2932:. I don't wish to pile onto the oppose just yet. Although this user shows some good attributes, I think the temperament could become a downfall in the long-run. I've learnt this myself from when I put my first RfA in a few weeks ago. Everyone noted how polite I am, and I even made them aware that I suffer from Bipolar Disorder. Their main concerns was my lack of edits. At one stage one person posted a comment to which I found disturbing, and then boom, my bipolar kicked in, and I flew off the handle. I would suggest finding ways to calm down in situations first. Once you've managed that, then reconsider applying for RfA again.
538:
were involved with pushing a subtle, but not that subtle that a reader could not pick-up on, view of racism. That just seemed wrong. I have always believe you present the facts and let the facts speak for themselves, without spin or twist of words, just the facts and let the individual decide for themselves, from the facts, what is right. From that point on, I looked to better the encyclopedia in both ensuring knowledge was available, hence my AFD work, and trying to make sure the reader got the most accurate knowledge when coming to
952:
approach to RfA discourages anyone who contributes in the trenches discussing controversial subjects and dealing with disputes. We don't need automotons. I have confidence that
Shoesss will be a good admin and will know when restraint is called for. Many of our admins would do well with a reminder to demonstrate civility and to lead by example, but they should still be allowed to have opinions and be wrong (for example when disagreeing with me) on occasion.
2137:- Not because of competence, but demeanor. While I don't doubt that Shoessss possesses the knowledge necessary to help ease the load at AfD and CSD, I can imagine him blowing up or at least deeply offending someone who disagrees with the way he closes deletions. If he wants to work at AIV, sometimes confused new editors get reported there and I don't see any evidence that he would be willing to treat them with the care needed. --
1729:- - does not help an RFA (the LOL made me feel you guys were mocking me). You need to work on not letting your emotions interfere with your judgment and editing. With more constructive edits (you too ArcAngel) I have no doubt your next RFA will pass. You are a great editor with a superior intellect. All the best -
1112:
this was the only example I could find checking back 500 edits just proceeding that discussion. With regards to that particular discussion you will notice that I finally backed out and just started to work on the article, even before this RFA, itself by placing references and inline cites. Thanks for listening.
2305:
provided above, I'm now being draw to oppose, and almost a strong oppose at that. I feel that everyone now is under the same agreement that this users aggression is the main issue here. Perhaps withdrawing the RfA and offer the user some coaching techniques on how to avoid such aggressive behaviour
1111:
3. The last example concerns an on going discussion at AFD where the editor kept claiming a statement as false. I kept directing them to the link where it was. After the third time I simply asked āā¦didnāt read the link yetā. Regarding the claim often SHOUTINGā¦if you review my edit contributions,
984:
You know what, I will support here. I am agreeing with CoM here. Ok, JC's links are concerning and IMO a bit over the top, but apart from this, I cant see any major issues. I also like the communication skills and explanation of the issues. Also
Shoesss is a good contributor, and I think will use the
537:
or blatant vandalism. I got hooked fixing both. Starting out, like most new editors do, I concentrated on vandalism, fixing/reverting the intentional blatant acts such as page blanking - profanity and attack postings. While doing this, I happen to come across a situation where a group of editors
532:
and his concept about a endeavor that would gather all the worlds knowledge in a location that was free and accessible for all. Who couldnāt resist investigating that further. I started poking around on the site and found that most of the information was usable but riddled with either unintentional
245:
Conflicts no, āpassionate disagreementsā yes. I believe if you look through my talk page and the talk pages of the other users I interacted with, you will see all ending amiability, at least on my part, and as far as I know, with the all concerned individuals. Regarding stress, I hold the following
1900:
per Julian, et al. Although your edits are good, it seems to me that you often come across as agressive and/or rude, and I've noticed that these emotions have clouded your judgment on numerous occasions. If you work on not letting your emotions interfere with your judgment and editing, your next RFA
1103:
1. your first example is where an editor removed a reference from a third party - creditable - verifiable source and than tagged the article as unreferenced. In that the individual is an established user makes no difference. Many would considered that vandalism. Did I holler or shout or even place
1040:
I really do not think the linked problems below are that serious. The tone is a little aggressive, but not really out of line considering the usual around here, including many successful admin candidates. I agree with those who think that admin courtesy standards need to go up a good deal, but it
439:
Sorry about that, all would be delete at this point putting emphases on 1 - 3 & 4. Two (2) could make a case for
Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that
2003:
No, the main problem for me is the notion that a report of compromise is sufficient reason to block an account. In the absence of CheckUser dataāand if such data were present I would expect a CU to make the blockāor behavioral evidence, a block would be premature. Given the fallout that typically
1064:
Unfortunately, I feel I must oppose at the moment. While you're clearly an experienced editor and your work is appreciated, I don't currently believe you have the judgment and calm demeanor required in administrators. My diff below is indeed of major concern, but I see several other issues as well.
951:
Seems fine. Adamantly discussing an article up for deletion doesn't seem especially problematic to me. Seems to be a collegial and collaborative contributor who is mostly human. Julian Colton's exacting standards should be disregarded as only he and I are are perfect. Also, that type of exlusionary
2852:
And as for your response of "I have been
Wikified to Blue LINK", I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. One of your userboxes says you're a native speaker of English, but I'm having a hard time believing that: many of your messages are rather garbled, and there are some funny turns of phrase
2681:
From the contributions I looked at your editing is very good, but your tone in communicating is too aggressive for an admin. It just takes stepping back and rereading before posting. I understand the last part of your answer to Q8, but I think it would be stick with this account and continue to
932:
I want to say that I've seen you around, admire your work on AFD, and if you get a bit emotional at times, I think your heart is clearly in the right place and your reasoning is usually fairly sound (except, of course, when you disagree with me!). At the time I'm writing this, it doesn't look like
1724:
but trying to improve all articles or edits. It also means trying to promote goodwill, believing that one can disagree without being disagreeable. Shoessss your edits often come across as aggressive and/or rude, and I've noticed that these emotions can cloud an editor's judgment. For example this
1277:
I'm suprised to see that it was a complaint against me in that edit summary. If my signature causes problems in formatting anywhere (and it's possible it might, I changed it recently) I'd like to know. Shoessss never gave me the courtesy of a note on my talk page or anywhere else. In fact, if I
393:
CV - There are major concerns here about copyrights. Scanning in a collogue of photos, that some are copyrighted, then claiming the collogue as original work is not a get around of the rules. In addition, there are free-use photos out there that would serve the same purpose in this articles
1988:
I can see that some may not like the candidate not mentioning blatant vandalism accounts (many registered accounts are solely used from vandalism). Doesn't bother me, but I can see why some may be bothered by it. And yes, the "reporter or reportee" comment is very awkward and confusing.
