544:
The editor will come back fuming and red in the face, upset to have been blocked (not to mention the fact that we lose whatever constructive edits they would have made in the time frame). On the other hand, after an apology and strikethrough, we can forgive and forget. Hopefully, an apology will make the target of the rudeness feel better, and it shouldn't make the rude editor any madder; hopefully, (s)he will understand he did something wrong. Of course, sometimes this may not be useful. If the editor expresses no remorse, and simply strikes through comments with an uncivil edit summary and then leaves the message "Cool3 said to tell you that I'm sorry that you thought I was being rude," then this method probably isn't working. Similarly, someone with a lot of civility problems may not be getting the message, but for any first offense with a reasonable editor, this is a much better plan.
309:
present themselves. If we're looking at a rate of 20 pages per minute or some other extremely high rate, I think there's no choice but to block. The disruption to the encyclopedia needs to be halted. I'd block for a short time and leave a detailed message on the user's talk page with an offer to immediately unblock if he/she stops using the tool, and I'd post on ANI to let other admins know about the circumstances. In some sense, the block would be primarily to get the user's attention and clearly record a warning, which goes somewhat contrary to the blocking policy's injunction "Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log." However, the goal here is not solely to record a warning; it's also to stop ongoing disruption to the encyclopedia, and I feel it's the only available course of action.
267:, though. It is an issue for the entire community, but I will try to do my part. In order to protect the rights of Wikipedians and the basic dignity of mankind, I will always take administrative actions in an open and clear fashion and be open to reasonable objections. I will not discriminate; I will take whatever actions I can to protect the privacy of editors (deleting material as needed (or helping users request oversighting when necessary) and taking action against those who seek to "out" others). I will not block or delete without cause. None of this means that I will be tolerant of those who are here to destroy our encyclopedia, attack BLPs, or just cause trouble. It does mean, though, that I will be fair; I will believe in second chances; and I will in the words of
677:
subject area have certain customs within that area, those customs will inevitably have an impact, and they generally won't be challenged. So long as such customs follow common sense and do not depart too far from general practice, there is nothing wrong with them. If, however, a given WikiProject becomes vastly out of touch (e.g., by decreeing that all persons ever to pick up a baseball bat are notable), then we have a problem that should be resolved, and will be through AfD. Obviously when there is a conflict between a narrow group and the broader community, the broader community should and will win, but sensible guidelines from a WikiProject need not conflict with the broader community.
424:
so (certainly, people are trying to change this). On balance, though you may call me an idealist, I think that no consensus is meaningful. If the BLP concerns were so severe that the article should be deleted, why would a consensus not exist to do so? Personally, if I saw a lack of consensus or a consensus I did not agree with on an AfD that I was considering closing, I would leave my own !vote, hoping to work towards the appropriate consensus (and sidestepping the issue). I don't know if this answers your question, and I know it was long and meandering, but it's the best I can come up with for now, though I may try to clarify later.
86:) – I am proud to nominate Cool3 for adminship. He started editing Knowledge (XXG) in 2005, took a wikibreak in late 2006, and returned in early 2009. Since 2005, he amassed more than 6,800 edits across the project including a number of DYKs, GAs, and a few featured articles. Cool3 has focused both on the maintenance side of the project through vandalism intervention and other chores, and the content side through article improvement. In my opinion, because of this dual focus he is an invaluable asset to Knowledge (XXG). As Cool3's admin coach I am confident he is ready for the tools and will use them with great care.
260:. Wikipedians can expect to enjoy these same rights and freedoms within reason as they apply here. Naturally, both in law and on Knowledge (XXG), freedom of speech does not extend to cover hate speech, libel and the like, but Wikipedians do clearly have the right to express themselves in the proper venues. This, of course, does not include writing your own unsourced personal opinion into articles or attacking others, but freedom of expression is the basis of a free society. Wikipedians also have the right to expect that they will not be victims of discrimination based on race, gender, sexual-orientation, or age.
145:), there's certainly a need for more people to help close. I've participated in quite a few AfDs myself, and I think I could be of great use in this area. I'd also help out more in the War on Vandalism (Global Struggle against Radical Unconstructive Editing), and I think the block button would be helpful here. AIV often gets backlogged, and I'd help clear it. I'd also join in at DYK (when an admin is needed) and anywhere that the backlogs get out of control. Finally, I imagine there are some other routine maintenance tasks I might become involved in as necessary.
441:
no consensus AfD does not default to keep; it defaults to the status quo (which is keep). That may sound like a meaningless distinction, but it really makes a difference. If there's no consensus to change something, then the existing state of affairs prevails. I don't think it's the place of any administrator to change this, as it is a well established norm of the community. There is a definite movement to have no consensus BLP AfDs default to delete, but it has not yet attained the sort of consensus needed to be actionable.
464:
man, so I was never completely gone (you'll notice very occasional contributions throughout the period). After I'd been gone a while, my life got less busy but I was "out of the game" so to speak, and there just wasn't a spark to get me back in, so I was really just a lurker (reading the drama boards is a guilty pleasure). I came back for the same reason that a lot of people begin editing in the first place; I saw an article on a subject about which I am very knowledgeable that was just terrible (
351:
have a right to limited free speech and this right is already recognized in policy. When I referred to free speech above, I spoke of "the proper venues" and I'd like to expand on that thought for clarification. I wasn't really talking about expression unrelated to the project (i.e., soccer gossip), I meant that
Wikipedians have the right to civilly, politely and clearly state their opinions on project matters without fear of mistreatment, provided that they do so
571:
well replicate all of the problems associated with the ArbCom, but without the "teeth". Second, I'm concerned that this perpetuates a confrontational admin vs. user ethos. I understand the reasons for reserving seats based on adminship/regular status, but what if one of the user members becomes an admin? Must he resign? There's no real difference between the two groups of people other than a few buttons, but this seems to imply that it's us vs. them.
1178:, although the sporadic activity may indicate a potential for concern, looking into the way this user has edited and handled AfDs and such shows to me personally that this user would be able to use the tools. As previously stated, willingness to learn and mature attitude are excellent. The user also has a decent balance of edits across namespace, which further re-assures me of any concern regarding the sporadic activity. Good luck! --
1232:
primary mission is to promulgate free content, we value free speech and the like in the project only to the extent that they further our aims, and not as valuable good ends themselves, such that
Wikipedians do not enjoy meaningful rights (the usual formulation that one has but two rights, the right to leave/vanish and the right to fork is, though, I think, a bit too simplistic; there does exist, though, a consensus for it).
472:. Things hadn't really changed that much in the time I was gone, and I had followed most of the goings on, so it was almost like I had never been gone. For those concerned that I may just disappear for a couple of years again, I'll be honest. I can't promise that it won't happen, but at the moment my life is (unfortunately?) dull and not very busy, so I'll be here and editing for the foreseeable future.
