Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Bahamut0013

3904:

pro-science, blah blah blah former military officer. You'd probably figure it out if you watched my edits, or have known me for the five years I've edited here. Other than the above statement, I don't make it a point with userboxes. But I'm not running for admin on the "sure I'm NPOV platform," because I don't have to prove I'm NPOV to anyone. I do not criticize bahamut's intelligence, his work ethic, or his editing skills. Those are great. He apparently has all the tools already, except for blocking, so why bother? But I just don't like his politics, and I wouldn't want him adjudicating any POV battle, except maybe in military articles. We voted in an admin who supports Fringe theories and unblocks his fellow fringe editors, so based on that experience, why should I trust a right winger with what appears to be hatred of people I kind of respect? Should we have admins who have shown such a level of hatred? Our past experience is that with admins, eventually their bias shows up, like the Pro-Fringe admins. I find his userboxes to be bigoted and hateful. But he's going to get his admin tools, despite his excessive bias. And Yes EVula, damn straight I wouldn't want someone with his biases to be an admin.

141:

being a sysadmin... perhaps I was just young and going through an anti-establishment phase; and it's no big secret that RfA is often brutal. In any case, as I've matured on-wiki and off, I've come to appreciate the inner workings of the project more, and realize that even though we sometimes suffer from bureaucracy, the admins and other functionaries are quite essential and often under-appreciated. I was encouraged to submit for AUSC because someone thought I was trustworthy and cool-headed, and the positive response made me realize that I have a better reputation than I would have imagined. With my new duties, I realize that there is far more I could be doing behind the scenes; which fits in better with the lower profile editing I've been doing lately. There have been many a time I've come across an issue in need of admin attention, and if I had the mop, I could literally clean them up on the spot instead of foisting responsibility off onto another person. Additionally, it's been a small headache looking at deleted reversions for my AUSC duties, so this was the tipping point for me to say "yes, let's do an RfA"; I figure at the very least, there will be constructive criticism.

580:, it's all preventative. The goal is to eliminate disruptions to building the encyclopedia, and not to police the editor corps unless they are interfering with the goal of free knowledge. This is why deterrance is preferred, and why the criteria for blocking all resolve around methods of damaging the encyclopedia (though some are rather more indirect than others). I believe this is why ArbCom is usually uncomfortable with being compared to the a court system, because they are around to resolve disputes and not to mete out justice for crimes. While blocks can easily be undone (which has led to more than one wheel war), the damage done to an editor by an unjust block is hard to recover from, so caution is key, and consensus should be made when controversial to avoid those wheel wars. 3086:- So long as it's understood that the editor doesn't use administrative tools in controversies in which they're involved, directly or indirectly. It's ultimately a trust issue, but then again a single admin shouldn't be making content decisions unless it's clear anyway. The supports above indicate that level of trust and I don't see a place where that was violated. I'm a little bothered we're using politics to dq admin candidates now... irrespective of my own personal opinions. We already dq too many qualified candidates based on internal wiki politics... I can't imagine the RfA where we disqualify candidates based on their real world politics when there's no indication it has bearing on their judgment for admin purposes. 3555:

Ultimately, as the candidate a) adopted premade userboxes as opposed to having created them himself, b) had the whole collection on an out of the way subpage, and c) removed the most extreme boxes when it became a point of contention, I no longer am concerned enough to oppose. Anything worth having a strong opinion on is something that people will disagree over. I don't aim to end the disagreement, but I'd like for the discourse to be less contentious. The candidate has displayed a realization of this and taken corrective measures. My interpretation of this is that the candidate is capable of modifying his engagement for the good of community relations without compromising his actual ideals. This is a positive trait.

427:

encyclopedia has done a decent job of being fair, and without hunting for them, I can probably count the number of serious issues on one hand. Most of the editors that have expressed thier disagreement with my views have also expressed thier support, which tells me that the majority of Wikipedians are level-headed enough to put aside thier own views and cooperate for the betterment of the project. Despite some of the opposes, I'm not planning on wading in and blocking editors who disagree with me (and honestly, I don't know of any admins that have done this); I respect the opinions of others and have proven to be able to do so in the past. I know there is a difference between having an opinion and having a bias.

2536:- Most of my interaction with the candidate has involved tag-teaming to revert vandalism on a couple of articles that we both have watchlisted. I've seen his work elsewhere, though. I have seldom seen any reason to question his actions. My one gripe with his work is with something he doesn't do: he seldom issues user-talk page warnings to vandals. This is a gripe because an absence of warnings (1) reduces the chance that various bots will notice subsequent vandalism and (2) makes it harder to justify blocking the vandals when the vandalism persists. Maybe some admin experience will help convince him that it's often worth the effort to issue warnings. -- 4144:

policy, so even if an RFA candidate is on the other side of you on a contentious policy issue it is inappropriate to oppose them for that in an RFA. What matters here is whether you trust this candidate to use the block, delete and unprotect buttons in accordance with policy. If we were ever to elect a policy making committee then it would be relevant to vote on the direction you expected the candidates to move policy in. Whether or not this candidate becomes an admin they will have the same influence on any future RFC about term limits for admins, so why raise the issue in their RFA?

2587:. Impressive nominators, impressive answer to Q3, and valid rationale for using the tools. I looked back through your talk page, and at some early edits. (Very nice newbie comments at your first AfD discussion!) With respect to those user boxes, I take the position that I support candidates who have strong personal opinions so long as I trust them not to insert those opinions into their administrative or editing actions, and I'm satisfied there. Please do warn the vandals, though. I easily trust this user with the tools. -- 307:

edit wars). However, if there is one thing that my pending divorce has taught me, it is that sometimes you have to eat dirt and say "thank you"; I'm far more aware that a member of AUSC is going to be heavily scrutinized for interactions with others, especially in the off-wiki mailing lists. I also have a bad habit of cursing (another effect of my profession), but that's easier to manage online than in person; I generally try not to unless I'm corresponding with someone I know won't be offended (for example,

3478:

he retired after World War II, North Korea wouldn't exist today. These are possibly extreme views (I have others, but there's no need to list them.) Normally I don't share those views. If I feel compelled to, I rarely do so without context, and I try to be tasteful about it. You could easily have used an infobox that says "I don't support President Obama's policies" or "I believe that the 111th Congress was poorly run" but allowing the hatred to seep into the message is something that I find worrisome.

419:

characterized my views as "fringe" or based on "hate" (especially since there is nothing in my edit history to indicate a problem with them); I also haven't really highlighted some of my more liberal opinions, like my support for the repeal of DADT. I've seen functionaries, admins, and editors in good standing bash the views I believe in without any reproach, and it is irritating to me to see the minority getting persecuted, especially since I happen to be in it. For example, even though I don't see

90:, but that doesn't really matter here—a bugzilla could easily add all the permissions he needs for that role to the oversight flag. Indeed, that should probably be done regardless. No, what we have here is a user dedicated to the project, and whose contributions show that rare quality: loads of common sense, as exhibited in his project space contributions. As for content contributions, although it was featured before he joined Knowledge (XXG), his strong maintenance work has helped preserve the 3146:- I'm very disturbed that this individual's political views are being brought up, given that if they were more liberal or libertarian we would likely not even be discussing them (I'm not crying conspiracy here, just being realistic about the makeup of this community). It's not as if he's promoting offensive viewpoints such as Nazism. The real questions relate to whether he is a knowledgeable editor capable of unbiased editing and judicious use of the tools. I see the answer as a clear "yes". 2362:: in particular - over 12,000 edits, high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, autopatroller, reviewer, rollbacker, and even checkuser (which I don't have and want right now, gosh darn it!). We registered as users in the same month (February 2007), so he's an old hand here and has proven his record. I have never made it a habit of denying the mop to anyone who is ideologically on the other side of the aisle from me, and this is not a good time to change one of my few good habits. 4449:, for example, someone's immediately going to call you on your bias - whether that bias is real and an influence on your actions or not. Block a pro-Obama editor? "Well, of course he blocked me - look, he wants to impeach Obama." It's the appearance of bias that causes the concern, I believe - which is what ϢSC was pointing out. And, given the shenanigans we see every day, it's not that unreasonable a concern. Props for your willingness to take the boxes down, if and when. 4023:

is that when it became clear that his expression of the his biases was casuing issues, he changed the expression to avoid further conflict. Ultimately that is the difference between whether userboxes cause one or two opposes or whether they cause dozens. I disagree with most of his views, but I struck my oppose because he did the right thing when the problem became known. I wouldn't invite him over for dinner, but I don't have an issue with him becoming an admin anymore.

411:, and - where policies and guidelines may differ from your opinion - how you reconcile that issue. I'm not looking for a thesis here; a short answer is fine; mostly - as you'll probably guess - I'm interested in how you present your views, and reconcile them with consensus (which may differ from your opinion) - and yes, this relates to the 'userbox' opposition. I hope you understand why I feel asking this might help me decide; there is no need to "over think" this. 243:. I will fully admit that I'm weak in the area of understanding the myriad aspects of copyright (my image uploads tend to be public domain), so I would likely have to swallow my pride and pass those issues off to more knowledgable editors. I've dabbled a bit in other places like UAA and SPI, but don't intend to make them my focus. Should I ever intend to branch out, I would test the waters slowly, seeking advice from the more experienced admins. 3605:) but most importantly, he needs to warn the vandals which is also an essential part of the rollbacker's job which quite frankly, I see very little of that. I hope he respects this oppose, and steers clear of the rollback department when he does get the admin tools, because further rollback mistakes would lead to a desysop (I do know that the rollback button is included in the admin package) and a loss for rollback. 3826:, a losing candidate who was the "Cigar Marine" in 2003. Frankly, I don't have much interest in wading into the messy articles or disputes around those issues precisely because being a conservative is a minority on WP, and I'm not really active politically anyway (aside from voting). I'm warmed by the number of editors who have said "I don't agree with you politically, but I like you anyway". 115:, but they all check out. He probably could have made admin years ago; I think you'll get the same impression from perusing his talk archives. He has a ton of userboxes, and I personally don't see how they could hinder his admin duties, but I did mention that userboxes are sometimes a problem at RFA, and he seemed open to listening to your feedback. I enjoyed talking with him at a 1510: 223:: straightening bad pictures in strange hotel rooms. I would rather clean up the messes I find than pass the responsibility on to others, and wouldn't often go hunting for trouble, since enough of it finds me on its own in the form of vandalism (reverting and blocking), speedy deletions, and the like. My primary admin contributions would probably be in closing XfDs, especially 2778:– Some concerns about main article building contributions not being more recent and answer to question 7 is a little iffy—deterrence I would think would be more associated with punitive actions—but am reasonably confident the candidate knows what it is to be a content contributor and has enough relevant experience to appropriately deal with their issues. 2132:

user boxes advertising their views on controversial topics is that it may cause some editors to feel that their actions as an administrator are motivated by personal views, which could lead to them feeling that they were treated unfairly (it's important to remember that admins will inevitably deal with troublesome editors and controversial articles).

