1390:
become an admin, so when the record is particularly small/risky, the reward must be particularly high. If the quality were really that high, power should have been able to find multiple co-noms to sing their praises. They either couldn't do so or decided not to bother. The former means they aren't high-quality enough to justify handing out the mop "early". The latter speaks to poor or hasty judgement, since self-noms are almost always looked on as weaker. Either of these probably leave me in the oppose camp. Having said that, I think power will one day be a good admin, so I'm staying neutral as a sort of moral support. (I also will say the rapid accusations of hat-collecting is atrocious. This is an editor who wants to help out with administrative tasks and appears like he will be able to in the near future. Let's not chase him off the project with baseless accusations of bad-faith.) ~
1260:
the consensus, since the deletion was upheld. 3) Closing after !voting is not good, though most people who start closing usually make that mistake at least once. However, the article was in fact kept and has improved, and Power-enwiki was correct about there being a around 2/3 consensus in favor of keeping. Whether you want to call that WP:SNOW or not is hair-splitting. And the "candidate has 'power' in their name so they must be up to no good, never mind the fact that the word has many meanings" stuff is just a tacky, cheap shot. Lot of people have silly usernames here, including plenty of admins.
1516:", when you really only have about 7 months of experience is kind of misleading, no? I realize you then go on to explain how you left and so on, but it seems you realize your short term of activity would be an issue (as several of the 'oppose' votes have indicated) and you are trying to steer away from that. That seems kind somewhat... well, I don't want to say 'deceptive', but it's not very candid, either. This is just an observation. I have no knowledge of this editor and therefore I'm not voting. -
908:, which could have even though as stated as a possible copyvio, could have been updated and fixed to make that section read more encyclopedic and less risk as a potential copyvio. I haven't looked through the rest of the contribs, but recent contribs for me are enough to feel he isn't ready for the responsibility that comes with the power. As such I feel after a couple of more years under his belt of being active again may make a good candidate for admin. --
1343:
return to editing have always, from the very beginning of my noticing him, seemed like a gearing up for RfA. I am not going to find or post any of the 100 or so diffs that would substantiate this. But by this time inexperienced editors who are would-be admins stand out pretty clearly on my radar, and he stood out to me very clearly (more clearly than anyone who does not have that admin-wannabe userbox). Take that for what you will.
648:
around long enough for the community to trust you. I’m sure I’ll get “In 2004 you could do it quicker!” comments on this, but the current standard I have is approximately a year of active service or being an exceptional user who has made a significant impact on
Knowledge in their time here. Power simply doesn’t have the record for me to support at this time. I would support in 6 months with strong nominators.
794:. I think the candidate is a good editor who shows a great deal of promise. However as noted above there have also been a few glaring errors in judgement which combined with their limited tenure suggests that they need a little more time and experience here. Irrespective of edit count, less than a year of active participation is just not enough. I'd suggest coming back in a year or so. -
1484:– Power is a good editor and has clue in a lot of areas and the IARing is actually a plus to me. I have to stand with my current precedent of normally requiring the candidate to be active at least as long as me, though, and the tenure is the deal breaker here. I enthusiastically support in a year with no major concerns but this is just NOTQUITEYET.
602:. Yes, he has a tenure of "only" seven months of active editing and "only" 10,000 edits. He's generally incisive, and a damn good editor. We need more admins like him, and he'd actually get things done with the mop. We're drowning in backlogs, and have a competent, active editor who can help with them. We're telling him no? Seriously?
1158:
closure on the Roy Moore AFD, an AFD you had participated in! I can only imagine you closed it to bring attention to yourself as an editor who could make tough decisions but everyone knows (or at least should know) that non-admins can't make such a premature close on a controversial subject, especially if they already weighted-in on.
86:) – 14 years ago today, I made my first edit on Knowledge. After about 100 edits, I lost interest in the project. This May, after some life changes, I started editing Knowledge fairly regularly. As I have recently reached 10000 edits, I feel that I have sufficient experience to offer to pick up the mop.
