1699:
it's possible to do huge numbers of edits in a matter of days (if one puts in the time) to post "welcome" messages to the thousands of people who register every day, with very little further interaction. On the other hand, some editors are the type who do not save every little change or two that they make to an article and only actually save their work on
Knowledge after completely finishing all of the work that they planned on doing to the article. Thus, the creation of a lengthy, new article or a major revision to an important article may take place in a single edit. In short, the
84:
1677:
1158:) may feel that any admin candidate must be experienced with that process. However, most editors focus on only a few types of contributions to Knowledge, doing little or nothing in other areas, and for any given process, a substantial percentage of existing admins have no involvement with it. There are few, if any, processes, besides editing and interacting with other editors, that a potential admin
24:
109:
1698:
to revert vandalism and issue warnings, something that (while valuable) requires neither editing skills nor much interaction with users (Knowledge vandals typically are of the hit-and-run type). Some edits, such as ones that use a script, can create multiple edits in a single mouse click. Similarly,
1022:
At the top of the comments section of each RfA, it reads "If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review
Special:Contributions/..." Snap decisions based on the number of edits, whether overall or in a particular namespace, work on featured articles or in discussions, without taking
1018:
Users often gain useful experience as they rack up edits. Particular contributions, such as involvement with a WikiProject, participation in various processes such as FAC, AFD and RFA, or discussion on talk pages, can not only give the user experience which will prove useful as an administrator, but
1792:
Third, editors contribute to
Knowledge in many different ways. Helping with copyright problems with images is different than identifying problems with new articles, and both are different than helping mediate disputes among editors, yet all three are things that demonstrate valuable skills that are
1776:
First, counts in a namespace can come from a variety of things: a high amount of Talk edits may be an indication of experience interacting with users, or simply semi-automated tagging for WikiProjects. A high number of User Talk postings may be dealing with problematic editors (a challenging matter
1657:
Many excellent users are ready to take on administrator tasks, yet for whatever reason have not been nominated by another editor. If a candidate has demonstrated clearly that they have what it takes to be an administrator, then the sooner they become an administrator, the better for everyone. Thus,
468:
Criticisms should be constructive and polite. They should give the candidate an idea of what they should change in order that you could trust them. If the change could be made quickly and easily, consider proposing it to the candidate on their talk page and waiting for a response before commenting
1251:
Every editor was once a new editor who was struggling to figure out
Knowledge, and every editor made mistakes during that process. Many good editors and valuable admins have made significant errors or even been blocked at one time or another. Editors should generally place more emphasis on recent
1723:
In short, an RFA participant who looks only at the total edit count may well get a wrong impression of the candidate's contributions. To say something meaningful about the candidate, it's important to look at the contributions themselves, not just their number or distribution (as discussed in the
792:
Sometimes, a user has already expressed your exact thoughts on an RfA, and in these cases it's reasonable to state that you fully agree with them. On other occasions, you might find yourself in broad agreement with various points made, and in these instances, it's very useful if you state exactly
1718:
content and (where appropriate) new articles. It's difficult to validly judge the quality of a candidate by looking at disambiguation pages or double redirects that they have fixed; it's much easier if the candidate has been a significant contributor to articles (particularly controversial ones)
464:
Comments in opposition to an RfA are usually subject to greater examination than comments in support of one. It is particularly helpful if comments are precise, give examples and/or diffs, and explain why the examples presented give rise to the conclusion that the user cannot be trusted with the
302:
RfA is not a popularity contest, nor is it designed to force potential administrators to meet arbitrary criteria. It is not designed to judge whether a potential administrator holds the correct view on a controversial issue—which is different from asking whether they will apply a current policy
1780:
Second, a particular skill (interacting with other editors, for example) can be demonstrated in several different namespaces, including user talk pages, article talk pages, Knowledge and
Knowledge talk pages. Similarly, the ability to understand policy (and make good arguments about it) can be
1805:
in an area that may be considered basic: editing, working with other editors, or understanding something about
Knowledge policies and the Knowledge community. But opposing a candidate simply because they do not contribute in the same way that a participant does, or in the way that an "ideal"
1756:
Different tasks generate different numbers of edits in different namespaces. Someone who spends a lot of time reverting vandalism or tagging unused non-free images will have a disproportionately high number of user talk edits because these actions, when properly done, include adding warning
1693:
First, a very high number of edits isn't a guarantee of trustworthiness. There are editors with tens of thousands of edits who have been blocked multiple times, as evidenced by their block logs. There are also editors with many thousands of edits who have racked these numbers up by using
1684:
One of the more problematic "arguments to avoid" is the improper use of the number of edits (usually determined by looking at the results from an edit counter). Certainly an editor with only 100 edits is too inexperienced to be an administrator. But the negation argument—that a
1777:
to do well) or posting vandalism warnings to mostly anonymous IP talk pages (not so challenging, though still needed). Postings to
Knowledge and Knowledge Talk pages may be helpful, or simply chattiness; RfA and AfD postings may be insightful or simply bandwagon postings.
