Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Cailil

3185:: an editor had attempted to source a statement to two reliable sources, but neither of those sources actually substantiated the editor's assertion. Cailil pointed this out and responded that the other editor needed reliable sources that actually said what this editor wanted to assert in the article, and Cailil suggested that noticeboard as one of the ways of resolving the editorial discussion with independent feedback. Taken in context, both of Cailil's posts look quite reasonable to me. Cailil's tone is polite and appropriate. I don't see the problem you assert; is there some other example? 2767:" was wrong, in that it does deal with the assertion of notability. My point is not whether Cailil was right or wrong. My point is that your opposing a candidate because of one comment, and some old diffs provided above. Adminship is not about perfection, Wisdom. It is about providing a net benefit to the community. So if you can honestly tell me that those comments are enough to make you feel that it will be a net negative to the community, and that you do not trust Cailil to right any mistakes he may make as an admin (and we admins all make mistakes), then I honestly have no reply to that. 2264:—I am sure this is not what Elonka intended by raising her concerns, but in fact her research made it easier for me to decide my vote here. What I see is an editor who is willing to dig in to the trenches, research, compile facts and evidence, and present them. Editors should not be asked to give up their opinions when they are handed the mop, and I doubt Cailil will. What I would expect is that Cailil would not take any action against a user that he has taken an active part in discussing. Everything I see leads me to believe that my expectation would be met, leading to my support. 1176:: Candidate seems like they would do a good job. I don't see a problem with the AfDs mentioned below. Sometimes articles need to be deleted and I'm sure that even with articles deleted if notability surfaces then the article can be recreated or information could be added to appropriate articles. Candidate seems civil and has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is excellent as well. I think candidate would make an excellent admin. 3591:, leaning to support. I want to take time to look closely at this candidate, but I don't see anything that would indicate any problems with them as an admin. I've had dodgy comments at AFD too, and I've had a dodgy nomination or two; Holy crap, he/she is a person! I plan to review and (likely) switch to support later this weekend, but wanted to note my leaning on the off chance I don't get to it rapidly. 569:

significant press attention or have held an international, national or high level local office. If the subject does not meet this criteria they may still be notable if they pass the general rule for notability - that is significant coverage in independent (sometimes called "3rd party") reliable sources. This makes them notable enough for inclusion as long as the article does not violate

401:

privelages). (6) Reporting disputes that are difficult for others to find or see the connections with (conflicts of interest, pov-pushing or other disruption that may be "spread-out" over a number of pages, or sneaky / subtle distortions of sources that need full and clear reference to sources to show vandalism). I am of the belief that we do so much reporting in relation to RfAr and

3265:

articles, all of which are gender related. This is troubling given the candidates extensive involvement with controversies in that area -- exercising sysop tools in an area one is active, opinionated and notorious in tends to lead trouble in spite of good intentions. There are lots of good things to be said about Cailil and his editing as well, but I think I'm already on the brink of

1033:: Per Jehochman, Akhilleus, and SirFozzie. I'm sure if you looked at my history, you'd find some dodgy AfD comments as well, but the bottom line is that Cailil has a solid track record of mature, sensible, and level-headed editing. He's worked in the trenches already and handled himself well. Those are really the most (only) necessary characteristics for an admin. The rest follows. 1482:

compromise. He has a thorough grasp of our core policies. He is commited to serious research to develop encyclopedia articles of the highest standards. He has intervened in conflicts in measured and constructive ways. But in the end for the most important thing is his comitment to quality scholarship. This is how we write a great encyclopedia. We need more Cailil's!!!!

618:(which are blocked on sight). (4) Vandalism only accounts - as long as that doesn't mean innocent users are being blocked (ie IPs should never really by indef blocked since IP addresses are "dynamically assigned" - long blocks are better than indefs in these situations). And (5) continued disruptive editing after a full set of warnings, attempts at 3470:

concerned that he is not yet able to view disputes with sufficient neutrality, and that he has a tendency to take sides and make unsupported charges with pejorative terms at the editors on "the wrong side". Until I am sure that he can break this habit, I would not be comfortable supporting him as an administrator. --

2453:

statement was not accurate. And again, I'm saying "weak" oppose here. If evidence can be presented of more valuable or on point comments after the ones I posted above (I looked at the ones in which we both commented) then I am always willing to take that into account, but I am going with my own experience. Sincerely, --

311:

exactly the one I follow now in such cases. Direct the user to site policy on article/user talk page. If incivility reoccurs post to WP:WQA / a sysop's page / ANI. Ask for outside input (WP:RfC). If behaviour escalates document it and its history in a report page with reference to applicable site policies.

3176:

for context: the editor Cailil was interacting with had been resetting IP addresses within the same range and posting follow-ups to previous parts of the same discussion, resuming the same points as previous IPs within the range and using the same prose style. The first of the IPs to that thread had

2379:

without being able to re-look at the article as I am not an admin it is little difficult to judge the comment left here, although as a general suggestion, it is helpful to make some effort to improve the article in question as well, so that you can say, “I did the best I could with it,” as opposed to

687:

In principle short blocks (of a few hours) may help some editors to get the point but I have seen it make things worse rather than reducing/preventing disruption so it is a serious matter of judgement. In short, I'm against the idea of "cool-down" as a blocking criteria but short blocks (ie between

3445:

that administrators be able to stay neutral when wading into a dispute, and deal with all issues of user conduct fairly, regardless of which "side" that someone is on. It is also important that admins not immediately take charges at face value (such as Slrubenstein's accusations of "racist troll"),

3381:

but without sufficient diffs to back up these charges. Jagz was a longtime editor who even had a Featured Article to his credit, though I agree that he had gotten involved in a dispute where he was losing his temper. However, Jagz's behavior, though inappropriate, was a long way from something that

3295:

case back in January a number of editors wanted to call an event in recent Indian history the "Red Terror in India". I asked for sources showing that it was used I was provided none and I could find none only a trivial mention in a newspaper. I was wrong to link WP:REDIRECT to naming conventions

1258:

I'm sorry about the green-ness SheffieldSteel - the sig's supposed to be "grey" (that's what it's saying in the code) and it's showing up on my Mac as grey. That said I did see it appear green on a Windows system - I just thought that computer's monitor was badly calibrated : / Will see if I can do

876:

situation, and Cailil has since come to me a few times for help with sock puppets of that user, or other issues requiring administrative attention. My strong feeling is that Cailil does not need to come to me for routine administrative actions because he is perfectly capable of making the necessary

3682:

I look forward to your question Wisdom89. But I'd like to respond to your concerns about the above diff. This was a mistake on my part. It wasn't a speedy candidate - it should have been "strong delete". It slipped my attention & tomasz's edit pointing out my mistake was made only 50 minutes

2447:

One of the most important roles of an administrator is how they will close deletion discussions as they can undo years worth of work in an instant. The best way to gauge how they will likely close such discussions is by looking at their reading of policy and guidelines when making arguments. Saying

684:

while angry they'd be blocked to prevent further disruption. If they violate WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL while angry they'd be blocked to prevent further incivility. Block length (ie 1 hour or 5 hours) for minor infractions is already at a sysop's judgment call. If somebody is being incivil a short block

635:

continues to behave disruptively. Then they would be indef blocked. But that is not the end. It is normal that such a block would be reviewed by the community and if an experienced editor was willing to mentor then the block would be lifted and only reinstated if said mentoring failed to rectify

579:

a consensus to do so is found at AfD. After all the threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability and we verify how important a subject is through its demonstrable notability. In some cases this may not be included in the article at time of AfD but if sources can be found during the

525:

disruption, to protect the project (ie violations of privacy, BLP, copyright or for compromised accounts); to prevent blocks/ban evasion; to block an open proxy. Blocks are never at a whim of a sysop they are always policy based and in some cases (e.g indefs that may be contentious) need consensus

386:

is an issue, not one that will effect every user but it will effect users who are not very careful about what clues they leave to their identity and place of employment on the web, and those who use their real names to edit here. I myself had to take some action to preserve my privacy earlier this

3469:

making him regard on-wiki editors with more suspicion than necessary. As many of us know, Durova (his nominator here, I might add), ran into trouble for that, and was de-sysopped for it. To wrap things up though: I think Cailil has many qualities which would be very useful in an admin. But I am

346:

I haven't found such matters stressful. I have a lot of faith in the community even when a respected user disagrees with my decisions and opinions whether in relation to behavioural disputes or content matters I trust that the community will find a consensus that improves the project - ultimately

2466:

I understand your point completely. I just wanted to point out that the examples you provided, although they may be misinterpretations of policy, etc., they were all quite a while ago. And judging a candidate on a few diffs out of thousands of quality edits is a little harsh for me. Especially

393:

As regards the investigations list I prefer to keep my reports open and onsite. The Anacapa report had to be semi-protected recently because he was vandalizing it but other wise I believe in giving people the opportunity to see what I am presenting, and respond to it appropriately. I don't know

2567:

says a heck of a lot about notability. Maybe he was just stating that the article lacked any notability, or assertion of notability, and let me tell after reading that deleted article, he was correct, that article should and was deleted. I also want to point out the dates on all the diffs that

310:

patroller and blocked for ignoring the warnings he made what were considered by sysops to be legal threats against the foundation, and then a call for meat-puppets on his blog. This was a stressful situation - for a user who had only 10 weeks experience. The procedure I followed then is almost

