Knowledge:Requests for bureaucratship/Ram-Man

193:

not sufficient to merely not abuse one's powers and to only use it in the course of one's normal editing when the powers are merited. I've always felt that I'd rather help be the solution than cause problems by making requests when they were needed (such as blocks or deletions). This was the reason for this request, because I wanted to fill what I thought was a gap to help make things more efficient. When I became an admin, I did a lot of vandalism patrol and I blocked a number of vandals (not sure where the logs of those are, since they are not in the current log. The same can be said about the "move" log, I know I've done more than that!). I was always frustrated with having to request an admin to intervene every time a block became necessary. Being an admin fixed that. I also thought I deleted more articles, but apparently not (only 12!). I understand the desire for a bureaucrat to have lots and lots of admin experience to prove to the community that he is suited for being a bureaucrat. I was under the misunderstanding that my other types of edits and especially my conduct as a normal user would be my strength instead.

2515:. Well I won't vote oppose because you're clearly a trusted and dedicated Wikipedian. But you're asking to be a bureaucrat primarily to promote bots. The actual amount of work needed there is extremely small, as in a little over 4 months, only a little less than 50 bot promotions have been done. In this case the actual promotion of the bot once it's been approved is a trivial task. Where the work is really needed is on the approvals side, either in giving the approval or investigating the bot proposal to see if it is sound. What I really would have liked to have seen was more participation in the requests for bot process before you made this nomination. You've mentioned you don't see what you could have done, but deciding if the bot request is valid and noting that until people became aware of your skill in that area would be a great start. You could have also found out how to join the approvals group before nominating here. All that said again, you're a trusted, long time Wikipedian and that's probably more important. - 2726:). Now, it is true that most people wanted an increase in some fashion or another, there was no real agreement. And in terms of a controversial decision, I don't believe that someone who wants "80-85%" necessarily would be happy with a standard of "85-90%", otherwise they might have voted for that one! So even to say that there was a consensus of an increase in standard is deceptive, I think. And yet, the 80-85% group was accepted, not as I believe on the basis of consensus, but on a misunderstanding of consensus. The lack of consensus should have followed tradition and kept the status quo at "75-80%" (even though I would have personally voted for the "80-85%" group). Now that was a while ago and the consensus view has likely changed significantly such that the previous vote would not be repeated. So there you go, I'm going out on a limb here to say that I disagree with 2403:

and of those even less that get anywhere near success. As a result there is little need for me to get involved in such things anytime in the near future, and I think everyone can agree on that. For anyone who has read any of the comments during this RfB, there are no surprises here. This whole request hinges on the question: "Can a bureaucrat specialize?" There are many who are comfortable with this, and many who are not. This is uncharted territory, but I suppose eventually the issue had to be addressed. But I admit that I don't know if I have enough experience to properly close an RfB. If I was *asked* to, then I probably would, but probably not otherwise until I gain more experience. This is what I've gathered from this discussion what the community would desire anyway (either way, if appointed bureaucrat or not) (re: RfA and AfD experience). --

2738:, an important distinction. Now astute among us will realize that the wide majority wanted an increase of some sort and the assumption was made that an increase of 5% would be acceptable for someone who wanted a 10%, 15%, or a unanimous standard increase. And it is this assumption that justified the change. However, whether or not this assumption is true was not made clear. Perhaps those people who wanted the higher standard would have voted for "all or nothing", in hopes that discussion would ensue and more people would be brought over to that side of the table. In at least one case, one of the voters mentioned a "minimum requirement level", which wouldn't have accepted the 80-85% group. Such users would not have theoretically been happy with the permanence of the new standard. -- 155:

controversies was over the fact that when I started adding articles there were a total of ~60,000 articles. I added 37,000, so the "Random Page" feature usually went to a mechanically generated page. It became a useless feature for most persons. Next, many persons thought the rambot articles shouldn't exist. However, to my knowledge, none have ever been deleted, but many have blossomed into great articles. There were many issues including lack of notability of small cities, the format of the articles, naming conventions, and discussions over using the various racial links. Despite many objections among many individuals, I helped work on numerous compromises until consensus was reached. In order to maintain good faith, I also wrote the

1947:

admin or otherwise, are usually NOT in the AfD area, although I don't see how it's difficult to vote. I've done so today, and there wasn't anything special to it. I don't use the IRC. I prefer to do all Knowledge activity here and nowhere else. IRC should hardly be a requirement of service. And I can't affect the behavior of other bureaucrats, so I can't really address that issue. I can only speak for myself. I have a question, should bureaucrats be active in all of the administrator tasks too? Who decides which tasks a bureacrat or administrator should do? It is hardly reasonable to expect either party to do everything. There is plenty of work to go around. —

1997:

in building and determining consensus on numerous policy issues, but you probably know that. Honestly though, if it were technically possible to only have permission to set bot flags, I would do that. Also, if I am appointed bureaucrat (this has been pretty close, so we'll see), I can easily choose to not use those powers under the condition that I gain more experience with RfAs and AfDs first. Of course I think half of the oppose group opposes because they don't want me to use promotion power (not enough experience) and the other half opposes because they do want me to use it but think I won't (enough experience, not enough time and/or desire). --

2560:. I've read over the debates and discussions over promotions. The criteria as currently understood is that anything less than 75% will probably not be promoted, anything 85% or more will probably be promoted, and anything in between will probably involve much additional discussion, particularly amongst bureaucrats who will make the final decision. Of course the whole thing is not supposed to be a democracy but a matter of consensus, so no matter the vote count, there will always be some level of subjectiveness. Plus new issues and facts can arrive about a candidate in the middle of voting, requiring special intervention. 147:. While not technically the job of bureaucrat to approve bots, the whole thing could be done in one streamlined step rather than waiting hours or days until someone notices. Now since someone is bound to bring it up, I have no problem spending extra time on WP:RFA than I do now so I can participate in that task. However, I tend to agree that a Bureaucrat should remain impartial. If that means not voting because I might be involved in the promotion, then so be it. I desire what is best for the community, and hopefully most everything about my time here on Knowledge should show that. 143:

of the rambot. My desire is to be on the approval group that manages bots and to add bot flags when the approval process is completed, to speed things up. Currently this does occur to a reasonable degree, but my experience with bots should help increase the speed of the entire process. As part of being a bureaucrat, I'd be more than willing to help out with the other parts of being one, just so long as it is understood what my main focus is for being one. If this is not sufficient reason for most people, I'll withdraw my request. Consider the recent problem at

2529:

helps. As for approvals group. There *is* no established policy for adding members, so we're having an interim election at the moment. It ends on Sept. 9. After adding new members, we'll clear any backlog and work from there. The backlog will likely include making a couple bot flags. But I believe that most of my supporters would be confortable with me closing some AfDs or RfAs, and chances are that I probably will to help out as best I can. But I surely wouldn't rush into it to clear any backlog, but ease into the role carefully. --

1987:. Ram-Man is a great user, and I'd love to be able to support him. However, I don't feel comfortable giving the power of closing RFAs to a user who doesn't participate in RFAs, doesn't close AFDs or anything else where consensus has to be determined, and basically is just not active as an admin. If he were asking only to approve bots I might have a different opinion but, for now, I think I'd be happiest if he joined the bot approval committee, increased his adminship duties, and came back to RFB in 6 months. -- 163:

intentions (which were later clarified and resolved, especially when we met at a NYC meetup). However, one problem with the whole thing dealt with spam. I had posted large numbers of licensing requests to hundreds of talk pages. At the time, such a use was a grey area, but the bot was temporarily banned during the ensueing controversy. Although the blocking was questionable, I preferred to discuss it rather than demand it get unblocked. As a result, I got involved heavily in the formation of guideline

2225:

questions me. But more people are slowly realizing the problems. At the moment, there is nothing that I can offically do at RFBOT. It's just frustrating when the people "in charge" are not paying attention. It isn't a problem with them personally, but it just indicates the need for more people involved in the process. If I were a bureaucrat running on these current terms, then I would have enough consensus (here) to self-appoint myself to the bot approvals group. My hands are otherwise tied here. —

1846:

have to have a working copy of MySQL and hard drive room for all the data that is used in maintaining these things. I've only recently upgraded my ailing computer (corresponding with an increase in activity here as well), but have not yet had the chance to complete installation of my local tools, although that shouldn't take as long as the other issues. One doesn't just run the rambot every day. I mean, as soon as the 2010 census results are released, I'm scheduled to run another update.

