1720:
381:
364:
852:
sentiment. The current process is objective and fair (i.e. consistently applied), even if not everyone agrees with the results. Maybe if there were a specific proposal here someone could convince me that it could work, but in terms of the nebulous concept that we should discuss more and vote less on RFAs, I really don't see how to implement that in a way that is likely to make things better.
779:
1131:
1413:
Per BlankVerse. I feel many votes on WP need more discussion, I'd prefer a system of the RFA being open (say) for 5 days of comment and questions and then 2 days of voting, I also feel that people with valid points are sometimes put off by seeing a large support and that some will possibly just vote
1520:
is very similar to en and has very similar problems, but once again, the lack of a necessity to comment on an oppose vote seems like a good thing. The arbcom elections here, which were more of a straight vote, were less contentious. I think we probably need to tweak the system, but I suspect that
1081:
Disagree. In honesty, I dont think the RFA system is that flawed. Good people usually get in, bad people usually stay out. I have sometimes been swayed by arguments of others, and others have sometimes been swayed by my arguments. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and it tastes fine to me!
851:
Given that most support is based on a broad history of good behavior, rather than any specific good deeds that can be highlighted and talked about, I don't see any workable way to make it less of a process of endorsements and disendorsements without seriously reducing its ability to guage community
722:
Agree, mere vote counts lead to arbitrary and political decisions, rather than meritorious ones, and one in which a simple majority can overrule the unbiased meritorious conclusion. If an admin doesn't have time to state the reasons for his vote, he doesn't have time to do the necessary research to
187:
yes, and this should work both ways. it seems some vote against for frivolous reasons. some also vote for as a matter of course. some reasonable indication of the vote rationale should be given for a vote either way. otherwise, i assume that the voter is not really informed about the matter. i
1157:
While it's a good idea in theory, there really can't be much meaningful discussion about support votes. If you agree with the nominator and think a user would make a good admin, I don't think parroting everyone else or coming up with new ways of kissing someone's ass is very constructive. Only way
566:
The voting seems seriously flawed to me because there is an element of discussion, which changes the basis upon which earlier votes are cast. To my mind a more effective process would have participants contributing only additional information about their perception of the candidate. A bureaucrat
1115:
Anyone who has been here for a period of time is bound to have both friends and enemies. Votes are sometimes difficult as it is when certain individuals come to vote for no reason than to support a friend, regardless of their suitability for the job, or even when they come to vote against them in
511:
I'd agree with this. To use my own RfA as an example, most of the votes I recieved were either just flat-out support votes or repeated what others had already said. While I realize that there's not much to say after a certain point, I think it's just as helpful for the person being discussed as
1449:
In reponse to that, I should point out that
Knowledge Culture by its very nature is evolving, and that such effects traditionally cause confusion or dismay for older contributors. They may consider new people "non-acculturated" when in fact culture has changed and they themselves have lost their
1349:
Currently users are supposed to choose a position and support it. Discussion just reverses the order--providing supporting evidence and then choosing a position--and takes longer to generate consensus. "Votes" in the current system can always be changed if new evidence is subsequently presented.
1241:
I don't want to suggest that people shouldn't discuss the RfA, nor that it would be a bad thing if there was more discussion. But it is useful to have a clear vote which in most cases does demonstrate whether or not there is consensus to create an administrator. If it doesn't, then the closing
521:
Agree. Voting doesn't cause discussion; just "Support." means nothing. Also, will stop antagonizing those who disagree with a popular RfA, hopefully. Sometimes, you have to go "per X" since there are so many people, and everything you want to say has been said, but if you're among the first and
197:
Defenently. People should as a bare minimum explain why they oppose or support a candidate, and unless good reasons to oppose is given mechanical vote count should not disqualify a otherwise qualified candidate. Conversely clear proof of a "bad attitude" or past a history of disruptive behaviour
1800:
from the community and not consensus. There have been several promotions recently with some substantial objections voiced and oppose votes well into the double figures, yet they were deemed 'successful'. I've also seen admins who are quite clueless about even some of the most basic things on
1217:
First, I do truly enjoy the irony of people voting to end voting. Truth is we don't let the community vote, we're just letting a
Bureaucrat vote in everyones place. I'ld rather have tyranny of 75% than tyranny of 1. And of course, votes don't rule out discussion in any way (though I'm not
1704:
Agreed. I've seen several get elected despite substantial well-founded opposition; in arbcom people seem to give more thought (and candidates drop out more readily if there is much opposition). If serious and valid concerns are raised, it's fair that admin powers should not be granted. -
1530:
I think elements from both should be included in the RfA process. We need voting to include some measure of objectivity, as evil as voting is, but we also need some subjective leeway as a last resort -- checks and balances, if you will. (Disclaimer: WP:NOT a real democratic government.)
