Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Kww 4

3965:. Nothing has changed since then to show any reason to oppose him now. He has a solid understanding of Knowledge (XXG) guidelines and policies, particularly in dealing with BLPs and vandalism. His dedication to dealing with the whole FICT issue and not go mad over the continued willingness of a handful of people not to compromise is a good sign to me. Actually has a good, firm, and proper understanding of what a deletion discussion is, and we need more admins who do rather than the ones who just count keeps vs delete and goes from there. Certainly having more admins willing to deal with anything Disney is an extra perk, and recognizing the serious problem with have with being overly permissive with the Bambifan101 socks and those who help him is a plus, not the negative people wrongly made it out to be in the last round. -- 4463:...Although... one of the main reasons I ceased the incivility after the block, was only that I'd already seen so much similar abuse from Admins here. If I had had a similar block earlier in my Wiki-career, I'd have certainly gone nuclear with the incivility after the block. Maybe apologized to get unblocked after the second one, and then harrassed the Admin even more, then get banned. So Knowledge (XXG) would have lost a potentially productive editor thanks to the ham-fisted behavior of an Admin. So, no, it's not that much apples and oranges... more like... grapes and raisins?... I guess my concern with the block thing is that some basic understanding of human behavior would be a nice pre-requisite for Adminship. But, obviously, that's not going to happen... 4335:(per statements in Neutral section) Moving from Neutral. On further consideration, this "Indef block until the offender accepts the Truth" attitude is extremely troubling. In any project, variety of thought, including criticism of power structure, should always be considered a strength. In a project like Knowledge (XXG) with labyrinthine guidelines which are constantly in flux, and which are, after all, only made up by fellow editors, an inflexible attitude towards criticism of the status quo would be disastrous. On a personal level, I was blocked by an involved Admin for restoring my own !vote which he had removed. I refused to apologize during the block, and I did apologize for the incivility-- which was used as a post-block justification by the Admin-- 181:, which worked at it from the positive direction. 15,000 edits later, and the record charts across Knowledge (XXG) are in much better shape. This is work I'm proud of, and it illustrates what I think is the right way to tackle major problems: gain consensus as to direction, and then proceed quickly and efficiently. For those that concern themselves about such things, all my edits, including those, have been done manually: no scripts, bots, Twinkles, or Huggles. I'm currently working on using templates to generate the charts that will allow bots to automatically detect and repair chart vandalism. If I can get that to work, I think the music area will be in much better shape. 1117:, I wouldn't take actions to defend it, either. Userboxes are one of those problems I wish we didn't have, because they don't have much to do with building an encyclopedia, but there has always been a tension between "Knowledge (XXG) as an encyclopedia" and "Knowledge (XXG) as a community", and userboxes are emblematic of the community perspective. Some userboxes are always going to occur that bother some people. There's a continuum between "Proud to Be Irish" (or any other white ethnic group, which no one would be upset by) and "Let's Go Stomp On Blacks" (that very few could defend), and this one falls in a zone where I wouldn't feel comfortable making sole judgment.— 263:

blocked until he acknowledged the policy against doing so and said he would not do so again. I firmly believe that blocks should be preventative, not punitive, and the best way to do that is to block until the editor states he will conform to whatever policy he has been blocked for violating. I don't care for "55 hours for this kind of problem" vs. "36 hours for that kind of problem": if the editor credibly agrees to conform to the policy in the future, he shouldn't remain blocked. If the editor will not make such a statement (or, based on experience, no such promise would be credible), there's no reason to unblock him.

1537:. While I didn't participate in RfA 3 I have read it in full. It appears the candidate is aware of things he could have done better in the past; and stands by the things he thinks he did properly. That candour and honesty, and a willingness to put himself forward for RfA 4 after the nature of RfA 3, are big pluses in my book. We shouldn't be reticent to promote candidates merely because they are not milquetoast uncontroversial, or sit on one side or the other of the deletionist/inclusionist spectrum. I am satisfied that giving this candidate the tools will be a net benefit to the project. -- 1752:. Kww doesn't have the greatest history, but let the past be the past, guys. He has always been a dedicated contributor; this is seen through his contributions and endless efforts to keep banned users like Brexx from coming back. Clearly, he keeps Knowledge (XXG)'s best interests in mind. He's done extensive work in several different areas through the last few years and I haven't seen anything from the past year that would make me question his judgment in the slightest. I think Kww would be nothing but a net positive with the tools. — 602:: I don't really think of it in terms of speed. I'm inclined to block if I come to the conclusion that damage will continue unless a block is placed. I probably come to that conclusion more easily than some. I'm not a big fan of numbers on these things: I've seen vandals complain that it wasn't fair to block them before they had their four chances to vandalise an article, which I think shows the problem with being too rigid about level 1,2,3,4 warnings. If you drop a level 1 warning on someone's page, and his answer is " 5015:) Quotes from the candidate on this page like, "If they think a guideline needs changed, they should attempt to get it changed", and the interpretation of "IAR" (it means a certain rule hasn't been written yet) are common Wikicop-think. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not play games with ever-changing, never-settled guidelines... I look through the candidate's recent edits don't inspire a feeling of real change either... That said, the softening of the rhetoric is, at least, a step in the right direction. 4540:. In RFA #3 I opposed without the "weak" qualifier, on the grounds that admins have tenure and it's virtually impossible to rid ourselves of a bad one--which means I need to be certain, and with Kww, I'm simply not. This editor is active in contentious areas, and has in the past lost his temper, which isn't a good sign in an adminship candidate. But, it's been a while since the last such incident so I've downgraded my oppose to "weak". After another few conflict-free months I'd be neutral.— 1074: 639:

laying down a specific behavioural expectation helps make the distinction clear. If he claims to have read the two guidelines and then takes the issue to the talk page as promised, there's every reason to believe that he can be a productive editor. If, upon claiming to have read the two guidelines and agreeing to take it to the talk page he then proceeds to immediately begin the edit war anew, there's no reason to believe the editor is educable.—

3102:: whilst i've never been involved in previous discussions i've read through and support all of the other supporters. Kww is an excellent example of an editor who displays patience and virtue. His edits are very rarely undone and has many times that he is not personally attached to content. He is always helpful and has been a good mediator. The makings of a good admin. I admire his attitude and personally feel like i've learnt a lot from him. 666:: Easily and frequently abused as a means of trying to get one's own way in a discussion. Certainly there are situations that our guidelines and policies don't address precisely and situations that weren't anticipated, and that's where IAR comes in to play. It is still necessary to get a consensus that it is a situation where rules can be ignored, and then to get consensus that your preferred technique for ignoring them is acceptable.— 290:. I was not aware until typing today that the given link had a capitalization error. Had I realized that, I might have taken a mildly softer stance. Not much milder, though: given the admission of being a banned user, given a pointer to an abuse report, I would go so far as to say that a bureaucrat from another project has an obligation to find the actual abuse report before installing the edits. 3080:. Our areas of editing have been known to overlap and I've always valued your input, even where I've disagreed with your opinion. Never short of policy links to bring up in discussions just when you think you must have covered every policy! All in all, a knowledgeable, clueful editor whose edits are consistently helpful. A fine candidate for adminship. Fourth time's the charm hopefully! 3649:

the questions. Reading through the past three RfAs, I realize that Kww's candidacies have been considered problematic in the past, and while I have carefully considered the arguments presented by opposers in those RfAs and in this one, I am not convinced to oppose or even remain neutral. This candidate has earned our respect during his tenure, and I feel he deserves my support.

423:

make them angry enough to revert it, and making sure everyone understood which policies would prohibit and allow what. Once people focused on making sure each sentence conformed to policy, we got to a version that no one felt compelled to revert. We put the change in with {{edit-protected}} macros, and then left the thing protected for six months. Ugly and bloody, but it worked.

303:

appears to coach such users on what to say to avoid detection, yet he makes no attempts to hide the fact he is blocked from editing this site. In this instance, the recruited user appears to be fully aware of why Bambifan101 can not edit here. Since Bambifan101 couldn't resist bragging about his circumvention and revandalizing under his IPs, he exposed the scheme himself.

1657:- While there have been times that I felt Kww has been a bit heavy handed, we must all be reminded that administrative actions are reversible. In giving my support, I request that Kww asks for help in situations where they are not sure about the correct course of action to take, and be willing and open to others critiquing their work. I know Kww well from their edits at 826:. Again you are patrolling the CSD category. Someone has tagged as A7 an article on a band. The article says that the band has released three albums on the same label (not a one-band label) and has made two multi-state tours. Both statements are referenced to allmusic.com. There is also a cite to a review in an online music magazine. What action(s) do you take? 4379:

to disagree, of course, and, obviously, Kww's going to get the bit. I just hope he takes into consideration that differing attitudes towards some of the rules and guidelines are good for the project, and enforced conformity is not. Anyway, don't want to make this RfA about me and my incident, which was totally unrelated to Kww. So I'll leave it at that.

1022:

points and language, and ask for the current commenters to try to come to a consensus on those two issues. In current procedure, a "no consensus" with the same plea is as good as it could get. Of the arguments presented, only a compelling version of the copyright violation argument could have forced my hand, and it just wasn't strong enough to do that.

3713:; Kevin has been helpful and courteous to me, and shared his experience without hesitation. I've been watching his Talk page and observing his actions esp. in music-related areas for months now, and he seems to have good, steady hands for holding a mop. His facility for clear expression in English and his sense of humor will help him help us. 4789:

supplied by Kww above demonstrating his process work before the Redirect, and not to take Dream Focus' representation of how things went down at face value, because he is not describing the full situation. Kww demonstrated caution and a respect for consensus before performing the redirect, caution which many others might not have exercised.

1105::My first instinct would be to ignore it unless drawn into a controversy over it. I'm not big on userboxes, and don't tend to scan for them or investigate them unless the problem is obvious. I didn't recognize the image without doing some research, and the link isn't to a grossly offensive article. Give me the same appearance, but a link to 2243: 165:

area. What I noticed was that the charts had degenerated into essentially random lists of countries and numbers. There wasn't widespread agreement as to which charts were good and which were bad, and there weren't any standard places to verify figures, making it difficult to detect and repair vandalism. I

5178:

changed from oppose. I did not expect to be changing my vote, but his answers to my question and to Langviels following question (and the other questions as well) are so impressive, showing understanding and skill--which is no surprise, and also judgment--which is more of a surprise, at least to me

5085:

Was there a discussion which concluded with a consensus that the block was excessive? If not, then yes. I suspect that since you're NOT still blocked, then the behavior in question was either not sufficiently outside the pale and/or was not repeated. If you'd like to talk in more specifics, feel free

4373:

Hi Wehwalt. In the case in which I was involved, the block would have been a ban because I refused to apologize, or even to say I'd stop being incivil. I did this out of principle because I felt the block was wrong, and didn't want to validate what I felt to be an unjust block by apologizing under it

4358:

You are entitled to your views, of course, but Kww's response seems very appropriate to me. You may be confusing an indef block with a ban from the site. What Kww has said is "I've blocked, until the person agrees to cease the misbehavior, then he can come back and I'll AGF. To make things easier,

3648:

Longtime, hardworking editor with experience with both content and administration, who has not attracted controversy recently and who appears to be trustworthy enough to be given the tools. Kww will no doubt be careful to use the mop properly; I am confident that he will based on his solid answers to

3320:

How exactly have I been "abusing admin tools"? Please explain. "And considering your recent quarrel with BalticPatt"? What, admins aren't allowed to disagree with other editors? Was I uncivil towards him? Are you aware of the ensuing e-mail discussions between us? No. Then you don't know enough about

872:

A7 is an intentionally low bar. An article can fail to meet all related notability guidelines but still make it over A7. The intent is to eliminate articles that make no credible claim of importance, not to prevent AFD discussions as to whether a particular record label counts or whether a particular

804:

Here, we are in BLP land, which is a minefield. First, it isn't an A7, so the tagger needs a note. It is a completely unsourced BLP, so the first goal is to source it: Google and what clues there are in the article provide the starting point. If it can be sourced, add at least one, and leave pointers

515:

be reverted, and only added back after someone has taken the time to verify the information, come to the conclusion that it is accurate, come to the conclusion that its inclusion is an improvement to the article, and is willing to stand behind the edit. I revert frequent sockpuppets dozens of times a

82:

First off, no one can help but notice the little "4" there on the nomination title, so it needs explanation. Yes, I've gone through this three times before. The first was around 50%, the second was around 60%. The third got very close to 70%, and was sufficiently marred by general downright nastiness

4935:

per Dekkapai. I have no doubt that Kww is a good editor and this RFA is going to pass anyway, but the sentiment of "You didn't listen to us and our standards so now we're going to block you until you do" won't reach the proper results in most cases. It seems almost pedagogic I think it'll only cause

4603:

I do not trust him to not follow his own view of what the content of Knowledge (XXG) should be like, regardless of what anybody else thinks. I do not trust him to follow consensus. I'm judging on overall pattern, & I don't want to focus on specific instances yet a 4th time. I did enough of

2287:

Yes. I've, particularly recently, come across Kww a lot at RPP, when he's requesting a bulk protection on a number of sock targets. His dediction to hunting down and dealing with socks is admirable, and having the mop will only make it easier. And additionally mean that I won't have to deal with his

2103:

and my opinion has not significantly changed. If anything a stronger support than last time due to the impressive honesty and willingness to "hold your hands up" over past errors. Making mistakes is not the issue - refusing to learn from them is. I don't see we have anything like that issue with Kww

5056:

While I would normally oppose a 4th RfA, Kww's rationale in questions 5 and 6 1/2 is far more correct than Dekkappai's oppose rationale. Blocks aren't timeouts, and should not be lifted (absent a community discussion showing no consensus for the block) unless the problematic behavior is repudiated.

