Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 82

2208:

administrative actions would make very little dent in those editing backlogs. The only way to deal with editing backlogs is to harness the power of the tens of thousands who help out with a little bit here and a little bit there, and that involves streamlining the experience so that it is easier (and it mostly is at the moment) for tens of thousands people to help out here and there, a bit at a time. And gradually, the whole thing judders its way forward to a more palatable state at some indeterminate point in the future. Bots do help with some of the editing tasks, but the most important editing tasks need humans.

655:

support the opinion, but that's part of the discussion. If a commentator can present a rational reason why he or she thinks certain criteria are relevant or important to the formulation of the opinion, I don't think it's fair to disregard the opinion out of hand because it falls under one of the so-called arguments to avoid. To have some global argument (because, after all, this essay is as much an argument as anything) discounting what might be valid opinions would hinder discussion and "codifies" the opinion of just one side.

2717: 31: 2212:

being made every few minutes), then it seems a bit silly to wave an editcountitis flag around like that. Even the most prolific editor around here is nothing more than a rather small drop in a very large ocean being assaulted by a continous thunderstorm of rain, and with world-spanning cataracts of water flowing off the edges of the world (that's the removal of vandalism, in case this metaphor is getting a bit strained).

2893: 2701: 2337:), while the scope of my editing has expanded greatly (such as posting on user talk pages a lot more, plus even more involvement in the Knowledge namespace than before, when I was primarily just !voting in XfDs). As for which is more important to the project... that is an impossible question to answer, as both (hard-core editors and hard-core admins) are needed, and are not mutually exclusive concepts. 3142:. Someone will object to this comment and it's not even a suggestion for changing RfA. The net change to RfA after god knows many archives of this page has been moving the questions to the top of the RfA template, and changing the word "vote" to "comment" and various other awkward words. And both of those changes were just made, then discussed (and objected to) on WT:RFA but they stuck. 2709: 799:"Because the position of administrator is not a right but rather a privilege granted by the community to users it trusts, candidates for administrator should be advised that their record of contributions will undergo intense scrutiny. Such candidates should be prepared to receive criticism. Likewise, all participants in the requests for adminship process should adhere to 144:

affect whether the vote is counted or not), it may still lead to people not giving their resons, or to giving dishonest reasons, to avoid using a an 'argument to avoid' they happen to believe in. Maybe it should be something like 'Things to consider before voting in an RfA' and discuss why various expectations are unrealistic or inappropriate. --

2284:) And as for the question about admins only wanting to get tools to improve their editing rights, it is only logical that some would do that. If I had enough experience to be an admin, I would want to be one for the purpose of greater editing rights. The posibility of becoming a "super-user" is quite lucrative. 792:

candidates have to undergo such scrutiny and face criticism by people they've never met. Perhaps with some changes to the RfA explanatory text, lesser-experienced Wikipedians will be better able to understand the process and judge whether or not to proceed, and hopefully spare themselves from undue stress.

3753:

First off, don't jinx us by mentioning it ;). Perhaps all this discussion on this page has had an effect, getting through to enough regulars about the need for admins and the imporatnce of not opposing on the basis of arbitrary metrics. All of you who stood for adminship in 2006 but failed, may want

3251:

What are the goals of RfA? I'm intentionally leaving this open ended. Just indicate what you think are the goals of RfA. Note; this is not asking what are good criteria for voting, or what criteria a candidate should meet to succeed at RfA, only what the goals of RfA are (or, if you like, should be).

2246:

that are obvious nonsense, but have five tags for cleanup, wikifying, referencing, categorizing, and so forth, when any one of the taggers could have just read the thing, used speedy or prod, and been done with it. In short, we're not doing a good job quantifying the editing backlogs, so it's nearly

2211:

I also find it rather strange that people sometimes nominate someone and say "Look! This person has made over 20,000 edits!!" (or in one recent case, something like 40,000+ edits). When you put this in the context of the literally millions of edits being made a day (and the tens of thousands of edits

1641:

In general, little previous mediation experience is required. We believe in learning by participating. Many mediation cabal cases are typically entry level, and somewhat easier than those handled by mediation committee or arbitration committee cases. (though not always, so be careful. Even so,if you

1348:

But you can hand out random smileys by the dozens and just like sending out spam email, you don't need to get that high of a response rate. And sheesh, anyone who can't stay out of a disagreement for a week, well...I guess this won't work for them. I just think it's a bad idea, or perhaps OK on the

1326:

I don't know. I can see somebody putting that banner on their talk page and then going around and handing out a bunch of barnstars and smileys to generate talk page traffic and get a bunch of me-too voters on their RfA. I just think it starts down a slippery slope to campaigning, so I'd have to say

943:

No, but I was primarily thinking about 1) helping very inexperienced admin hopefuls who are unfamiliar with the RfA process to avoid hurt feelings of rejection; and 2) saving the time of the community. Ultimately, it is however the choice of the individual whether or not to run, and whether or not to

3948:

Nothing. In both cases, if the nominees want to start the process, they need to update the ending date and transclude their nominations into the main page. If not, they just sit there forever. If the nominees want to ask for them to be deleted, I know that those requests have been accomodated - as

1645:

If you would like to help, just visit the mediation cabal page, and look up a case you think might be interesting, and dive in. If it looks too hard, but you're willing to try anyway, you can also ask for more people to come join you on the medcab talk page. If you can't do it alone, maybe you could

322:

People are entitled to an opinion, but there is no reason why they should be entitled to have their opinions, especially when contrary to the facts or founded on poor judgment, stand unchallenged. The idea that people have a right to apply whatever insipid criteria they like, to the detriment of the

3877:

And we have absolutely no idea if 96.8% is the high water mark. None. What you are looking at is the instantaneous percentages. There's no record of that anywhere that is easy to discern, without looking at every single edit done to every single RfA that has ever been done. :) It's good to see RfAs

3346:

Which rather raises the key question - is Knowledge better off with a lot more admins, with the inevitable downside of the very small proportion of bad eggs becoming perhaps a lightly larger very small proportion? Or is Knowledge better off minimising the proportion of bad eggs, with the inevitable

2978:

Not to sound like I'm giving up on discussion, but I truly think that we can only lead by example. "Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself." (Tolstoy) If we could use our comments to actually make an argument for or against an editor, I think we'd have a better

1853:

It could easily go higher in the next couple of days. Only 4 RfAs dropping off in the next two days...at the rate of new RfAs, there could easily be more new ones than that over the same period. And most are passing...so of course all the hand-wringing discussions about what to do about the harsh

807:

I still think the text could use some modification, especially in making clear the need for experience, but at the same time, I don't want to turn this into "gaming the system". Above all, I hope that this text, or something along its lines, will help users to better "self select" whether or not to

694:

Many of the reasons people list for oppose are not too bad as reason not to support, but insufficient as reasons to cancel out four support votes. If people don't want to support somebody because they don't use edit summaries for their Category talk edits, I don't see a problem. The problem is that

3009:

is broken; rather, I think there is simply no consensus at all about what should be done to reform RfA since we don't seem to agree on what RfA should be. That it needs fixing seems to be a widespread sentiment, but there's little agreement on how to do it. I don't think moving reform proposals to

768:

The edit summary usage (out of last 150 edits) is by no means the whole story, of course. However, mathbot's tool calculates the edit summary only based on the last 150 edits to give people a chance to learn from their mistakes and move on. That tool is not designed to give a foolproof answer. Its

3298:

I'd say it is fairly simple, it is: 1) to scrutinise candidates for adminship: screening out those whom the community feel are, on balance, likely to abuse the tools, or where the community feels, at this juncture, we have too little evidence on which to make that judgement call 2) to balance the

2872:

The reduction in opinions per RfA may be due to more RfA's being closed before the 7 day time. If the early snowball closes or withdrawals were taken into account, I bet a large portion of the observed effect would go away. For the record there has been very little controversy about more snowball

2860:

Interesting. It appears that there is a correlation between the number of "votes" per RfA and the success rate. Whether this means anything or is coincidental, I don't know. I am also curious as to the total number of RfAs that ran the full course. Would that number be achieved by subtracting the

2733:

which covers the period of August '05 to March of '06. The more current chart above shows a much steeper rise in standards, and shows a non-flat line now of increasing average number of edit counts for failing RfAs. There's a number of different ways to look at this data, and this is but one way.

2127:

There are statistics out there on article length, and the number of FA and GA and A-level articles keeps increasing (I think). Suppose you were able to somehow define the "amount" of useful editing, and it was increasing at a rate of (say) 20% per year. What would that mean - that it's too low?

2116:

are full of gnarly cases. Doing a thorough job on page protection probably would entail cleaning out talk pages and posting warnings on user pages, not just dropping in to block a page and ask folks to work things out. (I'm not denying the usefulness of the latter; I'm just saying that when edit

654:

I do not look forward to the day that this essay is cited in an RfA discussion. Frankly, I think it's unnecessary, because people are entitled to their opinions. Being opinion, it's pretty difficult to say that the opinion is right or wrong. One can challenge the underlying facts that are used to

143:

discussion, I advise reading it. QAV was a proposal to limit which votes would be allowed in an RfA; one problem was that it would just encourage people using false reasons, or no reason at all, to prevent their votes being discounted. Although this essay is not nearly as bad (because it doesn't

3332:

Without directly answering your question, I think one of the core dimensions to consider is whether the goal is affirmative or negative. Specifically, is the goal to "promote the best candidates" or to "exclude the worse candidates". Without trying to qualify "best" and "worse", I think it is

3094:

The reason most of these reform ideas never receive consensus support is because only the most vocal proponents for reform are usually involved in creating these ideas. However, once they come to the floor, the vast majority of users who don't see the need for major reform speak up, dooming the

2176:

Finally, I'd argue that the backlogs here aren't the result of too few editors - they're the result of too few registered users who actually do any significant amount of editing. I've heard the figure of 3+ million registered users (but never seen an authoritative source); my own calculations,

791:

Hello there, I haven't been with Knowledge very long, and I don't always follow RfAs, but I've noticed that there are quite a few well-intentioned but very inexperienced users who put themselves up for adminship, only to be rejected. The RfA process is harsh, and I think unavoidably so, because

725:

edit summaries (the edit summary usage tool looks at the last 150 edits, but only in the main namespace), and assess whether minor edits without edit summaries needed them. If you can find one or two instances where an edit summary should have been used, then that would be valid point to raise.