322:
Yes - If a report comes in that an account has been hijacked, which has actually happen just recently, a block to that particular account, until the situation is resolved, is warranted. Does that constitute without warning or notice? Probably depends if you are the reporter or
969:
per Child of
Midnight, per quality contributions and per good explanation re Julian's diffs. Still dont think vandal was the ideal word, even though it was used in a qualified comparison and not to label anyone, but dont exspect even an admin to be word perfect all the time.
1831:- Very unhappy with the diffs listed in Julian's oppose. Not just the diffs, but the way you acted in the larger scenarios surrounding them concerns me greatly too. I expect admins to stay calm and to have good communication skills, both are questionable per Julian's diffs.
1810:. The fact that it happened so long ago wouldn't have bothered me but it seemed you weren't upfront with it. Also, JC brings up some excellent points about pointless editing. Your answers were great, but it doesn't seem you always stick to them. I think if you apply
1805:
Originally I was learning toward support because I've seen you in AfDs and CSD and you do an excellent job there but I read your old RfAs and question #3 was answered completly differently in your first RfA compared to this one. In your first, you admit to conflict in
353:
is made up of volunteers whoās only concern is to put together an accurate encyclopedia of knowledge that can be shared by the world. To knowingly deceive the community is to deceive the endeavor. It serves no purpose either individually or the community at
1107:
2. Your second example is where an editor
Blanked a page without discussion. All I was saying, that is not the proper procedure. Did I throw a warning on their talk page or run around waving my hands stamping my feet No, I let my edit summary speak for
1936:
As much I dislike doing it, I must strike the "Moral
Support". I have always had a thing with RFA's in which there is zero chance of it passing. Honestly, it should just be withdrawn, but that is not up to me. I would like to have Shoessss to read
1627:
I am confused by that as well. When I asked him to elaborate on his talk page, he pulled out a section of some page here. He hasn't fully explained this to my satisfaction yet. On my RFA, he said it had more to do with HIM that me. Go figure.
1370:
a quality an admin should have. And in my opinion ALL CAPS should not be used at all, as it comes across as aggressive and condescending. Your work is definitely appreciated, but if you want to become an admin you've got to be a lot calmer.
2004:
accompanies blocks of established users, and given the reversability of the actions a compromised account could perform in the short term, the case against such an account ought to be well-established before an administrator takes action. ā
478:
would like to remain anonymous, and have that particular account either wiped clean or deactivated for privacy issues without it being known to all member of the community, Yes. However, I am not one of those users. Though after this
1921:
I have a great deal of respect of Julian, and I feel he summed up my position in a fairly decent way. I am sorry to oppose, and would like to tell
Shoessss to keep up the good work, and possibly one day he may recieve the mop.
1069:
you reverted an established editor with an edit summary suggesting that his edit was vandalism. An admin needs to be able to tell the difference between good-faith changes and unproductive vandalism at all times in my opinion.
1539:- I don't have links, but all of your inputs to AfDs that I have read have been passionate, overly sensational and occasionally irrational debate. Even as I look through your last fifty contributions, I see an example in
80:) ā Yes, once again asking for the additional buttons, (and I am hoping the third time is the charm). The last time was just over 15 months ago. In that time I have basically participated in the same areas as before,
1662:
LOL - I think what he is saying is that he has a listing of personal criteria, which is actually listed on his User page, that a candidate must meet before he will support. In my case it was self-nomination. In
1219:
On a personal level, I'd say a good 90% of your edit summaries are just copy-pastes of your edits, which is less-than-helpful, and comes off as lazy. And you should use the preview button to check for spelling
1173:
I'm sorry but at the moment, no. You come off too aggressive and rude sometimes, and I just wouldn't want an admin who is rude and who doesn't properly explain the methods and procedures to other
Wikipedians.
2276:ā I'm troubled by the Juliancolton examples. Everyone makes mistakes and has a bad day but the candidate's response is defensive instead of apologetic. I easily found more conflict as well. Multiple comments
1455:(admins only I'm afraid) where you made some improvements to an article even after it had been nominated for deletion. But the examples above do concern me, especially those related to communication style.
1969:
Hmm, I was thinking that was one of the better answers. What am I missing? Were you just referring to the awkward "reporter or reportee" comment, or are you saying that this is not a time for a no warning
505:
Yes - If a suspicion is voiced that I am using the tools inappropriately too further a personal agenda. I would voluntarily give up the controls at the beginning of the inquiry until the investigation is
1479:
per Julian. I didn't really get past the diff he posted as after I read through that entire deletion discussion I feel that you do not possess the correct mental aptitude for the mop at this time.
271:
No - Consensus rules. If the consensus is to delete, than the piece is deleted. If an editor approaches me later to have the piece placed on their subpage to work on to address the concerns of the
1570:, show behavior that is not becoming of an admin. It's very important for an admin to have a relatively good, calm demeanor; getting upset in discussion/debate with others and using hints of
2284:
confusing tale. I don't know the final outcome as the article doesn't currently exist, but the response to mistakes by two editors seems rather poor to me, especially the "AGGGGGGGGGGGGG".
1008:
I quite like
Shoessss, and while I am dismayed at some of the diffs provided below, I will note that I have seen this user handle extremely troubling articles without reacting adversely.
2347:
comment is concerning. While not especially uncivil, rude sarcasm is almost always unproductive. Will revisit later on, but not opposing so as to avoid ruining your chances early on. ā
217:
Hopefully, I have not accomplished my best contributions yet and they are still to come! With regards to what I take my most pride in, up till now, would be salvaging articles from
2961:
Moving from support following the diff(s) offered by UncleDouggie. In a closer run race, I'd move to oppose but I think that's unnecessary given the inevitable outcome of this RfA.
2713:
The back part of #8 was to lighten the mood, I had hoped. I never believed in switching User names unless a real concern to personal information was involved. The one thing all
2212:
per Tavix and the extreme badgering that is evident in that AFD. Present information supporting your argument, answer any questions politely and let the discussion run its course.
349:
To the specific question; āā¦deceive the larger Knowledge community with regard to violation of a major sanction or standard of conductā¦to protect a friendā No! For the most part,
390:- OR - coming up on two years without tying into any article. If an article is eventualy written about the company, the logo maybe used, only after the CV concern are addressed.
