Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Graeme Bartlett

2334:. In either case an appropriate warning on the page would certainly be a first step with notification/action based upon results. In short, I don't think it was a realistic question and the answer was incomplete. But so what? Even if a rookie admin doesn't stop abuse on site, it doesn't mean abuse won't be stopped in another admin venue. It certainly doesn't preclude other admins from stopping him. I trust enough that the lesson this question was intended to teach has been clearly shown and the candidate here won't make that mistake in the future. Best of luck! You have my support. 1877:: simply outstanding (Incidentally, I found my edit research interrupted as I became absorbed in the subject of his writing; Never thought of rocks being so interesting!). Graeme has a demonstrated need (based on his history and Q1) for the 3 basic functions of the Sysop tools. A close look at the diffs finds that his answers to Q1,2,3 are sincere, reflecting his undramatic, helpful, and constructive editing. As an administrator, there is no doubt that he will benefit the encyclopedia to an even higher degree. 3571:(For the sake of examples in Latin) - These are only examples, not an exclusive list. I think a well-respected editor would meet the criteria for sending an e-mail. As for "finding out the user has socks", I refer back to my first point about hypothetical questions. What constitutes "finding out"? To some degree it could be subjective. Some users have different opinions as to what they think is clear cut evidence. 3447:

many levels of consideration, and many ways of answering. I may stop using it after this as it is likely to generate an answer for which someone might find a reason to block. It may have outlived its usefulness given the current tenor of RFA. Almost forgot-- it is based on a situation in which following the officially appropriate process would have had grave political consequences for the editor.

2096:- I can't ever recall seeing this user before, which means at least the user isn't wrapped up in drama that is ANI/Arbcom/Rfc. I've went over the user's edit history. I've read the user's answers above. There are a couple of answers that are contradictory, as has been pointed out by others but nothing a little tutoring from a current admin won't fix. 756:. Some of these statements will very likely be vandalism, and I would remove myself when I saw them unsourced. Others may be unsurprising and non-controversial, others may be a libel. You must have looked at my edit history in the last day, because I did remove "XXX attended the University of Foo but did not graduate" which had no reference. see 746:, which of the following statements may be removed if not properly sourced: "XXX is gay", "XXX is married", "XXX is of German, Polish, and Irish ancestry", "XXX is a violinist", "XXX attended the University of Foo but did not graduate", "XXX was accused of incest by his daughter", "XXX is Presbyterian", "XXX is Muslim", "XXX was born in 19XX". 3483:

I'll do (insert action here)." for questions like these because it takes a due amount of consideration of the situation to arrive at a decision. All I ask of you, Ottava Rima, is to try and give the candidate the benefit of the doubt. If you're not satisfied with the answer, feel free to ask them for elaboration. Cheers,

338:

damage that they caused. If the user was non cooperative then a checkuser would certainly have to happen, followed up by a block of the main user, and an investigation and restoration of the damage caused. But in the case of this question it sounds as if a checkuser has already confirmed the sockpuppet situation.

3631:"Well respected editor"? No "well respected editor" would sock. Therefore, any one who socks does not belong here regardless of what their "nice" alter ego does. The most dangerous people are the ones who pretend to be decent while they are destroying the place. Wikianarchists need to go. No ands, ifs, or buts. 3524:

states, "For exceptionally sensitive matters (e.g., admin sock puppetry, harassment, privacy), please contact any CheckUser or any Arbitration Committee member, by e-mail ". It's not a good idea to immediately block because unless you're a checkuser, you won't know for sure if it's a valid concern or

3446:

That question is a powder keg and based on some past events that I'm not fully aware of-- before my time. (Note the abbreviated string of previous users.) It should be regarded as assessing the candidate's political acumen, beyond the basics of blocking/deleting/protecting. There are many approaches,

2493:

I agree with Ottava on Q4 - an editor using abusive socks is more likely to have an intractable character problem if he's generally well like. When used by someone who feels rejected its a more understandable reaction which might have easy solutions. Still its generally good to be lenient IMO and

1741:

Nice job doing that grueling work. User's been here for about three years(editing wise)and have done a lot of hard work with requested articles. But some of your answers to your questions make me question your knowledge of a bunch of policies. But really other than that no reason to oppose. Good luck

677:

Articles that are vandalism, libel, copyright violations can be deleted immediately. But just because there are no sources is not a reason to speedy delete. My opinion on verifiability means that it can be verified, not the same as that is is actually verified from a published source. It is better

397:

An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you.

337:

Warn first. A second step would be to block the sock puppets. If the user responded well to the warning, admitting the problem and promising to not repeat the error, then that may be the limit of what has to happen. I would ask the user to admit to all the sockpuppets they operated, and to restore

3380:

How about assuming some good faith here? The candidate has stated that they didn't do the question justice in the first instance and has now returned and added some clarification in Q4.1. Admittedly a two-word answer didn't help much, but you seem to be ignoring the evidence of twenty-thousand edits

3330:

He admits that he wouldn't take the appropriate steps to dealing with a blatantly problematic user. This is 100% unacceptable and such an attitude is held by many problematic admin now. Anyone supporting a candidate who states something as corrupt as that honestly bothers me. This person, in no way,

609:

At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused

3660:

Respect is a condition. If a condition is based on a lie, then it was never true to begin with. Sure, you can argue that there is retrospection, but the future revelation removes all previous aspects. I can give you plenty of examples of sock masters pretending to be "well respected" individuals. I

3300:

Answer to number four, "warn them", is unacceptable. If a "liked" member of the community was doing that, then the situation is even worse because the lies and deceit have completely destroyed the community's trust. Simply warning them and not following the proper process only compounds the problem

833:

No I would not speedy delete that one. The only possible one I could see was copyright infringement, but I cannot find that this is so. A7 does not apply as it is a big company, so it claims notability. There is a problem with the article that there is a lack of references to prove notability or

620:

In this case I would step away from the stressful situations. I may take a couple of days' break from Knowledge (XXG) if my life was affected. The way I respond is intended to not inflame a situation. In real life I can work with many difficult people that others cannot cope with, and I should be

417:

In this case I would respect the other admin's action, however I may request that the blocked editors can edit their own talk pages so that the problem can be discussed. It is likely that the block would have been for a limited period, and that the users would come back with problematic behaviour,

276:

who on several occasions removed my content from Canberra suburb pages. We largely debated this in edit summaries, and in the end my content is still there, but improved. I have also had some minor disruption from vandals. The first time a vandal put profanity on my talk page, I was a bit upset,

3482:

When we look at a user's answer to a question, we also have to consider that we gave them a generic question with very little background information. When there's a real situation, we can look at much more variables to get a better grasp of the situation. It's too hard to give a cut and dry, "Yes,

3315:

Ottava, I understand your point and I think it's pertinent. But when you say "shows that you can't be trusted," it seems too strong and accusatory. I'd encourage you to rephrase a bit and I would be interested in what you think would be an appropriate way to handle that situation. Is it possible a

2354:

per experience, hard work, right kind of user for the job, no problems, fully qualified, well answered questions, looking good, extremely qualified, and old-timer long overdue, tireless work, being a good contributor, long overdue, extremely valuable contributions, no reason why not, and having an

954:

No, I cannot find one that applies. Speedy would be rejected by me. It is not nonsense - G1, A7 does not apply as it is not a person, organisation or web site. G11 does not apply as it is not an advertisement - there is no promotional language. However, it makes no claim to notability, and has no

252:

My work has not been on the good article or featured article aspect of the project, but at the lower quality scale end, transition pages from nothing to existence. My writing is not upto the quality standard of a featured article. So instead I work to get many articles to start class, and work to

181:

I intend to explore many or all of the different kinds of tasks that require the admin mop. I have checked out the different kinds of backlogs, and I would pay attention to the ones that could provide the most benefit. One area is WP:AIAV that is disappointing to see entries sitting around for a

319:

but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you

3614:

No matter what one did in this scenario, someone would be angry about it. The key to answering the question is in recognizing the matter's sensitivity and then working out how to minimize the drama and disruption. Even if the suspected puppeteer were not an admin, the turmoil and upset could be

785:

If all the statement were negative, then yes the article should be deleted using G10 as the speedy reason.. However as an editor I may choose to find a suitable reference for a statement of notability, and add that in. If there were notability claims made in an earlier version, but they were

