Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Moralis

2015:

referendum on the alternative formatting. The fact that Mackensen's RFB (still open) is also a vote of this type should have at least given you warning about the result of your decision. Thus I find your acceptance poorly thought through if you were indeed aware of the consequences. Additionally I dislike the alternative format, and much of the thinking behind it. I strongly disagree with Mackensen's idea that voting should be completely suspended and admins appointed by bureaucratic fiat, which is what your RFA format is an extension of. Your responses indicate that you agree with this new formatting, which I personally find to be poor judgement. I suspect that if other users are correct and you are simply inexperienced, that more experience in wikipedia would have lead to you understanding the ramifications of your acceptance.

2515:. Witnessed this user in conversation with someone critical of him showing a lot of both sense and courtesy. I assume anyone who can respond to frustrating situations like that will also be able to do whatever is required of an admin with the same sense and courtesy. And beyond a minimal consideration of time and experience, that is really all I ask. I don't care how many Portal Talk edits you have or whether you want to get your hands dirty making the sausages (how's that for a mixed metaphor?) or whether you edit consistently or in bursts. Any level-headed person should be able to be an admin. And the format of this page is only to be counted in favor—it's about time people had to read 5266:

pointed out their meatpuppetry, not that it was irrelevant. It was rude of you to make a blanket statement accusing all of the users who disagreed with you of vandalism and meatpuppetry, and I said so. I also criticized the vandalism and meatpuppetry that did go on. Please also do not make a big deal out of my criticizing you without mentioning that I was at least as hard on your "opposition" for lack of a better term. I was also extremely nice about everything I said, which can't be said for the rest of the parties involved with that case. It should also be noted, for the sake of clarity, that Larry Dunn was the only person to refuse to be a part of the mediation. --

4267:(not missing, as I mentioned above) and in the shop (Apple Store sent it to Tennessee for repair, Tennessee sent it back with a note saying "we'll fix it for $ 900," Apple sent it back with $ 900, Tennessee sent it back to me... twice). If I were able to make anonymous edits while that were going on, I would have been able to log in, so making edits as an IP during that period would have been pointless. No, I took a Wikibreak during periods of not having my own computer, as I was working during the library's open hours anyway. No. I made edits as an IP during the period between my first five or so edits, and the rest of my edits- a roughly year-long period of time. 3913:

think rather, that this is just too much for people to wade through, so they give up. They look at your edit history, see the gap, and draw a conclusion. You could say they are taking the easy way out, or you could say that the format has made it too difficult for the average user to make a properly informed opinion. After all, people are hopefully here for the primary purpose of working on the encyclopedia, rather than devoting perhaps an hour to digesting all this before they can voice their opinion. Frankly, due to the formatting, I’m not sure that you will even come back across this comment that I am making now to be able to reply. --

4682:

doesn't show any sort of advanced judgment. I see very little in his contributions that strongly indicates he'd be a good judge of where an article should be located, what should be deleted, how to respond to a 3RR report, how to mediate lengthy disputes, when to protect a page, or when to close a discussion. Editors who have worked at length on articles learn these things through context and experience. Editors who revert vandalism all day have very little experience with the rest of that. That doesn't necessarily mean they can't be good admins, but it takes quite a bit more experience than Moralis has.

3938:

that there are far more repeated comments on this page, that would have been reduced to "per User:X". If all of this were sorted, there would be less duplication, which would improve readability, which would keep you from being frustrated about the situation. Also, you are getting at least some opposes from people who can't see your responses, that might have supported you if they were more easily able to parse all of the text on this page. Let me say, this is your RFA, and if you want it to go this way, that’s your call. I’m just trying to help rationalize what is going on here. --

1644:. Besides the lack of experience, I went and looked through your edits today. In the timespan of roughly 19:30 to 20:00 today, you made a lot of vandal warnings on user talk pages, yet almost no actual reverts to the page. I would've excused a vandalproof glitch for a couple things, but certainly you would've kept a browser window open to make sure you were rv'ing the edits? It shows rather questionable judgment to me. The two combined, plus the idea that you're joined all this other stuff such as MedCab very recently suggests progress towards adminship, but not there yet.-- 2880:

observed, encountered, or undergone". On Knowledge, administrators are supposed to be users who have gone through this, thus prepared to face situations that require special intervention. A high edit count indicates that a particular user has had encounters with many different situations from which experience was acquired. On the other hand, a careful examination of the edits made by a user with a low count indicates the way they are prone to react to a low number of situations. Experience is a bulky process and is usually proportional to the edit count, like it or not.--

706:, and has carried on the mediation tasks in a professional and intelligent manner; and the main-space contributions I have looked through from this user's edit history have been well thought out. In my random sampling of edits, I was unable to detect any civility violations. When faced with this profile - obvious awareness of how to go about doing things, civil attitude, and clear usefulness in solving disputes - I think we should be less carping about matters such as edit-count and time length, and not carry on this ridiculous pursuit of editorial dick-waving. -- 535:

example, I was recently (briefly, I have now stepped away because I have lost my neutrality) involved with a mediation case involving the ethnicity of the article's subject. One of the main points being argued was the subject's daughter's interpretation of the subject's ethnicity. Some users claimed that she was a secondary source, because she was obviously not the article's subject. However, because of the unique nature of the information she was supplying (it reflected her own ethnicity as well), many considered her a primary source (the position I took).

2204:

responsible for the format, just because it's my RfA doesn't mean I formatted it) I can accept it. If you're opposing me on the basis that you disapprove of my reverting your edit... well. Like I said, I'm not opposed to changing the format of this page back to "standard." I just think it needs to be discussed first, rather than being done out of the blue by one user. Furthermore, I think it needs to be done in one edit to be sure that no comments are erased by accident in the process. Also, while I appreciate your support, Aminz, please do be nice =P --

1174:: Those in opposition can't come up with anything other than ridiculous editcountitis crap to base their opposes on. Sorry, but that's not evaluating a candidate as to whether they can be trusted or not. I *HAVE* done a review of the candidate, and find nothing to suggest this candidate can not be trusted. In fact, I've found quite the reverse. He's patient, thoughtful, articulate and level headed. All qualities I'd like to see in an admin. Those opposing based on editcountitis (all of the opposes, to date) should be ashamed of themselves. -- 2371:- you know what? This format actually forced me to look at the candidate, his comments, the answers, his contribs, and everyone else's opinion first for a a change. Wonderful. I heartily urge the closing crat to ignore each and every opinion based on editcountitis: this user seems thoughtful, well-intentioned and fairly knowledgeable about how things work. That's good enough, and if he doesn't know something I trust him not to mess up guessing and to leave it for someone else. Ignore the edit count: this one deserves the tools. 4427:

appeared to me to be rational. You also made a couple of comments that several users, including myself, perceived as hostile. My response was intended to try to find out why you were so upset/angry/offended/call it what you will- I now understand that you weren't, but your words did make it seem that way. I'm very sorry if you thought I was trying to make trouble or perpetuate that dispute. I was genuinely concerned that someone could be so offended by this RfA and I wanted to get to the bottom of it =P --

440:, but exclusionism can be taken at least as far as inclusionism, and it sometimes is. I tend to ask myself whether I can envision a reader finding the article helpful (read: useful- interesting and useful are two separate issues) and if the answer is yes, I will generally support the content's inclusion, regardless of what the policies have to say about it. It's my opinion that, in general, if content is useful to somebody, it's made Knowledge more useful as a whole. 1252:: While I do believe this user can be trusted and would probably be an asset as an administrator, I am not quite sure if this user has enough experience quite yet. I am not leaning towards support or oppose as I am completely undecided and I think this user still needs to prove themself before being accepted as an administrator. While I would not be dissapointed if Moralis did become an administrator I do not think they have the experience needed quite yet. 331:: "If you disagree with a policy(/guideline), attempt to change it reasonably through our policy-making system. Do not create violations to prove that the policy is flawed. Also, don't create a situation where the policy is used even though it plainly doesn't apply/isn't reasonable. Basically, if you can't make your point through traditional discussion, you probably haven't got a point. Don't use underhanded means to try to make one anyway." 3463:

you the opposite. Calling your own comments 'intellectual' while terming mine 'overly hostile' is not making me warm to your position. I had no opinion about you as an candidate, but based on this little discussion I now think you're unsuitable. How could you even presume to 'question my vote' for example? I'm being perfectly civil, it's you who chose to enter into a debate about my simple comment that this format is a complete mess.

1323:. Edit counts can be used in analysis of an editor's contributions, but they have their limitations. Opposing purely on grounds of "no experience due to no edits" does not consider two things - the first is that reading policies, engaging in discussions, writing articles, or in this case, mediating disputes do not require pressing "Save page" that much; as a result, they're not properly measured in edit counts. The second is that 5248:

mediator, noted that there was considerable meatpuppeting going on in the debate, yet then claimed I was completely out of line for bringing up that very relevant fact myself. He proved susceptible to the lengthy diatribes posted by the various meatpuppet accounts in this debate -- at one point actually agreeing to watch my contributions in future on behalf of these meatpuppet accounts. This vow was made to a user,

4407:- I am simply stating it as my interpretation of a fact. And for my money that is something that a would be administrator (or their supporter/s) should be able to make comment on - or to ask me for further clarification (you will note again that I had immediately in two places - for all to see - explicity stated that I was not angry with him/her) - without any person assuming (in bad faith) that I am angry.-- 71: 1990:: I would oppose (mostly) someone who had the poor judgement to accept an RFA nomination only a week after their first nomination, because it reeks of poor judgement. In the same way, your acceptance of a new formatting for your RFA shows (in my opinion) poor judgement. The stated purpose of trying out this RFA format is to fix percieved problems with RFA (see the talk page). 3856:

and blatant vandalism, anyway). Obviously this was a bizarre view to take. Now, I'm not asking anyone to consider that year an active year, but I am asking them not to hold it against me. That I registered a year before I started contributing doesn't mean anything, as far as I'm concerned. My contributions (as far as you guys can see) pretty much begin in October, 2006. --

1091:. Apparently promotions are often given to people who are good at getting promotions, as opposed to people who are suited to the job. Put that way it's totally logical ;-) On the internet, but even as far back as Roman and Greek times, people have known that (perhaps paradoxically to some) often the job is best given to the person who least wants it. -- 3382:: that's not true. Someone with a similar background was made an admin with an even lower edit count a bit over a year or so ago, with very little opposition. (And you would have an exceptionally hard time convincing me that the necessarily qualities of a good admin have changed so much in that time that it is now unacceptable and stuntlike.) 2765:. Adminship is no big deal. He wants to help with admin chores, and I see nothing to indicate he would misuse the mop or the bucket. The user has little experience long term, but shows good judgement and activity. If you don't succeed this time, try again in 3 months and if you keep this level of activity you will pass with flying colors.-- 2809:

sometimes be unfair and inaccurate, but I'm yet to see a better indicator of a user's experience (and I stress "indicator"). This trend to blame edit count for unsuccessful candidacies is unnecessary. Opposing due to edit count represents concerns related to lack of experience or preparedness, and these are perfectly valid arguments.--

4141:

format of this page, please remember that RfA formats are not policy (or even in a guideline), and there is obviously no consensus on what is the "proper" format. I believe that accusing me of a breach of policy or procedure is factually inaccurate, but if someone would like to refute that assertion, I'm quite open to criticism. --

1327:: laptops break down, people move, classes or work take priority, etc. That does not necessarily mean that a user with 700 edits is any less committed to advancing Knowledge's mission than a user with 70,000. Besides, as they say, if an admin makes one admin action a year, it is still a net benefit to the project. Ergo, support. 811:

in mediation disputes. A suggestion (not that I'm an admin) is to work more on the backlogs and be active in Xfds. It seems you have quite a bit of experience here, with your excellent knowledge of most aspects of Knowledge. Hopefully, you'll make adminship, but if you don't, those are some of the things you may want to work on.

4250:) there will be 1000's of edits so how about say 50 or so edits and dates that you are willing to claim anonymous credit for? Can you do that Moralis because then your argument as to confirmed edit count under your registered name versus edit count under your transient anonymity will have a far greater level of veracity.-- 4403:- which is glib - and that is not meant to be offensive to Moralis, (as I have now said on 3 occasions) or in fact to Durin or Kim Bruning. As for your comment on measuring excellence - whilst you may see the fact that I argue that his lack of a large quantity of edits as being unhelpful in proving his excellence as 4137:

experiment. The only people whose lives are made more difficult by the format are the b-crats, and at least one crat has stated that they'll need to see the format tried before passing judgement on it. So here we go, trying it out, so that you all can point to this RfA as an example when you argue about it later.

1739:, sorry. Very, very low edit count in all areas with this account, not enough evidence that this user (whose devotion and enthusiasm are most welcome) is experienced enough to be entrusted with the admin tools. Adminship is indeed no big deal, but it's quite a responsibility and should not be taken with levity.-- 4618:

as before. This is flawed reasoning. An edit that made significant improvements to an article is just as valuable as it was five years ago. There's no reason to believe it is any less valuable. Yet, people are treating such edits as less valuable. This is a horribly wrong attitude in every respect. Edits like

3333:

garner me any publicity when I did. Besides which, it's obviously engendered as much resentment as it has support, and I wish users would learn to detach me from the format of this page. Just because this page is a discussion about me does not mean that I am responsible for the format that discussion takes. --

3110:

following some process more or less exactly. Bad, or badly informed, decisions by administrators can have a surprisingly large impact, and that's just as true of page protection as of blocks or (un)deletions. It is not some arbitrary number of edits that I'm looking for, but rather a solid grasp of the

2937:, unfortunately. While I think he'll make a great admin in a few months, I would prefer not to have anyone who thinks "interesting" or "useful" are valid AfD arguments evaluating or closing AfDs. I think some more experience will help with this, and I imagine next time around I'll be on the other side. 5113:

despite lower level of credited edits, the candidate displays a high level of knowledge and prowess. Great work at MEDCAB which is the hardest job on WP, in my opinion, because you are trying to solve problems without even the credibility of an official group like MedCom or ArbCom. Question of trust

4723:

Durin, I'm not sure that systematically replying to every oppose is very productive. You have now said that opposers should be "ashamed of themselves", are too lazy to read a poorly factored RfA and dismissed all concerns as absurd. If the only admin tool that Moralis needs is a rollback button, then

4649:

might demonstrate a need. Simple reverts? Limitless. There's never a need for the tools if all you do is revert vandalism here and there. Knowledge was a very different place back when Jimbo said adminship was no big deal. If you still choose to believe that, that's fine. I don't. The behavior of our

4494:

While it's obviously not the main rationale behind your vote, just for the sake of clarification I feel it prudent to add that my "delete it because he doesn't want it" position is exclusive to Brandt. Frankly I just felt that covering him brought us more grief than it was worth. Deleting his article

3462:

Not for the first time in this debate you accuse someone who disagrees with you of being 'angry' with you. You say you weren't defending the format and then immediately defend it by saying that's it's as easy to read as the standard format, despite endless posts from lots of different people telling

3332:

I resent the allegation that this was a "stunt." As has been heavily mentioned, I did not come up with the idea, I did not implement it, and I don't have an opinion on it. I consented to being a guinea pig- this does not indicate my support of the proposal and I had no reason to believe that it would

3066:

Apologies for being long in responding. I didn't notice the comment in diffs at first due to Prodego's a couple of minutes later. At any rate, I am confused as to why you consider policy enforement through article improvement to be a prerequisite to adminship. I don't want to sound combative, because

3005:

being one of them. The conclusion that I drew was that such a decision is common-sense based- and has to be a case-by-case decision for everybody. I also said, although perhaps not in such explicit words, that my intention there was not to be inclusionist but merely to avoid taking exclusionism -too-

2481:

Did you read my comment, Durin? I said I was not opposing on the basis of the format. I oppose because the candidate is inexperienced. That is "my perception", yes, but there is no need to use "weasel words" to undermine my rationales. Your perception may differ, but mine is perfectly reasonable.

