Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Jackmcbarn 2

4649:, that still has a single reference, to a primary source at that. I think the RfA needs to welcome candidates with diverse editing experiences. Technical specialists, like Jackmcbarn, should certainly be welcome. In terms of content creation, I personally don't insist on seeing any FAs, GAs or even DYKs, and I don't think there's any magic numbrer of articles created that would qualify as suffifient. Sometimes maybe 3 really great articles is enough. But I do want to see something substantive in terms of content creation. Some substantial solid evidence of proficiency in creating new content. Admins routinely delete the articles created by other users. The candidate's past admin actions are concentrated mainly in deletion area, and the answer to Q1 indicates that he intends to be active at CSD again as an admin. IMO, any editor wishing to be an admin has a moral obligation to learn what it's like to be on the other side of the delete button first, before requesting and getting the admin bit. Even if the editor in question has their main editing interests concentrated somewhere else. The main purpose of Knowledge (XXG) is creating new content. Everything else is just cleanup. I've heard all the stock cliche arguments that an admin only enforces the rules and policies and just needs to know what they mean to enforce them but doesn't need to properly empathize with the recipients of the admin actions. I don't accept those arguments. I'm pretty sure that this nomination will pass anyway, so perhaps this will turn out just a moral oppose, so to speak. I do encourage the candidate, once he does regain the admin bit, to invest some of his time in doing content creation work. Write a few new articles. Who knows, maybe you'll even like it. 2553:- Education before the job is overvalued IMO; as with all editing, most of it is done on the job, and we need to focus more on whether a given candidate has the maturity, responsibleness and competence to not break everything before they figure it out. So, the only question here, one that's been central lately regarding low-activity senior admins, is whether they really want the bit as a trophy or they want to return to editing. I don't think anyone with such trust and appreciation in the community would put themself through all this, with three other respected editors putting their reputation on the line, if they didn't intend to come back to editing. The flag isn't worth that much. Could this have waited till February? Sure. But there was this September thing that could not wait till October and if you are having a thing and you need volunteers, I can understand some of them are going to be late by a few months, and some of them early. Doesn't make that much of a difference. We already have the trust, we wanted to know if they are truly returning and perhaps two months isn't enough on its own but three noms are worth a month each and the willingness to submit to RFA is worth a couple more. So, that makes up for everything in my advanced mathematics. Best, 4785:, so I thought you might appreciate some other perspectives on the question. The distinction I make is that, unlike first-time requests from recently returned editors, we can reasonably expect that Jack can do the job and do it well since he already has. With new sysops there's a learning curve, and the first few months we can pretty much guarantee there will be a lot of problems. With recently returned editors, this learning curve might discourage them and drive them away again before they actually get good at it leaving us with a handful of admin actions that probably has a higher error rate than normal. Not the best deal for the encyclopedia. Since Jack has already been an admin, and not a bad one, I'm not concerned that the learning curve will be especially steep and so I'm not concerned we'll get many significant mistakes during the adjustment or that it will drive him away again. If Jack does become inactive again after taking a handful of admin actions, that's still a handful of admin actions that wouldn't have been done otherwise, and they'll probably be better than completely new administrators. To me that seems like a net positive, even if we'd prefer greater community involvement. 2827:, but we shouldn't turn away a former admin which had their tools removed due to inactivity because their only problem is their long inactivity. Yes, editing hiatuses which are long do lead to a user not being up to date on relevant policies, guidelines etc. However, I trust that they have got up to speed with how Knowledge (XXG) has changed, that they won't rush into doing admin tasks, and will also listen to editors concerns / feedback if they make mistakes. I understand that if a new user came here with the same level of activity and the good record (minus the admin stuff) that this user has, I would say "come back later". But this isn't a new user, this user has been shown to be trustworthy enough to use the tools previously, they have been editing (from what I can see) without major issue for 3 months since their break, and have the support of several editors / admins I trust. This to me is enough to show that they are still trustworthy and by extension will use the tools to the benefit of the community. Therefore, per my rule of thumb 3391:. The community has correctly (in my ever-humble opinion) determined that those who have stepped away for a lengthy period should be re-reviewed before getting the tools back. That is what we're doing here. I'm on the support side because the candidate does have a significant length of history here, break or no break, and we can easily judge who they are as an editor and administrator. Sure things have changed since 2015, some for better, some not, yet at least 95% of adminning (made-up word) remains the same. The pillars haven't changed. There are tweaks to policies. The candidate's history give me the impression they will be able to (if they haven't already) become current readily, and will take criticism/instruction on board without rancor if errors are made. They have clearly been a net positive to the project, and there is no indication I can find, whatsoever, that they would be otherwise if they had the tools back. 2370:. Was trusted by the community with the mop once, and apparently didn't do anything then or in the 7 weeks he has been back recently to lose that trust. Opposes seem to primarily focus on insufficient length of return to editing, leading to a concern whether he will be aware of changed processes, and whether he is "dedicated" enough to last 2nd time round. Our processes change all the time, so I am much more reassured by the fact that he handled apparently handled evolving norms and processes on the wiki acceptably during his previous admin tenure, than I would be by more weeks or months of recent editing now. And if his activity levels decrease again at some point in the future, that's OK; in that case best wishes to him in his future endeavours, with thanks for whatever mopping he will have done in the meanwhile. 5610:, I don't think it's pointless at all as someone who has favored tightening of the resysop policy and who said Jack should not regain the tools. For me it's about knowing whether they have come back in a way that shows that they can still use the toolset well. The totality of Jack's work says to me "yes" - that is both the work since he's returned and the widely respected position he had before his absence. I can also think of a couple of examples of admin who returned after time away for whom the answer quickly became no and I can also imagine a candidate for whom we'd need a longer time period. But the community saying "It's not going to be automatic but we are going to respect your total track record" is a healthy place for us to be. Best, 4962:. I'm happy for an admin of good standing to return after a break, and the rustiness should disappear. Without discosing personal information it should have been obvious that the need of candidate to demonstrate they understood the reasons they prreviously dropped out of adminship and how they felt circumstances had changed and that they could now pick up the mop in a sustainable fashion. The answer is well given given in Q#8, but I would have hoped the candidate had seen the need to explain this in nomination acceptance. This is a sensitive area as in is grey region of private personal information that shouldn't need to be disclosed, and Q#8 might result in the candidate outing personal information. 3124:. I supported his first RFA. He did not leave under a cloud and commenters on his first tenure attest to his trustworthiness, technical skill and good interactions. Under these circumstances, I am sure he will take care to catch up on developments and changes in the interim. I actually assume, given his previous record, he has done so to the extent necessary already. I do understand the feeling that he should edit for some additional time to be sure he is caught up (though not to demonstrate that as a volunteer he will stick around). I don't think that is necessary here since his prior record and current trustworthiness has not been brought into issue. 4498:

contributions in a subsequent RfA, that would be negating the reason for the inactivity desysop in the first place. It seems clear to me that the community wants a re-RfA after an inactivity desysop to demonstrate afresh that a candidate is suitable for returning as an admin. Some credit will be given for past activity, certainly, but it follows from the community's activity requirements that it should not be given the same weighting as recent activity. I would have supported this RfA had I seen more substantial contributions since returning - but I think running for RfA again after just 7 weeks of new activity shows poor judgment.

4928:. Based on response to Q#10, I am bordering on Oppose, but, will park my vote on Neutral till I really understand more. All editors are ambassadors of the Knowledge (XXG) community, and have a role to play in making Knowledge (XXG) a friendly and welcoming place for new / fresh editors. That said, the role of an Administrator in making Knowledge (XXG) a friendly place for new comers is more than just that of a regular editor. We need Administrators who can bring in that understanding, the empathy, and right attributes to make Knowledge (XXG) friendly for new comers. An Administrator is more than just an operator of Admin tools. 4767:

December 2016 and May 2020, they made something like 30 edits total, then they jumped back in starting this past May and have made something like 1.7k edits between then and now. My concern is basically this: do I believe Jackmcbarn has demonstrated that they're going to stick around and make use of the tools, or do I think that this latest burst of activity will rapidly taper back off? If Jack hadn't been an admin beforehand, I probably would be opposing and saying "come back after you've been active for most of a year to prove that you're going to stick around this time."

144:

I think when a former administrator returns and shows that they still understand the community norms and policies/guidelines, we should welcome them back. Since returning, I have taken notice of Jack’s ability to add real value, even in difficult discussions, and for his continued skill and understanding around deletion (both speedy and AfDs). It is clear he retains both the needs and skills to be an excellent administrator. Unlike most RfAs, we don’t need to guess what kind of administrator Jack would be, we know, and so I hope you will join me in supporting this RfA.

4045:, to significant contribs to modules like protection banners. We've a lack of technical admins in many of these areas anyway, as you will recall from our experiences trying to get edits to Main page image synced. I've only seen one admin regularly process FPERs in these areas, which is a problem. Further, getting EFMs to process changes is quite the battle, so one more would be a great help. More technical admins are a boon to the smooth running of the encyclopaedia, and Jack would be an especially competent one at that, and one that has held the tools before. 4821:

good admin actions a month for years, great. If they do 1 good admin action a year, that's good too. If they are active for a while and then disappear, that's great too, since while they were active, they helped us. I guess I'd balk where I had a reason to suspect (based on prior behaviour or recent editing) that the returning admin has the wrong attitude, the learning curve is likely to outweigh the total future cumulative contributions, or it just feels like hat collecting. But absent that, I don't care about commitment.

94:, being the same helpful person I remember years ago. His recent activity shows he has returned to counter-vandalism, module editing, all the familiar areas he excelled in the past. Indeed, three years is a long break, but I think his track record as a previous admin and his activity over the past three months reconfirms he is ready to have the mop again. No, he is not your typical admin candidate. He is a more specialized candidate with technical strengths, but I believe between his recent changes patrolling, 4891:- considering the user was an admin before I joined, I have seen the name about a bit. However the user has been back for less than three months, and has less than 2,000 edits in the last five years. If they weren't a former admin - would we have such a good response here? If this waited another six months it would be easy to support, but if we allow admins to go inactive and quickly get the bit back when they return, what is the point of removing the mop when inactive at all? Best Wishes, 277:, the biggest recurring thing was probably last time I was an admin, when users would claim that some or other page deletion (or other admin action, but in practice it's almost always deletion) I did was unjust and/or demand it be undone. The way I've handled that in the past, and the way I plan to in the future, is to give a reply that explains in detail why I did what I did, citing the relevant policies, and if they still have concerns, I'd point them to where they could appeal ( 5798:

creator. I learned an awful lot in my first seven weeks as an administrator three years ago and was then fully prepared to be a useful administrator, I hope. I think that Jack is fully capable of refreshing himself in seven weeks, and resuming his work as an administrator after his long wikibreak. If there was any evidence that there were problems with his previous stint as an administrator or his current work as an editor, I might feel otherwise. But there isn't. Bring him back.

4804:, thank you, I do appreciate your thoughts and I understand where you're coming from. That's also why I made this !vote in the first place - I wanted to bring this up and get other editors' perspectives (and because my impression is that the "general comments" section isn't the best place to start a serious discussion on the merits of the candidate). Also, no objection to a move to the talk page if more people want to chime in. 4861:

garden, or when the ex has the kids for the weekend. At one point there was a concern that quite a few admins and former admins appeared to have few or no admin actions, then we discovered that adminstats only has data since December 2004. So we were misjudging some of the first generation of admins. It is very very rare for a new admin to leave the project, so rare that it is not worth raising the issue in RFAs.

4002:. While the candidate's recent logs are promising, after such a long break, they are pretty much a two/three-month-old account. I understand the support from those who had the opportunity to work with him in the past, but without such an opportunity it is hard to offer my support. I would rather have some more assurance that the candidate will continue to be active and as helpful as they were in the past. 4641:, sorry. Primarily per answer to Q4. The short period of active editing after a long absence is a concern also, but I'd be willing to overlook it in view of the candidate's prior solid record as an admin. However the almost total lack of content creation work bothers me much more. In all of his time here on Knowledge (XXG) the candidate managed to create only two articles, the DYK article 3690:. I am unconvinced by the opposers. Nobody seems to have pointed out any major lapse in judgement, snafus or controversies while this candidate was an admin. To me, that demonstrates sound judgement. Policies may and can change, but as long as this candidate updates him/herself with the latest revisions, then I have no concern re-promoting him to be an admin. 872: 1853: 2416:. Administrators are not required to be perfect. The opposition seems a little strange, and also troubling, as it may encourage other longtime admins to make token edits just so they don't land in this position; on the contrary, we should assume inactive admins with no track record of trouble will not behave any worst than the first time round. 4478:, yes, it does; in fact pretty much as a new user and I feel my opposition here also echoes the views of other respected and highly experienced voters in this section. Total edits 2144. (mainspace 557). Jack's actual admin stats are on the talk page. An absence of 4+ years if the tiny number of edits in 2016 and 2017 are included. Thus 4483:

duties it was almost like starting anew. Fortunately I had been a busy admin which helped somewhat. It does look as if this RfA will pass anyway, but if it were not to, it probably would next time and I would of course support - if my criteria are met (and they are certainly not the most onerous to be practiced by RfA voters).

