Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 30

2543:

outcomes. Given the level of strongly-held oppose votes in your particular RfA, there was no earthly way that consensus to promote could ever have been reached. If I may be so bold as to offer some belated, retrospective advice, the sensible course of action for you to adopt would have been a quite withdrawal from debating the matter here and elsewhere around the 'pedia. I say this as someone with no particular axe to grind, having been away from here for most of this debate and having no interest whatsoever in the Terri Schiavo article; I just hate to see people banging their heads against brick walls and distracting so much admin time and energy that could otherwise be put to more fruitful use. Now I realise that by responding to you I am inviting a prolonged, multi-coloured reply. I will read anything you say, but I may as well warn you know that my position on consensus is not likely to change, being based on fairly unshakeable principles. I should also add that I intend no particular criticism of you because you fail to understand what consensus means; many more experienced Wikipedians than you evince the same blind spot.

4476:

your nomination therefore failed. That is precisely what is supposed to happen. If you think RfA would be better if there was something else there, then propose whatever change you like, but be aware that any change that turns RfA into something other than people voting as they see fit for whatever reasons they feel are a big deal, is certain to fail. Knowledge is a chaotic, inconsistent and unpredictable system, but that is its greatest strength because it allows the flexibility to adapt to new situations and circumstances. You're not going to lawyer your way to adminship, and the more you try, the more it will convince people that you would be a woefully inappropriate admin -- possibly that's not what you're trying to do, but that's what it looks like, and that can only harm your reputation, cause a lot of ill will and waste a lot of people's time.

621:

applicant's perceived "deletionism". I don't think that should be a basis for opposition. It's a difference in philosophy. I've shown willingness to discuss my views reasonably with "deletionists" -- particularly the more thoughtful among them. Just because you feel it is best to label those who don't share your views "trolls" and ignore what they have to say doesn't mean others feel the same (although, yes, you'll surely be able to dig up a diff where I labelled someone I disagreed with a "troll" and where I haven't been reasonable -- we all have our moments). I have opposed those who have a record of using speedy tags incorrectly or over-hastily because I feel it would be detrimental to the project to allow them to delete articles without any discussion. Is that politicking? I didn't oppose Nandesuka just because he's a deletionist. -- Grace Note

3310:

example - Say I write a whole article, carefully proof read it, and save the page. I would get 1 edit. If I corrected 4 minor typos in that article, I would get 75% more edits - in short, receiving more credit for doing less work. In addition, drawing and uploading a map or diagram only earns 1 "point". I hardly think this is a valid means for determining the level of contribution a user has made, and to me at least it would appear to set a concerning example towards large numbers of trivial or low-quality edits rather than working on harder tasks and careful attention to detail. Moreover, what is to say a user who has not yet contributed a large quantity of edits is not a responsible admin? So long as they've been on Knowledge for some time, learned how things are done, and helped out a bit, they may well make an excellent administrator.

4538:

have posted a note regarding being too busy on my user page, talk page, and over at Jimbo's place. Thx again for all the feedback, and perhaps, I hypothesize that being busy and over-worked may have made me a little combative, but I was only trying to get some extra tools, and afterwards, decided to try and clarify some unclear areas to help other users (future RfA candidates, etc.) so they could be more clear on what the guidelines and policy really are: My gripe was that if policy said one thing and editors did another, it was unclear and ambiguous, thus prompting my request for feedback to ascertain consensus (something folks have said I needed to follow) -so, when consensus is identified and ascertained, we can more easily follow it. OK, Thanx again for your feedback ,TUF-KAT, Journalist, and colleagues.--

2558:

at small things and missing the bigger picture. This is not to say I am the most qualified candidate, but I would not have applied if I thought I was unqualified. That being said, it may be moot: I may be too busy to edit on a regular basis (and, hence, Admin as well). However, I do understand concensus -it is that ideal; So... would you care to vote on my request for feedback here? Vote any way you like, but be forewarned, I hope to seek enforcement for all equally of whatever the result is -and that means retroactive -that is, if the policy remains as is, you may hear me inform editors that the policy was not followed by those voting because they in fact did criticize me (in part) for concentrating to heavily on one area of the 'pedia here. However, if they were right, then change policy by all means.--

1603:

initially, because the RfA's voters could not have anticipated this in advance, and thus could not vote on this.) Now, assuming all of the foregoing was correct, we can conclude one thing: All three of these candidates, Robchurch, Watts, and the anonymous editor described by Pete, were experienced at the outset, but "did not have the numbers," either in total edit count or "diversity." This does go against the "no big deal" policy for every editor in good standing, but moreover, it goes against gut feeling: What used to be an open club has become a closed clique of insiders, who arbitrarily raise the bar, when arbitrarily denied users would probably be good admins: Although the writer of this analysis has his personal differences with

2953:

as a minimum edit count or minimum time on the wiki) but such efforts have been repeatedly rebuffed. The statement on the RFA main page is merely an empirical observation of what seems to be the historical realities of candidacies for adminship; it is not a statement of policy, even in the weak sense of "policy" I outlined above. If you want to change policy, then change the consensus. You're not going to do that by demanding a vote, but rather by making an well-reasoned civil argument to the thousands of Knowledge editors who comprise the community. If you convince them that you're right, then consensus will shift, and policy will be changed. If not, then not.

2802:

indicates that no one has yet believed you were doing anything that was so destructive to the wiki that a note on your talk page wouldn't suffice to stop it. And no more than that. I do not trust you to follow community consensus, or to avoid getting into disputes with other admins, or to handle disputes in a reasonable manner; I would oppose your request for adminship because while you are known you are not trusted and thus you fail the second criterion. (And I don't give a damn about how many edits in what namespaces you have or how long you've been here, beyond the minimal standards needed to establish some sort of investment in your identity here.)

2569:

glory of the process is its lack of structure. Anyone whose nomination fails is free to come back and try again after a month or so, but they are well advised to consider why they might have failed the first time and what actions they should take in the interim to address both the explicit and implicit objections that surfaced. As a general rule, going around the various fora complaining that one was the victim of an injustice or that the process needs to be changed is not generally speaking the best approach to adopt. To quote from one of my favourite books, "Master thyself, then others shall thee beare".

3547:

edits and, say, 50% support should get the rollback button (which basically is a shortcut for doing something any editor can do manually); protecting and unprotecting pages should require a higher level of support (say, 60%), but should not really be a big deal, because any editor can sit and watch a page and revert at least the first few objectionable changes to that page; the power to delete and undelete pages should then require 70% support, and the power to block users (which I think is the most potentially confrontational ability) should require 80% support.

3526:. Here is my proposal to diffuse some of the problems that have arisen in RfA. It may be horribly complicated, and technically impossible to implement at the moment, but I think that if the technological framework existed, it would work wonders towards reducing the incivility and politicization of the RfA process. I call it "gradual adminship", and the basic idea is that instead of getting all the admin powers at once, an editor should be granted them in stages, giving the community the opportunity to see how that editor uses the powers he has before he gets more. 2013:"But is not a job. They are just powers. Originally, they were conceived as powers withheld, which you would be granted if you kept your nose reasonably clean. Now people are opposed because they don't vote on deletions, because they have made enemies, because they aren't "trusted" (but not "trusted" not to delete pages, "trusted" in a sense defined by whoever is using that as their reason), because you once bickered with somebody over something stupid, because someone once called you a troll and his mates piled on. 610:

unfortunate trend in the requestes for adminship for (1) recrimination - "I have an axe to grind, so I'll get him back by opposing his request for adminship"-ism and (2) politiking (as GraceNote has been doing lately with respect to inclusionsim vs deletionsim lately). Also, I've noticed this page has a tendancy to "avalanche" - once three or four people oppose a nomination, subsequent oppose votes start to accululate very quickly. So given these conditions, I see plenty of value in ending certain RFAs early.

3321:, would appear to be totally silly. Why this 85% support requirement? All it takes at present is for five or six users of a like mind to vote Oppose on an RfA that otherwise was dominated by support votes, despite the fact that the majority of the votes were Support. I also hold the view that the word "Oppose" is fundamentally unpleasant to the user being considered for adminship, and it may be better to split votes into "Support / Not Support" rather than "Oppose/Neutral/Support". 4017:

contributions, address the problems that prevented him from being promoted, and wait one month to try again. The policy should not be changed; it has worked up until this point and no one has complained. Additionally, edit counts is a good measure of a person's contributions. Ofcource many other things should be considered, but the only way to tell if someone is truly committed and experienced is if he has made many edits in many different namespaces. I fully concur with

4249:

wrong response, IMHO) rather than reflecting on why that might be so (the right one, ditto). To change the process in response to this situation would be foolish, I believe. As for edit counting, my view is that people are entitled to vote the way they vote for whatever reason they see fit. Personally, when I vote here I never edit count but I do not have the right to impose my reasoning on others, just as nobody can force me to start edit counting in future.

31: 1469:"Editcountitis is particularly bad. There was a case recently where someone had been around for two years, made lots of good (and lengthy) contributions, never caused any trouble, had helped people out, but was blindly rejected because he had only made 1,000 edits or so...In short, adminship should still be no big deal. We should work at loosing the RfAd culture up. Pcb21| Pete 09:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)" 2659:

open to you, if you really want to be an admin, is to drop this campaign, go about the business of editing and mantaining the project for a month or so, and then wait to see if someone else will nominate you (on the whole these nominations tend to be more successful than self-noms). If you are actually not that interested in being an admin but are just trying to make a point, please desist immediately.

3993:

of the time. Most users are promoted or rejected overwhelmingly. The contentious RfAs simply stand out so much that they seem more common. I just can't support a system where a candidate would have to go through multiple RfAs to gain all the admin powers. The candidates that pass easily now would face a greater burden while the obvious rejections would still get rejected. A few borderline candidates

2709:

nothing came of it; I am -in this venture for feedback (and the link at bottom of page) trying to get clear on what's the real policy, according to concensus, which can change the policy if there is concensus to do so. As far as "how many votes" constitutes a clear concensus on my questions here, I will leave that to the Bureaucrats who traditionally count the votes and do this function, as in RfA.

3303:

nominations by others, rather than self-nominations (possibly due to the stigma attached to it) it would seem quite wrong that people should be criticised to the degree they are when they themselves have not directly requested it. It is no wonder, I believe, that users feel disgruntled with the process, since the level of animosity and unkindness involved here has far surpassed levels of decency.

2806:

locked into a strict quantitative system which could be easily gamed. There are many flaws in the RfA process that have caused suitable candidates to fail to reach consensus. I do not believe your non-promotion is an example of this. You have received an expression of no confidence from the community, and so your trusted status was not as obvious as you may have thought. Policy was followed.

2816:

should be followed and when to adapt further to an individual situation. And when they disagree, to discuss. The only one here who seems to believe you have been mistreated is yourself. Please consider that this may mean that you have misjudged the community standards, rather than that the community has done you a gross injustice. Pushing the issue is helping neither you nor Knowledge.

2812:

further privilege of a few extra technical capabilities, which with most—but not all—regular contributors there is no reason to deny. With you we denied them. Which does not impair your ability to use the site as you have been in any way. If we were really trying to censor you, you would have been blocked and your nimerous postings deleted, but as you can see they still stand.

1416:. That disproves your agrument that by opposing you we are breaking some policy: there is no policy. Please stop flooding the place with arguments and complaints at everyone (for that loses you trust and actually can be percieved as vandalism). I, however, do wish you good luck in your future as an editor and hope you continue to contribute to articles. -- 3941:

of edits and time spent on Knowledge. In cases of problem users, a bureaucrat would remove this power. The specifics were never really fleshed out, but I believe it would be workable. As for the rest of the admin powers, it makes sense to keep them as a package. Any problems with RfA would be exacerbated by requiring multiple requests.

1391:

judgment and patience in dealing with others. Nominees should have been on Knowledge long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities. That said, adminship should be no big deal. Admin actions are reversible; being an admin is primarily an extra responsibility, as there are rules and policies that apply only to admins.

4266:

much play because at least up to this point there hasn't been a huge need for a more defined process. So I think it's working fine. If regular users got a rollback button I'd be fine with that. It'd sure make RC patrol easier and it's something users can already do, providing a faster way to rollback would be a good thing.

3756:

rollback tool can go here as well. Blocking and protecting (along with allowing editing of protected pages) can be considered powers granted to users trusted to look after disputes if they arise. I don't see why a distinction shouldn't be made here. That's with the proviso that the bottom tier is "no big deal

3551:

this scheme, a bureaucrat is just like an admin with one more level of power, that being the power to raise admins from one level to the next. De-adminship (also a frequent topic of discussion) would be a reverse version of this process - inactive editors would gradually lose powers as they remain dormant.

2939:. Make an argument. Explain why we're mistaken. But lawyeristic appeals to policy statements (which are nothing more than attempts to put our consensus opinions into words so that newcomers aren't totally confused while they make the transition into full members of the community) will get you nowhere. 2830:

editors (and well I should). And if I do something wrong as an administrator, I know that I will apologize for it, and attempt to make amends. That's all I ask in an administrator- to be able to admit when they're wrong, and make up for their mistakes. But you're showing me the polar opposite here.

