804:
although I can understand edit count and time on project being a little more relevant to ability to use the tools correctly, age is totally irrelevant. Anyway, onto my comment. I think it should be acceptable (if somewhat frowned upon) for a !voter to revise their criteria and vote according to whether or not the candidates age is displayed on their userpage and if the age is displayed, vote according to the age stated. I fully support any proposal to prevent any editor from asking the age of a candidate openly on their RfA page. If a !voter is really determined, it would, I suppose, be acceptable to ask in private through e-mail the age, but not to disclose the answer on
Knowledge. Age should also cover school or college grade/form which would give an idea as to age. Ideally, the 'crats will ignore any votes made regarding age, but there should be no explicit rule as this is always going to cause !voters to find another random and probably equally pedantic reason to oppose. We're only trying to sort out candidates who might make good admins from candidates who might make bad admins through the RfA process, age has nothing to do with that process. --
381:, commonly seen as sarcastic agreement. I'm sure that there are some people on the project that feel that admins should only come from English speaking countries in the Western world. If someone commenting here feels that way then my argument could be rejected, however I have a strong feeling that the vast majority of commenters will agree that it is an absurd conclusion. Breakdown of logical argument follows. Let A stand for young people, B stand for immature people, C stand for good admin candidates, D stand for people from places outside the developed/English speaking world and E stand for computer illiterate people/people with poor English communication skils. AKMask said
1538:
where I am located, one has to be 16 or 17 to drive, 18 to vote, and 21 to (legally) drink. Are you really suggesting that there is a credible view that being under 16 or 18 or 21 is a negative toward being a
Knowledge administrator? And are you really suggesting that there is a significant class of RfA candidates who "han't gotten out of grade school"–yet would appear qualified to the !voters unless they were induced to state their age? I see that lower down you say that you "wouldn't base decision on the age question" but I'm still not quite following exactly what you feel the relevance of the age criterion is. Regards,
328:(edit conflict with Newyorkbrad)Discriminating against someone based on their age makes as much sense as discriminating against someone based on their being from developing country. Many young people are not as mature as adults. Many people from non-first world countries are either computer illiterate and/or unable to communicate effectively in English. Therefore young people and people from non-first world countries are less likely to make good admins. This should be taken into account when judging RfAs from people under the age of 21 (the age of majority in many countries) or RfAs involving people from less well off countries.
269:
of age, but I find it much harder to support someone under 18. Not impossibly hard mind you, and I end up swayed as often as not, but it is just more reassuring to know someone has reached at least adulthood, seems to temper them and add a bit of maturity from what I see. We dont live for the exceptions. There are mature teenagers, and immature 30-somethings, and thats what the discussion part of RfA is for, to sway those who see that. But for the majority of cases, if you're in highschool, you've got some growing to do. Get over it, do that growing, its not like im saying you suck as a person because you're young. -
842:
candidate can choose not to answer the question, the fact that the question is inappropriate in the first place is somehow resolved. It isn't. Frankly, asking the question in an RfA places an implied obligation to answer. Just as a teacher cannot proselytize in a public school because they operate in a position of authority, a question about age in an RfA is imbued with an implied authority and places an implied burden on the candidate to answer, whether or not the burden is real. The question is inappropriate and the community should clearly state such and be undivided on the matter. -
3388:
irrelevant. For candidates who won't block, the question about punitive block has a similar effect: essentially testing a candidate's ability to read the relevant policy page (as noted elsewhere, they seem to be catching on from other RfAs). Even the SNOW question isn't relevant to vandal-fighters. I understand
Amarkov's perennial point about candidates receiving the whole toolset and requiring understanding of the full body of policy, but the three present questions are more general than Malber's three optionals.--
1791:
learn what current, mainstream science says (rather than the school textbooks). The reverse is always true, in that years of experience and knowledge in no way stops someone from being completely and utterly wrong. And the really good idea that completely changes things can come from anyone of any age. My feeling about the age question is along the lines of: don't make a big deal out of it, but don't totally ignore it either.
1805:
userpages, and you soon see the diversity of editors. Randomly visit admin pages, and enough give some idea of their age that you can see the same spread. So again, I support Malber's right to ask the question, but I agree it is generally not relevant. I would, though, ask everyone to consider the next time they make an off-colour joke with another user whose age you don't know, that they really could be anyone, of any age.
3142:"optional" questions are asked, it might be better to do so in the "discussion" part of the RfA. As for the age question, I'd prefer to see it gone. Asking the question is an invasion of privacy and ageist. I suppose I could always bring the question template to MfD, but I had hoped a discussion would resolve things without that "formal" process, which wouldn't really address whether the question ought to be put or not.
418:
and a
Knowledge when we all were 12 or 13. Especially if, as in this case, the user is a serious article editor and we want him to stick around in that capacity. It's particularly important that at least some of the comments be positive -- but that this be done without patronizing the candidate, these are some of the brightest kids around and will see through that -- and that we avoid pile-ons in these situations.
307:
maturity, not age, as maturity directly impacts their ability to be a good admin. Since even AKMask admits that age!=maturity then adding an age barrier does nothing the improve the RfA decision process but it is instruction creep. We already judge people on their maturity and find some older folks lacking and some younger folks to be wise. I may be old and creaky myself but I still remember being young.
3872:. The question is unrequired, unneeded, and considered offensive by some. !Voters who oppose based on age are indicating bias against that age group. Do we elect admins just because they are married, live in UK/US, and because they are between 30-40 years old? No. We elect admins because of their skill, their judgement, and their patience. We should continue to uphold this principle.
279:
506:
factor at all or at most a peripheral one. In fact, I think that younger people have a greater chance of being treated as individuals and on the same plane with older people on
Knowledge and similar projects than virtually anywhere else -- which is exactly how it should be, and exactly how I would have wanted it if there had been a 'net and a Knowledge when I was 13.
2683:
personal questions like "what is your name" or "where do you live". Now I'm not saying that the age question is crossing any sort of line, personally I'm not one to judge what people base their RFA votes on, if age is a factor for them, so be it, I'm just saying that we need to get concensus on where we draw the line for how personal questions can be.
1399:? We're vandalist, we're POVist, we're civilityist, and we're usually intelligenceist. (Yes, I KNOW those aren't real words). Yet nobody seems to care about those. Why? Because they're recognized as being important for an administrator to have. I don't see why discriminating using standards that everybody doesn't happen to agree with is worse. -
2054:
3361:
serious and probing question on admin related actions, I really don't mind. If you think your questions are important enough (and apart from the age question which is a contentious issue, your other questions are good) then why not suggest on this page that your questions are included as part of the standard RfA questions. --
1379:", is incongruous. By posing the question, Malber is indeed "actively investigating this information". The "consent" is not in the asking of the question (which should not be done), but in the answering (which is unnecessary to answer in any event). There is a complete failure to address how the question is not ageist.
3166:. If the community wanted every candidate to answer 7 questions, they would be added to the template. This is clearly an abuse of the principle of editors being "allowed" to ask additional questions. Please, stop. Use discretion with the questions instead of applying them liberal to all (or nearly all) RfA's. --
3387:
I'm not sure which sub or sub-thread to respond to here, anymore... Among the problems I see with Malber's traditional three optional questions is that they are asked indiscriminately of every candidate. For candidates who won't do new page patrol or manage CAT:CSD, the G11 question is almost totally
486:
As a member of the over-30 admin group, I also think that it more relates to maturity than chronological age. I happen to think that there is a positive correlation between the two, but it isn't 1. If over a period of six months to a year, and a few thousand edits, the user demonstrates the maturity,
47:
I don't think we should discriminate against candidates or nominees based on age (or any other inherent characteristic). Hold all candidates to the same standards regardless of age. We have some great editors under the age of 16 and I see no reason why one of them couldn't become an admin if they met
3446:
I am quite surprised why
Amarkov fails to see consensus here. No one, except you and badlydrawnjeff has agreed that Malber should continue asking this question. Privacy is the right of every individual, and on the internet, we should not in any way ask them to reveal their age for adminship. It puts
2435:
I would say some admins have become extremely hair-trigger in handing out blocks. The one who gave this one in particular. Perhaps that should be a question to RfA candidates. During my 18 month term as admin I only once blocked a long standing contributor, and that was where there was absolutely no
1804:
Another thought. It would be reassuring to know that we had admins of all ages. Just as it is good to have editors of all ages (providing they know how to edit), it is good to have admins of all ages (providing they know how to handle the tools). The editor diversity can be seen by randomly visiting
1745:
a bit, how does that help us assess the candidate up for nomination? His or her opinion on a generic admin's age is really irrelevant to whether or not the candidate would make a good admin. The only way the answer could help is if the candidate "volunteers" their own age in the context of answering
1719:
This would be less intrusive than the current form of the question. In all cases of intrusive questions, my thought is that the way the user responds is actually more revealing than the actual content of the answer. If a user gets upset over a question like this, then you start to think to yourself:
1518:
discussions unless the answers to the questions move me strongly one way or the other and especially don't if the vote is a landslide in either direction. Otherwise I remain neutral. I wouldn't base my decision solely on the age question. I appreciate a truthful answer but wouldn't oppose if someone
1327:
Of course it's absurd, there is no concievable way in which country of origin could impact how good of an admin you'll be. But there's no real reason to make an explicit provision to prevent the question, because some people might consider it important, and if the bureaucrat thinks it's absurd, it's
1099:
Is it illegal? I don't think so. Someone stated that a potential employer asking for the same information is inappropriate which is, at least in the United States, incorrect. Any job application will ask for an applicant's date of birth and any HR department records this information. Using this as a
949:
and left off the age question, but it's still in the template. While I've spilled a few electrons on the topic, the two main reasons I find the question unacceptable are privacy and that it is ageist. If a person wants to volunteer this info without prompting, that's their choice, but they ought not
286:
For legal issues, I can understand why someone would want aged 18+ admins. But, then again, how can one prove age on the internet? Moreover, wouldn't that compromise "No big deal" even more than it already has been? I agree with the above user; age is another statistic, like edit count — stats
268:
is a valid part of a larger look at a candidate for adminship. There are some cases where im immensely surprised to find some current admins who were young when promoted, but for the most part, it's along the lines of 'I could tell'. It's not a litmus test, I wont make up my mind solely on the issue
3457:– Tell you what, I'll drop the whole matter and just get back to editing if you'd drop your pompousness and sanctimony just apologize for the inappropriate and out-of-process block. Here's your chance to be civil. —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC) and gets warned –
2571:
Though I disagreed with the original block, the re-instituted question leads me to believe that Malber is not willing to wait for concensus on the issue. I would strongly recommend that he wait until the community can determine concensus before asking the age question again to avoid causing further
