2024:--Viewing contribution data for user Sam Vimes (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 196 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 9hr (UTC) -- 14, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 8hr (UTC) -- 1, November, 2005 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.49% Minor edits: 100% Average edits per day: 8.5 (for last 500 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 846 edits) : Major article edits: 99.76% Minor article edits: 100% Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown of this page): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 1.28% (64) Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 4.84% (242) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 31.12% (1556) Minor article edits marked as minor: 5.99% Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 1938 | Average edits per page: 2.58 | Edits on top: 8.74% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 80.58% (4029 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 2.48% (124 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 16.94% (847 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 0.76% (38 edit(s)) Edits by Knowledge (XXG) namespace: Article: 77.54% (3877) | Article talk: 3.42% (171) User: 5.12% (256) | User talk: 4.16% (208) Knowledge (XXG): 4.86% (243) | Knowledge (XXG) talk: 1.98% (99) Image: 0.1% (5) Template: 1.4% (70) Category: 0.88% (44) Portal: 0.1% (5) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.44% (22)
664:- good grief, if the only complaint is that he doesn't always warn vandals, then he sounds like a good candidate to me. Can anyone honestly say that they have left a warning in every single case of vandalism they have reverted? Sometimes, I have reverted and someone has beaten me to the punch. Sometimes, I'm reverting day-old vandalism to something on my watchlist and there just isn't a point - whoever did it is probably not on the same IP. Sometimes, there are already eleventy billion "the next time you vandalize you will be blocked" messages on the talk page and one more just isn't going to matter that much. Yes, warning templates obviously should be left most of the time, but this is something that can simply be explained to the user. I don't see a reason to oppose if that is the only problem.
439:
has written on many different types of sport is no different to the fact that there have been many admins (not least of all BD2412 of all people) who concentrate on writing in an equally focused range of topics, such as law, politics, geography of their given country, history of their given country, only vandalism-reverts in the case of
Naconkantari. He is a very humble and gracious person, and I am 100% confident that he will warning vandals appropriately. Furthermore, I do not see how not doing so is an abuse of tools. Sam definitely gave me a good impression of WP when I was new, in upholding its good name, so I think his ability to have a positive effect on (particularly new) contributors would also be much enhanced as an admin.
1158:(I would have supported earlier but somehow this AfD slipped through my radar in the last week.) Moreover, it seems to me that the bulk of the criticism below is that Sam does a lot of great work with the fixing of the vandalism, but he just doesn't dot the i's and cross the t's with the warnings. So, if it helps, think of him as that crusty and ill-spoken cop who hates to file paperwork and always has the captain riding his ass, but in the end always gets his man. Like, say, Nick Nolte in
552:. The initial versions were infested with fallacies and nonsense from schoolkids. After noting his concerns on the talkpage, Sam Vimes took it upon himself to sort out the huge list of nonsense and rewrite the entire thing making a much better article. That is the type of Wikipedian we need. Also, I think it is wrong to oppose because he does not warn vandals after reverting the vandalism. Really, we should be glad that he is willing to RC patrol
1581:
this hard. I stress that this is not a reflection on Sam's abilities as an editor, which are greatly appreciated. I'm just not convinced that the time is right for Sam to be an admin. Sam: if you show more involvement in the admin areas of
Knowledge (XXG), I am very likely to support your next RFA, if this one does not reach consensus. If you don't, then please realise that if being an admin is 'no big deal', not being one isn't either.
1576:
issue is a concern, but not the only one. Whilst I realise that the 'one vandal edit cases' warning is not always appropriate looking through contributions I saw many examples when warnings should have been given. Whilst the reply above by
Blnguyen rightly points out that a lot of the reverts are to watchlisted articles (a very good thing, and it is extremely valuable to have editors doing that), I can't see any reports to
1430:, I'm sorry but there's not really much point in reverting the usual vandal without warning them. I learnt this some time ago. Admins must know how to deal with vandalism properly, if you can't do the basic warnings to users while patrolling how will I know you can deal with vandals as an admin? You are a great editor but don't seem to be ready for it just yet.--
892:. If the fine job he has done as an editor is any indication, I think he will make a fine editor. He appears to have good judgment and a pleasant demeanour that will be required as an admin. The objections regarding failing to warn vandals seems rather minor to me, given that no one is perfect and that adminship is no big deal. I also concurr with
1476:
not seem to pick up the same hostile attention as politics. Which is another reason why content specialists should not be kept separate from this type of work - they can pick up misinformation-vandalism which a person manning
Vandalproof or CDVF does not. So the slowing down of anti-vandal fighting is incorrect.
1575:
I have thoroughly reviewed the comments by supporters above and on my talk page. However, I do remain unconvinced. Admin status is not granted as a reward for good contributions (I'm not disputing that they are good, nor am I disputing that Sam is a great asset to
Knowledge (XXG)). The test templates
1541:
I have to say wrt the comments on the sport, there is a a variety of different types of sports involved, across a wide historical era - I can recall articles about 19th century
English cricket as well as contemporary cricket - as well as there being a wide global coverage of the sports involved. This
1157:
as per
Blnguyen, Sjakalle, and FloNight, and even more on the great interactions I've had with this user personally. He is a User Who Makes Knowledge (XXG) Better, and even more importantly vis-à-vis becoming an admin, he is a user who understands the Mission and has, does and will contribute to it.
