878:
oppose it after having had an opportunity to observe the person in action as an administrator, I am not sure that person should ever be an admin again, or if so, it should be after a much longer period of redemption than two or three months and a relatively small number of edits. I wouldn't assume that a person would mature very much in three months; so I would really want to have seen a lot of good edits in stressful situations to feel that trust in him as an admin was again warranted. If the slate was wiped clean after the de-sysop, he should at least show as much good activity as a new user who joined the site that day would be required to have in order to be supported on RFA --- as if, for example, he had simply created a new account and had been working all this time to establish a new persona. That hasn't happened. --
888:~500 edits, most of which are minor tweaks, since his de-sysopping is not sufficient to inspire confidence that his previous erratic behavior does not continue. Given we have enough fresh, qualified candidates for adminship, I'd prefer supporting them instead. Also seems to be running a bot on his main account (see my question below).
153:
1380:
I don't see any point in disclosing any accounts that I may have created, but I will say that I've never operated a vandal account or vandalized
Knowledge. I run a bot that tracks new pages on my main account and allows me to make changes or post notices, since it just assists me in making what would
1075:
Guanaco was a highly erratic admin, was often recalcitrant when he screwed up, and was a pain to desysop in the first place, in what was a landmark decision. That said, his comments below give me some hope, he hasn't done anything problematic for the last three months, and may well have reformed. I'm
1013:
Three months of very little activity doesn't give a lot to base an opinion on. Recent activity, however, reminds me of the comments from three months ago. Also, as a candidate for adminship, he marked his RfA for speedy deletion instead of withdrawing in the normal fashion. As a former admin, and a
916:
Oppose at this time, because it seems to me
Guanaco ought to be willing to demonstrate plenty of actual good activity before expecting his admin privileges back. Mere absence of bad activity, in the sense that, as RickK says, he's hardly done ANYTHING, doesn't give much indication of how he'd use the
1170:
Arbcom should have stopped
Guanaco from ever becoming an admin again. S/he should remain an example to other rogue admins. Not being an admin is no big thing. There are too many admins already, enough. Guanaco's nominator, arch rogue-admin Snowspinner, is surely enough to set alarm bells ringing. On
1099:
Still unsure about him. The edit history doesn't show trouble since his de-adminship. However, since d-a he has only ~ 10 edits on user talk pages, ~10 edits on article talk pages, 3 edits on
Knowledge talk pages, etc, including some vandalism reverts and poll votes. Not quite enough for me to make
895:
I do not defend Willy on Wheels. I strongly support efforts to block him, and I blocked his accounts when I was an admin. On the other hand, I believe that if the creator(s) of the Willy on Wheels accounts wish to begin contributing to
Knowledge under a different name, they should not have to worry
877:
I am not very familiar with
Guanaco or his history, so this vote is more based on a general observation. It seems to me that if sysopping is "not a big deal", de-sysopping is. It hardly ever happens; so if an admin so misbehaves as to be required by the AC to go through RFA again, and 22 people
514:
Support. I'm a little shocked at the opposing comments, particularly the ones that advocate "making an example" of
Guanaco. I for one am pretty impressed that he is taking up the neccessary work to regain the trust of the community; think how much easier it would have been to create a new account
69:
It's been three months since
Guanaco lost his admin status in what was, quite frankly, a misguided debacle masquerading as a referendum. In those three months, Guanaco has avoided edit wars and generally acted like a model user. I think it's time to offer him his mop and his bucket back, as I think
997:
Questionable judgment, reckless unilateralism, and refusal to admit mistakes are bad enough in an editor. Guanaco's behavior before his desysopping demonstrated why no-one with these traits ought to be trusted with adminship, and I have no confidence (yet) that he won't immediately resume his old
928:
Strongly oppose (moved from neutral). It is now abundantly clear with his attitude towards dealing with The
Recycling Troll and even Willy on Wheels that he has not changed in the least. RickK clearly has a point - he needs to actually show a good deal of good behaviour before we trust him again.
