Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 32

1802:

nomination period? Then, after the seven-day period is over, a bureaucrat can read through all the answers the nominee gives, and choose whether to promote that nominee based on the big picture that emerges from the nominee's responses. I do, however, acknowledge an inherent disadvantage of this approach, in that the read-through by the bureaucrat would be very time-consuming, but that could be solved by putting together a "promotion committee" of bureaucrats to read through the responses, and then come to a consensus on whether or not to promote the nominee. In addition, this approach can reinforce the "Knowledge is not a democracy" doctrine. What do you think?

2011:

an outcome desired by the bureaucrat. While I doubt that any of us would do that, there is no way for us to prove that we have not, so the possibility undermines the appearance of fairness and transparency. Third, having a fixed end time allows bureaucrats to discuss a close nomination amongst themselves without having to rehash the conversation every time a vote is added. I believe that 7 days is ample time for community input to be gathered, though we could certainly extend the time -- to 14 days or more -- if we thought that extra time would make for better decisions.

2974:

admin material, based on their interactions with the wiki community, than it is for a person to judge themselves. Many of the best admins would probably never have become admins if they had not been approached by others prepared to nominate them and while I wouldn't name myself as "one of the best admins" I will add that I certainly wouldn't be an admin either if it was self-nom only). Allow self-noms, sure, but make it clear that (as Kelly and others have implied here) nomination by others is favoured and more likely to result in a successful vote.

1420:

notification box on the top of their user page is like treating editors like articles. Their user page is an article: it's the article that tells the reader about them. It will also help to increase the number of voters on RfA (and hereby increasing the chance that concensus will be achieved). Therefore, in my opinion, the pros outweigh the cons. "Experienced" RfA voters are less likely to know about a user's activity than those who have interacted with them and are hence visiting their user/user talk page. --

2846:. Now, I know this has been discussed before, but how about allowing only self-nominations for RfA? It would simplify the process a great deal (and the instructions could be put back on the main page so that people would notice them more readily) and would show decent initiative on the part of the nominee. People who wanted others to be nominated could do that simply by suggesting it to them on their talk pages, and a lot of trouble and clutter would be saved. Anyone agree? - 31: 697: 987:

everyone can see and know about, rather than something that only regular RfA voters see. This does that. Also, adding a template is not complicated. It takes less than a minute, depending on your connection speed. And it won't affect the formatting of a userpage, you just paste it in at the top and leave a gap between it and the rest of the page. --

1304:

responsibilities without their consent is a fairly rude thing to do, but if we need to make this absolutely clear then so be it. The other changes are simply instruction creep; focus on paperwork requirements erodes focus from the primary qualification to be an admin -- being a trusted user who is familiar with Knowledge policies.

536:. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. 1326:, not articles that can be mercilessly tagged. If someone doesn't want to have a banner at the top of his/her user page, they shouldn't have to. I know when I was nominated for adminship I would not have wanted that banner; instead, I was pleasantly surprised at the number of people that voted on my RfA anyways. Thanks! 2010:

The trouble with extending vote times is threefold. First, the character of late votes is usually different than early votes. Late voters are more likely to oppose. I don't know why though I have some guesses. Second, it allows, at least in theory, a bureaucrat to wait until the vote totals reach

1407:

I feel about the same was as Flcelloguy. When I was nominated, I put a simple little text message on the top of my user page, and left it at that. No notification, sig change, or great big banner across all of my subpages. In addition to this comment, I think that it is highly impersonal to nominated

1281:

be compulsory, because it will make it easier for editors to navigate between the nominee's user/talk page and the nomination page, and because it will alert all visitors to the nominee's user/talk pages (including those who are there to praise/complain) that the editor in question is a candidate for

918:

I've changed "administration" to "adminship" on the template page. I thought the same thing. As to the other bit, it's just a notice, and they can always remove it. I don't see that as being much of a problem: a lot of people with noms already create a template of their own, or add their RfA to their

651:

templates for anything - for example, if you wanted to, you could send an article to AfD, with all the appropriate links, by manually typing out all of the necessary information (including the code to enclose it all in a nice peach-colored box at the top of the page). But the template contains all of

3019:

request. Generally speaking, self noms constitute about 10–20% of all requests. I just did a quick, unscientific sample of 32 failed noms; 18 (56.25%) were self noms. This would indicate that self noms are more likely to come from candidates that the community finds unacceptable. Personally, I think

2910:

I disagree with KM and BD. Why should you refuse to self-nom? You believe you are or are not up to the task, right? Self-importance is a negative but so is false modesty, and I think edits and behaviour speak for themselves regardless of where the nom came from. I don't think it should be limited to

2866:

I refused to self-nom and I'd actually be in favor of prohibiting them. I am likely to evaluate an other-nom more favorably than a self-nom; the fact that the candidate found someone else to put his or her reputation on the line to make the nomination carries significant weight to me. Please don't

2718:

I wouldn't say that getting a featured article is irrelavent. Getting an article featured informs the community that 1) you know how an encyclopedia is written 2) Are aware of referencing needed and copyright status of images and 3) is willing to undergo a really stressful week or two. Its a test of

2034:

Yikes, look what I did now. Well it sure seems that way. It doesn't really matter in my case, there were enough people opposing me before it ended. Although I strongly believe that if my RfA remained open ended, I would garner a lot more support, but that's beside the point. Having a time limit is a

1660:

here? I think closing RfAs for any other reason than candidate declination (i.e. success, failure by consensus, or failure to reach consensus) should be left for bureaucrats, but RfAs that are declined can be closed by anyone, you don't have even to be an admin (or a logged-in user at all) to do it.

387:

and implement the changes, since there has been no opposition and it seems general consensus is in favor of this. Just a slight change- I think the RfA subpage can be created by the nominator so that the nominator can write down his nomination; then, the candidate can accept and answer the questions

3053:

The current system works fine as it is. Please don't prohibit self-nominations. I would never have become an admin if I hadn't nominated myself. And prohibiting nominating others is even more silly. There are a lot of people who never thought they'd have a remote chance at adminship until they were

2973:

I'm strongly against the idea of only having self-noms - nomination by others is actually a far better method. I wouldn't go so far as to ban self-noms, but I'd far prefer it if they were actively discouraged. It is far easier for other members of the wiki community to assess whether a person is of

2958:

Yay, but even if this became something like semi-policy, then you'll have the problem of people trying to boost their edit counts; can't have it both ways, me thinks. I for one would opt for a minimum time around (say something like 6 months, or even 9 months), with fairly regular contributions, so

2578:

I don't know.... Alot of hurtful things could come out of such a process, and I don't think we need another place to attack eachother on wikipedia. If you feel that you are qualified enough for adminship (ie read all qualifications and check that you meet them) and want it, apply for it. If you fit

1951:

Well, a bureaucrat has to be online when the nom expires. Strictly speaking the votes shouldn't count, but votes during the last few hours are not very common. As far as I have seen in the past month, post expiry date voting does not influence the outcome, since the rfa position is already clear by