3145:

My point is that yeah, the surest fire way to avoid a proposed change to RfA ever actually happening seems to be to discuss it here first. People who object mean well, but I'm just saying that WT:RFA is a place where stuff is discussed and always objected to, and if you believe we have to have

2172:

What's also interesting, of course, is that a new admin is free to do anything he/she wants to do, such as continuing to edit articles. For such users, Knowledge gets a "super-user", able to fix problems without asking an admin to do so (except disputes in wars in which he/she is involved, of

2150:

Some good points. Especially about the questions being interesting but maybe not that useful! :-) Thanks for those comments. I guess what I am asking is if a lack of road builders is more visible than a lack of apple growers? I'm asking whether people pointing at admin backlogs are missing the

1890:

I do think the discussions on here and elsewhere have definitely led to a few more RFAs running, and I also think a few people are reducing their restrictive standards, which is a good thing. I tried to get someone to go for RFA like we were challenged to, and someone else already has dibs on

2207:

I agree with what you say here. I guess this is another way of saying that admin backlogs are relatively small, and that editing backlogs are (and have been for some time) so completely ginormous that the relatively small (1000+) group of users involved in (or interested in being involved in)

2059:

Also, there has been a lot of discussion about needing more admins to clear admin backlogs. What about needing more editors to clear editing backlogs? It seems fairly easy (from the above) to clear admin backlogs. But how easy is it to clear editing backlogs? Which are more detrimental to the

2051:

I'd like to start a discussion on adminship and editing. All admins edit to a greater or lesser degree, and some people insist on admin candidates meeting certain editing criteria (experience and quality), as well as the civility and trust criteria. To what extent do admins find their editing

1395:

I think if people are going around handing out barnstars, that'll attract attention from the RfA !voters whether there's a banner or not. And am I supposed to remove the template from my talk page, or do you mean that other people should remove it if they end up using the new banner? If I'm

1336:

It should be pointed out that people you are having a disagreement with are just as likely to visit your user pages as are your friends. I wouldn't classify non-obnoxious banners as campaigning, and there is a tradition of such notices that goes back years. The simple informative banner of

871:

To be blunt, it will have no effect. I'm sorry. All prior efforts at getting people who are not ready to not put up an RfA have had no effect on the numbers of people going up who are not ready. The simple fact is, people don't read. People read even less when it comes to web based reading.

2861:

number of "Early withdrawn RfAs" from the total of "New RfAs posted"? If so, that means about 498 RfAs ran to conclusion, suggesting that 69% of RfAs that run to their conclusion are successful. I certainly stand to be corrected - if I was gooder at math, I'd be much further ahead in life!

2241:

are largely illusory, and the true backlogs are hard to see. What appear as editing backlogs (number of articles tagged for cleanup, and so forth) are to a large extent created by people running through and slapping tags on articles they haven't read. It's not uncommon to find articles in

1068:

If we want to change the prerequisites text then I suggest saying something along the lines of "Individuals have their own standards and you may wish to check the objections to some current candidates on this page before nominating." Though again, the problem is people not reading it.

3233:

There isn't anything to do really. It's not been transcluded to WP:RFA. Until it has been, it's not an official RfA. The user can choose to not post it until six months from now if they so choose. No action is needed here. If it's posted to RfA, then action would be appropriate.

1295:

and would appreciate any input. It's not being used now because I know there have been some users who were reprimanded for "advertising" their RfAs, but it might be helpful to have a banner, or maybe just a userbox, so that other users will know when there's an RfA happening.

2903:

Since nobody else has commented on it, I was surprised that more than 1 in 5 RfA nominees has less than 1,000 edits—this seemed like a lot. It would have been nice to include in the chart so I didn't have to calculate that no nominee with less than 1,000 edits was successful.

2091:. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that 20% do this. So what? They're still more effective as editors than before. Moreover, interests change - can we conclude that if someone does little blocking and protecting for the 12 months after adminship, that he/she will not 1002:

No, it doesn't. What needs fixing is the ever increasing standards being applied to candidates. Every time that some prerequisite has been suggested as a bar for people to exceed before applying, it's been shot down. Count on it to be shot down again if it is proposed.

2101:

Getting more editors is a completely different subject than getting more admins, unless you're suggesting that more admins equals less editors. (If the latter, those with the bit are clearly more valuable doing admin stuff than editing stuff, all other things being

846:

I understand what you mean about the word "privilege". I know that adminship is supposed to be no big deal, but I was trying to get across that it is also something that people aren't automatically entitled to either. Alternative wording suggestions are welcome.

2056:? Do some editors go through RfA simply to acquire tools they need for their editing (housecleaning such as deletions, history merges and moving over existing pages), and show no interest (or only a perfunctory interest) in the blocking and protecting tools? 1175:

No. Every Knowledge has its own system for appointing administrators. There are a few Stewards who have certain powers on all Wikipedias (mainly promoting and demoting people), but regular admins have to be made admins separately on each site they use.

829:

I'm not sure about the "privilege" bit. Really the only reason everyone isn't an admin is because of the chaos they could cause. Jimbo said "I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing."

2088:

Do some editors go through RfA simply to acquire tools they need for their editing (housecleaning such as deletions, history merges and moving over existing pages), and show no interest (or only a perfunctory interest) in the blocking and protecting

1610:

in a new proposal, shoot down said new proposal, and act oblivious towards further developments. (Note how I shift blame from us denizens of the page to the page itself - why blame ourselves when we can point fingers at an inanimate object instead?)

1642:

do get in trouble, no worries, ask one of the helpful cabal coordinators to help. After a little while, if you know your dispute resolution paths, you can probably even neatly hand off to the next stage of dispute resolution without help at all)

2160:

I guess I've always figured that any editor can work on the backlog, but only admins can fix certain problems, often problems that should be fixed quickly to save resources (e.g., vandalism; it seems virtually every candidate promises to help at

2914:

Line 6 of the table at the beginning of this section shows 191 RfAs, or 21.6%, were for nominees with <1000 edits. I didn't include that all failed; I sorta thought it was common knowledge. We haven't had one <1000 that passed since 2005.

2189:. In other words, Knowledge fails to interest, or fails to keep interested, at least 95% of the people who go through the trouble of registering a new account. In short, if we want to deal with editing backlogs, the place to look (I think) is 3333:

fairly obvious that if one emphasizes promotion then some bad apples will get through, and similarly, if your process emphasizes exclusion then some potentially very effective admins will also get blocked. Finding a good balance is tricky.

2063:

Is there any way to get a handle on the amount of useful editing being done? And, even harder, is it possible to work out whether we have the same rate of solid content being added, as opposed to wikignome tidying (which is also essential)?

2945:

That is to say, each reform proposal on this talk page should get its own subpage, and after a period of discussion, people vote on whether to adopt it or not. 75% support means a proposal gets adopted. Does the system look familiar?

1568:? Wow, the mailflow on this talk page is incredible. And yet the RFA system hasn't really been changed at all in the past year-and-a-half. Interesting that there is apparently so much dissent and so little agreement on how to improve. 680:

of opinions in which one man's meat is another man's poison, as per what W.marsh has shown in the diffs he provided. This essay is going to be much more lopsided than the AfD one for the simple reason that it will always deal with the

1409:

No, leave the template alone as part of normal talk page discussion. That was a rhetorical question, intended to point out that even without a banner, there will be obvious clues that a user is going through RfA on their user pages.

2752:

I often hear the complaint that nominees with high edit counts routinely fail. The data above does not support this conclusion. Success rates plateau after 3000 edits and show not much motion thereafter. If anything, they increase

1863:

Well most of the discussion above relating to admin inactivity or the need for more sysops may have spurred the community to act upon them. Or maybe its merely numerical coincidence, I like to be optimistic and hope its the first

3680:

difficult (we deal with all sorts of hard to get along with people in as reasonable fashion as we can). It is, however, not a big deal. It may seem the same, but it's subtly different. Enough for me to change the title anyway. -

3705:

This is a good thing; people are finally realizing that we need more administrators, and we shouldn't be putting people through gauntlets. I'm seeing a point where RfA criteria pages will become "look back and laugh" moments. —

3356:

The former, since we cannot a priori know which candidates become the bad eggs. So in being overly cautious in avoiding bad eggs, we are (1) hurting ourselves by creating less admins, and (2) not actually preventing bad eggage.

908:

If my proposed text were on the page, it might still have no effect, but at least unsuccessful RfA candidates wouldn't be able to say that they weren't warned without also admitting that they didn't carefully read the RfA page.

579:

I'm not saying this is definitely a good or a bad thing, just mentioning how people cite essays. There's just something disturbing about people saying "your vote doesn't count because this essay says so". Although that's not

3262:

The goal should be to give the admin tools to any somewhat-experienced user who requests them, unless the user's past and present behavior indicates that user would misuse or abuse the tools. Speculation over what the user

1240:

It also makes a big difference where you are an admin, and where you're applying. Being an admin on en will probably (but not always) be a big help in becoming an admin on a very small language version, but not vice versa.

1022:

You're using an interpretation based on being here for a decent amount of time. A newcomer will read that to say "Okay then, since I haven't done anything bad, I'm going to nominate myself after half a month of editing."

