Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 187

2998:, and generally have been a bit more laid back in what was my previously pretty rubbish 'must-not-do-anything-wrong' one man self-censorship parade (admittedly that went to hell with the thing over Giano, but whatever). I would like to consider the thing with Giano resolved, but every time I have tried to apologise (admittedly it was a bit late the first time anyway) there has been something close by that has made it look like I am doing it for my own gain. First time was at my RfA, 'own gain' is self explanatory, although the want for 'gain' is not something that should be wanted in adminship, second time was when FT had her RfA, which, as you can see from my lack of immediate nom, I had absolutely no idea about. I'd not been on IRC for ages, which I guess was the venue that she wanted me to talk to her at, and she ran without my knowledge. I can't remember whether there was a third time I apologised, but if there is, I'm probably apologising too much. I'm sorry for the whole incident -- the truth is that I mistook Giano for a completely different editor with a similar name who pretty much did meet the criteria I specified. It was a slip of the tongue, it wasn't intended to be malicious. I've not been the most active recently, either, but I don't know if that will matter that much to the RfA crowd (not so much in with them nowadays). But yes, I'd be willing to run, but you'll probably have to prod me first. Sorry for this massive wall of text, but I just wanted to get the skeletons out of the way in case anyone did want to prod me into it. 865:'x' value varies from voter to voter, and isn't codified anywhere. The good result from that is we have candidates who are well qualified who exist more than one or even two sigmas from center on edit counts who can still make it. That's downward pressure. If you set the bar, you cut off the possibility of downward pressure below a certain point. In essence, you encourage the rise of standards. One of the best ways to discourage the rise in standards (which no one has shown to actually create better administrators) is to not have standards in the first place. I think we do a good job of snow closing obvious failures already. RfA isn't burdened by an overwhelming number of snow closes. What we might not be doing a good job of is handling the people who fail. Setting a bar below which you can't even apply; I'm not sure how we could even enforce that without having the same effect as a snow close. -- 368:

deter those who are unlikely to pass and do their homework. Secondly some people consider that we need to allow for exceptions, so though I've nothing against self noms in general this is only about self noms - if a sufficiently experienced editor transcludes it you can run on your first day with your first few edits. Thirdly both the tenure and the number of edits are much lower than all but one of the successful candidates in the last year, hopefully this will help combat editcountitis and may even reverse some "creep" and more realistically it reflects past discussions on this page; If we are going to do this we need to set the level at a point where few RFA !voters would believe they could realistically assess a candidate and possibly support, if we set the threshold much higher than this there will be people opposing because they might want to support such a selfnom.

3335:

people want an admin to have a FA under their belt, but come on, it's really not needed. In my opinion, an admin should be able to edit this site with confidence and care. I.e., they should not bindly do stuff. I'm putting this in easy terms so I don't confuse myself. (That and I just woke up) I believe that if an editor has been editing for a long time, knows the system, knows how to do good with Knowledge, then he or she has what it takes. I do not believe a GA or a FA should even be considered at RfA. But hey, it is and I can't really do much about it. I failed 3(?) RfAs and at the moment, I have no wish to re-attempt it. (Fairly stressful event) I may have another go at it after I've been deployed, but that time will come later. Hope you enjoyed my rant :) Now it's back to the vodka bottle and x-box live. Auf Wiedersehen.

808:"Any convention that causes editors distress and sometimes premature retirement is a problem" Ok, then abolish adminship. So what if 100 crash and burn? Assuming that number is correct (which I doubt) where's the correlation to that causing loss of editors? The weight is on supporters of this to show how this outweighs the grave concerns of establishing a bar below which an editor can't be considered for adminship. It's extremely serious to establish such a bar. Once established, you're not going to get rid of it. Once established, it will keep being raised. Here's another correlation that needs to be generated; edit count and time of service vs. admin performance. Is there a correlation between low edit counts and bad administrators? If there isn't, then this whole idea of edit counts being meaningful is absolute rubbish. -- 173:

category which allows editors to be notified when their contributions merit RfA. Rather than recruiting good candidates to run for RfA, we could just recruit people to add the category to the user page. I think this helps avoid coaching candidates to specifically game the RfA, while still allowing the potential candidates to receive candid advice from editors who have a finger on the pulse of RfA as it functions at that moment in time. Candidates who might be considered controversial one month, can very quickly find their contributions are the flavor of the day by those voting frequently at RfA. In a sense, this is still gaming, but really just to educate good candidates on how to time their runs with the latest fads at RfA.

4669:, an administrator with whom I have had quite a lot of contact in the past several weeks, indicated that he also believed I deserved a nomination, but I feel that, at this time, I'm not yet qualified to handle the tools. I put a lot of emphasis on the responsibility that comes with administratorship (administration?), and as such, I don't feel that I've put forth the necessary time and effort to meet what would be my own personal goals before applying for such a position. I am highly focused on a specific set of content edits right now, what with some upcoming featured lists and topics and so forth, and I don't feel that going through an RfA is the best course of action for me right now. I 692:

enough edits for me to evaluate you". By contrast my own first RFA got loads of interesting feedback with in my estimation seven different reasons why people opposed, and I think my second RFA went more smooothly than it would have done if I'd simply waited for months longer before submitting my RFA. So I'm not trying to prevent people running for RFA if they are likely to get seriously considered, or get any benefit from the process. But the current system is unnecessarily harsh to people who are practically newbies, just look at past unsuccessful applications and see how many snow closed candidates left soon after their RFAs.

794:

case with clearly defined criteria. We could still have a qualification saying exceptions can be made on rare occasions such as when someone with a high degree of technical ability needs sysop rights to perform important tasks. Unless the RFA process is meant to cater to sadists, the only reasonable objection to WSC's idea is that its good for folk to be allowed to learn by failure, however even the investment banks ive worked at seemed to care enough about the welfare of their workforce to not let that happen in such a heartless and un structured way as we do here.

345:. Plus, if there are values, I'd like higher ones. What about a warning message - caution - self-nominations for admin with fewer than 2000 edits and six months active experience fail to gain consensus 80% of the time, primarily because other editors want more experience to evaluate the knowledge of policies and the trust in decision-making. (Obviously, the wording needs tinkering, and I made up the number, so we'd have to get the right value but I think if editors realized how often a couple thousand edits isn't enough, they wouldn't bother with a couple hundred.)-- 110:

candidates are willing to share that information after they're done). If it's just a few people, that creates a problem of "gatekeeping", of having just a few people unfairly influence the process. If it's a problem with this particular page (most people prefer to give feedback at RFA and ER; personally, I don't like the suggestion to email the reviews to anyone other than the candidate), that's fine, but if so, we should know for the next time we do a recruitment drive that we'll need some other form of vetting. - Dank (

1784:. While I have actually NOT agreed with them in say every AfD we both participated in, they both make reasonable arguments (in RfAs as well!) and have done a lot of good work for the project. I would trust these editors as admins. They have the experience, politeness, coolness, and dedication to merit serious consideration. In an actual support "vote", I could easily write a whole paragraph of positives for these editors noting their varied and many positive contributions to our project. Sincerely, -- 511:. 3.) There are people who have passed RFA with less (remember lustiger_seth?). 4.) The very fact that those people do not read any of those rules we already have and choose to ignore all information we offer, means they actively seek to be bitten. We can show them the information and place a lot of virtual stop signs everywhere to assure that people don't post premature RFAs but that's all we should do. All editors are to be considered mature users who should be trusted ( 5921:

administrative/routine tasks over purely voluntary editorial ones, and I am unsure that I could ever answer to that natural demand with the promptitude expected from me. I have also noticed that owning admin tools, particularly in subject areas where I edit, tends to attract wikidrama, and I want to spare myself that. But I see many name proposals on this page that would be great additions to the admin community, and to all of those who wish to race I say best of luck.

839:

seriously considers for adminship, it is about the ones who get rejected out of hand with snow closures etc. I would be concerned if the bar was continually being raised, but I'm not convinced that this would happen, and am interested in learning why you think it would tend to this as opposed to a small tendency to fossilising current standards. As for my figure of 100 a year and belief that this causes a loss of editors I admit that is based on a cursory look at

1584:

RFA - it seems like people would refer to the pre-nom list comments which would strongly bias their actual RFA !votes. Similarly, if a person listed here received wide pre-nom support from well respected admins and editors wouldn't that almost hand them the mop automatically (a la an Ambassadorship handed down by the president). Not saying it's a bad idea, and we might benefit from some pre-nom discussions... just saying there are some logistics.

141:

they didn't get useful feedback, that's not good. Likewise, candidates who could be successful but don't know that aren't likely to change their minds just because there's a recruitment drive going on; it would be helpful to walk them through their concerns and doubts. Apart from just waiting for random encouragement, which is a haphazard way to get new admins, it's looking like the best source of feedback we can point people to at the moment is

31: 4471: 611:. I take issue with that. Do not assume bad faith Sohilbrick. I for one take time before making any comment at a RFA, and I know most other editors do so to. A great many editors who have failed RFA No. 1 use the feedback to positive effect (both for them as an editor and the enyclopedia as a whole) and are then granted the tools at a subsequent request. I think your opinion of those who oppose an RFA needs a little adjusting. 6035:, and we simply can not say: Let's take the left editor X, prune and graft the right hand of editor Y, and improve the whole with the frontal lobe of editor Z. People are the way they are, and we can't change them. Some people have issues that thwart their chances of being elected - some even failed elections fairly recently. We can talk positively all we want here, but that won't make the problems go away. 4806:

of RFA's passing being less and less) for just the small things. However, since the number of active admins are decreasing, and less people are getting through RFA, the ratio isn't equalizing and we are losing administrators we need more active administrators, so I like to try to pass RFA and see for myself. Anyone who wants to nominate me can talk to see on my talk page. Thanks for listing me here.

1522:, but they seemed okay to me even in light of the content issue that was raised. No need to attack me if I'm way off on any of these. My endorsement is probably a kiss of death anyway. I'm just making suggestions for discussion and consideration. Do other editors have ideas? I'm pretty self centered so I don't notice much about what other editors are up to. :) 884:

decision making whereby those who picked the winner feel their vote was validated and some of those whose candidate lost feel a need to reconsider their position. If the RFA pass mark was at 50% this would balance out, but in the current system this process will tend to shift the commnunity norms because RFAs in the 50-70% range are almost always unsuccessful.

390:

admin is NOBIGDEAL, it does involve a lot of responsibility that needs to be demonstrated. Even a SNOW closure can benefit an editor if he takes it the way he's supposed to, and lets it motivate him to continue editing, in a beneficial manner. If the candidate can't handle a few opposes, they probably can't handle the user who they blocked bringing a

2941:. Amory is getting pretty close to time as well. I know Iri got tired of the BS, and decided to focus on content (what a silly thing to do in this project eh?), but I suspect if needed she would pick up her bit again. (although she wouldn't need to run a RfA, just request her bit back from a crat or steward I believe). — 4650:

The first thing I thought of when I got the message was, "Oh great, I need a life badly." I ran last month for administratorship, but that sunk because of two things that have been put behind me. I could probably run, but it's been a month and a half. I know the ropes, but two missteps helped to kill

4396:

Please help out by removing admins, blocked editors and those who might not appreciate being listed or are already listed in the previous subsection, and striking inactive, retired or non-power crazed editors with an explanation. If you see someone you're surprised to find is not an administrator, or

1741:

I've had some unpleasant experiences at recent RfAs and have stayed away from either nominating or commenting, and I am hesitant of starting the process myself. I have been thinking about going through the workshop and will do so in the near future, and possible someone who doesn't really know me can

1639:

I know I am late to the party, but since my name was mentioned I thought I should comment. I would run again, but should wait until at least the spring. Things are going to start to get busy for me in the near future and I don't think that I will have enough time to dedicate to Knowledge as I would

1583:

Interesting - but just to play devils advocate... Wouldn't this type of listing just get subjected to the same comments and scrutiny as a full RFA? Wouldn't it be hard (impossible) to take someone whose name was on the list here but had a few negative comments and then have them successfully pass an

1200:

Okay, so I think editors agree that i)People with little hope of passing should be given some warning about how harsh RfA can be; ii)Given some information about what is usually wanted; iii)If an early close is suggested, and rejected, the candidate is treated like any other RfA candidate. (That is,

793:

Any convention that causes editors distress and sometimes premature retirement is a problem unless it delivers compensatory benefits. We have in the region of 100 RfAs that crash and burn per year, which is offset by perhaps a single exceptional editor being promoted earlier than would have been the

752:

there have been eight candidates this month who have been rejected snow or not now with little if any feedback other than that their edits and tenure are insufficient for them to be seriously considered at RFA. This month has not been unusual, annually we get about a hundred of these; that's an awful

318:

unless they had both 1500 edits and three months activity; and that continuing to allow ethusiastic newish editors to put themselves through this sort of unpleasant experience is tantamount to newbie biteing. Can those who usually oppose such a restriction please have a rethink and either accept that

109:

There are arguments pro and con for making some kind of vetting available if we're going to have a recruitment drive, but whether it's a good idea or not isn't important if we can't get a bunch ... say, 10 ... people interested in offering private reviews, and in having their reviews reviewed (if the

4805:

I would like to run for adminship, but I'm not conferrable about nominating myself. I would like it if someone (or several people) nominate me for adminship. There is a concern that I have though about how strict RFA has been now, because it seems it's been getting stricter every year (by the amount

3044:

Can I run? Oh pretty please please please with sugar on top and a dancing cute little fairy? Please? lol I have as much chance as an ice sculpture in Dante's inferno. The funny thing is, I've never done anything to damage the project, only help it. But, people don't like me (and I don't care if they

2769:

The ones who were rejected, were booted because there was too much known about them. Presumably "Pastor" Theo got in because he was not so well known and was good at convincing everyone he was Mr. Nice Guy. Anyone who "creates drama" (code words for "speaks his mind and won't kiss up") gets a lot of

2698:

Neurolysis might be worth considering again. I think it's been a while since their last effort. And I've seen good contribs from Ironholds. If someone failed in the past it means they may have made some mistakes, but if they've stuck with editing, gained experience, and stayed out of trouble I think

172:

I would advise limiting this idea to Category:Knowledge administrator hopefuls, and having only admins who spend time around RfA do the vetting. My reasoning is that this Category is a list of people who want to be known as potential admins, so I really see no problem with adding a mechanism to that

121:

Sorry to be picky, but surely WIkipedia is voluntary? The term "recruitment drive" (albeit pertaining to those wishing to be admins) seems rather... odd. Generally a good idea however, even though I'm not sure that potential admins should be vetted by e-mail. That seems to be against the open nature

6116:

The point of the above exercise is not to brainstorm possibly good candidates, and talk them up so that someone nominates them; it's to bring to the attention of prospective clueful nominators candidates they might otherwise have overlooked or not been aware of, for private review. That aside, your

6099:

Wellll... by the time it gets to actual RFA, it's as transparent as always. Sure, there's a less-transparent thing in front of that, but this kind of thing already goes on all the time. And, at the end of the day, we need to get people to become more interested in getting the right answer than in

3289:

I posted this list without asking the editors in question first, which is why I explicitly asked that editors not make negative comments about any prospective candidates. The point of this exercise is to make experienced and clueful nominators aware of potential candidates, not to run a mini-RfA in

2797:

comfortable with flawed but reasonable "known quantities", and the one on the list I know best and would support is Neurolysis. As a practical matter, he's starting at college and most likely won't have time. Maybe that's the explanation for the hundreds of other supposed admins who don't work here

1118:

I don't see the harm as coming from not having an early close, I see the harm as coming from allowing people to run when they don't have enough experience to have their candidacy taken seriously. If someone wants to run the whole week and is getting worthwhile feedback then I see no harm in that, I

632:

I would personally be very unhappy at any definite minumum requirement edit count policy for RfA. Of course, we all know that an editor with only 50 edits is not going to get the tools: but they can be told so politely and quietly, and it really does not cause any of us here any significant problem

424:

I agree that RFA is becoming a two stage process, but this is intended to filter out those who get opposed on things like edit count and tenure, not the candidates who get 50% to 70% and opposes that point out flaws they may not already have been aware of. We also need to be aware that a lot of RFA

389:

Well, I look back at my RfA, I was weighed down by heavy oppisition at the start, even a SNOW closure what not, however, After my first period of initial anger, and a few moral supports, I realized that it is part of the process! RfA should be a process that is a little intimidating, while being an

3014:

I'm more than a little uncomfortable about discussion of named potential candidates here, and would be much more comfortable if we stuck to discussing potential sources of recruits. Several good ones have been mentioned, in particular unsuccessful candidates who last ran more than three months ago

1597:

I'm not really suggesting we get into an in depth discussion and wouldn't want to bias the RFA itself one way or the other. I was just throwing out names for consideration that might be good to nom. I was hoping other editors might be willing to do the vetting and nomming or have other names worth

1362:

I basically agree with Juliancolton. If someone wants their RfA to remain open, whatever the reason, it should remain open until the end. I think someone who is willing to go through something as a learning experience shows a lot of maturity (or at least a willingness to learn), especially if they

1343:

I think that if someone requests their SNOW RfA remain open, it should stay open. As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of closing RfAs prematurely is to avoid pile-on voting which discourages the candidate; therefore, if the candidate can handle it, there's no point in SNOW'ing it. One could argue

864:

The number one way to encourage a continually raising bar to adminship is....to create a bar in the first place. That's my concern. Once it is created, you're not going to be able to stop it creeping higher. There's a general belief here that you need 'x' number of edits to be considered. But that

838:

I agree that overuse of edit count is part of the problem at RFA. We discussed this in one of the sessions at Wikimania and apparently DE wiki is in an even worse state with 10,000 edits now seen as a minimum requirement for adminship. But this proposal isn't about the candidates who the community

774:

Then it's been a "problem" ever since people started caring about edit counts. What, 5? 6? 7 years? Doesn't seem to have shut down RfA. Maybe the solution is to talk to the people who are running before they are ready, rather than automatically refusing them. Eight such efforts a month isn't much.

691:

If the snow closures of candidates with fewer than 1,500 edits were done politely and quietly and with detailed feedback based on a review of their edits then I wouldn't be making this suggestion. But the sort of RFAs I'm trying to prevent are the ones that get opposes such as "Too soon" and "not

576:

Just a couple of sentences later that same paragraph goes on to say "Before requesting or accepting a nomination, candidates should generally be active and regular Knowledge contributors for at least several months, be familiar with the procedures and practices of Knowledge, respect and understand

367:

We have discussed the idea several times over nearly a year now, and a few things have emerged that I think address most of the objections that have come up. Firstly it needs to be something automated - we already have stuff in the guide, the unsuccessful section and the recent runners that should

4673:

in the midst of an editor review, and any editor who wishes to comment on my work is welcomed to do so at his/her leisure. At this time, though, I will not be undertaking a run at the mop. I have expressed my thanks to Staxringold, and do express my thanks to those here who believed me qualified.

1734:

I am honored to be even mentioned here. I have much respect for some of the people on this shortlist--I've left a love-note for Giants27 below; K-stick has the right temperament and is just the most pleasant person to work with; S Marshall would be an asset as an admin; and MQS has really, really

650:

To Anthony - I'm sure there are fine sysops who turned out fine after failing an early attempt and learning from feedback. But the whole point of this discussion is that some have reacted negatively to being rejected, and even withdrawn from WP. Much of the discussion centers around how better to

633:

to do this. I can think of a number of admins who applied too early, were guided in the right direction, and are now among the better sysops here. For the record, even when an editor who has no chance applies, I always look at his/her edits in depth before opposing; I had hoped that we all did. --

454:

I would be more offended by being told that I could not even try because it is so obvious that I would not pass than I would be if I tried and failed. To be frank we can't be sure a candidate has no chance until we have an RfA. If people think there is no chance then try to convince the person to

140:

I want to make sure that the lack of interest is really lack of interest rather than just not knowing about the page. Clearly, what's going on a few sections above is a kind of "recruitment drive", and so far, it's helping a little, but not a lot. If you encourage people to run who fail because

3334:

I'm just going to post a few opinions here since someone put it on my talk page. I'm not very active right at the moment. I deploy in the Navy on February 23rd and I'm still in college as a Pilot. Yeah, I'm really busy lol. Anyway, I had a few qualms about my RfA. I can completely understand why

3111:

I'm not suggesting that all or even most of the editors would be smart choices for candidates, but many fine administrators had unsuccessful requests, and this seemed like a good place to start narrowing down the non-admin pool. Have you any suggestions of good places to look for candidates? I'm

1140:

You're right. I think NotAnIp is saying an early close can at least limit the harm, though as you say feeback can be valuable if the candidate is up for it, and much better to limit the potential for harm by having clearer guidelines so that those without a snowball's chance dont enter the fray

4624:

From what I've seen of you at AfD (and your arguments for shooting down one or two of my nominations, haha) I would support you. I'm not a diff digger (does this exist already? can I take credit for that?) but I think you have the proper temperament and dedication to the project. I'll await the

3131:

Maybe look at who is doing new page patrol? Might as well save time by giving the competent ones the ability to actually delete the junk, rather than just tagging it. And yeah, some people who have run before are good candidates. I just thought it was odd to see a few obviously inappropriate

2966:? I already tried nominating someone for the first time this month, but it didn't work out. There are a few people who I wish I could nominate, but I know they'd fail because they have political or ideological messages on their user pages (won't mention names). I'll think about this more later. 973:

The list is not patrolled, so people who requested a coach long ago and then tried RFA without coaching can still be in it. We should probably try and reset Admin Coaching to be more like Adoption, with templates on userpages to request coaching. But that would require a decent number of admins

883:

I share your concern about continually rising RFA standards, especially in areas not relevant to adminship. But I'm not convinced that this proposal would affect that. I fear that the real flaw in RFA is the ratcheting effect of setting the passmark at 70-75%. There is a natural process in such

3364:

The two people who disrupted my RfA have both been blocked indefinitely. This should tell you something about their motives. I may have let my Italian temper get the better of me, but I don't think that I said or did anything which could be construed as a violation of Knowledge guidelines.

6128:

I see. I'm tempted to take out the part about brainstorming; that paragraph was too long, anyway. Or better yet, how about if I copy the relevant part of this section to a new section, named something like "Pre-nominations"? Would that count as "implementing", or do I have to come up with a

6030:

I think this stipulation makes the exercise pointless. The problem has been that RfA has been perceived by many as too toxic, and not looking at the stumbling stones is a step in the wrong direction; we will only end up with even more nominations of candidates that are doomed to fail. While

669:

Sphilbrick - yes, I see - always the downside of non-vocal communication! Yes, I do agree - and indeed this discussion very is a fine example of why text may not convey our words properly; and hence at RFA when opposing our possible empathy with the candidate. Thanks for your clarification.

5753:

As above, please help out by removing admins, blocked editors and those who might not appreciate being listed or are already listed in the previous subsection, and striking inactive, retired or uninterested editors with an explanation. If you see someone you're surprised to find is not an

3316:

and doesn't need to be broadcast in a forum meant to be free of negative comments w/ regard to specific candidates. Likewise being coy about who you are referring to is hardly a defense. Please consider the possibility that your opinion about who you might oppose isn't wanted right now.

313:

We've discussed several times before the idea of upping the minimum requirements for a self nom to something that would screen out those whom the community is going to snowball oppose. I think this a prime example of the sort of unfortunate incident that would be prevented if no-one could

157:

Could be a good idea, especially if the applicants are chosen from 'Category:Knowledge administrator hopefuls'. It could also cut back on the number of failed RfA's if users familiar with the RfA process choose to participate. FYI, I am on the list, however this is an unbiased comment.

5920:

Thank you for the (potential) nomination, it honors me. However, I am unsure I can take on this responsibility and live up to it, at least not at the moment - I would consider it counterproductive for an elected admin not to be able to respond swiftly to queries or perform necessary

646:

To Pedro - Ah, the downsides of text, without nuance. The entire point of the "summarily dismissed" language was to describe the viewpoint of the recipient. I think it is an accurate description of how some feel, even when editors are trying hard to provide useful feedback. Do you

2993:

I myself was not considering going for adminship again, but if I was asked I probably would oblige. That said, I'm still concerned by the Giano incident. I've not really done anything to advance from that before (maybe the refrainment from such activity is enough, but meh),

487:

It's going to be really hard to set the bar. Setting it too high will be unpopular with many people. Setting it too low will mean candidates run when they're not (in the eyes of some people) ready. If a candidate meets the min reqs does that mean that an editor could '

3275:

At least one of those, I will likely strongly oppose due to borderline immature bitterness after I opposed last time, i.e. lack of effort to mend fences a la say MuZemike with whom I started out on the wrong foot and nevertheless wound up supporting recently. Sincerely,

5978:

Thanks for the mention and the talkpage note. I'm at least potentially interested, possibly some time in the near future... but I too am travelling this week and may have scant internet access. I'll think about it more thoroughly when I get hold of a steady connection.

4843:

Thanks for nominating me. I really do want to be an admin, maybe the youngest admin (currently, I'm 12), but I feel I'm not fully aware of all areas of the wiki (especially the slow-loading and dangerous XfDs), so I may deny any nominations until I feel ready.

1119:

just hope that those who like the current system will try to make it work by actually reviewing the candidates edits and writing an oppose that's more of an editor review - "here's a few things you might consider trying/changing/learning before your next RFA"

2713:

IMathew looks okay to me at first blush. Anyway, I just wanted to throw out some names and see if others had any. I think there must be qutie a few good editors who deserve a shot, even if they possess some imperfections that deem them more or less human. :)

6238:, I would only run for adminship if I believe I had a realistic chance of it passing, i.e. if over 100 editors urged me to do so and also not until 6 February 2010 at the earliest. In the meantime, I will help out in whatever other ways I can. Best, -- 2189: 1318:

If someone is presented with the suggestion that they withdraw their RfA (per SNOW/NOTNOW) and they decline the invitation, it continues along unless a bureaucrat decides that it really is best to close the RfA. That's how I've always thought of it...

3451:

I think Kww would make an excellent admin, but his candidacy has been twice derailed for reasons having little to do with his abilities. I'm hoping to encourage him to make another run in a month or so and hope everyone will get on board and

3015:

and are still active. I would suggest broadening that from just the last year to further back, but I'd suggest concentrating on candidates who failed on issues like inexperience and lack of policy knowledge. We could also look at people on

1099:

Yes I read it and I hope something will be done to mitigate the harm. Id also recognise folk have very different reactions to harsh words - at one end of the spectrum it can result in the most extreme responces, while others quite literally

958:

Here's a couple that I think could pass without an issue, upon initial review - Jeff G. and abce2, but I saw OverlordQ in that list and see that he is an admin, so I am not sure if that table is at all reliable if it is that out of date.

1553:

I've only bumped into Drmies and Bongomatic in limited fashion but it's been positive for sure and I 100% second that Kelapstick would make a great admin after working with him in weeding out notable and non-notable minor league baseball

553:" I guess this is technically true, but without a follow up explaining that you can apply, but you'll be summarily dismissed if you can't jump over a certain bar, the height of which varies from editor to editor and isn't well-publicized. 4747:

I do not doubt my ability to exercise careful and just use of the tools endowed with adminship. While I do accept this pseudo-nomination (and I say that with care to point out that I was only haphazardly selected for my participation in

6064:

I believe that process will improve the quality or our candidates, increase the chance for RfAs to pass, while giving some of our most prolific editors some honest feedback, mediated by an experienced editor, that helps them improve. —

6204:. Please have a look at it. I like the idea of promoting this on top of RFA, but, given the way it is currently implemented, I think that would be too much text. Maybe, instead, we could just have a link that encourages people to add 5858:

Unfortunately Cunard, although a fairly excellent choice, has declined nom offers in the past, so I've gone ahead and struck him out. I know that one of those near the top of the list will likely be running in about two months or so.

4651:

it. Juliancolton is my coach, but that hasn't really gone anywhere since he is so busy. If anyone would like to take on helping me that would be appreciated. Otherwise, I'll run if others think that I have a clear shot at doing so.

4674:

Though I have made statements in the past that I did not wish to run for the position, I may possibly consider it in the future, and will notify appropriate parties if and when that time arrives. Thanks for your time and support.

1757:

I hadn't noticed Bongo is on CoM's shortlist as well: he's a bit of a whipper-snapper with less than 10,000 edits, but I believe him to be wise beyond his years--nice to work with, very knowledgeable of policy, and even-handed.

