72:) – I am fairly new to wikipedia, so I am not terribly familiar with the type of editor that typically is successful at passing the RfA, so I apologize in advance for the incompleteness of this description. Every encounter I have had with Saxifrage has been a disagreement. Yet, every time this has occured, I have learned something new about wikipedia editing, and every disagreement was handled professionally such that the prospects for an editing war were defused. Since that time, I have examined some of the work Saxifrage has done and found it to be of extremely high quality. Saxifrage has repeatedly demonstrated respect for the letter and spirit of the rules of wikipedia, and has executed a tremendous amount of positive edits. As someone who has had content disagreements with Saxifrage at nearly every turn, I can honestly say I would feel 100% confident with Saxifrage holding the mop. Nothing in his history suggests he would abuse the powers of adminship.
1829:(At least I found a diff THIS time). No wonder that Chacor would be so underhanded against RfA opponents; he's just acting as he usually does. I also note that Saxifrage is the only candidate on the WP:RfA page that Chacor supports. That is strong circumstantial evidence that Chacor supports Saxifrage so strongly because Chacor thinks that Saxifrage will abuse power as Chacor/NSLE did. Saxifrage has suggested that I help him to improve himself, and whether that request is honest or a ploy I do not know. I might implore Saxifrage to "not deliberately misinterpret appropriate statements as violations of wikipedia policy, particularly civility and NPA", but it likely would not change Saxifrage, the reason being that a person's fundamental behaviors are typically as immutable as one's politics. A personal attack is something that is false, irrelevant to the dispute at hand, and/or designed to discredit without an explanation.
1826:
policies that you pretend to support. However, the fact that the civil
Hoopydink supports Saxifrage certainly does not help my case against Saxifrage. A request for diffs is reasonable, but the accompanying libel is obviously not. I do not remember what pages I saw Saxifrages' abuses on (which I saw a while ago), and I don't think that I'll be able to find them within the vast number of edits. If people don't trust me, then that is their prerogative, but any libellous statements that I have violated wikipedia policy for making valid vote comments are unacceptable. I should also mention to third parties that Chacor was previously the user NSLE (as is admitted on Chacor's userpage), who was one of the most power-abusive admins in the history of wikipedia, and was de-sysopped by the ArbCom for it
334:
objectionable conduct and give those involved "time out" that might result in more well-considered actions when they return. These are usually clear-cut cases. Instructional blocks are easily confused with punitive ones, but have a very different purpose. An editor who doesn't understand or accept our rules will sometimes insist on acting against them or claim that those opposed to their actions are wrong. An instructional block (nearly always very brief) can be a convincing sign they are clearly in the wrong and need to re-evaluate their understanding of what is required of them as participants in the project. In practice, instructional blocks are almost always also preventative blocks: such a block stops the objectionable activity and sends a clear message that it
513:, a process where newcomers can seek feedback on articles they write (or major edits they make). For some time, he helped respond to feedback requests posted there, but he has not responded to a feedback request for a long time. Requests for feedback is getting backlogged, and desperately needs Wikipedians who are familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers to respond to feedback requests. If Saxifrage continues to respond to feedback requests, I will change my support level to Strong, and may even use MSN Messenger to bribe several Wikifriends into supporting him (just kidding about the bribing part). --
359:
division. Some red flags of mine are: the article is a single-edit text-dump; the author's only edits are to the article and there are no substantial edits by others; it contains no discussion of the company; prominence is given to products or services; there is lots of inappropriate "keyword" cross-linking on other articles in a short time; it reads like a press release or business directory entry. None of these are conclusive on their own (and there are many more that I can't translate from brain to text), but they point to an article being advertising. Of course, the key word in CSD:G11 is
1867:
accusation behavior that I have seen from
Saxifrage, Chacor, and Newyorkbrad, and yet you did not make the same accusation of Chacor or Newyorkbrad (supporters of Saxifrage) who the accusation would be less inappropriate for, and in so doing, you are disrupting this RfA. You know full well that past actions are related to current character and motives, especially when those past actions are related to specific current actions, as is the case here. As for jumping to conclusions, I said that it is 'circumstantial evidence', not 'proof'.
1714:
both communicating parties). That is a tactic that can not be spotted in a single edit (and therefore does not threaten one's reputation much), but must be seen by comparing multiple edits, and that is what makes it so underhanded. Saxifrage has also committed wikistalking. Saxifrage would therefore no doubt abuse the admin tools.
313:
through the process may actually detract from the smooth running of the project. It's necessarily a judgement call, and should never be used to justify an action in the face of opposition. Both IAR and SNOW are recognitions that we're not robots—we can and should make use of our good sense to avoid getting bogged down in process.