117:
Users contribute to
Knowledge in different ways. Don't deny Knowledge a valuable administrator simply because a user contributes in a different way than you do. Regardless of whether you support or oppose the candidate, be sure to also provide good reasons for your
1764:
balance—a desirable percentage in
Knowledge namespace (policy understanding), mainspace (article editing), user talk space (user interaction), and talk space (working constructively with other editors), for example. Sometimes this argument involves
481:
Activities off-wiki are not usually considered as part of an RfA—even if a candidate takes part in activities in real life or elsewhere on the internet which you find objectionable or highly admirable. Further, voters need to consider the
1537:
actually have a good reason for supporting or opposing the nomination, it may not be self-evident to other users. In addition to the diff, you should give some explanation of why the diff shows that the user is good or bad for adminship.
1747:
a certain level of contribution from anyone. If a candidate can benefit the project by using their admin tools for just 10 minutes a week, that's 10 minutes more of useful admin work that
Knowledge gets that it otherwise would not.
1023:
into account the quality of these and other contributions and their relevance to adminship are not helpful. If you are tempted to leave a comment along these lines, consider whether you can take the time to check out their edits.
1144:
Knowledge benefits from having as many trustworthy administrators as possible. RfAs are intended to establish whether a particular user can be trusted with the tools, not whether they will use them to their maximum potential.
472:
If you oppose an RfA, your rationale may well be questioned or challenged. If possible, consider the points raised in response to your objection, and reply politely as to whether or not you stand by your initial rationale.
2260:
166:
939:
Conversely, providing a brief rationale allows you to explain your reasoning, carries more weight in the bureaucrat's consideration of the candidacy, and may even convince others to change their views on the candidate.
1806:
candidate would, is counterproductive: it can deprive Knowledge of a good administrator, forcing existing administrators to focus less on the administrative task they prefer to do and more on what they feel they
1438:
RFA votes should never focus on "getting back" at the candidate for AFD-ing the article you started, opposing your proposal, or anything of the sort. Inversely, support votes should not be given as rewards.
662:– user has been very active in the debate on our usage of fair use images; even though I do not agree with their position, their reasoned approach shows that they can keep a cool head in a heated discussion.
1703:
of edits needs to be taken into account—a participant who does not consider an editor's contributions in detail should not simply support or oppose a candidate based on the edit count (too high or too low).
579:
If a comment in support or opposition relies on a user's support or opposition to a particular issue, it is particularly useful to make clear why this may affect their suitability to be an administrator.
285:
intended to be binding policy, nor is there an expectation that editors who comment on RfAs should be familiar with it; it is, rather, to be an informative guide to useful participation in the forum.
583:
A candidate may have a strong opinion on a topic but can be trusted not to abuse admin tools to further their philosophy. For example, many administrators with opinions which could be described as "
1760:
Sometimes a candidate receives opposition based on the balance of edits between the various namespaces. The extreme (and most problematic) of such arguments is that the candidate fails to have the
2276:
217:
1652:
1082:
1797:
required to be good at everything; in fact, most administrators tend to focus on what interests them: they're not being paid, of course; why work on what is tedious or uninteresting?
1710:
candidates (and discourages potential candidates) who spend significant time improving articles and creating new ones. Finding sources and exercising good editorial judgment takes
1041:
2063:
1150:
If a trustworthy person does not use the tools at all, there is absolutely no harm done. If they use them even once to good effect, then their adminship has served a purpose.
529:
In extreme cases, or where it may provide useful information in addition to a comment based on the user's contributions to Knowledge, off-wiki activities can be of interest.
306:
It is particularly helpful to give examples when commenting. The best way to do this is usually to link to the page or the diff showing the behaviour you are commenting on.
1355:
176:
2015:
1927:
1714:, and while Knowledge needs vandal fighters and fixers of typos and editors who tag problems, the true value of Knowledge comes from those who improve the encyclopedia by
1662:
on the fact that the candidate is self-nominated. However, some users do not agree with this and hold a self-nomination to a higher standard than a non-self-nomination.
1148:
While it's great if administrators are active and use the tools they have, a contributor who uses the administrators' tools once a month still benefits the community.
988:
444:
1348:
1239:
1195:
1114:
1056:
2255:
981:
932:
887:
826:
765:
713:
668:
627:
567:
171:
1307:
1292:
522:
2286:
212:
962:
720:
If you are tempted to leave a comment like this, consider whether you could leave a comment based solely on the merits of the user's activities on Knowledge.
781:
917:
860:
651:
2245:
1217:
337:
141:
811:
612:
2281:
2240:
1180:
207:
161:
550:
2312:
352:
347:
238:
1333:
1277:
645:– user has stated that they believe the criteria for speedy deletion should be broadened, and that they will interpret the guidelines that way anyway.
591:" only make deletions in the most obvious and uncontroversial of cases, where reasonable editors are highly unlikely to disagree with their actions.
