Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 3

465:

folks are seeking to bolster their own future candidacy by sounding old and wise here. Now the same thing occurs at RFA too, but in my view that's a) less of a problem because we honestly want to gauge everybody's trust in the candidate, and b) because the question being asked of people who comment is the relatively straightforward "do you trust the candidate." Here, on the other hand, the question is "do you think the community as a whole trusts the candidate," which in a way takes a lot more experience to answer. What I'm seeing here is a whole lot of people with a few thousand edits and some months of experience saying things that often sound like boilerplate. I'm honestly not sure whether this is an issue at all, and if it is what should/can be done about it, but I did want to bring it up. Regards,

902:, but there are some things that can't be solved with pure math. One of them is the silly behaviour at RfA which for some odd reason is almost fully tolerated by the community with total impunity (IIRC only one person was ever sanctioned for their behaviour at RfA). They talk about it a lot of course, but they carefully avoid doing anything about it. Anyone who has spent a lot of time recruiting new candidates knows that this is the main reason given for not running for office. It doesn't explain why troll RfA follow the same graph. Also however, a lot of troll RfA don't figure in the stats because nowadays we simply delete the transcluded pages before voting stats. 711:(when I compiled the data) and found that the proportion of total RfA candidacies that are closed as NOTNOW/SNOW has been surprisingly stable over that period, despite the dramatic and monotonic decline in absolute numbers of candidacies. This is a really underappreciated fact about the overall decline in RfAs - it appears likely that a) nothing anyone had tried before mid-2015 to reduce the number of no-hope candidacies has had any meaningful effect, and b) whatever process is causing a decline in candidacies is affecting no-hope candidates just as much as good ones. 819: 805: 35: 3506:. Maybe this is naturally turning into a group effort where we keep a subpage of editors to approach with a post suggesting they use the poll. The entries could be added from those who have been watching good potential admins, and also from those who generate lists from some query. Some sort of further vetting or system could move those names to a "ready to approach" section. Others could then post about the poll or even start a dialogue. 611:(and sample size may indicate that these results are not to be trusted). I think that should be emphasized, because I would suggest that a significant number of contributors are deterred from running by this process--much like how RFA deters users from running as well. The goal of this process is not one-fold as Ivanvector suggests, but two-fold: it also is indeed to deter contributors from running who may not be suitable. -- 1816:

page about making sure commenters know that the rating is an evaluation of the candidate's probability of receiving administrative privileges, and is not a personal rating. That being said, although I'm slightly more hopeful that inline comments get read, I know there are many who'll ignore them as well. However given that extra white space isn't a big issue, personally I prefer to have the inline instructions.

2753:, if you look in the original source code, there are a bunch of (usually linear) interpolation tables with a bunch of statements like "edit count X is guaranteed subscore Y", and so on. I fed the tables into Excel, made it generate formulas, and put them directly into the code. This way, my tool and Scottywong's tool should have the same subscores for each one that they share. 752: 271: 3567: 3487:, and a score of 779. There may be quite a few more people like this that can be readily found by targeting searches on areas where admins do the most work, and where promoting people would have the most bang. Finding someone via the wide net approach might find people who score well, but really wouldn't have much use for the tools. Just a thought. -- 2726: 3065: 1083: 515:

time on. I support ladder-kicking behavior but I don't think it's worth our time to worry about. If a clueless editor seeks adminship and gets advice from both experienced editors as well as less-experienced echo chamber hopefuls and they foolishly listen to their fellow hopefuls, perhaps they deserve to get publicly clowned.

691:

unsuitable candidates, however in terms of the proportion of overall RfAs the numbers are exactly the same. I don't think it can be said from stats whether there were fewer clearly unsuitable candidacies in 2016 because ORCP dissuaded candidates, or just because of the continuing downward trend in RfA candidacies overall.

3210:

Lets say they've made 10,000+ edits, have been editing for 2+ years, have made more than 100 edits in the past month and more than 1000 in the past year, are not currently an administrator, don't have a block from the past 3 years? It would also be nice to look at AfD % and edits to AIV/RFPP/etc, but

1889:

I thought it's useful to show the editor's statement (edit summary: "we should at least unhide the application so that it makes sense when it gets archived") but my edit was reverted ("I disagree. The editor doesn't recognize html and there"). In its hidden form, the item doesn't make sense. If there

1845:

I agree completely that the people giving responses to the polls need to read the instructions. However, I don't think the instructions need to be in form of invisible comments that make the layout of the page look a bit weird. Look at ANI: there aren't any invisible comments, just a series of large,

648:

Like I said when the results page was set up: there are so many variables, including small sample size issues and external factors like the overall collaborative environment, that I don't think a statistical analysis is convincing. However I think a simple qualitative test is more than adequate: does

499:

is an essential ability for someone seeking administrative privileges. I appreciate it's a bit of a catch-22: those who aren't sure if they've adequately demonstrated their qualifications may also be less able to judge the context of the feedback. Unfortunately without putting more overhead in place,

1641:

Without that sentence nothing on the page directs users specifically on whether they can or should list others. While it's true that the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs use "you", I don't think it's entirely obvious that you shouldn't start a poll for another user without that addition. I'm all for rewording

1461:

How does this relate to ORCP? If someone is "too shy to throw their hat into the ring" then there CAN be an RFA because RFA still allows third party nominations. We're talking about third party nominations at ORCP which is neither a precursor nor a mandatory prerequisite to RFA. There's a difference

1404:

I agree this is bad practice. I support a norm that we revert these third-party nominations. If we do that, however, we'd also need to add something to the instructions page as we'd create hurt feelings with editors that honestly didn't know better. It's instruction creep but without instructions we

514:

I think the larger point (that I've noticed at AfC and NPP as well) is that we may in principle agree to having new users to join Knowledge (XXG) but we don't want them where we edit. We then install measures to chase the n00bs away which seems like a lot of work for experienced Wikipedians to spend

3782:. An edit notice would be great. Giant red letters in a trimmed-down top part would be great. I would stop short of restrictions to who can edit this. Also, I doubt the community would give consensus for that, especially considering this is not an out-of-control problem, and there are alternatives. 3688:

I share the concern over commentary of this nature, which has been particularly common in the last few weeks. To be honest, I see this as linked to a concern I expressed earlier; which is that this page is shifting away from its intended function of giving accurate advice to the candidate, and that

3608:

I will make a subpage here. The subpage will have sections. The first section will be raw, unvetted names. Sections below will be headed "Good AfD stats", "No recent blocks", etc... Volunteers can vet, moving items from section to section. Those items that arrive at the last section are ready for a

3132:

Just a one-time list of users meeting some specified requirements in terms of easy to find things like edit count, recent activity, time since they became active, a clean block log, not an admin already, would be useful! This needn't be so complicated as to require generating admin scores for every

3116:

My initial thoughts are that this would probably work best as a tool on Tool Labs, and that it would take a non-trivial amount of time to do it well. For example, the wait time that people experience could be dramatically reduced by batch-processing people's scores and caching the results, but then

2604:

There are a couple of other features that could be added to the score, the obvious ones being AfD score (if we could get the tool to return JSON that could be implemented the same way created pages are at the moment), CSD logs (check red versus blue), PROD logs (same) and edits to AIV, RPP and UAA.

1442:

Note that the instructions were amended earlier today. I for one don't see any problems in others nominating a suitable editor, but that will definitely have to have been consented to. Looking at the big picture, we need more admins, and if somebody is too shy to throw their hat into the ring, then

760:

bring out the sharp downturn in sysop candidates. They are there, in full colors, and honestly, it is frightful. We don't need Einstein's IQ to predict the horrid WP future with a dwindling army of admins facing a spike in data, users, and of course, more problems to fix. Even if we automatize even

690:

not too long ago, just 2015 vs. 2016, and not really considering ORCP's impact on results (didn't check whether candidates stood at ORCP, etc). There were 19 RfAs closed as NOTNOW or SNOW in 2015, 9 in 2016 (32.8% of 58 vs. 32.1% of 28). In absolute numbers there were fewer candidacies from clearly

464:

Folks, forgive me if I sound incredibly cynical for a moment, but I've been seeing a trend on this page that worries me a little bit. The trend is that of admin hopefuls, or seeming admin hopefuls, commenting a lot on ORCPs of other hopefuls; and my somewhat pessimistic reading of this is that some

3808:

I can perhaps see why such a limitation may be a problem, so let's see if we can address this another way. How about adding something like the following note the instructions: "Before posting a comment, please consider whether your comment is adding something to the discussion. This is not a vote.

