Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Hdt83 4

2505:

wanted to give it three months out of respect to the process and prove (to myself as well as the community) that I had addressed the concerns. I switched my PC on, on the 10th September, to discover an RfA created with three nominators already (later expanded to six, but we all know that's probably too many!). So I ran the second time about a week short of three months. The key thing (and with the greatest respect to the candidate) was that I was nominated, and indeed nominated by people who had opposed my first application. I have nothing at all aginst self noms - heck they're vital so we don't miss great editors and self nomination is not a reason to oppose. But four RfA's in five months (as we have here) cumulatively looks like rushed judgement. In short there's no hard and fast rule but after a failed RfA or two I think the community would look more "kindly" on a candidate who was then nominated rather than self nominated.

2485:. I don't mean to single anyone out or seem angry or anything like that, but I'm curious. Candidates who have failed RfAs are often told to reapply in a couple or a few months. I thought that three months was about right. This RfA comes about a week shy of three months, but there are quite a few who think that this is too soon for Hdt to reapply. I understand that another reason that some are opposing is that it's another self-nomination. Had someone else nominated xem, would this be too soon? How long should xe have waited before nominating xyrself again, if ever? 2430:

more common among the admins with little interest in content creation but a greater interest in being in a position to tell others what to do (bossy attitude). The admins often have to make a judgment on the issues that very much affect the article writers who are mostly concerned about the content. Appreciating these concerns is very difficult without a significant involvement in the content creation. At least one must demonstrate a significant interest in the content creation even if lack of time prevents one from contributing much at the time. --

1454:– A solid contributor, lots of encyclopaedic edits and strong answers to questions. It seems unfair what is happening here and I see a troubling pattern, no one in oppose has provided a diff that would raise a red flag. Yet many are jumping on the oppose band wagon, merely because it is a self-nom or the answers are not viewed as long enough or the last RfA was too recent. But do not back up these claims with any diffs or valid objections, to state why Hdt83 is currently unqualified for adminship.-- 2292:

He took it in stride, kept working hard, and has now applied after three months. That means it's now been five months since the initial RFA failed (and again it was on fairly minor grounds). I don't know, I'm pretty conservative with my judgment at RFA, but he did what was asked, has done some good article work beyond what was asked, and has raised no flags with his behavior otherwise. --

3046: 238:

that you must be able to take constructive criticism and help make it improve upon your editing skills. By listening to other editors and improving yourself based on their observations, you better understand what problems you need to fix and improve upon. These two things among others I have learned the most from my previous rfas.

1009:"I am opposing this qualified candidate because they ran in the last election." "I am opposing this candidate becuase only 43.7% of his otherwise sufficiently numerous campaign appearances were in states/provinces that I like." If you voted this way in real life people would stare blankly and wordlessly at best. 3049:

I think you're a great user; you've got vandal-fighting experience, AfD experience and, most importantly, mainspace experience. However, I don't like impatient people; give it some time if this fails, and if it doesn't, and you get the tools, remember that life is too short to be going at 100 mph all

3022:

No, Scott, I completely agree with your reasoning that adminship is about wanting to serve the community. However, if judged at an RfA that one is not ready yet, it seems to me that there should be a decent-sized waiting period before coming back and seeing if improvements have been made. Coming back

2702:

per answers to my questions and above concerns. The idea behind asking these questions was to find out whether the candidate had an opinion on any of these issues. Apparently that is not the case. This lack of opinion would account of a neutral stance instead of supporting, but above concerns push me

2615:

I don't care about the mainspace editing. That is just fine with me. What is concerning is the self nomination after so many RfAs where opposers have suggested that the candidate get someone else to nominate. I am agreeing with Xoloz, Daniel, EVula, and Pedro here that waiting for someone to nominate

1834:

I am opposing now because of the short time since your last RFA. It is great you have 14,000 edits, but you only have 4,400 mainspace edits. You also have applied 4 time (including this one). In a period of 6 months, this is way to much. You should wait, and let things subside. Keep up the good work,

1512:

I haven't seen any substantial or persuasive reasons from the "oppose" camp. Actually, I think they are mostly astonishingly weak arguments. Too many RfAs? I would hope people could look a little deeper than that. Answers above are relatively solid although a few could be stronger. I don't think I've

2291:

I opposed last time on similar grounds, so hopefully I don't seem rude in wondering out loud if we should maybe reconsider this time. His initial RFA failed on fairly minor grounds, his second and third RFA failed for not waiting long enough and at the third people said "wait at least two months."

2046:

I also note that the expanded reasoning makes equally little sense in light of the drastic needs for new admins that won't abuse the tools, and are willing to work with the mop. Clearly, 14000+ contribs demonstrate he's willing to work. We need to do some SERIOUS thinking about how we do these RfAs,

1539:

After careful consideration, I've changed my mind. Three months is enough time to wait, especially while racking up 3,000 more edits while waiting. I disagree with the editcountitis that's happening in the Oppose section, which is why I was neutral, but overall the arguments against are pretty weak.

1289:

User that fights vandalism. This user is very polite, nice, and respectful to others even if another user is very impolite to this user. Also welcomes new editors to Knowledge and helps new users. When an user asks him how to certain things in Knowledge he almost always responds. This is also a very

438:

IAR is one of the most fundamental aspects of Knowledge in that it allows the community to decide things based on consensus. Without IAR, the community would be unable to improve Knowledge to what it is now as the numerous policies and guidelines would get in the way. IAR is basically another way of

270:

I would have to say freedom for anyone to edit Knowledge because even though vandalism will occur as a result, the contributions from anons far outweigh the negatives. If the reader however does see mistakes, than they can also edit and remove it themselves or ask for help. By letting everyone edit,

3008:

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "my way", as I have no dog in this fight, other than what is best for the project. I have never met this potential admin, and never had any interactions with him. I simply looked at the evidence (over 14000 contribs, over 4000 mainspace contribs) and saw a user

2771:

Bit unsure here, as I do commend your willingness and desire to take on a bit of extra responsibility to help the project. I also like that you nominated yourself; shows good initiative, and being an administrator is not that big a deal that we need people nominating others. That said, I am a bit

894:

write), amount of RfAs, roughly over a third of his edits are to the mainspace, the possibility that he "wants to be an admin" (why else would he run?), and the fact this is a self-nomination. None of these issues display that he would be abusive; and in fact, has any evidence to show that he would

845:

I and two other editors gave Hdt83 high marks for helping at the help desk and patrolling recent changes in an editor review back in June (linked in "Discussion" above). It's clear to me that the last four-five months have yielded continuing growth, so I think the candidate is ready for adminship.

