1168:
prevent the case from ever reaching here -- many admins, I think, are willing to admit they've botched something, as long as the person they're talking with isn't out for blood. Obviously, both people could be out for blood, but we at least increase the chances that the admin has had the opportunity to realistically admit fault and back down. Furthermore, it means that many of the lone trolls around here will be far less able to bring these requests frivolously -- you've got to get them agreeing, and it's been my experience that most of them don't play well together (with notable exceptions, of course).
236:
over onto this page, which should be solely for 'reviewing the actions of admins'. We should restrict ourselves here to discussions of the merits of lack thereof of the complaint or the action. A simple "this is without merit" does not do justice to even the most frivilous complaint. A one sentence explanation of an action does not seem to much to ask, and it does seem reasonale that, instead of simply saying that it is "good" that the questioned action took place, we should either keep our counsel, or contribute something more constructive.
1012:: there, I think its purpose was to prevent every petty conflict of egos from ending up on RfC. Both certifying users had to show evidence of failed attempts to resolve the conflict, thus demonstrating that the user whose conduct was disputed was, in fact, misbehaving. I don't know if it's necessary here: a simple demonstration, by one user, that a sysop misused his or her powers and ignored attempts at discussion, might be sufficient. Sysop-only powers are held to slightly stricter standards than ordinary editing actions, are they not?
350:
the certification requirement has improved things, in my opinion, and could be beneficial if applied here as well. Naturally, the easiest way to impose a certification requirement is probably to fold admin-related matters directly into the existing page where that requirement already exists. And though I'm not enthusiastic about the increased maintenance RfC might need, I am sympathetic to the view that admins are not fundamentally different from other users, and should not be given different treatment. --
21:
526:
administrator takes on a different tone than having it disagreed with by a regular user - simply put, no matter how nice and good the administrator is, the fact that they can block you if you edit war with them is always there. (Note: This is not some criticism that any of the administrators are irrational. To be honest, I can't think of an out-and-out bad administrator we have right now. It's just that, well, administrators have power, and that's one of the results of having power)
530:
administrator, general discussion. Secondly, I think this page should have a certification procedure, much like RfC. However, whereas RfC demands that the certifier also have raised the issue, I think here it should be sufficient that the certifier has looked at the articles and agrees that the actions of the administrator are questionable. If no one does this within 48 hours, the complaint is deleted. All certified complaints, however, should be archived.
534:
deletions and blocks, or through implicit means like forceful statements saying "Stop doing this." (Which can carry an unintended "or else" when they come from administrators) - to get people to look at the situation. The effect is that it becomes easier to get people to look at an admin's actions, without it becoming easier to punish the admin.
1136:, and automatically requesting review of their own administrative actions, AND desysoping. As I ALREADY stated, redirecting or CUTTING my request is NOT, repeat NOT a REVIEW of admin actions - but Wikipolice "maintanance" as usual. I therefore LEAVE WIKI having made my final point. - Good bye, and good riddance :O)
1159:
a considerable burden. The purpose should be to provide rapid review of admin actions by a broader slice of the community. Secondly, I would like to see the format move towards a resolution of the issue - ie does the policy support the action, if not what remedy is to be applied? As I said though - I like this.
