672:
just for instance, suppose that everyone has the "right" (if they're moving in the right direction) to get assigned to an advisor, who will give them a quick assessment every couple of months until they're ready...nothing too exhausting or too fancy, just "tell me what you've done good and bad...nope, look at these 3 other noms, their contributions remind me of yours, and they didn't make it...look for yourself and see if you agree; you may want to study them and see what went wrong, but if you think you can make it anyway, go ahead"...that kind of thing. Suppose we have a sign-up sheet for this role of advisor, and take only the first 10 volunteers (because if it's a long list, no one advisor will be able to establish the kind of track record of impartiality that would lead skittish candidates to trust them, although the list of 10 might change over time). At the top of WP:RfA, we have an infobox that says, if you want to self-nom, here's a list of people who have a good track record in this kind of thing. (My guess is it would work better to assign people to advisors, otherwise potential candidates will think...wrongly..."Oh, Balloonman is famous, I'll do a lot better if I pick him".) Granted, if the candidate doesn't give honest information to the guy they're relying on, the results will be bad; you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. This is another reason for a more lightweight advisorâadvisee relationship than what's available now; it doesn't suck up too much of the advisor's time with a candidate who might be less than honest. - Dan
558:...I believe there are many people who hang out at WP:RfA would can tell with 80% or 90% accuracy whether a candidate is likely to pass or not. It would save the time of people at WP:RfA, improve the quality of their advice (since they wouldn't have as much work to do), and save the time and feelings of the candidates, if people would hold their fire, and the process would start with someone knowledgeable saying something like "Please look at the following 3 previous candidates whose contributions remind me of yours...notice they didn't succeed, and consider the advice they got. Are you sure you want to do this now, or would you like to prepare a bit first?" The question should only come from someone who has a track record of making the right call and of having the best interests of the candidate at heart; asking a candidate to withdraw for any other reason is like to either be or be perceived as bullying.
616:
coaches support. I think some people do a better job at vetting candidates than others. Some people can predict the fate of an RfA better than another, but you can never know. I like to think I vet candidates pretty well and have a sense of the way the wind is blowing. Many of my candidates/coachees get 100+ supports because I don't nom people I don't think will be good admins and with one notable exception I don't nom them if I don't think they will pass. That being said, I recently had a candidate get SNOWED on me... I THOUGHT he would pass, but his RfA didn't even last a day! You never really know what is going to happen.---
1031:<-- I've added two questions, intended to review RfA and adminship overall. The first refers to the characteristics of admins, and asks if the process could be geared to focus on the trustworthiness issue (being the sole criteria cited in policy) or a set of desirable characteristics. The second asks the respondent to list parts of RfA that work, and contrast them with parts that don't. This question, I think, will be useful in weighting the recommendations - a strong response that questions are bad, for example, would lend greater weight to recommendations for changing the question portion of RfA. How does this work?
706:
20 RfAs with regular nominations. These lists would show the editor's editcounts, length of experience, and support/oppose %. This might be a good way to illustrate minimums without actually debating and setting them; the average of the last 20 RfAs would be given in terms of successful and unsuccessful, so editors considering it could see the trends. if they're below the average for successful RfAs, they might consider waiting. Oh hell, I'm going to have to do stats on this, aren't I?
33:
92:
64:
1191:, there are a lot of editors who believe that RFA is hopelessly broken, as well as a lot who think it works just fine (an argument which we won't be getting into here). The questions in the Recommend phase (where we currently are) show this, in that they all ask if anything can be or needs to be done to correct problems. The way the problems were detected is through a statistical analysis of the data gathered in the Question phase (found
192:
156:
1220:"RfA is good", then that would have been that - but some editors had concerns, and this list of questions is a result. Of the 114 responses we've received to date (!), several reject the questions outright - I've seen quite a few "This isn't a problem at all" responses, which is fine. The reason I'm spending so much time on this project is that it's different - it's editors stepping up and offering their insights, rather than
78:
292:
563:
say "You can't run for RfA unless you've been active for 6 months", but having a few people act in the role of "trusted advocates", with the job of giving sound advice to any candidate about their chances based on the track record of similar candidates at RfA, would probably streamline the process, save people's time, and help morale all around. - Dan
1071:
asked to address the individual concerns and attempt to find a resolution to them, that it becomes somewhat onerous to figure out any kind of broad consensus. I don't want to discourage the addition of new questions but such should be approached with caution, to ensure the process doesn't become so daunting that it winds up collapsing in on itself.