696:
Three months is a pretty short time, and the edit history of the last months would hardly have motivated a candidacy. Can
Guanaco do more good than bad for Knowledge as an admin? The answers below may seem tough or cool to some and arrogant to others. In the context of the pre-history, I find the
515:
from scratch with a clean slate. However, he is taking the harder route, to clear his name in front of the people who originally de-sysopped him, and I find that pretty respectable. This clearly shows that he has an appreciation for the Knowledge community and policy. I have to support that. --
404:
Support - slightly tentative, but in the absence of a probation option, I'm prepared to give him the chance. I do trust that Guanaco will take note of the reluctance of such respected figures as RickK and Ambi to give their support, and act a little more cautiously from now on. I think he can be
817:
And no page specifically gives permission to use a browser's find/replace feature to edit, so does that mean such features are not allowed? That page does not prohibit the use of bots on a user's main account. I'm open to discuss this sort of thing, but I cannot forsee every possible objection.
855:
people have changed their vote from just three months ago. Has Guanaco done something terribly worthwhile or noteworthy that I've missed? I am weary of Guanaco's behaviour, and maybe it has changed, maybe not. But as hard as it is to deadmin people around here, I'm not keen on finding out.
1406:. Guanaco has FREQUENTLY unblocked vandals who he, in his own, personal opinion and against consensus, has decided do not need to be banned. He is now, even though he has not yet gotten his adminship back, trying to get Willy on Wheels, the massive page move vandal, unbanned.
609:
00:56, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) In an RFA vote, the key (and to some, the only) question is "is this user likely to misuse an elevated privilege level?" Usually, a pristine history of "normal" edits is enough to assure voters that he is not. In this particular case, however, Guanaco
1284:. I'll help clear out vandal and test pages and help to quickly deal with the page move vandal attacks. I don't intend to do much 3RR or arbitration enforcement, unless something extreme comes up (e.g. a revertbot). I'll shy away from the more controversial pages like
1417:
If you want to attack me, at least use facts to do so. This poll is merely an attempt to determine whether there actually is consensus for a ban. I support, and always have supported, efforts to block Willy on Wheels accounts and page move vandals in general.
1346:
and became stressed, but I now realize that they really are "no big deal". I hope to avoid highly controversial actions and situations, but if I am ever again part of anything more than a minor dispute, I will be more open and willing to discuss it.
1199:
Oppose. I read talk pages before voting on these. This editor's talk page has an "archive" button (which is fine) but that redirects to a note saying "see history". I may change my vote if the talk page is more accessable, but for now I vote nay.
458:
What's the issue with Willy on Wheels? Clearly he ought to be hard-banned. Apparently he isn't. (Is this true?) Guanaco explains that he edited a page to reflect this fact. Maybe the fact ought to be changed, rather than Guanaco chastised.
492:
Whatever his past transgressions, I strongly consider three months enough time for him to have realised them and resolved to do better. Guanaco has impressed me in the past, and I voted against his de-sysopping for that very reason.
1341:
sort of conflict or this nomination wouldn't exist. ;) I was part of several arbitration cases as an admin, and some requests for comment on my actions were posted. In the past, I tended to treat these things as I might a
1312:
back in September 2004, and it blossomed into what is now Knowledge's way of fixing many of its copyright problems. I have deleted and marked for deletion quite a few junk pages that might have otherwise slipped through
660:
Pray inform me, what exactly did The Recycling Troll do? Other than being a bit annoying on talk channels (and that's a matter of opinion - I find RickK a bit annoying on talk channels), he doesn't seem any worse than
985:
make it clear to me that you are still seriously out of step with the community on what does and doesn't constitute blockable behavior. It might be a good risk to have Guanaco an admin, but the fact that it
529:
a harder route than creating a new account. If someone (including Guanaco) had created a new account on the day that Guanaco was de-sysopped, and was nominated for adminship on the basis of Guanaco's edits
1373:? If yes, please list the names and detail the purpose of those other accounts (no need to disclose IPs, of course). Do you currently run a bot, or have ever run a bot under your main account? Thanks,
215:
05:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) Guanaco is very reliable person. (I am cooperating with him at another project.) I don't see any reason why not to give him admin privileges. (And my English is not so good :) )
1108:
running under his account. None of these three points validate an objection, but they do not instill confidence either. I will keep on watching this nomination, and may change my vote in the future.