210:
sources to be found. On the whole, I find that a contentious AfD is better than one with three "Per Noms" and one "Keep. I like it." On the very rare occasions when
Knowledge (XXG) truly stresses me out, I generally walk the dog if I'm at home or go back to doing what I'm paid for if I'm at work. Then after twenty minutes or half an hour, I come back to the dispute as calmly and rationally as possible.
2206:- while I laud the user for his content building, I'm not sure that experience prior to Feb 2009 provides much background, and the few months since then may not provide quite enough currency with policies/guidelines/norms as presently practiced. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, and I must point out that the majority of Cool's edits are to article space. (This is a good thing, of course!) //
1518:. Though I wish the candidate had done a bit of extra work in project space, but if article space is their calling, there is no reason to let project space drag them away. Also, I thought the answer to Wizardman's question was well-done, and I am convinced from that and the other questions and a scan of Cool3's contributions that they know what they are doing and have a
395:. Of course, in all cases, it really comes down to sourcing and the like. If most of the reliable source coverage of someone is more or less negative and our article is more or less negative, there's not much to be done; I think this should default to keep. If, on the other hand, the article is one of those peculiar ones that's more or less neutral (except for some
618:
incredible. There are hundreds of thousands of extremely valuable, encyclopedic images that we could use; indeed, I am of the opinion that few copyright holders (even the press agencies such as AFP, Getty, or AP) would not allow
Knowledge (XXG) only use. Of course, this has been proposed before and shot down on legal grounds (see ). Other than that I would upgrade
333:' (which denies due process) and the right to free speech, which does not extend past helping the project (you can't, for example, chat about your local soccer team's performance or use WP as a social site - it's unhelpful and would eventually result in a block). Do you think this should be changed? Should there be more than two rights - if so, what would you add?
1785:
946:
898:
355:. This means that if you want to put a box on your user page saying "This user is an inclusionist and wants to keep everything" or "This user is a deletionist and wants to get rid of all the cruft," you should be allowed to do so. If you want to oppose an RfA that everyone else is supporting, you should be allowed to do so. If you have a
423:
is still fairly clear "If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept," so if there is truly no consensus then though you or I might want to delete the article it may not be appropriate to do
1226:
Most will, I think, have appreciated my meaning, but I suppose that an explanation should attend my terming an answer (although surely not the candidate himself, whose judgment is, it is clear, sound) "profoundly misguided", which sounds, I guess, harsher than I'd intended. As an anarcho-capitalist
543:
Certainly. I think an apology serves
Knowledge (XXG) much better than a block. Blocks aren't supposed to be punishment, they are as I said above meant to protect the encyclopedia from ongoing disruption. If an established editor is blocked for a temporary indiscretion, that doesn't help anyone.
536:
In terms of dealing with an experienced editor with a reasonably good behavioural track record who has been rude to another editor (perhaps very rude) in a heated environment, do you take the view that a viable alternative option to blocking may be a firm request to strike through the offending text
236:
and on
Knowledge (XXG). Wikipedians have many of the same rights guaranteed to anyone by the laws and customs of centuries. They have a right to reasonable privacy, and to expect that personally identifiable information will never be disclosed without their consent. They have a right (represented
2221:
I can understand your concern, but I think the 5 months he has been back speak volumes. When writing featured articles (DYKs, GAs, and A class as well) you become intimately involved with policies/guidelines/norms. That is how I learned them myself. I think by actually experiencing them, instead of
676:
Eh. I don't really have a position on whether or not they should, but they certainly do. Knowledge (XXG) policy is the result of "custom and practice" and "shared norms and values" rather than the result of binding agreements or legislation. If a group of
Wikipedians most devoted to a particular
463:
It's a question that deserves an answer, so I'll try to say something meaningful. I left for a combination of reasons, but essentially I was at a very busy time in my (real) life. It's like they say, though, you can take the man out of
Knowledge (XXG) but you can't take Knowledge (XXG) out of the
440:
Well, IANAWL (I am not a wikilawyer) but as I said above, I think policy is fairly clear on this point: ""If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept." It's important to remember that a
407:
and then someone from the
Heritage Foundation showed up and wrote a more or less negative stub. Assuming it was sourced and verifiable, I can't possibly see deleting an article on the President of the United States. While this sounds farfetched, I think it's quite possible that the article on the
1111:
because of the strong nom. I remember Cool3s last RfA, and I was very critical in the oppose section (likely overly so). The grace, maturity, dignity, and integrity with which Cool3 handled the situation impressed me tremendously, and I've quietly watched his dedicated efforts to learn the ropes
570:
I agree that administrators need to be made more accountable, and that there needs to be some form of recourse for those in disputes, but I'm not sure that this proposal is the right way to go. In my opinion, this sounds a lot like a second ArbCom devoted entirely to admin abuse. As such, it may
527:
The goal of blocking is to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, a cool-down block will not necessarily accomplish this. As the policy now points out, cool down blocks also often have the effect of further aggravating an editor. In essence, though, admins aren't your parents; it's not their job to
350:
Well there is absolutely a third right (to which I alluded above); the right to be recognized for your contributions (through attribution as stipulated by the GFDL or CCBY 3.0), perhaps this isn't exactly a right (and I imagine that's not exactly what you had in mind). I think
Wikipedians do also
300:
Well, that's a pretty annoying thing for the user to be doing, but it's not a disaster. It's a GFDL no-no and will have to be fixed, which will take some time and be rather nasty. On the other hand, it's probably a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia (although the use of a script might
617:
Well that depends on what you mean by "change." Like many editors, I think that it would be best to change our image use policies to allow images licensed for non-commercial use (e.g., CC-BY-NC-SA) or even Knowledge (XXG) only use. The amount that this would add to the encyclopedia is absolutely
209:
Well, yes, I've been in a few conflicts over the years, but none of them were particularly nasty. I've occasionally found myself a bit stressed by the way an AfD goes or some such, but I try to just focus on explaining my views in terms of policy, or finding sources, or showing that there are no
1231:
since I was an adolescent, I am as great a defender of anyone of the right of free expression (supporting even the total rejection of libel and slander as even civilly colorable and the decriminalization of all speech, including threats and perjury), but I recognize that even as the Foundation's
290:
You observe a new, but autoconfirmed, editor moving an X-Y Relations page to an inverted version of the same title ("Y-X Relations") using the page move feature, and then copy/pasting the original page back. On looking at the editor's contribution history, you see he has done this several times
2619:
Like David Fuchs, pending further inspection of contributions. Answer to Q5 may be assuming a little too much good faith for the candidate's own good — using a clearly unauthorised bot to perform page moves is fairly obviously disruptive, and I was looking for something more decisive — but the
