Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Kumioko

2804:

Can we honesty say that every single admin didn't start out with some sense that it was a promotion and a position of some power? I've been an admin (not here) and it's a royal pain in the neck. You often piss off one side or the other, sometimes both, and the pay is lousy. And damn stressful if you really try to do the right thing all the time. So why would someone want to become an admin? Yes, having the tools to help keep WP going and develop is an obvious answer, and I think the main reason for almost all successful canidates, but I think occasionally, not the only one. But we often only learn that after getting and doing the job (not just here), when we really find out what it's like. If I thought it would do any good at all, I would strongly oppose self noms, and support nomination and seconding before being considered. IMHO. No, this is NOT an oppose opinion for this candidate in any way. —

1052:. Enough is enough quite frankly. The funny questions haven't been funny for a while and the point they were originally making about excessive numbers of questions was lost some time ago. Think about how this process looks to newbies and people thinking of running at RfA for the first time. No need to make an already daunting process more so. It isn't a game, and what's humorous to some will be received very differently by others. If these questions were an irritation to some of the more experienced people, think about the mixed signals they send to others. I've removed the most obviously silly/political/unrelated to adminship questions. This should not be taken as a personal endorsement of the remaining questions, I just decided it was time for a line to be drawn, and I'm drawing it now. Please lets make this self-regulating though (bureaucrats shouldn't need to be the question police). 489:

alone, how many articles could have been created and edited in the time everyone, including myself has been spent on this. Additioanlly, I have seen a lot of folks commenting about how I am a great editor but I lack the admin experience. I offer you all a thought, Knowledge is an online encyclopedia, not a gathering place for a bunch of admins looking for a purpose. You are an editor 1st not as a hobby or part time thing, so if you have in the past been choosing admins becuase they were running around answering questions and generating projects, then in my opinion you were voting them in for the wrong reasons. Additionally, I don't like to waste my time so I am only going to submit this request once, if it gets denied thats fine but I will not submit for it again, especially if the best reason that anyone can come up with is that I don't have enough admin experience. --

4544:

administrator duties, such as protection. Having said that, we also have an editor who has very little administrator-related-activities experience, insofar as I can observe, and that brings some doubts into the equation for me: I fear Kumioko may not have a sufficient grasp of admin. duties, and may (unintentionally, of course) cause damage through some bad calls. Whilst I'm sure that would improve with time, it concerns me: there's simply not enough experience here. Perhaps if Kumioko could expand on the RfA standard questions with some strong answers, I'd be willing to support, but at present, they are very thin, and really don't do anything to sway me to support. On the fence for this one, depending on a response from Kumioko (which I'd be very happy to see forthcoming), and further developments.

1501:- User is highly unlikely to stand up against the continued erosion of anonymous IP editor rights. However, this user's record as an editor is excellent, and there is no reason to believe that Kumioko would abuse the tools. We have seen successful nominations of users with little mainspace experience, and there's no reason we can't have an administrator with the opposite issue, as long as we have faith that the person can learn and handle the required tasks while on the job. Given Kumioko's long history as a good-faith editor, there is no reason to stand on formality and deny the opportunity to learn administrative skills on the job. Unless, of course, you think adminship is a big, big deal. 2402:, you'll see that I frown upon excessive reliance on scripts. Do I completely condemn users of Twinkle, AWB, Huggle, etc? No. Do I want an editor to do their own work? Yes. I have over 10,000 edits and every single one was completely manual. Additionally, less than 100 edits in the Knowledge space is a big indicator of lack of experience in admin-like fields. My standards list, as linked above, also mentions that I want to see at least 500 edits in that area. Do I sound like I have editcountitis? Maybe, but I can oppose a candidate for any reason I see fit and I'm opposing for lack of Knowledge namespace experience and far too much reliance on AWB. 4021:

fine but I will not submit for it again, especially if the best reason that anyone can come up with is that I don't have enough admin experience." This comment gives the impression the user is impatient and dismissive of the process the community goes through to judge if an applicant is trustworthy, and also feels their time is rather more important than gaining the community trust in the future. Probably just a poorly phrased statement prompted by some disappointment at the way this AfD is going. I do hope that Kumioko will take on board the comments that people are making and will consider applying again in 6 months time.

2339:. Not enough experience in the Knowledge namespace, which roughly translates to "not enough admin-like experience". Your answer to Q1 doesn't really make it seem like you'll do a whole lot with the tools, if granted. This is further evidenced by the dominating mainspace edits, not to nitpick, but 95% of your edits are mainspace. I am a big supportor of mainspace work, since that is the whole reason we are here, but if you want to become an admin, you'll need to get experience in admin-like areas (such as AIV, ANI, UAA, etc. Plus you don't do a whole lot of communication, which is a critical skill for admins. 646:(c) The really important bit: Can you point me to any discussions you’ve been in where someone has convinced you that your approach/opinion/philosophy was wrong? I have had some issues in the past where my edits made using AWB where wrong and I fixed those. I have also recently been engaged in discussions regarding wikipedia policy on why forking should or should not be used in a featured article. The juries still out on that one and I don't have a problem admitting when I am wrong when I am given evidence that its wrong. All too often people just say its wrong and offer nothing in return as to why.-- 1117:

about the fickle nature of the voting and RFA process and I hope that my RFA, however disappointing it was to me, will serve as a warning to others. You might be the greatest editor in the world (which I admit I am not) but unless you get the support of the mob, you will not succeed. For all those who voted, Support, Oppose or neutral. Thank you for taking the time to review my application and happy editing. For you admins, stand ready for I shall be busy submitting requests to you soon for your assistance in dealing with matters of wiki-administation that only you can be trusted to assist with.--

752:

they chose not too. In a nutshell we can't go rounding up all the people in wikipedia that we think MIGHT be prone to doing something wrong and then ban them before they can do anything destructive. To me that would be counter to the very principle that wikipedia is built on. With that said if they make the decision to screw something up, they should pay the price wether that means they are blocked from editing or their admin tools are revoked depends on what they do wrong. I hope this helps but please let me know if you need me to calrify further.--

84:) - I have been making edits to Knowledge since 4 June 2007 and since then I believe I have acted in the best interests of the Knowledge project since then. I have, since June accumulated over 30,000 edits. Although, I was granted access to use AWB late in 2007, I had over 15000 edits before that request was approved. I am currently a momber of several different wikiprojects and have tried to support them to the best of my abilities. I believe that my best work has been to build up and add to the Medal of Honor recipient pages including getting 1, 3196:

everything being said my only point was that I don't waste my time on things so if the majority says I can't be an admin thats fine, I can live with that and I will continue on my merry way editing as I have been. But I will not resubmit in 6 months, a year etc. I have 30000 plus edits and I think that I have done right by wikipedia so far. I just think that most of the reasons being given in opposition are extremely weak (Oppose because self nom, oppose because I don't do enough admin stuff, not enough experience, etc).--

4436:

concept of wikipedia, that OJT is NOT ok. Its seems to me that some people are scared that I will use my status as an admin for my own gain. Some have said that I may use it to win edits wars. Since I have never been engaged in an edit war, I fail to understand what the basis for this argument is. Some have said that I should spend more time doing admin stuff rather than editing. I would argue that editing is more important than participating in Wikispace pages, that is after all what wikipedia is for. :-)--

1462:

guy" at Knowledge to be able to get in on the admin-selection process in a way that goes beyond casting a simple !vote - and questions are crucial to this democratization. I have started asking a standard question based on an issue which I feel is very important to the future health of the encyclopedia, but I don't make a litmus test out of it. I simply want to gauge where a candidate stands before I can speak for or against them. I'm not a single-issue !voter.

3211:

to automatically grant an additional set of tools to someone. I'm an admin, and I failed my first RfA. Many of us do, but it was anything but a waste of time. My initial reaction, when my first RfA went down was similar to your reaction above. That said, what I learned from the experience allowed me to better grasp not just what people look for in an RfA, but it also allowed me to fully understand what about the mop was important to me. Feel free to look at both:

3875:

tools to help make wikipedia better. IMO if an admin never edits articles and only does admin stuff then that is wrong. You should be an editor first and and administrator as an extension to that, not drop the pen and pick up the mop. Just to clarify my intent has never to been to stop editing, that will always be my primary purpose as I believe that IS the point of wikipedia, the sysop tools will just allow me to do more.--

3537:- No reason to assume there would be abuse, but maybe too many mistakes. I think this user has a little more learning to do before I am willing to hand over the mop. Like Dlohcierekim said, I recommend getting a admin coach. I think your article contributions are wonderful, and like to see a user that is here for what this place is created for, and for that reason I hope that you try again (give it about 3 months). 2485:- Somewhat reluctantly. Majorly makes a good argument, but I don't see much evidence that you understand what being an admin entails. You're a very good editor, and I would encourage you to look at some of the opposition above my vote (Useight has some good suggestions). If this doesn't pass, then giving a little attention to the admin related tasks will definitely get you over the hump a few months down the road. 1716:

intentions to the project (I am) and (b) their willingness to go slow, accept criticism/correction gracefully, and learn from mistakes (I mostly am). The slightly aggressive tone in some of the responses in this RfA make it a "weak" support, but I think an RfA is more stressful than day-to-day adminning, and I'm willing to cut some slack for that. If given the tools I think Kumioko would be a net positive. --

227:

into something evil. Otherwise if the article fails any of the above I would place the appropriate tag (likely a speedy delete, with request for rebuttal) to give the users adaquate time to fix it. If they don't I would delete it. If you would like me to clarify more let me know but to me its a fairly broad question that could go a lot of ways depending on the credibility and referencing of the article.--

4773:- A fantastic article writer, but in terms of the day to day routine janitorial chores, I can find a single vandalism warning directed at another editor. Prospective sysops having the "tools" need to demonstrate some experience of reviewing a wide range of articles, communicating (or attempting to) with editors with frustrations or just a mean streak. Get a couple more months RC patrol and re-apply. -- 1610:- Kumioko has changed my mind. As noted in my original oppose vote, I was reluctant to oppose based on general agreement with Majorly. I did not get the impression that you really knew why you were here (in the RfA, not Knowledge generally). Since my original vote, you have convinced me that you'll be fine by addressing the ridiculous number of questions posed to you in a knowledgeable manner. 2192:- Sorry, but I don't think you fully grasp the concept of an administrator given your answer to question 1, and the last line in your self nom. Being an admin does not give one any authority over anything, and especially not on pages against other editors, say, in a debate or edit war. Also, you lack experience in the project space - out of 30,000 edits, only 94? Sorry, must oppose. 1674:

you've reached those limits, is a better thing. While looking at the candidates userpage, I get the distinct feeling that Knowledge stress won't be anything worse than he has already handled in Real Life. And lastly, and not leastly, I've seen admin candidates with low project (non-article, mainspace) edits who were not torn up like this. I just feel no particular reason to oppose.