2455:
The question (albeit it slightly modified) is back, sadly Malber isn't content to let the question go. It's the first thing he did after being unblocked. This is really starting to get out of hand here. I've notified the candidate that answering is totally optional and comments such as "Old Enough"
1726:
1681:
correspondence with a teenage editor, I now feel that any opinion which he holds is one with which I do not wish to be associated. I am aware that it is being suggested elsewhere that a suggested answer to the age question, if asked, is "Old enough to apply for
Adminship" and I would recommend this
1633:
you answer the questions. A mature teenager is preferable to a childish adult. And I don't know why you have to fret so much about the reputation of
Knowledge; we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to defend its honor (well, we sort of do). Full disclosure: I'm a 16-year-old admin, and I've been
1537:
Malber: I've been following this discussion without commenting in this thread, though I've stated my opinion in similar discussion in the past. You ask above, "Would you want someone who can't drive, can't vote, or can't drink having the capability to block you or delete your articles?" In New York
1421:
that I feel is fairly relevant: "To me the key thing is getting it right. And if a person's really smart and they're doing fantastic work, I don't care if they're a high school kid or a
Harvard professor; it's the work that matters." I think that sums up the opinion of several editors in regards to
1087:
There are no restrictions on adminship. There are no standards. So by that logic, all questions are irrelevant and it's just a popularity contest. However, the one standard we have is consensus and since everyone is allowed to develop their own standards on what qualities make a good administrator,
775:
There are no restrictions on adminship. There are no standards. So by that logic, all questions are irrelevant and it's just a popularity contest. However, the one standard we have is consensus and since everyone is allowed to develop their own standards on what qualities make a good administrator,
428:
WOW! I just felt bad for a certain RfA candidate who was getting shredded without regard for his age (12-14). I just found his mistakes more understandable as age/maturity related. Then I find out we have a teenage 'crat. I don't care how old an editor is. All that matters is ability. I don't think
417:
On the other hand, when a young nominee (such as a current candidate at this writing who appears to be 12 years old) has no real chance for the mop in his/her current RfA, the situation calls for the same kindness and thoughtfulness that we would have wanted to receive if there had been an
Internet
3223:
Ok, maybe I am out of step -- does everyone else actually like the same questions being asked of every candidate, age question or not? The reason I say what it all comes down to is because the age question is finally the one that crossed the line in the mind of most people. And, it shows that we
2883:
I'm not sure it is obvious. While RfA is inherently a discussion, the questions above seem to be more of a meta structure _to_ the discussion. And if they were, in fact, protected in the same manner that comments on a discussion page are, then Malber's removal of the "You don't have to answer if
2508:
I certainly think there is enough evidence that shows Malber is disrupting Knowledge. He has asked the question when the age was available on the candidates user page and their first edit after being unblocked was to add the question back in (I removed the original version) and he also reverted on
1666:
Fine ... but ... if the applicant answers the question, what does a !voter then do with the answer? (Frankly, I find the issue of the propriety of the question less critical than some, simply because most younger applicants have enough information on their userpage to give the answer or at least a
686:
What is so hard to understand? I think ageism is appropriate in RfA's. Age could have been disclosed on the user page or apparent from other disclosure. However, I think that requesting personal info such as name, age, address, sex, HIV status, social security number, and sexual orientation is not
306:
I strongly disagree with AKMask on this. Deckiller raises the obvious practical question: how do we know how old someone is? That aside this kind of age discrimination is illegal in some countries where Knowledge operates, and IMHO its immmoral everywhere. The question we should be asking is about
3888:
As an outsider to this conversation, I think it's just the mental age, i.e. maturity, that matters, and it usually shows in the editor's contributions and comments on talk pages. It's not a question of age in years. Admins should not be forced to reveal more (irrelevant) personal information than
3084:
Considering the "long thread(s)" above, What does everyone suggest that I do with Malber's questions? Considering the controversy surrounding them (apparently to the point of disruption and a block), and (possibly more importantly), since it's been stated over and over that answering questions is
2682:
Because the question is one which requests the nominee reveal personal information. A lot of editors on Knowledge take privacy as a very important issue, and there's definately a point where we have to say "this question is just too personal" or else we could end up with an array of very invasive
1790:
Getting away from the admin question briefly, there are plenty of examples of editing where age does matter. I know that the science pages often have to remove 'helpful' stuff added by schoolkids who have learnt something at school, but who will, in a few years time have to unlearn that stuff and
1177:
to do with administrative action, I would rather support an eleven year old wikipedian who is a very clever vandal fighter and all around good candidate than a 30 year old who isn't. In my opinion it doesn't help and it puts the younger editor in a little bit of a worry that he has to answer this
3292:
I have a problem with Malber asking the same questions of every candidate because Malber has himself admitted he will not normally !vote even after asking his questions and they being answered. Excluding the age question, I would have no problem with Malber asking the same questions on every RfA
2984:
Phyiscq is quite right, though the question seems highly problematic all optional questions are answered at the discretion of the nominee. Lets not add insult to injury by pushing Malber to yield asking the question or sending a message to avoid answering the question to a whole mailing list of
841:
It is inappropriate for an employer to ask a prospective employee what their age is. The prospective employee can choose not to answer the question if it is asked, but it is STILL wildly inappropriate to ask in the first place. Above, I see a number of fine editors asserting that _because_ the
405:
Youthful RfA candidates should be treated just like everyone else if they are serious candidates. I ran successfully for public office when I was in my early 20's and can shout as loud as anyone "judge people by their qualifications, not by their ages." Of course, in some cases we don't know a
3815:
Its time to move on and just leave everything behind. We should respect one's privacy and not go into asking for one's age in the public scene. Its not a nice thing to do if they do not feel comfortable of revealing it. Wikipedians may have the choice to edit anonymously and its up to them what
2956:
allowed to ask the question? He can do so as he sees fit; we're not here to mollycoddle candidates. We're just here to note that there is controversy in asking said question, and we ask Malber to tread carefully when asking this question and ask candidates to tread carefully when answering this
1495:
To EVula: Jimbo was talking about editors, not administrators and the context of the question was about the importance of having experts as editors as opposed to laypersons. My question relates to who we give the mop. Would you want someone who can't drive, can't vote, or can't drink having the
715:
I think that age is largely irrelevant; an editor who is 15 can be more mature than an editor who is 25 (I'm assuming that some vandals are adults). I think that the truly immature who seek an RfA will get weeded out, either through their answers or their edits, making the question unimportant.
505:
Based on the discussion above, Kitia, I don't think anyone is saying that being 13 (or any age) means you can't be an administrator if you are qualified. To the contrary, I think the consensus above is to judge the candidates strictly on the basis of qualifications and that age is either not a
169:
As my name was mentioned, I thought I might give my opinion: I think that, being part of the net, Knowledge has no means to know my age if I don't tell it voluntarily. You have to think what you would have not knowing of the age (and probably you would have considered maturity). Also, it's wiki
3360:
Malber, with the exception of questions which ask the candidate personal information such as age, location etc, I really don't care what questions you ask. I'd prefer if they were helpful to you and to other !voters to decide which way to !vote on the RfA but you could ask favourite fruit or a
2593:
The problem with establishing consensus on this issue is that is we allow this question, when we have to allow all questions (sans flagrantly inappropriate ones). If we don't allow this questions, then it opens a Pandora's box of what is to be allowed and what is not to be allowed, leaving the
3246:
1 - The question can be considered invasive. 2. Malber rarely uses the answers to decide what way to !vote. Asking a candidate to disclose personal information is, I consider, unfair. A user has a right of anonymity here, this is Knowledge and if Malber isn't happy, he should consider leaving
2635:
A blanket ban of asking for personal information such as age, appearance, location, religion would be sufficent. Only questions which can be used to directly assess the suitability of the candidate for the roll of admin are really suitable for RfA. Asking personal questions is, in my opinion,
1545:
To answer your questions: maybe and possibly. I haven't queried every participant in an RfA. But there is a perception outside of Knowledge that it is run by adolescents with too much time on their hands. I don't base my decision on the answer to one question. Because I don't have the time to
999:
Crz is right. One thing wiki has taught me is that very young editors are still sometimes capable of leadership roles. RfA candidates should be judged by their on-wiki (and wiki-related) actions, nothing else. I think "optional questions" are not really "optional" in the eyes of many as well.
803:
crz - I totally agree. What I'm about to say on it's own would sound really stupid, so I'll clarify my point before I start, I detest RfAs where numbers come into play, whether it be age, length of time on project or edit count, candidates should be judged solely on the ability to do the job,
474:
I've been discriminated against because of my age before on Knowledge (quite often by vandals but a couple of times by respected editors too). I don't think age should play a part in the process – quite often a 13, 14, 15 year old can be more mature, and more responsible than a 30 year old. —
314:
Age should not be a factor. If for no other reason, we don't know most users' ages. That would then make it unfair on those who have chosen to be honest and tell their age, and are then punished for it. If someone isn't acting like a little kid (in the bad way), then don't oppose them for it.
2793:
I don't think anyone needs to first ask for consensus to ask a question. Does someone have to ask for consensus before participating in a talk page disucssion? I also feel posting coaching comments on how to answer a particular question is a disruptive action and can pollute the answer. I've
1724:
pressure? Though any question can be designed to do this, not just an age question. In the recent ArbCom elections, I saw one of the candidates (and only one of the candidates) respond rather bruquesly to an 'age question' that someone else had asked. I followed up on this and found that the
1714:
Do you think an admin's age is relevant to the tasks they may need to carry out on Knowledge? Are there cases where an older or younger admin might be more suited to a particular task, or to interacting with particular users? Do you think admins or editors should give an idea of how old they
523:
is totally inappropriate. We cannot be asking candidates to reveal personal information. I attempted to talk sense into him before, but no response was ever received. Do people agree that asking this question is reprehensible? If so, does anyone have any ideas on how to stop this behavior? -
2027:
And so what if he does? Why is this an issue? Is he not allowed to have his own criteria for adminship? The diffs above have nothing to do with the subject here - if he's incivil toward younger editors, then deal with that, but don't punish the guy for having standards you disagree with.
444:
I haven't edited this page since the HRE fracas, but I think I need to say a few things. As someone who was made admin at 15 (I became admin a few days before my 16th birthday last year), age plays little to no part in it, it's maturity. HOWEVER, regardless of one's age, I think there's one
3429:. Second, I think it is fair and reasonable for someone to ask an editor's age in an RFA. Third, I think it is equally fair and equally reasonable for the candidate to not answer or ignore the question. Fourth, to be honest, I have to say you're all making a lot of fuss out of nothing.
2925:
I could just e-mail the candidate and tell them not to bother asking your question, if it'll be disruptive advising them on Knowledge. All I ask is that you please, please, please stop asking the question and just drop it, surely you've seen there is concern here over the question.