296:
and really should be merged with it. I believe that the procedures at WP:RFC, such as requiring two users to "certify" a listing, would help prevent some of the abuses that have occured recently here. These include retaliatory listings and listings that appear to be unsupported by anyone other than
235:
I agree that the purpose of this page is to review admin actions and, if necessary, hold them accountable. I think that the "good", "doubleplusgood" etc comments undermine the credability of something that should be taken seriously. We should not let our personal feelings about the complainants spill
1158:
Basically I really like this. I have one small issue, and one larger one though. First off, I don't think that two users should need to have tried to resolve the issue. I think it should be enough for one user to have tried and failed. Asking that two do would not really provide much benefit, and be
450:
UninvitedCompany beat me to the answer. There's some inherent tension in the system here. On one hand, we try to keep adminship from becoming a status symbol, which for intellectual consistency demands that admins be treated the same as everyone else. On the other hand, admins have certain technical
349:
Well, I understood
UninvitedCompany's proposal to be that all matters should be on RfC, instead of having a separate page. But I certainly agree that people have been using this page a lot for what should be RfC user conduct disputes, if they can qualify. I don't know how closely you follow RfC, but
316:
As someone fairly involved in maintaining the RfC page, I'm currently agnostic about whether reviews of admin actions should be added there. UninvitedCompany makes an excellent point, however, about the usefulness of requiring "certification", which I think has helped cut down (though not eliminate)
1225:
I think for this page to build community rather than tear it down, there has to be some way to avoid retaliatory listings from individuals who list every admin that acts against them. Such listings have made this page essentially useless for substantive discussions of genuine problems, because few
493:
Not at all, for those admins who were aware this "higher" (one might as easily say "double") standard when they agreed to accept the position. But, with the strict exception of their admin powers, no such standard was stated, and to impose one now, particularly in the absence of consensus to do so,
533:
This is not a massively higher standard - this page should not be given the power to strip administrators of their status or anything like that. What it does do, however, is that it makes it easier for users who feel like administrators are pushing them around - whether through explicit means like
1240:
I do not feel I can support
UninvitedCompany's suggestion that we require admin sponsorship for a listing in place of the two-person requirement. Particularly since the issue here is allegations of improper conduct by admins, allowing only those complaints brought by other admins would promote in
1176:
I see where you are going with that, and wouldn't oppose the two person thing, it just that I think that in practice it would make legitimate claims more difficult and encourage sock puppet trolling for those with frivilous claims. I agree also that a less confrontational way of dealing with this
1167:
I agree with Mark in almost all of the above, except for his minor first point. We do have users here who communicate badly. Sometimes they may have a legitimate issue with an admin, but approach it in a hostile manner that prevents resolution. Requiring another person to talk to the admin may
521:
That said, a higher standard and continual aggravation are not the same thing. I think that what happened to this page yesterday, with a bunch of people putting specious requests for review that were motivated purely out of being mad about being brought to arbitration (again) needs to not happen.
401:
No. However, having a higher threshold to open a dispute discussion in the first place is not tantamount to a higher standard of review. I don't think it's too much to ask that the complaining party find someone else who agrees with their sentiments before bringing them to the whole community.
1246:
I recognize that requiring two users to certify a listing is not a complete barrier to frivolous complaints. There may be attempts to use sockpuppets for certification, and there may be instances where different users - all of them nuisances to the community - join forces to register a complaint
1210:
Just chiming in my support for using and enforcing this template for future complaints about admin actions (naturally, since it's based on the template Mav and I designed for RfC). I support the two-person requirement, which I don't think is that much of a burden. For non-frivolous complaints, I
999:
I like this in general, though perhaps we can discuss the particulars for a bit before implementing it. I'd like to see some more guidelines on what the second person on the complaint is actually doing: Are they agreeing with the complainant that the administrator abused sysop powers? Are they
1229:
I believe that the best way to do this would be to only allow new listings to be made by other administrators. If a non-administrator has a legitimate complaint, it should not be difficult for them to find a sympathetic administrator who would sponsor the listing. I beleive this would be more
517:
Forgive this for being long. I've been writing a
Masters thesis, and I forget how to be short. I think that administrators ought to be held to a higher standard, first of all - after all, the vote of the community that they would make a valuable administrator amounts to a vote that they already
144:
anyway. (I am not sure why there could ever be de-adminship issues without being misuse of admin privileges, but there you go. Now this page has been renamed
Requests for review of admin actions, which to my mind is a virtual synomyn of Possible misuses of admin privileges. Maybe they should be
646:
dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {{insert UTC timestamp}}), the page will be
1268:
For the purpose of the template, I would guess most sockpuppets will be transparent enough. Trying to develop a non-obvious sockpuppet for the purposes of making some future complaint about an admin would take too much time and effort for its creator, compared to the amount of disruption the
525:
However, I do think it's important that administrative actions be under closer watch - regardless of the attitude that admins are normal users. And I think that there's a case to be made that all administrator actions are, by their nature, administrative - having an edit disagreed with by an
529:
Accordingly, I think that this page should survive, but with some major changes to its format. First of all, submissions to it should have to ascribe to a format - name of administrator, name of complainant(s), actions in question, articles in question, comments by complainant, comments by
1189:
with an abusive administrator. I no longer trust this person to build consensus. I would ignore this person — as he says I am spamming and ranting — but as of today find it impossible. He deletes my communications to him, and additions to articles I hope to improve. I want someone
1131:
care to carry active editors in ludicrous "arbitrations" without trying to resolve dispute first, such complainants are heard and pampered viz. titillated. So they feel encouraged to "admin" even more in such masturbatory styles. Alas, they are also, by this very action,
327:
I think that there is value in putting disputes about admins using admin powers on a separate page. There is no value in putting complaints about user conduct by users who happen to be admins on this page. Which seems to be what has been happening lately.