2164:
You may know your stuff but unfortunately, as I see it, your temperment cancels it out. To be an admin you need to act professional and I cannot see that from you at this time.
1209:
are uncalled for, as there is definitely no need to blame someone in an edit summary, especially given your own high rate of typos. And I am concerned by your understanding of
225:
was the free dissemination of information without regards to agendas or point of views. Just the facts and only the facts and I believe I foster that ideal with my opinions at
160:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
141:
2587:"incidents" - we all get pushed to limits sometimes, and as such those occasional situations disturb me less than if I see a longer-term pattern. It takes some digging. (
1807:
1747:
Per the above statements. I know that you are truly in the right place, but you still show signs of immaturity. When this is all over, I would seriously consider coaching.
915:
User has demonstrated abilities on talk page and I do believe that his mistakes were really just slight mishaps that unfortunately happened within the recent edits realm.
2985:
239:
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
1451:
Reluctant and weak oppose. You've been here a long time, and have a clean block record (the 2007 incident was an admin mistake that was reverted in minutes). I liked
1250:
Following up your point, Amory: it's a little hypocritical of Shoesss to be making "your fault!" edit summaries about people who mess up RfA threading, when Shoesss
1201:
I've got to agree with the comments of those before me. Juliancolton's phrase "calm demeanor" sums it up nicely, especially with the provided examples. Moreover,
246:
philosophies; One āā¦that I am not getting paid for thisā ā Two āā¦I am just a volunteerā and finally āā¦If I stop editing tomorrow ā I can be easily replaced here at
777:
2838:
2460:
2110:
1567:
1540:
1075:
772:
283:
problem, I would be more than happy to place it on their page. However, the article would not be placed back on the main page until those issues brought up at
193:
procedures and requirements. Finally, as we all know, depending on the phase of the moon ā the time of day ā period of the year, there is always a shortage of
1278:
hadn't seen this RfA and clicked that link I'd never have had any idea. (And I still don't know what the problem is, if someone knows please let me know!) --
3003:
584:
579:
1131:
Julian, can you identify any other recent AfDs where there has been similar? I wonder if we're being over- concerned with it because it is still open.
626:
416:
the discussion rather than an !vote. That is why I asked about the overdue ones where the debate should be complete. Normally close results would be
1214:
574:
2277:
1385:
1104:
a warning at the editor's talk page for all to see, No. I rather explained myself in an edit summary at let it go at that as a possable mistake.
843:- Having reviewed this editor's contributions and previous AfDs, I can see no reason why he shouldn't be trusted with the ability to block me.
830:
137:
474:
In private, No! I would inform the community as a whole of any and all alternate accounts, through my User(s) page. Are there cases where a
715:
613:
339:
What are your views on impartiality? Specifically, would you willingly deceive the larger Knowledge community with regard to violation of a
2897:
2058:
I need an admin I can faithfully look up to. I have the same problem too, but an admin needs to remain calm and professional at all times.
1302:
It wasnāt a warning or complaint, in fact it was no big deal - it was meant as a informationā¦.My original signature did the same thing.
1341:
1238:
1147:
I used that particular AfD as an overall example of the pattern I'm seeing, but I'll be happy to provide more examples if requested. ā
767:
499:
Are there any circumstances (aside from personal reasons, health etc.) in which you would offer your resignation as an administrator?
331:
1527:- per JC. Admins need to be calm, and have good judgement, both of which are qualities I'm afraid you are lacking in at this time.--
133:
1574:
does not do well to keep a situation constructive and cool-headed, and I'm seeing evidence of that with your contributions. Sorry.
656:
620:
2213:
1554:
872:- This clearly isn't going to pass, but I feel that the opposition is a bit overstated, and encourage you to keep working at it.
650:
30:
17:
2655:
You're a decent contributor, but you need to be more calm. Not going to pile on the oppose. I would suggest withdrawing early.--
2600:
2510:
2442:
682:
606:
465:
77:
528:
Sorry for the delay, out celebrating a very joyous personal event. To answer your question, I read an interview concerning
665:
1642:
Am I the only one that reads the use of 'ConstEdits' as an attempt to make an opinion look like a technical measurement?
440:
understanding. However, in that there is no article tied to it, at this time, I would recommend delete for this one also
2866:
2792:
2668:
1267:
1205:
seems to tread that "aggressive and rude" line too closely - just because you wink doesn't mean it's nice. Things like
793:
371:
2802:
I have to agree, that would be pretty nitpickyĀ :-). Regarding why I did it, habit. I have been Wikified to Blue LINK.
2579:: Edits are good, AfD work is often challenging which is both a + and a -. What I am trying to determine right now is
803:
2200:
1547:
1462:
1380:
1321:
No, but true or not it can come across as rude, which makes this less of a pleasant editing environment for others. ~
2779:? Do the people at RfA not know what editors are? One link is a nitpicky thing to oppose over, but seriously... why?
1690:: "Articles or edits that are badly written, or have some flaw should be improved upon. A Constructive Edit is the
189:
has allowed me the experience to understand and apply the process involved with regards to proper handling of the
826:
1028:
957:
741:
708:
429:
288:
129:
2892:
2687:
2562:
993:
194:
2081:
762:
265:
If you came across an AFD to close, where the consensus was delete, would you be tempted to close it as keep?
2908:
Intelligent editor, but might not make a good administrator due to issues raised--especially with demeanor.
2830:
2516:
2448:
1906:
113:
93:
2775:
I haven't really read anything else here...but in your answer to Q7, why did you feel it necessary to link
757:
2966:
2491:
2372:
2356:
2289:
2196:
1620:
1457:
1375:
1335:
1234:
1156:
1091:
1041:
seems a little hard to express this so harshly to the detriment of the first candidate who comes along.
975:
858:
848:
177:
and have noticed that the process can always use a hand in closing the discussions. What goes along with
2694:
area. I hope you decide to stick around on your current account and work through the items identified.
2916:
2821:
Well, no offense, but it's a bit annoying. In your nomination statement and first 4 questions, you link
2171:
1888:
1509:
1184:
903:
822:
461:
2984:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
2970:
2951:
2923:
2903:
2871:
2816:
2797:
2770:
2731:
2702:
2673:
2643:
2624:
2606:
2569:
2546:
2522:
2493:
2477:
2454:
2418:
2393:
2374:
2358:
2332:
2315:
2293:
2268:
2251:
2234:
2204:
2187:
2178:
2156:
2129:
2097:
2073:
2040:
2022:
2008:
1998:
1983:
1964:
1950:
1931:
1910:
1892:
1871:
1854:
1840:
1823:
1791:
1777:
1757:
1738:
1701:
1681:
1651:
1637:
1622:
1606:
1589:
1558:
1531:
1519:
1488:
1471:
1446:
1429:
1410:
1393:
1350:
1316:
1297:
1272:
1245:
1193:
1158:
1142:
1126:
1093:
1052:
1032:
1016:
1000:
979:
961:
943:
924:
907:
881:
862:
834:
556:
433:
56:
2849:
time you mention himādo you think the people at the AfD don't know what article they're talking about?