741:
I'm breaking my no-RfA rule here for Sam. He is an excellent editor and his answers to the questions below show great maturity. I note that I do not always place a vandal warning on every vandalism revert I perform. Often (e.g. AOL), it's worse than useless. Other times, such as obviously one-off
1580:
of vandals needing to be blocked. I am not fully satisfied by the answer to
Gwernol’s question, as it doesn’t (in my opinion) show a full understanding of the issues surrounding warning people. There are other things, but rather than me taking all day explaining please respect that I have considered
1523:
templates, but after further review, I see more not-so-pleasant things. Namely (p) over 11,000 edits, but fewer than 500 project edits (familiarity with the ins-and-outs?), fewer than 300 article talk page edits and fewer than 500 user talk page edits (people skills?), and an overemphasis on cricket
1403:
One thing that does annoy me on
Knowledge (XXG) is those editors who are happy to rollback vandalism, or test edits, but will not then add any warning templates to the relevant users' talk pages. I've come across Sam on cricket articles, and he is a very dedicated editor, however I cannot support at
413:
for a start). I have found Sam to be always sincere in his editing and approach and as such, his answer to
Gwernol's question below should put people's minds at ease if they have any doubts regarding the warning template issue. I personally think that's a bit of a non-issue in terms of opposing an
305:
that warning obvious one-off vandalism is a bit of a waste. I think that Sam will take on the messages put forward in the oppose votes and will warn vandals a bit more than he does now. As well as this anti-vandal work, Sam says that he will help out with deletion issues. There is a bit of a backlog
2402:
Regardless of the efforts to write policy to cover all eventualities, there will be times when doing the right thing for the encyclopedia involves doing an action not covered explicitly by policy. Therefore, I don't think such actions should automatically be sanctioned, but decisions should instead
1475:
Actually, most of the reverts that Sam does are on cricket articles, and are not nonsense but rather deliberate misinformation - without content specialists like him, a lot of cricket vandalism would not be detected as they are not usually obscene vandalism which is picked up by bots - cricket does
368:
per above. To forget to warn vandals, even repeatedly, is not a horrible offense. This argument seems to form just about 90% of the opposition's argument. We can collectively take it upon ourselves to politely remind him, and I'm sure that Sam would kindly vow to remember to warn vandals. I also
339:
good user, has a strong edit history with plenty of material contributions to Knowledge (XXG) articles and has also contributed to various project spaces, trustworthy, engages in administrator-like work and debates (wikiproject, afd, arbcom elections), writes non-stub articles, understands policy -
244:
is not a reason to oppose a valuable vandalhunter who could use the extra buttons in order to continue useful anti-vandalism work. His answers suggest that this isn't even 100% accurate. Positive reinforcement is better than negative, so: I support Sam Vimes becoming an admin as this user will from
2185:
I'm sure that Sam does not need me to defend him - his actions speak for themselves. However, given the slew of "does not warn vandals" opposition, I think it would be useful to know (a) how often Sam has reverted vandalism in, say, the last month or six months; and (b) how often he warns vandals
1947:
Although he has failed to warn vandals, his contributions to Knowledge (XXG) is immense. I feel that it is not right to oppose him on this account but I cannot give him my support as well because of the above-mentioned fallacy. If he starts, warning vandals, I would definitely support him in a few
438:
for more evidence of his collaborative abilities and understanding. As for the comments about the diversity, Sam has written on a variety of sports and the participation of a people from a variety of countries in the given sports throughout a wide time era of the history of sport. The fact that he
1384:
Not everyone joined up to fight vandalism. In fact, hopefully nobody did, that's not what we're here for. I'm a poor RC patroller, but have fared fine as an administrator. I will never understand this clique-ish trend towards opposing fine, sensible people who haven't reached your level of vandal
300:
For starters, Sam will be a trustworthy admin. He has shown a great committment to wikipedia with the quality and amount of contributions that he has made. He is also a civil user, and will therefore be able to negotiate in a civil way with other admins and users, as admins must do. Sam will deal
1930:
Despite a very large number of contributions, seems to have a narrow range of interest and relatively little project-space involvement. Can't oppose on vandal-warning grounds because I agree that it's a bit of a waste to warn obvious one-off vandalism of the "Hi mom/Dan was here/Kelly is a jerk"
1542:
would be about the same as many successful RfAs I have witnessed and supported where the candidate in question focused soley on one field, such as computer games, history/geography/politics/law of their country. As I said before, a lot of project edits are derived from "voting" on AfDs.
1902:
Is that really what Sam says? I read he says that warnings sometimes have no value. Anyone who has done vandalism reverting for half an hour will work this out for themselves. (Sorry to interject – not my normal style – but I feel it necessary to correct this misinterpretation.)
1892:
due to warning problems - not because he doesn't use them (can't expect everyone to have the time to do it every revert), but because his answer to Gwernol's question before seems to suggest that he believes that warnings have no value. Certainly not a good quality in an admin.
1012:. Excellent contributor, and I'm not convinced that a lack of vandal warnings is a good enough reason to believe that the candidate will abuse admin tools. To echo what BigDT said before, can anyone here really say they've warned every vandal they've reverted? I know I haven't.
434:. Also, as per the high project edits, most people have high project edits due to "voting" on AfDs, and in the case of most AfD entries, the vast majority have little meaningful comment, and a lot of people with high project count repeatedly refer to it literally as a vote. See
94:. There were some concerns in his last nomination that he had broken rules in creating article content in templates, but I believe this issue is now resolved (it was always a temporary measure in any event) and consigned to history. I am sure that he will be a good admin.
245:
now onwards generally warn vandals when appropriate. Easy. Also, specialisation in article development is a Good Thing. Not everyone needs to be generalists and Knowledge (XXG) benefits form having specialists - in any subject - on board and equipped with the right tools.
457:, this is what adminship is for: trusted contributors who we don't fear will misuse some extra helpful buttons. Sam is a fine editor to whom there is no reason not to give the buttons. None of those opposing have presented a single coherent reason for mistrusting his
1524:/ sports related pages. This is despite (d) a very large number of edits and many months of experience. As a side comment, I'm surprised by the fact that you have only eight minor edits in that past 500 contributions (I'm not opposing on those grounds of course).
1836:
Oh no, you guys probably don't know Anwar too well. The Diablo Test is his excuse for opposing everyone, considering you received a lot of support from Indian members of WikiProject Cricket and the like, you cannot expect to get a support vote from Anwar.
306:
with image deletion, and from what I've seen of Sam, he will carry out these deletions as set out in policy. Sam has been a fine contributor to wikipedia and I believe that he will also be a good admin based on the contributions that he has made.
