72:) - I would like to be an admin. I'm dismayed with the current atmosphere of RfA, where it looks like users that would be good candidates are too afraid of the gauntlet to self-nominate. Increasingly, self-nominations are limited to users too inexperienced to know better than to go for it. I figure, if I can't pass RfA now, I probably never will, since mistakes and breakdowns in judgment tend to stick, and I'm bound to make occasional mistakes as I have before. But if I don't pass, it won't greatly inconvenience me. I'd like to be evaluated based on what I have done on Knowledge, not what I haven't. If I am given the sysop bit, I don't expect my editing patterns to change very much. I would occasionally deal with deleting (or saving) expired PRODs, move duplicate images to Commons, and merge page histories. I think I am also sufficiently experienced to be judicious about protection and de-protection, and the occasional speedy deletion of the most obviously inappropriate content. If I branch out to other tasks, I will go slowly and learn how to do things right. The reason I would like to have the tools is to help meet the tool needs of new users who edit in my areas of interest, and to clean up after my students when I assign them editing tasks (especially when they inevitably put up inappropriately non-free images). I am not going to answer the standard optional questions, as I think RfA should be a less intense process.
2560:. This editor may well be a fine candidate, and I understand the questions are optional. But the current process expects the candidate to answer questions to enable other users to understand the candidate's background and intentions, especially for a self-nom. Evaluators are busy people and need to be guided to a candidate's strong as well as weak points. One can only read a few of an editor's thousands of edits, and those few are likely not to contain either the biggest strengths or the biggest warning signs. Candidates and nominators should understand and work with us on this. The current process, for better or for worse, makes us dependent on the questions. Suggest proposing reform in the appropriate place and/or attempting to convince the relevant bureaucrats to support a different method for a particular RfA;
3135:, one of our younger editors. Tomer T has been going around, nominating numerous articles he/she's not involved with at FAC. Also nominating numerous featured pictures, which is less of an issue. Generally speaking, you are only supposed to nominate one article at a time to FAC and help address FAC objections. The nominations are certainly well intentioned, but so many at a time and on articles you are not working on might be seen as somewhat disruptive. Ragesoss handles the FAC nomination with utmost courtesy, whereas other editors may have not reacted as such. I think this situation demonstrates how Ragesoss handles situations where "other users caused him stress" and "how have he deals with it." --
2418:
of a candidate. Unless the whole closely-knitted group is a bunch of bad apples (in which case, that would be noticed and would prompt closer scrutiny by others), I don't see making RfA a little less of an open season as a bad thing. As others have noted above and elsewhere, examples of conflict self-selected by the editor are not the greatest litmus test; only the more forthright and thoughtful editors will put their worst face forward, while those who will be worse candidates will look better than they should. It doesn't take 50-100 people to figure out if someone will be a problem admin (unless those people are just basing their !votes on what they read within the RfA itself).--
2132:. I know there is some leeway in interpreting what counts as disrupting Knowledge, so I'll just say that it is not my intent to cause a disruption and I don't think I have. I don't consider my not answering optional questions to be ignoring either policy or process. Just the opposite, in fact; opposing solely for failing to answer optional questions ignores the explicit optionality of this particular element of process. That's fine. I think these opposes are within the realm of making a point without making a WP:POINT, though obviously I disagree with that point. You think admin standards should be higher whereas I think they should be lower.--
394:. I was reconsidering even before Frise's thoughtful remark to me. Quoting myself below, I've known Sage for many months, and I've always been most impressed by his hard work, his proven expertise, his will to help and his politeness and courtesy. I can attest for each and every of the many qualities that he has repeatedly shown, and not merely from observing his work on wiki, but also from reading his thoughts at his blogs. In whole truth, my desire to see the usual procedural steps followed is, in this particular case, clearly outweighed by my knowledge of the candidate, and my absolute belief in his trustworthiness.
3208:; a simple review of his contributions shows he invests, and has invested quite a lot of effort for a long time in coordinating this Project. I understand that your endorsement policy seeks that administrators show experience with editing content and engagement in the collaborative process; don't you think that, despite lacking explicit endorsement from said WikiProject, Sage has shown your desired requirements? Again, I'm not disputing your !vote, but only bringing special circumstances that maybe you're not aware of to your attention for further scrutiny. Regards,
2400:(and yes I have been around for a long time and have a couple of edits or so) and who therefore simply cannot easily determine the candidate's demeanour in the case of conflict as posed by Question 3. That is not to say that the user is not a good wikipedian but it is to say that as a potential admin the candidate should make the effort to help us reach our verdict on his candidature and his point of view. After all if Sageross succeeds that will become part of his new task in the future ... won't it?--
2176:
stated right from the beginning why I choose not to answer them, and others are expressing that they disagree with that decision. The common idea that admin candidates should jump through whatever hoops are set for them, answering as many questions as other editors feel like asking, is (in my view) a big part of what is broken about RfA. No one wants to be put on trial/run through the gauntlet/placed before the firing squad/weighed against a feather/ for something that is supposed to be no big deal.--
716:. The many neutrals should think about whether it's more important to know the quality of a candidate by doing the research into contributions, or reflecting on past interactions with the candidate, and reflecting on the judgement of others, or whether it's more important that the candidate match certain rigid mathematical criteria, answer certain questions directly and in a prescribed format, rather than answer them by their actions and contributions and opening remarks,
1571:- If "optional questions" means "questions you have to answer in order to have a successful RfA", then "optional" needs to be changed to "mandatory". I prefer to think that "optional" means "candidates can answer these in order to help his/her chances, if he/she wants to". In this case, seeing absolutely no reasons given by anyone to oppose the candidate, other than this "optional" question issue, and a lot of positive comments, I'm supporting the RfA. --
1965:. It's been a long time since I've seen so many comments in opposition to a candidate being so mis-aligned with the goal of building an encyclopedia. Luckily most people relied on core issues. This candidate has years of edit history to look at wether he is trustworthy enough. Not only that, but he explained why he was not going to answer the questions. Kudos to Ragesoss for not giving in to such hoop jumpery. -
1441:. Ragesoss has been a superlative editor, improving several articles in her field of expertise up to Featured Article standard. She has created innovative ways to get university students involved in editing Knowledge. In the course of a lengthy conflict with another disruptive editor on articles which we both were editing, she has always shown a cool head and offered wise advice at working through disputes. --
2643:. Choosing not to answer the optional questions may be a little disconcerting, and I was ready to let the candidate's actions speak for themselves in this regard and support the nomination. The failure to answer questions posed by other editors, however, rubs me the wrong way - I find it impossible to support someone who fails to answer people's honest questions as to why they should support them.
3099:(switch to oppose, see above) while lacking an answer to Q3 as above. It would be good to hear from the candidate in their own words about any edit disputes or problems with other editors - or if there have been none, then to simply state as much, but knowing a candidate's take on their own interactions with other editors means a lot in deciding whether someone should be an admin.
1676:, and sometimes answers help to demonstrate whether a candidate meets the standard. There are rare exceptions; users that have clearly demonstrated trustworthiness and good judgment and that have edited prolifically enough that I happen to have interacted with them or noticed their editing. That is the case with this RfA, and I'm happy to support on that basis. ·
1045:, no concerns. It has been argued that failure to answer the questions makes it impossible to fully evaluate the candidate, but every edit the candidate has made is available for review. It would seem to me that this is enough for any reasonable person to conduct a satisfactory investigation, and it is not clear what the answers to the three
1429:. There is nothing wrong with a candidate trying to make some process experiments (e.g. w.r.t. the optional questions) in his own application for adminship. I don't perceive that it violates any consensus if he does so. IMHO it would not have hurt him to answer the optional questions, but I think his record is strong enough without them.
