112:: I am pleased to join in nominating Georgewilliamherbert for administrator status. In his prior RfA, my !vote was "Support per nom, answers to questions, comments above, good edit history, contributions on WP:AN and ANI, lack of any reason to believe tools will be misused, and the principle that support on an RfA doesn't imply endorsement of every word the candidate ever wrote." Three months later, all still true (even the last part), and I have also come to know of his good work on the mailing list. I hope soon to welcome GWH to the ranks of administrators.
2567:. The concerns brought up in his last RfA were prominent enough and serious enough that I'm not comfortable supporting. I've also not had enough interaction with him since to verify to my satisfaction that he's learned enough for it not to be an issue anymore. I do grant it's clear Georgewilliamherbert has made substantial positive contributions. Due to those reasons, I'm not ready to oppose either; I need a chance to look more closely into it. George perhaps you could offer a way to demonstrate you've learned from the experience. -
2181:
content misunderstanding with both sides equally at fault or misunderstood, rather than condemning someone deliberately re-inserting unsourced critical material into an article after due warning. He admits that Jay is a friend - well, he's obviously allowing that to cloud his judgement. Conflicts of interests are fine, if they cause you step aside and stay silent. But he involved himself in the RfC to mitigate for a friend at the expense of defending policy and admin action. Would he act like this as an admin?--
286:. Though I didn't intend it that way, he took some of my comments as not being in solidarity or support of him at a time when he was being pretty badly attacked by external abusers, and I regret that. We had what I think was a really good and productive discussion about it during my last RFA, which I appreciated for the feedback. It was the most constructive and positively engaged oppose I've seen anyone do in a RFA.
191:(discussions now, admin-bit issue handling comes up from time to time), a bit easier cleanup for vandal fighting I do by hand now (though I much appreciate the "Undo" feature). Some appeals issues from the unblock-en-l mailing list would get a little easier to handle, though my usual approach of talking to blocking admins would remain my normal way of starting things.
2094:
right now" and "it's a fraud or not real, delete it". I know others object to such inclusionism, but I make no apologies for it. I do practice different criteria for what I will advocate (!vote on) and what I'd do if say I get into AFD closing - if I have a personal strong opinion on it, it would best be left to an uninvolved admin to close rather than me doing it.
1837:-- I first encountered this editor during his first RfA and was impressed with good sense after digging into his history then. I don't think he's lost it since then. He's taken on more controversial issues here than some other candidates so of course his track record won't be 100% (nobody's is in those cases) but he seems consistently level-headed and civil. --
1689:, including his answer to question 6. Surely, he would not get involved as an admin in a BLP situation with someone he has 15-year personal ties to, so there are no impartiality concerns in my book. BLP is not the only policy that applies in cases where it comes up, and it's the right approach to handle BLP issues while being mindful of other issues like
214:
to do or know need improvement, particularly in some engineering topics (alloys, composite materials, etc), aerospace, and a few naval/ship topics. I don't personally have the energy and interest in driving an article through FA status - I'll put in the content, context, references, categorize and wikilink, and so on, but there are too many hoops to FA.
414:
I've made it a habit to leave warnings and comments on vandal talk pages where someone vandalized a page on my watchlist and another editor or admin cleaned it up without warning the offender. Going the extra mile to communicate is important. Putting something useful in the edit summary, and comments on the talk pages, etc. are important.
365:
other, even if we have to defuse a problem or deal with a problem user. The worst thing in the world is for a dispute between good contributors to blow up and one or more parties walk away over it. The essay on this remains woefully thin so far, but it is something I want to work on (and see others work on) over time.
2093:
Regarding the deletion guidelines, yes, I object to deleting articles on subjects which a reasonable person can research and identify sources for, even if we haven't found reliable sources by WP definition at a given time. There is an important difference between "we can't encyclopedically cite this
2089:
was improperly blocked or bitten based on the one edit then that's a separate issue to take up with Clown or the unblock-en-l list; I didn't touch ASM's account. On review, I think I may have been wrong to tie him to the IP vandals, the actual edits made were different nature. He hasn't appealed to
559:
BLP is set (per Jimbo etc) on a higher level than normal content issues. I strongly disagree that there's something wrong with AGF or taking time to do research for BLP related issues which are not evidently immediate and serious. The specifics over which this most recent incident happened had been
512:
Hi George, I'm not sure it does clarify your position. I take your point about it being preferable to enforce policy non-aggressively whenever possible, but I'm still worried about "if you have to apply BLP, you still have to operate under AGF ..." If you were faced with either assuming good faith of
485:
My concern is that in the process of handling BLP concerns, one should not use excessive force, forgetting the pillars of AGF and working with the community. It's not just important that we enforce policy - we also have to identify situations where the policy's interpretation and situational context
417:
It's also important to listen to even the screaming angry people, because sometimes they do have a good point, and often they're perfectly nice people who just got pushed too far and are venting on us. We get a lot of annoying people and vandals complaining to unblock-en-L too, and nobody's patience
317:
I guess my approach is to assume good faith if it's internal disputes and try to if there's an external party, and work to resolve problems and address abuses without making it personal. It can be hard to not snap at people (I know I've done it), but recognizing that and trying not to is important.
213:
I got in a little trouble last RFA for not having a FA or GA yet. It's not that I don't believe in
Knowledge (XXG) being about the content - I don't know how many new articles I've started, I stopped counting a while ago, but it's in the many dozens and I have a list somewhere offline of more I want
1179:
from what I have seen of George, he is a great editor whom I would, and do, trust. I have seen George's polite and accurate respsonses and discussion on unblock-en-l and see his contributions to other admin tasks. Although he could definitely use the tools greatly for unblocking reasons, I am sure
364:
I still think that defending each other is very important - there are WP users who aren't "community members" who seek to abuse the project's goals and members, and we all need to stand together against that. We also need to offer solidarity to editors and admins when they get into scraps with each
2327:
I saw that. I also saw
Georgewilliamherbert's outside view, and his clarification. I came here having read the RfC; I looked at the nomination, and the statements of those who supported and opposed; then I reluctantly opposed and said why. I still reluctantly oppose. Beyond that, I'm content to let
2120:
When I'm active on AFD I do try to locate and cite sources. In the Orca one, I was looking, but didn't find until too late for the initial AFD, as I recall. In a lot of other cases, I've dug up sources for stuff on AFD or PROD and sourced the article properly. There are only so many hours in the
1147:
My problem is that he has spoken of a 'flame war' and an 'assumption of bad faith'. I can take criticism over the block, but I can't accept this as anything other than a flawed, biased judgement, which while accepting Jay's BLP violation wants somehow to see two editors both at fault in a dispute -
1134:
Doc's opposition is more serious and deserves a response. As I understand it George is primarily referring to the block rather than the removal of material from the article, and I think his position that the block was not necessary at that time is a legitimate one. I agree there were better ways to
996:
Enough time has passed since the issues I had last time, concerning his support in the past for disruptive users. I think I can trust him now with the tools, and have been impressed with what I seen of him in dealing with unblock requests, in the enwiki-l mailing list, and here on the wiki. Please
527:
Avoid making it a two-way argument - ask for other admins to review, or if it appears to be serious enough to require unilateral action first despite the controversy, then do it but take it to ANI or some other appropriate forum for review, and make sure that the other party knows that I'm inviting
1554:
was qualified and was offered largely, notwithstanding that RfA is not a vote, to offset those opposes that I thought to be relatively insubstantial and unrelated to the likelihood of GWH's abusing or misusing the tools, but I am happy now to be able to support fully and without other motive; I am
413:
Over time, I've observed that the unblock-en-L admins are getting better at communicating with people they block. I think all of us on that list appreciate that sometimes, people just don't understand, and the more info we put in warning messages and block messages the better off things will be.