4393:

The indef block would only be after a short block for the same behavior and the question notes that the behavior is clearly against the rules (3RR is about as bright-line as rules get). I don't see how the answer really applies to your incident if you apologized after the block (which would suggest

4378:

apologize for the incivility after the block had expired, because I was wrong to use incivility, and apologizing for that was the right thing to do. My point is that a hard-nosed attitude, in this case, would have resulted in the banning of, at least, a non-vandal, if not a productive editor. Agree

422:

represented the peak of stress for me. There is something about that article that brings out the worst in editors from both sides of the pseudoscience conflict. Ultimately, it took a strategy of just going through the lead sentence by sentence, and getting everyone to agree on a version that didn't

110:

The blocks in my block-log are quite old. The Sept 30th, 2008 one is easy: an admin noticed a series of reversions, and did not notice that the thing I was reverting was an explicit exemption to the 3RR rule: the other editor was making obvious violations of non-free content policies. You'll notice

4788:

I was involved in this obscure AfD dispute, as someone who initially voted Keep, and then shifted his vote to delete/redirect based on what was, to me, sterling work by Kww on the article's talk page to support the redirect. Regardless, anybody looking at this is again advised to look at the links

4015:

Jumping on the support train, wishing I'd been here earlier to be Support vote 10 rather than 110, or whatever number I am here :). I believe Kww is a fine, well-intentioned, and thoughtful editor, based on my experiences working with Kww as well as a jaunt through Kww's other contributions, which

3458:

I don't even remember what it was, but I had some interaction with him that raised a red flag. Because of that (and because it seemed in conflict with my prior opinion of him) Kww became an editor whose comments I paid attention to when I came across them. Initially that was driven by my desire to

1618:

again. In fact I'm just going to copy over most of my support comment from last time: "Some users have the perseverance to actually listen to the criticisms from their previous RFAs and learn from them. How is it that a certain crowd is willing to assume good faith and keep almost any article, but

980:

The Wordsmith plays out the "AFD is not cleanup" argument. That isn't a bad argument in the first AFD. This is the fourth, so it is hard to weight that heavily here. He also makes a "framework" argument that is interesting: he is making a play for WP#IAR based on a necessity defense, and I can see

638:

comes into play: it doesn't matter whether or not he's editing in good faith, what matters is that he doesn't have the minimum skill set required to edit. If he does understand what's wrong with his editing and doesn't care, there's every reason to expect the disruption to continue. Blocking while

164:

I spend most of my time in what I think of as "damage prevention". I scan for vandalism, unsourced material, poorly-sourced material, guideline violations and policy violations and revert or fix such edits. Most of my effort in the last 18 months has been on record charts, which is truly a problem

5153:

fine. I am still not fully though that Kww is suitable for the role of an administrator, along the lines of key criterion 7, with the Meursault2004 incident still an issue for me. While I appreciate and have read Kww's nomination statement on the issue, I am not convinced by it. I will not oppose

4630:

As to the idea that one should discuss deletion on the talk page of an article first? Laughable. Articles essentially never get deleted by discussion on an article's talk page, because an article's talk page is watched virtually exclusively by people that think the article is interesting, and, by

4497:

But it appears to me that, because some admin inappropriately deleted your !vote (as I understand your presentation of the event), and then stubbornly blocked you for restoring it, you want to punish Kww's stretch for the mop because you assume he's going to be just as unfair and spiteful as that

4477:

If someone decides to lie in order to get unblocked, then go "nuclear with the incivility", I fail to see how that can be blamed entirely on the admin. Just because someone isn't an admin doesn't mean that they're excused from personal responsibility. And I disagree that such a response is normal

4418:

it had been lifted because the incivility was wrong. No matter how long the block, I would have refused to apologize under it because it reeked of Wiki-cop vigilantism. I was an experienced, productive editor of 3 1/2 years when I received this pedagogic block, yet I would now still be blocked if

956:

Bravedog plays the "potential copyright violation" card. That's a valid concern, because the level of transformation is low. Still, he doesn't expand on it, and doesn't show a grasp of it, so it's hard to weight that section of the debate. Refers to NOT#PLOT without naming it, and that's a strong

766:

If there's a trick here based on a Spanish language article about a Portuguese-speaking country, I'm not seeing it. First, it isn't nonsense, so the tagger needs to get a note about that. Then, a quick trip to Spanish and Portuguese wikipedia to see if it's essentially a duplicate article. I'd be

687:. Do you think vandals and other users with poor behavior can be rehabilitated? Or is it better to ban/block them and then ban/block their socks unless they do as they are told? I guess what i'm saying here is do you think all of Knowledge (XXG)'s "troublemakers" should be seen in the same light? 378:

extensively today, and that's where I will probably focus. Socking is an area where I am specifically hampered by not having administrative tools: right now, I can't even see where someone has made deleted contributions, much less see the contents of them to use them in putting together evidence.

158:

was probably the most difficult article I've ever worked on, and I became aware of the pseudoscience issues on Knowledge (XXG) as a result. I was truly astonished at how hard people would work to try to portray nonsense as defensible. I don't directly work much on pseudoscience articles, but I do

4756:

AfD discussion), I agree with the outcome regarding the articles and their content. I also don't have a problem with the process he followed, except that I readily understand how the redirect could look like an "up-yours" move. Unfortunately, I can't see what Kww used in the edit summary for the

96:

As for my sentiments, they were incredibly poorly phrased. I should never have used the word "vandal" in that context. Still, the point I actually intended to make was valid: people shouldn't pick and choose which guidelines and policies they will follow, and which they will not. If they think a

5127:

of much, much better, but my cynical side expects that when the stress levels rise that ugliness will be front and center. Considering his experience and skill, the significant shift in community attitude towards him, and the fact that my own view is based in part on cynicism, I do not feel my

1021:

In summary, this goes to a tension between the "necessary framework" side and the "not#plot" side, and I don't see a consensus. My preference would be to relist with a summary similar to what I've given in this answer, caution A Nobody, Ikip, Dream Focus, and Doctorfluffy to stick to legitimate

478:

was again stressful to the point of being surreal. The attacks by some of my opponents went over the top, and some of my supporters went right to the same level in their opposition. There was some well-reasoned opposition and well-reasoned support, but that RFA turned into a war. There was very

4989:

I've opposed in the past, and if you want me to be honest, I'm not completely comfortable with the idea of this RFA passing. It's also true that most of these concerns come from events that are somewhat dated. So though i'm still not comfortable jumping on the support side, here's to hoping my

302:

He has also managed to convince users on non-English Knowledge (XXG) projects, such as User:OckhamTheFox from the Russian Knowledge (XXG). This user was approached to perform edits on this site for him, including restoring his deleted articles, redoing his earlier versions of articles, etc. He

262:

A substantial portion of the opposition in my last RFA came from my treatment to Meursault2004. It's bound to come up again, so I am keeping my statement on it from my last RFA intact in this one. I stand behind my reaction: the editor knew he was proxying for a banned editor, and needed to be

5010:

Want to support this time, but I'm still getting that "Wikicop" feeling, and feel very strongly that we have too many Paul Blarts using Knowledge (XXG) to play Dirty Harry these days. Many of the Supports indicate that there has been a real change in the candidate's attitude. I just don't see

4343:

the block because I felt it was unjust, and that the incivility complaint was made post-block. I continue to believe I was in the right and the Admin was in the wrong. Were this Admin to follow Kww's philosophy, I would still be blocked. Cannot in good conscience sit on the fence on this one.

4821:

I agree with Kww on most things. As satisfying as it might be to "pack the Court", if you will, with another admin with whom I am ideologically aligned, I think I would rather not. Admins with (declared) predispositions about fiction and notability walk a fine line, and I think Kww lacks the

3426:

I trust Kww to do what he sees as the right thing. I'm still not certain that I trust his judgment about the right thing. There are a number of editors who put their own views above the community when using the bit and I worry that Kww will be one of them. But his contributions have been

4141:– OK, why not? I was thinking about this one for a good while, and I think Kww has significantly improved since the last RFA in which I did oppose. I still have a couple of reservations, but I don't think with the recent activity is enough for me to oppose. Anyways, don't let me down, now. – 4744:

It's a shame you didn't say something before now about it (or did you?), so that somebody could have dealt with your concerns. It appears you are revealing your motivations for the first time right here. How could anybody (Kww or otherwise) have guessed what you based your decision on? And

4757:

redirect. But maybe my acceptance is based in part on the trusted image he's built up in my eyes, so I read his words in a different voice than others do. I also wasn't attached to N.I.N.A./Left Eye/Lisa Lopes/How many identities does she need? so it's easier for me not to feel defensive.

832:

Again, not an A7 (I'm beginning to sense a theme, here). I'd do a quick check of the references, because this is an area where I'm intimately familiar with the guidelines. If nothing checks out, db-hoax is an option. If things partially check out, it may wind up at AFD if I think it fails

633:

No. The intent isn't "go calm yourself", it's "go read up on what we are up to, and agree to go along with it". The editor in question was already informed about the problem with his editing, blocked to make the point clear, and then proceeded with the problem editing showing no sign of

1619:

perpetually oppose someone they have had a disagreement with. KWW seems to have a strong understanding of the admin approach to decision making, which is based on an understanding of Knowledge (XXG) policies and current consensus, not personal feelings. I trust him to use the tools."

3444:. Clearly dedicated, thoughtful and intelligent communicator; WP needs more of those. As to the "wikicop" theme raised by opposers and neutrals, I would agree that admins who run around just happily waving their wikicop badges are to be discouraged. However, I don't sense that here. 2084:

as last time (though I opposed on RFAs 1 and 2). Kww has acknowledged his mistakes, and is ready to move on. Even though I have differences with him when it comes to the proper application of notability and deletion policices, he has a generally sensible approach to process issues.

3459:

figure out what I really thought of him, but later it was because I found his comments a helpful marker in trying to orient myself in a long debate (think AN/I, or something of the sort). And based on that, I feel comfortable with the idea of letting him have a few extra buttons.

1705:

despite Kww's and my vastly differing opinions on notability and inclusion in the 'pedia, I can see he is dedicated to improving the 'pedia, worth a trial with the mop. Remember that we have an effective review mechanism in the arbitration committee for anyone who misuses tools.

3289:

You know I find it funny how you talk as if your a mistake-free individual. Kww should watch you, considering how you have previously been abusing Admin tools. And considering your recent quarrel with BalticPatt, I believe Kww should be watching and keeping you on a tight

97:

guideline needs changed, they should attempt to get it changed. If they think a policy needs changed, they should attempt to get it changed. They should not routinely ignore a policy or guideline because they find it unpleasant. I don't care much whether we are talking

4566:; Very standoffish; Not a good quality in an admin. Admin actions are not black and white, they require considerable judgment in some cases. I'm especially troubled by his stance towards tending to bite newcomers. Needs to mellow considerably before I'd reconsider. 760:. You find an article that has been tagged as "Patent nonsense". In fact, it is a short, unreferenced description of a village in Brazil, written in Spanish. The tagger has not notified the creator of the tagging, nor has anyone else. What action(s) do you take? 4663:

I going to add an example of something that just happened, that I believe demonstrates his character quite well. Kww nominates an article for deletion, it ending in no consensus. 13 minutes later, he replaces it with a redirect eliminating the article anyway.