1191:
So after everyone's opinions are in... who decides whether or not the user should be an admin? Pretty hard to say if you're judging "reasons". A hard vote count (though maybe forcing people to justify their votes) with a set-in-stone % threshold is probably the best way to do it.
1001:
is the wiki way. We have "rough" consensus because strict didn't scale to our size, but we still don't just let bare majorities rule. Democracy means 51% can oppress 49% and that's just not good. IMHO. Sorry for commenting on a comment but I feel rather strongly about that.
567:
could then appoint when the discussion had reached a conclusion. Essentially, the discussion would consit only of statements along the lines of "I think this person would/would not make an effective admin because of <this quality not already mentioned: -->
1801:
Knowledge (how to write a good article even, in some cases), about CSD, about other processes; I think in some cases people who were promoted because they were popular and not because they showed any suitability for the role of admin. No names, of course. --
1662:
It shouldn't be more or less of a discussion. People are allowed to air opinions, so they do, therefore to a degree it is a discussion. But if it's considered too much of a "discussion" it becomes impossible to understand what the numbers are like.
1265:
I simply don't have time to have ~7 conversations a week regarding admin nominees. The amount of time for that many conversations would be overwhelming. With the current voting system, I can devote 10 minutes to a nominee and then go forward.
1043:
to voting; polling is a way to gauge support/opposition to a consensus idea, but the idea of winners & losers is what consensus is (ideally) supposed to avoid. Reducing it to bare numbers makes it a very different creature. --
221:
Ideally I'd like appointed admins, but I don't see a possibility of this happening. Sooner or later we will have to deal with the increasing problem of non-acculturated editors making it to adminship. It's a bit of a time bomb.
1613:
Per BlankVerse. Significantly more discussion should occur than does now, but only the vote count should be considered by bureaucrats. Transparent, deterministic use of bureaucrat power is necessary to prevent despotism. ~~
1585:, where multiple oppose votes from people who clearly misunderstood his responses to the questions (which were both honest and showed a clear grasp of wiki concepts and procedures) led to a denial, and him leaving. -
656:
Agree completely. Voting only takes into consideration the individuals (treated only as a percent) who choose to vote. A dicussion brings up any and all related issues which is on what the decision should be based.
1742:
FAs are more discussion-based so that problems can be removed. Problems with admin candidates aren't "removed" in the same way. Essentially, few objections would be "actionable". A strawpoll is a good solution. –
1479:
a vote. Ultimately, admins are promoted based on numbers of votes, but those numbers can (and should) shift based on reasoning presented in the discussion. The discussion, however, is the heart of the process.
1571:
Not sure what anyone would wish to discuss, there isn't much to be discussed about the fact that a candidate hasn't been problematic in the past. (Besides, if he has been, the fact will be brought up anyway.)
824:
A vote reflect the opinions expressed not the other way around. It allows for accountablity of nomination with % for and against as well as an easier divide of opinions (pro or con) for those voting. --
935:
This allows too much wiggle room for the closing admin to decide whether he or she wants to delete based on their own preferences. And why do I get "agree" when I click on edit next to "disagree"?
372:
Agreed, so long as people's comments are still grouped under "support", "oppose" or "neutral" headers because I fear making it even more difficult for bureaucrats to close these things up. --
966:
I suspect the 'agree' thing happened because section=X was no longer true between the time you viewed the page, and clicked the edit link... I've gotten it before in really busy pages. --
1414:
and then never see the comments of others which might impact their final conclusion. Having comments up front would help people see a broader picture of the candidate prior to voting. --
842:
We can always ask users to provide reasoning, but there's no getting around the simple reality that at the end of the day, every RfA is a vote, which the nominee either wins or loses. --
1256:
Voting is important here because at least there is a clear mathematical process. Having it as a discussion, as with AfD, means that the closing bureaucrat may as well have the veto.