237:

I have learned several things from my three previous attempts. One is that civility is of the utmost importance in being an admin. If you're not civil, then effective communication between other editors is hampered thus preventing the improvement of the encyclopedia. Another thing I have learned is

2504:

That's a perfectly good question. From my experience I was nominated for adminship on the 21st June, withdrawing at around 75 / 80% support on the 25th after a number of opposes that pointed out some serious shortfalls. I was offered a number of nominations after that (in early and mid August) but

2460:

Im really sorry Hdt83, but your self nomination so soon after a previous failed RfA concerns me that you would also rush at things with the buttons. I'm not enjoying this oppose, and I bet you're not enyjoying the sledge hammer that every oppose brings, but I have to be honest in my feelings after

2429:

per JzG, EVula, Hdt83' and Xoloz. Seems to see adminship as a goal in itself, alarming. Insufficient interest to content writing is another big problem here. While some of non-writing admins are actually good ones, the wrong judgment and especially the wrong attitude towards other editors are much

2312:

Seriously though, please re-read my statement. I make it very clear that I have no problem with self-noms; the frequency is only an issue because it has been an issue for the past RfAs, in which several editors (myself included) suggested that the Hdt83 not only wait a few months before running an

1742:

Sorry, I'm going to have to oppose this. Since very late May 2007 up until now, you have had four RfA's...which shows clear intentions to only become an administrator on Knowledge. I must also point out the answer to Q3 is not very good, one can only learn how to do deal with conflicts by being in

364:

if the subject contains absolutely no trace of being notable and sources cannot be found for the subject. Such pages include "John Doe is a student at Wiki High School", "Jane is the best in the world" and so on. If at least some sources can be found for the subject, then the article should not be

306:

I am slightly confused by this question. If you mean anonymous like in IP address, than IP addresses can't create articles (yet...). However, I would still notify the editor of the problem with his/her article and see if an improvement can be made before deleting the article. If the editor was not

281:

Suppose the following situation happens. "Editor 1" edits an article to read "A", and "Editor 2" reverts, so the article reads "B". The two editors go through the whole three revert cycle, with both editors getting blocked, and version "B" as the current version. There was no talk page discussion,

2808:

are two completely different articles? Not this guy, hehe. I think I was a bit confused, there! Unfortunately, my opposition remains, as I often like to see significant article writing for potential administrators, and I do think you overstate your contributions to those articles quite a bit.

1821:

At the end of the day, becoming an administrator is no big deal. You're treating it like we're electing someone to office. WP needs admins that will be good with the mop, not that meet someone's arbitrary standard of "worthiness." This user clearly does. These oppose votes are rather pointless, I

1135:, there is no evidence that this user will have any judgment issues, as there is sufficient understanding of how Knowledge works. Being involved in Adopt-A-User shows how an experienced user can effectively deal with a newer contributor. I trust that this user will not mis/abuse the tools, so I 1064:

promote admins for two reasons... to uphold policy while wielding their mops, and to occasionally make difficult decisions while doing so (cf. Daniel Brandt, etc.). While collaboration on a disputed article provides insight on how a candidate will behave when a situation gets heated, to me, their

911:

reasons to oppose. I see no evidence that the user would abuse or misuse sysop rights. The "too soon since last RfA" reason had been brought up in the 2nd rfa. Enough time has elapsed since then. And enough improvement. Also agree with above stated reasoning. And the edit count argument mentioned

867:

WP needs admins people, and self-noms should NOT affect whether a person supports or opposes the nominee. Neither should the fact that he doesn't get into conflicts. This is clearly a careful editor, who would not misuse the tools, and would do his best to help out where he could. If we turn down

665:

It's a sad commentary on RfA that a good editor like this appears to be going down. Do we, or do we not need more good faith editors as admins people? If so, we need to stop demanding that good faith editors meet some arbitrary edit count (or other) standard we construct. If they are a good faith

1982:

One note. People should at least have to give SOME type of SENSIBLE reason for an oppose. Saying you would support a user for adminship who had 4400/5000 edits to mainspace, but not one who has the same number of edits out of 14,400? That is ludicrous on the face of it, plain and simple. And the

389:

The article is not properly protected under Knowledge policy. The article history shows very little in the way of anon IP vandalism or . Only a couple of IPs have edited in the past month and even though their edits were reverted, their edits were not vandalism but good faith edits that did not

288:

I would protect the current version (the "B" version) since it was the stable version that existed before "Editor 1" edited it to read the "A" version. Once the editors are unblocked, I would help make sure that the two editors discuss the versions they were trying to edit in and to come to a

439:

saying that rules on Knowledge are not rigid and that if something doesn't work, then one should be able to ignore the rules if it help improve Knowledge. However this does not mean IAR is an excuse for disrupting Knowledge as there is a distinction between disrupting and improving Knowledge.

202:

I haven't been in any recent conflicts although if I were to get in to one, I would take it by first talking with the editors involved and then trying to come to an agreement. If that doesn't work, than I would consult another person to help mediate the discussion and give suggestions. If it

2590:. If you're trying to move a big boulder, and you try for one minute and can't do it, you're not gonna be able to move it if you try a minute later. If you can't move it, then you have to find your weaknesses, put the task aside, and get stronger so you can do it at a much later time. 1792:

As above, really. Coming back every time you've clocked up a couple of hundred more edits does not cut it for me. A solid six months of industrious Wikignoming without an RfA, with a nomination by someone else, that would be fine, but repeated self-nominations raise re flags for me.

2264:

to nominate (which is something that has been mentioned numerous times prior). His answer to Question #4 states "nother thing I have learned is that you must be able to take constructive criticism", but I'm not actually seeing that he's listening to the people who are advising that he

1065:

participation in wikispace sheds a lot more light on their behavior and understanding of policy. Some of our best admins have little to no mainspace contributions to their name, and some of our most profilic content writers would have their prospective RfAs shouted down in hours.

2007:

Bureaucrats can discount ridiculous votes like this, at their discretion. Politics rule has been told about his editcountitis many times, but continues to use it as a rationale. Sadly we have to put up with it, but any sensible bureaucrat will not take it into consideration.

77:) - Hi, my name is Hdt83 and I wish to further help out the community by requesting adminship. I have been on Knowledge since September 2006 and really got active the around the beginning of this year. I have contributed to many different areas of the encyclopedia including 2974:

Disappointed in this, after seeing your RfA previous. Admin work isn't about power, it's about responsibility with the mop. I think this user has clearly shown he'd be good mop-wielder, and the admins I know would ALL agree need more of those. As I said, disappointing.

2442:

Per above. 4 requests for adminship should surely show the user in question that they should wait until they are nominated. However, this user is good at fighting vandalism etc. and should be seen from that perspective aswell. But for now, I am going to oppose.

1762:

The two good articles are a good thing, but I am mainly opposing because of this user's constant returning for a request for adminship, I have no doubt that Hdt83 would not abuse the tools, but I think the four RfA's within only 5 months is rather a worry.

2585:

Being eager isn't necessarily a bad thing. Hdt83 submitted his first self-nom in May, and now made this one in October. That's four self-nominations in a five-month span. If you try month after month after month, then the odds of them being successful

2220:

know this isn't the way or forum for what they are trying to express or achieve (which in this case, I'm guessing, is to raise community awareness for a certain issue). Admins, just like the rest of us, should not be allowed to troll a Knowledge process.

675:

It appears this nom will be right on the line (currently at 68.18%). Hopefully the 'crats will take into account the canvassing that some editors (and even admins) are doing at RfA, blanketing all with opposes, when they make the final decision on Hdt83.

299:

An anonymous editor who has previously written half a featured article creates a page that obviously meets the CSD criteria. You know of the editor's previous contributions. What would you do? Would this be different if the editor had not been anonymous?

1776:

So it's a bad thing that he wants to be an admin? As long as he uses the tools correctly and efficiently, I don't see what the problem is; plus you just said yourself that you don't think he will abuse the tools, so if you believe that, why oppose?

3009:

who was being unfairly opposed for little or no reason at all. As for the note just above, it was not addressed to you, so perhaps--unless you have a comment on the substance of it--you should refrain from posting non sequiturs in response to it.

1700:

I prefer to answer questions in a short, clear, and succinct way as possible. Long and confusing passages of text are just as bad as one word yes/no answers. So I opt for a middle ground where the answers are to the point and not lengthy.

