Knowledge:Requests for adminship/BusterD

538:

the situation. If it were myself using poor language choices, I'd ask an uninvolved editor to look at the thread and counsel me upon my best course forward. If it were MONGO, as another example, I'd go right to his talk page and remind him he has had a civility problem in the past and needs to be squeakier clean than most editors. In the same vein, if it were a trusted servant of the pedia, I'd approach directly on the appropriate user talk page and remind them gently of their obligation to maintain community confidence, for the good of the entire project. If it were a long time editor, I'd likely try to do the same. If it were a frequent offender or an ip, I'd likely put a small note on the article talk, reminding all editors about civility, then I'd probably go straight to templating the offender in an escalating fashion, linking the discussion in question. If it were a newbie, I'd leave the note on article talk then I'd approach the newbie on user talk, and inquire why the language was necessary or preferred to simple discussion. Sometimes there's justified hostility; from my experience I can identify with that. However, maintaining an atmosphere of civil disagreement is the only way we can move pagespace forward. Escalating conflict using harsh language rarely calms the other party down. This is very much the same reason RfA candidates used to get the "block/ban" question and the "cool-down block" question. The community must learn during talk experience, editor reviews and processes like these how a potential mop-wielder will understand the overarching need for civility in talkspace. It is only in this way (because our personal experiences with admin candidates is often limited) that we can learn the character of the candidate before consensus is clear.

1557:

point, it's no longer about me; as I was telling Kudpung on my talk, it's become about the way RfAs are conducted. Many of us feel that we aren't getting the good candidates to apply or when applying not promoted. User:Kumioko is a perfect example (vast experience in every workspace, long trusted with tools, always improving) of the sort of fellow who'd do well, but can't gather consensus. It seems to my eyes that ANY mistakes are unduly amplified. Let's take the valid critique of my judgement you've offered as an example. What was the outcome? The page was kept as no consensus to delete. This may have impact if the page is ever put back up for deletion, but right now the pedia is in the same condition it would be in if I'd closed as "keep." So a very minor difference, and not particularly important, except as revealing about my character and judgement in RfAs (a very important thing, I'll concede). IMHO, the biggest issue you raised was my insertion of any personal opinion in my closing statement (again, relevant as revealing of the kind of closer I might be), yet I felt I was echoing comments made even by "keep" !voters. And this was a serious enough breach of wiki-procedure that most of the !votes which have followed have shown concern about it. To my mind, this is an unrealistic standard to which to hold a candidate, but of course I have a personal bias in this case and my opinion shouldn't weigh overmuch. Very much appreciate your civility in this discussion. Sorry if I snarked back. A really foolish thing to do with the whole wikiworld watching.

135:— I have interacted with BusterD for years on Knowledge and think he would make a fine administrator. My field of contribution and interest is limited almost entirely to the American Civil War, so my observation of his work has been in this space. From a technical standpoint, I was impressed with his efforts creating an elaborate portal for the war and a number of important templates. He is a tireless reviewer who can be relied on to keep the articles accurate and clean. In fact he is one of only a handful of editors whose work I do not have to review when they touch articles in my watchlist. He has been a good source for research, not only tracking down relevant citations, but correlating data from a number of sources to assist editors in achieving consensus. Although not yet an administrator himself, he has helped me on a number of occasions by navigating through the administrative bureaucracy to correct problems I could not solve myself. He is unfailingly polite and helpful to novice editors and always manages to balance his desire for accuracy and correct process with a touch of diplomacy. I have no doubts whatever that he can be trusted to use the crucial levers of the Knowledge machinery with fairness and good judgment. 869:

clear that I didn't intend to get a merit badge in this process; my intention was always to assist the pedia, particularly in the arena of AfDs, since closures seem to be getting backlogged recently. I do not need the mop in order to help create a great online encyclopedia, so I'll continue to do the work I have been doing as a non-admin. In the coming months I'll try to address each of the criticisms brought to my intention in this process, I'll work with some who have opposed me here to improve my understanding of areas in which my participation and preparation has been inadequate. While I believe it is no sin to fail, it would be a mistake and misfortune to all if I was to prolong such a failed procedure unduly. I reiterate: my candidacy was never about me. It was always about Knowledge. Without approval of group conscience expressed through consensus no trusted servant can function. I hope one day I will earn the trust of many of those who in good faith have opposed my candidacy. I apologize to my nominators and my supporters. I apologize if my combativeness has been interpreted as selfishness. Thank you one and all for your valued input.

2853:. I wouldn't automatically rule someone out for a lot of noms--for instance, if someone was so well loved, peeps just wanted to be on his bandwagon--but this fellow seems more like a marginal candidate and the number of noms a coordination to get him over the top. Also who is nomming, several blocking-bullying class of admins. Having them get an acolyte seems bad for Wiki. On the content: six years, one very short GA. Never see the guy in article space. Do more articles. Colloborate and interact with content writers. It will really deepen you and make you a kinder, more perceptive person. Less "teh Wiki rules, teh Wiki rules" and more thinking about how people interact. What our readers are and what they like. Even what are outside Wiki insights to bring here. I want to know that you can interact like a "real person" when you have to stop some 40 year professional writing his first Wiki. Not come across as some kid with a badge. I'm in neutral, since I don't follow AFD and have had no bad interactions with the candidate. 156:. Since then I've found him to be a thoughtful, careful editor, knowledgeable and experienced with policy, easy to talk to and moreover, good on his word and trustworthy. For all the time I've known him, he has been quite open to my sundry inputs (many of which he has asked me for unbidden) and has thought about them deeply with strong judgement and insight. The editorial work of his that I've seen here through the years has been quiet and steady. BusterD can be trusted with the tools and will be a helpful admin. If he happens to run into an admin task he wants to do but needs to know more about first, he'll learn what's needed either on his own or by asking, then think about it some more before carrying forward with it. He'll bring to his admin tasks the same heed for sourcing and quality article building he has shown as an editor. Adminship will likely open up new paths on en.Knowledge for BusterD. He is more than ready for them and the project needs him. 1640:

his 60 or so creations, although referenced, over 30% (see list on talk page) have no or very few inline citations. Where his research is based mainly on printed sources, this should be very easy. For an admin, a good understanding of referencing techniques is essential, especially where the evaluation of the accuracy of content and notability of other articles is concerned, and could have an impact on his CSD decisions. On checking his deleted contribs (mainly in his own user space) and page patrols, I see very little NPP work or CSD tagging, and not enough to be able to evaluate his performance. Just under six months ago he was warned for 3RR - possibly an isolated occasion, but he should know better. To conclude, I would say that Buster is a keen and civil editor - even able to defuse conflict. However, I'm sorry, but I just don't think he's quite ready for the challenges of adminship yet.

489:. I felt (and said at the time) that closing an AfD on a Featured work wasn't going to be too risky. But as a long-time member of the Military History Wikproject, I knew about the nominator (the page's primary contributor) and respected his reasons for raising the process. Note my use of the phrase: "No consensus to delete or merge". So I will be a good boy, but will on occasion try something new. On the other hand, let's say I somehow turn this bag of lemons into something tart and sweet. In that case I'm going to practice delete closes. Something I've never done. I'm also going to practice userfying and undeleting. Again, stuff I don't have much experience with, having the lesser toolbox. Heck, I might just be able to help with more than AfDs. At this moment I'm seeing 56 old discussions which some poor schmuck like me needs to evaluate and close. We need more eyes on. It doesn't have to be me. An old friend 1722:. Alone, it's not a major problem and admittedly you did not technically violate the 3RR, However, I've never come across you before, have no axe to grind, and I'm not accustomed to spending nearly 2 hours to evaluate an RfA candidate to make a dishonest voting rationale. I assess editors on the standards I set for my own work (and I'm not perfect either) and this does not change my opinion - which you concede - that you are not ready yet to face the challenges of adminship. If others have piled-on because I !voted early, should they feel I have unfairly judged your performance, they are free to change their opinion. However, I do not feel that you have addressed this RfA with the calm disposition that I thought you possessed when I reviewed your interaction with other editors, and hence your answer to Q3 also gives me pause. 196:

Knowledge I know and love. Civil disagreement. So I choose not to withdraw at this time. I do not think the issues raised against me should be enough by themselves to disqualify an otherwise qualified candidate. This may not be an impressive argument to those who have already made up their minds. That I asked three long-established editors to nominate me? True. That I asked MONGO and two trusted servants of the pedia to look over my edits prior to putting myself forward? Absolutely true. That my older work deserves updating. Guilty. Screwed up on two non-admin closes? Guilty, revealing of my thinking somewhat, and explained below. Should I have not closed a 33-day old process as "no consensus"? In retrospect, probably not, but why didn't anybody else close it, if it was so clear cut? Did I click the wrong button on

1737:

take and then expand your position. I understand it better now. I also appreciate you standing by YOUR position, though it's one I clearly disagree with both on the merits and on analysis. I've been looking for a new admin coach to push me into learning areas of unfamiliarity, but after the three looked over my edits I felt I was ready, based on my experience. Would you be willing to mentor me and answer questions from time to time? I'd still like to see this procedure run its full seven day course, if for no other reason than to get better feedback. IMHO, feedback channels like Editor review have not been effective in locating and evaluating potential mop candidates. If any of this seems pointy to you, I'll reconsider my desire to keep this procedure open.

