599:, and to those opposing him on the grounds that he has not participated enough in the Knowledge namespace: Don't forget that we are above all an encyclopaedia, not a political experiment. What does it matter if he doesn't know all the intricacies of the system? He's good at what he does, and having admin tools would make him more efficient. That's it. We're not here to judge whether he's going to be a major player in the Knowledge namespace, we're here to judge whether he can be trusted to use these tools. And I believe he can.
836:
1931:- edit summary usage doesn't really bother me, and while I don't normally like to see candidates responding to every opposer, your responses have been quite fair so far. However, for someone who wishes to work with CAT:CSD, your rate of warning people has been rather low. I'm honestly leaning towards support at this point, as I've always seen you doing great work otherwise, so if you could clear this up, I'd be grateful.
765:- edit summaries are easy to fix and when people create articles saying "FatBoy last night stole his Mum's credit card to pay for porn and his girlfriend is a slut who likes cock more than she does food" - sorry for the crudeness, but I have seen all of that and worse on NP patrol - then there is zero point in wasting your time giving out these deletion templates. Looks like a good editor who is willing to learn more.
726:
1572:- Not enough experience in wikispace. And as a deletionist, I'm a believer in the process, which means if we delete something we HAVE to notify the author that it's up for deletion. I've mucked it up myself, but then again, I'm not running for admin, and with the reservations of others about experience, Wikispace edits, and WPtalk edits all motivate me to reluctantly but firmly oppose. --
2165:. Article-space contributions look good, but Knowledge-space edits are seriously low for 3500+ edits. Unless you are some sort of Knowledge-space prodigy, merely observing the backlogs that will need to be tended to on becoming an admin is certainly not enough preparation! I have no other concerns, so I'd certainly expect to support in the future. --
163:, and would be prepared to close discussions there, although in the event of it being difficult to assess consensus I might well, while gaining experience, seek the advice of a longer-serving admin. I would also like to spend some time in reducing the other backlogs, some of which are extremely long. An important page to watch is
1214:
I have something over 3,000 edits. I know not where your figure of 107 comes from, unless that is the number of complete, original articles, where it may be correct. If so, it does not include a very large number of additions to pre-existing articles, not to talk pages, nor does it include tagging of
1156:
Individual !voters' time-on-site guidelines vary from 3 months to a year or more. I've heard of 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, but 8 months is a new one for me and I don't think we can fault the candidate either for being unfamiliar with one user's guideline or not waiting another week in deference to
1467:
indicates a certain level of unfamiliarity with
Knowledge -- as you said, they're vanity pages, like so many other speedy candidates -- which, if nothing else, indicates that those users did not understand at least one major guideline. Being able to write an article competently is not a skill unique
2084:
per all of above. Knowledge space contributions are too low. I think someone else said somewhere, great article contributors are needed, but adminship won't usually help them. If someone can contribute to articles, but doesn't know ins and outs of policy, I'm not sure how this user can work well in
154:
Gradually, since becoming a part of the
Knowledge Community, I have become increasingly focussed on maintaining the purity of our encyclopedia, which is the desired end-result of the vast majority of editors but is threatened by a small minority of vandals, and to a lesser extent by inexperienced
1948:
I do warn many people, often with a free text comment as well as a standard template. I sometimes do not warn users who submit edits which are obviously totally frivolous or inane, on the basis that it appears that they are not intending to take wikipedia seriously. I believe that I always warn
1255:
trust
Anthony despite his lack on participation in those areas. When I wrote the nomination I didn't have this issue in mind, but as I mentioned, I'm confident that if he is called upon to make an admin decision in an area he isn't familiar with, he'll do whatever research and ask for whatever
155:
users who commit what might be seen as acts of vandalism accidentally. I would anticipate warning the vandals, or blocking them if they have reached their tolerance limit, and helping the serious but inexperienced users. I expect, therefore, if given the tools, to spend a lot of time working in
1602:
lack of edit summary, lack of notification to authors of articles tagged for speedy deletion and other points raised in oppose section show a tendency to cut corners and absent-mindedly omit policies and guidelines he feels are not right or too time-consuming. Those should be addressed before
99:
I think two things are important about
Anthony with respect to adminship. He is enthusiastic about dealing with new editors, whether that means Newpages Patrolling and vandalism control on the one hand, or welcoming them on the other. And while he uses the template messages well, he frequently
939:
as a shared knowledge resource, willingness to assist others (including adopting, new page patrolling and battling vandalism) sometimes in the face of offensive personal attacks, range and depth of contributions, including significant expansion of the
Victorian battleships section. Good luck!
1424:
the newbies, and can go a long way to reducing both the subsequent anger at seeing one's article removed, and the future creation of inappropriate articles. If you don't do this as a normal users on new page patrol, I can't be comfortable that you will do it as an administrator. Sorry.