507:
2058:
1516:– This candidate is very encouraging to newcomers, and frequently leaves WikiLove messages for them when they add sources and follow the rules about
899:
Votes that provide no rationale at all do not give constructive feedback to the candidate, nor do they contribute to the consensus-building process.
2250:
2225:
2129:
181:
146:
2048:
2043:
1829:
342:
233:
1908:
745:
594:
The question should be whether a candidate can be trusted not to let personal opinions lead to an action that is against consensus or policy.
1942:
1074:– user states that they want to focus on deletion, but they have only commented in two AFDs, and they didn't seem to understand the process.
698:
2204:
2010:
1954:
362:
2000:
1947:
1995:
402:
2322:
2235:
1937:
1915:
994:
156:
43:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
1360:
Arguments in RFAs should be made on the merit of the candidate alone, without even mentioning others, which could be construed as a
1982:
1851:
1735:
One final twist on editcountitis is concluding that the candidate is experienced enough but arguing against the candidate based on
1819:
1501:
1903:
871:– looking at all the discussion, and through the editor's contributions, I see no reason to oppose and particularly agree with
856:
when they say that the candidate has too few edits in the user talk space—what has that got to do with being an administrator?
407:
1898:
1325:– This user's work demonstrates ongoing confusion about fundamental policies, as can be seen in these diffs from last month:
2075:
451:
191:
1228:– even though the user has little experience of dealing with vandals, their contributions to various talk page discussions
561:– in addition to their great work on Knowledge, the user has an exemplary record as an administrator on ThisProminentSite.
2035:
1932:
1920:
1213:– user has no experience of any deletion-related processes, so I cannot judge whether they can be trusted in this field.
694:– even though they are a great contributor, user writes like a twelve year old so they couldn't be a good administrator.
264:
1288:– Someone complained about the editor at ANI, and if they were a good editor, then no one would ever have complained.
2106:
894:
416:
44:
1121:
734:– even though they are in their thirties, the contributor keeps playing immature jokes, removing text from articles,
2197:
1881:
372:
36:
1859:
1689:
of edits is needed to really know Knowledge (and that this is critical for adminship)—has two different problems:
2116:
2111:
2070:
1959:
1824:
787:
574:
186:
95:
1706:
Second, setting an arbitrary threshold—say, 3000 or 4000 or 5000 edits—as a "minimum" to demonstrate experience
1104:
but has engaged in constructive discussion about them, and has many good contributions to the project namespace.
393:
1252:
behavior and on the editor's response to their errors than on whether any error can possibly be found. Avoid
2327:
2101:
425:
48:
1613:
1594:
1591:
1569:
1553:
1233:
1231:
1229:
1109:
1107:
1105:
1102:
1100:
1098:
1096:
1094:
1077:
1075:
760:
757:
740:
737:
735:
663:
646:
562:
544:
2170:
1891:
1844:
1191:– user says they are mostly interested in deletion and don't intend to get involved with blocking vandals.
357:
1886:
2190:
1246:
476:
2317:
2096:
98:
which is aimed mainly at new users, or users new to voting at RfA. It is strongly advised to read both.
2307:
955:
324:
2139:
1873:
2159:
2134:
1837:
1671:
852:
highlights their tendency to get into long arguments on talk pages. However, I don't agree with
257:
784:: In fact, "editors are free to use age as a personal rationale for opposing adminship on RfA".
1990:
1863:
756:– user is from Wisconsin, and has been the core of the Wisconsin WikiProject, helping new users
584:
489:
If a user's contributions to Knowledge are constructive, many off-wiki issues are unimportant:
680:
If a user can't change something, it is almost never helpful to bring it into a discussion.
2027:
1781:
demonstrated in a number of places, not all in the same namespace. In short, namespaces and
1009:
588:
1739:: that "this candidate doesn't contribute frequently enough". For all practical purposes,
1528:
1273:
and only people who have been continuously perfect since their first edit should be admins.
2091:
1642:
1344:– This user is mature enough to own up to and resolve his mistakes without creating drama.
127:
1135:
1019:
also enable you to determine whether they are likely to prove trustworthy with the tools.
309:
8:
437:
296:
546:
to delete the main page and block every user in London if they become an administrator.
292:
tools?" Making a decision whether to trust an unfamiliar candidate is often difficult.
66:
2124:
1634:
1127:
1001:
848:
makes a good point about the candidate's lack of experience in deletion debates, while
250:
58:
1860:
Advice, requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives
1497:
675:
51:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
1695:
483:
32:
1680:
It is unhelpful to keep counting beans once you know that you have plenty to eat.
1052:– user has worked on five articles which are now featured, so they must be good.
289:
1724:
next section). And certainly a decision to support or oppose a candidate should
1617:
1433:
1517:
1037:– user only has ten Knowledge talk: namespace edits which isn't nearly enough.
2301:
1597:
1361:
1155:
278:
94:
This is one of two important advice pages for RFA voters. The other one is
1751:
1621:
1601:
1572:
1557:
1521:
1505:
1478:
1466:
1454:
1426:
1414:
1395:
1383:
1379:
1345:
1330:
1304:
1303:– This user always adds an edit summary and has never misspelled anything.
