Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 2

2853:

not going to be any easy 'crat chat to close. Having watched several of these over the past three years, I would not get too emotionally involved either way. There really are two sides to this story, and waging rhetorical trench warfare -- either for or against the candidate -- only raises the temperature without shedding any additional light. Hawkeye is neither the Great Satan nor a Messenger of Light; he's been proven to be eminently human. Regardless of the outcome, I think it's important to keep in mind that the candidate has been a great contributor, and I personally hate to see a good contributor get rhetorically shredded, regardless of any past mistakes he's made. Many "oppose" voters still need to learn to voice their concerns without demonizing a good, but flawed candidate; many "support" voters still need to learn to deal properly with the more over-the-top "oppose" comments.

2024:

ended up answering the questions nobly, I think, but they appeared to me as if meant to extract something more than information. And per the first reaction, if he answers them well, he is still damned. In other words, there is no way out. Perhaps we should see candidates without prejudice until proven clearly guilty. In regards to your question specifically, I have read those comments at the time they were written, and have also felt them offensive, shrewdly so. Now we know that they were ordered to be deleted, which shows, once more, the need for AGF. The idea of examining an RFA candidacy in public is not to enthrone us inquisitors craving for personal faults (

1829:

will be dominated by an interpersonal dispute between two people who don't like each other's tone of voice. How does that help to decide whether Hawkeye should be an admin? Think of this more like a meeting in meatspace; those present could ask questions and offer comments, and there would be an impartial chair to ensure that the discussion stays on-topic and doesn't descend into bickering—to that end, our hypothetical chair (the bureaucrats) would intervene when things were getting bogged down or when things started to get personal, perhaps reminding participants to conduct themselves with proper decorum or having inappropriate remarks struck from the minutes.

2151:. I agree that it isn't crystal clear, but since those sentences can be read without logical contortions to be general statements on RfX and not an attack on any opiner, I let them stand for now. Over time, and with feedback, perhaps that will change. What I do want to ensure is that you and everyone understand I am not intentionally being capricious or negligent, but have a rationale for what I am trying to do. Being human, though, I'm cannot guarantee perfect consistency and I do appreciate being directed to areas where it may appear that I was inconsistent so I can either explain or correct my actions. Thanks! -- 1065:

Nevertheless, as you suggested, there should be other ways to make this process less rancorous and painful. In fact, we should take it on our hands and make it happen. Voting without debate, however, is no true election. I value the votes cast accompanied by a personal shrewd logic, and read carefully what others write in the discussion section. The debates should continue, but in a way that would not leave a trail of rancour and resentment behind. Perhaps anonymous debates, or other forms of moderated interaction. Technology is on our side if we use it wisely. 2₵.

2783:

is useful, given that almost every RFA tends to have trolls, incorrigible admin-haters, and troublemaking users with a block log not fitting in a single sheet of paper (when printed with small font) among the voters. Using some "editor quality" screen to select only some subset of "good" editors and recalculating the percentages helps downweight any trolls. Maybe a better editor quality metric, ideally a multi-factor model, than just the single admin bit could be used for this kind of analysis.

123:

Edits in the past 30 days: 520 Edits in the past 365 days: 8,641 Ø number of edits per day: 16.2 Live edits: Unique pages edited: 11,830 Pages created: 1,201 Pages moved: 530 Ø edits per page: 5.3 Ø change per page (bytes): extended Files uploaded: 229 Files uploaded (Commons): 638 (Semi-)automated edits: 72 Reverted edits: 142 Edits with summary: 60,609 Number of minor edits (tagged): 3,719 Number of edits (<20 bytes): extended Number of edits (: -->

3061: 3040: 1461: 2993:. My opinion is that a listed closing time is mandatory for each and every one and don't require any superpower for being enforced. Nobody will ever know how many people, of any opinion, turned back and didn't registered their !vote when seeing it was too late ? Now, the Request for Adminship is formally on hold, as it should have been from the listed closing time. But, to be clear, I don't see that piling late !votes will change the result. 31: 2742:

RfC in question was adopted with a super-majority of 74 to 31, or 71%. That's about as solid a "consensus" as I have ever seen for proposed RfA reforms, ergo, the 65 to 74.99% discretionary range is operative, and the practical implication for Hawkeye's pending RfA is that the outcome will be decided by a 'crat chat. Moreover, I have no idea what he means by "missing oppose voters."

899:- in fact, got gangboomeranged. And I was asking for it by not researching my options better, and seeking consensus (although later attempts to be a good wikipedia editor and engage that editor in discussion on a different issue where the project's guidance was pretty clearly opposed to her position weren't as productive as I'd hoped - but at least everyone was civil this time). 2028:). I did not intend to predict, but I commented above about how at the end of potentially contentious nominations the tendency was for the discourse to degenerate. I enjoy an honest and sincere debate that is also respectful. The challenge is to create an atmosphere conducive to such a balance among so diverse crowd of people who live away of each other (mostly). 1765: 2148: 2631:

What is the "2/3 boundary"? I had always heard that anything between 70-75% was bureaucrat's discretion, while almost anything below that was a "no consensus." Also, why does the percentage among admins even matter? Do they have some kind of "supervote" that's worth 25% more than us regular editors?

2123:

That attack was pretty obvious. The person questioned the motives of almost every opposer. I'm not sure how it isn't a personal attack, but you've got the 'crat bit, so it's your view that matters. You did that in another area, where MurderByDeletionism was questioning motives. I think it's important

1911:

At the point when a bureaucrat was substantially altering the meaning of a comment or removing comments they personally disagreed with, that would be a problem, and would result in an outcry. Removing fuel from a potential heat source is just good housekeeping, and allows us to get on with the matter

1530:

I, for one, am delighted to see the crats finally step in and become more involved in RfAs. I would also note that in addition to the clear support for crat clerking voiced in the Clerking RfC, several participants noted that they believed improper !votes should be dealt with by crats, so there seems

2978:

I couldn't find his name on the list of Crats, so I've reverted his attempts to effectively strike both the one support and the several opposes that have come since the listed closing time. My understanding is that time isn't hard and fast, so I think my revert is correct, and his attempt to end the

2782:

by adjusting the lower point from 70% down to 65%. This is one of the first RFAs with the modified range, perhaps even the first where it matters. Bureacrats might find the widening useful here, given the retaliatory motives and misguided reasoning behind some of the Opposes here. The "admin metric"

1476:

discourse, and I did so in light of the communities clear charge to the bureaucrats. One cannot please everybody all the time, 'tis true, and I am more than welcome to constructive criticism in this regard as well, but if the project asks for clerking from its bureaucrats, please do not be surprised

122:

User ID: 302229 User groups: autoreviewer, filemover, reviewer, rollbacker, templateeditor, user, autoconfirmed First edit: Jun 19, 2005, 1:21 AM Latest edit: Jan 26, 2016, 7:56 AM Live edits: 62,203 Deleted edits: 508 Total edits: 62,711 Edits in the past 24 hours: 7 Edits in the past 7 days: 157

2852:

Hallward, certain rationales among the "opposes" are personalized and easily lend themselves to being characterized as "vindictive" or grudge-based. Most of the "opposes," however, simply express reasonable concerns about the candidate's history. I don't relish the crats' jobs on this one -- it's

2838:

And now, the first comment posted to the crat chat (other than Avi's administrative notes) is an immediate impugning of the opposers' motives. I hold out almost no hope that this discussion will lead to anything other than promotion for an admin that was previously deadminned for misusing the block

