Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Ekabhishek

4311:- Ekabhishek is a very active editor, a large credit to the encyclopedia, and arguably of greater overall benefit as an editor than most administrators (including myself), so my criticisms are purely directed at the merits of this candidacy, not this editor's net positive to the project. Like many opposers, I see little work in admin-related areas to judge how he would act with the tools. I did a cursory review of contributions to AfD (one of the few Knowledge-space areas where I saw participation) and I saw an alarming Inclusionist trend, where he has only ever participated in deletion discussion to argue to keep an article. In his own words, his participation in deletion discussions has been limited to "the last chance XFD, wherever I find an article I can rescue, I pitch in". I'm uncomfortable giving the right to determine deletion discussions to an editor with an unbalanced view of article inclusion criteria, whether they are too eager to either keep or delete articles. -- 146:(pretty tough job) are just few examples of his content creation skills. He is not the kind of editor who helps articles to get to GA status or FA or DYK, but still manages to keep 88% of his edits in the main space that is 91,000+ (wow!). He deals with unsourced BLPs, copyright issues, fixes neutrality regarding problems, improving refs, expands articles, fixes errors etc; though it is not so glamorous as FA-GA-DYK-thing, it is equally necessary and pretty tedious job which he does really well. He has been one of the tireless editors who love editing in article space as he has dealt with more then 1500 different articles. Another quality about him is politeness; whenever I came across him, I've seen him in a civil and helpful manner. I've never seen him loosing his cool or being rude or making insults or any kind of offence. In short, he is a good and trustworthy editor who is friendly and ready to help as far as he can. His 4704:

Knowledge works -- and how it should work. However, I also see a general absence of communication -- evidenced by the consistent absence of edit summaries (other than automated ones), talk-page posts, and posts in the "Knowledge" name space. Communication among users is important, and it is particularly important that administrators and other leaders take time to communicate. I now realize that I have wished for more communication from this particular user in connection with articles about topics like government oversight of higher education in India, as it is clear that those articles are subject to a lot of fraudulent editing, but outsiders like myself have a difficult time figuring out which content is valid and which is fraudulent. When users like Ekabhishek, who presumably have fairly solid knowledge of the topic, don't bother to leave edit summaries, it makes it harder to tell good content from bad.

1448:

the tools. Let's say that Ekabhishek makes a promise to never ever use the admin bit at all...ever. What's the big deal about giving it to them anyway? We trust them. There is no reason that any trusted user shouldn't have the bit. We use factors such as edit count, time in service, and experience in admin related areas to judge the integrity, trustworthiness, and character of the editor. But are those things absolutely necessary or just have become the easiest factors to judge? Please don't oppose this candidate over issues that can be fixed by a simple explanation such as question 13. Such a lesson is easy to learn. I humbly ask all of the opposers to look deeply into the candidate and find a reason to oppose rather than a reason to withhold support. RFA needs to change and adminship needs to be easier to gain. I beg of you all to let that start here, right now.--v/r -

2990:. I've been torn here. On the one hand, I see an editor who has made great contributions to content, who clearly has plenty of clue about the project and the way it works, and is calm, compassionate, and very collegial in interactions with others. On the other hand, I don't see the contributions to admin-related areas that I would normally require in order to support a candidate. So I have been wavering around "Neutral" for the past few days. But I've decided to support, because further examination of Ekabhishek's contributions to discussion and of the questions and answers above convince me that this is not someone who would act rashly in incidents they did not fully understand, and I'm convinced that Ekabhishek will seek appropriate guidance in unfamiliar admin areas. -- 4267:. As far as I can see the candidate has done no such work. If the candidate has no experience he is unsuitable at this stage. Although the downside risk might be low, I see no reason to risk pages being protected (or not) and editors being blocked (or not) because the candidate does not have sufficient grasp of relevant policy. They have no experience gained through performing a few simple but important janitorial tasks during the many years they have been here and especially in the period prior to RFA. A request for tools in an area where they can demonstrate no aptitude makes no sense. Tools are for life and RFA candidates should demonstrate respect for the rest of us by coming here with evidence of their competence in their chosen areas. This RFA is at best premature. 4571:, mostly based on questions. I never had concerns that the editors would maliciously blow up the encyclopedia, he's been round long enough and done enough good work that it was clearly not a problem. My concerns stemmed from two things - I had no idea if he would be able to handle the tools and his lack of edit summaries. His questions prove to me that he will be cautious with use of the tools and has a good knowledge of how things work around here, so that leaves the edit summaries. Edit summaries usage is a really stupid reason to base your vote, I've always believed that. I can't support this user, because I believe actions are more important than words, and there's just not enough for me to judge his actions, but at the same time, I see no reason to oppose. 3926:

that effect is pretty darn well buried in the infoboxes on the top of the page, and it must be easy for good-faith editors to miss it. While the question indicates that an edit-warring template was placed on the user's page, that template says nothing about the 1RR either. The 1RR restriction states that warnings or blocks may be given at administrator discretion, and unless the editor has a history of edit-warring (which it sounds like he or she doesn't on this article), a warning sounds sufficient for this first violation of a restriction that the editor may not even have known about. Based on the limited information provided in the hypothetical question, I'd say that the candidate's concern that this block sounds like an overreaction is entirely justified.

4291:

view any particular warning message left on the IP's page by this editor. It could be possible that I might be missing reverts/undos exercised by this editor while reverting vandalism, but given my current review, I cannot trust the editor's command with the tools, especially given his (quite valid) intent to use the tools in vandalism related areas, unless I am sure the editor has a good experiential understanding of identifying vandalism. I would be uncomfortable granting rollback to editors who do not display at least cursory experience of identifying vandalism; more so if the question is about admin tools. Three months, even less perhaps, of experience and I can support the editor without any qualms given his brilliant commitment otherwise to the project.

3326:. The basic premise of most of the opposition – that the candidate is new to the kinds of issues with which administrators deal, in spite of the strong experience in content building – seems to me to be reasonable. What leaves me, however, in the support column is my sense that someone who is smart enough to have done this much content editing without blowing the place up is smart enough to learn what they need to do if and when they use the administrator tools, and sensible enough not to misuse the tools. Worst case scenario: they end up only occasionally venturing into administrative work, and continue to do good content work, and that's good enough for me. -- 3364:. I'm not happy with Q1 and Q3. I want at least one story about actual conflict; without one, I'm unsure about how a candidate will react under pressure. I'm mindful of the opposes and even sympathetic. Significantly, I don't understand why this editor seeks the privilege. The editor avoids controversy. That means little personal experience with a significant content dispute or edit war. The editor wants to help out with vandalism, but has little presence in that effort (e.g., AIV). My sense is the bit will see little use. Some answers need improvement, but the editor appears cautious, so the bit should not be abused. I'm here under the no big deal banner. 3970:

likely to keep editing on content while occasionally using his bits, probably to block a vandal or two or protect a page or two while he figures things out. What we have here is clueful, cautious, encyclopedia writing editor who hasn't bothered hanging out in the 'social' part of Knowledge and, consequently, doesn't know everything an admin should know. But, we have more than enough evidence that his, dare I call it "encyclopedic heart" is in the right place. Could we go wrong with such a person? I don't mean to say your oppose is wrong but that this case is unusual enough to require a different set of standards. --

4640:

give my full support. I cannot continue to oppose without assuming that this editor will deliberately abuse the tools (unlikely), because they have stated that they will only work in specific administrative areas and will take advice from others in situations where they aren't sure. I expect those administrators placing themselves in the support section, particularly those who have made statements in other sections of this RFA, to provide significantly more assistance to Ekabhishek than they would to most other successful candidates. --

4111:

That being said, I am not entirely confident that the editor has enough experience even to understand when they don't understand and should seek advice. I feel the argument that an editor who has been here so long automatically understands the policies is incorrect, especially those policies that don't apply directly to the article space. All of this aside, there are a number of things I like about this user. He has an optimistic outlook that I feel is important and lacking in many editors. In addition, he treats views new editors

1006:, more study and alertness. Though I must admit I had this nagging feeling while typing, I am missing something...it is too simple an answer..might be a trick question..and responded against my better judgment. I apologize..didn't follow my own rule to go slow, promise to do so as an admin. Luckily as in my early days as an editor, here again senior admins will lend a helping hand in guiding my early steps, and would have a forgiving and compassionate community behind me, as I already see here. -- 1111:: I am confused, without finding any online source or original source online myself (even if the BOT fails), how would I conclude just by the tone that the article falls under G12, i.e. unambiguous copyright infringement, am I missing something here? Some articles come with valid reliable offline sources as well. If am not sure of G12, and it doesn't come under G1-11, I would give the author ample time to respond, or ask reference desk to help out, if all fails, and it meets 389:", for the sake of simplicity), continues despite being warned, and ultimately winds up blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account, with autoblock enabled and account creation disabled. Once the account creation block expires a few days later, the same person registers yet another account, vandalizes the page yet again, and is once again indeffed, account creation blocked and autoblock enabled. A bystander notices the spree of vandalism and reports it to 1649:

will try to get involved in something over their head and screw up. In my experience many really bizarre admin actions turn out to be performed by admins who were promoted a very long time ago and haven't use their tools much since. In any case such considerations are somewhat off-topic here, as the candidate is asking for the tools in order to get involved in counter-vandalism work rather than to move articles over redirects (or other similar work).

4756:. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. Limited experience in admin-related areas. Ekabhishek is a great editor with many valuable contributions, but not heading towards admin-related activity. Incidentally, the nomination statement by Titodutta is particularly poor. Strike Eagle's nomination statement is mediocre. TheSpecialUser's statement is better, but fails to mention how Knowledge would benefit if Ekabhishek becomes an administrator. 3630:. For an editor who claims he intends to work in Vandal fighting... no edits to AIV is pretty worrying. Looking further, there's little or no evidence of interacting with other users, making it difficult for me to judge that ability. I also see a distinct lack of edit summaries, not a major issue, but worth mentioning. I'm sorry, despite the years of good work, I just don't see the necessary experience in the relevant areas. 625:, or he just might loose his rollback rights. No point becoming a good editor or admin if in the process we loose our humanity and compassion, as we loose no matter how good wiki reads outwardly. There after, I would restore the referenced and 'good faith' content by IP user, and suggest that the community of editors be careful in future, and following wiki guidelines instead of approving unreferenced text. -- 250:, now I would be able to help them directly. In doing so, I might be able to pay forward the immeasurable kindness of many admins, who timely intervened and helped in vandalism related issues, restoring not just valuable labour of love, but also faith in innate goodness of us all. Though adminship might not be as glamorous as a DYK or a FA, but then without those silent workers, we see the 4007:(responding to Ryan Vesey's oppose) I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The candidate's answer didn't say that he would "wheel war" by reversing the block; he simply said that the block "should be revoked." That could just as easily mean that he would urge the original blocking administrator to lift the block or would bring it to ANI and seek consensus. 3550:. I have no doubt you are an excellent contributor to Knowledge, but I cannot see anything that tells me your understanding of policy, with the exception of how to write a featured article. You have very few contributions to XFD, no work on new page patrol, no edits to AIV/RFPP/UAA or to the conduct noticeboards. Don't get me wrong - I think the editor who can 302:, which need quick referencing or a rewrite. I believe within every first-timer lies the possibility of a future excellent editor. Content-wise I have worked on arts, literature and cinema related article, especially biographies, as reading them is one of my passions. So, in terms of main namespace, articles, my best contributions have been 4619:. While I have no reason to believe Ekabhishek would misuse the tools, I need to see some significant work in meta areas where admins are expected to do plenty of research and use their judgement, especially on deletions. There are some valid comments in the oppose section, but I have no evidence on which I could oppose the candidate. 937:, and such a scenario might appear, but then there is no need to take it personally, as the block user is only venting, and might have done the same with anybody else, and other admins have had it far worse, namely off-site attacks etc. So it would be far wiser to go for the second option, wherein we protect the userpage and ask an 1515:

any editor based on their level of trust and attitude. Maybe this editor won't ever use them. So what? Prove to me that granting them and the user never using them would be detrimental to the 'pedia. What is the big deal if they use them or not? Just give 'em the tools. They arn't gonna break anything.--v/r -

