Knowledge:Requests for bureaucratship/Deskana 2

2782:, to be quite capable of performing consistent with policy and the consensus of whatever discussions may transpire those tasks that are relatively uncontroversial (e.g., username changes, relative to which we can surely use more bureaucrat help ). Whether I would be comfortable with Deskana as an RfA closer is a much closer question, one that is complicated by his colloquies with Walton and Cecropia (and a few other comments here) which, though demonstrative of a propitious willingness to discuss issues fully and of Deskana's being thoughtful, have, perhaps because I am dense, not been all that enlightening with respect to his understanding of how a bureaucrat ought to close a close RfA. I think it likelier than not, though, in view of all of Deskana's comments here and my general dealings with him elsewhere, that he properly conceives of bureaucratship as ministerial and well understands 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—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)—and in no case in substitution of his views or those of certain others for those of the community writ large, and so I support, although not without some trepidation. 648:

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?

671:

impossible to be sure that everyone is telling the truth in what they say; someone could oppose because "the candidate only has two months experience", which is a valid oppose reason, but secretly be thinking "I'm pissed that they reported me for 3RR". It's hard to know everyone's opinions. If I had concerns that this was the case with a large amount of votes, and that people weren't being honest, I would most certainly request more input from both the community and other bureaucrats before taking any hasty action. It's always better to err on the side of caution and take some time to make sure you've interpreted what's been said correctly. A re-RfA might be appropriate for instance, but it's not really my job to decide on my own whether it is. If a lot of people were complaining about a possible bias and suggesting a re-RfA then I'd discuss that possibility with other bureaucrats. It's a bureaucrats job to determine what the community wants, and if a lot of people are saying a re-RfA is what they want, then that's probably the best course of action. If you're not certain you'd get the same outcome from a re-run, it's probably a good idea, if that's what everyone wants. --

3913:

the other hand, he says that promoting Danny was "the right decision", "a good idea", and "the right thing to do in the context of improving the project". Asked to clarify, he explained that "The only reason I think it was the right decision to promote him was because I supported him." But the original question from Walton explicitly asked not for an opinion on Danny himself, but on whether, given that his RfA closed at 68% with over 100 opposes, it was right for him to be promoted. This is a distinct question; Deskana might have supported Danny in the RfA, but believe that the bureaucrats made the wrong decision in promoting him without consensus. That, however, is not the answer he gave. Rather, he said that he supported Danny in the RfA

2674:. I have thought about this for some time. I am satisfied by the very full explanations Deskana has given to various questions over the last few days that he understands the consensus on when bureaucrats should and should not promote (to the extent that there is one). I do have some concerns from the diffs raised by Durin below but am I convinced that these represent exceptions rather than Deskana's usual manner in dealing with others. On balance, and in particular given my own experience of him as a Knowledge, I am satisfied that he would be able to competently close difficult RfAs and respond appropriately to community questions about his bureaucrat decisions. I am sure other bureaucrat tasks will also be performed well. 3224:

But I am very worried that Knowledge is becoming more authoritarian, and that bureaucrats (and admins) are becoming too powerful. I much prefer the way things work on the Spanish Knowledge (where I also edit) where most things are determined by a vote, with users under 100 edits being excluded from the vote. Bureaucrats and admins have the potential to exercise great power, but they shouldn't; they should carry out the will of the community, even where they disagree with it. Honestly, I'm not intentionally trying to annoy people here. I'm doing what I believe is best for Knowledge.

3571:

the point of the question. Given that I supported Danny's RfA, I obviously wanted to pass. I kind of assumed as a given that everyone understood that I would remain uninvolved if I felt there was a conflict of interest. The reason I spoke as I did about Danny's RfA is because I was answering the questions. If I were a bureaucrat back then when Danny's RfA was being done and I had still supported, I would have abstained from my role as bureaucrat in attempting to judge the consensus. It is not appropriate for me to participate in bureaucrat RfA closes if I am involved in the RfA. --

3446:, he says "but sometimes I lose my temper", "but you've got nothing to be intimidated about if you're acting in good faith and not doing something stupid", and "I can lose my temper if you're incivil to me". The evidence is clear that this is the case. This sort of demeanor is inappropriate for a bureaucrat. Bureaucrats frequently come under intense scrutiny and pressure. We've had bureaucrats resign under the pressure. Having a bureaucrat with this sort of demeanor would be, in my opinion, a seriously bad idea. This is a mistake. -- 290:

think it's a good system, primarily because its clear cut and cuts out on arguments that get people upset and worked up. However, our system is good too. True, there are a few cases where I disagree with the outcome here, but I think the system works. I can understand why people were outraged at the Danny promotion, given it falling below the support percentage people typically see here, but since his re-promotion he's been a good admin, from what I can tell. Both systems have merits, but to be honest, I prefer ours. --

3732:

button, move to appropriate finished page, List of admins and inform candidate) takes 6-10 minutes, depending on how together my brain is at the moment. A slightly dicey RfA takes somewhat longer. A more difficult RfA usually takes me a half hour or more, as I pretty much read every word. Then there is an unknown additional amount of time if I have to explain the RfA and that sometimes takes hours over several days. To address some people's view of the job, I would call that responsibility, not "power." --

499:

have been characterized as "too big to fail" so essentially I believe that the bureaucrats were leaning more toward a way to promote and avoid further conflict than to make the call that the community consensus indicated if it were almost any other candidate. I could have been restored to bureaucratship by the same reasoning as Danny's RfA if I had garnered only a 2/3 support, but I wouldn't have wanted it, not only because the community had spoken, but also because my work would be permanently tainted. --

443:

Anyway, I thought they made the right decision, given that Danny was a good admin in the past and has been a good admin since. But I'm biased, I supported in the RfA. I doubt I would have said anything in the bureaucrat chat. RfA isn't a vote, it can just be treated that way in the majority of examples. This is where the German system has its advantages. And incidentally, the German system would have promoted him too, but it's also true it would have promoted a lot of other people that failed. --

202:. Based upon button pushing by bureaucrats and what the almost all of the community deems acceptable without dispute, 75+% is a consensus to promote, and 70-% support has no consensus to promote. What I mean is that very few people will complain if someone is promoted with over 75% support or not promoted with under 70% support. There have been exceptions to this rule where the bureaucrats felt that a consensus had been reached to promote with less support than is typical of an RfA. 3839:

of context, actually are pretty good attempts to assertively calm down nasty situations. Also, it's common to protect talk pages of blocked users who are using the unblock template too much. He's been an admin for over a year and he's been active in some contentious areas and really only a handful of those diffs are times Deskana should have toned it down. I dunno, I just don't think he's really very bitey at all. --

230:. In my duties as an admin, I believe I am fair. I keep always try to keep my cool and act fairly to users I have had disagreements with, and try to put the past behind me. I have attempted to help users who I have previously had disagreements with in the past, even when they don't believe in me as an administrator. I try to steer clear of conflicts of interest so promise not to take actions that may be viewed as such. 2265:. I have never been persuaded by the "we don't need more bureaucrats" and am not certain why we want everything concentrated in a little oligarchy of bureaucrats. I am also unpersuaded by the opposes, particularly the suggestion that the nominee will be a poor bureaucrat because he won't simply count votes. I'm pretty sure I've read ad nauseum that RfA isn't a vote. I think the nominee is qualified and trustworthy. 3756:(slightly), for answer to question 1. Unless I'm taking crazy pills, only a few months ago the "discretionary level" was 75-80%, anything above 80% was non-controversial, but below it down to 75% was. Below that, almost no one was promoted. I don't understand why this has changed, as I believe without a somewhat-strict discretionary level, the promotion/non-promotion will almost entirely be based on 2805: 133:

is a vote" is a point of dispute. Personally, I believe it is safe to say that RfA isn't a vote, because there have been RfAs that have failed with higher support rates than RfAs that have passed. Generally, the community makes good decisions on who to promote to admin, and even when admins go crazy and eventually get themselves desysopped that doesn't mean they made a bad choice.

3305:

consensus. I do allot for leeway (see my userpage stuff on consensus), such as discarding troll/sock votes, comments strictly based on facts that turn out to be false, if damning info comes in at the time of closure (the RfA can be extended as a better idea), or outside consensus (VP/policy) and foundational issue considerations. Nevertheless, this doesn't really fit under that.

3254:. The point of that "philosophy" was to illustrate that I believe the spirit is more important than the letter, but that the letter exists to be followed in almost all cases. Do you disagree with me on that? I removed it because it scared people into thinking I was a rogue administrator, which I am not. Are your concerns that I value the spirit over the letter?-- 2867:. (changed from oppose, and nothing to do with JayHenry's below response to my vote). I still feel Deskana is too bitey, but we do need a new bureaucrat or two to clear out the backlog, and as he's the closest (hovering around 90% at the moment), I'm happy to change to support to try and ensure we get at least one bureaucrat out of this whole recent mad rush. 412:

it scary, but I guess I just figured something I quickly jotted down on my userpage wouldn't really matter. About the IAR thing... don't get me wrong, the letter of the rule is important. It exists for a reason, after all. If things didn't need to be so specifically stated, they wouldn't be. The spirit is just more important, even if it contradicts the letter.