1684:

You're quite welcome to help out. :) I noticed you removed the nom, so I verified on Journalist's talk and signed on Quale's RFA "closed". You didn't forgot to change the text. Make sure that the text "vote here" is changed to "Closed" (if withdrawn) or "Final"; and "ending" changed to "ended". You

2642:

Good point Gkhan! Ok, well it seems as if I have all of those except for the featured article. I have a number of articles that I have made a lot of edits to that eventually became FAs but not directly because of me. Dont ask me which ones either lol I may remember one or two. Well, I will take it

1491:

the nominator discusses whether the nominee wants to be an admin to make it easier for the nominee to follow the instructions, but leave that to the discretion of the nominator. (Self-nominations should be expected by default to not use the template, since the purpose of the template is to lead to

1081:

That's not really true, necessarily. I visit plenty of people's userpages whom I don't know at all when I bump into them on AfDs or wherever. And if you look at the instructions, no-one puts it up on someone else's page, it's always the person putting it on their own page. It's not a forced thing.

2438:

Actually, the explanation is the most important part of the "vote". Remember, we're attempting to determine consensus here, not just counting votes. In practice, a support vote without explanation is an implicit comment of "I agree with the nominator or other support votes". Support votes without

2411:

It's less that he doesn't explain and more that he votes "oppose" on almost every single nom AND doesn't have an explanation. I don't know, if I was a B-crat I'd count it. He's entitled to a vote like anyone else, unless it can be shown that he's just doing it to be disruptive (which, as far as I

1819:

We don't want to promote "Knowledge in not a democracy" by promoting "Knowledge is a bureaucracy". The bureaucrats are trusted individuals, but do we really want to make every single nomination a pure bureaucrat judgement call? Also, unless the current process is broken, I don't see a reason to

1801:

I would like to propose an alternative procedure for considering new administrator nominations. Instead of rendering "support" or "oppose" opinions, which gives the illusion that a vote is taking place, why not have the nominee answer many questions from individual wikipedians over the seven-day

1753:

I wanted to cut down the size of the extensive front matter on the RfA page as it seemed very bloated, and I have just done so by moving detailed nomination instructions (now including a more sophisticated way of creating a nomination subpage than by searching for it and clicking the 'create this

2921:

Actually I think that a prohibition either way is not the way to go. There is nothing wrong with a self-nomination, but personally I hold it to higher scrutiny than a regular nomination. However, there's cases where a self-nomination is acceptable. I wouldn't self-nominate myself for the reasons

1125:

a user to place this template on his/her user page/ user talk page is a good idea. They can certainly place it on if s/he wishes, but it should, by no means, be mandatory. A user page's content — up to a certain limit — should be up to the user. If the user doesn't wish to place the tag, I don't

482:

And just to make this clear, I oppose this change in general. The only change we need to make, I suppose, is to make clear that you shouldn't volunteer others for adminship without their okay. It's a bit sad that this rule actually needs to be written down, but looking over recent nominations it

986:

It's not an advertisement. It's a notice. That's one of the problems with RfA now: how does one let people know that they're applying for adminship without it seeming as though they're advertising themselves? This solves that by having everyone do it. RfA should be a public, obvious, thing that

1989:

It seems like a mistake to disregard votes made after the deadline but before the nomination is closed; what is our motivation for invalidating a vote based on the time it was placed on the page? If the point of the adminship process is to gauge community consensus on whether someone should be

1303:

I agree that the recent changes pointlessly complicate the adminship process. The only useful thing they have accomplished is to codify what should be the most basic politeness: getting the okay from someone before nominating them for adminship. Volunteering someone for scrutiny and additional

469:

I wouldn't be too bold in removing incomplete nominations yet. Certainly, I would oppose removing nominations simply because they haven't answered the questions yet; based on the number of people who are willing to support with the questions unanswered it seems clear that they aren't all that

2779:

Allright, you got a fair number of good points :P First one, could have been worded better, second one, well maybe a bad example, and third one, that's fine, I just said it's a plus if you can solve a hard conflict by yourself. Doesn't mean that you have to never have been in a bad conflict.

1419:

I totally agree that a pre-fabricated "I have nominated you for adminship" is totally absurd. If you feel strongly that they should become an admin then you should be able to leave a personalised message for them to tell them why you think that they should. However, I disagree that leaving a

1937:

In theory they should not be counted. However, the vast majority of requests are resolved one way or another by the end of the period so that it does not really matter about a few late votes. Requests are also usually closed within a couple of hours of the voting period ending, limiting the

1437:

Quick note - the point of the nomination template is to give the nominator a quick means to insure that the nominee gets all the necessary information to carry the process forward (i.e., a link to the RfA page, a link to their nom. page, and a reminder to reply to the nominator, accept the

1043:. I put a similar notice on people's user page who I nominate, but they can take it down if they please. Some people don't want that stuff on their page, ever. And yes, it does work as an advert cause normally your friends visit yuor page more than people who don't happen to know you... 2994:

favoured? I tend to view non self noms a wimps who lack enthusiasm and as a result have an increased risk of adding to the ranks of paper admins. Not that this makes much difference since one of my creteria for voteing tend to be (although not always) that I have to have a clue who you

1990:

promoted, it seems to me that the bureaucrat closing the discussion should take into account all the available information. The proposal you make seems to elevate the enforcement of rules for their own sake over the furtherance of what the whole process is intended to accomplish.

1082:

And why oppose having it at all? It's useful for plenty of people, even if it's not required. It shows that there's a standard RfA notice and that you can let people know you're applying for adminship without it being an ad. And it may help eliminate the string of RfA sigs. --

3014:

On average, I suspect that history would not support you on this, and I speak as someone who became an admin via self-nom. Unfortunately, many self noms come from people who have not been around long enough to know what's involved or from people on a mission, like the recent

3004:

I just wanna say that people that request their own adminiship are more likely to be active in maintanance tasks than people who have adminship bestowed upon them. I nominated myself 2 months ago and received overwhelming support, and the Wiki is better off because of it! ;)

2439:

comment are very rarely challenged by anyone. An oppose vote without explanation is an implicit agreement with other oppose votes. However, since Boothy443 has shown a pattern of consistently opposing without explanation, his votes should be disregarded. Often, he's the

2346:

disregard his vote since he never provides any reasons for his opposition. Of course, since promotion is based on achieving consensus, a single oppose vote isn't much of a problem. If you're really interested, I'm sure you'll find more info in this page's archives.

675:

The AfD and RfA processes share similar physical layouts, both using transclusion on list pages to collect them into a single location for discussion. However, I think that RfA misses out on a step that might encourage a wider participation in the process.

2171:

There's no consensus, nor should there be. Its a highly personal thing, varying person to person. If there was a consensus on how to vote then every RfA would be either 20/0/0 or 0/20/0 ;-) If you're wondering for when you should run, try about 2000.