1635:. You don't seem to my memory to have been involved in RfA to any significant extent in the year or so that I've been around. Current knowledge and a current feel for things and how they change is essential. I'd appreciate some persuasion on this point. I know you say your main focus would be bots, but RfA/B promises don't usually last all that long. Moreover, from my limited interaction at the (somewhat deficient) RFBots page, you don't seem to be 'around' there much, either... - 1651:

My voting has been sporadic, to be sure, but I like to stay informed of the latest goings-ons, which is exactly the reason I read RfA. Now perhaps before your memory, I posted to this page some unknown number of times. I'd have to look at the history, which I didn't even attempt to do. I'm not sure how to be otherwise persuasive. Perhaps I shall give this some thought and add more later, and maybe other questions will bring out what you want to know. —

692:(switched from oppose). The reason for my change of heart is this. This user is a great Wikipedian and his hard toil deserves some recognition. And I am of the opinion that you cannot have too many bureaucrats who were excellent admins. Morover, he will be dealing with bots, not RfAs. A trustworthy and dedicated user. The added responsibilities given to him would only benefit this project. I am also urging this user not to withdraw this nomination yet. -- 1957:

normal, so that doesn't bother me, as I expect him to be back in "full force". As for IRC, its not an absolute requirement, its a preference, a consideration. Its much easier to communicate with such users. As for experience and commitment, my reasons for opposing are pretty much the same as Dragon's Flight. I'd rather have a user more involved in RfA and recent bot approval get the position, rather that one who promoses to become active there.

957:. Good rationale in his nom; clear reason for giving him the bit; and no reason that I can see to worry about misuse or mistakes. His lack of recent experience with the bot approval process doesn't worry me; someone who wrote the original policy, as I gather he did, and who has as much experience as Ram-Man at running a bot, is sufficiently qualified. Finally, I can see no problem with a bureaucrat who specializes in one area. 2753:

very nuanced and I don't know if anyone here understands consensus. I think if anything I understand the intricacies of trying to determine consensus. It isn't always easy, and it's very subjective at times. Voting and compromise are about trying to come up with an adequate solution that perhaps most people can agree with. Consensus is about trying to make EVERYONE happy, if possible. The latter is much more difficult. --

167:. While not official, it's important to note the guideline of "Don't use a bot. If you're not willing to spend the time personally sending the messages, don't force us to spend the time reading it (or throwing it away)." that got generated at that time. I became to realize the error of the method of doing what I did and never did it again. If I ever theoretically wanted to do it again, I'd seek solid permission first. 364:

is because people wanted to rank human edits against human edits. Not really possible with my account. But I've estimated that in total I've probably done at least somewhere around 8,000 - 10,000 edits, but that's just a guess on my part. Of course I've never believed it was the edit count that mattered. It was things like participating in discussions, policy formation, good article writing, etc. —

2171:

who would be a good "specialist" admin). Whether the same principle should be applied to 'crats is unclear to me as is whether there has ever been a good discussion of the issue. One thing is clear though: this nomination is being totally overlooked by being at the bottom of the RfA page in a section to which few users scroll down (presumably many people just look for the new RfA's at the top).

1618:

time doing admin activities to qualify for bureaucratship. If that is the case, I should just withdraw now. Afterall, the admin responsibilities don't generally have anything to do with the responsibilities of a bureaucrat. From a project perspective, I'd just like to get more be increasingly more involved in the whole bot process, and a bureaucrat is part of that process. —

2242:, off the top of my head) that are not bureaucrats (or even necessarily admins). I do agree that the procedure to get into that group is not easy to find, and I'm unsure it is even documented. However, if a bureaucrat or two stop paying attention to bot requests for whatever reason (real life happens), it would cause a bit of trouble, so I'm considering my stand here. 1661:

with inactivity as an admin, inactivity in the key areas of project space (and project space in general) is too much of a disqualification for me. Your reading of the situation in your answers does seem about right, but it really needs to have had time to 'seep in' through extended participation in the relevant happenings. E.g. in 4-6 months or something. -

538:. All I can do is make a few comments here and there. If I pass this vote, I'll have enough consensus to appoint myself to the approval group (so far no one has objected!). It's frustrating because I'd LIKE to do more, but I don't want to do things that may be taken to be in bad faith (such as unilaterally appointing myself without ANY discussion) — 1542:. Knowledge runs on volunteers, just because he doesn't have as much time to edit as people like me, who edit 14 hours a day, doesn't mean that he doesn't have sufficient knowledge of Knowledge policy and process to be a crat. Yes, active bureaucrats are good, but there's no requirement to be active, and a semi-active crat is helpful too. -- 1685:

conservative in nature. There are a lot of admins and I don't want to overuse my abilities. As for the timing, the responsibilities of an admin have not changed. So when I have acted as one should not be as important as perhaps the other concerns. I mostly use the "delete page" ability over anything else. —

2604:. I've been around for a long time (September, 2002), so I tend to understand a lot of policy, although one can't hope to be aware of every fine, sometimes contradictory, detail. I've engaged members of the community in discussions too many times to count. And I'd be shocked if I wasn't considered fair. 2684:

of being able to make a promotion, controversial or not, implies a level of community consensus that I have no intention of subverting. As has been stated on this page already, my influence on the promotion aspect is somewhat limited, so I really can't add any more. See some of that discussion above.

2647:

I missed this question at the bottom of the page when it was posted! I'm not sure I exactly understand the nature of this question. Are you asking whether or not I will let power go to my head? I don't even want all the powers associated with being a bureaucrat, although if I have them all I will

2473:

And it's positively going to get worse I'm sure. You have to go through a lot of bureaucracy to become a bureacrat! It is so strange. I wasn't here at the very beginning of the project, but the ~40,000 articles that existed when I started seems like nothing now. I probably got voted into admin by

2459:

Ah kinda sad... here we see all too graphically the Knowledge of 2004 getting mugged by Knowledge 2006. Ram-Man, RfB has become such a daunting passage that only a handful of current editors could ever hope to navigate it... you almost got opposed just because you didnd't transclude the nom properly,

2392:

85% seems to be the defacto standard. Some people don't want to promote a bureaucrat with less than 85% (or even less than 90%, although that has happened). I got blasted above because I used the term "vote" to describe these types of elections, and I wanted to clarify that it's about consensus, not

2187:

I've never found any discussion on whether someone needed to qualify for all of the tasks, which is why I mentioned only one task in particular. If it were possible to ONLY assign that ability, that would be ideal, which of course is the main issue here. I most certainly won't win this vote, but it

1996:

I appreciate your comments, and this seems to be where most of the opposition is coming from. I will most certainly try to take a more active role in the bot approval process. As for AfD, obviously I'll have to do that if I want this oppose votes to go away ;-) I should note that I've been involved

1684:

affecting all 50 states when I had something important to add. But of course nothing can change the fact that I was on wikivacation (partially for health reasons), and if you simply require more time because of that, well then no argument will change that. Again, my philosophy as an admin is rather

1650:

I suppose that's because I was "gone" for a while and only recently became heavily active again. (For a while I did little editing, but still patrolled from time to time. I just couldn't totally leave) Like I mentioned in my comments, I do patrol the page periodically, although I don't always vote.

1612:

account, so don't forget that one. I use them both from different physical locations for security reasons. I hope that isn't held against me! I was on a long wikivacation for the better part of this year due to health issues I'd care not discuss here. But since I've returned, I think the amount of

533:

See some of my comments below. There really hasn't been any recent policy discussion at Bots, because it is a pretty good policy! It isn't the policy that needs work, it is the approval process. (Although I made some changes to the policy today). There *was* a recent reorganization of the approval

363:

manually. I had a text file with hundreds of entries, and I was cut and pasting into articles. I did that for *every* U.S. county article that didn't already exist. That's over 3,000 articles. The remaining 37,000 city articles were automated. The reason the edit count page lists bots separately

120:

I have one of the largest edit counts on all of the Wikipedias, partially due to the rambot. It's hard to estimate the total, but it's a lot. I'm interested in all sorts of things and have worked on a number of areas: geographic articles (U.S. cities and states), botanical articles (plants and fish

2692:

has put this very question to the test. At first I was inclined to trust the bureaucrat, and in fact am still leaning that direction, despite voting opposite of the decision. Nevertheless, my opinion could change with futher discussion, especially since I'm not sure that this was consensus (see my

2402:

I wanted to add a couple thoughts. First of all, having limited experience with RfA, I would not even consider attempting to close a RfB for quite some time. I'm pretty sure that most people here do not even want me to close an RfA for quite some time, if at all. There are relatively very few RfB

2038:

