630:), in general, it would seem that the community thinks an individual member may have different personal standards as to what they expect of a candidate, but that it would be preferable that a given person treats candidates consistently with their standards. In some cases, there are often mutterings about people moving the bar lower because they are friends with a given candidate or conversely some people can suddenly raise the bar for some guy that they don't like. People are always grumbling about RfAs being popularity contests and so forth. How would you deal with a case, for instance, where some person perhaps got 80-85% in raw numbers, but this occurred because a group of people went soft on them for some reason (eg when some person only made 800 article edits and/or only wrote 1 stub or had only been around for 2 months - but some people who have soft spot waived their usual requirements for 2000 edits, multiple non stubs, 5 months etc etc,). Conversely, what would you do if they were below the grey zone, but had a whole group of people who suddenly used uncharacteristically high standards (eg when they oppose citing less common reasons, or selectively quoting 1FA or lack of article writing or vandal fighting, when they usually support people at a much lower bar) - This could be because the people are either "under-rated" and "unfashionable" as well as rank undisguised retaliation against an argument somewhere. What is your opinion on calibrating the opinions in such grey cases with unusual supports/oppositions?
3080:, etc. Though RfA has a lot in common with voting, RfA isn't itself a vote, but rather a discussion process to generate consensus. I strongly agree with this aspect of your statement, "a bureaucrat acts only to divine for what action a consensus lies and then to effect such action, irrespective of his personal views..." as I have said above and in various places on this page. I will never let a personal opinion influence an RfA closing if made a bureaucrat, and I will not register a support or oppose opinion AND close the same RfA. However, a strict vote-count could be performed by a bot -- the reason for the bureaucrat position is to interpret the nuances of arguments and determine whether consensus truly does exist. So if someone is borderline when it comes to the percentages used for rules of thumb, the bureaucrat's job is to interpret the community feeling on the matter.
2846:". If you want more information on Xoloz's objections, see his talk page. As for Durin, I don't really have an "answer" -- the main thrust of his oppose seemed to be "not active enough," and what could I really say to that except "no, I've been active enough," which seems like a needlessly argumentative comment. I don't understand what's disturbing about that. Prospective admins or bureaucrats are not required to respond to each and every comment on this page. In fact, doing so would probably be a bad idea. And as for IAR, I tried to explain that it was a case of Danny's nomination being a special case, and not that IAR is a principle generally used on RfA. If you're concerned, I can promise right now that if I ever become a bureaucrat, I will never use IAR as a rationale to promote.
3016:
clarified, I gather to be rather different from mine, such that, as, I think, and per Haukur, AKAF, and Walton, I do not feel comfortable reposing in Andre my trust relative to the closing of RfAs. I should have no problem at all trusting
Andrevan exceedingly competently and consistent with policy and the consensus of particularized discussions to carry out those (usually rather pro forma) other tasks of which a bureaucrat might partake, but the significance and frequency of requests for adminship render any missteps in the closing thereof to be much more disruptive and plainly bad than any misstep in the execution of a bot flagging or username change, and so my general RfB analysis, which, inasmuch as I continue to believe that we ought to bureaucrat (as a verb) any editor
2580:
nebulously defined for anyone to do consistently and well but several of the bureaucrats understand their remit as going well beyond that and into discounting opinions they disagree with and judging candidates on their merits. Your statement leaves me unconvinced that you would refrain from this. I find this scenario you propose particularly outlandish: "77% of editors expressed their support, but everyone generally agrees that so-and-so is qualified, and oppose comments were fairly noncommittal, so I will promote." I don't see a situation where everyone agrees that a candidate is qualified but 23% of voters oppose her candidacy as possible.
656:
for any reasons they wish (as long as they are not false or otherwise invalid), and those reasons can be as nitpicky or as forgiving as they want. (That said, I do think there is a phenomenon whereby other users take their cues from earlier !votes. For example User A supports because he is impressed that the candidate got User B to support despite his usual high standards, or something. So in a way the scaling you describe does occur, absent of bureaucrat intervention.) As far as popularity contests, "it's not what you know, but who you know" sometimes in life, and we're just going to have to
2259:. I would prefer more recent activity but then we have a lot of crats who go the tools a long time ago who I barely know anyway. Looking through Andre's contribs he looks sensible and his answers to questions seem acceptable. As a former mediator he has showed a good approach to conflict and I am convinced he would handle any discussion over controversial RfAs/RfBs well. I think he understands what the job is about and will only promote where there is a consensus to do so.
295:. Last time around, the oppose !votes felt that a) I did not explain myself enough when I was afraid of hurting others' feelings, and b) I posted notices on others' talk pages informing them of my bureaucrat nomination. I have certainly kept these criticisms in mind since that time, and I have grown as a person and as a contributor. I feel that I have addressed the first concern in my editing. As for informing users of the nomination, there are a number of users in
2669:. Why the sudden re-interest? I'm hard pressed to understand how you could be well versed in community expectations for the role of bureaucrat. I also have precious little to go on with which to evaluate you as a potential bureaucrat. Very little activity at all with regards to RfA. Become involved again, as you were in 2005, engaging in discussion and evaluating candidates with some thought out comments and apply again in a few months please. --
3054:
even our complex RfAs. On the broader issue: My understanding of RfA is like that of AKAF and Haukur, I think, viz., that RfA is not, or should not be, unlike a vote, and my understanding of bureaucratship is as ministerial (I believe, that is, that a bureaucrat acts only to divine for what action a consensus lies and then to effect such action, irrespective of his personal views about the soundness of arguments expressed in discussions
442:, Danny's standing as a contributor (and UninvitedCompany's comment that he could probably just have asked for it back), and the important maxim that adminship is no big deal. Although I personally would not have acted to promote, I accept the decision that was made, like the bureaucrats on that page and I think the community at large. I don't see how having a user like Danny as an administrator could cause harm to the encyclopedia.
2950:
2892:. As is standard talk page procedure, I responded on his talk page, and so on. However, I can't really say I understand why this impacts your assessment of my communication skills. I also don't know where the concept of replying to say that concerns can't be replied to comes from; if that were standard practice, RfAs and RfBs would be full of comments like "I have no response to this." As in
2498:, reluctantly. I read your statement above several times, and I can only come away with the idea that you support considerably increasing the bureaucrats' discretionary range. I support the bureaucrats having a certain leeway, but I'm uncomfortable with increasing it for any but the most difficult and controvertial RFAs (3-5 per year). Discretion is a feather on the scales, not a finger.
727:
individual opposes. In the case of last minute information (although I certainly think this applies more to AfDs) an extension might be merited. I also agree that if a comment is simply untrue factually, and this has been made clear on the nomination, it is weighed less. Again, more for AfDs, but valuable thoughts. Did you have a more specific aspect that you'd like me to comment on?
187:
the level of acceptance needed, but consensus is not contingent necessarily on numeric percentage. A bot can't say, "77% of editors expressed their support, but everyone generally agrees that so-and-so is qualified, and oppose comments were fairly noncommittal, so I will promote." The human element is needed for this sort of analysis. This is the job of a bureaucrat.
3056:āexcept, of course, where there exist overriding policies to which the community have acceded and where those policies are plainly inconsistent with a discussion, in which case further input ought perhaps to be sought (there are, to be sure, no such policies or general understandings relative to requests for adminship, and I can't imagine that ever there will be)ā
1820:
about these sorts of things is a good sign, not a bad one. Andrevan here has been patrolling the mean streets of
Knowledge (XXG) for years, armed (seemingly, for this is all he uses most of the time) only with a cool collected spirit and reasoned, calm arguments. If anybody could help Knowledge (XXG) more as a bureacrat it's Andrevan here.
3028:, is not, to me, persuasive, and that if I thought Andre to meet my standard I'd support him even as I might not think him to be, for me, the best of our current six-pack of candidates) does not permit me with any reasonable degree of confidence to say that the promotion of Andre would prove, to/in my mind, a good thing.
241:. Contentious nominations are just nominations, after all. If consensus exists, I will promote. If it does not exist, I will not promote. If the case is borderline, I will ask another bureaucrat for a second opinion, suggest a brief extension, or bite the bullet and figure out whether consensus exists.