3614:. Like Durin, I was leaning towards support, but I'm not confident that Deskana has the temperment to be a bureaucrat. I want a candidate that reacts well under pressure and has no history of making comments that border on uncivil. Perhaps a few instances could be overlooked, but Durin provided two dozen diffs of questionable behavior. 3019:, while I do hope that Deskana will tone it down a little (even while dealing with difficult people, there's a difference between being firm and assertive vs. being rude and insulting), he was willing to address that, and we're never going to find anyone who's been absolutely perfect. On balance, I think he'll do well. 2728:. I think Deskana will be a fine bureaucrat for reasons mentioned above. As to Durin's oppose, while I agree the diffs brought up are problematic, I disagree that they indicate a pattern or a bad demeanor on Deskana's part. He's been here for a while and he's made some mistakes. So have we all. I trust him regardless. 216:. Discussion with the community, and with other bureaucrats. Given that it's easier to promote than it is to desysop, it doesn't hurt to err on the side of caution and discuss the matter more with the other bureaucrats after the request has ended to make sure that promoting isn't a mistake, if I feel it would be. 3989:, I've seen good things from Deskana in general, and came here to support, but the issues Durin raises are cause for significant concern. Bureaucrats must be levelheaded, civil, and responsive to criticism and questions. If Deskana is willing to address or explain these issues, I would be willing to reconsider. 3290:. Deskana says the bureaucrats made the right call in promoting Danny even though he agrees that there was no community consensus for such a promotion. Whichever way you slice it I just can't get behind that. Nevertheless I appreciate and commend Deskana's forthrightness in answering questions on the Danny RFA. 405:. I think I agree what you were trying to express in your "Knowledge Philosophy", but it is stated very bluntly and some may have a problem with it. Do you still hold similar feelings expressed there? If not, how have you changed? (Please don't feel bound by these specific questions, address it as you wish) 3912:

On one hand, Deskana says that "I don't think it is ever appropriate to promote someone with no consensus to do so", that "with so many opposes you can't really say there was a consensus to promote ", and that "I wouldn't have promoted him myself with that kind of opposition." (So far, so good.) On

3585:

Having taken a closer look at your follow-up responses, it's more clear what you were saying, but it was definitely not the best way to say it (in my opinion). We need enough active bureaucrats so that those with a COI can step aside, similar to what is done at ArbCom, so I am withdrawing this oppose

3469:

to have bureaucrats and NOW then I think your concern would carry some weight for me. However, I don't think we're in that situation. Yes, I do think we need more bureaucrats, but it's not a crisis. We can ask for and expect to find great candidates. I don't think Deskana, given the rife civility and

3223:

I'm not arguing whether it was a good call or a bad call. The call shouldn't have been made. And, to Nick, I know that the principle is widely disputed; that's exactly why I only want bureaucrats who share my view on it. I know I'm in a small minority here, and at risk of sounding like a total crank.

2777:

Although the issues raised with respect to temperament by GRBerry and Durin, et al., are not entirely insignificant, I am largely convinced, perhaps in part by my previous favorable encounters with Deskana, that he is possessed of a relatively deliberative disposition and a civil demeanor, and on the

2527:

because the user has been a good active administrator and I agree with his position on what a bureaucrat should be. We expect discretion by closing admins on Afds because we know that there are some people who go on these Afds who's arguments are just invalid and not in line with policy. Similarly we

2119:

I trust Deskana's sound judgment and the answer to the tricky Danny-question reinforces that feeling. Though I was in favor of promoting Danny I felt that the bureaucrat's decision was wrong (and was quite vocal about it at the time). In retrospect, the mistake of the b'crats was really to claim that

575:

I'm going to add a different dimension to this. Yes and no. I feel the bureaucrats did the best they could under the circumstances but, as we can see, it was a terrible precedent. Dany could have asked for his bit back (as I could've but didn't) but chose to stand for an RfA. Having stood for an RfA,

147:

What motivated me to nominate myself for bureaucratship, and why now? I've been admin for 1 year, 2 months and 2 days (according to a box on my userpage), and have been a Wikipedian for over two years. I feel I have a good knowledge the way Knowledge works from my time here, and given the fact that I

3838:

I'm usually pretty quick to oppose a bitey editor. But I'm not sure that Deskana fits the bill. If you go through Durin's diffs, Deskana is often dealing with pretty ridiculous trolls, vandals and edit warriors. Read the discussion around the diffs and a lot of those comments that seem strong out

3716:

Quite a lot of the time, I agree, determining the consensus takes about 10 seconds. If you've got nearly unanimous support, it's kind of obvious there's a consensus to promote. If there's a lot of people opposing compared to how many supported, it's pretty clear there is no consensus to promote. But

3486:

Durin makes some pretty compelling points. "Bollocks"? "wrong"? "unimportant fantasies"??? These are not the comments of a bridge builder but of someone acting like a jaded cop. As a potential bureaucrat an editors views on RFA come a distant 2nd place to the ability to communicate with civility and

3194:

My own opinion is exactly why I said I wouldn't have involved myself in the bureaucrat chat, because it's obvious what I want the outcome to be from the fact that I supported. I see that you want RfA to be a vote, but can you accept that Danny has been a good admin since, so really it might not have

1396:

I think I was wrong to oppose Deskana the last time. Although I think the current number of b'crats is quite satisfactory, he's been around long enough, has a fair and civil demeanor, and he doesn't seem to have any ambition for radical reform of the RfA system, a system I continue to believe works

834:

I agree with Tony Sidaway; in my experience, Deskana has been a particularly civil administrator and is routinely willing to work with others and explain him/herself. I don't anticipate he will go wild with the new tools, and I don't anticipate that he will do anything contrary to my interpretation

714:

No, I don't think it is ever appropriate to promote someone with no consensus to do so. The only reason I think it was the right decision to promote him was because I supported him. What I think about promoting or not promoting doesn't matter. What matters is the consensus. I think promoting him was

535:

I've been thinking long and hard about this, and my answer is no. Promoting Danny was the right thing to do in the context of improving the project... but with so many opposes you can't really say there was a consensus to promote him. I agree with Cecropia though. The bureaucrats acted in good faith

411:

I really didn't expect anyone to find it scary. That represents my philosophy, that the spirit is more important than the letter of the rule. I still hold that principle highly, I just don't parade it on my userpage in a confrontational manner anymore. It's quite understandable that people would see

132:

The job of a bureaucrat (as far as RfA is concerned) is interpreting consensus. Basically asking yourself the question "Does the community here indicate that promotion is a good idea?". It's clear there is a correlation between percentage support and pass rate, and to say that is a fact. To say "RfA

3731:

As a purely technical matter, it usually takes a few minutes to scan a non-contentious RfA for anything that jumps out at me and usually read the major comments if there is significant opposition, just so see what people are talking about. The actual dog work (close, delete, fill in fields and push

3554:

be able to step aside from evaluating your friends. If you have a strong opinion, consensus process (in the real world) requires that you step aside from the role of facilitator and become part of the group. The last thing we need are more "well, the 'crats know better" decisions, and I can't trust

647:

archives somewhere about "scientific scaling" of RfAs in that, in general, it would seem that the commnity 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

550:

Thanks for replying so promptly. The convenient thing for you to do would have been to try to brush this under the rug and I appreciate you tackling it head-on. Just to make sure I understand you correctly, do you believe that a) there was not a community consensus for the promotion of Danny and b)

155:

Oh, and I will probably respond to opposes if their meaning is unclear or I have something to say on the matter. In RfAs and RfBs (including my last RfB) this was interpreted as arguing with opposers. I assure you I am not arguing, but attempting to understand their criticism better. Please ask any

3917:

that he thought the bureaucrats made the right decision in promoting him. He thinks they made the right decision, but admits it lacked consensus, he thinks it was inappropriate, but also a good idea, he thinks it was the right thing to do in the context of improving the project, but wouldn't have

3570:

In a real world situation, having supported Danny's RfA, I would have done and said absolutely nothing regarding his RfA from a bureaucrat's perspective. However, I answered these questions because me not answering them saying "I wouldn't have done anything because I voted" wouldn't have satisfied

3531:

I think you may have misunderstood what I said? I apologise if you did not, but I said that were I in the situation where I had to decide whether or not to promote Danny, I would not have done, because there was no consensus to do so. That I personally believe he should be promoted is unrelated to

2331:

Has been an eccellent admin. Answers to questions on the Danny issue are the best that I have seen, and would in themselves compel support without any other predisposing factors. And of course Bureaucrats have to make judgement decisions on borderline and unclear case, otherwise a bot could do it.

498:

on the RfA itself, just among the bureaucrats that Danny should be promoted. Now if you go the other way, and say that it was a vote, it didn't reach that either. My opinion is that the bureaucrats in the case were too aware of Danny's historic position in Knowledge. If Danny were a bank, he would

289:

It's a straight vote with a 66.7% majority required to pass, from what I've heard. The translation seems to confirm this. Well, that system has its advantages. For a start, there will probably be less borderline cases than we have here. Promotion or no promotion would be clear cut in every case. I

3706:

Frankly, I don't see why the job couldn't be done by just one person. I don't know if there's some technical process involved in promoting people or if you just hit a button, but surely even if you had to promote several people in a day it couldn't take more than a few minutes. As for deciding to

2248:

is the sort of editor we're looking for. A tireless dedication to neutrality and civility. A year of involvement as a sysop in some tough areas of the project and no major concerns. I'm particularly impressed with the level of thought in the response to the nearly impossible Danny question. I

468:

a consensus. In my own re-RfB, I said that consensus was clearly not reached in that case, though the 'crats decision was valid (made in good faith), even if I couldn't say it was the right one. Please tell me how you are not saying that bureaucrats are the "real" voters on RfA, and the community

429:

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

136:

What's changed since my last nomination for bureaucratship? In matters unrelated to bureaucratship, I feel I've become more mature with regards to Knowledge. I don't think anyone ever stops learning. Secondly, from watching RfAs and how they go, I feel I understand bureaucratship more. In my last

478:

I apologise I took so long to answer this, for some reason I thought it was aimed at Walton. Anyway, I must admit I'm slightly confused where you've managed to draw that conclusion from. That's not the way I see it. RfA is based on a consensus. Bureaucrats decide whether there is a consensus for

442:

Well, I disagree with your statement that the bureaucrats "ignoring 100 people's opinions". Does that mean that every time a RfA is closed as pass when there are opposes, the bureaucrats are ignoring what they've said? No, it means that they've thought about it but ultimately decided to promote.

3691:

That's a silly reason to oppose (made even sillier by the fact that Mr. Gustafson is selective in whom to oppose for this reason, so this vote is not even principled). Back to the point, even if there were no backlogs, having more experienced and dediacted people doing the job can only benefit

3455:

I understand your concerns, but I think every admin on Knowledge has made a few comments that, on their own, nobody notices, but taken together, such as at RfB time, could cause problems. Deskana is no exception to the rule, I'll easily concede that. I think, however, we're not going to find a

3304:

per Cecropia. That fact that he choose to re-run and failed to gain consensus and was promoted anyway seems off. I doubt it does much harm, but if you opt to stand the test of consensus it should be followed through. I also don't like the idea of crats acting as the voters and ignoring the RfA

670:

It's a tricky situation, and I feel it's somewhat hypothetical as I can never really see this happening. However, matters like this should be discussed between bureaucrats. If it was, say, 80%, and lots of people were acting out of character, I'd discuss the matter with other bureaucrats. It's

750:

Abstain from closing it myself. At 71% it's typically difficult to decide whether a consensus exists to promote or not. Erring on the side of caution and letting another bureaucrat close it is a better idea than closing it myself, as it is a possible conflict of interest to close it myself.