I think I have a partial answer to that question. What some people are afraid of is that I would close a RfA and make a bad decision on consensus because of lack of experience in that area. And frankly, if I were to just jump in and do that immediately after being appointed without first taking an

1946:

has been inactive for the most part for most of August. And it does seem that Taxman is doing a great job at handling admin promotions. I think that I've demonstrated much thoughfulness, descretion, and activity. If you've looked over my activities, this should be quite clear. But my activities,

1826:

has not made any substantive edits in nearly two years. I don't think we should be in the business of giving out privledges on the basis of work that someone wants to do, unless they have shown themselves to be actively engaged in the related areas that don't require privledges. Get engaged in the

1674:

Naturally I imagined you'd feel that way. Still if I might make one last attempt. I've had plenty of past experience, which is suppose doesn't matter in this case. For what its worth, I have a lot of project level articles in my watchlist, which I patrol for changes all the time (Like Bots, Spam,

446:

who, to my knowledge, never blocked anybody or deleted anything. His adminship was awarded in recognition of his brilliant accomplishments as an article writer and policy-maker. I wonder if he'd be opposed these days because he didn't use VandalProof or some other vandal-fighting gimmick. If there's

142:

There is always talk about having too many bureaucrats, so let me start by answering the "Why should I be one?" question. First of all, unlike many other requests, my main request is to facilitate bot management. I don't think this is a conflict of interest, since this wouldn't affect my treatment

2752:

that fits, perhaps someone else knows off-hand). It seems more of a practical determination based on the number of votes, rather than the amount of consensus. A lot of my supporters and opposers are concerned that I do not understand consensus enough to close a vote, but I think that consensus is

2747:

Another issue troubles me about the whole thing is how can consensus be different for admins and bureaucrats? Isn't full consensus required for both? It seems illogical to me to say that the definition of consensus is dependent on what is being determined (I don't have time to see if I can find a

2683:

I'm a strong believer in consensus and will tend to defer to the majority. As such, even if I voted on the losing side, I would support a controversial promotion decision. As far as I'm concerned, any serious decision making problem would need to result in potential demotion. To get to the point

2390:

for bureaucrat nomination was voted on, the ~80-85% group succeeded. However, I would hardly have called it a consensus. Most people at least wanted MORE than was required by an administrator. So while I may *technically* be above 80% in this vote from time to time, no one has ever been promoted

2116:

I vaccilated on this one for the longest time, but in the end there were too many question marks for a bureaucartship request. The support voters provide lots of good testimony why your dedicated work merits reward, but the rewards we hand out here are barnstars, not promotion. The oppose side wins

1917:

My problem is that I am not convinced that your activity will have the kind of intensity and consistency I am looking for (like Taxman, Essjay). 5 bureaucrats could easily handle all such tasks, it really only takes a few active ones. The problem is that while you have made many contributions here,

1845:

the bot, and then it has to be run manually for a while and with constant supervision. 40,000 articles is a lot and it will usually take at least a week. I have to find time in my schedule to fit such a task in. That means figuring out where it fits into real life. In addition to all of this, I

1741:

I've already addressed the issue of being away, but it is true that for some reason I was put on an inactive list or two. Perhaps I'm still on some list I don't know about (can't manage everything!). I've never been totally inactive, always an edit here and there. But not retired for sure! I do

1617:

Sorry, I missed the point of your comment. See my comments below regarding project space edits. I suppose I have a problem dedicating so much (read: all) of my time on the project side of things, because I actually like contributing. I was unaware that I had to spend such a large percentage of my

1457:

by what Nobleeagle, RyanGerbil and others have said. His experience is both needed now and will be needed with the continued growth of Knowledge and the use of bots. I'd also trust him with RfAs; he doesn't seem too interested in Renames but Redux has been handling that well. I'll go for another

192:

It's become increasingly clear that as an admin, I don't use those powers very often. While I've always considered that to be self restraint, I don't think that impresses many of those visiting. In fact, it is probably so infrequent that I don't think I'll get much support here. It is apparently

162:

I've also been involved in some other controversy on which I was on the wrong side of. I've taken a rule in licensing issues, pushing the multi-licensing campaign from meta to the english Knowledge. It was for the most part a very successful campaign, although at times even Jimbo was afraid of my

135:

I'm generally a very conservative administrator. While I've done a share of vandal blocking, deleting pages, etc, I tend to do it on a fairly limited basis, often for managing my own pages so I don't have to bother other administrators. I'm sure my record will speak for itself, so I won't say any

2612:

If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, where

2483:

become a bureaucrat to assign bot flags because even Essjay isn't around to help out with this one. So we (myself and at least two bots waiting for official approval) just sit and wait. I was hoping that this discussion might help bring out some people to help, but since this is at the bottom of

2170:

candidate should be qualified to perform all administrator tasks ranging from XfD's to vandalism rollbacks to dealing with user-conduct issues, and that knowledge prerequisite to some but not all of these functions is insufficient (even if the result is that we occasionally fail to promote someone

547:

You don't have to be a b-crat to be on the bot approval group, I don't think anyone would oppose you being on it, I'm not sure if there are any particular criteria, though I guess being an admin and having experience making bot software is desirable, which suits you of course. The inital people in

2656:

has 58. I've never received a barnstar, although the rambot has one. My point is that there are plenty of non-bureaucrats who deserve a lot more praise. But praise isn't the point. Finally, I'll keep my feet on the ground by working on normal articles. Policy and administrative activities are

2528:

Perhaps I was a little more dramatic than I should have been. Since I wrote those comments, I've been helping to get some bots approved by going through the initial approval process and helping to determine whether or not the request is acceptable. I can't officially approve any of them, but it

1731:

per Splash. I have nothing but great respect for all Ram-Man has done, but some experience with recent RfA is absolutely necessary for a b'crat. Added to this, I really thought Ram-Man was retired from the project for a year or two. I remember seeing his name on the Inactive Admin list up until

1660:

My concern is not so much the sporadicity, as the non-existence. I can't find a single !vote here at RfA in the past year or more, and your activity on WP:BOTS (whatever!) began a few hours ago. I imagine you did post here before, but 'crats really need to be very current. I'm afraid that coupled

197:

I will add this: the work I do is very time consuming. Running a bot, for instance, takes a lot of work. I'm still not done with the 29 articles on covered bridges I was working on. I don't have the time to dedicate to, say, vandalism patrol, while getting anything else done. So I try to take

2342:

with what you've done, and I realise that your proposed activity would indeed be valuable, but I'd be far more comfortable if you'd had more experience in AfDs and RfAs previously. This RfB currently looks like it will succeed, and I will consider changing my !vote closer to the ending date, but

2224:

I am doing both simultaneously. The problem is that no one in the approvals group is monitoring the bot page, so by spending time there, I am effectively doing nothing. Either that or I could just approve myself, and although being bold is important, I'd rather do things "officially" so no one

1956:

There are only three new tools that crats get, sysoping and bot flagging being the most important. I'd like for a "crats" to have activity in both of those, and enough work with renaming between the crats that it gets done reliably. Essjay is known to leave for several days and then come back as

1840:

It is a *lot* of work to run the bot. The last time I was planning to run the bot I was awaiting approval for a couple tasks, which never happened. Also, because of the server load imposed by so many edits, I tend to batch as many tasks as possible. There simply weren't enough major tasks to

2117:

on substance, namely that if you want bureaucratship because there is a backlog in bureaucrat-only work, the path to get there is to do the ancillary work first. I don't see any roadblocks to you becoming member of the bot approval group, but I don't see the current need to become bureaucrat. ~

154:

There is a lot on the history of the rambot, but when it was first created, there was no bot flag and the bot filled up the recent changes. This caused immediate controversy. We worked around it (by going slow) until a technical solution was implemented some time later. The second (of many)

1907:

Just to clarify: You're not opposing because *other* bureaucrats don't do much are you? That would seem to indicate the need for *more*, not less. And the RfA issue has been discussed heavily. The basic premiss here is that there isn't a problem with a "specialist bureaucrat", in this case

2441:

Yeah, I apologize for that, but after writing up the page, it was the last thing on my mind. It did occur to me, but it was fixed so quickly that I didn't even have a chance. It was a careless mistake. But I do understand transclusion and its use in votes like this. I just used it over at

1822:. Good user, long established history, but I feel the approach is backwards in this case. If you want to be helpful in encouraging the creation, approval, and oversight of new bots, then go be helpful. You seem to have almost no recent involvement in the bot process. Even your alter-ego, 1598:

edits, the last one was on 23-10-2002, I compared that to a few other randomly selected admins, and their's was generally July/August this year. Also, his admin log is very short as well, I would a b-crat to have lots of experience in blocks/deletion etc. Anyway, to summarise, great editor,