3380: 4831:. Haven't been able to look too closely at the candidates edit record but would have hoped for more obvious content creation from someone who plans on working at XfDs. Still I see some there and ref additions. May come back and take a closer look and support if needed but it currently looks as if that won't be necessary. 587:? It means that we give a lot of leeway for good-faith actions, even if they are ill-advised or even harmful. However, as an admin, one should not hesitate to remove editors that have made clear they cannot/will not improve the encyclopedia, assuming they've been given opportunities to learn and reform. 2082:

what a person is all about, and how they think. I believe it's actually a benefit to be able to assess a person so that I can formulate a way to communicate with them in the best means possible. Not that I'm a huge "box" fan, but it's nice to see what a person is like w/out 101 questions sometimes. —

4849:

yet? You'll see that most new pages were created around 2008, which is why you'd have to dig pretty deep to spot them in my contribs log. I'm also not listing there articles created as redirects, since most (all, I think) are still redirects. I don't want to engage in hubris, but I think most of them

4481:

I'm not American, I have a somewhat jaundiced view of Bush-style "Give war a chance" politics (while at the same time having only admiration for the people who actually go and risk their lives in places like Iraq), and I really cannot understand why so many Americans seem to see Obama as some kind of

3939:

I think you are more offended by the userboxes than anything. Could you point out what political userboxes are "hateful"? I don't see any, even before some were removed. The political userboxes are also few compared to the rest and not prominently on the user's main page. I don't think it is right to

3760:

The userboxes indicate a high level of bias. We already have enough non-neutral admins, I wouldn't want this user trying to solve a problem in the Obama article. Or George Bush. Besides, a lot of the military articles are a total mess, and I've seen the nominee help clean a lot up (just scratching

4247:

I fixed your vote, you're supposed to use a hash (#) with no colons to cast a vote, and a hash with colons to comment (#: or #:: or #::: etc.). Also, no offense, but I find it a bit strange that you're here. You've never participated in an RfA as far as I can tell. Please read my response (above) to

4178:

offense), but if Bahamut has done good work for the community over a long period of time and meets the standards most admins uphold, why shouldn't he get the mop? "Because he won't give himself a term limit, something nobody has ever done" is not a valid answer; using that logic, there would be zero

4143:

Term limits for admins have been proposed and rejected often enough to be a perennially rejected bad idea. Arbcom has proved a pretty effective way of dealing with rogue admins. But there is a broader reason why this sort of oppose is unhealthy for RFA. We expect admins to enforce policy not to make

1826:

I have worked with Bahamut0013 for a long time, and I have nothing but praise for the Sergent. As one who has observed Baha's work for the Majestic Titan project I have no reservation about strongly supporting him for the position of admin here on Knowledge (XXG). He will be a good man in the storm,

1246:

I think you should have done this before the AUSC appointments, because now the community is put in the strange position of either throwing sand in ArbCom's face and having a CU without a block button (among other strange things about a non-admin functionary) or making you an admin. However, I would

767:

Well, I'd dabbled a little bit as an IP editor for about a year (minor changes, like spelling or noting a change of command on a unit's infobox) before I came across my first semi-protected page. A while later, I figured I ought to make an account, so I did, and that's when the bug bit me. I started

720:

I first learned about the BRC when I met some of the members at the Raleigh meetup. To me, it's just a silly and light-hearted group of editors that know associate and joke with each other. I know a couple of the members are unpalatable to others, but I promise, we aren't really a cabal. Most of the

4420:

Another person suggested that they could be an issue. If I get a request (on my talk page, preferably) to remove them, I will do so. I declined to do so preemptively because I've seen a couple of successful RfAs where the editor had similar boxes of an opposing political nature, and was hoping that

4022:

have the "myths or superstitions" userbox on your page, despite the negative response you received for it. The issue shouldn't be "do people have biases" or "what biases do people have", it should only be "how do people express their biases" and "how do their biases affect their work". The key here

3477:

c) I really only take issue in the extreme tone of the boxes, not that he has strong views. For example, I am of the opinion that Eisenhower was a wonderful general but an awful president. I think that MacArthur caused more damage to East Asia than any other single American in history, and that had

3103:

though after wading through the most massive collection of user boxes I have yet seen (to see what the mini-controversy was about, and see if there were any I could swipe), I must express some very mild concerns. Still, I agree with those who say that this editor can be trusted, after looking over

2081:

first, the two boxes I saw, didn't seem to be pushing any type of POV. Yep, I did see the userbox page, which I don't have a problem with because first, it's a sub-page in his space; and second, I don't have an issue with a user having their personal thoughts on-wiki. I like the ability to go see

2076:

1) per a couple Noms I respect. 2) A brief look indicates a good edit history 3) "Enough" edit history 4) Seems to be pretty clueful in policy knowledge 5) Looks as though he could be quite helpful with a few extra tools. OK, Now, in regards to the userboxes - yes, normally I think it's best for

426:

That said, the NPOV guidelines tend to be more or less effective in mitigating the issue. There are some places where I see pro-liberalism and anti-conservatism being over-representative, and that's because there are more Wikipedians and anon editors that gravitate to editing them. But overall, the

301:

regulations; he inevitably got blocked for it and later apologized. Currently, I'm annoyed by the constant pestering of a POV-pusher who utterly fails to recognize Knowledge (XXG) policies, and earned myself an Armenian curse for the trouble; I'm now taking a "wait-and-see" approach, hoping he gets

4650:

regarding AfD closures gave me some pause, considering this user indicated above a desire to get involved in AfD. I would caution this user to tread lightly in AfD given some of the points he stated in that link. Edit: I think I may have misunderstood said diff, could you explain? Did you mean RfA

3726:

Possibly they were. I'm trying to think back, and my memory is imperfect; but I believe I considered the first one to be a bad faith edit because he deliberately reverted a cleaned-up reference and the information it cited. I really can't recall the circumstances of the second one... I know that I

2131:

Bahamut is a good editor who can be trusted to use the admin tools wisely. That said, I do agree that political user boxes (and especially lots of them) are inappropriate for admins, and they should be removed. While I trust Bahamut to use the tools in a neutral way, the problem with admins having

350:

with advanced permissions to cover thier tracks. The next one I could think of would be a concerted effort to manufacture phony refs and insert subtle vandalism. In either case, I think Knowledge (XXG) could weather it. I've seen some of the functionary checklists, and these guys and gals are very

4173:

to do with their qualifications as a possible admin? For the record, I don't know of this user's work and am not !voting on his candidacy, and I completely disagree with his political views (I'm a liberal, but regardless... even if you despise Obama, he's never done anything that could be legally

3554:

I withdrew my oppose. Everyone has biases. Many people have strong biases. Some people make a public display of their biases. A few people make those displays extreme. The first of those four does not bother me. The second draws my attention. The third makes me examine. The fourth causes concern.

665:

I've only rarely seen an admin restrict him or herself to a given time-period of holding the mop. I believe there is a big distinction between not setting an artificial term and deeming oneself as admin-for-life, however, as many of admins are open to recall given a set of standards to prove that

418:

As I said before, I don't generally edit on articles or wade into edit disputes related to politics, so any views I have on bias there are not well-informed from experience. I am well aware that as a conservative, I'm in the minority on Knowledge (XXG), but I'm frankly offended by people who have

306:

Generally, I'm a mellow guy, but I bristle when I think I'm being bullied (I'm sure Freud would have plenty to say about that). I've lost my cool a few times, like any human, but don't think I've ever been blatantly uncivil or done something that I really regret (well, maybe a couple of very slow

1533:

I've not had personal interaction with him, but the place is so big that's not surprising. I do have great respect for the two nominators, and the answers to the questions look good. Obviously a lot of people trust him already, and he looks to be busy. If you want a job doing, find someone who's

1462:

Essentially, what Kirill said. I have seen this editor around MILHIST pages and he is always diligent and dedicated to his task. He is not afraid to get stuck in when he needs to and that is a quality we need in admins these days. I have absolutely no doubt that he can be trusted with the tools.

140:

I thank my two nominators greatly for the honor they bestow upon me, and the handful of other editors who have strongly nudged me in this direction in the last few months. I used to subscribe so tightly to the "no big deal" mentaility about adminship that I was actually cynical about the idea of

4365:

I'm afraid this editor has such a strong bias that his possible involvement as an administrator in articles pertaining to right-wing politics, US military, and the like, would not be subject to an impartial evaluation. The candidate already has expanded editing powers, and at this point I don't

2975:

As it happens, I don't particularly agree with a great deal of his political views either, being a sort of mushy libertarian-ish (yet pragmatic and with human rights my priority) chap, but that has nothing to do with whether I trust him. And his views could be anything at all but I'd still be

1297:

In the nearly-week since I've had the pleasure of serving with him on the audit subcommittee, this user has displayed every bit of clue I would expect in an administrator; he's actually exceeded my expectations in his analysis of and commentary on the handful of matters that have required his

4496:

I specifically didn't mention the userboxen where he supports a party in American Politics. I don't currently disclose my political views on the Pedia, but I can see the case for doing so and may disclose my views in the future. The two userboxes I mentioned go further in that they disparage

1247:

have supported a month ago and you certainly haven't become less qualified in that time. The fact that you have two sitting and highly esteemed arbs in the first ten supports and that I can't think of two editors I respect more than Dank and Courcelles eliminates any doubts I might have had.

3903:

I forgot to place my standard disclaimer that I dislike discussing my "vote". Since I failed to do so, I suppose I should answer all these comments. I am an atheist, socialist, anti-Republican, pro-welfare, anti-gun, pro-single payer health care, well-educated, hockey and baseball-loving,

4308:

No offence Sven, but I find it a bit strange that you found it a bit strange that Puffin was here. Is it not the done thing for editors with a few thousand edits to start participating at RfA?. This makes it sound like there is an unwritten prerequisite of having participated previously to

2652:. This candidate is obviously bright and talented, judging from their contributions; there is no valid reason why this user should not become admin. Everyone has different opinions on Politicians etc., I don't see you as a type of editor that'll force their opinions onto someone else. -- 2379:

A level headed editor who seems to do excellent work. Your answer to question 4 shows that you are clueful and can think your way out of tough situations. The fact that you are a CU and Oversighter only add to the reason why you should be an admin. I saw the userbox so here is an arrow:

2912:. There is absolutely no way that I cannot support him. There is no practicable way in which he can be more trustworthy, which is my sole criteria for administrators. Furthermore, and while it is entirely irrelevant to Knowledge (XXG), I wish to thank him for the service he has given to 4191:

No, there is a wide range of answers I would have accepted, from a reasonable term (I would have accepted several years; a century would be excessive), to an answer explaining remarkable virtues, with evidence, to a recall plan which would actually work. Nor did I ask for a term

4132:; uh, no, it is never done to my knowledge. The admin bit is granted indefinitely (by community agreement). Whilst it is a valid viewpoint that that there should be a term limit it seems rather disingenuous to oppose a candidate on the basis that there should be one... -- 351:

good at rooting out the issues and coordinating a timely response, so the main issue is simply how soon we detect an attack and how long it lasts. The WikiProjects are usually pretty good at smoking out false additions that look kosher on the surface, and although

297:), but we've resolved our differences and are quite cordial now. I had a brief but fiery spat in 2009 (while I was deployed to Iraq) with an editor who turned out to be a higher-ranking Marine vandalizing my userspace to enforce a wild misinterpretation of 263:

I focus greatly on military-related (especially United States Marine Corps) articles, and my watchlist is full of them. It makes sense, given my profession, which I will be sad to leave this summer. I'm also proud of the "clerking" stuff I've done at

288:

Goodness, if anyone ever said "no", I think they'd have to be a saint. We are imperfect beings, and conflict is quite inevitable. Most of my earlier conflicts were short-lived disputes based on misperceptions, such as the rivalry I used to have with

4518:

That number of uboxen would get a quick 'oppose' from me for anyone with less maturity and contributions to the project. Here, it's not the slightest concern for me - there are so many that I think the real meaning behind any of them is diluted.