2717:
should remember, if you post it be prepared to live with it -The Good - The Bad - or the Ugly. Thanks
2762:
2328:
2227:
2034:
2016:
1992:
1977:
1865:
1848:
1819:
1698:
1645:
1024:
953:
736:
701:
425:
362:
316:
Would you ever consider blocking a registered user without any prior notice or warning? If so, why?
257:
109:
92:. In the last year I came across more than one incident where I could use the additional tools that
2887:
2884:
2834:
2804:
2719:
2557:
2465:
2323:- Purely on account of a general temperament that comes across in more than a few recent examples.
2264:
2184:
2085:
2066:
1946:
1927:
1765:
1669:
1304:
1114:
988:
596:
544:
276:
105:
85:
67:
1100:
I guess it is time to respond. If you do not mind, why donāt I take your examples one at a time.
380:
Hope you don't mind, but I took the first three listed and the last one is the oldest on the page:
343:
sanction or standard of conduct, whether by omission or commission, in order to protect a friend?
2682:
edit and work on those thing that have been identified. Then after editing for a while, have an
2588:
2541:
2499:
2431:
1902:
1734:
1633:
1602:
1583:
1484:
941:
877:
678:
600:
491:
71:
2962:
2947:
2937:
2691:
2484:
2365:
2349:
2311:
2302:
2285:
1613:
1406:
1329:
1230:
1149:
1084:
971:
854:
844:
2910:
2776:
2714:
2661:
2389:
2247:
2165:
1884:
1787:
1753:
1498:
1176:
920:
894:
475:
398:
2837:
3 timesādo you think we're idiots and need constant reminders of what basic words mean? In
2755:
2637:
2618:
2554:
Hmm, good and relaible edits but JC links and diifs make me unsure. I may revisit though.
2324:
2220:
2151:
2122:
2029:
2005:
1972:
1961:
1834:
1815:
1695:
1292:
514:
1883:- concerned with civility and shouting on-wiki. Good edits however and keep it up! :D --
1074:, while not a big deal, your edit summary was unnecessarily intimidating. Similarly, at
2415:
2406:
2260:
2059:
1942:
1938:
1923:
1811:
1571:
1528:
1437:
1425:
821:
I looked at a bunch of edits by this user, and they seem to be admin material to me. -
2997:
2842:
2822:
2595:
2535:
2504:
2436:
1730:
1687:
1664:
1629:
1598:
1575:
1480:
1138:
1048:
935:
873:
534:
480:
452:
284:
280:
272:
226:
218:
198:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
125:
121:
101:
89:
81:
2943:
2933:
2683:
2307:
1402:
1009:
301:
798:
88:
and content building, primarily based on and from articles I participated in at
2855:
2781:
2696:
2656:
2385:
2243:
1783:
1749:
1256:
1210:
916:
529:
2280:
with shouting and put-downs of two different established editors. Then there's
468:
that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator?
112:. Likewise, I am looking to help out in the everyday tasks that the average
2748:
2139:
2116:
1862:
demonstrates that the candidate does not know what 'assume good faith' means.
1280:
2978:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
2301:ā I was going to remain neutral on this, but after reading the evidence that
2942:- Moving to 'oppose' after reading the evidence that UncleDouggie supplied.
2826:
1694:
of deletion or reversion." I believe this user opposes on that criterion.--
1420:
539:
350:
247:
222:
117:
2459:
I think it would be fair to post the whole discussion as I have done here
2747:
Ehh...there's good things are there's bad things. I'm just in the middle.
1133:
1043:
221:. As I stated in my previous request, the primary aspect that drew me to
2083:, as they detracted from the actual oppose or support opinions. Thanks
2383:
I'm going with Julian here. I'll revisit later when more things happen.
1960:
Plenty of problems, but the answer to Q5 is particularly perplexing. ā
2988:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
985:
tools wisely, and make the right choices. Net positive here I think.
1760:
Moving to support after user has given me confidence in abilities.
681:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review
2113:. This is not how an admin should go about a situation like this.
1727:"LOL - I think what he is saying is that he has a listing . . . "
693:
1720:
Thanks Otherlleft, you said it well. By constructive edits I mean
2405:- too early to tell for sure, but, that comment was very rude.--
933:
this is going to pass, and I think that's something of a shame.
697:
149:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
173:
As I mentioned above, I have spend a majority of my time at
2027:
I'm still confused, but I've elaborated on the talk page.--
2498:
Update: Staying neutral since I see no need to pile on.--
1078:, you come across as rather aggressive in that you often
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
2505:
2500:
2482:
That doesn't change the nature of your comment though. ā
2437:
2432:
1566:- Julian's links, primarily your conduct at places like
211:
What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?
167:
What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
2583:. What I mean is that I generally have no issues with
2430:
Per Julian, I'll try and revisit before the RfA ends.--
2344:
2281:
1859:
1845:
Personal interaction furthers my belief in the latter.
1452:
1251:
1206:
1202:
1071:
1066:
644:
638:
632:
54:
2533:
Unsure after reading what you wrote in Julian's link.
2853:
like "switch my mind" (instead of "change my mind").
2825:
9 times (sometimes twice within the same sentence),
2662:
2638:
2619:
2017:
1993:
1866:
1849:
1835:
1646:
786:
750:
729:
542:. Sorry for the long answer to a short question.
2883:. Good contributor, but a little hasty sometimes.
2657:
2615:- Concerned with JC's oppose. Will revisit later.
1941:. I am sorry to strike, and to say this, but....
893:mistake should not torpedo the whole nomination.
370:Can you pick 4 unclosed but overdue entries from
1010:
2463:to put those comments in perspective. Thanks.
2763:
2756:
2749:
2013:I assumed that was what he meant by 'report'.
2461:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Todd Bardwick
2111:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Todd Bardwick
1814:to your editting, your next RfA might pass.--
1541:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Todd Bardwick
709:
663:Edit summary usage for Shoessss can be found
8:
1763:Coaching or a personality transplant??Ā :-).
