851:. Generally, I want to see 3K article+talk edits because that is a good experience mark; candidate has 1.8K. I'll bend on the 3K if the Qs are strong (they aren't) or some other strong point is made (I don't see one). If somebody wants to work on deletions, then CSD/AfD entries are important. AfD main diagonal is weak (report at 73%). Some AfD comments appeal to policy, but it's not consistent; citing evidence would be good. Q3 comments about not being concise; 17 edits to an AfD raise an eyebrow. If a candidate wants to work on vandalism, then AIV reports are important; candidate claims one or two. There's a good start here, but I need to see more experience.
119:. Upon consideration of comments in all three sections, I have concluded that it is unlikely I will be able to pass this RfA. Though this is undoubtedly disappointing, I am resolved not to give up with my work here but to carry on with it, primarily in the areas of content creation, AfD participation, and AIV/RPP. I will in all likelihood be back here at some point between later spring and early autumn; hopefully, all goes well then. Sincere thanks to all those who commented, whether by supporting, opposing, or expressing neutrality; your feedback has been greatly appreciated.
977:- During a recent dispute, I (and some others) were approached by the candidate. While at first my impression was that he was proactively trying to negotiate a fair solution, later it seemed more as if he was just trying to push one side into "voluntarily" quitting, without really understanding the issues on both sides, (and without really understanding that I was relatively uninvolved in the dispute). I get the impression that the candidate is primarily after the block button, but of course I'd be open to seeing facts that prove me wrong.
1059:
project. But, while diverse and spread about the project, I don't believe your experience in any one area is sufficient to become a sysop. I'd be happy to support an RFA in six months or so, after you've deepened your involvement in some of your favorite admin-related areas and have a need for the tools in those areas. If this RFA doesn't pass, you'll pass a future RFA with flying colors after a bit of time and increased involvement. So, while I think you're generally a good editor and a friendly guy,
922:", are they. This whole numbers argument seems to me to be flawed, because it encourages groupthink and staying clear of AfDs likely to end up without consensus. There is, anyway, a difference between contributing to a consensus by !voting and reading the consensus when closing, so incorrectly second-guessing the result doesn't imply that the candidate would do poor closures. The only good criterion is to inspect their arguments and see whether they are policy-based or not. --
194:, in particular, is one that I feel quite satisfied with. Also, I believe that I have been able to work collaboratively and constructively with other editors regarding content creation. I'm also comfortable with my recent, maintenance-oriented work (patrolling, checking for issues/vandalism). And (last, but not least) I'd mention some of my GA reviews, due to collaboration with the authors of the pages to improve content. Among these would be
896:
numbers are just an indication. I didn't say the AfD number was bad; I said it was weak. When I look down the results column, I see a lot of red. Some reds don't bother me as much; a delete or keep vote with a merge result, for example, isn't as bad as delete vs. keep. Delete(nom) with keep result bothers me more. I also read some cases. Here are delete(nom)-to-keep where the candidate backed out:
264:
least one good article, which is a plus, but I am having trouble finding sufficient experience in article space outside of that. I also see a sudden spike in AFD work. Do you have any experience in processes such as RPP and AIV, two areas you've expressed interest in working and, if so, would you give me a couple of examples? Thanks.
346:, gossip is discouraged); if so, I would warn User B, while reminding User A not to engage in retaliatory edit warring. If not, I would remind User A about the need for reliably-sourced information, and would remind User B to use discussion venues (article or user talk) before instigating edit warring, even in a case like this.
89:
pleased to help in any areas needing administrator attention. I would definitely be active in responding to issues posed at the noticeboards and in reviewing deletion nominations. In all instances of the latter, whether CSD, AfD, PROD, or other, I would carefully review applicable policies before taking any action.
231:
conciseness. Generally, if my actions are questioned, I review both them and the concerns regarding them. If I have been in error, I remedy the situation. If not, I stand by my actions. In the future, I would concentrate on shorter, more "to-the-point" responses to people with whom I am in disagreement.