342:'s advice and tried to think from the enemy's perspective beofre (that is, to think like a vandal). I think the biggest theoretical threat would be multiple simultaneous organized sockfarm strike (I'm talking scale and skill, like the resources 1347:

Easiest decision to make all day. Bahamut has the perfect balance between experience and humor that is necessary for administrators. I very rarely participate in RfAs these days, but Bahamut is the sort of candidate that deserves an exception.

3364:, this user seems capable of fulfilling administrator responses capably. Opposing on the basis of the candidate's religious and political beliefs is absurd: please note that we political and religious conservatives aren't a fringe minority. 3987:. Now, before someone points out my clear bias in support of all 4 of these people, you'll note since my anti-Bush ubx, I haven't had any negative BLP related userboxes on my page...I'm surprised more people aren't opposing because of this. 4466:

I'd personally prefer that someone with that (or similar) opinion have the box on their page. It does indicate a bias in the subject area, and that's good because it keeps people from using the tools in areas they have strong opinions.

3496:(To those of you that disagree, I won't be changing this or responding to it, as I won't be around for a few days, and I don't expect it to matter much, so please let's not badger... or at least not much. No need for such ugliness here.) 3268:

Excellent, neater, trustworthy, happy wikipedian with big contributions in the wikipedia namespace and full understandings in wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also he is using the edit summary almost always. Easy support from

2188:

Going through your edits, I've found nothing but good work, good temperment and good humour. I may not agree with your political ideology, and I share concerns over some userboxen - but without a doubt you'll make a good admin.

4387:(striking neutral) In many ways a good candidate with a clean block log, has been around a while and has a nicely diverse set of edits. I'm not concerned at the amount of userboxes, most of which are amusing or uncontentious. 2553:

My comment "I have seldom seen any reason to question his actions" relates to his actions at Knowledge (XXG). Although I don't share most of his political views, that has not been an issue for me in his Knowledge (XXG) work.

2170:; the userboxes don't violate any written or unwritten rule or principle in existence. Indeed, the fact that they've essentially disclosed any possible conflict of interest is something the community should be supportive of. 1150:

logs look OK, deleted content shows candidate has mainly tagged images for deletion, rather than articles, but what is there looks fine. The only dubious activity was all those secret pages that were found in November 2008!

112: 2618:. While his now-deleted boxes may suggest it would be wise for him to tread lightly in using admin tools in those areas in which he may have a strong point of view, I see much reason to support and none to oppose.-- 272:. Still, I recognize that not many of the 6,885,718 articles on Knowledge (XXG) have much original text attributable to me, and that my best talents lie in organization and improvement, rather than prose authorship. 2795:- Although I have been editing articles frequently from Feb 2011 I feel that his conributions to Knowledge (XXG) are excellent enough to give him the admin rights. And I am confident enough to tell he's trustable. 3795:

Not trying to hound you, I just personally disagree with your opinion about bias. (and this is coming from someone who would consider bahamut an on-wiki friend, but almost entirely disagree with him politically)

3761:

the surface, since every anonymous IP has to throw in some unsourced comment about their unnotable dad serving someplace). Anyways, the nominee has all the tools necessary, and should just edit articles.

4397:

are somewhat soapboxy and the sort of POV that I would hope Wikipedians would try and leave at the door. I'm not comfortable with an admin displaying them and would request that you review your userboxen.

327:

Since you are a military man: if you were determined to vandalize Knowledge (XXG) what would you consider the most effective way to do so? Is Knowledge (XXG) capable of robust response to such a threat?

4445:

It's not really an issue as far as adminship goes - quite honestly, I never would have looked into your userboxen had it not been mentioned here. But the instant you have to take any action involving

3320: 2401:(moved from neutral) thanks for culling the userboxes I was concerned about. I have no other strong concerns, warning of vandals is optional, the important thing is that you cleaned up the vandalism. 2809:

Looks fine. We're all biased. User A removes or tones down userboxes that others say are too partisan. User B throws a notcensored-first amendment-I will because I can shitfit. There's a difference.

1609:

I've seen you around but have never interacted with you directly before that I know of. That being said, I've only seen you in the right places so I think you'll be a good administrator. Good luck!

666:

they no longer hold the community's trust. And of course, there are protections against admins who go wayward and can be de-sysopped. I'm probably going to set up a set of recall criteria (reading

4784: 4482:

antichrist. But having said that, I think I'd prefer to see admins being open about their political opinions, and recusing themselves from judgments where there might be a conflict of interest --

1316:

have given me confidence that Bahamut will be a good and responsible admin. I must admit I find the timing of this RFA somewhat akward, but this does not change my full support of the candidate.

1480:

Based on a review of contributions, as well as the co-nominations. Have run into the editor a few times around the pedia (AfD, at least one legal case article) and have always been impressed. --

236: 4897:, with regret. What I've seen of this user's contributions is favourable, but I cannot endorse an editor with inflammatory fringe views being put in a position of authority. Sorry, Bahamut. 3727:

have on occasion meant to click undo and hit rollback, and since there is no confirmation, it went on accidentally. Sounds like an excuse, but the responsibility for an accident is still mine.

2635:

As best as I can tell he is a tremendous asset to the project. I sincerely doubt that he will go on a spree blocking pro-Obama editors or vandalize the main page with pro-Republican slogans.

355:, the damage will get cleaned up eventually. Also, if there were a large scale attack (or even a hacking), I'm sure that the Foundation's developers have a few secret tricks up thier sleeves. 3654:

if they have not at least been warned a few times. There are some exceptions if the user is truly disruptive, but in general no warning = no block. I would also point out that tools such as

4686:. It's rather embarassing that I confused the two, considering what page I posted that on. Like I said before, RfA can be very painful, but I'm suprised that this one is going so smoothly. 1494:

I know we've had some interactions in the past and I'm having problems hunting them down. But as I attempted to do so I read a fair bit of your contributions and find you very reasonable.

3850:

Everyone has biases. In a way, I like it better that he wears them on his sleeve for all to see. My opposition was more on the tone he was setting than it was on that he had them there.

3598:

although I'm not concerned about the userboxes, I took a look at some rollback contributions and I've found a couple of mistakes. He was using rollback to remove some good-faith content

3490:

So please, tone it down or clean it out. I'm not asking you to change your views, but I am asking you to express them less confrontationally. Congrats on getting the mop regardless, you

3468:

a) In most every case, opposing because of userboxes is incredibly stupid and is something I would fully expect the 'crats to ignore. This oppose may or may not be part of that majority.

2601:

No concerns whatsoever to any stretch of the imagination. Admins are not neutral, nor are they expected to be; we only ask they pretend to be to the end of a good cosmetic appearance.

232: 1972:. Has helped me dozens of times and has always been fair in his re-edits of my work. I have always valued his input. Semper Fi, Marine! from your Coast Guard shipmate on Wiki. 3879:

Not sure what you mean by tone. Can you be specific? The three boxes that were causing the main strife are gone, so if there are others that still give you pause, let me know.

4917: 3686:"found a couple of mistakes"... really? "Found" means you had to look, "a couple" means they're minimal in frequency, and "mistakes" mean they were simple slipups (if that). 4327:

There was a subtle message in there, yes, and it wasn't aimed at Puffin. I'd elaborate, but one does not leave subtle messages when speaking normally would do just as well.

228: 2217:

per the removal; neutral is neutral, and while each of us is entitled to our private positions and beliefs; here we are expected to be balanced and neutral. Best of luck...

334:

I'm actually a tad befuddled that you would connect "military" with "vandalism", but I'll take it from a wargame perspective. I'm not going to go into explicit detail per

224: 3671:

I'm pretty sure you won't be desysopped for failing to post a warning on the talk page of a user whose vandalism you rolled back, even if you do it 100 times in a row.

1373:- Recently reviewed in relation to AUSC, and was impressed with what I saw and the way he handled himself. I share Jclemens' opinion about Bahamut's AUSC work to date. 984: 282:

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?

979: 4646:

This is likely to succeed due to the overwhelming support and I don't think that's a huge deal considering this user is already being granted many permissions, but

240: 1174:

I trust both. More importantly, I trust the candidate - there's no indication whatsoever that their adminship will be anything but a net positive to the project.

4165:

So this is what I take from you, PMAnderson: You ask a question, and then when the user doesn't give the exact answer you want- and I can't imagine many people

2106:

I trust the nominator's judgment and this user shows experience, knowledge and above all competence, would make a good admin and would do well with the tools. —

3636:, and I personally don't think it accomplishes very much. Personally, I used to issue warnings, but now I usually just quietly revert vandalism I come across. 2310:

looks good!) As noted above, he's been appointed to AUSC by ArbCom; if he meets that higher bar of trust, then surely he is trustworthy enough for adminship.

833: 358:

You know, it's probably not a bad idea to actually run a wargame like this someday. We could copy a huge chunk of articles over to a test wiki, organize a

259:

I tend to be a WikiGnome now, but I was once told that I excel at taking a crummy article written by a newbie and bringing it in line with policy, such as

1694:

This editor appears to be a responsible contributor who can be trusted to use the mop. The minor user box issue does not detract from that in my opinion.

213:

Primarily, I'd like the bit for my AUSC duties; as I said above, it's been a tad troublesome to view deleted revisions. However, I'm the kind of guy whom

4935: 200:

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

430:

We have other systemic biases to be concerned with, but I think the Foundation is working on them, like the gender gap that's been all the news lately.

4682:

Actually, yes, that's exactly what it was, I meant "RfA" (AfD is usually not so painful). Acronyms upon acronyms make an alphabet soup that can cause

2958:

Sorry, I'm a stickler for grammar. I don't like this candidate's political views one bit, but I'm okay with him passing even if I don't cast a vote.

2832:

My political point of view couldn't be more different from the nominee, but he looks to be fair in his edits. I trust him to be fair in the future. --

4390: 820: 4647: 3658:

interprets previous warnings, and bases future warnings and block prompts on their presence. Warning may not be required, but it certainly helps.

1908: 1333:- I don't need to add a comment here because anything I could have/would have said has already been said, so the answer is most definitely YES! 922: 4670: 4203:

If we had done this when admins were first selected, we would have fewer problems with overbearing admins now. I intend to go on doing so.

2391: 863: 611:"Deterrance" as I used it doesn't necessarily mean "fear of punishment", I think that "prevention" would have been closer to what I meant. 3793:? If there's a track record of him trying to twist articles, yeah, he shouldn't be an admin. But if he just has personal opinions, well... 1101:. As an editor, Bahamut has demonstrated unsurpassed diligence and dedication; I have no doubts he will do the same as an administrator. 974: 857: 2573:

In vetting him for AUSC I found no red flags, and subsequent reviews of his contributions have convinced me he will be a positive admin.

827: 1233:(sigh) As much as it pains me to ruin the status of the only non-admin on the AUSC, I can find no reason not to support this candidate. 33: 17: 4716: 4455: 1180: 338:, I'm probably not the most creative guy ever (so I'm sure that people have imagined better ways than I), and I've never really taken 352: 4862: 4798: 4698: 4632: 4549: 4433: 3891: 3838: 3739: 3542: 3006: 889: 813: 780: 733: 682: 623: 599: 537: 495: 442: 374: 180: 153: 83: 3785:

involve himself in any problems with Obama's or Bush's article? I'm less concerned with personal bias (c'mon, we're all human, of

3197: 1562: 4665:

I know I've written AFD when I meant RFA before, and I've seen it done more than a few times, too. Given there are no optional

2059:- From what I can see looks good to me, and as far as the userbox issues some have expressed...I don't have an issue with them. 4669:

form questions at AFD, or any logical reason why anyone would liken AFD to a job interview, I'm certain this is a mixup of the

1000: 667: 4389:

But I am concerned that the political ones drift from merely disclosing a Political view to deprecating certain individuals.