1289:
1274:
1236:
1214:
1192:
1177:
1111:
1079:
1053:
1038:
993:"WP:NOTENOUGH" redirects here. For Knowledge is not done enough essay, see
978:
977:
above, this user also has a demonstrated history of content contributions.
974:
959:
929:
914:
884:
880:
876:
872:
857:
853:
849:
845:
823:
808:
762:
742:
710:
695:
665:
648:
624:
609:
564:
547:
519:
504:
1628:
709:– user is from Wisconsin, and we need more administrators from Wisconsin.
1658:
many people believe it is counter-productive to oppose a candidate based
1719:
where they have had to interact and explain and make a case for changes.
288:
The question posed with every RfA is "Can this user be trusted with the
1394:- Opposers have been very rude, and that makes me like this candidate.
1425:- I support this candidate because of their work in fighting vandals.
623:– this user gave a really witty response to someone I disagreed with.
299:", bearing in mind that admin actions can be undone by another admin.
2182:
1665:
1653:
Knowledge:Why self-nominated RfA candidates could be more competent
1477:- They have given me lots of barnstars and have been really nice.
1256:
emphasis on minor problems or errors made a very long time ago.
1676:
1600:; if made an admin, they will probably make too many bad blocks.
1382:
supports, and I don't trust them, so this candidate must be bad.
1772:
There are at least three problems with this type of opposition:
1356:
Using another's opinion or name to cast a contradicting opinion
793:
which points you agree with (and any with which you disagree).
1496:- The candidate nominates obviously-notable articles, such as
1793:
important to an administrator. Knowledge administrators are
1413:- I oppose this candidate because they need more experience.
1596:, this user has the tendency to make problematic reports at
2277:
List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates
277:
This is intended as a guide to getting the most out of the
1813:
1743:
editing Knowledge is a volunteer; it's inappropriate to
1093:– the user has not only worked on five featured articles,
2261:
in place and transportation related deletion discussions
1769:
of namespace: AfD discussions, RfA discussions, etc.
1785:
are not the same, so failure to have many edits in a
1235:
convince me that they can be trusted with the tools.
1801:
It's appropriate to oppose a candidate who has done
1465:- The candidate's nominator blocked me in the past.
1328:
1326:
1271:
1176:– user sometimes disappears for a month at a time.
218:
Policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates
989:Must have 10,000 edits, three featured articles...
2299:
1453:- Candidate nominated my article for deletion.
1154:Editors who work with a certain process (e.g.
486:policy before discussing off-wiki activities.
2287:How to save an article nominated for deletion
2198:
1845:
445:
258:
213:How to save an article nominated for deletion
954:– user behaves immaturely, as demonstrated
608:– user disagreed with me in an AFD debate.
2205:
2191:
1852:
1838:
1789:namespace proves very little, if anything.
543:– user has threatened on a bulletin board
452:
438:
265:
251:
2313:Matters related to requests for adminship
2282:Arguments to make in deletion discussions
1270:– This user made a mistake six years ago,
995:Knowledge:Knowledge is a work in progress
208:Arguments to make in deletion discussions
1675:
1820:Knowledge:When not to link to WP:NOTNOW
1502:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Example
807:– as per most of what they said above.
759:and initiating discussions on policies.
518:– I know this user and they are great.
2300:
2212:
973:– in addition to the points raised by
883:in their evaluation of the candidate.
2186:
1833:
739:and redirecting them inappropriately.
1602:Protect Knowledge against bad blocks
103:
78:
18:
13:
1955:Advice for asking questions at RfA
49:thoroughly vetted by the community
45:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
14:
2339:
1616:shows the user truly understands
2323:Knowledge essays about adminship
107:
82:
22:
1825:Knowledge:Advice for RfA voters
1757:templates to user talk pages.
1983:Requests for adminship by year
503:– user was rude to me on IRC.
91:Reading time: approx. 14 mins.
1:
1694:semi-automated tools such as
177:Template deletion discussions
167:Place/transportation deletion
2256:in file deletion discussions
7:
1928:Optional RfA candidate poll
1349:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
1334:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
1308:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
1293:01:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
1278:01:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
1240:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
1218:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
1196:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
1181:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
1115:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
1083:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
1057:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
1042:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
982:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
963:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
933:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
918:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
888:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
861:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
827:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
812:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
766:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
746:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
714:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
699:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
669:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
652:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
628:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
613:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
568:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
551:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
523:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
508:01:01, 1 January 2005 (UTC)
10:
2344:
2165:Current bureaucrat count:
1669:
1650:
1632:
1467:I Don't Like The Nominator
1455:I Don't Like The Candidate
1125:
999:
992:
772:Of course, requiring that
192:But there must be sources!
56:
16:Essay on editing Knowledge
2269:
2218:
2150:
2084:
2026:
1975:
1933:Advice for RfA candidates
1872:
1529:Diffs without explanation
1290:GuiltyUntilProvenInnocent
895:Not providing a rationale
363:Perennial deletion review
172:File deletion discussions
2231:in adminship discussions
1522:Teahouse hosting is fun!