2035:

good idea (we wouldn't want these things hanging around forever, eh?), but since the rule is in place, I don't really think we should start deviating now. If it feels like to omuch instruction creep, should we start some sort of proposal to change it?

1938:

opportunity for extra votes. Lord Voldemort's request is an exception to the latter, it having offically closed almost a day ago, however, even with the extra votes, it will almost certainly be deemed as having resulted in no consensus being reached.

225:

Good idea, but why not go one further and not allow nominations until the candidate has accepted the offer to be nominated on their talk page? That way we prevent the nominations-in-stasis from cluttering up RfAr, which is quite long enough as it is.

573:

Why have a template? It's just impersonal, and it's not like it takes that long to write a message on someone's talk page saying, "Hey, I want to nominate you for adminship, sound good?" It looks nice and all, but I can't see the point of having it.

368:

Excellent suggestion. I agree with not posting the subpage on RfA until the questions are answered. And barring that, no nominations without consent of the nominee. I think it's poor form to nominate someone without asking him or her first. —

2945:

I wonder should there be a required minimum number of edits for self-nominations to be valid? I might be mistaken, but I think most of the nominations of new users who haven't a chance of being accepted come from those users themselves.

1564:

Is the date listed on my RfA correct? I added a question there, but was not sure if someone would see it. Not that I see it heading anywhere but "no consensus", I just want to be fair to all. If the mistake is mine, I am humbly sorry.

1371:

My apologies if I sounded frustrated, or if I was a little blunt. Yes, while I respect your opinion, I feel strongly about this issue. I don't think there will ever be consensus on making this mandatory. Thanks for your understanding!

2499:

Where could I go if I wanted to have a peer review for well, myself? I do not know if I want to become an admin. at this time or ever for that matter. I want to know my weak points so that I may begin to edify them. (Just in case.)

679:

Visiting the days AfD gives you a list of transcluded pages. Clicking on the header then takes you to the article. From there, you can click on the link in the AfD template to get to the correct sub-page to add to the discussion.

1926:

No idea what RFA is all about, but I've noticed that there is some ambiguity regarding whether bureacrats count votes after the end of a nomination or not. Should there be some consistency in this, or is it deliberately vague?

545:- (The above template was created and posted by BD2412) If the RfA/nominee page is not going to be listed on the RfA page until the nominee accepts and answers the questions, why is it necessary to have a 24 hour time limit? 1321:

to making the notification tag compulsory; just because it eases navigation and raises awareness does not mean that is should be required. There's a back tab on most browsers, and we have to keep in mind that candidates are

2856:

I would agree; the person who would now nominate can be first or second vote. (In fact, we could make this like RfC's: if nobody will support the nomination within 48 hours, it's doomed, and should be decently removed.)

1652:

that Quale's RfA wasn't going to succeed, as he declined it himself. There was therefore no need for determining a consensus. Heck, even if the entire Knowledge supported Quale, the RfA would still have failed.

2769:

How about you've been involved in a horrible dispute which you tried to resolve, but everyone else in it was too insane to do so and now it's in front of the ArbCom? Happened to me, more than once, actually.

1408:

someone for adminship, and leave a pre-fabricated template on their talk page to let them know. Write out a little note, explaining why you trust him/her. Don't treat the editors like articles. Just my 2 ¢.

2893:

I don't know what to say, I felt extremely weird self nominating (just an hour ago) but on the other hand I want to contribute in a different way and didn't want to wait for/ask somebody to nominate me...

1522:

No, the template should be optional. We'll never agree to have compulsory use of the template, so its best we have optional templates. The RFA process anyways runs quite smoothly without the template.

652:

the information, presumably has already been checked for correct spelling, syntax and information, and allows you to do the same job in a few keystrokes. Whether you use it is entirely up to you. --

1013:. Lots of users frequent RfA to vote. If a nominee has done enough positive work in Knowledge, the nomination should pass easily even when the user does not advertise himself/herself or campaign. — 1685:

can remove RFA's have received <70% of the vote after the expiry date. (Just make sure that there aren't too many votes on the last day; if so leave it to the b'crats). Thanks for helping out.

1282:

adminship. Although it is no big deal, adminship is nevertheless a privilege, not a right, and small burdens can be imposed on those who wish to reap the benefits of attaining this privilege. --

2684:

I would consider a featured article all but irrelevant. I've been an admin for more than a year, and only within the past month was an article featured which I can consider largely my work. —

1972:

Originally, there were no end times and there was greater emphasis on consensus than votes. I am of the opinion that, now that we have end times, we should disregard votes made after them.

2048:

P.S. On hand, does anyone know if my RfA was the closest to passing, but did not? I could drudge through the unsuccessful candidacies, but thought it would be easier to ask first. Thanks. --

1829:

How would people with valid reasons to oppose a nomination voice that and present evidence? ANd for those of us who live in the rest of the world, what is a "confirmation hearing" exactly?

2510:

That's quite a good idea, I think - there should be a place short of RfA where editors can get general feedback on what they need to do to bring their participation up to admin quality. --

1648:, added the rfaf and rfab tags, and included it on the failed candidacies page. I thought I'd do this even though I'm only an admin, not a bureaucrat. The reason for this is that it was 329:

I like all of the above suggestions and would support all of them. Would first support BD2412's proposal, if not then the orginal proposal is at least a step in the right direction.

2669:

Well, the featured thing isn't that important :P You should know, there is not guarantee even if you pass all these, but there is a definitly a very good chance that you'll pass.

973:

I strongly oppose requiring this template (or indeed having it at all). Advertisement should be up to the user's discretion. This process is becoming far, far too complicated. —

2539:

True, but the page claims to be part of the dispute resolution process - just seems awkward. I recall some folks have set up subpages of their user page to invite comments. --

588:

Because it sums up the relevant information quickly and succinctly, and can be changed as the policy changes. Besides, as I've indicated on the project page, it's optional. --

943:

Why not require it? If an editor desires to be an administrator, they have to go through the process, and having the template on their page would be part of the process. --

1358:

Then we shall have to agree to disagree - the strength of opinions expressed here makes it unlikely that will ever have a consensus to mandate such a change in policy. --

686:

I would like to propose adding a template for inclusion on a user's page (and optionally their talk page) after they accept the nomination. Something along the lines of:

111:

If a candidate is nominated in bad faith our through poor judgement, it gives them an opportunity to bow out gracefully before getting hit with a bunch of 'oppose' votes.

2296: 2144: 107:

Could we modify the RFA process very slightly? I suggest that voting not be opened until the candidate accepts the nomination. This would have a couple of benefits:

94: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 2719:

character too, and many newbies crack at this extreme form of peer pressure. I've also noticed that most people who do get a FA are quite successful in their RFA.

1842:

It was a metaphor for the idea I was trying to present, Filiocht. The nominee answers a whole plethora of questions the group considering the nomination asks.

