268:. Over time I have come to terms with the fact that editorial conflict is not necessarily personal conflict: if someone doesn't like an edit of mine then it doesn't mean that they don't like me. After all; they don't know me! I try to rely on Knowledge policy as much as possible now, and not to let my emotions take control. I must admit that I have recently allowed my emotions to get involved, but all the while I have remained civil; but please remember that I do not intend to work in copyright policy. It's important to stay calm and to understand why the conflict has arisen. I won't pretend to be without emotiona; I invest a lot of time and effort into the project. It means a lot to me, and I am very proud of the project as a whole. The important thing to remember is to stay calm. In terms of admin duties: if I were to see a conflict arise between an editor and myself then I would try to address the problem on an editor-to-editor basis. If I found my admin status might cause a conflict of interest then I would ask for a second opinion or withdraw altogether.
2625:
is in order)), the inadequate answers to some of the questions as pointed out above, the fact that you appear to be bearing a grudge against Tan which is something that would be unbecoming in an admin. Incidently, I disagree with your reply to one of the neutrals below - "I could reapply in seven years and the same links would be presented" - they could well be presented in future RfAs, but if your behaviour/attitude is different in the few months beforehand, I would expect most editors to basically say "that was then, but it doesn't apply now". Looking through the RfA archives, you can find many examples of people who applied at RfA a couple of times, and got it after that because they had shown that they listened to the comments and responded in a positive way. If you can do that, then perhaps there is hope for a future RfA - if you can't, then there is no hope. --
2245:
else is wrong" complaints to everyone opposing. Knowledge adminship isn't like sysop status on other web boards, or even other wikis; the job brings with it a non-stop torrent of abusive nutcases, trolling cranks, other users bitching about every single thing you do, and well-meaning but clueless comments. Going by your "if we can't use my ball I don't want to play" reactions here to even the mildest criticism – and, as previously mentioned, the sheer without-me-you're-nothing arrogance of "imagine a project without my anti-vandal edits" – there is no earthly way I'd trust you-as-admin not to block people for daring to disagree with you. –
1316:
repair constantly. You have to have an eye for constructive/unconstructive edits it can be difficult and sometimes comes with mistakes, and I challenge anyone who hasnt fought vandalism in the last year who did so in the past to start again and see first hand the difficulties these users encounter today. To Dr Dec, some more article work would help put other users at ease over this and demonstrate yourself a well rounded editor (I think your on the right track). Ref desk/ help desk work admirable and my reason for supporting. I would not belive Dr dec would abuse tools.
2178:, as while I don't think you're a suitable candidate you're certainly not problematic enough to warrant a full-blown flaming-off-the-project. Of the 11 questions you've answered above, you've given (in my opinion) a clearly wrong answer to eight of them. If you had a fantastic contribution history, to provide evidence that you understand what we're trying to do here, I'd be prepared to overlook such a wildly different interpretation of policy to my own, but I see virtually no content contribution whatsoever. Sorry, but I can't see any good reason why you
1263:. I like you- for being a vandal fighter, for giving considered answers to the questions, for having the bollocks to nominate yourself and proving the size of them in keeping it open despite the opposes to get feedback- it shows sound character and, hopefully one day you'll make a good admin. The number of AIV reports is an inaccurate way of measuring your proficiency at vandal fighting, but you would do well to gain more experience there and related areas and with other areas of the project- essentially, show us what you can do
366:
appropriate, for example when sexual or racial abuse is involved. If the report to AIAV seems to seek to punish the reported user; blocks should be preventative and not punitive. Also reports involving stale warnings would be unsuccessful. For example if a level 1 and 2 warnings came a month ago and the level 3 and 4 warnings came today. Finally, incorrectly issued warnings, e.g. for good faith edits, shouldn't be taken into consideration.
101:) – I have been an active editor for 18 months. My primary interest is in stopping the legion of vandals that besiege the project minute after minute, hour after hour, and day after day. I've been involved on the reference desks, on policy discussions, and on project discussions. Besides my vandal fighting I have created several articles; although I'm not the most prolific, or most talented, article creator on the project.
2712:- at first, I was going neutral to avoid piling on because 70 AIV reports is nowhere near sufficient for a candidate to pass RFA based on anti-vandalism work alone. However, I then saw the "Imagine a project without my anti-vandal edits" comment and decided to oppose. This became a strong oppose when I saw that Dr Dec thinks that a valid oppose rationale is "why RfA is broken" - no, that's why it
504:
2550:. It was last August that the candidate showed remarkable lack of knowledge of Knowledge processes. From his reply to Tanthalas here, it seems like he still has an axe to grind with him after all those months, even though Tan did no more than point out his ignorance of AIV at that time. I certainly don't want grudge-bearing editors like that to become admins.--
1049:
1964:
your username still shows up in the edits, right? (Even if it's not the sort of thing someone would often run across if they weren't looking.) There's really no way to ever get rid of the connection to your old username, unless you abandon this current account and start a new one (and that would lead to a difficult situation it itself; see
2444:. To me, this candidate comes across as arrogant, immature, and inexperienced. He has made virtually no contributions to any area outside of anti-vandlism work (which is good, as far as I can see), especially to content, and apparently has little to no understanding of policy, particularly copyright, per Q8. I recommend closing this RfA per
2741:
Good experience, not sure about the edit count, but what I don't like is you making negative statements during an RfA nomination, like this one: "although I'm not the most prolific, or most talented, article creator on the project." Since you already have the rollbacking tool, it's better to stick to
2261:
Dude, you are totally missing my point, and putting words into my mouth. The remark about my vandal fighting was intended to highlight the importance of anti-vandal work on the project; mine and every other vandal fighter's. It's making me really sad to see people nit picking and twisting my words to
1297:
where the candidate is a frequent and constructive contributor; he has also made some good contribitions to math articles. The incidents from Aug 09 cited by JC and Tan show unfamiliarity with some of the conventions and inexperience more than anything else; time and a constructive contrib record can
453:
It depends on the circumstances. If the editor has previously been a by and large good faith editor then an attempt to communicate after the second should definitely be made. They may not be aware of the 3RR, or they may just be getting carried away by their emotions. I've even seen editor make three
409:
Technically speaking, no. A COI would arise if one were to make edits to an article when one was directly associated with the subject of the article, e.g. editing one's employer's article. Having said that, I personally would no block a user for vandalising my user page. I would report them to AIAV —
2624:
I was veering towards a neutral to avoid pile-on, but when a candidate shows the arrogance that this one has ("Imagine a project without my anti-vandal edits", "If a SNOW closure seems in order then I will request the closure myself" (which seems to imply that only you would be able to judge when it
2309:
per answers to questions two (quite an arrogant statement, you're not the only vandal fighter), five (particularly the stale warning part), seven (you still need to warn vandals/trolls). Also, I don't get the deletion of your talk page, because as you mentioned anyone can go back and easily go into
2244:
You're just digging the hole deeper with comments like that. Numerous people have suggested this be closed, and your response was "no, keep it open, I want to hear what people think of me". Whenever anybody's actually given you an honest answer, your response is a barrage of "I'm right and everybody
1963:
per above. I can't really hold Q4 against you, although I can't support someone who has only 3 months of talkpage history available either. I'm also confused why you would want your talkpage deleted for privacy reasons, but make no attempt to hide the edits that you made during that time; you know
1838:
But I've made thousands of anti-vandal edits including reverts and warnings. I can't get an exact figure because Soxred93's tool doesn't seem to be working for me. Going off AIAV reports is a bit misleading. I could revert and warn four times, but then another user picks up the post level 4 edit and
1160:
requirements patently ridiculous. You are a dedicated vandal-fighter, and we are in constant need of more admins in that area. Having another editor with the bit protecting the project can only be a good thing. As a huggle user myself, I have often been frustrated when tracking a single dedicated
2964:
I see what you mean, but given the nature of RfA, I could reapply in seven years and the same links would be presented. Once you rub someone up the wrong way you're stuffed. It doesn't matter that I realise my mistakes, that I learn from my mistakes, and that I try to move on from my mistakes. Mark
2794:
I read the report on Xeno as a good faith, albeit misdirected, attempt to protect the integrity of an admin account. It may raise questions as to the applicant's judgement, but I still feel that the applicant is, on the whole, a positive force on the project. As you yourself are surely aware, AIV
1988:
To clarify, I would be willing to consider support in a future RfA even if you decide to keep the early archives of the talkpage always deleted, but can't do so right now because those deleted archives are more than 3/4 of your edit history; and I can't !vote neutral either because of the concerns
1315:
I think theres alot of opposes pileing on here though im not convinced yet to oppose based on the reasons given. I think the user has some potential. To me there is nothing wrong against vandal fighting I find that reason to oppose unconvincing. Without vandal fighters we couldnt build wed have to
2690:
is not a productive response; that would be the case even if it weren't for the fact that talk page policy was on his side. Although that incident was several months ago so I could normally overlook it, your comments to Tan here suggest that you haven't moved on. I suggest that you don't take the
1968:
for an example of an admin candidate who's struggling on RfA even though his change of name was 18 months ago). I do sympathize with you, because RTV seems to be a "no way out" situation and I think that administrators, like other users, should have a right to keep their identities private. But
313:
The page deletion was because of a change of user name for privacy reasons. I used to edit under my real name and wanted to enforce my right to privacy. I would rather the page not be restored in order to protect my privacy. My edits from my real name account were carried over to my current user
2182:
admin buttons, and the general "Ignore all rules applies to me, not you" tone of your answers above (and your hassling of what seems to be every other oppose voter) makes me think you'd be another addition to our many admins who understand out rules precisely, but have no understanding of the
689:
My primary focus is on AIAV. In time I intend to diversify, but right now I don't have enough experience in these areas to feel confident to get involved at an admin level. I have been involved in CSD at an editor level, and this would continue. So to cut a long story short: once I have the
365:
I'd like to provide some hypothetical examples if I may. The obvious one is insufficient warnings. It's normal to require vandalism after a recent, and correctly issued, level 4 warning. If appropriate warning hadn't been issued then nor would a block. Sometime a first and final warning is
2535:
Imperfect process knowledge is not disqualifying by itself, but combined with a combative temperament (which the user has demonstrated even during this RFA) is a dangerous combination in an admin. So I need to oppose this candidacy even though I appreciate Dr Dec's anti-vandalism work and
3038:
system. Plus, I can't see too many edits in the field of deletion - although I can't vouch for CSD work (can't access deleted pages... not an admin), I can see there's only been one AfD edit from you in nearly the last three months. I'm sorry, I have to go with neutral right now.
1774:
The only link I can see that shows lack of maturity is Julian's one from August. I have already admitted that I was inexperienced at the time, I have already apologised, I have already asked for closure on the matter, and I have been getting to know the project ever since.
1657:
Regarding the first link: Why does it show a lack of maturity? I admit my past failings and ask for closure on something. As for the second link, well, that user's closure of the discussion was later over turned and the discussion bloomed into a very productive one.
1478:, and had not put any links between the two accounts; as is required. Given that Xeno is such an experienced editor I would have assumed that s/he would have followed policy regarding alternative accounts. This further enforced the impression of a bogus account.
2462:
I would be interested to see why I am arrogant and immature. Since when has admitting one's inexperience been arrogant? Since when has admitting one's mistakes, apologising, and asking for closure been immature? Your comments simply reflect why RfA is broken.
2809:
In my opinion most of the typical backlog at AIV should never have been reported there in the first place, and blocking simply because you can or because you're asked to causes more harm than good. I await the answer to question 5 with great interest. --
1564:- Regardless of what the user says about "just fighting vandalism", I don't buy it. The tools are bundled. Outside of reversions, I don't see anything that helps me gauge the clue of this user. Also, julian's diff shows a very worrisome immature tone.
157:
was 17 minutes. During this period a large amount of time and effort can be wasted reverting and warning vandals until an admin arrives to put a stop to it. I also intend to learn and to diversify. Eventually I would like to work on page protection
2262:
prove their points. You've totally misjudge me. Maybe I haven't explained myself properly. It's just so sad, you ignore 18 months worth of work and turn to flat out oppose because of one sentence. It's just petty, and it misses the point totally.
524:
Wow, this is an old image. Like I said, I'm not very good with this copyright stuff. He was my PhD supervisor. I asked him if I could use the image from his website, and he agreed. So to be honest, I don't hold the copyright to the image.
1522:
per Julian and previous interaction with the candidate. Vandal-fighting is stated as candidate's primary need for the tool, but only 70 reports to AIV. Also, as noted above, very little work in the XfD arena or with article creation.
1292:
for the future. It is fairly clear that this RfA is not going to succeed, but I think this is a "not yet" rather than a "not ever" (as Tan put it) case. Tireless vandal fighting is appreciated. Plus I have seen the candidate at
1121:
I wouldn't be surprised if you get some opposes based on focusing on vandal whacking, but considering you've been here for 18 months and plan on working in an area where you have obvious knowledge and clue, there's no way I'll
2332:
Sorry if my comment came off as snarky. I'd like to add that you have good intentions, and do a good job with vandal-fighting. I think you'll be able to learn from this, and come back again with a better grasp of policy.
597:
As I've mentioned above: if the vandalism involved sexual or racial abuse. In these cases a first and final warning should be issued. If they vandalise again, and it's of the same nature, then they should be blocked.