562:

and leaves a duplicate 4im warning and IP asks the rollbacker to explain their actions again. After another hour of the rollbacker not responding to the IP (during this time the rollbacker is still active on Knowledge), the IP adds the information in again. The rollbacker uses rollback again then reports the IP to

4290:

could use secondary sources, the reason this oppose comes is to encourage the editor to indulge in vandalism related areas for a few months, perhaps three, before applying again. In the last six months that I checked, the editor has had just one edit that identified vandalism; and there too I did not

2201:

You don't have to be know it all type editor to become an admin. I really don't think that Ekabhishek would use the tools that often, and if he does its a clear necessary. I strongly support giving the tools to experts in their fields as they can see if a certain user is doing constructive editors in

1514:

Granting the tools doesn't have to depend on an editor using them. Maybe someday the editor will need to move over a redirect, maybe someday they'll stumble on an article that needs to be protected. It is my philosophy that the toolset is so cheap to grant that it should be a natural progression of

1496:

If the candidate is not going to use their tools in an area where they have no experience, then (at least initially) they are not going to use their tools at all. Adminship isn't a reward, or a badge of honour. It isn't handed out to experienced editors as a token of appreciation. It's a tool, and it

1447:

I want to pose same question I posed to WormThatTurned. What is most important in a sysop? Trust or experience? With trust comes that a user will not intentionally get involved in areas where they lack experience. Also, adminship is no big deal. It costs us nothing to flip the switch to hand out

899:

itself - how would I feel, if someone thus blocked me in real life, for some mistake of mine. I am also wondering about the real life consequences on a person, what if he or she is emotional fragile or vulnerable and a wiki block might take away their last respite from a harsh real life..A better way

173:

I'm glad to co-nominate Abhishek for adminship. Abhishek has been here for over 5 years now and has amassed over a hundred thousand edits. He is always civil and does the right thing. As TheSpecialUser already said, he has managed over 90000 edits in mainspace which is an amazing thing. Ekabhishek is

4703:

I'm still on the fence about this RfA. I see a very productive contributor who has been supportive of newbies and other contributors in his main areas of interest (which areas I identify as topics related to India and spirituality), has honorable intentions in his work, and is knowledgable about how

4115:

as they should be viewed and I commend him for that. While I am still not confident enough to give him my support, my rationale for striking my oppose comes back to trust. In this case, the trust placed in him by a large amount of other editors shows that he is un-opposeworthy. Ekabhishek, I hope

4046:

to disagree with each other on policy and somehow the world doesn't end. Personally, I am far less concerned with the concept of someone disagreeing with me on policy than I am about editors who feel that the only acceptable admin candidate are those that think and react to things the exact same way

3925:

As I just noted under the next oppose, the candidate's answer doesn't say he would unilaterally lift the block; it is equally consistent with his raising his concern with the blocking admin, or asking for a review on ANI. As for the fact that this particular article is on 1RR, the talkpage notice to

3529:

handling. I am in no way claiming expertise in any other area than this, and even here I admit I have plenty to learn, and just as when I first started editing articles here in 2007, so many able people came forward to help out, I am sure yet again equal number would come forward as admins, to guide

3093:

I appreciate your friendly userspace. I have no concerns about your relative lack of experience in Knowledge space because I think you have demonstrated an understanding of community norms. I have encountered you enough in India-related articles to know how you treat other users. Thank you for doing

1462:

I agree with this (why the heck am I getting involved!). Too often we worry about things like "need the tools" or "experience in admin areas" when evaluating an RfA candidacy. But are those really relevant? Any candidate who has shown that the care about the encyclopedia and that they care about and

129:

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm delighted to offer Ekabhishek a co-nom! Ekabhishek has been editing Knowledge since February 2007 but he started editing on regular basis from September 2007 and has managed to get a big sum of 100,000+ edits. His editing has always been dedicated towards the main space and

4639:

I find myself back in the neutral section because it is now clear that Ekabhishek will take their time and work very carefully. I still remain concerned by the lack of contribution to discussions, particularly regarding the administrative areas they wish to help out with, and therefore am unable to

3691:

a leader of RFA reform! I believe the two concepts are inter-related, but I do believe in a need for the tools before passing them on. I could point out the "for life" concept since we cannot know how he will perform in those administrative areas, or the fact that I look for attitude and temperment

2931:

per Dennis Brown's response to TruPepitoM. I'm uncomfortable with some things, such as the comparative lack of projectspace edits and the candidate's requirement that a page be high-profile before semiprotecting. However, what I'm seeing here suggests that the candidate might be a little hesitant

2734:

Ha(d/ve)doubt whether a nominator should vote or not! In some other nominations I have seen nominators voting, since every vote will be counted I added my vote too (finally). But, I don't think nominators and co-noms should vote. They are nominating– that clearly indicates they are supporting too.

1786:

91,000 articlespace contributions and a candidate is getting NOTNOWs. Wow. Unless there is actual evidence to suggest that Ekabhishek will misuse the tools then five years of service, 100k edits and a clean block log should be more than enough proof that he knows what he's doing, and the tools he's

1591:

The following statements are certainly not specific to the candidate: "Also, adminship is no big deal. It costs us nothing to flip the switch to hand out the tools.", "There is no reason that any trusted user shouldn't have the bit.", "RFA needs to change and adminship needs to be easier to gain. I

926:

If a a user gets mad at you because of some admin-related action you have made and starts vandalizing your userpage at the point on which they receive a level 4 warning, would you directly block the user? Or will you prefer to protect your page and wait until another unrelated admin makes the final

805:

or as an editor is a good reflection of how we behave in real life, so if have issue of power or anger in real life, they would show up here as well. This is where my not having enough main space edit till now becomes an advantage as I have worked on the other side, as an editor long enough to know

561:

Following the rollback & warning and request for the rollbacker to explain their actions (which, after an hour of the rollbacker being active on Knowledge hadn't yet been answered), the IP user undid the revert and added the referenced information back. The same registered user rollbacks again,

481:

to re-add contentious material to the article, the account is blocked indefinitely, and the parent account's block is reset. The third editor has not been involved in the edit war and is peacefully editing away at an entirely separate section; they have tried but failed to get the other two parties

3986:

I recently supported a candidate on the assumption that he would fix the aspect that I believed was lacking. In this case, the aspect that is lacking is policy knowledge and evidence of that. I don't expect candidates to be 100% correct on every possible question, mistakes happen. In this case,

2809:

I really want to see some hands on experience in admin areas (especially when that candidate has said it's an area they want to work in) so I decided to hang back and see how the candidate answered policy questions. Considering the nomination statements and the great answers to questions I have no

2780:

Hello, Callanecc , what's up? Well, I disagree. If you see the nomination statements here, surely you'll understand we are supporting. So, voting again is unnecessary. I was not sure whether my vote will be counted if I don't vote (it should be– number of votes + number of nominators (if they have

2643:

I would definitely like to see more Knowledge space edits; these would indicate a stronger desire to serve as an admin and would evidence this user has the knowledge necessary to handle the tools. Nonetheless, this user's contributions are impressive, and I see no way in which serving as an admin

1093:

Consider a hypothetical situation when you come across an article which you find to be eligible (by the tone of the article) for G12 but can't find the original source on internet. What will be your immediate reaction? Alternate situation, you found the original source and deleted it under the G12

4110:

As promised, I am reviewing my oppose, I took some time so I could evaluate all the arguments. There are two things we must evaluate when !voting for an administrator hopeful. Trust and experience. In this case, I have full trust that the editor will not maliciously cause harm with the tools.

1648:

You could look at it the other way round. If the candidate isn't going to use the tools, then there is no identifiable benefit to the project from granting them. Yes, there might be a (very) small benefit if they have to perform the occasional trivial admin task, but there's also a risk that they

4457:

with a lot of respect. In some ways, you are the polar opposite of me. I have worked the policy side of Knowledge for years and have a good grasp, but will likely never be an exceptional editor in creating GA and featured articles. Not everyone has those skills. To your benefit, your lack of

4058:

Actually, merely undoing a single block made by another admin is not wheel warring (Ryan is mistaken in that conclusion). Ekabhishek's mistake is in assuming that edit warring only occurs when the 3RR rule is broken - an understandable mistake on the part of someone who never edit wars! I don't

3831:

While I greatly appreciate your article contributions, you said that you would like to work in anti-vandalism. You barely have any edits to WP space, including AIV or UAA. Also, you barely have any edits to user talk space, so I doubt that you warn the vandals. Again, please don't be offended by

3770:

Striking oppose and moving to support. Way too clueful of an editor to oppose. As much as I would like to see some kind of administrative experience, there is no way that giving this editor the mop could NOT be a net positive. Even if they are given the tools and never do a single administrative

3758:

demonstrate that experience with at least one or two administrative tasks before asking for the tools. I will be a strong supporter next time around if this is done... and I don't mean six months down the road. I would be totally willing to support after a month or two of projectspace experience.

4171:

potential administrators need to have substantial experience in areas which involve the use of administrative tools. This ensures that the candidate knows how to use such tools properly and that RfA commenters can verify this. This candidate seems to have concentrated almost entirely on content

3969:

I agree that the answer to 13 is wrong. But, here's a question, do we want to force a well established content editor to go to school to learn something that he'll probably figure out during the RfA? The way I see it, Ekabhishek is less likely to jump right in blocking edit warriors and is more

3898:

because it is currently subject to a community determined 1 revert rule. I appreciate that this was a bit of a "trick" question but I was unsatisfied with the answer to question 9. While undoing a block is not wheel warring, I was expecting at least some indication that the editor would do some

3757:

I think this editor is a fantastic contributor. The only thing that keeps this from being a wholehearted support is the lack of participation in admin-related functions. I don't ask for a comprehensive knowledge of how EVERYTHING works, but I do feel that every admin candidate should be able to

3398:

The ability to good far outweighs the concerns of abuse, admin powers are easier to remove then they are to acquire and the editor's 'faults' sound pretty weak and concern an unproven experience simply because they haven't yet had the tools. 'Good judgement' is one thing, but I don't expect the

2755:

Yeah but in terms of a straw poll it's easier to say "noms can vote" than have police a rule that they can't. Plus if there is any possible doubt in the nom statement (as to whether they support or not) then a support vote clears that up. And there will always be people who, if they don't see a

1187:

I opposed your application (#O10) so feel free to disregard this supplementary question since it will not alter my !vote. I do not understand the level of support given your complete lack of work in your chosen area (or for that matter any Admin area) and the rather vague answers to some of the

894:

to have any positive effect in the long run. Such snubbing can be detrimental otherwise not just to wiki content but to the user personally. As it might aggravate the user further, no wonder often such users indulge in sock puppetry etc. His temporary lack of judgment or composure might be held

4041:

I am in agreement with Newyorkbrad. In this oppose and the last, many things have been assumed based on a vague question. Nowhere did the candidate express that he would have wheel warred in this situation. He only stated that he found the block to be incorrect. Personally, I disagree with the

875:

This is an inevitalbe situation you may live as an admin: blocking users. One way or the other you may live this in your future admin career. So, please give me a summary of how you interpret blocks from a blocked user perspective, from your personal perspective, and how it may have (from your

368:

to realise how much more I still have to learn here, as in real life. I have reverted edits in good faith many times, where they were incorrect or superfluous, not to be mention some hilarious one from school IPs, though when properly explained in summary, most people are considerate enough to

574:

I suggest that you structure your answer into the following format (but it's completely up to you): (a) request at AIV (decline/accept, any other actions & why); (b) the revert including use of rollback, warning, unanswered message on rollbacker's talk page, possible 3RR vio (for all -

4695:

Indeed you do. Further checking revealed my error -- I regret that I commented before checking thoroughly -- that wasn't fair to you. I also looked at other areas where we have interacted, and I find that I've seen you a few other times at DYK and that we have also met on articles such as

3516:

edits, which might reflect as a lack of understanding of wiki policies, however I’d say in the course of editing and encountering vandalism over the years, I have gained not just adequate perspective on the issue, but genuine concerns as well. This I believe would aid me in learning the

4458:

experience can be overcome with some time spent working in admin related areas, allowing others to see your demeanor and handling, as well as your understanding of the nuances of policy. So this isn't a NOTNOW as you are clearly experienced in the most important aspect of Knowledge,

3287:– Ekabhishek may not be a star candidate of this "not a big deal" process but I don't see any harm if he gets the tools. He is mature and have shown a keen interest to learn new things or consulting others. And, Happy Independence Day to Ekabhishek and other fellow Indian Wikipidians! 540:

An IP user completely changes a large section of a non-BLP article from being unreferenced to completely referenced. However on the talk page, the community has a consensus to use the unreferenced information. Acting with this consensus, an experienced registered user manually uses

2781:

not voted)). It is expected that a nominator is also supporting, on the other if all the nominators oppose the candidate (for example after seeing candidate's answers), it may create a complex situation since oppose of all nominators may be similar to withdrawing the nomination. --

4258:

I was not convinced by the candidate’s answer to Q5 which is incomplete. Q14 was intended to reveal relevant experience in their chosen area of Admin work. I was looking for evidence that they have used escalating vandalism messages in an appropriate way, referred cases to

1479:

I disagree. The idea of an editor with no exposure to Admin areas relying on "inner guidance" (Q10) is not a direction I want to take. Trust AND experience for me. If Admin was as easy to remove as it is to obtain in the above philosophy I might be convinced, but it isn't.

