Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Maunus

248:, and others. In my first years of editing I didn't handle it very well. I was quick to become emotionally involved, quick to reverting and quick to be less than civil. As I grew more experienced I realised that it is not worth it to step in to an editing conflict with all my emotions engaged. The more I detach myself emotionally from the topic the better the results. A few months ago I was reverting some controversial edits to articles about Greenlandic politics, I had been sure to form a consensus on the talk page against them, but a POV editor was ignoring it. I reverted three times and when he reverted again I took it to ANI. I was surprised that the outcome was that we were both warned for editwarring. Trying to understand this I realised that, yes, I had effectively been editwarring and getting my hands just as dirty as my opponent. And I realised that it had not been necessary for me to do this - the non-consensus edits would have been removed eventually anyway. What had made me editwar was a feeling that I was personally responsible for wikipedia providing the best and most neutral information, but I realised that I am not personally responsible, the community is. And I realised that my peace of mind and reputation for not being an editwarrior is more important than trying to defend wikipedia's integrity as lone errant knight. Especially because I am not a lone knight, I am part of a community of good, reponsible editors who are always interested in defending wikipedia's integrity with me. After discussing the topic with acquaintances, I decided to bind myself to the 1 revert rule, which I have been trying to follow since then. This has resulted in much less stressful editing for my part. 288:

more restrictive about what constitutes a reliable source than some editors - I strongly prefer peer reviewed academic works to other less "scholarly sources" like blogs, websites, news media etc. This does constitute a slight bias against those kinds of topics that are only documented in these kinds of sources. It is a bias I recognize and that I will actively try to work against. I may also be slightly biased, towards linguistics related topics, and I tend to think that for example natural human languages are notable even if they have received very little academic coverage. This is, as I admit a bias and I can always be swayed from it by sound arguments by other editors. My interest in the Systemic Bias also sometimes lead me to be more lenient towards topics from parts of the world that does not have the same kind of presence in academia or on the internet as similar Western topics. I remember for example voting keep on an article about a musician who was verifiably very famous in Nigeria, but had no significant coverage in western media or academic sources. However in all cases I find it a virtue to be open to arguments from other editors and to try to see past my own biases.

4179:, supposedly in the interest of COI. I answered him, but noted that my memberships were irrelevant and that COI doesn't allow anyone to use a persons affiliations to organizations to disqualify them from editing. WP:COI states: "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article." WP:NPA states that: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense.". Milomedes disagreed, instead restating his misunderstod interpretation of policies 3172:

told you that you just don't get the FA criteria and told other editors not to listen to you because you obviously had a poor understanding of what the FA criteria were about then I would be acting arrogantly. In my opinion the right thing to do in this case would be to explain to you why I did not consider your concern to be relevant by using arguments. In this way instead of just saying that you don't get it I would help you to understand my point of view better. I agree that I did not accomplish anything useful by calling your behaviour arrogant, and that I shouldn't have done so. But I felt that you were not even trying to respond to my concerns, but instead trying to wreck my general credibility to other editors by using Adhominem arguments, quoting me out of context and using condescending language. This behaviour exasperated me. I am going to do my best to not let such a situation repeat itself.

389:, in a case where the user is a known longtime vandal with apparent psychological problems I think that admins would quite certainly expect very tangible evidence that the user had improved and they would want to be absolutely sure that letting him edit again would result in a net positive to the project - that is that the prospect of his future contributions will outweigh both past and present disruption. Personally, I would not unblock this user, especially not after only three weeks which seems like far to little time for any substantial change to have happened. The only arguments that could possibly sway that opinion would be if the blocking admin and the admin offering to mentor the user both agreed that unblocking would be a good idea. Otherwise, the risk to the project of unblocking a known vandal with personal issues would be to great. 3053:. He did not at any point try to explain what it was that I don't understand or why he disagreed with my arguments. This is what prompted my claims of administratve arrogance. There is no policy here on wikipedia that you need to be an administrator to understand. Finally since the discussion was going nowhere and could see that many editors did not agree with what i perceived to be a problem I simply left the discussion. This was all a very frustrating experience, but if anything I think it shows that I can keep civil in heated disputes, that I am interested in arriving at the correct interpretations of wp policies, that I believe that admins should always be able to give a rationale for their administrative actions, and that I can walk away when the consensus is against my ideas. 833:

claim for individual notability gets even weaker - it also doesn't seem fair to exhibit him and not the others, and I would judge that singling him out among the other perpetrators would be in conflict with BLP. My reason not to encourage a full merge would be looking at it from an article writing point of view: we encourage article writers to stay on topic, and if too fleshy subtopics emerge they should be spun out into their own articles. In this case the merger inserts a large amount of information about a person, his trial and biography into an article about the event that he participated in - the article wouldn't be able to pass a GA review after the merger even if it could before - it simply doesn't stay on topic. the way I see it the article on the

3154:

cases, so I thought his understanding may not be that strong. I've never written a single featured article yet, but Maunus has written two FAs. Maunus is more qualified to instruct someone on how to write a featured article better than me. In my case, I've participated in multiple banning cases, so I've a better understanding of the banning policy. I asked Maunus to study the history of some banned users. How is that an example of "administrative arrogance"? If I ask Maunus how to write a featured article, and he asks me to study the history of some featured articles, can I consider that to be arrogance? No. Here, admins=editors. He shouldn't have accused me of "administrative arrogance".

131:

spend months at a time at remote locations with scarce internet access. (I am a fieldworking linguist). I have previously been reluctant to become an administrator, I saw myself primarily as a content editor with no need for the tools. But recently, my involvement with dispute resolution and the AfD process has proved gratifying, and I intend to spend more time on that in the future (while still working on content improvement and addition). I would appreciate if questions about policy could make it clear whether they are asking about my understanding of current policy or for my opinion of how I would like it to be.

4213:) Milomedes also accuses me of "not honoring the BRD cycle": WP:BRD does nowhere state that an editor is supposed to revert himself if another editor disagrees with his edits - it is up to the editor who disagrees to revert. Why Milomedes has not reverted my edits in this case I don't understand, apparently he thinks that it will likely cause an editwar, although i don't know what would have given him that idea. I will of course not use any tools (if i get them) against Milomedes or anyone else with whom I am personally involved. I invite everyone who is watching this RfA to review my responses to Milomedes at 459:

reasons for this is that bad quality is not in itself an argument to delete. If an article can be cleaned up the principle of preservation of information suggests that this is the best soultion. In this case the nominator even says that the nomination can be withdrawn if anyone is willing to clean it up. Several editors suggest that a clean up is the right way to go about it, some have even suggested they have access to better sources. I would hope/assume that some of them would be willing to take action on those words and close as keep and cleanup.

921:

would wait for another admin with better sports knowledge to come along an close it. In this case I suspect that would be the case since I really don't know what kind of coverage is most authoritative for athletes. I would probably sway towards keep if there were biographies piublished about him, or if his career had been the object of academic studies. But I am sure that there are other kinds of reliable sources in the sports world the reliability of wich I would not know how to assess. I would recuse from closing.

105:

conflict scenarios Maunus has shown he is able to keep a cool head, contribute positively and retain the focus on the end goal of improving wikipedia content. Maunus gets the idea and intent of wikipedia, his actions demonstrate his commitment to its aims and support of the community ideals. He is motivated and ready to add the sysop string to his bow and thereby extend his contributions to WP, I have no doubts the tools will be in safe hands and used wisely to beneficial effect.

3860:

problems I cause. (only one closure was disputed) I also inserted a link to WP:NAC in the description of the deletion guidelines which had previously not mentioned any restrictions on non-admin closures. This mistake will not repeat it self (also if I do not receive the tools) - but I think that in relation to the RfA it might be appropriate to look at the rationales for my closures, instead of the misguided interpretation of NAC that I was working under.

3891:; some things regarding question 1 made me uncomfortable. "And although I hope I will not have to use them, the ability to block or topic ban disruptive editors, or at least threaten to do it..." seems a bit overly confrontational. Also, the candidate has no experience in CSD, yet wishes to work there. Still leaning between Oppose and Neutral though, and I'll watch the RfA closely for future developments. 4176:: Needless to say that i have a different perspective about who doesn't understand policy here - as I have already explained to Milomedes. I arrived at Cult with suggestions about how to improve the page, I had never before interacted with user Pelle Smith whom Milomedes calls "my ally". In what amounted to a display of less than good faith Milomedes immediately inquired about whether I was a cult member 1789:- Agree that his language in expressing opinions is sometimes a bit harsher than would be ideal but we can't all be saints. He'll make a fine admin. We need admins who understand what good, scholarly writing is so that Knowledge can be respected as a quality project, not something put together by monkeys banging away on a typewriter. Maunus is one of those who can help us get there. -- 164:

useful in order to be able to protect pages plagued by editwars so that dialogue between the warring parties can be begun. And then to include edits to protected pages as the consensus forms on the talk page. And although I hope I will not have to use them, the ability to block or topic ban disruptive editors, or at least threaten to do it, can be handy when trying to make groups of

2112: 3988:, and seemingly refuses to read it again when asked, or can't comprehend it, or somehow fails to act on his reading of it, is an unlikely candidate for adminship. Maunus' ability to handle a dispute was incautious and blundering. When he was challenged, he persisted in fallacious policy positions after he had been asked to read correct policy. Engaging in irrational 328:

fairly lenient towards articles that are not obvious deletion candidates, and I would probably prefer "salvaging" an article tagged for deletion by including better material and/or sources if I can. I cannot assure you that I will be among the best CSD'ers, but I will be among the most cautious and the most open to critique and friendly suggestions.

4399:

Trifectant and Lebanese my immediate thought was to vote (which was also why I made sure to state that I wouldn't close a case in which I had voted). And actually my first thought on seeing the naked celebs was - I would never close this, this is too contentious. I am very thankful for your little test, I am sure that lesson will stay with me.

381:

and an admin finds it to be sufficiently well reasoned to grant it, and while it doesnt constitute a Wheel-war (To avoid that usually a block review involving the blocking admin and a number of uninvolved admins would decide on whether to unblock or not). The user can also file an appeal to arbcom to have his block reversed. So in short it is

82:) and major expansions and improvements to many many others. In addition to his area of professional expertise in linguistics and Mesoamerican cultural histories, his substantive contributions are spread across a diverse array of other topics, from Greenlandic politics to the sociology of religion. He has uploaded a number of very useful 3606:, on a page that he cited as one of his examples of his good conduct. Such derogatory comments are not neutral nor are they used by those trying to mediate or come to terms with others. These are partisan terms, and the user has a really bad habit of getting himself into many POV battles and acting as a partisan and not a mediator. 3634:

That is the first time I've ever heard someone describe an insult as appropriate or a solution that worked. From the result that I see, I disagree that it did work, or that his role in there was helpful. Most of the articles he is involved with from looking at his contribs are very controversial, and

3569:

Your contributions are commendable. However, there are some serious issues. The incident AdjustShift brought up concerns me. Also, I strongly dislike the drama-inciting tone and behavior exhibited on the noticeboards and the apparent need to do non-admin closures on AfDs that are not nearly unanimous

721:

to unblock him. Unblocking in this case doesn't mean unblocking the main account, which would be still locked globally, but allowing this user to create a new account and report to admins and ArbCom about it. There are may be several restrictions for this user and/or the mentorship. ArbCom of project

662:

Hypothetical AfD 2: Nominated as "seems spammy and probably non-notable," four commentators point out that the subject is notable & provide sources. A fifth opinion is offered that says "speedy delete - notable or not this a clear copyright violation" but offers no proof. How would you proceed?