2082:

Wow. So I could say that "A successful RfA based on thinly masked attempts to obfuscate and dissemble regarding the candidate's editing and adminning history would not not send a positive message to newcomers. !voters should focus on the candidate's poor record as an admin and editor rather than on

1975:

As I see the debate(s) develop with time, I am starting to think that the reform's mandate is harder to achieve. The Q&A section can be so easily highjacked by dislikers and enablers. As someone until recently neutral, but still an outsider (have not worked with the candidate and have no direct

1467:

The RfC was clear that we were requested to make more of an effort to actively ensure the smooth running of RfC, including its tone. My intention is not to censor anyone's intent, and I do not think I have. I specifically did not refactor or restate anyone comments—to the point that someone pointed

251:

separate hypothetical RFPP requests. All these are placed under one question, but it appears to me that this is really eight questions in disguise. We discussed this problem in the RfC; it was never fully settled, but I recall that there seemed to be general agreement that such questions should not

135:

30 days Total edits 64,448 Namespace Totals Article 36,252 58.3% Talk 6,485 10.4% User 3,976 6.4% User talk 1,844 3% Knowledge (XXG) 6,450 10.4% Knowledge (XXG) talk 1,327 2.1% File 118 0.2% MediaWiki talk 21 0% Template 4,919 7.9% Template talk 400 0.6% Help talk 1

124:

1000 bytes): extended Actions: Thank: 582 x Approve: 2 x Patrol: 863 x Admin actions: Block: 34 x Protect: 16 x Delete: 11 x Import: 0 x Article: (Re)blocked: 0 x Longest block: – Current block: – SUL editcounter (approximate): latest ► enwiki 61,971 +9 hours commonswiki 1,577 +1 day enwikinews

2741:

Hallward, I suppose he's free to draw attention to whatever he wants, but as someone who holds undergraduate and graduate degrees in economics -- with a heavy emphasis on mathematical and statistical methodology -- I'm still trying to understand his point regarding the 2/3 (66.67%) threshold. The

464:

I don't think it's more than one question. It's a single question about page protection with multiple examples. There is no rule against a single question having multiple examples listed. But if the applicant believes that it is more than one question they should ignore explaining the reason why.

2914:

Nonsense. Change of discretionary range totally doesn't translate into some 66.66% "not now" line, nor is there any policy that suggests giving special attention to voting patterns among the "elite" editors. That said, I have no personal opinion whether promotion is justified or not, as I haven't

2405:

I'm not sure which type of tactics you're referring to. I understand the point that this isn't strictly double jeopardy, though I want to note that most current admins gained their tools within 4 years of their first edit to Knowledge (XXG). I can understand those who oppose this RfA based on bad

2023:

Ched, thanks for writing. But in no way I am accusing you or anybody of wrongdoing. That's not for me to decide. But I can tell you that I think I will not return to this page unless pinged. The tenor of questions and some comments is becoming increasingly acrimonious--vulture-like. The candidate

1828:

I don't understand why you object to the removal of off-topic, overly personal, or inflammatory comments. Those sorts of things only serve to degrade the quality of the discussion—much as we all like to think we don't let these things get to us, eventually someone will rise to it an the whole RfA

572:

RfAs cannot be closed solely because of a "misleading" nomination statement. Nominators are obviously not neutral, and the whole point of writing a nom statement is to promote the candidate. It is the job of participants to investigate the candidate on their own and decide if they can be trusted.

535:

This nomination implies that Hawkeye's problematic history is not a problem, since he doesn't intend to do much outside certain fields. There is no "partial adminship" on Knowledge (XXG), ergo the nomination is misleading. This proposal should be closed on procedural reasons, and only be reopened

2945:

I have a question: which weighting factors do you have in mind? I just ask, because changing the existing criteria for inviting editors to vote in RfAs seems like a policy we currently invited editors would have to vote on. Perhaps I'm wrong on that, and it's a prerogative of the 'crats. I just

2867:

I started as "neutral", when I almost always support RFA candidates who are also good editors. I moved first to a "regretful" oppose, and as I read more of Hawkeye7's answers (which I viewed as less than straightforward) to a "strong oppose." In my view, resysops of previously deadminned editors

1064:

This is the first time I get involved in a RfA, but I have been reading previous cases and have noticed that things can get messier at the end. There is something about "running out of time" that often make people drop their polite manners for expediency. Hopefully, it will not happen this time.

2100:

In my opinion, if you really were concerned about how the RfA was being handled, and the candidate's record, then yes. You could say that you felt that an RfA in which supports or opposes were thinly masked attacks or the like is distinctly unhelpful, and that you request or imply that everyone

449:

Rubbish computer, the whole point is that people can game the two-question limit by asking a multi-part question under the guise of one question. In this case, we feel that by requesting answers for so many different hypothetical situations (eight, to be exact), the "one question" becomes eight

2108:

This is the first time I (and possibly any 'crat) am trying to be active as clerks based on the RfC, and so there will be growing pains. My decisions for this RfA are predicated on my trying to be as unobtrusive as possible and to err to AGF if the attacks are not obvious. Thus my decision. --

136:

0% Category 46 0.1% Category talk 3 0% Portal 327 0.5% Portal talk 4 0% Book 8 0% Module 19 0% Module talk 3 0% Year counts 2005 1 2006 45 2007 1,742 2008 2,541 2009 5,382 2010 4,275 2011 7,632 2012 8,848 2013 12,473 2014 10,245 2015 8,588 2016 431

2140:

Firstly, to be clear, just because English Knowledge (XXG) committed gross negligence by giving me a 'crat bit does not mean that I have any more weight in these decisions. I appreciate your feedback, and the way the first few RfXs are clerked, and the feedback obtained, will help shape our

2936:"Using some "editor quality" screen to select only some subset of "good" editors and recalculating the percentages helps downweight any trolls. Maybe a better editor quality metric, ideally a multi-factor model, than just the single admin bit could be used for this kind of analysis." by 2645:

Per recent RfC regarding RfA reform, the crats' discretionary range is now 65 to 74.99%, not 70 to 79.99%, as it was previously. That said, like Hallward, I would like an explanation of what this graph and the cryptic "missing opponents" message above are supposed to mean.

2444:" (your emphasis) was 32 days ago. Many of the "last year" opposing diffs are from October 2015, which is less than 4 months ago. Some of the opposition is due to the responses (or lack thereof) to this very RfA. The "double jeopardy" issue is something I would consider a 1086:

I am a relative newbie also. However, I think there must be a better way than editing (cough cough censoring). Editing another's talk page comments in my experience gets a threatened block if not the actual block. Ah but when it suits the bureaucracy it is okay?

3136:, this seems over the facts: closing a Request for Adminship is not saying that voting period is over, it is proclaming the result. It was obviously in the discretionary zone (and I have not even stated that). But let's wait for, and follow, the ruling at 3127:

sections, and not in only one of them. You know, there are people that really think that a written, contractual, clause is written and contractual. As an afterthought, I must admit that, to be totally fair, I should have added the same comment in the

987:

The majority of participants have made their point, and even noted their disagreement with opposing arguments, in a respectful manner without making the discussion personal or casting aspersions. Is there any reason the remainder can't do the same?

