661:
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
547:...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.
605:
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.---
1020:<-- 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?
695:
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?
22:
81:
53:
1180:, 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
181:
145:
1209:"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
67:
281:
552:
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
1060:
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.
471:. 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
1104:<-- 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
1485:
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
1208:
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
599:
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
1155:
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
1118:
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
694:
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
640:
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
581:
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
491:
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,
411:
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
312:
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
1381:
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
1059:
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
604:
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
551:
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
1449:
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
1172:
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
958:
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.
1324:
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
660:
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
876:
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.
333:
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
738:
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
1341:
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.
513:"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?"
1359:
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
624:
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
739:
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,
909:
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,
600:
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
1187:
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.
388:"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?"
854:, 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.
893:
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!
392:
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."
826:
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
995:
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?
930:
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.
877:
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,
759:
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....
959:
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,
1302:
1257:
1450:
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
1236:
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.
380:"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."
1140:
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. --
1106:
1464:
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.
1273:
1270:
358:
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?
567:
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?
538:
158:
1552:
125:
1129:
1267:
804:
506:
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:
1446:
1181:
732:
561:
475:, 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?
254:
1415:
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.
440:
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.
1314:
778:
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
1050:
904:
845:
1537:
1296:
1290:
1263:
655:
635:
1165:
1112:
154:
135:
1353:
1227:
1199:
1006:
974:
941:
925:
770:
450:
427:
368:
349:
292:
1440:
1389:
1094:
1071:
863:
592:
530:
501:
1375:
705:
1473:
1459:
1562:
689:
670:
619:
485:
1251:
786:. 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
1426:
754:
723::). That's actually not a bad idea; people would trust statistics even more than they'd trust an advisor. Excellent approach. - Dan
576:
297:
1030:
887:
1176:
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
88:
1149:
1279:
Hmm, that's interesting. Not terribly surprising, though, about what does and doesn't help. Thanks for the link. Cheers.
601:
460:
468:
214:: Recommendations from editors are now being reviewed and analyzed, with the goal of generating specific policy proposals.
66:
1306:
376:<- I think we will want to branch out in two directions. The Reflect Report should end with statements such as this:
1557:
1528:
1366:
1331:
1223:
1125:
1090:
1046:
1026:
1002:
937:
900:
883:
841:
800:
766:
701:
631:
588:
526:
492:
in order to cut down on the load. Since "information is king" I think as many proposals as possible would be the best.
481:
446:
399:
364:
323:
1370:
1335:
403:
327:
97:
1502:
1040:
for additional eyes; if the current questions are sound, I think we can begin the
Recommend phase within the week.
225:
1409:
260:
790:. The average age of account for each candidate, as measured from first edit to the RfA being transcluded, is
871:
461:
245:
1303:
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#7_admins_created_in_Sep_08._Crat_happy_to_nominate_.22unusual.22_RfAs.
265:
250:
58:
33:
719:âAbsolutely! I complained about style guidelines, and all it got me was the "honor" of doing the monthly
794:. Haven't looked at Unsuccessfuls yet, but I suddenly found this fascinating, so I thought I'd post it.
1135:
582:
to RfA. In theory, a nominator has reviewed the candidate's work and thinks that they can pass an RfA.
208:
fully before placing a comment here, in order to make sure you understand the proposed review process.
101:
520:
I think that would hit the highlights. It also leaves as much as possible to the editor. Thoughts?
1405:
1310:
851:
1522:
1145:
720:
1469:
1436:
782:(Support/Total, discounting Neutrals). The average editcount at the beginning of the RfA was
196:
39:
1385:
But now we probably have a set of editors with a vested interest in the "reform RfA" meme.
1495:
684:
650:
614:
235:
96:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
8:
1567:
1360:
programs to neutral canvassing (!). Hopefully, next week I'll start posting tally lists.
1161:
1084:
I think we have all the questions we can handle; I certainly can't see adding any more.
1421:
1348:
1319:
1285:
1194:
1037:
967:
918:
747:
420:
342:
188:
1516:
1395:
1361:
1326:
1218:
1141:
1120:
1085:
1066:
1041:
1021:
997:
932:
895:
878:
859:
836:
795:
761:
696:
626:
583:
572:
521:
497:
476:
441:
394:
359:
318:
307:
1465:
1455:
1432:
1177:
728:
666:
557:
93:
1490:
677:
643:
607:
472:
1157:
205:
1301:
If your looking at this page then the following discussion starting from here:
1546:
1416:
1386:
1343:
1280:
1248:
1189:
1184:) to identify what a lot of editors believe are problems with the RFA system.