3196:

I understand that the two 69.106 IPs in that discussion are likely the same individual; however, the point that the IP user was trying to make was that the lead as it then existed was not neutral. I think that is a reasonable concern to raise on a talk page (or a user talk page); to silence it

3264:

he suggests speedy deletion when it's clear that no CSD apply. I can't really tell if these are genuine mistakes or the results of tendentious interpretations, but neither is good. Also, the candidate's experience has been rather narrow. Well over half of his mainspace edits are in the same 10

2572:

have made a few shaky comments, and I stress may because he was mostly right on all them, but none of these comments are within the last 3 months, with two of them going all the way back to the Summer of 2007. I mean seriously people, let's give the candidate a break, because if you cant find

92:

led to the siteban of a long term POV-pushing sockpuppeteer. Since then Cailil has undertaken similar problems--usually in hot potato topics such as feminism and always with the utmost courtesy and diligence. People say there aren't enough admins willing to take on the hard issues. Here's a

3759:

sysops to make decisions about such areas and I would continue to work in said areas as a normal editor. Also I would recuse myself from using the tools in regard to editors which I had or will have a content dispute regardless of the topic area that is in. If promoted I would add myself to

1481:

page - an articl on a controversial topic which has attracted its share of dit warring in the past. Cailil has handled himslef in an exemplary fshion and has done a great deal to make this a great article. He is clam and patient with all other editors and works well when there is a need for

400:

There are only 6 reasons I would undertake an investigation. (1) ArbCom, user-RFC or ANI discussion. (2) Complex sock-puppetry. (3) Sneaky vandalism (misrepresentation of sources etc). (4) Harassment. (5) Tendentious / Disruptive editing (including sopaboxing, wikistalking, and abuse of sysop

3446:

especially when such charges are clear personal attacks. Administrators need to be able to take a look at a dispute, disregard a lot of the hyperbole and venom that's being thrown around, and help calm the situation. Administrators are not supposed to jump on the "witch hunt" bandwagon and

2452:

in which three editors offered reasons to keep and three others offered reasons to merge and in which the discussion in fact closed as merge is somewhat disconcerting as clearly there are reasons to keep. Now if it was a snowball delete and the candidate said that okay, but in this case that

2315:

I have had excellent interactions with Cailil, and have observed many other respectful conversations with editors he strongly disagreed with. A smart, informed, committed editor who has engaged not to use tools inappropriately in areas he feels strongly about (though that's a given for all,

568:

In regard to deletion, if notability cannot be demonstrated by the criteria for the specific type of article, that article can be deleted if an AfD finds consensus to do so. For example the subject of a biography about a politician needs to be / have been a major local figure who received

872:- Cailil is self-possessed and committed to high standards of accuracy, neutrality and verifiability. He would make an excellent administrator. I was going to nominate, but Durova's already provided a perfectly good nomination, so I'll state my opinions here. I first met Cailil on the 2795:

That's all I ask, a question about your concerns should give you a reasonable estimate of whether Cailil will be a good admin or not. I just felt that the evidence provided was shaky at best, and that a neutral with a question for clarification could have been better. But that's just

3289:

Daniel, about the two speedy concerns - the AfD has been discussed below with Wisdom89 and was a mistake. The other was a speedy !vote - under reason to delete no. 7 at WP:REDIRECT (the "Editcount fairy" is a obscure synonym for huggle) - but I should have elaborated my position.

1984:

I've known this user ever since I first started editing on Knowledge (XXG). He is the first person I talked to on Knowledge (XXG). I must say he is very qualified and has really good answers to questions. He has lots of experience and has made lots of great edits, especially on

1374:, Cailil seems to be very levelheaded, and certainly used to staying calm in disputes. Although never having heard of him until today, I am completely impressed reading about the work that he has done, and he seems responsible, rational, and considerate - so very important. -- 1150:, per great history of calm resolution of problems, and an excellent answer to question 3. I've opposed RfA's in the past for candidates that make dodgy AfD arguments, but the few that have been raised are a while ago and are pretty borderline. No problems here, good luck. ~ 3631:, I want to have an admin who will close as Speedy Delete and pull the trigger on the article without waiting for 5 days to pass. I echo Giggy's sentiments, above, on this one. Let me sit on the fence for a while longer, then, as the candidate is a good one otherwise. 556:

Notability and importance are like verifiability and truth. We measure how truthful a claim is by how verifiable it is. We measure how important a subject is by how notable it is. This is because notability and verifiability are quantitate - we can measure them.

565:

Notability is defined by how well documented something's importance is. If something has 100 academic articles but no newspaper coverage it may be notable but not well known. If something has 100 newspaper articles about it may be widely known and be notable.

3215:

issue. When a person repeats the same idea for eight days both on the article talk page and on Cailil's user talk page without acknowledging the invitation to get sources or otherwise adjusting to site standards, then a mild caution is a normal response.

685:

may be okay but it depends on many factors such as the length of time that that incivility/disruption has been on-going, but importantly a user must have had a proper warning before any such block - and if done right the warning can have the same effect.

379:

Well first off let me say I am not a member of these mailing lists nor will I be. I don't feel that the mailing lists or IRC channels would be a place for me or my work. And for the record I'm not a member of any lists, channels, forums etc to do with

630:

The 5th category is the most difficult and is the last resort. After a user has disrupted the project, received full, fair and proper warnings, has been brought through the dispute resolution process properly, has received a series of blocks and

1240:: Candidate's signature is too bright and too green. On the other hand, what I've seen of Cailil leads me to believe they wouldn't abuse the tools - and I do not think the AfD contribs raised by the opposers have any bearing on that question. 1581:

per candidate's edit history and answers, particularly 7 above. He is an article-builder as well as a patient vandal-fighter, is calm and civil, and shows he sees the rationale behind rules and policies as well as what they actually say.

415:

On a personal note I don't like doing report pages - I only do it when I have to. The main reasons I have had to was to show how big a problem was, how far it went back and why the behaviour was disruptive. I will continue to do this

1353:: level-headed, not afraid to speak up when needed, and diplomatic with the people with whom he has a disagreement, and has a sense of humor and self-derision when required. All the qualities we need in a good admin. Now, about that 387:

year. I had some minor internet stalking and harassment - so I take this matter seriously. However it is rare, very rare, that one meets a bully who feels it necessary to go to these lengths, and we have an onsite process for this

321: 89: 3418:

a troll, and Cailil should not have started from the assumption of "Jagz is trolling, I just need to find proof." There are multiple other such pages in Cailil's userspace focusing on different editors, with titles such as "sneaky

3338:. I am concerned about Cailil's quickness to call other editors "trolls" and "vandals", even when they are clearly not. He may be a good admin at some point, but I would like to be sure that he breaks some bad habits first. -- 563:). Organizations, web-sites, academics, games/toys, politicians, pornstars, athletes, books, films, etc all have specific criteria for what makes them notable in their fields and what sources are adequate to demonstrate this. 146:

First of all I'd like to help out with the back-log. I'm also interested in XfDs and I'm pretty familiar with AN/I so I'll try to respond to as much as I can help with from there. I'm also very interested issues arising from

1015:

I've worked with Cailil through various issues, and Cailil was very impressive with jkeeping their temper and never making empty appeals to authority.. all of their arguments were very firmly grounded in WP's policies.

2205:

Someone who is skilled, well informed, and is not afraid to venture into contentious articles in the interest of objective, sourced neutrality is of great value to the project. Cailil appears to be just such a person.

2418:

LGRdC, please see my reply to Wisdom89 just below, as it is also a response to your oppose, and how if you have to pull up a few shaky comments from 3 and a half months ago, and two from 1 year ago, then why are you

1647:- Your answer to question 10 strengthened my support for you 100 fold, it shows that you will think through your decisions before making them, which is a vital part of being an admin. And of course, you pass 3255:

he applies all kinds of content guidelines to a redirect. (Some of the principles can reasonably be alluded to in the context of RfD, but several of the comments suggest lack of knowledge of RfD standards.)

2223:

This Rfa has been going on for a little while, and nothing has been brought up that indicates this user will cause unneeded drama, be very rude, misuse the tools, etc, thus I trust them with the tools. Good

2449: 270:) I refer to policy ask for a WP:3O or RfC and follow dispute resolution as normal. This is not stressful because wikipedia reflects what mainstream sources say it will never reflect a "way-out" position. 3610:

should be limited, otherwise why bother with rules and policy? But deletions are another matter; Consider, for example, that an article tagged for AfD might actually meet the criteria for Speedy Deletion.

3450:

the attacks. Another venue where I saw Cailil taking sides, was at ANI, where he was criticizing just one editor (me) for using certain language (the words "enemies" or "opponents") while I was mentoring

2499:

Well, again, that's why it's not a regular oppose, but my hope here if nothing else is for the candidate to rexamine these kinds of comments and think of how to approach AfDs in a better fashion. Best,

838:

And before you have a chance to answer my question Cailil, I would prefer that you not use the generic answer provided there, especially now that there is a discussion going on about cool-down blocks. --

373:

play in the project? Are investigations of editors an important part of maintaining an encyclopedia? Is this an area where you believe you would be active in, perhaps more so as an administrator?