691:

often seems to take them some time to respond to questions because they are so busy dueing other more trivial tasks. I don't pretend that I will instantly be all knowing and be able to handle every situation immediately but I would be an extension of the admin communities wingspan and thereby hopefully eleviate some of the pressure of the little tasks.--

4399:? I could understand that lack of RfA knowledge would be a (very big) problem if running for bureaucratship, but not knowing much about RfA itself should not matter as long as the editor knows about actual policies. I'd be surprised if everyone who ran through RfA (and even those who pass) know what the criteria for promotion is. As I said, I'm curious. 4088:. There is not much evidence of discussion and the candidate mentions in one of his replies that he thinks these discussions are one of the weaknesses of Knowledge. I disagree. Discussion is a prime tool that admins need. I suggest he keep on editing and contributing to the Pedia, not because he would make a bad admin; rather, he makes a better editor. 4345:

perform. I informed Walton that this was not the case. Hiberiantears jumped in with mention of the candidate being a family man, to which I responded with the MacDonald link, a rather notorious family man who also happened to serve in the armed forces. At absolutely no point did I "compare" Kumioko to MacDonald, nor MacDonad to Kumioko. Anybody

4042:

perhaps I will assist in devising a way to make the process of selecting future admins more quantitative rather than a simple majority/minority vote, perhaps more along the way that articles are assessed. It seems to me that would greatly reduce the phenominal amount of time currently spent on RFA's and streamline the process.--

93:

editing those articles and moved on to others, in some cases I worked through it and continued on editing. I have also found myself somewhat disappointed at some of the conflicting rules within Knowledge regarding what is and is not appropriate formatting for a Featured Article. In particular my recent submission of

2514:- it appears as per the last sentence in the self nomination that the user wants adminship so as to have more weight to throw around, which is in my eyes weak but tangible evidence of at least some degree of power hunger. May change my !vote as more information arrives. In any case, I will reassess this later. — 1484:- He may not know exactly what he is going to do with the tools, we are not given that much evidence how he'll handle them, but somehow I trust that he'll be doing something useful with them without sinking the ship. Nothings is likely to change in six months anyway, if he is more the training-on-the-job type. -- 4283:. Let's be blunt, there are a breed of people who thrive on drama, and there are those who don't care, and want to do their "jobs". I've not seen any real indication of drama, nor any real indication of immaturity. If anything, the blatant baiting of this particular oppose remains unaddressed by the candidate. 4982:

there do appear to exist areas in which his knowledge of policy and practice is not complete; the answer to question four, for instance, isn't stellar in substance or form), such that might he might not inadvertently misuse the tools, and so in the final analysis cannot say with sufficient confidence that

2259:

to the project if used by an editor who 1.)Lacks vital experience in admin-related areas, or areas where administrators perform their duties and 2.)Seems to have a distorted picture about the fundamental role of an administrator. Does this mean you are unfit for adminship? Not entirely, it just means that

2986:

I would recommend a very thorough reading of the policies pertaining to blocking and deleting. I would further recommend obtaining a coach and participating in admin related areas under the coach's tutelage. I would not recommend submitting another RfA for another 6 months and 6000 edits. Cheers, and

2673:

Restored perfectly civil objection. Give me a break. Weber is going to continue to generate detractors as long as he persists in his repetitive opposition votes. Consensus dictates that he is welcome to continue opposing any candidate for any reason; this does not imply that his actions must never

2223:

I understand but just as a note, I may not do many edits in the Project namespaces per say I do a lot under that project. For instance as a member of the Biogrpahy and Military history projects I have worked diligently to clean up, expand and add to the articles in those categories. Just because I am

1026:

Excellent point Gonzo. This user has demonstrated his civility, deliberative abilities, and Wiki-related skills. We can see that he will approach admin decisions with careful thought, thus the possibility of any misdeeds is near zero. In fact, in all likelihood, this user will make few admin actions.

924:

Well, apparently on RFA talk, people have been saying they'd likely support anyone who gave good answers to questions like question 15 above (the very tough Filll's AGF challenge questions that is). Several others state that they'd likely have to hand in their bit if anyone actually tried asking them

905:

Oppose votes due to very little work in admin related areas are "extremely weak" according to the candidate, but they really are not. Editors feel that if you want to be an admin, there has to have been some related work in the areas prescribed, otherwise the mop is seen as the aforementioned "power

690:

Yes I believe they would, As I mentioned I am interested in fighting vandalism which seems to be excalating on the military related articles (perhaps based on the issues in Iraq and such). But I am also interested in relieving some of the pressure from the Admins that work in the same areas I do. It

609:

I believe that most of the policies I will encounter are well documented and I would have to read up on them case by case as they come up. If I get access to these tools I am not going to take off and start using them willy nilly throughout just arbitrarily doing admin stuff. I intend to start slow

437:

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

352:

Honestly I would probably ask for assistance from some of my fellow admins. Determining sockpuppets/meatpuppets can be tedious and dificult and the results are not 100%. If after being reviewed by my peers and myself we still couldn't determine I would go with the majority vote, even if my gut says

92:

to Featured List status. To answer another question I have on numorous occassions been stressed by editors for several reasons, particulary in acts of ownership over editing articles and what is and is not notible (particularly regarding military operations). In some of these cases I simply stopped

4981:

AGK's reasoning tracks closely with mine. The occasional intemperance aside, Kumioko appears to be possessed of the sound judgment and deliberative temperament that commend one well to adminship, but I can't conclude with a sufficient degree of confidence that he knows whereof he does not know (and

4435:

This brings up an interesting point, perhaps we should also change the way editors are allowed to contribute to wikipedia. Maybe we should make sure that they are familiar with the MOS and other policies before they can edit. Just a thought but it seems like some of this thinking is contrary to the

4412:

without making an effort to familiarize one's self with the process they'll have to go through strikes me (and others, apparently) as impulsive and lacking foresight. Doubly, or perhaps even triply (why not!) so for the RfA process itself. It sets a dicey precedent, especially considering the recent

4206:

Be that as it may, a married father of two who was in the Marines for over a decade is a pretty safe bet to be more mature than a 13 year old who makes it through RfA for knowing how to game the process ahead of time. More to the point, this oppose vote is a fairly snarky mischaracterization of what

4056:

The process is about finding out if the community trusts the candidate. Different people have different ways of judging trust. The process itself, and the way the candidate handles the process, gives people a realistic view of how the candidate will deal with the odd situations they may encounter as

3619:

While I understand entirely where you're coming from, I believe this is a humorous paraphrase of a military saying. "A Marine on guard duty has no friends", or insert your favorite branch of the service. I personally think that on Question #24 a deadpan-joke response is very much in line, and that

2580:

Answer to Q1 indicates the candidate needs to research what the moptools are and why they are used and why they are restricted to certain users. Also answer to Q4 is a little perplexing (privacy act?). I am sure this well-intentioned user can work toward a sucessful candidacy in 6 months or so, if

2397:

Personally, I believe AIV is a part of vandal-fighting. With 30,000 edits, I obviously couldn't take the most in-depth look at the editor's contribs, but I did a little. I am impressed by their amazing amount of mainspace work. However, if you take a look at his last 50 contribs, 40 were via AWB. Of

2258:

Indeed, as Majorly has indicated, I was referring to the Knowledge namespace. I'm not entirely sure what Majorly means by you falling into a "trap", but, please allow me to further clarify my position. As an administrator, one becomes endowed with a few new buttons that could potentially cause harm

2158:. At this point I think it will only be moral support, but nonetheless I hope that you won't be too discouraged by this RfA and hope that you will take the suggestions (read:criticism) that you have received to heart and use it as a guide to preparing for a new RfA four or five months down the road. 751:

I believe in assuming good faith. People are faced with decisions like this every day and typically most make an effort to do the right thing. With that said our prisons are full of people that have shown, we'll say lapses in judgement. But they were given the opportunity to do the right thing and

539:

I chose question #1 about the Wife being the coathour and I chose that we definately should report that if thats what all the references dictate. I suspect that threats are relayed to the wikipedia HQ frequently but as long as we stick the facts and use verifiable sources we are valid in our point.

405:

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

226:

As long as the articles do not violate any privacy act rules, have POV content, theres nothing racial or derogetory, they are adequately referenced and the people in question are significantly noteworthy as to rate their own article I would likely leave them alone and watch them to see if they morph

3913:

I can't even remember the last time I voted in a RFA but I have to say that anyone who suggests that adminship would be helpful because it lends credibility to policy shouldn't be one. There's too much indication of potential use of admin status in conflicts. Given his work, I'd love him to be an

3874:

You are certainly entitled to your opinon but I disagree. Knowledge is an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not a place to become admins and stop editing. To become an admin doesn't mean (to me anyway) that you stop editing and pick up the mop never to edit again. It simpy gives you more

3417:

Based on the answers to the questions, I would perhaps have been neutral, due to concerns about the candidate's experience in areas relating to policy and admin work. But based on responses to Oppose comments, I believe the candidate isn't suitable admin material at this time. There is no deadline,

3210:

It looks as though you disagree with every oppose reason, based on this comment, because you have 30,000-plus edits. As one of the oppose votes, I would just like to point out that the general theme isn't that there is anything wrong with your editing. Rather, quantity of edits is not reason enough

4543:

I'm in two minds as to this request. On one hand, Kumioko is, per Majorly and the other supporting editors, an excellent article contributor, and that very often provides an administrator with robust inter-editor communication skills. It could also suggest that he'd be competent at article-related

3720:

I thought about this one for days. I'm not a big fan of telling a candidate what I believe they should be doing to get my vote, but I'd say my oppose comes from the fact that I am not sure how Kumioko will handle tough admin situations involving lots of drama. More involvement in the project space

3170:

attitude to have about RfA opposition. Unless its something specifically stupid, like "User has a puppy and I'm more a cat person", then comments in the Oppose section should be considered valuable feedback, and not so readily dismissed. You're turning a deaf ear to feedback when you're an editor,

2803:

Comment: I support Kurt's viewpoint, as I think it's a valid point to raise. As much as possible, given the lack of face-to-face contact, we should know the motivations of anyone we trust with the buttons. My father used to say that anyone that wanted the job, (of US president) should not get it.

1116:

Since at this point it appears obvious that my RFA has zero chance of succeeding I would like to leave this parting comment before it is closed and archived. Although I did not win, and I do not have the intention of submitting again I do not regret my decision to submit for RFA. I learned a lot

554:

It's annoying that there are now multiple choice answers possible, I hadn't realized Filll had added those. Do you in fact agree fully with that multiple choice option, or would you prefer a somewhat different approach? For instance, had you considered going to the person and confronting them with

488:

Honestly, I think too many editors spend spend too much time voting on things like this that lends no value to the Pedia itself. The purpose of Knowledge is to be an online compendium of human knowledge, not a pool of endless votes and voters. Just look at how much time has been spent on this RFA

4344:

ate babies, too. I opposed Kumioko for (among other things) an immature attitude, which apparently upset Walton, who, based upon his statements in this and other RfA's, evidently believes that all members of the armed forces are mature manly men who walk on water, simply by virtue of the job they

4020:

Oppose. I feel uncomfortable with someone wanting to become an admin in order to bypass the need to explain and negotiate when discussing policy. And I feel very uncomfortable with this comment: "I don't like to waste my time so I am only going to submit this request once, if it gets denied thats

3764:

For what it's worth, the candidate hasn't fallen to drama so far, and doesn't appear to be prone to it. Just like trolling, one can either respond to drama, or not. If he chooses to not respond to drama, and continue doing his tasks, I find that to be very good. I personally believe that drama is

1673:

Isn't it natural that good editors can grow up to be good admins? The candidate's answers to the questions show integrity. He (?) has said several times that when he is in over his head, he'll defer to a more experienced admin. Knowing your limits is a good thing, being able to ask for help, once

1461:

My feeling: if a user can't be bothered to answer a bunch of questions in a one-time nominating process, how are they going to deal with the basic workload of an active and useful admin, let alone the necessities of communication and availability? What's more, it's very important for the "little

1396:

Well, here's how I see questions. If someone is on the fence, then asking one or two questions to get a feel for the candidate makes sense. Bombarding the candidate with 20 questions immediately, many of which are worthless (unless I'm completely missing the value in them), makes it look like the

211:

creates 3 articles, "Janice A Jenkins", "Paul Todd Jr" and "Martin Michael McDonald-Jones". These articles are each about a screenful long, reasonably well written, and do not contain any obvious BLP concerns. It's pretty clear that User:1089297PaloirK is either one of these people, or works with

4372:

Once again, the comments speak on their own. That said, a conversation surrounding this RfA is that we are driving off qualified candidates with what has become an over indulgent process (no, this is not a cry for "fix the RfA") that allows for silly questioning and opposing/supporting. I'm just

287:

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

97:

for featured list status. In this case there are rules in wikipedia which allow forking, however this technique is not allowed for a featured article. This debate rages on and is in fact one of the reasons I am applying for this RFA. I believe that as an RFA I can help to change some of these

4041:

Just to clarify, your right the word were probably poorly chosen so I will clarify. I will not resubmit again, however if someone chooses to submit my name I MAY consider it. From what I have seen though the process of selecting an admin needs some work on clarification and standardization so

3067:

Many current RfA cabalers require a balance between tool related and and article building edits. Also, adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to

2430:

I didn't mean my post to sound like you "weren't allowed" to oppose. Far from it. Thanks for your clarification. FWIW, I personally have never installed any scripts, nor will I anytime in the future, so I agree with you there. That being said, is there anything in this user's script use, or

1715:

Weak support. I was a little underwhelmed by the answer to my question, but Jesus, there's like 25 fucking questions right now, I can't expect him to write a book on mine. I think we should be more open to the idea of learning on the job. We just need to be convinced of (a) the editor's good

3468:" question, but I think that the expected answer would mention conflict of interest. Editors with a COI can be either very good or very bad contributors depending on how they're handled, so it's important to take the right approach with them (not wait to see if they morph into something evil). 2563:- Lacks experience in project namespace, what experience the editor has is on the nomination of two articles for featured list status. Seems like an avid (and prolific) contributor but disproportionately small amount of communication. Also per Wisdom, seems to misapprehend the role of admins. 717:

Well on this I would say that it is doubtful that I would overturn the decision of another admin without at least consulting them first. If its just a matter of a user/editor asking a question, there is enough policy and guidlines out there that spell things out I doubt there will be too many

4353:

could clearly see that my point was that Mr. Walton and Mr. Hiberiantears were using naive over-generalizations of irrelevant outside social functions to support a conclusion that ran counter to what was displayed in this very RfA. To Kumioko's credit, he has not jumped in on this particular

3195:

Just to clarify I completely understand the reasons being given, I just don't agree with them. To say that I can't be an admin because I haven't done any admin stuff is absurd. Also, don't take what I said as having a bad attitude or that I am turning an ear to the arguments. I am hearing

540:

Plus most of the other questions are similar circumstances, trying to force or coerce their opinions based on little or circumstantial evidence or resources that contradict the majority opinion and or references. Basically, again if we stick to what we can verify then we are in good shape.--

2782:

in much the same way as AfDs, FACs, and, indeed, RfAs. That way, we can have a centralized viewing place for the ongoing controversy related to these comments (it is, after all, mostly the same rehashed arguments raised over and over again and this will increase the efficiency of it all).