984:

Kww (I'll assume this is a different Kww, so I'm allowed to close this AFD at all), goes for NOT#PLOT again, pointing out that Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of the plot of Star Wars is excessive, and cannot be described as a concise description of a fictional

4413:

The block was to be lifted if I apologized, which I refused to do because it was an unjust block-- The blocking Admin was in dispute with me and blocked me for restoring my !vote which he had removed. In spite of the block, I apologized for the incivility

693:

It's an individual thing. I've mentored a couple of sockpuppeteers trying to bring them back into constructive editing. It worked out well with Petergriffin9901, who is now a constructive editor. It worked out poorly with Wiki-11233, who remains a banned

516:

day. If the information is valid and needed, it makes it into the article eventually: there's no information that Brexx possesses that is a secret to the rest of the world, and the articles he edits generally have a large community of interested editors.—

4307:- Fourth time's a charm. Great work, per above. I really hate how some people can't understand that we are humans, and that we can make isolated mistakes without turning into bad people. Best of luck, and you should work on that military leader thing ;) 4727:

The only reason I agreed to a relisting was because I was afraid that you were going to continue to try and redirect the article, against the recently closed AfD, and that I, in trying to stop that from happening, would be forced into a 3RR situation.

798:. Again you are patrolling the CSD category. Someone has tagged an article as A7. It describes a Professor at a University in Yugoslavia, who is stated to have won an national award for teaching. No references are provided. What action(s) do you take? 730:

I might tweak the wording in few places, but it sums up my attitude well. It's important that everyone know roughly what's expected of them, both in terms of content and procedure. There's no reason to become hidebound about it, but, at the same time,

2061:

Admiration for the honesty and openness with which the candidate has approached this RfA. Should make a great addition to the ranks of vandal blockers and sockpuppet investigators. And has a bit of passion for the project, which is no bad thing --

4747:"I personally feel that the AfD should have been relisted, as two votes hardly seems like consensus to me and if there had been more keep votes and arguments against redirecting, that would have been that. But, alas, that didn't happen." 4822:

diplomacy necessary to be a judicious administrator of this area. We have enough poisonous people and enablers there, and I don't think Kww+sysop is going to be able to add constructively to resolution of the broad problem. Sorry, Kww.

379:

There are also times when not being able to block the sock immediately lets things get out of control: I've seen Brexx rack up 100 or more edits that I needed to revert while I was waiting for the gears of the SPI machine to turn.

909: 969:

A Nobody argues for speedy keep, which isn't even possible at this stage, because we have people arguing for delete. He also tries to pretend that NOT#PLOT isn't policy, which is an unacceptable argument: like it or not, it is

2168:- Last AfD was definitely close, and the previous one reeked of politics (especially oppose #7). Definitely time, and the elevation of which would validate some of the progress that's been made in making RfA less absurd. 3618:

I have supported Kevin on Kww 3, and will continue supporting until he becomes an Admin. Kevin has always shown wise and trustful judgement, as I have never seen him be biased or unfair. Looking forward to the good

5179:-- that I think it would be unfair for me not to acknowledge it. Additionally, a careful review of recent edits shows similarly good skill, judgment, and even tact. I will be very glad if the change is real. 1729:

I was a bit shocked by the first two words to the answer to Q5, but when I saw that he wouldn't be opposed to the block being lifted once the blocked editor understands what is wrong. This is fully in line with

1035:

On a purely personal level, I still think 400 articles summarizing the plot of Star Wars is beyond excessive, but I can respect the argument that an overall framework article might not be the place to start the

3254:

I've had both negative and positive experiences with you— to be honest, mostly negative. But that was a long time ago, and I myself didn't have the smoothest interactions when I first came to Knowledge (XXG).

991:

Dream Focus leads with the "evil deletionists attempting to get their way" card, no points for that. He tries to describe it as a list. I'm going to count this as a vote for the "necessary framework" argument.

5104:

I have some concerns - notably that you are too rigid in your view of WP process. However, my concerns aren't sufficient to oppose. You do have my respect and, as this looks likely to pass, I wish you the

569:

and agrees to take the issue to the talk page. I really don't care if the editor is blocked 2 hours or 55 hours, so long as he agrees to behave and shows a sign of understanding why his current behaviour is

3730:

Comment #85 on Kww 3 still holds. He's honest, willing to discuss his past and willing to be held accountable to it, which is better than many admins who presently work on difficult stuff. ALl the best.

4092:

Although issues have been raised in the past, now would be a fine time for Kww to have the tools. (Although I was inclined to oppose when I saw it was the fourth RfA until reading the full background.)

2817:. Can't say much more than I have already. I have no doubts Kww can be trusted to use the admin tools with discretion, in accordance with policy, and with a willingness to accept input on their use. -- 1205: 555:

violation. The next day, just as the block expires, the editor in question resumes the very kind of behavior that got them blocked, and you are the very first person to notice. What would you do then?

84: 551:

Let's say you see an editor adding unsourced gossip to an article, being reverted, and engaging in an edit war (not with you) to make sure it stays in. You issue a short block to that editor for a

3157:- I'm well aware of this editor's efforts against persistent sock puppets and have worked with him regarding it. He is conscientious and patient and an asset in this area. Completely support him. 5123:

I opposed the last time around due to serious concern's about the candidate's attitude when interacting with other people. His behavior during that RfA was above reproach and showed that he's

1003:

Epeefleeche, BryanG, Cube Lurker, Rlendog, Dekkapai, Bobby T., JoshuaZ, Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando, Willscrit and Schmucky all basically "me too" on the "necessary framework" argument.

931:

First, I see the old confusion between "primary" and "independent" rears its head here again. It really bugs me that people can't keep that straight. Anyway, argument by argument weighting:

254: 250: 3839:

as I have in the past. Kww has a comprehensive knowledge of policy and sound judgement. Nomination statement and answers to the questions only increase my confidence in his abilities.

4449:

Yeah, I see your point. The concerns mentioned in the "Neutral" statement (under Otis) still apply though. I'll soften my oppose, and hope Kww proves my concerns unfounded. Regards.

353:

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

3919:

I have briefly dealt with Kww in the past as well as observed some of his contrubutions, all of which have driven me to believe that he'd undoubtedly make a decent administrator.--

334:

My reaction to these events was based on having researched the situation and reached the conclusion that the edit was performed with the knowledge that the edit was unacceptable.—

805:

to others that I found on the talk page if I don't have the time or the inclination to integrate them. If there aren't any sources to be found, the new prod-blp process applies.—

877:" would make it past A7 with me, because even though the area of notability is pretty dubious, winning most state wide competitions seems like something worthy of discussion. " 246: 2877: 4584:

No, I can't; I'm not familiar with this editor. Reading his responses to the questions above, as well as the previous RFAs causes concern for how he would use the tools.

4870:

Sorry, unregistered users cannot vote on RFAs. Please feel free to add comments in the above discussion section though, where they will be considered by other users. --

433: 3321:

the situation to comment. I don't speak like I'm a "mistake-free individual" because I explicitly stated that I myself have had rough interactions on Knowledge (XXG).

413:

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?

4749:

That seems like a very clear willingness for relisting, as opposed to the reluctant, painted-into-a-procedural-corner situation you appear to be depicting it as here.

1777: 561:

An indef, with an explicit note on the block and in the block log that any admin can lift the block without consulting me when the editor states that he has read

5205: 3237:

A very hardworking editor who has been shown to be capable. Short blocks are long past in wikipedia terms. Should be given a chance to contribute with the mop.

1551:

I supported last time, and I think I will again. You've done some good work, and you've shown that you have potential to serve the community as an admin well.

436:. I allowed myself to get goaded into anger. I learned from that. I may still get angry at times, but you'd have a hard time seeing it from the words I write. 278:

I see several opposes based on my stance on Meursault2004. I am adding this section to explain the way I felt, and the reason why my stance was so strong. In

1640:, a FA and TFA he did much work on, and persisted with in the face of vandalism and opposition. Pass him, and let's get on with building an encyclopedia.-- 3427:

outstanding for the last year or so. So if not now when? Kevin could easily have ditched this account and made a new one and made admin. No question.

4753: 5223: 1780: 1142: 1463:

have to do with anything? Well, never mind. Party's starting a little early in the sandbox, we have lots of non-notable bands playing, come on guys.--

1403: 1113:, and I would be more inclined to be personally excited. In its current state, if push came to shove and others came to the conclusion that it violated 1636:

as nominator last time. He deserved to pass last time. He presents his own work better than I can. I know him from working side by side with him on

1491:

I can't link due to questionable copyrights, but if you looked up "Stairway to Heaven" and "Doug Anthony All Stars" on YouTube, all would be revealed.—

1398: 997:

Peregrine Fisher goes for adding sources, an effort to fight the "dependent on licenses sources" argument. Decent strategy, hard to say it was enough.

1210: 1200: 1195: 475: 463: 174: 5137: 4774:

The edit summary was "Redirecting to appropriate subsection of Lisa Lopes. Sources are vague, and do not support all claims made in this article".--

208: 1252: 973:

Balthcat plays an interesting card: the nomination is based on defects in the current article, not one deletion motivations, with the exception of

287: 757: 1190: 459: 403:. Imposing some order on such a problematic area was sorely needed, and I suspect that this will be my most lasting influence on Knowledge (XXG). 1661:

userspace, and have come to find a dedicated user with a knack for catching sockpuppets. We could always use more active administrators at SPI.

5011:

evidence of real change in the philosophy, rather than a softening of rhetoric, behind the notorious quote alluded to but not linked to above (

1819: 885:" probably wouldn't make it past A7 for me, because being the champion of a 72-person hamlet doesn't seem like a credible claim of importance.— 767:

willing to treat a literal Portuguese to Spanish translation as a "duplicate" for this purpose. If so, db-foreign applies. If not, tag it with

4478:

human behavior. Its the same concept in the real world. Getting a ticket you didn't deserve is not an excuse for assaulting a police officer.

1006:

Stifle argues NOR. This came up in the initial nomination as well, but nobody identifies a piece of OR that needs to be NORed. No weight here.

604:

Screw you and anyone else that doesn't like Lily B. Tabloidfodder, I'm going to write anything I want to about her anywhere I want to write it

4103: 1341: 2456:

as previously. Kww does excellent work in important areas, and would greatly benefit from admin tools. Granting him adminship is overdue. ~

2224:

tempted to move to oppose re the answer to Q16:– clearly admins should know who supplied the ingredients to the rama lama ding dong et al.

777:. The creator needs to get a note about the result. The referencing will need to be dealt with, but probably after translation is complete.— 245:

Administratively, I have always focused on vandalism and sock-puppetry, and expect to continue that focus into the future. A quick look at

2128:

Tough to go through this so many times. I hope you get it this time. Your recent history is worth my standards. Best wishes for this RfA.

1922:. No previous unpleasant interactions. The blocks and past history are concerning but Kww seems to have learned from those mistakes. - 936:

Dale's argument is damaged by saying "primary" when he meant "dependent" or "licensed". Spotting him that defect, his argument is sound:

5154:

however given that this was a while ago now and I have not seen anything fresh in the oppose section which is of serious concern to me.

4857: 3851: 635: 33: 17: 3978: 3688: 2129: 2004: 1774: 4889:

Insufficient content creation - the candidate's edits seem relentlessly regressive and reactionary. And there seems to be a bitter,

4016:

are many and varied. Kww would make a superlative admin, with his respect for consensus, his patience, and his reliance on protocol.

3514:. Because, to quote the end of Rocky IV, "Everyone can Change", and it's been two years since this editor was getting into trouble. 91:. Those events are real. I can't state that they didn't happen, so I won't. I am wholly responsible for the wreckage that is my past. 202: 1282: 159:

monitor a few to make sure that they don't turn completely into support of nonsense. I'm not well liked by the pseudoscience crowd.

4433:

You're comparing apples with oranges, though. The example that Kww was given was of an editor that was blocked for edit-warring,

1276: 5071:

I did not repudiate the problematic behavior for which, allegedly, I was blocked during the block. So I should still be blocked?

4551: 4441: 4359:

I'll waive consultation and allow any admin to unblock without the requirement that they talk to me first." Sounds good to me.--

2628: 1972: 1691: 1239: 977:

concerns. He further believes that the notability of the chronology is not in doubt. I'd like to see that one played out further.

283: 129:

To recap my editing thrusts: I'm not heavy on the content-creation side of Knowledge (XXG). I've worked on one featured article (

2719: 2374:

I'm pleased you've realised the mistakes you made earlier in your career, anyway, a long term contributor with a barnstar too.

1675:

Even just reading the long statement he's made, I think that he's got the right idea and knows what he's done right and wrong.

1393: 960:

Doctorfluffy alludes to NOT#PLOT, but does so in a way that warrants an warning on his talk page about how to conduct himself.

