Knowledge (XXG):Requests for bureaucratship/Andrevan 3

623:), 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? 3073:, 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. 2839:". 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. 3009:

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

2573:

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.

649:

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

2252:. 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. 288:. 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 2662:. 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. -- 3047:

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

435:, 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. 2943: 2885:. 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 2491:, 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. 720:

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?

180:

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.

3049:—except, 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)— 1813:

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.

3021:, 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. 234:. 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. 2907:

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

2859:

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

1799:

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

1314:. 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 719:

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,

648:

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

179:

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

463:

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

175:

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

3051:

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

3046:

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 monstrosity—I was opposing essentially per AKAF, et al.—leads me to think that you are eminently capable of handling

2624:

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

2572:

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

183:

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

1812:

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

1075:

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

490:

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

405:

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

2551:

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,

2517:

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

653:

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

3245:

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

2443:

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. ;) Still, especially given that there are other fine candidates

927:

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.

486:

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

2607:

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

522:

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

3008:

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

865:

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

366:

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?

3201:

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).

187:

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

176:

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.

794:– 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? 3173:

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!). --

2819:

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. --

756:

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.

3246:

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. --

3143:

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. --

422:

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

121:

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,

3141:, 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. 274:. 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. 170:

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

1409:- 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. 220:. 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. 2608:

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.

2889:, 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. 736:

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.

292:

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

3187:

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

468:

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.

2860:

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. --

2018:

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.

2500:

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.

136:

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

2444:

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.

327:

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.

151:

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.

820:

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, --

3138:

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"

2534:. 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, 118:- 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. :) 2877:

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

113: 1800:

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 -

2598:

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.

3010: 162:

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

419: 242:

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?

3265: 963: 377:

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.

1546:

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

1441: 2830: 3013:, 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 2870: 2766: 620: 2542:. 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. 127: 48: 142: 123: 1000:

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.

2659:: 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 2692:

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.

3283: 2886: 3065:

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

1421:- 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...-- 902: 556: 145: 2416:

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. :)

2306:. 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. 2373:. 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. 1299:. 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. - 138: 1454:

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.

148: 3052:

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

2969:

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? ;)

1436: 855:. 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: 3030:

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?

2116:

found good crat candidate! Can't figger how all little candidates think. Little Andre good answers to questions, not so much foot-shuffling, 'Zilla

2059:

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.

3154: 3153:

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: 2203:. 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. -- 504:(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.) 1605:; 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. 3056:

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).

373:

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

2912: 2900: 2850: 3093:

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.

3070: 2917:

Thanks Durin, but if you want me, now's your chance ;) Seriously though, I don't think a fourth bureaucrat nomination would be good form.

2004:. A level-headed, well-versed admin. I'm not concerned with his recent absence from RfA--things haven't really changed here since 2005. 1158:- 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. 1318:(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. 800:

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

30: 2733: 2079: 1333:. Nearly three years ago you welcomed me to Knowledge (XXG). Thank you. You're an exemplary contributer and will make a fine bcrat. 2949:. 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. 2957: 1185: 959: 2738: 2457:, fire away! I can answer questions to clarify my stance, so long as they are not ";What is the sound of one hand clapping?" 77: 650: 214:

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

2409: 2083: 1036: 829: 2878: 1882: 487:

decision even though I do not agree consensus existed. I'm certainly not saying I would use IAR as an excuse to promote.

89: 3074: 2236: 2101: 694: 203:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge (XXG) as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following

107: 95: 133:

It's been a while, but I think the time is right for a third (and final, I'd say, regardless of outcome) nomination.

184:

page now, I think we're working toward that. I urge anyone willing and qualified to put forth a nomination as well.

1159: 83: 2749:

User has opposed several other RfBs with his "long standing reasoning" without specifying what that reasoning is:

1303: 1198:

A non-controversial admin who's willing to help out with the boring task of renames. Seems good enough for me :-)

2882: 1677: 1435:

A bit impatient sometimes but looking in retrospect he is a competent sysop and an asset for the encyclopedia. —

101: 1028:- 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. 228:

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

2728: 2403: 2401:

See your point Wikihermit, but you are slightly wrong -- its not always on time. I do see your point though. --

2186:

This user looks calm, disinterested, trustworthy, and capable of applying good sense when assessing consensus.

