Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Pbsouthwood

10245:

namespace, namely the draftspace. There was an RFC questioning the propriety of this. You may have not noticed. That's because it was shut down before any discussion challenging the status quo could occur. One of the editors at the forefront of gaming process to shut that discussion down was ol' Roger Dodger. Do those of you who asserted that I had no basis for opposing his RFA still feel that way? Just curious. Moving ahead to the present, from what has come across my watchlist since the RFC has closed, I see the exact same scenario, namely WikiProject Portals hijacking the entire portal namespace. I didn't have time to participate in the RFC, but my take on it was that it part of the ongoing war against local consensus and against those who come to build the encyclopedia organically, rather than build a "one size fits all" product that's obsessed with looking a certain way at the expense of considerations such as whether the content is credible or useful. As there is no savings in disk space in deleting 150,000 pages, the objective must be to continue the "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" attitude that a small subset of the community have towards the rest of the community and the readership in general. Rather than mass-deleting content which isn't harmful, a better solution would be to mark it as historica, move it to project namespace and let individual WikiProjects choose whether or not they find particular elements useful to their own purposes in improving the encyclopedia. Then again, it's the issue of "one size fits all" and the war against local consensus. Many of the more active WikiProjects serve as venues to push the POV that their favored cherry-picked sources = "the only reliable sources in all of existence". The vast majority of the remainder of WikiProjects are in such a moribund state that it's questionable why they even exist. I see no net benefit to all this except to further indulge the "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" crowd. Also, Q10 suggests that we would wind up with yet another admin who is more interested in being reactive than proactive. I'm not very familiar with the short description issue. From what I've seen, though, stopping Wikidata creep from overtaking this project is a good thing, so there does appear to be a positive from his work.

749:

fron one based on multiple transcluded subpages to one based on the new templates on one page or a smaller set of subpages, it would be reasonable to conclude that there are no other portal maintainers watching the specific portal who have any objections to the new style and developments, and the redundant subpages truly are redundant, in that no-one will read their content again except as a maintenance item. Either the content will have been transferred to the new style portal, or new content on the portal page will have superceded the subpage. The project is applying the new stucture only where there is no objection from portal maintainers - the option of retaining a sub-page structure is being respected. There is no current project consensus for a waiting time before deletion to allow for portal page watchers who are not active daily, but I think that a reasonable waiting time would be prudent. My intention is to check the portal talk page in each case before deleting the subpages to ensure that no objections to the new system are present and unresolved, allowing local consensus in each case. This procedure may change as we gain experience. If you (or anyone else) have any suggestions for a better process, please let us know at the project talk page, we do not want to disrupt Knowledge in our enthusiasm to improve portals. · · ·

9562:

opposing. First of all, I have no problem with an RfA for the express purpose of using the permissions for just one thing, and I've tried to think of a way that I could support on that basis. And I tend to think that the deleting work with portals would be a net positive. Furthermore, I like it when a candidate admits to not knowing about some things, and I much prefer that to someone who might rush into something unprepared. But I also think that SMcCandlish makes a very good point about choosing to do some tasks the slow way, so I do not see an absolute need for the tools, more like it would just be helpful to have them. So the question is: what happens if the admin then decides to do other admin tasks, beyond the specified portal work? I see some reason to believe that this candidate can be trusted, based on their track record, to act responsibly in that event. But I also see some reasons to lack that confidence. Some of the edit summary stuff does strike me as doing things one's own way, without much caring what others think. And that third-person nomination is, for me, something far-from-trivial. It's really bizarre, and off-putting. It really concerns me, because it was a conscious choice about how to present oneself. And that leaves me, regretfully, with just enough worries about giving

10917:, I think that there may be a difference in the way the tools assess the presence of an edit summary, but I am only guessing. My guess is that the global one counts section headings saved as part of the edit summary, which would give an inflated value, and the other one only counts what I have actually added to the summary box which would be in line with my own estimate that roughly 50% is close to the mark. I do often forget, and feel it a bit of a waste of time when I have an under construction notice up and do a couple of dozen consecutive edits, many of them typo corrections or similarly trivial edits, to write an edit summary which may be an order of magnitude longer than the actual edit. If someone is going to look at those diffs they are likely to look at them all at once. I am actually less likely to use an edit summary outside of mainspace as I don't see the point. Taking that over 75% of my edits are in mainspace, the global edit summary count should be slightly less if different at all.· · · 7787:- I have nothing in particular against this editor, but as long as administrator capabilities cannot be unbundled, and there is no community-based desysopping procedure, T am opposed in principle to granting editors admin rights for a specific project which will last a finite period of time. I take Pbsouthwood at their word that what they want the bit for is to do a specific task, but there's nothing whatsoever to stop them from using their rights to do anything else an admin can do, and there's no way to guarantee that they'll voluntarily turn in the bit after the project is over (which I don't believe they've said they would do anyway). I think handing out bits under circumstances such as this is a bad precedent to set, and suggest that instead of Pbsouthwood (or anyone else) being made an admin for the needs of the Portal Project, the Project should attract the attention of one of the many admins who underutilize their powers to help do the necessary deletions. 10210:- I'm sorry to have to oppose, as you're a wonderful editor. Much like others who have previously commented, I am concerned that the reason for your RfA is a bit too narrow. I'm not certain that I approve of single-purpose mop tools in general, especially when we have other admins who you could work with to complete this task so that you won't have to use tools that you yourself seem a bit unsure about having (in your answer to Q7, you indicate that you would be perfectly fine with giving up the tools when they aren't needed by you anymore. While being free to relinquish tools at any time is a good quality for an admin, it almost seems prophetic that you will end up not needing or using the tools after your task with WikiProject Portals is completed.) Although I think your edits are great and you could certainly be a sysop with your general knowledge about the project, I just don't think you require access to the tools right now for this specific purpose. 8891:- I also thank the editor for standing for the admin post, but don’t believe they have made nearly a strong enough case for the tools. Just today an admin got a 24 hour block for behavior that I find unbelievable, and that should have been dealt with before now. But no. The admins have become a caste, and since this editor is up for a lifetime power pass, which it is very difficult to take back, or even meaningfully discipline in a timely fashion, I want to see some evidence of experience in the admin realm. Since I haven’t got it, I will !vote oppose with regret, but with the strong belief that this is the best move, preferring to err on the side of caution. Advice: Do some AfD work, a good chunk of anti-vandalism effort, things like that. The phrase “...other admin work on request...” is vague and disturbing. May your deletions go well, but you do not need the block button for them. Adminship is indeed a big deal, in my view. 4227:- the nomination wording is poorly judged; it's in the third person, it's vague about the admin roles on other projects, and it's asking for a single purpose use for the tools, which is not even needed, given the nature of that purpose. So, given that, it's understandable why people are voting oppose - the nomination wording suggests a moment of poor judgement and a lack of taking care. If you are going to self-nom, then make damn sure you get it right. We are a collegiate project, and there's much to be gained from getting someone to look over your nomination even if you intend to do a self-nom. But, that aside, what I'm seeing is an experienced, useful, and willing user who has no genuine red flags. If they had consulted with someone, and that person had nominated them, avoiding the mistakes that Pbsouthwood has made in his wording, we would be likely seeing a 100% support at this time, as Pbsouthwood is a viable candidate. 5758:

will not abuse the tools, will be careful in getting into areas with which he is not familiar and will continue to contribute to the project in a positive way. I trust, at least with some degree of confidence based on his record, that he will not venture into areas with which he is not familiar without some study and help. I would certainly have liked him to have had more than minimal familiarity with a few more admin tasks but I think he has shown the overall skills. Any contribution to the admin tasks will be helpful. A net positive, a good demeanor and good interactions; that is certainly more than enough to justify giving him the mop. (I come to this conclusion after considering this for a few days and despite seeing users and administrators in the opposes who I frequently agree with. I would agree with their concerns enough to tip the balance in many cases, but I conclude we are on the other side of the line here.)

1061:

tecnical understanding which I lack. Those are the areas where errors are more likely, and it would be irresponsible to accept a high risk of error just because one has the access to do something and that thing needs to be done. I come from a professional background where one does not take unneccessary chances. Few people are likely to die if a Knowledge admin messes up, but these habits of caution are ingrained by now. I suppose it also depends on how ones defines comfort zones and what level of comfort is chosen as the limit. Maybe we differ on this point. Risk assessment in situations where other people's lives could depend on it was part of my work. Another part was getting the job done without undue cost or delay. As you may imagine, these requirements can conflict. One becomes comfottable with these circumstances by taking gradual steps and consulting experts when indicated. · · ·

11116:. Just having experience at deleting portals at CSD, I personally feel more comfortable if it is at least a 2-step process - nominated by one editor, and deleted by another. CSD has a Batch Deletion function that is available to admins. An admin sees a lengthy list of portals nominated for deletion, and they can delete a batch of hundreds in a matter of seconds. I'm estimating that there have been a few hundred portals processed this way recently. But as I say, I feel more comfortable with it being a two-step process - the editor who deletes is not the same as the nominator. If someone is part of the WikiProject Portals that is involved in the nominating of those deletions, I don't know the impact. Given that the nominator wants the whole bundle of otherwise unrelated tools for facilitating this specific function, I just don't know how I feel about that. 8996:- firstly, kudos for their article creation work. Article creation is hard work and often undervalued. I look for article creation in potential admins so that, when they delete articles, they understand, first hand, the hard work they are undoing. However, article creation requires a different skill from being an admin and that alone is not sufficient. The candidate's cavalier attitude to edit summaries, which fails to recognise why they save work for other editors, concerns me. I am also concerned by the statement "would be willing to consider other admin work on request,". I would expect a potential admin to have identified areas where there are backlogs, gained experience in those areas and volunteer to assist; not waiting and hoping to be asked. I would encourage a future application when they have gained broader experience in admin areas. 2457:, in which they point out that, far from being easy, G6 arguably demands the most nuanced treatment of all the CSD criteria. I also acknowledge the paucity of the candidate's deletion work. I still, in fact, agree with much of their reasoning. I've landed here, however—both because of the self-nom, which I admire, and in spite of the use of third-person, which p*sses me off prodigiously—with the suggestion that PBS spend a week or two with under G6-mentoring, just to get a feel of the thing. Meh, maybe that's not necessary. But at the end of the day, I have no reason to doubt PBS' premise regarding the number of potential deletions nor the lack of admin activity in that area, and that's an equation in urgent need of a solution. We regularly give the bit to those whose sole interest is in clearing backlogs, and this seems to be writ large. 8046:

the tools, at least at first, even if he has the best of intentions. He would indeed almost certainly learn on the job, but I think that admins should show some experience beforehand so that they have already done a significant part of the learning before getting the job, and thus make smaller and fewer mistakes when they do become admins, because a mistaken admin action is harder to reverse than a mistaken non-admin action. Without the ability to confidently predict that these mistakes won't happen, I can't support in good conscience. Additionally (and relatedly), I don't think editors should be given the sysop bit just to perform one task. We can evaluate him very well for that task indeed, but the sysop bit lets him do many others which we can't evaluate him for yet. I am uncomfortable with relaxing this, especially because (as

5424:, I disagree with that. Responsibility doesn't mean the same things as complete understanding, it means a willingness to admit when you don't know something, learn from others, and seek advice and consensus. We have plenty of evidence that Peter will do that as an admin, because by all accounts he's done things that way throughout his time on the Wiki. The only possibility for something to go wrong is if he suddenly "goes rogue" after he's granted the bit, and starts going round doing inappropriate admin activities, which would be completely out of character, given what we know about him. But that sort of rogue behaviour could take place with any promoted RFA candidate, even one who had worked extensively in admin areas before. It's why temperament is probably the number one thing people look for in their candidates. — 8194:

this point (if he hasn't done it already), which he has stated he would do in his answers, should inform him that this is normal practice. Then he can still request the closer to explain if he disagrees strongly, as he said he would. I don't see much damage arising from this; instead I am pleased that it shows the value he places on respecting consensus, which is what made me pleased with his Q12 and Q25 answers. What I am more worried about is mistakes that actually require admin actions to overturn, but in this case he is not making such a mistake but reversing one. That doesn't make me less worried that in other admin areas he might make such mistakes due to his lack of experience, though, and I still don't think he really needs the tools for what he seeks to do with them.

7769:

quite likely to screw up. The candidate has very little experience of these areas, which is fine (most editors don't) but I think it's problematic in an RfA candidate. Being an admin on Wikivoyage and the Wikimania 2018 wiki (the "other WMF projects" referred to in the nomination) doesn't do much to address this. I'm sure Pbsouthwood would be perfectly capable of deleting unnecessary portal subpages but that is a very low bar and there wouldn't be anything to stop him from doing anything else. As an aside if there is going to be a big backlog of portal subpage deletions which can't be dealt with through the normal mechanisms (which I doubt) then I'd suggest looking into automated or semi-automated mechanisms to speed it up instead of appointing special admins.

