1699:, though I'm guessing that wasn't the sense that user had in mind.) And I realize we all know this, I'm just trying to make the sequence as explicit as possible.) Co-nomming consists of one of the following: Wikipedian 3 becoming involved at the "informal discussion" stage, and agreeing with 1&2 to co-nom; Wikipedian 4 'joins in' after the nomination is made, but before it's accepted; Wikipedian 5 adds a "co-nominating statement" after the nomination is "live". I'd like to hope that we can at least agree that W5's co-nom is procedurally (and otherwise) pretty silly, being in effect a hyperbolic support, or a "damn, I wished I'd nominated when it might actually have meant something". (I think this class is the most annoying, but probably is actually the least harmful.) 3 and 4 are rather more meaningful, and in particular 3 is I think the case people are arguing in defence of, being the cases where a single nomination is thought to be "insufficient" in some sense (either to sell the idea of an RFA to the candidate, or come to that, to sell the candidate to the baying wolves on the process page). However, I think they're also the cases in which people might have a more substantial beef, because of the appearance of "stacking the deck": to see why this is a potential concern, look at the tenor of the opposes (-- and neutrals, and comments...) at
1194:
being that this could be used to get a "flying start" vote-stacking operation going, before any opposes or concerns can get a word in. (Or to have that effect, even if no malfeasance is involved.) If that's an issue, why do nominations, which are much the same as supports (if not to say intended to be "moreso", in some vague sense) not cause the same anxiety? (In one recent case, a nominator pasted the (multiple) nomination signature and timestamps into the "support" column after the fact, making the two even more similar in that regard.) As Bobet says, they're procedurally redundant, if not to say nonsensically so. (However vehement someone at AFD is about deletion, I've yet to see anyone "co-nom" or "co-list", and this makes no more sense.) People adding further nominations
1432:, in any meaningful sense of the word. If we accept "one or two co-noms", despite their being logically redundant, it's hard to argue that those were fine, but the 3rd and 4th are grounds for "peer pressure" to desist. Doubtless those people feel their co-nom is as "crucial" as did their predecessors (while I feel it's just as redundant, and increasingly egregious). The nominee was nominated after the first nomination -- hence the name -- and subsequent "pile-on co-noms" are nothing more than exercises in "my support is much too important to go in a list with everyone else's". ("Co-ordinated" co-noms might be less describable as such, but are still prioritising the feelings of the nominating clique over propriety.) I imagine a few
1747:
just gone with the first one. (The 2nd might actually work better, as it would get rid of the redundant "nominator support" vote.) As for your 3,4 and 5 co-nominators, I would say 4 and 5 should just support. 3 should work with the original nominator to put together a combined nom statement and both sign it, or should at least work together so their noms are clearly intended to go together (they don't repeat eachother, and probably they refer to eachother, "This editor has done many great things, like X and Y. I'll tell you and X, Mr. Co-nom will tell you about Y."). Then you end up with a joint nomination, which is what "co-nom" actually means, rather than a nomination and then an extra nomination that really makes no sense. --
870:
opposers may be concerned about the pressure several of those co-nominators can exert through a series of rebuttals. The prospect of having 3-4 if not more defensive responses to each opposing argument is appalling and it affects the chance of sorting the question/issue out in a positive way. If the RfA begins to generate reasonable opposition or reserved criticism, there can be a palpable sense of tension, of whether the debate will get out of hand or not. I think its likely that the nominee would feel more helpless or less responsible over what happens in the due course of his/her RfA.
749:. With a less obviously wonderful candidate, I might have gone from Support to Neutral because of the plethora of co-noms. But there's absolutely no need for any rules about it, there are enough rules. We should do like with anything else we may dislike about a candidate or a nomination: !vote with our feet, nag, state that we would have supported but for that. (If that's the truth, of course.) Or if it gets on your nerves, why not urge the co-nominators themselves to not do that another time, how's that for a novel idea? Rules and guidelines are a last resort, not a first.
803:. I've noticed numerous times that if somebody places a particularly thoughtful and meaty support/oppose with interesting links in it early on, it'll get referred to during the first day, other people will !vote "per" it; the next day they won't, and it's often forgotten to the extent that somebody else will repost the same links with an air of novelty (and get referred to for half a day after it.) That's the difference: the greater pretensions of the co-nom, and the way the community accepts those pretensions over those of a !vote.
1484:
rather than directly on the "perps". That's why I'd consider it preferable for the procedure to be clarified to preclude them in the first place, or for the bureaucrats to refactor them as supports ('this person's nominated already, give it a rest'). However, it needn't be to the candidate's detriment, since if they've accepted multiple nominations, they are free to review that decision, and if "unaccepted" co-nominations are "piling on" un-asked for... then what are they are doing there in the first place? Just remove them.
263:
didn't think it was too big a deal or I would have demurred and went with just one. But clearly some other folks did not agree. Some reasons given included it being indecorous, or worse, that it might lead me to believe I was slightly more invincible than someone that had just one. I'm interested in general thoughts... Is this really thought of so badly by so many that it ought to be a tip (optinonal of course) in a guide not to do? Thanks! Do multiple noms mean you feel more invincible? I certainly don't!
1437:
extra instruction", and secondly, to do so is to target a relatively innocent party (unless the nominee has actively solicited multiple nominations, they're guilty of no worse than being an accessory, either before or after the fact, in circumstances where they might be understandably nervous about the whole business), but if people's reasonable concerns continue to be dismissed, it might come down to that. I note in particular no-one has addressed why it's fine to have
1647:
before the RfA starts. Either would work, but judging by this thread, it would seem people prefer the first. It is a matter of personal preference, though, yes. The issue doesn't arise for a co-nom, though, as they can simply wait until the candidate accepts and make a support vote. To summarise: the first statement of support has to be before the acceptance, so we have to make an exception for it in some way. What way that is is a matter of preference. --
998:), editor reviews, and edit count grooming are all negative indicators to me of somebody orchestrating their RfA. This is a negative indicator to me because adminship is not a trophy, and anyone grooming themselves to pass the nomination may not be seeking the mop for the correct reasons. Despite this, I say "no" to making any kind of rule regarding co-noms. Let everyone make their own decisions regarding how multiple co-noms reflects on the nominee. β
815:
are far more supports than opposes, so the substantive points in the oppose !votes do get weighed. I find myself in sympathy with the potential candidate who's got several people wanting to nominate and doesn't want to hurt anyone's feelings by rejecting their offer (although I suppose I already hear the response that anyone who can't bear to risk ever hurting another user's feelings isn't going to last here long as an administrator, anyway)....
