Knowledge:Requests for bureaucratship/28bytes

153:) which performs cleanup work and a couple of other maintenance tasks, so I have some familiarity with the bot approval process. I'm also a regular participant in RfAs, offering what I hope are relevant questions to the candidates, as well as polite and helpful feedback whenever I find myself in the "oppose" column. As hostile as RfAs (and RfBs) can sometimes be, I recognize that the role of a bureaucrat is not to act as a reformer, but to simply gauge the consensus (or lack thereof) among an RfA's participants and act according to their collective wishes. If given the chance to serve as a bureaucrat, I will take the responsibility very seriously. I'm very cognizant of the fact that the 2468:- Though I want to echo SoWhy's comments. While I did/do think that the rlevse situation was becoming something of an unfortunate farce in several ways, I've never been a fan of an individual (often "rouge/rogue") admin short-circuiting (or bypassing) unblock/unban discussion by unilateral action. The main reason I find I need to support though is because, in my reading over the candidate's contribs, in most cases, they are willing to discuss admin actions, regardless of how obvious they feel the action was. And most closes, even back when doing non-admin ones, were decent and within the realm of discretion. A thoughful closer of discussions is a good thing. And per 190:

candidacies with a support level of 70% or lower are almost always deemed unsuccessful. With RfBs, the thresholds are 90% and 80% respectively. The discretionary area between those two thresholds is where bureaucrats must "earn their pay". There are a variety of things that must be considered for candidacies in the "grey area": how serious are the concerns in the oppose section? Are the concerns addressed or rebutted in any way by the supporters? Did the candidacy start off with strong support but continually decline as more diffs of poor behavior or judgment are presented? If the latter, have the supporters re-affirmed their support, or withdrawn it?

145:), I have blocked a few accounts due to username violations, but my areas of focus as an admin and editor have largely been in areas other than username issues. I have, however, taken the time to study the relevant policies, am a very quick study, and will be happy to answer any questions you may have to test my knowledge or judgment on username issues (or any other issues regarding the 'crat buttons.) Two areas relevant to the bureaucrat buttons in which I 3359:

there are many paths which lead to bureaucrat userpages. Since this is a service role the first duty is to meet the needs and expectations of other users, and whether it is reasonable for them to do so or not, I think that many users see bureaucrats as role models for community behavior. Because of this, I prefer people in such leadership roles to have a userpage which gives some information about what they do and what users may ask of them. Other points:

1632:. I asked a damned tough question, and one that can be used to oppose 28. I don't really need an answer, because I know that no matter what - 28 will do the right thing. There's very few people that I trust on wiki - I can count them on one hand. Even when he doesn't agree with me, I value his opinion. There's not a doubt in my mind that 28 would never fail his duties (regardless of what they were) - so I have full faith in supporting this. — 3985:

the community. It is not the job of a bureaucrat to substitute his or her opinion for the consensus of the community. Furthermore, it appears that 28bytes engaged in extensive off-wiki discussion and lobbying during the affair, which violates transparency - a fundamental aspect of Knowledge. Because of his actions I do not trust his ability to evaluate consensus. Sorry.

4056:

of edits. All were remedied, and the user in question has since voluntarily agreed to have his work reviewed by others to watch for close paraphasing, and has returned to be a valuable contributor. 28 was a voice of sanity in the midst of a highly volatile situation and to me this amply demonstrates that 28 is precisely the sort of person we need in this position.

3460:

helpful for anyone to read. I appreciate that I was unable to explain myself in a way that you can understand but I did the best I could and had good intentions. I am friendly and would respond if I knew what about my statement made it difficult for you to understand. My comment is important to me and all votes on any issue should be graciously accepted. Thank you.

4035:

looked at is what happened after the unblock: did the user go and cause trouble and get themselves blocked again? No, quite the opposite: they got to work creating and improving content, including writing a Featured Article that hit the main page just a short while ago. That tells me that the unblock (the rationale and unblock conditions for which I laid out

3515:. Once I have a chance to review the log files for each month, I delete the log files as they're no longer needed. (You can see in the link you provided that 28bot has a ton of deleted edits; that's what those are.) The current month will always have a giant yellow band in that report while the logging is active for that month. I hope this helps explain it. 3872:

given in every question above. They now wish to help in more areas of the project and by seeing their good track record, knowledge of Knowledge's policies and guidelines, varying experience and having a good judgement, they should become a Bureaucrat and help serve Knowledge even better. Best of luck and Regards 28bytes!

3413:? Maybe that it's rather wide? You say it's not "sufficiently inviting", which is pretty subjective. It does say "Welcome to my user page!", which is "inviting". Meh. You only hurt yourself with such an oppose. Oh, the surge in userspace edits by the bot would seem to be simply logging information to it's own userspace. 3950:(edit conflict) I'm not going to debate this at length, so this will be my only response on the matter. Your account of the situation is lacking in several crucial details, most likely through no fault of your own. Here are links to multiple community discussions of the Rlevse/Pumpkinsky/Barkingmoon problem: 2442:

support this request. I understand the concerns in oppose #2 and I share the opinion that he should not have unblocked Rlevse; not, because it wasn't the right decision - it was - but because it made it look to some users as if he did so because of his previous support of such an action. A reminder that

3813:

Fully able to help out with the extra bits. That you accepted an RFA nomination from one particularly undesirable and - frankly - borderline fruitcake editor does give me concern about your due diligence; however as you also accepted HJ's and Acalamari's nominations for adminship I guess you can't be

587:

rather than a group or business, but we shouldn't go overboard and insist that all traces of a person's association with a business be removed from the username, as that just serves to conceal a potential conflict of interest. (In granting the request, I would likely add a friendly reminder that they

320:

I chose those three examples as those were the main ones I could think of where my close was questioned, so that you can see how I deal with having my closes questioned. In the vast majority of cases, of course, my closes go uncommented upon, which is probably true for most admins. (I thought I might

4217:

Actually, they have. A number of people who have admins longer than 28bytes have volunteered for RfB (disclaimer: including myself) but were shot down for some reason or another. The problem is that the longer you are an admin, the more likely it is ta sufficient number of people have noticed you in

4055:

FWIW, I was one of the many editors who worked on the copyvio allegations, wherein virtually EVERY edit made was reviewed, and the "serial copyright violator" complaint is clearly without merit; there was found to be, at most, a few close paraphrases on a few articles out of thousands and thousands

3984:

I'm sure I've missed some discussions, but these should give you a flavor of the acrimony surrounding the situation. A former arbitrator who proved to be a serial copyright violator and known sockpuppeteer was unblocked with no discussion with the blocking admin and with significant opposition from

3358:

This candidate is great in the ways I checked except for a particular criteria which is important to me and the community for which I advocate - I do not find this user's userpage to be sufficiently inviting to other users. Bureaucrats are public figures on Knowledge and when people explore the site

3256:

but not so important that we can allow it to handicap us from making good judgement calls... and that is the very nature of what we expect out of a bureaucrat. 28bytes made a decision to unblock someone for the greater good of the encyclopedia. Whether or not it truly WAS in the best interest of the

502:

Well, that's a tough one, and there's no "one size fits all" answer. Keeping in mind that bureaucrats have no greater authority to close deletion discussions than anyone else, much of it will depend upon the strength of the arguments presented. However, if both sides make persuasive arguments and it

445:

I have no plans to stop contributing. Quite the opposite; I have a giant to-do list of things I want to accomplish while I'm here. I got my first GA just a couple of months ago; there are several other articles I've written that I'd love to improve to GA or even FA status this year or next. (And I'd

3871:

I'm Always happy to support potential candidates. 28bytes has done an impressive work in many areas of the project including administration. They have made fine edits to the article mainspace, are a hardworking trusted member of the community and also a well respected admin. Great and frank answers

3384:

Overall I oppose pending some change to the userpage. If there were a way to give this user bureaucrat tools without also flagging them as a public figure then I would, but I work with new users and as a representative advocating for the needs of that community I must oppose for now. New users need

3362:

This editor has been active since August 2010 and I evaluate this user's editing history as focused on admin-related tasks and much less on the development of any article content or field of content. What article contributions have been done are great and there are enough of them to prove that this

2446:

should be interpreted strictly is sufficient though; next time, just let another admin do it who was not previously involved. That way noone can doubt that the action was made based on neutral reasons. But a single occurrence like that doesn't mean that his judgment is generally faulty; we all make

629:

Well, that seems like a bad faith request on its face, as the username requested is obviously more provocative than what they offered to do in the unblock request. I would likely decline the request. If they immediately requested a more innocuous username, I would grant that request but keep an eye

376:

idea of visible consensus, especially when it's in the discretionary zone. If I stretch my mind I can think of some extreme scenarios (for instance, right before an RfA with 95% support is set to close, someone emails a 'crat convincing evidence that the candidate is a sock of a banned editor), but

4263:

That's only true in theory. Especially RfBs have often had opposes of the "we don't need more crats" kind, so any successful RfB might impair the chances of others - at least if a number of people decide to oppose based on that. On the other hand, this seems to have gone way down since 2010, so it

4034:

Hi Skinwalker. I respect your opinion, but for the record I stand by that unblock 100%. It was my view that the block was no longer serving any useful purpose, and was indeed actively harming the encyclopedia by keeping a good-faith, productive user from contributing. A key question that should be

3459:

Please respect my concern and the effort I took to express myself, but if you cannot do that then please try to be respectful of different viewpoints of other users. Knowledge is a better place when conversations are constructive and comments which are dismissive of the sincerity of others are not

726:

Excellent question. I personally think all three are quite valid reasons for an oppose, but more importantly, I believe there is a considerable portion of the community who considers these to be valid reasons to oppose. Although it's impossible to do so with scientific accuracy, I believe a 'crat

228:

On this question, I will let my talk page archives speak for me. If you come to my talk page with a question, concern or complaint, you will find that I will take your concerns seriously, explain my position to the best of my ability, and treat you with respect even if you disagree with something

4013:

For what it's worth, Skinwalker has laid out a fair summary of the events, and is quite correct that the discussions were very acrimonous. I like to think that the acrimony has dissipated a bit now that Rlevse/PumpkinSky has clearly demonstrated that he's able to edit in full accordance with our

477:

First my apologies for doing this - because I do consider you "one of the best". My question: You are asked to deal with a BLP issue where the community is roughly divided 50/50 on whether there should be an article. The subject has expressed a desire to not have the article. There are some

245:

Please link to a few closures you have performed that you are personally happy about/satisfied with/proud of (you get the idea, I hope). And explain each and why you picked each. Then also do the same with a few clearly heavily contentious discussions which you have closed. What I'm particularly

189:

Yes. Unlike many consensus-driven processes on Knowledge, RfAs and RfBs have developed relatively hard numeric boundaries, outside of which it is extremely unusual to see an "unexpected" result. In the case of RfAs, candidates with a support level of 80% or higher are almost always promoted, and

3480:

Huh, what is wrong on this oppose vote? Everyone has right to express themselves and this vote is a good point (telling someone that by voting like this you only hurt yourself, rather hurt yourself :P). Bureaucrats are public and their userpages are visible. Though I don't really see what's the

2441:

28bytes has a good track record of being fair, able to judge consensus correctly and staying calm, even under pressure. Add friendly and helpful to the mix and you got all the necessary requirements for a crat. I was happy to support 28bytes in his both RfAs and there is no reason for me to not

731:

candidacies, for example, have a lot to do with the fact that the candidate has little or no content contributions), but if forced to rank the opposes in terms of weight, I would have to put "b" first and "c" second, for the simple reason that candidates who are viewed to be withholding vital

3933:

This seems to be what happened here. The user returned, the old account is linked to the new one; since there were no prior outstanding blocks/bans/sanctions/editing restrictions/whatever before vanishing, the user was unblocked and allowed to resume editing. What's the problem with that?

3257:

project, I leave to others to judge, but I see an admin that stepped forward and made a difficult call when others stood back twiddling their thumbs and waiting for someone else to take the initiative. A level head and guts... I can't think of any set of qualities the project needs more.

3369:

The yogurt/yohgurt debate was an English Knowledge tragedy that drove many good users to bad behavior and at the time I wondered if that might not destroy the entire Knowledge project, but 28bytes somehow and with strong will sealed that controversy in such a way that satisfied all the

1664:

It's hard to believe that it's now been over a year since myself, Pedro, and HJ Mitchell nominated 28bytes for adminship. 28bytes is easily one of the best administrators around...I had no difficulty whatsoever in choosing to support this candidacy: he'll make an excellent bureaucrat.

404:

I believe that one of the problems facing bureaucratship is that once appointed crats slacken off as they have reached a pinacle of the Knowledge career (which I know, is somewhat of an exaggerated statement, however about half the appointed crats used their tools in the last 6

229:

I've done. Like any editor, I have made mistakes, and lost my cool once or twice, but I believe if you look through my talk page archives, you will find overall a knowledgeable, helpful editor who is willing to engage his fellow editors, and treat them with fairness and respect.

368:

The short answer is that they shouldn't do that, ever. There are a few caveats, of course: what one reasonable person considers visible consensus could easily be viewed as "no consensus" by another reasonable person, so it's certainly possible, even likely, to close against

213:

the decision should not be delayed at all. Much (but certainly not all) frustration and discontent from a close call can be prevented by proactively laying out the case and not making editors guess or have to play detective to understand why the call was made the way it

282:... you get the picture. I took a very long time to read and consider the arguments presented, and eventually determined that the consensus was to move the page back to its original title, but for a different reason than what was presented in the move request itself. 204:

The key thing to do, in my view, is to carefully lay out the case for the decision that's being made. Most editors are quite reasonable, and will be willing to listen if you can offer a well thought out rationale for why a close call went one way or another. While

620:

A user with a grossly offensive "block on sight" username has just been unblocked for 24 hours so that they may request a username change. In their unblock request they said that new name would be "monkeyman24" but instead they are requesting to be renamed

301:

of mine; one editor thought the close did not go far enough, another thought it went too far. I did slightly amend the closing statement to address the concerns of the former; to the latter, I offered a more detailed explanation of my rationale for the

4202:

That may be, but are those (purportedly) "more experienced" admins volunteering? I've been here way longer than most people, and I've never wanted to be a crat. The fact that 28bytes is willing to even take on this job counts for a lot in my book.

4126:

If I can chip in, I believe Yaplunpe saying that 28bytes is "way too green" means s/he is not ripe yet, if you will, as s/he is editing actively for only the last two years. It's kind of like a growing tomato, which is green if it isn't ripe yet.

582:

The names are similar, but I think there's a subtle difference between what appears to be a business, and what appears to be a person's name, so I would grant the request. It's important (for attribution reasons, etc.) that an account be tied to a

2391:

His works at Knowledge are very helpful. He has contributed to many articles. What now if he'll be contributing to the Knowledge community? It'll be of great responsibility, but I'm sure that with his tools, he'll be able to gain public trust.

4014:

policies, and of course it would have been impossible for him to demonstrate that while remaining blocked. If you have any questions on the chronology of things, or details about any of the events, I'll be happy to answer them on my talk page.

3547:

I make this assertion often enough and I get criticized for it often enough that I decided it was time to put my rationale on its own page. I stand by my opinion pending someone's provision of a convincing refutation of any of my premises. See

3381:; I would appreciate more documentation about dramatic changes in bot behavior and I see none on the talk page. I appreciate more documentation in general, actually. The good work that this user has done with this bot makes me support his RfB. 3315:

While I would have preferred a different handling of Rlevse, it was mostly a timing issue, not a disagreement with the action. Perfection isn't the right hurdle, so my positive views of almost every action taken by the candidate leads me to

2823:, although I share Someguy1221's concern. A good bureaucrat is expected to spend his free hours ripping the heads off small children and supping from the gelatinous fluids within, not making great edits like you do! Very disappointed :p. 3280:

The Rlevse issue was perhaps a misstep, but that was a very difficult circumstance, and I don't regard the actions taken as irresponsible or unreasonable, despite not personally agreeing with them. Apart from that, an ideal candidate.

418:. The other tasks are a little harder to predict (we're having a really good run of RfAs at the moment, but sometimes there'll be nothing to close for weeks at a time), but I'm certainly willing to put time into those tasks as well. 860:

I'm going to be traveling tonight and tomorrow; I'll be back online tomorrow night (around 8 PM New York time) to respond to any questions, so if you ask any tonight or early tomorrow, please don't think I'm ignoring you. Thanks,

553:

about that specific username, and the clear consensus was that the username wasn't problematic. Not unanimous consensus, but clear nonetheless. Since community consensus appears to be that the name is fine, I'd grant the request.

246:

looking for in these two groups of examples is a "showcase" of sorts of you determining consensus. (Feel free to take your time with this question, or even to ignore it if you prefer. I'm slowly going through contribs atm.) -

2239:

While his opening statement is brief, 28bytes' answers to the standard and other questions demonstrate the thoughtfulness and careful attitude required of a bureaucrat. I know of no other concerns about this candidate.

4039:) was the right thing to do. (I wish all the editors I've unblocked would go write an FA instead of getting themselves blocked again in short order.) But again, I respect that not everyone will agree with my decision. 3298:. It's taken me a while to catch up on, and get my head round the Rlevse debacle. I have always admired 28's level-headed approach to all things meta, and I have no concerns whatsoever with him being a bureaucrat. 3481:

problem in this case. The page is a bit overloaded with unneeded content and doesn't display some interesting information such as who is the user or what they do on wikipedia, but I think it's still good enough.

306: 285:

Now, with such a long-running dispute it's usually not possible to make everyone happy, but I believe the close was a solid one. I expected to get some dissent on my talk page along with some praise, and I did:

3251:

My only real comments surround the unblock of Rlevse. While I agree totally that this unblock was out of process and controversial, it was a judgement call taken by a level-headed and thoughtful administrator.

1690:

Initially I thought this was too early for bereaucratship, but as everyone knows how clueful and trustworthy the user is already, I think there's no reason why we can't give this editor these rights as well.

1928:. Fully qualified candidate for this position, and has expressed willingess to help out with the 'crat task where help is the most needed. With respect, I don't find the opposers' concerns to be persuasive. 503:

truly is a "no consensus" situation, the wrinkle, of course, is that a "no consensus" result in the case you describe is treated a little differently from the normal "default-to-keep" practice. According to

2328:

Morally speaking, both of them have (functionally speaking) have only done wrong. However, I was thinking geometrically, in which case it's definitely the left one that does the important stuff. I think.

2709:. The frequent questioning of RfA candidates is disappointing. However 28bytes intends to work in an area that would benefit from more regular bureaucratic input, and he has the appropriate experience. 1090:

Although I have not seen him in user renaming, he runs his own bot and would suite that purpose well. In addition to Floq's comment above (#1), he has never given me wrong advice as my primary mentor.--

3363:

user has maintained a sufficiently broad range of participation since becoming an admin to demonstrate continued connections with many aspects of Knowledge. For this reason, I support this user's RfB.