1593:
Why ? - There is the discretion of allowing optional questions to allow !voters to decide how they are going to vote. Your abusing the system asking an irrelevant question and not using the result to !vote each time you ask a question. In light of your answer above stating
2426:
Although I was in strong disagreement with Malber on the merits of "the question," based on what I have seen this is an extremely troublesome and problematic block. I will comment further on Malber's talkpage but it really is regrettable that things escalated to this extent.
1676:
Until I read through this lengthy correspondence I had thought that there might be some merit in setting a lower age limit on qualification for admin status, although I would have been uncertain as to what the limit should have been. Very early teens, I guess. Having read
1074:
Yes, it is inappropriate, for 2 reasons. 1. It encourages voters to vote against people that do not reveal personal information. 2. It encourages voters to vote for a candidate based upon an irrelevant factor, rather than the candidate's degree of responsibility.
3208:
I'm not seeing anyone objecting to the fact that Malber asks the same question of every candidate. The objections are about the content. And including a subsection of "What it all comes down to" implies that it's actually related to the rest of the discussion.
736:
This is what I was trying to say. If someone is a prolific vandal-fighter, holds themselves well in general discussions, contributes well to XfD and all kinds of policy talk: finding out they are 16, say, should not then count against them. I suppose it is the
2248:? Desysopping isn't going to happen here, and as much as anyone can pretend it will, neither will blocks due to asking a candidate's age. Nothing will come out of this. Wider discussion than four or five people would be necessary to do anything. Move along. -
3110:
I'm not happy about what's happening at the moment but I absolutely do not want the question impacting candidates in any way, so it's really up to yourself on how you answer because I don't want you being penalised for any thoughts I give you on the matter.
3137:
If Malber wants to keep posting the first three non-offensive questions, by all means carry on. On those, I still think their near-blanket application to most RfAs is an end-run around the consensus achieved on the existing "standard" questions and that if
1095:
Is this an invasion of privacy? No, because no one is actively investigating this information without the nominee's consent. The nominee can simply decline to answer or come up with some pithy answer. Or they can answer truthfully if they are not bashful.
1039:
As for asking the age question, I don't think it is needed. There are times when I am discussing something with someone on-wiki, and they don't quite seem to get something, or they seem to be persistently flippant and immature, and I find myself wondering
359:
I agree, I think. Your sarcasm confused me for a moment. (You are being sarcastic right?) There is no reason to think that a 40-year-old new to Knowledge should be more knowledgeable about the project than a 15-year-old who has been around for a year. --
3319:
Wait a minute, we're only allowed to ask the questions that you like and now it's mandatory that we vote if we ask a question? If I don't give a vote I'm neutral, I don't need to state that. Do you want me to pat my head and rub my tummy as I edit too?
1499:
To Agent 86: we're not investigating through a third party, looking into a nominee's permanent school record, or calling their doctor. I'm asking a direct question which can easily be evaded. Plenty of people have cribbed other people's answer to my
1349:
I'm inclined to agree. The question is inappropriate and irrelevant, but you can't take away people's right to ask foolish questions and inappropriate questions. Let each person the question is asked of either respond or ignore it, as they see fit.
3251:
where they're ageist and refuse to have admins (constables) under 25 and where they want to know every members personal details. Not using the response to the question is an abuse of the privilege of being permitted to ask questions of candidates.
2509:
another current RfA. This coupled with the fact Malber isn't actually asking the question with the intent to !vote is worse. I'd like to see this issue sorted once and for all but I don't really think anywhere near RfA is the place to do it. --
227:
On the other hand, if you get into a serious problem on Knowledge, "Hey, I'm just 15!" really can't be an excuse if you've chosen to go through RfA and say that age doesn't matter. You've chosen to be treated as an adult for better or worse.
2396:
If this was because of the question, I hope an admin has the good sense to unblock, if not Nick himself. If it was due to soemthing else, ignore this, but there's a good case that Nick shouldn't have been the blocking admin here regardless.
449:. This certain candidate is being opposed on mostly fair grounds, with, as far as I can see, only one struck out age-related issue. He's being opposed on how he would use the tools, and his actions in the past regarding policy, not his age.
3687:. Yes, my block was out of process, I am in dispute, I shouldn't have blocked. I left an apology on your talk page. Malber has shown that he is keen to further disrupt Knowledge; and for those of you, who are not aware of Malber's history;
3178:
What? That is totally not the issue. There was a discussion on this a while back, and I believe it was decided that it wasn't a huge problem. Regardless, the issue here is the content of one, not the fact of asking everyone more questions.
3157:
Malber, I don't think anyone is happy with you taking it upon yourself to add 4 standard questions, making every candidate answer 7 instead of 3. Although I originally thought NHN's block of you was out of line, I think you are treading
863:
be chastised or treated to any negative backlash for not revealing personal information. For some editors, the disclosure of age could be the final piece of info that enables RL to intersect with Wikilife in ways they don't want,
3865:
harm something. Every time someone asks the question, there is a large discussion on that candidate's RfA discussion page, with some people saying "I don't think this question should be asked" and others saying "we can, we can".
2072:
However if blocked (especially by anyone here) it may be punitive. I think a block would be neither neccessary nor constructive. However I still remain firmly opposed to the question. I can see that if people don't remain calm,
2613:
True, once we try to figure out what's appropriate and what's innappropriate as a question, it just gets difficult and very subjective. But there has to be some form of solution that we can all agree on without wiki-drama.
2189:
Glad we're all having fun here. Mimsy has an axe to grind, so any block by him would be punitive. His muddying of the discussion with out of context talk page discussion is particularly in-civil and unbecoming of an admin.
208:
does: if you have a 13 or a 30 year old who acts like a "typical" 10 year old, neither should get the tools. One thing I am concerned about though is that it is probably more likely that a young candidate take a failed RFA
3470:
Deletion was out-of-process and contrary to consensus. Suggest that deleting admin be referred to ArbCom for possible de-sysopping due to this and several other abuses of administrative powers within the past few months.
3224:
have a problem here - we "allow" everyone to ask questions, but the flexibility of that allowance is causing huge problems now, with blocks being handed out and Malber becoming increasingly zealous with the questions. --
1052:
I was just pointing out that one need not be a teenager to be a vandal. Nothing more was meant by it, though I could have phrased it a bit better, I suppose (for example... I could have phrased it like I just did...).
1100:
basis for making an employment decision is also generally in many circumstances not against the law, at least in the US. Besides, this is a volunteer project and not subject to employment law. And anyone voting
150:
If we knew everyone's age, then we might want to discourage those under 14 from standing. But we don't - and even where it is declared, we can't verify it. So judge maturity by actions. (Disclaimer: I sometimes
1480:
HAHAHAHA, out of curiosity, exactly HOW old is that? lol. If those were requirements for being an admin, I think the age question would be perfectly valid. (thank goodness those arent requirements.) lol.
889:
inappropriate (and, worse yet, probably wouldn't work). But, between appropriateness and relevance, the fact that an editor's age is irrelevant is, in my opinion, the stronger reason to oppose the question.
1152:
Federal law allows an employer to ask your age or date of birth if there is a legitimate reason for them to ask for that information -- such as to perform background checks or for identification purposes.
69:
Kirill, do we? I thought he had grown up. (Not that it matters anyway, age discrimination in RfA is senseless. There's "mature" contributors who I would like to be as far away as possible from the mop.)
3539:
And as for Amarkov's arguments where he is candidly not trying to see consensus, or probably avoiding it, I am listing the names of users who have disagreed as to Malber's asking age-related questions.
62:
Indeed! That is amazing. I just feel sorry for the poor kid out there with his string of teenager mistakes and with 18 opposes. So much for my opinion that we should block all school accounts on sight.
344:
We should pass over people from countries outside of the developed world. Right, or did I miss your point? Basing an argument on stereotypes and generalizations is not a mature rhetorical approach.—
1303:
I see the question on par with questions such as, "what color is your hair," "what is your gender," "what is your nationality". None of those questions would be asked, why ask the age question?
1388:. As I stated in the earlier discussion, the issue isn't entirely about legal standards. However, those standards (which go beyond employment law) are useful to illustrate the matters at issue.
2505:
I'm less concerned about the block, but rather this is playing out in the middle of RfAs and an RfA is a baptism of fire without a disagreement continuing with regards to this damn question.
3527:
Every individual on Knowledge and the internet for that matter, has a right to anonymity and privacy. Privacy increases participation – as noted by the Arbitration Committee –
2884:
you don't want to" text that another user posted is inappropriate. Malber, you can't have it both ways. Please reconsider what you're doing, it seems to be intentionally disruptive. -
1757:
Yes. On the other hand, the rephrased question does implicate some interesting issues, deeper than "should User:Foo be made an administrator?" I wouldn't mind a bit if someone asked me
1999:
If people are allowed to have their own criteria, why can't age be one of them, and why can't the option to answer the question be offered? I honestly don't see the big deal here. --
754:{edit conflict} IMO personal questions such as age have no place in RFAs and even though the question is considered optional many others will oppose since it wasn't answered. —
3779:? Does anyone else see this incivil character assasination as wildly over the top and inappropriate for an admin? BTW, I've removed the "offending" question from my template. —
2754:
inductees know where to find my age.) If I were to be up for RfA and were asked this question I would answer it candidly. I would answer this question privately if asked. —
2704:
And the question is optional. If we were talking about including the question as a standard, should-be-universally-answered deal, maybe you'd have a point. If privacy of your
494:
Because I'm 13, I can't be an admin sometime soon? That is not right. Until I stated my age just a few weeks ago, I could have been mistaken as an adult because of my maturity.
1126:
Agreed. I wouldn't ask the question, but I will defend your right to ask it. Do you add a disclaimer making clear that people really, really don't have to answer the question?
2109:
I strongly oppose you blocking someone for asking a question like that. His feelings on younger editors are completely irrelevant to whether it's a viable optional question
1024:- no need to make an assumption like that. Vandalism is not correlated with age. All ages carry out vandalism, though it does seem to be more prevalent among younger people.
1467:
Hey, if anyone wants to ask me how old I am: I'm old enough to buy a pack of cigarettes, but young enough to play naked Badminton on a packed beach in the middle of winter.
3278:
Um... that isn't my point here. My point is that you don't have a problem just because he asks the same questions of everyone, and representing it as that is misleading. -
2816:! That is the specific criteria I have employed when I just struck out your age question in the most recent RfA as the candidate had not answered it yet. Best regards,
1510:
To all: This question is designed mostly for other people if they consider it a standard. I've responded on someone else's talk page that I don't normally participate in
3239:
Amarkov - Hold on now, you know why I am annoyed and why others are annoyed. It's two reasons which combined with Malber's thoughts on Knowledge are resulting in Malber
487:
diplomacy, and discipline needed to be a 'crat or sysop, then why not? I know plenty of fourty year olds that make my kids look like sagacious octogenarians :) --
3534:
There would be no need in setting up a situation, where a participant feels pressured to disclose his age or anything personal for that matter. Our privacy is our own.
