4424:
the actual issue in the specific question. The article in question only has one real source so it would have been abundantly clear where the problem was without having to ask a follow-up question of the complainant. The other problem is the idea that non-reliable sources are less of a problem when they support "non-contentious material". What is contentious? How do we know? What to our unknowing eyes might be an innocent factoid might in fact be a highly contentious claim. For example the article says "In the latter part of his life, Guha was accorded pension as a freedom fighter." "Freedom fighter" is an extremely value-laden word. This statement, like the rest of the article, is sourced to avowedly communist material that is fawning of the article's subject ("Comrade Guha!"). In my view, the article isn't fit to be on the mainspace, let alone the main page. I hope the candidate's refusal to say arose from RfA diplomacy rather than a genuine tolerance of the article. Anyway, I'm just throwing thoughts out for discussion and contemplation rather than rushing to a conclusion early in this RfA. My gut is much closer to supporting than opposing. DYK either needs to be (a) tanked; (b) overhauled; or (c) given an influx of qualified admins to help the current admins do the detailed scrutiny described in question 4. Given that (a) and (b) will probably never happen I'm inclined to think giving
Grondemar the tools would be a good thing. --
805:
root cause of the problem, since it just makes it harder for submitters to write an article within the required creation/expansion timeline without "cheating" (i.e. close paraphrasing). I have become increasingly of the mind that the best long-term solution to DYK's problems is to radically overhaul the process; instead of drawing hooks from newly-created and expanded articles, perhaps it would be better to draw all hooks from recently-promoted Good
Articles. This would eliminate much of the deadline pressure, reduce duplication of effort in reviewing articles, and ensure that higher-quality articles are the ones appearing on the Main Page, creating a better impression on our reading audience. Making this change would reduce an incentive to produce new content, but I'm not convinced that it would have a significant impact; it would change the incentive to creating higher-quality articles, as part of Knowledge's general transition from a focus on quantity of articles to a focus on quality of articles. Such a change is a long ways away from achieving consensus, however, and until there is general agreement on a change we have to work with the system we have.
485:). Regarding the article itself, I must admit with my very limited familiarity with Indian politics I didn't see any statements that looked derogatory or particularly contentious, except maybe the "In the latter part of his life, Guha was accorded pension as a freedom fighter." line, and that was directly supported by the source: " was very happy that after a long struggle he got his freedom fighterâs pension that allowed him to travel free on Indian Railways." Since we're now talking about the article as it is right now, versus as a candidate for the Main Page, and there is no edit war in progress that I can see, I think issues over whether the article is neutral should be determined by consensus discussion on the article talk page rather than by fiat from someone who knows virtually nothing on the subject. If you believe the article is truly inappropriate for Knowledge, I would suggest either editing it until it is appropriate or nominating it at Articles for Deletion as appropriate.
720:
policy when consensus does not agree that the use of IAR does in fact further
Knowledge's original mission. For instance, an administrator might believe that Knowledge's free-content mission would be best served by eliminating all fair use of copyrighted photos. If that administrator then went and unilaterally deleted all images on Knowledge not licensed under a free-use license, IAR would not be a legitimate defense if the community did not agree that the encyclopedia would be improved by deleting all of the fair-use images. It is understandable that reasonable people would debate the meaning of the original mission and how to balance between the free-content mission and the comprehensive, high-quality mission. Ignore all rules should only be invoked to improve the encyclopedia when the community agrees that the action taken does in fact improve the encyclopedia.
3840:
readers started editing, they would do so with an awareness of conventions which far exceeds most new editors ... and since it is possible that this is the case with
Grondemar (as he said in that diff), it seems to me that what Kevin is doing here amounts to a gross assumption of bad faith. I see no suggestion, let alone evidence, that Grondemar has been in any way disruptive or tendentious, or that zie is pushing a POV. All we have is an editor who began editing in a reasonably well-clued-up state, rather than diving in and figuring it all out every time they trod on a hornet's nest. Kevin seems to see this as suspicious, but it is equally explicable as the conduct of a responsible person who tries to learn about something before jumping in ... and that latter interpretation seems to me consistent with Grondemar's track ecord over the last year.
801:
when due to the WikiCup nine or ten hooks were being placed in a set (36-40 articles/day) in order to keep the backlog down. I never understood what was the problem with having a longer backlog, since I didn't really care if it took one week or three weeks for my article to appear on the Main Page, but other participants did not agree with my position. It is very difficult to attempt to maintain quality when attempting to review so much in so little time; there is an old saying that, for any project there are three key variables: speed, quality, and cost (in this case, number of editors involved in the project). A project manager can have any two of the factors, but not all three at once. If you insist on a speedy process, you either need a high number of editors involved to promote quality, or else quality suffers.
1029:, which should not be read as an attack on you Ed, whom I have the utmost respect for, nor an attack on any other participant in this process. Assuming good faith is one of the key principles Knowledge is built upon, and for good reason: it would be impossible for the Knowledge open-editing model to work if the majority of users were not trying to participate in it in good faith, and if participants did not assume good faith of one another. The further we get away from assuming good faith, the further away we get from attracting the volunteers needed to maintain and grow the encyclopedia. Recently there have been a number of incidents that have strained the ability of the community to assume good faith; I'm thinking of the incidents surrounding the retirement of
1261:, do a good job of attracting input from person who might not even be sports fans but are willing to provide their perspective as to whether the article is properly neutral and has the correct tone. I've also tried, for example in bowl game articles, to get input from fans of the other team to make sure they feel that the article deals with their team fairly and neutrally. I've worked on internalizing the feedback I've gotten from past reviews into the work I do in new articles in order to avoid repeating the same mistakes. I think it's difficult at times for people to see the flaws in their own work, but as long as they are willing to accept the feedback of others and to look beyond their own perspective their contributions can be highly valuable.
1732:: Being an editor who had actually proposed a policy that included compulsory checkuser of all RfA candidates (a proposal which is close to being a perennial proposal and has been defeated quite handsomely time and again), I understand and appreciate Ed and Kevin's point of view to be careful when analyzing RfA candidates. And despite my above note to Ed, I should appreciate it, if the oppose votes aren't rejected simply because opposing editors were opposed by many editors. I believe the oppose voters have purely considered the benefit of Knowledge in their perspective, rather than anything else, while pointing out to their worries about Grondemar. This is, in case Ed continues to be in the oppose column. Thanks and regards.
284:. There was a discussion on whether to remove part of the criteria; after no new edits to the discussion in roughly two days and the appearance of a consensus (at least to me) to change the criteria, I went ahead and removed the part of the criteria under discussion. Shortly thereafter several other editors arrived, upset that I had changed the criteria without consensus. There was debate over whether the RfC originator had properly notified all interested parties; I ended up sending a talk page notice to everyone who had participated on a similar earlier RfC. I maintain that my edit in this circumstance was by no means improper, if not by the appearance of consensus then by the philosophy of
4439:
communist politician that relies almost entirely on a rabidly pro-communist source. The issue isn't whether particular statements are contentious; it is that the whole article is affected by the biased source. Yes the article was created by a highly active DYK contributor and approved by two active DYK admins. Which makes it all the more problematic. I would have liked to promote a DYK admin with sufficient clarity of thought to make the bold calls necessary to pull articles like this. But the next best thing is another DYK admin to at least get the hooks through the queue, so I won't oppose. --
2795:, and through the suggestions in the oppose gave me a momentary pause, the rational that some editors do spend a considerable amount of time viewing / editing this website before finally seeing the benefits that registering an account, and fostering trust from the community can have. I am interested in the candidates response to the above question posted, but for now, I believe this would be a welcomed addition in an area that is unfortunately under-served at this time (coming from one that should be spending more time over there) and experiences frequent burnouts and turnovers. A net positive.
1713:
power (in the technical sense of the term, e.g. blocking, deleting etc.), so I allowed him to operate and create quality content as an editor while keeping watch for a potential RfA. I have never and still do not have enough evidence to go to SPI, and
Grondemar's response in detail has soothed some of my concerns. Regarding "our," I did not mean to imply we were !voting as a group; although I did discuss my concerns with Kevin prior to posting the question/opposing, I was referring to the three opposing editors, including myself. I am not intentionally part of a cabal or anything similar. ;-)
350:). If the source in question appeared to be unreliable, and any statement it was backing appeared contentious, I would either remove the statement if it was only a small part of the article, or pull the entire article if a significant portion had a problem. If after review the source did appear reliable and/or all the statements in question were not contentious, I would leave the article in place. If you didn't reply to my inquiry within 5-10 minutes I would try to reach another trusted editor more familiar with Indian politics and sources to determine whether your claim had any validity.
2735:. Neither of those reasons should be a problem. If a clean start is so clean that one cannot say who the original account was, who cares? Clearly the user has remedied whatever deficiency lead him or her to leave the project. If the user is someone who has read the manual, then they are exactly the sort of user we want contributing to the project and as an administrator, not someone to discourage with allegations of sockpuppetry merely for showing competence. I believe we have a case of the latter here, and I thus give my full and unqualified
557:
until the fourth and final warning makes it explicitly clear that continuing the unacceptable behavior will lead to an immediate block. The system also provides for an immediate final warning template that can be used when appropriate to bypass the four warning system. While I don't believe there's any explicit policy covering when to immediately escalate to a final warning without going through each previous warning stage, my personal philosophy has been to escalate to an immediate final warning in cases of particularly vile vandalism against
712:
submitter actually took slightly more than five days, since the submitter's first edit was at 7:00 AM, and his DYK submission was at 8:00 PM five days later. A purely legalistic interpretation of the DYK rules would result in the hook being rejected. This would result in the submitter becoming discouraged, and perhaps not creating new content for
Knowledge again. This goes against the original mission of both Did You Know, which is to promote newly created or improved content, and of Knowledge. Therefore, it is correct to apply
1034:
that he had plagiarized sources to write featured articles, to the point where I backed away from
Knowledge and considered retiring for a month or so. However, in the end I decided that one bad apple, no matter how high up the tree, does not mean the entire tree should be cut down. The mission of Knowledge is still something worth contributing to. We must not let incidents like that destroy our ability to assume good faith; if we lose that ability, the only certainty is that Knowledge itself will slowly wither and die.
752:
repeatedly over the course of years at DYK. Can you show some examples of where you have given DYK articles appropriate scrutiny and flagged up issues beforehand? and b) one of the "defenses" I've seen from DYK regulars when these things come up is "too much volume / the rotation is so fast / we can't look at everything in detail / we need more eyeballs on this / we're doing our best". So would you support 3 rotations/day instead of (I believe) the current 4? And generally, what are your ideas to "fix" DYK? Thanks.
3704:
question in such a manner but you seem to have intricate knowledge of how to edit here. They also wouldn't likely start a sentence talking about how they are new here. That looks a tad suspicious in that you are trying to hide something. I find it hard to believe that a new editor would stumble across this page, as I didn't even find this place until a few years in. Even a person who casually reads
Knowledge is unlikely to go there rather soon in terms of them starting at this project. A year ago we had a user
2336:, candidate knows how to follow our policies and plans to follow them carefully. Most important to me is the response to the IAR question â this policy tends to be forgotten about far too often, and we need an admin who sees it as a benefit. As long as it's genuinely improving the encyclopedia, there's never anything wrong with an action done in the spirit of IAR. My only disappointment with the candidate is about DYK policies, and that's an editorial matter that shouldn't affect this RFA.
1608:
only on the most viewed page on the site. I could explain away more of the "concerns", but if I didn't know any better, I'd assume the candidate had read around a bit, perhaps had edited on another wiki, or just worked it out for themselves. I'm concerned that KR doesn't seem to have asked the candidate about anything, merely jumped to oppose. As I said, there's a simple explanation and it's not exactly rocket science using
Knowledge. In short, not all newbies are clueless.
667:
restoring the article. I would then wait about 24 hours for Mr. DeRoy to reply to my earlier email. If he replied indicating that he still wanted the article deleted, I would list it at AFD immediately. If he replied indicating that he no longer desired the article to be deleted, I would leave it alone from there. If I heard nothing, I would strongly consider listing the article at AFD anyway, based on the last thing I heard from the BLP subject.
638:, part 4c, to which I would specifically direct him). I would let him know that we do not currently allow notable people to "opt-out" of Knowledge; we have in the past removed articles for people with weaker claims to notability when they have indicated they do not want to have an article, but the Pulitzer Prize is too significant to do this without wider Knowledge community consensus. I would explain Knowledge's
973:
six-month or so period or shortly after registering. Regarding edit summaries, in my job I am constantly badgering people to provide better justifications for the various changes they propose so that, when people look up the changes five years later, they can figure out what was changed and why the change was made. I would be highly hypocritical if I did not do the same!