5786: 6185:, without all the explanatory stuff. And I think what Skomorokh is saying is, make sure it's clear that this is not a mini-RFA on the talk page; the whole point is the potentially disheartening stuff is said in private. -- 6059:

If the feedback identifies a problem, then N can discuss it with C, and help C become a better candidate. When N thinks C improved appropriately, N can post C's name again, mentioning that the earlier concern has been

843:. I will go through that again a bit more scientifically and collect some figures as to both the number of editors whose RFA would have been prevented by this, and how many ceased their contributions after their RFA. 1742:

vet me. Right now is not the time since I'm quite busy at work and at home, but a few months from now might work. Thank you all, and thanks to ChildofMidnight for such a well-punctuated start to a useful discussion.

1640:

like to (in particularly in an administrative function). And Soap is right, still too soon after my first RfA. The vetting idea is interesting, and I haven't seen a name posted above that raises any red flags. --

4829:". I'd feel more comfortable if someone else could nominate me, though, to help me through the process. If I somehow made it, and it doesn't work out, I can always return to my normal activities, doncha know. :) - 3386:

Oh sure, I'd be happy to accept an RFA if someone nominates me. I just don't think I stand a chance. That said, I haven't been following RFA for a while, so maybe I would. I just have a LOT of baggage with me. :)

2605:

Feel free to strike the admins, inactive and recently-blocked editors from the above list, and to remove yourself if you'd prefer not to be considered. No negative comments about the above-listed editors please.

1735:

grown on me (we started off on the wrong foot, back when I was a deletionist--my mistake, no doubt, but if anyone can 'save' an article at AfD in the right way, without bending the rules, it's MQS). I would vote

3160:. NPP is a good place to look, do you know of any way to get a list of the likely candidates in one fell swoop? Need a less piecemeal approach than sitting watching the logs, at least for this project. Cheers, 4705:

I would run for adminship, however, I think my actions in the past could probably affect the way the community feels about me. Such as minor slip ups of words. But its been a while since that has happened.--

999:

I think that abce2 pretty much has what it takes right now, as would Jeff G., except that he was at AN/I less than a week ago. It would only take a little bit of polish I think to get him over the line.

1537:

Good idea CoM, though we might wish to remove editors from the list who might through modesty not wish to be mentioned. I'll have a look through the unsuccessful "nearly there" candidates from last year.

4782:

To be honest, a large amount of highly active users do not list themselves on this list. I think that anyone can be a HAU, so this doesn't particularly mean anything. That's the frank side of me :).

943:

last night, and I think that there are some decent prospects there at the moment for the mop. Could be a good way to keep from dropping to zero candidates in the future. And, frankly, I think that

2933:

Well, hopefully Pedro will be able to push Steve over the edge ... uhhh errr ummm .. I mean "Assist Steve in deciding to run". :). another couple that I wouldn't mind seeing in that list would be

5017:→I will make some comments at some point soon, but I am doing some particularly hard-core content stuff at the moment. My inclination is that I would not be suitable, but I will expand on this. 840: 749: 5949:, I will be away most of the next week and I am not sure how much internet access I will have to respond promptly to RfA questions. Therefore, I would like to hold off a week before proceeding. 192:. Please don't create a redundant page and then make a bunch of RfA shortcuts so it seems like an official process. If you'd like to propose a new form of editor review, clearly mark it with 1598:

looking into. For some strange reason I'm a bit controversial on the Wiki so I don't think I'm in a good position to actually nom anyone myself, unless they really like uphill battles.

5767: 4574:

Hmm... right now? probably not; I want to let my Editor Review go through, for one, two, I quite frankly need to get around to reading up on policy, and three, I'd also want to ask

981:

also contains many users willing to be admins and a not small number of them might be good candidates. But again, it needs people willing to go through it and assess them. Regards

2653:

I just crossed out UIS and Dendodge because, while they might have a chance at RfA in the near future, now really isn't a good time, because they both ran just a few weeks ago:

4862:. DYK may not be thought of highly in content terms as other peer review processes, but it does tend to produce non-controversial, diligent, content-focused administrators. 6253:

This is a list of editors who have responded positively to the suggestion of running, but may need (private) review or a clueful and experienced third-party as nominator.

2658: 1056:

see above discussion. then see some recent RfAs where people have been advised to close their RfA early, but declined to do so. what should be done in those situations?

5495:

Thanks a lot! But these days I don't frequent Knowledge as much and I fear I may not be able to be able to remain as active as I might be required to. Once again thanks.-

534:

Which proposal? The proposal to disallow self-nomination below a bar, or the proposal to issue a caution warning to those below a certain threshold? I agree the first is

1386:

Persistence in sticking through to the end is a desirable trait in an admin, so it would be a plus in a follow up RfA. That applies too if they learn something from it!

94: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 3365:

Likewise, I don't much care for the elitist, "last one in closes the door behind him" attitude which far too many of the admins involved in the RfA process display. --

3232:

A second note, I'm not interested in running for quite a while here. Standard problems (sarcasm, morbid sense of humour, personality) will undermine any chance I have.

1104:(the most healthy view being close to DGAF IMO, though we should cater for all). If folk choose to opt out of snow they're likely not all that sensitive to criticism. 1028:

Well, I might just remove my name from the list soon. I haven't been as active as I should have been, and I don't have the time to check Knowledge on a daily basis.--

515:!) to read guides and act accordingly. If they choose to submit a premature RFA, then that's their decision and we should accept it and treat it accordingly. Regards 4665:

I appreciate the thought and confidence that comes with the presentation of my name as a possible administrator; however, I will have to decline a run at that time.

1722:

Do editors think these lists are helpful/a good idea? I could come up with half a dozen more, but will desist if they are problematic. Feedback appreciated. Mahalo,

4178: 4033: 940: 1004:'s edit count is a little on the smaller side compared to what many editors normally expect, but he looks to be a rather solid and well-rounded editor as well. 145:, which generally takes several weeks or more, and tends not to give people a good idea whether they'll pass RFA or not. I would welcome any new ideas. - Dank ( 6220: 4512: 1671:(participation in meta-deletion indicates interest, if not aptitude, in deletion policy), WikiProject co-ordinators (Milhist, Film in particular), clerks from 753:

lot of bitten editors and its not unusual for candidates to leave here after such an experience. So yes there is a problem, and this is a possible solution.

6181:? You could even have strategically placed include/noinclude tags and formatting so that a brief list of the people being vetted could appear at the top of 6527:

A fresh pair of eyes is probably best, you could do it I guess, I'd prefer if it was done in my userspace though, simply for transparency reasons. Thanks.

2756:

She had no edits before today for roughly two months, so it's the wrong time, but I'll be happy to help when she's been back for at least a month. - Dank (

2654: 2020: 1826: 1617: 3095:

Err, some of these people have been opposed before, for good cause. Are we sure it's wise to try to choose from people who have already failed an RFA?

6440: 3480:

sometime in the past 18 months. Such editors exhibit keenness to help out and/or unused time on their hands, which are exploitable for our purposes:

6485: 6205: 6201: 3521: 5284: 294:

I'm not really a big fan of off-wiki communication on any on-wiki process like this without a good reason, and I just don't see that reason here.

493:

A lot of people posting in Neutral saying "get some more experience", or "stop doing this, then try again" might be better than a bunch of "no".

4511:

I will not be running for the foreseeable future due to my own concerns regarding my suitability, preparedness and time commitments. Mostly per

1183:

Just let it go through to the end, perhaps they will win, they will likely lose. If someone wants to go through the whole thing then let them.

6161:

I'm not sure what you mean by "warning against public review", but I'll just post it as it is, and I allow you to change it as appropriate. —

3019:. Lastly how about we all take a little break from this forum and revisit those we've opposed a few months ago to see if they are now ready? 2699:

it's worth considering them. Of course I'd be willing to give Ottava a chance too (depending on what diffs people can dig up :) So who knows.

6371: 4766: 2467: 1930: 1861: 1065: 47: 17: 3429:

Quite busy at work at the moment and likely to be editing only sporadically for a while longer. Thanks for the thought, Dank and Skomorokh.

6352: 4027: 2597: 2093: 6045:

Other editors reply to N privately by e-mail, especially if they believe C would not be a good candidate or if they want to co-nominate C.

1697:

I've prompted Drmies to stand on a number of occasions and he has always said in strong terms he prefers to remain as an ordinary editor.—

6138:

Go right ahead, I'll chip in with a pre-nomination or two to get the ball rolling. I'd recommend adding a warning against public review.

6268: 5489: 5393: 5203: 4172: 3977: 2802: 2774: 2571: 468:

I'm of the opinion that we should treat people with respect to let them withdraw on their own once it becomes clear what is happening.--

219:

And I've reverted it back. There was no consensus for your redir, nor is the page redundant. ER and VETTING serve different purposes. →

5980: 5012: 4389: 3846: 3607: 2552: 5746: 4908: 4537: 4265: 3808: 3495: 3191:

It's next on my list, but I don't want to spam the page with these if they're not welcome (see above request for feedback). Cheers,

2742: 1964: 1683:. I'm not sure how to usefully extract candidates from recent changes/new page/vandalism patrol, but that would be another avenue. 1071:

nothing? Those who opt out of snow might think the chance of an unexspected swing or additional feedback outweighs any negatives.

6516:

Great! Is there someone you know who you'd like to handle the feedback? Pedro or Ched perhaps? If not, I'd be happy to. Regards,

6474: 6390: 6311: 6289: 5584: 5314: 5234: 4877: 4300: 4195: 4162: 3575: 2440: 2410: 2217: 2185: 1990: 1708: 1427: 577:

its policies, and have gained the general trust of the community." All you'd need to add to that is they should be familiar with

6038:

Here's an alternative: If an experienced editor N thinks another editor C might be a good candidate, let's proceed as follows:

6023:

I know that this is a very well intended stipulation, because it avoids drama here. And the rule "withhold criticism" works for

3357:

I am dealing with a host of personal and family-related problems, and therefore I will not be as active in the near-term future,

5643: 5142: 5052: 4095: 4011: 3938: 3699: 3360:

Too many people consider RfA a forum for trolling and general incivility, and I really don't feel like being subjected to that.

2976: 2483: 2337: 2273: 6178: 1620:

was only a few months ago; the RfA was succeeding, but he chose to withdraw anyway because he felt he wasn't quite ready. --

5714: 5081: 4996: 4941: 4607: 4554: 4373: 4355: 4168: 3780: 3762: 3658: 3638: 2377: 2247: 2143: 2110: 2037: 2016: 1820: 1566: 1371: 944: 6234:

Some, who will remain anonymous, have asked me and in some cases multiple times if I would run via email, but as I said at

5730: 5457: 5344: 5110: 4338: 4249: 3376: 2517: 2159: 1892: 1206: 1090: 1061: 498: 6432: 6333: 5677: 5567: 5523: 5425: 4968: 4924: 4540:

it would be best if I waited until the end of the year; I'm personally planning to run the gauntlet in late December. --

4127: 4066: 4045: 3891: 3813:

I would love to be a admin but I do not think I have what it takes yet, because I do not know really how to be a admin.

3682: 3544: 3515: 2321: 2060: 545:

Yes, I'm surprised that some people are applying well-below community norms, but we do send a mixed message. After all

6455: 6412: 5612: 5551: 5294: 5278: 5251: 3921: 3175:. The nominators over there surely have enough content work to get by, and the reviewers are usually very competent. – 3026: 1126: 891: 850: 760: 699: 432: 375: 326: 5766:

Is it me or does anyone else think it is odd that the list is "arbitrarily-culled" just before my name would appear?

3852:– not at this time. Very focused on content edits right now and, honestly, don't feel qualified to handle the tools. 1803:

This is an arbitrary selection of unsuccessful candidates from September 2008 – February 2009 who might have a shot.

1085:

That's fine. But this page has lengthy discussion about the harm that comes to people when they don't early close.

5364: 5171: 4487: 4233: 2671: 2628: 2305: 2126: 1946: 1630: 1155:

Let people do what they want. This notion is entirely too paternalistic for something that doesn't matter enough.--

639: 38: 3045:

do), and RfA is a popularity contest. So, I'd never pass. Maybe that's the absolute proof that RfA is broken :) --

6365: 4414: 3157: 2827: 2719: 2704: 2461: 2360: 1924: 1855: 1603: 1527: 1493:

Thanks, but I won't run until December (or possibly a bit sooner). I'm interested in the vetting-thingy, though.

1391: 1344:

that keeping the RfA open is a waste of time, but that argument doesn't really hold any water in my experience. –

407: 284: 163: 2745:) declares on her userpage an intention to run again, and is currently active. Anyone want to privately review? 6554: 6535: 6522: 6511: 6496: 6346: 6242: 6227: 6212: 6194: 6165: 6144: 6133: 6123: 6107: 6090: 6069: 6010: 5988: 5971: 5958: 5930: 5914: 5900: 5874: 5851: 5838: 5824: 5813: 5797: 5779: 5760: 5698: 5660: 5626: 5596: 5535: 5506: 5472: 5440: 5408: 5376: 5328: 5298: 5268: 5218: 5186: 5154: 5125: 5093: 5064: 5035: 4980: 4951: 4892: 4848: 4838: 4820: 4797: 4773: 4758: 4739: 4697: 4660: 4634: 4619: 4586: 4575: 4562: 4531: 4502: 4491: 4464: 4453: 4429: 4418: 4403: 4322: 4283: 4217: 4146: 4110: 4078: 4050: 4021: 3995: 3960: 3905: 3875: 3829: 3792: 3745: 3666: 3621: 3592: 3559: 3528: 3505: 3461: 3438: 3419: 3400: 3381: 3344: 3340: 3326: 3305: 3296: 3280: 3268: 3264: 3253: 3241: 3227: 3197: 3186: 3166: 3139: 3118: 3102: 3084: 3070: 3054: 3035: 3009: 2988: 2957: 2920: 2884: 2865: 2831: 2805: 2788: 2777: 2761: 2751: 2723: 2708: 2693: 2675: 2648: 2612: 2591: 2535: 2500: 2452: 2424: 2394: 2345: 2289: 2257: 2231: 2202: 2169: 2087: 2077: 2044: 2000: 1974: 1913: 1875: 1845: 1788: 1767: 1751: 1728: 1715: 1689: 1649: 1634: 1607: 1592: 1578: 1544: 1531: 1511: 1483: 1461: 1434: 1395: 1381: 1355: 1336: 1309: 1289: 1269: 1251: 1227: 1210: 1202: 1191: 1164: 1150: 1135: 1113: 1094: 1086: 1080: 1057: 1037: 1023: 1008: 994: 968: 951: 928: 900: 874: 859: 817: 803: 784: 769: 741: 708: 686: 664: 641: 627: 597: 571: 528: 502: 494: 477: 463: 441: 411: 384: 358: 335: 303: 288: 270: 256: 235: 213: 182: 178: 167: 150: 135: 115: 585:

RfAs is all it should take even a mildly clueful candidate to see that standards vary from !voter to !voter.--

6262: 5984: 5501: 5483: 5404: 5387: 5197: 4770: 4755: 4613: 3971: 3786: 3525: 3511: 2565: 1572: 189: 4947:

Thank you, but at this stage, no thank you. I'm not ready to undertake the responsibilities of an admin. --

4259: 5290: 5274: 5026: 5006: 4684: 4383: 3862: 3840: 3601: 3184: 3021: 2963: 2546: 1501: 1353: 1146: 1121: 1109: 1076: 1019: 886: 845: 799: 755: 694: 427: 370: 321: 299: 6190: 5834: 5809: 5775: 5740: 4902: 4349: 3823: 3802: 3489: 3434: 3350:

I might consider running again for RfA in the future, but right now it is out of the question, because:

2736: 2689: 1958: 1245: 634: 592: 128: 3156:

Mea culpa for listing anyone obviously inappropriate; I don't follow a great deal of wiki-politics and

2542: 4477:... though I'm not sure how to do it with AWB, it's only a few dozen, so I'll just do it by hand. -- 4255: 6503:

I'd be happy to give this new process a go, there are some niggling issues I want feedback on first.

