3423:
tools only in cases of pure vandalism and for other gnomic work? Because I've had bad experiences with Admins who haven't much clue about the issues and problems that arise in actual article work. Many appear to have limited knowledge and poor judgment in responding to situations for which they have limited experience. A broader
Wikiworldview is necessary in my opinion. Unfortunately, dealing with the core work of encyclopedia building seems to be a great hindrance to Admin candidates, because experience dealing with disputes is often held against them, unless they were able to please all those involved which is a bit much to ask. Vandal reverts on the other hand are uniformly popular, but give very little insight into how one manages themself under stress and trying circumstances.
507:. My first real useful contributions to Knowledge were mostly in the area of recent-changes patrol. For a new user, I think I did a pretty good job of it; but that kind of work rapidly fills you with a sense of futility - most of the users you're dealing with are genuinely malicious, or at least unhelpful, editors. It gives you a general sense that Knowledge is going down the toilet fast. The enlightenment came when I diversified my contributions some, and ventured into other areas: once you get outside of the front line of keeping the bored kids from writing 'penis' on things, it's most refreshing how generally well-intentioned almost every other editor is. Sure, there will always be trolls and PoV-pushers around, but in my experience at
464:
are individually protected using flagged revisions, in the same way as semi-protection is currently used, but far more widely. Even taking it as far as flagged-protecting all BLPs would be quite agreeable to me, though I don't very much like the idea of blanket activation of flagged-revisions across the entire encyclopedia. It takes away from the immediacy of seeing your work in the encyclopedia which I'm sure is what attracts a decent proportion of our new contributors. In short, I think flagged revisions are a nice step forward, but full activation across all articles would be too much of a good thing. I look forward to them becoming available here so we can see first-hand how we like them and how much they should be used.
600:
open to potential legal action. While any dodgy information is worth dealing with, that which directly impacts on living people is obviously of the highest priority. Recent efforts to tag and deal with unsourced BLPs are to be commended and hopefully will allow us to get a better handle on the situation; but there will always be people out there looking to use us as a vector to disparage others. Thorough processing of unsourced statements in BLPs, removal of unsourceable articles, and conscientious use of semi-protection and (when available) flagged revisions is what we need to continue to do here. BLP will always be an issue for a freely-edited encyclopedia, but we have the potential to greatly improve our situation.
481:
to do about a new account that's being massively uncivil: the user is blocked and rapidly forgotten about. But when a generally-productive user throws a hissy-fit about something and crosses the line, drama tends to ensue due to differing opinions on how much slack they should be allowed. The fact that many of our better-known users are admins is in many cases almost a coincidence: blocks and sanctions handed out to long-standing users are very often contentious regardless of whether the user in question happens to be an administrator. These problems by their nature must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but most definitely a user should not be spared a sanction purely on the basis of their administrator status.
330:
differing viewpoints is to recognise when productive discussion has stopped, and you're just repeating your opinions at each other: at this point, I make specific effort either to withdraw from the argument, and if necessary to seek participation from others to find out where majority opinion lies. When extending this philosophy to some theoretical admin actions I may make in the future, it's pretty simple: if an editor seems to have a good-faith problem with something I've done, the first step is to understand their concerns, and if I still find myself in disagreement then the opinions of others should be sought. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - winning an argument by attrition is not winning at all.
781:: I'm fully supportive of the general need for admins to be accountable for their actions, but I have to say I don't much like the look of that particular process. With the multiple steps, elected coordinators, et cetera it simply seems like yet another overly bureaucratic process that won't end up making much of a positive difference. Encouraging admins to be hauled up and sanctioned via a rather legalistic process for specific, quantized breaches of admin policy is likely to just create busywork and ill will. The current system, by which administrators can request informal review at
184:'s webboards. We have both held those positions since 2000, which (in my mind) is a testament to how trustworthy he is; in that time, he's garnered a reputation for being both good-humored and fair, knowing what the rules are (and when to apply a light touch), which is something that definitely translates into his on-wiki activities (for example, I've seen him do exactly what his answer to question #3 states). He's shown a clear interest in (and understanding of) the underpinnings of the community, and (as Aitias mentioned) he's posted ample sensible commentary on
3829:, usually even when we disagree, the candidate seems reasonable or open to changes, but just a couple of the DRV experiences, such as one concerning a pretty clearly "no consensus" bilateral relation that closed as delete, which he endorsed, has me somewhat reluctant as to how he could read consensus when closing such discussions. Again, only a handful of instances, somewhat cancelled out by other more pleasant encounters, so not enough to really oppose on, but enough to give me a pause for saying to support. Sincerely, --
789:, honestly does work most of the time for minor infractions - and ArbCom have got rather better at decisively dealing with problematic admins if difficulties persist. I do personally advocate some kind of community desysop procedure (in short, I'd suggest giving bureaucrats the technical ability, and allowing them to exercise it if consensus supports it via a user conduct RFC) but I don't think your proposed process is likely to be all that useful in this context.
1182:
439:
as comprehensive as it should be. In general, we do a pretty good job of keeping the really high-profile BLPs clean - the real danger comes from poorly-sourced criticism and undue weight sneaking into less-watched but no less important biographies. In recent months, efforts to reduce our unsourced minor BLPs through sourcing and/or deletion have certainly lead me to believe we're moving in the right direction; but there remains a lot to be done.
2708:, I recognize the signature and I'm not recalling anything negative about it. You have good answers to the questions (15 in particular I like - this position will put you outside of your comfort zone at times, but you have a good idea of how to handle it), and I don't see any reason to oppose. Article work is helpful, but not everything; all I ask for is clue and good responsibility.
980:, that agrees with this. If a reviewing admin comes across an article in which three editors in total have agreed with the deletion, and agrees with it themself, then the article could be deleted immediately. If any editor except the page creator came across the article and disagreed with this kind of speedy deletion, then they could remove the template and, again in the style of
2430:, generally agree with all of the above. Also agreed with NYB, KT and many others that the number and difficulty of the questions is a bit of an issue. If for some reason we can't get consensus on a guideline, then at the least I suggest we make the case to prospective candidates in the Guide that it's not usually in their interest to answer every question. - Dank (
688:: For the good of everyone, my initial response to this question is "not handle it myself". I'm lousy at being sympathetic at the best of times, and dealing with suicidal users on the internet is way beyond my skills and my comfort zone. Given that I could easily make the problem worse, my first and likely only action would be to post on
313:
doing more than just "!voting" at AfD and RfA, and I contribute to a wide variety of discussions whenever I feel I can be of use. As I'm sure you'll notice if you wade through a sample of my contributions: at some point, I've stuck my nose into almost every part of the project; I've just never focused my efforts greatly on one aspect.
283:. While I'd obviously assist in closing old discussions; simply having the ability to view deleted articles would be an immense help - relying on Google's cache at deletion review is at best irritating and at worst highly misleading. The other area I'd likely make use of the admin toolkit would be in speedy deletion - I often notice
2152:- I always thought Mazca was an admin. Not sure why, but that's a good thing, I suppose, because I didn't think he was a crappy admin. That said, the fact that I trust EVula implicitly and based on the candidates answers to my questions, which I very much appreciate his view on each, I fully support this candidate.
846:
possiblity that they'd abuse this system by making egregious attacks, then retracting them again after they've had their effect - but in the case of isolated incidents I agree that counseling the user to strike their statement and apologise is often going to result in a happier outcome for all involved.