482:. For example, 16 editors suggested that admins should stand for reconfirmation periodically - and this is listed as a perennial proposal, which fails largely due to the scale of the task (over 25 reconfirmations per week for the 1,500+ admins currently on the list). Do we still forward this as a proposal? Or do we cite
1115:<-- How long do people have to prepare their answers to the questions? I think this should be placed on the page, not sure how long it was in regard to the previous steps. Also i have changed the message at the top of this page to reflect the stage where it is at now, feel free to tweak or change it. Thanks
1496:
Given the recent developments over various topics and threads ... I'd like to kick this thing in the rear, and get some communication flowing in all directions. I'm interested in how RfA has an impact on those who have endured it. How has it affected your point of view in regards to both WP and RfA
1219:
Lifebaka hit the points I was going to mention. I'd only add this - the whole point of the review, as I saw it, was to move from "Rfa is bad" to "These are the ways in which RfA is Bad" to "These are specific things we can do to make RfA less bad". If we had received 209 responses that uniformly said
610:
First, this is what the nom shold be doing. The nom should be asking 1) Will the candidate make a good admin? 2) In the current environment, will the candidate pass an RfA? But, let's ignore the nom. Your proposal is, in part, what admin coaching is intended to do. If a coachee fails an RfA, then
1166:
I went to this discussion page wondering if anyone had the same reaction to the questionnaire as I. I have my answer. Like most group activities, wikipedia has a core which takes this way too seriously for my taste. But, happily, the I am still welcome to play around at the margins. For that I am
1129:
The last questionnaire ran from 12 June to 1 July - Since this one is a bit longer, I figured we'd give it a month - but there has been very little discussion on the point. A good target date might be 8 or 15 October, both of which are
Fridays. As for the top of this page - I totally missed that, so
705:
I'm not sure that the advisor role couldn't be filled by a coach, if only as a form of pre-coaching. The caveat there is that we're already short on coaches, so adding more burden to the process as-is would be problematic. An alternative might be to show the last 20 RfAs with self-noms, and the last
651:
Actually, that is what I am kind of working on... reviewing what is being done... and who is doing it. I know that there are some people whose coaching I DO NOT respect. There are others who do a good job. I'm happy when the big criticism for my coachees is that they "might be over prepared." It
592:
Some of that occurs at Admin
Coaching, with coaches themselves evaluating candidates. This is good and bad; it creates that mentor relationship, but it also focuses the coaching on RfA, which is problematic. That's one of the criticisms of self-noms, that no one has vetted a candidate before they go
502:
I say it is worth revisting. Perhaps if a number of editors still think it's a good idea, such as the 16 mentioned above, maybe some changes could be used to the alter the idea to make it more feasible, such as making the reconfirmation RFA only every two years or only applicable to "active" admins,
422:
I agree with this. I also think we should specifically look at areas that contributors have stated doesn't work well for them, and try to address them by building up a set of requirements to initiate the recommend phase with. Areas that people feel work well can have less of a focus. Hope this makes
323:
I know we want to add a section offering background on adminship - sort of a where we are, where we've been section - but what other prose items do we need to add? I'm reading through, and wondering if we can kill two birds with one survey by drawing up conclusions and using those conclusions as the
1392:
Blah blah blah RfA is broken. Nope. Changed my mind. It is NOT broken. I'd love to see changes that either make it harder to get an RfA, OR easier to get an RfA PLUS easier to be desysopped. But whatever. The system is what it is and it works reasonably well. The REAL problem here is that it takes
1070:
I took a look at this (saw the link at WT:RFA). Overall I have to say that the questions are looking pretty good, although there might be some concern regarding the scope and number of them. It has been my experience that when a problem is broken down into so many constituent parts and people are
615:
but I was taking a look at what caused coaching to fail a few months ago. It failed because suddenly people started treating coaching as a "get by RfA" pass and rushed candidates through the process and not truly vetting them... or the candidate pushed the envelope and decided to run without their
562:
I haven't seen discussion on other pages about the negative consequences of failure. If someone thinks they'll do great at RfA if they just do X, Y and Z, and they spend 3 months jumping through what they think are the right hoops, and fail, it's likely to sour them on
Knowledge. We don't need to
1460:
that were written by people whose names I recognize from RFAs, which IIRC was a little less than half of the responses. Because there were so many entries from people I didn't recognize and from people who I did recognize who don't generally participate at RFA, I think that adding up totals isn't
1183:
Statistically speaking, it is, actually. The percent of editors who become admins is far below the percent of high-school students who enter college (based on my own anecdotal evidence, and in the US; I could dig up actual percentages if asked), and there is no equivalent of colleges/universities
969:
Kinda. Reccomendations should form a starting point to generate a set of requirements - a list of items that a process needs to fulfil in order for it to be considered fit for use. It may be that through the reccomendations discussion, some requirements will be added and a priority list will form.