2117:

wars get to the point that pages need full protection, then laying about with a stick - appropriately - almost certainly will help transition to a more peaceful setting when the page protection comes off, but that takes

1045:

I read a lot, more than many people, but I still put myself up for RfA in December, when I had few talk page or Knowledge space edits. I do think something's amiss in the process. We need a bigger warning, for starters.

2930:

There are probably as many views on how to reform RfA as there are people commenting on this talk page. Well, as we all know, virtually all of the non-trivial ones die of terrible death, and nothing gets ever done.

716:

no longer an essay, guideline or policy (which of these was it, if ever?), and is now "refusing to be categorised"! :-) Incidentially, I agree with the edit summary in the diff W. Marsh pointed at, where BigDT said:

626:. If there really were arguments we all agreed were to be avoided, people wouldn't have been making those arguments in the first place. No one wants their pet reasons for opposing/supporting to be on this list. -- 3025:

I believe that it is not that all reform proposals are failing. It is just that most proposals discussed here propose radical changes, which often meets enough opposition to be shot down. At the risk of violating

1879:

It ebbs and flows... there have been like only 2-3 open RfAs (last summer I think) and people got all worried. But it just varies. December 2005 was the all-time leader for most admins promoted in a month though.

1633:

Can you handle people yelling at you all day? Do you enjoy untangeling complex disputes? Do you have a shiny admin bit and want to make a difference? (Even if you don't have an admin bit, that's good too). The

3611:

That survey was more like a year ago, so it will be interesting to see what has changed, if anything, in that time. We can then see how that compares to the data you just presented for the intervening year.

3552:

on adminship and its procedures, to find out if a substantial majority of editors believe that certain changes should be made to our procedure or precedent. Your feedback will be greatly appreciated! :) -

4256: 187:

I wasn't really thinking of bureaucrats, I was thinking of editors saying "Excuse me, but you are not entitled to that opinion". We get enough people saying that certain criteria may not be used already.

2280:

in that edit count is just a drop in the bucket. Also, I would like to point out that edit count should not be the main reason for supporting the potential admin. (I voted against the 40,000+ editor,

2012:

You have to add it yourself. And I hate to say this, but if you didn't know that, you would probably be better off waiting a few more months before trying, because you'd get shot down quite bad. –

3175:

The reason nothing ever gets done is that you have the "he doesn't need the tools" and the "he doesn't write enough articles" crowds. The ONLY question is whether the nominee is trusted. Nobody

3073:

Yes there has. Relevant to the above, there's a very interesting essay that closely relates to why RfA reform has strong difficulty in moving forward. It's a long essay, but very worth the read;

3903:(which is guaranteed to fail by the way). No idea who the editor is but he/she left a message asking me how to process the rfa. Don't know why they picked on me. Could someone act accordingly?-- 3399:

Yep, but unfortunately nobody has yet been able to come up with a deopping process that actually works, other than the arbcom of course but that does tend to be rather lengthy and dramatical.

3179:

the tools, but if they can be trusted with them, why oppose? Changing percentages isn't going to matter - we have to challenge the notion that opposing for peripheral reasons makes sense. --

2084:

admins shift their time to admin stuff, from editing; probably most do. Let's say, for sake of discussion, that 80% reduce their editing of articles by (say) an average of 30%. So what?

3095:

reform effort. I agree that only incremental changes will happen here--for there very good reason that a lot of editors (myself included) don't see the need for drastic reform. Best,--

2134:

Is it possible to determine if apple growers in Northern California are as productive as road builders in Southern California? Even if it were, how exactly would that be useful? --

2793:

Oh, ok. I was just wondering, what it looks like with a co-nom. I hear people say they dont want too many co-noms but cause it is bad. I have seen one with many co-noms that made

3928: 3316:

Realistically: At this point in time, there seem to be many different goals, including but not limited to things such as a reward for good editing, and for political maneuvering. --

103: 3390:

I tend to agree. Unfortunately, we are often moving in the direction of over cautiousness - partly I suspect due to the perceived drama involved in desysopping failing admins.--

3138:

If you propose anything here, no matter how trivial, someone will object to it. Even if it's not changing RFA, but for example generating some kind of statistic related to RFA,

1772:

OK, you recruited at least one. I think my bit is still shiny after 3 months. Anyway, I've been thinking about getting involved in this, so this was the push I needed. :-) —

1509: 3438:

This is an excellent discussion point. I'm refactoring it into a discussion section to hopefully keep comments on the goals and the discussion of those goals each on track. --

1667::). I don't have the "shiny admin bit" (ohhh ... is that what admins get? So unfair ...) But anyway, I have considered helping out recently and maybe I'll jump in. Cheers. 2696:

only includes those nominations that were not withdrawn early and were not successful. This is the smallest subset of RfAs, typically comprising less than 20% of all RfAs.

109:

Please read and contribute to this page, the purpose of which is to tell people not to make the various kinds of !votes that are often complained about on this talk page.

540:

cite WP:SNOW widely as justification for their actions/arguments, even while it was an essay. Their argument was that they just agreed with the logic behind the essay. --

3977:

I noticed they have a support vote from a user whose only contribution was that vote. Should I leave them a note about the sockpuppetry policy, or is that too bitey? —

3030:, if RfA were to be changed, it would be done in incremental steps, changing a small detail here and there, eventually fine-tuning the process over a period of time. -- 2801:. Another intersting, but probably impossible statistic to calculcate, what are your chances if you are nominated by another administartor vs a non adminstrator editor. 695:

oppose votes weigh a lot more than support votes, which is perhaps an explanation why people ask for explanations for those and not for expolanations of support votes.

175:

Fair point, but the current 'crats haven't shown any indication of doing that, for better or worse. Grandmasterska's RfB was trending no consensus on just that point.--

1545: 1540: 1535: 1496: 94: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 414:

I'm simply looking for evidence for the statement that essays are used as guidelines, especially since the essay tag clearly states that the page is not a guideline.

2193:

with people who are already here and busy and constructive; it's with all the possible editors out there, particularly those registered, who aren't helping out. --

2173:

course), which saves the time of other admins, at the relatively minor cost of having to do an RfA to get the user to the "super-user status". That seems a bargain.

3146:

everyone agree to a change before we make it, that is just never going to happen on WT:RFA. I'm not really sure what change to WT:RFA this could call for though. --

1358:

If someone starts doing atypical things such as handing out awards that looks like campaigning, then we should call them on it at that time. Should we ask that the

672:

Until the day where every editor is supposed to give diffs of why the candidate deserves adminship in his support, I think this is ridiculous. This only encourages

3773:

For those who failed their RfA back in 2006, please get your coupons, free samples and pamphlets ready. It is sales promotional period. Good luck to everybody. --

3589:

Certainly. I wasn't meaning to imply "we already did this so what's the point". I just wanted people to be aware of the other survey, as I think it's relevant. --

1731:

While I did say earlier that I'm seeing a lack of newly minted admins with mediation skills, I can still at least try to recruit here, right? Come prove me wrong!

3496: 3454: 161:

I think that it's perfectly fine as an opinion essay, until people start trying to use it to discount votes that they disagree with. Then we have a problem. -

4252: 2979:

chance of effecting some sort of change (since some people who randomly pop into an RfA don't bother reading any of this, and couldn't care less what we all

2830:

Interesting. I seem to remember last time you did this the plateau was after 2000 edits. It would appear people are right - requirements are increasing... --

1499:) with no obvious complaints or criticisms. I would prefer to see one title redirected to the other, so we don't have to keep two templates up-to-date... -- 1442:

so anyone who wants to use it can, but I don't think it's necessary to publicize the template. If someone thinks it would be good to note its existence at

2886:

Here's the chart for all complete RfAs (those that ran the full 7 day course). Note that there is still a reduction pattern, but the graph is less chaotic.

1258:

No. There is no actual link between the user databases of Wikimedia wikis yet, and they're completely separate projects, both technically and politically.

4065:

I don't think there has. Highest is 71 iirc, on Carnildo's 3rd rfa, which passed with the lowest ever percentage. Not sure about failed requests though.

3923: 721:. Of course, the real problem is people looking at an edit summary percentage and assuming that this tells the whole story. What you need to do is find 4085: 3963: 2060:

project? Editing backlogs or admin backlogs? And which needs more effort thrown at it? "Both" is the obvious answer, but are they both being tackled?

1443: 1397: 3831:

It's kinda hard to track this sort of record. But, on August of 2005, the average support % of the prior 20 RfAs reached 95.5%. See related chart at

2185:. Yet in October 2006 (last month that data is available for), out of all those registered users, how many did 5 or more edits that month? Answer: 4159: 4141:

I thought there were some with over 100 opposes, but I was probably thinking of the ArbCom elections, which unlike here aren't subject to WP:SNOW.

719:"Edit summaries are actually very important in Knowledge and explaining your actions in a deletion summary/block summary is essential for an admin" 2169:

edit), revert vandalizing moves which users can't), that they are faster and/or can deal with problems with less process steps than regular users.

1916:

I also think the increase is due to the recent discussion about a shortage of admins. Especially with a ratio of 1 self nom to 17 noms by others.

1155: 2132:

is it possible to work out whether we have the same rate of solid content being added, as opposed to wikignome tidying (which is also essential)?

3676:

I have changed "A trivial thing" to "Not a big deal". Trivial implies not necessary, or not hard. That's not the case with adminship, it can be

3113:. Maybe the discussion forum here on the talk page is working perfectly by not adopting changes to a system that works. Food for thought... — 2432:

From June 2005 through now, the record for consecutive 100% successful nominations is 5. Right now, we've got 8 listed, but just 4 in a row. --

1961: 1455:

Just for the record, I think this is perfectly fine; publicizing in your own userspace isn't quite the same as actively canvassing for !votes.