3758:

They're certainly not half as harsh as they will experience at RfA, so I don't think we should exaggerate the problem. After all, the only people we (should) be inviting are experienced editors; they are surely unlikely to walk away after being snarked at at a board they never intended to visit in

3650: 3584:

I am late to see this and my question will not matter in most cases and may not in the few others. I noticed in the discussion above that the score for never being blocked is 140. The most that someone who has been blocked can get back to over time is 100. There have been a few candidates who have

3520:

I agree with Hammersoft; I checked my own score out of curiosity; it's 830.9, but in fact I have almost no involvement in areas where admin tools are needed, and if I were to be nominated that would no doubt cause some opposition. Starting with users who are active in admin-related areas is a much

3275:

Ha, indeed. But this is meant to be a way of collecting 'many probably qualified candidates' rather than 'all qualified candidates', and the extra possibilities from accidental blocks are likely outweighed by the extra effort that would be needed to go through genuinely previously blocked users on

2776:

I appreciate that your tool doesn't attribute edit counts on a linear scale, using the natural logarithm instead. Good thinking :) A suggestion; the tool gives me credit for 179.14 points for having created 234 article space pages. Yet, most of those are redirects. Is there anyway to differentiate

1830:

It's always a problem trying to get Wikipedians to read instructions wherever they are. It's a shame that some users use ORCP just to be as spiteful as they are on RfAs where they vote. Sometimes a somewhat longer post is necessary, but as long as it comes with sensible advice, that's fine. But to

1815:

Using an edit notice is another approach, though I'm uncertain of their effectiveness, which is why I opted to include the instructions directly within the preloaded text, rather than request an admin or template editor to create an edit notice. There have been numerous comments on this discussion

834:

Caballero, there are some caveats to that data that make the apparent problems a bit less urgent. I only looked back to 2008 in part because there were formatting changes that made it harder to parse the older RfAs, but also because rollback was unbundled from the admin toolbox around then, and is

667:

Izno, I wasn't so much interested in the stats; RfA by default now is pretty much a poor sample size. If we want to talk statistics, we'd need to do some research to see how many utter failure RfAs were attempted by people who shouldn't have done so both before this poll existed and after. I don't

546:

qualified candidates, I both don't think this is a problem and don't think we can or should do anything about it. A separate but possibly related phenomenon here (purely my own observation) is that this informal polling tends to overestimate a candidate's chances, if anything. I can't back that up

1946:

Nope as per Chris - The editor either didn't realize it was hidden or chose to hide it - Either way they chose to do nothing about it and they had ample oppertunity to do something, personally I think it should be left so infuture when they ever retry for RFA editors can look at it and decide for

3732:

For instance: two of the most hostile comments of late came from users who have six RFA votes between them. I have nearly fifty, and I still hesitate to comment, and do not give numerical ratings...Harsh as it may seem, I'm wondering if we should limit the folks who can comment here, because the

1007:

It's reasonable to wonder whether the poll is having any deterrent effect on premature candidacies; that was the prompt for the rest of the stats. (The answer to that question, as best anyone's looked, seems to be "probably not, but that's fine, because nothing else ever has either".) But mostly

949:

I'm good with Excel but useless at scripting. I already started adding to my data for past years, when I'm done with that I can post it somewhere so someone with more skill can do something exciting with it. Depending on what kind of data we could get out of Scottywong's tool I could probably do

592:

and the subsequent RfA results, it seems rather obvious that the poll mechanism does a pretty good job of predicting RfA passage. This process being more lightweight than RfA, yet accurate...perhaps we should dispense with RfA and replace it with this. Of course, do that and this becomes just as

581:

You may be correct, but, as with all deliberations in Knowledge (XXG), it depends on the turn out, on the number and quality of contributions. Digging into an editor's past and assessing its potential takes real work, and few are wiling or able to invest this type of energies on a regular basis.

480:

I don't think it's an issue at all, and even if it were there's nothing we could do about it. That is, unless we elected a panel of judges who would be the only ones to vote. I trust the people who put themselves here for consideration are smart enough to sift out which people have opinions more

3447:

I think we could generate a better list of potential candidates. The above suggestions are great, but are missing an important element; who are the non-admin people who are most active in areas where admins frequently work? Looking at it from this perspective, I looked at editors with the most

1475:

If the potential candidates are too shy, the encouraging editor should speak to them and build up their confidence. There's no upside in trying to surprise them with a candidate poll or a request for adminship privileges. The serendipitous surprise should the trust shown by support for an RfA.

1831:

simply say 'You have my support' is not helpful, while anything approaching 'I'm gonna get you, if I have to dig up every bit of dirt I can find on you' are little short of harassment and such users eed to be asked politely to stay away from ORCP. Yes, the invisible instructions need to stay.

842:

lately - but the path from newbie to established user to viable admin candidate is broken. As a rule, active admins originally registered many years ago; all of seven currently active admin accounts were registered in 2013 or later, and three of those are bots. This is, obviously, completely

3762:

But I agree that the commentary has lost focus. More and more editors seem to be forgetting that the poll's purpose is to gauge the mood of an RfA in the context of that particular individual. But we are getting an increase in the kind of 'good editor, I'll vote for you' comments. These are

784:, and slowly but surely that number continues to decline. The question isn't how do we stop it. The question needs to be what do we do in response to it. People aren't asking that question yet, but it must be asked. How do we evolve into a post-administrator era? That's what we're facing. -- 870:

Opabinia regalis, are you pointing to the cause of the trend that Hammersoft studies? You note a fissure in a generational continuum that before has ensured a steady influx of new admins. Could the problem be related to the way that the RfAs have been conducted lately? Is it actually

2777:

redirects and actual articles? Also, I agree with Ritchie333's suggestions of somehow including the editor's history at AfD, CSD, AIV, UAA, PROD, and RPP. I know, I know, feature bloat :) Still, that would give a better picture, and would remove undue weight of a particular category. --

835:

widely believed to have reduced the demand for admins who specialized in vandal-fighting. I don't think we have a particularly clear idea of how many admins we "need" to sustain critical functions - people like to point to backlogs, but many of those are artificially self-inflicted.

761:

more, the shortage will pinge us hard at one time or another. For me, this is a greater problem, and if the alternative polling can be turned into a "school" rather than just a poll, we might just contribute, even when just a bit, to the stabilization of those plunging numbers. ]

3100:

are also good at this sort of thing. Maybe we can persuade them to get it to generate a list of the top 100 or something. I can then get a snazzy new ad made up and post at their talks. It just might work and we could get a bunch of new admins and have a new well to go to. :)

1663:

If there seems to be a trend of people nominating others, then we can revisit the need for further instructions. Honestly, it doesn't make a lot of sense for editor A to use this procedure to start a poll on editor B's suitability for receiving administrative privileges. (If

1349:: personally, I believe only the candidate should initiate a poll. The key factor is that candidates must be receptive to hearing candid feedback on their chances at receiving administrative privileges. I feel this should be done on their initiative, not that of others. 1668:

were to be revived, it might make sense in that context. However, the participants in that WikiProject were reluctant to put candid discussion of potential candidates in Knowledge (XXG), out of a concern of discouraging those who weren't selected to be nominated.)

1749:

As you know, the original intent of this poll was to allow people to give a rating and a quick comment based on their own judgment. What makes the middle of a potential candidate's poll a better place to ask for someone to gather statistics on RfA candidates than

2490:

Another idea is some sort of algorithm that finds users with current activity, plenty of edits, participation at certain boards, and a clean block log. The generated list of editors could then receive talk posts suggesting they consider using the poll. Thoughts?

905:

Adminship has become an even bigger deal today due to the rarity of RfA. The voter profile has changed significantly and especially since Jan 2016. To be of any use in an argument, the stats that need to be extracted and summarizes are the ones done in 2011 at

3797: 169: 3188:, which would be a lot less work than making a standalone tool. How would you define "recent activity" and "becoming active"? To make those things into an SQL query we will need to put the definition in terms of numbers of edits and period(s) of time. — 3672:

Please folks, don't bite. Someone who needs work in various areas should be told so, politely, and with good guidance and encouragement. Bite people here and they may leave the project. Encourage them and they may improve and eventually become admins.

3631: 2676:

Interesting tool. As far as I can tell, basically any score higher than 500 indicates a good candidate since checking any sysop will automatically add 500 points. This corresponds with the fact that Enterprisey wrote that his tool is an adaption of

641:

Hammersoft, thanks for reminding us of the link to the poll results. It vindicates the exercise. And Izno, no doubt about it; this optional poll should have deterred a good number of potentially weak candidates from appearing unprepared at a RfA. ]

649:

this poll seem to be guiding editors towards the best outcome for English Knowledge (XXG) and themselves, whether that is attaining administrative privileges or continuing to work on tasks not requiring them? To date, this appears to be the case.

925:

Such a table/stats would also reveal who the serial opposers are (we know this already but to mention them by name in a text gets warped complaints about PA, jus like it does anywhere when anyone mentions a misplaced comment by a user).

2525:, have been doing something similar manually, and that resulted in the surge of nominations this January. So long as we're not assuming that every suitable candidate will fit every one of these criteria, I think this might be really helpful. 3117:

deciding how to store the (millions of?) scores and how to update the cache requires some careful designing. In other words, this is something that I would be interested in doing in the future, but probably don't have time for right now. —

3158:. The query only needs to be done once, then the cached result can be served up to everybody. It only needs to be updated about once a week, if that. An offline script could slowly gather the data, process into a list, and then get a bot ( 2067:

And to the rest Honestly I had no idea why it was invisible but being that my self-nomination was already deemed unpassable at this point in time I'd say it's already a mote point unless making it visible will somehow improve my chances.