4845:

was handled gives considerable concern over the ability to be constructively level headed when dealing with others. Regards,

3654: 2905: 2676: 1734:, in that if an editor sees no reason to stop disrupting we have no reason to allow him to edit. Also, great answer to Q6. -- 1717: 4745:

especially, how could they have come to the "true" conclusion about the basis of your involvement when you – twice – wrote:

5149:- Kww has contributed significant amounts to Knowledge (XXG) and has a clear need for the tools, and seems to pass most of 366:

Pretty much what I do today: keep the Disney and music articles from turning into a quagmire of blog-sourced gossip. I use

4633:" cause me great concern that he will ignore whatever consensus is, and just delete something he personally doesn't like. 2380: 2362: 2071: 1771: 1106: 305: 279: 316:. He received an indefinite block for editing precisely the same article that Meursault2004 was being requested to edit. 298: 5134: 4278: 4000: 2540: 2525: 2254: 1839: 419: 155: 134: 2534:

into a semblance of order will make a fine addition to the mop'n'bucket brigade. I look forward to working with you. -

953:

Colonel Warden's argument seems to be "a lot of articles suck, so one more doesn't hurt". Not much weight to give that.

497:, are you saying that all edits by banned editors must be reverted, except if they are "obvious vandalism reversions"? 5020: 5013:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANotability_%28fiction%29&diff=202544073&oldid=202542955

2510: 2340: 2192: 1968: 1291: 1246: 942:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

257:, and the sheer number of my edits dealing with undoing and reverting sock edits show how much effort I place in that. 3777:

Very helpful and decent user: giving Kww the tools will be beneficial to the project. I have no concerns whatsoever.

2803:

Convinced by a review of previous RfA's and commentary on the current one that Kww will be a solid admin. Good luck.

282:, Ice Age Lover was very explicit that he was banned from English Knowledge (XXG). He even included a direct link to 2524:

Shows clear reasoning and dedication to the project. Someone with the great brass fingers and perseverence to bring

4764: 4513: 3720: 3635: 3306: 3183: 2932: 286:. That was a typo, but an English-speaking bureaucrat from another wiki can be presumed to have the skill to find 3650: 3381: 3206: 2427: 1429: 1334: 1308: 1232: 226: 72: 3761:

4th time lucky as they say? Well I hope so because Kww is a fine editor who I'm sure will use the tools wisely.

5150: 4902: 4419:

Kww's "block 'em till they say 'uncle'" idea were enforced. Imagine how new, inexperienced editors will react.

2350:

Obvious record of good work and (recent) good sense. The prefacing Act of Contrition makes it hard to resist a

2185:

Nov 07 is a very long time ago in wiki time and I'm happy to disregard such an old block. All else seems fine.

2063: 146: 142: 4968:

I cannot agree. Adminship is not a prize, but it is a responsibility of trust, and that trust must be earned.

3811: 2574:, looking through previous RFAs the concerns raised appear to addressed. I see no current reason to oppose. 858:. Give your views on what constitutes a "claim of significance" sufficient to prevent an A7 speedy deletion. 5131: 4957: 4861: 4275: 4248: 4082: 3972: 3846: 3763: 3414: 3217:. I don't always agree with him, but he's always willing to engage in discussion and well-versed in policy. 3162: 2560: 2250: 1419: 214: 2531: 396: 196: 178: 5016: 4973: 4941: 4927: 4734: 3990:

per my support rationales in RFAs Kww and Kww 3 (and I missed Kww 2 or I would have supported there too).

3827: 3397: 3011: 2982: 2335: 2187: 2133: 1998: 1367: 1152: 3807: 566: 400: 190:

were done as an IP. I'm also Kww on commons and Dutch wikipedia. I have edited on some of other wikis as

170: 4995: 4799: 4760: 4509: 4231: 4044: 4026: 3941: 3883: 3736: 3716: 3680: 3620: 3291: 3127: 3107: 3089: 2948: 2826: 2612: 1907: 1608: 1542: 5204:

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

4952: 4936:

more frustration on the person being blocked and possibly only further fuel their disruptive behavior.

3966: 3962: 3172: 2555: 1388: 1304: 4498:

other admin. That's like throwing out all the oranges in your house because you once had a bad apple.

191: 111:

he reversed the block and apologized quite quickly, with the explanation in the unblock as "my error".

4548: 4438: 4096: 3904: 3337: 3275: 3224: 3199: 2978: 2625: 2595: 2423: 2407: 2173: 1888: 1684: 1624: 1383: 1327: 950:

Ikip's argument is weak, as it doesn't address the primary complaint that the source is unacceptable.

3545:

Just as I did in 3/2, for similar reasons. Nothing about the candidate has changed in the interim.

1984:

I opposed at the last RfA, but I see no recent problems, and so I am happy to support this time. --

1114: 83:(from both supporters and opposers, unfortunately) and canvassing by opposers that it wound up in a 5076: 5038: 4898: 4468: 4454: 4424: 4384: 4349: 4312: 4209: 3567: 3536: 3519: 3464: 3363: 3051: 2714: 2643: 2089: 1662: 1559: 1064:. What action, if any, would you take with a user who had the following userbox on their user page? 880: 771: 4195: 2100: 1477:

Actually, due to the large number of supporters, we're moving the party to Carlos 'n' Charlie's.--

5112: 5091: 5062: 4711:

my detailed explanation of why there wasn't any remaining content to keep in a standalone article

4483: 4399: 4244: 4158: 4142: 4077: 3924: 3841: 3794: 3752: 3701: 3667: 3502: 3410: 3242: 3158: 3145: 2995: 2901: 2275: 1873: 1854: 1760: 1711: 1156: 862: 5190: 5170: 5141: 5118: 5095: 5080: 5066: 5042: 5024: 4999: 4977: 4963: 4945: 4906: 4877: 4865: 4849: 4829: 4804: 4783: 4769: 4739: 4722: 4690: 4656: 4615: 4588: 4579: 4570: 4558: 4518: 4492: 4472: 4458: 4444: 4428: 4408: 4388: 4368: 4353: 4315: 4297: 4283: 4266: 4252: 4235: 4218: 4162: 4145: 4133: 4108: 4087: 4068: 4051: 4031: 4007: 3982: 3953: 3945: 3928: 3911: 3896:

Just as I did last time. He has matured, has experience and clue, and is a great contributor. --

3888: 3869: 3857: 3831: 3815: 3798: 3781: 3772: 3756: 3739: 3725: 3705: 3691: 3670: 3658: 3640: 3610: 3585: 3571: 3554: 3540: 3523: 3506: 3489: 3468: 3453: 3436: 3418: 3401: 3384: 3367: 3342: 3311: 3280: 3246: 3229: 3209: 3189: 3166: 3149: 3132: 3111: 3094: 3072: 3055: 3035: 3002: 2986: 2969: 2952: 2938: 2910: 2883: 2852: 2831: 2809: 2798: 2787: 2770: 2758: 2741: 2724: 2701: 2684: 2670: 2647: 2631: 2616: 2599: 2582: 2566: 2545: 2516: 2489: 2472: 2448: 2431: 2414: 2392: 2366: 2345: 2326: 2303: 2282: 2258: 2236: 2220: 2201: 2177: 2158: 2137: 2120: 2094: 2076: 2053: 2041: 2023: 2010: 1976: 1959: 1940: 1914: 1892: 1875: 1858: 1841: 1823: 1815: 1783: 1762: 1744: 1731: 1721: 1697: 1667: 1649: 1628: 1610: 1593: 1566: 1546: 1514: 1500: 1486: 1472: 1450: 1172: 1126: 1096: 1045: 923: 894: 864: 846: 814: 786: 744: 703: 675: 648: 615: 579: 525: 343: 3806:

Been reading the last three RFA's over the last few days, don't have any outstanding concerns.

5166: 4969: 4937: 4923: 4874: 4729: 4364: 3823: 3580: 3550: 3449: 3393: 3068: 3031: 3019: 2965: 2386: 2359: 2231: 2215: 1987: 1645: 1510: 1482: 1468: 1362: 1134: 1073: 3023: 2943:

Give them the mop already. Demonstrated commitment to wikipedia should be worth something. --

2891:- Has work he wants to do, and appears to have the experience to handle the mop properly. -- 837:. If all checks out, declining the speedy and notifying the tagger is all that need be done.— 834: 375: 293:

Examining the text of that LTA report at the time the link was posted, it included the text

4991: 4990:

concerns are unfounded. Unless something new develops between now and then I won't oppose.--

4790: 4779: 4668: 4634: 4227: 4037: 4017: 3996: 3937: 3878: 3732: 3119: 3103: 3081: 2944: 2869: 2850: 2818: 2793: 2754: 2697: 2608: 2535: 2485: 2444: 2294: 2034: 1901: 1837: 1637: 1602: 1538: 130: 117: 87:. All three RFAs failed primarily due to a statement I made in April 2008, and a subsequent 4503: 4191: 4187: 4179: 4175: 4171: 1950: 1883:- A candidate with an eventful background, who seems to have learned from his experiences. 1658: 1574:- I supported in the last RfA and I don't have any reason to not do so again this time. -- 562: 552: 508: 371: 367: 98: 4846: 4541: 4064: 3899: 3432: 3322: 3260: 3218: 2591: 2402: 2169: 2151: 2113: 1884: 1677: 1620: 1588: 4897:, what seems to be a good faith edit is reverted on weak grounds with a personal attack. 4183: 937: 721: 169:

about creating a consolidated list of charts to be avoided, which ultimately resulted in

5072: 5034: 4464: 4450: 4420: 4380: 4345: 4308: 4199: 4126: 3778: 3563: 3532: 3515: 3460: 3359: 3047: 2925: 2783: 2737: 2709: 2680: 2639: 2319: 2086: 1553: 1160: 1093: 4752:

It happens that, after looking over the links provided by Kww above (and the original

974: 102: 5217: 5186: 5107: 5087: 5058: 4718: 4710: 4667:

This is reverted. He then sends it to AFD again, the day after the last AFD closed.

4611: 4480: 4396: 4293: 4154: 4076:

Knows his way round vandalism & sockpuppetry issues and would be a useful asset.

3950: 3920: 3790: 3748: 3697: 3603: 3498: 3487: 3377: 3238: 3141: 2893: 2805: 2661: 2269: 2050: 1955: 1867: 1850: 1753: 1707: 1496: 1226: 1168: 1122: 1041: 919: 890: 859: 842: 810: 782: 740: 699: 671: 644: 611: 575: 521: 339: 66: 5155: 4871: 4825: 4585: 4576: 4567: 4360: 3546: 3445: 3064: 3027: 3015: 2961: 2767: 2375: 2355: 2226: 2210: 2028:

Seems to have learned from previous mistakes. Should be no problems with this one.

1925: 1641: 1506: 1478: 1464: 1460: 1110: 3476:. No recent controversy. Good contributions and a good understanding of policies. 5033:

Oops-- that's me above logged into my mainstream Japanese-cinema-friendly name.

4922:

I think I will support, but not quite there yet, i'm going to make Kww earn it.

4775: 4261: 3991: 3171:

Don't know about you guys, but I think it's high time this fellow got promoted.

2861: 2840: 2750: 2693: 2576: 2481: 2440: 2289: 2029: 2016: 1849:

watched from the sidelines last time, convinced by opening statement this time.

1832: 1443: 1080: 627:

Do you think your answer on 5 constitutes a "cool down block", and if not, why?

3197:

An editor who has put up with a lot of grief and still contributes tirelessly.

994:

SoWhy goes for necessary framework. In the discussion, NOT#PLOT comes up again.

4060: 3866: 3428: 2792:

Meets my criteria, could quote myself from RfA 3 but that's a waste of bytes.

2501: 2457: 2145: 2107: 1576: 910:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars (2nd nomination)

5198:

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

606:", there really isn't too much reason to wait through 3 more warning cycles.— 137:

beaten into reasonable shape. The first article that I worked on heavily was

4288:

If you are looking for a military leader, I'm afraid that I'm not your man.—

4119: 2920: 2779: 2733: 2312: 963:

Sceptre attacks it from NOT#PLOT again, but still doesn't state so directly.

957:

argument, as the article does recount plot for the vast bulk of it's weight.

3678:- Answers and explanations are well thought-out and refreshingly sensible. 2142:

Sorry, but IP's are not enfranchised. Comment indented (or please sign in)

634:

comprehension. If he can't understand what's wrong with his editing, then

466:

weren't pretty stressful as well. Not much I could do there but stay calm.

5181: 4838: 4714: 4606: 4435:

and then immediately repeated that behaviour upon the expiry of the block

4289: 3595: 3477: 3373: 3252:

Weak hanging-on-by-a-thread-on-a-mechanical ventilator-in-the-ICU Support

1793: 1492: 1222: 1164: 1118: 1037: 914: 886: 838: 806: 778: 736: 695: 667: 640: 607: 571: 517: 335: 187: 138: 62: 1424: 4625:

As stated in his past attempts, I don't trust him. Comments like this:

1000:

HJ Mitchell plays "not cleanup": again little weight on the fourth AFD.

