2276:
however, that
TransporterMan was much too quick to comment on the situation, and frankly didn't properly understand what the dispute was about; he could and should have made an effort to clearly understand the particulars of the dispute before commenting. I suppose that if you give third opinions regularly you wind up commenting on a very large number of disputes, which may make things difficult to follow; the more disputes you take an interest in, the less time you have to focus on each one of them. We obviously need editors to give third opinions, but if you do so much of it that your understanding of individual cases is somewhat off, then that could potentially defeat the purpose of the exercise.
408:
and will continue to deal with it in the future, in three ways. First, simply by being firmly committed to addressing the edits, not the editor. That comes naturally to me, I've never believed in calling names or making wild accusations as a means of debate; I'll win through logic and authority, or I won't win at all. Second, by being willing to be wrong and to change my mind when my opponent is right, to admit it when I am wrong, and to learn from my errors. Third, when the context and forum permit it (e.g. making speedy deletion nominations doesn't; giving Third
Opinions does), to carefully explain my reasoning for doing something or taking a position.
1811:
different context, I respectfully disagree with him in this one, but I feel that the other two are just plain wrong. If nonprofits or charitable organizations are going to be generally immune from speedy deletion due to a mere statement of their beneficial purpose, that needs to be an express exception to A7 like the one for schools (which is itself controversial), and articles can be put up in any major city for hundreds of nonprofits which can state a beneficial purpose but which make no claim that they have ever actually fulfilled that purpose in any substantial way, much less have become
1216:.) If the article had said more about the school itself, per se, then the subject and the context would have matched, and A1 would not have been appropriate. The same would have been true if the subject of the article had been "Relocation of Buckhorn middle school", but as it was, the subject and the context did not match and it seemed to me that A1 was appropriate. It also seemed closer to the mark of what was wrong with the article than did G11 which, in retrospect, I probably should have declined, rather than db-multiple'ed. Regards,
1876:
one hand, very few â if any â articles ought to be speedily deleted (or, indeed, deleted at all) or, on the other, whether they see CSD as a useful mechanism to quickly put an end to articles which should not be here. My personal view lies between those two extremes and that's the reason I both tag and decline. It's unfortunate that only one of them is getting attention here, for good or for ill.â
1924:) on a related topic. It is also well-formed and good-faith. So I guess what I'm saying is that these are not the types of articles that CSD is meant for. Single-purpose-accounts, advertising, truly non-notable "I like it" types of articles, sure. But these did not fall into those categories, so even if the assertion of notability wasn't "bright-line" obvious, it was still there.
1780:
up deleted (without any analysis of whether the tag was a correct one), and there are definitely ones that were tagged and the articles still exist, but that's OK because the tags were correct at the time and the articles have been re-created and/or improved. So, again - I see positives pointing toward another candidacy in the future.
1948:
questioned. So I'm not claiming perfection. But I do still think these articles (which of course I picked out myself) aren't CSD candidates. Note that I did come back and expand on the positives because I explicitly didn't want to be a single-issue, look-I-found-one-mistake !voter. I hope you realize that wasn't my intent.
1528:. Per above. Concerns with policy knowledge. Additionally, on a side note, I'm not very confident in TM's dispute resolution work; the one dispute I saw you attempt to resolve between BQzip01-Hammersoft could have been better handled. You do good work, but I don't think you're ready for adminship just yet. -
1574:
I think evaluating TM's performance in the mediation role of that dispute is inappropriate, given much of the mediation happened off site, out of the eye of the editors here. I applaud TM for the effort he chose to undertake in attempting to mediate the dispute. He didn't have to do that. He deserves
1475:
is simply awful use of A1. How can something with an address, name, town, phone number, and zip code EVER be insufficient context to identify the subject? It can't, end of story. As you also left the G11 tag, I'm going to hold you accountable for that poor decision as well, as that article wasn't
561:
which no one cares about any longer. Prodding an article which is being currently edited or flogged by its creator is useful only if the creator is such a newcomer and nonâreader that he or she doesn't realize that they can eliminate that annoying prod with a flick of their mouse and that, if they do
1903:
I appreciate your comments, and I hope they are found useful by others reading this discussion. My bottom line, as an administrator who has deleted nearly 5,000 articles (mostly at CSD), is that the criteria are pretty clear. I will concede that the assertions of notability may not be obvious, but I
1875:
articles for which I think multiple reasons apply, especially if (but, admittedly, not only if) I think that the support for the existing tag is weak but not nonexistent. I'd respectfully (but rhetorically) ask those who oppose me on CSDâtagging grounds whether their view of CSD is such that, on the
1774:
of notability. Clearly the latter is a far lower standard, and one presumes that an editor who would tag those three articles (among others) as A7 would delete them if granted the admin bit; that would be a no-no in my opinion. On the positive side, I expect this is an area that can be improved upon
1947:
To be fair, I still sometimes tag an article rather than delete it myself, because I'm not 100% sure of my judgment on the matter. So I offer an opinion by tagging it and leave it to someone else to adjudicate. And, I sometimes decline and then get involved in an AfD discussion where my judgment is
1801:
I may be cutting my own throat by saying this, but I stand by all three of those A7 nominations and disagree with the reasons for which they were declined. AGN was declined because it is "a very large organization", the standards by which Lowy was declined (to the extent that they can be discerned)
1779:
RfA will have a much better chance of success; there are definitely contributions and demonstration of ability to work with here. However, the candidate specifically expresses desire to work in deletion in the answer to Q1. In addition, I note that a very high percentage of CSD-tagged articles wind
1402:
There's no two ways about it: I've not spent a lot of time doing editing from scratch, but let me suggest that, first, the fact that the one article that I wrote from scratch received GA status with only a single round of relatively minor changes demonstrates a certain degree of knowledge about the
1312:
I would point out that it's murky here whether the issue is my failure to recommend a redirect or my A1; I'll take full blame for the A1, but I'll point out that the reviewing admin who deleted the article did so on the basis of the pre-existing G11 nom, not my A1, and didn't choose to redirect it.
