1175:âThat StuffOfInterest believes that only articles need reflect a NPOV, and that displaying political, religious, or other beliefs using userboxes and user categories should not be banned, hardly distresses me. I'm rather confident all users have points of view; concealing ones POV serves no purpose; what matters is editing in Knowledge (XXG) itself. Iâm willing to trust the evidence that StuffOfInterest believes âthat articles need to reflect a NPOVâ; this is sufficient to bestow the power to block, unblock, delete and undelete. Let's do it.
318:, so I hope that will be weighed when counting this dispute. Beyond that one, I've tended to avoid any direct person-to-person disputes. I've had a few general philosophy disputes, but I've always tried to work them out on various project and article talk pages so as to keep the forum open to all. On occasion, editors (both signed and anonymous) have had issue with reversions I've performed, but I've usually been able to defuse those with an explanation and/or short discussion. A history of that is readily available on my
1343:- no incivility, seems to know policy, good answers, & edit summaries, & edit count, nice spread of edits throughout project &... etc etc, seems like a textbook +Sup to me! And pish posh to the "admins shouldnt express POV in their userspace" view - You'd rather we all just pretend we have none? Obviously we all do, and although I have no userpage there's no point pretending to be a mindless drone; after all, it would be naive to assume our POV doesnt affect editing pattern in at least
1558:, essentially per Dmcdevit. An admin having POV-advocacy userboxes (or any type of explicit POV advocacy on their userpage, userbox or not) is at best questionable, although when the position is vague enough this might be acceptable. But having ones which explicitly state the user supports a given political party? This, in my mind, would set a Very Bad Tone. The arguments stated above, which discuss whether or not it is better for a bias to be upfront, miss two important points:
1294:
which I managed to resolve in a friendly manner. Essentially, the only difference between SOI's page and mine is that he uses (properly userfied) userboxes. As this is in accord with WP:GUS, I don't find much worthwhile in the opposition point-of-view. Users are not androids, and shouldn't pretend to be; although we all must act neutrally here, when we fail to do so on occasion (as is inevitable), checking our biases should be an open and easy thing for our fellow editors to do.
1579:
of edit warring, or sort of trolling on the talk page). Would we be comfortable with SoI applying a block in this situation? If yes, we open the system up to the complaint of "He blocked me because I am conservative" and in this case we'd have to at least consider that pretty strongly -- it would certainly cross my mind if such a complaint showed up on AN/I. Or if no, then we are saying this ties SoI's hands to mediate and administer in politically-charged discussions?
1331:). The userbox issue need be reached only if one thinks the use of advocacy userboxes to be demonstrative per se of poor judgment or to be demonstrative of an improper emphasis on other-than-encyclopedic tasks which emphasis might tend toward disruption (or, at best, toward the determent of collaboration); the former objection is, IMHO, without foundation, whilst the latter is persuasive but not to any great extent.
1387:
If having my POV stated opens my edits to closer scrutiny to make sure I don't put anything inappropriate into articles, then I see this as being good as editors may have some slant to their writing even when they don't intend to. As for the categories, you are right. I should have had those out long ago as they don't serve any benefit to me and have only helped me to receive an occasional bit of spam. --
1397:(XXG) userpage which is for encyclopedia purposes to promote their political agendas. Furthermore, there is next to no good reason for POV categories, it is really only to coordinate POVs. Of all Wikipedianss, no administrator should support POV user categories. That's indefensible; I'm surprised at your response.
228:- My involvement here has been to sub-articles and related templates rather than the main Silver Line article. I was able to convert a number of station red links into clean stubs as well as build the needed templates for line configuration dealing with this being the first line to share track with two other
1372:
anyone with POV-advocacy userboxes and categories on their user page. I thought we had moved beyond that. Instead, upoon visiting the user page, I am confronted with SOI's point of view on religion, sexual preference, political party affiliation, capital punishment, censorship, church and state, and,
114:
due to my own limited availability and concerns that I should have some more time under my belt. Now, some months later, I feel that I will have enough time to monitor a few of the action lists and my experience has certainly built up. Hopefully, if my contributions are considered worthy, I can use
1738:
today where the reported user had only made two edits, neither of them after the warning tag was added. Also one of the test templates (rather than bv) might have been more appropriate. Had the StuffOfInterest been an admin then would that have been a ban straight off for the user? Anyway, when I do
1396:
Obfuscation. Openly declaring POVs and "hid it and us sneaky editing to put it in articles" are not the two options. That is setting up a false dichotomy to blur the issue. Rather, the one almost all editors choose is neither. That is, editing neutral, while not using their freely-provided
Knowledge
1386:
I've always believed it is better to state one's POV up front rather than to hide it and use sneaky editing to put it in articles. If you check my edit history you'll see I've done vandal fighting on articles which do not represent my views in the express interest of keeping article space neutral.
