2883:. His introductory note, suggesting that Cute_1_4_u essentially leave wikipedia, I find to be unacceptable. Then, when she defended herself, stating that she was improving wikipedia and that she writes multiple articles every day, he responded with "Whether or not you create those articles doesn't mean you are improving the Encyclopedia. Those articles can be about nonsense, or they can be serious. You can write an article about a cookie you are eating or you can start an article about something that has just appeared on a national news program. Creating articles and edit counts are not important. You should focus on quality over quantity". Now, I understand that Cute_1_4_u has been misbehaving, shall we say, she's repeatedly posted copywritten text from other websites, even after being told not to. On the other hand, she's only 11 years old, and she has created a number of non-plagiarized articles, as well as many hundreds of decent edits to articles, so she is not a vandal, just a kid who needs to be watched over. Suggesting that she leave wikipedia, or that her articles aren't high enough quality, are both inappropriate and counterproductive. My concern is that Ryulong, having spent so much time in vandal fighting, has taken on too harsh of an attitude towards those who might be breaking the rules. Having said all this, though, he's obviously overall an asset to wikipedia, and administrator or not, wikipedia is better off thanks to his work. --
427:
56.8% Minor edits: 21.62% Average edits per day: 481.93 (for last 500 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 446 edits): Major article edits: 93.4% Minor article edits: 24.32% Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 39 image uploads): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.02% (1) Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0.42% (21) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 14.92% (746) Superficial article edits marked as minor: 11.71% Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 36 (checks last 5000) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 2291 | Average edits per page: 2.18 | Edits on top: 21.9% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 9.76% (488 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 0.86% (43 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 41.06% (2053 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 33.92% (1696 edit(s)) Edits by
Knowledge namespace: Article: 51.7% (2585) | Article talk: 8.4% (420) User: 3.82% (191) | User talk: 24.8% (1240) Knowledge: 7.04% (352) | Knowledge talk: 0.92% (46) Image: 1.08% (54) Template: 1.86% (93) Category: 0.18% (9) Portal: 0.04% (2) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.16% (8)
282:(one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process
2926:- While I do not think that Ryulong would abuse the mop, I am concerned by several things. First of all, many of the above diffs are a little worrisome. However, more concerning to me is Kevin's allegation that: "When I approached you about AGF on some newer users, you (and I'm still not sure how much you were joking) stated that you prefer to assume bad faith. You've stated on IRC you hate newbies." I am concerned that Ryulong may fail to assume good faith (especially in the case of newcomers) and "scare" them off. The Emory situation is far too recent for my peace of mind. However, I strongly believe that this user would never purposely abuse the powers and once he gets a bit better at assuming good faith, I will certainly support him.
2756:
reactions. I had informed him of the relevant policies on IRC right after he made this edit, so I am reluctant to oppose as he has had sufficient time to read up on stuff like this, and has made no similar edits since then that I can find. But change doesn't always happen fast either, so I'm also reluctant to support. Just some advice: when you're stressed out from editing, take a break and do something else -- play computer games, take a bike ride, do some housework, anything. Staying cool has less to do with never getting riled up, and more to do with recognizing when you are about to explode and finding another outlet for it. I like to play
304:
opposition votes below are calling into question now. I have heard about Rouge admins to an extent, but I have not really looked into the situation (the most I know is that "Rouge" is purposefully used instead of "Rogue", and I can discern that it must mean that the admins have gone rogue/AWOL/amok in some form). I do see that the process of Rouge admins is calling into question the faults of the user, albeit in a humorous fashion. If another admin felt I was going "Rouge", then I would take it as it was intended, constructive (yet funny) criticism. Now, I have to see what "WP:WONK" is.
79:) – Ryulong is a very experienced contributor who has been editing since February of 2006, and has made more than 11,000 edits in his 6 months here. Recently, Ryulong has contributed heavily to the counter vandalism effort, and this is where he has consistently displayed a need for the tools. I have never seen a user that he has reported on IRC go unblocked, and he reports quite a fair number every day. Giving him the power to block these users would help to decrease the amount of vandalism to Knowledge. Ryulong has also made many valuable contributions to pages in:
1370:
bothered me (only sometimes; most of the time they are without a doubt bad edits that should be reverted anyway) and I had been meaning him to needle him about it. So, yes, he's made mistakes in the past, and I'm glad that this RFA has highlighted them; there is no doubt in my mind that he will learn from them. The long and short of it is, however, that he's a good editor who knows what he's doing. As such, he should not be denied use of administrative tools, as far as I am concerned.--
1522:
1600:
2900:. I then proceeded to explain myself to her repeatedly to explain what I meant, but she continually took it as a "Don't edit Knowledge" message. She and another user (who has been blocked many times due to admission to sockpuppet accounts and personal attack violations) were both given the same message, and I kindly tried to explain to them the true meaning, none of which they took to heart.
397:
of copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright holder. The need for admins with demonstrated knowledge and expertise in these areas outweighs the need for more
Featured articles. Hopefully Bureaucrats will discount "oppose" votes based on lack of a Featured Article in RfA's where the candidate has demonstrated suitability in these areas..
2475:. He is clearly a hard-working editor, and I would not oppose for making a mistake. Heck, not even a BIG mistake, if he owned up to it and learned from it (which he did in his comments). But I see a poor attitude toward new users to this project, which has an immeasurably larger negative impact than making a revert mistake. --
2866:- I have decided to be neutral on this one. On the one hand, Ryulong is an active vandal fighter and has worked hard to fix the mess they make, yet having seen some of the reasons in the Oppose section including the user's attitude towards new users, I have withdrawn my vote, favouring instead to sit on the fence.