1592:

for stepping up and doing the clerking you have on this occasion. Just one suggestion for the future: it helps if some context can be copied here as well as the removed comments. For example, one of the sections on this page begins with "First -

1535:

the crats to continue doing what the broader community so clearly wants them to do. We can't afford to reverse all the good progress we're making to turn RfA into a better place. There will, of course, be those who oppose it, but in the end it's

2868:

should require a supermajority, particularly when the deadminning was for misuse of the most powerful button with which admins are trusted. And supports for such candidates should have to be just as well-reasoned as we expect opposes to be.

1597:?", and another begins "Really?" It would be OK to copy across some of the things that these are replies to, even if they are going to be kept on the project page; it doesn't have to be only what is removed from there. Thanks again. -- 314:

Agreed -- everyone who reads RfA knows the "right" answer by now. If it's not worth coming up with an interesting borderline case that would explain something about the candidate's thinking, it's not really worth asking any more. --

46:

and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the

1874:

answerable to the establishment, it's the community that gives them this mandate, and it's the community that watches and ensures they're doing it properly. That's why I left a comment on Avi's talk page about an action of theirs.

587:

The nominator's statement is taken as their personal opinion on the matter -- not the universal truth. Every statement is open to interpretation and we wouldn't close it based upon another single person's interpretation either.

96:

Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a

3068: 2061:

involve digging deeply into the candidate's actions, motives, etc. (which you liken to an inquisition). Nothing less will do when the community is considering giving the tools back to someone who previously misused them.

3092:

when you have previously voted in this RfA was extremely out of line. Doing so in any consensus building discussion on Knowledge (XXG) is quite wrong. This is quite ensconced in Knowledge (XXG) practice. For example, see

2472:

tl:dr - I don't like manipulation, and I don't like being painted with a broad brush. Elaborating further would entail my using unflattering terminology that I've so far avoided. If you still have questions though - I

1637:

I don't understand why this RfA was linked. The entirety of Knowledge (XXG) (which is the linked intent of the template) does not need to be notify and this is very excessive. This RfA should be removed from template.

304:

I haven't been able to decide whether it makes it better or worse that the same eight questions have been asked verbatim on every recent RFA that mentions RFPP, and that most of them really only have one right answer.

2165:

I'm struggling to find any other way to read that quoted portion as doing anything other than impugning the motives of people who do not support Hawkeye7's candidacy. But like I mentioned above, to each their own.

1008: 1213:

Oh my. Ask a few questions get a few thinly veiled threats. On my talk page: "I would just like to ask: do you have any alternative clean-start or hidden accounts? Esquivalience t 02:27, 28 January 2016(UTC)"

2815:

Given how much the opposers have had our motives attacked and maligned, I won't be surprised if this RFA ends with promotion, even given the very serious (and real) concerns raised in the oppose section.

2318:

While the individual RfA page proper is considered a discussion, I also don't feel that badgering anyone for their views is in good taste. That said, I do think that the addendum to the answer of Q-22 by

373:. If each "sub-question" bullet point can be answered in a sentence fragment, then having a handful (4, 6, 8?) is not more onerous than a single question requiring two or three sentences. JMO, FWIW. -- 3186: 3137: 3017: 1744:

Relatively easy answer: a real secret ballot with a talk page discussion (a la Arbcomm). Though the little censor/clerk running thru and making polite all the comments might be harder to justify?

2331:

poor mis-characterization of what Silk actually stated in his oppose (vote #34 at the time of this post). I wanted to state my view publicly as if further cements my own rational for opposing. —

2189:

I would say sure, but it may lead to confusion with Halward's answers, so may I suggest instead of overwriting, striking out your text (and any of my interruptions), and rewriting underneath. --

2779: 2665: 1654: 1870:

Crats are trusted by the community to make these judgement calls. That's why they're in the position they're in. That's why the community gave them this new mandate not even a month ago. They

1362: 2384:

I asked impartiality in reading my comments so they would not be taken as partisan. I am not desperate at all. The outcome will not affect me, but the way the candidate is evaluated will.

621:

Am i reading it right? he was removed because he got into a edit war with some people? that why he was desysopped? Also, he had the other privileges such as autopatrolled and rollbacker?

2983: 788: 2907: 658:

The short answer is that wheel warring is like edit warring, but instead of edits, it's admin actions. And rollback and many other user rights are part of the package for all admins.

2066: 267:

While 8 examples might be slightly excessive, I don't see the harm in multiple hypothetical requests for a question like this; you wouldn't learn much of anything from 1 or 2 cases.

43: 2872: 2843: 2820: 2736: 2801:

I'm not going to impugn any of the "oppose" !voters' motives, but I think the outcome is clearly within the recently amended discretionary range and is subject to a 'crat chat.

2516: 228:

asked to be pinged but the nomination statement does mention "Now to the elephant in the room: Hawkeye was desysopped by ArbCom in the Civility Enforcement case four years ago."

197:

The "elephant in the room" is that Hawkeye7 was formerly an administrator who lost his permission after using it for wheel warring. This is a "second chance" request, so to say.

2170: 2128: 601:

Agree, it is firstly a matter of opinion, and secondly this cannot be the basis for a procedural close. Surely, voters are expected to inquire into the matters raised. Cheers,

3007:

Quite frankly, you're absolutely wrong in your belief that the "listed closing time is mandatory for each and every one and don't require any superpower for being enforced."

3162: 3011: 2636: 53: 1531:

to be general support for the idea that crats are trusted and should have a broad mandate. (They were also recently trusted with expanded discretion when closing RfAs.) I

370: 2440:, sans the ping, I might have deferred to MLauba, who makes some very sage observations. I am willing to go into detail if you wish, but here are my initial thoughts. " 1361:

To be fair, the type of bureaucrat clerking authorized by the RfC is limited; it does not explicitly permit editing or significant refactoring of others' comments (see

1893:

This is going to get me in trouble but I do not like that word..or abstraction...the "community". Has a Stalinist edge to it. (Note: the user did not invoke Hitler.)

450:

separate ones. It doesn't matter that all these effectively eight separate questions are placed under one number; it's the content, and not the number, that matters.

1291:: "Perhaps; ArbCom and venues of drama are not for relative newbies nor do I expect newer editors to touch such areas. Esquivalience t 02:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)" 2694: 2606: 2448:. You will have to elaborate a bit for me to understand the "most current admins gained their tools within 4 years of their first edit to Knowledge (XXG)" issue. 369:

Regarding multi-part questions, speaking from personal experience, I would lean more to allowing questions like #10 (simple answers) and less to #11 (complex) in

2087: 801:

Well, the first point is that I've never interacted with you before. And the second point is that after your oppose vote on this adminship you just happened

784:

I am an editor, just like you. And you probably need to step away from the keyboard. Your wild accusations are completely out of line and need to stop.

1719:

Thanks for the re-explanation. Last month: I am reminded of the urge to ameliorate the abrasiveness of the process and the need for broader inclusion.

1192:

I said when that (talk page edits) happens it is a no-no. Here we have "voters" in this RfA having their comments edited. Is it not at least the same?

1472:—but I did remove statements I felt whose removal did not hamper the salient point of the commentator and whose presence was unhelpful in stimulating 904:

It's one of those "Oh, well... " moments when you step away from the situation and figure what's in it for you in editing wikipedia. Like it or not,

554:

if he doesn't intend to work in certain areas isn't that honesty? And I'm sure that his supporters have assessed his trustworthiness for adminship.

2971:

Hawkeye7 RfA is now in cratchat, no harm was done by anyone. Changes to the current fluidity of close timings can be addressed on WP:BN or via RFC.