1335:
As we begin to wrap up the
Recommend phase, I note that 273 editors have formatted subpages for the RfA Review Recommendations. Are there thoughts on how to find the most common recommendations from that list? I am inclined to use a statistical model, as we did last time around, but wanted to get
671:
My fault, I'm not being clear, I'm talking about self-noms. We currently have 3 open self-nommed RfAs, all of which are on the minus side of 70%. All of these guys chose, for whatever reason, to go it alone. I don't want to say there's only one system that would work, because I'd be wrong, but
887:
OK, so I've taken the most common (or strongest) sentiments from the responses and tried to draft recommendations around them. These took the form of "Editors said RfA should be X and Y, how should we accomplish this?" The dilemma - I have 16 of these already. For reference, we had 15 questions.
344:
That's exactly the plan. We should be able to detail conclusions from the current process, and use those as the basis for constructing recommendations. On that note though, what do you think the conclusions are? Also, I'd like to do some images for the perceptions/attributes element, in order to
749:
I also strongly encourage editors to try out Editor Review before going for RfA. It might identify problem areas or pitfalls beforehand. It might also gain you interest from an experienced editor or administrator willing to nominate you for adminship at some stage in the future, or who would be
1352:
Whew, this got lost in my watchlist, otherwise I would've been here much sooner. I don't know how well a statistical model will work here, as the questions were much more open, but it's at least worth a shot to see if anything meaningful comes out of it. Drop me a line if you need any help.
524:"Some editors favor requiring admins to have their administrator status confirmed periodically, in order to ensure that they have the trust of the community. What do you think? How often should such reconfirmations take place? How complex - or simple - should the process for reconfirmation be?"
1370:
I've read through the first 24 responses, and they're good ones. About the only clear consensus at this point is that automatic reconfirmation sucks - but we already have more than 100 distinct recommendations on everything from RFA Clerks (!) to hybrid New Admin School/Coaching/Editor Review
635:
Agreed - we had several editors criticize coaching as "Teaching for the Test". You know, it might not be a bad idea to do a mini-RfA Review with the 5 or 10 best coaches and see what they're doing right, then use that as fodder to expand/formalize/rennovate the current coaching process. Best
750:
prepared to coach you. And Ultra, while I'd love to help you out on the coaching side of things, I'm still way to inexperienced as an admin to be useful there. I'm happy to perform editor reviews and assesments though inorder to provide people with useful feedback. Hope this helps,
920:
I'm reading over it now. As well as talking about what reccomendations for further examination we have, I'd also like to include suggestions about what currently works well so that we can feed back some positive messages. I'll make some tweaks for you to look at. Hope this helps,
611:
I put the blame for that failure on the Coach not the candidate. (Conversely, if the coachee passes an RfA, I put the credit for passing on the candidate.) Unfortunately, we've had a large number of coachees that failed in May/June that gave coaching a black eye. This is a
1198:
Also, while you may not agree that the
Recommend questionnaire is relatively well balanced given the initial input into it, you are of course free to state on it that the RFA process as it stands works just fine, regardless of how exactly the questions are worded. Cheers.