2180:
I regret that the candidate's response to question 6 has strengthened my opposition. He now characterises my long discussion with the BLP violater as a 'flamewar'. That's riddiculous, and an assumption of bad faith, (almost a personal attack) on me. He seems to wish to present this as a two-sided
563:
There are certainly BLP related issues which justify immediate strong action and if necessary followup discussion and consensus. I do not agree that this case was one of them in general, from the specific information available to me, in my opinion. The extra half hour or hour wouldn't have hurt
2266:
per his A6. I strongly feel that WP:CIVIL is our most fundamental and crucial rule, since without civility we won't be able to build an encyclopedia in a collaborative fashion, but WP:BLP trumps everything else, period. When a BLP issue arises (typically poorly sourced or unsourced controversial
1247:
And I second Mongo's advice regarding unblocking and wheel warring. I, like Aude, had concerns in the past about his support for disruptive users. I hope that this does not return to be a problem in the future, but from what I can see of the user's most recent actions on AN/I I feel compelled to
368:
I still object to giving anyone free passes; as I said earlier, to me good faith is pretty much automatic with long established editors of good standing, but even good people do bad things sometimes. We need to hold experienced users accountable for mistakes, without berating or abusing them.
531:
Keep in mind the possibility that I'm the party misjudging the situation if it's involving interpretation of a policy or grey area, and act accordingly. That's not "don't act", that's "be prepared to have my mind changed, and don't do anything I will regret or feel guilty about if I change my
1135:
handle the situation, though I do not hold Doc at fault since Jay's edits were obviously inappropriate. Nothing in George's comments suggest to me that he disagrees with the important point, which is that the material should not have been included in the article without reliable sources.
547:
Do you take the point that BLPs have to be handled differently from other articles? That is, do you accept that AGF and taking time to do research is fine for other articles, but that anything contentious in a BLP that's unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately?
86:
friend as well. Does all the things we like (fixing vandalism, using edit summaries, being civil, not biting) and as far as I can tell none of the things we don't like, with the sole exception of reserving judgement on a case which is probably better forgotten, which is why
82:) - George. A fine editor, a thoughtful contributor to the project, a long-standing contributor on the unblock list, patiently explaining to blocked users what they have done wrong. An independent person with no trace of groupthink, a useful "critical friend" and a useful
1199:. It's a pleasant surprise to see this user up for adminship again. I nominated him last time and he was rejected for what I thought were pretty frivolous reasons, and I hope that this time, without the kiss of death of my nomination ;), he sails through this process.
481:
When I said that BLP should not trump AGF, my intention was not to suggest that we shouldn't have a BLP policy, nor that it's of secondary importance compared to other policies. Jimbo and the community consensus are that BLP is really really important. I agree with
2429:. The candidate is supposed to accept, then answer the questions, then transclude the nomination. He shouldn't be faulted because someone else transcluded the nomination prematurely. I'm going to go ahead and remove it if someone else hasn't already done so. --
1148:
which could have been averted had with side backed off. No other serious party to the RfC sees it as such. His pithy 'BLP does not trumph AGF' demonstrates a total lack of judgement in the key area of BLP enforcement, and an inability when faced with his 'friend
1348:
I haven't seen copious amounts of George on-wiki to make a fully-fledged decision based totally on that, but his unblock-en-l responses - to which I subscribe, so every response of his ends up in my inbox and subsequently read - gives me great confidence.
759:. I think enough time has elapsed since the last RfA for the previous issue to be put to rest. Your contributions are still stellar, and two people I respect a lot had enough faith in you to nominate you for adminship personally. My pleasure to support. –
2318:, I think, is reassuring in that regard (and not just because it's a statement I wrote). I have no doubts about Georgewilliamherbert's upholding high standards in this area despite his partial disagreement with the handling of one particular incident.
496:
I think it's increasingly important over time that WP admins know how to address problems without provoking confrontational fights as a result. AGF should have suggested that they should cooperate and talk it out rather than revert-warring over
2221:
I tend to agree with the above. On his last nomination, similar concerns showed up, leading me to doubt his judgement with respect to 3RR, cooldown blocks and dealing with socks. His statement about BLP seems to indicate improvement is lacking.
2267:
material), unless the issue is clearly bogus (i.e. the sources are clearly high quality and acceptable), the item in question must be 'shot on sight' (i.e. removed immediately), followed by discussion if necessary. This is non-negotiable.
2403:
that may have been my fault, I saw the accept from GWH while editing in my optional Qs and took it live. But you can see his previous answers by following the link to the previous RfA. I'm sure he's editing in his answers as we speak.
2502:
I don't want to hold this over George's head forever, but I'm still not comfortable with supporting his nomination due to his comments when MONGO was under attack from the ED folks. I won't oppose this time, but I cannot support.
1390:
I opposed last time, for reasons separate from the MONGO affair, and, reading back, am quite unimpressed by the candidate's response to my concerns... but that was
November, and I've seen nothing but good from GWH since.
2002:
per my constructive interactions. Differing opinions are not causes for opposition; however, it should be expected that George should tread carefully around BLP issues, given a few but important concerns raised by some.
477:
In this situation, we had a respected admin, whose intent it was to enforce an important policy, come into conflict with a respected editor, who agrees with that policy. The result was an escalating flamewar and a
458:
I am in the process of emailing Doc and another admin in a side discussion on this. I think that this is a valid question, but I'd prefer to answer it after we've had a chance to talk at least briefly offline.