3234:). There is certain amount of herd thinking in RfA, and occasionally a perfectly fine editor is turned down. Just don't be discouraged should this fail, and please consider accepting a nomination in a little while - not doing that would deprive the project of an excellent future admin. 4698:. Oppose until/unless question 15 gets a more extensive treatment (I am very strict ^^;;) Support for answers to Scepters questions. Total ends up neutral. Either way there's definitely hope for you. Try and do some more thinking about question 15, and I may yet switch :-) -- 2371:

Wanting to fight vandlism is separate, at least IMO, from AIV. For example, I've literally never posted to AIV myself, and I've been an admin for months. Useight, have you looked at the contribs from this particular user? I personally don't see a strong reason to oppose.

3777:

I provided one specific diff (the one that bothered me the most), and I haven't liked what I've seen in much of the this RfA, specifically in the candidate's responses to oppose votes, and also to question 1. I agree the RfA can be a very good indicator of future behavior.

3460:

offer an opinion if consensus is to be determined. AfD is not a race against time. If after 5 days, one editor says "Delete per nom" and no one else contributes, I would probably relist the AfD, but it seems that Kumioko would always close it as delete, based on the answer

1373:

Why should the number of questions asked have anything to do with your decision to support or oppose a candidate? Unless this is some sort of counteraction to what may be perceived as the "cookie-cutter" oppose that Kurt uses on self-nominations, I don't understand it.

2312:, sorry. Per Wisdom89, per response to Wisdom89, and per edit summary usage below the least acceptable. I may support in the future if you become more involved in admin-oriented tasks, but right now it is clear that you do not understand the roles of an administrator. 1325:

Granted, the lack of projectspace experience is concerning, but I trust that the user will remain where they are experienced. Plus, I thought we wanted more article-writing admins :P Since the questions have been dealt with, I'll strike that part but keep my support.

629:

I will ask them to explain why they think I used them unfairly and go from there. Likely, if they aregue the point and its remotely valid I will err on the side of good faith and undo it. Since there are so many possible cases its hard to say exactly what I would

4829:

Ooh, I like the looks of you, and your temperament seems ideal for adminship, but can't bring myself to go S for now. If I measure you right you'll take good note of the more useful comments in the Oppose section and come back in a few months and zip straight into

4057:

an admin. I understand your thinking about having a consistent set of measurable criteria; however, simply matching a set of declared criteria in order to become an admin may not produce a decent variety of admins nor produce the most secure and sock-free admins.

3733:

which really bother me. It looks like heat-of-the-moment editing, no sig, it was bitter and immature. If an editor can't fully respect oppose voters (and shows that they can't), I don't feel comfortable with giving them the ability to block. As I've said before,

3795:

Unless I've missed something, I see nothing at all wrong with the candidate's (few) responses to opposes on this RfA. The diff you object to seems pretty harmless, and a poor substitute for a substantive oppose based on a comprehensive review of contributions.

2018:, more than most of us can say of ourselves). This probably won't pass, and more experience would be better before becoming an admin, but the answers to the questions reveal sound common sense. I am sure his next RfA will pass, and I will certainly support it. 3109:

To put it bluntly, if you're unwilling to do the necessary grunt work it generally takes to become an admin, you won't be one. Sorry, but steadfastly refusing to act on the very reasonable suggestions being given here is hardly a productive attitude to have.

1163:

per majorly. Sorry this isn't going well, but you seem to have the best interests of Knowledge at heart. I find it highly unlikely that you would become the topic of debate as far as misused/abused tools, and therefore I'm happy to support. Good luck!

1070:

Maybe I'm an idiot, but... What is the big deal about the answer to question one? People are "scared" by someone who thinks some unnamed policies are contradictory and want to clarify them? Scared that he will continue to edit articles? Color me confused.

951:

put it, "there are more questions than supporters or opposers in this RfA. For a candidate with 30K edits, FAs, GAs, no blocks, no civility issues. We've gone grossly awry." Seriously people, get over yourself enough to realize a great candidate when

3094:

I understand the reasoning I just don't agree with it. If I don't have the tools I can't do the job thats the bottom line. I am not going to run around looking for admin related stuff, telling an admin and then by that time it gets handled by someone

3026:

I don't like to waste my time so I am only going to submit this request once, if it gets denied thats fine but I will not submit for it again, especially if the best reason that anyone can come up with is that I don't have enough admin experience.

2263:

your promotion would not have a net positive effect. Do I encourage you to reapply in the future? Absolutely. There is not a doubt in my mind that with, say 10-12 weeks, you could garner the necessary experience. I suggest that you thoroughly read

610:

and go from there. I will probably start with Antivandalism since thats obviously a big problem. Aside from that I will likely ask for help. I have asked questions of several admins in the past and I believe I have a good report with them.--

3030:

Sorry you feel that way. Not everyone makes it the first go. I'm afraid that you currently lack sufficient understanding of admin related policies. The way to remedy that is to gain experience as a non admin by participating at such areas as

2629:

Come on, why don't you ever use different wording when you oppose an RfA? You (Kurt Weber) always use the copy-pasted reasons for the oppose, and I would like to see different wording next time, even if the oppose is related to power hunger.

2141:. Good track record of encyclopedia contributions. He could make use of the tools and is unlikely to abuse them. However I would point out that policy formulation and discussion is open to all editors, not just admins, and always will be. 4084:. 30 000 edits in ten months indicates a desire for quantity of edits, not quality. It seems Kumioko is a good editor, evidenced by a GA and no blocks. Sometimes it's better to keep doing what you're good at ... used to be called the 446:

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

769:

The user that originally left this question has been blocked from editing for the next 24 hours due to disruptive editing. Although the question seems reasonable, I will leave it to someone else to decide if this question should be

718:

circumstances where there isn't at least some literature. Basically, I would likely go with the standards that have previously been established and if the other admins do the same thing then the response should be about the same.--

308:

First as I understand it the Arb com doesn't need to get involved unless the user requests arbitration. But, I personnaly would not use an indefinate block without first giving the user do course and allowing them to "change their

2456:

There's really nothing specific in the AWB contribs that makes me oppose except that there are so many of them. Outside of AWB contribs, what makes me oppose isn't the contribs, but the lack of them in the Knowledge namespace.

4808:. Ngghh, this is hard. You are obviously a good contributor to the project, but under 100 Knowledge space edits doesn't seem to say that you need the tools. However, you would not abuse the tools, I'm sure about that. 2777:

which will contain the substed template and ensuing counter-objections and counter-counter-objections, etc., which will transclude to individual RFAs as well as being listed under separate headings on the centralized page

4323:. I certainly felt as well that was an implicit comparison to Kumioko, in this context. It comes across as highly inflammatory, and I agree that you owe Kumioko an apology, and you also owe Hiberniantears one as well 3738:. To sum up: I am quite unsure, and considering the admin abuse I observe too often for comfort, I don't feel comfortable supporting someone--despite their great editing--who is a very big question mark for handling 3436:

Could you list which oppose answers gave you that impression, and why? (or at least one or two of them?) This would help Kumioko improve themselves, so that you'd hopefully be able to support in a future RFA. :-)

1092:

for the tools. While I'm not sure why this too is a big issue by itself, some continue to interpret that as the candidate not truly understanding what adminship is about, which is certainly a valid interpretation.

4927:. I rarely vote neutral, but this users lack of wikipedia space edits worries me, on the other hand though, he seems dedicated to the project. So, I can't support or oppose. Maybe support in a couple months. 602:

Sorry to add to the question-palooza here, but this is pertinent to my decision. You’ve basically agreed with those saying you don’t have much admin-related experience. Please help me support you anyway by:

3296:

I believe that as an RFA I can help to change some of these contradictory rules as well as aid in editing and overseeing the articles that currently exist and are being added to wikipedia on a daily basis.

2825:

Only 230 or so edits to user talk space is not enough data for me to get a sufficient understanding as to how the user will interact with others, when under pressure, if user has access to the bit. --

1288:- I note that Kumioko has made a number of mistakes in communication in this RFA but the opposition at present is not a balanced view of the candidates suitability for admin so I am going to support. 2863:

Sorry, not enough experience, there are many roles that admins play on wikipedia, you dont need to be one if your only doing the things you mentioned in question 1. Agree with the many points above.

3166:

possible to get on-the-job experience, after all). I was considering sitting this one out entirely, but Kumioko's comment above of "I don't like to waste my time"... yeah, no, that's absolutely the

170: 89: 4358:

apologize to him nor anybody else for people's (willful or otherwise) inability to comprehend simple rethoric. To demand I do so is misguided and petulant-sounding at best. Hope this helps - --

241:

There is no BLP or copy vio. The people and the company they work for are completely non-notable. The work of a boring afternoon in the office - a light hearted article on your colleagues.

149:

I intend to continue to edit and add to the articles on wikipedia and to guard against vandalism, and to help clarify the rules within wikipedia to make more sense and not be contradictory.

4414: 2944:

Oh don't you start as well. Consider the alternatives: after one month on Knowledge, you RfA yourself into ignominy, or you can stop before you start and build a shining Wikipedic career.

2030:-- good editor with an good record and I record a support vote on that basis. Further, nothing those in opposition have said has convinced me that this user shouldn't be given the tools. 1420:

I see your point, but the candidate doesn't really have to answer any of the questions asked, although now that I think about it, many people are likely to oppose on this basis alone. —

189:

Yes, but I believe I have learned from them and I continue to grow as an editor. I have tried to deal with them in a clear level headed manner and will continue to do so in the future.

4983: 4851:

I wasn't going to comment or place my name in any list, but the answer to Q.22 is excellent and I believe indicative of someone who will make a good admin. Maybe just not this time.

3356:

In fact, the tools can be very much a hindrance when editing policy. "Senior" editors might be better off without an admin bit. Still, let's see how question 15 gets answered. :-) --

3549: 416:

I deal with far more stress in my day job than I am ever going to deal with here. I believe I can manage myself accordingly without loosing my temper if thats what your asking.--

2905:

Not answering the questions takes it from support to neutral, and the last line of your nom shows that you will possibly abuse the tools. Sorry, maybe in a couple of months.

374:

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

136:

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

3471:

Admin work(Q1). I don't think the candidate is familiar enough with policy to get involved in "clarify the rules within wikipedia to make more sense and not be contradictory".

925:

one of those questions, so I figure it's a pretty decent test. For the sake of trying to start a useful tradition, I'll support if a good answer to question 15 is provided.

442:

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

4719:

related. He always pops up in my watchlist cleaning up and improving articles. However, for that many edits, Knowledge project space participation is just way too low. ----

2774: 4147:) and also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the process (RfA is more than a simple majority vote - even at its most votey-est, it's still not a simple majority). -- 606:(a) Explaining briefly how you plan to handle it when you run into a situation where you need to use the tools and aren’t familiar with the applicable policy/procedure. 183:

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?

2842:

Out of 30,000 edits a whole 29,000 or so are mainspace. Not that there's anything bad about being a vigilant editor, but only 94 project edits? Also per Kurt Weber.--

2398:

the remaining 10, 7 were to this RFA. Taking this one step further, out of his last 500 edits, 376 were using AWB, if my counting was correct. If you take a look at

2779: 4582:

I'm not convinced either way just yet. Will change to support or oppose base on further actions within this RFA (e.g. questions, responses to votes, etc. . .) --

4510: 5005: 4661:

Thanks, that might apply if, in the so far as I can tell unlikely event, that this RFA passes, but there's no need to have a coach if you can't make the team.--

2416:

As a side note, I also agree that this editor would not misuse the tools on purpose. I just don't see the experience I want to see before giving him the tools.

