Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 193

2096:

evening: 1)Reverted their extremely inappropriate edit with warning non-vandal level2 sent. Vandalism: removing their work without asking or talk page. 2) Same article, +5min: Revert-Revert. Bullying: for repeatedly changing their work. 3) Revert-Revert. 3RR: User has no idea what it actually means and reports after I go 3 and say in edit summary I'm leaving ---Edit warring warning sent to them & automatic talk page sent. Harassment & Hounding: Vandalizing their talk page. --Your talk 4) Massive vandalism after I start removing constant threats and random warning templates. Disruptive editing: Removing their warnings. Send personalized "please" warning asking to stop or I'd report, etc. 5) Bullying: Threatening them. Heads to WQA next. I reply to another user on talk, it's edited out, I revert, and 6) Disruptive editing, reverting their chat messages. Request 15min full protect on talk page for a pause at least. 7) ANI: My insinuating they were abusive asking an admin to protect me from them. --At ANI. User edits or blanks most of my posts ("liar"), and even some of other users. Any new comment get hounded on and edited away slowly.

1767:. The especially choice parts of this were "I will be monitoring the vandalism page, and if you continue to conduct yourself in such a fashion then I will be forced to bring your behaviour to the attention of both the Administrators' noticeboard and ultimatly the Arbitration Committee" and "Threats? A simple promise." Threatening to take me to ArbCom because I removed an inactionable AIV report. If there is a more classic example of threatening (my bad: "promising") someone without knowing what the hell one is talking about, please let me know. I bring this up because it fits in nicely to this whole thread - "I don't like some admins (read: Tan et al); there needs to be a good way to get rid of them". Revolution? Not if it means handing over the bit to these characters. 5480: 3888:? I've set the autoreviewer flag for several editors recently, including one with over 100 articles created and zero deleted contributions. I suspect that there are an awful lot of good contributors out there who are not on the "admin track" as they may not yet have ventured out of mainspace. But you don't need to have demonstrated patience, civility under fire, an understanding of block and ban policy or several other RFA essentials to be the sort of article writer who we want as an autoreviewer. So lets not waste all this evaluating of possible RFA fodder, if RFA being broken means we have to come to terms with a dwindling admin cadre, then recruiting more Autoreviewers and indeed rollbackers is one way we can mask the problem. 556:-- well. If you're actually this deep into the encyclopedia to reading this, I think you get the idea. I laughed after I found a few complaints that we didn't even had an article of the alleged shooter. I felt a little guilty, but it's BLP and regardless of who it is I don't think I have to listen to anyone outside the community that isn't participating in the article discussion or my talk page. No editor complaints here either, though some misc "huh?" in situation-related ANIs. Nor to Tedder either, I think, since I had to get his back for awhile. People calmed down. We got a solid article that was 100% factually-at-time-of-edit correct and hopefully would offend as few people as possible. 535:

crews will just stop doing something or maybe accidentally hit a flag of some sort that gets them listed somewhere else. It's not as bad as watching a magic wand taken to your user page, but still no good. We're throwing the dice for a time frame on confirmation, decision and possible protection. We know this. No one expects instant service. To actually keep the page protected short-term it needs to be sat at. The magic button in anything but the most incredibly basic IPs semi-protect or 1 user temp block cases like this might be simpler. Most every RPP is just a tiny bit different, even I can see looking at them.

548:

local tv stations or papers or weekly magazines in a rush to get to the printers using Knowledge as its only source. Almost certainly in the millions total that had us as their "source". As the number should be zero for something in the mainspace, that's not good. I sat and watched the page for hours, at least 2-3? I can't even remember. I didn't have Huggle access yet to make a custom filter just for the 1 page so I couldn't really stray away. Full Protect did come, no BLP anarchy and no weapons-grade BLP disaster. (♥ Tedder for the save; can't think of much I'd ever be happier to hear from an admin after this.)

5213:

the theory was backed up by lots of self study. The same goes for when I learned to drive. How is this any different? People that compare admin coaching to MMORPG (whatever the hell that is) or any kind of game are being, IMHO, a little short-sighted. People are going on about there not being enough RfAs, yet training possible admins is a bad idea? Fire-fighters, soldiers, and police officers undergo rigorous training in order for them to be truly competent. Why should this be any different? Except of course that we're not asking admin applicants to rescue people from burning buildings...

5403:

my coach, whether I succeed or not will be based on what skills I have demonstrated (e.g. my arguments in xfDs, my CSD tags, etc) rather than whether my coach says "He's ready for this". Obviously, people looking through my history will see the responses on my Coaching page (it's hardly hidden after all!) - that may help them to decide if I would make good decisions in those hypothetical situations, but I am aware that those examples there are both hypothetical, and generally not as convoluted as real life situations (for example, there are no examples of either

5511:

the grass" is going to get in. We all know this, and it is one of the reasons I have been a strong supporter of a new community based de-adminship process that would allow the community to rectify it's own mistakes in a timely fashion, instead of spending weeks or months doing it through an already overloaded ArbCom. Many feel that RFA is "broken" but I have yet to see any proposals that would work any better, so a quicker way to fix the inevitable errors that will be made seems the best fix to me.

4205:"), that anyone who hasn't updated their entry in 6 months should be removed (and amend the main page to reflect this). I said last week that if there were no objections in a week, I'd be bold and sort it (it would mean that the "older requests" list would go down from about 110 to about 8 - this would make it look less daunting to newcomers). If anyone has any comments on the issue, please feel free to comment on the thread - as I said, if I've had no objections by Friday night (UTC), I'll 5680:"Candidate uses a semiautomated tool to help make repetitive edits!" "Candidate self-nominated!" "Candidate hasn't created a (good article|featured article|ultramegacoolbestarticleever)!" "Candidate made a stupid mistake a year ago!" "Candidate sought advice from a coach before requesting to be an admin (what, you think we want people to know what the hell they/re doing? What's wrong with you?)". If you're considering an oppose for one of those reasons, stop, cancel the edit, and go away. 1313:

hustings/elections would be more effective if we had some objective data about the need. Have we detected more sockpuppets? Is there more vandalism? Do the best writers need more policing? Will more admins make the encyclopedia a better place? It doesn't seem that promotion to admin is needed to entice editors to stay here, otherwise there would be no shortage of self-nominations. Am I missing the point or are we lacking some fundamental statistics about editing patterns? -

2179: 5366:

is unclear to them or whenever they want to have feedback on something they did. This way the user in question is encouraged to learn things themselves but knows that there is someone they can turn to. And I think some people opposed to traditional admin coaching (like me) would be happy to offer to be such a "mentor" to people considering adminship, thus increasing their skills and cluefulness without making them dependent on a certain "coach" (see

543:

article be written without the word "Terrorist", preferably. That alone, and/or use of the word "Muslim" or "Islam" when placed in the same article as "mass murder" and not necessarily with the required "alleged" added? Bad. Lawsuit-level bad since we're a very misunderstood Encyclopedia. Who knows how many might have caught even 1 absolutely awful diff. Even worse, the exended family was contacting media to explain some things. Nooo, not here. Bad.

5639:(both in "admin" areas such as deletions and discussions, as well as my work on article space/article talk pages/user talk pages). There will always be some people who will oppose based on various reasons. I know of at least one editor who will tend to oppose someone who has been coached - but even they have said that it is not a definite cause of an oppose, although most likely, as they will look at the candidate's overall performance. Others will 3767: 31: 5492: 1608:

sysops. This user group must be subject to review and should be held accountable for their actions. I could name a few sysops that would be de-mopped if they were subject to a mandatory review, but they're not. Do you disagree that it was far easier to get sysop status several years ago? Do you disagree that some sysops are behaving in ways that would sink their RfA if they were to have to reapply? If not then you suggest a solution...

2104:

stuff. Those are all on my record and will hound me at XfAs until the end of time. Other user? A level 4 civility warning, and WQA asks them to stop forum shopping. I'd have been done after any single one of those things if it were an admin or even if it were the admin stalking me. It's known to happen. I can't even leave for the night or I'll get massive blocks since I'm up on 5 dispute boards and need to reply on all of them.

5586:. People who go through admin coaching, learn how to be a good admin, as well as gaining experience along the way is all well and good. Those people usually pass handily. However, it's those who join solely to pass RfA that give it a bad name. As such, straw polling on whether or not people support or oppose candidates based on admin coaching would be moot, as almost no one bases it solely on that 2653:'Crats almost always do close RfAs that don't qualify for an early closure...the only exception is when an RfA candidate withdraws; in that case, it may simply be closed by any editor in good standing. For example, the Salavat, Jeffrey Mall, and Sebwite RfAs from last month were all unsuccessful, but they were closed by bureaucrats after they ran for a week, as they should have been. The only non- 5556:. Since candidates are allowed to submit RfA's over and over, the community supports the view that a candidate can become suitable, and coaching is a mean by which that can be achieved. Eliminating the possibility of coaching, is, in a way, supporting a view that Administrator are born, rather than made. By the same reason, I would support a community de-adminship per 3091:). I feel such advice is important - as Evula says, the majority of these are Good Faith self-nominations, and the editors should be encouraged and given advice on where they can 'improve' if they are serious about adminship in the future - and you will note that I always end by praising their keenness/enthusiasm, and reinforcing how important that is to Knowledge! -- 4955: 4445: 1787:

editor that, although conducting himself wrongly, had a point. You probably don't realise this Tan, but you're illustrating my point perfectly, and I thank you. I've asked you to leave it and move on, but you always seem to pop up and post the same tired old links. I didn't mention your name, or anybody else's. So why take this all so personally? Move on!

2190:, got the number of unsuccessful and successful RfAs, and added them together. I then took the number of successful, and divided it by the total number of RfAs, getting the percentage. On the graph, the red line is each month's percentage. The green line is the average of all percentages in a year, just to make it a little easier to interpret. 4638: 3001: 2099:...They finally get a 24hr block, but from a 3RR violation on the original page since they had once earlier that day I guess. Fix up the ANI... leave it there... return next day, it's marked "Resolved: Content Dispute" ...Die for me, please. Not a single post in words. I'm furious, but it's not worth pointing out to them that there was 2275:. The requirements for a successful RfA have totally exceeded necessary levels. At the end of the day, if you're successful, you get some extra tools. But to get these extra tools you have to be a saint, a master editor, a diplomat, and a politician. Many people have come to the conclusion that it's just not worth the bloody hassle! 1674:

be quickly desysopped. I also agree with you that admins should be held accountable for their actions, but I feel they already are. Your proposal suggests someone will judge admins after some time to see if they did their job right. Who's going to be that judge? If it's the community, then it'll just be RFA all over again.--

2301:

decreasing, that's a problem; the graph doesn't say anything about whether this is happening. (It's a problem because the more admins we have, the less stress for each, and the more time each has to do things purely for enjoyment, not duty - which increases the likelihood of their staying around.) And if the number of

1403:

Knowledge is a volunteer service. Off-peak hours just have a more limited possible "staff", but volume is subject to most variation. Slower responses forms as well sometimes, etc., on top of the RCP. Again, it's no one's fault. Concerns to harassment, inappropriate content added, or vandalism slipping through, of course.

2231:

version of the graph in commons indicates that you are getting significantly less candidates than before. Perhaps you need to conduct a survey (anonymous of course) , find out why people don't run for admin. There's nothing like data. Does Media wiki come with survey tools - if not, I can suggest some good ones.

4993:

surviving a room full of starving cats than I do of passing RFA. Why? Because RFA's a stupid, silly exercise in popularity. I'm not popular, and I don't give a rat's ass about being popular. Result; I can't be trusted. Anyway, 20-30 passing in one month six months from now? Dream on :) Isn't going to happen. --

5679:

Anyone who puts an "automatic oppose" is an idiot. RfAs should be evaluated on the strength of the candidate presented, not on the basis of (choose one or more) "Candidate has too many edits to (mainspace|project space|Portal Talk) edits and not enough edits to (mainspace|project space|Portal Talk)!"