214:. Maybe he could use the test templates a bit more, but I see nothing in more that eleven thousand edits to suggest that he'd abuse the tools. Lots of civil interactions, lots of admin-style tidying up. He'd clearly be an asset as an admin. --
1751:
per joturner, who makes an excellent case here. A large number of edits does not equate to administrative fitness if those edits do not show a well-rounded grasp of essential admin tasks (like talk-paging and projectspace experience.)
2351:
shows that I have been using test templates for quite some time - and I will admit that I have not been very active in recent changes patrol in the last four months (though checking my edit summaries for reverts will show the exact
1189:. I've had limited contact with Sam, but he's always been friendly and articulate, and his comments and edits well-considered. I also note that he is supported by a number of contributors in whose judgement I have complete faith.
988:, but, more importantly, because I so strongly disagree with several of the reasons for which others are opposing (my neutral would rest on altogether separate grounds), I think I must, like Carnildo, attempt to balance here.
849:. Seems like a fine candidate, and I have no doubt that he'll be warning vandals after this. If I remember right, though, Mr Vimes wasn't a great fan of being promoted. I say make him Captain of the Watch, but nothing higher.
647:, Sam is an excellent contributor who is reasoned in discussions, adept at recognising consensus and well versed in policies and guidelines. I only hope he doesn't go out and get Freddied at the announcement of this result.
2243:, seeing as things occasionally do go unnoticed there even with the large amounts of people watching it. I would also like to help with deletion issues, particularly images, where I understand there is a large backlog.
1330:. Content specialist with good leavening of experience in other areas. Vandalism warnings are a concern, but he has shown he can learn from suggestions, and I expect he'll warn vandals more reliably in the future. --
724:
per the "no big deal" clause, and because Sam's heart is in the right place, but I suggest an early period of mentorship from an experienced admin re. the need for warnings and reasonable adherence to process.
409:. Sam is a fine contributor who is always civil and helpful to other editors. He would make a first rate administrator. The image deletion backlog is a bit of a problem and all help there is appreciated (see
1081:
I think after all the comments below, he is not likely to forget to warn vandals anymore, and given as that is just about the only complaint, see no reason he should have to wait a few months to renominate.
1496:
Ditto with Joe. Vandals needed to be warned so they are aware people are here to revert their edits and so that they could possibly become good editors. It also gives standing for admins to warrant blocks.
385:, not warning vandals, thou annoying is a habit that will go away after the first dozen of commited vandals that he would not able to block due to the luck of warnings. Otherwise satisfy my criteria.
291:
Would you be kind enough to elaborate why you think Sam would be a good admin? I'm only asking because I'd be quite willing to reconsider my oppose if I see enough evidence to support your statement.
2303:
When I first started out, I was perhaps a little overenthusiastic in my article-writing, and had quite a few of my articles listred for deletion, which culminated in the mass nomination of them all
430:- I have noted that many people have cited that Sam is unproven in people-skills due to raw numbers, but I think that it can be seen to be incorrect by looking at his treatment of me as a newbie in
301:
with vandals and other disputes in the correct ways, and he has a good history in anti-vandalism. Sure, he might not warn vandals completely correctly, but I am pretty well of the same opinion of
2307:. However, they were all merged into individual articles on the season in the end, after some debate, and I think I have learned valuable lessons about referencing and neutral writing from that.
1044:
There is a surplus of vandals, but very few good contributors. After 19 reminders to warn vandals accordingly, I believe that Sam Vimes will take the necessary steps to correct this problem. --
2304:
1981:
I would have supported, but not giving out the vandalism warnings didn't do you any favors. Hopefuly, you can learn from that and in a couple of months you can reapply and make admin. —
618:
take the time to warn vandals. A quick {{subst:test}} ~~~~ on the person's talk page doesn't take long and helps people that find their vocation on Knowledge (XXG) is vandalfighting. --
1124:
One doesn't have to use the test1-4 templates to be a good vandalism reverter. They help, but can be cumbersome from time to time. They're no reason to oppose him getting admin. --
410:
2297:
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?
1385:
fighting, because they prefer to edit the encyclopedia's content. While I thank all vandal fighters for their diligence, that has absolutely no bearing on the editor's judgment.
340:
been active since 13 May 2005, percent edit summary use: 91.65% (for all edits), also rv vandalism with rare warnings is 100% better than not rv vandalism at all (agree with
1797:
1318:
the individual knows by know to use warnings and I trust they'll do it in the future and besides that the individual has plenty of wonderful experience and dedication -
2214:
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:
2186:
when he does. To be honest, I only warn vandals when there is a good reason, like I catch them doing it more than once, or it may become necessary to block. Posting
825:
despite lack of vandal warnings. Still a good editor, and his work shows he will make good-faith use of adminship, even if his Q&A proposals are a little vague. -
2329:
You often revert vandalism without following up with a warning to the vandal's talk page. Could you tell me why? And could you tell me when its appropriate to use {{
2269:, where I have written several biographies, detailed accounts of cricket tournaments, and also contributed to statistical lists. I'm rather pleased with the way
742:
incidents of vandalism, make a warning pointless. And an insistence on the Exact Specified Warning Templates (patents pending) is stupid, if I might be blunt.
1100:- with the feeling that half the oppose votes would have vanished if only he proclaimed loud and clear that he would use warnings regularly henceforth. Sam?? --
1404:
the present time someone who fails to use warning templates correctly. I would be happy to support in the future if there was evidence of their correct use. --
83:
1461:
not warning vandals damages the Knowledge (XXG). Why? Because admins shouldn't block without prior warning, making it slower to ban some blatant vandals!
2442:
2196:
messages to a drive-by single-article IP vandal is a waste of everyone's time. But then I am not a hard-core RC junkie - I just patrol my watchlist. --
1823:
Anwar, The Ashes as a FA, was a collaboration by a number of editors and Sam was certainly one of 3 or 4 major contributors at that time (and since). --
1216:- A valuable editor who will no doubt contribute a lot more to Knowledge (XXG) if admin powers are given. Just make sure you warn the vandals, though. -
2230:
2240:
2364:
test3: After repeat occurrences after a test1/test2 warning, or after an instance normally worthy of test1/test2 but with history of prior warnings.