3422:, though I have not gone through all of them in detail. I did bring up the fact that Cailil was referring to these editors as "vandals", and he has toned down some of the language since then. 3751:

so I would not use privileges there or in any of that page's sub-articles. Nor would I use them in relation to portals, projects etc that I am (or have been) involved in building. As per

1989:

related articles. He is always helpful if I have questions and he doesn't mind giving me feedback. He seems to know alot about Knowledge (XXG). I only have good things to say about him. --

2021:

Has kept a cool and balanced head in some very difficult situations. He appears to have much clearer powers of judgement about problematic editors than some established administrators.

242:

but I can only participate in conflicts that I have knowledge or understanding of. I've also discovered and passed on open calls for meat-puppetry off-wiki regarding various topics.

133:

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

3364:

My concerns are that Cailil tends to play favorites, and I feel that this is a very dangerous quality in an admin. As an example, I saw Cailil focusing on a "wrongdoer" (such as

3075:

Seconded, a "Very Strong oppose" should be more than a seven word comment, and it would be helpful to know what your concerns are so other people !voting on this RFA can know. --

624:

The first 3 are obvious but 4 and 5 are not. Basically there is a consideration that indef blocking IPs is going to hurt an innocent user somewhere down the line so vandal only

1336:

Have noticed around as a sane & reasonable contributor, I trust Durova to nominate quality wikipedians, and I am not at all troubled by diffs cited by those !voting oppose.

3425:

However, I stand by my assertion that his diffs on his sandbox page which he claims are "proof" of trolling, are no such thing. Does this diff rise to the level of "trolling"?

676:

Looks like the cheat-sheet will have to be changed. Having read the current discussion I would still say that I would never block somebody for being angry. If they violated

2995:

Agree with the above arguments, and (relatively minor issue) I was a bit irked by the transclusion. More so by the two comments related to it being hidden on the talk page. —

320:. Who was using over 25 different IP addresses to avoid scrutiny on their account when povpushing on gender, feminism & rape related articles (see that report in detail 3761: 463:. IMHO it's a matter of being a bit stricter on civility at RfC/Us, ANI, admin recalls etc, but also establishing clear parameters about what is evidence and what is not. 3683:

before the discussion was closed. The now deleted article failed WP:NOTABILITY as no objective evidence was provided - I could have stated that more clearly at the time--

2763:

is about asserting notability, whether it be truthful or not, not whether a subject is notable. My point was that you statement "Lack of notability has nothing to do with

3302:

I would consider myself "involved" there and thus unable to use the tools except in the case of obvious blatant vandalism (and even that I would submit for over-view)--

2658:

here. It appears as though the CSD criteria is worded differently now than how it was in the past. Nevertheless, you don't speedy delete because of lack of notability.

252:

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?

3619:, while providing a means to close early, requires overwhelming support for deletion (or for keeping the article) before doing so. So, with three comments running as 2158:

Has experienced some of the ugly parts of the wiki and still maintained himself with a high degree of professionalism. Answers indicate a good head and lots of clue.

881:

shows 6800+ edits, 2000+ in mainspace and the rest nicely distributed, including substantial noticeboard and WikiProject participation, and he has a clear block log.

628:(ie usernames) are the ones falling under the fourth category for indef blocking. But this can only happen after proper warnings and a series of escalating blocks. 3154:

and "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves"; these requirements are in addition to, rather than being satisfied by,

470:

I'm not sure wikipedia policy can alter that. Beyond enforcing WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL we can only ask people to treat each other with respect and to keep an open mind.

2873:. I am particularly concerned about the editor's neutrality when editing topics close to themselves, probably the #1 cause of admin abuse of the tools in the past. 2376:

is inconsistent with the close and saying “No reason to keep” can be regarded as insulting to those who argued to merge, i.e. as if they offered “no reason.” With

3884: 878: 712: 2940: 3030:

Oh dear, Q7 is a bit disturbing. Never using IAR on blocking/deletion is not the best of ideas. We are run on common sense not on blindly adhering to policy. —

2632:(ec) His rationale is still wrong. If he wanted CSD A7, he should have explicitly stated that the article fails to make an assertion of notability. By using 3298:

On the matter of involvement I wouldn't be able to use the tools in areas that I am involved. And since I have made a number of serious contributions in

3902: 3731:

I'll elaborate a little Athaenara since my response to XDanielx was short. I have been and am involved in a number of content and structural changes to

2759:(to Wisdoms comment that comes before Nishkids per a hell of a lot of ec's)I like how you replied to just a small part of my comment. Anyways, of course 3703:

Would this candidate keep his admin tools away from articles and editors in the contentious subject areas in which he has been most deeply involved? —

3119:. Also, he defended POV wording by saying that the POV is the only one supported by mainstream sources, and suggested that the opposing view may be a 2126:

per Jehochman, MastCell & per Durova's nomination. Excellent thoughtful answers to the questions showing knowledge, skill & good judgment. --

752: 159:. Also I've recently become interested in the naming of images and transculsion conflicts from the commons as well. All this as well as usual sysop 3461:, including the administrator who had started the thread. I did mention my concerns to Cailil a couple weeks ago, and he asked me to go into detail, 2471:

saying I am going to support this candidate unless I find a reason not to, not the other way around. But hey guys, I have to go to work, so cheers!

426:

If I am promoted I would like to help out in dispute resolution process but I would not limit that to reporting and would rather help in other ways

3420: 3378:)), and then going to a great deal of effort to compile proof of wrongdoing, setting up a semi-attack page accusing Jagz of trolling and vandalism, 3211:

The IP editor had been ignoring Cailil's invitation to provide sourcing for the proposed change. The way that conversation looks to me, it was a

3606:

I'm a little concerned about Question 7; Though I don't intend to oppose for it, I'm not going to support at this time. I concur that the use of

1601:

I'm on the other side of the aisle (inclusionist), but his edits to articles that I've worked on have been nothing but helpful and constructive.

2636:

as his rationale, he's shown that he believes the subject has some sort of notability, but not enough to warrant an article on Knowledge (XXG).

1421:

I've seen you around before, and like how you generally keep cool. Your diligence and experience lead me to trust you with the responsibility.

688:

1-5 hours) have their place. There are situations that are made worse because of this and it's a matter of a sysop using their best judgement.

222:

has actually made me enjoy dealing with badly sourced and unsourced but notable subjects. Many of the improvements I've made to articles like

97:

editor I've most wanted to nominate for adminship. Long ago he earned my confidence, and he has finally consented to accept this nomination.

1713: 481: 2573:

anything bad in the last 3 months, and those diffs are the worst you can find in the last year, then dammit Cailil you have my full support.

2403:

Maybe I'm a rampant deletionist, but I don't see anything problematic in those AfD comments. They seem entirely reasonable. Sometimes there

1449:. I see no indication of any trust issues, and this user has a fine, long, edit history. I will take my standard position of support. ⇔ 2810: 2781: 2587: 2485: 2433: 1082: 739: 33: 17: 3637: 3597: 1498: 961: 782: 450: 776: 2502: 2455: 2392: 1405: 216:. I'm in a privileged position regarding these topics because I have access to sources and I can fact-check quickly and easily. 642:

as well but this falls under category 4 & 5 and usually involves block evasion or sock-puppetry before indefinite blocking--

2689:

You know what I'll do? Sometime today I will drum up some question for the candidate to see if they can alleviate my concerns.

2042: 3856: 3807: 3670: 3564: 3397:(deleted now, but admins can look at the history), and while Cailil was accusing Jagz of incivility and tendentious behavior, 3279: 2855: 2748: 2709: 2678: 2621: 2552: 1758: 1569: 1428: 921: 828: 746: 708: 84:) - It is a pleasure to present Cailil for your consideration. Cailil first came to my attention over a year ago during the 550:

In your own words, can you intimate the difference between "importance" and "notability" with regards to deletion criteria.

3650:- Switching to Neutral from above per Gonzo Fan. Should not be an oppose if I plan to ask for further clarification later. 3464:

which is why I spent so much time at his talkpage. I also have a concern about his apprehension about off-wiki "collusion"

3455: 2943:

is explained. Failing WP:N is not a criteria for speedy deletion, and admins who act on that assumption ultimately do harm.

2061: 93:

candidate who has been around long enough to weather quite a few storms, and he's unflappable. He has for some time been

3477: 3345: 3126:

even when the underlying issue is extremely controversial (public opinion in the U.S. is split 60/40; surely 40% is not

2895: 2881: 1841:- an all-round decent candidate, who has dabbled in all the right areas. Thoughtful and clear answers to the questions. 1302: 799: 732: 81: 2114: 449:

What should be done to encourage calmer environments around RfAs and similar polls? For example, would you support the

1541:

I've seen him around, seems level-headed and knowledgeable. AfD cites seem picky in opposes, and not representative.

1190: 986: 465:

RfA is a bit different I suppose. Perhaps we should encourage users leaning towards oppose to ask questions first.

3764:

so that if neutral editors found that I was using tools where I was involved I would resign or stand for RfA again--

2330:

Read and understood the opposes - but I think the project would be better off by having Cailil as an administrator.