2080:Moved comments to the discussion page here
1782:See user's talk page for more information.
522:Why did you first start editing Knowledge?
716:
702:
694:
53:Final (11/32/10), Withdrawn by candidate:
1401:per JC. Tact is necessary in an admin. -
677:Please keep discussion constructive and
397:OR and UE. I agree with the nominating
572:
2363:To the oppose section unfortunately. ā
424:. Do you wish to change your answer?
374:and explain how you would close them?
7:
412:I was actually asking how you would
3004:Unsuccessful requests for adminship
570:
513:Additional optional questions from
451:Additional optional questions from
361:Additional optional questions from
256:Additional optional questions from
96:carry for such things as reviewung
2854:
2780:
1255:
24:
585:Requests for adminship/Shoessss 3
580:Requests for adminship/Shoessss 2
287:were addressed or a decision by
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
2841:that someone linked, you link "
2067:
2060:
1226:
1223:
897:
575:Requests for adminship/Shoessss
460:Would you be willing to advise
1418:, concerns about temperament.
1366:again. Sorry, but rudeness is
683:Special:Contributions/Shoessss
185:. I believe my time spent in
140:which goes hand and hand with
1:
2940:) 05:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
2517:
2511:
2449:
2443:
1376:
1082:in bold and allcaps. Sorry. ā
851:) 02:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
332:Short Brigade Harvester Boris
1386:
372:Knowledge:Files for deletion
138:Requests for page protection
2971:08:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
2952:09:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
2924:22:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2904:04:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
2872:03:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
2817:22:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
2798:19:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
2771:18:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
2732:16:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
2703:16:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
2674:15:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
2644:14:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
2625:13:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
2607:13:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
2570:12:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
2547:02:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
2523:12:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
2494:02:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
2478:02:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
2455:02:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
2419:11:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
2409:02:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
2394:01:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
2375:03:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
2359:01:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
2333:10:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
2316:09:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
2294:08:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
2269:21:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2252:17:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2235:15:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2205:12:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2188:05:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2179:04:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2157:02:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2130:00:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2098:15:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
2074:13:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
2041:17:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2023:00:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2009:21:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
1999:13:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
1984:02:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
1965:21:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1951:20:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
1932:19:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1911:19:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1893:15:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1872:21:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
1855:18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
1841:14:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1824:14:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1792:17:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1778:14:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1758:14:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1739:14:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
1702:01:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
1682:13:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
1652:12:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
1638:16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1623:14:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1607:22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
1590:13:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1559:12:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1532:11:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1520:08:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1489:07:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1472:07:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1447:07:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1430:06:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1411:04:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1394:04:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1381:
1351:03:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
1317:23:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1298:22:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1273:19:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1246:03:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1194:03:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1159:14:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
1143:21:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
1127:23:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1094:03:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
1053:20:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
1033:05:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
1017:05:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
1001:15:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
980:13:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
962:01:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
944:02:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
925:18:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
908:16:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
882:15:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
863:08:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
835:02:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
557:02:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
434:20:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
275:, and there was no blatant
156:Questions for the candidate
57:22:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
3020:
483:I may switch my mind.Ā :-)
2981:Please do not modify it.
1076:this deletion discussion
104:with regards to blatant
39:Please do not modify it.
2259:per Tavix. Just weird.
134:Requests for undeletion
1667:case, I have no idea.
1548:Backslash Forwardslash
2690:or look into the new
2183:Temperament issues. ā
1597:- Lacks ConstEdits.
853:Shifting to neutral.
106:copyright violations
31:request for adminship
2686:. You can also try
2306:would be feasible.
1254:(just 2 hours ago).
1213:as expressed in the
799:Global contributions
594:Links for Shoessss:
763:Non-automated edits
569:RfAs for this user:
86:copyright violation
1505:
1434:Per Juliancolton.
940:
742:Edit summary usage
685:before commenting.
464:in private of any
40:
2870:
2796:
2769:
2398:Moving to oppose.
2197:Crotchety Old Man
2195:per Tavix. Wow.
2128:
1497:
1445:
1348:
1271:
1243:
1221:
1015:
934:
812:
811:
466:alternate account
307:
291:stated otherwise.
120:in areas such as
110:notability issues
38:
3011:
2983:
2919:
2913:
2900:
2895:
2890:
2863:
2859:
2815:
2789:
2785:
2767:
2760:
2754:
2751:
2730:
2699:
2664:
2659:
2640:
2621:
2603:
2599:
2591:
2565:
2560:
2552:Moved to support
2543:
2538:
2519:
2513:
2507:
2502:
2487:
2476:
2451:
2445:
2439:
2434:
2386:Kevin Rutherford
2368:
2352:
2232:
2225:
2218:
2175:
2154:
2148:
2145:
2142:
2127:
2125:
2114:
2096:
2071:
2064:
2039:
2037:
2032:
2019:
1995:
1982:
1980:
1975:
1868:
1851:
1837:
1784:Kevin Rutherford
1776:
1750:Kevin Rutherford
1680:
1648:
1616:
1586:
1580:
1514:
1503:
1469:
1465:
1460:
1444:
1442:
1435:
1390:
1388:
1383:
1378:
1349:
1344:
1338:
1332:
1326:
1324:
1315:
1295:
1289:
1286:
1283:
1264:
1260:
1244:
1227:
1225:
1218:
1192:
1190:
1182:
1152:
1125:
1087:
1014:
1012:
996:
991:
938:
917:Kevin Rutherford
899:
823:Peregrine Fisher
758:Articles created
718:
711:
704:
695:
668:
660:
619:
565:General comments
555:
310:
305:
98:deleted articles
3019:
3018:
3014:
3013:
3012:
3010:
3009:
3008:
2994:
2993:
2992:
2986:this nomination
2979:
2917:
2911:
2898:
2893:
2888:
2869:
2857:
2803:
2795:
2783:
2718:
2697:
2671:
2601:
2593:
2589:
2577:Neutral FOR NOW
2563:
2558:
2540:
2536:
2485:
2464:
2366:
2350:
2341:
2228:
2221:
2214:
2173:
2152:
2146:
2143:
2140:
2123:
2115:
2084:
2035:
2030:
2028:
1978:
1973:
1971:
1764:
1668:
1614:
1584:
1576:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1510:
1499:
1467:
1463:
1458:
1438:
1436:
1374:
1342:
1336:
1330:
1325:
1322:
1303:
1293:
1287:
1284:
1281:
1270:
1258:
1252:does it himself
1185:
1177:
1175:
1150:
1113:
1085:
1061:
1025:Graeme Bartlett
994:
989:
954:ChildofMidnight
936:
892:
818:
813:
808:
782:
746:
725:
724:RfA/RfB toolbox
722:
692:
664:
612:
595:
591:
589:
567:
543:
533:misconceptions
426:Graeme Bartlett
363:Graeme Bartlett
304:
299:
289:deletion review
277:copyright issue
258:Graeme Bartlett
158:
130:Deletion review
116:experiences on
65:
50:
35:did not succeed
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3017:
3015:
3007:
3006:
2996:
2995:
2991:
2990:
2974:
2973:
2956:
2955:
2954:
2906:
2878:
2877:
2876:
2875:
2874:
2865:
2850:
2791:
2773:
2742:
2741:
2740:
2739:
2738:
2737:
2736:
2735:
2734:
2688:admin coaching
2676:
2667:
2650:
2649:
2648:
2647:
2646:
2574:
2573:
2572:
2567:
2531:
2530:
2529:
2528:
2527:
2526:
2525:
2424:
2423:
2422:
2421:
2399:
2396:
2377:
2340:
2337:
2336:
2335:
2318:
2296:
2271:
2254:
2237:
2207:
2190:
2181:
2159:
2132:
2104:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1913:
1895:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1826:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1741:
1725:statement - -
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1592:
1561:
1534:
1522:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1496:Per JC et al.