228:
183:
after concerns about not warning vandals after reverting. Although I still maintain that he is a great editor & will not misuse the tools. --
2343:
I suppose there's not much I can do but to admit this - occasionally I revert vandals where no warning has proved to help (see the history of
2424:
2281:, a small settlement near where I live, turned out nicely after someone had written a hagiographic and false account of the place initially.
758:) subject specialists are good things, and my opinion of the subject shouldn't be (very) relevant. As below, lack of warnings not an issue.
2367:
test4: After a repeat occurrence after a test3 warning, or after an instance normally worthy of test2 but with history of prior blockings.
1170:
it! Had he never fixed a lick of vandalism, many of the detractors would have nothing to hang their hats on. Anyway, my two cents. --
40:
17:
2270:
1140:
Enough already about vandal warning templates. This seems to be an extremely weak reason to deny admin tools to an excellent editor.
556:, since it is a tedious job. I have no evidence whatsoever that he will abuse the admin tools, and find the opposition unconvincing.
2274:
785:
686:
1089:
1969:
I am not sure why he needs Admin tools. Concerns have been expressed about his vandalism reverts and he is not active in $ fD.
1723:
2266:
91:
1601:
496:
79:
1777:
1236:. I have only seen positive interaction from Sam, as well as wonderful contributions and a good attitude towards criticism.
788:
250:
2222:
1727:
577:
2259:
Of your articles or contributions to Knowledge (XXG), are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
369:
do not hold it against someone for specializing in a certain area of interest.). That's natural. If the user becomes
1563:
224:
2226:
2033:
477:
I was looking at his credentials and i think he will make a great admin, he just needs to start warning the vandals--
1562:. Can't find enough evidence that good use of admin tools will be made. Answers to questions worry me slightly. See
2361:
test2: "Nonsense", long lines of incohererent text ("zzyxyx...") or inappropriate images. Most first-time offences.
976:; I am certain a more decorous phrasing could be found). On the nomination and candidate alone, I'd typically be
431:
23:
1681:
1220:
1162:...:) Seriously, think of it this way: the oppose votes of this type are effectively penalizing his bid, not
635:
1349:
1285:, and I feel I know him well enough to feel confident that he would not to abuse admin tools. No hesitation
1203:
1190:
574:
2007:
1700:
1624:
255:
215:
1950:
1528:
1510:
1408:
770:
690:
631:
435:
310:
278:
2407:
2397:
2371:
2311:
2285:
2247:
2203:
2019:
1994:
1988:
1973:
1961:
1935:
1932:
1907:
1897:
1884:
1866:
1853:
1831:
1816:
1804:
1783:
1768:
1756:
1743:
1731:
1704:
1687:
1664:
1650:
1646:
1631:
1608:
1585:
1570:
1552:
1549:
1536:
1501:
1486:
1483:
1470:
1465:
1451:
1436:
1418:
1393:
1379:
1360:
1334:
1322:
1310:
1306:
1293:
1276:
1260:
1245:
1228:
1206:
1193:
1179:
1149:
1132:
1116:
1112:. A committed, conscientious and courteous editor who will now, I'm sure, do his bit against vandalism.
1104:
1092:
1073:
1061:
1036:
1025:
1004:
992:
964:
946:
936:
924:
904:
884:
870:
858:
841:
829:
817:
805:
793:
782:
762:
759:
746:
733:
716:
697:
682:
668:
656:
639:
622:
604:
580:
565:
540:
528:
511:
481:
469:
449:
446:
422:
401:
389:
377:
360:
348:
341:
331:
318:
302:
295:
286:
266:
233:
206:
189:
169:
143:
131:
114:
101:
2423:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
677:
1848:
1719:
1618:
1225:
1070:
1055:
599:
524:
489:
Quality contributor who brings a wealth of knowledge to Knowledge (XXG) and deserves to be an admin.
357:
2048:
1740:
1544:
1533:
1525:
1478:
897:
560:
508:
478:
441:
374:
140:
73:
941:
1959:
1415:
1390:
1354:
1202:
because he takes the time to revert vandalism even when he's really busy adding content. Sheesh!
1144:
853:
466:
386:
548:. Excellent contributor to the encyclopedia. The one example I remember best is the article on
2344:
1813:
1780:
1696:
1447:
1432:
1269:
1175:
961:
944:
882:
711:
328:
246:
162:
813:. Seems fine in general. Do warn the vandals, but I suspect you've learned that one already.
1983:
1642:
1462:
1302:
1086:
777:
767:
652:
2273:
turned out - a well-referenced article which only really lacks pictures. The same goes for
1577:
1442:
491:
2393:
2200:
1970:
1839:
1765:
1714:
1319:
1217:
1125:
1101:
1045:
1033:
893:
590:
520:
315:
307:
283:
275:
198:
128:
98:
1640:
as per Jo Turner, concerns raised re lack of vandal warning, and low project involvement.
414:
RfA - give him the tools and I'm certain he'll be an even more useful vandal fighter. --
344:) and finally, narrow range of interest can only be good for raising the quality of WP.
2404:
2403:
be made when the community or the Arbitration Committee finds the action unacceptable.
2368:
2334:
2330:
2308:
2282:
2244:
2029:
1801:
1678:
1596:
1582:
1567:
1376:
1290:
1019:
867:
838:
557:
537:
501:
292:
111:
87:
69:
55:
2436:
2190:
1955:
1904:
1863:
1828:
1517:
1427:
1405:
1386:
1344:
1254:
1241:
1141:
1001:
989:
933:
901:
850:
743:
726:
462:
419:
1894:
1660:- per lack of vandal warnings, keep warning vandals and you'll fly by next time --
1498:
1171:
955:
879:
706:
619:
260:
184:
155:
1764:
Not warning vandals raises concerns about how the user would approach admin tasks
1673:
1661:
1331:
1113:
1083:
826:
814:
802:
648:
398:
345:
2221:
What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out
1616:
per lack of vandal warnings. This attention to detail is crucial in adminship.