310:Comments opposing an RfA
297:adminship is no big deal
281:(RfA) procedure. It is
239:Redirects for discussion
115:This page in a nutshell:
2246:in deletion discussions
2107:Inactive administrators
1672:Knowledge:Editcountitis
788:Exactly what they said!
575:User supports/opposes X
295:It is often said that "
2241:in feature discussions
1882:Requests for adminship
1681:
1122:Doesn't need the tools
37:Requests for adminship
2154:Current admin count:
2117:Desysoppings by month
2112:Former administrators
2071:Bureaucrat discussion
1679:
465:administrator tools.
353:Common outcomes (TfD)
348:Common outcomes (RfD)
343:Common outcomes (AfD)
279:request for adminship
234:Articles for deletion
187:Subjective importance
152:Adminship discussions
134:Arguments to avoid in
128:Knowledge discussions
96:Advice for RfA voters
47:, as it has not been
2328:Knowledge discussion
1590:- As you can see in
1573:Positive Diff Finder
1479:I Like The Candidate
1331:WorkReflectsTheAdmin
417:Proposals and policy
403:Guide to arbitration
394:Arbitration (Arbcom)
375:Bureaucratship (RfB)
142:Deletion discussions
2251:in deletion reviews
2226:On discussion pages
2076:Bureaucrat activity
1533:While a given diff
1500:for deletion. (See
1434:Revenge and rewards
1346:MaturityResolvesAll
1247:User made a mistake
477:Off-wiki activities
426:Perennial proposals
373:Adminship (RfA) and
182:On discussion pages
162:Feature discussions
2219:Arguments to avoid
2213:Arguments to avoid
2055:Unsuccessful RfBs
2007:Unsuccessful RfAs
1965:Arguments to avoid
1682:
1541:Unhelpful comments
1442:Unhelpful comments
1384:GuiltByAssociation
1367:Unhelpful comments
1259:Unhelpful comments
1178:Ever-presentEditor
1165:Unhelpful comments
1026:Unhelpful comments
960:Logicalandcoherent
902:Unhelpful comments
796:Unhelpful comments
782:perennial proposal
683:Unhelpful comments
649:StickToThePolicies
597:Unhelpful comments
492:Unhelpful comments
385:Arguments to avoid
358:Overcategorisation
338:Arguments to avoid
2318:Knowledge culture
2295:
2294:
2180:
2179:
1960:Advice for voters
1752:Namespace balance
1622:CSD A7 identifier
1215:JudgeByExperience
885:InformedSupporter
858:ReadTheDiscussion
565:ProminentSiteUser
462:
461:
275:
274:
200:Arguments to make
122:
121:
102:
101:
93:
77:
76:
2335:
2308:Knowledge essays
2207:
2200:
2193:
2184:
2183:
2097:Adminship reform
2040:Successful RfBs
1987:Successful RfAs
1867:
1854:
1847:
1840:
1831:
1830:
1645:
1629:Self-nominations
1579:Helpful comments
1558:This Diff Is Bad
1485:Helpful comments
1427:VandalVanquisher
1402:Helpful comments
1396:PolitenessPolice
1314:Helpful comments
1202:Helpful comments
1138:
1063:Helpful comments
1012:
943:Helpful comments
833:Helpful comments
723:Helpful comments
634:Helpful comments
610:ABitDisagreeable
532:Helpful comments
454:
447:
440:
317:Common decisions
314:
313:
267:
260:
253:
147:Deletion reviews
124:
123:
111:
110:
104:
89:
86:
85:
79:
69:
26:
25:
19:
2343:
2342:
2338:
2337:
2336:
2334:
2333:
2332:
2298:
2297:
2296:
2291:
2265:
2214:
2211:
2181:
2176:
2146:
2125:User rights log
2080:
2022:
1971:
1948:Self-nomination
1916:RfA nominations
1868:
1861:
1858:
1816:
1754:
1737:edits per month
1732:on edit count.