1609:
and gravitas of the co-nomers' personal credibility in a way that supporting can't, or is just a piece of gun-jumping and/or top-posting tomfoolery, we evidently differ. The tradition of not having any voting before acceptance is simply another reason not to have co-nominations-which-are-then-later-pasted-in-as-supports, which is doubly unfair to anyone wishing to oppose, but precluded by said tradition from doing so during such time.
715:, where it was actually the basis of an oppose. I don't mean to support instruction creep (which is probably a valid argument against this), but could we have a discussion about whether a guideline limiting co-noms to 1 or 2 is in order? Not a hard and fast rule, but just a suggestion for potential co-nominators, would do the trick, in my opinion. Any other opinions?
1703:. (One might argue this is our real "co-nom record", and that I'm one of the infractors, and in a sense that's true.) This falls under the category of cockup rather than conspiracy, and the "tradition" of refraining from support prior to acceptance of the nom would present this happening in the same form, but there's essentially the same danger with co-nomming.
1400:
on the line for every conon I did. (they all succeeded except for Rob Church's nom... I stand behind that one too as the Right Thing even if the community didn't agree) This whole sentiment against conoms strikes me as misplaced, as does using their existance or number as a reason to oppose. None of my conoms could ever be confused for a support !vote, trust me. ++
1604:
have a clearly established practice that RFAs are nominated (self-, or otherwise), and that people don't vote for themselves. We have an emergent trend that wishes to construe "nomination" as "multiple nominations", which many people see as basically taking the micky. If it's insufficiently clear that "nomination" means
1746:
If we had a rule against co-noms, the first nom would be an exception to that rule (made explicit by the use of "co-"). We do have a rule against voting before the acceptance, so if we moved the nom to the support section, we would be making an exception again. Either of those exceptions works, we've
1499:
I'm utterly shocked you're defending co-noms. :) We know your heart is in the right place with them Lar, but the point people are making, thankfully in nearly unanamimous consensus, is they are not stronger and they're not necessary. You can accomplish the same amount of vouching in your support
1399:
Meh. I think there's nothing at all wrong with conoms if they are bringing new information to the process. In particular, they're a statement of reputation staking much stronger than even the strongest support statement could be. At least to me they are, I personally think I was putting my reputation
1268:
Another reason to allow co-nominations is that your original nominator might accidently poison the well against you through innocent bungling. You may be an excellent candidate, but your nominator is a newbie who doesn't know the normal style and decides to nominate you for being "Nice and helpful to
1193:
Ban 'em altogether. I've suggested nuanced modifications before, but no-one paid a blind bit of notice, and it's since gone from silly, to sillier. In the past, there's been all sorts of agonising about unaccepted nominations being multiply "voted" on before their official start time -- the concern
1042:
I'm not exactly sure why
Phaedriel wants to have all co-nominations approved by her first, and I don't know why she might be picking and choosing among them. Considering there are six or so co-nominations, I can't see this nomination suffering from over-co-nomination simply due to the addition of one
169:
nominators? Why not have everyone self-nominate? I did - it never did me any harm... It helps those users who don't regularly come into contact with any particular other users to be nominated without suffering the increased social hazard that self-nomination brings. The only reason I can think of
1608:
nomination, let's clarify to make that explicit. What do these two things have to do with each other? This is patently not about "information": there is no piece of information that can be included in co-nomination, that can't be placed elsewhere. As to whether co-nomination carries the mystique
1559:
The counter there is this: Why have any noms at all? What exactly is the FIRST nom statement (if it's not a self nom, or heck, even if it is... waive the "don't !vote for yourself" requirement) saying that can't be said in questions and answers, or in the first support !vote??? Unless you can answer
1264:
will make a good admin, I'm putting my reputation as an editor behind them." In other words, it's supposed to be stronger than a normal support because it puts more of the user's credibility at stake. If you support an RfA, you can always back out of it but a nominator or co-nominator is expected to
1239:
One persuasive puppy, actually. Co-noms rarely have any actual effect except backslapping, can irritate potential voters when they get excessive, and the point about the nominee having enough sense to avoid accepting a poor nomination turned me from neutral to supporting the idea of no co-noms. It's
637:
I think multiple noms can be useful, especially if the co-noms don't just say "he's a great guy, I co-nominate", but add to the information in the nomination statement by mentioning other good sides of the candidate. More than three nominators are probably useless, because it is hard to come up with
191:
Im a supporter of co-nominations (I just did a co-nom with FireFox RFA) but I some how agree with the above. There should be a limit for only one nom and maybe one co-nom but no more cause if lets say User:Faa is such a excellent user that everyone want to nominate him for admin and when the request
1560:
that, you can't disregard
Phaedriel II's first three conoms, all were different facets, different information. If two of the three weren't there, key information (that should be present from the get go, remember we also have this tradition of no !voting before acceptance) would have been lacking. ++
1020:
If a nominee doesn't have the guts to tell his friends, thanks but no thanks and please only two of you do a co-nom, that is very telling about their personality. How will they react to peer pressure then as an administrator? Nominees are the final person who puts their page up on RFA and they have
814:
Yes, that definitely makes sense ... although I guess I don't see why the fact that useful information in an early !vote may get overlooked later on is supposed to be a good thing. Granted, one could respond that the early opposes get drowned out too - but in any RfA with a chance of passing, there
1646:
The original nom (assuming it's not a self nom, let's not start on voting for yourself) could go as a support, but it would be a vote before the candidate has accepted the nom (obviously). For a non-self-nom (try saying that quickly ;)), you can either have a separate nom statement, or a vote
1483:
I don't believe such votes would constitute either "making a point" or "disrupting wikipedia" -- you don't feel that 15 "co-nominations" of a single candidate is rather better described in that manner? Though as I say, as a method it's less than ideal since it's applying pressure via the nominee,
980:
I agree they are well meaning but still awful, and also that we shouldn't add extra IC (instruction creep) prohibiting them. But these two ideas are good, we can simply allow converting each of them into a comment and a !vote. That will solve the problem without fuss or IC and fits in with the way