801:. Failure to warn vandals is not my reason to oppose. I see no major problem.--
2417:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
2197:
1881:
1753:
1030:
665:
125:
95:
837:. I nominate Sam last time, and I feel that he has only improved since then.
1789:
1014:
917:
1513:. I originally wasn't going to make a big fuss over the lack of use of the
2278:
1859:
1824:
1237:
549:
415:
2239:
I would probably help with matters requiring immediate attention on the
2387:
Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons
1695:
for lack of warnings. I am sure the candidate has learned what to do. -
2358:
test1: Light test edits which do little harm, such as "Adam was here".
2427:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
630:, another person I'm aware of who I thought was an admin already. --
1445:
and acts upon it, I'll be more than happy to support his next RFA.--
1301:
but would like to see more project involvement and use of warnings.
972:
per Carnildo (although I'm not certain that I concur in his use of
1858:
Yeah, I know, after having corresponded with Anwar previously --
1880:
due to warning issues and answer to Gwernol's question below.
2305:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Cricket_matches_articles
954:
I believe he will now warn vandals after this cruel process.
108:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
984:
ers that Sam will likely remedy the problems raised by the
36:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
82:) – Sam joined Knowledge (XXG) in December 2004 and was
2348:
1810:
1793:
411:
Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons
1809:
Since May 2005, the article has changed significantly
1375:please warn vandals after reverting their changes.
2277:. Outside of cricket, I also think the article on
932:to balance out some of the silly oppose votes. --
24:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes2
588:work at Cricket WikiProject has been very good.
519:for one of the finest Wikipedians that I know.
90:in August 2005. He is a very active member of
1931:variety that is the user's only contribution.
1788:This one I really feel I must comment on. See
1166:his tireless anti-vandalism work, but in fact
1812:. Your name hardly crops up in the FAC then.
1566:. I stress the first paragraph on that page.
8:
139:, excellent contributor in every respect.
1794:I made major contributions to in May 2005
980:; here, though, I agree with many of the
65:(68/19/2) ended 16:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
2041:
154:- Good admin candidate. Very helpful. -
2347:and warnings on several IPs). However,
373:narrow, however, it can be a problem.
1253:. Highly unlikely to abuse the tools!
18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship
2391:should be sanctioned? If so, how? --
7:
2271:2005-06 West Indian cricket season
1739:per issue of not warning vandals.
31:
2443:Successful requests for adminship
2275:2005-06 Australian cricket season
880:Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp !
2223:Category:Knowledge (XXG) backlog
147:(sorry, I just couldn't resist)
1268:For the reasons stated above.
1000:; seems like a good editor. --
1:
2265:I'm a longstanding member of
912:the only reason to oppose is
397:per Redvers and DarthVader --
2231:administrators' reading list
2241:Administrators' noticeboard
2210:Questions for the candidate
2032:'s edit summary usage with
705:-- as I did the last time.
432:User talk:Blnguyen/Archive1
2459:
2355:As for the exam question:
2225:, and read the page about
274:. Will make a good admin.
2408:21:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
2398:20:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
2372:17:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
2312:15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
2286:15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
2248:15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
2204:10:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
2020:09:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1995:20:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1974:13:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1962:01:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1936:20:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1908:20:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
1898:12:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
1885:01:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
1867:06:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
1854:06:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
1832:01:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
1817:11:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
1805:00:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
1784:23:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
1769:23:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
1757:01:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
1744:19:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1732:12:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1705:07:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1688:04:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1665:00:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1651:00:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1632:23:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1609:21:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1595:, does not warn vandals.
1586:10:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1571:21:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1553:00:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1537:18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1502:18:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1487:06:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1471:18:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1452:19:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1437:17:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1419:17:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1394:04:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
1380:16:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1361:14:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
1335:07:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
1323:03:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
1311:02:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
1294:01:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
1277:00:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
1261:22:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1246:11:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1229:09:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1207:04:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1194:03:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1180:02:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1150:00:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1133:20:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
1117:16:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
1105:13:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
1093:15:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
1074:09:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
1062:03:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
1037:23:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
1026:21:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
1005:16:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
993:05:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
965:05:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
947:01:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
937:23:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
925:21:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
905:18:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
885:16:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
871:15:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
859:14:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
842:10:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
830:06:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
818:04:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
806:00:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
794:23:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
763:23:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
747:22:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
734:18:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
717:15:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
698:14:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
669:14:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
657:13:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
640:13:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
623:10:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
605:08:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
581:06:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
566:06:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
541:05:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
529:05:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
512:04:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
482:04:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
470:04:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
450:04:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
423:04:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
402:03:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
390:02:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
378:02:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
361:01:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
349:00:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
332:23:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
319:22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
296:22:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
287:22:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
267:21:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
242:"Failure to warn vandals"
234:20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
207:20:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
190:19:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
170:16:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
144:16:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
132:09:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
115:16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
102:09:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
2420:Please do not modify it.
878:- give him his own mop!
1712:per warnings, sorry. -
1459:Mildishly strong oppose
46:Please do not modify it
2175:Distinct pages edited
2045:Sam Vimes' edit count
2005:User's lst 5000 edits.
1511:my different standards
141:Lord Havelock Vetinari
2389:not covered on policy
2143:Knowledge (XXG) talk
1798:featured in June 2005
1281:Major contributor to
676:, do warn vandals. --
645:Bloody Strong Support
41:request for adminship
1342:per SCZenz and JzG.
84:previously nominated
2267:WikiProject Cricket
428:Very Strong support
92:WikiProject Cricket
575:Christopher Parham
554:in the first place
2396:
2345:Darryl Strawberry
2320:Optional question
2182:
2181:
2049:Interiot's tool 2
1730:
791:
655:
638:
563:
536:as per Dmcdevit.