1331:
and realized there was a typo...I would like to see a minimum of 5000 edits prior to supporting. The answers to the questions are satisfactory and barring one that knocks my socks off, I'll probably remain here. As Worm suggested when you asked him two months ago, wait six months, and you'll probably
1171:
section, before LittleBen had replied to the AN notification, could have been an oversight, but the follow-up just ten minutes after LittleBen's reply (indicating that he considered that he was being got at) was less likely to pour oil on troubled waters than to add fuel to the fire. It's very unwise
94:
Regarding my history on
Knowledge (XXG): I have been an editor since 2008, but it would be inaccurate to characterize myself as an active user from that time. My activity has only been "intensive", if you will, since roughly 2011. I have learned a great deal about the content, operations, and needs
804:
I think the minimal involvement in noticeboard discussions and other policy-related pages makes adminship a bit hasty. More experience in the areas relevant to administrative duties would be desirable for a prospective admin. Article contributions are impressive, but as so few of them are audited it
1254:
I have briefly reviewed your contributions, and you look like a reasonable candidate. However, I will not !vote
Support or Oppose until you answer the questions. 3,500 edits isn't that much, but as always quality over quantity. I'll make a more in-depth review of your contributions after you answer
1114:
As per Tyrol5, I'm concerned about the lack of experience this user has in admin related areas. DCI has only 7 edits to RPP and 5 edits to AIV and the user said he or she would like to be active in those areas. This makes me feel uncomfortable to the point that I must oppose this user getting admin
230:
I have not been involved in too many conflicts; also, I have not found
Knowledge (XXG) to be stressful or frustrating in any way. In some cases, I admit to being too wordy and belaboring in my replies when disagreeing with another user. I believe I have always maintained civility, but perhaps not
157:
As stated above, I would be more than willing to engage in any areas of administrator interest. Among these would be handling deletions, administering blocks (primarily in response to vandalism) if necessary, and doing routine tasks such as page protection. I am willing to work to remedy backlogs
1217:
But I do see your point; I was overly focused on an unrealistic goal; thus, it isn't surprising that a few of the comments I made may seem a tad oblivious to the developing situation. In the future, I would gladly engage in such situations - still with the goal of resolving them - but would do so
628:
Yes, DCI has a relatively small number of edits and has been a bit inactive compared to other candidates over the three years he/she has been actively editing. However, as always, quality over quantity. I have reviewed their edits and decided to support. Their article creation is quite remarkable,
1058:
The general lack of experience is really what concerns me. I appreciate your willingness to help out and all the great work you do around here, but I don't think giving you a mop at this time is necessary or appropriate. You're a task-oriented editor with generally diverse involvement around the
263:
I'm not a big fan of metrics, but I do think they have some value. After a cursory review of your contributions, I am a little concerned. In the last four months, only 21% of your contributions have been to article space and last month, you made a total of three edits there. I do see you have at
88:
I am nominating myself for adminship. While I understand that such an action may seem a tad brash and may draw some criticism, I feel that access to the tools would enable me to better improve aspects of the encyclopedia. In the case that this nomination would be accepted, I would be more than
1327:- Well, this is a tough one. I appreciate the user's solid content work; he has an FA to his name and that's quite an achievement. He's been pretty forthcoming in his answers to the questions. He has edited since 2008. The problem is the fact that he has under 4000 edits. I was just checking my
895:
Yes, if you normalize out no consensus results, then the figure is 82 percent, but I'm not sure I should automatically discount those results. Is the no consensus due to neither side presenting a good policy argument? Or did both sides present good policy arguments? I look at numbers, but those
1163:. However, the lack of experience is clear, and recent activity has majored heavily on putting templates (welcome and vandalism) on user talk pages, which anyone can do. I'm also concerned at the habit of popping up at users' talk pages with unsolicited advice. The one linked above, at
681:
Who cares if he has a few thousand edits, because at least he wants to help out and seems to be competent enough to not be blocked. There really is no reason to oppose him unless something huge comes up, so I am going to support him unless something Earth-shattering comes up.
991:
I would like to clarify that I am not primarily seeking the ability to block. I believe that a review of the discussion involved (I can post a link, if anybody wants one) shows that I was indeed neutral throughout, and made no attempt to pressure you inappropriately.
280:, which I created and nominated for FA. As this was the first time I had engaged in a review process, another user was primarily responsible for the article getting up to FA status; however, I feel that I contributed sufficiently to it. When I review articles for GA (
270:
Recently, I have been focusing on somewhat more mundane, maintenance-related tasks, as well as article reviewing; I merely wanted to see what I could do to assist in areas I hadn't ventured into often in the past. I have occasionally requested page protection
1198:, and the advice was merely a spinoff from the situation. I wasn't trying to tell anyone how to feel, but to encourage them to come to a resolution that both sides would be OK with. As it turns out, neither side was particularly keen on the idea.