181:

have the tools or the consensus to do so. A comment from someone who disagreed with one of my non-admin closes provoked my willingness to measure consensus in this matter. MONGO had offered to nominate me several years ago, but I didn't feel the need for tools. In preparation for this possibility, I asked him, User:Reaper Eternal, and an old admin coach to look over my contribs a few months ago. After the old style, I requested MONGO to nominate me this weekend, and I am honored to be nominated by users with whom I share long and deep wikifriendships. I may not give the answers to questions some users might prefer, but I am confident I can provide honest responses.

1482:, I don't believe I was super!voting at all. The procedure had been strangely open for over 30 days. It had apparently been sitting in the old discussion queue for three weeks without comment or closure. If this was such a simple matter, I thought, why had nobody else closed it? So I did the reading. I looked at the diffs. Recently I had read a signpost article about the South African PR firm which had been caught editing pages for promotion, so I'll confess I was predisposed to be suspicious. In addition, I'd been watching the buzzing of clear socks around several MMA/kickboxing procedures, 323:

a habit of making amends when I realize I've made errors. I wrote recently that I valued the contributions of a user who disagreed with me especially when we disagreed, because it was likely that user would be seeing issues and perspectives I couldn't or wouldn't be able to see. Every day I edit, I find something I never considered or didn't yet know. I trust the process enough to allow myself to make mistakes and learn from them. I think it's helpful to have a relatively narrow focus of content interest; it keeps me free as an uninvolved editor to assist in administrative ways.

2477:

and dearest wikifriends. I trust them and I asked all three of them to nominate. Is that offensive to anyone? Does that count as canvassing? If so, I'll live with the consequences. They're still my friends. Just people I met while editing the pedia. And they remained my friends while on break after (semi-)retirement, and each welcomed me back. I have other friends, but chose not to involve them for various reasons. Thanks again for reverting. Someone else on Knowledge I can trust. (Heck, that's how Gwen and I met, disagreeing with each other.)

2825:

sad statement about the nature of RFAs.) If community consensus is that this looks pointy, then I should make a short withdrawal statement and request the closure. Even my nominator is in that camp now, so while I don't view my actions as prideful, it's likely that others may. When editors like Snottywong, Wizardman and Youreallycan (each of whom I've done work with or around) are opposing, then it's unlikely I can change minds further simply by being a stand-up guy inside the procedure.

2149:

to close any debate they view as having no consensus; that is an admin's job. In addition, a number of the recent no consensus closures performed are quite obviously not no consensus (I won't bother repeating link offered above), which suggests a misunderstanding both of consensus and the AfD procedure. For someone who intends to work heavily at AfD, this is too much of a problem.

1495:, but the user did apply sourcing. User:DGG, whose qualifications go without saying, said: "it'll do." From David, okay, not convincing, but he did source. User:Aspro's central argument was "I'm surprised..." and wasn't impressive either; neither of the sources produced by that editor visibly mention the MLI. So if I made an error, it was not as egregious as it has been asserted. 390:. I was very disappointed with Jimmy. I thought it was time to hang my spurs up, per my own advice about pace. A month went by. I felt less stressed. I missed working on pagespace. My gumption was back and I wanted to work, per the same personal essay. I'm still annoyed with Jimmy. He knows COI as well as anyone. I felt by his answer he'd let us all down, just a little bit. 2759:. There are unfortunately too many editors making bad AFD/CSD nominations and arguments. That's why we need good, experienced admins in that area. In this case we have a prior sample of closing decisions which does not bode well. It's not inconceivable that the applicant could improve significantly, but now is too soon to place that kind of bet. Happy holidays. 2991:- Very sorry, but there's no way I can support. I see a competent person editing in good-faith, but I believe that the job of the closing admin for AfD's is to judge consensus, not take what was said and add it to his own opinion. Whether or not the Afd's were even applicable to by NAC is another matter altogether, but I really don't like the two linked above. 1967:

I don't see how the community would be significantly improved were he to receive the tools, especially in light of those RfD closures (linked above), which raise a number of issues: understanding when non-admin closure is appropriate, the ability to see the presence of a consensus, and imposing the closer's opinion on the decision.

200:? Very likely, since I explained my rationale below. But here's the big thing: Why didn't any of these issues come forward as questions to the candidate? Why the rush to judgement and peremptory hurry to get me to withdraw? I'm not a high school student. I can handle real questions. But I've been asked nothing substantive. Why not? 1687:; 4) I have explained I don't normally do New Page Patrols or tag for CSD; my daily time on the pedia is limited, so I tend to focus on tasks I can accomplish at my pace, not reactive tasks; please don't hold me responsible for not editing in the same way you do; 5) I have never been warned for 3RR; In my wikicareer I have been 266:; on reading through I see ways I could contribute. I see page protection and requested moves as areas where I should get admin experience. From watching the careers of admins I respect, I've noticed they find themselves acting in areas they didn't imagine at RfA. I suspect I'll find similar situations arising. 1542:, which I link here to provide you some insight about judging consensus. I don't doubt you'll be a good administrator someday, but with all respect, you don't seem to be off to a good start in the area most cited in this RFA as needing work. (Not trying to be snarky, this is a genuine effort to be helpful.) 306:, the latter of which I did almost entirely alone. More recently I'm happy with my work with some COI newbie issues. I'm mostly proud of the way the pedia has grown up around us, and that as part of something larger than myself, I've helped to make my areas of interest more trustworthy and better sourced. 1883:

with regret. I see a hard-working contributor here, but the two recent Afd closures that have been highlighted were just plain wrong. There was a clear consensus to Keep in both cases, and evaluating consensus is all the closer is supposed to do - not interject personal opinions or judge it according

1144:

I don't think my comment should be read as advice to current and future admins, especially in light of my statement: "However, practice dictates you really should say "keep" if there is a consensus to keep, and admins (including myself) follow that practice pretty much by the book." In fact my advice

493:

is on my talk page right now bemoaning he has 300K edits and can't get the bit. We need quality people, not flawless ones. I don't have nearly the editing chops he does, and I refuse to drink from the firehose like many brave editors are willing to do, so I've got no CSD record to speak of. My friend

322:

A long time ago, I was more likely to be hasty and weigh urgency over policy. I know I make similar (though lesser) mistakes today. A big difference now is that over time I realized the value of embracing disagreements with others as opposed to making those disagreements battleground-y. I try to make

180:

I accept this nomination and am humbled to offer myself before group consensus to administer English Knowledge. It's only recently I've felt the pedia needed me to have the bit. I noticed a long backlog of AfD closes and did a couple of older ones. I know I could have done several deletes, but didn't

3172:

on the position. Your work at AfD is much appreciated. Most candidates get only indirect chances to show what sort of admin they'd be. You had some real chances with non-admin closures, and unfortunately some of them don't reflect very well on you. As a result, I can't support now. You've done a lot

2523:

That's one editor's opinion. I've answered the questions about the two "no consensus" closes above. I await far more biting critique. This is all that can be raised against me in 6 years of editing? I don't have enough citations on my older works? I don't have any FA's? I made mistakes in two out of

2476:

I very much appreciate your reverting the snowball close. I appreciate it even more now that I know you wanted to oppose. Very sporting of you and very wikipedian. Thanks, truly. There could be a third reason for having three nominators (does three constitute a long list?): These three are my oldest

2158:

I'm sure that in good time, this candidate will make a good administrator. I'm also quite convinced, based on the many recent NACs cited above, that he isn't ready yet. His civility and thoughtfulness are commendable, and I think Kudpung may be being a little harsh about his content creations, but

2148:

per the arguments raised above. I have serious concerns that a candidate who would like to work in AfD closures does not seem to understand the process. A no consensus close should not be performed by a non-admin regardless of whether it is correct or not - someone well-versed in AfD should know not

1988:

I would love to support but, these AfD closures are leaving me a lot of concern. The way I am seeing this is that you appear to give closures stating basically something that doesn't fit as a final conclusion. "Keep, keep, keep, comment, keep" Your conclusion, "No Consensus". You may want to try

1966:

I think people should be serious article editors before they become admins. I'm not a fan of significant Portal work; Portals get very low page views and they seem to me to be nothing but vanity projects for wikipedians who are scared of working on a real article. BusterD is a very useful editor but

1639:

demonstrates that he still has some way to go. Although many will argue that creation and content work is not essential for adminship, where significant content work is concerned, it will be taken into consideration and ought to be of a reasonably high quality. Unfortunately, of

1596:

Oppose... so far. I'm not a fan of that "no consensus" closure, as the consensus was clearly (and unfortunately, I must say) a keep, and your close rationale was an overreach of evaluating !votes, indeed becoming a !vote in itself. But a single AfD close is not why I'm tempted to oppose, rather it's

1105:

shows it clearly. I have no problem with that. It really doesn't matter if there is a consensus to "keep"; all we need to know is whether there is a consensus to delete. However, practice dictates you really should say "keep" if there is a consensus to keep, and admins (including myself) follow that

261:

I plan to start by closing AfD discussions more, treading carefully; so far I've been relisting as appropriate and closing what I felt were fairly clear cases of keep or redirect. More recently I've felt I was ready to close other outcomes as well. I have reported occasionally at AIV, so I could pay

91:) – I nominate BusterD for adminship. BusterD has been editing here for more than 6 years and has almost 15,000 edits that are well dispersed throughout the English Knowledge. BusterD has contributed significantly to articles on 19th Century American history subjects and was instrumental in bringing 1860:

are appropriate or not. When an appropriate close is elusive short of admin status, clearly there is no confidence that closures would suddenly be appropriate when handed the bit. I share the concerns of CET and Kudpung. And I personally don't feel that you should be closing AFDs as either an admin

1812:

I'm well aware of DGG's assertion about common practice in these cases. The closing script I'm using places the no consensus button directly next to the keep button, so it's possible I hit the wrong one. It's also possible that since my written rationale was no consensus to delete (a rationale I've

1736:

Thanks for your well-considered reply. I do not concede I'm not ready (otherwise I'd withdraw), but I am willing to accept that others feel I MAY not be ready. I thought measuring consensus in this matter would be the test; so far I have learned much. I very much appreciate the time you've taken to

1662:

does business) makes perfect sense; 3) As I've explained on talk, with one exception (a merge close I performed last weekend), each of the articles listed on talk as poorly referenced are works I haven't edited in several years (though I concede those should be addressed); here are four examples of

1490:

was an SPA, and I wasn't impressed with his or her assertions anyway. So just on numbers, I saw 2 deletes and 4 valid keeps. 66% is not a clear consensus, IMHO. So I broke down the arguments. User:AJHingston's assertion was not strong, as User:NickCT pointed out. User:Smalljim's assertion was right

868:

Since it appears that my willingness to see the procedure run full length is being seen by editors I respect as selfish and pointy, I'll withdraw my candidacy at this time. I will not say anything negative about those who have opposed me in this process. This was not my moment. I would like to make

2824:

I'm concerned about the growing perception that I'm doing this for my sake, or even the chance to discuss RFAs in general. I'm aghast that nobody asked me about these closures in question to the candidate. It seems we shoot first these days then ask questions later (but I suppose that is in fact a

2122:

I'd like to request this procedure not close as snowball. I've been away from keyboard since early this morning and have had zero time to look at questions posed or specific issues other than the first three opposes. While it seems unlikely this request may not gather necessary consensus, it seems

1657:

may be right that I'm not quite ready for the challenges of adminship. However, the user is incorrect on every specific charge above. 1) As I've explained to Townlake above, if consensus was so "very clear" on MLI, why did nobody close it after 33 days? I reject the premise consensus was clear and

1571:

The consensus was to "Keep", but the article still stands even though you closed it "No consensus", so the situation didn't change overall in the long run. Afd is a mystery to me...as an admin long ago, the only deletions I ever did were clear SNOW deletions or those listed at CSD. I never took on

537:

Thanks for asking. In general I'd try to find out why the language was recurring, and try to de-escalate the hostility, if such existed. I'd endeavor NOT to make the problem worse by choosing sides or acting superior (or as a wikifriend said of me in past days "mastodonish"). I guess it depends on

2538:

I am docking my oppose from the final count. You seem to reply to feedback, a skill that many wikipedians lack. You have done this with more tact and patience then I could ever muster. Thanks for replying your choice of nominators. I don't feel is right to hold that against you. Your actions have

2261:

Ritzman and other established editors and reapply in three to six months after gaining appropriate experience. Overall, this mistake is not something that will be held against you in the long term provided you work towards correcting it and understanding how to determine consensus, or lack of it.

1556:

Unfortunately, since even some supporting editors think my run unlikely to succeed, I feel this is the best I can make out of a poor situation. I'm glad you have chosen not to be snarky, and I agree the issues you and others have raised don't shine the best light on my lengthy wikicareer. At this

1114:

concern, and your other comments are appropriately summarising the views expressed in the debate. Sadly, the drawback of giving reasons for closing an AfD is that they get picked apart. Keep it up, bring the closing statements a little more in line with current practice, and you'll be fine coming

458:

I'm not certain I understand the question. I still find myself doing unfamiliar things (like tonight, justifying my real life with wikipedians). I still appreciate feedback and find it useful, which is why I'd rather not close this procedure before I get the kind of feedback which may improve my

2961:

And to refresh everyone's memory, MONGO lost community consensus because he raised another editor's serious behavior issue at ArbCom and forgot his own behavior would also be under close scrutiny. MONGO is awesome, but he had a bad temper. He's a far better editor these days than he EVER was an

1695:

on WP:ARS, restoring text removed (by a deleted user or ip) which had been on the page for several years. Despite the fact that none of the charges Kudpung makes have foundation, it's still possible I'm not quite ready for the challenges of adminship. Given this standard of performance, I'm not

837:

I reverted the SNOW close of this RfA. BusterD has three nominations from long term users and has been here since 2006. This is not a hands down (2/30/X) case. I really only feel comfortable seeing this closed by one of the crats at this time. I hope the pitchforks and torches are left at home.

2576:

I really hate to oppose anybody at RfA and initially expected to support — BusterD has been here for quite some time and is clearly enthusiastic about the project. However, I have to agree with concerns expressed above. Unfortunately, I think Buster needs to take some more time evaluating what

1855:

due to a misunderstanding of the AFD process pertaining to COI or PR developed articles. We don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I'm concerned how this lack would be manifested during interaction with new editors or in working with other deletion processes. I'm also concerned with the

416:

There are several. I am considerably older than most editors. I have been out of college and working in business for many years; as a result, I must prioritize between real life and online life from time to time. In January 2007 I had to choose between buying a new computer for my out-of-state

2736:- I would love to support in the future. Take some time outside of RfA to respond to criticism then request again. Right now, there are too many outstanding issues which would be impossible to address in the span of this discussion. None of them are major, but they are worth reflecting upon. 2697:

I'm sorry. I know just how much being opposed at RFA sucks, so I rarely oppose, but one of the most important qualities I look for in an admin candidate is level-headedness and the ability to judge consensus, and from your AFD closes, I'm just not seeing it. I apologise if it seems like I am

195:

Less than 24 hours in, I have been asked by several editors to withdraw this nomination. One editor went so far as to snowball close the process even though I'd specifically requested that this not be done. Another editor (one who opposed me) reverted the close. Bravo! And thanks! That's the

222:. This wasn't a change of heart, this was a correction towards my original intention, poorly executed. This error should be held against me in this procedure. It was sloppy work, and as a non-admin closer, I have a responsibility to put myself in a position to get it right 100% of the time. 2262:

I've made mistakes like these too before my RfA which were brought out in my RfA; but thankfully the community gave me considerable leeway. They will do so to you too in your next. Don't let this hit you bad. You're a good editor and I'll be looking forward to support you in the future.

1634:

consensus for 'keep' with very strong rationales, and should have been closed without comment. I would have expected the candidate to have accumulated a solid understanding of evaluating a rough consensus, having participated in over 563 votes at AfD, but his explanation

2299:

per TCO's neutral. Excellent work at A and AA-level minor league baseball. Ready for promotion to AAA but not the major leagues (just now). Keeping throwing heat but gain greater control, by working with the pitching coaches at AfD; somewhat limited as a pitcher---you need a

3202:

I feel very much the same as Spartaz 16:20, 23rd and 09:40, 24th December 2011 (UTC). Buster is largely an excellent candidate, but clumsy NAC closes are a serious matter. I have little doubt that Buster will overcome these mistakes with time, but it is hard to overlook.

1658:

have explained it above; 2) since I contend consensus wasn't so clear, the discussion thread on my talk (coincidentally with the very same editor I referred to in my answer to question #3, an editor with whom previously I've had serious disagreements about the way

2459:

to ram yourself through. This is one of those latter cases. The AfD closures are enough to pull me to oppose. I was pulled all the way to a strong oppose per the anti-ethos of two of the three nominators. Neither MONGO nor Gwen Gale instill any trust in me.

484:

Two directions: Let's say that I don't muster consensus here. In that case, I'll continue to use the toolset I've been trusted with to relist as appropriate and close keep outcomes when they are obvious. I'll confess I've been pushing the envelope since

1129:

This vote contains bad advice to current and future admins, and on that level should be ignored. "Keep" and "no consensus" have the same immediate effect but are not synonymous terms, for reasons most of the voters here thankfully appear to understand.

