2080:--Viewing contribution data for user Fetofs (over the 2822 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 213 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 18hr (UTC) -- 23, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 23, October, 2005 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 76.59% Minor edits: 99.44% Average edits per day: 8.84 (for last 500 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 247 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100% Analysis of edits (out of all 2822 edits shown of this page): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.21% (6) Small article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 3.97% (112) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 18.07% (510) Minor article edits marked as minor: 58.73% Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 1427 | Average edits per page: 1.98 | Edits on top: 11.84% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 43.02% (1214 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 21.01% (593 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 10.31% (291 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 23.46% (662 edit(s)) Edits by Knowledge namespace: Article: 31.86% (899) | Article talk: 1.67% (47) User: 11.8% (333) | User talk: 16.87% (476) Knowledge: 30.33% (856) | Knowledge talk: 3.37% (95) Image: 3.05% (86) Template: 0.78% (22) Category: 0.14% (4) Portal: 0.07% (2) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.07% (2)
75:) – I think I'm an overall good user. I have contributed to WP:AFD and even closed some debates where the articles had been speedied by another user. I revert vandalism frequently, and have tagged a lot of new pages for speedy deletion in new pages patrol. I also have quite an experience with helping newbies out at Knowledge:New contributors' help page and at the Help Desk. This has led me into finding many policies I didn't even know that existed, and proves that I try to be always patient and ready to help (I looked out for the answer of one user for an hour). For those who care about edit counts, I have over 2000 edits, of those 556 are in the project namespace and 73 in project talk. Although I don't edit much per day, I spend 99% of my time online at the encyclopedia (well, not so much at June with the World Cup going), mostly reading and looking for minor and/or formatting errors.
1982:
contributions, which, even as I'm disinclined to agree with those conclusions, I recognize as altogether fine. I oppose only in view of the user's less-than-stellar command of the
English language (for the concession of which fact he is to be commended); even as I don't think the user would ever maliciously or even volitionally misuse the admin tools, I'm not altogether confident that he might not unknowingly misuse the tools (or, at the very least, properly use the tools but be unable appropriately to communicate with other users apropos of that use). It should be said, of course, that the usual suppositions of intellectual infirmity on the basis of non-conversance with the English language ought not to be essayed here, in view both of the user's being young and, more importantly, of the user's being a native speaker of
1586:
people I could quite legitamately say I do not support a candidate because they are black, and because I'm a stauch racist (I should point out I'm not!) that I don't feel that black people can be trusted (or something along those lines). It is exactly the same logic, yet I'm sure some people will not agree. If we allow people to simply have such predujiced attitudes when voting I personally think that that is wrong. Alternatively one may feel that in a free society, and thus on an online community that
Knowledge is (to a degree), anyone should be able to vote with whatever views they have. I'm sure on Knowledge we have KKK members, and so if one was to vote quite openly and blatantly as I suggested above I wonder if our opinions would be different. I'm sure people would perhaps be more critical of "
252:(the length of which leads me to question my own command of the English language), I was concerned neither in view of this user's age qua level of maturity (believing that the latter not to be strictly dependent on the former) nor of his judgment (assuming, as I do, that he is well-versed in policies and procedures, etc.), but only in view of his less-than-fluent grasp of the English language, inasmuch as that grasp might be insufficent for him properly to communicate with other users, especially with respect to admin actions. Having reviewed his recent contributions, though, I'm convinced that his knowledge of English is at least adequate for the task of communicating with other editors, and, having no other major unallayed concerns, I've to support.
1918:- Looks like a nice person, and the responses to the questions are careful and knowledgeable. My concerns are the candidates lack of experience with the cut and thrust of editing and the Wiki community's lack of knowledge of how the candidate will behave under stress. The candidate seems happy enough to bob along in quiet waters. I see no advantage at this point for either Wiki or the candidate of potential exposure to stress. I am unsure from the nomination of the candidate's reasons for wanting to become an Admin, other than to generally help out. The candidate seems uncertain. Perhaps, at this stage, some guidance from others on where
1464:, though. Now, given the revalation of this young man's age, I examined the situation more closely. No offense to the candidate, but I see alot of...undesirable answers below. He has never been in an editing conflict. His answers to the deletion questions are more of a dogmatic regurgitation of policy rather than an intellectual understanding; he summarizes the deletion process ("") rather than explaining his interpretation of them. Overall, I see a lack of depth that comes with age. He seems to be a precocious young man, and I was one myself. And yet I know that I was fully incapable of being an admin at that time.
2461:, I'd probably be on the safe side and tag it instead of deleting, that way I have two admin's opinions on the subject. If the second admin contests it, it's a sign that the speedy is not so obvious, but then there's no problem, as a PROD after that would be extremely likely to achieve success without any controversy that my speedy would cause. Anyway, trying for the speedy gives less problems than trying a PROD.
1561:- Not enough mainspace edits. Of the 900 mainspace edits, more than a half are minor (mostly typo corrections) edits or repetitive cleanups and substitutions. Despite a relatively good work in the prject namespace and some vandalism reversion, I think this user needs some more time around. I also think he should start creating and expanding more articles. After that, I believe he can become a great admin.