458:

I have not been able to see the actual article since I am at a public terminal right now and it looks inappropriate for public browsing. I will judge purely based on the discussion. I would close as keep and encourage a merge or complete cleanup and possibly a move to a less OR-encouraging title. My

130:

I thankfully accept. A few points I wish to state in advance: If you look at my edit history some of you may note that my editing patterns are somewhat inconsistent, with months of few contributions and sudden bouts of frenetic activity. This is a function of my occupation which at times forces me to

4243:

True this RfA is about me. And as I said I stand by every word I have said in my iteraction with you. But I don't agree with your representation of my behaviour or your representation of what constitutes a misunderstanding of policy. That is why I provided my point of view and difs to show that I am

4155:

necessary polite fiction, but good manners isn't enough when a non-controlled self emerges under unexpected pressure. Admins face unexpected pressures frequently. As is often said, some people have the temperament to be editors, but not admins. My judgment of this editor is: not ready to be an admin.

3859:

Those closures were clearly a mistake, I had misunderstood the right of non admins to close non-keep AfDs. I was made aware of my mistake by King of Hearts and took steps to remedy it. I encouraged Slrubenstein to undo those of my closures that were challenged and assumed full responsibility for the

3741:

The above is exactly what I am talking about. You are seeking the position of administrator while claiming that you want to work with sensitive situations. Then you berate people with concerns. That is 100% proof that you would only be a major harm to Knowledge in the areas and more of a harm if you

3681:

for the record I was referring to both parties as stubborn in this case. Anyway I am not an appointed mediator in this case, or an uninvolved editor for that case. What I called my accomplishment was that I believe I served to get the parties out of a deadlock in midjune regarding the wording of the

3406:

I must say that I agree with keepscases on this one, which is why I removed it. I had originally included mostly because I found the wording humourous, not because of a strong atheist conviction. When keepscases mentioned offensive userboxes I firs didn't remember that I had it, but when I looked it

3391:

I don't agree with you at all. The userbox creates an argument over religion where there should be none. People who truly want to be left alone about their nonbeliefs shouldn't imply there's some confrontation and pretend it was religious folks who started it. If there are indeed religious people

3171:

to respond to this comment to clarify. I'll go with your analogy: if you were in a discussion about FA's and expressed a doubt about some aspect of the FA criteria, lets say you suggested that FA-reviewers did not apply the FA criteria consistently because of a bad wording in the criteria. If I then

2388:

by being a professional writer with a post-graduate degree, has created, expanded, and translated multiple articles (these sorts of edits really show that Maunus is indeed here to build an encyclopedia), has contributed to numerous DYKs and a couple FA articles, has received barnstars in recognition

888:

I see GNG as more restrictive than ATH - since someone can be a professional Athlete of the highest level and not be verifiable from reliable sources. On the other hand if a person is notable according to GNG then ATH is largely irrelevant, because then presumably the person is notable for something

802:

even if scarce would go further towards determining notability than many news articles. In the actual situation I would close based on the consensus - if the votes were split about equally and both keep and delete votes were based on a subjective judgement of notavility I would close as no consensus.

567:

a shadow of doubt about whether the article is an obvious and uncontroversial deletion candidate and she wants the community's input. I do see editors prodding articles that are not obvious or uncontroversial deletion candidates, but as an admin I would not delete those if I had the slightest doubt,

562:

Well, while the result is much the same there is the basic difference that when an editor proposes a candidate for deletion with the prod template she does so because she believes that the article "obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia". When an editor proposes an article

327:

I am not going to plunge headfirst into CSD. It is an area in which I imagine myself working, given time. I expect that I will be watching for a good while, trying to make sure I understand both policies and their practical application before I go on any "deletion spree". Generally I think I will be

4345:

indicate that you automatically view your rôle as being the closing administrator. (Note that I worded the question quite carefully. The discussions weren't chosen completely at random, either. ☺) Whilst that's admirable enthusiasm for a new administrator, from your responses to the question it

4191:

Milomedes turned the argument around and stated that since he had evidence that PelleSmith was a newbie (?) that was no personal attack but that I was making a personal attack by asking him to be civil without evidence that he was not (since he didn't accept that calling someone a Newbie is uncivil

3620:

The above raised a red flag for me; the wording "stubborn nitpicking" is indeed stronger than what is usually advisable to calm down emotions. In this case, however, it seems to have been appropriate: It urged people to see the bigger picture and agree with the compromise. That sentiment was shared

2286:

As participants in the RfA process, it's their duty to thoroughly review a candidate before !voting. I assume everyone has done that, and most obviously have a different opinion on this candidate's tone in discussion and noticeboard contributions than I do. It's hard to give "concrete" evidence for

2251:

In response to Sebastian, diffs aren't really appropriate here. Nothing really sticks out as amazingly out of line, but Maunus's behavior on the noticeboards in general is what concerns me. You can take a look at his contributions and see his comments. It should be noted, however, that this is only

832:

I don't think I would have merged, but opted for delete. In my opinion the BLP1E issue is crucial - the main argument is whether he is notable as a person or as a participant in an event. In this case he was not the sole responsible person but rather acted as part of a collective, this means that a

801:

quality of the sources. I would value very highly commentary from non news related sources such as academic papers or books. The BLP1E policy suggests that quantity of coverage is more important than quality, I think however that coverage in media that are not news related (read: academic sources),

320:

by a user as adequate controls do not exist over that area. (Sheesh, can you tell I'm an auditor!) Normally, I would have looked at your deletion history, and moved on as you have zero experience in that area. I would have looked at your contributions there and said, he isn't going to be involved

4398:

I agree whole heartedly and thank you for the advice. I do feel that I was slightly tricked by the question (although I admit your careful wording was wellchosen). But this being an RfA I suppose I expected you to be inquiring about how I would use the admin tools specifically. In both the case of

4370:

So here's a tip based upon experience: Remember that we can often help AFD and other processes by just being ordinary editors. We aren't forced always to be discussion closers and arbiters. The administrator tools are not the only tools in our toolboxes; and it's sometimes a far more useful and

4362:

willing to always wear an administrator hat. You clearly have views on the articles in question ("like a clear deletion-candidate judging from the lack of sources and notability" and "The article is basically a POV fork from Libanese Arabic") and those views would actually help the next person to

3185:

If you told me that I just don't get the FA criteria and told other editors not to listen to me because I obviously had a poor understanding of what the FA criteria were about then you would not be acting arrogantly, according to me! I should have probably analyzed your comments more profoundly in

3153:

I never suggested that as a non-admin Maunus can not be expected to understand the banning policy fully. I have analyzed all the banning cases listed on Knowledge:List of banned users. I've also analyzed banning cases not listed on that list. I never saw Maunus' participation in any of the banning

3035:

I am not going to comment on simple oppose votes, but since this is based on a recent dispute between me and the opposing editor I think for fairness sake I will present the other side. I started a discussion on the banning policy based on what I saw as an inherent problem with the wording of that

380:

You do not specify whether you are asking for my opinion or my understanding of policy, so I will start by stating what policy says about this and then supply my own opinion. According to policy an indef-blocked user can be unblocked by an administrator if the blocked user files an unblock request

3050:

policy" when in fact several editors are agreeing that there is a weak wording. When asked to clarify his understanding of the banning policy he suggests that he understands it because he is an admin and has closed many banning cases, but that I as a non-admin can not expect to understand it fully

2239:

Are you referring to your statement which I answered on 01:55, 13 August 2009? I agreed with you that your example raised a red flag, but concluded that the candidate's choice of words had created no problem. You did not show any evidence for a problem then, nor have I seen evidence for the other

920:

Generally I will say that I probably would never close sports related articles since I have next to no knowledge about sports - i would be afraid to accidentally delete a world champion of something. At leats I would never close them if I were in doubt about how the consensus should be judged - i

624:

Hypothetical AfD 1: Nominated as "not notable company," two commentators said "per nom" and a third said "doesn't seem notable to me." After 6.5 days a fourth opinion is offered which reads "Keep - clearly notable per coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are over 100 GNews hits for this

287:

I am not among those editors who have the most restrictive views of what is includeable in an encyclopedia. I don't think that I have encountered a topic that I found to be non-notable even though it had been covered in multiple reliable sources - maybe some day I will. However, I may be a little

163:

The reason I have decided that the administrator's toolbox will be useful for me lies primarily in two areas in which I am already working: Dispute resolution/mediation as an uninvolved admin, and Articles For Deletion. Although dispute resolution can be done without administrative tools they are

3049:

the ongoing discussion at WP:Banning without as much as a warning. During this he perpetually uses the fact that I have expressed a doubt about the precision of a particular wording to try to tell other editors that they shouldn't listen to me "because I have a pooor understanding of the Banning

361:

Hello, Maunus. How do you think, if one person (indefblocked for vandalism) did his last vandal edits three weeks ago and was being a very harmful vandal during e.g. 6 months, can this person be unblocked, maybe under some sysop's mentorship? Let us suppose, he apologised and there are one admin

104:

In short, over almost 12k of edits thus far Maunus has exhibited all the behaviours one might wish for in an admin—helpfulness, common sense, civility, maturity, depth of knowledge, self-reflection, ability to express himself articulately, thoughtfulness, rationality. In controversial topics and

4002:

Maunus charged in to help an ally of his content dispute, but then he casually blundered over the policy line into a PA-by-unevidenced accusation. Initially he didn't know what he had done wrong – which happens to many – but then he aggravated his lack of knowledge by repeatedly ignoring WP:NPA

3695:

My point above is that at no time have I seen anything of your edits that could be considered "as a neutral editor" to use your own words. I oppose as much over you misrepresenting yourself there and as a constant source of drama and disputes. Looking at the pages, I feel that you are partially

4154:

Maunus has a different, more controlled self that he projects much of the time. I've seen that controlled, well-mannered self, but then I've known other editors who seemed outstanding as long as one didn't oppose them. A well-mannered self is civilized behavior, and good manners is sometimes a

3911:

I would have thought that CSD concerns would have been satisfied by the statement, "I am not going to plunge headfirst into CSD. It is an area in which I imagine myself working, given time." It looks like he's not that eager to work on it and is hesitant to do so without experience. Your other

2649:

and generally wise choice-making), I'm convinced to support. It looks like he's worked in some areas/disputes prone to contention, as evidenced by stuff in the oppose section, such as AdjustShift's comments. Yes, Maunus has made some slightly harsh remarks under certain circumstances. Overall,

2046:

I don't see that the opposes are wholly unmeritorious, and I can't say that I regard this as so clear a case as apparently do many in this number. On the whole, though, the candidate, with whom I have had a few passive encounters, each of which was positive, seems to possess sound judgment, a

519:

I would relist. There are simply not enough comments to constitute a consensus. Hopefully more comments from Wikiproject Libanon affiliated users would appear after a subsequent listing period. That being said if I were not acting like an admin, but as a user I would vote to redirect since the

88:

Maunus is no stranger to project– and policy–space contributions either. A review of his contribs will reveal numerous sensible and thoughtful comments to various XfDs, FARs, GARs, wikiprojects, policy & guideline discussions, &c. He knows how to foster a collegial atmosphere, maintain

4148:

Maunus' "honoring" reply is notable for its glossy failure to accept editing cooperation in a BRD cycle, coupled with a disturbingly un-admin-like morph of the facts ("BRD cycle" with no actual revert), to lightly cover what he seems to know makes him look bad (constructionally refusing BRD).

185:

I am proud of the fact that when I arrived at Knowledge 4 years ago, the coverage of Mesoamerican languages was nonexistent, and that in the meantime Knowledge has now come to have articles (although quite a few stubs) on all of Mesoamerican languages, and have the best coverage on the entire

4412:

It's intended to be complex, with several facets, but not a trick. If it helps any with the further clarification requested above, note that there have been several discussions of potentially treating AFD discussions with no comments other than the nomination as expired uncontested Proposed

2322:"Do you seriously believe you can convince people to change their vote" People who weigh in here are not responsible for changing other people's minds nor do they have to try to do such. If you disagree with someone's level of reasoning, they do not have to convince you that they are right. 2491:

Maunus' pledge to take it slow in that area. Just remember that A7 doesn't apply to all subjects, that a article only has to make a weak claim of importance (not notability) to avoid A7 deletion, and that G1/G3 aren't a license to delete junk that doesn't fit into another speedy category.