1389:
This tenure is not an issue for me alone, but low tenure with a self-nomination worries me. In editors with less of a record, I demand a higher quality to support an RfA. It's a simple risk-reward thing; the risk associated with having less of a record to go on must be exceeded by the reward if they
1358:
Part of what I suspect
Softlavender is calling "gearing up for RfA" I would call "engaging in the project" (accurate or not, my edit-count at ANI is probably enough basis enough for Softlavender to make those claims). However, there are plenty of edits on my record I feel I obviously would not have
1157:
Your opening statement was exceptionally poor. What do 10,000 edits have to do with experience? I could run a script or fix grammatical errors every day to drive up my edit count but have I learned about the ins and outs of
Knowledge? Absolutely not. Besides that point, I recall a terrible non-admin
948:
No problems with following rules, what I am saying however I felt that section, was good I am not saying that you did anything in removing the section as it was a copyvio, but as an editor would have rewritten it so it would match the encyclopedic format needed on
Knowledge, while not making it like
647:
third standard: have a record. We can’t be expected to make a judgement as to how he interacts with other
Wikipedians over time without this. To be clear if this gets to a ‘crat chat: this is not just a time opppse; it’s that I think in order to gain the trust of the community, you need to have been
1406:
Just commenting that I agree with Rob that low tenure+self-nom is part of my concern as well (and why I hinted at it in my opppse). It shows poor judgement of what the current community norms are, which gets at the question of whether or not he is familiar with the normal practices of this project.
1259:
In here for now. Going over the early opposes, in order: 1) I tend to agree with the time-of-service issue, though we do have good admins who became them around the 6 month mark; I normally like to see 18 months. 2) The !vote at DRV that
Jclemens is concerned about appears to have been in line with
953:
option to ask the college to release a portion of the wording from their site so it may be included on WikiPedia under a CC-BY-SA license, which the OTRS does do not only images, but text as well. But I still feel a couple of more years would be good for you to brush up on the options that are open
1342:
Well, I don't know how familiar you are with power~enwiki. I am not making that statement because I dislike him or generally disagree with him (neither of those is necessarily true); I'm making the statement because his editing and pronouncements and NACs and XfDs etc. over the brief course of his
1199:
what their chances here would be in
November or January, and the answer was unanimous that it would be lousy for the reasons many have articulated above. That they ignored the advice is unfortunate, but it also speaks to their lack of readiness to be an admin: if they can't recognize such a clear
1312:
SMcCandlish, I don't know if you've seen much of power-enwiki, but it's been obvious to me that he has been gearing up for an RfA ever since he started up editing a few months ago. This self-nominated RfA is no surprise to me, although its prematurity, especially after his BADNAC gaffe (which he
1095:
wasn't linked here; the comments received by the editor back in
September still seem to be relevant. For someone that plans to work extensively with AP2, I don't think the editor has the right diplomacy, temperament nor judgement at this moment based on my general experiences with the editor at
811:
per the Roy Moore close. It would have been ill-advised for an uninvolved admin; for an invovled non-admin it was ridiculous. Admins make hard choices and take a lot of flak but IAR isn't carte blanche to impose one's understanding on everyone else. We have enough of those types with the tools
152:
My primary focus will be on "watchlist"-based admin tasks; specifically AIV, UAA (and UAA/BOT), and RFPP requests, as well as revdels of offensive/inappropriate material. I refresh my watchlist hundreds of times per week, and even a half-hour backlog on these pages can be frustrating for
949:
it was copy pasted from their site and not being a copyvio. As in my opinion a good user would know how to write it so it would fall under the rules to be included on
Knowledge, while at the same time not being a copyvio. Another option just incase you weren't aware is the
768:
While I too thought the most that could happen was a no consensus result, I'm not sure how time was of the essence, and that seems like a poor attitude that leads to edit warring etc. (though I haven't seen you do anything bad like that, and I don't think you would)
1104:
as I speak, and the response there illustrates what I think is a pattern of reluctance to identity and understand criticism. There is no question that Power is a good editor and net positive to the project, but low tenure is not the sole concern here, I am sorry.
