Knowledge:Requests for adminship/5 albert square

257:. I would be remiss if I didn't mention The Bill because that was months and months of sheer hard work that went into improving the quality of that article and that article will probably be mentioned every time I'm asked this on Knowledge. The content of the article was basically re-written in it's entirety, and we made sure that every single aspect of it was referenced appropriately, I even went to the trouble of purchasing a book so it could be reliably referenced! The end result was that the article qualified for, and passed, GA and has been there ever since. Neighbours would be for pretty much the same reason as The Bill. Again the content of the article was re-written so it qualified as a GA and myself and other editors went to a lot of trouble referencing the content, anything that couldn't be referenced was removed. The end result was that the article qualified for, and passed, GA and has been there ever since. Matthew Werkmeister, again I'd be remiss if I didn't mention this. The article was nominated for deletion because an admin deemed that the subject was not notable enough to be included in Knowledge. I basically re-wrote the article and referenced the content appropriately. I managed to turn it from what was effectively a 2 sentence stub into a decent sized article. So I improved the content of the BLP and proved that he was notable enough for Knowledge by proving that he'd appeared in a couple of plays prior to Neighbours and had also been nominated for various Logie awards. The end result was that the article was kept and instead of being deleted, was actually featured in the DYK section on the front page! 274:

reverting me I opened a discussion on the articles talk page to try and resolve the issue. I declared that I work for the company (which I do) in case anyone accused me of being biased. I tried to resolve the issue with the editor there but they seemed unwilling to listen to my point of view that by removing practically the whole lawsuit content section that they could be deemed as being biased towards Samsung and actually accused me of lying about working at the company. I tried to reason with the editor and trying to find out why they thought that lawsuits by the company shouldn't be made on the company page but they didn't really give an explanation. I also tried to come to some form of compromise by suggesting that the lawsuits mentioned were cut back but maybe had a link to a main article about them, but the editor rejected that idea too. Other editors gave their opinion but the opinion was still 50/50 so I asked for a third opinion. When the third opinion also came back divided (one editor said it should be included another said it shouldn't) I asked for comment on the article and left this open for a few weeks. Comments came back marginally more that the information shouldn't be in the article so it has been left out. If this happened in the future I would open up a discussion on the article talk page first to try and reach consensus there. If no consensus was reached I would again ask for comment on the article or go through the third opinion process again if necessary. I would not use my admin tools to influence any decision.

3221:

Geni, Soap, Graeme Bartlett, and OlEnglish) and found that your percentage of edits to the user talk is abnormally high, and your percentage of edits to the article and wikipedia talk namespaces is abnormally low. While this in and of itself is not a reason to oppose, what worries me is that the article and wikimedia talk spaces are typically where collaboration takes place, while a high percentage of edits in the user talk space usually indicates people that spend lots of time doing vandalism reversions. While I look more closely at your edits, I'd appreciate it if you could share some examples (links please) that demonstrate that you collaborate well with others, as I would want to see that before giving my support.

1566:- I was going to go 'neutral' but I'm not going to be the first one to break the magic spell. There is a high number (73.67%) of Huggle and other automated edits edits leaving only 8,837 'real' edits. This meets however my criteria. Neverthelss, although there is proportionately little involvement in Knowledge projects and policies, I cannot see any salient reasons not to trust this candidate with the tools, (I can't do my research to the full extent because X's tools are partly down or disabled: creations, RfA !votes, etc). 3063:

concerns me that the admin candidate intends to proceed in areas where she appears to have not read the policy/guidelines fully, leading to her establishing a bar for non-admin closures without full understanding that non-admin closures are for non-complex AfDs. She has taken a stance against non-admin closures, she raised the issue, she could have familiarized herself with the policy before answering the question.

326:

privacy. I would suggest that they expand a little more on the roles that she has played to give those people viewing Knowledge that aren't familiar with the actress a little more information, and I would suggest that they improve the references that are on the page. I would also try and search on Google myself for information on the actress that may be of help to the user to point them in the right direction.

229:, indeed at the moment I offer support at AIV if there's a backlog by doing things like checking user pages to see if they've been appropriately warned and checking user contributions to see if their edits are actually vandalism. If the user for example has not been warned sufficiently and/or the edits aren't vandalism I will always post a note on AIV stating that I've found this. 152:

situations. She is calm, trustworthy, and, most importantly, capable of keeping a cool head and asking for help when she is out of her depth. We need more admins to help with areas like AIV and RfPP, both of which are frequently backlogged, areas in which 5 albert square is easily qualified to work as an admin. If the community gives her the tools, she will not let you down.

2295:

that I was looking for something else.Based on the lack of AfD participation that I've seen, I would prefer if you were to venture into closures very gradually. For me AfD is often the be-all-and-end all, but although Q7 worries me, I'm convinced that you would enter AfD to help ease the workload, rather than seeking to use admin discretion in any particular way. —

1914:, is a worry. So I went through the last 2,000 contribs and checked other articles. Not perfect but sufficient for me to think that the candidate coming back for another shot in a few months time would be a waste of a few months. Seemingly good CSD work (no declines apparent) and experienced admins in RfPP are vouching for the candidate's work there. -- 941: 384:

getting locked. If the edits are vandalism and it's a couple of editors involved, then I would consider blocking the editors than locking the page. However, if I look at the page history and there is nothing but blatant vandalism from a number of editors and the vandalism is recent, I would then look to lock the page.

1453:. I was a little concerned to see the candidate's most recent article creation was a BLP of a minor with no third party sources (just a bio from the actress's own agency), but the answer to question 5 suggests she recognizes the article needs better sourcing, so I won't complain too much about that. References on 2041:- Sufficiently experienced to avoid excessive accidental misuses of the tools, sufficiently level-headed to avoid using the tools to promote a personal cause or viewpoint, sufficiently humble to learn from mistakes and accept constructive criticism. Has a clear reason to benefit from the tools. Full support. - 383:

why I've refused page protection and I'll also explain to the editors involved where they're going wrong and give them suggestions on what to do. For example, if it's only a couple of editors involved in a dispute, the page may benefit more by going through the third opinion process than it would by

362:

if they had vandalised articles and had had a final warning issued within the last 24 hours and had carried on vandalising. However before blocking anyone I will always check their edits as it may be that the edits are in good faith. If the edits are in good faith I will tell the nominator why I've

3062:

discussions. This admin candidate has added another policy of her own to the process: that "it is a responsibility that would be best lying with the admins." The existing policy and an accompanying essay offer guidelines already that show that in many cases non-admin closures of AfDs are fine. This

3220:

42.56% of your edits are within the user talk namespace, accounting for just over 13,500 edits. Only 2.15% (684 edits) of your edits are in article talk pages and 0.11% (36 edits) are in the Knowledge talk namespace. I conducted a random sampling of admins I knew off the top of my head (Fetchcomms,

3069:

I am concerned that an admin candidates does not support community consensus and/or has not fully familiarized herself with the policies before answering the question, in addition to appearing to diminish the abilities of non-admins without reason (the policy and the accompanying essay already deal

1457:

seem a little dodgy as well (one to a forum, the other to an unofficial fan site), but the candidate's other 11 article creations seem to be solidly referenced. Although some people might balk at 73% automated edits, I'm not particularly bothered by it, since that still leaves 8,800 "manual" edits,

588:

You've just copied from both policies in answer to question "11" and "12." Can you say anything that shows you understand these policies and guidelines and can interpret them in difficult situations? For example, what are these discretionary sanctions? Aren't those granted to admins by ArbCom based

