634:
and infidelity, and other contentious behavior. If not presented in a neutral manner I edit it to make it neutral, if not properly sourced I source or immediately delete it. I'm a frequent participant at AfD, if an unsourced or poorly sourced BLP is up for deletion and I feel it is notable, I source it, if I don't have the time or interest I !vote to userfy or incubate (obviously if I don't feel it is notable I !vote delete). Since the mass deletions I have spent a good deal of time and effort sourcing and in some cases stubifying BLPs, and sent a few to AfD. I also requested that some of the deleted pages be userfied to me so that I could source them, others were undeleted at my request for sourcing. My opinion on the current policy is that it is sound, contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced is supposed to be sourced or removed, I fully agree with that. The problem is that these articles sat around unsourced for far too long. I am in favor of organized efforts to get these pages sourced and if sources can't be found after a good faith effort contentious material should be immediately removed. If no sources exist for the bulk of a page then it isn't notable enough to remain and the proper steps (CSD, prod, AfD) should be taken (after the contentious material is removed) for it to be deleted.
581:
thing (although I was annoyed that I couldn't register with a gmail address). The greater emphasis on limiting the access of the site by minors was another facet that looks like it was put in place to distinguish it from
Knowledge, again, not a bad thing. I suppose there are sites like this that exist to critique just about everything, but despite my time on this site I'm actually kind of naive to the web and was very surprised that such an extensive site would exist with the sole purpose of critiquing another website. I found a thread discussing the deletion of unreferenced BLPs, apparently the plan was discussed on Knowledge Review prior to the deletions so I suppose its presence can influence Knowledge. Whether or not it influences policy I can't say but if you put a gun to my head and made me answer 'yes' or 'no' I would say 'no'. I saw one post that encouraged all blocked Knowledge users to participate in Knowledge Review, so it's no secret that it strives to maintain an anti-WP stance. So, in a nutshell my thoughts are if you want to chat (or just complain) about the goings on of Knowledge this is the place to go, but if you want to really affect the direction of WP as a whole or just one article at a time, stick to the relevant talk pages here.
541:) and the chances of 'T:cite news' being used as a possible future article name is exceedingly remote, plus it is a useful redirect. The argument that only one person is using the redirect is minor since the redirect is newly created so you could assume that few others are aware of it. However, as a closing admin my job isn't to impose my opinion of the situation or my interpretation of a policy (or in this case an essay) it is to assess consensus based on the discussion, so I would have closed it as delete. My reasoning is that the 'delete' !voters refuted the 'keep' voter's argument more effectively than the the other way around. One could argue that it should have been relisted since there were only 3 participants but RfDs are often discussed by this small a number.
468:
and more importantly the policies and guidelines that keep this project going. If you look at the whole RfA you will be surprised by my answer to the next question, but Alan16's oppose (and some similar ones) held the most merit. He pointed out that I didn't need the tools to do what I did and intended to do and he suggested areas to gain experience. To alleviate the concerns, I broadened my horizons, read up on policies and put those policies into practice.
617:
entire community. Whatever the policy ends up as I will adhere when closing these discussions. I can't say that this view either conflicts or agrees with the motion because the motion was in regards to the deleting of material not interpreting the role of a closing admin. Had the ArbCom expanded their motion to include 'no consensus' closes I suspect that it would default to delete, in which case my view would conflict but that is my speculation.
2540:. Per answer to question 12, support. Per answer to question 13, oppose. Candidate correctly observes that WP:CROSS is flawed as a reason to support deletion, however, that leaves the opinion of two editors against the opinion of one editor supported by WP:Namespace. Insufficient reason to close as consensus. Taking various things into account I will go neutral on this one.
195:, not because it is of Good or Feature Article quality, because it's not, but because I saw a red link on someone's userpage and decided to write an article for it. He is a country musician, I know nothing about country but I found sources wrote it up, it was featured on DYK? and it hasn't needed to be significantly altered by other editors. I'm also proud that I got
1689:. I have seen this editor's name crop up and I associate it with useful and temperate policy-based comments. I couldn't have answered those image questions either and would have immediately referred them to an authority like the person who asked them; admins don't necessarily have to know all the answers, just where to look for the answers.