1238:. The candidate is promising. I'm not concerned about the number of edits, nor with 7 months of active use. However, the opening statement isn't persuasive and some of the examples pointed out by fellow editors demonstrate a need for further experience. Cheers,
302:
As I said in my statement, I'm online quite frequently, and feel that rapid response on certain noticeboards is valuable to the project; frustration at delay in handling certain obvious vandals is also a factor. I won't be heart-broken if this doesn't
333:
would have been a better option. I did what I did largely because
American politics is an extremely contentious area, and most of the admins willing to be active in the area were already involved. I do feel the burden for an administrator invoking
263:
Escalate and de-engage. This can involve posting on a WikiProject or Noticeboard. I have found that truly disruptive users tend to find their way into a ban fairly quickly, and most other editors are reasonable when confronted with reliable
968:
Rewriting a copyrighted text is still infringing - making it look like it hasn't been copy pasted is not the right way to do it. The correct thing is to remove the copyrighted text (high-priority, has to be done first), then doing it right.
1327:
If you're going to accuse someone of hat-collecting and working towards an RfA, there has to be some evidence, and I personally don't see it. I don't see him working too much in "adminy" areas for the purpose of trying to be an admin.
905:, as I found that edit while most likely okay, due to the fact yes it was excessive in summary of plot. Could have left at least some of it or condensed it, as well the references that were deleted along with it. Another one was
642:
I like power, but I don’t think a record of ~ 6 months is enough for us to be able to judge whether or not he has the temperament for adminship and be convinced that he plans to be active after getting the tools. He fails my
229:
Also, I feel that my over-1000 AfD votes have aided in the functioning of the project; having a minimum 3-5 votes on every AfD (even the non-controversial ones) would be ideal, but many AfDs struggle to get that level of
1092:
320:
1564:
Two moral supports and one actual support. The candidate has refused the advice on their talk page of closing this themselves. It would be for Power's own good if someone can SNOW close this to stop the
748:
The !votes at the time (only four days into a highly controversial AfD) were 1 move to WikiNews; 4 merge; 15 delete; and 31 keep. Even your math is wrong: that's 31/51, or 60.7%. The fact that you are
156:
I intend to take part in other admin areas as well, including AfD closing (although AfD currently needs voters more than closers), CSD backlogs, and the various drama boards, including ANI and AE.
1196:
619:. We don't need to see ~5 years of tenure and 150,000 edits to tell if an editor is likely to misuse the tools. I haven't seen any activity to make me believe that power would misuse the tools.
282:
per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
669:
and other examples of flawed reasoning I've seen repeatedly at AfD and DRV. No amount of answering questions 'correctly' can make up for the actual participation of this editor in such venues.
1072:
until the candidate understands why that NAC, and the answer to Q5, are wrong. Please try again once you understand that — your attitude and willingness to work are an asset to the project.
275:
1421:
For the record: I refrained from asking for a nominator because the experienced nominators expect more tenure. I didn't feel that finding a non-admin to nominate would be beneficial.
187:
articles. I also will edit almost anything that i come across through gnomish work, such as New Pages Patrol, AfD, maintenance categories, or the ever-popular "Random article" button.
1022:
Yes, only 10,000 edits. Not only that, but their responses to opposition votes shows that they clearly do not have the temperament to have access to the administrative tools.
693:, which is the most egregious I've ever seen: closing a 4-day old highly controversial AfD which had nearly 50% (15/31) Delete !votes, and which he himself had !voted in, as "
1647:
530:
525:
240:
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?
