363:
malicious edits. Likewise, I often have to revert more than one edit at a time, and so I will move more than one warning up. The same can apply to XfDs – if an article is an obvious speedy delete, then I would ignore the rule that I should wait for consensus and go ahead and delete it, to avoid an unnecessary, wasteful discussion. This decision would not be taken lightly though, and (in response to opposes below) it is an area which I have not specified working in.
2178:, leaning oppose. I can't quite put my finger on why this user's edits bother me whenever I see them, so I can't go straight to oppose, but the answer to Q6 leaves me with the impression that Alex does not have a good grasp on the community consensus here yet. Good work as a vandal fighter, but having the extra tools requires a level of trust I am not yet willing to give. --
2063:- seems like a fine editor but I've seen him/her/it change his/her/its mind quite a lot in RFAs. On one occasion I seem to remember it got patently ludicrous - either 3 or 4 vote changes in just one RFA. Admins surely have to be a bit more decisive than this, surely? It's about trustworthiness, really. Not a reason for opposing, though, so I sit on the fence.
255:
I’m glad to say I have never been involved in anything major. Of course, I’ve had the occasional minor conflict, which has been sorted relatively quickly, but I’ve never felt stressed because of issues on
Knowledge – if this should ever happen I would probably take a short break to think about things
1568:
I have seen Alex do some great work regarding Big
Brother. Since this topic, by its nature can get quite controversial and pages have had to have been protected due to edit wars, I can see Alex will understand the kinds of issues involved when protecting pages. I don't see too much of a problem with
1698:
per
Question 6. Candidate's answer isn't really awful, but it isn't well-thought, either. If something is listed for AfD, and one speedy deletes it as a clear G1, one isn't using IAR - listing at AfD doesn't supercede clear CSD applications. IAR should only be used as a last resort, and should be
185:
As an administrator I would hope to contribute in as many places as I could. Currently my favourite activity is removing vandalism, and so the “real” rollback button would be helpful here, and also the ability to block persistent vandals would be easier than having to wait for another user to do it
503:
It depends totally on why they were desysopped. If it was because of malicious abuse, such as blocking users they disliked, or deleting pages they didn't like on a rampage, then they should not be allowed to ever reapply, certainly not in the near future. If it was because of genuine misjudgement,
442:
for instance) cause a lot of anonymous edits, most of which are vandalism like "RIP Steve, you were da best" or something, and even if there are many editors watching, vandalism can still slip through. In this case, semi-protection should be applied, and unprotected after the event has died down.
2020:
Yes, my comment was vague. I was concerned by Alex's comment about IAR and deleting articles based on a threshold of "obvious", which is a vague word. On an otherwise well written, well referenced, neutral article, what are some reasons you consider obvious? I have since had more time to look
1905:
after adminning. Adminship is not only a mop but also a stick. Only content creators can be trusted with a stick that can occasionally be used to hit other content creators. Blocking vandals and obvious trolls is a trivial job and the least conntroversial one. I am also not happy about the vague
1882:
I've been on the fence for this as Alex contributes greatly to the project, and I value his contributions. The need to respond to nearly all oppose/neutral comments; however, pushed me over the edge, as, to me it implies immaturity and lack of trust in other
Wikipedians and their ability to make
1862:
Thanks for your comment, but could I make it clear that I have created several articles, uploaded images, and, as outline in answer #2 I have made hundreds of Big
Brother related edits. Also, you are correct, we are here to build content, but we also need to keep the content correct and free of
369:
happens a lot on RfAs, and I think it is an interesting clause. However, in the case of RfAs, I don’t believe a candidate should be withdrawn unless they want to be, because they have the choice of whether to withdraw or not. They may wish for further (negative) comments. When it is applied, it
362:
exists to avoid wasting people's time. If, say, an editor was vandalising pages, the rules are that they should be given up to four warnings, then reported and blocked. However, I have often gone straight to test2, or test2a when I can see that they were not really testing, but making purposely
194:
for protection requests, and I would unprotect pages which disputes over had been solved. Again, this is so as many people can edit the page as possible, after all this encyclopedia is one that “anyone can edit” and anonymous users may have some valuable information which they wish to add to a
2137:
This question is enough to warrant opposing, IMHO. The nominator says that the nominee is "a very respectable and a kind user"... Kind users don't harrass those who don't agree with them. "Alex does a lot of vandal fighting"... We all do, that's a duty of every wikipedian. "He is a member of
629:
Per nom: After viewing several contributions looks to be a very good multifaceted editor with an exceptional temperament. Here is one response to a vandal’s insult on his user page “No, actually, I'm not. By the way I've had to cut your message down as it was taking up too much space”
2196:
Switched from oppose. I think user's heart is in the right place, and I don't think he'll go around making messes -- I'm satisfied he likely won't misuse IAR. However, per nae'blis, I'm still not sure how good his grasp of policy is, given his initial mistatements in
Question 6.