2509:
Q9 is indeed wrong, but from my read of it it seems more because J04n misread the question rather than necessarily having his interpretation wrong. I'm curious as to how Q10 is wrong though - it may not cover all issues involved, but as far as my limited image copyright knowledge goes what he did say
580:
I never heard of the site before reading your question, spent some time today going through some of the strings. My first impression was in regards to the relatively stringent registration process, this to me seemed to be a deliberate contrast to
Knowledge's open registration process, and not a bad
266:
Ignore all rules is one of the pillars on which
Knowledge stands. It's a wonderful concept in that one should not let a rule prevent one from improving the encyclopedia. I think of it as a 'spirit of the law' vs. 'letter of the law' concept. However, it should not be misinterpreted to mean 'ignore
633:
I'll start with the second part of your question. I edit BLPs regularly, the vast majority of the pages that I edit are music related, a lot of album pages but also bands and individual musicians most of which are living. Many of these musicians have histories of drug/alcohol abuse, spousal abuse
467:
I am a very different contributor to
Knowledge than I was at the time of my first RfA. At the time I had a very large edit count but very little diversity in editing and no experience in admin-related areas. So to answer your first question I learned about the behind the scenes stuff that goes on
2002:
J04n will make an excellent administrator. In general, his answers to the questions are respectable and indicate solid policy knowledge. The answer to Q9 is indeed wrong, but its subject is relatively obscure; Q10 is one of the hardest questions I've ever seen asked at RfA. The candidate's article
235:
I edit
Knowledge to relieve the stresses of real life, I don't get stressed over Knowledge. I really haven't even had any conflicts with other editors, I think I approach things rationally, try to be kind, and am will to compromise. Approaching situations in this manner diffuse conflicts before
285:
I'm not a petition kind of guy. I've followed the situation closely, it has affected my editing in that I've spent a lot of time having deleted articles restored so I can source them and sourcing other unsourced BLPs. I have also worked to organize others to source articles. I believe my actions
1472:
I see sufficient experience and nothing to worry about either. This was going to be a weak support because I do see some weakish arguments and I prefer to see editors more willing to voice their opinions (rather than letting edits talk for themselves). However, I did look through a couple of AfD
432:
These pictures would retain their original copyrights because they are of 2-dimensional subjects and could only be used under non-free criteria not public domain. Appropriate use of non-free content is restricted to commentary of that item only, so the picture of Ariel can be used in an article
616:
but until policy changes my job as closing admin (should this RfA pass) is to the best of my ability determine consensus and if I determine that no consensus is met it's a keep. The ArbCom decision was on the mass deletion and its participants not the policy, policy should be determined by the
90:
as in my view a worthy candidate for adminship. J04n has the tenure, temperament and contributions to not only to meet my RFA standards, but more importantly I now believe that J04n has the experience to meet the rather stricter standards required to achieve consensus of support at RFA. This is
95:
was last
September, and though there was substantial support, at the time there was not a consensus for promotion. However much of the opposition then was because of concerns about experience, I think that J04n has clearly progressed since then, which is why I now submit this candidate for the
348:
No with one caveat, a non-free image can only be used if there is no free equivalent, or no free equivalent could be created. In the case of a living person a picture can be taken thus creating a free equivalent. The caveat to this would be if notability rests on the person's earlier visual
379:
An editor goes to and takes an photo of a copyrighted statue with their own camera. The editor then uploads the image of that copyrighted statue to
Knowledge, claiming it under a free license, because after all, the photo was taken by the editor. Detail how you would react, if at all.
663:
and encourage them to use
Knowledge safely. I would bookmark the userpage and regularly monitor it for a return of the information, I would give a stern warning for a second offense and block for a third (provided there was a stern warning by me or someone else from a previous
2011:, to which the candidate is the primary contributor. Ultimately, however, my decision to support is based on the candidate's superior ability to present thoughtful arguments at AfD and DRV. This is the kind of editor who I trust to judge consensus correctly when closing AfDs.
1149:. Genuinely thought you were one already. Answers to the image questions are a little weak (someone correct me if I'm the one who is wrong here, but question 9 is wrong); however as you don't intend to work in image deletion (a very specialised area) this doesn't bother me. --
515:
assisted me in establishing its notability and it still exists today. I can't think of anything else that was nominated for deletion, I have worked on many articles after they were nominated (I enjoy doing that). I'll try to think of another example or two but I'm coming up
286:
have more of a voice than signing my name but that's just me. I respect the folks that have voiced their opinions, everyone has to react to circumstances in their own way. I think the final sentence of my previous answer sums up my opinion of the sentiment of the petition.
1417:
An ideal candidate now that he has taken care of the experience issue. He has a wide range of contributions, a broad understanding of the issues, and a clear block log after 48,000 edits. He quietly works to resolve problems and is encouraging to new editors. -
2456:. per Q9 & Q10, both of which are wrong. I suppose these are both questions I wouldn't expect most editors to know, but the number of times I've seen your name at the upload log gives me the impression you answer better than that. Please do try again. -
751:
Any article, i.e. in the main namespace, that lacks any content would be eligible for A3. An article that only contains categories, pictures, external links, template tags (without added information), questions, or chat would eligible for deletion under
724:
Any page, in any namespace, that is unambiguously a copyright violation without any credible claim to be anything but a copyright violation. There would have to be nothing on the page or its history that wasn't a copyright violation to be eligible for
107:. J04n has referenced many of that projects unreferenced BLPS, and AFDed some others. I think that is the sort of activity indicative of an editor who quietly resolves problems on the pedia, which is why I think J04n would be a useful drama free admin.
308:
with a compelling rationale. Then, if enough other editors agreed to the point that it was the consensus decision, I would rule in their favor and ignore the rule (unless of course it was a damaging BLP or copyright violation). I would not invoke
1555:- I opposed in the previous RfA, but I had stated that if in the future J04n was able to show more policy knowledge that I would support. I see that now, and so I will support. I was then, and am still impressed by contributions to Knowledge. --
601:
In lieu of a recently passed ArbCom motion, that said the burden of proof in BLP deletion rests with the editors who want the article kept, merits an interesting new question. If you were to close an AFD, on an unsourced or badly sourced
654:
Knowledge should vigilantly remove all personally identifiable information of underage editors. Should I come across or be made aware of any I would delete first and ask questions later. After the information is deleted I would email
99:
J04n has a diversity of contributions that indicates a broad understanding of the pedia, and with a clean block log after 48,000 edits I think we have enough of a sample to show that J04n can be a very active but low drama
Wikipedian.
433:
about the character or the film but combining the different characters would serve no appropriate rationale. There may be some Disney characters that were created prior to 1923 that are in the public domain, but that's another issue.
532:
I like this example, if I was participating in the RfD I would have !voted keep, but if I was the closing admin I would have closed as delete. I'll explain: If I were participating in the discussion I would have argued that using
1828:
While not a heavy contributor of audited content, the user's efforts towards rescuing, rehabilitating, and promoting worthy articles is commendable. No evidence he would abuse the tools, and he provides satisfactory answers.
2240:
I'm happy with what I have seen. Discusses issues, doesn't make a drama, is not snappy. Works in dull maintenance areas which shows dedication and commitment. Would be helpful to archive the long talkpage though!
1205:
Yes - a photograph of a 3D object generally creates a second copyright issue - both the object and the image may have separate copyright issues to deal with. Another example of why image copyright issues are a
2099:
Interestingly enough, I missed the last RfA but probably would have supported then, too. Good content creators will take the time to learn to apply policy correctly, while the inverse is far less often true.