217:. With Snoopy, various IPs kept adding that he attended a High School in Connecticut. Because it was more than one IP I requested protection of the article. Adam Sandler is a BLP that has come under numerous vandalism attacks in the past, from various editors making inappropriate remarks such as 2294:

You strike me as an outstanding candidate for most of the areas you've expressed an interest in. But as I see AfD as the thing that makes adminship a big deal, I felt the need to ask Q7. You were very honest in your answer to my question, even though many AfD regulars would have been able to guess

2165:. Just went through her contributions and i got the impression of a committed, devoted, enthusiastic, faithful, given over to, old faithful, purposeful, single-hearted, single-minded, sworn, true blue, true to the end, wholehearted, zealous person. This one's from me. Glad to see you on the spot 593:

ability to deal with the more difficult situations in a thoughtful manner that shows you're attuned to the community. You have not even closed straight-forward AfDs; do you have the skills to close more difficult ones? Is non-admin closure acceptable, not just copy and paste the policy, but is it

420:

What about being an admin means you are more able to deal with complex issues? Is there any admin criteria that demands more complex thinking than that required of non-admins? Have you attained this level of complexity in your dealing with wikipedia? How? And, yes, I am retired, waiting around for

631:

I don't want to make a point, and if you think I did, you're probably mistaken as to what the point is. I want to understand how this editor would act as an administrator under more challenging situations. I consider this an important issue in community actions. As she raised the issue, I suspect

208:

Primarily, I will ask experienced admins (I have a number of admin friends that I could turn to, including Anemone Projectors, H J Mitchell and Courcelles) if I'm unsure whether or not I should deploy an admin function. I would expect the use of my tools to be mainly dealing with vandalism (page

3377:

you will see how I have worked with other users to try reach some sort of resolution over whether the claim that one editor was continually inserting in the article should be included given that only one source was backing up the claim, in doing that I stopped the page turning into an edit war.

584:

apply or when a closure would be uncontroversial housekeeping (usually where the page under discussion has been speedied, but the deleting admin has forgotten to close the discussion). A bad non-admin closure may be reverted by an administrator. Where deletion is required or the consensus is not

556:

A block is a technical measure used to prevent an account, an IP or a range from editing Knowledge. A ban is a revocation of the "right" to edit that can apply to a specific article, a topic or the whole site; bans can be imposed by community consensus, by ArbCom or, in certain circumstances, by

459:

Yes, July and August 2010 were when I moved and relocated with my job from Edinburgh to Newcastle. Unfortunately that meant I had limited internet access in that time until British Telecom got an engineer out to install a brand new telephone line in the property and my internet service provider

273:

Yes, I have been involved in edit conflicts in the past. The most recent one that springs to mind happened on the Samsung Group page. There was an editor that kept removing lawsuits from the Samsung page which I felt was being biased towards Samsung. I inserted them back, when the editor kept

325:

I would suggest that they expand the article and maybe try and find out a little more about the actress. Maybe something to give people a little insight into her life before she was an actress, but only if the information can be fully referenced by reliable sources, and, of course, respect her

416:

discussions. It's not something I've done before although I'm aware that it is possible for non-admins to do it. The only reason I've not closed one before is because I feel that it is a responsibility that would be best lying with the admins, simply because some cases can be quite complex.

452:

I noticed in your edit counts that you had a couple months of significant (for you) inactivity. While those numbers do not necessarily concern me - given that they are still a decent tally - could you please give a brief insight as to the reason why those two months (July and August '10) were

151:

characters, that aren't of GA standard, but which are of a better quality for her efforts. When not writing, she has devoted a lot of time to patrolling recent changes (sometimes with Huggle, others the "old school" way), which has provided here with a great deal of experience in some tricky

133:. This was a real learning curve for both of us, as we had to get to grips with some of the less obvious content policies and guidelines in order to bring the article up to GA standard. She even went so far as to buy a book to help with the sourcing. With the confidence of having brought 75:) – For my second RfA nomination, I would like to present 5 albert square. She has been on Knowledge for almost two years, and during that time, she has acquired 33,523 edits, 48% of which have been to the article namespace. She has significantly contributed to two Good articles, 3155:

Candidate has too many automated edits to me, so I asked her 2 questions. But the answers were no to my likening. The answer to Q11 is too close to the text of the policies and there's no real answer to Q12. The answer would only be right if the question was "What is

421:

things to close up. But, back to you and your quest for the mop. I don't see anything about adminship that says, "must be able to reason more complexly than the non-admins?" Everyone keeps saying it's a mop--isn't that rather the opposite of more complex?--

1690:

I've been watching 5 Albert for a little while when I came across her at RfPP I think it was, and was thinking of nomming her myself after I saw the userbox. No alarms really, good vandal fighter and CSD nominator as I recall. Article work is good too.

209:

protection, reversion of obvious vandalism, protection of articles when necessary etc) and moving pages over redirect when necessary. An example of what I would deem obvious vandalism and would protect a page, can be found in the revision histories of

417:

However it would be something that I would do, if I was ever in any doubt about how to close an AFD, then I have a number of admin friends that I could turn to for advice, especially Courcelles, and I would make a point of always asking if in doubt.

298:

I will never ever edit Knowledge whilst drunk. Sure, I like the odd occasional drink but for me that would be at the end of the week whilst at the pub with my friends on a Friday night. Certainly never drunk whilst editing

1458:

which is plenty to judge a candidate on, and I for one appreciate all the vandal-fighting work she's done. The talk-page interactions I've looked at seem helpful and positive as well, so overall I'm comfortable supporting.

3471:

I would expect the use of my tools to be mainly dealing with vandalism (page protection, reversion of obvious vandalism, protection of articles when necessary etc).... I would also help with dealing with the backlogs at

1629:. I have only crossed with the candidate at WP:AIV, and the experience was positive. Given the current situation with vandalism, a candidate being an experienced and reliable vandal fighter is enough for me to support. 3053:

In my experience as a wikipedia editor for a number of years, the bulk of administrators on wikipedia are simply editors who are willing to do more work than other editors, hence the comparison to a janitor with a

1611:

Content creation includes 14 new articles and 7 redirects; and I found the answers somewhat tentative. That said, however, the candidate has a solid body of work with respect to vandal fighting and speedy deletion

1475:. I learned more here about the nominee than I'd previously known; before this, I've seen the username frequently from appropriate speedy deletion tagging which has shown good comprehension of the criteria. – 899:. I have worked closely with 5 albert square on several articles and she is an absolutely top-class editor. Excellent answers as well. I have no doubt that 5 albert square will use the tools appropriately. – 594:

acceptable? If someone makes a non-admin closure of an article on homeopathy, do you know what sort of problems might arise from this, or, if it was a snowball keep, would that remove the controversy? --

2849:

discussion history, I'm pretty confident that this user will do no harm. (But what's up with those "support" !votes from users who were so careless as to not get the candidate's gender right?) --

557:

administrators acting under the authority of discretionary sanctions. A block may be used to enforce a ban and all edits made in in violation of the ban may be reverted or deleted under CSD F5.