3269:

is generally good, but you have not voted on the above, so I am having a hard time ascertaining concensus. You don't have to vote in my favor --wait a second; This is moot: I already made the edit change in question. If you disagree, then revert, but please, if you do so, log in an "oppose" vote with

2557:

I believe you mean well, and you are right that this would have been better for me in the long run, but I was thinking of the next person who would come to an RfA and get judged based on dry numbers or picked at over trivial matters that had recently occurred, in which editors were looking myopically

2169:

Gordon, the page is titled "Requests of Adminship". It differs from "Vote for adminship". If your vote is failing miserably bureaucrats have every right to remove it from the page. The page is created to ascertain if the candidate is suitable for further responsibilities. If the voting trends dictate

1071:

that this was the right place to bring my concerns: "The much better way to handle the issue if you think there is a serious problem in the way the RFA policy is handled would be to let your RFA stay removed then bring the issue up on the RFA talk page and point to that discussion from relevant other

696:

My other reason was simply that I felt that GordonWatts would be less likely to renominate himself repeatedly (cf. Terri Schiavo on FAC) if he became convinced that he really wasn't trusted by the community. I will respect the other bureaucrats' opinions, though I would rather have seen some time for

301:

Ah, now I see your point - I thought you meant "protect" in the sense of an admin locking the page from editing, but you mean just something to signal potential posters that the debate is over, a la closed AfD debates. Yes, that makes perfect sense, and I would wholeheartedly endorse such a marker. I

4475:

a big deal. The guidelines are not supposed to be an exhaustive list of hard requirements for adminship, and I very strongly doubt there will ever be consensus to make them that. You nominated yourself for adminship. There was a clear consensus that adminship would not be appropriate for you, and

4210:

a proposal along these lines. The crux of the problem with adminship in general at present is that a great deal of "lip service" is paid to adminship not being a big deal, but the actuality is that it is treated as if it is a very great deal indeed. If we really are saying adminship should be no big

3889:

was the one-button revert. Certainly a user could opt to go to that level, and no further, and not worry about whether they were trusted with the power to protect or delete or block. In fact, that user had made a similar suggestion to the effect that users could be given a short-term blocking power,

3625:

My opinion is that the current system works. Reason? I can't think of any failed applications that should probably have passed, and certainly no successful ones that should have failed. I also think the above suggestion would introduce much unnecessary bureaucracy. Current problems (i.e. Gordon) are

2708:

Both: I am both irritating and also beneficial: I have already been the catalyst for one change in policy: See the link below, where the "edit war" was added to the list of prohibitions for Featured Article candidates; I also prompted some to consider making the "vote closing" template stronger, but

2324:

Thx 4 voting; Actually, I agree with you, but I voted against my conscience so I would vote "with" my many critics, and that was a higher "conscience" reason. Additionally, I just now made an edit change to that page reflecting the concensus (with which I voted, even though I actually agree with you

1971:

we have User:Allen3 (Revision as of 16:00, 13 September 2005)] telling me in my recent RfA application that my four reverts were out of order when I had the authority or permission to do them in three cases, and the fourth, if I were wrong, was a misunderstanding, based on the fact that Nichalp said

1639:

In looking at the above, it is apparent that GordonWatts started editing exactly one month before Phroziac and has almost twice as many edits. Phroziac, on the other hand, has edited 1211 "Distinct pages," many more than GordonWatts, which is more "diversity," by far. However, GordonWatts has edited

1252:

As a side note, I think that standards should be raised for editors: I think we should be forced to post our real names, work addresses, and phone numbers, with email address, like editors at online newspapers, because this would increase accountability and improve edit quality. However, this is not

4248:

On the whole, I tend to agree with Ryan. Given my description of how the process works further up the page, it seems to me that it's doing fine. Sadly, Gordon's rejection illustrates very well why it's working: a lot of people just don't trust him, so his RfA failed. Now he's kicking up a fuss (the

4122:

I just dont think anyone should be given the powers in stages, its an unnecessary procedure with uneeded complexities; first it was just Admin, then Bureaucrat, but now it would be "level 1 Admin", "Level 2 Admin", "Level 3 Admin" then "Level 4 Admin". I still feel that the user can try again if he

3992:

In my opinion, rollback isn't really a true administrative power. It's more like a handy tool that admins have access to. Any user, even anon IPs, can revert a page; rollback just speeds it up. In contrast, page protection and blocking are impossible for non-admins. RfA works fine the vast majority

3940:

Yes, I do support separating rollback from the "real" admin powers. In fact, a while back I proposed a similar process whereby "super-editors" (bad name, I know) would have access to rollback only. However, instead of request the power, users would gain rollback automatically after a certain number

3677:

I think he's referring to the implicit third part of the ability to protect and unprotect pages: the ability to edit protected pages. Much of the boilerplate text of the site (such as the tagline "") is on protected pages in the MediaWiki namespace. Edit one of those pages, and you can put Goatse

3579:

Doesn't seem bad. I would expect more problems with the gradual de-admin process, but not many... I suppose a protect-happy admin could fairly easily lose unblock privileges and then be blocked temporarily, so I guess that works. To respond to Admiral Roo, though, I don't think it will affect the

3327:

is an additional problem. Different bureaucrats appear to have different ideas according to what constitutes consensus on RfA, and I have seen some votes be closed as No Consensus that had a higher support vote than others which had been closed with a Support consensus. I think there should be some

3309:

is a key issue, in my opinion, too. At present, the vast majority of RfA votes appear to be based on numeric edit counting, via the determination of whether a user meets appropriate edit count criteria (usually considered to be around 1500-3000 edits, depending on the person voting). Let me give an

3210:

discussion has taken place. It is this basic concept that you are failing to understand that is leading to all of your problems here. I think your proposed policy change is a bad idea because it sets arbitrary and artificial criteria for something I feel ought to be more of a case-by-case thing. My

3092:

His RFA failed, but instead of being so angry or disturbed (thats the way its seems), he should try to address the issues that others have with him, since we are the ones who actually vote him in. All his demands etc really accomplishes nothing, and he should know that this will hurt his chances of

3049:

No. I am very glad he helped out a lot initially in the FA-process, even helping edit and stuff, but then when he had promised it would be OK to resubmit Schiavo for FA (see Jimbo's page for details) after a few weeks, he went back on his word, based on concensus; This time, he had the authority to

2952:

It is the consensus of the Knowledge community that should be no firm standards for adminship; rather, an editor will be promoted to administrator when the community decides that that editor is trustworthy to bear the extra responsibility. Many people have tried to introduce firmer standards (such

2861:

I came here to seek consensus, but instead of helping with the solution (voting above, either for me or against me), you gripe about a problem. You talk about problems, but you do not contribute to the solution. Talk the talk? Well, walk the walk. Also, while you may be disciplined for an overstep,

2680:

I disagree because voting and achieving a concensus are not mutually exclusive: you can do both at the same time. I am using a mathematical method of solititing feedback to see what the consensus is; it is more accurate than random questions, in which the amount of concensus is oft times misquoted.

2649:

Please note what aspects of this description of the process you disagree with, if you want to initiate a discussion which might or might not lead to a consensus. Please also note that the point you are inviting votes on is not a policy, but a guideline. Note also, in the light of your edit summary,

722:“Would you please come closer to me and explain the exact reasons for opposing my nomination for adminship? Do you really feel that wikipedia should have materials, which do not conform to the guidelines? I invite you for a chit-chat, and I shall certainly endeavor to remove your doubts. Thanks.” 609:

I'm going to have to disagree with Uninvited Company on this one. While I think both arguements have merit, I agree with Aloan and Giano that removing guarenteed-to-fail nominations early spares the nominated person the embarassment of tremendously lopsided vote. Bear in mind that there has been an

4537:

I've read every single post, and currently am on a "Wiki-break" because I am simply too busy, which now makes my RfA moot. So, did I go on the break because I found it "less" worth my while to stay around, or, instead was I too busy anyway and simply did not realize it? I don't know, but anyhow, I

4218:

I do not feel that new users should immediately be considered "not trustworthy", rather that they should be given the chance to demonstrate trustworthiness - and, if found necessary, have those privileges revoked as swiftly as they were granted. In addition, the incremental system would provide a

4144:

On second thought, how about letting the process run, then if the original request receives only 50%, then only the Rollback botton is given, but if the person gets the standard support (upwards of 80%), he gets all four powers? The way I see it, many persons are ready for all 4 powers now, and to

3550:

Editors who have been granted a power would have to wait a certain period of time - say 4 weeks, to ask for (or be nominated for) the next one. A list would be maintained of which editors are at which level (with a clear disclaimer that a higher level brings no greater say in consensus issues). In

3546:

I propose that, instead of getting all four of these in one fell swoop, editors must seek and receive approval for each one individually, in order. Furthermore, the standards for granting each power should be adjusted to match the breadth of that power. In other words, anyone who has a few hundred

3418:

I do agree on the count of editing. If one were to have an extreamly low count (like say, 50 in only three months), that may warrent oppisition for the request. But higher counts (say 200+) should not warrent neither opposition nor acceptance. I think that the content of a person's edits should

3406:

I don't dispute that. I did see some throwing of words, but IMO most (the majoraty of ppl) who come to this page and either vote and/or give an oppinion are not ppl who are out to get you, though that doesn't say that no one will snap at you. My best policy on those who do toss crap is to ignore

2866:

Sometimes policy trumps consensus -if the consensus is not willing to change the policy: My being criticized for the RfA renomination was a good example: Both policy and Mark, the FA editor (see Jimbo's page) said to go ahead, but Mark caved in to the other editors' concensus, which violated known

2829:

I agree with Kat here. Adminship is "no big deal", as you've so many times noted. But it's still something that we don't give to people if we don't think they can handle the responsibilities. I know that if I overstep my boundaries as an administrator, I will receive a sharp reply from involved

2703:

you misread me; I'm sorry for being ambiguous; I did not mean to either criticize or praise you (I though you had posted it), but merely to nickname you, as a way of providing an explanation point -somewhat humorously, like when one does it verbally. I think I'll be less ambiguous in the future. I

2658:

as a criticism. Also, my remarks about your general behaviour on Knowledge fora were not intended as a criticism, but as a pointer towards why you are failing to get much support. My guess is that you are generally pissing people off, though I may be wrong. Realistically, the best course of action

2646:

People are nominated or nominate themselves. Others come by and vote one way or another. A result emerges and the nomination passes or fails. People are free to support or oppose as they see fit, for whatever reasons take their fancy. The great glory of the process is its lack of structure. Anyone

2568:

As I understand it, there is no policy to be changed. People are nominated or nominate themselves. Others come by and vote one way or another. A result emerges and the nomination passes or fails. People are free to support or oppose as they see fit, for whatever reasons take their fancy. The great

2542:

Consensus is not achieved by voting. 4-3 is not consensus, neither is 8-2. Consensus is when everyone concerned in a debate can agree sufficiently with a particular outcome so as to be able to live with it. Consensus is not about one or more parties getting their way, it is about avoiding win-lose

2302:

Not that I believe voting is appropriate in this case, but this talk page confuses me too much to figure out where to put my comment. I have no problems with the idea of an editor becoming admin despite editing mostly a single article or category -- it may often be inappropriate, but shouldn't be

1602:

also had other complaints about the way that he handled his recent FA-nomination, but those critiques are minor and shall be discussed in the "Double Standard" section here. (Criticisms of Watts' constant rebuttal to each and every answer also were a factor in his failed RfA, but they did not come

456:

I agree. Frankly, this is ridiculous. "Speedy removal" does not simply spare the blushes and stress of the nominee, but also avoids ill will in the community as a whole (and stop everyone wasting time and electrons). He may not care about ill will; I certainly do. I respect his strong opinions

290:

removed it from the main page of RfA. From what I read the whole RfA should have been considered closed. However, you will see that people are still voting there, likely because the nominee is posting the link to it. Of course, still being a noob here I did not catch on that it had been removed

4435:

I am sorry if I made you or your friend feel unwelcome, but I was merely trying to get feedback in my quest to identifiy the true concensus; I am going on (have gone on) a "Wiki-break," and may be busy with other things morerelated to my real life instead of Wiki, but I wish you all the best. Thx

4265:

It seems to me that RFA gets it about right. I think it errs on the side of approving nominations and we don't really see a lot of issues involving admins. There are some to be sure but the fact is that very few get de-admined. The de-admin process comes up from time to time but never really gets

3755:

I agree with Nichalp to an extent, but not wholly. This is how I see it: deleting is a power withheld from new users because they might abuse it for vandalism. There's no reason we can't give any user who has proven themselves not to be a vandal. I am thinking of GordonWatts here. I guess the

2815:

Knowledge is not a bureaucracy. It's intended to be a community of reasonable people with the goal of building an encyclopedia; such policies as we do have are not intended to be hard rules robotically enforced, because reasonable people can be expected to use good sense and know when a guideline

2073:

the last one, we see my nomination, but it was soundly defeated. The only thing that had gotten worse in the article was a vert short-lived edit war; the defeat was because many people thought the article had to "wait several months" becasue "that's the way we did things," and since I didn't know

827:, inactive administrators may have their access removed. According to this policy, any sysop inactive on Commons for a full year will be desysoped. "Inactive" means no edits in the past 6 months and fewer than 50 edits in the last year. Inactive administrators may re-apply through the regular way. 620:

Raul, as so often is the case, you mischaracterise the views of those who you don't like, or who don't agree with you. I have not been "politiking" with respect to inclusionism vs deletionism. I've said, clearly and openly, that I don't oppose a request for administrator status on the basis of an

486:

I do too, but ill will is going to occur if you don't follow the rules and let the nomination proceed; As Dan has said, only I can declare "ill will," and I do not. Besides, if another user claims to feels ill will from this RfA, then they can log onto another page. No one is forcing them to long

440:

This whole debacle is damaging to the reputation of the Knowledge project. A stop should be put to this now. The application os obviously going to fail, and no good can come of further debate on the subject. The candidate's views are now immaterial to the outcome, and there is no good reason to

4222:

It would, I believe, reduce the present view of adminship as a status symbol down to its rightful place as a set of tools. Obviously, such a proposal would require developer assistance; however, as a professional software developer, I would be certainly willing to do the technical work (with the

3246:

I have no further comments to make. Whatever I say honestly, patiently and sympathetically leads to a long reply and doesn't even stick to the core topic. And since Gordon thinks I've criticised him, well, I've said what I have to say, and I sincerely hope he reflects on my thoughts from another

2899:

to determine right here: Is a change in policy needed? You gripe about my actions, but you have not voted either for or against me above. If you want to complain, then earn my trust: Cast your vote, you and Ral315. You and anyone else that wants to talk, do something constructive instead of just

2801:

I think your RfA proves that you are not a trusted member, which is not something easily determined beforehand. Perhaps I can only speak for myself: I don't trust you. Not being blocked for blatant abuse is not sufficient to establish trust. It indicates a lack of active distrust, or at least it

2192:

then why are you still persisting? Get 1000 edits in the main namespace, get three articles featured. Participate in the Village pump, AFD, IFD; hunt and find spelling errors, copyvios etc. Prove your worth as a potential admin not by your word, but by your actions. Public opinion is notoriously

1390:

The community grants administrator status to trusted users who are familiar with Knowledge policies. Admins have no special authority on Knowledge, but are held to high standards, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Knowledge. Admins should be courteous and should exercise good

2805:

Perhaps I am wrong, and you would not do any of these things I fear. But I do not trust you, and your actions over the past week have not inspired confidence that I should. We have these loosely-defined guidelines so that we may interpret them liberally with judgment and discretion, and are not

3962:

Suppose instead of a super-editor, we call this a "junior admin", and throw in the ability to temporarily protect pages and block non-admin users? That would make this a slightly more graduated system where recipients of these powers would be able to demonstrate that they understand when it is

2811:

For someone to be violating your "rights" you have to have had them in the first place. You seem to think you have, which is not the case; the loose guidelines expressed for qualification for adminship do not entitle anyone to anything. You have the privilege of editing; you have requested the

1365:

I don't mean to imply that editors always think like that, but the actual fact is that they have made up their own version of the rules and policy that differs from what the current policy really is; The fact that you just happened to meet their standards does not mean that they used the right

425:

I have reopened this nomination at Gordon's request. The policy of premature removal is intended to protect candidates from undue stress; however, he stated on my talk page that he doesn't mind the "ill will", and I believe this should be his choice. Please let the nomination run its course. —

3302:

has completely vanished in certain circumstances, leading to adminship requests being used as a manner of putting good faith users down, often for nothing more than being yet to contribute a particularly large quantity to a particular area of Knowledge. Since the majority of RfAs appear to be

3015:

I'm not going to cast a vote. This "vote" that you've organized is invalid. If you want to change a policy, the accepted way to do so is to propose an idea, allow other editors to criticize, add to, edit, or reject said idea, and if the idea proves positive, implement it. You tell me to do

4016:

To tell the truth, I see nothing wrong with the current policy. No major problems have been experienced until G.W's adminship failed, and I don't think that any changes should be made because he is unhappy about the outcome. G.W should just do what everyone who fails does; try to improve his

258:

No need to protect the page, really. They never have been, and old VfD's aren't either. Any tampering with a page after the closing date would be obvious in the edit history. As for policy, it's already policy that RfA's end at a set time, and no comments should be added after that time.

2170:

a downward trend, continuation of the whole excercise is pointless. You don't gain from it, others don't gain from it either. Maybe you don't want face the ignominy of having the nom called of early, but its better than getting more oppose votes and wasting everybody's time and energy.

1199:

Knowledge policy is to grant this access liberally to anyone who has been an active Knowledge contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community..."This should be no big deal," according to Jimmy Wales...In the early days of Knowledge all users acted as

523:

Gordon, this isnt a popularity contest, an unpopularity contest, an election, a democracy or a request for comment; it is a method for bureaucrats to build a consensus, for better or for worse you are not going to get a positive one so there is no point in letting this run its course.

1246:

If the editors don't like policy, they should change it; If they don't change it, they should follow it. The other criticisms against me are addressed in the sections below, and this affects other users, not just me, so this is a "general problem" with Knowledge: Not following the

4398:

Let's be clear on one thing: I did not pretend that I was this other fellow, nor did I say "he voted this way;" Rather, I said it was "apparently" the way he was attempting to vote. Don't put words in my mouth: I'm trying to eat, and it won't fit in there with all the food?! ;-)

3906:

I strongly oppose this proposal. It adds far too much bureaucracy and makes the whole process needlessly complex. Yes, there are some problems with the current RfA process, but it works just fine for the vast majority of candidates. There's no need for such a radical revision.

110:

Could the bureaucrats (or someone) come up with a way to make it more obvious that an RFA has been closed/removed, and what the outcome was? As it stands now, it is often not easily apparent to someone watching an RFA that it has been completed. Thinking of other examples,

2647:

whose nomination fails is free to come back and try again after a month or so, but they are well advised to consider why they might have failed the first time and what actions they should take in the interim to address both the explicit and implicit objections that surfaced.

1097:

permitted: A clear attempt to stifle my voice. (They gave a reason, but I don't buy it; My attempts to voice my concerns over my failed RfA have moved to this page here, and I'm keeping a copy on my user page and my computer's hard drive -for archival and backup purposes.)

3841:

I do think that a request for an individual power would be much less contentious than a request "for adminship" as we have now. I recognize that it would create an increased load in terms of the voting, but I don't think it would be 4x as much, since not every user will

1370:

was something they liked. Their "changing standards" may be better, but if they feel that way, then they should seek to change the policy before they do it that way; This way, editors who apply for RfA would not feel cheated or get a big surprise when the rules aren't

4470:

be promoted) for any reason, no matter how many edits you have over any number of articles and any length of time -- people are allowed to vote as they see fit. Adminship is not supposed to be a big deal, but apparently there is consensus that your edit history

3025:, a VERY well-respected editor on Knowledge. At this point, I wouldn't support a RfA. Nor would I a year from now, until you can prove that you can handle the tools. And complaining on RfA's talk page, Jimbo Wales' talk page, etc. won't prove anything to me. 2750:. That is the reality - 1000 edits with none to the Knowledge namespace isn't going to work in most cases, nor is 1000 VfD edits. Of course, it's an observation and not a rule, something to bear in mind if you are seeking nomination or to nominate another. 2174:

You may want the nomination to continue as you hope some of the oppose votes might get changed to support. If that's the case you may contact all those who have voted here and ask them to withdraw/support instead. If they refuse, well no point pursuing it any

4123:

fails. Adminship will become a big deal, and, according to Jim Wales, it shouldnt be. Most of the time, users who fail deserve to fail; maybe they are immature, unready, unscrupulous ect. So far, community consensus has been competent in promoting new admin.

457:

and committment, but it is abundantly clear that a significant amount of water will have to pass under the bridge before he becomes an admin. The only reason to keep the nomination would be to clear the air: well, some thing are better left unsaid. I have

3584:

bit at all. That comment seems to most frequently arise with regard to vandal reversion: People will likely still expect slow-style rollbacks in advance, and will likely formulate new non-reversion expectations for awarding additional responsibilities. —

1434:"We have ~23,500,000 edits, ~2,300,000 pages, ~440,000 users and ~580 admins. That means each admin is effectively responsible for 40,500 edits, 4,000 pages and 750 users. That sounds like 580 full time jobs to me~ --Alterego 15:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)" 832:

Shall we conduct a straw poll to see if we can form a consensus on having this as policy here as well? Note: i know we all hate polls, but we have had more than one discussion on this, and this is a quick and painless way to finally do something about it.

2988:

I was seeking to IDENTIFY -not change, hello? Did you not read my post herein? Now, "identifying" is definitely done by voting; I can't read minds, lol. (I was trying to identify policy so I could know how to act, what to expect, what not to expect, etc.

3866:

Just for clarification, are you expecting people to go for the rollback after 4 weeks, Protection 4 weeks later, etc...? So, you get all of the powers in 4 months - enough time to get experience of responsibility, disputes and a grounding in WikiPolicy.

4413:

are as the leaves in the forest. I was charging you not with pretense but incivility and bullying. I'll add bad faith and rhetorical shamelessness, since you have to know Szyslak ("the fellow") wasn't "attempting to vote" at all. Or haven't you noticed

3820:

I do not support this idea. Think of how contentious RfA's occasionally get...do you want this to happen 4x as often? We're just creating more bureaucracy. Adminship should be no big deal...having to apply separately for each power makes it seem like a

1989:

I was the subject of a double standard: These users contradicted themselves when in my RfA application, they nit picked at me for what were possibly minor violations (nothing serious and no revert war on my part, unless I was actually justified). Even

4085:

are to the Knowledge namespaces. You see, so far, the process has worked. Those who should become Admins do, and the others dont. Ofcourse the process has its faults, but nothing is perfect, and the candidate always has another chance in one month.

2934:

trumps consensus. Rather, consensus defines policy. If you think that the Knowledge community is wrong about some issue where the community has reached consensus, you are entitled to attempt to convince the community of the errors of its ways by

1982:

and I could not answer it there: He criticized me for getting "sysop" and "admin" mixed up; They mean the same thing. It is true that I made a human error, but he does not criticize Admins and Bureaucrats for much more serious and questionable

4081:. Mind you, he does good work uploading pictures, writing articles etc, but even though he has been here since Feb 2004, he had trouble setting up his own nomination until I had to offer to help. Also while he has over 10,000 edits, not even 2244:

4-3 concensus would be OK, I don't think others would agree, and will accept the 80% figure for now as the standard. (The 4-3 concensus is good enough for a small edit on an article, but maybe not OK for Adminship. That is debatable, but not

2051:

This RfA process affects me, but it also affect many other editors, and misapplication of the rules is a factor in the current trend of users quitting and becoming frustrated with Knowledge. Another example of this is my recent nomination of

3016:

something constructive. I don't call disrupting multiple talk pages with your views on radically changing policy because you think you should be an administrator "constructive". You tell me to stop "griping about a problem". Well, that's

2867:

policy: Consensus is not binding when it conflicts with policy, which allowed my FA-renomination, because the editors were perfectly able to change policy and didn't. This was double standard application, holding me to a nonpolicy standard.

4284:

which Gordon, not Szyslak, added to section 1 above, claiming that it must represent Szyslak's opinion. Gordon, it was bad enough when you merely tried to order people to vote in your poll; actually voting FOR them really crosses the line.

2101:

I just wish to enquire, is there any reason why the comments part (when an RfA gets long) shouldn't be a separate section? On R. Fiend's RfA, he changed it so that it was and Ceropia changed it back. Just wish for clarification, thank you.

1839:

Then, after those questionable remarks, Admins at the talk page of my RfA would not let me post my comments to it, making excuses that my comments were not relevant to my RfA, but general: True, they were "general" in nature, but they were

560:

not only is there a chance (however slim) that I might make Adminship (example: Clinton beat Bush, Sr., even though Clinton was "way behind"), additionally, check this out: "If the rights of one are violated, the rights of all are at risk"

2274:"There are no official numerical standards for adminship; however, most new admins have at least three months of participation, one thousand edits, and most of their edits spread out, not primarily concentrated in one article or category." 3068:

Meh! Beat you to it, Big Dog! Look at the front page; I changed the text and implimented ths unopposed (and apparently good?) idea. I don;t like it, but it is more honest with the "way things are." We can't lie to people when we write

291:

until I noticed its absense from the main page. Thus why I think something that stands out needs to be placed at the top of closed RfA's. Especially the one's that close earlier then the date posted. Hope I got my thought across...

2713:

I'm not trying to "make a point." I'm trying to convince people to either follow policy, or change it -so the next guy in line here is not mistreated. OK, my turn for a funny quote -which you may have seen posted elsewhere:

4386:

what concensus is here: They say one thing in policy (no mention of "diversity"), but do another (voted me down, giving that as one of the reasons: I was not diverse enough, but instead too concentrated on one area of

632:(emphasis added). So, you claim here that you don't oppose someone based on their deletionism, and from that earlier commetn it's quite evident that you did. So, which is it - were you lying then or are you lying now? 4499:^Kudos, very eloquently put. Ive repeatedly said that this will only tarnish his reputation. Now, even if the RFA process if "fixed", I doubt that he will have any support in the future if he keeps this up any longer. 3122:

I'm trying to do that here, but you are just talking and not doing anything: For example, tell me this: Are my proposed policy changes good or bad? If you don't give me any answer, I will be more than justtified in

3286:

Hello RfA regulars - This might be just my own opinion of the matter, and I don't expect it to be held by others; however, am I the only person to think that RfA seems to be fundamentally in need of an overhaul?

719:

I am currently under nomination for adminship and one oppose vote has come. Should I explain my position by writing something as noted below the Oppose vote or somewhere else? OR, Just let the nomination run its

3020:

what you're doing! If you really wanted to be an administrator, a few months of good editing, respect for other users in general, etc. probably would have got my vote. And you have shown a lot of contempt for

3392:

Most of my opponents were civil, but there still was a lot of throwing of words, and I took the greatest heat and targetting of abuse. I did not complain; I merely replied and rebutted politely but firmly most

1220:

Neither my old user name, not my current one were ever blocked (except that my "old" name was permanently "blocked" when I switched user names, but that was not for disciplinary reasons, just to switch names).

