869:
a little silly), but of no real harm. Instead your actions have the appearance of rounding up your friends in order to get yourself elected, and I strongly believe no part of
Knowledge (XXG) should boil down to that kind of popularity contest. If you did not intend this to be the effect of your actions, then I am sorry, but again I believe in high standards here. On the other issue. A 4 day old newbie has no credible place as an RFA, you know this. You could have removed the RFA and nicely explained to the newbie what was wrong,
881:
when I encounter something that disqualifies I cease investigating. Essentially, I only got as far as the questions and the edit count, and then voted Oppose. I did not read that much into it, and, as far as I know, I did not say anything inflammatory; I merely voted as I do on many RfAs. In my experience, newbie-biting usually takes the form of a nasty remark, often accompanied by a personal attack. I merely stated the facts, and no harm was meant by my vote. Anyway, I respect your opinion and your feedback.
1234:. I am concerned because I am not convinced that Andre will maintain appropriate judgement in the face of difficult decisions. I have seen little of his activity, so I recognise that my opinion may be unfair, but his recent explanation of unexplained oppose votes tips my uncomfortable neutrality into opposition. Bureaucratship is high-profile decision-making. Andre appears to recognise that he cannot always explain the unpalatable without being offensive: This is not what I seek in a bureaucrat. —
975:
nomination, you were the first person to oppose, and you didn't give Casito any idea why. RfAs are about consensus. Consensus doesn't just mean having 80% of the support votes. It means having a common idea of a person's capabilities. You provided no opinion on how that person would do as an administrator. Bureaucrats sometimes have to make difficult calls in close nominations. If you can't explain your reasoning, you might not be ready for bureaucratship.
1162:; while I'm sure Andrevan is a solid admin and contributor, I'm sorry say that I haven't seen or heard much of him. The only thing that comes to mind is his "Defending the Status Quo" proposal, which I found not particularly impressive. I'm familiar with at least half of the adminship candidates, so I'm reasonably sure that I know quite a lot of Wikipedians. So for bureaucratship, I wouldn't support one that I don't know.
873:. Instead you chose to be strongly critical, without so much as an example of how he ought to behave. To your credit, after going through the last 45 days of your User talk edits, I do see a half dozen or more newbie welcomes, but I am still left to wonder why you were so blunt with a clearly inappropriate RFA. I will think about this more, but right now my vote stays oppose.
242:. An enormously responsible, intelligent, reasonable, and dedicated person who can only do more good for Knowledge (XXG) the more options are made available to him. It is not he who has to live up to this responsibility, it is this responsibility that has to prove it is worthy of him. (... Whatever that means.) -
1331:
There's more than being a good wikipedia editor than just following all the rules though. The proper temperament with handling new users is required too, and you can follow all the rules and still have bad style of interaction with others. There's no harm in indicating that, I seem to recall that was
868:
I count 5 people asking to be notified on that page (plus one for Func below). You informed them and 14 others plus one wiki project. Had you posted a big flashing banner on your user page, I wouldn't have objected. If you had campaigned at the
Village Pump, I would have thought that overkill (and
1397:
If you have reason to doubt the editor's soundness of judgement there's nothing wrong with saying that though. NPA should never prevent you from saying something relevant to the discussion, it merely restricts inflammatory comments (otherwise "user marks stuff for speedy that isn't a CSD" would be a
1279:
I do explain many oppose votes in that fashion. However, when a user hasn't done anything specific, and my only grounds for opposing are insulting, I merely list my name in the oppose column. If I give any more specific examples I run the risk of offending users who I have opposed without reasoning.
1049:
But think about a really close RFA, like Lucky 6.9's. The comments on the RFA discussion page are still fresh. Bureaucrats began second-guessing each other and changing each others' decisions. Whenever someone made a decision, they followed it up with a thorough explanation. Would you be capable of
1446:
I wouldn't trust loopy individuals in positions of responsibility, and I don't think it's unreasonable for me to feel this way. Regardless, none of this has any bearing on what I would do as a bureaucrat... I have no trouble making decisions that might upset people, as long they aren't ad hominem.