528:
very well, though not perfectly, in the form into which it has evolved today: a primarily ruleâbased endeavor with a limited authoritarian structure which still pays respect and homage to openâsource principles. That evolution was, in my opinion, a natural and necessary result based upon the nature
407:
No, the closest I've come to a conflict is a couple of occasions on which directness and objectivity on my part was mistaken for being rude or curt. When it was pointed out to me, I immediately took steps to address it and I've become more sensitive to how I say things. I've dealt with such stress,
1257:
Are there other examples of this lack of understanding, or are you merely seeking to use one case as proof that he doesn't understand the CSD criteria? Every administrator who deals in deletion has got something wrong, so it's reasonable to assume that candidates will have too. Of course, if there
310:
speedy deletion nominations. I'd like to be able to work the deletion side and also be able to see page histories to better judge what's going on with recreated articles. I've also recently been giving warnings on quite a few username violations and would like to be able to address them directly.
2275:
article, which came after I posted a request for a third opinion; take a look at that article's talk page if you want to see what happened. TransporterMan's intervention was basically helpful, since it did resolve a dispute over article content between myself and another editor. It seemed to me,
570:
with a prohibition on bringing the article back to mainspace without some kind of approval (perhaps a return with the consent of any sysop or experienced user other than the page creator, as now applies to declining speedys) with, if that does not happen, a mandatory sysop review after x days in
1546:
I undertook that voluntary private mediation under an obligation of confidentiality to both parties. I am not, therefore, at liberty to discuss why it failed or failed so quickly, except to note (as I have in the record) that it was not due to the fault of either party individually. Unless both
1411:
disputes â shows that I know how to apply editing policy. If you'll take a look at my opinions you'll find that most of them are contentâpolicyâbased, not just Iâthinkâthisâisâbetterâthanâthat (except in the case when there's not a clear or at least fairly clear application of policy). Regards,
1439:
Well done for getting one of your two articles to GA status, which shows you know the expansion criteria, but when I found
Courcelles' links, I still agree with his decision based on the fact that this article should not have been speedily deleted. I think my recommendation is that you need to
1927:
I regard CSD as having a high potential for driving away valuable contributors to the project. We can discuss the minutiae of these three taggings and try to develop consensus, but for me the bottom line is that if it's worthy of discussion, it's not worthy of CSD and should instead be either
1810:
to come under the school exception to A7 (it doesn't), or that the decliner was taking the same position as the decliner of Lowy that all nonprofits which have a beneficial purpose should be exempt from A7 deletion. Though I can see the AGN decliner's point, and might well agree with him in a
2127:
is the much lower hurdle of whether it lacks "a credible assertion of importance or significance". I fear the candidate has not yet grasped that many articles which one would support deletion of at AFD do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Happy to reconsider in a few months when the
2200:
While I find anyone who is able to create an article and turn it into a GA impressive, I cannot support someone who's userspace edits are higher than their article edits. There's no doubt you're a valuable editor, but I can't support, yet. I am of course willing to change my mind.
449:
on the event and not on the person himself. BLP1E only applies, moreover, only to living persons. An example would be an ordinary, otherwise-uninvolved citizen who is mentioned in reliable press reports as a witness to a sensational murder, such as Edna
Townsley in the article on
1866:
patrolling for the purpose of finding unjustified CSD nominations and declining them and I still do that (expanded to all CSD nominees, not just to the hangon'ed ones) as my primary focus. I do retag articles which have been, in my opinion, tagged under the wrong criteria and I
143:
In real life, TransporterMan is an attorney. I find his interactions and contributions to be thoughtful, intelligent, helpful. He considers situations carefully before jumping in and I can't imagine him abusing admin tools. I believe
TransporterMan would make a great admin.
1610:
is a stubby GA. I can't see much else you've worked heavily on. And not to be an editcountitis-freak, but you have less than 1000 edits in every namespace. I'm not sure how much I can evaluate you on, as there's not much, and none of it is extremely stand-outish right now.
1703:
with moral support. A lot of good work and an excellent temperament, but I'd like to see the CSD concerns sorted quickly. A little more content work would be useful too Come back in six months time with a stronger record on both fronts and you've got a good chance.
1912:. True, that assertion isn't contained in the article itself, but the article is clearly good-faith and well-formed. To use A7 to delete that article is wielding CSD policy as a blunt instrument; my view of CSD is that it is far more often to be used as a scalpel.
458:
most often refers to the situation in which an otherwise non-notable person becomes notable by the degree of his participation in an event supported by reliable sources and the question then becomes whether to have an article about the person, the event, or both.
2169:
credible indication of importance or significance or he is unable to accept that he was wrong about those taggings. Either way, the candidate does not seem ready to be trusted with the ability to delete articles if those taggings reflect his understanding of
2152:- I think you're on the right track but there have been too many CSD concerns raised for me to vote support. Keep plugging away (I'm not too worried about the content contributions but some more of those wouldn't go amiss) and I'll happily support you later.
1605:
The CSD concerns don't seem to be very major. And the temperament seems well-suited for an administrator. But I always look for some amount of content work from admin candidates with only a few exceptions (certain "line" of work, very experienced, etc.)
1990:
Sorry, Frank's examples tipped it for me. They are well outside the boundaries of A7 (even accepting that editors can have reasonable different interpretations of A7). It won't take long to fix the CSD issues, so this oppose is far from a "not ever".