2708:
is that important (which I'll never understand, but I also don't hide behind anything either), then you don't answer it. Problem solved - let the candidate decide. --
928:
516:
32:
1653:
I am sure that I'm in the minority, but I think that asking an admin candidate for their age is a fair question. As with all questions, responses are optional. --
2267:
I think it would be best to stop asking about people's ages until there is a consensus one way or the other. I'm not sure this is the best forum to work that out.
2552:
As many parents say, there's nothing wrong with asking questions. There is, however, something wrong with asking questions incorrectly, i.e. in a blunt manner. --
2077:
is going to come into play. Discussing the blocking of Malber and the de-admin-ing of Nick will lead to "nasty" comments if people don't calm down right now.
3756:. – And I am sure Malber is going to term this as "stalking", this is production of evidence; stalking is what you have been doing. I ask everyone to
1519:
didn't answer candidly. However someone else might have stronger misgivings about granting the mop to someone who hasn't gotten out of grade school. —
2869:
Obviously ownership over comments on discussion pages is protected, or we wouldn't have the rule about not editing other peoples' comments on talk pages. -
3797:
3761:
2217:
2129:
2099:
2017:
1916:
1822:
1211:
2830:
I think striking out someone else's question is as disruptive and in-civil as striking out someone else's vote because you didn't agree with it. —
946:
3528:
1422:
the age matter quite well. Let an editor's actions speak louder than their age (and the easiest way to do that is to not ask about the age at all).
1044:). As a principle I always try to avoid saying that, as it doesn't help. Judge the actions and the words, not the man (or woman, or boy, or girl).
1746:
the question. It's a bit subversive - the only way for the answer to be relevant to the nomination is for the candidate to divulge their own age.
1573:
have a problem with someone who can't drive, drink, or vote being an admin, as the three items are entirely unrelated to administering Knowledge.
1306:
Actually, I believe nationality has been asked once or twice, and I remember an oppose because the user in question was Romanian. Stupid, but... -
97:
2750:
of this question and don't see how this relates to the current discussion. Since I'm not up for an RfA I'll decline to answer (however my fellow
2409:
Um... Nick's replies to Malber are just... weird. "Unwilling to yield to consensus"? What consensus? It must be hiding, because I don't see it. -
1154:
1952:
a block does occur, I would sincerely hope nobody who participated in this discussion does it. Then again, Malber may stop asking the question.
2320:
I hope everyone has enough common sense to not remove it from RfAs where people have already answered it. And not to edit war to keep it out. -
1156:
Asking for an applicant's age so that it may be used in the hire/don't-hire decision is illegal. (And FWIW, I oppose Malber's RfA question.) |
235:
Yes indeed. Age doesn't matter as much as maturity. I've seen admins as young as 12 kicking and screaming (in a positive manner, of course). --
1693:
As another 63 year old admin, I concur. My age had nothing to do with my qualifications for adminship, and that should apply to everybody. --
885:
The inappropriateness is another issue I have with it. I mean, sure, I can walk up to a random woman and ask for a blowjob, but that would be
612:
Hey, I'd be inclined to concur. However, they haven't made a fetus-friendly keyboard yet. The placenta sticks the function keys... nevermind!
3631:
1733:
65, neatly turning the usual implied "are you really young" into an answer that implies "I'm not someone doddering around on a zimmerframe".
2362:
And I hope nobody thinks it was somehow justified by asking a candidate "the question". He was blocked loong after the last time doing so. -
1833:
Frankly I would too. The persistent personal information stuff is just not cool. Extra not cool when the userpage states the age clearly. -
1629:
In my opinion, it doesn't matter how old you are to be an admin. It doesn't matter if someone asks "how old are you?" All that matters is
1546:
research edit history and dig through diffs on talk pages, I put most of the weight on how a nominee answers all of the questions. —
3060:
Can we fricking end this long thread yet? It has gone in circles with no results whatsoever except for making this page absurdly long. --
3352:
2497:
1970:
and shows a severe disregard for process on Nick's part. Plus there is no logical argument that asking questions is blockworthy. —
1375:
Malber's reasoning leaves me wanting. It is very much an invasion of privacy to ask someone their personal information. The statement, "
1234:
1011:
951:
2847:
I think that reverting the strikeout and asking the original question are both incivil, and disagree with your characterization. This
1667:
close range away anyhow. But I still don't see what a reader would do with the information to translate it into a comment or a !vote.)
3414:
3284:
3215:
3185:
3020:
2875:
2794:
refactored to give the nominee some options without altering the original question. Why not just see how the nominee responds? —
2415:
2386:
2368:
2326:
2254:
1405:
1334:
1312:
1252:
967:
707:
678:
646:
545:
1507:
To Nick: Nice research on my diffs, but I stand by what I said. Someone else might be concerned about how you've been keeping track.
2746:
Old enough to use a mouse and keyboard...so I guess that makes me old enough to be an editor :) In a way I question the intent
2238:
1474:
1342:
Yea, after thinking about it a little more, I started thinking that. I still stand by my claim though that it hink it is pointless.
917:
748:
619:
586:
579:
the age issue (if there is one) - you don't tick all the boxes and then suddenly change to "oppose" because they reveal their age.
668:
What? If it is indeed relevant to adminship, then not knowing it would make a judgement ill-informed. So why is it appropriate to
3684:
Amarkov, in case you have been in hiding, its time you caught your act up and stopped patronising trolls, in this manner –
3378:
3310:
3269:
3128:
3070:
2967:
2943:
2781:
2653:
2604:
2562:
2526:
2473:
2351:
2311:
1889:
1644:
1619:
1357:
1277:
821:
2898:
I didn't delete or strike out the comments. I moved the discussion to the talk page, where discussion on an RfA belongs. —
429:
we should take age into considerationregardling qualifications. Should we temper our "constructive criticism in any way? Cheers
1940:
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I am strongly opposed to Malber asking the question, and he should stop asking the questions
3197:. It has just caused the whole question thing to get out of hand. Either those 4 questions are standard, or they aren't. --
2062:
If you think you have a valid point, causing disruption is probably the least effective way of presenting that point � and it
3425:
I've been completely uninvolved so far and want to make a small number of points. First, I don't believe Malber is violating
3861:
The main argument for asking the question at present, I believe, is "because we can; it doesn't harm anything". Okay, so it
170:
experience that counts most; when editing here you have to deal with conflicts. But then, I guess I'm a bit biased :)
1260:
I'm with Matthew Fenton on this one, those diffs really shocked me. There is a serious civility problem going on there. --
910:
Hmm, I think you may have killed the conversation whilst people digest that piece of information (with pictures!) ;)
633:
Age is not a restriction on adminship. The question is irrelevant. It is akin to asking what eye color the nominee has. --
982:
The thing is Malber did not actually check my userpage, I reckon. I have an age userbox clearly stating my age. Regards,
3790:
3506:
3482:
3339:
Am I the only one getting the vibe here that there is something else to these questions - something not nice either...?
3331:
3104:
3049:
2909:
2841:
2805:
2765:
2201:
1981:
1929:
Strongly agree that this is disruptive and would support a block if he refuses to remove/rephrase the question. –
1858:
1557:
1530:
1504:
question. I'm certain anyone uncomfortable with the age question will do the same and crib someone else's pithy answer.
1144:
1119:
791:
322:
3085:
optional, would anyone have any issues with me just removing the questions, and just avoiding any further incidents? -
2231:
on this talk page? I mean starting with crz's original post yesterday down to here? And mine's a Lapsang suchong, btw.
1725:
responses to my follow-up told me more about the candidate than reading pages and pages of questions and answers. See
410:
was a teen when I supported his RfA last month, but now I am sad I'll never get to reminisce with him about the 1986
82:
Well, his userpage still says 14; I have no idea if that's still the case, or if he's merely neglected to update it.
3093:
Or you could simply answer the best way you see fit. There is no right or wrong way to answer the questions. —
2993:
3014:
That is, quite frankly, absurd. It does not justify a block, and I don't believe anyone actually thinks it does. -
39:
Do we ever take notice of the fact that the nom is obviously a kid, or do we just keep going like he was an adult?
2444:
2158:
I suggest a de-admin for Nick, another recall for myself, a decapitation for Malber, and earl grey all around. -
2016:. I fail to see how he would not make it a point to oppose every candidate when they say they are minor. —
1178:
personal question or his/her RFA will fail. I do not support asking personal questions on an RFA at all. —
21:
2692:
2636:
slightly abusing the right granted to ask questions of a candidate to assist in deciding which way to !vote. --
2623:
2581:
2173:
1775:
It's already here scattered in a dozen threads all over the site, but I will have to collect it sometime soon.
701:
So, if someone chooses not to disclose their age on their own, people have to make uninformed decisions? Huh? -
2713:
2675:
2402:
2181:
2144:
2118:
2033:
2004:
1602:, I genuinely think your asking your question to try and prove a point. Why, I don't know but there you go. --
3349:
1231:
3671:
2492:
1654:
1006:
430:
63:
40:
2212:. There will be no punitive blocks handed out. The block is subject to the condition when you will further
1821:. I would support a block, in case he continues or does not rephrase his question in a better way. —
447:
If you accept and choose to go through with the nomination, you have to expect and accept what comes at you
3695:
have been dedicated to testing the system to its limits (notice how he has only indulged in RfAs), making
1761:
question on an RfA, although you'd have to sit through some philosophical ramblings to get to the answer.
1596:
there is a perception outside of Knowledge that it is run by adolescents with too much time on their hands
394:
349:
3661:
3512:
He nominates two categories for deletion which I created for listing the sockpuppets of a troll. –
2709:
2684:
2671:
2615:
2573:
2398:
2177:
2140:
2114:
2029:
2000:
1569:
applicable, which is why I prefaced it with "I feel is fairly relevant". To answer your question, no, I
3843:
3828:
3820:
3626:
3346:
2986:
2235:
1683:
1471:
1228:
942:
934:
914:
745:
616:
583:
156:
575:
I just don't see the point in asking to be honest. Most other factors will be taken into consideration
3825:
3817:
2482:
This is absurd. I became an admin at 20. I obviously don't agree with letting the question stand, but
3880:
3666:
3372:
3304:
3263:
3122:
3062:
2959:
2937:
2773:
2738:
2647:
2596:
2554:
2520:
2467:
2345:
2305:
2286:
2165:
1883:
1840:
1769:
1636:
1613:
1354:
1271:
1076:
815:
694:
661:
565:
531:
495:
378:
3229:
3202:
3171:
2670:? If you don't like the question, don't answer it at your RfA. What's the big deal, seriously? --
297:
249:
214:
130:
115:
83:
74:
56:
592:
To be perfectly honest, I'd be pretty tempted to !vote "oppose" if they said they were a fetus...