2607:
not come into play without Dr Dec's say-so. Why do we have the SNOW policy if hopeless editors like this can overrule it for no good reason? Why in hell are so many doomed RfAs getting these kinds of demands lately?
2183:
carefully nuanced compromises and discussion which went into the making of those rules, or of which rules are ignorable "it would be a good idea" guidelines and which are firm legal and/or ethical boundaries. –
1298:
certainly heal that. Same goes for Q8 and the photo copyright issue (please do fix that). Spending a bit more time in other areas of the project apart from vandal-fighting would help for the next time around.
643:
No, cool down blocks are a bad idea. They will often make the problem worse. It might even incite sock puppetry. It's better to try to reason with the parties involved and to help them find a solution.
410:
or let the current report stand — so that another admin could deal with it. It would be a moral conflict of interest to block the user, and I would like an uninvolved admin to take control of the case.
1504:
To be fair I've seen admins block accounts like this, and the means to check the link between account is quite obscure. I'm sure that now Dr Dec is aware of it it's unlikely to happen again. --
213:
way, is my biggest and best contribution to the project. Although vandal fighting does not build an encyclopedia, it is necessary to maintain it. Imagine a project without my anti-vandal edits:
1747:- This user is not ready to use the admin bit yet, as they are lacking in sound judgmen in several admin related areas; as was shown by Julian and Wisdom89; and they are not mature enough yet.
1643:, which didn't instill in me much confidence of maturity. I do intend to take a closer look when I get a chance a little later, but from what I've seen so, a little more time would be of use.
1057:
I would ask that the discussion not be SNOWed. I would very much like to get feedback from this whole process. If a SNOW closure seems in order then I will request the closure myself. Thanks.
170:(01-Sept-09) shows that multiple acts of vandalism has been reverted (by myself, mostly). All of that time and effort could have been saved if I'd have had the power to protect those pages.
2377:
per demonstrated lack of policy knowledge in regards to answering the questions. Take a few months to familiarize yourself with the relevant policies in the areas you wish to work.
1635:. I'm with Wisdom on this one. The vandalism reversion is definitely not a bad thing, but there isn't a whole of other stuff to go off of. I took a sample of maybe ten edits and got
454:
reverts because they thought that the limit was per solar day and not 24 hour period. However, if the user is a clear vandal and/or troll then I wouldn't attempt to communicate, per
746:
is a contentious area of
Knowledge. Would you perform blocks, page protections or rollbacks in any fringe science articles, or do you feel that this would be a conflict of interest?
683:
In your answer to Q1, you made no mention of CSDs or AfDs. Does this indicate that you have no interest in these areas, or would you be involved in them if you were to get the bit?
132:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve
Knowledge as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
307:
It would seem that you had your talk page deleted in early
October of 2009. Would you be willing to restore it to enable people to better understand your editing history?
2935:
The answers to questions are good. I see reasons to support, but links provided by the opposers leave some doubt. I would not be opposed to coming back a little later. --
2202:. I hadn't noticed "Imagine a project without my anti-vandal edits". We have far too many arrogant admins who think the place would fall apart without them as it is. –
258:
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?
2775:..Pending some further investigation and particularly answers to some of the optional questions. I notice you would have blocked another admin barely two hours ago
2686:
I'm afraid. I find the above concerns about attitude and lack of policy knowledge worrying. In particular, no matter how unreasonable you thought Tan was being,
939:
1246:
This user has stated that he needs to learn more about the areas of Admin where he lacks experience. For the purposes that he requests the tools I trust him.
934:
3098:
3080:
1965:
1085:
Let's call it a day, could someone please close this RfA. I hadn't realised that I was such an arsehole. Thanks for pointing out how much you all hate me.
1156:
While you don't appear to have much experience in XfD or any of the other various areas admins are expected to know backwards and forwards, I find those
788:
149:. I have spent many hours warning and reporting vandals, and many time a vandal has been allowed continue because of a lack of admins. The back log on
1161:
vandal and reverting their edits while waiting for an admin to block them. I would more than welcome another admin to help shoulder the load at AIV.
1824:~70 edits to AIV aren't much to judge a vandal-fighting admin-candidate. Combined with the diffs Julian and Wisdom89 point out- no, not this time.
264:
I have been involved in many conflicts during my time here. To be honest, my earlier encounters were quite simply embarrassing, with far too much
2297:- Julian and Wisdom above have clearly demonstrated a lack in sound judgement and maturity that are critical parts of an admin's job. Sorry.--
2884:
877:
2428:
2385:
1294:
1013:
2795:
is in constant need of more admins and I can't see Dr Dec abusing the bit, and so my vote remains #support, despite your valid concerns.
775:
1229:
Impressed by your contribs , as well as the valuable anti vandal work youve made useful improvements to the clarity of maths articles.
2645:
929:
162:). I have noticed that this is an area with a very large back log; sometimes there's never an admin around for hours. The back log on
1899:
3030:. Although I like the answers to some of your questions, the Q8 issue (regarding image copyrights) very much concerns me. Admins
2923:
30:
17:
818:
2748:
812:
2218:
I thought that this !vote was supposed to be a discussion. If it's a discussion about me then am I not not entitled to reply?
2673:
1619:
1584:
1135:
782:
827:
1950:
844:
768:
98:
2096:
Did you mean for your second and third links to be the same, Tan? If so I don't understand the 'revolution' reference.
965:
2833:
Again, I feel like a tug-o-war rope. There are good reasons to oppose and good reasons to support. I'll stay here.
1999:
1979:
1333:
I think this candidate will be a conscientious administrator. None of the opposes have convinced me otherwise. —
1198:
955:
1353:
903:
870:
637:
In cases where a user has done nothing else that would warrant any block, is a cool down block ever acceptable?
3044:
2111:
1743:
1829:
983:
924:
2453:
1946:
1919:
1410:
Thank you. AIV is in desperate need of more admins, particularly during "off hours" when not many are on.
72:
1474:'s identity, so I passed it on for the attention of more experienced users. Xeno hadn't put any mention of
1434:, and I don't see any overwhelmingly positive article or dispute-resolution contributions to outweigh it. –
919:
500:
2901:
2639:
1931:. Not enough deletion discussion/CSD work. Also per the image that user claimed to have the copyright of.
1810:
1475:
1463:
1443:
1234:
3040:
1825:
1705:
The situation Julian pointed out shows a real lack of ability to handle conflicts as recently as August.
979:
2800:
2165:
2084:
2035:
1895:
1415:
1321:
1279:
1166:
563:
512:
3079:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
734:
Do you have any article contributions (apart from fighting vandals) that you are particularly proud of?
