2314:
without ever communicating with others, knowing policies or really getting involved with the community. I just checked and it took me 2.5 months of solid editing, but from May 31 to
October 14 elapsed time, to rack up 500 total edits. Others might disagree, but at that point, given the length of time, quality of edits and sense of community I had, I felt like I was certainly "in good standing." So I find myself feeling that 500 main space edits could be both too low or too high a standard. One month also seems short to me, but someone who spent many hours each day on the project, was involved in policy discussions and communicated with the community about Knowledge off site through IRC, meet up or whatever could have a very strong grasp of how we operate and be a fully functioning member of the community "in good standing." Thus I have similar conflictions about both numerical limits. I am also worried that by the written criteria someone who doesn't know how to use the preview button, made many borderline helpful minor edits and got a week long block after three weeks on the project could then turn around and request the blocking admin step down. Obviously some people get accidentally blocked so banning people who have been blocked from the process isn't good, but maybe having a cooling off period after coming off a block would avoid retaliatory requests. I also think that there needs to be some kind of
1746:. Whether you understood that before or not, I'm sure that my explanation of it isn't going to make you more likely to change your mind, but I thought I should explain it anyway just so there was no confusion. A couple of people have commented on your cliquiness concerns in this RfA; many more have in others. There is a legitimate reason to be concerned if you see adminship as a political position and RfA as a democratic vote because only a very small portion of the community is involved. Assuming that there is an average of 100 votes per RfA and that 2/3 of the registered usernames aren't active in any way for one reason or another, that is still a voter turnout of just .005%. As much as it seems to have become like an up or down vote, RfA is supposed to be consensus based. Just like all other consensus based decisions on Knowledge, consensus is formed by interested parties who happen to show up. There is a group of people who, like yourself, wish to be greatly involved in the RfA process and do vote, for lack of a better term, in nearly every one. When they think a candidate is well qualified they say support. It is my guess that they have similar standards which is why they often end up on the same "side." Although I didn't participate, I would have supported
1978:
edits: 100% Minor edits: 100% Average edits per day: 11.02 (for last 500 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 355 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100% Analysis of edits (out of all 4311 edits shown on this page and last 30 image uploads): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.3% (13) Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.62% (70) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 18.53% (799) Superficial article edits marked as minor: 47.75% Unique image uploads (non-deleted/updates): 26 (checks last 5000) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 2057 | Average edits per page: 2.1 | Edits on top: 12.34% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 54.56% (2352 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 20.39% (879 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 17.33% (747 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 6.31% (272 edit(s)) Edits by
Knowledge namespace: Article: 36.12% (1557) | Article talk: 5.2% (224) User: 5.96% (257) | User talk: 29.16% (1257) Knowledge: 21.46% (925) | Knowledge talk: 0.65% (28) Image: 1% (43) Template: 0.26% (11) Category: 0.07% (3) Portal: 0% (0) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.14% (6)
2237:. While I agree that the current style of this section is unencyclopedic, I think that the culture of the school is an encyclopedic topic worth covering. The painting of the stack and culture surrounding activities on Alder Street are, now with the remodel "were", an integral part of the Garfield student culture. I didn't create this section, but feel that it will and has served as a spot to draw in new editors where they will feel like they can make a positive contribution. Eventually I would like to see this section become a nice paragraph detailing the changing culture of the school through the years as evidenced by the words students at the time used to describe it. I realize this may be somewhat of a pipe dream. Currently I feel that the section is doing less harm than good so I haven't deleted it. There have been no concerns raised over it on the article's talk page so there hasn't been any consensus created one way or the other. I don't think this is quite the right forum to discuss article content, but will definitely take that into consideration. I urge anyone with a viewpoint on this matter to discuss it at
2162:. I agreed with them, but continued to help the author. It was at this point that the author decided we were conspiring against them and proceeded to have a fit across my talk page, the other helper’s talk page, their own talk page, the AfD, and the talk page of at least one person from the AfD. This included personal attacks, gross civility violations and blackmail using threats to troll if I didn’t make sure the article got kept. I responded in a calm, civil and collected manner. I pointed out the relevant policies, explained my actions and tried to deescalate the situation. The calmed down significantly after my first message in response to their rant and left a civil question for me on their talk page. I answered it, giving the reasoning behind my actions. I feel that open communication and civil discussion are the best ways to deescalate conflict and stress. If stress is cumulative rather than stemming from an individual conflict I find that short wikibreaks can be very rejuvenative.
2271:(one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process
2300:. I think that the idea is a sound one. Allowing a minority of the community to have that power preserves the consensus backbone of the project that I feel is getting lost as we grow larger and switch to more vote-like systems as it is very hard to scale consensus up to the population size we now have. This is one way to prevent the voice of underrepresented groups from being squashed as sometimes happens in percentage based RfAs. I also like that this provides a way to avoid the time consuming hassle of RfAr. No matter what the eventual outcome, arbitration takes a lot of calendar time and person hours and often results in hurt feelings and grudges. This provides a way to avoid that. This would also take the bureaucracy out of the process, allowing the editors of Knowledge to get results without having to depend on members of that thing of which
2319:
have some reservations about the way they are conducted, as touched on earlier. I think that there are better forums for reviewing user conduct, as I believe that administrators are User:s just like everyone else. One forum that comes to mind is a user conduct RfC. This could have some modified form for reviews of admins, but I think it is a better base to work from than a second RfA. If I were to join something like this, which I'm not opposed to, I would need to determine "good standing" on a subjective case-by-case basis as I don't see there being a practical and objective way to do it and have some other form of review than RfA. I believe that I have always tried to treat others fairly and think that I will be able to make clear-headed decisions regarding who is in "good standing" and worth accepting criticism from in this format.