518:

vote with no explanation will not count for much. If the puppet presents a convincing case to keep an article then it is fair enough to close as keep, however I would confirm that the argument was in fact valid. The debate is about the article rather than the puppet, even though the puppet is

3645:

The criteria for "well respected" actually applies to the Knowledge (XXG) community, it may be a false delusion about to rapidly change. The user him/herself is corrupt. I do not support such disruptive behaviour as you suggest. Can you give some examples of (formerly) well respected users

2186:

Answers, talkpage and contribs check out and your blocklog is clean. Re Q12 I would point out that copyvios don't have to be speedied. An admin or anyone else can rewrite and salvage - or even just stubbify the offending article (hint to potential RFA candidates reading this, stubbifying and

802:

I think most newbies will only contribute a small amount, and that a proven long term contributor has a much bigger likely future output. But I don't think that every wikipedian should be doing the same thing, some should be welcoming new users and showing them what to do, others should be

3467:

I've dealt with similar situations and don't like those who aid sockmasters in such a way. I don't mean that answering the question is blockable, but that if he was an admin and were to act in that way, I would probably be one of the first to call for his removal along with the sockmaster.

3398:

I'm agreeing wholly with Martin here. Ottava, your answer contained a lot of venom and makes a subjective statement ("...is held by many... admin now...") that simply isn't true. I suggest you eat some breakfast in the morning, return with a clear head and return without the bitterness.

587:

This indicates an area that I need to study more before closing cases that I am not sure about. I am not going to jump in and do things that I don't know whether it is the right or wrong action to take. My actions first would be to read the policy carefully and study examples of other

3750:

reports "Edits in the encyclopedic namespace: 7725". With edits to 3577 different articles. Or are you more interested in contributions to GA and FA articles? The FA and GA articles that I started were brought to that standard by others. The only one that I passed for GA was

124:

To conclude, Graeme Bartlett is a long-standing, experienced, reliable and hard-working editor who would make an excellent addition to the janitors here. He avoids all forms of drama and is only here to improve the encyclopedia. I commend him to the community. — Martin

3506:

There is 100% NO situation that anything but blocking the user immediately and having a CU run to find out every other account and blocking them also is appropriate. No user who pretends to be decent while vandalizing under another account belongs at Knowledge (XXG).

481:

Firstly I would read the blocking policy carefully, but prior to reading, registered users that are only used for vandalism, disruption, copyright violation or libel that have been warned adequately, and then continue their disruption are times when users should be

714:

recommends a week. I would check if it was a new user, and not frighten them off so early. Really this tag should not be used for an article that is less than a stub. If the topic impressed me at all (with notability) I may insert one sentence to make it into a

1993:, but after looking through candidates further deletion review participation (mostly in MfD, I see), I don't see any real systemic issues. There is absolutely nothing I saw that shows any sort of predilection for theatrics or evidence he/she will abuse the tools. 731:

If the context was unclear this may be deleted as a blank article, but I would talk to the editor who planned to created the content about why. They would not have lost anything by deleting a blank entry, except the name, which would then appear on their talk

386:

The reason that I would warn as the first step is that we are trying to retain a useful editor. If their behavior can be restored to good, then we have the best outcome. A referral to arbcom would only be in order if other avenues for sorting out the problem

86:) – I'm proud to nominate Graeme for adminship. This editor joined Knowledge (XXG) in 2004 and has been regularly editing since the beginning of 2006. I first encountered Graeme while he was tirelessly working through the huge backlogs that had accumulated in 429:

The user that is prepared to talk would be the lead to establishing a working compromise. If they could be convinced to provide a new wording that takes into account the other party's point of view, then we may have a way forward and out of the edit war.

418:

so it could be worth attempting mediating a compromise. Any normal user can mediate, it does not have to be an administrator. I would not use IRC, and only use email in special circumstances. It is better for what I do to be visible to other Wikipedians.

277:

but I got over it quickly. I do not keep any anger for long and never respond in a rude way. In all these cases I keep calm. If a response is warranted from me it will be in a non emotional form, in some cases using assume good faith. With new people at

3677:

Sidebar to Graeme. There was an RFA, I think in 2006, in which the candidate turned out to be a sock of a popular and respected admin. It came out mid-RFA. The guy had the two socks disagreeing with each other in discussions. Amazing to watch unfold.

3548:

Of course, the question specifies an editor, not an admin, making the RFCU point moot. And, the question also assumes you "found out" that they were indeed socking. Now, I don't agree with Ottava here (go figure), but if you're going to argue him...

3284:. Having looked through his contributions history from 2008, Graeme strikes me as a very consistent editor. Even when he was going slow (July through mid-August) I can tell he put a fair amount of effort into article maintenance, checking AFC, etc. 3661:

can even link you to Knowledge (XXG) Review in which a banned user made it blatantly clear that he is operating a "clean" account. I've dealt with Poetlister, Moulton, and quite a few others in my time here. They sicken me in every regard.

3345:

I have not done this question justice as I had to leave for a few hours, perhaps I should have left the answer blank until I answered it more fully! But my first step would be to warn. That would not have been the end of what I would do.

456:

This one needs more thought from me. There are some lists of things in the special section that are really out of date. Either keep it up to date, or not list. Other areas would be relate to the projects I am working on particularly the

3414:

Really, Scarian? I guess you conveniently forgot all of Poetlister's friends and supporters that knew he was socking and said nothing. I don't even have to go into all of the other major sock masters, because that one example is enough.

1550:

The MfD discussions I sampled showed nuanced thought amd understanding of relevamt policies. Answers to Benon questions range from "OK" to what I wanted/needed to support. Talk page sampling showed a thoughtful, polite, helpful user.

406:

as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do

3316:

warning would be enough? It seems to me that we've had scenarios like that and the editors involved have been asked to stop. Maybe a clarification of the one word answer, or the reasoning behind it, is needed from the nom also?

3698:

Based in part on my criteria for more audited mainspace contribs, and answer to question 3, where apparently he and another user warred it out in edit summaries rather than taking it to talk. That's not a productive method.

3431:

Good faith? Sure, he wants to destroy the encyclopedia for the right reasons. The answer is 100% unacceptable. Supporting any editor that uses sock puppets to destroy the encyclopedia is a problem and should be blockable.

2325:

Answer to question 4 gave me pause, but then, in retrospect, life is a game in which you constantly learn. While warning them may be the first step, there are others. First of all, the question was vague. If this was a

2765:

My initial reaction to #4 was that the candidate would open a dialogue first. Although I find the opposes to be valid concerns, I think that opening a dialogue seems a reasonable gut reaction to a problem.

900: 645:

that there has to be a complex page move, or deal with an edit protected article, or where it would be best to speedy delete on sight. The basic reason is to help people build a better encyclopedia.

2125: 1461:

After a quick check of your past contributions, you seem to be a civil user who is knowledgeable on policy and could get good use out of the bit. I see plenty of reasons to support you here.

94:

for a typical example of a day's submissions; there was no glory in reviewing these requests, only the small satisfaction in adding a few potential articles to the encyclopedia. Graeme is a

3037:

Answers to questions show that you're cautious and willing to use common sense and learn from experience. I think that that, and a perusal of your contributions, show you can be trusted. -

923:

No, because the article is not vandalism, it looks like an article. I would remove the speedy delete tag. The AfD debate should confirm if it is a hoax or not before being speedy deleted.

3918: 803:

motivating and assisting the productive long term users. Certainly in the past much of my effort has gone into helping new editors, but that is because the old editors need less help.

1285:

Yes, I too would appreciate some expansion on your answer to question four. I think the situation may be more complex than just a two word answer and explanation would help. Thanks,

168:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge (XXG) as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

458: 1211: 2603:

Don't you find it a tad odd how soft he would be on people who appear to have "great editing record" but only because they kept all of their vandalism on a sock puppet account?

1866: 1206: 990:

No, it is close to A7 but is not really in the class of web content as it claims to be a Journal. It would need to be a prod or AfD if someone wanted to propose to delete it.

540:

Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?