627:
status. However, the day after that, the user who created the BLP asks you to undelete it, because you apparently missed a claim of notability (Mr. DeRoy won a
Pulitzer twelve years ago). Ignoring the fact that you should have been more careful in reviewing the page before deleting it in the first place, do you now restore the page or leave it deleted, and why?
193:
beaten to reverts by either ClueBot or Hugglers; I have to say I've been impressed at the rate at which vandalism is caught nowadays. Regarding other administrative areas where I may have less experience: I pledge to involve myself in them slowly and carefully with a full understanding of policy, similar to how I've approached all other areas of Knowledge.
296:
demoralizing, I don't hold anything against any of the participants; I know all editors involved have the same common goal: to ensure only the highest-quality articles that meet the featured article criteria are promoted. The best course of action, which I am in-process of undertaking, is to review and improve the article, and try again later.
280:
have been various users who have been unhappy that I tagged their article for deletion; in all cases that I can remember I tried to engage with the person to explain to them why their article was not acceptable and how they could better contribute to the project. Probably the most frustration I caused other users was during an RfC at
964:
document revision control: ensuring that changes to various documents are properly justified, tracked, and recorded. I was very curious to learn how a website that allowed anyone to edit would be able to maintain quality in its articles; I was amazed at how well in general the Wiki system works. I learned about
947:, I saw many of the same flags in his editing, and he gave an extremely similar defense in his RfA's questions. I was content to let you improve the encyclopedia as an editor, but I could not stand aside during an RfA without raising my doubts. I hope you understand my apprehension and can assuage my concerns.
3919:) was created just after Warrah was blocked, and The Pebble Dare was created just after Joal Beal was blocked. Grondemar doesn't fit this pattern; if he did, his account would have been created on June 1. His account was created on December 13, 2009, while Warrah was still active. Save for the Theo and
1014:
than it was allowed for me to nominate the article, I went ahead and did so. (Actually, I believe the question on WT:TFAR must have been when you first discovered me and decided to greet me, Ed, since it was shortly after that I received your Welcome message. Thanks again for the cookies by the way.)
1250:
For instance, for college football coverage I try to keep the majority of citations to national sources such as ESPN and the Associated Press rather than to local newspapers. While local reliable sources can and should be used since often they contain much more detailed information on the particular
464:
While I did spend significant time answering this question, it should be noted that I've spent significant time answering all of the optional questions in this RfA: I try to be careful and thorough in my answers in respect to the questioners and the RfA process. I actually spent a significant amount
419:
This is not counting set-balancing issues, such as making sure there are not too many US-based hooks in a single set and not too many biographical hooks in a single set. Administrators approving a hook (although not only administrators can approve hooks) must check all of the above; the adminstrator
2730:
I wasn't planning on actually voting, but having read the opposes, I feel obliged to comment. Why is it that everyone assumes that incompetence is required for new editors? There are two reasons that new editors can show competence, either they read the copious documentation that has been provided
2430:
The RfA is a nasty process and attracts nasty people. It's a nit-picky process that attracts nit-picky people. I see no need to be either. Sure, he might have answered Q4 better. In the end though, I still have a solid 90% confidence in him, and that's a whole lot higher than I have for a handful of
1712:
There's a long explanation for why I did not bring my concerns to light until now. Briefly, I thought Grondemar was a net positive to the project â even if he was a sock â and there was no reason to get an editor blocked for doing good work, whatever his past. However, administrators have a bit more
1243:
This is something that I've worried about in my own contributions to Knowledge: whether I was unintentionally inserting a pro-UConn bias into the bowl games articles I was improving. In general fans of a sport are also fans of a team, and fans of a team generally want to focus on improving articles
963:
While I didn't register an account until December 2009, I had been reading and studying Knowledge since at least the spring of that year. In my real-life job (I'm trying intentionally to keep this vague, to avoid revealing excessive details of my real-life identity), among the duties I attend to is
751:
I once went through the DYK-submission experience, c/w wondering if it would be accepted and at the appointed time wondering where the hell the admins were, so I'm all for having more eyeballs there. Two-part question though: a) you mention the recent copyvio/plagio issues, but I've seen them happen
719:
Like every other policy and guideline on Knowledge, however, the interpretation of IAR, and even Knowledge's original mission, is governed by community consensus. Consensus determines what is an appropriate use of IAR; it is never appropriate to invoke IAR as a justification to do something against
662:
I would then reply to the user who created the article, and let him know that I agree that the article should not have been deleted and would be shortly restoring it. I would warn the user that I was contacted by the subject of the article, who indicated that they did not want the article to exist;
633:
First, if there was a credible claim to notability in the DeRoy article like winning a Pulitzer, I would hope that I would have noticed and declined the speedy deletion tag. Assuming I missed this, I would first reply to the email from Mr. DeRoy, warning him that the page was deleted by mistake and
556:
and provide at least one warning before blocking). The current warning level system provides for four warning levels before a user is blocked, with the first warning being more of a greeting and a "you may not have known, but you shouldn't do that", and the following warnings escalating in harshness
4484:
I'd love to support, and would do so except that while there is distinguished support, I'm not seeing names I recognise as DYK process mainstays. Perhaps I'm wrong - please anyone feel free to point to ones I've missed. December 24th is probably not the best day to launch an RFA, & I'll keep an
4366:
per Q4 - anybody who can look at those sources and not simply answer "those are not neutral sources" does not understand our key policies. If the answer to Q11 were "I will submit myself for fresh community approval in X years", I would be happier about this, especially in light of the praiseworthy
4319:
But the concern is pretty baseless, when we see that both you and Spartaz have similar early editing histories. How did you know about RFA so early anyway? Did you have another account? See how ridiculous I sound? Of course you didn't, you saw a link to it on someone's page, or their contributions.
4298:
Considering how long the discussion has been going on, I'm pretty sure that someone from arbcom would have raised a red flag if there was a problem. Additionally, considering how little substance your position holds, perhaps you should AGF about the user. Judge the user by his contributions, not by
4266:
Additionally, I think that you need to brush up on your policies Ed. You should know that any user is permitted to have a clean start and not tell anyone. As I said above, if such a user files an RfA, it is recommended that they tell arbcom privately about it. As I also said above, since arbcom has
3942:
As I have said twice before, I do not believe that there is a link but I am making a point there there are some similarities between the two that are unnerving. If I came in with an accusatory tone, that is not what I had in mind but the history just looks rather weird. It is possible that they did
3703:
is quite concerning. You say, "I'm a long-time reader but recently registered editor to Knowledge, and would like to suggest the article 2000 Sugar Bowl for January 4, 2010." At this time, this was your eleventh edit. Someone who has generally been here for a long time would likely be able to ask a
2524:
Knowledge editors positively. I'm also quite appreciative of all the other editors in the neutral section who've taken care to explain their positions so well for the sake of the editor. Grondemar, I look forward wholeheartedly to have you contribute to Knowledge as an administrator; my best wishes.
2523:
I'm surprised the user hasn't received more support !votes by this time. Seems extremely intelligent, mature and a brilliant example of why a combination of regular civil communication, reasonable cross-forum experience and well-thought out RfA replies almost always works brilliantly in influencing
1602:
Not voting on this one but I'm concerned with Kevin Rutherford's oppose. A big problem on Knowledge is the way we treat newbies, and our opinions of them. We were all a newbie at one time. Looking back at my earliest days, I certainly did not know everything, but I wasn't an idiot. Every thing that
723:
As a personal note, even before I started editing Knowledge I discovered IAR and found it a remarkable and liberating philosophy. I find that it reminds me to keep my eye on the big picture, and not let rules and legal minutiae get in the way of doing the right thing. No system of rules will ever
570:
Personally, I think four warnings is excessive; I would favor merging the second and third levels of warnings, and perhaps also better codifying when it is appropriate to escalate to an immediate final warning. However, the role of administrators on Knowledge is to implement community consensus of
162:
alone. I realize that there has been significant controversy regarding Did You Know recently, especially considering the quality of the hooks being promoted and the frequency of the updates. However, as long as Did You Know remains what it is, tied to the most-visible part of the website, it will
4423:
This is a genuine "neutral". It isn't a "I'm not supporting". The answer to q4 was fine to the extent that it isn't wrong. I particularly liked the identification of a responsibility to detect plagiarism, which has been a huge problem across the main page recently. But I think the candidate dodged
4246:
If he responds to our satisfaction, we can always change our !votes. If he cleanstarted, he should tell us that, email a trusted admin the account name, and allow this person to confirm the old account was in good standing. AGF should not be held like a hammer over opposers' heads to stifle honest
3847:
Kevin's final comment can be read as withdrawing the suggestion, but I'm not sure if that is the meaning Kevin intended. Kevin, please can you clarify? If you are still concerned about this you should take it further take this further (and explicitly notify Grondemar of this major concern), but if
1607:
they used edit summaries, not suspicious. Long-term readers (as I was) do actually read the site, including policies and such. I certainly did - I was curious how the site was operated, and I run two wikis of my own. It's not impossible that they knew about featured articles - they are, after all,
1076:
proposal as I thought it was too susceptible to gaming and would reduce the number of administrators willing to make unpopular yet correct decisions. I believe there is great promise in the idea of setting up an Arbitration Committee subcommittee to investigate admin abuse that I've seen discussed
1033:
in particular. I had interacted with him several times over a multiple-month period through Did you know (he was the most-active admin participant there for several months prior to the incident), and he even gave me one of his User of the Day awards. I was shocked and stunned when it was learned
1013:
because, just before I was going to post the suggestion, I re-read the instructions and was unclear on whether only the original FAC nominator could propose an article at that page. Rather than risk making a fool of myself and disrupting the proceedings, I sought clarification. Once it was clear
804:
There have been suggestions to reduce the speed of the update process indirectly (thus avoiding increasingly backlogs) by raising minimum quality requirements (such as the minimum number of characters in an article or the level of expansion required). The problem is that this does not address the
800:
that appeared on the Main Page); enough articles have to be reviewed and approved to meet the update schedule of (currently) seven hooks per update, four updates a day (i.e. 28 articles/day). This is a lot of work that has to be done in a very short period of time; it was worse during the summer,
279:
In general my philosophy has been to avoid escalating conflict, as for the most part it does nothing to advance the mission of creating an ever-higher-quality encyclopedia. I try to treat all users I interact with in a polite and friendly manner, no matter if there is a dispute between us. There
4288:
to tell anyone. However, if he's running for administrator, I'm going to oppose until either an arbcom member or a trusted admin confirms that the last account was in good standing (your argument has a gaping hole: the lack of arbcom involvement could also be that he has not told anyone). Now, if
2435:
admins. In the end, the fact that he has stated his target niche and demonstrated the proper level of knowledge to effectively operate in said niche, (and meets all my basic requirements, such as putting in six months and not having a long ban log), is enough for me. Good luck and don't screw up.
2067:
Highly active for almost exactly one year, the candidate is familiar from college football pages. Adequate content building (26 article creations and 110 redirects) combined with factors such as a high level of technical skills, trustworthiness and cerebral answers to questions warrants a vote in
1297:
First, in my opinion it would be extremely unwise for the Wikimedia Foundation to change the name of Knowledge at this point. Knowledge and the unfinished puzzle globe logo have become a brand with global awareness, maybe not to the level of the McDonald's golden arches or the Nike "Swoosh", but
707:
is the triumph of common sense over bureaucracy. One of the oldest policies on Knowledge, its goal is to keep the focus of the project on its original mission: building a high-quality, comprehensive, free-content encyclopedia. In the end, all policies and guidelines are intended to support that
646:
works; I would indicate that, if he so desires, I would originate a discussion at that forum on his behalf, posting his comments and perspective and allowing for the Knowledge community to decide whether the article on him would be kept or deleted. I would also let Mr. DeRoy know that, no matter
626:
A user writes an BLP about "Michael DeRoy". He is of questionable notability, and someone tags it as A7. You delete the page and the next day, Mr. DeRoy somehow finds you and emails you, thanking you for deleting the article because he doesn't want to be on Knowledge, regardless of his notability
561:
subjects. (For example, I encountered the page of a US federal judge being vandalized with accusations of being a homosexual and other anti-gay slogans by an account whose name matched that of the judge, and in fact improbably claimed to be the judge himself. I reverted the vandalism, issued an
367:
The article must have been newly-created or moved to mainspace no earlier than five days ago in the case of new articles, or expanded 5x within no earlier than five days ago in the case of expanded articles. Newly-sourced BLPs that have been expanded at least 2x no earlier than five days ago can
4256:
AGF is not an option, it's one of the five pillars and you three have all failed to adhere to it. Not one of you has waited for an explanation before opposing, and none of you has considered the possibility that the user might have actually been competent and read around a bit before starting. I
3943:
look around and learn things before they began editing but I find that highly unlikely and his behavior looks more like the nicer socks (ones that hang around and then get blocked a thousand edits in) that I have seen. Again, I am not accusing the editor of anything but it just looks suspicious.