1293:
I've personally had positive experiences with the editor. I also am motivated to support out of disagreement with the opposers below. I share SOI's believe that the open declaration of one's biases is preferable; I have always done so on my own userpage, and have only gotten one question about it,
183:
to manage the backlog. In addition, I've been involved with a number of page rename discussions where once a consensus was reached everyone had to wait for an admin to come along and help out by clearing a destination point or doing some other fixing so that the move could be performed. Hopefully,
1578:
This would at the very least give an appearance of impropreity when this putative admin does some administrative action which coincides with their stated bias (e.g. imagine a case where a user is making
Republican-POV edits to an article, and acting in a way which is borderline blockable, say, sort
1525:
largely per
Dmcdevit's reasoning. Admins (in my view) are held to certain standards and administrators and their actions reflect not only on the user but on Knowledge (XXG), and more broadly the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't feel that the candidate's POV (not necessarily the views themselves, but
356:
in particular examine incidents and sanction if necessary. As long as standard procedure and policy is being followed there is no reason to treat an established user differently than a new one. Now, there are cases where I would recuse myself from issuing a block. The most distinct example would
1410:
Your repsponse is also a false dichotomy that implies that having userboxes on a page stating one's POV implies that one is editing
Knowledge (XXG) with the purpose of pushing a POV. POV userboxes are not "bad": if anything they help users who scrutinize another user's edits to know what kind of
1326:
formulation, but, in any event, not particularly inclined to reach the userbox question because I think it quite plain that SOI is possessed of the deliberative temperament, judgment, and cordial demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite auspicious and am altogether confident
1756:
for the 2nd article. Looking back, the 2nd one I probably would have used a test template on if it had not come directly after the first blatant edit. Looking closer now, I'm not sure if the user saw my first warning before or after he made the second edit. They are both logged in as the same
578:. Regarding the idea of Knowledge (XXG) being a "chore," I can attest to this. There's a bare level of editing required to satisfy the addiction, which explains why I'm here instead of staying on break where I belong. Incidentally, it appears I was one of several sysops to
1701:
Mackensen probably states my reason for voting most eloquently though: I feel uneasy with an "addict" being given more control over something other than reducing their own addiction. Of course, that's not enough for an oppose vote IMO, so thus my neutral vote here.
1636:- Unsure. He doesn't seem well rounded, mostly doing reversions and jumping into conflicts, but that in itself isn't enough to oppose. Looking at his diffs, it appears he treats Knowledge (XXG) like a chore, and that makes me nervous.
357:
be in the event of a 3RR violation of an article where I'm actively editing (or performed a revert of my own of an edit by the party in question). In a case like this the incident should always be reported to the appropriate
1327:
that SOI, qua admin, will neither abuse nor misuse (even avolitionally) the tools, such that I am confident that the net effect on the project of SOI's becoming an admin will be positive (the latter is, after all, my
866:
72:) â Although my account was created back in May of 2005 I don't really consider myself as having become an editor until October 2005 when I did some cleanup on the Crew Exploration Vehicle (now named
1569:
them. Once one publically and internally identifies oneself with a certain "crew", this by its very nature strengthens one's biases. A Knowledge (XXG) editor, and even more so an admin, should
1817:
1373:
incredibly, POV userboxes themselves. Not someone whose userpage (and judgment thereof) reflects well upon the encyclopedia, and certainly not someone I trust with adminship at this point.
1328:
385:
292:
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?