904:. The percentage could be adjusted for changed votes, but at this point I'm not really looking at the number. I'm not unhappy with the candidate's voting; it's a good start; I just want to see clearer footing. More experience should bring that.
1029:; it's a few comments down. This is a facet of the MoS dispute largely centered around hyphen-and-dash disagreements. Basically, my intent was to facilitate a resolution to the dispute, in which several editors concerned about the MoS
897:
275:
is an example). I have reported an IP or two to AIV; however, in some cases problematic editors have been reported by another user before I can submit a report myself. Also, I have worked on articles including
901:
865:
Strictly about the AFD metrics, I thought that was weak too, but when you add the ones that were closed as no consensus, you get close to 85% if I recollect correctly, so that isn't a huge concern for me.
936:
P.S. It seems to me that the fact that the candidate was willing to withdraw their nom in the face of opposing consensus actually supports the view that they are capable of seeing consensus objectively.
805:
is difficult to use that as a basis. I am not seeing much involvement in dispute resolution processes either and article talk page discussions mostly concern GA reviews being done by dci.--
1156:
224:
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?
1371:
1100:
577:
1172:
to try to tell people how to feel, and unsolicited advice in emotionally fraught situations can easily come across as interfering. This and the early self-nom
572:
1389:
1312:
is found. I won't oppose because it is half right and he caught, what I feel, is the harder of the two issues involved in my question. Good luck.--v/r -
819:
960:- Unexperienced. I suggest DCI get more involved in the areas he wants to admin in, like vote at AfD, and then come back next year with a track record.
144:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve
Knowledge (XXG) as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
654:
I trust him. I don't think edit count really means much there are users that have 250,000+ edits that I would oppose if they were to run for adminship.
406:
285:
825:
1173:
1159:
where he has done good background digging and stuck to his guns while keeping calm. And I believe he was the first to get it right regarding
515:
324:. User A alledges that User B continues to revert sourced material about a secret affairs that software giant and well known philanthropist
393:
1349:
1095:
883:
841:
436:
30:
17:
430:
567:
1115:
rights. However, I would happily support this user in their next RFA, only if the user has more edits to those admin related areas.
1308:
issue. As an administrator, I would amend the answer that DCI would be required to remove the negative material until a better
1285:
1266:
1146:
814:
644:
400:
1155:
Not yet. This editor does some great things, and I'm sure s/he will make a great admin one day. I'm particularly impressed by
1090:
918:
Well, if you don't normalize out the no consensus results, then the candidate is stuffed, because nobody is going to !vote "
1160:
727:
482:
445:
386:
83:
838:
700:
1328:
603:
593:
806:
751:
508:
768:
541:
562:
1340:
874:
835:
697:
1194:
Just one or two things. Regarding the advice: I had been actively involved in the discussion occurring at
557:
288:, etc.) I often collaborate with the nominator in prose revisions, some of which have been fairly large.
787:
The candidate is relatively inexperienced and fails to make a compelling case for why he needs the mop.
792:
744:
461:
338:
First, I would review the history of the page in question, to make sure that User B did in fact violate
195:
1370:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
1141:, yet you have only edited each of those pages a few times. Try to get some experience in those areas.
478:
190:
I would feel comfortable labeling my content contributions since 2011 as my "best" ones. The article
1164:
1026:
982:
501:
1356:
1319:
1290:
1280:
1261:
1232:
1212:
1189:
1150:
1125:
1106:
1075:
1047:
1020:
1006:
986:
969:
946:
931:
913:
890:
860:
796:
772:
764:
758:
733:
703:
691:
673:
649:
639:
536:
469:
360:
325:
302:
272:
245:
212:
172:
133:
109:
62:
630:
1333:
867:
671:
277:
255:
1227:
1207:
1116:
1042:
1016:
1001:
965:
719:
380:
355:
297:
240:
207:
167:
128:
104:
77:
321:
1316:
1072:
830:
The user has been around since 2008 and started editing seriously since 2010 so it can't be
788:
687:
454:
95:
of this project in that time, and feel that I could correctly apply WP policy as an admin.