3044:
I'm sorry for not assuming good faith myself there; I had no right to say you were 'trying to' do anything as I cannot read your mind. I was influenced by the fact that the recipient was a little kid. I still very strongly dislike the template and think you applied it unwisely. Just sorry about how I
249:
It was only recently (within the past week) that I had even put in anything related to an e-mail address into my preferences. I have not activated this, yet, because I am currently using my personal e-mail address (not a hotmail, gmail, yahoo, etc. account). If I can, I will change the e-mail address
2495:
Sorry, I know I've gotten a lot of good vandalism tips from you on #vandalism-en-wp, but at this point, given the concerns raised above, I feel it is best that your counter-vandalism actions be filtered through a current admin until you can demonstrate better judgement on how you would use the tools
2177:
Actually, I'm right in the situation -- but never you mind that, must help out your buddies right? Even if I were at fault here (I'm not, and you could already click on the link from all my sigs, no?), it still has no place in the adminship discussion. You can't simply attack critics. Whatever I do,
396:
are affecting the quality of
Knowledge. More admin's are needed to deal with the backlogs. The greatest threats to Knowledge are legal-- litigation has been brought or threatened because of libelous content added by vandals, notable subjects having articles about them removed as not notable, and use
3054:
That is all right. I have found out that the user(s?) is 11 years old, and that they are fairly good contributors to the project. It is just when a good portion of their contributions are focused in the user and user talk spaces, sending each other message along the lines of "Yo, let's be friends,"
2954:
As I stated earlier, I was not using the template to try to intimidate anyone off of the project. The users who I had given the messages to have a near equal balance of edits in the Main article space and the user and user talk spaces. They were utilizing
Knowledge more as a way to make friends and
1966:
I see you on IRC countervandalism channel, you do hard work at fighting vandalism. But, I'm afraid you too quick to want rangeblocks for long durations for petty vandalism, too quick to use the summary 'rvv' for all reverts, too quick to assume vandalism and bad faith. When I approached you about
720:
The user seems very competent, has a strong presence on both article and user talk pages (and I'm a big fan of admins who freely use talk pages), has been pegged as an excellent editor by many other editors (as judging from his user and talk pages), and has tons upon tons of edits. I see absolutely
426:
Viewing contribution data for user
Ryulong (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ) Time range: 17 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 7hr (UTC) -- 04, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 0hr (UTC) -- 18, July, 2006 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits:
387:
I am concerned, however, about oppose votes based on "0FA". I believe requiring a
Featured Article of RfA candidates is overly strict but does not accurately gauge their suitability to be admin's. It artificially raises the bar for their editing ability while not addressing suitability in the areas
2093:
per
Jaranda. I was under the impression that only an admin could review an unblock request, so Ryulong had no business reviewing the block. (Not stopping him leaving his own comment, but to replace the unblock template with the unblock reviewed template was very odd in my book. Especially when it
214:
Of the few editting conflicts I have been involved in, most of them have been due to my status as an RC Patroller, as well as some truthful vandal reverts that I had been temporarily blocked for due to 3RR. I have, and will continue to try and defer to others if necessary to prevent my breaking of
2909:
I find it to be a terrible template to use, unless directed towards someone who is, in fact, only using wikipedia as a myspace account. Towards someone who has been a regular editor for a few months, with 1000+ edits, I think it's totally inappropriate. I think the fact that both Cute 1 4 u and
1868:
incident is very disturbing. If he had the mop, I wonder when he would have blocked the anon user and for how long. How many potentially good editors has he turned away from
Knowledge? Looking at his Talk page, I see some other cases of shooting from the hip (reverting content changes). Large
2755:
edit summary). I have no problem with venting in the vandalism channels, as that's one of their functions -- to support each other during the fight. But when it spills onto
Knowledge it can be a problem. I do not doubt his intent, but being given admin tools may set the stage for more violent
1649:
Huge asset to counter-vandalism efforts; I will heartily encourage you, Ryu, to work on civility and AGF-ness, because some people have brought up good points in that regard. On the other hand, your effectiveness as a vandalfighter will be dramatically increased by the extra buttons, and I don't
3110:
Ive thought quite a bit about this one (thus the lateness in posting). Ryu demonstrates great tenacity in vandalism reverts and notification, however admins need to display a certain amount of diplomacy and civility above and beyond regular editors, by virtue of their access to the flamethrower
2357:
affair, coming on the heels as it does of the Emory affair, shows this user is not ready for adminship. It is another example of overly aggressive over reaction and mistaking a difference of opinion or ignorant error for vandalism. Instead of seeking a meeting of the minds, he tries to bludgeon
1369:
Ho-hum. I had been mentally mulling over (granted, I have a tendency to mentally mull things over without actually doing them...) a longish nomination for this user when I see I've been beaten to it. On the "rvv" thing: There are much worse crimes. I've seen it a few times, and it has sometimes
303:
I was not aware about voluntary recall/review, but if such a situation were to occur if I were to become an admin, I would not object to such a review. It would give me constructive criticism as to my (currently hypothetical) status as an admin and my faults as an editor, just as the various
169:, which I already browse every so often as part of counter-vandalism measures, as well as continue my work in the CVU IRC channel by dealing with unrepetant vandals that are alerted to users through the channel. I will also work in the various deletion discussions, particularly for pages on
345:. This is why I editted the main article and listed it as vandalism. Each time that I have falsely reverted someone, I have calmly apologized to them, and that can be seen in my archives. With the IP editor, I had no means to apologize, as as soon as he found the reversion, he proceeded to
1351:. I've worked with him in the past and found him to be a good, responsible editor, and a hard-working vandal-fighter (which is why I'm temporarily coming out of Wikibreak to support him). Also, I commend him for not mollycoddling those who come to Knowledge to destroy its integrity.
972:
beat me to it or I had a doubt and stopped. The other item marked by
Jaranda also concerns me. We are less WP Police than coaches. Knowledge is not a paper (or granite) encyclopedia. We can always change edits we don't like. We cannot bring back editors driven off by overly zealous
2955:
play games with each other as much as they were contributing to the project, including making "friend lists" and at least one user made an imposter account of a famous person (I'm not exactly sure of this practice on MySpace, but I do know that the same thing is done on Facebook;
2995:), which was proven through a checkuser. In fact, I have improved the template to make it an even softer warning than it was to begin with (WAvegetarian was once told that the warning was too soft before I asked him if I could modify it). The updated template can be found
340:
due to the sheer size and the alterations of what may be others' comments (several of the comments were not signed, and the IP editor had not made any edits on the page prior), and when he editted, again, I reverted the edits after Misza13's reversion because it was
3089:
I've tussled with this for days, and I can't decide. He's a terrific vandal fighter - no question. I've made my share of mistakes in reverting, particularly when I first started, so I know what that feels like. But I share Adam's concerns about premature blocks.
1978:
where you attack the anonymous editor for mistyping 'meet' into 'meat'. There's other stuff. Edit summaries, and lack of real project space edits, tagging images with fair use tags w/o also adding fair use rationales... I do not believe you are ready, Sorry.
2878:
I have never participated in a Request for Adminship discussion before, and I'm not sure exactly what the requirements for Adminship should be, so I won't be voting. However, I have myself observed what I found to be a potential problem with Ryulong. See
173:
that have been nominated for deletion, and may have been recreated by the original author (I have occasionally browsed through the AFD logs and searched for such links, and either contacted an administrator or listed the pages for speedy deletion under CSD
1097:
His dedication to this project speaks for itself. Although, he had made a few mistakes along the way (see the oppose comments), it is not right to view them in an exclusive manner. His positive contributions outweighs the negative edits considerably.
331:
explaining myself, and I have realized that I made that reversion due to edits made by the IP editor on the talk page, and I checked his edits in the article and I did not pay attention to the time frame. His edits at the talk page were originally
2110:
at this time for all of the above reasons, with no prejudice against supporting the user for a future adminship once he's a little more familiar with the system. I'm concerned by all of the whack-a-vandal admins we're trying to move up lately. --
2726:) is troubling, given the apparent good faith and earnesty of the anon, only to be crushed with a {{blatantvandal}} tag, or something of the like. I would call that biting the newbies. I also do not see any evidence of familiarity with policy.
2358:
others into obedience. His apologists do not help my confidence either. Rushing in their zeal to argue with oppose voters, they make me wonder if he seeks adminship more for their benefit than for that of Knowledge as a whole. Cheers.
2910:
whoever else you were warning got pissed off about the template demonstates my point. It may be that I'm wrong, though, and that I'm overreacting to this, I'll leave that for others here with more wikipedia experience to decide. --
1533:
This editor is a valuable part of the project; I'm confident that now or later, whenever this editor is given the mop and bucket, it'll be a net gain for Knowledge. The opposition votes seem overly picky. Give this editor a mop!
2250:, in his/her own mind, intends to reduce the quality of WP. Just posting something many would disagree with is not vandalism. After you show understanding of this issue for a couple of months, I would support the nomination. We
352:
on my user talk page, accusing me of vandalism, when the entire issue was a content dispute that elevated into a personal attack war on which I did not retaliate. The only comment I made to him after my original warning was an
215:
any rules. There have been some users that have caused me a bit of stress, but to relieve my stress, I have used methods of calming myself, such as taking short wikibreaks to calm myself with music and other stress relievers.
2443:
per Ral315, and other diffs above. He's doing valuable vandal-fighting, but I'd like to see a slightly more civil tone than I see in some of those edits. I would support in two or three months if there are no recurrences;
2094:
states that the block has been reviewed by an admin. Other things brought up - especially with regard to the attitude to newbies also worry me. I will consider supporting a few months time if you change your attitude.