1824:, so my confrontational first message may have felt to him like newbie admin biting. I can imagine that there was something that prevented Kilo-Lima from having the time to immediately add the sources, but he should have at least mentioned that he found them and had some intention to do so, although the time lapse and response makes me think he forgot/didn't. I don't feel that most single events are enough to cancel out the rest of a candidate's qualifications, especially if they occurred over three months in the past. That said If I did feel this way and this interchange had occurred two days prior rather than two days after the close of Kilo-Lima's RfA, I might have voted oppose on his for his poor communication and lack of transparency and timeliness. —
1751:
take an active role in or seem to care about RfAs, but I don't feel that setting your vote to the opposite of what the majority of others are saying is likely to bring about positive change in the matter. I could of course be completely misinterpretting your comments, so please let me know if I have misunderstood what your driving concern is and I will try to address it. I realize that for you this is a secondary matter in my RfA and am not trying to get you to change your opinion, but it is the one criticism you had that I think I might be able to work with you to change. I also have concerns with the current RfA process, although please don't take that as another example of me being a rouge admin running roughshod over process. :)—
2355:) from time to time. I also am extremely concerned about keeping transparency and accountability in admin actions. That said, as just about everything can be undone now, including undeletion of images, I think that it is important for admins, and everyone else for that matter, to do what they think is best for the project and rely on people to tell them if they are stepping on toes or eating the bowels of newbies later. I feel that at times both process and policy can get in the way of the good of the project and that momentary voluntary ignorance of either can be justified if done in good faith with openness to undo it if questioned. I do strongly advocate
1820:, explaining that he had forgotten to mention that he had found sources. He made no comment about forgetting to add them to the article. His comment makes it seem like adding them was an afterthought spurred by my enquiry. He added the sources two minutes after that comment, but a full three hours and twenty minutes after closing the AfD. My response, linked above, was geared towards settling any bad feelings that Kilo-Lima may have had. The desired outcome had eventually come about,the article kept as notable with sources; there was no reason to complain about the lack of timeliness as nothing could be done about it. Kilo-Lima had only become a sysop
2359:, however if they partially unbutton their shirt, pull back their collar and seductively say, "Take me," you shouldn't hesitate to bite their neck and drain them of their unrepentant vanispamcruftisementing blood, that is to say that you can only be nice to admitted trolls for so long before blocks are required. So I guess my adminship beliefs boil down to: do what you think is right, but always be open to criticism; don't take it personally when someone tells you your actions were wrong; and be willing to re-evaluate if you have the community's trust every time you edit. I guess they aren't that different than my non-admin Knowledge philosophy.—
2094:. The early history of the article got corrupted during a string of page moves, but you can see most (I think) of my uncorrupted changes by looking at my early contributions. This article wasn’t even a legitimate stub when I found it. Since I’m not of the opinion that every accredited educational institution teaching people age 14 and up is notable, I probably would have marked it as having no claim of notability and sent it to VfD, however this article is about ‘‘my’’ high school. I got involved with Knowledge because
2044:
many articles as such, but would like to work on the other end to reduce this massive backlog. I have experience with images having uploaded a number of main illustrations myself and would probably help out at the image csd backlog as well. I also have been active working on countervandalism through computer assisted recent changes patrol. Having the rollback button would make my vandalism patrolling easier and more efficient. I also would be able to block persistent vandals rather than trying to figure out what
1738:
names is decidedly confused about what comes with the territory. I was trying to demonstrate that various disgruntled parties, and a few immature folks from my highschool, had written things about similar in a similar context as what a rouge admin might get. Of course, all I did in these cases was warn them about vandalism, tag their 7th grade friend's bio as a
616:, but a more thorough look at WAveg's contributions and community interactions convinces me that he is altogether unlikely to abuse or misuse (even avolitionally, through ignorance) the tools and that his having the tools is likely to benefit the project, so I, my concerns about the issue raised by Yanksox notwithstanding, support.
2341:. I think the Rouge essay is quite funny and obviously appreciate others as well. I certainly have some Rouge tendencies, but I also feel that transparency and consensus are important. If someone placed me in the Rouge admin category I wouldn't be horribly offended and wouldn't object. After all, I have felt the need for
79:) – WAvegetarian is a veteran Knowledge user who has been editing Knowledge since 31 May 2005, and has more than 4200 edits. He has been very active on new pages patrol and has more than 1000 deleted edits to this day. He shows a good grasp of Knowledge's policies and guidelines and actively participates in
1771:- A good user who is obviously interested in the project but I feel the user can get slightly worked up when things do not run smoothly. For example, I closed an AfD nomination and forgot to mention I had found a few sources for them, to add them into the article. WAvegetarian responded with a slightly
2313:
That said, here are my reasons for not liking the wording of the category currently: I'm not sure that 500 spelling corrections make you enough of a community member to be in good standing. I support the work that recipients of the Minor
Barnstar do, but one can rack up 500 minor edits rather quickly
2058:
or IRC. Instead, I could be working on that backlog. There is lots written here about "the backlog" because we have a lot of it and I know I helped to create it. It is especially noticeable to me when doing new page patrol and it takes forever for attack articles to be deleted. In my work on the help
1870:
Please read my response to the associated optional question below. In direct response to this vote: One of the ways that our project is used is as a neutral review and source of information on companies, places, schools and organizations. While I can't say how widespread it is, I know many people who
1657:
I don't like his answer to the rouge admin question. The first part (about being called names and wrongfully) is sympathetic. I don't like the part about it not bothering him if he were nominated as a rouge admin. It would bother me if someone put my name in there. I still don't find the joke amusing
2328:
As for Rouge admins...In my time here I have been called: a stupid fucking asshole, pathetic, a bad apple, a douchebag, a self-abuser, a porn addict, and a homosexual (used as a pejorative). I've been told I have no clue, no friends, and no life. I was able to call upon Godwin's Law in an AFD debate
2318:
clause that limits how soon after a successful reconfirmation and admin can be requested to prove themselves again, otherwise it would be used as a tool of admin harassment. While this RfA has been going quite well for me so far, I'm not sure that I would necessarily want to go through it again as I
2228:
Ah yes, that section. I agree that the section will not be there in its current form if/when the article gets to featured status. It appears that more of the edits got lost in the various moves and history merge crap than I realized. I know that I have made many edits to this section to clean it up.
