Knowledge:Requests for adminship/HouseBlaster

1512:. While this remark is 21 years old, it clearly appears on the policy page, and is a worthwhile perspective to consider, even though circumstances have changed. In researching, I have found that they often think they are right, but do not get hung up on the letter of the law more than a reasonable person might, i.e. the candidate likes to cite technical minutiae, but does not have any visible temperament issues that are incompatible with serving as an administrator. On balance, I think electing someone to an administrative position from which people are frequently removed (by community consensus, by the Arbitration Committee, and in the future by a community recall process) is not really a big deal, and based on the sorry state of our backlogs we should be doing it more often. Jimmy Wales saying it was NOBIOGDEAL in 2003 when he was handing out unelected adminships, and back then the backlogs only went back two years, as opposed to twenty-three. Materially, the mainspace participation for Houseblaster is irrelevant to their being promoted to the role of administrator on an encyclopedia. Tryptofish's analysis of the candidate’s 5275:. I've been here long enough that I remember a former admin, who worked tirelessly with categories, and did very good work there, that made her widely liked and respected when she became an admin, and for quite some time after. But as she moved into other areas of admin work, she made some really awful blocks of editors who should not have been blocked, and she got into a ridiculous edit war with RexxS, which ended up leading to the things that eventually caused him to leave Knowledge for good (and he is much missed). That admin ended up getting desysoped by ArbCom, for good reason. I don't want that to happen again, and neither should anyone else. I like HouseBlaster personally, and my oppose is not a comment on him as a person, or even as an editor. It's specifically about whether he is a good fit for the job. I've tried to test out my thinking in the General comments section (which I wish more editors would read, while this trial process is being tested), and I've thought hard about this, but I'm ending firmly here. If we could unbundle category deletion (does WMF 4015:

absolutely no reason for administrators to have to be polymaths nor jacks of all trades, nor have ten-year old accounts, nor must they have dedicated their entire lives to a random Internet project. If an editor's promotion will ultimately be a net positive, as it is in this case, then there is no good reason in my mind to hold any objection. An an editor involved solely in content creation myself, I must say idc at all about administrators not being all too familiar with content themselves; there are a lot of examples of fantastic administrators who prioritise other fields like maintenance and what have you. In fact, I would assume most administrators are not avid content creators given the apparent technical and managerial associations with the role, but perhaps that assumption is incorrect a-ha. Tryptofish's points below I think are the strongest, but, to me, the cited edits are minor goofs/questionable decisions at best. The rest of HouseBlaster's edit history is quite strong, and the rest of their talk page interactions seem more level-headed.

4765:—Clearly experienced in the areas they work in, has the trust of others doing that work, and seems likely to make a positive impact with the tools. I'm not concerned with content creation record and as others have pointed out HouseBlaster's 28% still amounts to 8000 edits to mainspace. Conduct concerns would potentially be more swaying, but looking through the diffs provided by Tryptofish and others I see an editor who is polite, well-meaning, competent, and patient. That they may occasionally misread a room and say something "cringe" isn't a barrier and indeed, I suspect everyone who spends time editing this site is guilty of occasionally misreading social cues. I will also register my support for the hypothetical creation of categories for those who do and don't use em-dashes properly /s. 6795:. By the end of that second discussion, I actually came around to accepting HouseBlaster's approach, so I don't think that he was technically wrong. But it seemed to me that he was operating under a rigid definition of The Rules, rather than showing deference to what other editors might prefer. I want to make clear that he wasn't, strictly speaking, wrong in either of these two examples. But I note that some other editors have commented above about there not being much content experience, and when I take that along with the two instances I link to here, I think there could be a potential issue in this RfA, of not having the right kind of attentiveness to interpersonal nuance that many editors want to see demonstrated in an RfA. Feel free to reply to my comment. -- 6125:

it demonstrates... well, something. Not necessarily a lack of empathy, but certainly a lack of having thought through how a question like that might make someone feel, or even how they might respond to it at all - what were you expecting him to say? Doug is too nice of a guy to have made any kind of bone about it, but really - I can't fathom the intention behind it. So, yeah, I can't bring myself to support, but at the same time I'm not going to speak against the swell of support that the candidate is getting from many people who are much more familiar with his work than I am. There is no doubt at this point that this RfA will pass, but please, if you are dealing with sensitive situations in future, think carefully about the questions you ask.

3357:

following policy and the licensing requirements, even when it's not strictly needed or when nobody's watching. And true, they didn't write their GA from scratch- but they correctly identified areas a pre-existing article needed expanding, were willing to do the tedious job of tracking down sources to support claims already made in the article, and, in general, did a lot of needed gnome-like edits. And, again, the conversation LightBurst brought up shows a very patient person with a good knowledge of Knowledge policies and guidelines. I've never had the pleasure of encountering HouseBlaster before, but I'm sure they'll make a great admin. (Even if he's chosen to devote himself to categories. Ah, well. We can't all be perfect)

5389:. We've seen also promotion of certain users who've not done much content editing and/or creation. If the nominee (HouseBlaster) becomes promoted, I guess I wouldn't be surprised mainly due to huge majority. Nonetheless, I can't help wonder whether trying to avoid the potential same cycle (referred by Tryptofish) is either futile or risk-aversive or.... Anyways, I know that RFAs are not places to address current state of WMF and Wikimedia projects, but (if Tryptofish is right, then) certain potential cycles of promoted "qualified" users who may not be qualified in other words be seen as a symptom of Knowledge slowly crumbling, affecting other Wikimedia projects and then WMF like a 1621:

that to be pretty disruptive, both at the individual level preventing some fine but imperfect people from becoming admins, and also at the systemic level by creating the toxic culture around adminship that demands nothing short of perfection and addiction to gain access to what was supposed to be a toolkit for people who could pass a vibes check. And to be clear, I also think that adminship is no big deal and that this candidate would be a net positive - my review of their contributions shows someone with a relatively level head, a decent amount of empathy and desire to collaborate, and someone who I think can figure out how to read policy and press the buttons properly. --

4095:. There is a clear use-case for the tools, and it's an area that could definitely use more admins. I see no evidence that HB would abuse the tools in any way. I flinched at the question to Doug, but I can only see it as an awkward way to express a genuine sentiment that I can't argue with, and so perhaps I can set it aside. I'm also a little unhappy about the volume of content creation, but I looked into the GA and the DYK in some detail, and I saw substantive content edits, not just gnoming, and I had no quibbles with the edits I checked. I assume this is going to be successful, but regardless, I urge the candidate to return to writing as often as possible. 5047:. So this is more of a Kitschy-legacy-statement for historical reference rather than policy. The fact that the candidate confuses this 21 year old remark with actual policy is somewhat understandable since it appears on a policy page: I cannot let them off the hook though, because if HouseBlaster read the section, it is clearly not policy. It falls into the same category of RfA votes as "why not" and "yup" votes. In researching, I have also found that they often think they are right and they get hung up on the letter of the law. i.e. looking through contributions I see the candidate likes to cite technical minutia and can be dismissive. This 7487:, wanted to answer this but like KT was reluctant to insert it into the vote. People notice opposes. And a lot of people are reluctant to oppose, which means that instead of opposing they simply don't weigh in. People who are comfortable doing it, and so do it regularly, stand out. If the editor had simply not voted in those RfAs, no one would find it the least bit remarkable. That editor is willing to take a risk and does it regularly here. I don't always think they have a great point, but I absolutely think they're well-intentioned, and I admire anyone willing to stand up and speak instead of sitting on their hands. 4779:. I have little interest in the prevailing arguments in the oppose section. I see it as an even greater expression of poor judgement to base your entire impression of someone off one arguably inappropriate comment. I also believe that documented best practices exist for good reason and that they should be the expectation unless the community has weighed in otherwise. I do find myself having reservations about giving power over an article-writing site to people who haven't demonstrated any in-depth understanding of article writing, but specialized admins in other areas needing attention, like CfD, are valuable as well. 4374:. Content creation is necessary, of course, but it is not necessary for everyone to focus on it. The site also needs people with organisational skills who can do the background tasks, and I would hope those are the main priorities for sysops because otherwise they should just be editors. I see categories as an essential aid to the readers who need a sure means of navigation. If, as almost everyone seems to agree, HouseBlaster is strong on a key function like CFD closure and there is a permanent backlog in that area, then I think he should be given the tools that will enable him to be fully effective. 2987:: HouseBlaster's addition to the sysop group would be more of good than bad. We've all made comments, took actions, where we wondered what we were thinking when we said those things or took those actions. We can't keep discrediting users because of few errors they made, whether the errors are noteworthy or not, when they are obvious net-positives and when they have worked seriously and extensively in other aspects of the encyclopedia. As Just Step Sideways stated below, there's plenty of administrative work to go round for every admin. It is not an easy thing to be a jack of all trades. 3656:- I usually prefer to wait for some Opposes before voting (and RFA is not a !vote because it really is a vote), to see whether I agree or disagree. I do not think that extensive content creation experience is essential for all admins. It is necessary that many of our admins have mostly content creation experience, and they do. So I respectfully disagree with the Opposes. I think that it is useful also to have admins who are proficient in various gnomish tasks having to do with organizing the content. This is an editor who can be trusted to use the tools to organize the content. 603:!votes and no opposition. There are discussions ranging from that easy to sitting-and-waiting-for-weeks-for-closure-because-it-is-a-behemoth – and everything in between – so you can move from easy closes on up at your own pace. After all, there are ~30 new discussions which need closing every day. And if CFD is not for you, that is completely okay! I am a massive believer that people should edit in ways they find enjoyable (of course, provided that those ways are productive / not disruptive). There are countless other tasks which you might find enjoyable. 5283:?), this candidate would be fine, but we can't do that, and we can't hold admins to just working in the areas that they say they will work in. A pattern that I consistently see is that HouseBlaster is a nice person, but his first impulse is to defend himself as being right when criticized, and he constantly treats Knowledge as something to be done according to a set of rules, rather than with nuance. "I'm right, according to the rules" is something that will go badly when a difficult admin action is questioned. This edit, 4915:

apologised in a way that shows they understand that what is approrite for a friend is not for a stranger shows enough awareness and the ability to listen for me to now disregard this. In the areas they have been active they appear to be competent and their interactions with others positive. The number of main-space edits not automated and not related to categories is very small, as are the contributions in other areas so I urge them that if and when they branch out into other areas they do so with care.

6715: 5704:, and to a greater or lesser degree, I stand by that, as far as content issues go. But I had unaccountably not seen Tryptofish's diif2. That's not a complete fup, but it does demonstrate questionable judgement, a curious lack of empathy. These are quality that some of our admin cohort already lack. They do not need topping up. Wholly bizarre, in fact, that anyone would even consider posing such a question in public. I don't think it's a NOT EVER deal breaker, but perhaps a matter of online maturity. 4316:. I am not convinced by the rationale of the opposes so far or seriously concerned by any of the few, isolated issues that have been brought up. When one has made several thousand edits, a few mistakes and missteps are bound to happen. Using the percentage of mainspace edits as a basis to oppose ignores the absolute number of those edits (more than 8000), which clearly shows the candidate's committment to improving and maintaining the mainspace. I'm also a bit bothered by the rationale that 4211: 5467:, I mean by terms of content creation they haven’t really done much, and to be fair looking at their recent edits a majority of their edits go to stuff about CfD. Their most edited mainspace page has been edited 37 times, which I would not consider high compared to some other admins. This month only 6% of their edits have gone to mainspace. I’m sorry, I hope this won’t discourage you in the future. I also have to oppose per Lightburst (unfortunately) and Tryptofish. 6649:. I also had one GA. Our situations are slightly different because I had a higher mainspace percentage and I have also created a larger total number of articles. But I also didn't have what most people see as a substantial "need for the tools", which is an area I think HouseBlaster is stronger in. I don't think mainspace percentage is everything. Serious content editing usually takes more time per edit than other activities. For example, I recently nominated 6825:

familiar and commonplace markup ('''bold''', for example), into some markup that, on the face of it, was considerably more complex when viewed in the edit window, and that I, for one, had never even seen before in almost two decades of editing here. And it felt, to me, like HouseBlaster was surprised at the pushback, because this was supposedly a question of only one way of doing the markup being "right", and everyone else just needed to follow the rules. --

311: 5292:, and I'll readily say (as I already did in the General comments), that HouseBlaster was collegial, that I learned some things from it, and that I came around eventually to accepting some parts of the edit. But other editors besides me pushed back against that edit, and HouseBlaster was insistent that his edit was Correct according to The Rules, a position he never really moved off of. I'm not someone who opposes because "not enough GAs", but I 82:) – HouseBlaster has been one of the bright new faces of the 2020s, and I believe he will make a great addition to the admin class of 2024. HouseBlaster has displayed responsibility and good judgment with his work on the maintenance side of the site, which includes work at requested moves and on categories, files, and templates. With all the Categories for deletion closes he does, House might as well already be an admin; see the long history of 3387:

having just fourteen sources, a citation needed tag, and a page number needed tag, to having 19 sources, all of which now have specific page numbers (most of which were lacking, or only pointed to overly broad ranges, in the original version). Again, I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear enough in my support that this is what I was referring to, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to make sure my rational is properly explained.

5104:), has shown that HouseBlaster was simply making technical edits to an article that was already written. I do not have confidence that the candidate knows the content creation side of the encyclopedia well enough to protect content and content creators; and as mentioned above, I also see flashes of a personality that suggests Houseblaster does not always respond cordially and digs in on their own interpretation of policy. 5640:

user's death, even if in good faith, lacks the basic empathy and people skills needed to be an admin. I get it - they're unlikely at this time to work in areas that require them to deal with intrapersonal conflict all that much. There's a trend on this site though - admins tend to start in the areas they're most comfortable with, then their interests change. It's normal. I really do not want to put someone who asked

6956:. And while I, personally, care about content work in RfA candidates, I also personally reject rigid criteria like "a single GA isn't enough". I'm more concerned with the kind of work done, than with checking off some arbitrary checklist. I took a deep dive into that page's edit history. The page was already pretty far along before you started working on it: permalinks of the page just before your first edit: 2306:. I used to be fully on team House, but went over to the dark side of Bass sometime around 2021. I do hope it's at least Deep House or Funk House you'll be blasting (especially if camped within earshot), but it's a big genre with a lot to love in it.Also legit thought you were an admin, given your comportment, which has been most proper and appropriate. Wish we had succeeded in replacing 7434:

writing things. I know that's not every case when admins usually write less content after promotion, but sometimes people realize that focusing more on articles can be a way to make friends and have fun. But anyway, this is just my weird viewpoint, mostly because my own priorities have been shifting. I'd hope that HouseBlaster might consider some greater focus on content in the future.

7299:

appreciate the contributions from IPs, and whether they really support the basic principles of this project... Or maybe they bring up a problem with IP editing that I've never considered? If a candidate brings up an argument that hasn't been heard yet, chances are they came to it by themselves. The argument may be sound, or fringe, but either way I'd find that interesting.

4480:- I do think it would have been nice for the candidate to have had a more rounded content creation experience prior to seeking the mop, but I think they're narrowly on the side of the line that I can accept, factoring in the GA nom and a few other creations. On the issues Tryptofish mentions, I'm not convinced there's a huge problem. Indeed, looking at the discussion at 6555:. The candidate has clarified what area of the project's back end they do the most at and that area needs more admins. I fully support a trend where admins may run and be successful without content creation experience but a large focus on the neglected stuff. I look forward to hearing from the candidate and their answers to the questions! Thanks for running! 5857:. The rather limited content work / low mainspace activity (we don't need to get fixated on the one GA , although the candidate's "62% authorship" argument didn't really help with the overall impression) and Tryptofish's diffs (I'm honestly baffled by that question and am not even sure "cringeworthy" encapsulates how odd/weird/misplaced I find it; note that 1520:), has shown that HouseBlaster was simply making technical edits to an article that was already written. But I do not think every candidate needs to be personally experienced with content review processes to protect content and content creators; and as mentioned above, I also see flashes of a personality that suggests Houseblaster would make a good admin. 5851:, reluctantly, after some consideration. In the very specific area that they are mainly planning to be active, they are certainly proficient, have a clear need for the tools and (afaict) would be a valuable admin addition given the backlog / number of admins active in that area. However, I do share the concerns that Tryptofish highlights and also share 3958:- I wrote a long justification that meandered through my personal bias against categories and category work, nodded to the opposes, and then tried to put aside my bias citing examples of the candidate acknowledging mistakes and being helpful, eventually concluding they're worth supporting. Instead, I'll leave this summary and say "worth supporting!" — 5678:, just about, and reluctantly. Per Tryptofish. I almost never oppose -- usually I simply don't support, since in most cases a weak candidate doesn't need pile-on opposes. I prefer to see content work but I wouldn't oppose just on that basis. I've been thinking about Tryptofish's oppose for a couple of days and have finally decided they're right. 654:

were in charge of the WMF, I would look into better supporting the editor base, especially engaging new editors. We all started somewhere, better support for newbies really helps the 'pedia grow. If I were in charge of Knowledge's policies, my current least favorite rule is "links outside of mainspace must be treated as external links" (part of

5785:, reluctantly. My main concerns are an attachment to bureaucracy and the rules, insufficient actual content work (I'm not counting GAs, I'm talking about actual mainspace contribs and articles written. Good CSD and category experience, though. (Started out in support, moved to neutral, mulled a bit more and jumped on the oppose bandwagon}. 7365:

able to handle technical sections of WP, then I think you can learn any part of WP, so I don't mind if your experience is specific to a certain area. However, if you do not have common sense, then I do not think that being an administrator is advised, either for the candidate or WP? I am happy not to ask it again if not helpful:)

1701:– they're good at what they do. I've seen HouseBlaster show kindness and initiative to several editors over time. I don't think adminship will suddenly cause them to go on a power trip and in the incredibly unlikely scenario it does, we're in the midst of creating a community desysop process anyways. I don't think we should let 5303:– not all of what he did, but a lot. I explicitly invited him to reply, and I find his reply revealing. He points out that he had added 62% of the character count to the page, which may sound like he wrote a majority of the text, but actually reflects, in part, that re-formatting. So the pattern I'm seeing is of someone I like 6933:, "so what does that prove?" Communication online is certainly a tricky issue. My own gut reaction to your question was to want to say, "if you gotta ask...". I think that it's breathtakingly tin-eared (as is your comment, but you aren't the candidate). For me, I expect administrators to know how to get those things right. -- 1879:– Opposition concerns expressed thus far seem to be non-issues with respect to adminship. CfD (and more broadly XfD) and CSD experience is impressive, as is edit history. User is very active, and is an effective communicator, demonstrating strong knowledge of policies & principles with civility. For what it's worth, 5906:. Unconvinced about the candidate's experience in key admin areas, however the issues raised by the opposers do not warrant an outright Oppose from my end (a single ill-thought-out comment doesn't necessarily indicate future performance, as I've learned after needlessly opposing Tamzin's RfA on a similar ground). — 2262:. The candidate demonstrates a clear expertise in various areas of Knowledge. I don't see the low rate of article creation as a negative, nor do I see it as a positive. It is neutral because the candidate has high skill in the other areas. I'll note here that I hope to see the candidate doing more article creation. 7350:

personal motivations. We can get a sense of a requestor's character through their editing history and interactions with others. If a given commenter doesn't think there are enough contributions yet to evaluate the requestor, they can oppose conditionally until enough edits have been made to make a determination.