1967:
AGF on some newer users, you (and I still not sure how much you were joking) stated that you prefer to assume bad faith. You've stated on IRC you hate newbies. There's too much biting on the newbies. You need to get
1557:
Active vandal-fighter and helpful in patrolling edits on a wide variety of articles. Often I'll go away from a page briefly intending to come back and fix it after a short break, only to find he's already done what I'd
1869:
volume anti-vandalism probably does that to you -- but administrators need to be able to step back. In addition, I have also seen an instance of what appears to be making up rules (anonymous users and user pages).
3031:, we would constantly find their games. I decided that the template could be introduced to these two first, as they were focusing on "GUESS MY NAME" contests between each other on their user talk pages (along with
2535:
He is well intentioned, but I know the user on IRC. He is a little quick to make judgement calls on blocking to give to admins, when blocks aren't merited. I think, if given the tools, some unjust blocks could be
1971:
more good faith and wikiettique toward people who make newbie mistakes. Rethink how wiki treats its newer users, who aren't accustomed to policy, and do want to help, but make otherwise silly mistakes. Example:
2372:
don't think he is ready yet, my own experience is of being rather too quick of the mark, requests for page protections and blocks which are in my view premature even if they sometimes ultimately prove right.
2178:
it still doesn't take away the fact that this user acts on his friends' influence, doesn't contact the user he exerts force on, and did not, until I pointed it out today, know a very simple userpage policy.
2017:. The diff. shows that the nom is not well acclimated to Knowledge culture and does not fully understand how to implement policies and guidelines. Also the nom does not have their Knowledge email activated.
3055:
and making a subpage that is specified and named as a chatroom (that may have been a different user, but still in the same boat as the users I sent the messages to) is going against one of the precepts of
2341:
That, on top of the aforementioned incivility tips me to oppose. Editor needs to tone it down a bit and develop a more urbane approach. Please note my comments under my stricken "suport" vote. Thanks
3021:
WAvegetarian showed this myspace warning template at the bootcamp IRC channel. When I saw the actions of the users through the constant conversation at the bootcamp channel and their extreme use of
2187:
Why are you accusing me of helping out my "buddies", I simply gave the link so other users can see the situation. For someone who has "Knowledge sucks" as a userpage and has edit summaries like
2775:
per most of the oppose votes. Maybe he could unlearn some newbie-biting habbits while an admin, but maybe a good month of using more good faith and more non-vandal patrolling would be better.
2683:
per the comments above and the incidents reported by Jaranda (above) and Xyzzyplugh (below). These leave me with an uncomfortable feeling about providing this nominee with the extra tools.
2402:, which states that "one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request." He was not an administrator, and in my opinion, he needs a bit more time before he becomes one.
2744:
Great vandalfighter. We're frequently on IRC at the same time and his dedication to keeping vandalism off of Knowledge is strong. My only concern is that I've witnessed him being both
1498:
Most of Ryulong's edits that I've personally witnessed have been AFD contributions and RC patrolling, and have mostly indicated to me that the contributor will be a responsible admin. —
375:
I had asked some of the admins in the IRC channels at one point if it was all right to deny unblock requests of blatant vandals that had been indefblocked, and it was said that I could.
2388:. Not only Jaranda's worries about it being 3RR instead of Vandalism, and thus an unblock might have been okay in some circumstances, but importantly, the fact that non-admins should
902:
917:
Requests for adminship/Ryulong is a dedicated, hard working wikipedian that has shown me sound judgement, I have no problems in supporting him, the diff's in oppose fail to sway me
2303:
per basically all of the above diffs. I'm concerned about the newbie-biting, I really don't want an admin doing that. Maybe in a few months if the civility problems are resolved.
208:
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
2059:
an unnecessarily harsh warning, even though the user had already been warned for the same incident. These kinds of things are appearing to occur too often for my comfort. --
2797:
per opposition thoughts. Looks like a promising frontline vandal fighter, but could do with a few months of higher levels of civility before being trusted with the tools. —
803:
194:
to keep the pages in as good a condition so that one day they can be perhaps Good Articles, instead of fan forums or fan pages. I am also proud of my contribution to
1975:, they didn't know. They may not even know the history exists. And if they did, they'd likely be driven off by you telling them to go back to their fanforum. Here,
2554:
2121:
132:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
3130:
2822:. Numbers are impressive, history as vandal-fighter shows heart in the right place. But, I can not support when incivility raises its head. If you can convince
2210:, and its policies are different. Removing warnings and messages indiscriminately from your talk page without archiving them is not permitted; there's even a
3148:
1764:
I know of an unnamed admin who RfA'd one and a half months after joining the project and who is currently a well respected member of the MopSquad.... :D -
2648:
Oh... Is it necessary that admins or people wanting to be an admin have or work on a featured article? Or is it just a really odd Support/Oppose criterion?
92:
2892:
I am not sure if it is right or wrong to reply, but I was not suggesting that Cute 1 4 u were to leave Knowledge. I was using a template devised by
2149:
The nominee did not know the user page policies. I believe that it should be taken for granted that any nominee would know the MOST basic policies.
148:
2392:
be denying unblocking. The confusion over 3RR/Vandalism was one good reason why admins should handle this, not to mention the actual wording of
2191:, I think it's important to give users links to any situations that are occuring so they can make their own decision whether to support or not.--
2158:
Looks like the user was warning you for removing warnings from your talk page, and it carried on for a while. Looks like it is still occuring,
2666:
250:
associated with it to the one I have through school (which instead will redirect to my personal mailbox so I will be able to reply easily).
2575:
851:
3111:(block) together with the mop. If in the coming short-term Ryu demonstrates a bit of mellowing, I'd be glad to support his next RfA. --
2291:. An excellent editor, but one who needs to work on civility some more. Not everyone who makes a bad edit does so out of assholishness.
3100:
2569:
964:
step back from confrontation and be a little less quick on the draw-- or to condemn. I was RCPatrolling at the time and almost tagged
960:, I believe the edits were questionable but not quite vandalism, and that the situation escalated beyond reason. I would suggest that
1737:
was worriesome, as he never did vandalism, instead he was blocked for 3rr content dispute. I don't see any vandalism from edits like
1084:
1792:
Sorry, I guess I don't follow. Which edits? Ryulong has been here 6 months, or are you talking about something else? Thanks! -
2597:
30:
17:
3008:
It's a bit better but I still don't like it. Was there a community consensus to introduce this template? Also, what happened to
2202:
Indeed: You appear to have indicated that you do not want any messages on your talk page, and have blanked it repeatedly. Your
1513:
231:
Your Knowledge email account is not activated. Why? Will you activate so that users can contact you regarding admins issues?
95:. Ryulong has demonstrated a clear need for the mop, and has given no reason to suggest that he would misuse it in any way.
1940:
s for non-vandalistic edits stick in my craw. I could be convinced to change my !vote, if there was a good reason, though.--
76:
2523:
1614:
1433:
195:
2696:
1861:
1204:
448:
811:
I've seen this user often on RC patrol and I believe the extra buttons will allow him to become much more productive
198:
so that finally their ʻokina can be viewed by all users, Internet Explorer editors, FireFox editors, and Mac editors.
1451:
issue well. A few mistakes are inevitable for a dedicated RC patroller, given the blur that RC edits can become. --
2988:
2976:
1875:
436:
140:
2996:
2463:
2328:
1398:
1360:
1161:
1123:
1030:
295:
184:
Of your articles or contributions to Knowledge, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
84:
2764:
2514:
2292:
847:
144:
2945:
per misuse of that template to try and intimidate someone off the project, and other concerns listed above. --
2138:
I'm assuming the main reason your opposing is because of the dispute you had with the user on your userpage.--
812:
1287:
3098:
2670:
2640:
2457:
2359:
2342:
2014:
1980:
1683:
1538:
1242:
1157:
974:
621:- Recent good experience with this user, his/her thoughtful consideration of an issue changed my opinion. -
398:
80:
2801:
2419:
per FloNight and Ral315. Editor cannot yet be trusted to follow wiki-process, and always to enforce NPOV.