1281:
Only a recent contributor to DRV but edits show a good grasp of policy and a collegiate manner. I generally support giving the tools to all DRV regulars because of the need to look at deleted contributions.
484:
How many articles have you created from scratch? How many pages for articles, templates, redirects, etc. that you've significantly worked on have been nominated for deletion? Could you link to a couple?
613:
386:
This would be acceptable, a new copyright is normally generated when a photograph is taken of a 3-dimensional object. This would not be the case with a 2-dimensional object such as a painting.
1729:; the reasons that caused me to support the previous RfA persist, and J04n has only improved his contributions in other areas. No concerns here, great admin material. Best of luck. ~
204:
1627:- From my encounters with him, mostly at AfD, this candidate always offers well-reasoned arguments in a calm, positive manner. He is a valuable contributor whose judgment I trust.
304:
If the consensus of the community on a specific decision was to ignore a rule I would ignore it. I could imagine a hypothetical AfD where an editor argued keep or delete citing
154:
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:
508:
2226:
Excellent balance between projectspace edits and actual content work. This user is generally drama-free, stays out of politics, and obviously has a clue. That works for me.
1473:
arguments and I am satisfied that this editor has a really good idea of what wikipedia should be and that this focus on benefit to wikipedia is what is needed in an admin.
738:
Any article, i.e. in the main namespace, that lacks any context would be eligible for A1. An example would be if the entire article read "He makes stuff at the place".
659:
to have the material suppressed. After doing this I would leave a message on the minor's talkpage explaining what I did and why I did it. I would also refer them to
229:
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?
1233:
per my boredom at vetting this editor (no drama I can find, nothing interesting, entirely collegiate collaboration, content work, and gnoming) and the answer to Q11.
461:
What have you learned since your previous RfA? Can you be specific about which opposes held merit, in your eyes, and what you have done to alleviate the concerns?
1527:
have only served to increase my respect for the candidate as the candidate approaches discussions with care and detail backed in policy and logic alike. Best, --
1588:
tough and the complexity of the system discourages people from uploading images. I'm sure J04n has enough sense to get a second opinion if he's not sure!
1003:
2585:
998:
2495:
Wow, Fastily, those were hard questions. Would the average Admin be able to answer them? You have convinced me that I could never never be an Admin! -
1100:
What's not to love? A big pile of barnstars from people I respect, 48K edits, no evidence that he causes trouble, great answers to questions. - Dank (
852:
811:
770:
Do you have a strong password? If your request is successful will you pledge to change that password periodically? Have you considered adding a
369:
It is not allowed, copyrighted cover art is allowed to be used as non-free content only for identification of that item, in this case the album.
2176:. One of the best. Level-headed, intent upon being helpful both to the Project and other editors. We're lucky J04n has interest in the mop.--
941:
806:
606:, where there is no easily determined consensus, how would you close it, and how do you think your view conflicts or agrees with the motion?
504:
416:
as well as other such characters. The user then creates a collage from the images and uploads the collage to Knowledge with the license tag
237:
92:
1794:
276:
1322:. A content-generator first, and prolific contributor to the project space second. I'm sure this mentality will continue into adminship.
645:
1383:
1066:, where he's active, and I've seen him a few times at AfD. His work all around looks very good, and I think he'll be a great admin.
839:
1754:
AfD argument, as highlighted by A Nobody, is one of the most exemplary AfD arguments I've run into and deserves individual note. ~
2562:
2072:
1935:
1495:
993:
656:
500:
33:
17:
1110:
349:
appearance, such as if the circumstances that the person achieved notability was during childhood and now he or she is elderly.
2279:. An experienced, knowledgable, dedicated editor who will, in my opinion, make a great administrator. Good luck with the mop!
1490:
Good Track and regular Editor with solid contributions.Feel it only be net positive to the Project if the user gets the tools.
882:
2016:
1435:
Great attitude in prior RfA. Candidate is a content builder, and no problems in the editing history. ARS work is a big plus.
876:
405:
219:
regain GA status, I want to be upfront in that much of the work was done on these articles before I started working on them.
1255:. Sounds like a Wikipedian with the right attitude and humility, and surely enough edits to satisfy even the worst case of
2375:
1268:
2160:. My interactions with the user have been nothing but positive, and like Cocytus I had assumed he was an admin already. —
2075:
1989:
1395:
846:
891:
1660:
1491:
1346:
525:
200:
114:
561:? What influence do you think it has on some of the more controversial Knowledge policies? Do you participate there?
537:
as the argument to delete is flawed in that the essay permits the use of pseudo-namespace redirects which T: is (see
1717:
1695:
1580:
1164:
908:
832:
612:
As of today the policy is to close 'no consensus' as 'keep'. How these are handled may well change as a result of
492:
401:
83:
1029:
2012:
1407:
1083:
934:
1789:
1260:
1019:
2198:
1086:
are always incisive and well-put. I am confident that his addition to the admin corps will be a net positive.
2284:
1985:
1256:
567:
2395:
967:
2394:: Canidate has my support. I would have a continuing list of contribs of good things this user has done. (
2354:
2301:
2161:
2118:
1377:
1341:
1122:
109:
2194:
988:
1690:
1597:
1242:
1196:
1154:
450:
1539:
I swear some of these RfA questions are designed to trip you up, but the answers here are really good.
983:
2366:
A very good candidate. Definitely has my trust. I'm sure they'll make an excellent administrator. --
2267:
2181:
2069:
1956:
1928:
1400:
1327:
927:
648:
about editors that are under the age of majority, and how will you deal with such cases as an admin?
