Knowledge:Requests for bureaucratship/EVula 3

4329:. However, although I supported EVula in the past, I personally have found his attitude to have become less than what I would expect of a bureacrat in terms of supporting new editors. I ask a simple question - how will he respond to a good faith usurption request by a newbie with a hundred edits? I am worried by the answer to my rhetorical question. EVula is a stunning admin, and his capabilities are amptly demonstrated by his user page and the number of wikis he holds accounts on (as editor, admin and bureaucrat). I think his vast experience may have made him jaded when it comes to newbies. And newbies are our lifeblood. I'm sorry if this oppose look to be in bad faith, but by defenition any oppose at RfX can look the same. 484:. Well, part of it was the fact that Acalamari, who I highly respect in such matters, felt comfortable emailing me to offer his nomination. I was willing to ignore my own guideline of six month downtime (though it's only been five, which isn't too far off) partly because I was rather unsatisfied with my second RfB; I don't feel like I got very much constructive criticism from my opposers, which left me with nowhere I could focus my attentions on when it came to self-improvement. My own belief that I was up to the task, combined with a similar belief by an editor I respect (as well as the supportive opinions of some of my on-wiki friends) and the fact that there seems to be a very real need for more bureaucrats (see 2314:

acceptable and in the bounds of "wiki-normalcy" (oxymoron that it is). As per his presence or absence at CHU, I am more concerned about a potential bureaucrat's ability to learn quickly and correctly and apply his or herself to the job, and I believe that anything EVula does not know now, he will pick up soon. There really is no such thing as the "perfect" candidate, and flaws can, and will, be found in any one candidate. In my opinion. bureaucrats should not be promoted or denied based on need, but on ability, potential, and trust, and it is my opinion that EVUla demonstrates the potential and ability to be a successful bureaucrat, and should be extended the project's

244:

people love numerical breakdowns, and the common amounts stated are 70%-80% being the traditional discretionary range, with anything lower failing, and anything higher passing (75% seems to be the magic sweet spot). However, RfA is a tricky beast, and I realize that there are times where numbers can say one thing, but the words another; at the end of the day, words trump numbers, and there will always be times where extenuating circumstances can change how an RfA should be closed (for example, particularly damning evidence coming to light particularly late in an RfA).

1187:

can't think of any. If someone I dislike (or rather, someone I've had multiple negative interactions with) comes up for RfA, I'd likely end up recusing myself via participation (if I was strongly opposed to their candidacy, I'd definitely present evidence I felt was relevant). If I was being attacked somehow, I suppose I'd just walk away, but I've got an established reputation of not allowing personal attacks to get under my skin, and I can't really think up a situation where I'd be getting attacked... maybe to deny a rename request to "EVula sucks"? Dunno.

4832:

maintaining the encyclopedia. Bureaucrat work requires closing RfAs (98% of which are clear cut), assigning bot flags, and renaming users. I can't think of a single usergroup that entails more gnomish functions than that of a bureaucrat. Rollback causes more controversy. Heck, it's why we call them bureaucrats. As to the second point, what LaraLove said that WjBScribe said. Our renaming policy is probably the most cut and dry of all our red tape, for as much as that's possible. Like I said I can see your point, but perhaps there is a little too much

2370::), in bad faith. I happen to agree with the view EVula holds that has been pointed out in Pedro's oppose (which I don't understand). I believe that I know EVula well enough to trust in his ability to act fairly in such matters and I fail to see a connection between this view and an ability to judge consensus and close an RFA appropriately. Based on what I've seen from EVula's contributions, and all of the many interactions I have had with him both on and off-wiki, I have full confidence in EVula's abilities. 4574:

generally prefer them not to remove requests but have no problem with a highly competent administrator such as EVula assessing that a request is so jumbled that it is best removed. As a more general point, bureaucrats appointed in the past have as a rule not had prior experience of participating on the rename pages - I believe I am the only one to have had such experience prior to becoming a bureaucrat. They have nonetheless quickly grasped the process and been effective "renamers"...

4301:

encouraging messages to the unsuccessful applicant, and he or she would work harder and try again a few months later. Nowadays, I believe it's much easier for a user to wonder what's the purpose of staying on Knowledge after experiencing an unsuccessful RfA and being treated like a grain of sand. But I don't think EVula is to be blamed for this. Nor I think that the fear of a user leaving Knowledge should be a factor to have in consideration when a bureaucrat closes an RfA.

1249:

situations in numerous RfAs; "optional" is anything but. Even the initial three questions in an RfA are "optional", but there's only the slimmest of chances for someone passing without answering them. As for discussing past cases, I don't have much issue with discussing them, though there is only so much I can say without being tainted by the actual results, especially as I don't consider myself so narrow-minded that I can't be swayed by a sufficiently compelling argument.

3279:- Wanted to let this pan out a few days before !voting, seeing issues that opposers might bring up. Reading all of them, particulary Pedro's oppose before recusal, I think some intereting issues have been raised. Thinking more about it though, concerns look great as examples of what makes this candidate not 100% perfect, but they don't concern me to the point where they outweigh the overwhelming evidence of qualification in various areas. I'm glad to support here. 710:"under a cloud". For whatever reason, during the course of the RfA, he withdraws it early. He then asks for his flag back on BN. Do you believe that he should be able to get it back if the RfA was clearly going to pass? If it might have passed? If there was very little chance he would pass? Also, after deciding to discuss with your fellow bureaucrats, you find that the collective bureaucracy is split on the issue. Who determines consensus among bureaucrats? 4353:

a simple "fact of wiki-life", and that (to a certain extent) it is inevitable. Some people just aren't suited to Knowledge; while we should try to be accommodating to an extent (fresh blood equals new opinions and attitudes, which helps our policies and guidelines evolve), we shouldn't have to bend over backwards for people whose temperament is incompatible. If someone is going to quit after I close their RfA (and if I become a 'crat, we're talking about

427:, which is my personal jumping-off pad for a lot of my administrative actions. I routinely block blatant violations (both hard and soft blocks, depending on the severity of the violation), initiate or participate in discussions over non-blatant offenses, and remove false-positives on the bot report sub-page. My edit count between the two pages is 213 (though keep in mind that most of my edits in respect to the pages is to place a block notice). 262:. As I've stated last time, I'm a fan of transparency: if it's a very tight RfA/B, I'd be more than happy to initiate a "'crat chat" to get the feel from my fellow bureaucrats. While I wouldn't jump into a contentious situation with guns blazing, I'd have no problem executing the consensus gauged; if there is any flak from my decisions, I'd be more than willing to discuss them with any and everyone that asked me on my talk page. 286:. I've been an administrator for over a year and a half, and in that time I've had very little evidence that my execution of Knowledge's myriad policies and guidelines has been less than superb. I'm always quick to leave someone a message if there's a situation; an eagerness to talk is crucial in taking on any "trusted role" (which definitely includes being a bureaucrat, but is also paramount in an administrator). 3931:- Well this is the third RfB I have participated in of EVula. The first time I went neutral, the second time I supported, and for his third attempt I am supporting again. I have watched EVula for a long time while on Knowledge. On review, I think EVula will make an excellent bureaucrat who has good knowledge of the RfA process and Knowledge in general; who I am confident is trustworthy and will do a good job. 542:?" and the like. Evidence for and against their candidacy is presented, and everyone is welcome to voice their opinion. In some circumstances, some opinions are going to be weighed differently, when the community has made it clear that they don't consider it relevant (for example, the much-debated validity of opposition based of self-nomination). Additional detail on this I feel I answered in Question #1. 846:, don't think that either CU or BAG should be in the bureaucrat's hands, as the first is a Foundation issue (that I'm not entirely sure that the local community can override), and the second isn't a user right (compared with flipping a switch for a bot, sysop, or bureaucrat) but instead a position of moderate authority (for lack of a better term). However, if that's what the community wants, so be it. 927:) been a prerequisite for bureaucrat candidates (though anyone is certainly welcome to consider it one). To pull a different example from my own history, before I was an administrator, I had very little experience tagging articles for speedy deletion. Now, I'm active in handling speedy deletions not only on here, but also on Commons, Meta, and Wikispecies (the latter two where I'm also a bureaucrat). 717:

high percentage but immediately after some rather damning evidence was brought to light, absolutely not. If it was likely to pass but Candidate withdrew for some arbitrary reason, most likely not (the wiggle room there would be allow for such evidence as an overwhelming number of people declaring the reconfirmation a waste of time, as well as any potential situation that I can't imagine right now).

803:

any other editor when it comes to this. If community input is minimal, after multiple attempts to get a wider sense, we'd probably have to just push our way through it. When people yell about stuff, then that would serve as a pretty good (if extreme) guage for what people don't like. :) (in all seriousness, though, I'd prefer if a better sence could be gained; the hypothetical is a bit extreme)

793:) support the usurpation of accounts by whoever has the greatest number of edits (I don't put much stock in the idea that we should overly concern ourselves over someone that made four edits three years ago, versus a Spanish-speaking admin on another project with several thousand edits to their credit). However, my personal opinion will take a back-seat to what the community wishes. 2366:- Having had much interaction with EVula over the past few months, I have gotten to know him well. He is a strong editor who keeps the goals of the project in mind, all while retaining a healthy sense of humor. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions on various matters of the project, and everyone is free to voice them. To judge them based on differing opinions is, in my 626:

reconfirmations, bureaucrats need to be a bit more "hands on", in the sense that they need to figure out which oppositions are coming from editors with legitimate concerns, and which ones have axes to grind (though I'd trust the community at large to do a good job of policing them). Any reconfirmation RfA needs to keep that in mind.

4548:) do not give me reason to doubt your impartiality toward granting adminship, but I haven't seen any examples of supporting this either. In fact, I share your view that some editors who do not have the ability to shrug off verbal threats, ignore attacks by random vandals, self reflect on failed RfA's, and who cannot accept the 2041:. I think EVula has continued to improve as an editor, taking criticism (even when it's sometimes been unfair) in stride, and still learning from it. Not concerned about only waiting five months instead of six months between RFBs. I also think he understands the expectations of a 'crat and would perform well in the role. -- 4969:

from oppose. My position is unchanged. I would have expected after saying to were going to spend time in an area, even though it is not a prerequisite for this request, you would have actually done so. We opose RfAs for this every week (lacking in knowledge of specific areas pertaining to the role in

1186:

As I noted in my second RfB, any situation where one of my on-wiki friends was in an RfX, I would recuse myself from closing it, though that stems largely from the fact that I'd likely support their request, meaning I'd be recusing myself regardless. For situations where I would walk away entirely...

1115:

I do feel that you are right about the activity/passivity between administrator and bureaucrat, however. It's something I'm not particularly crazy about (when I ran my first RfB, I felt that the majority of bureaucrats were fairly divorced from the community; our current crop is better on that front,

1105:

I can honestly say that I have no idea how being a bureaucrat will change my attitude. My experiences as an admin make me a different person now than I was before I was an administrator (at the very least, I'm a *lot* more committed to Knowledge and the WMF's goals), and I don't feel like I could say

4352:

You're right that we disagree over this, but I also don't see how it is relevant to how I'd behave as a bureaucrat. The comments quoted above are only an explanation of my attitude towards not being over-concerned with the loss of editors; I'm not actively seeking to drive of people, but I see it as

4324:

I agree, Husond, that sadly there does seem to be a decline in encouraging messages (and not just after an RfA - in general). I totally agree this is not EVula's fault at all.And I certainly agree that a if a user chooses to leave Knowledge after a bad RFA that's nothing to do with closing 'crat and

4277:

with your view point that losing editors through failed RFA's is of no great concern. I accept an RFA default position is not to promote, and that we do not take into account hurt feelings when closing anything one way or the other. But I find your attitude in this regard to be both overly harsh and

969:

In my answer to question #6, I mentioned that I was "rather unsatisfied" with how my second RfB turned out; I'll flat out admit that it was because of the IRC discussion, because I (to this day) have no idea what the basis was for that opposition. I hang out on IRC to relax and chit-chat with people

716:

It depends on a variety of issues. If Candidate withdrew because of exterior forces (real life, etc), and their RfA ran for at least half the time and looked like it was going to pass, possibly. If Candidate withdrew because it looked like it was failing, absolutely not. If Candidate withdrew with a

4728:

there wasn't really any mention of civility, Syn didn't talk about this at all, and Pedro also was talking about another issue. I don't normally do this, but it is hard to assume good faith for this oppose, GreenJoe seems to think he is voting in an RfA, not RfB, and connecting his votes to "Per x"