1463:
I am not finding enough positives to Support at this time. Will think about changing after I have had more of an opportunity to go over their record at some depth.
1123:
386:
1665:
926:
as well, but the copyright violation was clear and blatant, and I make no apologies for following site policies on removing copyright-infringing material.
260:
Take a breath. Most of the time, 24 hours is quick on Knowledge. If a discussion is getting problematic, turn off the computer and do something else.
373:
139:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
704:. I suggest that power-enwiki (whose username seems to indicate his quest for authority and hat-collecting) withdraw this RfA before it gets bad.
1055:- concerns with the candidate's understanding of how IAR should be applied, and of their NAC closes (in particular the one referenced above). --
1446:
Why did you decide to self-nominate then, knowing that you wouldn't have been able to request a nomination due to tenure/experience? Actually
468:
722:; I knew full well it was against the letter of the law, but saw no way that any other outcome could possibly be the result, and felt that
520:
380:
1195:: the short tenure and the lack of experience and understanding to go along with it are telling. Three months ago, the nominee asked at
590:
1624:
1598:
1432:
1370:
1301:
937:
737:
440:
416:
366:
121:
97:
83:
686:
due to obvious inexperience (7 months of editing), several instances of very poor judgment, and this recent (less than a month ago)
410:
1271:
257:
Use the talk page. Remember to say even the things you feel are obvious. A decent amount of the time, this will resolve the issue.
226:; while I feel my efforts have significantly improved the page over its earlier versions, it still needs a massive amount of work.
556:
246:
There's no shortage of conflict in American Politics, and I find that I tend to discover conflicts in other areas as well, be it
30:
17:
1135:
566:
425:
923:
1450:
to find a nominator would have been better then nominating yourself. As Rob said above, it just shows poor judgement.
1078:
1010:
817:
494:
1570:
1163:
540:
515:
342:
action of a regular editor, generally only admins can revert administrative actions, and that risks wheel-warring.
535:
510:
461:
183:
My editing focuses are on topics related to math and computer science, topics related to American politics, and
890:
159:
I feel I should specifically note that, due to my large number of edits in the area, I will not enforce the
698:
1630:
1618:
1604:
1592:
1574:
1555:
1533:
1497:
1472:
1454:
1438:
1426:
1416:
1412:
1401:
1376:
1364:
1352:
1348:
1337:
1322:
1318:
1307:
1295:
1281:
1247:
1226:
1209:
1187:
1167:
1149:
1114:
1101:
1083:
1064:
1047:
1026:
1019:
1014:
1006:
1000:
978:
963:
943:
931:
917:
894:
877:
868:
851:
847:
839:
821:
813:
803:
778:
763:
759:
743:
731:
723:
713:
709:
678:
657:
653:
627:
611:
594:
489:
360:
127:
115:
103:
91:
77:
62:
1566:
1268:
1243:
1235:
1205:
1176:
1159:
993:
876:— has not exhibited the temperament or good judgment to use the mop. Perhaps over time it will develop.
859:-- I really want to say yes. However, the seven-month recent experience just does not cut it for me. --
799:
791:
585:
1646:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
1468:
607:
454:
1333:
1141:
1110:
1060:
1043:
974:
959:
913:
774:
58:
1181:
886:
674:
436:
247:
885:- Needs more seasoning. I urge the nominee to withdraw and try again a suitable time later on.
1614:
1588:
1542:
closure but in the time I was on this page 2 supports were made. If this pattern continues...
1519:
1443:
1422:
1408:
1360:
1344:
1314:
1291:
1222:
1200:
consensus in something like this, they aren't ready for doing so across Knowledge as a whole.