1578:

I can't imagine how in the world you've come to that conclusion. This is candidate specific. I am expressly addressing this candidate's trustworthiness and suggesting other editors reconsider based on that. His trustworthiness is a matter directly of his making.--v/r -

1662:

I don't understand what you mean. From a purely technical point of view, we could run a bureaucrat bot to give admin rights to all accounts; it's not as if we have a limited number of admins. The encyclopedia doesn't suffer from having an admin who doesn't use tools.

4664:, where I had questioned the notability and promotional nature of the nominated article, and Ekabhishek showed up and declared it "OK" (no details of the reasoning). I was surprised to find that Ekabhishek does not have other history of involvement in DYK, then I found 3168:- A slight sparseness of Knowledge-space work can be entirely forgiven when a user has sufficient contributions and general experience with the encyclopedia. I'm confident that you won't go wading into any admin areas you aren't familiar with without some research. ~ 4462:. It is more of a "are you sure you want to be an admin?" since you haven't shown any inclination to mopping up before. Try it out by working a little in Wikispace and I am confident that everyone would be very open minded to reconsidering you at a later date. 3625:

Yes, I'm absolutely stunned by the 90k odd article edits, thank you so much for that! However, I see a lot of little problems that worry me. You don't contribute to any admin areas, indeed, you've made less than 15 edits to Knowledge space this year, and 50 edits

3441:

The vast majority (89%) of edits are to articles and there are only 175 edits to Knowledge space pages. If you're best at articles, by all means continue at them. If you do want to administrate, get more experience in the administration areas and try again later.

1188:

questions designed presumably to assess your suitability/readiness. So, why do YOU believe that you are a suitable Admin. candidate? Why have you not worked in any of the Admin-related areas you are interested in before allowing yourself to be nominated? Thanks.

3594:(on Floating Boat's vote) It's going down to eighty-eight and a half, rounded to the nearest tenths. It's purely on articles (not really), with 5.64 average edits per page. Ever been friendly around here? I'd love it if you are, but I'm sticking to my comment. 4403:

A lack of Knowledge-space related edits may not necessarily indicate a lack of policy knowledge. Nevertheless, I'd like to see him demonstrate that he has sound judgement in the areas he has specified, to see if he is affluent enough for the bit at this time.

4494:

You've got great contributions to articles but there are only 175 edits to Knowledge space pages. If you're best at articles, by all means continue at them. If you do want to administrate, get more experience in the administration areas and try again later.

98:

This editor works silently but steadily. When I was new editor after creating articles I found many times that this editor correcting my formatting errors or expanding the article. This editor's behaviour is polite too. I am nominating his name as admin.

3692:

under pressure and I've seen nothing from this candidate that shows strength in either. The total lack of edit summaries is also a problem for me, it's made reviewing the editor much more difficult, and shows a significant disregard for community norms.

753:

I have much younger nephews, who are held responsible for their choices and at par with adults in real life as well, so the same would apply here. By the way, 1996 is not that young, quite old/mature already, especially if you meet kids these days.

818:, no surprise there. I am glad I waited long enough. To understand, power is always to serve others and not our ego. When we forget this, we get trapped in such scenarios, which invariably lead to our downfall, be it in real life or out here.-- 557:

warning (just the template by itself) to the IP user (the IP user has made 10 edits on 6 different pages all of which were good edits). The IP user asks the rollbacker (on the rollbacker's talk page) to explain why they reverted the referenced

3869:, I'm sorry, but such few WP namespace edits are clearly not enough. Even on Chinese wikipedia (with much fewer active editors and only ~80 admins), people would generally oppose the RFA if the user has less than 1000 WP name space edits.-- 2112:. To the opposers, he's been here long enough that he can be presumed to have some knowledge of every major policy. Vandalism and page protection are not areas that require getting really nitty-gritty with policies and guidelines. -- 1497:

is given to people who are going to use it. It isn't at all unreasonable to ask for some kind of evidence that the candidate is capable of using some of the admin tools responsibly before they are given them. And this isn't a case of

3851:

due to the lack of admin-like tasks. We need more admins that will patrol AIV, but as worm says, there's not a lot of activity therefrom you. Maybe if there was more experience in admin related areas I could support in the future.

1463:

honor consensus would be a plus as an admin. And the idea of forcing a long term content contributor to show that they care about being an admin by haunting AIV or AN (or, heaven forbid, ANI!) just seems counterproductive to me. --

3568:

Also from the opposite point of view you can not see anything which tells you candidates' not understanding of policy! Why don't you ask the candidate couple of additional questions which will be helpful for the other voters too!

2464:- superb candidate. Clean block log, deleted edits look OK and a commendable concentration on article space. I don't agree with the concerns of the Oppose section, especially the bit about admins needing 1000 WP space edits 4711:

and because the review comment on the DYK review neither acknowledged the canvassing nor provided the kind of review documentation that DYK participants had been emphasizing for several months before that review and that

3239:

If Ekabhishek doesn't get the mop than I have no idea how any of us ever will. Most important thing in an admin is common sense combined with civility, and he certainly has those. Doesn't bother me he hasn't done much

1750:

Experienced editor, can't find any problems in their history. Opposes are fundamentally bizarre; "Spends all their time creating and improving content", "Doesn't try to find drama" are reasons to support, not oppose.

4598:- Although the candidate has a decent answer to my question, hir answer was not based on any relevant policies, mentioned no attempt to rectify the situation through, for instance, engaging the user. There are also 1950:

A trustworthy editor with a long history of content contributions. I suspect he'll use his admin tools wisely but sparingly and am not concerned about the lack of Wikispace contributions. A bit of a plus actually.

1267: 2309:

moved from oppose. It doesn't matter if this editor has no experience in projectspace. He's obviously trustworthy and clueful. I can't think of any scenario where giving him the bit wouldn't be a net positive.

1261: 4172:

creation. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but it's not enough by itself to demonstrate that they would make a good administrator. I find it difficult to entrust someone with handling requests at

3899:

investigation first and maybe state that they consult with the blocking admin before reversing it. I'm also concerned that Ekabhishek appears to consider edit warring solely relating to the 3 revert rule.--

3024:

Callanec is pretty convincing, as is Black Kite (and others, don't feel bad if I didn't mention you). I don't see any downside to this and a definite bonus for Knowledge Ekabhishek becomes an Administrator.

4145:

The candidate has basically zero experience in the key Admin areas - never once having seen their input/judgement, it's impossible to see their composure, or reactions as a whole. A candidate who wants to

1046:

You have stated that you intend to work as an Administrator in the area of vandalism and page protection. I want you to tell me what work you have already done in those areas during your time as an editor.

508:

would be duly explained the reasons of denial of full protection, as this isn't an ideal candidate for it. However, in case the third editor also fails to address the situation amicably only then temporary

3627: 3399:

editor to go on a banning spree or act out of line, the good for the article space and general AIV care would be more then enough to warrant giving the tools. After all, adminship is not a big deal.

1562:

This is an inappropriate place to discuss this non-candidate specific subject. The candidate's RFA could easily be compromised by a lengthy discussion which is focused on a matter not of his making.

3554:

all of those places is probably more valuable to Knowledge than some schmuck admin like myself. But being a great editor doesn't mean you'll make a great admin, and I'm not convinced of the latter.

682:

and includes a Commons-hosted picture (that he uploaded). The page has the general layout of an article (Lede, Early Life, etc) and mentions a number of Youth Clubs and such that he is on. There is

3007:- Looks like a good candidate. Plenty of edits, clean history, non contentious. I do wonder if the user has kept such a low profile if they really need the tools but that's not a reason to oppose. 2661:- Clean block log, no indications of assholery. Well over the bar in time and editorial contributions. Wants to work on anti-vandalism and thus can use tools. Admin buttons should be no big deal. 1608:

Please go ahead and do a per-character analysis of everything I have said in the above and tell me the percentage of on-topic versus off-topic discussion. You've got to be kidding me.--v/r -

130:

it accounts for majority of his edits. What impresses me about him is his civility and willingness to help any newbie or improve any article which is in a poor state. His edits revolve around

348:

I am sure I must have in the early years (been here since 2007), though cannot recall the exact events (perhaps someone can point out). I soon realized reverting doesn't help much, nor does

3042:-- great contributor and wonderfully thoughtful answers to the questions. The editor's careful work on WP in general leads me to believe that adding the admin tools is No Big Deal. -- 4661: 4116:

you will ease your way into this and please keep your attitude the same, it is your greatest asset. On a side note, the correct answer to the first half of question 15 would be to ask

4541:

Answers to questions so far are good, but I need to double-check my gut feeling of "yes, of course." I'm hoping answers to currently unanswered questions will put me over the line. -

2918:, there's absolutely nothing in the Oppose section that makes me think even for a second that this user would abuse the tools. We need more content-focused admins like Ekabhishek. 585:

I see two mistakes here, first I would be surprised if the community forms a consensus over adding unreferenced information, secondly that an experienced user feels a false sense of

482:

to discuss the disputed content on the article's talk page. A bystander notices the frequent edit warring and sockpuppetry, and requests full protection at RFPP. How do you proceed?

3946:

Ignoring the 1RR restriction on the article, wheel warring an edit warring block is pretty ridiculous. 3RR is a bright line rule and Ekabhishek doesn't show understanding of that.

1768:

Cannot see this experienced editor misusing the tools and another pair of hands to help with admin backlogs would be welcome. I would say that top content creators are likely to be

403:

multiple user vandalism warrant a semi protection, in this case since the problem seems to be arising from a single user, we can handle it at the level of the editor level, we can

3381:. A fine candidate. Hopefully admin tasks won't detract too much from the work he does in other areas, as anyone who has spent much time in India-related articles would know.-- 488:

If the third editor makes changes, with or without awareness of the edit war and hasn't managed to resolve the issue directly or indirectly, he can be suggested to arrive at a

3675:

It's very rare that I disagree with you, but I'd like to ask one thing. As a leader of RFA reform, do you believe an admin should be more trustworthy or experienced?--v/r -

832:

Given your relative lack of experience outside of article space, how would you deal with an administrative situation in which you were unsure of the best course of action? -

672:

In light of the concern over lack of WP:Space edits, I propose a hypothetical. A registered User sets up his Userpage, formatting it in a similiar way to an article. He uses

4445: 4422: 593:

edit, especially a referenced one. If it happens, then these actions, especially "rollback without explain one's actions" and "not answering the IP's queries", are against

2901:

No issues, opposes unconvincing. Giving a clueful editor the mop means we trust him with it, not a concern that he hasn't worked heavily in AIV. Are we short on mops?--

2249:

Clueful and trustworthy. More experience in admin areas would be nice but it's not like our policies are that hard to comprehend. I'm sure Ekabhishek will do just fine.