1640:

238 "distinct pages," and with the many months and many edits of experience, 238 is not a small number. It surprised Mr. Watts when he saw that number, and since he was criticized for being too focused on the

1171:, "The community grants administrator status to trusted users who are familiar with Knowledge policies," so even if I am totally right, I don't think that Jimbo or anyone with power should promote me to Admin 1656:

very diverse (even if not as "diverse" as others like Phroziac). Before Watts began objecting (protesting the RfA process as applied to his RfA), his "edit numbers" were the main criticism, which also caused

1190:

policy, says that "adminship should be no big deal. Admin actions are reversible; being an admin is primarily an extra responsibility, as there are rules and policies that apply only to admins." In addition,

660:

Without commenting on this specific case, I support removing nominations early where a success is unfeasible. I'd say a reasonable rule of thumb would be 20 votes total, with no more supports than opposes.

2178:

Current standards mentioned on the page say that 80% support votes are needed. If you feel otherwise, please get a mandate from the community that a 4-3 vote (or roughly 57%) is sufficient to gain adminship.

2078:

If the rules were "unwritten," then they should have been ignored anyway, in light of the "real" policy: "Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status."

3050:

override concensus, and since the article had been fixed, it was ready -and he reneged! The edit war, the only other concern, was over shortly after it began, so I am at the least disappointed in Mark AKA

2343:

him. Gordon, it's enough that you try to bully people into voting on your poll, voting FOR them really is too bad. I have removed it (it's pasted under its own heading below), and adjusted the vote count.

302:

still don't think it requires any policy change, as it were, to start posting a template to bookend such articles that would warn awat posts. It would basically just restate the existing rule out loud. --

3295:

itself suggests so, since "Request for Adminship" suggests a request being made for adminship, not a vote to determine suitability for granting adminship - it should be called VfA if it really is a vote.

1311:

I meet both definitions: I am part of the red-colored "anyone" above, and I obviously was a trusted member of the community, since I was allowed to upload images (a sensitive power, given Copyrvio laws)

3963:

appropriate to use them. I don't think any kind of advance should be automatic, however - anyone could easily rack up 1,000 edits endlessly tweaking their user-page, or edit-warring over the content of

3570:

This is not a bad idea. I support this. Also, with ppl like me, this would be a good way to prove ourselves worthy of proving that we are good admins once we are at "stage one" of our adminship. --

2465:

I agree with Nichalp. Gordon, stop complaining about the current RfA process, and apply again after a couple of months. If you can leave this controversy behind you, I think you'll make a good admin.

4215:

we should at least give people the opportunity to prove they are trusted users, and to gain tools to assist their work on Knowledge as they increase that trust through demonstration of good work.

2623:"As a general rule, going around the various fora complaining that one was the victim of an injustice or that the process needs to be changed is not generally speaking the best approach to adopt." 1080:

It looks like the Bureaucrat who had initially reposted the RfA and said to let it run its "one week" course was outvoted, and other Admins have locked both the RfA page ("vote closed" reasoning)

2057: 766:

It does spoil a cent-per-cent vote I agree, but at 43:1, and a day and a half to go, I don't think its absolutely necessary to respond to each oppose vote. Some users oppose to bait a candidate.

3846:

to go up each level (just as not every admin wants to be a bureacrat), and those who lack the support to go, say, from level 2 to level 3 would simply not be able to apply for level 4 powers. --

1227:

The policy is quite clear: I should be accorded Admin status, since I am an editor in good standing, who has made close to 3,000 edits on over 239 pages, not as many as some, but quite a few!

1702:(I am writing an article, and good writers, of which I hope I am one, speak objective third person, not "subjective' first person, to avoid being myopic or giving the impression of bias.-- 1661:

to fail, but the "numbers" that Watts and Church have are still very strong, and neither one was a "newbie" when they were failed. This is additional evidence of "gut feeling" speaking.--

2016:

Gordon should be an admin if it's no big deal. He wouldn't do any harm with it. He just blathers and tries to push his POV. If that was a crime, we'd be locking up half the editorship.

4366:

is wrong in her claim that I "voted for" the other fellow. I did *not* "vote' for him. Rather, I expressed my opinion (that's OK, right?) in saying that this is hop apparently to me I

3782:

Well, my point is that it would be less contentious to be granting people individual powers at a time as opposed to the total package that comes with the current adminship process. --

1752:

22:21, 11 July 2005 Duckecho (revert to last version by Stanselmdoc, the last stable version before the attacks. Please no more reverts until proposed changes are talked out on Talk.)

2798:

Gordon, I said this on your talk subpage, but it never got a response and you haven't otherwise addressed the point that I've seen, so here it is, for whatever good it may do:

2630:

Well, I do mind if you criticize me for not seeking concensus, but when I finally do seek concensus, you criticize me; If this is not the right way, then pray tell, what is??--

2041:

If RfA candidates were treated like Admins and Bureaucrats demand that they be treated, then most of them would not have to face such nit-picking over relatively minor details.

2723: 755:

The user is well-known enough has given a legitimate reason to oppose, so I'd let this one go. From the looks of it you'll pass no problem. Live to fight another day, ma man.

562: 3453:

Now that you cleared that up for me, I do agree with you and Nick. IMO it is kind of rough to judge a count baised on an 85% consensus, compaired to a 55-60% consensus. --

2533:

I will not get mad if my version does not get concensus, but I will be peeved if the rules, whatever they end up being, are not followed: We must strive to keep our word.--

283: 201:

Agree with rewording. I like the concept, but would tweak the wording - "resolved" sounds like there was a problem or disagreement which has been fixed. How about saying "

4219:

much more manageable approach for dealing with problem admins, since it would be possible to "turn off" specific privileges depending on the incident that has occurred.

630:... You're not just a deletionist, by the way. You are a rather unpleasant, pisstaking deletionist -- just the sort of thing that makes the AfD pages a bit of a cesspit." 1087: 1253:

current policy, so holding me to artificial standards accomplishes nothing, and these political games and insider clique clubs are a major reason why many people leave

804: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 1586:

was criticised harshly for his rebuttals in his failed RfA, but his initial problems centered around his "stats," so we look to the other two groups for clarity.

497:

Gordon, the vote is doomed, and continuation of this is pointless. You would need in excess of 100 support votes to gain adminship, why are you still persisting?

3389:

From my own RfA, I don't think civility is an issue. Everyone had good reasoning for me not being an admin, and comments were not shall we say "over the top".

1941: 3464:

Finnaly, I think their will always be a debate between bureaucrats on what constitutes for a consnsus. Voting in nature is not always clear cut in my opinion.

2654:

quote above. It may say something about your general willingness to take things personally that you managed to read this broadly sympathetic intervention by

1412:(meaning its us, not a policy that decides - otherwise we could create a script that automatically promotes admins). It also (and probably more relevantly) 185:

After a candidate's adminship has ended, the transcluded VFA page is removed from here. I don't see any harm in using it, but I feel it should be reworded.

4051: 3882: 569:

some people want to do things "they way they've been done" with good intentions -still wrong, and this is part of the reason many RfA's and other parts of

1947:

The front page revert war shown above involved at least seven (7) Admins and Bureaucrats and almost certainly one or two of them were in the wrong, since

3347: 2772: 4303:

opposes. He gave this logic when reverting: "this is not a common reason for RfAs to fail. GordonWatts' poll doesn't ban me from reverting this change"

2259:"There are no official numerical standards for adminship; however, most new admins have at least three months of participation and one thousand edits." 2092:

Policy affect a great number of users in a wide number of projects. These abuses must stop so users don't become frustrated and quit as they are doing.

2069:

Then, a number of editors and I fixed all of the problems that the FA-editor, Mark, had identified, and most of those that others had found. So, here,

1396:

There are no official numerical standards for adminship; however, most new admins have at least three months of participation and one thousand edits.

852:

Please not on the AN. That page is usually half an MB in size, and a poll will push it even further. A wikipedia namespace would be better. See also

482:

Let it run its course to clear the air -otherwise RfA's will continue to be toxic from editors forming insiders cliques instead of following policy.

3967:-related articles. At the very least, they should have to ask a bureacrat, who could review the editor's contributions for signs of bad behavior. -- 2146:

I think it's not needed; it's not that long. You should ask a bureaucrat, since they are usually the ones to "manage" the RfA page (oh, wait, isn't

918: 125:), and stuff like this. It doesn't need to be a huge flashy banner, but something which is easy to notice/look for would be appreciated. Thanks. 3997:

benefit from the proposed system, but that gain would be far outweighed by the increased bureaucracy and sense of hierarchy that would be created.

4320:

His revert seems appropriate to me. You need to have consensus to make a change first for something like this, and there's clearly no consensus.

3332:

I would be most grateful if people would give me their opinion on the above, and possibly come together in an effort to address the above issues.

624:

While I might not have captured all the careful viewpoint nuances that you claim to have, I think you have already summarized them quite clearly:

2697:"It may say something about your general willingness to take things personally that you managed to read this broadly sympathetic intervention by 3054:. He played politics instead of merit, but I am hoping he will "come around" and honor the hard work of the many Schiavo editors -not just me.-- 346:

would be better. It would also help if the result of the RFA be displayed like we have in VFD. eg. {{tl|RfA closed|P}}or {{tl|RfA closed|NP}}

4370:

he was trying to vote. That's what concensus is all about, after all: Seeking to get feedback and see what the concensus is. Hey, I'm actually

1450:" simply goes against "gut feeling": It would be numerical suicide of the highest proportions and unnecessarily overwork the current Admins.-- 891: 47: 17: 2644:

Now, do you not agree that by voting on your proposal, I'd be contradicting myself? Here's my proposed RfA procedure, quoting myself again:

2382: 674:

I agree with early removal only if the nominee consents to the nomination being removed. If he/she does not, then let it run its course.

4379: 3124: 595:

I have believed for some time that early removal of candidacies accomplishes little. Let it run its course and then it will be gone.

4223:

blessing of the MediaWiki development team, obviously) and I do not expect it would require a great deal of ingenuity to implement. --

3127:

and making the changes myself, so now's your chance: If you don't like my edits, then tell me what the policy should be. Vote above.--

1826:

09:46, 17 September 2005 SlimVirgin protected Knowledge:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts (temporary protection against GordonWatts)

3608:

institution creap. Oh and the second abilty you are giving out gives the power to vandalise every page on wikipedia simultainiously.

230: 2972:

to be like that, but since no one changes the policy or voted or said anything constructive to identifying policy, it didn't work.

3890:

receiving the power to impose longer blocks on a path to having full admin powers. I would also support that if it can be done. --

3422:

I think that the intent of the person is more important the numbers, but you have to have a few edits to have a basis to get by.--

3215:. Rough guidelines and personal criteria are what work best on RfA. (Also, if the proposal above were policy, it is unlikely that 2237:"If you feel otherwise, please get a mandate from the community that a 4-3 vote (or roughly 57%) is sufficient to gain adminship." 2193:

myopic, and if you are civil and volunteer for the above tasks, I see no reason why you can't wait and succeed in two months time.

1807:

was not at fault in the edit war above, my points were two-fold: She was never scrutinized like an RfA applicant would have been;

4508: 4378:

to become an Admin (not just helpful to me) --because the text I added unnecessarily raises the standard, but I did it because I

4154: 4095: 4034: 3102: 2440: 1183: 1168: 683: 3737:. Vote for a trusted person or vote against him/her. Rollback function is not a really big tool anyways. Even an IP can revert. 3176:

OK, "talk" in that voting box above, you space alien Android you. Vote for me or against me, but VOTE, and let your voice sing.

1823:

10:28, 17 September 2005 SlimVirgin unprotected Knowledge:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts (I'm hoping Gordon has gone to bed)

1101:

Why do they have such a talk page, when it is clear that they are afraid to talk about it in a public forum? They lock even the

3375:

I don't think the name itself is not a problem. I personally don't see why ppl would confuse a request from a voting process.

2704:

agree that Pres. Wilson might be right, but I'm not looking for one particular outcome, so his humor is moot, but interesting.

2303:

considered a major issue. Especially since I'm pretty sure GordonWatts is the only instance where it's ever been brought up.

2112:

They are not separate sections so as to not spam the TOC. IIRC, I've seen they changed to separate sections when the RfA gets

248:

So how would we go about making this some type of policy? and would it be possible to protect the page once it is "archieved"?

3721:

I think we should split rollback out from the rest, since it's simply a faster way of doing something that every user can. --

2726:

In other words: I am trying to prevent the rights of one from being violated, so this doesn't spread to hurt other editors.--

2626:

You did not read what I wrote; I am not asking for change; I am asking for concensus. You may support or oppose my proposal.

1848:

RfA, and they should have not prevented me from posting them, but now they are here: Questionable actions abound re my RfA.--

1283: 3921:

Would you support a process for editors to get the one-button rollback separately from the more contentious admin powers? --

3655:

Could you clarify that? What second power? How would it give the power to vandalise every page on Knowledge simultaneously?

2711:"If you are actually not that interested in being an admin but are just trying to make a point, please desist immediately." 1231:~~ I've been here since my first edit, 2005-05-02 16:20:23, and while I have been criticized for focusing too much on the 874: 4270: 4227: 3915: 3871: 3564: 2196:

If you continue to post such large replies I shall assure you that its going to be speedily ignored, and archived faster.

3190:

We've been talking in the comments box above...and on other pages...and on your RfA...you just don't like the results.