664:. I've been consistently impressed with Alex to the extent of considering offering to nominate him myself. The good amount of namespace contribs and the fact that he regularly warns vandals after reverting both make me think he understands Knowledge and will use the tools well.
256:
and decide an appropriate way to deal with the situation. To do this, I would firstly leave a message on the user’s talk page, but if the user does not read it or follow its instructions I would have to take further actions, especially if guidelines are not followed, such as
1069:. I was going to say "Strong Support" from what I've seen, but some of the answers made me think that this user is mostly focused on vandalism in place of more important things such as XfD. Anyways, has enough experience and is a valuable member for the community. --
101:
He has shown to me a good understanding and attitude of policies and guidelines and to my knowledge has never been in any conflicts. I believe he could use the “tools” primarily to block persistent vandals and spammers and clear the backlogs that occur often at
186:
for me. As well as user blocks, I would watch requests for unblocking, as everyone makes mistakes, including administrators. I can imagine how frustrating it might be for a user who has been wrongly blocked. Related to this, I plan to watch the
1620:
I said that "if an article is an obvious speedy delete" I would delete it. For instance, if someone listed a page on AfD instead of tagging it for speedy, and the content was gibberish. I wouldn't delete if there was any sort of debate.
1939:
It’s reasonable why you would want to make an informed decision about a nominee but what exactly do you mean by editing philosophy? Will you give an example of what you mean or trying to find out because the question is rather open
428:, which is always a good thing. Do you think protection is usually a good thing or a bad thing? Can you define when it would be preferable to leave a page alone, warn or block users as opposed to protecting the page?
85:) – I’m nominating Alex for several reasons, in my time knowing him I have found him to be very respectable and a kind user, who is always willing to help. Alex does a lot of vandal fighting, and is a member of
1768:
Adminship is not about writing articles and proofreading - it is purely technical. Anyway I do add articles (see my user page for examples) and proof read, so could you possibly reconsider your !vote? Thanks.
2142:, and also has created several small articles"... Probably a solid reason for entrusting someone with tools, but it does not cut ice with me. I have seen too much admin abuse to treat adminship so lightly. --
1699:
called upon in deleting maybe once a year. I think the candidate is properly reluctant to use IAR (which is good), but I must oppose weakly until I am sure the candidate's understanding of IAR has improved.
1801:
What do you consider an acceptable amount of editing time for a prospective administrator? I was nominated for adminship six months after registering, and I don't seem to have caused many problems. --
1679:
Of course it takes more care, that is why I mentioned it. However, in my answer to question 1, I haven't said anything about deleting pages, so you can be sure I won't be deleting pages very often. --
438:
be used on an article where there is an edit war; the protecting admin should then watch the talk page for a consensus to be reached, and as soon as it has, unprotect immediately. Events in the news (
1230:
I'm a bit concerned about the issues that
Badlydrawnjeff mentions, but overall, I've a positive impression of the candidate and think that he'd be able to further help Knowledge with the buttons
473:
If there was community consensus that my adminship be removed then I would let it happen without question. I wouldn't resign voluntarily, only if it was in the community (and my) best interests.
406:
No, because if there had been a consensus to "keep" previously, there would probably be the possibility of it being "keep" the next time round, especially if the discussions were close in time.
315:
It will be unlikely, in fact I expect I will edit more. The extra tools will be useful, but this is first and foremost an encyclopedia and so I will continue to contribute to articles.
1584:
per
Yanksox. For what he wants to do, Alex seems well prepared. It's hard to judge fluency in policy, but Alex is so cooperative, civil, and polite that it doesn't leave me worried.--
249:
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
1635:
I have !voted "speedy delete" in AfD discussions and also have seen speedy deletions done before the AfD closed. As you say, these were obvious speedy deletion candidates.
756:
443:
Semi-protection should not be applied to pages where just one or two editors are vandalsing, they can easily be blocked, whereas mass vandal blocks would be innappropriate.
1658:
1516:). He's a great vandal-fighter and he seems quite familiar with policy. I just can't believe that this is his nine thousand, eight hundred and ninety-first request.
2188:
2100:
156:
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 voters:
2239:
528:
1314:
Seems like a good user, I find the opposes less than compelling. I would like to see slightly more mainspace experience in general, but by and large seems fine.
1492:
Per above and the thoughtful, articulate responses to the oppose votes. They are dead-on, particularly in regard to the "encyclopedia building" arguments.