5510:

as opposed to simply passing RFA.I'm not doing any of the "official" coaching things like mock-up AFDs and such, just noting strengths and weaknesses in their editing and dispute resolution experience. Let's face it, RFA can be gamed by those who understand it. Unfortunately the occasional "snake in

5455:

they pass an RFA ('new admin school'). I guess a person can coach whomever they want, but it seems like their efforts may go to better use teaching someone who will definitely be able to put the knowledge to use right away (whereas with someone who hasn't passed yet, they may have forgotten what you

5402:

Fair points, SoWhy - and I agree with the coaching vs advising distinction. However, as a rule I would expect that most editors at an RfA will do a thorough look through the candidate's history/contribs and their support/oppose is based on that. I am fully aware that even if I should get nominated by

5365:

Advising on the other hand is a positive way to get people ready. The difference here is the approach. Some adopters have concepts similar to admin coaching, with plans and little exercises. Others, like me, prefer a simple mentor-like approach, i.e. the adoptee can ask the adopter whenever something

5255:

Even if either my coach or myself feel that I should not go for adminship, I think that if nothing else, I will be a better editor for having to think more about policies and how Knowledge works. From that point of view, I see it as a win-win situation for Knowledge: it'll either end up with an admin

5243:

I must admit that I wasn't listed at Admin Coaching Requests for long, as I proactively sought out an available admin from the list - but others on the list have been approached by admins and asked if they want coaching still. I feel that the list has a definitely palce on Knowledge. I know that some

3203:

How are an extra ten TOC lines a problem on a page that already has hundreds of lines of text? The TOC should be commensurate with the text, and it's common in articles to have sections that are no longer than the questions here. Questions are referred to fairly often, as well they should, because we

1416:

are the people you should want comments from on this. Do we have any graphs of edits/hour to compare to admin actions/hour? Even if results are confidential, a trend would be nice to know. Lower ratio would imply more admin stress and less time for other things they might enjoy. It'd help all patrols

5634:

There are people who will oppose because they see coaching as a 'grab for power'; there are people who will oppose self-noms on the same grounds. I hope that if I ever do go for an RfA, people will not look at who nominated me, or if I've been mentored (I think I prefer that to "coaching"), but that

5361:

I think there is a difference between coaching and advising. For example, I share the view that admin coaching increases the risk to have candidates succeeding at RFA that have been "trained" to act exactly as expected from a good candidate but who lack the skills to make them good admins. Adminship

4992:

Well, I'd fill the void but nobody in their right mind would ever nominate me. Still, today's my three year anniversary, I've got over 10,000 edits, and the only time I was blocked (a misunderstanding on the part of the blocking admin) was over a year ago. But, I've seen mice with a better chance of

3165:

Am I the only one who finds the way we're formatting the questions weird? This is the only area where we use the format "; ..." for a headline. And what's the use of these headlines anyway? Why bundle questions by the person who asked them? The important thing is not who asked them, but what they're

3052:; a 'crat needs to be willing to do this just as readily as an admin or a rollbacker). Telling someone to look for answers on another page is not a valid alternative to providing those answers yourself; if you're going to step up to the plate and close an RfA early, do it well or don't do it at all. 2953:

I agree with Tan. While you're right, David, that certain candidates requesting the re-opening of their RfA after a SNOW/NOTNOW closure are showing poor judgement, this is not always the case. And furthermore, unless the RfA has been withdrawn by a bureaucrat, the candidate should be able to re-open

2883:

Any candidate whose RFA was closed before the full week and who wishes it to be re-opened should be reminded that doing so shows poor judgment, and he should have a specific, good reason for re-opening. One possible good reason is that there was not enough time for all the good reasons to oppose to

2696:

I think that only bureaucrats and the candidates themselves should close RfAs. If a sub-bureaucrat closed an RfA that the candidate didn't want closing then The candidate would be able to reopen the RfA, right? So the closure carries no power. If a candidate has had enough then s/he will call an end

2405:

is whether this it is a good idea to allow this for exceptional cases, whether its a bad idea, or whether we should table the discussion until the need arises. Its use would boil down to: Did the administrator make a single mistake or do something not likely to be repeated, or does he have a blind

2158:

Also, note that back in the day, we needed people to help police the emerging project. This in addition to lower standards helped to cause people to be admitted in higher numbers. Of course we did this before we figured out there some people really weren't all that compatible with administratorship.

1673:

Yeah, sysop bits were basically handed out in the early years (I guess I didn't get the memo). I agree that some of those early admins, if not many, would fail an RFA were they to run today. It just doesn't bother me. If they were breaking the wiki through incompetence, I'm sure we'd know and they'd

1569:

Some other office? But admin tools are, most importantly, editing tools. The ability to edit protected templates. The ability to move a page over a non-trivial redirect. The ability to delete a category when you create one with a typo. The ability to clean up after a cut-and-paste move. Taking

5212:

If you want to do something, and you want to do it well, you should learn from those that already poses the skills that you want to master. When I went to university my lectures didn't just leave us in a room alone and tell us to get on with it; saying that we'd learn it as we went along. Of course

3806:

admins, eh? It conjures up a funny image. But seriously, if no-one wants to stand then what's the point of making them? If they haven't asked for the mop then what means that they'll use it? I guess that one could argue that once they have it they'll find a use for it. But is that what we want? I'd

3266:

I disagree. If we have a problem with bloat, then it's that of the RfA as a whole. People naturally have questions and concerns, and if they don't put them into the questions section, they put them into the vote sections. I don't see how the latter is preferable to the former. Indeed, we could even

2400:

For the very exceptional cases where an administrator from another project needs to use the tool for something that affects both projects. This will be rare, and it will serve as nothing more than software enforcement to a pledge made up-front by the nominee as part of the nomination. Its purpose

2197:

But does that mean anything? Personally, I think that saying RfA is dying because we have fewer RfAs is logically flawed. Yes, we have had less RfAs recently, but that doesn't mean that the process is broken. The rate of successful/total has been fairly steady since 2006. Before then, the standards

1925:

If I interpret Tan's comments correctly, he assumes you've started this thread, partly or in whole, because of the incident he linked to. He finds that you lack credibility because of it (if that is indeed the basis of this thread). I can't say I blame him and there's nothing wrong with adding that

1874:

How was Tan a dick that day? I'm sorry but I don't see it. Anyway, you say this topic is not about Tanthalas, but you are very much making it that way now. You seem to use him as an example for why this idea of fixed admin terms of yours is necessary. Please elaborate how Tan illustrates your point

1704:

I'm sure there'd be a way to sort it. Having another RfA isn't a good idea: RfAs seem to be a horrible experience (I've never had the masochistic urge to subject myself to one). Maybe select a jury randomly of, say, 20 users. It should include some Bureaucrats, some sysops, and some editors. I know

1402:

It's timing, not numbers. Since I'm not in the know on numbers, it is encouraging to know backlogs are lower. Often, requests are pounced on faster than you can start up more coffee. Then there are times with bad, bad colors and symbols in Huggle queued together. No one is at fault for any of this.

1388:

people think that administrators might abuse the tools. The addition of administrators can also be beneficial because people will be able to go to more people, as older ones leave or lose their privileges. In the end, there is no known harm to having a good number of administrators that we know of.

5505:

I was recently approached by a user I had previously interacted with (and been impressed by already) and have been giving them some "light" mentoring on what is expected of an RFA candidate, but I prefaced the deal with the advice that if I pointed out something and they didn't want to do it, they

5239:

As one who is currently going through admin coaching, I agree with Dr Dec - I'm asking an experienced admin to give me some advice and 'training': for instance, I am given example AfDs and asked what the consensus is, and why; looking at my thoughts about wikipedia and its policies and guidelines;

4481:

Just to clarify my earlier comment, it is about nine months since Wikiwoohoo's last run. I have only checked their edits to confirm they are still active, I have not looked to see if they have addressed the issues that didn't prompt me to oppose but did prompt over 40% of those who !voted in their

3131:

I'd like to remind interested parties here of the ongoing work on the proposed 'reverse Rfa', Community de-adminship. It has been suggested we wind up our efforts in early January, but that is not set in stone. For those who have not been following this, I submit it is worth a look, and comments

2365:

Likewise, we occasionally get noms from people who are generally trustworthy and could clearly use the tools correctly in some areas but tend to make deletion-related judgment calls that are too far away from historical consensus for comfort. Some of these editors have promised to be careful when

2270:

First of all, as a mathematician, I don't think that it's possible to have enough graphs ;o) To answer the question: People have lost faith! You put forward an RfA, people are mean to you, people pick apart your every action and every word. You are publicly examined, rated, and criticised. And for

2103:

any content and I was beaten up for 3 hours straight over 1 quazi-vandalism revert, because the admin would bite and block me for questioning their ability to research a dispute despite obviously not being able to, especially since I spent an extra hour putting up over 20 diffs to the most blatant

1786:

This was three or four months ago. I was very inexperienced at that time. Since then I've taken the time to learn procedures. I will leave any users to fish around the edit histories to see how both parties conducted themselves. You were a sysop and should have known better. I was an inexperienced

1607:

After the fixed term the sysops should be subject to review. If their work has been up to scratch, e.g. they are still active, they are still being civil, they are not abusing their position then they should be able to continue. This wouldn't create very much bureaucracy; we only have around 1,700

1588:

Fixed period adminship is a terrible idea. What happens after that? Those who lose the bit after their term have to re-apply through RFA? This creates way too much bureaucracy. Having to run once is enough hassle these days. Also, I can already see all those editors once "wronged" (read: correctly

1472:

easier to become a sysop a few years ago than it is now. Daily I see, and I won't mention any names, certain sysops speaking to editors in a way that would get me banned, or at least sink my chances of becoming a sysop for life. They are disrespectful, arrogant, incivil, and sometimes simply rude.

547:

Actually, besides a link to Jimbo's user page, it's almost a journey to contact Knowledge at all. I find this is good. Anyway, the Fort Hood article ended up with a ridiculous 225k or so hits in the next 48 hours. I don't want to think about mirrors or reposts or social networking copy-pasting or

534:

The instant I saw that idea I thought, "oh, that could be really fast at the right times", then also realized a Whitelist would be ridiculous, and eventually realized it wouldn't actually help the existing system in any way. As a non-admin, having to sit around really hoping disruptive IPs or sock

4426:

Oh dear, you are quite right; I got so caught up excavating the old RfA archaeology and reviewing recent contribution that I failed to check for a fourth nomination. I do apologize for rocking the boat like that: I've no connection with Wikiwoohoo and only found him/her by browsing the rollbacker

2795:

on his RfA? Maybe Paul didn't know he could object to such a closure; we should ask him if he would like his RfA re-opened. The catch is that his RfA was on November 26, a couple of weeks ago, so it might be too late to re-open the last RfA. I'd also like to note that there was nothing wrong with

2767:

to close the RfA, it should merely be plainly shown by the candidate that they wish to end the process. Although I remember why we instituted the SNOW and NOTNOW closures (when someone with 10 edits starts an RfA, there's really no reason to waste anyone's time, including the candidate - it's not

2545:

I believe (and I just tested with protect, but not with everything) that the abusefilter can, at the moment, only monitor edits, moves, or deletions. In the case of deletions, you can not access any of the page info (except things like the title). So, while it is certainly possible to modify the

2394:

As a means for something less than de-sysoping, for admins who demonstrate that they shouldn't take particular actions. This will typically be at an ARBCOM level and will be nothing more than a tool for ARBCOM enforcement. However, it might be useful in the "community desysopping" process being

1089:

Only the worst sufferers of editcountitis would be concerned about that edit count. Anyway, I threw my hat into ring and was about to answer all questions with "Support me before Knowledge explodes", per Shereth's advice. But with Secret getting busy, I guess I'll take my hat back and wait before

1051:

Heh... I would run, but I would most likely fail considering that I have done almost nothing to change since my last RfA, besides getting a bit more involved in various discussions, particularly here and at AN/ANI. Plus it would be rather soon since my rename, which happened to break the Wiki and

542:

I realized there was a BLP disaster in the making and went to see if I could steal and bully anyone else trying to change the article for the actual factual correct spelling of the name of presumed suspect and wait for my full protect request to go through; 72hr requested, let an actual fact-base

4405:. I supported then, but over 40% opposed. I'd hope that those who opposed then would now be willing to review the candidate again, but I'd suggest before considering such a candidate, one should consider the opposes and see if the candidates subsequent edits are such as to address those concerns 2486:

Filters on trusted people aren't to protect against intentional acts, they are to protect someone from making a mistake or acting rashly. A good admin with a history of making good deletions when he's doing them one at a time but poor ones after his 5th in an hour would be a good candidate for a

2369:

For de-adminship, ARBCOM sometimes strips the bit, but they could just as easily impose administrator restrictions, like "don't use the tools on these topics" or "don't block these editors." A future community de-adminship process may produce similar less-than-desysopping outcomes if it had the

1387:

That's a good point Pointillist. I believe that since an increasing of the number of administrators wouldn't necessarily hurt the project, there is no harm in having more administrators. I think the only possible harm is that people might be discouraged by the criticism at RFA's or the fact that

559:

Conclusion: If a Whitelist-based magic protection button wouldn't have helped in a 99th+ percentile level BLP page protection situation because of the exact same time delay and still need a diligent admin to verify my strange request for a mostly-preemptive full protect, I don't mind the current

2382:

While there is a clear benefit to having less-than-full admins as outlined above, it isn't free. The costs include a more complex RFA process and the need for a procedure to add or remove such restrictions. I don't think automated software enforcement of promises made during RFA or conditions

2300:

The successful/unsuccessful ratio, while useful, should be not be analyzed in isolation. (If it really were the one-and-only important indicator, it's interesting that this hasn't been noticed before.) In particular, if good editors are deciding not to be candidates, and so total candidates are

2230:

What it shows is that up to the start of this year, 40% of RFAs were successful. From January 35% have been successful. Someone else can do the math to see if that is statistically significant. This indicates that the problem is not that you are getting vastly more bad candidates. The other

2095:

It's what Tanthalas bordered on getting into which is exactly what non-admins fear getting smacked by since normal user-to-user conduct is meaningless, pretty much. How much would an admin put up out of the following, each of these filed against you separately at different dispute boards in one

1121:

I would be delirious to support the thing that should not be. Admin is a role that should be taken seriously. If that ever comes up at RfA i would be curious of the results. Which make me think of previous RfAs. Filed by a banned user and then deleted is the best that we have so far this month.

551:

My protection request is probably part of what resulted in angry groaning about Knowledge in some blogs or low-grade media that weekend about how we picky we were about calling all suspects "alleged" (Despite common Western law, common sense and Knowledge policy with us) and removing words like

5615:

I'd like to think you are right that the community wouldn't care, but my recollection is that a non-trivial number has expressed that a coached candidate is an automatic oppose. I remember being surprised. Perhaps it was so surprising it registered as a common feeling, while possibly being a

1312:

If the number of active editors here is static, the total "number of editors" (however defined) is declining, the policies and processes are clearer and the tools are better, then why does Knowledge need more admins? I'm not trying to be provocative or disruptive about this, I just think the

5526:

I would like to see a straw poll done as to whether the RfA community will support candidates who have been coached. Coaching is pointless if the RfA community will simply deny any candidate who has been coached. If it is apparent that there is support for the program, people will be more

2361:

A year or so ago we had an administrator from another wiki ask for administratorship for a very specialized task. He got the bit but not without a lot of discussion. Some of the discussion was along the lines of "I would be more supportive if we could enforce your promise in software."

2135:

True on both ends, and my apologies. As for why, I'll leave it at "it's complicated", but I know of a few admins that have the same underlying issue that can lead to it. I'm just not adjusted yet, and why I stay at XfDs more. My few attempts at nearly-just-diffs have filed miserably, ha.