301:) but they should never become or be used as a straightjacket that hinders the project from functioning as it should. IAR exists because the community knows even good rules have corner cases where slavishly adhering to their letter is detrimental to our goal. It is also a recognition that our rules are
1949:
05:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC) - I have no opinion on this user whatsoever, hence why I'm placing this in the "Neutral" section. In fact, I don't even know this user, so it begs the question why I even placed a neutral vote here in the first place. Hope you make it
Saxifrage... Damn, I just made myself
1773:
participation must be backed up with diffs. To declare otherwise is quite inappropriate, especially considering that no
Wikipedians who chose to support this RfA provided any diffs. Furthermore, while the wording is quite strong, it's definitely not a personal atttack - this is an RfA and the above
1746:
Concur with Chacor. Note that GoodCop's talk page has since May 2006 had at the top the legend, "Note: Do not use this page to post libel in the convincing format of polite suggestions that deceptively appear to address the target of the libel (when in fact it addresses third parties). Such behavior
1713:
Saxifrage has used the highly uncivil tactic of libelling users as wikipedia policy violators on their talk pages in the convincing format of making a polite suggestion that deceptively appears to address the target of the libel (when in fact it addresses third parties, because the truth is known to
1756:
Finally an oppose vote! I was thinking it was too good to be true that there had been none so far. Though, I'd really like to see some examples of this. If it's true that I've managed to write in a way that looks deceptive, I'd like to pick that apart and figure out how to avoid coming off badly in
333:
No. Punishment would make it personal and that's not what we're here for. There are two kinds of blocks that are regularly applied (though they very often overlap): preventative and instructional. Preventative blocks are used to interrupt disruption of the project: they bring a halt to edit wars or
245:
In that same vein, I know that the tone of a message can make or break its effectiveness. The administrators I've been most impressed with are those who are cheerful and open even in the face of abuse and vitriol. In my work with the Spam WikiProject I've found emulating this approach has served me
236:
One of the most important tools I've used for maintaining good faith and civility while at
Knowledge is the preview button. When I am dealing with a difficult situation, whether it's a tense discussion on a Talk page or dealing with a vandal or misguided link-adder, stopping to reconsider what I've
228:
ought to be done, if I don't do it then someone else will. When I find that another user is causing me stress, the best remedy is to let that page or topic simmer for a while on its own while I go and do some non-contentious editing. When I come back, I'm inevitably more composed and better able to
161:
My areas of interest at
Knowledge tend to ebb and flow, so I expect that which other administrative duties I put energy into will follow the same pattern. I expect that I'll be popping up here and there as time goes on, helping where I can and discovering new things that I can be good at doing. For
249:
Finally, but not least, is the simple skill of being able to admit fault. Accepting that I might be wrong is a powerful tool for dealing with conflict, because we're all fallible and we will inevitably make mistakes. Being able to back down from an untenable stand or to apologise for mistakes made
1894:
GoodCop, could you please provide some diffs and information, so we can investigate your allegations against
Saxifrage? If you don't, we can't do anything. In the real world, if you walked up to someone and called him a thief, he could sue you for slander. Even if he really was a thief, you would
149:
I often find myself discovering new articles and either paring them down into an encyclopedic form or suggesting them for deletion, whether speedy, proposed, or nominated. In line with that interest I'd like to help deal with the ongoing backlog of candidates for speedy deletion. As I become more
1825:
Thankyou, Chacor and
Newyorkbrad, for being supporters of Saxifrage that demonstrate a similar behavior to what Saxifrage has done -libellously accusing your opponents who have made appropriate vote comments of violating wikipedia's civility and NPA policies, and in so doing, violating the very
312:
WP:SNOW is a specific application of IAR that encourages us to avoid red tape that is merely for the sake of red tape. Our processes have been put in place to keep things running smoothly. However, when an action is clearly in line with the spirit of the policies and goals of the project, going
1840:
Please don't make these kinds of accusations against those arguing in support of the candidate. Chacor's past is not the issue here, and from what I can tell, you're jumping to conclusions (just because someone only has one vote on the RfA page at the moment does not mean they have an agenda).
1223:
Once, in a dispute with
Saxifrage, he had a very legitimate reason not to assume good faith (I had requested arbitration, the arbitration did not go my way, but then after discussing with the arbiter, he changed his mind. I stated that I had successfully dealt with the issue in arbtration and
1866:
And thank you, Coredesat, for implicitely falsely accusing me of violating the POINT policy, and libellously accusing me of making accusations simply because people support
Saxifrage (when I had clearly criticised them for having made false accusations). In so doing, you commit the same false
358:
I don't have unambiguous criteria so much as a set of heuristics for recognising article spam. (We've yet to teach a computer to recognise spam reliably, so I don't think being unable to come up with rules a computer could use is much of a failing.) It's also more of a continuum than a clear
141:
The times I have most wished to have the mop—if only for a moment—have been when I've begun cleaning up after a vandal only to find that their page is full of "last chance" warnings by non-administrators. Given admin tools, I expect I will be a scourge to vandals, though perhaps just a
363:. When there is no shadow of doubt, when it is advertising and then some, speedying is warranted. Otherwise we have prod and AfD, not to mention the judgement of other admins who might chance across the same article. In the end, the CSD are just WP:SNOW codified for easy reference.