317:
the pettiness there. Before I support consolidation, I would like to see opinions on one question - if we do consolidate, should we maintain a separate section for conduct related to admin privileges, or should all disputes be handled under one category? --
1080:
I would say, Rick, that if a complaint has gone 2 weeks without comment, it should be removed. That's personal opinion only, of course. The complaint remains in the page history - I don't know if there is any additional archiving being done.
1230:
constructive than the "two-user" rule, and I believe it would encourage more and better discussion of the few genunine problems we do have since the page as a whole would no longer have the highly polarized flamewars it presently entertains.
1251:
is one such case). But sockpuppets can be identified, and as for the second case, I believe the best solution is for the community to express its support for the admin and treat the illegitimate complaint with the contempt it deserves.
1214:
As for having the format move toward resolving the issue, I wholeheartedly agree with Mark, and encourage anyone to suggest ideas for this. If we can come up with anything good, it ought to be used for RfC pages too.
1177:
would be great. An admin would find it much easier to deal with 'could you check this please, I think it may benefit from a second glance' than 'I demand you be de-sysopped and banned for this crusade against me!'.
1241:
many minds the impression that admins are a cabal. While it might not be that difficult to find an admin to sponsor a legitimate complaint, I think it detracts from the appearance of fairness in the process.
954:
If we decide to use this format, I'd also like to use subpages for each complaint, for reasons of space and clarity; I don't especially care whether the subpages are linked to RfC or to this page (or both).
360:
Maybe if this page were renamed something using the phrase "Misuse of administrative power" to make clearer that this is not the place for article content disputes that have you mad at an administrator?
604:. Unsurprisingly, the page was nothing but a flamepit and was eventually replaced by RFC and the rest of the dispute resolution process, which turned out to be more effective (albeit not perfect).
518:
achieve a higher standard - the obligation is not to some previously unwritten set of rules, but to the community - one should continue to be worthy of the responsibility that one has been given.
468:
I think the place to hold admins to a higher standard is when considering how to view their conduct (and what discipline to apply, if it comes to that). Such a standard is primarily relevant
423:
Right. I think it might indirectly lead to a higher standard review actually, as presently valid signal might be lost amongst the great deal of noise that currently prevails on this page. -
547:
I agree - this might reduce the number of spurious harrassment claims, while providing assurance that real complaints will really be dealt with. We should also use this as a forum to review
1306:
I've redirected the page to RfC, adopted the new template there, and left this discussion (linked on the RfC talk page) for historical purposes. I hope people will find that acceptable. --
472:
the complaint has shown it has a legitimate basis. As a result, I don't think using different thresholds to "certify" a complaint does very much to create a higher standard of review. --
371:
As long as we have a separate page for admins, it will be a magnet for people who want to target admins. Especially if the threshold to keep a dispute open is lower than it is on RfC. --
1287:
639:
600:). That page resembled this one very closely: anyone could bitch about anyone else in whatever fashion they pleased, for whatever reason they chose; complaints lingered forever; and
216:, read up on him sometime. He has an unhealthy fixation on Hephaestos for reasons best known to Michael. He reappears sometimes, and is a bizarre chapter in Knowledge's history.