687:
I do think it ended up being no big deal here, but it could have been. Other people have drawn analogies to the CSCWEM case, so I won't belabor the point. I loathe the (appearance of) "IRC cabal" behavior in RfA, so it may have made me less likely to vote support; I'm not sure I'd have opposed for
398:
think that doing things (merely) because of how they might influence outcomes IS wrong. at least at one level, because it smacks of being political. Politics is inescapable in any situation with more than one person, of course, but I'd rather see stuff judged on merit as far as possible. I suppose
227:
There's been past discussion about making RfA self-nom only. For what it's worth, I recently took a look at the success of self-nom vs. nom for nominations of candidates with more than 2,000 edits since June of this year. What I found was that 83% of non-self noms were successful. 68% of self-noms
142:
I think it's slightly silly but harmless. I hope that editors will try to mostly limit themselves to the standard "I was going to nominate him myself!", or make their positive remarks in the comments section. I don't foresee it becoming a major problem; there's only so many laudatory things that
1603:
Lar: precisely why is that a counter, rather than a non sequitur? (Addendum, in re later addition: RAA involves logical inference, not woolly comparisons: it does not logically follow from "there should be exactly one nomination" that "there should be no nominations"; quite the reverse.) We
1100:
The fact of the issue is that the majority of nominees with excessive co-noms are strong enough candidates that those of us that are put off by the excessive co-noms are willing to overlook that on the basis of the candidate's other qualifications. But the co-nom issue might be enough to push me
889:
I dislike co-nom's. They feel like an attempt to intimidate potential opposes. I'm sure people do them with the best of intentions, of course. But I still dislike them. However, I'd be hesitant to ban them. Is there evidence that large co-noms increase the chance of success? I guess I could
869:
Despite a possible conflict of interest, I'd like to say that I like the arguments of
Bishnonen, ReyBrujo as well as NYBrad. However, I'm opposed to any limitations or rules regarding co-nominations. I think the venue of concern is not how many co-noms there are, but the likelihood that potential
798:
The difference, Brad, is that the conomination sits there calling for attention during the entire RFA, saying "This opinion is more important than a mere !vote", and i do believe people keep reading it. Whereas a longish early support will or may influence other people for half a day, and then is
380:
You seem to suggest that doing things because of how they might influence close outcomes is inconsistent with doing what is right. What does the having of multiple nominators have to do with right or wrong? It's only about appearances. An overabundance of nominators could be seen as an attempt to
262:
Now that my RfA is over, I don't feel it's improper to bring this up any more, unlike during. As many of you know, I had several nominators, 4 to be exact. (and a lot more that wanted to nom me... I could have had a dozen noms easily if I had let everyone that wanted to co-nom do so) Obviously, I
1436:
might do the trick, but I'm reluctant to do so, since firstly, I have the weirdly optimistic idea that some sort of consensus might actually emerge, despite the on-going "defences" of the practice as "not a problem/not a major problem/can't be solved due to the inherent badness of half a line of
1130:
Agreed. I never understood the point of any co-nomination. The candidate is already nominated, extra names won't change it into some super-nomination. Are people so used to only having !votes or vacuous comments in the support column that when the supporters feel like they have something to say,
628:
Not a big deal within reason, but I'd perfer to just have one nominator (who ever created the rfa), with anyone else that wanted to nom voting support (with a comment to that effect if they want) when open for discussion. Having too many co-noms before the rfa is open could be seen as similar to
352:
NoSeptember: I would ask, is it appropriate to do things because of how they might influence close outcomes? It seems to me that one ought to do what one thinks is right. (I was cautioned against being wordy in answering questions, but I did it anyway). To do otherwise doesn't seem quite true to
1322:
the "vote"), added to the cognitive load all 'round by continuing to bat this around every so often, the cost/benefit seems to me to be pretty clear. Certainly it's simpler overall than ending up with numerous variations on "1NOM" in people's admin standards, which I suspect is the most likely
310:
I think to most people it would be no big deal (within reason). But it is not what most people think that matters in the case of a potentially close nomination. If it bothers some editors enough that they will cast an oppose vote, then you should avoid doing it in order to avoid bothering those
1686:
I don't even see that as exception, it's explicitly part of the process. Wikipedian 1 nominates
Knowledge 2, presumably after an informal discussion: Wikipedian 1 is now nominated; Wikipedian 1 indicates their acceptance, and the nomination is now "live", and anyone else is free to support,
1154:
I think I have seen a good co-nom (can't remember where, though, and I might have been imagining it). It was an RfA of a mop-worthy editor who had accepted a rather poorly written nomination by a relatively new editor. The co-nom was able to point out many good points about the editor and some
676:
4th one was just a joke, frankly. I think it was verging on poor form because with that many noms it looks like a "fait accompli" and/or some IRC admin cartel trying to push the promotion of their buddy. I privately urged you not to allow multiple noms and decided not to co-nom myself for this
1507:
I'll point you to
Phaedriel II... the three co-noms that were set up prior to it going live (not the pileons later) were intended to offer quite different perspectives and information about the nominee, and I'll just stick to my thesis here... they did so, and did so effectively. I think it's
1045:
Few others mention the large number of co-noms (except when expressing astonishment) and the RfA went on to being the most supported RfA ever. Thus, I don't believe the dislike of co-noms and perception of peer pressure from them is as universal and clear-cut as it has been made out to be. --
218:
nominators from voting? Doing both is somewhat redundant, after all, as the nomination is required, and support is implied thereby. This might act as a (mild, marginal) deterrent against multi-noms, and as a (mild, marginal) encouragement to self-nom, which people seem often reluctant to do
1007:
I think co-noms are generally pretty silly unless the original statement is awfully bad or contains insufficient information. I see "Me too" co-noms as bad points against the co-nominator, not against the nominee, although unnecessary co-noms will sometimes make me not vote on an RfA I might
154:
What Ten said. I don't think it hurts anything; should a particular case become a problem we can deal with it individually. (It's not as though having multiple nominators affects the process itself; it's just unnecessary. And perhaps a bit embarrassing, for the candidate being gushed over!)