1051: 1030: 823: 782: 248:. I think my record of contributions speaks for itself, but I would be glad to respond to any specific remarks. 3250: 3229: 3213: 3196: 3178: 3168: 3148: 3126: 3104: 3088: 3060: 3041: 3025: 2996: 2980: 2964: 2928: 2811: 2795: 2773: 2756: 2741: 2719: 2707: 2682: 2666: 2645: 2629: 2626: 2619: 2602: 2599: 2577: 2567: 2546: 2522: 2512: 2495: 2477: 2468: 2448: 2427: 2411: 2395: 2352: 2340: 2328: 2310: 2298: 2275: 2263: 2244: 2219: 2207: 2195: 2178: 2167: 2154: 2107: 2087: 2063: 2051: 2039: 2027: 2013: 1996: 1984: 1972: 1960: 1944: 1908: 1892: 1868: 1852: 1836: 1820: 1804: 1791: 1779: 1765: 1750: 1731: 1709: 1697: 1685: 1668: 1654: 1636: 1632:- Knowledge (XXG) needs more bureaucrats. Turning down a trustworthy, qualified volunteer would be insane. -- 1624: 1612: 1597: 1564: 1552: 1541: 1529: 1507: 1487: 1466: 1458: 1446: 1430: 1413: 1401: 1375: 1363: 1354: 1342: 1325: 1306: 1291: 1275: 1258: 1239: 1220: 1190: 1173: 1150: 1124: 1110: 1096: 1084: 1070: 1038: 1011: 995: 939: 913: 895: 877: 831: 815: 768: 751: 731: 711: 665: 640: 604: 567: 550: 534: 517: 481: 446: 410: 407: 388: 339: 61: 2271:. Reading through all the questions only cemented my opinion that you only need more tools at your disposal. 1300: 2518:

balance in more cases than I'm comfortable with. Your "77%" answer is (for me) an example of this attitude.

1762: 1234: 1181:

Thoughtful communicator who understands consensus. I trust Andre and believe he will be a great bureaucrat.

1064: 289: 1644:. Your questions satisfy me, and since you're before my time, i can safely assume you know wikipedia well. 2379: 2230: 1719: 1204: 739: 699: 675: 3066: 2553: 2473:

Issues have been clarified sufficiently such that I withdraw my oppose. No comment, otherwise, for now.

884:

I would need to see/know specifics, but in general probably no. The Danny nomination was a special case.

539:

I would need to see/know specifics, but in general probably no. The Danny nomination was a special case.

159: 2075: 1426: 1253: 1139: 633: 597: 3264:

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

1166: 616: 1682: 141:, to the probably hundreds of other nominations (bureaucrat and admin alike) I've !voted on, to the 2954: 2866: 2826: 2552:

under the current system... if you're proposing reform, that's a discussion for another page). See

2259: 2227:- Knowledge (XXG) needs more b'crats, and Andrevan looks like a editor who could handle the job. -- 2190: 2137: 2024: 1923: 1901: 1609: 1271: 625: 589: 297: 1817: 1547: 1120: 3225: 3209: 3164: 3100: 3084: 3037: 2992: 2976: 2924: 2896: 2846: 2791: 2678: 2641: 2615: 2563: 2508: 2464: 2423: 2216: 1848: 1759: 1455: 1229: 1081: 1056: 1007: 991: 935: 910: 891: 873: 811: 764: 727: 661: 564: 546: 530: 513: 442: 384: 335: 71: 261: 3123: 2702: 2291: 1788: 1550: 1516: 354: 456: 432: 3189: 2770: 2539: 2071: 1952:. Andre is mature, responsible, intelligent, and trustworthy. Will make a great bureaucrat. 1887: 1833: 1774: 1706: 1666: 1633: 1497: 1423: 1372: 1248: 1144: 2835:

Xoloz's questions have in fact been answered, which is why he withdrew his oppose, saying "

2625:

think that. This request will probably pass, but I hope you will take heed of my concerns.

1864:- Answers seem fine, strongly supported by Phaedriel - in general should be no big deal. -- 498: 470: 465: 452: 428: 265: 257: 2594:. Reference to IAR and BOLD in answer to my optional question really worry me. IAR should 2048: 2008: 1953: 1940: 1876:

I have no qualms, and believe Andre will use the tools wisely, accurately, and precisely.

1865: 1691: 1674: 1561: 1384: 1338: 2348:. Andre is active enough and intelligent enough to be trusted with the bureaucrat tools. 1741: 491:

principles of working for the good of the encyclopedia regardless of what the rules say."

2862: 2822: 494:

In other words, I would not have made the same call that Rdsmith4 did, but I respect it.

2950: 2716: 2254: 2187: 2164: 2121: 2020: 1969: 1918: 1645: 1606: 1573: 1538: 1480: 1281: 1268: 1182: 1093: 311: 1841:

Recently unblocked by me, see his talk page. Just a silly user, but a friend of mine.

3277: 3247: 3220: 3204: 3193: 3175: 3159: 3145: 3095: 3079: 3057: 3032: 3022: 2987: 2971: 2919: 2891: 2841: 2786: 2673: 2636: 2610: 2574: 2558: 2543: 2503: 2459: 2418: 2337: 2321: 2060: 1981: 1843: 1746: 1410: 1360: 1077: 1002: 986: 955: 930: 906: 886: 869: 843: 806: 759: 722: 656: 560: 541: 526: 508: 478: 437: 379: 330: 66: 3119: 2960: 2753: 2694: 2454: 2284: 2204: 2175: 1993: 1801: 1463: 1351: 984:

I was wondering if anyone had any input on the iffy bits in my question #5, above.

349: 58: 3183:

And by the way, since you seem to stand my bluntness so well ;-) I don't like the

2942: 192:

consensus, and that is why I am again putting forth my nomination for bureaucrat.