3711:

The real problem here is, I suspect, that Minimac has a poor understanding of the rollback and administrator tools generally.

872: 423:

as anything close to legitimate, I don't like to see Wikipedians bashing the editors there with redneck and moron stereotypes.

4846: 3641: 3115: 2315: 468: 218: 95: 2916:

country's interests as well. No man is an island... Great Britain is, but the United Kingdom isn't. Thank you, Sgt. Lemiszk

4056:

be extremely bias, and then guess what, we are stuck with them as an admin cause it is near impossible to desysop someone.

3818:

The closest I've come to editing controversial political articles is biographies on Marine who have entered politics, like

1124:. Many positive qualities that I like to see in an admin. The two nominators' endorsements also carries weight with me. -- 1010: 4487: 3611: 1577: 1450: 86:) – I would like the community to consider bahamut0013 for access to the admin toolkit. Bob was recently appointed to the 3390: 3276: 2672: 1432: 644:

What term do you want as admin? When do you intend to resign or submit yourself for reconfirmation? If "never," why are

1445:. I was impressed when I had a look at AUSC nom time. And besides, a mop would look good next to the Armenian curse -- 1204:

Had a long look at your contributions during the AUSC appointment process. My approval from then is still valid today.

577: 168:

Just a note, I've changed the colors in my signature to better contrast for editors who might have visual impairments.

4568: 4504: 4406: 4151: 2408: 1904: 1767: 3650:

Just to hook in on this specific comment: Warning DOES accomplish a great deal, since users cannot be blocked trough

948: 120: 4775: 2205: 1943: 1723: 1658: 1288: 1042: 91: 58: 3700:

But I assume we can agree that, at least if seen out of context, use of rollback for those to edits was improper?

3465:

I'm opposing on the grounds of extremism of some of the userboxes. Before you all yell, please note three things:

969: 402: 3637: 2817: 2311: 1156: 915: 3104:

the impressive number of people who vouch for him. May your adminship be firm yet fair, and best wishes to you!

4483: 3400: 2047: 1446: 1412: 964: 98:

than I could summarise here. I think Bob would make good use of a few extra buttons, and I hope you'll agree.

3789:

we have biases). Of his 21k edits, are there any where he obviously lets his personal opinions interfere with

2306:

An experienced and trusted user. Looking through his contributions, I see many good things and no red flags. (

4342: 4293: 4263: 4052:

I would be much more apt to support or at least be neutral if admin wasn't a life time thing...he or anyone

4038: 3865: 3573: 3512: 3481: 3386: 3270: 1626:

Seen his work; always well-reasoned, follows up on feedback. Won't disappoint. (E/c & moved from below)

525:

Ooh, I hadn't noticed that piped link. No, I thought it was just about the book. Boy, do I feel embarassed.

2908:- I am not a citizen of the United States, I am British. But my goodness - the man cheerfully provides his 1896: 1424:- Agree with Logan above. He's trusted enough to be on AUSC, he's trusted enough to have the bit. Regards, 566:

Are blocks punitive or preventative? Please elaborate, don't just quote policy; in your view, what does it

4563: 4499: 4401: 4394: 4146: 4089: 3691: 2963: 2935: 2606: 2403: 2359: 2014: 1900: 3422: 943: 4901: 4883: 4869: 4860: 4840: 4805: 4796: 4779: 4760: 4745: 4734: 4720: 4705: 4696: 4677: 4660: 4639: 4630: 4611: 4577: 4556: 4547: 4528: 4513: 4491: 4476: 4459: 4440: 4431: 4415: 4375: 4351: 4322: 4302: 4272: 4241: 4212: 4186: 4160: 4138: 4120: 4093: 4079: 4047: 4010: 3949: 3934: 3919: 3898: 3889: 3874: 3845: 3836: 3813: 3776: 3746: 3737: 3721: 3706: 3695: 3677: 3666: 3645: 3623: 3582: 3549: 3540: 3521: 3448: 3443: 3429: 3394: 3373: 3356: 3352: 3342: 3328: 3314: 3297: 3280: 3260: 3256: 3243: 3231: 3206: 3182: 3166: 3155: 3138: 3120: 3095: 3078: 3074: 3061: 3044: 3038: 3013: 3004: 2985: 2981: 2967: 2953: 2949: 2939: 2925: 2921: 2900: 2877: 2872: 2858: 2841: 2824: 2801: 2787: 2770: 2748: 2715: 2701: 2676: 2656: 2644: 2627: 2610: 2596: 2579: 2563: 2545: 2528: 2512: 2495: 2477: 2473: 2460: 2440: 2426: 2417: 2396: 2371: 2350: 2333: 2319: 2307: 2298: 2263: 2249: 2226: 2209: 2190: 2180: 2162: 2141: 2123: 2098: 2068: 2051: 2034: 2018: 2001: 1981: 1964: 1960: 1947: 1939: 1930: 1874: 1857: 1836: 1818: 1796: 1789: 1773: 1746: 1743: 1731: 1716: 1707: 1686: 1665: 1635: 1618: 1601: 1569: 1548:

If this fails, then there is something seriously wrong with the community's expectations vs. its trust.

1543: 1525: 1503: 1486: 1472: 1454: 1437: 1416: 1399: 1382: 1365: 1342: 1325: 1307: 1292: 1284: 1278: 1269:

If he's good enough for AUSC, he's good enough to be a sysop, in my opinion. Contributions look great.

1261: 1256: 1241: 1225: 1210: 1199: 1184: 1169: 1160: 1142: 1132: 1116: 1105: 1093: 1073: 1069: 1049: 807: 787: 778: 740: 731: 712: 689: 680: 657: 630: 621: 606: 597: 544: 535: 520: 502: 493: 449: 440: 381: 372: 269: 260: 187: 178: 160: 151: 128: 102: 77: 62: 54: 4916:

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

2042:. Agree with some of the neutrals' points on the userboxes. But not enough to keep me from supporting. 885: 511:

is piped to conch.) If so, I was curious as to what made you change your mind about wanting adminship.

3305:, no issues here. Though I'm fairly certain the last word of the nomination is not actually a word... 2796: 750: 4314: 4228:

This person seems bias towards certain topics. I know this from the userbox things on his user page.

4208: 4183: 4116: 4085: 3202: 3091: 2959: 2931: 2893: 2810: 2623: 2592: 2385: 2091: 1811: 1557: 1484: 1152: 908: 704:. I'm a bit concerned about the membership of the bathrobe cabal. Can you explain what that's about? 653: 3940:

judge the editor based on a few user boxes, especially when they are not involved in POV disputes.--

760:

And please elaborate your answers and tell it truthfully. This is a matter of your own self-respect.

483:; it's a good book. I know the name is a bit misleading, but all the same, I'm curious why you ask. 108: 4725:

I think many of us have made that particular mix up with the acronym soup - I know I have ;)

4533:

I did go a tad overboard in my early days, no? Anyway, per Sven's request in the "oppose" section,

4371: 3945: 3214:- Sorry I'm soo late Bahamut0013 but, doesn't seem you need much help :P. This is a "No Brainer" 2837: 2767: 2740: 2653: 2508: 2453: 2346: 2259: 2222: 2043: 1925: 1832: 1631: 1521: 1408: 1130: 1102: 298: 3655: 2271:

good candidate, userboxes could do with further trimming but nothing to warrant an oppose/neutral

1064:

As an editor, Bahamut showed great levels of competance and sofar is unlikely to betray our trust

721:

other members aren't really very active on-wiki anymore, and some aren't active much of anywhere.

116: 4879: 4836: 4657: 4328: 4279: 4249: 4024: 3851: 3701: 3559: 3498: 3110: 2854: 2783: 2744: 2729: 2423: 2294: 1977: 1700: 1303: 1205: 1089: 516: 4278:

Edit: I didn't go back far enough. He did in fact participate in an RfA before, six months ago.

508: 335: 4730: 4711: 4604: 4524: 4450: 3905: 3762: 3687: 3617: 3369: 3310: 3293: 3223: 3178: 3136: 2640: 2602: 2521: 2367: 2010: 1989: 1870: 1674: 1589: 1539: 1338: 1175: 479: 343: 3790: 3651: 3633: 1883: 87: 4852: 4788: 4688: 4622: 4539: 4423: 4237: 3881: 3828: 3806: 3729: 3532: 3438: 3416: 3348: 3336: 3252: 3151: 3070: 3033: 2996: 2978: 2946: 2918: 2867: 2711: 2574: 2559: 2541: 2469: 2235: 2137: 2077:

an Admin. not to put too much of their personal view right out there on their user page ...

2064: 2030: 1956: 1784: 1740: 1614: 1430: 1378: 1358: 1321: 1248: 1235: 1065: 803: 770: 723: 672: 613: 589: 527: 485: 432: 364: 170: 143: 73: 4752: 3629: 1313: 1024: 265: 4674: 4472: 4204: 4180: 4112: 3980: 3802: 3672: 3192: 3087: 3057: 2886: 2619: 2588: 2432: 2381: 2328: 2086: 1804: 1552: 1499: 1481: 1468: 1395: 1354: 1274: 1222: 1166: 705: 649: 558: 99: 4111:

to be done; recall is ineffective - especially since the admin is judge in his own case.

1005: 4898: 4367: 3941: 3823: 3819: 3324: 2833: 2758: 2694: 2504: 2447: 2342: 2255: 2218: 1920: 1828: 1652: 1627: 1517: 1197: 1138: 1125: 1036: 124: 4929: 4875: 4832: 4653: 3712: 3659: 3163: 3105: 2850: 2779: 2725: 2486: 2272: 2160: 2115: 1973: 1695: 1299: 1082: 512: 459: 420: 347: 319: 111:

for years, which is saying something; we're an ornery lot. He doesn't have a lot of

4741: 4726: 4597: 4520: 4446: 4134: 3972: 3606: 3365: 3306: 3289: 3215: 3174: 3129: 2636: 2363: 1882:

Has been of great assistance to my past, and has edited in a manor that keeps with

1866: 1846: 1581: 1535: 1334: 1112: 214: 1110:

Clueful & sensible. No issues that I can dig up :) That's all I need to see --

4230: 4058: 3989: 3410: 3147: 2707: 2665: 2555: 2537: 2133: 2109: 2060: 2026: 1610: 1425: 1374: 768:

diving in head-first, and my love of history and military science was reawoken.

311:

and I trade smack talk quite often; I think I gave him some guff earlier today).

294: 290: 507:

I thought this meant, in a metaphorical way, that you didn't want adminship ? (

4683: 4468: 3976: 3926: 3797: 3526:

Should I take this as a request to remove them, then? Per my offer to remove,

3473:(Well, it's about as likely as possible, with RfA you can never be 100% sure.) 3240: 3053: 2991: 2172: 1758: 1495: 1464: 1391: 1349: 1270: 1219: 308: 4910:

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

2687: 1646: 1190: 1030: 391: 4169:

giving you the answer you want- you oppose them? Even though the issue has

3971:

Per userboxes, even though removed, they still show your bias by attacking

3924:

So... you're basically opposing because you disagree with him politically?