2079:- Level-headed candidate with remarkable tolerance and civility, as demonstrated by answering all the questions. Don't see how we could go wrong with this one. 802: 1865:

Despite the answer to Q1, and after looking over everything since I made my orignal comment in the discussion section, I am willing to give this candidate the

1405:. No one needs 20 extra questions to judge a candidate's worth, and I will support a candidate that has to go through something like this withour reservation. 5023: 3668:

Darkspots is correct, I delt that a moment of levity was appropriate given the bloodbath that my RFA has become. And here I thought I was a good editor.:-)--

3652:

I would point out that the user was in the Marine Corps for 13 years (from his user page), so the likelihood is high that he was referring to the military.

3843:

Sorry, your contributions are admirable and you should be praised for it. But adminship is not the way. Once you get the mop you stop looking at articles.

2581:

a coaching program or thorough review of the adminship documentation is undertaken. Further experience in the various namespaces would also be important.

872: 3605:, an administrator is never on or off "duty" and we should strive to be friendly with everybody. This appears to me to be completely the wrong attitude. 3230:

You've definitely done right by wikipedia and I don't find the opposes to have very strong arguments either. You're a terrific editor (a lot better than

2121: 1982:

wouldn't abuse them and can use on article space. Editor is unlikely to step into situations he isn't conversant with so move from neutral to support.

1903:

Don't see that he would abuse the tools, and we need more content-related admins. Also impressed with the way he dealt with all those, er, questions.

842: 3765:

unnecessary and unwarranted. Yea, there's no way of telling how he will respond, but I think this RFA might be an interesting study in his behaviour.

3548:

Not ready yet; this user doesn't have enough experience and also lacks edits in the project-space pages (pages that starts with "Knowledge:", such as

3056: 2889: 2679: 4257:

He just compared him to a murderer Koji. The disturbing absurdity of the insult speaks for itself, but now certainly warrants an apology to Kumioko.

3010:

You do not fully grasp the role of being an administrator. Your answer to #1 scares me. I agree with what Wisdom has said. Maybe try again later?

4271:

I've mentioned before that I think the way Kumioko is handling himself in this RFA shows what he is made of. Everyone is jumping over the statement

2674:

be criticized. You may find the discussion tiresome, but Weber's critics should enjoy the same right to be tiresome and repetitive as Weber does.--

3736:

it is potentially much more damaging to the community to promote inadequate admins than to reject a potentially good admin that we are unsure about

3333:

One could also argue that contributions and a good point lend themselves to credibility more so than the mop... not all admins are credible... :P

3064: 98:

contradictory rules as well as aid in editing and overseeing the articles that currently exist and are being added to wikipedia on a daily basis.

1837:, not the strongest candidate ever, but the intentions are good, and I consider it unlikely that this user would deliberately misuse the tools. 3553: 3948:, low level of Knowledge-namespace edits indicate a likely lack of policy knowledge. Also several poor responses to questions and oppositions. 1442:

Heh, a question-count criterion? Let's not look at what the questions say, just count the number answered. (like we do with everything else. --

4192:

was a marine as well - not exactly a paragon of maturity and emotional stability, he. Additionally, Kojidude's point above is well-stated. --

1552: 4421:

is great for editors, but admins need to look before they leap, and calling RfA a "majority vote" does not seem to support said looking. --

2675: 829: 3556:). Get more experience and be part of the discussion on the project-space pages and I will support you in a few month once you are ready. 3580:- Editing experience not varied enough, too tightly focused. Mainspace edit count artifically inflated by trivial semi-automated edits. 2880:-- I will reconsider if the answers become longer. At the moment you seem a brilliant editor, I just can't see why you need the tools? -- 2067:

this RfA, but the barrage of questions allowed Kumioko to demonstrate how to do lots of work fast and carefully while under pressure. —

3068:

review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with

1703: 1014: 970: 4568: 4506: 4491: 2688:

First off, why does it matter? And secondly, I'm almost positive Kumioko doesn't appreciate you guys quarling about this on his RfA.--

2748:

Yep, many people were opposed to the way Kurt has opposed users, because he has used the exact same oppose comment on self-nom RfAs.

1807:!vote not signed, thus indented. I've notified the person who made the original !vote asking him to come by and confirm his support 1274: 94: 1772:

I'd like to see Kumioko become an admin after reading his answers to the questions and reviewing his contributions. Level-headed.

4514: 30: 17: 866: 3995: 3282: 1886:, since I see no risk for abuse, and I am hopeful that the candidate will contribute positively to Knowledge with the tools. -- 836: 3729:, not from the very good editor that Kumioko appears to be. In this RfA, when he had opposition, he responded with diffs like 798: 4898: 4620: 4250: 4181: 3645: 2853: 2699: 2547: 2525: 2292: 2212: 2126: 1431: 1385: 4486:: Per Above, most certainly. I am sorry, but you simply are not fit for admin, and i doubt you ever will be. Just give up! 1526: 338:

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

4502: 4487: 4287: 3866: 3822: 3787: 3769: 3751: 3476:

Hope this helps. Needless to say, Kumioko is a great contributor to wikipedia and I hope to see them as an admin one day.

2893: 1855: 1678: 1537: 1102: 889: 822: 522: 81: 4225:. His actual actions here in this RfA speak louder than the best semi-educated guesses you or I could make ever could. -- 4648: 4111: 3396: 3069: 3044: 1310: 4188:

With all due respect, I think it's very naive to bestow mental traits on someone based solely upon their occupation.

662:

If someone is willing to cheerfully admit mistakes and fix them, and cheerfully accepts constructive criticism, then

2770: 1342: 4960:

per Dweller. Spend some time in the nuts and bolts of the operation, and I'll very likely support in a few months.

4523: 4239:

If he wants to Oppose for a reason you think is stupid, then just let him be stupid. What harm does it do to you?--

2399: 2224:

not adding conversations arbitrarily to every project I am a member of does not mean I don't participate in them.--

1917:

because if he was a dangerous wingnut, he wouldn't have answered all the questions. I wouldn't have, in his place.

906:

hunger". If an admin candidate isn't going to use the tools for what they were intended, why bother having them?

3708: 2116: 4856: 4742: 4378: 4262: 4212: 3725:

to the wind, but I'd like to think of an oppose vote in a situation like this as protecting the community from

3221: 3215: 2500: 2490: 1849: 1615: 1531: 516: 511: 903:

I was going to put forth my vote on this RfA, but the candidate's response to the 17th oppose changed my mind.

626:(b) Explaining briefly how you will handle it when someone tells you you used your admin tools wrong/unfairly 3076:, thus the desire to see how another participates in community discussions and under stress. Hope this helps. 165:

I believe my best contributions are my edits and additions to the Medal of Honor recipient pages, especially

4968: 4644: 3953: 3212: 3082: 2993: 2868: 1699: 1641: 1010: 966: 2238:

By project space, he means Knowledge: space. You've fallen into a common trap there. *Adds to cheatsheet*.

384:

No, but I believe the time should be limited. The request shouldn't sit out there forever with no action.--

4426: 4363: 4300: 4230: 4197: 4152: 3657: 3341: 3306: 2788: 1958: 1598: 1306: 1032: 4161:

With all due respect, I don't think it's appropriate to accuse a United States Marine of being immature.

3936: 208: 4760: 4703: 4680: 4519: 3969: 3581: 3517: 3442: 3361: 2864: 2319: 2084: 1961:, although is weak on the WP space work. May be a valuable vandal-fighter. No concerns; lot of edits. 1447: 1349: 933: 714:

how would you deal with an editor contacting you about a situation you haven't been involved in before?

578: 560: 5004:

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

4737:

related articles, but I don't think you have enough experience with the fields that an admin works in.

4413:

overly-bold actions that've gone on (i.e. East's flooding of the main page edit history and subsequent

4373:

hoping that the 'crat who closes this takes a long look at the entire RfA, rather than the percentage.

3077: 2988: 2784: 2729:

Alright, but I'll keep it blanked, because there have been far too many attacks on Kurt's rationale. ·

1661: 1636: 257: 4614: 298:

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

4873: 4320: 4093: 4009: 3919: 3704: 3689: 3610: 3015: 2101: 1904: 1812: 1293: 4327: 3983: 3932: 3621: 3559: 3270: 2966: 2931: 2751: 2711: 2633: 2014:

for a good editor with many excellent article contributions (not to mention an honourable record of

1773: 4990: 4973: 4952: 4935: 4919: 4905: 4877: 4860: 4852: 4843: 4821: 4797: 4764: 4746: 4738: 4725: 4707: 4684: 4670: 4654: 4626: 4608: 4591: 4574: 4552: 4527: 4495: 4478: 4454: 4445: 4430: 4403: 4382: 4374: 4367: 4335: 4331: 4304: 4290: 4266: 4258: 4252: 4234: 4216: 4208: 4201: 4183: 4165: 4156: 4121: 4097: 4070: 4051: 4034: 4013: 3999: 3989: 3973: 3957: 3940: 3923: 3905: 3884: 3869: 3852: 3825: 3804: 3790: 3772: 3754: 3712: 3693: 3684:

Ah, I didn't catch the reference, (I'm Scottish). I'll assume the best here and switch to neutral.

3677: 3661: 3647: 3629: 3625: 3614: 3591: 3572: 3565: 3543: 3538: 3521: 3507: 3495: 3489: 3477: 3446: 3431: 3419: 3408: 3389: 3365: 3347: 3328: 3312: 3286: 3276: 3265: 3250: 3225: 3217: 3205: 3188: 3155: 3127: 3104: 3089: 3019: 3000: 2974: 2970: 2952: 2939: 2935: 2922: 2897: 2872: 2855: 2834: 2813: 2792: 2773:

and I also think it would be beneficial to create a separate page for each of his objections, e.g.

2764: 2757: 2743: 2724: 2717: 2701: 2683: 2668: 2646: 2639: 2624: 2598: 2572: 2553: 2531: 2504: 2496: 2486: 2466: 2451: 2425: 2411: 2392: 2366: 2348: 2330: 2298: 2273: 2253: 2233: 2218: 2193: 2177: 2164: 2150: 2133: 2105: 2088: 2071: 2055: 2039: 2022: 2006: 1970: 1949: 1925: 1909: 1895: 1878: 1857: 1841: 1825: 1797: 1781: 1777: 1767: 1754: 1740: 1725: 1710: 1681: 1665: 1648: 1619: 1611: 1602: 1585: 1564: 1546: 1520: 1517: 1505: 1493: 1466: 1451: 1437: 1415: 1391: 1368: 1353: 1336: 1314: 1297: 1280: 1261: 1243: 1228: 1209: 1193: 1184: 1155: 1126: 1105: 1079: 1063: 1059: 1036: 1021: 995: 977: 937: 915: 779: 761: 727: 711: 700: 655: 639: 619: 582: 549: 531: 498: 466: 425: 393: 362: 318: 247: 236: 218: 125: 107: 65: 60: 3162:

A lot of the experienced-based arguments have some merit, though I wasn't 100% swayed by them (it

1657: 4961: 4893: 4245: 4176: 4067: 4031: 3640: 2917: 2848: 2809: 2694: 2543: 2521: 2438: 2379: 2282: 2202: 2035: 1874: 1759:

I don't see any serious problems, nor do I honestly believe that you'd abuse / misuse the tools.

1750: 1737: 1692: 1489: 1427: 1381: 1256: 1171: 1003: 959: 911: 885: 242: 213: 197: 4779: 4775: 3703:

I think Kumioko would benefit from more admin-related edits and tasks before becoming an admin.

1988: 1984: 1140:

30k edits, a good article, a featured list, here for ten months, never been blocked? Certainly.

679: 4913:, very low number of edits to talk pages, and the Q&A above doesnt move me to look deeper. 4733:- I don't want to support, but I don't want to oppose either. You're doin' a good job with the 3494:

ETA sorry Kim, I missed the word "oppose" in your post. Hopefully this info is helpful anyway.

4839: 4815: 4666: 4604: 4561: 4441: 4422: 4359: 4296: 4284: 4226: 4222: 4193: 4189: 4148: 4047: 3880: 3862: 3848: 3818: 3783: 3766: 3747: 3673: 3653: 3418:

and sometimes one will not get recognition or thanks for one's work. That's not why we do it.

3335: 3324: 3300: 3201: 3150: 3100: 2885: 2830: 2568: 2462: 2421: 2407: 2362: 2344: 2248: 2229: 2145: 1966: 1721: 1675: 1594: 1560: 1150: 1122: 1098: 1028: 991: 816: 775: 757: 723: 696: 651: 635: 615: 545: 494: 462: 421: 389: 358: 314: 232: 121: 103: 75: 3171:

which makes me very, very concerned about how you'd respond to feedback as an administrator.