576:

he should have expected (and I have no reason to assume he didn't) the possibility it would fail and was ready to accept that. Seeing that he voluntarily submitted himself to the process and the process didn't reach consensus, that would have been the proper decision. I don't object,

707:

I've read your answer to question 9 several times and there's something I'd like you to clarify. Are you saying that there can be a situation where a crat assesses that there is no consensus to promote someone but can validly promote anyway as this is "the right decision" in their

3717:

most people ask questions of candidates relating to the cases like Danny, Gracenotes, etc. that aren't easy to decide. In instances like that, I do think it can take a while to try to determine what the consensus is. I understand your concerns, but can you see what I mean here? --

560:

Basically, yes and yes. It's easy to say they made the right decision in hindsight though, and faced with a similar situation, I'd probably have said it should have closed as a fail with that much opposition, were I involved in the bureaucrat chat. But it was the right decision.

3374:. Good things. I became mildly concerned about what I felt was too much attention towards numbers rather than consensus as observed in the answer to Q1 in this RfB, and this answer to Q1 in his last RfB. This was further buttressed by a comment regarding tallies being harmless 2253:, something which I feel very rarely from the people who actually invoke IAR. I trust Deskana to never ignore the rules in making a controversial promotion and I trust him to be even more cautious with the relatively minor civility issues that were raised below. Good luck! -- 744:– 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? 137:

nomination people were concerned that I didn't understand consensus, and while I believe that I did then, I certainly understand it more now. It's clear to me that it isn't the bureaucrat who promotes the admin, it's the community. The bureaucrat just pushes the button.

3456:

perfect RfB candidate, perhaps because none exist and probably because the process is so difficult to pass so I think we're going to have to start promoting the very best of the rest and Deskana is definitely one of the better administrators in this context.

1876:

Honestly, I went through Deskana's pretty heavily. I was getting ready to support, then I saw Alkivar's oppose on the RfB and wanted to give him a chance to respond to it. There is no good reason to oppose Deskana that I can see, and we need more 'crats.

358:

You mean what makes me vote support? I don't have any. It's generally just how I feel about the person. "x edits distributed about n namespaces" personally means nothing to me. Generally more edits = responsible admin, but I don't like to use that standard

493:

Sorry, I should have specified the question was for you, Deskana. Yes, bureaucrats are charged with determining consensus, and since they promoted Danny in good faith the promotion is valid. However, by any reasoning I can use, there was no consensus

536:

and (in my opinon) made the right decision, but it wasn't based on community consensus, and I wouldn't have promoted him myself with that kind of opposition. Do you understand my position, here? Right call, but not based on the right information. --

3272:

that was a humorous way to put it (and probably a bad way to put it). From his response here and from all evidence I see, the only feeling he was trying to express was that he would strive to make Knowledge a better place at every opportunity.

3144:

should have absolutely nothing to do with it. They should count votes, and promote accordingly - that's the only way to ensure that all Wikipedians' opinions remain equal, and bureaucrats do not become political power-holders. The principle that

2120:

they found a consensus. That actually made the decision look even more arbitrary. It would have been more honest and less clumsy to say "we don't see consensus but we still feel that the greater good is best served by promoting him".

368: 3516:, I have no problem with bureaucrats exercising discretion. I have a problem with stating simultaneously that you think Danny's RFA lacked consensus, but that promoting him was the right thing to do because you supported him. -- 3918:

done it himself. From a potential bureaucrat, I expect a more consistent affirmation of the role of consensus, as opposed to one's personal view of the candidate, in determining which outcome at RfA is "the right decision."

1613:- Seems willing to wikignome. I'd like to add though that I would really like to see him change his sig to a standard ascii version of his name. Strange sigs impact contactability, and (in my opinion) don't add anything. 1323:

Deskana is a good user/admin (unless I've missed something), as I've seen this user out and about. We definitely need more 'crats here, as the user said, Cecropia is practically doing all the work. Good luck,

3886:

from Knowledge. Given Yuser's erratic behaviour which resulted in the second failure and the overeagerness with which he/she desired adminship, I think nominating Yuser for adminship was poor judgement.

3586:

and taking you at your word. Not enough confidence to support, but you seem to align fairly well with the concepts I favor, particularly 'crat consensus to promote in difficult/close cases. Good luck. --

3976:

per Durin's diffs. I'm not bothered by the Danny comments, even though I opposed that Rfa, and I don't think the comments Durin points out are horrible enough to oppose over ... but they're not great. --

1156:'Ey, who the bloody fuck bans people fer a few goddamn curses?! Those yellow brats should be damn grateful they didn't get their ears right fucked by the slimy tongue of some of the bastards I know! -- 3937:. While otherwise good, I don't know that I can trust Deskana in RfA cases where there is only a majority, not a consensus. However, response to follow-up question is enough for me to not oppose. 3241:

User still stands by the removed wiki-philopsophy. I don't want a 'crat that thinks becoming more a rogue every day is a good thing, as I don't think that is in the best interests of Knowledge.

1397:

reasonably well. While he rubbed me the wrong way with his use of the "rouge" word at his first RfB, the truth is that I've never seen him do anything unreasonable. I think he'll do a fine job.

269:: Are you familiar with the RFA process of the German Knowledge? Do you think that system has any advantages over the one currently used over here? As a cheat sheet here is a short description of 113: 2476:

I would respect any judgment made by Deskana as a 'crat even if I disagreed with the outcome and could find fault with the analysis. Deskana is 'crat material and should be elevated as such. --

129:. The fact that Cecropia now does most of the bcrat stuff doesn't necessarily mean that had Cecropia not been elected we would be stuck without active bureaucrats, but it does make me wonder. 2834:. Friendly and experienced admin. If they're willing to take on the tedious extra work (with little to no credit) that comes with Bureaucratship, I say let 'em have it. Better you than me :) 3555:

that you would not do that, at this time. I am happy to be proven wrong if I continue to misunderstand, however; luckily you have days yet left (at least, I hope that's a lucky thing..). --

125:

Personally, I feel Knowledge needs more bureaucrats. Most of the bcrat stuff is done by Cecropia (who might I add, was only recently re-elected as a bureaucrat), and there is a backlog at

224:

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?

152:

and we only seem to have one active crat at RfA, and it has been over five months since my last nomination, and I feel I understand Knowledge well enough now to serve in this manner.

3184: 1735: 363:). If I've intereacted with them before then I generally vote (term used for lack of a better one, I don't like "!vote") on my experience with them. For example, I voted support on 3707:

promote or not, if it takes you a long time to do that, you're not doing it right, because the community already made the decision for you, and all you have to do is implement it.

4166: 1484:-Good admin. I have trusted him for a long enough time pressing the protect, delete, and block buttons. I can trust him pressing the promote, make bot and change name buttons. 786: 3487:

understanding with those they disagree with...no matter how misguided they think the editor is. "If you so much as mention that requested move again, I will block you" indeed

3526: 1682:- I really liked your statement above, gave me a good impression. In addition, I see no problems in your usage of the admin tools and civility to other editors. Good luck! 3596: 3565: 3324:

For the record, I said the RfA had no consensus. Are you opposing because I don't think the promotion was bad? If so, I'm sorry for pestering you with this question. --

360: 893:

I've seen you around and you seem like a good candidate. I can't find any reason to criticize you and you seem to be a fair admin from my encounters :) --Malevious

4184: 2580:

per above. Deskana is undoubtly an excellent admin and a trustworthy, responsible individual who can make judgment decisions. He is the best candidate, period. --

3094: 119: 3040:

Sorry, I know I'm going to get yelled at, but like I said on another RfB, we don't need another 'crat to close RFAs, as this is dealt with quick enough as is.

3380:. But, his well considered responses in the above questions regarding the closure of Danny's RfA helped ease some of my concerns. I was sitting on the fence. 304:

Thank you for providing a prompt answer. I agree with you that having a clear cut threshhold for promotion reduces acrimony and the perception of unfairness.

3179: 1730: 278: 3626:- I do not think Deskana has the right temperament. The diffs mentioned by Durin and some instances which I saw myself, convinces me of this. Sorry. - 3384:: Then, I began reviewing talk page contributions of this editor. What I found increasingly shocked me. He referred to someone's query as a total joke 858:

I would have opposed for misspelling "consensus", but I'm not that mean. Anyway, Deskana's a good admin, and I trust him with the bureaucratic tools.

1239:

In the few times I've talked to Deskana, I've felt far more comfortable that s/he knew what they were doing than I do with a lot of other admins. --

2348:. No concerns that the diffs (and by definition, behaviour) shown below would impact on Deskana's ability to perform bureaucrat duties with aplomb. 1956: 3443:

the behavior shown is inappropriate and considerably more likely to start fires than put them out. On the now deleted philosophy from his userpage

2528:

know that certain users, particularly highly POV users with long-standing block logs, go into RFAs to "get back" at people they don't like. So yes

584:

to the project, then someone higher up, such as Jimbo, could have directed that he get the bit back, and not have the RfA process subverted. --

3896:

If I might ask, what in the world does a misguided nomination have anything to do with how well the candidate would perform as a bureaucrat? --

270: 17: 1207:

Even though I haven't seen this user around, I believe that they can handle the tools or else 15 users wouldn't have already supported him.

2494:, trustworthy user who makes great decisions, great admin, would make an excellent bureaucrat (and we definitely need more bureaucrats). -- 3580: 3541: 2601:- On the ball Admin with good sense, sensible, thoughtful responses to questioning. Good history and demonstrates knowledge of the job. 140:

As a bureaucrat I would be active in closing RfAs, changing usernames, and discussing RfAs where the consensus is not clear. I would add

3490:

That's not how anyone should be talking to someone not to mention a potential bureaucrat. We need less of that attitude here, not more.

2151:

per eventual follow-up to my optional question. I think, all in all, that this candidate has a proper respect for community consensus.

3098: 2399: 1782: 3178:

is a pretty lame reason for an oppose, as I have reiterated before. This principle is widely disputed among the community members. —

3655: 2360:

one of the more thoughtful and clueful members of our community. I'm sure that Deskana would carefully think through his decisions.