559:

Now of course there are variations in our notability guidelines. This notability must be asserted and demonstrated (

3744: 3375: 2912: 2303: 1461: 1272:

In your sig, change color="grey" to color="#999999". Lower numbers will make the gray darker. Higher numbers, in

978: 467:

However people feel less inhibited to say/do things in cyberspace that would not say/do in face to face situations

2898:

link to other parts of the same dispute to which you are referring. I would like to say however that I understand

2870: 2725: 1648: 877:

judgments. In my experience, Cailil's reports have always been accurate and well supported by evidence. Cailil's

536:) or it should be contested at WP:DRV. The only other reason to delete a page would be user space deletion under 337: 325: 3006:

That was my doing, not Cailil's. Please don't count my actions against him. Feel free to post your concerns at

2211: 2055: 1900:

Thanks Gary King. I haven't done that in a while (double support). I must like this guy twice as much (and I

1719: 3394: 2918:) critical material should be integrated into articles to achieve NPOV rather than creating content forks or 3736: 2891: 2806: 2777: 2583: 2481: 2429: 2331: 1792: 1120: 1078: 575:

If a subject fails to meet the notability guidelines (specific and general) then the article can be deleted

3752: 1486: 2285: 1716: 1606: 1494: 1100: 954: 898: 3528: 3240:. There are lots of small issues with the candidate's interpretation of various policies and guidelines. 3130:.) To his credit, he eventually consented to neutral wording, but only after quite a bit of controversy. 1709: 1677: 424:- they should be used to help improve the encyclopedia by resolving disruption where and when it exists. 314: 209: 3487: 2568:

LGRdC provided: July 25, 2007, August 30, 2007, March 28, 2008 and March 28, 2008 again. That means he

2299: 2088: 2073: 1546: 1450: 1322: 1138: 1099:. Seen you around a bit, I believe. I'm sure you'll use the tools to the 'pedia's benefit; good luck. -- 975: 893:

because you see, atheism-related userboxes are just fine when they aren't disrespectful towards others.

333: 281: 3883:

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

1115: 813: 795: 460: 2165: 2131: 1513:. Excellent editor, civil, thorough and patient. Also direct and consistent. What's not to love? 1394: 1052: 894: 3740: 3524: 3105: 639: 560: 266:. If there is a content dispute (which in these articles case usually is around matters covered by 3781: 3719: 3707: 3651: 3402:

Cailil was completely ignoring rampant personal attacks and incivility by editors on the other side

3084: 2866: 2729: 2690: 2659: 2644: 2602: 2533: 2207: 2190: 1994: 1809: 1776: 1739: 1693: 1660: 1341: 1241: 1021: 1003: 940: 847: 497: 405:

that we should have a form report with a guideline about what we should include - like we have for

60: 3867: 3850: 3833: 3812: 3784: 3772: 3722: 3710: 3691: 3676: 3641: 3601: 3579: 3570: 3548: 3532: 3508: 3480: 3386: 3359: 3348: 3330: 3310: 3284: 3222: 3206: 3191: 3167: 3127: 3120: 3092: 3070: 3059: 3036: 3025: 3014: 3001: 2984: 2970: 2954: 2930: 2885: 2857: 2818: 2789: 2754: 2715: 2684: 2649: 2627: 2595: 2558: 2508: 2493: 2461: 2441: 2413: 2398: 2354: 2325: 2307: 2289: 2273: 2256: 2243: 2215: 2197: 2171: 2150: 2135: 2118: 2100: 2077: 2063: 2045: 2030: 2013: 1998: 1975: 1944: 1924: 1895: 1868: 1852: 1833: 1813: 1796: 1779: 1764: 1722: 1700: 1668: 1639: 1624: 1610: 1593: 1573: 1550: 1533: 1469: 1411: 1398: 1381: 1366: 1345: 1328: 1307: 1280: 1267: 1253: 1232: 1214: 1198: 1168: 1142: 1125: 1106: 1090: 1056: 1039: 1025: 1007: 990: 969: 944: 927: 902: 885: 855: 833: 650: 592: 533: 515:

I would never ever ever invoke WP:IAR for either. Blocking and deleting are serious privelages.

263: 123: 103: 65: 3660: 3560: 2980: 2950: 2850: 2799: 2770: 2738: 2699: 2668: 2611: 2576: 2542: 2474: 2422: 2147: 2110: 2096: 1930: 1911: 1882: 1848: 1819: 1788: 1748: 1563: 1520: 1403:

Should people oppose by saying "the support arguments aren't remotely convincing"? Sincerely, --

1362: 1071: 917: 824: 258:

Well, I edit articles that some people consider controversial (ie feminism) that tend to attract

3390: 677: 615: 580:

AfD then the article will not be deleted and if they are found afterwards it can be restored at

402: 388: 267: 3414:

Just because Slrubenstein was repeatedly calling Jagz a "racist troll", did not mean that Jagz

1064:

If all you have done wrong in the last year is make a few a comments that only some users feel

3846: 3732: 3632: 3592: 3428:

And sure, this diff by Jagz (which Cailil included on his page) is an uncivil comment by Jagz.

3299: 2281: 2269: 2026: 2010: 1620: 1602: 1589: 1510: 1490: 1230: 1207: 355: 219: 3616: 3151: 3147: 3139: 3109: 3098: 2919: 2908:

Since that dispute (which was almost 15 months ago) I have come to the position that (as per

2903: 2899: 2655: 1731: 420:, whether I'm promoted or not. As above the role of such reporting is WP:DR and emphasis on 406: 395: 366: 156: 3831: 3474: 3342: 2878: 2839:

Weak AfD arguments (as expected from a deletionist), doesn't show any knowledge of policy.--

2069: 1542: 1318: 1298: 1134: 726: 300: 75: 3612: 3607: 3502: 3182: 3158:, and one should not create a hostile environment for those who are concerned about this. 3116: 2764: 2760: 2721: 2564: 2529: 2468: 2384: 611: 581: 570: 537: 529: 506: 468: 307: 235: 160: 152: 148: 3032: 3021: 2997: 2159: 2127: 1862: 1390: 1048: 370: 203: 3245: 3007: 681: 619: 289: 277: 273: 239: 213: 542:

In short WP:IAR does not apply to using sysop privileges to block users or delete pages.

3778: 3716: 3704: 3491: 3369: 3202: 3163: 3076: 3055: 3011: 2638: 2321: 2181: 1990: 1957: 1805: 1773: 1682: 1652: 1337: 1277: 1017: 999: 936: 882: 839: 660: 383: 341: 223: 199: 55: 3212: 3155: 3143: 3135: 2654:

Basically, yes. I'm concerned that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of CSD and

2633: 812:

Before anyone manages to get any questions in, I suggest the candidate take a look at

3896: 3798: 3555: 3431:

However, Cailil completely ignored the comment by Slrubenstein immediately before it.

3270: 2976: 2946: 2840: 2409: 2250: 2234: 2144: 2106: 2092: 1917: 1905: 1888: 1876: 1843: 1559: 1526: 1514: 1422: 1358: 1035: 912: 817: 306:

he responded by making a number of wildly incivil comments. After being warned by a

293: 285: 193: 347:

that's all that matters and resolutions to disputes should always have that in mind.

3842: 2845: 2265: 2022: 2007: 1633: 1616: 1584: 1375: 1224: 873: 317: 85: 3575:

I have trouble supporting anyone that leads 'investigations' against other users.

3743:

to a number of articles) so I would not use tools there. Nor would I use them in

3860: 3841:- I am concerned about the deletionism, but otherwise meets my usual standards. 3825: 3821: 3765: 3684: 3576: 3545: 3471: 3354: 3339: 3303: 3217: 3186: 3065: 2963: 2923: 2874: 1293: 1273: 1260: 722: 704: 643: 585: 187: 116: 98: 71: 3615:

would dictate that, once the debate is open, it should remain open for 5 days.

2724:, yet has edited that page no more than a single time from what I can see. Not 296:

article in December 2006 - January 2007. When I tagged one of his sections as

3748: 3323: 3172:

I've reviewed the context for both of the two diffs you supplied. Please see

2407:

no reason to keep an article, or at least a reasonable person might think so.

1179: 1152: 935:

Cailil has excellent judgement and a level head, and will make a great admin.

441: 229: 228:

I do edit other things outside these categories and have been involved at the

3877:

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

3365: 3198: 3159: 3051: 2467:

since he was right about the final decision on some of those. I go into an

2317: 1276:, such as #aaaaaa or #cccccc with be even lighter. #ffffff is pure white. 2720:

One more thing, it also doesn't help that the candidate wishes to work at

604:

Under what conditions would it be appropriate to set an indefinite block?

2227: 1986: 1478: 365:

What role do you feel investigations of other editors and groups such as

259: 180: 2038:

for thoroughly and thoughtfully handling a very, very difficult editor.

1389:- trustworthy editor. The oppose arguments aren't remotely convincing. 1206:: Gonzo's reply to Wisdom below sums ny thoughts up. Good candidate. 313:

I was also involved in tracking and documenting the sock-puppeteer and

3887:

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

2298:

We need more academically inclined editors to become administrators.

1292:

Solid candidate, nothing to indicate possibility of misuse of tools.