3369:
I choose not to engage in a voting system since RfA is supposed to be a consensus garnering system, which is very poorly served by voting. Please do not construe this commentary as "support", "oppose" or "neutral" since it is none of those. I find the opposition to this RfA based on lack of answering
2691:
due to failure to answer questions. I'm all for RfA being less intense, but not answering the questions indicates to me an attitude that is not respectful towards the community, and we have far too many admins with that problem already. I'd be happy to withdraw my vote if the questions were answered,
2453:
Stated baldly, that's somewhere between the slanderous and the ridiculous. Could you please set out precisely, step by step, how not answering all "optional" questions makes him likely to abuse the tools, and precisely (with working please) what abuses you expect follow from this? Else your objection
2412:
I see it as a moderate and growing problem that editors are so scared of the unpleasantness of RfA that they are waiting longer and longer (if ever) before they feel they are ready for the ordeal. Having a less intense trial-by-question process (i.e., having RfA participants expect a little less out
2331:
Wow, where to begin. Firstly, before posting my "oppose", I had done my research into the candidate and had reached the conclusion that I would have supported him were it not for what I perceive to be his incivility. So, before accusing me of laziness, perhaps you might like to read in full what I've
2175:
If any specific concerns or questions about my editing come up, I will probably address them. But I don't see much difference between not answering the optional questions to begin with, and still not answering them after editors point out that I didn't answer them. I'm not ignoring the inquiries; I
853:
I am partial to those that do things a little differently. In my short time following RfAs it is apparent that the cookie cutter questions usually receive cookie cutter, uninteresting answers. An honest, and open ended statement and remarkable contribution history is much more telling that a series
290:
About answering
Question no. 3 - most candidates would want to show themselves on their best behaviour, so they (in the few RfA's that I have seen) almost always mention incidents where they are really nice / their behaviour is justified. And it ultimately falls upon the "voters" to dig up 'dirt', if
3374:
questions to be rather ludicrous and stands in no way as an impediment to being an adminstrator. In fact, quite the contrary. I believe the nominee's attitude with regards to RfA is appropriate. He's been here more than two years and never been blocked. On the surface, he seems trustworthy. I'm open
2624:
If that is your question (by the way, it is mine as well), you are more than welcome to use it. But, please don't present as fact your personal opinions as to what is or is not famously or infamously relevant or irrelevant. Also, it is quite clear from the statement
Tellyaddict's statement that that
2576:
I cannot support someone who refuses to answer the standard questions, it makes it seem like you are skipping the hard part, therefore leading me to believe you may jump to decisions and conclusions without actually knowing what your doing and this could have bad effects say for deleting articles, I
2417:
the RfA) would be a positive step. If there are specific concerns about the specific candidate, that's one thing. But the community has grown so large that one can be known by a large group of
Wikipedians that will be quite capable of giving enough commentary one way or another to get a clear view
2336:
bullying, then I must assume that you do not understand the term's meaning or throw it around too lightly. Have I posted anything on his talk page? Have I attempted to contact him in any way outside of this RfA? Have I challenged any of the "support"s above? In fact, have I done anything other than
1001:
I trust Sage and have seen really good work from this user. Inevitably active editors need to protect and delete certain pages to improve the encyclopedia. As described above, Sage definitely needs the tools to improve wikipedia. I have no problem with this user not answering the questions, I read
2498:
Please read GRBerry's comment in full. His objection is clearly not that
Ragesoss hasn't answered the questions. Rather, it is that Ragesoss is "not answering questions specifically posed to him", i.e., he is ignoring fellow editors. The connection between the likelihood to abuse the tools and the
2097:
I consider the questions to be very important. They are not "stupid" at all. Even though the candidate answered question 1 in the statement, question 3 is still very important, as it hightlights what conflicts the user has been in. I have seen the outcomes of RfA's be decided on the answers to the
794:
Ragesoss is always calm and thoughtful, obviously trustworthy. I also support the choice to avoid the cookie-cutter questions, to remind people that there has always been a significant segment of the community that dislikes their use. For those who persist in thinking such things are required as a
2165:
I will likely withdraw my opposition if the questions are answered. In reviewing
Ragesoss' contributions history, I found nothing that would make me oppose his candidacy under normal circumstances. However, not answering other editors' questions is a dealbreaker for me. Irrespective of any other
2151:
support a user whom I haven't or can't fully evaluate, and in this case, the restriction is caused by the candidate himself. The "strong" part of my oppose comes from this: the candidate has been indirectly asked to answer the questions (see the comments above), yet still has not done so. If the
2118:
and if this user wants to just shrug off the important aspects of an RFA how will he perform when he has to be the arbiter of policy and process as an administrator? Jumping through hoops sucks but going that extra mile to prove yourself when asking the community for its support and trust is not
1416:
I find this user to be reasonable and willing to discuss issues rather than pull pistols. Although I think that RfA should not be taken lightly, the prosecution/persecution of Danny brings to light the potential for abuse. I don't absolutely agree with ignoring the questions, but I respect the
462:
Per Ral315 - why the hell not? If he feels he doesn't want to answer the questions, he doesn't have to. His mature nomination shows someone who I trust not to abuse the tools, and pretty much contains everything I would want from the answers to the questions. Until someone shows he a convincing
302:
Has shown great initiative in ignoring the stupid questions. No substantive reasons seem to have emerged to deny the broom to this fellow. I support this fellow's nomination, but I disagree with the format which makes this nomination look like a vote, so I'm not going to add my opinion to the
3430:
I don't know Mr
Ragesoss very well, nor have I paid attention to what he has done previously, so I don't feel like voting in this Rfa. However I agree with what Mr Ragesoss said that the questions are optional. They are here for us to understand him better, if there are something about him the
2317:
Of course you have the option of voting against anyone for any reason. You do not however, have the option to try to force someone to pick up a support vote by doing something they aren't required to. Good for
Ragesoss for standing up to such bullying. And heaven forbid you have to do your own
2293:
Indeed. Holy process wonkery. Do people not understand the meaning of optional? All this acting like the answers are a requirement for a support sure makes me think so. It's
Request for adminship, not an Inquest for adminship. OMG Back in the old days, there weren't questions at all. Should we
2146:
per using one's personal RfA as a platform for reforming RfA. How is this relevant to adminship? Well, for one thing, admins should generally follow established processes. Also, given the lack of answers to the questions, my ability to evaluate the candidate is somewhat restricted. I will
1671:
the user for adminship, but not the refusal to answer questions. I have no doubt
Ragesoss will be a fine admin. That said, I disagree with refusing to answer questions because one believes RfA should be "less intense". Slightly pointy, even if defensible. On that point, remember that
291:
there is any. So it comes down to assuming good faith and trusting the candidate in both cases. The three questions serve only one purpose : its a way to assess the 'attitude' of the candidate. That is served as well by a statement by the candidate (as in this self nom). Just my opinion.
835:
This user clearly thinks long and hard about what will be best for
Knowledge, and I believe his actions show that he is also willing to act in a way that he believes is best for Knowledge. He's courteous, smart, hard working, and I see absolutely no reason why he shouldn't have the mop.
2476:
No, it's to the point. The objection says: not answering the questions means he will abuse the tools. I still want to know how the first follows from the second. It's apparently ridiculous and does indeed verge on the slanderous. But I'm sure GRBerry can explain himself just fine ... -
2214:
Now, as noted above, my criticism does not extend to your quality as an editor. However, I will oppose any admin candidate who does not show the basic courtesy of replying to questions by other editors in the absence of a damn good justification (such as protecting one's identity). --
1852:
Seems competent for the task. And I agree completely that RfA is broken. We're talking about unpaid janitorial work, not standing for godhood. Knowledge should either take Jimbo's instruction that "adminship is no big deal" seriously or simply rename RfA to "Assume Bad Faith".
3435:, why don't we take silence as his answer to those questions? If, after considering the fact that he refuses to answer the questions, users still support him, then he should be granted sysop access per consensus. After all, I believe one's action speaks more than his words.--
2337:
post my opinion and reply to his reply to my post? Thirdly, as much as the candidate has the option to ignore other editors, I also have the option to oppose his candidacy for that reason. Lastly, "force"? I seem to be missing the part where there's any forcing going on. --
2348:
Yes, and bureaucrats have the option of ignoring irrelevant opposition reasons, particularly when the people giving them take the trouble to detail just how irrelevant they are to the question: "Is there some actual danger to giving this person the sysop bit?" Thankfully -
2860:- You've done some excellent edit work - I checked - and you've been largely courteous with others, far as I can see. I've no idea how you are on policy matters and administrivia, though. Could you possibly answer the three questions, so I could have something to go on? -
1404:-- although admittedly I know Sage almost entirely thru his blog. (He exceeds the minimum qualifications, so why oppose?) I would suggest that he answer questions 2 & 3; it never hurts to reveal more about oneself, & Knowledge is growing ever more impersonal. --
807:
On your userpage: "I'm married to an astrophysicist-turned-medical student, and we have three cats together." You realize that sounds a little funny...! I just have the overall impression that you intend only good things for Knowledge and you won't cause any trouble.
2499:
attitude displayed by this candidate (i.e., finding it perfectly acceptable to ignore inquiries by other editors) should be rather obvious. If he ignores editors now, it doesn't require a stretch of the imagination to think he will do so in the future (as a sysop). --
2665:. Although optional questions are optional, I do not feel comfortable supporting a candidate who is unwilling to do so. Admins are often called upon to explain their administrative actions. An unwillingness now suggests an attitude that I'm not comfortable with.
3188:
I've known Sage for some time, mainly from reading his blog. He seems sensible and would probably make a decent admin. I am, however, withholding support per my endorsement policy. I especially applaud his refusal to answer the (quite stupid) standard questions.
695:
by someone else who wasn't involved in editing the article. I realize they didn't notify you, and the nomination took you by surprise. Nonetheless, you did a superb job handling the situation and addressing FAC objections, ultimately with the article passing FAC.
2937:. I've known Sage for many months, and I've always been most impressed by his hard work, his proven expertise, his will to help and his politeness and courtesy. That's why I eagerly await for the questions to be answered before moving to a well-deserved support.
2098:
questions, especially to 3. Question 2 isn't quite as important as the others, but I am still curious as to what the candidate believes their best edits to be. If the candidate can at least answer question 3, I would be more than willing to change my opinion.