97:, where a major drive to improve the system of portals on the encyclopedia is under way. This work is expected to include the deletion of something in the order of 150 000 subpages. which is a significant amount of work. Pbsouthwood, as a member of the project, is willing to take on some of this work, but to delete pages, the admin bit is required, hence this RfA. Pbsouthwood is an admin on other WMF projects, and has not yet recieved complaints of inappropriate admin actions or uncivil interpersonal behaviour. He would be quite happy to get just the necessary subset of admin permissions to do this job for the duration, but that is not currently an option. This RfA is in response to a specific and current need, hence the self-nom. · · · 9733:

a side note I would like to address the perennial "need for the tools" question. The fact is that very few editors have a practical need for the tools. However the community has a real and growing need for competent editors who are able and willing to take up the tools and use them for the benefit of the project. The whole "why do you need the tools" question has been one that to my mind demonstrates a misconception of what RfA is about. We are not giving a tool set to people who have a specific need for them in their area of interest. We are giving a broad set of tools to editors who have demonstrated a record that shows clue, competency, and a desire to help the project where their having the tools would benefit the community. -

11865:

last RFA before this one was, although it was still in the discretionary range at the time of the candidate withdrawing, was unusual in that it amassed huge support with little opposition in the first few days, and then started sliding steadily down. This one, on the other hand, other than the first day, when the support % was up higher than now, has had a trickle of both supports and opposes in roughly a 70-30 ratio throughout its life. I also remain hopeful that a few of the opposes may decide in the coming days that actually community norms on this issue have changed since 2013, and that trustworthiness and experience trump demonstrated need and active participation. But we shall see. —

9109:. No need for adminship, and the request is for one singular task; that's not how administrative status works. If there's a lengthy task that tools would expedite, report it and ask for help. The fact that the candidate is self-nominating, referring to himself in third person, has little or no experience in administrative areas, doesn't use edit summaries, and still lacks substantial knowledge about a whole lot of Knowledge after all these years and all these edits, means this is a candidate unsuitable for adminship. I urge the candidate to return to doing the good wiki-work they were presumably doing before this RFA, and ask for help in whatever large-scale task they wish to accomplish. 2245:), I shan't debate with you (and you know why). I think your opposition (and those of most of my other fellow editors below) is quite fair and absolutely relevant here, and more so as I think that the many inexperienced fly-by editors who're !voting above and below need informed and knowledgeable comments to hone their decisions. Honestly, I am pleased when someone writes "Per Amory" while opposing than writing some other irrelevant reason. My point of view has also been placed in the same lines – for editors to know why I and others are supporting PBS. I honestly don't believe PBS would screw up. We need to change the way we hand out admin tools. It's not about inexperience for me – 5619:- Nearly every RFA includes a candidate admitting they're not comfortable or familiar with some area of admin responsibility or another. Everyone gravitates toward certain areas of interest. For most admin candidates, that's AfD, AIV, RPP, SPI, etc. This may be different in scope, but it's no different from an admin candidate who will specialize in vandalism or sockpuppetry. I'm sure there are very few admins who use all of the buttons that the bit makes available to them. While I'd prefer some version of unbundling to handle cases like this, this is a user volunteering to take on a thankless task to improve the encyclopedia. Isn't that more or less the short definition of admin? ‑‑ 6995:

them. But it's only us who make it vaguer by believing that adminship needs to be much, much more than autopatrolled, a reasonable tenure and a clean block log – to this I'll add civility and knowing what not to do with the tools (which PBS absolutely understands). What risk do we engender when we promote admins who have the sense of humor, have contributed as content creators, are trustworthy, have a great tenure and a clean block log? We as a community need to change our view; I'm still hoping that you'll be one of those who'll be at the vanguard of this change and that you'll reconsider your oppose (and my offer still stands for you). Love, Lourdes, 04:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

896:

problem with no-one better suited to deal with it around. I would block the smallest effective range identifiable for long enough for someone more expert to become available to look at the problem. I cannot imagine a scenario where a rangeblock as extensive or as long as mentioned above would be appropriate. One or two recent edits is insufficient provocation for any block, though I would be hard pressed to state a general limit. This is not my field of expertise, so I might in a perceived emergency block an unnecessarily large range, but not for long. Schoolblocks and anonblocks are more focused and appropriate for long term problems. · · ·

248:, the "total number of unique AfD pages edited" by you is 12. Yet, you have mentioned using your tools to help with the "deletion of something in the order of 150 000 subpages." 150, 000 pages is a lot of pages, particularly if some of those page deletions are (even somewhat) controversial. Even though you may have been trusted with sysop tools and appropriately performed deletion work on other Wikimedia projects, the English Knowledge arguably has a more specific set of principles and policies (than other smaller wikis, that is). If not through AfD, how have you demonstrated your knowledge of principles and policies related to deletion work? 2348:). They're an admin already at WikiVoyage and on the Wikimania 2018 wiki, and they have advanced rights on 4 more wikis, not including enwiki where they also have an impressive contribution history and set of trusted privileges. I would normally be wary of a candidate saying "I just want the tools for this one temporary thing" due to the known difficulty of having an admin's tools removed if they mess up and won't give them up voluntarily. But I think this candidate has already demonstrated they have the competence to admin without breaking things or ruffling feathers, and I trust they'll ask for help if they run into trouble. 10587:, where I came in with the impression that he was attempting to implement something that the community didn't really want but ended up with no real cause for complaint (aside from annoyance at WMF for imposing short descriptions). Pbsouthwood seems likely to take responsibility for his use of the tools and not use them for self-serving purposes, which is the core qualification for adminship. It doesn't bother me that he has little experience related to administrative tasks in which he does not show interest, because I don't believe he'd start work in those areas without studying up. However, I do agree that 4253:. Although Pbsouthwood's immediate goal may be to acquire the delete button only to support portal cleanup, until the complete admin toolset is un-bundled, I must consider his aptitude for all potential admin functions in the future. Given his contributions to date, I have no problem with this and expect that he will in time go on to help the project in other ways. Even though I may agree with some of the points made by the oppose voters to date, I do not agree with their rationale that those points alone are sufficient to oppose the addition of a considerate, experienced editor to the admin ranks. 3727:- For the most part, the answers to the questions seem sensible, I'm seeing a low risk of you abusing the tools, you are a long term user, and you get bonus moral points for be willing to go through the "week of hell" for such a specific reason. Your answer to 20 was good, and your answer to 19 was reasonable but imperfect, though you admit that anti-vandalism isn't your area of expertise, and I wouldn't expect perfection from someone who isn't going to be focusing on vandal-fighting. If you ever venture into vandal-fighting, I sincerely hope you use common sense with blocks, particularly 5959:. With that level of introspection, I think that it really will be enough for Pbsouthwood in particular to simply read the policies before diving in. What really led me to move here is the fact that the misunderstanding of Q12 and Q25 is one that I didn't pick up on and made as well in my !vote; as a result, I think it's unfair for me to expect more of him than of myself, since XfD is not an area that either of us have much experience in. But more importantly, I think it is a natural misunderstanding if you go to XfD infrequently, only when the subject is something you can contribute to 7993:

certainly wouldn't do it, as it is not in their remit, and I doubt that it would qualify for any of the circumstances by which ArbCom would desysop. Again, with due respect to Pbsouthwood -- whom I am not familiar with -- think of those Tea Party people who were elected to Congress with the pledge that they would serve no more than X terms, but who decided to stay on, I'm sure with the best of motivations from their points of view. Here on Knowledge, history shows us that admins hold on to their bits for as long as they can do so -- again, with the best of motivations, I am certain.

8019:. That being said, this RfA seems likely to pass, and as long as Pbsouthwood listens to feedback and moves only slowly at first into other admin areas I do not think there will be real problems. What pushes me here nonetheless is that we have no guarantee that he will do so, and I don't think unbundling would solve this because deletion is one of those tools that everyone seems to agree should be admin-only. I have nothing against Pbsouthwood, and I'd like to be optimistic, but I'd have to see more experience to be convinced personally that my optimism isn't going to be misplaced. 7417:

A competent candidate really ought to have known that those are the things the community would be looking for. Even if asking for the tools for a specific task. Especially if they then acknowledge that they would use the tools beyond that task. I'm also not convinced that that task, and hence Peter's need for the tools, exists yet. What are the 150,000 subpages that will need to be deleted? Where is the consensus to delete them? What will be the process for deleting them? Despite the recent discussions about portals, I notice that the last three MfDs of them were closed as keep

3273:. Is this the strongest candidate ever for adminship? Of course not. But we're handing out useful tools to ordinary editors here, not panning for demi-gods. This user has been calm, collected and conscientous, and has responded diligently and accurately to suggestions and criticisms. Really, that's all one actually needs to be a good admin. We have a tendency to obsessively worry about a lack of experience, because it indicates an increased risk of error. But suppose he does make an error. What of it? Pages can be undeleted, closures can be oveturned, blocks can be lifted, 11564:. I think a lot of these administrators are out of touch with the content contributors, they shoot first and think later. Heck, I used to be like that as a vandal fighter. When sysops trivialize real good-faith contributions from IPs and IP ranges representing thousands or even millions of users, no matter how small, and choose to softblock large corporations, government agencies, universities, and K12 schools because stopping common test editing, like people writing "hi" or "poop" that is easily recognized and reverted (which isn't really even considered vandalism, per 11062:, but since this is here I am replying here. I'm with you on the minimal criteria, but I disagree on G6s. It's not that G6s aren't sexy, it's that G6 is one of the vaguest CSD criteria, and those noms sometimes require particularly thoughtful consideration and judgment. More to the point, Pbsouthwood has not indicated any desire to help with the usual G6 deletions like blocked page moves, merely to delete 150,000 portal subpages. As he has little to no experience in any deletion process, I would expect G6 to be the last place he should participate. ~ 7910:); the difference being that was a far more specialised role; deleting uncontroversial portal pages is not. I am unconvinced that potential administrators necessarily needs to demonstrate experience in admin-related areas, particular when it comes to editors known for their content creation (in Pete's case, they are administrator at Wikivoyage, but that is hardly an indicator of anything here). What I am concerned about is the minimal "demonstrated need" and lack of willingness to confront controversy to much extent, which is why I am opposing, sorry. 11568:) apparently trumps potential new editors' ability to edit without going through the process of requesting an account, they've apparently forgotten what it is like to be a new editor. I don't think any of us just woke up one day and said "I want to be a Wikipedian," in many (if not most) cases it was a matter of finding something we were interested in expanding, perhaps did some IP editing, and ultimately created an account. Indeed, we need more administrators who can relate to the content contributors rather than just (to be blunt) trigger-happy 4685:: "Each day since this RfA opened, I've come here, debated with myself between support, oppose, and neutral (having seriously considered all three), and then decided to sleep on it for another day before I could feel comfortable making up my mind. And I'm still not really confident that I am correct in ..." Well, Tryptofish ended up in the oppose camp and I ended up in the support camp. I really sympathise with the rationale for wanting to help out with a task that can only be performed by admins that looks daunting – deleting 150,000 pages. When 6156:) suggest that the user is slowly incorporating edit summaries into their edits; this is a small, but noticeable, sign of their willingness to receive feedback and change their actions. The editor has come to this RfA with a major, permission-needing task that they would like to help with, showing their genuine commitment to bettering the encyclopedia rather than solely hat collecting. The user is already a sysop on en-wikivoyage, so the user has already gained the trust of a Wikimedia project community. The candidate is open to recall. -- 8932:

wanted consensus to redirect it, was told to boldly redirect it and then withdrew his nomination, resulting in a speedy keep closure, which AfD stats considers to be antithetical to a delete vote, instead of the redirect that actually happened, which AfD stats considers a match. Really, there's only one time that Pbsouthwood voted against the eventual consensus, out of nine decisive closures, which I would consider to be a skilled ability to understand and apply policy at AfD for someone who has sworn no interest in closing discussions.

418:

simple short descriptions through the disambiguation template, I stopped adding them with AWB, and started deleting those I had added to dab pages. As the AWB edits had made other improvements, and there were other occasional benefits to reverting manually, I chose to take a brief look at each page before removing the redundant short description, and check that the dab templates were appropriate at the same time. This was done manually, so took a little longer, and may not have been worth the extra effort, but it was done. · · ·

2203:

who won't screw up the tools big time; and who would have the sense to converse with civility and to accept and correct mistakes as they learn from them. The tools are not keys to crashing the project. They're there to help keep the project prim on a few fronts. If PBS wishes to contribute to a narrow area than a broad one, that's commendable. And if he's made mistakes and is learning from them, more commendable. Let's encourage such volunteers; just like you all encouraged me over the years. Lourdes, 19:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

960:

need for more admins is less pressing than we are generally led to believe, or that admins are only needed in areas that do not currently interest me. If the community does not think I am needed I am quite happy to go on with my content creation and related projects. Maybe next time I need a tool it will be an unbundled one, or the need will be greater. Maybe the need will never occur again, this is the first time in 10 years that I thought I needed an admin tool enough to apply for it. It is not a big deal either way. · · ·

686:. I think it is going to create a lot of work for sysops as a by-product of its activity, and as a supporter of the project I am volunteering to deal with as much of that extra work as I feel I can handle. If there is no need for this assistance, it is no problem to me. If there is other work I can do that is useful and within my skills, I can do some of that too. I am not here to be an admin, but if by being an admin I can make enough of a difference to be worth the hassle, I feel morally obliged to make the offer. · · · 5155:(supports 71 & 121 at the time of this writing) summarize the question before us well. This is a perfect test case of whether an editor who has shown good judgement for 40,000 edits and several years should be granted administrator rights solely on the basis of that track record, or whether a candidate needs to explicitly gear up for an RFA for several months by checking the boxes in a bunch of different areas beforehand. I understand those who say the later, but I am satisfied with the former. To quote 11553:

such an excellent candidate before us - one who is willing to take on the responsibility of this thankless job of administratorship, so please forgive my incredulity over the reasons given for opposing. This year alone, our community has experienced issues with some of our admins ranging sadly from death, to retirement to being topic banned, yet the only reason I can see for opposing this candidate is because he has expressed his willingness to help perform some of the tedious work that needs to be done.

10612:- I see little about this editor that is a negative, and I think the project can use additional admins. I also think that the project can use admins that can provide help in specialized areas over large parts of the project. I’m just a tad uncomfortable with the full admin toolset used by an editor for, more or less, a specific task in a specific Wikiproject. Having said that, I respect the offer to take a major part in a time consuming task and would be happy to see my concerns proved silly. 632:

million short descriptions to stop using Wikidata, we are stuck the only practicable method of stopping WMF from using Wikidata being adding short descriptions as fast as reasonably practicable while ensuring that they are policy compliant, accurately describe the article, and are easily editable on Knowledge. It is a highly unsatisfactory imposition to many Wikipedians who took part in the RfC, but the basic consensus to add short descriptions is noted in the closing statement, and I concur.

368:, so these pages must go up for deletion through the usual channels, and will be extra work for the usual admins working on page deletion. I am willing to take on some of this work because I am a member of the project and support its goals, but cannot do it without the delete permission. As a member of the project I watch the project talk page and will see when a new batch is due for deletion, so will be able to clear up the backlog, so that other admins can concentrate on other work. · · · 5812:

make a pointless edit once every few years to hang onto the bit. If Pbsouthwood wants to branch into other admin-areas, I think it will be done with the correct amount of research and common sense (the admin experience in other, similar sites is a plus), and if a mistake is made, well there are plenty of checks and balances built into Knowledge. That said, I do agree with the ideas raised on further tool-unbundling and think it would help create higher productivity in areas that need help.

5379:". However, the question is not whether Peter will use admin tools often, but whether he will use admin tools at all outside of this one task. A lot of the evidence in the "oppose" section points to the fact that Peter doesn't participate in any admin activity at all, so there is no way of knowing whether he will be able to use admin tools responsibly. At least, with the other trusted users who don't participate in admin activities often but still gained adminship, the key word is "often". 8809:

are disqualifiers to me). And in either case he's made it clear he's not going to change unless arm-twisted into doing so. That's a giant red flag. Hint: if it comes up at RfA it's already an issue people have concerns about, not something someone might have concerns about some day. If it comes up in the formal questions section, everyone here's going to read it with particular scrutiny. The personal-cleanup-drive focus is the real show-stopper for me, though. I'm pretty much a die-hard

7642:

with, but adminship is a lifetime appointment, and I think we should consider whether the candidate has sufficient experience to apply the tools in other areas, especially since they are willing to apply them "on request" in those other areas. There is no doubt in my mind that Pbsouthwood is an excellent editor, one of our most valuable contributors, but I think a bit more experience in the back-end of Knowledge would be beneficial to the project before they take up the mop just yet.