186:. Yanksox is correct that there are many useless projectspace edits, but there are good ones in there too, and though it may not be 900, it's more than enough. I disagree that age alone should mean someone shouldn't be an admin, and the answers below seemed to me to be rather well-written and thought out— more than I would do. This user appears to be a great contributor and would not abuse the tools. --
1953:. I appreciate the frank answer to Q2, but that's also where this editor loses me. Along with wielding the mop, bucket and keys to the supply closet, being an admin/janitor also involves giving people directions. If you get in some more work writing articles, you'll be better able to help those who come to you for advice on writing articles. Count on my support then. :)
2034:- I don't know this user as far as I know, so I'll refrain from voting support or oppose. I feel compelled, however, to register my displeasure at people bringing someone's age into this. From my experience, it's actually the younger Wikipedians who have more integrity and are less likely to go mental and quit in a fit of rogue badness. -
1304:
say that "there are certain qualities of admins that just come with age." Please give examples of these qualities, how the candidate does not demonstrate them, and why you did not originally oppose because they lacked these qualities. After all, this lack of "certain qualities of admins" should be shown in the nominee's editing.--
591:. I have faith in this user. Fetofs' responses and demeanor indicate maturity beyond his years. (On the other hand, I could raise a handful of notable counterexamples to the stereotype that older users are "better-behaved" or "less likely to abuse the tools", but I don't feel like drifting into Personalattackville today). —
631:- per many above too (but not maybe the per many above directly above) - anyways, age is not a factor in adminship, I know many great people here who are quite young, many of whom can't even drive in the US and they do a great job, I see no reason why Fetofs would not continue in that fine tradition I've enjoyed --
993:
demonstrates a lack of maturity—you should be opposing based on factors that the candidate can actually do something about. The fact that this is a self nom demonstrates further maturity, in that the nominee is able to make decisions as large as are involved in judging one's readiness for adminship.--
1629:
I wish I was able to generalise as easily as you, however to say that age bears a direct relationship to judgement is questionable. I do not think that one can simply generalise as you are seeming to do. And I may believe that race does bear a direct relationship to good judgement, I may believe that
1099:
is 16 and he's a total star. I'm 16 and an Admin (since I was 15) and like to think that I'm eloquent the majority of the time. I, personally, think that age is a totally irrelevant and unconnected to maturity, especially when it comes to places like
Knowledge, where we have to be geeks to contribute
2324:
In your own words, tell us what you think the most important traditions and/or rules are at
Knowledge, and why they're important. These can be things that may or may not be official policy- I'm asking for your own personal opinions as well as your interpretation of policies. What are your thoughts
1473:
Well, that was surely a better explanation than your vote up there. I only have to say that I wrote that mostly without looking at the policy, and the dogmatic way is my way of interpreting things. If a candidate had stretched the policies to common sense deleting, it would be his interpretation, as
1344:
Peer pressure does not "vaporise with age." There are always peers, and there is always peer pressure. While I agree that many adults are better equiped to handle, one can't make such broad statements about age groups. Please, provide details of where he has demonstrated that he would bow to peer
1303:
You originally voted support because the nominee appeared to be a good candidate for adminship, and now you change your vote based on a factor that is completely outside of the nominee's control? If the nominee has demonstrated that they would be a good admin, why should age enter into it? You now
509:
tasks. I am a little bothered by the age factor as most individuals that age are rather bad at admitting fault when they make mistakes (IMO, an important quality) and often lack the interpersonal experience needed. Nonetheless, had his age not been pointed out to me, I wouldn't have known; thus, I'm
2419:
it's deleted, if it doesn't (and I would have a reason to think so), I'd remove the speedy tag, probably explaining on the talk page; if I think it should be deleted anyway, I'd have PROD'ed it (as an article that looked like a speedy wouldn't have any controversy); if I think it should be kept but
1487:
Adam, just because you didn't feel you were prepared to achieve admin status at that time it doesn't necessarily mean that Fetofs isn't. We all learn and develop at didn't rates. ;-D Without evidence of immaturity and a potential risk to wikipedia I feel it is silly that the users age is being used
971:
Shouldn't be too difficult to figure out, given my listed criteria. Age, as reflected in the poorly written answers below, and in the overall impression from his contributions. Fetofs is 13 years old per prior revisions of his userpage. I am sorry I had to elaborate - I was hoping people would read
668:
I don't see much coming from oppose voters that gives me pause. Perhaps the quality of project-space edits is of concern, but the quality of article edits isn't really a big deal to me since that doesn't relate too much to admin work. So overall, I'm satisfied enough the candidate to state support.
2394:
If you're doing RC patrol and looking at things that have been tagged as speedies, deletion will obviously be part of your work. Deletions can, of course, be controversial. How do you see the relative roles of speedy deletion, prod, and Afd? How do you typically deal with an article that's been
1361:
You said the editor is responsible, does this not prove that this article does not respond to peer pressure? Peer pressure is not deleting a page, peer pressure causes you to vandalize if your friends ask you to just blank the page and see what the admins do to you. If this person is not a vandal,
1334:
demonstrated that he could be a good admin. I, like most people here, spent about 3-5 minutes looking at recent edits, etc. and I found him to be without fault. I probably should've voted neutral, in that I hadn't found any evidence of particularly good admin skills, but I voted support. In any
845:
basis for RFA votes, since a generalisation that 'people below Age X tend to be immature and therefore not good admins', while regrettable, is entirely unavoidable. Unless you have extensive personal experience with a candidate, then you will always make generalisations that may exclude people who
2386:
An admin should enforce the policy wholeheartedly, just like a normal editor would - warning users about disrespect to policy and trying to avoid being warned by that, in extreme cases blocking. Admins shouldn't disrespect policy, but if they disagree with it, they should propose changes (as they
2316:
I feel I've made lots of mistakes in my beginning at
Knowledge, but I was too new to go back and check what others thought of that mistake. The only mistake I got warned of was mistaking good faith edits by an anon for vandalism and reverting it. He reverted me back and I learnt not to put myself
1329:
Examples:Those listed by
Michael Billington, plus the ability to reasonably monitor a dispute, the ability to write with percision and nuance, the ability to not be shaken by a threat from a vandal (possibly), or perhaps the ability to more clearly recognize a well-written foolish argument from a
1585:
Per Steel's comments above, and from other thoughts expressed above, to do with editing. I must just make a comment though: age in itself should not be a reason for an oppose vote. I think that such a prejudice, and stereotype is simply quite insulting. And per the logic expressed above by other
992:
I can't see why you are opposing because he's 13~15. He acknowledges that he doesn't have the writing skills of many other contributers, and to me, that demostrates maturity and wisdom. I see that you say that you are unlikely to support simply because the nominee is under 19, and to me, that
1649:
You certainly have the right not to generalize. Some people, however, are realistic and realize that some of what you call "generalizations" are true. We don't run from them. Some are true, some are false. Some arise from bigotry and predjudice, and others arise from wisdom and realism.
1981:
As
Digital, I absolutely reject the idea that one can draw an accurate inference with respect to a user's judgment, maturity, and discretion simply from his age, but I recognize that most of those opposing draw conclusions about temperament and fitness for adminship from an analysis of his
2263:
I don't think I've ever been in any conflicts regarding editing. However, I can do say what I've learned from experience and hope to follow in the future, that conflicts are much better solved if you keep yourself cool and analyse both sides of the argument. I have mediated an issue at
1703:
Having read the comments, I have a few reservations about this user, not including his age. Age plays no major factor in his ability to be an admin; a 35 year old could be worse than him, but would he then not be opposed on "mental" age? However, I see a few good points against raised.
2664:
I'm fine with it, as long as there is something to point out where exactly is the page I want to go. I don't see any other way to differentiate different articles on subjects with the same name, and it isn't worth it to look for a new solution. It would be a solution looking for a
527:
neither age nor quality of article contributions should be primary factors in an RfA in my opinion, since they don't aren't what admins actually do. What admins actually do are administrative tasks which Fetofs has demonstrated that he knows policy and would implement it fairly.
1293:
I originally voted support, but upon realization that the candidate is 13, I'm gonna have to change my vote. I don't want to offend the candidate, but there are certain qualities of admins that just come with age. Don't worry--in a couple of years you'll be an ideal candidate.
1760:
I don't think I have such a low count on edit summary usage. At least recently, I don't see any occasions where I have completely forgotten to input an edit summary, and I've been using a script to force edit summary uses. That is based on my last 1000 edits, take a look at
2473:
Well, past revisions can always be restored and the undesirable content can always be substituted (even a stub is good), without needing to go through actual deletion. But when the title and/or subject of the article is something that doesn't merit having an article (i.e.