2257:
674:
264:. If it looks like an edit war might break out, I would try to come to some sort of compromise which we, and any other users involved could agree to.
1055:
1136:
176:
1178:
concerned over answers since almost nothing is irreversible. I'm a little uncertain about well roundedness, but still I'll give the green light.
434:
Protection and semi-protection should always be used as a last resort, and for high risk page such as the main page. I believe that protection
1569:
the oppose votes. When deleting articles, I think applying common sense is more important than citing exactly which rule you are using when.
863:
1996:
Was perplexed by what an editing philosophy exactly means myself but should had allowed the nominee to respond or ask questions himself ~~
1218:. Recent interation with this user leads me to believe he knows his stuff. At least enough to be given some rather unexciting tools. --
945:
832:
604:
119:
1606:
per question six. Gives me great pause that he feels willing to "not wait for consensus" in situations that consensus is necessary. --
569:
565:
2139:
978:
86:
394:
You said that you will IAR and speedy articles. Does this also apply for articles that have just survived a prior XfD on record? -
1750:
a "fight" against vandals. When you wish to contribute to the project by adding articles and proofreading, consider re-applying.
561:
33:
17:
333:
168:
1081:
82:
1670:
853:
617:
Good spread of edits in user Talk, XfD, RfA, project and mainspace areas; I don't think that the tools would be abused.
298:
227:, which are still looking pretty bland but I’m not much of an article writer; I have also made quite a contribution to
2050:
1115:
521:
219:
related to that. I have made about ten articles, most of which unfortunately are stubs still. My favourite ones are
164:
1481:
879:
820:
205:
Of your articles or contributions to
Knowledge, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
2216:
1428:
per the "reasoning" of some of those oppose !votes, and for the number of hoops you've had to jump through. --
1386:
1129:
618:
536:
172:
1611:
1508:
on top of his watchlist - my talk made it onto it somehow, and he's been instrumental in helping me deal with
1231:
601:
116:
1636:
1350:
1045:
1007:
665:
557:
1441:
1122:
1108:
876:
2021:
through Alex's edits, which seem sensable and constructive, and I am leaning toward changing to support.
1607:
1240:
491:
Should an administrator who has been desysoped by ruling of the Arbcom be allowed to reapply for admin ?
2160:
2148:
2128:
2116:
2077:
1987:
1868:
1774:
1713:
1684:
1626:
974:
738:
718:
598:
138:
113:
76:
2238:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
1830:
his comment in response to Avriette put me off. Besides being pointless, he never corrected "!vote?."
969:
961:
2038:
1854:
1469:
2224:
2201:
2164:
2150:
2132:
2118:
2081:
2067:
2025:
2015:
1991:
1976:
1961:
1929:
1910:
1889:
1872:
1857:
1843:
1834:
1818:
1805:
1796:
1778:
1763:
1730:
1717:
1703:
1688:
1674:
1645:
1630:
1615:
1591:
1576:
1560:
1543:
1496:
1484:
1460:
1448:
1432:
1420:
1408:
1390:
1373:
1356:
1330:
1318:
1306:
1293:
1275:
1263:
1254:
1242:
1222:
1210:
1198:
1187:
1166:
1154:
1138:
1099:
1084:
1061:
1030:
1016:
998:
983:
952:
935:
906:
885:
857:
840:
808:
796:
784:
741:
729:
703:
685:
668:
653:
641:
621:
609:
576:
539:
495:
465:
398:
142:
124:
2210:
2184:
2156:
2124:
2096:
2073:
1983:
1884:
1864:
1770:
1709:
1680:
1622:
1573:
1474:
1382:
1327:
1050:
964:
895:
777:
698:
517:
504:
but caused a desysopping they should be allowed to reapply when/if they and the ArbCom feels ready.
327:
134:
72:
804:
per previous interactions with the user and getting beaten to the punch on reverting vandalism. --
1759:
1588:
1381:. Seems willing to apply common sense and reason, despite unhealthy interest in Big Brother. :D
1369:
1207:
1075:
1041:
904:
749:
395:
344:
It has been a very important matter in RfA's as of late, so I must ask it. What do the policy of
236:
212:
2042:
1968:
1661:. While application of IAR to block a blatant vandal is unambiguous, deletion takes more care. —
1284:, per anyone you like. Just don't leave me an RFA thank you message, they spam up my talk page.
1091:
2007:
1953:
1802:
1493:
1260:
1251:
1179:
1026:
872:
805:
636:
232:
2143:
2111:
1666:
1406:
1289:
1163:
734:
723:
292:
216:
89:, and also has created several small articles (one feature I look for in a potential SysOp).