1305:
1138:
1134:
342:. I would also check to see if the disputed item is rooted in other reliable sources (per
339:
978:
1309:
1301:
1195:
343:
834:
hasty. Some editors like to focus on the main article space and this is one of them. –
1275:
1256:
1185:
1142:
942:
927:
909:
856:
634:
1033:
were at odds with a larger group, which contemplated topic bans and other sanctions.
1383:
655:
58:
1219:
1199:
1034:
1012:
993:
961:
711:
629:
along with the significant amount of vandal fighting. I think this user would be a
376:
347:
289:
281:
232:
199:
159:
120:
96:
73:
158:
where administrator attention is needed, no matter what the nature of the work.
1313:
1064:
683:
598:
312:
53:
Final (7/10/2); ended 22:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate.
1364:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
1181:
1167:, was a significant misjudgement, in my view. The inital posting of the new
938:
923:
905:
852:
54:
1180:, a very good editor, so please keep going and try again when ready. --
1374:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
191:
1176:
lead me to think the candidate needs more experience and maturity.
481:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review
493:
497:
184:
What are your best contributions to
Knowledge (XXG), and why?
898:
WP:Articles for deletion/Female State
Supreme Court Justices
328:
had in Peru last week and is sourced to the well known site
1157:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Society for
Venturism
329:
1011:
Yes, please post a link to the abovementioned discussion.
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
151:
What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
1300:
I'm mixed feelings. The user appropriately caught the
902:
WP:Articles for deletion/Invasions of the
British Isles
424:
418:
412:
586:
550:
529:
1274:Moved to Support after user answered questions
509:
8:
443:Edit summary usage for DCI2026 can be found
1133:: You say you would like to participate in
633:and positively contribute to the project.
516:
502:
494:
477:Please keep discussion constructive and
18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship
7:
1390:Unsuccessful requests for adminship
1218:with more tact, and less urging.
24:
1165:User talk:LittleBenW#WP:AN notice
1027:User talk:LittleBenW#WP:AN notice
286:Stanisław Poniatowski (1676–1762)
320:You respond to an edit war on
1:
1357:19:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
1320:17:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
1304:issue but didn't mention the
1291:02:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
1271:01:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
1233:19:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
1213:19:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
1190:19:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
1151:19:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
1126:18:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
1107:17:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
1076:14:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
1048:17:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
1021:17:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
1007:14:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
987:13:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
970:12:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
947:18:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
932:18:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
914:17:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
891:12:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
861:07:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
842:06:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
826:05:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
797:02:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
773:18:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
759:17:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
734:04:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
704:03:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
692:03:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
674:03:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
650:02:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
470:02:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
361:17:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
303:02:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
246:02:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
213:02:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
173:02:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
134:21:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
110:01:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
63:22:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
332:. What action do you take?
1143:Command and Conquer Expert!
140:Questions for the candidate
1406:
1332:pass with flying colors.
311:Additional question from
254:Additional question from
1367:Please do not modify it.
344:WP:RS#News organizations
39:Please do not modify it.
196:the Lewis Nicola review
741:Content contributor.
31:request for adminship
1252:Procedurally Neutral
1161:this incident at ANI
809:The Devil's Advocate
599:Global contributions
563:Non-automated edits
374:Links for DCI2026:
273:Language of flowers
849:Commend but Oppose
542:Edit summary usage
485:before commenting.
278:1689 Boston revolt
117:Self-nom withdrawn
40:
1293:
1074:
757:
612:
611:
483:his contributions
38:
1397:
1369:
1354:
1347:
1338:
1288:
1283:
1278:
1273:
1269:
1264:
1259:
1230:
1224:
1210:
1204:
1123:
1105:
1103:
1098:
1093:
1088:
1087:
1071:
1069:
1061:I cannot support
1045:
1039:
1004:
998:
888:
881:
872:
822:
817:
811:
756:
754:
749:
742:
730:
724:
716:
684:Kevin Rutherford
669:
647:
642:
637:
558:Articles created
518:
511:
504:
495:
467:
464:
457:
452:Stats on talk. —
448:
440:
399:
369:General comments
358:
352:
300:
294:
243:
237:
210:
204:
170:
164:
131:
125:
107:
101:
1405:
1404:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1372:this nomination
1365:
1350:
1341:
1334:
1286:
1281:
1276:
1267:
1262:
1257:
1255:the questions.