514:

The case will depend more on the quality of arguments. In the case of sockpuppets it is very unlikely that they will be presenting different persuasive arguments, and a mere

796:

Given a choice, should Knowledge (XXG)(ns) spend more time retaining longer term contributors or newbies? What would you do as an admin to demonstrate the choice you make?

402:

as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to

711: 2461:. In addition, I wouldn't let objections to the Q4 answer bother me too much. It shows the intention to act with an abundance of caution, which is rarely a bad thing. 564:

Could you please clarify your statement? At first you say you'd like to see at least two votes to delete, but then you say you consider two votes not being consensus.

266:

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?

1048: 704:, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request? 91: 3733:

But the point is that you never bothered going to the talk page to resolve the issue. Parthian shots via edit summaries often create more heat than light. --

1035: 3242:

Seems worthy. The answer to q4 was wanting and the elaboration is a tad confusing but the editor seems to have a feel for nuances so no worries from me. --

219: 3936: 2411:

to find an issue worth opposing for is a very good reason for supporting IMHO. The other oppose (to date) is extremely unconvincing to say the least. -

1263:

Your answer to question 4 is a little strange. Would you care to explain it? This issue is the only thing keeping me from supporting as of now.

1201: 1042: 3809:

I'm purposely not responding to so absurd a statement. Trust me, if we ignore this behavior, it will self extinguish.03:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

2407:

The kind of administrator we need more of; experienced, mature, knowledgeable and respectful. That one of the opposing editors had to go back to

3719:. The edit wars were fairly minor with only three or four edits. When I met the user in real life we got on OK, with no outstanding acrimony. 3381:

over three years which indicates this is a reliable editor over one confused answer above. That doesn't seem reasonable or fair to me. — Martin

1078: 1072: 339: 2993:

Detailed, well-written answers for all of my questions (questions 14a-14d). I can find nothing wrong with your answers. I hope to see you at

1149: 1116: 1028: 83: 3360:

There was a clear and obvious answer, and you stated the exact opposite of it. Your first response is telling of your character as a whole.

2997:, since you are an excellent CSD'er. Many admins would have wrongly speedied the articles listed in my questions. Good luck with the tools! 1879: 222:. The reason is that the articles are covering areas that were largely missing from Knowledge (XXG), and go into a fair amount of detail. 114: 1933:- Graeme does excellent work at AfC as well as at the drawing board. We can always use another admin who is willing to help new editors. 2639:

Someone willing to put that much time into AfC obviously cares deeply about the project. Should make a good addition to the admin team.

2592: 1227: 110: 33: 17: 240: 236: 2580:

The answer to question 4 was a little too weak for my taste but it's nothing worth opposing over as you have a great editing record.

207: 203: 106: 87: 3063: 2330:

sockpuppeteer, then they already should have been blocked. If it was a suspicion, I'd send it to a checkuser to confirm and list at

3525:

not. If you were to block and then it turns out you were incorrect, there's a good chance that some unnecessary drama might ensue.

1237: 2622:. Graeme, Your edit history appears responsible over a considerable period of time. I think you'd be trustworthy with the tools. 1086: 327:

You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

820: 211: 2140:

Great answers above, I see lots of experience, common sense, and somebody who has their head on straight. Use the mop wisely! -

1807:

I don't see where he'd need the tools (since Graeme is mainly a content contributor), but for that reason alone I will support.

981: 725:

Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?

554:

before a delete decision. What counts is that there is a consensus, so one or two votes could hardly be counted as a consensus.

2427: 1944: 1813: 641:

Over the years I did not have a great desire to be an administrator. However there have been times when helping out people at

186:

discussions, occasionally doing a keep close. However I do intend looking at all the other places where admin work is needed.

1518: 1175: 3747: 109:

in 2007 and has translated a large number of articles from the Dutch Knowledge (XXG). He often responds to questions at the

500:

otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between

1874: 1196: 3873:

Good contribs, even-tempered, editor is here to build encyclopedia. Waiting on more complete answers. Leaning support. --

819:. I want to know how well you know the CSD criteria, so I've posed a couple questions about CSD. Would you speedy delete 1399: 2266:. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. I have reviewed the opposers' comments and find them unpersuasive. 2158: 1191: 2194: 1743: 1308:

I would like to thank every one who has taken the time to participate in my RfA. Thanks for the votes and comments.

3180: 1870: 1658: 1496: 1361: 698: 3178: 896: 3760: 3724: 3651: 3351: 3321: 3269: 2944: 2780: 2030:

the fact that Graeme is intending to work on the backlogs is reason enough to support. Also history looks great.

1712: 1677: 1313: 1170: 1142: 1022: 995: 964: 928: 861: 839: 593: 524: 154: 77: 3610:<-- outdent. Actually, the very intensity of this discussion shows how disruptive any approach could become. 2249:- the answer to question 4 is a bit weak, but apart from that, there's no obvious problems with this candidate. 3216: 2962: 2378: 1652: 98:, editing behind the scenes at the less-than-popular tasks. For this reason you may not even have noticed him. 3903: 3850: 3820: 3804: 3783: 3764: 3739: 3728: 3705: 3689: 3670: 3655: 3640: 3626: 3589: 3563: 3543: 3516: 3501: 3477: 3462: 3441: 3424: 3409: 3393: 3369: 3355: 3340: 3331:

can be trusted. If this individual is passed, then there are no ethical standards at Knowledge (XXG) anymore.

3325: 3310: 3288: 3276: 3253: 3229: 3220: 3203: 3182: 3160: 3143: 3119: 3107: 3084: 3067: 3048: 3029: 3006: 2985: 2966: 2949: 2930: 2907: 2878: 2857: 2834: 2811: 2803: 2786: 2757: 2734: 2717: 2705: 2688: 2673: 2656: 2631: 2612: 2598: 2572: 2557: 2534: 2520: 2503: 2485: 2470: 2453: 2399: 2382: 2365: 2346: 2317: 2300: 2275: 2258: 2241: 2220: 2203: 2181: 2162: 2132: 2112: 2088: 2061: 2044: 2022: 2007: 1966: 1949: 1925: 1908: 1891: 1857: 1840: 1823: 1799: 1775: 1763: 1733: 1716: 1699: 1682: 1663: 1636: 1620: 1603: 1588: 1562: 1542: 1524: 1502: 1479: 1453: 1438: 1404: 1377: 1365: 1343: 1332:- Seen the editor around, no reason to believe that they would abuse the tools. Policy knowledge seems sound. 1317: 1299: 1276: 1258: 1099: 999: 968: 932: 879: 865: 843: 597: 528: 158: 137: 61: 550:

For RfDs and CfDs one unopposed vote to delete will count. For AfDs I would like to see at least 2 votes to

3815: 3684: 3621: 3457: 3176: 2819:

Generally good answers to questions, none I found objectionable anyway, and looks like a good edit history.

2587: 2530: 2447: 2154: 1557: 1431: 3190:

Seems sound to me, no problems. Seems to know what he's doing and would make appropriate use of the tools.

2415: 2925: 2799: 2685: 2669: 2650: 2566: 2499: 2189: 1750: 1634: 1585: 3845: 3799: 3666: 3636: 3581: 3558: 3535: 3512: 3493: 3473: 3437: 3420: 3365: 3336: 3306: 3248: 3198: 3059: 2608: 2483: 2271: 2216: 2176: 2037: 2002: 1904: 1471: 1292: 1270: 911: 574: 369: 3917:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either

3810: 3679: 3616: 3452: 1783:

I looked, and I can't find a single reason not to support. I think he'll make fine use of the tools. —

1552: 1485: 1112: 289: 3573: 3527: 3485: 1463: 566: 471:

Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

361: 3896: 3881: 3756: 3720: 3647: 3347: 3317: 3262: 2939: 2730: 2550: 2516: 2235: 1853: 1792: 1708: 1672: 1309: 1135: 1018: 991: 960: 924: 857: 835: 589: 520: 232: 150: 118: 73: 3775: 2696:

Interesting points made by the opposes but nothing overwhelming. Overall, the candidate looks good.

2228:

All of our interactions have been positive. Graeme has been a great asset at Articles for Creation!

694:

A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and

3779: 3261:

Looks good. The points brought up in the oppose section aren't really major issues, in my opinion.