7978:-- However, I would move to Support if he pledges to resign adminship when he finishes the project. I don't think he's qualified now for full admin rights, having very little experience in those areas, but since he appears to be a responsible editor and desires to perform a particular tedious task that requires the bit, I'm willing to give it to him, for that single purpose. So, yes, this !vote amounts to support for a de facto (or maybe it's ad hoc) unbundling of an admin power. 11699:

blocking. Perhaps it's a matter of protecting pages that don't really need to be protected? Perhaps it's a matter of deleting things that don't need to be deleted? Perhaps it's a matter of unprotecting something that should remain protected, unblocking someone who should remain blocked, or undeleting something that should remain deleted? From what I can see, this candidate seems to have a level head, but I can understand why people want to scrutinize those seeking the tools.

10562:- I have nothing against a Mop candidate wanting the rights for a major one-off: no doubt they'll always find another use for it afterwards. The problem is a lack of any real way to determine how well they'd handle it (outside of the one-off, where i'm sure he'd be good). Any significant history at all in any of AfC, AfD, CSD etc etc would give me something to go off. There's nothing to suggest an oppose, but that's because there isn't really anything to suggest, at all. 6125:. I am more compelled by the arguments in favor than those against, which is arguably a tautology given my vote, but simply because I personally write more detailed edit summaries and am puzzled by those who don't isn't a good reason to vote against someone who seems quite unlikely to do anything foolish with the tools and who will almost certainly find, once he has them, that there are other fine ways to use them besides the one that he's thinking of in particular. - 5578:– When in doubt, I feel that the most important consideration is whether the candidate can be trusted with the admin tools, based on their past experiences throughout Knowledge. From what I've seen of this user in the past, I find it unlikely that they would use the tools inappropriately. Even if they only wish to do one task with the tools, it would be a net positive for the project, as other admins won't have their valuable time taken up by the extra chores. 6507:

think he has the temperament to be a good admin. My doubts are twofold: the candidate has no experience in admin areas and although I know we need more admins, I don't know that we need more admins who don't do much with the tools. In the end I decided that he won't abuse the tools and if he ends up doing nothing more than the one deletion project, the encyclopedia is no worse off. If he does contribute by using the tools then the encyclopedia is better off.

2834:– I've had few interactions with this editor, but I accept their offer to support limited areas of the project and their promise of caution in areas outside of their usual orbit. This seems like an unusual request, but I can easily see the need for delete permission in their proposed work and no other way to get it. Does this mean we need to consider that some admins are "specialized"? – I think that's already true but this might be a more extreme example. 5963:, and simply follow the usual principle of "consensus comes first" – which is a sentiment that is hard to argue with it, so central it is to WP. In any case, all these places that we call "admin areas" (XfD, AIV, PP, etc.) are not the main attraction of WP. The main point is and has always been writing articles, and all of these side processes are simply the needed organisational structure to support that. And any mistakes that come from understanding the 1701:- I have reviewed some of the work submitted by this editor for GA & FA promotion, and was pleasantly surprised by his patience, editing skills, attitude as a collaborator, openness to criticism, and focus on the article and task at hand; all of which I find to be desirable traits in an admin. He pays attention to detail, and takes the time necessary to do the research and I believe he will apply those same positive characteristics as an admin. 9171:

that it will not be abused. In my opinion, if Pbsouthwood merely does a bit of specialized mopping, and then never anything else, it will be a net positive (regardless whether that mopping could potentially be done by someone else). If he cautiously and occasionally does other janitorial work, so much the better. It's merely a problem if he goes rogue and starts doing Bad Stuff, which given his experience and demeanour seems rather unlikely.

9894:- I thought of this for the last several days and I just can't get on board with a candidate with so little admin-like experience on the English Knowledge asking for admin rights. He is a great editor and no doubt that I would definitely support at a later time if he demonstrated more admin-like work for a bit. The need in this request is also temporary and i'd prefer that anyone with the admin tools is willing to dive into other areas. -- 8551:.In addition, the incomplete and unresearched answer to question 12 is the final and most overwhelming concern for me. Administrators must come aboard already prepared for all aspects of the assignment and use of the tools. This is not an apprenticeship position where one can look up the answers in the training manual if / and when needed. Sorry. I have no problems here with temperament, so here is a good editor that is plainly 6792:

red flags, should be promoted to admin. We do need to keep replenishing the corps, and it's likely that Pete will step up and help with other areas in due course. I applied for adminship mainly because I needed it for RM work, but now I participate in CSD, ERRORS, and even a judicious block if I come across a need for it. I'm holding fire until the experts have scrutinised this one, but I expect to add my support to it. —

7348:. You have to acknowledge at least that there was no misuse of the rollback flag here. Additionally, the candidate has stated very clear reasons for why they want adminship; there is no hint of hat collecting going on here. I have opposed this candidate, but I want to make clear it is not because of your reasons (and frankly, a number of the support comments are starting to look convincing...). I would recommend that you 10361:, You are right that I would !vote keep if I thought it should be kept, I would also not close a discussion myself after !voting either way, as being involved. However if I saw a close where I disagreed with the finding of the closer I would not delete. If mildly uneasy would I leave it to someone else, or If I disagreed strongly enough I would discuss it with the closer, who might have good reasons, or might not. · · · 8618:. It would be nice if we had some system to grant adminship for a temporary project, only to be used for that purpose. Unfortunately, we don't, and appointments are for life. Not enough experience in administrative areas for me to be comfortable with a lifetime appointment. I don't suspect you would wish to become more involved in administrative areas, but if you ever did, your work there is "sight unseen" as of now. ~ 5557:. The candidate is of course not perfect. But I have supported imperfect candidates. Who is perfect? All the hand-wringing over arbitrary statistical criteria finally irritated me to the point of supporting. Pbsouthwood is also an admin on other projects, and appears to have used it responsibly. Does anyone seriously think he'll suddenly go rogue here? His content work in the diving field makes him an overall 3853:(A few months away certainly helps clarify how silly this place can be; things that I realize are par for the course really jump out at you when you haven't used your that's-just-Knowledge-being-Knowledge filter in a while. All the carefully worded "I'm not opposing because of his use of the third person, but it bothers me enough that I highlight it first in my oppose" comments ... being upset that he won't 7424:. If mass-deletion is on the cards, I suspect it will be a while coming. If/when it does, I would rather see it done by an admin already experienced in using the deletion tools and acting on consensus. My vote might be different if we could put restrictions (technical or otherwise) on what an admin uses the tools for. Or if it were easier to desysop someone we took a risk with. But we can't and it isn't. – 5510:

are heaping praise on him. I don't think adminship was ever meant to be so exclusionary and restrictive that it was off-limits to editors such as this. I would definitely want him on the team, even with the unfortunate fact that he would be too busy with his own work to help out with the admin backlog, and I would hope that in some point in the future he would become more involved as an administrator.

8487:

reverting vandalism, nominating pages for speedy deletion and AfD. Therefore, I sadly have to oppose. Also, this is not even from months ago, only yesterday I saw the candidate add a local description to two policies and despite the user has stopped, we never add a local description to any policy pages. However, the main reason for opposing is lack of experience in core admin areas like AIV.

8069:, after all, and there's a difference between disagreeing with a closure because one doesn't like the outcome and disagreeing with a closure because one believes that it wrongly interprets the consensus of the discussion. I would be interested to see an answer to Q25 for clarification; it probably won't sway me, given that I have bigger concerns, but it could change my mind for a future RfA. 3987: 3974: 3963: 3954: 3945: 3936: 2406:. I can appreciate the concerns of anyone who opposes the idea of conferring admin rights for a single specific purpose, and there have been cases in the past where I was opposed. But if it's a candidate I would trust with all of the admin toolkit and to work on general admin tasks anyway, then that would override such concerns. Pbsouthwood is one such candidate, and I'm happy to support. 5318:- was leaning as an oppose early on, but rethinking about it perhaps it is better that Pbsouthwood is only focused on a specific area for application of the admin tools. Adminship like most roles in Knowledge has a natural learning curve to the lack of experience brought up in the oppose section is not that worrying for me. Nomenee's content work and attitude is fine, net positive. 2389:- I'ver long thought we need an assistant admin role that would be more limited in abilities and could be more freely given out and which would provide a path to full admin status or just equip an editor who wants to specialize in certain chores. This would be a prefect use, but since such a role does not exist and this editor has a long record or responsible behavior, I support.-- 6353:. My view is similar to Iridescent and several others. It's unrealistic to expect every nominee to be experienced in all the relevant areas. (Or every admin. I've had the mop for over eight years and there are some functions I've never performed or have done only a handful of times.) Temperament and judgment are far more important, and Pbsouthwood appears to have what is needed. -- 6647:— and we have plenty of sysops (myself included) who are happy to slog through boring, uncontroversial deletions (just ask Plastikspork). I admire the gung-ho attitude, but I see no evidence that the project needs Pbsouthwood to delete those pages. Since January 2016, Pete has made over 28,000 edits. In that time period, he has made exactly 0 reports to AIV, 0 reports to RFPP, 7662:

the edit summary thing is not to my liking, but it's a minor thing at best.I'm admittedly impressed by the mainspace edit count, but I just don't think it's time. This is not meant to disparage Peter's contributions, by no means; but administration is a lifetime appointment, after all, and a lack of experience in the back-end is worrisome for would-be administrators. So I'm an

8865:

and expectations (and thus would know that some do object to self-noms and that first-person statements are typical), but I'm not going to penalize someone because they didn't try to "work the system" and instead just showed up enthused to volunteer to take on the role. Not everyone is a politician or wants to act like one (even if enthusiasm isn't by itself sufficient).

6108:. I've waited a while before voting and read the oppose votes, but I'm going with support. He seems to be a reasonable person, and the only way for adminship to be "no big deal" is if people treat it as such, and stop expecting admin candidates to have a perfect record and experience in every area. It's a process that needs reforming, but this candidate is fine. 3522:. Sorry, but the oppose section is too ridiculous for me not to end up here. This editor is clearly trustworthy with the Admin tools, and has shown need for them, yet the perfect seems to have become the enemy of the good... once again. Come on guys. Great editor, plenty of relevant experience, trustworthy, with a project that requires the admin toolset. — 8927:

times he has voted at AfD, and then said that you are 142% more efficient than him, when all you've really proved is that you have voted 42% more times than him. The number of times you have voted is literally the worst metric you could use to calculate "efficiency": By that standard I am 259% percent more efficient than you, but if you actually want to

8948:. Perhaps are you planing to run yourself for a RfA. In this case, you should consider that having edited a grand total of 61 AfD is too short, and that remarks about "brain power" could raise some eyebrows. Moreover, describing 61/17 as 359% percent, even if read as 359 per cent, is questionable since 17 is largely lower than 100. Best regards. 4083:

example) makes it more likely they will be a rogue admin which the community might want to recall. The opposes based on Q12 and Q25 are more compelling, but IMO are a reflection of avoiding AfD; if a significant part of community feels that 100 AfD votes should be required of admin candidates, I encourage them to start an RfC to that effect.

1615:: Deleting redundant portal components is something that numerous people are doing by the truckload with all the portal cleanup going on and needed. I personally think Peter comes over well in discussions and knows what's going on. He seems to be an existing admin on Wikivoyage and Wikimania which is probably a good indication of something. 3235:

in other administrative areas then we have gained an admin. I wouldn't put much weight into opposes based on philosophical grounds. I have run into Pbsouthwood a few times at GA talk pages and although I disagree with them occasionally they have always been easy to talk with. Dedicated to the project and clueful. I say give them a chance.

6731:. Pete's content contributions are excellent and he has clearly spent a lot of time helping projects where his interests lie, but I see not a single thread of evidence before this RfA that he has any experience or interest in sysop work. There is some evidence Pbsouthwood has at least thought about the concept of adminship before (see 3880:. I don't care if he only uses 10% of the tools 5% of the time, he's not going to misuse them, and we should be working towards making every experienced, competent and active editor an administrator to demystify the whole thing and to address the decline in administrator numbers. I find many of the oppose votes to be rather specious. 4609:. The candidate has a good track record of quality content creation and demonstrated need for the mop (deletion during cleanup). His leadership position in Wikimania 2018 shows that he can be trusted to be an accountable Wikimedian. I think most of the opposition's comments have been unduly harsh so I land firmly on the support side. 11949:

to my personal life appear to be small and fairly balanced. That kind of reduces the stress to not very much. I appreciate the goodwill and encouragement nevertheless, as they reinforce the feeling of community which motivated this RfA. The bigness of the deal is in the eye of the beholder and depends on one's perspective. · · ·

5242:. The mainspace contribution percentage speaks for itself. I believe that no one has an immaculate edit hystory because we're humans and we all do mistakes. The question is the gravity of the mistakes and willingness to learn from them. The candidate, in my opinion, is commited and trustworthy to be trusted with sysop tools. 5602:). Adminship shouldn't be a big deal; not as in it doesn't come with responsibilities, but this very mindset should never change despite of the changing environment in the past ten years. The moment we take ourselves too seriously over any process on Knowledge is the moment the site is heading toward the wrong direction. 3738:"community trust" of administrators, it is absurd to associate five year old activity with current activity from a four year high school or college, yet some of the current administrators do exactly that, and we don't need anymore administrators like that in my opinion (actually, I would like to see the ones who do that 1450:, If it is possible to get the user to respond I will try to communicate first. Sometimes it may happen that they don't respond and a block may be urgent. I am not fond of blocking in principle, and would be quite happy if the need never arises, but this is Knowledge, and I expect the need to come up occasionally. · · · 11044:

isn't sexy, but it is frequently needed and having someone who is actually interested in doing it so that someone who doesn't care can spend their time elsewhere is a great benefit to the project. It helps preserve one of our most precious resources, volunteer time. I have no problem granting adminship for this reason.

9193:

rationale for opposing on that alone), but each person is entitled to decide and express what they expect from someone seeking to become an administrator; I happen to think a person ought to be making some kind of broad, long-term committment and be able to demonstrate the desire and understanding to do so effectively.

8825:

boil down to "make my obscure work easier" rather than "help me improve the project broadly", and there's a self-righteous attitude issue already evident. One thing I've learned over a decade+ as a "don't want to be an admin" editor who does use several formerly admin-only tools like page-mover and template-editor is: "

2532:

together. And if we do, we have some rather vague promises to look at other stuff—which by now it seems to have been established they have no experience in. I suppose they could return the tools after the project is complete; tere doesn't seem to have been an acknowledgement—or, to be fair, a suggestion—of that though.