3422:
Well, perhaps I'm missing something, but reading through the nom statement there was very little indication of substantial content contributions. And Admins do deal with disputes related to content building, a rather core part of the building of this encyclopedia. Is this Admin intending to use their
438:
I think the policy is a good one, and is certainly necessary if
Knowledge is to remain credible and unlitigated going forward. There's most definitely a gap between policy and reality though: there are still far more unsourced BLPs than there should be, and in other areas our enforcement of it is not
312:
for GA despite it being nowhere near ready. My real-life job involves writing rather a lot of tedious referenced prose: hopefully I can be forgiven for not doing very much of that here, in my free time! Certainly, most of my real effort to help the project has come in
Knowledge-space: I take pride in
348:
Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have ever used, or registered, on the
English Knowledge project, including any not in use currently? If there are some names you feel you cannot disclose, why not? If the reasons are privacy related, will you be willing to disclose
1033:
be discouraged. However, I've seen many valid keep arguments that use words like "useful" or "valuable information" dismissed by an ATA link when they really were quite cogent. The example comments given in the various segments of the essay are all-too-common and should be politely pointed out; but
849:
To answer the second part of the question: admins using their mediation skills if applicable is a good thing, but mediation skills are (a) not exclusive to admins and (b) not necessarily present in every admin. The question to be asked is "In the long term, is this block likely to prevent drama, or
739:
seemingly result in good things for the encyclopedia. Problems arise though, in the cases of people who are paid to distort articles - I've certainly run into more than one editor that's clearly a paid publicist of some kind who works to whitewash articles on specific people. In general, we need to
710:
are pretty appropriate: if there's any usable personal information or location information, then contacting the authorities is a good plan. If it's someone from the same country as me, I would contemplate notifying the authorities - if it's elsewhere, or the location was unclear, I'd post it to ANI
662:
I've never been much of a magician - I don't really have the hand-eye coordination. However, I've scared several people with my ability to predict coin-flips due to a technique I practiced. If you flip a U.S. quarter on to the back of your hand and then cover it with your other hand in the standard
639:
Given that the person's been identified, and given that their claims are valid from a review of the history of the article, I'd give serious thought to acquiescing to their request. This would need to be dealt with case-by-case; and if the arguments made to keep the article were compelling then I'd
480:
Absolutely, yes. I've seen some of the issues that have arisen recently around admins behaving badly, but I don't really view the problem as being one specifically about administrators. It's more about how to discipline long-serving, generally productive editors in general. It's easy to decide what
463:
In principle, I like the idea from a technical standpoint, though I don't think I'd personally agree with as broad an implementation as is currently active on the German
Knowledge. My personal preference is for liberal use of flagged revisions in its "flagged protection" form - susceptible articles
3401:
Hi there, ChildofMidnight. Do you have any specific areas where you think Mazca could improve? He has been here for 15 months and has about 4,500 edits per the nomination statement; both of those have generally been considered enough for adminship, though of course you may have different standards
632:
Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How
599:
The current BLP situation is moving in the right direction but I wouldn't say it's exactly great at the moment. Bad BLPs are pretty much the number one risk to
Knowledge: when real people are hurt by misrepresented information held here, it both damages the encyclopedia's credibility and leaves it
896:
as a whole - it's so spectacularly varied and yet consistently lovely. As I'm sure is the case with many peoples' favourite pieces of music, I first heard it when I was quite young and it's stuck with me. In general I'm a heavy metal listener, but I can't deny that there's definitely a time and a
303:
My contributions are generally minor and varied. One of the reasons various people have had such trouble poking me into requesting adminship is that I really don't have any serious article-building to point at: I copy-edit and reference things as I come across them, but the biggest single-article
175:
While I believe Aitias has done an excellent job of explaining how the project would benefit from Mazca being a sysop, I've long hounded him to run an RfA, going so far as to offer a co-nom, which is why you're being subjected to my ramblings right now. :) I've known Mazca for well over a decade
845:
sometimes necessary, and they do need to be dealt with on an individual basis - but certainly in the case of a first offence we need to make the assumption that the user might just have got overly worked up and not meant any genuine harm. In the case of repeat offenders, we need to consider the
614:
I would support a proposal to default to delete, in general. Our poorly-sourced, marginally notable BLPs are in many cases some of our worst articles anyway. The sad fact is that many quasi-notable people end up with a
Knowledge biography for one of two bad reasons: Someone with an axe to grind
575:
should they wish to. When you phrase 'rights' as broadly as I have here, many actions on the wiki can be viewed as upholding them - even as you deny the right to edit from a persistently uncivil or vandalous user, you are simultaneously upholding the rights of others to work in a collegial and
329:
I'm not a big fan of "arguing on the internet" in general; I do not seek conflict and generally choose disengagement over continued confrontation. With particular thought to some of the more contentious AfD debates I've participated in, I find the secret to productive discussion with people of
623:
really apply to BLPs. While an article on a computer game or a lizard can harmlessly sit as a bad stub for four years before someone gets around to working on it, a bad stub on a living person really shouldn't sit around. Rather than advocating a "keep and clean up" philosophy on them, AfD
576:
productive environment. Perhaps the "rights" as I've defined them here are better described as "privileges" - we are, after all, editing on what is technically private property. But certainly within the context of the
Knowledge social construct, editors do have something akin to rights.
640:
probably keep it. But if no particularly good reasons to keep the article have been raised, the person really is marginally notable, and the person seems to have a good-faith reason to want it deleted, then I'd have no problem deleting it on the principle of minimizing potential harm.
206:(the fact that Aitias and I both find that to be one of his strengths should definitely be telling). This project-level activity is a good counter-balance to his mainspace contributions (which Aitias has already touched on), making him a very well-rounded administrator candidate.
3237:
Nothing to do with the job per se, everything to do with the candidate's temperament, communicative and collaborative skills, and commitment to building a quality encyclopedia, which is important whether an admin or lay editor. People have personal criteria, that's one of mine.
592:
What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.
109:) to you as a candidate for adminship. To begin with the formalities, Mazca made his first edit on Knowledge more than three years ago, though he became really active in March 2008. Since then he has done over 4,500 edits — a fair amount of them in the main space.
969:
in mind) an editor could simply tag them with a tag that says something along the lines of "I think this should be speedy deleted as it is blatantly unsuitable for an encyclopedia". Further editors could add an additional template, in the style of
511:
99% of our regular editors absolutely have the encyclopedia's best interests at heart even if I disagree with their opinions. This is why assuming good faith in discussions is so important: because nearly everyone else really
1028:
an article is useful in the context of the encyclopedia, and why it helps the reader with what they're looking for, is a very valid keep rationale; while votes that just say the article's useful without really going anywhere
3826:
1722:
Well, the pair of noms is going to be tough to beat I'd think, but I thought I dig around a bit anyway. Couldn't find anything negative. I think we need more quality admins., and I think this candidate will be one. —
811:: I quite like the summarised version you suggest there. I have no objection in general to our more arcane and complicated policies being available in an easy-to-read form - and that seems like a decent example of that.
624:
participants should really treat BLPs as "delete unless cleaned up". In most cases, a bad article is better than no article at all; but in the case of a marginally-notable living person no article is the better option.
3448:, the candidate hasn't edited any other article heavily. WP is an encyclopedia; it is not a social club. Those who don't do much article work shouldn't be in a position to tell others what to do and what not to do.
1041:
have weight in XfD debates because, in most cases, they're sensible. By referring to the essay, you're pretty much referring to common sense and policy interpretation - but this doesn't mean they should be followed
373:
Do you have any strongly held beliefs or affiliations, "In real life", and would you be willing to disclose those here? Would you be willing or able to permanently recuse from using your admin tools on those areas?
2729:. I agree with Hersfold's first statement. I think I'm starting to associate the user with the format of their signature. I seem to remember positive interaction with Mazca. I am comfortable with him having a mop.
615:
creates something generally negative in tone; or the person themselves (or a publicist) creates a vanity page generally positive in tone. In both cases, the result is often a page that roughly meets the letter of
555:, among other things. It also seems quite reasonable to consider many of our policies and behavioural guidelines, broadly, as "rights" within the context of the site. In general, all our editors have the right to
2194:=p ... OK, pardon my French, but it's about fucking time. I was thinking Mazca would make a good admin months ago, I even said so on his talk page. Nothing has come to my attention to make me change my mind.
706:: These kinds of posts are always dicey: probably a clear majority of them are just straight-up trolling and vandalism, but in many cases it's hard to tell. In general, I think the guidelines laid out in the
2792:
Typically I won't pile on when the outcome no longer is in doubt, but I have been favorably impressed by this user repeatedly, and I wanted to absolutely confirm my confidence for granting use of the tools.
380:
As with all people, I have various beliefs, but none so strong that I'd anticipate them causing problems here. I don't believe I've done any kind of opinionated editing here before, and I don't intend to
391:
Are you engaged currently, or were previously, in any activities off-wiki which (under your "real name", or your online "handle") which, if made public, could potentially bring
Knowledge into disrepute?
984:, force an AfD discussion if people still wanted it deleted. I'm sure there are all sorts of problems with this kind of function, but it's something I've had in my mind for a while and never brought up.
700:. If you came across a statement of intent to commit violence - either self-directed or against or other(s) would you contact law enforcement? Why or why not and if yes, under what circumstances?
144:
Altogether I believe Mazca would be an excellent administrator: He has an exemplary tone, he is extremely helpful, diligent, polite and he is fairly familiar with our project and its rules. —
3799:
Tan: Erotic is subjective, not objective. Little
Mountain 5: Neutral comments play no role in granting adminship. Julian you were correct, and I feel the same about this as Groomtech does.
3260:, and so on? Without understanding the core policies of WP, how can one use the admin tools properly? WP is not a social club where people socialize with each other. WP is an encyclopedia.