1245:
1228:
1220:
1208:
1200:
1169:Recent activity
1149:
1117:
1101:
1096:
1091:
1089:
1085:
1084:
1065:
1043:
1035:
1002:
994:
884:
875:
868:
824:
820:
815:
807:
781:
752:
745:
743:
728:
720:
712:
667:
661:
656:
645:
640:
635:
622:
613:
608:
582:
546:
525:
524:RfA/RfB toolbox
522:
492:
462:
459:
455:
444:
392:
375:
371:
356:
348:
298:
290:
241:
233:
208:
200:
168:
160:
142:
129:
121:
105:
97:
71:
50:
35:did not succeed
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1403:
1401:
1393:
1392:
1382:
1381:
1377:
1376:
1360:
1359:
1322:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1244:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1174:against advice
1153:
1145:
1128:
1109:
1083:- per Tyrol5.
1078:
1063:at this time.
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
972:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
934:
846:
845:
844:
813:
799:
780:
777:
776:
775:
765:Nathan Johnson
761:
736:
706:
696:Looks good. –
694:
676:
663:
657:
652:
621:
618:
617:
616:
610:
609:
607:
606:
601:
596:
590:
588:
584:
583:
581:
580:
575:
570:
565:
560:
554:
552:
548:
547:
545:
544:
539:
533:
531:
527:
526:
523:
521:
520:
513:
506:
498:
491:
488:
474:
473:
472:
450:
441:
370:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
315:
308:
307:
306:
305:
258:
251:
250:
249:
248:
218:
217:
216:
215:
178:
177:
176:
175:
141:
138:
137:
136:
70:
67:
49:
44:
43:
42:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1402:
1391:
1388:
1387:
1385:
1375:
1373:
1368:
1362:
1361:
1358:
1355:
1353:
1348:
1346:
1345:
1339:
1337:
1330:
1326:
1323:
1321:
1318:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1298:
1292:
1289:
1284:
1279:
1272:
1270:
1265:
1260:
1253:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1242:
1234:
1231:
1225:
1223:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1211:
1205:
1203:
1197:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1129:
1127:
1124:
1122:
1121:
1113:
1110:
1108:
1104:
1099:
1094:
1082:
1079:
1077:
1073:
1070:
1068:
1062:
1057:
1049:
1046:
1040:
1038:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1005:
999:
997:
990:
989:
988:
984:
980:
976:
973:
971:
967:
963:
959:
956:
948:
944:
940:
935:
933:
929:
925:
921:
917:
916:
915:
911:
907:
903:
899:
894:
893:
892:
889:
887:
882:
880:
879:
873:
871:
864:
863:
862:
858:
854:
850:
847:
843:
840:
837:
833:
829:
828:
827:
823:
818:
812:
810:
803:
800:
798:
794:
790:
786:
783:
782:
778:
774:
770:
766:
762:
760:
755:
750:
748:
740:
737:
735:
731:
725:
723:
717:
715:
710:
707:
705:
702:
699:
695:
693:
689:
685:
680:
677:
675:
672:
670:
666:
660:
653:
651:
648:
643:
638:
632:
627:
624:
623:
619:
615:
614:
605:
602:
600:
597:
595:
592:
591:
589:
585:
579:
576:
574:
571:
569:
566:
564:
561:
559:
556:
555:
553:
549:
543:
540:
538:
535:
534:
532:
528:
519:
514:
512:
507:
505:
500:
499:
496:
489:
487:
486:
484:
480:
471:
468:
465:
458:
451:
447:
442:
438:
435:
432:
429:
426:
423:
420:
417:
414:
411:
408:
405:
402:
398:
395:
391:
388:
385:
382:
378:
373:
372:
368:
362:
359:
353:
351:
345:
341:
337:
334:
333:
331:
327:
326:William Doors
323:
319:
316:
314:
310:
309:
304:
301:
295:
293:
287:
283:
279:
274:
269:
266:
265:
262:
259:
257:
256:Go Phightins!