853:

The candidate has asked me to revert my later close of this RfA. In light of the points he made, I think it appropriate for this RfA to run until the official close time. I ask others to respect his request and not to close this RfA early. Many thanks,

2807:

at this time. Bad AFD closes= bad. Willing to listen and try to learn from criticism= good. Insisting on keeping this obviously failed RFA open for your own sake and/or as yet another opportunity to talk about how RFA is broken= fail. Maybe later.

1861:

or non-admin at this time. Sorry. I recommend spending time reading and reviewing the deletion policy and processes, then working to present a clear understanding over the next several months. I look forward to seeing you again. Best regards,

353:

In early October of this year, I was experiencing much work-related stress. In addition, I had put in a bunch of edits in August and September and wasn't feeling so much gumption. I had raised a discussion about what I saw as the pedia's

1331:. After six years' of contributing, it is clear to me that this candidate is an asset and a stayer. We all make mistakes from time to time; I have made many of them. This is not about retribution or reward – this is about recruitment. 1831:

To be absolutely clear, I intended to close this as keep, per my personal experience with the AfD procedure listed in the comment immediately above. My amending corrects my foolish error. Thanks to the Colonel for pointing this out.

2577:

constitutes consensus, which is so important in closing deletion debates, before he is ready to take on the role of adminiship. I wish him all the best of luck, and I hope his next RfA will have my signature in the support column.

1270:

Cautious and perhaps somewhat moral support, but the candidate has impressed greatly during the course of this RFA; they will no doubt be well equipped when returning again in a few months (as it seems likely this will not pass).

2454:

There are two reasons for having a long list of nominators. Either a person is so good that many people want to hang their hat on the candidate or the candidate is so shaky that the multiple nominators is a vain hope to use some

3138:

Sorry, but due to concerns raised in the oppose section, especially for your bad judgement in closing AfD's, I cannot support. Besides that, your issues aren't at a high level, but your AfD closures is a big issue as an admin.

1523:

How offensive, Townlake. I guess I could sit still and let my friends be slyly badmouthed. I could allow a misimpression of my actions to stand unanswered. I could quit. But that's not the kind of administrator I want to be.

513:

I saw you asking for some additional questions. If you were an admin. and came across a current talk page thread that contained repated vulgar, profane or offensive language from one contributor what action would you take?

581:

You appear to be lambasted due to a couple on recent NAC closes. Are these typical of you participation at XfD. Can you point to a selection of XfDs where your participation may be more representative of your ability?

1696:

surprised the pedia can't get enough candidates to run, or approve them when they do. Thus far this procedure has been a disappointment, not because of opposition, but because of the poverty of argument presented.

286:, though I'm not the tool creator. Another user and I started collaborating on the work some years ago, and I'm quite proud of how the template has gradually stabilized over time. I recently used it as a model for 1292:

Seems like a reasonable person who won't go off the rails. Not too worried about AfD issues mentioned below. The encyclopedia can live with the odd article wrongly kept and the occasional article wrongly deleted.

1251:

The outstanding behaviour of the candidate at this RfA demonstrates integrity and a willingness to learn and engage with others. All things considered I believe xe will make a fine and trustworthy administrator.

2393:? If so, why was it awful? Is it not "common practice is that all documented inhabited places are inherently notable"? I seem to recall user Blofeld bot-generating thousands of stub articles on that very basis. 3110:

Torn ... Mongo's nom probably cost this editor a lot of votes; Gwen is far more trustable. Interesting spread of "personalities" as nom's ... will look some more here, which is not necessarily a bad thing

2873:

candidate? There are three noms and only one is an admin...and I've never thought of her as a bully at all. Your classification is unfair..."Also who is nomming, several blocking-bullying class of admins."

3185:

Thanks for the very kind words. I'll take the liberty of addressing specific concerns raised above, but accept valid criticism knowing I often find wisdom in the viewpoints of folks with whom I disagree.

2202:

I oppose because your closures in AfD aren't very well thought out. You have done some good closures but there are too many bad ones recently for me to support. Keep working at AfD and improve please.

1813:

used before in "keep" outcomes, even if incorrect) I hit the wrong button. However, I take responsibility for my errors even if inadvertent, so Colonel Warden is right. This was a mistake on my part.

2698:

nitpicking here, but I worry how you will judge AfD as an administrator based on the examples that were presented above. Try not to let this discourage you though. Happy to reconsider in six months.

1627: 1479: 1107: 96: 3084:

Still in neutral, but I want to say that this editor's conduct during this RfA has been great and if he takes some advice to heart I see absolutely no reason why I wouldn't support in a few months.

2539:

instilled a good amount of trust in me. I would like to see you back here is 3-6 months after taking into account some of the objections here. I have faith that you will make a good admin. cheers --

421:, I didn't have a personal computer of my own. It was surprisingly enjoyable. After I got the new machine, it took a short time for me to get interested in anything internet again. In May of 2008, 1447:, and this close is not good, but is that the only blight in a history of 15k edits? While not exemplary, it's not damning. Can you point me to the talk page dialogue you're referring to as well? 965:- We don't need people who've never made any mistakes, but those who can correct them. An admin needs to be calm and mature, and to work well with others. BusterD has the temperament for the job. 367: 1405:- a couple poor AfD closures worry me much less than his overall demeanor and editing patterns. I'm strongly in Graham's camp here. Of course, the major AfD close cited below has been 1042: 1538:

Your dialogue with Kudpung below indicates you want to use this RFA as a quasi-"editor review", regardless of whether the result of the RFA vote is clear. Your stance reminds me of

1572:

more difficult closures as I didn't want to deal with the potential subsequent acrimony...I applaud any admin who tackles such areas, even if their actions aren't always precise.--

1213:

So can you explain what you mean by "Keep it up, bring the closing statements a little more in line with current practice, and you'll be fine coming back here in a few months."?

115:. BusterD is methodical and his cautionary and polite demeanor leads me to believe there will be no reason that he will misuse admin tools or the position. I would also add that 1492: 3173:

of good for the project, and I would be happy to support at your next AfD after you've demonstrated that you've taken to heart the torrent of feedback you're getting here.

108:. BusterD has a history of civility and mends fences well with others he has questioned or had disagreements with, as shown in his discussion at Gwen Gale's 1st failed Rfa 494:

is great at that. To clearly answer your question, I'll continue to step up. More and more as I feel more confident in community consensus. Thanks for the good question.

1809: 316:

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?

3220:. Similar to Lagrange's concerns I feel not comfortable with your answers, but nothing that won't change with some more months experience. So, similar to many other 429:

into a lovely old house. I stopped spending so much time on the computer and spent more time hiking the Appalachian Trail. It's awesome and has transformed my life.

355: 1989:

and fix that or stay away from this altogether. I would recommend that you work on editing a while longer or work on AfD a little more before becoming an admin.—

1483: 2182:

I was expecting to support this but the 2 NC AFD closes show that Buster still isn't ready to close AFDs. Sorry, but I really do want to support the next time.

1796:

Hmm, looks more to me like he's mistaking "no consensus" with "keep". They both have the same outcome, so I'm not sure who that's a bad thing, in all honesty. —

3245: 793: 684: 486: 2390: 1779: 1102: 788: 363: 215: 3263: 410:

shows your monthly edit count is changing from month to month and that there are also months with less that 10 edits. Is there any specific reason for that?

103: 1429:, in which you interjected your own vote to support your "no consensus" close rationale, nor was I impressed with your talk page dialogue related to it. 2962:

administrator those days. And to be frank, MONGO warned me his association might have negative consequences in this procedure. Yet I asked him anyway.

637: 248:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

2257:

You could consider accepting the mistake you committed and withdrawing this RfA. Improve your understanding of AfD closures with individuals like

923:

I have seen Buster's fine work and diplomacy for the last few years and he is an asset to Knowledge and can undoubtedly be trusted with the tools.

1884:

to any other considerations. (And a non-admin shouldn't be closing anything other than a clear Keep anyway, or clear housekeeping closes) --

731: 624: 1425:

Lots of nominators = dubious candidate, never mind the bonus name you dropped in your own self-nom statement. And I wasn't impressed with

2111: 2035: 2005: 287: 2930:

I'm not that much an expert on the stuff. Like I said, it is an impression. That's why I'm in neutral, not oppose. Honest admission.

375: 783: 2418: 2378: 1711: 1478:'s initial statement says way more about the editor who made it than it does about the subject of the statement. As to my close of 123:

article would be limited to a few short paragraphs, but we both discovered through research that there was much more to the person.

152:— I'm happy to nominate BusterD for adminship. I first met him four years ago on the other "side" of an editorial disagreement at 2172: 667: 30: 17: 1426: 1345:

A truly excellent premise, with some fantastic alliteration to boot - one I must remember and then pass off as my own wisdom :)

661: 100: 3096: 3067: 3028: 3003: 2950:

I was deadminned...so not sure if it is from memory. That defrocking was 5 years ago...I'm not running for admin, BusterD is...