560:
there for some time; spending an extra 10 min to hour researching, or researching and posting to ANI asking for input, would not have materially changed the damage potential from the potential BLP violations.
2487:
My apologies on timing, all; the nom was made as I was walking in to interview someone, which took 4 hrs. I now need to eat lunch, and catch up on email, and will respond as soon as possible afterwards.
1867:
599:
2071:
The first issue is a routine disagreement on a deletion. The second, far from newbie-biting, seems to reflect that the candidate noted on AIV that vandalizing IP's appeared to be related to an editor who
2048:. Although the article was recreated after George produced evidence of notability on a DRV, I am not satisfied with his understanding of deletion guidelines. A recent incident of biting a newbie user –
2669:
91:
failed. These events were not one of our stellar moments. Time, I think, to put that behind us and hand George a mop and bucket to help him better do the good things he already does for the project.
901:
Per two nominators I have a lot of respect for and for a better appreciation by
Georgewilliamherbert in regards to the idea of community solidarity against harassment, as evidenced partly in his
55:
1459:
2535:. I'm sorry, but I find it really hard to support someone who thinks that solidarity of the community is so important. I really don't like the concept of "solidarity", for various reasons. -
1556:
1559:. I should say that I concur in George's response to question five (especially, of course, in the sensible, general modifications thereof) and that one ought never, in defense of a given
1523:
Since his last RfA, my overall impression of this candidate’s interaction with others has been good. I don’t have any concerns with giving him the advanced tools. May they serve you well.
2577:
493:
I didn't intend that comment as a slam on Doc, nor do I think Jay is blameless. Either of them handling the situation less confrontationally would have resulted in no serious problem.
341:
88:
2203:
with consequences for the subject(s) of the article and
Knowledge (XXG). If after warnings they continue to do so, blocks may regrettably be required however sincere those users are.
1365:, had previous good interaction with this user, seems to be very level headed, hard working, and knowledgeable on Knowledge (XXG) policies. I am confident he will be a good admin --
2113:
2064:
318:
Knowing that sometimes I want someone else to "take over" if I get too upset, so I can go calm down, helps motivate me to be that neutral person to come help out for others.
150:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve
Knowledge (XXG) in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
2314:
I think it's become well-known that JzG and I, the two nominators, are strong advocates of enforcing the BLP policy. The fact that the candidate has endorsed my statement at
300:
344:, which, unfortunately did not succeed. Have any of your thoughts about defending each other, free passes and assuming good faith changed in any way? If so, how and why? ++
2549:
Obviously some irony here, given that the candidate seems to have been responding in part to concerns on his prior RfA that he wasn't valuing solidarity of the community
2038:
2107:
try and locate good sources for the articles in whose AfDs you participate and ask for their inclusion. Doc's reasoning for an oppose is compelling, I cannot support. —
2085:
Yeah, I was tying the prior blocked account (blocked by Can't Sleep, Clown Will Eat Me some weeks prior) to the IP vandals I was reporting for a long term problem. If
535:
If there's a question where further research on my part may resolve it, spend the time to do that if someone else feels strongly enough about it to make a point of it.
418:
can be infinite, but it is important for us to spend effort on it. I think we've helped talk some now-productive contributors through issues they were blocked over.
273:
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?
299:
A lot of various issues have come up from unblock-en-l discussions, incuding a current Arbcom case about someone unblock-en-l communally recommended unblock on (see
564:
anyone, in a case where there was no OFFICE, OTRS, evident libel or slander or false claim, or major privacy violation, and would have avoided the confrontation.
2280:
per Doc and answers to A6. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but as things stand, I'm concerned that GWH doesn't understand the need for strict adherence to
310:
trying to be a useful neutral party. I've also attempted to keep defending admins and editors who come under attack there and elsewhere - putting time into the
2609:
A "2", meaning it's the second nomination appears in the pagename, and the candidate's prior RfA is linked to in the first co-nomination and mentioned in both.
2315:
2426:
2687:
2108:
2059:
79:
170:
902:
311:
254:
290:
247:
I also am proud of what I've done with encouraging the final policy approval for deployment of AO blocks as a MediaWiki and
Knowledge (XXG) feature.
1150:
s wrongdoing to be either silent (which would have been acceptable), or impartial. I simply have no confidence in his judgement or impartiality.--
474:
As a disclaimer, the article topic involved in that dispute is of interest to me, and the other party is someone I have known for around 15 years.
279:
I've been in some conflicts before, when I thought editors or admins were causing problems, and also been involved in attempting to defuse others.
2523:
of a non-free image. I won't oppose, though, based on reading all of the above, because he obviously does a heckuva lot for
Knowledge (XXG). --
1324:
Has the experience, has made a positive contribution over a long period, knows his way around and no reason to suspect he'll misuse the tools.
905:. I want to take this opportunity to remind George to be careful when doing any unblockings, and make sure that such unblocks won't result in a
490:
getting into fights over it. Any situation where a respected WP admin blocked a respected WP editor is one where something clearly went wrong.
303:). I spent a couple of weeks trying to defuse the arguments there, both on talk pages and emails with the three principals to the Arbcom case.
513:
an editor or removing unsourced contentious material about a living person that the editor had added to an article, which would you do first?
2359:
again reluctantly. Good wikipedian, but I've had reservations about judgement in the distant past which have recurred over A6 and Doc above.
2598:
per Taxman (no relation). Shouldn't the headline stress that this is a second nomination, and shouldn't there be a link to the first one?--
1864:
2145:• I do not feel that he has taken the points from previous RFAs to heart and I do not feel that these lessons have yet been learned. ✎
1311:
40:
17:
805:
747:
Ability to understand opposing perspectives serves him well as an editor and speaks well of his usefulness as an administrator. --
2013:
1701:
595:
250:
Off-wiki, I'm also happy to be involved in unblock-en-l, and participate in discussions on wikien-l, foundation-l, among others.
1716:
Per Mongo. We'll find a balance between BLP and AGF, and people like GWH will be at the forefront from what i've gleaned here.
1536:
162:
23:
2042:
1336:; everything is good here. Likely to be an excellent admin. Superb contributions to the unblock list, among other things.
73:
1948:
1821:
1564:
1560:
158:
1511:
1139:
1126:
801:
2654:
2640:
2613:
2602:
2588:
2571:
2557:
2544:
2527:
2507:
2492:
2482:
2470:
2450:
2433:
2416:
2397:
2375:
2363:
2341:
2337:
Fair enough. I put my comment under your !vote because it had to go somewhere, but it wasn't aimed specifically at you.