5670:– Third-person nom showed a disconcerting obliviousness to context and procedure, and I felt that the urgency for admins at the portals project was overstated; but the questions were answered with intelligence and poise, they've done a lot of work, and they've already been entrusted with two adminships on other wikis. 210:

hardly ever a problem. On the rare occasions that I get someone reverting or otherwise disagreeing with my edits, there is no noticeable distinction in frequency between whether I have left an edit summary or not. In summary, I try to remember to leave a summary where I consider it likely that anyone will want to know

9156:

do wouldn't help whittle down a backlog. I also find SMcCandlish's rationale to be a way overreading of what Pbsouthwood is saying. It seems the very opposite to me, indeed; he could as well leave the work to the current admin corps or other members of the Portal project, but is instead volunteering to do it himself

6074:- I have vacillated on this RfA since it began, but have finally decided to support after resolving that the entirely reasonable arguments below don't really move me. From my research and reading here it seems that this user has enough clue to not blunder in to areas they do not understand, and can be trusted not to 8051:

idea. To me, at least the block, delete, and protect buttons ought to remain admin-only. If this RfA passes, I would encourage Pbsouthwood to tread carefully at first into other admin areas, and perhaps participate in them without using the tools at first to emulate the way most admins would learn "before the job".

11134:, I agree with you on the two step process, with the exception of pages created by myself, where I feel it is extremely unlikely that there would be a conflict. I do not expect to nominate even a tenth of the potential pages in the Portal cleanup, leaving plenty of work to delete those nominated by others. · · · 3702:

he learn from it?" Ask anybody who's worked with him and the answer is a resounding "yes". Peter is a very experienced diver and people regularly put their lives in his hands - that teaches you to be meticulous. We shouldn't be worrying about his ability to learn how to push a few new buttons on a website. --

11089:

administrators make questionable calls. Seeing the candidate's admittedly limited record of experience with the deletion process, I'm not completely sure whether this candidate would truly save volunteer time yet, especially if he intends to continue administrating after all the portal subpages are deleted.

1765:. A little similar because Cobi required purely to be a "sys-op", not an "administrator"; whereas Peter needs the toolbox for a primary reason, during and after which he would mutate into an admin. I cant imagine any misuse from his side, and he would be a net-positive as an admin. So no reasons to oppose. — 93:) – Pbsouthwood edits Knowledge mainly as a content creator, but does some maintenance work, is moderately active in policy discussions, and is a member of a few WikiProjects which are relevant to his primary subject interests in underwater diving and citizen science. He is a member of the recently reformed 7458:, sorry for bothering you, but I'm getting rather confusing mixed messages here. Saying that you are confident that he would resign tends to suggest that you know Peter well. Referring to Peter by the gender-neutral plural 'they' instead of 'he' tends to suggest that you don't know him at all. Which is it? 10595:. It can cause a lot of unintentional disruption to believe that a deletion is uncontroversial and then find out later that it wasn't. In that sense I would prefer to have seen more experience with AfD/CSD in the context of this particular RfA. And again, please always use edit summaries! Best of luck, 8707:- a great overall editor from what I'm seeing, but sadly this RfA is asking for a kitchen when all they need is a knife. As others have said, a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Surely we can find another way for them to accomplish their goals without having to become a full-fledged admin? - 12043:

and maybe a supervising admin. The assistant privilege could be granted with much less drama than our current RfA gauntlet, and the holder's record in the assistant position would be a more objective basis for evaluating promotion to full adminship. This idea seems so obvious, why hasn't it happened?--

636:

other than what we are already doing, or reversing the decision not to allow Wikidata descriptions, which are not required to comply with Knowledge policy, notably for NPOV, RS and in particular, BLP, I don't see much point. This view is presumably shared by the other members of the WikiProject. · · ·

12199:

If this RFA ends up going through, it seems like a good example of why we shouldn't reconsider. As I've said above, we should promote people to admin who are trustworthy and experienced, with no civility issues, and let them grow into the role, even if their initial need is just for one narrow niche.

11948:

I don't intend to withdraw. It is not very stressful, and I want to see what happens. I think some people have not understood that when I say getting the mop is no big deal, I mean that to me personally, it is no big deal. I can live with it or without it. No problem. The advantages and disadvantages

11864:

Right, and I would certainly echo that encouragement to Pete to stick the course and see where we end up in three days time. This stands a good chance of passing. In my experience candidates usually withdraw when it becomes obvious that the thing is snowballing into definite no-promote territory. The

11843:

Well, I don't know anything about second guessing anyone or doing anyone's job for them, none of that was my intention, I am merely providing encouragement to the candidate to actually let the crats do some work for once, as history shows that many candidates withdraw, and I imagine the stress of the

11806:

If the crats respond to RfAs like admins respond to AfDs, I think it will depend on how close the vote is, and how many of the supports/opposes give actual reasons to support or oppose vs being per someone else or just "I like/don't like this guy." As for whether or not the candidate should withdraw,

11656:

discussion misuse of the tools? I think it is, but a small group of administrators do those kind of things routinely, and the only recourse is to go to one of the drama boards, only for the discussion to fail to reach consensus. (I'm intentionally not providing links because doing so would be calling

11628:

I just got my monthly administrator newsletter, and apparently we lost five admins in May due to inactivity. We have an opportunity here to add a new admin to replace just one of those five. An experienced editor for whom no evidence has been found to support any fears that he might misuse the tools.

11552:

We need admins - editors who are content creators, with the patience and willingness to be excellent collaborators, a plus if they have FA/GA experience, and even better if they have global experience with admin status on another project as what this candidate is offering. It isn't often that we have

11529:

I feel like a lot of the comments here, both support and oppose, and perhaps even the candidate himself, have been misled by omission (not deliberately, of course). This isn't hard, long, grueling work that Peter is applying for. I've done probably about 1000 of these deletions now with probably less

10107:

Of his 43,188 edits, and before 6 months ago, I can find only 120 contributions that are not creating SCUBA articles, and most of the 120 are regarding obtaining Good Article status or Featured Article status for his SCUBA articles. I see little "walking around" and little breadth of interaction. His

9732:

This is an outstanding editor, particularly in content creation. However their track record in admin related areas is just too thin for my comfort. Happily this is an easy fix. I would encourage them to spend some time at Afd CSD and related activities over the next six months or so and come back. On

9427:

Sure, we normally look for a high level of policy understanding in each of those areas, but that basic level of clue is an even more fundamental qualification for being an administrator. The basic level of clue where he simply says "I'd read up on policy and proceed with caution." That trait alone is

9155:

In response to this and other opposes on a similar rationale..why? Like why do admins need to engage in a broad range of tasks? If all he focuses on is portal deletion, it'll still be helpful; even if he doesn't help in the long-run or in many different tasks, that doesn't mean whatever tasks he does

9143:

per all the reasons stated by SMcCandlish (I couldn't put it any better myself). The lack of any track record related to activity in areas that admins are generally expected to be involved with (i.e. AfD) is problematic. Some suggested the ability to have "short-term" or "limited" admins, but I agree

8864:

PS: I'm not in any way put off by the third-person self-nom. It's not "weird", it's just how people write short bios (e.g. at a company website). It's a common and well-known approach, just not common at RfA. I'm also not put off by self-noms. I do consider whether the candidate studied RfA history

8574:

Like many in this section, I regret the necessity of opposing and I want to make my admiration for your editing explicit and also praise you for opening yourself up to criticism by nominating yourself. That all said, the admin toolset is a broad set and the user group change is a long-enduring one.

8416:

of wanting to be admin) is completely nonexistent problem. Several excellent candidates have been opposed in the past because of mere one or two mistakes in CSD, UAA or AIV, and the mistakes only exist because they participated in the area. This user chose to refrained completely from these areas so

7641:

in their time here, and while their opinions there have been fairly sensible, their overall involvement is on the low end for what we typically expect editors with the "delete" button to have. I can understand the desire to grant the candidate the tools for a specific use case that they are familiar

7416:

the tools, but presents absolutely no reason why we should trust him with them, other than the fact that he is an admin on unspecified "other WMF projects". He says that he will work solely in deletion, but gives us no evidence that he understands deletion policy or has any experience in applying it.

4693:

put forward an argument that really resonated with me: "This feels like a nearly perfect test-case for the community's willingness to trust someone who has proven trustworthy – just not in "admin" areas." The candidate is, beyond doubt, trustworthy and has all character traits that make a good admin.

3537:

I get where you are coming from, but I also get where the people in the oppose section are coming from, considering we have administrators wanton softblocking /16 ranges that literally affect millions of people with no policy or consensus to back their actions and they get away with it per "community

3234:

Not convinced by the opposes. I really don't see a downside here. Nobody is throwing out any convincing reasons why they should not be an admin apart from the narrow scope of their need. If they work through what they want and never use the tools again we have lost nothing. If they do become involved

3161:

Gonna go ahead and make my reasoning more explicit as it seems like that might be necessary: longstanding, trusted user who has mastered complex (in terms of both policy and interpersonal skills) Knowledge processes like GA and even FA without making apparently even one person think he is a jerk! Has

2202:

I see many of my friends and admins I respect in the oppose section. Having read all the opposes, I'm reiterating my support to the candidate. As I've mentioned earlier (to I think Rambling Man), if adminship could be transferable, I'd have no qualms handing over my bit to PBS. We need mature editors

2062:

after reading the answers to the questions and Amory's oppose. I see a very good editor who will not use the mop much, except when there is an obvious mess to be cleaned up. That's the kind of admin I want, rather than someone who is gung-ho to do everything they can. Being an admin in other projects

895:

bad editing is blocking. When the volume of bad editing from an IP becomes unmanageable or an excessive burden on editors it is useful to block long enough for the problem to go away. I have no personal experience with managing this problem, so would only resort to a rangeblock in the face of a major

417:

is another project I support. The requirement for short descriptions on Knowledge articles is also a large task, and I started adding them to disambiguation pages using AWB. and to other article pages manually. When some editors with template coding skills are showed that it is more convenient to add

291:

the cleanup drive. It is somewhat premature to speculate how things may change by the time the work is done. If I do not have any use for the mop afterwards, and if anyone wants me to hand it in due to lack of use, they may request its return, and if there is sufficient reasonable consensus that this

131:

as mentioned above. The amount of work is expected to keep me busy for some time. I am primarly a content creator and contributor to policy discussions, but would be willing to consider other admin work on request, providing that I feel that my involvement would be appropriate and not too far outside

12042:

As I said in my support vote, this is a perfect example of why we should have a position with some but not all admin capabilities, call it an assistant-admin, sub-admin, factotum I, or what ever. It would have more limited capabilities, say maximum 12 hour block, a time limit, say one year renewable

11986:

on my pros vs cons list. The few areas where you'll need experience (and will eventually find yourself overworked *lol*) shouldn't even be an issue. I don't know of any admin who was experienced at being an admin before they actually became an admin, so determining which areas of adminship are most

9772:

It's difficult because the site needs more admins, and the community has set some sort of imaginary bar based on criteria that people have plucked out of thin air. In this case, however, it's quite straightforward - they only want the admin tools temporarily and that's something that, at the moment,

9561:

Each day since this RfA opened, I've come here, debated with myself between support, oppose, and neutral (having seriously considered all three), and then decided to sleep on it for another day before I could feel comfortable making up my mind. And I'm still not really confident that I am correct in

9170:

This, I think, is the crucial difference of opinion in this RFA in a nutshell. For you (and some others), adminship is an appointment with an expectation to take on a range of responsibilities. For me (I #voted support above) and others, it is merely access to a broader toolkit, with the expectation

8808:

processes can already deal with it), and a standoffish that's-how-I-roll attitude. E.g., the answer about poor use of edit summaries isn't an acceptable response in my book, for multiple reasons; either the candidate doesn't understand community norms in this regard, or doesn't care about them (both

8689:

For this issue, there are admin-bots that can quite easily delete a list of selected portal subpages. I think some editors have also stated above that Peter hasn't made any reports at all to the anti-vandalism or page protection noticeboards, which makes me think that he also doesn't have a pressing

8634:

I think that starting a proposal to allow temporary sysopping would be a worthwhile thing to do, and would gladly participate in the discussion if someone were to do so. I think also (although I could be wrong about this) that the WMF has, in the past, given the bit to staff members temporarily for

8450:

He lacked the necessary experience were the admin-tools are meant to be used, because he elected not participate in the area and his sole reason of wanting to be admin –deleting 150K portal subpages– turns out even a bot can do the work. Since he doesn't have the requisite experience, I am left with

8193:

reminded of it, though, I continue to think that it's the most important issue. What would likely happen with this particular misunderstanding is that if he finds a delete closure that he finds doesn't reflect consensus, he'd find that the article has already been deleted. A reading of the policy at

7656:

I'm afraid I'm another vote in opposition. Having finally rushed out my RfA criteria, I have a few issues which I'll condense here. First, I don't think there's a need. The Portals project (of which I'm a member) is humming along right nicely, and I don't much think we need a dedicated administrator

6882:

Amory has put forward a detailed report there and it's well reasoned. However, I personally think that as there is over 10,000 pages per active admin there should be some obligation to replace the deceased admins with people from best qualified remaining long term contributors. Even if Peter's scope

6769:

I have to say that I'm surprised this is the first oppose; I'd have expected a lot more honestly by now. But I think, even if we have admins willing to boring deletion work, there is always more of it, so more admins to do that would always be helpful. IMO, we shouldn't be so averse to giving people

6177:

has a lot of good content creation and has commitment to maintain the policy and guidelines. I understand some oppose vote argue that being an admin requires interest, competency and experience in maintenance work. I'd rather have a system where the requirements are splitted. There are people who is

5757:

Has established trustworthiness through long tenure, many edits and great contributions. The does not have need for the tools argument only works for me when the candidate does not have a long and good record and can articulate no need in addition. Under the circumstances here, I think the candidate

4796:

Always seemed a solid, sensible type, pretty astute. Many of the opposes don't ring true to me; some fine and widely respected admins are more "content" than "admin action" orientated, and thus at important points add a different perspective to those purely concerned with process and literal, rather

4587:

This is a trusted, productive, long term editor with a niche request for administrator's tools. The opposition seems to be based on the unusual aspects of their editing interests, combined with the obvious observation that some other administrator could do the work that this editor is willing to do.