927:
864:
843:
835:
755:
727:
705:
649:
356:
311:
288:
160:
111:
87:
73:
1451:
1263:
1239:
1201:
1023:
997:
902:-- as per all above, but one edit among your many i saw that has been a problem for me, was
795:
701:
687:
219:
1464:
1073:
603:
561:
184:
1549:
1539:
1491:
1329:
1128:
1106:
1097:
1056:
1039:
970:
955:
950:
909:
770:
251:
54:
1659:
1391:
719:
670:
625:
339:
335:
164:
1218:
860:
330:
207:
199:
223:
53:
Final (3/21/4); ended 05:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate.
1640:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
954:
to you. Who knows when that time comes I may be happy to support you then. --
1544:
1486:
1286:
For the record, while I'm not linking to my social profiles in this RFA, my
203:
191:
1359:
made if my goal were to present the best possible candidacy for adminship.
620:
1585:
Unless something unexpected happens, I'll probably withdraw in an hour.
1287:
215:
211:
296:
Why do you want to become an admin after only 7-month active editing?
1650:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
718:
The vote was 31/46 keep, roughly 67% keep. And I explicitly invoked
202:; I've also been very present at the most contentious AP2 articles;
439:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review
446:
321:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations
195:
1217:- Inadequate tenure. See ya in six months or better yet, a year.
450:
167:, as I find it unenjoyable and I'm not particularly good at it.
754:
defending your action shows your unsuitability for adminship.
1197:
Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll
700:, and has never admitted that it violated #1, #2, and #3 of
210:. Some less-prominent changes include tracking down what a
190:
Some of the "vital" articles I feel I have improved include
996:. Only 10,000 edits, and about 7 months of active editing.
329:
With the benefit of hindsight, requesting a SNOW close at
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
177:
What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?
146:
What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
906:
903:
691:
666:
404:
398:
392:
1100:
and the answers to the questions here. I am reading
549:
503:
482:
1038:per Q5. Everything about the answer is wrong. --
617:I do not believe power~enwiki would harm the wiki
423:Edit summary usage for Power~enwiki can be found
274:You may ask optional questions below. There is a
222:. I also feel obliged to note my white whale of
1175:7 months of active editing is just not enough.
1512:14 years ago I made my first edit on Knowledge
1613:I'm looking up how to do the withdrawal now.
462:
8:
319:Do you think you were justified in closing
469:
455:
447:
338:is higher; while any editor can revert an
922:I regretted having to make that edit at
435:Please keep discussion constructive and
214:is, and adding references to pages like
1355:; edited 05:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
842:) 03:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC) per Q4
1584:
1511:
697:". He strenously defended his BADNAC
7:
1666:Unsuccessful requests for adminship
1313:still unbelievably defends), does.
24:
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
1102:User_talk:Power~enwiki#Your RfA
1509:Starting your nom intro with "
834:Only 7 months active editing.
1:
1631:05:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1605:05:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1575:05:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1556:05:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1534:05:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1498:05:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1473:03:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1455:04:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1439:04:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1417:03:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1402:03:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1377:05:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1353:04:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1338:04:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1323:03:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1308:03:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1282:03:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1261:
1248:05:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1227:05:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1210:05:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1188:05:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1168:05:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1150:05:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1115:05:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1084:05:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1065:04:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1048:04:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1027:04:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1015:04:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1001:04:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
979:04:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
964:04:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
944:04:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
918:04:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
895:04:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
878:03:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
869:03:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
852:03:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
822:03:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
804:03:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
779:04:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
764:03:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
744:03:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
714:03:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
679:03:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
658:02:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
628:05:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
612:05:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
595:04:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
128:05:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
104:02:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
63:05:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
924:Illinois Wesleyan University
161:AP2 discretionary sanctions
135:Questions for the candidate
1682:
323:as an involved non-admin?
1173:Oppose with moral support
310:Additional question from
287:Additional question from
1643:Please do not modify it.
354:Links for Power~enwiki:
163:. I also plan to avoid
39:Please do not modify it.
724:time was of the essence
600:Full, Non-moral support
31:request for adminship
562:Global contributions
1091:: Not sure why the
1005:Only 10,000 edits?
