Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 34

3967:

what IP-range that was, or if it was some zombie net or some other random collection of IP's. Many people here wasted a lot of time doing reverts and blocking all the different vandal-accounts the bot signed up. The whole thing was utterly silly, frustrating and a case of overprotection of a vandals privacy not getting to know his IP's. By simply choosing to vandalise through user-accounts he suddenly got all these privacy rights and was basically untouchable and immune to all the good people doing vandal-control. To have people with access doing sock puppet investigations is fine and well, and I believe we have enough people doing that. But we need more admins around who can react on clear cases of mass vandalism like that bot. I'm quite sure this isn't the last time someone with access to a large IP-range doing vandalism like this, no matter how nice we are to people, and when it happens again we should be able to kill it right away, and not having to sit around powerless and wait for some of the few people with checkuser access to come around and take notice. Maybe make a version of the tool only available on new and blocked accounts, or something else that will cover this need. But we must stop overprotecting vandals and waste the time of all the people who work hard to keep vandals from ruining wikipedia.

3860:

Knowledge's existing immune system. What we really need to do is pour energy, effort and time into coming up with ways of preventing the vandals from making vandalism edits; or better yet, prevent them from having vandalistic tendencies at all, and making legitimate editing more worthwhile than scatological efforts. Such measures would, of course, not entail the creation of further risks through wider allocation of sensitive information. Let us, rather than wrangling over checkuser, apply the {{sofixit}} cliché and work on making strategies to preempt vandalism via prevention. I propose some kind of Vandal Reduction Initiative to further this cause. If any of you fine Wikipedians would care to join me, I would be greatly honoured. Regards, --

4280:

yesterday's case where nearly 300 garbage accounts were created in the space of 20 minutes or so, I believe it would not be practically possible to run checkuser on them all or even a significant fraction of them. Yet it's precisely in the case of such high-volume vandalbot sock creation that we need IP information the most. There may be 300 open proxies that we'll never know about. By contrast, just revealing the IP addresses would be hardly any load on the database at all. Checkuser is a full-blown sockpuppet check, "revealuser" would not not be, it would just be making the IP address public, no more and no less.

2389:

over the last four months. So, while there have been a number of noms with large numbers of positive votes, the votes show that the pattern has been more or less stable for the last few months. That said, as Knowledge grows in popularity, the scalability of the process comes into question. I raised some issues in an earlier section above regarding scalability. There are more. Do we really want to have RfAs with 200+ votes on them being the norm? Maybe we do, maybe we don't. Either way, we need to consider the consequences of having such RfAs being the norm, as it's going to happen in the future. --

4213:

companies and financial institutions and leave us alone... would anyone really be silly enough to risk getting Mitnicked with no possible reward (financial or otherwise) other than to annoy us? And in this case, the ISP would notify their innocent customer that they have a spam/spyware/virus-infected computer and encourage them to disinfect their machine, so a botnet puppetmaster wasting his time on us would end up losing resources as a result, a financial opportunity cost with respect to whatever other fun-and-profit activities he uses the botnet for.

4284:

consuming operation, and does not scale well if there's only one person doing it. By contrast, if the IP information is public, other members of the Knowledge community can effectively contribute to the followup. So there is much less of a burden on a single individual like David Gerard to handle the entire process from start to finish, which in practice means it is not done much of the time (especially any sort of ToS followup). He could investigate just enough to see that reveal-IP is warranted, then do so and leave the rest up to others.

3148:

howdy) to them definitely opens a line of communication that did not yet exist. I have even received a nice comments back further clarifying their neutral/oppose vote--which made me feel better. Also, these folks often go through a great deal of effort to research a candidate prior to voting--thank them for taking the time to do that instead. Is it necessary to thank someone for voting? I don't think so. Is it polite? Probably. Does it foster the idea of community, communication and comradery? Of course!!

3293:

50 votes (plus 4 neutral/comments) does not make a consensus by any means especially when we have no policy currently on it's use and the process so far of using checkuser and the guidelines for it are not layed out and nobody has even attempted to lay out. I propose that we immediately close all checkuser votes and remove the option from the main RFA page until a clear consensus for or against can be seen and if a consensus for it is achieved then until a clear policy regarding it's use can be found.

1862:

opinion, but not a strong enough one o go one way or the other", or "I lean towards Support (or Oppose)", and I would like my vote heard. Unless you know someone very well, chances are when they come up for RfA you only have partial knowledge to go on. If you look through the Oppose and Neutral votes, you may find some red flags which either send you to their contribs, or you may choose not to vote. I have found that neutral votes have much more influence on my voting than do Support or Oppose.

3737:. But at the same time having a requests for checkuser system might not be too great as every person running may get opposes such as I DON'T THINK ANYONE SHOULD HAVE THIS POWER... etc. People like Rainbowwarrior1977 are pretty rare, and needing to checkuser is too, and when you need it, get evidence and ask a developer. Yes the sockmasters seem common (like murderers played up on the t.v.) but there aren't as many as you'd think. Now I should stop procrastinating my homework... 4195:

restricted group of persons in position of high trust (bureaucrats? arbcom members? some new level with a "revealuser" privilege?). Next to each edit in a log file, such users would see a "revealuser" link, and clicking on it would flag that edit (or all edits by that user less than a week old) for IP reveal. Such "rips" (or "reveals") would be logged, and the logs would be publicly viewable the same way as blocks and page deletes, providing accountability.

2354:. Second, I don't see any valid reason for removing a failing nomination prematurely. If the nom was done in good faith, it's reasonable to assume the nominee has the ability to remove the nomination themselves if they so choose. People are free to suggest they withdraw a nominee's candidacy, but adding on instructions on what arbitrary level we should allow ourselves to remove failing nominations is not beneficial to the process. In fact, it makes us 219:...again is not working for me (at the new link BDAb passed along). It gives a long caveat about edit count not being important and does not provide a count. My general thought on the issue, incidentally, is that the overall number is indeed over-rated but comparisons between namespaces are not. It's handy to be able to see if people make edits in the Wiki namespace often and also if they use talk (or over-use it at the expense of actual editing). 31: 1099:

can't have enough good admins. That being said, perhaps the transclusion could be adjusted to not transclude the full RFA to the main page, but instead perhaps the main RfA page could simply link to current nominations, with maybe a high level status indicator on the main page to show the current vote tally for a given candidate, with the actual discussion taking place in the individual articles but not visible from the main RfA page.

558:

to make a good admin. Actual editcount is irrelevant to a large extent. But If an editor has contributed almost entirely to article space, they won't know enough about how to interact with the community or deal with problems that an admin would have to deal with. Clicking once on Kate's tools was the perfect way to see this. Clicking on user contribs is messy and time consuming. As to "calm down", I am calm. I'm just annoyed.

2001:). I happen to know a user or two who once was a vandal but then went straight. Of course if they say that they once controlled that vandal account, you'll see waves of oppose, so I'm not really for this question. Plus do we want to make it precedent that anyone can add in new questions? We'd probably end up with about 30 questions, taking a day's time just to answer them... A bit too bureaucratic for the likes of me. 1692:

given as the fraction of supporting votes to the total of supporting and opposing votes: neutral votes not being counted at all. I'm not entirely sure what those who cast neutral votes think they are voting for (very weak support, very weak oppose or "I don't care"), but I'm sure they probably wouldn't do it if their vote was uncounted. Thinking it over, if I may, I can see three ways to deal with this:

2370:. This nomination was 36-0 a day and a half into the nom. I placed one negative vote, and assumed the nomination would still sail through. I was wrong. Following my negative vote, there have been 20 more negative votes, and just 7 more positive votes. The RfA is now failing. If we had speedy promoted his nom, we would have made an error. Sixth, as previously noted some nominees do 1672:, not a range for defining consensus. Otherwise, your statement would seem to imply that nominations with more than 80% support lack consensus. What it really means is that below 75% generally means the nomination has failed, above 80% is usually clear success, and in between is a marginal case where it's up to the bureaucrats to determine whether you've crossed the threshold. -- 4296:(according to its own definition and its own terms of service) before it lifted a finger. And in no case would the ISP be revealing any identity information to us; however, they know the names, phone numbers and e-mails of their own customers and will be in a position to take whatever steps they deem appropriate (the most severe penalty would simply be dropping the customer). 4200:

vandals... for some reason, this violent imagery is oddly appealing at the moment). Each ISP knows the name, address, e-mail address and phone number of each of its customers and logs their Internet browsing activity: if we provide a list of IPs and timestamps from Knowledge logs, that's all the information the ISP need to identify the customer in question. Note, we would

767:

people anyway), or to get statistics that will help them to reach a decision. I don't think anyone regards editcounts as the be-all and end-all for adminship (have a look at the standard requirement page - almost everyone there lists it as just one part of their specifications,usually with a note saying that it is hardly a particularly important one). I

2932:. Anyway, I put this note prominently on my own talkpage, not on anybody else's. I reckoned if people wondered what was holding up their thank-you note, they'd come to my Talk to see if I died, and see the message in its pretty pink box. That was appropriate, I thought, though I've always wondered how many people, if any, did see that message of mine. 2366:

process. Fifth, if we are willing to put in place a policy regarding negative pile-ons (in essence, a speedy delete of RfAs doomed to fail) then a reverse policy should be considered as well; speedy promotes. Just considering such can serve to highlight the errors in a speedy delete notion. A speedy promote policy would be absurd. For example, look at

3167:

contribution history, and for considering me suitable for the position"; the more gracious nominees I've seen have also thanked those who opposed for expressing their opinion and addressed the reason for the opposition. (If you're an RfA regular who doesn't want to be thanked, perhaps a note on your talk page to that effect would be useful.)

4036:

that, yes, we have people who stand ready to help beat back the tide of vandals. But wouldn't we rather have those people spend more of their time building an encyclopedia? It's a resource issue. Given that, I think there should be more efforts made to find ways to help people stem the tide more efficiently. ·

4292:

connection to other family members (or their department head) can be a significant deterrent. It's had some modest success recently for extremely persistent anonymous IP vandals using a broad IP range, and this proposal would simply enable us to use it for extremely persistent sockpuppet vandals as well.

4143:). That is, in cases where vandalism was serious and persistent enough, the IP address of the sock puppet in question would be retroactively made public and would appear in all log files alongside the username for the edits in question (the latter would require a software upgrade, though). For instance: 4387:

Agreed also and well put. Implementation remains. Would existing bureaucrats be grand-fathered into it? Should it be a general vote or (heaven forbid) an essentially unilateral power granted? I actually favour the latter. I didn't like yesterday admins suddenly swarming to grant particular admins new

4303:

Checkuser and "revealuser" are really two different things for different purposes. Checkuser was mostly designed, I believe, to detect whether two users are sockpuppets of one another and is an inefficient tool against large-scale automated vandal disruption (especially vandalbots). "Revealuser" on

4199:

The followup would be that once the IP addresses are public for all to see, anyone sufficiently motivated could use ARIN or RIPE or APNIC to contact the ISP abuse contact and notify them of a terms of service (ToS) violation by their customer (we could call this two-step process "ripping and ToSsing"

3438:

Honestly when people say things like "the rampant vandalism problems we've been having lately" I have to ask what they're talking about. Cool Cat's thermometer thingie seems to be more or less permanently stuck on Defcon 5, so either the vandal detection bots are all asleep at the wheel or we really

3065:

I don't feel super strongly about this, but I do think a template suggesting that people not thank people individually is a little counterintuitive, considering that Knowledge flourishes best when lines of communication are open. Should we be encouraging less communication? I realize this is sort of

2852:

I agree with Kate (or I would, if I got Christmas cards). Much nicer to have your screen light up with orange to let you know that there's a polite thank you, rather than an anon angrily accusing you of admin abuse, or someone telling you that the picture you uploaded three years ago will be deleted

2592:

I think it is mildly strange that there are lots of users who clearly would benefit the 'pedia if they were admins, but have just never been nominated and don't nominate themselves for one reason or other. I also think the 'pedia is in pretty desperate need of more admins to help with AFDs, Copyvios,

2479:

I believe that Pakaran may have made a mistake. We try to be conservative because we cannot undo promotions. Please realize that it takes considerable time -- as much as half an hour -- to go through a nomination in the painstaking fashion that is necessary in all but extremely clear cases. I read

2270:

to let it run it's course, 'cause nothing gives us the right to do that (except, perhaps, after asking him on his talk-page?); it could implicate that you presume to know more about the candidate than he himself, and that someone else is needed to sort it out for him. If he's got the message, let him

1922:

Looked at your previous nom opposes and noticed "your actions have the appearance of rounding up your friends in order to get yourself elected." Three of ten opposed with similar reasoning. Won't you simply set up the same accusation if you notify people in the same manner this time? I actually think

1098:

Well a few down at the bottom have passed their closing time and are just awaiting closing by a bureaucrat. Otherwise, I think it's likely that as the wiki grows, and more people join, you will see a corresponding increase in the number of nominations, which I personally welcome, as I think Knowledge

947:

Well Kate has obviously been aware of criticisms of his spammy note, but as he says, it is his webpage so he can pxss off people as much as he likes. One does wonder how he gets the info and whether an alternative message free one could be set up. Creating a monopoly on anything is always a disaster.