4435:) the first RfA, but I would expect to see at least a year's solid new work to at least partially demonstrate that they will be around to stay for a while. That said, even at the best of times, the admin work was not particulary prolific, but I kinda accept the common argument that everyone does what they can. 3158:: no temperament issues that I can say and perfectly trustworthy to be competent and responsible with the tools. I'm not concerned by inactivity; if anything, we need a wider diversity of lifestyles among our editors because our (unavoidable) bias towards people with huge amounts of free time has its disadvantages. — 4105:. A 3.5 year absence, and very little in the year or so prior to that, over a period in which quite a bit has changed? The "losing the bit due to inactivity" thing is not reversed just by showing up again, and I'd want to see a lot more than seven weeks of recent contributions before I could consider supporting. 4270:. Solid candidate, who earned my support back in 2014, but I think that we need to see the candidate's declared renewed commitment in action. To my mind this nomination has come too early, being only seven weeks or so since the return to editing - 12 months or so would be more appropriate. Keep up the good work. 2434:, mainly per Ritchie. It would be better if Jack had waited several months, but I don't see an indication that anything would come out in those seven months to indicate that he is unsuited for the tools. Has a track record that I trust. It is possible for admins to learn on the job -- I know I do. Best, 354:

which demonstrates your up-to-date knowledge of our current policies and practices, and what do you have to say to users (including myself) who are on the fence on supporting your re-adminship request, due to uncertainties as to whether you are going to stick around this time and make use of the tools?

5797:

The Framgate controversy, as dramatic as it was for a month or two, has negligible impact on how administrators work day-to-day, especially those who strive to be civil. I learned an awful lot in my first seven weeks as an editor eleven years ago and was then fully prepared to be a productive content

4820:

Appreciate the thoughful discussion. For me, adminship is a mark of trust to use advanced tools (somewhat facetiously, that they "won't break the wiki") not a job with a volume commitment or term contract. I don't think an admin needs to "stick around" to be/have been a good admin. If they do 100s of

143:

I am pleased to be co-nominating Jack. Musik and Lego speak to his many skills and abilities so I won’t repeat what they’ve said. I have been pretty vocal in my belief that we want admins who understand the community and thus have supported more stringent administrator activity requirements. However,

4766:

I need to think about this a little, but my concern is strong enough that I am choosing to !vote neutral to add my thoughts to the discussion. Jackcmbarn clearly has experience with the tools, a solid temperament, and some very convincing nominators. My concern is with their activity levels. Between

3924:

I think it is perfectly reasonable for Lightburst to seek to counteract perceived deletionism among current admins by casting their single vote at RFA solely based AFD voting records and article creation. As long as Lightburst is consistent about it and doesn't make it personal (which they haven't).

2407:

Jack was given the bit with the full support of the community and did not lose it under a cloud. I had a nagging doubt about G5, but Jack has explained his position politely and thoroughly, and I sure as hell won't oppose an admin candidate for not being in perfect alignment with my views. Moreover,

432:

with no name parameter - that leaves some detective work to do on the admin's part. The first thing I'd do was see if the author was blocked, and if so, whether for sockpuppetry or block evasion. Assuming so, I'd then find the original master's account, and see whether it was blocked before or after

252:

My best contribution from last time I was an admin that used the bit was my handling page protection of articles. I made it a point to minimize both the level and duration of article protections I set, to keep as much of Knowledge (XXG) open to as many people as possible, while still using it enough

4860:

That's not really the same issue as an expectation that people will be continuously active, but it is more reasonable. This is a volunteer site, we aren't paying admins to be admins, and it is no one's business but our own whether we are here when we are between contracts, when it is raining in the

4195:

It's hard to believe that an editor can come back after a five year absence and immediately go back to proper admin function. A lot has changed on the Wiki since 2015 and I believe that it is best that an admin candidate, even one with some previous experience, should be active on-wiki for at least

5221:

novels), nearly all of which was more heat than light. They were covered in The Signpost, the Admin Newsletter, and are now scattered throughout our policies. I'm sure you could come up with an insightful question or two to ask Jack about their understanding of those situations, but just as with

4992:

Jackmcbarn, I'm going to sit in this neutral corner for a little bit because I have a suggestion for you: the ones opposing you on the grounds that you may not be very familiar anymore with today's admin work are probably disappointed with your answer to Q9. I don't know if the editor who asked it

2733:

Mostly per Usedtobecool. Adminning isn't rocket science, and hasn't really changed that much since 2015. What we should really be worried about is having the wrong attitude once he gets the tools (we have prior evidence this is not a problem), or that he's just regaining this as a trophy (which 2

123:

I've had the pleasure of working with Jackmcbarn on both the English Knowledge (XXG) and as part of the MediaWiki software project. During that time I've found Jack to be an excellent contributor in the quality of his work, demeanor and dedication. There's always a backlog somewhere that needs the

4997:

admins play. Your first interest may not be adjudicating in DS areas or settling editorial disputes or closing controversial or difficult RfCs, but as an admin you will have the power to do so, and I am sure plenty of editors here are interested in your thoughts on those kinds of things that are

4512:

There are several different reasons for desysoping inactive admins. Concerns that the accounts might be compromised, concerns that the admin might have not kept up with changes, I don't see many people arguing that the former admin's contributions are of no value. More that we want to see enough

605:

When I see inefficiencies in our processes, I look for technical ways to improve them, whether with templates/modules, user scripts, or changes to MediaWiki itself. My biggest improvements here to date have been with the protected edit request process, both in terms of making sure users make the

353:

Thank you for offering to serve the community again. Looking at comments and !votes from the oppose and netural sections, there seems to be concerns over your activity levels. Having returned to full time editing for less than 2 months (as of today) after a 3-year hiatus, what could you point to

4482:

are not met. A huge amount of important new policies and systems affecting admin work, including notability and deletion criteria, have been introduced since then (I was largely instrumental in some of them). FWIW, I took a total Wikibreak in 2014 of only 3 months and when I returned to admin

4317:

with regret. Jack returned barely a few weeks ago after a nearly five-year absence. Since he was an admin, quite a few Knowledge (XXG) rules and policies have changed, new consensuses were developed, and the last thing I want from an admin is to learn about these new realities the hard way from

2315:

I just don't get the "two months is not enough time to refamiliarize yourself" argument from the Opposes. His previous track record was excellent and there's no reason to suspect he will be so out of touch as to go on a deletion rampage or anything else. It would be highly out of his previously

1423:. I've reviewed the discussion here thoroughly. I'm persuaded from the nominations that Jackmcbarn was an asset to the project as an administrator, and that he's had enough opportunity to get up to speed on what's changed since he began his wikibreak that he will be an asset with the mop again. 3896:, You've incessantly made the point of "protecting the content creators" at several rfas. Can you apprise us who are these hounds which are so readily waiting to pounce on the content creators? Are the editors who cross a certain threshold of delete !votes, out to get the "content creators"? - 1483:

Has shown he knows how to be an admin, and has demonstrated a decent temperament at BN. The opposes are unconvincing to me. We want contributors to have a track record not necessarily so we know they can quote all the CSD criteria, but so that we know they aren't nuts and aren't going to cause

441:

to see if the author violated a topic ban. If so, I'd delete the page as G5, and leave a permalink to the topic ban in the deletion reason. If all of that fails, then I'd remove the speedy tag, and leave a message on the tagger's talk page saying that I couldn't find any evidence that the page

4835:

I suppose the argument could be made that a trustworthy and CLUE-ful candidate should at least perform sufficient administrative good so as to supersede the amount of volunteer time spent examining the candidate and !voting. How you could possibly measure that is well beyond my talents and

5222:

the important Arb cases from a decade ago, it can all be learned. Indeed, studying something removed and after the fact rather than being involved in-the-moment is not only more efficient, but possibly even more beneficial to understanding exactly what happened and how things flowed. ~

4497:

I'll just add a comment here, if I may. The community has decided that an admin's early contributions are insufficient to maintain their admin status once a certain period of inactivity has passed. If the community then wanted those early contributions to be considered as equal to recent

3316:

no strong reason to oppose. Being inactive for a long period can be a problem if there's no tolerance for mistakes, but this is Knowledge (XXG), most forms of damage can be easily reverted. If Jackmcbarn is willing to revert their own errors and learn in the process, I don't see why not.

2719:. The candidate has committed to stick around (Q5), and is open to recall (Q6). Provided he honours his commitments, this removed any concern that he will just grab the rights and leave again quickly, and given his strong record as a former admin, no reason not to support. Good luck. -- 5458: 1722:

Welcome back, Jack. He took a longer than average wikibreak. He was a good administrator before his break and has been a good editor recently. No evidence has been presented that there were any major problems with his use of the tools in the past. Let's give him his toolbox back.

2535:

by giving the benefit of the doubt to the first RfA. He says he won't burnout again but, honestly, that's no scarlet letter to me. Sometimes interests change, and then sometimes they change back. Come and go as you please. We're making him a WP admin, not a 33rd degree Mason.

4088:. Nearly inactive for 5 years (not just three as implied in the noms), and only returned seven weeks ago. This does not fill me with confidence. Plus a lot has changed in those 5 years, including administrative protocols. Please return in six or twelve months and try again. 4744:

Like Softlavender, I'm not sure how this will work out with such light participation in what I see as the main work of the project, content creation. I'd rather feel that admins are peers of creators than apart from them. But I guess we are about to find out how it goes. ☆

3744:

I had some reservations after reading through some of the opposes below, but most of those reservations were alleviated after reading Cullen328's note at the end of the general comments below. I trust that the candidate will wade back into administrative duties carefully.

5080:

I'm curious as to what specifically opposers feel has changed in administrative areas since Jackmcbarn was last active, that make him unsuitable now. He has said he will work in managing the edit filter, AIV and CSD. What is different now compared to three years ago? --

2470:. I thought over, quite a while, about the opposition voices. The most valid point was the long period of absence. But, this may not be predictive of the future and I really didn't see behavioural problems or judgement issues. Meets my minimum criteria, has my support. 5438:

prior to its re-creation. In the first example, there's not much there. In the second, the article was re-started six months later and still is live today, so you may have a point. But I'd not be inclined to deny a candidate based on a single case of poor judgment. –

1112:

Candidate continues to demonstrate that they are highly qualified and trustworthy. No reservations in returning the tools. As Bibliomaniac says above, they have been a model example of how the system is supposed to work; now it's the community's turn to do our part.

512:

The most significant change I've run into is that after several admin accounts got hacked, the task of editing MediaWiki and other users' JS and CSS no longer falls to admins, but instead to a new group (interface-admin) that requires 2FA and is granted to way fewer

433:

the page was created. If the master was blocked before the sock created the page, then I'd delete it as G5, and link to the master's username in the deletion reason. If the author isn't blocked for sockpuppetry or block evasion, the next place I'd look would be

3272:. I am just a normal editor, but I have interacted with Knowledge (XXG) user "Jackmcbarn" recently and he has been cordial and helpful each time. In the last few days I have also witnessed him editing warmly, so I think he knows what he's doing, as he did ere. 1501:– This is a former administrator who was well-respected and has done nothing to cause concern, both in the last few months and in their time as an administrator. I also respect the judgment of the nominators. For these reasons, I think this is a clear support. 196:

I expect most of my admin tasks to fall into one of two groups. The first group is the more technical side, doing things like managing the edit filter and handling protected edit requests to MediaWiki pages. The second group is the common admin backlogs, like

3850:. He's been an admin before without apparent difficulty. While we certainly need admins in high-conflict areas, it does not follow that admins who are unwilling to go there are of no use to the project—we also need admins doing uncontroversial grunt work. 5177:

What we learned from "FRAMGATE" is that Fram behaved in a manner unbecoming of administrators and as a result lost their administrative privileges. You shouldn't suggest that the candidate has behaved in a similar manner without citing evidence of that. –

4040:

We do have many admins who benefit the encyclopaedia greatly without content being their main focus. Jack is responsible for quite a lot of stuff Knowledge (XXG) takes for granted, either directly or via tools that helped others build stuff, from pages of

4674:. The most dangerous combination in an admin is (a) lack of meaningful content creation, combined with (b) an undue tendency to support deletion the work of others. Here, Lightburst's concern is heightened by the candidate's prior failed AfD nominations: 5522:

does suggest a certain weight. Regardless, I was really just saying that most "big things" are bumps along a 20-year history, and are generally well-/over-documented and not to difficult to grasp post-facto. As an example, within the past three years,

1354:- Unlike most candidates, there's a record of actually using admin tools. Absent any evidence at all of abusing those tools or falling out of step with community consensus regarding WP:PAG since the last RfA, I see no reason not to support by default. — 247:, which allows pages to switch between different presentations of content. The most common use case for this is that location maps in infoboxes can now show maps at the city, state, and country level, without stretching out the infobox and the page. 3238:, rather weakly, and based almost entirely on my respect for the judgement of the candidate's nominators and strong supporters. A candidate with this little recent track record should not really be at RfA, but I cannot bring myself to oppose them. 224:

I set up the tracking category Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls, writing both the MediaWiki code to populate it, additional code to point out where the problem is if it's in templates, and also contributed improvements to

5038:"have a clue", due to the fairly significant changes in both policy and enactment over the past 4 years. I'm confident that the candidate, within 4 more months, would be at that level. The issue is that I'd rather they did not do that time span 1216:- I recall Jackmcbarn's previous admin term was pretty much completely devoid of drama; we're only here on a technicality (an important one, but nonetheless unfortunate that Jackmcbarn fell on the wrong side of it). This should be a no-brainer. 529:

What in your view is the role of an Administrator in making Knowledge (XXG) a friendly place for new editors? What specific actions will you take as an Administrator to go over and beyond that to make Knowledge (XXG) welcoming to fresh editors?

2132:

things don't change much round here nowadays - the site is stable, almost ossified when it comes to policy change. JackMcBarn earned our trust in the past, and judging from the edits since they've returned they are back, and back up to speed.

