more users, this RFA page is going to be HUGE (it is already very large), and might not be able to keep up with the volume of requests- people would have to shift through huge volumes of

3814:

being watched : ) Also, There are many things on wikipedia that require more than one process (or a multi-faceted process). Not to mention, that just because you ask for an ER, doesn't necessarily mean that you plan on an RfA. I know that originally when I posted mine, I had no plans at that time

3589:

before I knew about editor review.) I also note that even in my own RfA, there were editors who suggested that I have an editor review, apparently not knowing that I had (and still have) one listed : ) - Second, the "dissenters over there" aren't making a binding decision for anything. For ER, it's

3186:

People further discredit the notion of RfA-reform by branding a gradual process "bureaucratic bullshit" (they also discredit themselves), and by try to force, by violence, change on RfA of their own design without warning or discussion (see earlier in the year). If those who would reform would just

3157:

Consensus does not require a vote, or straw poll to prove. If there's some contention here as to whether or not the process is broken, we can discuss that further before we move on, however, as pointed out, we can determine this just as easily as we are identifying problems, as if the process isn't

3070:

Actually I have read most of the previous comments on this subject, and participated in several of the specific discussions. If you want to exclude people who don't believe RfA is broken, then yes all the participants will indeed believe that RfA is broken. Well done on excluding meaningful debate,

2804:

The same way there is no clear restriction about the number of edits and the type of participation in the community, there should not be a time restriction for presenting oneself. Would those three months be of active editing? Or since user creation? What is considered "active"? I believe there are

2783:

Given that an RFA with less that 3 months of time on Knowledge rarely succeeds, I'm proposing the following language: "Nominees for adminship must have, at the time of their nomination, 3 months of experience on the English Knowledge" This would set into policy a lower bound that is already treated

2735:

There are key differences between AfD and RfA. AfD asks the question "do you have anything to contribute regarding the topic of this article?" It is entirely possible that someone who has never edit Knowledge before chances on this article and knows an awful lot about it: enough to swing the debate

2516:

The complaints about how broken the system is look familiar, but it's different people saying so now. Sometimes I don't how anyone could possibly oppose/support a given candidate, depending on how I happen to be voting. I also see plenty of successful RfA's among those who are unquestionably ready.

2341:

Second, I think it's safe to say that some people have raised their standards because they perceive the unlikelyhood of admins being demoted if they turn out to be (perceivedly) unsuitable, except in extreme circumstances. As an example, RFA will strongly oppose a candidate for mild incivility, but

2337:

standard for admins, it is equally obvious that it is unclear what that standard should be, and there are widely different opinions on that. The lack of a clear standard encourages people on RFA to make up their own standard; since it is a large wiki, people will want to vote for candidates they do

1400:

I wonder...how important is it to think about what a "successful" Wikipedian/administrator is? How important is it for the candidate to be able express this? What about...whether they can do this in a way which adequately represents themselves, and their feelings about this project? Everyone should

1361:

Anchoress, your comment made my day! :-) :-) :-) I thought it would be quickly forgotten in the digital ether. Well, that just might motivate me to start a WikiProject somewhere when I get the energy to do so. Stay tuned... - Lar, I find that some of the most interesting admins are the ones who are

996:

The whole 1FA idea is quite frankly, ridiculous. While it sounds great on paper, someone could have joined 3-4 years ago, made 10000+ edits, know Knowledge policy inside and out, and not create or significantly help make a featured article. That's just unfair. Luckily, this idea and criteria is not

456:

I think a lot of people use the neutral section to avoid dog-piling a newbie candidate whom they are sure will lose, so that they don't feel bad. It's also used a lot to ask questions, or simply because they don't feel strongly enough or know enough about the candidate to give them full opposition.

4142:

important because it determines whether the pages should be merged. If it should be required to go through ER before RfA, by all means merge it in the name of efficiency. But if it is only "strongly suggested" (aka the status quo), then merging the two processes will only serve to cause confusion.

2357:

The first could be solved by establishing a clear line for experience (e.g. 3 months, 1000 edits) and make it clear that arbitrary criteria are discouraged. The second could be solved by drawing up a consensual standard of adminship, and indiscriminately promote all that pass it, as well as demote

2200:

In some ways the more effective potential admins aren't going to get through, it's clear that being an effective admin will rub some people up the wrong way (hence the issues around re-adminning), if someone hasn't done that before coming up then they haven't actually demonstrated the capability.

2167:

Yes, and in theory a freely editable encyclopedia wouldn't work. The recall process works fine, it has a bunch of high-profile admins in it with real committments. Would it be even better if it was a bit tighter? Sure, I think so, anywhow, but even just what we have is proof that recall procedures

486:

I'd have to disagree with most of the comments except for Themindset. I occasionally vote neutral myself. I want to be clear that my comments should not be taken by the closing bureaucrat to be either a support or an oppose. Simply adding a "comment" may not make this as clear, and a comment is

207:

I think that defeats the purpose. RFC combines structured discussion with simple endorsement "voting" (I hate that word, but I'll call it that for sake of argument) of which statements apply. This would make it a lot clearer to see what the issues at work are, and a lot more readable, while being

4325:

That doesn't sound like a review, that sounds like a... hmm... how it is said in english... "complaint book"? That is, you did something and someone clicks in your link and writes "On October 9, 2006, this user implied I was not neutral." I believe the way it is is fine enough. There are some who

4011:

I read the things it's supposed to do, but none of those things addess the major objections people have to how RFA is run now. So you're wanting to suggest stongly that people jump through an extra hoop (and add up to 40 names to the RFA page) without improving the process in any substantive way.

3799:

Bad idea, I don't see a consensus that RFA is broken enough to indicate a specific fix for starters. This just further bloats a process that has already suffered enough..and I don't know what good it does to judge an editor that knows they are being watched. The only effective way to judge a edit

1470:

Following the 1, 0, -1 format. Which is also used on some polls. It also rather clearly highlights that a neutral vote is "between" support and oppose. I was also re-affirming that these words would seem to be better than encourage/discourage or approve/disapprove; and that I think neutral should

1343:

As someone who I know is a valuable contributor but presumably has no interest in adminship as it's currently constituted (based on conversations and statements on your pages), Anchoress, do you see yourself changing your mind if one didn't have to pass a "jack of all trades" test, as it were? Or

941:

I think the idea is that to get an article to FA status means having a good understanding of the MoS as well as indicating an ability to collaborate and more importantly reach consensus. All these are good experiences that are desirable in an admin. My only problem is that editors can gain these

3969:

If that's what you are looking for, feel free to scour this page, and its many archives : ) - I don't think that we need to decide on what is specifically broken (if anything) in order to merge these two pages. Please take a moment to read the proposal again. What about it do you see as "bad"? -

3048:

An apple is an apple in the way bureaucratic bullshit is bureaucratic bullshit. This is clearly a discussion between people who want reform. There's no use hammering in and making them prove that RfA is broken, because they all believe it is. If you'd bother to read the previous tens of pages of

586:

Elsewhere on this page, there is a complaint about drive by voting or not doing sufficeint research before voting. I dig around until I feel comfortable voting one way or another. I also trust the community to catch anything I might miss. Since RfA is not and never was a vote-- it is a concensus

3136:

Gwernol, This is more than a blind assertion. There's been a pretty consistant pattern of discussion that there are things wrong with the process. What is in question still, is what exactly those problems are. Given the number of users that have raised issues with this process, in the last year

1787:

This talk page is ... puzzling. Adminship is supposed to be "no big deal", as pretty much all admin actions are reversible; the idea is that if you're not going to go batshit with the tools, there's no reason for you not to have them. (I've actually lowered my personal bar for adminship after a

476:

I hardly think this is important, it has the same effect either way, so just leave it as it is. If someone wants to vote neutral, it doesn't make them a weasle, it just means that they firmly believe the candidate is not ready - but would not be a threat to the project with the tools (at least,

423:

You have a point. But do you mean that the de jure neutrals that are de facto opposes should be placed in the more accurate column to begin with, while keeping the neutral section, or do you mean that we should do away with the neutral section altogether? I don't quite understand your proposal.

2599:

The overall number of admins created isn't the entire problem. We are promoting enough, but the process by which we are doing it in overly political, and results in some users that would benefit wikipedia by having the tools not being able to get them. Take a look at the "define the problems"

3830:

If there's no consensus that RFA is broken then why are we trying to fix it? And maybe we are all being watched, but not in the direct context of an RFA run... and what does strongly suggest mean anyway? If people don't, will it be held against them? Who's strongly suggesting it? If it's not

2739:

On RfA, on the other hand, some knowledge of what it is to be an admin, what admins do, how they are made and unmade and, most importantly, of the editor in question or of useful means to evaluate them. Someone totally new to Knowledge necessarily lacks that understanding. Anons are, in the

1344:

were you just saying it's a good idea but still not for you? One of the problems (and I have no cites, just gut) with adminship is that it attracts people who think it's a merit badge and scares off people who would be willing to do the hard things it entails if it wasn't so unpleasant. ++

4257:

Well, it's like the way it's like right now. RfA and RfB are on the same page. Not everyone how has gone through RfA will want to go through RfB. However, adding ER to the RfA/RfB page can cause the combined page to be prohibitively long and unwieldy, considering the current state of ER.

3313:, and to require that all nominees go through an Editor review sometime within the 3 months prior to requesting adminship. The length of the review would be up to the editor being reviewed, from 5 - 14 days (to be declared at the start of the ER). RfA/RfB would remain a constant 7 days. 4127:

I suggest merging the two pages, for the reasons I outlined at the top. Whether or not it's "required" or "strongly suggested" that those who wish to go through RfA should go through an ER sometime in the 3 months prior to their RfA request is what seems to be going off on a tangent. -

3553:

Reverted myself (though we can put "strongly suggest" back if there is a concensus). I don't think that in an all-or-nothing situation of giving "the mop", that 5 extra days should be considered a "hardship" or "wasting everyone's time". Though I think I understand your concerns. -

3570:

RfA into ER and then say ER must come before RfA because then RfA doesn't exist anymore. If you merge the two, you will simply move the problems you perceive with RfA into ER, and people will soon be complaining of how foolish all the dissenters are over there instead of over here.

