Knowledge:Requests for adminship/The Haunted Angel 2

88:) - The Haunted Angel has grown immensely since his ill-fated first attempt at adminship, so much so that I don't even recognize him as the same person. I think this quote from his editor review sums it up rather well: "Hey The Haunted Angel. I've known you around Knowledge for a while now, and you're a very helpful user who does very good edits. You've helped with the Coheed and Cambria articles greatly, that article just one of many. You're a nice, calm editor, who has a good sense of humour, but while maintaining a humourous way, your edits are still up to scratch. As with any good editor, you revert vandalism well and warn/notify the user of it. I can't really think of any advice for you, you seem to do everything so well". I want to emphasize how completely different that is from his first RFA, which frankly sucked. However, I would not have nominated him if I didn't feel that he's not the same person anymore. I see a potential need for the tools, and I see a user who I can trust to handle them well. 1791:

just in peoples' rationales, but the reasoning behind those as well, even if it means I have to try and provoke things a bit with outlandish statements. I also feel that a candidate reviewing their RfA after the fact would benefit more from this deeper dialogue, which in this case for the candidate has evolved from "I opposed due to a userbox" to "I opposed because considering the candidate's choices of userboxes in relation to the accepted norms of the community, I concluded there was too large of a discrepancy between these two to place my trust in the candidate's judgment in future matters," which is much more in depth and helpful. I don't really have a Confederate Flag on my dormitory door, I was born in

1861:, good vandal-fighter, gives excellent reasons why should be admin. Has grown and seems to be growing, I get the impression this is a big-caliber human. He has noted people don't get the humour now, so I am convinced (okay, I know, this is just a feeling) this won't be a problem. And another comment - from this Norwegian user: my personal impression is to cut an Englishman more slack in jokes about Nazism and Nazi symbols than most other, as someone has said here: the Jews may make jokes about Nazism- and I think, some of the same apply to the British. As this box has been removed now, it should be seen as solved. 2073:. This process is subjective, but it goes beyond individual subjective perspectives to seek communal norms, and I'm fairly sure you find that your view is on this subject is very far outside of consensus. Radical feminism != Nazism, as radical feminists have never committed genocide, etc. You're free to disagree with this proposition, but I do hope you'll have the sense to realize that you'll be virtually alone in so doing. If you cannot recognize that, it is likely that Knowledge (and, perhaps, life) will be a very confusing experience for you. (By the way, I never said I was a radical feminist in any case.) 716:" - this shows that benefiting Knowledge is what's important. If a rule prevents that, ignore it. Obviously, there are few chances to do this, as the current rules are already built to work in favour of Knowledge advancing, and the only rules that you feel you could ignore may result in Wikipeda not growing better. For example, someone may feel that uploading an image that isn't free, that they don't own, may benefit Knowledge, because at least the said image is being added, but as long as Knowledge has content that isn't free, it will never have truly grown better. 574:

conflicts similar to this one, there could be numerous ways to approach it, depending on the situation in question. Let's say, someone else had the symbol, and people were arguing over it. Should people keep arguing over what place the user box has on Knowledge, the situation may never go away, and so I think the best thing I would recommend is that the user discreetly remove the user box. Of course, the choice is entirely his/hers, but in a case such as this, arguing over and over because of the box may solve nothing (especially considering how

150:

process of speedy deletion. A lot of nonsense articles are created on Knowledge, and there's usually a good ten just been created at any one time - sometimes in my long "patrol-binges", I've noticed that some of these pages are still in existence for a good hour at any one time - including articles that are complete nonsense, there just doesn't appear to be any admins online ready to tackle the tagged articles. With adminship, I feel that I can put the tools to good use on my speedy patrols of new pages.

637:. If someone were to "leap out" at one of my actions, my response would depend entirely upon what action I took. If it was something I did wrong, then by all means, I would readily apologize (no matter how new they were compared to me being an admin - I wouldn't think myself to "high and mighty" to apologize to someone new to the site). If it was an edit or action that may disagree with, but was in fact correct (such as removing some original research they added, for example) I would explain to them 540:

you're confronted with here? Or to try to dodge the issue? If so, really, I'm not sure I blame you. An RfA is touchy and maybe more difficult than much admin work. Nevertheless, what does this say about how you will handle conflicts as an admin? Will you be able to deal with concerns, offended parties, without making light or dodging the issue? If so, maybe you could talk about your skills at defusing or straightforwardly and gracefully dealing with conflicts, especially when you are a party to it.

2927:. He wasn't wrong in either of those cases, but it's better to be civil towards inexperienced users. Secondly, I share JayHenry's concerns about his userboxes. Using a swastika as a joke is in very poor taste, and I also think his open endorsement of Satanism is likely to cause serious offence to many users - he's entitled to his views, but Knowledge is not a free speech forum, and one should avoid provoking others unnecessarily. May change depending on his answer to JayHenry's question. 611:

you apologize, internalize the key pt, and change? (Or is it common for you to defend yourself, as you've done here? I can imagine the RfA is an unusual setting.) Also, I'm not asking only about this situation, where many users argue over a box, but (#3) how would you respond if an individual (e.g., newbie) "leaps out" and takes offense at your box or similar actions/edits etc? Thanks again. If these q's aren't helpful here, feel free to reply to my Talk or simply let it go.

302:", one can see how there are Nazi references, but with the "Wikingpädie" bit on the end, it's somewhat hard to take it seriously. The term "Grammar Nazi" has been used on the net and in real life a lot (to the point where it has its own article) and isn't meant in an offensive manner - the entire userbox in fact, is more satire then serious. Would you also ask that I remove any pentagrams from my userboxes in the fear they may offend certain theistic religions? We know that 233:

statement on the talk page I mentioned earlier, but the user generally wishes to ignore these rules. His/her abusive attitude has resulted in him/her banned once, and although it appears that the arguments have ended, I suspect that the same problems will explode once more in the future. However, I have done my best not to feed the trolls, nor cause trouble where there is none, and generally keep the peace when the discussion get a bit extreme.

543:(HG3) You say: "will not leap out of their chair at the sight of some German words." Again, I'm curious about how much experience you've had or what you've learned about how people, esp but not exclusively Jews, might react to Nazism. Many Jews read "some German words" every day and for many different reasons. I suspect most don't give it a second thought that they are reading some German. However, are you suggesting that 2098:

inclusion on your user page calls into question whether you will be perceived by the community as open and impartial. Your answer to my question leaves me uncomfortable: particularly your reliance on WP is not censored. I suppose you'll never see incivility or a personal attack because those too are free speech. I too am against censorship, keep your symbol. But I cannot support you as an admin.

2111:

In fact, there are several other users who have similar boxes of their own, and those don't include the four other users who use my userbox. One user has taken the nazi userbox, including swastika, in another direction, and it's meant to be funny as well. I'd hazard that the subject of this user's userbox, The Soup Nazi, is probably a strong part of the etymology of grammar nazi.

2251:

to try to avoid misunderstandings where possible and may interact with people who may have a completely different understanding of satire (or none at all). I appreciate the commitment against censorship, but why then increase the risk that editors jump to or feel reinforced in the conclusion that their contributions have been deleted or even "censored" by some "Nazi-admin".--

2945:, or it is some form of prejudice arising. The edit summaries, I admit, may seem a little "snappy" (the Ten Speed one certainly wasn't meant to - if you look on the user's talk page I apologized for reverting his edit which I misunderstood). However, edit summaries towards newcomers could, and will in the future, be worded slightly more "softer", if you like. ≈ 507:

continue to do so regardless of the outcome here. However, certain aspects of adminship may require you to exercise judgment and sensitivity, in ways that go beyond dealing with vandalism. There's a very diverse flock of editors here, often in touchy POV-related disputes. In light of the responsibility put on the shoulders of admins, then, it is your

523:

offended, what do you see as the severity of the offense, is it a mild offense, slightly uncivil, what would you compare it to? Equally important, how would you handle causing this kind of offense to some -- but admittedly not all - of the parties in an AfD or other dispute? How will you persuade the offended parties that it's just a harmless joke?