262:
Certainly. I accept the point, and recognise that when working on newpage patrol, particularly at busy times of the day, I have sometimes had a tendency to go straight to "save" so as to get back to the newpages. But it is accidental, and occasional, and I always rebuke myself at the
1190:
Images yet, and I find it hard to trust someone in an area where he may work with adminship tools, when he has no prior experience of it himself. Literally only 1 edit to the Image namespace, 0 to the template and 0 to the category namespace. I can't trust someone with absolutely
83:
for
Knowledge and for other editors. Since then, that respect has manifested as a dedication to the project, as he's logged more than 3000 edits, mostly to articles and user talk pages. Anthony is most notably the author of many articles on Victorian ironclad batleships such as
1958:
Understood, and thanks for responding. Sadly I still feel unable to support, and I believe that, should this RfA not succeed, you will make a much stronger candidate given a few more months' experience under your belt. I would be happy to support at a later date. All the best,
1181:
Falls short of my criteria in
Knowledge namespace, only 107 edits my indicate a lack of experience in communication with the community in key aspects like AFD and other participation in other Knowledge namespace areas. Edit summary usage is generally low, as stated above.
1419:
messages from other users, let alone been welcomed - so it's important that, when nominating the articles they create for deletion, you take the time to first welcome them to
Knowledge and then explain what is being done to their article. This avoids inadvertently
228:
tag was placed (once by me, once by another editor) and I then took no further part in the discussion; specifically because I felt that a talk-page argument or an edit war would be wholly counter-productive. Obviously, vandals have objected to their articles being
522:. I have found Tony to be a very helpful and affable fellow in all of my encounters with him. I enthusiastically support his RFA mainly because his attitude and demeanor are so positive---he wants only to improve Knowledge, and I haven't any doubt of that. ---
1348:
Chacor, I'm not sure how you intended this last, but it comes off as very petty sniping at the candidate. Many contributors (myself included) can't do fancy wiki-markup to save their lives, and I haven't seen it stopping anyone from doing good useful work.
1873:. I feel that the candidate is an outstanding editor. However, some more experience in admin-related areas would go a long way toward giving the community confidence in him having the tools. Particularly, the candidate should address accusations of
980:, a very promising editor, with a strong knowledge in his field of expertise. To those that object to his nomination on the grounds of wikispace, please keep in mind that our first duty is to right an encyclopedia, and that the rest is sencondary.--
1300:
I was referring to your reply to Moe, where you say that "I know not where your figure of 107 comes from, unless that is the number of complete, original articles, where it may be correct." when he's clearly referred to the
Knowledge namespace. –
1215:
other editors' articles. I accept your comments about images, where I have a weakness, though not, I submit, in recognition of wiki policy breaches - an area which, as a non-admin, i have had no opportunity to demonstrate competence.--
195:
One contribution which I felt very deeply about, but which deals with an emotional and subjective issue, and furthermore was on a talk-page, is a small collection comments which I have posted on the discussion page of the article on
1472:
article for deletion, you inform the creator of both the action and your reason for doing so: at its most basic level, it's a simple courtesy, but when dealing with users who patently don't understand principles like
223:
tag on an article, the article being perfectly seriously written but in my view qualifying for tagging and the original editor has removed the tag and sent quite long comments to my talk page. On both occasions an
1232:. That is your edit count for the Knowledge namespace. I feel you should just get some experience editing Categories, Templates and Images before becoming an admin. I didn't say you breached any policies, but you
2026:
The low number of
Knowledge talk edits is a major concern for me. However your contributions to the other areas of this project is noted. Thus, I feel that you do not deserve an oppose opinion because of this.
1454:
Both the Dave Cunning and Kelly Clark pages were, in my opinion, vanity pages, and both were competently written, which indicated to me (perhaps incorrectly), that their creators were familiar with Knowledge.--
167:, which currently stands at ten requests. While most blocks are intentional, some are accidental, and it is important to unblock innocent editors as soon as possible If my nomination succeeds I will also place
1338:
I do not, perhaps, if you say so, know how correctly to format comments on an RFA. I know only that, if allowed, I will do my utmost to preserve our encyclopedia in the form that we would like to see it.
615:: Once again, a good editor is in danger of being rejected because he actually creates and edits articles. A small number of edits in the Knowledge namespace doesn't equal inexperience with AfD, AIV etc.
257:
Will you agree to address the issue raised below concerning your edit summary usage by adjusting your Preferences so as to automatically prompt for a summary when you inadvertently fail to provide one?
1375:, you don't appear to take a thorough enough approach to deletion in general - or, more specifically, explaining it to newbies. For instance, in just the last few days you nominated the articles
492:
despite Knowledge namespace gaffe. Anyone who has been vandalized 38 times is probably doing something right. Edit counts are OK. Lack of namespace count just means he ws contributing elsewhere.
171:
on my watch-list and closely monitor it. While these would be my main areas of activity, I would be prepared to undertake any other admin activity requested, which I felt competent to do.
