Read all about it!

My favorite comment is :



RfA was also nominated for deletion, but was speedily kept and refered to this RfC....

So, who gets to be Robespierre and when do they set the guillotine up for Jimbo and then Angela???

Lets hope this time it falls, this is the most trollish page on wikipedia, Squeak Box

What, WP:CSI or WP:RfA? Neither is exactly a source of brotherly (or sisterly) love and harmony.

CSI? CSN! I thought this was going to be about something like the Counter Vandalism Unit, or the Long-term abuse page, not the CSN.

Title changed from WP:CSI to WP:CSN

CSI: Wikipedia? Boy, CBS is starting to grasp at straws!

I have a feeling it will be kept, asked that reforms be done, and nobody does anything about it. We'll be back on this topic again in a few months and repeat.

Discussion leads to more discussion about nothing being done. That's how RFC's and MFDs like this one always turn out.

Looks like it's heading for a straight delete/merge to me.

After the Reign of Terror, when Jimbo's Marie Internette-lasse faire-let-them-eat-cake attitude to public responsibility is at an end, at least we'll be free of merde such as this from Robespierre's biography.


Robespierre was a minor figure of The Terror, a leader and mouthpiece of The Terror, and finally a scapegoat to blame for The Terror, all in one badly written paragraph.

When was it CSI in the first place?

CSN topic: I never understood understood why there were two AN threads: AN and AN/I. Why not just have one big noticeboard? Most people just post to AN/I and seem to leave AN alone. I say the fewer boards, the better. WP is so huge that finding the right forum

Robespierre topic: As for Robespierre, I'd like to know who these "some historians" are. When I was in college and you made that kind of statement, you were supposed to provide citations and references alluding to who said it. It would be better to have said something like "that there is historical consensus that Robespierre was a major figure and leader of the Reign of Terror although a minority of historians (citation/s) such as [[so-and-so]] and [[whoever]] refute this belief."



I thought it was in the beginning simply the Community Noticeboard (WP:CN) for general announcements?

Meta-dysfunction.

It's all my fault. I don't edit on WP, so I can't keep these things straight. You figured it out though.

This is just bizarre.

Mind you, I am of the belief that voting for administrators should be a straight-out vote, not a "consensus" crap, and the only people who should be able to vote are other administrators, and people above them. Whether they make it 70% required or 50% required, it should be a flat out vote, anonymous to boot. That's basically what we do here at WR, and I think its the way to go. The problem with Wikipedia's RFA is that its public. Because its public, if you vote "no" as the first person to vote "no" then people harass you, and they keep on harassing you until you change your mind. Ergo, you say yes, and keep on saying yes, unless someone else has said no at some point. Voting must be anonymous. If you personally want to say what your anonymous vote is, then you do so.

I mean in any election in the real world it is always anonymous. There are serious reasons why it needs to be anonymous. Yes, you might want to discuss it, but when it comes to the vote itself, its personal.

the title here originally said CSI, kato changed it to CSN. He wasn't saying it was originally called CSI.

Nobody's refuted it (i.e. produced overwhelming evidence disproving it). They might deny it - a very different thing. The terms are often confused on Wikipedia (I don't believe something in this article, hence I've disproved it and am removing it).

No only allowing admins to select other admins would be stupid. As only a small minority of admins are particularly active, you would be giving power over most of wikipedia to an incredibly small self selecting group.

I think, though, that the larger point is a good one. Voting should be anonymous, assuming there's some sort of check to ensure that people only vote once. The amount of harrassment people go through when they oppose any RfA is ridiculous.

"Some say.." is a Wikipedian meme meaning "I believe..." or "This weblog that I like says.."

It is almost never properly cited. It's another weasel way to slant an article while remaining NPOV.