1272: 1514:

Oh, awesome! I was looking for a template like this earlier but couldn't seem to find it. It's edit-protected, so would someone mind adding

3123:

While that's possible, I find it incredibly hard to believe that our system from three years ago is still the best way to handle adminship. -

3006: 2939: 1664: 356: 47: 17: 1523: 1202: 1159: 3695:

I don't ever recall seeing the ratio of support to oppose this high across all of the currently listed RfAs. Must be close to a record. —

636:

Well, of course any controversial entries would need to be discussed. But it might be good to make clear to people that their pet reasons

3055: 2449:

Sorry this was delayed. It takes a lot of work, and I didn't get around to it until a couple of weeks ago to bring the data up to date.

4123: 3832: 3564: 2303: 2165:, though my experience is that noticeboard never has any backlog). And I've figured that since admins have special tools (e.g., revert 886: 3204:

It's not of much consequence as the requestor is clearly not even close to obtaining any support--but this ought to be cleaned up. --

3657:

Any registered user may 'vote' on an RfA. However brand new users, especially ones whose first edit is to an RfA, are often viewed as

2967:

In all seriousness, though, I think there's no reform because it is hard to get everyone to agree on one thing; "who do you trust" is

964:

Oh, wow. I just realized that our current introduction says in effect that there are no prerequisites. That definitely needs fixing. -

1691:

Kim - why don't you just ask to be sysopped again, or how about nominating some of the non admins already quite active within MedCab

2743:

in average number of votes per RfA showing a pretty steady decline for the last three quarters of 2006. I was expecting an increase.

3997: 3900: 3661:

and their comments may not be considered. Regardless, in the RfA you edited, it is failing so it is of no effect in this case. --

3199: 3040: 2935: 202:

This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of anyone other than its author.

3936: 3194: 3648: 1439: 2730: 1086:

I really think that's too mild a warning for newer users, who have no idea how many processes oil the wheels on Knowledge.

2767:

How hard would it be to get the numbers of sucess with more than one nominator? I.E. co-noms, or having multiple co-noms?

341:

Um... why? It's not the fault of the essay, it's the fault of the people who think essays are equivalent to guidelines. -

4206: 4127: 3755: 3616: 3059: 1930: 1411: 1383: 1363: 1338: 1276: 1122: 890: 644: 327: 155: 2298: 1362:

box be removed too?, I see those more than I see banners, tipping me off to the fact that someone is running for RfA.

3844:

Yes, but the moment in time I remarked on to start this thread was 96.8% support—so, the record high point. :-) —

3549: 3542: 1872: 1678:

Just make sure 1/3rd of your towel is soaked in antidepressants. You'll spend most of your time sucking on it :) --

38: 2729:

I was astonished at the very rapid increase in the average number of edits for successful nominations. Compare to

2074:

While those are an interesting set of questions, I'm not sure answering them really provides helpful information.

795:

I came up with the following text, in hopes of adding/integrating it with the existing text on the main RfA page:

3940: 2954: 1884: 1874: 1858: 1797: 774: 2873:

early closings and I do think it's a good thing for the overall process. But great data, thanks for the work. -

4222: 2243: 2199: 2140: 1956: 1197: 1163: 4263: 4241: 4225: 4182: 4169: 4145: 4115: 4094: 4080: 4060: 4045: 4027: 4008: 3992: 3981: 3970: 3953: 3943: 3930: 3916: 3882: 3872: 3863: 3848: 3839: 3814: 3797: 3786: 3742: 3729: 3715: 3699: 3685: 3665: 3619: 3602: 3593: 3584: 3571: 3557: 3527: 3515: 3506: 3490: 3471: 3461: 3442: 3423: 3394: 3381: 3351: 3337: 3320: 3303: 3291: 3256: 3238: 3228: 3208: 3183: 3169: 3150: 3132: 3117: 3099: 3085: 3047: 3018: 3000: 2958: 2919: 2908: 2877: 2865: 2854: 2834: 2818: 2805: 2784: 2771: 2761: 2436: 2427: 2414: 2393: 2354: 2308: 2251: 2216: 2202: 2155: 2143: 2068: 2038: 2016: 2007: 1981: 1966: 1924: 1907: 1847: 1833: 1818: 1776: 1759: 1720: 1707: 1682: 1673: 1653: 1615: 1601: 1592: 1555: 1472: 1450: 1427: 1404: 1377: 1353: 1331: 1321: 1300: 1292: 1265: 1245: 1235: 1209: 1180: 1167: 1112: 1099: 1077: 1059: 1032: 1007: 973: 959: 938: 924: 876: 862: 841: 823: 778: 759: 730: 702: 689: 663: 647: 630: 613: 592: 574: 544: 516: 512: 498: 469: 465: 455: 438: 409: 383: 350: 330: 313: 295: 277: 244: 226: 197: 182: 170: 133: 726:

Whether it would be enough to tip a !vote to oppose is another matter, and depends on other factors as well.

4212:

Anglius is still around, but I suspect with this on his user page, a further RfA would be similarly futile:

3613: 2839:

Great work Durin. Perhaps we should work together on these things, we don't want duplicate work wasted... --

2407: 2293: 1612: 1095: 1055: 641: 324: 1152:

If you are a administrator in a wikipedia. Then are you a Administrator in other wikipeadias also or not?

452: 3859:

Three months is a trend. One month (or week or day or hour) is an aberration until borne out by a trend.

952: 917: 855: 816: 508: 461: 4001: 3468: 3391: 3348: 3300: 2248: 1865: 1435: 392:

No. Stop taking my opinions out of context and using them to reach absurd conclusions. I'm saying that

4056: 3988: 3793: 3682: 3636: 3563:

Note a survey that covered some of the same ground concluded in September of 2006. That survey is at

3224: 3096: 3032: 2950: 2178: 1700: 1669: 1359: 770: 4051: 3640: 3520:

The sub-page did exist at the time, but the questions were not answered. It was later speedy deleted

945: 910: 848: 809: 310: 4218: 3711: 3644: 3334: 3193:

I found this via an invitation for participation by the requestor on an administrator's talk page:

2746:

3000 edits still seems to be the cutoff beyond which editcountitis seems to have less of an effect.

2720:

Chart showing the average number of edits per successful and unsuccessful RfA over time during 2006

2195: 2136: 1951: 1844: 1505: 1489: 1192: 3147: 1881: 627: 589: 541: 4166: 3913: 3783: 3599: 3581: 3554: 3503: 3400: 3358: 3268: 2401: 2370: 2285: 1972:

There's no automatic process. There should be instructions on how to list it; did you see them? -

1922: 1569: 1075: 839: 686: 551: 550:

So if people agree with the logic that editcountitis should be avoided, how is that a bad thing?

475: 415: 360: 290: 254: 203: 179: 110: 1438:

since there seems to be agreement that the template may be useful to some users. I added it to

3299:

benefit of approving as many admins as possible, with the risk of sysopping the wrong people.--

2421:

There were 8 in a row earlier, then I think 10 out of 11. See, we can pick good candidates :P--

1382:

It looks like an informational banner to me, I didn't see any "Please Vote for ME" appeals ;).

4238: 4175: 4074: 4024: 3735: 3458: 3165: 3128: 2848: 1977: 1929:

No doubt, but how sustainable is this extra recruiting effort going to be? Probably not very.

1812: 1373:

I think that box is OK. I don't like the idea of people putting up campaign banners. YMMV. —

1316: 1231: 1028: 969: 934: 585: 405: 346: 240: 193: 166: 4023:

I am just wondering. Have there been any nominations with close to 100 oppose votes or over?

4203: 4142: 4042: 3835:. Right now, we're at 423 supports and 31 oppose, for 93.2% on the currently active RfAs. -- 3317: 3078: 2993: 2716: 2347: 2031: 2013: 2000: 1950:

I put in a self-nomination request. How long do I have to wait before it appears on WP:RFA?

1756: 1650: 1635: 1627: 1465: 1109: 831: 673: 610: 152: 3511:

You're right. I read the time stamps backwards. I think I need to go back to sleep... --

1716:

We don't really need more admins in MedCabal, we just need more mediators, admin or no. --

769:

primary purpose in my view is to attract attention to the fact that edit summaries matter.

3205: 3027: 2989: 2366: 2343: 2277: 2213: 2152: 2065: 2027: 1996: 1901: 1830: 1695: 1606:

The large noise-to-achievement ratio occurs because it is the nature of this page to find

1520: 1461: 1447: 1424: 1401: 1297: 1091: 1051: 800: 753: 727: 699: 249:

If you truly believe that, I suggest you nominate about three-quarters of the contents of

3011: 2776:

Impossible (for me to do anyways). I do keep track of who nominates, but I only take the

2365:

I see eight people on the RFA listing that have 100% support. Nice! (now nobody make any

2095:

decide to help in those areas, or in other areas (image deletion, CSD cleanup, whatever)?

3453:

I nominated myself for adminship, but my nomination won't come up. Why? Here is a link:

1740:

What's there to lose? Worst case I get proven right, best case we get new mediators. :-)

1501: 4248: 4100: 4089: 3869: 3845: 3810: 3725: 3708: 3696: 3512: 3487: 3114: 3015: 2905: 2802: 2768: 2422: 2281: 2113: 2109: 1855: 1792: 1773: 1598: 1552: 1374: 1350: 1328: 736: 713: 677: 606: 283: 232: 4195:(I've skipped the oppose reason given). How times have changed in just over a year! -- 808:

consider adminship. I invite you to share your thoughts and suggestions. Thank you. --

4163: 4034: 3966:. It gives explicit instructions for what they should do to complete the process. -- 3904: 3860: 3775: 3577: 3500: 2972: 2862: 2798: 2794: 2162: 1987: 1917: 1717: 1597:

Yes, nice observation. I agree. (Hmmm, not much dissent in this reply...oh well.) —

1118: 1070: 834: 740: 660: 656: 287: 176: 140: 4214:

I am a helluo librorum who detests atheism, "political correctness," and immorality.

3632:

hi, i voted on one of the elections, being its my first vote, am i allowed to vote?