86:. Starting in July 2017, he took a long break from Knowledge (XXG) before procedurally losing the bit due to inactivity. I am here to today in hopes to reassure the community that despite the long break, Jackmcbarn is again fit for adminship. 4282:, I respect those who feel seven weeks isn't enough time. However, twelve months would essentially give him no credit for his previous work as it is the generally accepted (though not universally) minimum experience for a new account. Best, 5146:

Noting the below comment, perhaps I generalized too much. However, the candidate closed 89 AfDs during their last tenure which is why I mentioned Phelps. FRAMGATE, I think, indicates a shift in climate that we should see they can live with

135:, giving him the ability to approve code to be deployed to Wikimedia sites (a far more dangerous power than being an English Knowledge (XXG) administrator). He's done a great job in that area and has my full trust. I hope he has yours too. 1484:

problems and drama. There are probably things Jackmcbarn has forgot, but his long history has shown us that he's reasonable enough that if he doesn't know something, he can be trusted to look it up and not double down on the wrong things.

4564:. They have only been editing for 8 weeks, prior to which they were away for 4 1/2 years. Regardless of their contributions before 2016, 8 weeks of active editing and ~550 mainspace edits in recent times is not enough to become an admin. 2064:

by default because I believe that Jackmcbarn should have gotten the bit back at BN when he asked for it. I appreciate that I'm in the minority on that, but it would feel wrong not to support when I think he should already have a mop.

5131:

With all due respect, why? Phelps was deleted at AFD and FRAM was about enwiki's right to volunteer control rather than foundation control. What about those incidents have changed the areas Jack has identified they'd work in? Best,

5042:- of course they'll pick it up even quicker, but edge cases (including those they may not recognise as edge cases to check on) are likely to have a higher error rate, unnecessarily. As such I think neutrality is the best position. 2751:. The extended break doesn't concern me. I know many in the oppose section are suggesting he reapply in six or 12 months, but to me that just seems arbitrary. He is either up to snuff or not, and there is no indication he is not. 5682:

Why can't we just give all new approvals a 180 day trial period? I see far more positives than negatives in that proposal. How do we get it done? If we had such a trial period, we'd probably have less hesitancy and more admins.

4543:

I disagree that the candidate is fit for the admin position again after those years of absence from Knowledge (XXG). I'm not opposed to their candidacy in the future, but they require more acclimatization to the modern website.

2770:

Given that the most-cited concern in the oppose section is the short time since the candidate's break, I think that even if this RFA were to fail, a third one 4 months later would easily succeed. Then the question is not really

2202:. The content creation issues are at best negligible considering their great effort in other areas, most especially the technical areas and to be honest perfection is a bar set too high, an admin need not be all knowing/all 89:

During his previous tenure, Jack logged over 2,000 admin actions, with a focus on deletion and blocking. I was thrilled to see he had returned this past July, and since then I've noticed him at the usual venues such as

5359:

The obvious answer is that most of his deletions were speedy deletions. Have you found any that were not justified by policy? I remind you that most candidates for adminship have zero deletions that can be reviewed. –

5216:

Neither of these are particularly critical to have experienced, IMO, to be re-trusted with some extra buttons. Important, sure, but we have prolific writings about each (FRAMBAN in particular contained roughly three

4695: 3878:

We need admins to be in those areas - or how else can they protect the content creators? So based on by belief that candidate will not be active in protecting content creators and protecting content I have to oppose.

489:

A combination of becoming busier in real life and a little bit of burnout. I don't foresee it happening again; this time around I'm making a conscious effort to moderate my time here a little bit more just to avoid

453:

says anything about the quality of the page. As long as there were no substantial edits by non-blocked/banned users, I'd delete. (I don't necessarily agree with the policy, but I'd enforce it as written anyway.)

4513:

edits to be sure it is the same person, that they still have the same values and faculties, and that they have got back up to speed. Arguably 24 hours is a tad short, clearly 7 weeks works for a lot of people.

3418:

Ultimately, this user proved through their prior admin stint that they can be trusted with the tools. If they make five admin actions, and then disappear again, we gain five admin actions, and lose nothing.

3613:

There is no reason at all in my mind to assume that Jackmcbarn may misusse the tools. The answers about the new commitment to the project seem genuine. Granting the buttons to me is clearly a net positive.

2935:

He has proven that he can be trusted with the mop, and I can attest to his technical skills, having worked with him on several templates and Lua modules. It has always been a pleasure to work with him. —

2413: 4431:, and having read the entire resyoping request. Jackmcbarn is a name I'm familiar with and the time has passed so quickly that it's already 3+ years. No malice aforethought - I did actually support ( 4410:

per Boing! said Zebedee. I don't really mind users taking breaks, but I don't find it unreasonable for them to demonstrate the same capabilities they left with for a longer period of time than a month.

4300:'s vote) that I wasn't thinking of 12 months when I cast my oppose vote. Surely this will change from candidate to candidate, but for the specific case here, I'd say 5 months would make me hit support. 2100:

I hear the concerns of the opposers, but based on the candidate's temperament as seen at BN, and their previous record, I see no evidence that they'd be anything other than a net positive with the mop.

1449:

Have zero concerns about past inactivity. It's not like we have a limited quota for adminship. Even if he performs admin tasks at a pace of tenth, of that of an average admin, it's still a positive. -

380:

I see you've done good work, but I'm a bit concerned about your lack of recent experience. I believe I'd support if adminship wasn't irrevocable. If elected as a sysop, would you be open to recall?

4221:

Processes have changed a bit since they were active several years ago. I don't know that 7 weeks is long enough to get back into the swing of things. Wait a few months, and then I'll reconsider.

2157:

Candidate is trustworthy and has reliable history with the tools previously. Current contributions are consistent with those in the past. Not concerned about gaps in editing history; life happens.

313:

per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

306: 257:

for protection that seemed out of place or excessive, discussed it with the protecting admin if they were still active, and got as many of them lowered back to more reasonable levels as I could.

4722:

Has only returned for seven weeks after a 5 year absence from Knowledge (XXG). Concerns about excessive delete rationals at AfD and a reluctance to get involved in controversial environments.--

1371:

will be a net-positive to the project. I am not concerned about timing, they have already proven themselves capable of handling the admin bit, so why force them to wait another month or longer?

221:

Beyond what I mentioned in my last RfA, I've done a significant amount of work to improve processes that I use myself and to reduce possibilities for errors that I see a lot. For example:

5034:

In this case, we have plenty of evidence to know that Jackmcbarn is not a jerk, and certainly has the underlying ability to "have a clue". So the question in my mind is whether they

289:/etc., depending on exactly what happened). If their final reply was/is to blow off steam, as long as it wasn't a gross personal attack, I'd just drop it at that point. I'd point to 5717:

Beyond the scope of this, but I think I wasn't clear. I meant it as "they're back they're back" not "show the minimum." YMMV, but I think Jack has shown a return to activity. ~

5401:

are two examples that I could find with my limited tools. I believe an AfD closer should double check the BEFORE and WP:ATD before trusting the judgement of a single !voter. ---

5826: 4703: 3302: 124:

attention of more technically minded administrators, and I'm happy that Jack is once again volunteering his time to help improve Knowledge (XXG), as he's done in the past.

5527:

has been implemented, which is probably one of the most dramatic changes in the project's history, and is trivial to catch-up on and hardly ever discussed these days. ~

3005:. This is a former admin we're talking about; so the already ridiculous notion of someone having to demonstrate they will be active (when what really matters is being a 4699: 4683: 1081: 3874:

only 2 articles started over a seven year period with roughly 30k total edits. Candidate has a high delete !voting at AfD. The answer in #3 is also a reason to oppose

2816:

I have thought about this one for a while (pretty much since since the start day of the RfA). Honestly, if this editor gets the tools and then is a problem, we have a

360:

I've tried to bring myself back up to speed on policies since returning, by watching how posts to the usual noticeboard areas get handled, and also by reading through

267:

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?

127:

Ultimately being an administrator comes down to trust. Besides demonstrating his trustworthiness while serving as an administrator, in 2014, MediaWiki core developers

4679: 2198:

lost it due to inactivity, I’d say that is indicative of them having the trust of the community at that point in time which is truly the basic foundation of being an

811: 626: 4945:. Yet another nominee who does not do content. I am sure that the Village Pump is important to this crowd, and maybe there are deep implications to that activity.-- 2734:

months of solid work is more than enough to dispel). If he approaches this with the humility to know that he might be a bit rusty in a few areas, he'll be fine. --

3141:

as per other experienced users and admins attesting to fact that the candidate has shown themselves previously to be competent and capable of handling admin tools.

806: 5059:- I have concerns about the quick return to requesting admin status. Basically, this user is inexperienced if the calendar is restarted, but has old experience. 4691: 4675: 2233:) 19:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Added: Specifically, I have seen the candidate around a lot after their BN request, and my impressions are exclusively positive.-- 591:

Not that different from a regular editor. The biggest day-to-day difference is handling things at AIV, etc. instead of adding entries there for other admins to do.

390:, and I intend to be open to recall under the same terms this time too. (Or if anyone has ideas on a better recall process, I'm open to suggestions to improve it.) 4318:

ordinary editors after they are affected by his gaps in up-to-date knowledge. I will gladly support Jack if he edits without major issues for another 6 months. —

621: 274: 83: 5553:

I have struck the statement since you are not understanding that I do not even consider it as concerning in comparison to the users use of the delete tool. ---

3708:

I recall being impressed with his fine work and sound judgment as an admin in years past, and have every confidence that he will make an excellent admin again.

437:. If there were an active case involving them, then I'd leave the page alone until it got closed one way or the other. If there's no SPI either, then I'd check 5398: 4687: 3954:

after a 3-year absence, the candidate has only been back for two months. I like what I'm seeing so far, but in my humble opinion this request is premature.

3351:... No big deal, especially after procedural de-admin. Jack, based on your user boxes, I'm not convinced we aren't the same human being different bodies. 2190:— It’s true people can get rusty after taking long breaks from editing then returning but from their recent edits it’s abundantly clear they still have a 667: 5844: 237: 183:

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

128: 5593:

I suppose the point is that removing the rights of inactive admins is rather pointless if they automatically get them back if they become active again.

3910:

What Lightburst actually means is "I want admins who will take my side when I am inevitably hauled back to ANI for repeated personal attacks at AfD." --

5642:. Maybe a few weeks is all that's needed for a "ah, yeah, good to have ya back." Jack has been prolific, wide-breathed, and quite helpful already. ~ 5192:

I did no such thing. This is exactly what I was talking about in another RfA, a personal attack without cause just at the mere mention of a term. ---

5015:, if you want the thoughts of others given current conventions around RFA could you ask a question so Jack may, if he wishes, give them to you? Best, 1845:

Seems a little overqualified after seeing the response to Q2. Like calm down here. We don't need the admin of a century; it's fine to just be only

654: 5560: 5501: 5408: 5344: 5322: 5278: 5199: 5162: 5116: 4066: 4025: 749: 5473: 547:

I'm not really sure how to answer this. Everything that I can think of related to welcoming new editors can be done without the admin tools.

3584: 2598: 1097: 942: 697: 801: 691: 229:

to make them even easier to pinpoint. This category now catches dozens of errors per day, all of which are easily and quickly cleaned up.

5494:

was another indication that this is a notable subject, as the clan is listed right below the language. All these CLUEs were missed. ---

1334: 506:

What changes, if any, have you observed about the role of administrators or their work on Knowledge (XXG) since you were last an admin?

364:'s archives to make sure I didn't miss any major changes. And I do plan to stick around this time, as I talk about in the answer to Q8. 33: 17: 5732: 5657: 5542: 5237: 3224: 1943: 661: 5315:

I just manually checked, again, every deletion you have made. I could not find a single deletion that cites an AfD. Why is that? ---

3976:, that's what I thought when this request was at BN. I've been impressed with what I've seen since then, if that helps you at all. – 3631:

On principle I would have preferred waiting six months before asking for the tools back. But it's not a big deal. No real concerns. -

3833:. He's even more experienced than when he was appointed admin in 2014. I don't think a three-year absence should count against him. 3655: 3469: 82:) – Allow me to present to you Jackmcbarn as a candidate for adminship. For those who weren't around, Jack first became an admin in 438: 3793:

I have not encountered the candidate before, but based on his contribs, he could be entrusted again with the tools. Welcome back.

1286:

I have great trust in barkeep's nomination. Considering they've already been an admin too, I see no problem in returning the bit.

5773: 5758: 4059:

The number of deletions in the logs from their previous tenure does not indicate to me they will stay on the technical side. ---

3213:

They can be trusted with the tools. Yes, they'd need a few months more of recent experience if they weren't a former admin. So?

2603: 2424: 2395: 1518:; no concerns. Sometimes it can be tough to predict how a person will handle the tools, but in this case we don’t have to guess. 1294: 1222: 721: 647: 599:

What are the steps you are going to take to reduce obstacles that slow or delay an admin related process, e.g., backlogged work?

79: 4042: 2082:— He was previously trusted with the tools and a positive contributor with them. I see no reason to think anything has changed. 102:, he has proven himself more than competent in moderating content. I hope you all will agree and welcome him back to the ranks. 5762: 5491: 5477: 5435: 4255:- echo what Hog Farm says really. Have a few months demonstrating your use and then come back to RFA, I'm sure you'll sail it. 4050: 2323: 1576: 294: 2864:

Since this editor was an admin before, and has already gained community trust, I personally see no reason for not supporting.

273:

I've generally tried to stay away from the conflict-heavy/stressful areas of editing, but sometimes it finds me anyway. Since

4209: 2441: 2303: 837: 290: 156: 5472:

existed. An admin should recognize that a much deeper search is need when dealing with less represented parts of the world.

4503: 4110: 3452: 1639: 847: 4449:

Hi Kudpung, given that a completely new account can pass RFA with only 12 months activity, and your own RFA criteria are

240:, to allow sandboxes to be used to test changes even when the page that uses the template doesn't have a sandbox version. 3619: 3562: 3535: 1814: 1411: 244: 226: 5668:

If that's the bar, we seem to wasting a lot of time on a pointless exercise. Could have given it to him after 1 edit.