232:
219:
148:
86:for adminship by
22:(Redirected from
2450:
2422:
2392:
2195:
2189:
2135:Knowledge (XXG)
2042:
2016:
2013:
2010:
1993:
1991:
1986:
1958:
1953:
1933:Opabinia regalis
1851:
1845:
1842:
1718:
1684:
1630:
1627:
1621:
1531:
1522:
1516:
1484:Have your say!!!
1468:
1450:
1435:
1413:
1357:
1352:
1347:
1274:
1257:
1223:
1147:
1130:
1059:
1049:
1022:
1017:
922:
856:
781:
775:
760:Opabinia regalis
730:
714:
709:
693:
651:
634:
602:
596:
593:
561:
504:
499:
494:
447:Have your say!!!
342:Opabinia regalis
313:
303:Opabinia regalis
281:
263:
258:
253:
222:
217:
204:
201:
168:
165:
158:
146:
48:
27:
2458:
2457:
2453:
2452:
2451:
2449:
2448:
2447:
2433:
2432:
2431:
2425:this nomination
2418:
2193:
2187:
2025:
2014:
2011:
2008:
1989:
1984:
1982:
1951:
1949:
1948:months time. --
1849:
1843:
1840:
1682:
1625:
1619:
1617:
1606:
1564:my RfA criteria
1529:
1520:
1514:
1466:
1446:
1431:
1409:
1355:
1350:
1345:
1270:
1255:
1221:
1145:
1126:
1053:
1047:
1020:
1015:
918:
854:
771:
728:
712:
707:
696:
691:
600:
594:
591:
573:, no problems.
502:
497:
492:
311:
279:
261:
256:
251:
202:
199:
163:
160:
156:
59:
44:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2456:
2454:
2446:
2445:
2435:
2434:
2430:
2429:
2413:
2412:
2411:
2410:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2365:
2362:
2359:
2353:
2322:from Gwernol:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2253:
2252:
2251:
2250:
2227:administrators
2212:
2211:
2207:
2206:
2180:
2179:
2176:
2172:
2171:
2168:
2164:
2163:
2160:
2156:
2155:
2152:
2148:
2147:
2144:
2140:
2139:
2136:
2132:
2131:
2128:
2124:
2123:
2120:
2119:Template talk
2116:
2115:
2112:
2108:
2107:
2104:
2100:
2099:
2096:
2092:
2091:
2088:
2084:
2083:
2080:
2076:
2075:
2072:
2068:
2067:
2064:
2060:
2059:
2056:
2052:
2051:
2046:
2040:
2039:
2037:
2034:Mathbot's tool
2023:
2003:
2002:
1998:
1997:
1976:
1964:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1917:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1887:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1771:
1759:
1746:
1734:
1707:
1690:
1667:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1611:
1600:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1504:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1421:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1369:
1368:
1364:
1363:
1337:
1325:
1313:
1296:
1279:
1263:
1248:
1231:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1200:Strong Support
1182:
1155:Strong Support
1152:
1138:Strong Support
1135:
1119:
1107:
1095:
1076:
1064:
1039:
1028:
1007:
995:
967:
949:
939:
927:
916:unconvincing.
907:
887:
873:
861:
844:
832:
820:
808:
796:
765:
754:(changed from
749:
739:Strong support
736:
719:
700:
680:
671:
659:
642:
632:badlydrawnjeff
625:
607:
583:
568:
543:
531:
514:
484:
472:
452:
425:
407:Strong support
404:
392:
380:
375:Adambiswanger1
363:
351:
334:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
269:
236:
209:
192:
176:Strong Support
172:
149:
134:
121:
120:
117:
58:
53:
52:
51:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2455:
2444:
2441:
2440:
2438:
2428:
2426:
2421:
2415:
2414:
2409:
2406:
2401:
2400:
2399:
2395:
2390:
2386:
2385:
2384:
2383:
2382:DriniQuestion
2373:
2370:
2366:
2363:
2360:
2357:
2356:
2354:
2350:
2346:
2342:
2339:
2338:
2336:
2332:
2328:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2321:
2313:
2310:
2306:
2302:
2299:
2298:
2296:
2293:
2292:
2287:
2284:
2280:
2276:
2272:
2268:
2264:
2261:
2260:
2258:
2255:
2254:
2249:
2246:
2242:
2238:
2235:
2234:
2232:
2228:
2224:
2220:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2209:
2208:
2205:
2202:
2199:
2192:
2184:
2183:
2177:
2174:
2173:
2169:
2166:
2165:
2161:
2158:
2157:
2153:
2150:
2149:
2145:
2142:
2141:
2137:
2134:
2133:
2129:
2126:
2125:
2121:
2118:
2117:
2113:
2110:
2109:
2105:
2102:
2101:
2097:
2094:
2093:
2089:
2086:
2085:
2081:
2078:
2077:
2073:
2070:
2069:
2065:
2062:
2061:
2057:
2054:
2053:
2050:
2047:
2044:
2043:
2038:
2035:
2031:
2027:
2026:
2022:
2021:
2018:
2017:
2000:
1999:
1996:
1992:
1987:
1980:
1977:
1975:
1972:
1968:
1965:
1963:
1960:
1957:
1954:
1946:
1943:
1942:
1937:
1934:
1929:
1925:
1924:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1915:
1914:
1909:
1906:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1896:
1891:
1888:
1886:
1883:
1879:
1876:
1868:
1865:
1861:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1852:
1847:
1846:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1815:
1811:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1782:
1779:
1775:
1772:
1770:
1767:
1763:
1760:
1758:
1755:
1750:
1747:
1745:
1742:
1738:
1735:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1716:
1711:
1708:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1691:
1689:
1686:
1685:
1680:
1675:
1671:
1668:
1666:
1663:
1659:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1641:
1639:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1628:
1622:
1615:
1612:
1610:
1605:
1604:
1598:
1594:
1591:
1587:
1584:
1579:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1558:
1554:
1551:
1547:
1546:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1535:
1532:
1527:
1519:
1512:
1508:
1505:
1503:
1500:
1495:
1492:
1488:
1485:
1481:
1480:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1469:
1464:
1460:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1444:
1441:If Sam reads
1440:
1439:
1438:
1434:
1429:
1425:
1422:
1420:
1417:
1414:
1412:
1407:
1402:
1399:
1395:
1392:
1388:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1378:
1374:
1371:
1370:
1366:
1365:
1362:
1359:
1358:
1353:
1348:
1341:
1338:
1336:
1333:
1329:
1326:
1324:
1321:
1317:
1314:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1297:
1295:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1278:
1275:
1273:
1267:
1264:
1262:
1259:
1252:
1249:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1232:
1230:
1227:
1224:
1219:
1215:
1212:
1208:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1192:
1188:
1187:
1183:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1156:
1153:
1151:
1148:
1143:
1139:
1136:
1134:
1131:
1129:
1123:
1120:
1118:
1115:
1111:
1108:
1106:
1103:
1099:
1096:
1094:
1091:
1088:
1085:
1080:
1077:
1075:
1072:
1068:
1065:
1063:
1060:
1057:
1051:
1050:
1043:
1040:
1038:
1035:
1032:
1029:
1027:
1024:
1023:
1018:
1011:
1008:
1006:
1003:
999:
996:
994:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
968:
966:
963:
962:
959:
958:
953:
950:
948:
945:
943:
940:
938:
935:
931:
928:
926:
923:
921:
915:
911:
908:
906:
903:
899:
895:
891:
888:
886:
883:
881:
877:
874:
872:
869:
865:
862:
860:
857:
852:
848:
845:
843:
840:
836:
833:
831:
828:
824:
821:
819:
816:
812:
809:
807:
804:
800:
797:
795:
790:
787:
784:
779:
776:
774:
769:
766:
764:
761:
757:
753:
750:
748:
745:
740:
737:
735:
732:
723:
720:
718:
715:
710:
704:
701:
699:
694:
688:
684:
679:
675:
672:
670:
667:
663:
660:
658:
654:
650:
646:
643:
641:
637:
633:
629:
626:
624:
621:
617:
616:
611:
608:
606:
603:
598:
597:
587:
584:
582:
579:
576:
572:
569:
567:
564:
559:
555:
551:
547:
544:
542:
539:
535:
532:
530:
526:
522:
518:
515:
513:
510:
509:
506:
505:
500:
495:
488:
485:
483:
480:
476:
473:
471:
468:
464:
460:
456:
453:
451:
448:
444:
443:
437:
433:
429:
426:
424:
421:
417:
412:
408:
405:
403:
400:
396:
393:
391:
388:
384:
381:
379:
376:
372:
367:
364:
362:
359:
355:
352:
350:
347:
343:
338:
335:
333:
330:
327:Per above. --
326:
320:
317:
314:
309:
304:
299:
298:
297:
294:
290:
289:
288:
285:
282:
277:
273:
270:
268:
265:
264:
259:
254:
248:
243:
240:
237:
235:
230:
226:
221:
213:
210:
208:
205:
196:
193:
191:
188:
186:
182:
178:
177:
173:
171:
166:
159:
153:
150:
145:
142:
138:
135:
133:
130:
127:
123:
122:
118:
116:
113:
109:
106:
105:
104:
103:
100:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
78:
75:
71:
67:
66:
63:
57:
54:
50:
47:
42:
39:
34:
33:
25:
19:
2419:
2416:
2388:
2381:
2380:
2340:
2337:}}? Thanks.
2326:
2319:
2318:
2300:
2294:
2262:
2256:
2236:
2218:
2213:
2159:Portal talk
2006:
2004:
1978:
1966:
1944:
1927:
1922:
1921:
1889:
1877:
1838:
1773:
1761:
1748:
1736:
1715:CrazyRussian
1713:
1709:
1697:Ambuj Saxena
1692:
1677:
1669:
1657:
1637:
1636:
1613:
1602:
1592:
1559:
1543:
1506:
1493:
1477:
1458:
1423:
1410:
1400:
1372:
1343:
1340:Weak support
1339:
1328:Weak support
1327:
1315:
1298:
1286:
1282:
1272:Mr. Turcotte
1271:
1265:
1250:
1233:
1213:
1204:Snottygobble
1199:
1191:Snottygobble
1185:
1184:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1154:
1137:
1127:
1121:
1109:
1097:
1078:
1066:
1052:
1046:
1041:
1013:
1010:Full support
1009:
997:
985:
981:
977:
973:
969:
960:
956:
951:
929:
919:
913:
909:
889:
875:
866:, good guy.
863:
846:
835:Full support
834:
823:Weak support
822:
810:
798:
772:
755:
751:
738:
721:
702:
673:
661:
644:
627:
620:Lord Deskana
614:
613:
609:
589:
585:
570:
553:
545:
533:
516:
507:
490:
486:
474:
458:
454:
440:
427:
406:
394:
382:
370:
365:
353:
336:
271:
249:
241:
238:
211:
194:
187:
181:Weak Support
180:
179:Changing to
175:
174:
151:
136:
107:
76:
68:
64:
61:
60:
45:
37:
35:
2103:Image talk
2058:# of Edits
1926:Changed to
1778:Diablo Test
1737:Weak Oppose
1693:Weak oppose
1670:Weak oppose
1658:Weak oppose
1643:Sarah Ewart
1494:Week Oppose
1463:Computerjoe
1424:Weak oppose
1373:Weak oppose
1303:Sarah Ewart
1198:Changed to
1164:in spite of
1069:per above.
678:Terence Ong
612:but please
356:per above.
124:Nominator.
2087:User talk
1971:Eluchil404
1796:, and was
1766:TigerShark
1620:Aguerriero
1320:Patman2648
1168:because of
1128:Alphachimp
1102:Gurubrahma
1071:Nevermind2
894:DarthVader
479:The Nation
110:I accept.