1367:

That's the way I see it. too, except that I'd expect the daily ratio of admin-hours to edit-count should fall over time because of greater maturity within the system (backlogs being lower might be evidence of this). I don't reject the possibility we need new admins, but I'd like to know

1969:

How would admins who don't want to be subjected to fixed time monarchists? Put fixed rates on adminship isn't a good idea. Admins are people who are trusted to easily handle tasks you wouldn't want to give to a 14-year old kid who writes, "BOB IS STUPID" on articles. They are in no way

236:

pretty much already serves this same purpose. Not only that, it seems a bit complicated and unnecessary with users having to be approved to be on the whitelist, let alone someone having to write a bot. This might also have the potential to be abused if used for the worse in content

2443:

If my understanding is correct, every edit filter runs on every edit made by every editor. It would seem strange to create an edit filter that's only going to be restricted to one person and thus only trigger on <<<1% of all edits. That said, such filters do exist, such as

4026:

Yeah, exactly. For example, I have 1,025 edits in October and November, but I'm not on the list. (The threshold is supposed to be 30.) At the same time there are blocked users on the list. Oh, and the page seems to say that there are no current admins. Not really to useful then.

2954:

if they so choose. The ability to making an immediately binding RfA closure is not an ability that non-'crats like us have, nor should we. Tan is also correct about the possibility of inappropriate non-'crat closures. SNOW/NOTNOW aside, one instance that has always bugged me is

2378:

looks like it can be used to restrict the activities of administrators, e.g. allow an administrator to only make a certain number of blocks or deletes a day, not allow him to block or delete certain editors or pages, etc., or even pop up "are you sure"-type warning messages.

1849:

that day. I have apologised and asked for closure. You have not apologised and you don't seem to want closure. You have proven my point: you're a sysop and should not be conducting yourself in this way. If you have more to say then I would ask you to take it to my talk page.

358:

The standard for trust to protect or unprotect is, IMHO, much lower than the standard needed to do things like see deleted edits. The best argument I've seen not to do this now is that it is not necessary, that is, admins are not faced with a backlog in this area.

5252:- who has said that it would predispose them to opposing the candidate) - but many others like the fact that someone has some idea of the issues involved by having interacted with someone who both had to run the gauntlet of RfA themselves, and who uses the tools. 3032:

Just to weigh in (as a bureaucrat), editors that prematurely come to RfA are often unfamiliar with the rules, policies, and general goings-on. However, they are more often than not rather good-faithed; as a result, we should make every effort to help communicate

390:

Well, I guess it's a question of whether the big majority of the community agrees, enough to pass people through the approval process that wouldn't pass RFA. I expect this to trend toward higher standards, the way RFA has, but it's possible that it wouldn't.

3078:

I agree that it is a good idea to provide a lengthier explanation of why it was closed. There have been a couple of early-close RfAs which I have left a comment giving more information on why editors may have opposed the RfA had it remained open (for example,

3750:

We did have one a few months ago on the HACKs list. I'm sure that Secret is stalking a few editors while waiting for the right time to pounce on them and throw them into the pit. Other than that, I don't know of anyone who is interesting in a list right now.

1537:

I don't know about recall, but I would love to see admins lose their bit after a fixed period of years, unless they need it by virtue of some other office. Whether this is 2 years, 5 years, or 10 years isn't as important that it be some finite time period.

3673:

The "!vote" term is an abomination. I use the word "vote" fully aware that I generally need to provide some substance behind it if it is to carry much weight. A "vote" can mean a vote as you do in an election, but definition 2 from thefreedictionary.com

5097:

users to become admins. Wiki isn't a MMORPG, it's not something people should treat like a game. Admin coaching should be purely educational, when I pursued it I wanted to learn in further detail the things admins dealt with just so I could know them.

2487:

throttling filter, for example. Along these lines, administrators who are good with filters may offer to make filters for other admins or editors based on a courtesy request, much like the wiki-break enforcer tools are triggered on courtesy requests.

2401:

here is to reduce the drama of such RFAs. Had this been available at the time of the RFA of the admin from another wiki above, I think both the nominator and nominee would've jumped on it, and the RFA would've probably closed with little opposition.

5643:

oppose if the candidate self-noms (naming no names, I think most of you will know who I am thinking of). Other will oppose for other reasons - too high an automated edit count, too low edit %age on article space, a blackbird landed on the fence this

3242:

We have a problem with bloat of the question section in RFA, making each question a subheading could make this worse by adding emphasis. As for signing questions, they are part of the dialogue in RFA and I for one like to know who has asked what.

655:

for deletion yet. Anyway there have been several nominations in the last 24 hours. But there was so little time open to vote that we must have missed them. You may wish to contact the candidates on their talk pages and give helpful suggestions.

2669:

RfA closures, only one actually was closed by a non-admin (Triplestop, a rollbacker) – Paul2387's RfA. Paul2387 is the one asking the question here...just for the record. And yeah, there's nothing wrong with a non-admin closing an RfA early per

335:

This would quickly end up becoming redundant to RFA because there wouldn't be a much lower degree of trust required (the way there is for rollbackers). That is, if we trust people to be protecting pages, we can pretty much trust them as admins.

5256:

with a little bit more of a clue of what's ahead by virtue of their coaching; or they'll end up with a better editor - someone who will be better at tagging CSD materials, arguing their case in xfDs, knowing when to put a page to RFPP, etc etc.

5259:

Finally, I agree with Dr Doc that more admins should do coaching. Even if only 1% of them did it, that'd bring it up to 17 (10 more than are currently active in coaching) - if 2%, that'd be 34: 5 times as many as are currently coaching! --

2305:

admins is decreasing - something that another analysis earlier this year showed was definitely the continuing trend - then a large number of people, myself included, think that there certainly is a problem, for the reasons I mentioned. --

5066:" I see that quite a few admins benefited from having coaches of their own; many of these previously coached admins being conspicuous in their absences from the prospective coaches list! Maybe it's time for a renewed effort in this area? 2324:

Just saying, I see a lot of admins being accused of unreasonable stuff they never did, but have managed to get there words twisted compared to when I first edited. Not just at ANI, even on the only talk page day after day. That's alot of

4482:

last RFA to oppose. But I would suggest that before naming a possible candidate here it would be respectful to that editor to check their last RFA and their subsequent activity to see if the concerns of the opposers have been addressed.

2546:

abusefilter to handle all sorts of admin actions, someone will have to code it. I agree with the trust argument above: don't give people any rights unless you trust them to do what they say. But from a technical point of view, it is not

4263:

Well, I think it'll be more helpful when the numbers on the page are reduced tomorrow! Some people have found coaching through it, so I think it is still worth keeping it as active - I'll take the time to remove old requests, etc. --

2574:

I have noticed that most of the unsuccessful RFA'S are being closed by non-admin's i.e. rollbackers, it would be better if an admin would look at RFA'S before they get closed as so to review the candidates eligibility for adminship.

1191:

I'm sure there is, and he has probably already appeared at a few recent RFAs. It's only been a few months since that whole thing, so I'll start worrying in a few more since only an idiot would run this soon after being blocked.

4941:

The sky is falling, inactive RFA = doom to the project :p. Acually there's quite a few editors that I see with a few more months of experience would pass an RFA easily. I see RFA promoting 20 - 30 monthly six months from now.

1411:

reports, but we can try stop-gap discussion advice and try contacting the involved parties. Overall, it's a stress I'm sure no one likes, especially the "night regulars" I see doing a lot of the admin activities at odd hours.

1940:

Well that would be an incorrect assumption. If I had started this thread because of that incident then why didn't I make this post three or four months ago? There might not be anything wrong with adding a link, but there

2531:

I don't see this as a viable solution. If we don't trust them enough, we shouldn't be granting them the bit. In addition, it would be too easy a step from here to arbitrary limits on adminship being imposed regularly.

1372:

we need them before I cast my !vote. Knowledge's ways of working evolved in an environment where admin bandwidth was a scarce resource: our ecosystem might change unpredictably if faced with an oversupply of admins. -

2768:

useful for them to be told multiple times that they need more experience), I think that NOTNOW has been overused when people start getting sensitive about the candidate's feelings. Limit SNOW closures to the

1844:

The complete lack of credibility that you perceive. I was inexperienced at that time. This thread was not, and is not, about you. (Although you are an example of what I speak about) The point is we were both

2032:

Tanthalas practices the kind of in-your-face honesty, that some consider insulting. I don't think it's meant that way. More on-topic: I'm still not convinced, and I doubt I will be, absent any really good

1889:

For a start, he's commenting on contributors and not content. If he wanted to get involved in the discussion then he could have discussed the points I had made. Instead he started to insult me: I have "...

5648:... as there are no fixed criteria for becoming an admin, anyone can object for any reason (or no stated reason at all). That is one of the strengths/weaknesses* (*delete as appropriate) of Knowledge. -- 2550:

possible to create fancy admin filters to monitor anything but deletions, and an admin could change any filter they wanted anyway (because the filters can't block users from promoting themselves to AFE).

4000:

One of the strange things about that is that most people who are worthy to be nominated are not listed, and most people that are listed are newbies who either 1) don't have a chance or 2) are inactive.

4427:

list. Still, it comprehensively answers my original question. I am hanging my head in shame and would kick my brains to bits if I could find them. My only defence is that I was trying to help.... -

2514:

Fair enough, but in this case we need to be mindful of Soap's highlighting of the condition limit. If we extend it to log actions as well as edits then I think it will bring the wiki to its knees. –

5240:

given scenarios about pages for RFPP, and judging whether they should be protected or not, and why, etc. It's like a 'pre-school' for an admin - primary school doesn't start until you get the bit!

748:, maybe we should go with one of two extremes for the rest of the weekend: Automatically nominating people when they are autoconfirmed, or locking WP:RFA so nothing can be transcluded. *joke*. 110:

If there was bot that, on command from editors on a whitelist, would semi-protect or protect an article for up to 24 hours and post a note to an administrative noticeboard, would this be useful?

4131: 2884:

be mentioned, and he would like to hear more. A counter-suggestion is that he put himself up for editor review. Therefore, I would generally be against re-openening a NAC/NBC-closed RFA unless

2661:

RfA closure that was closed as unsuccessful by a non-'crat last month was RadioFan's, closed by admin SoWhy, and that was acceptable because RadioFan had withdrawn. Looking over the last several

2187: 1468:'s mother. These days the sysop candidates have to jump through hoops whilst bending over backwards whilst at the same time holding a perfect, blemish-free, emotionless, record. In short: it was 1336:

editors, then we need more active admins, assuming the average time spent admining and average number of edits per day per editor is nearly constant. Based on some previous discussions, we

1029:

Looking on the bright side, November was a solid month at RfA. There were 13 successful RfAs (the most since April) and just 5 unsuccessful RfAs (the fewest all year), discounting the six

153:

Desired whitelist criteria: Generally experienced and trusted, hasn't tried to break the wiki, approval by any crat possibly after a lightweight RFA, revokable at any time by any crat.

1589:

blocked or topic banned) by an admin running in to oppose. What a mess that would be. I like the system of monarchs you mention though. I really think my kids should inherit adminship.--

2186:

Yes, it's another graph. This one is kind of hard to explain, so I'll do my best. It is graphing the percentage of RfAs in a month that have passed. I looked at every single month from

983: 1484:

then hold on; the old boy network often stops it getting that far!) Another would be that sysop status be granted for a fixed term, say 18 months. (Fixed terms of office work for

4467:

Many thanks for those kind words, SoWhy. I won't give up, but I suppose it isn't very likely I will find an appropriate candidate who has really been overlooked. Wie schade! -

3326:

Well personally I would use a header rather than a ; so you can link to specific questions. If it's ugly in the TOC, you can always limit the TOC to not include those headers.

3169:

Speaking of the question text, it is also awkward that it has to be indented. This text is similar in function to the beginning of a conversation, which is always unindented.

2077:

Yes, I do on occasion. I'm sure you can see the context in which that comment was written though, and how it is completely different from the normal discussion we are having.--

3645:

People write "!vote" out of political correctness: it is a vote-while-campaigning-at-the-ballot-box-that-may-be-discounted, but you have to pretend it is not a vote at all. —

1897:". Instead of using facts and logic to dismiss my points he attacks me and tries some kind of slur campaign. This thread wasn't about Tan, but he's made it all about him: "... 4202: 963:

You guys are looking at if from the wrong angle... think of it this way, it's been three days since anybody was attacked for not crossing enough t's or dotting enough i's.---

2201:

As was said a few days ago, all the self-pitying threads are starting to do more harm then help. I do think this graph shows a few of the flaws in many of those arguments.

1267:

Haha, whoops. I meant to indicate that people won't be freaking out here. If the power of an RFA could ever completely end drama, the world here would be a different place.

495:

A human will always be better than a bot. We have no shortage of humans willing to do the job; no need for a bot. (I do think we need more admins in general, though). --

5451:

Seems like both the massive backlog at coaching and the concerns about prepping people for RFA rather than giving practical knowledge could be addressed by coaching people

3136: 2622:

Technically, crats are supposed to close RFDs that don't qualify for an early fail e.g. SNOW or NOTNOW. As xeno said, anyone who knows what they are doing can invoke the

1705:

that the devil is in the detail, but something needs to be done. The system isn't working at the moment. This might make more work, but it would strip out the dead wood.

589: 586: 583: 94: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 4078:

Well, from what I can tell, I think Soap (who declined like a week ago), TheLeftorium, and a couple other users are pretty much ready. I don't feel comfortable myself (

2159:

In the end though, it could be because we are promoting better administrators, although in some ways I believe that this is also discouraging potential administrators.

3909:

Would it be allowed for me to nominate other editors for autoreviewer rights? I could certainly name a few article-writers who don't need their articles patrolled...