2467:

The only reason this candidate was selected was because it was expected there would be a number of opposes. If there were a controversial candidate with 10,000 edits that would have done fine as well. To test the format, it had to have opposes as well as supports. I strongly urge you to separate your

1403:

Evidently, members of the admin's board were interested in refactoring an RfA in order to remove the support/oppose/neutral ratio from obvious viewing. I, personally, don't think that a direct vote tally should be used by a crat in determining whether to promote or not, so I agreed to be their guinea

575:

I think that is an excellent reply to the question. The relative weights that should be given to the two positions is indeed the core of the policy. Inexperienced editors often think NPOV means "equal weight to both sides", but I think your clear grasp of the policy to the contrary is evident in this

5247:

Editor's heart is in the right place, but he does not currently possess the judgment to be an effective admin. Case in point is the bizarre mediation mentioned immediately above. (In terms of full disclosure, I should point out that I was part of the debate being mediated.) The editor, working as

4659:

I can understand most of the rationales presented here in opposition to Moralis, but I would expect proper support for calling his edits "low-quality" to avoid being unjustifiably insulting. Perhaps low-importance, or small, might be what you had intended? But in that case, is it not true that those

4644:

promote them, either. If you think you can build sufficient trust after 50 edits, congratulations. I don't. As I said, though, this is not solely based on count; it's based on quality. I see very few quality contributions, long periods of inactivity, very few situations that demonstrate a particular

4617:

There's a flawed notion that's become vogue; since there's plenty of tools out there that allow for quick, repetitive edits the value of a single edit has been declining. A person can rack up a thousand edits in a few days using one of these tools, and therefore any single edit isn't "worth" as much

3922:

While I understand your qualms about the format of this page, please do realize that there is no more content on this page than there would be if it were sorted into "support" and "oppose" sections. It doesn't take any longer to read through this than it would to read through all the conversation on

3855:

I don't consider my registration to be the beginning of my participation with this username. As I have stated several times, I didn't bother logging in for probably a year after registering because until that time I frankly just didn't mind whether my contributions were tied to me (mostly proofreads

3806:

due to the formatting; if he is comfortable with this system, then I am too nervous about his views to be comfortable with granting him adminship. However, I support giving him the opportunity to start over with a new vote with the proper formatting, and if he does that I won't oppose his candidacy.

3765:

Me too. Moralis has shown, throughout this RfA, a great tact that is an asset as an administrator, a willingness to discuss with others and a desire to help out and interpretations of key policies that I wish had come from my mouth because they seem so in line with what I think. I would definitely

3244:

annoying... I agree totally with demon here; this is just a way to gain publicity. In my opinion, any editor who is ready to try & disrupt & weasel his way around process in bad news. As I stated above, when a RfA reaches WP:200 as they rarely do, or even WP:100, which poor buero is going to

2283:

Well, I certainly hope the bureaucrats are capable of seeing this for what it is. Opposing someone for the format of an RfA is frankly absurd. We move Knowledge forward in part by experimenting. The value of an experiment is not reduced by whether that experiment fails or succeeds. Moralis should be

2135:

I have just reverted an edit that partially returned the RfA to its original format. While I am not opposed to using that format, I don't think this should be done without discussion. I haven't checked WT:RfA for discussion of the issue yet, because I wanted to revert it before somebody else had the

2109:

per statements made by the nominee, and several other factors: high-quality work in both editing and mediation (I would rather see a lower amount of good edits than a mish-mash of tens of thousands), communicates very well, understands how things work, and displays a willingness to assist with tasks

810:

I just wish I could accept you, but you simply don't have enough experience with your account. I agree with the two votes above; you need to be more regular with your editing and need to have more edits. Through your contributions, I can see that you do a good deal of vandal fighting and participate

460:

guidelines and policies when enforcement just plainly isn't fair- the unfortunate thing is that what I consider a common-sensical toss-out of a rule might to you be a flagrant violation. That is both the beauty and the curse of a collaboration. I feel like I haven't answered your question very well,

424:

Rules are enforced for the wrong reasons all the time, although in a lot of cases, those issues don't exactly make it to the public eye, because they're often localized disputes. Sometimes this take the form of content being deleted "per policy," when it very plainly does serve a purpose (users have

4761:

I concur completely with your comments concerning Durin's behaviour during this RfA. I am sorry to say that Durin's behaviour is nothing more than a form of Wiki-Bullying. Unfortunately this type of behaviour does occur often in RfA's - and it always in my view leaves a stench of unfairness either

4449:

In the hope that this closes this portion of your RfA - I will just reiterate that I am not offended by YOUR PERSONAL attention to this RfA one iota and I wholeheatedly accept your apology. In addition as you know because of comments I have personally left on your talk page a couple of hours ago -

4335:

Um, as far as you think I'm feeble minded. I'd already decided to support earlier. I do automatically support people who take responsibility for editing their RFA pages, but meh. Finally, hey, if Moralis really *could* sway people just by nice words... well, I keep telling (and showing) people that

3886:

You misunderstand the reason for my frustration =P I can't provide IPs because I didn't have a static IP and I wasn't keeping track. My issue is with the notion that "Moralis didn't do anything for his first year after registration," and how that fact is being used to lower my edits-per-month ratio

3789:

I think he needs more editing experience, I see 300 article edits and most of them are reverts. I could understand a hesitance to claim any specific IP address edits (maybe serious privacy concerns), but I would think that would be a minor issue as he has already stated his name and location on his

3078:

was decently handled insofar as my contributions to it have mostly been copyedits and proofreading rather than the actual addition of content. However, I'm not particularly interested in debating the merits of that article. My concern is that you've- from what I understand of your comments- ignored

2798:

Interesting. How many is enough? If a person has enough-1, are they unqualfied? What about enough-10? enough-100? Where would you like to draw the line or is it purely arbitrary? Do you have anything other than edit counts on which to discount the contributions of this editor? Have you been able to

2572:

works, as opposed to most of those fluffy RFA answers we get from people who are only pretending to know how it works. Oh, and support per Kat, and anyone opposing this RFA just because you feel threatened by the new format: let it go. Moralis doesn't deserve to have your frustration taken out on

1999:

I can't speak to the stated purpose of this format. All I can speak to is the way the issue was presented to me: I was asked via IRC if I would mind having my RfA reformatted, and I said no. If that's poor judgement, please elaborate on how (I'm not trying to be sarcastic here- I try to welcome all

1699:

for lack of Knowledge experience. I could perhaps be piling on, for which I feel bad about if I am, but the lack of numbers makes it hard for me to see if there are already 11 opposes and 14 supports and 10 neutrals (the real tallys, mine makes 12 opposes) for which I certainly then wouldn't add my

538:

Once the reliability of sources has been established, it needs to be determined how significant each viewpoint is in relation to the others. At the surface, this involves looking at how many sources each side has provided, how mainstream those sources are, and a little bit of common sense: does one

5187:

The editor in question has very few edits, 927 total, and only sporadic involvement. Many recent edits lack an edit summary. I'd like to see several months of solid involvement and more experience. You don't need sysop powers here to make a difference. You can investigate, tag, and weigh in on

4480:

for reasons having nothing to do with the hideous format of this RFA. (1) I don't consider 1000 edits to be a hard cutoff or anything like that, but 750 edits when many of them are semi-automatic reverts is kinda low. (2) Deletion discussion experience. I reviewed your participation in deletion

4321:

question directly - to confirm for myself that you probably couldn't provide any facts. I appreciate that you are getting harrangued from several quarters but I can assure that I have absolutely no hositility towards you - but as you say you are probably being reactionary and that says a lot more

3937:

Whether or not it takes longer to actually read is moot if the reader gives up before they read it because they perceive that it will take longer. You are correct that this text takes the same space regardless of how it is sorted. But, in my opinion, you are greatly mistaken if you don't believe

3835:

Firstly because Moralis does not strike me as qualifying as an excellent editor - by that I do not mean that he isn't - just that 760 edits total over 17 months simply doesn't show us he is excellent (indeed his edit count in terms of summaries alone seems to exclude the possibility), secondly his

3602:

Article inclusion is supposed to be based on objective evaluation of objective criteria; an admin is within his/her rights to close against consensus if the consensus is clearly very flawed and in contravention of policies and guidelines. As I understand it, the AfD comments are made to assist the

3446:

that I wasn't defending the format- I was just responding to your comments in what I think was very clearly a civil and intellectual way. Your response is overly hostile, and it looks like you're just taking out your frustrations with the format on me as a candidate. While I will not question your

2981:

Unfortunately, I do stand by my reasoning, as I think the answer shows a lack of understanding of what our purpose is. There are a lot of things which would be potentially useful and harmless (say, for example, the name, location, and type of every restaurant in New York City), but would still not

2682:

as policy, but only one of those three is. One is an essay, not even a guideline. Essays are no more than one (sometimes a few) editors personal opinions. Thinking of essays as policy is setting off down the slippery slope to taking one's personal opinion as policy, and anyone that does that is

2590:

reports way back on 14 DEC 2006 (the they appeared to use AIV with any regularity) showed that only half of the blocks were placed by other admins, and that several of the reported accoutns/ip's wer already blocked; indicating lack of familiarity with the process. If this RfA does not pass I urge

2029:

to let this page be used as a guinea pig? "Guilty by association" isn't a good argument in the article namespace. Shouldn't be here, either. But after thinking about it, I don't really think it's appropriate for me to be talking this point in my own RfA, so I'm going to step out of this discussion

1839:

Now, it turned out that the content was considered OR by some users, and correct by some others. While I admit that I might've been too defensive, I ultimately apologized, though I also suggested that the edit war was probably violating policy and that the users seek mediation before continuing. I

1529:

I am leaning toward support, though I can follow both sides of the argument on this one. I think he needs a little more experience with Knowledge before becoming an administrator. Though, I see nothing wrong with this candidates behaviour and been part of Meditation is a big plus. I also think his

558:

Whether the content should be split among sections is entirely dependent on the situation. If the content is a major focal point of the article, this makes more sense than if you're mentioning a small aspect of the subject. I don't think neutrality policy is clear on their being a "correct" way to

352:

I also don't consider this terribly underhanded on the part of the user responsible. This is, as stated, an experiment. If it works, it might become something we use in the future. It might not. I don't know. Since this isn't a policy violation, I don't see anything wrong with trying something out

4705:

supporting your position, but it is not required. And it's not as though I just said "Oppose" and signed it. I put a decent amount of justification in my first entry. I've got 3RR coming out one ear and AIV coming out the other and I shouldn't have to spend all day at RFA arguing the semantics of

4691:

RfA is supposed to be a consensus gathering mechanism. Part of consensus gathering is working towards a common agreement. Stating one's opinion, and then leaving the discussion doesn't help that process. Having a discussion does. I don't see anything wrong in people questioning people's opinions.

4465:

Not familiar enough with Moralis to comment favorably or unfavorably here, but as for the page layout, I think things might be a lot clearer if we structured the discussion around non-arbitrary section headers dealing with particular aspects of the editor (article creation, community interaction,

4422:

you of being angry, VS. I was letting you know that your comments came off that way, and asking why you were reacting that way. I thought I was pretty level-headed and understanding about it, but I guess I still came off as emotional or frustrated and for that I apologize. I would argue that your

3912:

OK, I think I understand now. I think you're not going to like my conclusion here, but I think it is the format. It appears to me that the faith that you have in the others here to read the page are not as well founded as you would hope. I don't think that they are not believing your claim. I

3410:

I don't think it's any more difficult to read than a sorted debate would be. If you're going to judge me based on my responses, edits, etc., then reading other comments isn't necessary. If you're going to judge me based on other comments, well, the comments are no more difficult to read than they

2879:

I'll refrain from replying with unnecessary sarcasm, and just say that yes I was aware that I may view all of a user's past contributions quite conveniently. Edit count is a better indicator of experience because experience is defined as "the knowledge or practical wisdom gained from what one has

2531:

Support, appears to be levelheaded and intelligent, and unlikely to abuse the admin tools. The opposition to this candidacy advances the usual trivial concerns, but is unique in that it also offers vindictive and irrelevant concerns. None of the issues raised are sufficient to justify opposition.

2427:

been prevented from becoming admins because of malformed RfAs? I've seen minor formatting mistakes lead to snowball closures within an hour or two. The fact that this one is on purpose has its own bad side. I'm refraining from supporting or opposing this RfA, but "newfangled format indicates that

1587:

Durin, I mean precisely that it's easier to understand a discussion when reading the arguments in favor of the candidate and those in opposition separately rather than reading all comments in chronological order. Sure, it's still the same set of comments but then why not sort them by alphabetical

1542:

Not enough experience with the Knowledge namespace (half of Moralis' contribs there are less than a week old). No it's not editcountitis: I just don't see a way to convince myself that the candidate currently has enough experience with Knowledge's processes to be an admin. On an unrelated note, I

754:

It's not just the number of edits that concerns me - it's the distribution of them. Looking at the contribution history, the candidate did 100+ edits on Dec. 13-14, 2006, mostly with anti-vandalism work. Then he more or less disappeared until March 1, when he assembled another pile of vandalism

260:

For the most part, conflicts with other users have involved mistaking a legitimate edit for vandalism, and this always means a prompt apology and restoring the material I've messed with. Most recently, I was involved in an NPOV dispute, but I think I remained appropriately civil throughout. I had

141:

My edit count might not be as high as some users', but a lot of what I do is RC patrol. I've made a lot of posts to AIAV over time, and adminship would certainly cut down on that. The reversion tools would also be helpful. I've got a masochistic interest in doing the various things that a lot of

4140:

If your complaint is that you can't follow the discussion- well, at risk of sounding sarcastic (and I apologize if I do), you're all just as capable of reading comments in chronological order as you are of reading comments sorted by their meaning. In closing, if you're going to vote based on the

3430:

I stated my opinion that I find this layout unreadable because, you know what? I do. The fact that you don't is up to you, I'm just saying that I think it's a pain to read. If you're going to argue with me about what I find easy to read or not should you really be an admin? I didn't make any

3070:

Whether we like to acknowledge it or not, Recent Changes overflows with malicious or misinformed edits and various disputes. I should think that the resolution of these issues is 'at least' as important as direct improvement of articles- indeed, one thing that mediators and RC patrollers have in

1040:

I am concerned about the candidate's statement that he wishes to become an administrator (found in the userboxes on the candidate's user page). However, I would likely support if the candidate were endorsed by a WikiProject, since such endorsement would tend to indicate the necessary social and

554:

That last part is often the most contentious work, but once you've established how prominent each position is (and therefore how much weight is "due weight") you now have the impossible task of helping the editors come up with a version of the content that 1) is NPOV and 2) is acceptable to both

5302:

Other users with only a cursory knowledge of the situation were nonetheless able to immediately identify this account as an attack account, but you were not, and claimed that my attempts to fight off the meat puppetry and vandalism were "disruptive," so I'd suggest that you don't have the right

4681:

edit. I've done thousands of them myself, but that doesn't make them awesome edits. Reverts are crap. All they show is the ability to tell the difference between legitimate content and "SALLY IS A SLUT - I HATE STUDY HALL D;KFJA;KDFA;FKDJA;FKA;KF;AFHG". Forive me for not being impressed, but it

3109:

particularly reassuring. Again we come back to my point about reading the process stuff: hoaxes are not (except when CSD G1, A1, or A7, can be stretched to fit a particular case) speedily deletable. So, yes, common sense is good, as is politeness, but what nearly all admin work boils down to is

2457:

I suspect this editor was selected as the RfA "test subject" because he is so far below the mean. Very few edits altogether, virtually no experience in project-space. Needs way more experience. I'm sorry if I failed to engage in any ongoing discussion, but I find this format distressing (but

2203:

Errabee, your edit summary reads, "This recent action shows poor judgement and poor grasp of procedure. Therefore oppose." Are you opposing me on the basis that I reverted your reformat of this page? If you're opposing me because you don't like this format, while I find that unfair (as I am not

534:

Much of my answer to this question is, obviously, situation based- while the relevant policies are very clear, where content fits into them isn't always. The first thing that needs to be established is whether the sources furnished by both sides are indeed reliable and being used correctly. For