2894:
Ummm ... to clarify here, seeing as things seem to be hotting up. I know the answers to the stock questions are optional & that's not a problem for me. It's just that we've not crossed paths before and I'm genuinely at sea over the 'conflict' issue. What
2205:
address all three questions (especially #3) and your continued refusal to do so makes my "oppose" inevitable. If you don't think adminship is a big deal, you are welcome to apply that principle to others' RfAs. But, I cannot appreciate your doing the same to
2152:
issue was the "indirect" manner of the requests, then I'll do it directly: please consider the questions as if I (or some other editor) has posted them and answer them. I don't exactly have a problem with candidates who don't answer the optional questions. I
2075:. I'm sorry but no. RfA is not about whether you can find enough friends on Knowledge to vouch for you. People are genuinely interested in participating even though they might not know you so well and it's only natural for you to help them with that process.
1379:
In all fairness, there is no decent reason to oppose this user. The questions are indeed optional. However, I am still of the opinion that the outcome of an RfA can be decided over a candidates' answers to the questions, though I admit, this is an exception.
3046:
In fact, I don't mind if the candidate chooses not to answer q3, but would appreciate if he could provide (somewhere on the RfA page) a brief overview of his past conflicts/disputes, if any. If the answer is satisfactory, I will obviously change to Support.
3375:
to and would like to see diffs or negative commentary regarding this candidate based on something other than lack of answering the questions, and lack of perceived need of tools (which is utterly irrelevant to whether someone should be an admin or not). --
2374:
questions - I can determine that Question 1 is adequately answered in the self-nomination paragraph; Question 2 is easily determined by looking at the candidate's user page; and whilst Question 3 is dismissed by the candidate's comment as detailed by
1892:
The questions are optional; I don't think there is a risk of abuse, rather this user has understood that they are optional and proceeded not to answer them. While I'm sure Ragesoss knew it wouldn't do him any favours, he persisted with something that
1588:
I've been watching this for a few days, and the reasoning the candidate has provided for not answering the standard questions is sufficient to convince me that they have the proper judgement and reasoning necessary to adeqautely perform admin duties.
2307:
The candidate has the 'option' of ignoring the standard questions and also of ignoring questions posed by editors, so I don't see why editors should be crucified for exercising their 'option' to oppose a candidate who chooses to ignore them. Cheers,
3203:
Dear Kelly, regardless of my personal opinion, I completely respect your endorsement policy, so it's not my intention to discuss that with you. But I merely want to bring to your attention that Sage pretty much is the driving force behind the
1977:(changed from oppose) Although answering the questions would have provided a standard form of information, this candidate is trustworthy and has been doing a good job. Additionally, I am satisfied with the candidate's self-nom statement.--
2193:
a big deal. In general, I believe that if someone asks you a question in good faith, whether it is at RfA, an article talk page, or your user page, it is only civil to reply. I do not want to debate whether your actions constitute a
3151:
I looked over the FAC review you provided. It looks like the candidate worked exceptionally hard there. Although I still don't think it answers q3, I'm going to move to support on the basis of a clear record of good contributions.
2625:
is not the sole reason for opposing. In fact, given the exact phrasing of the comment, Tellyaddict has not directly stated that "need for tools" was part of her decision calculus. It may just be a secondary observation. Cheers,
2523:) has involved the notion of contempt. That said, I think our conversation on the talk page has made it abundantly clear that our understanding of the concepts of "civility" and "courtesy" are irreconcilably different. Cheers,
338:
I don't mind the latest grub about questions not being answered. I spent the last half hour looking over the contributions, and they match the self-nom reasons, so I support. It's about the candidate, not the format.
771:. I know the user's record well enough to support this RfA regardless of how he answers the questions (unless he plans on using his adminship powers to establish a totalitarian regime or to take candy from babies).
744:
answer the questions, just to be polite to his fellow users; but, he is excellent otherwise. I support his adminship even if he chooses to be a bit odd about the questions; but, that choice does weaken my support.
3016:. Question 1 is answered in the nominating statement and Question 2 is trivial, but I need Question 3 to be answered before I can evaluate this candidate. Otherwise, a near-perfect candidate, as far as I can tell.
2446:
Not answering template questions is one thing, not answering questions specifically posed to him is another. Editor is displaying an attitude that makes me think they are likely to abuse the tools in the future.
2210:
RfA, especially to the point of stating that it is acceptable for candidates to ignore questions that "other editors feel like asking". The wording you use, "feel like asking", itself comes off rather arrogant and
1673:
931:. Glad you finally gave in to pressure. Would have liked to co-nom, but with me being away and all, no hard feelings! Just be prepared that some people will assume you're evil just because you have a badge. :)
613:
Experience is more than adequate, relations other editors good, the important bits of the questions are answered in the nom. Everyone with any sense just copies answers posted by succeeding candidates anyway!--
3128:
Q2 - This is one FA that he has been a major contributor to, making the extra effort for it to pass FAC. It exemplifies some of his best contributions, though there are numerous other "best" contributions.
2113:
While policy and process can at times be ignored in the most obvious of instances where doing so achieves the same outcome as would otherwise happen this is not one of them. This is a request made to make
1793:
A little too much grandstanding but will be a good admin regardless. Main reservation is candidate's possible lack of experience in conflict-ridden editing areas but that shows more sense than those who
1311:
Candidate's contributions look good. I agree that RfA should be less intense for the candidates; I don't think not answering the optional questions has much to do with that but won't hold it against you.
143:
The candidate has kindly put a personal response to my concern over his lack of answering this question at my talk page to which I have responded - particularly in relation to the second part of Question
1454:. While I think the optional questions were mostly answered in the nom statement, I think it would be good for the candidate to provide more information by answering them (per several others above). ···
1113:
as answers to questions not given, so almost anything could move me to oppose. While not answering is unprecedented, it is also not seen as a good idea. Understands content policy, as demonstrated by
2185:
There is a difference. Not answering the optional questions to begin with means you're ignoring precedent, but that isn't a big deal since the questions are optional and editors are encouraged to be
1501:- switched from neutral. I admire this candidate taking the difficult road of choosing an unorthodox RfA and, having seen various comments on talk pages, I agree with his rationale that RfA should
1505:
be a trial of fire. However, regarding Q3, I'm satisfied now for two reasons; the answer he provided on VirtualSteve's talk page and the dialog leading up to that is pretty clear-cut ...
2370:
I am not a stickler for procedure however my !vote requires more than a positive but rebellious nature & statement to sway my support towards a candidate. Thus, regarding the three
2564:
has been particularly open to reform proposals lately. I'd be happy to reconsider this nomination if the questions are answered or if an alternative approach is bureaucrat-sponsered. --
2071:. It's one thing to choose not to answer optional questions. It's quite different though to not do so when being asked nicely by a bunch of people and with the goal of proving a point.
1278:
2797:
Changed to support. I apologize for not properly weighing this candidate's potential, experience and trustworthiness, and thank Majorly and U.S.A. above for pointing out my misstep.--
1742:
352:
Addendum: Candidate may choose to answer the optional questions, which may result in an oppose as I did with TonyTheTiger. I feel the questions were answered in the self-nomination.
2510:
Let's face it. It's a singularly fatuous line of reasoning and the overwhelming majority of those involved in this discussion are treating it with the contempt that it deserves. --
869:(moved from neutral) - I would prefer for q3 to be answered, but given this candidate's long record of competent contributions, I don't think that's a good enough reason to oppose.
3384:
I completely agree. There seems to be a healthy lack of substantive opposes here, which, if they don't realize it, only serves to demonstrate why vote counting would bea bad idea.
3122:
2519:
I've noticed that most editors so far have disagreed with the argument or considered it insufficient reason to oppose, but I do not see that anyone other than you (and perhaps
1810:. The rebellious gesture against this dubious process (RfA) is understandable (and long overdue). But still, I think you should answer the questions posed by other editors.
171:
What other processes do you think should be changed, and how (or if) would you change them if promoted? (e.g. Would you closed xFD's that didn't follow the normal format?) —
955:
491:
absolutely, from your nomination I can understand that you are a dedicated and level-headed Wikipedian, and, most importantly, trustworthy and wise enough for the tools. —
209:
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?
132:
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?
95:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge as an administrator. You may wish to answer a few optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
3454:
656:- Many and consistent contribs over a long period of time. Quality. In lieu of Q2 & Q3, I looked at user page and talk page. Looks like a fine admin to me.
266:
2978:
Y'know what? You're right. My knowledge of the candidate is more than enough to clear any possible doubts that could come from leaving the questions unanswered.
2294:
de-admin those who just made candidate statements? Grow up people. How is it being above the rules to not do something that is clearly stated as being optional?
1717:?" swayed me. The candidate gives me no reason to believe they are not receptive to feedback or would do "very bad things" with the tools. Give 'em the bit.
634:
To delete the image once moved, rather than have to tag it for deletion and wait for someone else to do it, would be my guess. That's what I do anyway. ++
3472:
1509:, as I suspected, as this tricky RfA progresses, he has maintained his cool while being steadfast yet rational in his answers. And that speaks volumes -
1213:: While I would've liked to see what the user had to say for the questions investigation of the user showed no problems. Should be a fine administrator.