902:
This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy
61:
1125:? was removed. There is ABSOLUTELY NO place in public Wiki space where this can be put without it being immedately removed or redirected by wikipolice to some 'quarantaine
1322:
1202:
and find arbitrary editing decisions to be not beneficial to
Knowledge's goals. Is this template something I can use to deal with him? Or is it a work in progress? -
269:
It is elementary due process to give notice to the accused that their actions are under review. In the matter of
Stevertigo, not sure they even know they are listed.
190:
186:
160:
137:
37:
1248:
568:
1009:
614:
1145:
Fascinating as this is, I can't really understand what admin action you are asking folks to review. Can you clarify, or it will be removed from here too.
988:
If the summary is not to be signed, how is anyone else to know whether the author/s has/ve committed the sin of participating in further discussion? --
136:
The proliferation of admin pages did quite work out right somehow. When
Requests for adminship starting being overrun by DE-adminship stuff, I created
338:
In my opinion, administrators should be held to higher standards than ordinary users. Ergo, administrators need to be treated differently. --
292:
page for these matters. There is nothing special about admins that should warrant a different procedure for complaints. This page predates
83:
I refactored the page, Anthony reverted, I re-reverted. I deem that I have used up my self-imposed "one revert per day" quota for this page.
689:
141:
105:
451:
abilities that should only be used with good judgment and discretion, which suggests that we should hold admins to higher expectations.
1286:, and that we should use it; now the only questions are: When should we convert the page to this format, and should we continue using
653:: This page is for review of actions that are limited to use by administrators only, specifically these actions and their converses:
597:
246:
I have made an expanded response to Wik's claim in accordance with Mark's request that I believe was implied by other responders. -
923:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.
1211:
expect that some concerned individual will be willing to investigate the issue and certify along with the primary complainant.
642:, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the
1333:
555:
541:
502:
476:
431:
406:
388:
375:
365:
354:
342:
332:
321:
310:
301:
258:
240:
1291:
1058:
Posting a comment such as this disguised as a minor edit is unacceptable behavior. I dare to stand up against you any day.
572:
88:
If I took out too much sarcasm or nastiness, or otherwise misquoted you, please use the page diff to restore your remarks. --
592:
A bit of history is also instructive. When I arrived here, the only centralized place to discuss user conduct disputes was
927:{{Add summary here; It should NOT be signed. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}}
906:{{Add summary here; It should NOT be signed. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}}
711:{{Add summary here; It should NOT be signed. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}}
672:
789:
1260:
How can sockpuppets be identified? I agree that the most transparent cases can be, but what about more subtle ones?
1000:
fact-checking a statement of facts? Are they just saying they don't think the complaint is ridiculously trivial?
945:
signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.
163:
is about what to do if someone has abused their powers, while this page can just be the list of current problems.
825:
807:
499:
724:
685:
593:
47:
124:
97:
993:
745:
339:
182:
178:
1233:
971:
681:
403:
298:
20:
1321:
currently says that for "Evasion of blocks, abuse of admin tools, or other incidents" one should go to
1137:
538:
385:
362:
982:
495:
428:
766:
1330:
1261:
1178:
1160:
1146:
1092:
552:
237:
31:
1307:
1283:
1270:
1253:
1216:
1169:
1082:
989:
473:
372:
351:
318:
250:
217:
1194:
to watch him and his actions. I have been a contributor in good standing to
Knowledge since
968:
329:
307:
270:
167:
1063:
1035:
978:
424:
149:
1298:
1109:
1016:
959:
621:
42:
27:
293:
289:
281:
1326:
1318:
564:
255:
247:
213:
205:
113:
89:
76:
53:
1030:
How long does one of these complaints need to stay here before it gets deleted?
96:
I assume this whole page is a joke, anyway, so I'll let your re-reversion stand.
1203:
1046:
164:
1195:
1059:
1031:
1001:
146:
583:
policies can and does cut down on baseless complaints and unfocused whinging.
1295:
1106:
1013:
956:
618:
140:
to be what I thought was catch-all. Then someone decided there needed to be
567:
I think
Snowspinner's proposal has a great deal of merit. After some of my
522:
Irismeister, and, frankly, Mr. Natural-Health both had no real complaints.