3213: 3156: 2958: 2714: 2627: 2423: 2375: 1939: 1921: 1818: 1729: 1646: 1600: 685: 215: 57: 2335: 1232: 3169: 3100: 2998: 2980: 2830: 2582: 2466: 2442: 2286: 2254: 2069:

weak because on q4 he should block the socks indefinite and then block or warn the main account.

1423: 1374: 871: 811: 102: 3075:- meets all of my usual standards - longtime user with rollback rights, useful user page, etc. 210:

and tagging, editing and creating its articles, but my biggest article contributions have been

3405: 3080: 3025: 2917: 2795: 2750: 2701: 2682: 2665: 2641: 2495: 2440:

Not sure I've seen you in the field, but the contributions and experience all look fantastic.

1627: 1572: 1538: 182:

while. Another area could be closing XfD discussions. Recently I have been participating in

3521: 431: 403: 356: 3838: 3791: 3734: 3700: 3662: 3632: 3550: 3508: 3469: 3433: 3416: 3361: 3332: 3302: 3243: 3191: 3134: 3055: 3044: 3002: 2900: 2850: 2604: 2477: 2267: 2212: 2172: 2105: 2057: 2031: 1994: 1957: 1900: 1836: 1394: 1286: 1266: 945: 907:). A user tags the article as blatant vandalism. Should you speedy delete the article under 875: 710:

I would not honour a speedy deletion request immediately, but wait for up to a day, even if

2562: 2331: 2281: 2187:

detagging copyright violations is one way to show you'd not just be a deletionist at CSD).

956: 955:

independent references, so it is a candidate for improvement. It would not be accepted at

776: 772: 743: 668: 656: 642: 399: 278: 183: 3891: 3876: 3285: 2726: 2545: 2512: 2230: 1849: 1787: 1695: 1450: 1336: 1251: 2293: 948:

be speedy deleted? (Choose from one or more of the following criteria: A7, G1, and G11.)

664: 3837:

What is this trying to achieve? Posting the same thing on every RfA doesn't make it so.

1532:- I know this guy from AfC and he does some brilliant work. Is very suited for the mop. 678:

to do the search before a speedy delete, as the article may still be under construction.

3388: 3226: 3152: 3116: 2711: 2623: 2419: 2308: 2081: 2019: 1934: 1917: 1808: 1725: 1616: 1597: 496:

if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be

306: 132: 660: 117:. He also has a number of other Wiki-interests - more information can be found on his 3930: 3095: 2974: 2876: 2820: 2775: 2462: 2395: 2250: 2129: 2121: 1511: 1418: 3400: 3076: 3015: 2745: 2697: 1533: 302: 273: 667:

that would show the subject to be notable? Does it make a difference as to which

3129: 3039: 2915:— I see no reason to believe that Graeme Bartlett isn't ready, User is trusted-- 2887: 2845: 2808: 2526: 2360: 2150: 2053: 1989:

while insisting core policies be upheld. Poor judgment (in my opinion) is shown

1832: 1772: 1389: 297: 355:

Could you explain why you would prefer to warn the user as opposed to going to

3752: 1899:- Your edits to Australia-related articles are praiseworthy. Good luck, mate! 1691: 1447: 293: 95: 3911:

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.

771:

If after removing all statements from a biography that must me removed under

3384: 2072: 2016: 1690:- serious contributor to WP, handles him/herself with dignity, level-headed 1612: 1354: 310: 128: 281:

I try to be patient and encourage them to contribute in a constructive way.

2938:

Makes useful contributions and does good work. I cannot see any problems--

1611:- looks like a good contributor and would be an asset to the admin group. 3151:

I see no problems, no reason to think you can't be trusted with the mop.

2866: 2767: 2391: 446:

If you could change any one thing about Knowledge (XXG) what would it be?

655:

In reviewing new articles, is it better to delete an article that meets

2994: 519:

attempting to abuse the process. If in doubt I would keep an article.

2170:. Looks good. Cleared up my concerns with your answer. Best of luck, 1644:– Never met him/her before, but seems like a good and trustable user. 786:

unsourced, then a prod would be a better option to get an improvement.

105:, this editor's interests are spread far and wide. He helped to found 3921:

or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

2865:. Good contributions. A good knowledge of policies & guidelines. 2511:, wants to improve the encyclopedia and will use the tools to do so. 2475:

Q4 answer bit short but not too bothersome. Excellent RfA candidate.

2143: 2794:

You will definitely become admin because so many people support you

3746:

David Fuchs: what is your criteria for more main space edits? The

1115:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 1127: 1831:

Graeme is a great editor who'll use the admin tools responsibly.

3568: 2356: 1625:

Does good work, no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –

1131: 2126:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/SingStar_(PlayStation_2)

196:

What are your best contributions to Knowledge (XXG), and why?

272:

I have had only minor content disputes. One example is with

144:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

2542:

Capable and productive editor, will not misuse the tools. --

1570:

Will make a good addition to the admin team. No objections.

1751: 1744: 459:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles

29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

2901: 2888: 2280:

Yep, most definitely. Great user, does tireless work at

1512: 1484:

Master&Expert hereby endorses Graeme for adminship.

1351:

Looks like exactly the right kind of guy for the job.

870:

Sorry, I titled it wrong. I've fixed the numbering now.

175:

What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

3788: 3717: 3715: 3713: 3711: 2433: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1975: 1093: 1066: 1060: 1054: 904: 824: 760: 757: 206:. In the project space my work has been on setting up 149:

I accept the nomination. Thank you for nominating me.

3449:

That would have be the wrong answer in some instances

2664:

Looks like a great canidate, no big reason to oppose.

434:

could be used if the blocks did not solve the problem.

3225:

I've indented this vote as you're also Support #50.

1974:. Candidate is an extremely valuable contributor per 3888:

09:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)<--Moving to support --

2975: 2355:

impressive nomination. Best wishes, welcome to the

1085:

Edit summary usage for Graeme Bartlett can be found

712:

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion of pages under construction