1785:, and I trust him as much as anyone, since he is a seasoned administrtator who has contributed to the wiki in many different ways. 1886:

An excellent fellow and a terrific volunteer, I am quite sure that Deskana will be a fine addition to our checkout counter clerks

2662: 30: 3364:: When I was first reviewing, I was tending towards support. I like that he doesn't want the RfA progress table added to WP:RFA 2226:

I like his answers to questions, and am unconvinced by the "We don't need another 'crat" argument. I have a lot of respect for

1119:. Trustworthy and responsible. You'd think that a candidate banned from a Battlefield server for swearing would be a lot worse. 3157:. This is nothing personal; I've asked the same question on every RfB, and will oppose everyone who gives this kind of answer. 2819: 1413: 1343: 911:- Deskana has been doing a good job and I expect him to be able to handle the job and tasks of a crat very well..Good luck...-- 900: 807: 782: 580:

to Danny being an admin again. But, if he didn't ask for his bit back, and he didn't reach consensus on his RfA, and if he is

3660: 2811:. All experiences with this admin have been great, an active user that I believe is trustworthy. No reason not to support. 196:

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

148:

believe we need more bureaucrats, I wish to serve Knowledge in this manner. I also chose now because there is a backlog at

1276: 77: 2642: 1583: 3417:. The more I dig, the more I find of this sort of thing; removing an IP's question on Jimbo's talk page as "bollocks" 3209:

You are right; Knowledge isn't a bureaucracy. So why oppose people who have slightly different fundamental beliefs? —

2954: 2840: 89: 2970:. I think he'd make a good bureaucrat. I am somewhat concerned by Durin's points, but not enough to change my vote.- 2338: 1374: 107: 95: 3387:, deleted someone's comment from a talk page because they'd said they retired, attempting to force the retirement 122:). I'd been thinking about nominating myself again in the past few days, and have decided that I would do it now. 3697: 3393:, the contradictory manner in which he told a user to speak as much as they like to him but to drop a discussion 3140:

make discretionary decisions on RfAs. They should not "weigh up opinions" or "take them into account". And their

2932: 2515: 1663:

I changed it back to normal. A few people said they were only seeing boxes, which I didn't think would happen. --

83: 3550:, from Q11. That's as much as an admission of bias in making decisions, which makes me unable to trust that you 2299: 522:

Yes, but I'm still not clear on this, setting aside your personal support for Danny, do you feel that there was

210:

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

185:

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

3650: 1270: 1212: 1127: 732: 340: 274: 101: 3225: 3167: 3158: 2152: 431: 364: 4143: 4116: 4089: 4070: 4035: 4017: 4003: 3980: 3966: 3948: 3922: 3902: 3891: 3861: 3843: 3833: 3796: 3769: 3736: 3726: 3711: 3701: 3686: 3677: 3663: 3641: 3618: 3506: 3494: 3474: 3460: 3450: 3352: 3333: 3319: 3294: 3277: 3263: 3245: 3228: 3218: 3204: 3189: 3170: 3161: 3120: 3107: 3089: 3071: 3062: 3025: 3011: 2999: 2976: 2962: 2937: 2914: 2891: 2880: 2859: 2846: 2826: 2798: 2786: 2769: 2753: 2735: 2732: 2720: 2708: 2696: 2685: 2666: 2646: 2629: 2610: 2593: 2572: 2550: 2536: 2519: 2503: 2486: 2468: 2449: 2419: 2404: 2380: 2367: 2352: 2340: 2323: 2309: 2304: 2287: 2285: 2269: 2257: 2237: 2234: 2218: 2196: 2182: 2170: 2155: 2143: 2124: 2111: 2083: 2069: 2055: 2032: 2016: 1993: 1984: 1972: 1960: 1934: 1922: 1910: 1898: 1881: 1868: 1844: 1829: 1819: 1797: 1789: 1773: 1755: 1740: 1724: 1710: 1686: 1672: 1658: 1644: 1631: 1617: 1605: 1593: 1569: 1546: 1530: 1513: 1501: 1491: 1476: 1471: 1455: 1446: 1431: 1418: 1401: 1388: 1357: 1348: 1315: 1294: 1278: 1260: 1248: 1231: 1225: 1199: 1151: 1137: 1111: 1085: 1071: 1050: 1031: 1011: 985: 966: 961: 944: 932: 920: 903: 883: 869: 843: 827: 814: 760: 724: 680: 665: 632: 588: 570: 555: 545: 530: 517: 503: 488: 473: 452: 434: 350: 308: 299: 284: 165: 60: 1652:- his signature annoys me a bit, but that's more of an RFA comment. Apart from that, this user is perfect. 3881: 3340: 3307: 3046: 3007:. We need another 'crat or two, and this is a highly qualified candidate with significant RfA experience. 2948: 2905: 2395: 2364: 811: 3067:. . .But we do need more bureaucrats at Changing usernames. There are requests from June 18 backloged. -- 2230:, and I read his comments with interest, but ultimately I think he is more cautious than is necessary. 2705: 2333: 2213: 2194: 1980:- Knowledge needs more bureaucrats. Turning down a trustworthy, qualified volunteer would be insane. -- 1286:

regardless of wether we believe there is a need for more 'crats or not, it can never hurt to have them.

1100: 1045: 916: 658: 625: 4165:

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

3878: 3683: 2729: 1381: 479:

promotion or not. They interpret the desire of the community on RfA. Does this answer your question? --

3898: 3693: 2909: 2511: 2097: 840: 4008:

JayHenry has addressed these concerns above in response to Neil, and I agree with his assessment. --

2388:- thoughtful and experienced admin who will clearly make effective and neutral judgement decisions. 3692:

Knowledge. One should vote based on that only. And most to the point, we do need more bureaucrats.

3592: 3561: 3522: 3491: 3214: 3150: 2816: 2681: 2654:- solid administrator, does a lot, seems to have the right outlook to handle the bureaucrat tasks. 2581: 2498: 2416: 1752: 1526: 1495: 1336: 1122: 1066: 897: 864: 836: 696: 650: 617: 335: 320: 3883:

failed with 6/28/2, with some alarming reasons given for opposition. Yuser has since disappeared

2318: 2167: 1081: 3998: 3990: 3944: 3371: 3020: 2693: 2659: 2278: 2231: 2121: 2107: 1969: 1906:- Good user with deep understanding of the RFA process and a firm grasp of what consensus means. 1896: 1887: 1786: 1623: 1466: 1217: 981: 953: 644: 4094:

You may want to note what person/user/thing/alien he was a sock of in order to avoid confusion.

3548:"The only reason I think it was the right decision to promote him was because I supported him." 928:

All my interactions with Deskana have been positive. He is a very fair and calm administrator.

4085: 4032: 4013: 3793: 3783: 3765: 3722: 3673: 3634: 3576: 3537: 3329: 3259: 3200: 3085: 2992: 2971: 2900: 2751: 2566: 2533: 2463: 2391: 2361: 2321: 1841: 1806: 1704: 1668: 1564: 1442: 1290: 1268:-- cant say I've really encountered this user much before, but looks like a good candidate. -- 1147: 879: 756: 720: 676: 566: 541: 513: 484: 448: 371:. Incidentally, he held the complete opposite opinion of me. I'm glad I supported him, anyway. 295: 161: 71: 3964: 3615: 3068: 3008: 2766: 2545: 2205: 2067: 1981: 1931: 1858: 1588: 1452: 1428: 1313: 1254: 1105: 1040: 941: 913: 3977: 3874: 3269: 2605: 2164: 2092: 1947:. I have no doubt that he will only improve Knowledge with 'crat access, not explode it. ♠ 1919: 1641: 1507: 1020: 994: 243: 141: 3588: 3557: 3518: 3426:. Also deleted comments left by a user on their own talk page with edit summary "wrong" 3154: 4080:

as a checkuser, this user has now been indefinitely blocked. I get this quite a lot. --

4042: 3919: 3854: 3826: 3811: 3708: 3503: 3338:

OK, I missed some of your responses to Cecropia, I see what you're saying, never mind.

3211: 3146: 2873: 2856: 2812: 2676: 2495: 2413: 2317:

I'm not convinced about the oppose votes sorry, I think that he will make a great crat

2041: 2022: 1907: 1764: 1749: 1523: 1410: 1366: 1331: 1241: 1175: 1158: 1059: 929: 894: 860: 824: 691: 4178: 3940: 3840: 3733: 3291: 3077: 2928: 2783: 2655: 2622: 2479: 2266: 2254: 2250: 2191: 2179: 2139: 1951: 1683: 1370: 1354: 976: 715:

a good idea, but in the same situation I severely doubt I would have promoted him. --

585: 552: 527: 500: 470: 397:. It regarded a small bulleted essay on your Knowledge philosophy which you removed 305: 281: 266: 247: 239: 149: 126: 3884: 3848:

It's the worst people who should be dealt with in the most polite and civil manner.

4124: 4097: 4081: 4077: 4051: 4028: 4009: 3888: 3789: 3779: 3761: 3718: 3669: 3627: 3572: 3533: 3325: 3274: 3255: 3242: 3196: 3081: 2985: 2888: 2822: 2804: 2744: 2717: 2559: 2458: 2430: 2134: 1878: 1838: 1794: 1697: 1664: 1654: 1602: 1556: 1438: 1287: 1143: 875: 778: 752: 716: 672: 562: 537: 509: 480: 444: 381: 291: 157: 66: 57: 3954: 2762: 2638: 2293: 2078: 2064: 1928: 1748:

per answers to questions, in particular the affirmation that RfA is not a vote.

1720: 1578: 1540: 1303: 1095: 839:, and am comfortable endorsing the bureaucrat that chooses to sysop him/her. -- 1353:

Active, with broad experience and with over a year of adminship. Good luck! --

3471: 3447: 3432:, removing comments from people's talk pages saying this isn't a chat website 3113: 2835: 2795: 2602: 2412:. I am convinced by Deskana's understanding of consensus and of his judgment. 2373: 2227: 1398: 1142:

Since I told you that, I got banned from another one for swearing too. :-p --

3849: 3821: 3806: 3457: 3377:, and more concerning was the approach that no "votes" should be discounted 2868: 2855:

Has used the tools effectively, and this is RfB, not Request for Sainthood.