3628:"An essential part of the rollbacker's job" – really? It's not required by 3069:. The right man for a tough job. Top quality interactions and objectivity. 2684:

No concerns; candidate seems level-headed, knowledgable and experienced.

2150: 359: 2930:"There is no practicable way in which he cannot be more trustworthy"?! 2706:

Trusted user, no reasons to think that you wouldn't make a good admin.

1534:

busy. They don't have the time to think up excuses for not doing it...

758:

Why did you became a member of Knowledge (XXG) and served it for years?

339: 3822:, Obama's former National Security Advisor and former Commandant, and 3379: 2341:

I have no comments. They have already been used. He deserves the mop.

4920:

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

888:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 346:

can bring to bear) with an eye to fooling CheckUser, combined with

4874:

That contribution page helps yes. Sorry I didn't see it earlier.

3984: 1888: 900: 2849:

Bahamut0013 has been a solid editor and works well with others. -

4537:. I hope that will end the concerns about politics in this RfA. 2910:

real life identity as a member of the United States Marine Corps

904: 3557:

I am writing this at 4:00 AM, I hope this isn't too confusing.

2723:

already trusted with something more important it looks like.

1938:: I see no issues holding this user back from being an admin. 253:

What are your best contributions to Knowledge (XXG), and why?

237:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Francis Martin O'Donnell

135:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

94:

article at a high level of quality, and you can see far more

4309:

participate now. I guess I am I misinterpreting something?--

3288:

May try for 200. Sound in each area I have run across him.

4561:

I'm striking my neutral per the requested Userbox pruning.

4107:

per question 8. I know a term limit is rarely done; but it

4196:; I support admins running for re-election; I asked for a 2149:. Limited content contribution, but otherwise looks good. 233:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Patrick J. Callahan

29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

2756:- Looks like he can be definitely trusted with the mop. 2422:

Contribs look pretty good here; certainly trustworthy. –

207:

What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

4617: 4534: 3602: 3599: 3527: 851: 845: 839: 401:

What is your personal view of the current influence of

2234:- but don't forget to warn those vandals! ;) ;) ;) ;) 1643:– I see no issues with bahamut gaining the sysop bit. 407:

Please keep clear which parts of your answer are your

229:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Mk43 Machine Gun

4497:

individuals on the other side of American Politics.

107:

Bob's work has been highly respected by everyone at

4785:

But April Fools' Day has been over for a while now!

2972:

We all are, we just don't notice the same things ;)