2213:
I plan on helping with the backlog at
Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, closing AFD debates and RC patrolling with the rollback tool and the blocking tools, maybe checking WP:AIV as well. I'm not still very sure where I might fit in, but probably something has an
219:
Of course, but it shouldn't be a factor at all, and considering it was one of the two specific things you mentioned, you must think it's important. Maturity could be, but I don't see any instances of him being immature. I also don't see any problems with experience.
385:
Looks like a good editor, I think he will make a good admin. He will certainly be able to deal with RP patrol better with adminship. Age not a factor here, except I might not have stopped and looked at this RfA if I had not seen the oppose votes citing age as their
1474:"interpretating" things, to me, does not mean to change what's there at the policy page. It's just the way you look at it, and I looked to it interpretating that the policies are as they are for a good reason (and following them generally helps avoiding conflicts).
846:
would turn out to be good admins (e.g. editcountitis, editsummaryitis, namespaceitis) and age is just another one of those - no more or less valid than any other such generalisation. I am voting support not because I think that age is an invalid reason, but because
492:
Per BryanG. The answers to #6 and #7 are especially well-defined and thought out. With answers and ideas like those, age really isn't a factor; even some other older admin nominees cannot come up with such good answers. More power to you, Fetofs, and good luck.
2234:
I haven't done any contributions I could really satisfy myself with. I don't write much, because I think that I don't have the skills required to write a good article, and that's why I'm willing to help the community in any way I can. My main contributions are at
2510:: What part of Knowledge do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)? Have you tried to overcome these and would adminship make life any easier for you?
1046:
I am 16, and also do not have very good typing. I see no problem with making Fetofs an admin. He seems to be a good editor (I do not know him), and I think will probably make a good admin. Age is definatelly not a good reason to oppose him for
1459:
Respectfully, Andeh, it is anyone's right to use age as a criterion, so long as it is intelligently founded. I, however, agree with you-- Age is NOT a factor in RfAs. Why would it be? The usual immaturity and incomplete wikiskills that ensue
2681:, sometimes reduce the quality of an article, and should be reverted or amended. In your opinion, however, is it possible for an article to be improved by edits made in bad faith? What course of action would you take if such a scenario arose?
2424:. If the speedy request was of an article that shouldn't be deleted at all (probably not knowing policy or in bad faith), I'd just have removed the tag. Of course, I'd explain my rationale to the original tagger in all of those alternatives.
1449:
From what I have heard, there might be some difficulty in finding an admin that would not be conflicted out of acting, or that those using age as a criteria would listen to (they all seem to be too young for those voting on age to listen
2004:
He seems to have spent a lot of time at the coffee lounge, hasn't been particularly active this month either, I don't have any specific reason to Oppose apart from the user hasn't been here THAT long and edit count isn't THAT
1226:. I see the essential criteria to be determining if Knowledge would be better with this editor as an admin. Unforunately the edit history and answers to questions don't tell me one way or the other. Need more page patrolling,
2395:
tagged for speedy but that you don't think should be speedied? What about one that you think should be deleted, but may be borderline according to the speedy criteria? Have you found ways to deal with undesirable content
2440:
to achieve success. PROD is for obvious deletions that are not so obvious to be speedies but aren't likely to be contested. Although they "aren't likely" to be contested, some are. They avoid unnecessary discussion on
2387:
probably have a reason to disagree that should be heard). After that, if users still disagree, and the old policy is consensual even with the reasons transparent, the admin should follow it even if he disagrees.
1420:
is a fourteen-year-old bureaucrat. He was made a bureaucrat at the age of twelve and an administrator at the age of eleven. Good judgement on
Knowledge comes with time on Knowledge, not time in the real world.
2517:
The kind of user whose sole purpose is to create conflicts with other users, and end up making good users stressed or even leave. In fact, adminship would make me even more exposed to this sort of thing.
154:
comment made me read through this answers very carefully and investigate this nom more closely. I noticed my head doing a lot of nodding in agreement. Appears to have what is necessary to be an admin.
367:
based on very thorough answers. Both edit count and age are low compared to most admins, but user has convinced me s/he is capable of the job, and willing to do the sort of tasks needed by an admin. -
2449:
should only be used for articles that the nom think have a chance to be kept on the community discussion. That is good, as it can normally define the community consensus on controversial deletions.
2538:
Edit counts can be a good overview of a user's editing profile. I don't see a more important statistic as one without the other would be useless to analyze anything, the important is the whole.
510:
not letting it affect my vote. My experiences with Fetofs have shown him to be quite civil and willing to help, as well as suprisingly committed to the project for (again) someone of that age.
2329:
The most important traditions and/or rules at
Knowledge, for me, are the key principles, to which we hold on into building an encyclopedia and everyone knows by heart. That would probably be
1259:
No - If I can't see enough to inspire trust in adding a new finger to the delete/block/undelete buttons then I can't sit on the fence. I am disappointed though in the opposes based on age -
1035:
You may not agree with his reasoning, but he has violated no rules by using age as a criteria. If you feel it is wrong to use that as a criteria, then you should propose a rule change. --
1938:#I feel like opposing because of low activity + low edit count + lack of writing skill, but I don't want to annoy anyone with my editcountitis, so i'm sitting on the fence for now.
2257:
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
1396:
a factor in RfAs, period. I would like you to find statistics that support your idea that young admins are immature and inexperienced before you continue this pattern of voting.
1512:
I am changing my vote to oppose, and not just because of age either. He has had particularly low activity in the last two months if you check the graphs on thje toolserver :
647:
in adminship, unless it affects the maturity of the candidate. Fetofs is a brilliant editor, and he is just as mature as most of the "adult" admins, perfect for the job. —
2718:
Perhaps adding a common sense speedy? I remember seeing some articles which are blatantly obvious speedies, but don't meet an exact criteria yet, so couldn't be deleted.
2399:
from the various deletion methods? Ideally I'd like examples, but I realize this is less practical because things that have been actually deleted are harder to look at.
1630:
being left-handed does, whatever, the point is that all the arguments are as weak as each other and are based on gross generalisations, stereotypes and predujices. --
1230:
activity at least to be able to tell from edits alone if adminship is a good idea. Can't see any issues in the edits I've viewed but am not confident of a support -
2188:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
2308:(another suggestion) Do you feel you've made any mistakes while editing? If so, what did you do upon realizing your mistake? Is there anything you've done that
2773:
2754:
2301:
standard procedures when I've already asked for the opinion of the community on that and I feel we have nothing to lose and some to win with that attitude.
1515:. Just doesn't seem to spend enough time here to need any powers. I haven't seen this guy around anyway, i'll check contribs before i say anything more.
2016:
I agree that my edit count isn't THAT high, but I'm not sure that I haven't been here THAT long. 6 months is more experience than a lot of people have.
1783:. The age doesn't bother me, but this nomination still comes a bit too soon for my liking. Also, not enough productive work in the project namespace.