200:
for a model approach to managing a dispute). I note his recent contributions to speedy deletion, and the tenor of his responses strengthen my opinion of him as a reasonable person who takes the care to do some research and whose responses assume good
1488:
You do a lot of good work, but our primary goal here is to write an encyclopedia. You have minimal content contributions. The most you've ever edited an article is 18 times. Go back, do some more article building, and I'll be happy to support you.
335:
doesn't have to be violated for an edit war to exist. Occasionally, though, they're in the thick of combat so much that a short page block would allow some time for reflection and I'd like to be able to implement it if needed, but that's not a big
375:"relentlessly nice" and I'd kind of like to think of that as my contribution style: firm and logical, but unfailingly civil. Finally, I'm kind of proud that the first, and so far only, article that I've written from the ground up,
1286:
In this example I definitely agree with the redirect to the school district instead of A1, but I will say that a large fraction of speedy deletions don't fall squarely in one of the standard categories. For example, the article
2164:
Concerns raised by Frank and others about CSD taggings are concerning and, as WSC correctly points out, the candidate's reaction to Frank's !vote is as well. Either he has not grasped that A7 simply does not apply if there is
519:
I have some grave doubt about whether IAR still has any real weight at WP other than as an ideal or moral principle (as opposed to a policy or rule). At the same time, however, I think that the ideal and principle of IAR is
562:
so, no other editor can say boo about it. By eliminating their ability to do so, PROD would become a place for articles which don't meet the criteria for speedy deletion but which are still too bad to waste time on at
1295:- there was enough context to identify the subject, yet this was clearly something to be speedily deleted (mis-spelled, not even worth a redirect). Also, every day there are articles about subjects that were clearly
1802:
could be used to decline the nomination of virtually any nonprofit or charitable organization article which states a beneficial purpose, and
Virtual Observatory India was declined because it is "a valid project of
1080:
I don't find the tagging deviance sufficiently worrisome to overcome the fact that TM is a long-term asset to 3O, entirely levelheaded, and isn't going to abuse anything. Other policy knowledge seems sufficient.
529:
of human society and, had it not occurred, there would have been a very good chance that WP would not have prospered or survived. On the other hand, by keeping IAR and the other the openâsource principles as its
1849:
towards any of the opposers by this comment, but only reflect on what may be a philosophyâofâKnowledge (XXG) issue. I find it interesting that there is so much emphasis and concern being expressed about my CSD
566:; that would also give page creators the chance to bring the article up to at least minimal quality. An alternative to that change, and a far better one in my opinion, would be to allow involuntary
165:. I understand the average edit count of successful RFA nominees nowadays is higher, but we have more than enough evidence that TransporterMan is good admin material, and IMO he is ready now.
489:
I can't say that I've studied the issue extensively, but for myself I would be open to it so long as I can get a fair and open hearing before the community. If I'm given the mop, I'll join
1243:
There was absolutely no need for you to try to turn A1 into something it isn't when as I said before you changed the tag, and as I fixed this morning there was a clear redirect target.--
533:, Knowledge (XXG) has so far avoided becoming the kind of rigidlyâcontrolled encyclopedia where few want to participate, or if they care to participate are unable to participate, e.g.
360:
2318:
2041:
yet. I am specifically opposing due to #^: CSD tagging. Unfortunately, the CSD issues concern me. Keep up your hard work, and I'm sure you'll pass with flying colors someday. :)
2293:. I'm sorry, because you're a very good contributor; however, given the various valid concerns raised in the oppose section, I feel uncomfortable supporting you at the moment.
2076:
Sorry, but the A7s are not tagged properly, and with that being the most tagged CSD (IMO), I don't feel that it's a good idea for the tools to be given to you at this time. --
1340:
I have issues with that too however he has the fortune of already passing RFA. If he'd shown up at RFA 24 hours after making that deletion I certainly would have commented.--
2220:
769:
490:
764:
401:
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?
557:
policy changed to prohibit the page creator from dismissing a prod. Right now, non-BLP prods effectively address only a tiny issue: articles which shouldn't be here
1806:" which either means that projects of notable organizations (or at least organizations which have an article) are automatically notable, that the decliner believed
1299:
and speediable, but we don't (yet) have a formal CSD criterion for it (sometimes I use G2, other times just give up on using a CSD and justify the deletion via "
618:
2336:
2059:"That don't impress me much". There are also CSD mistagging and policy knowledge issues. Keep editing and learning because someday you'll be a fine sysop.--
605:
367:
and this may seem odd, I think that it's my contribution, by example, to the civility of
Knowledge (XXG) and to trying to show that an emphasis on policy
285:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve
Knowledge (XXG) as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1547:
parties choose to release me from maintaining confidentiality, only I can know why I decided that it would be fruitless to proceed further. Regards,
467:, the law enforcement agents who shot and killed Whitman, are examples of BIO1E (one resolved with a redirect and the other with a separate article).
363:
to the project. Due to my speedy and username patrolling, I've slowed down at 3O a bit, but I still try to contribute at least once or twice a week.
1153:
Works with CSD yet doesn't properly understand criteria A1. Edit is deleted, however any admin should be able to verify in the previous version of
1747:
1695:
612:
192:
project where he has been consistently civil, always available for follow-up questions, and not unwilling to wade into controversial areas (cf.
1653:
1107:
1403:
basic editing processes, at least, and, second and more important, that my work at the Third
Opinion project â which is about helping resolve
759:
648:
188:
is an outstanding editor who will be an asset to the project as an administrator. I've primarily interacted with him and seen his work in the
707:
642:
1123:
per
Jclemens. I cannot speak highly enough of people who help resolve disputes and can deal with people in a level-headed, responsible way.