3023:

several times like this seems to suggest, at least to me, a different motivation for the tools. I'm sorry if I've disappointed you, but hopefully you've seen that people are actually opposing for this same reasoning, not just neutral.

2317:

to nominate. The fact that the candidate specifically states that constructive criticism is important (which it is) and then turns around and (seemingly) ignores said constructive criticism, is the crux of my opposition. The frequency

2874:. You seem to be giving yourself too much pressure to be an admin. Admin is not a big deal, really! The more effort you put to become admin, you'll find that the harder you will successful becoming one. When it comes, it comes. 463:, if another admin blocks an editor and you do not support this block, than you should first try to contact the blocking admin and talk things over. If the blocking admin is away and can't respond, then I would post a notice on 1916:

That means he has 8,000 to other areas of the Wiki. And you didn't answer my question. Are you saying if someone had 5,000 edits with 4400 to the mainspace, you would support? What would be an "acceptable percentage"?

2723:

4 self noms in last 6 months seems excessive. Seems like after 3 defeated self nominations, they should probably wait for an admin nomination. Agree with others that this user seems in a "rush" to become an admin.

2255:

only three months after his last self-nom, which was a month-and-a-half after his last self-nom, which was a month after his very first self-nom. Now, don't get me wrong; I don't have a problem with self-noms (no

2416:

per the above. Frequency of self-nominations, together with sparse answers, suggests a candidate who may be eager for adminship for the wrong reasons. Patience, judgment, temperament all called into question.

1688:

The lack of comprehensive answers to the questions (most are not longer than three or four sentences). In other words (and I may be wrong) this appears to be a throw-off-another-RfA-and-see-if-it-passes case. —

889:

Hdt83 appears to have addressed the concerns raised in his first RfA, where he was opposed for incivility. Now what is he being opposed for? Not enough article writing (despite doing some to demonstrate he

2347::# Yet another self nomination soon since your previous RfA makes me doubt your judgement... people want to see solid months of hard work, not a couple of months with a slight increase since last time. ~ 2740:

There is nothing wrong with having four RfAs within 6 months. If Hdt83 has improved a lot within one month, and is ready to be an admin, then he/she can have an RfA, and there is nothing wrong with that.

1885:

Okay, now I am criticising - that's a truly poor reason to oppose. Are you saying if someone had 5,000 edits with 4400 to the mainspace, you would support? What would be an "acceptable percentage"?

1484:

I find all of your nominations in such a short period of time to be very annoying, but there is nothing that I see that makes me believe you will be abusive. If you do not get adminship, please wait

2921:

I'm not keen on you coming back again and again to RFA - wait till someone nominates you. (I'm sure I said that in your last RFA too). No reason to oppose though, but no reason to support either, so

2762:

per Daniel, Xoloz and Guy. I agree strongly with those in the oppose and neutrals sections who are advising you to hold off coming back to RFA until someone you respect is willing to nominate you.

2168:

Wow. Just wow. How is it that 4400+ mainspace edits equates to an "insufficient level of actual writing of text"? Man, I do hope that the closing bureaucrat discards these without merit opposes.

1047:

I disagree. Article writing demonstrates ability to work civilly with others and knowledge of our content policies, which, last time I checked, are enforced by and the point of having admins. --

820:, from personal experience. Has helped me out greatly in my wiki-adventures. I feel like I am a better editor thanks to his advise and feel Knowledge is a better place with his contributions. -- 178:

This is a tough question. I would have to say all of my contributions help further the encyclopedia and because of that, there isn't a "best" one. My favorite would probably be my GA articles (

957:

I was going to write a spiel about how I've seen Hdt83 around and haven't noticed any problems and the reasons for opposition below do not concern me, but Acalamari counters the opposes well,

1743:

them themselves, you'll learn how to resolve it and how to act, if you were involved in one. My advice is keep editing solidly for 4/5 months including article writing, keep your head up :)

2558:– This is the fourth RfA in the past five months. I think you should wait much more than a month before making another self-noimnation. You seem a bit too eager to use the extra tools. 1513:

ever seen an RfA with as many as 12 questions. Looks to me like Hdt83 has progressed quite a bit and is trustworthy. (shakes head sadly and mutters inaudible imprecations under breath.)

186:) as creating a good article takes a lot of time and effort. By helping to improve these articles, you feel good in that you not only improved the articles, you also improved Knowledge. 2949:, mostly per Majorly. You have a great edit count, but coming back again and again to RfA definitely says something about your want for power, and that reflects rather poorly. Sorry. 2688:

Way to assume bad faith. And way to cut and paste that same assumption of bad faith into several different RfAs. Here's hoping the 'crats discard such blatant bad faith assumptions.

1201:- S/He has improved since his last RfA. I also feel that s/he will not abuse the tools, and has spent enough time in article-space. I can't oppose based on that alone. Best regards, 2576:

Whats wrong with being eager? If u wern't eager, than you wouldn't have applied for becomin an admin. Also it looks like its been 3 months since his last rfa which is a long time.

129:

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

2396:

Oppose per Guy and EVula, Hdt83's actions in nominating himself so soon after all of his previous RfA's came to the conclusion that he should wait longer and also for someone

2984:(By the way, that wasn't a veiled threat to switch to oppose on your nom. It was just letting you know in good faith that this neutral is kind of disappointing, that's all.) 940:

I am glad you desire to be an admin - something would be wrong if you didn't but still went through all of this. In readind the opposers, I see little real reason to oppose.

718:

ASince his last RfA, he's certainly gained a broader knowledge in the general workings of the project, and there is nothing that leads me to think he will misuse the tools.

467:

and see what other admins and editors think about the block before taking any action. I intend to adhere fully to this policy since going against it could lead to disruptive

3070:, largely per Majorly. Editcountitis is silly, but at the same time waiting for a nom this time would have been better. I'm a little uncomfortable supporting at this time - 651:

This page has been semi-protected for the duration of the nomination due to numerous bad-faith accounts being registered solely for the purpose of opposing this candidate.

93:

and am involved in several wikiprojects. I have created several articles and improved upon many others (including 2 GAs). I am also a good vandal-fighter and am active at

2121:

Please remain civil and respectful. What may look like "nonsense" to you may actually be a pretty good argument to others, and you have no right to deem it invalid. --

196:

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?

1901:

Neil, I invite you, and all members, to look at his edit count. He has over 6,000 of his 14,000 edits to his talk page and his user page. I find that a huge number.

453:)...You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it? 154:

which is one of the most persistently backlogged areas on Knowledge. I also have experience at xfds and would also help out there. In addition, I would also monitor

2772:

put off by your claim that you created those articles you mention in Question 2. It seems that you were neither the creator, much less a primary contributor to

3144: 2378:

Not yet per EVula. This nom is too soon since the last request, making me doubt the user's patience, as well as question his motives for the self-nomination. --

492: 2530:

this issue is, but I inderstand your position; it's a judgment call that everyone who cares to comment about it has to make. Again, thanks for your response.

3162: 398:

Preventing vandalism when blocking users individually is not a feasible option, such as a high rate of vandalism from a wide range of anonymous IP addresses.

307:

anonymous, I would still contact the editor about their article since deleting articles outright without any notice is rude and not very polite. As always,

2773: 179: 1189:. The candidate appears to be fully qualified for adminship at this time. I have carefully reviewed the opposers' reasons and find them unpersuasive. 1361:, I am a little concerned about how soon this RFA is after his last one, but I am still of the opinion that he will not abuse or misuse the tools. -- 566: 524: 519: 514: 509: 404:

Article talk pages that are being disrupted; this should be used sparingly because it prevents new users and anons from being part of discussions.