1809:
per Radiant, Xoloz, etc. We don't need unexperienced admins who learn their craft by blocking the more experienced editors, as have been done recently. Better be safe than sorry. --
184:
There is no single article which qualifies here, but I have produced a long series of articles about British ironclad battleships of the Victorian era; starting from the article on
100:
follows up with his own specific comments, making himself a more effective communicator. Second, while he is confident about carrying out the processes he understands well, such as
210:
Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
276:
1949:
account-holders, and I certainly would plan on warning serious newcomers. If there is a record of my not doing so, that is a failing on my part; but not an intentional one.--
1637:
Criteria may have been the wrong word. In short I usally look for 9 months participation with wikipedia as well as experience within the image namespace. This is more of a
2010:. You would have had my strong support had you had a higher wikipedia space count, but I feel that it is too important to be overlooked. Even in an otherwise strong editor.
1971:
1953:
781:
1246:
1219:
1161:
1501:
1458:
1151:
1142:
200:. The posts were made to counter certain assertions made by holocaust-deniers, and relate to an issue about which I feel strongly. But, as I say, it is an emotional issue.
1586:
1463:
I'm kicking myself for not taking down the names of the creators of those pages, since they've now been deleted (damnit). Nevertheless, the fact that those were created
512:
267:
526:
1801:
1706:
1689:
1343:
1333:
1317:
1308:
1295:
581:
566:
468:
2157:
1817:
1665:
1649:
1632:
1209:
1017:
972:
748:
1862:
1722:
1564:
1449:
794:
740:
694:
481:
2076:
1677:
1594:
1260:
1115:
1029:
899:
554:
2125:
2101:
1943:
1923:
1789:
1767:
1698:
1607:
1545:
1005:
644:
504:
495:
128:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
1881:
1533:
993:
956:
944:
865:
591:
387:
2199:
1833:
1282:
825:
806:
769:
538:
400:
2174:
2145:
2089:
2064:
1750:
1734:
1623:
665:
607:
335:
2226:
2040:
1225:
1196:
1097:
1045:
714:
682:
375:
299:
2018:
1829:
when Anthony was prodding a village stub from India within 12 minutes of the article being started. His reply to me was straightforward and courteous though.
1797:
per above, primarily due to lack of experience in the WP namespace. I would probably support once the applicant gains more experience in the WP namespace. --
984:
839:
757:
1847:
753:
Sensible-seeming fellow, who I'm confident will help out where he can and tread cautiously where he lacks experience. And lord knows we need the manpower. --
451:
429:
410:
324:
1353:
722:— I see nothing that worries me, He seems knowledgeable and respectable, never ran in to him but I've seen him around and he seems to be a fine contributor
347:
1877:
and (as he's already done) try to use those edit summaries. Will gladly support in a few more months and with some more edits in the Knowledge namespace. —
821:
737:
104:, he is cautious and seeks out advice when approaching new tasks. I have no doubt that Anthony can be trusted to use the admin tools carefully and wisely.
2211:
1106:
882:
874:
360:
93:
1120:
By "RFA risks", I was stating that I will, at most times, support admin candidates who have been on Knowledge for exactly eight months or more. --Slgr
1538:
Anthony is a well-intended and constructive user, but if he is to adjudicate process it would help if he had some more experience with it first. (
1083:
192:. When I started, it seemed to me to be a significant part of Britain's naval history which wikipedia should be covering, but at the time was not.
816:
1415:
that you'd prodded their article, but one out of all those really isn't enough. Each of these users was new to Knowledge - most hadn't received
802:. After considering the nomination, looking at the record, and balancing the concerns below, I'm confident this nominee will make a good admin.
108:
1878:
1603:
joining adminship from a behavior and mindset point of view, not through a change in editing interface forcing an edit summary to be entered.
239:
tagged, and have vandalised my talk page (36 times to date), but these are not, in my view, true conflicts in the sense meant by this question.
1901:
814:- Anthony is a very measured user so I don't think he will start making any adventurous use of the tools in areas where he is not familiar.
2244:
831:
1103:
357:
344:
1615:- falls just short of all my criteria, but just a little. Would most likly support in a month, although would suggest waiting two. --
1477:, it both offers them a chance to learn from it, and prevents the development of anger towards Knowledge and Wikipedians in general.
1759:
sounded quite similar to a long-standing Xolozian formulation. Such plagiarism is, I think it quite plain, grounds for immediate
1714:
yikes the wikispace isn't making me pleased...however if you work on in the next couple of months I will be glad to Support you.__
1983:
The concerns with experience and warning users about proposed deletions worry me but otherwise a good editor therefore: neutral.
148:
690:- less experienced than some, but a good thoughtful editor. He will make good use of the admin tools on rc patrol and cleanup.
188:, which already existed, I worked through the complete series, except for two or three pre-existing articles, to the end of the
1760:
72:
2109:
Although I am very confident with you having the tools, I would recommend you earn a little more experience. All the best. ←
1411:
were marked for speedy deletion, and neither creator was told about it. To be fair, you took the time to tell the creator of
894:
295:
1493:
1441:
562:
I come across this editor all the time on new page patrol; their usage of the admin tools would only enhance the project.