2332:
2322:
2305:
2290:
2271:
2258:
2246:
2216:
2185:
2175:
2160:
2125:
2115:
2098:
2080:
2066:
2020:
1994:
1980:
1963:
1951:
1933:
1909:
1892:
1855:
1843:
1829:
1796:
1784:
1772:
1760:
1748:
1736:
1720:
1708:
1681:
1670:
1654:
1618:
1591:
1542:
1515:
1498:
1478:
1466:
1453:
1441:
1427:
1413:
1403:
1385:
1373:
1357:
1343:
1328:
1316:
1306:
1284:
1264:
1252:
1236:
1221:
1203:
1191:
1171:
1154:
1142:
1129:
1117:
1095:
1083:
1071:
1048:
1036:
1024:
1008:
988:
972:
928:
913:
893:
876:
862:
847:
833:
821:
809:
788:
772:
751:
742:
727:
711:
699:
685:
673:
649:
637:
568:
554:
542:
519:
507:
463:
450:
422:
405:
373:
356:
322:
261:
195:
134:
116:
104:
1066:
207:
Of your articles or contributions to
Knowledge (XXG), are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
166:
1875:
As an unblock-en-l regular, I have complete faith in George's dedication and professionalism as a administrator. --
2520:
1641:
Despite noting the points made in oppose and neutral comments, my impression is very favourable on this candidate.
707:
Excellent candidate -- past problems were, I think, a mere difference of opinion largely incidental to adminship.
2581:
2489:
2447:
2413:
2122:
2095:
2086:
1988:. Changed from oppose. I'm prepared to accept that GWH sees the importance of BLP, and that was my only concern.
925:
670:
591:
565:
539:
504:
471:
I am still waiting for some additional offline discussion to resolve, but I wanted to put more of an answer here.
460:
419:
402:
385:
Also, you've continued to be quite active on the unblock mailing list, to very great positive effect... (quoting
370:
353:
319:
293:
which led to an Arbcom ruling against the abuser; I spent months trying to work with them before it got that far.
258:
192:
131:
69:
369:
Solidarity doesn't mean we can't say "I appreciate your work here, but please knock this thing over here off."
1045:
1917:
Has made great improvements since the last RfA. I think
Georgewililamherbert is qualified for adminship now.
1381:- just a little dubious, BLP is policy, AGF is not, but everything else looks good. And we need more admins.
2625:
was going to support, but with regards to your last request I'm not too sure you've addressed the concerns.
2153:
1852:
1301:
1136:
1123:
859:
797:
500:"not trump" means just that - If you have to apply BLP, you still have to operate under AGF and the pillars.
238:
661:
in here? :) Sorry for the premature transclusion, please don't hold it against George, it was my bobble. ++
1003:
2576:
George asked me to elaborate my concerns from the previous RfA. I was pretty specific in my comments on
2479:
2467:
2196:
2182:
2172:
2056:
1650:
1151:
872:
841:
739:
2668:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
767:
838:
723:
2288:
2199:. Blocking someone is not necessarily a failure to AGF. Even the best meaning user can still violate
2005:
1992:
1186:
998:
552:
517:
870:
George has a demonstrable need for the tools and I feel confident that he can be trusted with them.
2210:
1927:
1769:
1530:
1340:
888:
682:
1792:
Seems like an eminently sensible and well-balanced editor who knows what's good for the project.--
760:
2223:
2147:
1885:
1612:
1496:
1487:
1433:
1423:
1409:
I am grateful to him for establishing the rule that talk page comments should not be deleted. --
1400:
1370:
1351:
1293:
1233:
856:
718:
694:
447:
2427:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/nominate#What to do if you are nominated by someone else:
2103:
Retracting !vote in the light of a thoughtful answer by the candidate. However, I wish that you
1972:
1694:
1474:
Appears ready for the tools and can be trusted. I'm not dissuaded by the oppose comments below.
538:
It's not a contradiction to both be bold and willing to accept criticism and change your mind.
257:
will grow to be sufficiently fleshed out to be a project space essay, but it's not there yet.
2634:
2540:
2393:
2329:
2302:
1942:
1904:
1813:
1663:
1249:
1219:
981:
784:
748:
230:
997:
be careful in unblocking anyone, and make sure to discuss it with the blocking admin, etc. --
2650:
2610:
2554:
2338:
2319:
2077:
2041:(without producing an inkling of evidence to prove notability) and a subsequent note here –
1642:
1281:
1076:
1044:- seems like a good editor, evidently has a good knowledge of policy, impressive editcount.
1021:
844:
736:
646:
634:
386:
222:
113:
2422:
2281:
2200:
2045:
1959:
Strong candidate. Will be helpful in doing admin's chores and building up Knowledge (XXG).
1756:
Splendid work on Unblock-en-l and at ArbCom. No, I'm not kissing up, he's done a fine job.
1690:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1568:
921:
307:
188:
180:
2285:
2255:
1989:
1978:
1863:. I have complete faith that George will always try to do what is best for the project.
1841:
1757:
1698:
1181:
1112:
1062:
818:
549:
514:
1584:
524:
I don't think that's an either-or, first-second. It's "how do you approach the problem".
184:
855:. Let's see. Do I trust George William Herbert to use the tools wisely? Of course I do.
2504:
2372:
2205:
1919:
1524:
1463:
1337:
968:
885:
830:
244:
I've added a moderate number of images as well, mostly illustrating technical articles.
226:
1486:
Great volunteer who will certainly help the project even more with some extra buttons
393:) ... do you think your experiences there have influenced your outlook? If so, how? ++
2681:
2599:
2443:
2409:
2360:
1878:
1607:
1588:
1475:
1419:
1410:
1396:
1382:
1366:
1230:
1200:
1033:
666:
444:
432:
398:
349:
99:
93:
2627:
2536:
2389:
2268:
1901:
1805:
1793:
1745:
1678:
1627:
1325:
1261:
1212:
781:
486:
are controversial and get more eyes on the problem. And we have to enforce policy
296:
Not as a party, but as a conflict-handler, I've been involved in a number of areas.
218:
2301:, reluctantly. Otherwise an excellent choice, but I share the concerns about BLP.
2519:
over a drawing of the Starship Enterprise that we unquestionably cannot use as a
2585:
2568:
1960:
1781:
1717:
1507:
1277:
1168:
1017:
2524:
2478:, activity too low for me, but won't stand in the way of election. Good luck.
2430:
2171:
Whilst I'm happy to AGF, BLP is non-negotiable. Not what I want in an admin.--
1838:
1733:
1449:
1107:
1057:
943:
910:
815:
708:
283:
2662:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
1851:. Hard working Wikipedian who is doing valuable work on the unblocking list.