2807: 2535: 1877: 1663: 1369: 1319: 1134: 1105: 3011:

the net effect on the project of whose becoming a bureaucrat should be positive

3071:

Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not#Knowledge (XXG) is not a democracy

2909: 2663: 2474: 2445: 2272: 2096: 2036: 2005: 1936: 1621: 1572:. I absolutely trust Andre, and I speak from my own experience. All the best! 1334: 460: 2519: 2492: 2349: 2307: 1475: 163: 158:

It's a thing almost zen-like in its simplicity and simultaneous complexity.

1247:

we need more crats and Andrevan seems to have more than enough experience.

303:

on my user page, as this is according to the directions definitely allowed.

477:

excuse I would ever want a bureaucrat to use in closing an RfA or RfB. --

459:

do not really deal with the realities of a lot of Knowledge (XXG). Though

2837:

Issues have been clarified sufficiently such that I withdraw my oppose.

1814: 2283:

I think you answered the questions good enough to gain my support. :)

3268:

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

3218:

But thanks for your reasoned comments and input, and your good luck!

2804: 2761:

Jeffrey has indeed been making the same argument for a long time; he

1515:

I've never met Andre, but he seems like a fine and reliable fellow. —

3258:

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

1368:

Andre's shown dedication to the project, and would be a fine crat.

282:

What about the issues raised on your last nomination? (Added by me)

2883:

User talk:Xoloz/archive16#The sound of one molecule of ice breaking

3155:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for adminship#Bureaucratship Again?

1690:

Certainly been around for long enough to know what he's doing. ~

497:

Side note: There are plenty of good faith ways to break 3RR! See

321:

What is your opinion on the use of a vote tally on a RFA or RFB?

1228:

Andrevan seems to be the sort that will make a fine bureaucrat.

1118:. A well presented nomination, and I see no reason to oppose. - 189: 619:

archives somewhere about "scientific scaling" of RfAs in that(

2318:- Very trustworthy and deserves a fair shot at 'cratship. -- 3017:, although a better justification for an oppose, IMHO, than 2163:

seems thoughtful, capable, hopefully can handle the stress,

1673:

I hereby declare my approval for my soon-to-be CMU comrade!

1350:— More bureaucrats are needed. This user appears trustable. 420:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Danny/Bureaucrat chat

2671:

Please see discussion on this matter with nae'blis, below.

3118:- not active enough for me to comfortable with this user. 2985:

I kid, of course, I just found your phrasing amusing. :)

1537:

Trusted user with firm understanding of the RFA process.

256:

Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit

29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

130:

when I had some more time and experience under my belt.

2781: 2762: 2750: 2660: 1829: 2767:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for bureaucratship/Francs2000

2554:

Knowledge (XXG):Consensus#Consensus vs. supermajority

1935:

We need more crats and he will surely do a good job.

1104:- the same reasoning as Dmcdevit. No reservations. 1560:

We need more bureaucrats, and he will certainly do.