743:
1918:
890:
860:
2137:
159:. I note that, as of this moment, the speedy-delete backlog is 61 articles. I will also be keeping a close watch on
1137:
1078:
637:
30:
17:
1628:
I know that I should really not join in too much here, but could you possibly stipulate what your criteria are?--
1147:
My first article was, I concede, submitted on April 2, which falls short of your parameter by just over a week.--
915:
edits, as well as numerous cleanup duties such as article tagging. In my opinion Tony (Anthony) seems to deserve
140:
1061:
per edit summary performance (79% major/40% minor) and for taking RFA risks less than two weeks too soon. --Slgr
181:
Of your articles or contributions to Knowledge, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
1999:
1271:
Because my neutral somehow got through w/out me seeing this reply from Anthony, I'm afraid I have to change to
1468:
to Knowledge, so you need to consider that as well. In the future, it would be preferable if, when nominating
1199:). Edit count isn't important enough for it to matter here, but it's generally a little low for my standards.
2136:
One other little teeny thing is that you might try to be a little calmer during vandal attacks than you were
1825:
reluctantly per Daveydweeb's comments about handling newbies' new pages. My own example was 3 weeks ago on
678:
197:
1894:
Neutral. Agree about lack of WP-space edits. On the plus side, article writer and have seen him around. –
574:- Qualified contributor, and is an excellent Wikipedian - met him on RC patrol, reverting vandalism. –-
2225:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
136:
89:
66:
396:
Sorry, I've been away! Thanksgiving, family and so forth. You can count this slot as my support vote.
1481:
1429:
546:
an excellent, dedicated contributor. I disagree with the suggestion that one must have experience in
213:
I have not been directly involved in any conflicts. There have been two occasions where I have put a
1408:
1157:
it. See my question above for a possible way the candidate could address the edit summary concern.
853:
563:
459:
144:
47:
1380:
970:
1966:
1938:
1912:. Sorry, but 7 Knowledge talk edits is too low for my taste. You need more policy discussion. -
1183:
1037:
No compelling reasons to oppose. Lots of nitpicking oppose votes don't cancel the positives. --
790:
1412:
2072:, recommend familiarisation with project-space pages, perhaps come back in a month or two. -
1950:
1815:
1629:
1553:. Insufficient project-space participation suggests lack of familiarity with wiki-process. -
1455:
1340:
1314:
1292:
1241:
1216:
1204:
1148:
1112:
1057:
Although his editcount is steady enough as it now stands, I don't think he's ready just yet.
885:
370:
291:
273:
264:
62:
873:, looks good. Just needs more edits in the Knowledge namespace, when he becomes an admin. --
2194:
2185:
for me. Will support Dr. B in future with a little more experience in avoiding incivility.
2154:
1987:
1746:
1720:
1560:
1397:
1133:
1074:
908:
629:
523:
2134:: Like others have said, I think a bit more experience in the WP namespace would be good.
8:
2170:
2058:
2029:
1376:
1322:
I understand. You might want to learn how to format comments in an RFA though, Dr. Tony
1288:
1121:
1062:
923:
877:
587:
1404:
2073:
2038:
1995:
1785:
1757:
insufficient project-space participation suggests lack of familiarity with wiki-process
1539:
1236:
lack enough knowledge to make a correct decision given your weakness in editing there.
1014:
965:
474:
2110:
2098:
2014:
1961:
1933:
1798:
1763:. I tremble to think what might have befallen us had we made Crz a bureaucrat... :)
1686:
786:
778:
691:
659:
600:
1898:
1810:
1662:
1579:
1330:
1305:
1279:
1158:
1042:
1026:
927:
709:
551:
384:
247:
76:
1313:
Yes. It's very late here (after 2 a.m.) and I misread it. Inexcusable, possibly.--
1025:
A good communicator, regular contributor who has shown a good mix of involvement.
2186:
1741:
1715:
1685:
per lack of project participation and concern over answers to some oppose votes.
1646:
1620:
1555:
1486:
1478:
1434:
1426:
1129:
1070:
1002:
916:
621:
233:
217:
85:
1111:
I'm sorry: I am more than willing to answer questions, but what are RfA risks?--
2166:
2142:
2086:
2050:
1874:
1843:
1674:
1574:
1421:
1093:
990:
953:
941:
848:
576:
2219:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
2238:
2034:
1991:
1781:
1764:
1604:
1474:
1387:
1257:
920:
912:
803:
766:
535:
397:
353:
168:
160:
105:
101:
1102:
Also, remember that edit summaries aren't the biggest thing in the world...
835:
2011:
1913:
1514:
653:
332:
1895:
1830:
1327:
1302:
1276:
1038:
703:
702:
Helpful, courteous, and seems to be a wonderful candidate for adminship.
674:
381:
120:
I accept the nomination and thank my nominator for his confidence in me.
1195:
experience in the half of namespaces here (as indicated by his stats on
380:
I agree, if the nominator does not add his own support then so be it. –
1731:
1642:
1616:
1350:
981:
754:
494:
Seemed to remain calm and civil despite possible troll back in October.
365:
Maybe you should tell him on his talk page so he can add his own name?
1730:
Crz read my mind -- insufficent wiki-process experience at this time.
2229:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
1089:
936:
321:
1001:
This user is very capable of using the tools, great vandal-fighter.