4331:

the tools, because everybody is replaceable. Many admins from pre-2008 weren't required to jump through that hoop because the judgements were based on trust, and Knowledge wasn't broken by that, even in its period of ballistic growth. What you should be asking yourself is "is this somebody who I can

4020:

per my positive interactions with this editor, their track record of contributions, and the lack of anything that makes me doubt their judgment. I think it's long past time that we abandon resisting someone's RfA for reasons like "they need only part of the toolset". Adminship is no big deal and I'm

3737:

s since you have stated that they are "appropriate for long term problems"; the reason I say that is because certain IP addresses represent thousands of people, there is no established policy or site-wide consensus to prevent (or make it more difficult for) students from editing Knowledge other than

3701:

Sure, but most admins accidentally misuse tools at some point. But that doesn't break the wiki because it's all fixable. The most common reason admins get blocked is they block themselves by mistake. What you need to be asking is not "will Peter make a mistake?", but "when Peter makes a mistake will

2077:

Withdrawing my support for now. Q12 concerned me that the candidate may not be familiar enough with deletion policy, and the answer to my follow-up Q25 did not alliviate my concern. It is important to be familiar with deletion policy since deletion is the reason the candidate requested the tools. In

1519:

There will definitely opposes and complaints on self-nom etc, and lack of experience in deletion; but what matters more than that is whether they have a use and whether they'd do well with the tools. They communicate well in my experience and know their policy. I think in areas where they don't have

788:

I note that general recall does not claim to be binding, but it is a process that I agree with on principle, so have no concerns with accepting the process. I will not offer to simply hand back the mop as soon as the project is completed, as it is quite possible that by then I would have developed a

635:

I consider that the consensus of that RfC combined with the lack of any practicable alternative is sufficient community consensus to add short descriptions to all articles. If anyone wants to start another RfC to confirm this interpretation, that is an option, but as I don't see any practical result

564:

If or when the need arises, I would start by refreshing my understanding of the policy by reading it, then proceed with caution. Some of these are outside my experience, so I would be reluctant to take action without discussion, others are more straightforward. I would not delete an article if I was

10343:

I'm not interpreting that either of those ways, "I disagree, therefore it shouldn't be deleted" is obviously dealt with by !voting keep, and I don't believe this user would close a discussion while thinking "I don't agree, another mop can do the deed". My problem is that they don't fully understand

10227:

per candidate's answer to Q12. I don't see how the answer to Q12 can be spot on. The final sentence reads 'Discussions closed as delete by another person I would check if I agree with the closure, and delete if I agree.' If an administrator closes a AFD he's going to check it out and delete if they

8840:

admin-leaning experience we expect to see, remember that your edit summary usage is for everyone else not for you, and try again in a year or so. The main question we ask ourselves at RfA is "Would the tools be consistently used appropriately?" Don't let the answer lean toward "no" – for what seems

8824:

I agree with above assessments, including by other opposers, that the candidate is a net positive to the project as an editor. But that doesn't auto-translate into a likely net positive as an admin, especially when the admin criteria most of us expect to see have been skipped over, the ask seems to

8337:

better than mine :-). Unfortunately, the narrow focus on your intended use of the tools is why I sit here and with some regret. You state that your primary purpose is to process the deletion of Portal pages in your answers to questions 1-3, but you state nothing more than that. Your narrow intended

8185:

Hmm, yeah, that completely slipped my mind. I must have encountered the inability of non-admins to make delete closures outside TfDs before, because it does ring a bell, but since I don't do much more at XfDs than comment in topics I'm familiar with, I must have forgotten about it. I'm really sorry

8050:

mentions below) the task that motivates this RfA can be solved without severely increased inconvenience by compiling a list of pages to be deleted and having an existing admin batch-delete all of them, so that this isn't even a situation that would convince me that unbundling another tool is a good

8045:

Looking at this almost eight hours later, I think I might have phrased it a little more clearly, so I'll do so now. I think Pbsouthwood is a great editor. However I don't see much experience in admin areas and I'm therefore worried that he may unintentionally make significant mistakes in his use of

7661:

made a better case in that regard than I ever could. In short, it's the other administration tools, deletion aside, that worry me: no track record means no way of knowing how Peter might react to some situation or another that requires administration, and that just doesn't sit right with me. Third,

7440:

Those 150,000 subpages would not mean deleting the portals themselves but would be part of replacing the subpage based system of portals with having one page portals using various templates; those deletions are thus uncontroversial cleanup of now unused pages. It isn't that easy to desysop someone,

6914:

Too much emphasis has been placed on this one oppose, and the result may well be unfortunate in that an excellent candidate will be denied the mop for all the wrong reasons. We should look at the greater need and not focus on a single comment. The evidence of this editor's capabilities is before us

5811:

While the focus on the admin tools are very specific, Pbsouthwood appears to have the temperament and the wisdom to avoid doing anything controversial with the tools. The user will actually use the tools for something, which is more than can be said for many admins who either never use the tools or

5647:

I have been thinking about this for the past 24 hours. As I mentioned in my oppose, it is a philosophical debate about appointing someone on the merits of their character, or their experience and potential to do harm. I was very impressed by the comment highlighted by Alex Shih when they moved from

3682:

be learned on the job, but consider the amount of community time spent on noticeboard discussions when administrators make questionable calls and weigh it against the option of waiting a bit before getting the mop. I have no doubt that Pbsouthwood will not actively abuse the tools, but I worry that

3468:

Quite so. Nobody has come up with a single reason why this is anything other than an exemplary editor, or any reason to suspect they would do any single bad thing with the tools, yet the RfA is starting to creep down towards the dreaded 75% mark. I thought the days when RfA was a warzone were over,

1534:

Expanding, since a lot of people are commenting on "need"; he's coming here with a purpose, so it is hardly that they aren't going to use the tools to help, so I don't really understand those opposing on that basis - what exactly would be a "real need"? Maybe in a few months or a year the work will

12011:

Interesting to see so many neutral votes (more than even in GreenMeansGo' RfA where people were rather split). Presumably this is more of a side effect that the oppositions are fairly non-controversial, with most seemingly premised off "just wish we had one (more) grounds to judge from". Certainly

11791:

Quite, and really I was just discussing the procedure that will be followed at the end of all this. Although through the lens of the fact that I !voted support above, which is on the record. My understanding is that if the vote percentage is between 65 and 75, then it's up to the discretion of the

10380:

I think the point being raised here is that, with the exception of TfD, users aren't allowed to close discussions they aren't technically capable of implementing. Therefore, if someone closes a discussion as delete, they'll be an admin and will just delete the page themselves. They might do things

10048:

I am slightly concerned about the total access to administrator functions, especially if they are outside of the candidate's comfort level. Given responses to other questions, I also get the indication that the candidate has potential to act without consideration out of impulse or panic. Given Q14

9480:

I don't see how the answer to Q12 can be spot on. The final sentence reads 'Discussions closed as delete by another person I would check if I agree with the closure, and delete if I agree.' If an administrator closes a AFD he's going to check it out and delete if they agree? The candidate's answer

9192:

I have an opinion and I expressed it - I shouldn't need to justify that. I considered the broad range of opinions expressed here and noted that many more favour support, yet I agreed with the points made by SMcCandlish. This isn't a vote on character or contribution (for which there seems no clear

8926:

The tool is only as useful as the brain power put into interpreting it, and I'm inclined to believe that the latter was missing here. First off, after doing some statistical evaluations, it appears to me that you got your 17/12 by dividing the number of times you have voted at AfD by the number of

8522:

the RfA of a polite, articulate and committed editor. However, with persistent doubts and objections being expressed over the approaches being taken on both Portals and Short descriptions, I would prefer to see administrative tasks arising in those areas being passed to an experienced admin not so

6994:

Humor, and looking at issues with a lighter mind, thankfully, are some of the best qualities I would look for in an administrator, apart from trust and maturity. If only RfAs here too follow the path of the WikiVoyage one. I agree with you that these are all vague terms because you cannot quantify

6858:

Indeed, I'm not enthused by the lack of activity in any admin area. However, I see the positives - help out doing some boring work - and I don't see too many negatives -they will make some mistakes, but would respond to feedback and thus would not repeat them to cause real problems. I wouldn't say

6791:

Yeah, I'm a little surprised by that too. I expected a few "doesn't need it", "not enough experience in X" or "why the self nomination written in the 3rd person" type objections. It's an encouraging sign though. In my view anyone competent, experienced and willing, with no civility issues or other

5509:

Fully engaged, responsible, and trustworthy editor. The excellent answers to the questions demonstrate everything that would otherwise be lacking in experience or "need". Has contributed more to the project than I ever have. None of the opposers have anything bad to say about him, and indeed, many

3662:

I too think lack of experience in admin related areas is not really a reason to oppose. My concern is the single issue that Pete intends to work on is something he doesn't necessarily need the tools for, and I am reluctant to support candidates whom in face of controversial areas would simply turn

959:

That is hard to say. I volunteered here out of a sense of community and to do my bit with some grunt-work which I still think will be fairly straightforward. The arguments that there is no need for me to have the tools and no need for me to help with the work at this stage suggest that perhaps the

748:

At this stage editors are nominating lists of subpages for deletion. These are the same editors who have recently changed the coding of the associated portal to make those subpages redundant, i.e. the de facto maintainers of these portals. If there is no objection to the change of portal structure

461:

I have no desire to hunt down and delete other unused pages, It is not a fun job. If I run into some and it is sufficiently clear that deleting them would be useful in some way I might tag them for deletion, but I would prefer not to delete pages I have found and tagged myself unless they are also

255:

The 150 000 pages that are expected to be deleted will not be controversial cases. This is a cleanup drive, they will need a little personal attention to make sure there are no frivolous requests, but mostly it will be pretty boring and repetitious work, and someone will have to do it. My thoughts

209:

I often work on the same article for several consecutive edits, When I go through my work after saving, I often find trivial errors, which I often correct without providing an edit summary. On other occasions I just don't consider the edit worth describing, and sometimes I just plain forget. It is

168:

Sure, who hasn't? I try to be patient and assume good faith until proven wrong, and to remain civil and discuss problems using logic, reasoning and evidence. Also listening to people and trying to make sure I understand what they are trying to communicate. It usually works. I can change my opinion

11043:

for RfA support is important to maintain, as advanced twinkle really isn't that big a deal. This is a self-nom, which is going to get more scrutiny, as I think it should, but I also think this is a case for when being more open about handing out adminship is beneficial to the project: G6 deletion

8431:

I do get your point about "the mistakes only exist because they participated in the area"; however we'll never have a perfectly "fair" standard. We should instead evaluate each candidate individually, and rather than opposing candidates because better ones were opposed, to continue supporting all

7938:

Ability to remain civil in discussions and keep a level head is commendable and required of all editors. That said, there's quite a bit more to administration. I've never been one concerned with automated edits, but with the high percentage, there's not much that makes me confident that there's a

7768:

Potential administrators should have significant experience in admin-related areas, to ensure they can use the tools correctly. These areas aren't rocket science but there are things you need to know and you can do damage if you screw up, and someone who doesn't know what they are doing at all is

6963:

makes the rounds, and at the risk of being rude (not my intent!), I want to reiterate my oppose. This opposition was never about lack of introspection or a vague sense of maturity, it was always about experience. I remain uncomfortable giving the bit to a user who, by all accounts, has actively

6506:

I've been going back and forth for this entire RfA and have finally landed here. I am satisfied with the answers to the questions and the candidate's content contributions. Checking the candidates interactions with others I see someone who is calm, rational, not easily ruffled, and well-spoken. I

6056:

He has a clean record, a long history of constructive and helpful editing, and a clear need for the tools. I am impressed by his answers to questions, which reveal an understanding of policy combined with a recognition of his own limitations (and I absolutely agree with him about adminning within

4326:

I've had the pleasure of working with Peter for a considerable time on scuba-related articles, and more recently with him on work concerning short descriptions. He is unfailingly polite, perceptive and constructive in all of his interactions. He is experienced in many areas, especially in content

4282:

Content creator with a good editing history, and as a rule such editors should have access to the tools. The portal cleanup will take a lot more work than I think some people realise. I have concerns about the suitability for adminship of those disturbed by a third-person nomination. There's more

3677:

I somewhat disagree. I do think lack of experience in admin areas is a reason to oppose. I appreciate WereSpielChequers's sentiment about admin coaching "ticking the boxes", but at the present, we are asking a prospective administrator to apply the nuances of speedy deletion policy when they have

2788:

I have some trepidation that the candidate lacks experience in deletion, policy and dispute resolution discussions however he has said he will stay away from areas outside his comfort zone and will spend time taking advice and learning from others should he later decide to work in such areas. The

509:

It is difficult to answer this question with specifics, as there are potentially a very large range of tasks where I would not be comfortable with the tools. I would have to judge each case on its merits. For borderline cases I would take advice from another admin known to be active in that area,

487:

This is sort of a follow-up question to #1. In your answer there, you said you would be primarily working on wikiproject portals, answering requests, and "not outside the comfort zones". Would you please be a little precise regarding the areas that you would work in administrative capacity? Like,

323:

Not much at all. I need the deletion button mainly for the WikiProject Portals upgrade project, which will be mainly maintenance. It would be occasionally useful for my content creation work, as I have occasionally needed to request deletion, as when a page has been misnamed due to a typo. I have

11822:

Well, I believe that the summary for crats would be – the opposing community believes the editor is trustworthy but does not have experience; the supporting community believes the editor is trustworthy and that lack of experience does not matter. My past review of crat closures shows less weight

10481:

After reading some of the "Oppose" comments, my concerns with the seeming fact that the candidate had little experience in administrator-related areas is still a concern of mine. It's not enough for me to oppose since the candidate obviously has clue and good faith, but it's not enough for me to

8783:

Editor wants access to the set of tools that include the block button, and plans to use it if needed. I cannot find any edits that show that this editor is qualified for that tool. The need for the admin tool set listed is also unconvincing since many opposers have shown that there are plenty of

7849:

I don't really see a need for sysop tools. Other than the deletion for WikiProject Portals (which I am proudly part of), there doesn't seem to be that much where this editor would benefit from sysop permissions. He said himself that it wouldn't be used much in his normal editing. It's not that I

5684:

Someone who appears competent enough to recognise those areas in which he's not competent and stay away from them, and who's participated in lengthy discussions with some of Knowledge's more vocal personalities while remaining calm and patient. I find the opposes based on "candidate doesn't have

4499:. true, broader experience with admin areas would make this a no-brainer but Pbsouthwood is nevertheless a fine candidate: clueful and willing to do boring admin stuff (and not a jerk as TonyBallioni pointed out above). I can't see how giving him admin rights would be detrimental to the project. 4306:

he might, upon becoming an admin, try things he hadn't previously thought of, there are so many things out there that it's completely unrealistic to expect anything else; when I ran I thought I'd mostly do CSD, but within months I focused on AE and somehow avoided destroying everything in sight.