272:

Now another aspect of my work here on WP has led me to intervene in

2902:

to apply to criticism sections and to criticism articles, and that

2450:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Soren (Guardians of Ga'Hoole)

798:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 614:. (2) Illegitimate sock-puppet accounts and/or block evasion. (3) 3266: 3393:. Further, while compiling his diffs, on a page initially titled 3101:

policy in a one-sided manner, saying that somebody who questioned

344:- who were involved in soapboxing, harassment & povpushing. 1068:

be a little shaky, then man your going to be the perfect admin.

962: 955: 324:). I've also reported incidents relating to soapboxing by the 1708:, per perusal of contribs, solid answers to questions, and my 173:

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

3177:

been posting to Calil's talk page nearly a week before. The

110:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

3097:

Thanks for the opportunity to explain. Editor enforces the

1938: 1827: 1133:

Checks out by me. Will get the jobs done and admirably so.

3438:

admin refer to an editor, even a disruptive one, that way?

2865:

per my only interaction with the user, in a discussion on

610:

There are a number of reasons for indefinite blocks. (1)

526:

to remain in effect. There is no ignoring these criteria.

459:

A few weeks ago I made a post to WP:RFC's talk page about

3407:(such as grossly uncivil comments by admin Slrubenstein). 2869:(top section onwards), which I visited as a mediator via 2179:

He has done great work around here. I'm glad to support!

226:

are fact-checks & edits to achieve proper sourcing.

29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

3181:

occurs late in a thread where Cailil's primary point is

2091:(see comment on talk page) I support Cailil for admin! 3467: 3465: 3462: 3452: 3434:

Especially as Slrubenstein is an administrator, should

3432: 3429: 3426: 3423: 3412: 3410: 3408: 3405: 3403: 3400: 3398: 3383: 3379: 3293: 3261: 3257: 3253: 3251: 3249: 3241: 3178: 3173: 3124: 3113: 3102: 2960: 2526: 2388: 2381: 2377: 2374: 2370: 1435: 770: 764: 758: 398:

so I can only comment on my preferences and what I do.

391:

and this is what I personally regard as best practice.

329: 206: 196: 190: 184: 3762:

Category:Knowledge (XXG) administrators open to recall

3715:

I see now that he responded to this concern above. —

484:

and post the answers here or a link to your answers.

3064:

Could you explain those concerns more specifically?

