Redirect to:
as needed, but please use the talk page to make sure that other editors agree with any big changes. Shortcuts: WP:ADMINSHIPWP:ADMINSHIP WP:CfAWP:CfA...
Click to read more »permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it. Per WP:CFA and for technical reasons, anonymous users may not gain any user rights (including...
Click to read more »far as I can tell using CentralAuth). I suggest you read WP:NOTNOW (and WP:CFA: "Users have to be active editors in this project for some time before they...
Click to read more »permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it. Per WP:CFA and for technical reasons, anonymous users may not gain any user rights (including...
Click to read more »2009 (UTC) I'm sorry. I must weak oppose. I require a nom to meet/exceed WP:CFA before I can support. We just had the discussion of you becoming an admin...
Click to read more »Please do not modify it. Closed as not promoted per WP:SNOW, WP:NOTNOW and WP:CfA. The user's second edit was the creation of this RFA. More experience is...
Click to read more »three months around was enough. However, that was like ages ago. While WP:CFA has not been changed over that time, the community has changed and may does...
Click to read more »you have made fantastic edits, I apoligize because I must oppose per WP:CFA. Sorry, but keep up the great work! SwirlBoy39 01:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)...
Click to read more »Please do not modify it. Closed as not promoted per WP:SNOW, WP:NOTNOW and WP:CfA. People should first learn what Wikipedia is and then they should learn what...
Click to read more »after/during the Rfx has happened because someone didn't like the result. The CFA make no mention that a candidate has to reach 75%. Being 1 vote off the suggested...
Click to read more »thoughts about this idea? Cheers, Razorflame 19:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC) WP:CFA was actually made a guideline; I would not have dared make it policy, without...
Click to read more »Bosits (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Oppose - fails most of the WP:CFA#Other_requirements:_Familiarity_with_rules_and_with_editing critera. He has...
Click to read more »the bottom as an underlined heading. ~ R.T.G 20:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC) WP:CFA template was once again changed from Proposed to official which is not true...
Click to read more »above. No opposes are risen, no concerns. So we just need to change the CFA page. There we go, a new system. Barras (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)...
Click to read more »here, and not because two people believe it is best. When we discuss the CFA, we should also provide a means to "demote" people. I know less than ten...
Click to read more »something like the nominator needs to be able to run for adminship per WP:CFA. Very new users who have run-ins with admins here without knowing the culture...
Click to read more »(UTC) The discussion about the French communes being created and the current CfA discussion are the two that come to mind right now. Ask Djsasso for more...
Click to read more »Purplebackpack89 20:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC) (<-) Let's perhaps get back to earth: CfA is a guideline, and not policy; this has a reason. If we are talking the...
Click to read more »for GAs/VGAs in principle follows mostly the same rules as laid out in the CfA, in particular: Votes by users with very few edits or those made by banned...
Click to read more »this. --Isis§(talk) 22:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Well according to the CfA (Criteria for Administratorship), the earliest date you could get adminship...
Click to read more »Just a thought, but perhaps we should clear user warnings that are over a year old and effectively stale, especially with dynamic IP ranges? Some IP talk...
Click to read more »I think we need a policy page about the use of global rights like global bots and global rollback. Anyone want to make a draft? Techman224Talk 23:12, 17...
Click to read more »Criteria for Adminship page). VGA, and GA voting rules were made with WP:CFA in mind, they explicitely state: Any named editor can vote (Meaning: unnamed...
Click to read more »talk 21:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Majorly, me and you both know that the CfA says an admin-to-be has to have a significant amout of edits for people to...
Click to read more »the above, it's not really up to the counting Bureaucrat, it's policy. WP:CfA clearly states, "Named editors cannot vote in requests that were running...
Click to read more »months straight before you will have a chance to pass the RfA. Please read WP:CFA also, that might help. By the way, I have a few questions to ask you and...
Click to read more »Normandy seems to think that the CfA is the end all and be all of this. The CfA is a guideline not a policy. Additionally, the CfA says three months is preferred...
Click to read more »edits. Try running for adminship again in a few months and please read WP:CfA before nominating yourself. // Lights // Bam! // 02:55, 10 December 2007...
Click to read more »enwiki, and other small projects). Additionally, I've read and understand WP:CfA and WP:ADMIN. Thank you for your input and I look forward to any additional...
Click to read more »proposals/controversial RfDs, so I'd like a little involvement in the community. And well, CfA looks a bit outdated - 3 months might be good enough to gain sufficient experience...
Click to read more »#prodraxis connect 19:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC) @Fr33kman: according to WP:CfA, voting normally runs for a week. Any reason to make this two weeks?— *Fehufangą...
Click to read more »scientific accuracy... Eptalon (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC) I was looking at WP:CfA one day and I read "There is no set time, but three months is preferred."...
Click to read more »