4158:

No indication that he would misuse the tools. He seems like a thoughtful person who will review relevant policies to better understand any other areas he might need to venture into. I am an admin and don't know relevant policies in many (most?) admin areas, but I don't make admin actions where I

3850:

Doing my small, futile part to resist momentum in the wrong direction. I don't know Pbsouthwood, but he seems an honest sort, been here a long time as a content creator, appears open to collaboration and discussion, and doesn't seem to have a desire to wield power over other people. Anyone with

3765:

a self-nom :-)) and PBS' vagueness about advanced permissions on other WMF projects. Although it seems like we have enough experienced admins at the moment to cope with existing backlogs, the projected portal backlog would be much larger than, say, the Neelix redirects were. For this reason, PBS

3620:

While I respect the individuals in the the oppose section, I don't agree with their arguments. In particular it does not bother me if a candidate has no AIV reports when they are intending to start out at deletion (or conversely a candidate who has no deletion tagging but who intends to start in

2697:

I prefer the honesty of "I want to do this single task and need admin rights to" over blowing sunshine up our asses with "I am going to watch X, Y, and Z noticeboards". If he decides to move onto other work which falls under the admin workflow, that's great, but I see no reason to deny the admin

1060:

Is it really true that a lot of admin work is working outside comfort zones? I agree that some things can be tricky, and require careful assessment, but when in doubt, there are many other admins who may be quite familiar with those aspects who will advise, and there are some things that require

995:

I take them at their face value as written. Since I have never to my memory personally encountered a case of either of these problems, I have no examples to quote. If or when I do encounter something that appears to match these criteria, the guidance is available for reference. If I am uncertain

10684:

much like Kudpung, I can't figure out if this is an example of a process failure or what. We have a candidate I'd never heard of before (no offense but true) basically saying in his responses to questions 6, 11 and 12 that he's not interested in sysopping but needs some project specific cleanup

10244:

Q5 did it for me. Purely on the surface, stating that there's nothing controversial about deleting 150,000 pages should be a major cause for alarm. I'm going to dig deeper. In recent years, we've seen a scenario where one specific WikiProject, namely AFC, has been allowed to hijack an entire

8931:

my votes, you'll find that I suck at actually voting with consensus (my 67% versus your quite commendable 85%). And even that isn't perfect. If you look at the AfDs where Pbsouthwood voted against the eventual consensus, you'll find one instance where he nominated a page for deletion because he

8486:

from Pbsouthwood. This is showing me that the candidate is not ready to be an administrator. I can't understand how the candidate got the rollback tool without a single edit to AIV and RFPP. Unfortunately, in order to become an administrator, sufficient experience is required in areas like AIV,

7992:

Let me say that I considered that option, but I don't think that such a pledge is actually enforceable. If Pbsouthwood were to get to like adminning, and think that they would help to improve the project by not returning the bit, there's no way that I am aware of to force them to do so. 'Crats

7620:

I'm not particularly fazed by edit summary usage (they use edit summaries for all the important ones, it looks like), and Siddiqsazzad001's rollback examples and the use of third person in the nomination have not entered my thinking here at all. I am mostly concerned about Pbsouthwood's limited

4082:

In response to some of the opposes based on this being a "single-purpose" candidacy: I'm not supporting this as a single-purpose admin candidacy; I hope the candidate will engage in other admin work, and trust them to do so responsibly. I completely fail to see why the lack of CSD tagging (for

2251:

So while I respect (hugely) your viewpoint, I hope the community – and you especially – agree with my point of view. I know I'm fishing, but it would be wonderful to have you reconsider your opposition. I'm hoping against hope, but perhaps you might (no?). And for you (only for you), if you do

1561:

I am not well acquainted with this user, but I have found nothing to be concerned about. They have virtually no participation on the drama boards, which is good. Their AfD record is sparse but contains nothing to be concerned about. Their article contributions seem very solid, and the GA and FA

10314:

shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how deletion discussions work. Cannot move to support given the primary reason for requesting adminship is to use the delete button (but as AFD is not their focus, not going to move to oppose either). I hope that if this RFA passes, then they re-read the

8106:

RfA, but that was when I was relatively new to participating at RfA; my views have changed significantly since towards "learning before the job" rather than "learning on the job", as I now think that the admin tools are powerful enough that they are not quite "no big deal". I would not support

7684:

Per Amory, I don't think the experience is there to trust them fully with the toolset. I know I probably don't deserve to make that statement, given what I said my own RfA, but this specific need is so narrow - and so easy to fill compared to other special-need admins (i.e. pre-template-editor

1579:

While I have slight trepidation with their desire to be a single-issue admin involved in deleting things when they've only cast 10 AFD !votes in 10 years and have a 71% match rate and no CSD log, the specific task of deleting portals seems more clerical than adjudicative. Their overall content

631:

As the consensus of the RfC was that Knowledge would provide short descriptions and the descriptions from Wikidata must immediately stop, and the way WMF decided to handle it was by providing a software tool (the magic word) without any further consultation with Knowledge, and a condition of 2

9599:

maintenance works etc). I am convinced that this wouldn't be the case for Peter based on the openness and frank nature of his comments about this RfA, but people should rightly feel justified to continue to feel uncertain based on many of the valid rationales that have already been presented.

9229:

There's no real need here. We have batch delete, we have Twinkle's delete. The user could even ask someone to make a bot - have a new category of files to delete, get agreement for that list from involved editors, and then an adminbot (even mine) could do the whole lot in one run. No problem.

627:

to try to sort out the problem. Wikipedians came to the consensus that this was unacceptable and must stop. WMF said they would provide a magic word to provide the short descriptions via the API, and when Knowledge has 2 million short descriptions of articles they would stop drawing them from

12093:

I agree some of the powers can require difficult decisions, but wouldn't it be better to grant those powers initially on a time limited basis, with some supervision, rather than the all-or-nothing, admin for life process we have now? And if we have some objective criteria for assistant admin

11731:

Yeah hopefully not. I'd like to think that the crats will analyse the oppose votes, decide they're not massive red flags and promote. But who knows, I'm not a crat. The percentage has been gradually dropping, but with 133 supports it would need 72 opposes to drop below the magic 65% level so

11698:

I voted support, and this comment hasn't anything to do really with whether or not this candidate will be a heavy-handed blocker and more to do with the fact that I can understand where the opposers are coming from. There's more to "misuse" of the tools than deliberate misuse or heavy-handed

9928:

There once was a time when RFAs were passed simply on whether the editor was "trustworthy" or not. Unfortunately, for better or worse, adminship has evolved into something completely different and feelings about it have changed within the community. It is now a requirement for anyone seeking

2531:

remarks that the work does not nvolve as much heavy lifting as we might have assumed. By their calculations (1000 in 20 clicks), it works out at the whole lot taking ~7500 mouse-clicks to resolve. I wonder if we need to appoint a new admin to do what may only be a fortnight's work, taken all

1027:

I really have no idea. I am sorry I cant give you a more useful answer, but it would be speculation without sufficient data. I have not found anything particularly hard about my admin actions on Wikivoyage or Wikimania 2018, but they are completely different sites and cannot realistically be

8813:

here, but I would not run for RfA on the basis that the tools would help me do one particular kind of gnome drudgery more efficiently and with less process and oversight, which is basically what we're being asked to support here. The fact that it's about massive numbers of page deletions is

7830:

I'm sot sure how I could be clearer: Pbsouthwood gives as their reason for self-nominating for admin the need to delete articles in connection with the large-scale restructuring of portals. I am philosophically opposed to handing out bits for specific purposes such as that as long as admin

7536:

Thank you for clarifying that. It would have been more reassuring to see this information in the nomination! I do see only ~40 pages on that list, which is quite a few short of 150000, and indicates to me that we probably don't need the extra hands so badly. As does the fact that 1,000 have

9598:

I think it's perfectly fine to remain uncertain. Adminship does change the way many editors approach the project. Sometimes having the tools will even negatively impact editors on their contributions to the project (reduced content creation, elevated stress, feeling the necessity to do the

9211:

This is a great example for why we need a community-based recall process. It looks like this is an experienced editor who can be trusted but is currently not qualified for the whole range of admin tasks due to a lack of experience with many maintenance work, a good example is their limited

2452:

per the numbers. If, as PBS states, there are 150,000 admin actions to make in the new future, and equally near in the future no admins who are(apparantly) willing to make them, then that is a pretty convincing sum. I was almost / very persuaded by Amory's oppose—and specifically, in fact,

218:

the edit was, they can look at the diff, which is what I do myself. When someone disagrees with an edit or reverts it I discuss it the matter before continuing. I do not plan to change this significantly, as it works for me. If at some stage it appears that changing will make a significant

2371:

to consider the advice that I and other editors gave regarding edit summaries, regardless of the outcome of this RfA. Edit summaries, even the most succinct ones, are a good best practice, not just for admins, but for any editor that wants to minimize the potential for miscommunication or

10775:, or conversely, planned to hand the mop back upon completing this one task, I'd feel more comfortable supporting him. Equally if I saw some clear problem with his work, or thought there was a real prospect of his misusing the tools, I'd oppose him. As neither is the case, neutral it is. 6929:, but while I have provided what I feel to be quite comprehensive evidence showing a complete lack of either experience or activity indicating capability, I have yet to see any evidence of "capabilities" from my friends in the support section. This is not a request for autopatrolled. ~ 11088:

To add onto Amory's comment a bit, while I certainly think it's important to add qualified candidates to the team who can tackle specific backlogs that no one else wants to handle, I think a little bit more caution is warranted by the fact that a lot of volunteer time is also spent when

152:, including one FA and a few GAs, a moderate number of articles brought to B-class or created from scratch, and a fair amount of re-organising of the related content by way of merges and splits. I enjoy collaborative work, but too often there are not enough collaborators where I am busy. 10329:

I could be wrong, but I was reading that not as "I disagree, therefore it shouldn't be deleted" as much as "I don't agree, another mop can do the deed". I'm not sure anyone should be forced to take an action they disagree with when there are lots of others who can also push the button.

10150:- I am a stickler for using edit summaries. They are part of the "manners" of the editing community that engenders cooperation and understanding. They help the communication between us. His reply shows a possible disregard for the concerns of others and a blindness to his own manners. ― 4059:

I'm confident they will do a good job at the task they plan to do. Based on their editing experience here and their admin experience at WikiVoyage, I trust them to do the right thing if they choose to "grow into" other admin roles. Not all admins need months in the anti-vandalism and

7906:: Per Joe Roe and Mz7, I was immediately turned off by talking in third person, but it is certainly no grounds for opposing. Contrary to what Amory suggested above, I think there is precedent of adminship given to editors for essentially "one-off projects" (a somewhat similar example: 1562:

reviews of their work (and their review of others' work) show them to be collegial and polite. I see no reason why they would be unable to use the tools well in the area they wish to work in, and I think they are clueful enough to avoid areas where they do not have enough experience.

6224:

the project is quite lacking in admins at the moment (and I'll add that in addition to no RfAs and retirements, we also have long-standing admins (often acquiring the bit years ago) who do not really admin, but 99.9% of the time edit - which is perfectly fine, but leads to a lack of

6078:

with the sysop bit. I would however recommend that they look into automating the mass-deletion of uncontroversial portal subpages (as Amorymeltzer said below - make damn sure they genuinely are uncontroversial!). I'll happily help you with the technical side of that - just ask. :)

10023:. There's no point in my detailing exactly which of the well-taken objections I find particularly compelling. I do believe that if we're going to authorize an SPA (special purpose administrator) system, it should begin with a broad policy consensus rather than an individual RFA. 4332:

trust to do admin work?" If you insist on raising the bar for adminship beyond that fundamental question, you will perpetuate this horribly broken system, and quality editors will continue to shun the opportunity to take on extra tasks that they could perform very competently. --

4110:

They're an admin elsewhere, so I don't believe that technical competence with the buttons is an issue. I don't see any evidence from anyone in the oppose section that the editor in question will likely misuse the tools. I don't see the problem. Adminship should be no big deal.

10192:- per Amory's question (and the answer to it), and concerns raised by other editors, including Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's mention of a potential separate concensus of a special purpose administrator system. This individual RFA does not seem to be sufficiently proven necessary. -- 876:

s? Some administrators put extended blocks on shared IPs (educational or otherwise) for long periods of time (a year or more) over one or two recent edits, would you do this if you were granted the tools? What is your thoughts on blocking entire /16 ranges representing entire

5339:

to "candidates need to be using the tools 24/7 in order to get my !vote". I see no reason to believe Pbsouthwood will be incompetent in the tasks he has listed, and frankly I think that admin experience on the English Wikivoyage and Wikimania 2018 should count for something.

3621:

blocking). Years ago we had a process of admin coaching and a flow of candidates who had methodically ticked the boxes by doing a bit of each of the things that were on their coaches check list. That day is over, and we should no longer expect candidates who look like that.

12169:

Objective criteria have also been declined as a grounds (in numerous different formats, minimums, suggestions, for specific rights/rights groups etc). And your comment doesn't actually address my 2nd point which is that becoming a full admin would be even more nightmarish.

5259:. A classic of it's kind really. If you have spent enough time getting involved you will have accumulated sufficient enemies and mistakes to prevent success at RfA, if you have not done that you have failed to demonstrate enough enthusiasm to pass muster. I sympathise with 3409:

Others have pointed out that other admins could do this particular task quickly via mass deletion, but I still support giving Peter the mop. Picking up a bit of admin work is one way for longtime editors to get a change if they're bored. That's a good enough reason for me.

8686:

For some time I expect to be busy with subpage deletion for Knowledge:WikiProject Portals as mentioned above ... but would be willing to consider other admin work on request, providing that I feel that my involvement would be appropriate and not too far outside my comfort

1028:

compared, and I have seen admins getting orders of magnitude more flak on English Knowledge - sometimes even deserved. I am not overly put out by accurate, relevant and realistic criticism, and can simply ignore ordinary incivility and work through it in most cases. · · ·

5467:

I'm not trying to speak for all the opposers, nor am I trying to convince supporters to change their opinion. I'm just stating what seems to be the prevailing argument in the opposing section - in this case, that there isn't enough evidence to determine Peter's judgment.

1989:, while I am not sure that deletion is necessary for many of the old portal pages, I do believe the candidate should be made an administrator. Make sure to leave summaries even for trivial admin actions, though -- unlike regular edits these can't be checked by everyone. — 3505:. It's time we try to make adminship less of a big deal, and a calm, competent, thoughtful user with a specific (if specialized) plan in mind, demonstrating an avoidance of drama and restraint from jumping too far into the unknown too quickly, is a good place to start. 363:

There is a drive to clean up Portal space by rewriting portals so that they are largely self-maintaining. This is expected to result in a very large number of redundant subpages in Portal namespace. As far as I am aware, there are currently no admins who are members of

10132:. Edit summaries show co-operation, his lack thereof is an unco-operative character flaw, especially since you can set a preference to remind oneself. Only recently (last 8 months) has he been active in policy comments. Not enough involvement in admin-related activity. 9666:.) That answer left me with very little confidence that the candidate understands the basics about a rather important guideline in regards to deletion discussion closes ... and lacking that understanding is just something I am not comfortable with in an administrator. 4880:. I do not share the concerns of the opposers. It sounds like he'll use the tools a damned sight more than (for example) I do. I see nothing to call into question his judgment. I trust that he'll learn relevant policies before using administrative tools in them. 8575:

You clearly want that set only for a limited purpose and a short term. Unfortunately, we have no mechanisms to implement such a limited-duty or limited-term adminship. We really, really should have those mechanisms specifically to allow for situations like this.