3127: 375:

and had only been warned say twice, but when I look at their history and it's been nothing but obvious vandalism, say abusive language, I would look to block them then. It's the same for

632:

she's capable of either answering or ignoring me; as she's running for admin, I hope she is. If you have any more comments to me, HJ Mitchell, please take them to the discussion page. --

1739:. Talk page history shows a communicative editor and dis-interested in drama. Sure, quite a bit of automated edits - but clearly knows her stuff. More admins at RFPP is good news. 844: 367:, and maybe give them some hints on how to proceed. I will also tell the person being reported where they're going wrong. However, as always, there are exceptions to the rule at 3506: 3066:

The only reason I've not closed one before is because I feel that it is a responsibility that would be best lying with the admins, simply because some cases can be quite complex.

2400:. I looked over the two GAs and the FL and didn't see any glaring problems, good work. Your answer to #4 was fantastic. Either way, good luck with a mop and I'm glad to support. 2269: 839: 144: 84: 589:

on an ArbCom decision? Your answers here concern me; it's not the straight-forward following of policy where administrators will run into trouble. It's the willingness

103:, she uses her edit summaries often. Throughout her time here on Knowledge, she has shown that she is a mature, responsible editor that can use the sysop tools wisely. 267:

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?

580:

Deletion discussions are generally closed by administrators, however, they may be closed by non-admins in cases where the consensus is clearly to "keep", where the

693: 1192: 3474:." Repeated declaration of her intention to protect pages is unnecessary. Reversion of vandalism does not require the tools. From the answer to question 7: " 680: 492:

simply because I know how very important it is for it to be verified that images on Knowledge are not in breach of any copyright. I will also look to close

3524: 1198: 2448:, but I can overlook based on the amount of edits once those edits are removed. Most certainly a clueful candidate and an asset to the encyclopedia. -- 1226:

Something strikes me as weird in this RfA ... but that's never happened before when seeing this user's signature around. Regardless, happy to support.

834: 195:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

687: 958: 782: 749: 673: 72: 2314:- I've seen this candidate doing things around here when I first signed up for Knowledge and he seems to be in great shape for the mop :) - 1597: 1025: 112: 1997:

My interactions with 5 albert square have been positive, and for a long time I have thought she would make a good admin. I also gave her

723: 2628: 860: 717: 1910:

being a BLP of a minor, referenced only to the website of the subject's paid personal representatives, and with no evidence of passing

460:

couldn't install the internet until that was done. Therefore for a couple of months I could only really edit Knowledge whilst at work.

3365:

you will see that I am reviewing the article for GA and am working with other users to try and pass the article. You can also look at

2689: 2085: 870: 2890: 1847: 1487:

I am doing no research on this candidate - I was familiar with her before today, and hold her in high regard... happy to support.

732: 100: 3455: 3443: 2900: 2791: 2302: 1288: 1240: 520:

receive the title of administrator and the consensus was to leave you as a regular user. What would your plan of action be then?

33: 17: 3183:. I know she does have a lot of automated edits, but any automated edit does require a bit of thought first before proceeding. 2445: 808: 493: 413: 403: 292:

Your user page indicates that you are a fan of alcoholic beverages. Do you plan on consuming alcohol while editing Knowledge?

3168: 2926: 829: 3332:

While I appreciate everyone's comments, I'd prefer to have an answer from the candidate before I consider changing my vote.

3258:

if you;re after evidence of collaboration. Granted, those were a year ago, they're just the examples that spring to mind.

3189: 1818: 1509: 824: 379:. I would always look at the edit history and deem if the edits are vandalism. If they're not vandalism I'll explain at 961: 3109:

See talk page for response and any additional discussion, as this confusion does not come from the candidate herself. --

3070:

with complexity). Whether it arose that way or not, the complexity clause is a responsibility issue, not an IQ issue. --

526:

I would take on board any criticism received and learn from it. I would then consider re-applying in a few months time.

2915:

Length of time here and contributions suggest is more than likely to be a net positive, so worth a trial with the mop.

2787: 2774:. Would like to see significantly more participation in Talk: spaces, but other qualifications are reasonably strong. 1634: 952: 905: 571: 3478:" Why didn't she mention this in the answer to question 1? On the other hand, 5 albert square is a good contributor. 127:

Ladies and gentlemen, I first came across 5 albert square about 15 months ago, when the two of us worked together on

1274:

Nothing. What strikes me as weird is just the tone I see in the nomination statements and answers to the questions.

2974: 2580: 1381: 1161: 803: 3383: 1900: 946: 919:

Really helpful editor, works hard against vandalism and would be a great use to the project if given admin tools.

775: 667: 180: 66: 319:. Pretend someone else wrote it, and has asked you for feedback on how to improve it. What would you tell them? 2659: 2046: 1801: 1592: 1505: 1402: 1022: 109: 3491: 3459: 3420: 3387: 3356: 3327: 3303: 3272: 3245: 3203: 3173: 3144: 3118: 3104: 3079: 3038: 3021: 2998: 2981: 2951: 2930: 2904: 2885: 2871: 2858: 2837: 2812: 2795: 2778: 2766: 2749: 2726: 2709: 2693: 2663: 2646: 2634: 2608: 2591: 2567: 2550: 2533: 2516: 2495: 2475: 2457: 2436: 2419: 2406: 2392: 2378: 2364: 2332: 2306: 2286: 2263: 2238: 2215: 2198: 2182: 2174: 2157: 2140: 2119: 2092: 2064: 2058:

I've run into this editor before, and was surprised that she wasn't an admin. She knows what she's doing. ~

2050: 2033: 2022: 2005: 1992: 1975: 1946: 1923: 1902: 1884: 1870: 1853: 1832: 1805: 1789: 1772: 1755: 1731: 1706: 1685: 1671: 1652: 1638: 1621: 1603: 1575: 1558: 1546: 1530: 1513: 1496: 1482: 1467: 1444: 1422: 1406: 1389: 1364: 1345: 1324: 1309: 1295: 1269: 1247: 1221: 1204: 1167: 1140: 1118: 1086: 1070: 1049: 1030: 1008: 986: 967: 931: 911: 641: 626: 603: 430: 184: 166: 117: 3411: 3347: 3236: 3180: 2786:

Trust the nom of HJ Mitchell and see no concerns.Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.

2623: 2355: 1866: 2994: 2686: 2563: 2504: 2453: 2080: 1630: 1542: 1438: 900: 500:

quite rightly points out below this is something that should only really be ventured into very gradually.

3362: 3267: 3139: 3016: 2762: 2281: 1919: 1785: 1374: 1359: 1044: 981: 621: 496:

discussions at some stage although I will only do this once I'm fully comfortable with admin tools. As

334: 221:. This is what I would consider obvious vandalism. I would also help with dealing with the backlogs at 161: 3505:

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

3452: 3440: 3379: 3373:

to get an idea of how I've collaborated with users on projects like this previously. If you look at

2945: 2897: 2881: 2868: 2854: 2722: 2604: 2529: 2473: 2373: 2299: 2193: 2153: 1988: 1939: 1895: 1538: 1454: 1321: 1283: 1235: 1133: 768: 663: 478:

What other administrative plans would you be willing to do besides blocking users and locking pages?

282: 176: 62: 865: 3370: 3255: 3114: 3075: 2864: 2808: 2703: 2655: 2546: 2211: 2170: 2059: 2042: 1797: 1768: 1680: 1587: 1584: 1479: 1420: 1398: 1081: 1017: 637: 599: 426: 246: 104: 3284:

and may still be involved. Mentoring a user would give one a large percentage in user talk space.

2072:

Now where have I seen this editor before... Oh right! Everywhere! She does pretty good stuff too.

612:

in the oppose section. How about you pipe down and allow people to come to their own conclusions?