1658:. Your "KKK" argument attempts to show the absurdity of generalizations by using the same logic on other races, but the fact is, those arguments are
2555:
Not an specific criteria. The user must know a bit about how things here works, and demonstrate that he'll likely not abuse admin tools. That's all.
505:
Very impressed by the boldness of A2; he hit the nail right on the head--admin tools don't really help with article writing; rather, they help with
2204:
1609:
Thankkks for the kind words, buddy. Race does not bear a direct relationship to good judgment, as last I checked. Age does. This is ridiculous. -
2565:: Lastly, what is your largest wiki-weakness? This is your view and doesn't need to be based on the comments placed by oppose or neutral voters.
2704:
2346:
934:
Because of the widespread consternation regarding my voting rationale, I decided to open a discussion about this on my talk page. Please visit
199:, Rory, per my criteria. I have serious misgivings about the extent and quality of his participation, as I said clearly in my vote below. -
1524:
I had the impression that that tool hasn't been functioning properly in the past two months; at least that's what the notes on top say. --
1169:
Namespace edit count is very misleading, no real activity from what I can tell recently. I don't believe this would be a productive admin.
174:
1738:
2598:: How do you feel you would respond to negative peer pressure, such as deleting a page simply to show that you "could use the tools"?
759:
Sorry but only registered users can !vote on RFA's. If you have an account could you please sign this edit whilst logged in. Thanks,
2605:
Well, any admin actions have to have a reason behind it, so I'd explain this reason for my action, so that they could understand it.
336:
431:
seems fine, although I would like to see a bit more experience and professional behavior, but I'm sure this will come with time. —
2289:(suggested question from Friday) What do you think of the "process versus product" issue? When do you think it's appropriate to
30:
17:
2215:
1966:
1438:
What's with all the ageism in this RfA? I hope the closing bureaucrat restarts this RfA and asks everyone to put age aside.--
2692:
that they were made in bad faith (because I don't think such a scenario would happen in practice), I would talk to the user.
1362:
they do not respond to peer pressure. You said they are responsible, they don't become irresponsible simply because of age.
1513:
1416:
I don't think we should beat Adam over the head with a stick because of his vote, but I would just like to point out that
1104:
339:
1620:
1080:
983:
951:
923:
738:
374:
210:
72:
936:
1662:. There's no other way of saying it. A generalization is true, or a generalization is false. Let's leave it there.
616:
268:
2407:
How do you typically deal with an article that's been tagged for speedy but that you don't think should be speedied?
304:. I've had good experiences with this user and none of the reasons offered by those opposing worries me greatly. --
2240:
2196:
2089:
1762:
855:
544:
2228:
Of your articles or contributions to Knowledge, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
694:
2584:
2200:
1895:- you have done a great job so far, but you need more experience editing and contributing to great articles. --
1543:
1350:
1309:
998:
170:
114:
2527:: Above you can see a number of statistics about your edits. Do you consider any of these important? Which do
810:
940:
to answer the question, "Is age an appropriate criterion in evaluating a candidate for adminship?" Thanks. -
1884:
1733:
875:
690:
553:
566:
this user demonstrates the willingness and capability necessary to serve the project in such a capacity. --
2063:
1939:
1903:
1529:
1516:
1321:
1142:
1131:
1061:
712:
309:
2688:
Well, we are here for the good of the encyclopedia, so I would maintain the edits in place, and if I was
2548:: Do you have any criteria when voting in RFAs? If so please present them, if not then it doesn't matter.
819:
2453:
What about one that you think should be deleted, but may be borderline according to the speedy criteria?
803:
333:
2753:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
2157:
Just so I can save you some calculations, my project namespace edit count is at around 600 discounting
1562:
751:
2475:
2162:
1320:
Peer pressure for one, vaporises with age, stops him deleting a page to show off if we have him wait.
2495:
2479:
2279:
1897:
1866:
1616:
1538:
Yes, you do realize that the toolserver has been effectively down, so it can't really be relied on.--
1373:
1076:
979:
947:
919:
734:
577:
206:
1010:
237:
2361:
1983:
1962:
1787:
1685:
1663:
1634:
1594:
1465:
1430:
1425:
1422:
1400:
1336:
1295:
1263:
1234:
1109:
1101:
678:
673:
670:
515:
441:
417:
404:
356:
321:
288:
167:
2177:
2075:
2050:
2038:
2024:
2011:
1990:
1972:
1942:
1926:
1910:
1887:
1868:
1855:
1843:
1831:
1819:
1807:
1790:
1773:
1755:
1743:
1717:
1708:
1688:
1679:
1666:
1644:
1624:
1604:
1577:
1565:
1549:
1533:
1519:
1494:
1482:
1468:
1454:
1444:
1433:
1403:
1380:
1356:
1339:
1324:
1315:
1298:
1279:
1266:
1254:
1237:
1218:
1200:
1191:
1182:
1173:
1157:
1148:
1135:
1112:
1084:
1064:
1051:
1039:
1030:
1013:
1004:
987:
966:
955:
927:
897:
885:
862:
833:
821:
794:
782:
763:
754:
742:
718:
698:
681:
635:
623:
583:
558:
532:
519:
497:
484:
457:
445:
423:
390:
377:
359:
344:
313:
296:
276:
256:
240:
224:
214:
190:
178:
158:
142:
120:
100:
83:
1881:
1840:
1728:
1641:
1601:
1091:
In my experience, many under-19-year-olds can be far more eloquent and mature than older people.
880:
549:
541:
478:
453:. Thoughtful answers, enough experience for me, and age is one of the factors I never oppose on.
124:
2364:
is only a bit different(because everybody gets to interact, support and oppose) and, therefore,
133:. Nice self nom, and thoughtful answers to the questions below. Would do good with the tools.--
2265:
2007:
1714:
1525:
1490:
1440:
1242:
Just a question -- if you can't see issues but can't see good things, doesn't this default to
1197:
1179:
1118:
1026:
1020:
That's ageism and I don't really see it as a valid reason to oppose. I don't think bureaucrat
963:
655:
436:
305:
273:
265:
221:
187:
1803:
1215:
779:
615:
per many of above, especially Freakofnurture. Some very good answers to questions. See also
371:
328:
318:
66:
2487:
2365:
2244:
1864:
1611:
1364:
1071:
974:
942:
914:
729:
567:
529:
494:
293:
285:
201:
151:
134:
1880:
and similar minor changes. Only six "notable" article edits per Voice-of-All's summary.
790:. No evidence of incivility or unilateral action; liked his answers to the questions.
2581:
2437:
2330:
2236:
2166:
1958:
1828:
1816:
1784:
1540:
1397:
1347:
1306:
1260:
1231:
1096:
1021:
995:
760:
620:
511:
433:
411:
399:
353:
111:
2767:
2640:
Normally we throw away at home more than one egg per dozen, so I'd eat eleven eggs.