962:
913:
742:
415:
337:
1061:
855:
568:
493:
1400:
I'm not sure who's managing this process, but it seems to have stalled :(
467:
I'm seeing several recommendations from the RfA Review that are listed as
1451:
1401:
724:
662:
553:
384:
For the recommendation questionnaire, We'd frame the question this way:
1237:
814:
on the high end (noting that the actual counts are much higher) to
144:
80:
52:
1382:
years of abusive behavior for vested edtitors to be desysopped.
280:
92:, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of
1264:
Academic_studies_about_Wikipedia#Obtaining_administratorship
1258:
Some statistically significant factors for adminship success
625:
Practices are usually called that for a reason, after all.
1262:
This should be of interest in the current discussion:
1486:
in general. How has it affected editing patterns. â
1447:Category:Wikipedian Recommendations to RfA Review
1544:
675:Some would say I'm infamous... not famous...---
539:Discussion of negative consequences of failure?
1553:Low-impact WikiProject Knowledge essays pages
810:More details - The range of editcounts was
161:on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.
334:illustrate these topics. Hope this helps,
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
818:on the low end. Account age ranged from
1545:
1445:I'm here John, I've read the pages in
1297:Something people will be interested in
1376:RfA is not broken! ... not really...
850:Interesting. As a side note, I have
210:This review process is currently at
175:
21:
19:
15:
38:It is of interest to the following
13:
1563:WikiProject Knowledge essays pages
143:
116:WikiProject Knowledge essays pages
100:. For a listing of essays see the
14:
1579:
1217:ing the first guy who speaks up.
86:This page is within the scope of
279:
179:
79:
65:
51:
20:
831:edits. Average account age was
641:means that I did a good job.---
543:On my RfA Review page, I said:
1291:18:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
1274:18:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
1252:10:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
1228:02:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
1200:12:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
1166:03:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
1150:23:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
1130:12:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
1113:12:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
1095:14:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
1072:15:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
822:months to 2 editors with only
274:
1:
1474:23:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
1460:22:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
1441:22:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
1390:00:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
1305:should be of great interest.
1051:18:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
1031:19:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
1007:18:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
975:14:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
942:12:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
926:10:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
905:13:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
462:Knowledge:Perennial proposals
204:Please read the article page
1427:13:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
1410:12:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
1371:14:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
1354:20:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
1336:18:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
1325:some input first. Thoughts?
130:This page has been rated as
110:Knowledge:WikiProject Essays
89:WikiProject Knowledge essays
7:
1315:07:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
888:13:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
864:20:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
846:20:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
805:19:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
771:19:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
755:18:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
733:18:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
706:18:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
690:18:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
671:18:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
656:17:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
636:17:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
620:17:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
593:16:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
577:16:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
562:16:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
531:18:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
502:16:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
486:14:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
451:15:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
428:18:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
404:12:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
369:13:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
350:12:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
328:16:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
113:Template:WikiProject Essays
10:
1584:
186:
1558:NA-Class Knowledge essays
1538:18:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
151:
129:
74:
46:
1503:17:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
1036:I've posted a notice at
317:phase survey. Thoughts?
852:User:Useight/No Support
1108:Monster Under Your Bed
549:
226:Requests for Adminship
155:automatically assessed
148:
136:project's impact scale
1173:below the Ivy League.