3397: 3333: 3301: 3222: 3166: 3034: 2920: 2618: 2429: 2387: 2341: 2117: 1971: 1862: 1736: 1667: 1492: 928: 745: 3058:. The community has decided that non-administrators are competent and allowed to close specific 3393: 3374: 3366: 3317: 3251: 3197: 2990: 2829: 2742: 2679: 2674: 2576: 2559: 2512: 2449: 2075: 2030: 1955: 1826: 1617: 1571: 1463: 1432: 1305: 1257: 1108: 1058: 442: 2372:

I've had only positive interactions with 5as, and trust that she would use the tools wisely.

1983:

Checked some user contributions and talk pages and seems like a force for good on the wiki. —

1892:. Very good vandal fighter who could really use the tools and also good at creating content! 3259: 3131: 3009: 2758: 2327: 2273: 2256: 2224: 1915: 1781: 1697: 1354: 1217: 1036: 1004: 976: 613: 489: 485: 153: 91:, and has participated in their Backlog elimination drives. She has made over 700 edits to 3449: 3437: 3281: 2939: 2894: 2877: 2850: 2718: 2600: 2525: 2466: 2296: 2149: 2135: 1984: 1932: 1748: 1555: 1526: 1278: 1230: 1186: 1126: 609: 543: 508: 497: 468: 392: 3392:

And that's exactly why I asked for a response from the nominator. Moving to support, per

2803:

Reasonable edits of articles related to her employer, civil tone and enough experience.

3110: 3071: 2968: 2804: 2542: 2485: 2207: 2166: 2002: 1837: 1764: 1476: 1415: 1154: 1076: 633: 595: 422: 380: 376: 352:

what would be you criteria to block a user at WP:AIV and to protect a page at WP:RfPP?

345: 222: 88: 2989:

saw the candidate helping out with the people's princess article, they deserve WP100!

2340:

Concerns have been dealt with (see below) and so I'm moving up to the support column.

2100:

I would like to see a bit more in projectspace but, bedsides from that it looks good.

3518: 3489: 3285: 3161: 3157: 3059: 3055: 3030: 3004: 2916: 2846: 2643: 2101: 2013: 1967: 1959: 1911: 1715: 1662: 1488: 921: 547: 534: 372: 368: 364: 359: 349: 226: 96: 92: 1430:: Glad to see 5 Albert Square up for adminship. She would make a great admin. :) - 3311: 3184: 3093: 2821: 2735: 2508: 2401: 2027: 1907: 1813: 1647: 1613: 1567: 1459: 1334: 1301: 1102: 581: 316: 307: 210: 53:

Final (101/2/1). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 21:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

2507:: in particular - almost 36,000 edits, autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, etc. 2412: 2315: 2250: 2179: 1879: 1692: 1213: 1000: 2775: 2575:

Very good vandel fighter, was particularly impressed with the way she handled

2128: 1742: 1522: 1178: 254: 139: 80: 3499:

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

2962: 1149: 2938:

In all of my encounters has always been civil & on-track; no concerns

2483:

Been seen about often, I can see no issues here. The mop is well overdue.

3479: 1763:; relentlessly competent, undramatic, and can be trusted with the tools. 250: 129: 76: 2411:

Thought you were already. Nothing but positive interactions with 5...

3087: 2444:

Awfully high number of automated-type edits, which is a no-no under my

2246:

because of the insanely high automated edit count, but you deserve it.

2148:- Definitely an asset, needs the mop more than anybody else right now. 940: 3509:

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

1931:

She's a great user and will be a great administrator with the tools.

214: 975:

Above comments indented as they were submitted before transclusion.

748:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 3099: 760: 3280:. I believe that 5 albert square was involved and in mentoring 1660:

Happy to support. Will be a good addition to the admin team. –

886:: edit stats are on the talk page. 21:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 764: 147:, and for plenty of smaller articles, particularly articles on 2317: 2001:

well over a year ago, and her use of that tool has been fine.

2820:- No problems here and the old adage "I thought she was one" 173:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

2671:

Based on what I've seen from this user, I have no concerns.

1646:. This clueful editor will be well suited for admin work. -- 1414:. No problems whatsoever. Happy to have her come aboard. -- 1521:

Insert cliche "isn't an admin already?" comment here... --

2386:, how'd I miss this one? Absolutely no reservations here. 175:

Thank you for the nomination which I gratefully accept. --

484:

I would look to continue the work that I currently do at

29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

1714:- Delighted to see this nom, and delighted to support.-- 1057:

Was surprised you were not an admin already. Good Luck.

239:

What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?

202:

What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

1998: 711: 705: 699: 218: 137:

up to GA standard, she went on to collaborate to bring

3308:

As does vandal fighting, which 5 albert square does. →

2654:

Excellent user, no questions asked. Have my support.

1861:. Another in a string of no-brainer easy supports. -- 1504:. Work looks great, answers to questions are fine -- 585:

clear, the close should be left to an administrator.

3017: 1583:- Good user, comprehensive answers to questions. -- 730:

Edit summary usage for 5 albert square can be found

853: 817: 796: 145:

List of awards and nominations received by The Bill

85:

List of awards and nominations received by The Bill

542:In your own words, what is the difference between 2599:This guy is definitely cut out to be an admin. -- 3476:I would be very likely to close AfD discussions. 3319: 1110: 776: 453:significantly lower than your average month? 8: 3084:This oppose has left me genuinely confused. 1554:Pretty much an admin-by-proxy as it stands. 371:. If, for example, someone was reported to 3010: 1780:Intended AIV work, and track record there. 1300:What strikes me as wierd is the pie chart. 143:to GA. She can also take credit for an FL, 2757:. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. 783: 769: 761: 488:. I would also look to carry out work at 2702: 1091:Another admin at RFPP and AIV would be a 1252:Just wondering, but what strikes you as 744:Please keep discussion constructive and 245:My best contributions would have to be 87:. In addition, she is a member of the 2601:The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire 1878:- No concerns. Overall net positive. 315:Your most recent article creation is 7: 2876:Ah yes, the famous Square family! -- 2230: 1954:Although I would have expected that 2465:as per review of contributions. -- 3469:. From the answer to question 1: " 3436:Pending more information on AfD. — 2891:I've seen more ridiculous surnames 2374: 533:Additional optional question from 507:Additional optional question from 306:Additional optional question from 24: 3525:Successful requests for adminship 2704: 402:How likely would you be to close 358:I would normally block a user at 344:Since you say that you will help 2959:– Definitely. Why the hell not? 939: 412:I would be very likely to close 18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship 3198: 3194: 3190: 3185: 2060: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1814: 1723: 1717: 923: 3446:— 17:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 3413: 3398: 3349: 3334: 3312: 3238: 3223: 2744: 2357: 2342: 1155: 1103: 999:. Should be an admin already. 920: 1: 3176:01:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 2736: 2582: 1726: 1720: 1179: 1162: 1150: 608:OK, Kleopatra, you made your 3492:10:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC) 3460:00:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC) 3448:Moving to support section. — 3421:04:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC) 3388:01:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC) 3357:01:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC) 3328:05:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 3304:04:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 3273:02:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 3246:02:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 3204:07:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 3174:01:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 3145:01:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 3119:01:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 3105:00:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 3080:16:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC) 3039:19:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 3022:18:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 2999:18:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 2982:03:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 2952:03:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 2931:02:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 2905:19:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC) 2886:17:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC) 2872:16:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC) 2859:16:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC) 2838:15:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC) 2813:15:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC) 2796:12:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC) 2779:04:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC) 2767:00:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC) 2750:22:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC) 2727:21:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC) 2710:19:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC) 2694:04:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC) 2664:02:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC) 2647:00:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC) 2635:22:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC) 2609:21:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC) 2592:09:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC) 2568:03:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC) 2551:02:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC) 2541:Seems to be a good choice... 2534:02:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC) 2517:01:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC) 2496:00:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC) 2476:23:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC) 2458:22:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC) 2437:20:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC) 2420:13:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC) 2407:08:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC) 2393:07:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC) 2379:05:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC) 2365:04:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC) 2333:02:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC) 2307:00:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC) 2287:00:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC) 2264:22:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 2239:18:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 2225: 2216:18:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 2199:16:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 2183:15:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 2175:12:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 2158:09:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 2141:08:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 2120:04:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 2093:01:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 2065:01:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 2051:01:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 2034:00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 2023:00:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC) 2006:22:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1993:20:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1976:20:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1947:19:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1924:19:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1908:Most recent article creation 1903:17:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1885:16:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1871:15:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1854:15:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1833:14:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1806:13:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1790:13:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1773:12:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1756:10:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1732:09:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1707:09:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1686:07:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1672:07:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1653:06:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1639:05:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1622:05:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1604:05:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1576:04:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1559:03:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1547:03:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1531:02:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1514:02:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1497:02:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1483:01:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1468:01:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1445:01:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1423:01:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1407:00:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1390:23:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 