2914:
I concur with Andre in that the question is not one that can readily be answered. It did not need an answer; it self-answered really. I re-iterate my stance that should this RfB fail, Andre should remain active at RfA and run again in a few months. I know he said this would be his last attempt, but I
2866:
for bureaucrats in my book; making me go look on Xoloz's talk page for a reply to questions/concerns raised here is not good communication. As for Durin, a simple reply that you don't believe his concerns are addressable would have negated that concern of mine. But I'll grant you that my requirements
1806:
One of the most experienced, dedicated, reasonable, and fair-minded editors on
Knowledge (XXG), easily. I've known him since 2000, and he's one of the few people I've known that long who I've never once seen lose his temper, make stupid or hasty decisions, or abandon the insane level of commitment he
1321:. Are they giving peanuts this week or something? It is the only reason why there are some many Requests for Barbequeing this week... anyways, back on topic. I've seen Andrevan around , and I haven't seen any issues to make me pause. While this has been the third RfB for him, the previous ones were a
726:
It raises a few important issues, many of which I agree with, although there seems to be sort of a skew toward AfD discussions. Homogeneity is definitely something to take into account when evaluating RfA consensus. Lots of opposes citing the same concern carry a little more weight than less unified,
655:
I don't think users' usual standards have any direct effect on the consensus. If generally users seem to agree with something that isn't what they have historically agreed with, it's really not my role to say, "But that's not what you thought last RfA, be more consistent." Users may oppose or support
186:
What about the numbers, the percentages, all that pseudo-voting mumbo jumbo? Well, the numbers are confusing to some, but basically they represent the quantitative aspect of the promotion process. They are a rule of thumb to judge the level of agreement. 80% is just a jumping-off point to demonstrate
470:
swears by it as a founding principle of
Knowledge (XXG), he sometimes doesn't agree with it himself. I recall when he affirmed the 3RR rule as important. I can think of all kinds of good reasons to break 3RR in good faith, but try breaking it in good faith and see where it lands you. What I'm saying
182:
Obviously this doesn't describe our process either, but it makes it easier to see what the whole consensus system is about: agreement. A bureaucrat's job is to figure out if the community, or that subset of the community that has weighed in on the page in question, generally agrees that something is
3058:
and in no case in substitution of his views or those of certain others for those of the community writ large. Although I realize that your position is more tempered than first I or others thought it to be, I think it is probably fair to say that you think RfA closure to be something more than vote
3053:
It's not your fault for being mildly perplexed; I see that I neglected, you know, actually to say why I was opposing (for which I apologize); that you were able to parse that textual monstrosityāI was opposing essentially per AKAF, et al.āleads me to think that you are eminently capable of handling
2631:
Fair enough, I misunderstood you slightly. I still can't really support based on your answer, but I have changed to Weak Oppose, as I recognise that you would not routinely invoke IAR in closing RfAs. I apologise if I gave the impression that you would abuse the bureaucrat tools - I certainly don't
2579:
For the record, yes, I would like a move towards the German system but I do realize that we are not there yet and that in the meantime we still have to promote new bureaucrats. As to "trusted users who understand when a bunch of people agree about something" I think that's already a role that's too
190:
Is consensus the best system for selecting adminstrators? I don't know. Does it work? Yes. It needs to scale with the project, however. As
Knowledge (XXG) grows larger, we need more trusted executors of community will to keep the system running smoothly. With several bureaucrat nominations on this
1819:
So much has been made of
Andrevan's brief exposition on the nature of the consensus mechanism we use here at Knowledge (XXG). I don't see why this is seen as dangerous. "Oh no! He's trying to expand the bureacratic powers!" I think that that's much too alarmist and paranoid a conclusion. Thinking
1082:
Eeks, has it really been so long since the last nomination? Couldn't make up my mind then, but of the four candidates here, Andre is the only one I can support without reservations. I am very happy with his statement about consensus, and, of course, he's been here forever and has the trust of the
497:
Anyway, we could debate IAR for a long time, but I think the concept of IAR is not really related to the question that Walton asked. It deals with the Danny nomination, and my view on that in a nutshell is: "I don't feel consensus existed, but the promotion was in-line with
Knowledge (XXG)'s core
412:
Given that Danny's RfA closed at only 68% support, with over 100 good-faith opposes from established users, do you believe it was right for him to be promoted? I'm not asking for an opinion on Danny himself, but on the bureaucrats' closure of that RfA, which ignored 100 people's opinions given in
2558:
For what it's worth, I agree with you that bureaucrats are not special or magical, they're just trusted users who understand when a bunch of people agree about something. However, RfA is not a vote or a supermajority, and RfA couldn't really be handled by a bot or a vote-counting user (at least,
2524:
If that's how you want to slice it, then I think that you understand the current discretionary range to be broader than my understanding of it. In my opinion bureaucratic discretion mostly isn't necessary, but your answers to the questions above makes me think that you'll want your finger on the
660:
and roll with it. Generally I think
Knowledge (XXG) is a mature community, and editors don't just oppose or support for petty personal reasons. When it comes to outright retaliation ("You !voted to delete my article so I'm opposing your adminship"), those sorts of comments are weighed lower than
3252:
for now. I have thoughts somewhat similar to ReyBrujo above. You've been an admin for three years and appear to have been involved in no major controversies. But at that same time, you've not been very active. There are lots of administrative backlogs that could have used attention, but you
2450:
With great respect for a wiki-veteran, I'm left a little uneasy about the candidate's "zen philosophy" of consensus. I can't call it inaccurate: heck, not being able to "call it" anything is part of its zen character, I suppose.Ā ;) Still, especially given that there are other fine candidates
934:
I do not believe consensus existed upon reviewing that RfA. I don't know much about the ArbCom issues, etc, but I do not see consensus to promote on that page. Certainly there's no possible use of IAR here, especially since it appears that
Carnildo was embroiled in a lot of process and policy.
493:
IAR has an important meaning to me, which is: if what you're doing is definitely the right thing for improving the encyclopedia, but is contrary to the letter of the rule which governs it, do it anyway. That is how I feel
Rdsmith4 acted in the Danny nomination, and why I support and accept his
2614:
I stated above, in response to your question, that when the Danny RfA was closed by Rdsmith4, I believe he felt it was a clear-cut, obvious decision, of the sort that falls under the domain of those policies. I would like to stress that I have no intention of using either policy to support my
529:
There have been a number of other cases besides Danny where an administrator wass approved with less than 70% support. In at least a couple of these cases, the oppose votes, while outnumbered about 2:1, were quite vociferous in their lack of trust for the candidate. Do you think that IAR was
3015:
Although certain of my initial concerns, which were rather like those of Walton, have been allayed, I find there nevertheless to be a good bit that disquiets about Andre's understanding of the role of a bureaucrat in the closing of an RfA and the general nature of RfA itself, which, even as
872:
There have been a number of other cases besides Danny where an administrator was approved with less than 70% support. In at least a couple of these cases, the oppose votes, while outnumbered about 2:1, were quite vociferous in their lack of trust for the candidate. Do you think that IAR was
373:
You appear to be less active as an administrator than other users who have been considered for bureaucratship. Do you believe you would be active enough as a 'crat to justify giving you such a sought-after and important role and what is your opinion on the current number of inactive 'crats?
3208:
Oh, no, I have no intention of leaving. I'm sorry if that was misunderstood. I just meant that if this nomination fails, I have no desire to seek bureaucratship again - it's not really a big deal anyway, and I think 4 nominations is pushing it (actually I think 3 is pushing it as well).
194:
None of this discussion is new, of course. In my past nominations, I understood the workings of the consensus system, and I would have made the proper promotions. However, since then my understanding of consensus has been enhanced. Before I knew about consensus, but now I feel that I
183:
a good idea. That something, being, of course, promotion of admins or other bureaucrats. Bureaucrats are merely executors of community will. A good bureaucrat must keep up with the talk pages and side discussions to keep in touch with the pulse of the community and its wishes.
801:ā Hypothetical situation: An RFA is ready for closure. It has 71% support, and 29% oppose. You know the candidate, and both like them as a person, and believe they would make a good admin. All things considered, what would you do as a crat in this situation of RFA closure?
3180:
Aha! You know, I am very happy to acknowledge my misjudgment and to strike that out. I cannot support because my main point was inactivity as administrator and editor in general, but at least your reply eased my mind (you never know when someone will get offended!). --
2826:
per Xoloz and Durin (whose questions have not been answered, something I find disturbing in a potential 'crat). I understand that you you explicitly 'said' that IAR should not be used to justify RFA results, but the fact that you mentioned it at all bothers me. --
763:
I think I've made clear that bureaucrats' purpose is to carry out the collective community will. Individual bureaucrats' opinions of users are irrelevant; indeed, voting on an RfA AND closing it is unacceptable for a bureaucrat, as it is a conflict of interest.