2349: 2047: 1614: 1451:

Oh, sorry! I got mixed up with everyone running for bureaucrat right now. --

1245: 1162: 118:- Well, this is my second nomination for bureaucratship of myself (first is 2618:

Seems like a good admin who would make a good B´crat. No reason to oppose.

3873:

I am somewhat concerned about Deskana's judgement after the nomination of

3367:, and that he opposes using checkusers on fishing expeditions on new RfAs 1174:. No question about it, even tho he seems slightly upside down lately! ;) 3103: 2923: 2794:. Experienced editor and admin that should bring value to the position. 1948: 1927:

I believe that Deskana is a good candidate, and would help the project.

1825: 1409:

He is a thoughtful, patient admin. I trust him to be a good bureaucrat.

551:

that the bureaucrats nevertheless did the right thing in promoting him?

1506:

Detest the sig :p But not inherently unsuited to the job. Good luck! ~

1028: 993:. Three good candidates in three hours! Bureaucracy for everyone! 3532:

how I would have handled the situation would I have been forced to. --

810:. Very strong candidate. I propose that we make him a bureaucrat. -- 4169:

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

1717: 1485: 144:

to my watchlist to make sure there is never a backlog there, either.

4159:

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

3877:

for adminship. This was Yuser's second RfA in 4 months, the first

3402:, and then reverting a second unblock from the user like vandalism 2372:

I may well get flamed for this, but bureaucratship is no big deal.

1763:, seems to fit the bill of a good bureaucrat from what I can see. 1437:

You said almost exactly the same thing in vote number five. :-p --

3399:, not informing a user of why they were blocked ("you know why") 2178:- good and honest response to questions. shows good judgement. 2040:. I trust Deskana with the extra tools and we need more 'crats. 2457:

This user is among the most trusted and respected on the site.

3502:, leans toward empowering bureaucrats to exercise discretion. 2558:

I agree with Deskana's assessment of the Danny RFA decision.

1992:

I would trust Deskana to have a impartial opinion as a 'crat.

508:

I understand what you're saying. Thank you for the insight. --

3097:

RfA was not closed until almost one day later, we definitely

172:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

2021:

Trustworthy admin. Will make a great addition as a 'crat. --

1601:— More bureaucrats are needed. This user appears trustable. 367:'s RfA, because I was impressed at how he conducted himself 3420:

without explanation to the IP's talk page (which is empty)

3423:. His deletion of unblock requests is not isolated either 3396:, referring to someone's gripe as "unimportant fantasies" 1302:. You are highly spoken of, and we need some more 'crats. 3880:

having failed 2/10/9 due to lack of support. The second

3760:

closes the RFA, which is absolutely not a good thing. --

2298:- (ie, a sure winner). Will do excellently as a 'crat. -- 238:

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

29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

3441:

Even if Deskana was right in each of these circumstances

1943:. More 'crats are always necessary, and I trust Deskana 3488: 3444: 3437: 3435: 3433: 3430: 3427: 3424: 3421: 3418: 3415: 3412: 3409: 3406: 3403: 3400: 3397: 3394: 3391: 3388: 3385: 3378: 3375: 3368: 3365: 2779: 1382: 1328: 402: 398: 394: 332:

What are your personal criteria for an RFA candidate?

4041:

I think only you can decide I will not decide for you

3778:- per many of Cecropia's comments and user attitude. 1918:. We need more bureaucrats and he will certainly do. 1375: 952:

Demonstrated history of responsible admin actions. --

819:

Oh, oh, can I make a proposal too? I propose that we

2024: 1856:'crats Needed, I have no concerns about this user. 3682:

He believes we do not need more b'crats, period. --

3390:, the rather abrupt handling of a long time editor 1467: 2984:I am impressed with the answers to the questions. 2716:Good guy, easily trusted with bureaucrat buttons. 2305: 1019:and best of luck. Deskana has the right attitude. 2300: 250:on a regular basis to attend to those requests? 189:questions to provide guidance for participants: 1538:per the above shared sentiments and opinions. — 1093:Trustworthy, experienced and responsible user. 401:. You then addressed Alkivar stating that you 797:Please keep criticism constructive and polite. 3805:. Durin has provided the diffs. Too bitey. 3370:. I also like that he's regularly present on 2204:Has the temperament and judgment required. - 460:. Your answer appears to suggest that RfA is 393:I noticed an oppose in your last RfB made by 120:Knowledge:Requests for bureaucratship/Deskana 8: 3953:If you don't mind my asking, based on what? 3411:, deleting their subsequent unblock request 2077:Nice responses to the questions. Promote. 1079:per the power of three. No problems here. - 1465:Deskana is a good choice for a bureaucrat. 643:In the past, I have noted a concept in the 4027:- Changing from oppose, reasons the same. 3546:Then frankly, your answer makes no sense. 3470:behavior problems, is such a candidate. -- 3465:If we were in a crisis situation where we 2623: 2190:you will definitely make a great crat! -- 1577:Trustworthy and hardworking...'nuff said. 1554:nice friendly user, will be a good 'crat. 1472: 1058:Won't promote Willy on Wheels to admin. -- 3405:, blocking a sockpuppet of a banned user 3250:At the risk of sound a bit petty, I said 2163:-seen him around. A fantastic candidate. 3820:Changed to support (see above for why). 3668:What is your long standing reasoning? -- 2947: 2063:. Deskana should make a good 'crat. -- 2743:: Deskana will make a fine bureaucrat. 4185:Successful requests for bureaucratship 3414:, and protecting the user's talk page 3112:This oppose makes me cry, Wikihermit. 731:Optional (hypothetical) Question from 3185: 3080:too, as I stated in my nomination. -- 2761:Not flawless, but a good candidate.-- 2249:think Deskana has the proper take on 2098: 1736: 18:Knowledge:Requests for bureaucratship 7: 3268:GRBerry, I think when he referenced 2532:discretion is not necessarily bad.-- 2132:There are no major concerns here. -- 1080: 3649:per my long standing reasoning. -- 3635: 2477: 403:"didn't expect it to scare people" 56:(117/12/3). Closed as successful. 24: 3429:, telling an IP to "oh be quiet" 2899:Deskana will make a good 'crat. - 2102: 3408:but then mocking the same user 3344: 3311: 3136:. Sorry, but bureaucrats should 2803: 156:questions you want answering. -- 4137: 4134: 4131: 4128: 4125: 4110: 4107: 4104: 4101: 4098: 4064: 4061: 4058: 4055: 4052: 3997:Changed to support, see above. 3057: 3054: 3050: 3047: 3042: 2499: 2443: 2440: 2437: 2434: 2431: 2209: 2206: 1888: 1805:Deskana for b'crat? Hell yes! — 1046: 1041: 995: 4123: 4096: 4050: 4048:User just registered today. - 3628: 3147:Knowledge is not a bureaucracy 2619: 2429: 2079: 785:. For the edit count, see the 1: 3347: 3314: 3114: 2955: 2624: 2587: 2374: 2099: 2026: 1226: 1218: 1213: 1001: 3341: 3308: 3151:Knowledge is not a democracy 3076:Indeed, I intend to help at 2949: 2582: 2480: 1337: 1332: 1005: 2093: 2048: 2045: 781:'s edit summary usage with 181:Questions for the candidate 4201: 3439:. And on, and on, and on. 3153:; that's why I believe in 1781:I agree with Deskana that 1636:If RfB is about trust - i 31:request for bureaucratship 4144:14:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 4117:13:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 4090:13:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 4071:13:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 4045:13:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 4036:13:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 4018:11:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 4004:21:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3995:08:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3923:20:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3903:13:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3892:10:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3862:13:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3844:03:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3834:13:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3797:13:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3026:21:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3012:21:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 3000:20:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2977:20:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2963:20:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2938:19:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2915:16:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2892:14:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2881:13:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2860:13:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2847:11:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2827:08:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2799:07:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2787:06:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2770:06:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2754:05:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2736:03:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2721:02:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 2709:02:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 61:21:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC) 4162:Please do not modify it. 4076:After consultation with 3981:19:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 3967:14:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 3949:19:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 3818:15:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 3786:14:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 3770:04:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 3737:03:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 3727:03:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 3712:03:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 3702:03:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 3687:18:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 3678:17:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 3664:17:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 3642:08:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 3619:14:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 3597:15:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 3581:03:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 3566:03:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 3542:03:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 3527:03:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 3507:05:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 3495:04:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 3475:19:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 3461:18:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 3451:17:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 3353:17:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 3334:14:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 3320:02:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 3295:23:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3278:16:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3264:15:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3246:14:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3229:14:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3219:14:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3205:14:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3195:been such a bad call? -- 3190:14:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3171:08:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 3162:14:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3121:07:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 3108:15:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3090:04:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3072:03:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 3063:02:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2778:whole I think him, as I 2704:Many excellent reasons. 2697:23:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2686:22:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2667:20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2647:16:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2630:14:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2611:13:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2594:06:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2573:04:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2551:03:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2537:03:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2520:03:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2504:03:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2487:02:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 2469:22:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2450:21:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2420:13:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2405:10:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2381:07:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2368:02:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2353:00:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 2341:21:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 2324:18:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 2310:17:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 2288:13:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 2270:18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 2258:00:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 2238:18:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 2219:16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 2197:13:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 2183:12:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 2171:12:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 2156:08:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 2144:04:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 2125:03:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 2112:02:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 2084:01:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 2070:00:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 2056:23:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2033:23:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 2017:22:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1985:22:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1973:20:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1961:19:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1935:19:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1923:18:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1911:18:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1899:18:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1882:16:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1869:16:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1845:15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1837:. Trustworthy and fair. 1830:15:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1820:15:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1798:15:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1790:15:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1783:we need more bureaucrats 1774:14:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1756:14:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1741:14:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1725:14:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1711:14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1687:14:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1673:13:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1659:13:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1645:11:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1632:11:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1618:09:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1606:08:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1594:06:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1570:06:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1547:05:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1531:05:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1514:05:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1502:04:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1477:04:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1456:03:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1447:03:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1432:03:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1419:03:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1402:03:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1389:03:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1358:02:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1349:01:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1316:01:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1295:01:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1279:01:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1261:00:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1249:00:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1232:00:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1200:00:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1152:00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1138:00:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1112:00:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 