1365:22:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 1346:22:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 1325:22:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 1310:04:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC) 1296:23:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 1270:22:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 1248:22:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 1222:22:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 1205:21:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 1168:21:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 1141:21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 1119:21:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 1087:21:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 1071:21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 1050:21:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 1031:21:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 1009:21:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 987:14:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 968:14:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 951: 947: 945: 944:Long overdue, about time! -- 932:09:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 912:08:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 642:00:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 627:22:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC) 604:22:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC) 431:17:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC) 185:23:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC) 167:00:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 118:22:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC) 83:, and to one featured list, 3029:Will make a great Admin. - 957: 953: 661:Links for 5 albert square: 191:Questions for the candidate 3541: 3179:That oppose reminds me of 1523:Alan the Roving Ambassador 3269:Penny for your thoughts? 3141:Penny for your thoughts? 2283:Penny for your thoughts? 1046:Penny for your thoughts? 623:Penny for your thoughts? 363:refused their request at 163:Penny for your thoughts? 3502:Please do not modify it. 2190:. Sure thing, no doubt. 406:discussions, if at all? 333:Optional question from 281:Optional question from 123:Co-nom from HJ Mitchell 38:Please do not modify it 3126:Further discussion on 3068: 2845:. On the basis of the 2788:Pharaoh of the Wizards 3363:Talk:Dot Branning/GA2 3064: 3008:. Obvious support. - 1320:All looks good here! 89:Guild of Copy Editors 34:request for adminship 1455:Captain Nigel Croker 866:Global contributions 582:speedy keep criteria 3371:Talk:Neighbours/GA1 3256:Talk:Neighbours/GA1 2867:is a boy's name :) 2223:- without a doubt. 1679:Great contributor. 1506:Boing! said Zebedee 830:Non-automated edits 247:Matthew Werkmeister 1882: 1849:Operation Big Bear 1729: 809:Edit summary usage 752:before commenting. 39: 3418: 3394:Talk:Bart Simpson 3375:Talk:Bart Simpson 3367:Talk:The Bill/GA2 3354: 3252:Talk:The Bill/GA2 3243: 3103: 2836: 2692: 2577:Talk:Bart Simpson 2470: 2391: 2362: 2326: 2272:on the talk page 2021: 1956:Natalie Imbruglia 1880: 1754: 1716: 1631:Materialscientist 1447: 1341: 1264: 1085: 1065: 989: 879: 878: 750:her contributions 574:acceptable? Why? 572:Non-admin closure 443:User:Strikerforce 99:. As can be seen 37: 3532: 3504: 3488: 3484: 3417: 3412: 3409: 3353: 3348: 3345: 3325: 3321: 3314: 3299: 3270: 3264: 3242: 3237: 3234: 3218:Moved to Support 3200: 3195: 3192: 3187: 3164: 3147: 3142: 3136: 3096: 3090: 3085: 3019: 3014: 2980: 2977: 2971: 2965: 2948: 2942: 2834: 2828: 2826: 2746: 2740: 2708: 2706: 2685: 2682: 2631: 2626: 2621: 2589: 2588: 2558:- Absolutely. -- 2492: 2490: 2468: 2435: 2433: 2417: 2404: 2390: 2376: 2361: 2356: 2353: 2330: 2324: 2322: 2321: 2289: 2284: 2278: 2261: 2259: 2253: 2236: 2229: 2138: 2133: 2115: 2090: 2088: 2083: 2078: 2062: 2020: 2018: 1943: 1936: 1899: 1850: 1844: 1829: 1824: 1821: 1816: 1753: 1751: 1740: 1728: 1725: 1722: 1719: 1704: 1695: 1683: 1650: 1600: 1595: 1590: 1441: 1435: 1431: 1418: 1388: 1386: 1379: 1362: 1357: 1342: 1339: 1294: 1291: 1286: 1281: 1265: 1262: 1246: 1243: 1238: 1233: 1214:Kevin Rutherford 1203: 1181: 1164: 1159: 1152: 1137: 1130: 1116: 1112: 1105: 1079: 1066: 1063: 1047: 1041: 1020: 984: 979: 974: 966: 965: 964: 955: 949: 943: 930: 925: 908: 903: 825:Articles created 785: 778: 771: 762: 735: 727: 686: 656:General comments 624: 618: 486:special:newpages 335:Baseball Watcher 164: 158: 107: 95:and over 200 to 3540: 3539: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3507:this nomination 3500: 3486: 3480: 3406: 3402: 3380:5 albert square 3361:If you look at 3342: 3338: 3309: 3297: 3291: 3286: 3282:User:Wayne Slam 3268: 3260: 3231: 3227: 3214: 3171: 3162: 3140: 3132: 3125: 3094: 3088: 3047: 2975: 2969: 2963: 2960: 2946: 2940: 2830: 2822: 2747: 2680: 2629: 2624: 2619: 2581: 2524:- No concerns. 2488: 2486: 2431: 2428: 2413: 2402: 2350: 2346: 2328: 2316: 2282: 2274: 2268: 2257: 2251: 2248: 2194:DARTH SIDIOUS 2 2136: 2129: 2113: 2107: 2102: 2086: 2081: 2076: 2074: 2014: 1941: 1934: 1893: 1852: 1848: 1838: 1749: 1741: 1698: 1693: 1681: 1648: 1598: 1593: 1588: 1439: 1433: 1416: 1382: 1375: 1373: 1360: 1355: 1338: 1335: 1289: 1284: 1279: 1275: 1261: 1258: 1241: 1236: 1231: 1227: 1176: 1135: 1128: 1100: 1062: 1059: 1045: 1037: 1028: 1018: 982: 977: 906: 901: 893: 880: 875: 849: 813: 792: 791:RfA/RfB toolbox 789: 759: 731: 679: 664:5 albert square 662: 658: 622: 614: 193: 177:5 albert square 162: 154: 115: 105: 63:5 albert square 60: 50: 47:5 albert square 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3538: 3536: 3528: 3527: 3517: 3516: 3512: 3511: 3495: 3494: 3463: 3462: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3404: 3400: 3340: 3336: 3293: 3287: 3248: 3229: 3225: 3213: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3169: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3046: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3024: 3001: 2984: 2954: 2933: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2840: 2815: 2798: 2781: 2769: 2752: 2743: 2729: 2712: 2705:PrincessofLlyr 2696: 2666: 2656:MelbourneStar☆ 2649: 2637: 2611: 2594: 2570: 2553: 2536: 2519: 2503:- fully meets 2498: 2481:Strong Support 2478: 2460: 2439: 2422: 2409: 2395: 2381: 2367: 2348: 2344: 2335: 2309: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2241: 2218: 2201: 2185: 2177: 2160: 2146:Strong support 2143: 2122: 2109: 2103: 2095: 2067: 2061:Matthewrbowker 2053: 2043:DustFormsWords 2036: 2025: 2008: 1995: 1978: 1966:cast members. 1949: 1926: 1905: 1887: 1873: 1856: 1846: 1835: 1808: 1798:MarmadukePercy 1792: 1775: 1758: 1734: 1709: 1688: 1682:Steven Walling 1674: 1655: 1641: 1624: 1606: 1578: 1561: 1549: 1533: 1516: 1499: 1485: 1470: 1448: 1425: 1409: 1399:Reaper Eternal 1392: 1367: 1348: 1336: 1327: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1259: 1224: 1207: 1170: 1143: 1121: 1089: 1073: 1060: 1052: 1033: 1026: 1019:The Utahraptor 1016:as nominator. 