5295:

were meat puppets, I stated that meat puppeting was going on. You seem unable to identify the difference, which I would suggest is further evidence of lack of qualification for admin status. It's also very irresponsible for you to claim that I was guilty of vandalism in responding to massive

5265:

I did not "ally" myself with Spamjaguar. I offered to keep an eye on your contributions because you were guilty of vandalism- I very politely made it clear that all users were guilty of policy violations. Please do not overstate my criticism of you- I merely said that you were hostile when you

4630:

Also, I'm wondering what your standards are; how many vandalism reverts does an editor need to make in order to demonstrate a "need" for the rollback button? Moralis has made 138 of those (since you seem to be very focused on edit counts) and it accounts for 15% of his activity. Seems like his

4426:

Please understand that I was not assuming bad faith, which I thought my words conveyed (again, I guess I was mistaken). There are obvious limitations in the effectiveness of communicating by text, and I interpreted the way you were pressing the issue of my IP edits seemed far more hostile than

4365:

I'm not sure why you are mystified by his reaction -- you described his prior statement as glib, which would surely be offensive if he put significant thought into it, which seems likely. You also implied that describing him as "experienced" is insupportable on the contributions of his current

3873:

I appreciate your frustration, but please understand that many people like to look through your edit history before deciding whether to bestow the tools. The fact that you edited with an IP for so long prevents people from having the number of edits to evaluate that they prefer. If you could

2808:

The number of edits is up to each user's discretion, and it doesn't necessarily have to be a specific number, but rather a well balanced distribution among several different areas of Knowledge with particular attention to those within the usual administrative intervention. Edit-countitis might

2265:

It tells about the way Moralis makes decisions. Anyone with just some common sense could see that this change of format would turn this process into a mess. If Moralis hasn't seen this happening, he lacks the ability to foresee consequences of his decisions, which is an important quality in an

2014:

If you are genuinely uninterested in the formatting of this page, then I'm sorry. As it stands, the effective outcome of your acceptance of the format change is that you are the flagship and main proponent of the new format. The outcome of your decision is that your RFA is (at least in part) a

1422:

The reason given for the refactoring made it appear that this RfA was refactored during the RfA because of an agreed upon discussion between Durin and yourself. The diffs now provided by Durin and your explanation did help in understanding your participation in the refactoring and I revised my

5252:

whose account has since been identified as a multi-user attack account and indefinitely blocked. The first edits this now-blocked account made to wikipedia were extended, blatant vandalism attacks on my user account, yet Moralis decided to ally with this user. I suggest this shows a lack of

4089:

I don't mind the format of this RFA, I kind of like it. Quite a bit of activity recently but account was opened in 10/2005 with seven edits and then a long period of inactivity until 10/2006. Then gone again until March 2007.The long periods of inactivity are troubling. I see quite a bit of

3840:

I therefore take my comments (read !vote) seriously (I know some others don't and some always vote the same - and despite their attempt at gaining moral high ground such action IMHO only appears to belittle us all). Therefore having considered this applicant, overall I cannot support his/her

4136:

I apologize to those who are offended by my choosing to allow the reformat. Please keep in mind, however, that this format is merely an experiment- some users would say it is working, while others believe it is failing miserably. Determining whether something works is the very purpose of an

527:

policy? Should the two points of view be separated into two equally-sized "criticism" and "defense" sections? Or should the two points of view be merged together into one section split evenly between the two perspectives? Are there any other questions to address before making this decision?

4794:

Durin might come off as a tad overbearing, but he is not trying to beat a support vote out of anybody and to accuse him of that is just plain rude. While he's probably too blunt about it, he's mostly just asking certain editors to elaborate on their views where they don't necessarily stand

4484:

was a red herring. The real reason for deleting it was because we are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid and we don't need self-referential garbage about people who have no notability outside of what they did relative to Knowledge. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe that you have sufficient

2413:

Of course not. But this page is already filled with so much intertwining dialogue, the last thing needed is for everyone to be leaving note for the 'crats on what to do. I assume they know their job. In case they forget that they know they're jobs, I left them a note to remind them! :)

3255:

Disrupt RfA? Excuse me? Nothing is being disrupted. This RfA is the way RfA used to be run. Gosh, I guess RfA must have been a shambles back then, and nobody was promoted. Bureaucrats are NOT charged with counting votes. They are put in their jobs to evaluate consensus. A vote tally has

1427:

23:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC) On reconsideration of the additional information provided in this RfA, I struck my neutral opinion to give more weight to my reasoning which states, "Moralis' does not have enough reviewable experience to determine whether he is a trusted users who understand

4217:

as Moralis is currently mediating in a case I am involved in, I think it would be inappropriate for me to vote. However, I have found him to be a polite and respectful person who listens carefully to both sides of an argument. I do not agree with all his interpretations of policy eg

1502:

Nothing in your history would compel me to oppose your adminship, but I feel that you do not yet have the experience I feel is necessary for one to be an admin. I would like to see more interaction in policy-related areas. Your contributions to AIV are valued, keep up the good work.

4853:

I support this candidate's approval for the sysop bit; length of service/servitude seems sufficient to meet my criteria, experience with the Mediation Cabal easily meets my requirements for civility, and I find the opposition's complaints of experience unconvincing. Consider this a

1228:- leaning towards support. It's not so much the edit count as the diversity of experience. Getting involved in mediation is a huge plus, though. We always need more mediation folks. You're definitely on the right track and I'll likely have no problems supporting you in the future - 4495:

won't make him go away, but it'll make it a lot easier to ignore him and (hopefully) prompt the users who spent so much time worrying about him to go worry about slightly more meaningful things, like Essjay's credentials or the format of an RfA =P (I jest, please do not bite me) --

755:

reversions. Then another month of relative quiet, followed by 100+ edits in the last week. That edit pattern doesn't conform with the long-term record of consistency I expect to see in an admin candidate. It might be better to come here more often and do fewer edits each time.

3606:

By contrast, RfA is an inherently subjective measure of community trust and confidence. We don't have objective criteria and a bureaucrat's closing an RfA against community consensus is just not right. As I understand, the community decides and the bureaucrat just executes that

4293:

wouldn't even be sure, there's no reason to expect anyone else to be. Frankly, I just don't see why you're spending so much time focusing on this issue. Have I edited as an IP? Yes. Can I provide examples? No. What more do I need to say? I think it's a pretty straightforward

5008:

Sorry Moralis, I feel bad about your RfA because it seems that it has was hijacked from the start by people with their own agenda, but I'm just not comfortable with your experience level, or, at least, your visible experience level since we can't view your edits as an anon.

3167:. This editor gives sensible answers to questions and grasps the spirit of policy even if he hasn't weathered as many policy debates as some (no wonder he's such a kindly editor). I have no concern that this user will act rashly and he's held up well during this discussion. 2073:(changed from oppose). This is an inexperienced user with very few non-trivial edits and no consistent pattern of editing. However he has achieved support from a large number of experienced editors, who clearly feels that his temperament make him well suited to be an admin. 4090:

anti-vandalism work but not much to XFD and project space. Most of the mainspace edits are vandal reverts. There are not enough all round edits to be able to judge your ability as an admin. I think though that you have the potential but just aren't ready quite yet. This

2544:

I'm happy with this candidate. I can care less if Moralis is not on here all the time, the times that Moralis is on is quite a bit. I don't see any real issues like serious editwars or attempts to promote one view over another. Adminship is not a big deal :) Go for it! ——

3836:

nomination states that he has been with us for quite a while - but for the first 12 months of that time the candidate made 7 edits in total. Thirdly because for me (and I suspect for a lot of other commentators above) - I note that an RfA is as the first word indicates a

197:

is a biggie. Responding to speedy requests, as well. It's my basic intention to keep an eye on everything that could potentially become backlogged (the Administrative backlog category might be helpful) and then spend too much of my free time keeping that from happening.

2250:

about the formatting issue, you're welcome to participate there if you don't like the format, but I think it's verging on childish to express opposition for a reason that has nothing to do with the question at hand, namely whether the candidate should be given the mop.

2692:

You'll note that I referred to them initially as "policy(/guidelines)," in order to point out that I used the word policy as a catch-all for simplicity's sake, not out of ignorance. Perhaps my meaning wasn't clear, though. I'm adding a comment to my answer to clarify.

455:

applies to content whenever inclusionism makes sense- and I will not pretend to be able to describe when that is, as it's kind of a case-by-case decision for everybody, based on the merits of the content in question and how they stack up against policy. IAR applies to

2866:

You might not be aware of this, but you are able to view all of a user's past contributions quite conveniently. Assuming that you were aware of this feature, can you explain how edit count is a better indicator of experience than actually examining the user's edits?

4609:

Uh, my standards are that low. In fact, my standards have nothing to do with edit counts as they show nothing about the experience and ability of an editor. We've promoted a rather large number of admins who had considerably fewer edits than Moralis, starting with

291:

Apologies for being long in responding. I didn't notice this question hwere until just now. Unfortunately, I didn't have a static IP, and I also wasn't keeping track of my edits at the time, so I can't provide such information. Thanks for being interested, though!

2245:

Errabee, the format of this RfA is an experiment in a new format. Having been mooted by a group of people who think it would work better, we looked around for someone who would be willing to try out the format, and we found Moralis. There's discussion ongoing at

420:

violation. There are also situations in which "consensus" may be ignored if that consensus is a result of meatpuppetry- primarily, I think, where a number of users have ganged up on a smaller group more for the purpose of being right than to actually accomplish

5043:

Curious question. Some users are challenging my edit count, but why a few months? I mean, time-wise, I've been around for too long, at least according to most of my opposition. I'm just wondering why you've chosen a time-based response rather than edit-based.

4234:- Sorry I'm not so easily influenced by this as Durin and Kim Bruning seem to be - indeed the game being played here is simply to show the wiki community how easily others are influenced by the glib prose of others? However I could be persuaded to change my 3411:

were when they were separated into categories. I think the major effect that this has had is to create more conversation on this page, for better or worse. I'm not defending the format- but I don't see how it's unusually difficult to read, just to tally. --

4673:, in fact, "require" explanation. This isn't my RfA; the fact that I have more important things to do than keep coming back here all day to justify myself doesn't make my input any less valid. I stated my opinion. That should be the end of it. But yes - I 1055:

Under the circumstances and on the receipt of additional information as well as the opportunity to observe the candidate's interactions, I have chosen to waive my endorsement requirement for this candidate, and do hereby support his candidacy. Good luck!

475:

Please note that my use of the word "policy" in the above is for the sake of simplicity (not having to type "policies, guidelines and conventions" every time I refer to them). I am fully aware that not all of the pages I've noted are necessarily "policy."

3097:. Here I have no problems. The biggest issue with protection is handling the complaints which follow, since someone is bound to think it's the wrong version. I think even your harshest critics would accept that you've shown here that you could do this. 1655:

Apologies for the occurrence- I just noticed the problem myself. It is indeed a VandalProof glitch. I've never used VandalProof before- and now I'm thinking I probably never will again, as its "rollback" buttons don't seem to actually revert the page.

443:

Needless to say, the result of an AfD is still something that must be respected (that particular rule generally should not be ignored). If approved, I'll obviously act according to the community's wishes, regardless of my opinion. I do think there's

5306:

It's also clear from your edit history that you haven't added much of substance to wikipedia articles as an editor, and as such would have no context in which to administer others' editing. Before you administer, you have to understand what's being

3431:

comment about your abilities or not as an editor, I was merely commenting about the format, which I didn't blame you for. The fact that you respond in this way makes me query whether you should have extra powers over others. I hope that's clear.

1777:

Low overall contributions doesn't give sufficient evidence of policy knowledge. You do, however, look like a great editor that would merit a lot of support in the near future based on your current activity and progress. Do keep up the good work. —

156:

I've often considered adminship a long-term goal, thanks to the various small ways it would help me with RC patrol. I also decided a while ago that I would never nominate myself, however, so I'm pleasantly surprised to have ended up at RfA anyway.

5063:, Don't care about pure editcounts but lack of serious content writing is a concern. Too much emphasis on policing. While we need to deal with vandals, they are by far not the largest problem of Knowledge. Neither it is the most difficult one. -- 4120:

I have decided to claim full responsibility for the format of this page. As it would seem that users are going to judge me based on the format regardless of my position, I hereby declare my support for this RfA format. As the format of an RfA is

4776:

but appears in this case clearly to be tampering with the research for or against that position. Wiki-Bullying during RfA's should cease and especially so when the bully/ies has another less obvious agenda! Do you have any views on this please

2136:

opportunity to vote on the half-fixed iteration, thus making a potential problem for both an editor who might reformat the page and an editor who might be undoing the reformat. Just wanted to let everybody know why I reverted so suddenly. --

3536:

Seeing as there's also a number of supports, I'm not sure it's entirely clear. Could you explain why you think Moralis is not ready at this moment in time? (And, possibly more importantly, what Moralis can do to be better ready next time?)

2613:

No real reason to trust with tools offered. Lack of experience is a real reason to distrust. Answers to questions are also unacceptable, is far too likely to become a problem admin, as opposed to a valuable, unnoticed admin contributor.

2661:

There is a strong positive correlation between admins that I know spend time on IRC and admins that I consider to be problem admins. Almost every admin in the latter category is in the former. Similarly, they all are strong believers in

4063:). People should understand the basic fact that this is a wiki, and that wikis are mutable. With so many people these days who join and fail to grasp that simple concept, sometimes I wonder how long wikipedia is still going to last :-/ -- 978:- a willingness to ditch the previous RFA format and go for the new refactored version (even though I don't necessarily agree with it) shows a great level of dedication to the project. Well done, but still more activity needed for me... 1608:

Is it really that difficult to sort a discussion where every contributor starts with a boldface support, oppose or neutral? I'm all for thinking up ways of reforming RfA but I do find this particular experiment to be unconvincing.

5157:; I'm not sure this is the best RFA format, but it did force me to read through the comments (and it shouldn't be held against Moralis for trying it this way; that's just absurd.) Looks like a good user who could use the tools, 1961:. This RFA is poorly formatted, and I find the decision to use this type of formatting in his RFA an indication of poor judgement. I don't want an admin who 'fixes' things which aren't broken. Also inexperienced per YechielMan. 2563:

I think Moralis would do a good job as administrator. He has a good head on his shoulders and giving him adminship should just be no big deal — if nothing else, he can block vandals directly rather than having to run off to

3672:

Both AFD and RFA have been deeply flawed, but to my surprise, at some point RFA deteriorated so far that it actually became worse at determining whether someone should be admin than AFD is at determining if a page should be

2718:. This is just the sort of candidate we should be supporting right now; no history of problems, good policy knowledge and sufficient experience for me. This RfA is a headache, but I can see what we're trying to accomplish. 784:- I fail to see the logic here. First of all I find the explanation acceptable. 2nd, shocking as it may seem, people have lives to lead. As long as this editor makes valuable contributions as often as he can he's an asset. 1311:. His edit count is high enough to give a decent sample size and I don't see any evidence that he'd misuse the tools. As an aside, I definitely prefer this format and would like to see it used on more (if not all) RfAs. 1072:

This reason to deny support continues to baffle me. So to be a good admin, never admit that you want to be one? Certainly in my workplace promotions are given to people who openly and strongly state that they want the

2383:- please also ignore any opposes relating to the formatting of this: whether the candidate chooses to very mildly refactor the usual RFA format as part of an agreed-upon experiment is his business, not anyone else's. 643:

It is good to see users that want to help Knowledge, but I don't think you have enough experience just yet. Only 700 edits is too few to apply for adminship. Try when you have more, and you will be likely to succeed.