7123:

other hand, for a candidate, appears has weak experience in content creation (and no, I don't go by GA's) or in other areas such problem situations and thinks like ANI stuff. Things that are normally expected of a candidate, on the presumption that a successful candidate could do work in all admin areas.

6951:

I'm going to bring up another, related issue, before we get into the support/oppose phase. And I want to say, specifically to HouseBlaster, please consider me to be exempting you from the (somewhat arbitrary) tradition of "candidates can't reply to comments", for purposes of replying to anything that

6897:

Regarding the second discussion (in which I participated), which was about replacing presentational markup of bold and italics with semantic markup, personally I don't think it's an issue of deference, but appreciating there can be differing opinions on what best reflects the semantics of a sentence,

5172:

I apologize, but 28.3% of the candidate's edits are to the main space, which is clearly quite insufficient. The fundamental responsibility of any Wikipedian here is to write and protect articles and content creators. The candidate has demonstrated very limited experience in content development, which

4485:

and '''...''' but it seems it makes a difference for people using screen-readers, between letting them know there's emphasis on the one hand and just reading straight through on the other. In an ideal world we wouldn't have to use html tags in markup, but where there's an advantage to it I think it's

3931:

Per my general comment. I am not too concerned about the lack of content creation, although I would like to see more of it from HouseBlaster as an admin; indeed, as has been noted elsewhere, there have been times when a user passed RfA with relatively meager content work, and then went on to become a

3902:

Tentatively, as there is always need of people even if just to clear out backlogs and maintain things. However, I do feel content writing is a heavily important thing to be familiar with, as not understanding it can lead to problems and disagreements that may otherwise not happen, like being quick to

653:

I will start by acknowledging that I wouldn't want to be a dictator of Knowledge. With that out of the way, I guess there are two ways to interpret this question, and because both are interesting I will answer both (and for those of you keeping score at home, I still count this as one question). If I

621:

The labels deletionist and inclusionist are some of the least helpful things on Knowledge. They encourage tribalism and are inherently comments on the person, which are both objectively bad things. Calling someone else a deletionist/inclusionist/mergist/etc. has literally never helped any discussion,

7433:

It's hard to determine priorities for now and the future, y'know? We've had at least two "recent" admins who had no GAs at the time of their RfA and who have gone on to focus a lot more on content. At least one of them is no longer active in administrative areas because it makes them less happy than

7349:

I understand that for some commenters, evaluating their trust in a candidate may include getting a feel for the candidate's personal characteristics. But I don't think we should be turning the request for administrative privileges process into one akin to a job interview, with questions delving into

6839:

I've been thinking a lot about how people have been addressing and changing their approach towards interpersonal conflicts. Some of that might come with maturity. We care a lot about communication, "playing well with others" for lack of a better word, but what does the community suggest people with

6147:

Been sitting on this one for some time. OP clearly does great work and is familiar with the administrative areas he wishes to work in, but the post to Doug Weller's talk page just doesn't sit right with me. Seems like this is going to pass, so HouseBlaster, I hope you take the feedback that's been

6124:

I don't think I've ever ended up in the neutral section before, but I find myself here because I too think that the comment at Doug's talkpage was worrying. I don't doubt that it was asked out of genuine good intentions, but it's just a weird thing to ask someone, and given the circumstances I think

5802:

I share Tryptofish's concerns about HouseBlaster's preoccupation with the rules and lack of content creation. Their edits to the policy page demonstrate how they might not understand how site consistency and simplicity makes it easier for other editors to edit, which makes me think that they'll have

5639:

This is going to pass, but Tryptofish's first diff was enough to get me to log in to oppose this. Knowledge is not a social network, but it is an online community and part of being a community is realizing that the other people around us are people. Someone who asks such a question regarding another

5624:

Per Tryp (and, like Gog, slightly reluctantly). Content is king, and the more you do it and the more you have to deal with the stresses and strains of people critiquing, altering, vandalising and re-writing, the more likely you are to be the type of admin who can see all sides when there’s conflict.

5095:

was a cringey and somewhat clueless question. On Balance, I think electing someone to a forever administrative position is a big deal, and based on failed RfAs others editors seem to think it is a big deal. Jimmy Wales saying it was NOBIOGDEAL in 2003 when he was handing out unelected adminships, is

4857:

Some of the opposing arguments seem to overvalue content creation as a requirement for adminship. (Content creation is not what adminship is...) Some even make the case for rules-based reasoning being bureaucratic, which is mildly absurd. Instead of a lengthy argument I'll just cite a counterexample

3110:

About the comment on Doug Weller's talk page: It was definitely a weird comment to make, and was probably a mistake on HouseBlaster's part, but everyone makes mistakes. I don't see it as a severe enough mistake to be a dealbreaker by itself, and I have not seen evidence of a pattern. If anyone would

1027:

Regarding content, I don't necessarily believe that The Rules are there to constrain content creators. In general, they are there to help create better content. Sometimes the rules do have to define what content is out of bounds: as one example, it would be easier to create content if we didn’t need

685:

Hi there. Knowledge has an interesting culture with people of various backgrounds, ideologies, dispositions, and hobbies. While collaboration with others can be fun, Knowledge is also going to suck sometimes, especially with the conflict innate to admin areas. If you had the power to change anything

7408:

since 2019 is indeed low. And considering HouseBlaster is a member since 2019 it doesn't look like content creation will suddenly be among their priorities any time soon. So we have a solid con here. Whether it is important enough so as to decide whether they should gain adminship or not is another

7364:

Having now participated in a few RfAs, I sense a key issue - once it is clear there is technical competency - is whether the candidate has common sense. That was the purpose of my question. The last few RfAs who answered it gave common sensed answers and I voted for them. If you have shown to be

7122:

This RFA sort of emphasizes a quandary. The have specific expertise is a specific area which requires admin tools, and at least for a while would probably stick to that one area and maybe carefully expand into more areas in the future. So it would go really well if the RFA is successful. On the

6809:

I don't know if I'm missing something, but I see nothing objectionable in the second discussion, which seems to be respectful and constructive on all sides. The first comment is the kind of thing many of us might say and then later feel a bit embarrassed about; again, I don't see any concerns here.

6259:

A short summary for people who weren't around almost two years ago: RfAs still lasted 7 days but people could still !vote until a bureaucrat got around to closing or starting a crat chat. This could sometimes take hours and this change fixed this arbitrary deadline. I was an enthusiastic support at

5380:

per Tryptofish (and other opposers), including Lightburst, unfortunately. Reading some of supporters' rationale, have we compromised some of our standards just to resolve admin backlog and all? Sure, a user being promoted an admin after four- or five-year experience is not that uncommon, especially

5021:

any candidate at RFA. This is one of my problems with the public RfA voting system: a person who wants to be an admin may be less inclined to vote oppose even if the candidate is not right for the job. From the link you can see that HouseBlaster did participate in other RfAs that failed but did not

4721:

We've had a number of admins with serious issues, I don't think there is a correlation with not having significant content creation. The the talk page link provided by Tryptofish is troubling in its insensitivity but doesn't appear to be part of a pattern. Work done is thus far is significant and

4112:

I have waited several days to see if any serious issues come up, and none have. I have read all of the opposing comments. Their rationales contain glimmers of reasonable concern, but their ideals have been taken to an extreme that I cannot support. Yes, in principle admins should write content. But

7298:

elections. But I assume a candidate is honest until I see reason to believe otherwise. As for your made-up answer: Hypotheticals can be useful. If a candidate said they wanted to end IP editing, that'd tell me they don't like how that's currently done. I'd also be concerned that they don't seem to

7216:

Exactly. I have two hobbies. Knowledge and fishing. I have dozens of lures in my tackle box. Some are favorites that I use all the time. The rarely used ones are a bit of an obstacle and I only use them when I'm up to it. Same here. I can have a relaxing time editing what I know or I can challenge

6876:

As isaacl says, this is indeed a general question, but what I can reply in the specific context of an RfA is that it's appropriate for the community to evaluate what we think about whether or not the candidate's ability to, if not "play well with others", then at least, to recognize the nuances of

5381:

back in Knowledge's early days. However, we've seen such users promoted so suddenly merely because they seem well social and technical and don't produce same drama that other certains admins and longtime editors have done, including one Wikinews admin who recently self-nominated unsuccessfully for

3386:

Yep, sorry. I suppose I could had made it clearer the confusion had already been cleared up, but, seeing as it inspired me to go look through the candidate's sandbox and other contributions, I figured I'd mention what led me there. And I stand by my other comment. The article in question went from

3371:

You mentioned me, so for those reading this, that was in the General comments section below. I explicitly asked HouseBlaster to reply, and they corrected me on that attribution issue, and I already acknowledged that correction, so that's not really a "live" issue. And to correct something you said

3179:

the low amount of content creation does not concern me. The encyclopedia is already very big, and it needs people to maintain what exists just as much as it needs content creators. HouseBlaster has been an asset as a maintainer. I see no other serious concerns, so this is a comfortable support for

2715:

I've sit on this for some more time and considered the oppose rationales again. First, I've encountered HouseBlaster in policy discussions before, and past interactions left a positive impression on me. There is no doubt in me that he will make a good admin. But there are some notes I want to make

545:

for GA. It was a month into the COVID lockdown, and I was not even extended confirmed yet. I don't think I read the entire article... A few years later I remembered I had done that review, I went to check on the article only to discover it is now a featured article. It has a happy ending, but that

340:

Conflicts in life are unavoidable, and Knowledge is no exception. My general rule is that I go for a walk when I need to take a second to calm down. Knowledge will be there when I come back, and I certainly plan to continue doing so when I need to take a minute in the future. When I am interacting

7379:

My comment was in response to the idea of asking questions to understand a candidate's motivation, which I feel is separate from evaluating their judgement. Though I appreciate the "what would you decree by fiat" question is one that people like to ask, I think one that is more bound by practical

6824:

I agree with you that HouseBlaster was respectful in the discussion, and thank you for saying the same for "all sides". (And like isaacl, below, I found the discussion instructive.) But the reason I wanted to bring this issue up early is that the disputed edit to the policy page changed some very

3533:

Very good candidate, displays a need for the tools and a very calm, considered approach. I don't think a lot of content creation experience is needed for many admin tasks. Knowledge is maturing and inevitably it will attract people whose contributions are concentrated on the many background tasks

1620:

It was intended to be more glib than disruptive. Every RfA, it seems that some of the same names are pretty consistently in the oppose section, often picking apart the candidate's contributions to find some reason to oppose them while saying they are trying to protect the Content Creators. I find

4823:

I usually don't comment in pretty clear cases, but since this is inching ever so slightly into the fuzzier area, I wanted to say that (1) I don't expect RFA candidates to be perfect, and (2) while I acknowledge some legit criticisms in the oppose section, HB is still about as rigid as the median

4014:

a worthy addition to the team. The rationale of the oppose voters below, while very detailed and long (which, I must add, I do greatly appreciate as I found it really helpful in better understanding their reasonings and logic behind their opinions), are largely not of any concern to me. There is

3556:

edit well in mainspace will convince me that they don't understand content creation. Their own contribs to their GA may be minor but it nevertheless proves they understand the collaborative process. I do find some aspects of Tryptofish's oppose thought-provoking and so advise the candidate to be

3356:

originally based on the strength of their nominators, but I've had a look at the concerns raised by others. In particular, Tryptofish made a comment implying that the candidate had issues with attribution- but a further inspection of their sandbox revealed that this candidate is meticulous about

1024:

I approach situations with the idea that common sense is above any policy or guideline; common sense and compromise are necessary and beneficial parts of editing Knowledge. Oftentimes, subverting the rules is the best way to stay focused on the values those rules are meant to uphold, and I fully

666:

while neither addressing the issue nor leaving an edit summary, but I did mark the edit as minor – in other words, not my best edit. But I still think that the point remains we should encourage more people to contribute, even if their initial contributions require cleaning up. I know this sounds

6788:

This pre-!vote period of the trial RfA process is partly for bringing up potential issues, so that's what I'm going to do here. I've interacted a lot with the candidate, and have always found him to be collegial, even when we have differing views, and I appreciate that. But I've also noted some

6723:

While we're waiting for the voting to start, here's some fish, chips, mushy peas and tartare sauce for the candidate and the other Wikipedians in this room to enjoy... I don't see any issues myself at the present time, I see the content query above which is often a red line for me, but probably

5344:

Duly noted, and thanks very much for pointing that out. Since I'm here, I'll say that the reply to Q23 (a question that was, in effect, an opportunity to rebut my oppose comment) is entirely correct, but is also a generalized statement of principle, rather than something that addresses, or even

4038:

In regards to content creation. Yes, the percentage of article is only 28.3% according to xtools, but the total is over 8k with almost 3k in the mainspace this year alone. Not a lot of build an article from completion, but a random sampling finds lots of good, basic find a reference and fix the

2731:

But RfA is also a process in which people can take feedback. Except for unanimous or near-unanimous outcomes, oppose votes can help candidates grow as an editor and as a person. On one hand, it can be very stressful for the candidates, on the other, I've learned many things from my RfA as well.

6567:

I am concerned about the lack of content creation simply because admins do get dragged into that area no matter what their initial intentions might be. This is an area of activity that's relatively easy to fix, but it is nice to see how a potential admin behaves "under fire" (so to speak) when

2758:

Candidate has clear expertise in the areas in which they plan to focus, on top of a strong base of knowledge in general. Having more content creation would be nice to see, but it's not make-or-break for me, especially for a candidate with a clear vision of how they intend to use their toolkit.

598:

I think I enjoy CFD because I enjoy organizing things. It is, at its most basic level, a massive venue where you get to discuss the optimal way to organize things. And as a closer, CFD is great because most discussions are really easy to close, so it is easy to get started. You don't need much

7279:

except candidates neither have the power nor the background making it an exercise in futility and being told what we want to hear. Suppose some candidate said they wished to end all IP editing. There's no useful guidance that provides. They don't have and never will have the ability to end IP

6657:

Knowledge namespace edits just for creating the page and adding it to the appropriate deletion sorting lists as well as a user talk page notification. A lot of admin candidates aren't going to have super high mainspace percentages because they're also doing these other maintenance activities.

6095:

I admit I was skeptical at first, but what I've seen so far has eased my concerns. While content creation doesn't look like one of their strengths, we do need admins who like to work on the behind-the-scenes stuff. HouseBluster is clearly competent in the field they intend to work in, and I'm

4914:

overall I judge them as a net positive. I was very disturbed by the comment on Doug's page, but it was a single comment and I hate to see a single comment or action being used to judge the totality of a person. I was going to remain neutral (not !vote) but the fact that they have striked and

86:

for examples, where House has helped tame a backlog at for the last several months. Working in these areas can result in queries about closes and certain decisions, and House’s comments in discussions and on his talk page show level-headed and precise responses. Outside of this, House has an

5198:

I believe that content creation should be something to consider. While its extent is open to debate, I frankly find 5 mainspace creations (1 deleted, 1 dab page, 1 start, and 2 stubs) with 1 GA (currently around 1300 words, 63% authorship) too low to overlook. I don't doubt HouseBlaster's

4113:

admins are primarily there to defend the encyclopedia and its editors from all manner of garbage. HouseBlaster seems to be compentent in working with categories; I do not give a darn about categories and I'm glad to have someone else take care of them. Criticizing the candidate for having

5234:

since the user does not have recent experience in reverting vandalism/disruptive edits, as well as reporting users to ANI/AIV. Adding to the two opposers' statements above, I find that the user obsessively creates categories and templates mainly. The only pages the user could create are

3996:

the interaction Bugghost mentions above shows a willingness to help explain Knowledge's intricacies to users who usually just get some cursory templates thrown at them before they're banned for CIR or something, which is much more important in an admin than pure content-making ability.

516:

at ArbCom. Implementing its decisions – e.g. blocking a user who was sitebanned after a case – does require the toolset, and I would use it in the course of those duties. I have no plans to do anything outside of these three areas. One particular area I have no plans to work is AE: a

3739:

Unconvinced by the opposes - as Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI says above, the 28% mainspace edits that have been the source of so much brouhaha translate to over 8,000 edits in mainspace. I find the candidate's contributions to more than show both their experience and need for admin rights.

6696:

I took that into account when making the comment. Admins get dragged into mainspace discussions as part of the job (no matter their plans prior to a successful run), so I look for prior behavior (or lack thereof) there. I don't rely on GA alone for that, although it is helpful.

5863:, which is a good sign) are ultimately a bit too much for me, leading to this oppose. Nevertheless, I want to congratulate the candidate on their (at this point almost certain) successful candidacy and am hopeful that they will take the concerns raised in this section to heart. 5817:

Striking part of my comment after noticing HouseBlaster's recent apology that Felida pointed out. Misunderstandings happen sometimes and HouseBlaster's newer comment demonstrates how they are willing to learn from their mistakes and be accountable for them if they make them.

5425:

of experience, not 4 or 5 years. Most of Knowledge's currently active admin cohort (because there have been so few promotions since the standards have risen) were promoted with around a year's experience or less without any drama and have done/are doing a fine job as admins.

976:

There have been a number of cases over the past couple of years where admins have been found to have violated WP:INVOLVED, or been accused of such and it was later determined not to be so. Could you talk about what WP:INVOLVED means and how you would apply it to yourself?

5950:

I would like to clarify that I specifically find the comments about rigidity compelling; the one-off comment is indeed cringe-y but I have trouble connecting what appears to be an isolated moment of cringe to the question of whether someone will be a good administrator.

4946:

based on an overall good impression. We all make mistakes, and am willing to gamble that HouseBlaster will take on board the concerns in the opposing section. We very much need more admins to do the heavy maintenance, and I don't see this candidate being a later problem.

1504:: The candidate often uses the “no big deal” rationale for voting in the majority of RfAs. This is one of Lightburst's problems with the public RfA voting system, and does not seem relevant in any way to this specific candidate's fitness for the position. If you read the 1705:

because no one is perfect. Humans are complicated and we all have our own strengths and weaknesses. Ideally we balance each other out by having a variety of admins with different skillsets. For example, they can make up for my lack of interest in category maintenance :)

6742:

Back a few months House Blaster took the time from their work at contributing to the Encyclopedia to nominate a fellow editor for the Editor of the Week award. To me it displays a hint into his social awareness. An important trait to have if one wants to administrate.

6162:

Unfortunately, I moved from the Support column. That comment on Doug Weller's talk page was really cringe. Honestly, I can't think of a better word to describe that. I am hopeful this will never happen again, but I feel that moving here is my best option at this point.

3886:

Significant content contribution is, of course, a plus factor for an RfA (and equivalently limited content creation is a minus). But editors who have successfully become admins despite limited content creation have not been running amok making the encyclopedia worse.

2732:

Ultimately, I trust that HB will consider the valid concerns in the future. In general, I always support unless I see a serious issue with the candidate becoming an admin (you could also see it as whether I got grudges from past interactions), and there is none here.

5546:

Tryptofish makes numerous good points here. Maybe another year and it might fly. Right now, making crass comments and having limited experience in building an encyclopedia means it's a hard NO for now. We'll see how dedicated you are when you re-apply in 12 months.

7462:, who I think has been a well-regarded admin for over two decades on WP. In the same way that Knowledge was an idea that should never have worked on paper (an encyclopedia that anyone can edit), but did spectacularly in practice, most administrators do good work. 2719:

There were some genuine concerns over the communication style. The comment at Doug's talk page raised some eyebrows because it wasn't entirely appropriate. The discussion around semantic HTML was also concerning to people because of how the comments appeared to be

1025:

support that. That being said, the rules exist to document best practices, and if a rule fails at that job to the extent that the exceptions to it would essentially erase it, we should just change the rule instead (something I have a good deal of experience doing).