93: 85: 80: 68: 63: 837:

A bigger problem - and more to Hammersoft's point - is the growing wiki-generation gap that is increasingly dividing the administrative class from the "ordinary" users. On the one hand, the numbers of new and active accounts have been

538:'s comment is spot-on. Users who lack the experience to critically evaluate comments here lack the experience to administrate. However, since the objective here seems to be to encourage qualified candidates to run, and much less to 3472:

a lot of which appear to be accurate, etc. Enterprisey's tool scores him at 809. For comparison, the average admin promoted this year scored ~700. Here's another one, found by looking at the most active contributors at WP:UAA;

914:. I'd do it myself but I don't have a clue how to do database searches. Scott has retired, and nobody else, despite many, many calls for help, will do it. Maybe the community is scared of opening a can of worms. Perhaps 1113:: although my personal preference would be to archive polls, I don't feel strongly about someone just removing their poll completely if they wish to withdraw. Should we copy the poll to the archive, or just leave it deleted? 3373:

blocks before they passed RFA, both not accidental. I think the duration of a block might be a good parameter to filter by; time since last block might also be good, though I don't know if it's technically difficult to do.

1797: 1048: 739: 589: 564: 3585:

had one erroneous block. Can the tool screen for that or is someone who is erroneously blocked for perhaps a few minutes consigned to a permanently lower score? Or does it not make a big enough difference to matter?

2169:

I've always felt a little undecided on closes. Obviously the subject of a poll should be able to close their poll, but should we arbitrarily close other users' polls based on some notion that a consensus has formed?

2649:

User rights : Add 500 for admin, otherwise add 25 for each of abusefilter, checkuser, add 20 for each of autoreviewer and templateeditor, add 15 for filemover, add 10 for accountcreator, add 5 for each of reviewer,

21: 391:, you're more than an outlier. You're an ORCP success story. In one year, from a lousy ORCP rating to an outstanding RfA result is great. You did what was recommended in the poll and it paid off. Kudos to you. 1553:

For this instance, since the candidate has agreed to continue the poll, it can be left alone. The instructions already use "you" throughout; unless a trend emerges, I don't feel there is a need to amend them.

2132:

just to satisfy a fairly shallow criteria that doesn't seem to put a lot of value into the nature of the content. I don't know how long these normally run, but I'm not sure this is really going anywhere.

3368:

I'd definitely chime in with EF's suggestion, as somebody with an edit-warring block (which was not entirely undeserved) who passed an RFA last year. I also know of at least one successful admin who had

141: 1694: 107: 3336:

Good idea - definitely something worth considering if possible. Even if it was a genuine block that was reverted after a few hours for some reason it probably wouldn't be so bad as to sink an RfA.

333:

Perhaps the date of the poll closing should be shown in the table as well as the RfA date, to help gauge how much of each candidate’s ‘track record’ may have been established during that interval.—

2854:

I've long wished for something like this. When I'm looking for admin candidates it's usually these kinds of stats that are my first stop. An automatically generated list would be super helpful.

2640:

Block log : 140 for never blocked, previously blocked is (0.1977 * ( days since last block - 92.3255)) - ( 10 * number of blocks), up to a maxmimum 100, -100 is blocked now, -500 is indeffed now

1735:, personally, I do not find the discussion too long at all and the venue is perfect for it. We need to understand that this is a very informal but albeit (in most cases) a very useful project. 165: 768:

Unlikely. My vast powers in statistical analysis (which, ironically, leads me to refuse to posts my research ;) ) shows that Knowledge (XXG) has been in decline for a very long time. I've

2312:

Alright, I'll close it the moment I've got some time. Also, if you'd like a better indication, seek out specific editors that opinions you'd like and say exactly what you'd like to know.

1922:

No. That is as much a part of the editor's statement as is the other words typed in. I don't want to edit war over the point, but leaving the entry as the editor made it is the spirit of

2447:

If anyone is good at graphic software (or knows another editor who is), please consider helping with something in that area. We could bug Jimbo for a photo of himself in an "I want you"

1510:

Additionally, if we start allowing nominations here at the poll, then we're likely to see the same thing that happened at RFA whereby self noms attract opposition; it may have the exact

1890:

is a need to demonstrate the editor's failings (even though it's a concept that I struggle with), then maybe we show the statement and add a note that it was us who made it visible.

216:

Does this poll need one of those RfA transclusion thingies so people can put it on their userpage to see if there's a new entry to check out? Is this fixing it when it's not broken?

3823:

No need to focus on pile-on comments; the issue is that people do not follow their original instructions, re: being a barometer for RfA not a reflection of individual opinions. —

1796:

I was looking at the most recent few polls, and there are sometimes large vertical gaps above and below the list of comments. These are caused by the invisible comments present in

1390:

Should we add something to the instructions page about it or avoid instruction creep and just remove future ones on sight and post at usertalks? This is pretty rare, after all.

1323: 3304:

I certainly understand. Perhaps block length can be factored into an algorithm as, presumably, mistaken blocks would be reversed quickly? That might be a bit of work though.

3155: 2816:

CSD logs are a little fickle - you may wish to exclude the latest 7 days of data, as for those of us who do a lot of image tagging many of the links should be blue. (I also

2791:

CSD added! The other ones are definitely harder to quantify (except PROD, I guess), but I'm working on some sort of API for that AfD tool. As an alternative to AfD, I think

2195:

has much relevance here; rather the basis for the decision should be whether or not the querent would likely receive any more useful feedback were the poll to remain open.—

1874:, his first and only edit. Why do we think he was trying to remove it? Why are we keeping that invisible code? Why not remove the invisible code and reveal the statement? 1800:. I think these instructions are redundant to the ones at the top. If we still want reminders in the editing window, we can just add an editnotice. What do you all think? 2291:

Honestly, I expected people to dig into my history and give a fairly broad approximation of myself as a user, but I've not found that at all. In fact, I've not found any

1429:

should add their name below". Anyone other than the candidate doing so will have failed the instructions and thus a procedural close could be immediately be implemented.

907: 2270:

I'm fine with it. I'm fine with reopening if someone wants to go past "here's my evaluation your last 50 edits," but if not it's pretty apparently not terribly helpful.

2151:

These items are generally closed by one of the active RfA participants. They often stay open for a month, which may seem a lot longer than what happens elsewhere on WP.

1008:

those are my fault; I should really post that stuff at WT:RFA at some point, though I rather like that the poll talk page is much more practical and solutions-oriented.

776:. That's very much a long term trend that small and even medium scale solutions will not avert. You might as well stop a dam break with a cup. We will occasionally see 267:

tip the averages. I note your advisement of this at the top of the page, but I wouldn't be opposed to removing me from the table or omitting me from any calculations

114:

and I think that makes that edit notice impossible to remove, right? I haven't looked into it much. If so, should this page be moved so that it isn't a subpage of

290:

Samtar! Congrats! :) :) :) I was just this minute adding a "Notes" column to the table and was about to add "ORCP Nov 2015" or something like that. Thoughts?

1164:

It should be archived, I agree. It was not trolling, so there is no DENY. It is important for the record. Send it immediately to the archives as a courtesy.

148:

for this page. I'm on a Mac and I've just tested this page through Chrome, Firefox, and Safari. In fact, I don't see any edit notice when I edit this page.

2653:

Pages created : log(e) of mainspace creations (article and redirect, doesn't matter) * 36.07161 - 68.8246, all multiplied by 1.4, down to a minimum of -140

3480: 3465: 1443:

there won't be an RfA. If somebody else asks and gets permission to ask on their behalf, we may get an additional admin out of it. So what's the harm?

922:

could help too, though this particular topic area may not be up his alley and he also has a very heavy workload on other important development stuff.

3453: 1665: 1224:

Archive by default. However if a user specifically asks for their poll to be blanked we should honour the request. It's in the page history anyway.