993: 957: 936: 241:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Zastava M70B 4739:This AFD is confusing. Where do I vote delete? -- 3347:Very sensible user, well cut out for the mop. -- 2327:Good track record at AfD, no reason to oppose. 870:Edit summary usage for Bahamut0013 can be found 4366:really see any need for giving him even more. 4596:Agree to a large extent with WSC's viewpoint. 3781:Is it really unlikely to assume that bahamut 3132:Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! 3052:Responsible editor, civil when opposed here. 2873: 916: 467:Why do you have on your userpage the infobox 8: 405:in articles, particularly politics-related? 4126:I know a term limit is rarely done; but it 1673:I don't share WSQ's concerns. Best of luck 123:. Highly recommended for moppery. - Dank ( 3928: 2868: 2174: 1955:. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. 1407:- Most definitely he is a good candidate. 1023:100 supports! Now we can list your RFA at 923: 909: 901: 2944:Hehe, woops! Corrected - and bed time :) 53:Final (121/6/3); Closed as successful by 3480:(By the way, the 71st Congress was much 884:Please keep discussion constructive and 670:, I see good ideas), but not right now. 4671:Knowledge (XXG):WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! 2431:HJ basically says what I was thinking. 1827:and a good admin for the encyclopedia. 3471:b) This RfA is going to pass anyways. 1783: 18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship 3494:a good candidate, this withstanding. 7: 4421:RfA wasn't going to be politicized. 2992:my signature is in league with Satan 2241: 4018:has biases, you have them too. You 2392: 698:Additional question from SlimVirgin 235:, or a couple of non-admin closes: 4850:are in good shape, B-class or so. 4710:Oh for God's sake, don't jinx it! 4315: 2866:fine editor. Glad to show my dues 24: 4936:Successful requests for adminship 4757:but I don't see Bahamut listed... 2664:The user is a good candidate. ~~ 1919:- I don't see any problems here. 1165:Strange Dank, I trust the nom ;) 3378: 2976:thanking him for his service :) 1508: 109:the military history wikiproject 3618: 3612: 3607: 3423: 3417: 2433: 2289: 2286: 2283: 2280: 2277: 2274: 668:User:EVula/opining/admin recall 578:Knowledge (XXG):Blocking policy 4847:User:bahamut0013/contributions 3404:- Fellow member of the cabal. 3128:Think he can cope with a mop! 2445:Trustworthy and well-rounded. 1995: 1990: 1218:I can't see anything wrong. — 648:suited to adminship-for-life? 469:User:Twooars/Userboxes/Noadmin 1: 2436: 2295: 4762: 4231: 2797: 2236: 2192: 2116: 1137:I trust the co-nom. - Dank ( 3437:—all clear. Happy mopping, 2110: 196:Questions for the candidate 4952: 4884:08:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 4376:16:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC) 4352:03:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC) 4323:11:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC) 4213:19:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 4094:01:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 3950:02:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 3935:07:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 3449:13:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC) 3430:06:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC) 3395:04:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC) 3374:21:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC) 3357:19:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC) 3343:18:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC) 3329:22:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC) 3315:17:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC) 3298:17:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC) 3281:16:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC) 3261:05:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC) 3244:04:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC) 3232:03:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC) 3207:00:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC) 3183:22:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 3167:20:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 3156:17:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 3139:11:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 3121:08:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 3096:08:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 3079:05:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 3062:04:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 3045:03:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 3014:11:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC) 2986:20:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC) 2968:04:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 2954:00:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 2940:23:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 2926:23:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 2906:Strongest Possible Support 2901:21:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 2878:20:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 2859:18:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 2842:18:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 2825:14:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 2802:12:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 2788:08:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 2771:05:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 2749:05:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 2564:20:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 1392:Alan the Roving Ambassador 1390:Definitely. 'Nuff said. -- 1074:05:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC) 1050:01:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC) 788:12:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 741:12:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 631:12:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 557:Additional questions from 545:12:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 353:sometimes it takes a while 188:17:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 92:United States Marine Corps 63:16:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC) 4902:03:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 4870:18:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 4841:16:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 4806:13:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 4780:13:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 4746:13:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 4735:13:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 4721:12:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 4706:11:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 4678:05:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 4661:05:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 4640:11:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 4612:22:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 4578:22:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 4557:11:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 4529:00:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 4514:22:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 4492:21:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 4477:18:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 4460:18:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 4441:16:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 4416:16:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 4303:20:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 4273:20:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 4242:20:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 4187:23:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 4161:20:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 4139:17:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 4121:16:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 4080:22:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 4048:20:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 4011:21:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 3920:01:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 3899:20:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 3875:19:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 3846:16:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 3814:16:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 3777:15:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 3747:11:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 3722:10:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 3707:09:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 3696:00:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 3678:21:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 3667:19:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 3646:18:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 3624:06:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 3583:07:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 3550:11:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 3522:05:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 3321:this unimpeachable source 2716:21:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 2702:16:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 2677:12:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 2657:06:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 2645:04:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 2628:04:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 2611:02:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 2597:18:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 2580:17:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 2576:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 2546:17:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 2529:15:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 2513:15:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 2496:10:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 2478:05:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 2461:02:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 2441:00:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 2427:00:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 2418:22:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 2397:22:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 2372:22:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 2351:22:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 2334:22:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 2320:18:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 2299:18:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 2264:14:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 2250:14:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 2227:12:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 2210:10:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 2181:09:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 2163:08:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 2142:08:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 2124:08:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 2099:07:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 2069:06:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 2052:05:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 2035:04:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 2019:03:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 2002:02:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 1982:02:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 1965:02:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 1948:01:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 1931:01:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 1875:01:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 1858:01:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 1837:01:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 1819:01:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 1797:01:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 1774:00:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 1747:22:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1732:22:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1708:22:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1687:22:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1666:21:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1636:21:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1619:21:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1602:20:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1570:20:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1544:19:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1526:19:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1504:18:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1487:18:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1473:17:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1455:16:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1438:16:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1417:16:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1400:15:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1383:15:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1366:15:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1343:14:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1326:14:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1308:14:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1293:14:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1279:14:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1262:14:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1258:Penny for your thoughts? 1242:14:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1226:14:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1211:13:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1200:12:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1185:12:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1170:12:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1161:12:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1143:11:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1133:11:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1117:11:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1106:11:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 1094:11:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC) 749:Additional question from 713:23:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 690:11:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 658:02:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 607:11:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 521:16:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 503:11:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 458:Additional question from 450:11:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 390:Additional question from 382:13:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC) 318:Additional question from 227:. Some examples would be 161:17:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC) 129:14:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC) 103:13:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC) 4913:Please do not modify it. 2885:He'll be a good admin. 