229:
3772:
3591:
3392:
2892:
2863:
2824:
2487:
1001:
877:
850:
258:
2812:
You're absolutely right, nobody has to ask for consensus before asking a question. In fact, be
2012:
Jeff, look at the diffs I have provided above. Malber possesses a unreasonable bias against all
1966:
is not policy and can't be used as the basis for a block. Such a block would be contrary to the
3616:
3032:
3007:
2268:
1694:
1161:
1036:
age at risk if someone targets them. No need to emphasise younger editors over older editors.
390:
345:
292:
195:
142:
3838:
3784:
3606:
3561:
3500:
3476:
3434:
3325:
3098:
3043:
2903:
2835:
2799:
2759:
2428:
2232:
2195:
1992:
1975:
1933:
1907:
1852:
1776:
1762:
1742:
1668:
1583:
1551:
1539:
1524:
1468:
1432:
1418:
1138:
1113:
1063:
911:
900:
785:
742:
726:
613:
602:
580:
507:
468:
419:
362:
319:
1320:
Not to be negative, but it does not suprise me, lol. It just seems a little absurd to me?
287:
serve as half of the equation in RFA, and the other half is the discussion aspect. —
3901:
3876:
3696:
3571:
3545:
3489:
3448:
3426:
3366:
3298:
3257:
3240:
3163:
3116:
2931:
2733:
2641:
2514:
2461:
2339:
2299:
2281:
2213:
2160:
2095:
2074:
2044:
1963:
1899:
1877:
1869:
1835:
1818:
1806:
1792:
1734:
1607:
1599:
1579:
1448:
1428:
1351:
1288:
1265:
1180:
1127:
1059:
1045:
950:
feel any pressure to do so. I'm somewhat concerned that one nominee may have felt so (see
896:
809:
756:
722:
689:
656:
598:
560:
526:
1729:
for details. I also liked that candidate's response to the age question, that they were
3757:
3601:
3581:
3293:
provided Malber intended to !vote in each and every RfA he posts those questions on. --
3225:
3198:
3167:
2813:
1482:
1343:
1321:
871:
289:
210:
126:
101:
1962:
Does anyone not see this suggestion as being punitive? I suggest a de-admin for Nick.
1221:
Eh.. thought he was a teen him self.. anyway those diffs. presented distress me alot.
654:
I think age is plenty relevant, but it's not appropriate to request its disclosure. -
100:
a couple months back. I personally think age discrimination in RfAs is ridiculous. --
3869:
3776:
3611:
3586:
3576:
3447:
undue pressure on the candidate. As for Malber's recent disruption, he has made it a
3389:
3143:
2885:
2856:
2852:
2817:
2751:
2447:
2078:
1953:
1747:
1501:
1389:
983:
976:
955:
874:
16:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC) (signing in agreement with Anchoress: --User:Ceyockey (
843:
254:
236:
163:
3644:
Who are in support of such questions or don't see any point in stopping them –
3408:<unrelated comment>Cool, I have a perennial point.</unrelated comment> -
1108:
can choose whether or not this question has any relevance on their decision. —
3836:
Nick is correct. Who we are on wiki, should not be relevant to who we are off wiki.
3651:
3621:
3596:
3566:
3409:
3279:
3210:
3180:
3029:
3015:
3004:
2870:
2410:
2381:
2363:
2321:
2249:
1988:"I suggest a de-admin for Nick" - a typical response from a typical troll. –
1967:
1400:
1329:
1307:
1247:
1157:
962:
941:
standard questions. As it is user space, rather than delete the last question I've
857:
I agree that it's irrelevant, but IMO it's due to privacy issues. An editor should
702:
673:
641:
540:
488:
476:
411:
407:
308:
188:
137:
49:
17:
2486:
for doing it has made this way more of an issue than it needed to be, I'm afraid.
247:
I too agree with this. Age is actually not a concern. The level of maturity is. --
125:
Evaluate candidates on maturity, not age. (Disclaimer: I am a 16-year-old admin.)
3780:
3656:
3496:
3472:
3430:
3321:
3248:
3094:
3039:
2899:
2831:
2795:
2755:
2542:
2191:
1989:
1971:
1930:
1903:
1848:
1678:
1547:
1520:
1134:
1109:
781:
450:
316:
271:
172:
71:
3003:
Someone had better block him again before I lose my temper and do it myself. --
1377:
no one is actively investigating this information without the nominee's consent
3890:
3556:
3551:
1574:
1423:
1054:
945:
Malber to remove the last question. I see that Malber applied the template to
891:
717:
634:
593:
499:
387:
Most A are B. Most D are E. B and E are not C. Therefore all A and D are not C
3038:
Shouldn't admins be basing their decisions on policy and not emotion? —
2541:
From what i'm seeing, I concur. It seems Nick didn't act with malice however.
2279:
Just so everyone's aware, Mimsy blocked Malber for 48 a few minutes ago... -
1915:
Read the comments above, and specifically the diffs I have provided. —
3858:
Could I voice my opinion here please? This is how I interpret the question.
3086:
1682:
answer in all cases. I will use it myself if asked in the future. I am 63.--
1133:
I may do so, but I would prefer not to pollute the potential answer. —
1025:
278:
204:
I also agree with this. Age has no part in who should be an admin. However,
554:
NVM... I see there's been discussion of this previously... No, they're not
1192:
I think this would shed some light on Malber's views on teenagers –
2441:
2437:
2771:
Um...I believe that Crz was being sarcastic, not acting in bad fatih. --
162:
Yah, I know plenty of adults who are less mature than most children. --
2952:
At the risk of reigniting controversy, is there a reason why Malber is
332:
grown up in an English speaking country and surrounded by technology.
1817:... and that is what I see. Malber is setting a classic example of
640:
My opinion too. So if it's irrelevant, why bother restricting it? -
539:
Um... why can't we? It's not as if anyone is required to answer. -
1384:
As for the "illegality", I have not suggested that it is illegal
3747:
gets warned by another admin, and vandalising Knowledge –
2208:
Well yes. We are all unbecoming and stupid sometimes. But some
1634:
deleting articles and blocking people without much problems. --
55:
We have a 14-year-old bureaucrat, for what it's worth :-)
3529:
Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Many_edit_anonymously
2048:
870:, in the case of underage editors, it could put them at risk.
1944:
while this debate is still ongoing but we should get someone
1598:
I think your question about age could well be a violation of
927:
The previous discussion that Crz recalls seeing can be found
2113:, especially given the specific lack of general criteria. --
1030:"in the case of underage editors, it could put them at risk"
2227:
Just out of interest, is this the longest discussion topic
3463:
He goes to a deletion review of my AfD and states –
2216:
and ask another candidate *the question*. Period. —
558:
to answer. But that doesn't make it appropriate to ask. -
2594:
definite possibility of chronic gridlock on this page. --
3754:
3751:
3748:
3745:
3742:
3739:
3736:
3733:
3730:
3727:
3724:
3721:
3718:
3715:
3712:
3709:
3706:
3703:
3700:
3692:
3691:
have a look at his contributions and then comment. His
3685:
3522:
3519:
3493:
3464:
3458:
3455:
2377:
2209:
1868:
Me too - Glad it wasn't just me who thought Malber was
1208:
1205:
1202:
1199:
1196:
1193:
975:
Yes, I just found that now in the edit history. Thanks!
3513:
1020:
Just responding to a couple of points made above: (1)
1847:
Removing discussion questions is disruptive. —
1328:
within their discretion to discount a few opposes. -
1210:, the last diff on WAvegetarian's comments. —
1032:- revealing personal information can put editors of
1173:Still the problem with the question is that it has
3518:He is warned by one of the administrators –
2090:, wait – that didn't work. Ask the question
342:from what I see. We don't live for the exceptions.
330:It's just more reassuring to know that someone has
48:the usual standards expected of candidates. Best,
3028:Which is exactly why I've not blocked him yet. --
2851:a wiki after all, are you asserting some sort of
1720:how would this candidate handle themselves under
1496:capability to block you or delete your articles?
383:Most A are B. B are not C. Therefore A are not C.
185:I agree, age has no part in adminship (I'm 15). —
389:, but all D != C is an absurd conclusion. —
1710:Why not rephrase the question? Something like:
1819:how to disrupt Knowledge to illustrate a point
462:"On the internet, no one knows you're really a
3870:Knowledge is not an experiment in free speech
2096:there are a few things that are still working
1768:Write the essay - you now have me intrigued.
8:
3732:on being warned not to vandalise wikipedia,
1912: • 10:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
1242:Um... I agree with him word for word, and I
406:candidate's age anyway (e.g., I had no idea
2294:And I've removed the offending question. --
1022:"I'm assuming that some vandals are adults"
96:This was actually a hotly debated issue on
1900:disrupting Knowledge to illustrate a point
1870:disrupting Knowledge to illustrate a point
3816:private information they wish to reveal.
3495:– Pot, say hello to kettle. —
2450:”. 19:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2376:And... I didn't see his recent contribs.
961:Actually, it was there, Crz removed it. -
514:
445:underlying point that must be made here:
3362:
3294:
3253:
3112:
2927:
2637:
2510:
2457:
2335:
2295:
1873:
1603:
1261:
805:
2244:Um... Has it occured to anyone to just
741:in which the question is being asked.
3632:User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
3440:
498:should certainly be an admin soon. --
7:
3241:disrupting Knowledge to make a point
3193:Hold on, I didn't say that this was
1565:I understand that the quote wasn't
3760:, and put an end to this. —
2957:question. Now can we drop this? --
2174:...and a partridge in a pear tree.