1751: 111: 51: 17: 3869: 3833: 3818: 3791: 3773: 3746: 3720: 3702: 3682: 3662: 3644: 3618: 3594: 3578: 3556: 3538: 3515: 3496: 3441: 3418: 3383: 3352: 3324: 3292: 3263: 3227: 3198: 3172: 3149: 3127: 3110: 3081: 3057: 3022: 2996: 2973: 2934: 2920: 2902: 2870: 2833: 2804: 2786: 2762: 2743: 2713: 2698: 2671: 2629: 2615: 2583: 2553: 2534: 2516: 2500: 2479: 2464: 2430: 2411: 2388: 2356: 2339: 2307: 2282: 2264: 2219: 2186: 2164: 2145: 2113: 2077: 2028: 1990: 1960: 1941: 1917: 1903: 1883: 1855: 1840: 1825: 1809: 1782: 1767: 1744: 1725: 1706: 1678: 1658: 1636: 1621: 1594: 1576: 1563: 1540: 1522: 1503: 1485: 1470: 1456: 1437: 1420: 1399: 1372: 1358: 1335: 1301: 1287: 1263: 1235: 1219: 1205: 1191: 1173: 1157: 1143: 1122: 1099: 1075: 1061: 1017: 1002: 989: 961: 943: 872: 852: 793: 762: 720: 702: 677: 658: 643: 620: 602: 583: 576: 558: 530: 509: 490: 474: 454: 440: 422: 400: 371: 357: 313: 299: 284: 243: 225: 203: 181: 159: 127: 2643:

Account age : (Log(e) of days account has been active * 91.482 - 544.85) * 1.25, unless the account is less than 43 days old, in which case -250

1319: 668:

know of any data to suggest any deterrence or lack thereof. Caballero1967, Someone else linked it above, I was just the 2nd, but thanks :) --

1001:) out of concerns about potential candidates (rather than experienced editors) offering advice to other potential candidates in the poll. ] 3534: 1642:

it to more explicitly say that you shouldn't list another user at all, but I think a specific sentence makes it less ambiguous either way.

1148:

Obviously without revision deletion there was no issue of having the discussion vanished. As a courtesy I have archived the poll manually.

2620:

The tool really needs to explain the significance of the score. I just got 1393.8 but is that a pass, fail or meh? I already am an admin.

1128:

It should be archived. Some may believe that a discussion not of their liking should be vanished. Knowledge (XXG), more wisely, archives.

2128:

So am I expected to close this? It doesn't look like I'm winning any noms, and I'm not going to self nom. I'm also patently not going to

3530: 773: 738:*Great job with those numbers, Ivanvector and Opabinia regalis. They are forcing me to qualify, better yet, amend my thoughts about the 3737:: Yes, the modifications to the instructions are a good thing, but I think my concern still stands... Perhaps an edit notice may help? 115: 3831: 3771: 2514: 2212: 350: 2421:

What about some sort of graphic add to post at wikiprojects? As some of you know, I've been posting a simple text message. Thoughts?

495:

I agree that it can be setting up inexperienced hopefuls for a fall. Nonetheless, as I mentioned previously, I believe being able to

3800:. Anybody's who is watching, please feel free to modify it. I didn't make the lettering red, I thought it might be a bit too scary. 1381:

So what to do? In this case, should we leave it considering there was no objection and they were likely in agreement or are friends?

3428:. It looks great. I've taken the liberty of adding a section below it with AfD links. I hope that's okay. A copy of the same is at 3170: 3055: 2994: 2711: 2669: 2613: 2551: 1568:

The instructions as they stand now state, "Users should not list other editors unless they have been given permission to do so."

1230: 956: 697: 553: 1755: 2957: 2886: 2829: 2372: 2323: 2248: 2102:-project (for years). Has a good oversight, stays calm & is friendly (that's not the case of all Admins-here !). Regards 3860:. I like the giant letters. I'll leave it to you and others to make any further modifications. You all have great judgement. 3623:

I hope this will get the ball rolling. If and when scripts are made to vet for AfD stats, etc., we can modify or abandon the

2817: 1196:

Fair enough. I'm in favour of keeping it in the archives unless he strongly objects or others think it is best to remove it.

757: 708: 3763:

singularly unhelpful and merely waste the candidate's time, as they will give them a false impression of what to expect. —

1977:

You make good points. I didn't think of it quite that way. Okay, fair enough. Let's leave it invisible. I just posted this:

978:, been hijacked to analyse RfA in the wider sense (yet again and with another thread already active elsewhere for 3 weeks)? 328: 2939:

I left it open on my page (I've only made like 51 articles) for around 2 hours and it never updated. Sure it's not broken?

3824: 3764: 2507: 2637:

Edit count : (Log(e) of edits * 71.513 - 621.0874) * 1.25, unless the account has less than 350 edits, in which case -250

1712:

Personally I think that discussion is very relevant to my thoughts on whether/how to proceed with an RfA. Plus, it's not

2442: 1697:

can be moved to this talk page, or elsewhere? There are lots of better venues than within a potential candidate's poll.

756:, rummaged for us. We need more data to confirm the effectiveness of the alternative poll. But Opabinia regalis' nifty 3429: 563:

This poll underestimates (slightly or perhaps even drastically) the chances a user will pass RFA in the general case.

3711:. I think the way to fix this is in the instructions section. I've added something. Please help improve it. Cheers, 2656:

Activity : Log(e) of average edits per month * 30.41375 - 138.48563, all multipled by 0.9 down to a minimum of -49.1

1013: 848: 716: 42: 3406: 2109: 1527:

Given that the editors commenting at ORCP are all very civil and mature, I really do not see that risk arising.

1066:

Actually, I'm still trying to figure out how to do that so it doesn't look odd. Let's put this on hold for now.

3865: 3787: 3716: 3678: 3658: 3649:

Several names have already made it through the vetting and are ready to receive a talk page post. Please check

3640: 3614: 3574: 3552: 3511: 3437: 3106: 2930: 2579: 2496: 2475: 2460: 2426: 2073: 2024: 1986: 1978: 1934: 1913: 1879: 1462:

between 'nominating' someone for an RFA, and simply unilaterally putting someone up for a public opinion poll.

1413: 1395: 1297: 1283: 1259: 1201: 1169: 1136: 1095: 1071: 1057: 523: 450: 445:

Actually, maybe not dates, but rather add time between poll and RfA (and get rid of the notes column for now)?

436: 418: 396: 367: 295: 221: 199: 123: 2506:

Ha! I like the addition of 'a clean block log' (obviously, it stings, deservedly so, but it stings so!) :D —

1044:...because ORCP is chronologically first, and the timespan between ORCP is relevant, it now seems. Thoughts? 582:

Perhaps something should be done to encourage/reward the volunteers who keep the poll honest and relevant. ]

3651:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Poll candidate search/Poll candidate post

3526: 984: 3462:(not pinging him as I'm just using him as an example, and haven't actually vetted him for adminship anyway) 1926:. Your suggestion to unhide the comment changes how other editors see the comment, which I think is wrong. 3321: 3260: 2345: 2296: 2271: 2232: 2199: 2134: 1514:

affect of attracting new candidates because they need to find someone to nominate them for just the poll.

1254:

I just realized that the start and end dates for the poll and subsequent RfA are a bit of a mess. A plan?

337: 3814: 3742: 3698: 3379: 3205: 3191: 3120: 3097: 3077: 2925:

I had that problem too. I gave up. Also, I got +500 for already being an admin. That could be fixed. :)

2800: 2758: 2530: 2441:

We need a text or graphic post for user talk pages. Please feel free to improve the one I started here:

1851: 1805: 1009: 895: 844: 712: 470: 154: 1923: 918:

or Opabinia (whom I have often stated is a whizz-kid at this kind of thing) can have a go. Maybe even

687: 3159: 2470:

Actually, scrap the Uncle Sam thing. Considering, well, Earth 2017, that would be in very poor taste.

1947:

themselves (I don't mean it as in to shame them but as I said they had plenty of time to remove it). –

3492: 3348: 3288: 3223: 3168: 3145: 3053: 2992: 2866: 2782: 2709: 2685:

computes scores up to 1000 (but doesn't work on admins) and says anything above 500 is good. Regards

2667: 2611: 2549: 2182: 2105: 1654: 871:

unrepairable? You seem to think that if the trend continues conditions would become unsustainable. ]

789: 673: 598: 486: 1627:

As there are no further comments, I plan to proceed with the proposal to revert the specified edit.

3861: 3803: 3783: 3712: 3674: 3654: 3636: 3610: 3570: 3548: 3507: 3484: 3433: 3102: 3031:

new pages the user has created and throwing them in the bin, except for the count. That's a waste.

2963: 2926: 2892: 2825: 2575: 2492: 2471: 2456: 2422: 2378: 2329: 2254: 2158: 2069: 2020: 2016: 1982: 1928: 1909: 1897: 1875: 1534: 1497: 1450: 1407: 1391: 1364:

I agree. I see very little gained in allowing someone else to start an ORCP poll for someone else.

1293: 1279: 1255: 1197: 1165: 1130: 1091: 1067: 1053: 930:

asks 'How can we stop it?' The answer is blatantly clear, to repeat my worn out 6-year old mantra:

517: 446: 432: 414: 392: 363: 291: 217: 195: 135: 119: 3753: 3727: 3590: 3522: 3018: 2625: 2403: 1817: 1774: 1759: 1721: 1698: 1670: 1628: 1613: 1586: 1555: 1477: 1350: 1327: 1149: 1114: 979: 650: 535: 501: 388: 305: 276: 191: 173: 2435:

Okay, it looks like things are getting on well below and we will soon have a list to work with.

818: 500:

which I don't think anyone is eager to do, I don't have any suggestions to mitigate this issue.