2163:

I particularly like the straightforward reply to Q3. The oppose votes either do not hold water or are not something I'm concerned about. (The editor who alleged the candidate to be a "constant source of drama and disputes" did not meet my request to provide diffs for the allegation. The

669:

I would investigate the alleged claim of copyright violation first, since if true this would be the one decisive argument. If the editor who alleged copyvio does not provide proof upon request and I am unable to verify it myself I would close as keep and encourage a cleanup to establish

4244:

not the only editor whose interpretation of WP:NPA and WP:CIV is in conflict with yours. That being said you are of course in your right to oppose on any grounds and my comment was merely to provide my perspective on our interaction. I invite anyone here who reviews my participation on

1559:

Julian sums it up best: I have never heard of you but your contributions do not show anything that would want to make me oppose or go neutral. AdjustShift's oppose is a cause for some minor reflection though but nothing suggests that Maunus is unable to learn from such things. Regards

3485:

I hope that if the infobox had merely stated "I am an atheist" that keepscases would have not been offended by it - but it didn't it was worded in a way that could be interpreted as an sarcastic attack against theists. I do not believe in God¡, but I dont need to be smug about that.

2212:

Fair enough. I am willing to reconsider my vote if I see diffs that back up that claim. You seem to have similar concerns; would you have any diffs? It may be most appropriate if you add them to your statement below, but please ping me on my talk page, as I might overlook it. —

2389:

of his edits, has never been blocked, and I do not recall us having any memorable negative interactions. Really, all sorts of good things and I am persuaded further by seeing the first couple of editors to have initially opposed below to have changed stances as well. Best, --

641:

I would take unce G's advice and check those sources really thoroughly before weighing in with an argued vote for or against deletion depending on my impression of notability as established in the provided sources. If we assume I was forced to close by invisible aliens I would

4217:- this is a case where i have absolutely nothing to hide. i also invite all of you to join the discussion of how to improve said article - it seems to me that Melomides has struggled there on his own for too long, and possibly has forgotten that we are all here to help him. 3621:

by the majority in that discussion. In some cases, strong wording can serve a good purpose, when it wakes up people. I wouldn't advise it because it can easily backfire, but there was no problem in this instance as it did not escalate the conflict. I would not call this "

2222:

My opening post points out to a recent example where he is causing problems in a page that he is using as an example of his better work. Sebastian later requiring diffs is absurd and shows that he has not actually looked into the matter, let alone my opening post.

227:

I have been in many edit conflicts, since becoming a wikipedian it has been of great personal interest to me that articles reflect the prevailing academic views of their topics and that fringe views be exposed as such. This has taken me into such editing swamps as

321:

in CSD, thus, there is nothing to look at. BUT your answer to question 1 explicitly states that working in CSD is an area of interest. How can you assure me that you will be among the best, not the worst CSD'ers when that is an area where you have no history?

3039:

that he thinks are discussing and not improvements of the banning policy the ban of NYScholar (we are using that ban as an example of the problem with the wording). When I explain that I don't believe his removal of my comments was justified he replies "it was

3977:

Maunus (1) displayed serious lack of core policy knowledge and/or inability to obtain it; (2) demonstrated unsound judgment in refereeing a dispute; (3) wrote an un-admin-like statement of constructional disregard for WP:BRD consensus editing. Add to these,

3602:- I cannot trust this user, there is no real need for the tools, and some of his statements here and on other places make me concern about his ability to act neutrally or fairly. A recent example where his "diplomacy" is more inflammatory than diplomatic is 3456:

The fact that the Wikipedian community is willing to tolerate and even enable Keepscases' intolerance against self-identifying Atheist admins -- "none need apply" -- is so disheartening. And this is supposed to be a compendium of knowledge? Shame on us all.

2972:

Okay, he stepped on your toes, and his comments were a bit, how do I put it, strong. But honestly, if I were reverted in that manner, a day after I explicitly asked for your opinion on the talk page, I would be irritated as well. I cannot see his alleged

2486:

through thoughtful answers to the questions posed. The temperament based opposes would potentially be of concern, but thus far no one has provided any diffs that I find truly troubling. My only concern would be the minimal CSD experience, but I have

3649:

LOL — and I think that may be the first and only time I've ever typed that acronym on Knowledge... If "stubborn nitpicking" is an insult, I should be reported to ANI most extremely immediately. As should... most of the biggest names.. in Knowledge.

3186:

July 2009. My perception towards you has changed since July 2009. We don't view the world through the same prism, but you seem to be an intelligent person who listens to other people. I've strike "strong" from my oppose. Good luck with your RFA!

2701:

As for myself, I have commited my editing to a very big accomplishment and I feel I can be part of the Wikimedia Foundation community if I act in a very good way and welcome users and editors of Knowledge, and help users with creating accounts.

4328:

above (Any pointers to specific discussions of concern, Stifle?), but it does suggest a need for a pointer from experience. Therefore I offer this advice: Maunus, if you get administrator tools, as seems likely at this point, remember that

3407:

over I realized that not everybody might find it as funny as I originally did. I understand that theists might find it offensive and that's why I removed it. Keepscases Oppose vote is justified - i did make a mistake when I chose to use it.

1739:- I'm not thrilled with the userbox mentioned below, but he removed it, so that shows a willingness to respond appropriately to criticism. I think Maunus brings a lot to the table and his areas of expertise are certainly most impressive. -- 755:

Hmm, I am not running for arbitrator so the question is puely hypothetical. I think I don't really understand the question - if ArbCom had already decided to unblock and I were a member of Arbcom then I don't see what I would be supposed to

2756:, but there is another difference between an expired prod and an article deleted through AfD; one can be recreated or restored immediately by anyone who wants to, and the other is eligible for speedy deletion if recreated in the same form. 2164:"administrative arrogance" accusations AdjustShift brought up were certainly not a sign of being calm, but they seem to be an exception. Moreover, it is a good combination if an administrator is aware of administrative arrogance, provided 2366:

attempt to both forestall the inevitable Keepscases userbox shitstorm and to appease the actual Keepscases userbox shitstorm all the more admirable. And a bitter indictment of the RfA system. And the last straw from that user within it.

276:), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being 3982:, he handled criticism poorly, and displayed a part-time, little-noticed, arrogant aggression. That's an overall recipe for an admin who may too frequently make bad decisions and/or become abusive when he is challenged for any reason. 3066:

Excuse me, when did I said that I understands it (the banning policy) because I'm an admin? Please don't put words in my mouth. I've never said that sort of thing. Please bring at least a diff as evidence. WP Community should analyze

210:

in june, with the article protected after an editwar and two camps of editors in a deadlock over how to word the lead. Through my mediation and the editors' good will we managed to write a new compromise lead with input from both

913:

What is the argument in 14 was focused around what consistutes "significant coverage" as it relates to athletes? What types of coverage would give more weight the GNG side and what types of coverage would largely be discounted?

1451:, you seem great at dealing with disputes. I'd encourage you to use edit summaries more; it seems like you don't use them for talk pages as much but they can be useful there too (they help one find things in page histories). 1602:. Sensible, mature, level-headed. No problems here. That you are able to remain sensible and level-headed after dealing with contentious areas is an even stronger reason to support; we need more administrators like this. 782:

Under what circumstance should a person notable for only one thing have their article deleted and under what circumstance should it be kept? That is under what circumstance would an AfD split between "keep - subject passes

1943:

I've been hoping that Maunus would be nominated - sure, he has some rough edges, but so do most of us at timesm and Maunus clearly understands both editing and policy and as Deville says above can think things through.

431:

I would relist to generate more discussion. The page looks like a clear deletion-candidate judging from the lack of sources and notability - but I would never allow a deletion closure to be based on a consensus of one.

4162:

I apologize for the page bloat of this oppose, but future victims of poor judgment, if any, deserve to know that there was a precursor to their plight. Hopefully, some other knowing admin would step in to help them.

1306:

Although we've never interacted much, I spend a lot of time reading Knowledge and I've always been impressed with Maunus' research and dedication to getting things right. Maunus will make a great administrator. --

1396:- I do not see anything that concerns me. I have confidence in an editor that is as established as you are. I had a bunch more written, however I read it over and it seems like I was babbling much like I am now... 858:

They are supposed to be hard. :) Being capable of analyzing difficult judgment calls is the number one trait I look for in an admin. Thoughtful answers go a lot further toward winning my support than anything else

450: 3756:

Ottava, are you maybe confusing the candidate with Alan16? I think what Alan wrote can be expressed better in the words of Thornton Wilder: "People who's et onions is no judge of who's et onions and who aint." —

841:

with bio's of all the perpetrators and a description of the trial. As an admin however I would have to close as delete but encourage the creation of a standalone article about the trial. Gee these questions are

280:

without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

4158:

Whatever, it looks like this nomination will sail through, so I'm serving notice of a personal dispute. Maunus is not to use his tools, or suggest his possible use of them in regard to any situation involving

3664:

Ling.Nut - when you are trying to serve as a mediator to come up with a neutral view, you don't use any negative descriptives when referring to parties. Such things prejudice you towards one part or another.

2240:"problems" you are seeing now. Since my reply obviously showed that I read your post, it appears that you are just trolling, and I may take the liberty of not replying to such unsourced statements anymore. — 168:

cool down and cooperate. The usefulness of the tools in deletion matters are obvious. Other areas that I will be contributing to as I grow into the role will be editwarring and 3RR violations, and speedy

2997:

Well firstly there is the difference that a blocked user must have been given blockwarnings prior to the block - and so has had a chance to realize the gravity of his actions before the consequence was

1806:

Richard took the words out of my mouth: we can't all be saints - though I think that sounds less partisan coming from Richard! :) Seriously, I have no problems with Maunus becoming an admin. Good luck!

1002: 552:, you state that you "would never allow a deletion closure to be based on a consensus of one." In your opinion, how does a deletion discussion that hasn't attracted any comments differ from an expired 4248:

and finds that I have misunderstood policies, or behaved in a way unbecoming of an administrator to change their stance to "oppose" - because honestly I am certain that I have done no such thing.

74:) – I am very glad to have the chance to nominate Maunus for the admin tools. Maunus has been an invaluable and reliable content contributor here for over 4 years now, with two FAs to his credit ( 3000:" We give block warnings prior to the block to vandals; we don't give block warnings to an editor who is about to be banned. You call this a good understanding of the banning policy? Please read 2940:. Maunus is quick to assume bad faith when it comes to admins, and I don't think he will be a net positive as an admin. He is a pretty good editor, but I don't think adminship is right for him. 4132:

WP:BRD is not required by guide or policy, but it is widely regarded as a model editing practice that good editors, and especially admins, should emulate. I requested that Maunus observe it:

268:

as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Knowledge? That is, what do you think an ideal Knowledge would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the

4012:: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks" 1884:. Fully qualified candidate. The incidents raised by the opposers strike me as relatively minor, but as an administrator Maunus may want to work on smoothing his occasionally sharper edges. 4333:. Ignore what NVO implies above; it's not true. ☺ As administrators we still have editor hats, and we still have all of the tools that editors have. Sometimes the right response is to 3816:

Dear Stifle, could you please provide some examples? While I am supporting now, I obviously take AfDs into account and want to be sure I am not missing something. Thanks! Sincerely, --

893:

as an example: even though he did wrestle, his wrestling career obviously doesn't satisfy the ATH criteria - he is however very notable for other accomplishments and easily meet the GNG.