826:

I think Kate's tool should continue to improve. For example, it could show how often, by percentage, the editor uses edit summaries, average # of edits per day overall and for contributing days, and more. I do think it is bad for people to become obsessed with edit counts. But, Kate's tool is about a

809:

is a Knowledge guideline, the reality is that vandal fighters frequently assume bad faith of new editors, and good faith for experienced editors. Kate's tool helps to at least encourage good faith for experienced editors. The tool does not apply to inexperienced editors, as seeing their contributions

545:

I'm not saying it isn't convienient, it's just that, you only really need to know if a user has a substantial number of edits, and you can find that out pretty quickly from just looking at the contributions. That is, if Kate's tool go down, it's not the end of the world! Calm down! Try to rethink why

479:

Look, I'm sorry you can't check the edit-counts that easily, but what does it really matter? If you're seriously wondering if a guy has enough edits in a particular namespace, go to the contriutions, select a namespace, select an appropriate limit, if there's more than say 100-200 edits, what more do

4283:

Second, the followup once you know the IP address is just as important: you can do open proxy checking, you can check ARIN and RIPE and APNIC, and you can contact the ISP to report a ToS violation, you can block an IP address or an IP range. Doing all of that can be a quite labor intensive and time

4177:

This would be restricted to cases of prolonged, egregious, and seriously disruptive vandalism (willy etc) that if unchecked would threaten the integrity of Knowledge — especially vandalbots — but would not apply to garden variety vandalism. It would also be restricted to edits made in the past week

4047:

The past is not a guarantee of the future. We are in an arms race that we will eventually lose if we stand still. Tony is far too complacent. Recent changes like the move log, newuser log, pagemove revert were good, but we need to keep moving forward and add more security and integrity features.

3966:

We really need more admins with the right access to cope with vandal-bots like the one some days ago signing up accounts from a large number of different IP's. It was frustrating to see how much trouble that bot made without anyone here being able to tell if the bot was using a specific IP-range and

3791:

Our privacy policy isn't the clearest thing in the world, but it's clear that the proposed systems wouldn't be consistant with it. As far as I know we need the board to change the privacy policy. I'm not saying anyone here is trying to be dishonest, but if we were to impliment such a change we would

3670:

I would disagree that it passed. I would state that it's not even a proposed policy at this point, but merely a discussion pending the adoption of a Wikimedia-wide policy. Note that one project at Wikimedia cannot override Wikimedia general policy, most especially the privacy policy, no matter how

3292:

I just have one question. How the hell did checkuser voting become policy with only a 5 day vote, if this is the state of the wiki please tell me and I'll take a very long vacation right away because frankly I think it is a bullshit decision, all other reasonings aside in terms of checkuser rights.

3147:

say? I didn't feel obligated to thank anyone for their support in my recent promotion. However, I felt a desire to acknowledge those people who voted (support, oppose and neutral). I've not communicated with many of these individuals directly before and sending any sort of message (thanks, hello,

2468:

a voting process, but the only way to get to a gray area (I read as less than 80%) on this nom is to take the neutral votes as oppose votes, which yields 73% at time when it was supposed to close. Since June and up to RobyWayne's close, there have been 13 successful noms with less than 80% in favor,

2388:

Regarding the positive pile-ons: As most people here know, I am keeping track of the RfA process and have been doing so since late June of 2005. I too was curious about the phenom of rapid positive vote pile-ons and took a look at the number of votes per RfA over time. Surprisingly, it's been steady

2172:

Was consensus ever established regarding the removal of a clearly failing nomination (Oppose Votes = Support Votes + 10)? Misterrick's nomination is one of the worst cases of piling on that I have ever seen. Normally, I would remove it by the time he got 13 oppose votes. But after removing A Link to

2147:

It may make more sense to ask if users have vandalised under any other account rather than just edited under another one. This would (assuming people answer honestly) highlight problem users without needing to remove privacy from users who have genuine need to edit under another account. Considering

2052:

I don't see why people shouldn't be able to question the candidate. The candidate is under no obligation to answer any questions presented to them. But I don't think they should be added to the standard questions template without consensus from the community; the standard questions were put together

1087:

With 29 active nominations on the list of RfAs right now, I really wonder if this process is scalable. Consider what this process might look like just a year from now. I'm not suggesting any particular changes at this point. I just want to point out that perhaps we need to consider what could change

837:

Um-hm. And I don't understand this sudden implication that to look at edit counts is something to be ashamed of. Why do people care about their own? Because they spend time here and want to see how much editing they've done—so fucking what? It's quick and it's easy with the tool. People do it anyway

766:

Oh good grief. I'm entirely with SqueakBox on this one. It's a form of political correctness gone mad. There are only two reasons for wanting to use an edit counter - personal curoisity (which is perfectly OK... the sort of people who would contribute to a project like this will be naturally curious

729:

Erggg, that new message is annoying. Yes, I understand. Why do I care? Because I'm anal retentive, OK? Why do I want to know about other people's edit count? Because I want to nominate them as admin, but I know that if they haven't reached a certain number, a, lot of people will vote against. Yes, I

557:

To see if someone is admin-worthy, you don't "only really need to know if a user has a substantial number of edits". You need to see that they have contributed to a wide range of different namespaces. it's by far the best way of judging whether they know enough about the intrnal workings of the wiki

4217:

Of course, this would require a SMOP ("small matter of programming"), to modify Mediawiki to allow flagging edits for retroactive IP reveal. But it might be considered worthwhile if it helps mitigate the vandalism problem without the privacy issues that would result from expanded Checkuser use. --

4035:

I do think Tony has a point. Attacks happen. They're a pain (and do seem to be worsening), but they get dealt with. Knowledge's still functioning, so they couldn't have been too terrible. But as much as I agree with those statements, I think they miss a nuance -- to me, the real problem here is

3338:

I have removed the requests for checkuser access. It is a clear example of overreaching. Checkuser access is governed by the foundation privacy policy, the application of which has still not been decided. It is inappropriate to be holding votes on it (checkuser access) before Jimbo and/or the board

3192:

I enjoy receiving thank yous and given them. I think I've made a few friends that way. I personally thanked everyone who voted on my RFA, not because I felt I should, or that I thought they expected me to, but because I wanted to. I hope people I thanked appreciated it, however reading the above, I

2660:

As someone who has nominated people with whom I've not had a personal history of interaction with, I see no problem with doing so. In such cases, it does pay to spend considerable time reviewing the potential candidates contributions, especially in talk space, to make sure there are no personality

2280:

There was a recent case of an obviously-destined-to-fail nomination that was pulled from RFA early. The candidate complained loudly, there were bitter arguments, page protections, appeals to Jimbo, and an ugly mess all around. The nomination was eventually reinstated, with the end date moved back

1711:

I believe the first example is just wrong: neutral votes count for nothing, and the support is slighly inflated by it. The second system works quite well, and gives a fairer representation of the voting pattern. However, I believe the third oprtion allows voters to be more nuanced: "I'm not sure if

1213:

I read in one of the previous archives some discussion about giving admin powers in steps (BD2412, I think). Most people thought it was too instruction creepy, and overly complex. But my question is, why doesn't every logged-in editor have the rollback button? Is it a matter of possibly allowing an

817:

be used to determine the acceptability of an admin nominee, the distribution of edits is a very valid basis on which to evaluate an admin nominee. Kate's tool provides a very easy way of gaining this information. Without the tool, gathering such information is quite time consuming in comparison. If

795:

I think Kate's tool is very, very valuable. I'm concerned that the recent disruptions in service to it, and now the warnings about it and having to press another button, are headed towards the possibility of removing it as a resource entirely. The community has come to depend on this resource for a

754:

Look, you don't have to feel alone in this. Many of us has gone through this and has come out on the other side. If we can work together we can break through that barrier. Sure there'll be relapses, the occasional RfA-candidate you never heard off and people keep talking about their edit-count, but

610:

edit count. I'm starting to feel hypo and my hands are quivering, I need to see my edit count. On a more serious note, I want to see someones edit count, and by namespace, and, it only works about 1 in 10 times. My problem is identical to Marskell's. Who is Kate anyway, can someone have a word with

3985:

around 01:13–01:32 UTC today). Supposedly, creating a new login account on a blocked IP address has now been disabled, so this would mean that the vandal burned through nearly 300 separate IP addresses (can we get a verification?). At peak, he was creating about 30 new accounts per minute. And

3763:

It's not even so much about abuse. It's about being wrong. What I want to see is a solution that doesn't permit the user of the private info for fishing, because fishing (i.e. finding users that we'd have no reason to suspect otherwise) is where the false hits of the system will bite us the worst.

2703:

I'm all for thanking people when appropriate, but could we please let go of the (reasonably new) tradition of putting a standardised thankyou note on the talk page of everyone who supported your adminship when it is successful? I think we can safely assume you're grateful for your support, and I'm

2202:

I think a candidate should be entitled to their full seven days no matter how bad they're loosing. I would have thought that it has to be up to the candidate to withdraw. All anyone else can do is suggest that they may like to withdraw early. Of course, in a case where someone is nominated without

1861:

Getting back to Gareth's question - if people wanted their vote counted, they would vote Support or Oppose. A neutral vote without an explanation is nothing - literally - but a neutral vote with an explanation may convince another voter one way or another. It's simply a way of saying, "I have an

1810:

That's possible. But I think at the moment there are 4 ways I can respond to an RfA. I can support, oppose, be neutral or abstain. Being neutral is taking an interest, writing a few sentences that say why you don't want to or do want to. Hoping that what you write will be read by others and by the

1691:

I am a little bit worried that those who posted neutral votes are not having their votes counted. I know the guideline is that the bureaucrat takes them into account when the voting is marginal, but it isn't obvious which way they are counted. I have seen a few cases where a candidate's support is

937:

The glitch is politically correct madness. Once is fine, but a deliberate nasty spamming message like that should never be used except for security reasons (avoiding bots etc) which can't apply here. Someone has seriously lost it which is very sad as a useful tool has been sabotaged in the name of

4299:

The likelihood of abusive use of "revealuser" would thus be very low: first of all, it doesn't even involve checking for sockpuppets (checkuser would still be used for that where warranted), so there's less of a privacy issue to begin with, and there are two levels of safeguards: a highly-trusted

3696:

Well, I see the need of this checkuser thing since I do lot of patrolling, but after thinking a while, I realize we dont' actually need to know the IPs. What we need is just the ability of knowing if 2 given users are from the same ip (true or false) for making sure of sockpuppets, not needing to

3363:

I'll assume that this was a good faith attempt to deal with the rampant vandalism problems we've been having lately and I apologize for getting a bit hot under the collar there but this was a travesty of the system. I support more people having checkuser since it would make the job a lot easier,

2506:

Regarding the percentages, please realize that they are guidelines. I have never promoted with less than 75% nor have I closed as unsuccessful a nomination with more than 80%, counting support and oppose votes only and not neutral votes. That said, I can think of circumstances where I might not

1926:

Further, a month and half strikes me as much too short (and this would in fact be a third nomination). At some point, over-eagerness can itself become an oppose justification as it appears an editor may be more concerned about the feather in their cap than anything else. I'm not saying that's the

804:

Quick determination about the experience level of a user who's recent edits are questionable. This is useful in vandal fighting. A long time user is unlikely to have a meltdown and suddenly become a surreptitious vandal. Knowing the edit count (and distribution) for an editor helps ascertain good

4279:

There are a couple of reasons: I believe David Gerard mentioned that running checkuser is fairly slow as currently implemented, since it needs to do a rather involved database query looking for other edits and other users that may have used the same IP range (I will ask him to comment here). In

3420:

Regarding arbcom use I'd definitely be in favor of having the arbcom have checkuser access assuming that legal and privacy policies can be worked out, in that case consensus for each person might not really an issue either since the community has alreaedy voted that they trust these people to be

2492:

questionable (possible sock) vote. I check the end time and be sure that 7 days have actually gone by. All that takes time, and so if there are close nominations and I don't have half an hour to spare, I leave them for the next day or for someone else to handle. I apply this degree of care in

2213:

Knowledge is not a bureaucracy. Where a nomination is clearly failing (eg it would need a record number of support votes even if no more oppose votes were cast, and there's already an overwhelming majority voting "oppose") then it's sensible just to remove it. Anyone removing a nomination is, of

1767:

I'm for option #3 - RfA is not a vote, its purpose is to find community consensus for promoting someone to adminship. That's why only those votes that clearly support the candidate should be counted as supporting. For someone to vote neutral clearly suggests that there's something wrong with the

1707:

For example, if a candidate received 70 supporting votes, 20 opposing votes and 10 neutral votes, we could say that the support was 70/90, or 77.8%, ignoring all neutral votes. If we counted the neutral votes as half each way, the candidate would have 75/100, or 75% of the vote. The third method

1307:

In a sense, the RfA process is just that. Let us not forget that, asides blocking and deleting, being an admin is not too different than being a user. I'd like to think that a user with an established track record and approved/voted by their peers won't be starting "easy" edit wars as often as a

1108:

I think this would be a good idea. Especially with really long discussions taking place on some people's RfAs, this would allow this page to load faster, etc. The name, the vote here button (if it works), the vote tally, and perhaps the nominators comment. Link to the RfA page, and that would be

821:

Users using Kate's tool to see other people's edits can and do become aware of other namespaces in which they can contribute. If you're a relative newcomer, your own distribution of edits is probably mostly in the main namespace. When you do an edit count on a long time experienced user, you see

505:

Click Kate's tools, type in user name, see all the namespaces neatly laid out, versus type in username, click user contribs, select a namespace, do a quick count up, select the next namespace, do a quick count up, select the next namespace, do a quick count up, select... it should be obvious why

4212:

On the other hand, we might discover that the IPs in question are open proxies... so much the better, we can then block them. Worst case, we might discover a zombie botnet, but I would hope that anyone who controls a resource like that would have enough plain common sense to stick to extorting

2281:

to account for the 'missed' time. (It did ultimately, thoroughly, fail.) If we're going to remove unsuccessful candidacies, then to avoid controversy and complaints and accusations of a cabal, we're going to have to do one of two things. (If anyone can think of a #3, that would be fine, too.)

4287:

The "revealuser" decision-making privilege would be limited to a limited number of highly trusted users (not admins, perhaps bureaucrats) and its usage would be logged. If we really have to worry about malicious misuse on the part of bureaucrat-level or higher persons, then we have far bigger

2360:

slavish to process and bureaucracy, not less. Third, even in failing nominations benefit can happen. A failed nomination can teach a nominee in what areas they need to improve before their next nomination. Fourth, a failing nomination can teach all of us about problems with the process. I cite

1608:

I have extended ScottyBoy900Q's by a day. 31 support and 9 oppose votes gives us a tally of 77.5% of the votes, bang in the middle of no-man's land. Since the oppose votes do have some substance, I feel a day's extension might give us a clearer outcome. I request the candidate (and the general

4295:

And note there's another safeguard: the ISP itself. With ToS followup, all we would do is hand a list of IP numbers and timestamps to the abuse contact at the ISP, namely a list of links to Knowledge edits. The ISP itself would have to be satisfied that there was a significant ToS violation

2365:

in which nobody could come with any reason to oppose the nominee except on grounds of editcountitis. I did not support the RfA, but I did challenge people to come up with other grounds on which to oppose. The fact that nobody could is quite telling, and should teach us all something about the

4291:

The main reason for rIP (reveal IP) is to enable ToS followup. The latter (or just the threat to do so) can be surprisingly effective. After all, many vandals use their ISP for other non-Knowledge activities and e-mail, and losing their e-mail address or having to explain loss of Internet

4194:

The decision to "rip" a vandal would have to be made quickly (within a one-week time window, before the log information is lost), so prolonged debate, voting or committee discussion would not work. For this reason, such decisions would probably have to be made by individuals belonging to a

4052:

for account registration) and a full-time or part-time ISP liaison person who would be on a first-name basis with the abuse contacts at the major ISPs and whose responsibility would be IP address tracebacks and vandal accountability issues (and just in case anyone was wondering, no, I would

3166:

I have to admit I like the trend of leaving thank-yous: gives an excuse to leave a personal note in reply for people I may not otherwise run into much, particularly if I have seen them enough to have an opinion on a nomination. I see it more as "thank you for taking the time to look over my

2821:

I agree with voldy, I'm up for adminship myself at the moment, and whether I am promoted or not, I intend to thank every voter personally, not using a cut and paste message. As he said, they took the time out of their day to vote on my nom, I can surely take a few minutes to let them know I

3859:

It has always been well said that prevention is far better than cure, and it seems to me that most of this checkuser controversy (and, indeed, other measures against miscreants) is an effort to cure the problems with vandalism - which, incidentally, is already coped with moderately well by

3714:

That doesn't do as much as you might guess at first blush to protect user privacy. We need to decide to change our privacy policy first, then we can grant tools. Our highest obligation is to be honest to our users, and not place the project in legal peril with a dishonest privacy policy.

2235:

My view is that commonsense should prevail - we should not be slaves to process. Quite frankly, if a candidate goes to 2 supports, 30 opposes, there's really no moral justification for letting it stay. The candidate will have got the message - can anyone really object if it is removed?

972:

Yes, I do. But, it takes several minutes for me to produce. I do it almost exclusively for admin nominees with less than 2,000 edits to help pull people away from editcountitis. Kate's tool has direct database access. I do not. I think Kate's tool is very important. See my rationale

2493:

close nominations even if they are above 80%, both because if there are voting irregularities that may affect the percentage and because there may be cases where we might not promote even if the 80% guideline is met. Again, I don't believe that waiting 24 hours is too much to ask.

3086:(Unindent) I would feel the same either way. We shouldn't "discourage" it per se, but I know I would've used that place to send a general thank you instead of going into 22 different pages. I like the intimate feeling, but maybe we could save some time and bandwidth this way. -- 2617:

page that you have a personal interest in and could start contributing to. (And personally, I think how people interact with others on Knowledge is far more important than a high edit count, which can come from not using the preview button, or even from engaging in edit wars!)

3986:

don't forget that back on August 26 a Willy vandalbot was doing about 75 pagemoves per minute. If it seems like the level of vandalism is rising, it's because it is. Like it or not, we seem to be caught up in some kind of arms race and things are indeed getting worse. --

3805:

I'm not sure what the point of a such a simple sockpuppet check would be in a case such as the recent vandalbot attacks (which, incidentally, are the reason for this whole mess). It should be blatantly obvious that the users k8932kj3@as and as0d9r!23, both of whom replace

2761:

user page. If you have questions or specific replies to voters' comments, messages, or questions, go ahead and deal with those. There's no need to fire off a fifty or a hundred duplicate messages, though. Once you're an admin, you can stop inflating your edit count. :D

3819:

Bots are pretty much always going to require developer intervention. If someone goes through the trouble of making a vandal bot, they are going to make sure they circumvent all our normal tools. Perhaps if we worked on making less enemyes this would be less of a concern?

2077:

I agree that adding more questions was a mistake. Frankly, I don't think the questions should be required at all, but as it stands they are a mandatory part of the adminship process. That means additions to the mandatory questions should have a consensus backing them.

4208:

style litigation; we would simply ask them to apply their terms of service (ToS) to the customer in question, whose identity would remain unknown to us. The ISP could decide to boot their customer off or at least give the customer a stern warning by phone or e-mail.

3996:

I honestly don't see a problem here. The minute one of these chaps sticks his head above the parapet, RC lights up like a Christmas tree and the revert-and-block squad goes to work. So we're supposed to be impressed that they can write a script to fill out a form?

4266:

Concur with Nickptar on this; if there is cause for a vandal's IP to become a matter of public record the user who does the checkuser can add an appropriate template to their user page. No need for this, and the risk of accidental or malicious misuse is too high.

2912:, and against their own better judgement as to what kind of admin I'd make. I do realize that's not what people mean, but still. In my own case, I wrote a general note saying I was overwhelmed and grateful for getting such nice, friendly comments on my RfA (i. e., 2778:

When I thanking people for their involvement in my RfA, I tried to at least personalise each one and copy/pasted nothing. I figure if they took time out of their day to vote (either way) on my RfA, the least I could do was send them along a little gratitude.

3239:

that checkuser requets be merged here. I appreciate that this page is already big enough as it is, but on the other hand I do think that way it would get a lot more attention, which is a good thing as it's a fairly big responsibility. Any objections here?

1843:

The very phrase "cast a vote of abstain" is a contradiction. One cannot "vote abstain"; rather, one abstains from voting. A neutral vote is not an abstension; at best it's an abstension with a speech. We might as well just call them "neutral".

2704:

sure there's better things those people can do with their new responsibilities than post messages one lots of talk pages. If people really want to do that, could we perhaps have a "closing statement" section on the RfA template or something? --

1702:

Count a neutral vote as a supporting vote when calculating whether a candidate's election should be extended(~75%), but as an opposing vote when calculating whether to promote the candidate (~80%): thus, being a vote against promotion, but for

948:

In this case a bit of healthy competition would force to Kate to change, meanwhile he displays the arrogance of a typical monopolist. I have no idea how he gets hios info, whether he has an exclusive deal with the wiki media foundation or not,

958:

Kate has no monopoly on information. Everybody has access to the edit information- just view the contribs! What kate's tool does is to count information that is availlable to everybody. You can write your own program if you want. (In fact,

2834:

I thanked every voter (the fact that they all supported is by the by) using a default message but added a sentence or statement or two to the start or finish of each note. No two were the same. It took twice as long hbut I think worth it.

1712:

this candidate should be promoted, but I'm also not sure whether this candidate should be dropped so quickly". Of course, bureaucrat judgement should not be done away with here, but simply given a more accurate tool for measuring support.

3519:

Just for the record, I don't particularly care for some aspects of Datrio's policy (it contains a lot of unnecessary bureacracy); I do think a more limited idea of giving access to all stewards and arbitration committees is a sound one.

2173:

the Past's nomination, Durin left me a comment, telling me not to remove nominations as consensus was never reached. Just to have it down in writing, is it easy to remove a failing nomination like this? Does a Bureaucrat have to do it?

2597:, of course making sure they are suitable candidates first. I think I am pretty good at finding candidates (of the 4 I have nominated, including myself, non received a single oppose) but would it seem odd to nominate people like this? 2507:

promote even with 80%; a recent April Fools' joke was one example. Another would be if there were an organized campaign by someone to register dozens of new users for the sole reason of having them support their adminship request.

3397:

And that's just to name a few things, I urge everyone to think up new things that we need before this can be implemented since this is one of those things where we really can't afford to make mistakes for a dozen different reasons.

2376:

want their nominations removed. Doing so prematurely can hurt feelings just as much as leaving them up might do. In essence, to some users it can be interpreted as "I think you suck, and so do lots of other people, so bye bye RfA".