496:
248:
1584:. Seems like a sound, competent and knowledgeable candidate to me. As for the image questions- they
1191:. But again, I may be wrong, and I don't see how it should affect your capability to be an admin. --
1813:
1784:
1781:
1307:
785:
771:
538:
2549:
2526:
2504:
2489:
2428:
2416:
2386:
2358:
2341:
2318:
2305:
2288:
2271:
2254:
2232:
2218:
2202:
2185:
2168:
2152:
2134:
2109:
2091:
2078:
2057:
2040:
2020:
1994:
1962:
1941:
1911:
1895:
1881:
1858:
1835:
1820:
1800:
1770:
1745:
1721:
1699:
1681:
1666:
1639:
1619:
1602:
1574:
1547:
1531:
1499:
1482:
1464:
1443:
1427:
1409:
1389:
1355:
1331:
1314:
1286:
1273:
1247:
1219:
1200:
1178:
1158:
1141:
1124:
1105:
1095:
1077:
1050:
711:
Any page, in any namespace, that is exclusively and unambiguously spam would be covered under G11.
572:
143:
123:
2545:
2500:
2314:
2280:
2251:
2105:
1972:
1478:
1458:
1423:
1292:
1213:
1087:
904:
562:
549:
426:(public domain). Specifically, what is the problem with the situation and why is that an issue?
58:
627:
What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?
962:
298:
policy as an explination for any administrator-related decisions (blocking, deletion, ect...)?
2382:
2350:
2297:
2149:
2130:
2121:: in particular - lots of edits including high-quality article work, great Userboxen, lots of
1874:
1615:
1540:
1508:
1366:
1115:
2336:
2211:
2053:
2031:
1891:
1830:
1675:
1589:
1437:
1234:
1192:
1150:
1137:
1091:
1072:
1063:
558:
442:
420:
359:
A user crops an image of a turtle from a copyrighted album cover for usage in the article,
2409:
2263:
2177:
2066:
1950:
1921:
1569:
1323:
781:
762:
683:
534:
203:. Any time that my scut work when assessing an AfD influences other editors (such as at
2227:
2122:
2084:
1807:
1300:
1173:
1101:
826:
660:
511:
was tagged for speedy deletion eleven minutes after its creation, I was fortunate that
503:. The 'discussion' (I proposed the change, no one responded) about the split is here:
196:
138:
77:
338:
Can a non-free image of a living person be used in an article when a free alternative
2579:
2541:
2496:
2310:
2244:
2101:
1630:
1528:
1474:
1453:
1419:
1208:
1188:
1184:
774:
to your user page to protect your account in the even that it should be compromised?
697:
603:
512:
476:
310:
305:
295:
257:
216:
172:
168:
2477:
2459:
2367:
2144:
2126:
2008:
1869:
1846:
1611:
1283:
495:. You will see that there are twelve articles there, I can't take full credit for
322:
212:
192:
1082:
J04n's calm temperament and level-headed judgment befit an admin. His comments at
2329:
2049:
2026:
1904:
1887:
1866:
demonstrates knowledge of adminship tasks and has experience in areas of focus.
1133:
1067:
1043:
590:
171:, if given the tools I would start by closing AfDs. I am also fairly active at
54:
167:
For starters I'll stick to what I know. Administratively, I am most active at
2511:
2425:
2401:
1755:
1730:
1651:
1557:
1187:(subject to exceptions). A statue would be a "sculptural work" copyrighted by
675:
360:
1710:
1169:
822:
134:
87:
73:
1024:
207:) I get a great feeling of accomplishment. Since the last AfD, I helped
2142:- to be honest, I thought J04N already was an admin. No concerns here.
784:
and I do pledge to change it periodically. I have also just received a
2004:
363:. When is this allowed (if ever) and how is it potentially a problem?
208:
396:
A user uses their digital camera and takes a picture of a copyrighted
413:
409:
397:
1843:. Going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt. Cheers,
1970:. Great editor, I can't see abuse with the sysop tools from J04n.
1451:. A prolific editor whose quality edits I have often run across.--
907:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review
919:
1183:
Statues (in the US) should be protected from derivative work by
61:
2003:
work is very respectable, and the elbow grease put in to bring
923:
1780:, more understanding of policy now compared to the last RfA.
499:
because a significant portion of that article was taken from
130:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
1707:
Definitely satisfies all the concerns from the last RfA. --
644:
What measures do you think Knowledge should take to protect
505:
Talk:Born Again (Black Sabbath album)#Seperate page for tour
614:
Knowledge:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
2558:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
175:, being able to see deleted pages is a plus in this area.
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
1805:
Only improved from the last RfA. A wonderful candidate!
185:
What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?
161:
What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
2065:, good candidate and will be a good admin.--MrRadioGuy
1751:
1524:
1520:
1512:
870:
864:
858:
780:
After reading your post on the talk page, I now have a
104:
491:
I created eleven articles from scratch, they are at
1012:
976:
955:
509:
The Music Never Stopped: Roots of the Grateful Dead
2262:. Happy to support, no problems that I can see. --
240:, feel free to look it over but it is quite minor.
1062:I've had only positive interactions with J04n at
205:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Simonida Rajčević
103:A good example of J04n's recent work has been at
2326:The user seems trustworthy from what I've seen.
2007:to GA status was much needed. I enjoyed reading
294:As an admin, would you or would you not use the
1165:Knowledge:Image use policy#User-created images
524:Please evaluate this RfD discussion and close
935:
8:
2025:Certainly. Seems level headed and thorough.
1903:- looks like J04n will make a great admin.
2349:no reason to think theyd misuse the tools.
1519:event!). In fact, such sound arguments as
1167:, perhaps my interpretation was wrong? : )
1163:I found the information for question 9 at
942:
928:
920:
1363:I see no problems with the candidate. --
889:Edit summary usage for J04n can be found
236:they begin. I did mention a conflict in
1515:(I cannot wait for tonight's three hour
903:Please keep discussion constructive and
313:as an admin without community consensus.