2354:
2179:
2161:
2150:
2130:
2777:
2621:
2613:
2563:
2483:
1213:
1132:
409:
191:
88:
2639:
Featured article. Miborovsky seems to be saying that only those with a Featured Article should be admins.
821:
1080:
832:
328:
3129:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
3091:
2616:
1447:
Strong RC patrolling record; appears able to handle things in a calm manner. Seems to be handling the
965:
941:
933:
1075:
1067:
757:. I find the nominee's explanation of the Emory diff satisfactory, I don't see him abusing the tools.
2984:
2880:
2593:
2519:
2477:
2316:
1695:
1448:
1387:
1375:
1178:
1019:
678:
2456:
constructive criticism: please remember to think twice before reverting as potential vandalism. --
1606:- a very friendly, reliable and consistant editor. Wiki would benefit from Ryulong getting the mop.
283:
3115:
3102:
3071:
3049:
3039:
3016:
3003:
2992:
2949:
2937:
2914:
2904:
2887:
2870:
2858:
2842:
2830:
2812:
2789:
2767:
2761:
2730:
2727:
2707:
2687:
2673:
2652:
2643:
2634:
2625:
2602:
2581:
2545:
2527:
2504:
2490:
2467:
2448:
2435:
2423:
2411:
2377:
2362:
2345:
2333:
2307:
2295:
2283:
2272:
2258:
2222:
2207:
2197:
2182:
2172:
2153:
2144:
2133:
2117:
2102:
2085:
2073:
2039:
2027:
1994:
1983:
1958:
1946:
1919:
1916:
1907:
1895:
1892:
1883:
1846:
1827:
1804:
1787:
1776:
1746:
1719:
1698:
1686:
1674:
1666:
1654:
1641:
1637:
1620:
1590:
1577:
1562:
1549:
1525:
1506:
1490:
1478:
1466:
1455:
1439:
1415:
1403:
1392:
1378:
1364:
1343:
1323:
1311:
1295:
1275:
1263:
1233:
1216:
1195:
1181:
1164:
1148:
1136:
1111:
1100:
1089:
1070:
1058:
1035:
1024:
1013:
1002:
991:
977:
921:
909:
893:
867:
855:
844:
835:
823:
788:
761:
747:
725:
692:
662:
656:
633:
612:
421:
401:
379:
367:
308:
298:
254:
241:
121:
108:
2211:
1782:
1741:
937:
3060:
2757:
2445:
2278:
2206:
is in fact the page for other users to communicate with you; it is distinctly seperate from your
2025:
1800:
1772:
1608:
1546:
1475:
1427:
1320:
1109:
988:
796:
782:
629:
239:
1586:- Keep up the good work against vandals! With the right tools, they won't know what's hit them!
671:
59:
3063:(although I am unsure as to whether or not the guidelines set there includes what goes on user
1915:. I think that you need a little more time to learn how to identify vandalism accurately. --
2972:
2964:
2893:
2665:
opinion. I think you should judge for yourself. You might want to look at the conversation at
2558:
2193:
2168:
2140:
2098:
1990:
1785:
1744:
1209:
1201:
1191:
1128:
1120:
1009:
605:
101:
70:
2699:
is pretty important to Knowledge, and it looks as though this user clobbered a newbie in the
2700:
2407:
2396:
2061:
1955:
1865:
1834:
1651:
1559:
1487:
1229:
1172:
He deserves to be an admin. dedicates himself to hard work on Knowledge for becoming admin.
945:
701:
875:
for reasons of my own, though I'd like to suggest being careful with that block button. :)
3025:
2932:
2911:
2884:
2867:
2745:
2704:
2589:
2537:
2219:
1671:
1663:
1587:
1452:
1371:
1173:
1046:
758:
744:
735:
722:
685:
2339:
Switch to oppose. I find it irksome when a candidate's apologists "debate" oppose voters.
930:
Switch to oppose. I find it irksome when a candidate's apologists "debate" oppose voters.
2113:
2968:
2960:
2839:
2749:
2432:
2203:
2082:
2036:
1904:
1633:
1574:
1499:
1340:
885:
642:
602:
98:
2553:
for his use of the F-bomb in an edit summary. A similar scenario was discussed in the
2214:
for warning users about this, which Ryulong correctly used in your case. I'd suggest
831:
per nom. Couldnt find anything I'd disagree with. Contributes pretty much everywhere.
3142:
3056:
3032:
3009:
2897:
2851:
2684:
2267:
2243:
2018:
1941:
1822:
1793:
1765:
1543:
1535:
1356:
1305:
1292:
1284:
1249:
1105:
999:
906:
864:
777:
622:
393:
389:
357:
291:
232:
226:
170:
162:
158:
2315:
Sorry, but just on my rather short observations, I don't feel this editor is ready.
1988:
If that's the worst difs you can come up with, then I think you are over reacting.--
286:
I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++
3112:
3068:
3046:
3036:
3013:
3000:
2980:
2946:
2901:
2649:
2631:
2255:
2242:
due to fresh improper rvv use, per above Oppose diffs. Please review our policies.
2095:
1752:
1716:
1599:
969:
961:
705:
432:
376:
364:
337:
305:
251:
166:
118:
66:
1521:
843:
I've seen you around and you're a great editor. You'd be even better as an admin.
2827:
2806:
2798:
2403:
2304:
1474:
Already a valuable contributor, Ryulong's potential as an admin is extensive. --
1412:
1225:
1145:
1119:
Only positive interactions with this user, plus he has four time my edit count!
139:
What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out
3123:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
2927:
2420:
1781:
I mean too new as not experinced enough yet. Those edits are from 2 days ago.
1707:
1463:
1256:
918:
190:
I am particularly pleased with my contributions to the various articles about
1144:
I have seen this user's diligence and hard work and support this nomination.
2823:
2497:
2035:
as per TedE and the Emory University diff. Too recent an incident. Sorry. --
1870:
1571:
1332:
879:
957:
1189:, reasons under oppose don't make me think the user will be a bad admin.--
2374:
2047:
In addition to the Emory University incident, I noticed that the nominee
1352:
1272:
771:
287:
272:
1045:. Maybe he can sleep when he becomes an admin...I hope. Excellent user.
2956:
1891:
I'm going to have to oppose given the all-too-recent Emory U incident.
2266:
Not good awnsers to the questions, and also per above. Maybe later. --
2254:
need vandalism fighters and thank you for the effort - don't give up!
385:
Comment-- I've already switched my vote once, so I'll not do it again.
260:
I have now enabled e-mail from other users. 20:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
3133:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
1751:
Too new? Your points are valid, but he has been here six months. —
2218:
read up on Knowledge policies and etiquette, MonsterOfTheLake. --
1650:
believe I've ever seen you !admin for a bad block. Good luck. :)
734:. Seems to be a well rounded editor with clear uses for the mop.
2055:
is the correct term to use) and then a whole five minutes later
1421:
2850:
Very actiuve vandalfigther but oppose votes raise concern. --
1682:
very dedicated editor, i believe he will make a great admin.
115:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
388:
of containing vandalism, *fD, or copyright. The backlogs in
1821:
used far too much, and for things that are not vandalism.--
721:
no reason Ryulong could not and should not be an admin. --
3035:
that they have been warned for, and blocked for as well).