3495:

Hi Blue Rasberry. I'm not clear what you find objectionable about my userpage, but I am always open to suggestions. Feel free to stop by my talk page and we can discuss your concerns in more detail.

2906:, every time I've seen 28bytes around, I've seen not only good judgment but a crystal clear explanation as to why he came to the conclusion he did. Reviewing contributions shows more of the same. 128: 2672:

with very high enthusiasm. I think that this candidate is perfectly suited to the role. I've had many interactions with them, and, without fail, they have impressed me with their cluefulness. --

1613:

Experience, integrity, calm clear headed thinking, great knowledge, an excellent editing history; a truly fine candidate for bureaucrat - or anything else in the project for that matter.

550: 509:

Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete.

222:

Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

3211:

as per Q 6 where there is a requirement.User has been editing regularly since Aug 2010 and has been an admin since June 2011 and has been an excellent admin since and see no concerns.

377:

even then, simply closing as "not successful" against (visible) consensus without publicly disclosing the existence of the allegation is not the right way to handle such a situation.

2587:

to a highly successful one in just ~6 months. Let's accept this offer to take on more thankless work -- I am confident that the added work will be done with commitment and care. --

3422: 2323: 3511:

Oh, and regarding the bot: what appears to be new behavior this month actually isn't. It always logs a great deal of information about the edit tests it finds to log pages like

2583:

I have found the candidate to be a serious, sensible, and good-natured person. The quality of 28bytes' personal character and work is demonstrated by the way the user went from

727:

should be striving to weigh votes in accordance with how the community would weigh them. I've personally opposed more candidacies on the basis of "a" than "b" or "c" (many

4365: 3931:

If the user returns, the "vanishing" will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed.

3366:

I appreciate the history of excellent admin work this user has done and their interest in doing work related to the role of bureaucrat. I support this user's RfB for that.

1266:- My RfB standards are quite high, but 28bytes passes them. Most importantly I find the temperament ideal and I believe he has an even-handed nature. As Pumpkin Sky says, 687:. As best I can deduce from the article, NPR2 apparently plays some biological role, so to the degree it's kept me alive and healthy, I'm happy to thank it for its work. 450:

as well.) Granted, all of these goals are orthogonal to 'crat work, but I mention them merely to illustrate that I have a great deal more that I want to contribute here.

176:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

2073:

per excellent answers to questions along with already being a great admin with a proven track record, although of course this also means you are "more boring" than me.

4383: 447: 959: 3064:

I've looked into 28bytes in depth and I really can't see any problems. He's an excellent admin, has a knack for saying the right thing and getting stuff done.

954: 362:

Thanks for the offer to become a bureaucrat. Kindly give a few examples, if at all, where a bureaucrat can close an RfA discussion against visible consensus.

314: 142: 294:

is the type of response I always try to offer: I acknowledged his legitimate concerns, and offered a more detailed explanation of the closing rationale.

2513:

Has been very level headed in some contentious situations I have seen him involved in. Would be a benefit to the project to see him in this position. -

791: 4078:

He's been editing regularly for less than two years, and to me that doesn't seem enough time time to judge someone's suitability to be a bureaucrat.

1224: 1012: 2584: 322: 4249:

Exactly: RfA/B isn't zero-sum, and one candidate being nominated doesn't in any way impair the chances of any other "more experienced" candidates.

2643:- Fantastic admin who can certainly be trusted to act properly as a bureaucrat, and has the right skills and knowledge to not get things wrong. 1253: 3630:- I've interacted with 28 countless times on the project and I have every confidence that they'll be a great asset to our bureaucrat team. -- 3436: 2347: 897: 17: 3446: 1977: 778: 439:

What is your long-term time frame for continuing to contribute to Knowledge (that is, are you only planning to edit for another 6 months)?

2291:

Who could oppose 28 bytes? I would trust him with my right testicle. It's not my favourite testicle, but it's still one of my testicles!

2197:- A level-headed user with sound judgement and community trust. Impressive answers to questions. I think they would make a fine 'crat. ~ 630:

on their edits for a bit to see if the first rename request was just a momentary lapse in judgment or if they were here simply to troll.

711:

Given an RfA in the discretionary range, all else being equal, how would you close if most or all of the oppose !votes were based on...

2404: 2121:. It is really great to see such level-headed, thoughtful answers to the questions. I think 28bytes will do really well as a crat. 1246: 949: 4240:

Will you be nominating them, then? Maybe there are more experience admins; that doesn't take from 28bytes suitability for the role.

2341: 2319: 2303: 1008: 720:

c) the candidate's answer to a question on which policy is absent or ambiguous (an example would be the "open to recall" question)

3216: 2996: 1526: 1050: 821: 672: 33: 815: 408:

So my question is this, how much time would be be willing to devote to doing bureaucrat tasks (for example, per week or month)?

3343: 3146: 3042: 2772: 1295: 1074: 785: 3230: 3019: 2501: 538:

Since you have expressed an interest in CHU, here are some hypotheticals. Please indicate how you would respond to each one:

574:

A user has been warned that their username "Bob's House of Tires" is overly promotional. They wish to change it to "TireBob"

3965: 3955: 3512: 3378: 2359:

The other crats could apparently use the help, and this guy seems sensible enough and then some to probably be of help. -—

732:

information about their account history from the community tend to end up before the arbitration committee. (Certainly the

183:

Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

157:

one shows when creating and improving articles is something that must be set aside when acting as a bureaucrat. Thank you.

3427:

I must admit I'm having trouble seeing the user page as an issue. No doubt the closing crat will make his own judgment.--

3186:

28bytes is a find admin - if they would like to expand their role to include bureaucrat tasks I fully trust their ability.

2130: 1697: 1465: 1428: 847: 830: 771: 657:

Please click on Random Article, then come back and explain how the subject of that article has most influenced your life.

92: 4218:

a negative way for you to fail RfB. Considering this, running sooner rather than later is actually a smart move. Regards

3409:

You're opposing (primarily) because you don't like his user page? Really? (/sighs/ you've done this before). Is it this:

3685: 2315: 1004: 310: 298: 291: 3549: 3529:

Huh? Crats are public figures? Nah, they should fly under the radar. Blue R, I think you're calling this one wrongly.

3212: 3104: 2697: 1879: 985: 975: 104: 3779:

Also thought I !voted already. Good thing I realized in time, but I'm happy to support such a qualified candidate.--

4208: 3665: 3286: 3077: 1843: 1598: 1552: 1398: 1379: 736:

has underscored how unwise it would be to take lightly concerns about a candidate's lack of disclosure in an RfA.)

122: 110: 4187:

Linking an entire sentence to a redlink is even more awsome IF YOU USE CAPS LOCK AND EXTRA PUNCTUATION!!!!!!!!!!!!

3618: 890: 98: 3970: 3960: 198:

How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

3877: 3450: 2425: 1974: 1723: 1461: 923: 116: 3159:- 28 is cool, calm, and collected (and great at determining consensus to boot). He'll make a wonderful 'crat! 2621:. No concerns. (And although it may be impolitic to say so, serious props for any editor who can effectively 3999:

Hmm, OK, thanks. I was not aware of the above history, and will have to read through the links you provided.

3418: 1219: 1195: 944: 3977:- 28bytes unilaterally unblocks Pumpkinsky after defending him throughout the aforementioned AN discussions. 3750: 3682: 2027: 1909:- Their answers to the questions are superb and I see no trouble in trusting this user with few extra bits. 1499: 1210: 1840: 4350: 4333: 4315: 4277: 4258: 4244: 4231: 4212: 4197: 4179: 4150: 4136: 4121: 4105: 4087: 4062: 4048: 4023: 4008: 3994: 3990: 3943: 3913: 3909: 3881: 3863: 3859: 3844: 3830: 3805: 3788: 3771: 3756: 3738: 3724: 3705: 3688: 3673: 3649: 3622: 3591: 3584: 3567: 3560: 3542: 3524: 3504: 3490: 3475: 3468: 3454: 3400: 3393: 3347: 3327: 3307: 3290: 3272: 3263: 3243: 3220: 3199: 3178: 3164: 3151: 3127: 3110: 3083: 3056: 3047: 3024: 3000: 2978: 2961: 2949: 2933: 2912: 2898: 2882: 2870: 2853: 2832: 2815: 2798: 2782: 2753: 2739: 2722: 2701: 2681: 2664: 2647: 2635: 2613: 2596: 2575: 2552: 2536: 2522: 2505: 2482: 2469: 2460: 2433: 2420: 2410: 2399: 2383: 2366: 2309: 2283: 2279: 2267: 2250: 2234: 2220: 2203: 2189: 2172: 2155: 2137: 2113: 2082: 2061: 2045: 2031: 2014: 1997: 1994: 1982: 1960: 1937: 1919: 1901: 1884: 1865: 1846: 1831: 1814: 1794: 1776: 1759: 1742: 1738: 1725: 1709: 1682: 1669: 1659: 1648: 1624: 1605: 1580: 1559: 1531: 1511: 1485: 1469: 1452: 1419: 1402: 1385: 1358: 1338: 1321: 1317: 1299: 1279: 1258: 1241: 1175: 1169: 1157: 1140: 1114: 1097: 1085: 1055: 1026: 939: 870: 745: 696: 639: 609: 563: 520: 494: 459: 427: 386: 334: 269: 252: 166: 70: 4114: 4096:- The nom looks like a decent editor but they are also way too green man. Come back in two years please. 1912: 1822:

I thought that he already was a bureaucrat, and based on what I've seen of his admin-ship, he should be.