293:
WP:IAR is a corollary of What Knowledge Is (a project to build an encyclopedia and nothing else). Rules have been put in place because they seem to help the project progress smoothly toward its goal, not because rules are inherently good to have. Rules are important (and some are
1296:
I support him, for his trying to reach NPOV, but he still has a lot to work to improve himself. Somehow I did sensed a little frustration about him, he sees some personal attacks where instead it was an irony towards his lack of arguments. Overall I trust him to be a good admin.
241:
the situation at all. Just taking the time to choose my words well and to deliberate on how they might be read does wonders for my own peace of mind, and from experience, goes a long way to fostering civility and good faith in the person I'm interacting
182:
at heart, so my contributions tend to be small and spread out across many articles. (I particularly enjoy cleaning up unruly disambig pages so that they comply with the Manual of Style.) Of the few small articles I've actually created, my favourite is
91:
I accept. I have to say that I'm touched that this nomination has come from someone who I've actively disagreed with from the very first. Even should this nomination not succeed, I'll come away pleased to know that I must be doing something right. —
1224:
Saxifrage pointed out that I lost). When he realized the mistake, he profusely apologized for not following AGF in a situation where I cant imagine anyone would have been able to AGF. That was one of the reasons I think he is a great wikipedian.
1747:
violates the wikipedia civility policy and will be reported." I don't know quite what is being referred to here as a general matter, and having quickly scanned Saxifrage's contributions I don't see any examples of this type of practice, either.
1467:. This is a very rare type of nomination, a well-thought-out, well-written nomination from a newer user, which reflects on the candidate in a very positive way. Best of luck to you, against the vandals and trolls (like the one on this page.)
153:
Though I am an active member of the Spam WikiProject, I don't expect to need or want to use admin tools in that capacity in the near term. I've found that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, persuasion is much preferable to risking
1811:
provide diffs, but if they're not willing to back up their argument with evidence, they also can't expect it to be given the same weight. RfA is a consensus building exercise and evidence along with solid reasoning is most valuable. -
1774:
is the Wikipedian's opinion of the candidate's admin abilities. Please don't jump on the lone opposer, especially as the RfA is highly likely to succeed. Every Wikipedian has the right to participate at RfA without fear of reproach.
537:
This editor could really use the admin tools; they seem to be an admin in all but status-change anyway! Good interactions with users, good use of edit summaries, contributions to main/Wiki/Project/userTalk spaces are all in order.
218:
I have, and I've learned a lot from them. During my first few months here I don't think I handled conflict very well, I'm sorry to say, and on realising this I made a point of honing my diplomatic skills. I've come to believe that
223:
is one of the best guides when things get tense. Though it specifically addresses determining notability, the spirit and name of the essay really apply to everything at Knowledge. After all, it's the Wiki Way that if something
1876:
Everyone: Keep your comments pertinent to the matter at hand, please. We're not here to resolve disputes or slam each other up and down the block -- we're here to decide if Saxifrage should be an admin, and nothing more.
1206:
Comment: Whenever I come across Saxifrage, he is dealing with problematic spammers or vandals. There's a real risk if you do enough of that stuff that you'll cross some line once in a while -- usually
1116:
Although I don't always agree with this editor, that should be taken as major vote of confidence for this user. It's clear he's open-minded, fair, supportive and, most of all, civil. Good choice. --
1022:. An editor whose first edits are to a a sandbox, and who immediately started using edit summaries back when practically no one made a fuss about them. I like that a lot. Seems eminently sane. -
191:
article and other sources I found for it. I learned a lot about the area and its history in the course of translating and polishing the article, and I think the result is neat and informative.
338:
objectionable. Circumstances where only an instructive block would be warranted are rare, and admins usually prefer to warn users instead when immediate prevention isn't called for.
771:
I like the candidate's self-realisation in Q3, which says a lot about his wiki-character. Experience and trustworthiness are areas in which I have no reservations about, either.
212:
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?
978:
on being a scourge, just that I will likely be taking care of vandals who earn and waste their last chance templates, often enough. I probably could have worded that better. —
655:
1214:. I have never seen that with Saxifrage. It's unusual to see so little opposition to a candidate who's done as much spam fighting; that says a lot about his suitability. --
1388:- He edits well, he's always polite and civil, and he doesn't lose his temper. He does a lot of admin-like work already, so the tools will just help him be better.--
1969:
1882:
390:
250:
goes a long, long way toward reaching a positive outcome in a conflict. Contrary to popular belief, being able to admit mistakes tends to be appreciated by others.
112:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
678:. An impressive nomination, but more importantly, an impressive contribution to Knowledge. There doesn't seem to be any threat of abuse from this editor.
1987:
995:. I must admit that I did not read all of the nominated's answers to the questions. It's too long! hah. User is definetly qualified in most aspects.
220:
1417:
132:
1360:
an admin" cases. I've seen him work on the WikiProject Spam quite a bit and he's the type of guy that needs a mop and will use it effectively.
890:
per nom, answers, comments above. Quality editor, no issues or worries. The sole oppose comment to date (below) appears highly unconvincing.
237:
written helps immensely for identifying ways in which my words are not well-chosen, could be misconstrued, or are simply just not going to
229:
let the small things go. (Sometimes I even find that the point I wanted to make has been made by another editor by the time I get back.)
1478:
842:
150:
confident with the mop, I would add processing prod'd articles to my rounds and (after quite a bit more confidence gained) closing AfDs.
1501:
This is one of those people whom I rarely agree with but nevertheless think of as a constructive discussion partner. Join the mop mob!
394:
663:; all is well, and appears to be a fine candidate indeed. I'm impressed by the nomination, by the way: it's quite a fine gesture.
588:
194:
Other contributions that I have found particularly fulfilling have been formatting inline references that I chance across using the
202:. I wish I had a more impressive set of articles or contributions to show off here, but such are the trials of being a WikiGnome!
33:
17:
510:
124:
69:
1157:
961:
791:- Fairly new? You've been here 4 times as long as many admins. Shows good knowlege of wikipedia's policies, including
711:
268:
230:
199:
187:. It was particularly pleasing and challenging as writing it required translating material from German, both from the
383:
120:
1544:
626:
429:
an admin. I was quiet surprised to find that he wasn't. I support him wholeheartedly, without reservation. --
172:
Of your articles or contributions to Knowledge, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
1047:
539:
494:
Indeed. Also not afraid to ask questions when he's not sure, which is something we could use in more admins. –
398:
128:
1850:
1775:
772:
1009:
1625:
1587:
1473:
1407:
877:
729:
1298:
1026:
635:
431:
1784:
781:
1608:
1085:
684:
584:
526:
1968:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
1954:
1932:
1919:
1899:
1889:
1871:
1859:
1833:
1816:
1802:
1786:
1764:
1751:
1741:
1698:
1674:
1627:
1612:
1593:
1574:
1560:
1525:
1496:
1483:
1459:
1447:
1435:
1423:
1392:
1380:
1364:
1348:
1336:
1320:
1305:
1287:
1261:
1246:
1228:
1218:
1201:
1189:
1165:
1132:
1120:
1108:
1096:
1070:
1058:
1029:
1014:
985:
965:
942:
930:
910:
894:
882:
861:
849:
827:
814:
803:
783:
763:
735:
715:
698:
686:
670:
639:
614:
593:
579:
571:
562:
542:
529:
517:
501:
489:
475:
463:
451:
435:
401:
99:
76:
1929:
1572:
1493:
1258:
1255:
1023:
957:
460:
1001:
1855:
1799:
1761:
1539:
1412:
1005:
982:
922:
756:
667:
603:
574:
179:
96:
63:
1868:
1830:
1715:
1140:
good contributions. PS to the nom- never be apologetic in your nomination. Just state the facts --
1620:
1502:
1468:
1403:
1361:
1316:
1117:
939:
870:
648:
612:
1129:
547:
348:
What criteria do you use to determine whether or not a business article should be deleted under
1896:
1534:
1345:
1182:
1149:
809:
631:
623:
514:
484:
1886:
1748:
1738:
1604:
1333:
1090:
891:
679:
522:
498:
262:
1842:
1569:
1444:
1373:
1270:
1211:
1041:
come in different forms. I'm confident that this nominee will make a good admin. Cheers --
952:
927:
919:
824:
800:
555:
425:
Saxifrage has acted in a manner that made me assume when I first encountered him that he
162:
instance, in the past I have done RC patrol, so that's something that I might return to.
1951:
1946:
1916:
1847:
1796:
1758:
1683:
1389:
1052:
1042:
979:
744:
664:
444:
379:
298:
284:
155:
93:
59:
1981:
1731:
1727:
1636:
1313:
1243:
1207:
1105:
1067:
907:
695:
608:
349:
280:
509:. I don't know Saxifrage very well, but he played a minor role in helping me set up
1225:
1175:
1141:
858:
324:
73:
1692:
1881:
further discussion in this thread of discussion should be directed to this RfA's
1344:- Saxifrage edits well, is seemingly fully qualified, and is a solid Wikipedian.