2353:

P.S. - You say you want to help "guard against vandalism", but you have less than 2 edits to

4928: 4755: 4699: 4676: 4641: 4587: 4116: 3965: 3901: 3810: 3802: 3513: 3438: 3357: 3243: 3181: 3120: 2949: 2594: 2324: 2173: 2080: 1942: 1923: 1891: 1819: 1791: 1513:

I think this candidate has solid potential to become an excellent project administrator. —

1443: 1345: 1077: 1027:

However, if he just once makes a good admin action, then we, the Encyclopedia, have gained.

929: 574: 556: 4638:

and try again in a few months. A short bit of admin coaching may also be helpful to you.

4869: 4786: 4473: 4162: 4089: 4085: 4005: 3915: 3685: 3606: 3177: 3116: 3060: 3048: 3011: 2590: 2269: 2265: 2097: 2019: 1995: 1808: 1289: 745: 567: 4675:

Actually this would be the coach for getting you onto the team in the first place. ;-) --

3512:

Cool, thank you. And interesting to hear that you based yourself on the questions. :-) --

4613:

Mainspace work doesn't necessarily mean you should be an administrator. Also per EVula.

3634:

Or, maybe it's his actual opinion, seeing as how he hasn't said anything about it yet.--

4721: 4716: 4451: 4418: 4400: 4341: 4105:

Good editor, great asset, but not experienced in the right areas yet. Also, per Kurt.

3264:- Sorry i just don't think you are ready for adminship yet. Maybe next time! Also, per 3052: 2159: 1838: 1514: 1406: 1359: 1327: 1190: 1054: 443: 334:

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

274: 166: 85: 55: 2775:

User:Kmweber/All adminship comments based solely on the power hunger rationale/Kumioko

2357:. Now, I know that isn't the only measure of vandal-fighting, but it is a common one. 5017: 4987: 4948: 4888: 4831: 4635: 4240: 4171: 4060: 4024: 3914:

admin, but his responses here worry me. I fear more wheel-warring in the future. --

3635: 3465: 3404: 3385: 3040: 3036: 3032: 2907: 2843: 2805: 2730: 2689: 2655: 2538: 2516: 2444: 2432: 2385: 2373: 2354: 2031: 1870: 1866: 1765: 1746: 1734: 1572: 1485: 1422: 1402: 1376: 1224: 1219: 1177: 1165: 948: 907: 439: 4417:- not trying to pick on East, just the two most recent examples that came to mind). 4984:

the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed would be positive

4835: 4810: 4662: 4600: 4437: 4144: 4043: 3876: 3858: 3844: 3814: 3779: 3743: 3669: 3320: 3298:

You can participate in policy discussion as a regular editor, without the "tools".

3197: 3142: 3096: 2881: 2826: 2611: 2564: 2458: 2417: 2403: 2358: 2340: 2240: 2225: 2142: 2048: 1979: 1962: 1717: 1556: 1203: 1142: 1118: 1094: 987: 812: 794: 771: 753: 719: 692: 647: 631: 611: 594: 541: 490: 458: 417: 385: 354: 310: 270: 228: 117: 99: 71: 4986:, but I come relatively close to so saying and so almost certainly can't oppose. 3896:

Looks like you may use admin tools for your advantage in edit wars and debates. --

4295:

I compared him to a murderer? Can you show me where this comparision was made? --

921:

Several people here seem to oppose because Kumioko has little admin experience?

4915: 4583: 4170:

I don't think it's appropriate to bring the user's social status into the RfA.--

4106: 3949: 3897: 3797: 3236: 3231: 2945: 2314: 2169: 1935: 1933:. Why the hell not? I like your answers to the stupendous amounts of questions. 1918: 1887: 1789:

The edits are good but I see low namespace and admin related edits (AIV - AFD).

1502: 1463: 1235: 1072: 265: 568:

User_talk:Filll#User:_Durova_interviews_me_about_the_User:Filll.2FAGF_Challenge

3172: 3111: 2780:

User:Kmweber/All adminship comments based solely on the power hunger rationale

2583: 2068: 514:, and give an answer, including your reasoning, below. Thanks, and good luck. 261: 4998:

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

4279:. I actually read this quite differently, as him saying he doesn't have for 687:: In your current article space would having sysop tools make a difference? 278: 3981:- This account was only created today and has done nothing but vandalise! 4944: 4545: 3721:

could be what satisfies me. I may be in the school of editors who throws

3400: 3395:

Moved to neutral after a long period of consideration and per my revised

3381: 1760: 1358:

Technically I guess I would. Unless that was your plan the whole time ;)

4734: 4129:- response to oppose #30 lacks maturity ("I'll take my tools and will 3464:

COI(Q4). Perhaps it was just me that saw this as an "are you aware of

2965:

don't strike me as the attitude someone with admin power should have.

5008:

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

3319:

Your right it doesn't require it but it does lend some credibility.--

555:

the discrepancy? Perhaps they'd tell you an interesting story! :-) --

1593:

Won't cause problems, has my trust, also per answer to question 21.

888:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 478:

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

2536:

A bit late for a reassessment, but I still stand by my oppose. —

3857:

Would you mind explaining this oppose, I'm not sure I understand.

2431:

contribs outside of script use, that is leading you to oppose?

2015: 986:

Just to clarify since its come up a couple times, I'm a he.;-)--

457:

In this case I would respect the admin and ArbCom's decisions.--

1251:- It'd be nice to have an admin who actually works on articles 2708:

I wasn't trying to be uncivil. I was just stating my opinion.

1745:

There is no indication that this editor will abuse the tools.

4221:

So marriage and armed forces make a man mature? Sorry, but I

3140:

I can think of scarier things than the answer to question 1.

1847:

Support/ Yes, candidate seems worthy, despite opposition. --

114:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

4275:, with the inference that the candidate is basically saying 2495:

Changing to support based on Kumioko's efforts in this RfA.

2272:

during and after this RfA as a start. Cheers and good luck.

171:

List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima

90:

List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima

3399:. Issues raised by the opposers still concern me however. 212:

them. Someone points out the user to you. What do you do?

4207:

Kumioko is actually saying. I'm with Walton on this one.

1689:

The answer to question #24 did it for me, it was perfect!

666:. Please help me convince myself you are such a person. 29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

4560:

I don't think this editor is ready yet for the tools. --

3809:

Just a note, I've continued this discussion on Avruch's

159:

What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?

4324: 3730: 2962: 2958: 1341:

Does this mean you'll support everyone I ask the whole

1050: 860: 854: 848: 3550:

Knowledge:Administrator intervention against vandalism

1305:- not going to misuse the tools, what's the big deal? 53:

Final (47/33/20); Closed as consensus not reached by

4391:

I'm curious, why is lack of knowledge about the RfA

4136:

apply for the mop again... well, I mean, unless you

1401:

to find a reason to oppose them, which goes against

1265:

I really should read the preview more carefully. :-(

956:

he is standing in front of you. This is a disgrace.