4202: 3744: 342:

Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

1405: 3841: 3669: 3132: 2263:

Those are terrific answers to my questions, and demonstrate to me that Ekabhishek has the judgement and the policy knowledge to do good work with the admin toolset.

1400: 1167: 4338:- Switched from neutral (see comments there). Atama's reasoning pushed me off the fence, as the concerns are selective participation echoed some of my concerns. -- 3816: 1491: 4707:

That January 2012 DYK interaction that I noted earlier is still a source of concern because Ekabhishek was doing a favor for another user in response to a bit of

3534: 2750: 2728: 2519:

prolific and clueful content contributors per "we are writing an encyclopedia after all." Combining that with the right temperament makes this even more obvious.

1072: 4778: 3835: 3711: 3507: 3484: 1978: 758: 206: 4232: 4197:

User is outstanding at article namespace. but, lacking the work at areas of Knowledge namespace. It clearly denotes that User doesn't require mop for his task.

4090: 4059:

think it is a big deal. If anything, an admin who errs on the side of undoing blocks is a far better one than an admin who errs on the side of making blocks. --

4036: 4021:

This still shows a lack of policy understanding in my mind. I promise that I will continue evaluating this editor and I've shown that I'm willing to readjust.

4016: 3981: 2978: 2960: 1913: 4135: 4070: 4053: 4002: 3961: 3584: 3119: 1657: 1509: 1010: 945: 736: 517: 449: 160: 3935: 3797: 3765: 1732:

I can see a general need of the tools. Admin tools are not only to help in admin-related fields, but also to help newbies, and this user will do that nicely.

1615: 1603: 1586: 1158:

and nag him. But then i saw this question here and thought of waiting. So.... @Ekabhishek, the first part of your "hypothetical" situation is no longer so. §§

1130:, I would ask the author to wait till the information appears in secondary sources as well, and offer the give him a copy of the deleted article, in case...-- 652: 4690: 3919: 3809: 3777: 3720:

the encyclopedia, even if I don't think he is quite ready for the responsibility yet. Hard to oppose such a worthwhile editor, even if I can't support yet.

3244:

stuff etc. because it is really not that complicated and when he makes a mistake, based on his history I'm confident he will handle it with professionalism.

2953: 2796: 2775: 2721: 1700: 1290: 153: 123: 4719:

I see potential value from giving this user additional tools, but I think admins need to be far more collegial and communicative than this user has been. --

1888: 1474: 857: 822: 4728: 3682: 189: 2488:

Clue, temperament, and experienced enough at building an encyclopedia that any remaining knowledge gaps will, I'm sure, be smoothly and quickly filled. --

1237: 4677: 4560: 3123: 2241: 1672: 841: 121: 4713: 1522: 4742: 1134: 1040: 989: 916: 720: 629: 423: 1858: 882:

I am really delighted to read the question as it shows a compassionate and empathetic heart, one quality I look for in a human being and a wikipedian.

1967:

Strong support. I really like this editor's approach as evidenced by his answers to the questions. Well worth a read with reminders for all of us. --

165: 793: 4799: 2187:, and whatever other admin policy pages are applicable to the scenario. (By the way, if you haven't read these core policies, go read them now. ;) 1733: 1284: 217:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

609:

would be declined. Clearly the editor in question, needs to reflect upon his work ethics, I would suggest a re-read of crucial wiki policies like

114: 4389:

Your editcount and content work really impress me but your lack of admin-related work and edits on project namespace makes me unable to support--

3344: 1122:, if the author also holds copyright to the source, and if there are no reliable secondary sources available or notable ones, it would amount to 352:

in the ephemeral realm; most often I only needed to get down from my high horse and withdraw. Sometimes this also requires giving up the need to

3889: 1297: 1724: 1030:

In the area you have stated you intend to work and require tools, vandalism & page protection, what work have you performed as an editor?

3295: 2999: 2009:. An excellent content-contributor. No problems in edit history. Clean, very helping, has huge experience in the project, and trustworthy.-- 4163: 2149: 2480: 2281: 1094:

criterion, but you are approached by the author of the article and says that he holds the copyrights of the source. What will you do now?

393:

requesting temporary semi-protection. Aside from the serial offender, the page has been completely free of vandalism. How do you proceed?

4784: 4590: 4398: 2361: 2343: 2060: 2043: 1573: 369:

respect the changes, so I would continue the same in the future as well, unless of course something kinder and equally efficient strikes.

4253: 1942: 4817: 3408: 3115: 3059:

Seems thoughtful and trustworthy to me. Content editors are well suited to dealing with vandalism and page protection sensitively. --

2689: 2235: 2196: 2132: 1707: 806:

the damage a power hungry editor or admin can cause, it not only damages content, creates a harsh environment, but also dissuades many

4513: 2104: 2001: 4486: 4278: 3460: 3303:

breadth of content-work and experience will put Ekabhishek in good stead when considering tool use. Highly likely to be net positive.

3109: 2893: 2859: 2618: 1715:

Excellent editor,experienced.Has been around since 2007 and with 280 articles.Feel the project will gain with the user having tools.

2597: 2528: 2222: 1962: 1796: 853:, where experienced admins can help me out, its better to ask for directions than get lost, above that we all have inner guidance.-- 212: 3563: 3335: 3051: 3034: 2878: 2494: 2018: 1813: 1781: 62: 3878: 3861: 3615: 2922: 2833: 2712: 2580: 2316: 2301: 2051:

An experienced, trustworthy and helpful editor. Agree with WilyD, Black Kite, Chris Cunningham and regentspark about the opposes.

1742: 1455: 4649: 4374: 3390: 3356: 3318: 3259: 3220: 3201: 3160: 2412: 2387: 2258: 1224: 4628: 4611: 4530: 3425: 3231: 3016: 2945: 2910: 2670: 2456: 2432: 1827: 1154:

recently and to me it's tone is fully G12. But i couldn't find any online source to support my suspicion. I would usually go to

4481: 4303: 4249: 4227: 4188: 3739: 3530:

me. After all we are all part of the same inclusive community, building wikipedia, one edit at a time, no matter where it is.--

3085: 2653: 2635: 2626:

I acknowledge that you did make mistakes here, but I trust that you will learn from those mistakes and thus support you today.

2563: 2549: 2511: 2206: 1883: 1842: 575:

implications, your actions and policy basis); (c) change to the article (your actions (and possible actions) and policy basis).

536:

This scenario, I believe, is something which you may encounter as an admin. Please read the following and answer the questions.

4347: 3184: 3068: 2087: 1835:

Not a single sysop among the co-noms. This is an attempt by the non-sysop cabal to overtake the admin corps by force.--v/r -

1760: 4330: 3373: 2231: 2159: 1343: 1276: 174:

a silent and tireless contributor whom I'm sure will be a good and sensible admin. Assured, he won't delete the main page :)

4769: 68: 4697: 3279: 2126: 3987:

the answer was very wrong, and has shown that Ekabhishek hasn't gained policy knowledge solely through his career length.

1123: 4506: 3500: 3453: 676: 1231: 4602:

issues that seem glossed over. Great editor, but hir answer suggests what we all feared, a misunderstanding of policy.

4474: 4220: 3895: 3732: 1930: 1876: 995: 968: 407:. Next he should be given a chance to redeem himself, place under probation etc., if that too doesn’t work ONLY then a 504:, before proceeding ahead, as his edits would be fruitful only then. Here again the bystander who the post request at 4521:

Amazing content work, but there just isn't enough edits in areas admins deal with for me to be able to judge upon. -

445:, faces consistent and high vandalism from various IP users or new users, each time the semi-protection gets over.-- 1720: 1310: 1217: 147: 82: 33: 17: 1988:

A content contributor is quite a rarity these days and Black Kite, WilyD, Chris Cunningham speak for me on this. —

1395: 477:, and wind up blocked for somewhere between 12-36 hours each. One of the blocked editors evades the block using a 4369: 2825: 2767: 1905: 404: 329: 4665: 1118:, this option be used, I wouldn't take CSD lightly. Rather I'd ask another admin for an opinion, no harm there. 598: 150:

tell the same story in a better way and I see no trouble with his editing or in trusting him with admin rights.

3314: 3215: 3151: 1421: 1255: 601:, and then jumping the gun and straight away adding Level 4 VAD warning is totally uncalled for and constitute 1199: 975:

on their talk page after the first revert. Is this a valid block? Under what circumstances would you unblock?

4157: 2995: 896: 701: 994:

My mistake, I mistook the question to be a hypothetical one as previous questions, nevertheless I did check

2443:

User is clueful, sympathetic, and is willing to seek assistance to learn what they don't already know. All

2167:- Per nom and because most people competent enough to write featured articles are competent enough to read 2145: 2036: 2471: 2081: 1740: 1716: 971:. They had previously edited the article but had never made a revert until that day. An editor placed an 569:

You see the request at AIV; outline all the steps you would take, and the policy basis for those actions.

4798:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either

4781: 4584: 4439: 4416: 4394: 4245: 3838: 3705: 3663: 3643: 2358: 2334: 2275: 2056: 1864:

He supports the candidate. It is a sarcastic and somewhat ironic statement regarding the nominators.

1431: 365: 360:

helps or working on something else all together, there is always something new to work on, to cool off

275: 3288: 1938: 1336: 1163: 1085: 1249: 4683: 4152: 3404: 2991: 2192: 2121: 1499:

forcing a long term content contributor to show that they care about being an admin by haunting AIV

1104: 550: 385:

Consider the following scenario — an editor registers an account, vandalizes a page (let's say... "

1369: 1317: 622: 412: 4501: 4273: 3832:

this. I greatly appreciate your content work, however, no edits to AIV makes me a bit concerned.

3495: 3448: 2215: 2141: 2100: 1995: 1598: 1568: 1486: 1067: 1053: 2286:

I frankly think that, despite not much project-space experience, Ekabhishek has plenty of clue.

1390: 4599: 4469: 4215: 3727: 3102: 2890: 2852: 2612: 2466: 1871: 964: 891: 182: 3771:

function with them, there is nothing to be lost here and a great deal to be gained if the do.

1385: 4572: 4428: 4405: 4390: 4241: 4065: 4012: 3976: 3931: 3693: 3651: 3631: 3559: 2829: 2771: 2593: 2524: 2353: 2329: 2264: 2052: 2029: 1973: 1957: 1929:

user's adminship for his huge experience in creation. He could be of good help in redefining

1909: 1792: 1469: 887: 727:

Would your actions change if the User had 0 Mainspace edits? A History of good contributions?

377: 4380: 1688: 4708: 4356: 4128: 4083: 4029: 3995: 3954: 3874: 3857: 3793: 3605: 3331: 3047: 3030: 2873: 2492: 2014: 1934: 1809: 1777: 1329: 1211: 1159: 1115: 938: 905: 711: 510: 76: 3431: 8: 4365: 4198: 4117: 3576: 3476: 3400: 2821: 2788: 2763: 2742: 2704: 2681: 2576: 2294: 2188: 2116: 2113: 1901: 1738: 1364: 1243: 901: 802: 777: 644: 143: 106: 1036:

Would you specify the actions, please. Or do you mean the usual reverting, restoring? --

4660:

I looked at this user's history to try to remember where I've encountered him. I found

4645: 4496: 4268: 3915: 3904: 3490: 3443: 3308: 3253: 3213: 3197: 3143: 2644:

would necessarily cause this user to harm the project if the tools are used with care.