2139:Aw hell. That'll leave a mark. --
1813:Disruption, disruption, disruption
340:English communication proficiency
28:
3454:His disruption continues –
3205:) 19:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)]
3793:) 14:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
3437:) 15:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
3334:) 21:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
3174:) 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
3076:) 01:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
2895:) 22:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2866:) 22:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2844:) 21:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2827:) 20:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2808:) 20:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2768:) 20:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2610:) 19:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2568:) 19:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2204:) 15:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2052:
1984:) 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
1650:) 22:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1533:) 20:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1147:) 20:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1122:) 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
882:) 16:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC))
853:) 16:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
794:) 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
277:
31:Young administrator candidates (
3509:) 20:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
3485:) 00:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
3232:) 19:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
3107:) 14:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
3052:) 14:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
2973:) 21:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2912:) 14:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
2787:) 20:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
1861:) 14:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
1560:) 22:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
377:Yes, it was meant to be a weak
3884:22:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
3768:10:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
3441:Malber's continuing disruption
3316:21:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
3289:20:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
3275:20:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
3220:19:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
3190:19:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
3134:14:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
3089:14:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
3035:00:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
3025:00:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
3010:00:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
2949:21:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2880:22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2742:20:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2701:20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2679:19:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2666:Why does he need consensus to
2632:19:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2590:19:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2502:19:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2479:19:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2431:16:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2406:16:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2331:15:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2317:15:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2290:15:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2271:14:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
2241:15:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2224:15:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2169:14:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2136:14:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2122:14:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2106:14:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2083:14:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2024:14:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2008:14:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
1936:11:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
1844:09:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
1829:07:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
1809:23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1772:01:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
1765:01:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
1737:23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1662:22:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1542:20:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1477:20:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1417:I just picked up a quote from
1392:19:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1346:19:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1339:19:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1324:19:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1317:18:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1286:Me too, the scare me. —
1283:19:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1218:18:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1188:18:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1130:18:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1079:05:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
1048:18:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
979:18:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
972:18:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
958:18:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
907:16:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
698:16:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
683:16:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
665:16:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
651:16:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
637:16:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
609:16:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
589:15:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
569:15:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
535:15:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1:
3906:11:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
3849:19:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
3831:10:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
3804:07:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
3419:05:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
3395:05:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
3384:22:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
3357:21:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
3341:
3146:20:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
2995:22:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2717:20:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2659:20:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2545:19:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2532:20:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2420:16:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2391:16:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2373:16:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2357:16:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2259:15:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2185:14:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2148:14:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
2037:14:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
1995:14:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
1958:13:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
1923:11:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
1895:10:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
1795:10:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
1779:02:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
1750:01:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
1699:20:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
1686:12:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
1671:22:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1625:01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
1590:22:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1485:20:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1456:19:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1439:19:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1410:19:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1360:20:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1296:19:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1257:18:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1239:19:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1223:
1165:19:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
1070:19:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
1016:18:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
990:20:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
920:16:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
827:19:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
780:question is relevant. —
764:16:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
751:16:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
733:16:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
712:16:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
622:16:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
550:15:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
217:) 14:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
1483:-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)
1344:-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)
1322:-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)
491:14:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
471:10:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
422:23:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
374:23:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
282:21:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
243:16:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
232:15:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
201:14:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
166:11:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
159:10:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
147:09:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
133:07:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
121:03:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
79:08:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
59:03:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
52:03:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
43:03:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
3796:Brilliant, thanks. —
3451:to stalk my contributions.
2731:Malber: How old are you? -
2334:Question was unanswered. --
1395:So the question is ageist.
510:18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
453:01:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
433:00:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
397:07:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
352:23:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
325:22:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
311:22:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
301:21:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
260:18:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
178:00:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
86:14:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
66:03:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
3922:
1946:external to the discussion
1150:You are mistaken, Malber.
336:for the online environment
3153:What it all comes down to
1446:Seadog applauds. —
672:request its disclosure? -
3162:on being disruptive via
2060:This page in a nutshell:
1082:
3853:
3758:stop feeding the trolls
515:Malber's age question (
334:It seems to temper them
3693:last 500 contributions
3672:User:Samir (The Scope)
3247:Knowledge and joining
2092:one more freakin' time
2043:Taken from the top of
1898:In what way is Malber
1800:Diversity among admins
1092:question is relevant.
3627:User:Persian Poet Gal
3492:'s talk page –
2456:would be fine too. --
1706:Rephrase the question
1028:might help here. (2)
431: :) Dlohcierekim
64: :) Dlohcierekim
41: :) Dlohcierekim
3889:other Wikipedians. –
3854:YUser31415's opinion
3800:Nearly Headless Nick
3764:Nearly Headless Nick
3738:Journalist's reply,
3667:User:HalfOfElement29
2855:over the content? -
2220:Nearly Headless Nick
2132:Nearly Headless Nick
2102:Nearly Headless Nick
2088:/me deadmins himself
2020:Nearly Headless Nick
1919:Nearly Headless Nick
1825:Nearly Headless Nick
1397:Why does that matter