4349:trying their absolute damnedest to get offended at 3931:per unacceptable response to Queerbubbles' oppose. 1088:Some people think the answer doesn't show any real 1049:I have removed a number of questions from this RFA 3620:said joke doesn't indicate that Kumioko is bitey. 2769:I have proposed that Mr. Weber subst the template 330:Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be 4634:. I'd say that you should review everything at 4145:Gary Hart non-resignation resignation technique 3074:The ability to communicate clearly is essential 1189:Agree with Majorly. Looks like a great editor. 143:What admin work do you intend to take part in? 4715:- He has been a tremendous asset for anything 3380:Lack of familiarity with Knowledge processes. 1525:Per answers to questions 2, 15, and 21. Meets 169:which was promoted to Good article status and 1551:Just for reference sake, the actual link is: 8: 4806:Neutral, within touching distance of support 3374:with an oppose? Unheard of! Sacrilege! O:-) 1656:, I would have nominated this user myself. 173:which was promoted to Featured List status. 4004:Indented oppose as vandalism only account. 2047:Good answers, especially for number #10.-- 3057:Knowledge:Guide to requests for adminship 884:Please keep discussion constructive and 3603:An administrator on duty has no friends 1627:Like the aplomb with which has handled 4599:More admin-related experience needed. 4277:I'm going to take my toys and go home 3554:Knowledge:Administrator's noticeboard 1553:User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/RfA criteria 1527:User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/RfA Criteria 7: 2063:; not much project space experience 710:: Being a sysop makes you liable to 5024:Unsuccessful requests for adminship 4943:per my comments in oppose section. 1635:in the face of an unsuccessful RfA. 1323:for being asked too many questions. 664:learning on the job is perfectly OK 24: 4472:evidence of power hunger as well. 1217:Unlikely to abuse admin tools. -- 196:Questions for the candidate from 95:List of Medal of Honor recipients 4143:want me to" - reminds me of the 353:its wrong. My gut can't vote.-- 18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship 4754:because I don't pile-on stuff. 4319:(unindent) You piped a link to 2676:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 2771:User:Kmweber/Adminship comment 1503:Mr. IP, defender of IP editing 1464:Mr. IP, defender of IP editing 801:. For the edit count, see the 510:Please choose a question from 88:to Good Article status and 1, 1: 890:Special:Contributions/Kumioko 570:, which also covers this RFA. 563:) 17:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 4885:does not deserve an oppose. 3456:AfD(Q9). Sufficient editors 3055:. I would recommend reading 2493:) 23:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 1815:) 15:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 1276:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 3045:Knowledge:Protection policy 2610:evidence of power hunger. 1255:instead of creating drama. 797:'s edit summary usage with 132:Questions for the candidate 5040: 4991:17:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4974:01:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 4953:21:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 4936:08:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 4920:05:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 4906:16:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 4878:16:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 4861:21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 4844:17:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 4822:16:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 4798:16:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 4765:02:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 4747:00:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 4726:19:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 4708:18:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 4685:17:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 4671:16:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 4655:16:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 4627:15:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 4609:09:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 4592:02:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 4575:01:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 4553:23:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 4528:16:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4496:16:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4479:00:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4455:22:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 4446:13:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4431:22:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 4404:21:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 4383:11:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4368:02:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 4336:18:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 4305:17:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 4291:13:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 4267:13:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 4253:22:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 4235:22:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 4217:19:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 4202:19:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 4184:17:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 4166:17:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 4157:08:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 4122:04:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 4098:00:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 4071:23:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 4052:18:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 4035:18:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 4014:15:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 4000:15:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 3974:15:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 3958:14:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 3941:13:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 3924:07:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 3906:07:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 3885:16:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 3870:15:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 3853:00:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 3826:19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 3805:15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 3791:14:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 3773:14:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 3755:14:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 3713:22:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 3694:16:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 3678:12:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 3662:13:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 3648:02:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 3630:01:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 3615:21:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 3592:05:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 3573:19:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3544:19:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3522:22:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3508:22:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3490:21:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3447:19:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3432:19:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3409:21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 3390:17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3366:16:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3348:17:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3329:16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3313:16:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3287:16:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3251:19:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 3226:15:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3206:15:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3189:14:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3156:15:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3128:15:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3105:14:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3090:14:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3020:14:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 3001:14:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2975:15:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2953:14:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2940:13:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2923:12:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2898:11:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2873:05:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2856:03:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2835:03:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2814:09:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2793:21:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 2765:19:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 2744:18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 2725:00:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 2702:03:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 2684:03:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 2669:00:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 2652:Uncivil objection removed. 2647:19:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2625:03:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2599:02:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2573:01:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2554:00:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 2532:00:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2505:15:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 2467:23:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2452:00:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2426:00:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2412:00:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2393:00:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2367:23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 2349:23:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 2331:23:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 2299:01:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2254:23:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 2234:23:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 2219:22:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 2178:00:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 2165:19:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 2151:17:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 2134:20:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 2106:19:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 2089:14:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 2072:14:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 2056:01:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 2040:00:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 2023:21:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 2007:20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 1971:19:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 1950:19:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 1926:17:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 1910:14:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 1896:14:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 1879:13:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 1858:12:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 1842:10:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 1826:03:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 1798:03:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 1782:01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 1768:00:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 1755:21:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 1741:21:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 1726:20:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 1711:20:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 1682:19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 1666:18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 1649:15:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 1620:15:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 1603:14:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 1586:00:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 1565:00:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 1547:00:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 1521:21:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 1506:20:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 1494:20:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 1467:20:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 1452:20:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 1438:20:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 1416:19:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 1392:19:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 1369:19:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 1354:19:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 1337:19:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 1315:18:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 1298:17:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 1281:16:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 1262:12:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 1244:12:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 1229:02:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 1210:00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 1194:23:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 1185:23:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 1156:23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 1127:20:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 1106:16:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 1080:15:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 1064:21:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 1037:20:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 1022:20:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 996:20:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 978:20:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 938:16:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 916:15:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 780:16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 762:15:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 728:19:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 701:19:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 656:16:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 640:16:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 620:16:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 583:17:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 550:16:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 532:09:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 499:14:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 467:14:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 426:14:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 394:14:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 363:14:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 319:14:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 248:23:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 237:23:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 219:22:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 126:22:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 108:22:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 66:00:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 1456:that was sarcasm, btw ;-) 744:7 What is your stance on 712:"asking the other parent" 5001:Please do not modify it. 4834:never mind adminship. -- 4503:SpecialCrunchyNuttyOscar 4488:SpecialCrunchyNuttyOscar 1571:Common sense support. · 678:Optional Questions from 512:User:Filll/AGF Challenge 438:They have both rejected 256:Optional questions from 39:Please do not modify it. 3065:the admin reading list. 1397:people asking them are 1344:? Woot! Rock on! ;-) -- 4868:, switch from oppose. 