588:administrators closing debates with limited votes. 3846: 3199: 2124:due to no blocks and per good arguments as seen at 1596:Surprised this nominee is not already an admin. — 1220: 1184: 1163: 1678: 1673: 492:Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be 2494:other answers plus editing history looks fine . 2015:Another old-timer whose mop is long overdue. -- 92:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for creation/2006-08-27 3014:Looks like a very good and trustworthy editor. 3800: 3792: 3559: 3551: 2981: 2003: 1995: 1548:Overall experience is more than satisfactory. 1143: 113:and regularly participates in discussions at 8: 3115:, we need more users like Graeme Bartlett. 1865:Exceeds all standards that I use to form an 1387:That RFA candidate void didn't last long. :) 3401: 3053:Support. Meets my standards. Good answers. 2285: 1534: 235:summarizes my work more, with subpages for 220:Geology of the Australian Capital Territory 3839: 3192: 1385:No reason not to. Will make a good admin. 1150: 1136: 1128: 982:Journal of Germanic Mythology and Folklore 779:, would it be proper to speedy delete it? 752:Any of these statements could be removed 340:Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations 1954:Little who are more suited to the role. 1111:Please keep discussion constructive and 631:Why do you want to be an administrator? 115:Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion 2844: 856:Cunard: what happened to Question 14? 18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship 3301:and shows that you can't be trusted. 1117:Special:Contributions/Graeme Bartlett 461:needs more lists of missing articles. 208:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Friesland 88:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for creation 7: 342:could be used to announce a problem. 3774:Too many administrators currently. 3612:There really is not a right answer. 1333: 1248: 359:/ e-mailing arbcom or a checkuser? 2373:Most definitely a good candidate. 253:get them towards B class standard. 241:User:Graeme Bartlett/Frisian pages 237:User:Graeme Bartlett/Geology pages 24: 3937:Successful requests for adminship 1707:An impressive nom and candidate. 1446:a strong, longstanding editor.— 899:is a hoax and the article is at 827:)? If so, under what criterion? 821:Industrial and Financial Systems 315:. (And one of my own.) They are 212:Geology of the Iberian Peninsula 2919: 2710:Absolutely. All is well here. 2294: 1659: 1653: 1647: 1519: 1337: 1252: 2957:unlikely to misuse the tools. 2916: 2751: 2746: 2361: 2211:No problems here. Good luck! 2052:Impressive work at AfC. - Dan 1742:and cheers(excellent nom) :)-- 984:meet any of the CSD criteria? 1: 3128:Certainly. No alarms here. -- 3092:. Nothing to worry about. — 2781: 2776: 2768: 897:Long Island Ping Pong League 742:Under your understanding of 202:Overall would be my work on 3406: 3045:would like to hear from you 2525:Overqualified if anything. 2122:User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards 1539: 1016:Links for Graeme Bartlett: 659:on sight, or to search for 164:Questions for the candidate 90:a couple of years ago. See 3953: 3904:21:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 3821:03:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 3805:02:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 3784:02:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 3765:06:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 3740:13:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 3729:22:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 3706:20:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 3690:03:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 3671:03:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 3656:01:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 3641:15:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 3627:13:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 3590:07:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 3564:06:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 3544:06:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 3517:22:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 3502:21:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 3478:20:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 3463:15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 3442:15:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 3425:15:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 3410:10:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 3394:10:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 3370:15:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 3356:04:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 3341:03:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 3326:02:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 3311:01:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 3108:20:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 3085:19:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 3068:18:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 3049:15:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 3030:19:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 3007:06:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 2986:03:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 2967:02:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 2950:23:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 2931:22:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 2908:20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 2879:19:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 2858:17:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 2835:15:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 2812:12:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 2804:08:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 2787:04:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 2758:04:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 2735:04:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 2718:03:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 2706:01:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 2689:00:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 2674:00:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 2657:00:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 2632:23:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 2613:00:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 2599:22:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 2573:22:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 2558:21:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 2535:20:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 2521:15:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 2504:15:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 2486:14:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 2471:14:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 2454:13:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 2400:11:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 2383:07:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 2366:06:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 2347:05:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 2318:04:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 2301:03:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 2276:01:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 2259:01:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 2242:00:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 2221:22:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 2204:20:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 2182:19:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 2163:18:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 2133:18:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 2113:18:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 2089:17:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 2062:16:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 2045:16:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 2023:16:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 