3020:. I can't support you with the satanic references, but it would be wrong of me to actually oppose you. I believe that it is wrong to make judgments on RFA's about editor's beliefs, but I have doubts (because of this) that you would have a neutral point of view toward users editing against your own personal beliefs. Very sorry I can't support. 2347:(edit conflict) Ah well, I'm afraid the worst for me is yet to come ...but I wasn't concerned about anyway abusive editors. Now, I am not familiar with the mentioned sitcom, but I assume it doesn't feature a swastika on the soup kitchens' door. What makes all this more than "nothing" for me is actually the shown resistance and arguing around. 1977:

judgment, as it is needlessly inflammatory. Yes, the Swastika was and is used as a religious symbol. The reverse Swastika (which is the Nazi symbol) in black on a white and red field is exclusively a symbol of Nazism, neo-Nazism, and the like. Reconsider your judgment, candidate, and I'll reconsider mine.

1757:

offensive connotations it might have. If you really must know, my family's not-so-distant ancestors fought on the losing side of World War II and even though I'm ashamed of what they did I'm not going to oppose someone for adminship because they evaluate the offensiveness of a symbol differently than I do.

3052:

I can understand opposition relating to the swastika thing; personally I don't find "Grammar Nazi" offensive, but have trouble with the swastika. But I have a big problem with people objecting because of his work on the Religion wikiproject. Anyone who is opposing on that basis, please consider how

2965:

I'm not being prejudiced - you are entitled to your own views. I just think that, coupled with everything else I raised above, it has the potential to make you a controversial admin - and we don't need more controversial admins. I won't oppose, however, because nothing I've brought up is particularly

2871:

I support free speech, and if you were using a Swastika to make some political point that'd be one thing, but having it as some pointless userbox joke? It's an obviously offensive symbol to some people, so I'm questioning the judgment and sensitivity here. I'm neutral because the Angel hasn't had a

2097:

Your userbox is the Nazi flag with reference to the word "Nazi" and a reference to the SS to boot. Some people regard that as divisive and offensive. The history of the swastika is a strawman; you are using it in its Nazi sense. No one is attacking your pentagrams; that's another straw man. The box's

1976:

per the Nazi box on your userpage. One has a right to free speech (which on Knowledge is respected as a loosely regulated privilege, actually; Knowledge is not a government, etc.) How one chooses to employ that right is a reflection of his/her judgment. This is a poor reflection on the candidate's

610:

Thanks for your response, Haunted Angel. I'm not sure why you removed the box. Was it a mistake? Every admin makes mistakes sometimes, at least in tone of voice, esp if they take on dealing frequently w/suspected vandals and newbies. I'm trying to understand how you recognize and handle mistakes. Do

2980:

Very poor answers to question 4, all strawmen and red herrings. Yes, the swastika was an innocuous religious symbol for thousands of years; in the context of the userbox, however, it is clearly intended as the symbol of the Nazi party and hence can be expected to have problematic sensitivity issues.

2777:

HG and EVula, I'm happy to see the userbox removed. You may be right that I am not assuming good faith to the fullest extent. Instead, I am inferring poor judgement, based both on the presence of the userbox and the removal of them under criticism during an RfA. If it were me, I'd leave it until the

2534:

Even if you recognise your error now, it doesn't reflect well on your judgement that you had a Nazi symbol on your userpage for an extended period of time. The way you tried to defend it citing it being a religious symbol when it would obviously cause offense as something else did nothing to improve

2110:

The box itself is meant as a joke. The term grammar nazi is basically a joke; the cultural loading of nazi is such that nobody would go out of their way to declare themselves any kind of nazi, and yet we grammar nazis do. I copied this box from another user's example, because I thought it was funny.

711:

IAR is something that am rather fond of, although I've never had to use it - as quite simply, most of Knowledge's rules are perfect as they are, and it's only in odd circumstances you may have to ignore the rules "legally", if you'll excuse the pun. The page really explains it all - but I agree with

628:

scale, and so I felt that it wasn't worth being stubborn and keeping it, when it is aparrent that it is doing nothing but asking for more trouble. I would indeed try to defend myself, as I did here, but I can see when one thing gets to far - to be honest, I didn't think one little user box would get

585:

The German words, including the letters "SS", I thought were offset by the parody of "Wikingpädie", that would add a sense of humour comparable to every user here, as every user is a part of Knowledge. It is a fact though, that many people find certain things more offensive than others, and so it is

578:

the box is). I realised that arguing for the said user box against many people who obviously have a problem with it, is a dead end - the arguing will persist. As there is little alternative (I could have replaced it with one without the Nazi Symbolism, but I felt that removing it altogether may have

573:

In question two, you raised a comparison I made to the two symbols - as it is the same symbol, only used in a different manner, the effect can tear people right down the middle, as it has done. As the symbol has now been removed, there shouldn't be any problems on that front, but if there were other

179:

With the Cradle of Filth articles however, the main concern their is keeping their genre NPOV. Doing so isn't easy, especially as new editors come, wonder why they are not one particular genre, and start the same discussion that has been over many times in the past. However, an editor I work with on

2686:

per the Nazi and Satanist userboxes. Userpages aren't personal websites, they are to facilitate your contribution to Knowledge. Patently offensive userboxes, whether intended as such or not, do not facilitate the work you are here to do. Removing the Nazi userbox because of opposition during an RfA

2250:

for the actual answers to question 4 which make some irrelevant distinctions (such as the one pointed out by Sjakkalle or that between the use of the template and the template itself) and comparisons (such as to the Jain symbol), but miss the main point, namely that an administrator can be expected

570:

say that should the user box cause trouble, I would remove it - and as the trouble that began has increased dramatically, I have done just that, and so, in answer to your first question, I have conceded with how this will cause offence to people. The user box, obviously, was meant as a joke (Nazism

232:

I have had a bit of recent trouble with one particular user (I won't mention his/her user name, but it won't be hard to find) regarding the Cradle of Filth genre. I have tried to explain to him/her many times about why it'd be POV to define the band as a genre, including him pointing to the opening

2120:

Note I edited some usernames out of this quote, to keep it simpler and them out of it. I posted it on hope that something can be explained about the userbox! I'm sure if it was a bad idea for an admin to have this userbox on his page, it would be removed; since it's not, anyone is free to have it,

1790:

And that is a very reasonable thing to believe. When I make controversial statements on RfAs, it's generally to encourage dialogue on the efficacy of a particular line of reasoning (usually for opposing). As I generally consider opposing an RfA to be quite serious, I am often deeply interested not

1689:

User's religion is of no concern to me. We could clearly debate the origins and adaptations of the swastika to no end, however, coupled with 'grammar' I find it innocuous, while still retaining a derogatory meaning, IE unrelenting and controlling. I'd much rather see it now than an hour after this

522:

and not just seemingly take offense. Seinfeld knows this and it is his Jewishness that allows him to get away with it, though he still obviously (not seemingly) offends some people. Are you unwilling to concede that the userbox is straightforwardly offensive to some people? For those folks who are

506:

to vote against you for adminship. After all, didn't Seinfeld do the "Soup Nazi" and other Nazi shticks? Plus, there's at least one other admin with this userbox, so you have a precedent in your favor. Furthermore, I think it's great that you're helping Knowledge against vandals etc., and hope you

225:

Back in my early editing days, I had a few tiffs with a Religious vandal, and I admit, I handled it poorly, as I was simply feeding the trolls. However, that is long in the past, and I feel I have learned greatly from it. Now I have the odd argument with someone (usually an IP) who feels that I am

2837:- in regards to the Nazi symbol, if you had just said, "It was meant to be a joke, I didn't mean to offend anyone, I'll remove it.", this would be a lot different for me. However, you defended it and continued to do so. You finally removed it after much back and forth. Too late in my opinion. 2006:

Changed to strong oppose per SheffieldSteel. I echo the concerns below: although you have found an agreeable inoffensive substitute, you have not made the change yourself, but dallied, waiting to see how much opposition you'd receive. This smacks of an editor who is better at creating conflicts

1941:

While I'm not thrilled with the method of response to the userbox issue, which I still don't find to have been suitably addressed, it's not enough to convince me that THA, who otherwise appears to be an excellent editor, is not qualified for the position of admin. I have no doubt that he/she will

1756:

My original point was that peeople vary widely in what they consider offensive, and unless they bring any offensive attitudes with them onto Knowledge, it is pointless to judge them on it on Knowledge. A secondary point is that it is possible to decouple a symbol and some of the (admittedly very)

149:

Also along the same lines, one thing I am involved in almost as much as my main edits is newpage patrol. My user page even has the newpage list at the bottom for speed, and I am rather involved in speedy deletion. A huge benefit that I would find is using admin tools to significantly speed up the

2849:

The box was a joke, and it is not a big deal. I'm concerned that the candidate chose to argue once it was clear that people were bothered by the box, and that they employed such an obvious red herring in the process. Even though they finally removed it, their defense leaves me with doubts about

2324:

since well before my RfA was submitted and passed, and nobody once mentioned it. Perhaps only because it is front and center? I just suggested to THA that it be moved to his userbox subpage, but other than that, I think it's silly to insist that they remove the userbox, especially since he could

2114:

It's not my fault if someone doesn't get the joke. It's also not my fault that somebody else, who obviously does get the joke, is using the userbox. I welcome people to use my userboxes, and a few people do use them, which is just fine with me. If the swastika was a problem for any of them, then

539:

a Nazi symbol" but just a swastika shape? (Cf. you say: "symbol once used by the Nazis" as if it's not a Nazi symbol today?) Presumably, you know very well that the specific version you are using, colors shape etc., is indeed the Nazi symbol. So, is your answer a way to make light of the problem

1771:

My ancestors fought on both sides of the American Civil War: Ancestry is irrelevant. While it is true that anything may be found offensive by someone, it is also true that there are some select symbols found offensive by many, for reasons that should be obvious to all. A person interested in

1899:

I see no problems with the userbox. The victors write the story, and in this case the Nazis weren't the victors. If they were , I'm sure we'd hail them as heroes. And who cares if he has a Nazi symbol on his userpage. Should we oppose users who have a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, feminist,

145:, my ability to revert vandalism has improved significantly - although I still realise at times there are those who revert the vandalism without warning the user. Although admin tools are not necessary, I believe that with adminship, I can drastically help the vandalism problem on the site. 2032:

You're welcome to question it, but I think you'll find that there is a substantial consensus that feminism is -- at a minimum -- a wee bit less radical and disturbing than Nazism. Also, note that I merely state my support for feminism -- I do not employ a controversial political position

547:

is merely more German? Would you think any less of somebody -- whether a random reader or an experienced editor -- if they did "leap out of their chair" when coming across your userbox? How will your impression -- that they are over-reacting -- come into play in your responsiveness as an

2182:

per Xoloz. The symbol is not just a swastika, but a black right-angled swastika turned clockwise in a white circle within in a red field. That is identical with the symbol and flag used by Nazi Germany, and since the references to the SS-division are obvious, the contention

268:

keeping in mind that admins must work with a wide range of editors, with various backgrounds, sensitivities, and opinions, have you considered what effect having a swastika and membership in an SS division message on your user page may be on editors interacting with you?

586:

down to what people will find amusing, where others will draw the line. I didn't find the user box really that hysterical, I simply thought it was a bit of satire that got the point across, but as I've said above, I have since discreetly removed the box to avoid further

310:, I believe that anyone who sees the userbox will not leap out of their chair at the sight of some German words, nor a symbol once used by the Nazis, but will instead read the bit in blue above it, which, although it doesn't really need much of an explanation, links to 534:

a Nazi symbol." Hmmm. Doesn't your answer dodge the concern at hand? Who is offended by the Jainism symbol you've linked to? Your link to Jainism and your counter-argument, so to speak, isn't that rather a red herring? Anyway, are you saying that your userbox is

2990:

until a better response is offered to the valid concerns raised here. This doesn't mean that I necessarily expect the box to be removed, rather that I would prefer a better example of how this user would react in similar pressured situations as an admin.

2726:

When nothing else is at stake, sure. The fact that it is made to ameliorate the argument of opposers during his RfA suggests that motives other than reponsiveness and concern for the effect of his actions are at work. Not proof positive, but suggestive.

2936:

Under the comment about Satanism - it is indeed a controversial Religion, yet I can hardly see how it would change how valid an admin I'd be - I won't get into a discussion on Satanism, but if you oppose me because of that, I would either assume the

502:. Follow-up questions. Greetings. While I don't know you, I hope you don't mind my commenting and asking you some questions. Thanks for hearing me out. While I happen to think the "Grammar Nazi" userbox is in poor taste, I don't think it's grounds 2617:

what might have happened if you had just removed the infobox (see the discussion near the top of the oppose section). Even if you disagree with the reasoning here, it's clear that the box offended somebody, and it's definitely not a necessity.

2504:

I've way too often heard the American smear accusing Nordic people (=descendents of the Vikings) to be Nazis. You might be interested to know that the Nazis had very little following in our countries, which was clearly demonstrated during the

1472:

As per nom and Great track in particular the statement that you accepted the advice of the oppose votes in the 1st RFA and waited 1 year before the next RFA and took the points raised positively shows your desire to contribute to wikipedia

2290:

Yes, they are valid arguments, as some users may be offended by the swastika being used on his page, as he has said, he'll remove it if there is concern, which I'm sure he will do now, and in no way will it affect his work as an admin. —

2398:. Answers to questions on this subject, while civil, don't imply much respect or concern for others' feelings, instead amounting to "Do I really have to get rid of it?" No, you don't have to, and no, my vote wouldn't change if you did. 407:. Should I receive enough complaints about the template to warrant it inappropriate, then I will be happy to change it - although it seems to me the problem you have here is not my use of the template, but rather the template itself. ≈ 176:

articles. I started the Coheed Wikiproject, and although it's going a bit slow, I feel it has drastically improved the quality of all articles that fall under its scope; not to mention I've met and befriended new Wikipedians thanks to

285:

Upon consideration of the wording of your question, I can see how such a user box may seem offensive or "pro-Nazi" (trust me, I'm not). However, leaving the "SS" bit out for a sec, I don't think I need to explain how the Swastika was

186:

episodes. I would regularly read episodes on here, only to find that they have the most ridiculous trivia. I went through each individual episode, and cut out trivia which could be considered irrelevant or unencyclopedic. That's a

2612:

per Addhoc and Daniel. Citing the religious aspects of the symbol and comparing it to an infobox for Jainism was an error, considering that the association with Nazism clearly went much further than just the incidence of a manji.

1811:

Hmmm... I had already expanded on my reasoning quite amply, so your exercise in devil's adocacy has succeeded only in wasting both your time and mine. I, too, enjoy playing devil's advocate, but there is a way to do that without

463:(THA has even said that that's where he got it from) since well before my RfA was started. I've been an admin for nearly a year, and never once has it been an issue. This whole brouhaha is, in my opinion, pathetically ridiculous. 2820:

One thing that an admin has to be able to do is to make concessions on minor points, so as to be able to stand their ground on major issues. To be standing his ground on this particular issue shows poor judgment. I regretfully

2778:

RfA is finished in order to avoid the appearance of trying to appease !voters. I'm not at all convinced that his actual reasoning contradicts his statements, in fact I'd say its unlikely. As I said, its just suggestive timing.

226:"ruining" articles by doing the things I explained above. Generally, cutting out the trivia and goofs that IP's add in the South Park episodes doesn't go down well. Should they contact me, I would inform them about Knowledge's 718:

Of course, some people take this rule too far... they may use it as a trump card to try to wreak havoc on Knowledge - but if they are so flamboyantly breaking rules, there's only one thing to do, that is, if they are doing it

1225:. Low level of Knowledge namespace edits would normally indicate a probable lack of policy knowledge which would lead me to oppose, but in this case it is outweighed by excellent contributions, vandalism-fighting, and so on. 2187:

winds up being a red herring. It is in poor taste, and there is a (admittedly small since its intent is humorous) possibility of bringing Knowledge into disrepute if administrators flag Nazi symbolism on their userpages.

1676:

to have an editor who is "fluent" in heavy metal/punk/goth, genres often outside the mainstream and subject to many nominations because "I've never heard of them, they only get 789 Ghits, so they can't be notable".

2905:

the Nazi symbol. I believe you when you say you're not a nazi and I won't oppose for this userbox, I myself am not offended by it, but if you find that some editors are, I'd advise being very sensitive to that.