2242: 5208:

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

2675:

I'm really happy to see how this one is going; it may be a sign that

873:

award is important. There is some judgment expected, but not a lot: "

479:

little I could do but watch. I hope I did so with dignity and aplomb.

1307:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 2994:

I would have supported you last time had I seen your nomination.--

2422:

communications with others seems to have improved since number 3.

1319: 1900:- I supported before in your third RfA and I'm supporting again. 875:

Billy Bob Cornhusker is a three-time Nebraska tractor-pull winner

733:

oh, that's just a guideline, we don't need to pay attention to it

5128:

concerns are sufficient to oppose. I wish the candidate luck.--

116:

The older block is a tad harder to explain. I discussed it with

4701:

this discussion between Silver Seren, Moonriddengirl and myself

1323: 4260:- I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said. 947:

VitasV doesn't present an argument beyond personal preference.

389:

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

295: 4706:

I personally feel the that the AFD should have been relisted

3961:

again, as I have the last two times :-) KWW certainly meets

2607:

Supported 1 & 2, missed 3, hope 4 here finally does it.

2480:

Whether he was before or not, Kww is ready to be an admin.--

3789:: understands that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. 4950:

Adminship is not to be earned, but if it were, Kevin has.

4226:

for a user who is long overdue for the mop and bucket. --

3140:: This editor seems long overdue for "administratorship"! 2354:!vote. Also, great answers, especially to question 14. / 29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

360:

What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

5012: 4894: 4842: 4705: 4700: 4696: 4665: 4626: 1270: 1264: 1258: 495: 446: 328: 324: 320: 313: 238: 232: 220: 166: 121: 88: 2839:

he seems to have enough experience to obtain the mop.

237:. Apparently once here, too, but I fixed that quickly: 89:

attempt to topic ban me from all arts related articles

312:

User:OckhamTheFox, mentioned in that LTA report, has

434:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

3358:, as I always have. Give him the tools already. - 3022:) 23:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC) P.S. , but remember, 1412: 1376: 1355: 4695:People considering this statement should consider 1206:Requests for adminship/Kww 3/Bureaucrat discussion 3562:Seems to have a handle on all the relevent stuff. 3257:I'll be watching you... I'm kidding... no I'm not 1505:Must lose something in translation from Ozzian.-- 53:Final (134/7/7), ended 00:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 5086:to start a separate discussion on my talk page. 4243:for a superb candidate. Good luck with the mop! 1157:lady that is sure that all that glitters is gold 395:I think my best contributions to date have been 1948:- No problems here. Will make a great admin. -- 944:", and the referenced source isn't third-party. 255:WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Soccermeko/Archive 251:WP:Sockpuppet investigations/ItHysteria/Archive 4754:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/N.I.N.A. 4703:, the remaining "keep" voters statement that " 284:en:Knowledge (XXG):Long Term Abuse/Bambifan101 4437:. This is not consistent with your example. 1335: 8: 988:DGG echoes the necessary framework argument. 124:. I'll let that discussion speak for itself. 4339:the block had expired. I did not apologize 458:Of course, I would be lying if I said that 288:Knowledge (XXG):Long term abuse/Bambifan101 1342: 1328: 1320: 1143:Who Put the Bomp (In the Bomp, Bomp, Bomp) 247:WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx/Archive 4575:Can you offer any recent diffs for that? 3040:I'm late, I'm late, for a very important 2660:But he'll easy pass this time, I'm sure. 1461:former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia 1151:I do not know. I do, however, have it on 323:. An 18K expansion of the article, which 4394:that you didn't continue the behavior). 3936:Candidate seems perfectly fine to me. — 3747:Growth and persistence. All the best. - 3593:. I see nothing wrong with any answers. 1303:Please keep discussion constructive and 1289:Edit summary usage for Kww can be found 660:. What is your opinion and take on IAR? 432:The one I wish I had handled better was 4697:my comments on the closing admin's page 2692:Sure, since I supported you last time. 1188: 758:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion 325:essentially restored an earlier version 2249:Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Kww. — 596:. How quick or slow are you to block? 18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship 2960:Experienced, dedicated, clueful guy. 1079:This user respects all races, but is 879:Billy Bob Cornhusker is a three-time 735:" isn't an attitude that works well.— 274:Additional statement re Meursault2004 7: 4631:extension, desire to keep it around. 1068: 149:today, I'm a bit ashamed of my work. 4893:edge to them too. For example, in 4153:Kww will always have my support. - 1186: 2652:Now Kevin has knocked on the door, 1159:is none other than the inimitable 141:, and the first one I created was 105:, chronic violators are a problem. 85:two day long bureaucrat discussion 24: 5224:Successful requests for adminship 2918:per my vote on the previous RfA. 2553:Compelling arguments made above. 966:Bali Ultimate goes from NOT#PLOT. 327:, where that earlier version had 2241: 2104:and that's the turn-key for me. 1072: 154:In terms of editing difficulty, 1459:Re Question 16: What does the 1115:WP:USERBOX#Content restrictions 476:WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 464:WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 2 447:whole surreal arbcom experience 175:WP:Record charts/sourcing guide 133:), and worked very hard to get 4374:just so I could edit again. I 3733:Chris Cunningham (not at work) 3014:, and should "get it" by now. 2334:, assumed you already were... 1442:Edit stats on the talk page. 908:14. How would you have closed 486:Optional question by DarkFalls 120:, and here is the link to his 1: 4601:changed to neutral, see below 1107:Lynching in the United States 460:WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 4930:) 16:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 1211:Requests for adminship/Kww 4 1201:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 1196:Requests for adminship/Kww 2 1133:A last-minute question from 344:17:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC) 4604:that at the previous RfAs. 4036:No problems in my opinion. 2526:What the Bleep Do We Know!? 2099:I supported last time as a 1732:WP:BLOCK#Duration of blocks 588:Questions from Doc Quintana 420:What the Bleep Do We Know!? 349:Questions for the candidate 156:What the Bleep Do We Know!? 135:What the Bleep Do We Know!? 5240: 5191:03:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC) 5171:19:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC) 5142:11:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC) 5119:04:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 5096:03:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 5081:21:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 5067:21:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 5043:16:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 5025:16:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 5000:17:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 4978:20:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 4964:16:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 4946:20:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 4907:23:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC) 4878:00:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC) 4866:00:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC) 4850:22:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 4830:06:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 4805:15:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 4784:14:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 4770:09:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 4740:07:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 4723:06:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 4691:06:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 4657:05:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 4616:03:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 4589:19:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 4580:03:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 4571:23:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 4559:19:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 4519:23:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 4493:00:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 4473:23:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 4459:23:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 4445:22:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 4429:22:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 4409:22:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 4389:19:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 4369:19:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 4354:19:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 4316:18:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC) 4298:15:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC) 4284:12:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC) 4267:03:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC) 4253:02:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC) 4236:21:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC) 4224:Strongest possible support 4219:14:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC) 4163:17:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC) 4146:16:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC) 4134:07:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC) 4109:04:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC) 4088:23:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 4069:18:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 4052:16:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 4032:15:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 4008:15:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 3983:12:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 3954:11:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 3946:23:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 3929:22:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 3912:21:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 3889:20:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 3870:20:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 3858:19:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 3832:19:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 3816:18:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 3799:17:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 3782:17:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 3773:14:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 3757:10:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 3740:10:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 3726:10:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 3706:09:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 3692:05:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 3671:05:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 3659:03:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 3641:03:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 3611:03:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 3586:03:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 3572:00:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 3555:23:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3541:23:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3524:21:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3507:21:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3490:17:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3469:16:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3454:14:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3437:14:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3419:12:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3402:12:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3392:- I like all the answers. 3385:12:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3368:11:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3343:05:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 3312:03:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 3281:10:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3247:06:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3230:05:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3210:04:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3190:03:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3167:03:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3150:01:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3133:01:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3112:00:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3095:00:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3073:00:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 3056:23:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 3036:22:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC) 3003:23:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2987:23:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2970:22:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2953:21:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2939:21:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2911:21:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2884:21:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2853:21:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2832:20:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2810:20:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2799:20:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2788:20:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2771:20:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2759:19:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2742:18:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2725:17:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2702:17:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2685:17:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2671:17:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2648:16:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2632:15:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2617:14:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2600:14:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2583:14:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2567:14:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2546:13:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2517:13:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2490:13:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2473:13:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2449:13:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2432:12:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2415:11:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2393:11:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2367:11:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2346:11:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2327:11:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2311:- well and truly overdue. 2304:10:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2283:10:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2259:10:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2237:21:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC) 2221:09:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2202:08:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2178:07:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2159:08:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2138:07:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2121:07:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2095:07:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2077:07:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2054:07:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2042:06:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2024:06:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 2011:06:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 1977:06:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 1960:05:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 1941:04:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 1915:04:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 1893:03:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 1876:03:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 1859:03:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 1842:03:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 1824:02:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 1784:02:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 1763:01:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 1745:01:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 1722:01:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 1698:01:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 1668:00:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 1650:00:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 1629:00:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 1611:00:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 1594:00:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 1567:00:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 1547:23:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC) 1515:22:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC) 1501:22:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC) 1487:21:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC) 1473:21:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC) 1451:23:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC) 1191:Requests for adminship/Kww 1173:21:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC) 1127:14:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC) 1097:11:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC) 1046:05:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 924:03:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 895:16:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 865:06:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 847:16:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 815:16:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 787:15:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 745:15:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 720:. What is your opinion of 704:06:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 676:01:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 649:16:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 616:01:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 580:01:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 526:01:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 319:The edit he performed was 4274:. Let the WARS begin!!!! 