187:
I'm not sure what this has to do with adminship; the sysop bit just means access to certain tools, not extra authority in creating or changing process.--
1253:
answer the standard form questions. This candidate has the relevant experience and the trust of those who have interacted with him. That satisfies me.
1693:
You have given us very little information with which to make an informed decision here, but I did look at your user page and saw this little tidbit:
720:. Everyone is entitled to use whatever criteria they choose to, of course, but I'm entitled to think that some criteria are not as good as others. ++
3205:
2757:
1746:
1197:
1115:
3318:
Actually (shock, horror) contirbutes to articles instead of hanging around AfD like most of nominations, but why won't the answer the questions...
625:- per no big deal. Don't fully understand about requiring extra buttons to move images to the commons, but otherwise a reasonable enough self-nom.
2318:
research into whether a candidate is qualified or not rather than have a bunch of predetermined cookie cutter answers laid out for you. Laziness.
1729:. Seems like a knowledgeable user; no reason not to grant adminship. And thank you for not spamming this page with a useless Q&A session! --
2233:
of anyone who will not answer the questions. It conveys an attitude of being above the rules and that's a bad thing for an admin to have. --
2730:
Husond, I'm really surprised and disappointed to read this. I'd not expect someone I respect as much as you to not look beyond the RfA page.
382:
I trust this user with the tools, and see no problem with the questions, they've been answered to my satisfaction in the self-nom statement.
1275:
2073:"Whether I pass or fail should be determined based on people who are familiar enough with my editing to make to make an informed decision"
683:
I really thought you were already an admin. Had I known you weren't, I would gladly nominate. Your contributions have been excellent in
2581:
or other things which suggest you dont need the tools, one does not need them to help other wikipedians, unless it comes to blocking etc.
2198:, but will note that in the time it took you to reply to me and NeoFreak above, you could just as easily have replied to the questions.
1118:. A little to prone to thinking RfA is a vote; I found both edit summaries saying already voted and bare votes in my limited review.
1064:, I see no issues, and that includes the questions. I see no indication he'll abuse or misuse the tools, and that's really all I care.
2398:
Sageross therefore dismisses the hundreds of potentially valid !voters such as myself that have simply never come across the candidate
2156:
have a problem with candidates who don't answer questions from editors. That is hardly the attitude I'd like to see in an admin. --
1159:
I did my research. I looked through his contributions. He says what he wants to do. Even if there are problems I have missed, I'm
3342:
The "questions" issue. I'm not clear that the candidate has really explained why they need the demotion to administrator status.
1944:
questions. :) Really I can't see how this user has any real problems, and since adminship is no big deal you have my support. ——
670:
33:
17:
2611:"Doesn't need the tools" is a famously irrelevant objection to an RFA. The question is whether the candidate is likely to be a
1761:
No substantive reason to oppose. Do not believe will abuse the tools, Not answering optional questions is no reason to oppose.
262:
1782:
1477:
69:
2388:
concerns me as it appears to display a flawed logic (and somewhat high-handed attitude) because if as the candidate opines,
2273:
Now please, all march in line, salute the flag and make the prisoner answer the optional question! Your Fuehrer has spoken.
2284:
942:
2615:
with the tools, and that's why "support" !votes stand alone but "oppose" !votes need explanation to be taken seriously -
1862:
You know it's gonna be alright. Answering questions is something nice, but shouldn't be opposed becuase not doing it. --
2189:. Not answering the questions after other editors request that you answer them means you're ignoring the editors, which
1650:
1417:
statement being made. Consider my support for the nominee, with an abstention on supporting the political statement. --
1053:
599:
2833:
Based on the candidate not answering the questions, especially user added questions. Admins need to be responsive. —
1231:
858:
3403:
er, wait! strike that. :) I have to agree with it though, there are no real substantive reasons to oppose other than
1002:
the self nom bit at the beginning and it say all I need to know. It is refreshing to see measured self confidence.
3161:
3056:
3025:
2366:
Switch to support - IMHO candidate has now (reticently I must admit) answered question 3 personally on my talk page
1629:
Absolutely, and Ragesoss' conduct on this RfA is even more evidence of his good judgment. He'll make a good admin.
878:
3269:-- Answering the questions would help give the community a feeling on what type of an administrator you would be.
1292:
questions appears in this case to be a valid judgement call; even though some people feel otherwise. Got my nod.
3420:
729:
643:
1163:
and supporting this candidate. Let's hope the opposers can come up with a reason why he cannot be trusted. I am
2201:
Had you replied to the questions in your statement, I would not have opposed you. However, your statement does
1577:
3154:
3049:
3018:
871:
3255:
See no obvious reason to oppose, but a self-nom really ought to answer the questions, particularly Q3, IMO.
2876:
2022:. I felt the same as Xoloz, but then I asked myself why do we call these questions optional if they're not?
1702:
1146:
1136:
A good user. However, I have a concern that the debate caused by the refusal to answer questions borders on
1050:
784:
3194:
2511:
1813:
1594:
855:
824:
304:
2899:
said below goes a long way towards clarifying that, but even just a link or two would help me out here -
1489:. I've come across Ragesoss a few times in the past, and never been less than pleased to have done so. --
3084:
2804:
2781:
2714:
2594:
2396:, suggests that RfA is achievable on the basis of one having a closely knitted group of co-editors, and
1984:
1881:
1343:
1330:
1087:
614:
480:
428:
3453:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
795:
show of "courtesy", I would ask how making someone jump through hoops is courteous to the candidate. --
3111:
2655:
1745:
in December 2006 (asking an important question of the candidates about NPOV vs SPOV) and work done at
820:. Per Michael Snow. Discussions with ragesoss lead me to think he's sane, reasonable, and thoughtful.
323:
In previous interactions, Ragesoss has been quite insightful, and I see nothing that would worry me.
3331:
1799:
1249:. Policy is not a suicide pact. Actually, I can't see any rule that actually says all RfA candidates
809:
427:, the questions are optional, after all, and Ragesoss's edit history speaks for itself. Good luck.
3439:
3423:
3392:
3379:
3356:
3334:
3322:
3310:
3294:
3277:
3261:
3247:
3233:
3198:
3173:
3146:
3113:
3088:
3068:
3037:
3003:
2973:
2964:
2928:
2905:
2889:
2883:
It's q3 that I'm most interested in. Recent edit history doesn't show much in the way of conflict -
2878:
2866:
2841:
2815:
2792:
2765:
2747:
2725:
2696:
2683:
2657:
2631:
2619:
2606:
2568:
2538:
2529:
2514:
2505:
2481:
2471:
2458:
2438:
2422:
2406:
2353:
2341:
2326:
2312:
2302:
2288:
2268:
2246:
2240:
2219:
2180:
2170:
2160:
2136:
2123:
2102:
2088:
2079:
2059:
2029:
2014:
1995:
1969:
1957:
1931:
1919:
1903:
1884:
1872:
1857:
1844:
1830:
1818:
1802:
1785:
1765:
1753:
1733:
1721:
1705:
1688:
1663:
1654:
1637:
1624:
1612:
1598:
1580:
1563:
1553:
1541:
1529:
1515:
1493:
1481:
1460:
1445:
1433:
1421:
1408:
1396:
1384:
1371:
1359:
1347:
1333:
1321:
1306:
1266:
1241:
1205:
1184:
1151:
1126:
1103:
1091:
1070:
1056:
1037:
1021:
1009:
991:
962:
946:
923:
906:
890:
861:
845:
827:
812:
799:
789:
763:
749:
732:
707:
675:
646:
629:
617:
605:
577:
569:
557:
545:
531:
517:
505:
483:
467:
457:
443:
431:
419:
386:
374:
358:
345:
330:
307:
295:
238:
191:
179:
150:
85:
3081:
1573:
1442:
1260:
1084:
234:? If possible, please provide an actual or hypothetical example in place of a general response. --
1558:
566:
3389:
3292:
3259:
2925:
2919:
2872:
2839:
2486:
Since when is criticising someone's attitude or opposing someone on the basis of a bad attitude "
2076:
2009:
1778:
1634:
1526:
1473:
1141:
1065:
1006:
903:
772:
684:
523:
201:
177:
63:
1620:
Candidate shows a healthy, refreshing, and sorely needed "Let's-cut-through-the-crap" attitude.
1838:
given the absence of a compelling reason why not to. If he wants the bit, let him have it... –
353:
340:
3190:
2741:
2627:
2616:
2565:
2525:
2520:
2501:
2478:
2455:
2401:
2385:
2376:
2350:
2338:
2323:
2309:
2299:
2278:
2262:
2216:
2167:
2157:
2085:
2049:
2026:
1682:
1590:
1561:
1418:
1368:
1300:
1178:
1034:
936:
918:
821:
796:
492:
235:
222:
145:
3432:
3307:
2809:
2786:
2719:
2583:
2493:
1989:
1854:
1714:
1550:
1538:
1393:
840:
593:
553:
This, in my opinion, is the ideal candidate, and I trust Sage with the tools completely. --
476:
327:
320:
530:
this candidate. Yes, I trust you and we need more hands to help out in deletion matters. -
3350:
3319:
3119:
2970:
2666:
2394:
based on people who are familiar enough with editing to make to make an informed decision
2195:
2166:
considerations, an editor who ignores others' inquiries is not suitable for adminship. --
2129:
2115:
1750:
1430:
1317:
1137:
688:
657:
554:
371:
463:
reason as to why not, other than - "He won't jump through every hoop of RFA" - support.
