more thoughts hi kw i noticed this thread whilst i was on my wikibreak and since i didn't have sufficient time internet access i made a note to comment before i begin i'd like to apologise for the accusation of harassment whilst i was feeling harassed by your comments i believe i over reacted due to the off wiki stress of moving house with that agreement above i'm hoping we can move on i'm hoping to get rfa reform wrapped up there's been some very good research done a few very resonable proposals which will be brought to the community to decide on them even if i don't personally agree with them you mention above that the rfa reform project is dead without an an article writer as a leader though you and i disagree on what constitutes an article writer i would love to see one of those names helping in the project even as co ordinator however since none of them has shown any interest in rfa reform and they are all busy with other things i'm not going to hold my breath please do feel free to nudge any of them though i'm sure a comment from you would go down much better than one from me since i haven't interacted with any particularly as for the unsavoury behaviour towards editors i am actively trying to minimise this for example keepscases i did much research into his questions in the last quarter of last year who removed them how they were answered and so on i don't believe i published it on wiki though i could dig it up for you from that i came to the conclusion that keepscases questions were not a major issue and discussed that with a few of the editors who had issues with that user i don't believe there has been any comments regarding keepscases since though i know there are still editors who are unhappy with the questions at rfa regarding malleus fatuorum i do endorse a topic ban from discussing administrators as i believe that would remove the majority of problems and would be a much better solution than a blunt instrument like a block unfortunately that does mean also topic banning him from rfa which is a pity because his votes generally appear to be well worded it's the comment's outside the votes and the comments at wt rfa which are problematic in any case that's a personal opinion which i've explained with evidence at the the arbcom case if arbcom choose to disagree i'm not going to persue that further all in all i'd love to see rfa reform actually improve rfa i'm not it can because of project wide failings but that doesn't mean i'm not going to try i'm hoping to do some work improving the de sysop process too i'd like to see a more clear system there too finally would you mind laying off the rfa deform comment it belittles the project and only serves to make things more difficult you are the only editor who uses that phrase so i'd appreciate it if you could drop it talk