2458:
2446:
2442:
2433:
2421:
2416:
2403:
Wow, those are a lot of questions into one! Therefore, I'll answer it into sections:
2376:
2369:
2357:
2338:
2298:
2290:
1987:
1923:
1852:
1631:
1591:
1574:
1451:
1227:
1048:
894:
870:
854:
that presumption. As for those calling for this RfA to be restarted - if you want to
473:
387:
253:
155:
1009:
I'm 13 and an admin...(although I don't make spelling or grammar errors that often)
2350:
2342:
2334:
2158:
1417:
1188:
1170:
1092:
859:
807:
650:
802:
already a trusted member within the community, which is evident in his moderating
1060:
Interesting criterion. Do you also think there is a maximum age for adminship? —
2275:
2171:
2085:
2047:
2018:
1919:
1863:- needs a little more time, and especially more edits in the article namespace.
1799:
1767:
1752:
1705:
1673:
1476:
1273:
1248:
1154:
1036:
776:
632:
454:
368:
94:
77:
62:
48:
2195:
What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out
1839:- not enough article space edits, quite possibly would support in a few months
1573:. Low mainspace edit count, low activity in general, little need for tools. --
1335:
event, I'd still like to stress that in a few years he'll be a great candidate.
2747:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
830:
791:
2349:) and, something which every editor on this site finds quite important - the
2708:
2035:
1671:
Every rule has an exception. Every generalization theoretically does too.
2312:
appeared to have considered a mistake, whether you thought it was or not?
467:
352:. I find the votes based on age incredibly shallow. Age is not a factor.
2707:
without being swiftly reverted with an edit summary employing the term "
398:
Looks very good, I think he will do a great job with the admin tools. --
2732:
1798:, low level of experience in article space. Try again in a few months.
599:
2572:
Well, my lack of writing articles, to me, is my biggest wiki-weakness.
2757:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
1751:
Low use of edit summaries, as well as other reasons stated above. --
2436:, avoiding to have to follow the process when the article obviously
2428:
How do you see the relative roles of speedy deletion, prod, and Afd?
2648:
Who is your favorite superhero, comic-book or otherwise, and why?
858:
that the RFA will fail then you're going the right way about it.
1922:
can help would be more useful than handing out blocking tools.
2411:
First and foremost principle of speedy deletion - they should
1877:
2677:
We all know that good-faith edits, while not being vandalism
90:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
2372:
are very important in those interactions (that would be ]).
2268:, and that is what I've seen that works best almost always.
1876:- needs a great deal more article edits, and not just with
1330:
poorly-written good one. All in all, to me, the candidate
1196:
Hmm, you're right, lots of EA coffee lounge and hangman. --
2482:
or just plain nonsense) deletion is the only alternative.
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
2736:
603:
1851:. Edit summaries are basic courtesy to other editors.—
2622:
You buy a dozen eggs. One of them is broken. Do you:
2465:
Have you found ways to deal with undesirable content
2383:) actions without any need for discussion by trolls.
2379:
thing, as it can be used to justify unilateral (read
2293:
standard procedures in favor of doing something else?
2657:
What are your views on parenthetical disambiguation?
775:- no reason to believe he would misuse the tools.
540:You mean he wasn't one already? He's a great user!
1153:I was 13 when I became an admin (I'm 16 now) :) –
1140:*Older than these guys here but whistles, too* --
2628:B. Go back to Wal-Mart and pitch a fit about it,
841:I would just like to say that I think age is an
2432:Speedy deletion is just for articles that meet
912:per experience and maturity and my criteria -
2317:editing content I do not know nothing about.
1815:- insufficient edits in article namespace. --
8:
806:usage; I also liked that he/she's active in
2325:on the role of admins in enforcing policy?
2297:Every case is different, and I would only
850:the candidate has shown enough quality to
2438:wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell
58:(37/22/4) ended 01:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
2096:Fetofs edit count using Interoit's tool
1727:does not quite fit my qualifications --
1100:to such astronomical levels. Regards, —
710:as my #1 oppose reason from now on. --
2731:
2347:Knowledge:Knowledge is an encyclopedia
2046:. More article edits will be better.--
750:age is not a reason to oppose someone
598:
7:
2457:Well, if "borderline" means meeting
1271:Fine, just a clarification request.
2774:Unsuccessful requests for adminship
2703:If you could change one aspect of
2631:C. Locate and kill the chicken, or
2469:from the various deletion methods?
123:meets all my criteria, especially
24:
2114:First edit 19:09, 23 October 2005
1024:got those kind of votes either.--
937:User talk:Crzrussian/RfA criteria
1654:"generalization", my friend, is
1187:Whoops! Sorry, Knowledge edits.
962:What do you mean by maturity? --
723:Oh stop it, боровский. It's not
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
1765:and you'll know I'm not lying.
1713:What reservations are those? --
2415:be controversial. If it meets
1388:This is absolutely ridiculous.
264:seen nothing but good things,
1:
2420:it's not clearly a keep, I'd
689:diligent and thoughtful. --
2375:I personally don't like the
2205:administrators' reading list
2184:Questions for the candidate
2088:'s edit summary usage with
1951:Can't support, can't oppose
2790:
2241:Baillie-PSW primality test
2199:, and read the page about
2197:Category:Knowledge backlog
2108:Distinct pages edited 1464
1763:statistics for my last 150
2634:D. Other (please explain)
2178:11:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
2076:18:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
2051:23:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
2039:14:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
2025:18:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
2012:18:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
1991:05:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1973:04:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1943:03:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1927:01:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
1911:18:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
1888:12:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
1869:11:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
1856:04:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
1844:04:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
1832:02:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
1820:12:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
1808:09:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
1791:14:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
1774:00:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
1756:23:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
1744:19:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
1718:04:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
1709:04:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
1689:21:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
1680:21:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
1667:21:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
1645:20:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
1625:23:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1605:21:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1578:17:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1566:13:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1550:02:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
1534:07:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1520:04:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1495:15:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1483:14:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1469:13:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1455:14:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1445:13:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1434:11:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1404:10:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1381:05:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1357:05:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1340:13:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1325:05:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1316:04:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1299:04:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1280:17:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
1267:13:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
1255:11:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
1238:04:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1219:03:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1201:03:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1192:03:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1183:03:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1174:03:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1158:05:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
1149:05:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
1136:22:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
1113:20:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
1085:19:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1065:18:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1052:14:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1040:23:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
1031:13:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1014:05:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1005:03:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
988:03:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
967:02:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
956:18:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
928:02:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
898:19:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
886:14:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
863:09:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
834:18:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
822:11:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
795:07:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
783:21:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
764:21:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
755:21:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
743:18:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
719:23:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
699:20:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
682:19:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
636:03:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
624:17:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
584:03:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
559:01:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
533:01:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
520:23:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
498:21:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
485:20:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
458:20:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
446:18:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
424:16:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
391:14:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
378:14:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
360:10:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
345:08:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
314:07:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
297:07:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
277:07:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
257:05:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
241:05:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
225:03:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
215:03:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
191:03:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
179:02:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
159:02:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
143:02:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
121:01:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
101:01:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
84:01:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
2750:Please do not modify it.