2402:

There's no set time for a poll to run; the bot archives a poll after 14 days without comments.

3469: 3363: 3331: 3305: 3270: 3244: 2196: 2117: 2091: 2083: 1836: 1740: 1425:

It would be very easy to simply change the wording in instructions section to clearly state, "

1215: 1187: 1179: 939: 428: 334: 3857: 3810: 3779: 3738: 3708: 3694: 3375: 3093: 3073: 3034: 3008: 2942: 2811: 2796: 2771: 2754: 2571: 2526: 2407: 1847: 1821: 1801: 1778: 1763: 1702: 1674: 1632: 1617: 1590: 1559: 1481: 1354: 1331: 1153: 1118: 919: 654: 505: 466: 187: 177: 149: 3449: 3503: 3488: 3359: 3337: 3299: 3277: 3234: 3212: 3179: 3163: 3134: 3048: 2987: 2914: 2855: 2778: 2737: 2704: 2692: 2678: 2662: 2606: 2544: 2522: 2171: 1643: 1225: 951: 927: 915: 785: 777: 769: 692: 669: 594: 548: 482: 3405:

I've manually created a list of high quality candidates using the tool for screening, at

3632:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Poll candidate search

804: 2949: 2878: 2821: 2543:

fit the bill? Apparently I score 1,387.2 - no idea if that's good, bad or indifferent.

2364: 2315: 2240: 2153: 1948: 1892: 1574: 1529: 1520: 1492: 1468: 1445: 1435: 1370: 616: 572: 304:

Thanks Anna :) Yeah I think that'll help at least explain why I'm such an outlier! --

239: 3809:

Avoid pile on votes that do not help the candidate" Does that get the message across?

1490:"There's no upside in trying to surprise them with a candidate poll" - I fully agree. 170:

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

3586: 3414: 3014: 2621: 1717: 194:. I'm mystified. I'm sure I saw it not two days ago. Sorry to have wasted your time. 3184:

In that case, I might be able to put something together using a simple SQL query on

1832: 1736: 1581:

Apologies for being unclear; I see no need to amend them from their state prior to

1211: 1183: 935: 2361:

ah, didn't see that. It got closed in the same minute I wrote the first message.

172:

was created as a blank page (well, with a comment) to override the group notice.

2907:

It takes a while. If they created many pages, it takes a loooong while. Regards

2682: 2099: 1324:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Advice for RfA candidates/Archive 1#Optional candidate poll

1182:

that he may wish to withdraw his poll. My bad for not telling him how to do it.

824:

Distribution of time period from registration to successful RfA, by year of RfA.

50:

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

3239:

Might want to be careful with the "don't have a block" criterion as some folks

2909: 2750: 2732: 2687: 2605:

If I ever get time (hah!) I might pull the source code and see what I can do.

2012: 1732: 911: 707:

This is pre-ORCP, but complementary to Ivanvector's observations: I looked at

2875:

The pages created by the user doesn't ever load for me when checking anyone.

2448: 2129: 1569: 1515: 1463: 1430: 1365: 612: 568: 250:

A new column in the poll results table and the timespan between ORCP and RfA

235: 140:

Came upon this post while stalking your contributions. Are you referring to

2661:

I don't know how the numbers were worked out, maybe just trial and error.

1049:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Results

3425: 3410: 3689:

this is the result of changes in the body of people commenting, and how

2574:

made it, I think. Maybe he can suggest a way for it to generate a list.

839: 3547:

So what about some script that looks for lots of posts in those areas?

2452: 1274:

Now, the table is sorted by RfA. Should it be sorted by poll end dates?

772:(and not just there). We will not be averting the decline witnessed by 3566: 910:

and adding an extra column for their accuracy of prediction based on

2722:

in his own tool. Maybe this is a sign that you should nominate them?

2719: 2540: 2015:

was to have it visible, but had trouble making it appear. :) Pinging

1981:. If he speaks up in favour of visible, we can change it then. Best, 950:

something interesting with a vlookup, but I'll have to look into it.

780:, but the overall trend is rather permanent now. We're now down to 2521:

I like this idea. I know that a lot of experienced folks, such as

108:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

2982:

directly. That's really slow for me at the moment. Could you try

2820:

mine, but I don't expect you to programatically detect that!) –

144:? If so, I'm not currently seeing the edit notice show up on my 3185: 2795:

might cover more areas, but it's in a bit of a beta state now.

1979:

User talk:Sanjev Rajaram#Your Optional RfA candidate poll entry

142:

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

29: 3475: 2703:

Everyone's favourite admin candidate, Cullen328, scores 779

166:

Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

3457: 3027:

The page creation score is using the API to get a list of

2983: 2979: 2120:(now I pinged you - do the rest yourself, Ruigeroeland) ) 3733:

instructions at the top of the page do not seem to work.

1269:

Okay, I fixed all the dates to be poll end and RfA start.

3564:

We wouldn't dream of letting this fizzle out, would we?

2792: 1871: 1609: 1582: 1346: 1315: 1110: 997: 781: 744: 496: 260: 254: 145: 3156:

Knowledge (XXG):List of Wikipedians by number of edits

1773:

P.S. Note you've pinged someone else in your comment.

547:

with stats at the moment, it's more of a gut feeling.

3609:

talk post suggesting they use the poll. Sound good?

810:

Distribution of registration dates of active admins.

3479:; He's been here over 10 years too, never blocked, 2646:

User page : -50 if red, -10 if redirect, 10 if live

1612:. If there are any further comments, please reply. 3653:and say at that talk page if it is ready to send? 481:worth considering and which are rather less so. -- 2541:https://tools.wmflabs.org/apersonbot/aadminscore/ 1908:Indeed. I suggest we remove the invisible marks. 1792:Do we need the invisible comments in the preload? 607:A decent job at predicting passage for users who 3464:. He's been here over 10 years, never blocked, 2634:As far as I can tell, according to the code : 1292:Okay, I sorted the entries by poll end dates. 164:I don't see the applicable group edit notice, 1608:Based on the discussion, I propose reverting 8: 1666:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Admin Nominators 900:This is, obviously, completely unsustainable 1752:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for adminship 362:Let's continue this at the poll talk page. 112:Knowledge (XXG):Optional RfA candidate poll 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for adminship 3211:I don't think we can do that with Quarry. 2295:appraisal of my contributions whatsoever. 686:I posted some truncated stats on that at 3243:have accidental blocks on their record. 3005:Yes...subtract 500 ;). Lovely tool btw, 770:written about this several times before 3043:in line 180 of aadminscore.js to just 2130:intentionally change my editing habits 932:Fix the voters and RfA will fix itself 231: 116:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship 48:Do not edit the contents of this page. 497:evaluate the credence of each comment 7: 2986:and tell us what the difference is? 2723: 749: 268: 2098:He's the most active person in our 1756:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Administrators 1693:Perhaps the extended discussion in 1322:: I have started a conversation at 431:, that's not a bad idea. Thoughts? 2486:Finding qualified admin candidates 2443:User:Anna Frodesiak/Violet sandbox 1111:this edit restoring a removed poll 1090:- revert if you don't like it. :) 709:RfA closures from 2008 to mid-2015 28: 3466:29 non-redirect article creations 3430:User:Anna Frodesiak/Pink sandbox‎ 2070:Have a great day , Sanjev Rajaram 3565: 3072:. Thank you for the suggestion! 3063: 2984:the API that is my suggested fix 2724: 2570:Good thinking. That might work. 1716:unrelated to the original post. 1081: 817: 803: 750: 269: 33: 3796:I've made an edit notice: it's 3605:I will boldy set something up: 1846:brightly-colored edit notices. 232:fixing it when it's not broken? 3409:. It is a work in progress. - 2229:Would you like me to close it 263:to the ORCP stats is going to 1: 3455:) and instantly, we see User: 3047:and that should speed it up. 2451:thing. I wonder if he owns a 2078:16:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC) 2029:10:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC) 1991:21:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC) 1961:16:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC) 1942:14:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC) 1918:09:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC) 1904:08:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC) 1884:07:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC) 1679:17:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC) 1659:17:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC) 1637:17:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC) 1622:16:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC) 1595:03:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC) 1577:03:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC) 1564:02:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC) 1541:02:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC) 1523:02:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC) 1504:02:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC) 1486:02:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC) 1471:02:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC) 1457:01:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC) 1438:01:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC) 1421:01:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC) 1400:01:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC) 1373:01:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC) 1359:00:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC) 1336:02:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC) 1302:06:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC) 1288:00:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC) 1264:02:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC) 1236:12:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC) 1220:12:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC) 1206:04:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC) 1192:01:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC) 1174:21:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC) 1158:22:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC) 1144:20:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC) 1123:18:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC) 1100:23:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC) 1076:01:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC) 1018:03:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC) 1003:21:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC) 990:20:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC) 962:13:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC) 944:03:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC) 873:19:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC) 853:00:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC) 593:bloated and absurd as RfA. -- 259:Hi Anna, just a quick note - 2053:Thanks Anna your too kind :) 1856:04:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC) 1841:04:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC) 1826:02:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC) 1810:01:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC) 1783:02:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC) 1768:02:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC) 1320:WP:Advice for RfA candidates 1062:23:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC) 1037:ORCP info including end date 794:21:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC) 763:21:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC) 721:20:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC) 703:19:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC) 678:15:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC) 659:17:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC) 644:15:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC) 621:15:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC) 603:15:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC) 584:14:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC) 577:13:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC) 559:13:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC) 531:05:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC) 510:04:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC) 491:15:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC) 475:08:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC) 455:22:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC) 441:21:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC) 423:21:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC) 401:22:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC) 372:21:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC) 358:21:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC) 314:21:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC) 300:21:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC) 285:21:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC) 244:01:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC) 226:21:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC) 204:04:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC) 182:03:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC) 160:03:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC) 128:03:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC) 1745:04:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 1726:23:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC) 1707:15:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC) 1405:have situations like this. 1326:. Any feedback is welcome. 1026:Improving the results table 567:is perhaps enlightening. -- 22:Optional RfA candidate poll 3894: 3870:07:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC) 3834:07:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC) 3819:07:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC) 3792:06:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC) 3774:07:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC) 3747:06:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC) 3721:06:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC) 3703:06:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC) 3683:06:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC) 3663:07:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC) 3645:00:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC) 3595:08:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC) 3384:05:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC) 3353:00:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC) 3325:00:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC) 3293:00:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC) 3154:Yes, something like that, 2834:04:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC) 2114:08:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC) 3619:23:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC) 3579:05:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC) 3557:17:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC) 3539:17:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC) 3516:17:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC) 3497:15:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC) 3442:06:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC) 3419:04:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC) 3407:User:Bri/Admin candidates 3264:23:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC) 3228:22:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 3199:22:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 3173:14:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 3150:14:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 3128:13:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 3111:09:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 3082:05:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC) 3058:09:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 3023:11:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2997:12:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2974:12:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2935:09:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2921:09:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2903:09:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2871:08:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2805:04:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC) 2787:14:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC) 2763:05:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC) 2744:09:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2714:09:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2699:09:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2672:09:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2630:08:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2616:08:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2584:08:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2554:08:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2535:05:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2517:04:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2501:04:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2480:23:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2465:23:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2431:04:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2412:02:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2389:01:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2357:00:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2340:00:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2308:00:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2283:00:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC) 2265:23:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC) 2220:23:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC) 2187:22:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC) 2165:22:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC) 2146:21:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC) 2019:so he can see this post. 1610:the edit under discussion 1583:the edit under discussion 1310:Advice for RfA candidates 782:523 active administrators 588:You know, looking at the 3759:the first place perhaps. 