2977:
2584:
2475:
2406:
2274:
2230:
2057:
2015:
1851:
1787:
1670:
1490:
1098:
1069:
762:
702:
656:
610:
537:
470:
422:
378:
326:
280:
237:
182:
113:
92:
2877:
2700:
2365:
2251:
2208:
2189:
2101:
1548:
1530:
1349:
1213:
1183:
1179:
898:
863:
725:
447:, do you believe that an attempt at communication should be made after the 2nd revert or the third?
2844:
2785:
and may think that deleting user talk pages is generally OK. I can see some good things though. --
2757:
2609:
2541:
2523:
2145:
1600:
1565:
1396:
1337:
3065:
3048:
3022:
3005:
2986:
2959:
2927:
2905:
2888:
2865:
2851:
2814:
2804:
2789:
2763:
2733:
2704:
2678:
2651:
2616:
2593:
2559:
2527:
2506:
2484:
2457:
2432:
2415:
2389:
2369:
2360:
I had a sort of feeling and reading the discussions noted above just seem to confirm that. Sorry,
2350:
2327:
2301:
2283:
2256:
2239:
2213:
2194:
2169:
2152:
2123:
2105:
2089:
2066:
2040:
2003:
1983:
1955:
1923:
1906:
1881:
1860:
1833:
1812:
1796:
1769:
1737:
1714:
1693:
1679:
1652:
1625:
1590:
1554:
1536:
1508:
1499:
1465:
1445:
1419:
1403:
1380:
1357:
1340:
1325:
1307:
1284:
1255:
1238:
1217:
1202:
1170:
1148:
1107:
1078:
1038:
1017:
1000:
987:
711:
665:
619:
567:
546:
516:
479:
431:
387:
335:
289:
246:
191:
122:
78:
2970:
2918:
2861:
2669:
2577:
2565:
2468:
2449:
2424:
2399:
2381:
2267:
2223:
2050:
1933:
1915:
1844:
1780:
1663:
1609:
1574:
1483:
1123:
1091:
1062:
1009:
840:
758:
695:
649:
603:
530:
463:
415:
371:
319:
273:
230:
175:
106:
88:
66:
1722:. per above. Troubling concerns with policy knowledge, experience, and lack of common sense. -
3001:
2897:
2731:
2628:
1803:
1689:
1648:
1456:
1436:
1230:
675:
629:
3061:
3018:
2952:
2896:
Question answers are generally good, but judgement calls shown by an opposer make me worry.
2796:
2569:
2161:
2076:
2027:
1892:
1756:
1411:
1317:
1272:
1209:
1162:
1031:
1005:
I'd like to wait and see how the candidate answers the questions first, if you don't mind.
993:
743:
721:
559:
508:
489:
222:
2696:
2555:
2361:
2246:
2203:
2184:
2119:
2097:
1542:
1524:
1303:
1251:
265:
210:
146:
2965:
my words: if I make another RfA the same links will appear, but with different rational.
2114:, in which Dr.Dec calls for revolution against the perceived old boy network of admins.--
3035:
2871:
2837:
2743:
2717:
2692:
2604:
2537:
2519:
2445:
2298:
2138:
1969:
again, that's not a factor in my oppose rationale; the oppose !votes above me are. --
1877:
1710:
1389:
1334:
455:
359:(that you would decline and remove from that page without blocking the user reported)?
3092:
2914:
2857:
2661:
2421:
2378:
1762:
1684:
I just felt better word choice could have been selected when conveying your message.
1141:
1128:
1006:
588:
555:
444:
400:
356:
345:
2695:
and take
PhantomSteve's good advice above: change really is possible. Best of luck,
2997:
2721:
2500:
2344:
2321:
2045:
I was indeed Tan. I wouldn't even expect anything else from someone like yourself.
1725:
1685:
1644:
214:
159:
554:: the link above is now red because an administrator has deleted the image under
3057:
3014:
2936:
2811:
2786:
2659:
Editor appears to be growing, but I don't think he's experienced enough yet. --
1750:
1505:
960:
579:
2913:
at this second. It's probably best to apply around 25 months of editing or so.
2551:
2115:
1373:
1299:
1247:
3073:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
2160:
per
Question 8. Admins should take copyright with the utmost seriousness. --
1992:
1972:
1889:
per Julian's first link, it doesn't reflect the way an admin should behave.
1872:
1706:
1471:
1191:
299:
1267:
the tools so you can show us that you'd be even more useful to the project
1541:
Also per rather worrisome answer to Q8, shows serious lack of knowledge.
2490:
2420:
Some of your answers do not jibe with the relevant question answered.
2334:
2311:
1048:
218:
2394:
Could you please explain how I have demonstrated a lack of knowledge?
2010:
I'm pretty sure the candidate was expecting this !vote from me, but I
3083:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
1470:
Regarding the last link: I thought that someone was trying to assume
587:
When, if ever, is it acceptable to block a user that was reported at
3056:
Not enough comfort to support, not enough disappointment to oppose.
314:
name, so you'll be able to access them via my current edit history.
843:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review
3013:
Normally I would oppose, but you seem to know what you are doing.
1047:
855:
399:
Do you feel blocking a user who has vandalized your userpage is a
859:
2135:. Not fully up to date with policy. Sorry, try again soon. —
1178:. Well rounded user. Probably over-qualified if anything.
355:
Could you please provide examples of inadequate reports to
2778:, blocked a user after minimal warning for vandalising a
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
1129:
1124:
203:
What are your best contributions to
Knowledge, and why?
139:
What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
2783:
2776:
2687:
2175:
2023:
2019:
1640:
1636:
1596:
1451:
1431:
1430:
Sorry, but I've still got a bad taste in my mouth from
806:
800:
794:
167:
163:
154:
150:
57:
1914:- sorry dude, but I don't trust you with the tools. -
1454:, which strikes me as very hasty and ill-considered. –
1188:
This editor has made few edits outside this topic. --
2014:
per what I consider a complete lack of common sense.
145:
To being with, I want to work on vandal fighting and
2610:
1801:
But that incident was only about four months ago. –
1280:
948:
912:
891:
2489:"Imagine a project without my anti-vandal edits"
591:that did not yet receive a total of 4 warnings?
209:I would say that my vandal fighting, in a very
2085:
2077:
2036:
2028:
2501:
2345:
2322:
2022:series of edits. Then, of course, we had the
871:
8:
2874:closure. (Or not, looking at user comments)
2870:Again, per JC but won't pile on. Recommend
2310:your edits and find your old account name.
1966:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam
1870:, would like to see a bit more experience.
825:Edit summary usage for Dr Dec can be found
2518:: Per regards to answering the questions.
1273:
878:
864:
856:
742:I see that you have a PhD in Mathematics.
690:experience I would start to get involved.
2996:for now, based on concerns raised above.
2716:. In sumnmary, definitely not. Recommend
2018:is my obvious example that culminated in
992:Does anyone here object to a SNOW close?