248:

Just the same objections I've raised for every other proposal that's been brought forth here of late; it's a shot in the dark unless substantial work is done to evaluate where we are and where we want to be with RfA. It's just as likely to cause harm as it is to make things better.

2537:

There are many ways to fix RfA (some introduces much worse problems). If the problem is too many failed RfAs the simplest way to fix it is to change the requires consensus from 75-80% to 70-75%. The number 75% is not set in stone and many controversial fails were in 70-75% range.

2479:

Not to mention that some people would start pulling diffs from my user page on my comments about Signpost stories, or the Cyde quote, or something else somewhere in my thousands of edits, and then I'd really get sourpussed. So I'll just edit my articles and skip the aggravation.

1810:

admin, who is a bit like the ideal editor with added technical powers (and similarly doesn't exist). And this stuff really doesn't have a lot of bearing on whether they are likely to go batshit with the admin tools. They make adminship into a much bigger deal than it should be.

1082:. Apparently there was a section for "Tangential oppose", and I don't think changing standard formatting is going to offset or change anything. If it's an oppose, it's an oppose an should be marked under the right section. If someone could fix this, it would be most helpful. — 3979:

I read this page all the time and the reason given the most for RFA being broken is that people have irrelevant reasons to oppose (read:standards are too high) and this doesn't address that. I do think you need a reason to make a change like this, and not say just we know

2512:

The names of the RfA regulars have changed quite a bit over the last six months, but the process and the reasoning behind the votes seems the same to me. Those who don't give lengthy rationales are too opaque. Those who do are being argumentative or beating up on the nom.

2754:

My point was that, since they cannot be accounted for, how can we allow them to join in the discussion, when so often (for better or worse) voting = "concensus". Of course they should comment, but they shouldn't count towards the final concensus, on either XfDs or RfAs. -

1023:

The talk page for RFA isn't really the place for advertizing FA efforts. That said, I do plan to try to work more on getting more FAs under my belt, and generally support the FA cause, as I feel more editors should. Best wishes in your efforts to promote FA creation. :)

714:

But Rama's arrow is that we are encouraging or discouraging the candidate while the b'crat makes the final decision. If there are significant numbers of substantive "discouragements", the b'crat can choose not to grant adminship privileges. I like this idea.

3815:

for an immediate RfA. Also, note the 3 month allowable lag time. This allows an editor time between an ER and deciding about an RfA, in order to work on things that editors may have had concerns with. I see this as a positive suggestion, ways in which we can

3768:

Merging ER and RfA is not a good idea. The RfA is much more rigid and much more stressful (for good reasons!) and importing all that into ER which (I believe) is meant to see if a person is a good editor only (no superpowers here) is not a good idea, I think.

2874:

After that, then maybe we can start looking at how to fix the problems that we can agree need solutions, and hopefully, anywhere between a couple weeks to a couple months from now, we'll emerge from this with a process that works better than the current one.

1545:

to re-affirm that this leans more towards concensus, rather than democratic voting. (I am thinking of several situations/examples on CfD when I suggest this.) I think that it should be limited to bureaucrats, though, to prevent possible harrassment or abuse.

2431:

I think that my SoH and use of irony/ sarcasm is lost on a great many editors and I've had one or two apparently teenage US colonials get really upset about flippant offhand comments. tbh if I could be bothered I feel sure that I wouldn't get through RFA.

3234:

My main opposition to the present process is the ever-raising bar that has little or nothing to do with the powers an admin is granted. "Applicant must have been rocketed from Krypton as child. Show spaceship for nomination." It fails the giggle test -

3917:

Nothing to fear, but anyone putting their name on RFA will (should) expect their contribs to be examined. They are welcome to submit at ER for comment but it's not part of the RFA process and just bloats the page more....there's 40 names on that list.

1931:

Administrator_s_ - the college of admins. Individual admins are constantly subject to peer review, so errors can be quickly spotted and dealt with (althougn the scars may not be so easy to heal). There is plenty of noise about admin abuse, but

4343:

ER has a much gentler, soothing atmosphere, which is great for newbies looking to improve. RfA, on the other hand, is almost always a testicle-crushing/beauty pageant-like process. Splitting ER could possibly, possibly work. Just my 2 cents. —

4286:

text and might not be able to evaluate candidates with the care that they should get. Doubling the number of RFAs/reviews on one page will be nasty. I'd be all up for a more prominent link to the WP:ER page, and the "strongly suggest" wording

962:

Some kind of Featured Article Drive is always a good idea. It is, however, unrelated to adminship. I think people who write lots of FAs deserve a reward, but the only meaningful reward we have here is the Barnstar and some related sparklies.

4315:

Not unless they wanted to make a comment on something the editor did, then after some time has passed that person could link back to their ER section on their RFA...just an idea to draw more traffic to ER entries without linking them here..

2736:

decisively perhaps. This is not a function of their knowledge of any of the editors involved, nor of the process nor of the handling of the outcomes of the debate. They could know nothing Wikipedic at all, but still be of value to the AfD.

315:

as bad. We need to form some sort of plan here of how to evaluate both the problems and their proposed solutions, and make changes accordingly. Right now, we have a process that's turning rapidly into a mockery of our principles including

2932:

I think the way to go is to make a clear proposal and see if it gets support. This has been tried before and the previous proposals did not get clear support, but a well-thought-out proposal might. Read this talk page for suggestions :)

3758:

This proposal is two proposals, I guess. 1.) merge the 2 pages. 2.) require (strongly suggest) that requesters for adminship go through ER first. You've stated that you disagree with the second, what is your thought about the first? -

3108:

I'm not sure where Verifiability and NPOV come into this. I do believe that the discussion here is amongst those who want reform. If there is no consensus that RfA is broken, this will show up on discussions for individual proposals. —

1279:

manifestation of changed standards (though that might play a role as well). I would hesitate about looking at one variable (number of RFAs) and conclude that it implies the RFA process is suddenly much worse than it was 6 months ago.

2427:). People frequently seem to oppose for the most trivial of reasons, including perceived incivility, but won't support if they see no reason not to oppose. Huge number of support votes only appear to come on widely pimped candidates. 697:

No it is opposing or objecting to the person becoming an administrator. When the formal vote comes around, ambassadors will be opposing or objecting, present reality-obscuring political correctness in an informal vote notwithstanding.

3959:

What I don't understand is if there isn't a common understanding of what's broken, why would we put a bunch of stuff on the project page to "fix" what some people see as broken, shouldn't there be more agreement on what needs doing?

2353:

Third, it is obvious that factions exist on the wiki, e.g. groups of editors with contrary POVs, who have a tendency to oppose candidates from the other faction. Since every oppose-vote counters four support-votes, this is reasonably

824:

Sorry to spam this page with something not strictly related to RfA. The above is an idea to have people sign on to create Featured articles with an informal deadline in place. Maybe of interest to those who use FAs as criteria here.

457:

Also, your claim "If you are not supporting you are opposing." is false, as is its counterpart "If you are not opposing you are supporting." It's not technically a vote, so options other than a simple for or against are permitted. --

3649:

Please, transclude all the current reviews, all the current RFA and the current RFB, and let's see how the page looks like. I kind of like the idea of making ER more public, but the resulting page would be just long to browse. --

3163:

With that said, if you insist on further debate as to the necessity of this discussion, we could do that, but the futility of such a debate should be obvious - do we really have to debate on whether or not to have a debate? -

1814:

I personally think most people need three months' experience to get a feel for the place. But beyond that, in an ideal world every Knowledge editor who's been around enough to get a feel for the place would have admin powers.

661:

The U.N. has an "informal poll" to judge consensus opinion/sentiment - exactly what RfA is supposed to be (RfAs are not "elections"). Nothing empowers the candidate to make the call in the UN or here - I didn't say we change

4021:"but none of those things addess the major objections people have to how RFA is run now." - I think it addresses several issues, and I think it very much improves the process, and I don't think that, once implemented, we'll 1487:- In my opinion, most of the other tools I have seen, have not accurately described my edits. Though I have no idea what criteria they use, I presume neither do most other wikipedia editors. The following 3 are exceptions: 2897:

Re going forward with reform: no, first we need at least another two years of interminable yapping, ludicrous fingering pointing, excruciating non sequiturs, and other flaming bullshit. Only then should we consider reform.

2306:

I've been thinking about the whole 'admin as leader' issue and whilst I see it as a valid argument in the current climate, it's one that's easy to change culturally quite easily. By reverting to a state where adminship is

2722:

If that's true, then Anons should not be able to vote on XfDs (nor should they be able to nominate anything for XfD...). I think this is very much worthy of a much larger discussion. Any suggestions where/what format? -

4305:

I have seen some editors doing that. I am not sure about how successful such approach would be, though, because you wouldn't click on it just as you wouldn't click on the green "e" of Esperanza after the first time. --

3082:

are "bureaucratic bullshit" to you, I had thought more of you. Please stop assuming bad faith on my part and actually show what the problem is. If you can't clearly state the problem then your fix will likely be wrong.

2338:

not know, and need a standard since they cannot fall back to familiarity with the candidate. The result is that some people tend to pick an arbitrary amount of months or edits (etc) and oppose everyone who falls below.

1552:, since those guidelines are fairly clear. People can still oppose on the grounds of advertising, if they wish, since that it their perogative, but the suggestion that it's a violation of "policy", in cases where it 1529:

I have to admit, I was thinking a lot about my "block proposal" on this page, when seeing what another editor called a "pileup" concerning my response to a question about blocking. I think we should probably re-visit

783:

As we are all volunteers, I think we should not be given quotas to meet-- we all do the best we can. Although featured articles are important, I think cleaning up marginal articles to encyclopedic standards might be

1039:

I think the fact that this was presented at all, exposes the "Featured Article Cabal's" most glaring defect: neither the front page, nor the FA have anything to do with building a solid Encyclopedia. And certainly

724:

Crats don't make decisions, they simply determine the decision that the community has made. Put another way, they don't answer "Should X be an admin?" they answer "Has the community decided X should be an admin?".