2667:
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Requirements_for_RfA
1809:
Jaranda's got a point: the second link's edit summary is
1066:, good vandal fighter, editor, will make a good admin. --
343:
another large edit as well as removals of others comments
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
2753:
2724:
2386:
2188:
2056:
2048:
2011:
2009:
2006:
1976:
1973:
1738:
1735:
953:
741:
349:
346:
342:
333:
2431:
as per Ral315, and diffs supplied by tariqabjotu, etc
1224:, meets my requirements, and everyone makes mistakes.
2896:
to be given to users who treat Knowledge more like a
1486:
I have seen him at work shows he is a valuable user
700:(2x edit conflict) – will not abuse the tools. See
1734:active vandal fighter but too new in my opinion
2752:during intense bouts of vandalism against him (
2129:per apparent lack of knowledge of basic rules.
1156:Good user; admin powers will be in good hands
987:- great vandal fighter and a dedicated editor
2351:Comment to more fully explain my vote change.
2246:generally occurs when the editor clearly and
743:. I will wait to see how this RFA plays out.
8:
809:Hrm, thought he was already an admin Support
3045:expressed myself there. I wish you well. --
2760:and pretend the ogres are vandals. =) --
1817:vandalism, a big pet peeve of mine; I see
1936:on the vandalism-reporting boards... but
1832:The edits he's refering to are above. --
442:
948:affair could have been handled better.
740:Withdrawing my vote based on this diff
93:Knowledge:Pokémon Collaborative Project
2898:social networking site such as Myspace
670:Impressive numbers! Gladly support. --
7:
1932:vandal-fighter, and I see your name
3149:Unsuccessful requests for adminship
363:warning after the capslock tirade.
3059:and what is against the policy of
1740:nither. I'll support in 3 months.
1283:ticks all my boxes! A solid user.
1007:True Wikiholics don't sleep. ;) --
932:based on edit count and time meet
24:
3061:what is not allowed on user pages
2959:went to UM for a few months, and
2013:and other points made by Ted and
769:per my experiences with the user.
157:I would assist in the reports at
2963:still does, and he also goes to
2049:reverted this piece of vandalism
1598:
1520:
1425:- Friendly editor, experienced.
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
2723:The above-referenced incident (
2081:based on various oppose diffs.
1018:Sleep is for weak people. :) -→
901:per nom and consistent with my
327:: I have recently commented on
1200:I doubt he'd abuse the tools,
1:
997:Does this user ever sleep????
451:at 19:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
149:administrators' reading list
2881:User_talk:Cute_1_4_u#A_note
1720:21:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
934:User:Dlohcierekim#Standards
435:'s edit summary usage with
128:Questions for the candidate
3165:
3116:18:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
3103:23:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
3072:02:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
3050:02:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
3040:01:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
3017:01:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
3004:00:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
2989:University of Pennsylvania
2977:Louisiana State University
2950:00:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
2938:14:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
2915:00:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
2905:23:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
2888:23:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
2871:21:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
2859:14:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
2843:04:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
2831:16:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2826:then I'll change my vote.
2813:11:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2790:07:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2768:21:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
2731:21:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
2708:22:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
2688:17:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
2674:04:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
2653:00:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
2644:00:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
2635:23:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
2626:23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
2603:22:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
2546:14:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
2528:06:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
2505:01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
2491:14:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
2468:06:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
2449:22:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
2436:21:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
2424:16:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
2412:03:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
2378:16:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
2363:11:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
2346:14:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
2334:11:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
2308:06:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
2296:02:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
2284:23:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2259:20:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2223:12:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
2198:12:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
2183:02:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
2173:17:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2154:17:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2145:17:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2134:17:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2122:15:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2103:14:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2086:13:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2074:13:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2040:12:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
2028:12:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1995:09:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1984:05:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1959:05:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1947:04:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1920:03:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1908:03:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1896:03:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1884:01:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1847:02:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1828:22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
1805:21:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
1788:21:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
1777:21:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
1747:21:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
1699:02:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1687:01:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1675:22:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
1655:01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
1642:00:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
1621:00:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1591:21:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1578:17:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1563:14:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1550:06:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1526:02:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1491:01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1479:18:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
1467:10:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
1456:10:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
1440:07:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
1416:06:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
1404:05:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
1379:03:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
1365:01:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
1344:23:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1324:23:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1312:20:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1296:15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1276:11:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1264:11:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1234:10:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1217:09:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1196:09:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1182:06:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1165:05:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1149:04:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1137:04:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1112:03:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1090:02:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1059:01:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1036:05:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
1014:12:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1003:01:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
992:00:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
978:00:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
922:23:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
910:22:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
894:21:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
868:21:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
856:21:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
836:21:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
824:21:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
804:21:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
789:20:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
762:20:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
748:22:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
738:20:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
726:20:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
693:20:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
663:20:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
634:20:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
613:20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
422:07:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
402:13:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
380:03:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
368:05:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
309:23:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
299:18:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
255:20:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
242:13:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
143:, and read the page about
141:Category:Knowledge backlog
122:20:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
117:I accept this nomination.
109:19:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
2385:per Emory and especially
1860:. Fails WP:civility and
1694:active vandal fighter. --
1422:Adult Fan of Lego Support
1336:
445:
85:Category:Xiaolin Showdown
3126:Please do not modify it.
2838:Very unsure from above.
2166:for more info on this.--
936:. However, I agree with
40:Please do not modify it.
2695:per above complaints -
484:20:12, 6 February 2006
271:Optional question from
81:Category:City of Heroes
3033:actual rule violations
1943:Firsfron of Ronchester
1903:per the Emery U diff.
1824:Firsfron of Ronchester
958:User_talk:68.221.59.61
465:Distinct pages edited
89:Category:Power Rangers
3057:what Knowledge is not
2355:User:MonsterOfTheLake
1632:He'll be a good one.
1133:(The people rejoice!)
954:68.221.59.61 Contribs
641:Looks great to me. --
31:request for adminship
2985:Newstead Wood School
2607:High edit count but
1862:WP:assume good faith
1759:21:22, 03 August '06
1715:Impressive record.--
712:20:47, 03 August '06
2993:American University
2697:assuming good faith
473:Average edits/page
196:WikiProject Hawaiʻi
2551:Unfortunate Oppose
1813:when it's clearly
1684:Wikipediarules2221
952:- After reviewing
787:
755:Reaffirmed support
2973:Purdue University
2965:Dartmouth College
2601:
2526:
2512:per Ral's diff -
2466:
2164:talk page history
2100:
2072:
1845:
1797:
1769:
1241:take the mop :P —
1135:
966:User:68.221.59.61
942:User:68.221.59.61
770:
626:
592:
591:
329:Emory's talk page
3156:
3128:
3096:
3030:
3024:
2935:
2856:
2804:
2786:
2783:
2780:
2701:Emory University
2619:
2587:
2584:
2579:
2543:
2540:
2518:
2502:
2489:
2486:
2480:
2462:
2401:
2395:
2331:
2326:
2322:
2319:
2281:
2275:
2270:
2196:
2180:MonsterOfTheLake
2171:
2162:MonsterOfTheLake
2151:MonsterOfTheLake
2143:
2131:MonsterOfTheLake
2099:
2070:
2067:
2064:
2023:
2005:per these diffs
1993:
1944:
1880:
1879:
1866:Emory University
1843:
1840:
1837:
1825:
1795:
1767:
1760:
1755:
1669:
1617:
1611:
1602:
1541:
1524:
1518:
1511:
1504:
1436:
1430:
1401:
1395:
1390:
1338:
1310:
1308:
1290:
1261:
1254:
1247:
1207:
1194:
1131:
1126:
1108:
1103:
1073:
1056:
1051:
1033:
1027:
1022:
1012:
946:Emory University
888:
882:
833:SynergeticMaggot
819:
818:
801:
785:
780:
774:
713:
708:
690:
683:
676:
650:
624:
610:
608:
447:Edit count from
443:
418:
415:
412:
407:Last 5000 edits.