2498:
I have niggling concerns that this editor is too into Wiki-politics, which has generally proven quite harmful. He's apparently been trying to become an admin all along, which is a minor concern. He was involved in coaching, which is another minor concern. And the answer to the question about
494:
Infrequently. Such an image may almost never be used simply to show what a person looks like as this fails the "no free equivalent available clause."(there are a few exceptions to this floating around that I can't seem to find. The most memorable one is a former porn star who no longer appears
2514:
An admin should be an editor who can make several edits daily over a long period of time. I hate to say it, but with less than 7,000 edits (barely over counting deleted edits), I don't quite know if you are ready. If you came back to RfA later with 10,000 or so edits, my view would probably be
308:
I'd begin of course by trying a talk page message. You say he's unresponsive, but there's always a chance that he might respond. If "email this user" is enabled, I'd also send an email on the chance that it might get through. Assuming that he doesn't respond, though, only unfortunate options
669:
Can WikiProject policies widen or narrow community policies or guidelines for articles within the scope (two examples: can WikiProject FooSport determine that any competitor in FooSport at a particular level is notable? that no stubs of FooSport participants be permitted and any stubs must be
1212:
I supported three years ago, and I see nothing (save perhaps the profoundly misguided response to question four, which does not, one is happy to note, implicate any admin actions) to suggest that I shouldn't now; I am able to conclude with a good measure of confidence, in fact, that
2088:- I felt odd to be one of the few people supporting your last RfA; but I saw only minor problems then. Now you really do look like a pretty exemplary candidate - a look through recent contributions give me no concerns and reveals many intelligent and useful edits. Good luck. ~
328:
A tricky one for you: I am slightly concerned about your view on a Wikipedian's rights. I'm pretty hardcore on my views: Wikipedians have two rights, and two alone: the right to fork, and the right to leave. Specifically, I'm talking about such things such as 'blocking per
495:
publicly and does not allow pictures to be taken. Thus, editors have decided that a non-free image is not replaceable). On the other hand, a non-free image of a living person can be used if it is iconic or historically significant. For example, the classic photo of
271:, "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of" what we are trying to accomplish here. ("Ask not what Knowledge (XXG) can do for you, but what you can do for Knowledge (XXG)")
2305:
He. As for the projectspace, I will say that I consider myself quite involved in AfD and that I watchlist several policy pages and regularly participate in the discussions there, but naturally it's up to you to decide what you think of my level of activity there.
520:
In your admin coaching session (linked above), you didn't answer the coach's follow-up question as to why "cool-down" blocks are no longer used (by policy). Is it because there's an overriding raison-d'etre for blocking that cuts across any "cooling-down" purpose?
654:
does apply here, you shouldn't link to these essays and expect them to carry the day. These essays represent well-thought viewpoints and can be helpful, but they're not be all end alls. One still needs to provide a rational well thought out argument (see also
2241:- Some good content work, but not enough to inspire confidence given the flimsy track record in the project space. Also, considering the sporadic activity, I'd like to see a few more months in several other areas before I can be comfortable supporting.
359:
reason to suggest the recall of an administrator, you should be allowed to do so. Obviously, if you start using these "rights" to become disruptive, you lose them (perhaps in that sense they are not exactly rights). But if everyone just uses a little
399:
concerns) but ends up casting the subject negatively, as if written by an opponent, I think delete may be the best option to protect the privacy of the individual involved and perhaps protect against legal action depending on just what the issues
499:
covered in napalm is iconic, historically significant and totally non-replaceable. Although she is still living, a picture of her today would not serve in any way as a replacement for "one of the most memorable images of the twentieth century."
1653:
While I disagree that no consensus closures should always default to keep (I believe there are some instances where no con. defaults to delete and have closed as such), I understand your rationale behind your answer, so my vote stands.
2290:
That would seem to be content-related (so you could say it's not really another area). And not admin-related. Although it's commendable that (s)he's created a project. Just my thoughts, I'm not going either way at the moment -
182:
291:
already for different X-Y Relations articles, and appears to be doing it very rapidly. You suspect he's using an automated tool or script of some kind to do it, and you observe he is unresponsive to messages at the moment.
2606:
Pending dip through contribs. The previous RfA's didn't bring up any worrying issues (not enough experience, not enough recent experience) and I have seen the user's dedication to high quality content first hand.
468:), and I decided to fix that problem. After I started editing seriously again, the old addiction came back. Before I knew it, I was reverting vandalism, I was back on AfD, and I was starting to get involved in
390:
I think this is a very case by case issue. If, for example, the article is about a notable living criminal, it will tend to largely be "negative". There just aren't very many good things to say about a
1692:. No reason not to support. Also, I lol'd at "when Knowledge (XXG) truly stresses me out, I go back to doing what I'm paid for if I'm at work. Then after twenty minutes or half an hour, I come back".
408:
leader of an African country might look this way. I think the same tends to apply. The libel laws of the United States tend to reflect a distinction like this. The standard for libel against a
419:
On the other hand, with a person of decidedly marginal notability, it is often best to err on the side of his/her privacy. We could wikilawyer over the details of closing these, but I think
1214:
701:
128:
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:
185:
is successful. I've written a number of DYK articles, which are displayed on my userpage. Finally, although it's hardly an FA much less a GA, I'm quite proud of the work I did on
1160:. As per nominators recommendation, and mature attitude of Cool3 and his willingness to learn, grow. Also respect to his article building. User will be an asset, good nomination. (
457:
Can you discuss your lengthy period of inactivity? I don't mean to pry, but I'm curious as to the reasons for ceasing editing and your return. Don't feel obligated to answer this.
245:(i.e., not to be blocked arbitrarily, not to have their articles deleted out of process, to request the review of administrative actions including blocks and bans within reason).
1587:. An excellent contributor and nothing to indicate potential tool abuse. In fact, I think Cool3 would be a great benefit as an admin. The extended break doesn't bother me. ···
312:
If the user is proceeding at a slower rate and the threat of disruption is not quite so severe, I would post on ANI first, get some input from others and then act accordingly.
173:(both of course with the help of many others including the excellent regulars at FAC, GAN, and the MILHIST A-Class process). I'm also working my way (hopefully) to a MILHIST
234:"Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"
1771:, Cool3 is a level headed and well intentioned editor (aka, tends to agree with me :) I haven't had time to make a closer evaluation, but we need more admins like that.
384:
is up for AfD, whose coverage is rather scant and mainly negative. It's a split, no-consensus decision. Should said no consensus closure default to keep or delete? Why?
193:
on AfD when I found, and I managed to save it and turn it into what I consider perhaps the best article in the world on the subject (though that may not be saying much).