4254: 4204: 4101: 3734: 3658: 3282: 3065: 2735: 2566: 2532: 2336: 2298: 2109: 2056: 1933: 1787: 1591: 1394: 1110: 1094: 275: 4364:

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

1368: 3052:

Oh yes, one of the most qualified candidates for this job. Cares about the community and its editors.

2806:. Has shown a good approach to the issues at hand as an admin, and is ready for handling crat issues. 600:, and understand that regardless of their username, promotional editing will likely lead to a block.) 209:

the decision might take some time (and may require consultation with other, more experienced 'crats),

4346: 4193: 4132: 3986: 3905: 3701: 3614: 3410: 3322: 2992: 2944: 2847: 2677: 2633: 2275: 2185: 2078: 1860: 1641: 1522: 1275: 1207: 1135: 1043: 1022: 883: 649: 487: 278:. This had been a long-running naming dispute with multiple move requests, AN/I threads, an entry in 1873:

I see lots of good edits, and you seem to readily admit your mistakes. No obvious reason to oppose.

1460:. It would be a yes for Yogurt alone ;-) Very sound judgment and understanding, and trustworthy. -- 3873: 3719: 3141: 3123: 3038: 2983:

Yup. Candidate can't spell yoghurt properly, but apart from that he seems to be fit for the role.—

2828: 2810: 2768: 2749: 2547: 2151: 2095: 1969: 1772: 1755: 1718: 1618: 1081: 918: 3764:

Thought I !voted already. Clear support. Not a single thing I can gripe about this user.--v/r -

2629:, as evidenced at Yog(h)urt. Thank you, that work benefits the encyclopedia and its community.) -- 1968:. I've worked with 28bytes a few times, and from what I've seen he would make an excellent 'crat. 1031:

Absolutely, I've long been impressed with 28bytes. We also have a known lack of crats working at

478:

reliable source which claim some derogatory information about the subject. How do you respond? —

4173: 4163: 3747: 3746:

I have had nothing but pleasant interactions with this user and I believe he suited for the job.—

3414: 3170: 3014: 2907: 2730:

Your RFA history shows you are far too nice and forgiving to be trusted with the bureaucrat bit.

2495: 2443: 2023: 1494: 1427:

I've seen this user around, and they do a very good job. No doubt they will be an awesome 'crat!

1215: 1188: 843: 138: 4128: 3268:

Only real concern is a relative lack of tenure, but other than that, fully qualified candidate.

1588:

An editor of intelligence with a sense of justice. He behaved honorably in my RfC, for example.

1018: 511:

The question then turns to whether (and to what degree) the article subject is a public figure.

3854:. Solid, thoughtful, prefers to avoid drama (or at least, prefers to avoid exacerbating it). -- 1363:

It would be very beneficial for Knowledge to grant 28bytes the bureaucrat flag. In particular,

141:

and elsewhere, and, quite simply, I'd like to help out. Since becoming an admin last year (RfA

4146: 4083: 4044: 4019: 3855: 3840: 3577: 3553: 3520: 3500: 3461: 3432: 3386: 3303: 2974: 2879: 2777: 2622: 2518: 2417: 2394: 2263: 2010: 1991: 1811: 1734: 1703: 1656: 1440: 1354: 1309: 1235: 1164: 1153: 866: 765: 741: 692: 635: 605: 559: 516: 455: 423: 382: 353: 330: 309:. The editor who objected to the close (and his position was reasonable) discussed it with me 265: 162: 86: 4186: 3796:

Like the two supporters above, I thought I already added my support. I don't see any issues.

305:

For completeness' sake, here is the one close I performed that was taken to deletion review:

4250: 4164:

I'm sorry, but I think there are TONS of other admins who are *way* more experienced. Sorry.

3784: 3768: 3730: 2794: 2731: 2592: 2561: 2528: 2363: 2331: 2293: 2105: 2051: 1955: 1929: 1827: 1680: 1573: 1334: 1126:. He's also calm, levelheaded, and never forgets there are real people behind our usernames. 1106: 1091: 728: 541:

A user currently has a perfectly acceptable username, but wishes to change it to "Nipples37"

504: 4342: 4329: 4271: 4225: 4189: 4004: 3939: 3901: 3823: 3697: 3644: 3537: 3486: 3317: 3269: 3197: 2984: 2939: 2928: 2842: 2693: 2673: 2630: 2609: 2454: 2379: 2258:

The candidate is a good decision maker and stays calm under pressure. Highly qualified --

2216: 2181: 2074: 2040: 1897: 1855: 1636: 1517: 1271: 1127: 1036: 676: 530: 482: 469: 287: 61: 1003:

Yes, please. I have enormous respect for 28's judgement, maturity, care, and attitude. --

2104:. Can't see any problems, excellent answers to questions, and opposes are unconvincing. 4057: 3801: 3714: 3385:

to see bureaucrat userpages as welcoming and directive. Thanks for submitting the RfB.

3337: 3258: 3136: 3119: 3034: 2866: 2824: 2807: 2763: 2745: 2626: 2542: 2229: 2168: 2147: 2091: 1784:. Impressive admin work, trustworthy, and helpful. I can't see any reason to oppose. — 1768: 1751: 1666: 1614: 1547: 1478: 1415: 1290: 597: 593: 396: 279: 154: 4377: 4241: 4168: 4097: 3926: 3922: 3253: 3208: 3009: 2720: 2660: 2644: 2491: 2248: 1364: 1032: 680: 589: 415: 134: 3925:, and not because there was some sort of a prior block/ban/other sanction in place. 2604:- If he wants to roll up his sleeves and help in this way, why not. Seems clued in. 4142: 4079: 4040: 4015: 3972:

Rlevse's return request - the outcome of which is best described as "no consensus".

3836: 3516: 3496: 3428: 3299: 3160: 2970: 2514: 2259: 2122: 2006: 1804: 1692: 1653: 1432: 1347: 1329:

User seems to have a good grasp of the ideals of bureacratship. No problems here.

1149: 862: 761: 737: 688: 631: 601: 555: 512: 451: 419: 378: 346: 326: 261: 158: 81: 1410:. 'Crats are paid? Focus, reason, and insight coupled with appropriate restraint. 1346:

One of my favorite contributors on Knowledge and quite capable to be a bureaucrat.

1287:

Everything I've seen indicates an even temperament and generally clued-in nature.

508: 3929:

specifically addresses the possibility of a vanished user returning to editing:

3897: 3780: 3765: 3053: 2891: 2790: 2588: 2360: 2198: 1946: 1823: 1675: 1568: 1330: 980: 297:

Just above that section in the talk page archive, you can see some editors who

4325: 4266: 4220: 4000: 3935: 3817: 3632: 3530: 3482: 3374: 3187: 3095: 2958: 2921: 2688: 2605: 2449: 2375: 2212: 1893: 1874: 717:

b) refusal to publicly disclose previous account(s) in a clean-start situation

150: 3032:- will it be a net benefit to the project? Yes. Do I have any concerns? No.-- 1234:

I'm quite comfortable with him having a few extra tools, no worries at all.

4311: 4302: 3797: 2862: 2478: 2164: 1411: 414:

My intention is to spend at least an hour every day or two helping out with

248: 237: 2890:- 28bytes has shown many times that they're thoughtful, fair and thorough-- 1542: 667:. :) At the risk of sounding ignorant, I will confess that I have not even 4341:

Not much edits for a crat and quite inactive for months in the beginning.

3008:- Solid editor and admin, and I like the reply in oppose #2. Count me in. 2969:

Good steady editor, good steady admin. Should be a good steady crat too.

2710: 2656: 2527:

Easy. An extremely clueful and competent candidate. Opposes are bizarre.

2241: 1733:. Short and precise in words, bold and just in action, most helpful, -- 2090:. I'm new here but 28bytes seems like an active and responsible user. 4368:

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

2005:. Good admin, good answers to questions, well-suited for the role. - 4358:

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

3921:

it appears that Rlevse's account was blocked in November 2010 under

846:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 307:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Alan Parsons in a Winter Wonderland

149:

been active are bot work and RfAs. I have a very well-behaved bot (

2957:...no evidence extra tools and responsibilities will be misused.-- 1367:

could use the extra assistance. I definitely trust his judgement.

875: 3918:

What exactly is the problem with this unblock? From the block log

3377:

but I am curious what this bot started doing this month as shown

3370:

participants/victims. For this reason, I support this user's RfB.

684: 4174: 879: 2878:- Seems level headed and capable of judging consensus fairly. 313:, but we could not come to an agreement there, so I suggested 2039:

with pleasure; an excellent candidate, sensible and helpful.

2163:- I would certainly trust 28bytes with the extra buttons. — 1307:

A voice of reason. I put much trust in 28bytes' judgement.

1148:

Heck yes. Bravery in his actions, bravery for running.--

29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

4111:

Sorry, but I didn't get the meaning of "way too green".

549:

I'm at an advantage here in that there has already been

133:– Hello, everyone. I've seen some of the comments about 4036: 3975: 3919: 3573: 809: 803: 797: 733: 664: 1567:

Great and trustworthy user. Would make a good 'crat. —

4300:#Me for now. (And now I get to do some reading...) - 1892:, level-headed, trustworthy, will make a good 'crat. 4169: 3896:

due to his unilateral and out-of-process unblock of

2761:

great candidate, I add my support with no concerns.