3445:

Exclamation points are used in some programming languages to mean "not", so !vote is geek-humor for saying "not vote". Knowledge is largely a geek-dominated society.

2854:, largely because it's unclear whether he knew the closure was binding. I personally don't think he should re-open it, but if he wants to he should be able to do so. 720:

Graeme was obviously not being serious. I also fail to see where you argued for reform. Perhaps it got obscured by unwarranted sarcasm and pointless clever remarks.--

5316:

Now our only issue is to find that ~1-2% who are willing to coach, believe in the project, have confidence in themselves for the task and can dispose of the time...

5062:

If there really is a problem with there not being enough admins then why don't some of the old guard put themselves forward as possible coaches? As the page says: "

3924: 3125: 2962:, after it had run for the full seven days. Even though the RfA would've been closed as failed, I think Nakon should've left the closing to the 'crats on that one. 1825:

I hadn't brought this up in some time. However, as you are literally calling for a revolution, I felt it necessary to point out your complete lack of credibility.

4198: 4058: 3231:

Do you mean that people don't like change, or "don't fix it if it ain't broke"? That is understandable. But I don't see how this change could mess up anything. —

2473:

Just off-the-cuff... if we don't trust the admin to voluntary respect the imposed restriction or pledge, what's stopping them from editing it out of the filter? –

5456:

taught them by the time they pass, or may never pass). I would have liked to have such a mentor when I was a new admin, e.g. to get sanity checks on closures.

4402: 4383: 1207: 3656:

There is also the issue that if you don't use the '!' when saying 'vote' you will get someone leaping down your throat exclaiming "This isn't a vote y'know".

1480:

There needs to be some common ground, some equality of standard. One proposal would be that all sysops should be subject to recall. (If you're thinking about

4079: 5479: 2981: 2955: 2830:

which contains instructions. If he wants it open again then it should be possible to extend it so that it will run for the amount of time that was left.

592:. Those threads would be worth a read before another discussion on the deeper meaning, whether we don't have enough admins, how to find more, etc. etc.-- 3948:

Okay, I nominated a couple of users there. More to come, probably. (Including myself, after I get a bit closer to the suggested number of creations...)

3055:

I will say that the RfA matched my personal criteria for a NOTNOW closure (sub 1k edits). The closure was appropriate, but the handling of it was not.

4054: 3807:

rather see a smaller number of committed and active admins. It's easier for them to act as a cohesive body that way. But that's just what I think...

5548:

I believe the community wouldn't care. Weather a candidate was coached or should not be relevant. The community is supposed to asses if a candidate

2763:

I also (and probably to someone's incredulity) agree with the some of the sentiment above, although since many of these RfA candidates do not know

2253:-type applications were excluded from the data set... In other words, what's the trend in success percentage for reasonably credible candidates? -- 1052:

cause over 20,000 of my edits to not re-attribute to my new username, while my still saying in my preferences that I still have over 98,000 edits.

5582:

I agree. I don't think that the community automatically opposes admin coachees; rather they oppose candidates who treated it as another quest in

5180: 3267:

simplify matters and remove a lot of redundancy if candidates didn't have to reply to the same kind of question in so many different places. —

2449: 1006: 607:

Oh come on, you spoilt the fun. I had a stopwatch ready to see how long it will take for such a thread to come into existence... ;-) Regards

195:

only allow it if the page was mentioned by another editor on an ANI page or was on a page-whitelist. Bot would also keep a page-blacklist.

47: 17: 5131: 4441:

Don't feel too bad, there surely are plenty more people out there you can suggest. You should just dive right back into it and find them!

5691:

I agree with this. Automatically opposing someone because of this reasons shows indifference towards both the candidate and the project.

5362:

is nothing you should "learn" for (to use the school metaphor above), it's something you get after people notice that you became clueful.

691: 630: 313:

While I, as an editor, don't think this is much of a solution for anything, I, as a bureaucrat, would like to see it go somewhere else.

5668: 5431: 5411:) people to look at my history in the admin areas and in article editing. And with that, I'm off to get some breakfast and coffee! -- 5280: 4903: 4723: 4284: 4229: 3612: 3111: 1328:

The number of hours spent administrating in relation to the total number of edits per day should be about constant. If we are losing

878:

Is it time to bring out the trump card (me) yet? If so, can people send me the best answers to all the questions? Thanks in advance.--

857:

You could always look back at your time and Knowledge and find someone you've had outstanding interactions with and nominate them. =)

116:

Why a bot? Because I've been told a code change would be a nightmare. The only downsides to a bot vs. a code change is the editor's

1729:

There's always room for improvement, but the system is working just fine. You're looking for solutions where there are no problems.--

259:

RPP is not broken, so there's no need to fix it. This proposal doesn't really belong on this page either, it's not really about RFA.

1283:

I got three more RFAs that I'm creating today or tommorrow, with another one still waiting for a reply. No more lack of RFA. Thanks

1055: 777:

I love how often I can quote "All this has happened before, and all this will happen again" and it still be a valid statement. :)

5295:

admins is more like 1,000 so we'd need a slightly higher percentage. Agree with the general thrust of what you're saying though.

4379: 2838: 1512:", etc... And I bet those that make these protests are those most worried about their positions post, dare I say it, revolution! 5030: 3953: 3914: 3332: 3150: 3045: 2989: 2967: 2859: 2801: 2683: 2590: 1042: 572: 519: 4883:

form, version 0H-N035, signed in triplicate and delivered to the New Jersey headquarters of Wales, Bass, and Godwin, LLC. ~

4756: 3884:

If anyone is currently evaluating potential candidates for RFA, can I suggest that at the same time you consider them for

3479: 2907: 2638: 2499: 2425: 1550: 1352: 939: 760: 470: 423: 371: 207: 165: 132: 3286:"Am I the only one who finds the way we're formatting the questions weird?" Apparently so. I don't find it weird at all. 2735:

that leaves me wanting to vote on an RfA that was closed 2 minutes before i heard of it or while i was writing my !vote.

1037:

closures. All that, plus a successful RfB! After that kind of month, an absence of current nominations isn't a big deal.

5377: 3204:

want candidates to put an effort into answering them. So it would certainly be a benefit if they were easier to find. —

2984:

and withdrew after three "oppose" votes. By the way, can someone with experience standardize the closing stuff for him?

4528:

Well, everyone's declining when I ask, so I'm of no help on this end. Plus I haven't gotten anyone through in forever.

2410:

I also recommend we keep this technology in mind so as the needs of the wiki change, we have the flexibility to adapt.

1340:

losing active admins. On the other hand, some of the admin backlogs are a lot lower than they were a year or two ago.

5701: 5570: 5326: 4705: 4669: 4489: 4412: 4141: 3934: 3895: 3845: 3787: 3250: 2236: 2053:" which most would consider blatant incivility; so I do understand why you hold the point of view that you seem to do. 1172:

I'm sure there's an Eco/PT sock out there somewhere who is getting pretty close to being properly groomed for an RfA.

187:

Desired restriction: Bot would not allow protection if editor edited that page or its talk page in the last week per

2922:

I disagree that a crat needs to re-open closed discussions unless we put my above suggestion into play. For example,

237:

disputes/conflicts. Frankly, I think having a human sysop accepting or declining queries on a case-by-case basis at

112:

What criteria would be needed to get on the whitelist, short of a full RfA? Are there any other issues of importance?

4772:

Does it need an announcement every time? Is there a document we have to file with the government when this happens?

1945:

something wrong with adding personal insults. Just read what was written above: the tone was childish and spiteful.

5042:

Seriously? What's the big deal? An entirely inconsequential comment on the talk page deserves a "cut it out"? --

2753: 2462: 1140: 505: 38: 1157:

I approached some of the people who demurred when I last approached them; they all are still remaining sane :( --

514:

I agree with Soap, among others. Moreover, I oppose giving any bot the mop. Admin actions require human judgment.

4760: 3949: 3910: 3483: 2985: 2963: 2911: 2855: 2797: 2697:

to it. There no real need for anyone else to get involved. If you're not a bureaucrat then ignore it, or oppose.

2679: 2642: 2503: 2452:. So there are certainly single persons "important" enough to demand the creation of their own edit filter. -- 2429: 1554: 1356: 1038: 1020:

I asked five users who I feel are well-qualified if they want a nomination. Expect five RFAs if they all accept.

943: 764: 661: 515: 474: 427: 375: 211: 169: 136: 3317:(I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and 682:

You're right. Arguing for reform equals proposing it for deletion. Exact same thing. I sure am glad we have the

5721: 5708: 5686: 5674: 5629: 5610: 5577: 5542: 5520: 5469: 5437: 5397: 5333: 5311: 5286: 5234: 5205: 5183: 5158: 5138: 5126: 5113: 5087: 5051: 5036: 5002: 4981: 4967: 4946: 4934: 4912: 4831: 4786: 4766: 4727: 4712: 4690: 4676: 4654: 4629: 4602: 4582: 4567: 4538: 4512: 4498: 4476: 4462: 4436: 4421: 4395: 4344: 4318: 4303: 4290: 4258: 4235: 4186: 4166: 4150: 4117: 4097: 4073: 4048: 4021: 3994: 3957: 3943: 3918: 3904: 3877: 3862: 3852: 3828: 3794: 3760: 3744: 3714: 3687: 3665: 3651: 3636: 3618: 3583: 3557: 3528: 3509: 3489: 3438: 3415: 3402: 3385: 3341: 3312: 3303: 3271: 3259: 3235: 3224: 3208: 3196: 3182: 3155: 3117: 3072: 3024: 2993: 2971: 2948: 2917: 2863: 2845: 2805: 2786: 2758: 2718: 2687: 2648: 2617: 2594: 2561: 2540: 2522: 2509: 2481: 2466: 2435: 2348: 2315: 2312: 2294: 2262: 2240: 2224: 2168: 2148: 2130: 2116: 2086: 2072: 2042: 1993: 1964: 1935: 1920: 1884: 1869: 1839: 1820: 1806: 1781: 1738: 1724: 1683: 1667: 1627: 1598: 1579: 1560: 1531: 1464:

and not all!) people were given sysop status simply because they asked for it and because they hadn't insulted

1443: 1397: 1382: 1362: 1322: 1287: 1276: 1262: 1242: 1228: 1214: 1201: 1186: 1166: 1145: 1116: 1099: 1080: 1046: 1024: 1014: 1010: 999: 977: 949: 915: 887: 865: 848: 821: 794: 770: 729: 699: 665: 638: 620: 601: 523: 509: 480: 453: 433: 404: 381: 349: 330: 306: 284: 268: 254: 217: 175: 142: 695: 634: 2445: 2406:

spot in a particular area where software enforcement or a software-triggered warning message is appropriate?

2121:

You certainly are verbose Datheisen, I'll give you that. I have no idea what you're going on about though.--

1570:

away editing tools that one takes for granted - that doesn't sound like a good strategy to retain editors.

4102:

Oh, I also offered the idea to Tim Song, who didn't feel quite ready yet. He's a strong candidate as well.

5662: 5425: 5274: 5203: 4977: 4897: 4484: 4407: 4365: 4278: 4223: 4136: 3929: 3890: 3885: 3835:

Well, I agree it is not necessary to ALWAYS have an RfA discussion. Consider this the 'crat winter break.

3606: 3421: 3400: 3245: 3105: 2796:

Triplestop's closure; it was a solid decision. But if the candidate is objecting, it should be re-opened.

2232: 819: 629:

Exactly, everything is perfectly fine in Wikiland. Why change what is self-evidently not broken. Right? --

451: 282: 4717:

Actually, he had some deleted contributions to his userpage and user talkpage, but nothing meaningful. --

4681:

The fact that he was blocked at approximately the same time as you posted that makes it extra hilarious.

831: 5535: 4781: 4650: 4508: 4472: 4432: 4391: 3523: 3505: 3433: 2943: 2781: 2737: 2374: 2027: 1834: 1776: 1641: 1504:!) I'm sure that there are many other ideas that would work. Although, I can already hear the protests " 1493: 1378: 1318: 1181: 1124: 117: 5407:

long xfDs where concensus needs to be decided, or of controversial BLP issues!). So, I would hope (no,

4625: 3858:

I saw one editor I just offered to nominate, most others will be well-qualified in a couple of months.

1104:

God forbid someone would want their contribution history under a single banner. @Thing, you can bother

5225: 5078: 4039: 3819: 3705: 3548: 3376: 3048:(or something similar) to help soften the blow and keep the line of communication open (this goes for 2709: 2286: 2064: 1956: 1912: 1861: 1798: 1764: 1716: 1659: 1619: 1523: 5623: 5605: 5516: 5173: 4998: 4973: 4386:). Is that type of editor worth asking, or is s/he too specialist-content-oriented to be considered? 4373: 4016: 3873: 2831: 2578: 2340: 2219: 1985: 972: 657: 264: 2731:

for reversal of an early closure of an RfA. My concern lies with the oftimes very quick closure per

1500:, for university departmental heads; in fact the only people that don't seem to use this system are 1421:

to know the times that are most problematic so we can can best offer assistance :) ...Bot-automated

273:

Agree with the above. A valid and thought-provoking idea, but I don't think it's really necessary. –

5151: 5121: 5106: 5011: 4595: 4560: 4337: 4244: 4179: 4110: 4090: 3737: 3682: 3661: 3624: 3455: 2308: 2144: 2112: 1575: 1439: 804: 568: 539: 298: 5635:

they will look at my contributions and either support me or oppose me based on what I've actually

4621: 2395:

discussed elsewhere. This is outside the scope of RFA but presented here because of the audience.

2193:

This graph is showing an interesting concept. Recently, a lot of numbers have been thrown around.