2155:
All I wanted to know was how much experience you wanted, and I haven't harrassed anyone. --
2046:
1972:
1815:
1793:
1534:
1095:
995:
991:
825:
817:
257:
220:
95:
1206:. I hope Q6a did help clear up some doubts for editors who oppose his RfA based on Q6. -
2180:
2092:
1162:
per nom, answers, comments. Good editor with solid contributions, no issues or worries.
2022:
1926:
1831:
1556:
1416:. Seem to have common sense about the role of the rules, and to be a solid editor. --
1303:
1147:
765:
691:
650:
381:
are both useful in that they speed things up, and save people a lot of time and effort.
378:
370:
should be with common sense, and if there is any sense of debate it should not be used.
366:
349:
323:
224:
191:
91:
2251:
2064:
1925:
Not enough information on his editing philosophy to make an informed decision, yet.
1755:
1743:
1585:
1429:
1366:
1340:
1219:
1195:
1070:
900:
573:
462:
451:
425:
374:
359:
345:
261:
228:
187:
103:
1810:
I almost never support canidates on RFA with less then 9 months with the project. --
2034:
Was sort of on the fence per badlydrawnjeff's concerns. Changing to support now. -
1997:
1943:
1840:
1509:
1457:
1315:
916:
631:
414:
2087:
532:
1897:, sorry. Nothing personal but I would like users with clear and strong record on
1024:
appears to have the experience, honestly can't see any problems in the answers.--
1662:
1417:
1400:
1285:
849:
793:
713:
439:
288:
2232:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
2198:
1907:
1811:
1789:
1727:
1700:
1524:
1513:
1398:
as the opposes don't strike me as relevant, and he seems otherwise qualified,
1272:
690:
I was thinking of nominating Alex very soon, but I got beaten to the punch! --
62:
1552:
1006:
I don't think answer to question 6 indicates likelihood to abuse the tools.
492:
481:
1250:
I approve and enjoy your delighful edits, enjoy, hope you become an admin.
1570:
2072:
Thanks for your comment. Was there a particular RfA you had in mind? --
2242:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
1788:- lack of time editing wikipedia, please try again in half a year --
866:
on the 27th. Now, unless I've got my dates all screwed up... :p Ah,
461:
Under what conditions would you consider resigning your adminship?
163:
What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out
1853:
We are here to build content, not just act like a police force.
65:
1982:
Thank you for your comment. Is there any reason why? Thanks. --
2110:. I would like to see more experience in mainspace editing. --
816:, past experience tells me that Alex will make a fine sysop.
131:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
1883:
decisions based on all the facts not just a few comments. --
1038:. Clarified his answer to Q6, so I see no reason to oppose.
1326:-Seems to be a reliable, efficient and intelligent user.
1259:
Good editor who would find the mop and keyring useful. --
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
1839:"!vote" isn't a mistake, it is shorthand for "not vote"
711:
Looks good, and I totally agree with his answer to Q6.--
211:
I’m pleased with all of my contributions. I joined when
862:*raises eyebrow* Alex, you told me I could co-nom with
680:
309:
Will sysop tools likely reduce your mainspace editing?
2209:
per Ghirla, I think you need a bit more experience.
190:
page to deal with any reports. I also plan to watch
681:
649:Especially after reading his answer to question 1.
1089:(edit conflict)Changed from neutral. Good luck! -
764:per answer to Q6. Exactly what I was looking for.
2211:
1659:Knowledge:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules
274:Optional: Is the glass half empty or half full?
1302:I see no reason not to support this editor.
215:was airing and I was heavily involved in the
8:
2217:
1657:per question six. I would suggest a read of
195:protected page which no longer needs to be.
424:You mention that you would be involved in
352:mean to you and how would you apply them?
1726:after comments on candidate's talk page.
552:(for expressing views without numbering)
1551:, can't think of any reason to oppose.
1468:per above. Pretty helpful on IRC too. ~
1901:to be admins and to be sure that they
1504:This user is a great candidate. He's
673:Civil user and a total work-horse. —
7:
994:, very unlikely to abuse the tools.
531:as of 19:27, October 21 2006, using
1107:-Seems like he'll do a good job.--
529:Alex9891's editcount summary stats
24:
2258:Successful requests for adminship
2123:How much were you looking for? --
893:Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --
1708:In what way will you be sure? --
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
1637:
1535:
1442:
1232:
1008:
169:Category:Administrative backlog
1116:
912:
1:
1526:
1475:
1180:
1130:
880:
675:
593:
108:
2225:19:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
2202:17:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
2189:15:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
2165:13:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
2151:13:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
2133:10:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
2119:10:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
2101:15:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
2082:18:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
2068:18:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
2026:05:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
2016:20:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
1992:16:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
1977:16:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
1962:06:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
1930:03:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
1911:07:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
1890:02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
1873:19:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
1858:18:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
1844:04:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
1835:02:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
1819:20:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
1806:00:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
1797:03:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
1779:16:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
1764:16:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
1731:17:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
1718:16:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
1704:16:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
1689:15:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
1675:15:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
1646:14:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
1631:13:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
1616:13:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
1592:12:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
1577:02:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
1561:02:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
1544:02:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
1522:...I know it's his username.