2476:

read for content. Oh, and also per beeblebrox : ) -

2472:, I think I can feel comfortable that the candidate 53:Final (135/3/2); ended 00:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC) 1717:. Calm, even-handed and good answers to questions. 968: 932: 911: 1807:Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} 4264:might actually be correct nowadays. :-) Regards 1508:No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 671:of the first four article subjects I landed on: 1767:. On examination, everything looks perfect. -- 2069:If I can't have it nobody can! No seriously, 891: 8: 3373:I am grateful for this user's management of 2560:. Experienced. Opposes are unconvincing. 828:Edit summary usage for 28bytes can be found 2840:Very trustworthy well-rounded contributor! 1477:– has the experience, and the temperament. 290:requested that I re-consider my close, and 1802:Good sensible answers - Super-Mop please! 898: 884: 876: 2050:Sure. Seems like a reasonable chappie. -- 3967:- Second suspected sockpuppet of Rlevse. 2541:Support, good candidate as shown above. 1990:- great admin, will make a great 'crat. 1162:Yes, you have my support. Best of luck. 842:Please keep discussion constructive and 4141:Yaplunpe was blocked as a sockpuppet. 3962:- First suspected sockpuppet of Rlevse. 3835:LOL, took me a second. I'm slow today. 1270:is the key and I think 28bytes has it. 4384:Successful requests for bureaucratship 1060:I am happy seeing this nomination and 325:, for example, but so far I haven't.) 260:Will take a few minutes, but will do. 3957:- Discussion of copyright violations. 3118:I think that you can do a good job... 18:Knowledge:Requests for bureaucratship 7: 4251:Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) 2627:much-ado-about-nothing edit warring 2529:Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) 1035:. 28bytes is perfect for the job. 705:Additional question from Nikkimaria 2022:. Great answers to the questions. 24: 1839:Aren't you already a bureaucrat? 3550:User:Bluerasberry/userpagepolicy 2447:mistakes after all. :-) Regards 1122:. What counts most in a crat is 714:a) lack of content contributions 274:The big one, of course, was the 1750:, do not expect any problems-- 1105:No concerns, great candidate. 1064:28bytes without equivocation. 1: 2314:You have a wrong testicle? -- 2211:- without any reservation. -- 1184:Not a concern in the world ;) 673:Campina Grande do Sul, Paraná 3572:I change my vote because of 1205:01:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC) ← 3814:too off your rocker. Best. 3696:per answer to my question. 2780:(etc) template appreciated. 2490:Likely to be net positive. 1017:I think you'll do well. :) 172:Questions for the candidate 4400: 4278:17:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 4259:15:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 4245:13:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 4232:17:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 3882:21:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 3864:21:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 3845:20:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 3831:20:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 3806:17:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 3789:16:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 3772:13:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 3757:12:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 3739:09:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 3725:04:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 3706:03:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 3689:03:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 3674:00:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 3207:The user plans to work in 2146:. Qualified candidate. -- 395:Additional questions from 292:the response I offered him 71:00:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC) 34:request for bureaucratship 4351:11:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 4334:14:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 4316:13:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 4306:00:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 4213:10:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC) 4198:06:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC) 4180:01:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 4151:14:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 4137:12:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 4122:09:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 4106:08:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 4088:08:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC) 4063:22:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 4049:14:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 4024:15:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 4009:14:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 3995:14:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 3944:14:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 3914:13:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 3650:17:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC) 3623:15:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC) 3592:14:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC) 3568:20:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 3543:04:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 3525:14:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 3505:14:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 3491:14:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 3476:12:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 3455:17:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 3437:11:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 3423:11:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 3401:11:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 3348:14:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC) 3328:14:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC) 3308:12:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC) 3291:10:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC) 3273:04:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC) 3264:00:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC) 3244:21:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 3221:21:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 3200:19:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 3179:16:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 3165:16:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 3152:14:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 3135:Great work as an admin. — 3128:14:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 3111:14:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 3084:10:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 3057:09:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 3048:08:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 3025:01:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 3001:00:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 2979:21:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 2962:16:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 2950:15:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 2934:04:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 2913:00:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 2899:23:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC) 2883:22:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC) 2871:20:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC) 2854:13:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC) 2833:12:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC) 2816:10:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC) 2799:08:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC) 2783:04:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC) 2754:04:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC) 2740:23:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 2723:20:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 2702:19:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 2682:19:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 2665:19:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 2648:18:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 2636:17:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 2614:17:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 2597:17:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 2576:16:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 2553:15:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 2537:14:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 2523:14:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 2506:13:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 2483:13:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 2461:11:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 2434:11:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 2411:09:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 2384:04:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 2367:02:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 2348:01:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 2324:01:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 2310:01:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 2284:23:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 2268:23:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 2251:22:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 2235:22:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 2221:21:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 2204:21:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 2190:21:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 2173:21:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 2156:20:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 