4126:. Tracking only support vote levels (as on WP:100) reveals only part of the story. 4108: 4067: 3219: 3161: 3124: 2892: 2841: 2700: 1973: 1805: 1541:

Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 75#Template for candidates user pages

1312: 1227: 1024: 965: 930: 401: 342: 236: 189: 162: 3074: 1791:

What's the record for the most at a given time. I think 18's pretty close to it.--

1546:

Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 76#Canvassing and Good Points Raised

4200: 4196: 4192: 3658: 3524: 2874: 2078:

To what extent do admins find their editing decreasing after they become admins?

1843:. It may have gone one or two higher at some point, but this is near the limit. 1259: 149: 145: 46:

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

4260: 4103:

so I doubt there would ever be a 100 oppose votes on an RFA. Unless there are

4005: 3978: 3967: 3950: 3879: 3836: 3662: 3590: 3568: 3439: 3253: 3235: 3180: 3082: 2984: 2916: 2831: 2815: 2781: 2758: 2708: 2433: 2338: 2022: 1991: 1892: 1827: 1679: 1456: 1242: 1177: 1087: 1047: 1004: 873: 744: 696: 2942:. Well, I propose to borrow from what is working to fix what is not working. 3806: 3721: 2125:

Is there any way to get a handle on the amount of useful editing being done?

2052:

decreasing after they become admins? Conversely, do some find their editing

1536:

Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 32#Another slight modification

305:

is listened to not because it's a policy, which it's not, or because people

2964:

I support this idea only 74%, but only because I feel like being a dick. ;)

3949:

long as the nomination was never transcluded there's no reason not to. --

2633:

Success rates based on time on Knowledge of all nominees with at least...

2247:

impossible to form a judgment on 'which set of backlogs needs more work'.

1746:

With community enforced mediation round the corner, we need more meditors.

2896:

Chart showing average number of votes per RfA for all 7 day RfAs for 2006

2780:

nominator, not all co-nominators, or even if there was a co-nominator. --

2151:

editing backlogs? Which is it more important to drive resources towards?

1743:

Mediation cabal requests are at an all time high, we need more mediators.

1108:

The wheels of wikipedia are oiled by the blood of admins, of course. . --

460:

WP:SNOW, WP:DENY. Pretty much every use in a debate/discussion, ever. --

3868:

I understand the difference...still talking about the high water mark. —

2749:

Self-nominations are still showing a roughly 20% less chance of success.

2186: 2181:, is that we're getting on the order of 7-10,000 newly registered users 1891:

nominating them. Bah. So I'm still hunting for someone to nominate.

4189:

This editor has only 1184 edits. Normally, this would not be a problem

4041:

votes which is a much nicer and more pleasant topic, don't you think?

1660: 3054:

For those of you who missed it, there has been a good discussion at

4122:

Wizardman got it right, 89 is the highest, you can find the others

3467:

You didn't transclude it onto the RfA page. I've done it for you.--

3160:, adding mandatory questions onto RfAs, was never discussed here. - 3081:. Many thanks to Kim Bruning for bringing these to my attention. -- 2712:

Chart showing average number of votes per RfA over time during 2006

2521:

Success rates based on edit count of all nominees with at least...

309:

it's a policy, but because it's sensible and people agree with it.

2891: 2715: 2707: 2699: 803:

regardless of their choice to support, oppose, or remain neutral."

250: 3754:

to consider giving it a try now, before the trend changes again.

1659:

Sounds good. Somehow something in your comment reminds me of the

507:

essay being cited improperly, but it's a very valid complaint. --

3313:

Ideally: To give extra tools to anyone we can trust to have them

1396:

supposed to remove it, someone should probably add that step to

4257:

Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me

4099:

IF they would just be oppose votes than it would be closed per

3109:

How's this for a thought: Maybe nothing ever gets done because

2106:

It seems fairly easy (from the above) to clear admin backlogs.

640:

their pet reasons, and are rejected by most of the community.

25: 2237:

It's worth pointing out here that the 'editing backlogs' you

623:

I'm starting to think this might be doomed to failure though

1531:

For reference, here are previous discussions on this issue:

3580:. The questions are designed to fit its current context. - 2513:

Average number of opinions expressed per unsuccessful RfA:

2451: 1854:

process and lack of candidates have died down once again. —

359:

and tag it as essay, people would consider it a guideline?

3720:

I sure do hope so. Perhaps it's time for me to RfA again.

3156:

Interesting fact. The only substantial change in the past

2704:

Chart showing success rates for RfAs over time during 2006

2099:

What about needing more editors to clear editing backlogs?

929:

While that is true, has it ever actually been a problem? -

2505:

Average number of opinions expressed per successful RfA:

609:

which discusses your concerns on how people cite essays.

1749:

The admin bit is an added bonus. We need more mediators!

3521: 3484: 3481: 2333: 2329: 1840: 1823: 1485:

This whole discussion strikes me as superfluous, since

624: 357:

Knowledge:Delete all articles that contain the letter Z

3198:

It seems not to have made it to the primary RfA page,

3010:

subpages and voting would help: even ignoring whether

2949:

I understand the irony, but seriously, how's that? :)

885:

That reminds me of an idea I've had for a while, see

104:

Knowledge:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions

3218:

edits attempting to pass RfA. I suggest you let the

3033: 1803:

I'm sure it is. NoSeptember will probably know :D --

1495:

has existed since October 2005 (based on commentary

1189:

It does count as somewhat of a plus on RFAs though.