4868: 4850: 4809: 4772: 4520: 4460: 3405: 3109: 3064: 2140: 2028:

The long absence does not concern me, and I saw no indication that he used the bit improperly while he was an admin. ~

1880:— Well that's an easy one! everything I would want an admin to be. Just an added bonus that they previously were one. 1619: 1150: 4601:

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not. The candidate was an admin whose rights has lapsed due to inactivity.

2250:- Obviously an experienced admin, The editing hiatus isn't a concern for me, I see no red flags here, Easy support. – 2000: 4046: 3804: 1572: 1011: 775: 706: 4619:(right down the the dashes), which seems to suggest a lack of thought process involved by this particular oppose. 4453:; does this mean you are valuing his former contributions and activity as an admin at zero in assessing this RFA? 5554: 5495: 5402: 5338: 5316: 5272: 5193: 5156: 5110: 5064: 4479: 4450: 4060: 4019: 2654: 1797: 796: 742: 3666:. No actually tangible concerns regarding the long break from Knowledge (XXG), and still seems very suitable. ~ 3006: 4729: 4499: 4428: 4106: 3821: 3580: 3373: 2593: 2384:

Has done good work in the past; not under a cloud; is open to recall, so any error on our part is correctable.—

1092: 938: 821: 160: 791: 5757:

Obviously Jack can't read my mind, but when I asked about G5 I was specifically thinking of discussions like

5701:

And what would happen after the trial period? Another RFA? Does not seem too attractive for the candidates.--

1571:- we could really do with more admins in the technical side of things, where Jack has particular competency. 5693: 5086: 4967: 4549: 3615: 3531: 3084: 3014: 2281: 2092: 1903: 1810: 1407: 1378: 1324: 816: 233: 99: 3550: 3305: 5811: 5791: 5787: 5775: 5738: 5728: 5710: 5696: 5677: 5663: 5653: 5633: 5619: 5602: 5570: 5548: 5538: 5511: 5448: 5418: 5369: 5354: 5332: 5310: 5288: 5266: 5243: 5233: 5209: 5187: 5172: 5141: 5126: 5090: 5068: 5051: 5024: 5007: 4987: 4971: 4954: 4937: 4920: 4899: 4877: 4863: 4855: 4830: 4813: 4805: 4796: 4782: 4776: 4768: 4754: 4736: 4714: 4658: 4629: 4611: 4596: 4579: 4553: 4529: 4515: 4507: 4492: 4475: 4469: 4455: 4444: 4419: 4394: 4369: 4351: 4326: 4308: 4291: 4274: 4262: 4259: 4247: 4230: 4213: 4187: 4166: 4149: 4139:- Sorry, but I can't support somebody who has literally been back for seven weeks after years of absence. 4131: 4114: 4097: 4093: 4076: 4054: 4035: 4010: 3992: 3968: 3940: 3919: 3905: 3888: 3859: 3842: 3825: 3808: 3785: 3771: 3754: 3736: 3722: 3700: 3682: 3658: 3640: 3623: 3605: 3588: 3566: 3539: 3522: 3501: 3490: 3473: 3443: 3425: 3410: 3379: 3360: 3343: 3326: 3308: 3264: 3247: 3243: 3230: 3218: 3205: 3201: 3188: 3171: 3150: 3133: 3116: 3087: 3068: 3060: 3051: 3035: 3018: 2997: 2980: 2963: 2946: 2927: 2910: 2893: 2870: 2856: 2839: 2808: 2796: 2762: 2743: 2728: 2711: 2690: 2676: 2659: 2644: 2627: 2608: 2579: 2562: 2558: 2545: 2527: 2510: 2493: 2489: 2479: 2462: 2447: 2426: 2399: 2379: 2362: 2343: 2326: 2307: 2284: 2263: 2242: 2217: 2213: 2182: 2165: 2149: 2135: 2124: 2112: 2095: 2074: 2056: 2039: 2018: 1987: 1968: 1949: 1939: 1923: 1905: 1872: 1837: 1818: 1800: 1771: 1757: 1752: 1736: 1714: 1689: 1672: 1655: 1642: 1622: 1616: 1607: 1580: 1563: 1546: 1527: 1510: 1493: 1475: 1458: 1441: 1415: 1398: 1385: 1363: 1346: 1328: 1311: 1307: 1297: 1278: 1260: 1243: 1227: 1208: 1191: 1173: 1154: 1131: 1104: 1072: 1068: 1053: 1039: 1015: 980: 963: 946: 928: 911: 894: 880: 539: 463: 446: 387: 254: 172: 113: 58: 5640:

reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor

5484: 5047: 4625: 4607: 4386:

on the same nomination. I guess it will only be fair towards the candidate if I stay neutral. Cheers, —

3962: 3855: 3696: 3652: 3636: 3465: 3356: 3260: 2939: 2739: 2459: 2107: 132: 5825:

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

5104: 2829:

f I can trust that a candidate will use the tools to the benefit of the community, then I will support.

770: 717: 5431: 3273: 151:

I accept the nomination. I have never edited for pay. I've edited under these two alternate accounts:

5771: 5566: 5507: 5425: 5414: 5350: 5328: 5293: 5284: 5252: 5205: 5168: 5122: 5060: 4347: 4196:

six contiguous months before the community can be reliably assured of their function and dedication.

4072: 4031: 3884: 3481:-- made more edits in the time period since their return than I have. No reason for me to say no. -- 3031: 2821: 2640: 2523: 2506: 2422: 2391: 2031: 1785: 1765:, with none of the doubt i expressed last time; the candidate has proven himself easily; happy days, 1707: 1647:

I trust the noms, and see nothing to make me believe that Jackmcbarn would abuse the tools if given.

1598: 1558: 1471: 907: 735: 641: 555: 459: 168: 73: 2455:. No concerns; candidate answers show willingness to update himself on latest policy. Welcome back. 5804: 5706: 5615: 5137: 5020: 4950: 4791: 4723: 4287: 4162: 4145: 3915: 3817: 3576: 3517: 3368: 3279: 2923: 2852: 2788: 2588: 2541: 2357: 2320: 2238: 2230: 1729: 1535:

Tenure is a bit short, but I'm not seeing any red flags. Just try not to delete the main page :) -

1489: 1394: 1356: 1238: 1087: 976: 934: 890: 5524: 5271:

I am surprised by this. Perhaps, the fact that you have never closed an AfD can explain this. ---

4561: 3318: 278: 5082: 4985: 4963: 4545: 4392: 4357: 4324: 4226: 4205: 4183: 3146: 3129: 3077: 3010: 2976: 2698:- I simply do not care about periods of absence, and prior record as an admin is perfectly fine. 2339: 2297: 2084: 1889: 1832: 1681: 1668: 1373: 1320: 1179: 1171: 1127: 152: 5469: 5255:, literally hadn't heard of Clarice Phelps until this post. Guess I should relinguish my tools? 3779:

It may be true that many things have changed, but I trust that he can exercise proper judgment.

5520:

I don't think a former admin that did not experience WP:FRAMGATE should be given back the tools

1080:. I was extremely impressed with his temperament during the furious discussion surrounding his 5784: 5724: 5649: 5534: 5444: 5376: 5365: 5229: 5183: 4893: 4826: 4646: 4592: 4488: 4440: 4256: 4127: 4089: 3838: 3766: 3498: 3486: 3339: 3322: 3239: 3214: 3197: 3044: 2906: 2865: 2672: 2575: 2555: 2485: 2375: 2208: 2178: 1935: 1744: 1635: 1536: 1523: 1303: 1063: 959: 877: 1826:– was a good admin before, no reason to think this won't be the case the second time around. 361: 5782:

Jack can do whatever he sets his mind to, and should not let anyone tell him any different.

5043: 5003: 4620: 4602: 3973: 3955: 3851: 3691: 3649: 3632: 3601: 3558: 3456: 3352: 3256: 3184: 3164: 2993: 2959: 2888: 2831: 2735: 2688: 2623: 2475: 2456: 2194:

about how things work here, coupled with the fact that they once wielded the mop and merely

2103: 1994: 1980: 1916: 1342: 924: 106: 2824: 2817: 434: 282: 198: 91: 5766: 5687: 5673: 5629: 5598: 4846: 4710: 4667: 4654: 4343: 4243: 3987: 3901: 3893: 3880: 3401: 3103: 3027: 2724: 2636: 2519: 2502: 2417: 2385: 2275: 1883: 1700: 1589: 1552: 1467: 1454: 1287: 1217: 1146: 1034: 903: 637: 455: 398: 372: 164: 69: 5624:

The question is whether a few weeks activity after a few years inactivity is sufficient.

1779:

Already proven, well trusted by the community, this RfA is a no brainer if ever I saw one

450: 407: 286: 4616:

And to add on, this oppose looks like a copy-and-paste of another user's opposition vote

3059:

per trusted MusikAnimal and co-nominators. It appears candidate can be trusted as well.

5799: 5702: 5611: 5306: 5262: 5133: 5097: 5016: 4946: 4933: 4916: 4801: 4788: 4297: 4283: 4279: 4271: 4158: 4141: 3911: 3800: 3780: 3731: 3510: 2919: 2848: 2782: 2705: 2537: 2408:

I checked out his deletion history and the only G5 I could possibly take issue with is

2352: 2317: 2251: 2234: 2226: 1964: 1724: 1485: 1390: 1256: 1235: 1204: 1049: 1005: 972: 886: 577: 535: 427: 413: 291:

User talk:Jackmcbarn/Archive 9#Need_Help_Regarding_Nomination_Based_on_OTRS_Pending_Tag

159:. I've also formerly edited under another account with the same name, since renamed to 54: 2351:. I've needed his hand once with a user. No issues with Jack returning as mop tender. 1588:, for basically the same reasons I supported the candidate's first RfA. Welcome back! 842: 5838: 5297: 4980: 4908: 4750: 4387: 4375: 4365: 4337: 4319: 4303: 4222: 4197: 4179: 4005: 3932: 3750: 3434: 3142: 3125: 2972: 2435: 2335: 2293: 2052: 2010: 1864: 1828: 1767: 1664: 1653: 1506: 1271: 1187: 1166: 1114: 483:

What was the reason for your extended absence and do you foresee it happening again?

4018:– ~5000 edits to main space does not indicate the user is ready to be an admin. --- 3876:

I've generally tried to stay away from the conflict-heavy/stressful areas of editing

3596:

The oppose arguments are unpersuasive. Experience counts, even if it is not recent.

1999:

Are you sure the nominator is someone you can trust? I'm pretty sure they're in the

5440: 5388: 5361: 5179: 4822: 4588: 4572: 4484: 4436: 4123: 3834: 3763: 3713: 3495: 3482: 3420: 3335: 3255:. Fully qualified candidate and I have no qualms about his resuming his adminship. 2902: 2752: 2668: 2616:

I love Jackmcbarn's boldness and bias for action, especially in technical areas. –

2571: 2371: 2174: 2159: 2121: 1631: 1519: 955: 475: 319: 4356:

Given this one is newer, I struck the old one. Kashmiri can change as need be. --

4587:– ~5000 edits to main space does not indicate the user is ready to be an admin.-- 3575:

A former admin is very likely to remember the rules with 3 year admin experience.

1850: 606:

request correctly the first time, and making it faster for admins to answer them.

5461: 5012: 4999: 4979:. Other editors have well articulated both prons and cons of this nomination. — 4412: 3597: 3554: 3180: 3179:

no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. That about says it all. --

3159: 2989: 2955: 2879: 2805: 2685: 2617: 2471: 2271:- I've got some WD40 for the rust - oh, and see my trial period proposal below. 1338: 920: 5393:

My main issue remains to be the candidates focus on deletions. The deletion of

201:(which I've noticed frequently has reports sit unhandled for hours lately) and 5684: 5669: 5625: 5607: 5594: 5454: 5394: 4837: 4706: 4671: 4650: 4239: 3977: 3897: 3667: 3392: 3097: 2720: 2272: 2066: 1450: 1141: 1024: 498: 345: 5819:

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

5301: 5257: 4929: 4912: 4911:. If this RFA fails, I'd probably be happy to support in a few months time. 4157:

My comment was maybe a bit rude, so I have toned it down. Sorry about that.

3795: 2699: 1959: 1429: 1252: 1045: 999: 991: 531: 521: 5381:

Please don't focus on FRAMGATE. That was only in response to the question:

1023:– an excellent technical admin with a proven track record. Welcome back. – 4746: 4642: 3927: 3746: 2048: 2005: 1859: 1648: 1502: 334: 5107:

should be given back the tools. We would be setting them up for failure.

4122:

Very little content work, only recently back after lengthy inactivity.--

4565: 1630:

has proven his competency as an administrator in his previous stint. –

1084:. That show of restraint alone pretty much confirms he's still got it. 327:

What area or areas of the English Knowledge (XXG) are you the weakest?

202: 3762:- Has already shown they can be trusted with the tools. Welcome back! 2635:

So what harm is done if he doesn't stick around? None that I can see.

5829:

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

1792: 1680:

I have no concerns and echo the comments of 28bytes, Mz7, and TNT. --

971:+2 and former admin, can be trusted with the tools, valid use case -- 386:

Yes. I was open to recall last time I was an admin, with details at

1319:

No concerns, clear since his return that he knows what he's doing.

720:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 5151:. If I could be assured the Jackmcbarn from 23 July 2015 will not 727: 5096:

I don't think a former admin that did not experience the case of

5385:

and how significant things happened in the interim, in general.

731: 585:

Can you describe a typical day as an admin on Knowledge (XXG)?

410:

and what decisions would you make if you saw an article tagged

3196:

Prior admin that can be trusted with the tools. Welcome back.

215:

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

5149:

but I do not know enough about that to make it sticking point

149:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

4451:

12 months editing or 6,000 manual edits in the last 6 months

2292:- barring no other issues, will most likely be net positive 1537: 2971:

per the nominator. I wish you all the best and good luck.