2138:20:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 2114:20:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 2083:19:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 2062:19:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 2046:19:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 2032:19:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 2015:17:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1998:16:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1983:16:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1961:16:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1938:16:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1920:13:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1902:13:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1885:13:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1866:11:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1847:11:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1832:11:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1815:10:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1795:10:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1777:09:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1760:09:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1743:09:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1726:08:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1710:08:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1683:08:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1670:07:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1660:06:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1649:06:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1625:06:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1606:06:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1581:06:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1560:05:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1532:05:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1512:05:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1486:05:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1470:05:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1453:04:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1420:04:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1403:04:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1386:04:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1359:04:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1339:04:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1322:02:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1300:02:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1280:01:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1259:01:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1225:16:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 1176:01:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1158:01:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1141:01:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1115:01:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1098:01:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1086:00:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1056:00:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1027:00:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 1013:00:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 871:19:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC) 746:06:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC) 697:21:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 648:Additional question from 640:17:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 610:17:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 564:17:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 529:Additional question from 521:07:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 495:06:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 460:05:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 428:05:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 387:03:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 345:Additional question from 335:03:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 299:objected to another close 270:02:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 253:01:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 236:Additional question from 167:00:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 4361:Please do not modify it. 2228:-per all of the above. 321:get some complaints for 38:Please do not modify it 3213:Pharaoh of the Wizards 2316:Floquenstein's monster 1005:Floquenstein's monster 3335:- just what we need. 3254:Process is important, 1945:, of course. Cheers! 1880:What did I break now? 276:Yogurt/Yoghurt battle 3681:, per Pumpkinsky. – 3411:User:28bytes/banner4 1854:, could do well. -- 981:Global contributions 4309:Moved to support - 2744:Great candidate. – 2585:an unsuccessful RfA 1462:Boing! said Zebedee 945:Non-automated edits 848:their contributions 759:Links for 28bytes: 505:our deletion policy 323:deleting "Bennifer" 137:backlogs posted at 3754:Temporarily Online 3043:List of good deeds 1539:trustworthy user. 924:Edit summary usage 850:before commenting. 734:recent ArbCom case 39: 4318: 3829: 2999: 2911: 2813: 2781: 2655:with no concern. 2551: 2374:Well qualified. 2136: 2060: 2044: 1883: 1647: 1623: 1604: 1530: 1510: 1484: 1257: 1249: 1244: 1227: 1203: 1120:Strongest Support 1079: 1053: 994: 993: 663:Heh, that sounds 621:"monkeyspanker69" 493: 66: 37: 4391: 4363: 4308: 4274: 4269: 4228: 4223: 4176: 4171: 4117: 4060: 3828: 3826: 3815: 3722: 3717: 3672: 3670: 3663: 3647: 3641: 3638: 3635: 3589: 3588: 3582: 3565: 3564: 3558: 3540: 3535: 3473: 3472: 3466: 3398: 3397: 3391: 3325: 3320: 3261: 3242: 3240: 3235: 3195: 3177:this message! - 3149: 3144: 3139: 3107: 3098: 3080: 3074: 3073: 3046: 3045: 3022: 3017: 3012: 2991: 2989: 2947: 2942: 2931: 2926: 2910: 2896: 2850: 2845: 2811: 2776: 2719: 2715: 2625:the extremes of 2573: 2564: 2545: 2457: 2452: 2432: 2430: 2423: 2409: 2407: 2402: 2397: 2346: 2344: 2339: 2334: 2308: 2306: 2301: 2296: 2246: 2232: 2201: 2133: 2128: 2125: 2054: 2043: 1972: 1953: 1915: 1877: 1863: 1858: 1813: 1808: 1790: 1789:Mr. Stradivarius 1721: 1706: 1700: 1695: 1678: 1646: 1644: 1633: 1621: 1617: 1603: 1601: 1596: 1589: 1578: 1571: 1558: 1555: 1550: 1545: 1520: 1504: 1497: 1483: 1481: 1447: 1438: 1395:Morning Sunshine 1382: 1376: 1372: 1351: 1320: 1315: 1312: 1251: 1247: 1242: 1206: 1202: 1200: 1193: 1186: 1174: 1172: 1167: 1138: 1133: 1130: 1071: 1051: 940:Articles created 900: 893: 886: 877: 833: 825: 784: 754:General comments 510: 492: 490: 479: 375: 350: 132: 68: 64: 60: 58: 4399: 4398: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4390: 4389: 4388: 4374: 4373: 4372: 4366:this nomination 4359: 4294: 4272: 4267: 4226: 4221: 4115: 4058: 3890: 3824: 3816: 3755: 3720: 3715: 3666: 3659: 3657: 3645: 3639: 3636: 3633: 3615:Wagino 20100516 3586: 3585: 3578: 3562: 3561: 3554: 3538: 3531: 3470: 3469: 3462: 3395: 3394: 3387: 3346: 3323: 3318: 3300:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 3259: 3236: 3231: 3229: 3193: 3147: 3142: 3137: 3109: 3105: 3096: 3078: 3067: 3066: 3037: 3033: 3020: 3015: 3010: 2985: 2945: 2940: 2929: 2922: 2892: 2848: 2843: 2717: 2711: 2567: 2562: 2455: 2450: 2429: 2426: 2421: 2415: 2405: 2400: 2395: 2393: 2342: 2337: 2332: 2330: 2304: 2299: 2294: 2292: 2242: 2230: 2199: 2180:. No Question. 2135: 2131: 2123: 1980: 1970: 1947: 1913: 1882: 1861: 1856: 1806: 1803: 1788: 1719: 1704: 1698: 1693: 1676: 1642: 1634: 1619: 1599: 1592: 1590: 1574: 1569: 1553: 1548: 1543: 1540: 1506: 1500: 1479: 1445: 1442: 1436: 1433: 1380: 1374: 1370: 1349: 1313: 1310: 1308: 1298: 1196: 1194: 1187: 1170: 1165: 1163: 1136: 1131: 1128: 1077: 1000: 995: 990: 964: 928: 907: 906:RfA/RfB toolbox 904: 857: 829: 777: 760: 756: 677:Yousef Munayyer 488: 480: 470:User:Ched Davis 468:Questions from 446:love to get on 373: 348: 315:deletion review 311:on my talk page 288:User:Pmanderson 174: 84: 79: 67: 62: 56: 55: 50: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4397: 4395: 4387: 4386: 4376: 4375: 4371: 4370: 4354: 4353: 4336: 4322: 4321: 4320: 4319: 4293: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4234: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4116:TheSpecialUser 4073: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4032: 4031: 4030: 4029: 4028: 4027: 4026: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3973: 3968: 3963: 3958: 3889: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3874:TheGeneralUser 3866: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3808: 3791: 3774: 3759: 3753: 3741: 3727: 3708: 3691: 3676: 3652: 3625: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3580:Blue Rasberry 3556:Blue Rasberry 3509: 3508: 3507: 3464:Blue Rasberry 3457: 3447:198.185.18.207 3445:own judgment. 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3389:Blue Rasberry 3371: 3367: 3364: 3350: 3342: 3330: 3310: 3293: 3275: 3266: 3246: 3223: 3202: 3181: 3167: 3154: 3130: 3113: 3103: 3086: 3059: 3050: 3027: 3003: 2981: 2964: 2952: 2936: 2915: 2901: 2885: 2873: 2856: 2835: 2821:Strong support 2818: 2801: 2785: 2756: 2742: 2725: 2704: 2684: 2667: 2650: 2638: 2616: 2599: 2578: 2555: 2539: 2525: 2508: 2485: 2463: 2436: 2427: 2413: 2386: 2369: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2286: 2270: 2253: 2237: 2223: 2206: 2192: 2175: 2158: 2141: 2129: 2116: 2099: 2085: 2064: 2048: 2034: 2017: 2000: 1985: 1978: 1971:The Utahraptor 1963: 1940: 1922: 1904: 1887: 1878: 1868: 1849: 1834: 1817: 1797: 1779: 1762: 1745: 1728: 1720:Kim Dent-Brown 1712: 1685: 1674:Easy support. 