3717:

Having people jump through one more hoop (ER, in this case) before getting the adminship bit is too big a burden I believe. And the arguments for doing that (avoiding WP:SNOW, etc) don't sound compelling enough.

3997:

list reasons for the proposed change. Look specifically under "This would:" in the proposal text. Which is why I asked that you re-read the proposal. If you're not interested, I can fully accept that. But there

1992:

Absolutely. I think we need to set the bar reasonably high - 5 (or 10) admins agreeing to the recall. Then we dump the person back into my new version of RfA (i.e. only material issues cause a failure). --

666:

of the process. The decision is made by bureaucrats (based on community consensus). Only this process will allow anyone to say "I discourage your nomination because...." Far better than the election format.

2204:

It may be that in some areas WP has now reached the critical mass where a quasi-democratic consensus approach is wholly inappropriate and should be more positively gripped to ensure effective delivery of

2232:

upset—and justifiably so—if an admin mistreats them, even if the actual use of the tools (the block, the protection, the deletion, etc.) is quickly undone. This goes double for blocking; being blocked

4002:

reasons. I'm just not claiming that this will solve the myriad other suggested problems from this page. I think it will solve some, but I think that's irrelevant to main reasons for the proposal. -

282:

It solves my main problems with RfA (the 'support' votes rarely have much content, and can drown out a valid 'oppose' vote, and spurious opposes happen based on things like unrealistic standards). --

4180:

Oh, I see, you mean merge the pages, not the processes. Never mind. I (weakly) support it, as long as one is not required to go through ER before RfA. I would accept the "strongly suggests" part. --

1526:.) The first day I only finished up what I was working on, and pretty much nothing else, though after a few days, I decided to continue on as if the RfA wasn't there, and just avoid this talk page. 851:

No, it would still be a bad requirement. Administrators must have the goals of the encyclopedia at heart, but that does not mean they need to be churning out featured articles on a regular basis. —

4296:

Why don't editors put a little link in their sig if they have a listing at ER? Then anyone can see it and access it from the the "field", folks can react in real time? More people would see it...

3191:

doing it nicely, being friendly rather than critical, polite rather than rude and collegial rather than condescending, then this would undoubtedly lend grease to the wheels they wish to turn. -

2676:

I don't agree that voting is evil (no matter what Knowledge says about it), but I wholeheartedly agree that anons should have more of a say, not just in RfAs but the entire encyclopedia. There

2865: 1548:

2.) I think the "friendly notice"/canvassing issue should be directly discussed. Right now, it's "murkiness" of definition doesn't seem like a "good idea" to me. I think we should default to

1454:

section to the bottom (if the section becomes over-long, it can always be moved to the talk page, when needed). And helpful editors can always move accidentally mis-placed votes. I think the

121: 3636:

Again, that review is about "getting something" (An article to receive a certain "status"). ER is not about anything but requesting info/insight/comments. As I mentioned above, please see:

3530:

Making ER compulsory for admin requests has been suggested before, and it wasn't very popular because it means people who are obviously going to get accepted almost unanimously (can you use

640:

infers that the choice is up to the candidate, when it clearly isn't. In addition, the U.N. secret ballot was also an "informal poll", not anything binding or meaningful officially. Thanks!

3783:

I see that I need to clarify that I'm not suggesting a merge of the process, but of the pages. "ER" would be under a different subsection than RfA, but just transcluded on the same page. -

626: 549:

And an RfA is not the classic "if-you're-not-with-us-then-you're-against-us" sort of thing. One should be allowed to straddle the fence. And I agree with Dlohcierekim's comment above. --

2251:

And, finally, we have had some cases of admins going "batshit with the tools"; the extent to which the ArbCom's solutions in those cases have been successful is open to debate, I think.

3270:

So how do we go about determining which problems are "real"? I'm not even worried about solutions quite yet, since it would be best to know what we think we are trying to fix first. -

3585:

Not true at all. First of all, there are other uses for ER. And, as I noted above, this would give that concept more "traffic" from interested editors. (I know that I knew about RfA

3514:

The RfA would still be 7 days (just as it is now). The ER doesn't keep anyone "on the edge of their seats", as far as I know... However, making an additional modification above. -

435:

I disagree. Sometimes, answers are vague and a greater explanation is needed. A user may not feel inclined to support a candidate, yet he may also not feel an oppose is essential.

1493:

I like interiot's counting tool (I even placed a version of it on my user page). It's just a simple edit counting tool, for those who wish it, with no judgements about those edits.

692: 675: 2868:, and elsewhere, I believe than one thing that we can determine consensus exists on is that there are broad problems with the Request for Adminship process, and related processes. 4339:

work. Unless you see the user doing something extraordinarily good/bad, you probably wouldn't give it a second glance. Best to have a link on your user page/talk page, methinks.

3099:

But here's a starter for you: what on earth relevance does a certain number of featured articles have to whether or not a contributor is likely to go batshit with the tools? -

2626: 890:

No, no--I was not personally suggesting a requirement at all. I just think of this place as an unofficial village pump. The more eyes the better and all that. For those that

2358:

all that fail it (this is the tricky part). The third could be solved by dropping the perceived 80% bar to something more closely resembling other consensus-based processes.

3326:

nudge those who watch this page to participate more in editor review (it has a lot of names which have been there for longer than 2 weeks, most of which have 0-2 comments.)

362: 2347: 3614:

I am not sertain what this has to do with the suggestion to merge the two pages. I'm not suggesting that we merge the two processes, if that's what you're thinking? -

1531: 932:

I think it's part of a larger opinion that work in the mainspace should be held in high regard when evaluating a candidate. FA creation is an obvious example of that.

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 1834:. 3 months and say 1000 edits. And a presumption that the admin bit should be granted, unless "material" issues are identified. Plus a simple recall mechanism. -- 377:

section is usually full of insidious negativity, and it needs to go. If you are not supporting you are opposing. The following are examples of what gets placed under

2311:

by reducing the ridiculous numbers of hoops that candidates have to go through then admins will be less likely to be perceived as having some form of special status.

303:

perceived problems with RfA but may not address an array of other perceived problems by other users. This is one of the reasons why careful evaluation is needed. --

194:

Some RfAs do look like RfCs, but not all. Perhaps the RfC bit would be better suited to the talk page to allow for the more usual simple format where applicable.

3005:

There is no need to get bogged down in bureaucratic bullshit like that. If no consensus that RfA is broken exists, this will show on the proposals for reform. —

2878:

I guess the real question here is how do we go forward with this in a way that respects community consensus, but is able to move forward at a reasonable pace? -

3931:

helpful, but they won't be just hanging around waiting and hoping for additional comments (becoming archived at the end of their term, just like RfA/Bs are). -

3288:

This appeals to the engineer in me quite a lot. If that can be pinpointed, in a better way than the ridiculous poll below, then we/you will be making process. -

1660:

I think increasing the awareness of this is needed here... esp. because people are using the "we can't get rid of them if they suck" rationale for opposing. -

3253:

That's an improvement at least. If the main problem is the 'standards', such as they are, then solutions to people having standards have to be found. Hmmmm. -

2586:

If this were a problem, then that might be a solution. It isn't a problem, or at least, the rate of success isn't a problem, so there's no need to change it.

3427:

for a reason. I highly doubt that this proposal is going to stop the people who register and the first thing they do is open an RfA. I oppose this change. -

2501: 3473:

Sounds okay, but if we're going to do this, we should shorten the actual RfA period so that potential admins aren't on the edge of their seats for weeks. -

2228:

entirely reversible. (Or, more precisely, they're reversible only in the technical sense.) Any number of recent incidents have shown that people will get

3887:

And your concern about this is what? (Please pardon me if I'm appearing dense, but I honestly don't understand, and can only guess at your implication.) -

1792:

the collegial advice of others.) The social and technical skills required are about those of a message board moderator, and whereas there are adults you'd

1758: 171:

In response to a comment that a lot of the proposals are starting to look like RFC, I started on a mockup of what an RFA modeled after RFC would look like

110: 1048:

sysop. It is nice that a certain 'clique' can work together effectively, but any influence they exert beyond their FAs should be violently curtailed. --

1853:

The RfA-dwellers look like they're doing more than rubberstamping RfA candidates. They need to look like they're "protecting" us from unsuitable admins.

1620:

I don't see why this is really necessary in the front matter, as this is the page for approving new ones, not removing old ones. That information is at

1461:(Inserting a reply to this point here) What's the reasoning for switching the positions of the neutral and oppose sections? They seem fine as they are. 1044:

to do with normal administrator functions such as vandal patrolling, article deletion, or backlog clearing. Page protection of FAs requires as many as

1651:

I don't know if it'll fit in the quick mention, but people do need to be aware that the ArbCom has no compunction about deadminning if really needed -

1401:

share notes next time if chance allows us to meet, say randomly, at next year's Wikimedia conference. Or for that matter, any of the future meetups. --

3357:

I also suggest that "Editor review" (or Wikipedian editor review, perhaps) be the page name. It would give a better sense to what's being done here.

4240:

Except that lately it's not. It's pretty much being used for "How'm I doing", and by extension, "Give me feedback in relation to a chance at RfA". -

2472:

it just isn't worth the irritation of some...uh, user (I'll be civil)...voting me down because I don't have 300 edits in Knowledge talk or whatever.

818: 1690:

Should the timing at the top of RfAs say ending or due to end? Thing is, many RfAs finish early, and so the statement isn't true. Any comments? --

2134:

submit to ArbCom proceedings" could be said to be open to recall even if his standards are so ludicrous as to make it a practical impossibility.

444:

What about "neutral leaning support" or "neutral leaning oppose"? A user may not feel strong enough on a topic to decisively support or oppose.