1315:
I think you misunderstand. In the occasion of a user where I can find nothing specific wrong, no violations of policy, but I nonetheless feel the user is in some way not fit for adminship, and my reason for thinking this is one that the user would find insulting and/or offensive (ex. the user says
1102:
But you were the first to oppose. As I mentioned above, if there were six or seven oppose votes before yours, and they explained their reasoning, it would be assumed that you are opposing for the same reasons that they are. But as the first, you should have said why Casito wasn't worthy. I respect
974:
While you have everything else going for you, you don't usually include explanations when you vote on RfAs, especially when it comes to opposing. (See Casito's nomination). It would be one thing if 10 people opposed because it would be assumed that you opposed for the same reasons. But in Casito's
880:
Regarding the notifications, I really don't have anything else to add; I informed users who had explicitly expressed interest in voting and other users who I thought would be interested. Make of that what you will. As for the RfA, when I investigate potential admins I do so in a certain order, and
1246:
I'd like to clarify this a little bit. It's not that I can't explain the unpalatable, it's that my unexpressed opinions on certain RfAs are inherently offensive, e.g. "This user acts like an idiot," and so on. I would never say that to someone's face, and as such I would never say it in an RfA. I
58:
Last time I put myself up as a potential bureaucrat, over 9 months ago, consensus was, Knowledge (XXG) does not need to enlarge the bureaucrat pool. Though my nomination failed, I think the aftermath (which you can read in the Talk:RfA history somewhere) enhanced my understanding of the thin line
1103:
the fact that you wish to remain civil, but it's only fair that the candidate understands why Andre doesn't want them to become an admin. Would you mind explaining here why you opposed Casito? If Casito reads this, please take no offense from Andre's reply. I want Andre to be completely honest.
982:
When I don't explain my RfA votes, and I'm not just agreeing with everyone else, it's because I don't want to offend anyone. I do have reasoning, but I can't think of a way to phrase it non-offensively. This was the case with Casito's nomination. I can certainly understand that you would oppose
908:. And the second instance is hardly what I'd call "newbie biting," either, considering that everything he said was true and he didn't say anything particularly insulting. At worst, he didn't go out of his way to randomly compliment the guy. But, that's just how I see it; if you find what he did
1501:
It seems to me that someone who is able to show restraint, and not post offending comments is an ideal candidate. Sometimes stupid propositions get made here, and I feel it is a good thing that Andre simply opposes instead of pointing out how stupid the matter being voted on is. Are you really
949:
I think maybe
Andrevan bit that newbie just a little, but it's no big deal, and won't affect my vote. Remember, blunt comments can sound very rude over the internet to people, since there isn't much for non-verbal communication. And, I see no problem with a little campaign. Had he gone through
1262:
Are you saying that the only way to explain oppose votes is to offend someone? You could simply say, "not enough experience," "too few edits," or "user is uncivil." And so forth. English (as well as other languages) are broad enough to allow you to explain the same thing different ways using
1607:, but not so much as to only be a comment. The 'ballot-stuffing' should have been unnecessary. A few, such as Func had requested notice, so that's of course ok. But this is not, or should not be, an election where you need to "get the vote out". It should happen naturally or not at all. -
1526:
It's cool that he wishes to remain civil, but many take constructive criticism from those opposing. Look at Andre. He's changed from his last failed nomination. He's improved. I just wish he would offer criticism to the people he opposed. It's possible to do it in a peaceful manner.
844:
While I appreciate your feedback, I respectfully don't feel that I was doing either. My vote on that RfA was merely a statement of fact, and was not intended to be mean in any way. I welcome many new users and answer many new user questions, and always do so in accordance with
67:
as well! Apparently there can be seen a fair number of requests there now that have not yet been fulfilled. I think I could help out with that, and maybe do some RfAs when the other bureaucrats are busy. I believe that adminship isn't a big deal; bureaucratship even less so.
1575:. I think Andrevan is an excellent contributor to Knowledge (XXG), but respectfully the candidacy as it is presented here does not project enough of the type of leadership and due diligence I feel Knowledge (XXG)'s community has come to expect of bureaucrats. --
1009:
But what happens if a nomination is a really close call? Your decision could offend not just one, but a lot of people. If you give a good reason, it will lessen the blow. And
Phroziac, less than 10% of the voters are opposing him. I doubt he won't be promoted.