399:"There is evidence that editors see RfA as a negative process, with issues such as badgering of opposes, personal attacks, and a general lack of civility being prominent concerns. How would you recommend changing the RfA process to address these concerns?"
865:, which is a tally of the last ~400 RFAs that got snowed with 0 support and how many edits the candidate had (along with what month it was and how many opposers there were). I also have the same data in a spreadsheet if that would help for any reason.
904:
I know there's discussion going on about inactive and active admins; if there's a question that can come from that, I'd like to add it; otherwise, if there are no concerns about this list, I'll start setting up templates. Please have a look - thanks!
403:
We'll either get concrete so-fix-it style responses, with policy proposals that could be turned into policy, or we'll get "Once the culture of RfA changes, these problems will go away", or we'll get "I don't see those concerns as a problem."
837:
months of experience. The averages for unsuccessful candidates are actually not that different from the successful candidates; The average edit count for the last 23 unsuccessful RfAs (not counting NOTNOW closures, but counting SNOW) was
1006:
I'm still having trouble sorting out what to add here - do the responses we already have not form a set of requirements for characteristics of admins and, by extension, what points RfA needs to address? Or am I missing something?
941:
Agreed - My only concern would be that recommendations about things that work might end up changing what works about them. Maybe some general baseline-style questions, like the ones we had at the end last time around.
888:
Please review the draft, and see if we're missing any major items from the responses. Please also rephrase my wording wherever I was unclear; the simpler we can be, the easier it'll be for editors to respond. Thanks,
770:
And maybe Editor Review is something that can provide insight into coaching and pre-adminship mentoring... Maybe there are best practices there that would work well elsewhere. Too... many.... ideas....
970:
It's then easy to identify where the current process misses those current requirements snd should be fairly straightforward to work out if any proposed replacement will meet them. Hope this helps,
1313:
1268:
1461:
going to be helpful. I'm currently working in userspace on a list of all the proposed ideas that haven't been generally rejected at WT:RFA since the RFA Review process started. - Dan
1247:
Individual questions in the questionnaire are all optional. If you only have the time/inclination to answer one question, please do so. Even a brief answer is helpful to the project.
391:"There is evidence that editors see RfA as a negative process, with issues such as badgering of opposes, personal attacks, and a general lack of civility being prominent concerns."
1151:
The questionaire makes the request for adminship process look worse than choosing and getting into university. The questionaire should be redone by a different group of people. --
1117:
1475:
Thank you for the work. :) I have to believe it is probably a rather daunting task, and can well understand how it might take a while to gather together all the information.
1284:
1281:
369:
We've got a graph for each, listing top responses. Are their any contradictory pairs you'd like to compare, or do you have something else in mind for those images?
578:
But who will be on this "filtering" team and how do we decide who goes on the team? Does this extra layer actually provide enough benefit to justify its creation?
549:
169:
1563:
136:
1140:
1278:
815:
517:
I would agree, though I think we should give as few details as possible, so that the meat of the proposal comes from the editors. Maybe something like:
1457:
1192:
743:
572:
486:, and go in a different direction? De-bundling the tools is on there as well, with its failure cited as a technical issue. Is that worth revisiting?
265:
1426:
UltraExactZZ had been footing a lot of the work, and he hasn't edited since
December 22nd. I'll shoot him an email later today, to see what's up.
451:
Agreed. I've tried to start posting some drafts, along those lines. Recall will be a fun one, and I tried two sides of the same coin with that one.