3091:Penny for your thoughts? 2795:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 2677:we can all just get along 2015:Looks fine to me. 頑張って! 1309:Special:Contributions/Kww 636:WP:Competence is required 329:been flagged as vandalism 173:. I produced the bulk of 5201:Please do not modify it. 4504:assuming the wrong thing 3963:my criteria for an admin 2977:, as I have previously. 1967:No objections at all. -- 1770:Plenty of experience. -- 511:reads. In general, they 147:chromosomal polymorphism 143:chromosomal polymorphism 2656:Last time was so close, 2288:protection requests ;) 1056:Question from Lankiveil 712:Questions from DESiegel 38:Please do not modify it 4170:- Good involvement in 4116:After lots of reading. 2658:Much closer than most, 2624:as per previous RfAs. 2590:- trustworthy editor. 1969:Andromedabluesphere440 2679:, after all. - Dank ( 2654:With RFA number four. 756:. You are patrolling 494:Per your response on 34:request for adminship 3651:A Stop at Willoughby 3024:don't bite the noobs 2778:as in RfAs 2 and 3. 1425:Global contributions 722:Process is important 167:started a discussion 122:talk page discussion 4920:Placeholder Neutral 4709:", and, of course, 3045:Such a great guy... 1791:- No issues here. ~ 1389:Non-automated edits 1185:RfAs for this user: 883:tractor-pull winner 881:Wood Lake, Nebraska 507:" is stronger than 4264: 3531:As I did before... 2251:Mikhailov Kusserow 1872: 1368:Edit summary usage 1311:before commenting. 186:My first edits to 39: 5169: 5017:Otis Criblecoblis 4501: 4281: 4262: 4132: 4005: 4003:So let it be done 3998: 3608: 3579:No worries here. 3258: 3046: 2876: 2868: 2849: 2829: 2544: 2365: 2337:anemoneprojectors 2281: 2157: 2119: 2092: 2038: 1935: 1866: 1742: 1438: 1437: 1087: 1086: 1081:proud to be white 903:Question from DGG 543: 310: 309: 37: 5231: 5203: 5165: 5162: 5159: 5117: 4960: 4955: 4802: 4797: 4761:JohnFromPinckney 4737: 4732: 4687: 4684: 4681: 4678: 4675: 4672: 4653: 4650: 4647: 4644: 4641: 4638: 4556: 4546: 4510:JohnFromPinckney 4499: 4491: 4407: 4279: 4216: 4208: 4204: 4131: 4129: 4123: 4117: 4085: 4080: 4049: 4042: 4029: 4024: 4001: 3997: 3969: 3907: 3902: 3886: 3881: 3854: 3849: 3844: 3769: 3766: 3717:JohnFromPinckney 3696:Should be fine. 3687: 3685: 3638: 3632: 3625: 3609: 3606: 3602: 3600: 3583: 3486: 3482: 3424:Cautious Support 3340: 3335: 3328: 3309: 3303: 3296: 3278: 3273: 3266: 3256: 3227: 3221: 3202: 3186: 3180: 3176: 3130: 3124: 3092: 3086: 3044: 3000: 2935: 2930: 2923: 2896: 2882: 2880: 2874: 2872: 2866: 2864: 2847: 2845: 2844: 2827: 2824: 2821: 2796: 2722: 2712: 2694:Kevin Rutherford 2668: 2579: 2563: 2558: 2538: 2513: 2504: 2470: 2412: 2410: 2405: 2389: 2383: 2378: 2358: 2343: 2338: 2317: 2301: 2292: 2280: 2278: 2267: 2266:. About time. -- 2245: 2229: 2213: 2199: 2195: 2190: 2156: 2154: 2143: 2118: 2116: 2105: 2090: 2074: 2069: 2039: 2036: 2032: 2021: 2007: 2001: 1993: 1990: 1958: 1953: 1939: 1936: 1930: 1911: 1870: 1835: 1811: 1805: 1799: 1758: 1741: 1739: 1696: 1694: 1688: 1681: 1665: 1638:Natalee Holloway 1605: 1591: 1585: 1582: 1579: 1564: 1556: 1448: 1384:Articles created 1344: 1337: 1330: 1321: 1294: 1286: 1245: 1181:General comments 1076: 1069: 776: 770: 542: 540: 296: 236: 209:deleted contribs 131:Natalee Holloway 118:User:AuburnPilot 5239: 5238: 5234: 5233: 5232: 5230: 5229: 5228: 5214: 5213: 5212: 5206:this nomination 5199: 5163: 5157: 5106: 4962: 4958: 4953: 4915: 4800: 4791: 4735: 4730: 4685: 4682: 4679: 4676: 4673: 4670: 4651: 4648: 4645: 4642: 4639: 4636: 4555: 4552: 4542: 4502:I think you're 4479: 4395: 4324: 4210: 4206: 4200: 4151:Strong support: 4127: 4121: 4118: 4106: 4097:NativeForeigner 4083: 4078: 4045: 4038: 4027: 4018: 4004: 3967: 3905: 3900: 3884: 3879: 3852: 3847: 3842: 3767: 3764: 3681: 3679: 3636: 3626: 3621: 3604: 3596: 3594: 3581: 3484: 3478: 3338: 3329: 3323: 3307: 3297: 3292: 3276: 3267: 3261: 3225: 3219: 3200: 3184: 3178: 3174: 3128: 3120: 3090: 3082: 2996: 2933: 2926: 2921: 2894: 2878: 2870: 2862: 2860: 2842: 2841: 2822: 2819: 2794: 2720: 2710: 2662: 2577: 2565: 2561: 2556: 2515: 2511: 2502: 2458: 2424:Graeme Bartlett 2408: 2403: 2401: 2387: 2381: 2376: 2341: 2336: 2323: 2313: 2295: 2290: 2276: 2268: 2235: 2225: 2219: 2209: 2197: 2193: 2188: 2152: 2144: 2114: 2106: 2072: 2064: 2035: 2030: 2017: 2005: 1999: 1991: 1988: 1951: 1949: 1934: 1929: 1926: 1923: 1909: 1868: 1833: 1809: 1806: 1803: 1800: 1797: 1794: 1754: 1735: 1692: 1686: 1679: 1676: 1663: 1603: 1589: 1583: 1580: 1577: 1560: 1554: 1531: 1444: 1439: 1434: 1408: 1372: 1351: 1350:RfA/RfB toolbox 1348: 1318: 1290: 1238: 1221: 1220:Links for Kww: 1217: 1215: 1183: 1088: 774: 768: 536: 351: 194: 60: 50: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5237: 5235: 5227: 5226: 5216: 5215: 5211: 5210: 5194: 5193: 5173: 5144: 5121: 5102: 5101: 5100: 5099: 5098: 5051: 5050: 5049: 5048: 5047: 5046: 5045: 4984: 4983: 4982: 4981: 4980: 4951: 4914: 4911: 4910: 4909: 4899:Colonel Warden 4884: 4883: 4882: 4881: 4880: 4832: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4816: 4815: 4814: 4813: 4812: 4811: 4810: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4786: 4750: 4620: 4619: 4618: 4593: 4592: 4591: 4561: 4553: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4495: 4461: 4439:Black Kite (t) 4323: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4269: 4255: 4238: 4221: 4165: 4148: 4136: 4111: 4102: 4090: 4071: 4054: 4034: 4010: 4002: 3985: 3956: 3948: 3931: 3914: 3891: 3877:— looks good! 3872: 3860: 3834: 3821:Strong Support 3818: 3808:Bradjamesbrown 3801: 3784: 3775: 3759: 3742: 3728: 3708: 3694: 3673: 3661: 3643: 3616:Strong Support 3613: 3588: 3574: 3557: 3543: 3526: 3509: 3492: 3471: 3456: 3439: 3421: 3404: 3387: 3370: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3315: 3314: 3249: 3232: 3212: 3192: 3169: 3152: 3135: 3114: 3100:Strong Support 3097: 3078:Strong support 3075: 3058: 3038: 3010:- fully meets 3005: 2989: 2972: 2955: 2941: 2913: 2886: 2855: 2834: 2812: 2801: 2790: 2773: 2761: 2744: 2727: 2704: 2687: 2673: 2659: 2657: 2655: 2653: 2650: 2634: 2626:Black Kite (t) 2619: 2602: 2585: 2569: 2554: 2548: 2519: 2509: 2492: 2475: 2451: 2434: 2417: 2395: 2369: 2348: 2329: 2321: 2306: 2285: 2261: 2239: 2230: 2223: 2214: 2204: 2180: 2166:Strong support 2163: 2162: 2161: 2140: 2097: 2079: 2056: 2044: 2026: 2013: 1979: 1962: 1943: 1932: 1927: 1917: 1895: 1878: 1861: 1844: 1831:overdue imho. 1826: 1807: 1801: 1795: 1786: 1765: 1747: 1724: 1700: 1670: 1652: 1634:Strong support 1631: 1613: 1596: 1569: 1549: 1530: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1454: 1453: 1436: 1435: 1433: 1432: 1427: 1422: 1416: 1414: 1410: 1409: 1407: 1406: 1401: 1396: 1391: 1386: 1380: 1378: 1374: 1373: 1371: 1370: 1365: 1359: 1357: 1353: 1352: 1349: 1347: 1346: 1339: 1332: 1324: 1317: 1314: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1296: 1287: 1216: 1214: 1213: 1208: 1203: 1198: 1193: 1187: 1184: 1182: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1161:Shirley Bassey 1153:good authority 1137: 1130: 1129: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1085: 1084: 1077: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1004: 1001: 998: 995: 992: 989: 986: 982: 978: 971: 967: 964: 961: 958: 954: 951: 948: 945: 900: 899: 898: 897: 852: 851: 850: 849: 820: 819: 818: 817: 792: 791: 790: 789: 750: 749: 748: 747: 709: 708: 707: 706: 681: 680: 679: 678: 654: 653: 652: 651: 621: 620: 619: 618: 585: 584: 583: 582: 570:unacceptable.— 531: 530: 529: 528: 483: 482: 481: 480: 470: 469: 468: 467: 453: 452: 451: 450: 440: 439: 438: 437: 427: 426: 425: 424: 407: 406: 405: 404: 383: 382: 381: 380: 350: 347: 314:this block log 308: 307: 304: 300: 276: 275: 272: 267: 265: 264: 259: 258: 242: 241: 183: 182: 161: 160: 151: 150: 126: 125: 113: 112: 107: 106: 93: 92: 78: 59: 56: 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5236: 5225: 5222: 5221: 5219: 5209: 5207: 5202: 5196: 5195: 5192: 5188: 5184: 5183: 5177: 5174: 5172: 5168: 5161: 5152: 5148: 5145: 5143: 5140: 5139: 5136: 5133: 5126: 5122: 5120: 5116: 5114: 5109: 5103: 5097: 5093: 5089: 5084: 5083: 5082: 5078: 5074: 5070: 5069: 5068: 5064: 5060: 5055: 5052: 5044: 5040: 5036: 5032: 5029: 5028: 5027: 5026: 5022: 5018: 5014: 5009: 5005: 5004: 5003: 5002: 5001: 4997: 4993: 4988: 4985: 4979: 4975: 4971: 4967: 4966: 4965: 4961: 4956: 4949: 4948: 4947: 4943: 4939: 4934: 4931: 4929: 4925: 4921: 4917: 4916: 4912: 4908: 4904: 4900: 4896: 4892: 4888: 4885: 4879: 4876: 4873: 4869: 4868: 4867: 4863: 4859: 4858:174.3.123.220 4856: 4853: 4852: 4851: 4848: 4844: 4840: 4836: 4833: 4831: 4828: 4827: 4820: 4806: 4803: 4798: 4796: 4795: 4787: 4785: 4781: 4777: 4773: 4772: 4771: 4768: 4766: 4762: 4755: 4751: 4748: 4743: 4742: 4741: 4738: 4733: 4726: 4725: 4724: 4720: 4716: 4712: 4708: 4707: 4702: 4698: 4694: 4693: 4692: 4689: 4688: 4666: 4662: 4661: 4660: 4659: 4658: 4655: 4654: 4632: 4627: 4624: 4621: 4617: 4613: 4609: 4608: 4602: 4599: 4598: 4594: 4590: 4587: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4578: 4574: 4573: 4572: 4569: 4565: 4562: 4560: 4557: 4549: 4547: 4545: 4539: 4536: 4520: 4517: 4515: 4511: 4505: 4500:Or something. 4496: 4494: 4490: 4489: 4487: 4482: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4470: 4466: 4462: 4460: 4456: 4452: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4443: 4440: 4436: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4426: 4422: 4417: 4412: 4411: 4410: 4406: 4405: 4403: 4398: 4392: 4391: 4390: 4386: 4382: 4377: 4372: 4371: 4370: 4366: 4362: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4351: 4347: 4342: 4338: 4334: 4331: 4330: 4326: 4325: 4321: 4317: 4314: 4310: 4306: 4303: 4299: 4295: 4291: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4282: 4277: 4273: 4270: 4268: 4265: 4259: 4256: 4254: 4250: 4246: 4245:Laurinavicius 4242: 4239: 4237: 4233: 4229: 4225: 4222: 4220: 4217: 4215: 4214: 4205: 4203: 4197: 4193: 4189: 4185: 4181: 4177: 4173: 4169: 4166: 4164: 4160: 4156: 4152: 4149: 4147: 4144: 4140: 4137: 4135: 4130: 4125: 4124: 4115: 4112: 4110: 4105: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4091: 4089: 4086: 4081: 4075: 4072: 4070: 4066: 4062: 4058: 4055: 4053: 4050: 4048: 4043: 4041: 4035: 4033: 4030: 4025: 4023: 4022: 4014: 4011: 4009: 4006: 3999: 3995: 3994: 3989: 3986: 3984: 3980: 3977: 3974: 3970: 3964: 3960: 3957: 3955: 3952: 3949: 3947: 3944: 3943: 3939: 3935: 3932: 3930: 3926: 3922: 3918: 3915: 3913: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3903: 3895: 3892: 3890: 3887: 3882: 3876: 3873: 3871: 3868: 3864: 3861: 3859: 3856: 3855: 3850: 3845: 3838: 3835: 3833: 3829: 3825: 3822: 3819: 3817: 3813: 3809: 3805: 3802: 3800: 3796: 3792: 3788: 3785: 3783: 3780: 3776: 3774: 3771: 3770: 3768:Postlethwaite 3760: 3758: 3754: 3750: 3746: 3743: 3741: 3738: 3734: 3729: 3727: 3724: 3722: 3718: 3712: 3709: 3707: 3703: 3699: 3695: 3693: 3690: 3686: 3684: 3677: 3674: 3672: 3669: 3668:Jack Merridew 3665: 3662: 3660: 3656: 3652: 3647: 3644: 3642: 3639: 3633: 3631: 3630: 3624: 3617: 3614: 3612: 3607: 3601: 3599: 3592: 3589: 3587: 3584: 3578: 3575: 3573: 3569: 3565: 3561: 3558: 3556: 3552: 3548: 3544: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3530: 3527: 3525: 3521: 3517: 3513: 3510: 3508: 3504: 3500: 3496: 3493: 3491: 3488: 3483: 3481: 3475: 3472: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3457: 3455: 3451: 3447: 3443: 3440: 3438: 3434: 3430: 3425: 3422: 3420: 3416: 3412: 3411:Bali ultimate 3408: 3405: 3403: 3399: 3395: 3391: 3388: 3386: 3383: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3369: 3365: 3361: 3357: 3354: 3344: 3341: 3336: 3334: 3333: 3326: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3313: 3310: 3304: 3302: 3301: 3295: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3279: 3274: 3272: 3271: 3264: 3253: 3250: 3248: 3244: 3240: 3236: 3233: 3231: 3228: 3222: 3216: 3213: 3211: 3208: 3207: 3204: 3203: 3196: 3193: 3191: 3187: 3181: 3177: 3170: 3168: 3164: 3160: 3159:Wildhartlivie 3156: 3153: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3136: 3134: 3131: 3125: 3123: 3118: 3115: 3113: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3098: 3096: 3093: 3087: 3085: 3079: 3076: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3059: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3043: 3039: 3037: 3033: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3006: 3004: 3001: 2999: 2998:White Shadows 2993: 2990: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2973: 2971: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2956: 2954: 2950: 2946: 2942: 2940: 2937: 2936: 2931: 2929: 2924: 2917: 2914: 2912: 2909: 2907: 2903: 2898: 2897: 2890: 2887: 2885: 2881: 2873: 2865: 2859: 2856: 2854: 2851: 2846: 2838: 2835: 2833: 2830: 2825: 2816: 2813: 2811: 2808: 2807: 2802: 2800: 2797: 2791: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2774: 2772: 2769: 2765: 2762: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2745: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2728: 2726: 2723: 2718: 2717: 2713: 2708: 2705: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2688: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2672: 2669: 2667: 2666: 2651: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2638: 2635: 2633: 2630: 2627: 2623: 2620: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2603: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2586: 2584: 2581: 2580: 2573: 2570: 2568: 2564: 2559: 2552: 2549: 2547: 2542: 2537: 2533: 2532:WP:GOODCHARTS 2530: 2527: 2523: 2520: 2518: 2514: 2512:Contributions 2507: 2506: 2505: 2497:no concerns. 2496: 2493: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2476: 2474: 2471: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2455: 2452: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2439:No problems. 