1906: 1877: 1515: 622:and a series of fair and proper escalating blocks. 3353:On what occasion(s) has Cailil done as you allege? 3150:imposes requirements that articles be written in a 288:activist and blogger who was pushing his blog as a 3382:should be referred to as "vandalism" or "trolling" 3050:. I have serious concerns about his neutrality. 2053:- seen this user around, have been impressed. -- 183:article that has taken it to its current position 1477:. I have watched Cailil for a long time at the 140:What admin work do you intend to take part in? 1912: 1883: 1521: 1432: 670:When if ever would you use a cool down block? 532:issue. A deletion must be within policy (see 3104:the neutrality of controversial material was 2890:I do take your concerns on board Krator and 389:Knowledge (XXG):STALK#Dealing_with_harassment 336:. And a number of other minor cases such as 88:investigation, where his patience, tact, and 8: 3523:per Le Grand and unacceptable answer to Q7. 2528:. Lack of notability has nothing to do with 1191: 1180: 186:. I'm also proud of my contributions to the 3019:I also concur with Bwrs and Daniel below. — 534:Knowledge (XXG):DELETE#Reasons_for_deletion 3859:personally - but I respect your position-- 3799: 3271: 2798: 2769: 2575: 2473: 2421: 2085:I am officially proven to be Anacapa and 1070: 505:Under what circumstances would you invoke 430:it becomes necessary to make such reports. 234:I'm also proud of the work I try to do at 179:I'm proud of my collaborative work at the 3454:Yet Cailil was ignoring the same language 1904:I didn't mean to !vote twice (my bad).... 509:for deletion and blocking, respectively? 3861: 3766: 3685: 3304: 3197:strikes me as being a non-neutral act. 2964: 2924: 794:Please keep discussion constructive and 644: 586: 53:Final (66/8/5); Closed as successful by 2800: 2771: 2577: 2475: 2423: 1072: 638:There have been indef blocks given for 3826: 2525:- Per shoddy AfD work shown above and 2501: 2454: 2391: 2380:only exhorting others to do so. With 2226: 1404: 952:. Per your very impressive experience. 18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship 1772:Switched from neutral (see below). — 1676:per answers to q7 & q10; clearly 1261: 117: 7: 2906:applies to criticism sections too. 2601:A7 is not a question of notability. 2369:. Although a reasonable comment in 496:Optional boilerplate questions from 480:Answer two of the exercises at the 910:per a lack of a reason not to. — 816:if he hasn't already. Cheers. -- 24: 3903:Successful requests for adminship 3747:. I am also involved in work at 1315:. Looks good to me. Good luck! 280:editing problems. The first was 3855:I've always considered myself a 1929:Double-support. Already at #29. 1860:Excellent answers to questions. 1615:Fully trust Durova's judgement. 1259:anything about that green-ness-- 3663: 3653: 3553:Could you please elaborate? — 2741: 2731: 2702: 2692: 2671: 2661: 2614: 2604: 2545: 2535: 1969: 1964: 1958: 1918: 1889: 1751: 1741: 1730:- Per answers to my questions. 1527: 1433: 1208: 3777:That's very clear, thanks. — 2851: 2841: 2166: 2160: 2039: 1681: 711:. For the edit count, see the 528:Deletion is likewise never an 461:tightening up how we do RFC/Us 161:intervention against vandalism 1: 3496: 3492: 2006:per Jehochman. Good luck! -- 1804:- Per reponses to questions. 1423: 1210:weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 3739:(mergers and application of 3503: 2959:My comment below to Wisdom89 2846: 2645:Make articles, not wikidrama 2504:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 2457:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 2394:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 2235: 1407:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 1222:Cant see any reason not to. 800:Special:Contributions/Cailil 3625:Speedy Delete per G12 (url) 2228: 1585: 1101: 707:'s edit summary usage with 129:Questions for the candidate 3919: 3745:category:domestic violence 3246:external linking guideline 3533:12:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC) 3174:the full first discussion 2355:13:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC) 2326:03:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC) 1617:Everyme (was Dorftrottel) 328:, tendentious editing by 66:13:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC) 3880:Please do not modify it. 3868:01:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 3851:00:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 3834:22:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC) 3813:21:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 3797:Switching to neutral. — 3785:21:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 3773:19:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 3723:19:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 3711:19:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 3692:23:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 3677:19:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 3642:13:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 3602:19:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 3580:03:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 3571:16:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 3549:15:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 3509:18:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 3481:19:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC) 3360:01:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC) 3349:01:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC) 3331:22:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC) 3311:13:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 3285:09:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 3223:17:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 3207:16:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 3192:07:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 3168:03:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 3093:05:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 3071:02:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 3060:02:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 3037:03:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 3026:06:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 3015:12:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 3002:00:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 2985:00:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 2971:00:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 2955:23:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 2931:00:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 2886:22:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 2858:19:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 2819:19:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 2790:19:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 2755:19:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 2716:19:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 2685:19:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 2650:19:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 2628:18:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 2596:18:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 2559:17:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 2509:19:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 2494:19:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 2462:19:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 2442:18:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 2414:17:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 2399:17:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 2308:23:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 2290:23:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 2274:14:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 2257:21:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC) 2244:18:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC) 2216:17:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC) 2198:04:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC) 2172:19:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 2151:16:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 2136:02:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 2119:23:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC) 2101:22:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC) 2078:20:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC) 2064:14:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC) 2046:23:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 2031:21:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 2014:19:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 1999:18:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 1976:18:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 1945:17:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 1925:17:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 1896:16:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 1869:15:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 1853:13:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 1834:09:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 1814:06:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC) 1797:22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1780:22:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1765:21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1723:20:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1701:18:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1669:18:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1640:17:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1625:17:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1611:13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1594:08:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1574:02:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1551:02:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1534:02:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1470:22:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1412:00:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 1399:21:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1382:21:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1367:21:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1346:21:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1329:21:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1308:20:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1281:20:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1268:20:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1254:20:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1233:20:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1215:20:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1199:20:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1169:19:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1143:19:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1126:18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1107:18:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1091:18:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1057:18:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1040:17:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1026:17:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 1008:16:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 991:16:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 970:15:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 945:14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 928:14:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 903:14:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 886:14:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 856:05:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 834:13:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 651:19:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 636:the editor's behaviour. 