1865:

Of course I've also mentioned that I can only help others fully if on the approval group, which I'm not. It's going to take some time to work that out (more waiting). But in the meantime, I am quite active. Take a look at my recent posts there, and I think you'll find that I'm being as

1836:

I'm unlikely to sway you, but by the time this vote is over, I'm sure that I will be reintegrated sufficiently, as I am already working towards. Most of the lack of reintegration is due to the slowness of the process itself. The reasons the rambot was not running were numerous:

2590:). Some was justified, most wasn't, but all was dealt with in a civil fashion. My personal policy tends to be to not decide anything unilaterally where there is controversy. I would require confirmation by at least another bureaucrat before making any controversial decision. 442:. I'll go ahead and support, with the understanding that his primary competency will be bot management. I don't agree with the view that administrators, bureaucrats, or checkusers for that matter need to be involved in all aspects of their positions. The cardinal example is 1755:

Experience with RfAs are essential here. Try again in about six months with lots of experience in RfA pages and I will definitely give you my support. But other than this, there are no major concerns here and I am confident that Ram-Man would be a great bureaucrat in the

985:

good nomination with clear reasons for his interest in the position. Obviously has the skills and knowledge to work in the areas he wants to work in, and specialization is good. I'm not actually too big a fan of the Rambot concept, but that's no criticism of its owner.

2633:. Since the creation of the page, I've often stopped by to at least see who was being promoted or depromoted. Sometimes I do this to keep a pulse on the Knowledge community. I don't always vote, especially on persons who have 75 support votes and 0 oppose votes. 1922:

keep it that way rather then add to the large list of inactive BCrats in short time. The main things I want to see in future BCrats is thoughfulness, more descretion (like Danny), activity, and preferably IRC involvment and well-roundedness to the new tasks (only

2039:

active role in the process, than their concerns would likely be justified. They don't want mistakes, and I appreciate their concerns. But I also agree with you, otherwise I wouldn't have put the request in. It is at least partially a matter of trust. --

1856:

While the rambot is "approved" in the sense that it was approved two years ago, as a matter of good faith, I want to get it officially approved again before running it. The approvals group has so far had nothing to say on the issue. So again, wait wait

2278:, and redundancy always is good. Additionally, since bot flag granting is easily reversible now, there is less of a risk these days than before, in case you do mess up something. The only thing I needed for support was an assurance of having an idea how 1403:

I don't think there is any downside to giving bureaucratship to this user, however there could be some upsides. This user signed up to Knowledge 4 years ago and has seen its progress and how the progress came to be. I don't know why I wouldn't support.

2705:

I think that this question deals with consensus, and although I suspect some will not read what is down here at the bottom of the page, but I'd like to give a complicated example of determining consensus, since that seems to be where the problem is.

1827:

bot community again, and I'll reconsider in the future, but it is too soon for this, in my opinion. As an aside, if one of the active members of the current approvals groups would like to run on the same rationale, I am likely to support that.

463:

Wants to help with bots. He has the experience. I see no problems here. Furthermore, insisting that all the crats meet some sort of magic involved in RfAs standard is a bit odd since he doesn't want to use the crat tool to work on RfAs anyways.

1679:

projects, whatever those might be. I try follow major controversies, such as Angela leaving the board and the ensueing difficultly with whether or not such articles should be deleted. In addition, I dove right into a discussion over at

557:

I understand the informality of the whole thing, and if I started approving bots and taking an active role, there is a good chance no one would complain or even notice (the latter being part of the problem!). But I'd rather establish

213:

I'm getting a bit of support now, so we'll see what happens. Oh, and just for kicks yesterday I did some administrative backlog work and deleted ~700 speedy-delete-ready images. So now I have a deletion history longer than "12" :) —

2165:

Subject to input from the "bot-user community," the candidate appears qualified for the 'bot portion of the Bureaucrat position, but is admittedly not experienced in the RfA and other aspects. The project has made a decision that an

2478:

a need for more and they will make more. The other bureaucrat that does bot work heavily is Essjay, who does both bot approvals and sets bot flags. But there is currently a backlog. I can't get put on the bot approval board

2304:

I understood what you were saying. Being a member of the approvals group is a separate thing from being able to push a button to make a bot (i.e. bureaucrat). I desire both functions, since they are complementary. --

430:- a long time user with a very specific goals as an burecrat. Also lack of recent involvment in RFA is not the same thing as ignorrence, and his nomination says he plans on helping to approve bots instead anyhow... -- 659:. I waited over 9 hours for my RfA to be officially closed by a crat. We can't have too many, and Ram-Man seems like an excellent choice. It goes without saying that we need more crats monitoring the bot situation. 2648:

probably use them from time to time to help the community. Are you asking whether or not I will think I am better than "normal" people? Hardly. As far as I know, I've only ever helped write one featured article (

170:

I've highlighted the controversies to show my behavior during the tough times. During other times I've been very productive, and my edits should speak for themselves. I'd be happy to answer any other questions.

2206:(See above), leaning towards support. While you are certainly qualified to handle bot requests, I'd say that you unfortunately did things in the wrong order. Instead of requesting the bureaucrat bit to go into 327:

dedication; a leave of absense is no bar to becoming a 'crat, nor should it be. User appears to have no civility issues, and by far surpasses my minimum requirements for number of edits and friendliness.

113:) which was responsible for adding (and currently maintaining) approximate 37,000 articles on Knowledge on U.S. cities and counties. I've been heavily involved on Knowledge off and on since that time. 2270:

has been a bit inactive as of late (he said he won't have as much time this semester, due to his work), so even if you become a member of the approvals group, you still need a bureaucrat to press the

2364:

It looks like it *might* succeed anyway. It's right on the line. In any case, increasing my involvement in AfDs and RfAs is quite a reasonable request. I'll see what I can do in the meantime! --

2256:

No doubt about it: You don't have to be a bureaucrat to help with bots. And we have Essjay, one great bureaucrat helping, but he isn't always around. I'm just volunteering to join those ranks. --

622:

He has been honest and demonstrated his need for the tools. Absolute numbers of bureaucrats don't matter to me. This used is showing that he/she has a niche which can be nicely filled by promotion!

2574:. Potential criticism is no reason to not make a decision about something, only an indication to tread lightly, which is what I would try to do. In the nature of full disclosure, usage of the 2373:

Right on which line? Are you familiar with where the thresholds are for an RfB? Hey, wait, this is important. Do you know how RfB works, since you'd have the ability to act on its outcomes? -

1484:. I see no reason why we shouldn't let him; this would be like allowing Albert Einstein to teach quantum physics. He is definitely the kind of experienced person who should be a bureaucrat. — 1262:

I liked the response to optional Q7 below. Very honest, detailed answer. I feel he would be a good b’crat if he keeps this positive attitude, enthusiasm, and integrity. So, here is my trust.

566:. I don't want to look bad or cause trouble, you have to understand. Obviously the bureaucrat request is not necessary for that task, but is supplemental, and in my opinion quite helpful. — 1888:

per Splash. We already have a lot of BCrats that either never or very rarely do much. I fear that might be the case here. Also, I can't remember any recent RfA participation by this user.

2619:. Of course. I never use any other forum anyway, so this isn't even an issue. I don't discuss Knowledge issues in email and I don't use IRC (though I did for a short time in the past). 1133:

per above. Weak because of the lack of recent participation in RfA and consensus activities, but I'm sure that the user will make good decisions on consensus regardless. Good candidate!

2598:

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?

588:- more bot approval people are really needed. This user seems very trustworthy, and after 4 years and all those edits, if he doesn't understand much policy I don't know who would. — 311:. Ram-Man is sensible, as his self-nom shows. The request is a sensible one: provide the user with the tools so he can streamline Bot-creation process. If he's willing help out with 2266:

to be a member of the bot approvals group. At the same time, the procedure to become a member of that group is not found anywhere. Lately, there haven't been many bots approved, as

359:

About edit count: Many of the Ram-Man edit counts are actually from before the rambot account was created, so they represent bot entries. Of course before I used a bot I was doing

2210:

to do things, I would say that you should spend a bit of time there, then come here to request the added privileges, as you should get the hang of things around there a little.

1528:

Some of the comments here are already out of date. Since this has started, I've participated in various RFAs, including the more controversial than normal Carnildo case. --

937: 1334:. You argue cogently and clearly for the need, and your expertise, for another bureaucrat. You will not abuse the position. So how could I do anything other than support? 2787: 195:

I was apparently mistaken. At this point, I think I'll just wait a little to withdraw my request until I can get a little more constructive criticism. That can't hurt.