222:
the project in just a few days. Since then I've been working on tagging articles related to the project. Most of this is really just clerical type work, but it needs to be done.
947:
per nom and answers. Appears well-qualified for the tools. Re the Oppose !vote, I am not a big fan of POV userboxes but their presence should hardly be disqualifying either.
272:- I was surprised to find out that there wasn't an article for this brand of knives so I decided to get one started. This included authoring some basic text and uploading a
92:), and done lots and lots of vandalism repair. That last one is my biggest reason for desiring adminship at this time. There have been too many cases where the backlog on
606:
Thanks very much for the support, but please note that the word "chore" hasn't passed my fingers. It was a comment by another editor which others have been reacting to. --
1783:. In neither case was my block request intended to be punative. In both cases there was a reasonable expectation that the user would continue to make similiar edits. --
303:
146:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve
Knowledge (XXG) in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
348:
As with an unestablished (meaning new, low edit count, or anonymous) user, anything demanding a block should have good documentation on the talk page or a report on
1770:
hasn't made an edit since your last warning... And what are the instructions at the top of AIV? I'll keep my eye on that user, and no doubt block them tomorrow ;) /
352:
to back it up. As well, such blocks should be preventative and not punative, being used to keep further damage from happening and let the community at large or
1779:
Umm, I'm sorry but that user did make an edit since my last warning. My last warning (spam4) was yesterday and after his edit today I added the message to
215:
211:
1835:
166:
1601:. I tend to agree that it can be best to be upfront with one's biases, but I feel this editor has relatively limited encyclopedia-building experience.
1546:
per
Dmcdevit. I am sorry, but really too much not to be concerned. And yes, I've got 1 naughty user box myself - but I am not standing for admin. --
468:
Sorry, I deleted my cookie because of the wikibreak. About my 2500th edit :) And next time just strike IP votes, I'm pretty sure thats policy. --
1735:- i've not looked into the users contribs, nor come across them in the past (before today). However I'm a bit concerned by a posting on WP:AIV
207:
89:
266:
it was in. After a couple of days editing I had it to a state that although not perfect I felt it was ready to have the cleanup tag removed.
241:
69:
107:
863:
623:
431:
245:
33:
17:
1752:
the user added text such as "coke fiend" under the religion entry and "HAS A PENIS!!!!" under nationality for one article and a whole
1499:
1444:
1217:
1128:) has not been a bigger issue. Nevertheless, I don't see any evidence of your point-of-view becoming an issue in the encyclopedia. --
1276:
158:
361:
and left to an uninvolved admin to sort out. It is essential that conflict of interest be avoided when using admin functions.
850:. This admin shows no record of POV-pushing or anything of that nature that would lead me to think he would abuse the tools.
249:
237:
225:
81:
597:
Enthusiastic editor despite the chore remarks (we've all been there at some point); the admin tools will be used sensibly.
378:
1028:
154:
1255:
779:
540:. Great user, but I'm a bit scared that he likes to write about knives. *scared* That's my saddest attempt at a joke. --
1415:
on
Knowledge (XXG) has a POV, and no matter how hard we try it is impossible to be completely neutral in our edits. â
1280:
198:
Of your articles or contributions to
Knowledge (XXG), are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
1757:
minute but I didn't see the user's second edit listed when I checked his history before issuing the first warning. --
162:
1704:
1638:
1322:
I concur in part in Xoloz's assessment of the propriety of the use of advocacy userboxes and in part in
Dmcdevit's
839:
319:
63:
1796:
1787:
1774:
1761:
1743:
1718:
1684:
1673:
1652:
1621:
1605:
1591:
1550:
1538:
1507:
1465:
1452:
1405:
1391:
1381:
1357:
1335:
1314:
1298:
1285:
1258:
1235:
1221:
1196:
1184:
1167:
1151:
1139:
1116:
1095:
1083:
1071:
1050:
1038:
1011:
991:
963:
951:
939:
925:
908:
890:
878:
854:
842:
824:
803:
783:
766:
754:
732:
712:
700:
688:
676:
659:
644:
632:
610:
601:
589:
570:
558:
532:
511:
494:
476:
463:
452:
436:
392:
340:
132:
119:
1713:
1647:
917:
ends up high on my scope now being that it accounts for a lot of my interaction with administrators. Already,
598:
1527:
697:
724:
428:
204:
A few of my prouder involvements are mentioned above, but let me try listing them with a little more detail:
1252:
1244:
749:
1494:
1439:
1211:
1033:
273:
1662:
1536:
1124:
Based on past experience, I'm quite surprised that your userpage (and particularly potentially insulting
521:
1180:
1176:
887:
507:
425:
1816:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
1192:
seems to be good, devoted editor. Besides he has learnt the lesson and removed the political userboxen
720:
Very yes! Seen a lot of good things from StuffOfInterest, and I'm sure they'll do well with the tools.