1813:
1735:
1557:
1080:
839:
Had shown Good Judgement in the past and expect the same from him in future too
707:
495:
472:
295:
258:
158:. In the future I may help out with blocking the sockpuppets of banned spammers.
743:
I have seen nothing but great edits from this user. Keep up the great work. =)
601:
Shows an impressive level of civility in his interactions with other users. --
1962:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
1432:
1215:
1198:
820:
796:
1456:
184:
188:
1242:] to a well rounded argument even though it contradicted his own opinion.
195:
903:
1972:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
1038:
1240:, roused me from giving a one sentence reason for non-deletion here:
233:
is another essay full of wisdom that's good to re-read occasionally.
146:
scourge to the worst of them while I'm still getting my admin-legs.
119:
What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out
1580:
NOTE: Supports below come after the RfA is supposed to have ended
680:
694:. I've seen plenty of good and nothing bad from Saxifrage.--
83:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
974:
one? :) No, I think I understand what you mean. I don't
305:
of how things work and what is and isn't tolerated, not
1827:
792:
808:
It's the nominator who is fairly new, not Saxifrage.-
1895:
have to prove, using evidence, that he's a thief. --
1682:--no kiddin. I thought you were already an admin! --
55:
Final (63/2/1) Ended Sat, 04 Nov 2006 21:33:07 (UTC)
902:. I had no idea that he wasn't an admin already. —
1726:be backed up with diffs. Otherwise this is purely
246:well on first contact with misguided link-adders.
622:But my account is two and-a-half hours older :)
1311:Crossed-out vote by sockpuppet of banned user.
1332:- A good editor who will make a good admin. --
8:
483:, impressive contributions and diplomacy.-
287:mean to you and how would you apply them?
1066:. Always seems civil and restrained. --
1843:Don't disrupt Knowledge to make a point
1269:; will be an asset to the community.
471:I thought they were an admin already -
459:I like everything I've seen so far. ~
323:Is there ever a case where a punitive
7:
393:as of 08:03, October 28 2006, using
1173:, a civil and reasonable editor. ·
391:Saxifrage's editcount summary stats
24:
1988:Successful requests for adminship
1807:I'll switch the emphasis. No one
950:but please don't be a scourge! -
869:great answers to The Questions.
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
1776:
1299:
1271:
1078:Everything seems ok, no cons.--
1053:
1043:
773:
221:The World Will Not End Tomorrow
125:Category:Administrative backlog
1769:In defence of the opposition,
1479:
1469:
1:
1851:
1693:
1684:
1492:. Looks good to me. Regards,
1474:
1443:bodes well as budding admin.
1356:- One of those "I thought he
1277:
819:Ahh, that explains that... --
627:
1955:05:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
1950:un-neutral. I better go....
1933:09:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
1920:18:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
1900:12:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
1890:10:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
1872:03:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
1860:03:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
1834:21:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
1817:23:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
1803:19:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
1787:19:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
1765:08:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
1752:05:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
1742:03:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
1699:19:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
1675:18:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
1628:14:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
1613:12:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
1594:19:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
1575:20:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
1561:20:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
1526:15:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
1497:09:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
1484:07:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
1460:02:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
1448:21:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
1436:20:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
1424:20:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
1400:. Looks like a good editor.
1393:19:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
1390:In ur base, killing ur dorfs
1381:12:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
1365:07:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
1349:05:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
1337:21:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
1321:04:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
1306:19:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
1288:00:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
1281:
1262:20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
1247:15:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
1229:20:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
1219:16:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
1202:15:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
1197:-- valuable spam fighter. --
1190:14:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
1166:02:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
1133:02:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
1121:23:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
1109:20:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
1097:19:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
1071:08:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
1059:07:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
1030:04:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
1015:17:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
986:18:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
966:16:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
943:14:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
931:11:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
911:07:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
895:05:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
883:04:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
862:01:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
850:23:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
828:04:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
815:23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
804:22:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
784:21:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
764:19:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
736:19:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
716:18:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
699:17:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
687:17:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
671:16:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
656:16:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
649:
640:14:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
615:13:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
594:13:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
563:12:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
543:08:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
530:07:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
518:07:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
502:07:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
490:07:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
476:07:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
464:07:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
452:06:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
436:23:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
402:08:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
133:administrators' reading list
100:04:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
77:03:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
445:
382:'s edit summary usage with
108:Questions for the candidate
2004:
309:for how we must do things.
127:, and read the page about
121:Category:Knowledge backlog
1210:(my own weakness) and/or
1965:Please do not modify it.