2711: 2387: 320: 249: 1217:

We certainly could use a b'crat experienced in bots to manage the bot flags. As long as Ram-Man is careful around consensus discussions, I don't see a problem.--

634:

You can never have too many b'crats. Has anyone ever complained because there are too many checkers at the grocery store? Good candidate, deserves the position.

2627:

Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA on a regular basis to see to the promotion or delisting of candidates in a timely manner?

2391:(in my memory) with less than 85%, and the wide majority have greater than 90%. So while the 80%-85% group may have "won" the vote narrowly, the : --> 2022:

outcome foreseeable. The only risk is that this encyclopedia doesn't improve, which, imho, is not something that outweighs the possible benefits. --

1350:. Ram-man's long history of participation in the project and understanding of the things that make us successful and unique are almost without peer. 136:

more about that here. I don't get involved in many disputes involving administrators, so I don't think I have a tarnished record at all on that front.

144: 2773:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

1918:

you have only a handfull of RfA involvement, little recent bot request activity, and I am not convinced that you will necessary bump one of those up

1841:

justify the load. But that can't be said anymore. I have plenty of outstanding tasks, and it's time to restart the process. But it can take days

122: 1594:

Great editor, no doubt about it, but I think bureaucratship is for people who are active in the project side of thing, for example, looking at his

2671:(Optional question). Are there any recent promotion decisions you would have made differently? If so, what are your main differences of emphasis? 1703:

I know I'm conservative, but I didn't think it was that low. Perhaps I'm more inactive in deletions than I thought. Such is life I suppose.

1681: 1032: 2460:

for example. It's a different beast here nowadays. The community seems to require near-perfection to promote a new b'crat... sad but true. --

29: 17: 2443: 521: 126: 2351: 2722:(if you want to call it that) went to the "75-85%" group, followed by the "80-90%" group in second. (Oh, and the "75-95%" also had a 1850: 2145: 490:

No, I didn't ignore that at all, I suspect that actually you have ignored the fact that he has almost no recent experience with the

1507:— The concerns below don't bother me. I would, however, like Ram-man to participate in RfA before he gets into closing them out. — 159:

policy article, which later became offical policy. This is part of the reason for being a bureaucrat dedicated to enabling bots.

411:

to have a b'crat who is going to dedicate himself to one area of the b'cracy. How would that be harmful to the encyclopedia? --

1275: 447:

a need for more help at bot approval then we've someone with the necessary experience offering to help. That seems fine to me.

1742:

have a habit of disappearing for a while though. Unlike a lot of people, I don't actually LIVE on wikipedia (I just rent). —

185:

over the demotion of Pluto. Despite many heated moments, a suitable compromise was reached after a few days of discussion.

2554:

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

1041: 796: 729: 2263: 1798:

Needs to put those admin powers to greater use before becoming a 'crat. The mess at fairuse images, IfD, etc needs work.

1391: 1222: 946: 2428:? This suggests you might not be familiar with how this page works, a necessary pre-requisite for being a bureaucrat. 2234:

I'm not sure that you need to be a bureaucrat to get into the bot approvals group, as there are several users there (

1234:

seems to have a grasp on what percentage is needed to promote to adminship, unlike most of our current bureaucrats.

1355: 235: 239: 1311: 1069: 850: 638: 487:

Trustworthy and dedicated. Good rationale for bureaucratship (which most of the opposers seem to have ignored).

2568:

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

2093: 1027: 744: 243: 1519: 1059: 315:

RFAs, more power to him: extra hands can always be used. This user's thousands of contributions to WP (he is

2672: 2275: 1809: 1800: 1207: 961: 943: 879: 846: 394: 385: 282: 2757: 2742: 2697: 2675: 2661: 2587: 2533: 2519: 2501: 2488: 2464: 2450: 2432: 2407: 2397: 2381: 2368: 2359: 2330: 2309: 2299: 2251: 2229: 2219: 2192: 2182: 2121: 2108: 2096: 2084: 2066: 2043: 2033: 2001: 1991: 1971: 1959: 1951: 1937: 1925: 1912: 1902: 1890: 1878: 1853:

about this issue, which has yet to be resolved. Until that is resolved, I will probably wait, to be safe.

1831: 1812: 1803: 1789: 1771: 1746: 1736: 1711: 1698: 1689: 1669: 1655: 1643: 1622: 1603: 1582: 1570: 1558: 1546: 1532: 1523: 1499: 1492: 1464: 1449: 1437: 1422: 1395: 1358: 1342: 1326: 1322:- Well-reasoned and honest self-nom statement and excellent contributions suggest only one possible vote. 1314: 1293: 1281: 1254: 1242: 1226: 1209: 1194: 1175: 1158: 1145: 1125: 1113: 1099: 1086: 1074: 1045: 1018: 990: 977: 964: 949: 921: 912: 889:. Rambot was a ground-breaking piece of work and Ram-man took on board other editors reservations on it. 881: 863: 854: 837: 816: 804: 784: 767: 755: 735: 705: 684: 672: 651: 647: 626: 614: 602: 570: 552: 542: 528: 515: 498: 484: 481: 474: 454: 434: 422: 397: 388: 374: 354: 343: 334: 303: 291: 218: 204: 92: 753: 534:

process, but again this was done by someone on the approval group. My hands are really tied in this, as

2141: 2061: 1694:

I may have made some stupid blunder, but your deletion log says you have only ever deleted 12 articles?

1351: 987: 726: 2133: 2118: 1555: 1415: 1387: 1156: 1064: 1054: 2338:

per the above concerns regarding your past involvement in consensus-based activities. I see nothing

859:

Though I am tempted to oppose anyone who calls RF(A|B) a "vote" on principle... Great Wikipedian.

2294: 2246: 2214: 2188:

should be a good learning experience, and maybe this very issue will be determined more clearly. —

1828: 1778: 1760: 1339: 1269: 1137: 904: 801: 793: 779: 694: 451: 2461: 1108: 743:

I try never to reason my opinion through another user, but RyanGerbil10 hit it right on the money

340: 2653: 2271: 1787: 1769: 1251: 1203: 1171: 1083: 974: 958: 930: 929:

I endorse his rationale for seeking the extra buttons. His work on bots is and will be valuable.

872: 833: 703: 443: 62: 2641:. If you become a bureaucrat, how will you keep your feet still on the ground with us mortals? 2497:

I will post on the talk page to see if I can draw some more user attention to this discussion.

1459: 1035: 2080: 1866:

constructive and useful as I can, given the circumstances. The reason, as I understand, that

1543: 1485: 1434: 1189: 1111: 813: 643: 635: 597: 1613:

editing speaks for itself. Also consider the amount of photographs added for addition here.

2498: 2378: 2179: 2172: 2137: 2105: 2058: 2010:

the encyclopedia. The worst possible outcome of making RM a crat is the encyclopedia isn't

1666: 1640: 1514: 717: 681: 110: 81: 2749: 2344: 2279: 2207: 1871: 1406: 1382: 1368: 1290: 1154: 1142: 1134: 660: 623: 393:

I have no concerns over lack of RfA experience. Will be dealing w/ bots, not RfA. Cheers,

2583: 2579: 2429: 2239: 2028: 1695: 1600: 1567: 1335: 1323: 1263: 1202:. Sensible nomination. Speeding up the bot process can only be good for the project. - 890: 549: 525: 508: 495: 491: 448: 417: 198:

areas that I do work on and overlap responsibility. My admin actions demonstrate that.

164: 156: 2730:

decision on consensus. I believe that any other conclusion in that case results in a

1870:

changed his vote to support was because he read my recent work and comments regarding

2781: 2689: 2649: 2235: 2075: 1988: 1783: 1765: 1307: 1298:

Very solid contributor, good reasons for wanting to be a 'crat, no reason to oppose.

1167: 970: 918: 860: 826: 764: 699: 349: 329: 1082:. An inactive bureaucrat will not harm Knowledge, but managing bots will help it. -- 2754: 2739: 2694: 2658: 2530: 2485: 2447: 2404: 2394: 2365: 2327: 2306: 2257: 2226: 2189: 2040: 1998: 1948: 1909: 1875: 1743: 1708: 1686: 1652: 1619: 1529: 1430: 1184: 999: 590: 567: 539: 524:, the is the actual page in question, which I believe he has edited a single time. 520:

Not really no, that was a long time ago. But regardless, I should have really said

471: 465: 365: 231: 215: 201: 89: 69: 48: 2578:

in the past has caused all sorts of criticism, debate, and policy formation (See:

2343:

please make an effort to increase your involvement in those areas in the future.