1900:. I trust him, ergo, he gets my support. Regards, — 451:Andrevan, with respect for your reasoned response, 2887:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for bureaucratship/Ral315 1992:Good guy, easily trusted with bureaucrat buttons. 126:when I was still a fairly new administrator, and 2727:per my long standing reasoning and per Durin. -- 268:on a regular basis to attend to those requests? 207:questions to provide guidance for participants: 2879:User talk:Andrevan#Here's a good_ice-breaker... 1968:. Trustworthy. One of the best editors I know. 1739:It is time to give him the additional tools. -- 1662:. Seems like a person who will act wisely. -- 974:Please keep criticism constructive and polite. 3185:"(and final, I'd say, regardless of outcome)" 3157:)... so actually, they're riding MY wave! ;) 1787:without a doubt one of the best people here. 1758:per nom statement and answers to questions. 8: 1717:OK, probed around enough, looks good to me. 1092:why not? I've done this on the other three. 1046:Lots of experience, he could use the tools. 2538:(though hopefully an efficient one), not a 615:In the past, I have noted a concept in the 18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for bureaucratship 2336:. I like the answer to question 12. -- 2215:Great editor, and his edits say it all! 2035:. Appears to be a qualified candidate. 427:for him to be promoted, in keeping with 3284:Successful requests for bureaucratship 2784:, where I asked for some elaboration. 781:Optional (hypothetical) Question from 1442: 1359:Good self-nom, looks well-qualified. 7: 1620:A very rare support vote for crat.-- 2908:hope he reconsiders that stance. -- 3077:is good reading material as well. 24: 2941: 2634:I understand. No hard feelings. 1916:I have complete faith in Andre. 3015:we don't need more bureaucrats 2855:Good communication skills are 2047:. in particular due to Q12 -- 1705:Will be a good bureaucrat. -- 1495:why not? we need more crats 1383:(Bureaucracy for everyone!) 1280:No reason not to promote... -- 962:. For the edit count, see the 1: 866:well-applied to these cases? 523:well-applied to these cases? 3054:RfA is (more-or-less) a vote 3192:;-) Anyways, good luck! -- 3075:User:Voice of All/Consensus 958:'s edit summary usage with 804:think about the candidate. 695:User:Voice of All/Consensus 199:Questions for the candidate 3300: 31:request for bureaucratship 3127:01:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3105:00:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3089:00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3067:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus 3061:00:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3042:23:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3026:23:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3019:we don't need more admins 2997:21:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2981:20:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2965:08:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2929:20:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2913:14:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2901:20:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2871:13:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2796:20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2683:20:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2353:02:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2341:01:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2329:01:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2311:00:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2299:00:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 2276:23:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2264:21:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2245:20:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2220:18:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2208:17:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2196:14:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2179:14:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2168:13:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2155:12:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2108:11:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2088:09:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2064:09:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2052:08:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2040:07:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2028:07:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2014:02:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1997:02:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1985:01:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 1973:00:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 940:09:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 914:09:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 568:09:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 160:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus 62:03:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC) 3261:Please do not modify it. 3251:20:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3230:04:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3214:04:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3197:04:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3179:04:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3169:03:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3149:03:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2851:19:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2831:16:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2812:20:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2774:20:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2757:16:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2742:17:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2720:05:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 