516:Non-automated edits
441:their contributions
495:Edit summary usage
443:before commenting.
248:intelligent design
40:
1529:
1399:
1147:
1020:LargelyRecyclable
1007:LargelyRecyclable
814:LargelyRecyclable
584:Moral support. —
575:
574:
38:
1673:
1645:
1627:
1621:
1601:
1595:
1587:55 minutes ago.
1567:TheGracefulSlick
1552:
1547:
1532:
1527:
1504:General comments
1494:
1489:
1435:
1429:
1395:
1373:
1367:
1304:
1298:
1280:
1184:
1160:TheGracefulSlick
1144:
1138:
1133:
1131:
1081:
1076:
940:
934:
790:with regret per
740:
734:
623:
511:Articles created
471:
464:
457:
448:
428:
420:
379:
283:
220:Kielce Synagogue
124:
118:
100:
94:
1681:
1680:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1648:this nomination
1641:
1625:
1619:
1599:
1593:
1550:
1545:
1525:
1517:
1506:
1492:
1487:
1433:
1427:
1398:
1371:
1365:
1302:
1296:
1278:
1256:
1182:
1142:
1136:
1129:
1079:
1074:
938:
932:
738:
732:
726:in closing it.
636:
621:
593:
581:
576:
571:
545:
499:
478:
477:RfA/RfB toolbox
475:
424:
372:
355:
351:
273:
137:
122:
116:
98:
92:
71:
50:
35:did not succeed
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1679:
1677:
1669:
1668:
1658:
1657:
1653:
1652:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1578:
1577:
1559:
1558:
1536:
1524:
1521:
1505:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1475:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1419:
1396:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1310:
1276:
1255:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1236:WP:NOTQUITEYET
1234:with regrets,
1229:
1212:
1190:
1177:WP:NOTQUITEYET
1170:
1152:
1117:
1086:
1067:
1050:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
994:WP:NOTQUITEYET
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
897:
880:
871:
854:
824:
806:
792:WP:NOTQUITEYET
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
766:
681:
660:
635:
632:
631:
630:
614:
597:
589:
580:
577:
573:
572:
570:
569:
564:
559:
553:
551:
547:
546:
544:
543:
538:
533:
528:
523:
518:
513:
507:
505:
501:
500:
498:
497:
492:
486:
484:
480:
479:
476:
474:
473:
466:
459:
451:
432:
431:
430:
421:
350:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
314:
307:
306:
305:
304:
291:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
261:
258:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:participation.
227:
188:
171:
170:
169:
168:
157:
154:
136:
133:
132:
131:
70:
67:
49:
44:
43:
42:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1678:
1667:
1664:
1663:
1661:
1651:
1649:
1644:
1638:
1637:
1632:
1628:
1622:
1616:
1612:
1611:
1606:
1602:
1596:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1557:
1554:
1553:
1548:
1541:
1537:
1535:
1531:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1515:
1513:
1508:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1496:
1495:
1490:
1483:
1479:
1478:Moral support
1476:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1456:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1436:
1430:
1424:
1420:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1400:
1394:
1388:
1378:
1374:
1368:
1362:
1357:
1356:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1311:
1309:
1305:
1299:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1273:
1270:
1267:
1266:
1258:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1230:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1213:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1198:
1194:
1191:
1189:
1186:
1185:
1178:
1174:
1171:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1156:
1153:
1151:
1148:
1145:
1139:
1132:
1125:
1121:
1118:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1103:
1099:
1094:
1090:
1087:
1085:
1082:
1077:
1071:
1068:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1051:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1034:
1028:
1025:
1021:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1003:
1002:
999:
995:
991:
988:
980:
976:
972:
967:
966:
965:
961:
957:
952:
947:
946:
945:
941:
935:
929:
925:
921:
920:
919:
915:
911:
907:
904:
901:
898:
896:
892:
888:
887:Beyond My Ken
884:
881:
879:
875:
872:
870:
866:
862:
858:
855:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
833:
830:
829:
825:
823:
819:
815:
810:
807:
805:
801:
797:
793:
789:
786:
780:
776:
772:
767:
765:
761:
757:
753:
752:
747:
746:
745:
741:
735:
729:
725:
721:
717:
716:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
696:
692:
689:
685:
682:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
661:
659:
655:
651:
646:
641:
638:
637:
633:
629:
626:
624:
618:
615:
613:
609:
605:
601:
598:
596:
592:
587:
586:Malik Shabazz
583:
582:
578:
568:
565:
563:
560:
558:
555:
554:
552:
548:
542:
539:
537:
534:
532:
529:
527:
524:
522:
519:
517:
514:
512:
509:
508:
506:
502:
496:
493:
491:
488:
487:
485:
481:
472:
467:
465:
460:
458:
453:
452:
449:
445:
444:
442:
438:
427:
422:
418:
415:
412:
409:
406:
403:
400:
397:
394:
391:
388:
385:
382:
378:
375:
371:
368:
365:
362:
358:
353:
352:
348:
341:
337:
332:
328:
325:
324:
322:
318:
315:
313:
309:
308:
301:
298:
297:
295:
292:
290:
286:
285:
284:
281:
280:two questions
277:
262:
259:
256:
255:
253:
249:
245:
242:
241:
239:
236:
235:
228:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
186:
182:
179:
178:
176:
173:
172:
166:
162:
158:
155:
151:
148:
147:
145:
142:
141:
140:
134:
130:
129:
125:
119:
113:
108:
107:
106:
105:
101:
95:
89:
85:
82:
79:
75:
68:
66:
65:
64:
60:
56:
48:
45:
41:
36:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1642:
1639:
1615:power~enwiki
1589:power~enwiki
1543:
1520:
1518:
1510:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1447:
1444:power~enwiki
1423:power~enwiki
1409:TonyBallioni
1392:
1361:power~enwiki
1345:Softlavender
1315:Softlavender
1292:power~enwiki
1264:
1231:
1214:
1192:
1180:
1172:
1154:
1127:
1119:
1088:
1069:
1052:
1035:
989:
928:power~enwiki
899:
882:
873:
856:
844:Hhhhhkohhhhh
836:Hhhhhkohhhhh
831:
827:
826:
808:
787:
756:Softlavender
750:
749:
728:power~enwiki
706:Softlavender
694:
683:
662:
650:TonyBallioni
644:
639:
616:
599:
434:
433:
413:
407:
401:
395:
389:
383:
376:
369:
363:
357:Power~enwiki
326:
316:
312:TonyBallioni
299:
293:
289:Hhhhhkohhhhh
279:
272:
243:
237:
208:Donald Trump
180:
174:
149:
143:
138:
112:power~enwiki
109:
88:power~enwiki
80:
74:Power~enwiki
72:
52:
51:
47:Power~enwiki
46:
34:
28:
1538:I'd like a
1452:Boomer Vial
1265:SMcCandlish
1240:Majoreditor
1202:BlueMoonset
1024:Boomer Vial
998:Boomer Vial
832:Weak oppose
796:Ad Orientem
567:User rights
557:CentralAuth
200:Engineering
153:non-admins.
1465:Shearonink
1448:attempting
1290:is Power.
1122:based off
690:AfD close
604:Tazerdadog
550:Cross-wiki
531:AfD closes
349:Discussion
224:Government
110:Withdrawn
69:Nomination
1565:bleeding.
1334:pingó mió
1330:Galobtter
1130:Anarchyte
1107:Alex Shih
1057:Ajraddatz
1040:SmokeyJoe
975:pingó mió
971:Galobtter
956:Clarkcj12
910:Clarkcj12
812:already.