6468: 6384: 6361: 6305: 6283: 6006: 5578: 5324: 5308: 5228: 5214: 5182: 4888: 4871: 4814: 4579: 4558: 4524: 4410: 4315: 4294: 4210: 4189: 4156: 3953: 3662: 3586: 3569: 3415: 3407: 3391: 3080: 3050: 2950: 2912: 2857: 2823: 2715: 2700: 2641: 2457: 2434: 2404: 2211: 2179: 1984: 1920: 1851: 1838: 1781: 1705: 1645: 1599: 1523: 1448: 1424: 1387: 1263: 1015: 870: 813: 780: 737: 658: 565: 403: 352: 280: 159: 279:

I agree, that was completely unnecessary. Especially since there appears to be support for it here.

6549: 6517: 6491: 6342: 6139: 6118: 5846: 5819: 5755: 5637: 5591: 5530: 5371: 5149: 5136: 5088: 5059: 5046: 4975: 4790: 4592: 4497: 4459: 4424: 4398: 4106: 4089: 4017: 4005: 3932: 3693: 3555: 3336: 3291: 3260: 3248: 3237: 3192: 3161: 3113: 2793:

Not interested at this time, but thanks for asking. Meanwhile, (ec) I was going to say that I feel

2746: 2607: 2587: 2477: 2331: 2267: 2237: 2083: 1899: 1723: 1684: 1539: 1457: 507:

I see no use in such a proposal. 1.) We have no way to force people to follow such rules. 2.) It's

249: 174: 4754:

I consider it prideful to nominate myself; if indeed someone trusts me then they may nominate me.

6529: 6505: 6258: 6224: 6209: 6182: 6162: 6130: 6086: 6066: 5911: 5896: 5868: 5793: 5708: 5692: 5667: 5656: 5557: 5496: 5479: 5400: 5383: 5193: 5075: 4990: 4935: 4690: 4596: 4569: 4547: 4449: 4367: 3967: 3868: 3769: 3756: 3651: 3632: 3222: 2984: 2971: 2878: 2799: 2771: 2561: 2390: 2371: 2285: 2241: 2137: 2104: 2073: 2031: 2010: 1814: 1555: 1519: 1377: 1303: 964: 539: 209: 651:

deliver the message to those people that applying with 50 edits is a waste of everyone's time.--

5289:

Thanks, I am interested. I am on wikibreak 16-26 Sep, but then return to usual activity level.

319:

we need such a filter or suggest how we can effectively convert such RFAs into editor reviews?

6235: 5954: 5946: 5724: 5468: 5451: 5338: 5121: 5104: 5019: 5002: 4675: 4379: 4332: 4279: 4243: 3853: 3836: 3613: 3597: 3457: 3322: 3177: 2530: 2511: 2443:) - If Jameson becomes active enough to pass RfA, I'll be happy to nominate him, we worked in 2416: 2223: 2153: 1909: 1886: 1867: 1496: 1488: 1346: 1220: 1184: 1142: 1105: 1072: 978: 795: 456: 295: 262: 196: 103: 5754:

administrator, or you think ought to be one, please consider vetting and nominating. Mahalo,

2783:

Speaking of which, I was hoping you'd run again sometime Bugs, do you want any help? - Dank (

6426: 6327: 6186: 6104: 5830: 5805: 5771: 5736: 5671: 5561: 5517: 5436: 5419: 4962: 4918: 4898: 4845: 4834: 4666: 4656: 4630: 4140: 4121: 4073: 4060: 4043: 3901: 3885: 3815: 3798: 3676: 3538: 3502: 3485: 3430: 3136: 3099: 2732: 2685: 2579: 2491: 2315: 2054: 1954: 1763: 1747: 1329: 1284: 1239: 1160: 1033: 586: 473: 123: 1695:

I've recently been asked to stand again, but I'm still a little bruised from the last time.

6464: 6449: 6406: 6380: 6301: 6279: 6002: 5818:

Nothing personal intended, perhaps I am saving all the exciting nominations for myself ;)

5622: 5606: 5574: 5545: 5320: 5304: 5264: 5245: 5224: 5210: 5178: 4884: 4867: 4807: 4728: 4518: 4438: 4309: 4290: 4204: 4185: 4152: 3947: 3915: 3718: 3612:

An RFA would be, shall we say, vigorous. Tony, I'd recommend taking advantage of the new

3579: 3565: 3477: 3411: 3076: 3063: 3046: 3016: 3002: 2945: 2905: 2850: 2633: 2430: 2400: 2207: 2175: 1980: 1832: 1777: 1773: 1698: 1660: 1641: 1467: 1440: 1417: 1411: 1325: 1257: 988: 925: 866: 809: 776: 733: 725: 679: 653: 620: 560: 546: 535: 522: 508: 399: 347: 342: 6208:

to their watchlist. I think I'll also write a little announcement at the Village Pump. —

4582:) as well. The only one of those that could take a long time is the editor review part.-- 2975:

06:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Maybe we can convince ShelfSkewed? Previous suggestion at

6076: 5926: 5633: 5617:

I would be willing to run if there are people willing to back up such a candidature. --

5358: 5165: 5132: 5042: 4784: 4583: 4227: 4102: 4085: 4001: 3928: 3737: 3689: 3617: 3551: 3233: 3214:

Just to note, I would be honored to run again, should somebody wish to nominate me. :)

3075:

And lack of smiley faces does not imply lack of humor. Sprinkle smileys as needed :) --

2876:

I'd put my hand up...but there's that account sharing thing to clear up first I guess.

2784: 2757: 2622: 2473: 2448: 2444: 2420: 2341: 2327: 2299: 2263: 2253: 2227: 2165: 1997: 1970: 1871: 1676: 1479: 1453: 1101: 1005: 1001: 948: 729: 391: 266: 243: 227: 146: 111: 4470: 4201:

Although a good option, not very active with only a few edits since July. Regards, --—

6239: 6081: 6024: 5968: 5964: 5942: 5938: 5891: 5860: 5789: 5704: 5684: 5651: 5071: 4986: 4948: 4931: 4749: 4601: 4542: 4496:

Thanks very much, Soap, I appreciate it. *looks guiltily at the added dozens below*.

4444: 4363: 4345: 3774: 3752: 3646: 3628: 3312:

Honestly, your inability to be adult about candidates who refuse to kiss the ring is

3302: 3277: 3216: 3172: 2980: 2967: 2631:) has slowed down his contributing substantially. iMatthew should possibly run soon? 2385: 2367: 2354: 2280: 2190:

Knowledge:Featured list candidates/List of bridges to the Island of Montreal/archive1

2133: 2100: 2068: 2025: 2006: 1810: 1785: 1680: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1560: 1364: 1295: 960: 512: 395: 315: 204: 6548:

Ah, well if you don't mind it being in public, there's no need for an intermediary.

3112:

prepared to do the donkey work if others are prepared to review + nominate. Cheers,

5950: 5720: 5464: 5447: 5334: 5117: 5100: 4328: 4275: 4239: 3453: 3367: 3318: 2938: 2524: 2507: 2149: 1905: 1882: 142: 6117:

proposal sounds like a good idea, Sebastian, and I encourage you to implement it.

5804:

Wait, Ocean appears below me. Blah! Skomorokh! You did that on purpose! Brat! :P

309:

only let people run if there is a chance the community will assess them seriously

6422: 6323: 6101: 5513: 5432: 5415: 4958: 4914: 4858:

This is an arbitrarily-culled list of some of the most prolific contributors to

4830: 4652: 4626: 4134: 4117: 4056: 4038: 3984: 3897: 3881: 3672: 3534: 3158:

am only one amongst the blind trying to get an understanding of the RfA elephant

3133: 3096: 2819: 2770:

negative votes, for fear they might actually do what admins are supposed to do.

2311: 2050: 1759: 1743: 1585: 1472: 1277: 1156: 1029: 469: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

6075:

It's a very interesting idea, but I have one objection: It ruins the (at least

6031:

brainstorming is fun, it is not appropriate for this situation: It is based on

3354:

I just started my first term in graduate school and I am under a lot of stress,

1406:

How about a list of editors that deserve consideration for possible adminship?

6445: 6402: 5618: 5602: 5541: 5258: 5241: 4826: 4710: 3911: 3712: 3476:

This is an arbitrarily-selected list of editors who put themselves forward as

2898: 2843: 2815: 1739:

on any one of them, and not just cause we're all in a very, very secret cabal.

1320: 983: 922: 673: 614: 517: 4625:

judgment of and nomination by King of Hearts, for whom I have great respect.

5922: 5354: 5161: 4480: 4223: 3730: 3410:

is my discussion with Skomorokh, comments on the topic, and acceptance... -

2934: 2664: 2618: 2295: 2119: 1939: 1623: 398:, vandalizing THEIR talk page, or for that matter the temptation to protect 220: 4397:

you think ought to be one, please consider vetting and nominating. Cheers,

1969:

Not the right time, see below, but I've left a message on her talk - Dank (

5889:

I have now manually notified all of these. Please do not post any more :)

4458:

Sure; could someone with the automated tools for the task do the honours?

542:

is a possible reason for rejecting the first proposal, but not the second.

5945:

convinced me that I should let him nominate me. But, as I told him on my

2350: 728:

solution looking for a problem. When RFA gets overrun by so many obvious

5967:

who has made many brilliant contributions to our project. Sincerely, --

4825:

Thank you for the consideration. I wasn't sure about this, but figured "

4536:

While I would personally be honored to serve Knowledge as an admin, per

3290:

this section. I'd appreciate it if you withdrew your comment, A Nobody.

4591:

I'm honored to be mentioned, however last month I got an admin coach (

3171:

IMO, one of the best places to look for potential admin candidates is

4859: 4595:) and I'll wait until he nominates me or considers me ready to run.-- 6236:

User:A_Nobody/RfA#Those_who_would_be_willing_to_support_me_in_an_RfA

6177:

On first blush, this is actually an excellent idea. Why not create

1904:

19:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC) But may well become active shortly!

5683:

Has declined nom offers in the past, doesn't wish to be an admin.

2340:) - I asked on Aug 31, he said he wants a few more months - Dank ( 241:

There is a small discussion taking place on Andrevan's talk page.

1256:

Thirded. We should treat this as general precedent from here on.

425:

candidates stop editing during or soon after an unsuccessful RFA

2798:

anymore, but it might be worth canvassing them and finding out.

732:

nominations, then there's an issue. There isn't an issue now. --

402:

when he dies before he's able to do so as set forth by policy.

6129:

candidate, too? To be honest, I didn't have anyone in mind. —

6048:

N evaluates the replies, and if the feedback looks good, then

5997:

Oops, this was me. Turns out that every computer I use abroad

5829:

Sure sure, you'd probably nom me then be the first oppose. :P

918: 25: 3983:

Recently turned down an offer, not interested in adminship.

1416:

Not me, not now. Thanks for the vote of confidence, though.—

841:

Knowledge:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological)

750:

Knowledge:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological)

6019:

The "no negative comments" stipulation, and an alternative

4423:

Mere copypasta :) The legwork will be in the nominations.

3644:

Would like to become one, but I'll wait until December. --

2962:

Off the top of my head, has anyone ever considered asking

2188:) - I'd be interested, but I would like the discussion at 551:

Anyone can apply regardless of their Knowledge experience.

6100:

worrying about how the process of getting there worked.

4436:

Per WSC above, I think it'd be courteous to notify these

3259:

I would probably run again if someone else nominated me.

1667:(inb4 content doesn't matter to adminship, yes it does), 1274:

I also think this sounds like the best course of action.

5937:

Thank you for considering me. As it happens, I received

5399:

Thanks, but lack experience in some areas. Maybe later.

6478: 6459: 6436: 6416: 6394: 6375: 6356: 6337: 6315: 6293: 6272: 5910:

interested in becoming an administrator at this time.--

4271: 3706: 3247:

Belatedly notified the remaining above-listed editors.

2995: 2488:

Bit inactive, has one edit in the last two months-ish.

1659:

Someother potentially-useful lists are non-admins from

1452:

Has elected to enter coaching before a possible run. --

947:

deserves to be promoted just based on their username.

1402:

List of editors who should be considered for adminship

1363:

know they don't have a chance of being successful. ···

1014:

With all due respect, Jeff G. wouldn't have a prayer.

4515:. Thanks for the consideration, however. Regards, --— 4409:

That's an impressive list. Thanks for working it up.

3550:

recently turned down an offer, wants to wait a bit -

3896:

Not now, I will look into it again in a few months.