674:
598:
372:
91:
445:
person is a relatively insignificant player in an event supported by reliable sources. An article about the person would necessarily put
299:
30:
17:
795:
537:. In summary, I think IAR has been largely ineffective as a policy, but has been extremely effective as a vital principle and ideal.
196:,). His edits and talk page responses are tinged with a polite detachment that we would all do well to emulate and learn from (cf.
1593:
Per Fastily, I always trusted Quarl's judgement, but there is concerns about CSD tagging, I also think he's a bit inexperienced.
2233:
2019:
1625:
657:
1186:
Yep, I agree that that's not how I would have tagged that, and it's quite recent... but is this a mistake or part of a pattern?
1373:
He may be civil, but he only made 2 articles, which is quite low for what I really expect to see in terms of demonstrating the
805:
1200:
It was, perhaps, a mistake but it wasn't done arbitrarily. It was, admittedly, an unconventional interpretation of A1 added
1446:
1383:
733:
779:
383:
status. (Oh, and I almost forgot, not that it has anything to do with admin powers, but I particularly enjoy resolving
133:
2135:
2087:
1131:
1012:
774:
754:
1506:
while creating it. Strict edit counts can be deceptive -- depending upon the quality and extent of the actual edits.
1098:. I appreciated the candidate's well-thought-out answer to my Q7 instead of ducking it. No reason not to trust user.
311:
Once I'm totally sure of my footing on those tasks, then I'd like to expand to other admin activities. I'm drawn to
1111:
1103:
749:
320:
248:) 18:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I thank everyone who !voted in this matter, whether in support or opposition, but
157:
493:
and publish criteria and process statements as soon as I have time to work them out, and sooner rather than later.
117:
2301:
2238:
2024:
700:
227:
and thank both Quarl and RegentsPark for their nomination and, moreso, for their confidence in me. Respectfully,
1913:
1892:
1831:
1755:
1563:
1428:
1329:
1232:
1068:
592:
547:
Given the chance, which policy or guideline on Knowledge (XXG) would you modify, how would you do so, and why?
323:(especially BLP-PRODs) would seem to be a natural expansion of what I'm doing already. Finally, in considering
268:
243:
85:
2117:
per Frank and candidate's response to Frank. Notability is a matter for AFD, the test for speedy deletion via
1721:
Clearly poor CSD tagging very recently. This is too poor to pass off as a silly mistake, more work is needed.
2058:
The candidate has been highly active for less than a year. Two article creations and eight redirects ---: -->
2038:
1681:
728:
2303:
2285:
2257:
2243:
2210:
2187:
2156:
2144:
2109:
2092:
2068:
2050:
2029:
2000:
1985:
1964:
1898:
1837:
1796:
1730:
1713:
1660:
1632:
1600:
1584:
1569:
1541:
1518:
1493:
1480:
1460:
1434:
1397:
1349:
1335:
1307:
1281:
1267:
1252:
1238:
1195:
1181:
1166:
1138:
1115:
1090:
1072:
1052:
1035:
1018:
991:
966:
924:
908:
891:
879:
856:
839:
274:
215:
169:
154:
P.S. I haven't been active lately so many of you here won't recognize me; here are my past RFA nominations:
148:
71:
442:
331:. I've had a good bit of success in stopping them by just warning both editors and reminding them that the
2130:
1908:
is a credible assertion. Lowy is a little less simple, but its one external reference claims that Lowy is
1154:
1124:
1048:
386:
1944:, but because we have to look just a little harder doesn't mean an article is an automatic CSD candidate.
1263:
852:
1996:
1345:
1277:
1248:
1162:
1099:
987:
835:
501:
211:
2317:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
1739:
670:
567:
159:
2296:
2228:
2014:
1870:
1709:
1620:
1580:
1060:- Per good answer to my question. I don't see anything wrong with the candidate in their contribs. --
693:
2271:. Whether TransporterMan would be a good admin I cannot say. My one interaction with him was at the
1640:
per concerns with policy knowledge. I'm sure you'll make an excellent administrator in the future. ~
1288:
163:
2254:
2207:
2105:
2082:
1921:
1877:
1816:
1548:
1413:
1314:
1217:
1061:
588:
475:
464:
253:
228:
197:
185:
161:
81:
155:
2281:
2219:- Most of the userspace edits are to his sandboxes. He only has 75 edits to his actual userpage.
1726:
1671:
1191:
1086:
962:
916:
877:
2128:
candidate has learned to be a little more diplomatic when dealing with Good faith contributors.
1648:
455:
446:
438:
429:
425:
2064:
1981:
1509:
1490:
1454:
1391:
1212:. (The distinction being similar to that between a company and the product of a company under
1044:
800:
298:
Initially, I'd like to expand to the admin side of some things I already do. I already patrol
1929:
1201:
979:
554:
1992:
1341:
1273:
1244:
1158:
983:
920:
904:
831:
207:
2171:
1933:
1846:
1300:
1296:
975:
563:
510:
332:
316:
312:
307:
123:
2223:
2181:
2009:
1957:
1861:
1845:
Since I've made the first slice to my throat, I might as well cut deeper. I don't mean to
1789:
1705:
1615:
1576:
1477:
936:
being one of the shortest GA I've seen, the user seems to have a good grounding in policy
460:
451:
1303:"). I wouldn't get too hung up on the exact criteria used to argue for speedy deletion.
1213:
1204:, but my thought was this: The article's subject, as indicated by its title, was about a
1027:
380:
356:
328:
324:
303:
189:
1030:
convinces me that he has both the good judgment and temperament to make a fine admin. â
2249:
2202:
2101:
2077:
2046:
1259:
1179:
1031:
848:
69:
1812:
1767:
441:
most often refers to the situation in which a person who is an otherwise non-notable,
2330:
2277:
2272:
1722:
1607:
1499:
1272:
You either understand or you don't. You don't understand some days but not others.--
1187:
1082:
940:
933:
865:
416:
376:
193:
102:
2008:- Was thinking about abstaining from voting, but the CSD issues were just too much.