2008:15:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1967:14:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1950:14:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1926:13:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1909:12:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1892:12:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1858:11:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1841:11:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1824:10:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1800:10:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1776:09:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1764:04:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1734:04:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1717:02:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1700:01:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1683:01:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1664:01:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1637:01:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1621:01:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1604:01:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1589:00:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1563:00:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1543:00:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1525:23:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC) 1503:23:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC) 1480:23:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC) 1454:23:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC) 1439:22:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC) 1405:22:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC) 1378:22:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC) 1366:22:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC) 1344:22:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC) 1300:03:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1277:02:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 1259:16:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC) 1000:06:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 969:06:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 933:06:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 880:06:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 866:06:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 844:06:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 598:04:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 529:23:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC) 159:22:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC) 138:14:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC) 56:Final (93/3/0); closed by 3736:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 3702:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 2842:Looks trustworthy to me. 2390:- I see no problem here. 3914:Please do not modify it. 3646:operating evil puppets? 1981:work (including tons of 810:Optional questions from 684:Optional questions from 398:They have both rejected 288:Optional questions from 204:WP:Articles for Creation 3851:17:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC) 3289:22:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC) 3277:04:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC) 3254:02:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC) 3230:00:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC) 3221:23:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC) 3204:18:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC) 3183:17:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC) 3161:15:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC) 3144:14:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC) 3120:02:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC) 1318:22:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC) 1095:Promote Graeme Bartlett 775:, if the article meets 62:23:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC) 38:Please do not modify it 3211:Trustworthy for sure. 2742:Exactly what we need. 1987:works well with others 1848:- trustworthy editor. 661:verifiable information 621:able to that here too. 111:Science reference desk 3615:considerable. Cheers, 107:WikiProject Friesland 34:request for adminship 1916:. Excellent editor. 1233:Global contributions 292:that he lifted form 1197:Non-automated edits 834:confirm the facts. 686:User:Carlossuarez46 671:the article meets? 216:Geology of Tasmania 2482: 2284:. Has my support. 2108: 1869:. His main space 1724:No reason not to. 1176:Edit summary usage 1119:before commenting. 296:who got them from 39: 3392: 3252: 3027: 3023: 2904: 2894: 2655: 2476: 2469: 2432: 2418:comment added by 2161: 2104: 1983:redirect creation 1965: 1890: 1798: 1523: 1388: 1246: 1245: 699:underconstruction 665:reliable sourcing 290:User:Dlohcierekim 136: 37: 3944: 3916: 3899: 3894: 3884: 3879: 3848: 3843: 3818: 3813: 3802: 3796: 3737: 3703: 3687: 3682: 3624: 3619: 3588: 3586: 3578: 3561: 3555: 3542: 3540: 3532: 3500: 3498: 3490: 3460: 3455: 3407: 3403: 3382: 3274: 3267: 3246: 3219: 3201: 3196: 3174: 3141: 3132: 3103: 3098: 3026: 3022: 3019: 3018: 2983: 2977: 2947: 2942: 2929: 2921: 2905: 2902: 2899: 2895: 2892: 2875: 2871: 2855: 2853: 2848: 2827: 2823: 2783: 2778: 2772: 2755: 2753: 2748: 2653: 2649: 2646: 2595: 2590: 2585: 2553: 2548: 2480: 2465: 2450: 2445: 2431: 2412: 2381: 2363: 2344: 2315: 2299: 2296: 2238: 2233: 2201: 2197: 2192: 2149: 2128:. Sincerely, -- 2111: 2103: 2087: 2084: 2041: 2005: 1999: 1964: 1962: 1955: 1947: 1937: 1888: 1885: 1882: 1878: 1821: 1816: 1811: 1797: 1795: 1784: 1771:per Neurolysis. 1755: 1748: 1680: 1675: 1661: 1655: 1649: 1630: 1587: 1582: 1579: 1576: 1560: 1555: 1540: 1536: 1521: 1517: 1514: 1499: 1493: 1489: 1478: 1476: 1468: 1437: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1421: 1417: 1402: 1397: 1392: 1386: 1342: 1339: 1296: 1275: 1257: 1254: 1192:Articles created 1152: 1145: 1138: 1129: 1103: 1096: 1082: 1041: 1011:General comments 946:Cabal (software) 916: 910: 905:in this revision 703: 697: 581: 579: 571: 376: 374: 366: 126: 3952: 3951: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3919:this nomination 3912: 3897: 3892: 3882: 3877: 3865: 3816: 3811: 3757:Graeme Bartlett 3735: 3721:Graeme Bartlett 3710:Example diffs: 3701: 3685: 3680: 3648:Graeme Bartlett 3622: 3617: 3582: 3574: 3572: 3536: 3528: 3526: 3494: 3486: 3484: 3458: 3453: 3348:Graeme Bartlett 3318:ChildofMidnight 3297: 3270: 3263: 3212: 3170: 3135: 3130: 3101: 3096: 3020: 3016: 2945: 2940: 2897: 2873: 2867: 2851: 2846: 2825: 2821: 2785: 2744: 2725:- No concerns. 2651: 2648: 2642: 2593: 2588: 2583: 2551: 2546: 2478: 2448: 2443: 2413: 2374: 2336: 2309: 2298: 2236: 2231: 2199: 2195: 2190: 2147: 2109: 2101: 2082: 2070: 2039: 1958: 1956: 1945: 1935: 1886: 1883: 1880: 1875:accomplishments 1819: 1814: 1809: 1793: 1785: 1709:ChildofMidnight 1628: 1580: 1577: 1574: 1571: 1558: 1553: 1497: 1491: 1487: 1472: 1464: 1462: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1419: 1415: 1413: 1400: 1395: 1390: 1364: 1326: 1310:Graeme Bartlett 1294: 1264: 1247: 1242: 1216: 1180: 1159: 1158:RfA/RfB toolbox 1156: 1126: 1094: 1092: 1034: 1019:Graeme Bartlett 1017: 1013: 992:Graeme Bartlett 961:Graeme Bartlett 925:Graeme Bartlett 914: 908: 858:Graeme Bartlett 836:Graeme Bartlett 701: 695: 590:Graeme Bartlett 575: 567: 565: 521:Graeme Bartlett 370: 362: 360: 166: 151:Graeme Bartlett 74:Graeme Bartlett 71: 53: 50:Graeme Bartlett 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3950: 3948: 3940: 3939: 3929: 3928: 3924: 3923: 3907: 3906: 3864: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3748:larticles tool 3744: 3743: 3742: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3629: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3296: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3279: 3256: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3214:Steven Walling 3185: 3163: 3146: 3123: 3110: 3087: 3070: 3051: 3032: 3009: 2988: 2969: 2959:Carlossuarez46 2952: 2933: 2910: 2881: 2860: 2837: 2814: 2806: 2789: 2774: 2760: 2737: 2720: 2708: 2691: 2681:Perfect match 2676: 2659: 2640: 2634: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2575: 2560: 2537: 2523: 2506: 2488: 2473: 2456: 2435: 2405:Strong support 2402: 2385: 2376:Steven Walling 2368: 2349: 2320: 2306:Strong support 2303: 2292: 2278: 2261: 2244: 2223: 2206: 2184: 2165: 2159:suggestion box 2141: 2135: 2115: 2091: 2064: 2047: 2025: 2010: 1969: 1952: 1928: 1911: 1894: 1860: 1843: 1826: 1802: 1778: 1766: 1736: 1719: 1702: 1685: 1666: 1639: 1623: 1606: 1591: 1565: 1545: 1527: 1505: 1482: 1456: 1441: 1407: 1380: 1375:Meetare Shappy 1368: 1360: 1346: 1325: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1280: 1279: 1244: 1243: 1241: 1240: 1235: 1230: 1224: 1222: 1218: 1217: 1215: 1214: 1209: 1204: 1199: 1194: 1188: 1186: 1182: 1181: 1179: 1178: 1173: 1167: 1165: 1161: 1160: 1157: 1155: 1154: 1147: 1140: 1132: 1125: 1122: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1104: 1090: 1083: 1012: 1009: 1007: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 974: 973: 972: 971: 938: 937: 936: 935: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 849: 848: 847: 846: 814: 807: 806: 805: 804: 790: 789: 