1675:

and the Geographic project articles). I suppose perhaps I'm not involved in the

825:

per the above and candidate's solid policy contributions and dedicated record. -

2707: 2575: 2516: 2374: 2291: 2267: 2243: 2211: 1943: 1867: 1823: 1662: 1636: 1579: 1509: 1446: 1218: 1122: 1096: 776: 300: 287: 279: 182: 125:. I'm also heavily active on the commons uploading almost 300 photographs (See 77: 2262:

Indeed. My comment was more specific, though: you don't need to be a member of

1472:- It's great that Ram-Man wants to help out with the bots, especially since he 1733: 512: 431: 494:

page, surely that is critical to the rationale of wanting to help out there.

2710:

asked me about the standards for promotion to a bureaucrat. I'll recite the

2023: 1235: 611: 412: 102: 2078:

said. You can be part of the approvals group without being a bureaucrat.--

1303: 792:- looks trustworthy. Bureaucratship for one task. I like it. Good luck! — 2474:

less than 20 votes. Still, eventually the community will realise there

339:

Er, you don't have to be a b'crat to close AfDs... did you mean RfAs? --

1609: 253: 73: 178: 2767:

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

2425:

Can you explain why you didn't properly transclude your nomination

1094:. Sane long-time user, knows what should be done for bot approval. 680:(switched from Neutral) per Mackensen, Mets501, AlphaChimp, et al. 1860:

I also was gone on wikivacation for a while for a number of reason

548:

the group were just the ones most busy do bot-stuff at the time.

2018:

help in the day-to-day functioning of the encyclopedia, with no

1166:. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. 106: 1849:

The rambot is currently broken. I've posted a message on the

278:, looks like a sensible choice based on honest nomination. — 1566:- experienced user who needs the tools for a valid reason. 2714:. Let's go over the results. The "80-85%" group had the 2326:

Switching to Neutral per Dragon Flight's oppose comment.

2129:

Agree with the consensus of the other members who oppose.

28:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

2546:

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

2426: 1595: 256:

since this account has only been heavily used recently)

2006:

I guess i just fail to see how making RM a crat could

177:

I've also recently led one side of the controversy at

145:

Knowledge talk:Bots/Requests for approval#Trial Period

2286:, and you seem to have it now. So, I'm switching to 101:

For those who are not aware, I've been around since

2657:great, but they don't add or update articles. — 2484:the page, few people even notice it anyway. — 8: 812:, per Celestianpower and many others above.- 1599:bureaucratship not suitable in my opinion. 88:Self-nominated. No acceptance required. — 511:page... that has to count for something -- 109:. I ran/run the infamous rambot (see the 1705:I can tell this isn't going to last long! 1578:per lots of people, especially myself. -- 2788:Unsuccessful requests for bureaucratship 323:and RamBot is listed even higher) show 2613:such discussion would be transparent? 1682:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._states 1121:per candidate statement and comments. 250:List of Wikipedians by number of edits 845:Seems very dedicated and humble. -- 18:Knowledge:Requests for bureaucratship 7: 2693:"definition" of consensus below). — 2444:Knowledge:Bots/Requests for approval 522:Knowledge:Bots/Requests for approval 2688:The recent controversy surrounding 871:per his responses and all above -- 1608:I've been heavily active using my 129:) as well as image categorization. 24: 321:12th highest editor to Knowledge 319:too modest: he is listed as the 123:Lancaster County covered bridges 2057:per the person directly above. 1908:focusing on bot management. — 1366:cannot find a reason why not. — 2177:Switched to support, see above 1373:September 5, 2006, 21:09 (UTC) 536:I am not on the approval group 1: 2758:14:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2743:13:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2698:17:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2676:15:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 2662:15:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 2586:, and a number of geographic 2534:13:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 2520:03:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 2502:14:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 2489:03:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 2465:03:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 2408:22:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 2398:02:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2382:13:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 2369:01:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 2360:01:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 2331:21:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 2310:20:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 2300:19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 2252:15:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 2230:12:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 2220:04:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 2193:00:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 2183:17:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 2122:08:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 2109:00:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 2097:11:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 2085:18:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2074:, sorry but pretty much what 2067:12:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2044:19:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2034:19:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 2002:18:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 1992:09:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 1972:04:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 1952:03:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 1938:02:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 1913:02:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 1903:01:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 1879:21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 1832:21:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 1813:05:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 1804:05:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 1790:18:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 1583:23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 1571:18:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 1559:16:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 1547:14:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 1533:12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 1524:12:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 1500:06:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 1465:01:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 1450:21:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 1438:17:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 1423:07:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 1396:03:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 1359:20:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 1343:19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 1327:18:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 1315:18:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 1294:18:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 1282:17:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 1255:15:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 1243:15:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 1227:23:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 1210:22:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 1195:19:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 1176:17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 1159:14:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 1146:12:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 1126:11:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 1114:02:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 1100:02:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC) 1087:17:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 1075:17:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 1046:16:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 1019:08:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 991:05:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 978:02:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 965:00:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 950:23:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 938:21:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 922:19:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 913:16:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 882:11:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 864:09:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 855:08:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 838:02:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 817:00:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC) 805:23:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 785:19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 768:19:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 756:19:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 736:18:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 706:18:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 685:17:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 673:16:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 652:16:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 627:16:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 615:16:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 603:15:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 571:15:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 553:15:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 543:15:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 529:15:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 516:15:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 499:15:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 485:15:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 475:21:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 468:14:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 455:14:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 435:14:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 423:05:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 398:16:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 389:05:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 375:03:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 355:03:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 344:03:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 219:15:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 2264:Special:Listusers/bureaucrat 2175:21:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 407:. i'm not sure why it is a 2542:Questions for the candidate 2451:20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 2433:20:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1772:18:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 1747:18:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 1737:17:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 1712:21:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1699:21:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1690:20:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1670:20:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1656:20:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1644:20:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1630:(neutral) Leaning to oppose 1623:21:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 1604:20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 610:I like the cut of his jib. 335:22:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 304:20:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 292:20:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 234:'s edit summary usage with 205:21:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 127:Photographs by Derek Ramsey 93:19:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC) 2804: 2274:button—that's currently a 998:We need more bureaucrats. 648:(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 30:request for bureaucratship 1554:. Per previous comment.-- 2770:Please do not modify it. 2393:the amount of votes. -- 1851:Village pump (technical) 1596:last 500 wikipedia space 821:Automatically generated 775:, per the thread below. 2276:single point of failure 1476:what it's about — he's 1107:I guess, longtime user 969:Solidly trustworthy. — 562:consensus, rather than 39:Please do not modify it 2588:Knowledge:Wikiprojects 351:Firsfron of Ronchester 331:Firsfron of Ronchester 2446:a short while ago. — 1776:Switch to support. -- 763:. Sure, why not? -- 1488:this is messedrocker 361:the exact same thing 348:Heh. Sorry. Yes. :/ 121:mostly), and lately 82:commons:User:Ram-Man 2094:Tango Alpha Foxtrot 470:Moving to neutral. 133:As an Administrator 2718:of the vote. The 2673:Stephen B Streater 1808:Switch to support. 944:Christopher Parham 2150: 2136:comment added by 1394: 1280: 1174: 853: 830: 650: 594: 2795: 2772: 2357: 2297: 2249: 2217: 2149: 2130: 2083: 2064: 2031: 2026: 2014:. Odds are, it 1985:Reluctant oppose 1968: 1965: 1962: 1934: 1931: 1928: 1899: 1896: 1893: 1786: 1781: 1768: 1763: 1497: 1496: 1490: 1489: 1462: 1420: 1419: 1412: 1409: 1386: 1374: 1278: 1272: 1268: 1266: 1240: 1192: 1187: 1170: 1140: 1098: 1072: 1067: 1062: 1057: 1015: 1013: 1011: 1009: 988:Opabinia regalis 935: 910: 907: 902: 899: 896: 893: 877: 849: 828: 799: 782: 751: 750: 734: 702: 697: 670: 665: 646: 641: 601: 592: 420: 415: 352: 332: 285: 60: 41: 2803: 2802: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2778: 2777: 2768: 2750:logical fallacy 2356: 2348: 2295: 2272:Special:Makebot 2247: 2215: 2131: 2119:trialsanderrors 2104:per all above. 2079: 2062: 2029: 2024: 1966: 1963: 1960: 1932: 1929: 1926: 1897: 1894: 1891: 1810::) Dlohcierekim 1801::) Dlohcierekim 1796:Oppose per Siva 1779: 1777: 1761: 1759: 1494: 1493: 1487: 1486: 1460: 1417: 1416: 1410: 1407: 1372: 1276: 1270: 1264: 1236: 1225: 1190: 1185: 1183:per Hoopydink. 1138: 1095: 1070: 1065: 1060: 1055: 1044: 1007: 1005: 1003: 1001: 931: 908: 905: 900: 897: 894: 891: 873: 797: 780: 746: 745: 732: 725: 695: 693: 666: 661: 639: 589: 418: 413: 395::) Dlohcierekim 386::) Dlohcierekim 350: 330: 283: 262:Current tally: 252:(Not valid for 140:As a Bureaucrat 58: 55:Final (65/12/2) 52: 37: 34:did not succeed 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2801: 2799: 2791: 2790: 2780: 2779: 2776: 2775: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2745: 2700: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2584:Knowledge:Spam 2580:Knowledge:Bots 2563: 2562: 2561: 2544: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2523: 2522: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2492: 2491: 2468: 2467: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2436: 2435: 2422: 2421: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2400: 2350: 2333: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2156: 2152: 2151: 2124: 2111: 2099: 2087: 2069: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1858: 1854: 1847: 1843:just to set up 1829:Dragons flight 1817: 1816: 1815: 1806: 1792: 1774: 1749: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1591: 1590: 1586: 1585: 1573: 1561: 1549: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1502: 1467: 1452: 1440: 1425: 1398: 1380:trust user. - 1375: 1361: 1345: 1329: 1317: 1296: 1284: 1257: 1245: 1229: 1221: 1212: 1197: 1178: 1161: 1148: 1128: 1116: 1102: 1089: 1077: 1048: 1040: 1021: 993: 980: 967: 952: 942:No downsides. 