2066:

I got nearly half of the votes, about 6-11 or 7-10... I may have mis-counted somewhere, but it was not a lopsided vote.

1937: 4186:

Too complicated. Rollback is not a major power, so there shouldn't be any lengthy procedure involved in getting it. --

2280:(This would change policy to reflect the concerns that many have raised about me concentrating most of my edits in the 986:

btw, in life you'll learn that "pain in the butts" are people who resist change for no reason other than it is change.

4212: 3346:

Answering you, YES, it's broken. That's the "problem." I offer a solution: Let's vote on these proposeals here and at

2862:

I've already demonstrated several examples where a double standard has existed, implying it still does. (Quoting Kat)

4077:

He failed right? Well, to tell the truth, he is a very good editor, however, he hasnt gotten enought experience with

205:"? Also, "for or against" doesn't capture the occasional neutral comment, so I would suggest "relating to" there. -- 1877:

05:44, 23 August 2005 Rdsmith4 (revert - the space is much too large, plus it's not balanced with the other column)

1014: 952: 600: 38: 2974:"If you think that the Knowledge community is wrong about some issue where the community has reached consensus..." 4436:

again for your feeback and concern, and I am sorry I was a little bit pushy to "get information" and "get your

1192: 4542: 4480: 4452: 4426: 4403: 4339: 4324: 4310: 4293: 4257: 4239: 4190: 4117: 4064: 4005: 3977: 3949: 3931: 3900: 3856: 3836: 3815: 3792: 3775: 3764: 3748: 3725: 3704: 3682: 3672: 3636: 3612: 3599: 3574: 3510: 3497: 3481: 3472: 3457: 3444: 3426: 3411: 3407:

them, and if they persist, contact and admin/bureaucrat or the aberation (sp?) commitee about the problem. --

3397: 3382: 3358: 3339: 3274: 3258: 3234: 3201: 3184: 3170: 3153: 3131: 3073: 3058: 3036: 2997: 2957: 2916: 2841: 2823: 2792: 2754: 2730: 2671: 2634: 2610: 2580: 2562: 2551: 2537: 2511: 2491: 2482: 2460: 2444: 2414: 2402: 2393: 2368: 2352: 2329: 2317: 2307: 2210: 2154: 2133: 2120: 2106: 2033:

If Admins & Bureaucrats were treated the same as RfA candidates, we'd be de-Adminning about half of them.

2020: 1852: 1834: 1706: 1678: 1665: 1626: 1454: 1420: 1375: 1358: 1328: 1287: 1261: 1109: 1048: 1025: 996: 979: 963: 929: 904: 881: 866: 846: 790: 777: 759: 745: 729: 709: 668: 655: 636: 614: 603: 581: 534: 508: 491: 468: 449: 434: 415: 392: 372: 357: 333: 312: 269: 237: 215: 196: 176: 139: 129: 2185:. Instead of you proving if you are a trusted user, please find out why the community think otherwise of you. 1578:

I've only listed three (3) candidates, to keep things simple, because each one is representative of a larger

1341:"insider's club" or "clique". If there was, I wouldn't have got in, certainly not on my first (serious) try. 1120:

action or allegation by a person (or group of people) can be shown to be false by contradicting one of three

4107:

So what's wrong with giving him (and others who try and fail) some minor tools and something to work for? --

1958:

The admins and bureaucrats involved may not have done anything other than be human, but are they worthy of

1508: 1228: 3653:

the second ability you are giving out gives the power to vandalise every page on Knowledge simultaneously.

2820: 2572:

As for your invitation to vote, I'll decline, if you don't mind. I'd rather seek consensus, on the whole.

2080: 1018: 956: 836:

I'll start a poll on the admins notice board soon unless anyone can think of somewhere better to have it.

2746:

I think it would be useful to add a positive rather than a negative to that statement - i.e., 1000 edits

2663:. I'll be leaving this PC shortly, so please do not take my failure to respond further today personally. 2074:

these "unwritten rules," that was proof that I didn't know enough to nominate a good article. My answer?

2004:

Are RfA candidates, such as Mr. Watts, being held to higher standards than actual Admins and Bureaucrats?

1566: 4224: 3336: 1533: 1072:

places. That way it's not you trying to argue your way into adminship, but the issue is still handled."

596: 225: 3206:

Voting is not discussion. Polls do not necessarily determine consensus, though they can demonstrate it

3093:

becoming an admin; I dont reckon that many others will support him after seeing how he handle disputes.

1872:

05:36, 4 September 2005 Pharos (revert; see Template:Wikipedialang displayed at the bottom of the page)

3571: 3507: 3478: 3469: 3454: 3408: 2976:

I did not say the policy was DEFINITELY wrong; I merely said I had a preference; I was not seeking to

2488: 1757:

21:41, 11 July 2005 Ann Heneghan m (Reverting to SlimVirgin - can't see what was wrong with that edit)

1617:

promotion was deserved: Phroziac is qualified to be an Admin according to current Policy, and this is

4513: 4159: 4100: 4039: 3107: 2436: 688: 404:

Terry, could you also include a result field in the template? I'd like to start using it right away.

1936:, while innocent in this writers eyes, still made a good number of users quite angry, and generated 824: 4267: 4002: 3946: 3912: 3868: 3772: 3529:

There are four basic abilities that an administrator has that the typical editor lacks. These are:

3229: 3165: 2364:

I support the proposed version because it tells the truth of what standards are for those voting.--

2130: 2103: 1417: 1367: 126: 4423: 4290: 4254: 2668: 2577: 2548: 2411: 2390: 2349: 1439:

I don't know where he obtained his figures here, but I will (initially) take them at face value.

1279: 926: 706: 431: 756: 4145:

make them wait 4 months after they had initially qualified for Adminiship would be unnecessary.

3805: 3743: 3253: 2954: 2817: 2787: 2605: 2455: 2205: 1887:

17:02, 14 August 2005 Raul654 (rv - as I already said on the talk page, this section is awful)

861: 772: 665: 650: 503: 410: 387: 352: 191: 2449:

This is useless. Gordon, reflect on what I have to say and try again after two months or so.

478:

The other bureaucrat involved and I have voted you down 2-1. I have restored the nomination.

4539: 4449: 4400: 4307: 4115: 4062: 3975: 3929: 3898: 3854: 3831: 3790: 3771:

And there is even an emulator of a rollback button that you can add to your monobook.js. --

3734: 3562: 3495: 3441: 3423: 3394: 3379: 3355: 3271: 3196: 3181: 3149: 3128: 3070: 3055: 3031: 2994: 2913: 2904:

we can talk after the work is done. Otherwise, your arguments are not persuasive: I'm doing

2854: 2836: 2727: 2631: 2559: 2534: 2365: 2326: 2314: 1849: 1831: 1703: 1662: 1623: 1490: 1451: 1372: 1325: 1318:

Why do we have these rules and this policy if people can vote any way they wish, pray tell?

1258: 1106: 578: 488: 370: 310: 267: 235: 213: 2895:

standards instead of policy. That is so easily remedied: Change policy -which is what I am

2240:

I see your point about getting concensus on policy issues; While I personally think a very

1907:

20:10, 8 August 2005 Oven Fresh m (revert: html is being used becuase of the "Misc. --: -->

1787:

19:10, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin m (Reverted edits by FuelWagon to last version by SlimVirgin

1777:

19:17, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin m (Reverted edits by FuelWagon to last version by SlimVirgin

565:

Do you see my point? The policy isn't being followed in all cases, and this is wrong -even

115:

has their big blue boxes and explantory messages, WP:RM has little boilerplate text (e.g.

4503: 4458:

I think the issue here is that you seem to be under the impression that the guidelines at

4306:, but he can't take the time to discuss it on the talk page first like we did here, lol.-- 4149: 4090: 4029: 3097: 2660: 2432: 2017: 1933: 1767:

19:53, 11 July 2005 SlimVirgin m (Reverted edits by Duckecho to last version by SlimVirgin

1743:

has alleged that three (3) editors quit on count of her, but that may be coincidence that

678: 487:

onto this RfA. What harm can come from just stepping back and letting it run its course?--

465: 446: 326: 292: 249: 173: 136: 3626:

a result of his lack of understanding of our policy, and importantly, how it is applied.

2984:

so I could know what the standard is! Now, the lack of enforcement was definitely wrong.

2313:

I voted with my critics to be a good guy --- plus it might make them be quite for once.--

1726:

Are RfA candidates criticized for things that Admins do all the time? - Two case examples

1175:

If the users who voted on my violated policy, however, they may be subject to sanctions.

1902:

20:12, 8 August 2005 Oven Fresh m (Reverted edits by Oven Fresh to last version by ABCD)

4332: 4022: 4018: 3998: 3964: 3942: 3908: 3627: 3591: 3224: 3212: 3160: 2751: 2684: 2651: 1955:

even if they were all reasonable, why couldn't that talk it out on the talk page first?

1698:

defending myself in this post (where I'd use first person), but, instead, defending a

1689: 1675: 1540: 1208:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:GordonWattsDotCom

1039: 1010: 987: 970: 948: 939:

Meh, this is a solution in search of a problem. Where can I vote for the desysoping of

895: 837: 736: 525: 119: 4462:

are meant to be strict and all-inclusive. None of the guidelines listed say that you

1005:

Martin, I was just making a joke, unrelated to the merits of the above proposed poll.

4459: 4419: 4361: 4336: 4286: 4250: 4187: 3761: 3722: 3701: 3679: 3669: 3595: 3220: 2871:

sometimes concensus is "wrong." If you don't believe me, then please explain why the

2677:"Now, do you not agree that by voting on your proposal, I'd be contradicting myself?" 2664: 2573: 2544: 2479: 2428: 2408: 2399: 2386: 2345: 2281: 2053: 1641: 1605: 1515: 1382:

As much as I dislike engaging in such discussions, I would like to point out what it

1355: 1274: 1232: 922: 878: 725:

Suggestions are requested. In case, I came to the wrong place, sorry pals. Thanks. --

702: 427: 287: 112: 3348:

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Issue_2:_The_.22What_is_a_Fac.22_standard

2773:

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Issue_2:_The_.22What_is_a_Fac.22_standard

4477: 4335:. On the other hand, if someone reverts you, then seek consensus for the change. 4321: 4300: 3810: 3800: 3738: 3248: 3216: 3051: 3043: 3022: 2782: 2698: 2655: 2600: 2450: 2304: 2200: 1239:

pages, which is still quite diverse, given that this is not all I do with my life.

856: 853: 787: 767: 726: 662: 645: 633: 611: 498: 458: 405: 382: 347: 186: 3881:

to seek an additional power every four weeks... we had an AfD recently where the

1892:

16:46, 14 August 2005 Talrias (insert become an editor section - thoughts welcome)

1447: 362:

Tssk, tssk, Nichalp, there's no VfD anymore! ;-) But your point is quite right! --

2891:

Well, I never had any problems before these people started deciding to use their

1241:

The denial of my Request for Adminship (RfA) was not according to policy. Period.

1215:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:GordonWatts

574: 4108: 4055: 3968: 3922: 3891: 3847: 3826: 3783: 3555: 3488: 3378:

Following the current policy (whatever it is) is more important than the name.--

3191: 3026: 2849: 2831: 2151: 2117: 1547:

quoted above) say that someone of his caliber would make a good Admin: (33/9/4)

1064: 363: 303: 260: 206: 46:

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

4432:"but incivility and bullying. I'll add bad faith and rhetorical shamelessness," 2706:"My guess is that you are generally pissing people off, though I may be wrong." 2002:

standards) allowed to do this without so much as a peep from these RfA voters?

1739:

at fault in this example, but many others harshly criticised and reverted her;

3087:

I have to concur with both of you guys, but try not to bite him too much, huh?

1235:

article, these are only like 10-15 article at most: I've edited about 224-229

462: 442: 222:

This nomination has ended and has been archived. Please do not edit this page.

2407:

Ditto. The voters supporting/opposing an admin can decide for themselves. --

1913:

16:32, 6 August 2005 ABCD (use clean wiki syntax for headers, not buggy HTML)

1366:

standards; It simply means that you waited to build up enough edits and that

1297:

however, you did not read it closely. Let me highlight the relevant section:

4410: 4388: 4078: 3609: 3586: 2504: 2089: 1859: 1254: 1187: 1006: 944: 570: 2487:

Agree. Special cases may apply. Leave it to the editors voting on the RfA.

3487:

Just delete the blank lines between the points. Did it for you. Cheers! --

786:

Thanks. Nevertheless, I clarified my position at the appropriate place. --

3688: 3656: 2466: 1342: 808: 4235: 2872: 2781:

Incase you didn't notice, it wasn't a criticism, it is a famous quote.

2683:"Note also, in the light of your edit summary, that I did not post the 2889:"Perhaps I am wrong, and you would not do any of these things I fear." 2339:

Gordon decided that Szyslak ought to have voted here and added a vote

1762:

20:09, 11 July 2005 FuelWagon ((revert to last version by Stanselmdoc)

626:"Oppose. New content creators, however misguided, should be welcomed. 3799:

I support this idea. I don't see it as creep but disentanglement. -

1652:

223 or so pages (238-15=223) would be "non-Schiavo-related" and thus

1270:

There is no hard policy stating RFA voters have to vote a certain way

644:

I agree with Raul. I have also commented on the b'crats noticeboard.

163:

Further voting or comments are no longer needed and may be reverted.