2238:

and wikistalking. I don't think that we need "more good admins". IMO we need more good editors who grow into admins, and I am voting thusly. `'

2212:

Note to closing 'crat: Please consider ignoring this. User has opposed several RfAs with almost the exact same rationale. Seems like the latest

504: 1258:

A very nice user who is also a great editor. I also feel that he is unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. It is time to give him the mop. --

1983:

above editor is correct in saying (well implying) that your vote will be discarded with the closing bureaucrat tallies the final totals.

327:

My editing motto is this "To edit Knowledge is to improve it, even if they are bad edits, as bad edits can help us improve our mistakes".

752:

The "concerns" raised below are baseless, as many have pointed out. I think you can rest assured will not regret your "support" vote.

282:

and there were no meaningful edit summaries. A third editor requests page protection, which you take up. Which version do you protect?

150:

by blocking vandals and protecting pages since I have a lot of experience in those areas. Second, I would help out with the backlog at

767: 553: 868:

every self-nom, or every nominee who hasn't been in enough conflicts for our liking, we'll reject a lot of potentially good admins.

360:

Each page that has been tagged for A7 should be carefully reviewed before being deleted. I believe that the page should be deleted

2871: 2177:

Yep, editcountitis doesn't reveal the truth. Somebody can improve or create a GA-eligible article in just one edit. I did that

30: 17: 596: 590: 3105: 735: 488: 560: 2836: 1392: 627: 2112:

This is nonsense. People giving off-the-wall reasons for oppose... people signing up JUST to oppose ... what the heck?!?

2711: 2448: 2178: 1522: 991: 927: 855: 801:, we need all the admins we can get, and Hdt looks like he would be willing to get stuck into backlogs - this is good. 639: 1376:; user seems ready for adminship. The short time between this and recent RfAs does not convince me against supporting. 3125: 3109: 613: 546: 74: 3041:

Oppose 'cause he doesn't have 1,000,000 edits and doesn't spend 12 hours of his day in front of his computer screen.

1652:

After having looked through his contributions, I find that he is the type of user who is perfect for being an admin

1690: 2635:

This user is obviously trying to get adminship for malicious reasons. I will only support once someone nominates.

2189: 1147: 698:

You have 14,000+ edits, but there are some doubts in my mind, left from your last RFA. For now, I am supporting.

460: 380: 3056: 2123: 1049: 2830: 1441: 1389: 1315:-- continued improvement since last time in August, including use of edit summaries. Give him the mop already. 256:

Which of the following two do you find more important, and why? 1. Freedom for anonymous editors to be able to

219: 321:

What is your editing motto? This question is more optional than the others, feel free to leave it unanswered.

2047:

if people can oppose simply because someone is a self-nom, because they want adminship, or because they have

1629:

Not sure if im allowed 2, but has been bery helpful in adopting me, and dont thhink theyd misuse the rights.

3000: 2622: 2202: 2063: 1999: 1949: 1940: 1908: 1877: 1842: 1728: 1577: 1350: 1335: 1291: 1160: 763: 705: 985:

I have both opposed and gone neutral in previous RFAs, but I think the time has come to give them the mop.

2649: 2644:

Account registered three minutes before vote. Obvious bad faith account, blocked indef and vote indented.

2139: 1948:

Thank you. I trust the closing bureaucrat will weight your reason for opposition correctly. You may find

1327:

I wish you had waited for someone to nominate you, but I'm satisfied your contributions are mop-worthy. -

1089:. My interactions with you have been positive, and I find the supports more convincing than the opposes.-- 1014: 656: 2902: 2880: 2224: 1637: 1302: 203:

continues, then I would back off from the conflict and wait for it to cool down before discussing again.

3143:

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

3010: 2985: 2976: 2689: 2169: 2113: 2052: 1984: 1823: 1568:

per Newyorkbrad. The oppose votes are not unlike your lower intestine: stinky, and full of danger. --

869: 759: 677: 667: 101:. I am quite nice and civil to everybody and I hope to better Knowledge by becoming an admin. Thanks -- 3028: 2965: 2954: 2783:. Your claims seem to be a bit off from what I see in the revision history, so I'm a bit leery here 2159:. Insufficient level of actual writing of the text. I dont think we need professional police here. `' 1545: 821: 755: 2742: 2216:

voter has arrived. In a way, an admin deserves even less leeway for something like this, since they

881: 783: 142:

I would use the admin tools in severar different areas on Knowledge. First off, I would help out at

3128: 3116: 3086: 3062: 3032: 3013: 3003: 2988: 2979: 2969: 2940: 2909: 2894: 2884: 2862: 2850: 2838: 2821: 2795: 2766: 2752: 2747: 2735: 2715: 2692: 2683: 2653: 2639: 2627: 2603: 2580: 2571: 2544: 2521: 2499: 2477: 2452: 2434: 2421: 2408: 2391: 2370: 2339: 2305: 2296: 2286: 2242: 2229: 2172: 2163: 2143: 2129: 2116: 2107: 2098: 2086: 2055: 2041: 2023: 2002: 1987: 1963: 1943: 1928: 1911: 1896: 1880: 1865: 1845: 1826: 1816: 1806: 1781: 1771: 1757: 1751: 1731: 1716: 1693: 1673: 1644: 1621: 1606: 1582: 1560: 1549: 1531: 1504: 1492: 1479: 1470: 1458: 1446: 1429: 1418: 1409:, no reason to oppose and with respect to the opposers, the reasoning there seems mostly specious. 1401: 1383: 1380: 1368: 1353: 1340: 1319: 1307: 1294: 1281: 1269: 1250: 1222: 1193: 1181: 1126: 1123: 1114: 1102: 1055: 1018: 1001: 977: 932: 899: 884: 872: 859: 837: 812: 793: 788: 771: 747: 719: 708: 680: 670: 660: 643: 211: 116: 2636: 3102: 2995: 2819: 2810: 2793: 2784: 2617: 2597: 2565: 2444: 1994: 1935: 1903: 1872: 1837: 1723: 1666: 1569: 1514: 1328: 1096: 847: 741: 700: 631: 609: 2302: 1111: 2935: 2730: 2645: 2135: 2018: 1557: 1217: 1010: 920: 652: 391: 2870:. I tried really hard to find something else, but EVula gave you the knockout-punch like the 2875: 2708: 2332: 2279: 1632: 1618: 1599: 1519: 1414: 1365: 1243: 1190: 996: 851: 635: 3024: 2961: 2950: 2856: 2763: 2514: 2470: 2328: 2275: 2213: 1714: 1541: 1476: 947: 540: 114: 68: 2379: 2104: 2038: 1958: 1923: 1891: 1860: 1778: 1455: 1377: 1172: 896: 807: 464: 147: 98: 82: 410:

None of these conditions have been met and the article should not have been protected.

271:

mistakes spotted by the reader can be easily reported and anons can contribute easily.

3156: 3099: 2592: 2560: 2293: 2239: 2235: 2160: 2062:

Comment discounted as Politics rule has been blocked indef for abusive sockpuppetry.

1801: 1795: 1660: 1265: 1260: 1132: 1091: 729: 429: 418: 366: 351: 308: 159: 143: 94: 90: 78: 2301:

I don't think opposing based on frequency of self-nomination is a valid argument. --

2927: 2725: 2670: 2577: 2010: 1316: 1278: 1202: 1066: 1031: 913: 468: 155: 86: 2234:

Note to closing b'crat: I find this canvassing of my valid votes as a disgusting

350:

Seeing that you'd like to help out at CSD, what criteria do you believe makes an

3071: 2805: 2801: 2779: 2704: 2402: 2198: 1615: 1592: 1410: 1362: 1232: 1156: 1026:

Article writing is not indicative of the potential quality of admin work. Also,

986: 339: 247: 231:

What have you learned from your previous 3 attempts to become an administrator?