499:In what respect do you hold copyright in
839:Please keep discussion constructive and
1208:This is not to say that it's a sock. -
1599:doesn't demonstrate sound judgement.
1372:, just another 'vandalism' reverter.
7:
2834:
2174:Only joining the pile-on because of
1386:
1295:Knowledge:Reference desk/Mathematics
166:was over 5 hours. In that time this
3099:Unsuccessful requests for adminship
1030:Sure. That's perfectly acceptable.
628:Additional optional questions from
578:Additional optional questions from
2026:thread. Absolutely not; not ever.
720:Additional optional question from
674:Additional optional question from
24:
2742:what you're doing at the moment.
221:farmer with 29 children, born in
1450:I'm also rather concerned about
1271:them. Don;t be put off, though!
153:was 42 minutes. The back log on
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
2856:Per JC, but would not pile on.
2758:
2753:
2749:
2744:
2646:
2640:
2632:
2629:
2536:contributions at the refdesks.
2198:Actually, changing to flat-out
1890:
1763:
1612:
1602:
1577:
1567:
1186:) 04:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1032:
994:
1:
2845:
2838:
2075:be an admin on this project.
1397:
1390:
1142:
1136:
3066:17:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
3049:14:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
3023:02:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
3006:23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2987:22:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2960:22:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2928:20:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2906:19:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2889:18:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2866:06:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2852:00:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2815:01:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2805:00:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2790:00:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2764:14:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
2734:13:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
2705:11:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
2679:07:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
2652:07:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
2617:07:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
2594:20:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
2564:You seem to have missed his
2560:00:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
2528:23:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2507:02:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
2485:23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2458:22:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2433:20:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
2416:23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2390:21:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2370:19:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2351:22:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2328:19:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2302:19:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2284:20:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
2257:23:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2240:23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2214:18:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2195:18:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2170:18:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2153:18:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2124:14:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
2106:11:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
2090:23:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2067:23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2041:16:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
2004:15:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1984:15:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1956:14:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1924:13:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1907:09:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1882:06:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1861:12:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1834:04:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1813:15:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1797:10:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1770:04:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1757:
1738:03:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1715:03:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1694:16:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1680:10:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1653:01:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1626:01:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1591:00:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1555:14:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1537:00:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1509:11:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1500:10:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1466:03:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1446:00:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1420:00:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1404:00:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1381:00:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1358:19:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
1341:03:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
1326:20:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1308:18:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1285:17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1256:16:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1239:13:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1218:14:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
1203:04:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1171:00:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1149:23:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
1108:20:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
1079:10:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1039:09:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1018:09:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
1001:08:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
988:23:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
845:Special:Contributions/Dr Dec
712:11:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
666:11:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
620:11:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
568:03:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