1011: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 934: 914: 892: 889: 888: 887: 877: 876: 874: 873: 868: 863: 857: 855: 851: 850: 848: 847: 842: 837: 832: 827: 821: 819: 815: 814: 812: 811: 806: 800: 798: 794: 793: 790: 788: 787: 780: 773: 765: 758: 755: 741: 740: 739: 737: 728: 657: 654: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 644: 563: 561: 560: 559: 558: 537: 530: 529: 528: 527: 511: 504: 503: 502: 501: 467:Question from 464: 463: 462: 461: 441:Question from 438: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 391:Question from 388: 387: 386: 385: 330: 329: 328: 327: 310: 303: 302: 301: 300: 278: 277: 276: 275: 261: 260: 259: 258: 233: 232: 231: 230: 192: 189: 188: 187: 125: 124: 113: 106:The Utahraptor 59: 56: 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3537: 3526: 3523: 3522: 3520: 3510: 3508: 3503: 3497: 3496: 3493: 3490: 3485: 3483: 3477: 3473: 3468: 3465: 3464: 3461: 3457: 3454: 3451: 3447: 3445: 3442: 3439: 3434: 3422: 3419: 3416: 3410: 3408: 3395: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3385: 3381: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3355: 3352: 3346: 3344: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3323: 3322: 3315: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3302: 3300: 3296: 3290: 3283: 3279: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3271: 3265: 3263: 3257: 3253: 3250:Just look at 3249: 3247: 3244: 3241: 3235: 3233: 3219: 3216: 3215: 3211: 3205: 3201: 3193: 3188: 3182: 3178: 3177: 3175: 3172: 3167: 3165: 3159: 3154: 3151: 3146: 3143: 3137: 3135: 3129: 3128:the talk page 3124: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3101: 3097: 3091: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3077: 3073: 3067: 3061: 3057: 3052: 3049: 3048: 3044: 3040: 3036: 3032: 3028: 3025: 3023: 3020: 3015: 3013: 3007: 3006: 3002: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2985: 2983: 2978: 2972: 2966: 2958: 2955: 2953: 2949: 2943: 2937: 2934: 2932: 2928: 2925: 2922: 2918: 2914: 2906: 2902: 2899: 2896: 2892: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2847:Samsung Group 2844: 2841: 2839: 2835: 2833: 2827: 2825: 2819: 2816: 2814: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2799: 2797: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2782: 2780: 2777: 2773: 2770: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2753: 2751: 2748: 2741: 2739: 2733: 2730: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2713: 2711: 2707: 2700: 2697: 2695: 2691: 2688: 2684: 2683: 2678: 2677: 2670: 2667: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2650: 2648: 2645: 2642:- Easy call. 2641: 2638: 2636: 2633: 2632: 2627: 2622: 2615: 2612: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2595: 2593: 2590: 2587: 2586: 2578: 2574: 2571: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2554: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2537: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2520: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2499: 2497: 2494: 2493: 2482: 2479: 2477: 2474: 2472: 2464: 2461: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2440: 2438: 2434: 2426: 2423: 2421: 2418: 2416: 2410: 2408: 2405: 2399: 2396: 2394: 2389: 2388:Seraphimblade 2385: 2382: 2380: 2377: 2371: 2368: 2366: 2363: 2360: 2354: 2352: 2339: 2336: 2334: 2331: 2323: 2320: 2313: 2310: 2308: 2304: 2301: 2298: 2293: 2288: 2285: 2279: 2277: 2271: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2262: 2260: 2254: 2249::.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:| 2245: 2242: 2240: 2237: 2235: 2234: 2228: 2222: 2219: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2202: 2200: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2189: 2186: 2184: 2181: 2178: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2161: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2144: 2142: 2139: 2134: 2132: 2126: 2123: 2121: 2118: 2116: 2112: 2106: 2099: 2096: 2094: 2091: 2089: 2084: 2079: 2071: 2068: 2066: 2063: 2057: 2054: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2037: 2035: 2032: 2029: 2026: 2024: 2019: 2017: 2012: 2009: 2007: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1979: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1962:were notable 1961: 1960:Holly Valance 1957: 1953: 1950: 1948: 1945: 1944: 1938: 1937: 1930: 1927: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1906: 1904: 1901: 1898: 1897: 1891: 1888: 1886: 1883: 1877: 1874: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1863:Quartermaster 1860: 1857: 1855: 1851: 1845: 1843: 1842: 1836: 1834: 1830: 1822: 1817: 1812: 1809: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1796: 1793: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1776: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1759: 1757: 1752: 1746: 1745: 1738: 1735: 1733: 1730: 1713: 1710: 1708: 1705: 1703: 1702: 1696: 1689: 1687: 1684: 1678: 1675: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1664: 1659: 1656: 1654: 1651: 1645: 1642: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1625: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1610: 1607: 1605: 1601: 1596: 1591: 1586: 1582: 1579: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1562: 1560: 1557: 1553: 1550: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1537: 1534: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1517: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1500: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1484: 1481: 1478: 1474: 1471: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1456: 1452: 1449: 1446: 1442: 1436: 1429: 1426: 1424: 1421: 1419: 1413: 1410: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1393: 1391: 1387: 1385: 1380: 1378: 1371: 1368: 1366: 1363: 1358: 1352: 1349: 1347: 1344: 1343: 1331: 1328: 1326: 1323: 1319: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1293: 1292: 1287: 1282: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1268: 1266: 1255: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1245: 1244: 1239: 1234: 1225: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1208: 1206: 1201: 1200: 1197: 1194: 1191: 1188: 1183: 1182: 1174: 1171: 1169: 1166: 1165: 1160: 1158: 1153: 1147: 1144: 1142: 1139: 1138: 1132: 1131: 1125: 1122: 1120: 1114: 1113: 1106: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1088: 1083: 1078: 1074: 1072: 1069: 1067: 1056: 1053: 1051: 1048: 1042: 1040: 1034: 1032: 1029: 1023: 1021: 1015: 1012: 1010: 1006: 1002: 998: 995: 988: 985: 980: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 963: 960: 956: 950: 942: 938: 935: 933: 929: 927: 926: 918: 915: 913: 909: 904: 898: 895: 894: 890: 885: 882: 881: 872: 869: 867: 864: 862: 859: 858: 856: 852: 846: 843: 841: 838: 836: 833: 831: 828: 826: 823: 822: 820: 816: 810: 807: 805: 802: 801: 799: 795: 786: 781: 779: 774: 772: 767: 766: 763: 756: 754: 753: 751: 747: 738: 734: 729: 725: 722: 719: 716: 713: 710: 707: 704: 701: 698: 695: 692: 689: 685: 682: 678: 675: 672: 669: 665: 660: 659: 655: 643: 639: 635: 630: 629: 628: 625: 619: 617: 611: 607: 606: 605: 601: 597: 592: 587: 586: 583: 579: 576: 575: 573: 569: 566: 565: 564: 555: 552: 551: 549: 545: 541: 538: 536: 532: 531: 525: 522: 521: 519: 515: 512: 510: 506: 505: 499: 495: 491: 487: 483: 480: 479: 477: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 458: 455: 454: 451: 448: 447: 446: 445: 444: 432: 428: 424: 419: 418: 415: 411: 408: 407: 405: 401: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 382: 378: 374: 370: 366: 361: 357: 354: 353: 351: 347: 343: 340: 339: 338: 337: 336: 324: 321: 320: 318: 314: 311: 309: 305: 304: 297: 294: 293: 291: 288: 287: 286: 285: 284: 272: 269: 268: 266: 263: 262: 256: 252: 248: 244: 241: 240: 238: 235: 234: 228: 224: 220: 216: 212: 207: 204: 203: 201: 198: 197: 196: 190: 186: 182: 178: 174: 171: 170: 169: 168: 165: 159: 157: 150: 146: 142: 141: 136: 132: 131: 122: 121: 120: 119: 116: 110: 108: 102: 98: 94: 90: 86: 82: 78: 74: 71: 68: 64: 57: 55: 54: 48: 45: 41: 35: 32: 27: 26: 19: 3501: 3498: 3481: 3475: 3470: 3466: 3435: 3414: 3399: 3350: 3335: 3318: 3294: 3288: 3278:Note to Sven 3277: 3261: 3239: 3224: 3217: 3152: 3133: 3065: 3050: 3026: 3011: 3003: 2991:FeydHuxtable 2986: 2956: 2935: 2923: 2842: 2831: 2823: 2817: 2800: 2783: 2771: 2754: 2737: 2731: 2714: 2698: 2675: 2672: 2668: 2651: 2639: 2617: 2613: 2596: 2584: 2583: 2572: 2560:Monterey Bay 2555: 2538: 2521: 2505:my standards 2500: 2484: 2480: 2462: 2450:Strikerforce 2441: 2424: 2414: 2397: 2383: 2369: 2358: 2343: 2337: 2318: 2311: 2275: 2270:Related rant 2258::.:∙:∙∙:∙:.: 2247: 2244:Weak Support 2243: 2232: 2231: 2226: 2220: 2203: 2192: 2191: 2187: 2162: 2145: 2130: 2124: 2110: 2104: 2097: 2073: 2069: 2055: 2038: 2015: 2010: 1980: 1963: 1951: 1940: 1933: 1928: 1894: 1889: 1875: 1858: 1840: 1839: 1810: 1794: 1777: 1760: 1743: 1711: 1700: 1699: 1676: 1661: 1657: 1643: 1626: 1609:Weak support 1608: 1580: 1563: 1551: 1535: 1518: 1501: 1472: 1450: 1434:Neutralhomer 1427: 1411: 1394: 1383: 1376: 1369: 1350: 1333: 1329: 1276: 1267: 1253: 1228: 1212:Definitely. 