3253:
haven't spent much time attending to those. So what about the bureaucrat backlogs is different that would cause you to devote time to clearing them? It's not a reason to oppose, just a general perplexity at why you're even interested in being a bureaucrat. --
3150:
While others may argue you don't need to have utilized your administrators tools in order to be a good bureaucratship, the fact that you don't use your administrator tools regularly leads me to think you would not use your new tools regularly as well. --
429:
page shows a lot of thoughtful, reasoned discussion. Were I a bureaucrat during the nomination, discussing on that page, I would have agreed with Taxman and Warofdreams that consensus didn't really exist to promote. That said, I do not think it was
128:
I have been a Knowledge (XXG) editor since June 2003 with over 11,000 edits, an administrator since September 2004 with a fairly uncontroversial tenure, and also an administrator over at Meta since May 2006. I nominated myself for bureaucrat twice,
3148:, and that (in case you did not know, I am rather blunt, so my apologies if you get offended) you are fishing for bureaucratship, trying to ride on the previous three posted RfB's, just like people tried to ride the "wave" after Essjay's departure.
281:. Desire, certainly. My time to spend on the project varies, but in general, yes. I'd be glad to fill everyone in on my plans for the next year or so in terms of time to devote to the project, but suffice it to say I will have plenty of free time.
177:
Consensus has two common meanings. One is a general agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action. The other is as a theory and practice of getting such
1416:- I like your personal statement and general answer to the questions - it is good to see you have learnt the lessons of your previous RFB. I think you would make a good bureaucrat and have the right attitude and experience for the position.
227:. Consensus. I would request that you read my statement above, as I've discussed this quite a bit. If someone needs further clarification or explanation, I would ask him or her to please go ahead and post an additional question or a comment.
2615:
findings if I become a bureaucrat. I say this not to convince you to change your status of oppose, but to clarify for the record and for others reading your comment, as I feel you have somewhat misrepresented my viewpoint in your comment.
2896:, which you supported, many oppose !votes stand alone with no comment from the nominee. As for familiarity and trust, I assure you I have both of these in spades, but if you're concerned please raise a specific objection in those areas.
743:
Well it was mainly about consensus in general, not RfAs, so some stuff may not apply as much here. My main issue though, it with the balance between the RfA and relevant consensus (or majority), and the opinions of the crats themselves.
299:
who expressed a wish to be notified of any further bureaucrat nominations. I do not really know what to do in this case, so I am going to wait and see what comments on this page say about the matter (hint, hint). I will however, place
3194:
part of your nomination, because a) it makes me think you will leave or become very inactive if the request passes; b) therefore, it may make a few support your nomination because they don't want to see you leave; and c) the only
475:
is the greatest piece of crap. If we all have the option to "Ignore All Rules," than the rules should not be made in the first place. Wikipedians want their bureaucrats to be trustworthy, even when they disagree with the result.
2867:
for communication are different from the norm, apparently, as I don't have all day to spend here arguing politics. I just don't see the level of familiarity, communication, and trust here that I would like from a new 'crat. --
2025:
If there has been significant change in RfA culture, it has been for the worse. The procedure, however, has not changed significantly. I see no reason to oppose, and I cannot think of many people more qualified than Andre.
2507:
I do not support increasing discretionary range beyond current levels. I am describing the consensus system currently in place, as I understand it, and as it is implemented in the RfA process by our current bureaucrats.
143:
With the exception of writing and editing the actual articles of our encyclopedia, the Requests for Adminship page has probably been where I've spent the largest chunk of my time and effort here on Knowledge (XXG). From
2451:
stepping forward about whom I am certain, the lack of clarity (as expressed to the outside world, anyway) inherent in the candidate's stand leaves me wanting more. One might call this a "zen" oppose, in fairness.
334:
You mean, the little bit of text that says (13/0/1)? I think it's useful as a thermometer of sorts of nominations, and removing it would be kind of pointless because anyone can just count up the !votes themselves.
158:
I have myself (successfully) nominated, and of course to my bureaucrat nominations, I have had a great deal of time to contemplate that concept so important to our encyclopedia and its social structure: consensus.
827:
Thats close to exactly the answer I was looking for. As I said on Ral's RFB, this question was deliberately vague, and you have picked that up, as well as noting that what you think doesnt matter. Cheers, --
3145:
Sorry, I cannot support. You have not been active enough in Knowledge (XXG) lately, you had a "uncontroversial tenure" because you had not used your administrators tools as much as other "controversial"
2541:. Being a bureaucrat should be a job essentially any regular old Wikipedian could do. We should have clear and simple guidelines for the job and no need for mysticism. Bureaucrats should form a, well,
125:- Since my query on the talk page may have led somewhat to the current deluge of qualified bureaucrat nominations, I feel it would be bad form to not at least subject myself to the same scrutiny.Ā :)
2884:
I don't specifically know why Xoloz started a discussion on my talk page instead of here, but I assume it was because this page is already gigantic and still to grow. You can read the discussion at
120:
1807:
has made to projects like Knowledge (XXG). He's a goddamn machine. If you're not going to make full use of him, you have a duty to disassemble him and put all his spare parts to good use. :E -
2605:
be a factor in closing contentious RfAs. The useful function of IAR is to allow process to be circumvented in clear-cut, uncontroversial cases, not to provide a license to ignore consensus.
3017:
169:
can explain it, but that doesn't really do it justice, or quite describe what we do here on Requests for Adminship. Actually, I'd rather take a look at the article in the mainspace called
426:
249:
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?
3272:
970:
384:
Knowledge (XXG) for an extended period, unlike many admins and bureaucrats. I think I would be quite a bit more active than the current set of "dormant" bureaucrats, and do my part.
1553:
A little inactive with the tools, yea, but he been in the project for about three years already, and a admin for over two years, and I trust him on reading consensus in RFB. Thanks
1448:
2837:
3020:, would serve to promote any qualified editor even where his/her help is not apparently and presently needed to fulfill any (important) bureaucrat task (by which I mean that
2877:
2773:
627:
2549:. The candidate's statement leaves me feeling that his views on the job are too distant from mine. Kudos, however, on running for the job and encouraging others to do so.
134:
55:
149:
130:
1007:
Because nobody has offered an opinion either way, I have left 10 user talk page notes to users who, in 2005, expressed a desire to be notified of further nominations.
2666:: In the opening to this RfB, you say "It's been a while". Indeed it has. You've been utterly absent from WT:RFA since November of 2005 up until a couple of days ago
2699:
per Durin. I'd prefer a more active admin be promoted to bureaucrat - we have enough inactive bureaucrats as it is, and I can't tell if you'll be consistent or not.
3290:
2893:
3072:
So I think you're saying that RfA is a vote, and you would only like to support bureaucrat candidates who also think it is a vote. I recommend you take a look at
1428:- A very experienced Editor and administrator..I doubt it that he will abuse the tool and we can't emphasize enough that we need a few more good Bureaucrats...--
909:
563:
152:
2423:
I would like to help with changing usernames and bot flags as well, but those processes don't require as much explanation, so I sort of glossed over them.Ā :)
2313:. No concerns with Andrevan being promoted to bureaucrat at this time. No reason to believe his use of tools will be anything other than proper and sensible.
2380:. You're going to hate the reasoning, but the truth is we don't need another 'crat to close RFAs. Of the three 'crat task, this one is always done on time.
1306:. Plenty of experience and rarely goes rogue from my experiences. On top of that, as stated, he seems to be someone who will do the boring, mundane crap. -
145:
1461:
I don't have the same "name recognition" of Andre as for the other candidates, but I like his essay about consensus and I believe that he does "grok" it.
155:
3059:
counting (please correct me if I'm wrong), and with a few extreme exceptions, I don't, and so I am inclined to support only those who are clearly in the
2976:
So I need to be more active than I am at the moment, or more active than I've been historically "right before this nom"? Or some combination thereof?Ā ;)
1443:
862:. This is a complementary question to your dialogue with Argyrio under Question 8, given here because I'm not sure you'd see a small addition up there:
3037:
I apologize, but I've read this about four times and I can't quite get my head around what you're saying here. Are you opposing per AKAF and Haukur?
2123:
found good crat candidate! Can't figger how all little candidates think. Little Andre good answers to questions, not so much foot-shuffling, 'Zilla
2066:
Mature and level headed contributor. I hardly ever comment in these things, but on this occasion I doo feel the candidiate would be very good crat.
