User talk:Jc37

CAT WP:CAT WP:NCCAT WP:CLN WP:CAAP WP:CFD WP:OC WP:USERCAT Help:Category Help:Categories Readers' FAQ Editors' FAQ Categories (Tree) Navbox

Motion

Memorable comments from discussions I've been in:

• I flipped a three-sided coin, it came up "no consensus". --Kbdank71 (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2006 (From a talk page discussion)
• Outline my position, which is actually built on a big pile of marbles in a game of kerplunk and the straws are slowly being pulled - Hiding (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2006 (From an edit summary)
• While the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may be useful for other XfD discussions, it isn't as useful for CfD, due to a commonality of consistancy due to prior consensus. The guideline WP:OCAT is an excellent example of this. And the same seems true for WP:ALLORNOTHING. - jc37 17:12, 9 April 2007

  Due to a what of what due to what? Please rephrase for us simple folk. Picaroon 01:23, 12 April 2007 (From a WP:DRV discussion.)

• I think I was more involved with the fiction MOS when it was started than I am now, I have kind of given up on those sort of pages, no sooner do you get it all straight, have a few drinks to celebrate, put the chairs on the table and start mopping up than a whole new crowd walks in ready to get it all straight again. - Hiding 21:03, 2 November 2007 (from a talk page discussion)
• But in my experience, every talk page of XfD closers seems to be filled with vehemence about disagreement of a closure. Nice to know that you've managed to (mostly) somehow avoid that. ("somehow" - you'll have to loan me your special medallion sometime : ) - jc37 00:11, 6 March 2008

  It's a medallion of troll-protection +4. I looted it from a [contentious] AfD along with a masterwork ban-hammer +1, a mop of template sweeping, and 103 gold pieces. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2008

• Enjoy reading this text in context : ) (From a talk page discussion starting on 23:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

WikiProject Council • WP:CMC • WP:M-E • WP:SW • WP:MoS
AN/I • BN • RfA • RfAr • RFPP • DRV • MRV • VP

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)