1994:

I were not qualified to be an admin based on this behavior, why are

1818:

made these spicy comments about me, thinking I would never see them:

1792:

19:08, 11 July 2005 FuelWagon (revert to last version by Stanselmdoc

1782:

19:17, 11 July 2005 FuelWagon (revert to last version by Stanselmdoc

3247:

angle. I'd rather not waste my time 'criticising' him any further.

1772:

19:47, 11 July 2005 Duckecho (revert to last version by Stanselmdoc

1159:(Actual actions by voting editors contradicts: Known Laws / Rules) 1093:

It appears that my attempt to "talk about it" on the talk page was

3328:

kind of more rigid criterion for determining the status of an RfA.

3180:

no matter the results, let us use the rules equally for all. OK?--

2628:"As for your invitation to vote, I'll decline, if you don't mind." 877:, or a subpage of this page, would probably be more appropriate. 480:"The only reason to keep the nomination would be to clear the air" 4050:

G.W. is not the only applicant where such a problem arose - see

2717:

If the rights of one are violated, the rights of all are at risk

2183:...The community grants administrator status to trusted users... 1644:

articles, it is apparent that these would only comprise at most

969:

It's a simple preventative measure, which is policy on commons.

3119:"he should try to address the issues that others have with him" 1059:

Some general RfA Problems: Taxman said this was the page for it

203:

the discussion of this request for adminship has been completed

3433:

I don't think I totally understand what you are saying in the

1598:

page: A good editor who failed but did not complain about it.

1316:

in very difficult pages, all without and disciplinary record.

25: 1882:

11:43, 20 August 2005 Violetriga m (rv. - redirect bug fixed)

2991:

Part of my problem was this: People can't read what I write.

2883:

include sufficient lifeboats on that big boat? Concensus is

2769:

Feel free to vote in opposition to my proposal if you like.

2058:

Knowledge:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo/archive1

2025:(Taken from Jimbo's talk page; Emphasis added for clarity.) 1307:

and is generally a known and trusted member of the community

1543:, "failed" RfA candidate, but it was close, and many (like 3440:

He probably means that 55-60% should be enough. I agree.--

2986:"If you want to change policy, then change the consensus." 1735:(Note: The writer of this post thinks that SlimVirgin was 1619:

proof that the "editcountitis" method is just plain wrong.

2748:

which demonstrate a breadth of involvement in the project

1797:

SlimVirgin had put "in use" tag on and did major copyedit

1684:"Why are you talking about yourself in the third person?" 1305:

who has been an active Knowledge contributor for a while

628:

I don't want to empower editors who do not have that view

4448:

powers are currently a bit low at the moment ;-), lol.--

4382:

and thought I was speaking for concensus. No one really

2594:"If you want to make enemies, try to change something." 1674:

Why are you talking about yourself in the third person?

282:

Ok, here is the example that I think I am thinking of.

4304: 4233:

This is definately a solution searching for a problem.

2147: 2129:

So is it okay in R. Fiend's case as he asked for it? --

2070: 2063: 2026: 1975: 1968: 1912: 1906: 1901: 1896: 1891: 1886: 1881: 1876: 1871: 1811: 1796: 1791: 1786: 1781: 1776: 1771: 1766: 1761: 1756: 1751: 1611: 1551: 1548: 1519: 1494: 1472: 1437: 1214: 1207: 1073: 1022: 960: 735:

You can't please everyone, just let it run its course.

286:

was put up but there was so much ill will a bureaucrat

3687:

And how does that differ from what admins can do now?

1998:

admins, and even bureaucrats (supposedly held to even

1938:

Talk:Terri_Schiavo/archive30#Suggestion_for_SlimVirgin

1446:

The desire to highly restrict Adminship to an "inside

1299:

Knowledge policy is to grant this access liberally to

1203:

That is the policy, and I am a user in good standing:

4374:

this fellow voted against me: It makes it easier for

4280:

For the sake of the comments, I paste below the vote

2966:

trumps consensus. Rather, consensus defines policy."

2864:"I do not trust you to follow community consensus..." 2217:

Should RfA policy be changed re "concentrated edits?"

1951:

competing "versions" could not necessarily be right;

1200:

administrators and in principle they still should."

3477:

Also, how do I fix my numbering system in here? --

3065:"...and if the idea proves positive, implement it." 1978:, Andrevan, an Admin, posts a question to the page 284:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/GordonWattsDotCom 3877:Something like that, but of course you would not 2640:Please re-read my first post above, which begins 1088:Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWatts 484:"He may not care about ill will; I certainly do." 2661:There is a policy that covers that kind of thing 1493:, (apparently prematurely failed) RfA candidate 1163:Admission: The RfA can legitimately vote me down 701:the nomination was removed for a second time. — 3368:Nick, in reguards to your method of thinking... 3354:the outcome, let's follow the rules -for all.-- 1179:Was Knowledge Policy on RfA followed in my RfA? 4276:Gordon, voting "for" other people is too much! 2505: 1430:(Contradicts: Gut Feeling: Need more admins.) 807:on inactive admins, and I found this from the 3142:Re: Bishonen's suggestion to not vote above: 3046:, a VERY well-respected editor on Knowledge." 1942:Wikipedia_talk:Request_for_comment/SlimVirgin 1897:16:18, 13 August 2005 Raul654 (rv - see talk) 8: 3506:Thank you BD2412. Much appreciated. :) -- 1972:that I had the right to have a FA-candidate. 1908:Auto-number headings" option in preferences) 1408:(conditional tenses) all over the place and 4409:Nobody thinks you pretended anything, your 4052:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Leonard G. 2993:I;'m not mad, just frustrated; Take care,-- 1461:Editcountitis standard used in RfA process. 3270:some reason in the section here in talk.-- 3042:"And you have shown a lot of contempt for 2695:Oops! I am human. I attributed it to you. 1747:all quit at that time for other reasons.) 135:I agree. Could a template bre created? -- 4466:to be promoted (or conversely, that you 4255:Consensus is not achieved through voting 1272:. We can have any standards we want. ~~ 919:Knowledge:Inactive administrators (2005) 3883:admin candidate quite clearly expressed 3419:outweigh the number of edits s/he has. 2286:I seek concensus, so "Speak Up" people: 943:admins who are a pain in the butt? ;-) 825:policy for administrator access on Meta 160:nomination ended and has been archived. 3350:, a related proposal. Then, no matter 2887:always right. Don't forget that, Kat. 1155:Application of Knowledge Policy on RfA 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3678:on every page of the encyclopedia. -- 892:Knowledge:Desysopsing inactive admins 18:Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship 7: 4353:Thank you all for your opinions, but 3223:would be much messier as a result.) 2642:Consensus is not achieved by voting. 3219:would have been made an admin, and 2937:talking to us about how we're wrong 1745:Neuroscientist, Duckecho, and ghost 3325:Subjectivity of bureaucrat opinion 3211:thoughts on administratorship are 2875:shipbuilders' (experts, no doubt) 1590:was in the same boat as user that 24: 3628: 2262:I would add to that, so it reads: 1320:To simply have an "insider's club 1040: 988: 971: 896: 838: 737: 526: 3435:method of determination of votes 3315:method of determination of votes 2256:policy on the project page here) 1184:Knowledge:Requests_for_adminship 1169:Knowledge:Requests_for_adminship 1067:, before he went on break, said 29: 3744: 3739: 3254: 3249: 2788: 2783: 2606: 2601: 2456: 2451: 2284:article and related articles.) 2206: 2201: 1613:described above, he feels that 1565:First edit 2005-07-01 22:43:42 1532:First edit 2005-06-02 01:29:59 1507:First edit 2005-05-02 16:20:23 1475:I have no reason to disbelieve 1436:(quote from Jimbo's talk page) 862: 857: 773: 768: 651: 646: 556:Also, to answer your question, 504: 499: 411: 406: 388: 383: 353: 348: 327: 293: 250: 192: 187: 146:What about something like this: 4543:20:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 4536: 4481:19:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 4453:18:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 4434: 4427:16:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 4404:09:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 4397: 4351: 4340:20:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 4325:19:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 4311:19:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 4294:21:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 4271:20:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 4258:07:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 4240:00:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 4228:22:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 4191:00:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 4118:23:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 4065:22:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 4006:23:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3978:22:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3950:22:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3932:22:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3916:21:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3901:22:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3872:21:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3857:22:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3837:21:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3816:21:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3793:20:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3776:20:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3765:20:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3749:19:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3726:19:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3705:07:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 3683:07:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 3673:06:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 3637:19:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3613:19:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3600:18:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3575:18:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3565:18:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3511:18:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3498:18:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3482:17:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3473:17:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3458:18:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3445:18:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3427:18:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3412:18:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3398:18:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3383:18:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3359:17:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3345: 3340:17:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3275:19:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3264: 3259:18:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3235:18:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3202:17:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3185:17:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3175: 3171:17:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3154:17:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3143: 3132:17:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3121: 3074:18:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3067: 3059:18:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 3048: 3037:17:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2998:18:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2967: 2958:17:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2917:17:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2846: 2842:16:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2824:15:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2793:14:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2755:15:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2731:15:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2715: 2689:I saw that Nichalp posted it, 2679: 2672:14:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2635:14:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2625: 2611:13:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2581:14:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2563:13:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2556: 2552:12:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2538:11:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2512:12:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 2492:17:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 2483:11:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 2461:06:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 2445:23:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2415:21:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2403:19:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2394:16:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2369:11:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2353:22:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2330:18:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2323: 2318:18:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2312: 2308:18:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 2279: 2261: 2239: 2211:09:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 2155:03:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 2134:22:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 2121:22:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 2107:22:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 2097:Comments as a separate section 2021:02:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC) 1918: 1853:20:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 1844:specific concerns I had about 1835:20:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 1812:Here, in the page protect logs 1803:As a side note, while I think 1707:12:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 1686: 1679:21:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 1666:17:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 1627:16:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 1594:described in the quote off of 1574: 1474: 1455:15:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 1442: 1421:13:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 1376:10:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 1364: 1359:09:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 1329:20:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 1292: 1288:20:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 1262:20:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 1251: 1121: 1119: 1110:20:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 1049:18:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 1026:17:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 997:17:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 980:17:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 964:17:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 930:01:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 905:15:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 882:15:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 867:14:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 847:14:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 791:14:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC) 778:17:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC) 760:15:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC) 746:15:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC) 730:15:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC) 710:20:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 669:19:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 656:18:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 637:07:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC) 615:18:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 604:17:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 582:10:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 551: 535:13:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC) 509:13:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC) 492:13:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC) 477: 469:17:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 450:17:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 435:15:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 416:06:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC) 393:13:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 373:13:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 358:13:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 334:11:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 313:03:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 270:02:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 238:01:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 216:15:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC) 197:15:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC) 177:20:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC) 140:19:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC) 130:19:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC) 1: 1926:Can someone say "Revert War?" 1414:The are no official standards 1257:in disgust and frustration.-- 1229:Kate's tool to count my edits 890:Good point I have made it at 875:Knowledge talk:Administrators 573:are cesspools of "ill will," 552:Thank you for your feedback, 3806: 3282:RfA is broken, in my opinion 2429:Knowledge is not a democracy 1086:its associated "talk" page: 4213:Knowledge:Assume good faith 3811: 3801: 3524:RFA is bent, but not broken 3148:we determine "concensus?"-- 2761: 2359:2. Support Proposed Version 2221: 1923: 1518:, successful RfA candidate 1509:Kate's Tool for GordonWatts 1465:(Contradicts: Gut Feeling) 1306: 1300: 325:How about the wording now? 4568: 4501: 4147: 4088: 4027: 3095: 2297:1. Support Current Version 2181:Under the first section, ' 1862:Edit War between at least 1559:Distinct pages edited 1211 676: 3582:prove you're a good admin 2980:policy; I was seeking to 1731:The "SlimVirgin" Edit War 1610:successful RfA candidate 1567:Kate's Tool for Robchurch 1526:Distinct pages edited 965 1501:Distinct pages edited 238 1471:(From Jimbo's talk page) 461:and deleted it again. -- 3518: 3319:current voting procedure 2650:that I did not post the 2383:Don't vote on everything 2190:adminship is no big deal 1866:Admins & Bureaucrats 1534:Kate's Tool for Phroziac 1193:Knowledge:Administrators 4211:deal, in the spirit of 3536:Protect/unprotect pages 4359:say something? First, 3554:I welcome comments. -- 2775:for related proposals. 2598: 2088:So, the violations of 2081:Template:Fac-contested 2056:for Featured Article: 1940:complaints and also a 1722:(Contradicts: Itself) 1504:Edits/page (avg) 11.77 1368:your edit profile here 799:Inactive admins part 2 106:A more obvious closing 4442:on these subject; My 4418:wants to vote here? 3539:Delete/undelete pages 2592: 2148:Cecropia a bureaucrat 1562:Edits/page (avg) 1.80 1552:his failed nomination 1529:Edits/page (avg) 1.66 1426:Raw numbers of Admins 1195:states that "Current 894:. See you all there. 816:== Inactive admins == 338:Better, but the word 220:Or how about simply " 158:Request for Adminship 42:of past discussions. 2848:First, in answer to 2292:Vote Count (1/1/5/0) 2010:One Possible Answer: 1980:after it was locked, 1410:the community grants 1400:Notice that it says 1268:For the N+1th time: 4206:I would personally 3735:m:instruction creep 3542:Block/unblock users 2423:for adminship, not 1944:plus a lot of heat. 1694:it is because I am 1186:, which is current 917:It's been moved to 805:previous discussion 803:We never finalised 441:proceed with this. 379:Old habits die hard 342:seems odd, perhaps 4331:On the contrary. 2767: 2692:but then I forgot: 1616: 1142:Known Laws / Rules 1084: 873:I agree, not AN. 577:and frustration.-- 169: 4238: 3598: 3519:BD2412's proposal 2762: 2498:4. Voting is good 2377:3. Voting Is Evil 2086:META CONCLUSION: 1614: 1082: 332: 298: 255: 168: 167: 149: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4559: 4545: 4516: 4506: 4455: 4406: 4392: 4234: 4225:NicholasTurnbull 4162: 4152: 4113: 4103: 4093: 4060: 4042: 4032: 3973: 3927: 3896: 3852: 3834: 3829: 3813: 3808: 3803: 3788: 3746: 3741: 3698: 3695: 3692: 3666: 3663: 3660: 3634: 3590: 3560: 3493: 3361: 3337:NicholasTurnbull 3335:Best regards, -- 3277: 3256: 3251: 3232: 3227: 3199: 3194: 3187: 3168: 3163: 3152: 3134: 3110: 3100: 3076: 3061: 3034: 3029: 3000: 2919: 2879:by concensus to 2857: 2852: 2839: 2834: 2790: 2785: 2768: 2733: 2719: 2701:as a criticism." 2637: 2608: 2603: 2565: 2509: 2476: 2473: 2470: 2458: 2453: 2332: 2320: 2288: 2263: 2246: 2228: 2208: 2203: 1929: 1922: 1709: 1633:Special note on 1621: 1556:Total edits 2183 1523:Total edits 1605 1498:Total edits 2801 1491:User:GordonWatts 1480: 1457: 1378: 1352: 1349: 1346: 1331: 1308: 1304: 1264: 1129: 1127: 1046: 994: 977: 902: 864: 859: 844: 775: 770: 743: 691: 681: 653: 648: 584: 532: 506: 501: 494: 413: 408: 390: 385: 368: 355: 350: 331: 329: 308: 297: 295: 265: 254: 252: 233: 228: 211: 194: 189: 151: 150: 124: 118: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4567: 4566: 4562: 4561: 4560: 4558: 4557: 4556: 4504: 4278: 4150: 4109: 4091: 4056: 4030: 3969: 3923: 3892: 3848: 3832: 3827: 3784: 3696: 3693: 3690: 3664: 3661: 3658: 3556: 3533:Rollback button 3521: 3489: 3284: 3230: 3225: 3197: 3192: 3166: 3161: 3098: 3032: 3027: 2855: 2850: 2837: 2832: 2722:--Thomas Paine 2596:-Woodrow Wilson 2474: 2471: 2468: 2427:for adminship. 2219: 2167: 2165:To Gordon Watts 2099: 2049: 2047:Meta conclusion 1964:Bureaucratship? 1934:User:SlimVirgin 1868: 1733: 1720: 1718:Double Standard 1463: 1428: 1350: 1347: 1344: 1181: 1165: 1157: 1061: 809:commons website 801: 753:(Edit conflict) 717: 679: 423: 364: 304: 261: 231: 226: 207: 122: 116: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4565: 4563: 4555: 4554: 4553: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4547: 4546: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4519: 4518: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4486: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4445:"mind-reading" 4394: 4393: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4345: 4344: 4343: 4277: 4274: 4268:Rx StrangeLove 4263: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4243: 4242: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4133: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4127: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4067: 4045: 4044: 4013: 4012: 4011: 4010: 4009: 4008: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3965:Britney Spears 3955: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3935: 3934: 3904: 3903: 3869:Celestianpower 3864: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3796: 3795: 3779: 3778: 3773:Celestianpower 3768: 3767: 3752: 3751: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3603: 3602: 3577: 3544: 3543: 3540: 3537: 3534: 3520: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3501: 3500: 3466: 3465: 3461: 3460: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3415: 3414: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3363: 3362: 3330: 3329: 3322: 3311: 3304: 3296: 3283: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3204: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3113: 3112: 3089: 3088: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3062: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2821:(spill yours?) 2796: 2795: 2778: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2685:Woodrow Wilson 2652:Woodrow Wilson 2595: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2583: 2570: 2540: 2526: 2524: 2523: 2515: 2514: 2503:In principle. 