2619:Dealing with frustration
2531:consider most important?
2486:Optional Questions from
2422:let the community decide
2111:Average edits/page 1.926
1684:True, my friend. True.
848:as far as I am concerned
40:Please do not modify it.
2700:To nuke, or not to nuke
2579:Optional question from
2705:speedy deletion policy
2247:(all pretty stubbish).
2216:administrative backlog
1095:was 13 when promoted.
2353:of the encyclopedia.
1214:per above reasons. --
972:between the lines. -
706:I should start using
31:request for adminship
2711:", what would it be?
2280:User:Fetofs/coaching
1590:black candidate". --
856:increase the chances
643:Age should not play
2673:Process vs. product
2625:A. Eat eleven eggs,
2274:Extra questions by
1178:Which namespace? --
2654:Naming conventions
2612:Optional questions
2360:, but I find that
1995:Moved to support.
727:crazy a reason. -
662:14:36, 25 June '06
483:
248:Recapitulating my
2727:
2356:Knowledge is not
2266:Elo rating system
2149:Knowledge talk 95
2061:All user's edits.
1996:
1970:
1940:MichaelBillington
1623:
1517:MichaelBillington
1322:MichaelBillington
1128:
1126:
1083:
986:
954:
926:
741:
697:
594:
466:
342:
213:
166:, great answers.
2781:
2752:
2725:
2587:
2500:
2499:
2493:
2490:
2218:that needs help.
2174:
2105:Total edits 2819
2072:
2069:
2066:
2021:
2010:
1994:
1956:
1909:
1906:
1900:
1770:
1741:
1736:
1731:
1676:
1639:
1615:
1599:
1546:
1493:
1479:
1443:
1428:
1378:
1377:
1370:
1367:
1353:
1312:
1276:
1251:
1145:
1127:
1124:
1120:
1107:
1075:
1029:
1001:
978:
946:
918:
883:
878:
873:
817:
816:
733:
715:
708:"Oppose too old"
693:
676:
658:
653:
592:
581:
571:
547:
481:
476:
470:
439:
409:
332:
326:
291:
271:
236:per Kungfuadam.
205:
140:
137:
117:
97:
80:
42:
2789:
2788:
2784:
2783:
2782:
2780:
2779:
2778:
2764:
2763:
2762:
2755:this nomination
2748:
2585:
2497:
2496:
2491:
2488:
2345:(consequently,
2245:Laura Z. Hobson
2172:
2140:Template talk 1
2102:Username Fetofs
2081:
2070:
2067:
2064:
2019:
2006:
1904:
1898:
1896:
1768:
1739:
1734:
1729:
1674:
1635:
1595:
1544:
1489:
1488:against them.--
1477:
1439:
1426:
1391:
1375:
1374:
1368:
1365:
1351:
1310:
1274:
1249:
1143:
1125:
1122:
1105:
1025:
999:
893:per nominator.
881:
876:
871:
812:
811:
713:
704:Belated Support
674:
656:
651:
617:my RfA criteria
575:
569:
557:
545:
479:
474:
468:
437:
422:
405:
322:
289:
269:
138:
135:
115:
95:
78:
52:
38:
35:did not succeed
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2787:
2785:
2777:
2776:
2766:
2765:
2760:
2759:
2742:
2722:
2721:
2720:
2719:
2713:
2712:
2702:
2696:
2695:
2694:
2693:
2683:
2682:
2676:
2669:
2668:
2667:
2666:
2659:
2658:
2656:
2650:
2649:
2647:
2638:
2637:
2636:
2635:
2632:
2629:
2626:
2621:
2609:
2608:
2607:
2606:
2600:
2599:
2576:
2575:
2574:
2573:
2567:
2566:
2559:
2558:
2557:
2556:
2550:
2549:
2542:
2541:
2540:
2539:
2533:
2532:
2521:
2520:
2519:
2518:
2512:
2511:
2503:
2471:
2470:
2455:
2454:
2430:
2429:
2409:
2408:
2401:
2400:
2381:not consensual
2327:
2326:
2314:
2313:
2295:
2294:
2272:
2271:
2270:
2269:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2222:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2201:administrators
2186:
2185:
2181:
2180:
2154:
2153:
2150:
2147:
2144:
2141:
2138:
2135:
2132:
2129:
2126:
2123:
2120:
2116:
2115:
2112:
2109:
2106:
2103:
2099:
2098:
2093:
2090:Mathbot's tool
2079:
2059:
2058:
2054:
2053:
2041:
2029:
2028:
2027:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1971:
1935:
1934:
1930:
1929:
1913:
1890:
1882:Angus McLellan
1871:
1858:
1846:
1834:
1822:
1810:
1793:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1746:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1686:AdamBiswanger1
1664:AdamBiswanger1
1580:
1568:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1466:AdamBiswanger1
1457:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1385:
1342:
1337:AdamBiswanger1
1296:AdamBiswanger1
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1221:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1151:
1132:Be eudaimonic!