183: 2134:

Account blocked indef as obvious bad-faith account. Vote accordingly indented.

727:

I doubt you'll misuse the tools although concerns raised below are troubling --

3045: 2847: 2531: 2508: 2486: 2464: 2431: 2418: 2363: 2350: 2323: 2270: 2095: 1702: 1501: 1467: 965: 941: 536: 484: 450: 102: 64: 54: 3137:

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

1953: 1918: 1886: 1855: 1475:

Candidate has indicated that they will deal with speedy deletion backlogs –

802: 2051:

4,400 mainspace edits (insert eye roll here). We need good admins, people.

1854:

of mainspace edits, and it looks like you're suggesting that isn't enough.

1764: 1744: 1489: 1540:

This user has waited long enough to get the mop, let's give it to him.

151: 2260:

balderdash), but ideally, he would have been able to wait for someone

3147:

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

2184: 1142: 335: 666:

editor, who would not abuse the tools, they should become an admin.

1290:

careful editor and nearly impossible to misuse adminstrator tools.

782:

Great user who is always nice. Very unlikely to abuse admin tools.

612:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 1488:

6 month before trying again. Then you should be able to get it.--

3039:

I totally protest the ridiculous amount of editcountitis here. "

2251:

Knee-jerk reaction: I don't like that I'm seeing Hdt83 self-nom

1614:

I see no indication that this user would abuse admin commands.

260:

Knowledge. 2. Knowledge's articles being vandalism free for the

57: 2993:

Do you always have to say something if they don't go your way?

1110:. We need more anti-vandal admins, and Hdt83 is perfect ()! -- 1349:

Excellent vandal fighter who is long overdue for the tools.--

626:

I and two other users reviewed this candidate in June. See

1131:

From the answers to the questions and the participation in

1171:, no reason not to, oppose reasons are frivolous at best. 383:

protected properly according to the policy? Explain why.

895:

abuse the tools been provided? No: therefore, I support.

29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

2526:

Thank you for your answer. I kind of disagree about how

2380: 2032:

Note that Politics rule has now expanded his rationale:

1466:

I really think this editor has leant from his last RfA.

172:

What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?

3124:, per a few of the opposes. Give it a bit more time. 2035: 2033: 584: 578: 572: 1870:

I'm not saying that is bad, but it is out of 14,000.

1756:

So a couple of articles to GA status doesn't count?

365:

speedily deleted but placed at proposed deletion via

2776:(nice references, but no actual content addition). 1992:Votes can not be discarded because you disagree. 2809:Apologies for the initial confusion there, mate 2778:Also, I don't think you've ever actually edited 2400:to nominate shows poor judgement and restraint. 354:tagged page subject for deletion? Be specific. 1850:Not criticising, but 4400 mainspace edits is a 136:What admin work do you intend to take part in? 1721:It's not how long they are, it's the quality. 471:and that would not be beneficial to Knowledge. 3050:of the time and wanting everything to happen 1122:no reason to assume s/he'll abuse the tools. 8: 2360:Reconsidered my comment, withdrawing it. ~ 289:consensus on what should be in the article. 2774:Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park 1815:is nearly 3000 edits since the last RFA. 180:Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park 2800:Ah, whoops. Who would have thought that 1656:shows frequent need for the mop bucket. 53:FINAL (47/23/5); Scheduled to end 03:06, 1277:If the user fights vandalism, then yes. 608:Please keep discussion constructive and 502: 390:conform to MoS standards. As stated in 3054:. Life's a road; enjoy the view ;-) -- 2461:review of the discussion here. Sorry. 912:below is beyond all reasonableness. - 394:, pages should only be protected when 7: 1428: 162:and help out whenever I'm available. 3163:Unsuccessful requests for adminship 500: 24: 907:unless someone can bring up some 3044: 1062:(sorry for using the royal "we") 18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship 3075: 2872:Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy 2811: 2785: 2618: 2313:RfA, but also wait for someone 1835:and in due time, it will pass. 1206: 966: 1813:a couple of hundred more edits 1703: 880:I see no red flags to oppose. 525:Requests for adminship/Hdt83 5 520:Requests for adminship/Hdt83 4 515:Requests for adminship/Hdt83 3 510:Requests for adminship/Hdt83 2 491:. For the edit count, see the 103: 1: 2322:isn't what concerns me most. 1426:Adminship isn't a big deal. 628:Knowledge:Editor review/Hdt83 220: 3129:08:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 3117:02:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 3087:10:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 3063:21:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 3033:06:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 3014:20:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 3004:19:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 2989:19:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 2980:19:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 2970:01:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 2958:18:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 2941:16:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 2910:00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC) 2885:08:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC) 2863:11:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 2851:10:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 2839:09:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 2822:05:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 2796:05:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 2767:02:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 2753:00:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 2736:14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 2716:01:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 2693:03:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 2684:19:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2654:02:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2640:02:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2628:01:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2604:04:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 2581:23:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 2572:23:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2545:06:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 2522:08:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2500:23:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2478:21:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2453:16:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2435:16:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2422:14:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2409:08:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2392:06:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2371:08:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2357:05:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2340:15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2306:07:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2297:07:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2287:04:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2243:15:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2230:11:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2207:00:29, 30 October 2007 (GMT) 2173:00:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2164:23:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 2144:21:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 2130:21:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 2117:20:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 2108:20:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 2099:20:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 2087:02:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2056:18:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 2042:17:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 2024:17:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 2003:16:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1988:16:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1964:16:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1944:16:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1929:16:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1912:16:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1897:15:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1881:15:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1866:15:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1846:15:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1827:16:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1817:15:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1807:14:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1782:18:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1772:18:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1758:15:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1752:09:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1732:14:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1717:06:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1694:04:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1674:01:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC) 1645:00:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC) 1622:19:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 1607:08:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 1583:04:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 1561:04:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 1550:01:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 1532:01:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 1505:23:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 1493:20:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 1480:06:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 1471:03:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 1459:02:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 1447:04:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 1419:23:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 1402:08:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 1388:Not for the first time :) — 1384:03:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 1369:22:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 1354:20:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 1341:20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 1320:13:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 1308:11:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 1295:08:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 1282:05:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 1270:03:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 1251:01:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 1223:01:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 1194:01:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 1182:01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 1165:01:29, 30 October 2007 (GMT) 1127:01:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 1115:22:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1103:22:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1056:22:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1019:21:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1002:21:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 978:20:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 933:18:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 900:17:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 885:16:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 873:14:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 860:14:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 838:12:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 813:11:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 794:11:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 772:18:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 748:09:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 720:08:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 709:03:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 681:20:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 671:13:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 661:02:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 644:14:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 505:Requests for adminship/Hdt83 369:for the community to decide. 