4696:

when dealing with newbies that run across RfA so that they hopefully don't get their feelings hurt. The stuff that Pedro was talking about above was more that I have a hard stance on people leaving the site after an unsatisfactory experience, not on leaving after having uncivil experiences (which I

4543:

by a frequent editor and non admin) in particular gave me the impression that you are still learning, which is still quite recent. I'd expect that after accepting 3 RfB's that you would have spent more time in this area, as well as gaining an understanding with respect to bot's. These are both crat

4397:

editor. We have plenty of good but inexperienced editors who need a helping hand. If a particular editors gets frustrated, this is often (but not always!) a sign that this particular editor is a poor fit for a collaborative project like Knowledge. We all need to spend far less time making heroic

1287:

Sadly, none. Because I'm such a hardcore wikignome, a significant portion of my interaction comes from administrative areas (such as AN and ANI), most of whom are already admins. I do have a list of people I'd like to see become an admin, but some of them aren't quite ready yet (though one of them,

1224:, he declined to answer questions about abortion, which he said may come up as a case. Some questions above are asking you to discuss some prior cases. Do you feel comfortable answering those? Despite it being "optional," do you feel some obligation or need to answer them or risk more oppose votes? 1077:

This is probably more for my education, but how will your thinking and attitude change, or not, by becoming a bureaucrat? How will it affect your basic administrative workload? There seems to be a great difference in the process of becoming an administrator and a bureaucrat, and people here seem to

802:

As for what role I intend in taking when it comes to hammering out a policy, I certainly plan on voicing my opinion, but I can't really say with any amount of certainty what I will or will not devote my energies to. As I said above, I don't consider my opinion to be significantly more valuable than

625:

To a slight degree, yes, but only because the chance for abuse is so much higher. Admins, if they're active enough, are pretty much assured to step on some toes; some of those people get very, very upset (something I'm all too familiar with), and sometimes that anger can get vented improperly. With

4831:

Hrm, I can see where you are coming from regarding the role of a bureaucrat, but I think you might have it misunderstood. Certainly becoming a 'crat requires the utmost of community esteem and trust, but it is not a level higher than administrators. Administrators actually have more "power" over

4300:

Just a comment on your oppose, Pedro. I agree that losing editors through failed RfAs is a matter of great concern. There is a growing loss of community spirit on Knowledge, and these days nobody seems to care if a user has failed an RfA. A couple of years ago, scores of users would promptly issue

756:

How much authority do bureaucrats, qua bureaucrats, have over the rename pages and procedures? Do you have an opinion on usurpation of accounts with edits (SUL usurpations)? Do you plan to actively get en.wp's policy in this area formalized; how do you plan to get the community involved after the

709:

Say an administrator voluntarily resigns his flag. A month later, he decides he wants it back. For whatever reason, he goes through a so-called "reconfirmation RfA", although it is agreed that as per the ArbCom ruling, he should be able to get them back by asking because he did not relinquish them

517:

Can you please explain what your current understanding is of the nature of the necessary consensus for an RfA vs. an RfB vs. an RfBAG? I understand it is somewhat difficult to discuss that while engaged in the process, but should you be successful, you will be making these decisions as well, and I

2609:

as I supported the previous two RFBs. EVula really understands how RFA works and is involved there, and has the temperament to judge consensus and to answer questions from the community. He also has more than a year of experience as an admin and many edits and log actions both here and on other

1671:

EVula, if I block Mr Z-man for OMG disrupting a very srs forum called RFB with silliness, will you support me, and down the road when 'crats are giving the technical ability to sysop/desysop, will you desysop him? Thanks for answering correctly and promptly. I'll remove my support if this isn't

466:

Once again, based on the same experience, it appears that the community, with rare exception such as Redux3, requires a minimum of six months between RfB requests. Can you please explain why you feel that it is appropriate for you to run now, being that it has been less than six months since your

243:

I'm well aware that there are two different camps when it comes to RfA closure; the "hands-off" approach, which is akin to a vote count, and a "hands-on" approach, where the closing bureaucrat is more involved in determining consensus. I'm also aware that, despite what people say to the contrary,

4573:

goes, I actually think removing the request was a valid action to take given that (a) it was made by an IP, (2) there is confusion as to the name of the account to be renamed, and (3) the involved names are promotional anyway. Some quite inexperienced users volunteer to be rename clerks and so I

1124:

say with the utmost assurance that I have no intention of letting my bureaucrat-level contributions negatively impact my editing in other areas. For example, I currently have about 30% of my edits in the main namespace; I am very proud of this fact, as I consider myself as being an administrator

763:

The authority of bureaucrats extends only as far as the community allows it to. If a bureaucrat weighs in on a discussion, they are doing so as an editor; just as the position of administrator conveys no special authority, the same can be said of bureaucrats. If someone gives greater weight to a

393:- I routinely read active RfAs, patrolling for out-of-date tallies (not the most pressing thing in the world, but I enjoy it) and fixing broken formatting when I find it. I also participate in RfAs when I am able to properly guage the editor. I currently have 80 edits to the main RfA page itself. 1248:

Well, I can go ahead and say that "optional" is a hilariously inaccurate term. Even in my past RfBs, I've had people oppose (or go neutral) because I hadn't answered their questions (and I hadn't answered them because I'm only human and can only answer so many questions), and I've seen similar

2313:

Evula's history demonstrates a sufficient understanding of wiki rules and guidelines in the areas of bureaucratic concerns. Past history together with the answers to my questions leave me comfortable with his understanding of consensus; there may be no one correct answer, but his answers are

1039:

feel that this is the promoting bureaucrat's responsibility, in as far as they are not the ones making the judgement call about the candidate; the community is, and the closing 'crat is merely the executor of the community's will. The only discretion bureaucrats are allowed to use is in the

163:, that knowledge will be very important, and even more so since changing usernames is the biggest backlog for the bureaucrats. EVula is also good at engaging other users in discussion, and is civil, and as bureaucrats need to be effective communicators, this is a crucial skill that he has. 5035:

I may just have been overly concerned with the lack of editing there before the requests, not taking into account the possibility that you didn't wish to clerk, as well as perceiving that spending time there only meant "upon becoming a crat". Thank you for addressing the issue though.

5129:

Close enough for this forum. And to further clarify when the word "understand" is used, it's not so much as an intellectual understanding (I intellectually understand a lot of things I disagree with), but the empathetic "I understand" as I read it. It's the softening of the whole

962:

In your last RfB, some concerns were raised regarding IRC influences. Do you still frequent the various Knowledge-centered IRC channels? What do you think of discussing RfAs (or similar discussions) you plan on closing with other IRC users -- good idea, bad idea, or circumstantial?

4463:. Abstention I think, here. I still feel EVula needs to learn that this encyclopedia needs to be more welcoming, and I do feel that he has a (negative) prejudice to newbies and non-admins. I hope he will alter his thinking in regards to to this, but, at the same time, I also 673:

good job explaining why he closed it the way he did, which goes a long way towards decreasing the drama factor. I do, however, agree on the point of reconfirmation RfAs being very different beasts, which is something I touched on in my answer to the above (#8) question.

4388:

I just wanted to opine here that Pedro's concern is (in my view) quite misguided. This is a recurring problem at Knowledge- there's a huge bloc of editors who make great efforts to retain every editor who comes along. This is not helpful. We should try to retain the

2631:. User has the dedication, user has the technical and meta- wherewithall. User is highly respected and trusted in several arenas, and yet still has managed to keep a sense of humor. In short, EVula is teh shit. (please don't heckle me, he'll know what I mean....) 5146:

Sure, and that's fair enough, I agree as well; I wouldn't have closed that RfA in the same way either. However, why should EVula be penalized here if he would have made the correct call? I say this only because you were about to support had it not been for this.

5085:

Yes, I'd like a little more explanation as well. EVula's answer seems quite satisfactory to me; saying that while he understood WJB's actions and why he closed it the way he did, he wouldn't have done the same. I don't see any political backtracking here at all.

136:; in his time here, he has made over 25,000 edits and some 3,000 admin actions. His performance as an administrator has been exemplary and his overall attitude is positive, kind, and caring. He is evidently one of our best and most valuable administrators here. 4499:

way that didn't make them feel like the were being given generic boilerplate (which can have just as detrimental an effect; nobody wants to feel like they're being "processed"). I may think that turnover is natural, but I'm certainly not out to make it happen.

726:

As for determining consensus among the bureaucrats, I would wager that whoever initiates the 'crat chat would be the one to, at the end of the day, make the call (after considering all the options). If it happened to be me, I'd use the outline provided above.

4903:

I see what you're saying, that a crat's work is sort of "behind the scenes". I guess my rationale for opposing here is sort of based on a child-like view of bureaucrats being elite (for lack of a better word) compared to everyone else. And, looking more into

5277:. Userpage contains a userbox reading "This user is proud to have been an Adopter of Martijn Hoekstra." Expressing pride about something in a userbox? That's far too controversial. I'm sick of these adoption-supremacists pushing their agenda on Knowledge -- 1421:. Since it is likely you will pass this RfB, you will be able to comment in the more than likely bureaucrat chat that will occur upon its closure. Please tell me how you would close that RfA, assuming it was due to end at the timestamp on my signature? 1014:

expected to consider the full results of their actions, but do you think maybe they should start? Do you see it as a problem that giving someone admin access is one of the very few actions on the wiki that are not reversible by the editor who did it?

4357:

RfAs, not snow-closed ones I've handled in the past), the only alternative is that we pass people willy-nilly based on the fact that we hope they won't quit (ignoring whether or not they'd do well with the tools; someone who is quick to edit war does

2988:

Support as last time. Evula is an excellent user, who's always pleasent and willing to help. His work at RfA shows he's ready for the role. He understands the username policy and I'm sure he'll do a great job at CHU. All in all, one of the good guys.

1129:

to being an editor. Similarly, while I plan on being plenty active as a bureaucrat, I don't foresee it becoming such a massive time sink that I'm unable to contribute on all the other projects where I am active, or here as an editor or administrator.

886:

number was given, the threshold seems to be 80-85% instead (though, again, numbers are only a rough guideline). I am aware that Avraham's second RfB was closed just a couple of weeks ago at 82%; again, the numbers are a guideline, not a fixed figure.

2938:, I would have opposed this had it been say 3 months ago, due to the way I felt you handled some issues. But, that was yesterday's newspapers. I am happy with the way you have answered the questions and feel that you would make a great 'crat. 1010:(Sorry to be piling in questions, but..) Let's say you promote someone, and then later realize this was a mistake when they begin misusing the tools. Will you make some attempt to correct the mistake yourself? Yes, I realize crats are not 1044:

for the promoting bureaucrat to take the lead in removing a sysop's bit if they go rogue, but I wouldn't consider it "expected behavior", for lack of a better term, as they are no more responsible than any of the rogue's RfA participators.

238:. Not to be lazy, but I'm going to copy/paste my answer to this question from my second RfB; in the six months since my last attempt, I've had no experiences to suggest that the community has shifted away from what I stated last time. 4263:

Sorry EVula. I am afraid that I do not believe you will be dispassionate about closing RFA with consensus. I do believe that you have certain standards that will prejudice your ability to do so. You have stated, without equivocation,

4535:, but I don't see anything more than reverting and commentary (I went as far back as about a year of your edits there, nothing more than a handful). Now, this is fine, but nothing that helped the actual process such as clerking. 2872:

Crats lately have been a little too activist in promoting questionable candidates . EVula isn't promising the kind of radical crat overhaul I'd ideally like to see, but I believe he will help fix this one particular problem.

5161:"Should EVula be penalized?", exactly why I put this in neutral and not oppose. I was assured enough that he wouldn't do it, not to oppose, I just wanted to see a clear no qualification answer to actually give support.-- 3152:- We need more bureaucrats. I've no concerns about EVula. Bureaucrats don't have much more power than admins, so there is not much risk of messing up, and newly-elected bureaucrats tend to be more active than incumbents. 875:

In light of recent discussions, (Riana's bureaucrat chat, the various discussions and polls, and the section about the RfB bar in the adminship poll page, Avraham 2) what do you believe the pass percentage is for an RfB?

5179:

his comment there as a plus. It would have been much easier to give a noncommittal answer on this. A clear expressions of opinion, and just enough of a hedge to not seem arrogant about it. Exactly the qualities we want.

1381:

that are posted there, not actionable requests (aside from the occasional request for sysop restoration by former admins who have relinquished their bits). However, I'd like to jump on those as quickly as I can as well.