3161:
3160:
Although I appreciate your viewpoint, I would like to point out that I announced a vague intent to submit my nomination at 23:08, 2 July 2007 (see
17:
2210:. Overall, Andrevan is quite the valuable contributor, and if he's wanting to take on this extra responsibility, I feel he is fit to do so. --
511:(Another side note: These bits on separate lines were added one at a time, see the page history. I figured it didn't make sense to sign 5 times.)
1612:; yep. A very fine candidate for this job. First bumped into Andre three years ago, and he's still every bit as sensible now as he was then.
3063:
camp (or, rather, who will act consistent with the idea that RfA is more-or-less a vote, even as they might think it ought to be otherwise).
380:
Knowledge (XXG) is just a hobby (albeit a very interesting and important one), and I do have a busy real life. That said, I've never actually
2919:
2907:
2857:
3100:
In short: don't worry, I wouldn't abuse my bureaucratic discretion to weigh in on most RfAs where the numerical level of support is clear.
3077:
2924:
Thanks Durin, but if you want me, now's your chanceĀ ;) Seriously though, I don't think a fourth bureaucrat nomination would be good form.
2011:. A level-headed, well-versed admin. I'm not concerned with his recent absence from RfA--things haven't really changed here since 2005.
1165:- I am very impressed by his statement about consensus, which I totally agree with. He's a great user and will make a great bureaucrat.
1325:(and I do mean long) time ago ago, so they can't be held against him. Overall, there are reasons to support, and no reasons to oppose.
807:
All things really can't be considered in a case like that, as I have no access to support and oppose arguments. It doesn't matter what
37:
2740:
2086:
1340:. Nearly three years ago you welcomed me to Knowledge (XXG). Thank you. You're an exemplary contributer and will make a fine bcrat.
2956:. You need to be much more active than you are at the moment, you've only got back into being more active right before this nom.
2964:
1192:
966:
2745:
2464:, fire away! I can answer questions to clarify my stance, so long as they are not ";What is the sound of one hand clapping?"
84:
657:
221:
Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
2416:
2090:
1043:
836:
2885:
1889:
494:
decision even though I do not agree consensus existed. I'm certainly not saying I would use IAR as an excuse to promote.
96:
3081:
2243:
2108:
701:
210:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge (XXG) as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following
114:
102:
140:
It's been a while, but I think the time is right for a third (and final, I'd say, regardless of outcome) nomination.
23:
191:
page now, I think we're working toward that. I urge anyone willing and qualified to put forth a nomination as well.
1166:
90:
2756:
User has opposed several other RfBs with his "long standing reasoning" without specifying what that reasoning is:
1310:
1205:
A non-controversial admin who's willing to help out with the boring task of renames. Seems good enough for meĀ :-)
2889:
1684:
1442:
A bit impatient sometimes but looking in retrospect he is a competent sysop and an asset for the encyclopedia. ā
108:
1035:- yep, this user looks good to me. I'd like to see him use the extra tools. I wish him luck on his 3rd RFB nom.
235:
How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
2735:
2410:
2408:
See your point Wikihermit, but you are slightly wrong -- its not always on time. I do see your point though. --
2193:
This user looks calm, disinterested, trustworthy, and capable of applying good sense when assessing consensus.
1058:
1037:
830:
789:
255:. I think my record of contributions speaks for itself, but I would be glad to respond to any specific remarks.
3257:
3236:
3220:
3203:
3185:
3175:
3155:
3133:
3111:
3095:
3067:
3048:
3032:
3003:
2987:
2971:
2935:
2818:
2802:
2780:
2763:
2748:
2726:
2714:
2689:
2673:
2652:
2636:
2633:
2626:
2609:
2606:
2584:
2574:
2553:
2529:
2519:
2502:
2484:
2475:
2455:
2434:
2418:
2402:
2359:
2347:
2335:
2317:
2305:
2282:
2270:
2251:
2226:
2214:
2202:
2185:
2174:
2161:
2114:
2094:
2070:
2058:
2046:
2034:
2020:
2003:
1991:
1979:
1967:
1951:
1915:
1899:
1875:
1859:
1843:
1827:
1811:
1798:
1786:
1772:
1757:
1738:
1716:
1704:
1692:
1675:
1661:
1643:
1639:- Knowledge (XXG) needs more bureaucrats. Turning down a trustworthy, qualified volunteer would be insane. --
1631:
1619:
1604:
1571:
1559:
1548:
1536:
1514:
1494:
1473:
1465:
1453:
1437:
1420:
1408:
1382:
1370:
1361:
1349:
1332:
1313:
1298:
1282:
1265:
1246:
1227:
1197:
1180:
1157:
1131:
1117:
1103:
1091:
1077:
1045:
1018:
1002:
946:
920:
902:
884:
838:
822:
775:
758:
738:
718:
672:
647:
611:
574:
557:
541:
524:
488:
453:
417:
414:
395:
346:
68:
2278:. Reading through all the questions only cemented my opinion that you only need more tools at your disposal.
1307:
2525:
balance in more cases than I'm comfortable with. Your "77%" answer is (for me) an example of this attitude.
1769:
1241:
1188:
Thoughtful communicator who understands consensus. I trust Andre and believe he will be a great bureaucrat.
1071:
296:
1651:. Your questions satisfy me, and since you're before my time, i can safely assume you know wikipedia well.
2386:
2237:
1726:
1211:
746:
706:
682:
3073:
2560:
2480:
Issues have been clarified sufficiently such that I withdraw my oppose. No comment, otherwise, for now.
891:
I would need to see/know specifics, but in general probably no. The Danny nomination was a special case.
546:
I would need to see/know specifics, but in general probably no. The Danny nomination was a special case.
166:
2082:
1433:
1260:
1146:
640:
604:
3271:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
1173:
623:
1689:
148:, to the probably hundreds of other nominations (bureaucrat and admin alike) I've !voted on, to the
2961:
2873:
2833:
2559:
under the current system... if you're proposing reform, that's a discussion for another page). See
2266:
2234:- Knowledge (XXG) needs more b'crats, and Andrevan looks like a editor who could handle the job. --
2197:
2144:
2031:
1930:
1908:
1616:
1278:
632:
596:
304:
1824:
1554:
1127:
3232:
3216:
3171:
3107:
3091:
3044:
2999:
2983:
2931:
2903:
2853:
2798:
2685:
2648:
2622:
2570:
2515:
2471:
2430:
2223:
1855:
1766:
1462:
1236:
1088:
1063:
1014:
998:
942:
917:
898:
880:
818:
771:
734:
668:
571:
553:
537:
520:
449:
391:
342:
78:
268:
3130:
2709:
2298:
1795:
1557:
1523:
361:
463:
439:
3196:
2777:
2546:
2078:
1959:. Andre is mature, responsible, intelligent, and trustworthy. Will make a great bureaucrat.
1894:
1840:
1781:
1713:
1673:
1640:
1504:
1430:
1379:
1255:
1151:
2842:
Xoloz's questions have in fact been answered, which is why he withdrew his oppose, saying "
2632:
think that. This request will probably pass, but I hope you will take heed of my concerns.
1871:- Answers seem fine, strongly supported by Phaedriel - in general should be no big deal. --
505:
477:
472:
459:
435:
272:
264:
2601:. Reference to IAR and BOLD in answer to my optional question really worry me. IAR should
2055:
2015:
1960:
1947:
1883:
I have no qualms, and believe Andre will use the tools wisely, accurately, and precisely.
1872:
1698:
1681:
1568:
1391:
1345:
2355:. Andre is active enough and intelligent enough to be trusted with the bureaucrat tools.
1748:
498:
principles of working for the good of the encyclopedia regardless of what the rules say."
2869:
2829:
501:
In other words, I would not have made the same call that Rdsmith4 did, but I respect it.
2957:
2723:
2261:
2194:
2171:
2128:
2027:
1976:
1925:
1652:
1613:
1580:
1545:
1487:
1288:
1275:
1189:
1100:
318:
1848:
Recently unblocked by me, see his talk page. Just a silly user, but a friend of mine.
3284:
3254:
3227:
3211:
3200:
3182:
3166:
3152:
3102:
3086:
3064:
3039:
3029:
2994:
2978:
2926:
2898:
2848:
2793:
2680:
2643:
2617:
2581:
2565:
2550:
2510:
2466:
2425:
2344:
2328:
2067:
1988:
1850:
1753:
1417:
1367:
1084:
1009:
993:
962:
937:
913:
893:
876:
850:
813:
766:
729:
663:
567:
548:
533:
515:
485:
444:
386:
337:
73:
3126:
2967:
2760:
2701:
2461:
2291:
2211:
2182:
2000:
1808:
1470:
1358:
991:
I was wondering if anyone had any input on the iffy bits in my question #5, above.