5286:, is cringeworthy, and don't bother badgering me if you don't comprehend why. (And note that the diff also contains a bunch of line-break corrections. Not anything wrong with doing that, but it's going to be part of a pattern.) Look at this edit to a policy page, 2000:

Every interaction I've seen HouseBlaster in has been positive. Their answers are well reasoned, and they clearly have the temperament. And they seem to understand where Knowledge's long term sustainability and improvements come from. A solid candidate!

6952:

I say here. Please feel free to say anything you want to me here, and I don't want anyone to hold that against you. As noted above, some editors have concerns about the relative lack of content work. You have, however, rightly pointed out your GA for

6898:

and that the cost-benefit ratio for some discussions increases rapidly as the thread continues. I hope that all participants in the second discussion found value in it that will help future collaborative efforts (personally, I found it instructive).

5803:

problems letting go of the rules even when the community and the encyclopedia would benefit. Their lack of content creation adds to this concern, since a lot articles require for exceptions to rules to be made for them to reach their full potential.

383:. A long time ago at school (remembering the school I was attending, I was about eight years old) I needed a pseudonym for something (I have long since forgotten what that thing was). "HouseBlaster" is what I came up with, and I have used it since. 354: 6675:

I had no GAs and I had over 300 supports. There are various ways to assess a person's knowledge and experience with content. Counting GAs isn't the best when there's no explicit guidelines as to how many someone should have to satisfy the masses.

1017:

Would you like to address the concerns expressed in Oppose #4 regarding your understanding of the issues facing content creators and your willingness to reconsider your position on/approach to a given policy w/re: a rigid interpretation of rules?

696:, but they could be better. I would make us more open to just trying different ways of doing things – like, for instance, the current 48 hour discussion period of RfA. The change might stink. But it might be better, and we don't know until we try. 7334:

I agree. Why do we need insight into an rfa candidate's character and motivations? These "ask me anything"-type questions are part of the "the problem with RFA" IMO. They're part of what makes RFA into a weird public job interview reality show.

6974:(which you ought to have made clearer when moving that into mainspace). So while it looks to me like you improved the page, not that much of it was a matter of creating new content, even in what you cite as your most significant content work. -- 7016:). I wrote those paragraphs and added them in that edit, even though my edit summary did not reflect this. (As it was in my user sandbox, it quite frankly did not occur to me that others would read the summary; I was just concerned that my 6644:

You're free to have that opinion, even if it's in the minority. Most people have varying definitions of what "counts" as content creation and I'd say HouseBlaster easily meets what most people like to see at a minimum. One example would be

5096:

different than what it is in 2024. And materially, the main space participation for Houseblaster is way too low (28%) for them to be promoted to the role of forever-administrator on an encyclopedia. Tryptofish's analysis of the candidate’s

987:. Admins can either act as editors or admins in a given situation, with a few exceptions when any reasonable administrator would do the same action. Blatant vandalism is often cited as one such exception, and I would add processing my own 4576:

Noting that I've seen them around and I don't have a negative thing to say about them. Seems sane and level headed, the opposer's concerns do not bother me since I see it as a singular lapse in judgement and not a demonstratable pattern.

341:

with others, I do my best to disagree without being disagreeable and focus on what will improve the encyclopedia. Asking for outside perspectives can be useful, whether that is at a noticeboard or a WikiProject (of course, while avoiding

4039:

information edits, not just reverts. Not everyone has to be a dedicated article writer and in fact I would prefer to not to lose article writers to admin work. We're a hive of activity here and the workers can specialize. <silly: -->

2676:

Teratix's reply to Lightburst's oppose is what got me here. I read through the entire discussion the candidate had with the user, and was seriously impressed by their overall temperament, ability to keep cool, and encouraging comments.

411:. There is not really anything specific to RfD which makes notifications any more or less appropriate than in any other venue. In general – and this extends to RfD – notifications that are partisan, secret, or non-neutral fall afoul of 1659: 736:). I don't have peer-reviewed science on hand, but the ability to have a dedicated anti-vandalism team is beneficial. There were concerns about rollback not requiring an RfA-like process (and in 2008 that was seen as a negative) and 7319:

Having interviewed many people over the years in real life, asking a person an open question about something they care deeply about about, can be very revealing and insightful about their character and motivations. HB passed imho.

3861: 6789:

instances where he shows what I perceive as a rigid approach to doing things, along with difficulty in recognizing how other editors might react to what he says. First, there is this entirely well-meaning, but cringeworthy, post:

3670:

This is Knowledge. If we got rid of all admins who are by the book and occasionally struggle in delicate social situations, we would need some new crats to carry out all the desysops (mine included!). The candidate will be fine.

6915:? It's an open question to a user about how to deal with their possible death. It may be uncomfortable, and I don't know if I'd have worded it exactly like that, but that doesn't make it cringeworthy. On the contrary, actually. 5199:

behind-the-scenes contributions, but I hold that mainspace should come first as without it, all the other spaces would be meaningless, and there is simply no other space to better teach editors Knowledge's fundamental policies.

3705:- A limited but cogent case for the janitorial tools. I'm not entirely comfortable with the rainbow-colored contributions pie, but we're not all content people. I wish we had a one-year probationary period for Admins sometimes. 3001:

When I clicked the RfA link in my watchlist I yelled HouseBlaster's username out loud immediately (is that weird?). I can't speak for his category work much, but I can say with confidence he is of sound judgement and patience.

3883:

I am thankful that there are people who don't find Categories for Discussion as deathly uninteresting as I do. HouseBlaster has been a benefit to Knowledge in the past, and adminship would enable him to be more beneficial.

5088:

to ask an administrator to overturn my closure if you feel it was wildly off-base (emphasis on the "wildly" part: I sincerely doubt an admin will be willing to overturn my close without discussion, but it is an option you

903:

as an administrator. Can you explain briefly to the Knowledge community why editors who work in article space and draft space should be interested in categories, and how categories are a useful part of the encyclopedia?

5213:

In 14+ years I've created one article on my own, and at the time of my RfA I had about 3 articles I did even half the work on building. And I'm coming up on 13 1/2 years having managed to make myself useful around here.

7057:. I don't think I got the timeline wrong, but your are right to correct me about the fact that you had written the content under the old pagename, before the renaming, which is something that I did not realize. So you 4500:

This is of course a side-issue, but just in terms of learning about screen readers, the discussion ended up finding that screen readers only detect this when in "proofreading mode", but not when just reading the page.

768:

A while ago, I was active in reverting vandalism. It was not particularly enjoyable, and I recently gave up the rollback perm. I occasionally have done some work with templates, such as expanding the functionality of

3551:

not a jerk, has a clue, has a clearly articulated need for tools. "Only" 28.3% of edits in mainspace translates to 8.3k mainspace edits, which is nothing to sneeze at. At that point, only concrete evidence that they

7065:

three paragraphs yourself, which I don't want to underplay. But the fact remains that the "62% authorship" that you proclaim, based on number of characters, is made up to a significant extent of the list of sources

1106: 3316:– skilled, good-tempered, and has a clear scope of work for the tools. The opposes based on low content creation, while expressing a valid opinion, do not persuade me, and the other one is best not acknowledged. – 1100: 1728:

excellent candidate and a thoughtful editor. I will also add that I have seen HouseBlaster do impressive work in the area of history merges, helping to repair attribution for other editors' cut-and-paste moves:

6394:

Don't always agree with their actions at CfD but have found the candidate to be fairly well reasoned all things considered. Barring something unexpected coming up here, I believe they'd do well with the tools.

4017:

To make my argument stronger I will cite random confusing unedited-since-2006-policies that deletionist AfDers love to cite in their dissertations: WP:NOBIGDEAL, WP:THISOPINIONISFACT, WP:HOUSEBLASTERFORADMIN,

439:

If you made me pick one area, political history. Though my favorite edits are the "spontaneous" ones – regardless of topic – such as fixing a typo or replacing a with a in an article I was reading for other

5289:, and ask yourself how much of an improvement it really was, how helpful it would be to do that on other pages. (It continues that pattern with the line-breaks.) There was a lengthy discussion about it here: 2552:

and my striked out !vote above. I hope the candidate increases their article contributions; and that my initial !vote being striked out for insufficient contributions serves as a cautionary tale for them.

7505:, sometimes, people (bot don’t !vote, do they?) don't !vote because they do not know the candidate so well and so cannot join the “crowd” and not because they would prefer to “sit on their hands”. Best, 6962:. As I look through the edits you made to the page between your first edit and when you started the GA process, a very large percentage of what you did was technical formatting of things like citations: 139: 6728:- a stub but an adequately cited stub - I'd give them the weak nod on that score that they know what they're doing, given the attestation of good work elsewhere. We'll see how this pans out though. — 4133:

of experience (and "teenager" might be stretching it). Our requirements have since risen and several years of tenure is now the norm, but that is still an illogical indicator of fitness for adminship.

5661:

Per the diffs highlighted by Tryptofish, and the lack of content creation. I haven't seen enough evidence that they would be able to handle resolving disputes, which is a key part of being an admin.

2644:

They are missing some experience that would be needed to be a "full scope" admin, but I think that it's clear that they intend to work in areas where they have the necessary experience and expertise.

469:

There are two parts to this answer, as a !voter and as a closer. As a !voter, categories which are unhelpful for navigation should be merged to parents (and yes, this is broad); categories which are

6551:

I'm not familiar with the candidate or their work as our areas of focus don't have a lot of overlap, but from a cursorary look at their user page, I don't see a lot of content creation experience,

303: 143: 6242: 647:

You seem a very promising candidate and heavily involved in admin-type work on Knowledge. If you "owned" Knowledge and had complete power like Elon Musk has with Twitter/X, what would you change?

3096:

Mainspace may not be a majority of edits, but it is the plurality. Besides, we need several types of admins, not exclusively content creators. HouseBlaster seems like they would be a good admin.

910:

Categories help readers find related articles, and editors find similar articles they might wish to work on. And if you don't find them helpful, that is okay. But some people do, and one of the

361:

per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

628:

And my username (see Q4) just has to do with the fact that eight-year-olds think explosions are the coolest things in the world, not anything regarding the worthiness of articles (or houses) :D

4824:

current admin, so the net admin rigidity will stay about the same. Or decrease, if they take the concerns in the oppose section to heart. They seem open to feedback; if so, they'll be fine.

463:

Given your username, it looks like you will be "blasting" categories away (yes, this is a joke). But how are you going to judge whether a category is to be deleted (or jokingly, "blasted")?

3437:, and editing an online encyclopedia open to all involves a wide range of needs and skills. The candidate is an excellent all-around editor and the other objections raised are weak sauce. — 299: 5077: 1483:

We can always use more admins, especially in places like CfD. HouseBlaster has proven themselves to be trustworthy and I do not see any issues; I am also unconvinced by the oppose !vote. —

4483:, aside from the excellent polite and collegial conduct by both sides, I'm actually pleased that I've learned something from that. I wouldn't have known the difference between <em: --> 947:

because we understand that there are gnomes who understand categories better than many reviewers do. Do you plan to work as one of those gnomes to assign categories to tagged articles?

254:. To prevent abuse, that page is fully protected; non-admin closures are listed on the talk page, and an admin checks before adding them to the project page. Currently, this task has a 5120: 6350:

Given the nominators and the fact that CFD is chronically backlogged (and coupled with Blaster's experience in the area), I don't see a reason against this. Best wishes with the RfA,

6968:. I think your most extensive addition of content was when you added three paragraphs about "Hitler's rise to power" and elections background, which you had started in your sandbox: 306:

from, which had also been on the list at CFDWM for a while since 2022. (Currently, In part because of these actions, the oldest outstanding discussion at CFDWM is from October 2023.)

7032:– so comparing the length of the before/after does not present the most accurate picture of the work I did. Is it the hardest GA ever written? No. I am happy with my work, however. 5805:

And their response on Doug Weller's talk page doesn't give me a lot of confidence about their ability to respond to similar situatuons with the amount of tact expected for an admin.

3619: 6040: 3975:- I don't know HouseBlaster outside of seeing them do some clerking, but from looking through their edit history I saw an incredible feat of long-term patience and kindness when 3903:

discount and throw away articles. I heavily suggest that HouseBlaster create some more and especially longer articles after becoming admin to see things from that point of view.

4809:

Though I do urge the candidate to take the oppose comments seriously, I doubt the issues raised necessarily indicate a serious impairment in their judgment as an administrator.

592:

There are a lot of neglected areas on Knowledge. What is it about CFD specifically that you find interesting to work on? Let's say you wanted to convince me to help out at CFD.

479:

As a closer, I judge consensus in the way you judge consensus in any area on Knowledge: evaluating the strength of the arguments presented through the lens of our PAGs, though

2938:

Will benefit the project with the tools at CFD and elsewhere. Sure, additional mainspace contributions are always appreciated but candidate has sufficient content experience.

762:

Do you have any technical and/or anti-vandalism experience? Examples include reverting vandalism, helping with edit filters or technical issues on the English Knowledge, etc.

118:, and I found him to be incredibly competent, easygoing, and hardworking. A dive through his contributions honestly blew me away: he does huge amounts of needed work through 5307:, but who tends to be a bit rigid and insensitive to how others may feel, and who is very bound by the rules and by quantitative measures of worth. Sadly, I end up here. -- 3557:

extra careful if and when they ever do branch out of CfD, and to be receptive to the input of others and not pedantically stick to policy. Go ahead and make us proud, HB!

3032:

For private reasons I am unconcerned with what Lightburst brings up, and I've never been particularly concerned with a low amount of content creation (as long as it's not

4446:. Fully qualified candidate. However, while settling into the role of admin, HouseBlaster might give some thought to the more sensible aspects of the opposers' concerns. 1220: 477:

characteristics of article subjects are also a no-no. There is no "formulaic" answer to this question – like most things on Knowledge, CfD is more an art than a science.

1960:

I faced almost the very same criticism many of the opposers here gave in my RfA, and I've done fine as an admin. Clearly those concerns aren't actually a problem then.

1215: 5382: 4291:. I simply do not agree with opposers that admins need to create a lot of content in mainspace themselves. Adminship and creating content are two different roles that 334:

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?

6877:

human interactions, so that the block button, in particular, will be used correctly, and not resorted to when a gentler method of deescalation can be used instead. --

6929:

A possibly useful bit of information is that the editor to whom the question was posed never replied to it. Although I have no doubt that some editors will reply to

4645:. If the strongest oppose of this candidate has entirely to do with some other user, then this user must be in very well and good standing in the community.--v/r - 7197:

Yeah, I kinda realized after posting that that I was possibly misreading your intent, and I meant to say as much but I guess I got distracted by something shiny.

7181:

Not only do I agree, but that was a part of my point. Which includes that there's no provision to acknowledge that, and the defacto RFA doesn't acknowledge that.

5173:

I view as a huge red flag. I don't see how this editor can be an effective admin without having the necessary experience in this area. I firmly stand by my vote!

5824: 5762:. This editor seems like a net positive for Knowledge, but I am concerned about the relative lack of mainspace edits and the talk page comment to Doug Weller. 5702:

Content creation is a fine thing in an admin. So, of course, are other qualities. The bottom line is: is this a walking-fuck up who can't be trusted? I think—not

5225: 4125:

slide. In Knowledge's early days, before the Encyclopedia turned five years old, nobody had five years of experience. Back then, the community made a teenager a

2966:: the candidate is familiar with the workings of Knowledge and has a use case for the tools at CfD. I have no concerns about temperament from the discussion. — 1545:

That vote may be confusing if you haven't read Lightburst's oppose vote (which this is a response to, and which it is quoting). I am not criticizing your vote,

517:

non-insignificant number of AE cases end up at ArbCom, and given that the clerk team is understaffed I would avoid that potential source of reasons to recuse.

7053:

Thanks for the reply. First, let me make clear that, when I compared the two permalinks of the page, I wasn't concerned with article length, so much as with

6032: 5386: 5080:, you can leave a comment here (i.e. on my talk page), and I will consider your objection. If you are unsatisfied with my response, you can open a thread at 797: 6067:

Unless the closer needs to address specific questions, I prefer that the closer stay out of the deletion review and instead let the close speak for itself.

1076: 7451: 3481:

a big deal, and the candidate's editing history shows that he would use the administrative toolset to reduce these backlogs. I reviewed the discussion at

138:. With a mop, he could do even more. On top of that, he's level-headed, reasonable, and civil. He's also helped make needed change in RFA2024 and to CSD, 5023: 4998: 4986: 165: 6272: 5644:

question in a position where they have to deal with editors in a heated argument or in a protracted dispute with someone. That isn't going to end well.

4739:- I believe, and hope, that HouseBlaster will be a net positive as an admin. I urge HouseBlaster to take the opposes seriously and work on improvement. 999:

that comes into play with admin actions. I will always err on the side of caution when using the tools, and potential INVOLVEment would be no exception.

565: 502:

Are you planning to do much adminning outside of CFD and coversely are there any areas of adminning where you don't think you'll have much involvement?

7620: 5407:

I wouldn't say 4 or 5 years is sudden at all, unless we expect people to dedicate decades of their life to what is essentially typing on the internet.

4847: 3396: 3381: 3290: 655: 322: 295: 114:

I'm absolutely delighted to introduce y'all to HouseBlaster – that is, if you haven't met him already! I first met him a few months ago when launching

4320:. Expecting candidates to make...however many tens or hundreds of edits to a single article as a proxy for their dedication to content is a flavor of 6580:

I share your concern about minimal main space participation (28%). Articles started are two stubs, a start and a D-page. And they are active in AfD.

1694: 222: 7203: 7192: 7161: 6685: 6428: 2599:

Excellent candidate and very trusted noms, so I see only a good future with editor HouseBlaster in the admin corps. Let's have more like him, please

692:

The Wiki Way is to change things, and yet we have this intense opposition to changing rules/procedures/etc. Sure, many of our current processes are

7599: 7425: 7274: 7103: 7005: 6704: 6617: 6589: 5010: 5002: 3057: 2486: 921: 233:

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

83: 6886: 6857: 6314: 6295: 2358: 7585: 7570: 6862:

As I mentioned on your talk page, as your question is a general one, I think another venue would be more suitable for it and further discussion.

1939: 1865: 1301: 6766:

Be sure to rest well tonight. Watch some movies with friends or gaze up at the stars. That helped me on the final few days at least. Good luck.

6544: 7260: 7079: 7048: 6783: 6670: 6639: 6337: 6254: 5922:

I cannot recall interacting with the user. They are fairly new and this meant our peak times never crossed, so I won't hold it against them. --

5321:

A minor point, but the first diff has linebreak changes because of the user script used for replying. I tested this with my user talk sandbox:

5162: 7513: 7117: 6871: 6036: 6024: 5264: 3832: 3534:

which keep the place clean, tidy and functioning. Those tasks are important and allow the content creators to concentrate on their vital work.

7381: 7351: 6899: 6863: 6834: 6819: 6082: 5368: 5354: 5339: 3464: 2748: 1847: 1718: 7143:

reports I constantly come across users who have had their inappropriate user page already deleted by one particular admin. Sure, that admin

6562: 6418: 6062: 4629: 4611: 1345:

Thank you HouseBlaster for volunteering! I have come across you numerous times at CfD and always found you to be civil and reasonable. ~ 🦝

807:

This question does not imply any issues with your previous edits, it is due to the unrelated Nihonjoe situation. Do you agree to follow the

6942: 6924: 6444: 5977: 5960: 5219: 3134: 3120: 1630: 1615: 135: 115: 6983: 6804: 6575: 6504: 4510: 3243:

Competent and a net positive. There's always more admin work than admins, I see no reason why HouseBlaster won't make a good addition. --

2292: 7520:

Look's like I am late. I don't have XC so I will not leave a support (or oppose) but this and prior RfA prove that goof RfAs are common.