1875:
allow you to pick your own school to some degree so I don't see any problem with providing neutral information about the culture of the school to potential students and parents. This of course opens up a whole 'nother issue over what way we expect/want people to use
Knowledge. I'm quite certain that
2069:
patrol I have come across instances where admin assisted page moving/history merging was necessary to fix a duplicate article, someone needed to have the text of a deleted article to rewrite to an acceptable state and other instances where I had to refer them to someone else. I have a background in
2295:
I actually just read about the 6 users requesting resignation thing earlier today when poking around in the fallout of Sean's second RfA....So I'm now coming back to answer this question having had the edit window open for roughly one hour per question mark. After a long, hard thought I've come to
2186:
over edits to the George W. Bush article and the addition of a 238 pixel wide image to his signature. It eventually became clear to him that the insertion of his POV using out of context photos was unacceptable as was the oversize fair use image in his signature. I explained how to avoid inserting
2043:
I have found that much of my time on
Knowledge is spent doing new page patrol. As it is now, I can tag articles for speedy deletion, but that just adds to the back log. I would like to be able to lessen that backlog. I also have gotten fairly good at recognizing copyright violations. I have tagged
1977:
Viewing contribution data for user WAvegetarian (over the 4311 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ) Time range: 388 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 23, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 9hr (UTC) -- 31, May, 2005 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major
1750:
whole-heartedly. I think this is a great example not of cliquiness, even though many of the same voters that are involved here were involved in that RfA, but instead an example of an amazingly well qualified candidate. I can appreciate what I believe is your ultimate concern that not enough people
2098:
told me to one day in our high school philosophy class. Having grown up in the neighborhood and spent four years there, I figured I was well qualified to write about it. Garfield is by no means ready to be featured article, but it is quite good, IMO. I didn’t create it, but I’m fairly certain the
1737:
I perfectly understand that some people will not like my answer to the rouge admin question. There's not much I can do about that as it was a truthful answer. I will note, however, that I wasn't looking for sympathy as anyone seeking adminship at the same time as seeking sympathy for being called
1815:
and no comment as to why it was being kept. It seemed to me that the almost three hours of elapsed time was more than enough to have brought up any new information or links to debate somewhere else to explain the keep closure. I left the message linked above at 14:29. At 14:58, Kilo-Lima left me
1994:
Username WAvegetarian Total edits 4311 Distinct pages edited 2057 Average edits/page 2.096 First edit 05:08, 31 May 2005 (main) 1557 Talk 224 User 253 User talk 1257 Image 43 Image talk 1 Template 11 Template talk 3 Category 3 Category talk 2 Knowledge 929 Knowledge talk 28
1891:
Per
Yanksox. I don't think the candidate actually wrote that section or should be opposed over it, but one would hope that a Knowledge admin would know that kind of speculation about random school employees and people and so on is utterly unencyclopedic and needs to go.
349:
I've had...quite an experience with WAvegetarian when I was first starting out here. Obviously, I've changed. He is an excellent vandal fighter; I've had first hand experience! (In fact, I was planning to nominate him, darn!)
1871:
have "googled" potential dates, employees, employers, etc. We are now being used in the same way. Anecdotally I can say that many people I know used
Knowledge in their college search to get neutral information on schools. The
2158:. I patiently worked resolving his problems while removing helpme templates over and over. It was pointed out to me by another editor trying to help the author that the article was likely to be deleted as it was related to a
1853:
considering that the candidate listed this as being an article that he is proud of. This may seem ridiculous, but that section seems unencylopedic and intended for people that go to/did go to/will go to the school.
1137:
appears to be a good quality user and someone who won't bite sentient beings. I really don't like the responses in the
Neutral section (specifically the Again... bit) but it's not enough to sway my recommendation.
87:
and always offers a helping hand to newcomers. This rational, intelligent and civil user would not abuse the responsibilty bestowed to administrators, and should be provided with the appropriate tools.
2113:
1803:
I admit that my first message was more confrontational than necessary, however the context of the timeline of events gives explanation, if not excuse, for it. The AfD notice was removed and
2120:
or my edit count. I would refer you to the archives, but the link on the meta info site doesn’t work. It seems that the only record I was there are the BJAODN I added to the helpdesk page.
331:
I agree with
Neutral 1 and 2, but it still looks to me like this user could use the admin tools, and those examples don't really show anything that would suggest he would misuse them. -
1876:
there is a more appropriate space to do this than my RfA. If there is a current discussion about this, either here or on meta, please let me know as I would love to be involved in it.—
2130:
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
2372:
Hehe, sorry for the essay questions there! Other editors have done OK with them though. Thanks for your thoughtful answers, that's what I'm hoping for when I ask these... ++
2182:: clear and early communication avoids problems. In general my wikistress levels have been relatively low other than during the time I was involved in this dispute. I did
2070:
establishing consensus in discussions in real life. I was elected to the position of a consensus discussion moderator/arbiter at my cooperative, which is a part of the
2112:
Most of my contributions haven’t been creating content but instead new page and recent change patrolling and answering on Ref desk, Help desk and helpdesk-l before it
1747:
2030:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve
Knowledge in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
2292:(/me scribbles down his notes frantically wishing the professor would slow down) :) (sorry I got carried away but one paragraph per 3 ?s seemed reasonable).......
2175:. I felt that the author was being bitten for not understanding Knowledge policies. I was out of line and have not had anything even close to that occur since.
2329:
after my actions led to Knowledge being equated with "NAZI Germany." Most of this was due to people feeling I was horribly treading on their rights to add
2159:
2420:
1821:
150:
171:, excellent user. High points definitely make up for Yanksox's concern in my opinion (but please do take that criticism into account after this RfA).