204:
What is this? A proxy war of anti-H's? One for each new attempt? -
702:
This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct.
1199:
384:
Is having admins under a higher standard of review a bad thing?
232:
I am reposting this here, because I thin it is more relevant ;)
1099:
Arbitration and de-adminship. Proof of blatant double standards
123:
I know what it is, but neither page has accomplished anything.
1118:
109:
15:
865:
Users certifying the basis for this dispute (sign with ~~~~):
671:
other matters (such as edit wars and page moves) please see
575:
disputes, I found that a format that channels complaints to
1329:. Is there a consensus to re-target the redirect to ANI?
1288:
Knowledge:Requests for review of administrative actions
845:
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (
640:
Knowledge:Requests for review of administrative actions
613:
Therefore I have worked up a template (mostly based on
881:
Other users who endorse this dispute (sign with ~~~~):
551:, not vent about what we feel about a specific user.
1282:So everyone seems to agree that this template is a
62:
Knowledge talk:Requests for review of admin actions
617:) for this page, and I would like comments on it.
159:I think it makes sense to have them separate now.
145:merged. Here endeth the Knowledge history lesson.
1045:For as long as necessary until you get banned. --
930:Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
910:Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
1323:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
799:{{explain violation of protection policy here}}
191:Knowledge:Requests for review of admin actions
187:Knowledge:Possible misuses of admin privileges
161:Knowledge:Possible misuses of admin privileges
138:Knowledge:Possible misuses of admin privileges
38:Knowledge:Requests for review of admin actions
1091:Two weeks without activity seems reasonable.
835:{{explain violation of blocking policy here}}
817:{{explain violation of deletion policy here}}
306:Exactly - take this to Requests for Comment.
8:
1249:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Theresa Knott
1010:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Example user
615:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Example user
1247:against a blameless admin (in my opinion,
212:If you're unfamiliar with our old friend
1325:, yet this redirect currently points to
1290:, or should we link these disputes from
181:, so now I'm confused. Maybe I'll merge
75:Too many page moves...head hurting...
7:
1127:quarters. On the contrary, if admin
1026:Deleting items from the article page
41:Because this page is not frequently
142:Knowledge:Requests for de-adminship
106:Knowledge:Requests for de-adminship
104:Actually, it's the replacement for
45:, present and future discussions,
14:
598:Knowledge:Conflicts between users
1154:At least two people? Resolution?
1008:I yanked that bit straight from
734:{{list page or pages protected}}
19:
494:seems like bait-and-switch. --
177:But I just found there is also
1292:Knowledge:Requests for comment
776:{{list user or users blocked}}
755:{{list page or pages deleted}}
1:
638:In order to remain listed at
1269:complaint would generate. --
673:Knowledge:Dispute resolution
288:I believe we should use the
1334:22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
1104:(moved from project page by
967:This all looks good to me.
602:nothing meaningful was done
1349:
996:16:27, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
273:14:56, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
79:16:19, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
1310:20:06, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1303:18:44, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1278:Template: When and where?
1264:20:32, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1236:16:48, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1226:users take it seriously.
1219:00:02, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1185:I am finding myself in a
1181:20:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1163:14:44, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1095:02:02, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1068:04:28, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
1004:18:06, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
985:16:08, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
974:15:21, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
964:19:59, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
950:Comments on this template
208:22:23, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
170:22:23, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
100:14:10, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
1273:21:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1256:19:01, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1222:I support the template.
1172:16:47, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1149:17:07, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1140:14:27, 2004 Jun 11 (UTC)
1085:00:11, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
1040:23:36, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
1021:23:26, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
977:Looks good to me too. -
697:Statement of the dispute
626:19:57, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
556:19:48, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
542:15:00, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
503:22:43, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
477:22:04, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
432:21:48, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
407:21:44, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
389:21:29, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
376:21:19, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
366:21:09, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
355:21:06, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
343:06:53, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
333:20:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
322:20:37, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
311:19:29, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
302:19:00, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
259:16:48, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
241:16:31, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
220:22:25, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
152:14:35, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
127:14:28, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
116:14:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
92:13:53, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
1206:05:58, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
1049:23:54, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
847:provide diffs and links
594:Knowledge:Problem users
34:that targets the page:
183:Knowledge:De-adminship
179:Knowledge:De-adminship
265:Notice to the accused
193:can stay as the list.