1348:
1784:
1758:
1602:
1388:
1125:
1004:
922:
762:, StuffOfInterest does good work and wants to help out further, I see no reason to hinder this goal.
656:
653:
607:
374:
129:
116:
59:
1709:
1643:
1272:
1066:
740:, only seen + stuff out of StuffOfInterest, and Wiki would be better if this user had the buttons.
586:
503:
469:
445:
1148:
921:
is an area I hope to watch and when time permits I can check out other backlogs to lend a hand. --
349:
1671:
1462:
1402:
1378:
1312:
1193:
1008:
1000:
818:
814:
743:
672:
530:
474:
450:
337:
73:
444:- a good user, familiar with policy, and having good experience with the wiki. Full support. --
1680:
1618:
1587:
1471:
1416:
1206:
1024:
796:
353:
311:
180:
97:
1547:
1130:
1108:
1058:. As long as the POV userboxes don't affect his editing, I think they're perfectly fine. --
948:
883:
269:
229:
77:
1780:
1247:
914:
899:
792:
176:
93:
960:
851:
491:
1526:
the overt broadcasting of them) is at all a reflection of
Knowledge (XXG) and its aims.
918:
358:
185:
1575:
think of themselves, and identify, as a member of a political party while they are here.
1267:
1230:
1059:
902:, but the user seems civil and thoughtful and demonstrates his need for the tools. --
836:
800:
763:
746:
641:
583:
541:
389:
299:
1829:
1667:
1458:
1398:
1374:
1332:
1307:
1047:
729:
721:
669:
526:
333:
259:
233:
490:
He seems like a pretty good user and has good experience. I'll give him my support.
1614:
1583:
1266:
I've seen him at AfD a couple times and he is pretty civil. Given that, I support.
1020:
972:
936:
103:
1660:
Can you please provide solid evidence to support your statement regarding this? --
1582:
Either way, I am very skeptical about the explicitly POV-advocating userboxes. --
298:
The closest thing I've had to a direct confrontation with another editor was with
306:
over a template I had made exactly one edit to. As that template has since been
1104:
903:
775:
709:
567:
276:
of my own set of the knives. Some time soon I hope to get around to working on
100:
has been to the point that vandalism on pages could continue for far too long.
1810:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
1793:
1771:
1740:
1295:
1080:
875:
685:
460:
1164:
1159:
Look forward to seeing you with mop and bucket. And I liked his response to
833:
277:
232:
lines. In particular, I'm happy with the articles for the four stations in
115:
the mop and bucket to help keep the backlogs a little more under control. --
774:
Good work, good tenure, and I like the work on transit related articles.--
332:
Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?--
799:
before and it all looks good to me, so I have no reason not to support. --
262:
related article which I decided to take under my wing after seeing what a
76:) article. Since that time I've spread out into creating a few articles (
1092:
175:
As mentioned in the introduction, my biggest goal is to keep an eye on
210:- This one is my most recent area of activity. I was able to go from
1820:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
696:: Contribs looking good, no reason not to trust user with the tools.
255:
85:
1695:
and this edit war at the end of August.(diff from the middle of it)
153:
What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out
1470:
Oh, well if I misunderstood you, I'm sorry. Not a big deal. â
1112:
519:
Has a good level of experience and a solid editor as well. --
126:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
1766:
Remember blocks aren't for punishment, the user you've just
1678:
Please expand on this with examples/evidence, thank you.--
898:
I like to see users who want to do more than just monitor
314:, I can't point to the actual edit. Karamafist later had
280:, whose brand of ranges is in the background of the photo.