872:Draft Recommendations
545:
153:The above rating was
147:
469:Perennial Proposals
1136:Complete rejection
149:
34:content assessment
1535:
1501:
1369:
1334:
1250:
1226:
1128:
1093:
1049:
1029:
1005:
940:
903:
886:
844:
803:
769:
704:
634:
591:
529:
484:
449:
402:
367:
326:
305:
304:
273:
272:
218:
217:
174:
173:
170:
169:
166:
165:
162:
1575:
1536:
1531:
1525:
1519:
1513:
1511:
1500:
1498:
1487:
1365:
1330:
1247:
1246:
1242:
1222:
1124:
1109:
1089:
1045:
1025:
1001:
970:
965:
936:
921:
916:
899:
882:
840:
799:
765:
750:
745:
700:
680:
646:
630:
610:
602:work in progress
587:
525:
480:
445:
423:
418:
398:
363:
345:
340:
322:
283:
275:
220:
219:
199:
183:
182:
176:
152:
118:
117:
114:
111:
108:
94:Knowledge essays
83:
76:
75:
70:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
47:
25:
24:
23:
16:
1583:
1582:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1543:
1542:
1529:
1523:
1517:
1512:
1509:
1496:
1488:
1398:
1378:
1322:
1299:
1260:
1244:
1238:
1138:
1107:
968:
963:
919:
914:
874:
748:
743:
678:
644:
608:
541:
465:
421:
416:
343:
338:
310:
288:
223:A Review of the
203:
202:
195:
191:
180:
115:
112:
109:
106:
105:
102:essay directory
64:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1581:
1571:
1570:
1565:
1560:
1555:
1541:
1540:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1431:Any response?
1397:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1383:
1377:
1374:
1357:
1356:
1321:
1318:
1298:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1259:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1203:
1202:
1185:
1178:Question phase
1174:
1169:
1168:
1137:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1054:
1053:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
873:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
776:
775:
774:
773:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
692:
597:
596:
595:
540:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
515:
514:
510:
509:
508:
507:
464:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
433:
432:
431:
430:
390:
389:
382:
381:
374:
373:
372:
371:
353:
352:
313:basis for the
309:
306:
303:
302:
301:
300:
295:
289:
284:
278:
271:
270:
269:
268:
263:
258:
248:
243:
238:
230:
229:
224:
216:
215:
209:
201:
200:
192:
187:
184:
172:
171:
168:
167:
164:
163:
150:
140:
139:
128:
122:
121:
119:
84:
72:
71:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1580:
1569:
1566:
1564:
1561:
1559:
1556:
1554:
1551:
1550:
1548:
1539:
1534:
1532:
1526:
1520:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1499:
1493:
1492:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1448:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1425:
1424:
1420:
1419:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1391:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1379:
1373:
1372:
1368:
1363:
1355:
1352:
1351:
1347:
1346:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1333:
1328:
1317:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1307:211.30.12.197
1304:
1292:
1289:
1288:
1284:
1283:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1272:
1269:
1265:
1253:
1249:
1243:
1241:
1235:
1234:
1229:
1225:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1201:
1198:
1197:
1193:
1192:
1186:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1170:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1131:
1127:
1122:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1111:
1110:
1096:
1092:
1087:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1073:
1070:
1069:
1065:
1064:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1052:
1048:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1028:
1023:
1008:
1004:
999:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
976:
973:
972:
971:
966:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
943:
939:
934:
929:
928:
927:
924:
923:
922:
917:
908:
907:
906:
902:
897:
892:
891:
890:
889:
885:
880:
865:
861:
857:
853:
849:
848:
847:
843:
838:
834:
830:
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