1672: 1662: 1651: 1627: 1608: 1583: 1562: 1534: 1514: 1498: 1488: 1472: 1455: 1443: 1434: 1422: 1405: 1388: 1361: 1344:Strong support 1341: 1324: 1302: 1294: 1282: 1261: 1229: 1178: 1160: 1143: 1117: 1100: 1088: 1073: 1058: 1029: 1015: 999: 996: 992: 991: 989: 988: 983: 978: 972: 970: 966: 965: 963: 962: 957: 952: 947: 942: 936: 934: 930: 929: 927: 926: 921: 915: 913: 909: 908: 905: 903: 902: 895: 888: 880: 874: 873: 856: 853: 839: 838: 837: 835: 826: 755: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 721: 718: 715: 706: 702: 701: 700: 699: 652: 645: 644: 643: 642: 623: 622: 615: 614: 613: 612: 588:should review 576: 575: 569: 568: 567: 566: 543: 542: 533: 526: 525: 524: 523: 472: 465: 464: 463: 462: 433: 432: 431: 430: 406: 399: 392: 391: 390: 389: 357: 342: 341: 340: 339: 338: 337: 318: 303: 295: 283: 240: 233: 232: 231: 230: 217: 216: 215: 193: 192: 191: 173: 170: 78: 75: 59: 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4396: 4385: 4382: 4381: 4379: 4369: 4367: 4362: 4356: 4355: 4352: 4348: 4344: 4340: 4337: 4335: 4331: 4327: 4324: 4323: 4317: 4314: 4313: 4307: 4305: 4304: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4291: 4279: 4276: 4275: 4270: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4256: 4252: 4248: 4247: 4246: 4243: 4239: 4233: 4230: 4229: 4224: 4216: 4215: 4214: 4210: 4206: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4195: 4191: 4188: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4181: 4178: 4177: 4172: 4165: 4162: 4152: 4148: 4144: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4134: 4130: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4103: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4085: 4081: 4077: 4074: 4064: 4061: 4054: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4038: 4033: 4025: 4021: 4017: 4012: 4011: 4010: 4006: 4002: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3992: 3988: 3983: 3976: 3974: 3971: 3969: 3966: 3964: 3961: 3959: 3956: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3941: 3937: 3932: 3928: 3924: 3920: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3911: 3907: 3903: 3899: 3895: 3892: 3891: 3887: 3883: 3879: 3875: 3870: 3867: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3853: 3850: 3846: 3842: 3838: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3827: 3821: 3820: 3812: 3809: 3807: 3803: 3799: 3795: 3792: 3790: 3786: 3782: 3778: 3775: 3773: 3770: 3767: 3763: 3760: 3758: 3752: 3749: 3745: 3742: 3740: 3736: 3732: 3728: 3726: 3723: 3718: 3712: 3709: 3707: 3703: 3699: 3695: 3692: 3690: 3687: 3684: 3680: 3677: 3675: 3671: 3669: 3664: 3662: 3656: 3653: 3651: 3648: 3643: 3642: 3629: 3626: 3624: 3620: 3616: 3612: 3609: 3593: 3590: 3583: 3581: 3575: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3566: 3559: 3557: 3551: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3541: 3536: 3534: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3498: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3474: 3467: 3465: 3458: 3456: 3452: 3448: 3444: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3434: 3430: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3420: 3416: 3412: 3408: 3407: 3402: 3399: 3392: 3390: 3383: 3382: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3365: 3361: 3360: 3357: 3354: 3351: 3349: 3345: 3340: 3339: 3334: 3331: 3329: 3326: 3321: 3314: 3311: 3309: 3305: 3301: 3297: 3294: 3292: 3288: 3284: 3279: 3276: 3274: 3271: 3267: 3265: 3262: 3255: 3250: 3247: 3245: 3241: 3239: 3234: 3227: 3224: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3210: 3206: 3203: 3201: 3198: 3196: 3192: 3191: 3185: 3182: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3171:Mailer Diablo 3168: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3155: 3153: 3150: 3145: 3140: 3134: 3131: 3129: 3125: 3121: 3117: 3114: 3112: 3108: 3106:Contributions 3101: 3100: 3099: 3091:no concerns. 3090: 3087: 3085: 3081: 3075: 3072: 3071: 3063: 3060: 3058: 3055: 3051: 3049: 3044: 3040: 3036: 3031: 3028: 3026: 3023: 3018: 3013: 3007: 3004: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2988: 2982: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2965: 2963: 2960: 2956: 2953: 2951: 2948: 2943: 2937: 2935: 2932: 2927: 2925: 2919: 2916: 2914: 2909: 2908:Seraphimblade 2905: 2902: 2900: 2897: 2895: 2889: 2886: 2884: 2881: 2877: 2874: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2857: 2855: 2852: 2851: 2846: 2839: 2836: 2834: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2819: 2817: 2814: 2809: 2805: 2802: 2800: 2796: 2792: 2789: 2786: 2784: 2779: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2765: 2760: 2757: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2726: 2724: 2721: 2716: 2714: 2708: 2705: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2690: 2685: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2668: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2651: 2649: 2646: 2642: 2639: 2637: 2634: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2617: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2600: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2579: 2577: 2574: 2572: 2571: 2565: 2559: 2556: 2554: 2549: 2544: 2540: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2509: 2507: 2503: 2500: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2486: 2484: 2481: 2480: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2464: 2462: 2459: 2458: 2453: 2445: 2440: 2437: 2435: 2431: 2424: 2419: 2414: 2412: 2408: 2403: 2401:wants to talk 2398: 2390: 2387: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2373: 2370: 2368: 2365: 2362: 2358: 2355: 2349: 2345: 2340: 2335: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2307: 2302: 2297: 2290: 2287: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2274: 2271: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2254: 2252: 2249: 2247: 2245: 2238: 2236: 2233: 2227: 2224: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2207: 2205: 2202: 2196: 2193: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2176: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2159: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2142: 2140: 2139: 2134: 2126: 2120: 2117: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2100: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2086: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2065: 2063: 2058: 2053: 2049: 2047: 2042: 2038: 2035: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2024:Torreslfchero 2021: 2018: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2004: 2001: 1999: 1996: 1993: 1989: 1986: 1984: 1981: 1975: 1973: 1967: 1964: 1962: 1959: 1958: 1954: 1952: 1951: 1944: 1941: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1921: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1908: 1905: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1888: 1886: 1881: 1876: 1872: 1869: 1867: 1864: 1859: 1853: 1850: 1848: 1845: 1842: 1838: 1835: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1818: 1816: 1812: 1810: 1809: 1801: 1798: 1796: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1783: 1780: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1763: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1746: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1729: 1727: 1724: 1722: 1716: 1713: 1711: 1707: 1701: 1696: 1689: 1686: 1684: 1681: 1679: 1673: 1671: 1668: 1663: 1661: 1658: 1655: 1652: 1650: 1645: 1639: 1638: 1631: 1628: 1626: 1622: 1616: 1612: 1609: 1607: 1602: 1597: 1595: 1587: 1584: 1582: 1579: 1577: 1572: 1566: 1563: 1561: 1556: 1551: 1546: 1538: 1535: 1533: 1528: 1524: 1519: 1516:good people. 1515: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1503: 1496: 1495:Riley Huntley 1492: 1489: 1487: 1482: 1476: 1473: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1456: 1454: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1439: 1430: 1426: 1423: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1406: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1389: 1387: 1383: 1377: 1373: 1366: 1362: 1360: 1357: 1356: 1353: 1352: 1345: 1342: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1325: 1323: 1319: 1316: 1306: 1303: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1292: 1286: 1283: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1262: 1260: 1256: 1255: 1250: 1245: 1239: 1238: 1233: 1230: 1228: 1226: 1223: 1221: 1217: 1212: 1209: 1201: 1199: 1192: 1191: 1185: 1183: 1179: 1177: 1173: 1168: 1161: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1144: 1142: 1139: 1134: 1125: 1121: 1118: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1101: 1099: 1096: 1093: 1089: 1087: 1083: 1076: 1070: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1057: 1054: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1034: 1030: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1002: 1001: 997: 987: 984: 982: 979: 977: 974: 973: 971: 967: 961: 958: 956: 953: 951: 948: 946: 943: 941: 938: 937: 935: 931: 925: 922: 920: 917: 916: 914: 910: 901: 896: 894: 889: 887: 882: 881: 878: 872: 868: 864: 859: 858: 854: 852: 851: 849: 845: 836: 832: 827: 823: 820: 817: 814: 811: 808: 805: 802: 799: 796: 793: 790: 787: 783: 780: 776: 773: 770: 767: 763: 758: 757: 753: 747: 743: 739: 735: 730: 725: 722: 719: 716: 713: 712: 710: 707: 704: 703: 698: 694: 690: 686: 682: 681:Gerald Oshita 678: 674: 670: 666: 662: 659: 658: 656: 653: 651: 647: 646: 641: 637: 633: 628: 625: 624: 619: 618: 617: 616: 611: 607: 603: 599: 595: 591: 586: 581: 578: 577: 573: 572: 571: 570: 565: 561: 557: 552: 548: 545: 544: 540: 539: 537: 534: 532: 528: 527: 522: 518: 514: 506: 501: 498: 497: 496: 491: 485: 484: 476: 473: 471: 467: 466: 461: 457: 453: 449: 444: 441: 440: 438: 435: 434: 429: 425: 421: 417: 413: 410: 409: 407: 403: 400: 398: 394: 393: 388: 384: 380: 372: 367: 364: 363: 361: 358: 356: 355: 352: 351: 344: 343: 336: 332: 328: 324: 319: 316: 312: 308: 304: 300: 296: 293: 289: 284: 281: 277: 273: 272: 271: 267: 263: 259: 256: 255: 254: 251: 250: 244: 241: 239: 235: 234: 227: 224: 223: 221: 218: 212: 208: 203: 200: 199: 197: 194: 188: 185: 184: 182: 179: 178: 177: 171: 169: 168: 164: 160: 156: 152: 148: 144: 140: 136: 130: 127: 124: 121: 118: 115: 112: 109: 106: 103: 100: 97: 94: 91: 88: 83: 76: 74: 73: 72: 65: 54: 48: 45: 41: 35: 32: 27: 26: 19: 4360: 4357: 4338: 4310: 4301: 4299: 4265: 4219: 4167: 4113: 4112: 4093: 4092: 4075: 3930: 3893: 3868: 3856:Demiurge1000 3851: 3818: 3810: 3793: 3776: 3761: 3743: 3710: 3694:Weak support 3693: 3683:BuickCentury 3678: 3667: 3660: 3654: 3631: 3627: 3610: 3579: 3555: 3532: 3463: 3442: 3415:Br'er Rabbit 3388: 3355: 3352: 3336: 3332: 3312: 3295: 3277: 3248: 3237: 3232: 3225: 3204: 3189: 3188: 3183: 3174: 3156: 3132: 3115: 3093: 3092: 3088: 3069: 3068: 3061: 3029: 3005: 2986: 2966: 2954: 2923: 2917: 2903: 2893: 2887: 2875: 2858: 2841: 2837: 2820: 2803: 2787: 2762: 2758: 2727: 2712: 2706: 2687: 2669: 2652: 2640: 2618: 2601: 2580: 2569: 2568: 2557: 2510: 2498: 2487: 2477: 2473: 2465: 2448: 2438: 2396:Jedd Raynier 2388: 2371: 2356: 2288: 2272: 2255: 2243: 2225: 2208: 2194: 2177: 2160: 2143: 2127: 2118: 2106:WikiPuppies! 