1416:
On the list of problems to be solved, this is a pretty minor one, no? One or two co-noms are no big deal unless they're all multipage essays. There's no need for more instructions; a little old-fashioned peer pressure targeting the would-be 3rd, 4th, etc. co-nominator should be sufficient.
1220:
I've some sympathy for a "one do-over" clause, but it'd be difficult to restrict it to being used on that basis, or even to implement as such. "That nomination was really bad, so I'm asking for/adding another." Hopefully in in the case of really bad nom, (!)voters will read on to the
1317:
To Tjstrf: it's a tiny amount of "instruction", tantamount to reminding people of what the word "nomination" actually means. Compared to continuing to allow procedurally nonsensical possibilities (like a dozen nominators pseudo-voting before the "vote" has started; or "nominations"
913:
I've suggested much the same thing as Ben's idea in the past. Whether or not "supports" are described as a "vote" or not is beside the point: both nominating and supporting is essentially repeating oneself. There's no reason for nominators to add themselves to the numbered supports
1276:
As a suggestion, how about we add to the guidelines on the page somewhere that you should not give a conomination unless you are presenting substantially different reasoning from that of the original nominator, otherwise they will simply be transferred to the support section?
205:
If there's to be a limit, why any limit higher than one? Once you open the door to co-nomination, escalation seems almost inevitable, and capping it at any further point, arbitrary. Procedurally, anything after a single nomination seems redundant, unless there's to be some
544:
I have no problems with multiple noms but please try not to make half of the RfA page filled with noms. Ok ok, if I opposed it I'd be a hypocrite as I "stole" Mindspillage's nomination as she was talking and talking and talking and I finally gave up and nominated. --
1260:(edit conflict x3) The major difference between a nominator/co-nominator and a normal support vote is that a support can simply mean you see no glaring flaws in the candidate. A nomination is comparable to a public political endorsement, to say "Not only do I believe
1587:
as a counter argument, which you've not refuted. So basically, it seems personal preference. I'm not sure I'd characterise this as nearly unanimous either. Frankly, I'm baffled at the opposition to this, there doesn't seem to be any real basis for it. But, meh...
411:
weight on what other people think compared to other factors is very low. I try to do what I think is right, regardless of appearances. At least I'd like to think that's what I do, but who knows for sure? Hope that helps add clarity rather than subtract it.
210:
for multiple proposers (which might not be a bad idea as such). Nominated is nominated, anything further is "seconding", or just plain "voting". But I agree it doesn't do any harm, other than the possible appearance of silliness/gush, as has been said.
1231:
Ban co-noms, rules-creep notwithstanding. This has gone beyond absurdity. If someone writes a very bad nomination, then if the nominee hasn't sense enough to email the nominator privately and ask for a re-write, on their head be it. One puppy's opinion.
1290:
There is no issue regarding a lame nominator. The nominee is responsible for the nomination they accept. The nominee has the last word, and if they accept a flawed nomination, then it rightfully does reflect on them. No instruction creep necessary.
456:
Which is why I'm trying to get to. So is it true that multiple conoms is perceived as steamrollering, as is multiple pre-public votes (that's why I struck those) but having a boatload of people turn out quickly to support isn't? I honestly don't know.
1575:
What is so hard to accept about the fact that it wouldn't have been lacking if it was placed in a support comment instead? Is this really worth continuing? Consensus is that it's not critical to the improvment of the project, so I'd suggest not. -
1793:
While I agree that there should be no rule forbidding co-nominations, as someone who despises co-nominations, I believe that there should be no problems with being bold and simply moving co-nominations down to the support section. ;-)
228:
were successful. That's a 15% difference. The difference might be explained by other causal factors, but the difference is interesting nonetheless. Personally, I'd prefer to see the process remain open to people nominating others. --
922:
votes. I think it would be a good idea, as it'd offer a (mild) incentive to self-noms, and a (mild) disincentive to co-noms, without mandating the one, or prohibitting the other, which some people to think would be terribly bad.
629:
having support votes too early, which should be discouraged. It's not a major issue, so long as one of the comments are short (nom or support), or otherwise the same person opinion would appear twice, which might easily be missed.
1531:
But why can't such perspectives be expressed in the support section? I don't know about other people, but if I saw a long comment on a support vote, I'd stop and read it (it's quite unusual to get long comments from supporters).
219:(perhaps understandably, given the occasionally fraught nature of the process). If those are desirable... Though presumably due weight would still be given to the gravitas (or whatever else) of the nominator, as at present.
509:
Ooh, good question. I don't know! Maybe I should have. But it felt to me like I would have been trying to cock things more by not waiting than by waiting. Interesting thread even if no clear 100% unanimous consensus emerges.