86:) – Fellow Wikipedians I present to you
804:
1511:as my opinion has not diminished from
539:Knowledge:Namespace#Pseudo-namespaces
7:
105:Wiki project Metal unreferenced BLPS
803:
646:personally identifiable information
588:Additional optional questions from
475:Additional optional questions from
247:Additional optional questions from
788:that can be found on my user page.
507:. The first article that I wrote
24:
2586:Successful requests for adminship
1399:per the answer to my questions.--
2164:what a crazy random happenstance
1132:I thought you were one already.
657:Knowledge:Requests for oversight
501:Born Again (Black Sabbath album)
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
1509:User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards
2083:Eminently sensible candidate.
1042:Edit stats on the talk page.
1:
2210:looks good! Great candidate.
1949:Looks okay to me. Good luck.
812:Requests for adminship/J04n 2
96:communities reconsideration.
2550:01:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
2527:14:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
2505:13:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
2490:04:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
2471:06:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
2429:01:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
2417:22:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
2387:20:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
2359:17:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
2342:16:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
2319:16:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
2306:23:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
2289:23:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
2272:22:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
2255:13:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
2233:02:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
2219:23:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
2203:13:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
2186:09:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
2169:07:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
2153:02:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
2135:23:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
2110:22:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
2092:21:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
2079:18:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
2058:16:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
2041:11:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
2021:02:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
1995:23:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
1963:16:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
1942:16:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
1912:11:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
1896:11:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
1882:05:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
1859:04:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
1836:04:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
1821:02:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
1801:00:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
1771:23:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1746:23:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1722:22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1700:21:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1682:21:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1667:20:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1640:19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1620:19:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1603:19:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1575:18:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1548:17:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1532:17:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1500:16:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1483:15:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1465:15:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1444:15:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1428:13:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1410:12:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1390:08:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1356:08:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1332:07:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1315:06:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1287:05:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1274:05:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1248:05:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1220:05:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1201:05:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1179:05:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1159:04:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1142:04:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1125:04:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1106:04:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1096:03:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1078:03:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
1051:03:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
698:Criteria for Speedy Deletion
573:15:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
256:What is your opinion on the
144:02:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
124:15:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
807:Requests for adminship/J04n
275:What are your views on the
150:Questions for the candidate
2602:
909:Special:Contributions/J04n
557:What are your thoughts on
493:User:J04n/Articles created
320:Additional questions from
277:Petition against IAR abuse
132:I accept this nomination.
53:Final (63/0/1); Closed by
2424:. See no obvious issues.
2296:Can't find any problems.
1832:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
1185:s106 of the Copyright Act
1113:. Name sounds familiar. –
1084:Knowledge:Deletion review
548:Additional question from
440:Additional question from
400:character, for instance,
2125:, and rescues articles.
1919:makes clueful comments.
1610:. Experienced editor. --
761:Important question from
2567:Please do not modify it
38:Please do not modify it
2510:isn't all that bad. ~
2048:, a good candidate. --
1492:Pharaoh of the Wizards
1064:the albums WikiProject
696:Explain the following
2563:request for adminship
2396:User:MWOAP/RfA voting
671:Optional Questions by
34:request for adminship
2013:A Stop at Willoughby
1025:Global contributions
497:Born Again Tour 1983
191:I am quite proud of
989:Non-automated edits
802:RfAs for this user:
91:J04n's second run,
2568:
2474:Moved to support -
2151:
968:Edit summary usage
911:before commenting.
786:committed identity
772:committed identity
406:The Little Mermaid
39:
2566:
2492:
2484:
2466:
2384:
2380:
2374:
2143:
1853:
1698:
1638:
1038:
1037:
595:
329:
199:to graduate from
37:
2593:
2524:
2488:
2485:
2482:
2473:
2470:
2467:
2464:
2415:
2412:
2407:
2404:
2383:
2379:
2376:
2372:
2370:
2339:
2334:
2332:
2253:
2247:
2230:
2214:
2166:
2147:
2089:
2088:
2038:
2029:
1981:
1980:
1977:
1959:
1953:
1940:
1938:
1932:
1925:
1909:
1879:
1877:
1872:
1857:
1854:
1851:
1833:
1818:
1810:
1797:
1792:
1787:
1768:
1743:
1694:
1691:Accounting4Taste
1678:
1663:
1654:
1637:
1634:
1628:
1600:
1594:
1572:
1566:
1563:
1560:
1545:
1544:
1463:
1440:
1405:
1386:
1380:
1372:
1369:
1353:
1349:
1344:
1313:
1310:
1303:
1271:
1266:
1245:
1239:
1218:
1177:
1134:Kevin Rutherford
1118:
1075:
1070:
1048:
984:Articles created
944:
937:
930:
921:
894:
886:
845:
820:Links for J04n:
798:General comments
689:
686:
681:
678:
589:
570:
565:
559:Knowledge Review
513:a helpful editor
453:
447:
425:
419:
342:exist? Explain.