1055:
1395:
I'm not sure I have enough idealism left to think that anything can be done about this issue without moveing power away from the community something I do not view as acceptable.
1492:
It's going to be a popularity contest and have nothing to do with anything remotely to do with adminship, no matter what we do. I prefer
Talrias' proposal, which several users
709:
I sincerely believe
Adminship should not be a big deal. People made it a big deal on my RFA1 and RFA2 and when I made it a big deal on RfA3 some people wore a different hat. --
977:
1516:, which is closer to a straight vote with occasional comments, is less contentious than en (in part because people don't feel the need to challenge every oppose vote). The
1116:
spite of their ability to do the job, simply because of a grudge. Reaching a consensus would be nigh-on impossible. The existing system, while flawed, is the best solution.
1444:
1227:
I fail to see how focusing on discussion improves the process. The vote is an objective result coming from discussion (both in the RfA, and in the users contributions). -
1180:
I'm worried this would cause RFAs to become bogged down over one minor or moderate "negative" issue, while a mountain of good deeds may become buried. Could skew RFAs. --
107:
502:
Yes, since voting by itself does not lend to a discussion atmosphere. Discussions are good, it lets someone see if the person really is qualified to be an admin or not.--
1561:
We need both; votes should not be counted unless they're accompanied by some discussion. The "vote" should just be clarifying the for/againstness of the discussion. .:.
1062:
Agree with
Dragons flight. Additionally, the RfA's I've seen have been pretty good discussions, which come much closer to the consensus ideal than AfD. --best, kevin
791:
1204:
says it well. More discussion would be good, certainly, but in the end, there has to something, some solid ground, that the bureaucrats can stand on when deciding. --
174:
Any voting is pernicious, it is a playing ground for trolls and fraudsters. Also leads to frantic campaigning by non-native speakers in their national wikipedias. --
306:
Absolutely agree. I have seen excellent editors being scared away from
Knowledge after a failed RfA in which editors voted alongside a political or religious POV.
691:
Hence My RfA2 was not as fascinating either. (on My rfa1 and rfa2 I had my stalkers generating 3 automatic opose votes, on one ocasion one of them voted
295:
Yes, but "I've bee persauded by the comments of Users X, Y, & Z above" ought to be an acceptable rationale. No reason to force people to parrot.
997:
I would like to note my disagreement with that view. One of the neat things about WP is that it is NOT a democracy, but not a dictatorship either.
522:
you're just saying "Per nom" or something... I don't know, I'd just like to see more. (Maybe it's just that I'm new and don't understand yet.) --
246:
1468:
1761:
I like the current system of voting and a discussion, however I feel there needs to be much more discussion than what currently takes place. --
1293:
The discussion on RfA tends to come from the opposition. An RfA that is more focused on discussion would be more hostile and less effective.
1695:
What about having some fixed discussion period (several days, with no voting) followed by a voting period (with discussion still allowed)?
1158:
real discussion can happen is if people oppose with good reasons and others comment on those reasons, which is exactly what happens now. -
512:
much as it is for the bcrat (I can't spell that word) closing the discussion to hear why or why not they should or shouldn't be an admin.
1582:
17:
1337:
682:: Such comments did not came from random one time "vote" accounts but from existing admins who later lectured me on civility on RfA3.
1167:
Voting works in an Rfa because otherwise bad faith editors will try to fill the page with various diffs of just about anything. --
782:
673:
RFA is broken. I had 3 rfars so far (none passed) and some comments I had as "opposes" had nothing to do with adminship such as:
637:
556:
529:
50:
Agree, per LV. I feel that it's becoming too much like AfD, in which a simple majority can overrule the more obvious answer. --
1625:
1341:
1125:
1517:
1372:
The survey of editor's opinions should still be included, but more emphasis should be placed on discussion during the RFA.
1605:
1357:
1108:
1070:
I like to see a vote, but I think people supporting should be required to give reasons, and not just "it's no big deal."
542:
The question is not "do lots of people like this person". The question is "will this person be a responsible admin".