990:
a risk, coupled with the fact that we have dozens of excellent admins (and no apparent shortage of good candidates) who are far less risky, make opposition my choice after careful thought.
614:
an administrator, the only one to ever have that privilege forcibly revoked, and three months of keeping one's nose clean during normal editing just isn't enough to put my mind at ease.
542:
neutral. It seems people want to consider the history up to the point of de-sysopping as a leg up compared to a normal RFA. But if it was positive pre-history, we wouldn't be here. --
1210:
At one time, I got so many messages that I could barely keep track of it all. I can probably find a better way to manage them if you feel that it's too difficult to read my messages.
796:
I have permission to run the bot; the bot's edits are good; the account used to run the bot doesn't have a bot flag; each of the bots edits were decided by me. What's the violation?
1150:
1331:
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 will deal with it in the future?
697:
attitude far too arrogant. It worries me that a long list of the more involved Wikipedians great Guanaco back as if this attitude is what we need and wish for.
1438:
39:
NOTE: Early on March 15, Guanaco blanked this article and tagged it for speedy deletion. Should that be interpreted as a withdrawal of this nomination?
1154:
1263:
646:
Oppose. A loose cannon for a long stretch -- a few months of keeping one's nose clean isn't enough to make up for that. Still a troll protector
538:(not superior) footing with people who have never been administrators, considering his contributions up to the point of being de-sysopped as
971:
Oppose. Sorry, but there are still too many question marks around his previous and recent behaviour for me to support his reinstatement.
1045:"Votes for a hard ban will count toward a soft ban and votes for a ban of longer duration will count toward a ban of shorter duration."
729:. However, I do not think his accounts should be unblocked or that he should be allowed to vandalize Knowledge. I've explained this on
534:
then, he would not be considered seriously since the edits are too few. It seems fair that a de-sysopped person should be on at most
746:
Maybe. Can "support" voters put forth a more substantial reason why you're supporting now, especially if you previously voted oppose?
1403:
1171:
a separate note, I am amazaed that Neutrality(Never!) and Netoholic are voting the same way. The Rapture is surely not far away now.
948:. This seems to be exactly the behavior that got him in trouble last time. (Note: The Whilly on wheels was removed by Guanaco again
94:
1309:
1277:
17:
604:
982:
730:
1281:
1273:
1220:
1040:
939:
should have been done in combination with a discussion on the talk page. However, talk page comment was added only
1302:
Of your articles or contributions to Knowledge, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
1101:
901:
519:
1285:
1259:
976:
897:
726:
650:
525:
I think the point of some of the people who oppose this, such as me, is that being re-sysopped is apparently
654:
257:
1008:
507:
13:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) One of my last acts as an admin and a contributor on this site. Let them back. -
416:
346:
621:
600:
428:
362:
281:
115:
79:
I (once again) gratefully accept this nomination. I hope the community will forgive my past mistakes.
71:
516:
508:
504:
247:
972:
863:
662:
499:
451:
has shown these as a widespread issue that can only be addressed by continued political oversight.
316:
163:
1172:
473:
243:
1144:
1124:
1114:
958:
922:
398:
303:
264:
254:
223:
218:
Support, on looking back in history at how Guanaco lost his adminship I can only compare it to a
174:
562:
1077:
930:
452:
397:
There are some Wikipedians who should learn to forgive... We are humans, we all make mistakes.