1086:23:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 1072:23:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 1051:23:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 1032:23:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 1012:22:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 986:22:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 967:22:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 945:22:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 933:22:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 921:22:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 904:21:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 884:21:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 870:21:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 844:19:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC) 828:05:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 815:16:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC) 761:21:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 725:21:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC) 681:14:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 666:03:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 633:03:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 589:00:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 571:23:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 556:23:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 546:23:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 531:23:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 518:21:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 504:21:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 489:18:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 474:15:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 453:14:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 435:14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC) 365:User:Walton_monarchist89 351:23:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 309:23:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 300:22:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 285:22:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 166:21:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC) 3149:is more important than 2091:Understands consensus. 974:. User can be trusted. 874:Ooops! I fixed that. -- 380:Optional question from 319:Optional question from 39:Please do not modify it 1865:Happy Independence Day 3166:(Changed to support) 1427:No reason not too. -- 808:consensus not numbers 421:Question from Walton: 277:and here is a Google 271:German RFA procedures 3651:Jeffrey O. Gustafson 3181:Nearly Headless Nick 1732:Nearly Headless Nick 1694:, trustworthy user. 940:No reason not to. -- 458:Follow-up to Deskana 3788:Change to neutral. 2277:- He'll do good. — 1499:(Let's Go Yankees!) 1272:Anonymous Dissident 926:Very strong support 733:Anonymous Dissident 526:for his promotion? 524:community consensus 275:the German RFA page 3382:Reasons for oppose 3176:Should not, do not 2544:why the hell not? 1630:this candidate! - 1275: 1110: 1039:No problems here. 469:only advisors? -- 4088: 4073: 4016: 4002: 3994: 3725: 3676: 3579: 3540: 3332: 3262: 3203: 3088: 3024: 2950:Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor 2936: 2913: 2849: 2825: 2665: 2403: 2216: 2109: 2054: 1779:Support (ya rly?) 1671: 1500: 1445: 1292: 1269: 1222: 1210: 1150: 1094: 1070: 882: 759: 723: 679: 569: 544: 516: 487: 451: 298: 279:translation of it 164: 4192: 4164: 4141: 4139: 4136: 4133: 4130: 4127: 4114: 4112: 4109: 4106: 4103: 4100: 4084: 4068: 4066: 4063: 4060: 4057: 4054: 4047: 4012: 4001: 3993: 3961: 3958: 3947: 3859: 3852: 3831: 3824: 3816: 3809: 3721: 3672: 3639: 3632: 3575: 3536: 3349: 3346: 3343: 3328: 3316: 3313: 3310: 3258: 3199: 3187: 3182: 3118: 3106: 3099:need more bcrats 3084: 3061: 3059: 3056: 3052: 3049: 3044: 3023: 2997: 2990: 2974: 2960: 2957: 2951: 2945:- Yes indeed. -- 2926: 2903: 2878: 2871: 2844: 2815: 2807: 2749: 2684: 2658: 2627: 2626: 2621: 2608: 2591: 2586: 2571: 2564: 2501: 2485: 2482: 2447: 2445: 2442: 2439: 2436: 2433: 2414:Heimstern Läufer 2402: 2389: 2378: 2335:Anthony.bradbury 2307: 2302: 2283: 2214: 2211: 2208: 2142: 2137: 2108: 2105: 2104: 2101: 2095: 2081: 2053: 2050: 2044: 2029: 2028: 2013: 2011: 2009: 2007: 2005: 1954: 1939:(Edit conflict) 1894: 1893: 1866: 1861: 1828: 1816: 1813: 1771: 1738: 1733: 1707: 1700: 1684:Camaron1 | Chris 1667: 1640:this candidate. 1591: 1586: 1581: 1559: 1543: 1511: 1490: 1474: 1469: 1441: 1386: 1379: 1347: 1342: 1339: 1334: 1310: 1307: 1291: 1273: 1258: 1228: 1223: 1220: 1215: 1208: 1195: 1193: 1191: 1189: 1187: 1146: 1133: 1130: 1125: 1108: 1103: 1098: 1084: 1064: 1048: 1043: 1030: 1026: 1023: 1009: 1003: 999: 964: 919: 878: 868: 772:General comments 755: 719: 699: 675: 661: 653: 628: 620: 565: 540: 512: 496:of the community 483: 447: 346: 343: 338: 294: 160: 117: 41: 4200: 4199: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4167:this nomination 4160: 3959: 3956: 3938: 3901: 3858: 3855: 3850: 3830: 3827: 3822: 3815: 3812: 3807: 3694:Oleg Alexandrov 3180: 3155:wikidemocratism 3102: 3041: 2993: 2986: 2972: 2877: 2874: 2869: 2843: 2745: 2675: 2645: 2606: 2569: 2560: 2512:Oleg Alexandrov 2390: 2279: 2135: 2133: 2030: 2003: 2001: 1999: 1997: 1995: 1952: 1889: 1864: 1859: 1824: 1814: 1808: 1765: 1731: 1705: 1698: 1589: 1584: 1579: 1557: 1541: 1509: 1498: 1416: 1327: 1325: 1308: 1305: 1271: 1256: 1244: 1185: 1183: 1181: 1179: 1177: 1161: 1131: 1128: 1123: 1106: 1101: 1096: 1024: 1021: 962: 912: 859: 690: 659: 651: 626: 618: 344: 341: 336: 69: 52: 37: 34:which succeeded 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4198: 4196: 4188: 4187: 4177: 4176: 4172: 4171: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4006: 3971: 3970: 3969: 3926: 3925: 3907: 3906: 3905: 3897: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3856: 3836: 3828: 3813: 3799: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3644: 3621: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3497: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3322: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3173: 3164: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3029: 3028: 3014: 3002: 2979: 2965: 2940: 2922:Looks good. -- 2917: 2894: 2883: 2875: 2862: 2850: 2839: 2829: 2813:Matt/TheFearow 2801: 2789: 2772: 2756: 2738: 2723: 2711: 2699: 2688: 2669: 2649: 2641: 2637:looks good.-- 2632: 2613: 2596: 2575: 2553: 2539: 2522: 2506: 2489: 2471: 2452: 2422: 2407: 2383: 2370: 2355: 2343: 2326: 2312: 2290: 2272: 2260: 2240: 2221: 2199: 2185: 2173: 2158: 2146: 2127: 2114: 2086: 2072: 2058: 2035: 2023: 2019: 1987: 1975: 1963: 1937: 1925: 1913: 1901: 1884: 1871: 1847: 1832: 1822: 1800: 1792: 1776: 1758: 1743: 1727: 1713: 1689: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1647: 1634: 1620: 1608: 1596: 1572: 1549: 1533: 1516: 1504: 1494: 1479: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1449: 1435: 1414: 1404: 1391: 1360: 1351: 1318: 1297: 1281: 1263: 1251: 1240: 1234: 1202: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1157: 1114: 1088: 1074: 1053: 1034: 1014: 988: 969: 947: 935: 923: 909:Strong Support 906: 888: 887: 886: 847: 846: 832: 831: 830: 794: 793: 792: 790: 783:mathbot's tool 774: 773: 768: 766: 765: 764: 763: 745: 728: 727: 709: 689:Question from 686: 685: 684: 683: 615:Question from 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 607: 606: 605: 604: 603: 602: 601: 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 591: 582:that important 418: 417: 416: 415: 414: 413: 377: 376: 375: 374: 373: 372: 321:bibliomaniac15 316: 315: 314: 313: 312: 311: 259: 258: 257: 233: 232: 231: 219: 218: 217: 205: 204: 203: 183: 182: 177: 175: 174: 51: 46: 45: 44: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4197: 4186: 4183: 4182: 4180: 4170: 4168: 4163: 4157: 4156: 4145: 4142: 4140: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4115: 4113: 4093: 4092: 4091: 4087: 4083: 4079: 4075: 4074: 4072: 4069: 4067: 4046: 4044: 4039: 4038: 4037: 4034: 4030: 4026: 4023: 4019: 4015: 4011: 4007: 4005: 4000: 3999:Seraphimblade 3996: 3992: 3991:Seraphimblade 3988: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3979: 3975: 3972: 3968: 3965: 3963: 3962: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3946: 3943: 3942: 3941:User:Argyriou 3936: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3924: 3921: 3916: 3911: 3908: 3904: 3900: 3895: 3894: 3893: 3890: 3885: 3882: 3879: 3876: 3872: 3869: 3863: 3860: 3853: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3842: 3837: 3835: 3832: 3825: 3819: 3817: 3810: 3804: 3800: 3798: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3785: 3781: 3777: 3773: 3772: 3771: 3767: 3763: 3759: 3755: 3752: 3738: 3735: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3724: 3720: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3710: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3699: 3695: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3685: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3662: 3658: 3657: 3652: 3648: 3645: 3643: 3640: 3638: 3633: 3631: 3625: 3622: 3620: 3617: 3613: 3610: 3598: 3595: 3594: 3590: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3578: 3574: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3564: 3563: 3559: 3553: 3549: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3539: 3535: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3525: 3524: 3520: 3515: 3514: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3505: 3501: 3498: 3496: 3493: 3489: 3485: 3484:Strong oppose 3482: 3476: 3473: 3468: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3459: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3449: 3445: 3442: 3438: 3436: 3434: 3431: 3428: 3425: 3422: 3419: 3416: 3413: 3410: 3407: 3404: 3401: 3398: 3395: 3392: 3389: 3386: 3383: 3379: 3376: 3373: 3369: 3366: 3363: 3360: 3354: 3351: 3350: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3323: 3321: 3318: 3317: 3303: 3302: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3279: 3276: 3271: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3253: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3244: 3240: 3230: 3227: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3217: 3216: 3213: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3202: 3198: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3188: 3183: 3177: 3174: 3172: 3169: 3165: 3163: 3160: 3156: 3152: 3148: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3134: 3130: 3122: 3119: 3117: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3105: 3100: 3096: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3070: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3060: 3053: 3039: 3038:Slight Oppose 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3027: 3022: 3021:Seraphimblade 3018: 3015: 3013: 3010: 3006: 3003: 3001: 2998: 2996: 2991: 2989: 2983: 2980: 2978: 2975: 2969: 2966: 2964: 2961: 2958: 2952: 2944: 2941: 2939: 2934: 2930: 2925: 2921: 2918: 2916: 2911: 2907: 2902: 2898: 2895: 2893: 2890: 2887: 2884: 2882: 2879: 2872: 2866: 2863: 2861: 2858: 2854: 2851: 2848: 2842: 2837: 2833: 2830: 2828: 2824: 2821: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2800: 2797: 2793: 2790: 2788: 2785: 2781: 2780:thought Evula 2776: 2773: 2771: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2757: 2755: 2752: 2750: 2748: 2742: 2739: 2737: 2734: 2731: 2727: 2724: 2722: 2719: 2715: 2712: 2710: 2707: 2703: 2700: 2698: 2695: 2694:Politics rule 2692: 2689: 2687: 2683: 2680: 2679: 2673: 2670: 2668: 2664: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2650: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2633: 2631: 2628: 2617: 2614: 2612: 2609: 2604: 2600: 2597: 2595: 2592: 2590: 2585: 2579: 2576: 2574: 2568: 2565: 2563: 2557: 2554: 2552: 2549: 2548: 2547:~ Infrangible 2543: 2540: 2538: 2535: 2531: 2526: 2523: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2510: 2507: 2505: 2502: 2497: 2493: 2490: 2488: 2484: 2483: 2475: 2472: 2470: 2466: 2465: 2460: 2456: 2453: 2451: 2448: 2446: 2426: 2423: 2421: 2418: 