3839:
that zie was a long-term reader but a new editor seems to me to be quite plausible. I know several people who have never made a single edit but who read wikipedia carefully, checking edit histories and talk pages and looking at how policies and guidelines affect its development. If any of those
3571:
I don't think that the his behavior when he created an account is an issue. He stated that he'd been using Knowledge as an IP. That's good enough for me. He hasn't damaged the Encyclopedia and has been, as far as I can tell, a net benefit. A good user that actually takes the time to think before
1236:
Many of your edits are in the area of college football, an area which draws repeated POV challenges. Most active contributors to these articles are fans of the particular college team. What are the most effective means for maintaining NPOV and an encyclopedic tone, when the editors drawn to this
192:
that helped to cool tensions and reach consensus. I would also help with speedy deletion: I have tagged many pages for speedy deletion in various categories, and I'd estimate fewer than 2% have been declined. I participated in recent changes patrol earlier this year, but have increasingly been
3685:
I was talking to a fellow editor an hour ago and I decided to dig a bit deeper into your history here. After a bit of looking, I have run upon things that are quite worrisome to me. One of the first ones is how you started off with rather experienced edit summaries from your first edit. For any
2677:
think that Grondemar got the answer to question 4 quite right. However, I am very impressed withthis editor's experience in a very exposed area of wikpedia, and the lack of drama. I see a commendable his focus on content combined with a diligent attitude to policy and guidelines which gives me
959:
I have never used an account other than the "Grondemar" account to edit Knowledge. Prior to registering the "Grondemar" account I made a few edits as an anonymous IP on an experimental basis, doing no more than fixing typos or other minor edits. At least once since the "Grondemar" account was
666:
I'm not familiar if it is possible to edit an article before undeleting it, but if it was then before restoring the article I would ensure that it met WP:BLP, removing all unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. If this is not possible I would make these corrections immediately after
972:
on a regular basis for over six months prior to registering the "Grondemar" account. From there I learned about "alt text", images licenses, and other nuances of Knowledge. I honestly don't remember when I learned about speedy deletion or other matters, but I'm sure it was either during that
724:
perfectly cover every situation that could arise in a way consistent with their original intent; in such cases, it is important to follow the spirit of the rules, rather than the letter, because to do otherwise would be to defeat the purpose for which the rules were created in the first place.
4438:
Just confirming I'll stay here. The follow-up to q4 was equally disappointing - not that the candidate didn't edit the article, but the attitude that there is nothing "particularly contentious" in the article. With respect, I think this approach is myopic. The real issue is an article about a
871:
Grondemar, I believe I was the one who first welcomed you to the project, and I have nothing but praise for your editing since then. However, I have kept an eye on RfA for you, as I have always been a bit wary on a certain point: have you ever edited Knowledge before signing up under the name
1312:
If the Wikimedia foundation were to conclude that a change in the project brand is necessary, the first place to start is to look at the key features and attributes of the project that they would want to empathize in their brand. Based on the original mission, I'd say those themes would be:
711:
One quick example of a good use of "Ignore all rules": By DYK rules, submissions must be made within five days of the article content being placed in the mainspace. Let's say someone works hard and expands an article 5x, and submits it to Did You Know. A reviewer notices, however, that the
465:
of time researching the DYK approval history of the articleâunfortunately the way DYK is designed it involves looking at the history of several pages to determine how a particular hook made its way to the Main Page. In the case of this hook, I discovered that it was reviewed and approved by
3843:
Kevin is concerned that Grondemar may be a sock or a reincarnation of a banned user, but instead of seeking a checkuser or directly asking Grondemar where zie has ever edited anonymously or under another account, he leaps straight in with an oppose. Is this really a fair way to treat an RFA
3071:. No qualms whatsoever about this candidate. Communicates with clarity, edits with common sense, would easily be an asset as a level-headed admin. Accusations of sock-puppetry are unsupported by any evidence, and in my opinion, such accusations are troublesome in the context of this RfA. --
960:
registered, I accidentally edited while logged out; since then, I added the mod that turns the "Save page" button green when I am logged in, to prevent this mistake from happening again. (It also helps that I still use the Monobook skin; if the site switches to Vector, I know I logged out.)
295:
failed to achieve consensus for promotion. Although a couple of editors supported promotion, a couple of others opposed due to prose quality and other concerns, including requesting the undoing of changes asked for by the earlier supporting editors. While the archiving of the review was
1008:
was at the time semi-protected (I don't believe it is anymore), I had to create an account to make the suggestion. I remember having a hard time finding ten things to edit in order to get autoconfirmed (this is not something I have a problem with anymore ;-) ). I posted the question on
89:)Â â Just over one year and 7,000 edits after creating this account, I have decided to nominate myself for the role of administrator. I wholeheartedly believe that as an administrator I would be a strong asset to the project. While the focus of my first 7,000 edits has been the state of
552:); purely promotional accounts used only for creating advertising pages or spam; shared accounts; open proxies; bots that are unapproved, exceeding their approved scope, or malfunctioning; and accounts that very clearly exist only to vandalize (although I would prefer on the last one to
1330:
After some experimentation I kind of like "Summa omnia humana liber", a rough Latin translation of "The sum of all human knowledge free" I got from Google Translate. I like the way the words flow together. However, I would definitely favor keeping the original name as I noted above!
1071:
If it becomes clear through whatever means that the community does not have confidence in my ability to exercise the role of administrator, I will immediately resign. I do believe there needs to be a better way to remove administrators who abuse their powers, but I did not support the
157:
have been doing a tremendous job in making the last-minute updates necessary to keeping the process working, but they desperately need help. Over the past year I have compiled countless DYK update sets that have appeared on the Main Page, and in fact have made nearly 1,000 edits to
3334:- Answers to questions, while not all 100% correct, show that he has his head in the right place. Seems clear to me he's not here to reinvent the rules, he has the capability of carefully interpreting the rules and enforcing them, even if they are counter to his personal opinion.
4015:
Is there really an issue with a user who may have done wiki gnoming as an IP, and then 7,000 edits later as a registered user asking for the mop? I don't think so. This is one of the many reasons I am now staying away from RFA because of opposes like this, where you are literally
2485:#I was leaning towards neutral on the basis of the response to Q4; it's not what I would do, then again I'm not experienced with DYKs, and the response does not seem too bad. Based on the other responses, and great user contribution to wikipedia... I'm supporting on the basis of
345:
asking for clarification which source was partisan, and which statements specifically were objectionable. The key questions are whether or not the source in question is sufficiently partisan to be unreliable, and whether the statement in question is in any way contentious (see
4200:
I emailed Grondemar yesterday querying their early editing patterns and had no response. I'm not seeing a noob in their early contributions either and, in the absence of an explanation (and I tried to keep this off wiki in case there were privacy concerns) then I must oppose.
781:. Regarding the current rotation speed, I agree it is currently way too fast based on the number of people participating and the scrutiny required of reviewers; I pushed for the rate to be slowed to 3 sets per day, but was rebuffed (even though I thought I saw consensus, see
4299:
the tiny, unconfirmed chance that he is a sockpuppet of someone else. We aren't badgering opposes, we are pointing out critical flaws in the arguments. That is what an RfA is for - community discussion on whether or not the candidate is suitable for adminship. That involves
3996:
I really don't get your oppose rationale. Because he knew how to edit from the beginning? Is that what you are saying? Am I missing something? Just because it took you 200+ edits to figure out the use of edit summary, doesn't mean other people can't figure it out early.
4105:
Really? None of you see anything that worries you in his early editing? Or at the least want to know why Gronde is clearly experienced from his first edit? I'm frightened that the RfA culture has flipped so far as to condemn necessary and extremely important questions.
234:
a featured topic, but I am still several articles away from that achievement. I take a lot of pride in my written contributions; it has always been my goal to improve the depth, breadth, and accuracy of the world's finest free-content encyclopedia with every edit I
1634:
He might have edited as an IP, or seen them on an article as a reader. They're not hidden away from everyone, nor are they difficult to use. There are so many possible explanations here, and it's sad that people are jumping to oppose at the slightest "worry".
3520:
A little over 12 months' experience, not a very high edit count, but enough to show that he knows what he's doing and a desire to work in admin-short areas where the work can be tedious. No reason to think he wouldn't be a net positive with the admin bit.
1244:
related to their team. There is nothing wrong with this. However, it is also critical that Knowledge articles are written from a neutral point of view and not a fan's point of view. I've found two means that I use to try to avoid POV and tone problems:
600:
While I don't believe there's anything wrong with being homosexual, I doubt the vandal agrees with me. The judge in question had just made a court ruling I believe related to gay marriage in California that the vandal I presume strongly disagreed with.
3785:
Yes, the point was to provide an example of similar behavior, not to accuse Grondemar of being Theo. Based on how they write and the subject areas they worked in, I would find Gronde=Theo hard to believe (if your post was aimed at Kevin, my apologies)
4216:
is it possible that he didn't respond because he is busy, or perhaps doesn't want to waste his time giving you a reason which, since you are opposing this now, you most likely wouldn't accept anyways? Additionally, you might want to take a peak at
1290:
The Wikimedia Foundation determines that change is needed, and as an administrator, your first task will be to come up with a new name for Knowledge. It must be totally new; no "wiki" anything or anything-"pedia". What name do you suggest? Why?
4388:
I don't know of any reason to oppose Grondemar (and am sorry the archiving of a recent FAC was demoralizing :) and am satisfied with his response above on DYK, but neither do I know him well enough to Support; I may revisit later if I have time.
2216:
Strong candidate with the required experience. Agree that DYK needs more involved administrators and that the rate may need to be slowed (although disagree with the all-GA DYK idea). User shows intelligence and thoughtfulness in his responses.
3973:
I was reading wikipedia policies from the start of this September, including things like AfD's and various Knowledge user essays. I was afraid of "breaking" Knowledge, so I never really started contributing until late September, when I read
4344:
per interest in enabling a dysfunctional DYK process that harms content, rather than being focused on reforming it (a worry about a "backlog" there is precisely the wrong thing administrator material should be focused on). Anyone remember
792:, there are certainly deadlines at DYK: new articles have to be completed in five days (I have personally found challenging at times to write a high-quality article in the time demanded by DYK, for example compare the current version of
585:
I'm a little concerned when you mention "accusations of being a homosexual". Is this indicative of prejudice you may hold? You say that you removed anti-gay slogans, so was the "accusation" thing just an extremely poor choice of words?
566:
as a probable disruption-only account. Eventually the user was indefinitely-blocked and all the edits in question were rev-deleted, including the (so-far) only example of vandalism to my own user page, made by the erstwhile supposed
1780:
Brilliant answer! I believe this is a sequentially inappropriate method for me to leave a message, but given the purchased context of the question and the effervescent judiciousness/articulateness of the reply, I applaud Grondemar's
634:
would be restored shortly. I would explain that, as Pulitzer Prizes are awarded for significant achievements in journalism or creative writing, persons who win them are generally considered notable per our notability policies (see
663:
I would warn the user that should the subject desire it I would list the article at WP:AFD to allow the community to decide whether the article should be kept or deleted. I would also apologize to the user for the inconvenience.
4320:
So many explanations, but the difference is I assumed good faith, and you didn't. Now, if you had actual evidence the candidate was a sock, I'd be opposing with you, but what you have is essentially circumstancial nothingness.
4283:
You clearly don't understand AGF. If I have a very pertinent and relevant concern, AGF should never be used to bury it. I have considered that possibility and consider it extremely unlikely. Regarding clean starts, he doesn't
2978:. Lots of work on DYK where admin tools would be of great benefit. Candidate clearly has a deep understanding of the way things work on Knowledge, and has a professional background that will be a great boon to the project. --
244:
I am also particularly proud of my contributions to Knowledge's Main Page, the public face of our endeavors. As mentioned above, I have compiled countless Did You Know sets; in addition, I have been a frequent participant at
907:, where you â without prompting â gave yourself an immediate defense against this exact question in case TFA regulars noticed your lack of experience. "I'm a long-time reader but recently registered editor to Knowledge ..."
97:, I have had the opportunity to edit articles on nearly every topic under the sun, and am eager to do what I can to continue to make Knowledge an ever higher-quality, more reliable, informative, and collegiate place to be.
249:
and have nominated several articles to be placed on the Main Page. I believe it is highly important to focus on the quality of the content directly linked from the Main Page, as this is what the outside world judges us
292:
401:
All statements in the article must be cited; it is not acceptable for articles to have entire paragraphs uncited, for example. The citations must also support what the article is saying (allowing for AGF for offline
3698:
are quite concerning from a standpoint of you being a new person here. For your first few hundred edits, you seem to have quite a knowledge of the ways and means of this encyclopedia. Finally, your first sentence
3452:
because the candidate gives thoughtful answers and DYK has a need. I'm pleased that the oppose issues got resolved as they should have, and I think that it is possible to over-analyze the answers to questions.