3033:

Besides, in a sense we just fixed it with the requirement that noms be accepted and questions answered before they get posted, so lets see how that works out.

2200:

Exactly. Personally, I got in after a month and with maybe 200 edits max. Course that's unlikely to happen today, but I'm just bringing it up as an example .—

1754:

article' link!) to a subpage, linked from the front matter. Thought I would be bold and do it, but if anyone doesn't like it of course feel free to revert.

2458: 1705:

Thanks for your reply! I'm glad I didn't step outside any boundaries. But could you clarify what you mean by "RFA's have received <70% of the vote"?

711: 683:

Visiting RfA gives you a list of transcluded pages. Clicking on the header takes you to the users page which is a dead end as far as the process goes.

2461:- from the person's talk page from the beurocrat "Your decision was a close call, and excluding Boothy's vote the support vote was a shade under 80%." 2764:

Also, it's a big help if you have a featured article and/or have been involved in a horrible dispute which you handled with great care and resolved

2625:

Also, it's a big help if you have a featured article and/or have been involved in a horrible dispute which you handled with great care and resolved

125:

I would suggest that nominations that aren't formally accepted (or declined) within a week or two(?) be removed from RFA as declined nominations.

1645: 1858:

We already expect nominees to stand on their contributions and their responses to the standard questions. What else would we need to know? -

1196:

Optional: If the user would like to inform the community that s/he is running for the post of adminship, s/he may put up the following notice

1099:

a nomination for adminship, but if this makes the process smoother, those who desire admin powers should accept this temporary imposition. --

532: 47: 17: 1174: 275:

RfA page (or allow votes) until the questions are answered. That way, voters get a clean, complete RfA to look at in the first instance. --

901:– 2) what if the person doesn't want it on his page? That should read "Adminship"; administration is rather vague especially to newbies. 2116:

Thanks for all the responses here. I've read up more on what RFA is all about and now at least I know what people are talking about. --

1727:

Support:Oppose=70% ie, the person has got less that 70% "support" votes out of the support+oppose. (Neutral votes are not counted)

2842:

Now that there have been changes in the RfA process, the guidelines given on the instruction page are heading dangerously towards

2329:

vote without explanation for almost every candidate. Should these uncommented votes from a user on an apparent rant be counted? --

2412:

know, hasn't happened). None of us HAS to explain our votes, and if his is being discounted I'd consider it to be a bad thing. --

2140: 703: 523: 2384:

Do BCrats really disregard his vote? (whatever was the result of his RfC?) What about other oppose votes with no explanation? --

1874:

I think it would be great if we encouraged more questions to be asked, however it is impractical to remove the "voting" system.

2472:

Indeed - I stand corrected! At least the bureacrat in question chose to give little weight to Boothy's unexplained opposition.

2162: 720:

This would make the page mechanics of the system similar to AfD and might encourage additional participation in the process. --

257: 1506:, I'm not sure it would make a difference, but it would make self-promotion signatures unnecessary, so I support it. 2754:

Haven't made any crazy statements on basic wp-policies ("4-3 is consensus", "3RR is stupid", etc, you get the point)

2622:

Haven't made any crazy statements on basic wp-policies ("4-3 is consensus", "3RR is stupid", etc, you get the point)

1678: 1182:{{subst:RfA|User=USERNAME|Ending='''SEVEN DAYS AFTER''' TODAY'S DATE|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}} 2092: 2016: 1977: 373: 38: 1994: 1308: 559:

Quite right - time limit removed - still, I wouldn't want unanswered nomination pages hanging around too long. --

487: 474: 330: 2527:

already that place? Nothing prevents an editor from listing themselves and explaining why they want comments.

2284:

part of the reasons for supporting/opposing candidates, but particularly not on edit count (non-)requirements. -

2280:

I just wanted to third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh the comment that there is emphatically no consensus on

2817: 2404: 2068: 707: 130: 3071: 3041: 3028: 3009: 2999: 2988: 2967: 2952: 2939: 2915: 2898: 2888: 2871: 2861: 2850: 2829: 2807: 2784: 2774: 2730: 2713: 2692: 2673: 2660: 2647: 2636: 2567: 2547: 2534: 2518: 2504: 2480: 2467: 2451: 2433: 2420: 2406: 2371: 2355: 2336: 2312: 2290: 2269: 2245: 2211: 2193: 2120: 2095: 2070: 2019: 1997: 1980: 1963: 1942: 1931: 1913: 1901: 1884: 1862: 1853: 1837: 1824: 1813: 1790: 1758: 1738: 1722: 1696: 1627: 1602: 1585: 1551: 1533: 1515: 1466: 1450: 1432: 1414: 1398: 1366: 1352: 1311: 1290: 1268: 1238: 1220: 1152: 1107: 1090: 1064: 1022: 995: 981: 962: 951: 938: 927: 912: 892: 873: 860: 830: 814: 784: 757: 741: 726: 660: 642: 623: 610: 596: 582: 567: 553: 490: 477: 462: 418: 376: 349: 312: 296: 283: 261: 237: 220: 204: 173: 158: 134: 2950: 1991: 1481: 1305: 484: 471: 2425:

RfA's are usually pretty clear-cut. I have yet to see one where a failure has hinged Boothy's oppose vote.

2847: 1755: 883:, if we all advertise ourselves then there shouldn't be any complaints about unfair advertising anymore. 2804: 2117: 2088: 2012: 1973: 1928: 370: 2947: 2143:. Is the standard for admins now 2000 edits? How do we reconcile that with the apparent cosensus here: 2895: 2150: 1847: 1807: 1777: 1770: 1455:

Well, it takes less than five minutes to read and understand the nomination process on the RFA page.

1385: 1378: 1339: 1332: 1139: 1132: 777: 405: 398: 191: 184: 151: 1906:

Agreed. Letting one bureaucrat decide the outcome of an RfA that sometimes gets 50+ votes? No way. -

1317:

Nichalp, I like the simplification! Just a note: shouldn't there be something about self-noms? I am

2934: 2824: 2813: 2657: 2644: 2501: 2448: 2399: 2390: 2385: 2352: 2307: 2241: 2230: 2189: 2178: 2158: 2063: 2054: 2049: 1910: 1622: 1613: 1608: 1580: 1571: 1566: 1546: 1500: 1429: 1421: 1274: 1265: 1257: 1235: 1227: 1200: 1060: 1049: 1018: 857: 849: 842: 215: 126: 3025: 2981: 2689: 2417: 1834: 1786: 1782: 1394: 1390: 1348: 1344: 1148: 1144: 1087: 992: 978: 932:

Maybe change the instructions to say that adding the template is encouraged, but not required. --

924: 870: 827: 639: 579: 414: 410: 293: 253: 200: 196: 2781: 2710: 2670: 2633: 2443:

oppose vote. Still, as a few users have mentioned, no RfA has actually hinged on Boothy's vote.