330:
327:
258:Ignore all rules
142:
121:
117:
112:
2601:
2600:
2596:
2595:
2594:
2592:
2591:
2590:
2576:
2575:
2574:
2573:
2512:
2481:
2478:
2475:
2463:
2460:
2457:
2449:
2437:
2410:
2408:
2402:
2399:
2377:
2368:
2337:
2330:
2328:
2245:
2242:
2228:
2212:
2162:
2145:
2086:
2085:
2032:
2027:
1978:
1975:
1974:
1957:
1951:
1936:
1930:
1923:
1920:
1905:
1875:
1870:
1868:
1850:
1847:
1844:
1831:
1814:
1808:
1795:
1790:
1785:
1756:
1731:
1720:
1676:
1665:
1661:
1652:
1632:
1629:
1598:
1590:
1570:
1564:
1561:
1558:
1542:
1541:
1452:
1438:
1415:Strong Support:
1403:Coldplay Expért
1401:
1384:
1378:
1370:
1367:
1351:
1347:
1342:
1312:
1308:
1301:
1297:
1269:
1261:
1243:
1235:
1207:
1168:
1116:
1073:
1068:
1059:
1044:
1039:
1034:
1008:
972:
951:
950:RfA/RfB toolbox
948:
918:
890:
838:
821:
817:
800:
782:strong password
684:
682:
676:
673:
593:
568:
563:
451:
443:
423:
417:
326:
323:
249:Coldplay Expert
152:
133:
119:
115:
110:
71:
50:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2599:
2597:
2589:
2588:
2578:
2577:
2572:
2571:
2554:
2553:
2552:
2534:
2533:
2532:
2531:
2530:
2529:
2479:
2461:
2448:
2445:
2443:
2441:
2440:
2436:
2433:
2432:
2431:
2419:
2389:
2361:
2344:
2321:
2308:
2291:
2274:
2257:
2235:
2221:
2205:
2195:Bradjamesbrown
2188:
2171:
2155:
2137:
2117:- fully meets
2112:
2094:
2081:
2060:
2043:
2023:
1997:
1965:
1944:
1914:
1898:
1886:Fine with me.
1884:
1861:
1848:
1838:
1823:
1803:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1750:Additionally,
1724:
1716:
1702:
1684:
1669:
1659:
1642:
1622:
1605:
1599:fancy a chat?
1577:
1550:
1534:
1502:
1485:
1467:
1446:
1430:
1412:
1392:
1358:
1339:As nominator.
1334:
1317:
1298:
1289:
1276:
1250:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1144:
1127:
1108:
1098:
1080:
1058:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1036:
1035:
1033:
1032:
1027:
1022:
1016:
1014:
1010:
1009:
1007:
1006:
1001:
996:
991:
986:
980:
978:
974:
973:
971:
970:
965:
959:
957:
953:
952:
949:
947:
946:
939:
932:
924:
917:
914:
900:
899:
898:
896:
887:
816:
815:
814:
809:
801:
799:
796:
794:
792:
791:
790:
789:
765:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
741:
740:
739:
728:
727:
726:
714:
713:
712:
668:
667:
666:
665:
638:
637:
636:
635:
621:
620:
619:
618:
596:
591:
585:
584:
583:
582:
552:
545:
544:
543:
542:
519:
518:
517:
479:
472:
471:
470:
469:
456:
437:
436:
435:
434:
390:
389:
388:
387:
373:
372:
371:
370:
353:
352:
351:
350:
333:
324:
317:
316:
315:
314:
289:
288:
287:
270:
269:
268:
251:
244:
243:
242:
241:
223:
222:
221:
220:
197:Canasta (band)
179:
178:
177:
176:
151:
148:
147:
146:
70:
67:
49:
44:
43:
42:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2598:
2587:
2584:
2583:
2581:
2570:
2564:
2561:
2556:
2555:
2551:
2547:
2543:
2539:
2536:
2535:
2528:
2525:
2523:
2519:
2515:
2508:
2507:
2506:
2502:
2498:
2494:
2493:
2491:
2487:
2486:
2472:
2469:
2468:
2455:
2451:
2450:
2446:
2444:
2439:
2438:
2434:
2430:
2427:
2423:
2420:
2418:
2413:
2405:
2397:
2393:
2390:
2388:
2385:
2381:
2371:
2365:
2362:
2360:
2356:
2352:
2348:
2345:
2343:
2340:
2335:
2333:
2325:
2322:
2320:
2316:
2312:
2309:
2307:
2303:
2299:
2295:
2292:
2290:
2286:
2282:
2281:Laurinavicius
2278:
2275:
2273:
2269:
2265:
2261:
2258:
2256:
2252:
2249:
2248:
2239:
2236:
2234:
2231:
2225:
2222:
2220:
2217:
2215:
2209:
2206:
2204:
2200:
2196:
2193:No concerns.
2192:
2189:
2187:
2183:
2179:
2175:
2172:
2170:
2167:
2165:
2159:
2156:
2154:
2150:
2148:
2141:
2138:
2136:
2132:
2128:
2124:
2120:
2116:
2113:
2111:
2107:
2103:
2098:
2095:
2093:
2090:
2082:
2080:
2077:
2074:
2071:
2068:
2064:
2061:
2059:
2055:
2051:
2047:
2044:
2042:
2039:
2037:
2036:
2030:
2024:
2022:
2018:
2014:
2010:
2006:
2001:
1998:
1996:
1993:
1991:
1987:
1983:
1982:
1969:
1968:Super Support
1966:
1964:
1961:
1960:
1954:
1948:
1945:
1943:
1939:
1934:
1933:
1927:
1926:
1918:
1915:
1913:
1910:
1908:
1902:
1899:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1885:
1883:
1880:
1878:
1873:
1865:
1862:
1860:
1856:
1855:
1842:
1839:
1837:
1834:
1827:
1824:
1822:
1819:
1817:
1812:
1811:
1804:
1802:
1798:
1793:
1788:
1783:
1779:
1776:
1772:
1769:
1767:
1763:
1759:
1753:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1744:
1742:
1738:
1734:
1728:
1725:
1723:
1719:
1718:Contributions
1714:
1713:
1712:
1706:
1703:
1701:
1697:
1692:
1688:
1685:
1683:
1680:
1679:
1673:
1670:
1668:
1664:
1662:Contributions
1657:
1656:
1655:
1646:
1643:
1641:
1636:
1635:
1626:
1623:
1621:
1617:
1613:
1609:
1606:
1604:
1601:
1595:
1593:
1587:
1583:
1582:
1578:
1576:
1573:
1568:
1567:
1554:
1551:
1549:
1546:
1538:
1535:
1533:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1503:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1486:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1471:
1468:
1466:
1462:
1460:
1455:
1450:
1447:
1445:
1442:
1441:
1434:
1431:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1416:
1413:
1411:
1408:
1406:
1404:
1398:
1397:
1393:
1391:
1387:
1381:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1362:
1359:
1357:
1354:
1350:
1345:
1338:
1335:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1318:
1316:
1311:
1305:
1304:
1296:- Per above.