2708:03:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 2667:20:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 2646:20:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 2630:17:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 2620:09:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 2603:08:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 2578:13:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2568:12:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2547:11:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2523:14:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2513:11:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2496:09:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2478:04:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2469:03:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2449:03:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2428:02:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2412:02:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2396:02:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1961:22:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1945:22:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1909:21:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1893:21:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1869:18:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1853:21:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1837:20:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1821:08:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1805:08:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1792:07:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1780:04:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 1766:14:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 1751:04:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 1732:04:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 1710:01:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 1698:01:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 1686:01:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 1669:00:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 1655:23:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1637:22:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1625:21:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1613:19:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1598:19:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1565:19:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1553:18:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1542:18:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1530:17:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1508:16:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1488:15:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1467:15:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1459:15:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1447:14:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1431:14:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1414:14:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1402:13:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1376:13:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1364:09:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1355:08:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1343:07:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1326:07:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1307:06:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1292:05:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1276:05:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1259:04:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1240:04:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1221:03:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1191:03:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1174:03:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1151:02:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1125:02:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1111:02:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1097:02:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1085:02:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1071:01:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1039:01:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1012:22:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 996:04:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 896:20:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 878:19:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 832:21:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 816:21:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 769:04:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 752:04:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 732:04:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 712:03:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 666:04:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 641:03:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 605:03:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 551:20:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 535:19:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 518:23:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 482:22:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 447:21:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 411:14:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 389:11:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 340:05:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2802:Basically per Durin -- 348:Optional question from 290:User:Andrevan/Archive14 139:my own admin nomination 128:again in September 2005 39:Please do not modify it 1828:: This account is now 1504:Happy Independence Day 1132:Obviously qualified.-- 3006:Unduly lengthy oppose 2715:per AKAF and Haukur. 693:What do you think of 654:legitimate concerns. 