362:
356:
237:
106:
104:
55:Final (54/35/12)
42:
3164:
3163:
3159:
3158:
3157:
3155:
3154:
3153:
3139:
3138:
3137:
3131:this nomination
3124:
3092:
3028:
3022:
2933:
2852:
2816:
2802:
2784:
2781:
2778:
2734:Moved to Oppose
2671::) Dlohcierekim
2641::) Dlohcierekim
2617:
2582:
2561:
2541:
2538:
2498:
2484:
2478:
2476:
2399:
2393:
2360::) Dlohcierekim
2343::) Dlohcierekim
2329:
2324:
2320:
2317:
2279:
2273:
2268:
2192:
2167:
2139:
2065:
2062:
2019:
1989:
1942:
1882:
1877:
1876:
1838:
1835:
1823:
1761:
1758:
1753:
1667:
1615:
1609:
1555:Strong Support.
1539:
1514:
1507:
1500:
1449:User:YourCousin
1434:
1428:
1399:
1393:
1389:Buchanan-Hermit
1388:
1331:. As per nom.
1306:
1304:
1288:
1257:
1250:
1243:
1205:
1190:
1124:
1101:
1099:
1088:
1071:
1052:
1047:
1031:
1025:
1021:Buchanan-Hermit
1020:
1008:
975::) Dlohcierekim
968:myself. Either
886:
880:
814:
813:
797:
783:
778:
772:
714:
711:
706:
686:
679:
672:
661:
646:
615:— as nominator.
606:
601:
577:Knowledge talk
529:MediaWiki talk
428:
416:
413:
410:
399::) Dlohcierekim
360:
354:
233:
102:
97:
52:
38:
35:did not succeed
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3162:
3160:
3152:
3151:
3141:
3140:
3136:
3135:
3119:
3118:
3105:
3094:Baseball,Baby!
3084:
3083:
3082:
3081:
3080:
3079:
3078:
3077:
3076:
3075:
3074:
2969:Boston College
2961:Mahatma Gandhi
2940:
2921:
2920:
2919:
2918:
2917:
2873:
2861:
2845:
2833:
2817:
2815:
2809:
2792:
2770:
2738:
2737:
2736:
2735:
2728:AdamBiswanger1
2721:Strong neutral
2715:
2711:
2710:
2690:
2678:
2677:
2676:
2659:
2658:
2657:
2656:
2655:
2605:
2548:
2530:
2507:
2493:
2470:
2451:
2438:
2426:
2414:
2380:
2367:
2366:
2365:
2353:I believe the
2336:
2310:
2298:
2286:
2261:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2227:
2226:
2225:
2124:
2105:
2088:
2076:
2042:
2030:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1961:
1954:Per above. --
1949:
1922:
1917:JamesTeterenko
1910:
1898:
1893:AdamBiswanger1
1886:
1874:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1830:
1779:
1762:
1757:
1728:
1727:
1723:
1722:
1710:
1701:
1689:
1677:
1657:
1644:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1595:
1565:
1552:
1528:
1493:
1484:Strong support
1481:
1472:Strong support
1469:
1458:
1445:Strong support
1442:
1418:
1406:
1381:
1367:
1349:Strong Support
1346:
1326:
1314:
1298:
1278:
1266:
1236:
1219:
1198:
1184:
1167:
1151:
1139:
1114:
1095:Strong Support
1092:
1078:
1061:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1016:
994:
985:Strong support
982:
981:
980:
915:Strong support
912:
896:
870:
858:
838:
826:
806:
791:
767:Strong Support
764:
752:
751:
750:
718:Strong support
715:
710:
695:
665:
655:
636:
616:
597:
596:
590:
589:
586:
582:
581:
578:
574:
573:
570:
566:
565:
562:
561:Category talk
558:
557:
554:
550:
549:
546:
545:Template talk
542:
541:
538:
534:
533:
530:
526:
525:
522:
518:
517:
514:
510:
509:
506:
502:
501:
498:
494:
493:
490:
486:
485:
482:
478:
477:
474:
470:
469:
466:
462:
461:
458:
454:
453:
441:
440:
437:mathbot's tool
425:
405:
404:
382:
370:
321:
320:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
267:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
229:
219:
218:
217:
216:
202:
201:
200:
199:
178:
177:
176:
175:
145:administrators
130:
129:
125:
124:
51:
46:
45:
44:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3161:
3150:
3147:
3146:
3144:
3134:
3132:
3127:
3121:
3120:
3117:
3114:
3109:
3106:
3104:
3101:
3099:
3097:
3095:
3088:
3085:
3073:
3070:
3066:
3062:
3058:
3053:
3052:
3051:
3048:
3043:
3042:
3041:
3038:
3034:
3027:
3020:
3019:
3018:
3015:
3011:
3007:
3006:
3005:
3002:
2998:
2994:
2990:
2986:
2982:
2978:
2974:
2970:
2966:
2962:
2958:
2953:
2952:
2951:
2948:
2944:
2941:
2939:
2936:
2931:
2930:
2925:
2922:
2916:
2913:
2908:
2907:
2906:
2903:
2899:
2895:
2891:
2890:
2889:
2886:
2882:
2877:
2874:
2872:
2869:
2865:
2862:
2860:
2857:
2855:
2849:
2846:
2844:
2841:
2837:
2834:
2832:
2829:
2825:
2821:
2818:
2814:
2811:
2808:
2805:
2800:
2796:
2793:
2791:
2788:
2787:
2774:
2771:
2769:
2766:
2763:
2759:
2754:
2751:
2747:
2743:
2740:
2739:
2733:
2732:
2729:
2725:
2722:
2718:
2717:
2716:
2713:
2712:
2709:
2706:
2702:
2698:
2694:
2691:
2689:
2686:
2682:
2679:
2675:
2672:
2668:
2664:
2661:Well, I have
2660:
2654:
2651:
2647:
2646:
2645:
2642:
2638:
2637:
2636:
2633:
2629:
2628:
2627:
2624:
2623:
2620:
2615:
2610:
2606:
2604:
2599:
2595:
2591:
2586:
2577:
2574:
2571:
2568:
2565:
2560:
2556:
2552:
2549:
2547:
2544:
2534:
2531:
2529:
2525:
2521:
2517:
2516:
2511:
2508:
2506:
2503:
2501:
2496:yourself. --
2494:
2492:
2487:
2481:
2474:
2471:
2469:
2465:
2461:
2460:
2455:
2452:
2450:
2447:
2446:Mike Christie
2442:
2439:
2437:
2434:
2430:
2427:
2425:
2422:
2418:
2415:
2413:
2409:
2405:
2398:
2391:
2387:
2384:
2381:
2379:
2376:
2371:
2368:
2364:
2361:
2356:
2352:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2344:
2340:
2337:
2335:
2332:
2323:
2314:
2311:
2309:
2306:
2302:
2299:
2297:
2294:
2290:
2289:Polite oppose
2287:
2285:
2282:
2276:
2271:
2265:
2262:
2260:
2257:
2253:
2249:
2248:intentionally
2245:
2241:
2238:
2224:
2221:
2217:
2213:
2209:
2205:
2201:
2200:
2199:
2195:
2190:
2186:
2185:
2184:
2181:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2170:
2165:
2163:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2152:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2142:
2137:
2136:
2135:
2132:
2128:
2127:Strong oppose
2125:
2123:
2120:
2119:
2115:
2109:
2108:Strong oppose
2106:
2104:
2101:
2097:
2092:
2089:
2087:
2084:
2080:
2077:
2075:
2069:
2068:
2058:
2057:gave the user
2054:
2050:
2046:
2043:
2041:
2038:
2034:
2031:
2029:
2026:
2024:
2022:
2016:
2012:
2010:
2007:
2004:
2000:
1996:
1992:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1982:
1977:
1974:
1970:
1965:
1964:Strong Oppose
1962:
1960:
1957:
1953:
1950:
1948:
1945:
1939:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1921:
1918:
1914:
1911:
1909:
1906:
1902:
1899:
1897:
1894:
1890:
1887:
1885:
1881:
1878:Contributions
1872:
1867:
1863:
1859:
1856:
1848:
1842:
1841:
1831:
1829:
1826:
1820:
1816:
1812:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1786:
1784:
1780:
1778:
1774:
1770:
1763:
1756:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1745:
1743:
1739:
1736:
1733:
1730:
1729:
1725:
1724:
1721:
1718:
1714:
1711:
1709:
1705:
1702:
1700:
1697:
1693:
1690:
1688:
1685:
1681:
1678:
1676:
1673:
1670:
1665:
1661:
1658:
1656:
1653:
1648:
1645:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1628:
1623:
1622:
1619:
1618:
1616:Daniel.Bryant
1612:
1605:
1601:
1596:
1593:
1592:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1576:
1573:
1569:
1566:
1564:
1561:
1556:
1553:
1551:
1548:
1545:
1542:
1537:
1532:
1531:Full support.