1295:
1294:
1290:
1288:
1285:
1280:
1277:
1275:
1272:
1267:
1265:
1258:
1257:editcountitis
1254:
1251:
1249:
1246:
1240:
1238:
1232:
1229:
1221:
1217:
1215:
1210:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1175:
1171:
1166:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1145:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1128:
1126:
1123:
1120:
1119:
1112:
1109:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1079:
1076:
1071:
1065:
1061:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1049:
1047:
1041:
1040:
1031:
1028:
1026:
1023:
1021:
1018:
1017:
1015:
1011:
1005:
1002:
1000:
997:
995:
992:
990:
987:
985:
982:
981:
979:
975:
969:
966:
964:
961:
960:
958:
954:
945:
940:
938:
933:
931:
926:
925:
922:
915:
913:
912:
910:
906:
897:
893:
888:
884:
881:
878:
875:
872:
869:
866:
863:
860:
857:
854:
851:
848:
844:
841:
837:
834:
831:
828:
824:
819:
818:
813:
810:
808:
805:
797:
795:
787:
783:
779:
776:
775:
773:
769:
766:
764:
760:
759:
750:
747:
746:
745:
742:
737:
734:
733:
732:
729:
723:
720:
719:
718:
715:
710:
707:
706:
705:
702:
701:
699:
695:
692:
691:
690:
687:
679:
672:
662:
658:
653:
650:
649:
647:
643:
640:
639:
632:
629:
628:
626:
623:
622:
615:
611:
608:
607:
605:
600:
597:
594:
587:
586:
579:
576:
575:
574:
571:
566:
560:
556:
553:
551:
550:Leaky Caldron
547:
546:
540:
536:
531:
528:
527:
526:
523:
520:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
487:
486:
483:
480:
478:
474:
473:
466:
463:
462:
460:
457:
455:
454:
448:
446:
439:
438:
431:
428:
427:
422:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
392:
391:
385:
382:
381:
378:
375:
374:
368:
365:
364:
362:
358:
355:
354:
347:
344:
343:
341:
337:
334:
332:
331:
319:
318:
312:
307:
303:
300:
299:
297:
293:
290:
284:
281:
280:
278:
274:
271:
265:
262:
261:
259:
255:
252:
250:
246:
245:
239:
234:
231:
230:
228:
225:
224:
218:
217:Wicked Lester
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
187:
186:
184:
181:
180:
174:
170:
166:
163:
162:
160:
157:
156:
155:
149:
145:
140:
136:
131:
128:
127:
126:
125:
122:
118:
113:
106:
101:
97:
94:
89:
85:
82:
79:
75:
68:
66:
65:
63:
60:
56:
48:
45:
41:
35:
32:
27:
26:
19:
2559:
2557:
2537:
2521:
2517:
2513:
2476:
2458:
2453:
2452:
2442:
2421:
2391:
2363:
2351:FeydHuxtable
2346:
2327:
2323:
2298:Doc Quintana
2293:
2276:
2259:
2243:
2237:
2223:
2216:
2207:
2190:
2173:
2163:
2157:
2139:
2119:my standards
2114:
2096:
2062:
2045:
2034:
2033:
2009:Eddie Bayers
1999:
1973:
1971:
1967:
1955:
1946:
1929:
1922:
1916:
1906:
1900:
1867:
1863:
1845:
1840:
1825:
1815:
1806:
1777:
1765:
1761:
1757:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1726:
1709:
1708:
1704:
1686:
1674:
1671:
1649:
1648:
1644:
1631:
1624:
1607:
1591:
1585:
1579:
1556:
1552:
1536:
1516:
1504:
1487:
1469:
1456:
1448:
1436:
1432:
1414:
1402:
1394:
1365:
1364:
1360:
1340:
1336:
1319:
1299:
1291:
1278:
1270:said Zebedee
1263:
1252:
1236:
1230:
1211:
1146:
1129:
1117:Juliancolton
1114:
1102:push to talk
1045:
902:
901:
879:
873:
867:
861:
855:
849:
842:
835:
829:
793:
777:
767:
748:
743:
735:
730:
721:
716:
708:
703:
693:
670:
669:
651:
641:
630:
624:
609:
598:
577:
554:
529:
521:
488:
481:
464:
458:
444:
441:
429:
393:
383:
376:
366:
356:
345:
339:
335:
321:
301:
291:
282:
272:
263:
253:
238:my first RFA
232:
226:
193:Eddie Bayers
188:
182:
164:
158:
153:
129:
108:
102:
98:
80:
72:
52:
51:
46:
30:
28:
2213:Airplaneman
1677:Jujutacular
1592:HJ Mitchell
1193:Mkativerata
1151:Mkativerata
1030:User rights
1020:CentralAuth
267:consensus'.
215:status and
59:09 February
2560:successful
2264:Tryptofish
2178:Epeefleche
2087:Skomorokh
1439:Jim Miller
1324:WFCforLife
1013:Cross-wiki
1004:AfD closes
916:Discussion
763:Cool three
700:criteria.
361:Sea turtle
201:incubation
69:Nomination
57:at 02:05,
31:successful
2411:Notify Me
2229:Trusilver
2123:barnstars
1647:per nom.
1633:Gongshow
1513:last time
1174:talk page
999:AfD votes
994:BLP edits
865:block log
685:Notify Me
664:offense).