132:
has good grasp of policy, follows existing conventions as well as policy formation
2060:
1977:
1530:
1441:
1378:
513:. Do you think it is one of Knowledge (XXG)'s better, or less effective, policies?
206:
He will make a great admin and I am happy to be a co-nominator on this request. --
864:
I don't see why not to support, seems to have experience all across the board. --
2121:
1940:
A7 candidates. It may be that one has to look for more than just a statement of
1597:
1292:
900:
534:
101:
has diverse article space interests and writes high-quality (his first article,
2176:
2153:
1951:
1783:
1304:
1003:
888:
181:
166:
145:
2311:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
2042:
1172:
982:. Would be a valuable asset to new users that need administrative help. -
137:
takes time to help new users (rather than just slapping a template warning)
62:
1643:
483:
What are your thoughts on Administrator recall? Would you be open to it?
138:
974:- Mature and honest. Respects the policies and guidelines, especially
2321:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
1208:
but the body of the article, the context, was about a single school
673:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review
1807:
1803:
685:
571:
which the article must either be returned to mainspace or deleted.
1687:
369:
with a constant consideration of what's best for Knowledge (XXG)
689:
109:
346:
What are your best contributions to Knowledge (XXG), and why?
327:
requests, it's not uncommon to stumble over some fairly nasty
1766:
require perfection, but there is a clear delineation between
222:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
94:) is an outstanding editor and I nominate him for adminship.
899:; honestly thought this user was already an administrator.
1762:). (All three tags in August and September 2010.) We don't
1440:
practice those deletion taggings first before reapplying.
1879:
1818:
1550:
1415:
1316:
1219:
255:
230:
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
292:
What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
1759:
1751:
1743:
1503:
1472:
999:
nothing wrong here that would stop me from supporting.
636:
630:
624:
524:
important. On a purely pragmatic basis Knowledge (XXG)
204:
202:
112:
58:
491:
Category:Knowledge (XXG) administrators open to recall
1258:
are other cases, then it's perhaps a valid concern.
1026:- Always had positive interactions, and his work on
1668:- per above concerns above with policy knowledge. â
788:
742:
721:
655:Edit summary usage for TransporterMan can be found
315:, but there's a lot about it I don't know yet, but
128:
is experienced on Knowledge (XXG): registered : -->
1904:still would decline each of them. AGN is simple:
129:3 years ago; 4500 edits mostly over the past year
2037:- I'm sorry to oppose, but you do not meet my
1906:...one of largest worldwide associations of...
1976:CSD and content building concerns per above.
1910:one of Australia's most effective think tanks
1125:
701:
553:This may be trivial, but I'd like to see the
8:
1893:
1854:while not a word has been said about my CSD
1832:
1564:
1429:
1330:
1233:
269:
244:
108:communicates well; is very civil and polite
55:Scheduled to end 19:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
1132:
708:
694:
686:
1738:per CSD work, specifically, for example:
371:can give Wikilawyering a good name. I've
669:Please keep discussion constructive and
1748:Lowy Institute for International Policy
18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship
1775:and that a future appearance here at
7:
1936:. To me, these articles are clearly
122:already helps with admin tasks like
2337:Unsuccessful requests for adminship
1920:and links to an existing article (
1502:would have 38 edits if we include
474:Additional optional question from
415:Additional optional question from
24:
111:, including great edit summaries
1942:this thing is notable because...
1575:credit for it, not criticism. --
1043:looks to be a good all rounder.
938:(edit:despite not being perfect)
1455:
1451:
1447:
1442:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1379:
1069:
1062:
957:
954:
951:
948:
945:
942:
424:What is the difference between
2304:11:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
2286:01:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
2258:21:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
2244:20:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
2211:20:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
2051:22:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
2030:21:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
2001:20:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
1986:17:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
1965:20:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
1899:18:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
1838:17:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
1797:17:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
1731:13:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
1714:09:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
1696:08:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
1661:03:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
1633:02:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
1601:01:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
1585:15:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
1570:00:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
1542:00:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
1519:23:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
1494:22:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
1481:22:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
1461:06:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
1435:00:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
1398:21:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
1350:00:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
1336:00:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
1308:23:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
1282:21:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
1268:21:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
1253:20:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
1239:19:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
1196:19:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
1182:19:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
1167:19:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
1091:20:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
1073:18:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
1053:17:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
1036:16:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
1019:15:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
992:11:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
967:07:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
925:02:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
909:00:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
892:23:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
880:22:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
857:21:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
840:19:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
216:18:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
170:00:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
149:00:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
1:
1843:General comment re CSD focus:
1644:
1504:his edits made in the sandbox
1291:was someone's rambling about
1171:Edits undeleted for review. â
963:
509:Please describe your view of
361:third most active contributor
2248:Gah! This was embarrassing.
1688:
1682:
1654:
1649:
432:? Give an example of each.
2188:12:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
2157:12:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
2145:12:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
2110:03:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
2093:01:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
2069:00:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
1672:
1498:Just want to clarify: that
1139:01:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
1116:00:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
847:. I see no reason why not.
281:Questions for the candidate
275:13:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
72:13:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
2353:
586:Links for TransporterMan:
454:, if she is still living.
1914:Virtual Observatory India
1756:Virtual Observatory India
1297:made up in school one day
250:I withdraw my nomination.
2314:Please do not modify it.
1885:
1881:
1824:
1820:
1556:
1552:
1476:a G11 candidate either.