2404: 2379: 2254: 2096: 1989: 1593: 1563: 1481: 1306: 1179: 1155: 1062: 1048: 1022: 542: 283: 246:. On many occasions, many users have asked me for help, in such cases I direct them to 45: 4359:. Get some more experience in admin-like areas and come back in a few months, please. 2324:

Repear Eternal, King of Hearts, Vaibhav Jain, and Black Kite sum it up pretty well. --

1426: 4624: 4607: 4556: 4546: 4526: 4463: 4299: 4209: 3721: 3421: 3228: 3095: 3012: 2974: 2941: 2906: 2887: 2847: 2666: 2607: 2452: 2429: 2168: 1865: 1823: 1668: 837: 789: 705: 469:"), all with registered autoconfirmed accounts. Two of the editors are engaged in an 419:

also be informed of the situation when denying semi-protection for the time being..--

177: 167: 58: 4738: 4724: 4673: 4343: 4060: 4042:

candidate's assessment on the block... but that's the beauty of the system! We are

4008: 3971: 3927: 3679: 3555: 3081: 2649: 2631: 2589: 2542: 2520: 2509: 2180: 2176: 1968: 1952: 1839: 1788: 1612: 1583: 1519: 1464: 1452: 4687: 4325: 4121: 4076: 4022: 3988: 3947: 3870: 3853: 3803: 3789: 3595: 3531: 3327: 3064: 3043: 3026: 2865: 2489: 2184: 2172: 2010: 1854: 1805: 1773: 1755: 1207: 1131: 1037: 1007: 986: 942: 913: 854: 819: 781: 755: 733: 717: 626: 514: 446: 420: 353: 303: 287: 271: 203: 135: 72: 2395:

The candidate is generally clueful, very experienced and above all trustworthy.

2230:

because all I really want to see is a good level of competence; I see it here.

2026:. 100K edits, almost all to namespace, and no trail of dead bodies or maimings. 743:

Would your actions be any different if the User listed his birthday as 9/6/1996?

704:. In line with this I would gently advise the user concerning rule that wiki is 4361: 4287: 4177: 4048: 3783: 3772: 3760: 3571: 3518: 3471: 3369: 2919: 2816: 2783: 2758: 2737: 2699: 2572: 2311: 2287: 2155: 1896: 1787:

suggested he needs access to are basic aids to keeping articles kicking along.

1145: 1112: 972: 934: 807: 639: 614: 602: 527: 505: 501: 478: 416: 390: 357: 299: 291: 251: 199: 101: 4811: 4792:

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.

4767: 4641: 4264: 4260: 4173: 3911: 3900: 3526: 3383: 3304: 3246: 3241: 3210: 3193: 3137: 2397: 2372: 2250: 999: 982: 955: 610: 606: 590: 586: 563: 489: 474: 470: 442: 349: 307: 295: 279: 247: 243: 239: 231: 139: 2844:

as nom! ;) I was away from wiki due to lack of internet hence couldn't vote

4620: 4603: 4552: 4542: 4522: 4292: 4182: 3522: 3513: 3417: 3273: 3225: 3008: 2970: 2937: 2902: 2662: 2448: 2422: 1819: 1664: 1651: 1503: 1127: 1003: 909: 883: 850: 833: 815: 811: 785: 768: 664: 618: 594: 497: 493: 408: 400: 325: 317: 235: 54: 3469:

I thought this would be considered as a plus point! 89% mainspace edits!--

202:

and to all those who have added to my learning, I accept the nomination. -

4734: 4720: 4669: 4339: 3676: 3077: 2645: 2627: 2558: 2537: 2502: 2203: 1836: 1804:- trustworthy editor. Agree with WilyD and Black Kite about the opposes. 1609: 1580: 1516: 1449: 1002:

rule is clearly stated, so this shows I need a thorough understanding of

867: 697: 466: 361: 321: 4313: 3169: 3060: 2072: 1850: 1752: 4263:

correctly and reported accurately formatted cases for Admin action at

876:

perspective) permanent consequences on users when performed slightly.

282:, wherever I find an article I can rescue, I pitch in. Often they are 4802:

or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

3894:

I have moved to oppose because of the answer to question 13. I chose

3365: 1501:- the candidate has already said (Q1) that they want to work at AIV. 545:(with default edit summary) to revert the change and issues a level 312: 998:

history, but didn't check its talk page as I should have, where the

4757: 4662:

Template:Did you know nominations/Contemplative Practices in Action

4150:

policy needs to both understand them AND prove their understanding

1309:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 1151: 814:

a user felt disempowered, he or she would repeat the same again as

3716:

I share your concerns, but neutral because I don't think he would

2966: 1321: 1144:

Sorry to intrude but i suppose RfA is not taken as seriously as a

4427:

Indenting my neutral comment to support this user for adminship.

4286:

The editor is a prolific contributor. While some of the editor's

3512:

I acknowledge your and general concerns regarding the absence of

3270: 2557:- Experienced and knowledgeable, looks like another great nom. ~ 386: 2202:

the area they work with and join the discussion when necessary.

435:

When is it appropriate to indefinitely semi-protect an article?

4240:

Per lack of Knowledge-space experience required for an admin. —

2756:

nominator support vote, will use that as a reason to oppose.

1101: 196:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

131: 908:

whenever possible, life does so too willingly, what we call

513:

is advisable, till the issue is resolved on the talk page.--

500:

taking into account the points of contention to arrive at a

849:

We are all new somewhere and here again, I will proceed to

895:

against him, here after. My first response comes from the

142:(cinema related topics are one of his favorite ones), and 635:

Hats off! Sorry I could not stop myself from posting here

441:

When a high-profile and high-quality article, especially

356:, perhaps revisiting the subject again later with a more 29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

3806:

and has stated the reason why he has changed his !vote.

890:

so should be used sparingly, with much deliberation and

264:

What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?

224:

What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

2588:

He is such a gem. Will make a brilliant administrator .

415:

would be my first suggestion. The user who reported at

461:

Consider this scenario — A number of users, let's say

3525:

response. Right now, I am offering a helping hand in

3076:

no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --

904:

within wikipedia as well. Thereafter we can offer a

1592:beg of you all to let that start here, right now". 985:

rule, the block is invalid and should be revoked.--

4075:You are correct, I was mistaken on wheel warring. 465:editors, are active on a certain page (let's say " 4180:when they have no experience at all with either. 2425:Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} 4809: 3489:It merely marks a strength in content creation. 2678:– A good editor. Can be trusted with the tools. 933:You are right, sometimes admins do have to make 1274:Edit summary usage for Ekabhishek can be found 981:Since the admin in this case didn't follow the 963:You notice that an editor has been blocked for 2351:Excellent answers to all the questions above. 732:The same actions will apply, in either case.-- 270:My most satisfying contributions have been in 4120:. Good luck and don't delete the main page, 1337: 886:clearly states that blocking should never be 2605:His contributions are good enough for me. -- 1818:Per WilyD, Black Kite and Chris Cunningham. 686:information concerning Knowledge in any way. 332:, as they have turned out to be informative. 900:out in warring situations is implementing 3465:Oppose was too harsh; switching to Neutral 1542:The following discussion has been closed. 1344: 1330: 53:Final (78/12/10); Closed as successful by 810:. So if as an editor while indulging in 700:, especially the part in wiki that says, 1849:Is this meant as a support or oppose? -- 1305:Please keep discussion constructive and 3517:administrative procedures involved in 3131:- Wonderful candidate (appears to be a 14: 4810: 2969:, to resolve any existing ambiguity. 2950:Actually, his response was to WormTT. 92:Been here: Since Feb 24, 2007 16:30:42 1325: 1061:answered in original O#1 discussion. 3788:talking about me or some other guy? 2932:to act in such situations, which is 2369:Highly experienced and trustworthy. 1772:conversant with policy than others. 776:Please state your interpretation of 4658:(I have not formed an opinion yet). 1789:Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) 1351: 691:How would you handle this userpage? 23: 3896:Singaporean general election, 2011 1148:and my intrusion will be forgiven. 969:Singaporean general election, 2011 230:The area I intend to work most is 24: 4829: 4818:Successful requests for adminship 3650:Moved to Neutral, comments there 3416:Likely to use the tool box well. 411:need be initiated, there again a 254:, would there be a wiki tomorrow. 234:, wherein I would like to aid in 89:Number of edits: 106,000 (almost) 2232:The Blade of the Northern Lights 2154:Per noms. Best of luck. - Dank ( 589:, rollbacks what is evidently a 18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship 4714:is still a current issue at DYK 3782:Nothing odd about this, but is 330:Manoj-Babli honour killing case 4549:) 18:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 278:and sometimes the last chance 13: 1: 4205:) 07:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 3907:) 18:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 350:feeling unnecessary ownership 4698:University Grants Commission 3648:) 14:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2936:than acting the wrong way. 706:not a social networking site 362:shift some images to commons 240:requests for page protection 7: 4785:01:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC) 4770:09:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 4743:21:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 4729:19:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 4691:17:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 4678:13:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 4650:09:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 4629:03:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 4612:12:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 4591:07:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 4561:12:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 4537:Neutral, borderline support 4375:02:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC) 4348:21:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 4331:20:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 4304:03:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 4279:16:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC) 4254:14:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 4233:17:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 4189:12:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 4164:23:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 4136:04:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC) 4091:04:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC) 4071:03:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 4054:00:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 4037:21:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 4017:20:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 4003:19:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 3982:19:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 3962:19:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 3936:20:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 3920:09:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 3879:07:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 3817:09:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 3798:09:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 3778:02:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 3670:07:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 3426:03:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC) 3409:03:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC) 3391:03:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC) 3374:20:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 3357:20:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 3336:19:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 3319:13:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 3296:13:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 3280:08:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 3260:05:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 3232:04:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 3221:21:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC) 3202:14:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC) 3185:13:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC) 3161:07:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC) 3124:02:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC) 3110:20:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC) 3086:15:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC) 3069:01:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC) 3052:23:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 3035:18:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 3017:13:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 3000:12:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 2979:12:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 2961:12:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 2946:12:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 2923:11:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 2911:11:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 2894:09:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 2879:03:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 2860:14:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 2834:13:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 2797:05:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 2776:13:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 2751:09:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 2729:08:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 2713:08:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 2690:06:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 2671:05:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 2654:03:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 2636:03:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 2619:23:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 2598:22:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 2581:21:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 2564:21:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 2550:20:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 2529:20:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 2512:17:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 2495:16:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 2481:13:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 2457:12:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 2433:12:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 2420:Fine with me - Mop please! 2413:08:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 2388:07:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 2362:06:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 2344:05:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 2317:02:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 2302:00:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 1979:15:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 1914:13:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 1673:12:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 1658:22:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 1616:21:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 1604:21:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 1587:21:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 1574:20:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 1523:20:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 1510:18:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 1492:17:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 1475:15:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 1456:14:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 1445:To opposes over experience: 1168:07:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC) 1150:I came across this article 1135:05:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 1073:16:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC) 1058:09:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC) 1041:07:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC) 1011:03:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 990:18:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 946:06:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 917:05:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 858:03:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 823:03:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 759:02:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 737:02:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 721:02:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 213:Questions for the candidate 63:07:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC) 10: 4834: 4531:15:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 4514:12:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 4487:11:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 4446:23:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 4423:10:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 4399:08:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 4108:Why I'm striking my oppose 3862:22:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 3842:21:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 3766:20:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 3745:19:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 3712:16:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 3683:16:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 3616:09:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 3585:08:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 3564:08:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 3535:16:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 3508:10:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 3485:08:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 3461:08:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2282:23:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2259:22:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2242:21:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2223:20:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2207:19:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2197:19:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2160:18:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2150:17:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2133:17:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2105:17:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2088:16:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2061:16:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2044:16:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2019:15:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2002:15:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 1963:14:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 1943:14:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 1889:23:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 1859:23:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 1843:13:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 1828:12:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 1814:12:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 1797:12:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 1782:11:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 1761:10:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 1743:09:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 1725:08:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 1708:07:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 1298:07:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 967:after making 2 reverts to 866:Additional questions from 842:15:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 794:15:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 767:Additional questions from 677:Infobox football biography 653:19:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 630:17:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 605:. With these reason, the 518:14:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 450:13:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 424:13:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 376:Additional questions from 272:India-related new articles 244:interventions in vandalism 242:besides handling specific 207:06:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC) 190:14:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC) 161:07:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC) 115:04:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC) 2447:qualities in an admin. - 1414: 1378: 1357: 1178:Additional question from 1084:Additional question from 1021:Additional question from 954:Additional question from 663:Additional question from 526:Additional question from 95:Enabled edit counter: Yes 4795:Please do not modify it. 3910:Moved back to neutral-- 1545:Please do not modify it. 696:I firmly believe in the 621:and yes, get clarity on 4668:, which troubles me. -- 2571:. Per BlackKite above. 