1897:J.L.W.S. The Special One
1795:still curious though. —
1720:Such strong accusations
855:Strong Nominator Support
515:J.L.W.S. The Special One
39:Please do not modify it
1455:keep up the good work
279:What do the policy of
1549:18:25 3 11 2006 (UTC)
1128:no danger of abuse --
511:Requests for feedback
34:request for adminship
1915:. Makes me nervous.
443:Passes my criteria
395:wannabe Kate's tool
327:should be applied?
1095:
231:No angry mastodons
200:citation templates
1301:Wissahickon Creek
1079:
1013:
964:
638:
1995:
1967:
1853:
1782:
1781:
1695:
1688:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1648:
1623:
1550:
1547:
1542:
1537:
1522:
1520:
1518:
1516:
1514:
1481:
1476:
1471:
1420:
1415:
1410:
1376:
1319:
1303:
1285:
1279:
1275:
1185:
1178:
1162:
1154:
1146:
1104:. No diffs. --
1093:
1088:
1083:
1055:
1050:
1045:
999:
998:
970:Not even just a
956:
925:
880:
875:
848:
847:
812:
779:
778:
761:
754:
749:
682:
653:
634:
629:
611:
606:
577:
560:
552:
487:
449:
373:General comments
156:biting newcomers
41:
2003:
2002:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1970:this nomination
1963:
1777:
1732:personal attack
1697:
1660:
1658:
1656:
1654:
1652:
1650:
1646:
1644:
1642:
1640:
1638:
1637:
1621:
1592:
1584:
1568:with pleasure.
1545:
1540:
1535:
1533:
1512:
1510:
1508:
1506:
1504:
1418:
1413:
1408:
1374:
1312:
1183:
1176:
1158:
1150:
1142:
1091:
1086:
1081:
1048:
996:
923:
878:
871:
841:
840:
810:
774:
757:
750:
745:
734:
726:
714:
636:(Упражнение В!)
604:
602:
592:
575:
556:
548:
485:
461:trialsanderrors
432:Wizardry Dragon
198:markup and the
52:
37:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2001:
1999:
1991:
1990:
1980:
1979:
1975:
1974:
1958:
1957:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1923:
1922:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1805:
1791:Good point. I
1757:the future. —
1754:
1744:
1702:
1701:
1691:
1677:
1630:
1615:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1586:
1582:
1563:
1551:
1528:
1499:
1486:
1465:Strong support
1462:
1450:
1438:
1426:
1395:
1386:Strong support
1383:
1367:
1351:
1339:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1264:
1249:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1195:Strong Support
1192:
1168:
1135:
1123:
1111:
1099:
1073:
1061:
1032:
1017:
990:
989:
988:
945:
933:
913:
897:
885:
864:
857:As per above.
852:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
786:
766:
738:
728:
724:
718:
710:
706:good by me.--
701:
689:
673:
658:
642:
617:
596:
582:
565:
558:Trick or Treat
545:
540:(aeropagitica)
532:
520:
504:
492:
478:
466:
454:
438:
409:
408:
407:
399:(aeropagitica)
388:
387:
384:mathbot's tool
375:
374:
369:
367:
366:
365:
364:
342:
341:
340:
339:
317:
316:
315:
314:
310:
283:and the essay
257:Question from
254:
253:
252:
251:
247:
243:
234:
206:
205:
204:
203:
192:
166:
165:
164:
163:
159:
151:
147:
129:administrators
110:
109:
105:
104:
103:
102:
86:
85:
51:
46:
45:
44:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2000:
1989:
1986:
1985:
1983:
1973:
1971:
1966:
1960:
1959:
1956:
1953:
1948:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1934:
1931:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1921:
1918:
1914:
1911:
1901:
1898:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1888:
1884:
1880:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1870:
1865:
1861:
1858:
1857:
1854:
1849:
1844:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1818:
1815:
1810:
1806:
1804:
1801:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1785:
1783:
1780:
1772:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1763:
1760:
1755:
1753:
1750:
1745:
1743:
1740:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1724:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1712:
1711:Strong Oppose
1709:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1700:
1696:
1689:
1687:
1681:
1678:
1676:
1673:
1634:
1631:
1629:
1626:
1624:
1622:Mustafa Akalp
1619:
1616:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1590:
1581:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1573:
1571:
1567:
1564:
1562:
1559:
1555:
1552:
1548:
1543:
1538:
1532:
1529:
1527:
1524:
1523:
1500:
1498:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1485:
1482:
1477:
1472:
1466:
1463:
1461:
1458:
1454:
1451:
1449:
1446:
1442:
1439:
1437:
1434:
1430:
1427:
1425:
1422:
1421:
1416:
1411:
1406:
1405:
1399:
1396:
1394:
1391:
1387:
1384:
1382:
1379:
1377:
1371:
1368:
1366:
1363:
1362:Pascal.Tesson
1359:
1355:
1352:
1350:
1347:
1343:
1340:
1338:
1335:
1331:
1328:
1322:
1318:
1315:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1304:
1302:
1295:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1286:
1284:
1280:
1274:
1268:
1265:
1263:
1260:
1257:
1253:
1250:
1248:
1245:
1241:
1239:
1236:
1230:
1227:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1200:
1196:
1193:
1191:
1187:
1186:
1180:
1179:
1177:j e r s y k o
1172:
1169:
1167:
1163:
1161:
1155:
1153:
1147:
1145:
1139:
1136:
1134:
1131:
1127:
1124:
1122:
1119:
1118:Marriedtofilm
1115:
1112:
1110:
1107:
1103:
1100:
1098:
1094:
1089:
1084:
1077:
1074:
1072:
1069:
1065:
1062:
1060:
1056:
1051:
1046:
1040:
1036:
1033:
1031:
1028:
1025:
1021:
1018:
1016:
1011:
1007:
1003:
994:
991:
987:
984:
981:
977:
973:
969:
968:
967:
963:
959:
955:
954:
949:
946:
944:
941:
940:Mailer Diablo
937:
934:
932:
929:
926:
921:
917:
914:
912:
909:
905:
901:
898:
896:
893:
889:
886:
884:
881:
876:
874:
868:
865:
863:
860:
856:
853:
851:
846:
845:
844:Doctor Bruno
838:
835:
829:
826:
822:
818:
817:
816:
813:
807:
806:
805:
802:
798:
794:
790:
787:
785:
782:
780:
777:
770:
767:
765:
762:
760:
755:
753:
748:
742:
739:
737:
733:
732:
722:
719:
717:
713:
709:
705:
702:
700:
697:
693:
690:
688:
685:
683:
677:
674:
672:
669:
666:
662:
659:
657:
654:
652:
646:
643:
641:
637:
633:
630:
625:
621:
618:
616:
613:
610:
607:
600:
597:
595:
590:
586:
581:
578:
573:
569:
566:
564:
561:
559:
553:
551:
546:
544:
541:
536:
533:
531:
528:
524:
521:
519:
516:
512:
508:
505:
503:
500:
497:
493:
491:
488:
482:
479:
477:
474:
470:
467:
465:
462:
458:
455:
453:
450:
448:
442:
439:
437:
434:
433:
428:
424:
421:
420:
419:
418:
414:
413:
406:
405:
404:
403:
400:
396:
392:
385:
381:
377:
376:
372:
371:
370:
362:
357:
354:
353:
351:
347:
344:
343:
337:
332:
329:
328:
326:
322:
319:
318:
311:
308:
304:
300:
297:
292:
289:
288:
286:
282:
278:
275:
274:
273:
272:
270:
267:
264:
260:
248:
244:
240:
235:
232:
227:
222:
217:
214:
213:
211:
208:
207:
201:
197:
193:
190:
186:
181:
177:
174:
173:
171:
168:
167:
160:
157:
152:
148:
145:
140:
137:
136:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
115:
114:
113:
107:
106:
101:
98:
95:
90:
89:
88:
87:
84:
81:
80:
79:
78:
75:
71:
68:
65:
61:
57:
56:
50:
47:
43:
40:
35:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1964:
1961:
1940:
1939:
1912:
1878:
1846:
1808:
1792:
1778:
1770:
1722:
1721:
1710:
1704:
1703:
1685:
1679:
1632:
1617:
1600:
1588:
1579:
1565:
1553:
1530:
1503:
1489:
1464:
1452:
1440:
1428:
1402:
1401:
1397:
1385:
1378:
1369:
1357:
1353:
1346:Sharkface217
1341:
1329:
1300:
1293:
1292:
1282:
1276:
1272:
1266:
1251:
1237:
1194:
1181:
1174:
1170:
1159:
1151:
1143:
1137:
1125:
1113:
1101:
1075:
1063:
1034:
1019:
992:
975:
971:
953:CrazyRussian
951:
947:
935:
915:
899:
887:
872:
866:
854:
843:
836:
793:Image policy
788:
775:
768:
758:
751:
746:
740:
730:
723:Looks good.
720:
703:
691:
675:
660:
651:Rama's arrow
650:
647:looks good.
644:
619:
598:
567:
557:
549:
534:
507:Weak Support
506:
480:
468:
456:
446:
440:
430:
426:
422:
416:
415:
411:
410:
389:
368:
360:
355:
345:
335:
330:
320:
307:prescriptive
306:
302:
290:
276:
265:
256:
255:
238:
225:
215:
209:
189:de:Burg Maus
175:
169:
143:
138:
116:
111:
82:
66:
58:
54:
53:
48:
38:
30:
28:
1930:Ben Aveling
1887:Luna Santin
1749:Newyorkbrad
1635:Seems good
1605:Sarah Ewart
1494:Ben Aveling
1334:Doc Tropics
892:Newyorkbrad
681:AuburnPilot
523:Merovingian
303:descriptive
1570:SlimVirgin
1445:Agathoclea
665:Antandrus
412:Discussion
31:successful
1952:Spawn Man
1947:Spawn Man
1917:Everyking
1883:talk page
1797:Saxifrage
1779:hoopydink
1759:Saxifrage
1730:and is a
1686:SB_Johnny
1603:per nom.