5718: 5681: 5356: 5218: 5071: 5020: 4963: 4032: 3812: 3698: 3589: 3541: 3369: 3309: 3268: 3232: 3205: 3179: 3145: 2851: 2702: 2609:

RFAs? These can be closed by anyone who has experience with the RFA process, not just admins... –

2586: 2534: 2279: 2057: 1949: 1905: 1854: 1791: 1709: 1652: 1612: 1516: 994: 3215:

I also think that people would get ticked off at that because it would mess with "the system".

2178: 1460:

Looking over some of the older RfA's, say two or three years ago, it seems that some (I stress

5651: 5463: 5414: 5263: 5196: 5047: 4891: 4752: 4718: 4549: 4503:

Of course. As I already said, I made a mistake not checking properly for later nominations. -

4267: 4212: 3974: 3632: 3595: 3475: 3393: 3135:

There is also ongoing discussion on what happens after a 'final' draft has been completed, at

3094: 3037:

the RfA was closed, rather than just link to a shortcut. Informationally spartan talk messages

2903: 2634: 2559: 2495: 2421: 1546: 1348: 1257: 1162: 935: 910: 843: 812: 756: 466: 444: 419: 398: 367: 343: 275: 203: 161: 128: 3175:==Questions == === Q1: Color === What's your favorite color? ~~~~ : Red. ~~~~ === Q2: ... === 5529: 5371: 4927: 4773: 4686: 4646: 4504: 4468: 4428: 4387: 4161: 3766: 3756: 3515: 3501: 3425: 3296: 3220: 3065: 3017: 2935: 2827: 2792: 2773: 2772:

ones - under 50 edits, etc - and let 'crats decide if they want to close others per NOTNOW.

2728: 2675: 2666: 2658: 2602: 2272: 2258: 2250: 2164: 1826: 1768: 1633: 1481: 1425: 1393: 1374: 1314: 1272: 1224: 1197: 1173: 1034: 787: 597: 323: 107:

This is a thought-experiment for now, but I want to get some feedback before going forward.

5143:

Ok, some bad wording there. I don't take that view, so I guess that was a poor summary. :(

5714: 5618: 5557: 5512: 5491: 5391: 5304: 5165: 4994: 4923: 4456: 4369: 3988: 3869: 3576: 3497: 3292: 3061: 3013: 2791:

Hmm, good point. Do you think Paul2387's post here is an objection to Triplestop invoking

2333: 2126: 2082: 2038: 1978: 1931: 1880: 1816: 1734: 1679: 1594: 1474: 1238: 1095: 965: 883: 783: 725: 614: 319: 260: 5145: 5100: 4589: 4573: 4554: 4545: 4529: 4331: 4301: 4256: 4206: 4173: 4104: 4084: 4063: 3731: 3679: 3657: 3447: 3413: 3337: 3194: 2732: 2671: 2662: 2654: 2615: 2606: 2520: 2479: 2141: 2109: 1846: 1571: 1485: 1436: 1114: 1030: 863: 565: 544: 291: 238: 233: 5245: 4959: 3327: 3308:

Good point. If I'm really the only one, then there's no point in dragging this on. —

3140: 3044:

help do this. If an editor plans on closing premature RfAs, I'd prefer that they use

2582: 988: 652: 553: 188: 5599: 5457: 5043: 4745: 4010: 3628: 3468: 2896: 2627: 2552: 2488: 2414: 2213: 1539: 1341: 1252: 1158: 928: 905: 838: 749: 745: 459: 412: 392: 360: 337: 243: 196: 154: 121: 120:

wouldn't show use of the bot, and of course, someone has to write and run the bot.

5249: 5244:

editors/admins do not like RfA candidates who have been coached (I know of one -

5064:

Only seven coaches are still active... Requests will most probably be unanswered.

4587:

Ok, at this time, I can't really think of too many obviously overdue candidates.

5367: 4943: 4796: 4682: 4329:

Well, I'm still not running until my agreed (signed contract involved) date. :p

4315: 4156: 3859: 3803: 3752: 3216: 2254: 2195:"We've lost X many admins! we had X number of RfAs this month and X this month!" 2160: 1811:

Ha, Lulz indeed! If you had a point at that time, it wasn't a very good one...--

1763:

As long as we all realize we're discussing this with a guy who acts when he has

1465: 1389: 1284: 1268: 1220: 1211: 1193: 1105: 1021: 593: 46:

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

3729:

get to run? Perhaps an organized list would suffice? *looks at certain person*

5695: 5564: 5386: 5320: 5298: 4918: 4699: 4663: 4451: 3983: 3927:. But please check those parts of the criteria that you have access to first. 3839: 3781: 3647: 3570: 3287: 3056: 3008: 2959: 2724: 2623: 2326: 2122: 2078: 2034: 1971: 1927: 1876: 1812: 1730: 1675: 1590: 1234: 1091: 879: 778: 721: 609: 314: 4744:

Everyone, enjoy your hopefully short break from RFA candidate discussions.

4296: 4251: 3408: 3189: 2610: 2515: 2474: 2455: 1489: 1473:

But they get away with it because they all know each other and it's like an

1109: 858: 498: 4917:

It took me far too long to figure out what that spelled out. Well played.

2926:

was clearly wrong, and was correctly reverted (this particular user has a

2182:

Red is the month's ratio, green is the average of all ratios for the year.

4295:

They have? Then disregard what I said, I thought it was stagnant there. –

2049:

Then we shall have to agree to disagree. I see that you also prefer the "

1501: 1497: 904:

The answer to every question is "Support me before Knowledge explodes."

5593: 5587: 4314:

Lets just pay each new adminstrator $ 1000 bucks, and see RFA soar :p.

4004: 3725:

There's no one currently running, are there any good candidates we can

2207: 5093:

Not really. People oppose admin coaching because it's like training,

4122:

Three possible good hunting grounds for potential RFA candidates are

2390:

For now, I recommend we use this, but only in limited circumstances:

2723:

I must say that i see Dr Dec's point. If a candidate objects to the

1407:

Non-admin actions at incident forums is limited short of submitting

827:

I'm actually surprised that we've not had to mark this talk page as

5291:

Just a minor note but we don't actually have 1,700 admins editing.

4053:

You only get on the list if you have one of the userboxes shown on

3166:

about. That information is currently hidden in the question text.

5010:

I'm with Tan on this one. It's unbelievably tiresome. Cut it out.

4364:

I was just taking a look at long-established rollbackers (per the

3981:

willing to run for adminship. Have fun checking them. ;-) Regards

3765: 3464: 2177: 2383:

imposed by ARBCOM or the community is worth the added overhead

3139:. Again, your thoughts are welcomed. Happy Holidays to all, 2727:

we really should not force it upon them. There is a clause in

530:

Long, but actual Story as a demonstration why it's unnecessary

25: 3623:

And, for a chuckle, there's also the corresponding parody at

2188:

Knowledge:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological)

411:

The standards for RfB, interestly, have gotten a tad lower.

289:

Agree with Beeblebrox. Too much effort for too little gain.

4061:

which might be a better place to hunt some new ones down.

2366:

deleting or not delete. Some have passed, some have not.

2271:

what? It's not like you're asking to be left in charge of

311:

This is, at best, tangentially related to the RfA process.

4201:, I left a suggestion on its talk page (under the title " 3564: 3172:

So, why can't we just have a simple structure like this:

4794:

Oh nevermind, the arbcom election annoucement did that.

4620:

I would like to be an Admin here on Knowledge. Thanks!--

800:

No nominations in about three days. Time to mark RfA as

4951:...if they're still around and actively contributing. 4127: 4123: 3318: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3038: 2931: 2927: 2923: 4057:

on your user page. There are also 114 peple listed at

3360:" (with a prefixed exclamation mark) instead of just " 2448:, which I believe was created solely to keep track of 4792:

Hey, at least it broke the days long silence here. ;)

4134:(provided their last run was over three months ago). 4082:

having taken place in July) and won't til next year.

5118:Breeding users to become admins? That's a new one. 4552:). Perhaps you could convince at least one to run? 1233:

The presence of active RFA's means no more drama?--

552:'Terrorism' and 'fundamentalist'. We're Knowledge. 4544:Wizardman, I thought of two wonderful candidates ( 3137:Knowledge talk:Community de-adminship/RfC Strategy 2888:is willing to stand up and say that it was closed 1417:and Huggle users who have more flexible schedules 4250:, I believe it collapsed under its own weight. – 2895:re-opening it would serve some useful purpose. 5380:) for example who I cannot praise often enough 4382:). Editor since 2005, most recent RfA in 2006 ( 3925:Knowledge:Requests for permissions/Autoreviewer 3923:Absolutely, any editor can nominate another at 3777:If I standed a chance, I would propose myself. 3126:Knowledge talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC 4782: 4774: 4199:Knowledge:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching 4171:or in my case, 7 months (I'm all of those :). 4059:Knowledge:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching 3524: 3516: 3434: 3426: 2944: 2936: 2782: 2774: 2370:authority to do so and a means to enforce it. 2341: 2334: 2327: 1986: 1979: 1972: 1835: 1827: 1777: 1769: 1642: 1634: 1182: 1174: 224:Bad idea all around/not needed/waste of effort 8: 582:Yes, there are no current nominations. This 103:Thought experiment - bot-assisted protection 2249:I wonder what the graph would look like if 2198:were lower and people were passed easier. 5646:(I'd love to see this quoted as a reason!) 2387:, but that could change in 2010 or later. 927:: "Do you promise not to break the wiki?" 5506:shouldn't. My goal is to show him how to 4055:Category:Knowledge administrator hopefuls 1431:status changes for same purpose perhaps? 5527:interested in volunteering as coaches. 4572:I tried with leftorium but that failed. 3514:Ah, yes, that's what I was looking for. 3188:That would bloat the TOC needlessly... – 2958:, which was closed by an administrator, 1895:point out complete lack of credibility. 5497:what coaching just to pass RFA produces 4695:That, and that this was his only edit. 4240:Probably best just to tag that page as 1648:A perfect illustration. Thanks Tan :o) 1005:This is an unusually long dry spell... 4155:... or six months ago to be safe. ;-) 2850:I asked him about it on his talk page 458:The RfB remark was a point of trivia. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3446: 690:reckless and irreversible actions. -- 18:Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship 7: 4952: 4442: 3500:that mentions where it comes from.-- 4613:I would like to be an Admin please. 3676:"To express a choice or an opinion" 2956:WP:Requests for adminship/GrooveDog 1247:I think it's more like "better the 5692: 5561: 5508:actually be good at being an admin 5317: 4795: 4696: 4660: 4368:suggestion yesterday) and noticed 3867:Me! Me! <maniacal laughter: --> 3836: 3778: 1054: 24: 2881:On reopening NAC/NBC-closed RFAs: 1332:admins faster than we are losing 5490: 5478: 4953: 4636: 4443: 4401:I think you've missed their run 2999: 1108:to manually re-attribute them. – 29: 5669: 5663: 5655: 5652: 5432: 5426: 5418: 5415: 5281: 5275: 5267: 5264: 5174: 5023: 5013: 4285: 4279: 4271: 4268: 4230: 4224: 4216: 4213: 3613: 3607: 3599: 3596: 3112: 3106: 3098: 3095: 2754: 2747: 2739: 1765:no idea what he's talking about 1646:22:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC) ← 1141: 1134: 1126: 1074: 1068: 545:Knowledge is not a news agency. 438:True, but I assume you meant Rf 3046:User:EVula/admin/Premature RfA 2736: 2601:I assume you're talking about 1123: 1062: 966: 1: 5722:20:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC) 5709:06:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC) 5687:12:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC) 5675:12:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC) 5630:02:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC) 5611:23:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 5578:23:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 5543:23:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 5521:21:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 5470:19:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 5438:09:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 5398:09:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 5334:09:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 5312:09:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 5287:01:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 5235:01:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 5206:21:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 5184:01:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 5159:01:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 5139:01:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 5114:01:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 5088:00:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 5052:18:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC) 5037:20:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 5003:21:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 4982:19:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 4968:19:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 4947:19:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 4935:18:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 4913:15:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 4832:15:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 4787:14:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 4767:14:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 4728:02:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC) 4713:09:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC) 4691:08:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC) 4677:08:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC) 4655:08:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC) 4630:08:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC) 4603:01:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 4583:01:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 4568:01:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 4539:23:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC) 4513:08:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 4499:02:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 4477:00:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 4463:23:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC) 4437:23:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC) 4422:22:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC) 4396:22:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC) 4345:20:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC) 4319:19:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC) 4304:19:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC) 4291:19:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC) 4259:18:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC) 4236:23:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 4187:23:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 4167:23:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 4151:22:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 4118:21:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 4098:21:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 4074:20:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 4049:19:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 4022:18:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 3995:16:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 3958:07:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC) 3944:16:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 3919:16:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 3905:14:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 3878:14:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 3863:13:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 3853:11:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 3829:11:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 3795:05:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 3761:03:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 3745:03:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 3715:11:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 3688:09:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 3666:09:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 3652:21:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 3637:21:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 3619:21:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 3584:19:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 3558:19:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 3529:19:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 3510:19:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 3490:03:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 3439:19:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 3416:19:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 3403:19:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 3386:19:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 3342:15:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC) 3156:21:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 3124:Request for your comments at 3118:18:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 3073:17:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 3025:17:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 2994:14:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 2972:04:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 2949:04:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 2918:04:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 2864:03:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 2846:02:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 2806:02:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 2787:00:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 2759:23:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 2719:21:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 2357:Edit filters on admin actions 1899:some admins (read: Tan et al) 984:That starts tonight, actually 978:23:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC) 950:23:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC) 916:22:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC) 888:22:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC) 866:19:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC) 849:17:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC) 822:17:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC) 795:16:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC) 771:13:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC) 730:12:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC) 700:12:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC) 666:10:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC) 639:09:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC) 621:07:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC) 602:07:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC) 573:05:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC) 481:22:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC) 454:22:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC) 434:22:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC) 405:19:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC) 382:18:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC) 350:17:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC) 331:06:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC) 307:22:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC) 285:22:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC) 269:22:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC) 255:22:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC) 218:21:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC) 176:21:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC) 143:21:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC) 4825: 4822: 4819: 4816: 4813: 4810: 4806: 4803: 4800: 4797: 3588:As well as the entry in the 3536:Ah, I see! Thanks everyone. 3496:There's actually a shortcut 3313:16:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 3304:16:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 3272:16:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 3260:09:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 3236:16:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 3225:03:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 3209:16:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 3197:20:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 3183:18:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 2743: 2688:20:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 2649:19:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 2618:17:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 2595:17:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 2562:20:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 2541:16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 2523:18:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 2510:16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 2482:16:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 2467:16:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 2436:16:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 2349:23:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC) 2316:17:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC) 2295:22:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 2263:22:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 2241:12:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 2225:05:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 2169:21:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 2149:16:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC) 2131:11:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 2117:10:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 2087:17:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 2073:16:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 2043:08:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 1994:00:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 1965:23:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 1936:23:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 1921:23:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 1885:23:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 1870:23:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 1840:22:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 1821:22:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 1807:22:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 1782:22:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 1739:22:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 1725:22:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 1684:22:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 1668:22:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 1632:Lulz. Still upset? Awesome. 1628:22:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 1599:11:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 1580:05:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 1561:03:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 1532:03:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 1444:16:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC) 1398:04:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 1383:02:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 1363:02:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 1323:00:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 1288:20:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 1277:22:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC) 1263:19:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC) 1243:19:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC) 1229:18:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC) 1215:18:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC) 1202:18:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC) 1187:16:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC) 1167:16:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC) 1146:16:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC) 1130: 1117:16:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC) 1100:16:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC) 1081:16:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC) 1071: 1065: 1059: 1056: 1047:16:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC) 1025:14:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC) 1015:14:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC) 1000:00:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC) 538:Relation? On the day of the 524:15:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC) 510:05:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC) 3467:, I did not know that. :) 3391:Because RfA isn't a vote. – 1891:no idea what talking about 1506:It would take too much time 1308:Why do we need more admins? 