1214:Nearly Headless Nick
482:10:51, 13 August '06
379:reductio ad absurdum
3771:Is Mimsy confusing
3699:, trolling –
3662:User:Badlydrawnjeff
155:like a pre-teen) --
3592:User:Grandmasterka
2989:¤~Persian Poet Gal
2210:people never learn
2128:. *w00t!* —
3789:
3617:User:Tom harrison
3505:
3488:More trolling on
3481:
3418:
3356:
3330:
3288:
3219:
3189:
3103:
3048:
3024:
2908:
2889:
2879:
2860:
2840:
2821:
2804:
2764:
2741:
2716:
2678:
2419:
2405:
2390:
2378:A block is absurd
2372:
2330:
2289:
2258:
2200:
2184:
2168:
2147:
2126:/me deadmins Jeff
2121:
2070:
2069:
2036:
2007:
1980:
1857:
1843:
1660:
1556:
1529:
1409:
1338:
1316:
1256:
1238:
1164:
1143:
1118:
1083:Malber's response
971:
881:
847:
790:
711:
697:
682:
664:
650:
568:
549:
534:
373:
192:
3913:
3904:
3898:
3894:
3846:
3841:
3823:
3802:
3787:
3766:
3607:User:Newyorkbrad
3562:User:Bubba hotep
3503:
3479:
3412:
3383:
3355:
3340:
3328:
3315:
3282:
3274:
3213:
3183:
3133:
3101:
3073:
3065:
3046:
3018:
2970:
2962:
2948:
2906:
2887:
2873:
2858:
2838:
2819:
2802:
2784:
2776:
2762:
2737:
2712:
2697:
2688:
2674:
2658:
2628:
2619:
2607:
2599:
2586:
2577:
2565:
2557:
2531:
2500:
2495:
2490:
2478:
2413:
2401:
2384:
2366:
2356:
2324:
2316:
2285:
2252:
2222:
2198:
2180:
2164:
2143:
2134:
2117:
2104:
2081:
2066:get you blocked.
2056:
2055:
2049:
2032:
2022:
2003:
1978:
1956:
1921:
1894:
1855:
1839:
1827:
1684:Anthony.bradbury
1658:
1647:
1639:
1624:
1589:
1586:
1554:
1527:
1455:
1453:
1438:
1435:
1403:
1332:
1310:
1295:
1293:
1282:
1250:
1237:
1222:
1216:
1187:
1185:
1160:
1141:
1116:
1069:
1066:
1042:how old are you?
1014:
1009:
1004:
988:
965:
933:. Malber uses a
906:
903:
875:
845:
826:
788:
763:
761:
732:
729:
705:
693:
676:
660:
644:
608:
605:
564:
543:
530:
479:
371:
368:
365:
338:and add a bit of
295:
281:
274:
257:
252:
241:
200:
199:
190:
175:
145:
140:
109:
77:
3921:
3920:
3916:
3915:
3914:
3912:
3911:
3910:
3909:
3902:
3896:
3892:
3856:
3844:
3839:
3821:
3798:
3762:
3572:User:Heligoland
3546:User:Crzrussian
3490:User:Heligoland
3443:
3417:
3364:Kind Regards -
3353:52278 Alpha 771
3347:Fenton, Matthew
3296:Kind Regards -
3287:
3255:Kind Regards -
3218:
3188:
3155:
3114:Kind Regards -
3082:
3071:
3063:
3023:
2968:
2960:
2929:Kind Regards -
2878:
2782:
2774:
2695:
2686:
2639:Kind Regards -
2626:
2617:
2605:
2597:
2584:
2575:
2563:
2555:
2512:Kind Regards -
2498:
2493:
2488:
2459:Kind Regards -
2418:
2389:
2371:
2337:Kind Regards -
2329:
2297:Kind Regards -
2277:
2257:
2218:
2130:
2100:
2079:
2053:
2018:
1968:blocking policy
1954:
1948:to read it and
1917:
1875:Kind Regards -
1823:
1815:
1802:
1770:KillerChihuahua
1708:
1645:
1637:
1605:Kind Regards -
1584:
1577:
1449:
1447:
1433:
1426:
1408:
1337:
1315:
1289:
1287:
1263:Kind Regards -
1255:
1235:52278 Alpha 771
1229:Fenton, Matthew
1212:
1181:
1179:
1085:
1077:HalfOfElement29
1064:
1057:
1012:
1007:
1002:
984:
970:
901:
894:
807:Kind Regards -
757:
755:
727:
720:
710:
687:appropriate. -
681:
649:
603:
596:
548:
521:
496:Abdullah Geelah
483:
477:
366:
363:
293:
272:
250:
248:
237:
187:
186:
173:
143:
138:
120:
105:
75:
37:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
3919:
3917:
3908:
3907:
3855:
3852:
3851:
3850:
3833:
3832:
3812:
3811:
3810:
3809:
3808:
3807:
3806:
3805:
3679:
3678:
3677:
3676:
3675:
3674:
3669:
3664:
3659:
3654:
3646:
3645:
3639:
3638:
3637:
3636:
3635:
3634:
3629:
3624:
3619:
3614:
3609:
3604:
3602:User:Chrislk02
3599:
3594:
3589:
3584:
3582:User:Anchoress
3579:
3574:
3569:
3564:
3559:
3554:
3549:
3537:
3536:
3535:
3532:
3525:
3516:
3510:
3486:
3461:
3442:
3439:
3423:
3422:
3421:
3420:
3413:
3406:
3405:
3404:
3403:
3402:
3401:
3400:
3399:
3398:
3397:
3396:
3385:
3358:
3283:
3244:
3237:
3236:
3235:
3234:
3233:
3214:
3184:
3154:
3151:
3150:
3149:
3148:
3147:
3108:
3081:
3078:
3058:
3057:
3056:
3055:
3054:
3053:
3019:
3001:
3000:
2999:
2998:
2997:
2996:
2977:
2976:
2975:
2974:
2923:
2922:
2921:
2920:
2919:
2918:
2917:
2916:
2915:
2914:
2913:
2874:
2791:
2790:
2789:
2788:
2748:and good faith
2729:
2728:
2727:
2726:
2725:
2724:
2723:
2722:
2721:
2720:
2719:
2718:
2710:badlydrawnjeff
2672:badlydrawnjeff
2668:ask a question
2664:
2663:
2662:
2661:
2660:
2547:
2546:
2538:
2537:
2536:
2535:
2534:
2533:
2506:
2452:
2451:
2424:
2423:
2422:
2421:
2414:
2399:badlydrawnjeff
2394:
2393:
2392:
2385:
2374:
2367:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2325:
2276:
2275:Malber blocked
2273:
2265:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2261:
2260:
2253:
2187:
2186:
2178:badlydrawnjeff
2156:
2155:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2141:badlydrawnjeff
2115:badlydrawnjeff
2068:
2067:
2057:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2030:badlydrawnjeff
2001:badlydrawnjeff
1997:
1996:
1960:
1959:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1896:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1814:
1811:
1801:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1752:
1751:
1717:
1716:
1707:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1688:
1687:
1673:
1672:
1627:
1626:
1591:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1441:
1440:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1404:
1381:
1380:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1333:
1311:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1258:
1251:
1240:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1084:
1081:
1072:
1071:
1018:
1017:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
966:
947:Asterion's RfA
924:
923:
922:
921:
883:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
752:
734:
713:
706:
677:
645:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
552:
551:
544:
520:
513:
512:
511:
481:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
437:
436:
435:
434:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
354:
353:
326:
312:
303:
302:
262:
261:
225:
224:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
183:
182:
181:
180:
179:
114:
94:
93:
92:
91:
90:
89:
88:
87:
84:Kirill Lokshin
67:
57:Kirill Lokshin
36:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3918:
3905:
3900:
3887:
3886:
3885:
3883:
3882:
3878:
3873:
3871:
3867:
3864:
3859:
3848:
3847:
3842:
3835:
3834:
3830:
3827:
3824:
3819:
3814:
3813:
3803:
3801:
3795:
3794:
3792:
3786:
3782:
3778:
3774:
3770:
3769:
3767:
3765:
3759:
3755:
3752:
3749:
3746:
3744:stalking me,
3743:
3740:
3737:
3734:
3731:
3728:
3725:
3722:
3719:
3716:
3713:
3710:
3707:
3704:
3701:
3698:
3694:
3690:
3686:
3683:
3682:
3681:
3680:
3673:
3670:
3668:
3665:
3663:
3660:
3658:
3655:
3653:
3650:
3649:
3648:
3647:
3643:
3642:
3641:
3640:
3633:
3630:
3628:
3625:
3623:
3620:
3618:
3615:
3613:
3612:User:James086
3610:
3608:
3605:
3603:
3600:
3598:
3595:
3593:
3590:
3588:
3587:User:Agent 86
3585:
3583:
3580:
3578:
3577:User:Chairboy
3575:
3573:
3570:
3568:
3565:
3563:
3560:
3558:
3555:
3553:
3550:
3547:
3544:
3543:
3542:
3541:
3538:
3533:
3530:
3526:
3523:
3520:
3517:
3514:
3511:
3508:
3502:
3498:
3494:
3491:
3487:
3484:
3478:
3474:
3469:
3465:
3462:
3459:
3456:
3453:
3452:
3450:
3445:
3444:
3438:
3436:
3432:
3428:
3416:
3411:
3407:
3394:
3391:
3386:
3382:
3381:
3376:
3375:
3370:
3369:
3365:
3359:
3354:
3351:
3348:
3344:
3338:
3337:
3336:
3335:
3333:
3327:
3323:
3318:
3317:
3314:
3313:
3308:
3307:
3302:
3301:
3297:
3291:
3290:
3286:
3281:
3277:
3276:
3273:
3272:
3267:
3266:
3261:
3260:
3256:
3250:
3245:
3242:
3238:
3231:
3227:
3222:
3221:
3217:
3212:
3207:
3206:
3204:
3200:
3196:
3192:
3191:
3187:
3182:
3177:
3176:
3175:
3173:
3169:
3165:
3161:
3152:
3145:
3141:
3136:
3135:
3132:
3131:
3126:
3125:
3120:
3119:
3115:
3109:
3106:
3100:
3096:
3092:
3091:
3090:
3088:
3079:
3077:
3075:
3074:
3067:
3066:
3051:
3045:
3041:
3037:
3036:
3034:
3031:
3027:
3026:
3022:
3017:
3013:
3012:
3011:
3009:
3006:
2994:
2992:
2991:
2990:
2983:
2982:
2981:
2980:
2979:
2978:
2972:
2971:
2964:
2963:
2955:
2951:
2950:
2947:
2946:
2941:
2940:
2935:
2934:
2930:
2924:
2911:
2905:
2901:
2897:
2896:
2894:
2890:
2882:
2881:
2877:
2872:
2868:
2867:
2865:
2861:
2854:
2850:
2846:
2845:
2843:
2837:
2833:
2829:
2828:
2826:
2822:
2815:
2811:
2810:
2809:
2807:
2801:
2797:
2786:
2785:
2778:
2777:
2770:
2769:
2767:
2761:
2757:
2753:
2749:
2745:
2744:
2743:
2740:
2736:
2735:
2715:
2711:
2707:
2703:
2702:
2700:
2699:
2698:
2690:
2689:
2681:
2680:
2677:
2673:
2669:
2665:
2657:
2656:
2651:
2650:
2645:
2644:
2640:
2634:
2633:
2631:
2630:
2629:
2621:
2620:
2612:
2611:
2609:
2608:
2601:
2600:
2592:
2591:
2589:
2588:
2587:
2579:
2578:
2570:
2569:
2567:
2566:
2559:
2558:
2551:
2550:
2549:
2548:
2544:
2540:
2539:
2530:
2529:
2524:
2523:
2518:
2517:
2513:
2507:
2504:
2503:
2501:
2496:
2491:
2485:
2481:
2480:
2477:
2476:
2471:
2470:
2465:
2464:
2460:
2454:
2453:
2449:
2446:
2443:
2439:
2434:
2433:
2432:
2430:
2417:
2412:
2408:
2407:
2404:
2400:
2395:
2388:
2383:
2379:
2375:
2370:
2365:
2361:
2355:
2354:
2349:
2348:
2343:
2342:
2338:
2333:
2332:
2328:
2323:
2319:
2318:
2315:
2314:
2309:
2308:
2303:
2302:
2298:
2293:
2292:
2291:
2288:
2284:
2283:
2274:
2272:
2270:
2256:
2251:
2247:
2243:
2242:
2240:
2237:
2234:
2230:
2226:
2225:
2223:
2221:
2215:
2211:
2207:
2206:
2205:
2203:
2197:
2193:
2183:
2179:
2175:
2172:
2171:
2170:
2167:
2163:
2162:
2146:
2142:
2138:
2137:
2135:
2133:
2127:
2124:
2123:
2120:
2116:
2112:
2108:
2107:
2105:
2103:
2097:
2093:
2089:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2082:
2076:
2065:
2061:
2058:
2051:
2050:
2047:
2046:
2035:
2031:
2026:
2025:
2023:
2021:
2015:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2006:
2002:
1994:
1991:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1983:
1977:
1973:
1969:
1965:
1957:
1951:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1935:
1932:
1922:
1920:
1914:
1913:
1911:
1910:
1905:
1901:
1897:
1893:
1892:
1887:
1886:
1881:
1880:
1876:
1871:
1867:
1866:
1860:
1854:
1850:
1846:
1845:
1842:
1838:
1837:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1828:
1826:
1820:
1812:
1810:
1808:
1799:
1794:
1789:
1788:
1778:
1774:
1773:
1771:
1767:
1766:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1749:
1744:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1723:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1705:
1698:
1697:
1696:Donald Albury
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1685:
1680:
1675:
1674:
1670:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1661:
1657:
1651:
1649:
1648:
1641:
1640:
1632:
1623:
1622:
1617:
1616:
1611:
1610:
1606:
1601:
1597:
1592:
1587:
1581:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1559:
1553:
1549:
1544:
1543:
1541:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1532:
1526:
1522:
1517:
1513:
1508:
1505:
1503:
1497:
1484:
1479:
1478:
1476:
1473:
1470:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1454:
1452:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1436:
1430:
1425:
1420:
1416:
1415:
1407:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1393:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1373:
1359:
1356:
1353:
1348:
1347:
1345:
1341:
1340:
1336:
1331:
1326:
1325:
1323:
1319:
1318:
1314:
1309:
1305:
1304:
1302:
1294:
1292:
1285:
1284:
1281:
1280:
1275:
1274:
1269:
1268:
1264:
1259:
1254:
1249:
1246:a teenager. -
1245:
1241:
1236:
1233:
1230:
1226:
1220:
1219:
1217:
1215:
1209:
1206:
1203:
1200:
1197:
1194:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1186:
1184:
1176:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1153:
1149:
1148:
1146:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1131:
1129:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1121:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1097:
1093:
1091:
1080:
1078:
1067:
1061:
1056:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1047:
1043:
1037:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1015:
1010:
1005:
998:
989:
987:
981:
980:
978:
974:
973:
969:
964:
960:
959:
957:
953:
948:
944:
940:
936:
932:
931:
926:
925:
919:
916:
913:
909:
908:
904:
898:
893:
888:
884:
880:
879:
873:
869:
868:
862:
861:
856:
855:
854:
852:
848:
825:
824:
819:
818:
813:
812:
808:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
793:
787:
783:
779:
774:
762:
760:
753:
750:
747:
744:
740:
735:
730:
724:
719:
714:
709:
704:
700:
699:
696:
692:
691:
685:
684:
680:
675:
671:
667:
666:
663:
659:
658:
653:
652:
648:
643:
639:
638:
636:
632:
631:
621:
618:
615:
611:
610:
606:
600:
595:
591:
590:
588:
585:
582:
578:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
567:
563:
562:
557:
547:
542:
538:
537:
536:
533:
529:
528:
518:
509:
504:
503:
502:
501:
497:
492:
490:
484:
480:
472:
470:
466:
463:
452:
448:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
432:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
421:
415:
413:
409:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
375:
370:
369:
358:
357:
356:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
324:
321:
318:
313:
310:
305:
304:
300:
299:
296:
291:
285:
284:
283:
280:
276:
275:
267:
259:
256:
253:
246:
245:
244:
242:
240:
233:
231:
216:
212:
207:
203:
202:
197:
193:
184:
177:
176:
168:
167:
165:
161:
160:
158:
154:
149:
148:
146:
141:
135:
134:
132:
128:
124:
123:
122:
119:
118:
113:
112:
108:
104:
99:
85:
81:
80:
78:
73:
68:
65:
61:
60:
58:
54:
53:
51:
46:
45:
44:
42:
34:
30:
23:
19:
3879:
3874:
3868:
3862:
3860:
3857:
3837:
3799:
3763:
3688:
3652:User:Amarkov
3622:User:Deskana
3597:User:MrDarcy
3567:User:Arjun01
3467:
3460:by an admin.