593:21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 440:Optional questions from 124:12:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 104:01:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 3737:category:gender studies 3395:User:Cailil/Jagz report 3248:as "site policy". Here 3146:complement each other, 2448:"no reason to keep" in 1734:abounds. Excellent and 451:Peaceful Polling Pledge 409:. Such reports are for 354:Optional question from 38:Please do not modify it 3441:Language aside, it is 3269:so I'll stop there. — 3010:and ask for a review. 1558:net positive. Cheers, 214:Project gender studies 3824:regarding Q3 and Q4. 3629:Speedy Delete per G12 2089:User talk:Hotpotatoes 571:what wikipedia is not 115:Nomination accepted-- 90:careful documentation 34:request for adminship 3486:Discussion moved to 2962:refers to that AFD-- 1442:07-3-2008 • 22:26:29 538:the right to vasnish 3117:assuming good faith 2867:Talk:Gender studies 2057:Anonymous Dissident 1787:per answer to Q10. 210:Portal:Men's rights 3755:it would be up to 3459:in the same thread 3048:Very strong oppose 2728:, but experience. 2060: 1710:previous reasoning 1592: 1357:signature... ;) -- 1229: 1047:A fine candidate. 814:the RFA cheatsheet 802:before commenting. 720:Links for Cailil: 620:dispute resolution 411:dispute resolution 396:wpinvestigations-l 338:Loneranger4justice 39: 3733:category:feminism 3728: 3672: 3667: 3640: 3600: 3511: 3457:by other editors 3300:category:feminism 3244:he refers to the 2913:criticism-section 2750: 2745: 2711: 2706: 2680: 2675: 2623: 2618: 2554: 2549: 2239: 2054: 1943: 1921: 1892: 1832: 1760: 1755: 1583: 1530: 1503: 1489:comment added by 1465: 1458: 1306: 1250: 1246: 1223: 1102:Mizu onna sango15 989: 974:You're ready. - 832: 407:checkuser rquests 367:wp-investigations 220:category:feminism 37: 3910: 3882: 3865: 3828: 3803: 3770: 3727: 3689: 3671: 3665: 3661: 3655: 3636: 3596: 3569: 3568: 3505: 3500: 3494: 3485: 3357: 3328: 3308: 3275: 3220: 3189: 3138:well, but while 3089: 3081: 3068: 2968: 2928: 2917: 2911: 2871:WP:Third opinion 2853: 2848: 2843: 2816: 2815: 2802: 2787: 2786: 2773: 2749: 2743: 2739: 2733: 2726:WP:EDITCOUNTITIS 2710: 2704: 2700: 2694: 2679: 2673: 2669: 2663: 2641: 2622: 2616: 2612: 2606: 2593: 2592: 2579: 2553: 2547: 2543: 2537: 2507: 2505: 2491: 2490: 2477: 2460: 2458: 2439: 2438: 2425: 2397: 2395: 2390:. Sincerely, -- 2351: 2349: 2347: 2345: 2343: 2300:ScienceApologist 2253: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2230: 2196: 2193: 2184: 2168: 2162: 2083:Anacapa supports 2058: 2041: 1971: 1968: 1962: 1941: 1935: 1933: 1922: 1919: 1914: 1908: 1893: 1890: 1885: 1879: 1865: 1851: 1846: 1830: 1824: 1822: 1759: 1753: 1749: 1743: 1699: 1696: 1690: 1687: 1665: 1657: 1636: 1587: 1531: 1528: 1523: 1517: 1502: 1483: 1463: 1454: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1425: 1410: 1408: 1379: 1327: 1296: 1265: 1251: 1248: 1244: 1227: 1212: 1195: 1187: 1184: 1167: 1165: 1123: 1118: 1103: 1088: 1087: 1074: 985: 983: 966: 959: 926: 925: 852: 844: 822: 786: 745: 698:General comments 648: 590: 413:not escalation. 394:what happens at 371:wp-cyberstalking 332:, harassment by 305: 299: 282:User:davidrusher 208:articles and to 121: 101: 63: 3918: 3917: 3913: 3912: 3911: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3885:this nomination 3878: 3810: 3675: 3666: 3558: 3554: 3541: 3507: 3355: 3324: 3282: 3218: 3187: 3134:Editor defends 3085: 3077: 3066: 2975:Fair enough. -- 2915: 2909: 2892:this discussion 2801:« Gonzo fan2007 2797: 2772:« Gonzo fan2007 2768: 2753: 2744: 2714: 2705: 2683: 2674: 2648: 2637: 2626: 2617: 2578:« Gonzo fan2007 2574: 2557: 2548: 2503: 2476:« Gonzo fan2007 2472: 2456: 2424:« Gonzo fan2007 2420: 2393: 2363: 2341: 2339: 2337: 2335: 2333: 2251: 2248:But of course! 2240: 2191: 2182: 2180: 2056: 1937: 1931: 1863: 1844: 1842: 1826: 1820: 1818:Per Jehochman. 1763: 1754: 1694: 1688: 1683: 1661: 1653: 1634: 1484: 1457: 1434: 1431: 1406: 1377: 1316: 1242: 1225: 1197: 1177: 1153: 1151: 1121: 1116: 1073:« Gonzo fan2007 1069: 979: 915: 911: 866: 848: 840: 809: 738: 721: 700: 582:deletion review 482:AGF Challenge 2 303: 297: 290:reliable source 131: 99: 54: 50: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3916: 3914: 3906: 3905: 3895: 3894: 3890: 3889: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3836: 3815: 3806: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3725: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3662: 3658: 3644: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3540: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3501: 3439: 3333: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3297: 3291: 3278: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3179:second example 3132: 3131: 3073: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2933: 2907: 2860: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2740: 2736: 2718: 2701: 2697: 2687: 2670: 2666: 2642: 2613: 2609: 2562: 2544: 2540: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2383:, please note 2362: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2328: 2310: 2293: 2276: 2259: 2246: 2232: 2218: 2208:Hiberniantears 2200: 2174: 2153: 2138: 2121: 2103: 2080: 2066: 2048: 2033: 2019:Strong support 2016: 2001: 1982:Strong Support 1979: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1927: 1855: 1836: 1816: 1799: 1782: 1767: 1750: 1746: 1738:explanations. 1725: 1703: 1671: 1645:Strong Support 1642: 1627: 1613: 1599:Strong support 1596: 1576: 1553: 1536: 1504: 1475:Strong Support 1472: 1455: 1444: 1427: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1384: 1372:Strong support 1369: 1351:Strong support 1348: 1331: 1310: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1235: 1217: 1201: 1189: 1171: 1145: 1128: 1109: 1094: 1059: 1042: 1031:Strong support 1028: 1013:Strong Support 1010: 993: 972: 950:Strong Support 947: 930: 905: 888: 870:Strong Support 865: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 808: 805: 791: 790: 789: 787: 717: 716: 709:mathbot's tool 699: 696: 694: 692: 691: 690: 689: 686: 665: 663: 659:Question from 656: 655: 654: 653: 637: 629: 623: 598: 597: 596: 595: 574: 567: 564: 558: 545: 544: 543: 541: 527: 521:be blocked to 516: 500: 493: 492: 491: 490: 474: 473: 472: 471: 466: 464: 444: 436: 434: 433: 432: 431: 425: 418:when I have to 414: 399: 392: 384:cyber-stalking 381: 360: 358: 351: 350: 349: 348: 345: 342:User:RichSatan 334:User:AB Pepper 312: 271: 246: 245: 244: 243: 233: 227: 224:Black feminism 217: 204:Women's rights 200:Gender studies 167: 166: 165: 164: 130: 127: 113: 112: 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3915: 3904: 3901: 3900: 3898: 3888: 3886: 3881: 3875: 3874: 3869: 3866: 3864: 3858: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3848: 3844: 3840: 3837: 3835: 3832: 3829: 3823: 3820:I agree with 3819: 3816: 3814: 3809: 3804: 3802: 3796: 3786: 3783: 3780: 3776: 3775: 3774: 3771: 3769: 3763: 3758: 3754: 3753:WP:UNINVOLVED 3750: 3746: 3742: 3741:summary style 3738: 3734: 3730: 3729: 3726: 3724: 3721: 3718: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3709: 3706: 3702: 3701: 3697: 3693: 3690: 3688: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3673: 3668: 3657: 3656: 3649: 3645: 3643: 3639: 3634: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3618: 3614: 3609: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3599: 3594: 3590: 3587: 3581: 3578: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3566: 3562: 3557: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3547: 3543: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3530: 3526: 3522: 3519: 3510: 3506: 3499: 3495: 3489: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3479: 3476: 3473: 3468: 3466: 3463: 3460: 3456: 3453: 3449: 3444: 3440: 3437: 3433: 3430: 3427: 3424: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3411: 3409: 3406: 3404: 3401: 3399: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3387:WP:VANDAL#NOT 3384: 3380: 3377: 3374: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3358: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3347: 3344: 3341: 3337: 3334: 3332: 3329: 3327: 3321: 3318: 3312: 3309: 3307: 3301: 3294: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3281: 3276: 3274: 3268: 3263: 3259: 3254: 3252: 3250: 3247: 3243: 3239: 3238: 3234: 3224: 3221: 3214: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3204: 3200: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3190: 3184: 3180: 3175: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3149: 3145: 3141: 3137: 3133: 3129: 3125: 3122: 3121:fringe theory 3118: 3114: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3100: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3090: 3088: 3082: 3080: 3074: 3072: 3069: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3046: 3038: 3035: 3034: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3024: 3023: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3000: 2999: 2994: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2969: 2967: 2961: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2952: 2948: 2944: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2932: 2929: 2927: 2921: 2914: 2905: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2883: 2880: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2861: 2859: 2856: 2854: 2849: 2844: 2838: 2835: 2821: 2820: 2814: 2812: 2808: 2803: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2785: 2783: 2779: 2774: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2751: 2746: 2735: 2734: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2717: 2712: 2707: 2696: 2695: 2688: 2686: 2681: 2676: 2665: 2664: 2657: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2646: 2640: 2635: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2624: 2619: 2608: 2607: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2591: 2589: 2585: 2580: 2571: 2566: 2563: 2561: 2560: 2555: 2550: 2539: 2538: 2531: 2527: 2524: 2520: 2510: 2506: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2489: 2487: 2483: 2478: 2470: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2459: 2451: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2437: 2435: 2431: 2426: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2412: 2411: 2406: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2396: 2389: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2375: 2372: 2368: 2365: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2353: 2352: 2329: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2314: 2311: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2294: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2280: 2277: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2260: 2258: 2255: 2254: 2247: 2245: 2242: 2238: 2231: 2222: 2219: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2204: 2201: 2199: 2194: 2188: 2187: 2178: 2175: 2173: 2170: 2169: 2163: 2157: 2154: 2152: 2149: 2146: 2142: 2139: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2122: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2084: 2081: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2068:Per Q&A. 2067: 2065: 2062: 2059: 2052: 2049: 2047: 2044: 2037: 2034: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2017: 2015: 2012: 2009: 2005: 2002: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1983: 1980: 1978: 1977: 1973: 1972: 1967: 1961: 1955: 1952: 1946: 1940: 1934: 1928: 1926: 1923: 1915: 1909: 1903: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1894: 1886: 1880: 1875: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1867: 1866: 1859: 1856: 1854: 1850: 1847: 1840: 1837: 1835: 1829: 1823: 