3014:, I doubt any of these proposals would reach 75%. 2323:Personally, I believe my overall editing has gone 1423:Oh, okay. I wasn't sure what you meant by that. 1291:I created a userfied banner for RfA candidates at 4174:Wow, that's an interesting record NoSeptember. - 4088:is about as close as you're gonna get I think.-- 3962:Zleitzen, point the nominee in the direction of 889:which would address the WP:SNOW RfA situations. 139:If readers of this are not already aware of the 4247:The largest number of neutral votes was 26, on 4033:Yes. But we're not going to list them for you. 3075:http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html 1271:A bit off topic, but it never hurts to look at 503:Nothing wild about it. I don't see the fear in 1519:? That should make it a bit easier to find. 231:That's not how it will likely be interpreted. 3497:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Patricknoddy 3455:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Patricknoddy 1986:Since you're supposed to add yourself to the 588:. I'm just thinking aloud here, excuse me. -- 8: 4253:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Karmafist 2 3935:On a similar note, what should be done with 3901:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Quinlanfan2 2734:Nevertheless, the trend was startling to me. 953: 946: 918: 911: 856: 849: 817: 810: 451:be interpreted wrongly really worth having? 3937:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/BrianRFSU 3195:Knowledge:Requests_for_adminship/Norkus007 4037:has a list of people who got 100 or more 3986:Strike it and leave an explanitive note. 3964:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/nominate 3483:, it just got reverted two minutes later 2682:Average edit count of unsuccessful noms: 1826:I'm not sure that's the maximum, though. 1444:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/nominate 1398:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/nominate 447:Is a debate over whether a day-old essay 3805:- offering free stuff, I like it :):):) 2926:Why nothing gets ever done on RfA reform 657:That's just my opinion. I could be wrong 355:So you are saying that if I would write 4259:with 21. No others had more than 20. -- 4237:Could i ask the same again on neutral? 4158:Here's another interesting case study: 2973:Is foo a notable subject for an article 2674:Average edit count of successful noms: 1306:Yes I agree, if others care as well. -- 4107:of users supporting to even it out. ~ 3202:because of some sort of failed action. 2327:(as I increasingly spend more time on 323:project, is damaging to this process. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3007:Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship 2940:Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship 2814:I don't keep track of that either. -- 1349:user page but not on the talk page. — 18:Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship 7: 3833:Image:AverageSupportCompleteRfAs.png 1665:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy 1148:Administratorship in other wkipedias 3565:Knowledge:Admin accountability poll 887:User:NoSeptember/Intent to file RfA 474:A wild allegation is not evidence. 3347:downside of having less admins? -- 2934:So, what is broken I think is not 1646:still be effective in a team! :-) 24: 4216:(The latin means "bookworm".) -- 3899:I've discovered this rogue rfa - 3214:It's a bit sad seeing users with 2725:Some observations from my chair: 739:is a straightforward offshoot of 282:Kudos to Radiant for not saying " 4187:An interesting quote from that: 3499:did not exist yet at that time. 3495:I think it was reverted because 3267:do at some point is not useful. 3200:Knowledge:Requests_for_adminship 2936:Knowledge:Requests for adminship 2399:Truly proof there is a Cabal. ✎ 29: 4109: 3041: 3005:I concur: I don't really think 2731:Image:AverageEditCountatRfA.png 2408: 2402: 1962: 1957: 1952: 1440:Category:Requests for adminship 2304: 2286: 1370:11:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1345:11:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1283:12:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1: 4264:18:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 4242:17:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 4226:01:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 4183:12:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 4176: 4170:12:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 4146:11:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 4134:11:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 4128: 4116:00:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 4095:00:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 4081:00:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 4075: 4061:06:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 4046:23:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 4028:23:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 4009:22:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 3993:20:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 3982:00:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 3971:15:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 3954:15:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 3944:14:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 3931:14:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 3924: 3917:14:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 3883:04:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 3873:22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 3864:22:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 3849:21:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 3840:21:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 3815:22:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 3798:22:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 3787:18:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 3762:15:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 3756: 3743:18:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 3736: 3730:16:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 3716:14:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 3700:14:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 3686:04:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 3666:19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3620:18:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3603:15:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3594:15:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3585:15:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3572:15:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3558:15:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3528:15:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3516:15:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3507:15:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3491:15:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3472:15:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3462:15:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3443:14:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3424:15:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3395:14:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3382:14:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3352:14:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3338:14:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3321:15:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3304:14:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3292:14:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3257:13:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3239:13:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3229:06:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3209:05:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3184:12:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 3170:20:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 3151:20:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 3133:19:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 3118:19:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 3100:16:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 3086:13:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3066:07:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3060: 3048:06:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3019:06:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 3001:05:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 2959:05:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 2920:14:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 2909:16:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 2878:15:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 2866:23:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 2855:22:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 2849: 2835:22:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 2819:20:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 2806:20:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 2785:20:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 2772:20:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 2762:20:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 2437:20:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 2428:17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 2415:17:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 2394:17:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 2355:05:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 2309:04:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 2299: 2252:01:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 2217:00:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 2203:20:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 2156:15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 2144:15:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 2069:14:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 2039:03:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 2017:01:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 2008:01:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 1990:, it all depends on you. ;-) 1982:01:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 1967:01:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 1937:12:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 1931: 1925:12:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 1908:11:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 1885:01:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 1875:00:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 1859:19:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1848:18:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1834:18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1819:17:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1813: 1798:17:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1777:05:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 1760:19:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1721:18:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1708:14:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1683:14:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1674:23:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1654:23:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1616:02:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 1602:11:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 1593:11:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 1556:05:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 1524:05:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC) 1510:19:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1473:18:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1451:02:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1428:23:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1418:13:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1412: 1405:13:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1390:12:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1384: 1378:11:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1364: 1354:11:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1339: 1337:ShadowHalo looks fine to me. 1332:11:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1322:10:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1301:08:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1277: 1266:00:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1246:23:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 1236:22:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 1226:it does, others don't care. - 1210:22:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 1181:12:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 1168:12:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 1129:14:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 1123: 1113:12:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 1100:03:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 1078:23:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1060:03:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1033:04:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 1008:04:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 974:23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 960:19:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 939:18:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 