117:03:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 2846:Per Pedro and EVula above. 2669:evidence of power hunger. 1590:per GlassCobra and Pigman. 614:Special:Contributions/Hdt83 487:'s edit summary usage with 125:Questions for the candidate 3179: 2616:you would be a good idea. 780:Strongest support possible 2623: 2103:Note: user's first edit. 213: 3140:Please do not modify it. 2855:Per EVula and Daniel. ~ 449:(Optional question from 334:Optional questions from 246:Optional questions from 39:Please do not modify it. 1950:Knowledge:Editcountitis 3126:Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 2960:Switching to support. 2703:into the oppose side. 2665:— I view self-noms as 2181:and it got into DYK. 1952:interesting reading. 465:the admin noticeboard 428:What is your view of 392:the protection policy 91:articles for deletion 79:articles for creation 31:request for adminship 1299:In dubio pro reo. — 1076:at 22:17, 10/29/2007 1041:at 22:01, 10/29/2007 2832:Anonymous Dissident 1287:Very Strong support 499:RfAs for this user: 2835: 1605: 1351:U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 1292:LADodgersAngelsfan 616:before commenting. 40: 2829: 2734: 2652: 2602: 2570: 2520: 2476: 2373: 2142: 1805: 1604: 1591: 1528: 1139:this nomination. 1078: 1043: 1017: 974: 930: 774: 758:comment added by 696:Very Weak Support 659: 534:Links for Hdt83: 459:According to the 309:assume good faith 250: 38: 3170: 3142: 3115: 3110:Report a mistake 3084: 3081: 3079: 3059: 3048: 2998: 2930: 2905: 2897: 2860: 2833: 2817: 2816: 2791: 2790: 2750: 2745: 2728: 2680: 2677: 2648: 2625: 2620: 2600: 2596: 2568: 2564: 2540: 2538: 2519: 2517: 2506: 2495: 2493: 2475: 2473: 2462: 2405: 2389: 2366: 2359: 2353: 2338: 2335: 2320:in and of itself 2285: 2282: 2206: 2193: 2187: 2138: 2126: 2083: 2081: 2079: 2077: 2075: 2013: 1997: 1961: 1956: 1938: 1926: 1921: 1906: 1894: 1889: 1875: 1863: 1858: 1840: 1811:Just to clarify 1799: 1769: 1749: 1726: 1712: 1709: 1691:Thomas H. Larsen 1672: 1669: 1663: 1642: 1640: 1635: 1602: 1597: 1595: 1580: 1529: 1524: 1434: 1432: 1398: 1378:Heimstern Läufer 1338: 1333: 1268: 1263: 1249: 1246: 1240: 1220: 1214: 1212: 1210: 1179: 1164: 1151: 1145: 1101: 1067: 1063: 1060:I agree that we 1052: 1032: 1028:460 edits to AIV 1013: 999: 994: 989: 972: 970: 964: 952: 950:Roll, Tide, Roll 928: 925: 918: 834: 831: 828: 825: 810: 805: 791: 786: 753: 744: 738: 732: 703: 655: 600: 559: 478:General comments 430:Ignore All Rules 245: 224: 215: 112: 109: 3178: 3177: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3145:this nomination 3138: 3095: 3094:Per all above. 3077: 3072: 3057: 3011:K. Scott Bailey 2996: 2986:K. Scott Bailey 2977:K. Scott Bailey 2928: 2918: 2903: 2895: 2858: 2831: 2812: 2786: 2748: 2743: 2690:K. Scott Bailey 2678: 2675: 2598: 2566: 2536: 2534: 2515: 2507: 2491: 2489: 2471: 2463: 2451: 2403: 2388: 2384: 2364: 2351: 2333: 2326: 2280: 2273: 2269:self-nominate. 2194: 2191: 2185: 2182: 2170:K. Scott Bailey 2124: 2114:K. Scott Bailey 2073: 2071: 2069: 2067: 2065: 2053:K. Scott Bailey 2011: 1995: 1985:K. Scott Bailey 1959: 1954: 1936: 1924: 1919: 1904: 1892: 1887: 1873: 1861: 1856: 1838: 1824:K. Scott Bailey 1765: 1745: 1724: 1707: 1682: 1667: 1661: 1657: 1638: 1633: 1631: 1600: 1593: 1578: 1523: 1445: 1430: 1396: 1393: 1345:(edit conflict) 1336: 1329: 1261: 1259: 1244: 1233: 1230: 1218: 1208: 1204: 1173: 1152: 1149: 1143: 1140: 1090: 1072: 1061: 1050: 1037: 997: 992: 987: 968: 961:per Acalamari. 954: 948: 921: 914: 870:K. Scott Bailey 832: 829: 826: 823: 808: 803: 789: 784: 742: 736: 730: 701: 691: 678:K. Scott Bailey 668:K. Scott Bailey 623: 552: 535: 531: 529: 480: 461:blocking policy 127: 107: 50: 35:did not succeed 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3176: 3174: 3166: 3165: 3155: 3154: 3150: 3149: 3133: 3132: 3119: 3089: 3065: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 2982: 2972: 2917: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2887: 2865: 2853: 2841: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2769: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2718: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2455: 2447: 2437: 2424: 2411: 2394: 2386: 2382: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2311: 2299: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2190: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2101: 2089: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1829: 1819: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1681: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1647: 1624: 1609: 1585: 1563: 1552: 1534: 1507: 1495: 1482: 1473: 1461: 1452:Strong Support 1449: 1439: 1421: 1404: 1394: 1386: 1371: 1356: 1343: 1322: 1310: 1297: 1284: 1272: 1253: 1225: 1196: 1184: 1166: 1148: 1129: 1124:Carlossuarez46 1117: 1105: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1070: 1035: 1021: 1004: 980: 955: 946: 935: 902: 887: 875: 862: 840: 818:Strong Support 815: 796: 777: 776: 775: 722: 716:Strong support 690: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 663: 646: 622: 619: 605: 604: 603: 601: 530: 528: 527: 522: 517: 512: 507: 501: 498: 497: 496: 489:mathbot's tool 479: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 443: 442: 441: 440: 417:Question from 414: 413: 412: 411: 408: 407: 406: 401: 373: 372: 371: 370: 345: 343: 331: 330: 329: 328: 315: 314: 313: 312: 293: 292: 291: 290: 275: 274: 273: 272: 251: 242: 241: 240: 239: 226: 210:Question from 207: 206: 205: 204: 190: 189: 188: 187: 166: 165: 164: 163: 126: 123: 121: 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3175: 3164: 3161: 3160: 3158: 3148: 3146: 3141: 3135: 3134: 3130: 3127: 3123: 3120: 3118: 3114: 3113: 3111: 3107: 3104: 3101: 3093: 3090: 3088: 3085: 3083: 3069: 3066: 3064: 3061: 3060: 3053: 3047: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3031: 3030: 3026: 3021: 3015: 3012: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3002: 3001: 2999: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2987: 2983: 2981: 2978: 2973: 2971: 2968: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2957: 2956: 2952: 2948: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2938: 2937: 2932: 2931: 2924: 2920: 2919: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2906: 2899: 2898: 2891: 2888: 2886: 2883: 2882: 2879: 2878: 2873: 2869: 2866: 2864: 2861: 2854: 2852: 2849: 2845: 2842: 2840: 2837: 2834: 2828:As above. -- 2827: 2823: 2820: 2818: 2815: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2794: 2792: 2789: 2782: 2781: 2775: 2770: 2768: 2765: 2761: 2758: 2754: 2751: 2746: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2732: 2727: 2722: 2719: 2717: 2713: 2710: 2706: 2701: 2698: 2694: 2691: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2681: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2661: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2638: 2634: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2626: 2621: 2614: 2611: 2605: 2601: 2595: 2594: 2589: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2579: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2569: 2563: 2562: 2557: 2556:Strong oppose 2554: 2546: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2529: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2518: 2512: 2511: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2484: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2474: 2468: 2467: 2459: 2456: 2454: 2450: 2449:Contributions 2446: 2441: 2438: 2436: 2433: 2428: 2425: 2423: 2420: 2415: 2412: 2410: 2407: 2406: 2399: 2395: 2393: 2390: 2377: 2372: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2358: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2345: 2341: 2336: 2330: 2325: 2321: 2316: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2304: 2300: 2298: 2295: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2283: 2277: 2272: 2268: 2263: 2259: 2254: 2250: 2244: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2228: 2226: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2195: 2188: 2180: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2171: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2162: 2158: 2155: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2128: 2127: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2115: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2106: 2102: 2100: 2097: 2093: 2090: 2088: 2085: 2084: 2061: 2057: 2054: 2050: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2040: 2036: 2034: 2031: 2025: 2021: 2020: 2015: 2014: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2001: 2000: 1998: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1986: 1981: 1965: 1962: 1957: 1951: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1942: 1941: 1939: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1927: 1922: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1910: 1909: 1907: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1895: 1890: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1879: 1878: 1876: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1864: 