3209:
3169:
3141:
3064:
3033:
2979:
2940:
2871:
Make that two questions. He/she already the first one in their nominating statement. -
2693:
2186:
2099:
1945:
1868:
1621:
1608:
1490:
1381:
1255:
898:. Sensible contributor. Answers to the optional questions will be appreciated, though.
886:
758:
702:
588:
395:
383:
1392:- singularly unimpressed by each and every justification presented for opposition. --
3466:
3436:
3416:
3385:
3287:
3256:
2834:
2419:
2177:
2133:
2120:
2004:
1916:
1898:
1774:
1762:
1730:
1718:
1630:
1523:
1469:
1455:
1193:
1167:
glad that only five people have opposed because of not answering optional questions.
1160:
1100:
1018:
1003:
976:
899:
725:
692:
639:
464:
258:
231:
188:
172:
162:
82:
59:
3132:
2733:
2448:
2435:
2319:
2295:
2274:
2254:
2023:
1677:
1405:
1356:
1293:
1170:
1123:
1119:
1030:
932:
915:
574:
292:
2392:- then suggesting that that change is achieved by reaching a supporting consensus
3243:
Good editor, but I would prefer the optional questions become mandatory perhaps.
3431:
community doesn't understand, or wishing him to clarify. Instead of denying his
3271:
3244:
3100:
2900:
2884:
2861:
2799:
2776:
2709:
2644:
1979:
1966:
1940:
questions. If this were enough to sink an RFA, then we ought to re-name them to
1928:
1827:
1646:
1510:
1192:
Answering the questions is not required, and I strongly agree with Majorly that
959:
837:
626:
583:
541:
324:
3376:
3344:
2918:
until the three simple questions above are answered. How intense can that be?
2561:
2251:
I wasn't aware answering optional questions was the rule here. Optional... ;)
2234:
1864:
1840:
1313:
1216:
746:
440:
3447:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
2969:
I'm confused. If you already know support is well-deserved, why withhold it?
1749:. On that basis alone, I think this candidate can be trusted with the tools.
3136:
2896:
2535:
2468:
1660:
697:
514:
452:
370:
I nothing that leads me to believe this user would abuse the admin tools.
3412:
1355:- Excellent work. Brings much needed qualification into ranks of admins.
1099:
Seen user around, looked at talk space contributions, I trust this user.
971:
721:
635:
75:
Total: 7359 edits over 3183 pages First edit: 2005-07-04 22:20:45 (UTC)
2774:
surprised. I'll review my position very shortly. Suspended meanwhile.--
2487:
1286:
hasnt done anything to make me question judgement... even avoiding the
475:
I've seen Sage about doing good things, and I trust him with the mop.--
2577:
also dont even think you need the tools, you keep saying in your RfA:
687:
topics and anything else you do. I'm impressed with your work on the
3457:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
538:
1674:
administrators really should be held to a higher standard of conduct
582:
I like the answers to the questions, so I support this candidate.
2534:
I, too, am concerned by the tone directed toward those opposing.
1695:"Articles on obscure but verifiable topics make Knowledge better"
1078:(changed from neutral after checking up on his contrib history).
439:. I trust this user and I am sure she will make a good admin. --
757:. Basically Xoloz's opinoin on this one is the same as mine.--
565:
due to great nomination, above supports, and contributions. --
3330:
Would support if he didn't use this RFA for soapboxing. ~
3306:- I think he should have answered the optional questions
2492:
In life, you can choose to slander others. In Knowledge,
2128:
There's a difference between making a point and making a
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
1537:, no reason not to, and yes, "optional" means optional.
117:
What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?
2761:
2454:
appears long on scare-words but lacking in substance -
2380:
2068:
2045:
1741:
based purely on what I've seen of the candidate at the
1468:. I trust this user to not screw up with the tools. —
1201:
451:- good answers to the questions (answered in the nom)—
1142:
914:. Good contributor, sensible attitude to this RfA.
78:Main/talk: 49% User/talk: 16% Knowledge/talk: 19%
55:Final: (99/13/8) ended 06:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
2003:for being bold and thinking outside of the box.
3286:Pending answer to user added question above. —
1911:- intelligent and calm whenever I've seen. And
1122:22:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Changed to oppose.
1029:- no issues with this user. He can be trusted.
513:. That's the spirit. Contribs look good to me.
102:What admin work do you intend to take part in?
1341:- Contributions seem fine to me..Good Luck..--
712:"dismayed with the current atmosphere of RfA"
277:Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
1936:Nothing wrong other then refusal to reply to
8:
661:
1147:
1140:. As nothing else seems wrong, I support.
1017:- Trusted user who understands policy. --
2465:between the slanderous and the ridiculous
2332:written above. Secondly, if you consider
691:article, which was recently nominated at
3364:Abstain from voting, but wish to comment
1747:Knowledge:WikiProject History of Science
1116:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/IS group
2046:candidate's refusal to answer questions
977:
2857:Neutral - ish, leaning towards support
1697:. There's something I can agree with.
718:and genuflect in the correct direction
2084:Are the questions optional or not? -
7:
3131:Q3 - Kepler was nominated at FAC by
2692:or at least a good portion of them.
1897:acceptable. I can't see a problem.
1798:hang out in conflict-ridden areas.
1448:(edited 14:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC))
1367:- there is no good reason not to -
230:Under what circumstances would you
1826:Seems trustworthy and competent.--
1329:good article work + common sense.
24:
3473:Successful requests for adminship
2069:the diff provided by Naconkantari
1773:as per previous above...cheers,
2119:unreasonable or overly arduous.
1456:
958:has the right to get the tools.
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
3105:
3102:
2667:
2649:
2646:
1232:
1217:
1214:
3206:WikiProject History of Science
2463:I think we can do without the
2241:
2235:
1276:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
1082:per not giving answer to Q3. —
354:
341:
265:. For the edit count, see the
1:
3125:helps answer both Q2 and Q3.
2756:in Husond's oppose as well.--
2673:
1049:questions would add to that.
659:
2677:
1394:Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick.
1233:
1218:
261:'s edit summary usage with
91:Questions for the candidate
3489:
3440:14:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
3424:11:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
3393:23:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
3380:19:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
3357:19:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
3335:20:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
3323:14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
3311:16:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
3295:23:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
3278:23:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
3262:20:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
3248:18:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
3234:17:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
3199:16:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
3174:17:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
3147:16:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
3114:15:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
3089:13:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
3069:12:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
3038:12:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
3004:06:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2974:05:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2965:05:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2929:15:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2922:05:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2906:23:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2890:12:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2879:10:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2867:04:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2842:04:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
2816:22:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
2793:21:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
2766:20:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
2748:16:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
2726:16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
2697:08:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
2684:18:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
2658:22:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
2632:23:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
2620:23:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
2607:13:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
2569:05:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
2539:16:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
2530:04:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
2515:02:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
2506:00:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
2482:23:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
2472:01:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
2459:15:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
2439:00:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
2423:23:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
2407:23:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
2354:15:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
2342:17:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
2327:03:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
2313:23:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2303:23:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2289:23:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2269:23:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2247:23:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2220:23:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2181:22:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2171:21:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2161:18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2137:18:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2124:18:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2103:18:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2089:15:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
2080:15:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2060:04:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
2030:01:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
2015:23:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
1996:22:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
1970:16:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
1958:03:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
1932:18:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
1920:17:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
1904:08:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
1885:05:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
1873:18:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1858:11:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1845:10:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1831:10:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1819:07:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1803:06:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1786:04:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1766:21:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
1754:15:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
1734:13:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
1722:12:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
1706:08:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
1689:03:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
1664:01:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
1655:00:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
1645:looks like a good user.--
1638:23:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
1625:20:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
1613:20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
1599:19:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
1581:19:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
1564:16:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
1554:16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
1542:15:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
1530:11:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
1516:04:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
1494:01:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
1482:01:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
1461:21:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
1446:18:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
1434:17:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
1422:17:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
1409:17:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
1397:16:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
1385:16:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
1372:15:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
1360:15:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
1348:11:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
1334:07:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
1322:06:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
1307:04:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
1279:04:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
1267:02:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
1242:01:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
1206:23:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
1185:22:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
1152:22:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
1127:02:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
1104:20:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
1092:19:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
1071:19:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
1057:18:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
1038:18:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
1022:18:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
1010:17:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
992:17:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
963:17:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
954:. Trustworthy user with a
947:17:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
924:17:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
907:17:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
891:17:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
862:17:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
846:17:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
828:16:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
813:16:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
800:16:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
790:16:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
764:15:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
750:15:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
733:15:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
708:15:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
676:14:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
647:15:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
630:13:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
618:13:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
606:13:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
578:13:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
570:13:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
558:13:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
546:11:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
532:10:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
518:10:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
506:10:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
484:09:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
468:08:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
458:07:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
444:07:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
432:07:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
420:06:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
387:06:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
375:05:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
359:05:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
346:05:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
331:04:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
308:10:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
296:01:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
239:23:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
192:00:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
180:23:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
151:01:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
86:04:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
3118:How Ragesoss handled the
2434:per Black Falcon and VS.