242:
1805:
1791:
1770:
1756:
1747:
1737:
1728:
1699:
1690:
1667:
1657:
1641:
1629:
1608:
1592:
1576:
1566:
1556:
1539:
1525:
1507:
1487:
1418:
1408:
1399:
1390:
1377:
1360:
1344:
1313:
1288:
1270:
1260:
1251:
1236:
1222:
1212:
1196:
1186:
1175:
1162:
1152:
1139:
Leave it just the way it is. It is easier to come to a concensus. I agree with the other users who disagree too. --
1134:
1110:
1076:
1065:
1034:
1014:
992:
961:
942:
928:
906:
898:
884:
871:
856:
846:
837:
798:
756:
734:
715:
668:
651:
640:
623:
614:
606:
593:
575:
561:
546:
537:
516:
506:
497:
488:
474:
465:
447:
438:
425:
408:
403:
384:
367:
344:
330:
319:
301:
290:
274:
261:
252:
235:
We generally don't vote on
Knowledge, but try to reach consensus. That should apply to RFA as well as other areas.
230:
216:
207:
192:
182:
169:
156:
130:
116:
79:
63:
54:
45:
1715:
1011:
833:
422:
1602:
1513:
1285:
1149:
1101:
1087:
43:
1433:
problem, I'm not sure it's something that currently exists. If it does, I want to know about it even more. --
704:
also was lectured about civility from a person who is going to leave wikipedia if I am going to be adminised.
1209:
315:
285:
1589:
1333:
237:
227:
1275:
What's wrong with the current system, if there are new guidelines, then it will be too time consuming. --
60:
1247:
1168:
731:
179:
1650:
1521:
requiring comments is just going to produce more sheer text and hence more opportunities for ill will.
1318:
The current system is fine. It's simple to use and hasn't had any major problems that I've noticed. --
1082:
It would be nice to see more arguments with votes, but you cant really make that a rule... If anything
188:
particularly dislike positive votes because "it's no big deal". bullshit, it actually is in practice.
258:
1766:
1682:
1586:
1375:
1074:
989:
912:
826:
767:
633:
629:
572:
523:
1783:
1549:
1536:
1484:
1439:
1327:
1282:
1279:
1276:
1146:
1143:
1140:
1094:
1050:
972:
924:
853:
812:
807:
804:
727:
711:
460:
444:
392:
342:
257:
Absolutely. Too many voters are getting away with half-assed votes that fail to explain anything. -
213:
166:
141:
126:
102:
74:
38:
1724:
1647:
503:
1734:
1621:
1562:
1458:
1205:
1121:
1030:
951:
916:
299:
280:
867:
A discussion opens the door for subjective interpretation on those who make the final decision.
1354:
1319:
1130:
903:
483:
471:
434:
359:
327:
223:
203:
151:
1719:
1522:
1305:
1243:
1231:
1201:
1193:
894:
602:
380:
175:
1796:
I'm reasonably happy with the current system but I think promotion should be the result of
1762:
1677:
1664:
1373:
1267:
1071:
762:
663:
586:
569:
543:
373:
311:
189:
1434:
1045:
967:
493:
Yep. The voting aspect seems to encourage laziness and shortcuts leading to groupthink.
97:
1696:
1638:
1545:
1532:
1481:
1404:
RfA is a synthesis of "voting" and discussion. I think this aspect works fine as is. --
920:
645:
620:
611:
551:
494:
457:
399:
336:
271:
198:
should count for more than any number of "he's a cool guy" type support statements. --
162:
122:
88:
that this is a reversal toward old ways of doing things, not a change being advocated (
69:
1802:
1776:
1616:
1497:
1455:
1387:
1386:--~~~~", but I believe there is room for a quantitative read on sup/opp/neu votes. --
1219:
1117:
1026:
1007:
948:
940:
868:
861:
740:
418:
296:
113:
803:
Lack of discussion leads to uninformed support votes and illegitimate oppose votes.
363:
1744:
1573:
1351:
1181:
480:
430:
352:
324:
199:
146:
136:
89:
51:
1788:
1780:
1753:
1294:
1257:
1228:
1022:
890:
598:
479:
Yes, although I don't have a problem with votes like "per User:X" or "per nom".