203:
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?
2710:
2442:
342:
174:
528:
tell you when to cool down. They're janitors here to maintain the encyclopedia. If you're damaging it, you will be blocked; if you're not, you shouldn't be.
650:
Certainly. I can't wow you with a statistic, but an enormous number of AfDs close per WP:SNOW. OUTCOMES and ATA are also commonly cited in AfD. Of course
1626:
338:
879:
875:
716:
711:
706:
2728:
233:
2666:- willingness to answer 12 questions at RFA shows willingness to perpetuate a broken system and to engage in, if not instruction, some form of creep.
926:
758:
696:
2057:
Pleased to offer full support after a slightly "moral" support in the last RFA. Delighted you kept the article building focus. More than sufficent
1630:
1622:
334:
320:
2033:
403:
There's also the question of the notability of the person involved. Let's imagine for a second that until a week ago we had no article on
301:
suggest some one with some experience and perhaps an intent to disrupt). Given that on the whole is probably a well-meant effort (and per
1509:
1821:
33:
17:
1680:
969:
The old RfAs are not showing up in the general comments section, at least for me. The code seems to be there. Can anyone fix? Thanks,
745:
788:
2667:
782:
2651:
2631:
1886:
1445:
1881:
User has been around since Oct 2005 and see enough recent activity in 2009 and understanding of policy is good.See no concerns.
186:
1728:
There is a solid understanding of policy's here and growth as an editor. I have no issues with voting support this time around.
1050:
2462:
2446:
2261:
2168:
2152:
1287:
1241:"right" to vanish is a bit of a misnomer. It's a courtesy, not a right, and it is only extended to editors in good standing.
413:
2585:
an editor should have a longer history than a year before 2006 and a couple of months this year before getting admin tools.
752:
305:, I'd hate to block the user, as that could mean losing a potentially valuable contributor, so I'd search for alternatives.
2273:
2386:
797:
1882:
814:
738:
434:
A nice answer, though I have a follow-up question on your one point. Should no consensus AfDs always default to keep?
83:
560:
reasonable grievances against the use of or threat to use administrator tools in a way a user believes has breached
1753:
252:. Knowledge (XXG) has long made claims about the right to the free and open exchange of information, the lack of
1961:
1077:
826:
1515:
496:
2028:
1969:
The opposition makes valid points, but he's got a long enough history that I'm comfortable supporting. - Dank (
1927:
1530:
141:
I'd certainly like to help out at AfD. While the backlogs aren't what they once were (back in the days before
105:
2620:
answer does show good knowledge and a willingness to block if necessary, so I'd be harsh to oppose over that.—
241:) to receive recognition for their contributions in the form of attribution. They have a reasonable right to
1837:
1816:
1609:
1376:
2571:
2526:
2412:
2356:
1940:
1797:
1773:
1062:
962:
863:
841:
553:
2222:
simply reading them, he in fact has a deeper more meaningful understanding of how Knowledge (XXG) works.
1116:, and I have no doubt that WP would benefit greatly if this editor had a few extra tools to work with. —
1023:
Has experience with content building, and has experience in an administrative area (AFD). Best of luck!
656:
651:
274:
For the tl;dr folks. Yes, Wikipedians have rights and I will do my best to uphold them in all that I do.
2671:
2466:
2172:
1733:
1715:
1465:
1328:
178:
2709:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
1768:
1742:
1605:
810:
637:
253:
1621:- Although I give you a month before you decide that rights sometimes get in the way of common sense!
537:
and apologise to the target? What criteria would be relevant to judging whether to use this strategy?
2648:
2628:
2281:
2227:
1442:
1200:
1165:
1125:
1073:
1040:
91:
2333:
evidence of insufficient judgement, preparation, and/or understanding of Knowledge (XXG) consensus.
1709:. Enough recent activity; I'm satisfied you will do well with the administrative tools. Good luck,
469:
2693:
2675:
2658:
2613:
2594:
2573:
2553:
2536:
2506:
2493:
2489:
2470:
2436:
2416:
2392:
2372:
2358:
2342:
2315:
2300:
2296:
2285:
2267:
2242:
2231:
2216:
2191:
2176:
2143:
2120:
2116:
2104:
2080:
2051:
2039:
2023:
2020:
2011:
1995:
1974:
1964:
1946:
1931:
1923:
1914:
1890:
1873:
1864:
1841:
1827:
1799:
1777:
1759:
1737:
1720:
1701:
1684:
1664:
1648:
1613:
1599:
1579:
1560:
1537:
1523:
1488:
1469:
1452:
1422:
1406:
1383:
1349:
1345:
1332:
1315:
1294:
1253:
1249:
1236:
1221:
1204:
1187:
1169:
1152:
1132:
1099:
1081:
1064:
1044:
1027:
998:
994:
981:
977:
964:
938:
934:
920:
890:
865:
843:
611:
If you had the power to change a policy, which would you choose and what would you change and why?
579:
488:
Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a person who is alive be used on Knowledge (XXG)?
117:
95:
2559:
2062:
619:
396:
361:
2455:
2368:
2338:
2251:
2188:
2161:
2136:
1899:
1811:
1595:
1504:
1431:
1400:
1368:
1281:
1097:
1024:
914:
2151:- Seeing Cool3 around has left a great taste in my mouth; he's much improved from his last RfA.
561:
330:
1072:
I'd like to see more "time served", but the quality and breadth of your work seems to be good.
2590:
2564:
2516:
2408:
2349:
1790:
1697:
1675:
1055:
955:
856:
834:
2058:
1519:
1113:
633:
142:
2608:
2503:
1857:
1729:
1711:
1553:
1483:
1461:
1324:
1183:
888:
257:
162:
1570:
641:
598:
594:
420:
381:
302:
2641:
2621:
2311:
2277:
2223:
2073:
1435:
1416:
1196:
1161:
1120:
1036:
732:
282:
268:
249:
113:
87:
77:
1035:
Excellent user; I believe that Cool3 would be an excellent addition to the admin corps.
2485:
2292:
2214:
2112:
2048:
1970:
1870:
1655:
1639:
1341:
1266:
1242:
987:
970:
930:
449:
372:
264:
218:
166:
2722:
2450:
2364:
2334:
2185:
2156:
2131:
1958:
1588:
1575:
1497:
1393:
1363:
1313:
1275:
1233:
1218:
1149:
1141:
1091:
907:
409:
392:
226:
Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
1477:
I really liked your answers to the questions; they outweigh my experience concerns.
1215:
the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive
2586:
2426:
1985:
1693:
404:
104:
I hereby accept. Also, for anyone interested, my admin coaching page can be found
1898:
Level-headed and all signs indicate a good content creator. We need more of this.