848:(edit conflict) Interesting... either co-nominating, or supporting before the candidate has accepted. But there were some problems with many people supporting before the request went live. Co-nominating in the talk page? --
1777:, has four co-nominators. I perfectly agree that one should not put any rule forbidding co-nominations. But in the same time, come on people, having four co-nominations is just silly. Why not just register your vote under
688:
it, since that's voting on the behavior of your nominators, not the candidate. If it becomes more common, it may become an influencing factor in RfAs, and therefore I think it should be discouraged as mentioned above. --
1700:
312:
39:
Look I hate to rain on everyone's parade, but you can't third a motion. Nor can you fourth or fifth it. :) It goes discussion → motion → second → those in favour → those against. --
1338:
We could resolve the point about a nom putting your reputation behind a candidate, rather than just not seeing anything wrong with them by introducing (unofficially - no need for instruction creep about it) a
1687:
oppose, or otherwise comment (including W1, who will presumably make their "per nom" support explicit (in thread order or otherwise...)). (I was going to use Greek or Hebrew letters, but I then wondered if
1155:
details that the "he's a good guy and should be an admin" nom didn't have, and so the co-nom was genuinely useful for the RfA, as it contained the facts that should have been in the original nom statement.
1551:
They quite self-evidently can. One might characterise the need to elevate one's own expression of support, however strongly felt or vehemently expressed, over everone else's as "lame", to coin a phrase.
774:
It's rediculous to oppose an RfA based on the number of co-noms, but I do agree that a limit to 2 or 3 might be a good idea. Generally, the more co-noms I see, the less likely I am to read them all. -
1021:
control of how many co-noms appear. If they don't realize that excessive co-noms are offputting to many, then they haven't been paying attention and that tells you something else about the candidate.
1036:
I know I'm taking a chance with this being a conflict of interest, but I feel compelled to weigh in on the conversation, given that it appears to be alluding to my nomination. Taking a look back at
353:
one's self. I know you weren't suggesting that per se but it's good to make clear. Also, Ziggurat, I wasn't suggesting a guideline so much as a "tip" so people could then decide for themselves
1131:
they'll have to put in a 'co-nomination' instead to get heard? Is it some social networking thing where people don't want to be just another support vote for their close personal e-friends? -
443:
about affecting the outcome, it's about respecting the opinions of those who may think that too many nominators is an attempt to steamroll the community. I don't see that as being political.
1142:
co-nominations, but having any sort of rules on the matter is pointless, and just instruction creep. Plus we'd spend time debating the rules... time that could be better spent elsewhere. --
606:
I don't see any reason for multiple noms - anyone can add lengthy comments to their support vote, so why not just put it there? That said, I don't think it does any harm, within reason. --
1138:
Personally, I can't wait to see this evolve into the following RfA format: "Nomination, Co-nominations, Oppose, Neutral". Then I'd just be able to look back and say "Haha, how silly". I
177:
One good reason is modesty - some people feel uncomfortable telling others what great people they are. Failure to self-promote should not be a reason not to become an admin.
1378:
I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek. (People often seem to use "speedy" as a generic intensifier on *fD pages, when it's parently obviously not "speediable", either way.)
1464:
is all about, the nominee wouldn't make a bad admin, but an oppose vote anyway. Are co-nominations actually neccessary? I just think support votes are better for everyone.
704:
255:
123:
381:
steamroll opposition, just as the early votes for CSCWEM were seen that way by some. We should be voting on you, not on the size of your nomination cabal ;-).
32:
677:
reason. All that said, I know you'll be a good admin - even if you do sometimes bite my head off :P - and we got the right result. It ended up as "no big deal". --
712:
1206:
To be fair to the people who got a really bad first nomination, there should be one co-nom allowed. Any more does seem a lot like a top-listed support section. -
1343:(!)vote (put under support just like any other support (!)vote) that means you support them an also offer your personal assurance that they'll do a good job. --
192:
for admin comes he gets 10 co-nom than that will be ridiculos. Its harmless to co-nom but it could go way to far to control so a limit should be into 2 noms --
890:
promise to vote against the next 10 large co-noms I see, on general principle? Or what about a rule that says nom/co-nom don't get a vote? :-) Regards,
822:
A good thing? I'm sorry if I left the impression I think it's a good thing. I certainly don't, I think it's a great pity. (And if it happens to one of my own
1037:
760:
I've never understood why the number of co-noms is considered a big deal. What's the difference between a co-nomination and a longish early support !vote?
1774:
1061:
918:
they're seeking to be counted numerically, rather than simply having their comments taken account of: i.e., they're clearly acting as if their supports
47:
Who says we can't? The comittee police? I move that the expressions "thirded" fourthed" etc be made legit on wikipedia. Will someone second the motion?
1350:
Indeed. People are free to write as long and strong a testimony as they like, without having to characterise it as a redundant or retro-nomination. (
134:
conominators. Why not just one, and everybody votes? When are too many co-noms too many? Why not 10 co-noms? 20? Always concerned about scalability, --
1198:
is completely absurd, and is really stripping the word "nomination" of its last vestige of meaning, reducing it precisely to a "top-posted support".
1310:
Yes. I already said above that despite the fact that I have a negative view of co-noms, I wouldn't bother making any new rules related to them. β
745:
currently has seven conominators. I wouldn't oppose RA over that, as he's a fantastic candidate, but it's quite a minus for me, and I did protest
403:
equal except for how they influenced outcomes, choosing the one that influenced the outcome in the direction you wanted might be ok, but choices
1064:. I find that much more tidy. If you are co-nominating, you are endorsing the nominator, no need to add more words to what he or she stated. --
957:
Or just change co-noms into votes. They tend to just be "me too's" anyway, which is no different than the standard show of support. –
649:
Three out of four of my noms I think added significant information the others did not contain but I do agree one didn't add much, I guess.
170:
for having nominations is to let users recommend unknown users to the community. I don't, however, find that a desperately useful thing.
80:
I don't know if we have any scotch around here, I'm pretty sure we can find some Irish, though. But five of them? I dunno about that. --
1089:
My bad. I found that too tidy to be real. Anyways, I stand by my comment, if you want to conominate, just sign below the nominator. --
1212:
571:
Tawker did you see the length of my question answers? There was NO DANGER of the noms taking up half the page, trust me! Smile.