516:
acting in good faith. As lessons go, this was a rather nice one. I even find myself thinking "assume good faith" in real life sometimes, and it's not a bad policy there either. Most people
3305:
can turn off a potential contributor, not just our admins. That's the problem with grand hypotheticals like that; they are usually grand enough that they encompass both your own argument
3474:
editors, or report them to AIV); they are merely trusted with tools to enforce our policies and guidelines. Slight difference, but it's the crux of my objection to your statement.
1016:
in particular is often misused, but it does have a useful basis: AFD participation is always more useful if you elaborate on your points, and base them on policy. Certain parts of
1213:
Yeah, I do appreciate that those questions could be a little personal. I don't have anything too interesting to say to them myself so it's no problem as far as I'm concerned. ~
520:
out to stab you and steal your kidneys: if you generally assume they have your best intentions at heart unless you have reason to believe otherwise, many interactions go better.
262:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
3288:
A dude with a vacuum cleaner in a large library can't stop a scholar from entering the library, but a en.wikipedia admin can stop a scholar from contributing to en.wikipedia.
195:
He's also able to avoid merely parroting "Keep" or "Delete" on AfDs, writing rationales that show a clear understanding of what is (and isn't) appropriate content on Knowledge
3514:
If an ordinary guy were to say "Don't do this; otherwise, you may get arrested", I may not listen to him; but, if a cop were to say the same thing, I'll listen to the cop.
850:
inflame it?" - if an admin or other experienced editor can use their mediation skills to defuse the situation, then great; but I wouldn't go as far as to require it. ~
567:. As with any rights, these come with the associated responsibilities - those who infringe the rights of others or otherwise abuse the trust given them can have their
323:
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
3195:
Question: when you say 'audited contributions', what exactly do you mean? Good articles? Articles with peer reviews? Editor reviews? Just for clarification purposes.
116:
writer, he is rather active in the technical areas of the project. As for the main space, he mainly does a lot of (vandalism) clean up and copy editing (for instance
735:: No, I've never received any kind of real-life reward or remuneration for any activities on Knowledge. I have no objection to it on principle - places like the
955:
It's a fairly unlikely dream, I think, but I would personally add an additional, catch-all speedy deletion criterion that somewhat echoes the functionality of
619:, but isn't very good and is hard to source into a proper encyclopedia article. The result is, I think, that we need to reconsider how much-cited essays like
819:
What is your view on encouraging a pre-blocking protocol for dealing with established editors who have been uncivil, comprising the issuing by an admin of a
3848:
966:
137:) — in my opinion, those comments indicate that he has exactly the right character/temper for an administrator. Finally, he contributes regularly to the
3866:
1495:
I really did think he was a (good) administrator for the longest time. I have no problems with Mazca, and would be happy to see him as an administrator.
2822:
user whom I've had pleasant experience after experience. Again, not to pile on the support, but this is one support I just can't bear to delay. Cheers.
1391:, this user's comments on previous RFAs lead me to believe that they possess a high level of Clue, something that is in short supply around here today.
474:
Do you feel that admins should be subject to all policies, and the repercussions for possibly violating them, as if they were any other non-admin user?
1089:
711:
for someone more local to deal with it. In any case, a post to the relevant noticeboard is the obvious thing to do to notify people of the situation.
3695:
1627:
707:
2894:- over 4,000 edits, sufficient time on board, at least 400 edits in Knowledge, good barnstars, etc. C-nom by a person I respect. No concerns.
835:
protocol), as an alternative to blocking? More generally, do you encourage a shift towards admins' use of their mediation skills in such cases?
2232:. Fully qualified candidate, no issues. I must express my concern that the number of questions posed to candidates may be becoming excessive.
663:
way, there's is actually a big enough variation in texture between the heads and tails sides that, with practice, you can feel the difference.
1278:
129:, also providing evidence of strong policy knowledge by that contributions. Furthermore, Mazca occasionally comments on noticeboards (mostly
3589:- Anyone who allows himself to be nominated by admin Aitias, a vicious abuser of editors providing valuable content, cannot earn my trust.--
2564:
2086:
841::Sure, if the user apologises sincerely and strikes/removes the comments I'd say that's a good move. Civility blocks of established users
125:). There, in the technical areas, he has shown outstanding work: I have found him making very valuable contributions in a huge amount of
2182:
497:
You have been involved in Knowledge since 2006 (3 years): what are the most important things you feel you've learned during this time?
2644:
1076:
3749:
2119:
398:
No, none that I can think of. I can't say my personal life or my job is particularly contentious by any stretch of the imagination!
2308:
1975:
1860:
33:
17:
3528:
Eh, fair enough. We don't see eye-to-eye when it comes to article work in regards to adminship, but that's largely irrelevant.
1932:
1378:
1308:
1119:
939:. Speedy deletion is an area that it's important to keep up to date with, as proposed new criteria come and go quite regularly.
126:
1113:
529:
There are plenty of other things I've learned in my time here, but I'll save this answer from getting too excessively verbose.
2862:
2846:
2497:
2346:
Good candidate, will make a fine addition to our "ranks" with the mop. His speedy work is exemplary at many times and when I
1688:
1463:
782:
1083:
2287:
729:
Have you ever been paid to edit or maintain an article on Knowledge? Is paid editing on Knowledge an acceptable practice?
682:. If you came across an edit that said something to the effect of "I am going to kill myself." what would you do and why?
3214:
Generally GA/FA building, but if they are heavy into reviewing and PR I usually take that into consideration as well. --
3083:
3042:
3023:
2803:
2332:
2221:
1456:
1128:
503:
Interesting question, thank you. The first thing I've learned that springs to mind is the importance, and validity, of
3687:
2450:
2443:
Has clue, temperament, tenure and experience. Also I like to see a speedy tagger who also uses prod when appropriate.
1971:
1856:
1619:
1145:
1069:
965:. Namely, for articles that don't fit any speedy deletion criteria but are blatantly unsuitable for Knowledge (I have
113:
82:
3331:
Did I say "only admins can turn off a potential contributor"? I was responding to Stifle. His comparison was unjust.
771:
reasonable grievances against the use of or threat to use administrator tools in a way a user believes has breached
608:
For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?
3594:
2413:
2347:
2206:
3428:
3392:
3007:
1275:
1157:
3252:
This is a silly question. Without content contributions, how can one understand the core policies of WP such as
3410:
3148:
3064:
2559:
2281:
2081:
1503:
138:
3279:
3019:
2841:- I was reviewing him, but then I just got so busy IRL; everything I've reviewed of him seems good, so I'll
2825:
2376:
2218:
2019:
1957:
3719:
3679:
3669:
3612:
3229:
3060:
2445:
2140:
2038:
1841:
1758:
1657:
1611:
1583:
1553:
Thought you were an admin, quite honestly. Doing a great job at the minute, I'm sure that will continue.
1320:
1172:
802:
764:
3789:
3590:
3571:
3519:
3505:
3453:
3336:
3293:
3265:
3205:
3107:
2919:
2866:
2736:
2538:
2406:
2393:
2237:
1912:
1486:
1298:
3847:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
2195:
1952:
1855:
User has been around since May 2006 and as per nom of Aitias and EVula.Good track and see no concerns.
656:
What is the most impressive magic trick you could perform right now, without any research or practice?
3345:
I certainly wouldn't enter a library if there was a man with a vacuum cleaner trying to stop me! ;) ~
3738:
3557:
3424:
3388:
2778:
2607:
as I see no evidence the tools would be abused and I find the oppose opinions to be unconvincing. ···
2594:
2516:
2305:
2161:
2136:
1840:
I thought the candidate is already an admin (this sentence has two meanings, but this is good one).--
1732:
1272:
648:
287:
becoming backlogged during my regular editing times, and I'm sure I could do my bit to keep it clear.
3757:
3651:
3403:
3144:
2949:
2625:
2554:
2551:
2472:
2076:
1938:
1707:
1669:
1523:
1496:
1376:
949:
If you had the power to change a policy, which would you choose and what would you change and why?
921:
620:
1034:
one should always read the relevant segment properly before dismissing someone's argument with it.
2985:
2855:
2692:
2663:
2491:
2011:
1988:
1891:
1873:
1800:
1678:
1600:
1141:
999:
936:
185:
134:
3833:
3812:
3794:
3761:
3743:
3721:
3702:
3671:
3655:
3641:
3614:
3598:
3575:
3561:
3545:
3523:
3509:
3491:
3457:
3432:
3417:
3396:
3361:
3340:
3326:
3297:
3283:
3269:
3244:
3232:
3225:
Question: What does content contributions have to due with Administrator tools? I need to know.