2507: 2238: 1020: 992: 631: 407: 3153: 3124: 1975: 119:

to a bio I started resulted in the development of an article that greatly exceeded my original expectations...I figured the

106: 1889: 698: 676: 617: 88: 2615: 291: 2513: 2398: 2244: 1026: 998: 824: 814: 283: 1718:

where Taelus saw fit to full protect the page and warn you, so you got caught in the cross-fire with with a

1409:, and unsurprisingly he made a mistake. By his rationale, I would have thought we can all see he plainly meant keep. 3044: 2719:- non admin closes are very poor indeed - the nominators deserve additional eyes as well for this poor nomination. 2589: 2367:. In fact, stop closing AfDs for a while and read up on them, since the King's Bank close in particular was awful. 2319: 1608: 1259: 263: 1927: 1910: 1636: 724: 295: 92: 438: 1950: 1885: 1787: 757: 1808:

The Colonel is right that this is strange. My recollection of the procedure was that I closed it as keep. Per

1597:

what I perceive to be an automatic assumption of bad faith from potential COI editors: please do explain how "

778: 2105: 2029: 1999: 1219: 1185: 520: 362:

on Jimbo's page about whether an ip troll had a valid question to raise. And then (the same calendar day as

2407:

Exactly, and yet he closed it as no consensus, when that's about as clear a keep consensus as you can get.

2744: 2724: 2705: 2394: 773: 2683:

per Kudpung, et. al. Too many policy knowledge issues, but I do see great potential. Give it some time.--

3177: 3038: 2311: 1602: 1299: 1253: 1234: 1204: 1150: 1120: 299: 113: 3244:

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

2897: 2578: 1761: 1487: 1101:

Your closes simply demonstrate to me that you see "no consensus to delete" as synonymous with "keep".

109: 2813: 2764: 2544: 2465: 2287: 2168: 1922: 1905: 1679:; here's a page where I've been trying to show a COI newbie how to source a BLP and write neutrally: 1452: 1336: 1314: 1145:

to the candidate is to "bring the closing statements a little more in line with current practice". --

1038: 843: 798: 717: 443:

But I still find myself doing unfamiliar things. Any feedback at all would be useful. BusterD (talk)

303: 2494: 2225: 1007: 979: 554:

If you could unilaterally (Jimboesque) eliminate one process on Knowledge what would it be, and why?

3230: 3212: 3208: 3195: 3180: 3160: 3141: 3130: 3100: 3092: 3071: 3063: 3050: 3032: 3024: 3007: 2999: 2971: 2954: 2939: 2925: 2903: 2891: 2862: 2834: 2817: 2799: 2785: 2768: 2751: 2728: 2711: 2692: 2675: 2658: 2654: 2641: 2620: 2595: 2563: 2549: 2533: 2518: 2501: 2486: 2470: 2445: 2441: 2424: 2402: 2384: 2359: 2338: 2324: 2301: 2291: 2274: 2249: 2232: 2216: 2192: 2176: 2153: 2132: 2117: 2078: 2064: 2041: 1980: 1958: 1945: 1929: 1912: 1893: 1875: 1868: 1841: 1822: 1803: 1791: 1783: 1766: 1746: 1731: 1705: 1676: 1668: 1649: 1614: 1576: 1566: 1551: 1539: 1533: 1518: 1504: 1470: 1456: 1443:

I'm not a fan of non-admin closures... I think they shouldn't happen unless the outcome is clearly

1438: 1413: 1397: 1380: 1361: 1340: 1319: 1304: 1287: 1265: 1238: 1224: 1208: 1190: 1170: 1154: 1139: 1124: 1096: 1079: 1054: 1031: 1014: 986: 969: 957: 940: 915: 911: 898: 878: 863: 859: 848: 752: 558: 525: 444: 231: 209: 190: 165: 161: 144: 127: 120: 67: 3147: 3112: 2911: 2877: 2096: 2020: 1990: 1547: 1514: 1434: 1371:

recent issues loom quite large, but I've always found this editor to be on the reasonable side.

1214: 1180: 1166: 1135: 926: 694: 515: 502: 3168:. Your answers to Q 4–6 above indicate you're a mature editor and suggest to me that you'd put 3191: 2967: 2830: 2737: 2720: 2700: 2688: 2559: 2529: 2482: 2270: 2128: 2074: 1837: 1818: 1742: 1727: 1701: 1645: 1562: 1529: 1500: 1466: 1393: 1050: 966: 953: 874: 611: 350: 227: 205: 186: 82: 65: 3225: 3174: 2781: 2671: 2611: 2211: 2092: 1919:

Indenting my !vote. I really appreciate the way you responded to criticism during this RfA.

1684: 1294: 1230: 1200: 1146: 1116: 1075: 359: 331: 2554:

I will listen carefully to feedback and heed the wisdom. Just wish I could get more of it.

2524:

500+ AfDs? Is this everything? And that's enough? Well let's clear all the air, right now.

2188:

I'm going to strike this because of the class with which Buster is dealing with this RFA..

2809: 2794: 2760: 2540: 2461: 2283: 2160: 2123:

reasonable to allow me some time to answer the valid concerns raised here before closure.

2057: 1672: 1448: 1376: 1354: 1332: 1310: 1280: 839: 467: 153: 1066:

no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. He has apparently learned from his

948:- A well respected and productive editor. Suprised they didn't already have the tools. -- 1045:

have no recollection of helping the user improve articles. If asked, I might have done.

3204: 3169: 3085: 3056: 3017: 2992: 2650: 2437: 2408: 2368: 2016: 1862: 1680: 1444: 907: 856: 573: 157: 99:

status. Active in Afd since 2006, BusterD has cautiously done a few non-admin closures

3257: 3119: 2935: 2858: 2639: 2150: 2084: 1968: 1857: 1797: 1659: 1543: 1510: 1475: 1430: 1410: 1162: 1160:

You edited your statements - without strikethroughs - while I was responding to them.

1131: 1092: 555: 546: 140: 3187: 2963: 2900: 2826: 2684: 2555: 2525: 2478: 2348: 2333: 2308:

to balance your strong arm. I hope to see you in training camp in Spring training.

2305: 2263: 2189: 2183: 2124: 2070: 1833: 1814: 1738: 1723: 1697: 1664: 1654: 1641: 1558: 1525: 1496: 1462: 1389: 1229:

Helpful advice on how to pass next time. Despite my support, this RFA will fail. --

1046: 949: 870: 607: 490: 223: 201: 197: 182: 78: 58: 1199:, outlined in the answer to question 4, makes me very confident in my position. -- 978:

He actually helped me improved articles since August. I think he needs the mop. --

2493:

Its better to withdraw the nomination because you need to solve the issues here.

2777: 2667: 2601: 2204: 1071: 819: 398: 459:

performance here, regardless of whether consensus chooses to allow me to serve.

2951: 2051: 1573: 1372: 1348: 1274: 895: 478:

In light of your two AfD closures, what will you be doing differently at AfD?

124: 3238:

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

2666:

Sorry man, but Kudpung and the others pretty much summed everything up here.

1388:- Long tenure, well rounded set of experiences, no indications of assholery. 2088: 2224:

Per the arguments above, you need to be careful when closing AfD votes. --

1902:

because of the two recent AfD closures linked in the opposes before mine.

2931: 2854: 2629: 1088: 136: 2896:

MONGO was defrocked by the arbitration committee for misusing his tools

2048:

I'd recommend that you tone down your signature a notch Cyberpower678.

298:. and I built it up to featured status. I helped with a couple of GAs, 262:

attention to that queue for response. Until recently I wasn't aware of

1942:

per the technically incorrect/misunderstanding of AfD closures above.

3248:

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

2600:

Oppose, as user will need to know more about consensus, as above. ~~

1037:

I believe the above user is mistaken. Outside of an intersection at

697:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 2456: 709: 3016:

Also, I'm not sure why the numbering in this section is off...

713: 112:

and his switch to a cautious neutral on the 2nd successful Rfa

2946:

Spartaz...TCO made his/her first edit with that username long

2282:- Not right now. I'd refrain from non admin closures for now. 1480:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/MedicoLegal Investigations Ltd

172:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

368:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Eddie Quist (2nd nomination)

290:, which isn't transcluded much yet but solves a big gap at 3037:

Fixed; always put # in front of the indentation. Regards,

2069:

Um, what does his/her sig. have to do with anything here?

2436:

I'm usually lax at RFA, but opposes are persuasive here.

29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

276:

What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?