397:Question from Walton: 310:Optional question by 124:once in November 2004 2729:Jeffrey O. Gustafson 1830:indefinitely blocked 1474:, no reason not to. 1438:Nearly Headless Nick 2405:Anonymous Dissident 1102:Very strong support 1090:Very strong support 1032:Anonymous Dissident 901:Specifics from me: 825:Anonymous Dissident 783:Anonymous Dissident 464:is that, at times, 418:I believe that the 155:What is consensus? 2763:makes it in detail 2408: 1301:A Link to the Past 1149: 1035: 828: 3050: 2963: 2402: 2232:Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor 2193: 2110: 2095:and good luck :) 1959: 1943: 1929: 1928:• 2007-07-9 22:12 1133: 1061: 1049: 1029: 822: 651:assume good faith 499:WP:3RR#Exceptions 3291: 3263: 3190:Death Is Certain 3048: 2953: 2945: 2697: 2540:Guardian Council 2406: 2394: 2392: 2389: 2385: 2382: 2377: 2327: 2324: 2296: 2289: 2262: 2242: 2239: 2233: 2191: 2151: 2134: 2133: 2105: 1980:per Dmcdevit. -- 1958: 1956: 1939: 1926: 1921: 1917: 1905: 1890: 1885: 1880: 1749: 1744: 1728: 1725: 1722: 1695: 1680: 1652: 1593: 1591: 1589: 1587: 1585: 1526: 1523: 1505: 1500: 1485: 1478: 1444: 1439: 1429: 1411:Camaron1 | Chris 1399: 1393: 1389: 1341: 1323: 1288: 1287: 1256: 1251: 1237: 1232: 1219: 1217: 1214: 1210: 1207: 1202: 1171: 1164: 1147: 1142: 1137: 1123: 1108: 1067: 1062: 1059: 1054: 1047: 1033: 949:General comments 876: 826: 748: 745: 742: 708: 705: 702: 684: 681: 678: 636: 628: 600: 592: 533: 302: 296: 117: 41: 3299: 3298: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3266:this nomination 3259: 2695: 2404: 2390: 2387: 2383: 2380: 2375: 2374: 2322: 2319: 2292: 2285: 2253: 2237: 2231: 2229: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2141: 2138: 2130: 2129: 2123: 2122: 2104: 2011: 1954: 1924: 1919: 1903: 1888: 1883: 1878: 1789:Tony the Marine 1742: 1740: 1726: 1723: 1720: 1693: 1678: 1646: 1583: 1581: 1579: 1577: 1575: 1524: 1518: 1503: 1498: 1484: 1481: 1476: 1437: 1422: 1395: 1391: 1385: 1337: 1321: 1289: 1285: 1283: 1254: 1249: 1235: 1230: 1215: 1212: 1208: 1205: 1200: 1199: 1188: 1167: 1160: 1145: 1140: 1135: 1119: 1106: 1065: 1057: 1052: 1031: 867: 824: 746: 743: 740: 706: 703: 700: 682: 679: 676: 634: 626: 598: 590: 524: 300: 294: 69: 52: 37: 34:which succeeded 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3297: 3295: 3287: 3286: 3276: 3275: 3271: 3270: 3254: 3253: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3216: 3139:administrators 3130: 3129: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3091: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2951:Matt/TheFearow 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2814: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2722: 2710: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2356: 2355: 2343: 2331: 2313: 2301: 2278: 2266: 2247: 2222: 2210: 2198: 2181: 2170: 2158: 2146: 2144: 2142: 2139: 2127: 2126: 2111: 2100: 2090: 2066: 2054: 2042: 2030: 2016: 2009: 1999: 1987: 1975: 1963: 1947: 1930: 1911: 1895: 1871: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1807: 1794: 1782: 1768: 1753: 1734: 1712: 1700: 1688: 1671: 1657: 1639: 1627: 1615: 1600: 1567: 1555: 1544: 1532: 1510: 1490: 1482: 1469: 1461: 1449: 1433: 1416: 1404: 1378: 1366: 1357: 1345: 1328: 1309: 1294: 1282: 1278: 1261: 1242: 1223: 1193: 1186: 1176: 1156:Strong Support 1153: 1127: 1113: 1099: 1087: 1073: 1041: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 971: 970: 969: 967: 960:mathbot's tool 951: 950: 945: 943: 942: 924: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 859: 858: 857: 856: 842:Question from 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 795: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 674:Question from 671: 670: 669: 668: 587:Question from 584: 583: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 577: 576: 575: 574: 573: 572: 571: 505: 502: 495: 492: 488: 394: 393: 392: 391: 345: 344: 343: 342: 307: 306: 305: 304: 277: 276: 275: 251: 250: 249: 237: 236: 235: 223: 222: 221: 201: 200: 195: 51: 46: 45: 44: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3296: 3285: 3282: 3281: 3279: 3269: 3267: 3262: 3256: 3255: 3252: 3249: 3244: 3241: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3222: 3217: 3215: 3211: 3207: 3206: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3195: 3191: 3186: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3177: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3161: 3156: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3147: 3142: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3128: 3125: 3121: 3117: 3114: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3097: 3092: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3081: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3059: 3055: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3034: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3024: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3007: 3004: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2989: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2973: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2962: 2959: 2956: 2952: 2948: 2944: 2940: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2921: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2911: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2893: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2869: 2868: 2864: 2858: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2843: 2838: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2829: 2828: 2824: 2818: 2815: 2813: 2810: 2809: 2806: 2801: 2797: 2793: 2789: 2788: 2783: 2782:his talk page 2779: 2775: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2755: 2751: 2748: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2740: 2736: 2735: 2730: 2726: 2723: 2721: 2718: 2714: 2711: 2709: 2705: 2704: 2699: 2698: 2691: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2675: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2665: 2661: 2658: 