8451:

two options: either to oppose him until such time when he do participate in the admin-related work and gain the necessary experience to be objectively assessed with; or to support him because of 'I like him'. I went for the former, because the later is unethical. –

7334:

instructor, I'm embarrassed. As others have mentioned, your assessment of the candidate's use of rollback is wrong, and I'm baffled as to why you are still defending your statements. It's true that rollback is primarily used to revert vandalism (which the candidate

7812:, we can't assume or expect that admins can be made to show up for a task they aren't enthusiastic about on the grounds that they are somehow "under-utilising their powers". We will always need people who want to step up and do something. This is also pertinent to 921:

for a vandalism spree. The report has been there for four hours, and no edits have been made from the IP since the last edit, which was someone claiming to be from the IT department to say that the person vandalizing was disciplined for it. How do you respond?

6806:

Indeed, especially that "why the self nomination written in the 3rd person" haha; 29 supports and counting is around 5 times as many as I'd thought there'd be before my prediction of "There will definitely opposes and complaints on self-nom" would come true

6242:: By my calculations we've gained 4 admins through resyssop and RFA and lost 41 through de-sysopping this year. A qualified, trustworthy candidate such as this one is a good addition and a welcome boost to the admin team, a team lacking in numbers currently. 10089:

without clearer consensus process. ("all articles should...", really?) All of which makes me nervous for granting them tools to make judgment calls when I'm not sure they know the rules particularly well. Great editor, though. Thanks for your contributions!

6964:

avoided any relevant work or experience until two weeks. Adminship is more than autopatrolled, a reasonable tenure, and a clean block log. Also, since folks are using his sysop status at Wikivoyage in their support, I figured I'd link the (rather amusing)

8593:- I genuinely wanted to support but there are 2 things preventing me from doing that, The first being them talking in 3rd person - Perhaps not something to oppose over but I don't see why you'd need to talk in third person at all, The second reason being " 8833:. I can't support an RfA that not only fails to understand this, but is predicated on the reverse idea, that the more the tools will help you get your desired outcome in a sweeping but highly particular change you're devoted to, the more you deserve them. 4327:

creation, and I have no doubt that he would be a valuable asset to the project no matter what field of activity he turned his mind to. It's at this point that I'm going to ask all those who oppose on grounds of "no need" to have a careful think. No admin

324:

found this facility useful on the other Wikimedia project where I do a lot of content creation, but it is not important. I am generally available to help people with any tools I have access to when requested, as long as I am within my comfort zone. · · ·

9144:

with the other viewpoints that someone appointed an admin should have a broad enough interest and experience level that they can and will involve themselves in the many responsibilities admins are generally expected to engage with, and for the long-run.

4388:, and they wish to serve in a historically underserved area. I find all of the "oppose" votes in the below section extremely unconvincing. I once believed that a candidate must demonstrate a "need" for the tools, but I've long since dropped that from my 2918:. We need more admins, to replace the ones we're losing monthly through lapsed accounts, and competent enthusiastic editors with years of experience and a level head are a good sort to fill that void, even if they haven't done much admining hitherto. — 11746:

Unfortunately...I think unless the opposes can be shown to actually be flawed / based on false premises / misunderstandings of policy, they will probably be forced to conclude that there is no consensus to promote (rather than, as it were, no consensus

10796:* Hmm, edit count, content creation, maintenance and all is impressive. The users been here for nearly 10 years and that's good. The only problem is the usage of edit summaries is less tan 50% (49.9%) that's the only concern otherwise I'm supporting. 881:' department of education network for extended periods of time (more than one year) for no other reason than to prevent "school vandalism"? Do you think this practice is appropriate in an encyclopedia that bills itself as a "💕 that anyone can edit"? 10770:

There are good points made in both the support and oppose sections. Perhaps if the candidate had expressed clear interest in another admin area, or sounded more enthusiastic about admin work in general than the (to my ears (eyes?) somewhat grudging)

2206:

I meant to reply to you earlier — I don't agree that this is like GoldenRing's RfA. Sure GR was "underexperienced" compared to the typical successful candidate, but he did have experience in some of the relevant areas. Opposes there were often for

7274:

which reverted an edit resulting in clearly malformed output, I don't think many people would call it a false positive. Considering it was ten hours later and the IP made only this edit, I expect not many would demand a more useful edit summary. --

6216:: Perhaps this RfA demonstrates a need for a provisional or partial-admin (e.g. - in this case - allowed just to delete in this cleanup drive - with a subsequent full RfA) - however the candidate is a trustworthy, long standing editor, and per the 178: 6909:

After seeing the increase in oppose iVotes based on this one comment alone, I am concerned that the big picture has been obfuscated as it relates to "actual need", so I hope editors will look forward to see that our actual need for the project is

1096:

If I agree that the assessment of consensus is valid I would delete. If I am uneasy about the assessment of consensus I would not delete. If I disagree strongly I would request the closer to explain. They may have good reasons, or may not. · · ·

11286:

I believe there is a script or something of that nature that can essentially "nuke" (i.e. mass delete by one button click) a list of pages (either bulleted or numbered) if my memory serves correctly. I thought it might be an actual extension of

5693:

admin, and certainly no prospective admin, has experience of all aspects of the admin toolset; we're not looking for experience in everything, we're looking for the self-awareness to know what to stay away from and when to ask advice from other

9807:

as per what has been said above. User does not seem to be familiar enough with various wiki guidelines, the answer to #12 is putting me off. He doesn't seem to want to work outside of his comfort zone or niche area. Not enough experience in my

7386:

So this particular Oppose gives 5 example of alleged misuse of tools and all 5 allegations seem wrong. Is there any way of flagging the Oppose to make it clear that checking it out will almost certainly waste your time (as it has wasted mine)?

4574:

Given the shortage of candidates as of late, I don't see a demonstrated need for the tools as an important criterion for adminship. Pbsouthwood seems like a qualified candidate to me, and I'll take qualified new admins any way we can get them.

4413:: I don't normally feel the need to weigh in at RfA but it seems like every vote will count this time. Giving the admin toolset to this editor will likely result in a net positive. I commend them for seeking the tools to benefit the community. 3162:

a well-defined purpose for the tools and plenty of clue with which to learn other aspects of the toolset if he still wants anything to do with us after his first 100,000+ admin actions. Would be delighted to see more candidates this promising.

169:

when sufficient reason is provided. I tend to edit in mostly uncontroversial areas, so it has not been much of a problem for me. Bold-revert-discuss almost always works for me, particularly the discuss part. I have no immediate plans to change.

8265:

to include the deletion of something in the order of 150,000 subpages." Whoever closes the respective deletion discussions can implement the deletions. If expedited deletion is approved, a list can be compiled for an existing administrator to

1756:

pointed out, lack of visibility to other editors is understandable. Peter's contrib history clearly shows patience, and civility. Wikiproject portals will certainly take a lot of time, and as Tony has pointed out in the comment section below,

7497:

To clarify the portals issue, these are mostly portal subpages. The WikiProject is cleaning things up, using selective transclusion and other methods rather than relying heavily on subpages. Some (most?) of the pages are being collected at

8362:

asked above about what you meant by "on request" in question 6, I feel that the user was concerned about your narrow focus and was asking you, "what 'other' areas are you talking about that you'd work on if that was requested"? Your answer,

5979:, Pbsouthwood now has my support. I still have concerns that users who only really understand one area of WP may make difficult-to-reverse mistakes in other areas if they have the tools, but I am convinced that Pbsouthwood is not one such. 12184:

Why would having an actual record of performance in different admin roles make evaluating candidates more nightmarish? (And yes, I know this idea has been rejected in the past. My point was that this RfA is a good example of why we should

510:

until I develop sufficient experience and confidence. There is no need to rush in. I expect the portal namespace deletions to occupy enough of my time in the near future, and I do not intend to seriously cut back on content creation.· · ·

7407:

I don't know Peter and have no reason to think that he is anything other than an excellent editor. But I'm afraid that, on the basis of the nomination alone, I have enough concerns about his suitability for adminship to move me into the

3746:

since you are primarily going to focus on deletions, it is an essay written by a wise, but now retired administrator. I realize you're going to be focusing on a very specific niche here, but it's still wise to be careful with deletions.

9385:, I don't believe it is what we look for in sysops; for sysops, we look for understanding. The first sentence admits he isn't familiar with any of the relevant policies, but nobody thinks he is anyway, so it's a fine start. Likewise, 11764:

I think it's probably best we don't attempt to do the job of bureaucrats for them, but as long as we're subtly canvassing, I'd like to think anyone judging consensus would consider the weight of the arguments and evidence for each. ~

8684:. Pbsouthwood's content creation is impressive at any rate, and he is level-headed from what I have seen. However, I don't think that there is a need for what is basically a single purpose adminship. He says in his nomination above, 11982:, I had to chuckle, of course thinking about the level of stress in your RL line of work, and the level of calm that's needed if/when forced to make a life or death decision at ≥56 m. I added an extra 20 pts to the pro side under 8660:". The legitimate concern expressed in the past has been that the community would start expecting temporary adminship before an RfA (or even stop electing any permanent admins altogether), leading to lower overall admin activity. ~ 4349:

it is enough for me that Pbsouthwood is "long-term, smart, conscientious, and not a hothead" - his contributions show that he is happy contributing within areas of his competence & I am confident that he will continue to do so.

7097:, and they were simply advising that anyone who did so would be wasting their time because, as they say, they are voting along the lines of Amory's thinking, and will not be per/dissuaded from that. That's my reading of it anyway. 9580:

As I continue to watch this RfA, I want to acknowledge that the diff presented by Alex Shi could be a valid reason that I might be wrong. I'm not changing my position at this time, but I do want to be honest about my uncertainty.

5111:

is a valuable essay and answers most of the concerns expressed in the section below. Even though the candidate may not now need all of the tools, he may find them useful. And Knowledge (we are told) needs more administrators.

9393:

That, as backed up in Q25, shows that he does not understand how our deletion discussions take place. Again, that's not surprising, as nobody has suggested he is familiar with deletion policy, but I wouldn't characterize it as

8210:: thank you for making me think very hard about my !vote, and I am sorry that I based part of it on a mistake – particularly when my oppose is based on the possibility that the candidate would make such mistakes! <m(__)m: --> 6739:), however there is nothing but nothing to show any experience, understanding, or even interest in any sysop-related work. I am surprised at nearly all of the supports — adminship is no big deal, but it has to require at least 4641:. This is my first !vote, but I had to. I think that the opposition has compelling points, but the candidate seems trustworthy and I think that it's important to have more administrators that are helpful, active, and dedicated. 1945:- demonstrated need for the tools, communicates well (outside of edit summaries), collaborative, good answers to questions, demonstrates CLUE in areas outside the Portals, adminship highly likely to be of benefit to Knowledge. 8597:" - They have no desire to help with the admin work around here and will primarily work with Portals only, There's not a real need for the tools and as such any deletions can be made with Twinkle (whether that's CSD or MFD). – 6276:- not seeing any sign that they are likely to go wild with the tools. At this point, after nine years and over 45,000 edits, I'm thinking if they were likely to do stupid things with the tools, we'd have seen some sign of it. 7888:) more than a "great editor" if you are granted the admin tools; for starters, you actually need experience. There is no guarentee that you will limit the use of the tools to your specific project which is a little worrisome. 3091:

have always had good interactions with the user, clearly has the experience, and single issue is a good way to start using the tools. Just because you have them, doesn't mean you need to use them all the time for everything.

2850:

Can sysop without exploding the enecyclopedia. I agree that multiple small edits in a row don't necessarily require an edit usmmary, but do support you using them more often,a nd appreciate how open you are to suggestions.

3024:

I like self-nominations and single-function admins. I like his willingness to give up the mop (though he might be more specific about it). In short I like having somebody who will add to the diversity of our admin corps.

10727:

power. What this RfA is doing is bringing to the fore the issue about devolution of admin powers over all, and will someone please start such a discussion? I could easily see the utility of limited admin power for mass

8411:

to do that. As explained by Amory, thousands have already been deleted and I am sure entire 150K pages will be deleted before this RfA closes, once there's consensus to do that. Therefore 150K portal pages deletion (The

3366:

This feels like a nearly perfect testcase for the community's willingness to trust someone who has proven trustworthy - just not in "admin" areas. I for one see nothing to indicate that if we trusted them with the admin

3857:(sorry, I think it's worded "deal with the tough cases an admin has to be able to handle") ... claims that you can't learn adminning on the job (n.b.: yes, you can) ... the "demonstrated need for the tools" canard ...) 1725:. Was a little concerned about the single-issue side of things, hence my Q6, but since you indicated in your answer you'd be open to recall, I see no problems. Self noms and edit summaries don't bother me. Good luck. 10006:

Lack of demonstrated need and no experience in really any administrative area. Many administrators have offered to help with your sole reason for wanting the right, so I would suggest taking them up on their offer.

8501:

The other thing I am not happy about is the vague answer to question 12. The candidate only talked about deleting articles but they haven't talked about how they will handle vandalism incidents as an administrator.

11680:. We've seen no evidence that this editor would inappropriately block schools, and despite saying you don't see anything productive in calling someone out on their block, that is exactly what you are doing here. -- 7747:

Thanks for your reply. That's concerning, then, in the context of Q1, Q8, and Q11. I still don't think there's much chance of tool abuse, but in that case it seems like there's not much chance of tool use, either.

3277:. Indeed they happen all the time. It's not the end of the world. As long as nobody starts wheel warring or losing their heads, everything will be fine. And I don't have any concerns that either will happen here. 1255: 617: 8963: 8333:- Don't get me wrong... I believe that you're a great editor... a fantastic one. You create content and you do so very well. You have plenty of content creation experience to show, and your content creation is a 8299:

Aditionally, the candidate's answers to Question 12 and 25 show a clear misunderstanding of discussion closures. Editors are not allowed to close discussions with an outcome that they cannot personally implement

8275:. If the candidate wishes to run for continued work within one or more established areas in the future (and can demonstrate sufficient experience in those areas), then I would be happy to consider their request. 11534:

hard work, and I thank those who are doing it, but the actual admin action of deletion is absolutely not. And given the discussion with Maile above, I'm not even sure that having the tools would help that much.