788: 787: 765: 764: 763: 762: 754:if contentious 736: 735: 734: 733: 719: 718: 717: 716: 682: 681: 680: 679: 649: 648: 647: 646: 633: 632: 625: 624: 623: 622: 612: 611: 603: 602: 601: 600: 558: 557: 556: 555: 542: 541: 534: 533: 532: 531: 486: 485: 484: 483: 473: 472: 465: 464: 463: 462: 448: 447: 440: 439: 438: 437: 436: 435: 422: 421: 420: 419: 409: 408: 391: 390: 389: 388: 378: 377: 348: 346: 345: 344: 343: 329: 328: 285: 284: 283: 282: 259: 257: 256: 255: 254: 247: 246: 245: 244: 226: 225: 224: 223: 190: 189: 188: 187: 165: 162: 147: 146: 70: 67: 58:bibliomaniac15 52: 47: 45: 43: 42: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3949: 3938: 3935: 3934: 3932: 3922: 3920: 3915: 3909: 3908: 3905: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3895: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3880: 3872: 3871: 3867: 3866: 3862: 3852: 3849: 3844: 3842: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3829: 3822: 3819: 3814: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3803: 3797: 3795: 3790: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3781: 3777: 3773: 3770: 3766: 3762: 3758: 3754: 3749: 3745: 3741: 3738: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3726: 3722: 3718: 3716: 3714: 3712: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3704: 3697: 3691: 3688: 3683: 3676: 3672: 3668: 3664: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3653: 3649: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3638: 3634: 3630: 3628: 3625: 3620: 3613: 3609: 3591: 3587: 3585: 3579: 3577: 3570: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3562: 3556: 3554: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3541: 3539: 3533: 3531: 3523: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3514: 3510: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3499: 3497: 3491: 3489: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3475: 3471: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3461: 3456: 3450: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3439: 3435: 3430: 3426: 3422: 3418: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3408: 3404: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3390: 3386: 3379: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3323: 3319: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3308: 3304: 3299: 3298: 3294: 3290: 3287: 3283: 3280: 3278: 3275: 3273: 3268: 3266: 3260: 3257: 3255: 3250: 3249:My narrowboat 3245: 3241: 3238: 3231: 3228: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3218: 3215: 3210: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3202: 3197: 3195: 3189: 3186: 3184: 3181: 3179: 3177: 3175: 3173: 3172:Staffwaterboy 3167: 3164: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3147: 3145: 3142: 3140: 3139: 3133: 3127: 3124: 3121: 3118: 3114: 3111: 3109: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3099: 3091: 3088: 3086: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3071: 3069: 3066: 3065: 3061: 3058: 3057: 3052: 3050: 3047: 3046: 3042: 3041: 3036: 3033: 3031: 3028: 3024: 3013: 3010: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2989: 2987: 2984: 2978: 2973: 2970: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2956: 2953: 2951: 2948: 2943: 2937: 2934: 2932: 2928: 2927: 2923: 2922: 2914: 2911: 2909: 2906: 2896: 2891: 2885: 2882: 2880: 2877: 2872: 2870: 2864: 2861: 2859: 2856: 2854: 2849: 2841: 2838: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2818: 2815: 2813: 2810: 2807: 2805: 2801: 2797: 2793: 2790: 2788: 2784: 2779: 2773: 2771: 2764: 2761: 2759: 2756: 2754: 2749: 2741: 2738: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2721: 2719: 2716: 2713: 2709: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2692: 2690: 2687: 2684: 2680: 2677: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2660: 2658: 2654: 2647: 2645: 2638: 2635: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2597: 2596: 2591: 2586: 2579: 2576: 2574: 2571: 2569: 2564: 2561: 2559: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2549: 2541: 2538: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2507: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2492: 2489: 2487: 2484: 2481: 2474: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2457: 2455: 2452: 2451: 2446: 2439: 2436: 2434: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2410: 2406: 2403: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2386: 2384: 2380: 2377: 2372: 2369: 2367: 2364: 2358: 2353: 2350: 2348: 2345: 2343: 2341: 2333: 2329: 2324: 2321: 2319: 2316: 2314: 2313: 2307: 2304: 2302: 2297: 2291: 2288: 2287:Steve Crossin 2283: 2279: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2262: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2245: 2243: 2240: 2239: 2234: 2227: 2224: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2207: 2205: 2202: 2198: 2193: 2185: 2183: 2180: 2178: 2174: 2169: 2166: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2146: 2145: 2139: 2136: 2134: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2116: 2114: 2107: 2099: 2095: 2092: 2090: 2085: 2079: 2078: 2076: 2068: 2065: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2048: 2046: 2043: 2042: 2035: 2034: 2029: 2026: 2024: 2021: 2018: 2014: 2011: 2009: 2006: 2000: 1998: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1977: 1973: 1970: 1968: 1963: 1961: 1953: 1951: 1948: 1943: 1942: 1938: 1932: 1929: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1912: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1895: 1893: 1889: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1861: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1844: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1827: 1825: 1822: 1817: 1812: 1806: 1803: 1801: 1796: 1790: 1789: 1782: 1779: 1777: 1774: 1770: 1767: 1765: 1762: 1759: 1756: 1754: 1749: 1747: 1740: 1737: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1720: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1703: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1686: 1684: 1681: 1676: 1670: 1667: 1665: 1662: 1656: 1651: 1650: 1643: 1640: 1638: 1635: 1632: 1631: 1624: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1607: 1605: 1602: 1599: 1595: 1592: 1590: 1586: 1584: 1583: 1569: 1566: 1564: 1561: 1556: 1549: 1546: 1544: 1541: 1537: 1531: 1528: 1526: 1522: 1515: 1509: 1506: 1504: 1500: 1494: 1490: 1483: 1481: 1477: 1475: 1469: 1467: 1460: 1457: 1455: 1452: 1449: 1445: 1442: 1440: 1436: 1435: 1427: 1422: 1411: 1408: 1406: 1403: 1398: 1393: 1384: 1381: 1379: 1376: 1372: 1369: 1367: 1363: 1362:Contributions 1358: 1357: 1356: 1350: 1347: 1345: 1341: 1340: 1331: 1328: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1306: 1301: 1298: 1297: 1290: 1289: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1278: 1274: 1272: 1268: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1256: 1255: 1239: 1236: 1234: 1231: 1229: 1226: 1225: 1223: 1219: 1213: 1210: 1208: 1205: 1203: 1200: 1198: 1195: 1193: 1190: 1189: 1187: 1183: 1177: 1174: 1172: 1169: 1168: 1166: 1162: 1153: 1148: 1146: 1141: 1139: 1134: 1133: 1130: 1123: 1121: 1120: 1118: 1114: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1091: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1077: 1074: 1071: 1068: 1065: 1062: 1059: 1056: 1053: 1050: 1047: 1044: 1040: 1037: 1033: 1030: 1027: 1024: 1020: 1015: 1014: 1010: 1008: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 986: 985: 983: 979: 976: 975: 970: 966: 962: 958: 953: 950: 949: 947: 943: 940: 939: 934: 930: 926: 922: 919: 918: 913: 906: 902: 898: 894: 891: 890: 881: 877: 873: 869: 868: 867: 863: 859: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 845: 841: 837: 832: 829: 828: 826: 822: 818: 815: 813: 809: 808: 801: 798: 797: 795: 792: 791: 784: 781: 780: 778: 774: 770: 767: 766: 761: 758: 755: 751: 748: 747: 745: 741: 738: 737: 730: 727: 726: 724: 721: 720: 713: 709: 706: 705: 700: 693: 690: 689: 688: 687: 676: 673: 672: 670: 666: 662: 658: 654: 651: 650: 644: 640: 637: 636: 635: 634: 630: 627: 626: 619: 616: 615: 614: 613: 608: 605: 604: 599: 595: 591: 586: 583: 582: 580: 578: 572: 570: 563: 560: 559: 553: 549: 546: 545: 544: 543: 539: 536: 535: 530: 526: 522: 517: 513: 510: 509: 507: 503: 499: 495: 491: 488: 487: 480: 477: 476: 475: 474: 470: 467: 466: 460: 455: 452: 451: 450: 449: 445: 442: 441: 433: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 416: 413: 412: 411: 410: 405: 401: 396: 393: 392: 385: 382: 381: 380: 379: 375: 373: 367: 365: 358: 354: 351: 350: 349: 341: 336: 333: 332: 331: 330: 326: 323: 322: 321: 318: 317:100% optional 314: 313: 312: 308: 304: 299: 295: 291: 280: 275: 271: 268: 267: 265: 262: 261: 260: 251: 250: 249: 248: 242: 238: 234: 230: 229: 228: 227: 221: 217: 213: 209: 205: 201: 198: 197: 195: 192: 191: 185: 180: 177: 176: 174: 171: 170: 169: 163: 161: 160: 156: 152: 145: 142: 141: 140: 139: 134: 130: 122: 120: 116: 112: 108: 104: 99: 97: 93: 89: 85: 82: 79: 75: 68: 66: 65: 63: 59: 51: 48: 46: 41: 35: 32: 27: 26: 19: 3913: 3910: 3890: 3889: 3875: 3874: 3869: 3868: 3840: 3793: 3771: 3611: 3583: 3575: 3552: 3537: 3529: 3495: 3487: 3448: 3281: 3271: 3264: 3258: 3239: 3208: 3193: 3187: 3171: 3165: 3148: 3137: 3136: 3125: 3112: 3094: 3093: 3089: 3072: 3062: 3054: 3043: 3038: 3034: 3011: 2990: 2971: 2954: 2935: 2924: 2918: 2912: 2889: 2883: 2868: 2862: 2843: 2839: 2816: 2796:PirateSmackK 2791: 2769: 2762: 2743: 2739: 2722: 2693: 2683:Renaissancee 2678: 2666:Oldlaptop321 2661: 2643: 2636: 2619: 2581: 2577: 2567: 2544: 2543: 2539: 2508: 2496:FeydHuxtable 2490: 2458: 2441: 2437: 2414:— Preceding 2408: 2404: 2387: 2370: 2351: 2339: 2337: 2327: 2322: 2311: 2310: 2305: 2289: 2263: 2246: 2229: 2225: 2208: 2188: 2171: 2167: 2142: 2137: 2117: 2097: 2093: 2074: 2073: 2067:Weak Support 2066: 2058:push to talk 2049: 2038: 2032: 2027: 2012: 1996: 1971: 1959: 1940: 1930: 1913: 1896: 1881:--Preceding 1862: 1845: 1828: 1804: 1786: 1780: 1768: 1760: 1757: 1752: 1745: 1738: 1721: 1704: 1687: 1668: 1645: 1641: 1629:Juliancolton 1626: 1608: 1593: 1573: 1567: 1547: 1529: 1507: 1486: 1473: 1465: 1458: 1443: 1414: 1412:Of course. 