549:), RfB is rather similar to RfA. Trust is still the key element in a successful RfB. My answer for question #1 still stands for RfB as well, though the threshold for passing is higher (and the grilling is more intense). 3542:

In my observances of EVula, I have long ago formed the opinion that he is very thoughtful and involved as an administator. The same opinion still holds for me and I see no drawbacks in having him serve as a bureaucrat.

916:

According to the page history tool, you have a total of 21 edits to CHU and CHU/U over the past ~14 months. Do you really understand what goes on there? Do you believe you will maintain activity there in the long term?

5291:

Oh good gravy Gurch. Just type "Neutral" like usual, no need for the added drama. MHoekstra is an admin, and EVula was integral in getting that particular fine editor down that path. I'm pretty sure you're being

4436:

areas - particularly Usurption. I also noticed EVula was specifically concerned that RFB No.2 did not contain positive feedback from opposers. I suspect this will pass, and accordingly my feedback is given to him.

4270:

100% agreement. If they can't withstand a failed RfA, they're not likely to withstand some of the other crap that comes with being an admin. We're better off with a semi-retired editor than a potentially unhinged

4078:

No concerns raised for me by their actions or statements - my past observations and experiences of this user have been positive and I believe they would close RfAs in line with consensus and Knowledge policies.

350:, it is clear that the community requires a detailed knowledge of both the RfA process and the username changing process. For your benefit, can you please describe both the quality and quantity of your edits to 2137:- I've always thought EVula would make a great crat. His comments are always thoughtful and his participation at RfA and the discussion page has provided me with conclusive evidence that he will do a fine job. 4805:... I believe I am the only one to have had such experience prior to becoming a bureaucrat. They have nonetheless quickly grasped the process and been effective "renamers"... WjBscribe 14:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 5114:

So what you are actually saying here is (and correct me if I'm wrong), you would support but you don't like the fact that EVula understands why Scribe closed the way he did. Thank you for your promptness.

5013:, where (really) all I'll need to do is follow some handy-dandy links. I realize I could have been clerking there all this time, but I failed to see the relevance, hence my eschewing it for other areas. 1364:

be reduced to a few hours, rather than the couple of days that it can become, but that is largely dependent on the number of requests; if there's a spike, there's only so much a single bureaucrat can do.

669:, it also appears that there weren't any bureuacrats around to confer with... so, at the end of the day, I don't think I would have passed it, though I do feel that WjBscribe's explination goes a very, 1465:

Follow-up: I'm sorry, but it looks like I'm not going to have the time to answer this; I'm not going to be nearly as handy tonight as I thought I'd be (I'll be around, but won't have the time to read

4881:

at the request of others, which means that almost everything they do is in the background; rather than being mutually exclusive, wikignomery and bureaucratship are instead complimentary in my view.

177:

EVula has all the qualities and knowledge that a bureaucrat should have, and it’s because of this that I am honored to nominate him for bureaucratship. I now leave him in your hands for evaluation.

4616:

Erm... I know it's bad form to 'badger' opposers, but WjBscribe was defending EVula's actions. I don't really see anything in his comment to base an oppose !vote on. Any chance of clarification?

575:

was redirected to the talk page less than two weeks ago, and there are no current requests running. I'm honestly wary of answering this question until a more concrete process is in place. Sorry.

433:- I do not currently spend much time here. If my RfB is successful, I will of course place it higher on my priority list, as helping with the renaming backlogs is one of the reasons I'm running. 3780:

Why not. I don't really like how he answered my questions, but nothing in them particularly causes me enough problem to oppose, and you seem as if you'll be a good bureaucrat. Just do renames.

1078:

look at the two posts and the people who fill them very differently. I think administrators tend to be more forward and active, while bureaucrats seem more passive. How would you be different?

118: 5057:

Per answer to #9. You mostly say you wouldn't have made the same call which makes me lean to support, but then you added just enough political backtracking to make it so I just can't.--

4867:

necessary, but as far as actually punching the buttons, I can't; even if I try to click the "rename user" link after each request, the system throws up a "you can't access this" message.

4467:

him to be dispassionate about renaming. His trustworthiness in general is without question. I wish I could offer my support, but I'm unable to. However, it will probably be unneccesary.

272:

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?

4978:

is one of the things I expect a crat to be solid in. But your activity throughout our project (rather, across our project) is what has changed mind. We don't always have time to edit

4362:

need the ability to block), which is a sub-standard solution in my book. I present it as a "well, this is how it is" type of situation, not a "yay, we're losing people!" declaration.

1027:

wish that there were some sort of way to more easily remove the sysop bit in problematic situations. I am a fan of admin recall, though wary towards abuse of the system (which is why

2345:

is astounding. Work with usernames and bots looks fine and reasonable for a non-bureaucrat. I'd also like to take this particular opportunity to thank EVula for all his work at UAA.

1418: 1678:

Whatever will secure your !vote, I'll do it. Unless it will lose someone else's !vote, in which case I won't. So I can most definitely assure you that I will maybe do it, perhaps.

1437:. Note: I'll answer this question as soon as I have an opportunity to fully read the RfA. Just wanted to respond to acknowledge that I'd seen the question and wasn't ignoring it. 4771:

need to be outstanding and assertive to get their job done. Having a gnomey Crat is like having a gnomey congressman. Aside from my rough-and-tough stereotyping, though, is the

538:

RFA - This is largely a matter of trust. "Do I trust -Candidate- to not abuse the tools? Will -Candidate- becoming an admin be a net-gain for Knowledge? Will -Candidate- delete

665:

I... well, I don't think I would have passed it. If I were in that particular (and utterly unenviable) situation, I would have initiated a 'crat chat. However, in looking over

4278:

not to take account of the wider needs of the project - that is the retention of editors. Sorry to be unpopular opposer number one, particularly as I supported you last time.

1281:(My support or oppose won't come down to this question at all) What is your track record at RfA? In other words, how many candidates have you nominated, and how did they do? 152: 3763:

You again? I have some concerns that you haven't thought through the SUL engendered renaming/usurpation issues thoroughly enough, but third time's the charm, let us hope. ++

2528:. I think the candidate would be a net positive as a bureaucrat, and have no reason whatsoever to question the candidate's competence, skill, or dedication to the project. 5333: 4659:

I think he means per SynergeticMaggot. He may have missed his sig in the text above, and only noticed WJBscribe's sig at the bottom, and assumed he wrote the whole thing.

4432:

good faith ones. However this doesn't seem directly relevant to my oppose of this RfB which is based on concerns on how EVula will handle newbies with bureaucrat tools in

1745: 4266:

If someone submits an RfA after 300 edits, it gets closed, and then they get pissy about the whole thing, well... they weren't likely to be around for very long anyway.

757:

several failed attempts? Who makes the decision if community input is minimal? What is your opinion on a bureaucrat violating a long-standing convention on renames?

571:

RfBAG - I have to admit, I'm totally ignorant of bots and their workings. However, in researching this question, it seems that it is in a fairly high state of flux;

5351: 347: 148: 1767: 1762: 171: 4724:

Furthermore, GreenJoe is talking about a "new admin", and the "theme" in the opposes as being civility. There were only two opposes prior to his, both recused

2432:- Good attitude, definitely trustworthy, will be a great help as a 'crat (there are not enough active ones, leading to backlogs, but that's for another day). 4117:. After giving this more thought, I believe recusing myself from this discussion is the wrong choice. I wish only to offer my support for EVula's request. 1757: 167: 4552:, should in effect, simply not be a part of the community let alone an admin. Its their decision to make. You appear to be a good admin. I wish you luck. 4398:

efforts to hammer square pegs into round holes. Instead, find the round pegs and give them little nudges as needed. It's a far better use of our time.

4213:

recently... I supported him the last two times. Why stop now? Seriously, EVula does good work and possesses common sense and clue. He'll be a good 'crat.

656: 322:(and its talk page). The Bot stuff I, admittedly, am rather ignorant on, but am 100% willing to jump on if the call for more 'crat attention is put out. 4603:

20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC) My apologies here. The one theme that seems to be consistent in the oppose is civility, and the approach to newcomers. This is

174:

in December later that year. There has been a nice amount of time and space between each RfB, and EVula has not been in a rush to become a bureaucrat.

1809: 278:. I feel that I've got a well-earned reputation for being easily approached; even with people I disagree with, I never confuse a disagreement over a 156: 4847:

Well, in addition to the comments left by LaraLove and Keegan, I'd like to point out that the actual actions that a bureaucrat goes through at

3948:- No reason not to. Nothing I have seen from Evula as an editor or an admin makes me think there would be issue with him as a Crat. Good luck. 2203:

support. Has clue*infinity, knows what bureaucratship is about, will make for active and awesome 'crat. Also per Jmlk17, JayHenry, and hmwith.

133: 789:

activity). As a result, I have a "top-down" view of the English Knowledge's relationship with the rest of the WMF sites. As such, I actually (

147:. He appears to understand the criteria for promoting candidates at RfA, and has a good eye for consensus. Additionally, from his activity at 3703: 572: 144: 17: 5100:

Basically my point, not to open old wounds but I believe the close was clearly wrong. It's the "but I understand why..." that I refer to.--

974:

to bypass on-wiki processes. I have no intention of discussing RfAs with people, and wouldn't allow IRC to color my judgement. (anyone that

4869:

As for being a gnome, I don't seen gnomery (which is now a word) and bureaucratship as mutually exclusive; 'crats should never be forceful

3897: 3169:

one of the strongest, most trustworthy, and able administrators at Knowledge, the additional responsibilities will go to good use here. --

4775:

issue. A crat's gotta be able to do every aspect of his job like clockwork. "I'll figure it out when I get there" doesn't cut it for me.

485: 4637:

Yes, I'm somewhat confused as well. There's nothing about your !vote that tells me how I can improve myself, so I'm at a bit of a loss.

4544:

tasks you should be familiar with if you wish to be one. Pedro's examples (I think its only fair to note that "other crap" is a link to

4227:

Evula has the reflection needed for a bureaucrat and is already experienced in the domain, he will make a fine addition to the group.

3987: 3755: 2534: 1796: 4628: 2444: 5234:

When I become a bureaucrat, I'll make sure to change my name to "Mr. EVula, Pinnacle of Masculinity, Embodiment of Male Virility".

4607:

for any new admin, and before I can support this user, I need to see some good cheer towards necomers, and of course, other users.

4912:

a crat. So, cutting down the child-ness and the CHU thing, there's really nothing left for me to oppose here, so I'll strike it.--

2204: 1469:

about the RfA), so by the time I'd be done, the RfB will likely be closed. Just wanted to note this so it didn't seem like I was

140: 33: 4091:

EVula has my full trust and I'm sure he would do an exemplary job as a bureaucrat, despite the fact that he is clearly evil. ~

3352: 2896: 1839: 1028: 1833: 4928: 4795: 4693: 4489: 4032: 3855: 3330: 3180: 2834: 2157: 666: 4675:

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I'm not entirely sure where the civility concerns are coming from; I don't do anything to

1741: 923:

I have very little doubt that I'll be able to maintain activity there. As WjBscribe mentions below, CHU experience has not (

3320:. EVula is well-qualified and well-mannered. I'm fairly satisfied with the answer regarding IRC... no red flags, anyway. — 1803: 232:

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

4738: 4175: 3433: 3288: 3232: 2742: 2543:

Extremely trustworthy? Check. Understands consensus? Check. Competent enough to figure out the tricks of the trade at

2193: 3912:

Excellent judgment--and a proper degree of independence-- as shown both in Knowledge generally and in the answers above.

3636:

I think we can safely say that EVula got his brain checked more than enough for us to trust him with the other tools. --

3553: 2619: 2260: 2064: 160: 4209:: For some reason, I missed this. Don't know what could have distracted me from scrolling all the way to the bottom of 3590: 488:) led me to go ahead and bite the bullet on my third RfB, despite it being a bit "early" in comparison to my last one. 3140: 3107: 1789: 82: 3566:

With a rep like his, it's a wonder he isn't ALREADY one. Better go look at the other ones to see what went wrong....

2416:, per nomination rationale, the opinions of others, and my general opinion that EVula will make a solid bureaucrat. 1511:

How many of your sockpuppets do you intend to promote to admin? Do you intend to promote any to bureaucrat as well?

5120: 5076: 5041: 4987: 4557: 4122: 3345: 3132: 2405: 2794: 3772: 3709: 2610:

wikis. He also wants to help with usernames. Oh, and his answer to Friday's question was squarely on the mark.

94: 256:

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

221:

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

4171: 3892: 3226: 2187: 2125: 1957:

SFU for everyone today, so there's going to be a lot of renaming done, I suspect. EVula's perfect for the job.