5209:

Editor has far too few edits and experience IMO. He should come back again when he has more solid involvement both in article and non-article space so that the community can better judge whether he would make a good

3360:

not criticized for it. Anyone opposing this RfA because of format should be directing their hate and derision towards me and not Moralis. I didn't come up with the idea for this format, but I was the one <cough:

2024:

I was fully aware of the potential ramifications. I just don't think they're very reasonable- how is it fair to associate me with the supporters of the change, or especially with Mackensen's RfB, on the basis of my

4805:

bullying the same group of people by making these comments. Durin has not claimed that opposers should be ashamed of themselves for opposing- he's claimed that users should be ashamed of themselves for opposing

2221:. I question your decision to agree with this experiment. So while technically you didn't reformat, you accepted to having it done, which amounts to the same thing. Besides that, I think it should be made clear 1376:

It does not make the bureaucrats job any harder in any respect. Bureaucrats are expected to evaluate consensus. They are not expected to count votes. The suggestion to change RfAs into this style was brought by

4791:

Putting me in this position is unfair. While I am sure it was not your intention, your question basically puts me in the position of speaking out against my own support or endorsing what you call wiki-bullying.

4631:

contributions here have demonstrated a need for the tools. And why is a "need" for the tools a requirement to having them? Either the person is trusted or they are not. That's the only question to consider. --

1389:

of this RfA has NOTHING to do with the capabilities and qualities of this candidate, and I would ask that you remove this element from consideration and focus on the candidate, not the form the RfA is taking.

110:) - Excellent editor who has been with Knowledge for quite a while and deserves to be an admin. I've found him always helpful, professional, and polite, even when dealing with trolls. He's helped out a lot on 3054:, which is an intro-level document - in 2.5 years. If he couldn't or wouldn't do that, I don't see how he can be trusted to read and then correctly implement the sometimes byzantine policy and process stuff. 2903:

Um, what if a person has had prior experience in one or more similar wikimedia wikis? What if their name is Ward Cunningham? What if their name is Jimbo Wales? Doesn't that demolish that particular argument?

1141:, then why bring it up? Unless it tells us something useful about the person, it can be ignored. He can work on his edit count while an admin, if that matters. No indication that he wouldn't be a good admin. 3887:(which is then being held against my candidacy). I think I've been fairly transparent about when this account's activity began- October of 2006- and I'm not understanding why some users seem to mind that I 3628:

Moralis, I think you have excellent admin potential, temperamentally. Thanks for putting your foot in the water this time and I look forward to supporting you in a future RfA when you have more experience.

1875:

all this jumbled voting??! I can't get my brain around all the different thingys! Geesh, if this is the new style of voting, I'd hate to see what a WP:200 RfA will look like... Gulp! Absolutley horrible...

1799:, it is a job. You listed a desire to work with mediation, and that would be a good place to get active in, and does not require sysop rights. More interaction in the project space would also be helpful. — 2495:

I was told that I'd been selected as the "test subject" because at the time of the reformat I was the user with the fewest comments on my page, or the most even distribution (it was around 11/6/6...ish).

2458:

b'crats -- who apparently now look vigilantly for any minor reason to disqualify a vote, as at Danny's RfA -- note that I am not holding the format against the candidate, so please don't disqualify me.)

4297:

I'm sorry if I seem reactionary here, but from your comments above, you seem to be rather angry over my inability to attribute IP edits to myself- and that strikes me as a very poor reason to be angry.

1359:, then Moralis' agreeing to make the bureaucrats RfA closing job harder does not seem to demonstrate a willingness to help others in their tasks. Diffs would help to review the agreed upon discussion. ( 3067:

I'm not looking for a fight here- but your comments come off as disparaging toward mediators and recent change patrollers, insofar as you would ignore those contributions in favor of my article edits.

2748:

Doesn't seem to have done anything wrong, but hasn't done much that would lead me to vote "support" if this were a vote. 1/3 of the contributions are from last week; I don't find that very appealing.

4876:- I would advise editors concerned about the candidate's relatively low edit count to study his reply to the optional question I asked above. This shows, in my opinion, a very clear grasp of policy. 4062:

Interestingly, normally, changing the formatting of your RFA is an automatic support from me. (Too bad Durin is claiming responsibility for this one. Candidates have no guts these days. <sigh: -->

3592:

I sure don't hold the new format against Moralis. In fact, I am worried that one by-product of this experiment may be that a few editors may hold this RfA's formatting against Moralis in a future RfA

416:, insofar as all of those policies implore the user to enforce rules only with respect to the spirit of those rules. Primarily, if it's appropriate to Ignore All Rules, you're already dealing with a 1023:- I kept on asking the Admins if there should be a minimum edit requirement but they decided against it so if the Admins dont have a problem with someone with 700+ edits..Neither do I..Go For it..-- 3356:

This isn't a stunt Spawn Man, and you should be ashamed for criticizing Moralis for it. The only thing he is trying to do is help Knowledge by being a willing guinea pig. If anything, he should be

1765:

Every experienced, civil, even-tempered editor should be given the bit. I disagree that this editor's edit count is too low, or that (beyond being too new to be evaluated) edit count even matters.

3245:

have to sift through all this mess to get what we already have, a tally. admittedly, tallys aren't the best method of deciding, but it makes it a hell of a lot easier. Will oppose below. Regards,

523:

If a point in an article is disputed between two editors, and both can produce some reliable sources to support their position, what is the correct way to reflect these two views according to the

5226:

of the MedCab cases he worked on, I wanted to support, out of admiration that he didn't just run screaming from the masses. But... it is still too few interactions with people disagreeing with

663:

While I can respect that position, I do think that opposition on the basis of edit count is rather unfair, considering the potential number of edits a user might have made before registering. --

4523:

Moralis's responses within this section show that he has a good grasp of what's really important on Knowledge. (Hint: it's not RfA formatting or edit counts.) I trust him with the admin tools.

2395:

Please ignore any notes from anyone telling you to ignore something, since you can make the choice yourself. Alternatively, perhaps ignore "support" commenters who attempt to make such notes.

5141:

is a week old. Of course, maybe he's been doing fantastic work in that week but I can't shake off the feeling that it's a bit early to evaluate his work on that front. Am I missing something?

5138: 4660:

who make the largest per-edit contributions, the editors who work mainly on actual creation and revision of content, are also the editors who would have the least use for a mop and bucket? --

4724:

I suggest he use popups. While a high edit count may indeed be a poor indicator of experience, I still feel, as many do, that a low edit count is a pretty solid indicator of a lack thereof.

3046:. I don't think I'll go along with the frenzy of buildering in fancy dress, thanks. Mediation work is good, but this not therapy, or mock court, but rather the 💕 that anyone can edit. If 4350:- Rather than continue and having to remind anyone that by candidly asking for facts such request is not a way of expressing anger - I have moved my reiteration of this point to Moralis' 2334:

Moralis seems like a rational editor, after looking at his edit history and talking to him in #wikipedia. Adminship is no big deal, and it appears that he would benefit from having it. --

767:

My disappearances have both been due to the loss of my laptop. When I'm around, I do think it's ridiculous how much time I spend logged in and active (not that you all can see that =P) --

4077:

per the well articulated and wholely reasonable rational set forth on my user page. I don't much care for the formatting changes. Disregard me altogether if you wish. Life will go on.

149:

Recently, I've developed a strange interest in mediation. This started out as simply butting into discussions, but over the past couple of days, I've found myself getting involved with

4238:

stand if you would actually provide us with a reasonable list of article and details - which I assume you would know either by your general areas of interest related to the times when

2309:, although I still think it was terribly ill-advised to consent to conducting an experiment that was doomed to fail from the start. It has never been my intention to target Moralis. 1150:

Checking through this user's contribs shows nothing but thoughtfulness and usefulness to the project - edit count means very little. No qualms about making him an admin whatsoever.

611:

I did indeed. I really wish I'd made an account, so I'd have that history to point to now. I also think I'm pretty good at absorbing info, but that's just me talking myself up ;) --

543:

overshadow the other, or can we be reasonably certain that each view is relatively equal in prominence? This is one point where I may disagree with other editors- I believe that if

1423:

reasoning accordingly. Since your statement on future process did not change my position on evaluation of your present process understanding, I maintained my neutral reasoning. --

875:

Did you have a static IP address to edit from? If you could provide that then it would certainly help to demonstrate your depth of knowledge regarding contributing to Knowledge.

4580:

The only criterion - is 'have we seen enough good stuff to be reasonably confident that the tools won't be abused?' - well, we have, and I think we can. Edit countis be damned.--

1942:. Interesting to see this format up for a trial run. Low edit count can be a concern but reviewing the history I see enough responsibility and maturity to support the candidate. 4979:

I am sure that this editor will one day make a fine admin, but at present only just over 900 edits, albeit evenly spaced, do not indicate enough experience across the project.--

4001:. I hate this format, but would overlook that if this candidate's qualifications were very strong. I'm sure they will be with more experience we could review, but not just yet. 3362:

stupid enough to actually attempt formatting of an RfA like this. You want to take issue with this, take it up with me. Further discussion on the merits of the format is --: -->

3191:: Entirely unrelated, but the formatting of this RFA is obnoxious at best...as if removing sections and a number count will change this process from anything other than a vote. 2053:

stupid enough to actually attempt formatting of an RfA like this. You want to take issue with this, take it up with me. Further discussion on the merits of the format is --: -->

5253:

judgment. Perhaps more experience will benefit this user before his promotion to admin. With a little more experience, he will be a good admin, as he has a positive attitude.

4627:

are not any less valuable because trivial edits are easy to rack up now. Yet, the culture that has developed treats these edits with less value now. This is both sad and silly.

3347:

This is every bit a stunt. The only reason that a crat hasn't withdrawn it is because of it & the fact they can't be bothered looking for a solid tally in all this mess...

4954:

a user has an axe to grind. Those interpretations of my comments are very different, and I thought I was fairly clear about which was correct, but I guess I was mistaken. --

1681:

I also have the feeling that even if not promoted now, Moralis will certainly pass the next RFA, what with all the activity, and the otherwise trustworthy personality. :) --

2181:

Stop patronising. I am absolutely wholeheartedly opposed against this kind of RfA. If Moralis supported this change, it shows poor judgement in my book. That's all I said.

1120:, without question. This guy does mediation work? And with that sort of recommendation from Nick Turnbull? We should all be falling over ourselves to support this guy. -- 835:

Huh, this is different: an Oppose comment where the editor goes on to say "Hopefully, you'll make adminship..." (and clearly talking about this RfA, not some future one).

2955:

I believe you have misinterpreted my comments. I wrote that I believe that if an article is potentially helpful to a reader, that fact should be taken into account when

176:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1588:

order of their contributors? Sorting comments semantically is a natural thing to do in any debate be it an RfA or a debate about whether Pepsi tastes better than Coke.

1404:

pig for this experiment. I fail to see how this makes a bureaucrat's RfA closing job any more difficult, if they're not basing their decision 100% on the vote tally. --

4798:

I think that all of you are dragging your hostilities from the format debate here, and that's not fair to me as a candidate or to anyone else as a reader of this page.

3874:

provide the IP or list of IPs that you used, I think that would give people more to evaluate and could possibly change some of the comments that you are receiving. --

2967:

of my opinion on the AfD. I'd like to politely request that you re-read my answer to that question, just to be sure you interpreted my statement the way I meant it. --

254:

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?

1246:

This fellow seems to be competent in a number of spheres useful to Knowledge, and has no history of bad behavior. I don't think we need ask more of an administrator.

3050:

is Moralis's best work, I can't possibly support him. What I take away from reading it is that he hasn't taken the time to read and digest MoS stuff - things linked

1840:

also expressed a desire to step out of the situation, which I only walked into by accident. If anyone's interested, the dispute is probably still on my talk page. --

1363:

did not help clarify things.) In any event, Moralis' does not have enough reviewable experience to determine whether he is a trusted users who understand policy. --

4600:

edits showing a need for the tools, and his adminship shouldn't be pushed through just because the debate about the layout here is overshadowing his actual record.

930:

leaning towards support. Despite the convincing answers and nomination, I really feel uncomfortable supporting you with a low edit count and irregular activity. —

5351: 4393:

is written in the plural and is not referenced at Moralis. It follows on from the comments of Durin and Kim Bruning and I mention their names. Glib is defined

3399:

This debate is utterly unreadable. I can see why this mixed up format might be used, to stop things becoming a 'vote', but it's so confusing as to be useless.

505: 4887:

Fair enough although I'd also invite you in return to read the answer to the question on IAR. That one, in my mind, clearly shows the inexperience of Moralis.

1973:: I did not change the format of this RfA, I simply agreed not to stop the people who did. Also, nobody's trying to fix anything. Just trying something out. -- 5369: 4912:

Sometimes this take the form of content being deleted "per policy," when it very plainly does serve a purpose (users have axes to grind, for the most part)."

1472:

After very well reasoned reply to question 7. If they always think that carefully before any action, this candidate may well make for a good admin indeed. --

1382: 1459:

leaning towards support, perhaps. I'm curious enough about further edits that we haven't seen yet, that I'm not yet ready to commit to either choice. :-) --

3051: 1795:

Although account has been registered for a while, has only been recently semi-active. Needs more current experience with the process. Adminship is not a

5223: 3447:!vote, I think you've overreacted a bit just in general, and I'd ask that you at least remain civil if you're going to participate in this dicussion. -- 5222:. After reading all the comments yesterday and checking things out, I couldn't help but agree that too few edits is true. After today coming across 4481:

discussions - there were only four of them. One was the Brandt thing and your comment there bothers me - get rid of it because he doesn't want it -

4762:

for or against the candidate. In my view, a fair editor with Durin's views would sit back and watch the opinions of others without further comment

4418:

I was going to leave this alone, but conversation is taking an ugly turn and I feel obligated to step in. I didn't mean for you to think that I was

3483:

per lack of experience and lack of edits in the various talkspaces other than vandal warnings. Also per lack of edit summary usage per all the red

2153:. This user shows poor judgement and poor grasp of procedure concerning the format of this page. Both are essential qualities for an administrator. 5296:

vandalism from multiple users, and meat puppeting which you yourself observed. For your agreement to help an attack account, users may look here:

4868: 4733:

Perhaps you should read this RfA. I've responded to a mere handful of opposes, not systematically to every oppose. Thanks for your input though. --

4091: 364:

addresses that. It was a legitimate question about my interpretation of a policy, and that's a perfectly good question to ask an RfA candidate. --

682:. Fair edits; seems to know the policies well. Will put admin tools to good use and seems unlikely to abuse them. Adminship is no big deal. ➪ 3316:- Per my opinions above. The only reason I believe this user got so many supports was because he went against the grain & used this format. 1282:- Low edit count and lack of experience, but whatever. Adminship is no big deal, and we should give it to (within reason) anyone who wants it. 3715:

So in summary, I think that the fact that we're having such a calm conversation in the first place actually disproves some of your points. :-)

798:. From what I have seen Moralis is a good user, while his edit count may be lower than some, I really couldn't care less about edit counts. -- 4896:

Howso? I would summarize my answer as, "IAR applies when the policies interfere with common sense." I don't know how else to interpret it. --

4423:

wording was unfortunate, and I confess that the running sentence in your first comment read like sarcasm to me when perhaps I shouldn't have.

2469: 2289: 2054: 1619: 3973: 3284:

between the limited experience and agreeing to this breach of painful RFA formatting, I have serious reservations about this candidate.--

1815:

I have had one encounter with this user and it was where he edit-warred without joining the talk page. That's not acceptable for admins.--

5097:. Primary reasons are lack of experience and edit summaries. I personally do not like the RfA format, but do not hold it against him. -- 2963:"interesting." I also specifically stated that when closing an AfD I think it's almost always proper to go with the community's decision 282:

You edited as an IP before? Good for you! Do you remember which IP address or addresses you used? We can then look at those edits too. --

4285:

Even if I could lay claim to specific IP edits, I wouldn't. Then we'd get into a much uglier discussion about whether or not those were

3669:

I think RFA *is* supposed to be objective. It's not a popularity contest; it's a way to figure out if someone will act well as an admin.

2729: 2637: 461:

but as of now, I'm quite tired and can't think of more specific examples. I hope this gives you a decent idea of what I'm getting at. --

4650:

admins is making national news now and, in my opinion, a history of 760 low-quality edits simply doesn't demonstrate ability or need.