1348:
But there have in the past been users who have been fine in every respect, except they just rubbed me the wrong way with some of the things they said and did. I do not feel comfortable with these people as admins, but they haven't done anything wrong, per se.
1565:. Again, as with my votes on other bureaucrat nominations, this is not at all personal. Just not conviced this addition is needed at this time. The case has just not been made, and I am also share the concern others expressed about pushing the nomination.
1414:
I don't necessarily doubt his/her soundness of judgement. I doubt his/her intelligence, or sanity, or something else. That's an attack any way you slice it, and I fear I may offend everyone I ever voted oppose on without a reason if I elaborate further.
187:. Absolutely. Great guy, and great administrator. Frankly, I think people who say "we don't need more bureaucrats" are unoriginal. Who cares? If the person is worthy, then I say give it to him or her. Andre is fully suited to the job of bureaucrat.
1130:. It seemed to me based on these and my further examination of messages Casito had left on talk pages that he was a somewhat pompous and foolish individual. Sorry, Casito - I've attempted to word this explanation as gingerly as possible.
62:
Anyway, here I am again. What has changed? Well, aside from the personal growth that a person such as myself can experience in 9 months, there has been a MediaWiki upgrade. Bureaucrats don't just end RfAs anymore - now they handle
921:
I would just like to interject that I recently told
Andrevan that I would support a new bureaucrat nomination for him if he were still interested, so his bringing the nom to my attention was entirely appropriate and appreciated.
1196:
Posting solicitations for votes to specific users is liable to skew the vote into something not representative of community opinion. I'd be happy to support a next RfB, I'm sure plenty of people will vote without notification.
138:
Although
Cecropia seems to be doing most of the RfA stuff (I'm helping too ;)), we seem to have a backlog of name change requests. In other words, why not? You're a good editor and admin too, so I'm sure it'll work out. —
1656:. 80% generally, as well as a sizable amount of interest in the nomination, or between 75-80% in cases where consensus is clear despite the numeric gap. Sock puppets may be discarded if the vote is close, and so on.
637:. Regarding the two issues raised below, I believe the campaigning was done in good taste, addressing people who are familiar with Andre's work. The alleged "newbie biting" was, in this case, just what was needed.
1364:
If someone is fine in every way but comments they make rub you the wrong way you shouldn't be opposing them. We all have things that annoy us, but that's not a valid reason for opposing such a person's adminship.
1381:
It most certainly is valid! If comments made by an editor suggest to me that the editor is an idiot, that is a valid reason to oppose. I would not state that as a reason though: it is inherently offensive.
112:
Given his history of successful dispute mediation and successful adminship, Andre's a fine choice for overseeing a consensus and as such, dealing with the overflow of RfAs--which may or may not exist.
853:
you can see that many of those who voted on my previous nomination requested to be notified when I ran again. I extended this notification to some others who have interacted with me more recently.
376:. I've found Andre to be a level-headed decent guy, and I believe there's no reason to make such a big fuss about these things. I can't remember if I asked to be notified, but I'm grateful I was.
1482:
Indeed, and I do appreciate your feedback. As a bureaucrat, if I become one, I will always explain my decisions. Luckily, my personal opinions of users will not come into play, as a bureaucrat.
1034:
The difference is, as a bureaucrat, I am merely interpreting others' views, and as such am not responsible for offending. When I vote on an RfA, I am bringing my own opinion to the table.
1247:
value respect and civility. That is not at all analogous to gauging consensus in the face of a difficult decision and breaking it to the user in question, which I have no problem doing.
1724:
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?
469:
Andre is an extremely responsible person who I'm happy to call my friend. I know the time and effort he puts into helping to make wikipedia such a great place, and he deserves this.
837:. I feel somewhat bad in opposing, because I think you probably are a pretty good guy, but I also think we ought to expect the highest standards of behavior from bureaucrats.
1686:=80%. 74% and a lot of votes, "strong" supports, and weak opposes can be consensus as well. There's no hard and fast way to do it, but that's part of a bureaucrat's job.
1745:
314:. Andre is a good person and a highly competent administrator and editor; I believe he is more than capable of being an excellent bureaucrat as well. A fine Wikipedian.