57:should take place at:
1187:personality conflict
573:requests for comment
783:Applicable policies
297:the affected user.
56:
50:
790:Protection policy
633:Proposed template
68:
67:
52:
46:
1340:
1234:UninvitedCompany
404:UninvitedCompany
299:UninvitedCompany
253:
125:Anthony DiPierro
98:Anthony DiPierro
23:
16:
1348:
1347:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1316:
1314:redirect target
1280:
1156:
1101:
1028:
952:
947:
940:
920:
899:
826:Blocking policy
808:Deletion policy
785:
717:
699:
635:
596:(later renamed
515:
496:Finlay McWalter
286:
267:
251:
230:
202:
110:what links here
73:
54:requested moves
12:
11:
5:
1346:
1344:
1315:
1312:
1279:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1258:
1257:
1243:
1242:
1208:
1207:
1174:
1173:
1155:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1100:
1097:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1051:
1050:
1027:
1024:
1023:
1022:
951:
948:
939:
936:
935:
934:
919:
916:
915:
914:
909:
898:
895:
893:
891:
890:
889:
888:
883:
882:
877:
875:
874:
873:
872:
867:
866:
861:
859:
858:
857:
856:
851:
850:
841:
839:
838:
837:
836:
830:
829:
821:
820:
819:
818:
812:
811:
803:
802:
801:
800:
794:
793:
784:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
771:
770:
759:
758:
757:
756:
750:
749:
738:
737:
736:
735:
729:
728:
716:
715:Powers misused
713:
709:
708:
698:
695:
694:
693:
677:
665:
664:
663:blocking users
661:
658:
636:
634:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
608:
607:
606:
605:
587:
586:
585:
584:
579:violations of
559:
558:
514:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
394:
393:
392:
391:
379:
378:
358:
357:
346:
345:
325:
324:
285:
278:
276:
266:
263:
262:
261:
229:
226:
224:
222:
221:
201:
198:
197:
196:
195:
194:
172:
171:
156:
155:
154:
153:
131:
130:
129:
128:
118:
117:
94:
93:
85:
84:
72:
69:
66:
65:
58:
40:
35:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1345:
1336:
1335:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1313:
1311:
1309:
1304:
1302:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1277:
1272:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1263:
1262:Mark Richards
1255:
1250:
1245:
1244:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1220:
1218:
1212:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1188:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1180:
1179:Mark Richards
1171:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1162:
1161:Mark Richards
1153:
1148:
1147:Mark Richards
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1139:
1133:
1128:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1115:
1113:
1112:
1108:
1105:
1098:
1096:
1094:
1093:Mark Richards
1084:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1069:
1067:
1066:
1061:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1039:
1038:
1033:
1025:
1020:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1003:
997:
995:
991:
986:
984:
980:
975:
973:
970:
965:
963:
962:
958:
949:
946:
944:
937:
933:
932:
931:
928:
925:
924:
917:
913:
912:
911:
907:
904:
903:
896:
894:
887:
886:
885:
884:
880:
879:
878:
871:
870:
869:
868:
864:
863:
862:
855:
854:
853:
852:
848:
844:
843:
842:
834:
833:
832:
831:
828:
827:
823:
822:
816:
815:
814:
813:
810:
809:
805:
804:
798:
797:
796:
795:
792:
791:
787:
786:
782:
775:
774:
773:
772:
768:
764:
761:
760:
754:
753:
752:
751:
747:
743:
740:
739:
733:
732:
731:
730:
726:
722:
719:
718:
714:
712:
706:
705:
704:
703:
696:
691:
690:contributions
687:
683:
682:Example sysop
679:
678:
676:
674:
670:
662:
659:
656:
655:
654:
652:
648:
645:
641:
632:
625:
624:
620:
616:
612:
611:
610:
609:
603:
599:
595:
591:
590:
589:
588:
582:
578:
574:
570:
566:
563:
562:
561:
560:
557:
554:
553:Mark Richards
550:
546:
545:
544:
543:
540:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
512:
504:
501:
497:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
478:
475:
471:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
433:
430:
426:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
408:
405:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
390:
387:
383:
382:
381:
380:
377:
374:
370:
369:
368:
367:
364:
356:
353:
348:
347:
344:
341:
337:
336:
335:
334:
331:
323:
320:
315:
314:
313:
312:
309:
304:
303:
300:
295:
291:
283:
279:
277:
274:
272:
264:
260:
257:
254:
249:
245:
244:
243:
242:
239:
238:Mark Richards
233:
227:
225:
219:
215:
211:
210:
209:
207:
199:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
175:
174:
173:
169:
166:
162:
158:
157:
151:
148:
143:
139:
135:
134:
133:
132:
126:
122:
121:
120:
119:
115:
111:
107:
103:
102:
101:
99:
91:
87:
86:
82:
81:
80:
78:
70:
64:
63:
55:
49:
48:edit requests
44:
39:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1317:
1308:Michael Snow
1305:
1299:
1281:
1271:Michael Snow
1259:
1254:Michael Snow
1232:
1228:
1224:
1221:
1217:Michael Snow
1213:
1209:
1191:
1186:
1175:
1170:Jwrosenzweig
1157:
1135:
1130:
1129:complainants
1126:
1120:
1119:
1116:
1110:
1103:
1102:
1090:
1083:Jwrosenzweig
1065:
1062:
1037:
1034:
1029:
1017:
998:
987:
976:
966:
960:
953:
942:
941:
929:
926:
922:
921:
918:Outside view
908:
905:
901:
900:
892:
876:
860:
846:
840:
824:
806:
788:
762:
741:
720:
710:
707:Description:
701:
700:
668:
666:
650:
649:
643:
637:
622:
601:
580:
576:
548:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
474:Michael Snow
469:
373:Michael Snow
359:
352:Michael Snow
326:
319:Michael Snow
305:
287:
275:
268:
234:
231:
223:
218:Jwrosenzweig
203:
95:
74:
60:
26:This is the
1138:irismeister
651:Please note
569:experiences
539:Snowspinner
386:Snowspinner
363:Snowspinner
271:Fred Bauder
228:Seriousness
1284:Good Thing
1196:November 1
979:Hephaestos
938:Discussion
721:Protection
657:protection
513:A proposal
425:Hephaestos
340:John Gohde
147:Pete/Pcb21
1192:higher up
647:deleted.
537:Thoughs?
200:Proxy war
28:talk page
1331:betafive
1134:de facto
1117:Request
897:Response
763:Blocking
742:Deletion
660:deletion
581:specific
577:specific
284:instead?
114:Uncle Ed
90:Uncle Ed
77:→Raul654
71:Untitled
32:redirect
1296:—No-One
1107:—No-One
1014:—No-One
957:—No-One
619:—No-One
549:actions
214:Michael
206:Texture
43:watched
1204:Sparky
1047:Cantus
294:WP:RFC
290:WP:RFC
282:WP:RFC
189:, and
165:Angela
150:(talk)
1327:WP:AN
1319:WP:AN
1300:Jones
1111:Jones
1018:Jones
1002:moink
961:Jones
623:Jones
470:after
185:with
112:). --
108:(see
30:of a
1200:2003
1121:here
1060:Rick
1032:Rick
994:Talk
990:Phil
969:john
686:talk
667:For
644:same
565:AOL!
500:Talk
330:john
308:john
280:Use
51:and
943:All
767:log
746:log
725:log
669:all
571:on
256:urε
248:Tεx
59:•
36:•
1294:?
1252:--
1215:--
1198:,
1114:)
992:|
769:):
748:):
727:):
688:|
684:|
675:.
498:|
1064:K
1036:K
983:§
981:|
972:k
849:)
765:(
744:(
723:(
692:)
680:(
429:§
427:|
252:τ
168:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