925:15:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 897:15:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 891: 877:14:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 863:15:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 842:13:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 824:08:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 779:04:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC) 760:12:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 731:12:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 703:13:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 690:12:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 614:15:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 4068: 3922:It's not been linked yet. — 2842: 2803:-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 2769:-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 2294: 1806: 1696: 1692: 664:20:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 648:19:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 631:19:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 593:16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 575:16:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 545:16:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 517:16:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 499:16:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 470:16:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 456:15:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 439:15:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 410:15:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 384:15:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 351:15:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 331:17:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 314:19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 296:17:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 278:15:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 245:15:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 227:14:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 198:14:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 183:14:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 171:14:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 134:09:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 3791:May I remove that spam :P? 2971:more difficult than, say, " 2737:I was fairly amazed at the 2625:10000 edits, self-nom only 2289: 1752:Will you come and help too? 1701: 1434:I've moved the template to 833:. The rest of it seems ok. 4280: 3543:Knowledge:Adminship survey 3247:What are the goals of RfA? 2900: 2797:and many others that make 2724: 2607:5000 edits, self-nom only 2589:4000 edits, self-nom only 2571:3000 edits, self-nom only 2553:2000 edits, self-nom only 2497:Noms with <1000 edits: 787:proposed text for RfA page 4199:17:36, 20 February 2007 ( 3878:doing well now though. -- 3140:someone will object to it 2983:would be a good change). 2632: 2520: 605:You may be interested in 3189:A probably malformed RfA 3111:nothing needs to be done 2694:Unsuccessful nominations 2330:destructive improvements 2244:Knowledge:Dead-end pages 1626:Recruiting new admins : 1293:User:ShadowHalo/User rfa 148:13:05, 9 February 2007 ( 3734:Always a good thing. - 3077:. Also, have a look at 2456:2006 RfA Year in Review 2361:This may be a record... 1275:on different projects. 944:share their opinion. -- 712:I hadn't realised that 3691:417 support, 14 oppose 2897: 2721: 2713: 2705: 2481:Early withdrawn RfAs: 286:isn't an essay." (^^) 2895: 2719: 2711: 2703: 2047:Adminship and editing 1158:comment was added by 42:of past discussions. 3941:One Night In Hackney 3925:Nearly Headless Nick 3578:Consensus can change 2179:Special:Log/newusers 1517:]</noinclude: --> 3672:Section titlechange 3628:RfA voting question 3576:I'm aware of that. 536:(de-indent) People 235:as case in point. - 3614:Christopher Parham 3327:Related discussion 2898: 2722: 2714: 2706: 2489:Self nominations: 2445:2006 RfA In Review 1868:¤~Persian Poet Gal 1516:<noinclude: --> 1117:I thought we used 642:Christopher Parham 584:what happens with 325:Christopher Parham 3915: 3813: 3785: 3728: 3653: 3639:comment added by 3598:Sure thing. :) - 3168: 3131: 2689: 2688: 2473:Successful RfAs: 2465:New RfAs posted: 1980: 1906: 1638:needs your help! 1608:every little flaw 1436:Template:User rfa 1320: 1234: 1171: 1031: 972: 937: 758: 515: 468: 408: 349: 243: 196: 169: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4271: 4221: 4180: 4132: 4113: 4092: 4077: 4070: 3926: 3912: 3910: 3907: 3809: 3782: 3778: 3760: 3740: 3724: 3652: 3633: 3420: 3418: 3416: 3414: 3412: 3378: 3376: 3374: 3372: 3370: 3288: 3286: 3284: 3282: 3280: 3164: 3127: 3064: 3043: 3035: 3016:Heimstern Läufer 2999: 2996: 2851: 2844: 2452: 2425: 2413: 2410: 2404: 2390: 2388: 2386: 2384: 2382: 2353: 2350: 2336: 2306: 2301: 2296: 2291: 2288: 2249:Opabinia regalis 2198: 2139: 2037: 2034: 2006: 2003: 1976: 1964: 1959: 1954: 1935: 1920: 1904: 1900: 1895: 1815: 1808: 1795: 1786: 1706: 1703: 1698: 1589: 1587: 1585: 1583: 1581: 1518: 1494: 1488: 1471: 1468: 1416: 1388: 1368: 1360:like to nominate 1343: 1310: 1309: 1281: 1263: 1230: 1205: 1200: 1195: 1153: 1127: 1073: 1027: 968: 957: 950: 933: 922: 915: 895: 860: 853: 837: 821: 814: 756: 752: 747: 571: 569: 567: 565: 563: 511: 495: 493: 491: 489: 487: 464: 435: 433: 431: 429: 427: 404: 380: 378: 376: 374: 372: 345: 293: 274: 272: 270: 268: 266: 239: 223: 221: 219: 217: 215: 192: 165: 130: 128: 126: 124: 122: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4279: 4278: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4217: 4090: 4079: 4021: 4019:Cruel curiosity 3908: 3905: 3897: 3776: 3693: 3683:Ta bu shi da yu 3674: 3634: 3630: 3548:I've started a 3546: 3451: 3410: 3408: 3406: 3404: 3402: 3368: 3366: 3364: 3362: 3360: 3329: 3278: 3276: 3274: 3272: 3270: 3249: 3191: 3079:Dunbar's number 2994: 2987: 2951:Oleg Alexandrov 2928: 2853: 2447: 2423: 2400: 2380: 2378: 2376: 2374: 2372: 2363: 2348: 2341: 2328: 2194: 2135: 2108:No, it's not. 2049: 2032: 2025: 2001: 1994: 1948: 1918: 1902: 1893: 1817: 1793: 1789: 1636:Mediation cabal 1631: 1628:Mediation Cabal 1579: 1577: 1575: 1573: 1571: 1515: 1492: 1486: 1466: 1459: 1307: 1289: 1287:Userpage banner 1273:how RfA differs 1261: 1203: 1198: 1193: 1154:—The preceding 1150: 1071: 835: 789: 771:Oleg Alexandrov 754: 745: 561: 559: 557: 555: 553: 485: 483: 481: 479: 477: 425: 423: 421: 419: 417: 370: 368: 366: 364: 362: 291: 264: 262: 260: 258: 256: 213: 211: 209: 207: 205: 120: 118: 116: 114: 112: 107: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4277: 4275: 4267: 4266: 4251:'s second RfA 4235: 4234: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4219:John Broughton 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4136: 4135: 4124:on these lists 4119: 4118: 4073: 4063: 4020: 4017: 4016: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4011: 3974: 3973: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3896: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3764: 3763: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3692: 3689: 3673: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3629: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3545: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3475: 3474: 3450: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3385: 3384: 3341: 3340: 3335:Dragons flight 3328: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3314: 3309: 3307: 3306: 3295: 3294: 3248: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3203: 3197: 3190: 3187: 3173: 3172: 3136: 3135: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3089: 3088: 3068: 3067: 3051: 3050: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3012:polls are evil 2976: 2965: 2938:, but rather, 2927: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2881: 2880: 2869: 2868: 2847: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2809: 2808: 2788: 2787: 2755: 2754: 2750: 2747: 2744: 2735: 2698: 2697: 2687: 2686: 2683: 2679: 2678: 2675: 2671: 2670: 2667: 2662: 2661: 2658: 2653: 2652: 2649: 2644: 2643: 2640: 2635: 2634: 2630: 2629: 2626: 2621: 2620: 2617: 2612: 2611: 2608: 2603: 2602: 2599: 2594: 2593: 2590: 2585: 2584: 2581: 2576: 2575: 2572: 2567: 2566: 2563: 2558: 2557: 2554: 2549: 2548: 2545: 2540: 2539: 2536: 2531: 2530: 2527: 2523: 2522: 2518: 2517: 2514: 2510: 2509: 2506: 2502: 2501: 2498: 2494: 2493: 2490: 2486: 2485: 2482: 2478: 2477: 2474: 2470: 2469: 2466: 2462: 2461: 2458: 2446: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2418: 2417: 2362: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2209: 2196:John Broughton 2174: 2170: 2147: 2146: 2137:John Broughton 2129: 2122: 2103: 2096: 2085: 2048: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2010: 1984: 1947: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1911: 1910: 1864:possibility... 1851: 1850: 1845:Dragons flight 1841:Here's 27 RFAs 1837: 1836: 1821: 1811: 1788: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1753: 1750: 1747: 1744: 1741: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1711: 1710: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1630: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1549: 1548: 1543: 1538: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1446:, feel free. 1432: 1431: 1430: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1324: 1288: 1285: 1269: 1268: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1184: 1183: 1160:198.54.202.246 1149: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1103: 1102: 1081: 1080: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1036: 1035: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 987: 986: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 901: 900: 899: 898: 880: 879: 868: 867: 866: 865: 805: 804: 788: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 763: 762: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 667: 666: 651: 650: 621: 620: 619: 618: 617: 616: 598: 597: 596: 595: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 520: 519: 509:badlydrawnjeff 462:badlydrawnjeff 458: 442: 441: 387: 386: 339: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 333: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 300: 299: 298: 253:for deletion. 106: 101: 98: 97: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4276: 4265: 4262: 4258: 4255:. Second was 4254: 4250: 4246: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4240: 4227: 4224: 4220: 4215: 4211: 4210: 4208: 4205: 4202: 4198: 4194: 4190: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4181: 4179: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4168: 4165: 4161: 4160:Anglius's RFA 4157: 4147: 4144: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4133: 4131: 4125: 4121: 4120: 4117: 4114: 4112: 4106: 4102: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4093: 4087: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4078: 4072: 4071: 4064: 4062: 4059: 4058: 4053: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4044: 4040: 4036: 4032: 4031: 4030: 4029: 4026: 4018: 4010: 4007: 4003: 3999: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3991: 3990: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3980: 3976: 3975: 3972: 3969: 3965: 3961: 3955: 3952: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3942: 3938: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3929: 3927: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3914: 3911: 3902: 3894: 3884: 3881: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3871: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3862: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3850: 3847: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3838: 3834: 3830: 3829: 3816: 3812: 3808: 3804: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3796: 3795: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3784: 3780: 3779: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3761: 3759: 3752: 3751: 3744: 3741: 3739: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3727: 3723: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3714: 3713: 3710: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3698: 3690: 3688: 3687: 3684: 3679: 3671: 3667: 3664: 3660: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3650: 3646: 3642: 3638: 3627: 3621: 3618: 3615: 3610: 3604: 3601: 3600:Mailer Diablo 3597: 3596: 3595: 3592: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3583: 3582:Mailer Diablo 3579: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3570: 3566: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3556: 3555:Mailer Diablo 3551: 3544: 3541: 3529: 3526: 3522: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3514: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3505: 3502: 3498: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3489: 3485: 3482: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3473: 3470: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3460: 3456: 3448: 3444: 3441: 3437: 3436: 3425: 3422: 3421: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3393: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3383: 3380: 3379: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3350: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3339: 3336: 3331: 3330: 3326: 3322: 3319: 3315: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3305: 3302: 3297: 3296: 3293: 3290: 3289: 3266: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3255: 3246: 3240: 3237: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3227: 3226: 3221: 