71:
1123:
846:
1466:
an important characteristic for a bureaucrat, but we're obviously going to have to agree to disagree and this indentation is getting awful narrow anyway. --
831:. Andre, I don't know you well, so maybe today is an aberration, but in the last few hours you have done two things that I find distasteful: newbie biting
699:! A great wikipedian.....and if you don't know what "apoyo" means in Spanish,, then look at the list under which Im putting my vote and you will...:) hehe!
1082:
1066:
Of course. Bureaucrats don't express their own opinions, they interpret the opinions of the community. That is not something I have trouble doing.
433:. I wasn't quite sure about the picky answer, so I questioned Andrevan with a fairly difficult hypothetical situation on irc. He gets an A ;-) --
17:
90:
I know this nomination is just getting started, but I just wanted to say a huge "thank you!" for all the kind words on this page. You flatter me.
1430:
As long as their judgement is sound, what does it matter if they're loopier than a gooseberry? In the end, it's their judgement that matters. --
568:
I was debating not voting so *someone* would be neutral enough to close it, but I couldn't let such a great editor pass by without my vote.
1502:
opposing his bureaucratship because he has offensive thoughts that enter his mind, which he then decides not to use in an offensive manner?
1730:. I submit my edit history for your approval, readers of this answer. I feel I have shown myself to be a solid admin and contributor.
1716:. Contentious nominations aren't special; they also must meet consensus. If it is close, I will suggest an extension of a day or two.
1533:
1269:
1109:
1056:
519:
52:
1623:
Neutral 'till my picky followon question is answered below. (And yes I realise that at some point it might be my turn :-P )
64:
1646:
Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
1316:
stupid or inane things), I will oppose without a reason. This is in no way related to what I would do as a bureaucrat.
1222:
325:
931:
533:
295:
674:
274:
He does what needs to be done in a professional manner, notices what needs to be done, AND when it does get done.
1591:
155:
No reason not to have another few bureaucrats. Andrevan's a trusted editor and is very deserving of the honor. —
1710:
How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
749:. I suppose I should eventually list my standards somewhere in my userspace, but in any case he meets them. --
655:
671:
1680:
1627:
1611:
1588:
1579:
1557:
1506:
1241:
1226:
1004:
964:
942:
916:
816:
804:
753:
741:
714:
662:
646:
629:
600:
575:
548:
536:
508:
473:
461:
437:
415:
393:
384:
367:
351:
329:
319:
306:
278:
246:
224:
179:
163:
150:
119:
935:
850:
505:
299:
1653:
1528:
1264:
1104:
1051:
1021:
711:
529:
516:
365:
337:. whee - my first ever Bureaucrat-support vote! One of the few I would vote yes for as Bureaucrat, too.
171:
Seems like a good admin deserving of bureaucratship, and he has been here long enough to know the ropes.
1119:
OK. I had a less than flattering opinion of Casito because of the Pope chart formerly on his user page
958:!), and spammed everyone on wikipedia about it, I would oppose. Or even anything anywhere near that! --
1238:
596:
589:
560:
176:
1554:
874:
838:
725:
659:
381:
221:
196:
192:
402:
116:
1693:
1518:
1489:
1454:
1422:
1389:
1356:
1323:
1287:
1254:
1186:
1166:
1137:
1092:
1073:
1041:
990:
888:
860:
701:
344:
160:
97:
81:
46:
781:
172:
205:
The best answers to any questions on a RfA or RfB. Unequivocal support from this user, who is:
951:
733:
He has proved himself to have sound judgement, and will be a competent and useful bureaucrat.
688:
572:
502:
446:
265:
233:
145:
1677:
1624:
1576:
1566:
1538:
1274:
1114:
1061:
1012:
976:
813:
708:
614:
513:
434:
360:
217:. Worthy. I have a lot of trust in him. I think we need a couple more; we keep growing.
1296:
955:
1235:
1219:
901:
784:
738:
641:
584:
557:
492:
322:
1550:
1503:
1127:
927:
720:
545:
412:
377:
291:
255:
218:
188:
1739:
1687:
1512:
1483:
1470:
1448:
1434:
1416:
1402:
1383:
1369:
1350:
1336:
1317:
1303:
1281:
1248:
1201:
1180:
1163:
1131:
1086:
1067:
1035:
999:
984:
959:
912:
unappetizing... It just seems trivial compared to all the months of fantastic work. -
882:
854:
456:
338:
206:
156:
91:
75:
42:
27:
913:
771:
762:
750:
683:
626:
569:
482:
470:
424:
243:
140:
1214:, pimping for votes is not conduct becoming of an admin, let alone a bureaucrat.