1421:
1417:
1322:
1318:
1225:
1221:
261:
257:
236:
232:
180:I completely agree with
39:Please do not modify it.
830:see my co-nom above. --
225:I accept the nomination
59:Withdrawn by candidate.
1155:Buckhorn middle school
198:this talk page extract
502:User:Strange Passerby
357:Third Opinion project
105:, was promoted to GA)
31:request for adminship
801:Global contributions
355:it's my work at the
1922:Virtual Observatory
1500:most edited article
1377:deletion criteria.
755:Non-automated edits
734:Edit summary usage
677:before commenting.
40:
2100:, per Courcelles-
1963:
1815:for it. Regards,
1795:
1740:AGN International
1537:
939:
814:
813:
675:his contributions
333:three revert rule
172:
53:Final (15/22/2);
38:
2344:
2316:
2300:
2252:
2241:
2236:
2231:
2226:
2205:
2184:
2179:
2142:
2138:
2133:
2126:
2120:
2090:
2085:
2080:
2027:
2022:
2017:
2012:
1962:
1960:
1954:
1949:
1895:
1888:
1887:
1883:
1874:
1865:
1834:
1827:
1826:
1822:
1794:
1792:
1786:
1781:
1693:
1690:
1684:
1677:
1674:
1659:
1656:
1651:
1646:
1631:
1628:
1623:
1618:
1566:
1559:
1558:
1554:
1538:
1535:
1517:
1515:
1512:
1457:
1452:
1449:
1444:
1431:
1424:
1423:
1419:
1394:
1389:
1386:
1381:
1332:
1325:
1324:
1320:
1235:
1228:
1227:
1223:
1177:
1136:
1129:
1100:Strange Passerby
1070:
1066:
1015:
1006:
964:
959:
956:
953:
950:
947:
944:
937:
875:
750:Articles created
710:
703:
696:
687:
660:
652:
611:
581:General comments
390:
359:, where I'm the
271:
264:
263:
259:
246:
239:
238:
234:
153:
118:WP:Third Opinion
97:TransporterMan:
67:
2352:
2351:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2343:
2342:
2341:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2319:this nomination
2312:
2294:
2250:
2239:
2234:
2229:
2224:
2203:
2196:
2182:
2177:
2140:
2136:
2131:
2124:
2118:
2088:
2083:
2078:
2025:
2020:
2015:
2010:
1958:
1952:
1950:
1868:
1859:
1790:
1784:
1782:
1680:
1669:
1641:
1626:
1621:
1616:
1612:
1534:
1531:
1513:
1510:
1507:
1173:
1147:
1017:
1013:
1004:
866:
824:
815:
810:
784:
738:
717:
716:RfA/RfB toolbox
714:
684:
656:
604:
587:
583:
500:Questions from
461:Ramiro Martinez
452:Charles Whitman
384:
283:
178:
79:
63:
50:
35:did not succeed
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2350:
2348:
2340:
2339:
2329:
2328:
2324:
2323:
2307:
2306:
2288:
2265:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2261:
2260:
2195:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2159:
2147:
2112:
2095:
2071:
2053:
2032:
2003:
1988:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1945:
1925:
1840:
1733:
1716:
1698:
1663:
1635:
1603:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1532:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1483:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1407:disputes, not
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1289:Tornado tounge
1184:
1146:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1118:
1093:
1075:
1064:Alpha Quadrant
1055:
1038:
1021:
1011:
994:
969:
927:
911:
894:
887:as nominator.
882:
859:
842:
823:
820:
819:
818:
812:
811:
809:
808:
803:
798:
792:
790:
786:
785:
783:
782:
777:
772:
767:
762:
757:
752:
746:
744:
740:
739:
737:
736:
731:
725:
723:
719:
718:
715:
713:
712:
705:
698:
690:
683:
680:
666:
665:
664:
662:
653:
589:TransporterMan
582:
579:
577:
575:
574:
573:
572:
541:
540:
539:
538:
504:
497:
496:
495:
494:
478:
476:Alpha Quadrant
471:
470:
469:
468:
419:
412:
411:
410:
409:
395:
394:
393:
392:
340:
339:
338:
337:
282:
279:
278:
277:
252:Best regards,
186:TransporterMan
177:
174:
141:
140:
135:
130:
126:
120:
114:
106:
82:TransporterMan
78:
75:
49:
47:TransporterMan
44:
43:
42:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2349:
2338:
2335:
2334:
2332:
2322:
2320:
2315:
2309:
2308:
2305:
2302:
2299:
2298:
2292:
2291:Moral support
2289:
2287:
2283:
2279:
2274:
2273:Michael Levin
2270:
2267:
2266:
2259:
2256:
2253:
2247:
2246:
2245:
2242:
2237:
2232:
2227:
2221:
2218:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2209:
2206:
2198:
2197:
2193:
2189:
2186:
2185:
2180:
2173:
2168:
2163:
2160:
2158:
2155:
2151:
2148:
2146:
2143:
2139:
2134:
2123:
2116:
2113:
2111:
2107:
2103:
2099:
2096:
2094:
2091:
2086:
2081:
2075:
2072:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2057:
2054:
2052:
2048:
2044:
2040:
2036:
2033:
2031:
2028:
2023:
2018:
2013:
2007:
2004:
2002:
1998:
1994:
1989:
1987:
1983:
1979:
1975:
1972:
1966:
1961:
1955:
1946:
1943:
1939:
1935:
1931:
1926:
1923:
1919:
1918:Notable tools
1915:
1911:
1907:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1896:
1890:
1889:
1872:
1863:
1857:
1853:
1848:
1844:
1841:
1839:
1835:
1829:
1828:
1814:
1809:
1805:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1793:
1787:
1778:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1737:
1734:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1720:
1717:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1702:
1699:
1697:
1694:
1691:
1685:
1676:
1675:
1667:
1664:
1662:
1658:
1657:
1652:
1647:
1639:
1636:
1634:
1630:
1629:
1624:
1619:
1609:
1608:Pont-y-Cafnau
1604:
1602:
1599:
1596:
1592:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1567:
1561:
1560:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1540:
1539:
1527:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1492:
1487:
1484:
1482:
1479:
1474:
1471:
1468:
1462:
1458:
1450:
1445:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1432:
1426:
1425:
1410:
1406:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1395:
1387:
1382:
1376:
1372:
1369:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1333:
1327:
1326:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1236:
1230:
1229:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1183:
1180:
1178:
1176:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1149:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1137:
1135:
1130:
1128:
1122:
1119:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1094:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1079:
1076:
1074:
1071:
1067:
1065:
1059:
1056:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1039:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1022:
1020:
1016:
1014:Contributions
1009:
1008:
1007:
998:
995:
993:
989:
985:
981:
977:
973:
970:
968:
965:
961:
960:
935:
934:Pont-y-Cafnau
931:
928:
926:
922:
918:
915:
912:
910:
906:
902:
898:
895:
893:
890:
886:
883:
881:
878:
876:
873:
869:
863:
860:
858:
854:
850:
846:
843:
841:
837:
833:
829:
826:
825:
821:
817:
816:
807:
804:
802:
799:
797:
794:
793:
791:
787:
781:
778:
776:
773:
771:
768:
766:
763:
761:
758:
756:
753:
751:
748:
747:
745:
741:
735:
732:
730:
727:
726:
724:
720:
711:
706:
704:
699:
697:
692:
691:
688:
681:
679:
678:
676:
672:
663:
659:
654:
650:
647:
644:
641:
638:
635:
632:
629:
626:
623:
620:
617:
614:
610:
607:
603:
600:
597:
594:
590:
585:
584:
580:
578:
569:
565:
560:
556:
552:
549:
548:
546:
543:
542:
536:
532:
527:
523:
518:
515:
514:
512:
508:
505:
503:
499:
498:
492:
488:
485:
484:
482:
479:
477:
473:
472:
466:
465:Houston McCoy
462:
457:
453:
448:
444:
440:
437:
434:
433:
431:
427:
423:
420:
418:
414:
413:
406:
403:
402:
400:
397:
396:
388:
387:geodata-check
382:
378:
377:Pont-y-Cafnau
374:
370:
366:
365:Subjectively,
362:
358:
354:
351:
348:
347:
345:
342:
341:
334:
330:
326:
325:Third Opinion
322:
318:
314:
309:
305:
301:
297:
294:
293:
291:
288:
287:
286:
280:
276:
272:
266:
265:
251:
247:
241:
240:
226:
223:
220:
219:
218:
217:
213:
209:
205:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
176:Co-nomination
175:
173:
171:
168:
164:
162:
160:
158:
156:
151:
150:
147:
139:
136:
134:
131:
127:
125:
121:
119:
116:is active at
115:
113:
110:
107:
104:
103:Pont-y-Cafnau
100:
99:
98:
95:
93:
90:
87:
83:
76:
74:
73:
70:
68:
66:
60:
57:
56:
48:
45:
41:
36:
32:
27:
26:
19:
2313:
2310:
2295:
2290:
2268:
2216:
2199:
2175:
2166:
2161:
2149:
2129:
2114:
2097:
2073:
2055:
2034:
2005:
1973:
1941:
1937:
1917:
1909:
1905:
1878:
1856:declinations
1855:
1851:
1842:
1817:
1776:
1771:
1763:
1735:
1718:
1700:
1678:
1673:ŇŃŃá´aС'§ÄøøП
1670:
1665:
1642:
1637:
1613:
1594:
1549:
1529:
1525:
1485:
1469:
1414:
1408:
1404:
1374:
1370:
1315:
1218:
1209:
1205:
1174:
1150:
1133:
1126:
1120:
1095:
1077:
1063:
1057:
1045:FeydHuxtable
1040:
1023:
1001:
1000:
996:
971:
941:
929:
913:
896:
884:
871:
867:
861:
844:
827:
668:
667:
645:
639:
633:
627:
621:
615:
608:
601:
595:
576:
558:
550:
544:
530:
525:
521:
516:
506:
486:
480:
447:undue weight
435:
421:
404:
398:
368:
364:
353:Objectively,
352:
349:
343:
321:PROD reviews
295:
289:
284:
254:
249:
229:
224:
221:
179:
152:
142:
96:
88:
80:
64:
54:
52:
51:
46:
34:
28:
1993:Mkativerata
1932:or sent to
1871:db-multiple
1342:Cube lurker
1293:Cunnilingus
1274:Cube lurker
1245:Cube lurker
1159:Cube lurker
984:Hydroxonium
832:RegentsPark
806:User rights
796:CentralAuth
535:Citizendium
443:low profile
379:, achieved
373:been called
208:RegentsPark
2174:. Regards
1930:WP:PRODded
1916:discusses
1882:RANSPORTER
1858:. I began
1821:RANSPORTER
1768:notability
1706:Alzarian16
1683:Champagne?
1577:Hammersoft
1553:RANSPORTER
1478:Courcelles
1418:RANSPORTER
1319:RANSPORTER
1222:RANSPORTER
789:Cross-wiki
770:AfD closes
682:Discussion
568:incubation
391:requests.)