1405:
1159:
843:
778:
658:
583:
307:
270:, should be provided to explain why the editor responded the way they did. –
1733:
Current system is working fine, with a good mix of voting and discussion. -
1396:
985:
877:
389:
1461:
954:
723:
form a competent vote in the first place, and his vote should be discarded.
1601:, a few days of open discussion followed by a vote. Similar to real life.
1706:
1598:
1415:
1218:
pro-tyranny). Bad faith, or reason-free votes can be tossed anyhow. --
1003:
936:
513:
414:
212:
Agreed, and we need to take voting out of the process to a great degree.
1450:"acculturation". For that precise reason it would be a bad idea to have
889:
Definitive results and consensus in RfA are only reached through votes.
93:
1425:
increasing problem of non-acculturated editors making it to adminship
1382:
per BlankVerse. I'd always like to see more discussion than just "
1646:
The current system is good - we need both votes and discussion. -
1779:- several days of discussion followed by a few days of polling.
786:
761:
Agree, with a presumption of worthiness until shown otherwise.
1676:, and it should neither be solely a discussion nor a vote.
335:
Wholeheartedly agree with ^demon; vote #2 way up top. -
376:
112:
I agree, even though we're voting to reduce voting. --
1242:
bureaucrat can examine the discussion in more detail.
1086:
topic is a matter for discussion rather than voting!
739:
It should be based on merit rather than arbitrary. —
452:
Yes! Best to see people oppose candidates with real
695:
before the nominator quoting "Not admin material").
1581:Those in favor of blind counting should check out
1544:Discussion should be required for votes to count.
568:." and counterarguments against such statements. —
1752:Current voting allows making some discussions.--
1423:I'd like to see the evidence of TonySidaway's "
689:Suggesting SPUI was a better candidate than me.
27:RFA should be more a discussion and less a vote
680:threats to leave wikipedia if I were adminised
37:Always should have been, always should be. --
8:
1775:I would appreciate something very much like
443:Yes, I'd like to see a more RFC style page.
947:Er, Zoe, we're talking about RFA, not AFD.
702:Opposed for being a "Turkish nationalistic"
1454:admins, because it cultivates stagnation.
7:
18:Knowledge:Admin accountability poll
24:
1718:
1129:
777:
379:
362:
580:isomorphic nails the suject --
1:
1792:13:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
984:The closer Knowledge is to a
757:19:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
735:00:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
1771:05:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
1757:09:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
1748:15:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
1738:18:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
1729:20:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
1700:10:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
1691:23:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
1668:21:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
1658:22:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
1642:21:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
1630:01:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
1609:23:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1593:18:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1577:17:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1567:15:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1557:14:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1540:12:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1526:05:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1508:04:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1488:02:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1469:20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
1445:20:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
1419:20:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
1409:19:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
1400:19:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
1391:18:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
1378:18:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
1361:02:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
1345:23:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
1314:21:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
1289:12:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
1271:06:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
1261:16:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
1252:16:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
1237:09:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
1223:07:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
1213:10:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
1197:00:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
1187:23:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1176:18:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1163:17:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1153:14:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1135:12:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1111:08:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1077:06:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1066:03:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1056:04:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1035:01:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1015:04:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
993:01:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
978:04:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
962:01:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
943:00:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
929:21:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
907:23:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
899:20:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
885:20:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
872:20:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
864:19:49 17 January 2006 (UTC).
857:19:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
847:19:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
838:18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
819:Disagree (RFA as discussion)
716:19:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
669:17:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
652:06:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
641:08:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
624:03:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
615:12:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
607:20:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
594:20:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
576:12:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
562:00:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
547:22:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
538:01:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
517:22:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
507:21:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
498:19:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
489:16:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
475:15:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
466:07:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
448:04:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
439:03:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
426:03:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
409:00:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
385:00:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
368:23:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
345:23:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
331:22:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
320:22:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
302:21:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
291:21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
275:21:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
262:20:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
253:20:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
231:20:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
217:19:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
208:19:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
193:18:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
183:18:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
170:18:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
157:18:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
131:18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
117:18:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
108:18:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
80:18:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
64:18:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
55:18:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
46:18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
266:Agreed. A sentence or two,
59:Agree, what ^demon said. --
1822:
1806:12:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
1039:Errr...what? Consensus is
799:19:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
1367:Other (RFA as discussion)
911:This user is a suspected
32:Agree (RFA as discussion)
876:It's fine as it is now.