1120:For the second scenario 1100:Today, is 15th August, 69:Nomination by Titodutta 38:Please do not modify it 4733:Switched to oppose. -- 4684:some experience in DYK 4503:A boat that can float! 3497:A boat that can float! 3450:A boat that can float! 3291:— Bill william compton 3044:Michael Scott Cuthbert 2140:per Chris Cunningham. 2095:Everything looks good. 1717:Pharaoh of the Wizards 1205:Links for Ekabhishek: 1109:For the first scenario 4686:, in 2009 and 2010.-- 3888:(moved from neutral, 3192:Just what we need! - 2441:(moved from neutral.) 973:edit warring template 364:, address some other 296:improperly referenced 34:request for adminship 4551:Moving to support - 3802:He is talking about 3116:Nearly Headless Nick 2697:Per nom (finally) -- 1427:Global contributions 1086:Bill william compton 801:How we behave as an 702:We were all new once 248:various noticeboards 4777:Moved from oppose. 4355:due to not meeting 3834:Moving to neutral. 3687:I didn't realise I 3217:The Undertaker 20–0 2992:Boing! said Zebedee 2886:- no major issues. 1391:Non-automated edits 902:restorative justice 623:rollback situations 473:, both violate the 144:Criminal Tribes Act 3267:per Mr. Cuthbert. 1735:♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 1370:Edit summary usage 1313:before commenting. 1156:User:SpacemanSpiff 892:proper explanation 603:biting a new comer 498:dispute resolution 492:, even asking for 479:sockpuppet account 198:Much gratitude to 39: 4638: 4563: 4510: 4509:(watch me float!) 4485: 4477: 4472: 4288:article creations 4235: 4231: 4223: 4218: 4069: 3980: 3922: 3893: 3743: 3735: 3730: 3672: 3612: 3504: 3503:(watch me float!) 3466: 3457: 3456:(watch me float!) 3389: 3156: 3148: 3050: 2840: 2731: 2442: 2341: 2042: 1977: 1961: 1891: 1887: 1879: 1874: 1637: 1636: 1473: 1440: 1439: 1311:his contributions 1283:Stats are on the 1128:original research 1075: 712:subst:uw-userpage 636: 475:three-revert rule 378:Master&Expert 298:articles or with 276:Unreferenced BLPs 166:Co-nomination by 122:Co-nomination by 37: 4825: 4797: 4766: 4762: 4636: 4587: 4581: 4580: 4550: 4511: 4508: 4504: 4499: 4479: 4475: 4470: 4460:writing articles 4442: 4436: 4432: 4419: 4413: 4409: 4391:Morning Sunshine 4373: 4353:Regretful oppose 4328: 4322: 4319: 4316: 4296: 4276: 4271: 4242:Strange Passerby 4225: 4221: 4216: 4207: 4162: 4160: 4155: 4063: 4051: 3974: 3909: 3890:original comment 3887: 3849:Regretful oppose 3829:Regretful Oppose 3812: 3786: 3775: 3763: 3737: 3733: 3728: 3708: 3702: 3701: 3666: 3660: 3659: 3649: 3646: 3640: 3639: 3611: 3609:Commentary Board 3606: 3601: 3583: 3581: 3574: 3505: 3502: 3498: 3493: 3483: 3481: 3474: 3464: 3458: 3455: 3451: 3446: 3388: 3355: 3293: 3292: 3278: 3276: 3256: 3249: 3182: 3159: 3155: 3152: 3147: 3144: 3140: 3107: 3106: 3100: 3046: 2956: 2876: 2871: 2868: 2857: 2855: 2850: 2838: 2795: 2793: 2786: 2749: 2747: 2740: 2724: 2717: 2711: 2709: 2702: 2688: 2686: 2628:Kevin Rutherford 2615: 2610: 2561: 2547: 2540: 2507: 2478: 2474: 2469: 2440: 2431: 2426: 2411: 2409: 2402: 2386: 2377: 2356: 2355:EngineerFromVega 2342: 2340: 2339: 2337: 2332: 2326: 2314: 2299: 2292: 2278: 2272: 2268: 2238: 2129: 2124: 2119: 2084: 2075: 2053:CorrectKnowledge 2041: 2039: 2034: 2027: 1998: 1992: 1971: 1955: 1881: 1877: 1872: 1863: 1758: 1736: 1703: 1601: 1596: 1571: 1566: 1547: 1534: 1533: 1489: 1484: 1467: 1386:Articles created 1346: 1339: 1332: 1323: 1322: 1293: 1279: 1271: 1230: 1200:General comments 1149: 1105:independence day 1070: 1065: 1060: 1056: 1051: 939:uninvolved admin 935:difficult blocks 715: 681: 675: 651: 649: 642: 634: 556: 555: 549: 409:banning exercise 405:block IP address 300:copyrighted text 187: 185: 180: 156: 134:related topics- 113: 111: 104: 4833: 4832: 4828: 4827: 4826: 4824: 4823: 4822: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4800:this nomination 4793: 4764: 4758: 4621:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 4600:WP:CHILDPROTECT 4585: 4574: 4573: 4507: 4502: 4497: 4440: 4434: 4430: 4417: 4411: 4407: 4383: 4360: 4326: 4320: 4317: 4314: 4294: 4274: 4269: 4208:Blocked sock. 4158: 4153: 4151: 4049: 3810: 3804:User:Ekabhishek 3784: 3773: 3761: 3706: 3695: 3694: 3664: 3653: 3652: 3644: 3633: 3632: 3628:go back to 2010 3607: 3602: 3597: 3580: 3577: 3572: 3570: 3501: 3496: 3491: 3480: 3477: 3472: 3470: 3454: 3449: 3444: 3434: 3343: 3290: 3289: 3274: 3268: 3254: 3247: 3218: 3211:Armbrust, B.Ed. 3170: 3153: 3145: 3138: 3136: 3104: 3103: 3096: 2954: 2874: 2869: 2866: 2853: 2848: 2846: 2792: 2789: 2784: 2782: 2746: 2743: 2738: 2736: 2722: 2718:Pretty fast ;) 2708: 2705: 2700: 2698: 2682: 2679: 2613: 2608: 2559: 2543: 2538: 2503: 2476: 2472: 2467: 2424: 2421: 2405: 2398: 2396: 2384: 2373: 2370: 2354: 2335: 2330: 2328: 2327: 2325: 2312: 2295: 2288: 2276: 2270: 2266: 2236: 2127: 2122: 2117: 2086: 2082: 2073: 2037: 2030: 2028: 1996: 1990: 1935:AnimeshKulkarni 1756: 1734: 1701: 1691: 1599: 1594: 1569: 1564: 1543: 1487: 1482: 1441: 1436: 1410: 1374: 1353: 1352:RfA/RfB toolbox 1350: 1320: 1291: 1275: 1223: 1206: 1202: 1160:AnimeshKulkarni 1143: 1068: 1063: 1054: 1049: 941:to intervene.-- 709: 679: 673: 648: 645: 640: 638: 553: 551:uw-vandalism4im 547: 546: 511:full protection 304:Tomb of Humayun 236:page protection 215: 183: 178: 176: 171: 154: 136:Tomb of Humayun 127: 119: 110: 107: 102: 100: 71: 50: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4831: 4821: 4820: 4805: 4804: 4788: 4787: 4772: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4748: 4747: 4746: 4745: 4717: 4705: 4701: 4680: 4631: 4614: 4593: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4516: 4489: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4382: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4350: 4333: 4306: 4281: 4256: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4199:GiantBluePanda 4166: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4118:Moonriddengirl 4105: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4039: 3984: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3864: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3811:TheSpecialUser 3751: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3673: 3596: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3578: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3478: 3433: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3411: 3401:ChrisGualtieri 3393: 3376: 3359: 3338: 3321: 3298: 3282: 3262: 3234: 3223: 3216: 3204: 3187: 3163: 3126: 3112: 3098:Blue Rasberry 3088: 3071: 3054: 3037: 3019: 3002: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2965:Whatever :-) 2955:TheSpecialUser 2926: 2913: 2896: 2881: 2862: 2836: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2790: 2744: 2723:TheSpecialUser 2706: 2692: 2673: 2656: 2638: 2621: 2600: 2583: 2566: 2552: 2531: 2514: 2497: 2483: 2459: 2435: 2415: 2390: 2380: 2364: 2346: 2319: 2304: 2284: 2261: 2244: 2225: 2214:. Good luck! 2209: 2199: 2189:Reaper Eternal 2162: 2152: 2135: 2107: 2090: 2080: 2063: 2046: 2021: 2004: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1948:Strong Support 1945: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1830: 1816: 1799: 1784: 1763: 1745: 1727: 1710: 1702:TheSpecialUser 1697:- per co-nom. 1690: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1549: 1548: 1539: 1538: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1459: 1458: 1438: 1437: 1435: 1434: 1429: 1424: 1418: 1416: 1412: 1411: 1409: 1408: 1403: 1398: 1393: 1388: 1382: 1380: 1376: 1375: 1373: 1372: 1367: 1361: 1359: 1355: 1354: 1349: 1348: 1341: 1334: 1326: 1319: 1316: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1292:TheSpecialUser 1281: 1272: 1201: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1182: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1146:papal conclave 1088: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1025: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 958: 951: 950: 949: 948: 921: 920: 919: 870: 863: 862: 861: 860: 827: 826: 825: 771: 764: 763: 762: 761: 745: 744: 740: 739: 729: 728: 724: 723: 693: 692: 688: 687: 667: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 646: 595:wiki etiquette 577: 576: 571: 570: 567: 559: 538: 530: 523: 522: 521: 520: 455: 454: 453: 452: 429: 428: 427: 426: 380: 373: 372: 371: 370: 336: 335: 334: 333: 258: 257: 256: 255: 214: 211: 210: 209: 170: 164: 155:TheSpecialUser 126: 124:TheSpecialUser 120: 118: 117: 108: 96: 93: 90: 86: 70: 67: 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4830: 4819: 4816: 4815: 4813: 4803: 4801: 4796: 4790: 4789: 4786: 4783: 4780: 4776: 4773: 4771: 4768: 4763: 4761: 4755: 4752: 4744: 4740: 4736: 4732: 4731: 4730: 4726: 4722: 4718: 4715: 4710: 4709:WP:CANVASSING 4706: 4702: 4699: 4694: 4693: 4692: 4689: 4685: 4681: 4679: 4675: 4671: 4667: 4663: 4659: 4657: 4653: 4652: 4651: 4647: 4643: 4635: 4632: 4630: 4626: 4622: 4618: 4615: 4613: 4609: 4605: 4601: 4597: 4594: 4592: 4588: 4582: 4579: 4578: 4570: 4567: 4562: 4558: 4554: 4548: 4544: 4540: 4538: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4528: 4524: 4520: 4517: 4515: 4512: 4505: 4500: 4493: 4490: 4488: 4484: 4483: 4478: 4473: 4467: 4466: 4461: 4456: 4453: 4447: 4443: 4437: 4433: 4426: 4425: 4424: 4420: 4414: 4410: 4402: 4401: 4400: 4396: 4392: 4388: 4385: 4384: 4376: 4371: 4367: 4363: 4358: 4354: 4351: 4349: 4345: 4341: 4337: 4334: 4332: 4329: 4324: 4323: 4310: 4307: 4305: 4302: 4301: 4298: 4297: 4289: 4285: 4282: 4280: 4277: 4272: 4266: 4262: 4257: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4243: 4239: 4234: 4230: 4229: 4224: 4219: 4213: 4212: 4206: 4204: 4200: 4196: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4187: 4186: 4185: 4179: 4175: 4170: 4167: 4165: 4161: 4156: 4149: 4144: 4141: 4137: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4127: 4126: 4125: 4119: 4114: 4109: 4106: 4092: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4067: 4062: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4052: 4045: 4040: 4038: 4035: 4034: 4033: 4028: 4027: 4026: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4014: 4010: 4006: 4005: 4004: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3985: 3983: 3978: 3973: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3945: 3941: 3937: 3933: 3929: 3924: 3923: 3921: 3917: 3913: 3908: 3906: 3902: 3897: 3891: 3886: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3876: 3872: 3868: 3865: 3863: 3859: 3855: 3850: 3847: 3843: 3840: 3837: 3833: 3830: 3826: 3818: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3805: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3776: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3764: 3759: 3756: 3752: 3746: 3742: 3741: 3736: 3731: 3725: 3724: 3719: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3709: 3703: 3700: 3699: 3690: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3681: 3678: 3674: 3671: 3667: 3661: 3658: 3657: 3647: 3641: 3638: 3637: 3629: 3624: 3623: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3613: 3610: 3603: 3600: 3593: 3590: 3586: 3582: 3575: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3553: 3549: 3546: 3545: 3536: 3533: 3528: 3524: 3520: 3515: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3506: 3499: 3494: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3482: 3475: 3468: 3467: 3463: 3462: 3459: 3452: 3447: 3440: 3436: 3435: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3415: 3412: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3397: 3394: 3392: 3386: 3385: 3380: 3377: 3375: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3360: 3358: 3354: 3353: 3350: 3347: 3342: 3339: 3337: 3333: 3329: 3325: 3322: 3320: 3316: 3313: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3299: 3297: 3294: 3286: 3283: 3281: 3277: 3272: 3266: 3263: 3261: 3258: 3257: 3251: 3250: 3243: 3238: 3235: 3233: 3230: 3227: 3224: 3222: 3219: 3214: 3212: 3208: 3205: 3203: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3188: 3186: 3183: 3181: 3177: 3173: 3167: 3164: 3162: 3157: 3149: 3141: 3134: 3133:content admin 3130: 3127: 3125: 3121: 3117: 3113: 3111: 3108: 3101: 3099: 3094:what you do. 3092: 3089: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3072: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3055: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3038: 3036: 3032: 3028: 3023: 3020: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3003: 3001: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2986: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2935: 2930: 2927: 2924: 2921: 2917: 2914: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2897: 2895: 2892: 2889: 2885: 2882: 2880: 2877: 2872: 2863: 2861: 2858: 2856: 2851: 2843: 2837: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2818: 2813: 2810:issue with a 2808: 2798: 2794: 2787: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2773: 2769: 2765: 2761: 2760: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2748: 2741: 2733: 2732: 2730: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2710: 2703: 2696: 2693: 2691: 2687: 2685: 2677: 2674: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2657: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2642: 2639: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2622: 2620: 2617: 2616: 2611: 2604: 2601: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2584: 2582: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2567: 2565: 2562: 2556: 2553: 2551: 2548: 2546: 2541: 2535: 2532: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2515: 2513: 2510: 2508: 2506: 2501: 2498: 2496: 2493: 2491: 2487: 2484: 2482: 2479: 2475: 2470: 2463: 2460: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2439: 2436: 2434: 2430: 2428: 2427: 2419: 2416: 2414: 2410: 2408: 2403: 2401: 2394: 2391: 2389: 2385: 2383: 2378: 2376: 2368: 2365: 2363: 2360: 2359: 2357: 2350: 2347: 2345: 2338: 2333: 2323: 2320: 2318: 2315: 2308: 2305: 2303: 2300: 2298: 2293: 2291: 2285: 2283: 2279: 2273: 2269: 2262: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2245: 2243: 2239: 2233: 2229: 2226: 2224: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2213: 2210: 2208: 2205: 