1409: 1382: 1370: 1353: 1352: 1348: 1334: 1329: 1293: 1287: 1265: 1249: 1110: 1109: 1075: 1069: 1063: 1057: 1051: 1045: 1038: 1031: 1025: 1006: 987: 977: 959:by the way! 951: 941: 920: 912:db-vandalism 892: 830: 816: 799: 793: 782: 768: 753: 749: 739: 728: 722: 707: 691: 683: 674: 652: 638: 628: 617: 606: 584: 576: 568: 561: 551: 547: 537: 515: 511: 505: 502:no consensus 501: 497: 493: 489: 478: 468: 453: 443: 414: 394: 383: 371: 363: 352: 347: 334: 324: 316: 301: 287: 286: 274:User:rebecca 269: 263: 258: 199: 193: 178: 172: 167: 148: 143: 123: 100: 80: 72: 55: 54: 49: 44: 30: 28: 3663:Ottava Rima 3633:Ottava Rima 3576:Icestorm815 3530:Icestorm815 3509:Ottava Rima 3488:Icestorm815 3470:Ottava Rima 3434:Ottava Rima 3417:Ottava Rima 3362:Ottava Rima 3333:Ottava Rima 3303:Ottava Rima 3244:RegentsPark 2605:Ottava Rima 2513:Tim Vickers 2479:Pmlinediter 2268:Newyorkbrad 2213:Pastor Theo 2173:Malinaccier 1901:AdjustShift 1488:Master& 1466:Icestorm815 1267:Malinaccier 1238:User rights 1228:CentralAuth 1100:bureaucrats 569:Icestorm815 364:Icestorm815 101:Apart from 3847:You rang? 3841:HJMitchell 3753:Vanadinite 3451:. Cheers, 3200:You rang? 3194:HJMitchell 3168:Good luck 2903:discussion 2727:EdJohnston 2712:Antandrus 1850:PhilKnight 1679:Wartenberg 1221:Cross-wiki 1212:AfD closes 1124:Discussion 610:behaviour? 307:Rob Church 294:User:Benon 96:worker bee 69:Nomination 31:successful 3817:cierekim 3776:DougsTech 3686:cierekim 3623:cierekim 3459:cierekim 3227:Lankiveil 3153:Parsecboy 3117:Lankiveil 2941:Kateshort 2624:Rosiestep 2420:Mattinbgn 2357:dark side 2328:confirmed 2312:Wizardman 1918:Ironholds 1726:America69 1598:Athaenara 1559:cierekim 1207:AfD votes 1202:BLP edits 1061:block log 944:. Should 825:permalink 777:WP:CSD#A7 233:user page 119:user page 3931:Category 3789:Go away. 3272:Horatius 3073:Suppport 2972:Plus one 2824:Excesses 2644:Canadian 2463:Dekimasu 2428:contribs 2416:unsigned 2251:Robofish 2200:Chequers 2151:says you 2130:A Nobody 1914:Hellsyes 1884:unsigned 1594:Support. 1513:Giants27 1185:Analysis 1164:Counters 1029:contribs 669:criteria 482:blocked. 103:WP:WPAFC 84:contribs 3870:Neutral 3863:Neutral 3522:WP:RFCU 3402:Scarian 3282:Support 3265:Alexius 3259:Support 3240:Support 3209:Support 3188:Support 3166:Support 3149:Support 3126:Support 3113:Support 3102:xplicit 3090:Support 3077:Bearian 3035:Support 3012:Support 2995:CAT:CSD 2991:Support 2955:Support 2936:Support 2920:Michael 2913:Support 2884:Support 2863:Support 2840:Support 2817:Support 2792:Support 2763:Support 2747:Marlith 2740:Support 2723:Support 2698:JoshuaZ 2694:support 2679:Support 2662:Support 2637:Support 2620:Support 2578:Support 2568:Caspian 2540:Support 2509:Support 2491:Support 2459:Support 2449:Toaster 2438:Support 2388:Support 2371:Support 2340:BQZip01 2323:Support 2264:Support 2247:Support 2226:Support 2209:Support 2168:Support 2155:says me 2138:Support 2118:Support 2106:ALLST☆R 2094:Support 2050:Support 2028:Support 2013:Support 1985:), and 1979:article 1972:Support 1931:Support 1887:comment 1867:opinion 1863:Support 1846:Support 1829:Support 1805:Support 1781:Support 1769:Support 1739:Support 1722:Support 1705:Support 1688:Support 1669:Support 1642:Support 1609:Support 1568:Support 1535:Scarian 1530:Support 1508:Support 1459:Support 1444:Support 1410:Support 1383:Support 1371:Support 1349:Support 1330:Support 1324:Support 1036:deleted 980:. Does 432:WP:RfAR 404:WP:RFAR 387:failed. 357:WP:RFCU 320:like. 303:JoshuaZ 3772:Oppose 3295:Oppose 3217:(talk) 3040:Chrism 2999:Cunard 2976:Keeper 2946:forbob 2926:(Talk) 2847:hmwith 2809:Secret 2782:snype? 2752:(Talk) 2715:(talk) 2686:(talk) 2563:WP:AGF 2527:Stifle 2444:Flying 2379:(talk) 2362:Keegan 2352:Oppose 2332:WP:SSP 2282:WP:AFC 2054:Dank55 2033:Valley 1960:GARDEN 1871:plans 1833:Nick-D 1773:GT5162 1753:of War 1492:Expert 1451:Pyfan! 1373:Sure. 1288:Valley 1171:XTools 957:WP:AFC 872:Cunard 812:Cunard 773:WP:BLP 744:WP:BLP 657:WP:CSD 643:WP:AFC 552:delete 506:delete 498:delete 400:WP:RFC 298:Tawker 279:WP:AFC 184:WP:MFD 3898:Stani 3893:Stani 3883:Stani 3878:Stani 3286:Ottre 3017:Marek 2893:itias 2777:type! 2594:Space 2552:Stani 2547:Stani 2237:broil 2232:Royal 2196:Spiel 1761:(NGG) 1746:Gears 1692:Hazir 1648:TheAE 1581:valse 1575:tempo 1433:sign! 1338:neuro 1253:neuro 1113:civil 1102:only) 1043:count 732:page. 715:stub. 663:with 407:then? 16:< 3812:Dloh 3780:talk 3761:talk 3725:talk 3681:Dloh 3667:talk 3652:talk 3637:talk 3618:Dloh 3584:Talk 3569:e.g. 3538:Talk 3513:talk 3496:Talk 3474:talk 3454:Dloh 3438:talk 3421:talk 3389:talk 3385:MSGJ 3366:talk 3352:talk 3337:talk 3322:talk 3307:talk 3157:talk 3081:talk 3064:Fool 3056:Alio 3003:talk 2963:talk 2831:talk 2800:talk 2731:talk 2702:talk 2670:talk 2652:Nine 2628:talk 2609:talk 2589:From 2584:Them 2570:blue 2531:talk 2517:talk 2500:talk 2424:talk 2409:2006 2396:talk 2272:talk 2255:talk 2217:talk 2191:Ϣere 2177:talk 2148:... 2120:per 2083:Talk 2040:city 2020:Talk 2017:Vary 1991:here 1976:good 1922:talk 1905:talk 1897:Yep! 1873:and 1854:talk 1837:talk 1788:Ched 1730:talk 1713:talk 1696:talk 1674:Jake 1660:sign 1654:talk 1617:talk 1613:Camw 1554:Dloh 1498:Talk 1474:Talk 1425:load 1420:down 1355:Soap 1314:talk 1295:city 1271:talk 1087:here 1073:rfar 1055:logs 1023:talk 996:talk 965:talk 929:talk 876:talk 862:talk 840:talk 794:13e. 769:13d. 759:and 740:13c. 723:13b. 692:13a. 594:talk 577:Talk 525:talk 516:keep 504:and 494:keep 372:Talk 311:NSLE 239:and 155:talk 133:talk 129:MSGJ 78:talk 3798:| 3794:Tan 3557:| 3553:Tan 3131:Ged 3060:The 3021:.69 2869:Axl 2770:Law 2392:Deb 2359:. 2077:oJo 2001:| 1997:Tan 1946:Man 1448:Oli 1396:meh 1391:Tim 1079:spi 1049:AfD 978:14d 942:14c 901:AfD 893:14b 817:14a 653:12. 629:11. 607:10. 562:9.1 353:4.1 309:, 231:My 60:on 3933:: 3801:39 3782:) 3763:) 3755:. 3727:) 3699:-- 3669:) 3654:) 3639:) 3580:• 3560:39 3534:• 3515:) 3492:• 3476:) 3440:) 3423:) 3387:· 3368:) 3354:) 3339:) 3324:) 3309:) 3159:) 3138:UK 3083:) 3005:) 2982:76 2979:| 2965:) 2898:// 2886:— 2833:) 2802:) 2733:) 2704:) 2672:) 2630:) 2611:) 2565:-- 2533:) 2519:) 2502:) 2467:よ! 2430:) 2426:• 2398:) 2338:— 2295:24 2274:) 2257:) 2219:) 2157:, 2153:, 2100:℅ 2086:• 2080:• 2071:— 2060:) 2004:39 1936:TN 1924:) 1907:) 1856:) 1839:) 1794:? 1791:: 1732:) 1715:) 1698:) 1671:— 1633:| 1619:) 1601:✉ 1578:di 1510:-- 1501:) 1470:• 1335:— 1316:) 1250:— 1067:lu 998:) 988:A: 967:) 952:A: 931:) 921:A: 917:? 915:}} 909:{{ 895:. 878:) 864:) 842:) 831:A: 800:A: 783:A: 750:A: 729:A: 708:A: 702:}} 696:{{ 675:A- 618:A- 596:) 585:A- 573:• 548:A- 538:9. 527:) 512:A- 508:? 490:8. 479:A- 469:7. 454:A- 444:6. 415:A- 395:5. 384:A- 368:• 335:A- 325:4. 305:, 300:, 270:A: 264:3. 218:, 214:, 200:A: 194:2. 179:A: 173:1. 157:) 131:· 121:. 36:. 3778:( 3759:( 3723:( 3665:( 3650:( 3635:( 3511:( 3472:( 3436:( 3419:( 3391:) 3383:( 3364:( 3350:( 3335:( 3320:( 3305:( 3251:) 3247:( 3232:. 3155:( 3122:. 3097:Σ 3079:( 3001:( 2961:( 2890:A 2874:¤ 2852:τ 2829:( 2826:~ 2822:~ 2798:( 2729:( 2700:( 2668:( 2626:( 2607:( 2529:( 2515:( 2498:( 2422:( 2394:( 2342:— 2290:/ 2270:( 2253:( 2215:( 2179:) 2175:( 2144:2 2110:✰ 2102:✰ 2098:- 2075:J 2056:( 2036:2 1941:X 1920:( 1903:( 1852:( 1835:( 1820:N 1815:v 1810:A 1758:2 1728:( 1711:( 1694:( 1657:/ 1615:( 1520:C 1516:/ 1495:( 1429:| 1416:- 1401:! 1359:/ 1312:( 1291:2 1273:) 1269:( 1151:e 1144:t 1137:v 1098:( 1089:. 1081:) 1076:· 1070:· 1064:· 1058:· 1052:· 1046:· 1039:· 1032:· 1026:· 1021:( 994:( 963:( 927:( 903:( 874:( 860:( 838:( 823:( 639:A 592:( 523:( 243:. 153:( 135:) 127:( 81:· 76:( 64:. 40:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Requests for adminship/Graeme Bartlett - Knowledge (XXG)

Index