2438:Now, on to the fun bit: 2191:I don’t think consensus 2090:I would like to suggest 1180:suggested to that editor 1870:The editor added it in 972:"Users giving feedback" 912:{{U|Scottywong}}'s tool 3483:, almost 40k edits, a 2013:our friend's intention 411:So, where were we.... 3668:Avoid biting comments 2344:It's already closed? 460:Users giving feedback 46:of past discussions. 3627:method of vetting. 3481:11 articles created 3039:, try changing the 2017:User:Sanjev Rajaram 1866:Invisible statement 1798:the preload comment 1689:Criteria discussion 1250:Results table dates 970:, has this thread, 748:and not Hammersoft 168:, as back in 2015, 3630:Here is the link: 3625:assembly line flow 3521:better way to go. 1047:Convenience link: 255:From my talk page: 102:Possible page move 3757: 3731: 3463: 3448:contributions to 3242: 3162:?) to upload it. 2969: 2898: 2384: 2335: 2260: 2233:Timothyjosephwood 2092:User:Ruigeroeland 2084:User:Ruigeroeland 1785: 1341:Initiating a poll 1210:Just archive it. 329:talk page stalker 212:Poll transclusion 99: 98: 58: 57: 52:current talk page 3885: 3829: 3807: 3769: 3751: 3725: 3693:view this page. 3569: 3478: 3461: 3460: 3367: 3335: 3318: 3315: 3312: 3309: 3303: 3274: 3257: 3254: 3251: 3248: 3240: 3238: 3209: 3206:Mr. Stradivarius 3194: 3193:Mr. Stradivarius 3183: 3123: 3122:Mr. Stradivarius 3098:Mr. Stradivarius 3071: 3067: 3066: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3012: 2971: 2970: 2966: 2960: 2955: 2952: 2946: 2917: 2912: 2900: 2899: 2895: 2889: 2884: 2881: 2815: 2775: 2740: 2735: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2718:Enterprisey got 2695: 2690: 2622:Roger (Dodger67) 2512: 2386: 2385: 2381: 2375: 2370: 2367: 2354: 2351: 2348: 2337: 2336: 2332: 2326: 2321: 2318: 2305: 2302: 2299: 2280: 2277: 2274: 2262: 2261: 2257: 2251: 2246: 2243: 2236: 2216: 2209: 2206: 2203: 2161: 2156: 2143: 2140: 2137: 1958: 1953: 1940: 1937: 1931: 1900: 1895: 1772: 1572: 1537: 1532: 1518: 1500: 1495: 1466: 1453: 1448: 1433: 1419: 1416: 1410: 1368: 1142: 1139: 1133: 1089: 1085: 1084: 1010:Opabinia regalis 1000: 987: 982: 968:Just for clarity 901: 896:Opabinia regalis 845:Opabinia regalis 821: 807: 778:dead cat bounces 755: 754: 753: 747: 713:Opabinia regalis 565:The results page 529: 526: 520: 354: 347: 344: 341: 332: 274: 273: 272: 157: 152: 139: 77: 60: 59: 37: 36: 30: 3893: 3892: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3856:It looks good, 3825: 3801: 3765: 3670: 3603: 3474: 3470:TON of CSD noms 3468:, 44k edits, a 3456: 3357: 3329: 3316: 3313: 3310: 3307: 3297: 3268: 3255: 3252: 3249: 3246: 3232: 3203: 3192: 3177: 3121: 3064: 3062: 3044: 3040: 3032: 3006: 2964: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2948: 2940: 2915: 2910: 2893: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2877: 2809: 2769: 2738: 2733: 2725: 2693: 2688: 2508: 2488: 2419: 2379: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2363: 2352: 2349: 2346: 2330: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2314: 2303: 2300: 2297: 2293:really critical 2278: 2275: 2272: 2255: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2239: 2230: 2214: 2207: 2204: 2201: 2159: 2154: 2141: 2138: 2135: 2126: 2116:(with ping to: 2087: 1954: 1949: 1935: 1929: 1927: 1898: 1893: 1868: 1833:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1794: 1737:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1695:Primefac's poll 1691: 1570: 1535: 1530: 1516: 1498: 1493: 1464: 1451: 1446: 1431: 1414: 1408: 1406: 1366: 1343: 1312: 1252: 1233: 1212:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1184:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1137: 1131: 1129: 1107: 1082: 1080: 1028: 996: 985: 980: 959: 936:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 899: 843:unsustainable. 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 822: 813: 812: 811: 808: 751: 743: 700: 556: 524: 518: 516: 462: 352: 345: 342: 339: 326: 270: 252: 214: 155: 150: 133: 104: 73: 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 3891: 3889: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3862:Anna Frodesiak 3845: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3804:Anna Frodesiak 3784:Anna Frodesiak 3776: 3760: 3723: 3713:Anna Frodesiak 3675:Anna Frodesiak 3669: 3666: 3655:Anna Frodesiak 3637:Anna Frodesiak 3611:Anna Frodesiak 3602: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3571:Anna Frodesiak 3562: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3549:Anna Frodesiak 3542: 3541: 3518: 3508:Anna Frodesiak 3445: 3444: 3434:Anna Frodesiak 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3175: 3103:Anna Frodesiak 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2937: 2927:Anna Frodesiak 2873: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2654: 2651: 2647: 2644: 2641: 2638: 2618: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2576:Anna Frodesiak 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2493:Anna Frodesiak 2487: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2472:Anna Frodesiak 2457:Anna Frodesiak 2423:Anna Frodesiak 2418: 2415: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2286: 2285: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2125: 2122: 2096: 2095: 2086: 2081: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2021:Anna Frodesiak 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1983:Anna Frodesiak 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1944: 1930:Chris Troutman 1910:Anna Frodesiak 1876:Anna Frodesiak 1867: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1793: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1770: 1729: 1728: 1690: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1473: 1409:Chris Troutman 1392:Anna Frodesiak 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1376: 1375: 1342: 1339: 1311: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1294:Anna Frodesiak 1280:Anna Frodesiak 1276: 1275: 1271: 1270: 1256:Anna Frodesiak 1251: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1229: 1198:Anna Frodesiak 1166:Anna Frodesiak 1162: 1161: 1160: 1132:Chris Troutman 1106: 1103: 1092:Anna Frodesiak 1068:Anna Frodesiak 1054:Anna Frodesiak 1042: 1041: 1038: 1035: 1027: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 965: 964: 955: 908:Voter_profiles 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 823: 816: 815: 814: 809: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 740:survey numbers 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 696: 681: 680: 664: 663: 662: 661: 630: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 623: 610: 586: 552: 533: 519:Chris Troutman 512: 493: 461: 458: 447:Anna Frodesiak 433:Anna Frodesiak 415:Anna Frodesiak 410: 408: 407: 406: 405: 404: 403: 393:Anna Frodesiak 381: 380: 379: 378: 377: 376: 375: 374: 364:Anna Frodesiak 319: 318: 317: 316: 292:Anna Frodesiak 251: 248: 247: 246: 218:Anna Frodesiak 213: 210: 209: 208: 207: 206: 196:Anna Frodesiak 162: 146:editing window 136:Anna Frodesiak 120:Anna Frodesiak 103: 100: 97: 96: 91: 88: 83: 78: 71: 66: 56: 55: 38: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3890: 3871: 3867: 3863: 3859: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3835: 3832: 3830: 3828: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3816: 3812: 3805: 3799: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3777: 3775: 3772: 3770: 3768: 3761: 3755: 3754:edit conflict 3750: 3749: 3748: 3744: 3740: 3736: 3729: 3728:edit conflict 3724: 3722: 3718: 3714: 3710: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3700: 3696: 3692: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3680: 3676: 3667: 3665: 3664: 3660: 3656: 3652: 3647: 3646: 3642: 3638: 3634: 3633: 3628: 3626: 3621: 3620: 3616: 3612: 3606: 3601:A way forward 3600: 3596: 3592: 3588: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3558: 3554: 3550: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3540: 3536: 3532: 3528: 3524: 3523:Mike Christie 3519: 3517: 3513: 3509: 3505: 3502:Good points, 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3485:solid CSD log 3482: 3477: 3471: 3467: 3459: 3454: 3451: 3443: 3439: 3435: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3416: 3412: 3408: 3385: 3381: 3377: 3372: 3365: 3361: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3350: 3346: 3344: 3340: 3333: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3323: 3320: 3319: 3301: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3290: 3286: 3284: 3280: 3272: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3262: 3259: 3258: 3236: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3219: 3215: 3207: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3187: 3181: 3176: 3174: 3171: 3169: 3167: 3166: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3141: 3137: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3108: 3104: 3099: 3095: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3070: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3056: 3054: 3052: 3051: 3036: 3030: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3020: 3016: 3010: 3004: 2998: 2995: 2993: 2991: 2990: 2985: 2981: 2980:the API query 2977: 2976: 2975: 2972: 2967: 2961: 2953: 2944: 2938: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2919: 2918: 2913: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2901: 2896: 2890: 2882: 2874: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2862: 2858: 2853: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2813: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2802: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2773: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2749: 2745: 2742: 2741: 2736: 2721: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2712: 2710: 2708: 2707: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2697: 2696: 2691: 2684: 2680: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2670: 2668: 2666: 2665: 2660: 2655: 2652: 2648: 2645: 2642: 2639: 2636: 2635: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2617: 2614: 2612: 2610: 