2927: 2877: 2868: 2771: 2725: 2264: 2206: 1958: 1896: 1733: 1691: 1528: 1461: 1249: 1215: 960: 936: 907: 809: 724: 457: 307: 2749:

We all make mistakes. I've mistakenly speedily deleted things. You gonna pull my admin bit?

3039: 3016: 2886: 2843: 2564: 2553: 2545: 2531: 2516: 2478: 2431: 2368: 2333: 1510: 1448: 1364: 1288: 1163: 1105: 949: 887: 755: 658: 621: 605: 594: 565: 546: 281: 1256:

Yes - I wasn't making myself very clear. Sorry. There's no reason for it to be optional. --

2858: 2613: 1844: 1821: 1804: 1765: 1373: 1327: 1127: 956:

I was thinking of it messing up the look of some user pages that have heavy formatting. --

766: 393: 179: 140: 530:

to accept or decline the nomination. A page will then be created for your nomination at

3006: 2444: 2348: 2235: 2225: 2183: 2173: 2154: 1907: 1875: 1226:

I we changed the last line to must leave a notice on the user page then I'd support. --

1054: 1044: 1014: 210: 164: 1177:. Replace "CANDIDATE'S USERNAME" with the username of the person you wish to nominate. 288:

That sounds good--no RfA pages at all until the candidate accepts on his talk page. --

3068: 3054:

nominated, and once they were accepted as admins, they have done a lot of good work.

3021: 2975: 2964: 2912: 2795: 2685: 2609: 2524: 2413: 1859: 1830: 1719: 1675: 1595: 1493: 1424: 1409: 1260: 1230: 1083: 988: 974: 920: 866: 852: 823: 799: 734: 635: 575: 517: 447: 338: 289: 248: 230: 2720: 2259: 2201: 1953: 1891: 1728: 1686: 1523: 1456: 1244: 1210: 957: 933: 902: 804: 794: 721: 452: 442: 383: 302: 696: 121:

It means that candidates on short wiki-breaks won't end up missing their own RFAs.

1591:

Yup, someone probably credited september with one more day than it has. Fixed. --

3034: 2931: 2923: 2881: 2821: 2561: 2540: 2528: 2511: 2473: 2426: 2365: 2330: 2304: 2285: 1607:

Not that it really matters, it's just the principle of the thing. Thanks fvw. --

1543: 1507: 1443: 1359: 1283: 1100: 944: 884: 750: 653: 616: 602: 589: 560: 276: 46:

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

497:

I'll see your boldness and raise you a nomination template ({{subst:RfA-nom}}):

1641: 2996: 848:). Please move it to a more appropriate title (I couldn't think of one... -- 246:

support, and maybe also don't start voting until questions are answered. ~~

2552:

That would work too. IMO, the specific wording at RFC is just a result of

2145:

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_29#Do_we_need_more_admins.3F

1243:

I didn't get you. Are you saying that you want option 6 to be compulsory?

3055: 1939: 1706: 1662: 1592: 335: 227: 118:

Will support when candidate accepts nomination/answers questions." votes.

1890:

It would be too subjective. The voting system is much more transparent.

2463: 1438:

nomination, and answer the questions). It's just a tool, which no one

2593:

Have atleast around a hundred edits in each the following namespaces

1442:

to use. As my father would say, "it can't hurt and it might help". --

615:

I certainly wouldn't - it's just a tool to make it clear and easy. --

601:

It wouldn't hurt, but you're not going to require this one, right?

1162:

I think the above proposals has just complicated the process: See

712:

Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Requests for adminship/Archive 32

1764:

I like the creation of the new sub-page and the buttons! Thanks!

2793:

To answer the above question in its originality, may I suggest

1186:

Allow the candidate to accept the nom and answer the questions.

2342:

That's just Boothy443. As far as I know bureaucrats generally

2221: 710:. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit 510: 139:

Good idea. Ive been meaning to suggest something of the sort.

25: 3020:

this is a classic case of if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

2930:

state, but I don't see why it should be disallowed either.

2258:

Yes, but my request was still made on the mailing list. —

2880:- I'd feel uncomfortable lauding myself in an RfA intro. 1191:{{wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CANDIDATE'S USERNAME}} 2605:, and a atleast 500-700 edits in the main article space. 267:

Here's a step further in the process - don't create the

2523:

Perhaps it's not the most traditional usage, but isn't

2459:

There may have been one that hinged on boothy's opinion

533:

Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Requests for adminship

527: 520:

would like to nominate you to become an administrator.

2911:

self-noms but I can't see a basis for their removal.

1175:

Knowledge:Requests for adminship/CANDIDATE'S USERNAME

483:

seems that a lot of nominators are not following it.

271:

RfA page until he/she accepts, don't post it on the

2220:IIRC you were the fourth person ever mentioned at 2741:Hm. Lemme address a couple of those "criteria". 1166:. I've tried to simply the procedure as follows: 2959:one can be sure of people having grasped policy 2867:take away this valuable aspect of our process. 2838:Simplifying the process - only self-nominations? 1496:, and a self-nominator is already there.) About 1189:Once the details are filled, add the following 865:I'm a-going to add this to the instructions. -- 2820:and I'm sure many of us will get on the case. 2816:will probably do that. Just mention it on our 2364:OK, thanks. I'll sleep better tonight. ;-) -- 1170:Ask a person if s/he would like to be a sysop. 2299:. He doesn't even have 1000 edits, yet he is 1180:Add the following text to the page and save: 8: 2709:to have it, but if you do, it's a big plus. 630:I quite agree with Blackcap. Not everything 526:to see what this process entails, and then 392:place it on the main RfA page. Sound good? 2744:Haven't made any incorrect speedy taggings 2619:Haven't made any incorrect speedy taggings 691: 2759:I hate 3RR. You gonna pull my admin bit? 2632:If you have all these, you'll be fine :P 2141:Knowledge:Requests_for_adminship#RoySmith 244:<insert least objectionable word: --> 1540:left to the discration of the nominator 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1206:on his/her userpage and/or talk page. 18:Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship 7: 2295:I eighth that comment. Just look at 1538:That's why I said that it should be 114:It saves us from all the pointless " 2590:Atleast participation in 3-4 months 2087:There have been much closer ones. 1126:think they should have to. Thanks! 2963:being sure about their behaviour. 1820:dilute the power of common users. 24: 1876: 165: 2643:upon myself to nominate myself! 2560:be part of dispute resolution. 2325:A user went through and cast an 2236: 2226: 2184: 2174: 1797:"Confirmation hearing" approach? 1055: 1045: 695: 524:Knowledge:Requests for adminship 29: 2803:someone will help out there. -- 2726: 2721: 1959: 1954: 1897: 1892: 1734: 1729: 1692: 1687: 1529: 1524: 1462: 1457: 1410: 1250: 1245: 1216: 1211: 1121:Personally, I don't think that 908: 903: 308: 303: 778: 773: 770: 767: 732:I agree with that, good idea. 301:yes, good proposal by BD2412. 209:Insert "me too" comment here. 178:I concur with both proposals. 152: 147: 144: 141: 1: 2231: 2179: 1772: 1380: 1334: 1134: 1050: 800: 795: 702:This user is currently being 547: 448: 443: 400: 186: 163:I think that is a good idea. 2556:. Perhaps it should say it 838:- I've created it as above ( 810: 458: 3072:14:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC) 3042:13:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC) 3029:12:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC) 3010:12:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC) 3000:10:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC) 2989:10:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC) 2968:09:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC) 2953:00:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC) 2940:23:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2916:23:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2899:21:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2889:21:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2872:20:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2862:19:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2851:19:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2830:22:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC) 2808:21:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2785:22:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2775:20:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2731:18:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC) 2714:20:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2693:20:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2674:20:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2661:20:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2648:20:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2637:20:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2568:19:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2548:19:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2535:19:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2519:19:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2505:18:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2481:19:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC) 2468:17:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC) 2452:17:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC) 2434:16:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC) 2421:21:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2407:21:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2372:18:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2356:17:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2337:17:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2313:01:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2291:01:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2270:22:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2246:01:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2212:01:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2194:01:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2165:) <insert date here: --> 2121:15:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 2096:22:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 2071:21:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 2020:22:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 1998:19:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 1981:18:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 1964:18:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 1943:18:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 1932:14:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 1914:02:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC) 1902:18:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 1885:15:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 1863:15:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 1854:07:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 1838:07:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 1825:06:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 1814:06:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 1791:19:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC) 1759:15:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC) 1739:07:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC) 1723:07:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC) 1697:07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC) 1679:06:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC) 1628:21:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 1603:21:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 1586:21:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 1552:06:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC) 1534:05:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC) 1516:23:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 1467:05:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC) 1451:22:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 1433:22:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 1415:20:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 1399:20:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 1367:19:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 1353:19:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 1312:18:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 1291:17:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 1269:17:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 1239:16:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 1221:06:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 1158:Complication of the process 1153:03:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 1108:19:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 1095:No one can force anyone to 1091:19:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 1065:19:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 1023:23:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 996:19:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 982:19:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 963:19:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 952:18:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 939:18:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 928:18:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 913:18:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 893:19:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 874:18:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 861:17:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 831:17:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 815:16:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 