1497:01:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
1485:20:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
1461:16:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
1449:12:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
1433:20:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
1421:20:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
1409:18:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
1391:00:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
1374:22:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
1357:18:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
1331:17:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
1319:04:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
1307:02:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
1294:21:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
1276:11:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
1264:00:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
1255:21:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
1243:20:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
1223:14:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
1211:11:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
1199:08:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
1188:03:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
1167:03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
1155:00:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
1139:19:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
1123:
1109:
1100:18:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
1085:18:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
1062:16:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
1031:16:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
1017:15:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
999:12:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
984:10:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
953:07:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
936:05:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
907:04:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
886:02:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
858:01:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
841:01:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
809:00:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
797:00:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
785:23:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
757:22:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
750:
742:21:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
730:21:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
704:20:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
686:20:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
669:20:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
654:20:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
642:20:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
622:19:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
610:19:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
577:19:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
540:19:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
496:22:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
466:23:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
399:19:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
177:administrators' reading list
143:19:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
125:19:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
2140:the Big Brother Wikiproject
1183:
1148:
520:'s edit summary usage with
152:Questions for the candidate
87:the Big Brother Wikiproject
2274:
2088:stop calling him "Shirley"
1903:continue to create content
171:, and read the page about
165:Category:Knowledge backlog
572:for more information. --
2235:Please do not modify it.
1906:answer to question 8. --
1640:Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim
1011:Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim
556:The user has had three
413:Optional Question from
392:(As a benefit of doubt)
217:Big Brother WikiProject
39:Please do not modify it
280:Half full of course :P
61:(54/8/6) Ended 22:25,
660:Double edit conflict
34:request for adminship
864:Nearly Headless Nick
848:looks good to me.--
676:Nearly Headless Nick
1512:(now also known as
1248:Very Strong Support
1146:passes my criteria
728:
358:To me, the reason
237:Big Brother 7 (UK)
233:Live & Kicking
213:Big Brother 7 (UK)
2055:
2041:comment added by
1614:
1523:
1444:Wissahickon Creek
712:
702:
608:
123:
98:
2265:
2237:
2221:
2213:
2146:
2114:
2054:
2035:
2014:
2012:
2004:
2003:
1960:
1958:
1950:
1949:
1899:content creation
1887:
1762:
1643:
1642:
1610:
1541:
1531:
1517:
1479:
1446:
1403:
1372:
1238:
1237:
1185:
1182:
1152:
1134:
1127:
1120:
1113:
1083:
1078:
1073:
1058:
1053:
1048:
1029:
1014:
1013:
967:
951:
950:
932:
930:
928:
926:
914:
903:
898:
882:
838:
823:
782:
775:
770:
754:
726:
721:
716:
696:
684:
682:
677:
639:
634:
607:
592:
591:— as nominator.
511:General comments
231:, my home town,
122:
107:
90:
41:
2273:
2272:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2248:
2247:
2246:
2240:this nomination
2233:
2223:
2144:
2112:
2036:
2008:
2006:
1999:
1998:
1954:
1952:
1945:
1944:
1885:
1754:
1638:
1456:. Good editor.
1401:
1365:
1355:
1347:
1341:Mikey likes it!