808:
807:
806:
802:
797:
793:
789:
785:
781:
772:
768:
763:
758:
757:
756:
753:
752:
751:
746:
737:
736:
735:
734:
730:
726:
722:
707:
703:
698:
693:
691:
688:
687:
686:
682:
681:
674:
673:
672:
668:
664:
659:
658:
657:
654:
653:
652:
648:
647:
639:
638:
637:
633:
628:
623:
622:
621:
618:
617:
616:
612:
611:
603:
598:
594:
590:
585:
580:
579:
578:
574:
570:
566:
565:
564:
563:
559:
555:
548:
544:
532:
528:
523:
519:
518:
517:
516:
512:
511:
505:
504:
503:
499:
495:
490:
489:
488:
487:
483:
478:
474:
470:
463:
452:
448:
443:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
429:
426:
425:
424:
419:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
401:
396:
387:
386:
385:
379:
378:
377:
370:
366:
361:
357:
356:
355:
354:
351:
348:
347:
346:
341:
332:
331:
330:
329:
325:
320:
316:
299:
296:
294:
291:
290:
287:
282:
277:
276:
267:
264:
262:
259:
256:
252:
249:
247:
244:
242:
239:
237:
234:
233:
232:
231:
227:
222:
221:
213:
207:
198:
194:
193:
190:
185:
178:
177:
160:
156:
146:
142:
141:
137:
133:
127:
124:
123:
120:
103:
99:
95:
91:
90:
85:
82:
78:
77:
73:
60:
57:
54:
50:
49:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
1514:
1489:
1484:
1456:push to talk
1422:
1417:
1399:
1362:UltraExactZZ
1358:
1349:
1344:
1327:UltraExactZZ
1323:
1300:
1286:
1281:
1261:
1239:
1219:UltraExactZZ
1214:
1210:
1195:
1190:
1142:Gerry Ashton
1139:
1121:UltraExactZZ
1105:
1103:
1086:UltraExactZZ
1067:
1062:
1042:UltraExactZZ
1022:UltraExactZZ
1019:
998:UltraExactZZ
961:
960:
933:UltraExactZZ
912:
911:
896:UltraExactZZ
879:UltraExactZZ
875:
837:UltraExactZZ
832:
828:
823:
819:
815:
811:
796:UltraExactZZ
791:
787:
783:
779:
777:
762:UltraExactZZ
741:
740:
729:send/receive
718:
697:UltraExactZZ
685:
683:
676:
667:send/receive
651:
649:
642:
627:UltraExactZZ
615:
613:
606:
584:UltraExactZZ
558:send/receive
550:
546:
542:
522:UltraExactZZ
477:UltraExactZZ
466:
442:UltraExactZZ
414:
413:
395:UltraExactZZ
391:
383:
375:
360:UltraExactZZ
336:
335:
319:UltraExactZZ
314:
311:
285:
240:
211:
131:
87:
40:WikiProjects
30:project page
29:
1466:John Carter
1433:John Carter
293:Pre-reflect
1568:RfA Review
1547:Categories
1508:Second. ~
1320:Evaluation
1156:thankful.
721:WT:UPDATES
679:Balloonman
645:Balloonman
609:Balloonman
241:Discussion
132:Low-impact
98:discussion
62:Lowâimpact
1396:Progress?
1342:Cheers.
1158:Philhower
833:19 months
792:22 months
315:Recommend
308:Recommend
261:Recommend
1530:contribs
1418:lifebaka
1387:Ling.Nut
1367:Evidence
1345:lifebaka
1332:Evidence
1282:lifebaka
1224:Evidence
1191:lifebaka
1126:Evidence
1119:thanks!
1091:Evidence
1047:Evidence
1027:Evidence
1003:Evidence
938:Evidence
901:Evidence
884:Evidence
842:Evidence
801:Evidence
767:Evidence
702:Evidence
632:Evidence
589:Evidence
527:Evidence
482:Evidence
473:WP:PEREN
447:Evidence
400:Evidence
365:Evidence
324:Evidence
246:Question
236:Overview
189:Shortcut
1211:Support
856:Useight
569:Useight
494:Useight
298:Reflect
286:Archive
266:Collate
251:Reflect
228:Process
212:Collate
197:WT:RREV
134:on the
1452:Dank55
1402:Stifle
1215:Oppose
1038:WT:RFA
780:94.08%
725:Dank55
663:Dank55
554:Dank55
412:sense
157:using
107:Essays
59:Essays
36:scale.
1510:Amory
812:45000
784:10963
255:stats
28:This
1524:talk
1518:user
1491:Ched
1470:talk
1437:talk
1406:talk
1311:talk
1182:here
1162:talk
1146:talk
1063:Sher
969:moff
964:Gazi
920:moff
915:Gazi
860:talk
829:7495
816:2974
788:8003
749:moff
744:Gazi
573:talk
498:talk
422:moff
417:Gazi
344:moff
339:Gazi
206:here
159:data
1240:Axl
1213:or
1068:eth
126:Low
1549::
1527:â˘
1521:â˘
1497:?
1494::
1472:)
1458:)
1439:)
1423:++
1408:)
1350:++
1313:)
1287:++
1268:VG
1266:.
1196:++
1164:)
1148:)
862:)
835:.
820:45
731:)
669:)
575:)
560:)
500:)
1533:)
1515:(
1468:(
1454:(
1435:(
1404:(
1364:~
1329:~
1309:(
1271:â
1245:¤
1221:~
1160:(
1144:(
1123:~
1088:~
1044:~
1024:~
1000:~
935:~
898:~
881:~
858:(
839:~
824:5
798:~
764:~
727:(
699:~
665:(
629:~
586:~
571:(
556:(
524:~
496:(
479:~
444:~
397:~
362:~
321:~
257:)
253:(
138:.
104:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