356:
65:
3190:
And by the way, since you seem to stand my bluntness so wellĀ ;-) I don't like the
2949:
199:
consensus, and that is why I am again putting forth my nomination for bureaucrat.
2814:
2542:
1884:
1670:
1376:
1326:
1141:
1112:
3018:
the net effect on the project of whose becoming a bureaucrat should be positive
3078:
Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not#Knowledge (XXG) is not a democracy
2916:
2670:
2481:
2452:
2279:
2103:
2043:
2012:
1943:
1628:
1579:. I absolutely trust Andre, and I speak from my own experience. All the best!
1341:
467:
2526:
2499:
2356:
2314:
1482:
170:
165:
It's a thing almost zen-like in its simplicity and simultaneous complexity.
1254:
we need more crats and Andrevan seems to have more than enough experience.
310:
on my user page, as this is according to the directions definitely allowed.
484:
excuse I would ever want a bureaucrat to use in closing an RfA or RfB. --
466:
do not really deal with the realities of a lot of Knowledge (XXG). Though
2844:
Issues have been clarified sufficiently such that I withdraw my oppose.
1821:
2290:
I think you answered the questions good enough to gain my support.Ā :)
3275:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
3225:
But thanks for your reasoned comments and input, and your good luck!
2811:
2768:
Jeffrey has indeed been making the same argument for a long time; he
1522:
I've never met Andre, but he seems like a fine and reliable fellow. ā
3265:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
1375:
Andre's shown dedication to the project, and would be a fine crat.
289:
What about the issues raised on your last nomination? (Added by me)
2890:
User talk:Xoloz/archive16#The sound of one molecule of ice breaking
3162:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for adminship#Bureaucratship Again?
1697:
Certainly been around for long enough to know what he's doing. ~
504:
Side note: There are plenty of good faith ways to break 3RR! See
328:
What is your opinion on the use of a vote tally on a RFA or RFB?
1235:
Andrevan seems to be the sort that will make a fine bureaucrat.
1125:. A well presented nomination, and I see no reason to oppose. -
196:
626:
archives somewhere about "scientific scaling" of RfAs in that(
2325:- Very trustworthy and deserves a fair shot at 'cratship. --
3024:, although a better justification for an oppose, IMHO, than
2170:
seems thoughtful, capable, hopefully can handle the stress,
1680:
I hereby declare my approval for my soon-to-be CMU comrade!
1357:ā More bureaucrats are needed. This user appears trustable.
427:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Danny/Bureaucrat chat
2678:
Please see discussion on this matter with nae'blis, below.
3125:- not active enough for me to comfortable with this user.
2992:
I kid, of course, I just found your phrasing amusing.Ā :)
1544:
Trusted user with firm understanding of the RFA process.
263:
Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit
36:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
137:
when I had some more time and experience under my belt.
2788:
2769:
2757:
2667:
1836:
2774:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for bureaucratship/Francs2000
2561:
Knowledge (XXG):Consensus#Consensus vs. supermajority
1942:
We need more crats and he will surely do a good job.
1111:- the same reasoning as Dmcdevit. No reservations.
24:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for bureaucratship/Andrevan3
1567:
We need more bureaucrats, and he will certainly do.
1907:. I trust him, ergo, he gets my support. Regards, ā
458:Andrevan, with respect for your reasoned response,
2894:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for bureaucratship/Ral315
1999:Good guy, easily trusted with bureaucrat buttons.
133:when I was still a fairly new administrator, and
2734:per my long standing reasoning and per Durin. --
275:on a regular basis to attend to those requests?
214:questions to provide guidance for participants:
2886:User talk:Andrevan#Here's a good_ice-breaker...
1975:. Trustworthy. One of the best editors I know.
1746:It is time to give him the additional tools. --
1669:. Seems like a person who will act wisely. --
981:Please keep criticism constructive and polite.
3192:"(and final, I'd say, regardless of outcome)"
3164:)... so actually, they're riding MY wave!Ā ;)
1794:without a doubt one of the best people here.
1765:per nom statement and answers to questions.
8:
1724:OK, probed around enough, looks good to me.
1099:why not? I've done this on the other three.
1053:Lots of experience, he could use the tools.
2545:(though hopefully an efficient one), not a
622:In the past, I have noted a concept in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for bureaucratship
2343:. I like the answer to question 12. --
2222:Great editor, and his edits say it all!
2042:. Appears to be a qualified candidate.
434:for him to be promoted, in keeping with
3291:Successful requests for bureaucratship
2791:, where I asked for some elaboration.
788:Optional (hypothetical) Question from
1449:
1366:Good self-nom, looks well-qualified.
7:
1627:A very rare support vote for crat.--
2915:hope he reconsiders that stance. --
3084:is good reading material as well.
31:
2948:
2641:I understand. No hard feelings.
1923:I have complete faith in Andre.
3022:we don't need more bureaucrats
2862:Good communication skills are
2054:. in particular due to Q12 --
1712:Will be a good bureaucrat. --
1502:why not? we need more crats
1390:(Bureaucracy for everyone!)
1287:No reason not to promote... --
969:. For the edit count, see the
1:
873:well-applied to these cases?
530:well-applied to these cases?
3061:RfA is (more-or-less) a vote
3199:;-) Anyways, good luck! --
3082:User:Voice of All/Consensus
965:'s edit summary usage with
811:think about the candidate.
702:User:Voice of All/Consensus
206:Questions for the candidate
3307:
38:request for bureaucratship
3134:01:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
3112:00:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
3096:00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
3074:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus
3068:00:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
3049:23:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
3033:23:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
3026:we don't need more admins
3004:21:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2988:20:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2972:08:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2936:20:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2920:14:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2908:20:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2878:13:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2803:20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2690:20:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2360:02:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
2348:01:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
2336:01:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
2318:00:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
2306:00:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
2283:23:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2271:21:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2252:20:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2227:18:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2215:17:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2203:14:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2186:14:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2175:13:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2162:12:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2115:11:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2095:09:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2071:09:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2059:08:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2047:07:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2035:07:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2021:02:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
2004:02:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
1992:01:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
1980:00:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
947:09:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
921:09:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
575:09:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
167:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus
69:03:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
3268:Please do not modify it.
3258:20:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
3237:04:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
3221:04:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
3204:04:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
3186:04:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
3176:03:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
3156:03:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
2858:19:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
2838:16:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
2819:20:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
2781:20:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
2764:16:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
2749:17:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
2727:05:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
2715:03:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
2674:20:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
2653:20:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
2637:17:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
2627:09:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
2610:08:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
2585:13:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
2575:12:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
2554:11:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
2530:14:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
2520:11:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
2503:09:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
2485:04:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
2476:03:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
2456:03:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
2435:02:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
2419:02:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
2403:02:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1968:22:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
1952:22:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
1916:21:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
1900:21:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
1876:18:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
1860:21:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
1844:20:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
1828:08:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
1812:08:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
1799:07:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
1787:04:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
1773:14:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
1758:04:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
1739:04:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
1717:01:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
1705:01:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
1693:01:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
1676:00:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
1662:23:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1644:22:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1632:21:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1620:19:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1605:19:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1572:19:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1560:18:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1549:18:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1537:17:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1515:16:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1495:15:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1474:15:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1466:15:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1454:14:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1438:14:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1421:14:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1409:13:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1383:13:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1371:09:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1362:08:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1350:07:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1333:07:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1314:06:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1299:05:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1283:05:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1266:04:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1247:04:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1228:03:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1198:03:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1181:03:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1158:02:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1132:02:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1118:02:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1104:02:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1092:02:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1078:01:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1046:01:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1019:22:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
1003:04:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
903:20:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
885:19:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
839:21:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
823:21:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
776:04:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
759:04:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
739:04:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
719:03:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
673:04:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
648:03:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
612:03:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
558:20:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
542:19:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
525:23:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
489:22:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
454:21:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
418:14:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
396:11:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
347:05:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
2809:Basically per Durin --
355:Optional question from
297:User:Andrevan/Archive14
146:my own admin nomination
135:again in September 2005
46:Please do not modify it
1835:: This account is now
1511:Happy Independence Day
1139:Obviously qualified.--
3013:Unduly lengthy oppose
2722:per AKAF and Haukur.