255:

What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

2332:; not yet, more experience and better judgment needed. 1828: 1719: 1715: 1692: 1688: 1598: 1406: 1196: 1159: 1043:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Ashley Smith (prisoner)

655: 649: 643: 426: 422: 418: 387: 383: 379: 371: 340: 219: 116: 54: 53:

Final (16/33/7); ended 23:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

2628:. I too am concerned by the non-admin AfD closures. 1493:

Knowledge:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

1486:

for one such clearly defective process. To my eyes,

366:) I stumbled onto an arbitrator's "keep" comment in 807: 766: 745: 2649:per above; seems like more experience will help... 214:For the record, I've admitted a personal error on 2159:he's not making the right judgment calls at AfD.— 1110:, you are making it clear that your concern is a 386:to answer my questions on talk. When I came back 1810:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Queen City, Iowa 349:I should preface my answer with a reference to 1179:What is this, an oppose in the wrong section? 725: 8: 1710:There was a huge edit war taking place at 674:Edit summary usage for BusterD can be found 382:for a week. While I was gone, Jimbo posted 364:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Lord's Bank 294:. At some point I was gifted an unfinished 216:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Lord's Bank 2346:Concerns with experience and judgement. - 1685:User talk:Cwands#Dealing with the re-write 732: 718: 710: 378:Recognizing my stress level, I put myself 2851:Worried by who nominating and low content 370:. Jclemens' comment annoyed me so much I 1618:(stricken 02:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)) 693:Please keep discussion constructive and 2908:Thank you. That explanation helps some. 2087:my signature flaws was worked out with 374:. I even asked another editor if I was 2019:. This RfA isn't going well at all.— 1856:apparent inability to recognize when 1106:practice pretty much by the book. In 7: 3264:Unsuccessful requests for adminship 2869:Are you sure you are talking about 343:in October that you were retiring? 288:Template:American Revolutionary War 2776:per concerns about AfD closures.-- 1461:See my vote below for the link. -- 24: 1712:Knowledge:Article Rescue Squadron 417:daughter or for myself. She won. 356:institutional bias towards Google 292:Portal:American Revolutionary War 18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship 2083:My signature is compliant with 1827:I've corrected this mistake by 1309:I can trust you with the mop -- 372:performed a complete refutation 1601:" is a valid deletion reason. 1: 3231:16:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC) 3213:00:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC) 3196:06:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC) 3181:16:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 3161:08:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 3131:02:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 3101:20:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC) 3072:17:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 3051:17:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 3033:17:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 3008:16:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2972:01:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 2955:17:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2940:16:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2926:16:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2904:16:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2892:16:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2863:16:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2835:23:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC) 2818:20:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC) 2800:16:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC) 2786:15:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC) 2769:02:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC) 2752:16:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC) 2729:19:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC) 2712:08:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC) 2693:05:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC) 2676:05:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC) 2659:23:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 2642:21:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 2621:13:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 2596:05:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 2564:02:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 2550:02:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 2534:01:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 2519:01:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 2487:00:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 2471:23:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2446:23:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2425:22:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2403:21:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2385:20:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2360:20:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2339:20:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2325:18:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2292:17:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2275:17:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2250:17:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2217:16:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2193:09:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 2186:16:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2177:16:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2154:15:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2133:21:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2118:21:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2095:. That is beside the point.— 2079:03:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 2065:20:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 2042:16:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1981:14:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1959:14:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1930:12:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 1913:11:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1894:11:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1876:11:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1842:10:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 1823:22:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1804:18:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1792:10:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1767:09:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1747:13:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC) 1732:12:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC) 1706:06:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC) 1650:08:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1615:06:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1577:19:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC) 1567:18:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC) 1552:16:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC) 1534:02:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 1519:01:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 1505:00:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 1471:08:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1457:07:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1439:05:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1414:20:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC) 1398:06:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC) 1381:04:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC) 1362:18:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC) 1341:00:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC) 1320:21:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 1305:12:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 1288:12:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 1266:02:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 1239:23:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1225:23:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1209:23:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1191:20:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1171:20:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1155:20:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1140:20:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1125:20:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1115:back here in a few months. -- 1097:16:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1080:16:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1055:22:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1032:17:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 1003:15:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 970:14:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 958:13:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 941:05:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 916:05:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 899:04:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 879:23:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC) 864:02:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC) 849:00:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 559:17:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC) 526:13:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 445:14:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC) 419:For the first quarter of 2007 351:my unpublished essay on pace. 232:11:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 210:01:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC) 191:02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 166:02:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 145:19:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC) 128:00:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC) 68:23:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC) 2015:I recommend closing this as 3224:, my answer is atm NOTNOW. 