1325:
789:
As a point of information, based on the last 25 successful
Candidates for Adminship (from Lifebaka to Ice Cold Beer), the average support ratio is
1061:
915:
856:
1548:
1307:
1301:
1274:
666:
646:
1176:
1123:
165:
146:
1364:
1238:
1210:
1017:
985:
952:
936:
781:
461:
438:
379:
360:
303:
1451:
1400:
1105:
1082:
874:
603:
541:
512:
1386:
716:
1484:
1470:
1573:
700:
681:
630:
496:
1262:
797:. If we take J.delanoy and Good Ol'factory out, both of whom had well over 45000 edits at the start of their RfAs, the average is still
1437:
765:
734::). That's actually not a bad idea; people would trust statistics even more than they'd trust an advisor. Excellent approach. - Dan
587:
308:
1041:
898:
1187:
I'm not sure I agree with your analysis of why it's this way, however. Having looked over quite a few of the responses to the
99:
1160:
1290:
Hmm, that's interesting. Not terribly surprising, though, about what does and doesn't help. Thanks for the link. Cheers.
612:
471:
479:
225:: Recommendations from editors are now being reviewed and analyzed, with the goal of generating specific policy proposals.
77:
1317:
17:
387:<- I think we will want to branch out in two directions. The Reflect Report should end with statements such as this:
1568:
1539:
1377:
1342:
1234:
1136:
1101:
1057:
1037:
1013:
948:
911:
894:
852:
811:
777:
712:
642:
599:
537:
503:
in order to cut down on the load. Since "information is king" I think as many proposals as possible would be the best.
492:
457:
410:
375:
334:
1381:
1346:
414:
338:
108:
1513:
1051:
for additional eyes; if the current questions are sound, I think we can begin the
Recommend phase within the week.
236:
1420:
271:
801:. The average age of account for each candidate, as measured from first edit to the RfA being transcluded, is
882:
472:
256:
1314:
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#7_admins_created_in_Sep_08._Crat_happy_to_nominate_.22unusual.22_RfAs.
276:
261:
69:
44:
730:âAbsolutely! I complained about style guidelines, and all it got me was the "honor" of doing the monthly
805:. Haven't looked at Unsuccessfuls yet, but I suddenly found this fascinating, so I thought I'd post it.
1146:
593:
to RfA. In theory, a nominator has reviewed the candidate's work and thinks that they can pass an RfA.
219:
fully before placing a comment here, in order to make sure you understand the proposed review process.
112:
531:
I think that would hit the highlights. It also leaves as much as possible to the editor. Thoughts?
1416:
1321:
862:
1533:
1156:
731:
1480:
1447:
793:(Support/Total, discounting Neutrals). The average editcount at the beginning of the RfA was
207:
50:
1396:
But now we probably have a set of editors with a vested interest in the "reform RfA" meme.
1506:
695:
661:
625:
246:
107:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
8:
1578:
1371:
programs to neutral canvassing (!). Hopefully, next week I'll start posting tally lists.
1172:
1095:
I think we have all the questions we can handle; I certainly can't see adding any more.
1432:
1359:
1330:
1296:
1205:
1048:
978:
929:
758:
431:
353:
199:
1527:
1406:
1372:
1337:
1229:
1152:
1131:
1096:
1077:
1052:
1032:
1008:
943:
906:
889:
870:
847:
806:
772:
707:
637:
594:
583:
532:
508:
487:
452:
405:
370:
329:
318:
1476:
1466:
1443:
1188:
739:
677:
568:
104:
1501:
688:
654:
618:
483:
1168:
216:
1312:
If your looking at this page then the following discussion starting from here:
1557:
1427:
1397:
1354:
1291:
1259:
1200:
1195:) to identify what a lot of editors believe are problems with the RFA system.
973:
924:
753:
426:
348:
1072:
866:
579:
504:
1411:
I'm not sure who's managing this process, but it seems to have stalled :(
478:
I'm seeing several recommendations from the RfA Review that are listed as
1462:
1412:
735:
673:
564:
395:
For the recommendation questionnaire, We'd frame the question this way:
1248:
825:
on the high end (noting that the actual counts are much higher) to
155:
91:
63:
1393:
years of abusive behavior for vested edtitors to be desysopped.
291:
103:, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of
1275:
Academic_studies_about_Wikipedia#Obtaining_administratorship
1269:
Some statistically significant factors for adminship success
636:
Practices are usually called that for a reason, after all.