1123:vécut heureuse
1121:
1115:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1018:
1017:
1016:
960:
959:
958:
906:
905:
901:
900:
888:
865:
843:entirely valid
836:
824:
797:
785:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
745:
701:
684:
663:
638:
626:
610:
609:
586:
561:
552:
535:
525:Strong Support
522:
507:administrative
500:
487:
460:
448:
426:
416:
393:
380:
362:
347:
316:
299:
279:
259:
243:
231:
230:
229:
228:
227:
181:
161:
145:
128:
107:
106:
103:
51:
46:
45:
44:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2786:
2775:
2772:
2771:
2769:
2761:
2758:
2756:
2751:
2745:
2744:
2743:
2741:
2739:
2738:
2734:
2728:
2717:
2716:
2715:
2714:
2710:
2706:
2701:
2698:
2697:
2691:
2687:
2686:
2685:
2684:
2680:
2674:
2671:
2670:
2663:
2662:
2661:
2660:
2655:
2652:
2651:
2646:
2643:
2642:
2641:
2633:
2630:
2627:
2624:
2623:
2620:
2617:
2616:
2615:
2613:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2601:
2597:
2594:
2593:
2592:
2591:
2589:
2588:
2583:
2571:
2570:
2569:
2568:
2564:
2561:
2560:
2554:
2553:
2552:
2551:
2547:
2544:
2543:
2537:
2536:
2535:
2534:
2530:
2526:
2523:
2522:
2516:
2515:
2514:
2513:
2509:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2502:
2501:
2494:
2483:
2481:
2477:
2468:
2464:
2463:
2462:
2460:
2452:
2451:
2450:
2448:
2444:
2439:
2435:
2427:
2426:
2425:
2423:
2418:
2414:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2398:
2393:
2390:
2389:
2388:
2384:
2382:
2378:
2373:
2371:
2367:
2363:
2359:
2354:
2352:
2348:
2344:
2340:
2336:
2332:
2323:
2320:
2319:
2318:
2311:
2310:other editors
2307:
2304:
2303:
2302:
2300:
2292:
2288:
2285:
2284:
2283:
2281:
2277:
2267:
2262:
2259:
2258:
2256:
2253:
2252:
2246:
2242:
2238:
2233:
2230:
2229:
2227:
2224:
2223:
2217:
2212:
2209:
2208:
2206:
2202:
2198:
2194:
2191:
2190:
2189:
2183:
2182:
2179:
2176:
2175:
2168:
2164:
2160:
2156:
2155:
2151:
2148:
2146:Knowledge 853
2145:
2142:
2139:
2136:
2133:
2130:
2128:User talk 476
2127:
2124:
2121:
2118:
2117:
2113:
2110:
2107:
2104:
2101:
2100:
2097:
2094:
2091:
2087:
2083:
2082:
2078:
2077:
2074:
2073:
2056:
2055:
2052:
2049:
2045:
2042:
2040:
2037:
2033:
2030:
2026:
2023:
2022:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2009:
2003:
2000:
1993:
1992:
1989:
1985:
1980:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1968:
1964:
1960:
1954:
1952:
1949:
1948:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1941:
1932:
1931:
1928:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1914:
1912:
1907:
1901:
1894:
1891:
1889:
1886:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1872:
1870:
1867:
1865:
1862:
1859:
1857:
1854:
1850:
1847:
1845:
1842:
1838:
1835:
1833:
1830:
1826:
1823:
1821:
1818:
1814:
1811:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1794:
1792:
1789:
1786:
1782:
1779:
1775:
1772:
1771:
1764:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1754:
1750:
1747:
1745:
1742:
1737:
1732:
1726:
1723:
1719:
1716:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1707:
1702:
1690:
1687:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1678:
1677:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1653:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1643:
1640:
1638:
1633:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1613:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1603:
1600:
1598:
1593:
1589:
1584:
1581:
1579:
1576:
1572:
1569:
1567:
1564:
1560:
1557:
1551:
1548:
1547:
1542:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1518:
1514:
1511:
1508:
1496:
1492:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1481:
1480:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1467:
1463:
1458:
1456:
1453:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1442:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1432:
1429:
1424:
1419:
1415:
1405:
1402:
1399:
1395:
1390:
1389:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1379:
1372:
1371:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1355:
1354:
1349:
1343:
1341:
1338:
1333:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1323:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1314:
1313:
1308:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1297:
1292:
1289:
1281:
1278:
1277:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1265:
1262:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1253:
1252:
1245:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1236:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1222:
1220:
1217:
1213:
1210:
1202:
1199:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1190:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1181:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1172:
1168:
1165:
1159:
1156:
1152:
1150:
1147:
1146:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1116:
1114:
1111:
1108:
1103:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1073:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1063:
1059:
1053:
1050:
1045:
1041:
1038:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1028:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1003:
1002:
997:
991:
990:
989:
985:
981:
977:
976:
970:
969:
968:
965:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
944:
939:
938:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
925:
921:
917:
916:
911:
908:
907:
903:
902:
899:
896:
892:
889:
887:
884:
879:
874:
869:
866:
864:
861:
857:
853:
849:
844:
840:
837:
835:
832:
829:-- per nom --
828:
825:
823:
820:
818:
815:
809:
805:
801:
798:
796:
793:
789:
786:
784:
781:
778:
774:
771:
765:
762:
758:
757:
756:
753:
749:
746:
744:
740:
736:
732:
731:
726:
722:
721:
720:
717:
716:
709:
705:
702:
700:
696:
692:
688:
685:
683:
680:
677:
672:
667:
664:
661:
660:
659:
654:
646:
642:
639:
637:
634:
630:
627:
625:
622:
618:
614:
611:
608:
606:
605:
601:
595:
590:
587:
585:
582:
579:
573:
572:
565:
562:
560:
555:
551:
548:
543:
539:
536:
534:
531:
526:
523:
521:
517:
513:
508:
504:
501:
499:
496:
491:
488:
486:
482:
477:
471:
464:
461:
459:
456:
452:
449:
447:
444:
443:
440:
435:
430:
427:
425:
421:
420:
415:
414:
410:
408:
403:
402:
397:
394:
392:
389:
384:
381:
379:
376:
373:
370:
366:
363:
361:
358:
355:
351:
348:
346:
341:
338:
335:
330:
327:
325:
320:
317:
315:
311:
307:
303:
300:
298:
295:
292:
287:
283:
280:
278:
275:
272:
267:
263:
260:
258:
255:
251:
247:
244:
242:
239:
235:
232:
226:
223:
218:
217:
216:
212:
208:
204:
203:
198:
194:
193:
192:
189:
185:
182:
180:
176:
172:
169:
165:
162:
160:
157:
153:
149:
146:
144:
141:
132:
129:
126:
122:
119:
118:
113:
109:
108:
104:
102:
99:
98:
91:
88:
87:
86:
85:
82:
81:
74:
71:
68:
64:
60:
59:
56:
50:
47:
43:
41:
36:
32:
27:
26:
19:
2749:
2746:
2729:
2726:Jun. 23, '06
2723:
2699:
2689:
2678:
2672:
2653:
2644:
2639:
2618:
2611:
2610:
2595:
2580:
2578:
2577:
2562:
2545:
2528:
2524:
2507:
2485:
2484:
2472:
2466:
2456:
2431:
2412:
2410:
2402:
2396:
2391:
2385:
2380:
2374:
2355:
2351:third pillar
2328:
2321:
2315:
2309:
2305:
2296:
2286:
2278:(taken from
2273:
2260:
2254:
2231:
2225:
2210:
2192:
2187:
2170:
2134:Image talk 1
2095:
2062:
2060:
2043:
2031:
2017:
2001:
1978:
1977:
1950:
1947:
1937:
1936:
1915:
1892:
1873:
1860:
1848:
1836:
1824:
1812:
1795:
1780:
1766:
1748:
1724:
1672:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1636:
1612:CrazyRussian
1610:
1596:
1587:
1582:
1570:
1563:Afonso Silva
1558:
1539:
1526:Jitse Niesen
1509:
1475:
1461:
1418:User:Ilyanep
1393:
1387:
1386:
1363:
1346:
1331:
1305:
1290:
1272:
1247:
1243:
1223:
1211:
1166:
1141:
1072:CrazyRussian
1070:
1069:I do not. -
1062:Vildricianus
994:
975:CrazyRussian
973:
943:CrazyRussian
941:
935:
915:CrazyRussian
913:
909:
890:
867:
851:
847:
842:
838:
826:
813:
799:
787:
772:
752:64.12.116.68
747:
730:CrazyRussian
728:
724:
711:
707:
703:
686:
665:
649:
648:
644:
640:
628:
612:
596:
593:Jun. 24, '06
588:
574:
568:
563:
537:
524:
506:
502:
489:
462:
450:
432:
428:
418:
412:
406:
400:
395:
382:
364:
349:
323:
306:Jitse Niesen
301:
281:
261:
249:
246:Weak support
245:
233:
202:CrazyRussian
200:
196:
195:No, not age
183:
163:
152:Kungfuadam's
147:
130:
110:
93:
89:
76:
69:
61:
57:
54:
53:
39:
34:
28:
2480:nn articles
2358:a democracy
2237:Tietê River
2165:edits, and
2137:Template 22
1837:Weak Oppose
1725:Weak Oppose
1345:pressure.--
1224:Weak Oppose
1216:HResearcher
1167:Weak Oppose
1144:Миборовский
1117:*whistles*
804:VandalProof
714:Миборовский
419:Talk to me!