2763:

Avruch, I would have no problem with your evaluating the nominee's response(s). But I don't see what you driving at by questioning motives and I'm not sure we need to know -- ought we not assume good faith here?

2740:

Well what would be the alternative? Leave it in place and further incense people? A concern has been raised, and THA has addressed that concern as best he can. Let's assume some good faith here, please...

2985:

or the numerous similar projects. New users could easily be put off by a high-profile editor projecting that image. On closer examination THA appears to be a very good editor, but I'm withholding support

2687:

does not change the judgement that went into placing them on your userpage in the first place; in fact, it raises new questions about your motives for removing it despite your contention that its a joke.

2264:

worse things, without providing a userbox to prompt them). The fact that it gets thrown around like that only further reinforces, in my opinion, the fact that "nazi" has become a more generalized term ("

2394:

The swastika existed as a symbol before it was co-opted by the Nazi party. "Afterwards", however, is not the same as "before". A black swastika on a white circle with a red background, furthermore, is

1942:

have learned from this experience and will have gained understanding as to how to how seemingly minor issues can become controversial when extra responsibility is attached. Not a strong support, but a

1772:

dispassionate discourse would be well-advised to refrain from using them at Knowledge, whatever his private beliefs. To do otherwise, to make oneself a firebrand, calls one's judgment into question.

1728:

Desysop, no... but, this information does put my past disagreements with you in different light. At least you've implicitly morally equated the Swastika with the Confederacy, which is appreciated.

1672:- This editor is much improved in recent months: (a) consistent use of edit summaries, (b) lots of edits across lots of fields, and (c) gone through editor review. It will be extremely helpful at 450:

I find it incredible that you'd have such a user box, especially when offering yourself for adminship. If your judgement is this poor how can you possibly be a good candidate for adminship?

2537:"I find it incredible that you'd have such a user box, especially when offering yourself for adminship. If your judgement is this poor how can you possibly be a good candidate for adminship? 1795:

and lived there until I was 14. I don't even have a southern accent. I just feel that playing the Devil's Advocate can sometimes be very enlightening. Thank you for your explanded response.

1816:, even as a temporary measure. Key phrases to remember: "Let's assume that...", "Hypothetically, suppose..." This allows one to discuss the rights of Nazis without feigning a goose-step. 3101: 767: 3053:

you would feel if people opposed your RFA because of your presumed religious beliefs or Wikiproject affiliation. Please, let's keep that out of it and look only at comments and actions.

298:

user box not to be used by an admin? I'm sure that there are Hindu or Buddhist ones about to go with it, also. The part of the user box that goes along the lines of "4.SS-Division (mot.)

2121:

and in no way should a userbox affect one's contributions towards Knowledge. If you look through The Haunted Angel's contributions, you will see that nowhere does this userbox affect

2614: 1085:, his opinions are being allowed to stand where his sockpuppets have not participated, so long as his opinion was expressed before his block. Therefore, I am putting the vote back. 2981:

For example, it's very likely that an admin with a Nazi symbol on their userpage, regardless of intention, would not be welcomed in admin capacity within the very large and active

783: 128:

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:

203:. After that, I realised that the "goofs" that the pages had were just as unencyclopedic, and had no place here, so after a slight discussion, I went through the episode list 778: 1497: 217:

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?

824: 2260:

To be perfectly fair, one does not need the swastika image on their userpage to be called a nazi just for performing one's administrative duties (I've been called

811: 1287:

Bwuhaha... THA, if you want me to unblock the socks for you to test your new block abilities on, just give me a shout. If anyone gets dibs on them, it's us. ;)

1146: 721:

One point I feel I should raise however, is that despite this rule, some people may not truly understand its purpose, and decide to throw IAR about in order to

2231:

per Insensitivity, there is nothing amusing about the swastika on your user page, and making a joke about something like that is really not cool. And also per

2107:

I asked the user who created the userbox, if he would possibly consider changing the userbox, as there was some controversy raised over it. Here is his reply:

3119: 3077:

Thanks for removing the swastika. I think that you were too hesitant and stubborn about it for me to be comfortable supporting, but I withdraw the "oppose".

2373:

The Haunted Angel is perfectly within his rights to have a swastika on his user page and I'm perfectly within mine to think him a total tool because of it.

2955: 2891: 2214: 2162: 1996: 1319: 739: 655: 600: 440: 417: 324: 571:

isn't, one of my hobbies, I'm afraid) - however, with the removal of the template, hopefully any problems that you raised in question one, will not exist.

2115:

surely they would not have used it. So, the short answer to your question: thank you for your concern, but no, I will not consider changing the userbox.

818: 871: 804: 85: 459:

It's too late to do any good here, but I find it incredible that such a userbox would be an issue for adminship. I had this very same userbox in

3066: 2452: 2405: 854: 404: 1835:

Well then as a learning experience for the candidate, this discussion is about leadership and integrity and so far I've seen very little.

848: 2268:" anyone?). Personally, I think this is much ado about nothing, but it's a valid enough concern. I'm just presenting a counter-argument. 763: 147:

I am beginning (a little late, I must admit) to participate in AfD's more, also. With adminship, I can help oversee the process of AfD.

3039: 1176: 1036: 1781:

Well just as a reminder to you, some people see the Swastika as a sick, ignorant, hateful racist symbol of intolerance and genocide.

3033: 334:

I hope it is not inappropriate for me to respond here - if it is, please do revert this change - but I would just like to applaud

30: 17: 518:

offensive" (emphasis added). It seems to me that somebody who uses this box should be better informed about whether some people

2350: 1651: 1616: 403:

I have recently found an alternate Grammar Nazi template (well, two actually) which is less "offensive", which can be found

579:

been better), the best option available was to simply drop the user box to end the conflict. This would be, as you said, "

2317: 346:

page needs work to meet Knowledge's standings, it's a term some of us have known both online and off- for several years.

256: 1873:

The opposes for the grammar nazi userbox and being a satanist are completely looney. There's no reason to oppose to me

1554: 1350: 1255: 141:

My biggest concern on Knowledge, as is the concern of many others, is the vandalism. Since I managed to get my hands on

1501: 1474: 990: 798: 79: 583:" - the is little alternative except arguing the matter over and over again, and should end the problem straight off. 180:

the Cradle page has put a great opening statement on the talk page, trying to stop these arguments before they start.

3086: 3057: 3047: 3006: 2970: 2960: 2931: 2910: 2896: 2876: 2859: 2841: 2829: 2815: 2786: 2772: 2758: 2735: 2721: 2695: 2657: 2640: 2627: 2604: 2592: 2564: 2547: 2529: 2517: 2490: 2456: 2436: 2414:

Note: that's rather ironic coming from an editor who recently made an extremely distasteful holocaust joke on AN/I.

2409: 2386: 2377: 2359: 2342: 2311: 2285: 2255: 2242: 2219: 2197: 2167: 2145: 2102: 2077: 2064: 2041: 2027: 2011: 2001: 1981: 1961: 1932: 1911: 1890: 1865: 1853: 1839: 1820: 1804: 1785: 1776: 1766: 1751: 1732: 1723: 1702: 1681: 1664: 1655: 1628: 1600: 1583: 1564: 1540: 1517: 1504: 1488: 1477: 1464: 1444: 1369: 1355: 1324: 1304: 1282: 1259: 1234: 1216: 1190: 1167: 1150: 1119: 1094: 1076: 1060: 1042: 1016: 997: 966: 938: 916: 744: 673: 660: 619: 605: 561: 480: 454: 445: 427: 422: 396: 384: 359: 350: 329: 273: 108: 69: 2901:

I don't entirely know what to make of your answer. I'm aware of the history of the Swastika, but you're using it

2513:. I have nothing against you personally, I don't know you, but "jokes" like these are not befitting for an admin. 355:

How this editor found his way here within his first few edits - none prior in this area just deepens the mystery.

2506: 3070: 2826: 2587: 1578: 1135: 2007:

than resolving them, and suggests a certain insensitivity above and beyond that displayed by the box itself.

2445:

attempted joke as soon as anyone said they found it offensive, quietly and with as little fuss as possible.

1057: 985: 2946: 2882: 2205: 2153: 2016:

Should I question your sysop flag because you support feminism ? Maybe I think your sexist against males.