529: 5746: 2934:) of this sort of thing). 3969:As for finding people to 2980:Well, Paul2387 submitted 744:Hehe, given the American 5163:Quite funny actually :) 3460:19:23, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC) 1510:It couldn't be organised 922:only question that count 686:sceptics to prevent any 5485:Properly mentored admin 3693:Thanks again everyone! 3678:is every bit as valid. 2446:Special:AbuseFilter/129 1219:Yippee, no more drama! 1090:clicking "save page".-- 3977:lists everyone who is 3771: 2183: 578:No current nominations 148:Whitelist construction 5584:Knowledge: The MMORPG 4740:And it happened again 3769: 3356:Why do people write " 2375:Knowledge:Edit filter 2343:like to make a call.. 2181: 1988:like to make a call.. 1494:members of parliament 651:Please don't propose 554:Knowledge is not your 118:Special:Contributions 42:of past discussions. 5194:, seriously nerdy. – 4548:, who declined, and 3950:A Stop at Willoughby 3911:A Stop at Willoughby 3161:Layout for questions 2986:A Stop at Willoughby 2964:A Stop at Willoughby 2856:A Stop at Willoughby 2798:A Stop at Willoughby 2680:A Stop at Willoughby 2273:the nuclear football 2204:Thoughts? Comments? 2051:in-your-face honesty 1926:to the discussion.-- 1206:Two denied, but got 1039:A Stop at Willoughby 688:bold, but reversible 516:A Stop at Willoughby 3625:Knowledge:WikiSpeak 3407:It's a "not Vote" – 540:Fort Hood shootings 241:works just fine. - 5713:Oh come on, don't 4836:That would be the 3772: 3590:Knowledge Glossary 2770:stone cold obvious 2570:admin intervention 2403:The question today 2184: 1456:Changing standards 1210:to accept so far. 5705: 5685: 5647: 5609: 5574: 5468: 5383: 5382:bear with me! ;-) 5360: 5330: 5310: 5232: 5085: 5032: 5027: 4910: 4765: 4764: 4709: 4673: 4403:earlier this year 4366:WereSpielChequers 4132:who've run before 4046: 4020: 3849: 3826: 3791: 3712: 3685: 3582: 3555: 3488: 3487: 3459: 3383: 3323: 2982:a new, second RfA 2916: 2915: 2842: 2716: 2647: 2646: 2581:comment added by 2508: 2507: 2434: 2433: 2347: 2293: 2233:Elen of the Roads 2223: 2071: 1992: 1963: 1919: 1893:", he wanted to " 1868: 1805: 1723: 1670: 1666: 1626: 1559: 1558: 1530: 1361: 1360: 1251:drama we know". 948: 947: 920:Don't forget the 769: 768: 479: 478: 432: 431: 403: 380: 379: 348: 305: 250: 216: 215: 174: 173: 141: 140: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5737: 5707: 5698: 5684: 5671: 5665: 5657: 5654: 5645: 5628: 5626: 5621: 5602: 5596: 5591: 5576: 5567: 5538: 5532: 5494: 5482: 5466: 5462: 5460: 5434: 5428: 5420: 5417: 5394: 5389: 5381: 5354: 5332: 5323: 5309: 5307: 5296: 5283: 5277: 5269: 5266: 5233: 5231: 5229: 5221: 5215: 5199: 5176: 5168: 5156: 5148: 5134: 5129: 5124: 5111: 5103: 5086: 5084: 5082: 5074: 5068: 5031: 5025: 5021: 5015: 4958: 4957: 4956: 4933: 4930: 4911: 4906: 4900: 4894: 4888: 4886: 4830: 4827: 4824: 4821: 4818: 4815: 4812: 4808: 4805: 4802: 4799: 4784: 4778: 4750: 4749: 4711: 4702: 4675: 4666: 4644: 4640: 4639: 4600: 4592: 4580: 4565: 4557: 4536: 4496: 4492: 4487: 4459: 4454: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4419: 4415: 4410: 4342: 4334: 4287: 4281: 4273: 4270: 4249: 4243: 4232: 4226: 4218: 4215: 4184: 4176: 4164: 4159: 4148: 4144: 4139: 4115: 4107: 4095: 4087: 4070: 4068: 4047: 4045: 4043: 4035: 4029: 4013: 4007: 4002: 3991: 3986: 3979:masochist enough 3941: 3937: 3932: 3902: 3898: 3893: 3851: 3842: 3827: 3825: 3823: 3815: 3809: 3793: 3784: 3753:Kevin Rutherford 3742: 3734: 3713: 3711: 3709: 3701: 3695: 3683: 3615: 3609: 3601: 3598: 3581: 3579: 3573: 3568: 3556: 3554: 3552: 3544: 3538: 3526: 3520: 3473: 3472: 3461: 3454: 3452: 3436: 3430: 3396: 3384: 3382: 3380: 3372: 3366: 3315: 3302: 3299: 3257: 3253: 3248: 3217:Kevin Rutherford 3153: 3148: 3143: 3114: 3108: 3100: 3097: 3071: 3068: 3023: 3020: 3007: 3003: 3002: 2946: 2940: 2901: 2900: 2843: 2840: 2835: 2826:I linked him to 2784: 2778: 2757: 2755: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2717: 2715: 2713: 2705: 2699: 2632: 2631: 2597: 2557: 2539: 2493: 2492: 2419: 2418: 2413:Your thoughts? 2345: 2338: 2332: 2329: 2311: 2292: 2290: 2282: 2276: 2216: 2210: 2205: 2161:Kevin Rutherford 2147: 2115: 2070: 2068: 2060: 2054: 2031: 1990: 1983: 1977: 1974: 1962: 1960: 1952: 1946: 1918: 1916: 1908: 1902: 1867: 1865: 1857: 1851: 1837: 1831: 1804: 1802: 1794: 1788: 1779: 1773: 1722: 1720: 1712: 1706: 1665: 1663: 1655: 1649: 1647: 1644: 1638: 1625: 1623: 1615: 1609: 1544: 1543: 1529: 1527: 1519: 1513: 1442: 1430: 1424: 1390:Kevin Rutherford 1346: 1345: 1269:Kevin Rutherford 1221:Kevin Rutherford 1194:Kevin Rutherford 1184: 1178: 1144: 1142: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1078: 1076: 1073: 1070: 1067: 1064: 1061: 1058: 996: 991: 968: 933: 932: 861: 836: 830: 815: 809: 803: 793: 790: 754: 753: 617: 612: 571: 464: 463: 447: 417: 416: 401: 397: 395: 365: 364: 346: 342: 340: 329: 326: 303: 296: 290: 278: 251: 248: 230:Interesting Idea 201: 200: 159: 158: 126: 125: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5745: 5744: 5740: 5739: 5738: 5736: 5735: 5734: 5715:poison the well 5704: 5624: 5619: 5617: 5600: 5594: 5573: 5554:became suitable 5536: 5530: 5502: 5501: 5500: 5499: 5498: 5495: 5487: 5486: 5483: 5464: 5458: 5392: 5387: 5329: 5305: 5297: 5223: 5219: 5216: 5214: 5197: 5166: 5152: 5146: 5132: 5127: 5122: 5107: 5101: 5076: 5072: 5069: 5067: 5060: 5035: 5026: 4972:Who are they? 4954: 4928: 4921: 4904: 4898: 4892: 4887: 4884: 4828: 4742: 4726: 4708: 4672: 4637: 4635: 4615: 4596: 4590: 4574: 4561: 4555: 4530: 4494: 4490: 4485: 4457: 4452: 4444: 4417: 4413: 4408: 4338: 4332: 4247: 4241: 4180: 4174: 4162: 4157: 4146: 4142: 4137: 4111: 4105: 4091: 4085: 4066: 4064: 4037: 4033: 4030: 4028: 4011: 4005: 3989: 3984: 3939: 3935: 3930: 3900: 3896: 3891: 3886:WP:Autoreviewer 3848: 3817: 3813: 3810: 3808: 3790: 3738: 3732: 3723: 3703: 3699: 3696: 3694: 3577: 3571: 3569: 3565:our entry for ! 3546: 3542: 3539: 3537: 3448: 3422:WP:NOTDEMOCRACY 3394: 3374: 3370: 3367: 3365: 3354: 3335: 3297: 3290: 3255: 3251: 3246: 3176: 3163: 3151: 3146: 3141: 3129: 3066: 3059: 3018: 3011: 3000: 2998: 2839: 2833: 2707: 2703: 2700: 2698: 2576: 2572: 2553: 2533: 2465: 2359: 2307: 2284: 2280: 2277: 2214: 2208: 2176: 2140: 2108: 2062: 2058: 2055: 2025: 1954: 1950: 1947: 1910: 1906: 1903: 1859: 1855: 1852: 1796: 1792: 1789: 1714: 1710: 1707: 1657: 1653: 1650: 1617: 1613: 1610: 1521: 1517: 1514: 1486:prime ministers 1475:old boy network 1458: 1435: 1428: 1422: 1310: 1007:122.162.176.142 993: 989: 925:liar's question 859: 834: 828: 813: 807: 801: 788: 781: 658:Graeme Bartlett 615: 610: 580: 564: 532: 508: 445: 399: 393: 344: 338: 324: 317: 299: 292: 276: 247: 244: 226: 184: 150: 105: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5743: 5741: 5733: 5732: 5731: 5730: 5729: 5728: 5727: 5726: 5725: 5724: 5711: 5699: 5613: 5568: 5524: 5523: 5496: 5489: 5488: 5484: 5477: 5476: 5475: 5474: 5473: 5449: 5448: 5447: 5446: 5445: 5444: 5443: 5442: 5441: 5440: 5363: 5345: 5344: 5343: 5342: 5341: 5340: 5339: 5338: 5337: 5336: 5324: 5257: 5253: 5241: 5210: 5209: 5208: 5188: 5187: 5186: 5059: 5058:Admin coaching 5056: 5055: 5054: 5022: 5018: 5008: 5007: 5006: 5005: 4989: 4988: 4987: 4986: 4985: 4984: 4939: 4938: 4937: 4834: 4809: 4741: 4738: 4737: 4736: 4735: 4734: 4733: 4732: 4731: 4730: 4722: 4703: 4679: 4667: 4659:I loved this. 4614: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4516: 4515: 4362: 4361: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4209:and do it! -- 4197:Going back to 4195: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4169: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3856: 3855: 3843: 3832: 3831: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3785: 3764: 3763: 3722: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3405: 3353: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3331: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3174: 3162: 3159: 3132:are welcomed. 3128: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2620: 2571: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2461: 2408: 2407: 2397: 2396: 2358: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2319: 2318: 2309:John Broughton 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2244: 2243: 2175: 2172: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2097: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2045: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1602: 1601: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1564: 1563: 1457: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1405: 1404: 1309: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1204: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1084: 1083: 1049: 1027: 1003: 1002: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 953: 952: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 871: 870: 869: 868: 852: 851: 798: 797: 774: 773: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 644: 643: 642: 641: 624: 623: 579: 576: 531: 528: 527: 526: 512: 504: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 483: 408: 407: 385: 384: 353: 352: 333: 312: 309: 287: 271: 257: 245: 225: 222: 221: 220: 183: 180: 179: 178: 149: 146: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5742: 5723: 5720: 5719:Mailer Diablo 5716: 5712: 5710: 5706: 5703: 5697: 5690: 5689: 5688: 5683: 5682:Seraphimblade 5678: 5677: 5676: 5672: 5666: 5660: 5659: 5658: 5642: 5638: 5633: 5632: 5631: 5627: 5622: 5614: 5612: 5607: 5603: 5597: 5589: 5585: 5581: 5580: 5579: 5575: 5572: 5566: 5559: 5555: 5552:, not how he 5551: 5547: 5546: 5545: 5544: 5541: 5539: 5533: 5522: 5518: 5514: 5509: 5504: 5503: 5493: 5481: 5472: 5471: 5467: 5461: 5454: 5439: 5435: 5429: 5423: 5422: 5421: 5410: 5406: 5401: 5400: 5399: 5396: 5395: 5390: 5379: 5376: 5373: 5369: 5364: 5358: 5357:edit conflict 5353: 5352: 5351: 5350: 5349: 5348: 5347: 5346: 5335: 5331: 5328: 5322: 5315: 5314: 5313: 5308: 5302: 5301: 5294: 5290: 5289: 5288: 5284: 5278: 5272: 5271: 5270: 5258: 5254: 5251: 5250:no pack drill 5247: 5242: 5238: 5237: 5236: 5227: 5222: 5211: 5207: 5204: 5201: 5200: 5193: 5189: 5185: 5182: 5178: 5177: 5170: 5169: 5162: 5161: 5160: 5157: 5155: 5150: 5149: 5142: 5141: 5140: 5137: 5136: 5135: 5130: 5125: 5117: 5116: 5115: 5112: 5110: 5105: 5104: 5096: 5095:even breeding 5092: 5091: 5090: 5089: 5080: 5075: 5065: 5057: 5053: 5049: 5045: 5041: 5040: 5039: 5038: 5033: 5028: 5017: 5016: 5004: 5000: 4996: 4991: 4990: 4983: 4979: 4975: 4971: 4970: 4969: 4965: 4961: 4950: 4949: 4948: 4945: 4940: 4936: 4931: 4925: 4920: 4916: 4915: 4914: 4909: 4907: 4901: 4895: 4882: 4880: 4876: 4872: 4868: 4864: 4860: 4856: 4852: 4848: 4844: 4840: 4835: 4833: 4829: 4793: 4790: 4789: 4788: 4785: 4779: 4777: 4771: 4770: 4769: 4768: 4762: 4758: 4754: 4747: 4739: 4729: 4725: 4724:contributions 4720: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4710: 4707: 4701: 4694: 4693: 4692: 4688: 4684: 4680: 4678: 4674: 4671: 4665: 4658: 4657: 4656: 4652: 4648: 4643: 4634: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4627: 4623: 4618: 4612: 4604: 4601: 4599: 4594: 4593: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4581: 4579: 4578: 4571: 4570: 4569: 4566: 4564: 4559: 4558: 4551: 4547: 4543: 4542: 4541: 4540: 4537: 4535: 4534: 4514: 4510: 4506: 4502: 4501: 4500: 4497: 4493: 4488: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4474: 4470: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4461: 4460: 4455: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4434: 4430: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4420: 4416: 4411: 4404: 4400: 4399: 4398: 4397: 4393: 4389: 4385: 4381: 4378: 4375: 4371: 4367: 4346: 4343: 4341: 4336: 4335: 4328: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4321: 4320: 4317: 4313: 4305: 4302: 4300: 4299: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4288: 4282: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4257: 4255: 4254: 4246: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4233: 4227: 4221: 4220: 4219: 4208: 4204: 4200: 4196: 4188: 4185: 4183: 4178: 4177: 4170: 4168: 4165: 4160: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4149: 4145: 4140: 4133: 4129: 4125: 4124:Autoreviewers 4121: 4120: 4119: 4116: 4114: 4109: 4108: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4096: 4094: 4089: 4088: 4081: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4072: 4071: 4060: 4056: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4041: 4036: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4018: 4014: 4008: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3993: 3992: 3987: 3980: 3976: 3972: 3959: 3955: 3951: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3942: 3938: 3933: 3926: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3916: 3912: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3903: 3899: 3894: 3887: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3879: 3875: 3871: 3865: 3864: 3861: 3854: 3850: 3847: 3841: 3834: 3833: 3830: 3821: 3816: 3805: 3804:Press ganging 3802: 3801: 3796: 3792: 3789: 3783: 3776: 3775: 3774: 3773: 3770:Press ganging 3768: 3762: 3758: 3754: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3743: 3741: 3736: 3735: 3728: 3720: 3716: 3707: 3702: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3686: 3681: 3677: 3667: 3663: 3659: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3650: 3649: 3644: 3638: 3634: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3616: 3610: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3591: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3580: 3574: 3566: 3563:There's also 3562: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3550: 3545: 3530: 3527: 3521: 3519: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3507: 3503: 3499: 3495: 3491: 3485: 3481: 3477: 3470: 3466: 3463: 3462: 3458: 3457: 3453: 3451: 3444: 3440: 3437: 3431: 3429: 3423: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3414: 3412: 3411: 3406: 3404: 3401: 3398: 3397: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3378: 3373: 3363: 3359: 3351: 3343: 3339: 3334: 3329: 3325: 3324: 3322: 3320: 3314: 3311: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3300: 3294: 3289: 3285: 3284: 3273: 3270: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3258: 3254: 3249: 3241: 3237: 3234: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3210: 3207: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3195: 3193: 3192: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3181: 3173: 3170: 3167: 3160: 3158: 3157: 3154: 3149: 3144: 3138: 3133: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3115: 3109: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3090: 3086: 3085:The spesh man 3082: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3069: 3063: 3058: 3053: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3036: 3026: 3021: 3015: 3010: 3006: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2947: 2941: 2939: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2913: 2909: 2905: 2898: 2894: 2891: 2887: 2882: 2879: 2878: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2844: 2837: 2836: 2829: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2794: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2785: 2779: 2777: 2771: 2766: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2756: 2751: 2750: 2742: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2711: 2706: 2695: 2694: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2673: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2619: 