2415: 2411: 2408: 2406: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2387: 2384: 2382: 2379: 2377: 2371: 2369: 2366: 2363: 2359: 2356: 2354: 2351: 2347: 2344: 2342: 2339: 2337: 2336: 2330: 2327: 2325: 2322: 2320: 2316: 2313: 2311: 2308: 2303: 2297: 2295: 2291: 2289: 2286: 2284: 2282: 2276: 2273: 2271: 2268: 2264: 2261: 2259: 2256: 2252: 2247: 2244: 2241: 2239: 2236: 2233: 2232:Mike Christie 2229: 2225: 2222: 2220: 2217: 2212: 2203: 2200: 2198: 2195: 2193: 2189: 2186: 2184: 2181: 2177: 2174: 2172: 2169: 2166: 2162: 2159: 2157: 2154: 2150: 2147: 2145: 2141: 2138: 2131: 2128: 2126: 2123: 2122:Pascal.Tesson 2118: 2115: 2113: 2110: 2106: 2096: 2090: 2087: 2085: 2082: 2076: 2073: 2071: 2068: 2066: 2062: 2059: 2057: 2051: 2043: 2039: 2036: 2034: 2031: 2020: 2018: 2015: 2014: 1991: 1988: 1986: 1983: 1979: 1976: 1974: 1971: 1967: 1964: 1962: 1958: 1955: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1936: 1933: 1930: 1926: 1924: 1921: 1917: 1914: 1912: 1909: 1905: 1902: 1900: 1897: 1895: 1892: 1885: 1883: 1880: 1875: 1872: 1870: 1867: 1862: 1855: 1851: 1848: 1846: 1843: 1840: 1836: 1833: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1821: 1818: 1817: 1811: 1804: 1801: 1799: 1796: 1793: 1791: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1777: 1775: 1772: 1770: 1769: 1762: 1759: 1757: 1754: 1751: 1747: 1744: 1742: 1739: 1734: 1728: 1726: 1723: 1722: 1719: 1714: 1712: 1709: 1708: 1702: 1701: 1693: 1690: 1688: 1685: 1681: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1657: 1656: 1651: 1648: 1646: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1624:Mailer Diablo 1621: 1619: 1616: 1612: 1609: 1607: 1604: 1600: 1597: 1595: 1592: 1587: 1582: 1576: 1573: 1571: 1567: 1566: 1561: 1560: 1553: 1550: 1548: 1545: 1544: 1537: 1534: 1532: 1529: 1528: 1525: 1520: 1517: 1515: 1512: 1505: 1503: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1488: 1483: 1480: 1478: 1475: 1470: 1464: 1461: 1457: 1454: 1450: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1434: 1433: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1417: 1412: 1408: 1405: 1403: 1400: 1395: 1392: 1390: 1387: 1385: 1380: 1378: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1361: 1359: 1356: 1352: 1350: 1345: 1340: 1335: 1330: 1322: 1319: 1317: 1314: 1312: 1311: 1301: 1298: 1296: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1282: 1280: 1277: 1274: 1267: 1264: 1262: 1259: 1252: 1250: 1247: 1243: 1238: 1235: 1233: 1230: 1229: 1224: 1216: 1206: 1203: 1201: 1197: 1196: 1173: 1170: 1164: 1160: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1126: 1118: 1115: 1113: 1109: 1104: 1099: 1092: 1089: 1087: 1083: 1078: 1075: 1073: 1068: 1063: 1062: 1057: 1054: 1052: 1049: 1044: 1038: 1035: 1033: 1027: 1018: 1015: 1013: 1010: 1008: 1004: 998: 992: 989: 987: 983: 979: 978: 973: 970: 968: 965: 960: 957: 956: 955:Spike Wilbury 951: 948: 946: 943: 939: 936: 934: 931: 927: 924: 922: 918: 915: 910: 907: 905: 902: 901:Contributions 899: 896: 892: 889: 885: 881: 877: 873: 872: 871: 866: 862: 857: 854: 853: 852: 851: 845: 842: 838: 833: 829: 826: 822: 818: 817: 816: 813: 809: 806: 805: 804: 803: 799: 798: 791: 788: 784: 780: 776: 775: 771: 770: 769: 762: 758: 754: 749: 746: 743: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 726: 722: 718: 713: 710: 706: 703: 702: 701: 700: 698: 695: 694: 682: 678: 674: 669: 668: 667: 663: 662: 655: 654: 646: 642: 639: 638: 637: 636: 634: 630: 629: 621: 616: 590: 587: 583: 579: 574: 573: 572: 568: 564: 559: 558: 557: 554: 549: 548: 547: 543: 539: 534: 533: 532: 529: 525: 521: 520: 519: 515: 511: 507: 506: 505: 502: 497: 492: 491: 490: 486: 482: 477: 476: 475: 472: 467: 463: 459: 456: 455: 454: 450: 446: 441: 438: 437: 436: 433: 428: 425: 424: 423: 422: 410: 407: 406: 404: 400: 396: 392: 389: 388: 387: 386: 385: 384: 383: 370: 366: 362: 357: 354: 353: 352: 349: 348: 347: 339: 331: 328: 327: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 310: 307: 303: 302: 301: 297: 293: 288: 287: 286: 283: 280: 276: 272: 268: 264: 260: 255: 252: 251: 249: 245: 241: 237: 234: 229: 226: 225: 223: 220: 215: 212: 211: 209: 206: 201: 198: 197: 195: 192: 191: 190: 188: 180: 179: 178: 173: 170: 169: 168: 167: 163: 159: 153: 151: 145: 143: 138: 134: 130: 128: 123: 121: 115: 112: 109: 106: 103: 100: 97: 94: 91: 88: 85: 82: 79: 76: 73: 68: 64: 63: 62: 59: 50: 47: 43: 40: 35: 32: 27: 26: 19: 4161: 4158: 4122: 4095: 4078:User:Rebecca 4049: 4040: 4024: 3986: 3985: 3973: 3955: 3939: 3934: 3928: 3927: 3914: 3909: 3870: 3802: 3801: 3775: 3774: 3757: 3753: 3654: 3646: 3636: 3629: 3623: 3611: 3587: 3556: 3551: 3547: 3517: 3512: 3511: 3499: 3483: 3466: 3440: 3381: 3361: 3339: 3306: 3300: 3299: 3287: 3286:Regretfully 3251: 3210: 3175: 3141: 3137: 3132: 3131: 3115: 3045: 3037: 3031: 3030: 3016: 3004: 2994: 2987: 2981: 2967: 2946: 2942: 2919: 2901:Royalguard11 2896: 2885: 2864: 2852: 2831: 2808: 2791: 2775:Weak support 2774: 2758: 2746: 2740: 2725: 2713: 2701: 2690: 2677: 2671: 2651: 2634: 2615: 2598: 2588: 2583: 2577: 2561: 2555: 2546: 2541: 2534:Jersey Devil 2529: 2524: 2508: 2491: 2478: 2473: 2462: 2454: 2428: 2424: 2409: 2392:ck lostsword 2385: 2375: 2362:Sean William 2357: 2345: 2334: 2328: 2314: 2292: 2280: 2274: 2262: 2245: 2242: 2223: 2201: 2187: 2175: 2160: 2148: 2129: 2116: 2088: 2074: 2060: 2037: 1994: 1989: 1977: 1968:- per nom -- 1965: 1944: 1940: 1915: 1903: 1890: 1873: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1834: 1809: 1807: 1802: 1778: 1767: 1766: 1760: 1745: 1716: 1703: 1695: 1691: 1679: 1653: 1650:Weak support 1649: 1637: 1627: 1610: 1598: 1574: 1563: 1555: 1551: 1539: 1535: 1522: 1518: 1486: 1481: 1462: 1424: 1423: 1406: 1393: 1383: 1376: 1362: 1320: 1304: 1299: 1283: 1265: 1253:Definitely. 1236: 1211: 1204: 1176: 1171: 1124:bibliomaniac 1121: 1120: 1116: 1090: 1076: 1060: 1055: 1036: 1017:Firm support 1016: 1006: 1000: 996: 990: 975: 971: 958: 954: 949: 937: 925: 908: 890: 855: 849: 848: 820: 812:Tony Sidaway 801: 800: 796: 795: 767: 747: 741: 730: 729: 711: 704: 692: 688: 687: 660:bananabucket 657: 649: 640: 627:bananabucket 624: 622: 614: 613: 581: 577: 523: 495: 465: 461: 457: 439: 430:good faith. 426: 420: 419: 408: 395:User:Alkivar 390: 379: 378: 355: 337:bibliomaniac 334: 333: 329: 318: 317: 262: 256:. Yes, I do. 253: 235: 227: 221: 213: 207: 199: 193: 186: 184: 176: 171: 154: 146: 139: 135: 131: 124: 110: 104: 98: 92: 86: 80: 74: 65: 55: 53: 48: 38: 33: 28: 3301:Weak oppose 3142:own opinion 3009:Newyorkbrad 2706:Thatcher131 2294:Tiger Woods 1982:Schneelocke 1860:Black Harry 898:•Talk Page• 90:protections 3978:AnonEMouse 3875:Yuser31415 3661:<*: --> 2820:(Contribs) 2228:User:Durin 1920:EdJohnston 1642:Agathoclea 841:Iamunknown 802:Discussion 273:, here is 102:page moves 4043:MountainD 3920:Tim Smith 3709:Everyking 3504:Everyking 2857:SirFozzie 1908:Borisblue 1768:Wizardman 1750:Mackensen 1411:Flyguy649 1367:Mr. Lefty 1061:Mr. Lefty 930:Acalamari 861:Nishkid64 837:consensus 825:Everyking 787:talk page 261:Question 246:, and/or 96:deletions 4179:Category 3841:JayHenry 3734:Cecropia 3656:Shazaam! 3270:WP:ROUGE 2933:contribs 2920:Support. 2730:Picaroon 2714:Support. 2656:Tony Fox 2625:TomasBat 2509:Support. 2481:Jreferee 2267:Agent 86 2255:JayHenry 2224:Support. 2202:Support. 2192:lucasbfr 2180:Sbhushan 1891:gaillimh 1492:Contribs 1415:contribs 1371:ReyBrujo 1355:ReyBrujo 895:Userpage 708:opinion? 652:Blnguyen 619:Blnguyen 586:Cecropia 501:Cecropia 471:Cecropia 244:WP:B/RFA 187:optional 142:WP:RFBOT 78:contribs 54:Final - 4082:Deskana 4029:pschemp 4025:Neutral 4010:Deskana 3987:Neutral 3974:Neutral 3935:neutral 3929:Neutral 3910:Oppose. 3889:Icemuon 3790:pschemp 3780:pschemp 3762:Renesis 3719:Deskana 3684:W.marsh 3670:Deskana 3573:Deskana 3534:Deskana 3326:Deskana 3275:daveh4h 3256:Deskana 3243:GRBerry 3212:Deckill 3197:Deskana 3082:ɐuɐʞsəp 3017:Support 3005:Support 2982:Support 2973:gadfium 2968:Support 2943:Support 2897:Support 2889:John254 2886:Support 2865:Support 2853:Support 2832:Support 2809:Support 2792:Support 2759:Support 2747:Prodego 2741:Support 2726:Support 2718:Rebecca 2702:Support 2691:Support 2672:Support 2663:review? 2652:Support 2635:Support 2616:Support 2599:Support 2578:Support 2562:ALKIVAR 2556:Support 2542:Support 2525:Support 2492:Support 2474:Support 2459:GDonato 2455:Support 2425:Support 2410:Support 2386:Support 2358:Support 2346:Support 2329:Support 2319:Jaranda 2315:Support 2296:Support 2275:Support 2263:Support 2243:Support 2188:Support 2176:Support 2161:Support 2149:Support 2140:iva1979 2130:Support 2117:Support 2089:Support 2075:Support 2061:Support 2038:Support 1990:Support 1978:Support 1966:Support 1941:Support 1916:Support 1904:Support 1879:daveh4h 1874:Support 1850:Support 1839:ElinorD 1835:Support 1803:Support 1795:Terence 1761:Support 1746:Support 1699:jersyko 1692:Support 1680:Support 1665:Deskana 1628:approve 1611:Support 1603:Matthew 1599:Support 1575:Support 1558:Majorly 1552:Support 1536:Support 1524:Deckill 1519:Support 1482:Support 1468:Captain 1463:Support 1439:ɐuɐʞsəp 1425:Support 1407:Support 1394:Support 1363:Support 1321:Support 1300:Support 1288:Viridae 1284:Support 1266:Support 1255:Michael 1242:ʇuǝɯɯoɔ 1237:Support 1205:Support 1172:Support 1159:ʇuǝɯɯoɔ 1144:ɐuɐʞsəp 1117:Support 1091:Support 1082:Zeibura 1077:Support 1056:Support 1037:Support 991:Support 972:Support 950:Support 938:Support 891:Support 876:ɐuɐʞsəp 856:Support 850:Support 779:Deskana 753:Deskana 717:Deskana 673:Deskana 563:Deskana 538:Deskana 510:Deskana 481:Deskana 464:a vote 462:neither 445:Deskana 382:daveh4h 361:example 292:ɐuɐʞsəp 158:ɐuɐʞsəp 67:Deskana 58:Raul654 49:Deskana 4121:Done. 4086:(talk) 4014:(talk) 3945:(talk) 3871:Oppose 3803:Oppose 3776:Oppose 3754:Oppose 3723:(talk) 3674:(talk) 3647:Oppose 3624:Oppose 3612:Oppose 3577:(talk) 3538:(talk) 3513:Oppose 3500:Oppose 3372:WT:RFA 3362:Oppose 3330:(talk) 3292:Haukur 3288:oppose 3260:(talk) 3226:Walton 3201:(talk) 3168:Walton 3159:Walton 3133:Oppose 3086:(ʞɿɐʇ) 3078:WP:CHU 3069:Banana 3032:Oppose 2817:(Talk) 2763:Chaser 2733:(Talk) 2682:scribe 2660:(arf!) 2639:danntm 2584:bullet 2417:(talk) 2301:tennis 2251:WP:IAR 2235:(talk) 2207:auburn 2168:Silver 2153:Walton 2103:Jester 2080:Keegan 2065:DS1953 1929:Ral315 1854:Admins 1842:(talk) 1787:Shalom 1753:(talk) 1669:(talk) 1626:and I 1542:Kurykh 1508:Riana 1453:Banana 1443:(ʞɿɐʇ) 1429:Banana 1365:- per 1148:(ʞɿɐʇ) 1047:Griz98 942:Banana 917:styles 880:(ʞɿɐʇ) 757:(talk) 721:(talk) 697:scribe 677:(talk) 645:WT:RFA 578:per se 567:(talk) 553:Haukur 542:(talk) 528:Haukur 514:(talk) 485:(talk) 449:(talk) 432:Walton 306:Haukur 296:(ʞɿɐʇ) 282:Haukur 267:Haukur 248:WP:CHU 240:WP:RFA 162:(ʞɿɐʇ) 150:WP:CHU 127:WP:CHU 108:rights 84:blocks 3552:would 3472:Durin 3448:Durin 3342:Voice 3309:Voice 3252:rouge 3116:G1ggy 2836:GeeJo 2823:(Bot) 2796:Cla68 2589:proof 2500:desat 2376:G1ggy 2210:pilot 2046:(aka 2027:Falls 2025:Dark 1970:D-Boy 1945:fully 1852:More 1638:Trust 1473:panda 1399:Xoloz 1221:NIMUM 1042:Darth 1025:notes 1022:Grace 977:Andre 914:Comet 265:from 16:< 4033:talk 3960:stan 3851:Neil 3823:Neil 3808:Neil 3794:talk 3784:talk 3766:talk 3698:talk 3637:Oars 3616:Chaz 3593:blis 3562:blis 3523:blis 3458:Nick 3345:-of- 3312:-of- 3095:this 2995:Pika 2956:ταlκ 2929:talk 2870:Neil 2603:Wily 2530:some 2516:talk 2496:Core 2464:talk 2350:Nick 2281:Lost 2246:this 2215:talk 2165:Niko 2100:SWAT 2049:Wimt 2042:Will 1721:not? 1706:talk 1655:Will 1622:I'm 1615:AKAF 1580:Jmlk 1565:talk 1521:. — 1384:ddie 1369:and 1344:fish 1338:zany 1309:stan 1246:ɐqǝɟ 1163:ɐqǝɟ 1067:talk 997:Buck 982:talk 963:talk 865:talk 777:See 399:here 369:here 72:talk 3915:and 3758:who 3630:Two 3589:nae 3558:nae 3519:nae 3492:RxS 3467:had 3348:All 3315:All 3186:{C} 3138:not 3104:Qst 3058:mit 3055:her 2988:Fun 2924:KFP 2841:(c) 2784:Joe 2678:WjB 2306:man 1826:Qst 1737:{C} 1715:-- 1333:zel 1097:Hús 1007:ofg 1002:ets 835:of 821:not 742:12. 705:11. 693:WjB 641:10. 466:nor 114:RfA 4181:: 4138:da 4126:Mi 4111:da 4099:Mi 4065:da 4053:Mi 4031:| 3957:J- 3792:| 3782:| 3768:) 3700:) 3659:- 3653:- 3215:er 3101:. 3051:ki 3048:Wi 2931:| 2910:R! 2845:• 2765:- 2518:) 2467:) 2444:da 2432:Mi 2427:. 2332:-- 2012:te 2010:ai 2008:hw 2006:et 2004:tl 2002:os 1998:an 1996:Ry 1959:♠ 1863:• 1815:as 1729:— 1696:· 1568:) 1527:er 1373:. 1306:J- 1257:as 1198:- 1107:nd 984:) 823:. 751:-- 748:A: 712:A: 664:) 631:) 561:-- 440:A: 427:Q. 409:A: 391:Q: 356:A: 330:Q: 242:, 236:4. 222:3. 208:2. 194:1. 36:. 4135:n 4132:a 4129:r 4108:n 4105:a 4102:r 4062:n 4059:a 4056:r 3899:L 3857:╦ 3829:╦ 3814:╦ 3764:( 3696:( 3591:' 3560:' 3521:' 3043:~ 2959:) 2953:( 2935:) 2927:( 2912:) 2908:· 2906:T 2904:( 2876:╦ 2838:⁄ 2767:T 2643:C 2620:♠ 2607:D 2570:☢ 2567:™ 2514:( 2461:( 2441:n 2438:a 2435:r 2400:C 2398:• 2396:T 2394:• 2365:@ 2136:S 2094:⇒ 2052:) 2000:P 1957:C 1953:M 1949:P 1932:» 1812:n 1810:A 1718:Y 1590:7 1585:1 1562:( 1510:⁂ 1496:@ 1487:R 1377:E 1346:) 1341:- 1329:→ 1326:( 1227:» 1219:A 1214:« 1209:— 1194:l 1192:e 1190:i 1188:r 1186:d 1184:e 1182:a 1180:h 1178:P 1132:5 1129:1 1102:ö 1069:) 1065:( 1029:§ 980:( 959:♫ 867:) 863:( 789:. 656:( 635:: 623:( 359:( 345:5 342:1 263:5 254:A 228:A 214:A 200: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

:Requests for bureaucratship/Deskana 2 - Knowledge

Index