2593:
I've seen a lot Grondemar around, and been very happy with the level-headedness. I may be slightly biased, due to similar interests, but I'm confident candidate will be a good addition to the ranks of admins.--
539:
In general, users should not be blocked until having received a clear final warning that their behavior is unacceptable and needs to change. There are limited circumstances under which per the blocking policy
3506:- highly qualified user. I'm particularly impressed by the way you handled unfounded allegations of sockpuppetry on this RFA with coolness and dignity, which bodes well for how you'll act as an administrator.
4225:
and notice the fact that, because there are no arbcom members here, if he did take a clean start he followed the proper procedure. If you have some serious concerns, waste everyone's time and open a case at
3121:- I've observed Grondemar's good contributions in two areas that I'm also active in: DYK and college athletics. I'm confident that, while not perfect, adminship for Grondemar will at the very least be a
1692:
Your view also leads me to question whether as a community, we're supposed to utilize milch editors till we can, and refuse the Curtius-types the entry just when they arrive at the Lacus... Kind regards
3125:
for Knowledge. In particular, Grondemar has displayed a willingness to ask questions when unsure, to acknowledge their errors, and to act based on consensus even if they disagree with that consensus.
3747:
For the record, Kevin and I were discussing this off-Wiki. I wanted a second editor's opinion before drafting and posting my question (the references to Pastor Theo, however, are purely incidental).
3795:
I came to that same conclusion last night about any link. The users don't overlap their page edits on the major accounts and I don't really think there is any sort of link between the two users.
263:; two of those reviews are currently in-progress. I have also created over 100 redirects, several disambiguation pages, and a few other articles including nine of which appeared on Did You Know.
3708:
who white knighted not only at my RFA, but fooled others into giving them the tools. A few months later, the user was blocked after it was discovered that they were a sockpuppet. If you look at
1115:
Comment: this is an unfair loaded question, and makes the assumption the candidate has edited before. I don't see how the candidate's earliest edits are any more remarkable than yours, Spartaz.
259:
I am also proud of several other contributions which are perhaps less glamorous: I have uploaded 57 pictures to Knowledge or Commons, 51 of which I took myself. I have reviewed 35 articles as
3268:
Per Sailsbystars' excellent reasoning. I'm willing to AGF that the candidate is what they say they are and if that turns out to be incorrect, we can still do something about it later. Regards
3712:, there is a parallel between you two is quite worrisome. I am not saying that there is a link between the two users but there is quite a similar modus operandi that is rather worrisome.
708:
original mission; if a certain interpretation of or loophole in a policy would, if followed to the letter, go against the original mission, it should be ignored, and the right thing done.
364:
Regarding your general question, there are several elements of articles nominated at DYK that need to be checked beyond the content of the hook and the length of the article, including:
4141:
I see a decent, competent editor going about their business. If they did stuff wrong, they'd have been shouted at. If they did stuff right, people are suspicious. Is it possible to do
2307:
I have a weird feeling, but I think I'll go with a weak support here. I don't like opposing for things I can't put in words, and I don't care enough about the answer to Q4 to oppose.
441:: You spent a great deal of time answering this question, so you had to have spent a good deal of time looking at the article. May I ask why you didn't edit the article in that time?
3670:
Moving to neutral based on answer to q10. I am satisfied with the answer, and although I can't bring myself to support, I no longer have qualms about Grondemar obtaining the tools.
2237:
Candidate knows their strengths and weaknesses and has identified areas of Knowledge where they can apply those strengths best, and minimize those weaknesses. Uncommonly gormful. --
651:
the discussion page following the conclusion to prevent it from being picked up by search engines. I would then explain, should his article be kept by community consensus, how our
571:
the policies as they stand, not to unilaterally reinterpret policy against community consensus. I would always use the existing system until consensus existed to make a change.
231:
153:
DYKUpdateBot had to post a warning that there were no queues available to place on the Main Page less than two hours before the scheduled update. Administrators such as
3543:
Despite a low edit count, I'm satisfied with this candidate's answers to the questions, and he seems to be an experienced user. I've no reasons not to trust this user.
2995:
Has experience contributing to FA level (although not successfully but will eventually). Admins need to understand the effort that goes into producing quality content.
943:
While separately I could understand how you picked up this knowledge as a "long-time reader," together they make me extremely suspicious. While I don't believe you are
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?
4509:
1537:
1532:
788:
After quite a bit of consideration, I think the root cause of Did You Know's problems may be the speed of the process. Despite Knowledge's overall philosophy of
361:
as Guha died in 2009. If Guha was still alive I would have pulled the article from the Main Page immediately, per the "first-do-no-harm" principle behind WP:BLP.
2678:
confidence the q4 shortfalls will be learnt from. So I'm very confident that this is just the sort of responsible person who should have access to the tools. --
992:(I have personally been to all of the Connecticut Huskies bowl games, so it is a subject of great personal interest to me). More immediately, upon learning of
842:
Yes, my current password would be considered strong by the guidelines provided in that article. I may change it to strengthen it further should this RfA pass.
548:(these users are encouraged to simply create a new account with a new username); evasion of a block or ban on their primary account; making legal threats (see
3661:- at the very least until q10 is answered. I think your editing is positively phenomenal, but I have grave suspicions based on your early editing. Apologies,
246:
716:
and allow the submission, and in fact this is (or was, I do think a few overzealous users have been pushing back on this) standard practice for Did You Know.
1603:"looks like a sock" can easily be explained. For example, the edit summary isn't exactly a big secret thing. It's there right next to the save button. It's
1021:(whom I don't believe I had heard of prior to this RfA) nor any other blocked or banned user. Of course, it is impossible to prove a negative, so I can't
533:
When is it acceptable to block a user who has not yet received a warning, or "enough" warnings? What do you think about the current warning-levels system?
3194:
A person who likes to help out with the Main Page, especially on the DYK aspect. He/she is an intelligent and important candidate to grant adminship for.
4527:
1386:
424:
of the hooks meet all of the requirements above, for it is they who are ultimately responsible for the content of the hook appearing on the Main Page.
414:
The article must not contain cleanup banners or be the subject of an open deletion debate. Articles at AfD are held until the deletion debate closes.
1104:
What other accounts have your edited wikipedia with? Please can you explain how your early contributions are clearly those of an experienced editor?
3933:) accounts (also with minimal overlap between the Mrs. Wolpoff and Ecoleetage accounts), he's never used more than one account at the same time. --
375:
The hook fact must be explicitly and unambiguously cited in the article text, with an inline citation directly after it. The cited source must be
132:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
331:: Aside from checking a hook and article length, what else should admins at DYK check before approving an article or placing it in the DYK queue?
1843:
1373:
1298:
certainly significant enough that it would be a major risk abandoning them. The only reason I could think that the Wikimedia Foundation would
223:
2468:
I like the generally well thought out answers, esp. answer to #3 in which he emphasizes that his philosophy is to avoid escalating conflicts.
3860:
3823:
3177:
I've seen Grondemar at FLC and FAC, and am impressed with his work. Two words come to mind when describing him: "sensible" and "articulate".
2690:
1475:
836:
or if not will change your password to meet these guidlines before you become an admin? (Yes or No answer is okay, to maintain some privacy)
3635:
This candidate handled his quesitons well without losing his cool. This added with clear demonstration of expirence leads me to a yes vote.
1621:
But have you ever met someone who was able to use speedy deletion templates (correctly, no less) by their fourth edit? I certainly haven't.
1135:
was creating a redirect. The list goes on. Of course you were not a sockpuppet, and I wish you would assume the same of this candidate too.
1000:
I thought it would be a good idea to place an article to commemorate his career on the Main Page; the only appropriate featured article was
4455:
I'm not happy with A4 or its followup answer. Mkativerata says it well. I shall park myself here for now, but I am leaning towards oppose.
2254:. Fully qualified candidate, intending to focus on an area that could use more administrators. Very strong answers to the questions, IMHO.
1867:
4061:
Instead of badgering Kevin and calling his thinking pathetic, perhaps we should let Grondemar answer for his/herself. Move along, please.
2819:
Clearly here to build an encyclopedia. The answer to #5 will correct itself fairly quickly once he starts actually tackling vandalism.
1813:. User has experience in different areas, seems intelligent and level-headed, and has a clear idea of what they will do with the tools.
1690:!votes. ". I think you should not have voted as a group (although I note that Kevin has indented his oppose and so, perhaps, might you).
1677:
1527:
4267:
stayed completely out of this, that means that he either did a clean start by following the correct procedure, or it isn't a problem.
3930:
1676:. Specifically, if you had had issues with an editor whom you've personally welcomed on-board, these should have been brought forward
587:
3760:(that I know of) was blocked in April, so the checkuser investigation would probably have turned up Grondemar if it was really him.
3057:
1380:
189:
1416:
1410:
4075:
3888:
2879:
2401:. Answers show thought and thoroughness. A GA reviewer. Substantial contributor to an FA. No issues I see worth opposing over.
2321:
2106:
2022:
1205:
1170:
997:
521:
383:
that the source does in fact verify the hook, although highly-contentious or unlikely hook facts are still likely to be disputed.
281:
33:
17:
4087:
I'm not calling this thinking pathetic, I just really don't understand his oppose rationale. I just wanted some clarification.
3916:
2552:
1652:
many explanations. I would like to hear what his is, and if I am satisfied, I will happily change my !vote. In the meantime...
1442:
1366:
981:
643:
86:
3584:
1946:
989:
789:
1425:
4154:
No, he has not harmed the encyclopedia as an editor, which is why I did not bring up my suspicions in December 2009 when I
327:
asking that it be pulled because it was sourced to a partisan source, what would you as an admin working in DYK have done?
3377:
3200:
2983:
1553:
1563:
3902:
3559:
3494:â Excellent, well thought out, detailed responses to the questions above. Will be a huge help keeping things mopped up!
985:
211:
185:
112:
Thank you to everyone who participated in this review. I will take all comments to heart, both positive and negative.
4257:
pointed out above that Spartaz has a very similar early start to the candidate, and of course he is not a sockpuppet.
3477:
2907:
2102:
1026:
3836:
3694:
shows that you seem to have had some sort of experience here. I could go on, but the edit summaries at the bottom of
408:
Pictures and other media in the article, especially the hook media if applicable, must be properly licensed and free.
1163:
Indeed. But once we're at it, would you Spartaz mind telling us what your previous username was (if you had one)?--
3774:
3321:
2548:
2163:
2052:
704:
398:. Articles and hooks that are largely negative toward their BLP subjects, even if sourced, are generally rejected.
159:
1755:
Following indented bulletpoint moved here from Questions for the Candidate #10 - this is not a followup question.
1501:
3856:
3817:
2686:
2299:
2085:. Enthusiastic editor with a positive attitude and enough experience/clue to do a good job of administrating. --
1468:
639:
4463:
3987:
3038:
2979:
2631:. I appreciate this editor's calm, positive attitude and believe he will be an excellent addition to the team.
2511:
1864:
1522:
449:
3877:
Also, Theo's socks tend to be created immediately after the last sock was blocked; Theo came along just after
1517:
1251:
team, national sources provide a better, more neutral overview of the subject, helping to avoid POV problems.
4354:
3076:
2805:
2451:
2365:
793:
405:
The article must not violate copyright or closely paraphrase sources (allowing for AGF for offline sources).
227:
219:
4397:
4115:
Lets say, speaking figuratively, that this user is a sock. Has he done anything to harm the encyclopedia?
3924:
3599:
3472:
3122:
2744:
2486:
2226:
591:
466:
154:
3336:
4444:
4429:
3530:
3019:
2619:
2259:
2160:
1258:
4508:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
230:, is currently a good article and a former featured article candidate. It is my eventual goal to make
4494:
4479:
4470:
4448:
4433:
4415:
4401:
4376:
4358:
4324:
4314:
4293:
4278:
4261:
4251:
4241:
4211:
4184:
4162:
4149:
4136:
4110:
4100:
4082:
4052:
4010:
3991:
3952:
3937:
3865:
3830:
3804:
3790:
3780:
3751:
3740:
3721:
3674:
3665:
3644:
3627:
3614:
3603:
3586:
3563:
3535:
3515:
3498:
3486:
3462:
3444:
3419:
3398:
3381:
3360:
3343:
3326:
3302:
3281:
3260:
3243:
3229:
3212:
3186:
3169:
3157:
3134:
3113:
3089:
3080:
3063:
3042:
3025:
3004:
2987:
2970:
2943:
2931:
2911:
2886:
2860:
2828:
2814:
2782:
2768:
2748:
2725:
2711:
2695:
2665:
2644:
2623:
2606:
2585:
2556:
2539:
2515:
2498:
2477:
2460:
2410:
2393:
2376:
2345:
2328:
2302:
2284:
2263:
2246:
2229:
2208:
2185:
2166:
2151:
2131:
2110:
2093:
2077:
2059:
2029:
1993:
1970:
1951:
1926:
1917:
1903:
1889:
1872:
1850:
1822:
1796:
1764:
1747:
1717:
1707:
1656:
1639:
1625:
1612:
1597:
1496:
1340:
1270:
1214:
1193:
1179:
1154:
1139:
1086:
1043:
951:
851:
814:
761:
733:
676:
610:
595:
580:
494:
456:
433:
184:, where I have participated in several discussions, including an extended one regarding the naming of
121:
106:
66:
4372:
4321:
4258:
4218:
4146:
4070:
3882:
3849:
3813:
3595:
3458:
3394:
3256:
3000:
2895:
2874:
2732:
2679:
2600:
2389:
2316:
2201:
2012:
1636:
1609:
1461:
1282:
1210:
1175:
1136:
904:
516:
469:, an admin with extensive experience at DYK, and moved to the preparation area and then the queue by
1306:
has done so much damage to the name "Wiki" that it is necessary to change the name of the project.