1608:
998:
Somewhat agree, but I don't think that's a reason to deny him bureaucratship! --
983:
because of this, though, and I appreciate that you took the time to explain it!
609:
1215:
734:
638:
315:
275:
1295:
Why not just link a few diffs and say the user should pay more attention to
923:
390:
287:
1299:? Not a nice thing to hear, but a lot better than an unexplained oppose. --
1169:
1467:
1431:
1399:
1366:
1333:
1300:
1198:
129:
113:
359:
I need not repeat the above reasons (responsible, reasonable, etc.).
264:
Everything has been said, I only regret that I can only vote once.
608:. We need some more bureaucrats, and you're a great candidate.
35:
455:- I think those comments on those oppose votes is enough --
1332:
one of the reasons for opposition against my first RfA. --
954:
with a bot (or without, if he wanted to follow policy on
501:. I trust him to handle the position with good judgment.
1685:
It's, one way of measuring consensus can be support: -->
1638:
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
1462:
I think always being willing to explain your decisions
1120:
939:
870:
835:
832:
544:. Great admin. Very worthy contributor. Full support.
303:
1081:
Also, please note that I was not the only Oppose on
849:. As for ballot stuffing, if you'll take a look at
658:. I've seen yu around and liked what I've seen. --
59:between a failed nomination and a successful one.
1124:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Dai Grepher
847:Knowledge (XXG):Please do not bite the newcomers
8:
1663:picky for once! (yay!);-) Is that Consensus
583:- great editor, would make fine bureaucrat.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for bureaucratship
34:Final (50/10/1) ending 02:27 September 3,
1659:This is a bureaucrat vote so I get to be
1746:Unsuccessful requests for bureaucratship
7:
1511:Thanks for the support, Jacoplane.
702:Antonio shaken, not stirred Martin
389:Nothing but positive experiences.
24:
1523:) 00:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
1459:) 02:11, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
1427:) 02:02, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
1394:) 01:44, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
1361:) 01:13, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
1328:) 00:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
65:Knowledge (XXG):Changing username
1494:) 02:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
1179:Yeah, that wasn't my best work.
1142:) 18:17, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
1097:) 02:27, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
900:What you're referring to is not
232:. A fine contributor and admin.
1292:) 20:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
1259:) 18:15, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
1116:10:18, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
1078:) 18:15, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
1046:) 17:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
995:) 17:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
865:) 04:24, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
254:, Responsible and trustworthy.
86:) 02:27, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
1698:) 17:37, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
1676:80% ; is that something else?
1540:10:18, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
1477:02:33, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
1441:02:07, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
1409:01:50, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
1376:01:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
1343:01:07, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
1310:00:26, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
1191:) 17:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
1126:, and the trollish nominator,
893:) 05:47, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
774:01:50, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
481:Would make a great bureaucrat
102:) 17:48, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
1:
1594:05:44, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
1580:01:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
1569:21:40, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
1558:04:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
1507:00:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
1276:20:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
1176:10:54, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
1083:Requests for adminship/Casito
1063:09:52, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
1031:14:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
979:08:08, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
877:05:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
841:04:10, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
817:16:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
805:17:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
754:09:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
742:06:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
1208:02:48, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
1050:doing that as a bureaucrat?
761:. No reason to oppose. --
693:04:45, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
677:01:53, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
619:05:24, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
562:23:11, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
522:02:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
495:00:08, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
485:22:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
449:19:57, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
427:19:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
405:18:27, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
268:04:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
258:03:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
236:03:45, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
211:03:15, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
199:03:10, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
1681:10:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
1634:Questions for the candidate
1628:11:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
1612:16:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
1242:16:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
1227:09:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
1005:21:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
965:21:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
943:05:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
917:04:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
727:20:16, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
715:14:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
705:12:31, August 31, 2005(UTC)
663:23:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
647:16:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
630:12:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
601:23:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
576:21:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
549:16:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
537:11:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
509:02:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
474:21:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
462:21:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
438:19:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
416:18:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
394:18:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
385:14:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
368:14:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
352:07:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
330:07:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
307:05:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
286:. My full support, worthy.