2094: 794: 709: 654: 1423: 1223: 47: 17: 2577:

Changing it to 70-80% would be better, otherwise you'll get complaints from people that don't want 75-80% RFAs to automatically succeed. --

1438:

And with that in mind, let me response to several of the suggestions on this page (including the last 2 archives), in no particular order:

684:

Basically "Discouraging" is the act of a respectful colleague, unlike "Oppose" or "Object" which makes one sound like a candidate's enemy.

632:

Well, "encourage" and "discourage" implies that the candidate can become an administrator without approval regardless of the "vote" - i.e.

1522:

felt like there were things I couldn't comment on (such as this page), since my RfA was ongoing. (Whether it is true or not, it was how I

4105:

Well, if it is only "strongly suggested," then why are we trying to merge the two pages? Or has this discussion gone off in a tangent? --

466:

Prehaps the neutral section should be removed - anyone that wants to say something without "voting" can do so in the comments section. --

4025:

40 names on the page. However, I respect your position to believe otherwise (and to sit out further discussion). Have a great day : ) -

3377:

for a quick example of how it might look. (I de-transcluded the introductory statements, since they would have to be edited, anyway.) -

2665: 1921:

transferring day to day responsibility to administrators. With more power comes the concern that those who exercise it are responsible.

4387: 4356: 3534:

to close an RFA as succeeded? Would need to be done carefully...) would have to waste their time and other's time going through ER. --

1966: 3624: 942:

experiences without ever bring an article to FA status. Nevertheless, there is a valid connection between 1FA and being an admin.

264:

I agree that we need some evaluation here before we make sweeping change. I don't see how this can make things any worse though. -

2871:

I think that the next logical step is to try to reach some agreement on what problems exist, and which of those need to be fixed.

4365:

That's fine, just throwing stuff out there that might drive people to ER without linking them here (which is a bad idea IMHO)....

4268: 4190: 4153: 4115: 4083: 3637: 3374: 1151: 1799:

And particularly this year, the ArbCom has had no compunction in removing the admin bit from those who need it removed. Removal

1705:

Whatever it is, it should be consistent. I changed one such entry to "Ending" because a bot was not getting the time correct. --

3414:

Interesting idea, however if a user has already gone through an editor review, I don't see why we should make them do it again.

1570:

going, they can back off. I'd suggest that 'crats retain the ability to close a particlarly caustic RFA under WP:SNOW also. -

2423:

I'd suggest that another cause is that people in general will be less likely to vote support (and purlease don't start into

1940:

are reasonably effective, I think. A recall mechanism would help too. Adminship is not a badge - it is a set of tools. --

2097:

which is not a troll-magnet and (so far) is not gamed in any way. In my opinion it runs far more smoothly than the ArbCom.

1633:

Tried giving it a mention more discreetly. it needs to be there, because it has an effect of the decisionmaking process. -

1601:

means by which adminship can be revoked. Please feel free to edit this to more accurately reflect and describe reality. -

1497:

a little research on the request. Is there any way to increase to the last 2000 edits (presuming the user has that many)?

3737:

more than just WP:SNOW concerns. I seriously think that potential nominees should have the opportunity to hear opinions

2476:

I could smile at such silliness. But if it had been a real RfA, I probably would have gotten ticked. And who needs that?

1511: 884: 293: 2974: 2440:

It's pretty overreacted to, too. Administrators need to be able to communicate calmly and in accordance with policy.

4096:

As I mentioned above, I have no problem re-adding "strongly suggest" in place of "require" in the proposal above. -

1559:

I have one further proposal but it's going to take me a bit longer to type up, so here's this, at least, for now. -

1101: 563:

This is a silly proposal. Next thing, they'll be telling us that we're not allowed to comment on any current RfA. —

1004: 38: 2237:

a big deal, and having everyone shoot from the hip because the blocks are "reversible" doesn't help things at all.

2208:

I'm sure there are reasons why all this navel gazing is useful, I'm damned if I can think what they are right now.

1377:

So how do we recognize, groom, prepare and nominate those who would be good admins but might not consider running?

3774: 3723: 2861: 1353: 144: 2837:

Withdraw this for now, I still think it's a good idea, but we need to take a better look at the whole process -

1053: 3810:

Well, first, I think that this is a good idea, whether we consider RfA "broken" or not. And technically, we're

4442: 4391: 4369: 4360: 4330: 4320: 4310: 4300: 4290: 4275: 4244: 4235: 4206: 4197: 4160: 4132: 4122: 4100: 4090: 4029: 4016: 4006: 3988: 3974: 3964: 3950: 3935: 3922: 3908: 3891: 3882: 3873: 3864: 3851: 3835: 3823: 3804: 3787: 3778: 3763: 3749: 3727: 3697: 3680: 3671: 3654: 3644: 3631: 3618: 3609: 3598: 3579: 3558: 3548: 3538: 3518: 3497: 3460: 3451: 3405: 3381: 3365: 3296: 3283: 3261: 3248: 3239: 3227: 3199: 3177: 3150: 3125: 3103: 3087: 3065: 3043: 3021: 3000: 2986: 2957: 2923: 2902: 2891: 2850: 2831: 2812: 2808:

Since this is voluntary, and does not damage the overall Knowledge, I believe it should not be restricted. --

2797: 2769: 2759: 2748: 2727: 2717: 2705: 2670: 2613: 2594: 2581: 2572: 2542: 2527: 2484: 2462: 2435: 2414: 2384: 2319: 2295: 2258: 2214: 2172: 2158: 2126: 2101: 2072: 2046: 2022: 2000: 1987: 1983: 1973: 1960: 1947: 1925: 1912: 1895: 1841: 1822: 1776: 1749: 1727: 1709: 1699: 1673: 1655: 1646: 1628: 1614: 1583: 1563: 1475: 1465: 1405: 1387: 1366: 1356: 1338: 1329: 1315: 1283: 1271: 1251: 1238: 1193: 1176: 1155: 1137: 1067: 1056: 1030: 1018: 1007: 987: 949: 936: 927: 898: 862: 846: 829: 812: 762: 745: 729: 719: 597: 579: 553: 544: 529: 500: 491: 481: 470: 461: 448: 439: 428: 417: 340: 307: 277: 253: 243: 221: 198: 188: 160: 137: 3223: 3121: 3061: 3017: 2996:

that its broken or how it might be broken. Show consensus has been achieved rather than simply asserting it.

2919: 2662: 2458: 1891: 1172: 1108:"This section I've crafted for people who aren't piling on because of IRC over this supposed "bitch" remark." 575: 2518: 1462: 1378: 1262: 785: 588: 535: 425: 195: 3745:

reasons why? And how this can help remove quite a bit of the uncertainty/tension from the whole process? -

4381: 4350: 2983: 2018:"wikilawyer playground" - assume any process that can conceivably be gamed will be gamed to destruction - 3209:"But I have not seen any suggestion (ever) that would actually improve on the way it runs at the moment." 2681: 2240:

Admins not only need to avoid doing bad things with the tools per se, but also to avoid doing bad things

1979: 1788:

couple of cases where people I had severe qualms about got their admin bit and proceeded to do okay with

1766: 1458:

section at the top (below the questions) should be for the nom's comments, and direct responses to them.

404:"the answers to the questions above don't reveal a requirement for admin tools on this Wiki at this time" 3401: 2659: 1818:

Please enlighten me as to why it is good for adminship to be a big-deal artificially scarce commodity -

1806:

So the ever-expanding lists of requirements don't make sense. The lists above appear to be marks of the

1695: 1116: 1088: 1049: 2966:

discussers! Unless you come up with a system that keeps them locked in a closet, brain washes them, or

3659:

Oh. I see. Your concern is about page length? Well consider that the majority of the names listed on

4260: 4182: 4145: 4107: 4075: 3770: 3719: 3096:) does not in fact exist. If you could clear up this apparent anomaly, we can advance the discussion. 1147: 646: 550: 172: 4138:

I see. Well, actually, whether it is "required" or "strongly suggested" to go through ER before RfA

4012:

Anyway, I didn't mean to string this out like this...I'm going to sit back and see what others say.

3361:

abbreviation (and variations) should then become a dab page pointing to this page, and to arbcom. -

1537:

That said, I am not against the adding of "extra questions". I think they can be potentially useful.

4366: 4317: 4297: 4013: 3985: 3961: 3919: 3879: 3861: 3832: 3801: 3676:

Note that the latest opinion was that we should archive requests older than 1 month only at ER. --

3397: 3072: 2255: 1691: 1280: 911: 615: 3800:

history is to go through the contribs. Why do we want to make people go through 2 processes here?

3071:

but not so well done on actually helping Knowledge. I'm sorry that core Knowledge principles like

4419: 3093: 2934: 2549: 2539: 2391: 2361: 2272: 2135: 1292: 964: 946: 685: 668: 619: 3476: 3430: 2686: 1904:

I'd challenge points 3 and 6, possibly caveat them with 'The admins who continue to hang around

1860:

when somebody points out to them, in eloquent and factual language, that they're batshit insane.

1436:

Well, my first attempt at RfA has finished. I learned quite a few things (as I hoped I might).

1334:

I think that's an awesome idea, HappyCamper (classifying Admins into departments or whatever).

612: 4376: 4345: 3236: 3100: 2979: 2971: 2123: 2069: 2019: 1957: 1819: 1746: 1652: 1625: 1248: 1220: 1129: 921: 716: 3423:

Also, the RfA process is tedious as it is, and this would add more to the confusion. We have

1978:

With that logic, we don't even have a promotion mechanism that wouldn't be a troll magnet. --

4227: 3576: 3293: 3275: 3258: 3218: 3196: 3169: 3142: 3116: 3056: 3012: 2914: 2883: 2842: 2823: 2789: 2745: 2638: 2605: 2591: 2481: 2453: 2220:

Going back to David's original question, I think he's making several incorrect assumptions:

1970: 1922: 1886: 1719: 1665: 1638: 1606: 1575: 1508: 1420: 1402: 1363: 1326: 1167: 1111: 1083: 881: 856: 840: 809: 759: 739: 703: 570: 521: 407:"neutral because edit summary use is really quite necessary, and answers aren't that strong" 332: 290: 269: 235: 213: 180: 152: 129: 3309:

I think a rather simple solution to several of the issues would be to merge this page with

3158:

broken, we won't be able to come to an agreement on any specific problems with the process.