3217: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3207: 3201: 3196: 3188: 3186: 3185: 3182: 3178: 3171: 3167: 3163: 3159: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3149: 3143: 3141: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3116: 3112: 3101: 3098: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3087: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3065: 3063: 3057: 3053: 3052: 3049: 3045: 3044: 3037: 3036: 3029: 3024: 3020: 3017: 3013: 3008: 3004: 3003: 3002: 2997: 2991: 2986: 2982: 2977: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2956: 2952: 2947: 2943: 2941: 2937: 2932: 2925: 2921: 2918: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2907: 2901: 2894: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2879: 2876: 2871: 2870: 2867: 2864: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2852: 2846: 2845: 2837: 2836: 2833: 2820: 2817: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2807: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2786: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2770: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2760: 2751: 2748: 2745: 2742: 2741: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2718: 2710: 2702: 2695: 2691: 2690: 2684: 2681: 2680: 2676: 2673: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2636: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2586: 2582: 2578: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2568: 2564: 2560: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2532: 2528: 2525: 2524: 2519: 2515: 2512: 2511: 2507: 2504: 2503: 2499: 2496: 2495: 2491: 2488: 2487: 2483: 2480: 2479: 2475: 2472: 2471: 2467: 2464: 2463: 2459: 2457: 2454: 2453: 2450: 2444: 2438: 2435: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2426: 2420: 2419: 2416: 2411: 2405: 2403:Peter M Dodge 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2392: 2391: 2368: 2360: 2356: 2351: 2345: 2340: 2335: 2334:kicking asses 2331: 2326: 2322: 2310: 2307: 2302: 2297: 2292: 2283: 2279: 2276:I agree with 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2253: 2250: 2245: 2240: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2218: 2215: 2210: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2201: 2197: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2175: 2171: 2168: 2164: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2154: 2149: 2148: 2145: 2142: 2138: 2133: 2130: 2126: 2123: 2120: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2104: 2100: 2097: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2083: 2079: 2076: 2075: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2067: 2061: 2057: 2055: 2046: 2040: 2035: 2029: 2024: 2021:...too late. 2020: 2019: 2018: 2015: 2011: 2009: 2004: 1998: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1965: 1960: 1955: 1945: 1936: 1934: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1923: 1921: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1909: 1905: 1899: 1896: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1883: 1877: 1876: 1873: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1861: 1860: 1857: 1849: 1846: 1842: 1839: 1838: 1835: 1832: 1829: 1825: 1824:How about 21? 1822: 1820: 1816: 1810: 1809: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1796: 1778: 1775: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1761: 1758: 1754: 1751: 1748: 1745: 1742: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1722: 1719: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1709: 1705: 1704: 1699: 1690: 1689: 1684: 1681: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1672: 1671: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1652: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1637: 1629: 1625: 1617: 1614: 1609: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1600: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1591: 1590: 1567: 1566: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1554: 1547: 1544: 1542: 1539: 1537: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1525: 1522: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1508: 1507: 1503: 1498: 1491: 1484: 1474: 1469: 1463: 1458: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1426: 1422: 1417: 1415: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1403: 1399: 1394: 1389: 1387: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1376: 1372: 1371: 1369: 1367: 1361: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1352: 1347: 1346: 1344: 1342: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1330: 1325: 1323: 1318: 1314: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1299: 1294: 1286: 1284: 1282: 1280: 1274: 1267: 1264: 1257: 1256: 1247: 1244: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1211: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1201: 1196: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1182: 1179: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1147: 1128: 1126: 1120: 1119:soylent green 1116: 1115: 1114: 1111: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1079: 1076: 1074: 1067: 1066: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1021: 1020: 1009: 1006: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 975: 971: 967: 963: 962: 961: 958: 956: 951: 949: 942: 941: 940: 936: 932: 928: 927: 926: 923: 921: 916: 914: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 896: 894: 888: 884: 883: 882: 881: 878: 875: 870: 869: 864: 861: 859: 854: 852: 845: 844: 843: 840: 838: 832: 828: 827: 826: 825: 822: 820: 815: 813: 802: 798: 797: 796: 793: 786: 780: 776: 772: 767: 766: 765: 764: 761: 757: 751: 748: 742: 738: 735: 734: 733: 732: 729: 724: 720: 715: 704: 701: 698: 693: 692: 691: 688: 687:Mailer Diablo 685:arguments. - 684: 679: 675: 671: 670: 669: 668: 665: 662: 658: 653: 652: 649: 646: 643: 639: 635: 634: 633: 632: 629: 625: 615: 612: 608: 604: 603: 602: 601: 600: 599: 594: 591: 587: 583: 578: 577: 576: 573: 572: 549: 548: 547: 546: 543: 539: 518: 514: 510: 506: 502: 501: 500: 497: 496: 473: 472: 471: 467: 463: 459: 457: 454: 450: 446: 445: 444: 443: 440: 437: 436: 413: 412: 411: 407: 403: 399: 395: 391: 390: 389: 388: 385: 382: 381: 358: 354: 353: 352: 348: 344: 340: 332: 329: 326: 321: 315: 312: 308: 304: 301: 297: 294: 289: 285: 281: 280: 279: 276: 275: 252: 248: 247: 246: 242: 238: 234: 230: 229: 228: 225: 224: 201: 200: 199: 195: 191: 186: 185: 184: 181: 178: 174: 173: 172: 168: 164: 160: 159: 157: 154: 151: 147: 142: 138: 137: 136: 135: 132: 131: 105: 102: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4239:Simply south 4236: 4213: 4188: 4177: 4129: 4110: 4104: 4066: 4055: 4038: 4025:Simply south 4022: 3987: 3898: 3802: 3792: 3774: 3757: 3737: 3707: 3694: 3677: 3675: 3631: 3547: 3459:Patricknoddy 3452: 3401: 3359: 3308: 3269: 3264: 3250: 3223: 3222:folks know. 3215: 3192: 3176: 3174: 3157: 3144: 3139: 3137: 3110: 3108: 3061: 3039: 3031: 2980: 2968: 2948: 2944: 2933: 2929: 2902: 2899: 2840: 2838: 2829: 2777: 2756: 2739: 2738: 2723: 2693: 2616:10000 edits 2500:191 (21.6%) 2492:435 (49.0%) 2484:387 (43.7%) 2476:344 (38.8%) 2455: 2448: 2371: 2364: 2324: 2238: 2190: 2182: 2166: 2131: 2128:High enough? 2124: 2118: 2105: 2098: 2092: 2087: 2081: 2077: 2062: 2058: 2053: 2050: 1949: 1932: 1897: 1878: 1867: 1866: 1862: 1852: 1804: 1790: 1694: 1668: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1632: 1607: 1570: 1564: 1562: 1550: 1530: 1500: 1413: 1385: 1365: 1340: 1290: 1278: 1270: 1223: 1194:bibliomaniac 1191: 1190: 1151: 1124: 954: 947: 919: 912: 892: 857: 850: 818: 811: 806: 794: 790: 749: 722: 718: 711: 682: 637: 622: 581: 552: 537: 535: 504: 476: 448: 416: 397: 393: 361: 311:Kyle Barbour 306: 302: 255: 204: 111: 108: 78: 43: 37: 4143:Newyorkbrad 4130:NoSeptember 4050:What about 4043:Newyorkbrad 3758:NoSeptember 3659:meatpuppets 3635:—Preceding 3449:My Self-RfA 3318:Kim Bruning 3158:three years 3062:NoSeptember 2598:5000 edits 2580:4000 edits 2562:3000 edits 2544:2000 edits 2535:1000 edits 2187:only 43,000 2177:looking at 1933:NoSeptember 1757:Kim Bruning 1651:Kim Bruning 1414:NoSeptember 1386:NoSeptember 1366:NoSeptember 1341:NoSeptember 1315: 1279:NoSeptember 1125:NoSeptember 1110:Kim Bruning 893:NoSeptember 611:TacoDeposit 36:This is an 4057:Yuser31415 3989:Yuser31415 3794:Yuser31415 3225:Yuser31415 3206:Yellowdesk 3097:Alabamaboy 2409:Talk to Me 2369:votes...) 2278:Carcharoth 2214:Carcharoth 2153:Carcharoth 2080:Certainly 2066:Carcharoth 2054:increasing 1670:Yuser31415 1521:ShadowHalo 1490:rfa-notice 1448:ShadowHalo 1425:ShadowHalo 1402:ShadowHalo 1298:ShadowHalo 1121:for that. 728:Carcharoth 678:belittling 586:WP:ILIKEIT 95:Archive 85 90:Archive 84 85:Archive 83 79:Archive 82 73:Archive 81 68:Archive 80 60:Archive 75 4249:Karmafist 4091:Wizardman 3895:Rogue rfa 3870:Doug Bell 3846:Doug Bell 3697:Doug Bell 3641:KendrixTV 3513:Gogo Dodo 3488:Gogo Dodo 3115:Doug Bell 2906:Doug Bell 2757:Enjoy. -- 2753:slightly. 2740:reduction 2657:6 months 2648:4 months 2639:2 months 2526:All RfAs 2424:Wizardman 2282:Everyking 1946:How Long? 1856:Doug Bell 1794:Wizardman 1787:18 RfA's? 1774:Doug Bell 1599:Doug Bell 1553:Doug Bell 1375:Doug Bell 1351:Doug Bell 1329:Doug Bell 674:lawyering 4076:(o rly?) 3861:Marskell 3777:FayssalF 3649:contribs 3637:unsigned 3501:Garion96 3028:WP:BEANS 2863:Agent 86 2850:(o rly?) 2367:WP:BEANS 1988:RfA page 1919:James086 1814:(o rly?) 1718:Ideogram 1613:Picaroon 1563:seventy- 1561:Archive 1156:unsigned 1072:James086 836:James086 801:WP:CIVIL 661:Agent 86 288:Dekimasu 4101:WP:SNOW 4069:Majorly 4052:WP:-100 4039:support 3909:leitzen 3709:Deckill 3480:He did 3162:Amarkov 3148:W.marsh 3125:Amarkov 3034:physicq 2843:Majorly 2666:1 year 2305:veritas 2287:Captain 2183:per day 2114:WP:AN/I 2110:WP:SOCK 2102:equal.) 1974:Amarkov 1882:W.marsh 1807:Majorly 1308:HIZKIAH 1228:Amarkov 1025:Amarkov 966:Amarkov 931:Amarkov 737:WP:SNOW 714:WP:SNOW 628:W.marsh 607:WP:BASH 590:W.marsh 582:exactly 542:W.marsh 402:Amarkov 343:Amarkov 303:WP:SNOW 237:Amarkov 233:WP:SNOW 190:Amarkov 163:Amarkov 39:archive 4197:ais523 4193:Werdna 4164:Kchase 4035:WP:100 3617:(talk) 3550:survey 3525:zzuuzz 3504:(talk) 2969:vastly 2875:Taxman 2799:WP:100 2795:WP:200 2669:48.5% 2660:48.0% 2651:45.3% 2642:42.2% 2628:45.0% 2619:63.0% 2610:43.4% 2601:63.5% 2592:44.3% 2583:62.2% 2574:44.4% 2565:60.8% 2556:35.5% 2547:55.9% 2538:49.6% 2529:38.8% 2163:WP:AIV 2089:tools? 2014:Chacor 1697:Heligo 1661:Vogons 741:WP:IAR 723:recent 683:oppose 645:(talk) 453:Trebor 396:essay 328:(talk) 177:Kchase 146:ais523 141:WP:QAV 4261:Durin 4111:Arjun 4006:Dgies 3979:Dgies 3968:BigDT 3951:BigDT 3880:Durin 3837:Durin 3663:Durin 3591:Durin 3569:Durin 3523:. -- 3486:. -- 3440:Durin 3403:: --> 3361:: --> 3271:: --> 3265:might 3254:Durin 3236:Durin 3220:WP:AN 3181:BigDT 3177:needs 3083:Durin 3056:WP:BN 2985:EVula 2981:think 2917:Durin 2832:Tango 2816:Durin 2782:Durin 2778:first 2759:Durin 2685:3445 2677:7153 2665:: --> 2656:: --> 2647:: --> 2638:: --> 2624:: --> 2615:: --> 2606:: --> 2597:: --> 2588:: --> 2579:: --> 2570:: --> 2561:: --> 2552:: --> 2543:: --> 2534:: --> 2516:68.0 2508:78.8 2460:2006 2434:Durin 2373:: --> 2339:EVula 2290:panda 2167:every 2023:EVula 1992:EVula 1958:Sonic 1953:Hyper 1894:Proto 1828:Kusma 1680:Durin 1572:: --> 1457:EVula 1327:no. — 1243:Tango 1178:Tango 1096:email 1088:Xiner 1056:email 1048:Xiner 1005:Durin 874:Durin 746:Proto 697:Kusma 554:: --> 478:: --> 418:: --> 398:might 363:: --> 307:think 257:: --> 251:CAT:E 206:: --> 113:: --> 16:< 4223:(♫♫) 4178:Anas 4105:alot 4086:This 4054::P? 4002:done 4000:and 3998:Done 3811:Talk 3807:ST47 3803:Keep 3738:Anas 3726:Talk 3722:ST47 3678:very 3645:talk 3567:. -- 3457:. - 3419:< 3377:< 3287:< 3166:moo! 3129:moo! 2990:talk 2955:talk 2692:1 - 2468:885 2389:< 2344:talk 2332:and 2325:down 2300:vino 2200:(♫♫) 2141:(♫♫) 2119:time 2112:and 2093:ever 2082:some 2028:talk 1997:talk 1978:moo! 1963:Boom 1831:(討論) 1702:land 1588:< 1506:blis 1497:here 1462:talk 1317:Talk 1313:User 1260:Tito 1232:moo! 1224:some 1164:talk 1092:talk 1052:talk 1029:moo! 970:moo! 948:Kyok 935:moo! 913:Kyok 851:Kyok 812:Kyok 775:talk 700:(討論) 676:and 570:< 513:talk 505:this 494:< 466:talk 434:< 406:moo! 394:this 379:< 347:moo! 292:が... 284:SNOW 273:< 241:moo! 222:< 194:moo! 167:moo! 129:< 4191:-- 4162:.-- 4004:. — 3469:Doc 3392:Doc 3349:Doc 3301:Doc 2992:// 2988:// 2346:// 2342:// 2239:see 2191:not 2030:// 2026:// 1999:// 1995:// 1693:-- 1663:in 1565:six 1502:nae 1464:// 1460:// 1400:. 1222:To 638:are 538:did 449:may 400:. - 4209:) 3939:? 3781:- 3712:er 3651:) 3647:• 3252:-- 3234:-- 3216:65 3058:. 3046:) 2998:// 2975:". 2957:) 2915:-- 2352:// 2295:In 2121:.) 2036:// 2005:// 1898::: 1880:-- 1755:-- 1649:-- 1493:}} 1487:{{ 1470:// 1262:xd 1241:-- 1176:-- 1166:) 1098:) 1094:, 1058:) 1054:, 1003:-- 909:-- 872:-- 847:-- 777:) 750::: 743:. 659:. 158:) 64:← 4207:C 4204:T 4201:U 4167:T 3906:Z 3643:( 3417:t 3415:n 3413:a 3411:i 3409:d 3407:a 3405:R 3375:t 3373:n 3371:a 3369:i 3367:d 3365:a 3363:R 3285:t 3283:n 3281:a 3279:i 3277:d 3275:a 3273:R 3042:c 3038:( 2995:☯ 2953:( 2904:— 2412:) 2406:( 2387:t 2385:n 2383:a 2381:i 2379:d 2377:a 2375:R 2349:☯ 2033:☯ 2002:☯ 1903:► 1586:t 1584:n 1582:a 1580:i 1578:d 1576:a 1574:R 1551:— 1504:' 1467:☯ 1319:) 1311:( 1204:5 1199:1 1170:. 1162:( 1090:( 1050:( 1023:- 955:o 920:o 858:o 819:o 773:( 755:► 568:t 566:n 564:a 562:i 560:d 558:a 556:R 492:t 490:n 488:a 486:i 484:d 482:a 480:R 432:t 430:n 428:a 426:i 424:d 422:a 420:R 377:t 375:n 373:a 371:i 369:d 367:a 365:R 271:t 269:n 267:a 265:i 263:d 261:a 259:R 220:t 218:n 216:a 214:i 212:d 210:a 208:R 188:- 180:T 156:C 153:T 150:U 127:t 125:n 123:a 121:i 119:d 117:a 115:R 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 82 - Knowledge

Index