1273:
This should be of interest in the current discussion:
1497:
in general. How has it affected editing patterns. â
1458:Category:Wikipedian Recommendations to RfA Review
1555:
686:Some would say I'm infamous... not famous...---
550:Discussion of negative consequences of failure?
1564:Low-impact WikiProject Knowledge essays pages
821:More details - The range of editcounts was
172:on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.
345:illustrate these topics. Hope this helps,
43:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
829:on the low end. Account age ranged from
14:
1556:
1456:I'm here John, I've read the pages in
1308:Something people will be interested in
1387:RfA is not broken! ... not really...
861:Interesting. As a side note, I have
221:This review process is currently at
186:
32:
30:
26:
49:It is of interest to the following
24:
1574:WikiProject Knowledge essays pages
154:
127:WikiProject Knowledge essays pages
111:. For a listing of essays see the
25:
1590:
1228:ing the first guy who speaks up.
97:This page is within the scope of
290:
190:
90:
76:
62:
31:
842:edits. Average account age was
652:means that I did a good job.---
554:On my RfA Review page, I said:
1302:18:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
1285:18:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
1263:10:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
1239:02:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
1211:12:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
1177:03:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
1161:23:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
1141:12:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
1124:12:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
1106:14:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
1083:15:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
833:months to 2 editors with only
285:
13:
1:
1485:23:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
1471:22:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
1452:22:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
1401:00:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
1316:should be of great interest.
1062:18:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1042:19:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
1018:18:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
986:14:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
953:12:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
937:10:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
916:13:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
473:Knowledge:Perennial proposals
215:Please read the article page
1438:13:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
1421:12:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
1382:14:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
1365:20:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
1347:18:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
1336:some input first. Thoughts?
141:This page has been rated as
121:Knowledge:WikiProject Essays
100:WikiProject Knowledge essays
7:
1326:07:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
899:13:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
875:20:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
857:20:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
816:19:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
782:19:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
766:18:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
744:18:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
717:18:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
701:18:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
682:18:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
667:17:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
647:17:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
631:17:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
604:16:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
588:16:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
573:16:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
542:18:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
513:16:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
497:14:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
462:15:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
439:18:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
415:12:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
380:13:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
361:12:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
339:16:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
124:Template:WikiProject Essays
10:
1595:
197:
1569:NA-Class Knowledge essays
1549:18:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
162:
140:
85:
57:
1514:17:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
1047:I've posted a notice at
328:phase survey. Thoughts?
863:User:Useight/No Support
1119:Monster Under Your Bed
560:
237:Requests for Adminship
166:automatically assessed
159:
147:project's impact scale
1184:below the Ivy League.
883:Draft Recommendations
556:
164:The above rating was
158:
480:Perennial Proposals
18:Knowledge talk:RREV
1147:Complete rejection
160:
45:content assessment
1546:
1512:
1380:
1345:
1261:
1237:
1139:
1104:
1060:
1040:
1016:
951:
914:
897:
855:
814:
780:
715:
645:
602:
540:
495:
460:
413:
378:
337:
316:
315:
284:
283:
229:
228:
185:
184:
181:
180:
177:
176:
173:
16:(Redirected from
1586:
1547:
1542:
1536:
1530:
1524:
1522:
1511:
1509:
1498:
1376:
1341:
1258:
1257:
1253:
1233:
1135:
1120:
1100:
1056:
1036:
1012:
981:
976:
947:
932:
927:
910:
893:
851:
810:
776:
761:
756:
711:
691:
657:
641:
621:
613:work in progress
598:
536:
491:
456:
434:
429:
409:
374:
356:
351:
333:
294:
286:
231:
230:
210:
194:
193:
187:
163:
129:
128:
125:
122:
119:
105:Knowledge essays
94:
87:
86:
81:
80:
79:
74:
66:
59:
58:
36:
35:
34:
27:
21:
1594:
1593:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1554:
1553:
1540:
1534:
1528:
1523:
1520:
1507:
1499:
1409:
1389:
1333:
1310:
1271:
1255:
1249:
1149:
1118:
979:
974:
930:
925:
885:
759:
754:
689:
655:
619:
552:
476:
432:
427:
354:
349:
321:
299:
234:A Review of the
214:
213:
206:
202:
191:
126:
123:
120:
117:
116:
113:essay directory
75:
72:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1592:
1582:
1581:
1576:
1571:
1566:
1552:
1551:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1442:Any response?