3220:
3209:
3190:
3169:
3152:
3135:
3111:
3089:
3068:
3048:
3027:
3010:
2992:
2969:
2953:
2936:
2927:
2903:
2870:
2833:
2810:
2784:
2766:
2743:
2721:
2700:
2686:
2668:
2648:
2630:
2613:
2599:
2583:
2570:
2542:
2520:
2503:
2476:
2459:
2435:
2422:
2397:
2380:
2363:
2338:
2315:
2289:
2274:
2253:
2241:
2224:
2212:
2166:
2144:
2128:
2110:
2093:
2065:
2041:
2026:
1992:
1979:
1962:
1944:
1917:
1898:
1864:
1847:
1829:
1807:
1787:
1765:
1739:
1714:
1694:
1660:
1634:
1593:
1564:
1548:
1527:
1510:
1490:
1470:
1437:
1421:
1399:
1383:
1361:
1335:
1322:
1303:
1281:
1252:
1229:
1208:
1174:
866:
360:
251:
226:
162:
61:
3387:
I'm not confident that this editor has sufficient experience to be empowered with Admin tools.
1906:. Very knowledgeable editor, I'm surprised you aren't an administrator already! Best of luck,
3807:
3712:
3707:
3662:
3636:
3605:
3226:
2899:
2883:
2639:
2250:
2106:
2035:
1749:
1644:
1574:
1313:
1165:
564:
181:
3781:
3567:
3538:
3515:
3501:
3484:
3449:
3332:
3319:
3289:
3261:
3239:
3215:
3196:
3185:
3103:
2912:
2799:
2759:
2730:
2579:
2529:
2389:
2233:
2123:
1908:
1822:
1780:
1555:
1480:
1451:
1414:
1354:
1290:
1245:
1201:
1021:
736:
560:
489:
219:
155:
3730:
3553:
3534:
3480:
3315:
3167:
3128:
2772:
2589:
2512:
2357:
2298:
2249:. Good grasp on policy and excellent demeanor; I'm sure he will be an asset with the mop.
2153:
2058:
1818:
1776:
1727:
1410:
1063:
798:
772:
584:
556:
409:
215:
76:
57:
3102:. Good luck! I see every reason (look at the 84 above) to support and none to oppose. --
1181:
935:
I've participated in various discussions mostly around deletion policy, most visibly at
3753:
3647:
3471:
2945:
2933:
2819:
2677:
2622:
2468:
2431:
1926:
1701:
1519:
1367:
1333:
995:
981:
974:
959:
552:
537:
338:
130:
2578:
People with the temperament and skill to do audits are exactly what we need in syops.
551:
Speaking legally, all Wikipedians do indeed have at least one right - the right to be
209:
For the TLDR crowd, Mazca having the sysop tools would be a net gain for the project.
3860:
3830:
3822:
3004:
2980:
2850:
2709:
2657:
2608:
2485:
2175:
2006:
1984:
1885:
1794:
1546:
1017:
1013:
1003:
786:
719:
689:
572:
568:
545:
Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
504:
450:
429:
280:
276:
3801:
3630:
3257:
2963:
2895:
2878:
2264:
2102:
1431:
671:
449:
What are your views on Flagged Revisions, keeping in mind that the beta trials for
350:
363:) as a doppelganger account, but it's never been used and probably never will be.
3646:
Well I for one don't mind saying I have no idea what this is supposed to mean?
3445:
3275:
3253:
3119:- seen mazca around, like what I see; answers and nom statements look good too.
3076:
3035:
2794:
2754:
2372:
2325:
1446:
1344:
1235:
1191:
893:
876:
616:
309:
275:
From my own point of view, the place I'd find the tools most useful would be at
145:
1770:
You have no idea how tempting it is to reply with just "that's what she said".
3529:
3475:
3346:
3310:
3161:
3122:
2352:
2191:
2052:
1813:
1771:
1405:
1392:
1214:
1059:
851:
755:
236:
210:
169:
94:
88:
72:
3841:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
1328:
2323:
Qualified candidate. Unconvincing opposes. You'll do well with the mop. =)
2279:
Great user. Well-reasoned, moderated, responsible: suitable for the job. —
359:
This is the only user account I've made any edits on. I have one account (
3825:. It is good that the candidate has a few barnstars and looking through
3001:
1536:
744:- POV editing - rather than attacking the concept of paid editing itself.
2771:
Another Ambrosian asking to join the sysop ranks? How can I say no? :)
1812:
Commons has enough of those pictures, I don't need to contribute more.
284:
2118:- reasoned (and reassuring) answer to the question I posed, and meets
3851:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
3250:
What does content contributions have to due with Administrator tools?
2528:. Innocent until proven guilty, and no problems as far as I can see.
353:
before the +sysop bit is activated on your account, should you pass?
1144:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review
767:, a community-driven process—still in draft form—for dealing with
2932:
I've always thought that Mazca is a decent and sensible peron.
418:
I'm 24, which is certainly well over the age of majority here.
1024:, are often gratuitously mis-cited: a comment that describes
797:
Do you believe the policy on admin behaviour as expressed at
233:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
3566:
Only theoretically. Admins have the power to block editors.
3466:
in a position to tell others what to do or what not to do (
3160:, even thought it's unnecessary. You'll make a good admin.
2638:. No issues, seen you around, can be trusted with tools. --
2405:- Cliched- but genuinely thought this user was an admin :)
1699:
Has the experience and clue to work as an excellent admin.
633:
much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?
3660:
It's a reference to support #22 and subsequent comments. –
3402:
and ask for more general or specialized work. Sincerely,
886:
What is your favourite piece of classical music and why?
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
3274:
Even a huge library needs a dude with a vacuum cleaner.
453:
subjects after the numerous polls and surveys this year
297:
What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?
269:
What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
1188:
1107:
1101:
1095:
454:
305:
203:
201:
199:
197:
192:
190:
123:
120:
117:
2944:
Definitely in the "thought he already was" category.--
1872:
The oppose section doesn't give me cause for concern.
1179:
With regard to question Q5 and Q6 on this RfA, please
561:
not have their privacy infringed without their consent
235:
Thanks to both of you for the nomination. I accept. ~
1970:
You have enough experience to do the job right. :) \
1478:
Trustworthy editor who I've seen around. Good luck!
2047:
Genuine-fall-off-the-couch-thought-he-was-one-moment
3496:Anyone can warn editors or report them to AIV, but
565:
be able to edit freely unless there's a good reason
1535:. Good contributions. Sensible & trustworthy.
2621:. Always been a sensible voice in my experience.
1355:
1345:
1246:
1236:
1202:
1192:
156:
146:
178:(a fact that made us both feel prematurely old)
112:Whilst Mazca is admittedly not our most active
3676:What does that have to do with the candidate?
3628:Per erotic discussion in the support section.
2101:. No reason to believe he'd misuse the tools.
1747:per nomination (though EVula's was too long).
1445:I see no reason Mazca would misuse the tools.
2350:, I did not find any serious errors. Regards
1006:, for a few) have any weight in XFD debates?
827:to the recipient(s) of the incivility and to
8:
2751:I don't see why there would be any issues.
2217:Doesn't look like a bad candidate to me. –
929:What policy areas have you contributed to?
2676:, no problems with this user, good edits.
2122:for candidacy. Best of luck with the RfA.
1327:Thought he was already an admin support. –
1126:Edit summary usage for Mazca can be found
3827:discussions in which we both participated
3184:Lack of audited content contributions. --
56:Final: (86/4/2); closed as successful by
1163:Editing stats posted at the talk page. –
1140:Please keep discussion constructive and
670:More relevant (optional) questions from
3776:I'm pretty sure that discussion is the
2656:. Seriously, it's about time, mazca.
2550:- I thought you were an admin already!
2348:reviewed it 2 months ago at his request
457:to English Knowledge in mid/late 2009?
3603:EVula, a bureaucrat, also nominated. –
2911:"just sufficient time" on board :) --
180:, as he and I are both moderators for
2588:I always thought he was rational. --
785:, or complaints are made as usual at
7:
133:) and on project talk pages (mostly
803:in a codified and easy-to-read form
763:What is your view of the notion of
536:Additional optional questions from
488:Additional optional questions from
3444:- Not enough article work. Except
1404:Easiest choice I've made all day.
24:
3867:Successful requests for adminship
3750:as the actress said to the bishop
1572:Bam! I vote for thing I like. :P
308:after someone drive-by nominated
87:it’s an honour for me to present
1180:
907:Describe adminship in one word.
553:credited for their contributions
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
1271:Seems like a sound candidate.--
823:to the editor and a request to
3074:Indenting vote by sockpuppet.
3033:Indenting vote by sockpuppet.
2388:No problems here. Good luck!
897:place for classical music too.
783:Knowledge:Administrator review
692:to get some input from others.
1:
3143:will do well with the tools.