2779:. I see no reason to expect problems if we give them now. 563:

Do your plan to close any AfDs in the foreseeable future?

902:. Trustworthy former admin who has a need for the tools. 29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

406:

You say you want to work in CSD. What are your views on

190:

What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

4617: 4432: 3388: 2409: 685: 679: 673: 95: 3076:

Welcome back and thanks for volunteering once again. —

3648:

I have no concerns with returning the tools to Jack.

3334:

Why not. Qualified to resume admin responsibilities.

3282: 2918:

Clearly trustworthy, clearly technically skilled. --

2820:. Yes the bar can be often high and generally needs 1466:

The m o p shall be awarded to this fine wikipedian.

3547:User has shown they can be trusted with the tools. 1178:Strike duplicate vote, this is the earlier one. -- 830: 784: 763: 5383:What is different now compared to three years ago? 4993:was thinking of 2FA and hacking--it was about the 3296: 2316:demonstrated character to presume that is a risk. 1615:Clearly trustworthy, clearly technically skilled. 4998:within the purview of administrators. Thank you, 2334:. If people want to help out, let them help out. 305:You may ask optional questions below. There is a 4378:! It's quite embarassing for me to have !voted 2484:I looked at the old RFA, and see no red flags. 704:Edit summary usage for Jackmcbarn can be found 295:User talk:Jackmcbarn/Archive 11#Wtf_you_f*cker 253:to stop disruption. I also regularly reviewed 5765:and wondered what his take on all of it was. 743: 236:, both updating MediaWiki itself and writing 53:Final: (150/23/10) - Closed as successful by 8: 5480:existed was a clue and could have served as 4645:mentioned in the answer to Q4, and a stub 3548: 750: 736: 728: 238:User:Jackmcbarn/advancedtemplatesandbox.js 5476:should always be explored. The fact that 4296:Just to add (and somewhat in response to 3290: 3287: 3284: 3283: 3281: 716:Please keep discussion constructive and 2818:process to deal with troublesome admins 619: 5639: 5519: 5465: 5382: 5155:return, I would strike my oppose. --- 4331:Moving to neutral due to double voting 3875: 2828: 2047:— I feel comfortable with supporting. 1809:with thanks for returning to service. 1251:was capable and competent previously. 18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship 2173:again, as I did in your first RfA. – 7: 1663:backed by evidence of past success. 1139:, fully agree with Bibliomaniac15. — 869: 439:Knowledge (XXG):Editing restrictions 2775:Jackmcbarn should get the mop, but 1697:. Solid technical contributions. — 627:Requests for adminship/Jackmcbarn 2 618: 569:I probably will at some point, yes. 232:I made significant improvements to 3509:gaps in activity are no big deal. 333:I'd say content creation. I wrote 24: 5845:Successful requests for adminship 2518:Can be trusted with the tools. -- 622:Requests for adminship/Jackmcbarn 337:, but that's really basically it. 4238:Based on the short period back. 1957:has proven they can be trusted. 1851: 1406:lets hand the mop back to them. 870: 297:as examples of this in the past. 5430:For your review, I've restored 5337:Wait, I found one in 2009. --- 3730:He is a core technical person. 885:Support as co-nominator. Best, 5812:04:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 5792:05:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 5776:21:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 5739:00:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 5711:20:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 5697:19:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 5678:19:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 5664:19:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 5634:18:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 5620:18:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 5603:18:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 5571:00:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 5549:00:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 5512:00:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 5449:00:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 5419:19:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 5370:19:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 5355:18:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 5333:18:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 5311:18:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 5289:18:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 5267:17:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 5244:19:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 5210:18:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 5188:18:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 5173:18:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 5142:17:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 5127:16:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 5091:14:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 5069:18:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 5052:08:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 5025:15:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 5008:14:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4988:22:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 4972:21:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 4955:20:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 4938:17:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 4921:14:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 4900:18:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 4878:08:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 4856:15:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 4831:22:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 4814:23:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 4797:22:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 4777:21:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 4755:14:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC) 4737:16:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 4715:13:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 4659:13:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4630:01:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC) 4612:14:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 4597:04:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4580:04:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4554:00:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4530:20:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC) 4508:09:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4493:01:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 4470:12:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4445:03:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4420:02:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 4395:19:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 4370:18:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 4352:16:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 4327:11:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 4309:16:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 4292:11:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 4275:08:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 4263:19:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 4248:18:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 4231:16:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 4214:15:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 4188:14:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 4167:19:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 4150:13:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 4132:12:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 4115:10:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 4098:07:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 4077:05:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 4055:01:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 4036:00:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 4011:23:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 3993:21:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 3969:21:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 3941:18:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 3920:10:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 3906:00:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 3889:21:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 3860:20:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC) 3843:19:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC) 3826:14:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC) 3816:- Trusted and well qualified. 3809:13:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC) 3786:12:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC) 3772:10:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC) 3755:08:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC) 3737:04:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC) 3723:03:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC) 3701:02:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC) 3683:00:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC) 3659:00:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC) 3641:21:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 3624:18:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 3606:17:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 3589:13:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 3567:08:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 3540:07:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 3523:04:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 3502:02:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 3491:21:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 3474:21:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 3444:19:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 3426:14:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 3411:13:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 3380:07:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 3361:03:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 3344:03:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 3327:03:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 3309:03:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 3297:{\displaystyle \mathbb {JPG} } 3265:01:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 3248:23:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 3231:22:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 3206:21:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 3189:20:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 3172:20:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 3151:13:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 3134:05:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 3117:02:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC) 3088:23:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3069:19:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3052:19:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3036:18:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3019:17:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2998:14:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2981:13:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2964:11:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2947:07:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2928:07:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2911:05:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2894:04:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 2871:21:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 2857:20:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 2840:20:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 2809:18:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 2797:16:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 2763:16:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 2744:15:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 2729:14:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 2712:14:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 2691:11:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 2677:14:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 2660:11:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 2645:08:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 2628:08:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 2609:06:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 2580:06:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 2563:05:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 2546:05:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 2528:03:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 2511:01:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 2494:00:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 2480:00:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 2463:22:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 2448:22:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 2427:22:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 2400:21:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 2380:21:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 