2482:Dank beat me to it :). 1312:Previous encounters at 1066:01001010101010010101001 801:Links for Bahamut0013: 38:Please do not modify it 4084:LOL @ the two of you. 3463:Edit: Oppose Withdrawn 2990:Even though you think 2380:<-W-W-W-<< -- 3406:- TRANSMISSION ENDS - 3323:in evidence. - Dank ( 3275: 2732:) 22:42, 9 April 2011 2503:- no problems here.-- 261:James M. Masters, Sr. 225:military-related ones 34:request for adminship 4618:they've been removed 3638:A Stop at Willoughby 3272:♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ 2520:. Sound candidate, 2312:A Stop at Willoughby 1079:Beat the nom support 1006:Global contributions 4484:Boing! said Zebedee 1781:— Great candidate. 1447:Boing! said Zebedee 970:Non-automated edits 302:bored and moves on. 3387:Mikhailov Kusserow 2308:Portal:Battleships 2111:Ancient Apparition 949:Edit summary usage 892:before commenting. 362:, and have at it. 270:portal:Battleships 88:Audit Subcommittee 39: 4867: 4803: 4759: 4719: 4703: 4637: 4554: 4535:I've removed them 4458: 4438: 4349: 4321: 4305: 4300: 4270: 4211: 4119: 4045: 3948: 3918: 3896: 3872: 3843: 3775: 3744: 3720: 3580: 3558: 3547: 3519: 3497: 3485: 3484:, in my opinion). 3474: 3428: 3407: 3230: 3011: 2733: 2700: 2511: 2494: 2097: 1929: 1913: 1901:RightCowLeftCoast 1899:comment added by 1853: 1705: 1681: 1183: 1019: 1018: 890:his contributions 785: 761: 738: 711: 687: 656: 628: 604: 542: 500: 480:Lord of the Flies 447: 412: 379: 185: 158: 37: 4943: 4915: 4868: 4859: 4855: 4829:Moved to Support 4804: 4795: 4791: 4773: 4769: 4768: 4750: 4715: 4704: 4695: 4691: 4638: 4629: 4625: 4601: 4575: 4571: 4566: 4555: 4546: 4542: 4511: 4507: 4502: 4454: 4439: 4430: 4426: 4413: 4409: 4404: 4348: 4343: 4340: 4317: 4310: 4299: 4294: 4291: 4277: 4269: 4264: 4261: 4233: 4207: 4158: 4154: 4149: 4115: 4078: 4076: 4073: 4070: 4067: 4064: 4061: 4044: 4039: 4036: 4009: 4007: 4004: 4001: 3998: 3995: 3992: 3944: 3931: 3930: 3917: 3915: 3910: 3897: 3888: 3884: 3871: 3866: 3863: 3844: 3835: 3831: 3812: 3809: 3774: 3772: 3767: 3745: 3736: 3732: 3719: 3717: 3704: 3664: 3620: 3614: 3609: 3579: 3574: 3571: 3556: 3548: 3539: 3535: 3518: 3513: 3510: 3495: 3479: 3472: 3446: 3441: 3425: 3419: 3408: 3405: 3382: 3339: 3279: 3273: 3228: 3222: 3220: 3200: 3195: 3133: 3118: 3113: 3108: 3041: 3036: 3012: 3003: 2999: 2984: 2952: 2924: 2897: 2890: 2875: 2870: 2822: 2815: 2799: 2764: 2761: 2724: 2699: 2697: 2691: 2685: 2668: 2577: 2526: 2507: 2493: 2491: 2468:No red flags. -- 2458: 2450: 2438: 2435: 2415: 2411: 2406: 2394: 2388: 2296: 2291: 2288: 2285: 2282: 2279: 2276: 2247: 2240: 2203: 2199: 2198: 2177: 2176: 2159: 2155: 2122: 2118: 2112: 2096: 2094: 2083: 1999: 1994: 1940:AustralianRupert 1923: 1912: 1893: 1854: 1851: 1815: 1808: 1794: 1792: 1787: 1770: 1761: 1730: 1728: 1721: 1701: 1698: 1682: 1679: 1664: 1661: 1655: 1649: 1611:Kevin Rutherford 1596: 1587: 1568: 1565: 1560: 1555: 1515: 1512: 1511: 1364: 1361: 1259: 1253: 1238: 1208: 1195: 1179: 1128: 1087: 1048: 1045: 1039: 1033: 965:Articles created 925: 918: 911: 902: 875: 867: 826: 796:General comments 786: 777: 773: 759: 739: 730: 726: 710: 708: 688: 679: 675: 652: 629: 620: 616: 605: 596: 592: 583:So what does it 543: 534: 530: 501: 492: 488: 448: 439: 435: 406: 380: 371: 367: 186: 177: 173: 159: 150: 146: 55:The Rambling Man 4951: 4950: 4946: 4945: 4944: 4942: 4941: 4940: 4926: 4925: 4924: 4918:this nomination 4911: 4865: 4858: 4853: 4801: 4794: 4789: 4771: 4761: 4727:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 4701: 4694: 4689: 4635: 4628: 4623: 4608: 4599: 4573: 4569: 4564: 4552: 4545: 4540: 4521:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 4509: 4505: 4500: 4436: 4429: 4424: 4411: 4407: 4402: 4384: 4344: 4337: 4333: 4329: 4295: 4288: 4284: 4280: 4265: 4258: 4254: 4250: 4205:Septentrionalis 4156: 4152: 4147: 4113:Septentrionalis 4074: 4071: 4068: 4065: 4062: 4059: 4057: 4040: 4033: 4029: 4025: 4005: 4002: 3999: 3996: 3993: 3990: 3988: 3981:Hillary Clinton 3927: 3911: 3906: 3894: 3887: 3882: 3867: 3860: 3856: 3852: 3841: 3834: 3829: 3807: 3800: 3768: 3763: 3742: 3735: 3730: 3713: 3702: 3660: 3575: 3568: 3564: 3560: 3545: 3538: 3533: 3514: 3507: 3503: 3499: 3457: 3444: 3439: 3413: 3337: 3271: 3224: 3216: 3198: 3193: 3161:Obvious support 3131: 3116: 3111: 3106: 3039: 3034: 3009: 3002: 2997: 2977: 2945: 2917: 2895: 2888: 2818: 2811: 2762: 2759: 2739:- I'm a fan. - 2695: 2689: 2686: 2675: 2666: 2575: 2522: 2487: 2454: 2448: 2413: 2409: 2404: 2386: 2201: 2191: 2173: 2157: 2151: 2107: 2092: 2084: 1894: 1850: 1847: 1813: 1806: 1790: 1785: 1772: 1768: 1759: 1724: 1717: 1715: 1704: 1696: 1678: 1675: 1659: 1653: 1647: 1644: 1594: 1591: 1585: 1582: 1563: 1558: 1553: 1549: 1513: 1509: 1435: 1359: 1352: 1335:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1277: 1257: 1249: 1236: 1206: 1191: 1153:Graeme Bartlett 1126: 1083: 1058: 1043: 1037: 1031: 1028: 1020: 1015: 989: 953: 932: 931:RfA/RfB toolbox 929: 899: 871: 819: 802: 798: 783: 776: 771: 736: 729: 724: 706: 685: 678: 673: 650:Septentrionalis 626: 619: 614: 602: 595: 590: 559:Septentrionalis 540: 533: 528: 498: 491: 486: 477:Because I like 445: 438: 433: 377: 370: 365: 198: 183: 176: 171: 156: 149: 144: 113:edits to WP:UAA 71: 50: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4949: 4947: 4939: 4938: 4928: 4927: 4923: 4922: 4906: 4905: 4892: 4891: 4890: 4889: 4888: 4887: 4886: 4863: 4845:Have you seen 4820: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4816: 4815: 4814: 4813: 4812: 4811: 4810: 4809: 4808: 4799: 4699: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4633: 4606: 4593: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4550: 4464: 4463: 4462: 4434: 4383: 4380: 4379: 4378: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4335: 4331: 4286: 4282: 4275: 4256: 4252: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4219: 4218: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4201: 4174:defined as an 4102: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4031: 4027: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3892: 3858: 3854: 3839: 3824:Nick Popaditch 3820:James L. Jones 3794: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3740: 3724: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3601:(and probably 3592: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3566: 3562: 3543: 3505: 3501: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3475: 3469: 3456: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3432: 3411: 3397: 3376: 3359: 3345: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3300: 3283: 3263: 3246: 3234: 3212:Strong Support 3209: 3185: 3169: 3158: 3141: 3123: 3098: 3081: 3064: 3047: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3007: 2973: 2903: 2880: 2861: 2844: 2827: 2804: 2790: 2773: 2751: 2734: 2718: 2704: 2679: 2671: 2659: 2654:MelbourneStar☆ 2647: 2630: 2613: 2599: 2582: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2551:Clarification. 2531: 2515: 2501:Semper Fidelis 2498: 2480: 2463: 2443: 2429: 2420: 2399: 2377:Strong Support 2374: 2358:- fully meets 2353: 2336: 2322: 2301: 2266: 2252: 2229: 2212: 2183: 2165: 2144: 2126: 2101: 2071: 2054: 2044:MarmadukePercy 2037: 2021: 2004: 1984: 1970:STRONG Support 1967: 1950: 1933: 1914: 1877: 1865:Go for it ... 1860: 1848: 1839: 1824:Strong Support 1821: 1799: 1776: 1766: 1749: 1734: 1710: 1702: 1689: 1676: 1668: 1638: 1621: 1604: 1592: 1583: 1572: 1546: 1528: 1516:Go ahead... -- 1506: 1489: 1475: 1457: 1440: 1433: 1422:Strong support 1419: 1409:Reaper Eternal 1405:Strong support 1402: 1385: 1368: 1345: 1328: 1310: 1295: 1281: 1273: 1267:Strong Support 1264: 1244: 1228: 1213: 1202: 1189:No concerns. – 1187: 1172: 1163: 1145: 1135: 1119: 1108: 1099:Strong support 1096: 1076: 1062:strong support 1057: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1017: 1016: 1014: 1013: 1008: 1003: 997: 995: 991: 990: 988: 987: 982: 977: 972: 967: 961: 959: 955: 954: 952: 951: 946: 940: 938: 934: 933: 930: 928: 927: 920: 913: 905: 898: 895: 881: 880: 879: 877: 868: 797: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 781: 753: 746: 745: 744: 743: 734: 699: 695: 694: 693: 692: 683: 638: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 624: 600: 581: 561: 554: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 538: 496: 462: 455: 454: 453: 452: 443: 428: 424: 395: 394: 387: 386: 385: 384: 375: 356: 348:sleeper agents 322: 315: 314: 313: 312: 304: 303: 276: 275: 274: 273: 247: 246: 245: 244: 220:The Gunslinger 197: 194: 193: 192: 191: 190: 181: 154: 138: 137: 121:North Carolina 70: 67: 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4948: 4937: 4934: 4933: 4931: 4921: 4919: 4914: 4908: 4907: 4903: 4900: 4896: 4893: 4885: 4881: 4877: 4873: 4872: 4871: 4866: 4861: 4857: 4856: 4848: 4844: 4843: 4842: 4838: 4834: 4830: 4826: 4825: 4821: 4807: 4802: 4797: 4793: 4792: 4786: 4783: 4782: 4781: 4777: 4770: 4767: 4766: 4758: 4754: 4749: 4748: 4747: 4744: 4743: 4738: 4737: 4736: 4732: 4728: 4724: 4723: 4722: 4718: 4713: 4709: 4708: 4707: 4702: 4697: 4693: 4692: 4685: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4676: 4672: 4668: 4664: 4663: 4662: 4659: 4656: 4655: 4649: 4645: 4641: 4636: 4631: 4627: 4626: 4619: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4610: 4609: 4603: 4602: 4595: 4594: 4579: 4576: 4572: 4567: 4560: 4559: 4558: 4553: 4548: 4544: 4543: 4536: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4526: 4522: 4517: 4516: 4515: 4512: 4508: 4503: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4489: 4485: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4474: 4470: 4465: 4461: 4457: 4452: 4448: 4444: 4443: 4442: 4437: 4432: 4428: 4427: 4419: 4418: 4417: 4414: 4410: 4405: 4399: 4396: 4392: 4386: 4385: 4381: 4377: 4373: 4369: 4364: 4361: 4353: 4350: 4347: 4341: 4339: 4326: 4325: 4324: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4307: 4306: 4304: 4301: 4298: 4292: 4290: 4276: 4274: 4271: 4268: 4262: 4260: 4246: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4240: 4239: 4235: 4234: 4227: 4224: 4214: 4210: 4206: 4202: 4199: 4195: 4190: 4189: 4188: 4185: 4182: 4177: 4172: 4168: 4164: 4163: 4162: 4159: 4155: 4150: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4137: 4136: 4131: 4127: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4118: 4114: 4110: 4106: 4103: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4077: 4055: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4046: 4043: 4037: 4035: 4021: 4017: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4008: 3986: 3982: 3978: 3974: 3970: 3967: 3951: 3947: 3943: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3933: 3932: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3916: 3914: 3909: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3895: 3890: 3886: 3885: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3873: 3870: 3864: 3862: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3842: 3837: 3833: 3832: 3825: 3821: 3817: 3816: 3815: 3810: 3804: 3799: 3792: 3788: 3784: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3773: 3771: 3766: 3759: 3758:Strong Oppose 3756: 3748: 3743: 3738: 3734: 3733: 3725: 3723: 3718: 3716: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3705: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3693: 3689: 3685: 3679: 3676: 3675: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3665: 3663: 3657: 3653: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3643: 3639: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3621: 3615: 3610: 3604: 3600: 3597: 3594: 3593: 3584: 3581: 3578: 3572: 3570: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3546: 3541: 3537: 3536: 3529: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3520: 3517: 3511: 3509: 3493: 3489: 3483: 3476: 3470: 3467: 3466: 3464: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3454: 3450: 3447: 3442: 3436: 3433: 3431: 3426: 3420: 3414: 3403: 3402: 3398: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3385: 3381: 3377: 3375: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3360: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3346: 3344: 3341: 3340: 3334: 3330: 3326: 3322: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3312: 3308: 3304: 3301: 3299: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3284: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3267: 3264: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3247: 3245: 3242: 3238: 3235: 3233: 3229: 3227: 3221: 3219: 3213: 3210: 3208: 3205: 3204: 3201: 3196: 3189: 3186: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3173: 3170: 3168: 3165: 3162: 3159: 3157: 3153: 3149: 3145: 3142: 3140: 3137: 3135: 3134: 3127: 3124: 3122: 3119: 3114: 3109: 3102: 3099: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3082: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3065: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3048: 3046: 3043: 3042: 3037: 3030: 3027: 3015: 3010: 3005: 3001: 3000: 2993: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2983: 2980: 2974: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2951: 2948: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2937: 2933: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2923: 2920: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2904: 2902: 2899: 2898: 2892: 2891: 2884: 2881: 2879: 2876: 2871: 2869:Pass a Method 2865: 2862: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2845: 2843: 2839: 2835: 2831: 2828: 2826: 2823: 2821: 2816: 2814: 2808: 2805: 2803: 2800: 2794: 2791: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2774: 2772: 2769: 2768: 2765: 2755: 2752: 2750: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2722: 2719: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2703: 2698: 2693: 2692: 2683: 2680: 2678: 2674: 2669: 2663: 2660: 2658: 2655: 2651: 2648: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2631: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2614: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2600: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2583: 2581: 2578: 2572: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2552: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2532: 2530: 2527: 2525: 2519: 2516: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2499: 2497: 2492: 2490: 2485: 2481: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2464: 2462: 2459: 2457: 2452: 2451: 2444: 2442: 2439: 2430: 2428: 2425: 2421: 2419: 2416: 2412: 2407: 2400: 2398: 2395: 2389: 2383: 2378: 2375: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2354: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2337: 2335: 2332: 2331: 2326: 2323: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2302: 2300: 2297: 2293: 2292: 2270: 