3896:

recourse is to maintain vigilance and effort against vandalism, and to work as a counter-force to vandals. Fortunately, the system is designed to give those on the side of constructive rather than destructive change the advantage,

2661:

problems. Unfortunately, because people changed the RFA process, it is no longer possible to nominate and run. I once nominated someone and the first message I ever left on her talk page was that I had created the nomination

1326:

It's not only about edit wars - the rollback button produces extremely unhelpful edit summary, and when a user is tempted to use rollback in non-vandalism reversions it could lead to misunderstanding and tension between users.

577:

I use the tools for other things - checking to see whether an AfD voter has enough experience to know what he's talking about; quickly checking to see if a dubious edit was made by a possible vandal; moving editors up on the

412:

Good job how? Creating and helping popularize something and then creating a glitch? As stated above, it is a very convenient way to check relative contributions across name spaces which, I'd say, isn't editcountitis as such.

3728:

admins to never abuse this power. Also this wouldn't be undoable (much like page history merges (which not everyone knows how to do, which may be a good thing) and image deletions) as you can't erase minds. There's too many

1951:

The concern that I had during your nomination has been addressed. You've been explaining yourself when you vote on RFAs, which is a good sign. As for running again, I don't think it would be a good idea if you ran... say

2974:

I didn't thank anyone who voted for me, on the basis that they didn't do it for me, they did it for Knowledge; and the best thanks will be to repay their faith and be a good admin. I like Bishonen's approach though.

2288:

Set a threshold in some sort of policy (or at least a guideline for bureaucrats) at which a candidacy is eligible for removal. Acetic Acid's suggestion above looks reasonable; something of that flavour sounds about

2271:

withdraw his candidateship (but we should make this possiblity clear in some form, not that anyone feels shy about it. I just can imagine that an already whacked candidate hasn't got the courage to involve himself)

3197:

think we should encourage thank yous not discourage them. But they should be completely voluntary. The less voluntary the less valuable. So I don't think a "closing statement" section would be a good idea. But I

2224:

Wouldn't it be easier just to leave the decision to withdraw to the candidates (even for non-self nominations), instead of trying to create a consensus for an automated withdrawal which you probably wouldn't get?

3116:

When my RfA passed, I had 49 supports, and I gave every person a customized thank you note based on how well I knew 'em. I believe Splash and NicholasTurnbull have done likewise with the customized thank you's.

189:, which is something reserved to the nominees now. Please do not do it. Also, the nomination of Cool3 (who has 22 edits and has been here less than 2 days) should not go forward; it would be roundly trounced. -- 1881:

failed 50/10/1. Nichalp mentioned on Redwolf24's nomination that he thinks we need another few bureaucrats. Thus, I'm probably going to run again soon, so I have a few questions I'd like to ask the community.

3551:

as Knowledge official policy. We don't make policy with 50 votes. I have changed the designation (at least for now) to rejected. There has been enough serious alarm at this to warrant that lable, I think.

2721:

Yeah, I never bothered to thank anyone, but I am just lazy and unsocial (thanks everyone by the way). I always wonder if the people who get ~80 supports actually thank each one - they must be damn grateful!

1768:

candidate that would possibly be a problem if they were promoted. However, they shouldn't be treated as opposing votes, but they shouldn't be ignored either. That's why the third option sounds best to me. -

1361:

But couldn't they just use the script available, or even just make that their edit summary anyway? It is not really an "added feature" since people can already do it, it just might take a little bit longer.

4344:

idea. Very neat and effective. And furthermore, the log and user limitations should allay all the PP concerns folks expressed about that other proposal. Very fine work. Now if only someone would code it :)

2321:

I'll second that; btw, does anybody else get the impression that 'piling-on' is also a phenomenon in the support votes, and that the whole RfA process is getting more and more a sort of popularity contest?

1658:

I've got no prob with extending, but I just wanted point out the RfA page says that "the threshold for consensus here is roughly 75-80 percent support." 77.5 looks like its right in that consensus range.

4185:

The appeal of this idea is that it would not create privacy worries for ordinary users (or even garden-variety vandals); it would only affect the "privacy" of those who richly deserve to forfeit it. The

3339:

have made any decisions regarding access. (FWIW, Anthere is currently advocating a proposal on meta where wikis with arbitration committees and can designate one or more of their members to have access)

4304:

the other hand simply wants to stop large-scale disruption by enabling us to close open proxies or resort to ToS where necessary. And I believe that "revealuser" would be entirely compatible with the

3038:

add something like that at their own desire, but not make it standard? And it wouldn't necessarily have to be a "thank you" section. It could be a "I won't mess up" or a "I shoulda got this" section. --

4013:

I guess you missed the part about 30 new accounts per minute? We're seeing escalated bot-driven vandalism that is very hard to cope with by any traditional means, and I believe it's getting worse. --

2631:

Just zip them a little note saying that you thought they might make a good admin, but haven't really interacted much. If they are interested, then go ahead and nominate them. It never hurts to ask. --

2246:"commonsense should prevail - we should not be slaves to process." I think we should all repeat that 5 times a day when we wake up in the morning. Or possibly "die bureaucracy, DIE!" either will do. 1927:

case here as I haven't interacted with you—just that you may create that appearance. Patience. If nominators exercised it a bit more I think the oppose rate would be close to zero on this page.

1586:

Deleting someone's monobook.js isn't going to do the trick I'm afraid, what with Firefox's greasemonkey and Opera's user javascript. Still, there's always RfC (and worse) for revert warriors. --

1491:(edit conflict)I have made it clear in my application that I know the difference between using it for vandalism and reverting, and I would expect the same scrutiny as an admin in my use of it, 1747:

Interesting thoughts, but in my opinion neutrals shouldn't be anything other than a way of saying "yes, I've seen the nomination and I've thought about it and I can't really go either way."

2469:

if you count neutrals as oppose. 4 of them had lower percentages than Roby's. Not counting neutrals as oppose, only one nom in that time has been unsuccessful (not withdrawn) and had : -->

1786:

None of the three are relevant because the Bureaucrats shouldn't be merely counting votes in such close cases. There's no need to chaneg the way RfA works because it's working just fine. -

3215:

Naive new admin: I didn't thank anybody personally for voting for me ... Am I gonna get deadminned now ... ? (I should have at least thanked the bureaucrat who promoted me I guess... )

1138:

I think the way to do it would be to have a template on the RfA sub-page that would transclude information to the main RfA page, then everything below it would just stay on the sub-page.

3025:

people to say thank you (for "no big deal") and on the other, it discourages thank yous which have, on occassion, led to productive conversations - or at least amusing back-and-forths.

822:

quite a few other namespaces. This creates exposure to those namespaces and can get people asking questions about how they can get their edit counts (read: contributions) in those areas.

911:

Sorry to change the subject, but I'm somewhat of an edit count junkie. Are there any other dealers (swap "dealers" with "versions of Kate's tool") I can get my coke (count) from:-)?

2129:

I think any user should be able to ask questions of the individual canidate who may or may not choose to answer but I think that this question shouldn't be one of the default ones.

4094:, I would like that (even though it's a lot of programming). We need a few more checkuserers, but we shouldn't let the vandalbots force us into a compromise if at all possible. ~~ 2994:

I guess I would be for that, and that wouldn't necessarily stop you from continuing to thank close WikiFriends, or the like. I suggest we add it to the template. Any objections? --

1708:

would see that support is at 70% of total votes cast, and not eligible for promotion. However, counting the neutral votes as support gives 80% in favour of extending the election.

1049:. Please report any bugs to me at my talk page as I'll probably know how to fix bugs (I created it knowing there may be a problem or two, but I think I got all the kinks out now.) 3810:

with identical nonsense, are sockpuppets, even without a formal check; but blocking the underlying IP, as was done in the recent case, obviously requires knowing that IP itself.

3892:, we will have vandals. There will always be stupid people with nothing better to do than engage in destructive behavior, just as there will always be termites eating wood. Our 355:

I have gotten there and it still only works about one out of eight attempts. I tried with Opera, as suggested, and it worked with the first two tries and then ceased to. Dunno.

2464:

seems to have been counting neutral votes as, in essence, oppose votes. This strikes me as improper. Splitting the 3 neutral votes half and half yields 82%. I know RfA is not

2110:

I agree - the standard questions are standard for a reason, and any change to the status quo should be agreed upon by the community - else chaos will reign over the template.

1522:

where to get it, it makes non admins able to rollback. I use a more advanced godmode to block users from their user page, and I'd recommend it to anyone who becomes an admin.

2470:

75% (counting neutrals as oppose, it was 71.74%). Please see the discussion above regarding neutral votes. Bureaucrats should, I think, clarify their position as a group. --

863:

Well stated, Durin. And don't forget also that it is by a country mile the easiest way to see whether an editor is active, and how active they are, on other language wikis.

4131:

As a supplement or alternative to the expanded use of Checkuser (see above discussion), I'm thinking of proposing an idea which could be called, for lack of a better name,

2594: 771:

think, however, that editors checking Kate's tools should not be insulted by a message that makes it sound like they shouldn't be there and don't know what they're doing.

579: 3105:

Or, you know, people can do as they please. There are contexts in which enouraging and discouraging particular actions makes sense—this doesn't seem to be one of them.

2876:

I see nothing wrong, it's not like they're forced to. I don't undesrtand, how are we going to enforce the ban on thanking people? WIll be block those who thank???? -- (

2806:

Personally, I think thank yous are a nice touch, even if they're substantially the same. (I still appreciate Christmas cards, even if they were part of a box of 20).

4300:

bureaucrat-level person with "revealuser" privilege would make the decision, and the vandal's ISP would also have to be satisfied for any real followup to take place.

2985:

I did thank people and would do it again, but with so many new admins being promoted, maybe we should save the disk space and add the "Closing Statement" section... --

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 4167: 3764:

There are many ways to inhibit fishing, one is to simply give access to very few people. There may be others. The existing proposals do nothing to inhibit fishing. --

2308:

I agree that this seems the only reasonable way to go, but rather than asking the candidates permission, I'd say we should suggest removal by the candidate themself.

3236: 1878: 137: 119: 1725:

Good point raised. But in some cases its is difficult to gauge in which way the neutral vote should count. The 70% part is not applicable as the neutrals are

1626:

So the message is "could people please vote on this and could everyone stop asking people to vote on this?" :-). But seriously, it sounds like a good call. --

810:

at less than 50 quickly shows the lack of experience of the new user. Without Kate's tool, it is more ponderous to determine the experience level of a user.

4048:

I would strongly urge that fundraising monies should perhaps be used to hire a full-time Mediawiki programmer who could work on such things (starting with

2367: 2362: 2593:

speedies etc. Therefore I want to start nominating more people, but people who I don't know and have had no interaction with, basically starting with the

1500:

Well do vote for me. I am aware we are in proposal mode, and if it doesn't lead to being given said button because it isn't official policy that is okay,

3548: 3531: 3488:

Tony, did you somehow manage to miss the vandalbot attack that made WP:AN, WP:AN/I, and WP:RFAr unusable to non-admins for a couple of days recently? --

2521:

So if the support rate is between 75% and 80%, you promote the candidate but leave the nomination open? What more is there to do, especially considered

2214:

course, is responsible for their own actions - so tread with care - but there's no real benefit in just prolonging the agony of a hopeless nomination,

4026:

I just want them to be blocked so they stop vandalising wikipedia. But we can't block them if we don't know which range they are vandalising from.

1826:

carries a different message, specifically that the voter has enough interest in the RfA to comment, but does not feel that either active support

3697:

know the ip itself. So I propose that admins are given only this ability (deciding if 2 edits come from the same ip) and not the ip itself. -- (

3613:

It is not policy and it has not been rejected; it's currently under discussion at a higher level of Knowledge. So both of you hold your horses.

645:

because she didn't have enough time for it. But I find it strange that not being able to check your own edit counts makes your hands quiver...

47: 17: 4090:

Me, as well. It completely contradicts the WP philosophy. Now, perhaps if people were given the option of captchas, email verification, or

163:

You did it right - the nomination template needs to be changed to say that the page "has been" created - I'll take care of it immediately.