2363:20:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 2344:20:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 2327:20:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 2308:20:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 2285:19:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 2264:19:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 2243:19:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 2218:19:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 2183:18:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 2166:17:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 2150:17:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 2125:16:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 2113:16:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 2096:15:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 2075:15:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 2057:15:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 2040:14:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 2019:18:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1988:13:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1969:13:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1950:10:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1924:08:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1906:08:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1873:07:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1838:07:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1819:06:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1801:06:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1772:06:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1758:05:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1737:04:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1715:03:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1690:03:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1673:03:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1656:03:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1643:03:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1623:02:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1608:02:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1581:01:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1564:00:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1547:00:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1528:00:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1511:00:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1494:00:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1476:00:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 1459:23:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1442:23:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1416:23:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1399:23:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1386:23:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1364:22:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1347:22:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1329:22:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1312:22:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1298:22:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1279:22:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1261:22:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1244:22:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1228:22:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1209:21:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1192:18:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 1174:21:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1155:21:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1132:21:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1105:21:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1073:21:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1054:21:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1040:21:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 1016:21:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 981:21:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 964:21:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 947:21:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 929:21:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 912:21:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 895:21:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 881:21:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 540:16:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 464:21:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC) 173:21:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 157:User:Jackmcbarn no permissions 114:14:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 59:21:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC) 1: 5464:now exists is proof of that. 5102:(not saying they are related) 2410:Medicine in the Islamic world 234:the TemplateSandbox extension 2804:No concerns , was an admin. 2667:Trustworthy former admin. -- 2501:– Should be a net positive. 245:MediaWiki:Gadget-switcher.js 227:User:Frietjes/findargdups.js 4781:I had a similar thought as 179:Questions for the candidate 5861: 2878:. I see no problems here. 2225:, do not see any issues.-- 1888:I wish you all the best, — 576:Additional questions from 139:Co-nomination by Barkeep49 3095:- trustworthy candidate. 2684:– Thought he was one. 😉 554:Additional question from 520:Additional question from 497:Additional question from 474:Additional question from 397:Additional question from 371:Additional question from 344:Additional question from 318:Additional question from 161:User:Jackmcbarn (usurped) 5822:Please do not modify it. 5474:Alternatives to deletion 5462:Bagar tract#Bagri people 5434:and the edit history of 3009:admin) is even more so. 1203:. An easy call. - Dank ( 119:Co-nomination by Legoktm 2901:. No problems present. 38:Please do not modify it 5466:there's not much there 3298: 2412:and only then because 635:Links for Jackmcbarn: 447:Special:Diff/978946173 388:User:Jackmcbarn/Recall 255:Special:ProtectedPages 4047:ProcrastinatingReader 3299: 1976:per the nominator :) 1573:ProcrastinatingReader 34:request for adminship 5397:and the deletion of 3280: 843:Global contributions 4500:Boing! said Zebedee 4480:most of my criteria 4429:Boing! said Zebedee 4374:Thank you so much, 4107:Boing! said Zebedee 2954:per Usedtobecool ‐‐ 1913:Indeedy, why not. 1335:editProtectedHelper 797:Non-automated edits 617:RfAs for this user: 445:Follow-up based on 133:merge ("+2") rights 129:unanimously granted 4696:Adithya Srinivasan 4342:You !voted twice. 3616:Crystallizedcarbon 3532:Paradise Chronicle 3294: 1811:Indignant Flamingo 1408:Clone commando sev 776:Edit summary usage 724:before commenting. 153:User:Jackmcbarn HG 39: 5737: 5690: 5662: 5547: 5242: 4806:GeneralNotability 4769:GeneralNotability 4704:Iwan Ries and Co. 4647:Transmission loss 4368: 4332: 3965: 3959: 3719: 3569: 3553:comment added by 3304: 3061:TheBirdsShedTears 3043:- Good candidate. 2446: 2398: 2278: 1948: 1803: 1712: 1617:ThePlatypusofDoom 1439: 1427: 1381: 1190: 998: 954:as co-nominator. 856: 855: 722:his contributions 37: 5852: 5824: 5809: 5807:Let's discuss it 5794: 5721: 5720: 5688: 5646: 5645: 5563: 5557: 5531: 5530: 5504: 5498: 5489: 5483: 5432:Draft:Bagri clan 5429: 5411: 5405: 5392: 5380: 5347: 5341: 5325: 5319: 5281: 5275: 5226: 5225: 5202: 5196: 5165: 5159: 5119: 5113: 5075:General comments 4983: 4896: 4875: 4871: 4866: 4842: 4795: 4734: 4726: 4577: 4570: 4527: 4523: 4518: 4467: 4463: 4458: 4417: 4390: 4364: 4362: 4341: 4330: 4322: 4201: 4069: 4063: 4028: 4022: 3990: 3985: 3963: 3957: 3939: 3930: 3769: 3718: 3716: 3711: 3680: 3585:Corrosive liquid 3515: 3462: 3459: 3441: 3423: 3397: 3377: 3371: 3303: 3301: 3300: 3295: 3293: 3276: 3227: 3221: 3167: 3115: 3081: 3049: 3026:. Welcome back. 2942: 2941:Mr. Stradivarius 2886: 2795: 2791: 2785: 2760: 2658: 2620: 2587:, certainly. -- 2438: 2390: 2276: 2261: 2256: 2162: 2147: 2143: 2138: 2111: 2094: 2090: 2072: 2034: 2017: 2008: 1998: 1986: 1985: 1983: 1932: 1931: 1921: 1919: 1902: 1887: 1871: 1862: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1835: 1799: 1795: 1788: 1750: 1747: 1734: 1732:Let's discuss it 1710: 1706: 1703: 1687: 1684: 1651: 1603: 1594: 1561: 1555: 1544: 1543: 1540: 1440: 1437: 1436: 1434: 1425: 1384: 1379: 1376: 1361: 1359: 1292: 1242: 1186: 1184: 1169: 1122: 1120: 1100: 1095: 1090: 1066: 1037: 1032: 996: 875: 874: 873: 792:Articles created 752: 745: 738: 729: 709: 701: 660: 431: 417: 314: 112: 111: 109: 5860: 5859: 5855: 5854: 5853: 5851: 5850: 5849: 5835: 5834: 5833: 5827:this nomination 5820: 5805: 5781: 5718: 5692: 5643: 5567:Coffeeandcrumbs 5561: 5555: 5528: 5508:Coffeeandcrumbs 5502: 5496: 5487: 5481: 5468:is immaterial. 5426:Coffeeandcrumbs 5423: 5415:Coffeeandcrumbs 5409: 5403: 5386: 5374: 5351:Coffeeandcrumbs 5345: 5339: 5329:Coffeeandcrumbs 5323: 5317: 5294:Coffeeandcrumbs 5285:Coffeeandcrumbs 5279: 5273: 5253:Coffeeandcrumbs 5223: 5219:Game of Thrones 5206:Coffeeandcrumbs 5200: 5194: 5169:Coffeeandcrumbs 5163: 5157: 5123:Coffeeandcrumbs 5117: 5111: 5077: 5061:Robert McClenon 4981: 4909:my RFA criteria 4894: 4873: 4869: 4864: 4854: 4838: 4786: 4763: 4730: 4724: 4668:User:Lightburst 4573: 4566: 4525: 4521: 4516: 4485:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 4465: 4461: 4456: 4437:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 4413: 4388: 4358: 4335: 4320: 4229: 4199: 4073:Coffeeandcrumbs 4067: 4061: 4043:Gerrit contribs 4032:Coffeeandcrumbs 4026: 4020: 3988: 3978: 3928: 3926: 3868: 3767: 3714: 3712: 3668: 3511: 3460: 3457: 3440: 3435: 3421: 3409: 3393: 3374: 3369: 3278: 3277: 3225: 3219: 3165: 3096: 3079: 3045: 2940: 2880: 2789: 2783: 2780: 2753: 2710: 2652: 2618: 2444: 2414:it survived AfD 2280: 2257: 2252: 2160: 2145: 2141: 2136: 2102: 2088: 2083: 2067: 2032: 2006: 2004: 1992: 1981: 1979: 1977: 1929: 1917: 1915: 1900: 1881: 1860: 1858: 1852: 1833: 1793: 1786: 1755: 1748: 1745: 1730: 1708: 1701: 1685: 1682: 1649: 1601: 1592: 1559: 1553: 1541: 1538: 1430: 1428: 1424: 1375:« Gonzo fan2007 1374: 1372: 1357: 1355: 1333:I'm partial to 1288: 1270: 1233: 1225: 1180: 1167: 1118: 1117: 1098: 1093: 1088: 1082:resysop request 1062: 1044:Unequivocal. -- 1035: 1025: 871: 862: 857: 852: 826: 780: 759: 758:RfA/RfB toolbox 756: 705: 653: 636: 632: 615: 556:Coffeeandcrumbs 425: 411: 304: 181: 107: 105: 103: 67: 50: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5858: 5856: 5848: 5847: 5837: 5836: 5832: 5831: 5816: 5815: 5814: 5755: 5754: 5753: 5752: 5751: 5750: 5749: 5748: 5747: 5746: 5745: 5744: 5743: 5742: 5741: 5715: 5714: 5713: 5686: 5591: 5590: 5589: 5588: 5587: 5586: 5585: 5584: 5583: 5582: 5581: 5580: 5579: 5578: 5577: 5576: 5575: 5574: 5573: 5516: 5515: 5514: 5478:Bagri language 5460:The fact that 5250: 5249: 5248: 5247: 5246: 5214: 5213: 5212: 5098:Clarice Phelps 5076: 5073: 5072: 5071: 5054: 5029: 5028: 5027: 4990: 4974: 4957: 4940: 4923: 4902: 4886: 4885: 4884: 4883: 4882: 4881: 4880: 4844: 4818: 4817: 4816: 4762: 4759: 4758: 4757: 4739: 4725:Literaturegeek 4717: 4700:Santali cinema 4684:Kammron Taylor 4661: 4636: 4635: 4634: 4633: 4632: 4582: 4556: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4495: 4433:at some length 4422: 4405: 4404: 4403: 4402: 4401: 4400: 4399: 4398: 4397: 4315:Oppose for now 4311: 4294: 4265: 4250: 4233: 4225: 4216: 4190: 4178:Per Wehwalt.-- 4173: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4134: 4117: 4100: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4013: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3867: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3845: 3828: 3818:TheGeneralUser 3811: 3788: 3774: 3757: 3739: 3725: 3706:Strong support 3703: 3685: 3661: 3643: 3626: 3608: 3591: 3577:Acidic Carbon 3570: 3542: 3525: 3504: 3493: 3476: 3446: 3436: 3428: 3413: 3399: 3382: 3363: 3346: 3329: 3311: 3292: 3289: 3286: 3267: 3250: 3233: 3208: 3191: 3174: 3153: 3136: 3119: 3090: 3071: 3054: 3038: 3021: 3000: 2983: 2966: 2949: 2930: 2913: 2896: 2873: 2859: 2842: 2811: 2799: 2765: 2746: 2731: 2714: 2704: 2693: 2679: 2662: 2647: 2630: 2611: 2582: 2565: 2548: 2530: 2513: 2496: 2482: 2465: 2450: 2440: 2429: 2402: 2382: 2365: 2346: 2329: 2310: 2287: 2274: 2266: 2245: 2220: 2185: 2168: 2152: 2127: 2115: 2098: 2077: 2059: 2042: 2023: 2022: 2021: 1971: 1952: 1926: 1908: 1875: 1840: 1821: 1804: 1787:P.I. Ellsworth 1774: 1760: 1753: 1739: 1717: 1692: 1675: 1658: 1645: 1625: 1610: 1583: 1566: 1549: 1530: 1513: 1496: 1478: 1461: 1444: 1418: 1401: 1388: 1366: 1358:Rhododendrites 1349: 1331: 1314: 1302:Welcome back. 1300: 1281: 1268: 1263: 1246: 1230: 1221: 1211: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1161:Strong support 1134: 1107: 1075: 1056: 1042: 1018: 983: 966: 949: 935:John M Wolfson 931: 919:welcome back, 914: 897: 883: 861: 858: 854: 853: 851: 850: 845: 840: 834: 832: 828: 827: 825: 824: 819: 814: 809: 804: 799: 794: 788: 786: 782: 781: 779: 778: 773: 767: 765: 761: 760: 757: 755: 754: 747: 740: 732: 713: 712: 711: 702: 631: 630: 629: 624: 616: 614: 611: 610: 609: 608: 607: 594: 593: 592: 580: 573: 572: 571: 570: 558: 551: 550: 549: 548: 524: 517: 516: 515: 514: 501: 494: 493: 492: 491: 478: 471: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 401: 394: 393: 392: 391: 375: 368: 367: 366: 365: 348: 341: 340: 339: 338: 322: 302: 301: 300: 299: 298: 261: 260: 259: 258: 250: 249: 248: 241: 230: 209: 208: 207: 206: 180: 177: 176: 175: 141: 140: 