2447:

together, but he has very few recent edits. - Dank (

3301:

That is why I did not say which one. Sincerely, --

2996:

said words that, quote, "would make a sailor blush"

341:I like the concept, but I'm mildly concerned about 6484:I will propose to these editors that they try the 2684:I think I have a better chance than most of them. 6042:N posts the name here, with no obligation for C. 2023:, will transclude as soon as MBK004 noms. :-) — 5941:note about this thread a couple of days after 941:Knowledge:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching 202:and separate it from established RfA process. 6221:Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/Vetting 2822:(not sure how long it's been since he ran?). 8: 6490:No public comments on these editors, bitte. 6001:automatically sign me in when I sit down... 4442:editors that they are being discussed here. 935:Some good prospects at Requests for Coaching 4072:Will run in October, not just now. Cheers, 1618:Knowledge:Requests_for_adminship/Kelapstick 1051: 917:Maybe this wiki should have something like 6219:I think we can discuss further details at 5257:Thanks, but not interested at this time. — 4270:User was asked in August by Dylan620, and 2617:Haven't really bumped into many of these. 5209:Not interested at this time (see below). 3727:Declined on my talkpage; not enough time. 3707:and responded "maybe soon..." in May 2009 3616:page if you want to pursue this. - Dank ( 3059:Mm, correlation doesn't imply causality. 2977:User talk:ShelfSkewed/Archive 2#Adminship 2818:(not sure if he'd be willing to run) and 6206:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Vetting 6202:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Vetting 6179:Knowledge/Requests for adminship/Vetting 2192:to close before the RfA is initiated. -- 2842:What the? IMatthews not an admin? Wow. 1219:That sums up my point of view nicely. 1052:they don't want the early close option 581:RfA -- just reading through about two 492:- not enough experience'?</ br: --> 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4101:Maybe in January 2010. I'm busy IRL. 18:Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship 7: 6249:Candidates needing review/nominators 5431:Thank you, but I'd burn out quickly. 2164:Not at this time, see below - Dank ( 2021:WP:Requests for adminship/The_ed17 2 4974:Not terribly active at the moment. 5906:Thanks for consideration, however 4883:Not just yet; in the near future. 3132:candidates in that list as well. 455:withdraw but don't lock the door. 24: 5319:Yes, I am interested in running. 4274:that they'd wait until December. 4469: 122:of Knowledge. Just my thoughts. 29: 6079:) transparency of the process. 5177:Not at the moment (see below). 3725:17:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 1675:, frequent petitioners at SPI, 6555:20:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 6536:20:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 6523:19:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 6512:19:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 6497:16:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 6243:02:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 6228:22:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 6213:22:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 6195:21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 6166:20:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 6145:20:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 6134:20:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 6124:20:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 6108:20:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 6091:20:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 6070:20:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 6011:13:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 5989:05:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 5972:23:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 5959:11:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 5931:00:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 5915:20:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 5901:20:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 5875:18:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 5852:18:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 5839:17:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 5825:17:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 5814:17:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 5798:20:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 5780:17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 5761:17:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 5699:18:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 5661:20:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 5627:14:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 5597:17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 5536:17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 5507:03:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 5473:20:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 5441:21:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 5409:22:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 5377:17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 5329:13:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 5299:08:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC) 5269:05:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 5219:01:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 5187:01:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 5155:17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 5126:02:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 5094:17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 5065:17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 5036:12:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 4981:17:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 4952:07:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 4893:01:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 4849:16:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 4839:15:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 4821:01:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 4798:00:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 4774:02:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 4769:, I will nominate myself now. 4759:23:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 4740:22:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 4698:21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 4661:18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 4635:13:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 4620:18:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 4587:18:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 4563:18:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 4532:17:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 4503:17:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 4492:17:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 4465:17:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 4454:17:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 4430:17:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 4419:17:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 4404:16:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 4323:17:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 4284:12:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 4218:19:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 4147:07:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 4111:12:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 4079:09:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 4051:20:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 3996:17:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 3961:18:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 3876:19:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 3830:20:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 3793:01:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 3746:14:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 3667:18:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 3622:18:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 3593:01:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 3560:16:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 3529:23:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 3506:16:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 3462:11:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 3439:10:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 3420:17:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 3401:14:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 3382:02:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 3345:20:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 3327:19:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 3306:19:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 3297:18:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 3281:18:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 3269:18:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 3254:18:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 3242:23:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 3228:20:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 3198:18:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 3187:18:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 3167:16:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 3140:16:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 3119:16:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 3103:16:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 3085:15:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 3071:14:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 3055:12:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 3036:07:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 3010:07:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2989:06:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2958:04:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2921:03:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2885:03:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2866:03:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2832:03:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2806:03:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2789:03:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2778:03:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2762:03:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2752:02:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2724:02:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2709:02:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2694:02:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2676:02:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2649:02:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2613:02:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2536:00:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 2501:18:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 2453:02:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2425:02:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 2395:05:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2346:03:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2290:05:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2258:02:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 2232:02:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 2203:05:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 2170:20:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 2078:05:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2045:18:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2001:12:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 1975:03:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 1914:07:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 1876:02:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 1846:23:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 1799:Recent unsuccessful candidates 1789:23:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 1768:13:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 1752:13:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 1729:18:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 1716:14:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 1690:03:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 1650:15:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 1635:02:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 1608:02:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 1593:02:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 1579:02:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 1545:02:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 1532:02:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 1512:20:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 1484:15:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 1476:See S Marshall's comment below 1462:13:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 1435:00:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 1356:23:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 1337:23:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 1310:21:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 1290:21:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 1270:20:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 1252:22:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 1228:15:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 1211:15:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 1201:with respect and politeness.) 