547:11:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
517:01:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
480:11:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
432:10:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
388:10:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
336:10:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
290:23:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
247:23:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
192:23:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
123:22:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
79:21:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
63:20:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
978:Edit stats posted to talk.
128:Questions for the candidate
3115:
2831:Answer Question 4 please.
1385:What is wrong with that?
3076:Please do not modify it.
443:What is your opinion on
39:Please do not modify it.
2071:Keep digging. You will
1839:makes the AIAV report.
503:? I note it appears on
298:Optional question from
2954:Questions or Comments?
1053:
217:would be 307 year old
58:withdrawn by candidate
2110:Tan was referring to
1989:raised above me. --
1051:
31:request for adminship
2691:outcome of this RfA
2568:which culminated in
961:Global contributions
401:conflict of interest
2024:call for revolution
1052:Let's call it a day
925:Non-automated edits
403:? Why or why not?
2012:strenuously oppose
1376:Garibaldi Baconfat
1348:Looks okay to me.
1054:
904:Edit summary usage
847:before commenting.
756:Links for Dr Dec:
65:. Close fixed by -
40:
2984:
2958:
2926:
2921:
2729:
2603:per request that
2591:
2482:
2413:
2281:
2237:
2151:
2064:
1858:
1794:
1768:
1732:
1677:
1621:
1616:
1586:
1581:
1497:
1476:Xeno on an iPhone
1205:
1147:
1105:
1076:
1034:Aditya Ex Machina
996:Aditya Ex Machina
974:
973:
709:
663:
617:
544:
477:
429:
385:
333:
287:
244:
189:
120:
38:
3106:
3078:
3015:Kevin Rutherford
2985:
2983:
2981:
2973:
2967:
2955:
2950:
2948:
2945:
2942:
2939:
2922:
2917:
2850:
2847:
2840:
2760:
2755:
2751:
2746:
2728:
2725:
2724:
2664:
2648:
2642:
2634:
2631:
2614:
2592:
2590:
2588:
2580:
2574:
2503:
2497:
2483:
2481:
2479:
2471:
2465:
2414:
2412:
2410:
2402:
2396:
2347:
2341:
2324:
2318:
2282:
2280:
2278:
2270:
2264:
2254:
2249:
2238:
2236:
2234:
2226:
2220:
2211:
2206:
2192:
2187:
2150:
2148:
2143:
2136:
2087:
2081:
2065:
2063:
2061:
2053:
2047:
2038:
2032:
1942:
1941:
1938:
1905:
1902:
1859:
1857:
1855:
1847:
1841:
1806:
1795:
1793:
1791:
1783:
1777:
1765:
1759:
1748:
1736:
1733:
1730:
1678:
1676:
1674:
1666:
1660:
1620:
1614:
1610:
1604:
1585:
1579:
1575:
1569:
1551:
1545:
1533:
1527:
1498:
1496:
1494:
1486:
1480:
1459:
1439:
1402:
1399:
1392:
1378:
1282:
1277:
1187:
1144:
1138:
1133:
1131:
1126:
1106:
1104:
1102:
1094:
1088:
1077:
1075:
1073:
1065:
1059:
1036:
998:
920:Articles created
880:
873:
866:
857:
830:
822:
781:
751:General comments
710:
708:
706:
698:
692:
664:
662:
660:
652:
646:
618:
616:
614:
606:
600:
545:
543:
541:
533:
527:
478:
476:
474:
466:
460:
430:
428:
426:
418:
412:
386:
384:
382:
374:
368:
334:
332:
330:
322:
316:
288:
286:
284:
276:
270:
245:
243:
241:
233:
227:
223:Sydney Australia
190:
188:
186:
178:
172:
121:
119:
117:
109:
103:
75:
69:
3114:
3113:
3109:
3108:
3107:
3105:
3104:
3103:
3089:
3088:
3087:
3081:this nomination
3074:
3034:know about the
2975:
2971:
2968:
2966:
2953:
2946:
2943:
2940:
2937:
2887:
2878:NativeForeigner
2849:
2772:
2726:
2722:
2662:
2582:
2578:
2575:
2573:
2505:
2491:
2473:
2469:
2466:
2464:
2404:
2400:
2397:
2395:
2349:
2335:
2326:
2312:
2272:
2268:
2265:
2263:
2252:
2247:
2228:
2224:
2221:
2219:
2209:
2204:
2190:
2185:
2146:
2139:
2137:
2055:
2051:
2048:
2046:
2002:
1982:
1939:
1936:
1935:
1900:
1849:
1845:
1842:
1840:
1804:
1785:
1781:
1778:
1776:
1753:
1729:
1726:
1723:
1668:
1664:
1661:
1659:
1624:
1615:
1589:
1580:
1549:
1543:
1531:
1525:
1488:
1484:
1481:
1479:
1457:
1437:
1401:
1374:
1366:
1350:ChildofMidnight
1214:Ta bu shi da yu
1201:
1115:
1096:
1092:
1089:
1087:
1067:
1063:
1060:
1058:
975:
970:
944:
908:
887:
886:RfA/RfB toolbox
884:
854:
826:
774:
757:
753:
726:Ta bu shi da yu
700:
696:
693:
691:
654:
650:
647:
645:
608:
604:
601:
599:
535:
531:
528:
526:
468:
464:
461:
459:
420:
416:
413:
411:
376:
372:
369:
367:
344:Questions from
324:
320:
317:
315:
278:
274:
271:
269:
235:
231:
228:
226:
180:
176:
173:
171:
130:
111:
107:
104:
102:
86:
73:
67:
53:Final (9/32/11)
50:
35:did not succeed
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3112:
3110:
3102:
3101:
3091:
3090:
3086:
3085:
3069:
3068:
3051:
3041:JulieSpaulding
3025:
3008:
2991:
2990:
2989:
2930:
2908:
2891:
2883:
2868:
2854:
2835:
2821:
2820:
2819:
2818:
2817:
2771:
2768:
2767:
2766:
2736:
2707:
2681:
2654:
2619:
2598:
2597:
2596:
2545:
2530:
2513:
2512:
2511:
2510:
2509:
2499:
2439:
2438:
2437:
2436:
2435:
2372:
2355:
2354:
2353:
2343:
2320:
2304:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2287:
2286:
2197:
2172:
2155:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2008:
2007:
2006:
1998:
1978:
1958:
1926:
1916:Richard Cavell
1909:
1901:Tellers' wands
1884:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1826:Bradjamesbrown
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1751:
1740:
1727:
1717:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1611:
1607:
1576:
1572:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1387:
1365:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1343:
1328:
1310:
1287:
1258:
1241:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1197:
1151:
1114:
1111:
1082:
1081:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
990:
980:Bradjamesbrown
972:
971:
969:
968:
963:
958:
952:
950:
946:
945:
943:
942:
937:
932:
927:
922:
916:
914:
910:
909:
907:
906:
901:
895:
893:
889:
888:
885:
883:
882:
875:
868:
860:
853:
850:
836:
835:
834:
832:
823:
752:
749:
748:
747:
744:Fringe science
736:
735:
729:
717:
716:
715:
714:
678:
671:
670:
669:
668:
632:
625:
624:
623:
622:
582:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
488:Question from
485:
484:
483:
482:
437:
436:
435:
434:
393:
392:
391:
390:
341:
340:
339:
338:
302:
295:
294:
293:
292:
252:
251:
250:
249:
197:
196:
195:
194:
155:this AIAV page
151:this AIAV page
129:
126:
85:
82:
49:
44:
43:
42:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3111:
3100:
3097:
3096:
3094:
3084:
3082:
3077:
3071:
3070:
3067:
3063:
3059:
3055:
3052:
3050:
3046:
3042:
3037:
3033:
3029:
3026:
3024:
3020:
3016:
3012:
3009:
3007:
3003:
2999:
2995:
2992:
2988:
2979:
2974:
2963:
2962:
2961:
2956:
2949:
2934:
2931:
2929:
2925:
2920:
2916:
2912:
2909:
2907:
2903:
2899:
2895:
2892:
2890:
2886:
2881:
2880:
2879:
2873:
2869:
2867:
2863:
2859:
2855:
2853:
2848:
2842:
2841:
2832:
2828:
2827:
2822:
2816:
2813:
2808:
2807:
2806:
2802:
2798:
2793:
2792:
2791:
2788:
2784:
2781:
2777:
2774:
2773:
2769:
2765:
2761:
2752:
2747:
2740:
2737:
2735:
2732:
2730:
2719:
2715:
2711:
2710:Strong Oppose