2101: 2087: 2070: 2066: 2036: 2019: 2002: 1987: 1965: 1956: 1949: 1948: 1942: 1925: 1911: 1910: 1906: 1889: 1870: 1851: 1836: 1819: 1805: 1799: 1786: 1785: 1781: 1764: 1747: 1735:Gerda Arendt 1730: 1714: 1687: 1635: 1629: 1610: 1593: 1585: 1575: 1564: 1536: 1507: 1501: 1490: 1474: 1457: 1441: 1431: 1424: 1407: 1390: 1369: 1355: 1348: 1343: 1326: 1304: 1288: 1284: 1267: 1263: 1252: 1237:Dennis Brown 1236: 1231: 1216:Br'er Rabbit 1214: 1208:Street-Legal 1204: 1197: 1189: 1182:Yes, please. 1181: 1180: 1145: 1123: 1119: 1102: 1068: 1065: 1061: 1045: 1044: 1038: 1037: 841: 840: 818: 812: 806: 800: 794: 788: 781: 774: 768: 723: 708: 668: 660: 654: 626: 584: 579: 551:a discussion 546: 535: 499: 481: 474: 442: 436: 411: 401: 370: 365: 359: 354: 347: 257: 247: 242: 225: 219: 210: 206: 201: 195: 186: 180: 175: 146: 125: 119: 113: 107: 101: 95: 89: 80: 69: 52: 51: 46: 30: 28: 3731:Mkativerata 3574:this change 2941:-Scottywong 2732:Someguy1221 2563:Mysterytrey 2470:my criteria 2444:WP:INVOLVED 2052:regentspark 1930:Newyorkbrad 1493:–- Cheers, 1371:Master& 1107:Mark Arsten 1092:Jasper Deng 986:User rights 976:CentralAuth 155:WP:BOLDness 105:protections 4343:TruPepitoM 4190:Beeblebrox 3987:Skinwalker 3906:Skinwalker 3902:PumpkinSky 3748:cyberpower 3698:Nikkimaria 3375:user:28bot 3319:SPhilbrick 3316:support.-- 3270:Courcelles 3228:Of course. 2987:S Marshall 2674:Tryptofish 2631:j⚛e decker 2474:can indeed 2276:Keepscases 2182:Agathoclea 2075:Beeblebrox 2041:SlimVirgin 1600:.Wolfowitz 1518:ErikHaugen 1272:Shadowjams 1211:Sockpuppet 1052:Review me! 969:Cross-wiki 960:AfD closes 855:Discussion 650:Keepscases 531:Beeblebrox 211:explaining 151:User:28bot 117:page moves 77:Nomination 31:successful 4059:Montanabw 3338:Jauerback 3260:Trusilver 3190:Jezebel's 3120:Modernist 3062:Certainly 3035:Gilderien 2825:Ironholds 2808:Sjakkalle 2764:Callanecc 2746:Connormah 2543:Ajraddatz 2406:with you. 2231:Montanabw 2148:Lord Roem 2092:DeMicheal 1769:SmokeyJoe 1752:Ymblanter 1667:Acalamari 1615:Dreadstar 1480:Paul Erik 1291:Torchiest 1268:integrity 1124:integrity 955:AfD votes 950:BLP edits 804:block log 729:WP:NOTNOW 448:this list 397:Callanecc 111:deletions 4378:Category 4242:ItsZippy 4098:Yaplunpe 3661:Baseball 3513:this one 2946:| chat _ 2812:(Check!) 2778:talkback 2773:contribs 2645:ItsZippy 2623:moderate 2502:contribs 2492:Casliber 2418:filelake 2357:Support. 2132:and done 1979:Contribs 1841:Electric 1527:contribs 1314:Interior 1254:Join WER 933:Analysis 912:Counters 772:contribs 665:familiar 405:months). 93:contribs 4339:Neutral 4292:Neutral 4205:Manning 4143:Kcowolf 4080:Epbr123 4041:28bytes 4016:28bytes 3869:Support 3852:Support 3837:28bytes 3811:Support 3794:Support 3777:Support 3762:Support 3744:Support 3711:Support 3679:Support 3668:Watcher 3655:Support 3628:Support 3611:Support 3539:(talk) 3517:28bytes 3497:28bytes 3429:Wehwalt 3356:Support 3333:Support 3313:Support 3296:Support 3283:Manning 3278:Support 3249:Support 3238:Wouters 3226:Support 3205:Support 3184:Support 3175:approve 3161:Keilana 3157:Support 3133:Support 3116:Support 3089:Support 3030:Support 3006:Support 2971:Peridon 2967:Support 2955:Support 2930:(talk) 2918:Support 2904:Support 2888:Support 2880:AniMate 2876:Support 2859:Support 2838:Support 2804:Support 2759:Support 2728:Support 2707:Support 2670:Support 2653:Support 2641:Support 2619:Support 2602:Support 2581:Support 2558:Support 2515:DJSasso 2511:Support 2488:Support 2466:Support 2439:Support 2389:Support 2372:Support 2289:Support 2273:Support 2256:Support 2226:Support 2209:Support 2195:Support 2178:Support 2161:Support 2144:Support 2124:Vertium 2119:Support 2102:Support 2088:Support 2071:Support 2057:comment 2037:Support 2020:Support 2007:Jorgath 2003:Support 1995:Snowman 1988:Support 1966:Support 1943:Support 1926:Support 1907:Support 1890:Support 1871:Support 1852:Support 1844:Catfish 1837:Support 1820:Support 1800:Support 1782:Support 1765:Support 1748:Support 1731:Support 1715:Support 1688:Support 1630:Support 1611:Support 1586:Support 1565:Support 1537:Support 1491:Support 1475:Support 1458:Support 1425:Support 1408:Support 1391:Support 1350:Wifione 1331:Michael 1327:Support 1305:Support 1285:Support 1264:Support 1232:Support 1150:Wehwalt 1146:Support 1129:Pumpkin 1103:Support 1062:support 998:Support 863:28bytes 779:deleted 762:28bytes 738:28bytes 689:28bytes 632:28bytes 602:28bytes 598:WP:NPOV 594:WP:AUTO 556:28bytes 513:28bytes 452:28bytes 420:28bytes 379:28bytes 371:someone 349:Wifione 327:28bytes 280:WP:LAME 262:28bytes 159:28bytes 82:28bytes 47:28bytes 4094:Oppose 4076:Oppose 3927:WP:RTV 3923:WP:RTV 3898:Rlevse 3894:Oppose 3888:Oppose 3781:Slon02 3721:(ʞlɐʇ) 3686:Driver 3587:(talk) 3563:(talk) 3471:(talk) 3396:(talk) 3353:Oppose 3324:(Talk) 3209:WP:CHU 3173:and I 3054:Secret 2938:Yup. 2920:—yup. 2894:Cailil 2791:Keegan 2589:Orlady 2361:Isarra 2338:Centri 2300:Centri 2260:Dianna 2200:GabeMc 2067:Oppose 1950:bd2412 1875:Frood! 1824:Nick-D 1694:Minima 1594:Kiefer 1375:Expert 1365:WP:CHU 1318:(Talk) 1198:Rabbit 1166:Steven 1095:(talk) 1033:WP:CHU 919:XTools 590:WP:COI 585:person 416:WP:CHU 302:close. 207:making 139:WT:RFA 135:WP:CHU 123:rights 99:blocks 63:(talk) 4326:Petrb 4129:89119 4001:Nsk92 3936:Nsk92 3825:Chat 3819:Pedro 3483:Petrb 3344:dude. 3233:Érico 3194:Ponyo 3097:RP459 2959:MONGO 2849:broil 2844:Royal 2689:Kusma 2606:Ceoil 2376:Hobit 2213:RexxS 1992:Giant 1894:Nsk92 1862:fisto 1857:Menti 1677:Sædon 1437:FOLEY 1296:edits 1190:Br'er 1171:Zhang 1075:Broke 1069:Strat 1046:Vesey 1019:89119 844:civil 786:count 669:heard 57:Maxim 16:< 4347:talk 4330:talk 4312:jc37 4303:jc37 4255:talk 4209:talk 4194:talk 4147:talk 4133:talk 4102:talk 4084:talk 4045:talk 4037:here 4020:talk 4005:talk 3991:talk 3940:talk 3910:talk 3878:talk 3860:talk 3841:talk 3802:talk 3798:MJ94 3785:talk 3751:Chat 3735:talk 3702:talk 3619:talk 3533:Tony 3521:talk 3501:talk 3487:talk 3451:talk 3433:talk 3419:talk 3379:here 3304:talk 3287:talk 3217:talk 3169:I'm 3124:talk 3079:talk 3070:Worm 3039:Chat 2975:talk 2924:Tony 2867:talk 2863:Mato 2829:talk 2795:talk 2769:talk 2750:talk 2736:talk 2678:talk 2661:talk 2610:talk 2593:talk 2570:talk 2548:Talk 2533:talk 2519:talk 2496:talk 2479:jc37 2422:shoe 2380:talk 2320:talk 2280:talk 2264:talk 2217:talk 2186:talk 2169:talk 2165:DoRD 2152:talk 2110:bark 2096:talk 2079:talk 2028:talk 2011:talk 1934:talk 1914:→TSU 1898:talk 1828:talk 1773:talk 1756:talk 1739:talk 1705:talk 1654:Step 1637:Ched 1570:Hahc 1523:talk 1502:talk 1466:talk 1446:OUR! 1416:talk 1412:Glrx 1399:talk 1381:Talk 1335:talk 1276:talk 1220:talk 1213:. — 1154:talk 1137:talk 1111:talk 1082:talk 1039:Ryan 1023:talk 1009:talk 867:talk 831:here 816:rfar 798:logs 766:talk 742:talk 693:talk 685:NPR2 683:and 636:talk 606:talk 596:and 560:talk 517:talk 483:Ched 456:talk 424:talk 383:talk 331:talk 266:talk 249:jc37 238:jc37 214:was. 163:talk 147:have 143:here 87:talk 4273:Why 4227:Why 4175:(t) 3904:. 3713:-- 3613:-- 3443:her 3441:Or 3148:Lum 3143:Sat 3138:Hue 3094:-- 3021:fax 3011:Jus 2713:Axl 2657:KTC 2456:Why 2333:Egg 2295:Egg 2244:AGK 2171:) 2013:) 1657:hen 1311:The 1132:Sky 1072:da 822:spi 792:AfD 709:11. 655:10. 129:RfA 4380:: 4349:) 4332:) 4268:So 4257:) 4222:So 4211:) 4196:) 4166:-- 4149:) 4135:) 4104:) 4086:) 4047:) 4022:) 4007:) 3993:) 3942:) 3912:) 3880:) 3862:) 3843:) 3822:: 3804:) 3787:) 3737:) 3729:-- 3716:DQ 3704:) 3637:am 3634:At 3621:) 3576:. 3552:. 3523:) 3503:) 3489:) 3453:) 3435:) 3421:) 3306:) 3289:) 3219:) 3163:| 3126:) 3082:) 3016:da 2977:) 2869:) 2861:- 2831:) 2797:) 2775:) 2771:• 2752:) 2738:) 2700:) 2680:) 2663:) 2612:) 2595:) 2535:) 2521:) 2504:) 2451:So 2416:- 2382:) 2322:) 2282:) 2266:) 2219:) 2188:) 2154:) 2112:) 2081:) 2030:) 1936:) 1900:) 1830:) 1775:) 1758:) 1741:) 1708:) 1643:? 1640:: 1576:21 1525:| 1468:) 1451:— 1418:) 1401:) 1393:-- 1384:) 1337:) 1278:) 1243:2¢ 1240:- 1156:) 1113:) 1084:) 1078:da 1066:76 1025:) 1011:) 869:) 810:lu 744:) 724:A: 695:) 679:, 675:, 661:A: 638:) 627:A: 608:) 592:, 580:A: 562:) 547:A: 536:9. 519:) 507:, 500:A: 489:? 486:: 475:8. 458:) 443:A: 437:7. 426:) 412:A: 402:6. 385:) 374:'s 366:A: 360:5. 333:) 268:) 258:A: 243:4. 226:A: 220:3. 202:A: 196:2. 187:A: 181:1. 165:) 36:. 4345:( 4328:( 4253:( 4207:( 4192:( 4170:J 4145:( 4131:( 4100:( 4082:( 4043:( 4018:( 4003:( 3989:( 3938:( 3908:( 3900:/ 3876:( 3858:( 3839:( 3800:( 3783:( 3769:P 3766:T 3733:( 3700:( 3646:頭 3640:a 3617:( 3519:( 3499:( 3485:( 3449:( 3431:( 3417:( 3341:/ 3302:( 3285:( 3215:( 3122:( 3102:/ 3076:( 3041:| 2997:C 2995:/ 2993:T 2973:( 2865:( 2827:( 2793:( 2788:+ 2767:( 2748:( 2734:( 2718:¤ 2698:c 2696:· 2694:t 2692:( 2686:— 2676:( 2659:( 2608:( 2591:( 2550:) 2546:( 2531:( 2517:( 2499:· 2494:( 2428: 2378:( 2364:༆ 2343:c 2318:( 2305:c 2278:( 2262:( 2215:( 2184:( 2167:( 2150:( 2108:( 2098:) 2094:( 2077:( 2059:) 2055:( 2026:( 2009:( 1976:/ 1957:T 1932:( 1924:' 1896:( 1826:( 1771:( 1754:( 1737:( 1702:( 1699:© 1620:☥ 1557:. 1554:ς 1549:σ 1544:Σ 1541:→ 1529:) 1521:( 1464:( 1444:F 1435:G 1429:— 1414:( 1397:( 1378:( 1333:( 1289:— 1274:( 1248:© 1222:) 1218:( 1152:( 1109:( 1080:( 1021:( 1007:( 899:e 892:t 885:v 865:( 834:. 824:) 819:· 813:· 807:· 801:· 795:· 789:· 782:· 775:· 769:· 764:( 740:( 691:( 634:( 604:( 558:( 515:( 454:( 422:( 381:( 329:( 317:. 264:( 161:( 131:) 126:· 120:· 114:· 108:· 102:· 96:· 90:· 85:( 40:.

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

Knowledge

:Requests for bureaucratship/28bytes - Knowledge

Index