3424:
3379:
3373:
3367:
3363:
3342:
3311:
3305:
3299:
3295:
3270:
3264:
3258:
3254:
3194:
3159:
3156:
3139:
3129:
3123:
3117:
3113:
3083:
3069:
3061:
3059:
3002:
2988:
2987:
2966:
2958:
2953:
2944:
2938:
2932:
2928:
2848:
2792:
2780:
2772:
2747:
2732:
2730:
2705:
2694:
2693:
2685:
2667:
2654:
2648:
2642:
2638:
2625:
2624:
2616:
2603:
2595:
2583:
2582:
2574:
2561:
2553:
2527:
2521:
2515:
2511:
2484:blocking him
2483:
2474:
2468:
2462:
2458:
2440:. “
2425:
2352:
2346:
2340:
2336:
2312:
2306:
2300:
2296:
2280:
2278:
2269:Tom Harrison
2266:
2245:
2228:
2219:
2188:
2159:
2157:
2131:
2125:
2110:
2101:
2091:
2087:
2071:
2063:
2059:
2042:
2019:
2013:
1998:
1961:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1928:
1918:
1908:
1890:
1884:
1878:
1874:
1834:
1824:
1816:
1803:
1758:
1730:
1721:
1718:
1709:
1695:
1679:User:Malbers
1655:
1652:
1643:
1635:
1630:
1628:
1620:
1614:
1608:
1604:
1595:
1570:
1566:
1515:
1511:
1509:
1506:
1498:
1494:
1450:
1396:
1385:
1376:
1290:
1278:
1272:
1266:
1262:
1243:
1224:
1213:
1182:
1174:
1172:
1151:
1105:
1101:
1098:
1094:
1089:
1086:
1073:
1041:
1038:
1033:
1029:
1021:
1019:
985:
938:
929:
886:
876:
866:
865:
859:
858:
840:
822:
816:
810:
806:
777:
758:
738:
688:
669:
655:
576:
559:
555:
553:
525:
522:
493:
485:
473:
464:
461:
460:
446:
416:
412:World Series
408:User:Mets501
404:
391:WAvegetarian
386:
385:I responded
382:
361:
346:WAvegetarian
341:
337:
333:
329:
288:
270:
265:
263:
238:
234:
226:
205:
171:
152:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:Fetofs's RfA
95:
38:
22:RFA Subjects
18:User:Useight
3875:Thank you.
3657:User:Malber
3368:Heligoland
3300:Heligoland
3259:Heligoland
3249:Citizendium
3118:Heligoland
2985:candidates.
2933:Heligoland
2643:Heligoland
2572:disruption.
2516:Heligoland
2463:Heligoland
2429:Newyorkbrad
2341:Heligoland
2301:Heligoland
1879:Heligoland
1777:Newyorkbrad
1763:Newyorkbrad
1743:Newyorkbrad
1669:Newyorkbrad
1609:Heligoland
1540:Newyorkbrad
1267:Heligoland
811:Heligoland
508:Newyorkbrad
469:Kim Bruning
420:Newyorkbrad
117:Talk to me!
3557:User:EVula
3552:User:Durin
3350:Lexic Dark
3160:very close
2098:. —
1807:Carcharoth
1793:Carcharoth
1735:Carcharoth
1352:Briangotts
1232:Lexic Dark
1128:Carcharoth
1046:Carcharoth
878:talk to me
517:Archive 76
372:(joturner)
266:absolutely
136:I concur.
33:Archive 66
3697:WP:POINTs
3195:the issue
3080:Questions
2853:ownership
2752:Hive-Mind
2246:drop this
2014:teenagers
1358:(Contrib)
1158:Mr. Darcy
1026:Vandalism
872:Anchoress
211:Nilfanion
127:Johnleemk
3791:contribs
3507:contribs
3483:contribs
3468:Overturn
3466:–*
3449:WP:POINT
3427:WP:POINT
3380:Contribs
3332:contribs
3312:Contribs
3271:Contribs
3164:WP:POINT
3144:Agent 86
3130:Contribs
3105:contribs
3050:contribs
2945:Contribs
2910:contribs
2842:contribs
2806:contribs
2766:contribs
2687:Canadian
2655:Contribs
2618:Canadian
2576:Canadian
2528:Contribs
2475:Contribs
2436:choice.
2353:Contribs
2313:Contribs
2202:contribs
2080:James086
2075:WP:CIVIL
2045:WP:POINT
1982:contribs
1964:WP:POINT
1955:James086
1891:Contribs
1859:contribs
1748:Agent 86
1741:Echoing
1621:Contribs
1600:WP:POINT
1567:directly
1558:contribs
1531:contribs
1390:Agent 86
1279:Contribs
1145:contribs
1120:contribs
986:Asterion
977:Agent 86
956:Agent 86
939:de facto
937:for his
935:template
823:Contribs
792:contribs
556:required
239:Pilotguy
209:badly.--
206:maturity
164:Kbdank71
139:=Nichalp
20: |
3471:—
3410:Amarkov
3320:—
3280:Amarkov
3226:Renesis
3211:Amarkov
3199:Renesis
3181:Amarkov
3168:Renesis
3064:physicq
3016:Amarkov
2961:physicq
2888:HAIRBOY
2871:Amarkov
2859:HAIRBOY
2820:HAIRBOY
2775:physicq
2739:crztalk
2598:physicq
2556:physicq
2411:Amarkov
2382:Amarkov
2364:Amarkov
2322:Amarkov
2287:crztalk
2250:Amarkov
2214:disrupt
2190:—
2166:crztalk
1841:crztalk
1638:physicq
1585:☯
1512:Support
1434:☯
1401:Amarkov
1330:Amarkov
1308:Amarkov
1248:Amarkov
1175:nothing
1106:Support
1065:☯
963:Amarkov
902:☯
846:HAIRBOY
739:context
728:☯
703:Amarkov
695:crztalk
674:Amarkov
662:crztalk
642:Amarkov
604:☯
566:crztalk
541:Amarkov
532:crztalk
478:FireFox
393:•
348:•
309:Gwernol
290:Deckill
255:iva1979
230:W.marsh
144:«Talk»=
50:Gwernol
3781:Malber
3777:WP:RFC
3773:WT:RFA
3689:please
3497:Malber
3473:Malber
3431:Stifle
3390:Kchase
3343:thanks
3322:Malber
3095:Malber
3040:Malber
3033:banana
3008:banana
2900:Malber
2832:Malber
2796:Malber
2756:Malber
2543:Just H
2494:master
2192:Malber
1972:Malber
1904:Centrx
1849:Malber
1548:Malber
1521:Malber
1516:Oppose
1502:WP:IAR
1451:Seadog
1386:per se
1355:(Talk)
1291:Seadog
1225:thanks
1183:Seadog
1135:Malber
1110:Malber
1102:Oppose
1008:master
782:Malber
759:Seadog
577:before
451:Chacor
395:(talk)
367:abjotu
350:(talk)
317:Goldom
174:fetofs
3881:31415
3877:Yuser
3829:e Ong
3775:with
3415:edits
3285:edits
3216:edits
3186:edits
3021:edits
2876:edits
2696:Bacon
2627:Bacon
2585:Bacon
2489:Grand
2416:edits
2387:edits
2369:edits
2327:edits
2255:edits
2233:Bubba
1731:under
1656:Samir
1575:EVula
1571:don't
1469:Bubba
1424:EVula
1419:Jimbo
1406:edits
1335:edits
1313:edits
1253:edits
1055:EVula
1003:Grand
968:edits
943:asked
912:Bubba
892:EVula
860:never
743:Bubba
718:EVula
708:edits
679:edits
647:edits
635:Durin
614:Bubba
594:EVula
581:Bubba
546:edits
500:Kitia
465:dog."
364:tariq
103:Mr. L
16:<
3863:does
3840:Baka
3785:talk
3501:talk
3477:talk
3435:talk
3374:Talk
3326:talk
3306:Talk
3265:Talk
3230:talk
3203:talk
3172:talk
3124:Talk
3099:talk
3087:jc37
3044:talk
3030:Desk
3005:Desk
2939:Talk
2904:talk
2836:talk
2814:bold
2800:talk
2760:talk
2714:talk
2676:talk
2649:Talk
2522:Talk
2469:Talk
2403:talk
2347:Talk
2307:Talk
2229:ever
2196:talk
2182:talk
2145:talk
2119:talk
2111:here
2094:and
2034:talk
2005:talk
1993:acor
1976:talk
1934:acor
1909:talk
1902:? --
1885:Talk
1853:talk
1759:that
1727:here
1722:real
1715:are?
1659:धर्म
1615:Talk
1580:talk
1552:talk
1525:talk
1429:talk
1273:Talk
1162:talk
1139:talk
1114:talk
1060:talk
952:here
930:here
897:talk
887:very
817:Talk
786:talk
723:talk
599:talk
264:Age
215:talk
196:talk
189:Mets
131:Talk
72:Tito
3845:man
3818:Ter
3377:|
3371:|
3309:|
3303:|
3268:|
3262:|
3140:any
3127:|
3121:|
2954:not
2942:|
2936:|
2734:crz
2706:age
2652:|
2646:|
2525:|
2519:|
2472:|
2466:|
2448:aym
2445:fys
2438:Fys
2380:. -
2350:|
2344:|
2310:|
2304:|
2282:crz
2236:hot
2161:crz
2064:may
1942:now
1888:|
1882:|
1872:.--
1836:crz
1631:how
1618:|
1612:|
1582://
1578://
1514:or
1472:hot
1431://
1427://
1276:|
1270:|
1104:or
1090:any
1062://
1058://
1034:any
954:).
915:hot
899://
895://
867:and
820:|
814:|
778:any
746:hot
725://
721://
690:crz
670:not
657:crz
617:hot
601://
597://
584:hot
561:crz
527:crz
489:Avi
414:).
320:‽‽‽
191:501
157:Doc
153:act
111:fty
3826:nc
3753:,
3750:,
3741:,
3735:,
3729:,
3726:,
3723:,
3720:,
3717:,
3714:,
3711:,
3708:,
3705:,
3702:,
3521:,
3329:*
3252:--
3111:--
3102:*
3047:*
2926:--
2907:*
2849:is
2839:*
2803:*
2763:*
2499:ka
2442:Ta
2397:--
2239:ep
2199:*
2176:--
2028:--
1990:Ch
1979:*
1950:if
1931:Ch
1856:*
1588://
1555:*
1528:*
1475:ep
1437://
1244:am
1207:,
1204:,
1201:,
1198:,
1195:,
1142:*
1117:*
1068://
1013:ka
918:ep
905://
789:*
749:ep
731://
620:ep
607://
587:ep
228:--
129:|
76:xd
3903:☎
3899:d
3897:i
3895:s
3893:y
3891:m
3822:e
3788:•
3783:(
3548:.
3531:.
3524:.
3515:.
3504:•
3499:(
3480:•
3475:(
3433:(
3393:T
3345:/
3324:(
3243:.
3228:(
3209:-
3201:(
3179:-
3170:(
3097:(
3072:c
3068:(
3042:(
2969:c
2965:(
2902:(
2893:☎
2891:(
2886:C
2864:☎
2862:(
2857:C
2834:(
2825:☎
2823:(
2818:C
2798:(
2783:c
2779:(
2758:(
2691:-
2622:-
2606:c
2602:(
2580:-
2564:c
2560:(
2194:(
1974:(
1906:→
1851:(
1646:c
1642:(
1550:(
1523:(
1227:/
1137:(
1112:(
1040:(
851:☎
849:(
844:C
784:(
519:)
467:-
323:⁂
315:-
298:r
294:e
273:M
251:S
213:(
198:)
194:(
107:e
35:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.