3484: 3114:

processes - because nobody understands everything - and a continuing engagement with creating or improving articles. So, no, not yet.

884:

Unfortunately, no. At that point, my IP address was changing frequently... and, at any rate, I wasn't keeping track of what it was. --

4274:

and I don't understand why you're so hung up on it. Whether or not I edited as an IP is not the basis of my candidacy. I have stated

3001:. In the same response, I did mention that the merits of the article have to be weighed against the merits of the policies I listed, 1102:

is the classic times example of someone who doesn't really want the responsibility, and does a great job, in part because of that. --

1041:

collaborative skills for adminship and might overcome my concerns that this editor is seeking adminship for the sake of having it.

436:

A lot of content is also removed that, while the rules do provide for its removal, just isn't hurting anybody. Of course I respect

4706:"vote vs. consensus" or "quality vs. importance". I don't think anything I said was unreasonable, out of line, or unintelligible. 1824:

Just to clarify: I don't consider my conduct on that page "edit warring." While running RC patrol, I mistook a legitimate edit on

3819:

I belive this user has great potential. He shows willingness to learn and experience beyond his edit count (bah @ editcountitis)

2172:

I think in this case, it seems to me that Moralis was right. Please do not assume that you are all-knowing and always correct. --

233:. I spend a fair amount of my free time on RC patrol, mostly via IRC. And I have a LOT of free time- I'm unemployed right now. -- 30: 17: 4401:

Go Moralis! Go! Woohooooo! What a blatant testimony to an editor getting it. This guy deserves editor of the month or something.

5194: 2122: 4317:- Not sure where you are picking up that I am angry with you. Nothing is further from the truth. I just wanted to ask you a 4278:

times that I don't expect users to take me at my word on that. I only ask other users to review the contributions I have made

3617: 2472:. As to your vote, do you have any reason to oppose other than the format of this RfA and perception of lack of experience? -- 501: 5128:

I'd just like to comment and say I totally endorse Mus Musculus's comment. (I wish I had said it in those words myself.) --

3610:

Tallies provide some transparency to the rest of us as to how well the closing bureaucrat's action matches the RfA consensus.

3071:

common is that each of their success stories breeds at least one productive editor where there mightn't have been one before.

433:

to remove articles or content as advertisements or vanity when what they really need is some TLC, rather than death by fire.

4931:. I don't think my comments in any way suggest that I would be going in under the assumption that users have axes to grind. 3261:....to do with consensus. If you want bureaucrats to count votes, then we might as well get a bot to promote candidates. -- 2647:

If you don't mind my asking, what is it about my answers that leads you to believe I'm likely to become a problem admin? --

1859:

I see nothing that would lead me to believe this user would abuse the admin tools. Thank you for trying a new kind of RFA.

1722:

This user is willing to do the work, and I see no evidence that this user will misuse the tools or use them in bad faith.--

627:

Wow is this a silly format or what? Anyway do I answer here or there or where? Sorry if I'm in the wrong spot but anyway I

903:. The candidate does not have yet have a long enough record as a consistent contributor to earn my support for adminship. 107: 1486:

I see very little participation in policy making, and I don't see much at all in the areas where admin tools are useful.

965:

such a low rate of activity since registering in 2005, just over one edit per day, doesn't really cut it for me, sorry.

4399:

You will note that Durin (who appears to have a strong interest in this nomination) states the following in his comment

4370: 4201: 3755: 3289: 2871: 2536: 2288:

for being willing to be a guinea pig, not burned at the stake. Further discussion on the merits of the format is --: -->

4772: 555:

parties, or at least is so clearly in line with policy that there's absolutely nothing else you can do for the dispute.

4466:

familiarity with policy, etc.). That approach might be more effective at focusing discussion on the relevant topics. -

2986:

something else. Of course, if you would like to elaborate further, I'll be happy to listen and consider what you say.

1514: 1266: 3623:) many of us have on our user pages -- they help us track what's going on and which RfAs to go back to a second time. 1291: 825: 714: 349:

much attention to RfAs in the past- something I intend to change now that I've seen how the discussions usually go.

5075:

looking over Moralis's contributions, I could not find any problematic edits or unreasonable behaviour. Good luck

725:. I am sick of all this editcountitus. He is a good user who I am confidant will not abuse or misuse the tools. - 219:

Of your articles or contributions to Knowledge, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

4467: 876: 600:

Did you edit as an IP before you registered? Just curious, your edits seem quite knowledgeable for a newbie :)

138:

A comment in that empty space up there says that the candidate may make an optional statement here, so I will.

3790:

user page. If his previous edits were actually made using a different user name, he could always just say so.

3595:

This format was worth trying -- and now that we've tried it out, I can say I certainly don't care for it. AfD

1284: 853:

valuable contributor as a sysop. Look at the content of his edits, he is a positive force in the community. -

345:, because the format of an RfA is not policy, to my knowledge. Please correct me if I'm wrong- I haven't paid 3183:, I'm just not seeing the need for the tools. This, and the answers to the questions just don't do it for me. 3101:, on the other hand, is a problem. It doesn't stand alone and someone who works on AIV needs to also work on 5333: 5031: 4367: 3795: 3118: 3058: 2997:

Well, the comments you're referring to were in response to a question about when I feel it's appropriate to

2868: 2724: 2632: 2533: 650: 5119: 4095: 3386: 2523: 1240: 1061: 1046: 2404:

So you think a person should be prevented from being an admin because of the format of their RfA then? --

702:. As HiDrNick notes above, adminship is indeed no big deal. Moralis has shown greatly impressive work at 4980: 4581: 4192: 3746: 2887: 2848: 2816: 1892: 1783: 1746: 1025: 1006: 979: 966: 916: 854: 707: 153:, which has given me a unique perspective on the various issues we have with each other as Wikipedians. 5350:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either

4053:

Are you suggesting that this unusual formatting will hinder Moralis's ability to be a trusted user? --

3718:

Once again, even if I do disagree with some of them, thank you so much for your reasoned arguments! --

2439:

Knowledge is built on consensus. Some opinions are worth less than others, especially irrelevant ones.

2110:

that desperately need attention. I have complete trust that the tools will not be misused or abused.

2670:, as your answer does as well. The combination is a red flag. To ice the cake, you described all of 5249: 5129: 4054: 3767: 3216: 756: 632: 3105:. You don't seem to have much experience of speedy deletion, and the limited evidence I can find is 1710: 1001:

After reviewing the contrib history, I see no problems. Very civil user, will make a decent admin. —

5336: 5311: 5275: 5257: 5238: 5214: 5199: 5179: 5167: 5145: 5137:

I find the argument that he's been doing great work at MEDCAB a bit puzzling. As far as I can tell

5132: 5123: 5105: 5079: 5067: 5053: 5038: 5015: 5000: 4983: 4963: 4922: 4905: 4891: 4880: 4864: 4848: 4824: 4783: 4737: 4728: 4710: 4696: 4686: 4664: 4654: 4635: 4604: 4584: 4572: 4560:

new layout - really give me great confidence in this candidate's ability to be a sane mop-bearer.

4543: 4518: 4504: 4489: 4470: 4460: 4436: 4413: 4373: 4360: 4340: 4328: 4307: 4256: 4246:

I assume a full list would take some time because no doubt (given some of the comments relating to

4226: 4205: 4180: 4162: 4150: 4102: 4081: 4067: 4057: 4048: 4029: 4017: 4005: 3993: 3942: 3939: 3932: 3917: 3914: 3904: 3878: 3875: 3865: 3847: 3827: 3811: 3798: 3784: 3770: 3759: 3722: 3635: 3574: 3562: 3541: 3531: 3517: 3508: 3491: 3488: 3467: 3435: 3420: 3403: 3389: 3370: 3351: 3342: 3324: 3306: 3293: 3265: 3249: 3234: 3219: 3201: 3174: 3171: 3159: 3143: 3121: 3088: 3061: 3037: 3015: 2992: 2976: 2943: 2908: 2898: 2874: 2859: 2836: 2827: 2803: 2793: 2779: 2757: 2743: 2734: 2702: 2687: 2656: 2642: 2618: 2603: 2581: 2558: 2539: 2526: 2505: 2486: 2476: 2462: 2443: 2432: 2418: 2408: 2399: 2387: 2375: 2363: 2338: 2321: 2296: 2278: 2260: 2256: 2237: 2213: 2193: 2176: 2165: 2145: 2127: 2119: 2101: 2077: 2061: 2039: 2019: 2009: 1994: 1982: 1965: 1951: 1946: 1928: 1903: 1880: 1863: 1849: 1819: 1807: 1787: 1769: 1757: 1731: 1714: 1685: 1676: 1665: 1650: 1626: 1613: 1601: 1592: 1574: 1571: 1558: 1547: 1534: 1521: 1494: 1476: 1463: 1434: 1413: 1394: 1367: 1334: 1315: 1303: 1274: 1243: 1234: 1220: 1201: 1178: 1166: 1154: 1145: 1129: 1125: 1106: 1082: 1065: 1050: 1029: 1015: 1003: 996: 982: 969: 955: 944: 922: 907: 893: 879: 857: 849:. Edit count isn't an issue, the user is obviously very experienced with Knowledge, and could be a 839: 830: 802: 799: 788: 776: 759: 746: 717: 694: 672: 655: 635: 620: 604: 580: 568: 485: 470: 373: 301: 286: 270: 242: 207: 166: 123: 5230:, which is what a couple people above have pointed out is the real test. BTW: this format is 4548:

The calm and patience shown in dealing with this experiment in interactivity in an RfA - plus the

2740: 1011: 5330: 5142: 5026: 4919: 4888: 4764:

and I say this because try as I might I can not remove the vision of Durin pushing his own barrow

4725: 4044: 3559: 3363: 3115: 3055: 3032: 2987: 2938: 2719: 2627: 2601: 2247: 2052:

and not Moralis. I didn't come up with the idea for this format, but I was the one <cough: -->

1805: 1610: 1589: 1544: 683: 645: 88: 80: 5023:

User isn't experienced enough to obtain admin tools. Wait a few more months. Then I'll support.

3780:. Far too little editing experience. No way to tell what this user would do with the tools. --- 2173: 1816: 2048:

Anyone opposing this RfA because of format should be directing their hate and derision towards

1701: 5271: 5115: 5049: 4996: 4959: 4901: 4820: 4778: 4568: 4500: 4455: 4432: 4408: 4355: 4351: 4323: 4303: 4251: 4146: 3928: 3900: 3861: 3842: 3823: 3503: 3464: 3452: 3432: 3416: 3400: 3383: 3338: 3155: 3141: 3084: 3011: 2972: 2772: 2698: 2652: 2520: 2501: 2313: 2270: 2229: 2209: 2185: 2157: 2141: 2095: 2035: 2005: 1978: 1920: 1845: 1661: 1409: 1210: 1057: 1042: 931: 889: 772: 668: 616: 564: 481: 466: 369: 297: 266: 238: 203: 162: 101: 4815:

Please keep your beef with other users off of my RFA. It's not civil and it's not helpful. --

3499:. Looks promising, but I would personally prefer him to gain a little more experience first. 3318:

A user with under 800 edits would never get this far without this stunt Moralis has employed!

5326: 5164: 5158: 4701:

You can call it consensus building if you want. I call it a vote. The directions for voting

4661: 4592:. Far too little experience. I'm not crazy about edit counts, but 760? Nobody's standard is 4535: 4337: 4263:

Please keep your hostility in check. I did not make any anonymous edits while my laptop was

4197: 4159: 4064: 4026: 4002: 3751: 3719: 3538: 3514: 3075: 3047: 2905: 2892: 2853: 2821: 2335: 1897: 1779: 1751: 1727: 1682: 1473: 1460: 1312: 1142: 1103: 1092: 1078: 836: 703: 551:

meant the same thing, policy would just have us count sources and give proportionate weight.

283: 226: 150: 119: 111: 3989:

for now. Not enough experience as yet, would support once more editing experience gained.

338:

of the rules. Don't ignore them to make your case, and don't abuse them to make your case."

5308: 5298:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Moralis/Archive_1#IABSM_-_Thank_you_for_your_efforts_but

5254: 5211: 5011: 4877: 4223: 4133:

is not intended to protect the status quo- users of Knowledge are encouraged to "be bold."

4130: 4126: 3633: 2753: 2675: 2671: 2568:

constantly. His answers to the optional questions show a good knowledge of how Knowledge

2346: 1860: 1543:

hate the refactoring of the page which makes it harder, imo, to make sense of the debate.

1511: 1360: 577: 516: 417: 413: 409: 383: 361: 357: 342: 328: 321: 310: 3582:

per all of the above that have pointed out Moralis needs more experience. Other comments:

1597:

Except, this is supposed to be a discussion...not a vote. You can't sort a discussion. --

4860: 5189: 5176: 4991:: Too little experience. I'm saddened at the anti-edit-countitis gone too far here. -- 4596:

low. He has huge gaps in editing, and a lot of his edits are just reverts. I don't see

4549: 3808: 3348: 3321: 3246: 3168: 3094: 2546: 2252: 2116: 1943: 1877: 1671: 1645: 1568: 1378: 1299: 1188: 1121: 919: 819: 524: 430: 190: 143: 1530:

decision to allow his RfA to have its S/N/O tally removed is not a reason to oppose.

631:

until nominee gains a greater level of expertise across a wider spectrum of Knowledge.

324:? Does the non-standard organization of your present RFA fail it? Does my question? 5363: 4928: 4915: 4078: 4039: 3990: 3963: 3571: 3098: 3002: 2998: 2983: 2679: 2667: 2663: 2596: 2592: 2587: 2565: 2440: 2384: 2372: 1833: 1800: 1531: 1488: 1431: 1424: 1364: 1151: 601: 452: 437: 426: 405: 395: 360:

applies to your question. While it may have been a leading question, I don't see how

194: 4242:

so that we can see the type of edits/edit summary etc you made when you were anon.

5267: 5076: 5045: 4992: 4955: 4897: 4845: 4816: 4707: 4683: 4651: 4601: 4563: 4496: 4428: 4299: 4142: 3924: 3896: 3857: 3820: 3781: 3589:

Moralis, thanks for agreeing to be the guinea pig in this experiment in RfA reform.

3528: 3500: 3448: 3412: 3334: 3228: 3195: 3152: 3134: 3080: 3007: 2968: 2768: 2694: 2684: 2648: 2615: 2595:

to report blatant vandalism though, as it is is generally a streamlined process. —

2497: 2429: 2318: 2310: 2275: 2267: 2234: 2226: 2205: 2190: 2182: 2162: 2154: 2137: 2088: 2031: 2001: 1974: 1917: 1841: 1829: 1825: 1657: 1405: 1324: 1163: 993: 992:

sorry, but you're too inexperienced to support, particularly in Knowledge space. --

952: 904: 885: 768: 664: 612: 560: 497: 477: 462: 365: 293: 262: 234: 230: 199: 158: 97: 5297: 4910:

While that summary might make a decent answer, you also did write things such as "

448:

validity to the argument that if content is really appropriate it'll find its way.

4244:

In other words can you give us a list of anon IP edits that you claim credit for?

1828:

for vandalism. It looked like certain content was being blanked, in violation of

1357:"Refactoring per discussion with nominee; do not revert as this was agreed upon." 1088: 79:

The formatting of this page is intentional. It was done after much discussion on

5235: 5161: 5099: 4611: 4524: 4189: 4014: 3743: 3736:

I would trust this user as an admin, and am purposely not putting my opinion in

3694:

The refactor on this page is one way to try to improve the quality of RFA again.

3285: 2882: 2843: 2811: 2788: 1887: 1766: 1741: 1723: 1328: 1229: 1099: 1074: 785: 726: 146:, and staring at an IRC readout of recent changes, looking for oddities to fix. 115: 5064: 4734: 4693: 4632: 4515: 4486: 4177: 4037:

due to this unusual formatting. This flies in the face of standard procedure.