121: 120: 66: 63: 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5857: 5846: 5843: 5842: 5840: 5830: 5828: 5823: 5817: 5813: 5810: 5808: 5803: 5802: 5796: 5795: 5793: 5790: 5789: 5786: 5780: 5779: 5778: 5777: 5774: 5772: 5770: 5769: 5764: 5760: 5740: 5736: 5734: 5730: 5726: 5716: 5712: 5708: 5704: 5700: 5699: 5698: 5695: 5691: 5685: 5681: 5680: 5679: 5675: 5671: 5667: 5666: 5665: 5661: 5659: 5655: 5651: 5641: 5637: 5636: 5635: 5631: 5627: 5623: 5622: 5621: 5617: 5613: 5609: 5606: 5605: 5604: 5600: 5596: 5592: 5572: 5568: 5565: 5558: 5552: 5551: 5550: 5546: 5544: 5540: 5536: 5526: 5521: 5517: 5513: 5509: 5506: 5499: 5493: 5486: 5479: 5475: 5471: 5467: 5463: 5459: 5456: 5452: 5451: 5450: 5446: 5442: 5437: 5433: 5427: 5422: 5421: 5420: 5416: 5413: 5406: 5400: 5396: 5390: 5384: 5378: 5373: 5372: 5371: 5367: 5363: 5358: 5357: 5356: 5352: 5349: 5342: 5336: 5335: 5334: 5330: 5327: 5320: 5314: 5313: 5312: 5308: 5304: 5303: 5299: 5295: 5292: 5291: 5290: 5286: 5283: 5276: 5270: 5269: 5268: 5264: 5260: 5259: 5254: 5251: 5245: 5241: 5239: 5235: 5231: 5220: 5215: 5211: 5207: 5204: 5197: 5191: 5190: 5189: 5185: 5181: 5176: 5175: 5174: 5170: 5167: 5160: 5154: 5150: 5145: 5144: 5143: 5139: 5135: 5130: 5129: 5128: 5124: 5121: 5114: 5108: 5106: 5103: 5099: 5094: 5093: 5092: 5088: 5084: 5079: 5078: 5074: 5070: 5066: 5062: 5058: 5055: 5053: 5049: 5045: 5041: 5037: 5033: 5030: 5026: 5022: 5018: 5014: 5011: 5010: 5009: 5005: 5001: 4996: 4991: 4989: 4986: 4984: 4978: 4975: 4973: 4969: 4965: 4964:Djm-leighpark 4961: 4958: 4956: 4952: 4948: 4944: 4941: 4939: 4935: 4931: 4927: 4924: 4922: 4918: 4914: 4910: 4906: 4903: 4901: 4898: 4897: 4890: 4887: 4879: 4876: 4872: 4867: 4859: 4858: 4857: 4852: 4848: 4843: 4841: 4834: 4833: 4832: 4828: 4824: 4819: 4815: 4811: 4807: 4803: 4800: 4799: 4798: 4793: 4790: 4784: 4780: 4779: 4778: 4774: 4770: 4765: 4764: 4760: 4756: 4752: 4748: 4743: 4740: 4738: 4735: 4733: 4727: 4721: 4718: 4716: 4712: 4708: 4705: 4701: 4697: 4693: 4689: 4685: 4681: 4680:Trent Lockett 4677: 4673: 4669: 4665: 4662: 4660: 4656: 4652: 4648: 4644: 4640: 4637: 4631: 4628: 4627: 4624: 4623: 4618: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4610: 4609: 4606: 4605: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4594: 4590: 4586: 4585:Strong Oppose 4583: 4581: 4578: 4576: 4575:(Talk to me!) 4571: 4569: 4563: 4560: 4557: 4555: 4551: 4547: 4546:R. J. Dockery 4542: 4539: 4531: 4528: 4524: 4519: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4505: 4501: 4496: 4494: 4490: 4486: 4481: 4477: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4468: 4464: 4459: 4452: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4442: 4438: 4434: 4430: 4426: 4423: 4421: 4418: 4416: 4409: 4406: 4396: 4393: 4391: 4385: 4381: 4377: 4373: 4372: 4371: 4367: 4363: 4361: 4355: 4354: 4353: 4349: 4345: 4339: 4334: 4333: 4329: 4328: 4325: 4323: 4316: 4312: 4310: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4299: 4295: 4293: 4289: 4285: 4281: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4273: 4269: 4266: 4264: 4261: 4258: 4254: 4251: 4249: 4245: 4241: 4237: 4234: 4232: 4228: 4224: 4220: 4217: 4215: 4211: 4207: 4203: 4202: 4194: 4191: 4189: 4185: 4181: 4177: 4174: 4168: 4164: 4160: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4147: 4143: 4138: 4135: 4133: 4129: 4125: 4121: 4118: 4116: 4112: 4108: 4104: 4101: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4084: 4078: 4074: 4071: 4064: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4052: 4048: 4044: 4039: 4038: 4037: 4033: 4030: 4023: 4017: 4014: 4012: 4009: 4008: 4007: 4001: 3998: 3994: 3991: 3986: 3984: 3983: 3975: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3966: 3960: 3953: 3950: 3942: 3938: 3936: 3931: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3917: 3913: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3903: 3899: 3895: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3886: 3882: 3877: 3873: 3870: 3869: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3853: 3849: 3846: 3844: 3840: 3836: 3832: 3829: 3827: 3823: 3819: 3815: 3812: 3810: 3806: 3805:contributions 3802: 3798: 3797: 3792: 3789: 3787: 3784: 3783: 3778: 3775: 3773: 3770: 3765: 3761: 3758: 3756: 3752: 3748: 3743: 3740: 3738: 3735: 3734: 3729: 3726: 3724: 3721: 3720: 3717: 3707: 3704: 3702: 3699: 3698: 3695: 3694: 3689: 3686: 3684: 3681: 3679: 3675: 3671: 3665: 3662: 3660: 3657: 3654: 3651: 3647: 3644: 3642: 3638: 3634: 3630: 3627: 3625: 3621: 3617: 3612: 3609: 3607: 3603: 3599: 3595: 3592: 3590: 3586: 3582: 3578: 3574: 3571: 3568: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3552: 3546: 3543: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3529: 3526: 3524: 3521: 3520: 3516: 3514: 3508: 3505: 3503: 3500: 3497: 3494: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3480: 3477: 3475: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3454: 3450: 3447: 3445: 3442: 3439: 3432: 3429: 3427: 3424: 3417: 3414: 3412: 3407: 3403: 3398: 3396: 3390: 3389:Boing's point 3387:I appreciate 3386: 3383: 3381: 3378: 3376: 3372: 3367: 3364: 3362: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3347: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3333: 3330: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3315: 3312: 3310: 3307: 3275: 3271: 3268: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3251: 3249: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3234: 3232: 3228: 3222: 3216: 3212: 3209: 3207: 3203: 3199: 3195: 3192: 3190: 3186: 3182: 3178: 3175: 3173: 3169: 3168: 3161: 3157: 3154: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3140: 3137: 3135: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3120: 3118: 3113: 3112: 3107: 3106: 3101: 3100: 3094: 3091: 3089: 3086: 3083: 3082: 3080:Nnadigoodluck 3075: 3072: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3055: 3053: 3050: 3048: 3042: 3039: 3037: 3033: 3029: 3025: 3022: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3011:Airbornemihir 3008: 3004: 3001: 2999: 2995: 2991: 2987: 2984: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2967: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2950: 2948: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2934: 2931: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2914: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2897: 2895: 2892: 2891: 2887: 2885: 2884: 2877: 2874: 2872: 2869: 2868: 2863: 2860: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2847:welcome back 2846: 2843: 2841: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2830: 2826: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2812: 2810: 2807: 2803: 2800: 2798: 2794: 2792: 2786: 2778: 2774: 2769: 2766: 2764: 2761: 2759: 2758: 2750: 2747: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2732: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2715: 2713: 2709: 2708: 2703: 2702: 2697: 2694: 2692: 2689: 2687: 2683: 2680: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2663: 2661: 2657: 2656: 2651: 2648: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2631: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2615: 2612: 2610: 2607: 2606: 2602: 2601: 2597: 2596: 2592: 2591: 2586: 2583: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2570:Welcome back 2569: 2566: 2564: 2561: 2560: 2557: 2552: 2549: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2534: 2531: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2514: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2497: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2466: 2464: 2461: 2458: 2454: 2451: 2449: 2445: 2443: 2437: 2433: 2430: 2428: 2425: 2423: 2421: 2420: 2415: 2411: 2406: 2403: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2388: 2383: 2381: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2366: 2364: 2361: 2360: 2356: 2355: 2350: 2347: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2330: 2328: 2325: 2322: 2319: 2314: 2311: 2309: 2305: 2302: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2288: 2286: 2283: 2279: 2273: 2270: 2267: 2265: 2262: 2260: 2255: 2249: 2246: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2228: 2224: 2221: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2210: 2205: 2201: 2200:administrator 2197: 2193: 2189: 2186: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2169: 2167: 2164: 2163: 2156: 2153: 2151: 2148: 2144: 2139: 2131: 2128: 2126: 2123: 2120: 2116: 2114: 2109: 2105: 2099: 2097: 2093: 2091: 2087: 2081: 2078: 2076: 2073: 2070: 2063: 2060: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2043: 2041: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2027: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2014: 2009: 2002: 1996: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1984: 1975: 1972: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1961: 1956: 1953: 1951: 1947: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1927: 1925: 1922: 1920: 1912: 1909: 1907: 1904: 1899: 1898: 1895: 1892: 1885: 1879: 1876: 1874: 1870: 1868: 1863: 1848: 1844: 1841: 1839: 1836: 1831: 1830: 1825: 1822: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1805: 1802: 1798: 1796: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1782: 1778: 1775: 1773: 1770: 1769: 1764: 1761: 1759: 1756: 1751: 1743: 1740: 1738: 1735: 1733: 1728: 1727: 1721: 1718: 1716: 1713: 1711: 1705: 1704: 1696: 1693: 1691: 1688: 1679: 1676: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1659: 1657: 1654: 1652: 1646: 1644: 1641: 1638: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1626: 1624: 1621: 1618: 1614: 1611: 1609: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1587: 1584: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1567: 1565: 1562: 1556: 1550: 1548: 1545: 1534: 1531: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1514: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1497: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1482: 1479: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1462: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1445: 1443: 1435: 1433: 1422: 1419: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1402: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1389: 1387: 1382: 1377: 1370: 1367: 1365: 1360: 1353: 1350: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1315: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1299: 1296: 1293: 1291: 1285: 1282: 1280: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1267: 1264: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1247: 1245: 1240: 1237: 1232:Welcome back 1231: 1229: 1224: 1219: 1215: 1212: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1199: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1183: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1172: 1170: 1164: 1162: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1143: 1138: 1135: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1111: 1108: 1106: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1096: 1091: 1083: 1079: 1076: 1074: 1070: 1065: 1061:Welcome back 1060: 1057: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1041: 1038: 1033: 1031: 1030: 1022: 1019: 1017: 1013: 1010: 1007: 1004: 1001: 994: 993: 988: 984: 982: 978: 974: 970: 967: 965: 961: 957: 953: 950: 948: 944: 940: 936: 932: 930: 926: 922: 918: 915: 913: 909: 905: 901: 898: 896: 892: 888: 884: 882: 879: 868:Yes, why not 867: 864: 863: 859: 849: 846: 844: 841: 839: 836: 835: 833: 829: 823: 820: 818: 815: 813: 810: 808: 805: 803: 800: 798: 795: 793: 790: 789: 787: 783: 777: 774: 772: 769: 768: 766: 762: 753: 748: 746: 741: 739: 734: 733: 730: 726: 725: 723: 719: 708: 703: 699: 696: 693: 690: 687: 684: 681: 678: 675: 672: 669: 666: 663: 659: 656: 652: 649: 646: 643: 639: 634: 633: 628: 625: 623: 620: 612: 604: 601: 600: 598: 595: 590: 587: 586: 584: 581: 579: 575: 574: 568: 565: 564: 562: 559: 557: 553: 552: 546: 543: 542: 541: 537: 533: 528: 525: 523: 519: 518: 511: 508: 507: 505: 502: 500: 496: 495: 488: 485: 484: 482: 479: 477: 473: 472: 465: 461: 457: 452: 449:- nothing at 448: 444: 443: 440: 436: 429: 423: 420: 419: 415: 409: 405: 402: 400: 396: 395: 389: 385: 382: 381: 379: 376: 374: 370: 369: 363: 359: 356: 355: 352: 349: 347: 343: 342: 336: 332: 329: 328: 326: 323: 321: 317: 316: 315: 312: 311:two questions 308: 296: 292: 288: 284: 280: 276: 272: 269: 268: 266: 263: 262: 256: 251: 246: 242: 239: 235: 231: 228: 223: 222: 220: 217: 216: 214: 211: 210: 204: 200: 195: 192: 191: 189: 186: 185: 184: 178: 174: 170: 166: 162: 158: 154: 150: 147: 146: 145: 138: 137: 136: 134: 130: 125: 118: 117: 116: 115: 110: 101: 97: 93: 87: 85: 84:November 2014 81: 78: 75: 71: 64: 62: 61: 60: 56: 48: 45: 41: 35: 32: 27: 26: 19: 5821: 5818: 5806: 5800: 5785:Usedtobecool 5783: 5767: 5756: 5722: 5647: 5532: 5518:Okay... but 5485:R to related 5377:Amorymeltzer 5300: 5256: 5227: 5218: 5152: 5148: 5101: 5095: 5056: 5039: 5035: 5031: 4994: 4976: 4959: 4942: 4925: 4904: 4895:Lee Vilenski 4892: 4888: 4862: 4839: 4836:abilities. 