1233:
1080:
1076:
1071:
1056:
1051:
1046:
1025:
1009:
982:
965:
944:
943:
924:
922:
920:
918:
896:
894:
856:
837:
829:
821:
778:
771:
766:
724:
719:
714:
679:
637:
632:
605:52278 Alpha 771
599:Fenton, Matthew
533:Interiot's tool
221:A Teenage Opera
120:52278 Alpha 771
114:Fenton, Matthew
55:
37:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2271:
2269:
2261:
2260:
2250:
2249:
2245:
2244:
2228:
2227:
2215:
2204:
2191:
2173:
2172:
2171:
2170:
2169:
2168:
2167:
2105:
2104:
2103:
2084:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2032:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2028:
1980:
1964:
1914:
1913:
1892:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1706:
1691:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1608:badlydrawnjeff
1595:
1594:
1579:
1563:
1546:
1499:
1487:
1463:
1451:
1435:
1423:
1411:
1393:
1383:TenOfAllTrades
1376:
1359:
1349:
1345:
1333:
1328:Nileena joseph
1321:
1309:
1296:
1278:
1266:
1257:
1245:
1225:
1213:
1201:
1190:
1174:Nice guy, not
1169:
1157:
1141:
1102:
1087:
1064:
1033:
1019:
1001:
986:
972:
955:
938:
909:
888:
860:
852:
843:
831:
811:
799:
787:
762:Strong Support
759:
744:
732:
706:
688:
671:
658:
657:
656:
624:
619:(aeropagitica)
612:
580:
579:
558:editor reviews
547:
546:
545:
537:(aeropagitica)
526:
525:
522:mathbot's tool
513:
512:
508:
507:
506:
505:
480:Question from
477:
476:
475:
474:
450:Question from
447:
446:
445:
444:
410:
409:
408:
407:
385:
384:
383:
382:
371:
364:
348:and the essay
322:Question from
319:
318:
317:
316:
287:Question from
284:
283:
282:
281:
268:
267:
266:
265:
243:
242:
241:
240:
225:Murder in Mind
199:
198:
197:
196:
173:administrators
154:
153:
148:
146:
145:
54:
49:
47:
45:
44:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2270:
2259:
2256:
2255:
2253:
2243:
2241:
2236:
2230:
2229:
2226:
2222:
2220:
2214:
2208:
2205:
2203:
2200:
2195:
2192:
2190:
2187:
2186:
2182:
2177:
2174:
2166:
2162:
2158:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2149:
2147:
2141:
2136:
2135:
2134:
2130:
2126:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2117:
2115:
2109:
2106:
2102:
2099:
2098:
2094:
2089:
2085:
2083:
2079:
2075:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2066:
2062:
2059:
2052:
2048:
2044:
2040:
2033:
2027:
2024:
2019:
2018:
2017:
2013:
2011:
2005:
2002:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1989:
1985:
1981:
1979:
1978:
1975:
1974:
1970:
1965:
1963:
1959:
1957:
1951:
1948:
1941:
1936:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1928:
1924:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1912:
1909:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1893:
1891:
1888:
1881:
1878:
1874:
1870:
1866:
1863:vandalism. --
1861:
1860:
1859:
1856:
1852:
1849:
1845:
1842:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1833:
1829:
1826:
1820:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1804:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1772:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1738:
1732:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1705:
1702:
1697:
1696:
1692:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1653:
1647:
1644:
1641:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1628:
1624:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1613:
1609:
1605:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1593:
1590:
1587:
1583:
1580:
1578:
1575:
1572:
1567:
1564:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1547:
1545:
1542:
1539:
1533:
1532:
1530:
1521:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1503:
1500:
1498:
1495:
1491:
1488:
1486:
1483:
1480:
1478:
1473:
1472:
1467:
1464:
1462:
1459:
1455:
1452:
1450:
1447:
1445:
1439:
1436:
1434:
1431:
1427:
1424:
1422:
1419:
1415:
1412:
1410:
1407:
1405:
1404:
1397:
1394:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1377:
1375:
1371:
1368:
1364:per JoshuaZ.
1363:
1360:
1358:
1354:
1353:
1343:
1342:
1337:
1334:
1332:
1329:
1325:
1322:
1320:
1317:
1313:
1310:
1308:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1277:
1274:
1270:
1267:
1265:
1262:
1258:
1256:
1253:
1249:
1246:
1244:
1241:
1239:
1236:
1229:
1226:
1224:
1221:
1217:
1214:
1212:
1209:
1208:Mailer Diablo
1205:
1202:
1200:
1197:
1194:
1191:
1189:
1186:
1177:
1173:
1170:
1168:
1165:
1161:
1158:
1156:
1153:
1151:
1145:
1142:
1140:
1137:
1135:
1133:
1128:
1126:
1121:
1119:
1114:
1112:
1106:
1103:
1101:
1098:
1097:
1093:
1088:
1086:
1082:
1079:
1074:
1068:
1065:
1063:
1060:
1059:
1054:
1049:
1044:
1043:
1037:
1034:
1032:
1028:
1023:
1020:
1018:
1015:
1012:
1005:
1002:
1000:
997:
993:
990:
987:
985:
980:
976:
971:
968:
963:
959:
956:
954:
949:
948:
947:Doctor Bruno
942:
939:
937:
934:
933:
915:
913:PEANUTS!!!!!!
910:
908:
905:
902:
899:
892:
889:
887:
884:
883:
878:
874:
870:, obviously.