1243:
a great editor. seems like he would make a great admin.
188:, I can help in reducing the wait time for those actions.
110:
me back in February, but at the time I felt obligated to
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
1767:
1753:
1749:
1736:
1696:
1693:
1690:
1079:, after having a browse of the user's contribs. Thanks/
315:
307:
263:
219:
111:
971:- logically, you should have passed the declined RfA.
913:
I'm sure I'll branch out into more things over time.
959:
per nom. and great answer to Dmcdevit's question. -
1091:- solid editor, very likely to be a good admin. --
302:back in December when he decided to list me in a
84:stubs), performing major cleanup on one article (
55:Final (52/6/1) Ended Mon, 9 Oct 2006 13:47:20 UTC
1739:get some time I'll have a better sift ;) Thanks/
1103:- No reason so far demonstrated not to trust. -
1748:In most cases I would use a test template, but
8:
1689:Sure. Basically edit summaries like these
811:. Looks like an honest, hardworking user.
1229:I like his style, have seen good edits. -
402:(for expressing views without numbering)
208:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Amateur radio
1046:. Need more admins, this one will do.
862:. Looks like good stuff to me. Â ;-)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship
1147:seems likely to make a good admin. --
502:. Seen him around doing good work. --
7:
24:
1836:Successful requests for adminship
1565:biases, this doesn't mean we all
1411:unintentional bias to look for.
418:- Seems like a good enough user.
155:Category:Knowledge (XXG) backlog
159:Category:Administrative backlog
128:Accepted as self nomination. --
1457:Hm? I didn't say that at all.
1306:Everything looks fine here. â
864:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
226:Silver Line (Washington Metro)
1:
1126:User:StuffOfInterest#Religion
791:I have seen this user around
1105:Stephanie Daugherty (Triona)
832:Will not abuse the tools. --
582:the template in question...
216:gathering interested parties
167:administrators' reading list
1797:13:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
1788:13:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
1775:13:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
1762:13:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
1744:13:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
1719:00:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
1685:20:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
1674:18:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
1653:12:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
1622:03:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
1606:03:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
1592:11:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
1551:10:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
1539:03:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
1508:01:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
1466:16:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
1453:13:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
1406:08:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
1392:21:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
1382:20:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
1358:05:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
1336:04:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
1315:20:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
1299:15:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
1286:04:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
1259:19:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
1236:17:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
1222:11:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
1197:07:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
1185:06:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
1168:19:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
1152:13:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
1140:11:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
1117:10:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
1096:23:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
1084:22:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
1072:21:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
1051:18:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
1039:17:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
1012:16:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
992:11:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
964:03:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
952:02:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
940:02:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
926:11:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
909:02:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
891:01:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
879:00:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
867:23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
855:23:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
843:22:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
825:18:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
804:15:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
784:14:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
767:12:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
755:12:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
733:12:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
713:08:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
701:04:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
689:23:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
677:22:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
660:22:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
645:22:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
633:21:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
611:21:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
602:21:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
590:19:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
571:19:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
559:19:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
533:18:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
512:13:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
495:13:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
477:13:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
464:13:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
453:13:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
437:12:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
393:12:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
377:'s edit summary usage with
341:23:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
142:Questions for the candidate
133:11:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
120:11:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
1852:
1792:Sorry, my mistake there! /
1733:(changed to support above)
1204:â should be a good one. â
161:, and read the page about
88:), started a WikiProject (
640:per the above comments.
1813:Please do not modify it.
459:Note: IPs second edit.