4456:
4309:
4273:
4236:
3983:
3910:
3686:
Wikipedian who supposedly hasn't been here before, this is rather odd. Your first edit summary was
3640:
3356:
3298:
3034:
2720:
2638:
2507:
2473:
2180:
2144:
2091:
1859:
1360:
1336:
1266:
1257:
I've found that processes such as the Good Article and Featured Article review systems, as well as
1189:
1082:
1039:
1010:
847:
810:
729:
672:
606:
576:
490:
442:
429:
172:
I would also focus initially on other administrative areas where I have gained experience, such as
117:
102:
94:
80:
4350:
3872:
3582:
3511:
3225:
3182:
3072:
2968:
2824:
2796:
2704:
2437:
2406:
2355:
2279:
1944:
1760:
1438:
757:
342:
324:
1838:
4367:
answer to Q5, which should be read widely; but this is likely to be the only chance to object.
4230:. Otherwise, please stop impeding this user's ability to further help this great encyclopedia.
4158:. He can do much more damage as an administrator, however, which is my reason for posting Q10.
4490:
4390:
4172:
4124:
4088:
3998:
3979:
3920:
3728:
3611:
3373:
3206:
3130:
3107:
2926:
2788:
2778:
2740:
2653:
2577:
2532:
2341:
2218:
2073:
1965:
1789:
1740:
1700:
1589:
833:
824:
319:
featured on the main page in DYK recently. If, while it was on the main page, I had posted to
4440:
4425:
3948:
3896:
3800:
3717:
3705:
3549:
3522:
3437:
3150:
3014:
2940:
2615:
2255:
1913:
1899:
1885:
1818:
1018:
944:
648:
635:
544:) a user may be blocked without warning, including: selecting an inappropriate username per
338:
320:
304:
2159:. Grondemar's focus on DYK is clearly an area where he could usefully use the admin tools.
988:
team. I was inspired by the Virginia Tech featured topic to create a similar topic on the
4368:
4065:
4049:
3878:
3454:
3390:
3335:
3275:
3252:
2996:
2903:
2869:
2857:
2595:
2494:
2385:
2311:
2242:
2194:
2002:
1302:
to abandon the Knowledge brand is because they are convinced that an external source like
1228:
1200:
1165:
1119:
is creating your userpage with an edit summary and signing your name. Your first 50 edits
1001:
977:
918:
541:
511:
149:. I have been increasingly concerned over the backlogs that have formed in the process;
3690:. A new editor might write that, but the fact that you follow up a few edits later with
4304:
4268:
4231:
3975:
3906:
3767:
3636:
3352:
3291:
3238:
3047:
2633:
2469:
2175:
2138:
2086:
2046:
1986:
1959:
Looks ready for the tools, and has identified a good place to put wiki skills to work.
1577:
1356:
1333:
1263:
1186:
1079:
1036:
1005:
844:
807:
726:
669:
656:
603:
573:
487:
426:
387:
114:
99:
76:
63:
1674:
I have kept an eye on RfA for you, as I have always been a bit wary on a certain point
4521:
4476:
4290:
4248:
4227:
4222:
4159:
4107:
3934:
3827:
3787:
3748:
3671:
3662:
3573:
3507:
3417:
3221:
3178:
2952:
2820:
2792:
2565:
2402:
2296:
2275:
1939:
1923:
1756:
1714:
1653:
1622:
1073:
1062:
969:
948:
890:
862:
753:
743:
713:
695:
652:
563:
558:
553:
549:
395:
380:
369:
358:
285:
260:
181:
177:
173:
146:
1558:
4486:
4208:
4202:
3608:
3495:
3369:
3195:
3126:
3099:
2774:
2571:
2525:
2337:
2120:
2069:
1960:
1782:
1733:
1693:
1583:
1151:
993:
965:
686:
376:
347:
3835:
I am rather concerned about the way in which Kevin R has raised this. Grondemar's
659:
would be present in his article. I would finally apologize for the inconvenience.
4207:
struck after I checked my own early contribs. Hmmm I must be a sock too.... Â :-/
4119:
If he passes this RFA and does something wrong can we reverse it, and block him?
3351:. I think Grondemar can be trusted with the tools and will put them to good use.
2753:
Seems to be a fantastic candidate; I don't have any problems with supporting. ~~
2353:
May your RFA go well and may your Fiesta Bowl be a crushing disappointment. ;-)
337:
In regards to your specific question, I would first reply to your note at either
4346:
4123:
So, If he is doing nothing wrong, I don't think he should be getting yelled at.
4024:
give them the flag. This is honestly pathetic, and majorly petty. ] you have my
3944:
3892:
3796:
3757:
3713:
3544:
3431:
3145:
3086:
1909:
1895:
1881:
1814:
1682:
You also mentioned the off-wiki discussion and have written, "If he responds to
1030:
545:
470:
90:
2925:
Here for the right reasons and doubt he'll break the place if given the tools.
4408:
4030:
3620:
3368:. Looks like someone... that would be an even greater asset with admin tools.
3270:
3166:
2899:
2838:
2754:
2490:
2238:
1131:
was discussing a page move on a talk page, and you sign your name again. Your
1053:
984:. Among my passions (which should be obvious from my editing history) is the
4502:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
2939:. Questioning is overly intrusive and aggressive; I see no reason for that.
2614:
No red flags. Grondemar's response to Q4 is what I would have done as well.--
2271:. Very good answers to the questions, a user to be trusted with the tools.
4020:
for a reason to not give this user the flag, rather than looking at why you
3762:
3312:
2040:
1979:
1303:
354:
316:
56:
2101:
See no concerns feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.
218:
I'm personally proudest of my featured content contributions: I nominated
3407:
2293:
1908:
I'm re-supporting because your answer is quite honest and I believe you.
1833:
2174:- Seems like he will use the tools, trustworthy, no complaints from me.
3826:), blocked in June. Which basically makes your point stronger still. --
1317:
1237:
topic appear to be partisans who are trying to emulate sports-writers?
368:
also be listed. The five day limit is sometimes treated flexibly, per
291:
My most stressful personal experience at Knowledge came recently, when
2836:
I really pity the users who are opposing for such lame reasons below.
293:
Knowledge:Featured article candidates/2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl/archive1
4512:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
889:(after your third now-deleted edit, when you CSD'd an article citing
655:
policy works and the steps we take to prevent vandalism and ensure a
3427:. Everything looks great. The answer to Q10 was exceptionally good.
1441:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review
562:
immediate final warning to the user, and also reported the user at
2506:- Thought out his answers wellâI think he will make a good admin.
1453:
2791:. Have seen the work that this editor has put into doing over at
1025:
I'm not any specific banned user. I'd like to make a comment on
968:, the pinnacle of Knowledge's quality system; I remember reading
411:
The article must not have appeared on DYK or In the News before.
2547:
Superb candidate. An excellent addition to the admin staff. ~~
1457:
769:
Regarding examples of when I have challenged submissions, see:
353:
Note the above course of action is predicated on the fact that
1858:. Definitely could use the tools to benefit the encyclopedia.
976:
What finally inspired me to create an account was discovering
1308:(Note: The previous sentence takes no position on Wikileaks.)
288:. In the end, there was no consensus to change the criteria.
226:
for featured list status. A third article I've worked on,
163:
need additional administrative support to keep functioning.
3142:- Good track record, seems very enthusiastic and willing.
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
1004:. Since JKBrooks85 had been inactive for some time and
203:
What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?
139:
What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
4155:
3709:
3700:
3695:
3691:
3687:
1404:
1398:
1392:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1116:
935:
928:
911:
900:
893:
886:
880:
873:
797:
782:
778:
774:
770:
483:
480:
477:
474:
379:; the source is allowed to be offline in which case we
150:
2891:
That was an honest typo (notice it didn't make sense)
899:
In your eleventh overall edit (counting deleted), you
3594:
Thank you for your thoughtful answer to my question.
2652:: Excellent Job. would make a fine sysop. Good Luck.
647:
what the consensus result of the discussion, I would
4289:
you'll please stop badgering opposes and move on...
2731:
for how to edit wikipedia, or they are exercising a
210:
For a list of content and review contributions, see
145:
My primary initial administrative focus would be at
3692:
Fixed red link to point to intended WP page section
1546:
1510:
1489:
473:, another admin with extensive DYK experience (see
3572:making possibly damaging edits. Definite support.
2384:- trustworthy user, seems like a good candidate.
1184:I believe my answer to Question 10 covers this.
1127:" - how did you know what categories were? Your
1123:have summaries. In your second edit, you add a "
1894:Moving to oppose, something is not right here.
1680:, rather than at the time of the editor's RfA.
1065:and are you placing yourself in that category?
1423:Edit summary usage for Grondemar can be found
1017:I would like to assure everyone that I am not
4145:without something going bad for you on here?
1469:
357:, the article in question, is not covered by
8:
980:'s featured topic (since defeatured) on the
885:You left a speedy deletion template on your
3905:) was created just after Theo was blocked,
3812:Just to point it out, Theo's last sock was
3012:Have had good interactions with this user.
247:Knowledge:Today's featured article/requests
188:and its subcategories where I initiated an
3165:. See no issues here, and DYK needs help.
1476:
1462:
1454:
3406:. Good contributions & good answers.
4475:Moved from oppose, see reasoning there.
3982:. Grondemar might just be the same way.
1437:Please keep discussion constructive and
879:You knew to use edit summaries from the
3286:I was waiting on Q10, but I'll happily
2951:I don't think he will abuse the tools.
1830:- Seems like a trustworthy candidate. ~
1255:Requesting feedback from other editors.
1198:I was referring to Spartaz, not you. --
224:List of Connecticut Huskies bowl games
1672:: Ed, you have written to Grondemar,
420:placing the set in queue must ensure
151:several times over the last two weeks
7:
2865:Let's not call people lame, thanks.
2193:: He will fine as an administrator.
1316:The sum of all human knowledge (see
931:what alt text was and how to use it.
910:In your sixteenth overall edit, you
53:Final (86/2/5); Closed as successful
4029:
2837:
2568:would definitely be a good thing. â
1686:satisfaction, we can always change
3251:Thoughtful answers. Looks good.--
2773:Wonder why he isn't one already.--
1227:Additional optional question from
1052:Additional optional question from
823:Additional optional question from
685:Additional optional question from
303:Additional optional question from
24:
4528:Successful requests for adminship
3688:"adding link to 2010 Gator Bowl"
1248:Citing neutral reliable sources.
998:Florida State Seminoles football
282:Knowledge:Featured list criteria
222:for featured article status and
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
4028:(I'll post it above in a sec.)
