Search results
Appearance
There is a page named "Wikipedia talk:RFA" on Wikipedia
- Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship (redirect from Rfa)be extended-confirmed protected and transcluded to the main, unprotected RfA page. This way non-30/500 folks can still comment and ask questions but their...38 KB (5,155 words) - 02:46, 21 August 2024
- talk:RfA reform 2011. Please continue it here) So far everybody is talking about RfA reform as a modification of the current RfA model... IMO, RfA is so...181 KB (27,429 words) - 22:27, 24 May 2022
- promoting admins. Do you really think that for every candidate who passes RfA, there are two more that "should have" but either werent interested or were...44 KB (5,959 words) - 14:18, 28 January 2023
- were: Changed the names of sections from RfC to correspond to the proposed RfA method Changed the meaning of the instructions. The previous instructions...9 KB (1,241 words) - 10:23, 5 March 2022
- Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform (redirect from RFA/R)WT:RFA/R redirects here. You might be looking for Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration. Before commenting, please consider data from the Adminship...181 KB (26,334 words) - 04:56, 2 August 2023
- The main issue with RfA is not the baggage the candidates bring with them, but the totally different voters that turn up for each RfA, their criteria, and...7 KB (1,040 words) - 05:00, 22 February 2017
- 18:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC) On my RfA Review page, I said: ...I believe there are many people who hang out at WP:RfA would can tell with 80% or 90% accuracy...32 KB (4,647 words) - 01:16, 26 March 2023
- from User:Kudpung/RfA reform Swarm X 20:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Both Errant and Worm That Turned have recently raised the idea at WT:RFA of using clerks...131 KB (18,548 words) - 23:17, 21 March 2023
- no real need to do so. Three certifiers are needed just to make sure that RFAs without a snowball's chance in hell don't go forward. - Stephanie Daugherty...42 KB (2,232 words) - 17:12, 4 February 2023
- realistic first step into RFA reform, and I look forward to seeing how it will work to help solve some of the problems at RFA. I do think that there is...71 KB (515 words) - 02:43, 16 May 2022
- Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Nominate (redirect from RFA/nominate)good form to sound out the prospective nominee first before you create the RfA subpage, as if the nominee really wants to wait or doesn't want to be an...9 KB (1,149 words) - 17:33, 26 November 2023
- Note: Copied to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)...71 KB (3,231 words) - 18:26, 3 March 2023
- new RFA should be filed on https://github.com/azatoth/twinkle or as a normal discussion at WT:TW...1 KB (0 words) - 02:01, 3 June 2011
- to leave Wikipedia after failed RfAs, including My76Strat, whose original RfA was a major motivator in starting this project. Anyway, I think we're at...61 KB (4,412 words) - 19:04, 4 February 2023
- Here are some ideas which I had after my own failed RfA last December. The overall question of experience (length of time, number of edits, amount of...50 KB (5,537 words) - 19:55, 27 July 2020
- or less indefinitely so that when this inevitably comes back around at WT:RFA discussion can be redirected to this dedicated forum. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40...590 bytes (98 words) - 01:40, 15 September 2010
- Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 263 (section Accusing someone of being a sock in an RfA?)actual precedent for people openly speculating about someone being a sock at RfA? To me, this seems like it's kind of a personal attack – we're literally...245 KB (37,019 words) - 00:06, 7 November 2022
- 30 April 2022 (UTC) I've been reverted too, for blanking my own old RfA. My RfA is ancient history. I think the presumption should be in favor of failed...97 KB (14,245 words) - 17:40, 4 February 2023
- Full disclosure: I participated in ^demon's RFA, opposing his request. I do not believe that the neutrality of this story was affected by my personal...750 bytes (97 words) - 00:35, 1 March 2008
- written all FAs and would pass RFA, but read the new ORCP edit notice and decided that they were going to give up their RFA aspirations because of it. But...9 KB (1,002 words) - 06:24, 23 April 2024
- I would like a clarification of the comment made by the closer of this RFA. Is this the appropriate WQ-location for posting my question? Should this be
- established editors may cast a vote with weight." I don't think that an RfA should be a vote. A bureaucrat assesses the remarks and the arguments and
- least some dedicated editors of individual topics to look at WB:VFDs and WB:RFAs for example would certainly be an aim of mine. Really quite a select bunch