2708:
2706:
2702:
2698:
2694:
2689:
2685:
2682:
2680:
2677:
2675:
2671:
2666:
2665:
2658:
2655:
2653:
2649:
2643:
2637:
2636:
2635:
2623:
2620:
2618:
2615:
2613:
2606:
2602:
2601:Strong oppose
2599:
2595:
2586:
2581:
2571:
2567:
2563:
2562:
2561:
2557:
2553:
2549:
2546:
2543:
2539:
2534:
2531:
2529:
2525:
2521:
2517:
2514:
2508:
2504:
2498:
2496:
2495:
2488:
2487:
2486:
2477:
2472:
2461:
2460:
2459:
2455:
2451:
2450:Laurinavicius
2447:
2443:
2442:Strong Oppose
2440:
2434:
2430:
2426:
2423:
2419:
2418:
2417:
2408:
2403:
2393:
2392:
2391:
2387:
2383:
2380:
2376:
2373:
2371:
2367:
2363:
2359:
2356:
2352:
2348:
2342:
2340:
2339:
2331:
2330:
2329:
2325:
2319:
2317:
2316:
2308:
2305:
2303:
2300:
2296:
2293:
2285:
2276:
2271:
2260:
2259:
2258:
2255:
2250:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2232:
2227:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2212:
2207:
2201:
2196:
2193:
2188:
2181:
2177:
2173:
2171:
2167:
2163:
2159:
2156:
2154:
2149:
2144:
2142:
2134:
2131:
2125:
2121:
2117:
2113:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2103:
2099:
2095:
2091:
2088:
2082:
2080:
2074:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2059:
2054:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2039:
2033:
2031:
2025:
2021:
2017:
2013:
2009:
2005:
2001:
2000:Contributions
1996:
1995:
1994:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1981:
1980:Contributions
1976:
1975:
1974:
1967:
1962:
1959:
1957:
1954:
1952:
1948:
1944:
1943:
1930:
1927:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1910:
1908:
1903:
1897:
1894:
1888:
1885:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1874:
1869:
1866:
1862:
1853:
1848:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1831:
1827:
1823:
1820:
1814:
1811:
1808:
1807:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1789:
1784:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1766:
1760:
1754:
1746:
1745:
1741:
1739:
1735:
1734:
1721:
1718:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1704:
1701:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1672:
1667:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1631:
1627:
1622:
1617:
1606:
1605:
1598:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1587:
1582:
1571:
1570:
1563:
1560:
1556:
1553:
1552:
1546:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1535:
1534:
1528:
1521:
1518:
1510:
1507:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1492:
1487:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1464:
1461:
1460:
1453:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1444:
1441:
1440:
1433:
1429:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1400:
1394:
1393:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1379:
1377:
1371:
1368:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1344:
1342:
1339:
1336:
1332:
1329:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1314:
1311:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1296:
1291:
1290:Moral Support
1288:
1286:
1283:
1278:
1276:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1261:Moral Support
1259:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1242:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1225:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1206:
1204:
1200:
1199:Contributions
1195:
1194:
1193:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1159:
1155:
1152:
1150:
1145:
1139:
1132:
1127:
1120:
1117:
1116:
1112:
1110:
1109:
1100:
1095:
1086:
1080:
1071:
1066:
1056:
1055:
1050:
1040:
1037:
1035:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1008:
1004:
1003:
1002:
999:
997:
991:
989:
985:
981:
977:
976:
967:
964:
962:
959:
957:
954:
953:
951:
947:
941:
938:
936:
933:
931:
928:
926:
923:
921:
918:
917:
915:
911:
905:
902:
900:
897:
896:
894:
890:
881:
876:
874:
869:
867:
862:
861:
858:
851:
849:
848:
846:
842:
833:
829:
824:
820:
817:
814:
811:
808:
805:
802:
799:
796:
793:
790:
787:
784:
780:
777:
773:
770:
767:
764:
760:
755:
754:
750:
745:
741:
738:
737:
733:
730:
727:
723:
719:
718:
713:
704:
699:
688:
685:
684:
682:
679:
677:
673:
672:
667:
658:
653:
642:
639:
638:
636:
633:
631:
627:
626:
621:
612:
607:
596:
593:
592:
590:
586:
583:
581:
577:
576:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
550:
549:
548:
539:
534:
523:
520:
519:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
481:
472:
467:
457:
452:
449:
448:
446:
442:
439:
438:
433:
424:
419:
408:
405:
404:
402:
398:
395:
394:
389:
380:
375:
364:
361:
360:
358:
354:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
337:
328:
323:
312:
309:
308:
306:
303:
301:
297:
296:
291:
282:
277:
267:
263:
260:
259:
257:
254:
253:
248:
239:
234:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
205:
204:
202:
199:
198:
193:
184:
179:
169:
165:
161:
156:
152:
148:
144:
141:
140:
138:
135:
134:
133:
127:
125:
124:
115:
110:
100:
97:
94:
90:
83:
81:
80:
77:
76:
70:
64:
60:
59:
54:
48:
45:
41:
36:
32:
27:
26:
19:
3075:
3072:
3053:
3031:
3027:
3010:
2993:
2932:
2910:
2898:Doc Quintana
2893:
2876:
2875:
2836:
2830:
2825:
2823:
2779:
2738:
2713:
2709:
2688:edit warring
2683:
2667:
2660:
2656:
2627:
2626:
2621:
2611:
2600:
2547:
2532:
2515:
2493:
2492:
2441:
2374:
2357:
2337:
2336:
2314:
2313:
2306:
2294:
2199:
2179:
2176:this request
2157:
2140:
2132:
2078:
2072:
2029:
2011:
1991:
1990:
1971:
1970:
1960:
1934:
1932:
1928:
1911:
1886:
1871:
1867:
1821:
1805:Juliancolton
1802:
1742:
1724:
1719:
1702:
1632:
1601:
1566:
1561:
1547:
1529:
1519:
1458:Juliancolton
1455:
1438:Juliancolton
1435:
1388:
1375:
1369:
1345:
1330:
1312:
1289:
1274:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1243:
1231:FeydHuxtable
1226:
1190:
1189:
1175:
1157:
1153:
1118:
1084:
1083:
1033:
995:
838:
837:
815:
809:
803:
797:
791:
785:
778:
771:
765:
739:
731:
686:
680:
676:Phantomsteve
640:
634:
630:Doc Quintana
594:
584:
551:
521:
505:this webpage
496:
487:
486:
450:
440:
406:
396:
362:
352:
343:
342:
310:
304:
261:
255:
215:Barack Obama
206:
200:
168:edit history
164:this PP page
142:
136:
131:
95:
87:
71:
62:
56:
55:- closed as
52:
51:
46:
34:
28:
2797:Throwaway85
2162:Mkativerata
2112:this thread
1633:Weak Oppose
1412:Throwaway85
1318:Ottawa4ever
1163:Throwaway85
966:User rights
956:CentralAuth
560:Mkativerata
509:Mkativerata
490:Mkativerata
2697:Olaf Davis
2502:Talk To Me
2362:Fetchcomms
2346:Talk To Me
2323:Talk To Me
2098:Olaf Davis
1758:have a cup
1432:this issue
1281:You rang?
1275:HJMitchell
1212:(formerly
1180:Brazilnode
949:Cross-wiki
940:AfD closes
852:Discussion
724:(formerly
501:this photo
84:Nomination
2780:vandalbox
2693:too badly
2538:Abecedare
2520:South Bay
2299:Unionhawk
2141:Cargoking
1335:Athaenara
1122:oppose.--
935:AfD votes
930:BLP edits
801:block log
266:Wikidrama
211:Wikignome
3093:Category
2915:ConCompS
2885:Contribs
2858:Tim Song
2839:smithers
2824:Neutral
2663:Kraftlos
2647:contribs
2566:hounding
2422:ArcAngel
2379:ArcAngel
1893:Treasury
1603:Wisdom89
1568:Wisdom89
1391:smithers
1331:Support.