1192:15:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 1165:14:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 1151:13:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 1136:12:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 1114:11:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 1095:11:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 1081:11:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 1066:10:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 1024:20:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 1009:10:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 995:09:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 969:22:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 952:21:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 945:User:Inferno, Lord of Penguins 929:08:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 901:00:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 875:14:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 860:14:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 818:12:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 804:11:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 785:02:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 770:00:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 742:13:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 726:Frequently proposed (wp:peren) 709:10:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 687:21:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC) 665:21:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC) 642:20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC) 628:20:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC) 598:20:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC) 572:20:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC) 529:19:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC) 503:18:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC) 478:17:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC) 464:16:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC) 442:16:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC) 412:16:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC) 385:16:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC) 359:15:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC) 336:10:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC) 289:20:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 271:02:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 257:00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 236:23:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 214:23:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 183:15:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC) 168:06:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC) 151:22:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 136:21:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 116:14:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 1: 6033:combining and improving ideas 5963:At a minimum I would support 5349:Thanks, Yes, I am interested. 2897:I wish I had han- never mind. 2252:He's considering it. - Dank ( 5503:Office of the secret service 2814:Two others I thought of are 2278:Very low activity recently. 974:willing to act as coaches... 3906:22:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 1772:I would absolutely support 1491:if enough time has passed? 1396:05:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC) 1382:04:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC) 1038:23:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC) 304:23:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC) 6575: 6051:N asks C if C wants to run 4169:Joseph Solis in Australia 4036:, closed as unsuccessful. 3406:Purely for transparency, 2116:just ran a few weeks ago 1936:just ran a few weeks ago 748:Actually if you look at 5845:doe-eyed look* who, me? 3578:) - I accept, see below 3524:) - I accept, see below 3501:No thanks (for now...) – 2557:has left the building :( 261:And on the talk page of 6200:OK, I created the page 4306:See below. Regards, --— 3944:See below. Regards, --— 1294:Yes, agreeing as well. 190:Knowledge:Editor review 2964:User:CaliforniaAliBaba 1518:I hesitate to mention 538:, but not the second. 394:and reporting THEM to 4360:Is user:Luk, CU/ADMIN 3472:Highly active editors 1898:not currently active 1141:until they're ready. 609:"summarily dismissed" 42:of past discussions. 6027:, so why not here? 5590:Currently inactive. 5529:Currently inactive. 5463:Nah, wouldn't work. 5370:Currently inactive. 5148:Currently inactive. 5087:Currently inactive. 5058:Currently inactive. 3768:See below. Cheers,-- 2066:Inactive (Retired?) 1782:User:MichaelQSchmidt 1449:user:MichaelQSchmidt 5649:Politely declined. 1203:NotAnIP83:149:66:11 1087:NotAnIP83:149:66:11 1058:NotAnIP83:149:66:11 558:We can do better.-- 495:NotAnIP83:149:66:11 188:I've redirected to 4771:Bob the Wikipedian 4756:Bob the Wikipedian 4133:Not at this time. 3526:Bob the Wikipedian 3512:Bob the Wikipedian 3398: 1996:Now seriously...-- 1827:Candidate withdrew 1520:user:FlyingToaster 1234:second that motion 540:User:Lustiger seth 6499: 5770:is listed. Blah! 5701: 5663: 5629: 5599: 5538: 5509: 5475: 5443: 5411: 5379: 5350: 5331: 5301: 5291:Materialscientist 5275:Materialscientist 5271: 5221: 5189: 5157: 5128: 5096: 5067: 5038: 5031: 5030:(tickets please!) 4983: 4954: 4895: 4735: 4725: 4696: 4573: 4530: 4325: 4321: 4286: 4220: 4216: 4149: 4113: 4081: 4037: 3998: 3963: 3959: 3908: 3874: 3832: 3795: 3748: 3728: 3724: 3709: 3669: 3624: 3562: 3508: 3388: 2987: 2974: 2956: 2919: 2864: 2538: 2503: 2499: 2427: 2397: 2292: 2260: 2234: 2200: 2172: 2130: 2080: 2042: 2003: 1950: 1916: 1878: 1848: 1844: 1514: 1489:User:theleftorium 1477: 1464: 1445: 1444:see comment below 1437: 1380: 1250: 685: 626: 238: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 6566: 6552: 6534: 6532: 6520: 6510: 6508: 6494: 6489: 6142: 6121: 6084: 5894: 5871: 5865: 5849: 5822: 5758: 5695: 5689: 5682: 5654: 5648: 5616: 5594: 5589: 5533: 5528: 5499: 5494: 5462: 5430: 5398: 5374: 5369: 5348: 5318: 5288: 5261: 5256: 5208: 5176: 5152: 5147: 5116:No, but thanks. 5115: 5091: 5086: 5062: 5057: 5034: 5032: 5029: 5024: 5016: 4978: 4973: 4946: 4882: 4827:Nothing ventured 4818: 4812: 4795: 4787: 4767:WP:Arrrrrrrgh!!! 4736: 4731: 4724: 4723: 4720: 4716: 4713: 4708: 4693: 4687: 4682: 4680: 4653:Kevin Rutherford 4616: 4610: 4604: 4599: 4567: 4550: 4545: 4529: 4527: 4516: 4500: 4473: 4462: 4447: 4427: 4401: 4320: 4318: 4307: 4305: 4269: 4215: 4213: 4202: 4200: 4145: 4143: 4137: 4132: 4100: 4071: 4031: 3991: 3988: 3982: 3958: 3956: 3945: 3943: 3898:Kevin Rutherford 3895: 3878: 3871: 3865: 3860: 3858: 3828: 3826: 3820: 3812: 3789: 3783: 3777: 3772: 3767: 3744: 3742: 3735: 3726: 3723: 3721: 3715: 3710: 3704: 3654: 3649: 3643: 3611: 3590: 3584: 3549: 3500: 3394: 3370: 3294: 3251: 3224: 3219: 3195: 3180: 3164: 3116: 3069: 3066: 3033: 3029: 3024: 3008: 3005: 2983: 2970: 2955: 2953: 2942: 2917: 2910: 2904: 2901: 2883: 2881: 2862: 2855: 2849: 2846: 2749: 2644: 2636: 2610: 2584: 2578: 2533: 2527: 2522: 2498: 2496: 2489: 2487: 2414: 2388: 2382: 2283: 2277: 2251: 2221: 2199: 2197: 2163: 2115: 2071: 2065: 2043: 2040: 2034: 2030: 2028: 1995: 1993:) (I kid, I kid) 1935: 1902: 1897: 1865: 1843: 1841: 1830: 1825: 1726: 1713: 1703: 1687: 1590: 1575: 1569: 1563: 1558: 1542: 1507: 1504: 1499: 1492: 1475: 1451: 1443: 1432: 1422: 1415: 1378:Talk to Nihonjoe 1374: 1370: 1367: 1349: 1335: 1332: 1306: 1300: 1287: 1282: 1280: 1266: 1260: 1249: 1242: 1236: 1225: 1189: 1133: 1129: 1124: 991: 986: 977:On a side note, 898: 894: 889: 857: 853: 848: 767: 763: 758: 706: 702: 697: 684: 682: 671: 663: 661: 656: 636:Anthony.bradbury 625: 623: 612: 595: 589: 570: 568: 563: 525: 520: 461: 439: 435: 430: 382: 378: 373: 357: 355: 350: 333: 329: 324: 254: 246: 234: 232: 225: 201: 195: 133: 126: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 6574: 6573: 6569: 6568: 6567: 6565: 6564: 6563: 6550: 6530: 6528: 6518: 6506: 6504: 6492: 6362:Editorofthewiki 6251: 6140: 6119: 6080: 6021: 5890: 5869: 5861: 5847: 5820: 5756: 5693: 5685: 5650: 5592: 5531: 5504: 5497: 5372: 5259: 5150: 5089: 5060: 5027: 5020: 5018: 4976: 4856: 4815: 4808: 4791: 4785: 4737: 4730: 4721: 4718: 4714: 4711: 4709: 4691: 4685: 4676: 4614: 4608: 4602: 4597: 4548: 4543: 4538:this discussion 4525: 4517: 4498: 4490: 4460: 4443: 4425: 4411:ChildofMidnight 4399: 4316: 4308: 4211: 4203: 4141: 4139: 4135: 4048: 3989: 3986: 3954: 3946: 3869: 3863: 3854: 3851: 3824: 3816: 3814: 3787: 3781: 3775: 3770: 3738: 3731: 3719: 3713: 3711: 3652: 3647: 3587: 3580: 3474: 3392: 3380: 3368: 3292: 3249: 3221: 3217: 3193: 3178: 3162: 3114: 3064: 3060: 3031: 3027: 3022: 3003: 2999: 2951: 2943: 2913: 2906: 2899: 2879: 2877: 2858: 2851: 2844: 2824:ChildofMidnight 2747: 2716:ChildofMidnight 2701:ChildofMidnight 2674: 2642: 2634: 2608: 2582: 2576: 2531: 2525: 2492: 2490: 2458:Editorofthewiki 2384: 2279: 2193: 2129: 2067: 2038: 2032: 2026: 2024: 1949: 1921:Until It Sleeps 1900: 1852:Sephiroth storm 1839: 1831: 1801: 1778:User:Kelapstick 1774:User:S Marshall 1724: 1712: 1709: 1699: 1685: 1633: 1600:ChildofMidnight 1586: 1573: 1567: 1561: 1556: 1540: 1524:ChildofMidnight 1505: 1502: 1497: 1468:user:Bongomatic 1441:user:Kelapstick 1431: 1428: 1418: 1412:user:S Marshall 1404: 1388:Graeme Bartlett 1372: 1365: 1347: 1330: 1323: 1304: 1296: 1285: 1278: 1276: 1264: 1258: 1240: 1237: 1221: 1185: 1131: 1127: 1122: 1054: 989: 984: 939:I was browsing 937: 896: 892: 887: 855: 851: 846: 765: 761: 756: 704: 700: 695: 680: 672: 659: 654: 652: 621: 613: 593: 587: 566: 561: 559: 523: 518: 457: 437: 433: 428: 404:Sephiroth storm 400:Michael Jackson 380: 376: 371: 353: 348: 346: 331: 327: 322: 311: 281:Sephiroth storm 250: 244: 228: 221: 199: 193: 160:Sephiroth storm 129: 124: 107: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 6572: 6570: 6562: 6561: 6560: 6559: 6558: 6557: 6541: 6540: 6539: 6538: 6525: 6482: 6481: 6462: 6443: 6419: 6400: 6378: 6359: 6343:Morbidthoughts 6340: 6321: 6299: 6277: 6250: 6247: 6246: 6245: 6231: 6230: 6216: 6215: 6175: 6174: 6173: 6172: 6171: 6170: 6169: 6168: 6152: 6151: 6150: 6149: 6148: 6147: 6113: 6112: 6111: 6110: 6094: 6093: 6062: 6061: 6057: 6056: 6055: 6052: 6046: 6043: 6020: 6017: 6016: 6015: 6014: 6013: 5992: 5991: 5975: 5974: 5961: 5934: 5933: 5904: 5903: 5887: 5886: 5885: 5884: 5883: 5882: 5881: 5880: 5879: 5878: 5877: 5855: 5854: 5802: 5801: 5800: 5751: 5750: 5734: 5718: 5702: 5664: 5630: 5600: 5571: 5555: 5539: 5510: 5502: 5476: 5444: 5412: 5380: 5351: 5332: 5302: 5272: 5238: 5222: 5190: 5158: 5129: 5097: 5068: 5039: 5000: 4984: 4955: 4928: 4912: 4896: 4855: 4852: 4803: 4802: 4801: 4800: 4777: 4776: 4745: 4744: 4743: 4742: 4729: 4648: 4647: 4646: 4645: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4641: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4593:King of Hearts 4576:King of Hearts 4509: 4508: 4507: 4506: 4505: 4486: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4394: 4393: 4377: 4361: 4342: 4326: 4287: 4253: 4237: 4221: 4182: 4166: 4150: 4114: 4082: 4053: 4046: 4018:LouriePieterse 4015: 3999: 3964: 3925: 3909: 3879: 3833: 3796: 3749: 3686: 3670: 3625: 3595: 3563: 3531: 3509: 3473: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3374: 3362: 3361: 3358: 3355: 3348: 3337:Undead Warrior 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3284: 3283: 3272: 3271: 3261:Morbidthoughts 3245: 3244: 3230: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3106: 3105: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 2960: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2888: 2887: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2835: 2834: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2670: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2588:Morbidthoughts 2585: 2558: 2539: 2504: 2471: 2455: 2428: 2398: 2364: 2348: 2325: 2309: 2293: 2261: 2235: 2205: 2173: 2147: 2131: 2125: 2097: 2084:Undead warrior 2081: 2047: 2004: 1977: 1951: 1945: 1917: 1879: 1849: 1829:. Regards, --— 1800: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1720: 1719: 1710: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1629: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1548: 1547: 1516: 1515: 1486: 1470: 1465: 1446: 1438: 1429: 1403: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1384: 1359: 1358: 1340: 1339: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1292: 1272: 1254: 1230: 1214: 1213: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1053: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1002:User:ChrisDHDR 975: 936: 933: 932: 931: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 878: 877: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 788: 787: 745: 744: 722: 721: 720: 719: 718: 717: 716: 715: 714: 713: 712: 711: 648: 603: 602: 601: 600: 555: 554: 543: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 444: 417: 416: 415: 414: 387: 362: 361: 310: 307: 292: 291: 277: 276: 275: 274: 273: 186: 185: 175:Hiberniantears 170: 155: 154: 153: 106: 101: 98: 97: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 6571: 6556: 6553: 6547: 6546: 6545: 6544: 6543: 6542: 6537: 6533: 6531:Steve Crossin 6526: 6524: 6521: 6515: 6514: 6513: 6509: 6507:Steve Crossin 6502: 6501: 6500: 6498: 6495: 6487: 6480: 6476: 6473: 6470: 6466: 6463: 6461: 6457: 6454: 6451: 6447: 6444: 6442: 6439: 6438: 6434: 6431: 6428: 6424: 6420: 6418: 6414: 