1475:It's both a discussion
1427:". While it's a valid
84:I agree, and it would
1597:I have to agree with
456:and not just votes.
1603:CambridgeBayWeather
1494:opopsed his rfa for
1512:It seems like the
1210:Talk to the driver
917:User:Zephram_Stark
1689:
1654:
1553:
1505:
796:
789:
784:
714:
667:
649:
592:
536:
463:
437:
318:
250:
238:Crotalus horridus
96:perspective). --
1813:
1786:
1722:
1710:
1686:
1680:
1655:
1652:
1551:
1503:
1466:
1330:
1325:
1322:
1311:
1308:
1301:
1298:
1184:
1173:
1133:
1128:
1105:
1098:
1091:
959:
882:
810:
792:
787:
783:
781:
775:
774:
771:
765:
753:
750:
747:
744:
732:Have your say!!!
710:
661:
647:
581:
534:
486:
461:
433:
395:
383:
366:
357:
339:
310:
283:
240:
206:
154:
149:
144:
139:
77:
72:
41:
1821:
1820:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1784:
1717:
1708:
1684:
1651:
1518:Italian version
1502:
1463:
1442:
1369:
1328:
1323:
1320:
1309:
1306:
1299:
1296:
1182:
1169:
1120:
1103:
1096:
1089:
1053:
990:freestylefrappe
975:
956:
878:
828:Reflex Reaction
821:
808:
795:
772:
769:
768:
763:
751:
748:
745:
742:
589:
559:
533:
484:
407:
393:
353:
337:
281:
202:
152:
147:
142:
137:
105:
75:
70:
39:
34:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1819:
1817:
1809:
1808:
1794:
1773:
1759:
1750:
1740:
1731:
1714:
1702:
1693:
1670:
1660:
1644:
1637:Antandrus :-)
1632:
1611:
1595:
1579:
1569:
1559:
1542:
1528:
1514:German version
1510:
1500:
1490:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1438:
1421:
1411:
1402:
1393:
1380:
1368:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1347:
1316:
1291:
1273:
1263:
1254:
1239:
1225:
1215:
1199:
1189:
1178:
1165:
1155:
1137:
1113:
1079:
1068:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1049:
1019:
1018:
1017:
982:
981:
980:
971:
964:
933:
932:
931:
901:
887:
874:
865:
859:
854:Dragons flight
849:
840:
820:
817:
816:
815:
801:
793:
759:
737:
724:
720:
719:
718:
706:
705:
696:
683:
671:
654:
643:
626:
617:
609:
596:
587:
578:
564:
555:
549:
540:
527:
519:
509:
500:
491:
477:
468:
450:
445:Rx StrangeLove
441:
428:
411:
397:
387:
370:
347:
333:
322:
304:
293:
277:
264:
255:
251:
233:
219:
214:Rx StrangeLove
210:
195:
185:
172:
159:
133:
119:
110:
101:
82:
66:
61:badlydrawnjeff
57:
48:
33:
30:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1818:
1807:
1804:
1799:
1795:
1793:
1790:
1787:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1758:
1755:
1751:
1749:
1746:
1741:
1739:
1736:
1735:Mailer Diablo
1732:
1730:
1727:
1726:
1721:
1716:
1712:
1703:
1701:
1698:
1694:
1692:
1687:
1679:
1675:
1672:RfA is about
1671:
1669:
1666:
1661:
1659:
1656:
1649:
1645:
1643:
1640:
1636:
1633:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1618:
1612:
1610:
1607:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1594:
1591:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1578:
1575:
1570:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1558:
1555:
1547:
1543:
1541:
1538:
1534:
1529:
1527:
1524:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1509:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1489:
1486:
1483:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1467:
1460:
1457:
1453:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1443:
1441:
1436:
1432:
1431:
1426:
1422:
1420:
1417:
1412:
1410:
1407:
1403:
1401:
1398:
1394:
1392:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1379:
1376:
1374:
1371:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1359:
1356:
1353:
1348:
1346:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1326:
1317:
1315:
1312:
1303:
1302:
1292:
1290:
1287:
1284:
1281:
1278:
1274:
1272:
1269:
1264:
1262:
1259:
1255:
1253:
1250:
1249:
1245:
1240:
1238:
1235:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1224:
1221:
1216:
1214:
1211:
1207:
1206:OpenToppedBus
1203:
1200:
1198:
1195:
1190:
1188:
1185:
1179:
1177:
1174:
1172:
1166:
1164:
1161:
1156:
1154:
1151:
1148:
1145:
1142:
1138:
1136:
1132:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1114:
1112:
1109:
1107:
1106:
1100:
1099:
1093:
1092:
1085:
1080:
1078:
1075:
1073:
1069:
1067:
1064:
1061:
1057:
1054:
1052:
1047:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1000:
996:
995:
994:
991:
987:
983:
979:
976:
974:
969:
965:
963:
960:
953:
950:
946:
945:
944:
941:
938:
934:
930:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
909:
908:
905:
902:
900:
897:
896:
892:
888:
886:
883:
881:
875:
873:
870:
866:
863:
860:
858:
855:
850:
848:
845:
841:
839:
835:
831:
830:
829:
823:
822:
818:
814:
811:
806:
802:
800:
797:
790:
785:
780:
776:
766:
760:
758:
755:
754:
738:
736:
733:
729:
725:
721:
717:
713:
708:
707:
703:
700:
697:
694:
690:
687:
684:
681:
678:
675:
674:
672:
670:
665:
660:
655:
653:
650:
644:
642:
639:
635:
631:
627:
625:
622:
618:
616:
613:
610:
608:
604:
600:
597:
595:
590:
585:
579:
577:
574:
571:
565:
563:
558:
553:
550:
548:
545:
541:
539:
531:
525:
520:
518:
515:
510:
508:
505:
501:
499:
496:
492:
490:
487:
482:
478:
476:
473:
470:Nobrainer. -
469:
467:
464:
459:
455:
451:
449:
446:
442:
440:
436:
432:
429:
427:
424:
420:
416:
412:
410:
405:
401:
396:
391:
388:
386:
382:
378:
375:
371:
369:
365:
361:
358:
356:
351:
348:
346:
343:
340:
334:
332:
329:
326:
323:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
303:
300:
298:
294:
292:
289:
288:
284:
282:Nightstallion
278:
276:
273:
269:
265:
263:
260:
256:
254:
248:
244:
239:
236:
234:
232:
229:
225:
220:
218:
215:
211:
209:
205:
201:
196:
194:
191:
186:
184:
181:
177:
173:
171:
168:
164:
160:
158:
155:
150:
145:
140:
134:
132:
128:
124:
120:
118:
115:
111:
109:
106:
104:
99:
95:
91:
87:
83:
81:
78:
73:
67:
65:
62:
58:
56:
53:
49:
47:
44:
42:
36:
35:
31:
26:
19:
1797:
1723:
1673:
1634:
1615:
1493:
1476:
1451:
1437:
1429:
1428:
1424:
1383:
1295:
1246:
1232:
1170:
1102:
1095:
1088:
1083:
1063:
1048:
1040:
1025:'s comment.
998:
988:the better.
970:
904:Rudolf Nixon
893:
879:
827:
825:
741:
701:
698:
692:
688:
685:
679:
676:
584:drini's page
472:FrancisTyers
453:
354:
349:
286:
267:
224:Tony Sidaway
100:
90:conservative
85:
1798:endorsement
1523:Chick Bowen
1496:. (wtf?) --
1244:Warofdreams
1202:Matt Yeager
1194:Matt Yeager
1171:a.n.o.n.y.m
1021:Agree with
923:(drop me a
125:(drop me a
1763:PS2pcGAMER
1678:Flcelloguy
1665:Mangojuice
1482:Antandrus
1268:Kingturtle
1090:The Minist
1072:SlimVirgin
1041:orthagonal
913:sockpuppet
630:Locke Cole
544:Isomorphic
308:≈ jossi ≈
1711:you know?