2350:

about a perceived discrepancy between the ArbCom's standards and the RFA voters' standards.

3488: 3442: 3036: 2692: 2043: 1997: 1944: 1857: 1838: 1773: 1755: 1621: 1143: 641: 478: 316: 750:

That is simply not the case given their recent clear and present demonstration that they

2342:

the ArbCom does not generally do anything about incivility except warn against it. (I'm

4287: 3844: 3531: 3424: 3340: 3079: 1549: 1335: 1160:

Bots count votes. RfA is not (or should not be) a vote. The point is therefore moot. —

1001: 4410:

I don't like this suggestion at all. We were discussing having people to jump through

3831:

mandatory (which it shouldn't be), then it's just more instruction creep on the page.

3350:

This is a simple step that acts very proactively, and I just can't see how this would

2642: 1863:

We constantly have backlogs, so the current sysops can feel as if they're relied upon.

4327: 4307: 4054: 3677: 3651: 3628: 3606: 3358: 3032: 2899: 2809: 2169: 2098: 1937: 1714:

I like "due to end" simply because RFAs can close early, (or less commonly, late). -

1349: 1231: 1216: 1098: 1064: 1025: 1015: 943: 933: 895: 870: 869:(edit conflict) Aargh! Whilst a worthy goal, I hope this is kept well away from RfA; 826: 324: 320: 496:

Neutral choices cannot be eliminated. I sometimes vote neutral with some comments.--

4070: 4066: 4062: 4058: 4050: 3664: 3660: 3310: 3084: 3049:

comments, you'd note that it presents a significant number of problems with RfA. —

3040: 2997: 1933: 1831: 1796:

want to have that job, the skills are easily acquired by e.g. a sensible teenager.

1235: 1190: 916: 906: 618:

and replace "Support" and "Oppose" with "Encourage" and "Discourage" respectively?

488: 363:

Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/Front matter#Changes_to_instruction_paragraph

3456:

I was thinking about that after I posted this, look at the change in the intro. -

1738: 1208:

coincidentally, the process is observably poisonous in several directions and the

3092:

You appear to here be requiring a standard of proof you have admitted elsewhere (

2068:

Knowledge was #500 on Alexa. Today it's #12. Out of all websites of any sort.) -

1063:

LOL. I have officially been accused of being a member of a cabal (*pumps fist*)!

4223: 3594:

free to try for an RfA anytime within 3 months after doing the editor review. -

3572: 3329:

this also can act as a "trial run" for RfA for those who are curious, since the

3289: 3271: 3254: 3244:

Thank you for that response. I about dropped my glass while reading that. : ) -

3213: 3192: 3165: 3138: 3111: 3075: 3051: 3028: 3007: 2909: 2879: 2838: 2819: 2785: 2741: 2601: 2587: 2448: 1881: 1715: 1661: 1634: 1602: 1571: 1505: 1501: 1416: 1162: 878: 874: 852: 836: 805: 755: 735: 699: 565: 517: 497: 458: 445: 436: 414: 328: 287: 283: 265: 231: 209: 176: 148: 125: 46:

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

2627:

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/TawkerbotTorA#Consensus_for_TawkerbotTorA

2346:

saying either standard is correct, I'm pointing out the discrepancy). See also

3984:

broken, let's do this. I think doing something for no specific reason is bad.

3535: 2766: 2714: 2578: 2040: 1994: 1941: 1835: 1770: 1706: 726: 467: 304: 250: 230:

Any more comments on this? I'm somewhat inclined to post it on VPP shortly. -

3336:

It would help "catch" minor mistakes which can cripple an RfA out of the box.

1803:

a big deal, but the AC is there for the social decisions that are big deals.

4241: 4203: 4129: 4097: 4026: 4003: 3971: 3947: 3932: 3905: 3888: 3870: 3848: 3820: 3784: 3760: 3746: 3694: 3668: 3641: 3615: 3595: 3555: 3545: 3515: 3457: 3378: 3362: 3245: 2756: 2724: 1956:

I'm trying to think of a recall mechanism that wouldn't be a troll magnet -

1560: 1472: 1204:

There's a problem with no-one bothering to run for RFA any more; presumably

998: 534:

Sometimes it's good to give constructive criticism without piling on oppose.

385:

where they belong we would have a clearer picture of what is going on here.

3860:

Except that GRFA doesn't put an official looking "list" on the RFA page...

903:

I don't really understand what FA:s and adminship has anything in common.

734:

At the least, they do have a veto in cases of serious problematic users. —

4374:

I understand, Rx. I also strongly agree with Radiant!'s comment below. —

2432: 2316: 2211: 1909: 1866:

The RfA-dwellers feel they have some control and influence on the project

1345: 1291:(2) to support people on less high standards. Hm, come to think of it... 3396:

Very good suggestion. I can't think what might be wrong with it... :) --

1446:

system works well - though I would list them in that order, rather than

2497: 2122:

As discussed above on this page, it doesn't seem to mean a whole lot -

3590:

just an opinion, and no matter what the result of the ER, the user is

1189:

Surely if it's a problem for the 'crats they can fix it themselves? --

4073:

process first is recommended, it should not be mandatory to do so. --

1247:

I see they're deliberately being phrased didactically, for example -

1215:

Is there anything useful (or anti-useful) to fixing or tuning RFA at

1110:

seemed like a rather strange reason to change standard formatting. —

894:

informally think of it as a requirement it might be a page to watch.

804:

If the language is the problem, then I propose "blue" and "yellow". -

3323:

give the user more idea what might be necessary for a successful RfA

1078:

Could someone please properly format this RFA? The current count is

2818:

may not be relevant or even desirable by the community at large. -

2517:

Then as now, I think the system works etter than some of us think.

1219:? It's supposed to be a not-a-guideline to process maintenance. - 398:"Neutral - Sorry you just dont meet my criteria for edit summarys" 120:

Split into a subpage temporarily to keep the discussion readable.

1872:

The current admins can feel important as they're of fewer number.

3741:, in an editor review. Does anyone here need me to list out the 3663:

currently are well longer than 5 days. Of the 65 (?!) listed on

1908:

after being flagged'. Other than that I think it sums it up ;)

1490:

Mathbot's tool for edit summaries seems fairly straight forward.

835:

Perhaps if we paid administrators this could be a requirement. —

4414:

hoops before becoming an admin, this process amounts to adding

2502:

Category_talk:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion#Absolutely_amazing

4231: 3333:

who comment on RfAs would be commenting on the editor reviews.

3279: 3173: 3146: 2887: 2846: 2827: 2793: 2609: 2189:

As I see it RFA has become a focus for those who appear to be

1723: 1669: 1642: 1610: 1579: 525: 336: 273: 239: 217: 184: 156: 133: 25: 1737: 3869:"official looking list"? I don't understand the comment. - 2866:

Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/Defining the problems

1261:

users who would not otherwise consider asking for the mop.

122:

Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/Defining the problems

3211:. Open your eyes and look up, I can see three at least. — 2637:

Okay, this has been getting to me lately, before I begin:

2600:

section above (which is currently sitting on a subpage) -

1745:

Wikipedi-tan using her admin bit, mucking out the wiki -

2784:

as a de-facto policy by participants in this process. -

2765:- RfAs get dozens of votes, AfDs usually get 4 or 5. -- 1595: 3320:

make the user more known to those who watch this page.

1097:

Why would you care? I do not see any harm. Let it be.

873:

was bad enough (I haven't seen it around recently). --

410:"needs a few more enwiki edits and better summary use" 4335:

ReyBrujo is right, the link in the signature doesn't

1432:

Post-RfA thoughts about past RfA Reform suggestions

392:"doesn't have the project wide experience just yet" 3739:from the same people who typically comment on RfA 395:"Great contributions, just needs more experience" 2333:First, while it is obvious that we should have 3878:A list of names on a (official) process page. 1869:The RfA-dwellers don't have to write articles. 4418:(not to mention doubling the time involved). 1856:The trolls and idiots can always hide behind 1199: 143:See also the very extensive discussions here 8: 3693:page is. I think 2 weeks would be plenty. - 2039:Show me any process that can't be gamed. -- 1142:It could also cause problems for the bots. — 997:taken as seriously (or seriously at all). -- 1759:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Wikipe-tan 111:Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/stats 2962:To be honest, what makes RfA hellish? The 1830:See my suggestion along a similar line on 477:that's what I mean when I vote neutral). 1212:guidelines keep being pushed up and up. 819:Knowledge:1 featured article per quarter 3343:situations before they even become RfAs 2970:(hinthint) the problem won't be fixed. 2968:allows for fairness between both sides 1200:No-one's running, so up the guidelines 754:answer just precisely that question. - 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3819:each other become better editors. - 18:Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship 7: 3640:, for an example of what I mean. - 2248:to use the tools to cause conflict. 1590:Documenting current removal process 2860:As demonstrated by discussions at 2778:Proposal: Lower limit of 3 months. 2168:work and are not just troll-bait. 1967:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration 638:you from becoming an administrator 24: 2856:How do we go forward with reform? 2649:mean come on.. it's not a vote. 1128:be helpful to the closing 'crat. 614:Why don't we take a cue from the 3993:My point in response was that I 3544:How about "strongly suggest"? - 356:Changes to instruction paragraph 29: 2680:good anon users out there like 2266:In response to (2), admins are 2095:up-and-running recall mechanism 3685:That's partially because it's 482:00:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC) 471:22:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 462:22:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 449:22:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 440:22:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 429:22:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 418:22:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 222:10:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 199:09:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 189:07:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 1: 3840:Let's see, in reverse order: 3689:a high traffic page, whereas 3035:. I'd also ask you to remain 389:"you need broader experience" 4224:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 3272:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 3166:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 3139:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 2880:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 2839:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 2820:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 2786:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 2602:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 1716:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 1662:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 1635:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 1622:WP:ADMIN#Administrator abuse 1603:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 1572:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 518:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 381:. If they were placed under 369:Neutral Opposition. Stop it. 329:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 266:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 232:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 210:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 177:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 149:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 126:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) 4443:12:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 4392:15:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 4370:14:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 4361:09:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 4331:04:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 4321:04:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 4311:04:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 4301:04:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 4291:04:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 4276:01:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 4245:01:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 4236:01:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 4207:20:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 4198:20:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 4161:20:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 4133:19:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 4123:19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 4101:19:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 4091:18:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 4030:00:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 4017:00:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 4007:23:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3989:23:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3975:22:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3965:21:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3951:21:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3936:22:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3923:21:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3909:21:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3892:23:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3883:23:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3874:22:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3865:21:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3852:21:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3836:20:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3824:18:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3805:18:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3788:17:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3779:17:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3764:17:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3750:17:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3728:17:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3698:20:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3681:19:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3672:18:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3655:18:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3645:17:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3632:17:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3619:17:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3610:16:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3599:16:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3580:16:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3559:16:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3549:16:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3539:16:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3519:16:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3498:16:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3461:16:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3452:16:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3406:16:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3382:17:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3366:16:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3297:12:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 3284:01:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 3262:12:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 3249:00:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 3240:23:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3228:00:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 3200:16:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3178:15:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3151:14:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3126:14:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3104:14:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3088:14:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3066:14:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3044:14:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3022:14:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 3001:13:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 2987:13:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 2958:12:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 2924:14:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 2903:09:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 2892:05:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 2851:05:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 2832:05:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 2813:05:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 2798:04:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 2770:11:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 2760:01:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 2749:01:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 2728:23:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 2718:23:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 2706:18:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 2671:18:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 2620:Consensus for TawkerbotTorA 2614:03:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 2595:15:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 2582:10:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 2573:10:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 2543:04:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 2528:19:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 2485:16:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 2463:14:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 2436:13:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 2415:13:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 2385:13:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 2320:16:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 2296:13:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 2259:13:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 2215:13:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 2173:13:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 2159:13:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 2127:13:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 2102:13:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 2073:13:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 2047:13:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 2023:12:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 2001:12:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 1988:12:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 1974:12:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 1961:11:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 1948:11:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 1926:11:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 1913:10:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 1896:10:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 1842:10:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 1823:09:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 1777:12:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 1769:is slightly disturbing. -- 1767:commons:Category:Wikipe-tan 1750:11:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 1728:11:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 1710:13:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 1700:12:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 1674:10:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 1656:09:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 1647:03:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 1629:23:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 1615:09:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 1584:10:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 1564:18:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 1541:And two general proposals: 1476:23:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 1466:20:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 1424:18:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 1406:21:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 1388:20:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 1367:20:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 1357:19:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 1339:19:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 1330:19:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 1316:15:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 1284:15:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 1272:15:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 1252:11:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 1239:09:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 1224:09:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 1194:07:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 1177:06:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 