869:
865:
861:
859:
855:
851:
847:
844:
842:
836:
835:
827:
824:
819:
815:
812:
810:
807:
803:
800:
798:
795:
791:
788:
786:
783:
781:
776:
774:
769:
763:
760:
758:
755:
753:
748:
745:
743:
740:
736:
733:
731:
727:
722:
717:
710:
707:
705:
700:
695:
694:
689:
687:
683:
678:
672:
670:
667:
663:
659:
655:
652:
648:
645:
644:
643:
640:
635:
628:
625:
623:
620:
616:
613:
611:
606:
603:
600:
596:
590:
587:
586:
585:
584:
578:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
554:
553:
551:
544:
543:
542:
541:
538:
534:
530:
523:
519:
515:
514:
510:
509:
502:
499:
498:
497:
494:
490:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
472:
469:
468:
467:
464:
460:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
441:
437:
433:
430:
429:
427:
423:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
405:
402:
401:
400:
397:
396:Mailer Diablo
393:
390:
387:
386:
380:
376:
372:
368:
365:
361:
357:
354:
353:
351:
347:
343:
340:
339:
338:
337:
335:
332:
329:
325:
314:
311:
310:
308:
305:
304:
303:
302:
300:
297:
294:
290:
279:
276:
275:
273:
270:
269:
263:
259:
254:
251:
250:
248:
245:
244:
238:
234:
230:
229:Cheadle Hulme
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
207:
206:
204:
201:
200:
193:
189:
184:
181:
180:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
158:
157:
151:
150:
149:
144:
140:
136:
132:
129:
128:
127:
126:
121:
118:
115:
111:
105:
99:
97:
93:
88:
84:
81:
78:
74:
70:
69:
67:
64:
59:
53:
50:
48:
43:
40:
35:
32:
27:
26:
19:
2234:
2231:
2218:
2206:
2193:
2179:
2175:
2107:
2091:
2060:
2037:— Preceding
2009:
2000:
1967:
1966:
1955:
1946:
1938:
1934:
1922:
1916:
1915:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1879:
1850:
1827:
1803:Slowking Man
1785:
1751:
1747:
1739:
1723:
1694:
1693:
1654:
1639:
1603:
1597:
1596:
1582:Weak support
1581:
1565:
1548:
1537:
1528:
1525:
1519:
1510:User:Amrykid
1505:
1501:
1494:Irongargoyle
1489:
1476:
1470:
1465:
1453:
1443:
1437:
1425:
1413:
1399:
1395:
1378:
1361:
1351:
1339:
1335:
1323:
1311:
1299:
1281:
1268:
1261:Slowking Man
1252:King Dracula
1247:
1234:
1228:Weak Support
1227:
1215:
1203:
1192:
1175:
1172:Weak Support
1171:
1159:
1149:
1143:
1131:
1124:
1117:
1110:
1104:
1090:
1066:
1040:
1039:
1035:
1021:
1010:
1003:
988:
957:
946:
940:
917:
911:
890:
871:
867:
845:
833:
813:
806:Daniel Olsen
801:
789:
779:
772:
767:
761:
752:Rama's arrow
751:
746:
708:
692:
666:Picaroon9288
661:
646:
626:
614:
594:
588:
582:
581:
549:
548:
527:
500:
488:
479:
478:
470:
458:
449:
448:
435:
431:
421:
412:
411:
403:
391:
388:
355:
341:
330:
321:
320:
312:
306:
295:
286:
285:
277:
271:
252:
246:
208:
202:
182:
160:
155:
147:
133:I accept. --
130:
109:
100:
79:
71:
60:
57:
56:
51:
46:
38:
30:
28:
1880:Weak oppose
1786:weak oppose
1722:Changed to
1695:Weak oppose
1164:Newyorkbrad
735:Merovingian
440:Steve Irwin
1855:Cornerbock
1514:User:Amkid
996:Hello32020
602:Lexic Dark
550:Discussion
117:Lexic Dark
63:28 October
31:successful
2023:Tnfiddler
1927:Tnfiddler
1832:KazakhPol
1744:wikipedia
1304:Dionyseus
1235:hoopydink
1150:†he Bread
792:per nom.
693:Mr. Lefty
651:KazakhPol
324:Nishkid64
2252:Category
2065:Moreschi
2051:contribs
2039:unsigned
1671:contribs
1502:Support.