39:Please do not modify it
1329:principal RfA standard
708:- per above really --
1768:added to AIV just now
34:request for adminship
1561:Just because we all
106:was kind enough to
242:Tysons Central 123
1754:bunch of nonsense
1284:
1070:
907:
435:
384:Edit stat in the
1843:
1815:
1707:
1683:
1670:
1665:
1641:
1534:
1533:
1506:
1491:
1490:
1487:
1484:
1481:
1478:
1475:
1451:
1436:
1435:
1432:
1429:
1426:
1423:
1420:
1353:
1310:
1270:
1250:
1233:
1136:
1133:
1064:
1036:
988:
986:
984:
982:
906:
821:
753:
727:
698:Heimstern Läufer
675:
631:
630:
628:
556:
551:
546:
529:
524:
434:
419:
368:General comments
270:Global (cutlery)
246:Tysons Central 7
230:Washington Metro
212:project proposal
41:
1851:
1850:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1818:this nomination
1811:
1785:StuffOfInterest
1759:StuffOfInterest
1705:
1679:
1663:
1661:
1639:
1603:Espresso Addict
1529:
1528:
1504:
1493:
1488:
1485:
1482:
1479:
1476:
1473:
1472:
1449:
1438:
1433:
1430:
1427:
1424:
1421:
1418:
1417:
1389:StuffOfInterest
1370:Strongly oppose
1351:
1324:false dichotomy
1308:
1248:
1231:
1220:
1134:
1131:
1032:
980:
978:
976:
974:
923:StuffOfInterest
819:
782:
741:
725:
668:
624:
622:
621:
608:StuffOfInterest
552:
547:
542:
522:
520:
432:52278 Alpha 771
426:Fenton, Matthew
420:
375:StuffOfInterest
130:StuffOfInterest
117:StuffOfInterest
80:and a bunch of
60:StuffOfInterest
52:
49:StuffOfInterest
37:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1849:
1847:
1839:
1838:
1828:
1827:
1823:
1822:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1699:
1687:
1676:
1625:
1624:
1613:per Dmcdevit.
1608:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1580:
1576:
1553:
1541:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1500:
1445:
1361:
1360:
1338:
1317:
1301:
1288:
1264:Strong support
1261:
1238:
1224:
1210:
1199:
1187:
1170:
1154:
1142:
1119:
1098:
1086:
1074:
1053:
1041:
1014:
994:
966:
954:
942:
930:
929:
928:
893:
881:
869:
857:
845:
827:
806:
786:
778:
769:
757:
735:
715:
703:
691:
679:
662:
647:
635:
615:
614:
613:
599:(aeropagitica)
592:
573:
561:
535:
514:
497:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
442:Strong support
439:
407:
406:
397:
396:
395:
382:
379:mathbot's tool
370:
369:
365:
364:
363:
362:
326:
325:
324:
323:
316:other problems
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
267:
253:
223:
192:
191:
190:
189:
184:by monitoring
163:administrators
144:
143:
138:
136:
135:
51:
46:
45:
44:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1848:
1837:
1834:
1833:
1831:
1821:
1819:
1814:
1808:
1798:
1795:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1786:
1782:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1760:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1742:
1737:
1734:
1731:
1730:
1726:
1725:
1720:
1717:
1716:
1712:
1711:
1708:
1700:
1697:
1694:
1691:
1688:
1686:
1682:
1677:
1675:
1672:
1669:
1666:
1659:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1651:
1650:
1646:
1645:
1642:
1635:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1623:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1609:
1607:
1604:
1600:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1574:
1573:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1559:
1557:
1554:
1552:
1549:
1545:
1542:
1540:
1537:
1535:
1532:
1524:
1521:
1509:
1505:
1503:
1498:
1495:
1492:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1450:
1448:
1443:
1440:
1437:
1414:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1404:
1400:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1390:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1380:
1376:
1371:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1359:
1356:
1355:
1346:
1342:
1339:
1337:
1334:
1330:
1325:
1321:
1318:
1316:
1313:
1311:
1305:
1302:
1300:
1297:
1292:
1289:
1287:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1269:
1268:Shin'ou's TTV
1265:
1262:
1260:
1257:
1254:
1251:
1246:
1242:
1239:
1237:
1234:
1228:
1225:
1223:
1219:
1218:damage report
1216:
1213:
1209:
1208:
1203:
1200:
1198:
1195:
1191:
1188:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1171:
1169:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1155:
1153:
1150:
1146:
1143:
1141:
1138:
1137:
1127:
1123:
1120:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1099:
1097:
1094:
1090:
1087:
1085:
1082:
1078:
1075:
1073:
1068:
1063:
1062:
1057:
1054:
1052:
1049:
1045:
1042:
1040:
1035:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1015:
1013:
1010:
1007:
1006:
1002:
998:
995:
993:
990:
989:
970:
967:
965:
962:
958:
955:
953:
950:
946:
943:
941:
938:
934:
931:
927:
924:
920:
916:
912:
911:
910:
905:
901:
897:
894:
892:
889:
885:
882:
880:
877:
873:
870:
868:
865:
861:
858:
856:
853:
849:
846:
844:
841:
838:
835:
831:
828:
826:
823:
822:
817:
816:
810:
807:
805:
802:
798:
794:
790:
787:
785:
781:
777:
773:
770:
768:
765:
761:
758:
756:
752:
751:
748:
745:
739:
736:
734:
731:
728:
723:
719:
716:
714:
711:
707:
704:
702:
699:
695:
692:
690:
687:
684:and 73s de --
683:
680:
678:
674:
671:
666:
663:
661:
658:
655:
651:
648:
646:
643:
639:
636:
634:
629:
627:
626:Doctor Bruno
619:
616:
612:
609:
605:
604:
603:
600:
596:
593:
591:
588:
585:
581:
577:
574:
572:
569:
565:
562:
560:
557:
555:
550:
545:
539:
536:
534:
531:
528:
525:
518:
515:
513:
509:
505:
501:
498:
496:
493:
489:
486:
478:
475:
473:
472:
467:
466:
465:
462:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
451:
449:
448:
443:
440:
438:
433:
430:
427:
423:
417:
414:
413:
412:
411:
405:
404:
403:
401:
394:
391:
387:
383:
380:
376:
372:
371:
367:
366:
360:
355:
351:
347:
344:
343:
342:
339:
335:
331:
328:
327:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
294:
293:
291:
288:
287:
279:
275:
271:
268:
265:
261:
260:Amateur radio
258:- This is an
257:
254:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
234:Tysons Corner
231:
227:
224:
221:
217:
213:
209:
206:
205:
203:
200:
199:
197:
194:
193:
187:
182:
178:
174:
171:
170:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
149:
148:
147:
141:
140:
139:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:
122:
121:
118:
113:
109:
105:
101:
99:
95:
91:
90:Amateur radio
87:
83:
79:
78:Global knives
75:
71:
68:
65:
61:
57:
56:
50:
47:
43:
40:
35:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1812:
1809:
1732:
1728:
1727:
1714:
1703:
1657:
1648:
1637:
1633:
1627:
1626:
1610:
1598:
1571:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1555:
1543:
1530:
1522:
1501:
1496:
1446:
1441:
1412:
1369:
1363:
1362:
1349:
1344:
1340:
1323:
1319:
1303:
1290:
1263:
1245:Wikipediarul
1240:
1226:
1214:
1207:riana_dzasta
1205:
1201:
1189:
1172:
1163:vote below.
1160:
1156:
1144:
1129:
1121:
1100:
1088:
1076:
1060:
1055:
1043:
1016:
1003:
996:
973:
968:
956:
944:
932:
895:
871:
859:
847:
829:
813:
812:
808:
788:
771:
759:
742:
737:
717:
705:
693:
681:
667:per above. â
664:
649:
637:
625:
617:
594:
579:
575:
563:
553:
548:
543:
537:
516:
499:
487:
470:
446:
441:
421:
415:
409:
408:
399:
398:
359:notice board
345:
329:
295:
289:
201:
195:
172:
150:
145:
137:
125:
102:
66:
58:
54:
53:
48:
38:
30:
28:
1548:Pan Gerwazy
1212:wreak havoc
1177:Williamborg
949:Newyorkbrad
884:Merovingian
264:sorry state
250:Tysons West
238:Tysons East
82:Silver Line
1019:per nom --
961:Patman2648
852:Themindset
492:Hello32020
429:Lexic Dark
400:Discussion
220:activating
218:and on to
31:successful
1531:hoopydink
1232:Lapinmies
1194:abakharev
1061:Mr. Lefty
935:per nom.
801:WinHunter
764:Thryduulf
654:Canderous
642:RFerreira
584:Mackensen
566:per nom.