2103:. Other than some mention of a community of Power Pete players, which did/doesn’t exist AFAIK, I think the article covers everything it should/could.
2172:
508:
2187:
your own POV into articles and explained the fair use criteria. I finished the exchange with a compliment and didn't have any problems there after.
2071:
2297:
840:
I have had recent dealings with this user and a troublesome third user and I think they have been nothing but professional in their dealings.
1804:
1708:
159:
89:
2074:(the third largest student cooperative association in N. America). I would make use of this and my experience with Knowledge to close XfDs.
1896:
1865:
1798:
1671:
1632:
1611:
1599:
1583:
1549:
1537:
1507:
1495:
1483:
1471:
1459:
1447:
1433:
1421:
1409:
1397:
1372:
1353:
1343:
1328:
1312:
1300:
1263:
1252:
1236:
1224:
1209:
1159:
1142:
1129:
1108:
1085:
1073:
1048:
1036:
1024:
991:
979:
958:
941:
929:
900:
888:
872:
860:
848:
832:
820:
797:
777:
746:
721:
697:
688:
665:
645:
620:
604:
584:
569:
565:
549:
519:
487:
422:
399:
380:
368:
354:
341:
323:
311:
300:
288:
276:
Things seemed a lot better until I saw those edits in the neutral section. Everything else is in order, though, and nobody can be perfect.
268:
245:
227:
209:
187:
162:
2401:
2238:
179:
2117:
1369:
663:
76:
772:
407:
This editor seems to have a sensible grasp of the fundamentals of Knowledge, judging by the spread of edits and the answers below.
544:
33:
17:
2183:
80:
2206:
2091:
1168:
1987:
1531:
338:
264:
2099:
majority of the content is mine. The source research was by me, at least. The best start to an article I’ve made is at
2209:
as one of the articles that you are most proud of. However, there is a section that appears not exactly be encylopedic
389:
195:
No red flags as far as I can see. WAvegetarian appears to take part in a wide range of activities on Knowledge. --
2090:
I know that there are users who will hold it against me, but the single article I have contributed to the most is
2381:
2284:
2084:
Of your articles or contributions to Knowledge, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
1629:
1386:
1183:
1123:
1019:
677:
447:
2212:.Do you believe the section should still be inculded? If so, why? Thank you very much in advance and good luck!
2147:
1811:
There were two qualified keeps, pending sources. At 14:29, two hours and forty-nine minutes after the closure,
561:
409:
365:
255:
1785:
593:
1724:
629:
1558:
1366:
1117:
661:
441:
1664:
2384:
2367:
2364:
2287:
2249:
2246:
2223:
2016:
1972:
1960:
1941:
1938:
1921:
1908:
1884:
1881:
1872:
1832:
1829:
1759:
1756:
1732:
1711:
1697:
1309:
914:
685:
469:
453:
397:
109:
106:
92:
70:
602:
484:
1595:
1545:
Good editor who is always willing to help others on the Help Desk, reliable and "mature" contributor --
910:
869:
768:
377:
83:. Connor is also an active RC Patroller and has a keen eye for vandalism. He is also very active on the
2400:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
1362:
654:
2048:
763:
755:
1569:
1391:
1203:
1002:
540:
284:
260:
2345:
2272:
738:
2334:
1796:
1406:
968:
881:
789:
758:
558:
528:
362:
84:
1905:
1893:
1348:
1669:
1525:
1325:
1155:
1101:
1033:
977:
897:
886:
143:
1562:
1278:
495:, I'm impressed by his answers and his contribs are top notch imho - great candidate all right.
59:
730:
2360:
2242:
2218:
1983:
1934:
1877:
1860:
1825:
1752:
1351:
1298:
1249:
926:
857:
844:
813:
694:
682:
674:
459:
394:
386:
297:
217:
130:
102:
66:
2146:
s on #wikipedia-bootcamp I ran into a disgruntled newbie who wanted help figuring out where
2004:
1591:
1233:
1078:
938:
906:
716:
579:
373:
335:
197:
1850:
2315:
2140:
2063:
1576:
1381:
1193:
1069:
950:
794:
786:
536:
351:
320:
277:
1658:
as it rings a little to loudly with truth. Plus, again, I feel a cliquiness in this rfa.
1060:. In addition, all of my personal experiences with WAvegetarian have been very positive.
905:
This user has been blocked as a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked Exicornt vandal.
2356:
2338:
2330:
2095:
1790:
1780:
1775:. I could certainly sense his anger. However, I could tell he had calmed down with his
1704:
1689:
1057:
496:
172:
2414:
2377:
2280:
2055:
1918:
1743:
1739:
1729:
1721:
1717:
1659:
1625:
1480:
1443:
1418:
1340:
1222:
1151:
1096:
973:
638:
617:
238:
2296:
the conclusion that if I were made an admin in 5.5 days, I wouldn't put myself into
2275:
I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++
2352:
2213:
2195:
1855:
1641:
1608:
1468:
1456:
1430:
1321:
1291:
1260:
1245:
841:
806:
433:
235:
125:
1999:
805:
From what I have seen is a good user, should make good use of the admin tools. --
2234:
2155:
2151:
1546:
1504:
1492:
707:
332:
308:
2394:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
2100:
1274:
1061:
988:
829:
2179:
gave a great example of deescalation technique and a lesson I took to heart
2116:. As it was a mailing list, my contributions to helpdesk-l don’t show up in
1683:
1045:
1455:
per above, and per fair and open response to communication. Good Luck! --
2373:
2276:
2260:
2176:
1621:
1361:, as I really like WAvegetarian's answers to the questions he was given.
1336:
1218:
1139:
527:(despite what another admin candidate, Yanksox, has to say below). --Slgr
1417:. Appears to be thoughtful, mature, articulate and responsible editor.
2339:
distinguish them as being distinct from a localized absence of topsoil
2404:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
1933:
Again, please see my reasoning in the response to Yanksox' question.—
1640:
A sound editor who displays good judgement and knowledge of policy.