284:per above.
127:with * FAs.
2645:Role model
2143:Category 4
2119:(main) 899
1984:Portuguese
1899:Aguerriero
1047:adminship.
530:Eluchil404
495:Thistheman
465:per above.
2709:land grab
2582:digital_m
2362:consensus
2163:WP:ESP/CL
1955:RadioKirk
1841:abakharev
1817:WinHunter
1785:Mackensen
1541:digital_m
1348:digital_m
1307:digital_m
1261:Peripitus
1232:Peripitus
1110:tianpower
1097:Redwolf24
1022:Linuxbeak
1011:SushiGeek
996:digital_m
814:hoopydink
761:Petros471
621:Petros471
512:AmiDaniel
329:rovingian
238:SushiGeek
112:digital_m
92:Self-nom
2768:Category
2665:problem.
2366:WP:CIVIL
2203:and the
2152:Portal 2
2131:Image 86
2125:User 333
2057:Comments
1924:SilkTork
1853:Perceval
1452:Dolive21
1049:Dolive21
895:Polonium
852:overcome
645:any part
641:Support.
388:Dolive21
286:DarthVad
156:Agent 86
131:Support.
73:contribs
2690:certain
2331:WP:NPOV
2169:edits.
2167:WP:MIND
2161:edits,
2122:Talk 47
2044:Neutral
2032:Neutral
2005:high.--
2002:Neutral
1979:Neutral
1933:Neutral
1715:Rory096
1392:Age is
1244:neutral
1198:Rory096
1189:Yanksox
1180:Rory096
1171:Yanksox
1093:Ilyanep
964:Rory096
891:Support
868:Support
860:Cynical
839:Support
827:Support
800:Support
788:Support
773:Support
748:Support
687:Support
666:Support
629:Support
613:Support
589:Support
564:Support
554:Message
538:Support
503:Support
490:Support
463:Support
451:Support
434:Deckill
429:Support
396:Support
386:reason.
383:Support
365:Support
350:Support
302:Support
282:Support
262:Support
250:neutral
234:Support
222:Rory096
188:Rory096
184:Support
164:Support
148:Support
105:Support
2679:per se
2498:(Talk)
2476:Vanity
2459:WP:CSD
2447:WP:AFD
2443:WP:AFD
2434:WP:CSD
2417:WP:CSD
2377:WP:IAR
2370:WP:NPA
2339:WP:NOT
2299:ignore
2291:ignore
2276:Friday
2173:fetofs
2086:Fetofs
2048:Jusjih
2020:fetofs
1920:Fetofs
1916:Oppose
1893:Oppose
1885:(Talk)
1874:Oppose
1861:Oppose
1849:Oppose
1825:Oppose
1813:Oppose
1800:Stifle
1796:Oppose
1788:(talk)
1781:Oppose
1769:fetofs
1753:rogerd
1749:Oppose
1740:050389
1706:Chacor
1675:fetofs
1588:oppose
1583:Oppose
1571:Oppose
1559:Oppose
1510:Oppose
1478:fetofs
1423:joturn
1401:(talk)
1398:Werdna
1376:(Talk)
1332:hasn't
1291:Oppose
1275:fetofs
1264:(Talk)
1250:fetofs
1235:(Talk)
1228:WP:AfD
1212:Oppose
1155:ugen64
1037:rogerd
910:Oppose
904:Oppose
780:(talk)
777:Friday
671:joturn
633:Tawker
455:BryanG
369:Goldom
357:(talk)
354:Werdna
136:Kungfu
96:fetofs
79:fetofs
63:Fetofs
49:Fetofs
2740:: -->
2733:freak
2492:eagle
2489:Noble
2467:apart
2397:apart
2343:WP:8W
2335:WP:BB
2159:WP:HM
2065:Voice
2008:Andeh
1829:lethe
1660:false
1621:email
1575:Steel
1491:Andeh
1441:Andeh
1369:eagle
1366:Noble
1119:Elle
1081:email
1027:Andeh
984:email
952:email
924:email
831:T-rex
808:WP:HD
792:moink
739:email
691:Samir
607:: -->
600:freak
578:Reply
401:Mr. L
211:email
197:alone
55:Final
33:that
16:<
2737:talk
2730:<
2368:and
2243:and
2084:See
2068:-of-
2036:Mark
1905:talk
1804:talk
1730:Will
1656:True
1652:This
1632:Wisd
1617:talk
1592:Wisd
1530:talk
1077:talk
980:talk
948:talk
920:talk
735:talk
725:that
695:धर्म
652:Fire
604:talk
597:<
550:ddie
516:talk
310:talk
274:hway
207:talk
139:Adam
67:talk
2529:you
2413:not
2282:):
2071:All
1988:Joe
1878:AWB
1827:. -
1735:Mak
1642:n17
1602:n17
1462:are
1450:to)
1394:not
1102:Cel
657:Fox
570:Jay
413:fty
372:‽‽‽
254:Joe
168:Roy
125:*FA
2770::
2724:—
2614::
2478:,
2445:.
2392:7.
2341:,
2337:,
2333:,
2322:6.
2306:5.
2287:4.
2261:A:
2255:3.
2239:,
2232:A:
2226:2.
2211:A:
2207:.
2193:1.
1986:.
1806:)
1532:)
1246:?
1134:)
1106:es
877:e
872:Jo
619:.
542:Fr
518:)
343:}
312:)
270:ig
220:--
177:.
150:.
37:.
2735:|
2675::
2596:Q
2590::
2586:e
2563:Q
2546:Q
2525:Q
2508:Q
2092:.
1969:)
1967:c
1965:|
1963:t
1961:|
1959:u
1957:(
1908:)
1902:(
1802:(
1637:e
1619:/
1597:e
1545:e
1528:(
1431:r
1427:e
1352:e
1311:e
1130:(
1079:/
1000:e
982:/
950:/
922:/
882:I
737:/
679:r
675:e
602:|
580:)
576:(
556:?
546:e
514:(
480:e
475:H
472:.
469:G
442:r
438:e
407:e
375:⁂
340:@
337:C
334:T
331:{
324:e
319:M
308:(
294:r
290:e
266:H
209:/
175:A
173:.
171:A
116:e
70:·
65:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.