898:
297:
239:... but I'm not suggesting making it 'not open' to that. People would still be free to nominate others, just not to nominate
1108:
Co nominations in the talk page. People can express their support for the nomination there, without overwhelming users. --
328:
I can't say I've seen multiple noms before, so it seems a bit like instruction creep to put a guideline in (not to mention
114:
I will now perform a legal motion which I will second , third, fourth, fifth, and be for :) *starts dancing around*
1372:
1269:
me." A co-nominator may be the only thing saving you from an early death in that case. (Or what if your nominator is an
837:
No, it's obvious you didn't mean it's "a good thing" in the abstract ... but better, at least, than having the co-noms.
55:
I'm going to skip a step and third it, it seems appropriate enough. And now, if you'll excuse me, I'll take a fifth. --
1040:, in which there were ten nominations (albeit most added after her acceptance), we see that one neutral !voter stated
1179:
In that case, not much, but it's much easier to say "No co-nom's" than it is to say "No co-nom's except when...". --
1122:
I'd ban co-noms altogether. I can't see any good reason for posting a co-nom rather than just a "Strong
Support". --
315:
brought about a number of oppose votes and a lot of upset. So, use multiple nominators at your own risk ;-).
1786:
1597:
1569:
1517:
1409:
670:
592:
531:
478:
433:
374:
284:
21:
1352:
Exceptionally strong and speedy support, would have nominated him myself if I hadn't thought he was one already
148:
961:
905:
736:
716:
638:
any new information unless the first couple nomination statements are substandard. But no big deal anyway.
1798:
995:
159:
1298:
Wouldn't both my proposal and the banning/limiting of co-noms as a whole be equally instruction creep? --
1418:
656:
651:
578:
573:
517:
512:
504:
464:
459:
451:
419:
414:
389:
360:
355:
323:
270:
265:
198:
143:
can be said about any candidate, so potential nominators will eventually run out of new things to say.
1246:
694:
1782:
1584:
1233:
891:
871:
742:
1508:
actually kind of petty to oppose over conoms but... people oppose for whatever reasons they like. ++
555:
302:
193:
144:
970:
958:
902:
831:
808:
754:
564:
48:
1688:
1165:
But that could have gone under
Comments or Support, it didn't need to be written as a co-nom. --
775:
1696:
1692:
1795:
1147:
1026:
728:
723:
Been there, done that discussion, decided that limiting co-nominations was a waste of time. --
619:
156:
41:
599:
I think it's a bit of a peculiar thing to do but it's no big deal as far as I'm concerned. --
1369:
1303:
1282:
1242:
1173:
1077:
1048:
948:
838:
816:
761:
689:
497:
444:
382:
316:
1461:
1159:
1012:
781:
642:
329:
100:
711:
The issue of excessive of co-nominations has been brought up recently; specifically, see
1311:
1292:
1102:
999:
292:
178:
81:
56:
1441:
nominations before the start of a (!)vote, but unacceptable to have 1 nomination, and
1593:
1565:
1513:
1465:
1405:
1109:
1090:
1065:
849:
827:
804:
750:
678:
666:
630:
588:
560:
527:
474:
429:
370:
333:
280:
171:
1221:
strongly-motivating supports, not to say the candidate's own wise words (one hopes).
1075:
comments (which were later removed) to the nomination before
Phaedriel declined. --
1261:
1207:
1143:
1101:
from support to neutral or neutral to oppose if there were other negative issues. β
1022:
724:
614:
600:
115:
17:
826:!votes I think it's also lazy and shameful. ;P) But that doesn't affect my point.
492:
Hey, if you really didn't care about affecting the outcome but just doing what is
1577:
1501:
1366:
1362:
1299:
1278:
982:
944:
546:
67:
496:, wouldn't you have started this topic before your RfA was concluded? ;-)
1748:
1648:
1533:
1388:
1344:
1180:
1166:
1156:
1132:
1123:
1009:
639:
607:
229:
135:
130:
Is there any point to dual nominations? There was even a recent nom that had
1704:
1610:
1553:
1485:
1446:
1379:
1355:
1324:
1225:
1199:
939:
Perhaps the only way to stop the proliferation of co-nominations is to have
924:
244:
220:
1445:
advance support votes, as appears to be the de facto position at present.
1589:
1561:
1509:
1401:
1071:
Those aren't actually co-noms, but rather the names of editors who added
662:
584:
523:
470:
425:
366:
276:
214:
Here's a thought for your collective idle consideration though: why not
613:
I see no problems with multiple noms.... but keep the extolments short.
1172:
Perhaps it didn't need to go there, but what was the harm that it did?
1701:
Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me too
394:
There's a nuance there, sorry if I'm not being very clear, but I
1387:
I think "Support and Vouch" has more of a ring to it. ;) --
1270:
1224:
One possible alternative would be a nomination word-limit.
994:
Excessive co-noms, admin coaching (and the recently deleted
165:
Come to think of it, are there any good reasons why we need
981:
the nomination template works anyway of one nomination. -
735:
Have people also been opposed for having too many before?
746:
799:
lost in the rush, and lost in the rising interest in
1354:, if that's covering enough of the usual bases.)
407:are exactly equal. I think it fairly clear that
311:people. Sort of like the way the early votes on
254:Multiple nominators? Poor form or no big deal? (
713:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Tariqabjotu 2
553:I too have no problems with multiple noms. --
8:
953: • 07:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
66:A fifth sounds good, make mine a scotch. --
969:Aye. Or put them under general comments. -
1775:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Gnangarra
1273:writer and has poor grammar as a result?)
30:
1060:Note how co-nominations were handled in
901:... those aren't votes, per se. –
1695:might take it personally. (Or indeed
399:that if you had two choices that were
1314: 02:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
1295: 01:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
1105: 17:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
7:
1002: 09:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
1043:more; an explanation wouldn't hurt.