1491:
1474:
1449:
1432:
1413:
1396:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1266:
1196:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1109:
1105:
1065:Specifically:
1060:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1035:
1019:
1003:
998:
982:
967:Strong support
964:
949:Strong support
946:
927:
913:Strong Support
910:
890:
884:
867:
866:
865:
817:
814:
810:
809:
807:
806:
801:
796:
790:
788:
784:
783:
781:
780:
775:
770:
765:
760:
754:
752:
748:
747:
745:
744:
739:
733:
731:
727:
726:
723:
721:
720:
713:
706:
698:
691:
688:
674:
673:
672:
670:
661:
590:
588:
587:
582:
577:
571:
568:
566:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
517:
510:
509:
508:
507:
494:
490:Question from
487:
486:
485:
484:
455:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
402:
401:
395:
391:
388:
384:
383:
382:
381:
365:
358:
357:
356:
355:
334:
330:Question from
327:
326:
325:
324:
311:
302:
298:Question from
295:
294:
293:
292:
260:
253:
252:
251:
250:
233:
232:
231:
230:
205:
204:
203:
202:
195:administrators
157:
154:
153:
152:
94:administrators
64:
61:
49:
44:
43:
42:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3016:
3005:
3002:
3001:
2999:
2989:
2987:
2982:
2976:
2975:
2972:
2968:
2964:
2960:
2957:
2953:
2949:
2945:
2941:
2939:
2935:
2931:
2927:
2926:
2925:
2922:
2920:
2914:
2907:
2905:
2901:
2896:
2891:
2886:
2882:
2879:
2873:
2868:
2862:
2861:
2851:
2848:
2844:
2840:
2836:
2833:3 times, and
2832:
2831:administrator
2828:
2824:
2820:
2819:
2818:
2814:
2813:
2810:
2807:
2801:
2800:
2799:
2794:
2788:
2787:
2778:
2774:
2772:
2768:
2766:
2761:
2759:
2752:
2746:
2743:
2733:
2729:
2728:
2725:
2722:
2716:
2712:
2711:
2710:
2709:
2708:
2707:
2706:
2705:
2704:
2701:
2700:
2693:
2689:
2685:
2684:editor review
2680:
2677:
2675:
2672:
2670:
2665:
2660:
2654:
2651:
2645:
2642:
2641:
2633:
2629:
2628:
2627:
2626:
2623:
2622:
2614:
2610:
2609:
2608:
2604:
2598:
2597:
2592:
2586:
2582:
2578:
2575:
2571:
2568:
2566:
2561:
2556:
2553:
2550:
2549:
2548:
2544:
2542:
2539:
2532:
2524:
2520:
2514:
2508:
2503:
2497:
2496:
2495:
2492:
2489:
2488:
2481:
2480:
2479:
2475:
2474:
2471:
2468:
2462:
2458:
2457:
2456:
2452:
2446:
2440:
2435:
2429:
2426:
2425:
2420:
2417:
2413:
2410:
2408:
2404:
2400:
2397:
2395:
2391:
2387:
2384:
2382:
2378:
2376:
2373:
2370:
2369:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2357:
2354:
2353:
2346:
2343:
2342:
2338:
2334:
2330:
2326:
2322:
2319:
2317:
2313:
2309:
2304:
2300:
2297:
2295:
2291:
2287:
2283:
2279:
2275:
2272:
2270:
2266:
2262:
2258:
2255:
2253:
2249:
2245:
2241:
2238:
2236:
2233:
2231:
2226:
2224:
2219:
2217:
2211:
2208:
2206:
2202:
2198:
2194:
2191:
2189:
2186:
2182:
2180:
2177:
2176:
2169:
2168:
2163:
2160:
2158:
2155:
2150:
2149:
2136:
2133:
2131:
2126:
2120:
2119:
2112:
2108:
2105:
2099:
2095:
2094:
2091:
2088:
2082:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2072:
2070:
2065:
2063:
2057:
2054:
2042:
2038:
2033:
2026:
2025:
2024:
2021:
2020:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2007:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1997:
1996:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1981:
1976:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1963:
1959:
1956:
1952:
1948:
1944:
1940:
1935:
1934:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1920:
1919:
1918:Moral Support
1914:
1912:
1908:
1904:
1903:Laurinavicius
1899:
1896:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1882:
1879:
1873:
1870:
1869:
1861:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1853:
1852:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1839:
1838:
1830:
1829:Strong oppose
1827:
1825:
1821:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1804:
1801:
1793:
1789:
1785:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1775:
1774:
1771:
1768:
1762:
1761:
1759:
1755:
1751:
1748:
1745:
1742:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1723:
1719:
1703:
1700:
1697:
1693:
1689:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1679:
1678:
1675:
1672:
1666:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1650:
1649:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1621:
1618:
1617:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1593:
1591:
1588:
1587:
1581:
1579:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1562:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1549:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1535:
1533:
1530:
1526:
1523:
1521:
1515:
1513:
1504:
1502:
1495:
1492:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1475:
1473:
1470:
1466:
1461:
1454:
1450:
1448:
1443:
1441:
1433:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1422:
1417:
1414:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1397:
1395:
1392:
1391:
1389:
1384:
1379:
1369:
1365:
1362:
1352:
1347:
1345:
1339:
1333:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1314:
1313:
1310:
1307:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1296:
1291:
1290:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1269:
1263:
1262:
1253:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1242:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1216:
1215:Bio-Zoids AfD
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1197:
1195:
1191:
1188:
1183:
1180:
1172:
1160:
1157:
1154:
1153:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1135:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1124:
1123:
1120:
1117:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1101:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1092:
1089:
1088:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1068:
1063:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1045:
1039:
1036:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1023:
1020:
1018:
1013:
1007:
1006:Moral support
1004:
1002:
999:
997:
992:
987:
983:
981:
977:
973:
968:
965:
963:
959:
955:
950:
947:
945:
942:
939:
931:
928:
926:
922:
918:
914:
911:
909:
905:
901:
900:
888:
885:
883:
879:
875:
871:
870:Moral support
868:
864:
860:
856:
852:
850:
846:
842:
838:
837:
836:
832:
828:
824:
820:
819:
815:
805:
802:
800:
797:
795:
792:
791:
789:
785:
779:
776:
774:
771:
769:
766:
764:
761:
759:
756:
755:
753:
749:
743:
740:
738:
735:
734:
732:
728:
719:
714:
712:
707:
705:
700:
699:
696:
689:
687:
686:
684:
680:
671:
667:
662:
658:
655:
652:
649:
646:
643:
640:
637:
634:
631:
628:
625:
622:
618:
615:
611:
608:
605:
602:
598:
593:
592:
586:
583:
581:
578:
576:
573:
564:
558:
554:
553:
550:
547:
541:
536:
531:
527:
524:
523:
521:
518:
516:
512:
511:
504:
501:
500:
498:
495:
493:
492:Leaky Caldron
489:
488:
482:
477:
473:
470:
469:
467:
463:
459:
456:
454:
450:
449:
438:
437:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
400:
396:
392:
389:
386:
385:
379:
376:
375:
373:
369:
366:
364:
360:
359:
352:
348:
345:
344:
342:
338:
335:
333:
329:
328:
321:
318:
317:
315:
312:
309:
308:
297:
296:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
267:
266:
264:
261:
259:
255:
254:
249:
244:
241:
240:
238:
235:
234:
228:
224:
220:
216:
213:
212:
210:
207:
206:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
181:is of course
180:
176:
172:
169:
168:
166:
163:
162:
161:
155:
150:
147:
146:
145:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
114:administrator
111:
107:
103:
100:ā working in
99:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
76:
73:
69:
62:
60:
59:
58:
55:
48:
45:
41:
36:
32:
27:
26:
19:
2980:
2977:
2958:
2929:
2928:
2909:
2880:
2846:
2843:Mr. Bardwick
2835:WP:copyright
2811:
2808:
2805:
2764:
2757:
2744:
2726:
2723:
2720:
2698:~~Ā GBĀ fanĀ ~~
2695:
2678:
2666:
2652:
2635:
2631:
2616:
2612:
2611:
2594:
2584:
2580:
2576:
2555:
2551:
2534:
2486:Juliancolton
2483:
2472:
2469:
2466:
2427:
2411:
2402:
2401:
2380:
2379:
2367:Juliancolton
2364:
2351:Juliancolton
2348:
2320:
2303:UncleDouggie
2298:
2286:UncleDouggie
2273:
2256:
2239:
2229:
2222:
2215:
2209:
2192:
2172:
2166:
2161:
2138:
2134:
2117:
2106:
2092:
2089:
2086:
2068:
2061:
2055:
2014:
1990:
1957:
1917:
1916:Oppose with
1915:
1901:might pass.
1897:
1880:
1863:
1846:
1832:
1828:
1808:this article
1802:
1772:
1769:
1766:
1746:
1743:
1726:
1722:not deleting
1721:
1691:
1676:
1673:
1670:
1643:
1615:Juliancolton
1612:
1594:
1582:
1577:
1563:
1550:
1544:
1536:
1524:
1511:
1500:
1493:
1476:
1456:
1439:
1419:
1415:
1398:
1373:
1372:
1367:
1363:
1327:
1311:
1308:
1305:
1279:
1228:
1207:this summary
1198:
1186:
1178:
1151:Juliancolton
1148:
1132:
1121:
1118:
1115:
1086:Juliancolton
1083:
1079:
1042:
1037:
1021:
1005:
986:
972:FeydHuxtable
966:
948:
929:
912:
895:
886:
869:
840:
839:
676:
675:
653:
647:
641:
635:
629:
623:
616:
609:
603:
551:
548:
545:
525:
519:
502:
496:
471:
457:
421:
417:
413:
409:
377:
367:
346:
340:
336:
319:
313:
300:
268:
262:
242:
236:
214:
208:
170:
164:
159:
148:
142:Edit Warring
97:
74:
66:
52:
51:
46:
34:
28:
2912:Malinaccier
2278:in this AfD
1885:Casmith_789
1501:Pmlineditor
804:User rights
794:CentralAuth
530:Jimmy Wales
462:bureaucrats
2765:not a test
2630:Moving to
2585:occasional
2564:Weatherman
2325:Shadowjams
2031:SPhilbrick
2006:Emufarmers
1974:SPhilbrick
1962:Emufarmers
1816:TParis00ap
1440:Sandstein
995:Weatherman
787:Cross-wiki
778:AfD closes
690:Discussion
515:Triplestop
63:Nomination
2829:3 times,
2827:Knowledge
2416:Unionhawk
2407:Unionhawk
2261:SluggoOne
1943:America69
1924:America69
1688:user page
1686:From his
1529:Unionhawk
773:AfD votes
768:BLP edits
639:blockĀ log
540:Knowledge
506:complete.
351:Knowledge
323:reportee.
248:Knowledge
223:Knowledge
118:Knowledge
2998:Category
2867:contribs
2839:this AfD
2793:contribs
2596:BWilkins
2537:iMatthew
2412:Opposing
2223:SeekerĀ 4
1970:block?--
1731:Ret.Prof
1692:opposite
1665:ArcAngel
1630:ArcAngel
1611:Sorry? ā
1599:Ret.Prof
1568:this AfD
1481:ArcAngel
1468:Chequers
1382:Mountain
1268:contribs
1239:contribs
896:Bsimmons
874:Looie496
831:contribs
751:Analysis
730:Counters
607:contribs
597:Shoessss
453:Bwilkins
78:contribs
68:Shoessss
47:Shoessss
2959:Neutral
2944:Pr3st0n
2934:Pr3st0n
2930:Neutral
2885:King of
2881:Neutral
2758:This is
2745:Neutral
2715:editors
2692:vetting
2679:Neutral
2653:Neutral
2613:Neutral
2581:pattern
2428:Neutral
2403:Neutral
2381:Neutral
2339:Neutral
2308:Pr3st0n
1939:WP:SNOW
1812:WP:DGAF
1572:sarcasm
1403:DJSasso
1220:errors.