2609: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2555: 2552: 2550: 2548: 2547: 2542: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2515: 2513: 2511: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2445: 2444: 2439: 2436: 2433: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2417:Advertisement 2416: 2414: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2390: 2387: 2382: 2376: 2368: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2355: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2338: 2333: 2327: 2319: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2306: 2294: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2284: 2281: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2263: 2258: 2252: 2244: 2234: 2221: 2218: 2217: 2211: 2210: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2178: 2174: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2163: 2162: 2157: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2144: 2131: 2123: 2121: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2101: 2093: 2089: 2088: 2085: 2082: 2080: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1962: 1959: 1957: 1952: 1945: 1943: 1938: 1932: 1925: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1902: 1901: 1896: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1865: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1791: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1771: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1731: 1730: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1688: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1667: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1650: 1646: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1575: 1573: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1552: 1542: 1539: 1538: 1533: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1521: 1519: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1502: 1501: 1496: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1474: 1472: 1469: 1467: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1455: 1454: 1449: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1436: 1434: 1428: 1427:the candidate 1424: 1423: 1422: 1417: 1411: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1374: 1371: 1369: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1340: 1338: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1309: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1278: 1277: 1273: 1272: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1249: 1237: 1232: 1227: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1140: 1134: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1104: 1102: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1088: 1078: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1064: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1050: 1045: 1039: 1036: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1025: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1006: 1005: 1004: 999: 994: 993: 992: 991: 988: 983: 977: 973: 969: 963: 958: 953: 948: 947: 946: 945: 941: 937: 933: 929: 923: 921: 917: 913: 909: 903: 897: 874: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 855: 854: 850: 846: 841: 840:fairly stable 833: 832: 831: 830: 820: 806: 795: 791: 787: 783: 779: 775: 771: 767: 766: 765: 764: 759: 746: 741: 722: 718: 714: 710: 706: 705: 704: 699: 694: 689: 685: 684: 683: 682: 679: 675: 671: 666: 665: 660: 656: 652: 647: 646: 645: 640: 639: 638: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 622: 618: 614: 608: 606: 605: 604: 600: 596: 591: 587: 585: 580: 579: 578: 574: 570: 566: 562: 561: 560: 555: 550: 545: 541: 537: 534: 532: 527: 521: 513: 511: 507: 503: 498: 494: 492: 488: 484: 479: 478: 477: 476: 472: 468: 459: 457: 456: 452: 448: 443: 442: 438: 434: 430: 425: 424: 420: 416: 412: 402: 398: 394: 390: 387: 386: 385: 384: 383: 382: 373: 369: 365: 361: 360: 359: 356: 355: 349: 348: 336: 330: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 320: 315: 312: 311: 308: 303: 302: 301: 297: 293: 289: 288: 287: 286: 283: 282: 279: 266: 262: 257: 256: 249: 245: 241: 237: 233: 230: 229: 228: 227: 223: 219: 211: 205: 201: 197: 193: 189: 185: 184: 183: 179: 175: 171: 167: 163: 161: 158: 153: 147: 143: 137: 132: 131: 130: 129: 125: 121: 117: 113: 109: 101: 95: 92: 89: 87: 84: 82: 79: 76: 72: 70: 67: 65: 62: 61: 53: 49: 45: 44: 39: 32: 31: 23: 19: 3826: 3766: 3734: 3690: 3671: 3648: 3635: 3629: 3624: 3622: 3607: 3604: 3563: 3446: 3404: 3370: 3364:EvergreenFir 3342: 3338: 3332:EvergreenFir 3306: 3282: 3278: 3271:EvergreenFir 3245: 3217: 3213: 3190: 3189: 3164: 3139: 3135: 3119: 3118: 3092: 3068: 3049: 3041:ucprop=title 3028: 2988: 2947: 2908: 2876: 2860: 2856: 2731: 2720:577.4 Points 2705: 2686: 2681:'s tool and 2663: 2607: 2545: 2509: 2489: 2446: 2440: 2437: 2434: 2420: 2401: 2362: 2313: 2292: 2238: 2228: 2213: 2200: 2192: 2176: 2172: 2152: 2127: 2118:Ruigeroeland 2106:I'm so tired 2104: 2097: 2066: 1955: 1950: 1891: 1869: 1795: 1713: 1692: 1648: 1644: 1607: 1528: 1511: 1491: 1444: 1426: 1344: 1313: 1253: 1108: 1105:Poll removal 1086: 1079: 1065: 1052: 1046: 1043: 1029: 995:It emerged ( 975: 974:relating to 971: 967: 966: 931: 924: 904: 893: 836: 737: 590:poll results 543: 539: 463: 444: 426: 413: 409: 351: 338: 309: 306: 280: 277: 264: 258: 253: 215: 110:rather than 105: 74: 47: 41: 3735:Post script 3241:cough cough 3160:ThreesieBot 3094:MusikAnimal 3074:Enterprisey 3035:Enterprisey 3009:Enterprisey 2943:Enterprisey 2812:Enterprisey 2797:Enterprisey 2772:Enterprisey 2755:Enterprisey 2572:Enterprisey 2100:Lepidoptera 2011:It appears 1924:WP:REFACTOR 1848:Enterprisey 1802:Enterprisey 1030:I suggest: 920:MusikAnimal 894:Yes indeed 261:my addition 188:Airplaneman 151:Airplaneman 40:This is an 3504:Hammersoft 3489:Hammersoft 3360:Samwalton9 3300:Samwalton9 3276:the list. 3235:Samwalton9 3180:Samwalton9 3165:Ritchie333 3050:Ritchie333 2989:Ritchie333 2779:Hammersoft 2706:Ritchie333 2679:Scottywong 2664:Ritchie333 2650:rollbacker 2608:Ritchie333 2546:Ritchie333 2523:Samwalton9 1714:completely 1345:Regarding 1314:Regarding 1226:Ivanvector 1109:Regarding 952:Ivanvector 928:Hammersoft 916:Ivanvector 786:Hammersoft 774:this chart 693:Ivanvector 670:Hammersoft 595:Hammersoft 549:Ivanvector 483:Hammersoft 3858:Vanamonde 3827:O Fortuna 3811:Vanamonde 3780:Vanamonde 3767:O Fortuna 3739:Vanamonde 3709:Vanamonde 3707:I agree, 3695:Vanamonde 3376:Vanamonde 2951:Anarchyte 2880:Anarchyte 2822:Train2104 2683:that tool 2527:Vanamonde 2510:O Fortuna 2449:Uncle Sam 2366:Anarchyte 2317:Anarchyte 2242:Anarchyte 1347:this edit 1316:this edit 1040:RfA stuff 467:Vanamonde 265:massively 94:Archive 7 86:Archive 5 81:Archive 4 75:Archive 3 69:Archive 2 64:Archive 1 3587:Donner60 3531:contribs 3015:Lectonar 2730:Regards 2197:Odysseus 1718:Primefac 1512:opposite 1318:made to 758:graphics 742:, which 542:courage 429:Odysseus 335:Odysseus 106:This is 20:‎ | 3535:library 3045:ucprop= 2818:archive 2453:top hat 2347:Timothy 2298:Timothy 2273:Timothy 2155:Schwede 2136:Timothy 1894:Schwede 1531:Schwede 1494:Schwede 1447:Schwede 986:Caldron 609:run RFA 234:Yes. -- 43:archive 3476:Drm310 3450:WP:AIV 3322:(talk) 3261:(talk) 3186:Quarry 3133:user. 2404:isaacl 2350:Joseph 2301:Joseph 2276:Joseph 2193:per se 2139:Joseph 2124:Close? 1818:isaacl 1775:isaacl 1760:isaacl 1699:isaacl 1671:isaacl 1629:isaacl 1614:isaacl 1587:isaacl 1556:isaacl 1478:isaacl 1351:isaacl 1328:isaacl 1150:isaacl 1115:isaacl 981:Leaky 688:WT:RFA 651:isaacl 536:Isaacl 502:isaacl 389:Samtar 192:isaacl 174:isaacl 3473:User: 3452:(see 3345:alton 3285:alton 3220:alton 3142:alton 3078:talk! 2863:alton 2801:talk! 2759:talk! 2751:SoWhy 2539:Does 2179:alton 1951:Davey 1852:talk! 1806:talk! 1733:Isaac 1651:alton 1231:Edits 957:Edits 698:Edits 554:Edits 427:Yes. 16:< 3866:talk 3815:talk 3798:here 3788:talk 3778:Hi 3743:talk 3717:talk 3699:talk 3691:they 3679:talk 3659:talk 3641:talk 3615:talk 3591:talk 3575:talk 3553:talk 3527:talk 3512:talk 3493:talk 3458:Cahk 3438:talk 3415:talk 3380:talk 3362:and 3349:talk 3289:talk 3224:talk 3146:talk 3107:talk 3096:and 3069:Done 3019:talk 2978:Try 2965:talk 2959:work 2931:talk 2894:talk 2888:work 2867:talk 2783:talk 2626:talk 2580:talk 2531:talk 2497:talk 2476:talk 2461:talk 2427:talk 2408:talk 2380:talk 2374:work 2353:Wood 2331:talk 2325:work 2304:Wood 2279:Wood 2256:talk 2250:work 2183:talk 2142:Wood 2110:talk 2074:talk 2025:talk 1987:talk 1956:2010 1936:talk 1914:talk 1880:talk 1872:this 1837:talk 1822:talk 1779:talk 1764:talk 1741:talk 1722:talk 1703:talk 1675:talk 1655:talk 1633:talk 1618:talk 1591:talk 1571:Mkdw 1560:talk 1517:Mkdw 1482:talk 1465:Mkdw 1432:Mkdw 1415:talk 1396:talk 1367:Mkdw 1355:talk 1332:talk 1298:talk 1284:talk 1260:talk 1216:talk 1202:talk 1188:talk 1170:talk 1154:talk 1138:talk 1119:talk 1096:talk 1087:Done 1072:talk 1058:talk 1034:Name 1014:talk 998:here 976:ORCP 940:talk 849:talk 790:talk 745:Izno 717:talk 674:talk 655:talk 617:talk 613:Izno 599:talk 573:talk 569:Izno 525:talk 506:talk 487:talk 471:talk 451:talk 437:talk 419:talk 397:talk 368:talk 296:talk 275:-- 240:talk 236:Izno 222:talk 200:talk 190:and 178:talk 124:talk 3533:- 3426:Bri 3424:Hi 3411:Bri 3371:two 3341:am 3317:Fir 3314:een 3311:rgr 3308:Eve 3281:am 3256:Fir 3253:een 3250:rgr 3247:Eve 3216:am 3138:am 3029:all 2916:Why 2859:am 2793:XfD 2739:Why 2694:Why 2175:am 1754:or 1647:am 540:dis 310:tar 307:sam 281:tar 278:sam 186:Hi 3868:) 3817:) 3790:) 3745:) 3719:) 3701:) 3681:) 3661:) 3643:) 3617:) 3593:) 3577:) 3555:) 3537:) 3529:- 3514:) 3495:) 3440:) 3432:. 3417:) 3382:) 3351:) 3291:) 3226:) 3148:) 3109:) 3080:) 3021:) 3013:. 2962:| 2933:) 2911:So 2891:| 2869:) 2832:) 2828:• 2803:) 2785:) 2761:) 2734:So 2689:So 2628:) 2582:) 2533:) 2499:) 2478:) 2463:) 2455:. 2429:) 2410:) 2377:| 2328:| 2253:| 2237:? 2185:) 2160:66 2112:) 2076:) 2068:-- 2027:) 1989:) 1916:) 1899:66 1882:) 1854:) 1839:) 1824:) 1808:) 1781:) 1766:) 1758:? 1743:) 1724:) 1705:) 1677:) 1657:) 1635:) 1620:) 1593:) 1585:. 1562:) 1536:66 1499:66 1484:) 1452:66 1398:) 1357:) 1334:) 1300:) 1286:) 1262:) 1234:) 1228:(/ 1218:) 1204:) 1190:) 1178:I 1172:) 1156:) 1121:) 1098:) 1074:) 1060:) 1016:) 960:) 954:(/ 942:) 898:, 851:) 792:) 719:) 701:) 695:(/ 676:) 657:) 619:) 601:) 575:) 557:) 551:(/ 544:un 508:) 489:) 473:) 453:) 439:) 421:) 399:) 370:) 298:) 242:) 224:) 202:) 180:) 126:) 118:? 90:→ 3864:( 3813:( 3806:: 3802:@ 3786:( 3756:) 3752:( 3741:( 3730:) 3726:( 3715:( 3697:( 3677:( 3657:( 3639:( 3613:( 3589:( 3573:( 3551:( 3525:( 3510:( 3491:( 3436:( 3413:( 3378:( 3366:: 3358:@ 3347:( 3343:W 3339:S 3334:: 3330:@ 3302:: 3298:@ 3287:( 3283:W 3279:S 3273:: 3269:@ 3237:: 3233:@ 3222:( 3218:W 3214:S 3208:: 3204:@ 3182:: 3178:@ 3144:( 3140:W 3136:S 3105:( 3076:( 3037:: 3033:@ 3017:( 3011:: 3007:@ 2968:) 2956:( 2945:: 2941:@ 2929:( 2897:) 2885:( 2865:( 2861:W 2857:S 2830:c 2826:t 2824:( 2814:: 2810:@ 2799:( 2781:( 2774:: 2770:@ 2757:( 2624:( 2578:( 2529:( 2495:( 2474:( 2459:( 2425:( 2406:( 2383:) 2371:( 2334:) 2322:( 2259:) 2247:( 2235:: 2231:@ 2215:9 2208:7 2205:4 2202:1 2181:( 2177:W 2173:S 2108:( 2094:. 2072:( 2023:( 1985:( 1939:) 1933:( 1912:( 1878:( 1850:( 1835:( 1820:( 1804:( 1777:( 1762:( 1739:( 1720:( 1701:( 1673:( 1653:( 1649:W 1645:S 1631:( 1616:( 1589:( 1558:( 1480:( 1418:) 1412:( 1394:( 1353:( 1330:( 1296:( 1282:( 1258:( 1214:( 1200:( 1186:( 1168:( 1152:( 1141:) 1135:( 1117:( 1094:( 1070:( 1056:( 1012:( 938:( 934:. 847:( 788:( 715:( 672:( 653:( 615:( 597:( 571:( 528:) 522:( 504:( 485:( 469:( 449:( 435:( 417:( 395:( 366:( 353:9 346:7 343:4 340:1 331:) 327:( 294:( 238:( 220:( 198:( 176:( 156:✈ 138:: 134:@ 122:( 54:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 3 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index