1674:
1668:
1655:
1649:
1648:
1641:
1637:
1631:
1626:
1580:
1577:
1542:
1531:
1526:
1486:
1483:
1443:
1436:
1431:
1403:
1400:
1368:
1362:personal attack
1358:
1353:
1315:
1312:
1260:
1249:
1244:
1203:
1200:
1166:
1160:absolutely must
1142:
1141:
1134:
1130:
1124:
1119:
1064:
1061:
1027:
1016:
1015:
1008:
1004:
998:
991:
986:
944:
937:
903:
897:
892:
834:
831:
797:
790:
770:
724:
718:
684:
678:
673:
635:
632:
625:EasilyImpressed
598:
577:
572:
533:
527:
493:
479:
458:
377:
312:
271:
226:Common outcomes
108:
83:
73:
72:
65:
61:
53:
52:
23:
17:
12:
11:
5:
2341:
2331:
2330:
2325:
2320:
2315:
2310:
2293:
2292:
2290:
2289:
2284:
2279:
2273:
2271:
2270:Good arguments
2267:
2266:
2264:
2263:
2258:
2253:
2248:
2243:
2238:
2233:
2228:
2222:
2220:
2216:
2215:
2210:
2209:
2202:
2195:
2187:
2178:
2177:
2175:
2174:
2163:
2151:
2148:
2147:
2145:
2144:
2143:
2142:
2137:
2132:
2127:
2119:
2114:
2109:
2104:
2099:
2094:
2088:
2086:
2082:
2081:
2079:
2078:
2073:
2068:
2067:
2066:
2061:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2046:
2038:
2032:
2030:
2024:
2023:
2021:
2020:
2019:
2018:
2013:
2005:
2004:
2003:
1998:
1993:
1985:
1979:
1977:
1973:
1972:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1957:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1945:
1940:
1930:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1906:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1889:
1878:
1876:
1874:Administrators
1870:
1869:
1857:
1856:
1849:
1842:
1834:
1828:
1827:
1822:
1815:
1812:
1799:
1798:
1790:
1778:
1753:
1750:
1721:
1720:
1704:
1667:
1664:
1647:
1646:
1638:
1633:
1630:
1627:
1625:
1624:
1604:
1581:
1578:
1576:
1575:
1560:
1543:
1540:
1530:
1527:
1525:
1524:
1508:
1487:
1484:
1482:
1481:
1469:
1457:
1444:
1441:
1435:
1432:
1430:
1429:
1417:
1404:
1401:
1399:
1398:
1386:
1369:
1366:
1357:
1354:
1352:
1351:
1336:
1316:
1313:
1311:
1310:
1295:
1280:
1261:
1258:
1248:
1245:
1243:
1242:
1220:
1204:
1201:
1199:
1198:
1183:
1167:
1164:
1140:
1139:
1131:
1126:
1123:
1120:
1118:
1117:
1085:
1080:Ms.Deletionist
1065:
1062:
1060:
1059:
1044:
1028:
1025:
1014:
1013:
1005:
1000:
990:
987:
985:
984:
965:
945:
942:
936:
935:
920:
904:
901:
896:
893:
891:
890:
863:
835:
832:
830:
829:
814:
798:
795:
789:
786:
774:administrators
769:
768:
748:
725:
722:
717:
716:
711:ILOVEWISCONSIN
701:
685:
682:
677:
674:
672:
671:
654:
636:
633:
631:
630:
615:
599:
596:
576:
573:
571:
570:
553:
534:
531:
526:
525:
510:
494:
491:
478:
475:
460:
459:
457:
456:
449:
442:
434:
431:
430:
429:
428:
420:
419:
413:
412:
411:
410:
405:
397:
396:
390:
389:
388:
387:
379:
378:
374:
371:
368:
367:
366:
365:
360:
355:
350:
345:
340:
332:
331:
321:
320:
318:
311:
308:
303:consistently.
273:
272:
270:
269:
262:
255:
247:
244:
243:
242:
241:
236:
228:
227:
223:
222:
221:
220:
215:
210:
202:
201:
197:
196:
195:
194:
189:
184:
179:
174:
169:
164:
159:
154:
149:
144:
136:
135:
131:
130:
120:
119:
112:
100:
99:
87:
75:
74:
71:
70:
62:
57:
54:
42:
41:
29:
27:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2340:
2329:
2326:
2324:
2321:
2319:
2316:
2314:
2311:
2309:
2306:
2305:
2303:
2288:
2285:
2283:
2280:
2278:
2275:
2274:
2272:
2268:
2262:
2259:
2257:
2254:
2252:
2249:
2247:
2244:
2242:
2239:
2237:
2234:
2232:
2229:
2227:
2224:
2223:
2221:
2217:
2208:
2203:
2201:
2196:
2194:
2189:
2188:
2185:
2172:
2168:
2164:
2161:
2157:
2153:
2152:
2149:
2141:
2138:
2136:
2133:
2131:
2128:
2126:
2123:
2122:
2120:
2118:
2115:
2113:
2110:
2108:
2105:
2103:
2100:
2098:
2095:
2093:
2090:
2089:
2087:
2083:
2077:
2074:
2072:
2069:
2065:
2064:Chronological
2062:
2060:
2057:
2056:
2054:
2050:
2049:Chronological
2047:
2045:
2042:
2041:
2039:
2037:
2034:
2033:
2031:
2029:
2025:
2017:
2016:Chronological
2014:
2012:
2009:
2008:
2006:
2002:
2001:Chronological
1999:
1997:
1994:
1992:
1989:
1988:
1986:
1984:
1981:
1980:
1978:
1974:
1966:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1958:
1956:
1953:
1949:
1946:
1944:
1941:
1939:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1931:
1929:
1926:
1922:
1921:Request a nom
1919:
1918:
1917:
1914:
1910:
1907:
1905:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1897:
1893:
1890:
1888:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1880:
1879:
1877:
1875:
1871:
1865:
1855:
1850:
1848:
1843:
1841:
1836:
1835:
1832:
1826:
1823:
1821:
1818:
1817:
1811:
1809:
1804:
1796:
1791:
1788:
1784:
1779:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1770:
1768:
1763:
1758:
1749:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1733:
1731:
1727:
1717:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1702:
1697:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1688:
1678:
1673:
1666:Editcountitis
1663:
1661:
1654:
1644:
1640:
1639:
1636:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1608:
1605:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1592:
1589:
1586:
1583:
1582:
1574:
1570:
1567:
1564:
1561:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1548:
1545:
1544:
1539:
1536:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1512:
1509:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1492:
1489:
1488:
1480:
1476:
1473:
1470:
1468:
1464:
1461:
1458:
1456:
1452:
1449:
1446:
1445:
1440:
1428:
1424:
1421:
1418:
1416:
1415:BuddingNovice
1412:
1409:
1406:
1405:
1397:
1393:
1390:
1387:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1374:
1371:
1370:
1365:
1363:
1350:
1347:
1343:
1340:
1337:
1335:
1332:
1329:
1327:
1324:
1321:
1318:
1317:
1309:
1306:
1305:Perfectionist
1302:
1299:
1296:
1294:
1291:
1287:
1284:
1281:
1279:
1276:
1272:
1269:
1266:
1263:
1262:
1257:
1255:
1241:
1238:
1234:
1232:
1230:
1227:
1224:
1221:
1219:
1216:
1212:
1209:
1206:
1205:
1197:
1194:
1190:
1187:
1184:
1182:
1179:
1175:
1172:
1169:
1168:
1163:
1161:
1157:
1152:
1151:
1146:
1137:
1133:
1132:
1129:
1116:
1113:
1112:AnotherFACFan
1110:
1108:
1106:
1103:
1101:
1099:
1097:
1095:
1092:
1089:
1086:
1084:
1081:
1078:
1076:
1073:
1070:
1067:
1066:
1058:
1055:
1051:
1048:
1045:
1043:
1040:
1036:
1033:
1030:
1029:
1024:
1020:
1011:
1007:
1006:
1003:
996:
983:
980:
976:
972:
969:
966:
964:
961:
957:
953:
950:
947:
946:
941:
934:
931:
927:
924:
921:
919:
916:
912:
909:
906:
905:
900:
889:
886:
882:
878:
874:
870:
867:
864:
862:
859:
855:
851:
847:
843:
840:
837:
836:
828:
825:
824:VeryAgreeable
821:
818:
815:
813:
810:
806:
803:
800:
799:
794:
785:
783:
779:
775:
767:
764:
761:
758:
755:
752:
749:
747:
744:
741:
738:
736:
733:
730:
727:
726:
721:
715:
712:
708:
705:
702:
700:
697:
693:
690:
687:
686:
681:
670:
667:
666:KeepACoolHead
664:
661:
658:
655:
653:
650:
647:
644:
641:
638:
637:
629:
626:
622:
619:
616:
614:
611:
607:
604:
601:
600:
595:
592:
590:
586:
581:
569:
566:
563:
560:
557:
554:
552:
549:
548:BoardInLondon
545:
542:
539:
536:
535:
530:
524:
521:
517:
514:
511:
509:
506:
502:
499:
496:
495:
490:
487:
485:
474:
470:
466:
455:
450:
448:
443:
441:
436:
435:
433:
432:
427:
424:
423:
422:
421:
418:
415:
414:
409:
406:
404:
401:
400:
399:
398:
395:
392:
391:
386:
383:
382:
381:
380:
376:
370:
369:
364:
361:
359:
356:
354:
351:
349:
346:
344:
341:
339:
336:
335:
334:
333:
330:
328:
323:
322:
319:and arguments
316:
315:
307:
304:
300:
298:
293:
291:
290:administrator
286:
284:
280:
268:
263:
261:
256:
254:
249:
248:
246:
245:
240:
237:
235:
232:
231:
230:
229:
225:
224:
219:
216:
214:
211:
209:
206:
205:
204:
203:
199:
198:
193:
190:
188:
185:
183:
180:
178:
175:
173:
170:
168:
165:
163:
160:
158:
155:
153:
150:
148:
145:
143:
140:
139:
138:
137:
133:
132:
129:
126:
125:
116:
113:
106:
105:
97:
92:
88:
81:
80:
68:
64:
63:
60:
55:
50:
46:
40:
38:
34:
28:
21:
20:
2236:in edit wars
2230:
2166:
2155:
2140:Meta old log
2085:Useful pages
2059:Alphabetical
2044:Alphabetical
2011:Alphabetical
1996:Alphabetical
1976:RfA analysis
1964:
1807:
1802:
1800:
1794:
1786:
1782:
1771:
1766:
1761:
1759:
1755:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1734:
1729:
1725:
1722:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1700:
1686:
1683:
1659:
1656:
1609:
1606:
1587:
1584:
1565:
1562:
1549:
1546:
1534:
1532:
1513:
1510:
1493:
1490:
1474:
1471:
1462:
1459:
1450:
1447:
1437:
1422:
1419:
1410:
1407:
1391:
1388:
1375:
1372:
1359:
1341:
1338:
1322:
1319:
1300:
1297:
1285:
1282:
1267:
1264:
1253:
1250:
1225:
1222:
1210:
1207:
1188:
1185:
1173:
1170:
1159:
1153:
1149:
1147:
1143:
1090:
1087:
1071:
1068:
1049:
1046:
1039:TalkTalkTalk
1034:
1031:
1021:
1017:
1010:WP:NOTENOUGH
979:Miss Helpful
970:
967:
951:
948:
938:
925:
922:
910:
907:
898:
868:
865:
841:
838:
819:
816:
804:
801:
791:
777:
773:
771:
753:
750:
743:StraightFace
731:
728:
719:
706:
703:
691:
688:
679:
659:
656:
642:
639:
620:
617:
605:
602:
593:
585:inclusionist
582:
578:
558:
555:
540:
537:
528:
515:
512:
505:Mr. Offended
500:
497:
488:
480:
471:
469:on the RfA.