1915:in all the right ways. --
3450:Please do not modify it.
2042:Until questions answered
3079:pending answer to Q3. —
1699:Weak, tentative support
39:Please do not modify it
1927:- trustworthy user.
970:Great attitude. :) —
81:Am I a trusted user?
34:request for adminship
3405:failure to genuflect
3072:Switched to support.
1196:is very important.--
2924:Swithed to oppose.
2494:slander chooses you
2390:RfA needs to change
2364:Oppose at this time
1549:Right on target. --
1194:assuming good faith
1161:assuming good faith
2939:Moved to support.
2814:
2791:
2758:U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.
2724:
2613:danger to the wiki
2413:of the candidates
2404:
1994:
1377:Changed to support
1198:U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.
1051:Christopher Parham
825:(spill your mind?)
685:history of science
601:We are all Hokies!
148:
3171:
3145:
3066:
3035:
2798:
2775:
2708:
2497:
2467:preamble, David.
2402:
2386:User:Shirahadasha
2384:. That answer to
2377:User:Naconkantari
2283:
1978:
1871:
1814:The Transhumanist
1597:
1274:. No big deal.
1069:
941:
888:
788:
706:
674:
604:
321:Why the hell not?
303:numbered list. --
146:
3480:
3452:
3433:right to silence
3355:
3353:
3298:Moved to oppose.
3290:
3274:
3229:
3227:
3225:
3223:
3221:
3172:
3168:
3166:
3159:
3139:
3107:
3104:
3067:
3063:
3061:
3054:
3036:
3032:
3030:
3023:
2999:
2997:
2995:
2993:
2991:
2960:
2958:
2956:
2954:
2952:
2903:
2887:
2864:
2837:
2812:
2807:
2802:
2789:
2784:
2779:
2744:
2736:
2722:
2717:
2712:
2681:
2675:
2671:
2651:
2648:
2603:
2600:
2597:
2592:
2589:
2586:
2491:
2281:
2265:
2257:
2243:
2237:
2065:Regretful oppose
2057:
2052:
2048:, especially Q3
2012:
2007:
1992:
1987:
1982:
1955:
1950:
1901:
1882:Metamagician3000
1880:- trusted user.
1863:
1843:
1743:ArbCom elections
1715:Why the hell not
1593:
1576:
1513:
1458:
1346:
1331:Opabinia regalis
1305:
1298:
1265:
1238:
1237:
1228:
1225:
1224:
1181:
1173:
1149:
1144:
1068:
989:
988:
984:
980:
974:
939:
921:
889:
885:
883:
876:
843:
782:
780:
776:
761:
700:
668:
665:
663:
615:Anthony.bradbury
602:
598:
596:
591:
586:
502:
499:
455:
429:The Rambling Man
415:
413:
411:
409:
407:
356:
343:
252:General comments
175:
41:
3488:
3487:
3483:
3482:
3481:
3479:
3478:
3477:
3463:
3462:
3461:
3455:this nomination
3448:
3401:Durin's view...
3351:
3343:
3332:trialsanderrors
3288:
3272:
3219:
3217:
3215:
3213:
3211:
3162:
3155:
3153:
3120:Johannes Kepler
3057:
3050:
3048:
3026:
3019:
3017:
2989:
2987:
2985:
2983:
2981:
2950:
2948:
2946:
2944:
2942:
2901:
2885:
2862:
2835:
2810:
2805:
2800:
2787:
2782:
2777:
2742:
2734:
2720:
2715:
2710:
2705:per no answers.
2601:
2598:
2595:
2590:
2587:
2584:
2263:
2255:
2053:
2050:
2010:
2005:
1990:
1985:
1980:
1975:Sincere Support
1951:
1946:
1899:
1870:
1839:
1653:
1595:(Упражнение В!)
1572:
1511:
1342:
1303:
1294:
1254:
1240:
1179:
1171:
1027:Oh yes, Support
986:
982:
978:
972:
919:
879:
872:
870:
854:of questions.
841:
778:
774:
759:
689:Johannes Kepler
673:
600:
594:
589:
584:
500:
494:
453:
405:
403:
401:
399:
397:
173:
52:
37:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3486:
3484:
3476:
3475:
3465:
3464:
3460:
3459:
3443:
3442:
3428:
3427:
3426:
3407:not answering
3395:
3361:
3360:
3359:
3337:
3325:
3313:
3301:
3300:
3299:
3264:
3250:
3238:
3237:
3236:
3185:
3184:
3183:
3182:
3181:
3180:
3179:
3178:
3177:
3176:
3129:
3092:
3073:
3041:
3010:
3009:
3008:
3007:
3006:
2931:
2912:
2911:
2910:
2909:
2908:
2892:
2845:
2844:
2828:
2827:
2826:
2825:
2824:
2823:
2822:
2821:
2820:
2819:
2818:
2686:
2660:
2638:
2637:
2636:
2635:
2634:
2571:
2555:
2554:
2553:
2552:
2551:
2550:
2549:
2548:
2547:
2546:
2545:
2544:
2543:
2542:
2541:
2441:
2429:
2428:
2427:
2426:
2425:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2346:
2345:
2344:
2291:
2271:
2228:
2227:
2226:
2225:
2224:
2223:
2222:
2212:
2199:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2091:
2062:
2033:
2032:
2017:
1998:
1972:
1960:
1934:
1922:
1906:
1887:
1875:
1867:
1860:
1847:
1833:
1821:
1805:
1788:
1768:
1756:
1736:
1727:Strong support
1724:
1708:
1691:
1666:
1659:Looking good.
1657:
1649:
1640:
1627:
1615:
1601:
1583:
1574:John Broughton
1566:
1556:
1544:
1532:
1518:
1496:
1484:
1463:
1449:
1443:SteveMcCluskey
1439:Strong Support
1436:
1424:
1411:
1399:
1387:
1374:
1362:
1350:
1336:
1324:
1309:
1281:
1269:
1244:
1230:
1208:
1190:Strong Support
1187:
1154:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1094:
1073:
1059:
1040:
1024:
1012:
995:
994:
965:
949:
926:
909:
893:
864:
848:
833:Strong support
830:
815:
802:
792:
766:
752:
740:The candidate
735:
710:
678:
669:
651:
650:
649:
620:
608:
580:
572:
560:
548:
534:
520:
508:
486:
470:
460:
446:
434:
422:
389:
377:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
333:
313:
311:
310:
299:
298:
274:
273:
272:
270:
263:mathbot's tool
254:
253:
249:
248:
247:
246:
225:
221:Question from
218:
217:
216:
215:
204:
200:Question from
197:
196:
195:
194:
166:
161:Question from
158:
157:
156:
155:
154:
153:
126:
125:
124:
123:
111:
110:
109:
108:
93:
92:
51:
46:
45:
44:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3485:
3474:
3471:
3470:
3468:
3458:
3456:
3451:
3445:
3444:
3441:
3438:
3434:
3429:
3425:
3422:
3418:
3414:
3411:questions. ++
3410:
3406:
3402:
3400:
3396:
3394:
3391:
3387:
3383:
3382:
3381:
3378:
3373:
3368:
3367:
3366:
3365:
3358:
3354:
3348:
3347:
3341:
3338:
3336:
3333:
3329:
3326:
3324:
3321:
3317:
3314:
3312:
3309:
3305:
3302:
3297:
3296:
3293:
3291:
3285:
3281:
3280:
3279:
3276:
3275:
3268:
3265:
3263:
3260:
3258:
3254:
3251:
3249:
3246:
3242:
3239:
3235:
3231:
3230:
3207:
3202:
3201:
3200:
3196:
3192:
3187:
3186:
3175:
3170:
3167:
3165:
3160:
3158:
3150:
3149:
3148:
3143:
3138:
3134:
3130:
3127:
3126:
3124:
3121:
3117:
3116:
3115:
3112:
3109:
3108:
3098:
3097:
3093:
3091:
3090:
3087:
3086:
3083:
3078:
3074:
3071:
3070:
3065:
3062:
3060:
3055:
3053:
3044:
3043:
3040:
3039:
3034:
3031:
3029:
3024:
3022:
3015:
3011:
3005:
3001:
3000:
2977:
2976:
2975:
2972:
2968:
2967:
2966:
2962:
2961:
2938:
2936:
2932:
2930:
2927:
2926:Pascal.Tesson
2923:
2921:
2920:Pascal.Tesson
2917:
2913:
2907:
2904:
2898:
2893:
2891:
2888:
2882:
2881:
2880:
2877:
2874:
2870:
2869:
2868:
2865:
2859:
2858:
2854:
2853:
2852:
2851:
2850:
2849:
2843:
2840:
2838:
2832:
2829:
2817:
2813:
2808:
2803:
2796:
2795:
2794:
2790:
2785:
2780:
2773:
2769:
2768:
2767:
2764:
2763:
2759:
2755:
2751:
2750:
2749:
2746:
2745:
2739:
2738:
2737:
2729:
2728:
2727:
2723:
2718:
2713:
2706:
2704:
2700:
2699:
2698:
2695:
2690:
2687:
2685:
2682:
2680:
2676:
2670:
2664:
2661:
2659:
2656:
2653:
2652:
2642:
2639:
2633:
2630:
2629:
2623:
2622:
2621:
2618:
2614:
2610:
2609:
2608:
2605:
2604:
2593:
2580:
2575:
2574:Strong oppose
2572:
2570:
2567:
2563:
2559:
2556:
2540:
2537:
2533:
2532:
2531:
2528:
2527:
2522:
2518:
2517:
2516:
2513:
2509:
2508:
2507:
2504:
2503:
2495:
2489:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2480:
2475:
2474:
2473:
2470:
2466:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2457:
2452:
2451:
2450:
2445:
2442:
2440:
2437:
2433:
2430:
2424:
2421:
2416:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2405:
2399:
2395:
2391:
2387:
2383:
2382:
2378:
2373:
2367:
2365:
2361:
2355:
2352:
2347:
2343:
2340:
2335:
2330:
2329:
2328:
2325:
2321:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2311:
2306:
2305:
2304:
2301:
2297:
2292:
2290:
2286:
2280:
2276:
2272:
2270:
2267:
2266:
2260:
2259:
2258:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2244:
2238:
2232:
2231:Strong oppose
2229:
2221:
2218:
2213:
2209:
2204:
2200:
2197:
2192:
2188:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2179:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2169:
2164:
2163:
2162:
2159:
2155:
2150:
2145:
2144:Strong oppose
2142:
2138:
2135:
2131:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2122:
2117:
2112:
2109:
2105:
2104:
2101:
2096:
2092:
2090:
2087:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2078:
2077:Pascal.Tesson
2074:
2070:
2066:
2063:
2061:
2058:
2056:
2047:
2043:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2031:
2028:
2025:
2021:
2018:
2016:
2013:
2008:
2002:
1999:
1997:
1993:
1988:
1983:
1976:
1973:
1971:
1968:
1964:
1961:
1959:
1956:
1954:
1949:
1943:
1939:
1935:
1933:
1930:
1926:
1923:
1921:
1918:
1914:
1910:
1907:
1905:
1902:
1896:
1891:
1888:
1886:
1883:
1879:
1876:
1874:
1869:
1866:
1861:
1859:
1856:
1851:
1848:
1846:
1842:
1837:
1834:
1832:
1829:
1825:
1822:
1820:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1809:
1806:
1804:
1801:
1797:
1792:
1789:
1787:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1772:
1769:
1767:
1764:
1760:
1757:
1755:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1737:
1735:
1732:
1728:
1725:
1723:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1709:
1707:
1704:
1703:CharlotteWebb
1700:
1696:
1692:
1690:
1686:
1685:
1681:
1680:
1679:j e r s y k o
1675:
1670:
1667:
1665:
1662:
1658:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1641:
1639:
1636:
1632:
1628:
1626:
1623:
1619:
1616:
1614:
1611:
1610:
1605:
1602:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1587:
1584:
1582:
1579:
1575:
1570:
1567:
1565:
1562:
1560:
1557:
1555:
1552:
1548:
1545:
1543:
1540:
1536:
1533:
1531:
1528:
1525:
1522:
1519:
1517:
1514:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1497:
1495:
1492:
1488:
1485:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1464:
1462:
1459:
1453:
1450:
1447:
1444:
1440:
1437:
1435:
1432:
1428:
1425:
1423:
1420:
1415:
1412:
1410:
1407:
1403:
1400:
1398:
1395:
1391:
1388:
1386:
1383:
1378:
1375:
1373:
1370:
1366:
1363:
1361:
1358:
1354:
1351:
1349:
1345:
1340:
1337:
1335:
1332:
1328:
1325:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1310:
1308:
1302:
1299:
1297:
1291:
1290:
1285:
1282:
1280:
1277:
1273:
1270:
1268:
1264:
1263:
1259:
1258:
1252:
1248:
1245:
1243:
1239:
1236:
1227:
1226:
1223:
1222:
1212:
1209:
1207:
1204:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1188:
1186:
1183:
1182:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1155:
1153:
1150:
1145:
1139:
1135:
1132:
1128:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1112:
1111:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1102:
1098:
1095:
1093:
1090:
1089:
1086:
1081:
1077:
1074:
1072:
1067:
1066:Seraphimblade
1063:
1060:
1058:
1055:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1041:
1039:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1025:
1023:
1020:
1016:
1013:
1011:
1008:
1005:
1000:
997:
996:
993:
990:
985:
975:
969:
966:
964:
961:
957:
953:
950:
948:
944:
938:
934:
930:
927:
925:
922:
917:
913:
910:
908:
905:
901:
897:
894:
892:
887:
884:
882:
877:
875:
868:
865:
863:
860:
857:
852:
849:
847:
844:
839:
834:
831:
829:
826:
823:
819:
816:
814:
811:
806:
803:
801:
798:
793:
791:
786:
781:
777:
770:
767:
765:
762:
756:
753:
751:
748:
743:
739:
736:
734:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
709:
704:
699:
694:
690:
686:
682:
679:
677:
672:
667:
666:
655:
652:
648:
645:
641:
637:
633:
632:
631:
628:
624:
621:
619:
616:
612:
609:
607:
603:
597:
592:
587:
581:
579:
576:
573:
571:
568:
564:
561:
559:
556:
552:
549:
547:
544:
543:
540:
536:Of course --
535:
533:
529:
525:
524:Mailer Diablo
521:
519:
516:
512:
509:
507:
504:
503:
497:
490:
487:
485:
482:
478:
474:
471:
469:
466:
461:
459:
456:
450:
447:
445:
442:
438:
435:
433:
430:
426:
423:
421:
417:
416:
393:
390:
388:
385:
381:
378:
376:
373:
369:
366:
360:
357:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
344:
337:
334:
332:
329:
326:
322:
319:
318:
317:
316:
309:
306:
301:
300:
297:
294:
289:
286:
285:
284:
283:
279:
278:
271:
268:
264:
260:
256:
255:
251:
250:
245:
242:
241:
240:
237:
233:
232:ignore a rule
229:
226:
224:
220:
219:
214:
211:
210:
208:
205:
203:
202:Pascal.Tesson
199:
198:
193:
190:
186:
183:
182:
181:
178:
176:
170:
167:
164:
160:
159:
152:
149:
142:
139:
138:
137:
134:
133:
131:
128:
127:
122:
119:
118:
116:
113:
112:
107:
104:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
90:
89:
88:
87:
84:
79:
76:
73:
71:
68:
65:
61:
57:
56:
50:
47:
43:
40:
35:
32:
27:
26:
19:
3449:
3446:
3408:
3404:
3398:
3397:
3371:
3363:
3362:
3345:
3339:
3327:
3315:
3303:
3283:
3282:
3270:
3266:
3252:
3240:
3210:
3191:Kelly Martin
3163:
3156:
3133:User:Tomer T
3101:
3095:
3094:
3080:
3076:
3075:
3058:
3051:
3045:
3042:
3027:
3020:
3013:
3012:
2980:
2941:
2934:
2933:
2915:
2914:
2856:
2855:
2847:
2846:
2830:
2771:
2760:
2753:
2740:
2732:
2731:
2702:
2701:
2688:
2678:
2672:
2668:
2662:
2645:
2640:
2628:Black Falcon
2626:
2617:David Gerard
2612:
2582:
2578:
2573:
2566:Shirahadasha
2557:
2526:Black Falcon
2524:
2521:David Gerard
2512:Tony Sidaway
2502:Black Falcon
2500:
2479:David Gerard
2464:
2456:David Gerard
2443:
2431:
2414:
2397:
2393:
2389:
2379:
2371:
2369:
2363:
2362:
2351:David Gerard
2339:Black Falcon
2333:
2310:Black Falcon
2261:
2253:
2252:
2230:
2217:Black Falcon
2207:
2202:
2190:
2168:Black Falcon
2158:Black Falcon
2153:
2148:
2143:
2110:
2094:
2093:
2086:David Gerard
2072:
2064:
2054:
2041:
2035:
2034:
2019:
2000:
1974:
1962:
1952:
1947:
1941:
1937:
1924:
1912:
1908:
1894:
1889:
1877:
1849:
1835:
1823:
1812:
1811:
1807:
1795:
1790:
1770:
1758:
1738:
1726:
1710:
1698:
1694:
1683:
1678:
1668:
1642:
1617:
1607:
1603:
1591:RyanGerbil10
1585:
1568:
1546:
1534:
1520:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1486:
1465:
1452:Weak Support
1451:
1438:
1426:
1419:Kevin Murray
1413:
1401:
1389:
1376:
1369:David Gerard
1364:
1352:
1338:
1326:
1295:
1288:
1287:
1283:
1271:
1261:
1256:
1250:
1246:
1234:
1220:
1219:
1215:
1210:
1200:
1189:
1177:
1169:
1168:
1164:
1156:
1134:Weak support
1133:
1110:Weak support
1109:
1108:
1096:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1061:
1046:
1042:
1026:
1014:
998:
981:
967:
951:
928:
911:
895:
880:
873:
867:Weak Support
866:
850:
832:
817:
804:
797:Michael Snow
773:
768:
755:Weak Support
754:
741:
738:Weak Support
737:
717:
713:
680:
658:
653:
622:
610:
562:
550:
537:
527:
510:
495:
493:
488:
472:
448:
436:
424:
396:
391:
379:
367:
335:
314:
312:
305:Tony Sidaway
287:
281:
280:
276:
275:
243:
236:Black Falcon
227:
223:Black Falcon
212:
206:
184:
168:
140:
135:
129:
120:
114:
105:
99:
94:
80:
77:
74:
66:
58:
54:
53:
48:
38:
30:
28:
3308:Thunderwing
3110:•
2654:•
2211:dismissive.