4741: 4731: 4719: 4676:Mozid Mahmud 4663: 4638: 4626: 4621: 4608: 4603: 4584: 4574: 4567: 4558: 4540: 4514: 4454: 4424: 4414: 4407: 4383: 4379: 4359: 4314: 4313: 4302: 4301: 4267: 4252: 4235: 4218: 4198: 4192: 4175: 4140: 4136: 4119: 4102: 4090:Softlavender 4085: 4015: 4004: 4003: 3999: 3981: 3979: 3951: 3934: 3871: 3847: 3830: 3813: 3794: 3790: 3781: 3776: 3759: 3741: 3732: 3727: 3710: 3709: 3705: 3697: 3692: 3687: 3677: 3673: 3669: 3663: 3645: 3628: 3610: 3593: 3572: 3549:— Preceding 3544: 3527: 3518: 3512: 3506: 3478: 3448: 3437: 3430: 3415: 3394: 3384: 3375: 3365: 3348: 3331: 3313: 3269: 3252: 3240:Gog the Mild 3235: 3215:power~enwiki 3210: 3198:OhKayeSierra 3193: 3176: 3163: 3155: 3138: 3121: 3110: 3104: 3098: 3092: 3078: 3073: 3056: 3047:CAPTAIN RAJU 3046: 3040: 3023: 3007:net positive 3002: 2985: 2968: 2951: 2938: 2937: 2932: 2915: 2898: 2889: 2882: 2881: 2875: 2867:CycloneYoris 2866: 2861: 2844: 2834: 2833: 2813: 2801: 2781: 2776: 2772: 2767: 2756: 2754: 2748: 2716: 2706: 2700: 2695: 2681: 2664: 2653: 2649: 2632: 2613: 2604: 2599: 2594: 2589: 2584: 2567: 2556:Usedtobecool 2554: 2550: 2532: 2515: 2498: 2486:Nohomersryan 2467: 2452: 2439: 2431: 2418: 2404: 2386: 2367: 2358: 2353: 2349:Easy support 2348: 2331: 2312: 2300: 2289: 2268: 2258: 2253: 2247: 2222: 2209:Celestina007 2207: 2203: 2199: 2196:procedurally 2195: 2191: 2187: 2170: 2158: 2154: 2134: 2129: 2118: 2085: 2079: 2068: 2061: 2044: 2030: 2029: 2025: 2012: 1973: 1958: 1954: 1933: 1914: 1910: 1896: 1893: 1890: 1877: 1866: 1846: 1842: 1827: 1823: 1806: 1784: 1783: 1780: 1776: 1766: 1762: 1742:Welcome back 1741: 1731: 1725: 1719: 1699: 1698: 1694: 1677: 1660: 1634: 1627: 1612: 1600: 1599: 1591: 1590: 1585: 1568: 1532: 1515: 1498: 1480: 1463: 1446: 1431: 1420: 1403: 1368: 1351: 1316: 1304:TonyBallioni 1289: 1283: 1273: 1272: 1265: 1248: 1214:Full support 1213: 1205:push to talk 1200: 1181: 1160: 1159: 1140: 1136: 1116: 1115: 1109: 1089:bibliomaniac 1086: 1085: 1077: 1064:stwalkerster 1058: 1028: 1026: 1020: 1008: 1002: 990: 986: 968: 951: 916: 899: 865: 715: 714: 694: 688: 682: 676: 670: 664: 657: 650: 644: 602: 596: 588: 582: 566: 560: 544: 526: 509: 503: 486: 480: 421: 403: 383: 377: 357: 350: 330: 324: 310: 303: 270: 264: 218: 212: 193: 187: 182: 148: 142: 126: 122: 96:deletion log 88: 76: 68: 52: 51: 46: 30: 28: 5638:The bar is 5470:The sources 5457:is notable. 5105:WP:FRAMGATE 5044:Nosebagbear 5040:as an admin 4851:revolutions 4622:OhanaUnited 4604:OhanaUnited 4272:— sparklism 3974:Lepricavark 3852:Steve Smith 3693:OhanaUnited 3650:Airplaneman 3633:Ad Orientem 3453:my criteria 3406:revolutions 3353:Jason Quinn 3257:Newyorkbrad 2736:Floquenbeam 1995:MusikAnimal 1982:MusikAnimal 1918:scope_creep 1551:Why not? -- 848:User rights 838:CentralAuth 442:qualified. 275:my last RfA 108:MusikAnimal 5768:Ritchie333 5455:Bagri clan 5436:Rao Ramesh 5399:Rao Ramesh 5395:Bagri clan 5298:read much? 4688:Chris Babb 4672:User:Nsk92 4344:Jackmcbarn 3958:EPRICAVARK 3894:Lightburst 3881:Lightburst 3028:Jaredroach 2988:. Cheers! 2825:discussion 2637:Cwmhiraeth 2520:Malcolmxl5 2503:EdJohnston 2419:Ritchie333 2387:S Marshall 1928:Overdue ~ 1884:Jackmcbarn 1763:Absolutely 1702:Newslinger 1686:SandDoctor 1560:Parlez Moi 1554:Guerillero 1468:Arsonxists 1290:CaptainEek 1218:Ivanvector 904:epicgenius 831:Cross-wiki 812:AfD closes 638:Jackmcbarn 613:Discussion 456:Jackmcbarn 399:Ritchie333 373:S Marshall 243:I created 165:Jackmcbarn 70:Jackmcbarn 65:Nomination 47:Jackmcbarn 31:successful 5703:Ymblanter 5612:Barkeep49 5525:WP:ACPERM 5134:Barkeep49 5036:currently 5017:Barkeep49 4947:Smokefoot 4802:Wugapodes 4562:WP:NOTNOW 4382:and then 4298:PJvanMill 4284:Barkeep49 4280:Sparklism 4200:Gwen Hope 4159:Foxnpichu 4142:Foxnpichu 3782:Jianhui67 3733:Nalbarian 3715:JGHowes 2920:Whiteguru 2849:Vexations 2784:PJvanMill 2590:King of ♥ 2538:Chetsford 2324:(contrib) 2318:Eggishorn 2294:Cas Liber 2235:Ymblanter 2227:Ymblanter 2117:per noms 2104:Vanamonde 2086:Goodnight 1754:(blether) 1486:Natureium 1395:pingó mió 1391:Galobtter 973:DannyS712 887:Barkeep49 807:AfD votes 802:BLP edits 680:block log 578:Nalbarian 55:Acalamari 5839:Category 5453:I think 4982:kashmīrī 4874:Chequers 4792:a·po·des 4643:Self-XSS 4589:Ron John 4526:Chequers 4466:Chequers 4389:kashmīrī 4376:AmandaNP 4366:(aka DQ) 4338:Kashmiri 4321:kashmīrī 4304:Walwal20 4223:Hog Farm 4180:Catlemur 4006:Walwal20 3747:Aoi (青い) 3563:contribs 3551:unsigned 3530:per nom 3470:contribs 3451:. Meets 3438:FitIndia 3143:Roller26 3126:Donner60 2973:Mikola22 2822:previous 2436:Eddie891 2304:contribs 2146:Chequers 2001:WP:Cabal 1843:Support. 1777:Support. 1665:Johnuniq 1274:Rosguill 1269:signed, 1239:a·po·des 1188:(aka DQ) 1168:kashmīrī 943:contribs 822:PROD log 785:Analysis 764:Counters 648:contribs 490:burnout. 335:Self-XSS 80:contribs 5441:wbm1058 5389:Wbm1058 5362:wbm1058 5180:wbm1058 5153:quickly 5057:Neutral 5032:Neutral 4977:Neutral 4960:Neutral 4943:Neutral 4926:Neutral 4905:Neutral 4889:Neutral 4847:spin me 4823:Martinp 4761:Neutral 4380:support 4260:Snowman 4210:contrib 4124:Wehwalt 3848:Support 3835:Maproom 3831:Support 3814:Support 3791:Support 3777:Support 3764:the wub 3760:Support 3742:Support 3728:Support 3688:Support 3664:Support 3646:Support 3629:Support 3611:Support 3594:Support 3581:Corrode 3573:Support 3545:Support 3528:Support 3507:Support 3483:Dolotta 3479:Support 3449:Support 3431:Support 3422:Harrias 3416:Support 3402:spin me 3385:Support 3370:Megan☺️ 3366:Support 3349:Support 3336:Conlinp 3332:Support 3319:Banedon 3314:Support 3270:Support 3253:Support 3236:Support 3211:Support 3194:Support 3177:Support 3156:Support 3139:Support 3122:Support 3093:Support 3074:Support 3057:Support 3041:Support 3024:Support 3003:Support 2986:Support 2969:Support 2952:Support 2933:Support 2916:Support 2903:Pamzeis 2899:Support 2876:Support 2862:Support 2845:Support 2832:Dreamy 2814:Support 2802:SupporT 2773:whether 2768:Support 2757:Calidum 2749:Support 2717:Support 2696:Support 2682:Support 2669:Enos733 2665:Support 2650:Support 2633:Support 2614:Support 2585:Support 2572:Leijurv 2568:Support 2551:Support 2533:Support 2516:Support 2499:Support 2468:Support 2453:Support 2432:Support 2405:Support 2372:Martinp 2368:Support 2332:Support 2313:Support 2290:Support 2269:Support 2248:Support 2223:Support 2188:Support 2175:wbm1058 2171:Support 2161:Spencer 2155:Support 2130:Support 2122:Majavah 2080:Support 2062:Support 2045:Support 2026:Support 1974:Support 1955:Support 1911:Support 1878:Support 1824:Support 1807:Support 1768:Lindsay 1720:Support 1695:Support 1678:Support 1661:Support 1628:Support 1613:Support 1586:Support 1569:Support 1533:Support 1520:28bytes 1516:Support 1499:Support 1481:Support 1464:Support 1447:Support 1421:Support 1404:support 1369:Support 1352:Support 1317:Support 1284:Support 1266:Support 1249:Support 1201:Support 1137:Support 1110:Support 1078:Support 1059:Support 1021:Support 987:support 969:Support 956:Legoktm 952:Support 917:Support 900:Support 866:Support 860:Support 817:CSD log 655:deleted 513:people. 476:Calidum 362:WP:CENT 320:Dolotta 203:CAT:CSD 100:CSD log 5801:Cullen 5013:Drmies 5000:Drmies 4742:Oppose 4720:Oppose 4694:, and 4664:Oppose 4639:Oppose 4559:Oppose 4541:Oppose 4425:Oppose 4415:Nihlus 4408:Oppose 4384:oppose 4360:Amanda 4268:Oppose 4253:Oppose 4236:Oppose 4219:Oppose 4193:Oppose 4176:Oppose 4137:Oppose 4120:Oppose 4103:Oppose 4086:Oppose 4016:Oppose 4000:Oppose 3952:Oppose 3872:Oppose 3866:Oppose 3653:(talk) 3598:Vadder 3555:EdNg07 3458:python 3181:rogerd 3160:Bilorv 2990:Nadzik 2956:1997kB 2883:BD2412 2806:Eatcha 2686:Kurtis 2655:Salvio 2619:SD0001 2472:Ifnord 2457:Deryck 2336:Haukur 2321:(talk) 1894:bourne 1849:here. 1829:Graham 1749:Summit 1726:Cullen 1620:(talk) 1602:apolis 1542:ASTILY 1380:(talk) 1339:Nardog 1182:Amanda 1121:Thomas 985:Clear 921:Cabayi 771:XTools 435:WP:SPI 279:REFUND 199:WP:AIV 92:WP:VPT 5719:Amory 5670:Nigej 5644:Amory 5626:Nigej 5608:Nigej 5595:Nigej 5559:& 5529:Amory 5500:& 5492:Bagri 5407:& 5343:& 5321:& 5277:& 5224:Amory 5198:& 5161:& 5115:& 4870:Spiel 4840:78.26 4732:T@1k? 4707:Cbl62 4651:Nsk92 4522:Spiel 4462:Spiel 4257:Giant 4240:Nigej 4227:Bacon 4065:& 4024:& 3898:hako9 3461:coder 3433:.--- 3395:78.26 3099:L293D 2721:Dps04 2354:Night 2254:Davey 2204:doing 2142:Spiel 1930:Amory 1746:Girth 1451:hako9 1223:Edits 1142:Kusma 992:Kevin 718:civil 662:count 499:Z1720 451:WP:G5 428:db-g5 424:Just 414:db-g5 408:WP:G5 346:Dps04 307:limit 131:Jack 16:< 5763:this 5761:and 5759:this 5707:talk 5689:Talk 5674:talk 5630:talk 5616:talk 5599:talk 5445:talk 5366:talk 5307:talk 5302:Glen 5263:talk 5258:Glen 5184:talk 5138:talk 5109:--- 5087:talk 5083:P-K3 5065:talk 5048:talk 5021:talk 5004:talk 4995:role 4968:talk 4951:talk 4934:talk 4930:Ktin 4917:Chat 4913:Iffy 4907:per 4865:Ϣere 4827:talk 4810:talk 4789:Wug· 4773:talk 4751:talk 4711:talk 4692:Ajin 4670:and 4666:per 4655:talk 4593:talk 4550:talk 4517:Ϣere 4504:talk 4489:talk 4457:Ϣere 4441:talk 4427:per 4348:talk 4288:talk 4244:talk 4206:talk 4184:talk 4163:talk 4146:talk 4128:talk 4111:talk 4094:talk 4051:talk 3980:brad 3964:talk 3935:Talk 3916:talk 3902:talk 3885:talk 3856:talk 3839:talk 3822:talk 3801:talk 3796:LSGH 3768:"?!" 3751:talk 3637:talk 3620:talk 3602:talk 3583:) ( 3559:talk 3536:talk 3496:Step 3487:talk 3466:talk 3357:talk 3340:talk 3323:talk 3261:talk 3244:talk 3202:talk 3185:talk 3166:talk 3147:talk 3130:talk 3085:🇳🇬 3065:talk 3032:talk 3015:talk 2994:talk 2977:talk 2960:talk 2924:talk 2907:talk 2853:talk 2835:Jazz 2790:talk 2777:when 2740:talk 2725:talk 2701:Reyk 2673:talk 2641:talk 2624:talk 2576:talk 2542:talk 2524:talk 2507:talk 2490:talk 2476:talk 2442:Work 2376:talk 2359:fury 2340:talk 2298:talk 2277:Talk 2259:2010 2239:talk 2231:talk 2214:talk 2192:clue 2179:talk 2137:Ϣere 2108:Talk 2089:mush 2071:avix 2053:talk 2033:EDDY 2013:Talk 2003:. – 1965:talk 1960:Glen 1897:Star 1867:Talk 1847:okay 1815:talk 1709:talk 1669:talk 1632:Tera 1593:Mini 1577:talk 1524:talk 1507:talk 1490:talk 1472:talk 1455:talk 1432:Sdkb 1426:{{u| 1412:talk 1343:talk 1325:talk 1321:P-K3 1308:talk 1257:talk 1253:Nick 1236:Wug· 1128:talk 1069:talk 1050:talk 1046:Izno 1027:brad 1000:L235 977:talk 960:talk 939:talk 925:talk 908:talk 891:talk 707:here 692:rfar 674:logs 642:talk 536:talk 532:Ktin 522:Ktin 460:talk 293:and 169:talk 155:and 98:and 74:talk 5100:or 4919:-- 4783:you 4747:Bri 4476:WSC 4474:Hi 4208:) ( 3929:MJL 3912:JBL 3803:) ( 3499:hen 3455:. — 2755:-- 2707:YO! 2049:Deb 2007:MJL 1891:Mel 1861:MJL 1794:ed. 1683:The 1650:SQL 1636:tix 1503:Mz7 1362:\\ 997:aka 878:TNT 698:spi 668:AfD 597:13. 583:12. 561:11. 527:10. 309:of 283:DRV 57:at 5841:: 5788:☎️ 5731:• 5727:• 5709:) 5694:📧 5676:) 5656:• 5652:• 5632:) 5618:) 5601:) 5569:) 5541:• 5537:• 5510:) 5490:. 5488:}} 5482:{{ 5447:) 5417:) 5368:) 5353:) 5331:) 5309:) 5296:, 5287:) 5265:) 5236:• 5232:• 5208:) 5186:) 5171:) 5140:) 5125:) 5089:) 5067:) 5050:) 5023:) 5006:) 4970:) 4953:) 4936:) 4849:/ 4829:) 4812:) 4787:— 4775:) 4753:) 4728:| 4713:) 4702:, 4698:, 4690:, 4686:, 4682:, 4657:) 4595:) 4568:Pi 4552:) 4506:) 4491:) 4443:) 4350:) 4290:) 4246:) 4212:) 4186:) 4165:) 4148:) 4130:) 4113:) 4096:) 4075:) 4053:) 4034:) 3989:🍁 3967:) 3918:) 3904:) 3887:) 3858:) 3841:) 3824:) 3807:) 3753:) 3639:) 3622:) 3614:-- 3604:) 3587:) 3565:) 3561:• 3538:) 3519:42 3489:) 3472:) 3468:| 3404:/ 3359:) 3342:) 3325:) 3263:) 3246:) 3229:) 3223:, 3204:) 3187:) 3170:) 3149:) 3132:) 3108:• 3067:) 3034:) 3017:) 2996:) 2979:) 2962:) 2926:) 2909:) 2855:) 2742:) 2727:) 2675:) 2643:) 2626:) 2578:) 2559:☎️ 2544:) 2526:) 2509:) 2492:) 2478:) 2460:C. 2378:) 2342:) 2306:) 2282:📧 2241:) 2216:) 2206:. 2181:) 2065:-- 2055:) 2038:~ 1978:— 1967:) 1942:• 1938:• 1834:87 1817:) 1671:) 1579:) 1557:| 1526:) 1509:) 1492:) 1474:) 1457:) 1438:}} 1414:) 1397:) 1383:@ 1345:) 1337:. 1327:) 1310:) 1259:) 1234:— 1226:) 1220:(/ 1207:) 1165:— 1153:) 1130:) 1071:) 1052:) 1036:🍁 1014:) 989:. 979:) 962:) 945:) 941:• 933:– 927:) 910:) 893:) 876:- 686:lu 603:A: 589:A: 567:A: 545:A: 538:) 510:A: 504:9. 487:A: 481:8. 462:) 430:}} 426:{{ 422:A: 418:? 416:}} 412:{{ 404:7. 384:A: 378:6. 358:A: 351:5. 331:A: 325:4. 287:AN 271:A: 265:3. 219:A: 213:2. 194:A: 188:1. 171:) 163:. 104:— 36:. 5735:) 5733:c 5729:t 5725:u 5723:( 5705:( 5672:( 5660:) 5658:c 5654:t 5650:u 5648:( 5628:( 5614:( 5597:( 5564:( 5562:C 5556:C 5545:) 5543:c 5539:t 5535:u 5533:( 5505:( 5503:C 5497:C 5443:( 5428:: 5424:@ 5412:( 5410:C 5404:C 5391:: 5387:@ 5379:: 5375:@ 5364:( 5348:( 5346:C 5340:C 5326:( 5324:C 5318:C 5305:( 5282:( 5280:C 5274:C 5261:( 5240:) 5238:c 5234:t 5230:u 5228:( 5203:( 5201:C 5195:C 5182:( 5166:( 5164:C 5158:C 5136:( 5120:( 5118:C 5112:C 5085:( 5063:( 5046:( 5019:( 5002:( 4966:( 4949:( 4932:( 4915:★ 4853:) 4845:( 4825:( 4808:( 4794: 4771:( 4749:( 4709:( 4678:, 4653:( 4591:( 4548:( 4502:( 4487:( 4439:( 4346:( 4340:: 4336:@ 4286:( 4242:( 4204:( 4182:( 4161:( 4144:( 4126:( 4109:( 4092:( 4070:( 4068:C 4062:C 4049:( 4029:( 4027:C 4021:C 3982:v 3961:( 3956:L 3937:‐ 3933:‐ 3925:– 3914:( 3900:( 3883:( 3854:( 3837:( 3820:( 3799:( 3749:( 3678:a 3676:c 3674:z 3672:a 3670:m 3656:✈ 3635:( 3618:( 3600:( 3579:( 3557:( 3534:( 3513:W 3485:( 3464:( 3408:) 3400:( 3355:( 3338:( 3321:( 3306:} 3291:G 3288:P 3285:J 3274:{ 3259:( 3242:( 3226:ν 3220:π 3217:( 3200:( 3183:( 3162:( 3145:( 3128:( 3114:) 3111:✎ 3105:☎ 3102:( 3063:( 3030:( 3013:( 2992:( 2975:( 2958:( 2922:( 2905:( 2890:T 2851:( 2793:( 2787:) 2738:( 2723:( 2671:( 2639:( 2622:( 2605:♠ 2600:♣ 2595:♦ 2574:( 2540:( 2522:( 2505:( 2488:( 2474:( 2396:C 2394:/ 2392:T 2374:( 2338:( 2301:· 2296:( 2237:( 2229:( 2212:( 2177:( 2119:– 2110:) 2106:( 2069:T 2051:( 2015:‐ 2011:‐ 1997:: 1993:@ 1963:( 1946:) 1944:c 1940:t 1936:u 1934:( 1901:☆ 1886:: 1882:@ 1869:‐ 1865:‐ 1857:– 1813:( 1781:! 1667:( 1640:₵ 1575:( 1539:F 1522:( 1505:( 1488:( 1470:( 1453:( 1410:( 1393:( 1341:( 1323:( 1306:( 1295:⚓ 1255:( 1241: 1163:. 1151:c 1149:· 1147:t 1145:( 1126:( 1119:C 1099:5 1094:1 1067:( 1048:( 1029:v 1012:c 1009:· 1006:t 1003:· 995:( 975:( 958:( 937:( 923:( 906:( 889:( 751:e 744:t 737:v 710:. 700:) 695:· 689:· 683:· 677:· 671:· 665:· 658:· 651:· 645:· 640:( 534:( 458:( 285:/ 281:/ 205:. 167:( 77:· 72:( 40:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Requests for adminship/Jackmcbarn 2 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index