112: 100: 1031:

are insanely complex). Going through the motions of ArbCom seems excessive, but that's all we have right now.

4814: 2990: 2851: 2378: 2256: 88: 4063: 5316: 5286: 5251: 5229: 5213: 5191: 5170: 5156: 5139: 5124: 5109: 5095: 5080: 5066: 5045: 5030: 4991: 4957: 4930: 4898: 4842: 4826: 4797: 4741: 4719: 4667: 4654: 4611: 4585: 4561: 4517: 4483: 4453: 4405: 4379: 4345: 4319: 4294: 4247: 4219: 4201: 4179: 4162: 4145: 4126: 4109: 4083: 4080: 4069: 4046: 4015: 4003: 3997: 3977: 3954: 3940: 3923: 3904: 3876: 3857: 3820: 3806: 3791: 3775: 3758: 3752: 3740: 3717: 3692: 3676: 3659: 3642: 3628: 3610: 3594: 3576: 3558: 3534: 3521: 3508: 3489: 3470: 3453: 3441: 3420: 3395: 3378: 3360: 3335: 3312: 3291: 3271: 3250: 3241: 3219: 3185: 3161: 3144: 3123: 3099: 3082: 3068: 3053: 3041: 3013: 2983: 2962: 2930: 2912: 2903: 2880: 2867: 2855: 2838: 2815: 2785: 2768: 2747: 2729: 2711: 2697: 2678: 2651: 2623: 2601: 2580: 2556: 2547:? Check. Best interests of the encyclopedia at heart? Check. Well, looks like he meets my criteria. -- 2538: 2520: 2503: 2480: 2465: 2424: 2408: 2390: 2358: 2336: 2327: 2305: 2283: 2266: 2242: 2216: 2195: 2180: 2163: 2129: 2112: 2088: 2074: 2050: 2033: 2018: 2001: 1984: 1975: 1949: 1929: 1906: 1891: 1879: 1720: 1695: 1656: 1631: 1605: 1576: 1550: 1525: 1496: 1454: 1429: 1399: 1348: 1309: 1266: 1204: 1178: 1147: 1097: 1062: 995: 944: 904: 863: 820: 744: 691: 643: 594: 566: 527: 505: 476: 452: 379: 207: 181: 106: 65: 2096:- as before. EVula was a fine candidate back then and has only improved since. No problems at all here - 882:

Prior to Riana's RfB, the traditional numerical threshold was 90%. In the resultant discussion, while no

619:

Do you think that confirmation RFAs should be gauged with a different measuring stick than regular RFAs?

5166: 5135: 5116: 5105: 5072: 5062: 5037: 4983: 4623: 4553: 4308: 4196: 4118: 3970: 3129: 3063: 2926: 2439: 2400: 2231: 1945: 5332:

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

413:-dictated renames, rather than self-requested name changes (this request stemed from my involvement at 4767:. It's fine to be a gnome, but I feel that Bureaucrats shouldn't take to that kind of wiki-lifestyle. 4057: 2716:

Three RfBs in the course of a year is a little worrying, but meh, EVula will do just fine as a 'crat.

2353: 1475:

Suffice it to say, however, if there is a 'crat chat (and a cursory glance suggests there will be), I

5152: 5091: 4759:

and decided to say my two-cents anyway. And to wear red more often. John says it brings out my eyes.

3706: 3672: 3466: 3157: 3095: 3046: 2279: 2208: 2176: 1997: 4488:

I do understand the concern. Though the !vote is struck, I would like to point out that I developed

2940: 1358:(something I shouldn't be so ready to admit to, and certainly nothing the girlfriend is happy about) 5225: 4581: 4012: 3887: 3700:

I would've liked to see more article building, but I think this user is trustworthy enough. I'm an

3655: 3412: 2971: 2959: 2138: 2121: 1336: 1319: 139:

Why would EVula make an excellent bureaucrat? Well, for starters, he is a frequent participator at

60: 5303: 4923: 4820: 4790: 4238: 4136: 4039: 3850: 3586: 3529: 3505: 3215: 3174: 2828: 2669: 2659:

record is circumspect with solid work. He's got everything you want in a candidate for this job.

2638: 2611: 2516: 2496: 2384: 2346: 2315: 2147: 2046: 1852: 1707: 1622: 1567: 1516: 1234: 1169: 1088: 1040:

individual !votes themselves (see my answer to question #1), not the candidate. Yes, it would be

406: 396: 359: 355: 326:

is going to be one of my standard haunts if this RfB is successful, as I feel my experience with

4755:

Okay, I know I'm gonna get hell for opposing this, but I talked it over with my sexy picture of

4424: 3814:- I appreciate your honesty, openess and fairness - usually a rare set of combined attributes.-- 2908:

I very strongly support this nomination, and for the reasons I gave in my nomination statement.

518:

believe it is important for us to understand your approach to these candidacies. Thank you. --

4953: 4763:... Most of my encounters with EVula have ranged from neutral to good, never bad. But, he's a 4734: 4683:, you'll see me welcoming newbies when I run across them, and sometimes placing a welcome tag 3992: 3936: 3815: 3803: 3786: 3749: 3436: 3386:- Another one of the things I have to do before I go. Good luck Eric, do the community proud. 3284: 2781: 2762: 2737: 2595: 2552: 2529: 2461: 2323: 2120:

Great candidate for the position. (are non admins allowed to vote? if not, strike my comment)

2014: 1914:

EVula would make a great bureaucrat. I cannot think of anyone more suited to be one than him.

1888: 523: 472: 375: 1887:, we need more crats and there's no reason to believe EVula will abuse or misuse cratship. -- 246:

Also, anyone with "on wheels" at the end of their username gets instantly promoted, right? ;)

5244: 5206: 5162: 5131: 5101: 5058: 5023: 4891: 4768: 4712: 4647: 4618: 4510: 4402: 4372: 4313: 4188: 3965: 3549: 3391: 3264: 3059: 3034: 2921: 2888:- All of my interactions with this editor indicate to me that they would make a great crat. 2877: 2724: 2615: 2573: 2434: 2253: 2236: 2084: 2069: 1942: 1922: 1688: 1649: 1598: 1543: 1489: 1447: 1392: 1302: 1259: 1197: 1140: 1055: 988: 937: 897: 856: 813: 782: 737: 684: 636: 587: 559: 498: 445: 424: 200: 4531:

You've expressed in both prior RfB's that you are willing or expect to be spending time at

781:

opinion on SUL? Well, as many may know, I'm extremely active across multiple projects (see

5282: 5240: 5202: 5148: 5087: 5019: 4887: 4764: 4708: 4643: 4506: 4476: 4446: 4368: 4338: 4287: 3668: 3462: 3447: 3153: 3114: 3091: 2275: 2212: 2172: 1993: 1783: 1684: 1645: 1594: 1539: 1485: 1443: 1388: 1298: 1255: 1193: 1136: 1051: 984: 933: 893: 852: 832:

What role do bureaucrats have in governing the RfA page? Specifically other nominations —

809: 733: 680: 632: 583: 555: 494: 441: 301: 196: 159:, he has a strong understanding of the username policy, and since EVula wishes to work at 76: 612:

We all knew these questions were going to be asked, so we might as well get it early on.

403:

active in the RfA discussion page; it's my most active project talk page, with 417 edits.

2185:

EVula should make a fine 'crat, and should tackle the username backlogs effectively. --

5220: 4756: 4676: 4576: 4545: 4496: 4158: 3949: 3828: 3712: 3651: 3619: 3603: 3404: 3376: 3305: 3247: 2909: 2889: 2476: 2342: 1981: 1967: 1289: 178: 55: 5071:

This has caught my eye. Would you please be so kind as to elaborate on what you mean?

1672:

answered within 48 seconds of my hitting save. The correct answers are yes, and yes.

5345: 5309: 5297: 5187: 5010: 5006: 5001:

do that related directly to the renaming without being a bureaucrat. My knowledge of

4913: 4905: 4848: 4808: 4780: 4772: 4661: 4608: 4600: 4549: 4532: 4410:

With respect Friday, I'm not sure I'm that "misguided" when points three and four of

4230: 4215: 4210: 4187:. Rather late to the party, but there's no doubt EVula is qualified to be a 'crat. - 4133: 4024: 3919: 3840: 3768: 3637: 3582: 3519: 3498: 3321: 3211: 3170: 2861: 2824: 2693: 2688: 2662: 2644: 2632: 2544: 2512: 2489: 2372: 2333: 2292: 2042: 1713: 1701: 1619: 1564: 1513: 1423: 1409: 1361: 1332: 1227: 1162: 1081: 954: 836:

checkuser and BAG. Do bureaucrats have a duty/authority to remove/govern/etc. these?

430: 420: 414: 390: 367: 363: 351: 323: 319: 305: 297: 1980:

I'd trust him with the additional tools, and there is an apparent need for them. --

4949: 4918: 4785: 4730: 4411: 4350:

For what it's worth, if it looks like bad faith to anyone, that person isn't me. :)

3985:- Very dedicated to project, dedicated to areas that are lacking. All around A+ :) 3932: 3845: 3800: 3782: 3723: 3686: 3479: 3430: 3280: 3191: 3074: 2777: 2757: 2707: 2590: 2548: 2457: 2319: 2010: 1900: 1374: 1328: 1221: 701: 606: 519: 468: 371: 338: 3618:, not a lot of raw experience where bureaucrats need to have it, but I trust you. 1617:

To be clear, you do realize you are requesting to be a bureaucrat, not a bearcat?

2776:. I'm impressed by both your work and your answers to the questions at this RFB. 409:- My only involvement here has been to inquire about creating a "fast track" for 5002: 4971: 4860: 4837: 4399: 4303: 3544: 3387: 3258: 3023: 2874: 2847: 2718: 2566: 2226: 2097: 2080: 2059: 1917: 1874: 1217: 1106:

how I will change in the future with anything even close to resembling accuracy.

410: 327: 1473:

ducking out of the question (well, I kinda am, but it's not entirely my fault).

1118:(and if I could, I'd spend my time on the stock market rather than on this RfB) 5296:

humorous/sarcastic (at least, that's how I'm reading it), but still, srsly....

5278: 5235: 5197: 5014: 4882: 4703: 4638: 4501: 4470: 4440: 4422:

should be open and welcoming. So whilst agreeing that we don't want to reatin

4363: 4332: 4281: 4093: 3867: 3569: 2026: 1779: 1737: 1679: 1640: 1589: 1534: 1480: 1438: 1383: 1293: 1250: 1188: 1131: 1046: 979: 928: 888: 847: 804: 728: 675: 627: 578: 550: 489: 436: 191: 125: 71: 4974:). To many, this might seem like a rather miniscule reason to oppose. To me, 4495:

to give newbie editors all the information they need in a rather casual, non-

3210:- Fully trustworthy and civil - the definitive candidate for bureaucratship. 4154: 3369: 3300: 1961: 539: 4877:. The extra abilities (promoting, renaming, adding bot flags) are all done 1159:

In what situations would you feel it wiser in your post to walk away from?

978:

a regular on IRC can probably testify to my relative infrequency on there)

842:

Bureaucrats should do whatever the community has tasked for them to do. I,

3368:

Solid community member and editor with a clear understanding of the role.

5182: 4131:

In case there's any doubt about whether or not my questions are serious

4054:. I Have only seen good things from this user and I'm glad to support =) 3914: 3764: 3514: 3190:

EVula's a proven commodity and definitely has common sense and my trust.

2417: 1933:(ugh, edit conflict times 3... really? I thought I was going to be first) 1356:. As quickly as I can. ;) In all seriousness, I'm on Knowledge every day 132:

EVula has been an editor since December 2005 and an administrator since

5196:

Fixed my gender. ;) My girlfriend would be quite confused otherwise...

4701:

consider an issue we should address). I hope this clarification helps.

3090:- trustworthy, knowledgeable, and bureaucrats are a scarce resource. - 5336:

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

1700:

Ah dang. You had me at hello. Perfect answer, albeit rather late...

1021:

Ah, another question that I can easily answer while still at work. :)

764:

bureaucrat's argument, they should be doing so out of respect to the

5326:

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

3831:

told me to. And rightly so, because as of now, I can't think of any

3684:

trustworthy, I can't see anything wrong. Good answers to questions.

4908:, it does seem like there isn't much to get involved in unless you 1533:

To be fair, not all of the sockpuppets I'll be promoting are mine.

2224:

with no reservations. Great guy, great attitude, great candidate.