3630: 3367: 3303: 3262: 2833: 2800: 2749: 2483: 2473: 2459: 2415: 2405: 2396: 2293: 2058: 1623: 1598: 1555: 1504: 1391: 1255: 1175: 5344:

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.

3966:

reference. Also, his responses to to opposers on this page have impressed me

2574: 2074: 2016: 1991: 1962: 813: 114:

and other related articles, and really deserves this for all his hard work.

4322:

about your candidacy than your lack of any proof regarding anon IP edits.--

2266:

administrator. As such, it has everything to do with the question at hand.

87:) of the candidate. Please do not alter it without discussing the issue at 3738: 3208: 3031:

based on a good answer to that and a willingness to discuss and clarify.

2799:

find anything that suggests this editor is incapable of being trusted? --

56: 559:

format anything- that's more of a manual of style issue, if anything. --

1836:. I reverted it, incorrectly, because that's what we do with vandalism. 261:

just submitted a Mediation Cabal request when the dispute died down. --

4222:, but feel confident he will impartially assess other points of view. 5354:

or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

4801:

If Durin is bullying others by making the comments he's made, you're

3613:

Tallies also tie into the various color-coded RfA summaries (such as

2428:

Moralis is a hippie and an agitator" seems like a valid point to me.

1670:

Indeed. In your defense VP hasn't been workign right for a while now.

3151:

shows good enough policy knowledge, we all have to start somewhere.

135:

I feel honored just seeing this page come into existence. I accept.

3102: 3074:

Incidentally, I have read the manual of style, and I do think that

1700:

oppose and added them up anyways to make sure I wasn't doing such.

4927:

Saying that some users have an axe to grind is not a violation of

4454:

my congratulations will be forthcoming if you do gain adminship.--

3648:

I like your way of commenting :-) I do disagree with a few points.

2225:

that this is not just some mistake in format, but an experiment.

1383:

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Reform#Proposal_by_Sjakkalle

4336:

that's the very very best kind of admin. So there you have it. --

4172:

Go Moralis! Go! Woohooooo! What a blatant testimony to an editor

1098:

and, this being an encyclopedia I couldn't resist looking it up:

4366:

account, which is obviously not a particularly friendly remark.

59: 65: 130:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

229:, but I'm mainly proud of being dubbed a "Vandal Huntar" by 2959:

on an AfD. I then elaborated that "helpful" means "useful"

4387:

Well actually Christopher your interpretation is incorrect

4188:

And I said I wasn't going to bold my opinion... Oh well.

3558:

due to inexperience. I may reconsider in a few months. -

3302:

of this RfA? He must be an outstanding candidate then. --

2087:

not active enough, not enough edits, too inexperienced.

382:

Completely optional and possible frivolous question from

29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

4942:

a user was enforcing policy in order to grind that axe,

4176:. This guy deserves editor of the month or something. -- 3298:

So you have nothing to oppose this candidate except for

4810:. You're twisting his words and THAT'S just not polite. 4692:

It's part of the process by which we gain consensus. --

4625: 4623: 4621: 4619: 4614:. An amazing thing happened. Knowledge didn't collapse. 4482: 4219: 3977: 3570:

per Mailer diablo, Dweller, Crum375 and Naconkantari.--

3106: 2982:

belong here. Our mission is to create an encyclopedia,

1350: 425:

axes to grind, for the most part). A lot of people use

142:

users probably consider mind-numbing, like addressing

5188:

discussions. With more experience, I would support.

4450:

and as is my right I do not support your nomination

3240:

Finally, someone else who finds the (!) prefix very

3079:

my contributions in other spheres to focus on it. --

4858:if such a bean-counting tally is necessary. :) -- 4395: 3224:I'll call it a !vote when RFA stops being a vote. 2841:Well, that's also up to each user's discretion. -- 2468:feelings about the format of this RfA and send it 183:What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? 5175:Dealt with questions well and seems intelligent. 2305:Well, I'll try to show some mercy by changing to 2030:while I'm still pretty neutral on the subject. -- 394:Under what circumstances would you be willing to 4094:gives an idea of what is expected of an admin.-- 4808:for reasons that he considers blatantly unfair 2683:going to be a problem admin sooner or later. 590:Please keep criticism constructive and polite. 4914:To me, this shows a lack of understanding of 4125:, I do not believe this to be a violation of 8: 4677:think reverting vandalism constitutes a low 3442:I was not "arguing". In fact, I even stated 3093:There are two things you want to do. First, 2666:, while missing the most important words in 4844:. Far too little experience at the moment. 4272:I cannot lay claim to any specific IP edits 3052:Knowledge:Guide to writing better articles 1916:Please remember that this is not a vote. – 4934:In other words- my position was that one 1554:What, you mean read people's comments? -- 4640:Knowledge wouldn't have collapsed if we 3027:Alright, I can go for that. Changing to 2832:Except, it isn't an indicator at all. -- 2739:The purple sparrow flies at midnight. -- 4025:per Jonathunder, Addhoc & others.-- 3971: 2000:criticism and learn from my errors). -- 1567:Doesn't the bureaucrat do that anyway? 1139:doesn't mean he wouldn't be an OK admin 341:I don't believe that this RfA violates 5303:judgment to be an admin at this point. 3766:trust Moralis as an administrator. -- 3207:Forgot to prefix the logical operator 2769:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 85:read: consent, not necessarily support 7: 5234:, if perhaps more illuminating. 4013:- mostly due to lack of experience. 3838:REQUEST - FOR TRUST FROM ONE'S PEERS 5370:Unsuccessful requests for adminship 4167:Too bad I can't support twice. :-P 2482:I need no more reason that that. 408:is very similar in its message to 320:. What is your interpretation of 24: 4645:level of trust. A couple hundred 4158:Dang! I had already supported! -- 1186:- Not nearly enough experience-- 225:I've done a lot of revamping of 69: 18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship 3618:User:Dragons_flight/RFA_summary 3513:Oh my! I can see the fnords! -- 4788:I have several views on this: 4773:this otherwise reasonable page 3891:this account before I started 1869:E-gads! What's all this mess?! 504:. For the edit count, see the 1: 1618:Further discussion is --: --> 189:Cutting down the backlogs at 4282:and judge me based on those. 4240:your laptop went missing etc 3366:. Stop targeting Moralis. -- 2591:candiate to continue to use 2393:More notes for closing 'crat 2292:. Stop targeting Moralis. -- 2057:. Stop targeting Moralis. -- 3841:application at this time.-- 2423:Durin, do you think people 1095:14:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 500:'s edit summary usage with 172:Questions for the candidate 5386: 5337:04:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 5312:16:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 5276:05:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 5258:22:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 5239:20:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 5215:14:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 5200:10:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 5180:07:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 5168:19:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 5146:19:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 5133:18:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 5124:18:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 5106:18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 5080:15:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 5068:10:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 5054:05:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 5039:04:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 5016:03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 5001:01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 4984:23:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4964:05:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 4923:21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4906:21:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4892:20:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4881:19:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4869:17:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4849:16:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4825:05:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 4784:22:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4766:expecially when he is the 4738:13:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4729:13:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4711:15:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4697:15:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4687:15:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4665:14:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4655:13:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4636:12:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4605:12:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4585:09:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4573:08:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4544:07:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4519:06:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4505:07:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4490:06:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4471:04:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4461:04:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4437:04:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4414:03:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4374:03:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4361:01:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4341:01:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4329:01:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4308:01:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4257:01:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4227:00:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4206:23:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 4181:23:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 4163:21:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 4151:21:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 4103:22:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 4082:21:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 4068:21:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 4058:21:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 4049:21:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 4030:18:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 4018:17:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 4006:15:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 3994:14:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 3983:12:46, Apr. 15, 2007 (UTC) 3943:04:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 3933:03:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 3918:01:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 3905:18:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 3879:18:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 3866:18:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 3848:12:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 3828:07:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 3812:07:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 3799:06:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 3785:02:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 3771:02:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 3760:01:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 3723:21:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 3636:21:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 3575:18:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 3563:18:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 3542:17:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 3532:17:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 3518:17:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 3509:17:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 3492:12:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 3468:08:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 3436:11:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 3421:02:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 3404:10:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 3390:15:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 3371:12:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 3352:09:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 3343:08:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 3325:08:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 3307:12:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 3294:03:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 3266:12:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 3250:08:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 3235:04:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 3220:03:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 3202:02:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 3175:01:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 3160:22:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 3144:20:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 3122:11:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 3089:02:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 3062:20:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 3038:20:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 3016:20:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2993:20:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2977:19:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2944:19:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2909:15:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 2899:20:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 2875:16:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 2860:20:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2837:20:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2828:20:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2804:19:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2794:19:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2780:18:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2758:17:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2744:17:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2735:16:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2703:08:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 2688:03:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 2657:17:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2643:16:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2619:16:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2604:12:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 2582:16:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2559:15:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2540:14:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2527:14:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2506:14:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2487:14:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2477:14:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2463:14:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2444:14:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2433:20:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2419:14:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2409:14:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2400:14:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2388:13:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2376:13:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2364:13:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2339:09:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2322:14:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2297:13:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2279:11:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2261:09:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2238:09:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2214:08:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2194:08:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2177:08:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2166:08:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2146:08:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2128:07:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2102:06:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2078:15:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2062:13:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2040:11:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2020:11:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 2010:09:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 1995:09:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 1983:06:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 1966:06:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 1952:06:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 1929:03:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1904:13:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 1881:05:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 1864:04:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 1850:06:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 1820:01:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 1808:01:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 1788:01:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 1770:23:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1758:22:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1732:22:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1715:20:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1686:20:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1677:20:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1666:20:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1651:20:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1627:20:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1614:20:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1602:20:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1593:20:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1575:20:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1559:20:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1548:20:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1535:19:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1522:19:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1495:19:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1477:14:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 1464:19:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1435:17:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 1414:19:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1395:19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1368:19:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1335:19:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1316:19:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1304:18:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1275:18:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1244:18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1235:18:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1221:18:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1209:- Not enough experience. 1202:18:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1179:17:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1167:17:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1155:17:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1146:15:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1130:15:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1107:14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 1083:22:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1066:14:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 1051:14:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1030:14:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1016:13:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 997:12:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 983:20:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 970:10:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 956:09:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 945:09:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 923:09:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 908:06:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 894:04:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 880:04:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 858:04:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 840:15:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 831:03:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 803:03:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 789:11:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 777:03:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 760:03:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 747:03:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 718:03:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 695:02:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 673:02:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 656:02:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 636:10:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 621:02:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 605:02:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 581:19:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 569:19:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 486:08:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 471:13:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 374:06:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 334:In other words, "Obey the 302:06:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 287:19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 271:02:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 243:02:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 208:02:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 167:02:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 124:01:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 4556:guinea pig for a frankly 5347:Please do not modify it. 5291:-- I did not state that 3527:Clearly not ready yet.-- 353:and seeing how it works. 40:Please do not modify it. 1162:needs more experience. 515:Optional question from 388:answer at your own risk 309:Optional Question from 83:and with the consent ( 327:My interpretation of 31:request for adminship 5139:his first work there 4391:glib prose of others 4289:my edits. Seeing as 2381:Note to closing crat 1871:- Like I said, what 1137:If a low edit count 1089:something about that 5114:is a no-brainer. -- 4468:Hit bull, win steak 3133:Not active enough. 1087:I was just reading 151:the Mediation Cabal 4781: 4458: 4411: 4368:Christopher Parham 4358: 4326: 4254: 4248:obvious experience 3845: 3387:(spill your mind?) 2897: 2869:Christopher Parham 2858: 2826: 2586:A sampling of ten 2534:Christopher Parham 2524:(spill your mind?) 1902: 1756: 62:(UTC) - (41/56/10) 5159:Why The Hell Not? 5089:Arbitrary break 5 5077:ابو علي (Abu Ali) 4950:Ignore All Rules 4938:Ignore All Rules 4779: 4571: 4456: 4409: 4356: 4324: 4252: 4204: 4169: 4112:Arbitrary Break 4 3923:a regular RfA. -- 3843: 3825: 3758: 3157: 3036: 2991: 2942: 2928:Arbitrary break 3 2881: 2842: 2810: 2787:- Too few edits. 1949: 1886: 1740: 1713: 1518: 1493: 1450:Arbitrary break 2 1355:correct in saying 1301: 1110: 867:Arbitrary break 1 144:copyedit backlogs 95: 94: 5377: 5349: 5102: 5034: 5029: 4981:Anthony.bradbury 4669:My opinion does 4561: 4541: 4538: 4531: 4528: 4200: 4195: 4165: 4123:not set in stone 3824: 3754: 3749: 3622: 3616: 3506: 3231: 3227: 3214: 3198: 3194: 3156: 3139: 3076:The Black Parade 3048:The Black Parade 3035: 2999:ignore all rules 2990: 2941: 2895: 2890: 2885: 2856: 2851: 2846: 2824: 2819: 2814: 2777: 2775: 2732: 2727: 2722: 2640: 2635: 2630: 2599: 2579: 2556: 2551: 2361: 2355: 2351: 2316: 2273: 2232: 2188: 2160: 2126: 2100: 2093: 1947: 1924: 1900: 1895: 1890: 1803: 1754: 1749: 1744: 1709: 1706: 1674: 1648: 1532:Camaron1 | Chris 1519: 1516: 1508: 1487: 1353:by Durin states 1332: 1302: 1298: 1296: 1289: 1271: 1263: 1260: 1232: 1218: 1213: 1200: 1198: 1193: 1096: 1028: 980:The Rambling Man 967:The Rambling Man 941: 938: 744: 741: 738: 735: 732: 729: 691: 686: 653: 648: 453:ignore all rules 396:ignore all rules 227:The Black Parade 112:The Black Parade 73: 72: 66: 42: 5385: 5384: 5380: 5379: 5378: 5376: 5375: 5374: 5360: 5359: 5358: 5352:this nomination 5345: 5250:user:spamjaguar 5197: 5100: 5091: 5032: 5027: 4539: 4536: 4529: 4526: 4348:Further comment 4193: 4186:Strong support. 4114: 3747: 3620: 3614: 3504: 3292: 3229: 3225: 3212: 3196: 3192: 3135: 2930: 2893: 2888: 2883: 2854: 2849: 2844: 2822: 2817: 2812: 2778: 2773: 2767: 2730: 2725: 2720: 2638: 2633: 2628: 2597: 2575: 2552: 2547: 2357: 2353: 2347: 2314: 2271: 2230: 2186: 2158: 2125: 2111: 2098: 2089: 1922: 1898: 1893: 1888: 1801: 1752: 1747: 1742: 1702: 1672: 1646: 1515: 1506: 1491: 1452: 1361:This discussion 1330: 1292: 1285: 1283: 1273: 1267: 1256: 1253: 1230: 1214: 1211: 1194: 1189: 1187: 1024: 939: 933: 869: 742: 739: 736: 733: 730: 727: 687: 684: 651: 646: 633:Bec-Thorn-Berry 549:more verifiable 517:User:TimVickers 311:User:Bucketsofg 122: 70: 52: 38: 35:did not succeed 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5383: 5381: 5373: 5372: 5362: 5361: 5357: 5356: 5340: 5339: 5319: 5318: 5317: 5316: 5315: 5314: 5304: 5300: 5281: 5280: 5279: 5278: 5241: 5217: 5203: 5202: 5193: 5182: 5170: 5152: 5151: 5150: 5149: 5148: 5108: 5090: 5087: 5085: 5083: 5082: 5070: 5058: 5057: 5056: 5018: 5003: 4986: 4973: 4972: 4971: 4970: 4969: 4968: 4967: 4966: 4932: 4884: 4883: 4871: 4856:strong support 4851: 4838: 4837: 4836: 4835: 4834: 4833: 4832: 4831: 4830: 4829: 4828: 4827: 4813: 4812: 4811: 4799: 4796: 4792: 4759:Strong Comment 4747: 4746: 4745: 4744: 4743: 4742: 4741: 4740: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4647:reports at AIV 4628: 4615: 4587: 4575: 4546: 4521: 4509: 4508: 4507: 4485:experience. -- 4474: 4473: 4463: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4442: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4424: 4389:- My response 4379: 4378: 4377: 4376: 4344: 4343: 4332: 4331: 4311: 4310: 4295: 4283: 4268: 4260: 4259: 4229: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4183: 4170: 4138: 4134: 4113: 4110: 4108: 4106: 4105: 4084: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4060: 4032: 4020: 4008: 3996: 3984: 3982: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3940:After Midnight 3915:After Midnight 3876:After Midnight 3830: 3814: 3801: 3787: 3774: 3773: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3716: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3670: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3639: 3638: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3611: 3608: 3604: 3593: 3590: 3584: 3583: 3577: 3565: 3554:, uh, I mean, 3546: 3545: 3544: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3494: 3489:After Midnight 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3444:in my response 3439: 3438: 3424: 3423: 3407: 3406: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3288: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3237: 3204: 3185: 3184: 3177: 3162: 3146: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3116:Angus McLellan 3072: 3068: 3056:Angus McLellan 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 2929: 2926: 2924: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2782: 2766: 2760: 2746: 2737: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2561: 2542: 2529: 2519:the comments. 