391:
George has been one of our most consistently hard-working members of the list
2316:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad
1180:
that he can be trusted with the others as well and can find a use for them.
958:
234:
2044:(alleging improper close of the AfD) which implies failure to understand –
1557:
the net effect on the project of GWH's becoming an admin should be positive
528:
review and comment, and make sure they feel welcome to participate in that.
2439:
2405:
1601:
1092:
662:
394:
345:
332:
2421:
Unless you have an objection, this page really ought to be removed from
2672:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
1780:
We need admins with his measured approach to balancing BLP and AGF.
681:, overwhelmingly, and I hope my support vote isn't a kiss of death.
157:
What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out
2438:
No objection, I removed it for now. Processes change over time. ++
282:
Prior to my first RFA I'd gotten into a couple of arguments with
1122:
Plenty of experience and judgment, concerns below are trivial.
24:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Georgewilliamherbert (2)
2648:
Some concerns, however he does have good contributions too. --
633:. Great candidate who was unlucky to fail last time around. –
123:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
183:(mostly reporting now, would handle requests if adminned),
2466:
until questions answered - can't fault the nom's though!
2168:
seems to think that we should AGF rather then enforce BLP.
1458:
Per bowl of petunias (provided he promises not to build a
980:
good user, good answers, good activity. Give him a mop. -
761:
36:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
2584:. I don't know what else to elaborate on beyond that. -
906:
237:
related contributions. I added a lot of the content in
2580:, and I responded to his question regarding my comments
2516:
2169:
2049:
1551:
1245:
1091:- thoughtful, experienced editor with good judgment. --
920:
Noted and agreed. That's what people's talk pages and
658:
441:
924:
are for. Talk first, particularly in controversies.
301:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Free Republic
127:
To quote the bowl of petunias: "Oh no, not again." 8-)
2039:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Orca (supercar)
909:(see well written summary in Block wars paragraph).--
2006:
221:, the steel and aluminum alloy articles linked from
1744:
A fine editor, and the oppose arguments are weak.--
735:Great looking contribs., sure to be a great admin.
1211:, George is the type of user we want as an admin.
1506:looks alright, just be csure to follow policy.--
2515:- my only interaction with George was in an IFD
306:I've been (on and off as time allows) active on
2425:until the questions are answered. Please see
693:, cannot imagine that he'll misuse the tools.
610:Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
440:Could you elaborate on the statement you made
1260:. See him around a lot, sharp contributor. -
8:
1484:Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support
2388:Um... Why aren't the questions answered? -
2074:had been indef-blocked three weeks earlier
2058:; I cannot support at this time. Sorry. —
1100:Support. Angerafte, 20:36 22 February 2007
2090:unblock-en-L or elsewhere that I know of.
340:I asked you some essay questions on your
312:User:Georgewilliamherbert/DefendEachOther
255:User:Georgewilliamherbert/DefendEachOther
130:I gratefully accept this re-nomination.
65:(82/9/8); Ended 03:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
1732:better due to George's contribution. --
291:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality
18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship
289:There had been a series of abuses on
239:List of nuclear weapons#United States
7:
503:I hope this clarifies my position.
233:and some related ship articles, and
179:Things I spend time on now include
2076:. This is an ill-reasoned oppose.
780:on the strength of your quote :D.
31:
2688:Successful requests for adminship
1418:Of course he should be an admin.
2037:per his reasoning on this AfD –
1634:23:12, Saturday, 24 February '07
1583:is largely an extension) in our
159:Category:Knowledge (XXG) backlog
2154:
2148:
2014:
1608:
1488:
962:
959:
163:Category:Administrative backlog
1865:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
1626:
1312:
1294:
1292:Sounds like a good guy to me.
598:. For the edit count, see the
217:Ones I am happy about now are
1:
2655:14:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
2641:15:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
2635:
2614:13:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
2603:12:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
2589:14:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
2572:17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2558:15:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2545:06:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2528:04:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2508:02:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2493:23:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2483:18:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
2471:18:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2451:19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2434:18:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2417:18:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2398:18:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2376:18:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
2364:01:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
2342:22:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
2333:22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
2323:20:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
2306:14:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
2291:01:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
2272:12:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
2259:07:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
2247:11:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
2217:09:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
2186:13:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
2176:09:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
2161:18:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2126:03:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
2116:13:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
2109:
2099:01:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
2081:15:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2067:15:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
2060:
1981:23:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
1964:22:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
1952:10:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
1934:02:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
1910:19:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
1893:09:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
1868:02:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
1856:01:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
1844:22:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
1830:22:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
1797:17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
1785:16:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
1773:14:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
1761:03:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
1749:22:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
1737:22:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
1721:14:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
1709:13:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
1682:04:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
1671:03:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
1655:02:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
1644:
1619:17:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
1613:
1592:04:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
1543:00:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
1525:
1516:21:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1499:20:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1479:18:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1467:17:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1454:16:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1442:14:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1428:12:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1414:11:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1404:11:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1386:10:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1374:09:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1358:07:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1344:06:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1329:06:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1317:03:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1307:
1285:01:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1265:01:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1253:00:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1237:00:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1222:00:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
1204:23:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
1192:23:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
1172:22:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
1155:20:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
1143:20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
1130:20:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
1118:20:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
1096:20:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
1084:20:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
1072:19:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
1049:19:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
1037:17:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
1025:16:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
1009:15:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
989:14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
982:
973:13:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
929:02:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
914:13:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
894:12:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
877:12:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
863:11:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
848:10:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
834:10:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
822:08:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
810:08:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
789:06:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
773:06:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
752:06:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
743:05:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
728:05:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
712:05:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
700:04:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
686:04:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
674:04:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
650:02:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
638:02:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
569:07:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
555:01:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
543:09:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
520:09:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
508:02:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
464:19:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
451:12:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
423:00:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
406:18:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
374:00:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
357:18:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
323:02:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
262:01:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
196:01:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
135:18:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
117:17:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
105:17:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
2628:
1633:
1628:
1602:
1537:
1531:
1302:
645:per my co-nomination above.
171:administrators' reading list
2087:User:Anthony Scott Mitchell
1575:sit, to be sure, alongside
1552:support three months hither
1297:
1244:I opposed in the last RFA.
594:'s edit summary usage with
146:Questions for the candidate
2704:
1032:. A trustworthy editor.--
165:, and read the page about
2328:the RFA take its course.
2021:02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
1995:00:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
1555:eminently confident that
1056:Looks like a good user.--
2665:Please do not modify it.
1229:Will make a good admin.