2272:
982:Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games
3848:not you should withdraw it. --
3097:- Trust worthy, good DYK work
2572:
2438:
2366:
2356:
1730:Note to the closing bureaucrat
1584:
1096:Additional question by Spartaz
990:Connecticut Huskies bowl games
232:Connecticut Huskies bowl games
1:
4495:12:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
4480:07:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
4471:00:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
4449:21:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
4434:04:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
4416:04:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
4402:03:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
4377:19:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
4359:01:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
4325:04:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
4315:04:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
4294:04:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
4279:04:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
4262:04:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
4252:04:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
4242:04:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
4212:05:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
4205:03:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
4185:04:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
4163:04:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
4150:04:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
4137:04:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
4111:03:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
4101:03:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
4083:03:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
4053:03:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
4011:03:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
3992:21:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
3953:18:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
3938:18:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
3866:18:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
3831:17:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
3805:17:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
3791:15:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
3781:11:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
3752:05:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
3741:13:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
3722:05:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
3675:07:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
3666:05:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
3645:18:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
3628:01:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
3615:23:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
3604:22:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
3587:21:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
3564:19:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
3536:19:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
3516:17:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
3499:17:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
3487:17:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
3463:14:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
3445:14:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
3420:10:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
3399:04:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
3382:04:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
3361:20:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
3344:17:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
3327:15:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
3303:15:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
3282:09:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
3261:08:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
3244:07:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
3230:01:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
3213:22:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
3187:19:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
3170:19:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
3158:18:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
3135:15:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
3114:14:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
3090:14:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
3081:14:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
3064:14:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
3043:12:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
3026:12:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
3005:11:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
2988:09:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
2971:07:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
2944:04:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
2932:03:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
2912:03:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
2887:03:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
2861:03:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
2829:01:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
2815:01:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
2783:01:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
2769:21:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
2749:21:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
2726:21:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
2712:07:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
2696:06:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
2666:04:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
2645:01:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
2624:20:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
2607:18:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
2586:18:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
2557:17:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
2540:16:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
2516:14:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
2499:12:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
2478:09:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
2461:07:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
2411:03:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
2394:03:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
2377:02:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
2346:02:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
2329:02:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
2303:02:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
2285:01:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
2264:01:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
2247:00:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
2230:00:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
2209:23:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
2186:21:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
2167:20:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
2152:19:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
2132:18:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
2111:15:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
2094:08:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
2078:06:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
2060:05:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
2030:03:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
1994:03:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
1971:02:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
1952:01:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
1927:16:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
1918:05:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
1904:05:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
1890:00:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
1873:00:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
1851:00:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
1823:00:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
1797:05:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
1765:00:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
1748:06:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
1718:07:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
1708:06:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
1657:04:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
1640:04:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
1626:03:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
1613:02:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
1598:02:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
1576:Edit stats posted to talk by
1341:22:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
1271:22:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
1215:22:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
1194:22:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
1180:22:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
1155:05:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
1150:A very fair point. Stricken.
1140:04:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
1087:05:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
1044:04:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
996:'s impending retirement from
952:05:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
852:03:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
815:23:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
762:04:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
734:22:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
677:21:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
611:00:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
596:02:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
581:18:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
495:00:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
457:03:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
434:01:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
372:, depending on circumstances.
122:00:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
107:00:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
67:00:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
4485:eye on this until the 31st.
3727:User Moved back to support.
3310:No reason to oppose. --: -->
986:Connecticut Huskies football
212:User:Grondemar/Contributions
186:Category:Connecticut Huskies
3470:fully qualified candidate.
970:featured article candidates
872:"Grondemar"? Based on your
128:Questions for the candidate
4544:
3891:) was blocked/sitebanned,
2239:Alan the Roving Ambassador
1978:- I see no real concerns.
938:how to use image licenses.
160:Template talk:Did you know
3532:Penny for your thoughts?
2578:
1590:
1281:Additional question from
182:categories for discussion
4505:Please do not modify it.
934:By overall edit 26, you
927:By overall edit 25, you
694:What is your opinion on
644:WP:Articles for deletion
178:templates for discussion
174:redirects for discussion
4247:concerns about a user.
1061:What are your views on
794:2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl
790:WP:There is no deadline
642:, and specifically how
228:2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl
220:2009 International Bowl
38:Please do not modify it
3389:- good answer to Q13.
3085:Won't abuse the tools
2351:Sooner Magical Support
2103:Pharaoh of the Wizards
924:was and how to use it.
467:User:Materialscientist
386:The article must meet
155:User:Materialscientist
2719:Clearly trustworthy.
2549:Lothar von Richthofen
1880:No present concerns.
1354:Links for Grondemar:
779:The Listeners (novel)
657:neutral point of view
261:good article nominees
34:request for adminship
3710:their earliest edits
2703:No red flags here.--
1559:Global contributions
1027:WP:Assume good faith
4407:Pending Q7 answer.
3619:Appears competent.
2980:Boing! said Zebedee
1523:Non-automated edits
887:fourth overall edit
874:early contributions
771:Wormy hillock henge
705:WP:Ignore all rules
95:Connecticut Huskies
3059:Operation Big Bear
2426:Is he acceptable?
2037:â Good candidate.
1502:Edit summary usage
1445:before commenting.
775:Indiana (Matthews)
696:Ignoring all rules
640:WP:Deletion policy
39:
4375:
4313:
4277:
4240:
4179:
4171:can be reversed.
4131:
4095:
4005:
3876:
3864:
3735:
3380:
3325:
3242:
3156:
2915:
2898:comment added by
2694:
2660:
2564:Another admin at
2458:
2184:
2127:
1969:
1767:
1572:
1571:
1443:his contributions
1309:
966:featured articles
554:assume good faith
381:assume good faith
313:Specific question
93:, especially the
37:
4535:
4507:
4466:
4413:
4394:
4371:
4307:
4271:
4234:
4180:
4177:
4132:
4129:
4096:
4093:
4081:
4078:
4073:
4068:
4051:
4046:
4043:
4040:
4037:
4034:
4006:
4003:
3945:Kevin Rutherford
3870:
3855:
3852:
3837:explanation here
3797:Kevin Rutherford
3777:
3772:
3765:
3736:
3733:
3714:Kevin Rutherford
3625:
3580:
3556:
3547:
3533:
3527:
3484:
3480:
3475:
3442:
3440:
3434:
3416:
3412:
3372:
3341:
3340:
3318:
3317:
3315:
3295:
3278:
3273:
3241:
3209:
3203:
3198:
3155:
3153:
3143:
3112:
3110:
3104:
3060:
3054:
3022:
3017:
2966:
2929:
2914:
2892:
2885:
2882:
2877:
2872:
2859:
2854:
2851:
2848:
2845:
2842:
2812:
2803:
2766:
2763:
2760:
2757:
2723:
2709:
2685:
2682:
2661:
2658:
2641:
2636:
2605:
2603:
2598:
2583:
2580:
2574:
2529:
2457:
2452:
2449:
2373:
2372:
2369:
2363:
2362:
2359:
2327:
2324:
2319:
2314:
2283:
2224:
2221:
2205:
2198:
2178:
2149:
2141:
2128:
2125:
2089:
2058:
2055:
2049:
2043:
2027:
2017:
2007:
1984:
1963:
1942:
1910:Kevin Rutherford
1896:Kevin Rutherford
1882:Kevin Rutherford
1862:
1849:
1846:
1841:
1836:
1786:
1754:
1737:
1697:
1595:
1592:
1586:
1518:Articles created
1478:
1471:
1464:
1455:
1428:
1420:
1379:
1349:General comments
1307:
1208:
1203:
1173:
1168:
1019:User:Pastor Theo
923:
917:
894:admins-only link
527:
524:
519:
514:
452:
329:General question
61:
4543:
4542:
4538:
4537:
4536:
4534:
4533:
4532:
4518:
4517:
4516:
4510:this nomination
4503:
4464:
4409:
4392:
4385:
4369:Septentrionalis
4176:
4173:
4128:
4125:
4092:
4089:
4076:
4071:
4066:
4062:
4044:
4041:
4038:
4035:
4032:
4002:
3999:
3850:
3814:The Pebble Dare
3775:
3768:
3763:
3732:
3729:
3653:
3621:
3574:
3550:
3545:
3531:
3523:
3482:
3478:
3473:
3438:
3432:
3429:
3414:
3408:
3338:
3324:
3313:
3311:
3293:
3276:
3271:
3207:
3201:
3196:
3151:
3144:
3108:
3100:
3098:
3062:
3058:
3048:
3020:
3015:
2964:
2958:
2953:
2927:
2893:
2880:
2875:
2870:
2866:
2852:
2849:
2846:
2843:
2840:
2806:
2797:
2764:
2761:
2758:
2755:
2721:
2705:
2680:
2657:
2654:
2639:
2634:
2601:
2596:
2594:
2569:
2536:
2527:
2487:WP:Net Positive
2453:
2446:
2442:
2418:Is he perfect?
2370:
2367:
2360:
2357:
2322:
2317:
2312:
2308:
2222:
2219:
2203:
2196:
2145:
2139:
2136:A fine editor.
2124:
2121:
2087:
2053:
2047:
2041:
2038:
2023:
2013:
2003:
1990:
1980:
1949:
1940:
1870:
1860:
1844:
1839:
1834:
1831:
1807:
1793:
1784:
1744:
1735:
1704:
1695:
1678:much in advance
1581:
1573:
1568:
1542:
1506:
1485:
1484:RfA/RfB toolbox
1482:
1452:
1424:
1372:
1355:
1351:
1206:
1201:
1171:
1166:
1117:Your first edit
1002:2000 Sugar Bowl
978:User:JKBrooks85
921:
915:
834:strong password
522:
517:
512:
508:
507:Questions from
450:
130:
74:
57:
50:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
4541:
4539:
4531:
4530:
4520:
4519:
4515:
4514:
4498:
4497:
4482:
4473:
4453:
4452:
4451:
4421:
4420:
4419:
4384:
4381:
4380:
4379:
4361:
4338:
4337:
4336:
4335:
4334:
4333:
4332:
4331:
4330:
4329:
4328:
4327:
4317:
4264:
4197:
4196:
4195:
4194:
4193:
4192:
4191:
4190:
4189:
4188:
4187:
4174:
4152:
4126:
4090:
4059:
4058:
4057:
4056:
4055:
4000:
3984:Reaper Eternal
3971:
3969:
3968:
3967:
3966:
3965:
3964:
3963:
3962:
3961:
3960:
3959:
3958:
3957:
3956:
3955:
3845:
3841:
3745:
3744:
3743:
3730:
3679:
3678:
3677:
3652:
3649:
3648:
3647:
3630:
3617:
3606:
3589:
3566:
3538:
3518:
3501:
3492:Strong Support
3489:
3465:
3447:
3422:
3401:
3384:
3363:
3346:
3329:
3320:
3305:
3284:
3263:
3246:
3239:User:Zscout370
3232:
3220:Looks good. -
3215:
3189:
3172:
3160:
3137:
3116:
3092:
3083:
3066:
3056:
3045:
3035:MarmadukePercy
3028:
3007:
2990:
2973:
2960:
2954:
2946:
2934:
2920:
2919:
2918:
2917:
2916:
2831:
2817:
2785:
2771:
2751:
2728:
2722:Steven Walling
2714:
2698:
2668:
2655:
2647:
2626:
2609:
2588:
2559:
2542:
2534:
2518:
2508:Reaper Eternal
2501:
2480:
2463:
2444:
2440:
2413:
2396:
2379:
2348:
2334:Strong support
2331:
2305:
2287:
2266:
2249:
2232:
2211:
2188:
2169:
2154:
2134:
2122:
2113:
2096:
2080:
2062:
2032:
1996:
1988:
1973:
1954:
1947:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1920:
1875:
1868:
1861:The Utahraptor
1853:
1825:
1806:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1791:
1769:
1768:
1751:
1750:
1742:
1725:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1702:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1643:
1642:
1629:
1628:
1616:
1615:
1600:
1570:
1569:
1567:
1566:
1561:
1556:
1550:
1548:
1544:
1543:
1541:
1540:
1535:
1530:
1525:
1520:
1514:
1512:
1508:
1507:
1505:
1504:
1499:
1493:
1491:
1487:
1486:
1483:
1481:
1480:
1473:
1466:
1458:
1451:
1448:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1430:
1421:
1350:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1320:
1310:
1285:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1252:
1231:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1158:
1157:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1098:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1056:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1015:
974:
961:
941:
940:
939:
932:
925:
908:
901:left a message
897:
883:
866:
861:Question from
857:
856:
855:
854:
827:
820:
819:
818:
817:
802:
786:
746:
742:Question from
739:
738:
737:
736:
721:
717:
709:
689:
682:
681:
680:
679:
664:
660:
649:courtesy blank
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
568:
528:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
417:
416:
415:
412:
409:
406:
403:
399:
390:requirements,
384:
373:
362:
351:
307:
300:
299:
298:
297:
289:
267:
266:
265:
264:
254:
253:
252:
251:
239:
238:
237:
236:
216:
197:
196:
195:
194:
167:
166:
165:
164:
129:
126:
125:
124:
73:
70:
49:
44:
43:
42:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4540:
4529:
4526:
4525:
4523:
4513:
4511:
4506:
4500:
4499:
4496:
4492:
4488:
4483:
4481:
4478:
4474:
4472:
4469:
4467:
4460:
4459:
4454:
4450:
4446:
4442:
4437:
4436:
4435:
4431:
4427:
4422:
4418:
4417:
4414:
4412:
4405:
4404:
4403:
4399:
4395:
4387:
4386:
4382:
4378:
4374:
4370:
4365:
4362:
4360:
4356:
4352:
4351:Bali ultimate
4348:
4343:
4340:
4339:
4326:
4323:
4318:
4316:
4311:
4306:
4302:
4297:
4296:
4295:
4292:
4287:
4282:
4281:
4280:
4275:
4270:
4265:
4263:
4260:
4255:
4254:
4253:
4250:
4245:
4244:
4243:
4238:
4233:
4229:
4224:
4220:
4219:WP:CLEANSTART
4215:
4214:
4213:
4210:
4206:
4204:
4198:
4186:
4183:
4181:
4170:
4166:
4165:
4164:
4161:
4157:
4153:
4151:
4148:
4144:
4140:
4139:
4138:
4135:
4133:
4122:
4118:
4114:
4113:
4112:
4109:
4104:
4103:
4102:
4099:
4097:
4086:
4085:
4084:
4080:
4079:
4074:
4069:
4060:
4054:
4050:
4048:
4047:
4027:
4023:
4019:
4014:
4013:
4012:
4009:
4007:
3995:
3994:
3993:
3989:
3985:
3981:
3977:
3972:
3970:
3954:
3950:
3946:
3941:
3940:
3939:
3936:
3932:
3929:
3926:
3922:
3918:
3915:
3912:
3908:
3904:
3901:
3898:
3894:
3890:
3887:
3884:
3880:
3874:
3873:edit conflict
3869:
3868:
3867:
3862:
3858:
3854:
3846:
3842:
3838:
3834:
3833:
3832:
3829:
3825:
3822:
3819:
3815:
3811:
3808:
3807:
3806:
3802:
3798:
3794:
3793:
3792:
3789:
3784:
3783:
3782:
3779:
3778:
3773:
3771:
3766:
3759:
3755:
3754:
3753:
3750:
3746:
3742:
3739:
3737:
3726:
3725:
3724:
3723:
3719:
3715:
3711:
3707:
3702:
3697:
3693:
3689:
3684:
3680:
3676:
3673:
3669:
3668:
3667:
3664:
3660:
3659:
3655:
3654:
3650:
3646:
3642:
3638:
3634:
3631:
3629:
3626:
3624:
3618:
3616:
3613:
3610:
3607:
3605:
3601:
3597:
3593:
3590:
3588:
3585:
3583:
3581:
3579:
3578:
3570:
3567:
3565:
3561:
3557:
3555:
3554:
3548:
3542:
3539:
3537:
3534:
3528:
3526:
3519:
3517:
3513:
3509:
3505:
3502:
3500:
3497:
3493:
3490:
3488:
3485:
3481:
3476:
3469:
3466:
3464:
3460:
3456:
3451:
3448:
3446:
3443:
3441:
3435:
3430::.:â:ââ:â:.:|
3426:
3423:
3421:
3418:
3413:
3411:
3405:
3402:
3400:
3396:
3392:
3388:
3385:
3383:
3379:
3375:
3371:
3367:
3364:
3362:
3358:
3354:
3350:
3347:
3345:
3342:
3333:
3330:
3328:
3323:
3316:
3309:
3306:
3304:
3301:
3300:
3297:
3296:
3289:
3285:
3283:
3280:
3279:
3274:
3267:
3264:
3262:
3258:
3254:
3250:
3247:
3245:
3240:
3236:
3233:
3231:
3227:
3223:
3219:
3216:
3214:
3210:
3204:
3199:
3193:
3190:
3188:
3184:
3180:
3176:
3173:
3171:
3168:
3164:
3161:
3159:
3154:
3149:
3148:
3141:
3138:
3136:
3132:
3128:
3124:
3120:
3117:
3115:
3111:
3105:
3103:
3096:
3093:
3091:
3088:
3084:
3082:
3078:
3074:
3073:Quartermaster
3070:
3067:
3065:
3061:
3055:
3053:
3052:
3046:
3044:
3040:
3036:
3032:
3029:
3027:
3024:
3023:
3018:
3011:
3008:
3006:
3002:
2998:
2994:
2991:
2989:
2985:
2981:
2977:
2974:
2972:
2969:
2967:
2963:
2957:
2950:
2947:
2945:
2942:
2938:
2935:
2933:
2930:
2924:
2921:
2913:
2909:
2905:
2901:
2897:
2890:
2889:
2888:
2884:
2883:
2878:
2873:
2864:
2863:
2862:
2858:
2856:
2855:
2835:
2832:
2830:
2826:
2822:
2818:
2816:
2813:
2811:
2810:
2804:
2802:
2801:
2794:
2790:
2786:
2784:
2780:
2776:
2772:
2770:
2767:
2752:
2750:
2746:
2742:
2738:
2734:
2733:WP:CLEANSTART
2729:
2727:
2724:
2718:
2715:
2713:
2710:
2708:
2707:White Shadows
2702:
2699:
2697:
2692:
2688:
2684:
2676:
2672:
2669:
2667:
2664:
2662:
2651:
2648:
2646:
2643:
2642:
2637:
2630:
2627:
2625:
2621:
2617:
2613:
2610:
2608:
2604:
2599:
2592:
2589:
2587:
2581:
2575:
2567:
2563:
2560:
2558:
2554:
2550:
2546:
2543:
2541:
2538:
2537:
2531:
2530:
2522:
2519:
2517:
2513:
2509:
2505:
2502:
2500:
2496:
2492:
2488:
2484:
2481:
2479:
2475:
2471:
2467:
2464:
2462:
2459:
2456:
2450:
2448:
2434:
2429:
2425:
2424:Close enough.
2422:Is he ideal?
2421:
2417:
2414:
2412:
2408:
2404:
2400:
2397:
2395:
2391:
2387:
2383:
2380:
2378:
2375:
2374:
2364:
2352:
2349:
2347:
2343:
2339:
2335:
2332:
2330:
2326:
2325:
2320:
2315:
2306:
2304:
2301:
2298:
2295:
2291:
2288:
2286:
2282:
2281:
2277:
2270:
2267:
2265:
2261:
2257:
2253:
2250:
2248:
2244:
2240:
2236:
2233:
2231:
2228:
2225:
2215:
2212:
2210:
2207:
2206:
2200:
2199:
2192:
2189:
2187:
2182:
2177:
2173:
2170:
2168:
2165:
2162:
2158:
2155:
2153:
2150:
2148:
2143:
2142:
2135:
2133:
2130:
2129:
2117:
2114:
2112:
2108:
2104:
2100:
2097:
2095:
2092:
2090:
2084:
2081:
2079:
2075:
2071:
2066:
2063:
2061:
2056:
2050:
2044:
2036:
2033:
2031:
2028:
2026:
2021:
2018:
2016:
2011:
2008:
2006:
2000:
1997:
1995:
1992:
1991:
1985:
1983:
1977:
1974:
1972:
1967:
1962:
1958:
1955:
1953:
1950:
1945:
1943:
1937:
1934:
1928:
1925:
1921:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1901:
1897:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1876:
1874:
1871:
1865:
1863:
1857:
1854:
1852:
1848:
1847:
1842:
1837:
1829:
1826:
1824:
1820:
1816:
1812:
1809:
1808:
1804:
1798:
1795:
1794:
1788:
1787:
1777:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1758:
1753:
1752:
1749:
1746:
1745:
1739:
1738:
1731:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1719:
1716:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1706:
1705:
1699:
1698:
1691:
1689:
1685:
1679:
1675:
1671:
1668:
1667:
1658:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1641:
1638:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1627:
1624:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1614:
1611:
1606:
1601:
1599:
1593:
1587:
1579:
1575:
1574:
1565:
1562:
1560:
1557:
1555:
1552:
1551:
1549:
1545:
1539:
1536:
1534:
1531:
1529:
1526:
1524:
1521:
1519:
1516:
1515:
1513:
1509:
1503:
1500:
1498:
1495:
1494:
1492:
1488:
1479:
1474:
1472:
1467:
1465:
1460:
1459:
1456:
1449:
1447:
1446:
1444:
1440:
1431:
1427:
1422:
1418:
1415:
1412:
1409:
1406:
1403:
1400:
1397:
1394:
1391:
1388:
1385:
1382:
1378:
1375:
1371:
1368:
1365:
1362:
1358:
1353:
1352:
1348:
1342:
1339:
1338:
1335:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1318:
1315:
1314:
1311:
1305:
1301:
1296:
1293:
1292:
1289:
1286:
1284:
1280:
1279:
1272:
1269:
1268:
1265:
1260:
1256:
1253:
1249:
1246:
1245:
1242:
1239:
1238:
1235:
1232:
1230:
1226:
1225:
1216:
1213:
1212:
1209:
1204:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1192:
1191:
1188:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1178:
1177:
1174:
1169:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1156:
1153:
1149:
1148:
1141:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1103:
1099:
1097:
1094:
1093:
1088:
1085:
1084:
1081:
1075:
1070:
1067:
1066:
1064:
1060:
1057:
1055:
1051:
1050:
1045:
1042:
1041:
1038:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
962:
958:
955:
954:
953:
950:
946:
942:
937:
933:
930:
926:
920:
913:
909:
906:
902:
898:
895:
892:
888:
884:
882:
878:
877:
875:
870:
867:
865:
864:
863:User:The ed17
859:
858:
853:
850:
849:
846:
841:
838:
837:
835:
832:Do you use a
831:
828:
826:
822:
821:
816:
813:
812:
809:
803:
799:
795:
791:
787:
784:
780:
776:
772:
768:
765:
764:
763:
759:
755:
750:
747:
745:
744:User:Franamax
741:
740:
735:
732:
731:
728:
722:
718:
715:
710:
706:
703:
700:
699:
697:
693:
690:
688:
684:
683:
678:
675:
674:
671:
665:
661:
658:
654:
650:
645:
641:
637:
632:
629:
628:
625:
622:
621:
612:
609:
608:
605:
599:
598:
597:
593:
589:
584:
583:
582:
579:
578:
575:
569:
565:
560:
555:
551:
547:
543:
538:
535:
534:
532:
529:
526:
525:
520:
515:
506:
505:
496:
493:
492:
489:
484:
481:
478:
475:
472:
468:
463:
460:
459:
458:
455:
453:
446:
445:
440:
437:
436:
435:
432:
431:
428:
423:
418:
413:
410:
407:
404:
400:
397:
393:
389:
385:
382:
378:
374:
371:
366:
365:
363:
360:
356:
352:
349:
344:
340:
336:
333:
332:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
311:
308:
306:
302:
301:
294:
290:
287:
283:
278:
275:
274:
272:
269:
268:
262:
258:
257:
256:
255:
248:
243:
242:
241:
240:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
214:
213:
208:
205:
204:
202:
199:
198:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
170:
169:
168:
161:
156:
152:
148:
144:
141:
140:
138:
135:
134:
133:
127:
123:
120:
119:
116:
111:
110:
109:
108:
105:
104:
101:
96:
92:
88:
85:
82:
78:
71:
69:
68:
64:
62:
60:
54:
48:
45:
41:
35:
32:
27:
26:
19:
4504:
4501:
4461:
4457:
4410:
4406:
4363:
4341:
4300:
4285:
4199:
4182:
4168:
4156:welcomed him
4142:
4134:
4120:
4116:
4098:
4063:
4031:
4025:
4021:
4017:
4008:
3927:
3921:Mrs. Wolpoff
3913:
3899:
3885:
3820:
3809:
3769:
3761:
3738:
3682:
3681:
3657:
3656:
3632:
3622:
3591:
3576:
3575:
3568:
3552:
3551:
3540:
3524:
3503:
3491:
3471:
3467:
3449:
3439::.:â:ââ:â:.:
3428:
3424:
3409:
3403:
3386:
3365:
3348:
3331:
3307:
3299:
3292:
3287:
3269:
3265:
3248:
3234:
3217:
3191:
3174:
3162:
3146:
3139:
3123:net positive
3118:
3101:
3094:
3068:
3050:
3049:
3030:
3013:
3009:
2992:
2975:
2961:
2955:
2948:
2936:
2922:
2894:â Preceding
2867:
2839:
2833:
2808:
2807:
2799:
2798:
2789:Sailsbystars
2741:Sailsbystars
2736:
2716:
2706:
2700:
2674:
2670:
2663:
2649:
2632:
2628:
2611:
2590:
2561:
2544:
2533:
2526:
2520:
2503:
2482:
2465:
2454:
2439:
2432:
2427:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2398:
2381:
2354:
2350:
2333:
2309:
2289:
2273:
2268:
2251:
2234:
2213:
2202:
2195:
2190:
2171:
2156:
2146:
2137:
2119:
2115:
2098:
2082:
2064:
2034:
2024:
2019:
2014:
2009:
2004:
2001:per Trebor.