1158:de facto
1137:Contribs
1007:ArcAngel
913:Analysis
892:Counters
769:contribs
346:ArcAngel
147:blocking
99:contribs
68:Spaceman
3054:Neutral
3028:Neutral
3011:Neutral
2998:Bearian
2994:Neutral
2933:Neutral
2911:Neutral
2894:Neutral
2872:WP:SNOW
2826:For Now
2770:Neutral
2718:WP:SNOW
2674:Contrib
2630:Phantom
2605:WP:SNOW
2446:WP:SNOW
1937:TheWeak
1686:Useight
1645:Useight
1595:Oh and
1346:Support
1313:Support
1265:without
1244:Support
1227:Support
1176:Support
1154:Support
1119:Support
1113:Support
776:deleted
456:WP:DNFT
219:Chinese
3058:Warrah
3032:should
2972:Dr Dec
2924:review
2812:zzuuzz
2787:zzuuzz
2745:Minima
2739:Oppose
2727:le_Jrb
2684:Oppose
2657:Oppose
2622:Oppose
2612:Şłџğģő
2579:Dr Dec
2570:outing
2548:Oppose
2533:Oppose
2516:Oppose
2470:Dr Dec
2429:review
2425:(talk)
2401:Dr Dec
2386:review
2382:(talk)
2375:Oppose
2358:Oppose
2307:Oppose
2295:Oppose
2269:Dr Dec
2225:Dr Dec
2200:oppose
2158:Oppose
2133:Oppose
2052:Dr Dec
1961:Oppose
1940:Willed
1929:Oppose
1912:Oppose
1887:Oppose
1868:Oppose
1846:Dr Dec
1822:Oppose
1782:Dr Dec
1752:Coffee
1744:Oppose
1731:ASTILY
1720:Oppose
1703:Oppose
1665:Dr Dec
1562:Oppose
1520:Oppose
1506:zzuuzz
1485:Dr Dec
1370:Oppose
1364:Oppose
1143:WP:CFL
1125:Giants
1093:Dr Dec
1064:Dr Dec
1014:review
1010:(talk)
899:XTools
759:Dr Dec
697:Dr Dec
651:Dr Dec
605:Dr Dec
589:WP:AIV
580:Shirik
532:Dr Dec
465:Dr Dec
445:WP:3RR
417:Dr Dec
373:Dr Dec
357:WP:AIV
321:Dr Dec
275:Dr Dec
232:Dr Dec
177:Dr Dec
108:Dr Dec
89:Dr Dec
47:Dr Dec
2714:works
2633:Steve
2552:Atlan
2253:scent
2248:iride
2210:scent
2205:iride
2191:scent
2186:iride
2147:talk
2116:Atlan
2073:never
1550:Cobra
1544:Glass
1532:Cobra
1526:Glass
1300:Nsk92
1248:RP459
1210:Tbsdy
841:civil
783:count
722:Tbsdy
160:WP:PP
74:Spiff
33:that
16:<
3062:talk
3045:talk
3036:OTRS
3019:talk
3002:talk
2978:Talk
2919:talk
2902:talk
2862:talk
2846:talk
2801:talk
2759:talk
2701:talk
2670:Talk
2641:talk
2585:Talk
2556:talk
2542:talk
2524:talk
2476:Talk
2454:talk
2407:Talk
2366:talk
2275:Talk
2231:Talk
2180:need
2166:talk
2120:talk
2102:talk
2058:Talk
2020:this
2016:This
1993:Soap
1973:Soap
1920:talk
1878:talk
1873:Cirt
1852:Talk
1830:talk
1788:Talk
1711:talk
1707:Gigs
1690:talk
1671:Talk
1649:talk
1641:this
1639:and
1637:this
1597:this
1491:Talk
1472:Xeno
1452:this
1416:talk
1398:talk
1354:talk
1322:talk
1304:talk
1269:with
1252:talk
1235:talk
1192:Soap
1184:talk
1167:talk
1099:Talk
1070:Talk
984:talk
828:here
813:rfar
795:logs
763:talk
703:Talk
657:Talk
611:Talk
564:talk
558:. --
552:Note
538:Talk
513:talk
507:. --
471:Talk
423:Talk
379:Talk
327:Talk
300:Soap
281:Talk
238:Talk
183:Talk
114:Talk
93:talk
2969:~~
2576:~~
2494:~DC
2467:~~
2398:~~
2338:~DC
2315:~DC
2266:~~
2222:~~
2083:|
2079:Tan
2049:~~
2034:|
2030:Tan
1896:Tag
1843:~~
1779:~~
1767://
1764:ark
1761://
1755://
1662:~~
1482:~~
1216:)
1090:~~
1061:~~
819:spi
789:AfD
740:13.
732:12.
694:~~
681:11.
648:~~
635:10.
602:~~
529:~~
462:~~
414:~~
370:~~
318:~~
272:~~
229:~~
174:~~
105:~~
61:at
3095::
3064:)
3047:)
3021:)
3004:)
2982:~~
2947:ik
2938:Sh
2904:)
2864:)
2843:-
2829:-
2803:)
2762:)
2754:94
2720:.
2703:)
2672:|
2650:\
2589:~~
2572:.
2558:)
2526:)
2480:~~
2456:)
2448:.
2431:)
2411:~~
2388:)
2368:)
2279:~~
2235:~~
2168:)
2122:)
2104:)
2086:39
2062:~~
2037:39
1949:*
1922:)
1904:─╢
1891:╟─
1880:)
1856:~~
1832:)
1809:|
1792:~~
1749:—
1713:)
1692:)
1675:~~
1651:)
1618:/
1583:/
1495:~~
1462:|
1442:|
1418:)
1395:-
1356:)
1338:✉
1324:)
1306:)
1254:)
1237:)
1169:)
1130:27
1103:~~
1074:~~
1016:)
986:)
807:lu
728:)
707:~~
687:A:
661:~~
615:~~
595:A:
585:9.
566:)
556:F9
542:~~
522:A:
515:)
497:8.
475:~~
458:.
451:A:
441:7.
427:~~
407:A:
397:6.
383:~~
363:A:
353:5.
331:~~
311:A:
305:4.
285:~~
262:A:
256:3.
242:~~
225:.
207:A:
201:2.
187:~~
143:A:
137:1.
118:~~
37:.
3060:(
3043:(
3017:(
3000:(
2980:)
2976:(
2957:)
2951:(
2944:r
2941:i
2900:(
2882:/
2860:(
2799:(
2782:,
2756:(
2750:c
2723:A
2699:(
2676:)
2668:(
2644:|
2638:/
2587:)
2583:(
2554:(
2544:)
2540:(
2522:(
2478:)
2474:(
2452:(
2427:(
2409:)
2405:(
2384:(
2364:(
2277:)
2273:(
2233:)
2229:(
2164:(
2118:(
2100:(
2060:)
2056:(
1997:/
1977:/
1953:)
1951:G
1947:T
1945:(
1918:(
1898:►
1876:(
1854:)
1850:(
1828:(
1790:)
1786:(
1728:F
1709:(
1688:(
1673:)
1669:(
1647:(
1623:)
1613:T
1608:(
1588:)
1578:T
1573:(
1493:)
1489:(
1414:(
1352:(
1320:(
1302:(
1250:(
1233:(
1196:/
1182:(
1165:(
1146:)
1140:|
1134:(
1101:)
1097:(
1072:)
1068:(
1012:(
982:(
879:e
872:t
865:v
831:.
821:)
816:·
810:·
804:·
798:·
792:·
786:·
779:·
772:·
766:·
761:(
705:)
701:(
659:)
655:(
641:A
613:)
609:(
562:(
540:)
536:(
511:(
473:)
469:(
425:)
421:(
381:)
377:(
329:)
325:(
283:)
279:(
240:)
236:(
185:)
181:(
158:(
116:)
112:(
96:·
91:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.