2095:Weak oppose
1855:Valentinian
1551:Infrangible
1539:Chick Bowen
1344:Cometstyles
3320:Bjrobinson
2562:User:Durin
1800:75.62.7.22
1751:Carcharoth
1431:EdJohnston
810:YechielMan
555:Kicking222
282:Discussion
31:successful
2897:User:Aude
2694:Everyking
2100:Acalamari
1942:mandetory
1622:AxelBoldt
1491:Sopoforic
1382:Acalamari
856:El hombre
822:Kat Walsh
760:Wizardman
384:Pete.Hurd
267:talk page
3467:Category
3437:Computor
3409:optional
3386:Dmcdevit
3372:optional
3289:xaosflux
2836:xaosflux
2770:Oh! Now
2752:As am I
2420:ragesoss
2372:optional
2285:contribs
2196:WP:POINT
2178:ragesoss
2134:ragesoss
2130:WP:POINT
2121:NeoFreak
1938:optional
1917:Quiddity
1900:James086
1783:contribs
1775:Casliber
1763:Davewild
1731:Delirium
1719:Vassyana
1631:Dmcdevit
1618:Support.
1604:Support.
1586:Support.
1524:Garion96
1470:CComMack
1289:OPTIONAL
1235:Contribs
1138:WP:POINT
1101:Smmurphy
1047:optional
1019:Jreferee
1004:David D.
943:contribs
900:utcursch
785:ahoy hoy
779:american
551:You bet.
465:Moreschi
259:Ragesoss
189:ragesoss
174:xaosflux
163:xaosflux
83:ragesoss
70:contribs
60:Ragesoss
49:Ragesoss
3399:Support
3340:Neutral
3328:Neutral
3316:Neutral
3304:Neutral
3284:Neutral
3267:Neutral
3253:Neutral
3241:Neutral
3123:FAC nom
3096:Neutral
3077:Neutral
3014:Neutral
2935:Neutral
2916:Neutral
2848:Neutral
2754:shocked
2735:Majorly
2488:slander
2449:GRBerry
2436:Singopo
2320:pschemp
2296:pschemp
2275:Samsara
2256:Majorly
2116:a point
2055:kantari
2024:ElinorD
2020:Support
1963:Support
1925:Support
1909:Support
1890:Support
1878:Support
1850:Support
1836:Support
1824:Support
1808:Support
1791:Support
1771:Support
1759:Support
1739:Support
1711:Support
1669:Support
1643:Support
1569:Support
1559:Jaranda
1547:Support
1535:Support
1521:Support
1499:Support
1487:Support
1466:Support
1427:Support
1414:Support
1406:llywrch
1402:Support
1390:Support
1365:Support
1357:Shyamal
1353:Support
1339:Support
1327:Support
1296:ALKIVAR
1284:Support
1272:Support
1247:Support
1211:Support
1172:Majorly
1157:Support
1143:Captain
1124:GRBerry
1120:GRBerry
1097:Support
1076:Support
1062:Support
1043:Support
1031:pschemp
1015:Support
999:Support
968:Support
952:Support
933:Samsara
929:Support
916:the wub
912:Support
896:Support
859:de haha
851:Support
818:Support
805:Support
769:Support
714:Support
681:Support
654:Support
623:Support
611:Support
575:Terence
567:W.marsh
563:support
528:approve
511:Support
489:Support
473:Support
449:Support
437:Support
425:Support
392:Support
380:Support
368:Support
336:Support
315:Support
293:TwoOars
288:Comment
141:Comment
3273:Real96
3245:Jmlk17
2902:Alison
2886:Alison
2863:Alison
2831:Oppose
2762:(talk)
2743:(hot!)
2703:Oppose
2689:Oppose
2663:Oppose
2641:Oppose
2558:Oppose
2444:Oppose
2432:Oppose
2415:during
2264:(hot!)
2111:Oppose
2044:. Per
2036:Oppose
2027:(talk)
2001:Supprt
1967:Taxman
1929:Jkelly
1828:Simul8
1647:danntm
1527:(talk)
1512:Alison
1262:scribe
1202:(talk)
1180:(hot!)
1054:(talk)
1007:(Talk)
960:feydey
842:(talk)
742:should
693:WP:FAC
627:Addhoc
526:and I
325:Ral315
3377:Durin
3352:Chat
3346:Pedro
2971:Frise
2579:I may
2236:BigDT
2149:never
2051:Nacon
2006:Malla
1948:Eagle
1865:drini
1841:Riana
1314:Kusma
1221:Orfen
1148:panda
775:young
747:Xoloz
664:aveno
441:Bduke
372:Frise
16:<
3195:talk
3142:talk
3137:Aude
3085:Baer
3082:Alde
2669:Buck
2536:El_C
2469:El_C
2381:here
2334:this
2324:talk
2300:talk
2279:talk
2208:your
2187:bold
2067:per
1913:Bold
1796:only
1779:talk
1701:. —
1684:talk
1661:El_C
1609:Ruud
1578:(♫♫)
1318:talk
1251:must
1165:very
1088:Baer
1085:Alde
1080:Weak
1035:talk
937:talk
920:"?!"
904:talk
703:talk
698:Aude
660:κaτa
542:not?
522:I'm
515:Lupo
481:talk
454:arf!
355:Teke
342:Teke
257:See
144:3.--
64:talk
3413:Lar
3257:DES
3164:ton
3157:Wal
3106:yan
3103:Ark
3059:ton
3052:Wal
3028:ton
3021:Wal
2873:Mgm
2801:Hús
2778:Hús
2772:I'm
2711:Hús
2679:ofg
2674:ets
2650:yan
2647:Ark
2599:ddi
2490:"?
2368:.
2242:416
2203:not
2011:nox
1981:Hús
1953:101
1781:|
1713:. "
1507:and
1503:not
1457:日本穣
1257:WjB
973:Hex
881:ton
874:Wal
838:Mak
722:Lar
636:Lar
595:g92
3469::
3415::
3349:|
3232:-
3197:)
3002:-
2963:-
2811:nd
2788:nd
2721:nd
2707:--
2602:ct
2588:ll
2585:Te
2403:VS
2322:|
2298:|
2287:)
2245:)
2191:is
2154:do
1991:nd
1895:is
1777:|
1687:·
1480:)
1320:)
1229:|
1033:|
987:❞)
983:?!
979:(❝
956:FP
945:)
902:|
724::
696:--
638::
585:Ab
501:as
479:|
477:cj
418:-
244:A:
228:6.
213:A:
185:A:
169:4.
147:VS
136:A:
130:3.
121:A:
115:2.
106:A:
100:1.
36:.
3421:c
3419:/
3417:t
3390:t
3388:·
3228:l
3226:e
3224:i
3222:r
3220:d
3218:e
3216:a
3214:h
3212:P
3193:(
3144:)
3140:(
2998:l
2996:e
2994:i
2992:r
2990:d
2988:e
2986:a
2984:h
2982:P
2959:l
2957:e
2955:i
2953:r
2951:d
2949:e
2947:a
2945:h
2943:P
2875:|
2806:ö
2783:ö
2716:ö
2596:a
2591:y
2496:?
2282:•
2277:(
2239:(
1986:ö
1651:C
1635:t
1633:·
1606:—
1478:c
1476:–
1474:t
1472:(
1316:(
1304:☢
1301:™
940:•
935:(
787:)
783:(
730:c
728:/
726:t
705:)
701:(
671:C
662:ʟ
644:c
642:/
640:t
590:e
539:Y
498:n
496:A
414:l
412:e
410:i
408:r
406:d
404:e
402:a
400:h
398:P
328:»
269:.
207:5
165:-
67:·
62:(
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.