2287:

that type of behavior anyway. Everything I could give concrete evidence for, such as the candidate's AfD participation, I did. There's really not anything more I can say on the matter.

416:

Assume that you had administrator tools, and that it was the 15th of August (or later). What would you do upon encountering the following AFD discussions, as they stand now, and why?

3830: 826:(linked to last revision before close.) Please explain your thought process carefully as I am much more interested in learning how you think than wha you'd do in this specific case. 4452:- I've decided to switch my !vote to neutral. The above discussion I had with Maunus indicates that he will not use the admin tools inappropriately, so there is no reason to oppose. 2530:— It saddens me to see content writers move on to administratorship, since that means they will no longer be writing articles. Alas, I cannot oppose a perfectly eligible candidate. — 1901:, he's not already one? Reading through the candidate's contributions to various WT: pages has convinced me that not only does he understand policy, he's able to think through its 4102:, though that's still covertly a PA accusation. Unfortunately, four minutes later he couldn't resist twisting the knife by persistently adding back in a third overt PA accusation: 1848: 1497: 3967: 83: 4192:

even though that is given as an example of incivility in WP:CIVIL).(Note that Melomides has been noted to have a nonstandard interpretation of NPA before by multiple editors:

2047:

deliberative and collegial temperament, a fine demeanor, and a fair conversance with policy, and so I can conclude with a degree of confidence sufficient to merit support that

150:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

2612:, with some reservations. Take heed of the opposes and neutrals. I don't fault you for responding as you did to Uncle G's question, but the followup should be instructive. 1232: 3546:

Not correct. Keepscases said "Oh my God (no pun intended), a user who manages to self-identify as an atheist without throwing in userboxes that ridicule others' beliefs."

3571: 3036:

policy. The reason I became aware of that wording was the NYScholar ban which had been executed by AdjustShift. In mid discussion enters AdjustShift - he erases comments

838: 3766:

The only time I confused the two was the above. However, I confused the two because their language and mannerisms are the same and I didn't bother to look at the name.

743: 692: 367: 352: 221:

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?

1243: 2470: 2450: 2135:

Impressive. Once you obtain the bit, you could be an inner voice among the admin group, to speak out and to try to correct when obviously egregious things occur.--

4261:

Do try to focus. Above I laid out the two quotes from WP:NPA that you didn't read, refused to read, couldn't understand, or failed to follow. Please explain why.

3480: 3466: 2958:

an admin will give him a new perspective? maunus engages many, many controversial topics and is usually thanked for his calm demeanor. See his talk page. Really.

2048: 3775: 3761: 3718: 3644: 3629: 3476: 3425: 3397: 3239: 3229: 3068: 2937: 2331: 2244: 2232: 2154: 1351:- He has shown himself to be fair and judicious in his examinations of both articles and editor conflicts. He would be a great asset to the overall project. 3096:

is for discussing how to ameliorate the Knowledge:Banning policy page; it is not a place to discuss about whether a ban imposed on someone is right or wrong.

2544:

Don't despair - I will still be writing articles just as I always have - if I become admin that will just be a an extra passtime. I am here to write articles.

2362:

Checks out just fine: good answers, hard working, dedicated and intelligent. I consider his arguably more 'direct' tone to be a bonus, which makes his humble

1129: 3574:

just a few days ago. Disregarding all that, I would still like to see more experience in the areas in which you wish to work, especially dispute resolution.

3209: 3105: 1403: 713:, under his real account. After this a steward lock this user's global account as "cross-wiki vandal". Then, he began expanding massive vandalism in project 520:

arguments given for merging are solid. The article is basically a POV fork from Libanese Arabic. I would not close a discussion in which I had voted myself.

1124: 3570:

keeps or even keeps at all. In addition, the level of research you put into the few AfD !votes you've made is concerning. You !voted on three AfDs in just

3451: 3299: 3281: 3123:

Ok, I will also leave this issue now. I don't think you should be granted adminship now, but let's see what the community thinks. Good luck with your RFA.

1268: 889:

other than his athletic credentials. In short I would keep if the åperson met the general uncontroversially met the general notability criteria. Lets take

837:

became worse because of the merger. My preferred outcome of this would be the creation of a new spinoff article from Mahmudiyah killings for example named

764: 397: 3928: 3674: 3659: 3339: 3257: 3025: 2967: 2307: 2281: 2217: 2207: 4383:, than to simply be a person wielding a rubber stamp. You'll find that those are useful principles to remember outside of deletion discussions as well. 3555: 3317: 3751: 3736: 3705: 3690: 3195: 3180: 3132: 3118: 3080: 2272: 139: 3494: 3429: 3415: 3368: 2986: 747: 371: 86:

of otherwise hard-to-get objects and localities, and contributed to other language wikis as well, incl. translations of articles from one to the other.

4282: 4265: 4256: 4238: 4225: 2645:- I'm not personally familiar with this editor, but upon a good deal browsing and reading through his question answers (which I liked, they show good 978: 868: 206:

than the current wikipedia articles. I am also happy with my recent involvement as a neutral editor in content disputes. I arrived at the talkpage of

4338: 3877: 3854: 3834: 3820: 3472: 3443: 3421: 3393: 3235: 3225: 3061: 2150: 2068:, per Jahiegel, and thank you to Uncle G for his excellent questions, which swayed me in the candidate's favour from a previously wavering position.— 929: 678: 511: 497: 484: 4442: 4426: 4407: 3401: 3868: 3386: 901: 850: 650: 576: 528: 467: 362:

who's ready to be the mentor and help him. Also it's known that this user can be a useful contributor but has very instable psychic setup. Thanks,

4146:"I see a "B" (bold), and a preamble to a "D" (discuss), but no "R" (revert). In short, you are constructionally refusing BRD editing cooperation." 2552: 3947: 3696:

responsible in controversies continuing and not ending. Your mannerisms are further difficult to believe that you would make an effective admin.

3625:", unless we group all editors who are willing to compromise after a tiresome dispute into one party. That would be a party I would join, too! — 338: 4185:

Milomedes then made a clear uncivil personal attack on user Pelle Smith asserting that he was a newbie and didn't know what he was talking about

2629:. Experienced, thoughtful, civil, intelligent. A valuable editor from what I've seen of his contributions. Should make a fine administrator. -- 3826: 810: 612: 440: 298: 237: 2912:- Maunus is a good editor who has positively contributed to the project, but I don't think he has the right temperament to be an admin. After 1674: 3377:

Usually I would side with Keepscases but get real, this was the least offensive of atheist boxes (compared to "keep your friends.." stuff).

1377:; I've never heard of you to be honest, but given your long history, I expect that's a good thing. Nothing concerning as far as I can see. – 882:

How would you evaluate AfDs where the discussion is split between people saying "delete - fails ATH" and "keep - meets GNG" type arguments?

4494: 2710: 1475: 4108:

Both accusations referred to an evident statement of fact, in response to a calumny by a third party, as explained in considerable detail

3322:

It's a bit silly Keepscases'. How would you feel if you went to RFA in a while and people started opposing you because you're religious?

797:

It is a tough question because the weighing of BLP1E is largely subjective, but basically it comes down to an evaluation of the quantity

4367:

than just a mere re-listing would have. (You do, after all, claim some knowledge of the field in the case of one of those discussions.)

4234:

did or might do. Where you and I interacted, the commentary is on-topic. The rest is just distractions from your unacceptable behavior.

3873:

Okay, thank you for the reply. I can see how those do not follow the guideline and will review the candidate's comment above. Best, --

89:

civility in disputes, uphold neutrality, respect the opinions of others and when to clarify or correct himself (couple recent examples:

4512: 4342: 2650:

however, he seems very willing to discuss differences and talk out issues in a calm and reasonable manner, which is a thumbs-up to me.

2127: 1008: 549: 423: 2865: 2021: 3345: 3305: 3262: 1483:

Piling on per AdjustShift's oppose, see my comment there. I see no problems, and I see a particular clear understanding of policy. --

1970: 1935: 3838: 2416: 1987: 1214: 121: 3906: 2604: 2571: 2433: 2182: 3943: 2857: 2142: 2105: 1798: 1388: 4461: 3150: 3086: 3051: 3047: 2587: 2376: 1893: 1860: 1816: 1705:

Manus is an asset to Knowledge with a demonstrated record. In my opinion the first oppose is more wiki-drama than anything else

1513: 1298: 145: 3615: 3163: 2949: 2812: 2795: 2158: 2088: 1953: 1594: 1432: 1369: 823: 4479: 3539: 3243: 2992: 2923: 2921: 2637: 2501: 1764: 1731: 1714: 1609: 1407: 1174: 4167: 2895: 2835: 2765: 2748: 2665: 2393: 2060: 2012:

As Wehwalt notes above, I have not seen any compelling reasons to oppose what seems like a valuable and qualified candidate.

1781: 1551: 1492: 1458: 1343: 1067: 229: 4392: 4121:

How many other policies has he not read well, or does not clearly understand? WP:CONSENSUS? Note his unqualified claim that

3938:

Admins need to keep their cool when tempers get hot, and to refrain from personalizing disputes. I'm not seeing that here.

2621: 2522: 2004: 1914: 1443: 4414: 2820:. Not too fond of the closures where the result was no consensus or delete, but overall, I don't see any major problems. — 2038: 1697: 1654: 1627: 1582: 1262: 1208: 739: 688: 363: 348: 316:

One of the few things that I've been looking at in detail lately has been a users CSD work as I feel this is an area where

3811: 3594: 2722: 2696: 2539: 1876: 1840: 1573: 598:

or speedy delete candidate and the debate is proceeding orderly when would be the earliest you would consider closing it?

3110:

Difs provided. I will now leave this issue alone. You are of course in your good right to oppose on any grounds you wish.

3009: 3001: 2934: 2776: 1670: 1637: 1321: 1228: 1017: 965: 385:

that an indef blocked user may be unblocked (for example under mentorship), given the right circumstances and arguments.

4317: 3044: 3037: 2354: 1530: 3939: 3587: 3361: 2300: 2265: 2200: 4211: 4209: 4207: 4205: 4203: 4201: 4199: 4197: 4195: 3603: 2277:

Do you seriously believe you can convince people to change their vote without giving them any concrete information? —

1748: 1187: 186:

internet of several of them. I don't think for example that the internet has a better introductory material to either

4307:. Seems to be a good editor, but I'm concerned about the first strong oppose and could likely be swayed either way. 4193: 3088:

because the discussion in that section became more about the banning of NYScholar rather than how to ameliorate the

4324:

As always, my 3 AFD discussions question was a complex test. It doesn't reveal any such problems as alluded to by

4023:: "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." 4009: 3532: 2081: 1961:

a reeasonable editor who is open to discussion and temperate behavior. His experience and contributions convince.

1471: 99: 96: 93: 33: 17: 3727:

From my recent interaction with you, I find it laughable that you oppose someone over not using neutral language.

1374: 1220:

What's going on with this support anyways? Was it supposed to automatically appear upon transclusion but failed?

705:

for a long time. Suddenly he lost his temper (by several personal reasons) and made disruptive edits in projects

1756:- Evaluating solely on administrator-qualification criteria yields no significant reason to withhold support. -- 972: 4115: 3996: 2887: 1665: 1223: 1119: 472: 3985: 3093: 4189: 4186: 4180: 4177: 1926:

for me, but the candidate seems honest, straightforward and collegial. I think they will make a good admin.