1108:itself.
1038:Support
1022:Support
1011:AniMate
930:Support
891:(small)
887:Support
841:Support
816:Support
614:deleted
2963:Crafty
2809:hoesss
2777:editor
2724:hoesss
2669:review
2632:oppose
2602:ātrack
2501:Giants
2470:hoesss
2433:Giants
2321:Oppose
2299:Oppose
2274:Oppose
2257:Oppose
2244:Alan16
2240:Oppose
2210:Oppose
2193:Oppose
2167:Valley
2162:Oppose
2135:Oppose
2107:Oppose
2090:hoesss
2056:Oppose
1958:Oppose
1898:Oppose
1881:Oppose
1803:Oppose
1770:hoesss
1744:Oppose
1696:otherl
1674:hoesss
1595:Oppose
1564:Oppose
1537:Oppose
1525:Oppose
1494:Oppose
1477:Oppose
1416:Oppose
1399:Oppose
1377:Little
1364:Oppose
1309:hoesss
1199:Oppose
1181:arrior
1119:hoesss
1059:Oppose
889:. One
855:Crafty
845:Crafty
737:XTools
549:hoesss
418:delete
399:editor
354:large.
306:ASTILY
126:WP:RAA
2847:every
2750:Abce2
2639:neuro
2620:neuro
2590:talkā
2124:Talk
2118:Tavix
2062:tommy
2018:neuro
1994:neuro
1867:neuro
1850:neuro
1836:neuro
1647:neuro
1578:Jamie
1464:Spiel
1323:Amory
1224:Amory
1139:talk
1080:SHOUT
1049:talk
679:civil
621:count
436:: -->
414:close
394:case.
341:major
33:that
16:<
2967:talk
2948:talk
2938:talk
2918:talk
2860:anaɢ
2786:anaɢ
2559:Athe
2390:talk
2345:This
2329:talk
2312:talk
2290:talk
2282:this
2265:talk
2248:talk
2230:Talk
2201:talk
2185:Dark
2174:city
2109:per
2069:talk
1947:talk
1928:talk
1907:talk
1889:talk
1860:This
1820:talk
1788:talk
1754:talk
1735:talk
1699:left
1634:talk
1603:talk
1555:talk
1485:talk
1459:Ļ¢ere
1453:this
1426:talk
1421:Cirt
1407:talk
1261:anaɢ
1235:talk
1231:user
1211:WP:N
1203:this
1072:Here
1067:here
1029:talk
990:Athe
976:talk
958:talk
921:talk
904:talk
878:talk
859:talk
849:talk
827:talk
666:here
651:rfar
633:logs
601:talk
476:User
430:talk
422:keep
387:- UE
136:and
108:and
72:talk
2823:AFD
2663:Fan
2658:LAA
2545:at
2216:The
1585:S93
1368:not
1217:.
1189:321
1134:DGG
1044:DGG
937:Ray
898:666
829:) (
657:spi
627:AfD
535:POV
520:10.
481:RFA
420:or
410:7a.
285:AFD
281:BLP
279:or
273:AFD
227:AFD
219:AFD
199:AIV
197:at
191:CSD
187:AFD
183:CSD
179:AFD
175:AFD
151:Yes
132:-
122:AIV
102:CSD
90:AFD
82:AFD
3000::
2969:)
2950:)
2902:ā
2845:"
2636:ā
2634:.
2617:ā
2605:)
2521:)
2506:27
2490:|
2453:)
2438:27
2414:--
2392:)
2371:|
2355:|
2331:)
2314:)
2292:)
2267:)
2250:)
2242:ā
2203:)
2144:am
2141:At
2121:|
2015:ā
1991:ā
1949:)
1930:)
1909:)
1891:)
1864:ā
1847:ā
1833:ā
1822:)
1790:)
1756:)
1737:)
1644:ā
1636:)
1619:|
1605:)
1557:)
1543:.
1487:)
1428:)
1409:)
1340:ā¢
1334:ā¢
1285:am
1282:At
1237:ā¢
1233:ā¢
1222:~
1155:|
1141:)
1090:|
1051:)
1031:)
978:)
960:)
923:)
906:)
880:)
861:)
833:)
645:lu
526:A:
503:A:
497:9.
472:A:
458:8.
432:)
378:A:
368:7.
347:A:
337:6.
320:A:
314:5.
269:A:
263:4.
243:A:
237:3.
215:A:
209:2.
171:A:
165:1.
144:.
128:ā
124:ā
84:ā
37:.
2965:(
2946:(
2936:(
2921:)
2915:(
2899:ā£
2894:ā¦
2889:ā„
2864:/
2858:ŹØ
2856:r
2812:S
2806:S
2790:/
2784:ŹØ
2782:r
2753:|
2727:S
2721:S
2518:s
2515:|
2512:c
2509:(
2473:S
2467:S
2450:s
2447:|
2444:c
2441:(
2388:(
2327:(
2310:(
2288:(
2263:(
2246:(
2199:(
2170:2
2153:é
2147:a
2093:S
2087:S
2036:T
1979:T
1945:(
1926:(
1905:(
1887:(
1818:(
1786:(
1773:S
1767:S
1752:(
1733:(
1677:S
1671:S
1632:(
1601:(
1553:(
1551:/
1545:\
1512:ā
1483:(
1424:(
1405:(
1387:5
1346:)
1343:c
1337:t
1331:u
1328:(
1312:S
1306:S
1294:é
1288:a
1265:/
1259:ŹØ
1257:r
1241:)
1229:(
1187:4
1179:w
1137:(
1122:S
1116:S
1047:(
1027:(
974:(
956:(
919:(
902:(
876:(
857:(
847:(
825:(
717:e
710:t
703:v
669:.
659:)
654:Ā·
648:Ā·
642:Ā·
636:Ā·
630:Ā·
624:Ā·
617:Ā·
610:Ā·
604:Ā·
599:(
552:S
546:S
428:(
303:F
229:.
201:.
75:Ā·
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.