1529:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1517:
1512:
1510:
1505:
1503:
1497:
1494:
1492:
1489:
1485:
1482:
1480:
1477:
1476:Gray Porpoise
1473:
1470:
1468:
1465:
1462:
1459:
1457:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1443:
1441:
1438:
1437:
1435:Daniel.Bryant
1431:
1424:
1423:
1419:
1417:
1414:
1410:
1407:
1405:
1402:
1396:
1391:
1385:
1382:
1380:
1377:
1373:
1368:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1347:
1345:
1342:
1334:
1330:
1327:
1325:
1322:
1321:Mailer Diablo
1318:
1315:
1313:
1309:
1302:
1299:
1297:
1294:
1291:
1286:
1282:
1279:
1277:
1274:
1270:
1267:
1265:
1262:
1260:
1255:
1253:
1248:
1246:
1240:
1237:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1220:
1218:
1215:
1214:
1211:
1208:
1203:
1199:
1197:
1193:
1188:
1185:
1183:
1180:
1177:
1176:
1171:
1168:
1166:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1152:
1150:
1147:
1143:
1140:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1127:
1122:
1118:
1115:
1113:
1110:
1107:
1104:
1096:
1093:
1091:
1086:
1082:
1077:
1074:
1069:
1065:
1062:
1060:
1057:
1055:
1050:
1044:
1041:
1037:
1034:
1028:
1023:
1017:
1015:
1011:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1001:
998:
995:
993:
990:
986:
983:
979:
976:
973:RCPatrolling.
971:
967:
963:
959:
955:
951:
947:
943:
939:
935:
931:
929:
925:
924:
923:
920:
916:
913:
911:
908:
904:
900:
897:
895:
892:
891:
889:
883:
874:
871:
869:
866:
862:
859:
857:
853:
849:
846:
842:
839:
837:
834:
830:
827:
825:
822:
820:
817:
810:
807:
805:
802:
800:
795:
792:
790:
786:
781:
775:
768:
765:
763:
760:
756:
753:
749:
746:
742:
739:
737:
733:
729:
728:
727:
724:
719:
716:
709:
703:
699:
696:
694:
691:
689:
684:
682:
677:
675:
669:
666:
664:
660:
659:
654:
653:
649:
645:
640:
637:
635:
631:
627:
620:
617:
614:
611:
609:
604:
599:
598:
594:
593:
587:
584:
583:
579:
576:
575:
571:
568:
567:
563:
560:
559:
555:
552:
551:
547:
544:
543:
539:
536:
535:
531:
528:
527:
523:
520:
519:
515:
512:
511:
507:
504:
503:
499:
496:
495:
491:
488:
487:
483:
480:
479:
475:
472:
471:
467:
464:
463:
459:
456:
455:
452:
450:
444:
438:
434:
430:
429:
424:
423:
420:
419:
403:
400:
395:
391:
386:
383:
381:
378:
374:
371:
369:
366:
359:
351:
348:
344:
339:
335:
330:
326:
323:
322:
318:
317:
310:
307:
302:
301:
300:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
278:
277:
276:
274:
269:
268:
261:
258:
257:
256:
253:
248:
245:
244:
243:
240:
238:
236:
230:
228:
224:
221:
220:
213:
210:
209:
207:
204:
203:
197:
193:
192:Power Rangers
189:
186:
185:
183:
180:
179:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
153:
152:
150:
146:
142:
138:
135:
134:
133:
127:
126:
123:
120:
116:
113:
112:
111:
110:
107:
105:
100:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
75:
72:
68:
64:
63:
61:
58:Ended 20:20,
56:
50:
47:
43:
41:
36:
32:
27:
26:
19:
3125:
3122:
3107:
3093:
3086:
3064:
2981:Bard College
2942:
2928:
2923:
2894:WAvegetarian
2875:
2863:
2853:
2847:
2835:
2819:
2794:
2776:
2772:
2741:
2720:
2719:
2703:incident. -
2692:
2680:
2662:
2612:
2608:
2572:
2566:
2559:HighwayCello
2550:
2533:Mild oppose.
2532:
2515:CrazyRussian
2513:
2509:
2499:
2472:
2458:
2453:
2440:
2428:
2416:
2389:
2382:
2369:
2350:
2338:
2312:
2300:
2288:
2263:
2251:
2247:
2239:
2215:
2159:
2126:
2112:
2107:
2090:
2078:
2060:
2052:
2044:
2032:
2020:
2002:
1968:
1963:
1951:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1928:. You are a
1925:
1912:
1900:
1888:
1857:
1833:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1731:
1712:
1706:as per nom.
1703:
1691:
1679:
1659:
1646:
1629:
1607:
1603:
1597:
1583:
1582:
1575:(talk to me)
1567:
1554:
1530:
1515:
1508:
1501:
1495:
1483:
1471:
1460:
1444:
1426:
1420:
1408:
1383:
1348:
1328:
1316:
1300:
1280:
1268:
1258:
1251:
1244:
1238:
1221:
1212:
1186:
1174:
1169:
1153:
1141:
1116:
1094:
1063:
1053:
1048:
1042:
996:
984:
970:User:Ryulong
962:User:Ryulong
949:
938:User:Jaranda
928:Weak support
927:
926:
914:
898:
877:
876:
872:
860:
840:
828:
815:
808:
799:Rama's arrow
798:
793:
766:
754:
731:
730:
717:
702:my standards
697:
687:
680:
673:
667:
657:
651:
647:
643:
638:
618:
600:
457:Total edits
446:
408:
406:
384:
372:
324:
279:
270:
259:
246:
234:
222:
211:
205:
187:
181:
154:
136:
131:
114:
96:
73:
65:
57:
54:
53:
48:
39:
34:
28:
2758:Sauerbraten
2441:Weak Oppose
2264:Mild Oppose
2001:Sorry must
1956:Masssiveego
1652:Luna Santin
1560:Rosicrucian
1558:intended.--
1488:Betacommand
863:per nom. --
658:Talk to me!
481:First edit
223:Question 4.