1290:, WAvegetarian looks like an excellent candidate for administrator.
1467:: All reliable editors should graduate to become administrators. --
2171:
I flipped out once in what I feel is the distant past during the
296:
I've seen this user around and there's nothing worrisome for me.
592:
solid contributor who I'm sure will make a solid administrator
2037:
What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?
1679:
User has been indefblocked as a sockpuppet of a blocked user.
2241:
and to post an article content RfC if they feel so inclined.—
99:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
577:
definitely, a good contributor who will make a good admin.
1901:
Note: I have removed the two really troubling items, see
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
2054:
is while I wait for someone else deal with my alerts on
2230:
2210:
2180:
1902:
1817:
1812:
1776:
1772:
2136:
Of course. Most recently (today) while responding to
1849:
Seems like a good user, but I'm little worried about
1232:. A good editor, I'm sure he'll be a good admin too.-
1517:"would Knowledge benefit if this user gets the mop?"
253:per neutral section. Look quite good otherwise. -
2337:for coining that). Well, that or my inability to
1720:? These 'Clique' comments are becoming worring.
1479:per above, a reliable and trustworthy editor.
1807:was closed at 11:40 with the closing remarks
8:
2150:had been moved to after it stopped being at
1813:there had been no change made to the article
702:I'd have to say this here is a pretty hefty
1616:No reason not to, and many good reasons to
921:Well you've been editing over a year, so I
868:I like the answers given to the questions.
729:I've been looking for this RfA all summer.
1607:A good editor and an asset to Knowledge.--
2233:. I guess this is one area where I am an
1429:I am sure he will not abuse the tools. --
557:. Weak due to concern raised by Yanksox.
385:good user, his reputation proceeds him.
319:He'll make good use of the admin tools.
2229:The only one I found in the history is
2072:Oberlin Student Cooperative Association
628:for fellow RC Patroller. Pass the mop!
1742:A7, or nom/comment in their company's
1491:. Good editor. Let's give him a go. --
458:Recurring AOL vandal. Vote stricken.
7:
1519:Amazingly, the "other side" replied
2239:Talk:Garfield High School (Seattle)
2118:Special:Contributions/WAvegetarian
1809:The result of the debate was keep.
24:
2421:Successful requests for adminship
2184:get into it with User:Mike Nobody
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
2357:treading lightly around newbies
1716:Shannon, hve you ever heard of
120:I-beat-the-nominator-support :)
2207:Garfield High School (Seattle)
2092:Garfield High School (Seattle)
1:
2333:to Knowledge. (Thank you to
1116:, looks quite thoughtful --
2026:Questions for the candidate
1986:'s edit summary usage with
1904:for the earlier version. --
1217:, good for the community.
1186:) 21:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
101:I accept the nomination. —
2437:
2154:in favor of a redirect to
1917:per YankSox and W.Marsh.
727:A 16oz Cut of Meat Support
2385:11:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
2368:09:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
2288:22:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
2250:00:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
2224:21:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
2017:15:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
1973:20:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
1942:00:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
1922:21:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
1909:16:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
1897:16:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
1885:00:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
1866:15:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
1833:18:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
1799:13:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
1760:19:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1733:14:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1712:12:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1698:02:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
1672:23:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
1633:11:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
1612:07:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
1600:20:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
1584:16:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
1550:09:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
1538:07:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
1508:06:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
1496:06:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
1484:18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
1472:13:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
1460:20:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
1448:19:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
1434:18:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
1422:16:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
1410:15:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
1398:14:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
1373:04:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
1354:04:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
1344:21:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1329:18:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1313:18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1301:14:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1264:07:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1253:01:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1244:, deserves the promotion.
1237:00:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1225:23:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
1210:21:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
1160:12:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
1143:10:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
1130:10:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
1109:04:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
1086:23:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
1074:20:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
1049:20:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
1037:20:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
1025:18:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
992:18:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
980:14:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
959:13:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
942:12:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
930:11:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
915:20:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
901:10:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
889:10:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
873:07:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
861:07:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
849:06:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
833:05:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
821:05:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
798:05:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
778:04:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
747:03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
722:02:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
698:02:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
689:00:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
673:Seems like a great user.
666:23:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
646:23:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
621:22:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
605:22:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
585:22:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
570:21:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
550:21:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
520:20:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
488:20:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
470:21:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
454:08:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
436:20:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
423:20:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
400:20:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
381:20:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
369:19:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
366:I did "That's hot" first!
355:19:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
342:19:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
324:18:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
312:18:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
301:18:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
289:17:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
269:17:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
246:17:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
228:16:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
210:15:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
188:15:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
165:15:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
163:15:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
151:15:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
110:15:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
93:11:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
2397:Please do not modify it.
2304:ne that starts with a C.
1093:, without reservations.
866:great big bags o'Support
2259:Optional question from
2194:Optional Question from
1415:Scrabble-tastic Support
1359:(Edit conflict) support
146:This Fire Burns Always
39:Please do not modify it
1873:Seattle Public Schools
2331:vanispamcruftisements
1513:Schizophrenic Support
1056:. Meets all three of
1044:Knows his way around.
405:Edit conflict Support
34:request for adminship
1709:Nearly Headless Nick
1403:OMG Cabalish Support
1320:- does good work at
987:Trustworthy editor.
966:No problems here. --
511:The Wiki Soundtrack!
160:Nearly Headless Nick
90:Nearly Headless Nick
1070:Leave me a message!
440:IP contribution --
2114:closed in February
137:15:15, 23 July '06
2408:
2015:
1958:All user's edits.
1946:
1523:. Hence my vote.