2655: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2638: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2628: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2612: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2590: 2589: 2585: 2579: 2576: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2560: 2555: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2530: 2524: 2521: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2505: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2494: 2490: 2487: 2486: 2479: 2476: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2466: 2462: 2461: 2456: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2447: 2442: 2439: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2420: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2410: 2407: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2393: 2386: 2372: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2354: 2351: 2347: 2344: 2342: 2339: 2335: 2332: 2330: 2326: 2325: 2317: 2314: 2312: 2309: 2305: 2302: 2300: 2297: 2295: 2290: 2288: 2282: 2279: 2277: 2274: 2270: 2267: 2265: 2261: 2258: 2257: 2251: 2248: 2246: 2243: 2240: 2234: 2226: 2223: 2221: 2218: 2217:Politics rule 2214: 2211: 2209: 2206: 2202: 2199: 2197: 2194: 2189: 2185: 2182: 2180: 2177: 2174: 2171: 2169: 2166: 2162: 2159: 2156: 2153: 2152: 2135: 2132: 2131: 2119: 2115: 2112: 2109: 2103: 2098: 2094: 2091: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2070: 2067: 2065: 2062: 2058: 2055: 2053: 2050: 2046: 2043: 2041: 2038: 2034: 2031: 2029: 2026: 2022: 2017: 2015: 2012: 2007: 2003: 2000: 1998: 1995: 1991: 1988: 1986: 1983: 1979: 1976: 1974: 1971: 1967: 1964: 1962: 1957: 1951: 1948: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1931: 1927: 1922: 1915: 1912: 1910: 1907: 1899: 1896: 1894: 1891: 1886: 1881: 1875: 1872: 1870: 1867: 1863: 1860: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1845: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1819: 1816: 1811: 1808: 1806: 1803: 1798: 1795: 1793: 1790: 1786: 1783: 1781: 1778: 1777: 1776:~ Infrangible 1772: 1769: 1767: 1764: 1761: 1760:Mike Christie 1757: 1754: 1752: 1748: 1745: 1738: 1735: 1733: 1730: 1729: 1716: 1713: 1711: 1708: 1704: 1701: 1699: 1696: 1689: 1687: 1684: 1681: 1676: 1672: 1670: 1667: 1665: 1661: 1658: 1656: 1653: 1651: 1650: 1643: 1640: 1638: 1635: 1631: 1628: 1626: 1623: 1619: 1616: 1614: 1611: 1608: 1604: 1601: 1599: 1595: 1594: 1571: 1568: 1566: 1563: 1559: 1556: 1554: 1551: 1549: 1545: 1543: 1540: 1536: 1533: 1531: 1528: 1527: 1521: 1514: 1511: 1509: 1506: 1501: 1494: 1491: 1489: 1486: 1479: 1473: 1470: 1468: 1465: 1462: 1460: 1457: 1453: 1450: 1448: 1445: 1440: 1434: 1432: 1428: 1425: 1420: 1417: 1415: 1412: 1408: 1405: 1403: 1400: 1398: 1394: 1388: 1382: 1379: 1377: 1374: 1371: 1367: 1365: 1362: 1358: 1356: 1353: 1349: 1346: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1329: 1327: 1324: 1317: 1313: 1310: 1308: 1305: 1302: 1298: 1295: 1293: 1290: 1279: 1277: 1274: 1273: 1270: 1265: 1262: 1260: 1257: 1252: 1246: 1243: 1241: 1238: 1233: 1227: 1224: 1222: 1218: 1211: 1197: 1194: 1192: 1189: 1184: 1180: 1177: 1175: 1172: 1170: 1165: 1163: 1157: 1154: 1152: 1148: 1143: 1138: 1131: 1128: 1126: 1122: 1117: 1114: 1112: 1109: 1103: 1100: 1098: 1095: 1091: 1088: 1086: 1083: 1079: 1074: 1072: 1069: 1068: 1063: 1055: 1045: 1042: 1040: 1037: 1034: 1027: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1004: 999: 998: 997: 993: 989: 988: 983: 982: 981: 980: 976: 975: 968: 965: 961: 957: 953: 952: 948: 947: 946: 941: 937: 933: 932: 926: 925: 915: 912: 908: 904: 900: 899: 898: 897: 893: 889: 888: 882: 881: 880: 879: 875: 872: 871: 870:User:Argyriou 863: 862: 861: 860: 854: 851: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 833: 830: 827: 819: 818: 817: 813: 809: 808: 803: 799: 796: 793: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 770: 766: 762: 761: 755: 754: 753: 750: 749: 735: 734: 733: 729: 725: 724: 718: 715: 714: 713: 710: 709: 696: 692: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 667: 663: 659: 658: 652: 647: 644: 643: 642: 638: 637: 630: 629: 622: 618: 614: 611: 610: 609: 608: 606: 602: 601: 593: 588: 569: 566: 562: 558: 554: 553: 552: 548: 544: 543: 538: 537: 536: 532: 529: 528: 527:User:Argyriou 521: 520: 519: 515: 511: 510: 506: 503: 500: 496: 493: 489: 485: 484: 483: 480: 476: 472: 467: 462: 458: 454: 450: 449: 448: 444: 440: 439: 434: 430: 426: 421: 417: 414: 413: 412: 409: 404: 401: 400: 399: 398: 390: 386: 382: 381: 376: 372: 369: 368: 365: 362: 361: 360: 359: 356: 353: 351: 341: 337: 333: 332: 326: 323: 322: 320: 317: 316: 315: 314: 313: 299: 291: 287: 284: 283: 281: 278: 273: 270: 269: 267: 263: 259: 255: 252: 247: 244: 243: 241: 238: 233: 230: 229: 227: 224: 219: 216: 215: 213: 210: 209: 208: 206: 198: 197: 196: 193: 191: 185: 181: 177: 173: 172: 167: 165: 161: 156: 153: 150: 147: 144: 140: 134: 131: 129: 125: 119: 115: 112: 109: 106: 103: 100: 97: 94: 91: 88: 85: 82: 79: 76: 73: 68: 64: 63: 60: 56: 50: 47: 43: 40: 35: 32: 27: 26: 19: 3260: 3257: 3242: 3219: 3203: 3184: 3158: 3140: 3132: 3131: 3115: 3094: 3078: 3053: 3031: 3018: 3014: 3005: 2986: 2970: 2946: 2918: 2890: 2861: 2856: 2840: 2836: 2821: 2816: 2803: 2785: 2746: 2732: 2724: 2712: 2701: 2693: 2689: 2672: 2656: 2635: 2609: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2586: 2557: 2531: 2502: 2488: 2458: 2455:wanting more 2440: 2417: 2378: 2370: 2368: 2358: 2357: 2345: 2333: 2320: 2315: 2303: 2293: 2286: 2280: 2268: 2255: 2249: 2228: 2224: 2212: 2200: 2183: 2172: 2160: 2136: 2125: 2124: 2117: 2113: 2092: 2068: 2056: 2044: 2032: 2001: 1989: 1977: 1965: 1949: 1932: 1913: 1897: 1873: 1861: 1842: 1825: 1809: 1796: 1784: 1775: 1770: 1755: 1736: 1718: 1714: 1702: 1659: 1648: 1647: 1641: 1629: 1617: 1602: 1574: 1569: 1557: 1534: 1519: 1517: 1512: 1496: 1492: 1471: 1451: 1418: 1406: 1396: 1390: 1386: 1380: 1347: 1330: 1315: 1311: 1296: 1267: 1263: 1244: 1225: 1203: 1195: 1178: 1168: 1161: 1155: 1129: 1115: 1101: 1089: 1050: 1043: 1025: 1019: 1018: 1001: 985: 978: 977: 973: 972: 944: 929: 885: 883: 868: 864: 852: 841: 840: 805: 801: 797: 791: 780: 779: 758: 738: 721: 716: 698: 690: 673: 672: 655: 645: 635:bananabucket 632: 624: 612: 599:bananabucket 596: 594: 586: 585: 540: 525: 507: 474: 436: 424: 415: 406:good faith. 