805: 785:16:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 758:16:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 742:16:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 727:16:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 671:Another slight modification 661:00:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 643:19:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 624:19:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 611:19:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 597:18:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 583:17:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 568:18:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 554:16:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 491:22:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 478:22:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 463:15:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 453: 419:14:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 377:08:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 350:07:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 313:06:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 297:05:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 284:03:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 262:01:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 238:00:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 221:00:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 205:00:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC) 174:22:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC) 159:19:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC) 135:18:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC) 3087: 2579:all these you're a shoe-in 1173:If yes, create this page: 381:I'm going to go ahead and 1640:I have recently removed 694: 2303:going to get promoted. 2135:Extreme editcountitits! 2297:NicholasTurnbull's RFA 1560:Question about my RfA 470:important or urgent. 42:of past discussions. 2705:Well yes, you don't 1636:Removing Quale's RfA 103:Slight modification? 2844:m:instruction creep 1922:Votes after closing 1635: 1164:m:instruction creep 2608:You have followed 1992:Christopher Parham 1319:vehemently opposed 1306:Christopher Parham 647:Really, you don't 634:be templatized. — 485:Christopher Parham 472:Christopher Parham 2987: 2554:instruction creep 2466: 2289: 2167: 2153:comment added by 1780: 1600: 1388: 1342: 1142: 739: 718: 717: 540: 539: 408: 235: 194: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3078: 3065: 3062: 3059: 3037: 3017:User:GordonWatts 2984: 2979: 2937: 2896:Sebastian Kessel 2884: 2827: 2728: 2723: 2586:Preferably : --> 2543: 2514: 2495:User Peer Review 2476: 2462: 2429: 2402: 2397: 2388: 2310: 2288: 2267: 2262: 2238: 2233: 2228: 2209: 2204: 2186: 2181: 2176: 2166: 2147: 2066: 2061: 2052: 1961: 1956: 1899: 1894: 1882: 1852: 1812: 1774: 1769: 1736: 1731: 1716: 1713: 1710: 1694: 1689: 1672: 1669: 1666: 1656:Was I being too 1650:completely clear 1625: 1620: 1611: 1599: 1596: 1583: 1578: 1569: 1549: 1531: 1526: 1513: 1505: 1499: 1486: 1480: 1464: 1459: 1446: 1427: 1412: 1382: 1377: 1362: 1336: 1331: 1286: 1263: 1252: 1247: 1233: 1218: 1213: 1205: 1199: 1192: 1183: 1136: 1131: 1103: 1057: 1052: 1047: 947: 910: 905: 890: 855: 847: 841: 812: 807: 802: 797: 782: 775: 772: 769: 753: 737: 733: 699: 692: 656: 619: 608: 592: 563: 551: 528:contact Example2 511: 460: 455: 450: 445: 402: 397: 388:on the subpage, 371:Knowledge Seeker 347: 344: 341: 333: 310: 305: 279: 234: 231: 218: 213: 188: 183: 171: 156: 149: 146: 143: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3086: 3085: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3063: 3060: 3057: 3035: 3026:The kettle's on 2982: 2935: 2882: 2859:Septentrionalis 2840: 2825: 2541: 2512: 2497: 2474: 2427: 2400: 2391: 2386: 2323: 2308: 2265: 2260: 2207: 2202: 2148: 2137: 2064: 2055: 2050: 1952:the final day. 1924: 1843: 1835:The kettle's on 1803: 1799: 1789: 1751: 1714: 1711: 1708: 1670: 1667: 1664: 1638: 1623: 1614: 1609: 1597: 1581: 1572: 1567: 1562: 1547: 1511: 1503: 1497: 1487:should be used 1484: 1478: 1444: 1425: 1397: 1360: 1351: 1284: 1261: 1231: 1203: 1197: 1190: 1181: 1160: 1151: 1101: 1011:Strongly oppose 945: 888: 853: 845: 839: 751: 735: 673: 654: 617: 606: 590: 561: 417: 345: 342: 339: 331: 277: 232: 216: 211: 203: 105: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3084: 3082: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 2971: 2970: 2943: 2942: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2848:143.167.21.177 2839: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2777: 2766: 2765: 2761: 2760: 2756: 2755: 2751: 2750: 2746: 2745: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2716: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2664: 2663: 2658:Jaberwocky6669 2645:Jaberwocky6669 2640: 2639: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2623: 2620: 2617: 2606: 2591: 2588: 2581: 2580: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2502:Jaberwocky6669 2496: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2436: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2359: 2358: 2322: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2215: 2214: 2197: 2196: 2136: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1984: 1983: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1946: 1945: 1923: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1798: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1785: 1756:Worldtraveller 1750: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1700: 1699: 1637: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1561: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1519: 1518: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1393: 1347: 1315: 1314: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1275:Celestianpower 1208: 1207: 1194: 1187: 1184: 1178: 1171: 1159: 1156: 1147: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 965: 896: 895: 878: 877: 876: 833: 817: 787: 760: 744: 716: 715: 700: 689: 672: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 663: 628: 627: 626: 571: 570: 538: 537: 514: 509: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 495: 494: 493: 480: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 413: 359: 358: 357: 356: 355: 354: 353: 352: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 315: 199: 127:TenOfAllTrades 123: 122: 119: 112: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3083: 3074: 3073: 3070: 3066: 3043: 3040: 3038: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3027: 3023: 3018: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3008: 3003: 3002: 3001: 2998: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2986: 2985: 2977: 2969: 2966: 2962: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2951: 2949: 2941: 2938: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2914: 2900: 2897: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2887: 2885: 2879: 2876:I agree with 2875: 2874: 2873: 2870: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2860: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2849: 2845: 2837: 2831: 2828: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2806: 2805:216.191.200.1 2802: 2798: 2797: 2792: 2791: 2786: 2783: 2778: 2776: 2773: 2768: 2767: 2763: 2762: 2758: 2757: 2753: 2752: 2748: 2747: 2743: 2742: 2740: 2739: 2732: 2729: 2724: 2717: 2715: 2712: 2708: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2694: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2675: 2672: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2662: 2659: 2655: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2646: 2638: 2635: 2631: 2630: 2624: 2621: 2618: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2589: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2577: 2569: 2566: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2546: 2544: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2533: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2517: 2515: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2503: 2494: 2482: 2479: 2477: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2465: 2460: 2457: 2453: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2437: 2435: 2432: 2430: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2419: 2415: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2405: 2403: 2398: 2396: 2395: 2389: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2373: 2370: 2367: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2357: 2354: 2350: 2345: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2335: 2332: 2328: 2320: 2314: 2311: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2278: 2271: 2268: 2263: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2234: 2229: 2223: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2213: 2210: 2205: 2199: 2198: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2182: 2177: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2146: 2142: 2134: 2122: 2119: 2118:216.191.200.1 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2097: 2094: 2090: 2089:The Uninvited 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2072: 