700:What do you think of
661:legitimate concerns.
404:Question from Walton:
317:Optional question by
131:once in November 2004
2736:Jeffrey O. Gustafson
1837:indefinitely blocked
1481:, no reason not to.
1445:Nearly Headless Nick
2412:Anonymous Dissident
1109:Very strong support
1097:Very strong support
1039:Anonymous Dissident
908:Specifics from me:
832:Anonymous Dissident
790:Anonymous Dissident
471:is that, at times,
425:I believe that the
162:What is consensus?
2770:makes it in detail
2415:
1308:A Link to the Past
1156:
1042:
835:
3057:
2970:
2409:
2239:TĪ»Īµ RĪ±nĪ“om EĪ“Ī¹Ļor
2200:
2117:
2102:and good luckĀ :)
1966:
1950:
1936:
1935:ā¢ 2007-07-9 22:12
1140:
1068:
1056:
1036:
829:
658:assume good faith
506:WP:3RR#Exceptions
22:(Redirected from
3298:
3270:
3197:Death Is Certain
3055:
2960:
2952:
2704:
2547:Guardian Council
2413:
2401:
2399:
2396:
2392:
2389:
2384:
2334:
2331:
2303:
2296:
2269:
2249:
2246:
2240:
2198:
2158:
2141:
2140:
2112:
1987:per Dmcdevit. --
1965:
1963:
1946:
1933:
1928:
1924:
1912:
1897:
1892:
1887:
1756:
1751:
1735:
1732:
1729:
1702:
1687:
1659:
1600:
1598:
1596:
1594:
1592:
1533:
1530:
1512:
1507:
1492:
1485:
1451:
1446:
1436:
1418:Camaron1 | Chris
1406:
1400:
1396:
1348:
1330:
1295:
1294:
1263:
1258:
1244:
1239:
1226:
1224:
1221:
1217:
1214:
1209:
1178:
1171:
1154:
1149:
1144:
1130:
1115:
1074:
1069:
1066:
1061:
1054:
1040:
956:General comments
883:
833:
755:
752:
749:
715:
712:
709:
691:
688:
685:
643:
635:
607:
599:
540:
309:
303:
124:
48:
27:
3306:
3305:
3301:
3300:
3299:
3297:
3296:
3295:
3281:
3280:
3279:
3273:this nomination
3266:
2702:
2411:
2397:
2394:
2390:
2387:
2382:
2381:
2329:
2326:
2299:
2292:
2260:
2244:
2238:
2236:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2148:
2145:
2137:
2136:
2130:
2129:
2111:
2018:
1961:
1931:
1926:
1910:
1895:
1890:
1885:
1796:Tony the Marine
1749:
1747:
1733:
1730:
1727:
1700:
1685:
1653:
1590:
1588:
1586:
1584:
1582:
1531:
1525:
1510:
1505:
1491:
1488:
1483:
1444:
1429:
1402:
1398:
1392:
1344:
1328:
1296:
1292:
1290:
1261:
1256:
1242:
1237:
1222:
1219:
1215:
1212:
1207:
1206:
1195:
1174:
1167:
1152:
1147:
1142:
1126:
1113:
1072:
1064:
1059:
1038:
874:
831:
753:
750:
747:
713:
710:
707:
689:
686:
683:
641:
633:
605:
597:
531:
307:
301:
76:
59:
44:
41:which succeeded
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3304:
3302:
3294:
3293:
3283:
3282:
3278:
3277:
3261:
3260:
3247:
3246:
3245:
3244:
3243:
3242:
3241:
3240:
3239:
3223:
3146:administrators
3137:
3136:
3120:
3119:
3118:
3117:
3116:
3115:
3114:
3098:
3010:
3009:
3008:
3007:
3006:
2958:Matt/TheFearow
2946:
2945:
2944:
2943:
2942:
2941:
2940:
2939:
2938:
2912:
2911:
2910:
2821:
2807:
2806:
2805:
2785:
2784:
2783:
2729:
2717:
2694:
2693:
2692:
2661:
2660:
2659:
2658:
2657:
2656:
2655:
2591:
2590:
2589:
2588:
2587:
2536:
2535:
2534:
2533:
2532:
2492:
2491:
2490:
2489:
2488:
2487:
2445:
2444:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2440:
2439:
2438:
2437:
2363:
2362:
2350:
2338:
2320:
2308:
2285:
2273:
2254:
2229:
2217:
2205:
2188:
2177:
2165:
2153:
2151:
2149:
2146:
2134:
2133:
2118:
2107:
2097:
2073:
2061:
2049:
2037:
2023:
2016:
2006:
1994:
1982:
1970:
1954:
1937:
1918:
1902:
1878:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1814:
1801:
1789:
1775:
1760:
1741:
1719:
1707:
1695:
1678:
1664:
1646:
1634:
1622:
1607:
1574:
1562:
1551:
1539:
1517:
1497:
1489:
1476:
1468:
1456:
1440:
1423:
1411:
1385:
1373:
1364:
1352:
1335:
1316:
1301:
1289:
1285:
1268:
1249:
1230:
1200:
1193:
1183:
1163:Strong Support
1160:
1134:
1120:
1106:
1094:
1080:
1048:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
978:
977:
976:
974:
967:mathbot's tool
958:
957:
952:
950:
949:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
866:
865:
864:
863:
849:Question from
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
802:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
681:Question from
678:
677:
676:
675:
594:Question from
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
512:
509:
502:
499:
495:
401:
400:
399:
398:
352:
351:
350:
349:
314:
313:
312:
311:
284:
283:
282:
258:
257:
256:
244:
243:
242:
230:
229:
228:
208:
207:
202:
58:
53:
52:
51:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3303:
3292:
3289:
3288:
3286:
3276:
3274:
3269:
3263:
3262:
3259:
3256:
3251:
3248:
3238:
3234:
3230:
3229:
3224:
3222:
3218:
3214:
3213:
3207:
3206:
3205:
3202:
3198:
3193:
3189:
3188:
3187:
3184:
3179:
3178:
3177:
3173:
3169:
3168:
3163:
3159:
3158:
3157:
3154:
3149:
3144:
3143:
3142:
3141:
3135:
3132:
3128:
3124:
3121:
3113:
3109:
3105:
3104:
3099:
3097:
3093:
3089:
3088:
3083:
3079:
3075:
3071:
3070:
3069:
3066:
3062:
3052:
3051:
3050:
3046:
3042:
3041:
3036:
3035:
3034:
3031:
3027:
3023:
3019:
3014:
3011:
3005:
3001:
2997:
2996:
2991:
2990:
2989:
2985:
2981:
2980:
2975:
2974:
2973:
2969:
2966:
2963:
2959:
2955:
2951:
2947:
2937:
2933:
2929:
2928:
2923:
2922:
2921:
2918:
2913:
2909:
2905:
2901:
2900:
2895:
2891:
2887:
2883:
2882:
2881:
2880:
2879:
2876:
2875:
2871:
2865:
2861:
2860:
2859:
2855:
2851:
2850:
2845:
2841:
2840:
2839:
2836:
2835:
2831:
2825:
2822:
2820:
2817:
2816:
2813:
2808:
2804:
2800:
2796:
2795:
2790:
2789:his talk page
2786:
2782:
2779:
2775:
2771:
2767:
2766:
2765:
2762:
2758:
2755:
2752:
2751:
2750:
2747:
2743:
2742:
2737:
2733:
2730:
2728:
2725:
2721:
2718:
2716:
2712:
2711:
2706:
2705:
2698:
2695:
2691:
2687:
2683:
2682:
2677:
2676:
2675:
2672:
2668:
2665:
2662:
2654:
2650:
2646:
2645:
2640:
2639:
2638:
2635:
2630:
2629:
2628:
2624:
2620:
2619:
2613:
2612:
2611:
2608:
2604:
2600:
2597:
2596:
2592:
2586:
2583:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2572:
2568:
2567:
2562:
2557:
2556:
2555:
2552:
2548:
2544:
2540:
2537:
2531:
2528:
2523:
2522:
2521:
2517:
2513:
2512:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2501:
2497:
2494:
2493:
2486:
2483:
2479:
2478:
2477:
2473:
2469:
2468:
2463:
2459:
2458:
2457:
2454:
2449:
2446:
2436:
2432:
2428:
2427:
2422:
2421:
2420:
2417:
2414:
2407:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2400:
2393:
2379:
2374:
2373:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2369:
2368:
2367:
2361:
2358:
2354:
2351:
2349:
2346:
2342:
2339:
2337:
2333:
2332:
2324:
2321:
2319:
2316:
2312:
2309:
2307:
2304:
2302:
2297:
2295:
2289:
2286:
2284:
2281:
2277:
2274:
2272:
2268:
2265:
2264:
2258:
2255:
2253:
2250:
2247:
2241:
2233:
2230:
2228:
2225:
2224:Politics rule
2221:
2218:
2216:
2213:
2209:
2206:
2204:
2201:
2196:
2192:
2189:
2187:
2184:
2181:
2178:
2176:
2173:
2169:
2166:
2163:
2160:
2159:
2142:
2139:
2138:
2126:
2122:
2119:
2116:
2110:
2105:
2101:
2098:
2096:
2092:
2088:
2084:
2080:
2077:
2074:
2072:
2069:
2065:
2062:
2060:
2057:
2053:
2050:
2048:
2045:
2041:
2038:
2036:
2033:
2029:
2024:
2022:
2019:
2014:
2010:
2007:
2005:
2002:
1998:
1995:
1993:
1990:
1986:
1983:
1981:
1978:
1974:
1971:
1969:
1964:
1958:
1955:
1953:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1938:
1934:
1929:
1922:
1919:
1917:
1914:
1906:
1903:
1901:
1898:
1893:
1888:
1882:
1879:
1877:
1874:
1870:
1867:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1852:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1826:
1823:
1818:
1815:
1813:
1810:
1805:
1802:
1800:
1797:
1793:
1790:
1788:
1785:
1784:
1783:~ Infrangible
1779:
1776:
1774:
1771:
1768:
1767:Mike Christie
1764:
1761:
1759:
1755:
1752:
1745:
1742:
1740:
1737:
1736:
1723:
1720:
1718:
1715:
1711:
1708:
1706:
1703:
1696:
1694:
1691:
1688:
1683:
1679:
1677:
1674:
1672:
1668:
1665:
1663:
1660:
1658:
1657:
1650:
1647:
1645:
1642:
1638:
1635:
1633:
1630:
1626:
1623:
1621:
1618:
1615:
1611:
1608:
1606:
1602:
1601:
1578:
1575:
1573:
1570:
1566:
1563:
1561:
1558:
1556:
1552:
1550:
1547:
1543:
1540:
1538:
1535:
1534:
1528:
1521:
1518:
1516:
1513:
1508:
1501:
1498:
1496:
1493:
1486:
1480:
1477:
1475:
1472:
1469:
1467:
1464:
1460:
1457:
1455:
1452:
1447:
1441:
1439:
1435:
1432:
1427:
1424:
1422:
1419:
1415:
1412:
1410:
1407:
1405:
1401:
1395:
1389:
1386:
1384:
1381:
1378:
1374:
1372:
1369:
1365:
1363:
1360:
1356:
1353:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1336:
1334:
1331:
1324:
1320:
1317:
1315:
1312:
1309:
1305:
1302:
1300:
1297:
1286:
1284:
1281:
1280:
1277:
1272:
1269:
1267:
1264:
1259:
1253:
1250:
1248:
1245:
1240:
1234:
1231:
1229:
1225:
1218:
1204:
1201:
1199:
1196:
1191:
1187:
1184:
1182:
1179:
1177:
1172:
1170:
1164:
1161:
1159:
1155:
1150:
1145:
1138:
1135:
1133:
1129:
1124:
1121:
1119:
1116:
1110:
1107:
1105:
1102:
1098:
1095:
1093:
1090:
1086:
1081:
1079:
1076:
1075:
1070:
1062:
1052:
1049:
1047:
1044:
1041:
1034:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1011:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1000:
996:
995:
990:
989:
988:
987:
983:
982:
975:
972:
968:
964:
960:
959:
955:
954:
953:
948:
944:
940:
939:
933:
932:
922:
919:
915:
911:
907:
906:
905:
904:
900:
896:
895:
889:
888:
887:
886:
882:
879:
878:
877:User:Argyriou
870:
869:
868:
867:
861:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
840:
837:
834:
826:
825:
824:
820:
816:
815:
810:
806:
803:
800:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
777:
773:
769:
768:
762:
761:
760:
757:
756:
742:
741:
740:
736:
732:
731:
725:
722:
721:
720:
717:
716:
703:
699:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
674:
670:
666:
665:
659:
654:
651:
650:
649:
645:
644:
637:
636:
629:
625:
621:
618:
617:
616:
615:
613:
609:
608:
600:
595:
576:
573:
569:
565:
561:
560:
559:
555:
551:
550:
545:
544:
543:
539:
536:
535:
534:User:Argyriou
528:
527:
526:
522:
518:
517:
513:
510:
507:
503:
500:
496:
492:
491:
490:
487:
483:
479:
474:
469:
465:
461:
457:
456:
455:
451:
447:
446:
441:
437:
433:
428:
424:
421:
420:
419:
416:
411:
408:
407:
406:
405:
397:
393:
389:
388:
383:
379:
376:
375:
372:
369:
368:
367:
366:
363:
360:
358:
348:
344:
340:
339:
333:
330:
329:
327:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
306:
298:
294:
291:
290:
288:
285:
280:
277:
276:
274:
270:
266:
262:
259:
254:
251:
250:
248:
245:
240:
237:
236:
234:
231:
226:
223:
222:
220:
217:
216:
215:
213:
205:
204:
203:
200:
198:
192:
188:
184:
180:
179:
174:
172:
168:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
147:
141:
138:
136:
132:
126:
122:
119:
116:
113:
110:
107:
104:
101:
98:
95:
92:
89:
86:
83:
80:
75:
71:
70:
67:
63:
57:
54:
50:
47:
42:
39:
34:
33:
25:
19:
3267:
3264:
3249:
3226:
3210:
3191:
3165:
3147:
3139:
3138:
3122:
3101:
3085:
3060:
3038:
3025:
3021:
3012:
2993:
2977:
2953:
2925:
2897:
2868:
2863:
2847:
2843:
2828:
2823:
2810:
2792:
2753:
2739:
2731:
2719:
2708:
2700:
2696:
2679:
2663:
2642:
2616:
2602:
2598:
2594:
2593:
2564:
2538:
2509:
2495:
2465:
2462:wanting more
2447:
2424:
2385:
2377:
2375:
2365:
2364:
2352:
2340:
2327:
2322:
2310:
2300:
2293:
2287:
2275:
2262:
2256:
2235:
2231:
2219:
2207:
2190:
2179:
2167:
2143:
2132:
2131:
2124:
2120:
2099:
2075:
2063:
2051:
2039:
2008:
1996:
1984:
1972:
1956:
1939:
1920:
1904:
1880:
1868:
1849:
1832:
1816:
1803:
1791:
1782:
1777:
1762:
1743:
1725:
1721:
1709:
1666:
1655:
1654:
1648:
1636:
1624:
1609:
1581:
1576:
1564:
1541:
1526:
1524:
1519:
1503:
1499:
1478:
1458:
1425:
1413:
1403:
1397:
1393:
1387:
1354:
1337:
1322:
1318:
1303:
1274:
1270:
1251:
1232:
1210:
1202:
1185:
1175:
1168:
1162:
1136:
1122:
1108:
1096:
1057:
1050:
1032:
1026:
1025:
1008:
992:
985:
984:
980:
979:
951:
936:
892:
890:
875:
871:
859:
848:
847:
812:
808:
804:
798:
787:
786:
765:
745:
728:
723:
705:
697:
680:
679:
662:
652:
642:bananabucket
639:
631:
619:
606:bananabucket
603:
601:
593:
592:
547:
532:
514:
481:
443:
431:
422:
413:good faith.
409:
403:
402:
385:
381:
377:
370:
364:
354:
353:
336:
331:
325:
316:
315:
292:
286:
278:
260:
252:
246:
238:
232:
224:
218:
211:
209:
201:
193:
189:
185:
181:
176:
175:
164:
161:
142:
139:
127:
117:
111:
105:
99:
93:
87:
81:
72:
61:
60:
45:
40:
35:
2787:Please see
2778:Chick Bowen
2599:Weak Oppose
2543:bureaucracy
2376:Sorry, but
2079:Merovingian
1841:Chick Bowen
1641:Schneelocke
1506:Black Harry
1083:community.
562:Specifics:
178:agreements.