331:Optional questions from
1768:Per above arguments. -
657:Of course. Is there an
431:Optional question from
46:Please do not modify it
253:I hope that the essay
41:request for adminship
2490:Georgewilliamherbert
2123:Georgewilliamherbert
2110:Nearly Headless Nick
2096:Georgewilliamherbert
2061:Nearly Headless Nick
1450:<<-armon-: -->
1272:. Why in God's name
926:Georgewilliamherbert
592:georgewilliamherbert
566:Georgewilliamherbert
540:Georgewilliamherbert
505:Georgewilliamherbert
461:Georgewilliamherbert
420:Georgewilliamherbert
371:Georgewilliamherbert
320:Georgewilliamherbert
259:Georgewilliamherbert
193:Georgewilliamherbert
132:Georgewilliamherbert
89:his first nomination
70:Georgewilliamherbert
56:Georgewilliamherbert
1971:a good candidate --
1728:. unblock-en-l is
1046:Walton monarchist89
1853:Capitalistroadster
1617:
1563:, to contravene a
1137:Christopher Parham
1124:Christopher Parham
798:BuickCenturyDriver
2543:
2396:
1891:
1600:
1565:behavioral policy
1541:
1070:
1007:
971:
948:
947:2007-02-22 13:22Z
891:
786:
771:
726:
698:
231:Strength of ships
103:
22:(Redirected from
2695:
2667:
2637:
2630:
2539:
2480:The Rambling Man
2468:The Rambling Man
2392:
2243:
2241:
2239:
2237:
2235:
2215:
2159:
2156:
2150:
2111:
2062:
2055:the page once –
2016:
2008:
1930:
1925:
1922:
1907:
1890:
1888:
1882:
1876:
1826:
1818:
1810:
1706:
1646:
1635:
1632:
1630:
1615:
1610:
1604:
1539:
1533:
1529:
1527:
1494:
1493:
1440:this message! -
1354:
1314:
1309:
1304:
1299:
1296:
1217:
1115:
1110:
1060:
1001:
986:
967:
964:
961:
950:
946:
889:
827:Strongly support
785:
765:
763:
722:
697:
585:General comments
223:Structural steel
97:
48:
27:
2703:
2702:
2698:
2697:
2696:
2694:
2693:
2692:
2678:
2677:
2676:
2670:this nomination
2663:
2639:
2521:derivative work
2233:
2231:
2229:
2227:
2225:
2204:
2146:
1976:
1928:
1923:
1920:
1905:
1886:
1880:
1877:
1873:Strong support:
1822:
1814:
1806:
1702:
1666:semper fictilis
1653:
1514:
1489:
1352:
1213:
1113:
1108:
940:
903:userspace essay
884:. Trustworthy.
796:oer nominator.
59:
44:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2701:
2699:
2691:
2690:
2680:
2679:
2675:
2674:
2658:
2657:
2643:
2633:
2620:
2619:
2618:
2617:
2616:
2593:
2592:
2591:
2562:
2561:
2560:
2530:
2510:
2497:
2496:
2495:
2485:
2460:
2459:
2458:
2457:
2456:
2455:
2454:
2453:
2379:
2378:
2366:
2354:
2353:
2352:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2344:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2261:
2249:
2219:
2190:
2189:
2188:
2163:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2136:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2132:
2131:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2121:day, though.
2091:
2024:
2023:
1997:
1983:
1974:
1966:
1954:
1936:
1912:
1895:
1870:
1858:
1846:
1832:
1799:
1787:
1775:
1763:
1751:
1739:
1723:
1711:
1684:
1673:
1657:
1649:
1636:
1621:
1594:
1561:content policy
1545:
1518:
1510:
1501:
1481:
1469:
1460:Temple of Hate
1456:
1444:
1430:
1416:
1407:
1388:
1376:
1360:
1346:
1331:
1319:
1287:
1267:
1255:
1239:
1224:
1206:
1194:
1174:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1120:
1106:, absolutely.
1101:
1098:
1089:Strong support
1086:
1074:
1051:
1042:Strong Support
1039:
1027:
1011:
991:
975:
956:, absolutely.
951:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
896:
879:
865:
857:Angus McLellan
850:
836:
824:
812:
791:
775:
754:
745:
730:
714:
702:
688:
683:SchmuckyTheCat
676:
652:
640:
629:Beat-the-noms
621:
620:
607:
606:
605:
603:
596:mathbot's tool
587:
586:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
561:
536:
533:
529:
525:
501:
498:
494:
491:
483:
479:
475:
472:
466:
435:
428:
427:
426:
425:
415:
379:
378:
377:
376:
366:
335:
328:
327:
326:
325:
315:
304:
297:
294:
287:
280:
267:
266:
265:
264:
251:
248:
245:
242:
227:Aluminum alloy
215:
201:
200:
199:
198:
167:administrators
148:
147:
142:
140:
139:
138:
137:
128:
58:
53:
52:
51:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2700:
2689:
2686:
2685:
2683:
2673:
2671:
2666:
2660:
2659:
2656:
2653:
2652:
2647:
2644:
2642:
2638:
2632:
2631:
2624:
2621:
2615:
2612:
2608:
2607:
2606:
2605:
2604:
2601:
2597:
2594:
2590:
2587:
2583:
2579:
2575:
2574:
2573:
2570:
2566:
2563:
2559:
2556:
2552:
2548:
2547:
2546:
2542:
2538:
2534:
2533:Still neutral
2531:
2529:
2526:
2522:
2518:
2514:
2511:
2509:
2506:
2501:
2498:
2494:
2491:
2486:
2484:
2481:
2477:
2476:Still neutral
2474:
2473:
2472:
2469:
2465:
2462:
2461:
2452:
2449:
2445:
2441:
2437:
2436:
2435:
2432:
2428:
2424:
2420:
2419:
2418:
2415:
2411:
2407:
2402:
2401:
2400:
2399:
2395:
2391:
2386:
2385:
2384:
2383:
2377:
2374:
2370:
2367:
2365:
2362:
2358:
2355:
2343:
2340:
2336:
2335:
2334:
2331:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2321:
2317:
2313:
2312:
2311:
2310:
2309:
2308:
2307:
2304:
2300:
2297:
2293:
2292:
2289:
2287:
2283:
2279:
2275:
2274:
2273:
2270:
2265:
2262:
2260:
2257:
2253:
2250:
2248:
2245:
2244:
2220:
2218:
2214:
2213:
2209:
2208:
2202:
2198:
2194:
2191:
2187:
2184:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2174:
2170:
2167:
2164:
2162:
2157:
2151:
2149:Peter M Dodge
2144:
2141:
2140:
2127:
2124:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2114:
2112:
2106:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2097:
2092:
2088:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2079:
2075:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2065:
2063:
2057:
2054:
2050:
2047:
2043:
2040:
2036:
2033:
2032:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2022:
2018:
2017:
2010:
2009:
2001:
1998:
1996:
1993:
1991:
1987:
1984:
1982:
1979:
1977:
1970:
1967:
1965:
1962:
1958:
1955:
1953:
1950:
1947:
1945:
1940:
1937:
1935:
1932:
1931:
1926:
1916:
1913:
1911:
1908:
1903:
1899:
1896:
1894:
1889:
1884:
1883:
1874:
1871:
1869:
1866:
1862:
1859:
1857:
1854:
1850:
1847:
1845:
1842:
1840:
1836:
1833:
1831:
1827:
1825:
1819:
1817:
1811:
1809:
1803:
1800:
1798:
1795:
1791:
1788:
1786:
1783:
1779:
1776:
1774:
1771:
1767:
1764:
1762:
1759:
1755:
1752:
1750:
1747:
1743:
1740:
1738:
1735:
1731:
1730:significantly
1727:
1724:
1722:
1719:
1715:
1712:
1710:
1707:
1705:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1685:
1683:
1680:
1677:
1674:
1672:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1661:
1658:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1647:
1640:
1637:
1631:
1625:
1622:
1620:
1616:
1611:
1605:
1598:
1595:
1593:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1553:
1549:
1546:
1544:
1540:
1534:
1528:
1522:
1519:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1502:
1500:
1497:
1495:
1492:
1485:
1482:
1480:
1477:
1473:
1470:
1468:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1455:
1452:
1448:
1445:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1434:Mailer Diablo
1431:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1415:
1412:
1408:
1405:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1389:
1387:
1384:
1380:
1377:
1375:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1361:
1359:
1356:
1355:
1353:Daniel.Bryant
1347:
1345:
1342:
1339:
1335:
1332:
1330:
1327:
1323:
1320:
1318:
1315:
1310:
1305:
1300:
1291:
1288:
1286:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1268:
1266:
1263:
1259:
1256:
1254:
1251:
1246:
1243:
1240:
1238:
1235:
1232:
1228:
1225:
1223:
1220:
1218:
1216:
1210:
1207:
1205:
1202:
1198:
1195:
1193:
1190:
1189:
1185:
1184:
1178:
1175:
1173:
1170:
1166:
1163:
1157:
1156:
1153:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1141:
1138:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1128:
1125:
1121:
1119:
1116:
1111:
1105:
1102:
1099:
1097:
1094:
1090:
1087:
1085:
1081:
1078:
1075:
1073:
1068:
1064:
1059:
1055:
1052:
1050:
1047:
1043:
1040:
1038:
1035:
1031:
1028:
1026:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1012:
1010:
1005:
1000:
995:
992:
990:
987:
985:
979:
976:
974:
970:
966:
965:
955:
952:
949:
945:
939:
936:
930:
927:
923:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
912:
908:
904:
900:
897:
895:
892:
887:
883:
880:
878:
875:
874:
869:
866:
864:
861:
858:
854:
851:
849:
846:
843:
840:
837:
835:
832:
828:
825:
823:
820:
817:
813:
811:
807:
803:
799:
795:
792:
790:
787:
783:
779:
776:
774:
769:
764:
758:
755:
753:
750:
746:
744:
741:
738:
734:
731:
729:
725:
724:make a motion
721:
720:
715:
713:
710:
706:
703:
701:
696:
695:Seraphimblade
692:
689:
687:
684:
680:
677:
675:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
653:
651:
648:
644:
641:
639:
636:
632:
628:
627:
626:
625:
619:
618:
617:
616:
612:
611:
604:
601:
597:
593:
589:
588:
584:
583:
570:
567:
562:
558:
557:
556:
553:
551:
546:
545:
544:
541:
537:
534:
530:
526:
523:
522:
521:
518:
516:
511:
510:
509:
506:
502:
499:
495:
492:
489:
484:
480:
476:
473:
470:
467:
465:
462:
457:
454:
453:
452:
449:
446:
443:
439:
436:
434:
430:
429:
424:
421:
416:
412:
409:
408:
407:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
384:
381:
380:
375:
372:
367:
363:
360:
359:
358:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
336:
334:
330:
329:
324:
321:
316:
313:
309:
305:
302:
298:
295:
292:
288:
285:
281:
278:
275:
274:
272:
269:
268:
263:
260:
256:
252:
249:
246:
243:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
209:
208:
206:
203:
202:
197:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
175:
174:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
153:
152:
151:
145:
144:
143:
136:
133:
129:
126:
125:
124:
121:
120:
119:
118:
115:
111:
110:Co-nomination
107:
106:
101:
96:
95:
90:
85:
81:
78:
75:
71:
67:
66:
63:
57:
54:
50:
47:
42:
39:
34:
33:
25:
19:
2664:
2661:
2649:
2645:
2626:
2622:
2595:
2564:
2550:
2532:
2512:
2499:
2475:
2463:
2387:
2381:
2380:
2368:
2356:
2330:Tom Harrison
2303:Tom Harrison
2298:
2277:
2276:
2263:
2251:
2224:
2211:
2206:
2192:
2165:
2142:
2104:
2073:
2052:
2034:
2026:
2025:
2012:
2004:
1999:
1985:
1968:
1956:
1943:
1938:
1918:
1914:
1897:
1879:
1872:
1860:
1848:
1834:
1823:
1815:
1807:
1801:
1789:
1777:
1765:
1753:
1741:
1729:
1725:
1713:
1703:
1686:
1675:
1665:
1664:
1659:
1643:
1638:
1623:
1596:
1585:five pillars
1548:Firm support
1547:
1520:
1503:
1490:
1483:
1471:
1446:
1437:
1392:
1379:Weak support
1378:
1362:
1350:
1333:
1321:
1289:
1273:
1269:
1257:
1250:Jersey Devil
1241:
1226:
1214:
1208:
1196:
1187:
1182:
1176:
1164:
1149:
1103:
1088:
1079:
1053:
1041:
1029:
1013:
993:
983:
977:
957:
953:
941:
937:
898:
881:
871:
867:
852:
826:
793:
777:
756:
749:Michael Snow
732:
717:
704:
690:
678:
654:
642:
630:
623:
622:
614:
613:
609:
608:
487:
468:
455:
437:
410:
390:
382:
361:
337:
276:
270:
219:Washboarding
210:
204:
176:
154:
149:
141:
122:
109:
108:
92:
83:
76:
68:
64:
61:
60:
45:
37:
35:
2651:sunstar net
2611:Newyorkbrad
2555:Newyorkbrad
2339:Newyorkbrad
2320:Newyorkbrad
2078:Newyorkbrad
2051:, who only
1395:per MONGO.