2440: 1214:

easier edit war? Has there been discussion somewhere else about giving this power to all logged-in editors, and if so, where? Thanks. --

4065:

at the bottom) most people just shrugged and moved on. If we can take actions to prevent these events, why wait until they happen? -- (

4062:

I completely agree with Curps. Attitude seems to minimize the problem. When I commented on the warning of an impending botnet attack (

3873: 1272:

Seems like a good proposal, but it seems fairly dormant. Is there anything new happening there? Is it any closer to being possible? --

2094:

Without a consensus, extra questions shouldn't be added. Jguk can append his questions to the individual RFA, that isn't a problem.

229:

I looked at it this afternoon - it gave a long caveat, but also a button to press to generate the count, which looked fine to me...

2148:

someone (or someone who shared the IP, opinion, and editing style of a user here) was recently made an admin after vandalising the

4305: 4229: 4187: 1553:

Doesn't work in OSX though on Opera :( Stops when it tries to get the edit box. Oh well, I'm glad I have the real version now :).

385:

And that "spelling", in this case, requires the initial capital. If it's still glitching, might be worth dropping Kate a message.

3931: 3829: 1811:

Bureaucrats if it becomes close. It's saying also "persuade me one way or the other". Abstaining is rather different to that. -

1243: 4232:(item 5 in particular would apply, allowing for public release of IP information under the circumstances described above). -- 4190:

does appear to explicitly allow public release of IP information under such circumstances (item 5 in particular would apply).

3193:

now realize that perhaps some of you didn't :( Perhaps I should send personalized apologies to everyone I thanked? In general

4329: 4253: 4105: 1620: 1168: 176:

I did pretty much the same thing as above. I nominated Cool3 and it amde a page, but he doesn't show up under nominations.

2664: 2066: 1573: 1259: 3506:, one of the stewards, with the intention of applying across all Wikimedia wikis rather than just the English Knowledge. 2293:

We should probably also discourage people from 'piling on' to candidates; I'm not sure how to accomplish this, however.

952: 942: 931: 831: 631: 406: 359: 223: 3308:

Agree, seems Raul654 removed it. Checkuser is a very vital process, and it's important to set out guidelines for it.

2929: 3775:

I'm not proposing anything dishonest here. I'ts not like it would be a secret tool. It's just another proposal. -- (

2607: 132:

Was this the right procedure or have I (as I suspect) goofed up somewhere? Why does the RfA-nom template say "a page

3870: 2512: 2448: 1473:? Most vandalism comes from anons anyway, and this would avoid rollback-related conflicts between logged in users. 1184: 256:..."if you're checking your own edit count… well, do you really care?" Um, yes, I care - now can I see my numbers? 38: 3833: 3473:

Good point. We should all make a habit of checking our perceptions in case they should happen to be incorrect. --

4163: 3220: 2082: 2062: 1255: 1699:

Count each neutral vote as half a vote in support and half a vote in opposition: this suggests total abivalence.

1157:

That would have to be done manually to each nomination, as it obviously can't be in the nomination template. ~~

3977:

The vandalbot hasn't gone away... just a few hours ago today it created nearly 300 new "garbage" accounts (see

3499: 3058: 3014: 2799: 2767: 2651: 2298: 1382: 1292: 1234: 1129: 4392: 4378: 4357: 4333: 4312: 4271: 4257: 4236: 4222: 4109: 4085: 4076: 4057: 4042: 4030: 4017: 4005: 3990: 3971: 3955: 3938: 3918: 3909: 3879: 3852: 3824: 3814: 3796: 3786: 3768: 3758: 3719: 3708: 3675: 3649: 3617: 3596: 3575: 3560: 3538: 3524: 3513: 3492: 3481: 3464: 3457:

that we have recent "rampant vandalism problems" just because we have more tools and bots to detect them all.

3447: 3430: 3407: 3357: 3343: 3327: 3302: 3281: 3263: 3251: 3224: 3209: 3187: 3174: 3158: 3138: 3109: 3100: 3090: 3072: 3060: 3029: 3016: 2989: 2979: 2968: 2940: 2887: 2857: 2847: 2829: 2816: 2801: 2771: 2754:

It's how I find out about new admins—my watchlist lights up with all the thank-you notes posted to user pages.

2745: 2732: 2715: 2690: 2671: 2653: 2624: 2573: 2546: 2515: 2474: 2451: 2433: 2393: 2381: 2339: 2326: 2316: 2302: 2275: 2256: 2240: 2229: 2218: 2207: 2196: 2159: 2138: 2118: 2105: 2085: 2070: 2045: 2026: 1979: 1942: 1931: 1913: 1866: 1848: 1838: 1817: 1805: 1792: 1779: 1760: 1740: 1719: 1676: 1663: 1653: 1637: 1597: 1577: 1559: 1547: 1513: 1504: 1495: 1481: 1464: 1451: 1432: 1414: 1405: 1384: 1348: 1335: 1315: 1294: 1263: 1236: 1196: 1172: 1152: 1142: 1131: 1103: 1092: 1074: 1030: 1017: 997: 977: 967: 901: 892: 877: 854: 785: 759: 748: 724: 711: 702: 679: 662: 590: 572: 550: 520: 484: 462: 445: 417: 394: 376: 341: 309: 288: 264: 251: 238: 208: 193: 180: 171: 157: 2443:. Close promotions are scrutinized more closely. I don't think it's unreasonable to allow 24 hours or so. 4178:

or so (for practical reasons, because apparently logs aren't kept much longer than that, and also because a

4156: 3588:

I wish you much luck convincing anyone to heed a "policy" where only 50 people voted on a wiki this size. --

2622: 2285:

Ask the candidate's permission. Obviously voluntary withdrawals will be acceptable to all involved parties.

2079: 1893: 365:

I too use Opera. It works ok. Note, if the spelling of the candidate is incorrect, you'll get a blank page.

1822:

True, but strictly speaking we abstain from every RfA in which we don't vote - so casting a vote that says

1569: 4179: 4001: 3592: 3556: 3477: 3443: 3353: 3171: 2680:

In that case I'll try and find some good candidates! Don't worry, I will check their contribs thoroughly.

1193: 755:

let's not let that dissuade you from the uniting goal. We can fight this! There are some programs.......

3861: 3734: 3730: 3206: 2508: 2444: 2184: 2174: 1967: 1957: 114:

for adminship but found the new instructions somewhat unclear and might have goofed up. What I did was:

2619: 1956:. However, I don't think you have to wait too long. Maybe sometime between Halloween and Thanksgiving. 1772: 2022: 1565: 1543: 1070: 4351: 4081:

I remain opposed to the use of captchas for registration because of their impact on disabled users.

3982: 3216: 3087: 2986: 1896:), would it be appropriate to contact these (and only these) users? If not, how should I go about it? 1461: 1402: 1345: 1312: 673: 306: 1830:

active opposition is justified on their part. I'm parsing words excessively here, stop me any time.

3811: 3754: 3743: 3644: 3570: 3134: 3123: 3053: 3044: 3039: 3009: 3000: 2995: 2963: 2952: 2925: 2844: 2839: 2836: 2826: 2794: 2785: 2780: 2763: 2668: 2646: 2637: 2632: 2294: 2179: 2018: 2007: 1962: 1539: 1528: 1518:

Godmode light, but if you abuse it, I will delete your javascript page and protect it ;-) Just ask

1509:

Abrams proposal might encourage anon vandals to sign in, if such a move were technically feasible,

1446: 1377: 1368: 1363: 1287: 1278: 1273: 1229: 1220: 1215: 1124: 1115: 1110: 1066: 1055: 992: 919: 619: 177: 1769: 889: 4372: 4325: 4249: 4101: 3275: 3184: 2937: 2336: 2313: 2039: 1907: 1754: 1660: 1164: 888:

Actually, it only shows you the namespaces to which you've contributed, it doesn't the others. --

870: 818:

Kate's tool went away, there'd be a greater chance people would revert to relying on edit counts.

778: 741: 565: 513: 390: 284: 234: 2152:, it may be useful to ask if they've vandalised any Wikimedia wikis, rather than just this one. 1696:

Scrap neutral votes: if they don't really make difference, we shouldn't suggest that they might.

938:

treating us all like we are 12 years old. God help us if this is the way the internet is going,

756: 721: 708: 547: 481: 403: 202:

Huh? People use templates? I just cut n' paste the thing and adjust as needed - easym scheemzy!

4242:

Why a technical solution? If this is ever justified, just request that a checkuserer do it. ~~

2950:, even though I opposed. I thought that was pretty classy, and would have done the same thing. 4268: 4082: 3998: 3978: 3840: 3672: 3589: 3553: 3474: 3461: 3440: 3350: 3168: 2613:

Why not try to get to know them first? If you look at their contributions, you'll surely find

2460:'s case it was delayed. Support vs Oppose was 82.6% at time of when it was supposed to close. 2409: 2100: 2058: 1923:

you'd have a better chance if you contacted no one, as you'd be removing one reason to oppose.

1845: 1735: 1673: 1648: 1615: 1251: 1149: 371: 111: 2412:

be admins by now? Is makesysop down again, or what? I'd promote them myself but I don't have

140:" when I already have created it? Or should I have waited until she accepted the nomination? 3915: 3906: 3510: 3314: 3203: 2917: 2743: 2194: 2156: 2116: 1977: 1836: 1803: 1519: 1479: 1442:, whether the unhelpful edit summary can include an extra variable to make it more helpful. 1139: 1100: 1027: 588: 442: 338: 262: 169: 3640:

pass. Part of the policy requires a permanent policy to be drafted, and that's all I said.

3179:

Now, this would be instruction creep gone mad. Some do it, some don't; what's the problem?

2916:

for being supported). I was, too, the whole thing was just heartwarming--I was awarded a

1246:, which would give just the rollback tool to editors who asked for it and are not opposed. 4346: 4070: 3949: 3876: 3780: 3702: 2881: 668: 3914:

That being said, I still think a reduction initiative is a good idea. I'd love to help.

1469:

Here's a whacky thought - what if we could give non-admins a rollback button that could

897:

Agreed. I implied that above. It is however a way in which Kate's tool could improve. --

3748: 3738: 3319: 3153: 3128: 3118: 3026: 2958: 2904:(Edit conflict) I totally agree with Fvw. There is something about thanking people for 2854: 2823: 2723: 2681: 2598: 2457: 2405: 2247: 2189: 2012: 2002: 1972: 1863: 1533: 1523: 1510: 1501: 1492: 1429: 1411: 1187: 1060: 1050: 964: 949: 939: 3096:

And I had such a nice acceptance speach lined up too — purely Paltrow-esque it was! --

2331:

Yes, with the danger being that "popular" candidates may not always be the best ones.

685:

Blimey, these confusing first names Anglosaxons use. I'll never get the hang of them.

4389: 4366: 4320: 4244: 4096: 4037: 3935: 3821: 3807: 3793: 3765: 3716: 3489: 3423: 3400: 3295: 3269: 3244: 3180: 3106: 3067: 2933: 2908:

that's a little off, IMO. It's too much like implying the person supported to please

2811: 2737:

I've gotten some very nice and personal thank you notes - I thought those were nice.

2708: 2570: 2543: 2430: 2332: 2323: 2309: 2272: 2226: 2131: 2033: 1928: 1901: 1892:

Regarding the users who indicated that they would like to know when I run again (see

1748: 1630: 1590: 1159: 864: 851: 806: 772: 735: 699: 659: 559: 507: 459: 414: 386: 356: 280: 248: 230: 220: 186: 154: 4148: 3614: 3521: 3458: 3340: 2461: 2095: 2054: 1988: 1730: 1643: 1610: 1439: 1247: 1043: 844:

you actually spend more time edit counting rather than evaluating edits themselves.

734:

done, and until that changes, I need to... OH JUST SHOW ME THE ÐING EDITCOUNT, OK?

366: 4308:(especially point 5), whereas greatly expanded use of checkuser might not be. -- 4204:

be subpoenaing the ISP to supply us with this information, we wouldn't engage in

3888:

remain guiding principles of the wiki, which if I understand Jimbo's opinion, it

2203:

good faith it might be possible to pull the nomination as a case of vandalism. --

720:

That would be serious editcontitis, and the only known cure is pure cold turkey.