1556:per nom.
1256:Canderous
997:AQu01rius
980:Saxifrage
776:hoopydink
447:†he Bread
380:Saxifrage
299:important
185:Burg Maus
180:WikiGnome
94:Saxifrage
60:Saxifrage
49:Saxifrage
1982:Category
1771:no one's
1546:Contribs
1488:Pile on
1244:Mallanox
1212:WP:CIVIL
1160:Contribs
1106:Kbdank71
1068:Blue Tie
1010:Websites
920:DarthVad
873:Krakatoa
696:ragesoss
620:Support.
269:contribs
196:Cite.php
131:and the
70:contribs
1941:Neutral
1869:GoodCop
1831:GoodCop
1728:uncivil
1716:GoodCop
1680:Support
1633:Support
1618:Support
1601:Support
1566:Support
1558:Michael
1554:Support
1531:Support
1490:support
1453:support
1441:Support
1429:Support
1404:Nautica
1398:support
1370:Support
1354:Support
1342:Support
1330:Support
1294:Support
1267:Support
1252:Support
1238:Support
1226:PStrait
1171:Support
1144:Ageo020
1138:Support
1126:Support
1114:Support
1102:Support
1076:Support
1064:Support
1039:Mentors
1035:Support
1020:Support
993:Support
948:Support
936:Support
916:Support
900:Support
888:Support
867:Support
859:PStrait
837:Support
811:gadfium
789:Support
769:Support
741:Support
721:Support
704:Support
692:Support
676:Support
661:Support
645:Support
609:iva1979
599:Support
580:nce Ong
568:Support
535:Support
486:gadfium
481:Support
469:Support
457:Support
441:Support
423:Support
417:Support
361:blatant
350:CSD:G11
285:WP:SNOW
178:I am a
74:PStrait
1913:Oppose
1814:Taxman
1705:Oppose
1475:master
1433:Jayjg
1208:WP:AGF
1024:Banyan
972:little
708:danntm
668:(talk)
632:rbil10
473:Trysha
281:WP:IAR
259:Malber
226:really
1928:Why?
1694:books
1505:: -->
1470:Grand
1375:Herby
1216:A. B.
1199:A. B.
1130:Steve
962:email
879:Katie
624:RyanG
325:block
242:with.
144:small
16:<
1848:Core
1845:. --
1809:must
1739:acor
1734:. –
1723:MUST
1609:Talk
1589:talk
1541:Talk
1521:<
1457:Mjal
1409:Shad
1317:khoi
1314:Khoi
1273:Buck
1259:Ordo
1184:talk
1152:Talk
1027:Tree
1006:Talk
1002:User
976:plan
958:talk
938:. -
908:Talk
747:Nish
731:talk
550:Mike
527:Talk
499:acor
378:See
296:very
263:talk
239:help
123:and
64:talk
1879:Any
1852:des
1536:0L1
1358:was
1283:ofg
1278:ets
1254:--
1082:Hús
904:TKD
825:rex
801:rex
752:kid
572:Ter
427:was
1984::
1885:.
1856:at
1793:am
1736:Ch
1690:||
1661:♪
1611:)
1585:/
1480:ka
1431:.
1372:--
1188:·
1164:)
1156:•
1092:nd
1057:•
1044:Ch
1037:.
1008:|
1004:|
918:.
906:::
795:--
759:64
727:/
587:|
570:--
554:|
525:※
496:Ch
397:.
356:A:
352:?
346:6.
336:is
331:A:
321:5.
291:A:
277:4.
216:A:
210:3.
176:A:
170:2.
139:A:
135:.
117:1.
36:.
1800:✎
1762:✎
1659:♫
1657:Қ
1655:_
1653:ǔ
1651:Ř
1649:ĩ
1647:Ħ
1645:ą
1643:Ľ
1641:♫
1639:♪
1607:(
1583:└
1519:t
1517:n
1515:a
1513:i
1511:d
1509:a
1507:R
1419:s
1414:e
1148:(
1087:ö
1054:z
1049:e
1012:)
1000:(
983:✎
960:/
928:r
924:e
823:-
821:T
799:-
797:T
725:└
712:C
628:e
605:S
591:)
589:C
585:T
583:(
576:e
386:.
271:)
266:·
261:(
97:✎
67:·
62:(
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.