1077:Pepsidrinka
737:John Reaves
647:Newyorkbrad
387:Sarah Ewart
114:Newyorkbrad
2578:in the RfA
2517:discussion
2286:SlimVirgin
2155:Talk to Me
1990:SlimVirgin
1651:Talk to me
1579:(of which
1338:Antandrus
1248:support.--
1183:Cbrown1023
615:Discussion
550:SlimVirgin
515:SlimVirgin
469:Followup -
284:User:MONGO
38:successful
2505:Doug Bell
2373:Dionyseus
2371:Per Doc.
2254:per Doc.
2046:WP:CSD#A7
1881:Netsnipe
1526:JungleCat
1464:Guettarda
1063:Talk Page
907:wheel war
886:Sjakkalle
831:Everyking
600:talk page
235:Alt.space
2682:Category
2636:(o rly?)
2600:Taxwoman
2361:Tyrenius
1975:(Slf67)
1766:Support.
1754:Support.
1695:WP:CIVIL
1491:gaillimh
1476:Agent 86
1420:Shimgray
1411:Ideogram
1397:Bishonen
1383:Moreschi
1367:Chris 73
1231:Garion96
1201:Gamaliel
1080:supports
1067:Contribs
1034:ragesoss
890:(Check!)
806:odometer
445:Garion96
433:Garion96
342:last RfA
169:and the
80:contribs
2646:Neutral
2629:Majorly
2623:Neutral
2596:Neutral
2565:Neutral
2537:Amarkov
2513:Neutral
2500:Neutral
2464:Neutral
2390:Amarkov
2382:Neutral
2269:Crum375
2007:physicq
2000:Support
1986:Support
1969:Support
1957:Support
1939:Support
1915:Support
1902:the wub
1898:Support
1861:Support
1849:Support
1835:Support
1808:Agεθ020
1802:Support
1794:R613vlu
1790:Support
1778:Support
1746:Runcorn
1742:Support
1726:Support
1714:Support
1687:Support
1679:John254
1676:Support
1660:Support
1639:Support
1629:Jorcoga
1624:Support
1597:Support
1521:Support
1504:Support
1472:Support
1447:Support
1438:approve
1393:Support
1363:Support
1334:Support
1326:Jeendan
1322:Support
1313:veritas
1295:Captain
1290:Support
1270:Support
1262:Merzbow
1258:Support
1242:Support
1227:Support
1215:Prodego
1209:Support
1197:Support
1177:Support
1165:Support
1104:Support
1054:Support
1030:Support
1014:Support
994:Support
978:Support
954:Support
938:Support
899:Support
882:Support
868:Support
853:Support
839:Terence
794:Support
782:Viridae
778:Support
762:Lantoka
757:Support
733:Support
705:Support
691:Support
679:Support
655:Support
643:Support
631:support
624:Support
488:without
2586:Taxman
2569:Taxman
2551:enough
2423:WP:RFA
2369:Oppose
2357:Oppose
2299:Oppose
2282:WP:BLP
2278:Oppose
2264:Oppose
2252:Oppose
2212:scribe
2201:WP:BLP
2193:Oppose
2166:Oppose
2143:Oppose
2053:tested
2035:Oppose
2027:Oppose
1973:Steve
1961:gidonb
1782:Vadder
1718:Just H
1691:WP:AGF
1538:Oohhh!
1532:Shiny!
1508:danntm
1436:and I
1341:(talk)
1278:Calton
1276:he? --
1234:(talk)
1169:Axiomm
1140:(talk)
1127:(talk)
922:WP:ANI
860:(Talk)
814:Sure.
740:(talk)
719:NYC JD
635:Chacor
532:mind".
478:block.
448:(talk)
314:credo.
308:WP:ANI
189:WP:ANI
181:WP:AIV
84:friend
2525:BigDT
2431:BigDT
2256:Frise
2226:: -->
2105:would
1839:A. B.
1770:Denny
1734:Yamla
1704:juice
1699:Mango
1451:: -->
1298:panda
1274:isn't
1109:Proto
1058:Natl1
1018:Conti
944:Quarl
911:MONGO
873:Sarah
816:Kusma
709:Xoloz
482:that.
185:WP:AN
100:Help!
62:Final
16:<
2582:here
2541:moo!
2394:moo!
2242:<
2195:per
1949:ceNT
1921:Nish
1906:"?!"
1758:Dino
1693:and
1662:.
1571:and
1462:).
1432:I'm
1424:talk
1401:talk
1371:Talk
1308:vino
1282:Talk
1188:talk
1016:. --
1004:talk
999:Aude
984:Anas
969:talk
845:恭喜发财
819:(討論)
802:Honk
768:talk
659:echo
590:See
442:here
225:and
187:and
161:and
74:talk
2440:Lar
2406:Lar
2207:WjB
2197:Doc
2183:Doc
2173:Doc
1924:kid
1697:.
1645:Pig
1589:Joe
1587:.
1581:BLP
1577:ATT
1573:AGF
1569:CIV
1550:My
1152:Doc
1093:MCB
1065:) (
960:Dei
842:Ong
663:Lar
497:it.
395:Lar
346:Lar
333:Lar
94:Guy
2684::
2553:.
2442::
2408::
2404:++
2284:.
2019:)
2003:--
1946:ea
1941:.
1929:64
1900:.
1887:►
1828:)
1824:ФC
1820:•
1816:ΔT
1804:--
1567:;
1426:|
1422:|
1399:|
1369:|
1303:In
1280:|
1167:.
1082:.
829:.
808:)
804:,
716:-
665::
456:A:
438:6.
411:A:
397::
389::
383:5.
362:A:
348::
338:4.
277:A:
271:3.
229:,
211:A:
205:2.
177:A:
173:.
155:1.
43:.
2503:—
2448:c
2446:/
2444:t
2414:c
2412:/
2410:t
2240:t
2238:n
2236:a
2234:i
2232:d
2230:a
2228:R
2158:)
2152:(
2015:c
2011:(
1944:P
1812:(
1614:e
1609:H
1606:.
1603:G
1599:.
1535:/
1512:C
1406:.
1114:►
1069:)
1061:(
1022:✉
1020:|
1006:)
1002:(
963:z
942:—
800:(
770:)
766:(
671:c
669:/
667:t
602:.
403:c
401:/
399:t
354:c
352:/
350:t
241:.
102:)
98:(
77:·
72:(
49:.
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.