1707:Just zis
1697:Conscious
1674:consensus
1639:Mozzerati
1546:Hipocrite
1533:Johnleemk
1452:appointed
1430:potential
999:Consensus
986:Democracy
921:Linuxbeak
621:Omegatron
612:Sam Spade
552:Werdna648
524:Jjjsixsix
495:The Witch
458:Sjakkalle
454:arguments
338:Pureblade
272:Seancdaug
163:Carbonite
123:Linuxbeak
1803:kingboyk
1583:Rl's RFA
1498:Phroziac
1435:nae'blis
1388:Syrthiss
1126:Contribs
1118:Jamyskis
1104:r of War
1046:nae'blis
1027:enochlau
968:nae'blis
937:User:Zoe
869:Avriette
728:Blnguyen
712:Cool Cat
530:contribs
462:(Check!)
268:at least
247:CONTRIBS
121:Agreed.
114:Interiot
98:nae'blis
1745:Quadell
1648:ulayiti
1635:support
1574:Pilatus
1384:support
1324:Kantari
1183:tomf688
1122:Whisper
646:maclean
504:Toffile
481:the wub
431:Rossami
355:ALKIVAR
325:Zzyzx11
200:Sherool
94:radical
71:android
1777:WP:DFA
1754:Jusjih
1653:(talk)
1606:(Talk)
1587:Banyan
1563:Jareth
1485:(talk)
1459:adiant
1440:(talk)
1258:Stifle
1051:(talk)
1023:Harro5
973:(talk)
952:adiant
805:joturn
773:Jester
726:AGree.
699:(RFA3)
693:oppose
686:(RfA2)
677:(RfA1)
599:Dan100
573:(Talk)
435:(talk)
374:Francs
328:(Talk)
279:Aye. —
204:(talk)
176:Ghirla
153:(Talk)
103:(talk)
52:^demon
1685:note?
1565:.:.
1465:|<
1464:: -->
1406:Durin
1321:Nacon
1307:ɹəəds
1300:speer
1286:e Ong
1160:Bobet
1150:e Ong
958:|<
957:: -->
891:Harro
880:Grue
844:Aaron
794:Fire!
659:Krash
190:Derex
161:Yes.
138:Ilyan
68:Yup.
16:<
1781:Alph
1767:talk
1725:AfD?
1709:Guy,
1590:Tree
1552:Talk
1537:Talk
1397:Geni
1248:talk
1084:this
1031:talk
925:line
834:talk
770:SWAT
664:Talk
603:Talk
570:Theo
485:"?!"
377:2000
259:Zero
243:TALK
228:Talk
180:talk
167:Talk
127:line
92:vs.
86:seem
1599:pgk
1477:and
1416:pgk
1352:MDD
1277:Ter
1233:Boy
1229:Roy
1220:Rob
1141:Ter
1004:Lar
915:of
862:Joe
836:)•
788:Aim
657:--
514:Mo0
415:Lar
390:NSL
350:Yep
297:DES
287:(?)
1769:)
1683:A
1628:)
1548:-
1535:|
1506:º
1358:96
1355:46
1336:||
1310:ɹ
1304:/
1283:nc
1208:-
1147:nc
1124:,
1033:)
1006::
1002:++
927:)
919:.
752:as
749:at
746:on
743:Dz
730:|
648:25
636:•
632:•
619:—
605:)
582:(
560:\
417::
413:++
341:|
314:•
245:•
222:--
178:|
165:|
135:—
129:)
76:79
40:LV
1789:x
1785:a
1765:(
1713:/
1688:)
1681:(
1626:c
1624:/
1622:t
1620:(
1617:N
1554:»
1550:«
1504:o
1501:.
1462:_
1456:R
1350:~
1342:m
1340:|
1338:c
1334:t
1332:|
1329:e
1297:r
1280:e
1144:e
1097:e
1029:(
1012:c
1010:/
1008:t
955:_
949:R
939:|
895:5
832:(
813:r
809:e
764:⇒
666:)
662:(
638:c
634:t
628:—
601:(
591:)
588:☎
557:C
554:/
535:@
532:)
528:(
526:/
423:c
421:/
419:t
406:)
404:C
402:+
400:T
398:(
394:E
360:™
316:@
312:t
249:)
241:(
226:|
148:p
143:e
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.