4027: 3968: 3884:

Vandalism is like Death. It will always exist. As long as the wiki is open, and

3847: 3641: 3567: 3507: 3503: 3309: 3258: 3202:

think we should ban congratulations those just get in the way (just kidding ;-)

2738: 2153: 2111: 1831: 1812: 1798: 1787: 1474: 1443: 1024: 989: 583: 439: 335: 257: 164: 46:

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

3034:

Hmmm... you may be right. Is there some way we could inform nominees that they

1998:

added to the questions to be asked 'Have you edited under any other accounts? (

4309: 4233: 4219: 4066: 4054: 4014: 3987: 3945: 3776: 3698: 3535: 3144: 3097: 2976: 2877: 2471: 2390: 2378: 2204: 1939: 1716: 1089: 1014: 974: 960: 924: 914: 898: 828: 624: 614: 190: 1460:

I think is still in "proposed" mode, Squeak. I would vote for YOU, though. --

2263: 2237: 2215: 1995: 1328: 1180: 707:

I'll see your Blimey! and raise you a Bugger!, i was sure Kate was a woman.

638: 4388:

abilities. Give it to stewards to start with perhaps, and work from there.

480:

you need to know? If you want to know your own edits......why do you care?

402:

I must say, I love it! Good job Kate, keep the editcontitis epidemic down!

4091: 3241: 2921: 2705: 2557: 2530: 2417: 1627: 1587: 686: 646: 141: 3386:

4) guidelines on use and contingencies for misuse and/or mistakes in use

846:

I'm not going to cease doing it—say what you like but it will always be

4049: 1555: 204: 1938:

I'll echo Marskell. Be patient. Wait at least a couple more months. --

730:

know that's not the way it should be done, but it is the way that it

4365:

Agreed, excellent idea. I particularly would like to see this done.

2149: 122:, filling out the template with the ending time and my reasoning, 4205: 3944:

So great!! vandals are actually kids in need of wikilove :) -- (

3370:

1) board approval/comment due to privacy policy and legal issues

2351: 1013:

All the recent nominations have had broken "Vote here" links. --

3846:

tags on either of them if you happen to dislike them, though. -

3364:

however I think we need extremely strict guidelines including.

3257:

None from me. I had supposed this would be where it was done. -

3021:

Yeah, I suppose I object. Then, on one hand, it looks like we

2663: 1886:

Have I addressed all the concerns from the previous nomination?

279:

Works fine for me in Opera and IE. Try in a different browser?

25: 3836:

are both redlinks. Pity. You could go and pre-emptively slap

1401:

Maybe that delay discourages some users, or so I believe. --

1177:

Actually, it can, because subst: ignores <noinclude: -->

3066:

an absurdist discussion, but I just don't see the harm. ·

247:

I done tried the button and it don't work for me. *shrug*

4318:

When you put it that way, it sounds like a good idea. ~~

3636:

Raul, I retagged it as a proposed policy, even though it

2439:

They are both close and RobyWayne is under discussion at

1410:

It also discourages non admins from going on RC patrol...

1344:

Grue has just hit the jackpot. I agree with him 100%. --

4152: 4063: 4053:

absolutely not be a candidate for either position). --

1999: 4340:

Curps, just a quick comment to say I think this is a

1147:

Just put the actual votes within a <noinclude: -->

128:

Add the RfA-nom template to Hermione1980's user page.

3268:

Indeed, append it at the end, after bureaucratship.

330:

It's a little different now. You have to get to the

2595:Knowledge:List of non-admins with high edit counts 2350:First, I would caution everyone here to beware of 1438:Look that something similar is being discussed at 963:apparently has one that graphs the edit history.) 580:Knowledge:List of non-admins with high edit counts 506:people want Kate's tools to work and work simply. 4228:This would also appear to be compatible with the 4127:"Rip"ping and ToSsing major (Willy-style) vandals 3439:don't have much of an acute vandalism problem. -- 2266:above: I for one don't see a moral justification 1797:How about changing it to support/oppose/abstain? 1428:I have just applied. Maybe I can be a test case, 838:with contribs and it just saves time. And indeed 1609:community) not to solicit pro and oppose votes. 185:That's because it needs to be manually added to 2484:comment, I review the edit history and look at 3566:80% is by far not a rejection. I've reverted. 1329: 988:And now it works for me, no disclaimer shown. 850:part, if not the primary part, of RfA voting. 582:. All of these tasks are now more difficult. 138:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Hermione1980 120:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Hermione1980 106:Confused over the new nomination instructions 8: 2032:I think it's a valuable question, actually. 1877:It's been about a month and a half since my 751:(who has just passed the 50,000 edit mark!) 667:Kate Turner is also a he, or so I've heard. 1889:How long should I wait until running again? 641:, a former Knowledge admin who gave up her 2853:unless you supply copyright information. 606:Its driving me nuts! I cant even check my 458:As stated, I have tried that. So it goes. 546:you are accessing it in the first place. 3903:stop vandalism is inaccurate, in my view 2757:Seriously, put a heartfelt note on your 2930:Pufferfish for Most Conceited New Admin 2552:Scratch that. I should learn to read. " 1873:Questions about running for bureaucrat 1564:It works great on Firefox and Safari. 1308:"regular joe" that has just joined WP. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3905:. Ok but maybe we could reduce it... 3334:Requests for checkuser access removed 18:Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship 7: 3671:many "votes" it scares up to do so. 3547:Somebody misguidedly designated the 3498:The proposal Raul referred to is at 2053:after some large debates I believe. 1009:"Vote here" links are breaking again 428:I understand, show me the edit count 332:I understand, show me the edit count 4306:Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy 4230:Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy 4188:Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy 2488:questionable diff, and investigate 3453:Tony, I assume that people have a 2924:, and valued myself so on it that 2525:doesn't include the power to take 2441:Knowledge:Bureaucrats' noticeboard 426:When you get to the page with the 24: 2724: 2682: 2599: 2248: 3932:Knowledge:Be nice to the vandals 3830:Knowledge:Be nice to the vandals 3749: 3739: 3530:Under the circumstances, should 3129: 3119: 2662: 2588:Nominating people you don't know 2556:successful nomination". Sheesh. 2013: 2003: 1534: 1524: 1148:tag block. I think that works. 1061: 1051: 925: 915: 625: 615: 29: 3862: 3534:be tagged "official policy"? -- 2101: 2096: 1736: 1731: 1649: 1644: 1616: 1611: 372: 367: 4352: 4347: 3792:make the project dishonest. -- 3724:I don't know if I'd trust the 3500:meta:Proposed CheckUser Policy 1773: 1642:I've also CC'd the candidate. 1088:to make this more scalable. -- 674: 669: 1: 3744: 3349:Thanks, you beat me to it. -- 3231:Merge requests for checkuser? 3124: 2900:Thanks for all the pufferfish 2008: 1715:I apologize for the essay! -- 1529: 1056: 920: 842:the tool, as Durin suggests, 827:LOT more than edit counts. -- 620: 305:Firefox here, all is fine. -- 4393:00:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC) 4379:21:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 4358:21:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 4334:19:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 4313:19:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 4272:15:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 4258:12:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 4237:07:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 4223:05:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 4110:23:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 4086:15:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 4077:22:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 4058:05:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 4043:04:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 4031:04:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 4018:04:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 4006:04:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3991:04:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3972:03:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3956:22:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3939:18:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3919:06:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3910:06:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3899:but to assert that we could 3880:03:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3853:03:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3834:Knowledge:Don't make enemies 3825:03:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3815:03:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3797:03:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3787:02:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3769:03:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3759:02:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3720:02:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3709:02:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3676:03:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3650:02:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3618:02:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3597:02:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3576:02:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3561:02:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3539:02:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3525:02:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3514:02:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3493:04:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3482:02:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3465:02:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3448:02:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3431:02:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3408:02:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3358:02:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3344:02:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3328:02:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3303:02:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3282:23:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 3264:23:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 3252:23:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 3225:04:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC) 3210:03:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC) 3188:07:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3175:02:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3159:02:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3139:02:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3110:00:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 3101:22:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 3091:22:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 3073:22:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 3061:21:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 3030:21:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 3017:21:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2990:21:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2980:20:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2969:19:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2941:19:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2888:02:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 2858:21:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2848:20:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2830:20:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2817:20:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2802:19:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2772:19:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2746:19:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2733:19:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2716:19:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2691:19:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2672:19:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2654:19:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2625:18:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2608:18:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2574:16:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2547:16:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2516:15:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2475:15:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2452:14:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2434:14:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2394:13:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2382:13:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2340:13:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2327:13:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2317:12:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2303:12:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2276:12:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2257:12:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2241:12:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2230:12:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2219:11:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2208:10:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2197:06:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 2168:Consensus Regarding Pile-Ons 2160:02:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 2139:20:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 2119:19:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 2106:19:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 2086:19:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 2071:18:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 2046:18:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 2027:18:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 1980:04:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 1943:14:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 1932:02:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 1914:21:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 1867:19:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 1849:14:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 1839:23:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 1818:23:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 1806:22:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 1793:21:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 1780:20:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 1761:18:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 1741:15:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 1720:15:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 1677:18:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 1664:16:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 1654:06:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 1638:06:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 1621:06:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 1604:ScottyBoy900Q's nom extended 1603: 1598:03:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 1578:03:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 1560:03:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 1548:03:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 1514:17:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1505:17:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1496:17:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1482:17:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1465:17:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1452:16:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1433:16:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1415:14:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 1406:17:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1385:16:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1349:16:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1336:16:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1316:16:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1295:16:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1264:16:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1237:16:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1197:01:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 1173:16:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1153:16:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1143:15:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1132:14:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1104:05:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1093:05:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1075:03:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 1031:05:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 1018:04:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 998:22:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 978:14:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 968:14:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 953:16:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 943:19:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 932:18:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 902:18:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 893:16:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 878:14:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 855:14:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 832:14:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 786:22:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 760:15:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 749:14:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 725:10:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 712:14:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 703:10:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 680:10:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 663:07:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 632:07:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 591:23:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 573:22:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 551:15:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 521:14:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 485:10:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 463:19:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 446:19:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 418:17:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 407:17:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 395:14:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 377:08:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 360:23:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 342:23:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 310:18:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 289:18:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 265:18:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 252:18:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 239:17:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 224:15:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 209:18:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 194:04:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 181:22:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 172:13:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 158:12:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 3886:"YOU can edit this article" 4411: 2946:Denelson83 thanked me for 2150:September 11 memorial wiki 1471:only be used on anon edits 4288:problems to worry about. 3378:(bolded for emphasis: --> 1729:opposing the nomination. 813:While edit counts should 3549:Quick and Dirty proposal 2456:I'm very curious why in 1178:and <includeonly: --> 4147:09:56, 18 October 2005 1894:User:Andrevan/Archive14 1687:Do neutral votes count? 1083:RfA a scalable process? 214: 4180:statute of limitations 3934:if anyone is curious. 3735:Cute Little Doggie one 3383:3) checks and balances 1919:My passing thoughts... 4182:would be desirable). 2918:commemorative toaster 1879:bureaucrat nomination 1244:requests for rollback 1242:There is a proposal, 42:of past discussions. 4160:IP = 123.234.123.234 3983:Special:Log/newusers 3502:. It was written by 2928:then awarded me the 2587: 2527:AdministrativePower® 796:variety of reasons. 125:Add my support vote, 110:I tried to nominate 3962:And another section 3375:COMMUNITY CONSENSUS 643:AdministrativePower 637:Kate is apparently 136:created for you at 3731:legit sock puppets 3691:Alternate proposal 2523:BureaucraticPower® 2414:BureaucraticPower® 2080:Christopher Parham 432:must click on that 118:Create a new page 4157:William on wheels 4003: 3979:Special:Log/block 3851: 3594: 3558: 3479: 3445: 3428: 3405: 3380: 3355: 3300: 3262: 3249: 3235:Someone has just 2713: 2410:User:Hermione1980 2352:instruction creep 2136: 2023:How's my driving? 1816: 1791: 1776: 1635: 1595: 1576: 1558: 1544:How's my driving? 1071:How's my driving? 876: 784: 747: 571: 519: 207: 112:User:Hermione1980 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4402: 4375: 4354: 4349: 4002: 3867: 3850: 3845: 3839: 3751: 3746: 3741: 3647: 3593: 3573: 3557: 3478: 3444: 3426: 3422: 3403: 3399: 3377: 3354: 3325: 3317: 3312: 3298: 3294: 3278: 3261: 3248: 3245: 3131: 3126: 3121: 3088:Sebastian Kessel 3056: 3051: 3042: 3012: 3007: 2998: 2987:Sebastian Kessel 2966: 2961: 2842: 2822:appreciate it. - 2797: 2792: 2783: 2741: 2730: 2712: 2709: 2688: 2666: 2649: 2644: 2635: 2605: 2567: 2564: 2561: 2540: 2537: 2534: 2427: 2424: 2421: 2368:NichBush24's RfA 2363:Wikiwoohoo's RfA 2254: 2192: 2187: 2182: 2177: 2134: 2130: 2114: 2103: 2098: 2042: 2015: 2010: 2005: 1975: 1970: 1965: 1960: 1910: 1834: 1815: 1801: 1790: 1777: 1774: 1757: 1738: 1733: 1651: 1646: 1634: 1631: 1618: 1613: 1594: 1591: 1568: 1566:≈ jossi fresco ≈ 1554: 1536: 1531: 1526: 1520:User:Sam Hocevar 1477: 1462:Sebastian Kessel 1449: 1403:Sebastian Kessel 1380: 1375: 1366: 1346:Sebastian Kessel 1333: 1313:Sebastian Kessel 1290: 1285: 1276: 1232: 1227: 1218: 1127: 1122: 1113: 1063: 1058: 1053: 1048: 1042: 995: 927: 922: 917: 873: 868: 781: 776: 744: 739: 696: 693: 690: 676: 671: 656: 653: 650: 627: 622: 617: 586: 568: 563: 516: 511: 374: 369: 307:Sebastian Kessel 260: 203: 167: 151: 148: 145: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4410: 4409: 4405: 4404: 4403: 4401: 4400: 4399: 4373: 4129: 4073: 3964: 3952: 3843: 3837: 3783: 3705: 3694: 3645: 3571: 3424: 3401: 3336: 3324: 3320: 3315: 3310: 3296: 3290: 3276: 3246: 3233: 3217:Oleg Alexandrov 3185:The kettle's on 3054: 3045: 3040: 3010: 3001: 2996: 2964: 2959: 2902: 2884: 2840: 2795: 2786: 2781: 2739: 2710: 2701: 2647: 2638: 2633: 2590: 2565: 2562: 2559: 2538: 2535: 2532: 2425: 2422: 2419: 2402: 2337:The kettle's on 2314:The kettle's on 2190: 2185: 2180: 2175: 2170: 2132: 2112: 2040: 1992: 1973: 1968: 1963: 1958: 1908: 1875: 1832: 1799: 1755: 1689: 1632: 1606: 1592: 1475: 1447: 1378: 1369: 1364: 1288: 1279: 1274: 1230: 1221: 1216: 1211: 1209:Rollback button 1125: 1116: 1111: 1085: 1046: 1040: 1011: 993: 871: 800:of these are: 779: 742: 694: 691: 688: 654: 651: 648: 584: 566: 514: 258: 217: 165: 149: 146: 143: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4408: 4406: 4398: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4382: 4381: 4362: 4361: 4337: 4336: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4261: 4260: 4227: 4216: 4198: 4193: 4175: 4174: 4133:retroactive IP 4128: 4125: 4123: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4079: 4071: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4020: 3994: 3993: 3963: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3950: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3812:Kirill Lokshin 3803: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3781: 3773: 3772: 3771: 3703: 3693: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3543: 3528: 3527: 3496: 3495: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3468: 3467: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3384: 3381: 3371: 3361: 3360: 3335: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3322: 3289: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3266: 3232: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3172:(spill yours?) 