1408:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1394:
1388:
1385:
1368:
1367:
1332:
1329:
1309:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1270:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1214:
1213:
1196:
1189:Question phase
1185:
1180:
1179:
1148:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1065:
1064:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
884:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
787:
786:
785:
784:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
703:
608:
607:
606:
551:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
526:
525:
521:
520:
519:
518:
475:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
444:
443:
442:
441:
401:
400:
393:
392:
385:
384:
383:
382:
364:
363:
324:basis for the
320:
317:
314:
313:
312:
311:
306:
300:
295:
289:
282:
281:
280:
279:
274:
269:
259:
254:
249:
241:
240:
235:
227:
226:
220:
212:
211:
203:
198:
195:
183:
182:
179:
178:
175:
174:
161:
151:
150:
139:
133:
132:
130:
95:
83:
82:
67:
55:
54:
48:
37:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1591:
1580:
1577:
1575:
1572:
1570:
1567:
1565:
1562:
1561:
1559:
1550:
1545:
1543:
1537:
1531:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1510:
1504:
1503:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1459:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1436:
1435:
1431:
1430:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1402:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1390:
1384:
1383:
1379:
1374:
1366:
1363:
1362:
1358:
1357:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1344:
1339:
1328:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1318:211.30.12.197
1315:
1303:
1300:
1299:
1295:
1294:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1283:
1280:
1276:
1264:
1260:
1254:
1252:
1246:
1245:
1240:
1236:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1212:
1209:
1208:
1204:
1203:
1197:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1181:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1142:
1138:
1133:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1122:
1121:
1107:
1103:
1098:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1084:
1081:
1080:
1076:
1075:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1063:
1059:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1039:
1034:
1019:
1015:
1010:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
987:
984:
983:
982:
977:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
954:
950:
945:
940:
939:
938:
935:
934:
933:
928:
919:
918:
917:
913:
908:
903:
902:
901:
900:
896:
891:
876:
872:
868:
864:
860:
859:
858:
854:
849:
845:
841:
836:
832:
828:
824:
820:
819:
818:
817:
813:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
783:
779:
774:
769:
768:
767:
764:
763:
762:
757:
748:
747:
746:
745:
741:
737:
733:
718:
714:
709:
704:
702:
699:
698:
697:
693:
692:
685:
684:
683:
679:
675:
670:
669:
668:
665:
664:
663:
659:
658:
650:
649:
648:
644:
639:
634:
633:
632:
629:
628:
627:
623:
622:
614:
609:
605:
601:
596:
591:
590:
589:
585:
581:
577:
576:
575:
574:
570:
566:
559:
555:
543:
539:
534:
530:
529:
528:
527:
523:
522:
516:
515:
514:
510:
506:
501:
500:
499:
498:
494:
489:
485:
481:
474:
463:
459:
454:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
440:
437:
436:
435:
430:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