279:04:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
247:03:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
225:03:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
180:03:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
164:02:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
151:02:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
120:02:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
1762:
1122:, the way he endorsed on
719:Enjoy your bureaucracy!
431:Moderately strong Support
127:Yes. Consise answers too
1669:80% ; is that Consensus
1398:personal attack too). --
72:Here's my old nomination
423:. No reason to oppose.
851:User:Andrevan/Archive4
670:. Great Wikipedian. -
834:and ballot stuffing
445:. I'm satisfied.
1589:Christopher Parham
672:A Link to the Past
401:. Capable admin. -
1587:per Acetic Acid.
1475:
1439:
1407:
1374:
1341:
1308:
1263:different words.
1225:
1206:
952:Special:Listusers
654:- you are met by
599:
350:
178:
132:
1753:
1696:
1536:
1531:
1521:
1492:
1474:
1471:
1457:
1438:
1435:
1425:
1406:
1403:
1392:
1373:
1370:
1359:
1340:
1337:
1326:
1307:
1304:
1290:
1272:
1267:
1257:
1218:
1205:
1202:
1189:
1174:
1140:
1112:
1107:
1095:
1076:
1059:
1054:
1044:
1030:
1026:
1020:
1015:
993:
891:
863:
802:
799:
796:
793:
790:
787:
723:
691:
686:
617:
612:
593:
588:
347:
342:
209:
175:
148:
143:
128:
100:
84:
1761:
1760:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1736:
1735:
1694:
1534:
1529:
1519:
1490:
1472:
1455:
1436:
1423:
1404:
1390:
1371:
1357:
1338:
1324:
1305:
1288:
1270:
1265:
1255:
1203:
1187:
1171:
1138:
1110:
1105:
1093:
1074:
1057:
1052:
1042:
1028:
1022:
1018:
1013:
991:
902:ballot stuffing
889:
861:
800:
797:
794:
791:
788:
785:
721:
689:
684:
644:
615:
610:
591:
556:. My pleasure.
345:
266:Tony the Marine
207:
146:
141:
98:
82:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1759:
1757:
1749:
1748:
1738:
1737:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1636:
1615:
1614:
1596:
1595:
1582:
1570:
1560:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1229:
1209:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1128:User:Wiki brah
1100:
1099:
1098:
969:
968:
967:
947:
946:
945:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
875:Dragons flight
839:Dragons flight
820:
819:
807:
775:
765:
756:
744:
728:
717:
706:
694:
678:
665:
660:Celestianpower
649:
642:
632:
620:
603:
578:
566:Strong support
563:
551:
539:
523:
511:
506:(spill yours?)
496:
486:
476:
464:
450:
440:
428:
418:
406:
396:
387:
371:
354:
332:
309:
281:
269:
262:Strong support
259:
249:
237:
227:
212:
203:Strong Support
200:
185:Strong support
182:
166:
153:
133:
122:
104:
103:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1758:
1747:
1744:
1743:
1741:
1729:
1726:
1725:
1723:
1720:
1715:
1712:
1711:
1709:
1706:
1697:
1691:
1690:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1679:
1674:
1673:
1668:
1667:
1662:
1658:
1657:
1655:
1651:
1648:
1647:
1645:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1626:
1620:
1619:
1613:
1610:
1606:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1593:
1590:
1586:
1583:
1581:
1578:
1574:
1571:
1568:
1564:
1561:
1559:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1539:
1537:
1532:
1525:
1524:
1522:
1516:
1515:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1505:
1500:
1493:
1487:
1486:
1481:
1476:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1460:
1458:
1452:
1451:
1445:
1440:
1433:
1429:
1428:
1426:
1420:
1419:
1413:
1408:
1401:
1396:
1395:
1393:
1387:
1386:
1380:
1375:
1368:
1363:
1362:
1360:
1354:
1353:
1347:
1342:
1335:
1330:
1329:
1327:
1321:
1320:
1314:
1309:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1293:
1291:
1285:
1284:
1278:
1277:
1275:
1273:
1268:
1261:
1260:
1258:
1252:
1251:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1240:
1237:
1233:
1230:
1228:
1224:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1210:
1207:
1200:
1195:
1190:
1184:
1183:
1178:
1177:
1175:
1168:
1165:
1161:
1158:
1141:
1135:
1134:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1118:
1117:
1115:
1113:
1108:
1101:
1096:
1090:
1089:
1084:
1080:
1079:
1077:
1071:
1070:
1065:
1064:
1062:
1060:
1055:
1048:
1047:
1045:
1039:
1038:
1033:
1032:
1027:
1025:
1017:
1016:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1003:
1001:
997:
996:
994:
988:
987:
981:
980:
978:
973:
970:
966:
963:
961:
957:
953:
948:
944:
940:
937:
933:
929:
925:
920:
919:
918:
915:
911:
907:
903:
899:
892:
886:
885:
879:
878:
876:
872:
867:
866:
864:
858:
857:
852:
848:
843:
842:
840:
836:
833:
830:
827:
826:
825:
824:
818:
815:
811:
808:
806:
803:
783:
779:
776:
773:
769:
766:
764:
760:
757:
755:
752:
748:
745:
743:
740:
736:
732:
729:
726:
724:
718:
716:
713:
710:
707:
704:
703:
698:
695:
692:
687:
682:
679:
676:
673:
669:
666:
664:
661:
657:
653:
650:
648:
645:
640:
636:
633:
631:
628:
624:
621:
618:
613:
607:
604:
602:
598:
594:
586:
582:
579:
577:
574:
571:
567:
564:
561:
559:
555:
552:
550:
547:
543:
540:
538:
535:
531:
530:The Uninvited
527:
524:
521:
518:
515:
512:
510:
507:
504:
500:
497:
494:
490:
487:
484:
480:
477:
475:
472:
468:
465:
463:
460:
458:
454:
451:
448:
444:
441:
439:
436:
432:
429:
426:
422:
419:
417:
414:
410:
407:
404:
400:
397:
395:
392:
388:
386:
383:
379:
375:
372:
369:
366:
364:
363:
358:
355:
353:
349:
348:
340:
336:
333:
331:
327:
324:
321:
317:
313:
310:
308:
304:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
282:
280:
277:
273:
270:
267:
263:
260:
257:
253:
250:
248:
245:
241:
238:
235:
231:
228:
226:
223:
220:
216:
213:
210:
204:
201:
198:
194:
190:
186:
183:
181:
177:
174:
170:
167:
165:
162:
158:
154:
152:
149:
144:
137:
134:
131:
126:
123:
121:
118:
115:
111:
110:
109:
108:
101:
95:
94:
89:
88:
87:
85:
79:
78:
73:
69:
66:
60:
56:
54:
51:
48:
44:
40:
39:
37:
29:
26:
19:
1727:
1721:
1713:
1707:
1688:
1675:support: -->
1671:
1670:
1665:
1664:
1660:
1649:
1643:
1637:
1633:
1632:
1622:
1621:
1617:
1616:
1604:
1598:
1597:
1584:
1572:
1562:
1513:
1484:
1463:
1449:
1417:
1384:
1351:
1318:
1282:
1249:
1231:
1211:
1181:
1159:
1132:
1087:
1068:
1036:
1023:
1011:
1002:
985:
971:
962:
909:
905:
883:
855:
828:
822:
821:
809:
777:
767:
763:user:zanimum
758:
746:
730:
700:
696:
680:
667:
656:my standards
651:
634:
622:
605:
580:
565:
553:
541:
525:
503:Mindspillage
498:
488:
478:
466:
459:
452:
447:Kelly Martin
442:
430:
420:
408:
398:
373:
362:Grumpy Troll
361:
356:
343:
334:
311:
283:
271:
261:
251:
239:
234:Thunderbrand
229:
214:
202:
184:
168:
135:
124:
106:
105:
92:
76:
70:
61:
57:
49:
41:
33:
32:
1678:Kim Bruning
1625:Kim Bruning
1577:HappyCamper
1567:Jonathunder
1014:Acetic Acid
977:Acetic Acid
906:campaigning
814:Sam Hocevar
514:Merovingian
435:Kim Bruning
130:Ryan Norton
871:like I did
585:Flcelloguy
558:SlimVirgin
493:Neutrality
219:Antandrus
74:. Thanks!