708:Responding to threats of harm
1311:. Should have co-nomed. :( –
3823:User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards
1158:User:Neurolysis/Counters.js
1146:Special:Contributions/Mazca
892:I really do love Smetana's
571:, and of course anyone has
258:Questions for the candidate
3883:
3728:Lara goes to get her whip.
3500:admins can block editors.
1429:Well-rounded, civil user.
583:Additional questions from
408:Are you over or under the
85:) – Ladies and gentlemen,
3834:19:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
3813:03:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
3795:14:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
3762:06:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
3744:00:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
3722:23:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
3703:22:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
3672:21:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
3656:21:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
3642:20:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
3615:16:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
3599:16:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
3576:09:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
3562:02:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
3546:19:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
3524:14:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
3510:13:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
3492:21:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
3458:16:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
3433:02:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
3418:20:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
3397:20:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
3362:21:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
3341:14:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
3327:21:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
3298:15:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
3284:22:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
3270:16:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
3245:23:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
3241:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
3233:22:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
3221:21:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
3217:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
3210:21:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
3191:20:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
3187:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
3170:11:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
3153:23:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
3136:18:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
3112:17:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
3090:18:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
3069:12:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
3049:18:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
3028:12:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
3011:10:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
3000:. Yep, looks good to me.
2993:04:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
2970:04:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
2954:20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
2937:16:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
2928:13:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
2904:21:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
2871:15:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
2834:15:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
2816:Even later to the support
2811:13:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
2790:Late to the party support
2785:23:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
2767:15:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
2744:05:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
2722:23:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
2701:22:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
2687:18:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
2669:15:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
2649:14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
2631:11:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
2614:10:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
2600:06:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
2584:23:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
2571:22:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
2543:21:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
2521:20:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
2504:19:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
2477:19:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
2460:16:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
2436:14:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
2423:13:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
2398:11:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
2381:10:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
2364:09:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
2339:08:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
2316:07:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
2290:07:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
2275:06:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
2254:06:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
2242:02:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
2225:01:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
2213:01:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
2183:00:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
2174:per xeno and J.delanoy. -
2167:00:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
2145:23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
2129:23:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
2111:23:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
2094:22:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
2066:22:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
2042:22:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
2027:22:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1993:22:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1980:21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1963:21:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1945:21:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1918:21:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1899:20:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1865:20:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1848:20:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1830:20:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1808:20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1788:19:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1766:19:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1740:19:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1715:19:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1695:18:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1661:18:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1635:18:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1594:18:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1565:18:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1549:18:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1528:17:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1511:17:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1491:17:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1471:17:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1438:17:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1422:17:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1400:17:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1384:17:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1362:17:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1336:17:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1323:16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1304:16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1282:16:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1253:18:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1230:18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1209:18:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1175:16:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