17: 2455:

Allow me to plant my tongue firmly within my cheek and say the following. "I am afraid to post my true thoughts while logged in because of the '

3106: 3080: 3054: 3029: 3002: 2862: 2792: 2751: 2655: 2184: 2160: 2118: 836: 502: 430: 406: 2083:

obfuscating and dissembling"? Because, to me, that seems like a clear personal attack. Just like the majority of the text of this !vote did.

2550:

I did not mean it as a personal attack. I intended to say that your quoting on the anon felt to me as you making fun. Walking a fine line.

2101:

involved should think about why they opine as they do, that is part of the discussion. If, however, someone was obviously trying to make a

3067:

Not only are closing times not engraved in stone, there are times when we deliberately want to extend the time. Historical precedent for

2459:' ." Now, consider some following points: 1) Signing as an IP is far from being anonymous as it offers a location. 2) If someone were 2385: 2422:

You're right - provided that the candidate has moved on. Myself and several other oppose voters believe that this isn't the case here.

2272:

Oh. Should we start updating it manually, like we used to? Or maybe just remove the counter, for as long as it's misleading? I dunno.

2124:

to have an "all sides" discussion without having one side questioning the motives of the other over and over. I'll leave it at that.

3094: 2611: 2696:

because many opponents to the 65% were accepting 66.66%. By the way, I am not saying that admin's opinion about adminship should be

1666: 685: 206: 1024:

So why not just make it an anonymous ballot without comment? One man's "politified" comment is another man's censored comments? No?

393:"I'm concerned that Q8 might perhaps be a violation of the two-question limit": 1 question number, pretty much summarises this. -- 61: 3046:

RfAs remain live until closed or placed on hold by a bureaucrat. If this needs to be made more clear somewhere, please do so. –

2294:

Nope. I know very little about bots, sorry. Feel free to manually update it; it's not like the running total is sacrosanct. --

337:, which clarifies that multi-part questions disguised as one question are also disallowed. This should really be common sense. 3232: 1976:

stake on the issues), I am starting to feel uncomfortable with the direction, tone, and subtexts of the latest questions.--

1235:" edits, are you saying post have been censored ? by !clerks ? If that's the case, I would say yes, that is quite the same. 3119:. I approve the diff you made, since it underlines the fact that I have placed a remainder of the closing time in both the 2457:

risks of voicing opinions. I can just imagine what would happen to me if I say something that the would find disagreeable.

908:

is here, and gets used and abused. And we're actually warned in advance about the possibility of being hoisted on our own

1852:

And where does it end when a third party (small or large) but answerable to the establishment decides what is disruptive?

1807:

Oh damn. As a metonymy? My long dead latin teacher would be upset at me. The font you used is certainly not a part of you.

3210:

The RfA page closing summary seems grossly brief. The RfA page's above link to chat can be lost in the decorations. --

1365:). However, a separate RfC, not here, is the place to discuss refactoring of comments and clarification of RfA clerking. 943:

unfortunately for every rule made to stop one problem, they also often create new side-effects. In this particular case,

90: 288:

I think it is excessive, maybe four would be reasonable, but eight? Definitely uses up the two questions in one go IMO.

2756:

I think it means "number of additional people who would have to oppose in order to make the overall result under 2/3".

1328:

Thanks. Since the point of change was brought up here, and the editing of peoples' comments is troublesome (I am with

2761: 955: 884: 834: 777: 729: 496: 424: 400: 247:

I'm concerned that Q8 might perhaps be a violation of the two-question limit; it requests that Hawkeye7 respond to

152: 89:, indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants 189: 2141:

discretion going forward. This is why, as I mentioned above, my decision process includes an express desire for

2894: 74:

Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere.

3249: 3219: 3205: 3149: 2955: 2924: 2898: 2810: 2765: 2721: 2625: 2559: 2545: 2507: 2493: 2468: 2428: 2417: 2393: 2378: 2347: 2303: 2288: 2267: 2247: 2212: 2198: 2044: 2014: 1992: 1944: 1926: 1902: 1884: 1861: 1843: 1816: 1796: 1777: 1753: 1735: 1702: 1688: 1670: 1647: 1620: 1606: 1577: 1563: 1549: 1521: 1486: 1453: 1412: 1375: 1348: 1300: 1278: 1256: 1201: 1180: 1139: 1125: 1096: 1081: 1047: 1033: 1019: 1007:'Clerking' RfA to maintain decorum is a mandate given to bureaucrats that was confirmed by the community in a 1002: 981: 957: 921: 886: 862: 779: 737: 707: 689: 667: 653: 630: 610: 596: 582: 565: 545: 525: 508: 476: 459: 436: 412: 382: 364: 355:--that's too much. People who run for RfA aren't career runners for RfA; they have other stuff to do as well. 346: 324: 309: 297: 283: 261: 236: 220: 210: 184: 160: 1998:

If you feel I have done or said something wrong - I am willing to discuss it in the place of your choice. —

2608:

boundary, we can graph how many opponents were missing, at each moment, to turn the decision into not now.

2521:

If you think I am making fun of anyone, or anything, then you have very much missed the mark. I'll ask you

2389: 2208: 2180: 1662: 681: 626: 202: 850: 65: 3159: 3008: 2990: 2980: 2904: 2869: 2840: 2817: 2733: 2633: 2513: 2167: 2135: 2125: 2095: 2084: 2063: 1698: 1559: 785: 606: 293: 180: 3155: 2890: 1537: 944: 936: 905: 896: 873: 2858: 2806: 2757: 2747: 2651: 2414: 1921: 1838: 1573: 997: 948: 877: 827: 770: 649: 490: 418: 394: 352: 175:

What elephant in which room? Is RFA a forum for only those with inside knowledge? Thanks in advance,

57: 215:

The second paragraph of the nomination statement explains the so-called elephant in the room. - Dank (

3102: 2920: 2666:

Knowledge (XXG):2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_II/RfC#C1:_Expand_discretionary_range_to_65%

2263: 1545: 663: 578: 455: 342: 320: 279: 257: 1630: 1332:

on this), I pithced the issue of reform to invite some brainstorming. I thought there was interest.

485:

It was indeed one question with multiple examples. I'm not really sure where this is going, and why

3215: 2555: 2503: 1940: 1898: 1880: 1857: 1812: 1792: 1749: 1684: 1449: 1408: 1296: 1274: 1197: 1135: 1092: 1043: 1029: 977: 541: 2732:. It sets up an unhealthy "class" system at RFA, that has no place in an open, frank discussion. 2239:

80 opposes, but the counter says 162 vs 65 (which I think was correct a few hours ago). Some bug?

947:

has made it easier to bully editors and then continue to victimize them when they ask for help. --

909: 3238: 2951: 2464: 2285: 2244: 2204: 2176: 2029: 1977: 1720: 1658: 1643: 1506: 1500: 1439: 1398: 1368: 1356: 1333: 1323: 1286: 1219: 1208: 1118: 1066: 917: 677: 672:

And the wheelwarring policy is much more strict than the edit warring policy. Sort of a modified

638: 622: 561: 472: 198: 2102: 644: 3158:, Pldx1. You've been told, numerous times, that what you believe in this regard is incorrect. 3076: 2915:

read all vote rationales posted in this long RfA, and these are the thing that matters most.--

2299: 2194: 2156: 2114: 1773: 1694: 1616: 1555: 1482: 1469: 1246: 1170: 858: 602: 521: 378: 289: 225: 176: 2025: 2854: 2833: 2802: 2743: 2647: 2435: 2411: 2053:

In my view, an RFA for a candidate who was previously deadminned for abusing the tools will

1913: 1830: 1569: 989: 360: 2526: 1112: 673: 486: 3145: 3116: 3098: 3060: 3039: 3025: 2998: 2916: 2717: 2621: 2259: 2255: 2175:

Avi, can I rewrite the statement to avoid altercations? My apologies to Hallward's Ghost.