2208:
1826:
1372:
1275:. If you don't even know about the Knowledge namespace... yikes. –
135:
What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out
2182:. Has excellent potential, but a bit too soon after this exchange
164:
156:
964:
Seeams good and comments in "Oppose" makes no a seriously sense.
2183:
673:
A good editor how seems to focus on the encyclopedia proper.--
534:. He does the right thing by Knowledge everytime. Good luck!
115:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
1251:
I think your viewpoint is very reasonable, but personally I
1513:- Not enough wikispace edits or CSD/Prod knowledge for me.
1013:
Inexperience is secondary to desire to improve Knowledge.
225:
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
1776:
dislike the interrogating of people on the oppose side.
1716:
1197:
Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/Anthony.bradbury
1371:. As much as we desperately need additional hands at
638:
630:
622:
616:
96:
Anthony reflect a civil and productive-minded tone.
550:area of the project to be qualified for adminship.
1228:, specifically the first box and next to the word
1739:No, Xoloz, Crz committed an act of plagiarism. -
2236:
2140:(no offense taken, mind you, just a suggestion).
58:(36/21/14) Ended Thu, 30 Nov 2006 02:49:59 (UTC)
75:) – I welcomed Anthony in April after he wrote
503:02:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Switch to oppose
1842:per lack of project experience, and apparent
1697:Needs more experience in admin related areas.
1403:tag on the creators' talk pages. Similarly,
1846:even though it may be inadvertant. Sorry.
356:'s presumed support (he's the nominator).
79:, and I was immediately impressed by his
2153:Looks all good except the experience. ~
1256:guidance is necessary -- and then some!
2048:per inexperience in the project-space.
1088:RfA risks? not sure I understand that.
14:
2237:
777:It's time we got over namespace-itis.
723:
2245:Unsuccessful requests for adminship
473:Solid contributor - no hesitation.
23:
1291:. I merely did not so stipulate.--
652:good, sensible user. Good luck! --
24:
2256:
1587:
1575:
952:No compelling reasons to oppose.
935:For commitment to the ideals of
919:functions to benefit him in his
834:
830:Unlikely to abuse admin tools.--
724:
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
2111:
588:
272:Preference reset as promised.--
141:Category:Administrative backlog
1580:
1573:
1242:
1205:
475:
371:
298:. For the edit count, see the
13:
1:
2212:01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
2200:07:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
2195:
2191:
2187:
2175:06:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
2158:05:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
2146:22:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
2126:14:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
2102:04:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
2090:00:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
2085:their capacity as an admin. -
2077:19:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
2065:02:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
2041:20:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
2019:09:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1972:11:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1954:10:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1944:04:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1924:03:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1902:01:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1882:22:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
1863:20:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
1856:
1834:16:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
1818:08:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
1802:01:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
1790:20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
1768:06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1751:12:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
1735:18:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
1723:18:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
1707:16:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
1690:13:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
1678:21:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
1666:20:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
1650:17:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
1633:18:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
1624:18:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
1608:05:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
1595:00:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
1565:21:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1546:10:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1534:05:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1502:00:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
1459:11:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1450:03:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1354:18:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1344:02:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1334:02:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1318:02:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1309:02:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1296:01:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1283:01:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1261:09:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1247:01:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1220:01:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1210:01:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1186:show that he hasn't uploaded
1162:03:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1152:00:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1143:00:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1116:00:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1107:00:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1098:00:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1084:00:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1046:01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
1030:15:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
1018:21:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
1006:15:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
994:13:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
985:14:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
973:13:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
957:11:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
945:10:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
900:03:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
878:
866:23:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
840:23:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
826:23:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
807:20:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
795:20:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
782:
770:19:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
758:18:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
749:16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
732:
715:16:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
708:
704:
695:15:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
683:14:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
666:13:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
645:11:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
608:10:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
592:07:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
582:
567:05:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
555:03:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
539:03:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
527:02:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
513:16:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
482:01:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
469:03:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
462:
444:20:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
438:
425:00:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
419:
401:08:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
388:01:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
376:01:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
361:00:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
348:00:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
336:00:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
325:23:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
277:22:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
268:11:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
109:03:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
1639:postpone support till latter
577:
198:Auschwitz concentration camp
149:administrators' reading list
7:
1849:
710:
453:
450:per demonstrated civility.
431:
412:
294:'s edit summary usage with
124:Questions for the candidate
10:
2261:
143:, and read the page about
137:Category:Knowledge backlog
2222:Please do not modify it.
1661:for reasons given here.
1393:, but did not place the
343:Looks like a good user.
40:Please do not modify it.
1673:per all of the above.
907:: overall seems a good
1409:Mordechai Yosef Leiner
446:Vote switched back to
1755:Yeah, I sure thought
1641:then a true oppose --
31:request for adminship
1381:Kelly clark attorney
428:Switched to Oppose
586:
2128:
2119:
2016:
2004:
1990:comment added by
1922:
1749:
1592:
1563:
1499:
1447:
1413:Harry Monroe Kemp
1141:
1096:
1082:
793:
747:
575:
409:I see no issues.