7240:

Are we allowed to protest questions? Question 13 (not the answer) really grind my gears. this is RFA not a social media Ask Me Anything.

7134: 7088:

It's nice to see a very clear, specific and well articulated Need For The Tools. It sounds like perhaps they are not interested in using

6907: 6646: 6530: 6236: 4673: 3266: 251: 7496: 7471: 5416: 3148:

to create articles, nor is creating articles the only type of work needing done on Knowledge, so I find the opposes to be unconvincing.

2069: 7638: 7529: 7389: 7374: 7235: 6969: 6966: 6963: 6761: 6464: 6367: 5301: 5140: 5006: 4990: 3565: 1834: 1426: 1028:

to worry about copyright, but we can’t IAR our copyright rules out of existence. However, those rules protect the integrity of content.

270:. As an admin, I would be able to process CFD closes on my own and, in turn, process the kind of non-admin closures I have been making. 7021: 6184:

I'm incredibly happy to see this. :) HouseBlaster is pretty much the reason I'm even an admin. Their shove was the last one I needed.

5439: 3766: 3272: 7566: 7544: 7415: 7344: 7329: 7308: 7289: 6484: 5985: 3749: 3571: 3366: 2575: 1969: 1558: 1063: 733: 612: 7249: 6840:

those problems do to help address that? Sorry if this is an odd statement, I've been a little more contemplative than usual lately.

6199: 5812: 4818: 3171: 1911: 686:

about our culture, what would you change? Feel free to ignore this question if you would like, it's just some philosophical musing.

433:

Greetings. Do you have an area of this encyclopedia you prefer to edit over others (i.e. sports, science, politics, history, etc.)?

155: 7359: 5300:. I pointed out that a lot of what he did was re-format references that had already been added by other editors into "sfn" format: 3680: 2772: 2768: 2668: 2636: 2104: 1992: 1575: 6404: 6222: 6187:

I've also seen them doing loads of good work across the project and they often go above and beyond when interacting with newbies.

5931: 817:

Yes, I have followed the COI guideline (in both letter and spirit) and that will not change, regardless of the result of this RfA.

6737: 5520: 5516: 5068:

depends what you want to say. If you just have general thoughts about the rename, you should probably keep them to yourself (per

4906: 2996: 1317: 6972: 5843: 5558: 5493: 4964:

from my general memories and that although real concerns are shared in the opposes, I think a net positive and no risk, really.

4801: 4568: 3665: 2915: 2621: 1478: 1371: 1287: 6725: 4994: 4757: 4333: 3967: 3875: 3587: 3308: 2195: 925: 127: 58: 6389: 6172: 5891: 4871: 3154: 3027: 2468: 2387: 2161: 2088: 102: 6526: 6291: 6139: 5695: 5670: 5215: 4692: 4532: 4304: 4030: 3894: 3697: 3631: 3610: 3347: 2930: 2872: 2540: 1925: 1459: 1283: 1158: 535:

Have you ever made any decision or taken any action in the wiki community that you later regretted after much consideration?

189: 7147:

issue the block as well, but they are working on speedy deletion while I am working on username issues. Some admins work at

6793: 5653: 5538: 5290: 5190: 4924: 4833: 4590: 4481: 4455: 4104: 3852: 3797: 3783: 3194: 2893: 2448: 1658:: Candidate looks like something of a category wonk, which is pretty handy. So long as they don't go power-hungry or make a 1070: 7459: 7406:

5 mainspace creations (1 deleted, 1 dab page, 1 start, and 2 stubs) with 1 GA (currently around 1300 words, 63% authorship)

7067: 7009: 6953: 6602: 6373: 5936:

Tryptofish's oppose is pretty compelling, but I do not have time to fully study the points raised by other discussants. --

5729: 5691: 5297: 5097: 4746: 4520:- No overriding concerns. I encourage HouseBlaster to be cautious when involved in areas outside their current expertise. 4383: 4279: 4123:

being promoted an admin after four- or five-year experience is not that uncommon, especially back in Knowledge's early days

3648: 3506: 3446: 3088: 2710: 2686: 2212: 2178: 1782: 1688: 1513: 1329: 729: 314: 88: 6913: 6790: 6653:

article for AfD. It's not an area I often frequent so it doesn't really reflect on my pie chart. But that one AfD gave me

5945: 5316: 5284: 5113: 5048: 4880: 4219: 4143: 3731: 3543: 3451:

Some editors I respect a good deal in the oppose column, but I am still unconvinced by the evidence provided. Continue to

3320: 3218: 3105: 2799: 2655: 2591: 2566: 2323: 2235: 1892: 1742: 1593: 1496: 1409: 1388: 1354: 937:

AFC reviewers, in accepting articles from drafts, are asked to add categories, but sometimes instead tag the article with

290:). Besides helping to keep the outstanding discussion backlog as low as it can be, I am happy with the work I did purging 7151:

while other wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. I've been an admin for nearly fifteen years and I've not once done a

6119: 5914: 5794: 5687: 5402: 5322: 5239: 5014: 4973: 4472: 4421: 4366: 4071: 3988: 3950: 3860:- The oppose !votes seems to be a WP:NOBIGDEAL because of the area HouseBlaster is planning to work on. Unless they make 3372:

about that discussion, below, he didn't track down those sources, so much as reformat sources already found by others. --

3047: 3017: 2848: 2425: 2382: 2252: 2144: 2029: 1445: 164:

I accept, with gratitude to Moneytrees and theleekycauldron! I have never edited for pay, and I have three alt accounts:

119: 6154: 5996: 5874: 5777: 5634: 5596: 5208: 4771: 4549: 4495: 4438: 4400: 4156: 4087: 4040:

Yezz. Specialize. Like beezz. Pollinate the articles, good worker beezzz. We need the seeds of new ideas!</silly: -->

3912: 3714: 3421: 2957: 2827: 2046: 1808: 1765: 1671: 1650: 7037: 5575: 5459: 5359:

In fairness, I want to note that Houseblaster has struck-through and apologized for the comment at Doug's talk page. --

4938: 4890: 4652: 4262: 4187: 4006: 3926: 2979: 2865: 2125: 1955: 1337: 1130: 1056: 211: 203: 175: 79: 6015:

says) – but also might not. If he had been asked to reopen, overturn, or clarify his closure – an option suggested at

5619: 4956: 4731: 4713: 4351: 2523: 5754: 5478: 5287: 4239: 3235: 2506: 2408: 2065: 2010: 1730: 1537: 659: 6372:

Only ever had positive experiences with the candidate. I do hope they do more content creation; I enjoyed reviewing

3525: 1210: 6960: 6957: 5063: 5052: 4324:

that I can't recall having seen brought up before in an RfA. Fortunately, that appears to be a minority viewpoint.

4313: 4117:

28% mainspace edits, when that alone (8,355 per xtools) is more edits than I've ever made, seems like a deliberate

3084: 1422: 1246: 542: 480: 291: 33: 17: 7254:

They are being asked what they would change if they had the power to just do it. I think that's a valid question.

5641: 5092: 4318:

most edited mainspace page has been edited 37 times, which I would not consider high compared to some other admins

4247:, I am convinced by the editor's record and the counterarguments that have been made to the points of opposition. 6971:. But when I look at your sandbox at that time, those paragraphs were actually largely copied from another page: 6250: 4722:

useful and there is a clear reason to be asking for the tools. I expect this to be a significant net positive.

4202: 3762: 3262: 3213: 1492: 1094: 859:

I do not plan on working at AIV. But if I were potentially blocking a vandal, my process would be something like

4486:

right and proper to do so. Good luck with your journey using the mop, and a warm welcome to the admin corps. —

623: 6218: 3946: 3745: 3392: 3362: 4879:

I believe it is likely they will use their admin tools to the benefit of Knowledge. Also, thank you for this:

7562: 7420: 7098: 6568:

dealing with content creation (and related areas like AfD, where at least they have been active in the past).

5705: 5512: 4843: 4814: 3843:. Enough good people vouching them here. Don't really see the opposes as raising serious enough issues here. 3167: 2953: 2823: 1906: 1900:

an editor who appears to be an expert in their field with a good attitude to the encyclopedia in general. --

1761: 228: 5296:

care about a potential admin's understanding of what goes into content decisions. Below, I also asked about

7258: 7201: 7159: 6414: 4180: 3676: 3485:

and felt that the candidate demonstrated strong communication skills in patiently and cordially explaining

2764: 2666: 2632: 2101: 2060: 1982: 1916:

Clear need for tools and qualification for the intended purpose. Thanks for your work on the encyclopedia!

1702: 714:

To turn the last couple of questions around, what change, possibly controversial in its time, has been the

574:

I have no plans to get active in AfD, and if I were to become active it would be as a !voter, not a closer.

246:

I would like to help out primarily at CFD and secondarily at REFUND. At CFD, admins are needed to instruct

5927: 5045:

In the very early days… Jimmy Wales said, “I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*

2311: 1510:

In the very early days… Jimmy Wales said, “I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*

1418: 1362:: They seem to have a good head on their shoulders. I think they'd be a net positive to the admin corps. 1256: 941: 131: 6110:. I am no longer certain I agree with myself. I don't oppose the RfA, but I think my vote belongs here. 5583:

per Tryptofish. Spend more writing and reapply when you have enough experience for all the admin tools.

3036:—some people just don't like that stuff and it shouldn't be a reason to prevent them from being admin). 7619:

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

7294:

Whether candidates just write what we want to hear is hard to know. I suppose it's a common feature of

6701: 6572: 6385: 6246: 5839: 5553: 5490: 5131: 4902: 3758: 3482: 3429:- I've never felt that content writing is an important prerequisite for adminship. We are encyclopedia 3248: 2992: 2728:. In that vein, it is valid concern on how HB will deal with content/behavioral disputes in the future. 2404: 2354: 1528: 1313: 1230: 773: 415:; disclosing that you have made a notification to a WikiProject at the original discussion never hurts. 284:

I am currently one of two primary closers at CfD (for those of you keeping score at home, the other is

151: 123: 1088: 7444: 6850: 6776: 6681: 6522: 6287: 6232: 5819: 5807: 4795: 4664:

I've tried very hard to be polite, even when opposing, and it's beneath you to be petty like this. --

4563: 3976: 3741: 3661: 3558: 3521: 3388: 3358: 2908: 2618: 2058:. Haven't really seen them before, but the answers above seem reasonable, so God bless and Godspeed. 1473: 1367: 1279: 1225: 1151: 183: 6178: 4858:

of a good line of argument against ArbCom taking a case, which forestalled bureaucratic procedure. (

1292:

HouseBlaster should use their future blasting admin tools to block you for one minute (joking) ~ 🦝

1184: 1115: 7558: 7410: 7113: 7093: 5887: 5160: 4862:/ctrl+f for nominee's name gives his argument as well as idication of how it was taken to account) 4839: 4810: 4752: 4329: 3870: 3608: 3202:

Based on my interactions with them, HB is a net positive to Knowledge and would make a good admin.

3163: 3053: 3023: 2869: 2716:

for self-reflection purposes. (or maybe someone else could find these helpful, I don't really know)

2191: 1901: 492: 3125:

It also helps that they have since struck the offending comment and sincerely apologized to Doug.

1816:- Just curious. Has the Opposer ever voted "support" at any RfA. Inquisitive minds want to know! 1205: 611:

In relation to my first question, and (jokingly?) to your username: Would you consider yourself a

7506: 7255: 7198: 7176: 7156: 7001: 6989: 6556: 6451: 6410: 6168: 5683: 5666: 5259: 5243: 5018: 4867: 4859: 4321: 3827: 3672: 3188: 3041: 3011: 2760: 2663: 2628: 2482: 2461: 2374: 2287: 2157: 2097: 2083: 1840: 1569: 984: 541:

Oh, plenty. If you want an example, I would say one of my most egregious actions was "reviewing"

513: 4985:

Oppose: The candidate often uses the “No Big Deal” rationale for voting in the majority of RfAs.

1853: 1467:

Despite apparent limitations, HB looks like he could use the tools well the fields he works in.

1200: 7044: 6997: 6134: 6059: 5923: 5649: 5534: 5508: 5335: 4688: 4300: 4214: 4026: 3977:

aiding an elderly new editor who wanted to write an article about their great great grandfather

3891: 3693: 3627: 3499: 3337: 3227: 2927: 2861: 2744: 2706: 2536: 2345:

that has been rather bumming me out – unlike the candidate House, who is the polar opposite of

1935: 1921: 1676:

What I said in general comments. I have no concerns and I think HouseBlaster will do great. :)

1050: 663: 218: 197: 169: 73: 6260:

the time although it was not a SNOW discussion, plenty of people opposed for various reasons.

5992:-wise, despite that it's the underlying content being disputed rather than the close itself. — 4409: 2433:. Tons of experience and very good work that will only get better with administrative tools. 7188: 7130: 6698: 6596: 6569: 5859: 5853: 5835: 5548: 5487: 4920: 4898: 4829: 4623: 4584: 4451: 4408:

with apologies I didn't notice this sooner. I guess I'll have to get cracking on the backlog.

4196: 4100: 3848: 3793: 3779: 2988: 2888: 2651: 2441: 2350: 1861: 1488: 1309: 752: 147: 146:. All in all, a truly remarkable editor who has more than earned consideration for the mop. 7435: 7152: 7075: 6979: 6938: 6882: 6841: 6830: 6815: 6800: 6767: 6677: 6667: 6614: 6585: 6535:+1 HB has been very helpful to me in CfD and made things run efficiently and productively. 6518: 6500: 6311: 6283: 6269: 6228: 6196: 6185: 5870: 5504: 5364: 5350: 5312: 5204: 5109: 4780: 4669: 4558: 4506: 4379: 4275: 4118: 3657: 3644: 3460: 3442: 3377: 3343: 3080: 2941: 2899: 2682: 2605: 2208: 2174: 1778: 1715: 1685: 1468: 1363: 1326: 1275: 1179: 1144: 1082: 896: 885: 675: 342: 179: 99: 1251: 1038: 304:

Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 17#Category:Citizens through descent

64: 8: 7109: 6440: 6400: 6020: 6009: 5989: 5973: 5956: 5941: 5883: 5790: 5398: 5091:

Imagine getting that answer when you have just a handful of edits? And FWIW, I too think

5040: 5030: 4929:

While the below opposes do give cause for concern, I agree with Floquenbeam a few above.

4741: 4325: 4141: 3960: 3865: 3727: 3580: 3539: 3329: 3299: 3286: 3208: 3130: 3116: 3101: 2949: 2793: 2777: 2585: 2560: 2549: 2421: 2319: 2269: 2259: 2187: 2055: 1888: 1880: 1738: 1698: 1626: 1611: 1589: 1505: 1403: 1384: 1350: 1297: 916:

Relatively unobtrusive in that they generally don't distract from the flow of the article

839: 693: 525: 367: 247: 7108:

HouseBlaster, I am really excited to see you as an admin, you will do a great job here.

7492: 7480: 7467: 7370: 7340: 7325: 7304: 7270: 7025: 6920: 6540: 6491: 6359: 6214: 6164: 6115: 6101: 6074: 5912: 5770: 5679: 5662: 5630: 5590: 5250: 4969: 4863: 4607: 4468: 4416: 4363: 4067: 3985: 3942: 3818: 3149: 3037: 3007: 2844: 2478: 2369: 2278: 2248: 2153: 2140: 2079: 2024: 1554: 1549:, I just hope that this note is helpful to others for how to understand your argument. 1440: 1126: 474: 6302:

I started editing in 2018 and I feel this way too often when reading old discussions.

6023:

would call for a response. See, for example, his prompt response to such a request at

401:

When, if ever, is is inappropriate for a WikiProject to be notified about a RfD under

7595: 7525: 7226: 7034: 7024:. I would also add that some of the original article needed removal – for example, a 7013: 6752: 6733: 6623: 6480: 6353: 6321: 6149: 6126: 6056: 6016: 5645: 5571: 5530: 5454: 5434: 5174: 5147: 5069: 5058: 4684: 4545: 4523: 4491: 4434: 4396: 4296: 4152: 4121:. As is cherry-picking other random xtools stats. Finally, there is no way I can let 4083: 4020: 3908: 3888: 3710: 3689: 3623: 3595: 3416: 3333: 2924: 2857: 2819: 2532: 2341: 2042: 1931: 1917: 1825: 1799: 1757: 1667: 1455: 1046: 996: 874: 412: 402: 208: 193: 69: 985:

the principle one should not act as a judge in a case in which they have an interest

91:, too. I believe House will be an excellent admin, and that the guy who created the 7484: 7385: 7355: 6903: 6867: 6204:

An out-loud "Nice!!" in reaction to seeing this. Major net benefit to the project.

5722: 5614: 5412: 5121:

Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/HouseBlaster#Responses to Lightburst's oppose

4934: 4916: 4886: 4825: 4649: 4617: 4597: 4578: 4447: 4257: 4174: 4096: 4002: 3924: 3844: 3789: 3775: 3181: 2972: 2881: 2694:. Kind, collegial, and helpful. I think he will make a great admin. Also per JPxG. 2435: 2120: 1964: 1950: 1857: 1334: 704: 509: 318: 7380:

limitations and less blue sky would be more revealing of a candidate's judgement.

5897: 1268: 862:

Make sure they were actually a vandal (looking at their contributions/filter hits)

728:

beneficial change has been. But one example that I think is worth highlighting is

7582: 7541: 7071: 6975: 6934: 6878: 6826: 6811: 6796: 6718:

fish, chips, mushy peas and tartare sauce for the candidate and other wikipedians

6693: 6659: 6606: 6581: 6496: 6461: 6303: 6261: 6188: 5750: 5473: 5360: 5346: 5326: 5308: 5105: 4952: 4727: 4709: 4665: 4642: 4502: 4375: 4348: 4271: 3807: 3640: 3492: 3456: 3438: 3373: 3068: 2735: 2697: 2678: 2204: 2170: 1774: 1707: 1677: 1603: 1323: 737: 96: 92: 45: 4979: 7284: 7244: 6996:

of the article (minus the stuff I added) was copied from the mainspace article

6436: 6425: 6396: 6381: 5969: 5952: 5937: 5786: 5394: 5136: 4193: 4134: 4126: 3723: 3535: 3317: 3282: 3203: 3126: 3112: 3097: 2783: 2580: 2554: 2501: 2417: 2400: 2330: 2315: 2263: 2221: 2006: 1884: 1734: 1622: 1607: 1599: 1585: 1533: 1484: 1398: 1380: 1346: 1293: 911: 853:, what would be your numbered procedure to checking and verifying the request? 741: 391: 54: 7632: 7613:

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

7502: 7488: 7463: 7401: 7366: 7336: 7321: 7300: 7266: 7140: 7070:, which you added by converting the preexisting sources into "sfn" format. -- 7017: 6916: 6714: 6536: 6205: 6111: 6097: 6068: 6028: 5907: 5864: 5763: 5626: 5584: 5390: 5200: 5081: 5073: 4965: 4603: 4464: 4411: 4360: 4288: 4042: 3980: 3933: 3517: 2898:

Go and pick up some slack for me. And write some more content in the future.