2267: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2251: 2248: 2246: 2245: 2239: 2233: 2230: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2213: 2211: 2207: 2200: 2197: 2196: 2187: 2184: 2182: 2179: 2178: 2169: 2166: 2164: 2161: 2156: 2154: 2148: 2145: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2130: 2127: 2125: 2121: 2119: 2113: 2105: 2102: 2100: 2095: 2089: 2088: 2080: 2075: 2072: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2055: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2038: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2025: 2022: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2009:- good luck! 2008: 2005: 2003: 2000: 1998: 1993: 1988: 1985: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1968: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1951: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1934: 1932: 1927: 1922: 1918: 1915: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1891: 1890: 1885: 1881: 1878: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1861: 1859: 1856: 1855: 1843: 1840: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1825: 1822: 1820: 1817: 1816: 1810: 1809: 1803: 1800: 1798: 1795: 1793: 1788: 1780: 1777: 1775: 1771: 1769:Contributions 1764: 1763: 1762: 1753: 1750: 1748: 1745: 1742: 1738: 1735: 1733: 1729: 1727: 1722: 1720: 1714: 1711: 1709: 1706: 1699: 1693: 1690: 1688: 1685: 1683: 1672: 1669: 1667: 1662: 1656: 1650: 1642: 1639: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1622: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1605: 1603: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1588: 1579: 1576: 1573: 1571: 1567: 1566: 1561: 1556: 1547: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1532: 1529: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1507: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1490: 1488: 1485: 1483: 1479: 1476: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1461: 1458: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1441: 1439: 1436: 1431: 1429: 1428: 1423: 1420: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1403: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1386: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1369: 1367: 1362: 1356: 1351: 1346: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1329: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1296: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1265: 1263: 1260: 1254: 1252: 1245: 1243: 1240: 1239: 1232: 1229: 1227: 1224: 1221: 1217: 1214: 1212: 1209: 1203: 1201: 1198: 1196: 1194: 1188: 1186: 1182: 1177: 1173: 1171: 1168: 1164: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1149: 1146: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1134: 1131: 1129: 1123: 1120: 1118: 1115: 1114: 1109: 1107: 1104: 1100: 1097: 1095: 1091: 1088: 1086: 1081:'Nuff said. 1080: 1077: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1060: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1046: 1040: 1034: 1026: 1022: 1021: 1012: 1009: 1007: 1004: 1002: 999: 998: 996: 992: 986: 983: 981: 978: 976: 973: 971: 968: 966: 963: 962: 960: 956: 950: 947: 945: 942: 941: 939: 935: 926: 921: 919: 914: 912: 907: 906: 903: 896: 894: 893: 891: 887: 878: 874: 869: 865: 862: 859: 856: 853: 850: 847: 844: 841: 838: 835: 832: 829: 825: 822: 818: 815: 812: 809: 805: 800: 799: 795: 789: 784: 779: 775: 774: 766: 763: 762: 757: 754: 752: 748: 747: 742: 737: 732: 728: 727: 719: 716: 715: 714: 709: 703: 700: 697: 696: 691: 686: 681: 677: 676: 669: 664: 661: 660: 659: 655: 651: 647: 643: 640: 639: 632: 627: 622: 618: 617: 610: 609: 608: 603: 598: 594: 593: 586: 582: 579: 576:According to 575: 572: 571: 569: 565: 562: 560: 556: 555: 546: 541: 536: 532: 531: 524: 523: 522: 518: 514: 510: 506: 505: 504: 499: 494: 490: 489: 482: 481: 476: 473: 472: 470: 466: 463: 461: 457: 456: 451: 446: 441: 437: 436: 429: 425: 422: 421:Conservapedia 417: 414: 413: 410: 404: 403:systemic bias 400: 397: 396: 393: 389: 388: 383: 378: 373: 369: 368: 361: 357: 354: 349: 345: 341: 337: 333: 330: 329: 326: 323: 321: 317: 316: 310: 305: 300: 296: 292: 287: 284: 283: 281: 278: 277: 271: 268:, especially 267: 262: 258: 255: 254: 252: 249: 248: 242: 238: 234: 230: 226: 222: 221: 217:described in 216: 212: 209: 208: 206: 203: 202: 201: 195: 189: 184: 179: 175: 174: 167: 166: 165: 164: 163: 162: 157: 152: 148: 147: 136: 133: 132: 131: 130: 126: 122: 118: 114: 110: 105: 104: 101: 97: 93: 89: 85: 82: 79: 75: 68: 66: 65: 64: 60: 56: 48: 45: 41: 35: 32: 27: 26: 19: 4912: 4909: 4894: 4851: 4828: 4823: 4822: 4787: 4764: 4763: 4756: 4740: 4712:UltraExactZZ 4687: 4666: 4652: 4621: 4605: 4598: 4562: 4538: 4498: 4451:UltraExactZZ 4447:Barack Obama 4422: 4400: 4388: 4362: 4345: 4330: 4312: 4311: 4296: 4281: 4266: 4251: 4238: 4236: 4229: 4225: 4197: 4193: 4184:(Kicking222) 4175: 4170: 4166: 4145: 4133: 4129: 4125: 4108: 4104: 4053: 4041: 4026: 4019: 4015: 3973:Nancy Pelosi 3968: 3925: 3912: 3907: 3880: 3868: 3853: 3827: 3786: 3782: 3769: 3764: 3757: 3728: 3714: 3688:Juliancolton 3673: 3661: 3595: 3576: 3561: 3531: 3515: 3500: 3491: 3462: 3434: 3399: 3383: 3361: 3335: 3325:push to talk 3302: 3285: 3265: 3248: 3236: 3225: 3217: 3211: 3203:(yada, yada) 3191: 3187: 3171: 3160: 3143: 3130: 3125: 3100: 3083: 3066: 3049: 3032: 3028: 2995: 2913: 2909: 2905: 2894: 2887: 2882: 2863: 2846: 2829: 2819: 2812: 2806: 2792: 2775: 2757: 2753: 2736: 2720: 2688: 2681: 2661: 2649: 2632: 2615: 2603:Juliancolton 2584: 2570: 2550: 2533: 2524:Roger Davies 2523: 2517: 2500: 2488: 2483: 2465: 2455: 2446: 2402: 2376: 2360:my standards 2355: 2338: 2329: 2324: 2303: 2273: 2268: 2243: 2242: 2237: 2231: 2214: 2194: 2193: 2185: 2171: 2167: 2152: 2146: 2128: 2108: 2103: 2085: 2078: 2073: 2056: 2039: 2023: 2011:Monterey Bay 2006: 1996: 1991: 1986: 1969: 1952: 1935: 1916: 1895:— Preceding 1887: 1879: 1862: 1845: 1841: 1823: 1812: 1805: 1801: 1782: 1778: 1756: 1755: 1751: 1736: 1725: 1718: 1712: 1691: 1684: 1670: 1640: 1623: 1606: 1590: 1580: 1574: 1550: 1530: 1491: 1477: 1459: 1442: 1426: 1421: 1404: 1387: 1370: 1330: 1317: 1266: 1250: 1234: 1230: 1215: 1192: 1176:UltraExactZZ 1147: 1139:push to talk 1121: 1111: 1098: 1084: 1078: 1061: 883: 882: 860: 854: 848: 842: 836: 830: 823: 816: 810: 769: 764: 755: 722: 717: 701: 671: 662: 645: 641: 612: 588: 584: 573: 567: 563: 526: 484: 478: 474: 464: 431: 415: 408: 398: 363: 331: 324: 285: 279: 256: 250: 219: 215:Stephen King 210: 204: 199: 169: 142: 139: 134: 125:push to talk 106: 80: 72: 52: 51: 46: 30: 28: 4854:bahamut0013 4790:bahamut0013 4690:bahamut0013 4684:brain farts 4624:bahamut0013 4616:See above, 4541:bahamut0013 4425:bahamut0013 4179:admins. -- 4176:impeachable 3883:bahamut0013 3830:bahamut0013 3731:bahamut0013 3596:Weak Oppose 3534:bahamut0013 3440:Airplaneman 3349:Mkativerata 3338:Jujutacular 3253:Brianherman 3071:Binksternet 2998:bahamut0013 2798:Ankit Maity 1957:Newyorkbrad 1741:Jasper Deng 1680:ofutwitch11 1251:HJ Mitchell 1011:User rights 1001:CentralAuth 804:Bahamut0013 772:bahamut0013 751:Ankit Maity 725:bahamut0013 674:bahamut0013 615:bahamut0013 591:bahamut0013 529:bahamut0013 487:bahamut0013 434:bahamut0013 366:bahamut0013 172:bahamut0013 145:bahamut0013 74:Bahamut0013 47:Bahamut0013 4751:That'd be 4675:Courcelles 4600:Wifione 4209:PMAnderson 4130:to be done 4117:PMAnderson 4086:Keepscases 3977:Harry Reid 3528:it is done 3418:have a cup 3319:I present 3088:Shadowjams 2960:Keepscases 2932:Keepscases 2620:Epeefleche 2589:Tryptofish 2382:Guerillero 2120:• 6:33pm • 2117:Champagne? 1844:Why not? - 1754:For Sure! 1482:joe decker 1237:Jim Miller 1167:Courcelles 1085:ArcAngel 994:Cross-wiki 985:AfD closes 897:Discussion 707:SlimVirgin 654:PMAnderson 293:(formerly 100:Courcelles 69:Nomination 31:successful 4899:Lankiveil 4673:variety. 4651:not AfD? 4648:this diff 4395:Userboxen 4368:Likeminas 3942:NortyNort 3031:Clearly. 2834:NellieBly 2505:NortyNort 2393:Review Me 2343:Buggie111 2256:SmokeyJoe 2219:Modernist 1921:Ajraddatz 1829:TomStar81 1628:Dru of Id 1518:Yikrazuul 1298:comment. 1285:T. Canens 980:AfD votes 975:BLP edits 846:block log 344:Anonymous 4930:Category 4876:Lambanog 4833:Lambanog 4654:Andrevan 4574:Chequers 4510:Chequers 4412:Chequers 4248:Ctjf83. 4157:Chequers 4016:Everyone 3783:wouldn't 3703:Amalthea 3662:Excirial 3632:or even 3188:Support. 3172:Support. 2851:Fnlayson 2820:Horatius 2780:Lambanog 2763:Michael? 2741:Haymaker 2726:jorgenev 2673:Contribs 2484:Support. 2424:MuZemike 2414:Chequers 1974:Cuprum17 1909:contribs 1897:unsigned 1802:Support. 1739:Why not? 1737:Support: 1719:Baseball 1300:Jclemens 1207:Amalthea 958:Analysis 937:Counters 814:contribs 513:Cenarium 509:Wp:admin 460:Cenarium 360:Red Cell 336:WP:BEANS 320:Lambanog 84:contribs 4895:Neutral 4824:Neutral 4607:....... 4382:Neutral 4338:anguard 4289:anguard 4259:anguard 4226:Oppose! 4171:nothing 4034:anguard 3946:(Holla) 3861:anguard 3791:WP:NPOV 3652:WP:AIAV 3634:WP:VAND 3569:anguard 3508:anguard 3435:Support 3401:Support 3384:Support 3366:Nyttend 3362:Support 3307:Jafeluv 3303:Support 3290:Collect 3286:Support 3266:Support 3249:Support 3237:Support 3218:Mlpearc 3175:Carrite 3144:Support 3126:Support 3101:Support 3084:Support 3067:Support 3050:Support 3035:upstate 3029:Support 2982:Centric 2950:Centric 2922:Centric 2883:Support 2864:Support 2847:Support 2830:Support 2813:Alexius 2807:Support 2793:Support 2776:Support 2754:Support 2737:Support 2721:Support 2682:Support 2662:Support 2650:Support 2637:Qrsdogg 2633:Support 2616:Support 2585:Support 2571:Support 2534:Support 2518:Support 2509:(Holla) 2466:Support 2387:My Talk 2364:Bearian 2356:Support 2339:Support 2325:Support 2304:Support 2269:Support 2232:Support 2215:Support 2186:Support 2168:Support 2147:Support 2129:Support 2104:Support 2074:Support 2057:Support 2040:Support 2007:Support 1992:Striker 1987:Support 1953:Support 1936:Support 1917:Support 1884:WP:NPOV 1880:Support 1867:Bwmoll3 1863:Support 1842:Support 1779:Support 1752:Support 1726:Watcher 1713:Support 1692:Support 1671:Support 1641:Support 1624:Support 1607:Support 1536:Peridon 1531:Support 1492:Support 1478:Support 1460:Support 1443:Support 1388:Support 1371:Support 1331:Support 1231:Support 1216:Support 1148:support 1122:Support 1056:Support 821:deleted 340:Sun Tzu 4753:WP:EfD 4742:Errant 4363:Oppose 4316:Oranje 4232:Puffin 4135:Errant 4105:Oppose 3969:Oppose 3913:Marlin 3908:Orange 3787:course 3770:Marlin 3765:Orange 3656:huggle 3630:WP:RBK 3608:Minima 3455:Oppose 3412:Coffee 3226:powwow 3199:crewer 3148:Kansan 2708:BigDom 2667:EBE123 2556:Orlady 2538:Orlady 2470:Banana 2238:Orphan 2134:Nick-D 2061:Enfcer 2027:Keegan 1852:ASTILY 1786:maucho 1744:(talk) 1427:MacMed 1375:Risker 1318:Yoenit 1314:wp:OMT 1223:Pyfan! 1113:Errant 1103:Kirill 1090:(talk) 1025:WP:100 944:XTools 295:BillCJ 291:BilCat 266:WP:OMT 117:meetup 4864:deeds 4800:deeds 4700:deeds 4634:deeds 4570:Spiel 4551:deeds 4506:Spiel 4469:Hobit 4435:deeds 4408:Spiel 4391:these 4194:limit 4153:Spiel 4128:ought 4109:ought 4054:could 4020:still 3985:Obama 3929:Swarm 3893:deeds 3840:deeds 3798:EVula 3741:deeds 3544:deeds 3482:worse 3424:essay 3269:me.-- 3241:Quarl 3054:Julle 3008:deeds 2889:Wayne 2690:Chzz 2449:ceran 2434:sonia 2410:Spiel 2175:Swarm 1997:force 1889:Hooah 1814:rolls 1791:eagle 1760:RP459 1697:Monty 1586:FOLEY 1559:COMMS 1554:ƒETCH 1496:Hobit 1465:Woody 1434:stalk 1350:EVula 1283:Duh. 1271:Logan 886:civil 828:count 782:deeds 735:deeds 684:deeds 625:deeds 601:deeds 539:deeds 497:deeds 444:deeds 409:views 376:deeds 309:EVula 299:OPSEC 182:deeds 155:deeds 61:) at 16:< 4880:talk 4837:talk 4776:talk 4765:Worm 4755:... 4731:talk 4565:Ϣere 4525:talk 4501:Ϣere 4488:talk 4473:talk 4403:Ϣere 4393:two 4372:talk 4346:Wha? 4334:ven 4313:Club 4297:Wha? 4285:ven 4267:Wha? 4255:ven 4198:term 4181:Mike 4167:ever 4148:Ϣere 4090:talk 4042:Wha? 4030:ven 3983:and 3869:Wha? 3857:ven 3803:talk 3692:talk 3674:—SW— 3642:talk 3619:talk 3603:this 3577:Wha? 3565:ven 3516:Wha? 3504:ven 3391:talk 3370:talk 3353:talk 3311:talk 3294:talk 3257:talk 3194:brew 3179:talk 3152:talk 3092:talk 3075:talk 3058:talk 3040:NYer 2964:talk 2936:talk 2896:Slam 2874:talk 2855:talk 2838:talk 2784:talk 2760:Yes 2745:talk 2730:talk 2712:talk 2641:talk 2624:talk 2607:talk 2593:talk 2560:talk 2542:talk 2474:talk 2456:thor 2405:Ϣere 2368:talk 2347:talk 2330:—SW— 2316:talk 2260:talk 2244:Wiki 2223:talk 2206:talk 2195:Worm 2138:talk 2087:Ched 2065:talk 2048:talk 2031:talk 2015:talk 1978:talk 1961:talk 1944:talk 1926:Talk 1905:talk 1871:talk 1833:Talk 1807:Tide 1648:mc10 1632:talk 1615:talk 1575:nods 1540:talk 1522:talk 1500:talk 1469:talk 1451:talk 1413:talk 1396:talk 1379:talk 1355:talk 1339:talk 1322:talk 1304:talk 1289:talk 1275:Talk 1193:xeno 1157:talk 1070:talk 1032:mc10 873:here 858:rfar 840:logs 808:talk 585:mean 568:mean 517:talk 392:Chzz 239:and 119:in 96:here 78:talk 59:talk 4717:Did 4456:Did 3805:// 3801:// 3715:AGK 3492:are 3427:// 3421:// 3415:// 3117:fax 3107:Jus 2979:Egg 2947:Egg 2919:Egg 2670:~~ 2489:AGK 2153:Axl 2079:But 1757:-- 1703:845 1595:OUR 1357:// 1353:// 1220:Oli 1181:Did 864:spi 834:AfD 646:you 4932:: 4882:) 4839:) 4827:. 4778:) 4733:) 4667:or 4620:. 4527:) 4490:) 4475:) 4374:) 4092:) 3979:, 3975:, 3811:// 3694:) 3644:) 3622:) 3530:. 3409:— 3393:) 3372:) 3355:) 3327:) 3313:) 3296:) 3259:) 3251:. 3239:. 3190:-- 3181:) 3164:Ed 3154:) 3112:da 3094:) 3077:) 3060:) 2994:? 2966:) 2938:) 2914:my 2857:) 2840:) 2786:) 2747:) 2714:) 2696:► 2643:) 2626:) 2609:) 2595:) 2562:) 2554:-- 2544:) 2476:) 2390:| 2384:| 2370:) 2349:) 2318:) 2281:us 2275:Je 2262:) 2254:-- 2225:) 2208:) 2140:) 2114:• 2093:? 2090:: 2067:) 2050:) 2033:) 2017:) 1980:) 1963:) 1946:) 1911:) 1907:• 1892:! 1886:. 1873:) 1835:) 1634:) 1617:) 1600:— 1542:) 1524:) 1502:) 1471:) 1453:) 1415:) 1398:) 1381:) 1363:// 1341:) 1324:) 1306:) 1291:) 1255:| 1159:) 1141:) 1092:) 1072:) 1027:. 852:lu 765:A: 756:10 718:A: 663:A: 574:A: 570:? 519:) 475:A: 471:? 465:6. 416:A: 399:5. 332:A: 325:4. 286:A: 280:3. 257:A: 251:2. 231:, 211:A: 205:1. 127:) 36:. 4904:. 4878:( 4835:( 4774:( 4772:· 4729:( 4714:~ 4658:@ 4523:( 4486:( 4471:( 4453:~ 4370:( 4336:M 4332:S 4287:M 4283:S 4257:M 4253:S 4200:. 4088:( 4075:3 4072:8 4069:F 4066:J 4063:T 4060:C 4032:M 4028:S 4006:3 4003:8 4000:F 3997:J 3994:T 3991:C 3859:M 3855:S 3808:☯ 3690:( 3640:( 3616:( 3613:© 3567:M 3563:S 3506:M 3502:S 3445:✈ 3389:( 3368:( 3351:( 3309:( 3292:( 3277:T 3255:( 3177:( 3150:( 3090:( 3073:( 3056:( 2962:( 2934:( 2853:( 2836:( 2782:( 2766:• 2743:( 2728:( 2710:( 2639:( 2622:( 2605:( 2591:( 2558:( 2540:( 2472:( 2437:♫ 2366:( 2345:( 2314:( 2290:9 2287:8 2284:9 2278:b 2258:( 2221:( 2204:( 2202:· 2158:¤ 2136:( 2063:( 2046:( 2029:( 2024:+ 2013:( 1976:( 1959:( 1942:( 1928:) 1924:( 1903:( 1869:( 1849:F 1831:( 1765:/ 1677:T 1663:) 1660:c 1657:/ 1654:t 1651:( 1645:— 1630:( 1613:( 1593:F 1584:G 1578:— 1564:/ 1551:/ 1538:( 1520:( 1514:Y 1498:( 1467:( 1449:( 1411:( 1394:( 1377:( 1360:☯ 1337:( 1320:( 1302:( 1287:( 1178:~ 1155:( 1127:œ 1068:( 1047:) 1044:c 1041:/ 1038:t 1035:( 1029:— 924:e 917:t 910:v 876:. 866:) 861:· 855:· 849:· 843:· 837:· 831:· 824:· 817:· 811:· 806:( 702:9 642:8 564:7 515:( 81:· 76:( 57:( 40:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Requests for adminship/Bahamut0013 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index