38:successful
2405:Sam Vimes
2369:Sam Vimes
2309:Sam Vimes
2283:Sam Vimes
2245:Sam Vimes
2127:Category
2111:Template
2055:Namespace
2030:Sam Vimes
1802:Sam Vimes
1790:The Ashes
1679:digital_m
1597:RandyWang
1583:Petros471
1568:Petros471
1550:rant-line
1377:Kimchi.sg
1291:Guettarda
914:extremely
839:Thryduulf
778:rovingian
731:you know?
727:Just zis
558:Sjakkalle
538:Pete.Hurd
387:abakharev
358:SushiGeek
293:Petros471
112:Sam Vimes
88:Thryduulf
70:Sam Vimes
56:Sam Vimes
2437:Category
2279:Heggedal
2229:and the
2001:Comments
1990:of Kings
1985:The King
1905:Sam Korn
1792:, which
1776:. Fails
1741:Roy A.A.
1724:contribs
1545:Blnguyen
1509:, given
1479:Blnguyen
1387:Dmcdevit
1160:48 Hours
1142:FloNight
1090:(Review)
1002:Delirium
934:Carnildo
902:Agent 86
898:Blnguyen
744:Sam Korn
708:=Nichalp
687:contribs
562:(Check!)
550:Heggedal
463:Dmcdevit
459:judgment
442:Blnguyen
308:DarthVad
276:DarthVad
229:contribs
195:Support.
80:contribs
2352:number)
2333:}}...{{
2151:Portal
2063:(main)
1979:Neutral
1967:Neutral
1956:iva1979
1945:Neutral
1928:Support
1923:Neutral
1916:Neutral
1895:Cynical
1499:Yanksox
1467:'s talk
1316:Support
1299:Support
1287:support
1283:content
1266:Support
1258:iggurat
1251:Support
1234:Support
1214:Support
1186:Support
1172:Deville
1122:Support
1110:Support
1098:Support
1079:Support
1067:Support
1042:Support
998:Support
986:opposes
982:support
978:neutral
970:Support
952:Support
942:Jaranda
930:Support
910:Support
890:Support
876:Support
864:Support
847:Support
811:Support
799:Support
756:Neutral
752:Support
722:Support
713:«Talk»=
703:Support
674:Support
662:Support
628:Support
610:Support
586:Support
571:Support
546:Support
534:Support
517:Support
503:gerthat
487:Support
475:Support
455:Support
436:WT:CRIC
395:Support
383:Support
366:Support
354:Support
337:Support
329:Rory096
272:Support
239:Support
218:Charles
212:Support
185:Srikeit
157:Ganeshk
152:Support
137:Support
119:Support
2201:(Talk)
2170:11432
2167:Total
2095:Image
1890:Oppose
1878:Oppose
1850:(Talk)
1774:Oppose
1762:Oppose
1749:Oppose
1710:Oppose
1674:Tawker
1662:Tawker
1638:Oppose
1614:Oppose
1593:Oppose
1578:WP:AIV
1560:Oppose
1526:joturn
1507:Oppose
1443:WP:VAN
1401:Oppose
1367:Oppose
1332:SCZenz
1289:ing.
1218:Tangot
1114:Johnlp
1084:Goldom
868:Martin
827:Draeco
815:BryanG
803:Jusjih
649:Hiding
601:(Talk)
578:(talk)
521:Tintin
399:rogerd
346:feydey
220:Parker
200:Kungfu
129:(Talk)
99:(Talk)
2394:Drini
2335:test4
2331:test1
2198:ALoan
2178:3675
2079:User
2071:Talk
2066:8990
2009:Voice
1882:moink
1844:eagle
1841:Noble
1814:Anwar
1781:Anwar
1754:Xoloz
1728:email
1603:rants
1448:Andeh
1433:Andeh
1056:Reply
1031:Kusma
974:silly
957:Gizza
920:Grue
851:Madd4
666:BigDT
595:eagle
592:Noble
262:DVERS
126:ALoan
96:ALoan
62:Final
16:<
2349:this
2191:test
2146:266
2138:480
2114:110
2090:405
2082:681
2074:355
2028:See
2012:-of-
1864:talk
1829:talk
1720:talk
1701:talk
1672:per
1647:Talk
1626:talk
1518:test
1428:Wisd
1426:per
1406:Wisd
1356:cιτγ
1307:Talk
1242:talk
1176:Talk
1146:talk
1034:(討論)
896:and
683:talk
653:Talk
636:talk
525:talk
420:talk
225:talk
216:Hugh
203:Adam
164:talk
74:talk
2162:17
2154:17
2130:67
2122:33
2015:All
1860:I@n
1825:I@n
1676:.--
1416:n17
1346:Λυδ
1238:JPD
1226:ngo
1087:(t)
1048:Jay
1021:ert
1016:Rob
990:Joe
855:Max
729:Guy
692:ESP
416:I@n
371:too
2439::
2341:A:
2327:4.
2301:A:
2295:3.
2263:A:
2257:2.
2237:A:
2233:.
2219:1.
2194:}}
2188:{{
2106:2
2098:9
1862:≡
1827:≡
1800:.
1703:)
1649:)
1607:)
1599:(/
1548:|
1521:}}
1515:{{
1482:|
1309:)
1244:)
1178:)
900:.
792:}
689:|
685:|
615:do
527:)
461:.
445:|
418:≡
247:➨
227:-
197:--
43:.
2036:.
1952:S
1726:/
1722:/
1699:(
1683:e
1645:(
1629:)
1623:(
1534:r
1530:e
1411:e
1391:t
1389:·
1351:α
1305:(
1256:Z
1240:(
1222:a
1174:(
1082:-
1058:)
1054:(
789:@
786:C
783:T
780:{
773:e
768:M
695:)
681:(
523:(
498:o
493:R
467:t
465:·
316:r
312:e
284:r
280:e
257:Є
252:Я
231:)
223:(
167:)
161:(
77:·
72:(
49:.
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.