1428:It's clear that one nomination is
28:
1789:) 09:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
1460:Oppose votes like that are what
1434:oppose until co-noms are removed
834:06:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC).
811:21:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC).
757:21:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC).
151:) 19:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
1600:23:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
1580:22:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
1572:22:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
1556:21:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
1504:15:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
1412:23:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
1358:12:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
1347:12:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
1307:02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
1286:01:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
1236:01:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
1228:01:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
1217:01:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
1202:01:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
1176:22:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
1162:22:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
1135:21:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
1126:19:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
1086:17:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
1068:17:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
1057:17:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
966:07:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
910:06:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
894:06:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
819:22:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
786:21:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
739:21:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
732:20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
719:20:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
1:
1803:19:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
1751:14:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
1707:09:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
1651:23:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
1613:23:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
1536:19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
1520:19:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
1488:21:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
1468:08:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
1449:07:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
1421:02:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
1391:13:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
1382:13:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
1327:11:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
1250:15:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
1183:23:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
1169:22:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
1151:21:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
1112:17:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
1093:17:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
1029:14:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
1015:09:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
985:21:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
973:20:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
927:21:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
878:01:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
852:22:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
841:20:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
764:21:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
223:19:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
174:20:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
162:20:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
138:19:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
1773:The most recent nomination,
899:Knowledge is not a democracy
247:20:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
232:19:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
201:01:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
181:20:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
1323:"privatised" alternative.
1265:have done their homework.
1818:
1008:otherwise have supported.
31:you can't third a motion (
1365:12:56, 14 November 2006 (
291:My opinion? NBD. :)
51:09:11, 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
699:17:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
673:13:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
645:13:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
624:12:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
610:12:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
603:09:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
549:21:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
506:14:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
453:14:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
436:13:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
391:13:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
377:12:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
325:19:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
307:19:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
287:19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
118:15:18 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
103:23:15, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
44:08:49 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
681:14:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
633:13:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
595:12:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
566:08:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
534:14:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
481:14:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
339:20:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
84:19:25 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
59:19:14 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
1240:just gotten silly. --
943:support be a co-nom. β
1781:and be done with it?
1585:reductio ad absurdum
1583:Eh? I've provided a
1361:'Speedy support'? --
1038:Phaedriel's last RfA
332:for other people!).
122:Dual nominations (
1341:Support and Vouch
1306:
1285:
1216:
1150:
1062:her first request
731:
1809:
1419:Opabinia regalis
1302:
1281:
1210:
1146:
1083:
1080:
1054:
1051:
876:
727:
703:Co-nominations (
659:
654:
622:
617:
581:
576:
563:
558:
520:
515:
502:
467:
462:
449:
422:
417:
387:
363:
358:
336:
321:
305:
300:
295:
273:
268:
1817:
1816:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1783:Oleg Alexandrov
1234:KillerChihuahua
1215:
1196:during the vote
1081:
1078:
1052:
1049:
872:
709:
697:
657:
652:
620:
615:
579:
574:
556:
554:
518:
513:
498:
465:
460:
445:
420:
415:
383:
361:
356:
334:
317:
303:
298:
293:
271:
266:
260:
128:
112:
37:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1815:
1813:
1805:
1804:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1423:
1422:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1312:Doug Bell
1293:Doug Bell
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1222:
1211:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1170:
1152:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1103:Doug Bell
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1031:
1030:
1017:
1016:
1004:
1003:
1000:Doug Bell
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
975:
974:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
882:
881:
880:
879:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
824:very judicious
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
708:
701:
693:
685:
684:
683:
682:
635:
634:
597:
596:
568:
567:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
259:
252:
251:
250:
249:
248:
234:
233:
189:
188:
187:
186:
185:
184:
183:
182:
160:(spill yours?)
145:TenOfAllTrades
127:
120:
111:
110:
109:
108:
107:
106:
105:
104:
90:
89:
88:
87:
86:
85:
73:
72:
71:
70:
61:
60:
36:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1814:
1802:
1801:
1797:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1750:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1650:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1612:
1607:
1602:
1601:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1586:
1582:
1581:
1579:
1574:
1573:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1558:
1557:
1555:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1535:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1506:
1505:
1503:
1498:
1497:
1487:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1420:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1390:
1386:
1381:
1377:
1376:
1374:
1371:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1359:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1348:
1346:
1342:
1337:
1336:
1326:
1321:
1316:
1315:
1313:
1309:
1308:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1296:
1294:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1284:
1280:
1274:
1272:
1266:
1263:
1249:
1248:
1244:
1238:
1237:
1235:
1230:
1229:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1218:
1214:
1209:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1201:
1197:
1182:
1178:
1177:
1175:
1171:
1168:
1164:
1163:
1161:
1158:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1136:
1134:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1125:
1111:
1107:
1106:
1104:
1099:
1092:
1088:
1087:
1085:
1084:
1074:
1070:
1069:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1058:
1056:
1055:
1044:
1039:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1019:
1018:
1014:
1011:
1006:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
992:
984:
979:
978:
977:
976:
972:
971:Mailer Diablo
968:
967:
965:
964:
960:
956:
955:
954:
952:
951:
946:
942:
926:
921:
917:
912:
911:
909:
908:
904:
900:
896:
895:
893:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
877:
875:
868:
867:
866:
865:
851:
847:
840:
836:
835:
833:
829:
825:
821:
820:
818:
813:
812:
810:
806:
802:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
785:
784:
779:
778:
763:
759:
758:
756:
752:
748:
744:
741:
740:
738:
734:
733:
730:
726:
722:
721:
720:
718:
714:
706:
702:
700:
698:
696:
691:
680:
675:
674:
672:
668:
664:
661:
660:
655:
648:
647:
646:
644:
641:
632:
627:
626:
625:
623:
618:
611:
609:
604:
602:
594:
590:
586:
583:
582:
577:
570:
569:
565:
562:
559:
552:
551:
550:
548:
533:
529:
525:
522:
521:
516:
508:
507:
505:
503:
501:
495:
491:
480:
476:
472:
469:
468:
463:
455:
454:
452:
450:
448:
442:
438:
437:
435:
431:
427:
424:
423:
418:
410:
406:
402:
397:
393:
392:
390:
388:
386:
379:
378:
376:
372:
368:
365:
364:
359:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
338:
331:
327:
326:
324:
322:
320:
314:
309:
308:
306:
301:
296:
290:
289:
288:
286:
282:
278:
275:
274:
269:
257:
253:
246:
242:
238:
237:
236:
235:
231:
226:
225:
224:
222:
217:
212:
209:
203:
202:
200:
195:
180:
176:
175:
173:
168:
164:
163:
161:
158:
153:
152:
150:
146:
141:
140:
139:
137:
133:
125:
121:
119:
117:
102:
98:
97:
96:
95:
94:
93:
92:
91:
83:
79:
78:
77:
76:
75:
74:
69:
65:
64:
63:
62:
58:
54:
53:
52:
50:
45:
43:
34:
23:
19:
1799:
1796:Deathphoenix
1778:
1772:
1605:
1500:comments. -
1442:
1438:
1433:
1429:
1398:
1351:
1340:
1319:
1275:
1267:
1262:User:Example
1259:
1241:
1195:
1192:
1148:(swiftmend!)