90: 2123: 1034: 996: 958: 71: 4150: 4142: 4136: 4128: 4125: 4109: 4091: 4085: 4082: 4068: 4045: 4039: 4033: 3286:

Oh I'm fully aware of Keepscases's ridiculous standards, but I can't find anything that would offend even

1248:

It successfully appeared in the transclusion, but not on this page itself. Do note that I nowikied it. --

3462: 2852: 2718: 2017: 1467: 3041: 4493:

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

4020: 1317: 1145: 2920:. This was about one month ago. During the debate, he showed poor understanding of the banning policy 4314: 4095: 2926: 2446: 1966: 1931: 1060: 4469:. Stifle's closure and the other temperament issues are concerning. Will have to look more closely. 625:

company; of course a few are PRs or trivial, but there are plenty of good sources too. For example,

3989: 3960: 3899: 3089: 2482:

Maunus has shown a strong commitment to Knowledge through consistent editing, and a high degree of

2463: 2409: 2385: 1983: 1257: 1203: 1155: 3842: 4337:. Sometimes it's an ordinary editor tool that is the right tool for the job. Your responses to 4118:, and had a questionable understanding of it, casts further doubt on his readiness for adminship. 2600: 2567: 2429: 2119: 1466:

Has been around since July 2005 and this is first RFA and user track is good and see no concerns.

4322:

This isn't really a "vote", more of a discussion contribution. But there's no section for that.

2595:

Good content writer; supportive, helpful, and collegial to newer editors -- all good qualities.

990: 4032:, and foolishly entered an accusation into the edit summary, where he can't strike it if wrong 3458: 3392:

on Knowledge who, unprovoked, give atheists a hard time, all I have to say is evidence please.

2847: 2136: 2101: 2013: 1794: 1585:

discussion seems ok, and I'm not going to oppose a candidate for a single exasperated comment.

1386: 199: 195: 1093: 1041: 57: 4457: 3771: 3747: 3701: 3670: 3640: 3611: 3420:

I appreciate your response, and I will look over your contributions and reconsider my !vote.

3276: 3205: 3191: 3159: 3128: 3101: 3076: 3021: 2954:

Ummm, if he is quick to assume bad faith among admins (I don't see it), don't you think that

2945: 2372: 2327: 2228: 1889: 1858: 1812: 1507: 1293: 116: 4298: 3519:

I want to point out, at this juncture, that Keepscases supported me for my atheist userbox.—

1180: 1114: 3527: 3447: 3332: 2891: 2808: 2790: 2706: 2688: 2442: 2076: 1962: 1949: 1927: 1590: 1425: 1365: 1053: 207: 3344:

As he has stated before, Keepscases does not oppose people because of their religion. See

2901: 2252:

part of the reason I opposed. I would not oppose based on his noticeboard activity alone.

1109: 8: 3955: 3892: 3845:. Non-admin closures should be restricted to unanimous or nearly unanimous keep debates. 3313: 3295: 3253: 3005: 2635: 2497: 2456: 2404: 1979: 1824:

A superb editor with a wide range of experience who seems level-headed and courteous. --

1772:- while I sometimes find him brusk and offensive, I think he's qualified to be an admin. 1727: 1710: 1606: 1252: 1249: 1198: 1195: 864: 834: 245: 1521:. It's a real shame when editors retire into administration, but you can always return. 3758: 3715: 3655: 3626: 3551: 3248:

Mind mentioning which one? I can't see a single "confrontational" userbox on his page.

2982: 2977:, either. You are of course entitled to your opinion but I will support based on it. -- 2963: 2917: 2880: 2830: 2761: 2733: 2659: 2596: 2563: 2425: 2278: 2241: 2214: 2187:

To be fair to Ottava, you gave him only an hour and a half to respond to your request.

2179: 2056: 1777: 1546: 1488: 1455: 1339: 1186:{{#ifeq:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Maunus|Knowledge:Requests for adminship|Using 1030: 595: 480: 165: 822:- You are right, it is tough to call without specifics. As such, how would you close 4422: 4388: 2617: 2097: 2000: 1910: 1790: 1440: 1379: 1088: 984: 4346:

is clear that the right courses of action, that would have helped AFD and Knowledge

4037:"You also cannot back up personal attacks with evidence since that is irrelevant..." 4035:, persisted the accusation, with WP:NPA unread or not comprehended or not acted on: 3290:. The boxes are about as offensive as "this user likes a glass of milk before bed". 2401:

I can't see any glaring problems to be fair and I cant see any misuse of the tools.

2049:

the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive

4453: 4438: 3850: 3807: 3767: 3743: 3732: 3697: 3666: 3636: 3607: 3580: 3354: 3266: 3201: 3187: 3155: 3124: 3097: 3072: 3017: 3013: 2941: 2925:, but despite that he continued his arguments. After further agruments, he accused 2580: 2368: 2323: 2293: 2258: 2224: 2193: 2034: 1885: 1852: 1808: 1690: 1650: 1501: 1283: 952: 241: 106: 65: 4090:

Note the failure of good judgment and loss of emotional control in his re-edit of

3925: 3520: 3324: 2804: 2783: 2714: 2681: 2535: 2172: 2165: 2069: 1945: 1872: 1837: 1618: 1586: 1567: 1538:

per Juliancolton. Never heard of you either, but you seem like a fine candidate.

1417: 1352: 940: 788: 451:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Nude celebrities on the Internet (2nd nomination)

317: 308: 191: 75: 4470: 4262: 4235: 4164: 3309: 3291: 3249: 3069:

Knowledge talk:Banning policy#Indefinite blocks being considered community bans

2938:

Knowledge talk:Banning policy#Indefinite blocks being considered community bans

2913: 2773: 2646: 2630: 2493: 2483: 1757: 1723: 1706: 1633: 1603: 860: 774: 586: 553: 256: 203: 45: 3912:

concern seems valid, though it wasn't enough to sway me toward opposition. --

3348:. Responding to his unpopular opposes just creates more drama and disruption. 1150: 4506: 4487:

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

4311: 4104:"clearly in conflict with both the spirit and letter of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL." 4050: 3874: 3817: 3651: 3547: 3382: 2978: 2959: 2875: 2823: 2757: 2651: 2562:

All round well experienced user, seems sensible and appropriate for the job.

2488: 2390: 2352: 2052: 1773: 1540: 1526: 1484: 1452: 1335: 890: 538: 476: 273: 269: 3622: 594:

An article is sent to AfD at 8am UTC on September 1st. Assuming it is not a

4418: 4384: 3992:

by an admin candidate, who should be on his best behavior, is unacceptable.

2613: 2512: 1996: 1906: 1437: 410: 233: 4434: 4400: 4355: 4325: 4275: 4249: 4218: 4041:, even after that charge was declared as wrong with reference to WP:NPA: 3861: 3846: 3803: 3728: 3683: 3682:

lead. Since then I have participated as a normal editor on the talk page.

3575: 3487: 3408: 3349: 3173: 3111: 3054: 2545: 2288: 2253: 2188: 2030: 1744: 1685: 1646: 948: 922: 894: 843: 803: 784: 757: 671: 643: 605: 569: 521: 490: 460: 433: 390: 330: 290: 277: 265: 132: 61: 3914: 3043:

and "as an admin I know when to be offensive and when to be defensive"

2930: 2803:, looks well rounded in the way of the wiki. Should make a fine admin. 2674: 2531: 1868: 1826: 1562: 701:. Imagine the following situation. One person was working in a project 1581:- trustworthy editor. Regarding the first oppose, Maunus's conduct in 4497:

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

4271: 4245: 4214: 2770: 1327: 1310: 3714:

Would you have diffs for "constant source of drama and disputes"? —

4308: 4127:, which is consistent with his lack of regard for WP:BRD editing. 3378: 3169: 2342: 1662:

Level-headed editor. Also per Keepscases' oppose over a userbox...

1522: 1033:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 791:" type votes end in keep/delete? How would you go about deciding? 4098:. In the first diff he mutes the previous overt PA accusations to 3952:

Mind providing examples or diffs of this, I cant see any. Cheers.

3831:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/White Dalton Motorcycle Solicitors

2178:. In my impression, he seems to be sufficiently self-critical.) — 1045: 187: 79: 4123:"Major changes may be made to any article without discussion..." 4066:"You can't casually throw around the words "personal attacks"." 1740: 3635:

many of his positions are partisan views, not neutral views.

2916:

was community banned, Maunus was involved in a discussion at

717:. One year later, this user applies to ArbCom of the project 563:

for deletion via AfD I would assume he does so because there

128:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

4043:"accusation of PA is prohibited without evidence per WP:NPA" 2111: 734:

projects' sysops are oppose. What would you do if you were

4140:"I am honoring the BRD cycle by discussing this with you." 4134:"...will you honor a WP:BRD revert and discussion or not?" 3046:

and gives no further explanation. He then went on to close

1978:

After deliberations, support arguments outweigh opposes.

29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

179:

What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?

157:

What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

4053:

says that evidenced statements are not considered PAs."

3471:

No, shame on you for pretending this is about atheism.

2441:

per thoughtful responses to some very tough questions.

4047:, followed by a more insistent request to read WP:NPA 604:

I would not close before the morning of september 8th.

4358:

seems to have the same concern, that you are perhaps

3265:

might contain some clues, make of it what you will.--

738:'s arbitrator or even sysop (your thought) ? Thanks, 632: 629: 626: 1326:That crappy template didn't work, so I'm #3 behind 548:In your response above to UncleG's question about 4339:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Lebanese language 3984:An editor who apparently has not thoroughly read 3835:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Futuristic Leland 2455:Indenting duplicate vote (See current #38 above) 512:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Lebanese language 53:Final (73/6/4); ended 03:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 4504: 3442:opposing? You should have checked them earlier. 2341:. Good contributions. Generally good judgement. 2029:A competent editor. Would use the tools wisely. 1995:find opposes unconvincing, default to support.-- 4363:come along, and any future discussion closer, 3827:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Wha Kyung Byun 1905:in a very refined way. This is important. -- 238:Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories 1061: 4092:Maunus 12:26, 16 August 2009 (original diff) 4010:WP:NPA#First offenses and isolated incidents 3270: 1287: 110: 4371:productive contribution to a discussion to 4354:and add your opinions to the discussions. 4274:and here and I have nothing further to add. 4096:Maunus 12:30, 16 August 2009 (re-edit diff) 2732:. Seems level headed and willing to learn. 1015:Edit summary usage for Maunus can be found 4417:. See the current page and its archives. 4343:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Trifectant 2171:is willing to apply that critical view to 1500:Nothing of great concern, seems to be Ok. 1068: 1054: 550:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Trifectant 424:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Trifectant 3533: 3528: 3346:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Keepscases 2118:Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Maunus. — 2082: 2077: 3839:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Hunglish 2975:poor understanding of the banning policy 2673:Has nothing I would directly oppose to. 1632:Very good communication skills. - Dank ( 1168:Editing stats posted at the talk page. → 1029:Please keep discussion constructive and 635:and many more." How would you proceed? 4270:I have already explained everythign at 2933:, and me of "administrative arrogance". 14: 4505: 4188:. When I asked him to observe civility 1684: 3975:Strong oppose for cause with evidence 3434:You will look over his contributions 3168:AdjustShift has asked me specifically 1049: 230:Olmec alternative origin speculations 4415:Knowledge talk:Articles for deletion 489:Ok, I was too chicken to even click. 4114:That Maunus seemed unfamiliar with 4003:policy reference to his mistakes: 3085:I went on to "close the discussion" 1075: 773:Additional optional questions from 585:Additional optional questions from 274:what Knowledge is not type articles 255:Additional optional questions from 23: 3841:as delete, in direct violation of 307:Additional optional Question from 24: 4524: 4513:Successful requests for adminship 3833:were closed as no-consensus, and 4381:find, read, and evaluate sources 4230:This RfA is about you, and what 4021:WP:NPA#Avoiding personal attacks 2110: 18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship 3269: 2386:User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards 1286: 537:Request for clarification from 109: 4352:chime in as an ordinary editor 4331:you're still an editor as well 4116:Knowledge:Conflict of interest 4059:"describe an editor's actions" 787:" and "delete - subject fails 13: 1: 4350:, would have been for you to 4061:implicitly requires evidence) 4028:Maunus made an accusation of 3995:The locus of the dispute was 3986:Knowledge:No personal attacks 3940:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 3232:) 13:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 3094:Knowledge talk:Banning policy 726:supports the unblocking, but 568:instead listing them for AfD. 272:should be allowed (excluding 270:general notability guidelines 4074:accusation of violating the 1035:Special:Contributions/Maunus 7: 4480:01:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 4462:18:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 4443:18:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 4433:Examples now quoted above. 4427:08:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 4408:01:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 4393:00:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 4318:08:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 4283:20:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 4266:20:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 4257:19:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 4239:19:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 4226:13:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 4168:13:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 3968:22:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 3948:18:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 3929:23:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 3907:21:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 3878:18:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 3869:18:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 3855:18:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 3843:WP:NAC#Appropriate_closures 3821:20:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 3812:08:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 3776:19:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 3762:19:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 3752:18:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 3737:21:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 3719:19:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 3706:15:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 3691:14:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 3675:14:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 3660:05:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 3645:05:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 3630:01:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 3616:20:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 3595:16:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 3556:09:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 3540:09:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 3495:21:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 3481:19:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 3467:15:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 3452:06:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 3430:03:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 3416:03:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 3402:03:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 3387:02:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 3369:23:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 3340:23:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 3318:15:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 3300:15:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 3282:13:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 3258:13:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 3244:18:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 3210:18:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 3196:17:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 3181:14:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 3164:14:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 3133:14:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 3119:13:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 3106:13:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 3081:13:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 3062:13:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 3026:14:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 2987:09:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 2968:08:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 2950:08:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 2896:01:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 2866:00:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 2836:23:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 2813:21:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 2796:03:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 2777:00:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 2766:12:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 2749:12:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 2723:06:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 2697:22:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2666:21:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2638:19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2622:18:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2605:16:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2588:16:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2572:12:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2553:12:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2540:09:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2523:06:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2502:02:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2471:02:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2451:01:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 2434:22:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 2417:22:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 2394:20:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 2377:03:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 2355:21:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2332:17:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 2308:00:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 2282:00:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 2273:22:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2245:00:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 2233:21:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2218:21:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2208:21:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2183:20:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2159:18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2143:15:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2128:14:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2106:11:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2089:09:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 2061:22:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 2039:21:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 2022:17:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 2005:17:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 1988:08:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 1971:07:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 1954:05:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 1936:05:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 1922:The answers seems a little 1915:04:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 1894:02:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 1877:01:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 1861:01:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 1841:00:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 1817:00:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 1799:23:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1782:22:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1765:22:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1749:20:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1732:20:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1715:19:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1698:18:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1675:15:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1655:15:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1638:14:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1628:14:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1610:13:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1595:13:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1574:13:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1552:12:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1531:11:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1514:10:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1493:10:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1476:08:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1459:05:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1444:04:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1433:04:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1408:04:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1389:03:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1370:03:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1344:03:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1322:03:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1299:03:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1269:16:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1244:15:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1233:15:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 1215:04:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 1175:03:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 930:02:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 902:02:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 869:02:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 851:02:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 811:02:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 765:16:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 748:14:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 679:16:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 651:16:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 613:16:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 577:16:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 529:21:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 498:01:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 485:22:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 468:21:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 441:21:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 398:21:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 372:14:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC) 339:19:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 299:19:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 264:What is your opinion about 146:Questions for the candidate 140:02:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 122:04:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 10: 4529: 4078:, plus a co-accusation of 4070:. Yet he persisted with a 1851:check turns up positive.