867:22:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
647:Additional question from
252:16:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
227:05:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
163:14:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
62:17:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
3844:Please do not modify it.
2261:Absolutely! Per above. -
994:Do longstanding essays (
831:the offending text (the
306:some serious referencing
139:Knowledge:Reference desk
3726:Wait, there's erotica?
1557:weburiedoursecretsinthe
1518:. No reason to oppose.
1037:In short, these essays
428:What are your views on
38:Please do not modify it
1972:Backslash Forwardslash
1857:Pharaoh of the Wizards
1668:- Without hesitation.
1341:(5 (!) edit conflicts)
569:rights to edit revoked
3552:Admins are not cops.
1882:Excellent candidate.
1289:per nom. Absolutely.
1234:All right then. :) —
805:on that policy page?
351:Arbitration Committee
277:articles for deletion
34:request for adminship
2371:, no reason not to.
1012:Within reason, yes.
432:as it stands today?
3158:Last minute support
2283:Anonymous Dissident
922:User:Carlossuarez46
505:assuming good faith
304:work I've done was
3748:Ah, I see it now,
3020:Mikhailov Kusserow
2286:
1148:before commenting.
967:this kind of thing
801:should be set out
573:the right to leave
557:be treated civilly
39:
3821:On the fence per
3692:
3684:
3134:
3092:
3051:
2887:
2808:
2806:So let it be done
2801:
2628:
2280:
2270:
2064:
2034:Yay for mopness.
2000:Excellent user.
1897:
1806:
1738:
1690:
1685:
1624:
1616:
1604:
1342:
1057:Links for Mazca:
205:
194:
182:Ambrosia Software
179:
168:Co-nomination by
37:
3874:
3846:
3810:
3804:
3792:
3786:
3741:
3736:
3715:
3698:
3693:
3690:
3685:
3682:
3665:
3639:
3633:
3608:
3591:Goodmorningworld
3544:
3541:
3490:
3487:
3413:
3359:
3325:
3322:
3309:the counter. ;)
3242:
3218:
3201:
3188:
3133:
3131:
3125:
3120:
3086:
3079:
3073:
3045:
3038:
3032:
2988:
2983:
2977:. Looks good. —
2966:
2881:
2858:
2853:
2828:
2804:
2800:
2781:
2775:
2764:
2762:
2757:
2740:
2699:this message! -
2684:
2666:
2660:
2626:
2611:
2597:
2592:
2567:
2562:
2557:
2534:
2500:
2494:
2488:
2457:
2453:
2448:
2420:
2411:
2360:
2355:
2335:
2328:
2313:
2303:
2284:
2273:
2268:
2209:
2203:
2199:
2180:
2164:
2159:
2126:
2089:
2084:
2079:
2063:
2061:
2050:
2025:
2022:
2018:
2014:
2009:
2005:
1960:
1955:
1941:
1935:
1929:
1896:
1894:
1883:
1828:
1825:
1805:
1803:
1792:
1786:
1783:
1764:
1761:
1752:
1737:
1735:
1724:
1712:
1704:
1689:
1683:
1679:
1673:
1659:
1654:
1651:
1648:
1630:
1625:
1622:
1617:
1614:
1598:
1590:
1586:
1580:
1577:
1561:
1558:
1545:
1541:
1506:
1489:
1483:
1466:
1459:
1454:
1449:
1434:
1420:
1417:
1397:
1374:
1359:
1353:
1349:
1343:Good luck! :) —
1340:
1316:
1301:
1295:
1250:
1244:
1240:
1227:
1206:
1200:
1196:
1184:
1168:
1131:
1123:
1082:
1052:General comments
979:
973:
964:
958:
864:
249:
225:
222:
196:
189:
177:
160:
154:
150:
127:deletion debates
114:featured article
107:
3882:
3881:
3877:
3876:
3875:
3873:
3872:
3871:
3857:
3856:
3855:
3849:this nomination
3842:
3808:
3802:
3790:
3782:
3739:
3731:
3713:
3696:
3688:
3680:
3663:
3637:
3631:
3625:
3606:
3539:
3532:
3485:
3478:
3462:Administrators
3425:ChildofMidnight
3411:
3389:ChildofMidnight
3347:
3320:
3313:
3240:
3216:
3199:
3186:
3178:
3129:
3123:
3121:
3088:
3084:
3077:
3061:Michel Mapaliey
3047:
3043:
3036:
2986:
2981:
2964:
2856:
2851:
2826:
2807:
2779:
2773:
2760:
2755:
2753:
2738:
2678:
2664:
2658:
2647:
2609:
2595:
2590:
2565:
2560:
2555:
2532:
2511:Excellent user
2498:
2492:
2486:
2455:
2451:
2446:
2414:
2407:
2358:
2353:
2337:
2333:
2326:
2312:
2309:
2299:
2282:
2267:
2262:
2207:
2201:
2197:
2176:
2162:
2154:
2124:
2120:my expectations
2087:
2082:
2077:
2059:
2051:
2020:
2016:
2012:
2007:
2003:
2001:
1958:
1953:
1939:
1933:
1927:
1892:
1884:
1823:
1816:
1801:
1793:
1781:
1774:
1759:
1750:
1748:
1733:
1725:
1708:
1702:
1693:
1684:
1681:
1671:
1652:
1649:
1646:
1643:
1628:
1620:
1612:
1588:
1584:
1578:
1575:
1559:
1556:
1543:
1537:
1504:
1485:
1479:
1469:
1464:
1457:
1452:
1447:
1432:
1415:
1408:
1393:
1381:
1368:
1351:
1314:
1299:
1291:
1265:
1242:
1215:
1198:
1166:
1155:
1127:
1075:
1058:
1054:
1020:, particularly
977:
971:
962:
956:
920:Questions from
875:Questions from
852:
754:Questions from
410:age of majority
337:Questions from
281:deletion review
260:
237:
220:
213:
152:
95:
70:
53:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3880:
3878:
3870:
3869:
3859:
3858:
3854:
3853:
3837:
3836:
3819:
3818:
3817:
3816:
3815:
3774:
3773:
3772:
3771:
3770:
3769:
3768:
3767:
3766:
3765:
3764:
3624:
3621:
3620:
3619:
3618:
3617:
3584:
3583:
3582:
3581:
3580:
3579:
3578:
3550:
3549:
3548:
3512:
3439:
3438:
3437:
3436:
3435:
3382:
3381:
3380:
3379:
3378:
3377:
3376:
3375:
3374:
3373:
3372:
3371:
3370:
3369:
3368:
3367:
3366:
3365:
3364:
3343:
3177:
3174:
3173:
3172:
3155:
3145:Carlossuarez46
3138:
3114:
3097:
3096:
3095:
3094:
3093:
3082:
3054:
3053:
3052:
3041:
2995:
2972:
2956:
2939:
2930:
2923:
2916:
2906:
2889:
2873:
2836:
2813:
2805:
2787:
2769:
2746:
2724:
2717:
2714:
2703:
2689:
2671:
2651:
2643:
2633:
2616:
2602:
2586:
2573:
2545:
2523:
2506:
2479:
2462:
2438:
2425:
2400:
2383:
2366:
2341:
2331:
2318:
2310:
2297:Net positive.—
2292:
2277:
2265:
2256:
2244:
2227:
2215:
2192:EVula Cabalist
2185:
2169:
2147:
2131:
2113:
2096:
2068:
2044:
2029:
1995:
1982:
1965:
1947:
1920:
1901:
1877:
1874:Meetare Shappy
1867:
1853:Strong Support
1850:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1742:
1717:
1697:
1680:
1676:
1663:
1637:
1596:
1567:
1551:
1530:
1513:
1493:
1476:Strong Support
1473:
1461:
1440:
1424:
1402:
1389:Strong Support
1386:
1379:
1364:
1338:
1325:
1306:
1284:
1264:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1177:
1154:
1151:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1133:
1124:
1053:
1050:
1048:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1035:
988:
987:
986:
985:
943:
942:
941:
940:
924:
917:
916:
915:
914:
901:
900:
899:
898:
880:
879:
872:
871:
870:
869:
847:
829:Strike through
814:
813:
812:
792:
791:
790:
758:
750:
748:
747:
746:
745:
740:deal with the
723:
722:
718:Question from
715:
714:
713:
712:
695:
694:
693:
667:
666:
665:
664:
651:
644:
643:
642:
641:
627:
626:
625:
603:
602:
601:
587:
580:
579:
578:
577:
540:
533:
532:
531:
530:
524:
523:
522:
521:
492:
485:
484:
483:
482:
468:
467:
466:
465:
443:
442:
441:
440:
422:
421:
420:
419:
402:
401:
400:
399:
385:
384:
383:
382:
367:
366:
365:
364:
342:
341:
334:
333:
332:
331:
317:
316:
315:
314:
291:
290:
289:
288:
259:
256:
255:
254:
173:
172:
93:(signature: ~
86:
69:
66:
52:
47:
45:
43:
42:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3879:
3868:
3865:
3864:
3862:
3852:
3850:
3845:
3839:
3838:
3835:
3832:
3828:
3824:
3820:
3814:
3811:
3806:
3805:
3798:
3797:
3796:
3793:
3787:
3785:
3779:
3775:
3763:
3759:
3755:
3751:
3747:
3746:
3745:
3742:
3737:
3734:
3729:
3725:
3724:
3723:
3720:
3717:
3716:
3709:
3706:
3705:
3704:
3701:
3700:
3699:
3694:
3686:
3675:
3674:
3673:
3670:
3667:
3666:
3659:
3658:
3657:
3653:
3649:
3645:
3644:
3643:
3640:
3635:
3634:
3627:
3626:
3622:
3616:
3613:
3610:
3609:
3602:
3601:
3600:
3596:
3592:
3588:
3585:
3577:
3573:
3569:
3565:
3564:
3563:
3559:
3555:
3551:
3547:
3542:
3536:
3531:
3527:
3526:
3525:
3521:
3517:
3513:
3511:
3507:
3503:
3499:
3495:
3494:
3493:
3488:
3482:
3477:
3473:
3469:
3465:
3461:
3460:
3459:
3455:
3451:
3447:
3443:
3440:
3434:
3430:
3426:
3421:
3420:
3419:
3416:
3414:
3407:
3406:
3400:
3399:
3398:
3394:
3390:
3386:
3383:
3363:
3360:
3358:
3354:
3350:
3344:
3342:
3338:
3334:
3330:
3329:
3328:
3323:
3317:
3312:
3308:
3304:
3301:
3300:
3299:
3295:
3291:
3287:
3286:
3285:
3281:
3277:
3273:
3272:
3271:
3267:
3263:
3259:
3255:
3251:
3248:
3247:
3246:
3243:
3236:
3235:
3234:
3231:
3228:
3224:
3223:
3222:
3219:
3213:
3212:
3211:
3207:
3203:
3202:
3194:
3193:
3192:
3189:
3183:
3180:
3179:
3175:
3171:
3168:
3166:
3164:
3159:
3156:
3154:
3150:
3146:
3142:
3139:
3137:
3132:
3126:
3118:
3115:
3113:
3109:
3105:
3101:
3098:
3091:
3087:
3081:
3080:
3072:
3071:
3070:
3066:
3062:
3058:
3055:
3050:
3046:
3040:
3039:
3031:
3030:
3029:
3025:
3021:
3017:
3014:
3013:
3012:
3009:
3006:
3003:
2999:
2996:
2994:
2991:
2990:
2989:
2984:
2976:
2973:
2971:
2968:
2967:
2961:Good record.
2960:
2957:
2955:
2951:
2947:
2943:
2940:
2938:
2935:
2931:
2929:
2925:
2924:
2921:
2918:
2917:
2914:
2910:
2907:
2905:
2901:
2897:
2893:
2890:
2885:
2880:
2877:
2874:
2872:
2868:
2864:
2860:
2859:
2854:
2848:
2844:
2840:
2837:
2835:
2832:
2831:
2829:
2821:
2818:An extremely
2817:
2814:
2812:
2809:
2802:
2798:
2797:
2791:
2788:
2786:
2783:
2782:
2776:
2770:
2768:
2765:
2763:
2758:
2750:
2747:
2745:
2742:
2741:
2734:
2733:
2728:
2725:
2723:
2720:
2719:
2718:
2715:
2712:
2707:
2704:
2702:
2698:
2694:
2693:Mailer Diablo
2690:
2688:
2685:
2683:
2682:
2675:
2672:
2670:
2667:
2661:
2655:
2654:Oh, heck yeah
2652:
2650:
2646:
2645:contributions
2641:
2637:
2634:
2632:
2629:
2624:
2620:
2617:
2615:
2612:
2606:
2603:
2601:
2598:
2593:
2587:
2585:
2581:
2577:
2574:
2572:
2568:
2563:
2558:
2553:
2549:
2546:
2544:
2540:
2536:
2535:
2527:
2524:
2522:
2518:
2514:
2510:
2507:
2505:
2501:
2495:
2489:
2483:
2480:
2478:
2474:
2470:
2466:
2463:
2461:
2458:
2454:
2449:
2442:
2439:
2437:
2433:
2429:
2426:
2424:
2421:
2419:
2418:
2412:
2410:
2404:
2401:
2399:
2395:
2391:
2387:
2384:
2382:
2378:
2374:
2370:
2367:
2365:
2362:
2361:
2356:
2349:
2345:
2342:
2340:
2336:
2330:
2329:
2322:
2319:
2317:
2314:
2306:
2304:
2302:
2296:
2293:
2291:
2288:
2285:
2278:
2276:
2272:
2271:
2260:
2257:
2255:
2252:
2248:
2245:
2243:
2239:
2235:
2231:
2228:
2226:
2223:
2220:
2216:
2214:
2210:
2204:
2200:
2193:
2189:
2186:
2184:
2181:
2179:
2173:
2170:
2168:
2165:
2160:
2157:
2151:
2148:
2146:
2142:
2138:
2135:
2132:
2130:
2127:
2121:
2117:
2114:
2112:
2108:
2104:
2100:
2097:
2095:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2085:
2080:
2072:
2069:
2067:
2062:
2056:
2055:
2048:
2045:
2043:
2040:
2037:
2033:
2030:
2028:
2024:
2023:
2015:
2010:
1999:
1996:
1994:
1990:
1986:
1983:
1981:
1977:
1973:
1969:
1966:
1964:
1961:
1956:
1951:
1948:
1946:
1942:
1936:
1930:
1924:
1921:
1919:
1916:
1914:
1910:
1905:
1902:
1900:
1895:
1889:
1888:
1881:
1878:
1875:
1871:
1868:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1851:
1849:
1846:
1844:
1839:
1831:
1826:
1820:
1815:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1804:
1798:
1797:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1784:
1778:
1773:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1762:
1756:
1755:
1746:
1743:
1741:
1736:
1730:
1729:
1721:
1718:
1716:
1713:
1711:
1706:
1705:
1698:
1696:
1691:
1686:
1675:
1674:
1667:
1664:
1662:
1658:
1656:
1655:
1641:
1638:
1636:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1626:
1618:
1607:
1602:
1601:edit conflict
1597:
1595:
1592:
1591:
1587:
1581:
1571:
1568:
1566:
1563:
1562:
1552:
1550:
1547:
1542:
1540:
1534:
1531:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1514:
1512:
1509:
1507:
1500:
1499:
1494:
1492:
1488:
1482:
1477:
1474:
1472:
1467:
1460:
1455:
1450:
1444:
1441:
1439:
1436:
1435:
1428:
1425:
1423:
1418:
1412:
1407:
1403:
1401:
1398:
1396:
1390:
1387:
1385:
1382:
1377:
1375:
1372:
1365:
1363:
1360:
1358:
1350:
1348:
1339:
1337:
1334:
1332:
1331:
1326:
1324:
1321:
1318:
1317:
1310:
1307:
1305:
1302:
1296:
1294:
1288:
1285:
1283:
1280:
1277:
1274:
1270:
1267:
1266:
1262:
1254:
1251:
1249:
1241:
1239:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1228:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1207:
1205:
1197:
1195:
1189:
1187:
1183:
1178:
1176:
1173:
1170:
1169:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1152:
1150:
1149:
1147:
1143:
1134:
1130:
1125:
1121:
1118:
1115:
1112:
1109:
1106:
1103:
1100:
1097:
1094:
1091:
1088:
1085:
1081:
1078:
1074:
1071:
1068:
1065:
1061:
1056:
1055:
1051:
1049:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1008:
1007:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
990:
989:
983:
976:
968:
961:
954:
951:
950:
948:
945:
944:
938:
934:
931:
930:
928:
925:
923:
919:
918:
912:
909:
908:
906:
903:
902:
895:
891:
888:
887:
885:
882:
881:
878:
874:
873:
868:
865:
863:
859:
855:
848:
844:
840:
837:
836:
834:
830:
826:
822:
818:
815:
810:
807:
806:
804:
800:
796:
793:
788:
784:
780:
777:
776:
774:
770:
766:
762:
759:
757:
753:
752:
751:
743:
738:
734:
731:
730:
728:
725:
724:
721:
717:
716:
709:
705:
702:
701:
699:
696:
691:
687:
684:
683:
681:
678:
677:
676:
675:
673:
661:
658:
657:
655:
652:
650:
646:
645:
638:
635:
634:
631:
628:
622:
618:
613:
610:
609:
607:
604:
598:
595:
594:
591:
588:
586:
582:
581:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
547:
546:
544:
541:
539:
535:
534:
528:
527:
526:
525:
519:
515:
510:
506:
502:
499:
498:
496:
493:
491:
487:
486:
479:
476:
475:
473:
470:
469:
462:
459:
458:
456:
452:
448:
445:
444:
437:
434:
433:
431:
427:
424:
423:
417:
414:
413:
411:
407:
404:
403:
397:
394:
393:
390:
387:
386:
379:
376:
375:
372:
369:
368:
362:
358:
355:
354:
352:
347:
344:
343:
340:
336:
335:
328:
325:
324:
322:
319:
318:
311:
307:
302:
299:
298:
296:
293:
292:
286:
282:
278:
274:
271:
270:
268:
265:
264:
263:
257:
253:
250:
248:
244:
240:
234:
231:
230:
229:
228:
223:
217:
212:
207:
204:
202:
200:
198:
193:
191:
187:
183:
171:
167:
166:
165:
164:
161:
159:
151:
149:
142:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
121:
118:
115:
110:
108:
106:
102:
98:
92:
91:
84:
81:
78:
74:
67:
65:
64:
63:
59:
51:
48:
46:
41:
35:
32:
27:
26:
19:
3843:
3840:
3800:
3783:
3777:
3732:
3727:
3714:Juliancolton
3711:
3678:
3677:
3664:Juliancolton
3661:
3629:
3607:Juliancolton
3604:
3586:
3497:
3467:
3463:
3441:
3408:
3404:
3384:
3356:
3352:
3348:
3306:
3302:
3249:
3227:Renaissancee
3197:
3181:
3162:
3157:
3140:
3116:
3099:
3075:
3056:
3034:
3015:
2997:
2979:
2978:
2974:
2962:
2958:
2941:
2920:
2913:
2908:
2891:
2875:
2849:
2842:
2838:
2824:
2823:
2815:
2795:
2789:
2777:
2752:
2748:
2737:
2731:
2726:
2711:
2710:
2705:
2696:
2680:
2679:
2673:
2653:
2640:Patar knight
2635:
2618:
2604:
2575:
2547:
2530:
2525:
2508:
2481:
2464:
2444:
2440:
2432:push to talk
2427:
2416:
2415:
2408:
2402:
2385:
2368:
2351:
2343:
2324:
2320:
2300:
2294:
2263:
2258:
2246:
2229:
2219:BuickCentury
2196:
2187:
2177:
2171:
2155:
2149:
2133:
2115:
2098:
2078:bibliomaniac
2075:
2074:
2070:
2053:
2046:
2036:Renaissancee
2031:
2002:
1997:
1967:
1949:
1922:
1907:
1903:
1886:
1879:
1869:
1852:
1842:
1795:
1753:
1744:
1726:
1719:
1709:
1700:
1670:
1665:
1645:
1639:
1610:
1609:
1608:per Garden.
1605:
1582:
1573:
1569:
1554:
1538:
1532:
1515:
1501:
1497:
1475:
1442:
1430:
1426:
1394:
1388:
1370:
1356:
1346:
1329:
1315:Juliancolton
1312:
1292:
1286:
1268:
1247:
1237:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1203:
1193:
1190:. Thanks, —
1185:
1167:Juliancolton
1164:
1156:
1139:
1138:
1116:
1110:
1104:
1098:
1092:
1086:
1079:
1072:
1066:
1047:
1038:
1030:
1025:
1009:
991:
952:
946:
932:
926:
910:
904:
889:
883:
861:
857:
853:
842:
838:
832:
828:
824:
820:
816:
808:
794:
778:
773:admin policy
768:
760:
749:
741:
737:reward board
732:
726:
703:
697:
685:
679:
669:
668:
659:
653:
636:
629:
621:WP:POTENTIAL
611:
605:
596:
589:
548:
542:
517:
513:
508:
500:
494:
477:
471:
460:
446:
435:
425:
415:
405:
395:
388:
377:
370:
356:
349:them to the
345:
326:
320:
300:
294:
272:
266:
261:
246:
242:
238:
232:
208:
174:
157:
147:
143:
111:
104:
100:
96:
89:
79:
71:
55:
54:
49:
44:
30:
28:
3780:of erotic.
3568:AdjustShift
3516:AdjustShift
3502:AdjustShift
3450:AdjustShift
3446:Iron Maiden
3333:AdjustShift
3290:AdjustShift
3262:AdjustShift
3182:Weak oppose
3104:Airplaneman
2580:TharsHammar
2467:No issues.
2390:Pastor Theo
2234:Newyorkbrad
2198:Master&
2125:Coldmachine
1925:Impressed.
1909:Malinaccier
1642:per above.
1000:WP:OUTCOMES
769:prima facie
765:AdminReview
490:Coldmachine
310:Iron Maiden
3708:WP:SARCASM
3554:Kingturtle
2513:Triplestop
2301:S Marshall
2137:Keepscases
1950:Make it so
1366:Per Xeno.
1357:discussion
1248:discussion
1204:discussion
1153:Discussion
649:Keepscases
585:Jennavecia
455:are coming
361:User:Macza
158:discussion
68:Nomination
58:Kingturtle
31:successful
3754:Groomtech
3648:Groomtech
2946:Aervanath
2934:Acalamari
2888:19:30, 15
2861:(Toolbox
2681:Wizardman
2623:Sjakkalle
2469:America69
1959:cierekim
1928:rootology
1579:The Ninja
1520:Otisjimmy
1465:review me
1102:block log
1022:WP:USEFUL
825:Apologise
538:Groomtech
339:Rootology
3861:Category
3831:A Nobody
3778:opposite
3198:Bsimmons
3008:three...
2922:Cherian
2627:(Check!)
2531:Bsimmons
2487:Giants27
2456:Chequers
2417:Proposal
1985:Icewedge
1887:iMatthew
1796:iMatthew
1672:Wisdom89
1427:Support.