775:pingó mió
771:Galobtter
702:WP:BADNAC
695:Snow Keep
688:WP:BADNAC
526:AfD votes
521:BLP edits
399:block log
264:sourcing.
204:Roy Moore
192:Newspaper
55:Alex Shih
1660:Category
671:Jclemens
645:de facto
541:PROD log
504:Analysis
483:Counters
367:contribs
185:WP:VITAL
84:contribs
1583:I said
1540:WP:SNOW
1482:Neutral
1288:surname
1254:Neutral
1219:Carrite
1098:WP:AN/I
951:WP:OTRS
861:Dolotta
579:Support
536:CSD log
374:deleted
252:cricket
216:Fergana
212:Lerotse
1279:ⱷ<
1232:Oppose
1215:Oppose
1193:Oppose
1155:Oppose
1120:Oppose
1089:Oppose
1070:Oppose
1053:Oppose
1036:Oppose
990:Oppose
900:Oppose
883:Oppose
874:Oppose
857:Oppose
828:Oppose
809:Oppose
788:Oppose
720:WP:IAR
684:Oppose
663:Oppose
640:Oppose
634:Oppose
490:XTools
340:WP:IAR
336:WP:IAR
198:, and
165:WP:SPI
1528:child
1274:: -->
751:still
591:Stalk
437:civil
381:count
331:WP:AN
303:pass.
276:limit
196:Atlas
33:that
16:<
1571:talk
1523:WOLF
1480:and
1469:talk
1413:talk
1349:talk
1319:talk
1244:talk
1223:talk
1206:talk
1164:talk
1143:talk
1137:work
1124:this
1111:talk
1093:ORCP
1075:Brad
1061:talk
1044:talk
1011:talk
992:per
960:talk
914:talk
891:talk
865:talk
848:talk
840:talk
818:talk
800:talk
760:talk
710:talk
675:talk
667:this
665:Per
654:talk
608:talk
426:here
411:rfar
393:logs
361:talk
206:and
78:talk
59:talk
1551:947
1493:947
1393:Rob
1183:JTP
622:SQL
417:spi
387:AfD
278:of
250:or
218:or
1662::
1629:)
1623:,
1603:)
1597:,
1573:)
1471:)
1437:)
1431:,
1415:)
1397:13
1375:)
1369:,
1351:)
1336:)
1321:)
1306:)
1300:,
1275:ⱷ҅
1262:—
1246:)
1225:)
1208:)
1179:.
1166:)
1140:|
1126:.
1113:)
1063:)
1046:)
1013:)
977:)
962:)
942:)
936:,
916:)
893:)
867:)
850:)
820:)
802:)
777:)
762:)
742:)
736:,
712:)
677:)
656:)
610:)
405:lu
327:A:
317:5.
300:A:
294:4.
254:.
244:A:
238:3.
194:,
181:A:
175:2.
150:A:
144:1.
126:)
120:,
102:)
96:,
61:)
37:.
1626:ν
1620:π
1617:(
1600:ν
1594:π
1591:(
1569:(
1546:J
1514:'
1488:J
1467:(
1434:ν
1428:π
1425:(
1411:(
1372:ν
1366:π
1363:(
1347:(
1332:(
1317:(
1303:ν
1297:π
1294:(
1277:ᴥ
1272:¢
1269:☏
1242:(
1221:(
1204:(
1162:(
1146:)
1134:(
1109:(
1080:v
1059:(
1042:(
1009:(
973:(
958:(
939:ν
933:π
930:(
912:(
889:(
863:(
846:(
838:(
816:(
798:(
773:(
758:(
739:ν
733:π
730:(
708:(
673:(
652:(
606:(
588:/
470:e
463:t
456:v
429:.
419:)
414:·
408:·
402:·
396:·
390:·
384:·
377:·
370:·
364:·
359:(
123:ν
117:π
114:(
99:ν
93:π
90:(
81:·
76:(
57:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.