1282:
1128:
1022:
846:
582:
548:
512:
452:
267:
208:
2428:
2399:
2350:
2344:
2221:
2216:
2173:AfD for REMAGINE
2145:
2139:
2068:
2062:
2053:
2047:
2013:
2010:
2007:
2000:Interiot's Tool2
1969:
1966:
1963:
1951:
1925:
1863:
1858:
1822:two days earlier
1793:
1783:
1727:
1692:
1686:
1667:
1662:
1581:
1574:
1567:
1534:
1528:
1446:
1296:
1284:
1277:
1207:
1197:
1181:
1179:
1178:
1175:
1172:
1126:
1122:
1107:
1104:
1099:
1066:
1023:
1018:
1016:
1015:
1010:
976:
971:
956:
953:
845:
818:
811:
792:
761:
744:
741:
736:
733:
714:
680:
659:
653:per RandyWang.
643:
636:
600:
599:
578:
534:
531:
516:
513:
510:
506:
500:
467:
462:
450:
446:
421:
419:
414:
392:
282:
259:
243:
225:
220:
206:
203:
200:
185:
158:as nominator. --
148:
133:
128:
41:
2436:
2435:
2431:
2430:
2429:
2427:
2426:
2425:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2402:this nomination
2395:
2348:
2342:
2316:double jeopardy
2219:
2214:
2143:
2137:
2066:
2060:
2051:
2045:
2008:
2005:
1996:
1979:
1967:
1964:
1961:
1861:
1856:
1791:
1781:
1725:
1690:
1684:
1665:
1660:
1577:
1570:
1563:
1532:
1526:
1442:
1292:
1271:
1201:
1195:
1176:
1173:
1170:
1169:
1167:
1124:
1102:
1097:
1094:
1062:
1032:, of course. -
1011:
1004:
1003:
1000:
969:
967:
954:
951:
814:
807:
790:
776:
759:
742:
739:
734:
731:
708:
693:Go Bulldogs! --
678:
655:
639:
630:
595:
594:
529:
514:
509:
504:
498:
483:per nominator.
463:
460:
448:
415:
412:(aeropagitica)
410:
408:
390:
278:
239:
221:
218:
201:
198:
184:
176:
144:
131:
126:
52:
37:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2434:
2432:
2424:
2423:
2413:
2412:
2407:
2406:
2391:
2390:
2389:
2388:
2387:
2335:Freakofnurture
2323:
2322:
2321:
2320:
2308:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2293:
2257:
2255:
2254:
2253:
2252:
2191:
2190:
2189:
2188:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2096:User:CAPS LOCK
2078:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2028:
2027:
2023:
2022:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1988:mathbot's tool
1976:
1956:
1955:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1945:
1944:
1911:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1843:
1842:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1735:
1714:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1651:
1647:
1646:
1644:
1635:
1614:
1602:
1586:
1552:
1543:Strong Support
1540:
1515:I ask myself,
1510:
1498:
1486:
1474:
1462:
1450:
1436:
1424:
1412:
1407:Vengeful Cynic
1400:
1375:
1356:
1346:
1331:
1315:
1303:
1285:
1266:
1255:
1239:
1227:
1215:Strong support
1212:
1187:
1162:
1145:
1132:
1111:
1088:
1076:
1051:
1039:
1027:
994:
982:
961:
944:
932:
919:
918:
917:
891:
875:
863:
851:
838:Strong Support
835:
823:
800:
780:
766:
749:
724:
700:
691:
668:
657:Baseball,Baby!
648:
623:
607:
587:
572:
552:
522:
490:
485:Reggae Sanderz
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
402:
383:
371:
360:That's so hot.
357:
344:
326:
314:
303:
291:
271:
248:
230:
212:
190:
178:
166:
153:
138:
116:
115:
112:
51:
46:
45:
44:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2433:
2422:
2419:
2418:
2416:
2405:
2403:
2398:
2392:
2386:
2383:
2379:
2375:
2371:
2370:
2369:
2366:
2362:
2358:
2354:
2347:
2340:
2336:
2332:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2317:
2312:
2311:
2310:
2309:
2303:
2299:
2298:that category
2294:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2286:
2282:
2278:
2274:
2270:
2267:
2266:
2265:
2264:
2262:
2251:
2248:
2244:
2240:
2236:
2232:
2227:
2226:
2225:
2222:
2217:
2211:
2208:
2204:
2201:
2200:
2199:
2198:
2197:
2185:
2181:
2178:
2174:
2170:
2169:
2168:
2167:
2161:
2157:
2153:
2149:
2142:
2135:
2132:
2131:
2129:
2126:
2125:
2119:
2115:
2111:
2110:
2109:
2108:
2102:
2097:
2093:
2089:
2086:
2085:
2083:
2080:
2079:
2073:
2065:
2057:
2050:
2042:
2039:
2038:
2036:
2033:
2032:
2031:
2025:
2024:
2021:
2020:
2019:
2018:
2012:
2011:
2001:
1989:
1985:
1981:
1980:
1975:
1974:
1971:
1970:
1953:
1952:
1943:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1931:
1929:
1924:
1923:
1920:
1916:
1912:
1910:
1907:
1903:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1895:
1890:
1886:
1883:
1879:
1874:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1864:
1859:
1852:
1848:
1845:
1844:
1840:
1839:
1834:
1831:
1827:
1823:
1819:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1797:
1794:
1789:
1788:
1784:
1778:
1774:
1770:
1767:
1766:
1761:
1758:
1754:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1736:
1734:
1731:
1728:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1713:
1710:
1706:
1703:
1699:
1696:
1695:
1693:
1687:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1670:
1668:
1663:
1656:
1652:
1649:
1648:
1645:
1643:
1639:
1636:
1634:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1613:
1610:
1606:
1603:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1590:
1587:
1585:
1582:
1580:
1575:
1573:
1568:
1566:
1560:
1556:
1553:
1551:
1548:
1544:
1541:
1539:
1536:
1535:
1533:Daniel.Bryant
1529:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1511:
1509:
1506:
1502:
1499:
1497:
1494:
1490:
1487:
1485:
1482:
1478:
1475:
1473:
1470:
1466:
1463:
1461:
1458:
1454:
1451:
1449:
1445:
1440:
1437:
1435:
1432:
1428:
1425:
1423:
1420:
1416:
1413:
1411:
1408:
1404:
1401:
1399:
1396:
1394:
1390:
1389:
1385:
1384:
1379:
1376:
1374:
1371:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1357:
1355:
1352:
1350:
1347:
1345:
1342:
1338:
1335:
1332:
1330:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1316:
1314:
1311:
1307:
1304:
1302:
1299:
1297:
1295:
1289:
1286:
1283:
1280:
1276:
1270:
1267:
1265:
1262:
1259:
1256:
1254:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1240:
1238:
1235:
1231:
1228:
1226:
1223:
1220:
1216:
1213:
1211:
1208:
1205:
1199:
1198:
1191:
1188:
1185:
1180:
1166:
1163:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1146:
1144:
1141:
1136:
1133:
1131:
1127:
1121:
1120:
1115:
1112:
1110:
1106:
1105:
1100:
1092:
1089:
1087:
1083:
1080:
1077:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1065:
1059:
1055:
1052:
1050:
1047:
1043:
1040:
1038:
1035:
1034:Mailer Diablo
1031:
1028:
1026:
1021:
1017:
1014:
1009:
1008:
998:
995:
993:
990:
986:
983:
981:
978:
975:
972:
965:
962:
960:
957:
948:
945:
943:
940:
936:
933:
931:
928:
924:
920:
916:
912:
908:
904:
903:
902:
899:
895:
892:
890:
887:
885:
884:
879:
876:
874:
871:
870:TruthCrusader
867:
864:
862:
859:
855:
852:
850:
847:
843:
839:
836:
834:
831:
827:
824:
822:
819:
817:
812:
810:
804:
801:
799:
796:
793:
788:
784:
781:
779:
774:
770:
765:
762:
757:
753:
750:
748:
745:
737:
728:
725:
723:
720:
719:
715:
713:
712:
705:
701:
699:
696:
692:
690:
687:
686:(Drop on in!)
684:
681:
676:
672:
669:
667:
664:
662:
660:
658:
652:
649:
647:
644:
642:
637:
635:
634:
627:
624:
622:
619:
615:
611:
608:
606:
603:
601:
598:
591:
588:
586:
581:
576:
573:
571:
567:
563:
560:
556:
553:
551:
546:
542:
538:
533:
526:
523:
521:
517:
507:
502:
501:
494:
491:
489:
486:
482:
479:
471:
468:
466:
457:
456:
455:
451:
445:
444:
439:
438:
437:
435:
431:
426:
425:
424:
420:
418:
413:
406:
403:
401:
398:
396:
393:
388:
384:
382:
379:
375:
372:
370:
367:
364:
361:
358:
356:
353:
348:
345:
343:
340:
337:
334:
330:
327:
325:
322:
318:
315:
313:
310:
307:
304:
302:
299:
295:
292:
290:
287:
286:
283:
281:
275:
272:
270:
266:
262:
258:
257:
252:
249:
247:
244:
242:
237:
234:
231:
229:
226:
224:
216:
213:
211:
205:
204:
194:
191:
189:
183:
182:
174:
170:
169:Meaty Support
167:
164:
161:
157:
154:
152:
149:
147:
142:
139:
136:
135:
134:
129:
121:
118:
117:
113:
111:
108:
104:
100:
97:
96:
95:
94:
91:
86:
82:
78:
75:
72:
68:
64:
63:
61:
58:Ended 15:03,
56:
55:Final(84/1/2)
50:
47:
43:
40:
35:
32:
27:
26:
19:
2396:
2393:
2361:WAvegetarian
2301:
2268:
2258:
2256:
2243:WAvegetarian
2202:
2193:
2192:
2133:
2127:
2087:
2081:
2040:
2034:
2029:
2003:
1997:
1984:WAvegetarian
1959:
1957:
1935:WAvegetarian
1927:
1914:
1913:
1878:WAvegetarian
1846:
1826:WAvegetarian
1808:
1786:
1768:
1753:WAvegetarian
1748:Ohnoitsjamie
1681:
1680:
1654:
1653:
1637:
1617:
1604:
1588:
1578:
1571:
1564:
1559:my standards
1554:
1542:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1500:
1488:
1476:
1464:
1452:
1441:per above. —
1438:
1426:
1414:
1402:
1392:
1387:
1382:
1377:
1363:Picaroon9288
1358:
1333:
1317:
1310:Vildricianus
1305:
1293:
1287:
1272:
1268:
1257:
1241:
1229:
1214:
1200:
1194:
1189:
1184:penguin logs
1164:
1147:
1134:
1118:
1113:
1095:
1090:
1081:
1063:
1053:
1041:
1029:
1012:
1006:
1005:
996:
984:
963:
946:
934:
927:Mostly Rainy
922:
893:
882:
877:
865:
853:
837:
825:
815:
808:
802:
782:
751:
726:
717:
710:
709:
703:
695:Michael Snow
670:
656:
650:
640:
632:
631:
625:
613:
609:
596:
589:
574:
555:Weak Support
554:
524:
503:
497:
492:
480:
464:
442:
429:
427:
416:
411:
404:
359:
346:
328:
316:
305:
298:Catamorphism
293:
285:
279:
273:
256:CrazyRussian
254:
251:Weak support
250:
240:
233:Yes, please.
232:
222:
214:
196:
192:
180:
168:
155:
145:
140:
124:
123:
119:
103:WAvegetarian
98:
73:
67:WAvegetarian
65:
57:
54:
53:
49:WAvegetarian
48:
38:
30:
28:
2302:there is no
2235:eventualist
2205:You listed
2160:current AfD
2156:Credit card
2152:Credit Card
2148:his article
1998:Taken from
1773:mild tirade
1592:Sarah Ewart
1380:per above.