1434:
was an interesting study. I didn't see anything of concern in his contributions.—
2500:
2379:
1847:
1833:
1548:
1478:
1179:
883:
480:
242:
54:
2686:
2546:
2307:
2089:
2067:
2004:
728:
512:
109:
73:
2703:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
2207:
2063:
on balance this is not likely to cause any issues with using the extra tools
670:
redirected to team roster lists until something beyond a stub is written)?
1049:
Very helpful editor + dedicated content builder + active vandal fighter =
2377:
How did you arrive at that arbitrary number? Why is 3 any better than 4?
2347:
For what it's worth, this is only his 3rd—one was declined and deleted. –
1955:
1303:
2484::Not enough contributions historically to inspire confidence or trust!
1638:, looks good, though tentative pending answer to my follow-up question.
501:
248:
Knowledge (XXG) itself is also heavily influenced by the rights of the
58:
1784:
2713:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
813:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review
161:
As KnightLago mentioned, I've been involved in a few FAs. I wrote
556:, a community-driven process—still in draft form—for dealing with
1228:
238:
61:
155:
What are your best contributions to Knowledge (XXG), and why?
2423:
Could you please explain your reasoning behind this oppose? -
1460:- I analyzed his edits, and there is nothing to worry about.
1089:
Very dedicated, very coolheaded editor. I'm glad to support.
102:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
2541:
Have we really increased the edit count requirement to ten
2061:. Okay, some more stuff in project space might be good but
874:
Yes. The first nom was declined and deleted, the second is
2272:
Maybe I am confused, but from my understanding he founded
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
135:
What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
1357:
It's about time. Good work in a wide range of areas.
1145:
776:
770:
764:
465:
190:
170:
1869:
Excellent editor: opposition in past RfAs were bogus.
2276:
and has contributed pretty extensively in that area.
929:should now be (re)deleted, to prevent confusion. -
2363:Yeah, just noticed that. Indenting and striking.
2329:as a 4th nom. Repeated attempts at adminship are
593:I've been most active in discussions relating to
2545:edits? Don't you think that's a bit excessive?
2047:, I see no reason not to support at this time.
1858:
1848:
852:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Cool3 4
644:, for a few) have any weight in XFD debates?
8:
927:Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_adminship/Cool3
702:Requests for adminship/Cool3 (as Cool three)
587:What policy areas have you contributed to?
364:, I think that "rights" work out just fine.
795:Edit summary usage for Cool3 can be found
601:, both of which I have edited a few times.
2558:"You only have 125,000 edits? Oppose per
1809:Can't find anything worth opposing over.
263:Protecting rights is not the job for one
1782:We need more admins who agree with you?
832:Editing stats posted at the talk page. –
809:Please keep discussion constructive and
694:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship
293:Please describe how you would react.
7:
2019:- Very well thought-out responses.
692:
552:What is your view of the notion of
217:Additional optional questions from
281:Additional optional question from
24:
2729:Successful requests for adminship
2445:would satisfy as an explanation.
1783:
1623:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
944:
896:
335:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
1323:No problems here. Good luck!
1265:- excellent article contribs;
1112:since that time. Exceptional
717:Requests for adminship/Cool3 4
712:Requests for adminship/Cool3 3
707:Requests for adminship/Cool3 2
414:New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
1:
1148:and no blocks. Sincerely, --
1674:This user can be trusted. --
1227:and a devoted member of the
697:Requests for adminship/Cool3
1767:. From what I have seen at
1142:User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards
827:User:Neurolysis/Counters.js
815:Special:Contributions/Cool3
187:Kosovan–Malaysian relations
124:Questions for the candidate
2745:
882:, and this is the fourth.
53:Final (55/7/1); Closed by
2694:08:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
2685:Pending response to Q12.
2676:19:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
2659:02:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
2638:01:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
2614:17:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
2610:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
2595:17:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
2574:17:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
2554:17:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
2537:05:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
2507:16:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
2494:02:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
2471:17:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
2437:21:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
2417:06:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
2393:17:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
2373:02:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
2359:02:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
2343:02:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
2316:20:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
2301:20:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
2286:19:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
2268:18:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
2232:19:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
2217:17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
2192:17:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
2177:17:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
2144:06:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
2128:. I don't see why not. —
2121:18:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
2105:15:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
2081:13:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
2052:11:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
2040:17:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
2012:17:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
1996:21:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
1975:14:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
1965:09:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
1947:00:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
1932:22:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
1915:22:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
1891:21:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
1874:20:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
1865:18:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
1842:08:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
1828:05:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
1800:06:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
1778:05:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
1760:23:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
1738:21:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
1721:20:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
1702:20:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
1685:18:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
1665:20:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
1649:14:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
1631:14:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
1614:13:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
1600:07:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
1580:07:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
1561:06:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
1538:05:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
1510:03:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
1496:No major concerns here. -
1489:03:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
1470:02:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
1453:02:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
1423:02:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
1407:02:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
1384:23:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
1350:23:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
1333:20:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
1316:20:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
1295:19:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
1254:05:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
1237:20:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
1222:19:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
1205:19:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
1188:19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
1170:19:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
1153:18:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
1133:17:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
1100:17:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
1082:17:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
1065:17:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
1045:16:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
1028:16:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
999:14:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
982:05:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
965:16:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
939:16:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
921:16:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
891:16:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
866:16:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
844:16:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
371:Additional question from
343:02:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
319:Additional question from
118:15:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
96:15:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
2706:Please do not modify it.
850:Should this be moved to
632:Do longstanding essays (
2499:rights is truly awful.
1391:Good enough for me. – (
1340:Good luck as an admin.
448:Optional question from
256:, and various forms of
165:from scratch and built
38:Please do not modify it
1883:Pharaoh of the Wizards
1302:. No ongoing issues.
1107:Definitely! And not
412:is much higher. (see
179:Operation Sky Monitor
34:request for adminship
1568:No problems here. --
1021:Beat-the-Nom Support
2149:Last-minute support
1506:Lord of the Vulcans
1146:excellent arguments
691:RfAs for this user:
580:User:Carlossuarez46
2640:Moved to support.—
1545:Looks good to me.
1432:User:Cool3/Desysop
1096:
886:
817:before commenting.
39:
2699:
2432:
2263:
2258:
2079:
1991:
1765:Tentative support
1598:
1292:
1131:
1090:
884:
726:Links for Cool3:
622:to policy status.
497:Phan Thị Kim Phúc
37:
2736:
2708:
2698:moved to support
2697:
2691:
2656:
2646:
2636:
2626:
2611:
2567:
2551:
2533:
2530:
2523:
2520:
2458:
2453:
2435:
2430:
2389:
2382:
2352:
2274:WikiProject NATO
2262:
2256:
2252:
2246:
2212:
2164:
2159:
2139:
2134:
2102:
2078:
2076:
2065:
2036:
2031:
2026:
2009:
1994:
1989:
1922:should be fine.