1279:firestar
1070:contribs
1042:blindly.
894:Má vlast
799:WP:ADMIN
720:Dekimasu
83:contribs
3691:OUNTAIN
3623:Neutral
3141:Support
3117:Support
3100:Support
3057:Support
3016:Support
2998:Support
2987:xplicit
2975:Support
2965:MBisanz
2959:Support
2942:Support
2909:Support
2896:Bearian
2892:Support
2879:Toddst1
2876:Support
2843:support
2839:Support
2820:clueful
2749:Support
2727:Support
2706:Support
2697:approve
2674:Support
2636:Support
2619:Support
2605:Support
2576:Support
2552:King of
2548:Support
2526:Support
2509:Support
2482:Support
2465:Support
2441:Support
2428:Support
2409:Perfect
2403:Support
2386:Support
2369:Support
2344:Support
2321:Support
2295:Support
2259:Support
2247:Support
2230:Support
2178:t'shael
2172:Support
2150:Support
2134:Support
2116:Support
2103:Jafeluv
2099:Support
2071:Support
2032:Support
1998:Support
1968:Support
1923:Support
1904:Support
1880:Support
1870:Support
1843:Caspian
1754:Symonds
1745:Support
1720:Support
1666:Support
1640:Support
1623:OUNTAIN
1606:Support
1585:lemming
1570:Support
1533:Support
1516:Support
1481:Dotty••
1443:Support
1433:Spencer
1373:delanoy
1309:Support
1287:Support
1269:Support
1263:Support
1077:deleted
996:WP:SNOW
982:WP:PROD
821:Warning
742:effects
672:Toddst1
285:CAT:CSD
131:WP:AN/I
3710:. :) –
3587:Oppose
3468:anyone
3464:aren't
3442:Oppose
3385:Oppose
3303:Anyone
3276:Stifle
3230:(talk)
3176:Oppose
3124:Frank
3078:Aditya
3037:Aditya
2796:Xymmax
2756:hmwith
2732:Valley
2695:and I
2659:Keeper
2373:Stifle
2327:Aditya
2269:ASTILY
2222:Driver
2202:Expert
2188:Oppose
2039:(talk)
1560:garden
1347:Aitias
1238:Aitias
1194:Aitias
1031:should
1018:WP:ATA
1014:WP:ATA
1004:WP:ATA
937:WT:CSD
913:Trust.
877:Seddon
787:WP:ANI
690:WP:ANI
563:, and
518:aren't
451:WP:BLP
430:WP:BLP
381:start.
186:WT:RFA
148:Aitias
135:WT:RFA
3740:vecia
3683:ITTLE
3530:EVula
3476:EVula
3311:EVula
3258:WP:RS
3130:talk
2863:Alpha
2852:Dylan
2780:Cobra
2774:Glass
2596:fisto
2591:Menti
2452:Spiel
2251:Shell
2163:vecia
2060:Chat
2054:Pedro
2021:sign!
1893:Chat
1814:EVula
1802:Chat
1772:EVula
1751:Peter
1703:ceran
1653:valse
1647:tempo
1615:ITTLE
1406:EVula
1395:Nakon
1186:Note:
1142:civil
1084:count
1060:Mazca
975:prod2
960:prod2
756:Tony1
509:least
211:EVula
170:EVula
90:Mazca
73:Mazca
50:Mazca
16:<
3758:talk
3735:enna
3652:talk
3595:talk
3572:talk
3558:talk
3535:talk
3520:talk
3506:talk
3498:only
3481:talk
3472:warn
3470:can
3454:talk
3429:talk
3412:Talk
3393:talk
3337:talk
3316:talk
3294:talk
3280:talk
3266:talk
3254:WP:V
3206:talk
3165:ozal
3149:talk
3108:talk
3065:talk
3059:. —
3024:talk
3018:. —
2950:talk
2915:Tinu
2900:talk
2884:talk
2867:Beta
2739:city
2716:fold
2713:Hers
2691:I'm
2582:and
2539:talk
2517:talk
2473:talk
2447:Ϣere
2394:talk
2377:talk
2311:Cont
2238:talk
2208:Talk
2158:enna
2141:talk
2107:talk
2013:load
2008:down
1989:talk
1976:talk
1954:Dloh
1913:talk
1861:talk
1845:blue
1819:talk
1777:talk
1760:talk
1728:Ched
1710:thor
1524:talk
1505:Talk
1411:talk
1380:adds
1330:xeno
1276:2216
1129:here
1114:rfar
1096:logs
1064:talk
992:23c.
947:23b.
927:23a.
630:13c.
617:WP:N
606:13b.
590:13a.
279:and
216:talk
77:talk
3788:|
3784:Tan
3752:.
3537://
3533://
3483://
3479://
3318://
3314://
3307:and
3200:666
3005:two
3002:One
2857:620
2642:- /
2610:日本穣
2533:666
2359:Why
1974:/ {
1821://
1817://
1779://
1775://
1539:Axl
1453:meh
1448:Tim
1413://
1409://
1352://
1297:|
1293:Tan
1273:Res
1243://
1199://
1120:spi
1090:AfD
1026:why
905:22.
884:21.
843:are
833:WAS
817:20.
795:19.
761:18.
727:17.
654:14.
543:12.
495:11.
472:10.
218://
214://
153://
141:.
60:at
3863::
3803:Sy
3791:39
3760:)
3718:|
3668:|
3654:)
3632:Sy
3611:|
3597:)
3574:)
3560:)
3543://
3522:)
3508:)
3489://
3456:)
3431:)
3405:NW
3395:)
3339:)
3324://
3296:)
3282:)
3268:)
3256:,
3238:--
3208:)
3151:)
3127:|
3110:)
3067:)
3026:)
2952:)
2926:-
2902:)
2869:)
2865:,
2845:.
2665:76
2662:|
2569:♠
2541:)
2519:)
2502:)
2484:--
2475:)
2434:)
2396:)
2379:)
2354:So
2240:)
2211:)
2190:—
2143:)
2109:)
2073:.
2057::
2049:.
1991:)
1978:}
1943:)
1937:)(
1890::
1863:)
1827://
1799::
1785://
1734:?
1731::
1687:/
1650:di
1526:)
1498:NW
1419://
1319:|
1300:39
1171:|
1108:lu
1039:do
1010:A.
1002:,
998:,
978:}}
972:{{
963:}}
957:{{
953:A.
933:A.
911:A:
890:A:
775:?
698:16
680:15
660:A:
637:A:
612:A:
597:A:
559:,
549:A:
514:is
501:A:
478:A:
461:A:
447:9.
436:A:
426:8.
416:A:
412:?
406:7.
396:A:
389:6.
378:A:
371:5.
357:A:
346:4.
327:A:
321:3.
301:A:
295:2.
273:A:
267:1.
224://
122:,
119:,
36:.
3809:n
3756:(
3733:ل
3697:5
3689:M
3681:L
3650:(
3638:n
3593:(
3570:(
3556:(
3540:☯
3518:(
3504:(
3486:☯
3452:(
3427:(
3415:)
3409:(
3391:(
3357:a
3355:c
3353:z
3351:a
3349:m
3335:(
3321:☯
3292:(
3278:(
3264:(
3204:(
3163:J
3147:(
3106:(
3085:ß
3063:(
3044:ß
3022:(
2982:Σ
2948:(
2898:(
2886:)
2882:(
2847:→
2830:'
2827:I
2761:τ
2735:2
2566:♣
2561:♦
2556:♥
2537:(
2515:(
2499:c
2496:|
2493:t
2490:(
2471:(
2392:(
2375:(
2334:ß
2307:/
2266:F
2236:(
2205:(
2156:ل
2139:(
2105:(
2088:5
2083:1
2017:׀
2004:-
1987:(
1940:T
1934:C
1931:(
1915:)
1911:(
1876:`
1859:(
1824:☯
1782:☯
1763:)
1757:(
1692:)
1682:T
1677:(
1629:5
1621:M
1613:L
1603:)
1599:(
1589:'
1576:'
1544:¤
1522:(
1508:)
1502:(
1487:☎
1484:|
1468:)
1462:(
1458:!
1416:☯
1371:.
1369:J
1225:a
1223:c
1221:z
1219:a
1217:m
1132:.
1122:)
1117:·
1111:·
1105:·
1099:·
1093:·
1087:·
1080:·
1073:·
1067:·
1062:(
862:a
860:c
858:z
856:a
854:m
839:A
809:A
779:A
733:A
704:A
686:A
674::
247:a
245:c
243:z
241:a
239:m
221:☯
188:.
105:a
103:c
101:z
99:a
97:m
80:·
75:(
40:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.