1541: 1460: 703: 659: 574: 451: 338: 316: 268: 253: 3242: 1693:

It was a community decision to advertise it there. On this point the RfC was very clear.

2671: 2583: 1363:

Knowledge (XXG):2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC#M: Active clerking at RFA

3211: 3198: 3052: 2551: 2538: 2522: 2499: 2486: 2445: 2371: 2340: 2007: 1936: 1894: 1876: 1853: 1808: 1788: 1745: 1680: 1602: 1445: 1404: 1329: 1292: 1270: 1226: 1193: 1154: 1131: 1088: 1039: 1025: 1017: 973: 895:

I've taken a civility issue and content dispute to ANI prematurely, and did indeed get

723: 594: 537: 234: 216: 146: 872:

at the proper venues because quite often those venues invite more harassment, such as

3225: 3224:

You're welcome to work on a redesign of the top template to make it more visible. ···

2947: 2788: 2320: 2281: 2240: 2145:

overt changes to text. The best clerked RfX would be one where we need to do nothing

1639: 913: 556: 467: 80: 1675:

Sounds like LT910001 wants a different type of secret ballot: one that nobody (well

3072: 2295: 2275: 2190: 2152: 2110: 1769: 1612: 1589: 1540:

that really matters—and the consensus is clearly there. Good luck, and keep it up!

1496: 1478: 1264: 1237: 1187: 1161: 854: 517: 417:

It wasn't intended to "evade the limit" and I really don't see the problem here. --

374: 334: 306: 30: 2525:

to please explain that, because I very much consider it a personal attack. (see:

3097:. I strongly encourage you not to repeat this error in the future. Thank you, -- 2886: 2610: 2423: 489:

is being ignored. I won't be wasting any more time on this discussion, goodbye.

356: 3071:

is to consider all valid opinions until a bureaucrat closes the discussion. --

1935:

To quote from the Life of Brian...nahhh...never mind. Have a good evening all.

912:

for taking something to ANI or another help forum without a pretty solid case.

3141: 3085: 3021: 2994: 2713: 2617: 1505:. I had not noticed it until Juna Riley brought it up as a potential concern. 699: 3193: 3047: 2533: 2481: 2400: 2366: 2362:

Really? Resorting to these types of tactics truly does make one despair. —

2335: 2002: 1598: 1012: 718: 589: 229: 141: 2937: 2784: 1611:

Good points. I'll try and keep them in mind going forward. Thank you. --

2235:

What happened to the counter? At this moment there are 173 supports and

769:

confirmation why one should never create articles on Knowledge (XXG). --

77:

Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with

2946:

wanted to know, so I could decide whether to show up for these things.

1764: 2147: 765:

You do realize this vendetta you've started won't hurt me. It's just

2467:, and to some extent it is considered to be a form of manipulation. 2410:, but in my opinion recalling drama from 5 years ago is unhelpful. 695: 3187:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 2/Bureaucrat chat

3018:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_adminship/Hawkeye7_2/Bureaucrat_chat

2512:

I'm not sure where you see Ched' "making fun of other people."

763:

Why are you following me around voting delete on the same AfD's?

1655:

Knowledge (XXG):2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC

3132:

section. Concerning your description of what I have done as a

25: 1762:

For the record, I am overweight, and certainly not "little".

70:

Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs.

2477:

more than willing to draw up some detailed explanation. —

824:

fyi - Thanks for upgrading the Wendy Barrie-Wilson article.

1269:. There has been editing of impolite comments in the RfA. 968:

Is anyone bothered by "clerked" whitewashing of comments?

2498:

I find Ched's making fun of other people of poor taste.

853:, then please report it in the proper venue. Thanks. -- 516:

I clearly see an attempt to game the system's new rule.

3089: 2616:

Moreover, the score among the 80 admins is above 70%.

2324: 815: 812: 809: 806: 2451:

Now, if you are asking about the totality of my post:

2674: 2586: 2463:

afraid, why say anything at all? I am familiar with

1787:

I was assuming the small font usage as a synecdoche.

1111:

If you have a proposal to make, I shall point you to

2688: 2600: 2078:Please see Support #142 by Rosario for background 698:. Everyone knows that - whell, almost everyone.-- 536:after the proposal has been changed accordingly. 333:Just noting here that I have added a sentence to 1038:Maintaining decorum? That one is a joke surely? 972:Seems a wee bit over the top on faked civility. 939:was created to eliminate those few editors from 647:for an overview of what wheel warring entails. 2885:Quite right. All votes are equal but some are 2453:(and perhaps I should log out to do this part) 1283:Here is another warn off on my talk page from 849:If anyone honestly feels that they are being 8: 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for adminship 2966: 1159:Who's talk page post have been altered ? 617:Hawkeye7 was removed due to wheel warring? 110: 2962:Reverted Pldx1's attempt to close the RFA 2678: 2673: 2590: 2585: 717: 140: 2961: 2728:I don't think it should be "noticed" at 2358:See Anon comment in support of Deryck C. 2105:, that would be handled in its own way. 712:I'm in line to kill you first for that 694:Wheel warring is admin-edit-warring at 531:Nomination must be closed as misleading 60:in discussions on both pages, avoiding 139:As of 17:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC). -- 2700:. I am only saying that it should be 7: 1231:Sorry, I havn't been following the " 555: 466: 131:30 days wikimania2014wiki 3 : --> 130:30 days wikimania2013wiki 8 : --> 24: 1403:And your threatened inquisition? 3059: 3038: 2609: 2146: 2057:be a contentious affair. And it 1763: 1653:This was decided as part of the 1459: 29: 133:30 days mediawikiwiki 2 : --> 127:30 days wikidatawiki 25 : --> 1: 2231:What happened to the counter? 1477:when we do so. Thank you. -- 115:Press to see lots of numbers 3250:01:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC) 3220:01:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC) 3206:18:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 3163:19:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 3150:19:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 3107:18:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 3081:16:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 3055:16:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 3030:16:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 3012:16:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 3003:16:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2984:15:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2956:04:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 2933:With respect to the comment 2925:18:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2908:15:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2899:15:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2873:16:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2863:16:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2844:16:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2821:15:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2811:15:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2793:15:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2778:The discretionary range has 2766:18:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2752:15:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2737:15:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2722:14:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2656:14:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2637:14:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2626:14:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2560:19:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2546:18:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2517:17:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2508:17:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2494:16:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2429:13:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2418:10:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2394:16:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 2379:16:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 2348:18:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 2304:01:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2289:17:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 2268:17:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 2254:The counters are updated by 2248:17:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 2213:19:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 2199:18:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 2185:18:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 2171:17:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 2161:17:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 2129:17:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 2119:17:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 2088:17:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 2067:17:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 2045:09:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 2015:07:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 1993:06:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 1945:02:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 1927:02:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 1903:01:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 1885:01:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 1862:01:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 1844:01:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 1817:01:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 1797:01:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 1778:01:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 1754:01:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 1736:01:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 1703:00:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 1689:23:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 1671:09:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 1648:09:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 1621:15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 1607:14:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 1578:00:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 1564:00:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 1550:05:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 1522:04:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 1487:03:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 1454:03:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 1413:02:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 1376:02:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 1349:02:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 1301:02:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 1279:02:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 1257:02:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 1202:02:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 1181:02:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 1140:02:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 1126:02:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 1097:01:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 1082:01:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 1048:01:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 1034:01:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 1020:00:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 1003:00:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 982:00:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 958:21:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 922:20:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 887:05:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 863:04:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 837:03:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 805:to vote on these same AfD's 789:22:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 780:22:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 738:07:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 708:01:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 690:18:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 668:18:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 654:01:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 631:00:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 611:00:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 597:19:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC) 583:18:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC) 566:18:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC) 546:18:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC) 526:15:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 509:19:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 477:19:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 460:18:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 437:16:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 413:16:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 383:16:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 365:15:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 347:18:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC) 325:15:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC) 310:04:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC) 298:03:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC) 284:22:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 262:22:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 237:19:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 221:15:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 211:15:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 185:15:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 161:17:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC) 3182:for historical references: 126:30 days metawiki 65 : --> 3268: 134:30 days 63 others 10 : --> 3154:You should probably stop 2258:which is currently down. 1923:Penny for your thoughts? 