2509: 2508: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2479: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2421: 2366: 2341: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2300: 2299: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2169: 2168: 2148: 2130: 2115: 2107:Strong Support 2104: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 1954: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1866: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1837: 1810: 1790: 1772: 1760: 1734: 1717: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1605: 1604: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1537: 1524: 1497: 1489: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1451: 1448: 1446: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1379:User:Sjakkalle 1337: 1318: 1306: 1277: 1265: 1247: 1237: 1223: 1204: 1181: 1169: 1157: 1148: 1132: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1069: 1068: 1032: 1018: 999: 987: 986: 985: 958: 947: 925: 910: 898: 897: 896: 877:(aeropagitica) 868: 865: 863: 861: 860: 844: 843: 842: 805: 793: 792: 791: 779: 749: 720: 697: 677: 676: 675: 638: 624: 623: 608: 607: 587: 586: 585: 584: 583: 573: 572: 571: 556: 552: 545:more prominent 536: 519: 512: 511: 509: 502:mathbot's tool 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 449: 441: 434: 422: 389: 386: 379: 378: 377: 376: 356:I don't think 354: 350: 339: 332: 315: 306: 305: 304: 276: 275: 274: 273: 248: 247: 246: 245: 213: 212: 211: 210: 174: 173: 133: 132: 118: 93: 92: 74: 51: 46: 45: 44: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5382: 5371: 5368: 5367: 5365: 5355: 5353: 5348: 5342: 5341: 5338: 5335: 5332: 5331:Mike Christie 5328: 5324: 5321: 5320: 5313: 5310: 5307:administered. 5305: 5301: 5299: 5294: 5290: 5287: 5286: 5285: 5284: 5283: 5282: 5277: 5273: 5269: 5264: 5261: 5260: 5259: 5256: 5251: 5246: 5242: 5240: 5237: 5233: 5229: 5225: 5221: 5218: 5216: 5213: 5208: 5205: 5204: 5201: 5196: 5191: 5186: 5183: 5181: 5178: 5174: 5171: 5169: 5166: 5163: 5160: 5156: 5153: 5147: 5144: 5143:Pascal.Tesson 5140: 5136: 5135: 5134: 5131: 5127: 5126: 5125: 5121: 5117: 5112: 5109: 5107: 5104: 5103: 5096: 5093: 5092: 5088: 5086: 5081: 5078: 5074: 5071: 5069: 5066: 5062: 5059: 5055: 5051: 5047: 5042: 5041: 5040: 5037: 5036: 5035: 5030: 5022: 5019: 5017: 5014: 5013: 5007: 5004: 5002: 4998: 4994: 4990: 4987: 4985: 4982: 4978: 4975: 4974: 4965: 4961: 4957: 4953: 4949: 4948:should always 4945: 4941: 4937: 4933: 4930: 4926: 4925: 4924: 4921: 4920:Pascal.Tesson 4917: 4913: 4909: 4908: 4907: 4903: 4899: 4895: 4894: 4893: 4890: 4889:Pascal.Tesson 4886: 4885: 4882: 4879: 4875: 4872: 4870: 4867: 4866: 4862: 4857: 4852: 4850: 4847: 4843: 4840: 4839: 4826: 4822: 4818: 4814: 4809: 4804: 4800: 4797: 4793: 4790: 4789: 4787: 4786: 4785: 4782: 4775: 4774: 4769: 4765: 4760: 4757: 4756: 4755: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4748: 4739: 4736: 4732: 4731: 4730: 4727: 4726:Pascal.Tesson 4722: 4712: 4709: 4704: 4700: 4699: 4698: 4695: 4690: 4689: 4688: 4685: 4680: 4676: 4672: 4668: 4667: 4666: 4663: 4658: 4657: 4656: 4653: 4648: 4643: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4634: 4629: 4626: 4624: 4622: 4620: 4616: 4613: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4603: 4599: 4595: 4591: 4588: 4586: 4583: 4579: 4576: 4574: 4570: 4566: 4565: 4559: 4555: 4551: 4547: 4545: 4542: 4533: 4532: 4522: 4520: 4517: 4513: 4510: 4506: 4502: 4498: 4493: 4492: 4491: 4488: 4483: 4479: 4476: 4475: 4472: 4469: 4464: 4462: 4459: 4453: 4448: 4447: 4438: 4434: 4430: 4425: 4421: 4417: 4416: 4415: 4412: 4406: 4402: 4398: 4397: 4392: 4388: 4385: 4384: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4380: 4375: 4372: 4369: 4364: 4363: 4362: 4359: 4353: 4349: 4346: 4345: 4342: 4339: 4334: 4333: 4330: 4327: 4320: 4316: 4313: 4312: 4309: 4305: 4301: 4296: 4292: 4288: 4284: 4281: 4277: 4273: 4269: 4266: 4262: 4261: 4258: 4255: 4249: 4245: 4241: 4237: 4233: 4232:Comment pffff 4230: 4228: 4225: 4221: 4216: 4213: 4212: 4207: 4203: 4199: 4196: 4191: 4187: 4184: 4182: 4179: 4175: 4171: 4168: 4164: 4161: 4157: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4148: 4144: 4139: 4135: 4132: 4128: 4124: 4119: 4116: 4115: 4111: 4109: 4104: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4093: 4088: 4085: 4083: 4080: 4076: 4073: 4069: 4066: 4061: 4059: 4056: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4041: 4036: 4033: 4031: 4028: 4024: 4021: 4019: 4016: 4012: 4009: 4007: 4004: 4000: 3997: 3995: 3992: 3988: 3985: 3981: 3979: 3975: 3969: 3965: 3964:Show Biz Kids 3961: 3958: 3944: 3941: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3930: 3926: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3916: 3911: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3902: 3898: 3894: 3890: 3885: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3877: 3872: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3863: 3859: 3854: 3851: 3850: 3849: 3846: 3839: 3834: 3831: 3829: 3826: 3822: 3818: 3815: 3813: 3810: 3805: 3802: 3800: 3797: 3796:CharlotteWebb 3793: 3788: 3786: 3783: 3779: 3776: 3775: 3772: 3769: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3750: 3745: 3741: 3740: 3724: 3721: 3717: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3671: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3637: 3634: 3632: 3627: 3619: 3612: 3609: 3605: 3601: 3600: 3598: 3594: 3591: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3581: 3578: 3576: 3573: 3569: 3566: 3564: 3561: 3560:Mailer Diablo 3557: 3553: 3551: 3547: 3543: 3540: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3530: 3526: 3523: 3519: 3516: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3507: 3502: 3498: 3495: 3493: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3479: 3478: 3469: 3466: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3454: 3450: 3445: 3441: 3440: 3437: 3434: 3429: 3426: 3425: 3422: 3418: 3414: 3409: 3408: 3405: 3402: 3398: 3395: 3391: 3388: 3385: 3381: 3378: 3372: 3369: 3365: 3359: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3350: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3340: 3336: 3331: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3312: 3308: 3305: 3301: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3280: 3279: 3268: 3267: 3264: 3260: 3254: 3253: 3251: 3248: 3243: 3239: 3238: 3236: 3233: 3232: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3218: 3210: 3206: 3205: 3203: 3200: 3199: 3190: 3189:And a Comment 3187: 3186: 3182: 3178: 3176: 3173: 3170: 3166: 3163: 3161: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3147: 3145: 3142: 3140: 3138: 3132: 3129: 3123: 3120: 3117: 3113: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3096: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3077: 3073: 3069: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3060: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3034: 3033:Seraphimblade 3030: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2989: 2988:Seraphimblade 2985: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2962: 2958: 2954: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2940: 2939:Seraphimblade 2936: 2927: 2925: 2910: 2907: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2896: 2891: 2886: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2873: 2870: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2852: 2847: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2835: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2825: 2820: 2815: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2802: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2792: 2791: 2786: 2783: 2781: 2776: 2770: 2764: 2761: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2745: 2742: 2738: 2736: 2733: 2728: 2723: 2717: 2714: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2686: 2681: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2641: 2636: 2631: 2625: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2617: 2612: 2609: 2605: 2602: 2600: 2594: 2589: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2580: 2578: 2571: 2567: 2562: 2560: 2557: 2555: 2550: 2543: 2541: 2538: 2535: 2530: 2528: 2525: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2511: 2510: 2507: 2503: 2499: 2494: 2493: 2488: 2485: 2480: 2478: 2475: 2471: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2461: 2456: 2455:STRONG OPPOSE 2453: 2445: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2431: 2426: 2422: 2420: 2417: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2407: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2398: 2394: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2386: 2382: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2374: 2370: 2367: 2365: 2362: 2360: 2356: 2350: 2345: 2342: 2340: 2337: 2333: 2332: 2323: 2320: 2317: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2298: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2277: 2274: 2269: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2249: 2244: 2239: 2236: 2233: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2202: 2199: 2195: 2192: 2189: 2184: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2175: 2171: 2170: 2167: 2164: 2161: 2156: 2152: 2149: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2134: 2131: 2129: 2124: 2121: 2118: 2114: 2108: 2105: 2103: 2097: 2094: 2092: 2086: 2083: 2079: 2076: 2072: 2069: 2063: 2060: 2056: 2051: 2047: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2028: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2018: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1993: 1989: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1964: 1960: 1959: 1955: 1953: 1950: 1945: 1941: 1938: 1937: 1930: 1926: 1925: 1919: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1905: 1901: 1896: 1891: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1879: 1874: 1870: 1867: 1865: 1862: 1858: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1838: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1818: 1814: 1813:Strong Oppose 1811: 1809: 1806: 1804: 1798: 1794: 1791: 1789: 1786: 1785: 1781: 1776: 1773: 1771: 1768: 1764: 1761: 1759: 1755: 1750: 1745: 1738: 1735: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1718: 1716: 1712: 1707: 1705: 1698: 1695: 1687: 1684: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1675: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1649: 1643: 1640: 1639: 1628: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1612: 1611:Pascal.Tesson 1607: 1606: 1603: 1600: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1591: 1590:Pascal.Tesson 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1576: 1573: 1570: 1566: 1565: 1560: 1557: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1546: 1545:Pascal.Tesson 1541: 1538: 1536: 1533: 1528: 1525: 1523: 1520: 1512: 1510: 1509: 1501: 1498: 1496: 1492: 1485: 1482: 1478: 1475: 1471: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1453: 1449: 1447: 1436: 1433: 1429: 1426: 1420: 1419: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1401: 1400: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1393: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1374: 1373: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1366: 1362: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1343: 1338: 1336: 1333: 1326: 1322: 1319: 1317: 1314: 1310: 1307: 1305: 1300: 1297: 1295: 1290: 1288: 1281: 1278: 1276: 1272: 1270: 1262: 1261: 1259: 1251: 1248: 1245: 1242: 1238: 1236: 1233: 1227: 1224: 1222: 1219: 1217: 1208: 1205: 1203: 1199: 1197: 1192: 1185: 1182: 1180: 1177: 1173: 1170: 1168: 1165: 1161: 1158: 1156: 1153: 1152:User:Veesicle 1149: 1147: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1133: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1116: 1109: 1108: 1105: 1101: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1071: 1070: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1039: 1037: 1033: 1031: 1027: 1022: 1019: 1017: 1014: 1013: 1009: 1008: 1005: 1000: 998: 995: 991: 988: 984: 981: 977: 973: 972: 971: 968: 964: 963: 959: 957: 954: 951: 948: 946: 943: 942: 936: 929: 926: 924: 921: 918: 917:Bennyboyz3000 914: 911: 909: 906: 902: 899: 895: 891: 887: 883: 882: 881: 878: 874: 871: 870: 866: 864: 859: 856: 855:Bennyboyz3000 852: 848: 845: 841: 838: 834: 833: 832: 828: 827: 822: 821: 816: 815: 809: 806: 804: 801: 797: 794: 790: 787: 783: 780: 778: 774: 770: 766: 763: 762: 761: 758: 753: 750: 748: 745: 724: 721: 719: 716: 712: 711: 705: 701: 698: 696: 692: 690: 681: 678: 674: 670: 666: 662: 659: 658: 657: 654: 649: 642: 639: 637: 634: 630: 626: 625: 622: 618: 614: 610: 609: 606: 603: 602:User:Veesicle 599: 598: 597: 596: 592: 591: 582: 579: 574: 570: 566: 562: 557: 553: 550: 546: 542: 537: 533: 530: 529: 526: 522: 521: 520: 518: 514: 513: 510: 507: 503: 499: 495: 494: 487: 483: 479: 474: 473: 472: 468: 464: 459: 454: 450: 447: 442: 439: 435: 432: 428: 423: 419: 415: 411: 407: 403: 400: 399: 397: 393: 390: 387: 385: 381: 380: 375: 371: 367: 363: 359: 355: 351: 348: 344: 340: 337: 333: 330: 326: 325: 323: 319: 316: 314: 312: 307: 303: 299: 295: 290: 289: 288: 285: 281: 278: 277: 272: 268: 264: 259: 256: 255: 253: 250: 249: 244: 240: 236: 232: 228: 224: 221: 220: 218: 215: 214: 209: 205: 201: 196: 192: 188: 185: 184: 182: 179: 178: 177: 171: 170: 169: 168: 164: 160: 154: 152: 147: 145: 139: 136: 131: 128: 127: 126: 125: 121: 117: 113: 109: 106: 103: 99: 90: 86: 82: 78: 75: 68: 67: 64: 63: 61: 58: 55:Ended 02:15, 50: 47: 43: 41: 36: 32: 27: 26: 19: 5346: 5343: 5322: 5292: 5288: 5262: 5244: 5231: 5227: 5219: 5206: 5184: 5172: 5154: 5116:Mus Musculus 5110: 5098: 5094: 5084: 5072: 5060: 5025: 5024: 5020: 5010: 5005: 4988: 4976: 4951: 4947: 4943: 4939: 4935: 4911: 4873: 4859: 4855: 4841: 4807: 4802: 4771: 4767: 4763: 4758: 4702: 4678: 4674: 4670: 4646: 4641: 4597: 4593: 4589: 4577: 4562: 4557: 4553: 4525: 4511: 4477: 4451: 4419: 4404: 4400: 4394: 4390: 4386: 4347: 4318: 4315:Quick return 4314: 4290: 4286: 4279: 4275: 4271: 4264: 4247: 4243: 4239: 4235: 4231: 4214: 4185: 4173: 4166: 4155: 4122: 4117: 4107: 4097: 4096: 4086: 4074: 4038: 4034: 4022: 4010: 3998: 3986: 3972: 3968:a great deal 3967: 3962:per oblique 3959: 3909: 3892: 3888: 3883: 3870: 3852: 3837: 3832: 3816: 3803: 3791: 3777: 3737: 3735: 3596: 3579: 3567: 3555: 3549: 3548: 3524: 3496: 3480: 3465:Nick mallory 3443: 3433:Nick mallory 3427: 3401:Nick mallory 3396: 3379: 3357: 3329: 3317: 3313: 3299: 3281: 3258: 3257: 3241: 3211:to "vote"! 3188: 3180: 3164: 3148: 3136: 3130: 3111: 3043: 3028: 3026: 2964: 2960: 2956: 2952: 2934: 2932: 2931: 2923: 2789: 2784: 2762: 2715: 2624:Unacceptable 2623: 2610: 2576: 2569: 2553: 2548: 2516: 2512: 2454: 2424: 2392: 2380: 2368: 2358: 2352: 2348: 2343: 2306: 2285: 2223:on this page 2222: 2218: 2200: 2150: 2132: 2112: 2106: 2090: 2084: 2070: 2049: 2027:not refusing 2026: 1987: 1970: 1957: 1956: 1939: 1921: 1872: 1868: 1856: 1826:Antisemitism 1812: 1796: 1792: 1782: 1774: 1762: 1736: 1719: 1703: 1696: 1641: 1539: 1526: 1505: 1499: 1483: 1469: 1456: 1455: 1445: 1421: 1418: 1402: 1399: 1386: 1375: 1372: 1358: 1354: 1351:edit summary 1346: 1341: 1339: 1325:life happens 1320: 1308: 1293: 1286: 1279: 1268: 1257: 1254: 1249: 1241:Tony Sidaway 1225: 1215: 1206: 1195: 1190: 1183: 1171: 1159: 1138: 1134: 1117: 1097: 1058:Kelly Martin 1043:Kelly Martin 1035: 1034: 1020: 1012:user:Kncyu38 1010: 1002: 989: 975: 961: 960: 949: 934: 932: 927: 912: 900: 872: 862: 850: 846: 824: 817: 812: 807: 795: 781: 764: 751: 722: 709: 699: 688: 679: 660: 640: 628: 594: 593: 589: 588: 548: 544: 540: 531: 457: 445: 401: 391: 346: 335: 317: 308: 279: 257: 251: 231:User:Ryulong 222: 216: 186: 180: 175: 155: 148: 140: 137: 134: 129: 104: 96: 84: 77:Please note: 76: 54: 53: 48: 39: 34: 28: 4662:Philosophus 4550:willingness 4338:Kim Bruning 4160:Kim Bruning 4065:Kim Bruning 4027:Holdenhurst 4003:Jonathunder 3720:Kim Bruning 3539:Kim Bruning 3515:Kim Bruning 3256:NOTHING.... 2906:Kim Bruning 2336:Philosophus 1885:Endorsed.-- 1683:Kim Bruning 1474:Kim Bruning 1461:Kim Bruning 1313:ChazBeckett 1143:Herostratus 1104:Kim Bruning 1100:Cincinnatus 1093:Kim Bruning 1026:Cometstyles 837:Herostratus 451:Basically, 284:Kim Bruning 5309:Larry Dunn 5255:Larry Dunn 5212:Ivygohnair 5130:Iamunknown 4878:TimVickers 4777:Moralis?-- 4405:unfriendly 4280:as Moralis 4224:TimVickers 4174:getting it 4055:Iamunknown 3768:Iamunknown 3217:Iamunknown 3179:Regretful 2965:regardless 2957:commenting 2113:*Vendetta* 974:Change to 757:YechielMan 595:Discussion 578:TimVickers 539:viewpoint 384:Physchim62 5293:all users 5190:Jehochman 4946:that one 4803:certainly 4703:recommend 4558:excellent 3809:Everyking 3607:decision. 3384:Kat Walsh 3358:applauded 3349:Spawn Man 3322:Spawn Man 3247:Spawn Man 3169:Mackensen 2577:Cyde Weys 2521:Kat Walsh 2286:applauded 1944:Sjakkalle 1878:Spawn Man 1673:Wizardman 1647:Wizardman 1569:Mackensen 920:Anynobody 704:WP:MEDCAB 506:talk page 421:anything. 5364:Category 5289:Response 5177:Kla'quot 4569:SЯEVDEЯ 4564:REDVERS 4552:to be a 4420:accusing 4270:And no. 4202:contribs 4131:WP:POINT 4127:WP:POINT 4079:Edivorce 3991:Davewild 3756:contribs 3739:boldface 3572:Brownlee 3364:this way 3259:NOTHING' 3112:relevant 2953:Comment: 2676:WP:POINT 2672:WP:SENSE 2598:xaosflux 2573:him. -- 2470:this way 2441:Moreschi 2385:Moreschi 2373:Moreschi 2290:this way 2055:this way 1948:(Check!) 1802:xaosflux 1620:that way 1432:Jreferee 1428:policy." 1425:Jreferee 1365:Jreferee 1269:Contribs 1135:Support. 800:Danlock2 710:Turnbull 708:Nicholas 418:WP:POINT 414:WP:SENSE 410:WP:POINT 404:I think 362:WP:POINT 358:WP:POINT 343:WP:POINT 329:WP:POINT 322:WP:POINT 108:contribs 57:19 April 5323:Support 5268:Moralis 5263:Comment 5232:tedious 5220:Neutral 5195:contrib 5173:Support 5155:Support 5111:Support 5073:Support 5046:Moralis 5028:Shindo9 4993:Renesis 4956:Moralis 4952:because 4898:Moralis 4874:Comment 4846:Johnbod 4817:Moralis 4708:Kafziel 4684:Kafziel 4679:quality 4652:Kafziel 4602:Kafziel 4578:Support 4512:Support 4497:Moralis 4429:Moralis 4354:page.-- 4300:Moralis 4276:several 4265:damaged 4215:Comment 4156:comment 4143:Moralis 4118:Update: 4075:Support 3960:Support 3925:Moralis 3910:Comment 3897:Moralis 3884:Comment 3871:Comment 3858:Moralis 3853:Comment 3821:Viridae 3817:Support 3782:RockMFR 3552:per nom 3529:Runcorn 3501:the wub 3449:Moralis 3413:Moralis 3397:Comment 3380:Comment 3335:Moralis 3330:Comment 3209:NOT (!) 3165:Support 3153:Viridae 3149:Support 3137:Prodego 3095:WP:RFPP 3081:Moralis 3029:support 3008:Moralis 3006:far. -- 2969:Moralis 2763:Support 2741:W.marsh 2716:Support 2695:Moralis 2685:GRBerry 2649:Moralis 2626:? How? 2616:GRBerry 2611:Opposse 2513:Support 2498:Moralis 2430:Kafziel 2425:haven't 2369:Support 2344:Support 2307:Neutral 2219:Comment 2206:Moralis 2201:Comment 2151:Neutral 2138:Moralis 2133:Comment 2091:ALKIVAR 2071:Support 2032:Moralis 2002:Moralis 1975:Moralis 1971:Comment 1940:Support 1918:RHolton 1857:Support 1842:Moralis 1763:Support 1720:Support 1658:Moralis 1527:Neutral 1500:Neutral 1470:Support 1457:Neutral 1406:Moralis 1342:Neutral 1340:Oppose 1321:Support 1309:Support 1280:Support 1250:Neutral 1226:Neutral 1216:kantari 1172:Support 1164:Crum375 1118:Support 1036:Neutral 1021:Support 994:Dweller 976:Neutral 953:Terence 950:Support 928:Neutral 913:Support 905:Singopo 886:Moralis 873:Neutral 847:Support 796:Support 782:Comment 769:Moralis 765:Comment 723:Support 700:Support 680:Support 665:Moralis 661:Comment 647:Captain 613:Moralis 576:reply. 561:Moralis 525:WP:NPOV 498:Moralis 478:Moralis 463:Moralis 431:WP:NOTE 366:Moralis 294:Moralis 263:Moralis 235:Moralis 200:Moralis 191:WP:AIAV 159:Moralis 98:Moralis 49:Moralis 5334:(talk) 5245:Oppose 5236:Shenme 5210:admin. 5207:Oppose 5185:Oppose 5162:Ral315 5101:LeCour 5095:Oppose 5061:Oppose 5033:Hikaru 5021:Oppose 5006:Oppose 4989:Oppose 4977:Oppose 4929:WP:AGF 4916:WP:AGF 4842:Oppose 4795:alone. 4768:mother 4642:didn't 4612:Angela 4590:Oppose 4554:victim 4478:Oppose 4371:(talk) 4294:thing. 4287:really 4236:Oppose 4098:Dakota 4087:Oppose 4035:Oppose 4023:Oppose 4015:Addhoc 4011:Oppose 3999:Oppose 3987:Oppose 3895:it. -- 3833:Oppose 3804:Oppose 3792:Oppose 3778:Oppose 3603:admin. 3580:Oppose 3568:Oppose 3556:oppose 3550:Delete 3525:Oppose 3481:Oppose 3428:oppose 3314:Oppose 3300:format 3286:danntm 3282:Oppose 3181:oppose 3172:(talk) 3131:Oppose 3119:(Talk) 3099:WP:AIV 3059:(Talk) 3044:Oppose 3003:WP:NOT 2935:Oppose 2872:(talk) 2790:Real96 2785:Oppose 2726:master 2680:WP:IAR 2668:WP:IAR 2664:WP:IAR 2634:master 2593:WP:AIV 2588:WP:AIV 2570:really 2566:WP:AIV 2537:(talk) 2253:bainer 2248:WT:RFA 2123:edits) 2117:(whois 2085:Oppose 1958:Oppose 1834:WP:3RR 1793:Oppose 1784:tizzle 1775:Oppose 1767:Vadder 1737:Oppose 1724:Xnuala 1697:Oppose 1642:Oppose 1572:(talk) 1540:Oppose 1484:Oppose 1387:format 1385:. The 1231:Alison 1207:Oppose 1184:Oppose 1160:Oppose 1122:bainer 1075:Xnuala 1073:job!-- 990:Oppose 962:Oppose 915:: per 901:Oppose 808:Oppose 786:Mark83 752:Oppose 715:(talk) 689:DrNick 641:Oppose 629:Oppose 541:really 438:WP:NOT 427:WP:NOT 406:WP:IAR 336:spirit 195:WP:RfP 120:Speak! 116:mcr616 89:WT:RfA 81:WT:RfA 5065:Irpen 5012:Sarah 4936:could 4735:Durin 4694:Durin 4633:Durin 4537:ɹəəds 4530:speer 4516:MONGO 4487:BigDT 4319:facts 4178:Durin 4040:Andre 3974:freak 3893:using 3673:kept. 3631:A. B. 3599:RfA. 3497:Fnord 3487:. -- 3368:Durin 3304:Durin 3263:Durin 3230:demon 3197:demon 3103:C:CSD 2834:Durin 2801:Durin 2774:talk 2750:Kusma 2721:Grand 2629:Grand 2549:Eagle 2484:Xoloz 2474:Durin 2460:Xoloz 2416:Xoloz 2406:Durin 2397:Xoloz 2294:Durin 2174:Aminz 2059:Durin 1988:Reply 1861:Frise 1830:WP:-( 1817:Aminz 1780:Scien 1624:Durin 1599:Durin 1556:Durin 1507:Leebo 1392:Durin 1349:This 1258:Orfen 1212:Nacon 1176:Durin 652:panda 33:that 16:< 5325:per 5272:talk 5120:talk 5050:talk 4997:talk 4960:talk 4940:when 4902:talk 4865:blis 4821:talk 4594:that 4501:talk 4433:talk 4396:here 4352:talk 4304:talk 4220:diff 4147:talk 4092:page 4045:talk 3978:talk 3929:talk 3901:talk 3862:talk 3794:. — 3505:"?!" 3485:here 3453:talk 3417:talk 3339:talk 3242:very 3085:talk 3012:talk 2973:talk 2754:talk 2699:talk 2678:and 2653:talk 2502:talk 2349:Buck 2257:talk 2210:talk 2142:talk 2120:talk 2075:AKAF 2036:talk 2017:AKAF 2006:talk 1992:AKAF 1979:talk 1963:AKAF 1846:talk 1832:and 1797:goal 1728:talk 1711:talk 1704:MECU 1662:talk 1622:. -- 1490:InBC 1410:talk 1329:Tito 1126:talk 1079:talk 1062:talk 1047:talk 1007:Baer 1004:Alde 890:talk 851:more 814:Sr13 773:talk 669:talk 617:talk 565:talk 547:and 496:See 482:talk 467:talk 446:some 412:and 370:talk 298:talk 267:talk 239:talk 204:talk 193:and 163:talk 102:talk 60:2007 5329:. 5327:Doc 5228:him 5224:one 4944:not 4861:nae 4770:of 4671:not 4598:any 4582:Doc 4452:BUT 4198:g92 3970:. — 3889:had 3752:g92 3361:--> 3213:;-) 3107:not 2984:not 2961:not 2884:Hús 2845:Hús 2813:Hús 2554:101 2517:all 2359:ofg 2354:ets 2315:rab 2272:rab 2231:rab 2187:rab 2159:rab 1889:Hús 1743:Hús 1430:-- 1381:at 1294:ton 1287:Wal 1191:$ U 458:all 429:or 347:too 5366:: 5274:) 5243:* 5198:) 5192:(/ 5122:) 5052:) 5044:-- 4999:) 4962:) 4918:. 4904:) 4823:) 4780:VS 4675:do 4540:ɹ 4534:/ 4514:-- 4503:) 4457:VS 4435:) 4410:VS 4357:VS 4325:VS 4306:) 4298:-- 4253:VS 4190:Ab 4149:) 4129:. 4047:) 3931:) 3903:) 3864:) 3844:VS 3744:Ab 3742:. 3629:-- 3621:}} 3615:{{ 3537:-- 3455:) 3419:) 3341:) 3320:- 3252:. 3215:-- 3087:) 3014:) 2975:) 2904:-- 2894:nd 2855:nd 2823:nd 2756:) 2731:ka 2701:) 2693:-- 2674:, 2655:) 2639:ka 2504:) 2496:-- 2319:ee 2311:Er 2276:ee 2268:Er 2259:) 2251:-- 2235:ee 2227:Er 2212:) 2191:ee 2183:Er 2163:ee 2155:Er 2144:) 2050:me 2038:) 2008:) 1981:) 1927:– 1899:nd 1873:is 1848:) 1753:nd 1730:) 1664:) 1656:-- 1412:) 1390:-- 1347:If 1345:. 1331:xd 1264:| 1239:-- 1196:IT 1128:) 1081:) 1064:) 1049:) 940:as 892:) 829:) 775:) 713:| 693:! 685:Hi 671:) 619:) 567:) 532:A: 484:) 476:-- 469:) 402:A. 398:? 392:7. 372:) 300:) 292:-- 280:4. 269:) 258:A: 252:3. 241:) 223:A: 217:2. 206:) 198:-- 187:A: 181:1. 165:) 157:-- 37:. 5270:( 5165:» 5118:( 5048:( 4995:( 4958:( 4900:( 4863:' 4819:( 4567:↔ 4527:r 4499:( 4431:( 4302:( 4291:I 4194:e 4145:( 4043:( 3980:) 3976:( 3927:( 3899:( 3860:( 3748:e 3597:≠ 3451:( 3415:( 3337:( 3290:C 3226:^ 3193:^ 3083:( 3010:( 2971:( 2933:* 2889:ö 2850:ö 2818:ö 2771:| 2752:( 2697:( 2651:( 2500:( 2255:( 2240:. 2208:( 2140:( 2099:☢ 2096:™ 2034:( 2004:( 1977:( 1923:≡ 1894:ö 1844:( 1748:ö 1726:( 1708:≈ 1660:( 1517:C 1513:/ 1408:( 1124:( 1077:( 1060:( 1045:( 1038:. 937:n 935:A 888:( 826:C 823:| 820:T 818:( 771:( 743:l 740:e 737:h 734:c 731:s 728:M 667:( 615:( 563:( 508:. 480:( 465:( 368:( 318:5 313:. 296:( 265:( 237:( 202:( 161:( 105:· 100:( 91:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Requests for adminship/Moralis - Knowledge

Index