1998:
1987:
1981:
1975:
1956:
1935:
1922:Indented. --
1877:
1855:
1832:
1827:
1810:
1790:
1783:
1775:
1741:
1734:
1729:
1724:
1701:
1694:
1687:
1683:
1681:
1673:
1669:
1649:
1604:
1436:
1435:
1413:
1407:
1401:
1395:
1389:
1383:
1376:
1369:
1363:
1332:
1323:
1299:
1294:
1287:
1262:
1254:
1247:
1240:
1233:
1211:(yada, yada)
1199:
1185:
1176:(yada, yada)
1164:
1120:
1109:
1108:
1101:
1100:
1095:
1078:
1068:
1058:
1035:
1022:
994:Bobby Bowden
956:
868:
860:
843:
839:
829:
825:Morgankevinj
806:
766:
748:
725:
701:
691:
668:
630:
623:
602:
588:64.183.42.24
572:
536:
530:
509:
486:
461:
447:
443:
438:
425:
421:
391:
334:
328:
317:This article
312:
309:
276:
270:
209:
206:
200:
147:Did You Know
142:
136:
131:
113:
98:
83:
75:
58:
52:
51:
46:
30:
28:
4441:Mkativerata
4426:Mkativerata
4347:User:Rlevse
4178:ofutwitch11
4130:ofutwitch11
4094:ofutwitch11
4004:ofutwitch11
3758:latest sock
3734:ofutwitch11
3706:Pastor Theo
3525:HJÂ Mitchell
2997:Graham Colm
2941:Chick Bowen
2659:ofutwitch11
2292:per above.
2274:RJaguar3 |
2256:Newyorkbrad
1564:User rights
1554:CentralAuth
1322:Free as in
1259:Peer Review
1031:User:Rlevse
945:Pastor Theo
798:DYK version
471:User:Allen3
394:if it is a
305:Mkativerata
91:Connecticut
4373:PMAnderson
4301:discussion
3980:WP:SOFIXIT
3879:Ecoleetage
3853:HairedGirl
3844:candidate?
3596:Keepscases
3455:Tryptofish
3391:Racepacket
3253:Epeefleche
2683:HairedGirl
2597:SPhilbrick
2528:Wifione
2386:Nikkimaria
2118:Why not? -
2005:Sumsum2010
1785:Wifione
1781:sincerity.
1736:Wifione
1696:Wifione
1670:Note to Ed
1547:Cross-wiki
1538:AfD closes
1450:Discussion
1283:Keepscases
1229:Racepacket
1129:third edit
1077:recently.
881:first edit
392:especially
72:Nomination
31:successful
4305:Ajraddatz
4269:Ajraddatz
4232:Ajraddatz
3907:Joal Beal
3696:this page
3637:Lord Roem
3353:bobrayner
3294:Nolelover
3051:Wizardman
2470:KeptSouth
2176:Ajraddatz
1938:Why not?
1578:Grondemar
1533:AfD votes
1528:BLP edits
1399:block log
1357:Grondemar
1337:Grondemar
1304:Wikileaks
1267:Grondemar
1190:Grondemar
1133:10th edit
1083:Grondemar
1040:Grondemar
848:Grondemar
811:Grondemar
730:Grondemar
673:Grondemar
636:WP:AUTHOR
607:Grondemar
577:Grondemar
491:Grondemar
439:Follow up
430:Grondemar
402:sources).
355:Moni Guha
339:WP:ERRORS
321:WP:ERRORS
118:Grondemar
103:Grondemar
77:Grondemar
47:Grondemar
4522:Category
4143:anything
3935:Dylan620
3931:contribs
3917:contribs
3903:contribs
3889:contribs
3861:contribs
3828:Dylan620
3824:contribs
3560:contribs
3508:Robofish
3483:Chequers
3322:contribs
3308:Support:
3249:Support:
3222:Ret.Prof
3218:Support:
3179:Dabomb87
2908:contribs
2896:unsigned
2821:Jclemens
2691:contribs
2591:Support.
2545:Support.
2403:Lambanog
2300:three...
2223:Interior
2164:Fatuorum
2068:favor.--
1948:Contribs
1941:Armbrust
1924:Dylan620
1869:Contribs
1776:applause
1774:<<
1757:Franamax
1511:Analysis
1490:Counters
1367:contribs
905:WT:TFA/R
796:and the
754:Franamax
542:WP:BLOCK
377:reliable
87:contribs
4487:Johnbod
4393:Georgia
4383:Neutral
4209:Spartaz
4203:Spartaz
4026:support
4018:looking
3976:WP:BOLD
3756:Theo's
3633:Support
3592:Support
3577:Mr R00t
3569:Support
3541:Support
3504:Support
3496:Acps110
3468:Support
3450:Support
3404:Support
3387:Support
3370:Nephron
3366:Support
3349:Support
3332:Support
3288:support
3266:Support
3235:Support
3192:Support
3175:Support
3163:Support
3140:Support
3127:cmadler
3119:Support
3102:Peter.C
3095:Support
3069:Support
3031:Support
3016:upstate
3010:Support
2993:Support
2976:Support
2949:Support
2937:Support
2928:AniMate
2923:Support
2834:Support
2775:Wehwalt
2737:support
2717:Support
2701:Support
2671:Support
2650:Support
2629:Support
2612:Support
2562:Support
2535:.......
2521:Support
2504:Support
2483:Support
2466:Support
2447:anguard
2433:current
2416:Support
2399:Support
2382:Support
2361:rakatoa
2338:Nyttend
2290:Support
2269:Support
2252:Support
2235:Support
2214:Support
2191:Support
2172:Support
2161:Malleus
2157:Support
2116:Support
2099:Support
2083:Support
2070:Hokeman
2065:Support
2035:Support
1999:Support
1976:Support
1961:Jeepday
1957:Support
1936:Support
1878:Support
1856:Support
1840:Science
1828:Support
1811:Support
1805:Support
1792:.......
1743:.......
1703:.......
1374:deleted
1152:Spartaz
1011:WT:TFAR
1006:WP:TFAR
687:Gfoley4
567:judge.)
388:WP:NPOV
4364:Oppose
4342:Oppose
4228:WP:SPI
4223:WP:DBQ
4022:should
3893:Warrah
3857:(talk)
3810:@Soap:
3683:Oppose
3658:Oppose
3651:Oppose
3433:pepper
3337:Snotty
3197:Minima
3167:Jayjg
3147:Wexcan
3087:Secret
2809:Waters
2800:Calmer
2687:(talk)
2616:Banana
2573:GĆoley
2227:(Talk)
2126:ASTILY
1815:Trebor
1648:There
1585:GĆoley
1497:XTools
1207:crewer
1172:crewer
1074:WP:CDA
1063:Recall
919:hangon
714:WP:IAR
653:WP:BLP
564:WP:UAA
559:WP:BLP
550:WP:NLT
482:, and
396:WP:BLP
370:WP:IAR
359:WP:BLP
343:WT:DYK
325:WT:DYK
286:WP:BRD
180:, and
4411:Nakon
4391:Sandy
4072:COMMS
4067:ĆETCH
3851:Brown
3623:Nakon
3479:Spiel
3152:Talk
2900:Dusti
2876:COMMS
2871:ĆETCH
2739:.
2681:Brown
2675:don't
2640:amuse
2635:Cind.
2491:Aeonx
2318:COMMS
2313:ĆETCH
2197:WAYNE
2140:ceran
1835:Nerdy
1779:: -->
1778:: -->
1439:civil
1381:count
1324:libre
1054:Dusti
1023:prove
914:what
518:COMMS
513:ĆETCH
348:WP:QS
235:make.
16:<
4491:talk
4465:Talk
4445:talk
4430:talk
4398:Talk
4355:talk
4310:Talk
4286:have
4274:Talk
4237:Talk
4169:Harm
4167:His
4121:Yes.
3988:talk
3978:and
3949:talk
3925:talk
3911:talk
3897:talk
3883:talk
3818:talk
3801:talk
3770:Soap
3718:talk
3701:here
3641:talk
3609:Step
3600:talk
3512:talk
3474:Ϣere
3459:talk
3395:talk
3357:talk
3339:Wong
3314:Gggh
3257:talk
3226:talk
3208:talk
3183:talk
3131:talk
3109:talk
3077:talk
3039:talk
3021:NYer
3001:talk
2984:talk
2904:talk
2825:talk
2787:Per
2779:talk
2745:talk
2673:. I
2620:talk
2579:Four
2553:talk
2512:talk
2495:talk
2474:talk
2455:Wha?
2443:ven
2428:Yes.
2407:talk
2390:talk
2371:atie
2342:talk
2260:talk
2243:talk
2204:SLAM
2181:Talk
2147:thor
2107:talk
2074:talk
2042:mc10
1982:Reyk
1966:talk
1914:talk
1900:talk
1886:talk
1845:Dude
1819:talk
1761:talk
1605:good
1591:Four
1426:here
1411:rfar
1393:logs
1361:talk
1300:want
1202:brew
1167:brew
936:knew
929:knew
912:knew
783:here
758:talk
592:talk
546:WP:U
451:Talk
81:talk
59:xeno
55:by â
4117:No.
3859:⢠(
3612:hen
3553:Mid
3546:Hey
3425:Yes
3410:Axl
3277:Why
2793:DYK
2689:⢠(
2566:DYK
2420:No.
2297:two
2294:One
2220:The
1989:YO!
1688:our
1684:our
1650:are
1580:. â
1417:spi
1387:AfD
1288:14.
1234:13.
1125:cat
1121:all
1059:11.
903:on
891:G11
869:10.
422:all
341:or
323:or
250:by.
190:RfC
65:at
4524::
4493:)
4477:Ed
4458:NW
4447:)
4432:)
4400:)
4357:)
4322:AD
4303:.
4291:Ed
4259:AD
4249:Ed
4221:,
4160:Ed
4147:AD
4108:Ed
3990:)
3951:)
3803:)
3788:Ed
3749:Ed
3720:)
3672:Ed
3663:Ed
3643:)
3602:)
3562:)
3529:|
3514:)
3461:)
3453:--
3397:)
3359:)
3290:.
3272:So
3259:)
3237:.
3228:)
3211:)
3185:)
3133:)
3106:â˘
3079:)
3041:)
3033:.
3003:)
2986:)
2910:)
2906:â˘
2827:)
2781:)
2756:Hi
2747:)
2622:)
2584:â
2555:)
2514:)
2497:)
2489:.
2476:)
2409:)
2392:)
2344:)
2278:|
2262:)
2245:)
2109:)
2076:)
1916:)
1902:)
1888:)
1821:)
1763:)
1715:Ed
1654:Ed
1637:AD
1623:Ed
1610:AD
1596:â
1405:lu
1319:.)
1295:A:
1241:A:
1137:AD
1110:A:
1102:12
1069:A:
957:A:
949:Ed
922:}}
916:{{
876::
840:A:
830:9.
785:).
777:,
773:,
767:A:
760:)
749:8.
702:A:
698:?
692:7.
631:A:
624:6.
594:)
537:A:
531:5.
479:,
476:,
462:A:
444:NW
335:A:
315::
310:4.
277:A:
271:3.
207:A:
201:2.
176:,
143:A:
137:1.
36:.
4489:(
4468:)
4462:(
4443:(
4428:(
4396:(
4353:(
4349:?
4312:)
4308:(
4276:)
4272:(
4239:)
4235:(
4175:T
4127:T
4091:T
4077:/
4064:/
4045:i
4042:t
4039:s
4036:u
4033:D
4001:T
3986:(
3947:(
3928:¡
3923:(
3914:¡
3909:(
3900:¡
3895:(
3886:¡
3881:(
3875:)
3871:(
3863:)
3821:¡
3816:(
3799:(
3776:â
3764:â
3731:T
3716:(
3639:(
3598:(
3558:(
3510:(
3457:(
3436:|
3415:¤
3393:(
3378:C
3376:|
3374:T
3355:(
3319:/
3255:(
3224:(
3205:(
3202:c
3181:(
3129:(
3075:(
3037:(
2999:(
2982:(
2965:a
2962:k
2959:n
2956:I
2902:(
2881:/
2868:/
2853:i
2850:t
2847:s
2844:u
2841:D
2823:(
2777:(
2765:8
2762:7
2759:8
2743:(
2693:)
2656:T
2618:(
2602:T
2582:âŁ
2576:â
2570:â
2551:(
2510:(
2493:(
2472:(
2445:M
2441:S
2405:(
2388:(
2368:K
2358:K
2340:(
2323:/
2310:/
2280:t
2276:u
2258:(
2241:(
2183:)
2179:(
2123:F
2105:(
2088:Ĺ
2072:(
2057:)
2054:c
2051:/
2048:t
2045:(
2039:â
2025:C
2020:¡
2015:T
2010:¡
1968:)
1964:(
1912:(
1898:(
1884:(
1866:/
1817:(
1759:(
1594:âŁ
1588:â
1582:â
1477:e
1470:t
1463:v
1429:.
1419:)
1414:¡
1408:¡
1402:¡
1396:¡
1390:¡
1384:¡
1377:¡
1370:¡
1364:¡
1359:(
1334:â
1264:â
1187:â
1080:â
1037:â
896:)
845:â
808:â
756:(
727:â
670:â
604:â
590:(
574:â
540:(
523:/
510:/
488:â
454:)
448:(
427:â
215:.
115:â
100:â
84:¡
79:(
40:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.