1840:Penny for your thoughts? 999:Penny for your thoughts? 752:Moved from project page I 129:30 days dewiki 17 : --> 128:30 days frwiki 19 : --> 38:This is an RfA talk page. 2353:From Support of Deryck C 132:30 days ruwiki 2 : --> 2706:Help to Decision Making 1679:) knows is being held? 3016:Bureaucrat chat is at 2887:more equal than others 2789:...just not interested 2690: 2602: 2406:temperament he showed 317:Michael Scott Cuthbert 85:name of section header 3095:the fifth bullet here 2991:User:Hallward's Ghost 2979:discussion was not. 2780:recently been widened 2691: 2603: 868:Editors don't go for 2672: 2584: 351:Yes. Eight? Come on 2689:{\displaystyle 2/3} 2601:{\displaystyle 2/3} 1699:click to talk to me 1560:click to talk to me 1554:Agree with Biblio. 1538:community consensus 951:MurderByDeletionism 880:MurderByDeletionism 830:MurderByDeletionism 773:MurderByDeletionism 607:click to talk to me 504:I dropped the bass? 432:I dropped the bass? 408:I dropped the bass? 294:click to talk to me 91:need not be noticed 3156:beating that horse 2903:Perfect analogy. 2686: 2598: 2465:Persuasive writing 2280:you got anything? 1971:Perhaps not enough 1533:strongly encourage 3248: 3204: 3178:Link to Crat-chat 3174: 3173: 3160:Hallward's Ghost 3009:Hallward's Ghost 2981:Hallward's Ghost 2905:Hallward's Ghost 2870:Hallward's Ghost 2841:Hallward's Ghost 2818:Hallward's Ghost 2734:Hallward's Ghost 2634:Hallward's Ghost 2544: 2514:Hallward's Ghost 2492: 2454: 2377: 2359: 2346: 2168:Hallward's Ghost 2126:Hallward's Ghost 2085:Hallward's Ghost 2079: 2073:Clerking question 2064:Hallward's Ghost 2013: 1819: 1799: 1657:, for the record. 1254: 1223: 1178: 825: 786:Hallward's Ghost 735: 323: 167: 166: 158: 103: 102: 3259: 3245: 3239:Talk to Nihonjoe 3235: 3231: 3228: 3203: 3201: 3190: 3065:Bureaucrat note: 3063: 3044:Bureaucrat note: 3042: 2967: 2837: 2758:Opabinia regalis 2695: 2693: 2692: 2687: 2682: 2613: 2607: 2605: 2604: 2599: 2594: 2576:Missing opposers 2543: 2541: 2530: 2491: 2489: 2478: 2452: 2439: 2404: 2376: 2374: 2363: 2357: 2345: 2343: 2332: 2279: 2150: 2139: 2136:Hallward's Ghost 2099: 2096:Hallward's Ghost 2077: 2041: 2037: 2035: 2012: 2010: 1999: 1989: 1985: 1983: 1924: 1918: 1841: 1835: 1806: 1786: 1767: 1732: 1728: 1726: 1518: 1514: 1512: 1503: 1501: 1465:Bureaucrat note: 1463: 1443: 1402: 1371: 1369: 1360: 1345: 1341: 1339: 1327: 1290: 1268: 1255: 1251: 1244: 1242: 1230: 1217: 1212: 1191: 1179: 1175: 1168: 1166: 1158: 1121: 1119: 1078: 1074: 1072: 1000: 994: 935:I'm pretty sure 876:for instance. -- 823: 736: 732: 726: 721: 652: 642: 592: 559: 492:Rubbish computer 470: 420:Rubbish computer 396:Rubbish computer 353:Rubbish computer 319: 232: 193: 159: 155: 149: 144: 111: 88: 62:personal attacks 33: 26: 3267: 3266: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3243: 3233: 3226: 3199: 3191: 3180: 3175: 3138:Bureaucrat_chat 3117:User:Hammersoft 3069:years and years 2972: 2964: 2831: 2791: 2670: 2669: 2668:. I am quoting 2582: 2581: 2578: 2539: 2531: 2487: 2479: 2446:logical fallacy 2433: 2398: 2372: 2364: 2355: 2341: 2333: 2316: 2273: 2256:User:Cyberbot I 2233: 2133: 2093: 2075: 2039: 2033: 2030: 2008: 2000: 1987: 1981: 1978: 1973: 1922: 1914: 1839: 1831: 1730: 1724: 1721: 1635: 1516: 1510: 1507: 1437: 1396: 1354: 1343: 1337: 1334: 1321: 1284: 1262: 1247: 1238: 1236: 1224: 1206: 1185: 1171: 1162: 1160: 1152: 1076: 1070: 1067: 998: 990: 970: 754: 730: 724: 648: 636: 619: 590: 557: 533: 518:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 468: 245: 230: 187: 173: 168: 153: 147: 137: 116: 108: 78: 48: 40: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3265: 3263: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3208: 3179: 3176: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3110: 3109: 3083: 3057: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 2974: 2973: 2970: 2965: 2963: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2891:Andrewdpcotton 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2847: 2846: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2796: 2795: 2787: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2725: 2724: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2659: 2658: 2640: 2639: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2577: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2519: 2470: 2449: 2431: 2354: 2351: 2315: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2232: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2106: 2074: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2018: 2017: 1972: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1930: 1929: 1906: 1905: 1888: 1887: 1865: 1864: 1847: 1846: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1801: 1800: 1781: 1780: 1757: 1756: 1739: 1738: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1677:those nobodies 1634: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1490: 1489: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1005: 969: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 941:"crying wolf," 928: 927: 926: 925: 901: 900: 897:WP:BOOMERANGed 890: 889: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 839: 820: 819: 818: 794: 793: 792: 791: 753: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 618: 615: 614: 613: 599: 585: 569: 568: 532: 529: 514: 513: 512: 511: 483: 482: 481: 480: 479: 442: 441: 440: 439: 390: 389: 388: 387: 386: 385: 330: 329: 328: 327: 302: 301: 300: 252:be permitted. 244: 241: 240: 239: 223: 213: 172: 169: 165: 164: 121: 118: 117: 114: 109: 107: 104: 101: 100: 99: 98: 94: 75: 72: 52:Please remain 49: 41: 36: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3264: 3251: 3246: 3244:Join WP Japan 3240: 3236: 3229: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3217: 3213: 3209: 3207: 3202: 3196: 3195: 3188: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3177: 3164: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3126: 3122: 3118: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3096: 3091: 3087: 3084: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3056: 3053: 3051: 3050: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3010: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2982: 2976: 2975: 2969: 2968: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2944: 2939: 2935: 2934: 2932: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2913: 2909: 2906: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2883: 2874: 2871: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2845: 2842: 2835: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2822: 2819: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2781: 2777: 2776: 2767: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2726: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2711: 2710:How to Decide 2707: 2704:. Don't mess 2703: 2699: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2667: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2638: 2635: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2614: 2612: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2575: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2542: 2536: 2535: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2518: 2515: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2490: 2484: 2483: 2476: 2471: 2469: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2450: 2447: 2443: 2437: 2432: 2430: 2427: 2425: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2416: 2413: 2409: 2402: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2386:166.170.32.33 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2375: 2369: 2368: 2360: 2352: 2350: 2349: 2344: 2338: 2337: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2321:User:SilkTork 2313: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2292: 2290: 2287: 2283: 2277: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2249: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2230: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2169: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2149: 2144: 2137: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2127: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2107: 2104: 2097: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2086: 2080: 2072: 2068: 2065: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2051: 2046: 2043: 2042: 2036: 2027: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2016: 2011: 2005: 2004: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1991: 1990: 1984: 1970: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1928: 1925: 1919: 1917: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1873: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1845: 