97:protections
2965:(Contribs)
2746:<*: -->
2460:If you're
2056:Agathoclea
1962:SlimVirgin
1873:AnonEMouse
1614:Antandrus
1569:EdJohnston
986:Discussion
910:Carnildo 3
468:User:Jimbo
305:Rfb-notice
156:candidates
109:pageĀ moves
2864:paramount
2724:Everyking
2195:Sluzzelin
2172:Modernist
2135:bishzilla
2028:Johnleemk
1977:K1Bond007
1944:ā jossi ā
1913:tianpower
1656:Wizardman
1546:Borisblue
1190:Flyguy649
1101:Acalamari
971:talk page
319:DarkFalls
271:, and/or
171:Consensus
103:deletions
64:- Final.
62:(78/12/2)
3285:Category
3255:JayHenry
3201:ReyBrujo
3183:ReyBrujo
3153:ReyBrujo
2741:Shazaam!
2345:Kbdank71
2330:Jreferee
2127:figger!
2121:Support,
1997:Support.
1989:Quiddity
1368:Moreschi
1194:contribs
1085:Dmcdevit
963:Andrevan
914:Bishonen
851:Bishonen
634:Blnguyen
598:Blnguyen
568:Bishonen
564:Carnildo
486:Cecropia
269:WP:B/RFA
212:optional
85:contribs
74:Andrevan
56:Andrevan
3250:Neutral
3140:Neutral
3127:pschemp
2761:Icemuon
2754:Comment
2703:Majorly
2353:Support
2341:Support
2323:Support
2311:Support
2288:Support
2276:Support
2257:Support
2232:Support
2220:Support
2212:Zanimum
2208:Support
2191:Support
2183:John254
2180:Support
2168:Support
2100:Support
2076:Support
2064:Support
2052:Support
2040:Support
2009:Support
2001:Rebecca
1985:Support
1973:Support
1957:Support
1940:Support
1921:Support
1905:Support
1881:Support
1869:Support
1817:Support
1809:Silence
1804:Support
1792:Support
1778:Support
1763:Support
1754:iva1979
1744:Support
1722:Support
1710:Support
1667:Support
1649:Support
1637:Support
1625:Support
1610:Support
1577:Support
1565:Support
1555:Jaranda
1542:Support
1520:Support
1500:Support
1479:Support
1471:Terence
1459:Support
1426:Support
1414:Support
1388:Support
1359:Matthew
1355:Support
1338:Support
1319:Support
1304:Support
1276:Deckill
1271:Support
1252:Support
1238:Captain
1233:Support
1203:Support
1186:Support
1137:Support
1128:Zeibura
1123:Support
1051:Support
1033:Support
1027:Support
480:is the
464:WP:BOLD
440:WP:BOLD
357:GDonato
150:several
66:Raul654
3123:Oppose
2962:(Talk)
2954:Oppose
2824:Oppose
2732:Oppose
2720:Oppose
2697:Oppose
2664:Oppose
2634:Walton
2607:Walton
2595:Oppose
2582:Haukur
2551:Haukur
2539:Oppose
2496:Oppose
2448:Oppose
2378:Oppose
2366:Oppose
2267:scribe
1948:(talk)
1770:(talk)
1714:Banana
1699:Riana
1671:DS1953
1617:(talk)
1463:Shalom
1434:styles
1377:Ral315
1346:(Talk)
1311:(talk)
1262:Griz98
1114:Keegan
881:(talk)
624:WT:RFA
538:(talk)
478:WP:IAR
473:WP:IAR
460:WP:IAR
436:WP:IAR
415:Walton
273:WP:CHU
265:WP:RFA
115:rights
91:blocks
3228:Andre
3212:Andre
3167:Andre
3103:Andre
3087:Andre
3040:Andre
2995:Andre
2979:Andre
2968:(Bot)
2927:Andre
2917:Durin
2899:Andre
2849:Andre
2794:Andre
2681:Andre
2671:Durin
2644:Andre
2618:Andre
2603:never
2566:Andre
2511:Andre
2482:Xoloz
2467:Andre
2453:Xoloz
2426:Andre
2280:Comic
2104:GeeJo
2068:Giano
2044:Cla68
2013:OwenĆ
1932:PLANE
1851:Andre
1780:yeah
1728:Voice
1690:ll302
1629:MONGO
1431:Comet
1342:Feezo
1293:Falls
1291:Dark
1257:Darth
1243:panda
1067:NIMUM
1010:Andre
994:Andre
938:Andre
894:Andre
814:Andre
767:Andre
748:Voice
730:Andre
708:Voice
684:Voice
664:Andre
549:Andre
516:Andre
445:Andre
432:wrong
387:Andre
338:Andre
153:admin
16:<
3233:talk
3217:talk
3172:talk
3131:talk
3108:talk
3092:talk
3045:talk
3000:talk
2984:talk
2932:talk
2904:talk
2888:and
2874:blis
2854:talk
2834:blis
2815:not?
2799:talk
2710:talk
2686:talk
2649:talk
2623:talk
2571:talk
2527:AKAF
2516:talk
2500:AKAF
2472:talk
2431:talk
2357:Rarr
2315:Nick
2301:Pika
2245:ĻĪ±lĪŗ
2199:talk
2154:RR!!
2032:Talk
1927:JACO
1886:Jmlk
1856:talk
1833:Note
1731:-of-
1682:Scob
1484:Neil
1394:Buck
1327:Tito
1323:long
1273:. ā
1176:ddie
1015:talk
999:talk
961:See
943:talk
918:talk
899:talk
819:talk
772:talk
751:-of-
735:talk
711:-of-
687:-of-
669:talk
628:here
572:talk
554:talk
521:talk
482:last
462:and
450:talk
392:talk
382:left
362:talk
343:talk
197:grok
79:talk
3065:Joe
3030:Joe
2870:nae
2830:nae
2772:at
2398:mit
2395:her
2294:Fun
2263:WjB
2125:can
2109:(c)
1909:Cel
1734:All
1450:{C}
1404:ofg
1399:ets
1223:mit
1220:her
1143:HĆŗs
799:12.
754:All
714:All
698:11.
690:All
620:10.
121:RfA
3287::
3235:)
3219:)
3174:)
3129:|
3110:)
3094:)
3076:,
3047:)
3002:)
2986:)
2934:)
2906:)
2856:)
2801:)
2776:.
2759:.
2744:-
2738:-
2713:)
2688:)
2651:)
2625:)
2573:)
2563:.
2518:)
2474:)
2433:)
2391:ki
2388:Wi
2113:ā¢
2093:)
2089:,
2085:,
2030:|
1911:es
1858:)
1839:.
1825:G.
1822:D.
1603:-
1532:as
1509:ā¢
1329:xd
1279:er
1216:ki
1213:Wi
1153:nd
1017:)
1001:)
945:)
916:|
912:.
901:)
860:13
821:)
805:A:
774:)
737:)
704:?
671:)
646:)
610:)
570:|
566:.
556:)
523:)
452:)
438:,
410:8.
394:)
371:7.
345:)
326:6.
308:}}
302:{{
287:5.
267:,
261:4.
247:3.
233:2.
219:1.
173:.
43:.
3231:(
3215:(
3170:(
3106:(
3090:(
3043:(
2998:(
2982:(
2930:(
2902:(
2872:'
2852:(
2832:'
2812:Y
2797:(
2707:(
2684:(
2647:(
2621:(
2569:(
2514:(
2470:(
2429:(
2383:~
2248:)
2242:(
2164:.
2152:A
2150:O
2147:R
2106:ā
2091:E
2087:C
2083:T
2081:(
2017:ā
1896:7
1891:1
1854:(
1750:S
1701:ā
1686:e
1599:l
1597:e
1595:i
1593:r
1591:d
1589:e
1587:a
1585:h
1583:P
1529:n
1527:A
1490:ā¦
1380:Ā»
1208:~
1169:E
1148:ƶ
1089:t
1087:Ā·
1073:Ā»
1065:A
1060:Ā«
1055:ā
1013:(
997:(
973:.
941:(
923:.
897:(
817:(
809:I
770:(
733:(
724:A
667:(
653:A
638:(
614::
602:(
577:.
552:(
519:(
508:.
448:(
423:A
390:(
378:A
365:)
359:(
341:(
332:A
293:A
279:A
253:A
239:A
225:A
123:)
118:Ā·
112:Ā·
106:Ā·
100:Ā·
94:Ā·
88:Ā·
82:Ā·
77:(
49:.
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.