1817: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1800: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1789:Ice Cold Beer 1786: 1783: 1781: 1778: 1775: 1771: 1768: 1766: 1761: 1756: 1745: 1744: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1726: 1724: 1721: 1718: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1704: 1702: 1697: 1691: 1686: 1679: 1675: 1672: 1670: 1666: 1664: 1658: 1656: 1650: 1646: 1643: 1641: 1638: 1637: 1631: 1628: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1597: 1595: 1591: 1588: 1580: 1577: 1575: 1571: 1568: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1554: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1537: 1535: 1532: 1524: 1518: 1512: 1508: 1505: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1480: 1476: 1473: 1471: 1467: 1466: 1460: 1459: 1448: 1445: 1443: 1437: 1430: 1426: 1420: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1385: 1383: 1380: 1373: 1370: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1349: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1332: 1330: 1326: 1324: 1320: 1314: 1311: 1309: 1304: 1300: 1295: 1291: 1288: 1282: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1266: 1264: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1252: 1239: 1236: 1234: 1231: 1228: 1221: 1218: 1216: 1213: 1211: 1205: 1202: 1200: 1196: 1194: 1186: 1185: 1183: 1175: 1172: 1170: 1166: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1149: 1146: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1129: 1127: 1124: 1119: 1113: 1110: 1108: 1104: 1098: 1095: 1093: 1092: 1086: 1084: 1080: 1075: 1067: 1063: 1060: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1043: 1041: 1038: 1037: 1032: 1029: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1014: 1011: 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 994: 992: 988: 987:(and friends) 984: 982: 977: 973: 971: 968: 967: 965: 960: 958: 951: 948: 946: 942: 938: 934: 931: 929: 923: 919: 914: 909: 906: 904: 900: 896: 892: 889: 887: 884: 880: 875: 871: 868: 867: 863: 857: 853: 851: 845: 843: 837: 836: 835: 830: 826: 821: 820: 815: 811: 810: 806: 804: 803: 801: 797: 788: 784: 781: 778: 775: 772: 769: 766: 763: 760: 757: 754: 751: 748: 744: 741: 737: 734: 731: 728: 724: 719: 718: 714: 710: 706: 702: 701: 697: 695: 683: 679: 675: 672: 671: 669: 666: 664: 662: 658: 657: 652: 649: 647: 641: 634: 627: 621: 617: 613: 612:Legal threats 609: 606: 605: 603: 600: 599: 594: 591: 589: 583: 578: 572: 562: 555: 552: 551: 549: 546: 539: 535: 531: 524: 520: 514: 511: 510: 508: 504: 501: 499: 495: 494: 489: 486: 485: 483: 479: 476: 475: 469: 462: 458: 455: 454: 452: 448: 445: 443: 439: 438: 437: 429: 423: 419: 412: 408: 404: 397: 390: 385: 378: 375: 374: 372: 368: 364: 361: 359: 357: 353: 352: 343: 339: 335: 331: 327: 323: 319: 316: 315:sneaky vandal 309: 302: 295: 291: 287: 283: 279: 275: 269: 265: 261: 257: 254: 253: 251: 248: 247: 241: 237: 231: 225: 221: 215: 211: 207: 205: 201: 197: 195: 194:Bride burning 191: 189: 185: 182: 178: 175: 174: 172: 169: 168: 162: 158: 154: 150: 145: 142: 141: 139: 136: 135: 134: 128: 126: 125: 122: 120: 111: 108: 107: 106: 105: 102: 96: 91: 87: 83: 80: 77: 73: 69: 68: 67: 62: 59: 58: 48: 45: 41: 35: 32: 27: 26: 19: 3879: 3876: 3862: 3838: 3817: 3800: 3767: 3756: 3699: 3698: 3686: 3652: 3647: 3646: 3633:UltraExactZZ 3628: 3624: 3620: 3593:UltraExactZZ 3588: 3520: 3497: 3493:Chet B. Long 3458: 3447: 3442: 3435: 3415: 3372: 3335: 3325: 3319: 3305: 3272: 3236: 3235: 3086: 3078: 3047: 3031: 3020: 2996: 2965: 2936: 2935: 2925: 2862: 2836: 2817: 2804: 2788: 2775: 2730: 2691: 2660: 2603: 2594: 2581: 2569: 2534: 2522: 2521: 2492: 2479: 2440: 2427: 2408: 2404: 2373:discussion, 2366: 2332: 2312: 2295: 2282:Sumoeagle179 2278: 2261: 2249: 2225: 2220: 2202: 2185: 2176: 2164: 2155: 2140: 2123: 2105:Fine, fine. 2082: 2050: 2035: 2018: 2003: 1981: 1974: 1965: 1963: 1959: 1953: 1901: 1873: 1861: 1857: 1838: 1801: 1784: 1769: 1740: 1735: 1727: 1705: 1684: 1673: 1662: 1654: 1644: 1632: 1629: 1603:JCDenton2052 1598: 1578: 1566: 1555: 1538: 1506: 1491:Slrubenstein 1485:— Preceding 1474: 1462: 1452: 1446: 1441: 1418: 1386: 1371: 1354: 1350: 1333: 1317: 1312: 1289: 1262: 1237: 1219: 1209: 1203: 1192: 1181: 1178: 1173: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1147: 1130: 1111: 1096: 1089: 1076: 1065: 1062:Full Support 1061: 1044: 1034: 1030: 1012: 995: 980: 963: 956: 953: 949: 932: 907: 890: 874:User:Anacapa 869: 849: 841: 818: 793: 792: 779: 773: 767: 761: 755: 749: 742: 735: 729: 693: 673: 667: 645: 632: 625: 616:Open proxies 607: 601: 587: 576: 553: 547: 522: 518: 512: 502: 487: 477: 456: 446: 435: 427: 421: 417: 410: 376: 362: 326:User:MoritzB 318:User:Anacapa 294:Men's rights 286:Men's rights 255: 249: 176: 170: 143: 137: 132: 118: 114: 109: 94: 78: 70: 56: 52: 51: 46: 30: 28: 3237:Weak oppose 3115:instead of 3110:tendentious 2875:User:Krator 2367:Weak oppose 2070:Ncmvocalist 1649:my criteria 1543:King Pickle 1511:my criteria 1319:Malinaccier 1274:hexadecimal 1135:Plutonium27 937:--Akhilleus 517:A user can 274:tendentious 218:Working on 188:Acid attack 3757:uninvolved 3749:Sarah Kane 3419:vandalism" 3322:, per Q7. 3296:however. 3108:and being 3106:soapboxing 2316:surely?)-- 2128:Jack-A-Roe 1920:Disclaimer 1891:Disclaimer 1736:thoughtful 1529:Disclaimer 1391:PhilKnight 1112:looks okay 1049:Ecoleetage 998:Looks ok. 895:Keepscases 879:edit count 807:Discussion 640:harassment 561:wp:proveit 442:User:Filll 422:resolution 382:That said 380:wikipedia. 278:disruptive 262:and a few 260:ideologues 230:Sarah Kane 31:successful 3779:Athaenara 3717:Athaenara 3705:Athaenara 3525:SashaNein 3488:talk page 3152:fair tone 3128:WP:FRINGE 3079:Chetblong 3012:Jehochman 2920:coatracks 2761:WP:CSD#A7 2639:Nishkid64 2565:WP:CSD#A7 2419:opposing? 2043:JonHarder 1991:Grrrlriot 1806:Shot info 1774:Athaenara 1655:Chetblong 1338:Pete.Hurd 1278:Jehochman 1122:cierekim 1018:SirFozzie 1000:America69 883:Jehochman 842:Chetblong 765:block log 713:talk page 661:Chetblong 330:User:Jagz 232:article. 3897:Category 3801:xDanielx 3700:Neutral. 3654:Wisdom89 3638:Evidence 3598:Evidence 3556:scetoaux 3391:WP:TROLL 3376:contribs 3292:In this 3273:xDanielx 3260:and and 2977:Rividian 2947:Rividian 2941:this AFD 2896:this one 2811:contribs 2782:contribs 2732:Wisdom89 2693:Wisdom89 2662:Wisdom89 2605:Wisdom89 2588:contribs 2536:Wisdom89 2486:contribs 2434:contribs 2410:MastCell 2252:Al Tally 2145:Garion96 2107:Moreschi 2093:Chergles 1987:Feminism 1770:Support. 1742:Wisdom89 1570:contribs 1560:Casliber 1509:, meets 1499:contribs 1487:unsigned 1479:Feminism 1424:Yamakiri 1359:Ramdrake 1303:contribs 1245:HEFFIELD 1083:contribs 1036:MastCell 976:Diligent 913:scetoaux 829:Contribs 819:lifebaka 733:contribs 678:WP:POINT 626:accounts 540:terms. 498:Wisdom89 403:WP:RFC/U 268:WP:UNDUE 181:Feminism 82:contribs 3857:mergist 3843:Bearian 3839:Neutral 3818:Neutral 3648:Neutral 3617:WP:SNOW 3589:Neutral 3539:Neutral 3443:crucial 3148:WP:NPOV 3140:WP:NPOV 3099:WP:NPOV 2904:WP:NPOV 2900:WP:CRIT 2656:WP:NOTE 2313:Support 2296:Support 2279:Support 2266:Livitup 2262:Support 2224:luck!-- 2221:Support 2203:Support 2177:Support 2156:Support 2141:Support 2124:Support 2051:Support 2036:Support 2023:Mathsci 2008:Cameron 2004:Support 1954:Support 1874:support 1858:Support 1839:Support 1802:Support 1785:Support 1732:WP:CLUE 1728:Support 1720:Jameson 1706:Support 1678:clueful 1674:Support 1635:MBisanz 1630:Support 1579:Support 1556:Support 1539:Support 1507:Support 1447:Support 1419:Support 1387:Support 1334:support 1313:Support 1290:Support 1226:BigDunc 1220:Support 1204:Support 1174:Support 1148:Support 1131:Support 1097:Support 1045:Support 996:Support 981:Terrier 933:Support 908:Support 891:Support 864:Support 740:deleted 523:prevent 356:daveh4h 301:dubious 292:on the 163:duties. 157:WP:BLPN 86:Anacapa 3863:Cailil 3822:Naerii 3768:Cailil 3735:& 3687:Cailil 3627:, and 3621:Delete 3613:WP:AFD 3608:WP:IAR 3577:Naerii 3546:Naerii 3521:Oppose 3448:repeat 3385:. See 3356:Durova 3336:Oppose 3320:Oppose 3306:Cailil 3219:Durova 3188:Durova 3183:WP:NOR 3067:Durova 2966:Cailil 2939:until 2937:Oppose 2926:Cailil 2863:Oppose 2837:Oppose 2765:WP:CSD 2722:WP:AIV 2530:WP:CSD 2523:Oppose 2469:WP:RFA 2385:WP:JNN 2361:Oppose 2148:(talk) 2115:debate 2087:] and 1970:scythe 1932:Rudget 1907:Keeper 1878:Keeper 1821:Rudget 1516:Keeper 1376:Nataly 1294:SWik78 1263:Cailil 1238:Oppose 964:Of War 723:Cailil 705:Cailil 646:Cailil 588:Cailil 507:WP:IAR 428:before 308:WP:WQA 264:tigers 236:WP:FTN 153:WP:FTN 149:WP:RSN 119:Cailil 100:Durova 72:Cailil 61:scribe 47:Cailil 3827:tabor 3451:Jagz. 3326:Nakon 3267:tl;dr 3033:Giggy 3022:Giggy 3008:WP:BN 2998:Giggy 2236:Chat 2167:Cobra 2161:Glass 1902:swear 1864:BradV 1849:drama 1689:cidic 1590:renjc 1355:green 1182:Orfen 957:Gears 796:civil 747:count 682:WP:DE 240:WP:RS 16:< 3847:talk 3544:Q3. 3529:talk 3490:. -- 3389:and 3370:talk 3366:Jagz 3262:here 3258:Here 3242:Here 3213:WP:V 3203:talk 3199:Bwrs 3164:talk 3160:Bwrs 3156:WP:V 3144:WP:V 3142:and 3136:WP:V 3087:talk 3056:talk 3052:Bwrs 2981:talk 2951:talk 2894:and 2852:Dude 2842:Koji 2813:) @ 2807:talk 2796:mho. 2784:) @ 2778:talk 2634:WP:N 2590:) @ 2584:talk 2488:) @ 2482:talk 2436:) @ 2430:talk 2387:and 2371:this 2322:talk 2318:Slp1 2304:talk 2286:talk 2270:talk 2212:talk 2192:talk 2186:King 2183:Gary 2132:talk 2111:talk 2097:talk 2074:talk 2027:talk 1995:talk 1939:logs 1828:logs 1810:talk 1793:talk 1717:Dean 1695:talk 1685:xeno 1663:talk 1651:. -- 1621:talk 1607:talk 1564:talk 1547:talk 1495:talk 1395:talk 1363:talk 1342:talk 1323:talk 1299:talk 1249:TEEL 1139:talk 1117:Dloh 1085:) @ 1079:talk 1053:talk 1022:talk 1004:talk 941:talk 899:talk 850:talk 825:Talk 777:rfar 759:logs 727:talk 703:See 633:then 519:only 369:and 340:and 322:here 276:and 238:and 212:and 155:and 76:talk 3504:ARK 3436:any 3416:was 2570:may 2229:SJP 2113:) ( 1916:| 1910:| 1887:| 1881:| 1845:Lra 1680:. – 1525:| 1519:| 1066:may 783:spi 753:AfD 680:or 668:10. 573:. 530:IAR 95:the 64:at 57:WjB 3899:: 3849:) 3811:\ 3782:✉ 3720:✉ 3708:✉ 3669:/ 3623:, 3531:) 3478:ka 3475:on 3472:El 3346:ka 3343:on 3340:El 3283:\ 3205:) 3166:) 3091:) 3058:) 2983:) 2953:) 2945:-- 2922:-- 2916:}} 2910:{{ 2884:) 2809:♦ 2780:♦ 2747:/ 2708:/ 2677:/ 2620:/ 2586:♦ 2551:/ 2532:. 2500:-- 2484:♦ 2432:♦ 2405:is 2350:te 2348:ai 2346:hw 2344:et 2342:tl 2340:os 2336:an 2334:Ry 2324:) 2306:) 2288:) 2272:) 2214:) 2143:- 2134:) 2117:) 2099:) 2076:) 2029:) 1997:) 1960:Vh 1956:-- 1913:76 1884:76 1812:) 1795:) 1777:✉ 1757:/ 1714:S. 1712:. 1667:) 1623:) 1609:) 1586:Ka 1582:-- 1572:) 1549:) 1522:76 1501:) 1497:• 1468:@ 1464:dt 1397:) 1365:) 1344:) 1301:• 1188:• 1141:) 1114:. 1105:/ 1081:♦ 1055:) 1024:) 1006:) 943:) 901:) 854:) 827:- 771:lu 674:A. 608:A. 602:9. 584:-- 577:if 554:A. 548:8. 513:A. 503:7. 488:A. 478:6. 457:A. 453:? 447:5. 377:A. 363:4. 304:}} 298:{{ 284:a 256:A: 250:3. 202:, 198:, 192:, 177:A: 171:2. 151:, 144:A: 138:1. 36:. 3845:( 3830:- 3808:C 3805:/ 3674:) 3664:T 3659:( 3635:~ 3595:~ 3567:) 3565:C 3563:| 3561:T 3559:( 3527:( 3498:/ 3373:· 3368:( 3280:C 3277:/ 3201:( 3162:( 3123:, 3112:, 3083:( 3054:( 2979:( 2949:( 2882:c 2879:t 2877:( 2847:† 2805:( 2776:( 2752:) 2742:T 2737:( 2713:) 2703:T 2698:( 2682:) 2672:T 2667:( 2647:) 2643:( 2625:) 2615:T 2610:( 2582:( 2556:) 2546:T 2541:( 2480:( 2428:( 2338:P 2320:( 2302:( 2292:s 2284:( 2268:( 2210:( 2195:) 2189:( 2130:( 2109:( 2095:( 2072:( 2040:✤ 2025:( 2011:* 1993:( 1966:o 1942:) 1936:( 1831:) 1825:( 1808:( 1791:( 1762:) 1752:T 1747:( 1698:) 1692:( 1659:( 1619:( 1605:( 1567:· 1562:( 1545:( 1493:( 1456:S 1453:Æ 1451:∫ 1436:§ 1429:C 1393:( 1378:a 1361:( 1340:( 1325:) 1321:( 1305:) 1297:( 1247:S 1243:S 1193:C 1163:a 1161:c 1159:z 1157:a 1155:m 1137:( 1077:( 1051:( 1020:( 1002:( 939:( 924:) 922:C 920:| 918:T 916:( 897:( 846:( 831:) 823:( 785:) 780:· 774:· 768:· 762:· 756:· 750:· 743:· 736:· 730:· 725:( 715:. 79:· 74:( 40:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Requests for adminship/Cailil - Knowledge (XXG)

Index