2456:- one of our best admins, sensible, responsible, and reasonable. 2823:

civility and diplomacy get a candidate a long way here. Cheers,

1292:, has better nominators than myself lined up around the block). 4970:

which is sought; bot's, I'm not questioning your competance in

667:

User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 15#Your close of RfA on User:^demon

3748:- I have great confidence EVula will make an excellent 'crat. 3255:

kinda sorta wanted to oppose, but you're well qualified, so..

2398:- An Asset to the community. Besides, we need more 'crats :P. 123:- Ladies and Gentlemen, fellow Wikipedians, I wish to present 188:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

2488:- Excellent admin who should make an excellent bureaucrat.-- 768:, not out of a misguided placement of faith in the "office". 330:

will help out, in addition to having an extra pair of hands.

423:- I'm heavily involved here. I have UAA transcluded onto 296:

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

166:

This is not EVula’s first request for bureaucratship: he

29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

486:

Knowledge:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Temporary bureaucrats

314:. Though I'm not quite the RfA gnome that I once was, I 4690: 4688: 4680: 4570: 4540: 4536: 4269: 4265: 2341:

Just looking at the number of RfAs EVula has closed at

1827: 1821: 1815: 1584:

Well, generally I only eat puppies on the weekends, so

5218:

Well if you had a less girly sounding username... :p

5298: 4982:. Your a fine candidate. As Pedro, I recuse myself. 2633: 2293: 1702: 1562:

How many live puppies do you eat on an average day?

4327:

absoultely should not be part of a closing decision

535:. Broken out similar to my answer to question #6: 308:on a regular basis to attend to those requests? 225:questions to provide guidance for participants: 190:I'm honored to have such a great nomination. :) 3403:- I know that he will be a great bureaucrat, -- 1992:As last time. EVula will make a fine 'crat. :) 5304: 3265: 3259: 2639: 1708: 1327:How fast would you get to requests at say the 8: 2920:. This user will be a very good bureaucrat. 2743: 2738: 1220:hearing for the nomination of Chief Justice 4011:. What I see is entirely convincing. :) -- 3497:. I always thought he was already one. -- 3322: 1116:I feel). While I can't predict the future 157:the requests for comment page on usernames 53:Final (122/1/2); Closed as successful by 1851:Please keep discussion constructive and 545:RFB - In this respect (and this respect 4697:certainly wouldn't blame them for, and 1940:- Go you good thing !!! :DDDDD ......-- 1755: 1360:. I'd like to see the turnover time on 1071:Really optional questions from Vishnava 149:the inappropriate usernames noticeboard 5352:Successful requests for bureaucratship 4997:Well, there's also very little that I 1916: 4851:... well... you can't really do them 4836:you are assigning to the usergroup. 4428:we do need to make efforts to retain 1639:...crap. Is it too late to withdraw? 573:Knowledge:Requests for BAG membership 18:Knowledge:Requests for bureaucratship 7: 3478:Reliable and more than qualified. -- 1665:Optional 2 part question from Keeper 5005:comes into play more in patrolling 1768:Requests for bureaucratship/EVula 3 1763:Requests for bureaucratship/EVula 2 1753: 129:as a candidate for bureaucratship. 4679:newbies (and if you go through my 1588:, I eat only 1.7 puppies per day. 24: 4948:pending answers to questions. -- 3865:A longtime trustworthy editor. — 2793:Sure makes a lot of sense to me! 1758:Requests for bureaucratship/EVula 3966: 1505:Optional questions from Mr.Z-man 1275:Optional question from Wizardman 700:Routine optional questions from 5310: 4855:being a bureaucrat. I've got a 4239: 4234: 4231: 4192: 4189: 4132: 4094: 4092: 3971: 3871: 3868: 3076: 2981: 2973: 2954: 2951: 2948: 2945: 2942: 2645: 2574: 2567: 2418: 2150: 2140: 2058:Per "DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH". 1714: 1618: 1563: 1512: 1346: 1338: 240:(though I am tweaking it a bit) 153:the bot part of the noticeboard 4924: 4914: 4838: 4791: 4781: 4490:User:EVula/admin/Premature RfA 3851: 3841: 3075: 2897: 2890: 2661: 2318:in this matter. Good Luck. -- 2251: 1875: 1744:. For the edit count, see the 1226: 1161: 1080: 1: 4873:, they should be forceful as 2802: 2629:Absolutely, unequivocally yes 1004:Optional question from Friday 4919: 4786: 4619: 3846: 2939: 2670: 2596: 2591: 2435: 1235: 1170: 1089: 4729:opposes doesn't correlate. 2807: 2797: 2663: 2079:Per what I said last time. 1740:'s edit summary usage with 1228: 1216:I remember that during the 1163: 1082: 655:How would you have handled 348:intense personal experience 318:currently pay attention to 282:with a disagreement over a 217:Questions for the candidate 5368: 3401:Strongest possible support 2364:Strongest possible support 1938:Strongest possible support 1912:Strongest possible support 34:request for bureaucratship 4633:20:39, May 27, 2008 (UTC) 2936:Based on answers, support 2846:, need more bureaucrats. 2449:16:40, May 27, 2008 (UTC) 5329:Please do not modify it. 5317:00:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC) 5287:23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 5252:17:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 5230:16:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 5214:15:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 5192:16:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 5171:14:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 5157:14:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 5140:14:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 5125:14:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 5110:14:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 5096:14:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 5081:13:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 5067:13:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 5046:13:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 5031:13:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 4992:12:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 4958:04:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 4931:21:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 4899:20:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 4843:05:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 4827:04:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 4798:03:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 4742:14:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 4720:14:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 4668:21:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 4655:20:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 4612:13:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 4586:14:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 4562:11:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 4518:19:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 4484:19:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 4454:15:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 4406:14:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 4380:13:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 4346:12:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 4320:12:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 4295:10:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 4248:02:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC) 4220:23:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 4202:20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 4180:20:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 4163:20:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 4146:20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 4127:18:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 4110:14:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 4084:12:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 4070:03:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 4047:01:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 4016:00:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 4004:21:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 3978:20:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 3955:16:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 3941:16:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 3924:04:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 3905:04:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 3877:02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 3858:02:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 3821:00:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 3807:23:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 3792:21:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 3776:21:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 3759:21:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 3741:17:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 3718:15:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 3693:13:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 3677:10:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 3660:02:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 3643:23:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 3629:23:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 3611:19:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 3602:– I trust his judgment. 3595:18:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 3577:18:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 3559:18:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 3535:17:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 3522:11:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 3509:10:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 3490:03:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 3471:02:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 3454:02:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 3442:02:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 3421:01:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 3396:01:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 3379:23:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 3361:22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 3336:21:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 3313:16:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 3292:13:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 3272:12:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 3251:12:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 3242:07:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 3220:06:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 3186:05:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 3162:03:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 3145:00:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 3124:23:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 3100:22:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 3083:21:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 3069:20:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 3054:20:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 3042:19:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 3014:19:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 2984:18:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 2976:Previously SimpsonsFan08 2963:18:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 2931:17:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 2913:17:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 2904:17:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 2881:14:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 2868:12:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 2856:11:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 2839:09:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 2816:05:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 2786:05:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 2769:02:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 2748:02:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 2730:01:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 2712:01:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 2698:23:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2679:22:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2652:22:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2624:21:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2602:20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2581:20:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2557:20:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2539:20:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2521:20:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2504:19:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2481:19:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2466:19:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2425:16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2409:15:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2391:15:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2359:13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2337:13:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2328:12:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2306:12:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2284:12:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2267:12:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2243:10:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2217:09:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2196:09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2181:09:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2164:07:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2130:07:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2113:05:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2089:04:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2075:04:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2051:04:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2034:04:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2019:04:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2002:04:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1985:04:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1976:04:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1950:04:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1930:04:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1907:04:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1892:04:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1880:04:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1721:00:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC) 1696:20:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 1657:20:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 1632:20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 1606:20:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 1577:20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 1551:20:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 1526:20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 1497:00:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC) 1479:be participating in it. 1455:06:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 1430:22:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 1400:19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 1349:18:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 1341:Previously SimpsonsFan08 1310:22:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1267:22:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1205:22:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1179:17:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1148:22:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1098:17:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 1063:15:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 996:13:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 945:00:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 905:22:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 864:00:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 821:06:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 745:04:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 692:04:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 644:00:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 605:Optional questions from 595:05:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 567:05:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 528:04:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 506:04:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 477:04:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 467:last RfB? Thank you. -- 453:05:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 380:03:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 337:Optional questions from 208:03:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 182:03:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 66:03:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC) 4414:expresly indicate that 4275:disagree quite strongly 3446:Sufficiently insane. ~ 3428:Per Everyone Above me! 2755:- highly qualified. :) 1408:Optional question from 1318:Optional question from 953:Optional question from 172:nominated himself again 168:first nominated himself 38:Please do not modify it 3667:- trustworthy editor. 