412:
407:
398:
397:
396:
390:
389:
388:
381:
377:
372:
368:
367:
366:
365:
362:
359:
358:
357:
352:
343:
342:
341:
340:
336:
331:
327:
310:
307:
305:
302:
301:
298:
293:
288:
287:
278:
275:
273:
270:
267:
263:
260:
258:
255:
253:
250:
248:
245:
244:
243:
242:
238:
233:
232:
224:
218:
209:
205:
204:
201:
196:
189:
188:
171:
167:
157:
153:
152:
148:
144:
138:
135:
134:
131:
114:
110:
106:
102:
101:
96:
93:
89:
88:
84:
71:
68:
65:
61:
60:
56:
52:
46:
42:
38:
29:
28:
19:
1525:
1500:
1495:
1467:push to talk
1433:
1428:
1410:
1373:UltraExactZZ
1369:
1360:
1355:
1338:UltraExactZZ
1334:
1311:
1297:
1292:
1272:
1250:
1230:UltraExactZZ
1225:
1221:
1206:
1201:
1153:Gerry Ashton
1150:
1132:UltraExactZZ
1116:
1114:
1097:UltraExactZZ
1078:
1073:
1053:UltraExactZZ
1033:UltraExactZZ
1030:
1009:UltraExactZZ
972:
971:
944:UltraExactZZ
923:
922:
907:UltraExactZZ
890:UltraExactZZ
886:
848:UltraExactZZ
843:
839:
834:
830:
826:
822:
807:UltraExactZZ
802:
798:
794:
790:
788:
773:UltraExactZZ
752:
751:
740:send/receive
729:
708:UltraExactZZ
696:
694:
687:
678:send/receive
662:
660:
653:
638:UltraExactZZ
626:
624:
617:
595:UltraExactZZ
569:send/receive
561:
557:
553:
533:UltraExactZZ
488:UltraExactZZ
477:
453:UltraExactZZ
425:
424:
406:UltraExactZZ
402:
394:
386:
371:UltraExactZZ
347:
346:
330:UltraExactZZ
325:
322:
296:
251:
222:
142:
98:
51:WikiProjects
41:project page
40:
1477:John Carter
1444:John Carter
304:Pre-reflect
1579:RfA Review
1558:Categories
1519:Second. ~
1331:Evaluation
1167:thankful.
732:WT:UPDATES
690:Balloonman
656:Balloonman
620:Balloonman
252:Discussion
143:Low-impact
109:discussion
73:Lowâimpact
1407:Progress?
1353:Cheers.
1169:Philhower
844:19 months
803:22 months
326:Recommend
319:Recommend
272:Recommend
1541:contribs
1429:lifebaka
1398:Ling.Nut
1378:Evidence
1356:lifebaka
1343:Evidence
1293:lifebaka
1235:Evidence
1202:lifebaka
1137:Evidence
1130:thanks!
1102:Evidence
1058:Evidence
1038:Evidence
1014:Evidence
949:Evidence
912:Evidence
895:Evidence
853:Evidence
812:Evidence
778:Evidence
713:Evidence
643:Evidence
600:Evidence
538:Evidence
493:Evidence
484:WP:PEREN
458:Evidence
411:Evidence
376:Evidence
335:Evidence
257:Question
247:Overview
200:Shortcut
1222:Support
867:Useight
580:Useight
505:Useight
309:Reflect
297:Archive
277:Collate
262:Reflect
239:Process
223:Collate
208:WT:RREV
145:on the
1463:Dank55
1413:Stifle
1226:Oppose
1049:WT:RFA
791:94.08%
736:Dank55
674:Dank55
565:Dank55
423:sense
168:using
118:Essays
70:Essays
47:scale.
1521:Amory
823:45000
795:10963
266:stats
39:This
1535:talk
1529:user
1502:Ched
1481:talk
1448:talk
1417:talk
1322:talk
1193:here
1173:talk
1157:talk
1074:Sher
980:moff
975:Gazi
931:moff
926:Gazi
871:talk
840:7495
827:2974
799:8003
760:moff
755:Gazi
584:talk
509:talk
433:moff
428:Gazi
355:moff
350:Gazi
217:here
170:data
1251:Axl
1224:or
1079:eth
137:Low
1560::
1538:â˘
1532:â˘
1508:?
1505::
1483:)
1469:)
1450:)
1434:++
1419:)
1361:++
1324:)
1298:++
1279:VG
1277:.
1207:++
1175:)
1159:)
873:)
846:.
831:45
742:)
680:)
586:)
571:)
511:)
1544:)
1526:(
1479:(
1465:(
1446:(
1415:(
1375:~
1340:~
1320:(
1282:â
1256:¤
1232:~
1171:(
1155:(
1134:~
1099:~
1055:~
1035:~
1011:~
946:~
909:~
892:~
869:(
850:~
835:5
809:~
775:~
738:(
710:~
676:(
640:~
597:~
582:(
567:(
535:~
507:(
490:~
455:~
408:~
373:~
332:~
268:)
264:(
149:.
115:.
53::
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