1842: 1836: 1834: 1827: 1826: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1766: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1737: 1734: 1733: 1727: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1668: 1667:contributions 1664: 1660: 1659:Jo-Jo Eumerus 1656: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1632: 1628: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1591: 1587: 1586: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1534: 1529: 1528: 1523: 1520: 1519: 1513: 1504: 1502:Esquivalience 1498: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1475: 1471: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1441: 1440:Esquivalience 1414: 1410: 1406: 1400: 1399:Esquivalience 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1370:Esquivalience 1364: 1358: 1357:Caballero1967 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1347: 1346: 1340: 1331: 1325: 1324:Esquivalience 1302: 1298: 1294: 1288: 1287:Esquivalience 1282: 1281: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1266: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1252: 1250: 1243: 1241: 1234: 1228: 1221: 1220:edit conflict 1216: 1215: 1210: 1209:Esquivalience 1205: 1204: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1189: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1176: 1174: 1167: 1165: 1156: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1130:Nice answer. 1129: 1128: 1127: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1120:Esquivalience 1114: 1110: 1109: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1080: 1079: 1073: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1018: 1016: 1015: 1010: 1006: 1004: 1001: 995: 993: 986: 985: 984: 983: 979: 975: 967: 959: 956: 954: 953: 952: 946: 942: 938: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 923: 919: 915: 911: 907: 903: 902: 898: 894: 893: 892: 891: 888: 885: 883: 882: 881: 875: 871: 867: 866: 865: 864: 860: 856: 852: 848: 838: 835: 833: 832: 831: 822: 821: 816: 813: 810: 807: 804: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 790: 787: 783: 782: 781: 778: 776: 775: 774: 768: 764: 760: 756: 755: 751: 739: 733: 727: 720: 715: 711: 710: 709: 705: 701: 697: 693: 692: 691: 687: 686:contributions 683: 679: 678:Jo-Jo Eumerus 675: 671: 670: 669: 665: 661: 657: 656: 655: 651: 650:North America 646: 640: 639:Winterysteppe 635: 634: 633: 632: 628: 624: 623:Winterysteppe 616: 612: 608: 604: 600: 598: 595: 593: 586: 584: 580: 576: 571: 570: 567: 564: 563: 560: 553: 550: 549: 548: 547: 543: 539: 530: 528: 527: 523: 519: 510: 506: 505: 500: 499: 494: 493: 488: 484: 478: 475: 474: 471: 463: 462: 461: 457: 453: 448: 447: 446: 445: 444: 443: 438: 434: 433: 428: 427: 422: 421: 416: 415: 414: 410: 409: 404: 403: 398: 397: 392: 391: 384: 380: 376: 372: 368: 367: 366: 362: 358: 354: 350: 349: 348: 344: 340: 336: 332: 331: 326: 322: 318: 313: 312: 311: 308: 303: 299: 295: 291: 287: 286: 285: 281: 277: 275: 271: 266: 265: 264: 263: 259: 255: 250: 242: 238: 235: 233: 227: 224: 222: 218: 214: 212: 208: 207:contributions 204: 200: 199:Jo-Jo Eumerus 196: 195: 194: 191: 186: 182: 178: 170: 163: 162: 156: 150: 143: 120: 119: 113: 112: 105: 95: 92: 86: 82: 76: 73: 71: 67: 63: 59: 55: 51: 50: 45: 39: 35: 32: 28: 27: 19: 3192: 3181: 3133: 3129: 3124: 3120: 3064: 3048: 3043: 2977: 2729: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2615: 2579: 2532: 2480: 2474: 2460: 2456: 2441: 2426: 2407: 2365: 2361: 2356: 2334: 2328: 2317: 2236: 2234: 2142: 2081: 2076: 2058: 2054: 2038: 2031: 2001: 1986: 1979: 1974: 1915: 1871: 1832: 1729: 1722: 1695:Peacemaker67 1676: 1636: 1594: 1556:Peacemaker67 1532: 1515: 1508: 1473: 1470:my talk page 1468:that out on 1464: 1435: 1367: 1366: 1342: 1335: 1320: 1261:Take a look 1249:open channel 1248: 1239: 1232: 1173:open channel 1172: 1163: 1117: 1116: 1075: 1068: 1013: 991: 971: 950: 949: 945:WP:BOOMERANG 940: 937:WP:BOOMERANG 906:WP:BOOMERANG 879: 878: 874:WP:BOOMERANG 869: 846: 845: 829: 828: 802: 772: 771: 766: 762: 759:Who are you? 758: 714:excruciating 713: 620: 603:Peacemaker67 551: 534: 515: 503: 497: 491: 431: 425: 419: 407: 401: 395: 335:Template:RfA 290:Peacemaker67 273: 269: 248: 246: 226:Ottawahitech 217:push to talk 177:Ottawahitech 174: 138: 84: 69: 37: 3088:Attempting 2855:Dirtlawyer1 2834:Dirtlawyer1 2803:Dirtlawyer1 2744:Dirtlawyer1 2648:Dirtlawyer1 2436:Deryck Chan 2040:Historiador 1988:Historiador 1937:Juan Riley 1916:HJ Mitchell 1895:Juan Riley 1854:Juan Riley 1833:HJ Mitchell 1809:Juan Riley 1789:Juan Riley 1746:Juan Riley 1731:Historiador 1681:Juan Riley 1595:Who are you 1570:Dirtlawyer1 1568:Seconded. 1517:Historiador 1446:Juan Riley 1444:evaporate. 1405:Juan Riley 1344:Historiador 1293:Juan Riley 1271:Juan Riley 1194:Juan Riley 1132:Juan Riley 1089:Juan Riley 1077:Historiador 1040:Juan Riley 1026:Juan Riley 992:HJ Mitchell 974:Juan Riley 851:wikistalked 803:"by chance" 125:749 : --> 3099:Hammersoft 2948:loupgarous 2917:Staberinde 2580:Given the 2260:BethNaught 1631:WP:CENTRAL 1330:Juan Riley 1009:recent RFC 914:loupgarous 910:WP:PETARDs 660:Beeblebrox 562:(Mrjulesd) 473:(Mrjulesd) 171:question 4 106:Statistics 66:harassment 47:candidacy. 3212:SmokeyJoe 2839:button. 2552:IvetteHer 2523:IvetteHer 2500:IvetteHer 2442:last year 2408:last year 2032:Caballero 1980:Caballero 1912:at hand. 1877:Wugapodes 1723:Caballero 1509:Caballero 1336:Caballero 1227:JuanRiley 1155:JuanRiley 1069:Caballero 761:Second - 757:First - 538:Debresser 3123:and the 2698:followed 2282:Bishonen 2241:Bishonen 2203:Thanks. 1640:Tom (LT) 1633:template 1233:clerking 645:WP:WHEEL 371:this RFB 79:{{subst: 3134:closing 3130:Neutral 3121:support 2702:noticed 2327:) is a 2276:Avraham 2205:Rosario 2177:Rosario 2026:WP:HUNT 1629:Use of 1588:Thanks 1495:Thanks 1474:cordial 1265:Mlpearc 1240:Mlpearc 1188:Mlpearc 1164:Mlpearc 716:pun. -- 558:--Jules 552:Comment 469:--Jules 307:Cryptic 188:please 3125:oppose 2527:WP:NPA 2424:MLauba 2415:yck C. 2059:should 2055:always 1542:Biblio 1113:WP:RfC 870:"help" 817:as me! 814:, and 674:WP:0RR 575:Biblio 452:Biblio 357:Drmies 339:Biblio 321:(talk) 254:Biblio 44:voting 42:While 3142:Pldx1 3115:Dear 3086:Pldx1 3022:Pldx1 2995:Pldx1 2989:Dear 2714:Pldx1 2708:with 2618:Pldx1 2461:truly 2103:point 1768:. -- 1436:Nice 847:Note: 700:Bbb23 696:wheel 498:HALP! 426:HALP! 402:HALP! 276:alton 249:eight 97:vote. 58:civil 16:< 3216:talk 3194:Ched 3146:talk 3103:talk 3090:this 3077:talk 3049:xeno 3026:talk 2999:talk 2952:talk 2921:talk 2895:talk 2859:talk 2807:talk 2762:talk 2748:talk 2718:talk 2712:. 2664:See 2652:talk 2622:talk 2556:talk 2534:Ched 2529:) — 2504:talk 2482:Ched 2401:Ched 2390:talk 2367:Ched 2336:Ched 2329:very 2325:here 2314:Q 22 2300:talk 2286:talk 2264:talk 2245:talk 2209:talk 2195:talk 2181:talk 2157:talk 2143:less 2115:talk 2003:Ched 1941:talk 1899:talk 1881:talk 1858:talk 1813:talk 1793:talk 1774:talk 1750:talk 1685:talk 1663:talk 1644:talk 1617:talk 1603:talk 1599:Stfg 1574:talk 1546:talk 1499:and 1483:talk 1450:talk 1409:talk 1297:talk 1275:talk 1198:talk 1136:talk 1093:talk 1044:talk 1030:talk 1014:xeno 978:talk 918:talk 859:talk 767:more 719:QEDK 704:talk 682:talk 664:talk 643:See 627:talk 591:Mkdw 579:talk 542:talk 522:talk 487:this 456:talk 379:talk 361:talk 343:talk 280:talk 258:talk 231:Mkdw 203:talk 190:ping 181:talk 142:QEDK 83:|dm| 81:rfan 64:and 56:and 54:calm 3227:日本穣 3073:Avi 2938:jni 2785:jni 2730:all 2412:Der 2296:Avi 2191:Avi 2153:Avi 2111:Avi 1872:are 1770:Avi 1613:Avi 1590:Avi 1497:Avi 1479:Avi 1011:. – 855:Avi 728:📖 375:Avi 272:am 151:📖 3241:· 3237:· 3234:投稿 3230:· 3218:) 3200:? 3197:: 3189:— 3148:) 3140:. 3105:) 3079:) 3028:) 3020:. 3001:) 2954:) 2923:) 2897:) 2889:. 2861:) 2809:) 2764:) 2750:) 2720:) 2654:) 2624:) 2558:) 2540:? 2537:: 2506:) 2488:? 2485:: 2475:AM 2392:) 2373:? 2370:: 2342:? 2339:: 2302:) 2291:. 2284:| 2266:) 2250:. 2243:| 2237:79 2211:) 2197:) 2183:) 2159:) 2117:) 2009:? 2006:: 1943:) 1920:| 1901:) 1883:) 1860:) 1837:| 1815:) 1795:) 1776:) 1752:) 1701:) 1687:) 1669:) 1665:, 1646:) 1638:-- 1619:) 1605:) 1576:) 1562:) 1548:) 1485:) 1452:) 1411:) 1299:) 1277:) 1200:) 1138:) 1115:. 1095:) 1046:) 1032:) 996:| 980:) 920:) 861:) 826:-- 811:, 808:, 706:) 688:) 684:, 666:) 629:) 609:) 581:) 544:) 524:) 507:) 501:: 458:) 435:) 429:: 411:) 405:: 381:) 363:) 345:) 296:) 282:) 260:) 243:Q8 219:) 209:) 205:, 192:me 183:) 87:}} 68:. 3247:! 3214:( 3144:( 3101:( 3075:( 3024:( 2997:( 2950:( 2940:, 2919:( 2893:( 2857:( 2836:: 2832:@ 2805:( 2760:( 2746:( 2716:( 2684:3 2680:/ 2676:2 2650:( 2620:( 2596:3 2592:/ 2588:2 2554:( 2502:( 2438:: 2434:@ 2403:: 2399:@ 2388:( 2323:( 2298:( 2278:: 2274:@ 2262:( 2207:( 2193:( 2179:( 2155:( 2138:: 2134:@ 2113:( 2098:: 2094:@ 2034:/ 1982:/ 1939:( 1897:( 1879:( 1856:( 1811:( 1791:( 1772:( 1748:( 1725:/ 1697:( 1683:( 1661:( 1642:( 1615:( 1601:( 1572:( 1558:( 1544:( 1511:/ 1481:( 1448:( 1442:: 1438:@ 1407:( 1401:: 1397:@ 1359:: 1355:@ 1338:/ 1326:: 1322:@ 1303:− 1295:( 1289:: 1285:@ 1273:( 1267:: 1263:@ 1253:) 1245:( 1229:: 1225:@ 1222:) 1218:( 1211:: 1207:@ 1196:( 1190:: 1186:@ 1177:) 1169:( 1157:: 1153:@ 1134:( 1091:( 1071:/ 1042:( 1028:( 976:( 924:. 916:( 857:( 734:) 731:C 725:T 722:( 702:( 680:( 676:. 662:( 641:: 637:@ 625:( 605:( 577:( 540:( 520:( 495:( 454:( 423:( 399:( 377:( 359:( 341:( 305:— 292:( 278:( 274:W 270:S 256:( 201:( 179:( 157:) 154:C 148:T 145:( 93:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 2 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index