6411: 6408: 6404: 6401: 6399: 6396: 6392: 6389: 6386: 6382: 6379: 6377: 6373: 6370: 6367: 6363: 6360: 6358: 6354: 6351: 6348: 6344: 6341: 6339: 6335: 6332: 6329: 6325: 6322: 6320: 6317: 6313: 6310: 6307: 6303: 6300: 6298: 6295: 6291: 6288: 6285: 6281: 6278: 6276:RFA withdrawn 6275: 6274: 6270: 6267: 6264: 6260: 6259:Steve Crossin 6256: 6255: 6254: 6248: 6244: 6241: 6237: 6233: 6232: 6229: 6226: 6222: 6218: 6217: 6214: 6211: 6207: 6203: 6199: 6198: 6197: 6196: 6192: 6188: 6184: 6180: 6167: 6164: 6160: 6159: 6158: 6157: 6156: 6155: 6154: 6153: 6146: 6143: 6137: 6136: 6135: 6132: 6127: 6126: 6125: 6122: 6115: 6114: 6109: 6106: 6103: 6098: 6097: 6096: 6095: 6092: 6088: 6083: 6078: 6074: 6073: 6072: 6071: 6068: 6058: 6054:N nominates C 6053: 6050: 6049: 6047: 6044: 6041: 6040: 6039: 6036: 6034: 6028: 6026: 6025:brainstorming 6018: 6012: 6008: 6004: 6000: 5996: 5995: 5994: 5993: 5990: 5986: 5982: 5977: 5976: 5973: 5970: 5966: 5965:User:Alansohn 5962: 5960: 5956: 5952: 5948: 5944: 5940: 5936: 5935: 5932: 5928: 5924: 5919: 5918: 5917: 5916: 5913: 5912:Doug Coldwell 5909: 5902: 5898: 5893: 5888: 5876: 5873: 5872: 5866: 5864: 5857: 5856: 5853: 5850: 5844: 5843: 5842: 5841: 5840: 5836: 5832: 5828: 5827: 5826: 5823: 5817: 5816: 5815: 5811: 5807: 5803: 5799: 5795: 5791: 5788: 5785: 5784: 5783: 5782: 5781: 5777: 5773: 5769: 5768:Even Kablammo 5765: 5764: 5763: 5762: 5759: 5748: 5745: 5742: 5738: 5735: 5732: 5729: 5726: 5722: 5719: 5716: 5713: 5710: 5706: 5703: 5700: 5697: 5696: 5690: 5688: 5681: 5679: 5676: 5673: 5669: 5665: 5662: 5658: 5653: 5647: 5645: 5642: 5639: 5635: 5631: 5628: 5624: 5620: 5614: 5611: 5608: 5604: 5601: 5598: 5595: 5588: 5586: 5583: 5580: 5576: 5572: 5569: 5566: 5563: 5559: 5556: 5553: 5550: 5547: 5543: 5540: 5537: 5534: 5527: 5525: 5522: 5519: 5515: 5511: 5508: 5505: 5500: 5493: 5491: 5488: 5485: 5481: 5480:Ravichandar84 5477: 5474: 5470: 5466: 5461: 5459: 5456: 5453: 5449: 5445: 5442: 5438: 5434: 5429: 5427: 5424: 5421: 5417: 5413: 5410: 5406: 5402: 5401:hamiltonstone 5397: 5395: 5392: 5389: 5385: 5384:Hamiltonstone 5381: 5378: 5375: 5368: 5366: 5363: 5360: 5356: 5352: 5346: 5343: 5340: 5336: 5333: 5330: 5326: 5322: 5316: 5313: 5310: 5306: 5303: 5300: 5296: 5292: 5286: 5283: 5280: 5276: 5273: 5270: 5266: 5262: 5255: 5253: 5250: 5247: 5243: 5239: 5236: 5233: 5230: 5226: 5223: 5220: 5216: 5212: 5207: 5205: 5202: 5199: 5195: 5194:Doug Coldwell 5191: 5188: 5184: 5180: 5175: 5173: 5170: 5167: 5163: 5159: 5156: 5153: 5146: 5144: 5141: 5138: 5134: 5130: 5127: 5123: 5119: 5114: 5112: 5109: 5106: 5102: 5098: 5095: 5092: 5085: 5083: 5080: 5077: 5073: 5069: 5066: 5063: 5056: 5054: 5051: 5048: 5044: 5040: 5037: 5033: 5025: 5023: 5014: 5011: 5008: 5004: 5001: 4998: 4995: 4992: 4988: 4985: 4982: 4979: 4972: 4970: 4967: 4964: 4960: 4956: 4953: 4950: 4945: 4943: 4940: 4937: 4933: 4929: 4926: 4923: 4920: 4916: 4913: 4910: 4907: 4904: 4900: 4897: 4894: 4890: 4886: 4881: 4879: 4876: 4873: 4869: 4865: 4864: 4863: 4861: 4854:DYK reviewers 4853: 4851: 4850: 4847: 4841: 4840: 4836: 4832: 4828: 4823: 4822: 4819: 4817: 4813: 4811: 4799: 4796: 4794: 4789: 4788: 4781: 4780: 4779: 4778: 4775: 4772: 4768: 4764: 4763: 4762: 4761: 4760: 4757: 4751: 4741: 4738: 4734: 4727: 4726: 4717: 4704: 4703: 4702: 4701: 4700: 4699: 4694: 4688: 4681: 4679: 4672: 4668: 4663: 4662: 4658: 4654: 4636: 4632: 4628: 4623: 4622: 4621: 4617: 4611: 4605: 4600: 4594: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4585: 4581: 4577: 4571: 4570:edit conflict 4566: 4565: 4564: 4560: 4556: 4552: 4551: 4546: 4539: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4528: 4522: 4521: 4514: 4510: 4504: 4501: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4489: 4488:Contributions 4484: 4483: 4482: 4476: 4472: 4468: 4467: 4466: 4463: 4457: 4456: 4455: 4451: 4446: 4441: 4440: 4435: 4431: 4428: 4422: 4421: 4420: 4416: 4412: 4408: 4407: 4406: 4405: 4402: 4391: 4388: 4385: 4381: 4378: 4375: 4372: 4369: 4365: 4362: 4359: 4357: 4354: 4351: 4347: 4343: 4340: 4337: 4334: 4330: 4327: 4324: 4319: 4313: 4312: 4304: 4302: 4299: 4296: 4292: 4288: 4285: 4281: 4277: 4273: 4267: 4264: 4261: 4257: 4254: 4251: 4248: 4245: 4241: 4238: 4235: 4232: 4229: 4225: 4222: 4219: 4214: 4208: 4207: 4199: 4197: 4194: 4191: 4187: 4183: 4180: 4177: 4174: 4170: 4167: 4164: 4161: 4158: 4154: 4151: 4148: 4144: 4138: 4131: 4129: 4126: 4123: 4119: 4115: 4112: 4108: 4104: 4099: 4097: 4094: 4091: 4087: 4083: 4080: 4077: 4076: 4070: 4068: 4065: 4062: 4058: 4054: 4052: 4049: 4044: 4042: 4041: 4035: 4032:Note: Ran in 4029: 4026: 4023: 4019: 4016: 4013: 4010: 4007: 4003: 4000: 3997: 3993: 3992: 3981: 3979: 3976: 3973: 3969: 3968:Wildhartlivie 3965: 3962: 3957: 3951: 3950: 3942: 3940: 3937: 3934: 3930: 3926: 3923: 3920: 3917: 3913: 3910: 3907: 3903: 3899: 3893: 3890: 3887: 3883: 3880: 3877: 3872: 3866: 3859: 3857: 3850: 3848: 3845: 3842: 3838: 3834: 3831: 3827: 3821: 3819: 3810: 3807: 3804: 3800: 3797: 3794: 3790: 3784: 3778: 3773: 3766: 3764: 3761: 3758: 3754: 3750: 3747: 3743: 3741: 3736: 3734: 3722: 3716: 3708: 3703: 3701: 3698: 3695: 3691: 3687: 3684: 3681: 3678: 3674: 3671: 3668: 3664: 3660: 3656: 3655: 3650: 3642: 3640: 3637: 3634: 3630: 3626: 3623: 3619: 3615: 3609: 3606: 3603: 3599: 3596: 3594: 3591: 3589: 3585: 3583: 3577: 3574: 3571: 3567: 3564: 3561: 3557: 3553: 3548: 3546: 3543: 3540: 3536: 3532: 3530: 3527: 3523: 3520: 3517: 3513: 3510: 3507: 3504: 3499: 3497: 3494: 3491: 3487: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3479: 3471: 3463: 3459: 3455: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3440: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3384: 3383: 3379: 3378: 3372: 3371: 3359: 3356: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3347: 3346: 3342: 3338: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3315: 3311: 3307: 3304: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3295: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3282: 3279: 3274: 3273: 3270: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3252: 3243: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3229: 3225: 3223: 3220: 3213: 3212: 3199: 3196: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3185: 3182: 3181: 3174: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3165: 3159: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3141: 3138: 3135: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3120: 3117: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3104: 3101: 3098: 3094: 3093: 3086: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3068: 3067: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3043: 3037: 3034: 3030: 3025: 3018: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3007: 3006: 2997: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2959: 2954: 2948: 2947: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2931: 2922: 2918: 2916: 2911: 2909: 2902: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2886: 2882: 2880:Steve Crossin 2875: 2874: 2867: 2863: 2861: 2856: 2854: 2847: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2813: 2812: 2807: 2804: 2801: 2800:Baseball Bugs 2796: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2776: 2773: 2772:Baseball Bugs 2763: 2759: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2750: 2744: 2741: 2738: 2734: 2731: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2677: 2673: 2672:Contributions 2668: 2667: 2666: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2646: 2645: 2638: 2637: 2630: 2627: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2611: 2604: 2599: 2596: 2593: 2589: 2586: 2581: 2575: 2573: 2570: 2567: 2563: 2562:SchfiftyThree 2559: 2556: 2554: 2551: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2537: 2534: 2529: 2528: 2521: 2519: 2516: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2502: 2497: 2495: 2485: 2482: 2479: 2475: 2472: 2469: 2466: 2463: 2459: 2456: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2439: 2436: 2432: 2429: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2412: 2409: 2406: 2402: 2399: 2396: 2392: 2387: 2381: 2379: 2376: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2362: 2359: 2356: 2352: 2349: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2336: 2333: 2329: 2326: 2323: 2320: 2317: 2313: 2310: 2307: 2304: 2301: 2297: 2294: 2291: 2287: 2282: 2275: 2272: 2269: 2265: 2262: 2259: 2255: 2249: 2246: 2243: 2239: 2236: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2219: 2216: 2213: 2209: 2206: 2204: 2196: 2191: 2187: 2184: 2181: 2177: 2174: 2171: 2167: 2161: 2158: 2155: 2151: 2148: 2145: 2142: 2139: 2135: 2132: 2128: 2127:Contributions 2123: 2122: 2121: 2114: 2112: 2109: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2095: 2092: 2089: 2085: 2082: 2079: 2075: 2070: 2064: 2062: 2059: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2046: 2041: 2035: 2029: 2022: 2018: 2015: 2012: 2008: 2005: 2002: 1999: 1994: 1992: 1989: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1966: 1963: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1947:Contributions 1943: 1942: 1941: 1934: 1932: 1929: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1896: 1894: 1891: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1863: 1860: 1857: 1853: 1850: 1847: 1842: 1836: 1835: 1828: 1824: 1822: 1819: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1798: 1790: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1738: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1727: 1718: 1717: 1714: 1706: 1704: 1702: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1688: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1632: 1631:Contributions 1627: 1626: 1625: 1619: 1615: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1591: 1589: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1576: 1570: 1564: 1559: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1546: 1543: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1513: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1500: 1490: 1487: 1485: 1481: 1474: 1471: 1469: 1466: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1450: 1447: 1442: 1439: 1436: 1433: 1425: 1423: 1421: 1414: 1413: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1368: 1361: 1360: 1357: 1354: 1351: 1350: 1342: 1341: 1338: 1333: 1327: 1322: 1317: 1316: 1311: 1308: 1307: 1301: 1299: 1293: 1291: 1288: 1283: 1281: 1273: 1271: 1268: 1267: 1261: 1255: 1253: 1248: 1247: 1243: 1235: 1231: 1229: 1226: 1224: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1199: 1198: 1193: 1190: 1188: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1134: 1130: 1125: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1012: 1010: 1007: 1003: 998: 997: 996: 993: 992: 987: 980: 976: 972: 971: 970: 966: 962: 957: 956: 955: 953: 950: 946: 942: 934: 930: 927: 924: 920: 916: 902: 899: 895: 890: 882: 881: 880: 879: 876: 872: 868: 863: 862: 861: 858: 854: 849: 842: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 819: 815: 811: 807: 806: 805: 801: 797: 792: 791: 790: 789: 786: 782: 778: 773: 772: 771: 768: 764: 759: 751: 747: 746: 743: 739: 735: 731: 727: 724: 723: 710: 707: 703: 698: 690: 689: 688: 683: 677: 676: 668: 667: 666: 662: 657: 649: 645: 644: 643: 640: 638: 637: 631: 630: 629: 624: 618: 617: 610: 607: 606: 605: 604: 599: 596: 590: 584: 580: 575: 574: 573: 569: 564: 557: 556: 552: 548: 544: 541: 537: 533: 532: 531: 530: 527: 526: 521: 514: 510: 505: 504: 500: 496: 491: 479: 475: 471: 467: 466: 465: 462: 460: 453: 452: 451: 450: 443: 440: 436: 431: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 413: 409: 405: 401: 397: 393: 388: 386: 383: 379: 374: 366: 365: 364: 363: 360: 356: 351: 344: 340: 339: 338: 337: 334: 330: 325: 317: 308: 306: 305: 301: 297: 290: 286: 282: 278: 272: 268: 264: 260: 259: 258: 255: 253: 248: 247: 240: 239: 237: 233: 231: 226: 224: 218: 217: 216: 215: 211: 207: 206: 198: 191: 184: 180: 176: 171: 169: 165: 161: 156: 152: 148: 144: 139: 138: 137: 134: 132: 127: 120: 119: 118: 117: 113: 105: 102: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 6483: 6471: 6452: 6429: 6421: 6409: 6397: 6387: 6368: 6349: 6330: 6318: 6308: 6296: 6286: 6265: 6257: 6252: 6176: 6063: 6037: 6032: 6029: 6022: 5998: 5981:62.51.156.23 5907: 5905: 5867: 5862: 5752: 5743: 5727: 5711: 5691: 5686: 5674: 5666: 5640: 5632: 5609: 5581: 5573: 5564: 5548: 5520: 5512: 5498:The Enforcer 5486: 5478: 5454: 5446: 5422: 5414: 5390: 5382: 5361: 5353: 5341: 5311: 5281: 5248: 5240: 5231: 5200: 5192: 5168: 5160: 5139: 5131: 5107: 5099: 5078: 5070: 5049: 5041: 5021: 5009: 5003:Hassocks5489 4993: 4965: 4957: 4938: 4930: 4921: 4905: 4874: 4866: 4857: 4842: 4824: 4816: 4809: 4804: 4792: 4783: 4753: 4746: 4732: 4707: 4706: 4677: 4670: 4664: 4649: 4541: 4519: 4479: 4478: 4474: 4437: 4395: 4386: 4380:Sunderland06 4370: 4352: 4344: 4335: 4310: 4297: 4289: 4262: 4246: 4230: 4205: 4192: 4184: 4175: 4159: 4124: 4116: 4092: 4084: 4074: 4063: 4055: 4039: 4024: 4008: 3985: 3974: 3966: 3948: 3935: 3927: 3918: 3888: 3855: 3843: 3837:Killervogel5 3835: 3817: 3805: 3759: 3751: 3739: 3732: 3705:- was asked 3696: 3688: 3679: 3645: 3635: 3627: 3618:push to talk 3604: 3598:TonyTheTiger 3588: 3581: 3572: 3541: 3533: 3518: 3492: 3484: 3475: 3390: 3389: 3385: 3375: 3366: 3363: 3349: 3333: 3314:your problem 3313: 3246: 3215: 3179:Juliancolton 3176: 3061: 3020: 3000: 2944: 2939:User:ukexpat 2914: 2907: 2859: 2852: 2794: 2785:push to talk 2768: 2758:push to talk 2739: 2663: 2662: 2640: 2632: 2625: 2594: 2568: 2560: 2549: 2543:Danielfolsom 2541: 2523: 2514: 2506: 2493: 2480: 2464: 2449:push to talk 2437: 2421:push to talk 2407: 2374: 2366: 2357: 2342:push to talk 2334: 2318: 2302: 2270: 2254:push to talk 2244: 2228:push to talk 2214: 2194: 2182: 2166:push to talk 2156: 2140: 2118: 2117: 2107: 2099: 2090: 2057: 2049: 2013: 1987: 1979: 1971:push to talk 1961: 1953: 1938: 1937: 1927: 1919: 1889: 1881: 1872:push to talk 1858: 1833: 1817: 1809: 1802: 1740: 1736: 1721: 1700: 1696: 1658: 1622: 1621: 1587: 1517: 1495: 1494: 1480:push to talk 1419: 1410: 1405: 1348:Juliancolton 1345: 1302: 1297: 1275: 1262: 1238: 1233: 1222: 1186: 1143:FeydHuxtable 1120: 1106:FeydHuxtable 1073:FeydHuxtable 1055: 982: 938: 885: 844: 796:FeydHuxtable 754: 693: 674: 635: 615: 608: 582: 578: 550: 516: 506: 489: 486: 458: 426: 369: 320: 312: 296:IronGargoyle 293: 267:push to talk 251: 242: 229: 222: 203: 187: 147:push to talk 130: 112:push to talk 108: 78: 43: 37: 6187:Floquenbeam 5831:Ottava Rima 5806:Ottava Rima 5772:Ottava Rima 5737:Aboutmovies 4899:Ghirlandajo 4667:Staxringold 4580:Admin Coach 4256:Candlewicke 3818:Irunongames 3799:Irunongames 3486:ComputerGuy 3431:Itsmejudith 2820:user:Timmeh 2733:Itsmejudith 2686:Ottava Rima 1955:Itsmejudith 1473:User:Drmies 1241:JUJUTACULAR 588:Fabrictramp 95:Archive 190 90:Archive 189 85:Archive 188 79:Archive 187 73:Archive 186 68:Archive 185 60:Archive 180 36:This is an 6551:Skomorokh 6519:Skomorokh 6493:Skomorokh 6465:Olaf Davis 6381:Adolphus79 6302:Techman224 6280:Neurolysis 6141:Skomorokh 6120:Skomorokh 6060:addressed. 