1144:Lord Deskana
1139:
1121:
1076:
1072:
1047:
1041:
996:admin school
962:
949:
940:
938:
919:
915:
906:
874:Rama's arrow
873:
823:
800:
782:
776:
773:
743:Rama's Arrow
737:Picaroon9288
729:(swiftmend!)
725:Lord Deskana
717:Picaroon9288
710:
692:
686:
650:
636:
612:
605:
601:Lord Deskana
598:
572:
543:
511:
499:
493:
458:
446:
440:
413:
408:
404:
400:
395:
384:
354:
318:
264:
261:
240:
215:
213:
207:
204:
196:
190:
166:
157:Mindspillage
131:
129:
113:
82:Party animal
68:Party party!
57:Party animal
46:
42:Party pooper
38:
22:RFA Subjects
18:User:Useight
1174:Newyorkbrad
892:Ben Aveling
839:Newyorkbrad
817:Newyorkbrad
762:Newyorkbrad
500:NoSeptember
447:NoSeptember
385:NoSeptember
319:NoSeptember
208:requirement
101:Third party
49:Party lover
1689:User:Aleph
1430:sufficient
705:Archive 74
304:talk to me
256:Archive 55
243:to vote.
124:Archive 38
1697:User:Beth
1693:User:Beta
959:Clockwork
903:Clockwork
439:It isn't
179:Guettarda
33:Archive 1
1466:James086
1462:WP:POINT
1110:ReyBrujo
1091:ReyBrujo
1066:ReyBrujo
897:Because
850:ReyBrujo
828:Bishonen
805:Bishonen
751:Bishonen
690:nae'blis
679:kingboyk
631:MartinRe
616:=Nichalp
330:WP:BEANS
313:CSCWEM-2
199:watz sup
99:ROFL --
20: |
1779:Support
1208:Amarkov
1073:support
1023:pschemp
801:numbers
621:Β«TalkΒ»=
561:iva1979
401:exactly
337:iggurat
194:JAranda
116:ilyanep
1578:Taxman
1502:Taxman
1363:ais523
1320:during
1300:tjstrf
1279:tjstrf
1140:detest
1082:abjotu
1053:abjotu
983:Taxman
945:Centrx
916:unless
695:(talk)
547:Tawker
441:merely
1749:Tango
1649:Tango
1534:Tango
1389:Tango
1345:Tango
1213:edits
1181:Tango
1167:Tango
1157:Kusma
1133:Bobet
1124:Tango
1079:tariq
1050:tariq
1010:Kusma
941:every
640:Kusma
608:Tango
494:right
405:never
294:Radio
230:Durin
136:Durin
132:three
16:<
1787:talk
1705:Alai
1611:Alai
1554:Alai
1486:Alai
1447:Alai
1380:Alai
1356:Alai
1325:Alai
1304:talk
1283:talk
1247:blis
1226:Alai
1200:Alai
1160:(θ¨θ«)
1027:talk
1013:(θ¨θ«)
963:Soul
950:talk
925:Alai
907:Soul
832:talk
809:talk
783:Talk
777:Mike
755:talk
747:here
643:(θ¨θ«)
299:Kirk
245:Alai
221:Alai
149:talk
1691:or
1590:Lar
1562:Lar
1510:Lar
1443:n-1
1402:Lar
1271:ESL
1243:nae
920:are
663:Lar
585:Lar
524:Lar
471:Lar
426:Lar
367:Lar
277:Lar
241:and
216:bar
167:any
1794:--
1592::
1588:++
1564::
1532:--
1512::
1404::
1375:)
1277:--
1025:|
830:|
807:|
780:|
753:|
665::
587::
526::
473::
428::
409:my
396:do
369::
279::
197:|
1800:Κ
1785:(
1606:a
1598:c
1596:/
1594:t
1570:c
1568:/
1566:t
1518:c
1516:/
1514:t
1439:n
1410:c
1408:/
1406:t
1373:C
1370:T
1367:U
1291:β
1245:'
947:β
707:)
671:c
669:/
667:t
658:+
653:+
593:c
591:/
589:t
580:+
575:+
557:S
532:c
530:/
528:t
519:+
514:+
479:c
477:/
475:t
466:+
461:+
434:c
432:/
430:t
421:+
416:+
375:c
373:/
371:t
362:+
357:+
335:Z
285:c
283:/
281:t
272:+
267:+
258:)
172:]
147:(
126:)
35:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.