1911:
1905:
1862:
1856:
1852:
1824:
1819:
1814:
1793:
1787:
1756:
1750:
1746:
1662:
1646:
1596:Talk to Nihonjoe
1594:
1591:
1578:
1573:
1558:
1556:
1551:
1533:
1507:
1502:
1486:
1481:
1450:
1440:
1419:
1403:
1396:
1382:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1366:
1362:
1312:
1308:
1293:
1290:
1284:
1280:
1278:
1246:
1195:- As nominator.
1130:
1128:
1117:
1094:
1058:
991:
974:
958:
952:
948:
947:
917:
910:
904:
900:
899:
859:
837:
800:
792:
751:
687:General comments
258:protected speech
177:, assuming that
163:Michael Woodruff
2744:
2743:
2739:
2738:
2737:
2735:
2734:
2733:
2719:
2718:
2717:
2711:this nomination
2704:
2687:
2655:
2652:
2642:
2635:
2632:
2622:
2609:
2603:
2565:
2547:
2531:
2528:
2521:
2518:
2456:
2451:
2429:
2424:
2391:
2387:
2380:
2350:
2266:
2257:
2254:
2244:
2208:
2200:
2162:
2157:
2137:
2132:
2090:
2074:
2066:
2034:
2029:
2024:
2005:
1988:
1983:
1939:looking fine.--
1909:
1903:
1854:
1822:
1817:
1812:
1791:
1754:
1748:
1744:
1683:
1656:
1640:
1589:
1571:
1569:
1554:
1549:
1547:
1531:
1516:WP:Net Positive
1505:
1498:
1484:
1479:
1449:
1446:
1436:
1417:
1401:
1394:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1364:
1360:
1358:
1310:
1304:
1288:
1282:
1276:
1274:
1244:
1126:
1118:
1092:
1074:ChildofMidnight
1056:
1017:
989:
972:
956:
945:
943:
915:
908:
897:
895:
878:, the third is
857:
835:
824:
796:
744:
727:
723:
721:
689:
578:Questions from
511:Questions from
269:John F. Kennedy
250:First Amendment
126:
71:
50:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2742:
2740:
2732:
2731:
2721:
2720:
2716:
2715:
2700:
2681:
2680:
2679:
2678:
2661:
2653:
2633:
2602:
2599:
2598:
2597:
2580:
2579:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2509:
2496:
2479:
2478:
2477:
2476:
2475:
2474:
2473:
2427:
2403:
2402:
2401:
2400:
2399:
2398:
2397:
2396:
2395:
2385:
2322:
2321:
2320:
2319:
2318:
2253:
2249:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2199:
2196:
2195:
2194:
2179:
2146:
2123:
2107:
2083:
2055:
2042:
2014:
1998:
1986:
1977:
1967:
1949:
1934:
1924:Carlossuarez46
1917:
1893:
1876:
1867:
1844:
1830:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1762:
1740:
1723:
1704:
1687:
1679:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1633:
1616:
1602:
1582:
1563:
1540:
1512:
1491:
1472:
1455:
1447:
1425:
1409:
1386:
1352:
1335:
1318:
1297:
1267:Hastings Ismay
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1207:
1190:
1173:
1155:
1135:
1105:Strong Support
1102:
1084:
1067:
1047:
1030:
1025:Meetare Shappy
1016:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
941:
869:
868:
847:
846:
823:
820:
806:
805:
804:
802:
793:
722:
720:
719:
714:
709:
704:
699:
693:
690:
688:
685:
683:
681:
680:
679:
678:
663:
662:
661:
660:
626:
625:
624:
623:
605:
604:
603:
602:
582:
575:
574:
573:
572:
547:
546:
545:
531:
530:
529:
515:
508:
507:
506:
505:
483:
479:Question from
476:
475:
474:
473:
452:
445:
444:
443:
442:
428:
427:
426:
425:
417:
401:
375:
373:User:Wizardman
368:
367:
366:
365:
323:
316:
315:
314:
313:
310:
306:
285:
278:
277:
276:
275:
272:
265:Caped Crusader
261:
246:
221:
214:
213:
212:
211:
197:
196:
195:
194:
167:Hastings Ismay
149:
148:
147:
146:
125:
122:
121:
120:
70:
67:
49:
44:
43:
42:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2741:
2730:
2727:
2726:
2724:
2714:
2712:
2707:
2701:
2696:
2695:
2692:
2690:
2683:
2682:
2677:
2673:
2669:
2665:
2662:
2660:
2657:
2649:
2647:
2645:
2639:
2637:
2629:
2627:
2625:
2617:
2616:
2615:
2612:
2605:
2604:
2600:
2596:
2592:
2588:
2584:
2581:
2575:
2572:
2569:
2568:
2561:
2557:
2556:
2555:
2552:
2550:
2544:
2540:
2539:
2538:
2535:
2534:
2525:
2524:
2513:
2510:
2508:
2505:
2502:
2497:
2495:
2491:
2487:
2483:
2480:
2472:
2468:
2464:
2460:
2459:
2454:
2448:
2444:
2440:
2439:
2438:
2434:
2433:
2422:
2421:
2420:
2419:
2418:
2414:
2410:
2407:
2404:
2394:
2390:
2384:
2383:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2370:
2366:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2357:
2354:
2353:
2346:
2345:
2344:
2340:
2336:
2332:
2328:
2327:
2323:
2317:
2313:
2309:
2304:
2303:
2302:
2298:
2294:
2289:
2288:
2287:
2283:
2279:
2275:
2271:
2270:
2269:
2264:
2259:
2248:
2247:
2240:
2237:
2233:
2229:
2225:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2215:
2213:
2211:
2205:
2202:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2190:
2187:
2183:
2180:
2178:
2174:
2170:
2166:
2165:
2160:
2154:
2150:
2147:
2145:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2135:
2127:
2124:
2122:
2118:
2114:
2111:
2108:
2106:
2103:
2101:
2097:
2093:
2087:
2084:
2082:
2077:
2071:
2070:
2064:
2060:
2056:
2053:
2050:
2046:
2043:
2041:
2037:
2032:
2027:
2022:
2018:
2015:
2013:
2010:
2008:
2002:
1999:
1997:
1993:
1992:
1981:
1978:
1976:
1972:
1968:
1966:
1963:
1960:
1957:
1953:
1950:
1948:
1945:
1943:
1938:
1935:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1921:
1918:
1916:
1913:
1912:
1906:
1897:
1894:
1892:
1888:
1884:
1880:
1877:
1875:
1872:
1868:
1866:
1863:
1861:
1853:
1851:
1845:
1843:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1829:
1826:
1825:
1820:
1815:
1808:
1805:
1801:
1798:
1795:
1794:
1786:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1776:
1775:
1770:
1766:
1763:
1761:
1757:
1751:
1747:
1741:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1724:
1722:
1719:
1717:
1713:
1708:
1705:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1691:
1688:
1686:
1682:
1681:contributions
1677:
1673:
1670:
1666:
1663:
1661:
1660:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1647:
1645:
1644:
1637:
1634:
1632:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1617:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1601:
1597:
1592:
1586:
1583:
1581:
1577:
1574:
1567:
1564:
1562:
1559:
1557:
1552:
1544:
1541:
1539:
1536:
1534:
1527:
1526:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1511:
1508:
1503:
1501:
1495:
1492:
1490:
1487:
1482:
1476:
1473:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1456:
1454:
1451:
1443:
1441:
1439:
1433:
1429:
1426:
1424:
1421:
1420:
1413:
1410:
1408:
1404:
1398:
1397:
1390:
1387:
1385:
1381:
1380:
1372:
1367:
1356:
1353:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1336:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1319:
1317:
1314:
1309:
1307:
1301:
1298:
1296:
1291:
1285:
1279:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1261:
1255:
1252:
1251:
1248:
1247:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1235:
1230:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1220:
1216:
1211:
1208:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1191:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1174:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1156:
1154:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1136:
1134:
1129:
1123:
1122:
1115:
1110:
1106:
1103:
1101:
1098:
1095:
1088:
1085:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1068:
1066:
1063:
1060:
1059:
1052:
1048:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1031:
1029:
1026:
1022:
1019:
1018:
1014:
1000:
997:
996:
993:
992:
985:
984:
983:
980:
979:
976:
975:
968:
967:
966:
963:
960:
959:
951:
942:
940:
936:
932:
928:
924:
923:
922:
918:
912:
911:
903:
894:
893:
892:
889:
887:
881:
877:
873:
872:
871:
870:
867:
864:
861:
860:
853:
849:
848:
845:
842:
839:
838:
831:
830:
829:
828:
821:
819:
818:
816:
812:
803:
799:
794:
790:
787:
784:
781:
778:
775:
772:
769:
766:
763:
760:
757:
754:
750:
747:
743:
740:
737:
734:
730:
725:
724:
718:
715:
713:
710:
708:
705:
703:
700:
698:
695:
686:
684:
675:
672:
671:
668:
665:
664:
658:
653:
649:
646:
645:
643:
639:
635:
631:
628:
627:
621:
616:
613:
612:
610:
607:
606:
600:
596:
592:
589:
588:
586:
583:
581:
577:
576:
569:
566:
565:
563:
559:
555:
551:
548:
542:
539:
538:
535:
532:
526:
523:
522:
519:
516:
514:
510:
509:
503:
498:
493:
490:
489:
487:
484:
482:
478:
477:
471:
467:
462:
459:
458:
456:
453:
451:
447:
446:
439:
436:
435:
433:
430:
429:
422:
418:
415:
411:
410:public figure
406:
402:
398:
394:
393:serial killer
389:
386:
385:
383:
379:
376:
374:
370:
369:
363:
358:
354:
353:within reason
349:
346:
345:
344:
340:
336:
332:
327:
324:
322:
318:
317:
311:
307:
304:
299:
296:
295:
294:
289:
286:
284:
280:
279:
273:
270:
266:
262:
259:
255:
251:
247:
244:
240:
235:
231:
228:
227:
225:
222:
220:
216:
215:
208:
205:
204:
202:
199:
198:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
175:A-Class medal
172:
168:
164:
160:
157:
156:
154:
151:
150:
144:
140:
137:
136:
134:
131:
130:
129:
123:
119:
115:
111:
107:
103:
100:
99:
98:
97:
93:
89:
85:
82:
79:
75:
68:
66:
65:
63:
60:
56:
48:
45:
41:
35:
32:
27:
26:
19:
2705:
2702:
2688:
2684:
2663:
2643:
2623:
2618:
2582:
2566:Juliancolton
2563:
2548:
2542:
2527:
2517:
2515:different.--
2511:
2481:
2449:
2425:
2409:Peter Damian
2405:
2378:
2351:Juliancolton
2348:
2330:
2325:
2324:
2243:
2238:
2209:
2203:
2181:
2155:
2148:
2130:
2129:
2125:
2109:
2099:
2095:
2091:
2085:
2068:
2044:
2016:
2006:
2000:
1984:
1979:
1971:push to talk
1951:
1941:
1936:
1919:
1907:
1901:
1895:
1878:
1859:
1849:
1810:
1806:
1792:Juliancolton
1789:
1774:Geometry guy
1772:
1764:
1743:
1725:
1710:
1706:
1689:
1676:Patar knight
1671:
1658:
1657:
1642:
1641:
1635:
1618:
1606:Dlohcierekim
1604:Make it so.
1584:
1565:
1546:
1542:
1528:
1524:
1499:
1493:
1474:
1457:
1437:
1427:
1415:
1414:Looks good.
1411:
1392:
1388:
1359:
1354:
1337:
1320:
1305:
1299:
1270:
1262:
1250:
1243:
1209:
1192:
1175:
1157:
1137:
1119:
1108:
1104:
1086:
1069:
1057:Juliancolton
1054:
1032:
1020:
995:
988:
978:
971:
957:Juliancolton
954:
949:
906:
901:
858:Juliancolton
855:
851:
836:Juliancolton
833:
825:
808:
807:
785:
779:
773:
767:
761:
755:
748:
741:
735:
682:
673:
666:
657:WP:DOSPAGWYA
652:WP:NOTPOLICY
647:
629:
614:
608:
590:
584:
567:
562:admin policy
557:
549:
540:
533:
524:
517:
491:
485:
460:
454:
437:
431:
405:Barack Obama
387:
377:
362:common sense
356:
352:
347:
325:
297:
292:
287:
232:Naturally.
229:
223:
206:
200:
189:. It was a
158:
152:
138:
132:
127:
101:
80:
72:
52:
51:
46:
30:
28:
2668:82.33.48.96
2331:prima facie
2204:Weak oppose
1954:per above.
1745:Master&
1730:Ottawa4ever
1712:Malinaccier
1514:Support as
1462:AdjustShift
1325:Pastor Theo
986:Fixed now.
638:WP:OUTCOMES
558:prima facie
554:AdminReview
321:The Cavalry
243:due process
2644:S Marshall
2624:S Marshall
2278:KnightLago
2224:KnightLago
1982:Why not? -
1860:discussion
1832:Seems OK.