1987: 1800: 1762: 1719: 1696: 1310: 1267:

Courteous and helpful editor - much improved from last RFA. Shame American Brit isn't around any more! :)

1247: 1090: 1072: 1031: 794: 759: 730: 712:

the idea that it's putting forth that benefiting Knowledge is what's important. Taking part of the line; "

646: 591: 431: 408: 335: 315: 75: 120:

My first RfA was, as the nominator stated, far too premature. I hope that this one shall improve vastly.

3027: 2510: 3100:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either

1344: 976: 946:, gotta be. Great user who would not abuse admin rights whatsoever, and I wish you the best of luck! — 3062: 2922:

for a variety of reasons. Firstly, slightly BITEy edit summaries like these towards anonymous users:

2422: 1533: 902: 94: 1921:

on your userpage. It is simply anti-religious. The Nazi symbol is subjective, the pentagram is not.

1082: 1006: 3081: 2575: 2446: 2399: 2236: 2192: 2099: 2070: 1573: 1165: 1130: 1011: 393: 356: 270: 242: 2998: 2622: 2432: 2321: 1953: 1645: 1622: 1596: 1458: 1361: 1251: 1177:

Knowledge:Village_pump_(proposals)#Anonymous_page_creation_will_be_reenabled_on_English_Wikipedia

1052: 912: 867: 460: 207:

and removed all the goofs. Now every episode is on my watchlist, and I keep careful eyes on them!

173: 104: 2666:

because of terrible judgement exercised with the Nazi userbox, and becuase of what Addhoc said.

633:

backlash, but as it has, it was the smarter idea, I think, to remove it, and apologize for the

2982: 2938: 2374: 1796: 1758: 1715: 1691: 1393: 1379: 1277: 1086: 1068: 1026: 451: 142: 65: 1525:

Looked at the contributions. Seems like a hard working Wikipedian. Would make a great admin.

3023: 2942: 2784: 2751: 2733: 2714: 2700:

Strange, most people would see making an edit that several people have requested as being a

2693: 2601: 2572:

to me, the content on your userpage shows a lack judgment (or understanding) on your part.

2560: 2514: 2480: 2335: 2304: 2278: 2138: 2046: 1742: 1711: 1559: 1347: 1297: 1230: 959: 931: 473: 377: 295: 196: 338:

for his above comment regarding the Grammar Nazi template, especially the reference to the

294:

a Nazi symbol - it is in fact a symbol used across many Religions. As such, would you want

2967: 2928: 2747: 2710: 2653: 2637: 2500:

The Nazi box is very poor taste and so is the "Wikingpädi" nonsense. Being a citizen of a

2417: 2331: 2274: 1526: 1293: 1200: 927: 897: 726: 722: 469: 169: 89: 624:

I removed the box because it is aparrent that it has caused trouble, trouble on quite a

115:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination.'

3078: 2838: 2501: 2239: 2189: 1883: 1836: 1782: 1748: 1661: 1185: 1158: 634: 729:, which is an important stepping stone for anyone who would try to do such a thing. ≈ 3113: 3054: 2992: 2907: 2873: 2619: 2356: 2252: 1947: 1850: 1673: 1641: 1610: 1592: 1453: 1115: 1110: 702: 691: 544: 389: 347: 307: 303: 2809: 2769: 2667: 2383: 2349:

Or to refer to another of the featured boxes, this is the wrong topic and place to

2058: 2021: 1926: 1905: 1862: 1678: 1485: 1407: 1385: 1269: 670: 642: 616: 558: 343: 311: 227: 200: 61: 553:

Thanks for listening and taking the time to answer these questions. Best regards,

2779: 2728: 2688: 2598: 2556: 2541: 2526: 2468: 2292: 2126: 2050: 1549: 1500:, I enjoyed the use of quotes to illustrate this user's qualities, in the nom. 1337: 1226: 947: 365: 1156:

Inactive and purely symbolic support because I had run ins with you in the past

2856: 2742: 2705: 2649: 2415: 2326: 2269: 2232: 2074: 2038: 2008: 1978: 1817: 1773: 1729: 1514: 1437: 1288: 922: 464: 183: 54: 3094:

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.

2555:. Eep, the swastika symbol knocks this one out. See Nick Mallory's comment. 2464: 2265: 1918: 1875: 1792: 1180: 1747:

are you saying that nazi insignia like racist symbols don't mean anything?

511:

above that I think deserves serious scrutiny. Here's are my questions, ok?

714:

prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Knowledge...

339: 2850:

their judgement and respect for other users. I also share DS's concern.

2636:

per Xoloz and Daniel, and per my comments in the Neutral section below.

2765: 1336:– Per experience and Neil. We need more nuke operators for November. — 1067:

Politics rule has been indefinitelty blocked for abusive sockpuppetry.

666: 612: 554: 3104:

or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

401:

Concerning the above question, I would also like to make an add on -

2152:

Thanks Jackrm - also, I've made an addition to question 4, above ≈

974:, seems like a noble user. And most likely getting the job done. -- 870:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 581:

defusing or straightforwardly and gracefully dealing with conflicts

2881:

An reply to your comment can be found above, question number 4. ≈

2325:

easily agree to do so and then just put it back after the fact.

57: 1430:, not because we need more admins, but because we need more of 2467:

says it, then I suggest you should move it now, Haunted. :) —

2204:

Again, please see my latest replies on question 4, above. ≈

2185:" Swastika was used by the Nazi's, but is not a Nazi symbol" 1900:

humanistic, etc user box because of their political views?

1108:

Glad to give my support. A great asset to this project. --

1198:- Nice amount of experience, doubt will abuse the tools. 29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

160:

What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?

3001: 2925: 2923: 1956: 842: 836: 830: 260: 2488:

is joking when he says that, but yes, sheffield owns.

2037:. Too huge distinctions that you've somehow missed. 53:

Final (36/22/5); Originally scheduled to end 23:14,

526:(HG2) You say in your answer: "...the Swastika was 1986:An addition to question 4 has been added above. ≈ 1710:Unless y'all want to desysop me because I have a 1246:- good and thoughtful response to answers, meets 1498:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/The-G-Unit-Boss 665:I appreciate your responding yet again. Thanks. 1740:what is the point of this tasteless comment? - 182:Another area I feel I've worked well on is the 135:What admin work do you intend to take part in? 2648:for poor understanding and lack of judgment. 514:(HG1) You say "I can see how such a user box 8: 1513:Contribs are in order on a cursory glance. 921:Been looking forward to the second RfA. :) 230:rules, and that'd usually be the end of it. 2525:- lack of ability to diffuse a wikidrama. 784:Requests for adminship/The Haunted Angel 2 566:Thank you for the points raised - Well, I 195:trivia, just the bits which I felt defied 2597:Didn't handle the above situation well. 866:Please keep discussion constructive and 779:Requests for adminship/The Haunted Angel 872:Special:Contributions/The Haunted Angel 776: 168:I quite like the work I've done on the 166:As I stated on my latest editor review: 1378:Qualified candidate that's needed for 342:as a religious symbol. And while the 1024:Appears to be minimally qualified. -- 7: 2316:Something I just realized: I've had 641:I removed their edit, and show them 223:Again, from my latest editor review: 3120:Unsuccessful requests for adminship 775: 257:User:Wwagner/Userboxes/Grammar Nazi 251:Your user page contains the userbox 1179:, we need every admin we can get. 60:(UTC). No consensus to promote. -- 24: 2441:The difference is that I removed 2941:you're thinking about isn't the 2535:my opinion. Endorse the comment 2382:Inexcusable user page content.-- 1849:. I see no reason to oppose. -- 1743:Battle Flag of Northern Virginia 1712:Battle Flag of Northern Virginia 1660:Will make a good administrator. 1081:Although, on other RfAs such as 18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship 191:of episodes! I did not cut out 766:. For the edit count, see the 1: 792:Links for The Haunted Angel: 635:attitude I may have portrayed 308:Wikipedian against censorship 3087:13:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 3058:01:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 3048:23:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 3007:18:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2971:08:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 2961:11:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2932:11:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2911:14:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2897:11:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2877:07:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2860:14:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 2842:13:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 2830:00:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 2816:00:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 2787:21:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 2773:19:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 2759:18:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 2736:17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 2722:17:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 2696:17:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 2658:13:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 2641:11:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 2628:10:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 2605:05:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 2593:04:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 2565:23:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2548:22:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2530:20:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2518:19:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2491:18:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2457:15:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 2437:22:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2410:18:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2387:17:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2378:15:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2360:19:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2343:18:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2312:14:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2286:14:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2256:12:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2243:12:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2220:10:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2198:09:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2168:19:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2146:17:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2103:17:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 2078:21:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 2065:20:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 2042:17:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 2028:00:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 2012:21:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 2002:19:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 1982:13:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 1962:01:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 1933:00:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 1912:00:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 1891:00:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 1866:21:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 1854:21:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 1840:22:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 1821:22:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 1805:22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 1786:22:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 1777:22:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 1767:21:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 1752:21:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 1733:21:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 1724:19:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 1703:06:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 1682:21:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1665:20:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1656:13:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1629:03:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 1601:13:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 1584:08:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 1565:07:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 1541:07:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 1518:06:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 1505:02:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 1489:01:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 1478:01:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 1465:00:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 1445:21:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 1370:18:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 1356:14:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 1325:20:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 1305:19:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 1283:14:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 1260:12:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 1235:10:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 1217:10:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 1191:10:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 1168:06:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 1151:04:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 1120:03:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 1095:03:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 1077:19:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 1061:03:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 1043:03:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 1017:02:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 998:00:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC) 967:23:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 939:23:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 917:22:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 745:11:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 674:21:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 661:20:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 620:14:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 606:11:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC) 562:16:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 481:18:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC) 455:15:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC) 446:19:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 423:19:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 397:18:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 385:17:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 360:17:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 351:14:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 330:10:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 274:00:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 109:21:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 70:01:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 1917:Changed to oppose, per the 1147:A straw poll on straw polls 762:'s edit summary usage with 124:Questions for the candidate 3136: 2943:Satanism I apply myself to 312:a page explaining the term 2507:Nazi occupation of Norway 2069:Knowledge is governed by 304:Knowledge is not censored 3097:Please do not modify it. 2872:chance to respond yet. - 2049:? Like everything, it's 725:. I have recently found 39:Please do not modify it. 2919:Neutral, leaning oppose 2396:absolutely unambiguous 1502:Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 1475:Pharaoh of the Wizards 530:by the Nazi's, but is 509:answer to the question 290:by the Nazi's, but is 2804:per rationale above. 