1422:
1393:
1351:
1321:
1292:
1227:
1214:
1187:
1161:
1023:
991:
908:
822:
800:
775:
737:
476:
460:
413:
342:
332:
102:
83:
828:
You do not need specific permission to use your browser beyond agreeing to your license. You
704:
I was going to vote "neutral" until I checked his contributions and saw his most recent edit
1314:
1238:
1201:
1030:
764:
684:
669:
618:
596:
486:
422:
406:
353:
292:
278:
203:
50:
1410:
1258:
What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about
1088:
719:
640:
565:
381:
326:
190:
122:
981:
Oppose. Sorry, Guanaco -- there are some good reasons to have you back, but comments on
711:
information on "Willy on Wheels" from the banned users page (it was reverted soon after
448:
1370:
1047:
1005:
857:
807:
786:
768:
753:
494:
466:
312:
287:
That Guanaco was able to accept the removal of his admin status speaks well of him. --
193:
160:
140:
1076:
not convinced enough to support, but I'm open to the idea that he might have changed.
810:
wrongly, it does not give you permission to run anything from your main user account.
1432:
1366:
1141:
1121:
1111:
965:
955:
936:
Oppose (moved from neutral). Removing Whilly on Wheels from the list of banned users
918:
698:
299:
170:
147:
1419:
1390:
1362:
1348:
1318:
1289:
1224:
1211:
1184:
1158:
1019:
905:
833:
819:
811:
797:
790:
772:
757:
747:
734:
230:
212:
134:
99:
80:
60:
27:
851:
Quite frankly, I'm afraid I can't support. And I'm a little bewildered as to why
680:
666:
630:
555:
483:
447:
Support. While I understand concerns about possible misuses of sysop status, the
441:
288:
236:
219:
200:
180:
128:
1407:
1085:
715:
637:
378:
371:
323:
187:
1402:
For those who think that Guanaco should have his adminship back, please see
1317:. Recently, I've been contributing original articles and correcting errors.
1002:
1374:
889:
271:
1140:
Could we have a link to the proceedings where he lost his adminship? --
733:, so we can discuss it there if you think he should actually be banned.
1343:
879:
806:
You have permission to run Guanabot and Guanabot2. Unless I am reading
543:
42:
617:
No, he wasn't the only Sysop to lose privs forcibly. But never mind.
152:
1361:
Do you have, or ever have had, accounts in en-Knowledge other than
679:
Oppose. I gave away some of my own rights to have him de-admined. —
998:
behavior. (And the way he tagged this vote for speedy deletion
1039:
Oppose due to the current Willy on Wheels debacle. The silly
771:
instead in the future. It isn't a big deal to me either way.
341:
Fixed term de-opping would have been fairer in my opinion. --
714:). I do not want an admin to display this erratic behavior.
92:
I've created a poll to discuss the Willy on Wheels issue at
896:
about being blocked for making positive edits. Please read
1100:
myself a picture. Also, his talk page is blanked, as is
725:
I removed it because Willy on Wheels is not technically
482:
Support. Never should have lost it in the first place. -
1250:
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
1015:
1001:
after it turned unfavorable just clinches my doubts.) —
999:
952:
949:
946:
940:
937:
712:
705:
647:
1084:
He's hardly done ANYTHING for the last three months.
1014:
current candidate, he surely knows the CSD criteria.
1151:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco
1381:
be manual edits. I use Guanabot for uncontroversial
767:-watching bot on my main account, I will gladly use
59:
I think that would be incorrect use of the CSD tag.
1043:reads like something Iasson would write. I quote:
1233:Thank you, Guanaco. Please consider my opposition
270:Support, I believe he's learned from his mistake.
945:Carrp commented on this when he changed his vote
298:Hard worker, can be trusted with privileges IMO.
34:final (44/21/0) ending 22:33, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
1219:I've begun copying and pasting old messages to
263:I definately support Snowspinner's nomination.
1404:Knowledge talk:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels
1183:I think we know why this account was created…
95:Knowledge talk:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels
49:I think that would be a safe interpretation.
8:
1288:that tend to generate more heat than light.
886:Neutral for now but leaning towards oppose.
763:If you have a problem with my use of the
1155:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Guanaco
832:need specific permission to use bots.
649:; if Guanaco had the power to unblock
186:Supported then, still support now. --
7:
1439:Unsuccessful requests for adminship
983:Knowledge talk:List of banned users
785:have a problem with a violation of
731:Knowledge talk:List of banned users
331:Support, and furthermore support -
24:
653:he certainly would have done so.