402: 396: 395: 378: 374: 370: 363: 357: 347: 346: 329: 324: 318: 309: 308: 285: 279: 271: 253: 245: 239: 231: 225: 217: 211: 204: 202: 194: 186: 182: 178: 174: 169: 168: 157: 154: 135: 132: 120: 110: 104: 98: 92: 86: 80: 74: 65: 54: 53: 38: 33: 28: 2780:Please see 2771:Chick Bowen 2592:Weak Oppose 2536:bureaucracy 2369:Sorry, but 2072:Merovingian 1834:Chick Bowen 1634:Schneelocke 1499:Black Harry 1076:community. 555:Specifics: 171:agreements. 90:protections 2958:(Contribs) 2739:<*: --> 2453:If you're 2049:Agathoclea 1955:SlimVirgin 1866:AnonEMouse 1607:Antandrus 1562:EdJohnston 979:Discussion 903:Carnildo 3 461:User:Jimbo 298:Rfb-notice 149:candidates 102:page moves 2857:paramount 2717:Everyking 2188:Sluzzelin 2165:Modernist 2128:bishzilla 2021:Johnleemk 1970:K1Bond007 1937:≈ jossi ≈ 1906:tianpower 1649:Wizardman 1539:Borisblue 1183:Flyguy649 1094:Acalamari 964:talk page 312:DarkFalls 264:, and/or 164:Consensus 96:deletions 57:- Final. 55:(78/12/2) 3278:Category 3248:JayHenry 3194:ReyBrujo 3176:ReyBrujo 3146:ReyBrujo 2734:Shazaam! 2338:Kbdank71 2323:Jreferee 2120:figger! 2114:Support, 1990:Support. 1982:Quiddity 1361:Moreschi 1187:contribs 1078:Dmcdevit 956:Andrevan 907:Bishonen 844:Bishonen 627:Blnguyen 591:Blnguyen 561:Bishonen 557:Carnildo 479:Cecropia 262:WP:B/RFA 205:optional 78:contribs 67:Andrevan 49:Andrevan 3243:Neutral 3133:Neutral 3120:pschemp 2754:Icemuon 2747:Comment 2696:Majorly 2346:Support 2334:Support 2316:Support 2304:Support 2281:Support 2269:Support 2250:Support 2225:Support 2213:Support 2205:Zanimum 2201:Support 2184:Support 2176:John254 2173:Support 2161:Support 2093:Support 2069:Support 2057:Support 2045:Support 2033:Support 2002:Support 1994:Rebecca 1978:Support 1966:Support 1950:Support 1933:Support 1914:Support 1898:Support 1874:Support 1862:Support 1810:Support 1802:Silence 1797:Support 1785:Support 1771:Support 1756:Support 1747:iva1979 1737:Support 1715:Support 1703:Support 1660:Support 1642:Support 1630:Support 1618:Support 1603:Support 1570:Support 1558:Support 1548:Jaranda 1535:Support 1513:Support 1493:Support 1472:Support 1464:Terence 1452:Support 1419:Support 1407:Support 1381:Support 1352:Matthew 1348:Support 1331:Support 1312:Support 1297:Support 1269:Deckill 1264:Support 1245:Support 1231:Captain 1226:Support 1196:Support 1179:Support 1130:Support 1121:Zeibura 1116:Support 1044:Support 1026:Support 1020:Support 473:is the 457:WP:BOLD 433:WP:BOLD 350:GDonato 143:several 59:Raul654 3116:Oppose 2955:(Talk) 2947:Oppose 2817:Oppose 2725:Oppose 2713:Oppose 2690:Oppose 2657:Oppose 2627:Walton 2600:Walton 2588:Oppose 2575:Haukur 2544:Haukur 2532:Oppose 2489:Oppose 2441:Oppose 2371:Oppose 2359:Oppose 2260:scribe 1941:(talk) 1763:(talk) 1707:Banana 1692:Riana 1664:DS1953 1610:(talk) 1456:Shalom 1427:styles 1370:Ral315 1339:(Talk) 1304:(talk) 1255:Griz98 1107:Keegan 874:(talk) 617:WT:RFA 531:(talk) 471:WP:IAR 466:WP:IAR 453:WP:IAR 429:WP:IAR 408:Walton 266:WP:CHU 258:WP:RFA 108:rights 84:blocks 3221:Andre 3205:Andre 3160:Andre 3096:Andre 3080:Andre 3033:Andre 2988:Andre 2972:Andre 2961:(Bot) 2920:Andre 2910:Durin 2892:Andre 2842:Andre 2787:Andre 2674:Andre 2664:Durin 2637:Andre 2611:Andre 2596:never 2559:Andre 2504:Andre 2475:Xoloz 2460:Andre 2446:Xoloz 2419:Andre 2273:Comic 2097:GeeJo 2061:Giano 2037:Cla68 2006:Owen× 1925:PLANE 1844:Andre 1773:yeah 1721:Voice 1683:ll302 1622:MONGO 1424:Comet 1335:Feezo 1286:Falls 1284:Dark 1250:Darth 1236:panda 1060:NIMUM 1003:Andre 987:Andre 931:Andre 887:Andre 807:Andre 760:Andre 741:Voice 723:Andre 701:Voice 677:Voice 657:Andre 542:Andre 509:Andre 438:Andre 425:wrong 380:Andre 331:Andre 146:admin 16:< 3226:talk 3210:talk 3165:talk 3124:talk 3101:talk 3085:talk 3038:talk 2993:talk 2977:talk 2925:talk 2897:talk 2881:and 2867:blis 2847:talk 2827:blis 2808:not? 2792:talk 2703:talk 2679:talk 2642:talk 2616:talk 2564:talk 2520:AKAF 2509:talk 2493:AKAF 2465:talk 2424:talk 2350:Rarr 2308:Nick 2294:Pika 2238:ταlκ 2192:talk 2147:RR!! 2025:Talk 1920:JACO 1879:Jmlk 1849:talk 1826:Note 1724:-of- 1675:Scob 1477:Neil 1387:Buck 1320:Tito 1316:long 1266:. — 1169:ddie 1008:talk 992:talk 954:See 936:talk 911:talk 892:talk 812:talk 765:talk 744:-of- 728:talk 704:-of- 680:-of- 662:talk 621:here 565:talk 547:talk 514:talk 475:last 455:and 443:talk 385:talk 375:left 355:talk 336:talk 190:grok 72:talk 3058:Joe 3023:Joe 2863:nae 2823:nae 2765:at 2391:mit 2388:her 2287:Fun 2256:WjB 2118:can 2102:(c) 1902:Cel 1727:All 1443:{C} 1397:ofg 1392:ets 1216:mit 1213:her 1136:Hús 792:12. 747:All 707:All 691:11. 683:All 613:10. 114:RfA 3280:: 3228:) 3212:) 3167:) 3122:| 3103:) 3087:) 3069:, 3040:) 2995:) 2979:) 2927:) 2899:) 2849:) 2794:) 2769:. 2752:. 2737:- 2731:- 2706:) 2681:) 2644:) 2618:) 2566:) 2556:. 2511:) 2467:) 2426:) 2384:ki 2381:Wi 2106:• 2086:) 2082:, 2078:, 2023:| 1904:es 1851:) 1832:. 1818:G. 1815:D. 1596:- 1525:as 1502:• 1322:xd 1272:er 1209:ki 1206:Wi 1146:nd 1010:) 994:) 938:) 909:| 905:. 894:) 853:13 814:) 798:A: 767:) 730:) 697:? 664:) 639:) 603:) 563:| 559:. 549:) 516:) 445:) 431:, 403:8. 387:) 364:7. 338:) 319:6. 301:}} 295:{{ 280:5. 260:, 254:4. 240:3. 226:2. 212:1. 166:. 36:. 3224:( 3208:( 3163:( 3099:( 3083:( 3036:( 2991:( 2975:( 2923:( 2895:( 2865:' 2845:( 2825:' 2805:Y 2790:( 2700:( 2677:( 2640:( 2614:( 2562:( 2507:( 2463:( 2422:( 2376:~ 2241:) 2235:( 2157:. 2145:A 2143:O 2140:R 2099:⁄ 2084:E 2080:C 2076:T 2074:( 2010:☎ 1889:7 1884:1 1847:( 1743:S 1694:⁂ 1679:e 1592:l 1590:e 1588:i 1586:r 1584:d 1582:e 1580:a 1578:h 1576:P 1522:n 1520:A 1483:╦ 1373:» 1201:~ 1162:E 1141:ö 1082:t 1080:· 1066:» 1058:A 1053:« 1048:— 1006:( 990:( 966:. 934:( 916:. 890:( 810:( 802:I 763:( 726:( 717:A 660:( 646:A 631:( 607:: 595:( 570:. 545:( 512:( 501:. 441:( 416:A 383:( 371:A 358:) 352:( 334:( 325:A 286:A 272:A 246:A 232:A 218:A 116:) 111:· 105:· 99:· 93:· 87:· 81:· 75:· 70:( 42:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Requests for bureaucratship/Andrevan 3 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index