258:RANSPORTER
233:RANSPORTER
77:Nomination
2102:Regancy42
2039:standards
1772:assertion
1313:Regards,
1260:Esteffect
1032:e. ripley
849:Esteffect
765:AfD votes
760:BLP edits
631:block log
329:edit wars
2331:Category
2278:UserVOBO
2141:Chequers
1770:and the
1723:Polargeo
1409:behavior
1375:policies
1210:activity
1188:Jclemens
1083:Jclemens
932:Despite
780:PROD log
743:Analysis
722:Counters
599:contribs
456:WP:BIO1E
439:WP:BLP1E
430:WP:BIO1E
426:WP:BLP1E
417:Jclemens
92:contribs
2269:Neutral
2217:Comment
2194:Neutral
2061:Hokeman
1978:Vodello
1852:tagging
1813:notable
1754:), and
1650:Science
1514:Writer
1491:AniMate
1405:content
1134:(Visnu)
1121:Support
1096:Support
1078:Support
1058:Support
1041:Support
1024:Support
997:Support
980:WP:BITE
972:Support
930:Support
914:Support
897:Support
885:Support
862:Support
845:Support
828:Support
822:Support
775:CSD log
606:deleted
522:vitally
300:hangons
2297:Salvio
2225:Derild
2172:WP:CSD
2162:Oppose
2150:Oppose
2115:Oppose
2098:Oppose
2074:Oppose
2056:Oppose
2035:Oppose
2011:Derild
2006:Oppose
1974:Oppose
1953:Frank
1934:WP:AFD
1862:hangon
1785:Frank
1764:expect
1736:Oppose
1719:Oppose
1701:Oppose
1689:6:13pm
1666:Oppose
1638:Oppose
1598:Secret
1595:Oppose
1536:ASTILY
1526:Oppose
1511:Cactus
1486:Oppose
1470:Oppose
1443:Minima
1380:Minima
1371:Oppose
1301:WP:NFT
1206:school
1202:boldly
1151:Oppose
1145:Oppose
1112:status
976:WP:AGF
917:wiooiw
901:Saebvn
729:XTools
531:ideals
511:WP:IAR
201:faith.
124:WP:CSD
2154:Panyd
2137:Spiel
1959:talk
1808:IUCAA
1804:IUCAA
1791:talk
1645:Nerdy
1622:COMMS
1617:ĆETCH
1305:Quarl
1127:Shiva
1028:WP:3O
1005:RP459
889:Quarl
671:civil
613:count
526:works
336:deal.
190:WP:3O
184:that
182:Quarl
167:Quarl
146:Quarl
33:that
16:<
2282:talk
2132:Ϣere
2106:talk
2084:(t)
2065:talk
2047:talk
2043:MJ94
1997:talk
1982:talk
1894:TALK
1847:!AGF
1833:TALK
1760:here
1752:here
1744:here
1727:talk
1710:talk
1655:Dude
1581:talk
1565:TALK
1473:This
1456:talk
1430:TALK
1393:talk
1346:talk
1331:TALK
1278:talk
1264:talk
1249:talk
1234:TALK
1192:talk
1175:xeno
1163:talk
1104:talk
1087:talk
1049:talk
988:talk
978:and
921:talk
905:talk
853:talk
836:talk
658:here
643:rfar
625:logs
593:talk
555:PROD
463:and
428:and
319:and
306:and
302:and
270:TALK
245:TALK
212:talk
194:this
86:talk
65:xeno
2255:my!
2251:Tom
2208:my!
2204:Tom
2183:Why
2167:any
2089:(e)
1938:not
1777:AfD
1746:),
1157:.--
1002:--
649:spi
619:AfD
564:AfD
559:and
317:ANI
313:SPI
308:G11
2333::
2284:)
2235:21
2230:49
2222:.
2178:So
2125:}}
2122:A7
2119:{{
2108:)
2079:DQ
2067:)
2049:)
2021:21
2016:49
1999:)
1991:--
1984:)
1956:|
1897:)
1886:AN
1873:}}
1869:{{
1864:}}
1860:{{
1836:)
1825:AN
1788:|
1729:)
1712:)
1686:â˘
1679:â˘
1583:)
1568:)
1557:AN
1508:â
1459:)
1433:)
1422:AN
1396:)
1348:)
1334:)
1323:AN
1280:)
1266:)
1251:)
1237:)
1226:AN
1214:A7
1194:)
1165:)
1114:)
1110:â˘
1106:â˘
1089:)
1051:)
1034:\
990:)
949:us
943:Je
923:)
907:)
855:)
838:)
637:lu
551:A:
545:7.
517:A:
487:A:
481:5.
436:A:
422:4.
405:A:
399:3.
389:}}
385:{{
381:GA
350:A:
344:2.
304:A7
296:A:
290:1.
273:)
262:AN
237:AN
214:)
37:.
2280:(
2240:âź
2104:(
2063:(
2045:(
2026:âź
1995:(
1980:(
1891:(
1884:M
1880:T
1830:(
1823:M
1819:T
1758:(
1750:(
1742:(
1725:(
1708:(
1692:â˘
1627:/
1614:/
1579:(
1562:(
1555:M
1551:T
1533:F
1453:(
1448:c
1427:(
1420:M
1416:T
1390:(
1385:c
1344:(
1328:(
1321:M
1317:T
1276:(
1262:(
1247:(
1231:(
1224:M
1220:T
1190:(
1161:(
1108:c
1102:(
1085:(
1047:(
1010:/
986:(
958:9
955:8
952:9
946:b
919:(
903:(
874:a
872:k
870:n
868:I
851:(
834:(
709:e
702:t
695:v
661:.
651:)
646:¡
640:¡
634:¡
628:¡
622:¡
616:¡
609:¡
602:¡
596:¡
591:(
507:6
267:(
260:M
256:T
242:(
235:M
231:T
210:(
89:¡
84:(
61:â
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.