1156:05:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 1138:02:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 1102:02:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 1068:18:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 1057:18:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 1031:07:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 1019:22:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 1008:22:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 994:A non-admin's point-of-view 988:15:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 950:15:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 937:15:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 928:15:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 899:15:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 863:15:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 847:15:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 830:15:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 813:22:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 795:21:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 763:22:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 746:22:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 730:21:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 720:20:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 710:15:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 693:15:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 676:15:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 655:14:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 627:13:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 598:15:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 580:08:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 554:07:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 545:21:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 530:19:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 501:13:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 492:13:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 401:"Just need more experience" 373:Stop weaseling! This whole 341:10:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 308:23:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC) 278:09:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 254:13:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 244:09:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC) 161:05:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC) 138:10:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 4459: 4065:. While going through the 1415:David, how does 14 == 0? - 116:Define the problems first? 3031:on Knowledge rather than 2862:User:Linuxbeak/RFA_Reform 2652:Anyway just my 2 cents.. 2639:Knowledge is not censored 1597:, trying to document the 1556:, should be discouraged. 607:"Encourage," "Discourage" 145:User:Linuxbeak/RFA_Reform 2508:those pesky rfa opposers 2496:This thread, related to 1014:whatever that matters). 106:1000 admins - some stats 3033:someone's point of view 2522:Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 1504:12:40, 5 October 2006 ( 1382:Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 1266:Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 877:15:29, 3 October 2006 ( 789:Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 592:Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 539:Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 286:09:56, 3 October 2006 ( 2548:That would work, yes. 1790:a bit of peer pressure 1742: 1734:This brightened my day 1448:support/oppose/neutral 1444:support/neutral/oppose 1027:Firsfron of Ronchester 3733:(ec'ed note)And it's 2017:"troll magnet" -: --> 1850:It's important that: 1741: 1686:Ending or due to end? 1471:stay as an option. - 1121:02:16 October 04 '06 1093:02:08 October 04 '06 42:of past discussions. 3566:There is no need to 2633:/me rants on annons. 2625:Discussion moved to 1906:navel gazing central 1106:It just seemed like 2093:We already have an 1073: 616:UN Security Council 3027:Generally we like 2704: 2491:Absolutely amazing 2315:that bubble along. 2224:Admin actions are 1743: 196:Stephen B Streater 3339:Helps "weed out" 2685: 2669: 2500:was relocated to 2195:content producers 2191:social networkers 1986: 653: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4450: 4439: 4437: 4435: 4433: 4431: 4271: 4263: 4193: 4185: 4156: 4148: 4118: 4110: 4086: 4078: 4057:is like merging 3496: 3495: 3493: 3486: 3483: 3481: 3450: 3449: 3447: 3440: 3437: 3435: 2977: 2954: 2952: 2950: 2948: 2946: 2701: 2698: 2695: 2689: 2668: 2653: 2569: 2567: 2565: 2563: 2561: 2525: 2524: 2411: 2409: 2407: 2405: 2403: 2381: 2379: 2377: 2375: 2373: 2292: 2290: 2288: 2286: 2284: 2155: 2153: 2151: 2149: 2147: 1982: 1783:What is RFA for? 1452:General comments 1385: 1384: 1312: 1310: 1308: 1306: 1304: 1269: 1268: 1135: 1132: 1119: 1114: 1091: 1086: 1050:Connel MacKenzie 1028: 984: 982: 980: 978: 976: 924: 919: 914: 909: 792: 791: 690: 673: 650: 644: 624: 595: 594: 542: 541: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4458: 4457: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4429: 4427: 4425: 4423: 4421: 4390: 4359: 4269: 4261: 4191: 4183: 4154: 4146: 4116: 4108: 4084: 4076: 3771:Oleg Alexandrov 3720:Oleg Alexandrov 3491:trick or treat 3489: 3487: 3484: 3477: 3475: 3474: 3445:trick or treat 3443: 3441: 3438: 3431: 3429: 3428: 3393: 3307: 2975: 2944: 2942: 2940: 2938: 2936: 2858: 2780: 2699: 2696: 2693: 2687: 2666:52278 Alpha 771 2660:Fenton, Matthew 2654: 2635: 2622: 2559: 2557: 2555: 2553: 2551: 2535: 2533:Simple solution 2520: 2519: 2510: 2493: 2401: 2399: 2397: 2395: 2393: 2371: 2369: 2367: 2365: 2363: 2330: 2328:Possible causes 2282: 2280: 2278: 2276: 2274: 2145: 2143: 2141: 2139: 2137: 1785: 1736: 1688: 1592: 1532:that discussion 1434: 1380: 1379: 1302: 1300: 1298: 1296: 1294: 1264: 1263: 1202: 1133: 1130: 1117: 1112: 1089: 1084: 1076: 1026: 974: 972: 970: 968: 966: 926: 922: 917: 912: 907: 822: 787: 786: 686: 669: 648: 620: 609: 590: 589: 537: 536: 371: 358: 299:It might solve 169: 118: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4456: 4454: 4446: 4445: 4407: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4403: 4402: 4401: 4400: 4399: 4398: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4380: 4367:Rx StrangeLove 4349: 4340: 4318:Rx StrangeLove 4298:Rx StrangeLove 4283: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4250: 4249: 4248: 4247: 4218: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4214: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4202:Exactly : ) - 4171: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4038: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4019: 4014:Rx StrangeLove 3991: 3986:Rx StrangeLove 3967: 3962:Rx StrangeLove 3954: 3953: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3920:Rx StrangeLove 3912: 3911: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3885: 3880:Rx StrangeLove 3862:Rx StrangeLove 3855: 3854: 3833:Rx StrangeLove 3802:Rx StrangeLove 3797: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3753: 3752: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3623:Have you seen 3602: 3601: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3454: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3409: 3408: 3392: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3345: 3344: 3337: 3334: 3327: 3324: 3321: 3306: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3251: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3181: 3180: 3160: 3159: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3106: 3097: 3046: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2857: 2854: 2835: 2834: 2815: 2806: 2779: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2709: 2708: 2643:Voting is evil 2634: 2631: 2621: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2597: 2584: 2575: 2534: 2531: 2509: 2506: 2492: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2477: 2473: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2428: 2425:its not a vote 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2339: 2329: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2312: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2256:Kirill Lokshin 2253: 2252: 2249: 2238: 2218: 2217: 2209: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2162: 2161: 2130: 2129: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 1980:badlydrawnjeff 1976: 1965:I guess using 1951: 1950: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1899: 1898: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1870: 1867: 1864: 1861: 1854: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1784: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1763: 1762: 1735: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1712: 1687: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1591: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1539: 1538: 1535: 1527: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1494: 1491: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1437: 1433: 1430: 1428: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1319: 1318: 1287: 1286: 1281:Dragons flight 1275: 1274: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1242: 1241: 1201: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1075: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1060: 1059: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 991: 990: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 953: 952: 939: 904: 867: 866: 865: 821: 816: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 748: 679: 678: 658: 657: 611:Hey - see this 608: 605: 603: 601: 600: 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 556: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 454: 453: 452: 451: 432: 431: 412: 411: 408: 405: 402: 399: 396: 393: 390: 370: 367: 357: 354: 352: 350: 349: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 311: 310: 259: 258: 257: 256: 227: 226: 225: 224: 202: 201: 168: 165: 164: 163: 117: 114: 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: 4455: 4444: 4441: 4440: 4417: 4413: 4409: 4408: 4393: 4389: 4388:damage report 4386: 4383: 4379: 4378: 4373: 4372: 4371: 4368: 4364: 4363: 4362: 4358: 4357:damage report 4355: 4352: 4348: 4347: 4341: 4338: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4329: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4319: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4309: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4299: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4289: 4277: 4273: 4272: 4265: 4264: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4252: 4251: 4246: 4243: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4233: 4229: 4225: 4220: 4219: 4208: 4205: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4195: 4194: 4187: 4186: 4179: 4178: 4177: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4163: 4162: 4158: 4157: 4150: 4149: 4141: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4131: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4120: 4119: 4112: 4111: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4099: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4092: 4088: 4087: 4080: 4079: 4072: 4068: 4064: 4060: 4056: 4052: 4031: 4028: 4024: 4020: 4018: 4015: 4010: 4009: 4008: 4005: 4001: 3996: 3992: 3990: 3987: 3983: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3973: 3968: 3966: 3963: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3952: 3949: 3945: 3944: 3937: 3934: 3930: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3921: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3910: 3907: 3903: 3902: 3893: 3890: 3886: 3884: 3881: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3872: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3863: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3853: 3850: 3846: 3842: 3841: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3834: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3822: 3818: 3813: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3803: 3789: 3786: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3776: 3772: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3762: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3751: 3748: 3744: 3740: 3736: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3725: 3721: 3699: 3696: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3679: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3670: 3666: 3662: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3653: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3643: 3639: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3617: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3608: 3604: 3603: 3600: 3597: 3593: 3588: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3578: 3574: 3569: 3560: 3557: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3547: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3537: 3533: 3520: 3517: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3499: 3494: 3492: 3482: 3480: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3462: 3459: 3455: 3453: 3448: 3446: 3436: 3434: 3426: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3407: 3403: 3399: 3395: 3394: 3390: 3383: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3364: 3360: 3355: 3353: 3348: 3347:etc etc etc. 3342: 3338: 3335: 3332: 3328: 3325: 3322: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3314: 3312: 3305:Merge with ER 3304: 3298: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3268: 3263: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3250: 3247: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3238: 3233: 3229: 3226: 3225: 3221: 3220: 3216: 3215: 3210: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3198: 3194: 3190: 3184: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3167: 3162: 3161: 3156: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3140: 