940: 924: 915: 884: 866: 857: 840: 819: 807: 787: 770: 758: 738: 730: 708: 687: 675: 654: 629: 617: 605: 583: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 577: 576: 575: 574: 573: 555: 479: 478: 477: 437: 425: 402: 401: 400: 379: 378: 377: 372: 371: 370: 369: 368: 309:Strong support 306: 294: 272: 271: 267: 266: 259: 258: 257: 247: 236:mathbot's tool 227: 226: 165:Knowledge:Spam 157:Knowledge:Bots 149: 148: 137: 130: 51: 46: 45: 44: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2800: 2789: 2786: 2785: 2783: 2774: 2771: 2765: 2764: 2759: 2756: 2751: 2746: 2744: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2712:standard vote 2709: 2704: 2701: 2699: 2696: 2691: 2687: 2682: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2674: 2670: 2667: 2663: 2660: 2655: 2654:Lord Emsworth 2651: 2650:Schizophrenia 2646: 2643: 2642: 2640: 2637: 2632: 2629: 2628: 2626: 2623: 2618: 2615: 2614: 2611: 2608: 2603: 2600: 2599: 2597: 2594: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2570: 2569: 2567: 2564: 2559: 2556: 2555: 2553: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2543: 2535: 2532: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2521: 2518: 2514: 2511: 2510: 2503: 2500: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2490: 2487: 2482: 2477: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2466: 2463: 2458: 2457: 2452: 2449: 2445: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2434: 2431: 2427: 2424: 2423: 2419: 2418: 2409: 2406: 2401: 2399: 2396: 2389: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2367: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2355: 2354: 2346: 2341: 2337: 2334: 2332: 2329: 2325: 2324: 2311: 2308: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2298: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2250: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2228: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2218: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2204: 2200: 2194: 2191: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2181: 2178: 2174: 2169: 2168:administrator 2164: 2163: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2154: 2153: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2128: 2125: 2123: 2120: 2115: 2112: 2110: 2107: 2103: 2100: 2098: 2095: 2091: 2088: 2086: 2082: 2077: 2073: 2070: 2068: 2065: 2060: 2056: 2053: 2045: 2042: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2032: 2027: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2000: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1990: 1986: 1983: 1973: 1970: 1969: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1950: 1945: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1936: 1935: 1921: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1911: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1901: 1900: 1887: 1884: 1880: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1864: 1859: 1855: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1839: 1838: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1830: 1825: 1821: 1818: 1814: 1811: 1807: 1805: 1802: 1799: 1797: 1793: 1791: 1788: 1785: 1782: 1775: 1773: 1770: 1767: 1764: 1757: 1754: 1750: 1748: 1745: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1735: 1730: 1727: 1713: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1697: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1688: 1683: 1678: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1668: 1664: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1654: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1631: 1628: 1624: 1621: 1616: 1611: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1602: 1597: 1593: 1592: 1588: 1587: 1584: 1581: 1577: 1574: 1572: 1569: 1565: 1562: 1560: 1557: 1553: 1550: 1548: 1545: 1541: 1538: 1534: 1531: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1522: 1521: 1517: 1516: 1512: 1511: 1506: 1503: 1501: 1498: 1491: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1468: 1466: 1463: 1456: 1453: 1451: 1448: 1444: 1441: 1439: 1436: 1432: 1429: 1426: 1424: 1421: 1414: 1413: 1402: 1399: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1384: 1379: 1376: 1371: 1370: 1365: 1362: 1360: 1357: 1353: 1352:The Uninvited 1349: 1346: 1344: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1330: 1328: 1325: 1321: 1318: 1316: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1295: 1292: 1288: 1285: 1283: 1279: 1273: 1267: 1261: 1258: 1256: 1253: 1252:Mailer Diablo 1249: 1246: 1244: 1241: 1239: 1233: 1230: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1213: 1211: 1208: 1205: 1201: 1198: 1196: 1193: 1188: 1182: 1179: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1162: 1160: 1157: 1155: 1152: 1149: 1147: 1144: 1141: 1136: 1132: 1129: 1127: 1124: 1120: 1117: 1115: 1112: 1110: 1106: 1103: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1090: 1088: 1085: 1084:Gray Porpoise 1081: 1078: 1076: 1073: 1068: 1063: 1058: 1052: 1049: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1034: 1029: 1025: 1022: 1020: 1017: 1016: 997: 994: 992: 989: 984: 981: 979: 976: 972: 968: 966: 963: 960: 959:Mike Christie 956: 953: 951: 948: 945: 941: 939: 936: 934: 928: 925: 923: 920: 917:Trustworthy. 916: 914: 911: 903: 888: 885: 883: 880: 878: 876: 870: 867: 865: 862: 858: 856: 852: 848: 844: 841: 839: 835: 831: 824: 820: 818: 815: 811: 808: 806: 803: 800: 795: 791: 788: 786: 783: 778: 774: 771: 769: 766: 762: 759: 757: 754: 752: 749: 742: 739: 737: 733: 727: 724: 721: 720: 716: 712: 709: 707: 704: 701: 698: 691: 688: 686: 683: 679: 676: 674: 671: 669: 664: 658: 655: 653: 649: 645: 642: 637: 633: 630: 628: 625: 621: 618: 616: 613: 609: 606: 604: 599: 595: 587: 584: 572: 569: 565: 561: 556: 554: 551: 546: 545: 544: 541: 537: 532: 531: 530: 527: 523: 519: 518: 517: 514: 510: 506: 502: 501: 500: 497: 493: 489: 488: 486: 483: 480: 476: 473: 469: 467: 462: 458: 457: 456: 453: 450: 445: 444:Lord Emsworth 441: 438: 436: 433: 429: 426: 424: 421: 416: 410: 406: 403: 399: 396: 392: 391: 390: 387: 383: 380: 376: 373: 367: 362: 358: 357: 356: 353: 347: 346: 345: 342: 338: 337: 336: 333: 326: 322: 318: 314: 310: 307: 305: 302: 298: 295: 293: 289: 286: 281: 277: 274: 273: 269: 268: 265: 261: 260: 255: 251: 248: 245: 241: 237: 233: 229: 228: 224: 223: 222: 221: 220: 217: 211: 207: 206: 203: 199: 196: 190: 186: 184: 180: 176: 172: 168: 166: 160: 158: 153: 146: 141: 138: 134: 131: 128: 124: 119: 116: 115: 114: 112: 108: 104: 100: 99:Introduction: 96: 95: 94: 91: 85: 83: 79: 75: 71: 67: 66: 64: 56: 50: 47: 43: 40: 35: 31: 26: 25: 19: 2769: 2766: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2702: 2685: 2680: 2668: 2644: 2638: 2630: 2624: 2616: 2609: 2601: 2595: 2571: 2565: 2557: 2551: 2545: 2541: 2540: 2512: 2480: 2475: 2352: 2339: 2335: 2287: 2283: 2202: 2201: 2176: 2167: 2161: 2160: 2132:— Preceding 2126: 2113: 2101: 2089: 2071: 2054: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 1984: 1958: 1942:Ironically, 1924: 1919: 1889: 1885: 1842: 1819: 1795: 1794: 1752: 1751: 1728: 1704: 1676: 1632: 1629: 1614: 1575: 1563: 1551: 1539: 1518: 1513: 1508: 1504: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1454: 1442: 1427: 1405: 1400: 1383:CrazyRussian 1381: 1377: 1367: 1363: 1347: 1331: 1319: 1299: 1286: 1259: 1247: 1237: 1231: 1214: 1199: 1180: 1163: 1150: 1131:Weak support 1130: 1118: 1104: 1091: 1079: 1050: 1031: 1030: 1023: 1000: 995: 982: 954: 933:Rama's arrow 932: 926: 886: 874: 868: 842: 822: 809: 789: 772: 760: 747: 740: 722: 719:Doctor Bruno 718: 714: 710: 689: 677: 667: 662: 656: 631: 619: 607: 585: 563: 559: 535: 504: 482:Tony Sidaway 460: 459: 439: 427: 408: 404: 381: 360: 324: 316: 312: 308: 296: 275: 263: 212: 209: 208: 194: 191: 188: 187: 174: 173: 169: 161: 151: 150: 139: 132: 117: 98: 97: 87: 86: 68: 57: 54: 53: 38: 33: 27: 2499:Newyorkbrad 2180:Newyorkbrad 2173:Newyorkbrad 2138:Ncrown23334 2127:Weak Oppose 2106:Bubba ditto 2092:Per above. 2059:Computerjoe 1944:User:Essjay 1868:User:Titoxd 1753:Weak Oppose 1172:Talk to me! 682:Newyorkbrad 183:talk:Planet 2732:compromise 2345:Daveydweeb 2240:Rob Church 1732:recently. 1556:Alabamaboy 1478:been there 1369:Jared Hunt 1291:Thumbelina 1033:fellibylur 713:per above 624:InvictaHOG 384:per above. 238:(Also for 63:2006-09-07 2736:consensus 2716:plurality 2430:Petros471 2386:When the 2284:currently 1568:Borisblue 1520:criticism 1482:done that 1336:Batmanand 1324:FCYTravis 1265:JungleCat 1168:Ian Manka 1028:íslenskur 802:tianpower 748:hoopydink 449:Mackensen 299:per nom. 264:(65/12/2) 118:As a User 103:September 2782:Category 2724:majority 2720:majority 2690:Carnildo 2420:Comments 2388:standard 2280:WP:RFBOT 2236:xaosflux 2208:WP:RFBOT 2162:Neutral. 2146:contribs 2134:unsigned 2076:kingboyk 2012:improved 1989:kingboyk 1872:WP:RFBOT 1135:DarthVad 1071:=hello?= 1042:(samtal) 919:Maurreen 861:Sam Korn 765:Kbdank71 632:Support. 564:implicit 560:explicit 225:Comments 152:Details: 2695:Ram-Man 2686:Update: 2659:Ram-Man 2513:Comment 2486:Ram-Man 2462:W.marsh 2448:Ram-Man 2336:Neutral 2328:JoshuaZ 2288:support 2227:Ram-Man 2203:Neutral 2190:Ram-Man 2155:Neutral 2063:'s talk 1949:Ram-Man 1923:three). 1910:Ram-Man 1784:iva1979 1766:iva1979 1756:future. 1744:Ram-Man 1709:Ram-Man 1687:Ram-Man 1653:Ram-Man 1620:Ram-Man 1610:User:RM 1576:Support 1564:Support 1552:Support 1544:Rory096 1540:Support 1505:Support 1470:Support 1458:'crat. 1455:Support 1443:Support 1428:Support 1401:Support 1378:Support 1364:Support 1348:Support 1332:Support 1320:Support 1300:Support 1287:Support 1277:contrib 1260:Support 1248:Support 1232:Support 1215:Support 1200:Support 1181:Support 1164:Support 1151:Support 1119:Support 1109:Jaranda 1105:Support 1092:Support 1080:Support 1066:tails!« 1051:support 1024:Support 996:Support 983:Support 955:Support 927:Support 887:Support 869:Support 843:Support 829:HAIRBOY 823:Support 814:gadfium 810:Support 790:Support 773:Support 761:Support 741:Support 711:Support 700:iva1979 690:Support 678:Support 657:Support 620:Support 608:Support 586:Support 568:Ram-Man 540:Ram-Man 509:WP:BOTS 503:Um, he 492:WP:BOTS 472:JoshuaZ 466:JoshuaZ 461:Support 440:Support 428:Support 409:problem 405:Support 382:Support 366:Ram-Man 341:W.marsh 301:Michael 297:Support 276:Support 270:Support 254:User:RM 232:Ram-Man 216:Ram-Man 202:Ram-Man 90:Ram-Man 72:(also: 70:Ram-Man 61:19:16, 49:Ram-Man 2708:Splash 2576:rambot 2517:Taxman 2375:Splash 2282:works 2268:Essjay 2114:Oppose 2102:Oppose 2090:Oppose 2072:Oppose 2055:Oppose 1886:Oppose 1824:rambot 1820:Oppose 1729:Oppose 1696:Martin 1663:Splash 1637:Splash 1633:Oppose 1601:Martin 1589:Oppose 1580:Golbez 1510:Werdna 1495:(talk) 1480:, and 1447:Ixfd64 1418:(Talk) 1219:danntm 1123:feydey 962:(talk) 947:(talk) 847:Samir 731:E Mail 644:rbil10 550:Martin 526:Martin 496:Martin 452:(talk) 325:strong 240:rambot 179:Planet 80:, and 78:rambot 2353:patch 2340:wrong 2081:Andeh 1961:Voice 1927:Voice 1892:Voice 1874:. -- 1857:wait. 1734:Xoloz 1677:right 1615:Edit: 1474:knows 1435:wiser 1431:older 1411:eagle 1408:Noble 1392:email 1354:Co., 1238:Grue 668:Chimp 663:alpha 636:RyanG 513:T-rex 505:wrote 432:T-rex 210:Edit: 189:Edit: 175:Edit: 65:(UTC) 59:Ended 32:that 16:< 2734:not 2728:that 2652:). 2292:Tito 2244:Tito 2238:and 2212:Tito 2142:talk 2016:will 2008:harm 1964:-of- 1930:-of- 1895:-of- 1515:talk 1461:Teke 1388:talk 1356:Inc. 1340:Talk 1271:talk 1250:. - 1186:Yank 975:talk 875:Lost 851:धर्म 777:Tito 612:Arce 598:talk 591:Mets 507:the 313:AFDs 280:Xyra 242:and 230:See 181:and 107:2002 2020:bad 1967:All 1933:All 1920:and 1898:All 1304:Lar 1204:Mgm 1191:sox 1036:#12 971:Dan 901:493 794:Cel 593:501 317:far 111:FAQ 105:of 2784:: 2755:RM 2740:RM 2703:A2 2669:7. 2639:6. 2625:5. 2610:4. 2596:3. 2582:, 2566:2. 2552:1. 2531:RM 2481:OR 2476:is 2405:RM 2395:RM 2379:tk 2377:- 2366:RM 2358:) 2307:RM 2296:xd 2290:. 2258:RM 2248:xd 2216:xd 2148:) 2144:• 2041:RM 2030:ah 2025:he 1999:RM 1876:RM 1758:-- 1707:— 1667:tk 1665:- 1641:tk 1639:- 1530:RM 1445:-- 1433:≠ 1338:| 1306:: 1302:++ 1289:. 1153:. 1053:. 1026:. 1014:a 973:| 909:lk 906:Ta 898:ns 895:yo 892:Dl 836:) 798:es 781:xd 419:ah 414:he 290:/ 244:RM 200:— 84:) 76:, 74:RM 36:. 2681:A 2645:A 2631:A 2617:A 2602:A 2572:A 2558:A 2349:/ 2347:( 2140:( 1780:S 1762:S 1390:/ 1312:c 1310:/ 1308:t 1274:/ 1223:C 1206:| 1143:r 1139:e 1061:c 1056:» 1012:g 1010:o 1008:c 1006:r 1004:o 1002:J 834:☎ 832:( 827:C 728:/ 723:_ 715:_ 696:S 640:e 600:) 596:( 288:l 284:e 246:) 42:.

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

Knowledge

:Requests for bureaucratship/Ram-Man - Knowledge

Index