2495: 2494: 2485: 2463: 2447: 2417: 2405: 2396: 2374: 2373: 2371: 2356: 2355: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2321: 2277: 2276: 2231: 2218: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2197: 2194: 2186: 2179: 2176: 2166: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2131:Celestianpower 2124: 2123: 2104:Celestianpower 2098: 2095: 2084: 2083: 2048: 2045: 2007: 2006: 1984: 1973: 1966: 1956: 1945: 1916: 1915: 1910: 1904: 1899: 1894: 1889: 1884: 1879: 1874: 1867: 1856: 1828: 1827: 1824: 1800: 1799: 1794: 1789: 1784: 1779: 1774: 1769: 1764: 1759: 1754: 1732: 1729: 1719: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1669: 1668: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1563: 1560: 1557: 1541:User:Robchurch 1538: 1537: 1536: 1530: 1527: 1524: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1505: 1502: 1499: 1462: 1459: 1427: 1424: 1418:Celestianpower 1398: 1397: 1393: 1392: 1380: 1379: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1218: 1217: 1211: 1210: 1180: 1177: 1164: 1161: 1156: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1146: 1143: 1116:Traditionally, 1113: 1060: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1000: 999: 983: 982: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 910: 909: 908: 907: 885: 884: 870: 869: 830: 829: 819: 818: 800: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 781: 780: 763: 762: 749: 748: 721: 716: 713: 694: 693: 642: 641: 640: 639: 607: 606: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 563:--Thomas Paine 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 511: 472: 471: 453: 452: 422: 419: 402: 401: 400: 399: 398: 397: 396: 395: 322: 321: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 315: 275: 274: 273: 272: 246: 245: 244: 243: 242: 241: 240: 180: 179: 166: 165: 162: 148: 147: 143: 142: 127:Dragons flight 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: 4564: 4544: 4541: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4517: 4515: 4514: 4510: 4509: 4507: 4498: 4497: 4496: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4492: 4491: 4482: 4479: 4474: 4469: 4465: 4461: 4457: 4456: 4454: 4451: 4447: 4446: 4441: 4440: 4433: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4425: 4421: 4417: 4412: 4408: 4407: 4405: 4402: 4396: 4395: 4390: 4385: 4381: 4377: 4373: 4369: 4365: 4363: 4362:User:Bishonen 4358: 4354: 4350: 4349: 4342: 4341: 4338: 4334: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4326: 4323: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4309: 4305: 4302: 4296: 4295: 4292: 4288: 4283: 4275: 4273: 4272: 4269: 4259: 4256: 4252: 4247: 4246: 4245: 4244: 4241: 4237: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4226: 4220: 4216: 4214: 4209: 4192: 4189: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4177: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4163: 4161: 4160: 4156: 4155: 4153: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4116: 4114: 4112: 4106: 4105: 4104: 4102: 4101: 4097: 4096: 4094: 4084: 4080: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4066: 4063: 4061: 4059: 4053: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4046: 4043: 4041: 4040: 4036: 4035: 4033: 4024: 4020: 4015: 4014: 4007: 4004: 4000: 3996: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3986: 3979: 3976: 3974: 3972: 3966: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3951: 3948: 3944: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3933: 3930: 3928: 3926: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3914: 3910: 3902: 3899: 3897: 3895: 3888: 3887:all he wanted 3884: 3880: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3870: 3858: 3855: 3853: 3851: 3845: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3835: 3830: 3824: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3814: 3809: 3804: 3798: 3797: 3794: 3791: 3789: 3787: 3781: 3780: 3777: 3774: 3770: 3769: 3766: 3763: 3759: 3754: 3753: 3750: 3747: 3742: 3736: 3733: 3732: 3727: 3724: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3706: 3703: 3699: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3681: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3671: 3667: 3654: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3638: 3635: 3633: 3632: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3614: 3611: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3601: 3597: 3593: 3588: 3583: 3578: 3576: 3573: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3563: 3561: 3559: 3552: 3548: 3541: 3538: 3535: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3527: 3525: 3512: 3509: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3499: 3496: 3494: 3492: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3480: 3475: 3474: 3471: 3463: 3462: 3459: 3456: 3452: 3451: 3446: 3443: 3439: 3438: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3425: 3421: 3420: 3417: 3416: 3413: 3410: 3405: 3404: 3399: 3396: 3391: 3390: 3388: 3384: 3381: 3377: 3376: 3374: 3373: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3360: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3338: 3333: 3326: 3323: 3320: 3316: 3312: 3308: 3307:Edit counting 3305: 3301: 3298:In addition, 3297: 3294: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3281: 3276: 3273: 3268: 3265:Your advice, 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3257: 3252: 3236: 3233: 3228: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3209: 3205: 3203: 3200: 3195: 3189: 3188: 3186: 3183: 3179: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3169: 3164: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3144:OK, then how 3140: 3139: 3133: 3130: 3126: 3120: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3111: 3109: 3108: 3104: 3103: 3101: 3091: 3090: 3086: 3085: 3075: 3072: 3066: 3063: 3060: 3057: 3053: 3047: 3045: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3035: 3030: 3024: 3019: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 2999: 2996: 2992: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2965: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2956: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2938: 2933: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2918: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2865: 2860: 2858: 2853: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2840: 2835: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2822: 2819: 2813: 2809: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2794: 2791: 2786: 2780: 2779: 2777: 2776: 2774: 2765: 2756: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2732: 2729: 2725: 2724: 2718: 2712: 2707: 2702: 2700: 2694: 2693: 2688: 2687:quote above." 2686: 2678: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2657: 2653: 2648: 2643: 2639: 2638: 2636: 2633: 2629: 2624: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2609: 2604: 2597: 2584: 2582: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2566: 2564: 2561: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2550: 2546: 2541: 2539: 2536: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2513: 2510: 2508: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2493: 2490: 2486: 2484: 2481: 2477: 2464: 2462: 2459: 2454: 2448: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2416: 2413: 2410: 2406: 2404: 2401: 2397: 2395: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2372: 2370: 2367: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2354: 2351: 2347: 2342: 2338: 2337: 2331: 2328: 2325:here 100%.)-- 2322: 2319: 2316: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2306: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2294: 2293: 2289: 2287: 2283: 2282:Terri Schiavo 2275: 2271: 2270: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2260: 2257: 2255: 2254: 2247: 2243: 2238: 2235: 2234:(Quoting you) 2230: 2227: 2226: 2216: 2212: 2209: 2204: 2198: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2184: 2180: 2177: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2164: 2156: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2135: 2132: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2122: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2105: 2096: 2094: 2093: 2091: 2082: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2072: 2071:in this diff, 2067: 2065: 2061: 2059: 2055: 2054:Terri Schiavo 2046: 2044: 2043: 2040: 2039: 2034: 2032: 2028: 2027: 2024: 2022: 2019: 2014: 2011: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1988: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1974: 1970: 1967: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1928: 1927: 1921: 1914: 1911: 1909: 1905: 1903: 1900: 1898: 1895: 1893: 1890: 1888: 1885: 1883: 1880: 1878: 1875: 1873: 1870: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1855: 1854: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1837: 1836: 1833: 1825: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1817: 1813: 1810: 1806: 1798: 1795: 1793: 1790: 1788: 1785: 1783: 1780: 1778: 1775: 1773: 1770: 1768: 1765: 1763: 1760: 1758: 1755: 1753: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1730: 1728: 1727: 1723: 1717: 1708: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1691: 1685: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1677: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1667: 1664: 1660: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1642:Terri Schiavo 1638: 1636: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1625: 1620: 1612: 1609: 1607: 1606:User:Phroziac 1601: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1568: 1564: 1561: 1558: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1528: 1525: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1517: 1516:User:Phroziac 1514: 1510: 1506: 1503: 1500: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1492: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1485: 1481: 1478: 1473: 1470: 1466: 1460: 1458: 1456: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1440: 1438: 1435: 1431: 1425: 1423: 1422: 1419: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1395: 1394: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1385: 1377: 1374: 1369: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1357: 1353: 1340: 1330: 1327: 1323: 1321: 1315: 1310: 1303: 1296: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1276: 1271: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1263: 1260: 1256: 1249: 1248: 1243: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1233:Terri Schiavo 1230: 1226: 1222: 1216: 1213: 1212: 1209: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1201: 1198: 1194: 1189: 1185: 1178: 1176: 1174: 1170: 1167:According to 1162: 1160: 1154: 1147: 1144: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1137: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1126: 1125: 1117: 1112: 1111: 1108: 1104: 1099: 1096: 1091: 1089: 1085: 1079: 1075: 1074: 1070: 1069:(and I agree) 1066: 1058: 1050: 1047: 1045: 1044: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1027: 1023: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 998: 995: 993: 992: 985: 984: 981: 978: 976: 975: 968: 967: 966: 965: 961: 958: 954: 950: 946: 942: 931: 928: 924: 920: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 906: 903: 901: 900: 893: 889: 888: 887: 886: 883: 880: 876: 872: 871: 868: 865: 860: 855: 851: 850: 849: 848: 845: 843: 842: 834: 828: 826: 821: 820: 817: 814: 813: 812: 810: 806: 798: 792: 789: 785: 784: 783: 782: 779: 776: 771: 765: 764: 761: 758: 754: 751: 750: 747: 744: 742: 741: 734: 733: 732: 731: 728: 723: 714: 712: 711: 708: 704: 700: 692: 690: 689: 685: 684: 682: 673: 672: 671: 670: 667: 664: 658: 657: 654: 649: 638: 635: 631: 629: 623: 622: 619: 618: 617: 616: 613: 605: 602: 598: 597:The Uninvited 594: 593: 583: 580: 576: 572: 568: 564: 559: 555: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 545: 544: 543: 536: 533: 531: 530: 522: 521: 520: 519: 518: 517: 510: 507: 502: 496: 495: 493: 490: 485: 481: 476: 475: 474: 473: 470: 467: 464: 460: 455: 454: 451: 448: 444: 439: 438: 437: 436: 433: 429: 420: 418: 417: 414: 409: 394: 391: 386: 380: 376: 375: 374: 371: 369: 367: 361: 360: 359: 356: 351: 345: 341: 337: 336: 335: 330: 324: 323: 314: 311: 309: 307: 300: 299: 296: 289: 288:User:Rdsmith4 285: 281: 280: 279: 278: 277: 276: 271: 268: 266: 264: 257: 256: 253: 247: 239: 236: 234: 229: 223: 219: 218: 217: 214: 212: 210: 204: 200: 199: 198: 195: 190: 184: 183: 182: 181: 178: 175: 171: 170: 164: 161: 159: 153: 152: 145: 144: 141: 138: 134: 133: 132: 131: 128: 121: 114: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4512: 4502: 4500: 4472: 4467: 4463: 4444: 4443: 4438: 4437: 4431: 4415: 4383: 4375: 4371: 4367: 4360: 4356: 4352: 4330: 4319: 4301:User:Szyslak 4299::Apparently 4298: 4297: 4281: 4279: 4264: 4221: 4217: 4207: 4205: 4158: 4148: 4146: 4110: 4099: 4089: 4087: 4082: 4057: 4038: 4028: 4026: 3994: 3970: 3924: 3905: 3893: 3886: 3878: 3865: 3849: 3843: 3822: 3785: 3757: 3652: 3630: 3629: 3581: 3557: 3553: 3549: 3545: 3528: 3523: 3522: 3490: 3476: 3467: 3434: 3351: 3334: 3331: 3324: 3318: 3314: 3306: 3299: 3292: 3285: 3266: 3245: 3207: 3177: 3159:By talking. 3145: 3141: 3118: 3106: 3096: 3094: 3064: 3041: 3017: 2990: 2985: 2982:identify it, 2981: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2963: 2955:Kelly Martin 2936: 2931: 2909: 2905: 2901: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2868: 2863: 2847: 2818:Mindspillage 2814: 2810: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2797: 2770: 2763: 2760: 2747: 2721: 2716: 2710: 2705: 2699:User:Nichalp 2696: 2691: 2690: 2682: 2676: 2656:User:Nichalp 2645: 2641: 2627: 2622: 2599: 2593: 2527: 2525: 2517: 2516: 2506: 2497: 2496: 2424: 2420: 2398:As above. -- 2376: 2375: 2358: 2357: 2340: 2296: 2295: 2291: 2290: 2285: 2278: 2273: 2268: 2267: 2258: 2252: 2251: 2249: 2248: 2241: 2236: 2233: 2232: 2224: 2222: 2220: 2189: 2182: 2168: 2113: 2100: 2087: 2085: 2068: 2062: 2050: 2042: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2030: 2029: 2015: 2012: 2009: 2008: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1986: 1979: 1976:In this diff 1963: 1959: 1952: 1948: 1925: 1924: 1919: 1917: 1863: 1845: 1841: 1838: 1829: 1815: 1808: 1804: 1802: 1801: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1734: 1725: 1724: 1721: 1699: 1695: 1688: 1683: 1658: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1634: 1632: 1618: 1604: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1573: 1544: 1483: 1482: 1476: 1468: 1467: 1464: 1443: 1441: 1433: 1432: 1429: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1399: 1383: 1381: 1338: 1336: 1319: 1317: 1313: 1301: 1298: 1294: 1273: 1269: 1250: 1245: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1224: 1223: 1219: 1202: 1196: 1182: 1172: 1166: 1158: 1135: 1134: 1123: 1122: 1115: 1114: 1105:page! Wow.-- 1102: 1100: 1094: 1092: 1081: 1077: 1076: 1068: 1062: 1042: 1041: 990: 989: 973: 972: 940: 938: 898: 897: 840: 839: 835: 831: 823:As with the 822: 815: 802: 752: 739: 738: 724: 718: 698: 695: 687: 677: 675: 659: 643: 627: 625: 608: 566: 557: 553: 528: 527: 483: 479: 424: 403: 378: 365: 343: 339: 305: 262: 221: 208: 202: 157: 155: 154: 109: 78: 43: 37: 4540:GordonWatts 4450:GordonWatts 4401:GordonWatts 4308:GordonWatts 4282:for Szyslak 4236:Ryan Norton 3572:Admiral Roo 3508:Admiral Roo 3479:Admiral Roo 3470:Admiral Roo 3455:Admiral Roo 3442:GordonWatts 3424:GordonWatts 3409:Admiral Roo 3395:GordonWatts 3380:GordonWatts 3356:GordonWatts 3272:GordonWatts 3182:GordonWatts 3150:GordonWatts 3129:GordonWatts 3071:GordonWatts 3056:GordonWatts 2995:GordonWatts 2914:GordonWatts 2728:GordonWatts 2632:GordonWatts 2560:GordonWatts 2535:GordonWatts 2366:GordonWatts 2327:GordonWatts 2315:GordonWatts 2038:Conversely: 2031:Conclusion: 1858:The recent 1850:GordonWatts 1832:GordonWatts 1704:GordonWatts 1663:GordonWatts 1648:pages; the 1635:differences 1624:GordonWatts 1600:GordonWatts 1584:GordonWatts 1576:Conclusion: 1452:GordonWatts 1444:Conclusion: 1373:GordonWatts 1371:followed.-- 1326:GordonWatts 1259:GordonWatts 1225:Conclusion: 1148:Gut Feeling 1136:Contradicts 1107:GordonWatts 1065:User:Taxman 1038:Ok, sorry. 697:discussion 579:GordonWatts 489:GordonWatts 421:GordonWatts 36:This is an 4505:Journalist 4151:Journalist 4092:Journalist 4031:Journalist 3825:big deal. 3317:, and the 3125:being bold 3099:Journalist 2908:part. And 2771:See also: 2518:5. Neutral 2433:khaosworks 2018:Grace Note 1920:Comments: 1816:SlimVirgin 1805:SlimVirgin 1615:Phroziac's 1197:(de facto) 680:Journalist 554:Bluemoose. 98:Archive 35 90:Archive 32 85:Archive 31 79:Archive 30 73:Archive 29 68:Archive 28 60:Archive 25 4411:straw men 4389:Knowledge 4376:everybody 4079:wikipedia 4023:Carbonite 3999:Carbonite 3943:Carbonite 3909:Carbonite 3651:To Geni: 3437:section. 3069:polocy.-- 2900:talking; 2752:Guettarda 2489:≈ jossi ≈ 2250:(Quoting 2245:certain.) 2223:What say 2199:Regards, 2090:Knowledge 1960:Adminship 1860:Main_Page 1809:Secondly: 1741:FuelWagon 1700:standard. 1690:Aquillion 1676:Aquillion 1659:Robchurch 1588:Robchurch 1484:More Data 1406:are often 1314:-and edit 1255:Knowledge 1188:Knowledge 1128:standards 715:A request 571:Knowledge 459:been bold 4439:thoughts 4420:Bishonen 4287:Bishonen 4251:Filiocht 4188:Carnildo 3740:=Nichalp 3723:Carnildo 3680:Carnildo 3393:times.-- 3300:civility 3267:Nichalp, 3250:=Nichalp 2970:supposed 2962:"Policy 2877:insisted 2784:=Nichalp 2665:Filiocht 2602:=Nichalp 2585:I quote: 2574:Filiocht 2545:Filiocht 2528:Comments 2452:=Nichalp 2441:contribs 2421:requests 2419:This is 2409:Chris 73 2400:Carnildo 2387:Bishonen 2346:Bishonen 2272:Policy: 2269:Proposed 2202:=Nichalp 2175:further. 2116:long. -- 1983:actions. 1953:Further, 1830:Hmm...-- 1582:-group. 1549:his vote 1384:actually 1173:by fiat. 1095:not even 923:Blackcap 858:=Nichalp 769:=Nichalp 647:=Nichalp 634:→Raul654 612:→Raul654 558:Nichalp, 500:=Nichalp 407:=Nichalp 384:=Nichalp 349:=Nichalp 344:reverted 188:=Nichalp 4478:Tuf-Kat 4380:be bold 4368:thought 4333:WP:BOLD 4322:Tuf-Kat 4208:support 3745:«Talk»= 3255:«Talk»= 3226:android 3217:Nv8200p 3162:android 3052:Raul654 3044:Raul654 3023:Raul654 3018:EXACTLY 2930:Policy 2873:Titanic 2789:«Talk»= 2607:«Talk»= 2457:«Talk»= 2305:Tuf-Kat 2253:current 2207:«Talk»= 1596:Jimbo's 1247:Policy. 863:«Talk»= 788:Bhadani 774:«Talk»= 727:Bhadani 720:course: 652:«Talk»= 505:«Talk»= 412:«Talk»= 389:«Talk»= 354:«Talk»= 340:deleted 193:«Talk»= 39:archive 4468:cannot 4460:WP:RfA 4416:nobody 4111:BD2412 4058:BD2412 4019:Martin 3971:BD2412 3925:BD2412 3894:BD2412 3850:BD2412 3786:BD2412 3758:at all 3631:Martin 3558:BD2412 3491:BD2412 3221:WP:IFD 2978:change 2897:trying 2152:cesarb 2118:cesarb 2114:really 2000:higher 1987:Claim: 1846:my own 1687:Well, 1448:clique 1402:should 1386:says: 1337:There 1302:anyone 1293:There 1145:Itself 1063:Admin 1043:Martin 991:Martin 974:Martin 941:active 899:Martin 841:Martin 740:Martin 699:before 575:angst, 529:Martin 466:(Talk) 366:BD2412 306:BD2412 263:BD2412 227:Acetic 209:BD2412 113:WP:AFD 4384:knows 3995:might 3885:that 3208:after 3178:Then, 2968:It's 2964:never 2932:never 2902:Then, 2869:Also, 2507:Grue 2425:votes 2150:?) -- 2064:Here, 1996:other 1969:Here, 1864:seven 1654:still 1650:other 1646:10-15 1545:Pete, 1479:here. 1477:Pete, 1339:is no 1237:other 1078:Note: 854:WP:CS 757:gkhan 599:Co., 463:ALoan 443:Giano 328:Terry 294:Terry 251:Terry 174:Terry 156:This 137:Terry 120:moved 16:< 4464:have 4424:talk 4372:glad 4355:can 4291:talk 4083:.01% 4054:. -- 4021:and 4003:Talk 3947:Talk 3913:Talk 3879:have 3844:want 3823:very 3760:". 3702:Talk 3670:Talk 3610:Geni 3592:Talk 3587:Lomn 3352:what 3313:The 3293:name 3291:The 3213:here 2910:you? 2764:Note 2669:Talk 2578:Talk 2549:Talk 2480:Talk 2437:talk 2431:. -- 2412:Talk 2391:talk 2350:talk 2242:slim 1962:and 1842:also 1592:Pete 1404:and 1356:Talk 1124:gold 1103:talk 1007:Func 945:Func 927:talk 921:. -- 707:Talk 666:aran 601:Inc. 447:talk 432:Talk 377:!!! 3833:315 3828:Ral 3812:urε 3802:Tεx 3596:RfC 3198:315 3193:Ral 3033:315 3028:Ral 2893:own 2885:not 2881:not 2856:315 2851:Ral 2838:315 2833:Ral 2720:." 2341:for 2225:ye? 2188:If 1949:all 1737:not 1696:not 1580:sub 1295:is, 1118:an 1083:and 703:Dan 663:Pak 428:Dan 381::) 224:" ? 4511:/ 4473:is 4422:| 4399:-- 4391:). 4289:| 4253:| 4157:/ 4098:/ 4037:/ 4025:. 4001:| 3945:| 3911:| 3867:-- 3700:| 3689:— 3668:| 3657:— 3594:/ 3589:| 3468:-- 3231:79 3167:79 3146:do 3105:/ 2912:-- 2906:my 2667:| 2576:| 2547:| 2478:| 2467:— 2443:) 2439:• 2389:| 2385:. 2348:| 2229:. 2102:-- 2060:. 1992:if 1814:, 1622:-- 1486:: 1354:| 1343:— 1324:-- 1286:) 1130:. 1090:. 1024:) 1017:, 1013:, 1009:( 962:) 955:, 951:, 947:( 925:| 811:; 705:| 686:/ 567:if 445:| 430:| 259:-- 172:-- 123:}} 117:{{ 94:→ 64:← 4364:, 4357:I 4337:] 3807:τ 3762:] 3697:P 3694:I 3691:J 3665:P 3662:I 3659:J 2859:: 2766:: 2714:" 2475:P 2472:I 2469:J 2435:( 2023:" 1692:, 1637:: 1608:, 1351:P 1348:I 1345:J 1322:? 1309:. 1284:c 1282:/ 1280:t 1278:( 1275:N 1138:: 1021:, 1019:@ 1015:c 1011:t 959:, 957:@ 953:c 949:t 879:] 232:' 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 30 - Knowledge

Index