4468:— I view self-noms as 3232:certain useless admins 2930:since self-nominated. 2606:— I view self-noms as 2335:(double edit conflict) 2016:service to his country 4515:few or no other edits 4450:Fair enough: thanks. 3740:tough admin decisions 207:A new editor, called 31:request for adminship 4517:outside this topic. 4321:Jeffrey R. MacDonald 1867:benefit of the doubt 260:that he lifted form 4395:relevant to actual 3453:Sure. Let's see... 3397:adminship standards 1851:Anonymous Dissident 1532:dihydrogen monoxide 810:Links for Kumioko: 517:dihydrogen monoxide 209:User:1089297PaloirK 4812:weburiedoursecrets 3800: 3370:Me? chiming in to 3343:Leave me Some Love 3308:Leave me Some Love 3249: 3070:dispute resolution 2329: 1957:- basically meets 1948: 1921: 1854: 1824: 1817:Thanks! - Signed 1796: 1208: 1075: 947:of yourselves, as 943:You all should be 892:before commenting. 264:who got them from 198:User:DanBealeCocks 40: 4518: 4273:I don't have time 4223:strongly disagree 4190:Lee Harvey Oswald 3798: 3589: 3571: 3504: 3500: 3486: 3482: 3428: 3424: 3376: 3248: 3235: 2920: 2763: 2723: 2645: 2597: 2448: 2389: 2313: 2294: 2289: 2214: 2209: 1947: 1934: 1919: 1848: 1818: 1790: 1625:Switch to support 1545: 1458: 1307:George The Dragon 1266: 1202: 1181: 1073: 736:Optional Question 572: 530: 258:User:Dlohcierekim 38: 5031: 5003: 4971: 4966: 4932: 4918: 4901: 4896: 4891: 4818: 4813: 4795: 4792: 4789: 4782: 4778: 4724: 4653: 4623: 4617: 4571: 4564: 4550: 4520:The Rambling Man 4500: 4415:adminbot running 4354:brouhaha, but I 4248: 4243: 4179: 4174: 4119: 4114: 4109: 4069: 4063: 4033: 4027: 3762:Comment to above 3643: 3638: 3588: 3570: 3568: 3557: 3541: 3505: 3502: 3498: 3487: 3484: 3480: 3429: 3426: 3422: 3368: 3344: 3338: 3309: 3303: 3246: 3241: 3239: 3187: 3184: 3145: 3126: 3123: 3087: 3080: 2998: 2991: 2921: 2916: 2910:George D. Watson 2851: 2846: 2762: 2760: 2749: 2741: 2722: 2720: 2709: 2697: 2692: 2666: 2644: 2642: 2631: 2621: 2618: 2589: 2586: 2552: 2551: 2530: 2529: 2512:Reluctant Oppose 2449: 2446: 2441: 2435: 2400:my RFA standards 2390: 2387: 2382: 2376: 2327: 2322: 2317: 2293: 2287: 2283: 2277: 2243: 2213: 2207: 2203: 2197: 2162: 2148: 2129: 2124: 2119: 2113:as per majorly. 2053: 2004: 2001: 1998: 1991: 1987: 1945: 1940: 1938: 1852: 1822: 1794: 1763: 1709: 1708: 1695: 1646: 1639: 1583: 1535: 1454: 1436: 1435: 1413: 1390: 1389: 1366: 1334: 1279: 1277: 1272:. Sincerely, -- 1264: 1259: 1242: 1240: 1227: 1222: 1206: 1182: 1179: 1174: 1168: 1145: 1062: 1020: 1019: 1006: 976: 975: 962: 876: 835: 788:General comments 566:See also under: 564: 520: 245: 216: 63: 5039: 5038: 5034: 5033: 5032: 5030: 5029: 5028: 5014: 5013: 5012: 5006:this nomination 4999: 4969: 4962: 4930: 4916:John Vandenberg 4914: 4899: 4894: 4889: 4816: 4811: 4793: 4790: 4787: 4780: 4774: 4720: 4639: 4621: 4615: 4573: 4569: 4562: 4546: 4540: 4246: 4241: 4177: 4172: 4117: 4112: 4107: 4086:Peter Principle 4061: 4058: 4025: 4022: 3705:Stephenchou0722 3641: 3636: 3566: 3558: 3539: 3496: 3478: 3420: 3342: 3336: 3307: 3301: 3244: 3237: 3182: 3175: 3143: 3121: 3114: 3083: 3078: 2994: 2989: 2906: 2849: 2844: 2758: 2750: 2731: 2718: 2710: 2695: 2690: 2656: 2640: 2632: 2619: 2616: 2584: 2541: 2537: 2519: 2515: 2445: 2439: 2433: 2386: 2380: 2374: 2325: 2320: 2315: 2297: 2288: 2285: 2275: 2241: 2217: 2208: 2205: 2195: 2186: 2160: 2146: 2127: 2122: 2117: 2049: 2032:X Marx The Spot 2002: 1999: 1996: 1989: 1983: 1943: 1936: 1850: 1820: 1792: 1761: 1733:- Per Majorly. 1694:« Gonzo fan2007 1693: 1691: 1690: 1642: 1637: 1573: 1541: 1425: 1421: 1407: 1379: 1375: 1360: 1328: 1275: 1273: 1258:Dan Beale-Cocks 1257: 1236: 1234: 1220: 1218: 1204: 1178: 1172: 1166: 1143: 1137: 1053: 1005:« Gonzo fan2007 1004: 1002: 1001: 961:« Gonzo fan2007 960: 958: 957: 899: 828: 811: 790: 526: 244:Dan Beale-Cocks 243: 215:Dan Beale-Cocks 214: 134: 54: 50: 35:did not succeed 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5037: 5035: 5027: 5026: 5016: 5015: 5011: 5010: 4994: 4993: 4976: 4955: 4938: 4922: 4908: 4880: 4863: 4853:LessHeard vanU 4846: 4824: 4803: 4802: 4801: 4749: 4739:GO-PCHS-NJROTC 4728: 4717:Medal of Honor 4710: 4693: 4692: 4691: 4690: 4689: 4688: 4687: 4629: 4611: 4594: 4577: 4567: 4555: 4539: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4463: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4459: 4458: 4457: 4448: 4389: 4388: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4375:Hiberniantears 4342:Jonathan Swift 4317: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4293: 4259:Hiberniantears 4237: 4209:Hiberniantears 4186: 4124: 4100: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4018: 4017: 4016: 4002: 3976: 3943: 3926: 3908: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3715: 3701:Oppose for now 3698: 3697: 3696: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3617: 3575: 3546: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3492: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3469: 3462: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3377: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3289: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3228: 3218:Hiberniantears 3160: 3159: 3158: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3005: 3004: 3003: 2987:best of luck. 2983:Not ready yet. 2979: 2978: 2977: 2957:Additionally, 2925: 2911: 2900: 2875: 2858: 2837: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2649: 2601: 2575: 2565:Adam McCormick 2558: 2557: 2556: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2497:Hiberniantears 2487:Hiberniantears 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2333: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2284: 2280: 2204: 2200: 2185: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2167: 2153: 2136: 2108: 2091: 2074: 2058: 2042: 2025: 2009: 1978:- Likely that 1973: 1952: 1928: 1912: 1898: 1881: 1860: 1845: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1784: 1770: 1757: 1743: 1728: 1713: 1684: 1668: 1651: 1622: 1612:Hiberniantears 1605: 1588: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1539: 1523: 1508: 1496: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1459: 1440: 1317: 1300: 1283: 1267: 1246: 1231: 1212: 1196: 1187: 1158: 1136: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1083: 1082: 1067: 1066: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 981: 980: 919: 918: 898: 895: 881: 880: 879: 877: 807: 806: 799:mathbot's tool 789: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 764: 733: 732: 731: 730: 705: 704: 703: 682: 675: 674: 673: 672: 660: 659: 658: 644: 643: 642: 624: 623: 622: 597: 593:Question from 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 524: 504: 503: 502: 501: 480: 479: 472: 471: 470: 469: 449: 448: 431: 430: 429: 428: 408: 407: 399: 398: 397: 396: 376: 375: 368: 367: 366: 365: 324: 323: 322: 321: 300: 299: 291: 253: 252: 251: 250: 239: 201: 200: 193: 192: 191: 190: 177: 176: 175: 174: 167:Smedley Butler 153: 152: 151: 150: 133: 130: 129: 128: 86:Smedley Butler 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5036: 5025: 5022: 5021: 5019: 5009: 5007: 5002: 4996: 4995: 4992: 4989: 4985: 4980: 4977: 4975: 4972: 4967: 4965: 4959: 4956: 4954: 4950: 4946: 4942: 4939: 4937: 4934: 4933: 4926: 4923: 4921: 4917: 4912: 4909: 4907: 4904: 4903: 4902: 4897: 4892: 4884: 4881: 4879: 4875: 4871: 4867: 4864: 4862: 4858: 4854: 4850: 4847: 4845: 4841: 4837: 4833: 4828: 4827:Moral support 4825: 4823: 4820: 4819: 4814: 4807: 4804: 4800: 4799: 4796: 4784: 4777: 4772: 4768: 4767: 4766: 4763: 4762: 4759: 4758: 4753: 4750: 4748: 4744: 4740: 4736: 4732: 4729: 4727: 4723: 4718: 4714: 4711: 4709: 4705: 4701: 4697: 4694: 4686: 4682: 4678: 4674: 4673: 4672: 4668: 4664: 4660: 4659: 4658: 4657: 4656: 4652: 4650: 4646: 4643: 4637: 4633: 4630: 4628: 4624: 4618: 4612: 4610: 4606: 4602: 4598: 4595: 4593: 4589: 4585: 4581: 4578: 4576: 4572: 4565: 4559: 4556: 4554: 4551: 4549: 4542: 4541: 4537: 4529: 4525: 4521: 4516: 4512: 4508: 4504: 4499: 4498: 4497: 4493: 4489: 4485: 4482: 4481: 4480: 4477: 4476: 4471: 4467: 4464: 4456: 4453: 4449: 4447: 4443: 4439: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4428: 4424: 4420: 4416: 4411: 4408:Jumping into 4407: 4406: 4405: 4402: 4398: 4394: 4390: 4384: 4380: 4376: 4371: 4370: 4369: 4365: 4361: 4357: 4352: 4348: 4343: 4339: 4338: 4337: 4333: 4329: 4325: 4322: 4318: 4306: 4302: 4298: 4294: 4292: 4289: 4286: 4282: 4278: 4274: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4264: 4260: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4251: 4249: 4244: 4238: 4236: 4232: 4228: 4224: 4220: 4219: 4218: 4214: 4210: 4205: 4204: 4203: 4199: 4195: 4191: 4187: 4185: 4182: 4180: 4175: 4169: 4168: 4167: 4164: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4154: 4150: 4146: 4142: 4139: 4135: 4132: 4128: 4125: 4123: 4120: 4115: 4110: 4104: 4101: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4083: 4080: 4072: 4068: 4065: 4064: 4055: 4054: 4053: 4049: 4045: 4040: 4039: 4038: 4037: 4036: 4032: 4029: 4028: 4019: 4015: 4011: 4007: 4003: 4001: 3998: 3997: 3992: 3991: 3986: 3985: 3980: 3977: 3975: 3971: 3967: 3964: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3955: 3951: 3947: 3944: 3942: 3938: 3934: 3930: 3927: 3925: 3921: 3917: 3912: 3909: 3907: 3903: 3899: 3895: 3892: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3868: 3864: 3860: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3850: 3846: 3842: 3839: 3827: 3824: 3820: 3816: 3812: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3803: 3801: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3776: 3775: 3774: 3771: 3768: 3763: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3753: 3749: 3745: 3741: 3737: 3732: 3728: 3724: 3719: 3716: 3714: 3710: 3706: 3702: 3699: 3695: 3691: 3687: 3683: 3679: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3663: 3659: 3655: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3646: 3644: 3639: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3627: 3623: 3618: 3616: 3612: 3608: 3604: 3600: 3599: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3590: 3586: 3584: 3583:Ed Fitzgerald 3579: 3576: 3574: 3569: 3563: 3562: 3555: 3551: 3547: 3545: 3542: 3536: 3533: 3523: 3519: 3515: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3506: 3493: 3491: 3488: 3475: 3470: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3455: 3454: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3444: 3440: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3430: 3416: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3387: 3383: 3378: 3375: 3373: 3367: 3363: 3359: 3355: 3349: 3346: 3345: 3339: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3326: 3322: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3311: 3310: 3304: 3297: 3293: 3290: 3288: 3285: 3284: 3279: 3278: 3273: 3272: 3267: 3263: 3260: 3252: 3247: 3240: 3233: 3229: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3216: 3213: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3203: 3199: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3185: 3179: 3174: 3169: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3152: 3147: 3146: 3139: 3129: 3124: 3118: 3113: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3088: 3086: 3081: 3075: 3071: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3029: 3028: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3008:Strong oppose 3006: 3002: 2999: 2997: 2992: 2985: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2963:this response 2960: 2959:this response 2956: 2955: 2954: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2937: 2933: 2929: 2926: 2924: 2919: 2914: 2912: 2909: 2904: 2901: 2899: 2895: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2876: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2865:Roadrunnerz45 2862: 2859: 2857: 2854: 2852: 2847: 2841: 2838: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2821: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2802: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2781: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2761: 2755: 2754: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2742: 2740: 2737: 2734: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2721: 2715: 2714: 2707: 2703: 2700: 2698: 2693: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2667: 2665: 2662: 2659: 2653: 2650: 2648: 2643: 2637: 2636: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2622: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2602: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2588: 2587: 2579: 2576: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2559: 2555: 2549: 2545: 2540: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2527: 2523: 2518: 2513: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2450: 2442: 2436: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2391: 2383: 2377: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2332: 2328: 2323: 2318: 2311: 2308: 2300: 2295: 2290: 2279: 2278: 2271: 2267: 2262: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2251: 2250: 2245: 2244: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2215: 2210: 2199: 2198: 2191: 2188: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2168: 2166: 2163: 2157: 2154: 2152: 2149: 2144: 2140: 2137: 2135: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2125: 2120: 2112: 2109: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2092: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2075: 2073: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2059: 2057: 2054: 2052: 2046: 2043: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2026: 2024: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2012:Moral Support 2010: 2008: 2005: 1993: 1986: 1981: 1977: 1974: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1956: 1953: 1951: 1946: 1939: 1932: 1929: 1927: 1924: 1922: 1916: 1913: 1911: 1908: 1907: 1902: 1899: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1882: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1861: 1859: 1856: 1853: 1846: 1843: 1840: 1836: 1833: 1827: 1823: 1816: 1814: 1810: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1795: 1788: 1785: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1769: 1766: 1764: 1758: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1742: 1739: 1736: 1732: 1729: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1714: 1712: 1707: 1705: 1701: 1696: 1688: 1685: 1683: 1680: 1677: 1672: 1669: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1652: 1650: 1647: 1645: 1640: 1634: 1632: 1626: 1623: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1606: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1589: 1587: 1584: 1582: 1579: 1576: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1543: 1534: 1533: 1528: 1524: 1522: 1519: 1516: 1512: 1509: 1507: 1504: 1500: 1497: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1480: 1468: 1465: 1460: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1439: 1433: 1429: 1424: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1414: 1412: 1411: 1404: 1400: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1387: 1383: 1378: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1367: 1365: 1364: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1335: 1333: 1332: 1324: 1322: 1318: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1301: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1284: 1282: 1278: 1271: 1268: 1263: 1260: 1254: 1250: 1247: 1245: 1241: 1239: 1232: 1230: 1226: 1223: 1216: 1213: 1211: 1207: 1201:per Majorly. 