2252:
2224:
2197:
2193:
2189:
2143:Heimstern Läufer
2124:
2122:
2117:
2061:
2056:
2053:
2037:
2032:
2015:
2003:
1984:
1970:
1951:Anthony.bradbury
1942:
1916:
1858:
1851:
1840:Switch to Oppose
1813:
1788:
1745:
1718:
1703:
1702::) Dlohcierekim
1695:switch to Oppose
1630:Anthony.bradbury
1593:
1591:
1589:
1584:
1577:
1559:
1542:
1530:
1528:
1526:
1524:
1490:
1484:
1456:Anthony.bradbury
1438:
1432:
1402:
1396:
1392:
1386:
1341:Anthony.bradbury
1315:Anthony.bradbury
1293:Anthony.bradbury
1244:
1217:Anthony.bradbury
1207:
1149:Anthony.bradbury
1127:
1124:
1113:Anthony.bradbury
1092:
1068:
1065:
968:
928:User:Anthony_cfc
911:. Has made vast
880:
858:
838:
789:
784:
746:
731:
729:
728:
727:
713:
711:
706:
662:
656:
642:
634:
626:
620:
605:
589:
584:
579:
509:
508::) Dlohcierekim
500:
499::) Dlohcierekim
479:
464:
455:
440:
433:
421:
414:
373:
292:Anthony.bradbury
285:General comments
274:Anthony.bradbury
265:Anthony.bradbury
238:
232:
222:
216:
77:Zone of immunity
63:Anthony.bradbury
49:Anthony.bradbury
42:
2260:
2259:
2255:
2254:
2253:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2227:this nomination
2220:
2155:trialsanderrors
2097:per Nishkid64.
2059:
2054:
2051:
2030:
2028:
1985:
1960:
1932:
1921:
1811:
1780:
1701:
1540:
1522:
1520:
1518:
1516:
1498:
1482:
1446:
1430:
1400:
1394:
1390:
1384:
1224:107 comes from
1122:
1063:
966:
898:
854:
791:(Упражнение В!)
744:52278 Alpha 771
738:Fenton, Matthew
725:
681:
660:
654:
618:Kind Regards -
601:
507:
498:
236:
230:
220:
214:
86:HMS Hero (1885)
52:
38:
35:did not succeed
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2258:
2248:
2247:
2232:
2231:
2215:
2214:
2202:
2177:
2160:
2151:Future Support
2148:
2129:
2104:
2092:
2079:
2067:
2043:
2021:
2005:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1926:
1917:
1906:
1905:
1885:
1884:
1868:
1867:
1866:
1820:
1804:
1792:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1725:
1709:
1692:
1680:
1668:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1610:
1597:
1567:
1548:
1536:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1492:
1440:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1346:
1325:
1287:I am aware of
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1049:
1048:
1032:
1020:
1008:
996:
987:
975:
959:
947:
930:
913:anti-vandalism
902:
888:
868:
862:Editor Review!
842:
828:
809:
797:
772:
760:
751:
717:
697:
685:
677:
668:
647:
610:
594:
569:
564:(aeropagitica)
557:
541:
529:
517:
516:
515:
471:
403:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
363:
338:
327:
307:
306:
305:
303:
296:mathbot's tool
287:
286:
282:
281:
280:
279:
259:
258:
246:Question from
243:
242:
241:
240:
204:
203:
202:
201:
193:
175:
174:
173:
172:
145:administrators
126:
125:
118:
117:
51:
46:
45:
44:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2257:
2246:
2243:
2242:
2240:
2230:
2228:
2223:
2217:
2216:
2213:
2210:
2206:
2203:
2201:
2198:
2190:
2184:
2181:
2178:
2176:
2172:
2168:
2164:
2161:
2159:
2156:
2152:
2149:
2147:
2144:
2141:
2139:
2133:
2130:
2127:
2123:
2121:
2116:
2115:
2108:
2105:
2103:
2100:
2096:
2093:
2091:
2088:
2083:
2080:
2078:
2075:
2074:Mailer Diablo
2071:
2068:
2066:
2063:
2062:
2057:
2047:
2044:
2042:
2039:
2036:
2033:
2025:
2022:
2020:
2017:
2013:
2009:
2006:
2001:
1997:
1993:
1989:
1982:
1979:
1973:
1969:
1968:
1963:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1952:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1941:
1940:
1935:
1930:
1927:
1925:
1920:
1915:
1911:
1908:
1907:
1904:
1903:
1900:
1897:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1883:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1869:
1865:
1864:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1852:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1821:
1819:
1816:
1814:
1808:
1805:
1803:
1800:
1796:
1793:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1775:
1769:
1766:
1762:
1758:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1743:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1733:
1729:
1726:
1724:
1721:
1719:
1713:
1710:
1708:
1705:
1704:
1696:
1693:
1691:
1688:
1684:
1681:
1679:
1676:
1672:
1669:
1667:
1664:
1660:
1657:
1651:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1631:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1611:
1609:
1606:
1601:
1598:
1596:
1590:
1585:
1583:
1578:
1571:
1568:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1557:
1552:
1549:
1547:
1543:
1537:
1535:
1532:
1531:
1512:
1509:
1503:
1497:
1496:
1488:
1485:
1480:
1476:
1471:
1466:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1457:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1445:
1444:
1436:
1433:
1428:
1423:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1399:
1389:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1367:
1355:
1352:
1347:
1345:
1342:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1332:
1329:
1323:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1316:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1307:
1304:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1281:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1262:
1259:
1254:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1245:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1218:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1208:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1189:
1185:
1180:
1177:
1163:
1160:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1150:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1126:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1114:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1105:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1067:
1060:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1047:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1033:
1031:
1028:
1024:
1021:
1019:
1016:
1015:Yankee Rajput
1012:
1009:
1007:
1004:
1000:
997:
995:
992:
988:
986:
983:
979:
976:
974:
971:
969:
963:
960:
958:
955:
951:
948:
946:
943:
938:
934:
931:
929:
925:
922:
921:fight against
918:
914:
910:
906:
903:
901:
896:
892:
887:
884:
881:
876:
872:
869:
867:
864:
863:
859:
857:
852:
851:
846:
843:
841:
837:
833:
829:
827:
823:
819:
818:
813:
810:
808:
805:
801:
798:
796:
792:
788:
785:
780:
776:
773:
771:
768:
764:
761:
759:
756:
752:
750:
745:
742:
739:
735:
721:
718:
716:
712:
707:
701:
698:
696:
693:
689:
686:
684:
680:
676:
672:
669:
667:
663:
657:
651:
648:
646:
643:
641:
635:
633:
627:
625:
619:
614:
611:
609:
606:
604:
598:
595:
593:
590:
585:
580:
573:
570:
568:
565:
561:
558:
556:
553:
549:
545:
542:
540:
537:
533:
530:
528:
525:
521:
518:
514:
511:
510:
502:
501:
493:
490:
489:
485:
484:
483:
480:
478:
472:
470:
467:
466:
465:
457:
456:
449:
445:
443:
442:
441:
434:
426:
424:
423:
422:
415:
408:
404:
402:
399:
395:
389:
386:
383:
379:
378:
377:
374:
368:
364:
362:
359:
355:
351:
350:
349:
346:
342:
339:
337:
334:
331:
328:
326:
323:
319:
318:
317:
316:
312:
311:
304:
301:
297:
293:
289:
288:
284:
283:
278:
275:
271:
270:
269:
266:
261:
260:
256:
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
235:
227:
219:
212:
211:
209:
206:
205:
199:
194:
191:
187:
183:
182:
180:
177:
176:
170:
166:
162:
158:
153:
152:
150:
146:
142:
138:
134:
131:
130:
129:
123:
122:
121:
116:
113:
112:
111:
110:
107:
103:
97:
95:
91:
87:
82:
78:
74:
71:
68:
64:
60:
59:
56:
50:
43:
41:
36:
32:
27:
26:
19:
2221:
2218:
2204:
2179:
2162:
2150:
2135:
2131:
2120:
2113:
2112:
2106:
2099:Sharkface217
2094:
2081:
2069:
2049:
2045:
2023:
2007:
1986:— Preceding
1980:
1965:
1937:
1928:
1909:
1893:
1887:
1886:
1870:
1855:
1854:
1848:
1839:
1838:
1822:
1806:
1794:
1777:
1756:
1740:
1727:
1711:
1699:
1694:
1682:
1670:
1658:
1638:
1612:
1599:
1581:
1569:
1554:
1550:
1515:
1510:
1494:
1469:
1464:
1442:
1416:
1377:Dave Cunning
1368:
1289:WP:NAMESPACE
1272:
1252:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1200:
1192:
1187:
1178:
1058:
1051:
1050:
1034:
1022:
1010:
998:
977:
961:
949:
932:
904:
870:
861:
855:
849:
844:
822:bananabucket
815:
811:
799:
774:
762:
733:
719:
699:
692:Tom Harrison
687:
670:
649:
639:
631:
623:
617:
612:
602:
596:
571:
559:
547:
543:
531:
519:
505:
496:
491:
487:
486:
477:Rama's arrow
476:
461:
460:
452:
447:
437:
436:
430:
427:
418:
417:
411:
406:
405:
366:
340:
329:
320:Looks good.
314:
313:
309:
308:
254:
245:
244:
207:
189:
185:
178:
132:
127:
119:
114:
98:
80:
69:
61:
57:
54:
53:
48:
39:
34:
28:
1871:Weak Oppose
1663:Bubba ditto
1613:Weak oppose
1405:Andra Cross
1398:PRODWarning
1369:Weak oppose
1273:weak oppose
1159:Newyorkbrad
1059:Weak Oppose
1027:LittleOldMe
624:Heligoland
552:Newyorkbrad
248:Newyorkbrad
186:HMS Warrior
88:. Messages
1844:WP:BITEing
1003:Hello32020
989:support --
926:. Cheers,
909:Wikipedian
741:Lexic Dark
310:Discussion
2087:Patstuart
1675:Dionyseus
1238:semper fi
1230:Knowledge
1201:semper fi
991:Dario vet
954:Catchpole
942:Davidelit
937:Knowledge
924:vandalism
578:kungming·
367:semper fi
300:talk page
2239:Category
2188:Rockpock
2000:contribs
1992:James086
1988:unsigned
1850:Canadian
1827:Honjaram
1605:Lostkiwi
1258:Melchoir
1184:His logs
1138:contribs
1134:messages
1079:contribs
1075:messages
850:FireSpik
817:Blnguyen
804:Agent 86
775:Support.