6003:Olaf Davis 5848:Skomorokh 5821:Skomorokh 5757:Skomorokh 5593:Skomorokh 5575:P.K.Niyogi 5532:Skomorokh 5373:Skomorokh 5321:Olaf Davis 5305:Olaf Davis 5225:IvoShandor 5211:Shubinator 5179:Shubinator 5151:Skomorokh 5090:Skomorokh 5061:Skomorokh 4977:Skomorokh 4885:Shubinator 4868:Shubinator 4810:Techman224 4520:Cyclonenim 4499:Skomorokh 4461:Skomorokh 4426:Skomorokh 4400:Skomorokh 4311:Cyclonenim 4291:Cyclonenim 4206:Cyclonenim 4186:Promethean 4153:Matthew hk 3949:Cyclonenim 3614:WP:VETTING 3582:Techman224 3566:Techman224 3412:Adolphus79 3293:Skomorokh 3250:Skomorokh 3194:Skomorokh 3163:Skomorokh 3115:Skomorokh 3077:Hammersoft 3047:Hammersoft 2915:not a test 2860:not a test 2816:User:RexxS 2748:Skomorokh 2635:Aaroncrick 2609:Skomorokh 2431:Jamesontai 2419:. - Dank ( 2417:WP:VETTING 2401:Neurolysis 2383:Inactive. 2224:WP:VETTING 2208:Adolphus79 2195:Blanchardb 2176:Blanchardb 1981:Ecoleetage 1901:Skomorokh 1868:WP:VETTING 1834:Cyclonenim 1725:Skomorokh 1701:S Marshall 1686:Skomorokh 1642:kelapstick 1554:players.-- 1541:Skomorokh 1420:S Marshall 1016:Keepscases 979:WP:HOPEFUL 867:Hammersoft 810:Hammersoft 777:Hammersoft 734:Hammersoft 655:SPhilbrick 594:talk to me 562:SPhilbrick 349:SPhilbrick 265:. - Dank ( 263:WP:VETTING 104:WP:VETTING 6488:process. 6225:Sebastian 6210:Sebastian 6163:Sebastian 6131:Sebastian 6077:perceived 6067:Sebastian 5947:talk page 5787:Horrors!! 5634:Manxruler 5133:RyanCross 5043:Yomangani 4584:Unionhawk 4103:Alexius08 4086:Alexius08 4034:June 2009 4002:Vantine84 3929:Unionhawk 3690:Gary King 3234:Ironholds 2935:User:Chzz 2474:Plasticup 2328:Ironholds 2264:Gtstricky 2039:Contribs) 1998:Unionhawk 1454:ThaddeusB 1006:Lankiveil 949:Lankiveil 647:disagree? 6475:contribs 6456:contribs 6433:contribs 6413:contribs 6391:contribs 6372:contribs 6353:contribs 6334:contribs 6312:contribs 6290:contribs 6269:contribs 6240:A Nobody 6082:decltype 5969:A Nobody 5943:Jac16888 5939:decltype 5892:decltype 5790:Kablammo 5747:contribs 5731:contribs 5715:contribs 5705:Kablammo 5678:contribs 5652:decltype 5644:contribs 5613:contribs 5585:contribs 5568:contribs 5552:contribs 5524:contribs 5490:contribs 5458:contribs 5426:contribs 5394:contribs 5365:contribs 5345:contribs 5315:contribs 5285:contribs 5252:contribs 5235:contribs 5204:contribs 5172:contribs 5143:contribs 5111:contribs 5082:contribs 5072:Camptown 5053:contribs 5022:Hassocks 5013:contribs 4997:contribs 4987:Alansohn 4969:contribs 4949:Bruce1ee 4942:contribs 4932:Bruce1ee 4925:contribs 4909:contribs 4878:contribs 4555:contribs 4475:Doing... 4445:decltype 4390:contribs 4374:contribs 4364:Rjwilmsi 4356:contribs 4346:Lucasbfr 4339:contribs 4301:contribs 4266:contribs 4250:contribs 4234:contribs 4196:contribs 4179:contribs 4163:contribs 4128:contribs 4096:contribs 4067:contribs 4028:contribs 4012:contribs 3978:contribs 3939:contribs 3922:contribs 3892:contribs 3847:contribs 3809:contribs 3763:contribs 3753:Giants27 3700:contribs 3683:contribs 3659:contribs 3639:contribs 3629:Dylan620 3608:contribs 3576:contribs 3545:contribs 3522:contribs 3496:contribs 3478:WP:HACKS 3377:contribs 3303:A Nobody 3278:A Nobody 3218:iMatthew 3032:Chequers 3017:wp:EDITS 2981:Dekimasu 2968:Dekimasu 2743:contribs 2655:Dendodge 2629:contribs 2598:contribs 2572:contribs 2553:contribs 2518:contribs 2484:contribs 2468:contribs 2441:contribs 2411:contribs 2386:decltype 2378:contribs 2368:Vishnava 2361:contribs 2338:contribs 2322:contribs 2306:contribs 2281:decltype 2274:contribs 2248:contribs 2238:Wisdom89 2226:- Dank ( 2218:contribs 2201:- timed 2186:contribs 2160:contribs 2144:contribs 2134:Realist2 2111:contribs 2101:Dendodge 2094:contribs 2069:decltype 2061:contribs 2017:contribs 2007:The ed17 1991:contribs 1965:contribs 1931:contribs 1893:contribs 1870:- Dank ( 1862:contribs 1821:contribs 1811:iMatthew 1786:A Nobody 1661:WP:WBFAN 1478:- Dank ( 1132:Chequers 961:ArcAngel 897:Chequers 856:Chequers 766:Chequers 705:Chequers 547:WP:ADMIN 438:Chequers 381:Chequers 343:WP:CREEP 332:Chequers 197:proposed 6486:vetting 6479:comment 6460:comment 6441:Running 6437:comment 6417:comment 6398:vetting 6395:comment 6376:comment 6357:comment 6338:comment 6319:vetting 6316:comment 6297:vetting 6294:comment 6273:comment 5999:doesn't 5951:Rlendog 5721:Rlendog 5465:Lampman 5448:Lampman 5335:Mjroots 5118:Johnbod 5101:Johnbod 4329:GregorB 4276:Jafeluv 4240:Cameron 3552:Kingpin 3454:Wehwalt 3452:push.-- 3369:Eastlaw 3319:Protonk 2908:This is 2853:This is 2803:carrots 2775:carrots 2580:retired 2508:Synergy 2445:WP:ROBO 2150:Eastlaw 1906:Mayalld 1883:Mayalld 1677:WP:RFPP 1223:Chillum 1187:Chillum 1102:WP:DGAF 730:WP:SNOW 549:says: " 459:Chillum 125:M♠ssing 39:archive 6423:Timmeh 6324:Ebyabe 6183:WT:RFA 6105:(talk) 6102:Friday 5668:Cunard 5558:Oceanh 5514:Anlace 5433:Wetman 5416:Wetman 4959:Boston 4915:Agne27 4860:T:TDYK 4831:Ebyabe 4750:WP:HAU 4627:Drmies 4598:Giants 4136:Chenzw 4118:Chenzw 4057:Aditya 4040:MacMed 3882:Ktr101 3771:Giants 3714:Frank 3673:Ebyabe 3535:Javert 3173:WP:GAN 3137:(talk) 3134:Friday 3100:(talk) 3097:Friday 2661:. -- 2494:GARDEN 2312:Krm500 2051:Suntag 1780:, and 1760:Drmies 1744:Drmies 1681:WP:UND 1673:WP:SPI 1669:WP:DRV 1665:WP:GAN 1616:Note: 1557:Giants 1279:hmwith 1157:Tznkai 1030:Iner22 926:Pyfan! 536:Creepy 513:WP:AGF 509:CREEPy 490:oppose 470:Tznkai 316:wp:RFA 6446:Soman 6403:Benea 5863:Jamie 5687:Jamie 5619:Soman 5603:Soman 5542:Benea 5260:97198 5242:97198 4786:ceran 4692:Phils 4544:Dylan 4526:Chat 4439:hacks 4317:Chat 4212:Chat 4075:ƒ(Δ)² 4047:stalk 3955:Chat 3912:Truco 3870:Phils 3720:talk 3648:Dylan 3065:neuro 3028:Spiel 3004:neuro 2900:Abce2 2845:Abce2 2033:(Talk 1840:Chat 1506:orium 1321:EVula 1298:Jamie 1265:Cobra 1259:Glass 1128:Spiel 893:Spiel 852:Spiel 762:Spiel 701:Spiel 681:Chat 675:Pedro 622:Chat 616:Pedro 434:Spiel 377:Spiel 328:Spiel 245:ceran 205:Andre 143:WP:ER 16:< 6469:talk 6450:talk 6427:talk 6407:talk 6385:talk 6366:talk 6347:talk 6328:talk 6306:talk 6284:talk 6263:talk 6223:. — 6191:talk 6087:talk 6007:talk 5985:talk 5955:talk 5927:talk 5923:Dahn 5897:talk 5835:talk 5810:talk 5794:talk 5776:talk 5741:talk 5725:talk 5709:talk 5672:talk 5657:talk 5638:talk 5623:talk 5607:talk 5579:talk 5562:talk 5546:talk 5518:talk 5484:talk 5469:talk 5452:talk 5437:talk 5420:talk 5405:talk 5388:talk 5359:talk 5355:Smee 5339:talk 5325:talk 5309:talk 5295:talk 5279:talk 5265:talk 5246:talk 5229:talk 5215:talk 5198:talk 5183:talk 5166:talk 5162:Dahn 5137:talk 5122:talk 5105:talk 5076:talk 5047:talk 5028:5489 5007:talk 4991:talk 4963:talk 4936:talk 4919:talk 4903:talk 4889:talk 4872:talk 4835:talk 4793:thor 4765:Per 4686:Talk 4657:talk 4631:talk 4578:(my 4559:logs 4513:this 4481:Soap 4450:talk 4415:talk 4384:talk 4368:talk 4350:talk 4333:talk 4295:talk 4280:talk 4272:said 4260:talk 4244:talk 4228:talk 4224:Deon 4190:talk 4173:talk 4157:talk 4142:Talk 4122:talk 4107:talk 4090:talk 4061:talk 4022:talk 4006:talk 3972:talk 3933:talk 3916:talk 3902:talk 3886:talk 3864:Talk 3841:talk 3825:play 3803:talk 3757:talk 3733:ROUX 3694:talk 3677:talk 3663:logs 3633:talk 3602:talk 3570:talk 3556:talk 3539:talk 3516:talk 3490:talk 3458:talk 3435:talk 3416:talk 3408:here 3393:EDDY 3341:talk 3323:talk 3265:talk 3238:talk 3081:talk 3051:talk 3023:Ϣere 2946:Ched 2937:and 2828:talk 2795:more 2737:talk 2720:talk 2705:talk 2690:talk 2665:Soap 2643:talk 2623:talk 2619:Mvjs 2592:talk 2566:talk 2547:talk 2512:talk 2478:talk 2462:talk 2435:talk 2405:talk 2391:talk 2372:talk 2355:talk 2332:talk 2316:talk 2300:talk 2296:Mvjs 2286:talk 2268:talk 2242:talk 2212:talk 2180:talk 2154:talk 2138:talk 2120:Soap 2105:talk 2088:talk 2074:talk 2055:talk 2019:) - 2011:talk 1985:talk 1959:talk 1940:Soap 1925:talk 1910:talk 1887:talk 1856:talk 1815:talk 1764:talk 1748:talk 1711:Cont 1646:talk 1624:Soap 1604:talk 1528:talk 1503:left 1458:talk 1430:Cont 1392:talk 1326:talk 1246:TALK 1207:talk 1161:talk 1147:talk 1123:Ϣere 1110:talk 1091:talk 1077:talk 1062:talk 1034:talk 1020:talk 965:talk 921:. — 919:this 888:Ϣere 871:talk 847:Ϣere 814:talk 800:talk 781:talk 757:Ϣere 738:talk 696:Ϣere 499:talk 474:talk 429:Ϣere 408:talk 392:SOCK 372:Ϣere 323:Ϣere 314:edit 300:talk 285:talk 252:thor 223:ROUX 210:talk 179:talk 164:talk 5908:not 5870:S93 5694:S93 4752:), 4733:503 4678:KV5 4549:620 3990:din 3987:Mae 3856:KV5 3653:620 3226:at 2659:UIS 2415:At 2351:Kww 2222:At 1866:At 1737:yes 1498:The 1366:日本穣 1328:// 1324:// 1305:S93 990:Why 923:Oli 583:AfD 579:AfD 524:Why 396:ANI 131:Ace 6477:) 6458:) 6435:) 6415:) 6393:) 6374:) 6355:) 6336:) 6314:) 6292:) 6271:) 6193:) 6089:) 6009:) 5987:) 5957:) 5929:) 5899:) 5837:) 5812:) 5796:) 5778:) 5659:) 5625:) 5615:) 5471:) 5439:) 5407:) 5347:) 5327:) 5317:) 5297:) 5287:) 5267:) 5217:) 5185:) 5124:) 5015:) 4891:) 4846:CG 4837:) 4715:ru 4689:• 4671:am 4659:) 4633:) 4618:) 4603:27 4561:) 4557:, 4452:) 4417:) 4282:) 4268:) 4109:) 3994:\ 3904:) 3867:• 3822:• 3791:) 3776:27 3729:→ 3717:| 3665:) 3661:, 3620:) 3610:) 3558:) 3503:CG 3460:) 3437:) 3418:) 3399:~ 3373:⁄ 3343:) 3325:) 3276:-- 3267:) 3240:) 3183:| 3083:) 3062:— 3053:) 3001:— 2985:よ! 2979:. 2972:よ! 2952:? 2949:: 2830:) 2787:) 2760:) 2722:) 2707:) 2692:) 2657:¦ 2647:) 2583:}} 2577:{{ 2526:Sy 2486:) 2451:) 2423:) 2413:) 2393:) 2344:) 2288:) 2276:) 2256:) 2250:) 2230:) 2220:) 2168:) 2162:) 2076:) 2036:• 2027:Ed 1973:) 1912:) 1874:) 1864:) 1776:, 1766:) 1750:) 1679:, 1648:) 1606:) 1577:) 1562:27 1530:) 1482:) 1460:) 1394:) 1376:· 1373:投稿 1369:· 1352:| 1334:// 1244:| 1232:I 1209:) 1163:) 1149:) 1112:) 1093:) 1079:) 1064:) 1036:) 1022:) 1011:. 985:So 967:) 954:. 873:) 816:) 802:) 783:) 775:-- 740:) 678:: 619:: 591:| 519:So 501:) 476:) 410:) 302:) 287:) 269:) 212:) 200:}} 194:{{ 181:) 166:) 149:) 114:) 64:← 6472:· 6467:( 6453:· 6448:( 6430:· 6425:( 6410:· 6405:( 6388:· 6383:( 6369:· 6364:( 6350:· 6345:( 6331:· 6326:( 6309:· 6304:( 6287:· 6282:( 6266:· 6261:( 6189:( 6085:( 6005:( 5983:( 5953:( 5925:( 5895:( 5833:( 5808:( 5792:( 5774:( 5749:) 5744:· 5739:( 5733:) 5728:· 5723:( 5717:) 5712:· 5707:( 5680:) 5675:· 5670:( 5655:( 5646:) 5641:· 5636:( 5621:( 5610:· 5605:( 5587:) 5582:· 5577:( 5570:) 5565:· 5560:( 5554:) 5549:· 5544:( 5526:) 5521:· 5516:( 5492:) 5487:· 5482:( 5467:( 5460:) 5455:· 5450:( 5435:( 5428:) 5423:· 5418:( 5403:( 5396:) 5391:· 5386:( 5367:) 5362:· 5357:( 5342:· 5337:( 5323:( 5312:· 5307:( 5293:( 5282:· 5277:( 5263:( 5254:) 5249:· 5244:( 5237:) 5232:· 5227:( 5213:( 5206:) 5201:· 5196:( 5181:( 5174:) 5169:· 5164:( 5145:) 5140:· 5135:( 5120:( 5113:) 5108:· 5103:( 5084:) 5079:· 5074:( 5055:) 5050:· 5045:( 5010:· 5005:( 4999:) 4994:· 4989:( 4971:) 4966:· 4961:( 4944:) 4939:· 4934:( 4927:) 4922:· 4917:( 4911:) 4906:· 4901:( 4887:( 4880:) 4875:· 4870:( 4844:– 4833:( 4722:o 4719:c 4712:T 4695:) 4683:( 4655:( 4629:( 4615:s 4612:| 4609:c 4606:( 4572:) 4568:( 4553:( 4523:| 4485:/ 4448:( 4413:( 4392:) 4387:· 4382:( 4376:) 4371:· 4366:( 4358:) 4353:· 4348:( 4341:) 4336:· 4331:( 4314:| 4303:) 4298:· 4293:( 4278:( 4263:· 4258:( 4252:) 4247:· 4242:( 4236:) 4231:· 4226:( 4209:| 4198:) 4193:· 4188:( 4181:) 4176:· 4171:( 4165:) 4160:· 4155:( 4130:) 4125:· 4120:( 4105:( 4098:) 4093:· 4088:( 4069:) 4064:· 4059:( 4030:) 4025:· 4020:( 4014:) 4009:· 4004:( 3980:) 3975:· 3970:( 3952:| 3941:) 3936:· 3931:( 3924:) 3919:· 3914:( 3900:( 3894:) 3889:· 3884:( 3873:) 3861:( 3849:) 3844:· 3839:( 3811:) 3806:· 3801:( 3788:s 3785:| 3782:c 3779:( 3765:) 3760:· 3755:( 3740:₪ 3702:) 3697:· 3692:( 3685:) 3680:· 3675:( 3657:( 3641:) 3636:· 3631:( 3605:· 3600:( 3573:· 3568:( 3554:( 3547:) 3542:· 3537:( 3519:· 3514:( 3498:) 3493:· 3488:( 3456:( 3433:( 3414:( 3387:~ 3339:( 3321:( 3263:( 3236:( 3079:( 3049:( 2903:| 2848:| 2826:( 2740:· 2735:( 2718:( 2703:( 2688:( 2669:/ 2639:( 2626:· 2621:( 2600:) 2595:· 2590:( 2574:) 2569:· 2564:( 2555:) 2550:· 2545:( 2532:n 2520:) 2515:· 2510:( 2481:· 2476:( 2470:) 2465:· 2460:( 2438:· 2433:( 2408:· 2403:( 2389:( 2380:) 2375:· 2370:( 2363:) 2358:· 2353:( 2335:· 2330:( 2324:) 2319:· 2314:( 2308:) 2303:· 2298:( 2284:( 2271:· 2266:( 2245:· 2240:( 2215:· 2210:( 2198:- 2183:· 2178:( 2157:· 2152:( 2146:) 2141:· 2136:( 2124:/ 2113:) 2108:· 2103:( 2096:) 2091:· 2086:( 2072:( 2063:) 2058:· 2053:( 2014:· 2009:( 1988:· 1983:( 1967:) 1962:· 1957:( 1944:/ 1933:) 1928:· 1923:( 1908:( 1895:) 1890:· 1885:( 1859:· 1854:( 1837:| 1823:) 1818:· 1813:( 1762:( 1746:( 1707:/ 1663:/ 1644:( 1628:/ 1602:( 1588:7 1574:s 1571:| 1568:c 1565:( 1526:( 1456:( 1426:/ 1390:( 1331:☯ 1286:☮ 1205:( 1159:( 1145:( 1108:( 1089:( 1075:( 1060:( 1032:( 1018:( 963:( 869:( 812:( 798:( 779:( 736:( 660:T 567:T 497:( 472:( 406:( 354:T 298:( 283:( 230:₪ 208:( 177:( 162:( 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 187 - Knowledge

Index