1200: 1197: 1195: 1192: 1188: 1186: 1183: 1175: 1169: 1162: 1159: 1157: 1153: 1152: 1147: 1146: 1139: 1138: 1134: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1107: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1091: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1081: 1078: 1076: 1069: 1068: 1065: 1061: 1058: 1057: 1051: 1048: 1047: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1018: 1016: 1012: 1007: 999: 998: 997: 993: 989: 985: 984: 983: 982: 979: 974: 972: 968: 963: 955: 950: 949:User:Keeper76 946: 942: 941: 940: 939: 935: 931: 926: 922: 917: 913: 909: 904: 901: 900: 896: 894: 893: 891: 887: 878: 874: 871: 868: 865: 862: 859: 856: 853: 850: 847: 844: 841: 838: 834: 831: 827: 824: 821: 818: 814: 809: 808: 804: 800: 796: 792: 791: 787: 781: 777: 773: 768: 765: 763: 759: 755: 750: 749: 747: 743: 740: 739: 738: 737: 729: 725: 721: 716: 715: 713: 709: 706: 702: 698: 694: 689: 688: 686: 683: 681: 677: 676: 671: 668: 667: 665: 661: 657: 653: 649: 645: 641: 637: 633: 628: 627: 625: 621: 617: 613: 608: 607: 605: 604: 601: 598: 596: 592: 591: 584: 580: 576: 571: 569: 562: 558: 553: 552: 551: 547: 543: 538: 535: 534: 533: 528: 519: 518: 513: 509: 506: 505: 500: 496: 492: 487: 484: 483: 482: 481: 477: 474: 473: 468: 464: 460: 456: 453: 452: 451: 450: 445: 441: 436: 433: 432: 427: 423: 419: 415: 412: 411: 410: 409: 404: 401: 400: 395: 391: 387: 383: 380: 379: 378: 377: 373: 370: 369: 364: 360: 356: 351: 348: 347: 345: 341: 337: 333: 329: 326: 325: 320: 316: 312: 307: 304: 303: 302: 301: 297: 294: 293: 292: 289: 286: 285:100% optional 282: 281: 280: 276: 272: 267: 263: 259: 249: 246: 240: 238: 234: 230: 225: 222: 221: 220: 217: 210: 206: 203: 202: 199: 195: 194: 188: 185: 184: 182: 179: 178: 172: 168: 164: 161: 160: 158: 155: 154: 148: 145: 144: 142: 139: 138: 137: 131: 127: 123: 119: 115: 112: 111: 110: 109: 105: 101: 96: 91: 87: 83: 80: 77: 73: 69: 68: 67: 62: 59: 58: 48: 45: 41: 36: 32: 27: 26: 19: 5000: 4997: 4978: 4963: 4957: 4940: 4929: 4924: 4910: 4887: 4886: 4882: 4865: 4848: 4826: 4809: 4805: 4770: 4769: 4761: 4756: 4751: 4730: 4712: 4695: 4640: 4631: 4596: 4579: 4557: 4547: 4483: 4474: 4469: 4465: 4423:Badger Drink 4409: 4396: 4392: 4360:Badger Drink 4355: 4350: 4346: 4297:Badger Drink 4280: 4276: 4272: 4227:Badger Drink 4194:Badger Drink 4149:Badger Drink 4140: 4137: 4133: 4130: 4126: 4102: 4081: 4059: 4023: 3994: 3988: 3982: 3978: 3962: 3945: 3928: 3910: 3893: 3840: 3761: 3739: 3735: 3726: 3722: 3717: 3700: 3654:Lazulilasher 3602: 3597: 3596: 3587: 3582: 3577: 3560: 3534: 3457: 3379: 3371: 3369: 3337:Queerbubbles 3334: 3302:Queerbubbles 3299: 3295: 3291: 3281: 3275: 3269: 3261: 3167: 3163: 3149: 3141: 3085: 3073: 3007: 2996: 2982: 2981: 2927: 2908: 2902: 2877: 2860: 2839: 2822: 2785:Personal use 2752: 2738: 2735: 2732: 2712: 2663: 2660: 2657: 2651: 2634: 2615: 2607: 2603: 2582: 2577: 2560: 2511: 2482: 2481: 2336: 2309: 2274: 2260: 2247: 2239: 2194: 2189: 2155: 2138: 2115: 2114: 2110: 2096:- Whatever-- 2093: 2076: 2064: 2060: 2050: 2044: 2027: 2011: 1975: 1959:my standards 1954: 1930: 1914: 1905: 1900: 1883: 1862: 1834: 1805: 1787:weak support 1786: 1730: 1697: 1686: 1670: 1653: 1644: 1630: 1628: 1624: 1607: 1595:Lazulilasher 1590: 1580: 1577: 1574: 1530: 1510: 1498: 1481: 1455: 1409: 1408: 1398: 1362: 1361: 1330: 1329: 1321:Auto-support 1320: 1319: 1302: 1285: 1269: 1252: 1248: 1237: 1214: 1199:Weak Support 1198: 1160: 1149: 1141: 1089: 1055: 1029:Lazulilasher 1008: 964: 953: 944: 927: 923: 920: 902: 883: 882: 869: 863: 857: 851: 845: 839: 832: 825: 819: 766: 741: 735: 734: 707: 684: 669: 663: 599: 565: 536: 515: 507: 485: 475: 454: 434: 413: 402: 381: 371: 349: 343: 340:no consensus 339: 335: 331: 327: 305: 295: 290: 284: 269: 255: 254: 223: 204: 186: 180: 162: 156: 146: 140: 135: 113: 78: 70: 56: 52: 51: 46: 34: 28: 4931:Spinach Dip 4870:Tim Vickers 4817:inthegarden 4757:OhanaUnited 4722:Ðysepsion † 4700:Kim Bruning 4677:Kim Bruning 4642:Malinaccier 4513:) has made 4470:prima facie 3966:BlackBeasts 3723:no big deal 3686:Tim Vickers 3607:Tim Vickers 3567:Talk to me 3514:Kim Bruning 3439:Kim Bruning 3358:Kim Bruning 3051:as well as 2759:Talk to me 2719:Talk to me 2641:Talk to me 2608:prima facie 2118:preschooler 2081:John Carter 1821:Fattyjwoods 1793:Fattyjwoods 1444:Kim Bruning 1346:Kim Bruning 930:Kim Bruning 575:Kim Bruning 557:Kim Bruning 283:. They are 116:I accept.-- 4475:Netkinetic 4090:Truthanado 4006:Balloonman 3916:Ricky81682 3727:an unknown 3012:Razorflame 2913:(Dendodge) 2612:Kurt Weber 2595:count/logs 2447:Disclaimer 2388:Disclaimer 2098:Langloisrg 1906:Black Kite 1809:Balloonman 1806:small: --> 1290:SunCreator 1253:as well as 1180:Disclaimer 897:Discussion 770:removed.-- 406:behaviour? 275:Rob Church 262:User:Benon 4563:Sharkface 4452:Acalamari 4401:Acalamari 4397:adminship 4351:something 4328:Darkspots 3933:SashaNein 3811:talk page 3622:Darkspots 3601:, as per 3561:NHRHS2010 2967:Tool2Die4 2932:Tool2Die4 2753:NHRHS2010 2713:NHRHS2010 2635:NHRHS2010 2161:Trusilver 1839:Lankiveil 1774:Darkspots 1633:questions 1515:Athaenara 1410:Wizardman 1363:Wizardman 1331:Wizardman 1191:Acalamari 1000:Noted :-) 855:block log 803:talk page 5018:Category 4964:Krakatoa 4511:contribs 4410:anything 4356:will not 4062:SilkTork 4026:SilkTork 3867:Contribs 3823:Contribs 3788:Contribs 3752:Contribs 3585:(unfutz) 3540:Tiptoety 3499:HEFFIELD 3481:HEFFIELD 3423:HEFFIELD 3266:Wisdom89 3084:cierekim 3061:WP:Admin 3049:WP:BLOCK 2995:cierekim 2806:Becksguy 2539:scetoaux 2517:scetoaux 2276:Wisdom89 2270:WP:BLOCK 2266:WP:ADMIN 2196:Wisdom89 1871:ArcAngel 1747:Valtoras 1735:Garion96 1704:contribs 1643:cierekim 1631:bleeding 1511:Support. 1486:Tikiwont 1423:scetoaux 1377:scetoaux 1103:Contribs 1015:contribs 971:contribs 908:ArcAngel 823:contribs 309:ways".-- 82:contribs 4979:Neutral 4958:Neutral 4941:Neutral 4925:Neutral 4911:Neutral 4883:Neutral 4866:Neutral 4849:Neutral 4836:Dweller 4771:Neutral 4752:Neutral 4735:Miliary 4731:Neutral 4713:Neutral 4696:Neutral 4663:Kumioko 4632:Neutral 4601:Epbr123 4597:Nuetral 4580:Nuetral 4558:Neutral 4548:Anthøny 4538:Neutral 4438:Kumioko 4419:WP:BOLD 4393:process 4340:I hear 4285:Yngvarr 4044:Kumioko 3984:TheProf 3877:Kumioko 3859:Gwynand 3845:Yanksox 3815:Gwynand 3780:Gwynand 3767:Yngvarr 3744:Gwynand 3670:Kumioko 3321:Kumioko 3271:TheProf 3198:Kumioko 3144:Majorly 3097:Kumioko 3095:else.-- 3053:WP:AN/I 2903:Oppose: 2882:Cameron 2459:Useight 2418:Useight 2404:Useight 2359:Useight 2341:Useight 2242:Majorly 2226:Kumioko 2156:Support 2143:the wub 2139:Support 2111:Support 2094:Support 2077:Support 2061:Support 2051:Bedford 2045:Support 2028:Support 1980:Kumioko 1976:Support 1963:Bearian 1955:Support 1931:Support 1915:Support 1901:Support 1884:Support 1863:Support 1835:Support 1731:Support 1718:barneca 1687:Support 1676:Yngvarr 1671:Support 1658:MrPrada 1654:Support 1608:Support 1591:Support 1557:Useight 1499:Support 1482:Support 1303:Support 1286:Support 1270:Support 1249:Support 1225:iva1979 1215:Support 1205:Spencer 1161:Support 1144:Majorly 1135:Support 1119:Kumioko 1095:Gwynand 988:Kumioko 945:ashamed 830:deleted 813:Kumioko 795:Kumioko 772:Kumioko 754:Kumioko 720:Kumioko 693:Kumioko 648:Kumioko 632:Kumioko 612:Kumioko 595:barneca 542:Kumioko 491:Kumioko 459:Kumioko 444:WP:RFAR 418:Kumioko 386:Kumioko 355:Kumioko 311:Kumioko 288:like. 271:JoshuaZ 229:Kumioko 118:Kumioko 100:Kumioko 72:Kumioko 47:Kumioko 4832:WP:100 4645:Public 4636:WP:ARL 4622:review 4616:Rudget 4584:Liempt 4484:oppose 4466:Oppose 4163:Walton 4141:really 4138:really 4127:Oppose 4103:Oppose 4082:Oppose 3963:Oppose 3950:Stifle 3946:Oppose 3929:Oppose 3911:Oppose 3898:FGWQPR 3894:Oppose 3841:Oppose 3799:Avruch 3718:Oppose 3598:Oppose 3578:Oppose 3535:Oppose 3466:WP:COI 3461:given. 3292:Oppose 3262:Oppose 3238:henrik 3047:, and 3041:WP:CSD 3037:WP:AFD 3033:WP:AIV 2946:Splash 2928:Oppose 2878:Oppose 2861:Oppose 2840:Oppose 2823:Oppose 2736:ndonic 2661:ndonic 2620:Colts! 2604:Oppose 2578:Oppose 2561:Oppose 2483:Oppose 2434:Keeper 2375:Keeper 2355:WP:AIV 2337:Oppose 2310:Oppose 2190:Oppose 2184:Oppose 2170:Daniel 2065:before 2020:Walton 1937:henrik 1920:Avruch 1888:Abrech 1738:(talk) 1578:ndonic 1403:WP:AGF 1399:trying 1238:Naerii 1167:Keeper 1074:Avruch 1060:scribe 440:WP:RFC 344:delete 336:delete 266:Tawker 61:scribe 4970:Katie 4900:Shark 4281:drama 4131:never 3372:agree 3173:EVula 3168:wrong 3112:EVula 2585:Jerry 2128:heart 2069:Coren 886:civil 837:count 746:Beans 680:Bpeps 630:do.-- 447:then? 33:that 16:< 4949:talk 4890:Sexy 4874:talk 4857:talk 4840:talk 4743:talk 4704:talk 4681:talk 4667:talk 4649:talk 4605:talk 4588:talk 4524:talk 4507:talk 4492:talk 4442:talk 4427:talk 4379:talk 4364:talk 4332:talk 4301:talk 4263:talk 4247:Dude 4242:Koji 4231:talk 4213:talk 4198:talk 4178:Dude 4173:Koji 4153:talk 4134:ever 4108:Jmlk 4094:talk 4048:talk 4010:talk 3979:Note 3970:talk 3954:talk 3937:talk 3920:talk 3902:talk 3881:talk 3863:Talk 3849:talk 3819:Talk 3784:Talk 3748:Talk 3731:this 3709:talk 3690:talk 3674:talk 3658:talk 3642:Dude 3637:Koji 3626:talk 3611:talk 3552:and 3518:talk 3503:TEEL 3485:TEEL 3458:must 3443:talk 3427:TEEL 3405:talk 3386:talk 3362:talk 3325:talk 3294:Re: 3245:talk 3222:talk 3202:talk 3178:talk 3151:talk 3117:talk 3101:talk 3079:Dloh 3016:talk 2990:Dloh 2971:talk 2961:and 2936:talk 2918:Talk 2869:talk 2850:Dude 2845:Koji 2831:talk 2810:talk 2789:talk 2696:Dude 2691:Koji 2680:talk 2591:talk 2569:talk 2501:talk 2491:talk 2463:talk 2422:talk 2408:talk 2363:talk 2345:talk 2268:and 2249:talk 2230:talk 2174:talk 2147:"?!" 2102:talk 2085:talk 2036:talk 1967:talk 1944:talk 1892:talk 1875:talk 1813:talk 1804:< 1778:talk 1751:talk 1722:talk 1700:talk 1662:talk 1638:Dloh 1616:talk 1599:talk 1561:talk 1490:talk 1448:talk 1350:talk 1311:talk 1294:talk 1151:talk 1123:talk 1099:Talk 1090:need 1033:talk 1011:talk 992:talk 967:talk 934:talk 912:talk 867:rfar 849:logs 817:talk 793:See 776:talk 767:Note 758:talk 724:talk 697:talk 652:talk 636:talk 616:talk 579:talk 561:talk 546:talk 495:talk 463:talk 422:talk 390:talk 359:talk 342:and 332:keep 315:talk 279:NSLE 233:talk 122:talk 104:talk 76:talk 4988:Joe 4945:EJF 4895:Sea 4347:not 4326:. 4288:(c) 3770:(c) 3401:EJF 3382:EJF 3180:// 3176:// 3119:// 3115:// 2827:Avi 2443:| 2437:| 2384:| 2378:| 2316:Hús 2261:now 1869:. 1762:SQL 1679:(c) 1629:25 1374:— 1233:-- 1176:| 1170:| 1056:WjB 873:spi 843:AfD 600:12. 508:11. 476:10. 277:, 64:at 57:WjB 5020:: 4951:) 4876:) 4859:) 4842:) 4794:lk 4785:- 4783:ps 4776:Bp 4745:) 4706:) 4683:) 4669:) 4625:) 4607:) 4590:) 4526:) 4509:• 4501:— 4494:) 4444:) 4429:) 4381:) 4366:) 4334:) 4303:) 4265:) 4233:) 4215:) 4200:) 4155:) 4096:) 4050:) 4012:) 3993:/ 3987:- 3972:) 3956:) 3939:) 3922:) 3904:) 3883:) 3861:| 3851:) 3817:| 3813:. 3782:| 3746:| 3742:. 3711:) 3692:) 3676:) 3660:) 3628:) 3613:) 3564:| 3520:) 3445:) 3437:-- 3407:) 3388:) 3364:) 3340:| 3327:) 3305:| 3280:/ 3274:- 3268:. 3224:) 3214:, 3204:) 3186:// 3164:is 3154:) 3125:// 3103:) 3072:. 3063:, 3059:, 3043:, 3039:, 3035:, 3018:) 2973:) 2950:tk 2948:- 2938:) 2896:) 2871:) 2833:) 2812:) 2791:) 2756:| 2716:| 2682:) 2654:· 2638:| 2623:) 2617:Go 2593:¤ 2571:) 2503:) 2465:) 2440:76 2424:) 2410:) 2381:76 2365:) 2347:) 2326:nd 2291:/ 2252:) 2232:) 2211:/ 2176:) 2104:) 2087:) 2038:) 2003:lk 1994:- 1992:ps 1985:Bp 1969:) 1894:) 1877:) 1780:) 1753:) 1724:) 1702:♦ 1664:) 1618:) 1601:) 1563:) 1555:. 1529:. 1518:✉ 1492:) 1450:) 1352:) 1313:) 1296:) 1173:76 1154:) 1125:) 1097:| 1035:) 1013:♦ 994:) 969:♦ 954:s/ 936:) 928:-- 914:) 861:lu 778:) 760:) 748:? 742:14 726:) 708:14 699:) 685:13 670:A. 654:) 638:) 618:) 581:) 573:-- 548:) 537:A. 497:) 486:A- 465:) 455:A- 435:9. 424:) 414:A- 403:8. 392:) 382:A- 372:7. 361:) 350:A- 346:? 328:6. 317:) 306:A- 296:5. 273:, 268:, 235:) 224:A: 205:4. 187:A: 181:3. 163:A: 157:2. 147:A: 141:1. 124:) 106:) 37:. 4947:( 4872:( 4855:( 4838:( 4791:@ 4788:t 4781:E 4741:( 4702:( 4679:( 4665:( 4651:) 4647:( 4619:( 4603:( 4586:( 4570:C 4566:/ 4522:( 4505:( 4490:( 4440:( 4425:( 4377:( 4362:( 4330:( 4299:( 4261:( 4229:( 4211:( 4196:( 4151:( 4118:7 4113:1 4092:( 4066:* 4046:( 4030:* 4008:( 3996:C 3990:T 3968:( 3952:( 3935:( 3918:( 3900:( 3879:( 3865:• 3847:( 3821:• 3786:• 3750:• 3707:( 3688:( 3672:( 3656:( 3624:( 3609:( 3516:( 3501:S 3497:S 3483:S 3479:S 3441:( 3425:S 3421:S 3403:( 3384:( 3360:( 3323:( 3283:C 3277:T 3242:• 3220:( 3200:( 3183:☯ 3148:( 3122:☯ 3099:( 3014:( 2969:( 2934:( 2915:. 2894:c 2892:| 2890:p 2888:| 2886:t 2884:( 2867:( 2829:( 2808:( 2787:( 2739:O 2733:A 2678:( 2664:O 2658:A 2614:( 2567:( 2550:) 2548:C 2546:| 2544:T 2542:( 2528:) 2526:C 2524:| 2522:T 2520:( 2499:( 2489:( 2461:( 2420:( 2406:( 2361:( 2343:( 2321:ö 2296:) 2286:T 2281:( 2246:( 2228:( 2216:) 2206:T 2201:( 2172:( 2123:@ 2100:( 2083:( 2034:( 2000:@ 1997:t 1990:E 1965:( 1941:• 1890:( 1873:( 1844:. 1811:( 1776:( 1749:( 1720:( 1706:) 1698:( 1660:( 1614:( 1597:( 1581:O 1575:A 1559:( 1544:) 1542:O 1540:2 1538:H 1536:( 1488:( 1446:( 1434:) 1432:C 1430:| 1428:T 1426:( 1388:) 1386:C 1384:| 1382:T 1380:( 1348:( 1309:( 1292:( 1221:S 1148:( 1121:( 1101:• 1031:( 1017:) 1009:( 990:( 973:) 965:( 932:( 910:( 875:) 870:· 864:· 858:· 852:· 846:· 840:· 833:· 826:· 820:· 815:( 805:. 774:( 756:( 722:( 695:( 650:( 634:( 614:( 577:( 559:( 544:( 529:) 527:O 525:2 523:H 521:( 493:( 461:( 420:( 388:( 357:( 313:( 231:( 120:( 102:( 79:· 74:(

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

Knowledge

:Requests for adminship/Kumioko - Knowledge

Index