3201:at 06:04, May 29, 2008 141:requests for adminship 4875:fellow editors/admins 4550:communities decisions 3650:suited for the role. 3581:Correct crat person. 3299:, yes, will be fine. 170:in June of 2007, and 4418:is free to edit and 2686:No problems here. -- 2291:Trustworthy user. · 1377:, usually it's just 145:respective talk page 4692:), and developed a 3812:Very strong support 3799:a good candidate -- 3227:dihydrogen monoxide 2189:Anonymous Dissident 1752:RfBs for this user: 783:m:User:EVula/matrix 328:our username policy 4681:user talk contribs 4318: 4246: 3835:reason to oppose. 3818: 2979: 2592:weburiedoursecrets 2579: 2274:A fine candidate. 2241: 2192: 1344: 1029:my recall criteria 785:for an idea of my 161:changing usernames 39: 5313: 4976:following through 4778: 4694:specific template 4687:vandalism notices 4634: 4482: 4452: 4344: 4302: 4293: 4228: 4199: 3962:without concerns 3939: 3816: 3609: 3557: 3507: 3461:no reservations. 3270: 3240: 3224:One word. Trust. 3203: 3183: 3177: 3143: 3119: 3051: 2977: 2972: 2813: 2674: 2648: 2578: 2565: 2537: 2519: 2450: 2357: 2225: 2186: 2159: 2154: 1934: 1777:Links for EVula: 1717: 1359: 1342: 1337: 1239: 1174: 1119: 1093: 284:person themselves 241: 37: 5359: 5331: 5314: 5311: 5306: 5300: 5250: 5247: 5228: 5212: 5209: 5117:SynergeticMaggot 5073:SynergeticMaggot 5038:SynergeticMaggot 5029: 5026: 4984:SynergeticMaggot 4926: 4921: 4916: 4897: 4894: 4840: 4823: 4817: 4811: 4793: 4788: 4783: 4776: 4718: 4715: 4702: 4664: 4653: 4650: 4621: 4617: 4584: 4554:SynergeticMaggot 4539:edit (which was 4516: 4513: 4481: 4479: 4468: 4451: 4449: 4438: 4412:the five pillars 4378: 4375: 4343: 4341: 4330: 4316: 4311: 4306: 4292: 4290: 4279: 4245: 4243: 4236: 4233: 4197: 4194: 4191: 4144: 4119:SynergeticMaggot 4108: 4106: 4066: 4060: 4044: 4037: 4029: 4000: 3995: 3990: 3975: 3973: 3968: 3952: 3935: 3900: 3895: 3890: 3873: 3870: 3853: 3848: 3843: 3738: 3736: 3734: 3732: 3640: 3626: 3608: 3606: 3575: 3572: 3547: 3532: 3517: 3504: 3501: 3487: 3484: 3451: 3440: 3417: 3409: 3374: 3359: 3356: 3349: 3326: 3267: 3261: 3256: 3230: 3192: 3181: 3175: 3139: 3137: 3121: 3117: 3113: 3110: 3079: 3078: 3052: 3050: 3040: 3037: 3031: 3010: 3008: 3006: 3004: 3002: 2982: 2978: 2975: 2961: 2956: 2953: 2950: 2947: 2944: 2901: 2894: 2864: 2811: 2806: 2801: 2795: 2765: 2760: 2745: 2740: 2696: 2691: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2665: 2649: 2646: 2641: 2635: 2598: 2593: 2576: 2571: 2569: 2533: 2515: 2500: 2494: 2479: 2437: 2433: 2422: 2407: 2403: 2402:Perfect Proposal 2387: 2381: 2375: 2351: 2349: 2332:Fine with me. -- 2303: 2265: 2250:. No problem. 2239: 2234: 2229: 2190: 2158: 2152: 2148: 2142: 2110: 2107: 2105: 2072: 2067: 2062: 2031: 1970: 1964: 1948: 1932: 1927: 1925: 1920: 1903: 1877: 1843: 1802: 1731:General comments 1718: 1715: 1710: 1704: 1694: 1691: 1655: 1652: 1630: 1604: 1601: 1575: 1549: 1546: 1524: 1495: 1492: 1453: 1450: 1426: 1419:this ongoing RfA 1398: 1395: 1357: 1347: 1343: 1340: 1308: 1305: 1265: 1262: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1230: 1203: 1200: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1165: 1146: 1143: 1117: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1084: 1061: 1058: 994: 991: 943: 940: 903: 900: 862: 859: 819: 816: 743: 740: 690: 687: 642: 639: 593: 590: 565: 562: 504: 501: 451: 448: 387:. My breakdown: 370:? Thank you. -- 239: 206: 203: 122: 63: 5367: 5366: 5362: 5361: 5360: 5358: 5357: 5356: 5342: 5341: 5340: 5334:this nomination 5327: 5245: 5238: 5219: 5207: 5200: 5024: 5017: 4941: 4892: 4885: 4859:solid grasp of 4821: 4815: 4809: 4713: 4706: 4674: 4662: 4648: 4641: 4575: 4511: 4504: 4477: 4469: 4461:Oppose indented 4447: 4439: 4373: 4366: 4339: 4331: 4314: 4309: 4304: 4288: 4280: 4273:. I'm afraid I 4256: 4229: 4207:Belated support 4064: 4058: 4040: 4033: 4025: 3998: 3993: 3988: 3964: 3950: 3933:Camaron | Chris 3898: 3893: 3888: 3730: 3728: 3726: 3724: 3638: 3620: 3604: 3570: 3567: 3530: 3515: 3499: 3485: 3480: 3449: 3429: 3413: 3405: 3370: 3354: 3347: 3344: 3333: 3236: 3197: 3133: 3120: 3115: 3108: 3106: 3067: 3049: 3047:Nousernamesleft 3035: 3024: 3021: 3000: 2998: 2996: 2994: 2992: 2974:StewieGriffin! 2862: 2812: 2763: 2758: 2689: 2687: 2675: 2564:. No concerns. 2498: 2490: 2474: 2401: 2399: 2385: 2379: 2373: 2347: 2237: 2232: 2227: 2188: 2162: 2153: 2103: 2101: 2098: 2070: 2065: 2060: 2027: 1968: 1962: 1941: 1923: 1918: 1901: 1871: 1862: 1795: 1778: 1774: 1772: 1733: 1689: 1682: 1650: 1643: 1599: 1592: 1544: 1537: 1490: 1483: 1448: 1441: 1424: 1393: 1386: 1339:StewieGriffin! 1303: 1296: 1260: 1253: 1240: 1198: 1191: 1175: 1141: 1134: 1094: 1056: 1049: 989: 982: 938: 931: 898: 891: 857: 850: 814: 807: 738: 731: 685: 678: 637: 630: 588: 581: 560: 553: 499: 492: 446: 439: 219: 201: 194: 74: 54: 50: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5365: 5363: 5355: 5354: 5344: 5343: 5339: 5338: 5322: 5321: 5320: 5319: 5272: 5271: 5270: 5269: 5268: 5267: 5266: 5265: 5264: 5263: 5262: 5261: 5260: 5259: 5258: 5257: 5256: 5255: 5254: 5144: 5143: 5142: 5051: 5050: 5049: 5048: 4995: 4940: 4937: 4936: 4935: 4934: 4933: 4871:as bureaucrats 4868: 4845: 4829: 4757:John Barrowman 4749: 4748: 4747: 4746: 4745: 4744: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4635: 4598:per WJBscribe. 4591: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4458: 4457: 4456: 4386: 4385: 4384: 4383: 4382: 4351: 4255: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4222: 4204: 4182: 4165: 4148: 4129: 4112: 4086: 4073: 4049: 4018: 4013:Moonriddengirl 4006: 3980: 3957: 3943: 3926: 3907: 3879: 3860: 3823: 3809: 3794: 3778: 3761: 3743: 3720: 3695: 3679: 3662: 3645: 3631: 3613: 3597: 3579: 3561: 3537: 3524: 3511: 3492: 3476:Strong Support 3473: 3456: 3444: 3423: 3398: 3381: 3363: 3343:Great editor. 3338: 3329: 3315: 3294: 3274: 3253: 3244: 3234: 3222: 3208:Strong support 3205: 3195: 3188: 3164: 3147: 3126: 3112: 3102: 3085: 3071: 3058: 3056: 3044: 3016: 2986: 2968:Strong Support 2965: 2933: 2915: 2906: 2883: 2870: 2858: 2841: 2818: 2796: 2788: 2771: 2750: 2732: 2714: 2700: 2681: 2667: 2654: 2626: 2604: 2583: 2559: 2541: 2523: 2506: 2483: 2468: 2454:Strong support 2451: 2427: 2411: 2393: 2361: 2339: 2330: 2308: 2286: 2269: 2245: 2219: 2198: 2183: 2166: 2149: 2145: 2132: 2115: 2091: 2077: 2056:Strong Support 2053: 2036: 2021: 2004: 1990:Strong Support 1987: 1978: 1952: 1935: 1909: 1894: 1882: 1870: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1861: 1858: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1844: 1773: 1771: 1770: 1765: 1760: 1754: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1742:mathbot's tool 1732: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1666: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1506: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1474: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1412: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1322: 1320:StewieGriffin! 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1276: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1232: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1167: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1086: 1072: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1033:However, I do 1032: 1022: 1005: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 957: 950: 949: 948: 947: 910: 909: 908: 907: 869: 868: 867: 866: 826: 825: 824: 823: 797: 796: 795: 794: 772: 771: 770: 769: 750: 749: 748: 747: 721: 720: 719: 718: 704: 697: 696: 695: 694: 649: 648: 647: 646: 610: 609: 602: 601: 600: 599: 598: 597: 576: 569: 543: 511: 510: 509: 508: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 455: 434: 428: 418: 404: 394: 341: 334: 333: 332: 331: 290: 289: 288: 287: 266: 265: 264: 263: 250: 249: 248: 247: 245: 242: 218: 215: 213: 211: 210: 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5364: 5353: 5350: 5349: 5347: 5337: 5335: 5330: 5324: 5323: 5318: 5315: 5307: 5301: 5295: 5290: 5289: 5288: 5284: 5280: 5276: 5273: 5253: 5248: 5242: 5237: 5233: 5232: 5231: 5227: 5224: 5223: 5217: 5216: 5215: 5210: 5204: 5199: 5195: 5194: 5193: 5189: 5185: 5184: 5178: 5174: 5173: 5172: 5168: 5164: 5160: 5159: 5158: 5155: 5154: 5150: 5145: 5141: 5137: 5133: 5128: 5127: 5126: 5122: 5118: 5113: 5112: 5111: 5107: 5103: 5099: 5098: 5097: 5094: 5093: 5089: 5084: 5083: 5082: 5078: 5074: 5070: 5069: 5068: 5064: 5060: 5056: 5053: 5052: 5047: 5043: 5039: 5034: 5033: 5032: 5027: 5021: 5016: 5012: 5008: 5004: 5000: 4996: 4994: 4993: 4989: 4985: 4981: 4977: 4973: 4968: 4963: 4962: 4961: 4960: 4959: 4955: 4951: 4947: 4938: 4932: 4929: 4927: 4922: 4917: 4911: 4907: 4902: 4901: 4900: 4895: 4889: 4884: 4880: 4876: 4872: 4866: 4862: 4858: 4854: 4850: 4846: 4844: 4841: 4835: 4830: 4828: 4825: 4824: 4818: 4813: 4812: 4806: 4803: 4802: 4801: 4800: 4799: 4796: 4794: 4789: 4784: 4774: 4770: 4766: 4762: 4758: 4754: 4743: 4740: 4736: 4732: 4727: 4723: 4722: 4721: 4716: 4710: 4705: 4700: 4695: 4691: 4689: 4686: 4682: 4678: 4673: 4669: 4666: 4665: 4658: 4657: 4656: 4651: 4645: 4640: 4636: 4632: 4631: 4627: 4626: 4622: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4610: 4606: 4602: 4599: 4596: 4593: 4592: 4587: 4583: 4580: 4579: 4572: 4568: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4563: 4559: 4555: 4551: 4547: 4542: 4538: 4534: 4530: 4528: 4519: 4514: 4508: 4503: 4498: 4494: 4491: 4487: 4486: 4485: 4480: 4474: 4473: 4466: 4462: 4459: 4455: 4450: 4444: 4443: 4435: 4431: 4427: 4426: 4421: 4417: 4413: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4404: 4401: 4396: 4393:editors, not 4392: 4387: 4381: 4376: 4370: 4365: 4361: 4356: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4342: 4336: 4335: 4328: 4323: 4322: 4321: 4317: 4312: 4307: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4291: 4285: 4284: 4276: 4272: 4267: 4262: 4261: 4253: 4249: 4244: 4242: 4237: 4226: 4223: 4221: 4218: 4217: 4212: 4208: 4205: 4203: 4200: 4195: 4186: 4183: 4181: 4177: 4173: 4169: 4166: 4164: 4160: 4156: 4152: 4149: 4147: 4143: 4142: 4140: 4135: 4130: 4128: 4124: 4120: 4116: 4113: 4111: 4107: 4105: 4101: 4097: 4090: 4087: 4085: 4082: 4077: 4074: 4072: 4071: 4067: 4061: 4053: 4050: 4048: 4045: 4043: 4038: 4036: 4030: 4028: 4022: 4019: 4017: 4014: 4010: 4007: 4005: 4002: 4001: 3996: 3991: 3984: 3981: 3979: 3976: 3974: 3969: 3961: 3958: 3956: 3953: 3947: 3944: 3942: 3938: 3934: 3930: 3927: 3925: 3921: 3917: 3916: 3911: 3908: 3906: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3896: 3891: 3884:. Of course. 3883: 3880: 3878: 3875: 3874: 3864: 3861: 3859: 3856: 3854: 3849: 3844: 3838: 3834: 3830: 3827: 3824: 3822: 3819: 3813: 3810: 3808: 3805: 3802: 3798: 3795: 3793: 3790: 3788: 3784: 3779: 3777: 3774: 3770: 3766: 3762: 3760: 3757: 3754: 3751: 3747: 3744: 3742: 3739: 3721: 3719: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3711: 3708: 3705: 3699: 3696: 3694: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3683: 3680: 3678: 3674: 3670: 3666: 3663: 3661: 3657: 3653: 3649: 3646: 3644: 3641: 3635: 3632: 3630: 3627: 3625: 3624: 3617: 3614: 3612: 3607: 3601: 3598: 3596: 3592: 3588: 3584: 3580: 3578: 3574: 3573: 3565: 3562: 3560: 3555: 3551: 3546: 3541: 3538: 3536: 3533: 3531:Antonio Lopez 3528: 3525: 3523: 3520: 3518: 3512: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3496: 3493: 3491: 3488: 3483: 3477: 3474: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3460: 3457: 3455: 3452: 3445: 3443: 3438: 3435: 3432: 3427: 3424: 3422: 3418: 3416: 3410: 3408: 3402: 3399: 3397: 3393: 3389: 3385: 3382: 3380: 3377: 3375: 3373: 3367: 3364: 3362: 3358: 3357: 3351: 3350: 3342: 3339: 3337: 3332: 3327: 3325: 3319: 3316: 3314: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3304: 3303: 3298: 3295: 3293: 3290: 3286: 3282: 3278: 3275: 3273: 3269: 3268: 3262: 3254: 3252: 3249: 3245: 3243: 3238: 3229: 3228: 3223: 3221: 3217: 3213: 3209: 3206: 3204: 3202: 3199: 3189: 3187: 3184: 3178: 3172: 3168: 3165: 3163: 3159: 3155: 3151: 3148: 3146: 3142: 3141:(and friends) 3138: 3136: 3131: 3127: 3125: 3122: 3118: 3111: 3103: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3086: 3084: 3081: 3080: 3072: 3070: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3055: 3048: 3045: 3043: 3038: 3032: 3030: 3028: 3020: 3017: 3015: 3012: 3011: 2987: 2985: 2980: 2969: 2966: 2964: 2960: 2958: 2957: 2937: 2934: 2932: 2929: 2928: 2925: 2924: 2919: 2916: 2914: 2911: 2907: 2905: 2902: 2900: 2895: 2893: 2887: 2884: 2882: 2879: 2876: 2871: 2869: 2866: 2865: 2859: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2845: 2842: 2840: 2836: 2833: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2819: 2817: 2814: 2810: 2805: 2800: 2792: 2789: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2772: 2770: 2767: 2766: 2761: 2754: 2751: 2749: 2746: 2741: 2736: 2733: 2731: 2727: 2726: 2721: 2720: 2715: 2713: 2710: 2709: 2704: 2701: 2699: 2695: 2692: 2685: 2682: 2680: 2677: 2673: 2666: 2658: 2655: 2653: 2650: 2642: 2636: 2630: 2627: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2608: 2605: 2603: 2600: 2599: 2594: 2587: 2584: 2582: 2577: 2570: 2563: 2560: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2540: 2536: 2531: 2527: 2524: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2507: 2505: 2502: 2501: 2495: 2493: 2487: 2484: 2482: 2478: 2472: 2469: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2452: 2448: 2447: 2443: 2442: 2438: 2431: 2428: 2426: 2423: 2421: 2415: 2412: 2410: 2406: 2404: 2397: 2394: 2392: 2389: 2388: 2382: 2377: 2376: 2369: 2365: 2362: 2360: 2355: 2350: 2344: 2340: 2338: 2335: 2331: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2312: 2309: 2307: 2304: 2302: 2299: 2296: 2290: 2287: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2270: 2268: 2264: 2262: 2258: 2255: 2249: 2246: 2244: 2240: 2235: 2230: 2223: 2220: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2199: 2197: 2194: 2191: 2184: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2167: 2165: 2160: 2155: 2144: 2143: 2136: 2133: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2116: 2114: 2111: 2109: 2095: 2092: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2076: 2073: 2068: 2063: 2057: 2054: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2037: 2035: 2032: 2030: 2025: 2022: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2005: 2003: 2000: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1988: 1986: 1983: 1979: 1977: 1974: 1973: 1971: 1965: 1956: 1953: 1951: 1947: 1944: 1939: 1936: 1931: 1928: 1926: 1921: 1913: 1910: 1908: 1905: 1904: 1898: 1895: 1893: 1890: 1886: 1883: 1881: 1878: 1873: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1863: 1859: 1857: 1856: 1854: 1845: 1841: 1838: 1835: 1832: 1829: 1826: 1823: 1820: 1817: 1814: 1811: 1808: 1805: 1801: 1798: 1794: 1791: 1788: 1785: 1781: 1776: 1775: 1769: 1766: 1764: 1761: 1759: 1756: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1734: 1730: 1722: 