2200: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2163: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2151: 2148: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2136: 2134: 2130: 2125: 2120: 2115: 2111: 2108: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2097:Torreslfchero 2094: 2091: 2089: 2085: 2083:Contributions 2078: 2077: 2076: 2067: 2064: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2047: 2045: 2040: 2035: 2033: 2025: 2022: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2005: 2003: 2000: 1999: 1993: 1987: 1984: 1980: 1975: 1970: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1959: 1954: 1949: 1946: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1931:Administrator 1928: 1925: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1898: 1893: 1892: 1890: 1886: 1885: 1880: 1875: 1869: 1868: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1841: 1838: 1834: 1831: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1800: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1785: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1764: 1762: 1759: 1754: 1749: 1746: 1744: 1741: 1739: 1737: 1731: 1728: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1711: 1709: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1696: 1693: 1692: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1617: 1614: 1611: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1602: 1597: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1585: 1582: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1572: 1567: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1546: 1541: 1540: 1536: 1535: 1524: 1521: 1518: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1500: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1490: 1485: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1471: 1466: 1461: 1460: 1457: 1454: 1451: 1446: 1443: 1442: 1433: 1430: 1428: 1425: 1423: 1420: 1419: 1417: 1413: 1407: 1404: 1402: 1399: 1397: 1394: 1392: 1389: 1387: 1384: 1383: 1381: 1377: 1371: 1368: 1366: 1363: 1362: 1360: 1356: 1347: 1342: 1340: 1335: 1333: 1328: 1327: 1324: 1315: 1314: 1312: 1308: 1299: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1273: 1269: 1266: 1263: 1260: 1257: 1254: 1251: 1248: 1245: 1242: 1239: 1236: 1233: 1229: 1226: 1222: 1219: 1216: 1213: 1209: 1204: 1203: 1193: 1190: 1189: 1186: 1183: 1181: 1177: 1176: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1147: 1141: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1103: 1099: 1096: 1095: 1092: 1089: 1087: 1083: 1082: 1074: 1071: 1066: 1059: 1057: 1052: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1039: 1035: 1032: 1031: 1029: 1026: 1024: 1020: 1019: 1012: 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 992: 991: 988: 984: 980: 977: 976: 974: 970: 966: 962: 959: 957: 953: 952: 947: 944: 940: 936: 932: 929: 928: 925: 922: 918: 915: 911: 907: 903: 898: 893: 889: 885: 881: 878: 877: 874: 871: 869: 865: 864: 859: 856: 852: 848: 845: 844: 843: 839: 835: 831: 828: 824: 821: 817: 813: 809: 804: 800: 797: 796: 795: 791: 787: 783: 779: 775: 772: 770: 766: 765: 760: 757: 752: 749: 748: 747: 746: 742: 741: 738: 735: 731: 730: 726: 725: 722: 719: 716:if need be.-- 713: 708:, and add on 707: 703: 699: 695: 694: 690: 689: 685: 678: 671: 668: 666: 662: 661: 654: 650: 643: 633: 632: 631: 628: 624: 620: 616: 612: 608: 604: 600: 596: 592: 588: 584: 581: 580: 579: 578: 573: 572: 568: 565: 560: 552: 544: 539: 537: 534: 531: 529: 525: 524: 519: 516: 512: 507: 503: 499: 495: 494:third opinion 491: 487: 484: 483: 480: 476: 472: 468: 464: 460: 457: 456: 451: 448: 444: 440: 437: 436: 434: 431: 430: 425: 422: 418: 414: 410: 406: 402: 398: 395: 394: 392: 388: 384: 381: 379: 375: 374: 367: 363: 359: 355: 351: 347: 344: 343: 341: 338: 337: 331: 327: 323: 319: 315: 314: 309: 308:Hindi theatre 305: 301: 297: 293: 289: 285: 281: 277: 273: 269: 266: 265: 263: 260: 259: 253: 249: 245: 241: 237: 233: 229: 226: 225: 223: 220: 219: 218: 208: 205: 201: 197: 194: 193: 192: 191: 188: 186: 181: 169: 163: 162: 159: 158: 157: 149: 148:contributions 145: 141: 140:Hindi theatre 137: 133: 125: 116: 112: 105: 97: 94: 91: 88: 87: 84: 81: 78: 74: 66: 65: 64: 60: 56: 48: 41: 35: 32: 27: 26: 19: 4794: 4791: 4774: 4759: 4753: 4655: 4654: 4633: 4616: 4595: 4576: 4575: 4568: 4536: 4535: 4518: 4491: 4480: 4465:Dennis Brown 4464: 4459: 4454: 4429: 4406: 4386: 4352: 4335: 4312: 4308: 4300: 4293: 4283: 4226: 4211:Dennis Brown 4210: 4194: 4193: 4183: 4181: 4168: 4147: 4142: 4130: 4129: 4123: 4122: 4112: 4107: 4085: 4084: 4078: 4077: 4043: 4031: 4030: 4024: 4023: 3997: 3996: 3990: 3989: 3956: 3955: 3949: 3948: 3943: 3942: 3884: 3883: 3866: 3848: 3828: 3827: 3808: 3807: 3754: 3753: 3738: 3723:Dennis Brown 3722: 3717: 3697: 3696: 3688: 3655: 3654: 3635: 3634: 3621: 3620: 3608: 3598: 3591: 3551: 3547: 3438: 3437: 3413: 3395: 3382: 3378: 3362:Weak support 3361: 3351: 3348: 3345: 3340: 3323: 3311: 3300: 3284: 3264: 3252: 3245: 3236: 3206: 3189: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3165: 3128: 3097: 3090: 3073: 3056: 3039: 3021: 3004: 2987: 2952: 2951: 2933: 2928: 2915: 2898: 2883: 2864:No concerns 2845: 2841: 2815: 2811: 2757: 2720: 2719: 2694: 2683: 2675: 2658: 2641:Weak Support 2640: 2623: 2606: 2602: 2585: 2568: 2554: 2544: 2536:Obviously. — 2533: 2516: 2504: 2499: 2485: 2465: 2461: 2444: 2437: 2423: 2417: 2406: 2399: 2392: 2381: 2374: 2366: 2352: 2348: 2321: 2306: 2296: 2289: 2265: 2246: 2227: 2217: 2216: 2211: 2164: 2156:push to talk 2144: 2137: 2109: 2092: 2070: 2069: 2068:no concerns 2065: 2048: 2031: 2023: 2006: 1994: 1985: 1947: 1926: 1895: 1882: 1867:Dennis Brown 1866: 1832: 1801: 1769: 1765: 1747: 1729: 1712: 1699: 1698: 1694: 1652: 1650: 1544: 1504: 1502: 1498: 1444: 1304: 1303: 1289: 1288: 1264: 1258: 1252: 1246: 1240: 1234: 1227: 1220: 1214: 1191: 1184: 1139: 1119: 1108: 1097: 1090: 1045: 1033: 1027: 978: 965:edit warring 960: 930: 923: 879: 872: 846: 829: 812:edit warring 798: 778:WP:ADMINACCT 773: 750: 683: 669: 599:common sense 582: 535: 532: 485: 462: 458: 438: 432: 396: 382: 354:make a point 345: 339: 326:Baroda State 318:Habib Tanvir 311: 267: 261: 252:edit history 227: 221: 216: 195: 175: 172: 168:Strike Eagle 152: 151: 128: 79: 52: 51: 46: 30: 28: 4431:Master& 4408:Master& 4357:my criteria 4061:regentspark 4009:Newyorkbrad 3972:regentspark 3928:Newyorkbrad 3556:Someguy1221 2590:Shyamsunder 2521:First Light 2267:Master& 2218:Mysterytrey 1969:regentspark 1953:regentspark 1537:Derailment 1465:regentspark 1432:User rights 1422:CentralAuth 906:clean start 897:Golden rule 698:Golden Rule 467:controversy 413:article ban 322:Amal Allana 238:and handle 4688:Ekabhishek 4682:I do have 3871:Jsjsjs1111 3854:Shadowjams 3790:TruPepitoM 3599:TruPepitoM 3573:Tito Dutta 3532:Ekabhishek 3473:Tito Dutta 3328:Tryptofish 3027:Dougweller 2934:far better 2785:Tito Dutta 2739:Tito Dutta 2701:Tito Dutta 2490:j⚛e decker 2331:~Scholarly 2169:WP:PROTECT 2038:.Wolfowitz 1806:PhilKnight 1774:Black Kite 1415:Cross-wiki 1406:AfD closes 1318:Discussion 1287:. Thanks! 1208:Ekabhishek 1132:Ekabhishek 1038:Ekabhishek 1008:Ekabhishek 987:Ekabhishek 943:Ekabhishek 927:decision? 914:Ekabhishek 855:Ekabhishek 820:Ekabhishek 808:new comers 756:Ekabhishek 734:Ekabhishek 718:Ekabhishek 641:Tito Dutta 627:Ekabhishek 591:good faith 515:Ekabhishek 447:Ekabhishek 421:Ekabhishek 290:and right 288:good faith 204:Ekabhishek 103:Tito Dutta 73:Ekabhishek 47:Ekabhishek 31:successful 4666:this diff 4154:dangerous 4050:Trusilver 4047:they do. 4044:permitted 3785:Trusilver 3774:Trusilver 3762:Trusilver 3514:namespace 3209:Why not. 2967:This edit 2920:Lankiveil 2849:TheStrike 2817:Callanecc 2759:Callanecc 2684:Abhishek 2573:Lord Roem 2445:excellent 2382:(Ping me) 2313:Trusilver 2181:WP:REVDEL 2177:WP:DELETE 2146:Strikeout 2142:Automatic 2011:Dwaipayan 1897:Callanecc 1401:AfD votes 1396:BLP edits 1285:talk page 1250:block log 1126:and even 1124:promotion 1116:criterion 587:ownership 528:Callanecc 490:consensus 313:Andha Yug 286:, who in 284:new users 232:vandalism 200:Titodutta 179:TheStrike 4812:Category 4779:Electric 4642:Mrmatiko 4482:Join WER 4370:Contribs 4228:Join WER 3912:Mrmatiko 3901:Mrmatiko 3836:Electric 3740:Join WER 3384:Milowent 3315:contribs 3305:Casliber 3194:Ret.Prof 3190:Support: 3154:contribs 3139:TRLIJC19 2826:contribs 2768:contribs 2477:Chequers 2375:Vensatry 2251:Pichpich 2185:WP:ADMIN 2173:WP:BLOCK 1991:Spaceman 1906:contribs 1884:Join WER 1379:Analysis 1358:Counters 1218:contribs 1152:Malegaon 996:the page 956:Mrmatiko 888:punitive 782:WP:WHEEL 543:rollback 471:edit war 292:boldness 83:contribs 4782:Catfish 4775:Neutral 4754:Neutral 4656:Neutral 4637:(again) 4634:Neutral 4617:Neutral 4604:Achowat 4596:Neutral 4569:Neutral 4553:Jorgath 4543:Jorgath 4523:DJSasso 4519:Neutral 4492:Neutral 4455:Neutral 4387:Neutral 4381:Neutral 4295:Wifione 4275:Caldron 4184:Hut 8.5 4178:WP:RFPP 4148:enforce 4113:exactly 4066:comment 3977:comment 3839:Catfish 3418:DocTree 3414:Support 3396:Support 3379:Support 3324:Support 3301:Support 3285:Support 3265:Support 3237:Support 3207:Support 3166:Support 3129:Support 3091:Support 3074:Support 3057:Support 3040:Support 3022:Support 3009:Kumioko 3005:Support 2988:Support 2971:Nyttend 2938:Nyttend 2929:Support 2916:Support 2903:Wehwalt 2899:Support 2891:Snowman 2884:Support 2867:Pumpkin 2842:Support 2839:Obvious 2812:support 2695:Support 2676:Support 2663:Carrite 2659:Support 2646:Michael 2624:Support 2614:Twinkle 2603:Support 2586:Support 2569:Support 2555:Support 2534:Support 2517:Support 2500:Support 2486:Support 2462:Support 2449:Jorgath 2438:Support 2418:Support 2393:Support 2367:Support 2349:Support 2336:Breeze~ 2322:Support 2307:Support 2247:Support 2228:Support 2212:Support 2165:Support 2138:Support 2114:King of 2110:Support 2093:Support 2066:Support 2049:Support 2024:Support 2007:Support 1986:Support 1974:comment 1958:comment 1927:Support 1820:Jenks24 1802:Support 1766:Support 1748:Support 1730:Support 1713:Support 1695:Support 1689:Support 1665:Nyttend 1653:Hut 8.5 1600:Caldron 1570:Caldron 1505:Hut 8.5 1488:Caldron 1470:comment 1225:deleted 1140:Comment 1069:Caldron 1055:Caldron 834:Jorgath 786:Jorgath 769:Jorgath 665:Achowat 615:WP:WARN 502:WP:NPOV 387:generic 366:backlog 294:create 55:28bytes 4735:Orlady 4721:Orlady 4670:Orlady 4435:Expert 4412:Expert 4340:Orlady 4336:Oppose 4309:Oppose 4284:Oppose 4270:Leaky 4265:WP:AIV 4261:WP:RPP 4195:Oppose 4174:WP:AIV 4169:Oppose 4143:Oppose 3944:Oppose 3885:Oppose 3867:Oppose 3755:Oppose 3622:Oppose 3592:Oppose 3548:Oppose 3527:WP:VAN 3439:Oppose 3432:Oppose 3349:hoesss 3105:(talk) 3078:rogerd 3048:(talk) 2814:vote. 2560:GabeMc 2505:Rzuwig 2271:Expert 2237:話して下さい 2204:Secret 2032:Kiefer 1833:Oppose 1595:Leaky 1565:Leaky 1483:Leaky 1365:XTools 1064:Leaky 1050:Leaky 868:Hahc21 611:WP:3RR 607:WP:AIV 564:WP:AIV 558:edits. 443:WP:BLP 399:Under 4498:FloBo 4159:panda 4131:Vesey 4086:Vesey 4032:Vesey 3998:Vesey 3957:Vesey 3552:avoid 3492:FloBo 3445:FloBo 3061:99of9 2888:Giant 2854:Σagle 2609:Lemon 2473:Spiel 2400:Suraj 2290:David 2074:RP459 1997:Spiff 1851:99of9 1307:civil 1232:count 1180:Leaky 1023:Leaky 910:grace 884:WP:BP 851:WP:AN 803:admin 619:WP:EQ 463:three 401:WP:PP 184:Σagle 132:India 61:) at 16:< 4739:talk 4725:talk 4674:talk 4646:talk 4625:talk 4608:talk 4586:talk 4577:Worm 4557:talk 4547:talk 4527:talk 4441:Talk 4418:Talk 4395:talk 4366:Talk 4362:Dori 4344:talk 4203:talk 4124:Ryan 4079:Ryan 4025:Ryan 4013:talk 3991:Ryan 3950:Ryan 3932:talk 3916:talk 3905:talk 3875:talk 3858:talk 3794:talk 3718:harm 3707:talk 3698:Worm 3665:talk 3656:Worm 3645:talk 3636:Worm 3560:talk 3521:and 3519:RFPP 3422:talk 3405:talk 3370:talk 3366:Glrx 3332:talk 3309:talk 3248:Robo 3226:Step 3198:talk 3146:talk 3082:talk 3065:talk 3031:talk 3013:talk 2996:talk 2975:talk 2942:talk 2907:talk 2875:talk 2830:logs 2822:talk 2772:logs 2764:talk 2667:talk 2650:talk 2632:talk 2594:talk 2577:talk 2539:Hahc 2525:talk 2468:Ϣere 2453:talk 2297:1217 2277:Talk 2255:talk 2193:talk 2101:talk 2057:talk 2015:talk 1939:talk 1933:. §§ 1910:logs 1902:talk 1855:talk 1824:talk 1810:talk 1793:talk 1778:talk 1770:more 1753:Wily 1721:talk 1669:talk 1277:here 1262:rfar 1244:logs 1212:talk 1164:talk 1113:PROD 1107:!... 838:talk 790:talk 784:. - 780:and 597:and 506:RFPP 496:for 417:RFPP 391:RFPP 358:NPOV 85:) – 77:talk 59:talk 4760:Axl 4559:) 4176:or 3689:was 3255:Cop 3242:AIV 3229:hen 3135:). 2870:Sky 2455:) 2071:-- 1941:) 1894::) 1268:spi 1238:AfD 1185:16. 1166:) 1102:our 1091:15. 1028:14. 1000:1RR 983:3RR 961:13. 924:12. 912:.-- 873:11. 840:) 830:10. 792:) 324:), 280:XFD 4814:: 4741:) 4727:) 4676:) 4648:) 4627:) 4610:) 4589:) 4529:) 4471:2¢ 4468:- 4444:) 4421:) 4397:) 4368:☯ 4346:) 4318:am 4315:At 4252:) 4248:× 4217:2¢ 4214:- 4015:) 3934:) 3918:) 3877:) 3860:) 3796:) 3729:2¢ 3726:- 3710:) 3668:) 3614:) 3569:-- 3562:) 3523:PP 3424:) 3407:) 3387:• 3372:) 3334:) 3317:) 3271:SJ 3269:– 3200:) 3150:• 3122:} 3114:— 3084:) 3067:) 3033:) 3015:) 2998:) 2977:) 2944:) 2909:) 2832:) 2828:• 2824:• 2774:) 2770:• 2766:• 2735:-- 2669:) 2652:) 2634:) 2596:) 2579:) 2545:21 2527:) 2280:) 2257:) 2240:) 2195:) 2183:, 2179:, 2175:, 2171:, 2158:) 2131:♠ 2103:) 2059:) 2017:) 1951:-- 1912:) 1908:• 1904:• 1873:2¢ 1870:- 1857:) 1826:) 1812:) 1795:) 1780:) 1723:) 1671:) 1256:lu 1192:A: 1142:: 1098:A: 1034:A: 1004:EW 979:A: 931:A: 880:A: 847:A: 816:WW 799:A: 774:9. 754:-- 751:A: 714:}} 710:{{ 684:no 680:}} 674:{{ 670:8. 637:-- 617:, 613:, 583:A: 554:}} 548:{{ 533:7. 486:A: 459:6. 439:A: 433:5. 397:A: 383:4. 346:A: 340:3. 328:, 320:, 316:, 306:, 274:, 268:A: 262:2. 228:A: 222:1. 138:, 36:. 4765:¤ 4737:( 4723:( 4716:. 4700:. 4672:( 4644:( 4623:( 4606:( 4583:( 4555:( 4545:( 4539:. 4525:( 4476:© 4438:( 4415:( 4393:( 4372:☽ 4364:☾ 4342:( 4327:頭 4321:a 4250:c 4246:t 4244:( 4222:© 4201:( 4068:) 4064:( 4011:( 3979:) 3975:( 3930:( 3914:( 3903:( 3892:) 3873:( 3856:( 3792:( 3734:© 3704:( 3680:P 3677:T 3662:( 3642:( 3604:( 3579:✉ 3558:( 3479:✉ 3420:( 3403:( 3368:( 3352:S 3346:S 3341:+ 3330:( 3312:· 3307:( 3275:+ 3196:( 3180:a 3178:c 3176:z 3174:a 3172:m 3158:) 3142:( 3120:c 3118:{ 3080:( 3063:( 3029:( 3011:( 2994:( 2973:( 2940:( 2925:. 2905:( 2820:( 2791:✉ 2762:( 2745:✉ 2707:✉ 2680:— 2665:( 2648:( 2630:( 2592:( 2575:( 2523:( 2451:( 2407:T 2371:— 2274:( 2253:( 2234:( 2191:( 2128:♣ 2123:♦ 2118:♥ 2099:( 2079:/ 2055:( 2013:( 1976:) 1972:( 1960:) 1956:( 1937:( 1900:( 1878:© 1853:( 1840:P 1837:T 1822:( 1808:( 1791:( 1776:( 1757:D 1719:( 1667:( 1613:P 1610:T 1584:P 1581:T 1520:P 1517:T 1472:) 1468:( 1453:P 1450:T 1345:e 1338:t 1331:v 1280:. 1270:) 1265:· 1259:· 1253:· 1247:· 1241:· 1235:· 1228:· 1221:· 1215:· 1210:( 1162:( 836:( 788:( 647:✉ 566:. 310:( 109:✉ 80:· 75:( 57:( 40:.

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

Knowledge

:Requests for adminship/Ekabhishek - Knowledge

Index