2912:Xyzzyplugh
2885:Xyzzyplugh
2868:Wikiwoohoo
2705:Bootstoots
2630:"FA"? o_O
2555:recent RFA
2479:Aguerriero
2220:Emufarmers
2071:(joturner)
2015:Kevin_b_er
1981:Kevin_b_er
1924:Reluctant
1844:(joturner)
1696:physicq210
1588:Wikiwoohoo
1453:Emufarmers
1303:per nom! —
1175:*~Daniel~*
759:Themindset
745:Themindset
736:Themindset
723:Kicking222
569:Knowledge
513:User talk
347:personally
60:2006-08-10
2840:Attic Owl
2500:Cyde Weys
2433:Pete.Hurd
2244:Vandalism
2208:user page
2204:talk page
2083:Lapinmies
2053:vandalism
2037:T. Moitie
1905:Kimchi.sg
1634:rootology
1624:Duplicate
1610:Killfest2
1594:Duplicate
1429:Killfest2
989:abakharev
940:that the
903:standards
816:hoopydink
603:digital_m
553:Category
537:Template
350:attack me
99:digital_m
3143:Category
3067:pages).
2854:Pilotguy
2685:Agent 86
2669:. Cheers
2611:? :( --
2598:contribs
2594:messages
2580:. --Slgr
2570:contribs
2212:template
2021:FloNight
1664:DarthVad
1647:Support.
1307:Khoikhoi
1117:Support.
1085:Contribs
1000:Crazynas
334:reverted
319:Comments
235:FloNight
227:FloNight
147:and the
77:contribs
3108:Neutral
3087:Neutral
3069:Ryūlóng
3047:Guinnog
3037:Ryūlóng
3014:Guinnog
3001:Ryūlóng
2957:Aquaman
2947:Guinnog
2943:Neutral
2924:Neutral
2902:Ryūlóng
2876:Neutral
2864:Neutral
2848:Neutral
2836:Neutral
2820:Neutral
2795:Neutral
2773:Neutral
2746:uncivil
2742:Neutral
2714:Neutral
2650:Ryūlóng
2632:Ryūlóng
2536:made.--
2397:unblock
2256:Crum375
2096:Viridae
1864:. The
1796:HAIRBOY
1783:Jaranda
1768:HAIRBOY
1754:FireFox
1742:Jaranda
1717:Runcorn
1713:Support
1704:Support
1692:Support
1680:Support
1660:Support
1630:Support
1604:Support
1584:Support
1568:Support
1496:Support
1461:Support
1409:Support
1384:Support
1329:Supprt'
1317:Support
1301:Support
1281:Support
1269:Support
1239:Support
1222:Support
1187:Support
1170:Support
1154:Support
1146:Michael
1142:Support
1106:iva1979
1076:nce Ong
1064:Support
1043:Support
950:Comment
899:Support
878:~Kylu (
873:Support
861:Support
841:Support
829:Support
794:Support
732:Support
707:FireFox
698:Support
668:Support
639:Support
625:HAIRBOY
619:Support
595:Support
585:Portal
433:Ryulong
377:Ryūlóng
373:Comment
365:Ryūlóng
338:Misza13
325:Comment
306:Ryūlóng
252:Ryūlóng
119:Ryūlóng
67:Ryulong
49:Ryulong
3026:helpme
3010:WP:AGF
2991:, and
2934:(talk)
2828:Ifnord
2765:(talk)
2750:uncool
2693:Oppose
2681:Oppose
2614:Миборо
2539:Kungfu
2473:Oppose
2454:Oppose
2429:oppose
2417:Oppose
2404:Ral315
2383:Oppose
2370:Oppose
2313:Oppose
2305:BryanG
2301:Oppose
2277:Zach|
2240:Oppose
2091:Oppose
2079:Oppose
2066:abjotu
2045:Oppose
2033:Oppose
2003:Oppose
1952:Oppose
1926:Oppose
1913:Oppose
1901:Oppose
1889:Oppose
1858:Oppose
1839:abjotu
1732:Oppose
1726:Oppose
1536:JDoorj
1413:Tawker
1226:Stifle
1162:(Talk)
1129:rbil10
521:Image
476:2.973
460:11456
394:WP:DRV
390:WP:AFD
247:Answer
171:WP:AFD
165:, and
163:WP:ANI
159:WP:AIV
91:, and
2929:Srose
2779:Voice
2762:Chris
2585:ndson
2576:count
2557:for
2524:email
2459:Samir
2421:Xoloz
2194:Andeh
2169:Andeh
2141:Andeh
2063:tariq
1991:Andeh
1969:a lot
1934:often
1930:great
1836:tariq
1708:Kitia
1509:Chico
1464:MER-C
1192:Andeh
1158:Brian
1121:RyanG
1054:Chimp
1049:alpha
1010:Andeh
919:Benon
865:Shane
644:Mr. L
516:1857
505:User
497:Talk
492:7202
489:Main
468:3853
449:Tool2
411:Voice
167:WP:AN
62:(UTC)
33:that
16:<
3065:talk
3012:? --
2997:here
2799:Xyra
2782:-of-
2748:and
2622:ский
2609:0 FA
2590:page
2564:talk
2542:Adam
2520:talk
2485:talk
2464:धर्म
2408:talk
2330:talk
2280:talk
2269:Wiki
2189:this
2160:See
2118:blis
2051:(if
1572:CFIF
1547:Talk
1386:. -→
1341:Talk
1333:Sukh
1319:. -
1293:Halo
1230:talk
1210:hway
1081:Chat
956:and
704:. —
572:711
540:260
524:345
508:228
500:711
431:See
414:-of-
392:and
358:npa4
284:wonk
174:G4).
71:talk
3113:Avi
2824:Ted
2785:All
2390:not
2375:pgk
2216:you
2114:nae
1938:rvv
1871:Ted
1819:rvv
1815:not
1811:rvv
1411:--
1353:jgp
1337:ਸੁਖ
1273:Deb
1068:Ter
907:Joe
905:.
845:Roy
652:fty
580:70
556:31
548:35
417:All
336:by
288:Lar
273:Lar
225:by
3145::
3029:}}
3023:{{
2999:.
2987:,
2983:,
2979:,
2975:,
2971:,
2967:,
2810:/
2663:my
2596:-
2592:-
2410:)
2400:}}
2394:{{
2373:--
2327:|
2293:DS
2252:do
2008:,
1803:)
1775:)
1662:.
1640:)
1570:--
1516:24
1502:NM
1400:?!
1374:|
1372:SB
1363:)
1339:|
1335:|
1285:Th
1271:.
1259:un
1252:in
1232:)
1206:ig
1160:|
1098:--
1083:|
1032:?!
944:-
890:)
854:.
688:pm
674:Tu
632:)
588:2
564:2
532:2
361:}}
355:{{
290::
280:5.
212:A:
206:3.
188:A:
182:2.
161:,
155:A:
151:.
137:1.
87:,
83:,
37:.
2807:l
2803:e
2618:в
2600:)
2588:(
2583:@
2578:)
2573:·
2567:·
2562:(
2522:/
2510:O
2488:)
2482:(
2406:(
2325:S
2321:O
2318:K
2274:e
2116:'
1873:/
1801:☎
1799:(
1794:C
1773:☎
1771:(
1766:C
1672:r
1668:e
1638:T
1636:(
1613:—
1544:m
1540:a
1432:—
1397:/
1394:™
1376:T
1361:C
1359:|
1357:T
1355:(
1289:ε
1245:M
1228:(
1202:H
1179:☎
1125:e
1102:S
1087:)
1079:(
1072:e
1029:/
1026:™
887:t
884:|
881:u
852:A
850:.
848:A
784:e
779:H
776:.
773:G
681:s
648:e
630:☎
628:(
623:C
607:e
439:.
296:c
294:/
292:t
275::
103:e
74:·
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.