1720:template message on 25 June 1484:raising this issue at a DRV 425:; I returned in August. In 284:Template:American Civil War 244:Questions for the candidate 3280: 1663:work I've done this year: 264:Knowledge:Database reports 2899:. TCO has a good memory. 1327:- Being an administrator 572:Additional question from 545:Additional question from 501:Additional question from 466:Additional question from 397:Additional question from 330:Additional question from 296:Portal:American Civil War 93:Portal:American Civil War 3241:Please do not modify it. 423:I had to prioritize work 282:My best contribution is 39:Please do not modify it. 1774:Here's another strange 448:". What changed in the 376:"too rough on the guy." 117:BusterD's contributions 3170:the appropriate weight 683:Edit count posted to 55:Withdrawn by candidate 1829:amending the outcome. 427:February 2010 I moved 300:Charles Pomeroy Stone 31:request for adminship 1691:, this summer for a 1599:as a PR-related work 1039:Ashley Smith inquest 820:Global contributions 487:my first keep closes 358:. I put myself in a 304:Samuel Escue Tillman 1886:Boing! said Zebedee 1677:Merdith W.B. Temple 1669:William F. Raynolds 779:Non-automated edits 699:their contributions 605:Links for BusterD: 220:amended the outcome 121:William F. Raynolds 2420:Operation Big Bear 2380:Operation Big Bear 2260: 1915: 1858:non-admin closures 1006:moved to oppose -- 862: 758:Edit summary usage 701:before commenting. 40: 2619: 2517: 2395:Shawn in Montreal 2355: 2323: 2258: 2248: 2175: 2063: 1932: 1898: 1360: 1303: 1286: 1034: 1030: 1002: 855: 833: 832: 408:X!'s Edit Counter 38: 3271: 3243: 3159: 3156: 3150: 3144: 3127: 3123: 3115: 3089: 3060: 3047: 3041: 3040:CharlieEchoTango 3021: 2996: 2924: 2922: 2890: 2888: 2749: 2748: 2742: 2710: 2708: 2703: 2668:Kevin Rutherford 2638: 2634: 2610: 2607: 2604: 2592: 2586: 2582: 2547: 2510: 2504: 2499: 2497: 2468: 2421: 2415: 2381: 2375: 2356: 2353: 2336: 2322: 2316: 2309: 2267: 2241: 2235: 2230: 2228: 2207: 2167: 2165: 2114: 2108: 2102: 2101: 2093:User:HJ Mitchell 2062: 2060: 2049: 2038: 2032: 2026: 2025: 2008: 2002: 1996: 1995: 1971: 1956: 1953: 1948: 1926: 1918: 1909: 1874: 1871: 1865: 1764: 1611: 1605: 1604:CharlieEchoTango 1488:User:Bigtezstags 1359: 1357: 1346: 1317: 1297: 1285: 1283: 1272: 1262: 1256: 1255:CharlieEchoTango 1222: 1217: 1188: 1183: 1023: 1017: 1012: 1010: 1005: 995: 989: 984: 982: 939: 937: 846: 774:Articles created 734: 727: 720: 711: 679: 671: 630: 600:General comments 523: 518: 63: 3279: 3278: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3246:this nomination 3239: 3154: 3148: 3142: 3140: 3125: 3117: 3113: 3087: 3058: 3045: 3039: 3019: 2994: 2912: 2910: 2878: 2876: 2847: 2746: 2745: 2738: 2706: 2701: 2699: 2681:Lukewarm Oppose 2636: 2630: 2605: 2602: 2590: 2584: 2580: 2545: 2508: 2502: 2495: 2466: 2423: 2419: 2409: 2383: 2379: 2369: 2352: 2349: 2334: 2312: 2310: 2265: 2239: 2233: 2226: 2205: 2161: 2112: 2106: 2099: 2097: 2058: 2050: 2036: 2030: 2023: 2021: 2006: 2000: 1993: 1991: 1978: 1969: 1951: 1946: 1943: 1920: 1903: 1869: 1867: 1863: 1762: 1724:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1673:List of Ravians 1642:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1609: 1603: 1509:How defensive. 1463:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1422: 1355: 1347: 1315: 1281: 1273: 1260: 1254: 1220: 1215: 1197:this brilliance 1186: 1181: 1021: 1015: 1008: 993: 987: 980: 927: 925: 891: 844: 834: 829: 803: 762: 741: 740:RfA/RfB toolbox 738: 708: 675: 623: 606: 602: 521: 516: 246: 154:Abraham Lincoln 97:Featured Portal 76: 59: 50: 35:did not succeed 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3277: 3275: 3267: 3266: 3256: 3255: 3251: 3250: 3234: 3233: 3215: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3163: 3133: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2909: 2875: 2846: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2802: 2793:per Kudpung. 2788: 2771: 2754: 2740:Blue Rasberry 2731: 2714: 2695: 2678: 2661: 2644: 2623: 2598: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2417: 2377: 2362: 2350: 2341: 2327: 2294: 2277: 2252: 2219: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2156: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2081: 1983: 1974: 1961: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1878: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1769: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1714:taking place 1689:templated once 1681:Robert Petkoff 1621: 1620: 1619: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1421: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1400: 1383: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1329:is no big deal 1322: 1307: 1290: 1268: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1099: 1082: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 960: 943: 924: 918: 901: 890: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 831: 830: 828: 827: 822: 817: 811: 809: 805: 804: 802: 801: 796: 791: 786: 781: 776: 770: 768: 764: 763: 761: 760: 755: 749: 747: 743: 742: 739: 737: 736: 729: 722: 714: 707: 704: 690: 689: 688: 681: 672: 601: 598: 596: 593: 591: 590: 589: 588: 576: 574:User:SmokeyJoe 569: 568: 567: 566: 549: 542: 541: 540: 539: 529: 528: 505: 498: 497: 496: 495: 470: 463: 462: 461: 460: 432: 431: 430: 401: 394: 393: 392: 391: 334: 327: 326: 325: 324: 310: 309: 308: 307: 270: 269: 268: 267: 245: 242: 241: 240: 239: 238: 237: 236: 235: 234: 175: 174: 75: 72: 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3276: 3265: 3262: 3261: 3259: 3249: 3247: 3242: 3236: 3235: 3232: 3229: 3228: 3223: 3219: 3216: 3214: 3210: 3206: 3201: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3179: 3176: 3171: 3167: 3164: 3162: 3157: 3151: 3145: 3137: 3134: 3132: 3128: 3122: 3121: 3116: 3109: 3106: 3102: 3099: 3098: 3095: 3094: 3091: 3090: 3083: 3073: 3070: 3069: 3066: 3065: 3062: 3061: 3055:Ahh, thanks. 3054: 3053: 3052: 3048: 3042: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3031: 3030: 3027: 3026: 3023: 3022: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3006: 3005: 3002: 3001: 2998: 2997: 2990: 2987: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2953: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2933: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2923: 2921: 2918: 2915: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2902: 2898: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2889: 2887: 2884: 2881: 2872: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2849: 2848: 2844: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2806: 2803: 2801: 2798: 2797: 2792: 2789: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2772: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2755: 2753: 2750: 2743: 2741: 2735: 2732: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2715: 2713: 2709: 2704: 2696: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2679: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2662: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2645: 2643: 2640: 2635: 2633: 2627: 2624: 2622: 2617: 2613: 2608: 2599: 2597: 2593: 2587: 2583: 2575: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2548: 2542: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2515: 2511: 2509:Contributions 2505: 2498: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2469: 2463: 2458: 2453: 2452:Strong Oppose 2449: 2448: 2447: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2432: 2426: 2422: 2416: 2414: 2413: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2382: 2376: 2374: 2373: 2366: 2363: 2361: 2358: 2357: 2345: 2342: 2340: 2337: 2331: 2328: 2326: 2321: 2317: 2315: 2307: 2303: 2298: 2295: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2278: 2276: 2273: 2272: 2269: 2268: 2256: 2253: 2251: 2246: 2242: 2240:Contributions 2236: 2229: 2223: 2220: 2218: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2209: 2208: 2201: 2198: 2194: 2191: 2187: 2185: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2164: 2157: 2155: 2152: 2147: 2144: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2115: 2109: 2103: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2061: 2055: 2054: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2039: 2033: 2027: 2018: 2012: 2011: 2009: 2003: 1997: 1987: 1984: 1982: 1977: 1972: 1965: 1962: 1960: 1955: 1954: 1949: 1941: 1938: 1931: 1928: 1925: 1924: 1917: 1916: 1914: 1911: 1908: 1907: 1901: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1882: 1879: 1877: 1872: 1866: 1859: 1854: 1851: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1830: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1811: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1802: 1801: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1770: 1768: 1765: 1759: 1756: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1661: 1656: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1638: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1622: 1617: 1616: 1612: 1606: 1600: 1594: 1578: 1575: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1476:User:Townlake 1474: 1473: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1401: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1384: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1369:Moral support 1367: 1363: 1358: 1352: 1351: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1323: 1321: 1318: 1312: 1308: 1306: 1301: 1296: 1291: 1289: 1284: 1278: 1277: 1269: 1267: 1263: 1257: 1250: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1223: 1218: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1189: 1184: 1178: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1161: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1113: 1109: 1104: 1100: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1089:Hal Jespersen 1086: 1083: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1062: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1035: 1033: 1028: 1024: 1022:Contributions 1018: 1011: 1004: 1000: 996: 994:Contributions 990: 983: 977: 973: 972: 971: 968: 964: 961: 959: 955: 951: 947: 944: 942: 938: 936: 933: 930: 922: 919: 917: 913: 909: 905: 902: 900: 897: 894:Absolutely.