1471:crazytal
1430:Kbdank71
1196:Jeffklib
574:ReyBrujo
518:Alex9891
334:contribs
299:contribs
258:WP:CIVIL
175:and the
83:contribs
73:Alex9891
52:Alex9891
2207:Neutral
2194:Neutral
2176:Neutral
2108:Neutral
2061:Neutral
1935:Comment
1923:Neutral
1917:Neutral
1841:JoshuaZ
1724:Neutral
1566:Support
1549:Support
1520:KIDDING
1490:Support
1466:Support
1458:Anger22
1454:Support
1438:Support
1426:Support
1414:Support
1396:Support
1379:Support
1362:Support
1336:Support
1324:Support
1316:JoshuaZ
1312:Support
1300:Support
1282:support
1269:Support
1216:Support
1204:Support
1193:Support
1160:Support
1144:Support
1105:Support
1072:Esteban
1067:Support
1042:Nautica
1036:Support
1022:Support
1004:Support
989:Support
970:nce Ong
958:Support
941:Support
901:iva1979
891:Support
868:support
846:Support
818:Daveydw
814:Support
802:Support
794:Michael
790:Support
747:Support
709:Support
662:support
647:Support
627:Support
615:Support
589:Support
583:Support
415:Yanksox
379:WP:SNOW
367:WP:SNOW
350:WP:SNOW
192:WP:RFPP
2145:Ghirla
2113:Ghirla
2001:=Sirex
1947:=Sirex
1895:Oppose
1886:Trödel
1851:Oppose
1828:Oppose
1740:oppose
1663:Malber
1655:Oppose
1604:Oppose
1598:Oppose
1586:Kchase
1574:(Talk)
1418:SCZenz
1402:Tewfik
1286:Stifle
850:danntm
595:thanks
560:, see
463:Haukur
452:Haukur
436:should
426:WP:RPP
375:WP:IAR
360:WP:IAR
346:WP:IAR
289:Imoeng
262:WP:3RR
235:, and
188:WP:AIV
110:thanks
2219:speak
2212:T REX
2199:Xoloz
2090:. --
2043:Mike1
1940:ended
1908:Irpen
1728:Xoloz
1701:Xoloz
1482:56297
1280:Yes,
1273:MONGO
1220:Steel
1027:Andeh
992:Civil
877:dzast
873:riana
834:patch
633:Sirex
373:Both
68:(UTC)
58:Final
16:<
2185:blis
2161:Talk
2157:Alex
2129:Talk
2125:Alex
2097:blis
2086:And
2078:Talk
2074:Alex
2047:talk
1988:Talk
1984:Alex
1973:Talk
1969:Mike
1869:Talk
1865:Alex
1775:Talk
1771:Alex
1760:talk
1752:...
1714:Talk
1710:Alex
1685:Talk
1681:Alex
1667:talk
1627:Talk
1623:Alex
1612:talk
1557:talk
1538:talk
1529:rose
1518:I'm
1387:talk
1370:khoi
1367:Khoi
1352:talk
1290:talk
1181:Yank
1096:Talk
1092:Mike
1047:Shad
768:Nish
739:Talk
699:talk
570:here
568:and
566:here
562:here
516:See
493:Jcam
482:Jcam
377:and
328:talk
293:talk
260:and
223:and
167:and
139:Talk
135:Alex
104:AI/V
77:talk
66:2006
2181:nae
2093:nae
2010:98=
1956:98=
1942:.~~
1816:rex
1794:rex
1748:not
1746:is
1571:Tra
1559:||
1555:||
1338:.
1184:sox
1176:too
962:Ter
773:kid
715:HĂşs
389:6a.
2254::
2163:)
2131:)
2080:)
2053:)
2049:•
1990:)
1971:|
1937::
1871:)
1777:)
1769:--
1756:aa
1742:.
1716:)
1687:)
1673:)
1669:•
1629:)
1621:--
1553:jd
1506:so
1477:es
1440:--
1389:)
1348:/
1344:.
1292:)
1271:--
1094:|
1077:F.
977:|
960:--
931:a
839:)
822:ee
780:64
737:※
725:nd
638:98
630:--
564:,
535:.
501:A:
489:9.
471:A:
459:8.
432:A:
422:7.
404:A:
356:A:
342:6.
313:A:
307:5.
278:A:
272:4.
253:A:
247:3.
209:A:
203:2.
183:A:
179:.
161:1.
141:)
106:.
94:,
36:.
2183:'
2159:(
2127:(
2095:'
2076:(
2045:(
1986:(
1867:(
1814:-
1812:T
1792:-
1790:T
1773:(
1758::
1712:(
1683:(
1665:(
1625:(
1589:T
1540:)
1536:(
1527:S
1385:(
1346:â””
1298:'
1288:(
1132:T
1125:I
1118:U
1111:S
1057:s
1052:e
981:)
979:C
975:T
973:(
966:e
929:g
927:o
925:c
923:r
921:o
919:J
897:S
881:a
875:_
854:C
830:/
828:(
826:b
720:ö
701:)
697:(
597:/
524:.
336:)
331:·
326:(
301:)
296:·
291:(
239:.
137:(
112:/
96:2
92:1
80:·
75:(
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.