1654:Consensus
1551:Boothy443
1504:Jacoplane
722:Ingoolemo
627:JuntungWu
546:Jacoplane
489:Obviously
413:WAS 4.250
378:Johnleemk
256:K1Bond007
189:Linuxbeak
1740:Category
1618:Comments
1000:Phroziac
960:Phroziac
709:James F.
685:=Nichalp
457:Phroziac
453:Support!
339:Grutness
208:Bratsche
53:contribs
43:Andrevan
28:Andrevan
1605:Neutral
1599:Neutral
914:Silence
904:, it's
810:Support
778:Support
772:Saluyot
768:Support
759:Support
751:Alan Au
747:Support
731:Support
690:«Talk»=
681:Support
668:Support
652:Support
635:Support
623:Support
606:Support
581:Support
554:Support
542:Support
526:Support
499:Support
483:Tuf-Kat
479:Support
471:Zchangu
467:Support
443:Support
425:Adraeus
421:Support
409:Support
403:Willmcw
399:Support
374:Support
357:Support
335:Support
312:Support
284:Support
272:Support
252:Support
244:Silence
240:Support
230:Support
215:Support
169:Support
142:Ilγαηερ
136:Support
125:Support
107:Support
1661:really
1609:Splash
1592:(talk)
1585:Oppose
1573:Oppose
1563:Oppose
1555:comhrÚ
1530:Acetic
1297:WP:CIV
1266:Acetic
1239:(Talk)
1232:Oppose
1212:Oppose
1167:adiant
1160:Oppose
1106:Acetic
1053:Acetic
972:Oppose
956:WP:BOT
829:Oppose
823:Oppose
712:(talk)
675:(talk)
592:note?
222:(talk)
147:(Tαlκ)
1689:Andre
1514:Andre
1485:Andre
1450:Andre
1418:Andre
1385:Andre
1352:Andre
1319:Andre
1283:Andre
1250:Andre
1236:Theo
1216:Proto
1182:Andre
1173:|<
1172:: -->
1133:Andre
1088:Andre
1069:Andre
1037:Andre
986:Andre
884:Andre
856:Andre
782:Lst27
735:Giano
697:Apoyo
639:Owen×
597:Desk
532:Co.,
316:αγδεε
276:Comic
173:Amren
93:Andre
77:Andre
38:(UTC)
16:<
1695:talk
1520:talk
1491:talk
1456:talk
1424:talk
1391:talk
1358:talk
1325:talk
1289:talk
1256:talk
1188:talk
1139:talk
1094:talk
1075:talk
1043:talk
1024:talk
992:talk
924:Func
910:that
890:talk
862:talk
780:. --
739:talk
573:aran
534:Inc.
391:El_C
382:Talk
346:wha?
288:Func
197:Desk
193:Talk
161:Talk
99:talk
83:talk
47:talk
36:2005
1468:fvw
1432:fvw
1400:fvw
1367:fvw
1334:fvw
1301:fvw
1199:fvw
616:315
611:ral
570:Pak
528:.
520:(c)
517:(t)
341:...
157:Dan
1742::
1722:3.
1708:2.
1672::=
1666:or
1652:.
1644:1.
1553:|
1549:--
1464:is
1365:--
1197:--
1085:.
941:)
934:,
930:,
926:(
812:.
770:--
737:|
625:.
595:|
590:A
491:.
411:.
380:|
328:)
305:)
298:,
294:,
290:(
195:|
191:|
159:|
117:G.
114:D.
55:)
1728:A
1714:A
1692:(
1650:A
1535:'
1517:(
1488:(
1473:*
1453:(
1437:*
1421:(
1405:*
1388:(
1372:*
1355:(
1339:*
1322:(
1306:*
1286:(
1271:'
1253:(
1223:c
1220:t
1204:*
1185:(
1170:_
1164:R
1136:(
1111:'
1091:(
1072:(
1058:'
1040:(
1029:)
1019:(
989:(
938:,
936:@
932:c
928:t
887:(
859:(
801:)
798:k
795:l
792:a
789:t
786:(
643:☎
587:|
370:.
326:c
323:τ
320:ε
318:(
302:,
300:@
296:c
292:t
96:(
80:(
50:·
45:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.