1636:- good pedia builder 701:What is your view of 588:unnecessary conflicts 240:Optional question by 31:request for adminship 2966:terrible in itself. 2047:Wee bit less radical 1400:at 20:00, 10/27/2007 723:try and make a point 2677:at 15:16, 11/1/2007 2320:in my userspace at 1417:at 15:14, 11/1/2007 1406:Struck my support. 1127:. It's about time. 774:RfAs for this user: 243:User:Carlossuarez46 2322:User:EVula/grammar 1238:Changed to oppose. 1050:So far, pile on!! 874:before commenting. 174:Coheed and Cambria 40: 3084: 3074: 3065:comment added by 3038: 3032: 3005: 2959: 2949:The Haunted Angel 2895: 2885:The Haunted Angel 2679: 2656: 2539:by Nick mallory. 2489: 2486: 2434: 2310: 2218: 2208:The Haunted Angel 2195: 2166: 2156:The Haunted Angel 2144: 2000: 1990:The Haunted Angel 1960: 1888: 1803: 1765: 1722: 1699: 1599: 1419: 1402: 1353: 1323: 1313:The Haunted Angel 1149: 1093: 1075: 965: 914: 795:The Haunted Angel 760:The Haunted Angel 743: 733:The Haunted Angel 659: 649:The Haunted Angel 645:to do with it. ≈ 604: 594:The Haunted Angel 444: 434:The Haunted Angel 426:Oh, and another, 421: 411:The Haunted Angel 383: 336:The Haunted Angel 328: 318:The Haunted Angel 106: 76:The Haunted Angel 68: 47:The Haunted Angel 38: 3127: 3099: 3082: 3060: 3044: 3042: 3036: 3030: 2995: 2953: 2950: 2889: 2886: 2812: 2808: 2782: 2757: 2754: 2731: 2720: 2717: 2691: 2668: 2652: 2625: 2580: 2578: 2544: 2487: 2483: 2478: 2475: 2472: 2449: 2433: 2430: 2429: 2426: 2420: 2402: 2341: 2338: 2307: 2302: 2299: 2296: 2284: 2281: 2212: 2209: 2193: 2160: 2157: 2141: 2136: 2133: 2130: 2061: 2057: 2024: 2020: 1994: 1991: 1950: 1929: 1925: 1908: 1904: 1889: 1886: 1882: 1880: 1799: 1761: 1718: 1700: 1698: 1625: 1619: 1613: 1595: 1581: 1576: 1562: 1557: 1552: 1538: 1531: 1461: 1456: 1440: 1408: 1396: 1388: 1383: 1380:Endless November 1368:this message! - 1343: 1317: 1314: 1303: 1300: 1272: 1215: 1212: 1209: 1205: 1188: 1183: 1163: 1145: 1141: 1138: 1133: 1118: 1113: 1089: 1071: 1055: 1039: 1034: 1029: 1014: 1009: 996: 988: 983: 980: 962: 957: 954: 951: 937: 934: 913: 910: 909: 906: 900: 858: 817: 753:General comments 737: 734: 703:Ignore All Rules 653: 650: 643:the correct page 598: 595: 479: 476: 438: 435: 415: 412: 380: 375: 372: 369: 364:Which editor? — 322: 319: 105: 102: 101: 98: 92: 64: 3135: 3134: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3102:this nomination 3095: 3040: 3022: 3004: 2983:Judaism project 2948: 2884: 2868: 2810: 2806: 2780: 2752: 2745: 2729: 2715: 2708: 2689: 2673: 2623: 2591: 2576: 2574: 2542: 2481: 2473: 2470: 2455: 2448:Sheffield Steel 2447: 2427: 2424: 2423: 2418: 2408: 2401:Sheffield Steel 2400: 2351:not give a fuck 2336: 2329: 2305: 2297: 2294: 2279: 2272: 2207: 2155: 2139: 2131: 2128: 2059: 2055: 2022: 2018: 1989: 1970: 1959: 1927: 1923: 1906: 1902: 1884: 1876: 1874: 1697: 1623: 1617: 1611: 1579: 1574: 1560: 1555: 1550: 1534: 1527: 1459: 1454: 1438: 1413: 1394: 1392: 1386: 1312: 1298: 1291: 1270: 1258: 1210: 1207: 1201: 1199: 1186: 1181: 1159: 1139: 1136: 1131: 1111: 1109: 1053: 1037: 1032: 1027: 1012: 1007: 989: 984: 978: 975: 960: 952: 949: 932: 925: 907: 904: 903: 898: 890: 881: 810: 793: 789: 755: 732: 648: 593: 474: 467: 433: 410: 378: 370: 367: 317: 170:Cradle of Filth 126: 99: 96: 95: 90: 50: 35:did not succeed 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3133: 3131: 3123: 3122: 3112: 3111: 3107: 3106: 3090: 3089: 3075: 3067:159.140.254.57 3050: 3015: 2997: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2934: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2867: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2844: 2832: 2818: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2681: 2671: 2660: 2643: 2630: 2607: 2595: 2585: 2567: 2550: 2532: 2520: 2502:Nordic country 2495: 2494: 2493: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2451: 2404: 2389: 2380: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2345: 2245: 2237:Carlossuarez46 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2100:Carlossuarez46 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 1969: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1952: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1868: 1856: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1714:on my door... 1705: 1684: 1667: 1658: 1631: 1603: 1586: 1567: 1543: 1520: 1508: 1491: 1480: 1470:Strong Support 1467: 1447: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1411: 1390: 1358: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1265:Strong support 1262: 1254: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1193: 1170: 1153: 1122: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1045: 1019: 1000: 969: 941: 919: 889: 886: 885: 884: 880: 877: 863: 862: 861: 859: 788: 787: 786: 781: 773: 772: 771: 764:mathbot's tool 754: 751: 750: 749: 748: 747: 720: 717: 690:Question from 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 676: 584: 572: 551: 550: 549: 541: 524: 497: 496: 495: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 483: 425: 402: 394:Carlossuarez46 357:Carlossuarez46 277: 276: 271:Carlossuarez46 264: 261:prior revision 255: 253: 252: 246: 237: 236: 235: 234: 231: 224: 211: 210: 209: 208: 181: 178: 167: 154: 153: 152: 151: 148: 146: 125: 122: 118: 117: 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3132: 3121: 3118: 3117: 3115: 3105: 3103: 3098: 3092: 3091: 3088: 3085: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3064: 3059: 3056: 3051: 3049: 3046: 3043: 3035: 3029: 3025: 3019: 3016: 3013: 3009: 3008: 3003: 3000: 2994: 2989: 2984: 2978: 2972: 2969: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2958: 2957: 2952: 2951: 2944: 2940: 2935: 2933: 2930: 2926: 2924: 2921: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2909: 2904: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2894: 2893: 2888: 2887: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2875: 2870: 2869: 2865: 2861: 2858: 2855: 2854: 2848: 2845: 2843: 2840: 2836: 2833: 2831: 2828: 2824: 2819: 2817: 2814: 2813: 2803: 2800: 2788: 2785: 2783: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2771: 2767: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2755: 2749: 2744: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2734: 2732: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2718: 2712: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2694: 2692: 2685: 2682: 2680: 2678: 2675: 2665: 2662:I'm going to 2661: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2644: 2642: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2629: 2626: 2621: 2616: 2611: 2608: 2606: 2603: 2600: 2596: 2594: 2589: 2584: 2581: 2579: 2571: 2568: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2551: 2549: 2546: 2545: 2538: 2533: 2531: 2528: 2524: 2521: 2519: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2503: 2499: 2496: 2492: 2484: 2477: 2476: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2444: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2435: 2431: 2421: 2416: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2397: 2393: 2390: 2388: 2385: 2381: 2379: 2376: 2372: 2369: 2361: 2358: 2354: 2352: 2346: 2344: 2339: 2333: 2328: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2308: 2301: 2300: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2282: 2276: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2254: 2249: 2246: 2244: 2241: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2227: 2221: 2217: 2216: 2211: 2210: 2203: 2202: 2200: 2199: 2196: 2191: 2186: 2181: 2177: 2169: 2165: 2164: 2159: 2158: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2142: 2135: 2134: 2124: 2119: 2113: 2112: 2109: 2108: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2101: 2096: 2093: 2079: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2063: 2062: 2052: 2048: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2040: 2036: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2026: 2025: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2010: 2005: 2004: 2003: 1999: 1998: 1993: 1992: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1980: 1975: 1974:Strong Oppose 1972: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1958: 1955: 1949: 1946:nonetheless. 