-- 3224:Confrontational userbox. 1621:. Also, per Keepscases. → 1332:Crank it up to 11 Support 1138: 1102: 1081: 839:Mahmudiyah killings trial 347:Additional question from 318:the most harm can be done 202:language families or the 4490:Please do not modify it. 4144:. In response I wrote, 3990:escalation of commitment 3090:Knowledge:Banning policy 1506: 687:Additional queston from 2873:- I see no problems. -- 409:Optional question from 38:Please do not modify it 4138:, to which he replied 4026: 4015: 3980:in my personal opinion 3234:Switching to support. 2991:Pgallert, please read 1617:Trustworthy, meets my 1468:Pharaoh of the Wizards 4016: 4005: 3200:Switched to neutral. 34:request for adminship 4100:"disparaging remark" 4084:, also proved wrong 3999:(seems to be ended). 2995:link. Maunus wrote " 2927:William M. Connolley 1151:Global contributions 3802:Poor AFD closures. 2691:Wribbit!(Sign here) 2528:Regrettable Support 1115:Non-automated edits 835:Mahmudiyah killings 633:The Washington Post 473:the current version 246:Out of India theory 208:Jehovah's Witnesses 4076:"letter of WP:NPA" 4030:"personal attacks" 3308:- fair does then. 3149:One last comment: 2489:no reason to doubt 2120:Mikhailov Kusserow 1682:Looks fine to me. 1094:Edit summary usage 1037:before commenting. 946:Links for Maunus: 39: 4335:just be an editor 4063: 4062: 4024: 4013: 3459:Shawn in Montreal 3280: 2764: 2726: 2709:comment added by 2695: 2518: 2014:Shawn in Montreal 1297: 1164: 1163: 554:proposed deletion 475:has no pictures. 120: 37: 4520: 4492: 4477: 4404: 4279: 4253: 4222: 4056: 4055: 4019: 4008: 3963: 3958: 3923: 3920: 3917: 3902: 3865: 3742:were given ops. 3687: 3593: 3590: 3583: 3578: 3537: 3529: 3525: 3491: 3412: 3367: 3364: 3357: 3352: 3335: 3327: 3304:Ahh, didn't see 3274: 3273: 3272: 3177: 3115: 3058: 2883: 2878: 2862: 2860: 2855: 2850: 2833: 2826: 2786: 2760: 2745: 2739: 2725: 2703: 2693: 2686: 2680: 2677: 2662: 2656: 2633: 2583: 2579:Per Ijanderson. 2549: 2521: 2516: 2466: 2412: 2407: 2351: 2347: 2306: 2303: 2296: 2291: 2271: 2268: 2261: 2256: 2206: 2203: 2196: 2191: 2177: 2175: 2170: 2168: 2114: 2086: 2078: 2074: 1855: 1835: 1832: 1829: 1762: 1695: 1693: 1688: 1672: 1668: 1647:Kevin Rutherford 1626: 1570: 1565: 1548: 1543: 1512: 1510: 1504: 1428: 1420: 1400: 1382: 1362: 1357: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1265: 1260: 1255: 1242: 1230: 1226: 1211: 1206: 1201: 1173: 1110:Articles created 1070: 1063: 1056: 1047: 1046: 1020: 1012: 971: 941:General comments 926: 898: 847: 807: 761: 675: 647: 609: 573: 525: 494: 464: 437: 394: 334: 294: 242:Maltese language 136: 114: 113: 112: 4528: 4527: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4503: 4502: 4501: 4495:this nomination 4488: 4471: 4402: 4301: 4277: 4251: 4220: 3961: 3956: 3921: 3918: 3915: 3900: 3863: 3685: 3588: 3585: 3581: 3576: 3536: 3521: 3489: 3410: 3362: 3359: 3355: 3350: 3333: 3325: 3233: 3175: 3113: 3056: 2904: 2881: 2876: 2858: 2853: 2848: 2846: 2831: 2824: 2784: 2743: 2737: 2704: 2689: 2682: 2675: 2660: 2652: 2631: 2581: 2547: 2515: 2510: 2464: 2443:MichaelQSchmidt 2410: 2405: 2349: 2343: 2301: 2298: 2294: 2289: 2266: 2263: 2259: 2254: 2201: 2198: 2194: 2189: 2173: 2166: 2085: 2070: 1963:MichaelQSchmidt 1928:ChildofMidnight 1853: 1833: 1830: 1827: 1758: 1691: 1686: 1667:Until It Sleeps 1666: 1664: 1622: 1568: 1563: 1545: 1541: 1508: 1502: 1426: 1418: 1398: 1380: 1358: 1353: 1320: 1282:as nominator.-- 1263: 1258: 1253: 1238: 1225:Until It Sleeps 1224: 1222: 1209: 1204: 1199: 1188:ParserFunctions 1183: 1169: 1165: 1160: 1134: 1098: 1077: 1076:RfA/RfB toolbox 1074: 1044: 1016: 964: 947: 943: 924: 896: 845: 824:this actual AfD 805: 759: 673: 645: 607: 571: 523: 492: 462: 435: 392: 332: 292: 192:Mayan languages 166:angry mastodons 148: 134: 84:original photos 76:Mayan languages 60: 50: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4526: 4516: 4515: 4500: 4499: 4483: 4482: 4464: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4413:Deletions, on 4320: 4300: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4183: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3965: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3871: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3597: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3534: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3454: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3220: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3006:SheffieldSteel 2903: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2868: 2838: 2815: 2798: 2779: 2768: 2751: 2727: 2699: 2668: 2640: 2624: 2607: 2590: 2574: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2525: 2513: 2504: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2419: 2414: 2396: 2384:as user meets 2379: 2357: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2161: 2145: 2130: 2108: 2091: 2083: 2063: 2041: 2024: 2007: 1990: 1980:Power.corrupts 1973: 1956: 1938: 1917: 1896: 1879: 1863: 1843: 1819: 1801: 1784: 1767: 1751: 1734: 1717: 1700: 1677: 1657: 1640: 1630: 1612: 1597: 1576: 1554: 1533: 1516: 1495: 1478: 1461: 1446: 1435: 1415:- Looks fine. 1410: 1391: 1372: 1349:Strong Support 1346: 1324: 1316: 1301: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1190:, I get to be 1182: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1162: 1161: 1159: 1158: 1153: 1148: 1142: 1140: 1136: 1135: 1133: 1132: 1127: 1122: 1117: 1112: 1106: 1104: 1100: 1099: 1097: 1096: 1091: 1085: 1083: 1079: 1078: 1073: 1072: 1065: 1058: 1050: 1043: 1040: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1022: 1013: 942: 939: 937: 935: 934: 933: 932: 907: 906: 905: 904: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 816: 815: 814: 813: 777: 770: 769: 768: 767: 740:91.145.227.199 696: 689:91.145.227.199 684: 683: 682: 681: 656: 655: 654: 653: 630:New York Times 618: 617: 616: 615: 589: 582: 581: 580: 579: 542: 541: 534: 533: 532: 531: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 445: 444: 443: 414: 413: 405: 403: 402: 401: 400: 364:79.124.159.238 356: 349:79.124.159.238 344: 343: 342: 341: 311: 304: 303: 302: 301: 259: 252: 251: 250: 249: 215: 214: 213: 212: 204:Otomi language 173: 172: 171: 170: 147: 144: 143: 142: 59: 56: 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4525: 4514: 4511: 4510: 4508: 4498: 4496: 4491: 4485: 4484: 4481: 4478: 4476: 4475: 4468: 4465: 4463: 4459: 4455: 4451: 4448: 4444: 4440: 4436: 4432: 4428: 4424: 4420: 4416: 4411: 4410: 4409: 4406: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4390: 4386: 4382: 4378: 4374: 4368: 4366: 4361: 4357: 4353: 4349: 4344: 4340: 4336: 4332: 4327: 4321: 4319: 4316: 4313: 4310: 4306: 4303: 4302: 4284: 4281: 4273: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4264: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4255: 4247: 4242: 4241: 4240: 4237: 4233: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4224: 4216: 4212: 4210: 4208: 4206: 4204: 4202: 4200: 4198: 4196: 4194: 4190: 4187: 4184: 4181: 4178: 4175: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4166: 4160: 4156: 4152: 4151: 4147: 4143: 4141: 4137: 4135: 4130: 4129: 4126: 4124: 4119: 4117: 4112: 4110: 4106: 4105: 4101: 4097: 4093: 4088: 4086: 4083: 4081: 4077: 4073: 4069: 4067: 4060: 4054: 4052: 4046: 4044: 4040: 4038: 4034: 4031: 4025: 4022: 4014: 4011: 4004: 4000: 3998: 3993: 3991: 3987: 3981: 3976: 3973: 3969: 3966: 3964: 3959: 3954: 3951: 3950: 3949: 3945: 3941: 3937: 3934: 3930: 3927: 3926: 3924: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3905: 3903: 3896: 3895: 3890: 3887: 3879: 3876: 3872: 3870: 3867: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3844: 3840: 3836: 3832: 3828: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3819: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3809: 3805: 3801: 3777: 3773: 3769: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3760: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3749: 3745: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3734: 3730: 3726: 3720: 3717: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3703: 3699: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3689: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3672: 3668: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3657: 3653: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3642: 3638: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3628: 3624: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3613: 3609: 3605: 3601: 3598: 3596: 3591: 3584: 3579: 3573: 3568: 3565: 3564: 3557: 3553: 3549: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3538: 3530: 3526: 3524: 3518: 3496: 3493: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3464: 3460: 3455: 3453: 3449: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3414: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3399: 3395: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3384: 3380: 3376: 3370: 3365: 3358: 3353: 3347: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3337: 3336: 3329: 3328: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3315: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3279: 3278: 3268: 3264: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3255: 3251: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3211: 3207: 3203: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3179: 3170: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3152: 3148: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3117: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3103: 3099: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3060: 3052: 3048: 3045: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3015: 3011: 3007: 3003: 2999: 2994: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2935: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2922: 2919: 2915: 2911: 2910: 2909:Strong oppose 2906: 2905: 2897: 2893: 2889: 2885: 2884: 2879: 2872: 2869: 2867: 2864: 2863: 2861: 2856: 2851: 2842: 2839: 2837: 2834: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2819: 2816: 2814: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2799: 2797: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2788: 2787: 2780: 2778: 2775: 2772: 2769: 2767: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2752: 2750: 2747: 2746: 2740: 2731: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2708: 2700: 2698: 2694: 2692: 2687: 2685: 2678: 2672: 2669: 2667: 2664: 2663: 2657: 2655: 2648: 2644: 2641: 2639: 2636: 2634: 2628: 2625: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2608: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2597:Truthkeeper88 2594: 2591: 2589: 2586: 2584: 2578: 2575: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2558: 2554: 2551: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2526: 2524: 2520: 2519: 2508: 2505: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2490: 2485: 2481: 2478: 2472: 2469: 2467: 2460: 2459: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2426:Exploding Boy 2423: 2420: 2418: 2415: 2413: 2408: 2403: 2400: 2397: 2395: 2392: 2387: 2383: 2380: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2365: 2361: 2358: 2356: 2353: 2348: 2346: 2340: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2309: 2304: 2297: 2292: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2280: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2269: 2262: 2257: 2250: 2246: 2243: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2216: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2204: 2197: 2192: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2181: 2162: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2149: 2146: 2144: 2141: 2139: 2134: 2131: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2096:per Schmidt. 