1859: 1853: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1844: 1843: 1841: 1833: 1830: 1828: 1825: 1820: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1803: 1798: 1797: 1791: 1783: 1780: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1770: 1768: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1750: 1748: 1741: 1733: 1730: 1729: 1727: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1715: 1713: 1711: 1710: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1692: 1687: 1684: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1670: 1664: 1655: 1651: 1648: 1646: 1643: 1641: 1636: 1628: 1625: 1623: 1620: 1617: 1613: 1610: 1608: 1603: 1596: 1589: 1586: 1584: 1581: 1576: 1573: 1572: 1571:Spike Wilbury 1567: 1564: 1562: 1559: 1556: 1553: 1551: 1548: 1547: 1543: 1538: 1535: 1533: 1530: 1527: 1520: 1518: 1517: 1511: 1508: 1506: 1503: 1499: 1496: 1494: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1481: 1478: 1474: 1472: 1469: 1465: 1462: 1460: 1457: 1453: 1450: 1448: 1443: 1438: 1435: 1433: 1425: 1422: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1405: 1403: 1399: 1391: 1387: 1385: 1382: 1379: 1375: 1372: 1370: 1367: 1364: 1360: 1357: 1355: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1342: 1339: 1334: 1332: 1326: 1323: 1321: 1318: 1314: 1311: 1309: 1306: 1304: 1298: 1296: 1293: 1288: 1285: 1283: 1280: 1276: 1273: 1271: 1267: 1264: 1257: 1254: 1252: 1247: 1241: 1239: 1237: 1229: 1226: 1224: 1221: 1216: 1215: 1200: 1197: 1195: 1192: 1188: 1185: 1183: 1180: 1178: 1177: 1170: 1167: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1153: 1146: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1128: 1125: 1121: 1118: 1116: 1113: 1109: 1106: 1104: 1100: 1098: 1093: 1088: 1085: 1079: 1077: 1074: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1054: 1053: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1042: 1039: 1029: 1025: 1022: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1005: 1003: 1000: 995: 990: 984: 981: 979: 976: 975: 973: 960: 956: 953: 951: 945: 944: 939: 936: 934: 931: 926: 924: 919: 917: 910: 906: 903: 901: 898: 893: 888: 886: 883: 879: 876: 874: 871: 866: 863: 861: 857: 853: 849: 844: 841: 839: 836: 835: 819: 816: 814: 811: 806: 800: 797: 795: 792: 787: 781: 778: 773: 769: 765: 761: 757: 751: 750: 749: 746: 745: 739: 734: 733: 726: 723: 721: 717: 714: 713: 712: 711: 710: 707: 706: 704: 697: 688: 682: 679: 674: 673: 672: 669: 664: 662: 658: 654: 650: 647: 645: 641: 637: 633: 629: 625: 624: 620: 618: 617: 615: 611: 602: 598: 595: 592: 589: 586: 583: 580: 577: 574: 571: 568: 565: 562: 558: 555: 551: 548: 545: 542: 538: 533: 532: 526: 523: 521: 518: 516: 513: 511: 508: 506: 503: 494: 490: 486: 482: 481: 477: 470: 466: 462: 458: 455: 454: 452: 448: 445: 444: 437: 434: 433: 431: 427: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 409: 405: 402: 399: 396: 395: 393: 388: 385: 384: 382: 378: 375: 374: 368: 363: 359: 356: 355: 353: 349: 346: 344: 341: 337: 333: 332: 326: 323: 322: 320: 317: 316: 310: 305: 302: 301: 298: 295: 294: 287: 284: 283: 280: 277: 276: 269: 266: 265: 263: 259: 255: 252: 249: 244: 243: 236: 233: 232: 230: 227: 225: 223: 217: 216: 209: 208: 201: 198: 197: 195: 192: 191: 185: 181: 177: 174: 173: 171: 168: 167: 161: 157: 153: 149: 145: 141: 138: 137: 135: 132: 131: 130: 124: 122: 119: 118: 115: 113: 111: 110: 100: 96: 92: 88: 84: 80: 76: 73: 70: 66: 62: 61: 59: 56: 48: 45: 41: 36: 32: 27: 26: 19: 3139: 3136: 3121: 3097: 3096: 3091: 3073: 3067: 3055: 3051: 3040: 3027: 2994: 2964: 2953: 2946: 2945: 2934: 2926: 2922: 2904:bananabucket 2901: 2893: 2889: 2881: 2876: 2867: 2843: 2813: 2787: 2777: 2759: 2720: 2699: 2674: 2666: 2662: 2646:RyanGerbil10 2632: 2612: 2591: 2587: 2559: 2555: 2533: 2532: 2527: 2509: 2488: 2487: 2482: 2465: 2457: 2439: 2426: 2413: 2401: 2397: 2362: 2361: 2349: 2348: 2346: 2319: 2314: 2266: 2261: 2257: 2252: 2222: 2217: 2183: 2156: 2136:RyanGerbil10 2122: 2091: 2064: 2048: 2017: 2009: 1993: 1934: 1902: 1871: 1851: 1836: 1831: 1812: 1794: 1766: 1746: 1722: 1705: 1704: 1686:Weak oppose. 1685: 1658: 1653: 1649: 1630: 1626: 1611: 1587: 1574: 1570: 1565: 1558:Tim Q. Wells 1554: 1544: 1536: 1525: 1515: 1509: 1497: 1485: 1463: 1451: 1436: 1427: 1423: 1406: 1373: 1358: 1346: 1330: 1324: 1312: 1300: 1286: 1274: 1255: 1235: 1234: 1227: 1203: 1198: 1186: 1175: 1174: 1168: 1141: 1136: 1119: 1107: 1094: 1086: 1075: 1068: 1048: 1040: 1033: 1027: 1023: 1011:RyanGerbil10 1006: 982: 963: 962: 958: 949: 942: 937: 922: 915: 908: 904: 891: 877: 864: 842: 822: 817: 798: 779: 760:Kscottbailey 740: 728: 725:Weak Support 724: 715: 699: 695: 693: 692: 653:RyanGerbil10 649:Please Note: 648: 607: 606: 593: 587: 581: 575: 569: 563: 556: 549: 543: 456: 446: 435: 425: 416: 415: 403: 397: 386: 381:this article 376: 361: 357: 347: 324: 318: 303: 296: 285: 278: 267: 261: 257: 253: 234: 228: 221: 212: 199: 193: 175: 169: 139: 133: 128: 120: 105: 104: 71: 63: 52: 51: 46: 34: 28: 2892:per above. 2877:OhanaUnited 2806:Crater Lake 2802:Crater lake 2780:Crater lake 2705:User:Krator 2667:prima facie 1659:RJaguar3 | 1191:Newyorkbrad 754:—Preceding 184:Crater Lake 2744:NHRHS2010 2671:Kurt Weber 1634:Bluegoblin 785:NHRHS2010 621:Discussion 469:wheel wars 55:5 November 3058:Agüeybaná 2253:yet again 2125:Agüeybaná 2105:Acalamari 2094:Per Guy. 2039:Acalamari 1779:Acalamari 1486:at least' 1431:SashaCall 1176:Wizardman 1051:Agüeybaná 897:Acalamari 882:Dustihowe 579:block log 493:talk page 87:GA review 83:help desk 3157:Category 2896:Blnguyen 2814:gaillimh 2788:gaillimh 2650:(C-Town) 2593:Ksy92003 2588:decrease 2561:Ksy92003 2483:Question 2310:I do. :P 2294:JayHenry 2258:de facto 2223:Dorftrot 2140:(C-Town) 1366:(Mschel) 1331:Krakatoa 1301:Dorftrot 1092:Kubigula 1015:(C-Town) 1007:Support. 768:contribs 756:unsigned 657:(C-Town) 547:contribs 419:Carnildo 75:contribs 3122:Neutral 3098:Cheers, 3092:Neutral 3068:Neutral 2947:Neutral 2929:Majorly 2923:neutral 2916:Neutral 2726:Bjewiki 2637:Jergse2 2619:Captain 2578:Stupid2 2012:Majorly 1822:think. 1650:Support 1627:Support 1612:Support 1588:Support 1566:Support 1555:Support 1537:Support 1510:Support 1498:Support 1464:Support 1424:Support 1407:Support 1374:Support 1359:Support 1347:Support 1325:Support 1317:Bearian 1313:Support 1279:Stupid2 1275:support 1266:iva1979 1256:Support 1228:Support 1199:Support 1187:Support 1169:Support 1137:support 1120:Support 1108:Support 1087:Support 1024:Support 983:Support 959:support 938:Support 905:Support 878:Support 865:Support 843:Support 799:Support 689:Support 554:deleted 182:) and ( 148:WP:RFPP 97:and at 2890:Oppose 2868:Oppose 2857:Riana 2844:Oppose 2760:Oppose 2721:Oppose 2700:Oppose 2679:Colts! 2663:Oppose 2633:oppose 2613:Oppose 2599:(talk) 2567:(talk) 2528:severe 2458:Oppose 2445:Rudget 2440:Oppose 2427:Oppose 2414:Oppose 2404:Daniel 2236:WP:AGF 2218:should 2157:Oppose 2092:Oppose 1832:Oppose 1680:Oppose 1619:(talk) 1616:kmccoy 1594:henrik 1516:Pigman 1456:Bryson 1411:Stifle 1381:(talk) 1219:(talk) 848:Shalom 632:Shalom 367:WP:AFD 262:reader 248:Krator 160:WP:ANI 81:, the 3106:Lover 3029:Cobra 3025:Glass 2966:Cobra 2962:Glass 2955:Cobra 2951:Glass 2848:Dureo 2764:Sarah 2749:talk 2624:panda 2516:Chat 2510:Pedro 2472:Chat 2466:Pedro 2432:Irpen 2419:Xoloz 2324:EVula 2271:EVula 2240:Míkka 2214:point 2161:Míkka 2096:Hi264 1933:Yes. 1802:Help! 1546:Cobra 1542:Glass 1526:trail 1502:MONGO 1477:Gurch 1468:Phgao 1442:Talk! 1337:Katie 1238:levse 943:JodyB 929:(Rev) 856:Peace 852:Hello 790:talk 640:Peace 636:Hello 610:civil 561:count 537:Hdt83 485:Hdt83 451:MONGO 214:T Rex 156:WP:AN 65:Hdt83 60:(UTC) 47:Hdt83 33:that 16:< 2936:talk 2804:and 2731:Talk 2398:else 2387:alls 2365:Sebi 2352:Sebi 2329:talk 2315:else 2303:wj32 2276:talk 2262:else 2179:once 2049:only 2019:talk 1955:Neil 1920:Neil 1888:Neil 1857:Neil 1601:talk 1579:talk 1415:talk 1363:Mark 1245:Talk 1112:wj32 1097:talk 1069:east 1034:east 988:Jmlk 923:Oars 909:real 804:Neil 764:talk 731:Pump 591:rfar 573:logs 541:talk 483:See 362:only 340:talk 258:edit 222:talk 158:and 146:and 99:RFPP 69:talk 58:2007 3052:now 2997:Pat 2537:ODU 2492:ODU 2383:ark 2331:// 2327:// 2278:// 2274:// 2267:not 2225:tel 1996:Pat 1937:Pat 1905:Pat 1874:Pat 1852:lot 1839:Pat 1796:Guy 1767:Qst 1747:Qst 1725:Pat 1706:Hdt 1654:and 1490:SJP 1400:— 1303:tel 1133:AFC 1073:718 1038:718 969:ODU 916:Two 892:can 833:Dan 830:ess 702:Pat 597:spi 567:AfD 447:12. 426:11. 379:Is 377:10. 152:CSD 144:AIV 106:Hdt 95:AIV 3159:: 3100:Je 3078:is 3043:" 2939:) 2925:. 2908:) 2714:) 2682:) 2676:Go 2513:: 2469:: 2337:// 2284:// 2221:— 2201:• 2082:te 2080:ai 2078:hw 2076:et 2074:tl 2072:os 2068:an 2066:Ry 2037:. 2022:) 1708:83 1701:-- 1665:| 1500:-- 1417:) 1248:• 1242:• 1231:— 1207:ra 1205:Ne 1159:• 1030:? 858:) 854:• 827:dl 824:En 770:) 766:• 743:up 737:me 642:) 638:• 630:. 585:lu 457:A: 436:A: 432:? 400:OR 387:A: 358:A: 352:A7 348:9. 325:A. 319:8. 304:A. 297:7. 286:A. 279:6. 268:A. 264:. 254:5. 235:A. 229:4. 218:| 200:A: 194:3. 176:A: 170:2. 140:A: 134:1. 108:83 89:, 85:, 37:. 3131:. 3112:) 3108:( 3103:t 3082:n 3080:o 3076:l 3074:A 2933:( 2900:( 2859:⁂ 2733:) 2729:( 2712:c 2709:t 2707:( 2673:( 2539:P 2535:W 2494:P 2490:W 2385:F 2381:D 2334:☯ 2281:☯ 2227:⁠ 2205:) 2203:吹 2199:息 2197:( 2192:2 2186:O 2070:P 2016:( 1960:☎ 1925:☎ 1893:☎ 1862:☎ 1804:) 1800:( 1668:t 1662:u 1639:7 1598:• 1575:♫ 1521:/ 1444:) 1440:( 1437:/ 1413:( 1397:O 1395:2 1390:H 1305:⁠ 1262:S 1236:R 1213:i 1211:e 1209:n 1163:) 1161:吹 1157:息 1155:( 1150:2 1144:O 1099:) 1095:( 1071:. 1036:. 998:7 993:1 971:P 967:W 850:( 809:☎ 762:( 694:# 634:( 599:) 594:· 588:· 582:· 576:· 570:· 564:· 557:· 550:· 544:· 539:( 495:. 342:) 338:( 336:O 311:. 72:· 67:(

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

Knowledge

:Requests for adminship/Hdt83 4 - Knowledge

Index