390:WinHunter
386:talk page
350:WP:AN/3RR
320:talk page
300:Karmafist
278:Thermador
1830:Category
1523:Opposish
1502:contribs
1459:Dmcdevit
1447:contribs
1413:Everyone
1399:Dmcdevit
1375:Dmcdevit
1309:xaosflux
1281:Kotobuki
1157:Support.
1029:contribs
896:Support.
471:Draicone
447:Draicone
334:Mcginnly
165:and the
108:nominate
70:contribs
1729:Neutral
1715:Powered
1668:iva1979
1658:Comment
1649:Powered
1634:Neutral
1628:Neutral
1615:pschemp
1584:Deville
1567:embrace
1341:Support
1320:Support
1304:Support
1291:Support
1241:Support
1227:Support
1202:Support
1190:Support
1173:Support
1149:W.marsh
1145:Support
1122:Support
1113:Comment
1101:Support
1089:Support
1077:Support
1056:Support
1044:Support
1021:Ageo020
1017:Support
1001:Mailer
997:Support
969:Support
957:Support
945:Support
937:John254
933:Support
872:Support
860:Support
848:Support
830:Support
815:Nautica
809:Support
797:WP:RFPP
789:Support
772:Support
760:Support
738:Support
718:Support
706:Support
694:Support
682:Support
665:Support
650:Support
638:Support
618:Support
595:Support
576:Support
568:Michael
564:Support
538:Support
527:iva1979
517:Support
500:Support
488:Support
416:Support
410:Support
308:deleted
181:WP:RFPP
112:decline
104:Alkivar
98:WP:RFPP
1781:WP:AIV
1611:Oppose
1599:Oppose
1556:Oppose
1544:Oppose
1364:Oppose
1277:Masago
1273:Futaba
1161:Oppose
1135:abjotu
1048:Haukur
915:WP:AIV
904:Merope
900:WP:AIV
820:Shades
793:WP:AIV
776:danntm
750:Bryant
744:Daniel
710:Tawker
587:(talk)
580:delete
422:thanks
354:ArbCom
338:Natter
312:salted
256:D-STAR
248:, and
177:WP:AIV
94:WP:AIV
86:D-STAR
1794:wangi
1772:wangi
1741:wangi
1710:eople
1681:Andeh
1644:eople
1296:Xoloz
1132:tariq
1081:wangi
1034:count
1009:iablo
919:WP:RM
876:Zaxem
686:Aaron
461:MER-C
274:photo
186:WP:RM
74:Orion
16:<
1750:here
1619:talk
1588:Talk
1563:have
1347:way
1345:some
1256:2221
1181:Bill
1165:Jcam
1109:Talk
1067:talk
1025:talk
999:. -
888:Talk
834:CFIF
795:and
730:Halo
673:khoi
670:Khoi
657:Ordo
544:Nish
508:Talk
504:Alex
373:See
310:and
179:and
157:and
96:and
64:talk
1572:not
1333:Joe
1093:MCB
549:kid
304:RfC
214:to
1832::
1617:|
1590:)
1486:ar
1483:ik
1480:Sh
1477:rk
1474:Da
1431:ar
1428:ik
1425:Sh
1422:rk
1419:Da
1350:Gl
1183:)
1115:-
1111:-
1107:-
1037:)
1031:â˘
1027:â˘
987:a
886:-
874:.
722:Th
652:-
620:.
554:64
510:)
388:--
346:A:
336:|
330:4.
296:A:
290:3.
252:).
244:,
240:,
202:A:
196:2.
173:A:
169:.
151:1.
36:.
1706:P
1698:.
1692:,
1664:S
1640:P
1586:(
1497:/
1489:i
1463:t
1461:¡
1442:/
1434:i
1403:t
1401:¡
1379:t
1377:¡
1354:n
1352:e
1283:)
1279:|
1275:|
1271:(
1253:s
1249:e
1215:-
1179:(
1069:)
1065:(
1023:(
1005:D
985:g
983:o
981:c
979:r
977:o
975:J
840:â
837:â
780:C
747:.
726:Îľ
523:S
506:(
424:/
381:.
322:.
236:(
67:¡
62:(
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.