1438:S Marshall
1418:Aaroncrick
1273:article. —
1197:KnightLago
1162:Off2riorob
1037:Triplestop
822:Discussion
470:WP:MILHIST
357:legitimate
283:S Marshall
254:censorship
88:KnightLago
69:Nomination
57:at 17:57,
31:successful
2560:WP:NOTNOW
2522:Legendary
2486:South Bay
2461:(Toolbox
2167:(Toolbox
2113:TomStar81
2049:Lankiveil
1871:Acalamari
1659:Wizardman
1643:Wizardman
1342:America69
1289:Contribs)
771:block log
620:WP:COMMON
397:WP:WEIGHT
219:Groomtech
191:tiny stub
183:candidacy
2723:Category
2543:thousand
2532:Attacker
2441:I think
2365:Jclemens
2335:Jclemens
2245:Wisdom89
2186:Garion96
1962:three...
1500:T'Shael,
1395:iMatthew
1150:A Nobody
909:iMatthew
739:contribs
331:WP:SPADE
84:contribs
2664:Neutral
2601:Neutral
2587:Nergaal
2293:Kingpin
2182:Support
2138:xplicit
2126:Support
2110:Support
2086:Support
2059:WP:CLUE
2045:Support
2021:King of
2017:Support
2001:Support
1980:Support
1952:Support
1942:Caspian
1937:Support
1920:Support
1896:Support
1879:Support
1807:Support
1726:Support
1707:Support
1694:Jafeluv
1690:Support
1672:Support
1636:Support
1619:Support
1585:Support
1576:iva1979
1566:Support
1543:Support
1494:Support
1475:Support
1458:Support
1428:Support
1412:Support
1389:Support
1355:Support
1338:Support
1321:Support
1300:Support
1269:is one
1263:Support
1210:Support
1193:Support
1176:Support
1158:Support
1144:due to
1138:Support
1087:Support
1051:support
1033:Support
1015:Support
931:Kingpin
746:deleted
634:WP:SNOW
502:Nick Ut
237:in the
143:WP:PROD
59:27 June
2583:Oppose
2512:Oppose
2504:(talk)
2501:Friday
2482:Oppose
2431:ASTILY
2406:Oppose
2381:Aditya
2326:Oppose
2239:Oppose
2198:Oppose
2189:(talk)
1990:ASTILY
1850:Aitias
1834:Stifle
1769:WT:WTA
1749:Expert
1550:hmwith
1245:Enigma
1180:Taelus
990:Enigma
973:Enigma
925:Also,
885:Nathan
642:WP:ATA
599:WP:BIO
595:WP:WTA
481:Stifle
450:Enigma
421:WP:AFD
382:WP:BLP
303:WP:AGF
55:Rlevse
2689:Nakon
2549:Nakon
2463:Alpha
2452:Dylan
2308:Cool3
2169:Alpha
2158:Dylan
2075:Chat
2069:Pedro
2007:Nakon
1823:Space
1405:) at
1378:sign!
1283:(Talk
1271:great
919:) at
905:. – (
811:civil
753:count
729:Cool3
513:Tony1
169:from
110:Cool3
74:Cool3
64:(UTC)
47:Cool3
16:<
2672:talk
2654:Cont
2634:Cont
2591:talk
2562:." –
2490:talk
2467:Beta
2443:this
2413:talk
2369:talk
2339:talk
2312:talk
2297:talk
2282:talk
2228:talk
2210:roux
2173:Beta
2117:Talk
1944:blue
1928:talk
1902:Banj
1887:talk
1838:talk
1818:From
1813:Them
1755:Talk
1734:talk
1716:talk
1698:talk
1627:talk
1610:talk
1532:Talk
1520:clue
1466:talk
1448:Cont
1402:talk
1370:load
1365:down
1346:talk
1329:talk
1229:ACLU
1201:talk
1184:talk
1166:talk
1140:per
1121:Ched
1114:clue
1109:just
1078:talk
1041:talk
950:Done
935:talk
916:talk
902:Done
880:here
876:here
798:here
783:rfar
765:logs
733:talk
667:13d.
630:13c.
609:13b.
597:and
585:13a.
466:this
400:are.
339:talk
239:GFDL
171:this
114:talk
106:here
92:talk
78:talk
62:2009
2529:Sky
2519:The
2457:620
2163:620
1959:two
1956:One
1900:--
1855://
1678:- /
1590:日本穣
1485:meh
1480:Tim
1430:.
1306:Axl
1234:Joe
1219:Joe
1217:.
1093:Ray
1053:. –
854:? –
789:spi
759:AfD
550:12.
534:11.
518:10.
432:7b.
181:'s
2725::
2674:)
2607:--
2593:)
2570:|
2492:)
2469:)
2465:,
2415:)
2371:)
2355:|
2341:)
2314:)
2299:)
2284:)
2260:/
2230:)
2184:-
2175:)
2171:,
2119:)
2072::
2038:♠
2003:,
1973:)
1930:)
1910:oi
1889:)
1846:—
1840:)
1796:|
1758:)
1736:)
1700:)
1629:)
1612:)
1593:·
1525:NW
1522:.
1468:)
1399:•
1348:)
1331:)
1286:•
1277:Ed
1203:)
1186:)
1168:)
1127:?
1124::
1080:)
1070:Eh
1061:|
1043:)
961:|
937:)
913:•
862:|
840:|
777:lu
674:A.
659:).
648:A.
640:,
636:,
615:A.
591:A.
568:A:
564:?
541:A:
525:A:
492:A.
486:9.
461:A.
455:8.
438:A.
388:A.
380:A
378:7.
348:A.
341:)
326:6:
298:A:
288:5.
230:A:
224:4.
207:A:
201:3.
159:A:
153:2.
139:A:
133:1.
116:)
108:.
94:)
36:.
2670:(
2650:/
2630:/
2589:(
2488:(
2447:→
2428:F
2411:(
2388:ß
2367:(
2337:(
2310:(
2295:(
2280:(
2265:)
2255:T
2250:(
2226:(
2153:→
2133:Σ
2115:(
2100:a
2098:c
2096:z
2094:a
2092:m
2054:.
2035:♣
2030:♦
2025:♥
1987:F
1926:(
1908:b
1904:e
1885:(
1836:(
1788:–
1752:(
1732:(
1718:)
1714:(
1696:(
1625:(
1608:(
1572:S
1555:τ
1535:)
1529:(
1464:(
1444:/
1374:׀
1361:-
1344:(
1327:(
1311:¤
1199:(
1182:(
1172:)
1164:(
1076:(
1039:(
953:–
933:(
801:.
791:)
786:·
780:·
774:·
768:·
762:·
756:·
749:·
742:·
736:·
731:(
504:)
500:(
416:)
337:(
112:(
90:(
81:·
76:(
40:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.