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 2972: 2971: 2926:TenOfAllTrades 2901: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2882: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2819: 2775: 2774: 2764:TenOfAllTrades 2755: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2700: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2675: 2674: 2669:Dragons flight 2657: 2656: 2628: 2627: 2589: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2458:User:RobyWayne 2406:User:RobyWayne 2401: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2385: 2384: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2295:TenOfAllTrades 2291: 2290: 2286: 2260: 2259: 2233: 2232: 2211: 2210: 2169: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2142: 2141: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2089: 2088: 2074: 2073: 2049: 2048: 1991: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1946: 1945: 1935: 1934: 1924: 1920: 1898: 1897: 1890: 1887: 1874: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1783: 1782: 1764: 1763: 1744: 1743: 1705: 1704: 1700: 1697: 1688: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1640: 1605: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1455: 1454: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1339: 1338: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1309: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1267: 1266: 1210: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1084: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1034: 1033: 1010: 1007: 1005: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 983: 982: 981: 980: 936: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 883: 882: 881: 880: 858: 857: 824: 823: 819: 811: 793: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 764: 763: 762: 718: 717: 716: 715: 714: 604: 603: 602: 601: 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 555: 554: 553: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 451: 450: 449: 448: 421: 420: 400: 399: 398: 397: 380: 379: 353: 352: 351: 350: 349: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 319: 318: 317: 316: 315: 314: 313: 312: 296: 295: 294: 293: 292: 291: 272: 271: 270: 269: 268: 267: 242: 241: 216: 215:Kate's tool... 213: 212: 211: 199: 198: 197: 196: 178:ErnestIsTheMan 174: 130: 129: 126: 123: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4407: 4394: 4391: 4386: 4385: 4384: 4383: 4380: 4376: 4370: 4369: 4364: 4363: 4360: 4359: 4355: 4350: 4343: 4339: 4338: 4335: 4331: 4327: 4323: 4322: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4311: 4307: 4301: 4297: 4293: 4289: 4285: 4281: 4273: 4270: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4259: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4246: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4238: 4235: 4231: 4225: 4224: 4221: 4214: 4210: 4207: 4203: 4196: 4191: 4189: 4183: 4181: 4173: 4169: 4165: 4161: 4158: 4154: 4150: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4142: 4138: 4134: 4126: 4124: 4111: 4107: 4103: 4099: 4098: 4093: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4084: 4080: 4078: 4074: 4068: 4064: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4056: 4051: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4041: 4040: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4029: 4025: 4024: 4019: 4016: 4012: 4011: 4010: 4009: 4008: 4007: 4004: 4000: 3992: 3989: 3984: 3980: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3970: 3961: 3957: 3953: 3947: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3937: 3933: 3930:I have added 3920: 3917: 3913: 3912: 3911: 3908: 3904: 3902: 3895: 3891: 3887: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3878: 3875: 3872: 3868: 3866: 3858: 3854: 3849: 3842: 3835: 3831: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3823: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3813: 3809: 3804: 3798: 3795: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3784: 3778: 3774: 3770: 3767: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3756: 3752: 3747: 3742: 3736: 3732: 3727: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3718: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3706: 3700: 3692: 3689: 3677: 3674: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3660: 3651: 3648: 3643: 3639: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3619: 3616: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3598: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3577: 3574: 3569: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3559: 3555: 3550: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3541: 3540: 3537: 3533: 3526: 3523: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3512: 3509: 3505: 3501: 3494: 3491: 3487: 3483: 3480: 3476: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3466: 3463: 3460: 3456: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3446: 3442: 3432: 3427: 3421:arbitrators. 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3409: 3404: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3385: 3382: 3376: 3372: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3359: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3342: 3333: 3329: 3326: 3318: 3313: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3299: 3287: 3283: 3279: 3273: 3272: 3267: 3265: 3260: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3250: 3243: 3238: 3230: 3226: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3208: 3205: 3201: 3196: 3190: 3189: 3186: 3182: 3177: 3176: 3173: 3170: 3160: 3157: 3156: 3152: 3146: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3136: 3132: 3127: 3122: 3115: 3111: 3108: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3099: 3098:Gareth Hughes 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3089: 3074: 3071: 3070: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3059: 3057: 3052: 3050: 3049: 3043: 3037: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3028: 3024: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3015: 3013: 3008: 3006: 3005: 2999: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2988: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2978: 2970: 2967: 2962: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2949: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2899: 2889: 2885: 2879: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2859: 2856: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2846: 2843: 2838: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2828: 2825: 2820: 2818: 2815: 2814: 2809: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2800: 2798: 2793: 2791: 2790: 2784: 2777: 2776: 2773: 2769: 2765: 2760: 2756: 2753: 2752: 2747: 2744: 2742: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2731: 2729: 2728: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2714: 2707: 2698: 2692: 2689: 2687: 2686: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2673: 2670: 2665: 2659: 2658: 2655: 2652: 2650: 2645: 2643: 2642: 2636: 2630: 2629: 2626: 2623: 2621: 2616: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2606: 2604: 2603: 2596: 2575: 2572: 2568: 2555: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2545: 2541: 2528: 2524: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2514: 2510: 2509:The Uninvited 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2473: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2450: 2446: 2445:The Uninvited 2442: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2432: 2428: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2399: 2395: 2392: 2387: 2386: 2383: 2380: 2375: 2374: 2369: 2364: 2359: 2358: 2353: 2349: 2348: 2341: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2325: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2287: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2278: 2277: 2274: 2269: 2265: 2258: 2255: 2253: 2252: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2239: 2231: 2228: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2217: 2209: 2206: 2205:Gareth Hughes 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2195: 2193: 2188: 2183: 2178: 2167: 2161: 2158: 2155: 2151: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2140: 2135: 2128: 2127: 2120: 2117: 2115: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2104: 2099: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2087: 2084: 2081: 2076: 2075: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2051: 2050: 2047: 2043: 2037: 2036: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2011: 2006: 2000: 1997: 1990: 1987: 1981: 1978: 1976: 1971: 1966: 1961: 1955: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1944: 1941: 1937: 1936: 1933: 1930: 1925: 1921: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1911: 1905: 1904: 1895: 1891: 1888: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1880: 1872: 1868: 1865: 1860: 1850: 1847: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1837: 1835: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1814: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1804: 1802: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1789: 1785: 1784: 1781: 1778: 1771: 1766: 1765: 1762: 1758: 1752: 1751: 1746: 1745: 1742: 1739: 1734: 1728: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1718: 1717:Gareth Hughes 1713: 1709: 1701: 1698: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1686: 1678: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1662: 1661:ScottyBoy900Q 1657: 1656: 1655: 1652: 1647: 1641: 1639: 1636: 1629: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1619: 1614: 1599: 1596: 1589: 1585: 1584: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1557: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1532: 1527: 1521: 1516: 1515: 1512: 1507: 1506: 1503: 1498: 1497: 1494: 1483: 1480: 1478: 1472: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1463: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1453: 1450: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1431: 1416: 1413: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1404: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1386: 1383: 1381: 1376: 1374: 1373: 1367: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1350: 1347: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1337: 1334: 1332: 1325: 1324: 1317: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1296: 1293: 1291: 1286: 1284: 1283: 1277: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1235: 1233: 1228: 1226: 1225: 1219: 1208: 1198: 1195: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1161: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1151: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1130: 1128: 1123: 1121: 1120: 1114: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1102: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1091: 1082: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1059: 1054: 1045: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1032: 1029: 1026: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1016: 1008: 1006: 999: 996: 991: 987: 986: 985: 984: 979: 976: 971: 970: 969: 966: 962: 957: 956: 955: 954: 951: 945: 944: 941: 934: 933: 930: 929: 928: 923: 918: 903: 900: 896: 895: 894: 891: 887: 886: 885: 884: 879: 875: 874: 866: 862: 861: 860: 859: 856: 853: 849: 845: 841: 836: 835: 834: 833: 830: 820: 816: 812: 808: 805:faith. While 803: 802: 801: 799: 787: 783: 782: 774: 770: 765: 761: 758: 753: 752: 750: 746: 745: 737: 733: 728: 727: 726: 723: 719: 713: 710: 706: 705: 704: 701: 697: 684: 683: 682: 681: 677: 672: 666: 665: 664: 661: 657: 644: 640: 636: 635: 634: 633: 630: 629: 628: 623: 618: 609: 592: 589: 587: 581: 576: 575: 574: 570: 569: 561: 556: 552: 549: 544: 543: 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 522: 518: 517: 509: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 495: 486: 483: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 464: 461: 457: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 447: 444: 441: 437: 433: 429: 425: 424: 423: 422: 419: 416: 411: 410: 409: 408: 405: 396: 392: 388: 384: 383: 382: 381: 378: 375: 370: 364: 363: 362: 361: 358: 343: 340: 337: 333: 329: 328: 327: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 320: 311: 308: 304: 303: 302: 301: 300: 299: 298: 297: 290: 286: 282: 278: 277: 276: 275: 274: 273: 266: 263: 261: 255: 254: 253: 250: 246: 245: 244: 243: 240: 236: 232: 228: 227: 226: 225: 222: 210: 206: 201: 200: 195: 192: 188: 184: 183: 182: 179: 175: 173: 170: 168: 162: 161: 160: 159: 156: 152: 139: 135: 127: 124: 121: 117: 116: 115: 113: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4367: 4356: 4341: 4319: 4302: 4298: 4294: 4290: 4286: 4282: 4278: 4269:Kelly Martin 4243: 4226: 4215: 4211: 4201: 4197: 4192: 4184: 4176: 4171: 4159: 4155:; hist) . . 4149:Astor family 4140: 4136: 4132: 4130: 4122: 4095: 4083:Kelly Martin 4067:drini's page 4038: 3999:Tony Sidaway 3995: 3965: 3946:drini's page 3929: 3900: 3898: 3893: 3889: 3885: 3864: 3777:drini's page 3733:, like that 3725: 3699:drini's page 3695: 3690: 3673:Kelly Martin 3637: 3590:Tony Sidaway 3554:Tony Sidaway 3542: 3529: 3497: 3475:Tony Sidaway 3454: 3441:Tony Sidaway 3437: 3374: 3362: 3351:Tony Sidaway 3337: 3291: 3270: 3234: 3199: 3194: 3191: 3178: 3169:Mindspillage 3165: 3154: 3149: 3085: 3068: 3047: 3046: 3035: 3022: 3003: 3002: 2973: 2953: 2951: 2947: 2913: 2909: 2905: 2903: 2878:drini's page 2812: 2807: 2788: 2787: 2758: 2726: 2725: 2702: 2684: 2683: 2640: 2639: 2620:Ann Heneghan 2614: 2601: 2600: 2591: 2553: 2526: 2522: 2520: 2489: 2485: 2481: 2465: 2462:User:Pakaran 2413: 2403: 2372: 2371: 2356: 2355: 2292: 2279: 2267: 2261: 2250: 2249: 2234: 2212: 2171: 2034: 1993: 1989:Template:RfA 1953: 1902: 1899: 1876: 1846:Kelly Martin 1827: 1823: 1749: 1726: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1690: 1674:Michael Snow 1669: 1607: 1517: 1508: 1499: 1490: 1470: 1427: 1371: 1370: 1330: 1281: 1280: 1223: 1222: 1212: 1188: 1183: 1158: 1150:Kelly Martin 1118: 1117: 1086: 1023:Seems so. -- 1012: 1004: 946: 935: 913: 912: 910: 869: 847: 843: 839: 825: 814: 797: 794: 777: 768: 740: 731: 678: 642: 613: 612: 607: 605: 564: 512: 435: 434:and not the 431: 427: 401: 354: 331: 218: 133: 131: 109: 78: 43: 37: 3916:Ëvilphoenix 3907:Ëvilphoenix 3204:Paul August 3143:What would 1994:I saw that 1556:Ryan Norton 1140:Ëvilphoenix 1101:Ëvilphoenix 438:prompt. -- 334:prompt. -- 205:Ryan Norton 36:This is an 4172:(→Members) 4139:(acronym: 3455:perception 3155:Roby Wayne 3145:Emily Post 2906:supporting 2845:stianpower 2824:Greg Asche 2699:Thank yous 2404:Shouldn't 1703:extension. 1179:blocks. – 1109:plenty. -- 961:User:Durin 98:Archive 40 90:Archive 36 85:Archive 35 79:Archive 34 73:Archive 33 68:Archive 32 60:Archive 30 4137:reveal IP 3288:Checkuser 3237:suggested 3041:Lord Vold 3027:Guettarda 2997:Lord Vold 2855:Guettarda 2782:Lord Vold 2634:Lord Vold 1864:Guettarda 1670:threshold 1511:SqueakBox 1502:SqueakBox 1493:SqueakBox 1430:SqueakBox 1412:Borisblue 1365:Lord Vold 1275:Lord Vold 1217:Lord Vold 1112:Lord Vold 965:Borisblue 950:SqueakBox 940:SqueakBox 639:User:Kate 4390:Marskell 4092:hashcash 4050:captchas 4039:Katefan0 3936:Marskell 3901:possibly 3874:(e-mail) 3865:Turnbull 3863:Nicholas 3841:rejected 3822:Gmaxwell 3794:Gmaxwell 3766:Gmaxwell 3717:Gmaxwell 3615:→Raul654 3522:→Raul654 3490:Carnildo 3425:Jtkiefer 3402:Jtkiefer 3341:→Raul654 3297:Jtkiefer 3181:Filiocht 3107:Marskell 3069:Katefan0 2934:Bishonen 2813:Katefan0 2466:strictly 2333:Filiocht 2324:Lectonar 2310:Filiocht 2273:Lectonar 2227:Lectonar 2133:Jtkiefer 2097:=Nichalp 1954:tomorrow 1929:Marskell 1900:Thanks! 1732:=Nichalp 1645:=Nichalp 1612:=Nichalp 1039:I fixed 973:above.-- 865:Grutness 852:Marskell 773:Grutness 736:Grutness 611:her?:-) 560:Grutness 508:Grutness 460:Marskell 415:Marskell 387:Shimgray 368:=Nichalp 357:Marskell 281:Shimgray 249:Marskell 231:Shimgray 221:Marskell 3877:(cabal) 3750:dwolf24 3459:Zzyzx11 3130:dwolf24 2810:. ;) · 2808:Support 2102:«Talk»= 2055:Talrias 2014:dwolf24 1824:abstain 1770:ulayiti 1737:«Talk»= 1668:It's a 1650:«Talk»= 1617:«Talk»= 1535:dwolf24 1248:Talrias 1062:dwolf24 890:TimPope 840:without 373:«Talk»= 134:will be 39:archive 4348:enceph 4342:superb 4028:Shanes 3969:Shanes 3871:(talk) 3848:Splash 3808:WP:VIP 3508:Angela 3504:Datrio 3462:(Talk) 3429:----- 3406:----- 3301:----- 3259:Splash 3023:expect 2960:ndroid 2948:voting 2827:(talk) 2740:BD2412 2727:Martin 2685:Martin 2602:Martin 2529:away? 2289:right. 2251:Martin 2154:Angela 2137:----- 2113:BD2412 2083:(talk) 1833:BD2412 1813:Splash 1800:BD2412 1788:Splash 1775:(talk) 1476:BD2412 1025:hydnjo 807:WP:AGF 670:enceph 585:BD2412 440:hydnjo 336:hydnjo 259:BD2412 187:WP:RFA 166:BD2412 4368:Andre 4310:Curps 4234:Curps 4220:Curps 4168:block 4055:Curps 4015:Curps 3988:Curps 3565:: --> 3536:Tabor 3271:Andre 3150:: --> 3036:could 2977:Rd232 2511:Co., 2490:every 2486:every 2482:every 2472:Durin 2447:Co., 2391:Durin 2379:Durin 2035:Andre 1940:Durin 1903:Andre 1750:Andre 1331:Grue 1090:Durin 1015:Durin 975:Durin 899:Durin 829:Durin 757:gkhan 722:gkhan 709:gkhan 548:gkhan 482:gkhan 404:gkhan 191:Durin 16:< 4374:talk 4353:alon 4206:RIAA 4164:Talk 4153:diff 3894:only 3890:will 3832:and 3755:talk 3642:Tito 3568:Tito 3532:this 3277:talk 3221:talk 3135:talk 3055:mort 3011:mort 2938:talk 2796:mort 2768:talk 2648:mort 2615:some 2571:Talk 2544:Talk 2513:Inc. 2449:Inc. 2431:Talk 2408:and 2400:Lag? 2357:more 2299:talk 2264:Jguk 2238:jguk 2216:jguk 2041:talk 2019:talk 1996:Jguk 1909:talk 1756:talk 1540:talk 1444:Tito 1379:mort 1289:mort 1231:mort 1126:mort 1067:talk 1028:talk 990:Tito 872:wha? 798:Some 780:wha? 743:wha? 700:Talk 675:alon 660:Talk 567:wha? 515:wha? 443:talk 430:you 391:talk 339:talk 285:talk 235:talk 155:Talk 4202:not 4141:rip 4135:or 3981:or 3726:600 3638:did 3373:2) 3316:315 3311:Ral 3242:fvw 2922:JRM 2920:by 2914:not 2837:Cel 2759:own 2706:fvw 2667:. 2373:not 2268:not 2262:To 2186:tic 1969:tic 1727:not 1628:fvw 1588:fvw 1044:RfA 916:Ban 867:... 848:one 815:not 775:... 738:... 616:Ban 608:own 562:... 510:... 4377:) 4332:) 4256:) 4170:) 4166:| 4108:) 4075:) 3997:-- 3954:) 3869:| 3844:}} 3838:{{ 3820:-- 3785:) 3757:) 3715:-- 3707:) 3646:xd 3572:xd 3552:-- 3280:) 3240:-- 3223:) 3200:do 3183:| 3137:) 2965:79 2936:| 2910:me 2886:) 2835:-- 2779:-- 2770:) 2569:| 2558:— 2554:Un 2542:| 2531:— 2429:| 2418:— 2416:. 2377:-- 2335:| 2312:| 2301:) 2176:Ac 2069:) 2065:| 2061:| 2044:) 2025:) 1959:Ac 1912:) 1828:or 1759:) 1659:-- 1572:• 1546:) 1448:xd 1440:AN 1362:-- 1311:-- 1262:) 1258:| 1254:| 1181:AB 1171:) 1073:) 1047:}} 1041:{{ 994:xd 769:do 732:is 698:| 687:— 658:| 647:— 436:go 393:| 389:| 287:| 283:| 237:| 233:| 153:| 142:— 94:→ 64:← 4371:( 4330:c 4328:/ 4326:t 4324:( 4321:N 4254:c 4252:/ 4250:t 4248:( 4245:N 4162:( 4151:( 4106:c 4104:/ 4102:t 4100:( 4097:N 4072:☎ 4069:| 3951:☎ 3948:| 3782:☎ 3779:| 3753:( 3745:e 3740:R 3704:☎ 3701:| 3511:. 3379:) 3323:S 3321:W 3274:( 3247:* 3219:( 3207:☎ 3195:I 3151:: 3133:( 3125:e 3120:R 3048:e 3004:e 2954:a 2883:☎ 2880:| 2841:e 2789:e 2766:( 2711:* 2641:e 2566:P 2563:I 2560:J 2539:P 2536:I 2533:J 2426:P 2423:I 2420:J 2297:( 2191:' 2181:e 2157:. 2067:c 2063:e 2059:t 2057:( 2038:( 2021:— 2017:( 2009:e 2004:R 1974:' 1964:e 1906:( 1753:( 1633:* 1593:* 1574:@ 1570:t 1542:— 1538:( 1530:e 1525:R 1372:e 1282:e 1260:c 1256:e 1252:t 1250:( 1224:e 1194:✉ 1189:D 1185:C 1169:c 1167:/ 1165:t 1163:( 1160:N 1119:e 1069:— 1065:( 1057:e 1052:R 926:s 921:e 695:P 692:I 689:J 655:P 652:I 649:J 626:s 621:e 150:P 147:I 144:J 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 34 - Knowledge

Index