1209: 1195: 1189: 1185: 1177: 1172: 1156: 1148: 1145: 1134: 1127: 1123: 1109: 1096: 1092: 1068: 1054: 1038: 1013: 996: 948:Perseus, Son 936: 922: 916: 896: 883: 743: 742: 720: 714: 708: 702: 696: 690: 683: 676: 670: 615: 590: 577: 567: 562: 553: 539: 523: 517: 516:Say you did 513: 481: 475: 466: 465: 456: 449: 440: 439: 409: 399: 390: 389: 355: 341: 332: 331: 322: 317:Faye Daveney 312: 295: 289: 280: 279: 270: 264: 242: 236: 211:Adam Sandler 205: 199: 194: 172: 155: 148: 138: 134: 128: 126: 69: 61: 52: 51: 46: 30: 28: 3262:HJ Mitchell 3134:HJ Mitchell 2759:Newyorkbrad 2719:Graham Colm 2701:- why not? 2616:no issues. 2276:HJ Mitchell 1916:Mkativerata 1782:Ottawa4ever 1737:WP:RIGHTNOW 1372:Of course. 1356:Airplaneman 1263:ofutwitch11 1064:ofutwitch11 1039:HJ Mitchell 1035:As co-nom. 978:Airplaneman 871:User rights 861:CentralAuth 616:HJ Mitchell 156:HJ Mitchell 2941:Skier Dude 2878:Tryptofish 2851:Tryptofish 2526:EdJohnston 2375:Frickative 2150:Shadowjams 1985:Tom Morris 1964:Neighbours 1881:P. D. Cook 1612:tagging.-- 1556:Courcelles 1539:Keepscases 1332:Why not? - 907:projectors 854:Cross-wiki 845:AfD closes 757:Discussion 509:Wingdude88 469:Wayne Slam 299:Knowledge. 283:Keepscases 255:Neighbours 140:Neighbours 81:Neighbours 58:Nomination 31:successful 3396:example. 3181:something 3111:Kleopatra 3072:Kleopatra 3012:JuneGloom 2805:KeptSouth 2543:Modernist 2446:standards 2325:was here! 2208:Gogo Dodo 2167:Someone65 2003:Acalamari 1841:Wizardman 1765:bobrayner 1477:Athaenara 1180:T H F S W 1077:Ajraddatz 962:sign here 924:GunGagdin 840:AfD votes 835:BLP edits 706:block log 634:Kleopatra 596:Kleopatra 423:Kleopatra 3519:Category 3170:Contribs 3163:Armbrust 3031:Ret.Prof 3027:Support: 2927:contribs 2917:Casliber 2863:Well... 2690:Contribs 2644:Jusdafax 2471:e decker 2011:Support. 1999:rollback 1968:Hawkeye7 1663:SMasters 1489:Townlake 1377:Baseball 1210:Suppport 1124:Support. 1027:Contribs 818:Analysis 797:Counters 674:contribs 610:WP:POINT 535:Armbrust 251:The Bill 149:The Bill 135:The Bill 130:The Bill 114:Contribs 77:The Bill 73:contribs 3472:WP:RFPP 3467:Neutral 3407:anguard 3343:anguard 3232:anguard 3212:Neutral 2987:Support 2957:Support 2936:Support 2843:Support 2824:Mlpearc 2818:Support 2801:Support 2784:Support 2772:Support 2755:Support 2732:Support 2715:Support 2699:Support 2681:Hamster 2669:Support 2652:Support 2640:Support 2614:Support 2597:Support 2573:Support 2556:Support 2539:Support 2522:Support 2509:Bearian 2501:Support 2463:Support 2442:Support 2425:Support 2403:Nomader 2398:Support 2384:Support 2370:Support 2351:anguard 2338:Support 2312:Support 2221:Support 2204:Support 2188:Support 2163:Support 2125:Support 2098:Support 2077:Bramble 2070:Support 2056:Support 2039:Support 1981:Support 1952:Support 1929:Support 1890:Support 1876:Support 1859:Support 1811:Support 1795:Support 1778:Support 1761:Support 1712:Support 1677:Support 1658:Support 1649:Diannaa 1644:Support 1627:Support 1614:Hokeman 1585:King of 1581:Support 1568:Kudpung 1564:Support 1552:Support 1536:Support 1519:Support 1502:Support 1473:Support 1460:28bytes 1451:Support 1428:Support 1412:Support 1397:- Yep! 1395:Support 1384:Watcher 1370:Support 1351:Support 1330:Support 1302:Kudpung 1173:Support 1146:Support 1097:Support 1095:thing. 1055:Support 1014:Support 997:Support 954:of Zeus 937:Support 917:Support 902:anemone 897:Support 891:Support 681:deleted 381:WP:RFPP 377:WP:RFPP 348:and at 346:WP:RfPP 308:28bytes 223:WP:RFPP 3313:Gƒoley 3186:Minima 3158:WP:NAC 3153:Oppose 3060:WP:AfD 3056:WP:MOP 3051:Oppose 3045:Oppose 3005:WP:100 2865:Albert 2832:powwow 2776:Jayjg 2491:jones 2432:(MTCD) 2319:Dwayne 2252:pepper 2227:Orphan 2180:Secret 2137:(talk) 1912:WP:BIO 1896:Salvio 1815:Minima 1340:ASTILY 1104:Gƒoley 1075:Sure. 1001:tedder 804:XTools 490:CAT:NT 373:WP:AIV 369:WP:AIV 365:WP:AIV 360:WP:AIV 350:WP:AIV 227:WP:AIV 215:Snoopy 97:WP:RPP 93:WP:AIV 3098:) · 2893:... — 2676:Super 2630:Space 1935:Wayne 1750:Chat 1744:Pedro 1353:Yes. 1285:COMMS 1280:ƒETCH 1254:wierd 1237:COMMS 1232:ƒETCH 1136:rolls 746:civil 688:count 544:block 16:< 3415:Wha? 3403:ven 3384:talk 3369:and 3351:Wha? 3339:ven 3320:Four 3254:and 3240:Wha? 3228:ven 3199:talk 3115:talk 3100:@074 3095:talk 3076:talk 3035:talk 3018:Talk 2995:talk 2964:mc10 2947:talk 2921:talk 2882:talk 2855:talk 2809:talk 2792:talk 2763:talk 2745:talk 2738:Noom 2723:talk 2687:Talk 2660:talk 2625:From 2620:Them 2605:talk 2585:Worm 2564:talk 2547:talk 2530:talk 2513:talk 2454:talk 2430:Rich 2359:Wha? 2347:ven 2233:Wiki 2212:talk 2171:talk 2154:talk 2131:Tony 2082:claw 2047:talk 2028:Step 1989:talk 1972:talk 1958:and 1942:Slam 1920:talk 1867:talk 1828:talk 1802:talk 1786:talk 1769:talk 1668:talk 1635:talk 1618:talk 1572:talk 1543:talk 1527:talk 1510:talk 1493:talk 1464:talk 1440:Talk 1403:talk 1306:talk 1218:talk 1157:Soap 1129:Tide 1111:Four 1093:good 1082:Talk 1005:talk 884:Note 733:here 718:rfar 700:logs 668:talk 638:talk 600:talk 546:and 427:talk 253:and 225:and 219:this 213:and 181:talk 101:here 79:and 67:talk 3482:Axl 3160:?" 2487:Ron 2206:-- 2031:hen 2016:AGK 1727:ski 1721:orr 1694:Ged 724:spi 694:AfD 591:and 570:Is 568:12. 548:ban 540:11. 518:not 514:10. 498:WFC 494:AfD 414:AfD 404:AfD 393:WFC 3521:: 3458:— 3386:) 3378:-- 3326:← 3266:| 3202:) 3138:| 3130:. 3117:) 3102:· 3092:· 3089:X! 3078:) 3037:) 2997:) 2950:) 2929:) 2903:— 2884:) 2869:AD 2857:) 2811:) 2794:) 2765:) 2734:- 2725:) 2717:- 2662:) 2607:) 2579:. 2566:) 2549:) 2532:) 2515:) 2456:) 2427:. 2305:— 2280:| 2214:) 2173:) 2156:) 2127:. 2049:) 1991:) 1974:) 1922:) 1869:) 1831:) 1804:) 1788:) 1771:) 1747:: 1701:UK 1670:) 1637:) 1620:) 1602:♠ 1574:) 1545:) 1529:) 1512:) 1495:) 1480:✉ 1466:) 1443:• 1437:• 1405:) 1322:AD 1308:) 1256:? 1220:) 1175:-- 1117:← 1043:| 1007:) 910:– 712:lu 640:) 620:| 602:) 578:A: 554:A: 550:? 524:A: 482:A. 476:9. 457:A. 450:8. 429:) 410:A. 400:7. 356:A: 342:6. 323:A: 313:5. 296:A: 290:4. 271:A: 265:3. 249:, 243:A: 237:2. 206:A: 200:1. 183:) 160:| 36:. 3487:¤ 3456:C 3453:F 3450:W 3444:C 3441:F 3438:W 3405:M 3401:S 3382:( 3341:M 3337:S 3324:♣ 3316:↔ 3310:♠ 3298:a 3295:k 3292:n 3289:I 3230:M 3226:S 3196:( 3191:c 3113:( 3086:( 3074:( 3033:( 2993:( 2979:) 2976:c 2973:/ 2970:t 2967:( 2961:— 2944:( 2924:· 2919:( 2901:C 2898:F 2895:W 2880:( 2853:( 2807:( 2790:( 2761:( 2721:( 2673:~ 2658:( 2603:( 2562:( 2545:( 2528:( 2511:( 2489:h 2469:⚛ 2467:j 2452:( 2415:7 2349:M 2345:S 2329:♫ 2303:C 2300:F 2297:W 2255:| 2210:( 2169:( 2152:( 2114:a 2111:k 2108:n 2105:I 2087:x 2045:( 1987:( 1970:( 1918:( 1865:( 1825:( 1820:c 1800:( 1784:( 1767:( 1724:u 1718:K 1666:( 1633:( 1616:( 1599:♣ 1594:♦ 1589:♥ 1570:( 1541:( 1525:( 1508:( 1491:( 1462:( 1417:œ 1401:( 1361:✈ 1337:F 1304:( 1290:/ 1277:/ 1260:T 1242:/ 1229:/ 1216:( 1202:) 1199:E 1196:· 1193:C 1190:· 1187:T 1184:( 1163:— 1151:— 1115:♣ 1107:↔ 1101:♠ 1099:→ 1084:) 1080:( 1061:T 1024:/ 1003:( 983:✈ 959:✉ 784:e 777:t 770:v 736:. 726:) 721:· 715:· 709:· 703:· 697:· 691:· 684:· 677:· 671:· 666:( 636:( 598:( 425:( 179:( 111:/ 70:· 65:( 40:.

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

Knowledge

:Requests for adminship/5 albert square - Knowledge

Index