3135: 3127: 3124: 3123: 3119: 3118: 3114: 3113: 3107: 3105: 3102: 3098: 3095: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3086: 3081: 3077: 3074: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3064: 3063: 3059: 3058: 3054: 3053: 3047: 3045: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3020: 3019: 3015: 3014: 3010: 3009: 3004: 3003: 3002: 2999: 2994: 2993: 2988: 2985: 2984: 2981: 2978: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2956: 2955: 2931: 2930: 2925: 2922: 2921: 2917: 2916: 2912: 2911: 2907:See below. — 2906: 2905: 2904: 2901: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2876: 2872: 2869: 2867: 2863: 2855: 2853: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2816: 2814: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2777: 2771: 2768: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2758: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2747: 2743: 2737: 2729: 2726: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2716: 2711: 2710: 2707: 2702: 2690: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2667: 2664: 2661: 2657: 2650: 2646: 2644: 2640: 2632: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2598: 2596: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2583: 2580: 2576: 2574: 2571: 2570: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2541: 2532: 2530: 2529: 2526: 2523: 2514: 2507: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2499: 2490: 2486: 2483: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2469: 2464: 2461: 2460: 2456: 2455: 2451: 2450: 2445: 2444: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2434: 2429: 2426: 2422: 2421: 2416: 2413: 2412: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2383: 2382: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2349: 2345: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2331: 2327: 2321: 2318: 2313: 2310: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2297: 2294: 2293: 2269: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2257: 2250: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2236: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2216: 2213: 2210: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2187: 2174: 2171: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2160: 2157: 2156: 2132: 2131: 2128: 2125: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2103: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2074: 2071: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2048: 2045: 2042: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2024: 2021: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2002: 1999: 1996: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1975: 1972: 1969:is out then. 1968: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1959: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1949: 1946: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1924: 1914: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1897: 1894: 1893: 1889: 1888: 1884: 1883: 1878: 1877: 1871: 1868: 1865: 1862: 1859: 1855: 1852: 1851: 1849: 1848: 1843: 1840: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1821: 1816: 1812: 1809: 1804: 1802: 1797: 1795: 1791: 1782: 1778: 1775: 1772: 1768: 1765: 1764: 1760: 1757: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1748: 1740: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1711: 1708: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1685: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1654: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1562: 1557: 1555: 1551: 1546: 1542: 1536: 1533: 1528: 1525: 1520: 1513: 1510: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1498: 1495: 1492: 1489: 1488: 1486: 1485:Edit counters 1483: 1477: 1474: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1464: 1460: 1459: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1431: 1429: 1426: 1425: 1422: 1418: 1407: 1404: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1389: 1386: 1383: 1376: 1368: 1365: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1337: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1328: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1317: 1314: 1313: 1289: 1288: 1285: 1282: 1277: 1276: 1273: 1270: 1267: 1259: 1258: 1253: 1250: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1240: 1237: 1233: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1222: 1218: 1213: 1211: 1207: 1195: 1192: 1188: 1178: 1175: 1174: 1170: 1169: 1165: 1164: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1136: 1127: 1123: 1122: 1120: 1115: 1109: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1100: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1092: 1087: 1081: 1069: 1066: 1062: 1061: 1058: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1038: 1037: 1032: 1029: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1017: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1006: 1003: 1000: 995: 989: 986: 985: 961: 960: 951: 948: 945: 940: 938: 935: 931: 930: 929: 925: 920: 915: 910: 902: 901: 900: 897: 893: 889: 888: 886: 883: 880: 876: 872: 868: 864: 860: 859: 854: 850: 849: 848: 844: 843: 838: 834: 833: 832: 831: 828: 820: 817: 815: 814: 811: 807: 796: 793: 790: 782: 781: 780: 779: 778: 777: 764: 761: 757: 753: 749: 747: 743: 742: 737: 733: 732: 731: 728: 723: 722: 721: 718: 713: 712: 711: 707: 706: 701: 696: 695: 694: 691: 689: 683: 682: 681: 680: 677: 674: 672: 665: 660: 659: 656: 651: 643: 639: 635: 631: 630: 629: 628: 625: 623: 617: 613: 606: 604: 599: 596: 593: 585:<sigh: --> 584: 583: 582: 581: 578: 577: 573: 572: 568: 567: 555: 552: 548: 547: 546: 543: 540: 533: 532: 531: 527: 523: 519: 514: 510: 509: 502: 499: 495: 494: 493: 490: 485: 484: 483: 480: 475: 474: 473: 472: 469: 464: 463: 460: 450: 447: 443: 442: 441: 438: 434: 433: 430: 427: 422: 421: 420: 419: 416: 409: 406: 403: 400: 397: 394: 391: 388: 387: 386: 384: 380: 376: 368: 366: 365: 364: 361:Relocated to 355: 353: 342: 338: 334: 330: 326: 322: 318: 313: 312: 309: 306: 302: 298: 297: 295: 292: 289: 285: 281: 280: 279: 275: 271: 267: 263: 262: 261: 260: 255: 252: 247: 246: 245: 241: 237: 233: 229: 228: 223: 219: 215: 211: 206: 205: 204: 203: 200: 197: 193: 192: 191: 190: 186: 182: 178: 174: 166: 162: 158: 154: 150: 146: 142: 141: 140: 139: 135: 131: 127: 123: 115: 113: 112: 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: 4420: 4415: 4411: 4384: 4377:riana_dzasta 4375: 4353: 4346:riana_dzasta 4344: 4336: 4284: 4267: 4259: 4189: 4181: 4152: 4144: 4139: 4137: 4114: 4106: 4082: 4074: 4048: 4022: 3999: 3994: 3981: 3928: 3816: 3811: 3798: 3742: 3738: 3734: 3716: 3690: 3686: 3591: 3586: 3567: 3565: 3529: 3490: 3478: 3444: 3432: 3373:Please see: 3356: 3354:be helpful. 3351: 3349: 3346: 3331:same editors 3330: 3316:This would: 3315: 3308: 3237:David Gerard 3222: 3217: 3212: 3208: 3188: 3185: 3182: 3120: 3115: 3110: 3101:David Gerard 3073:WP:CONSENSUS 3060: 3055: 3050: 3029:verifiablity 3016: 3011: 3006: 2982: 2967: 2963: 2935: 2918: 2913: 2908: 2877: 2873: 2870: 2859: 2836: 2782: 2781: 2738: 2734: 2677: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2636: 2624: 2623: 2550: 2536: 2521: 2515: 2511: 2495: 2494: 2457: 2452: 2447: 2442: 2441: 2424: 2392: 2362: 2348:this comment 2343: 2334: 2308: 2273: 2267: 2254: 2245: 2241: 2234: 2229: 2225: 2219: 2194: 2190: 2136: 2124:David Gerard 2070:David Gerard 2020:David Gerard 1958:David Gerard 1919: 1905: 1890: 1885: 1880: 1820:David Gerard 1817: 1813: 1807: 1805: 1800: 1798: 1793: 1789: 1786: 1747:David Gerard 1744: 1689: 1653:David Gerard 1598: 1593: 1558: 1553: 1547: 1543: 1540: 1523: 1484: 1463:Picaroon9288 1455: 1451: 1450:, and add a 1447: 1443: 1442:I think the 1435: 1427: 1414: 1381: 1293: 1265: 1249:David Gerard 1221:David Gerard 1214: 1210:requirements 1209: 1205: 1203: 1171: 1166: 1161: 1125: 1107: 1080:(41/32/4/17) 1079: 1077: 1045: 1041: 993: 992: 965: 891: 857: 841: 823: 803: 788: 751: 740: 704: 688:Rama's arrow 687: 671:Rama's arrow 670: 663: 637: 633: 622:Rama's arrow 621: 610: 602: 591: 574: 569: 564: 562: 538: 512: 465: 455: 426:Picaroon9288 413: 382: 378: 374: 372: 360: 359: 351: 300: 170: 119: 109: 78: 43: 37: 4382:wreak havoc 4351:wreak havoc 3982:something's 2482:Casey Abell 2309:no big deal 1971:Fred Bauder 1923:Fred Bauder 1403:HappyCamper 1364:HappyCamper 1327:HappyCamper 516:grounds. - 36:This is an 3039:. Thanks, 2663:Lexic Dark 2443:That's All 2354:effective. 2242:in general 2193:more than 1206:completely 1144:Simetrical 1074:Rory's RFA 642:Flcelloguy 636:discourage 551:physicq210 479:Themindset 167:RFA as RFC 98:Archive 75 90:Archive 73 85:Archive 72 79:Archive 71 73:Archive 70 68:Archive 69 60:Archive 65 4288:Borisblue 3638:this page 3625:this mess 3375:this page 3224:criticism 3207:You said 3122:criticism 3062:criticism 3018:criticism 2920:criticism 2540:abakharev 2459:criticism 2201:Catch 22. 1892:criticism 1336:Anchoress 1173:criticism 664:that rule 576:criticism 4328:ReyBrujo 4308:ReyBrujo 4049:Merging 3678:ReyBrujo 3652:ReyBrujo 3629:ReyBrujo 3607:ReyBrujo 3391:Comments 2900:Marskell 2810:ReyBrujo 2682:this guy 1858:WP:CIVIL 1456:Comments 1152:contribs 1099:FloNight 1065:Marskell 1016:Marskell 944:David D. 934:Marskell 896:Marskell 827:Marskell 317:WP:CIVIL 4262:physicq 4232:Comment 4184:physicq 4147:physicq 4109:physicq 4077:physicq 3845:WP:GRFA 3532:WP:SNOW 3425:WP:SNOW 3341:WP:SNOW 3280:Comment 3174:Comment 3147:Comment 3085:Gwernol 3080:WP:NPOV 3041:Gwernol 2998:Gwernol 2888:Comment 2847:Comment 2828:Comment 2794:Comment 2610:Comment 2498:CAT:CSD 2205:output. 1879:QED. — 1756:Wot, no 1724:Comment 1670:Comment 1643:Comment 1626:Rory096 1611:Comment 1599:current 1580:Comment 1550:WP:SPAM 1236:Gwernol 1191:Spartaz 1118:Epsilon 1090:Epsilon 1042:nothing 784:better. 717:Richard 526:Comment 513:Neutral 446:Michael 437:Michael 379:Neutral 375:neutral 337:Comment 274:Comment 240:Comment 218:Comment 185:Comment 157:Comment 134:Comment 39:archive 4337:really 4055:WP:RfA 3573:Splash 3359:WP:RFA 3290:Splash 3255:Splash 3214:Werdna 3193:Splash 3112:Werdna 3094:WT:PRO 3052:Werdna 3008:Werdna 2964:voters 2910:Werdna 2742:Splash 2656:thanks 2588:Splash 2449:Werdna 2170:Haukur 2099:Haukur 2044:(Talk) 1998:(Talk) 1945:(Talk) 1938:WP:ANI 1882:Werdna 1839:(Talk) 1774:(Talk) 1502:ais523 1417:Splash 1232:WP:PRO 1217:WP:PRO 1163:Werdna 947:(Talk) 875:ais523 871:WP:1FA 853:Centrx 837:Centrx 806:Splash 756:Splash 736:Centrx 700:Centrx 566:Werdna 498:Jusjih 459:tjstrf 415:Jim182 383:Oppose 325:WP:AGF 321:WP:NPA 284:ais523 4422:: --> 4071:WP:GA 4067:WP:ER 4063:WP:FA 4059:WP:GA 4053:with 4051:WP:ER 3665:WP:ER 3661:WP:ER 3627:? -- 3592:still 3568:merge 3536:Tango 3479:Mike 3433:Mike 3311:WP:ER 3037:civil 2937:: --> 2767:Tango 2715:Tango 2700:treat 2694:Trick 2579:Tango 2552:: --> 2394:: --> 2364:: --> 2275:: --> 2138:: --> 2041:ALoan 1995:ALoan 1942:ALoan 1934:WP:AN 1836:ALoan 1832:WP:BN 1808:ideal 1794:never 1771:ALoan 1707:Durin 1554:isn't 1295:: --> 1126:could 967:: --> 727:Tango 649:note? 468:Tango 305:Durin 251:Durin 16:< 4438:< 4416:more 4412:less 4242:jc37 4228:Talk 4204:jc37 4130:jc37 4098:jc37 4061:and 4027:jc37 4023:have 4004:jc37 3972:jc37 3948:jc37 3933:jc37 3906:jc37 3889:jc37 3871:jc37 3849:jc37 3847:. - 3821:jc37 3817:help 3785:jc37 3775:talk 3761:jc37 3747:jc37 3743:many 3724:talk 3695:jc37 3691:this 3669:jc37 3642:jc37 3616:jc37 3596:jc37 3587:long 3556:jc37 3546:jc37 3516:jc37 3458:jc37 3402:Talk 3398:Alex 3379:jc37 3363:jc37 3276:Talk 3246:jc37 3219:talk 3170:Talk 3143:Talk 3117:talk 3078:and 3076:WP:V 3057:talk 3013:talk 2980:hway 2953:< 2915:talk 2884:Talk 2843:Talk 2824:Talk 2790:Talk 2757:jc37 2725:jc37 2688:Mike 2606:Talk 2568:< 2454:talk 2410:< 2380:< 2335:some 2291:< 2268:said 2246:need 2230:very 2154:< 1984:talk 1936:and 1887:talk 1720:Talk 1696:Talk 1692:Alex 1666:Talk 1639:Talk 1624:. -- 1607:Talk 1594:See 1576:Talk 1561:jc37 1524:felt 1473:jc37 1311:< 1168:talk 1148:talk 1131:Yank 1054:wikt 999:CFIF 983:< 923:Toth 858:talk 842:talk 741:talk 705:talk 571:talk 522:Talk 511:The 333:Talk 323:and 301:your 270:Talk 236:Talk 214:Talk 181:Talk 175:. - 173:here 153:Talk 130:Talk 4000:are 3929:and 3812:all 3735:way 3687:not 3352:not 3189:try 2678:are 2433:ALR 2344:not 2317:ALR 2226:not 2212:ALR 1910:ALR 1346:Lar 1134:sox 1124:It 1113:Moe 1085:Moe 1052:- 1046:one 634:we 4274:) 4258:-- 4234:- 4230:- 4226:- 4196:) 4159:) 4143:-- 4140:is 4121:) 4089:) 3995:do 3777:) 3726:) 3577:tk 3575:- 3404:) 3294:tk 3292:- 3282:- 3278:- 3274:- 3259:tk 3257:- 3197:tk 3195:- 3176:- 3172:- 3168:- 3149:- 3145:- 3141:- 2976:ig 2890:- 2886:- 2882:- 2864:, 2849:- 2845:- 2841:- 2830:- 2826:- 2822:- 2796:- 2792:- 2788:- 2746:tk 2744:- 2697:or 2641:, 2612:- 2608:- 2604:- 2592:tk 2590:- 2235:is 1801:is 1726:- 1722:- 1718:- 1698:) 1672:- 1668:- 1664:- 1645:- 1641:- 1637:- 1613:- 1609:- 1605:- 1582:- 1578:- 1574:- 1421:tk 1419:- 1348:: 1234:? 1154:) 1150:• 892:do 887:) 861:• 845:• 810:tk 808:- 760:tk 758:- 752:do 744:• 725:-- 715:-- 708:• 647:A 528:- 524:- 520:- 489:RM 339:- 335:- 331:- 327:- 319:, 296:) 276:- 272:- 268:- 249:-- 242:- 238:- 234:- 220:- 216:- 212:- 187:- 183:- 179:- 159:- 155:- 151:- 147:- 136:- 132:- 128:- 124:- 94:→ 64:← 4436:t 4434:n 4432:a 4430:i 4428:d 4426:a 4424:R 4385:- 4354:- 4270:c 4266:( 4192:c 4188:( 4155:c 4151:( 4117:c 4113:( 4085:c 4081:( 4069:/ 3773:( 3722:( 3571:- 3485:| 3439:| 3400:( 2972:H 2951:t 2949:n 2947:a 2945:i 2943:d 2941:a 2939:R 2703:) 2691:( 2658:/ 2566:t 2564:n 2562:a 2560:i 2558:d 2556:a 2554:R 2408:t 2406:n 2404:a 2402:i 2400:d 2398:a 2396:R 2378:t 2376:n 2374:a 2372:i 2370:d 2368:a 2366:R 2289:t 2287:n 2285:a 2283:i 2281:d 2279:a 2277:R 2152:t 2150:n 2148:a 2146:i 2144:d 2142:a 2140:R 1761:? 1694:( 1534:. 1514:) 1512:C 1509:T 1506:U 1354:c 1352:/ 1350:t 1309:t 1307:n 1305:a 1303:i 1301:d 1299:a 1297:R 1146:( 1005:⋐ 1002:☎ 981:t 979:n 977:a 975:i 973:d 971:a 969:R 918:a 913:z 908:A 905:→ 885:C 882:T 879:U 855:→ 839:→ 738:→ 702:→ 698:— 652:) 645:( 294:C 291:T 288:U 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 71 - Knowledge

Index