767:Moreschi
640:Contribs
536:Downunda
454:Canadian
432:Canadian
413:Canadian
398:Melchoir
354:Melchoir
341:Support.
190:Admirals
147:and the
106:Melchoir
73:contribs
2205:Neutral
2180:Neutral
2167:Renesis
2163:Neutral
2132:Neutral
2107:Neutral
2095:Neutral
2082:Neutral
2070:Neutral
2046:Neutral
2035:iva1979
2024:Neutral
2012:Viridae
2008:Neutral
1981:Neutral
1929:Neutral
1914:Amarkov
1910:Neutral
1888:Neutral
1879:Lantoka
1875:WP:BITE
1799:Richard
1747:crztalk
1700:Cheers,
1561:crztalk
1541:Radiant
1495:review!
1479:Daveydw
1443:review!
1427:Daveydw
1035:Support
1023:Support
1011:Support
999:Support
978:Support
962:Support
950:Support
933:Support
905:Support
871:Support
845:Support
812:Support
800:Support
763:Support
720:Support
700:Support
688:Support
671:Support
655:Majorly
650:Support
613:Support
603:yandman
597:Support
572:Support
560:Support
544:Support
532:Support
524:Charles
520:Support
506:Cheers,
497:Cheers,
488:Support
448:Support
407:Support
352:Adding
333:John254
330:Support
315:Support
263:time!--
165:CAT:RFU
157:CAT:CSD
81:respect
1967:dzasta
1939:dzasta
1831:Mereda
1823:Oppose
1812:Ghirla
1807:Oppose
1795:Oppose
1761:recall
1728:Oppose
1717:Seadog
1712:Oppose
1683:Oppose
1671:Oppose
1659:Oppose
1600:Oppose
1570:Oppose
1551:Oppose
1511:Oppose
1475:WP:COI
1465:at all
1422:biting
1179:Oppose
1052:Oppose
1039:Calton
787:rbil10
734:thanks
705:Gphoto
675:danntm
234:speedy
218:speedy
169:WP:AIV
161:WP:AFD
102:WP:CSD
1962:riana
1934:riana
1919:edits
1857:Bacon
1732:Xoloz
1687:Shell
1383:with
1373:C:CSD
1351:Robth
1125:ndson
1066:ndson
982:Aldux
917:sysop
886:e Ong
779:RyanG
755:Robth
548:every
463:Bacon
439:Bacon
420:Bacon
55:Final
33:that
16:<
2171:talk
2138:here
2052:Nish
1996:talk
1899:acor
1786:talk
1778:...
1588:girl
1576:Elar
1407:and
1388:prod
1379:and
1331:acor
1306:acor
1280:acor
1226:here
1130:page
1094:Talk
1090:ST47
1071:page
1043:Talk
967:Must
832:Mike
661:Talk
632:Talk
385:acor
322:El_C
290:See
139:and
94:from
92:and
67:talk
2209:Axl
2118:NAS
2055:kid
1765:Joe
1742:crz
1647:rex
1621:rex
1556:crz
1470:any
1417:any
1253:can
1243:Moe
1234:may
1206:Moe
1188:any
1104:1ne
875:Ter
636:|
628:|
372:Moe
358:1ne
345:1ne
226:AfD
2241::
2207:.
2173:)
2060:64
2027:--
2002:)
1998:•
1896:Ch
1782:aa
1544:)
1529:α
1500:)
1483:ee
1448:)
1431:ee
1401:}}
1395:{{
1391:}}
1385:{{
1349:--
1339:--
1328:Ch
1326:–
1324::P
1303:Ch
1277:Ch
1240:—
1203:—
1193:no
1136:-
1132:-
1077:-
1073:-
1041:|
893:|
883:nc
847:-
824:)
730:.
664:)
382:Ch
369:—
255:4.
237:}}
231:{{
221:}}
215:{{
208:3.
179:2.
151:.
133:1.
90:to
37:.
2196:t
2192:e
2169:(
2114:A
2031:S
1994:(
1964:_
1936:_
1853:-
1784::
1645:-
1643:T
1619:-
1617:T
1582:a
1527:g
1525:o
1523:c
1521:r
1519:o
1517:J
1491:/
1489:(
1487:b
1439:/
1437:(
1435:b
1140:)
1128:(
1123:@
1081:)
1069:(
1064:@
897:)
895:R
891:C
889:(
879:e
856:e
820:(
783:e
736:/
679:C
658:(
583:2
458:-
435:-
416:-
302:.
70:·
65:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.