2069: 2067: 2062: 2060: 2059: 2053: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2021: 2018: 2014: 2013:The Uninvited 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 1999: 1996: 1993: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1982: 1979: 1975: 1974:The Uninvited 1971: 1970: 1965: 1962: 1957: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1944: 1941: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1930: 1929:216.191.200.1 1921: 1915: 1912: 1909: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1900: 1895: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1883: 1881: 1880: 1864: 1861: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1851: 1850: 1846: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1823: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1811: 1810: 1806: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1779: 1775: 1767: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1757: 1748: 1740: 1737: 1732: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1721: 1717: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1698: 1695: 1690: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1677: 1673: 1659: 1654: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1629: 1626: 1621: 1619: 1618: 1612: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1601: 1594: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1584: 1579: 1577: 1576: 1570: 1559: 1553: 1550: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1532: 1527: 1521: 1520: 1517: 1514: 1509: 1502: 1495: 1490: 1483: 1482:subst:RfA-nom 1476: 1468: 1465: 1460: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1449: 1447: 1441: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1431: 1428: 1423: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1413: 1406: 1405: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1387: 1383: 1375: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1365: 1363: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1341: 1337: 1329: 1325: 1320: 1313: 1310: 1307: 1302: 1301: 1292: 1289: 1287: 1280: 1276: 1273:I agree with 1272: 1271: 1270: 1267: 1264: 1259: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1248: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1237: 1234: 1229: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1219: 1214: 1202: 1195: 1193:to this page. 1188: 1185: 1179: 1176: 1172: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1165: 1157: 1155: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1141: 1137: 1129: 1124: 1109: 1106: 1104: 1098: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1089: 1085: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1053: 1048: 1042: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 997: 994: 990: 985: 984: 983: 980: 976: 972: 964: 961: 959: 955: 954: 953: 950: 948: 942: 941: 940: 937: 935: 931: 930: 929: 926: 922: 917: 916: 915: 914: 911: 906: 900: 894: 891: 886: 882: 879: 875: 872: 868: 864: 863: 862: 859: 856: 851: 844: 837: 834: 832: 829: 825: 821: 818: 816: 813: 808: 803: 798: 792: 788: 786: 783: 776: 764: 761: 759: 756: 754: 748: 745: 743: 738: 731: 730: 729: 728: 725: 723: 713: 709: 705: 701: 698: 693: 690: 687: 684: 681: 677: 670: 662: 659: 657: 650: 646: 645: 644: 641: 637: 633: 629: 625: 622: 620: 614: 613: 612: 609: 604: 600: 599: 598: 595: 593: 587: 586: 585: 584: 581: 577: 569: 566: 564: 558: 557: 556: 555: 552: 550: 544: 535: 534: 529: 525: 522:Please visit 521: 519: 515: 513: 512: 496: 492: 489: 486: 481: 479: 476: 473: 468: 467: 466: 465: 464: 461: 456: 451: 446: 441:Sounds good. 440: 439: 438: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 431: 420: 416: 412: 407: 403: 395: 391: 386: 385: 380: 379: 378: 375: 372: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 351: 348: 337: 334: 328: 327: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 314: 311: 306: 300: 299: 298: 295: 291: 287: 286: 285: 282: 280: 274: 270: 266: 265: 264: 263: 259: 255: 251: 250: 245: 240: 239: 236: 229: 223: 222: 219: 214: 207: 206: 202: 198: 193: 189: 181: 176: 175: 172: 170: 169: 161: 160: 157: 150: 137: 136: 132: 128: 120: 117: 113: 110: 109: 108: 102: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3052: 2980: 2972: 2960: 2948:Ann Heneghan 2944: 2928:Kelly Martin 2909: 2878:Kelly Martin 2869:Kelly Martin 2841: 2800: 2794: 2772:Kelly Martin 2706: 2653: 2641: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2557: 2498: 2440: 2393: 2392: 2343: 2326: 2324: 2300: 2281: 2138: 2057: 2056: 1925: 1878: 1877: 1873: 1848: 1808: 1800: 1752: 1657: 1655: 1649: 1639: 1616: 1615: 1574: 1573: 1563: 1539: 1488: 1439: 1323: 1318: 1316: 1278: 1209: 1161: 1122: 1120: 1096: 1040: 1010: 898: 897: 880: 835: 819: 790: 781:talk<< 762: 746: 719: 688: 685: 682: 678: 674: 648: 631: 572: 548: 542: 541: 531: 516: 389: 382: 272: 268: 247: 243: 241: 224: 208: 177: 167: 166: 162: 155:talk<< 138: 124: 115: 106: 78: 43: 37: 2616:religiously 2464:Ryan Norton 2149:—Preceding 793:this idea. 549:NoSeptember 269:candidate's 36:This is an 2603:User talk: 2595:Knowledge: 2587:1500 edits 2321:Vandalism? 1908:Greg Asche 1822:Isomorphic 1766:Flcelloguy 1501:rfa-notice 1477:I believe 1430:stianpower 1374:Flcelloguy 1328:Flcelloguy 1266:stianpower 1236:stianpower 1201:rfa-notice 1128:Flcelloguy 858:stianpower 843:rfa-notice 704:considered 394:Flcelloguy 180:Flcelloguy 95:Archive 35 90:Archive 34 85:Archive 33 79:Archive 32 73:Archive 31 68:Archive 30 60:Archive 25 2818:talk page 2814:Esperanza 2796:Esperanza 2656:maybe... 2445:Carbonite 2387:Lord Vold 2349:Carbonite 2155:Borisblue 2051:Lord Vold 1610:Lord Vold 1568:Lord Vold 1123:requiring 1039:Sorry, I 1015:Lowellian 708:adminship 3022:Filiocht 2976:Grutness 2965:Lectonar 2913:Marskell 2722:=Nichalp 2614:WP:CIVIL 2414:Blackcap 2163:contribs 2151:unsigned 2139:Look at 1955:=Nichalp 1893:=Nichalp 1860:jredmond 1845:Denelson 1831:Filiocht 1805:Denelson 1730:=Nichalp 1688:=Nichalp 1525:=Nichalp 1458:=Nichalp 1411:Bratsche 1246:=Nichalp 1212:=Nichalp 1084:Blackcap 989:Blackcap 921:Blackcap 904:=Nichalp 867:Blackcap 824:Blackcap 820:Support. 736:Jtkiefer 576:Blackcap 518:Example2 304:=Nichalp 290:Blackcap 242:Extreme 116:Neutral. 2799:?? I'm 2727:«Talk»= 2301:clearly 2261:Ilγαηερ 2237:dwolf24 2203:Ilγαηερ 2185:dwolf24 1960:«Talk»= 1898:«Talk»= 1735:«Talk»= 1693:«Talk»= 1530:«Talk»= 1463:«Talk»= 1251:«Talk»= 1217:«Talk»= 1056:dwolf24 958:GraemeL 934:GraemeL 919:sig. -- 909:«Talk»= 899:Comment 881:Support 836:Support 791:support 763:Support 747:Support 722:GraemeL 543:Comment 384:be bold 309:«Talk»= 212:android 39:archive 3036:BD2412 3007:Coffee 2924:BD2412 2883:BD2412 2812:Sure, 2610:WP:NPA 2565:(talk) 2562:Friday 2542:BD2412 2532:(talk) 2529:Friday 2525:WP:RFC 2513:BD2412 2475:BD2412 2428:BD2412 2366:hydnjo 2331:hydnjo 2327:Oppose 2286:Splash 2266:(Tαlκ) 2208:(Tαlκ) 1995:(talk) 1911:(talk) 1879:Martin 1773:note? 1494:WP:RFA 1445:BD2412 1381:note? 1361:BD2412 1335:note? 1324:people 1309:(talk) 1285:BD2412 1279:should 1135:note? 1102:BD2412 1097:accept 1041:oppose 946:BD2412 752:BD2412 740:----- 655:BD2412 618:BD2412 591:BD2412 562:BD2412 488:(talk) 475:(talk) 401:note? 278:BD2412 187:note? 168:Martin 2782:gkhan 2711:gkhan 2671:gkhan 2634:gkhan 2599:Talk: 2091:Co., 2015:Co., 1976:Co., 1749:Tweak 1642:Quale 1489:after 1277:- it 1019:reply 780:: --> 779:: --> 154:: --> 153:: --> 16:< 3069:Talk 2997:Geni 2995:are. 2983:wha? 2932:Tito 2926:and 2822:Tito 2801:sure 2707:have 2690:Talk 2654:P.S. 2612:and 2449:Talk 2441:only 2418:talk 2401:mort 2369:talk 2353:Talk 2334:talk 2305:Tito 2242:talk 2190:talk 2159:talk 2093:Inc. 2065:mort 2017:Inc. 1978:Inc. 1778:Desk 1720:Talk 1676:Talk 1658:bold 1624:mort 1582:mort 1544:Tito 1508:Tito 1386:Desk 1340:Desk 1140:Desk 1088:talk 1061:talk 993:talk 979:Talk 925:talk 885:Tito 871:talk 828:talk 774:list 771:urna 749:. -- 706:for 649:need 640:Talk 632:must 603:Tito 580:talk 406:Desk 390:then 294:talk 273:main 192:Desk 148:list 145:urna 131:talk 2978:... 2961:and 2686:Dan 2558:can 2282:any 2222:RfA 1940:Rje 1781:| 1646:RfA 1644:'s 1593:fvw 1542:;) 1440:has 1422:Cel 1389:| 1343:| 1258:Cel 1228:Cel 1143:| 975:Dan 850:Cel 796:Fir 768:→Jo 636:Dan 444:Fir 409:| 336:Who 228:fvw 195:| 142:→Jo 3067:| 3056:— 3024:| 2936:xd 2894:-- 2826:xd 2688:| 2601:, 2597:, 2447:| 2416:| 2351:| 2344:do 2309:xd 2244:) 2224:. 2192:) 2161:• 1927:-- 1849:83 1833:| 1809:83 1776:| 1771:A 1718:| 1707:— 1674:| 1663:— 1565:-- 1548:xd 1512:xd 1504:}} 1498:{{ 1485:}} 1479:{{ 1384:| 1379:A 1338:| 1333:A 1204:}} 1198:{{ 1138:| 1133:A 1086:| 1063:) 1021:) 991:| 977:| 923:| 889:xd 869:| 846:}} 840:{{ 826:| 822:-- 806:Fo 789:I 765:. 714:. 638:| 607:xd 578:| 574:-- 454:Fo 404:| 399:A 292:| 260:) 226:-- 217:79 190:| 185:A 133:) 64:← 3064:P 3061:I 3058:J 2394:e 2240:( 2232:e 2227:R 2188:( 2180:e 2175:R 2157:( 2058:e 1787:S 1783:W 1768:| 1715:P 1712:I 1709:J 1671:P 1668:I 1665:J 1617:e 1598:* 1575:e 1426:e 1395:S 1391:W 1376:| 1349:S 1345:W 1330:| 1262:e 1232:e 1149:S 1145:W 1130:| 1059:( 1051:e 1046:R 1017:( 854:e 811:x 801:e 459:x 449:e 415:S 411:W 396:| 374:দ 346:? 343:¿ 340:? 332:∞ 258:c 256:/ 254:t 252:( 249:N 233:* 201:S 197:W 182:| 129:( 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 32 - Knowledge

Index