-- 893: 892: 888: 880: 876: 872: 867: 866: 865: 861: 858: 852: 851: 850: 847: 841: 836: 835: 826: 823: 821: 818: 816: 813: 812: 810: 806: 800: 797: 795: 792: 790: 787: 785: 782: 780: 777: 775: 772: 771: 769: 765: 759: 756: 754: 751: 750: 748: 744: 735: 730: 728: 723: 721: 716: 715: 712: 705: 703: 702: 700: 696: 686: 682: 678: 673: 669: 666: 663: 660: 657: 654: 651: 648: 645: 642: 639: 636: 633: 629: 626: 622: 619: 616: 613: 609: 604: 603: 599: 597: 594: 587: 584: 583: 580: 577: 575: 571: 570: 565: 562: 561: 560: 557: 553: 550: 548: 544: 543: 536: 533: 532: 531: 530: 527: 524: 519: 512: 510: 506: 504: 500: 499: 492: 488: 483: 480: 479: 477: 475: 471: 469: 465: 464: 457: 454: 453: 451: 447: 446: 440: 436: 433: 428: 424: 420: 415: 412: 411: 409: 405: 402: 400: 396: 395: 389: 385: 381: 377: 373: 369: 365: 361: 360:minor dispute 357: 352: 348: 345: 344: 342: 338: 335: 333: 329: 328: 321: 318: 317: 315: 312: 311: 305: 301: 297: 293: 289: 285: 281: 278: 277: 275: 272: 271: 265: 260: 257: 256: 254: 251: 250: 249: 243: 233: 229: 225: 221: 217: 213: 212: 211: 207: 203: 199: 194: 193: 192: 188: 184: 179: 178: 177: 176: 173: 170: 169: 168: 167: 163: 159: 155: 151: 150:Co-nomination 147: 146: 142: 138: 137:Hal Jespersen 134: 133:Co-nomination 130: 129: 126: 122: 118: 114: 111: 107: 104: 101: 98: 94: 90: 87: 84: 80: 73: 71: 70: 69: 66: 64: 62: 56: 48: 45: 41: 36: 32: 27: 26: 19: 3240: 3237: 3226: 3221: 3217: 3165: 3135: 3118: 3107: 3097: 3093: 3086: 3068: 3064: 3057: 3029: 3025: 3018: 3004: 3000: 2993: 2988: 2947: 2919: 2916: 2913: 2885: 2882: 2879: 2870: 2850: 2804: 2795: 2790: 2773: 2756: 2739: 2733: 2721:Youreallycan 2716: 2680: 2663: 2646: 2631: 2625: 2579: 2451: 2450: 2433: 2411: 2410: 2389:Do you mean 2371: 2370: 2364: 2347: 2343: 2329: 2313: 2296: 2279: 2271: 2264: 2255:Moral oppose 2254: 2221: 2212: 2210: 2203: 2199: 2181: 2162: 2145: 2052: 2014: 2013: 1985: 1963: 1947:HurricaneFan 1944: 1939: 1921: 1904: 1899: 1880: 1852: 1799: 1776:no consensus 1775: 1771: 1760:Per above.-- 1757: 1665:Carole Berry 1655:User:Kudpung 1631: 1623: 1595: 1402: 1385: 1368: 1349: 1328: 1324: 1275: 1111: 1084: 1070:mistakes. -- 1067: 1063: 975: 974: 967:Tom Harrison 962: 945: 934: 931: 928: 920: 903: 692: 691: 664: 658: 652: 646: 640: 634: 627: 620: 614: 595: 592: 585: 578: 563: 551: 534: 508: 507: 491:User:Kumioko 481: 473: 472: 455: 449: 442: 434: 413: 403: 380:on wikibreak 346: 339:Why did you 336: 319: 313: 279: 273: 258: 252: 247: 171: 149: 148: 132: 131: 85: 77: 60: 52: 51: 46: 34: 28: 2581:Master& 2391:Lord's Bank 1780:Lord's_Bank 1763:Ankit Maity 1693:single edit 1683:; also see 1333:Graham Colm 1295:regentspark 1231:Mkativerata 1201:Mkativerata 1147:Mkativerata 1117:Mkativerata 1087:as co-nom. 906:as co-nom. 825:User rights 815:CentralAuth 450:last 5 days 388:I responded 332:Lagrange613 198:Lord's Bank 2810:Beeblebrox 2761:ASCIIn2Bme 2541:Guerillero 2462:Guerillero 2284:Shadowjams 2163:S Marshall 2107:X-Mas Chat 2031:X-Mas Chat 2001:X-Mas Chat 1632:very clear 1449:Shadowjams 1427:this close 1311:Guerillero 1108:this close 840:Guerillero 808:Cross-wiki 794:AfD closes 706:Discussion 468:Guerillero 437:You state 384:this offer 74:Nomination 3205:SmokeyJoe 3088:Nolelover 3059:Nolelover 3020:Nolelover 2995:Nolelover 2651:Modernist 2496:Katarighe 2438:causa sui 2412:Wizardman 2372:Wizardman 2320:Wolfowitz 2302:screwball 2259:Richwales 2227:Katarighe 2089:User:Xeno 1407:corrected 1009:Katarighe 981:Katarighe 908:Gwen Gale 857:WJBscribe 789:AfD votes 784:BLP edits 685:talk page 650:block log 158:Gwen Gale 3258:Category 3175:Lagrange 3155:contribs 3120:BWilkins 2616:contribs 2151:ItsZippy 2113:Contrib. 2037:Contrib. 2007:Contrib. 1970:Harland1 1628:This AfD 1544:Townlake 1540:this RFA 1511:Townlake 1431:Townlake 1195:No, and 1163:Townlake 1132:Townlake 1112:personal 1068:misteaks 767:Analysis 746:Counters 618:contribs 556:Crazynas 547:Crazynas 341:announce 89:contribs 3218:Neutral 3188:BusterD 3166:Neutral 3136:Neutral 3108:Neutral 3046:contact 2989:Neutral 2964:BusterD 2917:ean–Hun 2901:Spartaz 2883:ean–Hun 2845:Neutral 2827:BusterD 2685:Hokeman 2556:BusterD 2546:My Talk 2526:BusterD 2479:BusterD 2467:My Talk 2266:Wifione 2190:Spartaz 2184:Spartaz 2125:BusterD 2071:RFA Guy 2017:WP:SNOW 1873:(Cindy) 1834:BusterD 1815:BusterD 1798:Joseph 1778:close: 1739:BusterD 1698:BusterD 1610:contact 1559:BusterD 1526:BusterD 1497:BusterD 1491:out of 1445:WP:SNOW 1403:Support 1390:Carrite 1386:Support 1325:Support 1316:My Talk 1300:comment 1261:contact 1221:Caldron 1187:Caldron 1085:Support 1064:Support 1047:BusterD 976:Support 963:Support 950:Kumioko 946:Support 932:ean–Hun 921:Support 904:Support 889:Support 871:BusterD 845:My Talk 799:CSD log 625:deleted 608:BusterD 522:Caldron 224:BusterD 202:BusterD 183:BusterD 79:BusterD 61:Prodego 47:BusterD 3227:mabdul 3222:voters 3126:←track 2805:Oppose 2791:Oppose 2778:Slon02 2774:Oppose 2757:Oppose 2747:(talk) 2734:Oppose 2717:Oppose 2702:Steven 2664:Oppose 2647:Oppose 2626:Oppose 2614:on my 2612:report 2585:Expert 2514:E-mail 2434:Oppose 2365:Oppose 2354:ASTILY 2344:Oppose 2330:Oppose 2314:Kiefer 2306:slider 2297:Oppose 2280:Oppose 2245:E-mail 2222:Oppose 2206:Puffin 2200:Oppose 2146:Oppose 2085:WP:SIG 1986:Oppose 1964:Oppose 1940:Oppose 1923:Salvio 1906:Salvio 1900:Oppose 1881:Oppose 1853:Oppose 1784:Warden 1772:Oppose 1758:Oppose 1660:WP:ARS 1630:had a 1624:Oppose 1420:Oppose 1216:Leaky 1182:Leaky 1072:rogerd 1027:E-mail 999:E-mail 860:(talk) 753:XTools 517:Leaky 399:Mabdul 3143:Bryce 3114:talk→ 2952:MONGO 2948:after 2920:ter—► 2914:⋙–Ber 2886:ter—► 2880:⋙–Ber 2707:Zhang 2609:~~ → 2457:ethos 2335:pablo 2304:or a 2100:power 2098:cyber 2059:Chat 2053:Pedro 2024:power 2022:cyber 1994:power 1992:cyber 1870:amuse 1864:Cind. 1574:MONGO 1373:Hobit 1356:Chat 1350:Pedro 1282:Chat 1276:Pedro 935:ter—► 929:⋙–Ber 896:MONGO 695:civil 632:count 503:Leaky 125:MONGO 33:that 16:< 3209:talk 3192:talk 3149:talk 2968:talk 2936:talk 2874:WTF? 2871:this 2859:talk 2831:talk 2814:talk 2796:—SW— 2782:talk 2765:talk 2725:talk 2689:talk 2672:talk 2655:talk 2591:Talk 2560:talk 2530:talk 2503:Talk 2483:talk 2442:talk 2399:talk 2288:talk 2234:Talk 2129:talk 2091:and 2075:talk 1890:talk 1838:talk 1819:talk 1788:talk 1743:talk 1728:talk 1716:here 1702:talk 1646:talk 1637:here 1563:talk 1548:talk 1530:talk 1515:talk 1501:talk 1467:talk 1453:talk 1435:talk 1394:talk 1377:talk 1337:talk 1235:talk 1205:talk 1167:talk 1151:talk 1136:talk 1121:talk 1103:This 1093:talk 1076:talk 1051:talk 1041:and 1016:Talk 988:Talk 954:talk 912:talk 875:talk 677:here 662:rfar 644:logs 612:talk 439:here 302:and 228:talk 218:and 206:talk 187:talk 162:talk 141:talk 110:here 83:talk 3178:613 2932:TCO 2855:TCO 2632:Axl 2606:123 2603:Ebe 1957:— 1800:Fox 668:spi 638:AfD 579:10. 441:: " 406:As 95:to 3260:: 3211:) 3203:-- 3194:) 3152:| 3139:-- 3129:) 3049:) 2970:) 2938:) 2861:) 2833:) 2816:) 2784:) 2767:) 2727:) 2691:) 2674:) 2657:) 2594:) 2562:) 2543:| 2532:) 2512:· 2506:· 2485:) 2464:| 2460:-- 2444:) 2401:) 2290:) 2243:· 2237:· 2131:) 2116:) 2110:)( 2077:) 2056:: 2040:) 2034:)( 2010:) 2004:)( 1979:) 1973:(/ 1952:25 1892:) 1840:) 1821:) 1790:) 1782:. 1745:) 1730:) 1704:) 1675:, 1671:, 1667:, 1648:) 1626:: 1613:) 1565:) 1550:) 1532:) 1517:) 1503:) 1469:) 1455:) 1437:) 1411:Ed 1396:) 1379:) 1353:: 1339:) 1313:| 1293:-- 1279:: 1264:) 1237:) 1207:) 1169:) 1153:) 1138:) 1123:) 1095:) 1078:) 1053:) 1025:· 1019:· 997:· 991:· 956:) 914:) 877:) 842:| 838:-- 656:lu 586:A: 564:A: 552:9. 535:A. 511:8. 509:7. 482:A: 476:7. 474:6. 456:A: 452:? 435:6. 414:A: 404:5. 347:A: 337:4. 320:A: 314:3. 280:A: 274:2. 259:A: 253:1. 230:) 208:) 189:) 164:) 143:) 105:, 102:, 57:. 37:. 3207:( 3190:( 3158:) 3146:( 3111:( 3043:( 2966:( 2934:( 2857:( 2829:( 2812:( 2780:( 2763:( 2723:( 2687:( 2670:( 2653:( 2637:¤ 2618:. 2588:( 2558:( 2528:( 2516:) 2500:( 2481:( 2440:( 2397:( 2351:F 2318:. 2286:( 2247:) 2231:( 2173:C 2171:/ 2169:T 2127:( 2104:( 2073:( 2028:( 1998:( 1976:c 1888:( 1836:( 1817:( 1786:( 1741:( 1726:( 1700:( 1644:( 1607:( 1561:( 1546:( 1528:( 1513:( 1499:( 1465:( 1451:( 1433:( 1392:( 1375:( 1335:( 1302:) 1298:( 1258:( 1233:( 1203:( 1165:( 1149:( 1134:( 1119:( 1091:( 1074:( 1049:( 1029:) 1013:( 1001:) 985:( 952:( 910:( 873:( 733:e 726:t 719:v 687:. 680:. 670:) 665:· 659:· 653:· 647:· 641:· 635:· 628:· 621:· 615:· 610:( 226:( 204:( 185:( 160:( 139:( 86:· 81:(

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

Knowledge

:Requests for adminship/BusterD - Knowledge

Index