253:
252:
247:
244:
238:
236:
229:
226:
225:
223:
220:
219:
214:
211:
205:
203:
197:
193:
189:
186:
185:
183:
180:
179:
174:
171:
165:
163:
156:
153:
152:
150:
147:
146:
145:
139:
135:
132:
126:
124:
118:
115:
114:
113:
112:
111:
108:
102:
100:
91:
90:
85:
82:
79:
75:
68:
66:
65:
64:
60:
56:
48:
45:
41:
36:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1366:
1363:
1351:
1343:
1342:
1335:
1324:
1251:
1250:
1221:
1201:
1177:
1168:
1147:review me...
1130:
1120:Webclient101
1119:
1118:
1111:
1092:Brambleberry
1080:
1066:
1060:
1036:
1030:
995:
974:
957:
920:No consensus
919:
885:
877:
876:
869:
848:
836:BuickCentury
831:
808:
801:
784:
746:
738:
721:
713:
708:
698:BuickCentury
678:
664:
658:
631:net positive
625:
476:
475:
453:
433:
427:
421:
415:
409:
403:
396:
389:
383:
349:
335:
317:
291:
282:Lewis Nicola
267:
260:
234:
227:
221:
201:
187:
181:
161:
154:
148:
143:
122:
116:
98:
93:
92:
87:
80:
72:
52:
51:
46:
34:
28:
789:Majoreditor
604:User rights
594:CentralAuth
456:Theopolisme
1031:status quo
753:.Wolfowitz
587:Cross-wiki
578:AfD closes
490:Discussion
69:Nomination
1344:Phightins
1102:RiverClan
979:LittleBen
878:Phightins
573:AfD votes
568:BLP edits
419:block log
1384:Category
1329:criteria
551:Analysis
530:Counters
387:contribs
84:contribs
1325:Neutral
1243:Neutral
1025:Sure.
1013:Kraxler
962:Kraxler
739:Support
714:Mediran
709:Support
679:Support
626:Support
620:Support
394:deleted
377:DCI2026
322:WP:ANEW
74:DCI2026
47:DCI2026
1306:WP:BLP
1139:WP:RPP
1135:WP:AIV
1131:Oppose
1112:Oppose
1081:Oppose
1067:Tyrol5
975:Oppose
958:Oppose
839:Driver
821:cntrb.
802:Oppose
785:Oppose
779:Oppose
747:Kiefer
701:Driver
537:XTools
340:WP:3RR
313:TParis
192:Bajkam
1310:WP:RS
1302:WP:RS
1229:TALK
1209:TALK
1196:WP:AN
1044:TALK
1003:TALK
763:Q2. -
479:civil
401:count
357:TALK
299:TALK
242:TALK
209:TALK
169:TALK
130:TALK
106:TALK
33:that
16:<
1282:tion
1277:Vaca
1263:tion
1258:Vaca
1186:talk
1182:Stfg
1137:and
1017:talk
983:talk
966:talk
943:talk
939:Stfg
928:talk
924:Stfg
910:talk
906:Glrx
900:and
857:talk
853:Glrx
816:tlk.
793:talk
769:talk
688:talk
641:tion
636:Vaca
463:talk
446:here
431:rfar
413:logs
381:talk
86:) –
78:talk
59:talk
1222:dci
1202:dci
1178:But
1037:dci
996:dci
832:too
437:spi
407:AfD
350:dci
292:dci
235:dci
202:dci
198:.
162:dci
123:dci
99:dci
55:KTC
1386::
1336:Go
1226:|
1206:|
1188:)
1097:of
1041:|
1019:)
1000:|
985:)
968:)
945:)
937:--
930:)
912:)
870:Go
859:)
795:)
771:)
732:)
726:•
690:)
425:lu
354:|
336:A:
330:E!
318:5.
296:|
284:,
268:A:
261:4.
239:|
228:A:
222:3.
206:|
188:A:
182:2.
166:|
155:A:
149:1.
127:|
103:|
61:)
37:.
1352:!
1317:P
1314:T
1287:9
1268:9
1184:(
1086:ö
1015:(
981:(
964:(
941:(
926:(
908:(
886:!
855:(
791:(
767:(
729:c
722:t
718:(
686:(
668:a
665:k
662:n
659:I
646:9
517:e
510:t
503:v
466:)
460:(
449:.
439:)
434:·
428:·
422:·
416:·
410:·
404:·
397:·
390:·
384:·
379:(
271:(
81:·
76:(
57:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.