2840: 2836: 2346: 2244: 2134: 2019: 1550: 1435: 1007: 961: 900: 850: 808: 783: 637: 622:

ever. So I don't consider myself anything, though I would add that I dislike

582: 7280:

editing, and it has no bearing on how they will act as an mop holder today.

5745:

HB asked the question, but "cringeworthy" is a perfect description for it.--

4041:

Oh, uh, and there is no Plant/Pollinator conspiracy to take over Knowledge.

2416:

Will be a net positive to the project in the areas they plan on working in.

7591: 7550: 7521: 7476: 7218: 7217:

myself and do the difficult things. House Blaster will grow into the job.

7148: 7139:

Most admins do not work in "all admin areas." For example, in my work with

6744: 6729: 6476: 6052: 5993: 5567: 5449: 5427: 5237:(I fear that once the user grabs the mop, it would be busted within hours.) 5085: 4766: 4700: 4541: 4487: 4430: 4392: 4148: 4079: 3904: 3706: 3409: 2945: 2808: 2514:. I'm happy to see this because CfD definitely needs another mop or two. -- 2203:. No concerns, seems a great candidate who has a clear need for the tools. 2038: 1930:

Just noting I’ve read all the opposes to date and remain happy to support.

1817: 1791: 1663: 1644: 992: 988: 554: 470: 423: 7020:

obligations were satisfied.) As for the amount of content I added, I have

3979:, and it shows the virtues of someone I think would make as a good admin. 995:. There are hundreds of other admins who can act in my place; there is no 724:

I haven't studied all changes made to Knowledge, so I cannot say what the

7029: 5605: 5408: 4930: 4882: 4659: 4646: 4616:

No it wasn't and thanks for bringing it up, I've added the missing part.

4248: 4165: 3998: 3921: 2967: 2336: 2113: 1961: 1947: 448: 6965:, combined diff, and, I think, representative. You also added an image: 4029:), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 662:" button on a banner, so this is an issue I find important. (I promptly 250:

on how to action the results of CFDs, which they do by listing items at

7577: 7536: 6456: 5746: 5468: 4948: 4723: 4705: 4697: 4343: 3486: 2515: 1852:

I don't like adding to inline !vote discussions but facts matter: from

255: 7623:

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

7281: 7241: 6377: 5125: 4229: 3231: 2498: 2396: 2002: 1856:: 35 support, 28 oppose and 2 neutral votes - so actually not rarely 1546: 1522: 1274:

Per my general comment. Yes, this is a minute early. Sorry not sorry

825:

And would you avoid admin actions for articles where you have a COI?

294:

of songs that were not written for films – which had been sitting at

6988:

I think there is a little bit of confusion concerning the timeline.

6027:. But it's perfectly normal to let your closure speak for itself at 5984:

Total lack of any response to a listing of one of their closures at

5860:

the candidate has struck the question and apologized a few hours ago

5834:

The talk page comment to Doug Weller is also a deal breaker for me.

667:

crazy, but I got a template message and actually heeded its advice!)

3511: 1129:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 7590:

It indeed was a typo. Anyways, I'm very satisifed by recent RfAs.

3111:

like to provide more evidence of a pattern, feel free to ping me.

1136: 2133:

Seems like we're on a roll with new admins lately! I wonder why?

4602:

Are you sure that the last sentence was finished, as intended?

3475: 2613: 266: 6096:

confident that they can be trusted with the tools. Good luck!

3305: 831:

Yes, I would avoid admin actions in general when I have a COI.

5066:

to an editor with 382 edits about a close HouseBlaster made.

2307: 302:. I also am happy with the work I did to get on implementing 162:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

6227:

Good candidate and good nominators. I think they'd do fine.

5421:

In Knowledge's early days, users were promoted after 4 or 5

2477:

I have read the opposes, and I do not find them convincing.

377:

Hello HouseBlaster, can you explain your user name? Thanks.

6025:

User talk:HouseBlaster/Archive 6#CfD nomination and closure

1662:

and add me to it, they'll probably do great as an admin. ~

928:) let people find a backlog they enjoy working and do that. 7092:

of the tools, but I think that's alright in this case. --

3298:

Support based on what I have seen of their contributions.

1693:

I'd also like to throw in a essay for those on the fence:

87:

established record when it comes to patrolling pages, and

2856:, would be a good janitor in areas that need attention – 2096:

In the words of TonyBallioni, "not a jerk, has a clue". ♠

1660:

Category:Wikipedians who don't know how to use an em dash

29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

5854:

Tryptofish's assessment of the candidate's answer to Q23

3862:

Category:Users who never add rcats when making redirects

2368:

has a clue. Not swayed in the slightest by the opposes.

278:

What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?

1580:

Oh look, it's Lightburst around to oppose another RfA.

568:. Are you planning to become more active in that area? 286: 5741:

a deal breaker for me. I don't even want to speculate

4287:, because of an excellent track record in closures at 3144:, I see no reason for concern. The admin tools aren't 6792:. Second, there is the very lengthy discussion here: 6320:

Meh, that's nothing. I've been editing since 500 BC.

918:– they aren't really hurting you if you dislike them. 599:

experience at all to close a sane proposal with four

260: 240:

Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

6043:. I don't expect a neutral judge (see responses to 5039:But if you read the section it is much less clear, 5026:emphatically stating that no big deal is "policy". 920:And I will also add that tracking categories (e.g. 317:is my best writing. I am also proud of shepherding 6041:List of IMAX venues With 15/70 or laser projectors 5298:the GA HouseBlaster cites as some of his best work 656:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid 473:should also be merged/deleted. And categories for 296:Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual 6724:between their GA and other contributions such as 5084:. Alternatively, you may also place a request at 3489:that are sometimes misunderstood on Knowledge. — 1695:Knowledge:Content awareness, not content creation 1568:, appears rational with a usecase for the tools. 1113:Edit summary usage for HouseBlaster can be found 849:Hi! If you were to block users from reports from 353:You may ask optional questions below. There is a 7630: 6003:might want to participate in the deletion review 3932:sterling content creator after getting the mop. 1883:applies. Thanks for volunteering and good luck! 922:Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2024 84:Knowledge talk:Categories for discussion/Working 5529:, reluctantly and marginally, per Tryptofish. 5100:to content (they said in answer to question 2 4295:be combined in one person but do not have to. 1516:to content (they said in answer to question 2 7265:I agree. It's a useful (and valid) question. 3864:I'm all for this person gaining the toolkit. 3757:, no reason to think they'd abuse the tools. 3688:No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. 3408:will be a clear net positive with the tools. 1152: 6810:Others may have different views, of course. 868:Make sure they vandalized after being warned 624:making broad judgements about types of pages 6148:shared with you this past week to heart. - 252:Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Working 5033:is policy. Not an essay. Not a guideline. 2574:- per everyone else and also HouseBlaster 2531:. Love the amazing work at CFD and stuff! 1396:Net positive. I see no issues whatsoever. 1159: 1145: 718:beneficial to Knowledge in the long term? 658:). I got started editing by clicking the " 566:you haven't participated in AfD in a while 325:). I will let my writing speak for itself. 53:Final (153/27/8); Closed as successful by 3579:No concerns, good candidate, best wishes 2018:. An obvious asset, particularly at CFD. 1790:Keep you mop wet and your toolbox open. 660:Learn how and when to remove this message 6713: 1125:Please keep discussion constructive and 865:Make sure they were warned appropriately 744:bureaucracy has proven to be worthwhile. 7155:. There's plenty of work to go around. 5345:acknowledges, what I have said here. -- 5146:Boy-o. That is a lot of words to type. 2347:the arrogant manipulative hardass House 14: 7631: 6726:2014 Northern Cape provincial election 5279:care about permission to view deleted 5024:lectures others about No Big Deal here 2807:. No issues here! Great candidate :). 2456:will be a net-positive to the project. 926:Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors 6055:because their judgment is on appeal. 1750:Just take the mop and blast with it! 1140: 740:concerns, but I think the additional 7010:1934 German head of state referendum 6954:1934 German head of state referendum 6603:1934 German head of state referendum 6374:1934 German head of state referendum 6019:– that would be a different matter. 730:Knowledge:Non-administrator rollback 481:headcount is not entirely irrelevant 315:1934 German head of state referendum 310: 6605:. Does that resolve your concerns? 6517:Undoubtable asset to the CfD team. 1166: 983:INVOLVED is Knowledge's version of 626:and firmly believe ATDs are great. 23: 7557:RfAs" and that "goof" was a typo. 6031:. A few examples from May include 5986:WP:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 6 24: 7650: 7639:Successful requests for adminship 5448:I share Tryptofish's concerns. – 4359:based on their answer to my Q22. 895:I see that you are interested in 7534:What's that supposed to mean? – 7458:I saw this on ANI regarding the 5216:The Blade of the Northern Lights 5119:Replies moved to RfA talk page, 5072:). If you think I misjudged the 4209: 3455:without any real reservations. — 2835:Need more admins to help out in 2339:, but I have been on a binge of 543:Thank You (Meghan Trainor album) 309: 292:Category:Songs written for films 93:page documenting the Admin Baton 89:can do some real article writing 18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship 5737:. The post to Doug's Talk page 5566:I also agree with Tryptofish.-- 5022:register a vote. The candidate 546:was a major blunder on my part. 144:semi-boldly deprecating a third 95:can now have it passed to him. 7110:Myrealnamm's Alternate Account 5700:Apologies. I originally said: 140:deprecating two CSD categories 13: 1: 7575:Ah, that makes more sense. – 6033:File:WBBL05 Cap Logo Heat.svg 3871:Talk/Report any mistakes here 3067:. Great candidate for sysop. 2243:. Good candidate, no issues. 1731:link to a barnstar I gave him 732:(straw poll is now housed on 6358:! (Also: great username.) -- 5055:to an editor with 300 edits 2152:clear need for the toolkit. 1703:perfect be the enemy of good 321:– an AP2 BLP – through DYK ( 7: 6992:was acknowledging that the 6912:What is cringeworthy about 6104:) 01:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 5246:) 10:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 4540:-- It is a yes from me. -- 2312:User:Houseblaster/YFA draft 2274:) 10:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2186:– I trust the nominators – 873:While keeping in mind what 229:Questions for the candidate 10: 7655: 5554:Been a while, I know...... 5059:satisfy you with my answer 308:Content-wise, I would say 7600:18:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 7586:17:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 7571:13:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 7545:12:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 7530:17:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 7514:04:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 7497:19:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 7472:14:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 7452:16:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 7426:14:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 7390:01:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 7375:14:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 7360:13:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 7345:13:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 7330:09:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 7309:22:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 7290:14:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 7275:01:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 7261:23:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC) 7250:22:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC) 7236:21:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC) 7204:15:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 7193:15:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 7162:23:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC) 7135:19:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC) 7118:18:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC) 7104:06:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC) 7080:23:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 7049:01:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 6984:17:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC) 6943:23:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 6925:19:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 6908:21:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6887:17:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC) 6872:15:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC) 6858:03:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC) 6835:00:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC) 6820:21:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6805:20:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6784:20:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6762:18:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6738:17:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6705:11:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC) 6686:01:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC) 6671:22:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6640:18:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6618:15:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6590:15:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6576:13:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6563:13:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6545:12:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6531:04:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6505:15:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC) 6485:22:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6465:11:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6445:11:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6429:03:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6419:02:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6405:02:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6390:02:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6368:01:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6338:18:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6315:04:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6296:04:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6273:01:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6255:01:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6237:01:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6223:00:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6200:00:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 6173:23:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 6155:20:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 6140:15:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 6120:02:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 6083:06:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 6063:02:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 5997:00:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 5978:17:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 5961:21:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 5946:19:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 5932:18:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 5915:09:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 5892:23:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 5875:23:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 5844:22:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 5825:00:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC) 5813:19:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 5795:17:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 5778:17:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 5755:15:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 5730:15:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 5696:11:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 5671:11:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 5654:07:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 5635:06:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 5620:06:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 5604:: Agree with Tryptofish. 5597:04:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 5576:01:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 5559:22:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 5539:21:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 5521:14:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 5494:13:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 5479:20:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 5460:17:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 5440:00:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 5417:08:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 5403:06:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 5369:22:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 5355:20:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 5340:06:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 5317:02:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 5265:11:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 5249:Not extended confirmed. – 5226:20:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 5209:10:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 5191:07:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 5163:15:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 5141:23:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 5114:01:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 4974:00:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC) 4957:23:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 4939:23:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 4925:20:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 4907:20:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 4891:20:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 4872:19:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 4848:19:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 4834:18:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 4819:18:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 4802:17:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 4772:16:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 4758:14:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 4732:12:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 4714:09:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 4693:08:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 4674:22:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 4653:07:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 4630:15:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 4612:02:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 4591:00:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 4569:20:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 4550:20:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 4533:19:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 4511:19:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 4496:19:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 4473:18:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 4456:16:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 4439:16:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 4422:15:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 4401:14:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 4384:12:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 4367:12:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 4352:12:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 4334:08:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 4305:05:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 4280:22:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 4263:21:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 4240:21:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 4220:19:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 4188:19:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 4157:17:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 4144:16:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 4105:16:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 4088:16:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 4072:16:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 4031:15:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 4007:15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 3989:13:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 3968:13:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 3951:10:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 3927:09:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 3913:08:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 3895:06:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 3876:06:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 3853:05:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 3833:04:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 3817:Not extended confirmed. – 3814:03:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 3798:03:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 3784:01:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 3767:00:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 3750:00:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 3732:00:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC) 3715:21:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 3698:20:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 3681:20:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 3666:20:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 3649:18:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 3632:15:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 3611:13:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 3588:12:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 3572:11:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 3544:08:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 3526:08:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 3507:04:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 3465:18:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 3447:04:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 3422:02:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 3397:02:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 3382:01:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 3367:01:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 3348:01:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 3321:01:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 3309:01:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 3291:00:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 3273:00:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 3236:23:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 3219:22:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 3195:22:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 3172:21:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 3155:21:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 3135:20:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 3121:18:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 3106:20:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 3089:20:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 3058:20:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 3028:20:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2997:20:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2980:19:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2958:19:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2931:18:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2916:18:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2894:18:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2873:18:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2849:17:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2828:17:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2800:17:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2773:17:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2749:17:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 2711:16:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2687:16:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2669:15:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2656:15:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2637:15:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2622:15:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2592:15:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2567:15:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2541:14:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2524:14:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2507:14:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2487:14:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2469:14:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2449:13:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2426:13:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2409:13:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2388:12:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2359:22:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2324:11:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2293:10:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2277:Not extended confirmed. – 2253:09:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2236:09:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2213:08:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2196:08:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2179:07:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2162:07:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2145:07:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2126:07:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2105:07:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2089:06:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2070:05:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2047:05:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2030:05:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 2011:05:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1993:05:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1970:22:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 1956:05:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1940:01:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC) 1926:05:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1912:04:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1893:03:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1866:16:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1848:10:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1835:04:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1809:03:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1783:03:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1766:03:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1743:03:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1719:21:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 1689:03:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1672:03:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1651:02:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1631:22:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 1616:20:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC) 1594:02:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1576:02:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1559:02:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1538:02:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1497:01:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1479:01:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1460:01:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1446:01:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1427:01:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1410:00:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1389:00:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1372:00:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1355:00:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1338:00:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1330:00:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1318:00:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1302:00:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1288:00:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC) 1239: 1193: 1172: 953:I have no plans to do so. 514:appointed a trainee clerk 223:00:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 156:00:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC) 136:technical requested moves 120:categories for discussion 103:23:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC) 59:02:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC) 7616:Please do not modify it. 7055:the state of the article 6452:Ceci n'est pas une !vote 5882:Not enough article work. 5051:is one example. Or this 5049:note to User:Scope creep 5017:. In fact the candidate 3487:accessibility principles 3483:WT:BAN § Semantic markup 1697:. HouseBlaster meets my 1646:Just a random Wikipedian 1044:Links for HouseBlaster: 912:advantages of a category 884:Optional questions from 796:Optional questions from 789:s as a second parameter. 