2438: 2435: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2418: 2416: 2413: 2411: 2406: 2399: 2396: 2394: 2390: 2384: 2379: 2373: 2370: 2368: 2364: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2347: 2344: 2339: 2333: 2330: 2328: 2325: 2324: 2318: 2316: 2310: 2307: 2305: 2302: 2300: 2299: 2293: 2286: 2284: 2279: 2273: 2272: 2265: 2262: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2238: 2233: 2228: 2222: 2217: 2212: 2208: 2205: 2203: 2200: 2196: 2191: 2184: 2181: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2164: 2160: 2155: 2149: 2148: 2141: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2117: 2111: 2110: 2102: 2098: 2096: 2093: 2088: 2083: 2080: 2078: 2075: 2070: 2068: 2060: 2057: 2055: 2052: 2048: 2045: 2043: 2040: 2033: 2027: 2025: 2022: 2020: 2014: 2012: 2008: 2002: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1983: 1980: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1963: 1961: 1957: 1954: 1947: 1944: 1942: 1938: 1937: 1921: 1918: 1916: 1913: 1912: 1905: 1904: 1899: 1896: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1879: 1877: 1874: 1871: 1865: 1862: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1845: 1843: 1840: 1838: 1836: 1830: 1827: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1812: 1790: 1787: 1785: 1782: 1779: 1776: 1773: 1769: 1766: 1764: 1761: 1759: 1757: 1751: 1748: 1746: 1738: 1733: 1728: 1725: 1723: 1719: 1716: 1713: 1709: 1704: 1701: 1699: 1695: 1690: 1689: 1683: 1682: 1674: 1671: 1669: 1666: 1660: 1656: 1653: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1632: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1617: 1614: 1612: 1609: 1606: 1600: 1597: 1595: 1592: 1587: 1586: 1573: 1570: 1568: 1565: 1563: 1558: 1557: 1550: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1533: 1532: 1528: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1452: 1449: 1447: 1441: 1440: 1431: 1428: 1426: 1423: 1421: 1418: 1417: 1415: 1411: 1405: 1402: 1400: 1397: 1395: 1392: 1390: 1387: 1385: 1382: 1381: 1379: 1375: 1369: 1366: 1364: 1361: 1360: 1358: 1354: 1345: 1340: 1338: 1333: 1331: 1326: 1325: 1322: 1315: 1313: 1312: 1310: 1306: 1297: 1293: 1288: 1284: 1281: 1278: 1275: 1272: 1269: 1266: 1263: 1260: 1257: 1254: 1251: 1248: 1244: 1241: 1237: 1234: 1231: 1228: 1224: 1219: 1218: 1212: 1209: 1207: 1204: 1202: 1199: 1197: 1194: 1192: 1189: 1180: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1147: 1146: 1144: 1141: 1138: 1136: 1132: 1131: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1095: 1082: 1078: 1075: 1071: 1070: 1063: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1005: 1002: 999: 996: 993: 990: 987: 983: 979: 976: 972: 968: 965: 962: 959: 955: 952: 949: 946: 943: 940:states that " 939: 935: 934: 933: 932: 930: 927: 926: 925: 921: 917: 916: 911: 907: 906: 905: 904: 896: 892: 888: 884: 882: 876: 871: 868: 867: 866: 863: 861: 857: 854: 853: 848: 844: 840: 836: 831: 828: 827: 825: 822: 821: 816: 812: 808: 803: 800: 799: 797: 794: 793: 788: 784: 780: 773: 765: 762: 761: 759: 755: 752: 751: 746: 742: 738: 734: 729: 726: 725: 723: 719: 716: 715: 714: 713: 705: 701: 697: 692: 689: 688: 686: 683: 682: 677: 673: 669: 665: 662: 661: 659: 656: 655: 650: 646: 642: 637: 632: 629: 628: 626: 623: 622: 617: 613: 609: 605: 601: 598: 597: 595: 592: 591: 590: 589: 581: 577: 573: 568: 564: 560: 557: 556: 554: 550: 547: 546: 545: 539: 535: 534:Question from 527: 523: 519: 514: 510: 506: 502: 499: 498: 496: 493: 490: 489: 488: 487: 477: 474: 473: 472: 471: 465: 461: 457: 456: 455: 454: 448: 444: 443: 442: 441: 435: 431: 430: 429: 428: 421: 418: 415: 414: 412: 409: 408: 402: 398: 397:WP:GOODCHARTS 394: 391: 390: 388: 385: 384: 377: 373: 369: 365: 362: 361: 359: 356: 355: 354: 348: 346: 345: 341: 337: 332: 330: 326: 322: 317: 315: 301: 297: 294: 291: 289: 285: 281: 273: 270: 269: 268: 261: 260: 256: 252: 248: 244: 243: 239: 234: 231: 228: 225: 222: 219: 216: 213: 210: 207: 204: 201: 198: 193: 189: 185: 184: 180: 179:WP:GOODCHARTS 176: 172: 168: 163: 162: 157: 153: 152: 148: 145:. Looking at 144: 140: 136: 132: 128: 127: 123: 119: 115: 114: 109: 108: 104: 100: 95: 94: 90: 86: 81: 80: 79: 76: 74: 71: 68: 64: 57: 55: 54: 48: 45: 41: 35: 32: 27: 26: 19: 5200: 5197: 5180: 5175: 5146: 5129: 5124: 5110: 5053: 5030: 5007: 5006: 4986: 4970:Doc Quintana 4938:Doc Quintana 4933:Full Neutral 4932: 4924:Doc Quintana 4919: 4918: 4890: 4886: 4854: 4837:The way the 4834: 4823: 4793: 4792: 4758: 4746: 4704: 4669: 4635: 4629: 4622: 4605: 4600: 4596: 4595: 4563: 4543: 4537: 4507: 4485: 4484: 4434: 4415: 4401: 4400: 4375: 4340: 4336: 4332: 4328: 4327: 4304: 4271: 4257: 4240: 4223: 4212: 4211: 4201: 4167: 4150: 4139:Weak support 4138: 4120: 4113: 4095: 4094: 4073: 4056: 4046: 4039: 4020: 4019: 4012: 3992: 3987: 3975: 3968:Collectonian 3958: 3940: 3933: 3916: 3898: 3897: 3893: 3874: 3862: 3840: 3836: 3824:Willking1979 3820: 3803: 3786: 3762: 3744: 3714: 3710: 3682: 3675: 3663: 3645: 3628: 3627: 3622: 3615: 3597: 3590: 3576: 3559: 3528: 3511: 3494: 3479: 3473: 3441: 3423: 3406: 3389: 3355: 3331: 3330: 3324: 3299: 3298: 3293: 3269: 3268: 3262: 3251: 3234: 3214: 3205: 3198: 3194: 3173: 3154: 3137: 3121: 3116: 3099: 3083: 3077: 3060: 3041: 3012:my standards 3007: 2997: 2991: 2974: 2957: 2927: 2919: 2915: 2899: 2892: 2888: 2857: 2836: 2814: 2804: 2775: 2763: 2746: 2729: 2715: 2706: 2689: 2681:push to talk 2664: 2663: 2636: 2621: 2604: 2587: 2578:~~ GB fan ~~ 2575: 2571: 2550: 2528: 2521: 2499: 2498: 2494: 2477: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2453: 2436: 2419: 2400: 2397: 2371: 2351: 2331: 2320: 2314: 2308: 2297: 2296: 2270: 2263: 2246: 2206: 2186: 2182: 2165: 2146: 2130:115.242.81.6 2125: 2108: 2101:net positive 2081: 2073:said Zebedee 2066: 2058: 2046: 2018: 1986: 1985: 1981: 1964: 1945: 1924: 1919: 1908: 1902: 1897: 1880: 1863: 1846: 1828: 1792: 1788: 1767: 1755: 1749: 1736: 1726: 1714: 1702: 1685: 1678: 1672: 1654: 1633: 1615: 1598: 1575: 1571: 1561: 1552: 1534: 1445: 1302: 1301: 1279: 1273: 1267: 1261: 1255: 1249: 1242: 1235: 1229: 1148: 1139: 1135:Phantomsteve 1111:Grand Wizard 1102: 1092: 1061: 1055: 1054: 941: 928: 913: 902: 901: 878: 874: 869: 855: 829: 823: 801: 795: 763: 753: 732: 727: 717: 711: 710: 690: 684: 663: 657: 630: 624: 603: 599: 593: 587: 586: 567:WP:CONSENSUS 558: 548: 537: 533: 532: 512: 504: 500: 491: 485: 484: 416: 410: 401:WP:BADCHARTS 392: 386: 363: 357: 352: 333: 318: 311: 292: 277: 266: 229: 223: 217: 211: 205: 199: 171:WP:BADCHARTS 77: 69: 61: 52: 51: 46: 30: 28: 5160:Christopher 5151:my criteria 4992:Cube lurker 4538:Weak oppose 4333:Weak Oppose 4228:PMDrive1061 4040:Pmlineditor 3880:Airplaneman 3175:Master& 3104:Lil-unique1 3084:HJ Mitchell 2945:RegentsPark 2749:, already. 2609:Plutonium27 1604:Gordonrox24 1539:Mkativerata 1430:User rights 1420:CentralAuth 192:190.4.72.45 4891:ad hominem 4847:SunCreator 4544:S Marshall 4263:P. D. Cook 4202:Vipin Hari 3220:liquidluck 2979:Skinwalker 2592:PhilKnight 2170:Shadowjams 1885:EdJohnston 1737:Blanchardb 1621:Beeblebrox 1413:Cross-wiki 1404:AfD closes 1316:Discussion 981:his point. 772:notenglish 538:Blanchardb 271:From Kww 3 227:block user 221:filter log 58:Nomination 31:successful 5073:Dekkappai 5035:Dekkappai 4959:cierekim 4895:this case 4465:Dekkappai 4451:Dekkappai 4421:Dekkappai 4381:Dekkappai 4346:Dekkappai 4309:Ajraddatz 4196:WP:CHARTS 3779:Acalamari 3619:news!!!-- 3564:MurfleMan 3533:Modernist 3516:Cathardic 3461:Guettarda 3048:Buggie111 2863:The Thing 2848:was here! 2640:Sole Soul 2562:cierekim 2087:Sjakkalle 1816:✉ message 1399:AfD votes 1394:BLP edits 1265:block log 1155:that the 1094:Lankiveil 544:- timed: 280:this edit 233:block log 5218:Category 5108:Kubigula 5088:Jclemens 5059:Jclemens 4843:redirect 4841:article 4839:N.I.N.A. 4794:ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ 4155:Zhang He 4143:MuZemike 4104:Contribs 4021:ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ 3979:contribs 3921:Harout72 3791:Cardamon 3749:Ret.Prof 3745:Support: 3698:Tim Song 3499:JayHenry 3290:leash.-- 3239:Polargeo 3201:Schmidt, 3142:Donatrip 3042:Support! 2958:Support. 2895:Kraftlos 2879:Contribs 2806:MastCell 2271:Kanonkas 2198:Chequers 2091:(Check!) 2051:sgeureka 2006:contribs 1851:Icewedge 1772:The High 1743:- timed 1727:Support. 1718:contribs 1708:Casliber 1664:Tiptoety 1377:Analysis 1356:Counters 1233:contribs 694:editor.— 321:this one 203:contribs 188:Humanzee 139:Humanzee 73:contribs 5176:neutral 5156:Camaron 5147:Neutral 5125:capable 5105:best.-- 5054:Neutral 5008:Neutral 4987:Neutral 4913:Neutral 4872:Deskana 4826:seresin 4586:Acps110 4577:Spartaz 4568:Acps110 4361:Wehwalt 4305:Support 4272:SUPPORT 4258:Support 4241:Support 4168:Support 4114:Support 4079:Rodhull 4074:Support 4057:Support 4013:Support 3988:Support 3959:Support 3934:Support 3917:Support 3894:Support 3875:Support 3863:Support 3837:Support 3804:Support 3787:Support 3711:Support 3676:Support 3664:Support 3646:Support 3629:Griffin 3591:Support 3582:AniMate 3577:Support 3560:Support 3547:Protonk 3529:Support 3512:Support 3495:Support 3474:Support 3446:Martinp 3442:Support 3407:Support 3390:Support 3372:Yes. ++ 3356:Support 3300:Griffin 3235:Support 3215:Support 3195:Support 3155:Support 3138:Support 3117:Support 3065:Josette 3061:Support 3028:Bearian 3016:Bearian 3008:Support 2992:Support 2975:Support 2962:Useight 2916:Support 2906:Contrib 2889:Support 2858:Support 2837:Support 2815:Support 2776:Support 2768:Spartaz 2764:Support 2747:Support 2730:Support 2707:Support 2690:Sypport 2637:Support 2622:Support 2605:Support 2588:Support 2572:Support 2551:Support 2522:Support 2495:Support 2478:Support 2454:Support 2437:Support 2420:Support 2398:Support 2372:Support 2352:Support 2332:Support 2309:Support 2264:Support 2247:Support 2207:Support 2183:Support 2126:Support 2082:Support 2059:Support 2047:Support 1989:Phantom 1982:Support 1965:Support 1956:iva1979 1946:Support 1920:Support 1898:Support 1881:Support 1864:Support 1847:Support 1829:Support 1820:changes 1789:Support 1768:Support 1750:Support 1703:Support 1673:Support 1655:Support 1642:Wehwalt 1616:Support 1599:Support 1572:Support 1535:Support 1529:Support 1507:Wehwalt 1479:Wehwalt 1465:Wehwalt 1240:deleted 970:policy. 835:WP:BAND 376:WP:RFPP 4887:Oppose 4875:(talk) 4855:Oppose 4835:Oppose 4776:Chaser 4731:Silver 4623:Oppose 4597:Oppose 4564:Oppose 4341:during 4329:Oppose 4322:Oppose 4194:& 4192:WP:SPI 4188:WP:VPT 4180:WP:RPP 4176:WP:AIV 4172:WP:ANI 4084:andemu 3993:Xymmax 3942:tizzle 3339:(talk) 3277:(talk) 3179:Expert 2843:Dwayne 2820:auburn 2766:yeps. 2751:Stifle 2482:Chaser 2441:Warrah 2377:Minima 1931:ASTILY 1903:Valley 1834:Thingg 1804:CIENCE 1363:XTools 1036:trim.— 563:WP:3RR 553:WP:3RR 513:should 509:WP:BAN 372:WP:SPI 368:WP:AIV 177:, aka 99:WP:BLP 5187:talk 4736:seren 4686:Focus 4652:Focus 4612:talk 4416:after 4337:after 4313:Talk) 4198:too. 4184:WP:AN 4122:Chzz 4061:Ceoil 3938:Scien 3906:Stani 3901:Stani 3867:Coren 3853:Space 3623:Peter 3429:Hobit 3294:Peter 2823:pilot 2665:f o x 2541:cont. 2503:RP459 2404:Aiken 2277:Talk 2232:hablo 2227:pablo 2216:hablo 2211:pablo 2194:Spiel 2153:Chat 2147:Pedro 2115:Chat 2109:Pedro 2065:Boing 1992:Steve 1781:Whale 1778:Sperm 1687:comms 1680:fetch 1555:ceran 1305:civil 1247:count 985:work. 938:WP:RS 920:talk 625:6 1/2 445:That 47:Kww 4 16:< 5167:talk 5113:talk 5092:talk 5077:talk 5063:talk 5039:talk 5031:Note 5021:talk 4996:talk 4974:talk 4954:Dloh 4942:talk 4928:talk 4903:talk 4862:talk 4801:bomb 4780:talk 4765:talk 4719:talk 4554:Cont 4514:talk 4469:talk 4455:talk 4425:talk 4385:talk 4365:talk 4350:talk 4294:talk 4280:ping 4276:Pcap 4249:talk 4232:talk 4213:talk 4159:talk 4065:talk 4059:Ok. 4028:bomb 3973:talk 3925:talk 3865:; — 3848:From 3843:Them 3828:talk 3812:talk 3795:talk 3765:Ryan 3753:talk 3737:talk 3721:talk 3702:talk 3655:talk 3637:Talk 3605:chat 3568:talk 3551:talk 3537:talk 3520:talk 3503:talk 3497:. -- 3465:talk 3450:talk 3433:talk 3415:talk 3398:talk 3364:talk 3308:Talk 3243:talk 3226:talk 3185:Talk 3163:talk 3146:talk 3108:talk 3069:talk 3063:. - 3052:talk 3032:talk 3020:talk 2983:talk 2966:talk 2949:talk 2928:Soap 2902:Talk 2871:Talk 2828:talk 2784:talk 2780:Deor 2755:talk 2738:talk 2734:John 2698:talk 2644:talk 2613:talk 2596:talk 2557:Dloh 2486:talk 2445:talk 2428:talk 2388:talk 2342:talk 2315:Reyk 2255:talk 2189:Ϣere 2174:talk 2134:talk 2000:talk 1973:talk 1933:sock 1910:city 1889:talk 1855:talk 1798:ERDY 1712:talk 1646:talk 1625:talk 1562:thor 1543:talk 1511:talk 1497:talk 1483:talk 1469:talk 1292:here 1277:rfar 1259:logs 1227:talk 1169:talk 1123:talk 1042:talk 975:WP:N 891:talk 843:talk 811:talk 783:talk 741:talk 700:talk 672:talk 645:talk 612:talk 576:talk 565:and 522:talk 505:Must 462:and 399:and 374:and 340:talk 215:logs 197:talk 103:WP:N 67:talk 5182:DGG 4715:Kww 4607:DGG 4488:man 4481:Mr. 4442:(c) 4404:man 4397:Mr. 4376:did 4290:Kww 3951:AGK 3598:7OA 3480:Axl 3374:Lar 3327:ran 3265:ran 3126:| 3122:Tan 2721:Man 2629:(c) 2536:2/0 2529:and 2500:-- 2356:edg 2322:YO! 2291:Ged 2037:Dom 2031:Big 1869:Ray 1810:UDE 1775:Fin 1659:SPI 1493:Kww 1283:spi 1253:AfD 1223:Kww 1165:Kww 1140:16. 1119:Kww 1109:or 1038:Kww 915:DGG 887:Kww 860:DES 839:Kww 807:Kww 779:Kww 737:Kww 696:Kww 668:Kww 641:Kww 608:Kww 572:Kww 518:Kww 336:Kww 101:or 63:Kww 5220:: 5189:) 5094:) 5079:) 5065:) 5041:) 5023:) 4998:) 4976:) 4944:) 4905:) 4864:) 4782:) 4759:— 4721:) 4713:.— 4699:, 4614:) 4508:— 4506:. 4486:Z- 4471:) 4457:) 4427:) 4402:Z- 4387:) 4367:) 4352:) 4296:) 4251:) 4234:) 4207:|| 4190:, 4186:, 4182:, 4178:, 4174:, 4161:) 4128:► 4107:/ 4067:) 3981:) 3927:) 3830:) 3814:) 3797:) 3755:) 3735:- 3715:— 3704:) 3683:SS 3657:) 3634:• 3570:) 3553:) 3539:) 3522:) 3505:) 3467:) 3452:) 3435:) 3417:) 3400:) 3394:LK 3376:: 3366:) 3360:eo 3305:• 3259:. 3245:) 3188:) 3165:) 3148:) 3129:39 3110:) 3088:| 3071:) 3054:) 3034:) 3026:! 2985:) 2968:) 2951:) 2904:| 2875:// 2867:// 2786:) 2757:) 2740:) 2732:-- 2711:TN 2700:) 2683:) 2646:) 2615:) 2598:) 2488:) 2447:) 2430:) 2391:) 2298:UK 2274:: 2257:) 2176:) 2150:: 2136:) 2112:: 2049:– 2009:\ 1975:) 1891:) 1857:) 1822:) 1818:• 1720:) 1648:) 1627:) 1607:| 1601:-- 1581:am 1578:At 1545:) 1513:) 1499:) 1485:) 1471:) 1271:lu 1171:) 1163:.— 1149:A. 1145:? 1125:) 1062:15 1044:) 922:) 912:? 893:) 856:13 845:) 824:12 813:) 796:11 785:) 775:}} 769:{{ 754:10 743:) 724:? 702:) 685:8' 674:) 647:) 614:) 578:) 559:A: 549:5. 524:) 501:A: 492:4. 417:A: 411:3. 393:A: 387:2. 370:, 364:A: 358:1. 342:) 331:. 306:” 299:“ 253:, 249:, 75:) 36:. 5185:( 5164:· 5158:· 5138:W 5135:P 5132:T 5130:~ 5115:) 5111:( 5090:( 5075:( 5061:( 5037:( 5019:( 4994:( 4972:( 4940:( 4926:( 4901:( 4860:( 4824:÷ 4778:( 4767:) 4763:( 4717:( 4683:m 4680:a 4677:e 4674:r 4671:D 4649:m 4646:a 4643:e 4640:r 4637:D 4628:" 4610:( 4550:/ 4516:) 4512:( 4467:( 4453:( 4423:( 4383:( 4363:( 4348:( 4311:( 4292:( 4247:( 4230:( 4157:( 4101:/ 4063:( 4047:∞ 3976:· 3971:( 3923:( 3885:✈ 3826:( 3810:( 3793:( 3751:( 3723:) 3719:( 3700:( 3689:✞ 3666:— 3653:( 3566:( 3549:( 3535:( 3518:( 3501:( 3485:¤ 3463:( 3448:( 3431:( 3413:( 3409:. 3396:( 3382:c 3380:/ 3378:t 3362:( 3332:e 3325:O 3270:e 3263:O 3241:( 3223:✽ 3182:( 3161:( 3144:( 3106:( 3067:( 3050:( 3030:( 3018:( 2981:( 2964:( 2947:( 2934:— 2922:— 2908:) 2900:( 2782:( 2753:( 2736:( 2716:X 2696:( 2642:( 2611:( 2594:( 2543:) 2539:( 2508:/ 2484:( 2468:a 2466:c 2464:z 2462:a 2460:m 2443:( 2426:( 2409:♫ 2385:( 2382:c 2363:☭ 2360:☺ 2253:( 2234:. 2218:. 2172:( 2132:( 2067:! 2019:7 2003:| 1997:/ 1971:( 1952:S 1928:F 1906:2 1887:( 1853:( 1814:( 1808:D 1802:S 1796:N 1756:ξ 1740:- 1715:· 1710:( 1693:☛ 1644:( 1623:( 1590:頭 1584:a 1541:( 1509:( 1495:( 1481:( 1467:( 1446:7 1343:e 1336:t 1329:v 1295:. 1285:) 1280:· 1274:· 1268:· 1262:· 1256:· 1250:· 1243:· 1236:· 1230:· 1225:( 1167:( 1121:( 1103:A 1083:! 1040:( 929:A 918:( 889:( 870:A 841:( 830:A 809:( 802:A 781:( 764:A 739:( 731:" 728:A 718:9 698:( 691:A 670:( 664:A 658:7 643:( 631:A 610:( 600:A 594:6 574:( 541:- 520:( 503:" 449:. 338:( 240:. 235:) 230:· 224:· 218:· 212:· 206:· 200:· 195:( 70:· 65:( 40:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Requests for adminship/Kww 4 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index