1310:Knowledge:Possibly unfree images
1278:Knowledge:Possibly unfree images
636:Not only no, but ... well, no.
151:
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
412:Support - can't see why not --
370:This is a no brainer. Support.
951:, this time with talk comment
1:
1337:. Obviously, I must have had
1389:edits that may be disputed.
1282:Knowledge:Copyright problems
1274:Knowledge:Media for deletion
1264:administrators' reading list
917:privileges next time round.
556:Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus)
199:I retain my support of him.
1246:Questions for the candidate
1104:. There also seems to be a
561:Give him another chance. --
1455:
1413:23:00, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
1221:User talk:Guanaco/archive3
1117:00:53, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
892:10:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
756:in user accounts. Period.
522:16:08, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
1377:10:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1272:. I plan on helping with
1175:00:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1147:23:06, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
1127:22:52, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
1102:User talk:Guanaco/archive
1091:06:45, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
1062:18:25, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
964:Oppose. What RickK said.
961:22:52, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
902:Knowledge:Blocking policy
825:23:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
814:06:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
803:17:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
793:12:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
778:20:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
760:13:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
722:13:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
701:22:51, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
693:06:40, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
657:22:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
558:17:20, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
367:03:38, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
74:22:33, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
70:he's learned his lesson.
56:12:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
45:12:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1425:23:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1396:13:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1385:edits and Guanabot2 for
1286:Knowledge:Protected page
1241:06:51, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
1230:15:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1217:20:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1204:23:25, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
1190:00:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1036:08:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1026:07:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1010:02:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
994:00:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
978:21:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
968:01:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
933:21:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
925:17:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
911:17:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
898:Knowledge:Banning policy
882:12:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
874:21:05, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
836:11:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
787:Knowledge policy on bots
740:20:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
674:00:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
651:User:The Recycling Troll
643:07:02, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
585:20:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
546:16:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
511:13:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
501:05:43, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
489:04:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
479:00:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
469:21:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
463:20:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
455:17:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
444:17:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
437:06:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
419:17:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
409:10:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
401:03:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
391:22:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
374:03:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
352:I assume good faith. --
274:19:08, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
239:08:00, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
233:07:05, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
226:06:09, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
125:22:38, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
118:22:34, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
105:17:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
63:13:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1164:23:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1080:11:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
750:13:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
633:06:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
624:21:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
349:23:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
335:23:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
328:23:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
319:22:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
308:22:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
295:22:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
284:21:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
267:11:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
260:10:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
250:08:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
208:04:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
196:01:45, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
183:00:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
177:00:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
166:00:42, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
156:23:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
143:23:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
137:23:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
131:23:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
86:23:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1018:-- Sigh... Oppose.
707:, which was removing
1016:Not much has changed
1120:Moved to oppose --
1106:user controlled bot
663:User:ClockworkTroll
229:Support as before.
665:, now an admin...
655:Wile E. Heresiarch
449:172/Ed Poor fiasco
1048:Andrew Lenahan -
1034:
672:
433:
426:
385:
306:
206:
54:
1446:
1315:Special:Newpages
1060:
1057:
1054:
1051:
1032:
670:
608:
583:
580:
577:
574:
571:
568:
497:
435:
431:
424:
389:
386:
383:
365:
359:
304:
258:(ask the rotten)
204:
155:
52:
1454:
1453:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1429:
1428:
1058:
1055:
1052:
1049:
691:
690:
595:
581:
578:
575:
572:
569:
566:
517:DropDeadGorgias
509:Ta bu shi da yu
505:Ta bu shi da yu
495:
429:
387:
382:
363:
357:
354:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1452:
1450:
1442:
1441:
1431:
1430:
1427:
1426:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1371:User:Guanabot2
1356:
1355:
1354:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1260:administrators
1248:
1243:
1242:
1231:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1133:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1064:
1063:
1037:
1027:
1011:
995:
979:
973:GeorgeStepanek
969:
962:
934:
926:
914:
913:
912:
883:
875:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
808:Knowledge:Bots
769:User:Guanabot2
743:
742:
741:
702:
694:
686:
685:
677:
676:
675:
644:
634:
627:
626:
625:
587:
586:
559:
549:
548:
547:
512:
502:
490:
480:
470:
464:
456:
445:
438:
420:
410:
402:
392:
375:
368:
355:
350:
336:
329:
320:
309:
296:
285:
275:
268:
261:
251:
240:
234:
227:
216:
209:
197:
184:
178:
167:
159:Of course. --
157:
144:
138:
132:
126:
121:Welcome back!