581:Optional questions from 6048: 5988:makes me a bit uneasy, 5486:Mainly per Tryptofish. 5383:bureaucrat-ship (again) 5029:A few thoughts. First, 3476:Administrative backlogs 2578:my favorite article :) 2497:an experienced editor. 2062:AstonishingTunesAdmirer 1839:Yup. But rarely. Best, 1322:Third... beat again... 1006:Optional question from 960:Optional question from 838:Optional question from 751:Optional question from 703:Optional question from 674:Optional question from 636:Optional question from 553:Optional question from 524:Optional question from 491:Optional question from 447:Optional question from 422:Optional question from 390:Optional question from 366:Optional question from 109:Co-nomination statement 38:Please do not modify it 6998:1934 German referendum 6719: 6622:One GA is not enough. 6424:Is it a !!vote then? – 6044: 5714:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC) 5038: 1419:Pharaoh of the Wizards 6717: 6553:which is totally okay 6411:~~ AirshipJungleman29 6409:This is not a !vote. 6247:ScottishFinnishRadish 5707:——Serial Number 54129 5098:greatest contribution 5057:I am not required to 5027: 4217:me on reply; thanks!) 3759:ScottishFinnishRadish 3228:Has clue, isn't jerk. 2923:- no major concerns. 2629:~~ AirshipJungleman29 1602:This is a needlessly 1514:greatest contribution 1508:it is very clear: - 512:, and I was recently 508:I do plan to work at 34:request for adminship 6490:I see you've played 6280:almost two years ago 5821:That Tired Tarantula 5809:That Tired Tarantula 4119:misuse of statistics 3742:Trainsandotherthings 3641:The Herald (Benison) 3559:Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI 3389:GreenLipstickLesbian 3359:GreenLipstickLesbian 2395:No concerns for me. 2112:. No problems here! 1252:Global contributions 300:a 2016(!) discussion 7559:Firefangledfeathers 6959:, and the page now: 6471:That's not a !vote, 6241:Responsible for an 4846:) Have a good day! 4840:Justarandomamerican 4817:) Have a good day! 4811:Justarandomamerican 4192:Honored to support 3164:Suffusion of Yellow 1379:No issues from me. 1206:Non-automated edits 493:DandelionAndBurdock 116:the 2024 RfA review 7256:Just Step Sideways 7199:Just Step Sideways 7177:Just Step Sideways 7157:Just Step Sideways 7000:, which was later 6720: 6435:A ¬vote, perhaps? 6243:improvement to RFA 5102:is my best writing 5036: 3673:Extraordinary Writ 2761:ModernDayTrilobite 2664:Just Step Sideways 2037:from yours truly. 1773:– Well qualified. 1642:no issues for me. 1584:- no big deal. -- 1518:is my best writing 1453:Good for the mop. 1343:Blast err Support! 1185:Edit summary usage 1133:before commenting. 942:Improve categories 471:overcategorization 39: 7432: 7431:Zombie comment... 7287: 7247: 7233: 6759: 6495: 6472: 6467: 6447: 6431: 6317: 6298: 6079: 5924:Emir of Knowledge 5776: 5557: 5523: 5509:DimensionalFusion 5507:comment added by 5458: 5267: 5263: 5238: 5034: 4227:: No big deal :) 4218: 4205: 4199: 3874: 3835: 3831: 3569: 3504: 3350: 3271: 3256: 3252: 3246: 3191: 3185: 3153: 2960: 2944:comment added by 2791: 2624: 2504: 2464: 2335:I'm not much for 2295: 2291: 2087: 1832: 1806: 1606:remark, I think. 1265: 1264: 1131:his contributions 997:rule of necessity 914:is that they are 899:and plan to work 774:category redirect 629: 132:proposed deletion 37: 7646: 7618: 7584: 7580: 7543: 7539: 7511: 7449: 7448: 7442: 7441: 7430: 7423: 7418: 7413: 7285: 7245: 7225: 7180: 7040: 6855: 6854: 6848: 6847: 6781: 6780: 6774: 6773: 6751: 6665: 6662: 6637: 6630: 6612: 6609: 6601:They have a GA: 6600: 6597:Intothatdarkness 6559: 6489: 6470: 6463: 6459: 6450: 6434: 6423: 6365: 6362: 6357: 6335: 6328: 6309: 6306: 6301: 6282:? gosh, I'm old 6277: 6267: 6264: 6211: 6208: 6194: 6191: 6179:General comments 6152: 6132: 6129: 6075: 6071: 6051:) to go file an 6014: 6008: 5910: 5862: 5856: 5836:I am One of Many 5822: 5810: 5773: 5768: 5766: 5727: 5725: 5708: 5617: 5611: 5608: 5587: 5551: 5549:The Rambling Man 5502: 5452: 5438: 5430: 5333: 5331: 5257: 5255: 5248: 5236: 5222: 5196:Regretful oppose 5188: 5181: 5158: 5157: 5154: 5151: 4899:Partofthemachine 4798: 4792: 4789: 4786: 4783: 4769: 4749: 4744: 4703: 4663: 4626: 4601: 4587: 4566: 4561: 4531: 4529: 4526: 4424: 4419: 4414: 4350: 4346: 4255: 4236: 4213: 4212: 4207: 4203: 4197: 4183: 4177: 4170: 4139: 4064: 4061: 4058: 4055: 4052: 4049: 4046: 4023: 3983: 3965: 3963: 3939: 3936: 3868: 3825: 3823: 3816: 3812: 3606: 3605: 3602: 3599: 3585: 3562: 3514: 3502: 3498: 3495: 3420: 3412: 3341: 3259: 3254: 3250: 3244: 3216: 3211: 3206: 3189: 3183: 3152: 3077: 3074: 3071: 2989:Vanderwaalforces 2975: 2939: 2913: 2912: 2906: 2905: 2815: 2812: 2798: 2796: 2789: 2786: 2742: 2740: 2704: 2702: 2627:Per Lightburst. 2620: 2616: 2608: 2563: 2557: 2521: 2502: 2467: 2462: 2460: 2444: 2438: 2385: 2377: 2351:theleekycauldron 2334: 2304: 2285: 2283: 2276: 2272: 2266: 2233: 2228: 2137: 2123: 2118: 2078: 2077:per Lightburst. 2068: 2063: 2027: 2022: 1845: 1824: 1798: 1755: 1713: 1710: 1683: 1680: 1649: 1572: 1476: 1471: 1458: 1443: 1438: 1406: 1401: 1310:theleekycauldron 1201:Articles created 1161: 1154: 1147: 1138: 1137: 1118: 1110: 1069: 973: 972: 946: 940: 875:vandalism is not 788: 782: 778: 772: 753:Codename Noreste 664:removed a banner 627: 460: 459: 362: 319:Daniel McCaffery 313: 312: 289: 269: 267:Fayenatic london 263: 214: 148:theleekycauldron 124:new pages patrol 7654: 7653: 7649: 7648: 7647: 7645: 7644: 7643: 7629: 7628: 7627: 7621:this nomination 7614: 7578: 7576: 7537: 7535: 7507: 7460:2003 RfA of Deb 7446: 7445: 7439:The Night Watch 7437: 7436: 7421: 7416: 7411: 7286:◊distænt write◊ 7246:◊distænt write◊ 7174: 7038: 6990:My edit summary 6852: 6851: 6845:The Night Watch 6843: 6842: 6778: 6777: 6771:The Night Watch 6769: 6768: 6678:Hey man im josh 6663: 6660: 6631: 6624: 6610: 6607: 6594: 6557: 6519:Queen of Hearts 6475: 6474:This is a !vote 6457: 6455: 6376:for GA status. 6363: 6360: 6351: 6329: 6322: 6307: 6304: 6284:Queen of Hearts 6265: 6262: 6229:Hey man im josh 6209: 6206: 6192: 6189: 6181: 6150: 6137: 6130: 6127: 6081: 6069: 6012: 6006: 5966:Moved to oppose 5908: 5900: 5858: 5852: 5820: 5808: 5806: 5771: 5764: 5723: 5721: 5706: 5615: 5609: 5606: 5595: 5585: 5432: 5428: 5387:checkuser tools 5327: 5324: 5251: 5220: 5182: 5175: 5155: 5152: 5149: 5148: 5082:deletion review 4982: 4796: 4790: 4787: 4784: 4781: 4767: 4747: 4742: 4701: 4657: 4643:User:Tryptofish 4624: 4595: 4585: 4564: 4560:Nova Crystallis 4559: 4527: 4524: 4521: 4484:...</em: --> 4417: 4412: 4344: 4342: 4249: 4230: 4210: 4186: 4181: 4175: 4166: 4135: 4062: 4059: 4056: 4053: 4050: 4047: 4044: 4021: 3981: 3961: 3959: 3937: 3934: 3819: 3808: 3658:Robert McClenon 3603: 3600: 3597: 3596: 3581: 3568: 3512: 3500: 3493: 3414: 3410: 3214: 3209: 3204: 3075: 3072: 3069: 2973: 2910: 2909: 2903:The Night Watch 2901: 2900: 2813: 2810: 2794: 2784: 2781: 2736: 2733: 2698: 2695: 2614: 2606: 2561: 2555: 2516: 2503:◊distænt write◊ 2459:« Gonzo fan2007 2458: 2457: 2442: 2436: 2381: 2373: 2328: 2302: 2279: 2270: 2264: 2229: 2222: 2220:. Best wishes – 2135: 2121: 2114: 2061: 2059: 2025: 2020: 1987: 1967: 1966:it has begun... 1953: 1952:it has begun... 1841: 1751: 1711: 1708: 1681: 1678: 1643: 1570: 1474: 1469: 1454: 1441: 1436: 1404: 1399: 1364:Hey man im josh 1276:Queen of Hearts 1271: 1266: 1261: 1235: 1189: 1168: 1167:RfA/RfB toolbox 1165: 1114: 1062: 1045: 1041: 970: 969: 944: 938: 886:Robert McClenon 786: 780: 779:so it can take 776: 770: 734:a separate page 676:The Night Watch 601:support per nom 457: 456: 352: 285: 265: 259: 231: 212: 180:BlasterOfHouses 128:speedy deletion 67: 50: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 7652: 7642: 7641: 7626: 7625: 7609: 7608: 7607: 7606: 7605: 7604: 7603: 7602: 7588: 7518: 7517: 7516: 7474: 7456: 7455: 7454: 7398: 7397: 7396: 7395: 7394: 7393: 7392: 7347: 7332: 7317: 7316: 7315: 7314: 7313: 7312: 7311: 7238: 7230: 7222: 7213: 7212: 7211: 7210: 7209: 7208: 7207: 7206: 7167: 7166: 7165: 7164: 7120: 7106: 7086: 7085: 7084: 7083: 7082: 7022:62% authorship 6995: 6949: 6948: 6947: 6946: 6945: 6910: 6895: 6894: 6893: 6892: 6891: 6890: 6889: 6874: 6786: 6764: 6756: 6748: 6740: 6712: 6711: 6710: 6709: 6708: 6707: 6690: 6689: 6688: 6673: 6592: 6565: 6549: 6548: 6547: 6515: 6514: 6513: 6512: 6511: 6510: 6509: 6508: 6507: 6473: 6448: 6407: 6392: 6370: 6348: 6347: 6346: 6345: 6344: 6343: 6342: 6341: 6340: 6239: 6225: 6202: 6180: 6177: 6176: 6175: 6157: 6142: 6135: 6122: 6089: 6088: 6087: 6086: 6085: 6073: 6037:Tamil genocide 5982: 5981: 5980: 5963: 5934: 5917: 5899: 5896: 5895: 5894: 5884:Lost in Quebec 5877: 5846: 5829: 5828: 5827: 5804: 5797: 5780: 5757: 5732: 5715: 5698: 5673: 5656: 5637: 5622: 5599: 5589: 5578: 5561: 5541: 5524: 5496: 5481: 5462: 5446: 5445: 5444: 5443: 5442: 5375: 5374: 5373: 5372: 5371: 5357: 5270: 5269: 5268: 5228: 5193: 5167: 5166: 5165: 5144: 5078:the discussion 4981: 4978: 4977: 4976: 4959: 4941: 4927: 4909: 4893: 4874: 4852: 4851: 4850: 4821: 4804: 4774: 4760: 4734: 4716: 4695: 4678: 4677: 4676: 4639:Strong support 4636: 4635: 4634: 4633: 4632: 4571: 4557:Net positive. 4552: 4535: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4475: 4458: 4441: 4425: 4403: 4386: 4369: 4354: 4336: 4326:MaterialsPsych 4307: 4282: 4265: 4242: 4222: 4190: 4172: 4159: 4146: 4107: 4090: 4074: 4033: 4022:❧ LunaEatsTuna 4018:WP:IFN&£✈️ 4009: 3991: 3970: 3962:Rhododendrites 3953: 3929: 3915: 3897: 3885: 3878: 3855: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3806:, good luck!-- 3786: 3769: 3752: 3734: 3717: 3700: 3683: 3668: 3651: 3634: 3613: 3590: 3574: 3564: 3546: 3528: 3509: 3480: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3424: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3351: 3346:comment added 3323: 3311: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3238: 3221: 3197: 3174: 3157: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3123: 3091: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3035: 2999: 2982: 2961: 2933: 2918: 2896: 2875: 2851: 2830: 2802: 2775: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2729: 2717: 2689: 2671: 2658: 2639: 2625: 2607:P.I. Ellsworth 2594: 2569: 2543: 2526: 2509: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2451: 2428: 2411: 2390: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2238: 2215: 2198: 2188:Kavyansh.Singh 2181: 2164: 2147: 2128: 2107: 2091: 2072: 2049: 2032: 2013: 1995: 1985: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1965: 1951: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1914: 1895: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1829: 1821: 1803: 1795: 1785: 1768: 1745: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1674: 1653: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1578: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1499: 1481: 1462: 1448: 1429: 1412: 1391: 1374: 1357: 1340: 1332: 1320: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1270: 1267: 1263: 1262: 1260: 1259: 1254: 1249: 1243: 1241: 1237: 1236: 1234: 1233: 1228: 1223: 1218: 1213: 1208: 1203: 1197: 1195: 1191: 1190: 1188: 1187: 1182: 1176: 1174: 1170: 1169: 1164: 1163: 1156: 1149: 1141: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1111: 1040: 1037: 1035: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 957: 956: 955: 954: 932: 931: 930: 881: 880: 879: 878: 871: 870: 869: 866: 863: 840:Myrealnamm-alt 835: 834: 833: 832: 820: 819: 818: 798:60.241.125.170 793: 792: 791: 790: 748: 747: 746: 745: 727: 700: 699: 698: 697: 671: 670: 669: 668: 633: 632: 631: 630: 606: 605: 604: 578: 577: 576: 575: 564:It looks like 550: 549: 548: 547: 526:Idoghor Melody 521: 520: 519: 518: 488: 487: 486: 485: 444: 443: 442: 441: 419: 418: 417: 416: 387: 386: 385: 384: 368:Starship.paint 350: 349: 348: 347: 346: 329: 328: 327: 273: 272: 271: 248:JJMC89 bot III 230: 227: 226: 225: 112: 111: 66: 63: 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 7651: 7640: 7637: 7636: 7634: 7624: 7622: 7617: 7611: 7610: 7601: 7597: 7593: 7589: 7587: 7583: 7581: 7574: 7573: 7572: 7568: 7564: 7560: 7556: 7552: 7548: 7547: 7546: 7542: 7540: 7533: 7532: 7531: 7527: 7523: 7519: 7515: 7512: 7510: 7509:Reading Beans 7504: 7500: 7499: 7498: 7494: 7490: 7486: 7482: 7481:Reading Beans 7478: 7475: 7473: 7469: 7465: 7461: 7457: 7453: 7450: 7443: 7440: 7429: 7428: 7427: 7424: 7419: 7414: 7407: 7403: 7399: 7391: 7387: 7383: 7378: 7377: 7376: 7372: 7368: 7363: 7362: 7361: 7357: 7353: 7348: 7346: 7342: 7338: 7333: 7331: 7327: 7323: 7318: 7310: 7306: 7302: 7297: 7293: 7292: 7291: 7288: 7283: 7278: 7277: 7276: 7272: 7268: 7264: 7263: 7262: 7259: 7257: 7253: 7252: 7251: 7248: 7243: 7239: 7237: 7232: 7231: 7228: 7224: 7223: 7220: 7215: 7214: 7205: 7202: 7200: 7196: 7195: 7194: 7190: 7186: 7185: 7178: 7173: 7172: 7171: 7170: 7169: 7168: 7163: 7160: 7158: 7154: 7153:WP:RANGEBLOCK 7150: 7146: 7142: 7138: 7137: 7136: 7132: 7128: 7127: 7121: 7119: 7115: 7111: 7107: 7105: 7101: 7100: 7095: 7091: 7087: 7081: 7077: 7073: 7069: 7064: 7060: 7056: 7052: 7051: 7050: 7046: 7042: 7041: 7036: 7031: 7027: 7023: 7019: 7015: 7011: 7007: 7003: 6999: 6993: 6991: 6987: 6986: 6985: 6981: 6977: 6973: 6970: 6967: 6964: 6961: 6958: 6955: 6950: 6944: 6940: 6936: 6932: 6928: 6927: 6926: 6922: 6918: 6914: 6911: 6909: 6905: 6901: 6896: 6888: 6884: 6880: 6875: 6873: 6869: 6865: 6861: 6860: 6859: 6856: 6849: 6846: 6838: 6837: 6836: 6832: 6828: 6823: 6822: 6821: 6817: 6813: 6808: 6807: 6806: 6802: 6798: 6794: 6791: 6787: 6785: 6782: 6775: 6772: 6765: 6763: 6758: 6757: 6754: 6750: 6749: 6746: 6741: 6739: 6735: 6731: 6727: 6722: 6721: 6716: 6706: 6703: 6700: 6695: 6691: 6687: 6683: 6679: 6674: 6672: 6669: 6666: 6656: 6652: 6648: 6643: 6642: 6641: 6638: 6636: 6635: 6629: 6628: 6621: 6620: 6619: 6616: 6613: 6604: 6598: 6593: 6591: 6587: 6583: 6579: 6578: 6577: 6574: 6571: 6566: 6564: 6561: 6554: 6550: 6546: 6542: 6538: 6534: 6533: 6532: 6528: 6524: 6520: 6516: 6506: 6502: 6498: 6493: 6492:knifey-spoony 6488: 6487: 6486: 6482: 6478: 6469: 6468: 6466: 6462: 6460: 6453: 6449: 6446: 6442: 6438: 6433: 6432: 6430: 6427: 6422: 6421: 6420: 6416: 6412: 6408: 6406: 6402: 6398: 6393: 6391: 6387: 6383: 6379: 6375: 6371: 6369: 6366: 6355: 6349: 6339: 6336: 6334: 6333: 6327: 6326: 6319: 6318: 6316: 6313: 6310: 6300: 6299: 6297: 6293: 6289: 6285: 6281: 6278:that RfC was 6276: 6275: 6274: 6271: 6268: 6258: 6257: 6256: 6252: 6248: 6244: 6240: 6238: 6234: 6230: 6226: 6224: 6220: 6216: 6212: 6203: 6201: 6198: 6195: 6186: 6183: 6182: 6174: 6170: 6166: 6165:Scorpions1325 6161: 6158: 6156: 6153: 6146: 6143: 6141: 6138: 6133: 6123: 6121: 6117: 6113: 6109: 6105: 6103: 6099: 6094: 6090: 6084: 6080: 6078: 6072: 6066: 6065: 6064: 6061: 6058: 6054: 6050: 6046: 6042: 6038: 6034: 6030: 6026: 6022: 6018: 6011: 6004: 6000: 5999: 5998: 5995: 5991: 5987: 5983: 5979: 5975: 5971: 5967: 5964: 5962: 5958: 5954: 5949: 5948: 5947: 5943: 5939: 5935: 5933: 5929: 5925: 5921: 5918: 5916: 5913: 5911: 5905: 5902: 5901: 5893: 5889: 5885: 5881: 5878: 5876: 5872: 5868: 5867: 5861: 5855: 5850: 5847: 5845: 5841: 5837: 5833: 5830: 5826: 5823: 5816: 5815: 5814: 5811: 5801: 5798: 5796: 5792: 5788: 5784: 5781: 5779: 5774: 5767: 5761: 5758: 5756: 5752: 5748: 5744: 5740: 5736: 5733: 5731: 5728: 5726: 5719: 5716: 5713: 5709: 5703: 5699: 5697: 5693: 5689: 5685: 5681: 5680:Mike Christie 5677: 5674: 5672: 5668: 5664: 5663:Pawnkingthree 5660: 5657: 5655: 5651: 5647: 5643: 5638: 5636: 5632: 5628: 5623: 5621: 5618: 5612: 5603: 5600: 5598: 5594: 5593: 5588: 5582: 5579: 5577: 5573: 5569: 5565: 5562: 5560: 5555: 5550: 5545: 5542: 5540: 5536: 5532: 5528: 5525: 5522: 5518: 5514: 5510: 5506: 5501:As per above 5500: 5497: 5495: 5492: 5489: 5485: 5482: 5480: 5477: 5476: 5472: 5471: 5466: 5463: 5461: 5456: 5451: 5447: 5441: 5436: 5431: 5424: 5420: 5419: 5418: 5414: 5410: 5406: 5405: 5404: 5400: 5396: 5392: 5391:domino effect 5388: 5384: 5379: 5376: 5370: 5366: 5362: 5358: 5356: 5352: 5348: 5343: 5342: 5341: 5337: 5332: 5330: 5323: 5320: 5319: 5318: 5314: 5310: 5306: 5302: 5299: 5295: 5291: 5288: 5285: 5282: 5278: 5274: 5271: 5266: 5261: 5256: 5254: 5253:Novem Linguae 5247: 5245: 5241: 5240:41.230.158.78 5233: 5229: 5227: 5223: 5217: 5212: 5211: 5210: 5206: 5202: 5197: 5194: 5192: 5189: 5187: 5186: 5180: 5179: 5171: 5168: 5164: 5161: 5159: 5145: 5143: 5142: 5139: 5138: 5135: 5134: 5129: 5128: 5122: 5117: 5116: 5115: 5111: 5107: 5103: 5099: 5094: 5090: 5087: 5083: 5079: 5075: 5071: 5065: 5061: 5060: 5054: 5050: 5046: 5042: 5037: 5032: 5025: 5020: 5019:never opposed 5016: 5012: 5008: 5004: 5000: 4996: 4992: 4988: 4984: 4983: 4975: 4971: 4967: 4963: 4960: 4958: 4954: 4950: 4945: 4942: 4940: 4936: 4932: 4928: 4926: 4922: 4918: 4913: 4910: 4908: 4904: 4900: 4897: 4894: 4892: 4888: 4884: 4881: 4878: 4875: 4873: 4869: 4865: 4864:JackTheSecond 4861: 4856: 4853: 4849: 4845: 4841: 4837: 4836: 4835: 4831: 4827: 4822: 4820: 4816: 4812: 4808: 4805: 4803: 4799: 4793: 4778: 4775: 4773: 4770: 4764: 4761: 4759: 4756: 4754: 4750: 4745: 4738: 4735: 4733: 4729: 4725: 4720: 4717: 4715: 4711: 4707: 4704: 4699: 4696: 4694: 4690: 4686: 4682: 4679: 4675: 4671: 4667: 4661: 4656: 4655: 4654: 4651: 4648: 4644: 4640: 4637: 4631: 4627: 4621: 4620: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4609: 4605: 4599: 4594: 4593: 4592: 4588: 4582: 4581: 4575: 4572: 4570: 4567: 4562: 4556: 4553: 4551: 4547: 4543: 4539: 4536: 4534: 4530: 4519: 4516: 4512: 4508: 4504: 4499: 4498: 4497: 4493: 4489: 4482: 4479: 4476: 4474: 4470: 4466: 4462: 4459: 4457: 4453: 4449: 4445: 4442: 4440: 4436: 4432: 4429: 4426: 4423: 4420: 4415: 4407: 4404: 4402: 4398: 4394: 4391:Good luck! -- 4390: 4387: 4385: 4381: 4377: 4373: 4370: 4368: 4365: 4362: 4358: 4355: 4353: 4349: 4347: 4340: 4337: 4335: 4331: 4327: 4323: 4322:editcountitis 4319: 4315: 4311: 4308: 4306: 4302: 4298: 4294: 4290: 4286: 4283: 4281: 4277: 4273: 4269: 4266: 4264: 4261: 4260: 4256: 4254: 4253: 4246: 4243: 4241: 4238: 4237: 4235: 4234: 4226: 4223: 4221: 4216: 4206: 4200: 4195: 4191: 4189: 4184: 4178: 4171: 4169: 4163: 4160: 4158: 4154: 4150: 4147: 4145: 4142: 4140: 4138: 4132: 4128: 4124: 4120: 4116: 4111: 4108: 4106: 4102: 4098: 4094: 4091: 4089: 4085: 4081: 4078: 4075: 4073: 4069: 4065: 4037: 4034: 4032: 4028: 4024: 4019: 4013: 4010: 4008: 4004: 4000: 3995: 3992: 3990: 3987: 3984: 3978: 3974: 3971: 3969: 3964: 3957: 3954: 3952: 3948: 3944: 3940: 3930: 3928: 3925: 3923: 3919: 3916: 3914: 3910: 3906: 3901: 3898: 3896: 3893: 3890: 3882: 3879: 3877: 3872: 3867: 3863: 3859: 3856: 3854: 3850: 3846: 3842: 3839: 3834: 3829: 3824: 3822: 3821:Novem Linguae 3815: 3813: 3811: 3805: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3785: 3781: 3777: 3773: 3770: 3768: 3764: 3760: 3756: 3753: 3751: 3747: 3743: 3738: 3735: 3733: 3729: 3725: 3721: 3718: 3716: 3712: 3708: 3704: 3701: 3699: 3695: 3691: 3687: 3684: 3682: 3678: 3674: 3669: 3667: 3663: 3659: 3655: 3652: 3650: 3646: 3642: 3638: 3635: 3633: 3629: 3625: 3621: 3617: 3614: 3612: 3609: 3607: 3594: 3591: 3589: 3586: 3584: 3578: 3575: 3573: 3567: 3560: 3555: 3550: 3547: 3545: 3541: 3537: 3532: 3529: 3527: 3523: 3519: 3515: 3510: 3508: 3505: 3503: 3497: 3496: 3488: 3484: 3478: 3477: 3473: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3444: 3440: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3425: 3423: 3418: 3413: 3407: 3404: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3379: 3375: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3364: 3360: 3355: 3352: 3349: 3345: 3340:• they/them) 3339: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3324: 3322: 3319: 3315: 3312: 3310: 3307: 3303: 3302: 3297: 3293: 3292: 3288: 3284: 3281: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3270: 3268: 3264: 3258: 3257: 3242: 3239: 3237: 3234: 3233: 3229: 3225: 3222: 3220: 3217: 3212: 3207: 3201: 3198: 3196: 3192: 3186: 3178: 3175: 3173: 3169: 3165: 3162:No concerns. 3161: 3158: 3156: 3151: 3150:Seraphimblade 3147: 3143: 3140: 3136: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3122: 3118: 3114: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3103: 3099: 3095: 3092: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3078: 3066: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3052: 3049: 3046: 3043: 3039: 3038:Snowmanonahoe 3033: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3025: 3022: 3019: 3016: 3013: 3009: 3008:Snowmanonahoe 3005: 3000: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2983: 2981: 2977: 2976: 2969: 2965: 2962: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2937: 2934: 2932: 2929: 2926: 2922: 2919: 2917: 2914: 2907: 2904: 2897: 2895: 2891: 2890: 2885: 2884: 2879: 2876: 2874: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2852: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2834: 2831: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2816: 2806: 2803: 2801: 2797: 2787: 2779: 2776: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2757: 2754: 2750: 2746: 2741: 2739: 2730: 2727: 2723: 2718: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2708: 2703: 2701: 2693: 2690: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2675: 2672: 2670: 2667: 2665: 2662: 2659: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2648: 2643: 2640: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2623: 2619: 2617: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2602: 2598: 2595: 2593: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2584: 2583: 2577: 2573: 2570: 2568: 2564: 2558: 2551: 2547: 2544: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2527: 2525: 2522: 2519: 2513: 2510: 2508: 2505: 2500: 2496: 2493: 2489: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2479:Scorpions1325 2476: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2465: 2455: 2452: 2450: 2447: 2445: 2439: 2432: 2429: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2412: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2394: 2391: 2389: 2386: 2384: 2378: 2376: 2371: 2370:SportingFlyer 2367: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2343: 2338: 2332: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2314:last summer. 