2616: 2614: 2613: 2608: 2604: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2596: 2592: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2569: 2563: 2560: 2558: 2556: 2549: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2538: 2537: 2536:The Wordsmith 2530: 2524: 2521: 2519: 2518: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2490: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2480: 2478: 2477: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2463:Contributions 2459: 2458: 2457: 2451: 2447: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2416: 2411: 2404: 2399: 2398: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2388: 2386: 2380: 2377: 2376: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2356: 2350: 2346: 2344: 2339: 2337: 2336:If you would 2330: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2317: 2314: 2310: 2304: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2288: 2283: 2274: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2221: 2217: 2211: 2202: 2199: 2196: 2191: 2189: 2180: 2173: 2171: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2150: 2146: 2143: 2139: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2114: 2111: 2107: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2093: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2066: 2061: 2052: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2029: 1995: 1991: 1989: 1984: 1982: 1981:If you would 1975: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1958: 1953: 1944: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1914: 1909: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1863: 1858: 1848: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1838: 1832: 1830: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1800: 1795: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1780: 1774: 1772: 1766: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1718: 1713: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1685: 1681: 1677: 1672: 1671: 1669: 1661: 1656: 1645: 1639: 1637: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1621: 1616: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1587: 1586: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1562: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1541: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1525: 1520: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1478: 1476: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1455: 1445: 1441: 1438: 1434: 1427: 1420: 1415: 1410: 1406: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1371: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1307: 1289: 1286: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1261: 1260: 1256: 1255: 1250: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1185: 1179: 1177: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1147: 1143: 1138: 1137: 1129: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1115: 1113: 1112: 1107: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1082: 1079: 1077: 1050: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1026: 1023: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1001: 997: 995: 992: 985: 982: 981: 980: 979: 976: 975: 974: 970: 969: 951: 945: 941: 937: 930: 926: 923: 919: 918: 917: 914: 913: 909: 908: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 889: 885: 881: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 867: 864: 862: 856: 855: 854: 853: 850: 847: 846: 842: 841: 833: 826: 825: 824: 823: 820: 817: 816: 806: 796: 791: 785: 780: 776: 775: 772: 766: 762: 758: 751: 747: 743: 742: 731: 727: 723: 719: 718: 717: 716: 715: 714: 713: 712: 711: 710: 701: 697: 693: 692:78.34.233.179 689: 685: 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 676: 675: 674: 667: 663: 659: 654: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 640: 636: 632: 631:78.34.233.179 628: 627: 626: 625: 622: 619: 618: 613: 606: 605: 604: 603: 599: 595: 591: 588: 585: 577: 575: 574: 570: 567: 563: 557: 555: 549: 546: 541: 536: 525: 521: 517: 513: 511: 507: 506:Contributions 502: 501: 500: 494: 493: 482: 476: 472: 468: 461: 457: 456: 455: 452: 449: 448: 441: 437: 436: 435: 429: 425: 421: 414: 410: 409: 406: 402: 396: 389: 388: 387: 386: 383: 377: 373: 369: 362: 357: 356: 355: 354: 351: 347: 341: 334: 332: 327: 321: 316: 310: 308: 304: 302: 297: 295: 288: 286: 283: 280: 279: 272: 270: 266: 262: 258: 256: 253: 252: 240: 235: 231: 228: 227: 223: 219: 213: 209: 205: 198: 194: 190: 186: 185: 181: 177: 171: 167: 163: 156: 152: 151: 147: 145: 144: 138: 134: 130: 123: 119: 114: 113: 108: 102: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5693: 5650: 5649: 5640: 5636: 5583: 5562: 5553: 5549: 5528: 5525: 5507: 5452: 5450: 5413: 5412: 5408: 5404: 5385: 5374: 5318: 5299: 5292: 5262: 5261: 5198:Juliancolton 5195: 5191: 5172: 5164: 5153: 5144: 5123:bibliomaniac 5120: 5119: 5108: 5099: 5094: 5063: 5061: 5012: 5009: 4889: 4881:ensibilities 4878: 4874: 4870: 4866: 4862: 4858: 4854: 4850: 4846: 4842: 4838: 4837: 4791: 4775: 4743: 4719:Patar knight 4697: 4661: 4641: 4619: 4616: 4597: 4588: 4576: 4575: 4562: 4553: 4550:Theleftorium 4532: 4531: 4527: 4483: 4450: 4406: 4376: 4363: 4339: 4330: 4297: 4266: 4265: 4252: 4211: 4210: 4181: 4172: 4135: 4112: 4103: 4092: 4083: 4080:the last one 4062: 3982: 3978: 3970: 3968: 3928: 3889: 3866: 3857: 3837: 3779: 3739: 3730: 3726: 3724: 3675: 3672: 3646: 3594: 3593: 3535: 3517: 3456: 3449: 3427: 3409: 3395:Juliancolton 3392: 3361: 3357: 3355: 3316: 3244: 3190: 3177: 3171: 3168: 3164: 3134: 3130: 3093: 3092: 3054: 3049: 3041: 3034: 3031: 3004: 2937: 2924:this closure 2892: 2889: 2885: 2880: 2832: 2775: 2769: 2764: 2746: 2738: 2611: 2573: 2554: 2547: 2535: 2516: 2475: 2454: 2453: 2412: 2409: 2402: 2389: 2384: 2381: 2373: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2342: 2335: 2302: 2269: 2203: 2200: 2194: 2192: 2185: 2174:More graphs! 2157: 2137: 2105: 2100: 2050: 2033:arguments.-- 2024: 1987: 1980: 1942: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1828: 1770: 1635: 1509: 1505: 1479: 1469: 1461: 1459: 1432: 1418: 1413: 1408: 1369: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1311: 1258: 1253: 1248: 1175: 1156: 1133: 1125: 1110: 1053: 1004: 987: 973: 971: 964: 962: 924: 921: 911: 906: 844: 839: 814:Juliancolton 811: 799: 687: 683: 608: 581: 561: 558: 550: 537: 533: 497: 496: 446:Juliancolton 443: 439: 300: 293: 277:Juliancolton 274: 242: 229: 192: 182:Other issues 115: 111: 109: 106: 75: 43: 37: 5590:requisite. 5550:is suitable 5531:Malinaccier 4647:Closedmouth 4505:Pointillist 4469:Pointillist 4429:Pointillist 4388:Pointillist 4130:and people 4128:Rollbackers 3502:Cube lurker 3319:let me know 2577:—Preceding 1375:Pointillist 1315:Pointillist 1106:User:Werdna 95:Archive 200 87:Archive 195 82:Archive 194 76:Archive 193 70:Archive 192 65:Archive 191 60:Archive 190 36:This is an 5717:either. - 5620:SPhilbrick 5558:Beeblebrox 5513:Beeblebrox 5384:) Regards 5181:Review me! 5167:Aaroncrick 4995:Hammersoft 4974:Keepscases 4861:ttempting 4617:Hi People 4370:Wikiwoohoo 4245:historical 4203:Tidying up 3975:WP:HOPEFUL 3973:nominate, 3870:Hammersoft 3338:WP Physics 3089:MisterWiki 2834:Triplestop 2725:mercy rule 2624:mercy rule 1875:so well.-- 1490:presidents 967:Balloonman 832:hysterical 805:historical 261:Beeblebrox 5702:vandalism 5616:rarity.-- 5571:vandalism 5327:vandalism 5192:seriously 4826:Christmas 4706:vandalism 4670:vandalism 4577:Wizardman 4546:Wsiegmund 4533:Wizardman 3971:sacrifice 3846:vandalism 3788:vandalism 3680:Sjakkalle 3658:Quantpole 3450:Equazcion 3310:Sebastian 3269:Sebastian 3233:Sebastian 3206:Sebastian 3180:Sebastian 2932:reversion 2890:too early 2828:WP:NOTNOW 2793:WP:NOTNOW 2740:delirious 2729:WP:NOTNOW 2676:WP:NOTNOW 2667:WP:NOTNOW 2659:WP:NOTNOW 2603:WP:NOTNOW 2583:Paul2387 2548:currently 2385:right now 2142:daTheisen 2110:daTheisen 1572:Guettarda 1498:governors 1437:daTheisen 1127:delirious 1035:WP:NOTNOW 684:naysayers 566:daTheisen 5670:contribs 5433:contribs 5378:contribs 5282:contribs 5246:No names 5014:Wisdom89 4960:Lambanog 4873:gnoring 4869:inutiae 4865:olorous 4853:xciting 4757:contribs 4495:Chequers 4449:Regards 4418:Chequers 4380:contribs 4286:contribs 4231:contribs 4147:Chequers 3940:Chequers 3901:Chequers 3684:(Check!) 3614:contribs 3498:WP:!VOTE 3480:contribs 3333:κοντριβς 3328:Headbomb 3256:Chequers 3113:contribs 3081:Paul2387 2908:contribs 2639:contribs 2591:contribs 2579:unsigned 2500:contribs 2450:Bambifan 2426:contribs 1551:contribs 1502:monarchs 1353:contribs 990:iMatthew 940:contribs 837:by now. 761:contribs 587:happened 560:system. 471:contribs 424:contribs 372:contribs 208:contribs 166:contribs 133:contribs 5653:Phantom 5644:morning 5588:boolean 5459:delldot 5416:Phantom 5265:Phantom 5190:That's 5044:Renesis 4857:orkers 4841:eglect 4746:davidwr 4622:Barras1 4269:Phantom 4214:Phantom 4207:be bold 3629:Useight 3597:Phantom 3469:davidwr 3096:Phantom 2928:history 2897:davidwr 2733:WP:SNOW 2672:WP:SNOW 2663:WP:SNOW 2655:WP:SNOW 2628:davidwr 2607:WP:SNOW 2555:Prodego 2489:davidwr 2415:davidwr 2325:stress. 1970:rulers. 1540:davidwr 1426:wdefcon 1342:davidwr 1031:WP:SNOW 929:davidwr 750:davidwr 746:holiday 460:davidwr 413:davidwr 394:delldot 361:davidwr 339:delldot 239:WP:RFPP 234:WP:RFPP 197:davidwr 191:. Bot 155:davidwr 122:davidwr 39:archive 5641:always 5409:expect 5368:Maedin 5293:Active 5220:Dr Dec 5073:Dr Dec 4944:Secret 4877:ormal 4849:ovel, 4761:e-mail 4683:rspεεr 4316:Secret 4069:jones 4034:Dr Dec 3860:Secret 3814:Dr Dec 3721:Hmm... 3700:Dr Dec 3572:Frank 3543:Dr Dec 3484:e-mail 3371:Dr Dec 3050:anyone 2912:e-mail 2886:a crat 2744:& 2704:Dr Dec 2643:e-mail 2504:e-mail 2430:e-mail 2303:active 2281:Dr Dec 2255:Orlady 2251:NOTNOW 2145:(talk) 2113:(talk) 2059:Dr Dec 1951:Dr Dec 1907:Dr Dec 1901:...". 1856:Dr Dec 1793:Dr Dec 1711:Dr Dec 1654:Dr Dec 1614:Dr Dec 1555:e-mail 1518:Dr Dec 1492:, for 1482:Arbcom 1440:(talk) 1357:e-mail 1334:active 1330:active 1285:Secret 1212:Secret 1131:& 1022:Secret 944:e-mail 765:e-mail 653:WP:RFA 594:chaser 590:before 569:(talk) 475:e-mail 442:? :) – 428:e-mail 376:e-mail 301:(talk) 249:ASTILY 232:, but 212:e-mail 189:WP:COI 170:e-mail 137:e-mail 5700:: --> 5696:RUL3R 5694:: --> 5656:Steve 5604:) · 5569:: --> 5565:RUL3R 5563:: --> 5453:after 5419:Steve 5325:: --> 5321:RUL3R 5319:: --> 5306:Chat 5300:Pedro 5268:Steve 5147:ceran 5102:ceran 4919:EVula 4885:Amory 4704:: --> 4700:RUL3R 4698:: --> 4668:: --> 4664:RUL3R 4662:: --> 4591:ceran 4556:ceran 4491:Spiel 4414:Spiel 4333:ceran 4272:Steve 4217:Steve 4175:ceran 4143:Spiel 4106:ceran 4086:ceran 4015:) · 3936:Spiel 3897:Spiel 3844:: --> 3840:RUL3R 3838:: --> 3786:: --> 3782:RUL3R 3780:: --> 3733:ceran 3727:force 3648:Kusma 3600:Steve 3578:talk 3465:O RLY 3358:!vote 3352:!vote 3288:EVula 3252:Spiel 3099:Steve 3057:EVula 3009:EVula 2960:Nakon 2328:Abce2 2218:) · 2123:Atlan 2101:never 2079:Atlan 2035:Atlan 1973:Abce2 1928:Atlan 1877:Atlan 1847:dicks 1813:Atlan 1731:Atlan 1676:Atlan 1591:Atlan 1466:Jimbo 1419:a lot 1249:devil 1235:Atlan 1092:Atlan 1060:thing 880:Atlan 779:EVula 722:Atlan 315:EVula 294:@Kate 193:might 16:< 5664:talk 5637:done 5606:@020 5601:talk 5537:talk 5517:talk 5427:talk 5405:very 5372:talk 5276:talk 5226:Talk 5175:talk 5154:thor 5109:thor 5079:Talk 5048:talk 4999:talk 4978:talk 4964:talk 4924:talk 4753:talk 4687:talk 4651:talk 4642:Done 4626:talk 4598:thor 4563:thor 4509:talk 4486:Ϣere 4473:talk 4433:talk 4409:Ϣere 4392:talk 4384:here 4374:talk 4340:thor 4298:xeno 4280:talk 4253:xeno 4225:talk 4182:thor 4138:Ϣere 4113:thor 4093:thor 4040:Talk 4017:@801 4012:talk 3954:talk 3931:Ϣere 3915:talk 3892:Ϣere 3874:talk 3820:Talk 3757:talk 3740:thor 3706:Talk 3662:talk 3633:talk 3608:talk 3549:Talk 3506:talk 3476:talk 3420:See 3410:xeno 3377:Talk 3362:vote 3293:talk 3247:Ϣere 3221:talk 3191:xeno 3107:talk 3087:and 3062:talk 3014:talk 3005:Done 2990:talk 2968:talk 2904:talk 2860:talk 2852:here 2802:talk 2748:lost 2710:Talk 2684:talk 2635:talk 2612:xeno 2587:talk 2517:xeno 2496:talk 2476:xeno 2456:Soap 2422:talk 2313:(♫♫) 2287:Talk 2259:talk 2237:talk 2220:@285 2215:talk 2165:talk 2127:talk 2083:talk 2065:Talk 2039:talk 1957:Talk 1932:talk 1913:Talk 1881:talk 1862:Talk 1817:talk 1799:Talk 1735:talk 1717:Talk 1680:talk 1660:Talk 1620:Talk 1595:talk 1576:talk 1547:talk 1524:Talk 1508:", " 1496:and 1488:and 1462:some 1414:They 1409:more 1394:talk 1379:talk 1349:talk 1319:talk 1273:talk 1254:Sher 1239:talk 1225:talk 1198:talk 1163:talk 1135:lost 1111:xeno 1096:talk 1063:that 1043:talk 1033:and 1011:talk 936:talk 907:Sher 884:talk 860:Mkdw 840:Sher 784:talk 757:talk 726:talk 696:talk 662:talk 635:talk 598:talk 520:talk 499:Soap 467:talk 420:talk 368:talk 320:talk 265:talk 204:talk 162:talk 129:talk 5393:Why 5217:~~ 5179:) 5070:~~ 4926:// 4922:// 4798:The 4780:| 4776:Tan 4759:)/( 4755:)/( 4721:- / 4458:Why 4163:meh 4158:Tim 4065:Ron 4031:~~ 3990:Why 3811:~~ 3697:~~ 3592:-- 3540:~~ 3522:| 3518:Tan 3482:)/( 3478:)/( 3432:| 3428:Tan 3368:~~ 3364:"? 3295:// 3291:// 3152:fax 3142:Jus 3064:// 3060:// 3042:not 3040:do 3035:why 3016:// 3012:// 2942:| 2938:Tan 2910:)/( 2906:)/( 2893:and 2780:| 2776:Tan 2765:how 2701:~~ 2674:or 2641:)/( 2637:)/( 2626:. 2605:or 2502:)/( 2498:)/( 2428:)/( 2424:)/( 2278:~~ 2056:~~ 1948:~~ 1904:~~ 1853:~~ 1833:| 1829:Tan 1790:~~ 1775:| 1771:Tan 1708:~~ 1651:~~ 1640:| 1636:Tan 1611:~~ 1553:)/( 1549:)/( 1515:~~ 1477:. 1470:far 1370:why 1355:)/( 1351:)/( 1338:are 1259:eth 1208:one 1180:| 1176:Tan 1159:Avi 1072:not 1069:uld 1066:sho 1057:The 998:at 942:)/( 938:)/( 912:eth 845:eth 810:? – 786:// 782:// 763:)/( 759:)/( 616:Why 584:has 473:)/( 469:)/( 426:)/( 422:)/( 374:)/( 370:)/( 322:// 318:// 210:)/( 206:)/( 168:)/( 164:)/( 135:)/( 131:)/( 5673:\ 5608:· 5598:· 5595:X! 5560:. 5519:) 5465:∇. 5436:\ 5388:So 5303:: 5285:\ 5248:, 5230:~~ 5202:| 5083:~~ 5050:) 5029:/ 5001:) 4980:) 4966:) 4932:// 4902:• 4896:• 4845:f 4807:ng 4804:hi 4783:39 4689:) 4653:) 4645:-- 4628:) 4511:) 4475:) 4453:So 4435:) 4394:) 4289:\ 4248:}} 4242:{{ 4234:\ 4126:, 4044:~~ 4019:· 4009:· 4006:X! 3985:So 3956:) 3917:) 3880:- 3876:) 3868:-- 3824:~~ 3759:) 3710:~~ 3664:) 3635:) 3627:. 3617:\ 3575:| 3567:. 3553:~~ 3525:39 3508:) 3435:39 3424:. 3399:| 3381:~~ 3340:} 3336:– 3321:.) 3301:// 3223:) 3178:— 3147:da 3116:\ 3083:, 3070:// 3022:// 2992:) 2970:) 2945:39 2862:) 2841:x3 2804:) 2783:39 2752:☯ 2714:~~ 2686:) 2678:. 2593:) 2589:• 2291:~~ 2261:) 2239:) 2222:· 2212:· 2209:X! 2167:) 2129:) 2085:) 2069:~~ 2041:) 2030:) 1961:~~ 1943:is 1934:) 1917:~~ 1883:) 1866:~~ 1836:39 1819:) 1803:~~ 1778:39 1737:) 1721:~~ 1682:) 1664:~~ 1643:39 1624:~~ 1597:) 1578:) 1528:~~ 1429:}} 1423:{{ 1396:) 1381:) 1321:) 1275:) 1241:) 1227:) 1200:) 1183:39 1165:) 1139:☯ 1098:) 1075:be 1045:) 1013:) 986:. 886:) 835:}} 829:{{ 818:| 808:}} 802:{{ 792:// 728:) 698:) 664:) 637:) 611:So 600:) 522:) 450:| 400:∇. 345:∇. 328:// 281:| 267:) 91:→ 5667:| 5661:/ 5625:T 5592:( 5540:) 5534:( 5515:( 5430:| 5424:/ 5375:· 5370:( 5359:) 5355:( 5279:| 5273:/ 5228:) 5224:( 5171:( 5133:5 5128:1 5081:) 5077:( 5046:( 5034:) 5024:T 5019:( 4997:( 4976:( 4962:( 4929:☯ 4908:) 4905:c 4899:t 4893:u 4890:( 4879:S 4875:N 4871:I 4867:M 4863:D 4859:A 4855:W 4851:E 4847:N 4843:O 4839:N 4823:y 4820:r 4817:r 4814:e 4811:M 4801:T 4763:) 4751:( 4748:/ 4685:( 4649:( 4624:( 4507:( 4471:( 4431:( 4390:( 4377:· 4372:( 4283:| 4277:/ 4228:| 4222:/ 4067:h 4042:) 4038:( 4003:( 3952:( 3913:( 3872:( 3822:) 3818:( 3755:( 3708:) 3704:( 3660:( 3631:( 3611:| 3605:/ 3551:) 3547:( 3504:( 3486:) 3474:( 3471:/ 3379:) 3375:( 3330:{ 3298:☯ 3219:( 3110:| 3104:/ 3067:☯ 3019:☯ 2988:( 2966:( 2930:( 2914:) 2902:( 2899:/ 2858:( 2800:( 2712:) 2708:( 2682:( 2665:/ 2657:/ 2645:) 2633:( 2630:/ 2585:( 2506:) 2494:( 2491:/ 2460:/ 2432:) 2420:( 2417:/ 2331:| 2289:) 2285:( 2257:( 2235:( 2206:( 2163:( 2138:♪ 2125:( 2106:♪ 2081:( 2067:) 2063:( 2037:( 2028:← 2026:( 1976:| 1959:) 1955:( 1930:( 1915:) 1911:( 1879:( 1864:) 1860:( 1815:( 1801:) 1797:( 1733:( 1719:) 1715:( 1678:( 1662:) 1658:( 1622:) 1618:( 1593:( 1574:( 1557:) 1545:( 1542:/ 1526:) 1522:( 1433:♪ 1392:( 1377:( 1359:) 1347:( 1344:/ 1317:( 1271:( 1237:( 1223:( 1196:( 1161:( 1094:( 1041:( 1009:( 946:) 934:( 931:/ 882:( 789:☯ 767:) 755:( 752:/ 724:( 694:( 660:( 633:( 596:( 562:♪ 518:( 503:/ 477:) 465:( 462:/ 440:A 430:) 418:( 415:/ 378:) 366:( 363:/ 325:☯ 263:( 246:F 214:) 202:( 199:/ 172:) 160:( 157:/ 139:) 127:( 124:/ 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 193 - Knowledge

Index