119:
107:
106:
89:
88:
67:
66:
65:
64:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1451:
1440:
1437:
1436:
1434:
1424:
1421:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1412:
1409:
1405:
1395:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1379:
1378:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1367:User:Guanabot
1364:
1360:
1357:
1353:
1350:
1345:
1340:
1336:
1333:
1332:
1330:
1327:
1323:
1320:
1316:
1311:
1308:. I proposed
1307:
1304:
1303:
1301:
1298:
1294:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1268:
1267:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1247:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1229:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1216:
1213:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1203:
1189:
1186:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1174:
1163:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1149:
1148:
1146:
1143:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1126:
1123:
1119:
1118:
1116:
1113:
1109:
1107:
1103:
1097:
1090:
1087:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1079:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1061:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1035:
1028:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1012:
1009:
1007:
1004:
1000:
996:
993:
989:
984:
980:
977:
974:
970:
967:
963:
960:
957:
953:
950:
947:
944:
941:
938:
935:
932:
927:
924:
920:
915:
910:
907:
903:
899:
894:
893:
891:
887:
884:
881:
876:
873:
872:
869:
866:
861:
860:
854:
850:
835:
831:
827:
826:
824:
821:
816:
815:
813:
809:
805:
804:
802:
799:
795:
794:
792:
788:
784:
780:
779:
777:
774:
770:
766:
762:
761:
759:
755:
751:
749:
744:
739:
736:
732:
728:
724:
723:
721:
717:
713:
710:
706:
703:
700:
695:
692:
689:
682:
678:
673:
668:
664:
659:
658:
656:
652:
648:
645:
642:
639:
635:
632:
628:
623:
620:
616:
615:
613:
606:
602:
598:
594:
593:
592:
591:
584:
564:
560:
557:
553:
550:
545:
541:
537:
533:
528:
524:
523:
521:
518:
513:
510:
506:
503:
500:
498:
491:
488:
485:
481:
478:
475:
471:
468:
465:
462:
457:
454:
450:
446:
443:
439:
436:
427:
421:
418:
415:
411:
408:
403:
400:
396:
393:
390:
380:
376:
373:
369:
366:
360:
351:
348:
344:
340:
337:
334:
330:
327:
325:
321:
318:
314:
311:Definitely. -
310:
307:
301:
297:
294:
290:
286:
283:
280:
276:
273:
269:
266:
265:Mark Richards
262:
259:
256:
255:Theresa Knott
252:
249:
245:
241:
238:
235:
232:
228:
225:
221:
217:
214:
210:
207:
202:
198:
195:
192:
189:
185:
182:
179:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
158:
154:
149:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
130:
127:
124:
120:
117:
114:
113:
112:
111:
104:
101:
97:
96:
91:
90:
87:
85:
82:
77:
76:
75:
73:
62:
58:
57:
55:
48:
47:
46:
44:
40:
36:
35:
29:
26:
19:
1401:
1386:
1382:
1363:User:Guanaco
1358:
1338:
1334:
1328:
1305:
1299:
1269:
1255:
1249:
1245:
1244:
1234:
1209:
1198:
1197:
1169:
1134:
1132:
1105:
1098:
1074:
1066:
1065:
1044:
992:Jwrosenzweig
987:
942:
885:
870:
867:
864:
858:
852:
829:
782:
745:
708:
687:
611:
589:
588:
551:
539:
535:
531:
526:
461:Michael Ward
414:Ferkelparade
407:David Cannon
394:
379:Comrade Nick
377:Good user.--
343:Tony Sidaway
338:
333:David Gerard
146:'bout time.