2313: 2309: 2305: 2299: 2294: 2289: 2284: 2282: 2281:Novem Linguae 2275: 2273: 2267: 2261: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2239: 2237: 2234: 2232: 2227: 2226: 2219: 2216: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2199: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2182: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2165: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2154:Draken Bowser 2151: 2148: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2132: 2129: 2127: 2124: 2119: 2117: 2111: 2108: 2106: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2092: 2090: 2085: 2081: 2080:Generalissima 2076: 2073: 2071: 2067: 2064: 2057: 2054:per JPxG and 2053: 2050: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2033: 2031: 2028: 2023: 2017: 2014: 2012: 2008: 2004: 1999: 1996: 1994: 1991: 1990: 1988: 1978: 1975: 1971: 1968: 1963: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1954: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1913: 1909: 1908: 1903: 1899: 1896: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1875: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1846: 1844: 1843:Reading Beans 1838: 1837: 1836: 1831: 1830: 1827: 1823: 1822: 1819: 1815: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1805: 1804: 1801: 1797: 1796: 1793: 1789: 1786: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1769: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1754: 1749: 1746: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1727: 1724: 1720: 1717: 1714: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1687: 1684: 1675: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1654: 1652: 1648: 1647: 1641: 1638: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1577: 1574: 1567: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1536: 1535: 1532: 1531: 1526: 1525: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1500: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1480: 1477: 1472: 1466: 1463: 1461: 1457: 1456:Safari Scribe 1452: 1449: 1447: 1444: 1439: 1434:No concerns. 1433: 1430: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1417:Net positive. 1416: 1413: 1411: 1408: 1407: 1402: 1395: 1392: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1375: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1358: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1341: 1339: 1336: 1333: 1331: 1328: 1325: 1324:Moneytrees🏝️ 1321: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1272: 1258: 1255: 1253: 1250: 1248: 1245: 1244: 1242: 1238: 1232: 1229: 1227: 1224: 1222: 1219: 1217: 1214: 1212: 1209: 1207: 1204: 1202: 1199: 1198: 1196: 1192: 1186: 1183: 1181: 1178: 1177: 1175: 1171: 1162: 1157: 1155: 1150: 1148: 1143: 1142: 1139: 1135: 1134: 1132: 1128: 1117: 1112: 1108: 1105: 1102: 1099: 1096: 1093: 1090: 1087: 1084: 1081: 1078: 1075: 1072: 1068: 1065: 1061: 1058: 1055: 1052: 1048: 1043: 1042: 1036: 1029: 1023: 1020: 1019: 1016: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 998: 994: 990: 986: 982: 979: 978: 975: 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 952: 949: 948: 943: 936: 933: 929: 927: 923: 917: 913: 909: 906: 905: 902: 898: 894: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 876: 872: 867: 864: 861: 860: 858: 855: 854: 852: 848: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 830: 827: 826: 824: 821: 816: 813: 812: 810: 806: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 785: 775: 767: 764: 763: 761: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 743: 739: 735: 731: 725: 723: 720: 719: 717: 713: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 695: 691: 688: 687: 684: 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 665: 661: 657: 652: 649: 648: 646: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 625: 620: 617: 616: 614: 610: 607: 602: 597: 594: 593: 591: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 573: 570: 569: 567: 563: 560: 559: 558: 557: 556: 544: 540: 537: 536: 534: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 515: 511: 507: 504: 503: 501: 498: 497: 496: 495: 494: 484: 482: 476: 472: 468: 465: 464: 462: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 438: 435: 434: 432: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 414: 410: 407: 406: 404: 400: 397: 396: 395: 394: 393: 382: 379: 378: 376: 373: 372: 371: 370: 369: 363: 360: 359:two questions 356: 344: 339: 336: 335: 333: 330: 326: 324: 320: 316: 305: 301: 297: 293: 288: 283: 280: 279: 277: 274: 268: 262: 257: 253: 249: 245: 242: 241: 239: 236: 235: 234: 224: 220: 216: 215: 210: 205: 202: 199: 195: 191: 188: 185: 181: 177: 174: 171: 167: 163: 160: 159: 158: 157: 153: 149: 145: 141: 137: 133: 129: 125: 121: 117: 110: 107: 106: 105: 104: 101: 98: 97:Moneytrees🏝️ 94: 90: 85: 81: 78: 75: 71: 62: 61: 60: 56: 48: 41: 35: 32: 27: 26: 19: 7615: 7612: 7554: 7549:I'm betting 7508: 7438: 7405: 7295: 7227: 7221:Buster Seven 7219: 7183: 7182: 7144: 7125: 7124: 7097: 7089: 7062: 7058: 7054: 7033: 6930: 6844: 6770: 6753: 6747:Buster Seven 6745: 6654: 6650: 6633: 6632: 6626: 6625: 6558:microbiology 6552: 6354:HouseBlaster 6331: 6330: 6324: 6323: 6279: 6159: 6144: 6107: 6092: 6091: 6077:Ohhhhhh, no! 6076: 6057:SilverLocust 6053:amicus brief 6021:WP:ADMINACCT 6002: 5990:WP:ADMINACCT 5965: 5919: 5903: 5879: 5865: 5848: 5831: 5799: 5782: 5759: 5742: 5738: 5734: 5720: 5717: 5711: 5701: 5675: 5658: 5646:TonyBallioni 5601: 5591: 5580: 5563: 5543: 5531:Gog the Mild 5526: 5503:— Preceding 5498: 5483: 5474: 5469: 5464: 5422: 5377: 5328: 5305:as an editor 5304: 5293: 5280: 5276: 5272: 5252: 5231: 5230: 5195: 5184: 5183: 5177: 5176: 5169: 5132: 5126: 5124: 5118: 5101: 5067: 5056: 5044: 5041:WP:NOBIGDEAL 5031:WP:NOBIGDEAL 5028: 4961: 4943: 4911: 4895: 4876: 4854: 4838:+1 to this. 4806: 4776: 4762: 4740: 4736: 4718: 4685:Adumbrativus 4680: 4638: 4618: 4579: 4573: 4554: 4537: 4517: 4477: 4460: 4443: 4427: 4405: 4388: 4371: 4356: 4338: 4317: 4309: 4297:Marcocapelle 4292: 4284: 4267: 4258: 4251: 4250: 4244: 4232: 4231: 4228: 4224: 4167: 4161: 4136: 4130: 4122: 4114: 4109: 4092: 4076: 4035: 4016: 4011: 3993: 3972: 3955: 3917: 3899: 3889:SilverLocust 3880: 3857: 3840: 3820: 3809: 3803: 3802: 3771: 3754: 3736: 3719: 3702: 3690:FeydHuxtable 3685: 3653: 3636: 3624:Gerda Arendt 3615: 3592: 3582: 3576: 3553: 3548: 3530: 3491: 3490: 3471: 3452: 3434: 3430: 3426: 3405: 3353: 3342:— Preceding 3334:TheresNoTime 3330:WP:NOBIGDEAL 3325: 3313: 3300: 3279: 3277: 3260: 3255:isinterested 3247: 3240: 3230: 3223: 3199: 3176: 3159: 3145: 3141: 3093: 3064: 3050: 3044: 3020: 3014: 3003: 2984: 2971: 2963: 2940:— Preceding 2935: 2920: 2902: 2887: 2882: 2877: 2858:filelakeshoe 2853: 2832: 2809: 2804: 2778:WP:NOBIGDEAL 2755: 2737: 2725: 2722:bureaucratic 2721: 2699: 2691: 2673: 2660: 2646: 2645: 2641: 2604: 2603: 2600: 2596: 2586: 2581: 2579: 2571: 2550:WP:NOBIGDEAL 2545: 2533:JuniperChill 2528: 2517: 2511: 2494: 2474: 2473: 2453: 2434: 2430: 2413: 2392: 2380: 2372: 2365: 2340: 2300: 2280: 2260:WP:NOBIGDEAL 2258:Support per 2257: 2240: 2230: 2224: 2223: 2217: 2200: 2183: 2166: 2149: 2130: 2115: 2109: 2093: 2074: 2056:WP:NOBIGDEAL 2051: 2034: 2015: 1997: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1932:Innisfree987 1918:Innisfree987 1905: 1897: 1881:WP:NOBIGDEAL 1876: 1842: 1826: 1820:Buster Seven 1818: 1813: 1800: 1794:Buster Seven 1792: 1787: 1770: 1752: 1747: 1725: 1655: 1645: 1639: 1581: 1571:microbiology 1565: 1542: 1529: 1523: 1521: 1517: 1509: 1501: 1464: 1450: 1431: 1414: 1397: 1393: 1376: 1359: 1342: 1124: 1123: 1103: 1097: 1091: 1085: 1079: 1073: 1066: 1059: 1053: 1047:HouseBlaster 1034: 1026: 1021: 1014: 1005: 1004: 980: 968: 959: 958: 950: 934: 919: 915: 907: 892: 883: 882: 856: 846: 837: 836: 828: 822: 814: 804: 795: 794: 765: 759: 750: 749: 721: 715: 711: 702: 701: 689: 682: 673: 672: 650: 644: 635: 634: 618: 608: 600: 595: 589: 580: 579: 571: 561: 552: 551: 538: 532: 523: 522: 505: 499: 490: 489: 478: 475:non-defining 466: 455: 446: 445: 436: 430: 421: 420: 408: 398: 389: 388: 380: 374: 365: 364: 358: 351: 337: 331: 307: 281: 275: 243: 237: 232: 207: 200: 194:User toolbox 186: 172: 166:Houseblaster 161: 113: 108: 76: 70:HouseBlaster 68: 52: 51: 47:HouseBlaster 46: 30: 28: 7485:KylieTastic 7061:contribute 7047:· he/they) 7030:Hitler Oath 7026:WP:COATRACK 5724:scope_creep 5592:(talk page) 5170:Firm oppose 5053:bitey reply 4917:KylieTastic 4826:Floquenbeam 4598:Sohom Datta 4448:Newyorkbrad 4314:my criteria 4097:Vanamonde93 3845:Daniel Case 3790:Ad Orientem 3776:Ozzie10aaaa 3583:Josey Wales 3433:, not just 2985:Yes, please 2883:DreamRimmer 2576:GA-reviewed 2437:Malinaccier 2357:• she/her) 2169:Good luck! 2086:) (it/she) 1858:KylieTastic 1381:– robertsky 1316:• she/her) 1257:User rights 1247:CentralAuth 811:guideline? 705:Daniel Case 613:deletionist 221:· he/they) 154:• she/her) 7072:Tryptofish 7028:about the 7014:WP:NCELECT 6976:Tryptofish 6935:Tryptofish 6879:Tryptofish 6827:Tryptofish 6812:Chocmilk03 6797:Tryptofish 6694:Clovermoss 6661:Clovermoss 6608:Clovermoss 6582:Lightburst 6497:NekoKatsun 6364:SandDoctor 6305:Clovermoss 6263:Clovermoss 6213:(he/him • 6190:Clovermoss 6017:WP:DELREVD 6010:DRV notice 6001:A closer " 5361:Tryptofish 5347:Tryptofish 5336:talk to me 5309:Tryptofish 5281:categories 5235:redirects. 5106:Lightburst 5070:WP:NOTBLOG 4666:Tryptofish 4503:Tryptofish 4376:PearlyGigs 4272:RodRabelo7 3941:(he/him • 3494:Newslinger 3457:Ganesha811 3439:Ganesha811 3374:Tryptofish 3184:EPRICAVARK 2745:talk to me 2707:talk to me 2679:NekoKatsun 2205:Chocmilk03 2171:Polygnotus 1962:* Pppery * 1948:* Pppery * 1775:EdJohnston 1709:Clovermoss 1679:Clovermoss 1349:(he/him • 1296:(he/him • 1240:Cross-wiki 1221:AfD closes 1039:Discussion 897:Categories 694:not broken 413:WP:CANVASS 403:WP:CANVASS 343:canvassing 323:nomination 256:bus factor 65:Nomination 31:successful 7184:North8000 7126:North8000 6627:Wolverine 6437:Cremastra 6426:FlyingAce 6325:Wolverine 6136:(blether) 6106:Moved to 5970:Cremastra 5787:Cremastra 5586:oncamera 5395:George Ho 5178:Wolverine 5074:consensus 4860:permalink 4194:Zingarese 4173:(delta • 4137:Toadspike 3724:DannyS712 3536:Neiltonks 3318:FlyingAce 3283:Cremastra 3127:QuicoleJR 3113:QuicoleJR 3098:QuicoleJR 2647:North8000 2556:Svampesky 2331:Folly Mox 2316:Folly Mox 2265:Svampesky 1946:Welcome. 1735:DanCherek 1623:Ajraddatz 1608:Cremastra 1604:WP:POINTy 1600:Ajraddatz 1586:Ajraddatz 1485:Ingenuity 1475:Theorist❤ 1442:(discuss) 1347:Shushugah 1294:Shushugah 1216:AfD votes 1211:BLP edits 1089:block log 510:WP:REFUND 55:Acalamari 7633:Category 7567:contribs 7503:Valereee 7489:Valereee 7464:Aszx5000 7402:Aintabli 7400:To cite 7367:Aszx5000 7337:Levivich 7322:Aszx5000 7301:Renerpho 7267:Renerpho 6917:Renerpho 6702:darkness 6699:Intothat 6573:darkness 6570:Intothat 6537:Aszx5000 6397:Let'srun 6386:contribs 6112:Renerpho 6098:Renerpho 6070:Doczilla 5909:kashmīrī 5765:Gamaliel 5688:contribs 5627:SchroCat 5517:contribs 5505:unsigned 5491:darkness 5488:Intothat 5329:Deadbeef 5201:Aintabli 5064:this one 4966:Skynxnex 4743:starship 4604:Renerpho 4465:Ammarpad 4413:Qwerfjkl 4361:RoySmith 4312:- meets 4208:(please 4204:contribs 4131:one year 3982:BugGhost 3881:Support. 3737:Suppport 3620:precious 3566:my edits 3522:contribs 3280:Support. 3048:contribs 3018:contribs 2954:contribs 2942:unsigned 2841:Lightoil 2824:contribs 2769:contribs 2756:Support. 2738:Deadbeef 2700:Deadbeef 2597:Support. 2418:Let'srun 2405:contribs 2245:Aszx5000 2136:Mox Eden 1981:Resonant 1762:contribs 1748:Support: 1699:criteria 1551:Renerpho 1470:❤History 1437:Hawkeye7 1308:As nom! 1231:PROD log 1194:Analysis 1173:Counters 1057:contribs 1008:Valereee 962:RoySmith 738:WP:CREEP 638:Aszx5000 583:Renerpho 440:reasons. 392:Let'srun 287:Qwerfjkl 258:of two: 204:contribs 192:), and 190:contribs 176:contribs 80:contribs 7592:Rrjmrrr 7553:meant " 7551:Rrjmrrr 7522:Rrjmrrr 7477:Buster7 7409:topic. 7039:Blaster 7002:renamed 6730:Amakuru 6494:before! 6477:Conyo14 6160:Neutral 6151:Fastily 6145:Neutral 6108:neutral 6093:Support 5994:Cryptic 5920:Neutral 5904:Neutral 5898:Neutral 5800:Oppose. 5692:library 5568:Wehwalt 4962:Support 4944:Support 4912:Support 4896:Support 4877:Support 4855:Support 4807:Support 4777:Support 4768:Dylnuge 4763:Support 4737:Support 4719:Support 4681:Support 4574:Support 4555:Support 4542:Dolotta 4538:Support 4528:Writer 4518:Support 4488:Amakuru 4478:Support 4461:Support 4444:Support 4431:Legoktm 4428:Support 4406:Support 4393:Vacant0 4389:Support 4372:Support 4357:Support 4339:Support 4310:Support 4285:Support 4268:Support 4245:Support 4225:Support 4215:mention 4162:Support 4149:Frostly 4110:Support 4093:Support 4080:Leijurv 4077:Support 4036:Support 4012:troppuS 3994:Support 3973:Support 3956:Support 3918:Support 3905:ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ 3900:Support 3858:Support 3841:Support 3804:support 3772:support 3755:Support 3722:LGTM -- 3720:Support 3707:Carrite 3703:Support 3686:Support 3654:Support 3639:- Yep. 3637:Support 3616:Support 3593:Support 3577:Support 3549:Support 3531:Support 3472:Support 3453:Support 3435:writers 3431:editors 3427:Support 3406:Support 3354:Support 3344:undated 3326:Support 3314:Support 3251:ctively 3241:Support 3224:Support 3200:Support 3177:Support 3160:Support 3142:Support 3094:Support 3065:Support 3004:Support 2964:Support 2946:Spencer 2936:Support 2928:Snowman 2921:Support 2878:Support 2854:Support 2833:Support 2805:Support 2790:he/they 2692:Support 2674:Support 2661:Support 2642:Support 2572:Support 2546:Support 2529:Support 2512:Support 2495:Support 2475:Support 2454:Support 2431:Support 2414:Support 2393:Support 2366:Support 2241:Support 2218:Support 2201:Support 2184:Support 2167:Support 2150:Support 2131:Support 2110:Support 2094:Support 2075:Support 2052:Support 2039:Conyo14 2016:Support 1998:Support 1977:Support 1898:Support 1877:Support 1814:Comment 1788:Support 1771:Support 1753:''']''' 1726:Support 1664:Pbritti 1656:Support 1640:Support 1582:Support 1566:Support 1543:Comment 1506:section 1502:Support 1465:Support 1451:Support 1432:Support 1415:Support 1400:Schwede 1394:Support 1377:Support 1360:Support 1269:Support 1226:CSD log 1064:deleted 742:WP:PERM 555:CanonNi 424:Conyo14 213:Blaster 7447:(talk) 7382:isaacl 7352:isaacl 7234:(UTC) 7141:WP:UAA 7018:WP:CWW 7004:after 6900:isaacl 6864:isaacl 6853:(talk) 6779:(talk) 6760:(UTC) 6668:(talk) 6647:my RfA 6615:(talk) 6560:Marcus 6527:🏳️‍🌈 6523:🏳️‍⚧️ 6312:(talk) 6292:🏳️‍🌈 6288:🏳️‍⚧️ 6270:(talk) 6197:(talk) 6131:Summit 6029:WP:DRV 6005:" (as 5880:Oppose 5866:Felida 5849:Oppose 5832:Oppose 5783:Oppose 5760:Oppose 5735:Oppose 5718:Oppose 5676:Oppose 5659:Oppose 5602:Oppose 5581:Oppose 5564:Oppose 5544:Oppose 5527:Oppose 5499:Oppose 5484:Oppose 5465:Oppose 5423:months 5409:AryKun 5378:Oppose 5277:really 5273:Oppose 5232:Oppose 5221:話して下さい 5035:Policy 4980:Oppose 4931:Daniel 4883:Stedil 4748:.paint 4660:TParis 4565:(Talk) 4525:Cactus 4364:(talk) 4289:WP:CFD 4252:BD2412 3999:AryKun 3922:Kurtis 3810:Martin 3205:Number 3146:needed 3085:✏️cons 3081:💬pros 2968:Bilorv 2911:(talk) 2837:WP:CFD 2785:sawyer 2463:(talk) 2225:Volten 2122:(Talk) 2116:Bgsu98 2102:(talk) 2035:S'port 2026:plicit 1833:(UTC) 1807:(UTC) 1716:(talk) 1686:(talk) 1573:Marcus 1335:Mach61 1327:(Talk) 1284:🏳️‍🌈 1280:🏳️‍⚧️ 1180:XTools 993:WP:U1s 989:WP:G7s 809:WP:COI 449:GTrang 298:since 261:Pppery 134:, and 100:(Talk) 7579:Hilst 7538:Hilst 7412:Super 7149:WP:AE 7145:could 7094:D'n'B 7063:circa 7035:House 7012:(per 7006:an RM 6458:Hilst 6219:edits 6207:Dylan 6128:Girth 5747:Bbb23 5429:Gizza 5089:have. 5086:WP:AN 5062:. Or 4949:Ceoil 4791:alien 4724:Hobit 4619:Sohom 4580:Sohom 4345:Hilst 4164:LGTM 4129:with 4127:'crat 3947:edits 3935:Dylan 3554:don't 3411:Gizza 3054:typos 3024:typos 2925:Giant 2822:• ✏️ 2726:rigid 2342:House 2337:house 2310:with 2308:H:YFA 1902:D'n'B 1127:civil 1071:count 355:limit 209:House 16:< 7596:talk 7563:talk 7555:good 7526:talk 7493:talk 7468:talk 7386:talk 7371:talk 7356:talk 7341:talk 7326:talk 7305:talk 7282:L3X1 7271:talk 7242:L3X1 7229:Talk 7189:talk 7131:talk 7114:talk 7076:talk 7068:here 7045:talk 6994:rest 6980:talk 6939:talk 6931:that 6921:talk 6904:talk 6883:talk 6868:talk 6831:talk 6816:talk 6801:talk 6755:Talk 6734:talk 6682:talk 6586:talk 6541:talk 6501:nyaa 6481:talk 6454:. – 6441:talk 6415:talk 6401:talk 6382:talk 6378:Elli 6251:talk 6233:talk 6215:talk 6169:talk 6116:talk 6102:talk 6047:and 6039:and 6035:and 5974:talk 5957:talk 5942:talk 5928:talk 5888:talk 5871:talk 5840:talk 5791:talk 5772:talk 5751:talk 5684:talk 5667:talk 5650:talk 5642:this 5631:talk 5616:Talk 5607:Grab 5572:talk 5535:talk 5513:talk 5455:talk 5435:talk 5413:talk 5399:talk 5385:and 5365:talk 5351:talk 5334:→∞ ( 5313:talk 5260:talk 5244:talk 5205:talk 5110:talk 5093:this 4970:talk 4953:talk 4935:talk 4921:talk 4903:talk 4887:talk 4868:talk 4844:talk 4830:talk 4815:talk 4797:talk 4788:ugly 4728:talk 4710:talk 4689:talk 4670:talk 4641:per 4625:talk 4608:talk 4586:talk 4546:talk 4507:talk 4492:talk 4469:talk 4463:. – 4452:talk 4435:talk 4418:talk 4397:talk 4380:talk 4341:. – 4330:talk 4301:talk 4276:talk 4233:ULPS 4198:talk 4153:talk 4115:only 4101:talk 4084:talk 4068:talk 4027:talk 4003:talk 3986:🪲👻 3943:talk 3849:talk 3828:talk 3794:talk 3780:talk 3763:talk 3746:talk 3728:talk 3711:talk 3694:talk 3677:talk 3662:talk 3645:talk 3628:talk 3540:talk 3524:) @ 3518:talk 3501:talk 3461:talk 3443:talk 3417:talk 3393:talk 3378:talk 3363:talk 3338:talk 3306:BSBA 3301:Noah 3287:talk 3232:ser! 3190:talk 3180:me. 3168:talk 3131:talk 3117:talk 3102:talk 3076:namm 3073:real 3042:talk 3034:none 3012:talk 2993:talk 2974:talk 2950:talk 2889:talk 2845:talk 2820:talk 2818:(💬 2811:Coco 2795:talk 2782:... 2765:talk 2743:→∞ ( 2724:and 2705:→∞ ( 2683:nyaa 2652:talk 2633:talk 2562:talk 2548:per 2537:talk 2520:avix 2499:L3X1 2483:talk 2443:talk 2422:talk 2401:talk 2397:Elli 2355:talk 2320:talk 2303:port 2288:talk 2271:talk 2249:talk 2209:talk 2192:talk 2175:talk 2158:talk 2141:talk 2084:talk 2043:talk 2007:talk 2003:Soni 1989:tion 1936:talk 1922:talk 1889:talk 1885:Bgv. 1862:talk 1854:this 1828:Talk 1802:Talk 1779:talk 1758:talk 1739:talk 1668:talk 1627:talk 1612:talk 1590:talk 1555:talk 1547:JPxG 1423:talk 1385:talk 1368:talk 1351:talk 1314:talk 1298:talk 1116:here 1101:rfar 1083:logs 1051:talk 991:and 784:rcat 726:most 716:most 264:and 219:talk 198:talk 184:talk 170:talk 152:talk 142:and 74:talk 7422:Dro 7296:all 7102:-- 7090:all 7059:did 7008:to 6651:one 6361:The 6210:620 6049:Q22 5953:JBL 5938:JBL 5743:why 5710:14: 5690:- 5475:JCL 5450:Joe 5137:🗯️ 5076:in 4785:big 4782:The 4753:RUN 4698:ltb 4293:can 3966:\\ 3938:620 3866:ABG 3513:Tol 3479:are 3265:» ° 3245:LCU 2814:bb8 2780:;) 2615:ed. 2301:Sup 2231:001 2098:PMC 2009:) 1986:tor 1983:Dis 1910:-- 1534:🗯️ 1107:spi 1077:AfD 1015:23. 935:21. 901:CFD 893:20. 851:AIV 847:19. 823:18. 805:17. 760:16. 712:15. 683:14. 645:13. 609:12. 590:11. 562:10. 357:of 206:). 178:), 57:at 7635:: 7598:) 7569:) 7565:/ 7528:) 7495:) 7483:, 7479:, 7470:) 7404:: 7388:) 7373:) 7358:) 7343:) 7328:) 7307:) 7273:) 7191:) 7133:) 7116:) 7078:) 6982:) 6941:) 6923:) 6906:) 6885:) 6870:) 6833:) 6818:) 6803:) 6736:) 6684:) 6664:🍀 6634:XI 6611:🍀 6588:) 6543:) 6529:) 6525:• 6503:) 6483:) 6443:) 6417:) 6403:) 6388:) 6384:| 6332:XI 6308:🍀 6294:) 6290:• 6266:🍀 6253:) 6245:. 6235:) 6221:) 6217:• 6193:🍀 6171:) 6118:) 6060:💬 6045:Q7 6013:}} 6007:{{ 5976:) 5968:. 5959:) 5951:-- 5944:) 5930:) 5890:) 5873:) 5842:) 5793:) 5753:) 5739:is 5712:44 5694:) 5686:- 5669:) 5652:) 5633:) 5625:- 5613:- 5610:Up 5574:) 5537:) 5519:) 5515:• 5470:48 5415:) 5401:) 5393:. 5367:) 5353:) 5338:) 5325:0x 5315:) 5294:do 5224:) 5207:) 5185:XI 5127:jp 5123:. 5112:) 5043:- 5013:, 5009:, 5005:, 5001:, 4997:, 4993:, 4989:, 4972:) 4955:) 4937:) 4923:) 4905:) 4889:) 4870:) 4832:) 4800:) 4730:) 4712:) 4691:) 4683:– 4672:) 4628:) 4610:) 4589:) 4548:) 4522:— 4509:) 4501:-- 4494:) 4471:) 4454:) 4437:) 4410:— 4399:) 4382:) 4332:) 4303:) 4278:) 4270:. 4201:· 4179:• 4168:~Δ 4155:) 4103:) 4086:) 4070:) 4045:Mt 4043:🌿 4005:) 3949:) 3945:• 3911:) 3892:💬 3873:) 3851:) 3796:) 3782:) 3774:-- 3765:) 3748:) 3730:) 3713:) 3696:) 3679:) 3664:) 3647:) 3630:) 3622:-- 3618:, 3570:) 3542:) 3520:| 3474:. 3463:) 3445:) 3395:) 3380:) 3365:) 3332:— 3328:, 3304:, 3289:) 3267:∆t 3226:. 3193:) 3170:) 3133:) 3119:) 3104:) 3087:) 3083:· 3070:My 3056:) 3026:) 3006:. 2995:) 2978:) 2956:) 2952:• 2892:) 2880:– 2870:🐱 2868:) 2864:/ 2847:) 2839:. 2826:) 2792:* 2788:* 2771:) 2767:• 2747:) 2734:0x 2709:) 2696:0x 2685:) 2654:) 2635:) 2612:, 2565:) 2539:) 2485:) 2466:@ 2424:) 2407:) 2403:| 2349:. 2322:) 2251:) 2211:) 2194:) 2177:) 2160:) 2143:) 2100:♠ 2066:連絡 2045:) 1979:. 1938:) 1924:) 1891:) 1864:) 1781:) 1764:) 1760:• 1741:) 1733:. 1712:🍀 1682:🍀 1670:) 1629:) 1614:) 1592:) 1557:) 1524:jp 1495:) 1491:• 1425:) 1405:66 1387:) 1370:) 1353:) 1300:) 1286:) 1282:• 1095:lu 1022:A: 981:A: 971:22 951:A: 945:}} 939:{{ 924:, 908:A: 857:A: 829:A: 815:A: 787:}} 781:{{ 777:}} 771:{{ 766:A: 722:A: 690:A: 651:A: 619:A: 615:? 596:A: 572:A: 539:A: 533:9. 506:A: 500:8. 467:A: 437:A: 431:6. 409:A: 405:? 399:5. 381:A: 375:4. 345:). 338:A: 332:3. 282:A: 276:2. 244:A: 238:1. 130:, 126:, 122:, 36:. 7594:( 7561:( 7524:( 7501:@ 7491:( 7466:( 7417:Ψ 7384:( 7369:( 7354:( 7339:( 7324:( 7303:( 7269:( 7187:( 7179:: 7175:@ 7129:( 7112:( 7099:t 7096:- 7074:( 7043:( 6978:( 6937:( 6919:( 6902:( 6881:( 6866:( 6829:( 6814:( 6799:( 6732:( 6692:@ 6680:( 6655:5 6599:: 6595:@ 6584:( 6539:( 6521:( 6499:( 6479:( 6439:( 6413:( 6399:( 6380:( 6356:: 6352:@ 6286:( 6249:( 6231:( 6167:( 6114:( 6100:( 5972:( 5955:( 5940:( 5926:( 5886:( 5869:( 5838:( 5789:( 5775:) 5769:( 5749:( 5682:( 5665:( 5648:( 5629:( 5570:( 5556:) 5552:( 5533:( 5511:( 5457:) 5453:( 5437:) 5433:( 5411:( 5397:( 5363:( 5349:( 5311:( 5262:) 5258:( 5242:( 5218:( 5203:( 5156:G 5153:M 5150:G 5133:g 5130:× 5108:( 5015:8 5011:7 5007:6 5003:5 4999:4 4995:3 4991:2 4987:1 4968:( 4951:( 4933:( 4919:( 4901:( 4885:( 4866:( 4842:( 4828:( 4813:( 4794:( 4755:) 4751:( 4726:( 4708:( 4706:l 4702:d 4687:( 4668:( 4662:: 4658:@ 4650:P 4647:T 4622:( 4606:( 4600:: 4596:@ 4583:( 4544:( 4505:( 4490:( 4467:( 4450:( 4433:( 4395:( 4378:( 4328:( 4299:( 4274:( 4259:T 4185:) 4182:c 4176:t 4151:( 4099:( 4082:( 4066:( 4063:y 4060:n 4057:a 4054:t 4051:o 4048:B 4025:( 4001:( 3920:— 3909:ᴛ 3907:( 3869:( 3847:( 3830:) 3826:( 3792:( 3788:- 3778:( 3761:( 3744:( 3726:( 3709:( 3692:( 3675:( 3660:( 3643:( 3626:( 3604:G 3601:M 3598:G 3563:/ 3561:( 3538:( 3516:( 3459:( 3441:( 3419:) 3415:( 3391:( 3376:( 3361:( 3336:( 3285:( 3278:# 3269:° 3263:@ 3261:« 3253:D 3249:A 3215:7 3210:5 3187:( 3182:L 3166:( 3129:( 3115:( 3100:( 3079:( 3051:· 3045:· 3040:( 3021:· 3015:· 3010:( 2991:( 2970:( 2948:( 2886:( 2866:c 2862:t 2860:( 2843:( 2763:( 2681:( 2650:( 2631:( 2601:! 2587:Ø 2582:N 2559:( 2535:( 2518:T 2481:( 2446:) 2440:( 2420:( 2399:( 2383:C 2379:· 2375:T 2353:( 2333:: 2329:@ 2318:( 2290:) 2286:( 2268:( 2247:( 2207:( 2190:( 2173:( 2156:( 2139:( 2082:( 2041:( 2021:✗ 2005:( 1934:( 1920:( 1907:t 1904:- 1887:( 1860:( 1777:( 1756:( 1737:( 1666:( 1625:( 1610:( 1598:@ 1588:( 1553:( 1530:g 1527:× 1493:c 1489:t 1487:( 1421:( 1383:( 1366:( 1312:( 1278:( 1160:e 1153:t 1146:v 1119:. 1109:) 1104:· 1098:· 1092:· 1086:· 1080:· 1074:· 1067:· 1060:· 1054:· 1049:( 974:. 877:. 483:. 461:. 458:7 217:( 201:· 196:( 187:· 182:( 173:· 168:( 150:( 77:· 72:( 40:.

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

Knowledge

:Requests for adminship/HouseBlaster - Knowledge

Index