1234:Will Beback
1079:Pepsidrinka
1058:my criteria
939:HResearcher
907:Sarah Ewart
880:per nom. --
580:Pegasus1138
434:JohnnyDemon
374:Merovingian
2101:Power Pete
2014:(joturner)
1279:2006-07-26
1007:crazytales
898:Go Yankees
352:Thistheman
321:Canderson7
280:Alphachimp
207:(joturner)
181:review me!
60:2006-07-30
31:successful
1926:Moved to
1818:this note
1527:Killfest2
1503:per nom.
947:Suppport.
856:per nom.
597:hoopydink
499:Phaedriel
173:RandyWang
85:Help Desk
2415:Category
1954:Comments
1481:Silensor
1444:Khoikhoi
1419:Agent 86
1219:User:Zoe
1156:Edgar181
1082:supports
883:Draicone
787:DarthVad
773:Contribs
671:Support.
641:Asterion
545:contribs
541:messages
317:Support.
294:Support:
77:contribs
2196:Yanksox
2049:test4.2
1928:support
1915:Neutral
1906:W.marsh
1894:W.marsh
1847:Neutral
1841:Neutral
1805:the AfD
1705:WP:TINC
1682:~Kylu (
1642:Gwernol
1638:Support
1618:Support
1609:Runcorn
1605:Support
1589:Support
1555:Support
1505:Michael
1501:Support
1489:Support
1477:Support
1469:Bhadani
1465:Support
1453:Support
1439:Support
1431:Guinnog
1427:Support
1378:Support
1349:Jaranda
1334:Support
1318:Support
1306:Support
1294:Prodego
1288:Support
1269:Support
1261:Ryūlóng
1258:Support
1242:Support
1230:Support
1190:Support
1165:Support
1148:Support
1135:Support
1114:Support
1091:Support
1054:Support
1042:support
1030:Support
997:Support
985:Support
974:iva1979
964:Support
935:Support
923:support
894:Support
878:Support
854:Support
842:Viridae
826:Support
803:Support
783:Support
764:nce Ong
752:Support
704:support
651:Support
626:Support
614:neutral
610:Support
590:Support
575:Support
525:Support
493:Support
481:Support
465:kantari
430:support
417:(talk)
363:Mike H.
347:Support
329:Support
306:Support
274:Support
223:kantari
215:Support
193:Support
156:Support
141:Support
114:Support
2365:(talk)
2353:CSD CB
2247:(talk)
2141:helpme
2064:helpme
2056:WP:AIV
2009:abjotu
1939:(talk)
1882:(talk)
1830:(talk)
1769:Oppose
1757:(talk)
1740:WP:CSD
1718:WP:AGF
1655:Oppose
1650:Oppose
1557:Meets
1547:Imoeng
1493:Improv
1281:10:32Z
1020:-talk-
952:Kungfu
711:bd2412
683:rbil10
612:I was
428:Yeah,
333:Goldom
309:Seivad
202:abjotu
107:(talk)
2351:(for
2346:db-cb
2059:desk/
2006:tariq
2002:. --
1962:Voice
1777:reply
1521:"yes"
1322:WP:HD
1275:Quarl
1204:Reply
1150:. --
1119:Samir
1098:Sango
1064:EWS23
1013:56297
989:Xoloz
830:A. B.
675:RyanG
583:----
532:ndson
461:Nacon
443:Samir
265:email
236:Misza
219:Nacon
199:tariq
62:(UTC)
16:<
2273:wonk
2231:this
2215:Yank
1982:See
1965:-of-
1857:Yank
1851:this
1782:Iola
1730:Halo
1707:? --
1666:nnon
1596:Talk
1561:. --
1383:Buck
1341:Talk
1326:Lost
1171:Gang
1125:धर्म
1046:Geni
955:Adam
911:Talk
809:blue
769:Chat
537:page
449:धर्म
395:hway
378:Talk
261:talk
127:Fire
81:AfDs
71:talk
2374:Lar
2277:Lar
2261:Lar
2220:sox
2177:JzG
1968:All
1930:.
1919:Joe
1862:sox
1792:ana
1744:AfD
1661:Sha
1622:Lar
1457:Avi
1393:ofg
1388:ets
1337:172
1324:--
1250:R/W
1246:DVD
1196:Jay
1174:sta
1140:MLA
1103:123
858:1ne
816:520
756:Ter
633:E
618:Joe
559:Roy
432:.
336:‽‽‽
132:Fox
2417::
2376::
2349:}}
2343:{{
2279::
2269:5.
2203:4.
2144:}}
2138:{{
2134:A:
2128:3.
2088:A:
2082:2.
2067:}}
2061:{{
2052:}}
2046:{{
2041:A:
2035:1.
1892:--
1779:.
1722:Th
1694:)
1624::
1620:++
1598:)
1579:pm
1565:Tu
1405:--
1370:co
1367:ta
1339:|
1308:—
1192:--
1182:~(
1177:EB
1158:)
1152:Ed
1084:.
1072:)
1001:~
999:.
949:--
937:--
925:.
913:)
896:.
828:--
785:.
771:|
754:--
706:!
568:.
543:-
539:-
518:-
391:ig
376:-
241:13
186:)
122:—
36:.
2382:c
2380:/
2378:t
2363:•
2285:c
2283:/
2281:t
2263::
2245:•
1990:.
1937:•
1880:•
1828:•
1795:|
1787:k
1755:•
1726:ε
1691:t
1688:|
1685:u
1630:c
1628:/
1626:t
1594:(
1572:s
1530:—
1395:✐
1365:|
1273:—
1248:+
1221:|
1206:)
1202:(
1154:(
1068:(
970:S
909:(
795:r
791:e
775:)
767:(
760:e
743:e
740:k
735:e
732:T
718:T
679:e
566:A
564:.
562:A
547:)
535:(
530:@
515:♪
505:♥
387:H
339:⁂
263:/
177:/
175:(
105:•
74:·
69:(
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.