467:
463:
384:
326:
305:
301:
294:
287:
282:
276:
151:
114:
90:
30:
2036:Noticeboard
2028:Bureaucrats
1762:appropriate
1275:Unforgiving
589:deletionist
31:This is an
2302:Categories
2102:RfX Report
2092:RFA reform
1670:See also:
1651:See also:
1643:WP:SELFNOM
1193:TheBlocker
763:Cheesehead
696:Patronizer
520:GoodFriend
408:Principles
325:Deletion (
1943:Miniguide
1728:be based
1708:penalizes
1614:This diff
1568:Based on
1554:this diff
1136:WP:NONEED
822:– agree.
809:Agreeable
676:User is X
157:Edit wars
2171:list all
2160:list all
2135:Meta log
1991:By month
1909:Archives
1904:new post
1899:RfA talk
1814:See also
1741:everyone
1635:Shortcut
1607:Example:
1585:Example:
1563:Example:
1547:Example:
1511:Example:
1491:Example:
1472:Example:
1460:Example:
1448:Example:
1420:Example:
1408:Example:
1389:Example:
1373:Example:
1339:Example:
1320:Example:
1298:Example:
1283:Example:
1265:Example:
1237:ATrustee
1223:Example:
1208:Example:
1186:Example:
1171:Example:
1128:Shortcut
1088:Example:
1069:Example:
1047:Example:
1032:Example:
1002:Shortcut
968:Example:
949:Example:
923:Example:
908:Example:
881:ExampleL
877:ExampleK
873:ExampleJ
866:Example:
839:Example:
817:Example:
802:Example:
751:Example:
729:Example:
704:Example:
689:Example:
657:Example:
640:Example:
618:Example:
603:Example:
556:Example:
538:Example:
513:Example:
498:Example:
59:Shortcut
35:on the
2130:Old log
1810:to do.
1803:nothing
1701:quality
1610:Support
1566:Support
1518:WP:NPOV
1514:Support
1475:Support
1423:Support
1392:Support
1342:Support
1301:Support
1226:Support
1091:Support
1050:Support
971:Support
930:Pile-on
926:Support
915:Silence
869:Support
820:Support
754:Support
707:Support
660:Support
621:Support
559:Support
516:Support
118:choice.
67:WP:AAAD
1864:search
1787:single
1783:skills
1745:demand
1730:solely
1716:adding
1696:Huggle
1660:solely
1618:CSD A7
1598:WP:AIV
1588:Oppose
1550:Oppose
1494:Oppose
1463:Oppose
1451:Oppose
1411:Oppose
1380:User X
1376:Oppose
1323:Oppose
1286:Oppose
1268:Oppose
1211:Oppose
1189:Oppose
1174:Oppose
1162:know.
1072:Oppose
1054:FACFan
1035:Oppose
952:Oppose
911:Oppose
842:Oppose
805:Oppose
778:adults
732:Oppose
692:Oppose
643:Oppose
606:Oppose
587:" or "
541:Oppose
501:Oppose
484:OUTING
2121:Logs
1938:Guide
1892:watch
1767:parts
1726:never
1254:undue
780:is a
33:essay
1887:edit
1808:have
1712:time
1593:and
1552:Per
1520:. –
956:here
879:and
854:0005
850:0005
846:0003
2156:850
1795:not
1687:lot
1535:may
1506:XYZ
1504:).
1498:ABC
1156:AfD
975:XYZ
776:be
329:fD)
283:not
2304::
2167:15
1620:.
1612:-
1571:.
1556:.
1378:-
1364:.
958:.
928:–
913:–
875:,
844:–
2206:e
2199:t
2192:v
2173:)
2169:(
2162:)
2158:(
1866:)
1862:(
1853:e
1846:t
1839:v
997:.
453:e
446:t
439:v
327:X
266:e
259:t
252:v
39:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.