1945: 1940: 1934: 1931: 1930: 1920: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1910: 1909: 1898: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1887: 1881: 1879: 1872: 1869: 1867: 1864: 1860: 1857: 1855: 1852: 1848: 1845: 1841: 1838: 1834: 1833: 1822: 1819: 1815: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1784: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1775: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1750: 1746: 1745:on my door... 1744: 1739: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1731: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1709: 1706: 1704: 1701: 1695: 1694: 1688: 1685: 1683: 1680: 1675: 1671: 1668: 1666: 1663: 1659: 1657: 1653: 1650: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1632: 1630: 1627: 1626: 1620: 1615: 1614: 1607: 1604: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1587: 1585: 1582: 1577: 1572:Easy choice. 1571: 1568: 1566: 1563: 1558: 1553: 1547: 1544: 1542: 1539: 1537: 1532: 1530: 1524: 1521: 1519: 1516: 1512: 1509: 1506: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1492: 1490: 1487: 1484: 1481: 1479: 1476: 1471: 1468: 1466: 1463: 1462: 1457: 1451: 1448: 1446: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1434:of admins. ~ 1433: 1429: 1426: 1420: 1418: 1415: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1401: 1398: 1397: 1389: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1362:Mailer Diablo 1359: 1357: 1352: 1349: 1346: 1341: 1340: 1335: 1332: 1326: 1322: 1321: 1316: 1315: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1301: 1295: 1290: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1280: 1279: 1274: 1273: 1266: 1263: 1261: 1257: 1256:Contributions 1253: 1249: 1245: 1242: 1237: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1214: 1213: 1204: 1197: 1194: 1192: 1189: 1184: 1178: 1174: 1171: 1169: 1166: 1164: 1162: 1157: 1154: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1134: 1126: 1123: 1121: 1117: 1114: 1107: 1104: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1059: 1058: 1056: 1049: 1046: 1044: 1041: 1040: 1035: 1030: 1023: 1020: 1018: 1015: 1010: 1004: 1001: 999: 995: 993: 987: 982: 981: 973: 970: 968: 963: 956: 955: 945: 942: 940: 935: 929: 924: 920: 918: 915: 911: 901: 895: 892: 891: 887: 883: 882: 878: 876: 875: 873: 869: 860: 856: 853: 850: 847: 844: 841: 838: 835: 832: 829: 826: 823: 820: 816: 813: 809: 806: 803: 800: 796: 791: 790: 785: 782: 780: 777: 769: 765: 761: 757: 756: 752: 746: 742: 741: 736: 735: 728: 724: 719:purposefully. 715: 710: 707: 706: 704: 700: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 675: 672: 668: 664: 663: 662: 658: 657: 652: 651: 644: 640: 636: 632: 627: 623: 622: 621: 618: 614: 609: 608: 607: 603: 602: 597: 596: 589: 582: 577: 569: 565: 564: 563: 560: 556: 552: 546: 542: 538: 533: 529: 525: 521: 520:will actually 517: 513: 512: 510: 505: 501: 498: 482: 477: 471: 466: 462: 458: 457: 456: 453: 449: 448: 447: 443: 442: 437: 436: 429: 424: 420: 419: 414: 413: 406: 400: 399: 398: 395: 391: 390:User:Harukaze 388: 387: 386: 381: 374: 373: 363: 362: 361: 358: 354: 353: 352: 349: 345: 341: 337: 333: 332: 331: 327: 326: 321: 320: 313: 309: 305: 301: 297: 293: 289: 284: 281: 280: 279: 278: 275: 272: 267: 266: 265: 262: 258: 250: 247: 245: 244: 239: 238: 229: 222: 219: 218: 216: 213: 212: 206: 202: 198: 194: 190: 185: 175: 171: 165: 162: 161: 159: 156: 155: 144: 140: 137: 136: 134: 131: 130: 129: 123: 121: 116: 113: 112: 111: 110: 107: 103: 93: 87: 84: 81: 77: 73: 72: 71: 67: 63: 59: 56: 48: 45: 41: 36: 32: 27: 26: 19: 3096: 3093: 3021: 3017: 3011: 3010:(changed to 2987: 2979: 2954: 2947: 2918: 2917: 2902: 2890: 2883: 2852: 2851: 2846: 2834: 2822: 2805: 2801: 2701: 2683: 2676: 2669: 2663: 2645: 2633: 2609: 2582: 2573: 2569: 2552: 2540: 2536: 2522: 2497: 2469: 2442: 2395: 2391: 2375:Nick mallory 2370: 2348: 2293: 2261: 2247: 2228: 2213: 2206: 2184: 2179: 2178: 2161: 2154: 2127: 2122: 2094: 2054: 2034: 2017: 1995: 1988: 1973: 1943: 1922: 1901: 1896: 1895: 1877: 1870: 1858: 1846: 1813: 1797:RyanGerbil10 1759:RyanGerbil10 1741: 1737: 1716:RyanGerbil10 1707: 1693:the_undertow 1692: 1686: 1669: 1648: 1640:...cheers, 1637: 1633: 1621: 1609: 1605: 1588: 1569: 1545: 1535: 1528: 1522: 1510: 1493: 1482: 1469: 1452: 1449: 1436: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1416: 1409: 1399: 1384: 1375: 1374: 1365: 1338: 1333: 1318: 1311: 1276: 1268: 1264: 1248:my standards 1243: 1222: 1221: 1206: 1202: 1195: 1172: 1160: 1155: 1132:bibliomaniac 1129: 1128: 1124: 1105: 1087:RyanGerbil10 1069:RyanGerbil10 1051: 1047: 1025: 1021: 1002: 991: 977: 971: 948: 943: 893: 865: 864: 851: 845: 839: 833: 827: 821: 814: 807: 801: 738: 731: 713: 708: 698: 689: 688: 654: 647: 638: 630: 625: 599: 592: 587: 580: 575: 567: 536: 531: 527: 519: 515: 508: 503: 499: 461:my userspace 452:Nick mallory 439: 432: 416: 409: 366: 344:Grammar Nazi 323: 316: 299: 291: 287: 282: 254: 248: 241: 220: 214: 204: 192: 188: 163: 157: 138: 132: 127: 119: 114: 82: 74: 52: 51: 46: 34: 28: 3061:—Preceding 3024:Malinaccier 2515:Valentinian 2465:Sheffielder 2318:the userbox 1432:these types 1005:per above. 306:, and as a 300:Wikingpädie 2956:Review Me! 2892:Review Me! 2632:Moving to 2215:Review Me! 2201:(Neutral) 2163:Review Me! 2051:subjective 1997:Review Me! 1320:Review Me! 1008:NHRHS2010 979:ThinkBlue 896:, as nom. 879:Discussion 740:Review Me! 656:Review Me! 601:Review Me! 441:Review Me! 418:Review Me! 325:Review Me! 184:South Park 55:2 November 3079:Sjakkalle 2839:Jauerback 2650:≈ jossi ≈ 2577:SashaCall 2266:Soup Nazi 2240:Modernist 2190:Sjakkalle 2071:consensus 2035:as a joke 1919:pentagram 1837:Modernist 1793:Milwaukee 1783:Modernist 1749:Modernist 1662:Acalamari 1175:. Given 1161:†he Bread 837:block log 768:talk page 727:this page 197:WP:TRIVIA 3114:Category 3083:(Check!) 3063:unsigned 3055:Matchups 3034:contribs 2939:Satanism 2908:JayHenry 2874:JayHenry 2620:Dekimasu 2357:Tikiwont 2253:Tikiwont 2235:, & 2194:(Check!) 2123:anything 1851:Carnildo 1801:(C-Town) 1763:(C-Town) 1738:Question 1720:(C-Town) 1708:Support. 1690:passes. 1652:contribs 1642:Casliber 1593:DerHexer 1548:Jawohl. 1496:As with 1091:(C-Town) 1073:(C-Town) 805:contribs 692:Carnildo 516:may seem 348:Harukaze 340:Swastika 86:contribs 3018:Neutral 3012:support 2988:for now 2866:Neutral 2704:thing. 2511:Denmark 2384:Snakese 1944:support 1897:Support 1871:Support 1863:Greswik 1859:Support 1847:Support 1687:Support 1679:Bearian 1670:Support 1634:Support 1606:Support 1589:Support 1575:Tristan 1570:Support 1546:Support 1523:Support 1511:Support 1494:Support 1486:John254 1483:Support 1450:Support 1428:Support 1376:Support 1366:approve 1334:Support 1271:Majorly 1244:Support 1223:Support 1196:Support 1173:Support 1125:Support 1116:iva1979 1106:Support 1048:Support 1022:Support 1003:Support 972:Support 944:Support 894:Support 888:Support 812:deleted 629:such a 576:forward 143:twinkle 62:Deskana 2993:Daniel 2968:Walton 2929:Walton 2847:Oppose 2835:Oppose 2823:oppose 2802:Oppose 2781:Avruch 2730:Avruch 2690:Avruch 2684:Oppose 2664:oppose 2654:(talk) 2646:Oppose 2638:Walton 2634:oppose 2615:Here's 2610:Oppose 2599:Ral315 2570:Oppose 2557:Stifle 2553:Oppose 2543:Daniel 2527:Addhoc 2523:Oppose 2498:Oppose 2474:acĸrм 2428:Jester 2392:Oppose 2371:Oppose 2298:acĸrм 2262:plenty 2248:Oppose 2229:Oppose 2180:Oppose 2132:acĸrм 2095:Oppose 1968:Oppose 1948:Daniel 1674:WP:AFD 1597:(Talk) 1580:Uchiha 1364:and I 1339:Animum 1309:XD! ≈ 1252:Rudget 1227:Stifle 1203:Tiddly 953:acĸrм 908:Jester 548:admin? 545:"S.S." 504:per se 371:acĸrм 100:Jester 66:(talk) 3041:count 2857:Meegs 2743:EVula 2706:EVula 2588:Talk! 2463:If a 2453:stalk 2406:stalk 2327:EVula 2270:EVula 2233:Xoloz 2125:. — 2075:Xoloz 2039:Xoloz 2009:Xoloz 1979:Xoloz 1885:(Ni!) 1818:Xoloz 1814:lying 1774:Xoloz 1730:Xoloz 1638:m'kay 1536:Lopez 1515:Phgao 1455:Dfrg. 1289:EVula 1028:Shark 1013:talk 923:EVula 868:civil 819:count 626:large 465:EVula 259:(see 228:WP:OR 205:again 201:WP:OR 33:that 16:< 3071:talk 3028:talk 2770:Talk 2748:talk 2711:talk 2702:good 2670:east 2561:talk 2509:and 2482:talk 2425:SWAT 2332:talk 2306:talk 2275:talk 2140:talk 1878:Kwsn 1646:talk 1612:Pump 1551:Jmlk 1529:King 1439:Sebi 1410:east 1387:east 1360:I'm 1294:talk 1278:talk 1231:talk 1182:Neil 1083:here 1033:face 992:BLUE 986:(Hit 961:talk 928:talk 905:SWAT 849:rfar 831:logs 799:talk 758:See 671:Talk 631:huge 617:Talk 590:. ≈ 559:Talk 528:used 470:talk 430:. ≈ 428:here 405:here 379:talk 314:. ≈ 296:this 288:used 199:and 172:and 97:SWAT 80:talk 58:2007 2750:// 2746:// 2713:// 2709:// 2674:718 2334:// 2330:// 2277:// 2273:// 1460:msc 1414:718 1395:718 1296:// 1292:// 1211:Tom 1054:Pat 1038:217 930:// 926:// 855:spi 825:AfD 639:why 568:did 537:not 532:not 472:// 468:// 292:not 193:all 189:lot 177:it! 3116:: 3073:) 2906:-- 2903:as 2827:DS 2825:. 2768:| 2766:HG 2756:// 2719:// 2624:よ! 2563:) 2443:my 2355:-- 2340:// 2283:// 2053:. 1654:) 1624:up 1618:me 1608:-- 1382:. 1354:) 1351:c. 1302:// 1281:) 1250:. 1233:) 936:// 843:lu 709:A: 705:? 699:5. 669:| 667:HG 615:| 613:HG 557:| 555:HG 500:HG 478:// 392:. 283:A: 263:) 249:4. 221:A: 215:3. 164:A: 158:2. 139:A: 133:1. 37:. 3069:( 3045:) 3037:• 3031:• 3026:( 3014:) 3002:+ 2999:T 2996:/ 2853:× 2811:O 2807:C 2753:☯ 2716:☯ 2672:. 2602:» 2590:) 2586:( 2583:/ 2559:( 2485:) 2479:( 2471:j 2419:⇒ 2353:. 2337:☯ 2309:) 2303:( 2295:j 2280:☯ 2143:) 2137:( 2129:j 2060:O 2056:C 2023:O 2019:C 1957:+ 1954:T 1951:/ 1928:O 1924:C 1907:O 1903:C 1649:· 1644:( 1591:— 1561:7 1556:1 1507:. 1473:. 1412:. 1391:. 1348:t 1345:e 1342:( 1299:☯ 1275:( 1229:( 1208:- 1187:☎ 1140:5 1137:1 1112:S 994:) 964:) 958:( 950:j 933:☯ 899:⇒ 857:) 852:· 846:· 840:· 834:· 828:· 822:· 815:· 808:· 802:· 797:( 770:. 475:☯ 382:) 376:( 368:j 91:⇒ 83:· 78:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Requests for adminship/The Haunted Angel 2 - Knowledge

Index