2095: 2092: 2090: 2087: 2079: 2075: 2073: 2067: 2064: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2045: 2042: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2025: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2008: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1991: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1974: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1957: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1942: 1939: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1918: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1897: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1880: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1867: 1864: 1862: 1859: 1856: 1850: 1847: 1844: 1842: 1839: 1838: 1836: 1823: 1820: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1805: 1802: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1785: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1768: 1766: 1763: 1761: 1755: 1752: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1735: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1718: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1701: 1699: 1696: 1694: 1689: 1681: 1678: 1676: 1673: 1671: 1669: 1661: 1658: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1645:all the way. 1644: 1641: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1629: 1625: 1620: 1616: 1613: 1611: 1608: 1605: 1601: 1598: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1577: 1575: 1572: 1571: 1566: 1558: 1555: 1553: 1549: 1547: 1544: 1537: 1534: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1517: 1515: 1511: 1505: 1499: 1496: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1479: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1462: 1460: 1457: 1454: 1450: 1447: 1445: 1442: 1439: 1436: 1434: 1430: 1429: 1422: 1421: 1414: 1411: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1395: 1392: 1390: 1387: 1384: 1383: 1376: 1373: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1361: 1356: 1350: 1347: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1323: 1319: 1318:Contributions 1314: 1313: 1312: 1305: 1302: 1300: 1296: 1295: 1285: 1281: 1278: 1270: 1266: 1261: 1256: 1251: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1241: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1231: 1229: 1227: 1219: 1218: 1216: 1212: 1207: 1202: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1184: 1176: 1172: 1167: 1166: 1157: 1154: 1152: 1149: 1147: 1144: 1143: 1141: 1137: 1131: 1128: 1126: 1123: 1121: 1118: 1116: 1113: 1111: 1108: 1107: 1105: 1101: 1095: 1092: 1090: 1087: 1086: 1084: 1080: 1071: 1066: 1064: 1059: 1057: 1052: 1051: 1048: 1039: 1038: 1036: 1032: 1023: 1019: 1014: 1010: 1007: 1004: 1001: 998: 995: 992: 989: 986: 983: 980: 977: 974: 970: 967: 963: 960: 957: 954: 950: 945: 944: 938: 931: 928: 919: 916: 915: 912: 909: 908: 903: 900: 892: 891:Andy Kaufmann 887: 884: 883: 881: 878: 877: 870: 866: 862: 857: 854: 853: 852: 849: 840: 836: 831: 828: 827: 825: 821: 818: 817: 812: 809: 800: 796: 793: 792: 790: 786: 781: 778: 776: 772: 771: 766: 763: 754: 751: 750: 749: 745: 741: 737: 733: 729: 725: 720: 716: 712: 708: 704: 700: 697: 694: 690: 686: 685: 680: 677: 668: 665: 664: 661: 658: 657: 652: 649: 640: 637: 636: 634: 631: 628: 623: 620: 619: 614: 611: 603: 600: 599: 597: 593: 590: 588: 584: 583: 578: 575: 566: 561: 558: 557: 555: 551: 547: 544: 543: 540: 536: 535: 530: 527: 518: 515: 514: 513: 510: 507: 499: 496: 488: 487: 486: 482: 478: 474: 471: 470: 469: 466: 457: 454: 453: 452: 449: 446: 442: 439: 430: 427: 426: 425: 422: 419: 418: 417: 412: 408: 407: 406: 399: 396: 388: 384: 379: 376: 375: 373: 369: 365: 360: 357: 354: 350: 346: 345: 340: 337: 336: 326: 323: 322: 319: 315: 312: 310: 306: 305: 300: 297: 296: 286: 283: 282: 279: 275: 271: 267: 263: 260: 258: 254: 253: 247: 243: 239: 235: 231: 226: 223: 222: 220: 217: 216: 209: 205: 201: 197: 193: 189: 184: 181: 180: 178: 175: 174: 167: 162: 159: 158: 156: 153: 152: 151: 141: 138: 129: 126: 125: 124: 123: 119: 118: 108: 102: 100: 97: 94: 91: 85: 81: 77: 73: 70: 67: 63: 55: 54: 48: 41: 35: 32: 27: 26: 19: 4489: 4486: 4473: 4472: 4466: 4449: 4380: 4376: 4372: 4369: 4364: 4359: 4351: 4347: 4334: 4330: 4323: 4304: 4231: 4173: 4161: 4157: 4153: 4145: 4139: 4133: 4131: 4122: 4120: 4113: 4107: 4103: 4099: 4089: 4079: 4075: 4071: 4065: 4058: 4048: 4042: 4036: 4029: 4027: 4017: 4006: 4001: 3994: 3983: 3979: 3974: 3953: 3935: 3913: 3897: 3893: 3888: 3599: 3566: 3522: 3439: 3435: 3331: 3323: 3287: 3275: 3221: 3032: 2996: 2974: 2955: 2908: 2907: 2874: 2870: 2845: 2844: 2843:Seems fine. 2840: 2822: 2821: 2818:Weak support 2817: 2800: 2791: 2789: 2782: 2753: 2741: 2735: 2729: 2690: 2683: 2670: 2658: 2653: 2642: 2626: 2609: 2592: 2585: 2576: 2559: 2527: 2511: 2506: 2479: 2461: 2457: 2438: 2421: 2402: 2398: 2381: 2363: 2359: 2344: 2338: 2147: 2137: 2132: 2115: 2098:FeydHuxtable 2093: 2071: 2065: 2043: 2026: 2009: 1992: 1975: 1958: 1940: 1923: 1919: 1903:implications 1902: 1898: 1881: 1865: 1845: 1825: 1821: 1803: 1786: 1769: 1759: 1753: 1736: 1722:as per nom. 1719: 1702: 1683: 1679: 1663: 1659: 1642: 1634:push to talk 1623: 1614: 1599: 1578: 1561: 1556: 1539: 1535: 1518: 1480: 1463: 1448: 1424: 1416: 1412: 1397: 1393: 1381:Juliancolton 1378: 1359: 1354: 1348: 1331: 1309: 1308: 1303: 1292: 1279: 1239: 1221: 1191: 1170: 1028: 1027: 1005: 999: 993: 987: 981: 975: 968: 961: 955: 936: 917: 910: 885: 879: 855: 829: 819: 798: 794: 779: 752: 735: 731: 727: 723: 718: 714: 710: 706: 702: 698: 666: 659: 638: 627:The Guardian 621: 601: 591: 564: 559: 545: 516: 508: 455: 447: 428: 420: 415: 404: 386: 382: 377: 358: 329: 324: 313: 289: 284: 261: 234:Afrocentrism 224: 218: 200:Mixe-Zoquean 196:Oto-Manguean 182: 176: 160: 154: 149: 127: 115: 103: 87: 68: 52: 51: 46: 30: 28: 4454:AdjustShift 3889:Weak Oppose 3825:Certainly. 3768:Ottava Rima 3744:Ottava Rima 3698:Ottava Rima 3667:Ottava Rima 3637:Ottava Rima 3608:Ottava Rima 3572:six minutes 3202:AdjustShift 3188:AdjustShift 3156:AdjustShift 3125:AdjustShift 3098:AdjustShift 3073:AdjustShift 3018:AdjustShift 3014:Will Beback 3012:comment of 3004:comment of 2942:AdjustShift 2705:—Preceding 2582:Airplaneman 2369:Plutonium27 2324:Ottava Rima 2225:Ottava Rima 1886:Newyorkbrad 1854:Gordonrox24 1809:Pastor Theo 1503:Pmlineditor 1156:User rights 1146:CentralAuth 670:notability. 596:WP:SNOWBALL 556:candidate? 4080:"WP:CIVIL" 3962:Weatherman 3523:S Marshall 3473:Keepscases 3444:Irbisgreif 3422:Keepscases 3394:Keepscases 3326:Aaroncrick 3236:Keepscases 3226:Keepscases 3040:justified" 2805:Off2riorob 2785:Balloonman 2564:Ijanderson 2509:Why not? - 2411:Weatherman 2364:but futile 2151:Keepscases 2072:S Marshall 1946:Dougweller 1604:Antandrus 1587:PhilKnight 1419:Aaroncrick 1399:SparksBoy 1330:. Anyhow. 1139:Cross-wiki 1130:AfD closes 1042:Discussion 309:Balloonman 278:verifiable 266:notability 190:, general 169:deletions. 58:Nomination 31:successful 4474:Wizardman 4379:, and to 4272:Talk:Cult 4246:talk:Cult 4215:talk:Cult 4057:(because 3759:Sebastian 3716:Sebastian 3627:Sebastian 3589:review me 3363:review me 3310:Ironholds 3292:Ironholds 3250:Ironholds 2914:NYScholar 2684:Aww nuts! 2494:ThaddeusB 2302:review me 2279:Sebastian 2267:review me 2242:Sebastian 2215:Sebastian 2202:review me 2180:Sebastian 1760:Matheuler 1724:Tiggerjay 1707:Likeminas 1453:Rigadoun 1237:Yes. :) → 1125:AfD votes 1120:BLP edits 991:block log 861:ThaddeusB 775:ThaddeusB 587:ThaddeusB 257:ThaddeusB 4507:Category 4401:·Maunus· 4315:three... 4276:·Maunus· 4250:·Maunus· 4219:·Maunus· 3875:A Nobody 3862:·Maunus· 3818:A Nobody 3684:·Maunus· 3652:Ling.Nut 3623:partisan 3548:Ling.Nut 3488:·Maunus· 3409:·Maunus· 3174:·Maunus· 3112:·Maunus· 3055:·Maunus· 2979:Pgallert 2960:Ling.Nut 2888:contribs 2854:Mountain 2758:Dekimasu 2719:contribs 2707:unsigned 2546:·Maunus· 2399:Support. 2391:A Nobody 1774:Rsheptak 1619:criteria 1542:iMatthew 1485:Pgallert 1336:Ling.Nut 1280:Support, 1103:Analysis 1082:Counters 959:contribs 923:·Maunus· 895:·Maunus· 856:Comment: 844:·Maunus· 804:·Maunus· 789:WP:BLP1E 758:·Maunus· 672:·Maunus· 644:·Maunus· 606:·Maunus· 570:·Maunus· 539:Dekimasu 522:·Maunus· 491:·Maunus· 477:Jclemens 461:·Maunus· 434:·Maunus· 391:·Maunus· 383:possible 331:·Maunus· 291:·Maunus· 133:·Maunus· 72:contribs 4467:Neutral 4450:Neutral 4419:Uncle G 4385:Uncle G 4305:Neutral 4299:Neutral 4174:Comment 3033:Comment 2871:Support 2841:Support 2832:xplicit 2801:Support 2754:Support 2730:Support 2671:Support 2647:WP:CLUE 2643:Support 2627:Support 2614:Protonk 2610:Support 2593:Support 2577:Support 2560:Support 2507:Support 2480:Support 2439:Support 2422:Support 2382:Support 2360:Support 2339:Support 2148:Support 2138:Caspian 2133:Support 2116:Support 2094:Support 2066:Support 2044:Support 2027:Support 2010:Support 1997:Wehwalt 1993:Support 1976:Support 1959:Support 1941:Support 1920:Support 1907:Deville 1899:Support 1882:Support 1866:Support 1846:Support 1822:Support 1804:Support 1791:Richard 1787:Support 1770:Support 1754:Support 1737:Support 1720:Support 1703:Support 1680:Support 1660:Support 1643:Support 1615:Support 1579:Support 1557:Support 1536:Support 1519:Support 1498:Support 1481:Support 1464:Support 1449:Support 1413:Support 1394:Support 1375:Support 1360:thoreau 1304:Support 1250:King of 1196:King of 1181:Support 966:deleted 859:does.-- 642:relist. 411:Uncle G 387:However 188:Nahuatl 80:Nahuatl 4435:Stifle 4356:Timmeh 4326:Stifle 4051:WP:NPA 3936:Oppose 3847:Stifle 3804:Stifle 3729:Alan16 3600:Oppose 3567:Oppose 3222:Oppose 3092:page. 2998:given. 2918:WT:BAN 2902:Oppose 2849:Little 2774:(tock) 2517:ASTILY 2176:emself 2031:Alan16 1687:hmwith 1624:javért 1607:(talk) 1456:(talk) 1240:javért 1171:javért 1089:XTools 949:Maunus 842:tough! 211:camps. 194:, the 62:Maunus 47:Maunus 4377:write 4375:, to 4072:third 3440:After 3267:cjllw 2956:being 2931:Sarah 2877:Dylan 2711:Naoy5 2676:Abce2 2654:Jamie 2532:harej 1869:Erik9 1284:cjllw 1192:first 1031:civil 973:count 107:cjllw 16:< 4458:talk 4439:talk 4423:talk 4389:talk 4373:edit 4365:more 4348:more 4341:and 4263:Milo 4236:Milo 4165:Milo 4064:... 3997:here 3957:Athe 3944:talk 3901:Talk 3851:talk 3837:and 3829:and 3808:talk 3772:talk 3748:talk 3733:talk 3702:talk 3671:talk 3656:talk 3641:talk 3612:talk 3604:here 3552:talk 3535:Cont 3477:talk 3463:talk 3448:talk 3426:talk 3398:talk 3383:talk 3334:talk 3314:talk 3306:this 3296:talk 3277:TALK 3263:This 3254:talk 3240:talk 3230:talk 3206:talk 3192:talk 3160:talk 3151:Here 3129:talk 3102:talk 3077:talk 3022:talk 3010:this 3008:and 3002:this 2993:this 2983:talk 2964:talk 2946:talk 2936:See 2892:logs 2809:talk 2771:Shii 2736:Banj 2715:talk 2618:talk 2601:talk 2568:talk 2536:talk 2498:talk 2484:CLUE 2465:Talk 2447:talk 2430:talk 2406:Athe 2373:talk 2328:talk 2229:talk 2155:talk 2140:blue 2124:talk 2102:talk 2084:Cont 2057:talk 2051:. 2035:talk 2018:talk 2001:talk 1984:talk 1967:talk 1950:talk 1932:talk 1924:bold 1911:Talk 1890:talk 1873:talk 1849:Clue 1813:talk 1795:talk 1778:talk 1745:talk 1728:talk 1711:talk 1651:talk 1591:talk 1583:this 1527:talk 1509:Talk 1489:talk 1472:talk 1438:Step 1427:talk 1404:talk 1368:)RT 1366:talk 1340:talk 1328:Soap 1311:Soap 1294:TALK 1217:|}} 1018:here 1003:rfar 985:logs 953:talk 911:14a. 865:talk 820:13a. 785:WP:N 744:talk 730:and 709:and 693:talk 660:11b. 622:11a. 481:talk 368:talk 353:talk 117:TALK 78:and 66:talk 4360:too 4312:two 4309:One 4232:you 4159:me. 4094:to 3582:meh 3577:Tim 3436:now 3379:NVO 3356:meh 3351:Tim 3288:him 2882:620 2781:--- 2734:-- 2661:S93 2424:. 2345:Axl 2295:meh 2290:Tim 2260:meh 2255:Tim 2195:meh 2190:Tim 2053:Joe 1600:Yes 1569:Why 1550:at 1523:NVO 1441:hen 1355:Red 1009:spi 979:AfD 880:14. 799:and 780:13. 756:do? 592:10. 198:or 4509:: 4460:) 4441:) 4425:) 4391:) 4111:. 4018:• 4007:• 3946:) 3919:am 3916:At 3894:NW 3853:) 3810:) 3774:) 3750:) 3735:) 3704:) 3673:) 3658:) 3643:) 3614:) 3554:) 3479:) 3465:) 3450:) 3438:? 3428:) 3400:) 3385:) 3338:) 3316:) 3298:) 3256:) 3242:) 3208:) 3194:) 3162:) 3131:) 3104:) 3079:) 3071:. 3024:) 3016:. 2985:) 2966:) 2948:) 2929:, 2894:) 2890:, 2811:) 2762:よ! 2744:oi 2721:) 2717:• 2620:) 2603:) 2570:) 2538:) 2500:) 2492:-- 2458:NW 2449:) 2432:) 2375:) 2330:) 2231:) 2174:th 2169:ey 2167:th 2157:) 2126:) 2104:) 2059:) 2037:) 2020:) 2003:) 1986:) 1969:) 1952:) 1934:) 1913:) 1892:) 1875:) 1857:| 1831:am 1828:At 1815:) 1797:) 1780:) 1747:) 1730:) 1713:) 1653:) 1636:) 1593:) 1564:So 1529:) 1491:) 1474:) 1431:) 1406:) 1385:| 1342:) 1334:. 1267:♠ 1213:♠ 1194:! 997:lu 918:A: 886:A: 867:) 830:A: 795:A: 753:A. 746:) 699:12 667:A. 639:A. 602:A. 565:is 560:A: 546:Q: 517:A: 509:Q: 483:) 456:A: 448:Q: 429:A: 421:Q: 378:A: 374:. 370:) 359:6. 325:A: 314:5. 285:A: 262:4. 244:, 240:, 236:, 232:, 225:A: 219:3. 183:A: 177:2. 161:A: 155:1. 101:.) 98:, 95:, 92:, 36:. 4456:( 4437:( 4421:( 4405:· 4403:ƛ 4387:( 4280:· 4278:ƛ 4254:· 4252:ƛ 4223:· 4221:ƛ 4182:. 4087:. 4049:" 3942:( 3922:a 3904:) 3898:( 3866:· 3864:ƛ 3849:( 3806:( 3770:( 3746:( 3731:( 3700:( 3688:· 3686:ƛ 3669:( 3654:( 3639:( 3610:( 3592:) 3586:( 3550:( 3531:/ 3492:· 3490:ƛ 3475:( 3461:( 3446:( 3424:( 3413:· 3411:ƛ 3396:( 3381:( 3366:) 3360:( 3330:( 3312:( 3294:( 3271:ʘ 3252:( 3238:( 3228:( 3204:( 3190:( 3178:· 3176:ƛ 3158:( 3127:( 3116:· 3114:ƛ 3100:( 3075:( 3059:· 3057:ƛ 3020:( 2981:( 2962:( 2944:( 2886:( 2859:5 2825:Σ 2807:( 2742:b 2738:e 2713:( 2679:| 2632:œ 2616:( 2599:( 2566:( 2550:· 2548:ƛ 2534:( 2514:F 2496:( 2468:) 2462:( 2445:( 2428:( 2371:( 2350:¤ 2326:( 2305:) 2299:( 2270:) 2264:( 2227:( 2205:) 2199:( 2153:( 2122:( 2100:( 2080:/ 2055:( 2033:( 2016:( 1999:( 1982:( 1965:( 1948:( 1930:( 1909:( 1888:( 1871:( 1834:a 1811:( 1793:( 1776:( 1743:( 1741:B 1726:( 1709:( 1692:t 1649:( 1589:( 1525:( 1487:( 1470:( 1423:( 1402:( 1364:( 1338:( 1315:/ 1288:ʘ 1264:♣ 1259:♦ 1254:♥ 1210:♣ 1205:♦ 1200:♥ 1069:e 1062:t 1055:v 1021:. 1011:) 1006:· 1000:· 994:· 988:· 982:· 976:· 969:· 962:· 956:· 951:( 927:· 925:ƛ 899:· 897:ƛ 863:( 848:· 846:ƛ 808:· 806:ƛ 762:· 760:ƛ 742:( 736:A 732:C 728:B 724:A 719:A 715:A 711:C 707:B 703:A 695:) 691:( 676:· 674:ƛ 648:· 646:ƛ 610:· 608:ƛ 574:· 572:ƛ 526:· 524:ƛ 495:· 493:ƛ 479:( 465:· 463:ƛ 438:· 436:ƛ 395:· 393:ƛ 366:( 355:) 351:( 335:· 333:ƛ 295:· 293:ƛ 137:· 135:ƛ 111:ʘ 69:· 64:( 40:.

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

Knowledge

:Requests for adminship/Maunus - Knowledge

Index