1719: 1711: 1705: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1692: 1686: 1681: 1677: 1674: 1673: 1670: 1667: 1664: 1663: 1658: 1653: 1647: 1642: 1638: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1629: 1628: 1626: 1621: 1616: 1613: 1612: 1607: 1602: 1596: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1574: 1573: 1571: 1566: 1561: 1558: 1557: 1552: 1547: 1541: 1536: 1532: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1523: 1522: 1520: 1515: 1510: 1507: 1504: 1503: 1498: 1493: 1487: 1482: 1478: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1456: 1451: 1445: 1440: 1436: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1428: 1427: 1420: 1416: 1413: 1411: 1407: 1406: 1401: 1396: 1390: 1385: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1363: 1355: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1345: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1323: 1321: 1317: 1316: 1311: 1306: 1300: 1295: 1291: 1286: 1283: 1282: 1280: 1277: 1274: 1273: 1268: 1263: 1257: 1252: 1247: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1238: 1231: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1212: 1211: 1206: 1201: 1195: 1190: 1185: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1177: 1173: 1166: 1158: 1155: 1154: 1149: 1144: 1138: 1133: 1128: 1123: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1104: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1096: 1092: 1085: 1076: 1073: 1070: 1069: 1064: 1059: 1053: 1048: 1043: 1038: 1037: 1030: 1026: 1020: 1017: 1016: 1013: 1009: 1006: 1003: 1002: 997: 992: 986: 981: 977: 973: 968: 965: 964: 961: 958: 956: 952: 951: 946: 941: 935: 930: 926: 925:traditionally 922: 919: 918: 915: 912: 911: 906: 901: 895: 890: 885: 881: 878: 877: 874: 871: 870: 865: 860: 854: 849: 845: 841: 838: 837: 835: 831: 828: 827: 822: 817: 811: 806: 801: 800: 799: 798: 792: 788: 784: 780: 776: 775: 774: 773: 767: 762: 759: 758: 755: 752: 751: 746: 741: 735: 730: 725: 724: 723: 722: 715: 712: 711: 708: 705: 703: 699: 698: 693: 688: 682: 677: 672: 668: 664: 661: 660: 658: 654: 651: 650: 645: 640: 634: 629: 624: 621: 620: 618: 615: 614: 613: 608: 604: 603: 596: 591: 585: 580: 577: 574: 570: 568: 563: 557: 552: 548: 544: 541: 537: 536: 534: 531: 530: 529: 525: 521: 516: 513: 512: 507: 502: 496: 491: 487: 483: 480: 479: 478: 474: 470: 465: 462: 461: 454: 449: 443: 438: 435: 432: 429: 426: 425:my admin page 422: 419: 416: 412: 408: 405: 402: 398: 395: 392: 389: 388: 386: 383: 382: 381: 377: 373: 369: 365: 361: 357: 353: 349: 345: 342: 340: 336: 335: 329: 325: 321: 317: 313: 310: 309: 307: 303: 299: 295: 292: 291: 285: 281: 277: 274: 273: 271: 268: 267: 261: 258: 257: 255: 252: 251: 237: 234: 233: 231: 228: 227: 226: 224: 216: 214: 209: 204: 198: 193: 189: 186: 185: 184: 183: 180: 175: 173: 169: 164: 162: 158: 154: 150: 146: 142: 137: 135: 134:November 2006 130: 128: 127: 120: 117: 114: 111: 108: 105: 102: 99: 96: 93: 90: 87: 84: 81: 78: 73: 69: 68: 67: 62: 59: 58: 48: 45: 41: 35: 32: 27: 26: 19: 5328: 5325: 5293: 5274: 5221: 5181: 5176: 5151: 5090: 5054: 4998: 4979: 4975: 4966: 4964: 4945: 4943: 4942: 4909: 4878: 4874: 4870: 4864: 4856: 4852: 4833: 4819: 4807: 4804: 4760: 4752: 4751: 4750: 4725: 4698: 4684: 4660: 4629: 4624: 4604: 4597: 4594: 4577: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4493:specifically 4492: 4471: 4464: 4460: 4441: 4433: 4429: 4425:every editor 4423: 4419: 4415: 4394: 4390: 4359: 4354: 4333: 4326: 4282: 4274: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4240: 4224: 4214: 4206: 4184: 4167: 4150: 4138: 4137: 4114: 4103: 4099: 4095: 4088: 4081:Orderinchaos 4075: 4055: 4051: 4041: 4034: 4026: 4020: 4008: 3994:Tinkleheimer 3986: 3982: 3963: 3959: 3945: 3928: 3913: 3909: 3889:bibliomaniac 3886: 3885: 3881: 3866: 3862: 3836: 3832: 3825: 3811: 3796: 3781: 3745: 3702: 3701: 3697: 3687: 3685: 3681: 3664: 3647: 3633: 3622: 3621: 3616:Weak support 3615: 3599: 3568: 3563: 3539: 3526: 3494: 3481: 3475: 3458: 3425: 3414: 3406: 3400: 3383: 3371: 3365: 3353: 3346: 3340: 3323: 3317: 3307: 3306: 3301: 3296: 3276: 3257: 3225: 3207: 3200: 3193: 3166: 3149: 3134: 3105: 3087: 3073: 3026: 3025: 3018: 2991: 2967: 2941: 2935: 2927: 2922: 2917: 2898: 2891: 2885: 2860: 2843: 2831: 2820: 2808: 2803: 2798: 2790: 2773: 2756: 2752: 2734: 2723: 2717: 2706: 2702: 2683: 2660: 2656: 2628: 2606: 2589: 2585: 2561: 2530:UltraExactZZ 2525: 2508: 2497: 2491: 2485: 2470: 2453: 2445: 2440: 2429: 2419: 2413: 2395: 2383: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2310: 2300: 2297: 2294: 2288: 2271: 2252: 2247: 2221: 2200: 2168: 2139: 2134: 2117: 2099: 2093: 2055: 2038: 2028: 2023: 2006: 1996: 1989: 1959: 1958: 1954: 1937: 1915: 1911: 1899: 1896: 1884: 1850: 1849: 1836: 1830: 1824: 1818: 1812: 1806: 1799: 1792: 1786: 1675: 1668: 1636: 1624: 1623: 1614: 1585: 1581: 1569: 1568: 1559: 1530: 1518: 1517: 1508: 1476: 1470: 1466: 1434: 1422: 1414: 1378: 1353: 1324: 1284: 1278: 1245: 1225: 1222:John Roberts 1213: 1183: 1160: 1156: 1126: 1121: 1102: 1079: 1074: 1041: 1035: 1034: 1024: 1018: 1012:historically 1011: 1007: 975: 971: 966: 959: 924: 920: 913: 883: 879: 872: 843: 839: 833: 829: 790: 786: 778: 765: 760: 753: 713: 706: 670: 662: 652: 622: 616: 611: 546: 532: 514: 481: 463: 400: 384: 343: 315: 311: 293: 283: 279: 275: 269: 259: 253: 235: 229: 222: 220: 212: 187: 176: 165: 138: 131: 124: 115: 109: 103: 97: 91: 85: 79: 70: 56: 52: 51: 46: 30: 28: 5163:Cube lurker 5132:Cube lurker 5102:Cube lurker 5059:Cube lurker 4879:exclusively 4777:sorry EVula 4620:RichardΩ612 3060:dorftrottel 2970:GO FOR IT. 2923:OhanaUnited 2597:inthegarden 2436:RichardΩ612 2254:Malinaccier 1379:discussions 1218:U.S. Senate 95:protections 5312:Disclaimer 4980:everywhere 3722:Totally!-- 3669:PhilKnight 3564:No-brainer 3463:KnightLago 3355:Experiment 3348:Electrical 3154:EdJohnston 3092:FrankTobia 2918:Absolutely 2647:Disclaimer 2276:Ecoleetage 2205:GlobeGores 2173:Agathoclea 1860:Discussion 1716:Disclaimer 1586:on average 1467:everything 844:personally 791:personally 107:page moves 31:successful 4765:wikignome 4571:this edit 4569:As far a 3951:Trusilver 3652:Spellcast 3623:Wizardman 3605:Paul Erik 3407:Chetblong 2910:Acalamari 2477:paranomia 2473:per AGK. 2213:user page 2209:talk page 2201:Heck yeah 1982:Ned Scott 1822:block log 1746:talk page 1290:ArielGold 540:Main Page 346:Based on 304:, and/or 179:Acalamari 155:, and at 101:deletions 5346:Category 5130:reply.-- 4863:, which 4834:gravitas 4739:Contribs 4663:Al Tally 4609:GreenJoe 4605:critical 4601:GreenJoe 4420:everyone 4216:MastCell 3960:Support, 3639:lucasbfr 3583:Moreschi 3554:contribs 3500:FayssalF 3324:xDanielx 3289:Contribs 3212:Valtoras 3182:contribs 3171:Jayron32 3130:Diligent 2863:Al Tally 2835:contribs 2825:Casliber 2664:Vishnava 2535:Evidence 2513:DerHexer 2492:Dycedarg 2334:Kbdank71 2311:Support. 2289:Support. 2141:Wisdom89 2043:JayHenry 1790:contribs 1425:Al Tally 1410:Al Tally 1229:Vishnava 1164:Vishnava 1083:Vishnava 970:I know, 955:xDanielx 787:insanity 779:personal 659:'s RFA? 302:WP:B/RFA 223:optional 143:and its 83:contribs 5275:Neutral 5055:Neutral 4967:Neutral 4946:Neutral 4939:Neutral 4853:without 4731:Gwynand 4325:indeed 4225:Support 4185:Support 4151:Support 4115:Support 4089:Support 4076:Support 4052:Support 4021:Support 4009:Support 3983:Support 3946:Support 3929:Support 3910:Support 3882:Support 3863:Support 3826:Support 3797:Support 3783:seresin 3746:Support 3698:Support 3688:Hut 8.5 3682:Support 3665:Support 3648:Support 3634:Support 3600:Support 3540:Support 3527:Support 3495:Support 3459:Support 3426:Support 3384:Support 3366:Support 3341:Support 3318:Support 3297:Support 3281:Gwynand 3277:Support 3167:Support 3150:Support 3135:Terrier 3088:Support 3077:miranda 3019:Support 2886:Support 2844:Support 2821:Support 2791:Support 2778:Useight 2774:Support 2759:krimpet 2753:Support 2735:Support 2708:Sceptre 2705:, yes. 2703:Support 2694:iva1979 2684:Support 2657:Support 2607:Support 2586:Support 2562:Support 2549:barneca 2526:Support 2509:support 2486:Support 2471:Support 2458:Bearian 2430:Support 2420:Anthøny 2414:Support 2396:Support 2368:opinion 2343:WP:RFAF 2272:Support 2248:Support 2222:Support 2169:Support 2135:Support 2122:Undeath 2118:Support 2094:Support 2039:Support 2024:Support 2011:Rjd0060 2007:Support 1960:~Kylu ( 1955:Support 1902:MBisanz 1897:Support 1889:Rory096 1885:Support 1869:Support 1797:deleted 1471:totally 1373:As for 1023:Yes, I 702:seresin 607:Useight 399:- I am 280:concept 5299:Keeper 5294:mostly 5226:scribe 5175:I saw 5011:WP:CHU 5007:WP:UAA 4972:policy 4906:WP:CHU 4849:WP:CHU 4839:Keegan 4773:WP:CHU 4761:ANYWAY 4753:Oppose 4595:Oppose 4582:scribe 4533:WP:CHU 4527:Oppose 4416:anyone 4403:(talk) 4400:Friday 4271:admin. 4260:Oppose 4254:Oppose 4241:(talk) 4211:WP:RfA 4190:auburn 3999:TALK!! 3972:Muller 3937:(talk) 3704:Editor 3591:debate 3545:SWik78 3486:figura 3448:Riana 3388:Astral 3260:naerii 3116:(talk) 2878:(talk) 2875:Friday 2848:Stifle 2719:Monobi 2634:Keeper 2612:Shalom 2568:henrik 2545:WP:CHU 2517:(Talk) 2348:Rudget 2298:ndonic 2081:Daniel 1946:styles 1919:hmwith 1876:Keegan 1703:Keeper 1362:WP:CHU 1333:WP:CHU 1127:second 766:editor 657:^demon 431:WP:CHU 421:WP:UAA 415:WP:UAA 407:WT:CHU 397:WT:RFA 391:WP:RFA 368:WP:CHU 366:, and 364:WP:UAA 360:WT:CHU 356:WT:RFA 352:WP:RFA 324:WP:CHU 320:WP:RFA 306:WP:CHU 298:WP:RFA 151:, its 113:rights 89:blocks 61:scribe 5279:Gurch 5236:EVula 5198:EVula 5153:Cobra 5149:Glass 5092:Cobra 5088:Glass 5015:EVula 5009:than 4883:EVula 4769:Crats 4704:EVula 4639:EVula 4541:undid 4502:EVula 4497:bitey 4478:Chat 4472:Pedro 4465:trust 4448:Chat 4442:Pedro 4395:every 4364:EVula 4340:Chat 4334:Pedro 4289:Chat 4283:Pedro 4193:pilot 4027:jonny 3989:<3 3571:21655 3513:Sure 3109:Maxim 3029:levse 2892:Chris 2671:talk 2620:Peace 2616:Hello 2316:trust 2029:Nakon 1998:Cobra 1994:Glass 1943:Comet 1853:civil 1804:count 1780:EVula 1738:EVula 1680:EVula 1641:EVula 1590:EVula 1535:EVula 1481:EVula 1439:EVula 1384:EVula 1375:WP:BN 1329:WP:BN 1294:EVula 1251:EVula 1236:talk 1189:EVula 1171:talk 1132:EVula 1090:talk 1047:EVula 980:EVula 929:EVula 889:EVula 884:clear 848:EVula 805:EVula 729:EVula 676:EVula 628:EVula 579:EVula 551:EVula 490:EVula 437:EVula 192:EVula 126:EVula 72:EVula 47:EVula 16:< 5283:talk 5241:talk 5203:talk 5188:talk 5167:talk 5136:talk 5121:talk 5106:talk 5077:talk 5063:talk 5042:talk 5020:talk 5003:WP:U 4988:talk 4954:talk 4925:Dude 4915:Koji 4888:talk 4861:WP:U 4857:very 4822:Love 4810:Lara 4792:Dude 4782:Koji 4735:Talk 4709:talk 4685:with 4677:bite 4644:talk 4558:talk 4546:this 4537:This 4507:talk 4391:good 4369:talk 4355:full 4268:and 4235:rium 4232:Cena 4198:talk 4176:talk 4159:talk 4155:Nick 4123:talk 4065:talk 4059:Apis 4023:. -- 3967:Alex 3920:talk 3852:Dude 3842:Koji 3837:Fair 3833:fair 3829:John 3801:Step 3756:8212 3753:dust 3750:Star 3713:wiki 3673:talk 3656:talk 3587:talk 3550:talk 3467:talk 3431:Lego 3415:talk 3392:talk 3372:Kuru 3302:Neıl 3285:Talk 3266:talk 3248:Dark 3216:talk 3194:east 3176:talk 3158:talk 3096:talk 3064:talk 3036:Talk 2899:lk02 2852:talk 2829:talk 2782:talk 2744:Mate 2725:talk 2575:talk 2553:talk 2462:talk 2386:Love 2374:Lara 2354:Help 2324:talk 2280:talk 2261:talk 2177:talk 2126:talk 2085:talk 2061:Jmlk 2047:talk 2015:talk 1834:rfar 1816:logs 1784:talk 1736:See 1685:talk 1646:talk 1595:talk 1540:talk 1486:talk 1477:will 1444:talk 1417:See 1389:talk 1299:talk 1256:talk 1194:talk 1137:talk 1120:, I 1052:talk 1042:nice 985:talk 934:talk 894:talk 853:talk 834:viz. 810:talk 734:talk 681:talk 671:very 633:talk 584:talk 556:talk 547:only 524:talk 495:talk 473:talk 442:talk 411:WP:U 401:very 376:talk 197:talk 77:talk 5308:| 5302:| 5243:// 5239:// 5222:WjB 5205:// 5201:// 5183:DGG 5177:her 5022:// 5018:// 4999:can 4950:Avi 4910:are 4890:// 4886:// 4726:and 4711:// 4707:// 4646:// 4642:// 4578:WjB 4509:// 4505:// 4434:all 4430:all 4371:// 4367:// 4360:not 4305:Hús 4168:Yes 4141:man 4134:Mr. 3915:DGG 3869:Wen 3839:.-- 3804:hen 3765:Lar 3710:the 3589:) ( 3516:SQL 3198:718 2804:!= 2739:Ani 2643:| 2637:| 2588:. 2320:Avi 2259:. ( 2228:Hús 1840:spi 1810:AfD 1712:| 1706:| 1687:// 1683:// 1669:26. 1648:// 1644:// 1627:man 1620:Mr. 1615:25. 1597:// 1593:// 1572:man 1565:Mr. 1560:24. 1542:// 1538:// 1521:man 1514:Mr. 1509:23. 1488:// 1484:// 1446:// 1442:// 1415:22. 1391:// 1387:// 1331:or 1301:// 1297:// 1279:20. 1258:// 1254:// 1214:19. 1196:// 1192:// 1157:18. 1139:// 1135:// 1122:can 1075:17. 1054:// 1050:// 1036:not 1008:16. 987:// 983:// 972:not 960:15. 936:// 932:// 914:14. 896:// 892:// 873:13. 855:// 851:// 830:12. 812:// 808:// 777:My 754:11. 736:// 732:// 707:10. 683:// 679:// 635:// 631:// 586:// 582:// 558:// 554:// 520:Avi 497:// 493:// 469:Avi 444:// 440:// 372:Avi 339:Avi 199:// 195:// 119:RfA 64:at 57:WjB 5348:: 5305:76 5285:) 5249:// 5211:// 5190:) 5169:) 5138:) 5123:) 5108:) 5079:) 5065:) 5044:) 5028:// 4990:) 4956:) 4896:// 4865:is 4779:-- 4733:| 4717:// 4699:do 4652:// 4560:) 4515:// 4475:: 4445:: 4377:// 4337:: 4315:nd 4286:: 4178:) 4172:DS 4170:. 4161:) 4153:. 4139:Z- 4125:) 4068:) 3922:) 3872:li 3817:VS 3787:¡? 3785:( 3767:: 3737:n 3707:of 3675:) 3658:) 3593:) 3552:• 3503:- 3469:) 3419:) 3394:) 3334:\ 3283:| 3263:- 3218:) 3160:) 3128:- 3104:-- 3098:) 3039:• 3033:• 3022:— 3009:te 3007:ai 3005:hw 3003:et 3001:tl 2999:os 2995:an 2993:Ry 2854:) 2837:) 2784:) 2728:) 2640:76 2622:) 2618:• 2555:) 2464:) 2356:?) 2326:) 2282:) 2238:nd 2215:) 2211:| 2179:) 2171:- 2156:/ 2128:) 2104:is 2087:) 2049:) 2017:) 2009:- 1972:) 1828:lu 1709:76 1693:// 1676:A. 1654:// 1637:A. 1625:Z- 1603:// 1582:A. 1570:Z- 1548:// 1531:A. 1519:Z- 1494:// 1452:// 1397:// 1335:? 1325:21 1307:// 1285:A. 1264:// 1246:A. 1202:// 1184:A. 1145:// 1103:A. 1060:// 1025:do 1019:A. 993:// 976:is 967:A. 942:// 921:A. 902:// 880:A. 861:// 840:A. 818:// 761:A. 742:// 714:A. 689:// 663:A. 653:9. 641:// 623:A. 617:8. 592:// 564:// 526:) 515:7. 503:// 475:) 464:6. 450:// 417:). 378:) 362:, 358:, 354:, 344:5. 316:do 300:, 294:4. 270:3. 254:2. 230:1. 205:// 36:. 5281:( 5246:☯ 5208:☯ 5186:( 5165:( 5134:( 5119:( 5104:( 5075:( 5061:( 5040:( 5025:☯ 4986:( 4965:# 4952:( 4944:# 4920:† 4893:☯ 4816:❤ 4787:† 4737:• 4714:☯ 4649:☯ 4630:ɸ 4625:Ɣ 4556:( 4529:. 4512:☯ 4374:☯ 4310:ö 4174:( 4157:( 4121:( 4104:a 4102:c 4100:z 4098:a 4096:m 4062:( 4056:— 4042:t 4035:m 4031:- 3918:( 3899:5 3894:1 3847:† 3789:) 3773:c 3771:/ 3769:t 3735:o 3733:j 3731:k 3729:r 3727:a 3725:B 3671:( 3654:( 3585:( 3556:) 3548:( 3482:B 3465:( 3450:⁂ 3439:M 3437:T 3434:K 3411:( 3390:( 3331:C 3328:/ 3308:龱 3287:• 3246:— 3239:) 3237:O 3235:2 3233:H 3231:( 3214:( 3196:. 3179:. 3173:. 3156:( 3094:( 3066:) 3062:( 3027:R 2997:P 2955:i 2952:t 2949:s 2946:u 2943:D 2850:( 2832:· 2827:( 2809:2 2799:1 2780:( 2764:✽ 2722:( 2690:S 2614:( 2572:• 2551:( 2532:~ 2511:— 2499:ж 2475:— 2460:( 2446:ɸ 2441:Ɣ 2380:❤ 2352:( 2322:( 2301:O 2295:A 2278:( 2263:) 2257:P 2233:ö 2207:( 2175:( 2161:) 2151:T 2146:( 2124:( 2108:n 2106:o 2102:l 2100:A 2083:( 2071:7 2066:1 2045:( 2013:( 1969:t 1966:| 1963:u 1924:τ 1855:. 1842:) 1837:· 1831:· 1825:· 1819:· 1813:· 1807:· 1800:· 1793:· 1787:· 1782:( 1748:. 1690:☯ 1651:☯ 1600:☯ 1545:☯ 1491:☯ 1449:☯ 1435:A 1394:☯ 1354:A 1304:☯ 1261:☯ 1199:☯ 1142:☯ 1057:☯ 990:☯ 939:☯ 899:☯ 858:☯ 815:☯ 739:☯ 686:☯ 638:☯ 589:☯ 561:☯ 533:A 522:( 500:☯ 482:A 471:( 447:☯ 385:A 374:( 312:A 276:A 260:A 236:A 202:☯ 121:) 116:· 110:· 104:· 98:· 92:· 86:· 80:· 75:( 40:.

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

Knowledge

:Requests for bureaucratship/EVula 3 - Knowledge

Index