109:
108:
93:
78:
68:
38:
37:
33:
32:
1239:Jonathunder
1202:Jonathunder
220:penis panic
116:Snowspinner
72:Snowspinner
496:→Iñgōlemo←
487:(はさばくのきつね)
123:Neutrality
1235:withdrawn
859:BLANKFAZE
834:JuntungWu
812:JuntungWu
791:JuntungWu
758:JuntungWu
748:JuntungWu
467:Acegikmo1
440:Support.
405:trusted.
322:Support.
313:Frazzydee
277:Support.
161:Netoholic
141:Everyking
61:JuntungWu
1433:Category
1262:and the
1142:Chris 73
1135:Comments
1122:Chris 73
1112:Chris 73
1029:Oppose.
966:Mrfixter
956:Chris 73
919:Bishonen
765:newpages
699:Ruhrjung
619:James F.
279:James F.
171:Nadavspi
148:Grutness
1344:lawsuit
1173:Titroll
1067:Neutral
1031:— Matt
1020:SWAdair
1003:Charles
853:so many
552:Support
540:at best
474:Bart133
432:T A L K
395:Support
388:)---^--
339:Support
231:Rhobite
213:Millosh
135:gadfium
110:Support
51:— Matt
28:Guanaco
1369:, and
1033:Crypto
727:banned
681:Cantus
631:Dr Zen
622:(talk)
597:A.D.H.
590:Oppose
520:(talk)
484:Fennec
442:Goplat
399:Squash
324:Jayjg
289:Cyrius
282:(talk)
237:Golbez
224:silsor
181:Refdoc
129:Shanes
53:Crypto
1024:Talk
954:).--
943:after
716:Carrp
603:&
563:Lst27
536:equal
532:since
372:Danny
244:Jordi
242:Yes.
169:Yep.
16:<
1420:Guan
1408:Rick
1391:Guan
1349:Guan
1339:some
1319:Guan
1290:Guan
1280:and
1225:Guan
1212:Guan
1185:Guan
1159:Guan
1153:and
1145:Talk
1125:Talk
1115:Talk
1086:Rick
1078:Ambi
1041:poll
959:Talk
931:Ambi
923:Talk
906:Guan
900:and
865:(что
820:Guan
798:Guan
789:. --
773:Guan
754:bots
735:Guan
720:Talk
667:ugen
638:Rick
453:Pwqn
425:IMBO
364:Talk
358:yan!
347:Talk
305:T@lk
253:yes
201:ugen
194:🇪🇺
188:Grun
175:talk
100:Guan
81:Guan
1423:aco
1394:aco
1387:bot
1383:bot
1375:jni
1352:aco
1322:aco
1293:aco
1266:.)
1228:aco
1215:aco
1188:aco
1162:aco
1110:--
1056:bli
909:aco
890:jni
823:aco
801:aco
776:aco
752:No
738:aco
709:all
629:No.
612:was
527:not
477:(t)
300:JFW
272:Rje
103:aco
84:aco
1435::
1365:,
1359:4.
1329:3.
1300:2.
1276:,
1256:1.
1237:.
1223:.
1157:.
1059:nd
1053:ar
1050:St
1022:|
1006:P.
988:is
921:|
904:.
880:BM
868:??
862:|
830:do
783:do
781:I
718:|
671:64
554:.—
544:BM
472:--
361:|
302:|
222:.
211:--
205:64
173:|
150:|
98:.
43:BM
41:--
1411:K
1335:A
1306:A
1270:A
1089:K
975:\
871:)
688:☎
683:…
641:K
607:)
605:m
601:t
599:(
582:)
579:k
576:l
573:a
570:t
567:(
434:)
430:(
423:T
417:π
384:@
356:R
345:|
317:✍
315:|
293:✎
291:|
248:✆
246:·
191:t
164:@
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