139:talk page
93:the first
2580:Category
2542:Lambanog
2497:Ret.Prof
2311:Tim Song
2246:SilkTork
2102:Jclemens
1529:A Nobody
1475:Polargeo
1454:Kubigula
1420:Ret.Prof
1385:contribs
1352:Chequers
1302:smithers
1209:Kubigula
977:Analysis
956:Counters
833:contribs
535:WP:CROSS
477:Lambanog
340:does not
260:policy?
120:Chequers
84:contribs
2538:Neutral
2454:Neutral
2447:Neutral
2422:Support
2392:Support
2364:Support
2347:Support
2324:Support
2294:Support
2277:Support
2260:Support
2238:Support
2224:Support
2208:Support
2191:Support
2174:Support
2158:Support
2146:Cocytus
2140:Support
2127:Bearian
2115:Support
2097:Support
2063:Support
2046:Support
2005:Ramones
2000:Support
1976:TheWeak
1947:Support
1917:Support
1901:Support
1871:Marlith
1864:Support
1841:Support
1826:Support
1782:King of
1778:Support
1727:Support
1705:Support
1687:Support
1672:Support
1645:Support
1625:Support
1612:Carioca
1608:Support
1581:Support
1553:Support
1543:AniMate
1537:Support
1505:Support
1488:Support
1470:Support
1449:Support
1433:Support
1396:Support
1368:Phantom
1361:Support
1337:Support
1320:Support
1293:Support
1284:Spartaz
1279:Support
1253:Support
1231:Support
1206:pain.--
1147:Support
1130:Support
1057:Support
840:deleted
661:WP:GFYA
569:Caldron
421:PD-self
209:Ramones
2483:ASTILY
2465:ASTILY
2435:Oppose
2426:Jayjg
2331:hmwith
2050:Taelus
1979:Willed
1888:Stifle
1876:(Talk)
1852:ASTILY
1088:Cunard
963:XTools
592:Coffee
564:Leaky
516:blank.
414:WALL-E
410:WALL-E
398:Disney
328:ASTILY
311:WP:IAR
306:WP:IAR
296:WP:IAR
173:WP:DRV
169:WP:AfD
55:Rlevse
2403:MWOAP
2398:) --
2369:Marek
1958:Cobra
1952:Glass
1931:comms
1924:fetch
1809:ceran
1653:RP459
1371:Steve
1348:Spiel
1262:Boing
905:civil
847:count
677:MWOAP
412:from
404:from
402:Ariel
116:Spiel
64:(UTC)
16:<
2546:talk
2501:talk
2355:talk
2315:talk
2302:talk
2285:talk
2268:talk
2199:talk
2182:talk
2131:talk
2106:talk
2054:talk
2017:talk
1892:talk
1816:thor
1752:this
1711:Soap
1696:talk
1616:talk
1586:were
1525:this
1523:and
1521:this
1517:Lost
1507:per
1496:talk
1479:talk
1459:talk
1424:talk
1379:talk
1343:Ϣere
1328:talk
1309:talk
1214:talk
1197:talk
1189:s102
1170:J04n
1155:talk
1138:talk
1092:talk
892:here
877:rfar
859:logs
827:talk
823:J04n
725:G12.
408:and
211:get
135:J04n
111:Ϣere
88:J04n
78:talk
74:J04n
62:2010
47:J04n
2028:Ged
1650:--
1241:|
1237:Tan
1074:meh
1069:Tim
883:spi
853:AfD
768:18.
752:A3.
717:G12
704:G11
642:17.
625:16.
604:BLP
599:15.
555:14.
522:13.
482:12.
459:11.
449:|
445:Tan
394:10.
2582::
2565:.
2548:)
2503:)
2378:69
2357:)
2317:)
2304:)
2287:)
2270:)
2201:)
2184:)
2133:)
2108:)
2056:)
2035:UK
2019:)
1988:*
1894:)
1799:♠
1618:)
1596:|
1562:am
1559:At
1498:)
1481:)
1426:)
1388:\
1330:)
1306:-
1259:.
1244:39
1199:)
1157:)
1140:)
1121:|
1111:OK
1104:)
1094:)
871:lu
778:A.
749:A:
744:A3
736:A:
731:A1
722:A:
709:A:
694:Q:
652:A.
631:A.
610:A.
578:A:
530:A:
489:A:
465:A:
452:39
430:A:
424:}}
418:{{
384:A:
377:9.
367:A:
357:8.
346:A.
336:7.
302:A:
292:6.
283:A:
279:?
273:5.
264:A:
254:4.
233:A:
227:3.
213:GA
189:A:
183:2.
165:A:
159:1.
36:.
2569:.
2544:(
2522:a
2520:c
2518:z
2516:a
2514:m
2499:(
2480:F
2462:F
2414:\
2406:|
2400:/
2373:.
2353:(
2338:☮
2313:(
2300:(
2283:(
2266:(
2250:*
2197:(
2180:(
2129:(
2104:(
2076:E
2073:C
2070:T
2067:P
2052:(
2015:(
1992:)
1990:G
1986:T
1984:(
1937:☛
1907:7
1890:(
1849:F
1796:♣
1791:♦
1786:♥
1766:a
1764:c
1762:z
1760:a
1758:m
1741:a
1739:c
1737:z
1735:a
1733:m
1715:/
1693::
1658:/
1614:(
1571:頭
1565:a
1494:(
1477:(
1461:)
1457:(
1422:(
1382:|
1376:/
1326:(
1264:!
1216:)
1212:(
1195:(
1176:)
1172:(
1153:(
1136:(
1090:(
1046:7
943:e
936:t
929:v
895:.
885:)
880:·
874:·
868:·
862:·
856:·
850:·
843:·
836:·
830:·
825:(
688:\
680:|
674:/
325:F
141:)
137:(
81:·
76:(
40:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.