7950: 4862:

A candidate that has the collegiate improvement of the project firmly in mind and is prepared to do the grunt work. Just the kind of contributor the project should be encouraging to take on more responsibility.

1249: 10271:

I refuse your self-nom. We do not hand over mops for temporary clean-up projects. You cannot claim to be an admin just for two specific tasks when the mop, itself, does not have limitations within the project.

8130:'s neutral !vote) — that is, he doesn't have a clear understanding or familiarity of the role of admins when it comes to XfDs. More experience with the deletion policies and process would likely help that. ~ 7726:

As long as there is a single active admin willing to use batch delete (and, I guess, willing to trust the judgment of the people tagging the pages, which I certainly am), there will not be a backlog. If there

1053:

You have said that you would only really be willing to do admin work that is in your comfort zone. However, admin work, a lot of the time is working outwith comfort zones. Why only within your comfort zone?

12067:

2) RfA is prone to such inflation that I am pretty confident we'd get significant numbers who wouldn't lower their standards significantly, and become a full admin would become even more biblically difficult

1467:- I'll stick my neck out even though I haven't come into direct contact with this user. I don't see anything to give me concerns. And well done for having the courage to self-nominate in the present climate. 9613:

Thanks Alex, that's kind of you to say that. I figure the goal of RfA discussions should be to try to get at the truth, rather than to try to win an argument, and I don't claim to always know what is right.

1759:

G6 deletion isn't sexy, but it is frequently needed and having someone who is actually interested in doing it so that someone who doesn't care can spend their time elsewhere is a great benefit to the project

10823:

on the edit summary thing, I have to say that I think seeing how they actually communicate (my impression is good) is more important than whether they put "+" or "add" when adding a sentence or two content

4937:

While I see a lot of reference to Q12 in oppose, I actually support because of Q12. The candidate is conscientious of areas that they lack experience. I trust them to proceed with caution in these areas.

4482:. This editor has a clue and appears to know about content. Admin-ship shouldn't be a big deal. We are still the encyclopedia anyone can edit. (Despite being the 5th most visited website in the world). -- 2935:. Doesn't appear likely to do anything stupid with the tools. Particularly appreciate the complete openness about being willing to give them back - not that I think he should, but it speaks well of him. ♠ 5263:'s comments about unbundling etc. but I reach the opposite conclusion - namely that as we are losing our ability to effectively police the bad guys, unless you can be shown to be one, you deserve a try. 8160:'s statement, I also took the candidate's answer to Q25 as being unfamiliar with the XfD process as a whole, further validating why I eventually had to settle on putting myself in the "oppose" section. 12064:

1) Some of the powers that would have to be given for it it be a functional power (processing CSDs etc) are some of the most difficult, yet taking them off renders the position not a very good example.

7939:

comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the community policies and guidelines. I support the recommendations made by Kudpung above and look forward to seeing you again in the future. Best regards

8446:

You did got the first point, but I am afraid, not the second. I am not opposing him because (those excellent candidate who failed) were opposed, but because I evaluated him individually and found him

9981:

Pbsouthwood mentioned in response to question #8: "As far as I am aware, there are currently no admins who are members of WikiProject Portals..." If one would have taken five seconds to look at the

4797:

than pragmatic or "spirit of", interpretations of policy. And per RexxS, would prefer a new admin with a proven record of general competence, rather than a record of 10000s of bureaucratic actions.

3969: 613:

WMF started using article descriptions from Wikidata as disambiguators for Knowledge article titles returned by searches. In principle, not a bad idea, as it is potentially useful to the reader, but

10856:

Indeed, don't know where Bingobro got that figure. Anyhow, my comment in general still stands; also they do indeed seem to miss leaving edit summaries quite a bit (except for semi-automated stuff)

6692: 953:

There are lessons to be taken away from this RfA, and this could go either way. However, in case this RfA doesn't succeed, what would you improve and do to ensure that your next RfA is successful?

598:

to every article, independent of Wikidata. Please explain what steps you have taken to ensure community consensus for this undertaking. Do you consider those steps to have been adequate up to now?

12094:

candidates (years on the project, number of edits, some distribution of activities, no major bad behavior, etc.) the 'hasn't demonstrated walking on water' opposes can be more easily discounted.--

10989:, I do contribute to RfCs and policy discussions when I feel that I have something useful to say. Your username is familiar. Perhaps we have not disagreed enough for you to have noticed me. · · · 10108:

pet died, he wants to create an Afrikanns glossary for SCUBA, he went to Austrailia to count Fish, he is interested in Wikimania 2018 Cape Town. The only articles not SCUBA related were regarding

7285: 1597:- I trust hat e will stay within his area of competence nd be a net positive within it. It's worth noting that portal subpage deletion is utterly uncontroversial, and the easiest G6 imaginable. 776:"if anyone wants me to hand it in due to lack of use, they may request its return, and if there is sufficient reasonable consensus that this would be a good thing, I will cheerfully hand it back." 11629:

And every reason to think he'll proceed with caution, bring himself up to speed, and perhaps contribute to reducing the backlogs in future. I personally think we should take that opportunity. —

9014:—the candidate learned of a 150,000-item backlog, got acquainted with the area, and self-nominated to help there! Don’t know how much more proactive we can really ask (or want!) an admin to be. 5791:

mostly per Iridescent. To sum up, he's an intelligent person willing to help out who is prepared to stay away from areas where he currently has no experience or expertise. Sounds great to me. —

2698:

toolset, because they intend on only using part of it. Until such time as the toolset it's broken down into the various tasks, it's all or nothing, and I see no reason to deny because they only

185:

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

10749:, from oppose. While I still believe the candidate is asking for more than they truly need to accomplish their stated goals, I don't see the mop being granted as a net negative to the project. 8403:

150K portal subpages that current admins fail to? –has next to nothing experience in admin areas in entirety and this is something so obvious that even the supporters neither doubt nor refute.

4918:- if he doesn't know what he needs to do in a certain area he'll consult the policy beforehand. Net positive, wanting to work in an area others don't, won't delete the main page, no big deal. - 3801:. This is a long-term editor who knows the community and the policies and has no red flags that indicate that they'll abuse the extra tools or ignore feedback if they get in over their head. -- 8801:

due to lack of a meaningful track record in "admin-ish" things, over-focus on one activity (we don't need an admin whose primary goal is thousands of page deletions of one narrow kind; extant

7968: 281:

You write that after the deletion work is done you "would be willing to consider other admin work on request". Does that mean that if nobody requests anything, your mop will just gather dust?

624: 5905:

I have been thinking all this from the first hour or so, however I coulld not be convinced by the opposes. The candidate is trustworthy, regardless their flaws, so, why not? Net positive. --

10051:"there is no need...to have the tools and no need...to help with the work at this stage suggest that perhaps the need for more admins is less pressing than we are generally led to believe," 8722:- the editor immediately above me phrased it perfectly to sum up my views. I thank the candidate for putting themselves out there for consideration and the corresponding scrutiny, however. 4763:

Solid and well-rounded editing history. Being an admin takes some on-the-job learning, and the candidate's prior history gives me no qualms that they will use the tools well. Has my trust.

256:

are that it will be convenient for all if there is someone in the associated project who can do this. If there are some cases which need to be undeleted, this can be done on request. · · ·

2477:, batch deleting pages is easy, it's the reviewing that's difficult. As these 150k pages are liable to need quick but easy reviewing, I do not believe it will be a major burden on us. ~ 6668: 5393:

With no disrespect to either Joe or epic, frankly, it's disturbing to see the trend of supporters being badgered for being honest about their opinions. Lourdes 16:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

9825:- I had initially supported this RfA, but after reading other's concerns about Pbsouthwood's lack of experience in Admin areas, that is a big red flag for me hence the change in vote. 928:

Taking the example at face value, I don't see a need for any action. The address has history, but a later check that the contributions remain unproblematic should be sufficient. · · ·

11823:

given to experience and more to trustworthiness. But as Amory correctly mentions above, I don't think second-guessing the crats here is appropriate. So I'll drop the discussion here.

5129:. Knowledge needs more administrators for routine mop work. Those without experience in all areas will be able to grow into the job. I see no compelling reasons advanced by opposers. 6688: 4447:: The proposed use of adminship (portal maintenance) is an obvious need for the tools, and an experienced editor like the candidate is likely to be competent in other areas as well. 3070:- Some people have taken issue with the "just for one purpose" element of the self-nom. I say if we can trick responsible, experienced users into taking adminship through a single " 5301:

Good answers (example "Rangeblocks are an occasionally necessary evil"). An admin does not need to be expert in all admin areas and Pbsouthwood appears to have the right approach.

9444:, but this user has been too busy contributing to the encyclopedia to become immersed in administrative/behind the scenes areas to do so, and I'd say that's a feature, not a bug. 2063:

without any issues (AFAICT) also helps quell any doubts I may have. Besides, there is a clear need for more admins and we have a qualified candidate willing to put in the work. --

1430: 7587:

I would note that if you look at the edit history, you can see the pages I have removed from the list. I (and others) have deleted a fair few not needed subpages using the list.

2540: 6437:

consider adminship to be no big deal. I have no reason to believe that Peter will be less than a benefit to Knowledge as an administrator, even if his focus is narrow in scope.

8829:

about it, use the lengthy process not the expedient tool to deal with it." Otherwise there will be an assumption (based on actual likelihood) that you're misusing the tools to

6696: 5396:

Perhaps Joe could've been less snarky, but I think there is a difference between badgering and making a clarification when you feel that your viewpoint is being misunderstood.

11657:

someone out on their block, and I don't see anything productive coming of that.) While I don't know see evidence that this user would act like that, I'm not confident that he

6178:

trusted with their judgement and integrity to be put in the seat of a judge, and people capable of doing maintenance work implement the judgement. I vote support for trusting

5438:

Even if Phsouthwood never uses admin tools at all outside of this one task, what harm is done to the project? Wouldn't making them an administrator still be a net positive? --

7208: 6684: 6580:, and adminship is supposed to be no big deal, anyways. This is probably someone worth taking a chance on, as it doesn't appear likely that the tools would be misused here. 5599:: While I maintain some of the original concerns, after thinking about this for several days, I feel it would be wrong to oppose an candidate with such clear introspection ( 4129: 3999:

don't want to be bothered with (I think that Google is the portal, but whatever). Lamest oppose section I can recall. After this, I hope I never see any more articles about

3544: 1509: 10702:- I see this editor as someone that can help the Portal project but I feel strange about giving someone all the admin toolset just to delete a bunch of old portal pages. -- 6315:

Seems like a trustworthy candidate that has a need for the tools. Strikes me as a thoughtful person that will not haphazardly jump into areas they are not familiar with. --

12226:

All things considered, although this may or may not be within the discretioary range, this may be a very good example of where an RfA should be considered on the

11786: 9711:

While this user seems to be reasonably qualified, I'd like to see a bit more experience on AfD and elsewhere around the project. I therefore regretfully oppose. This is a

7503: 3217:. I find the third-person nomination strange, but I have no concerns about the trustworthiness, maturity or competence of this user. Rhododendrites also has a good point. 3133: 2518: 2498: 203:

is, IMHO, crucial to achieve this. You have not been using them consistently, especially on minor edits or removal of content. Why is that and do you plan to change this?

12179: 7105: 7093:

It's because Bbb23 (since they've said they won't respond, I'm not sure of the point in pinging them!) knows that early / unpopular 'Oppose' votes have a tendency to get

4965:

I was a little unsure at first which is why I asked my question and thought over the answer to it. However, I believe that they can be trusted with the mop and bucket.--

4828:. Per no big deal. Let there be more admins, the site is creakier than before for the lack of them. It is harder to become an admin here than to get into a good college. 6664: 5219: 3902:, trustful and net positive to the project. Let's not make this process unnecessarily difficult for good-faith users who need the mop, however small that need might be. 12103: 10414: 7241:

So basically he has had one false positive with rollback and you're opposing??? It happens to everyone to screw up when reverting vandals. I just made a false positive

1383: 12152: 11619: 11604: 11457: 10388: 7946: 7236: 7121: 7117: 7034: 2615: 918: 162:

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?

11759: 9790:

We don't need temp admins to solve one issue. We already have too many admins. Doesn't it make more sense to encourage current admins to participate in that project?

9212:

understanding of how AfD works. I would give them a shot if we could reevaluate after a while. However, as there is no way of doing so, I have to oppose regretfully.

6965: 6152:. Moreover, the user has done some great content creation and has a calm and collected way of interacting with other editors. The editor's recent edit summaries (see 5871:, net positive to the project, displays good character and judgment. Opposers who are trying to turn this into a referendum on tool bundling should be disregarded. -- 1378: 12194: 11987:

important is best left for the iVoters to decide. I also considered your adminship status at wikivoyage, and quite frankly, I wish we had more candidates like you.

10981: 9023: 7929: 7840: 7825: 7060: 6455:

as mentioned preceding. For example it is no big deal to close an AfD. With these works completed they are sure to be a very well respected administrator candidate.

6399:: Echoing FlyingAce immediately above. PBS is trustworthy and competent with a suitable temperament for the mop, in spite of a lack of experience in admin activity. 3761:

This is a tough one, and I've been on the fence. I had no problem with the self-nom, but was put off by its third-person aspect (took me a moment to realize that it

11970: 11083: 11025: 10942:

the editor has been here only for ten years, not sure if thats long enough. Jokes apart, I havent seen the editor much; need some time before putting the vote in. —

9059: 8407:

doesn't instill confidence either. The correct and straightforward answer is that "Specific need is deleting 150K portal subpages", but unfortunately we don't need

8234: 8151: 8116: 8092: 8078: 8060: 7291:

because admin give us rollback flag to fight for vandalism. But in this case, there is no use of this flag. So it appear to me as hat collecting. Also I agree with

7088: 7079:

I don't think it was the "Per Amory" bit that was being objected to. It was "I will not respond to comments or questions" - discussions require 2 way communication

7074: 6989: 6832:. I looked at every projectspace edit for nearly 30 months, and if Pbsouthwood had been active at even one area I'd have supported. I found basically nothing. ~ 4100: 3657: 3171: 2277: 517: 11792:

crats to promote or not promote as they see fit. They could even decide to promote or not promote with values outside that range, but that would be much rarer. —

10996: 5231: 5062:

I believe the candidate is competent and would not abuse the sysop tools. He has also stated he would be open to recall so there are few negatives, in my opinion.

3574: 1457: 12131: 10182: 9773:

simply can't happen due to the lack of a recall process. Maybe one day people will see that some sort of "Probationary Admin" period is needed, but until then...

8399:

I can easily join the bandwagon of support and nobody will query me, but that will actually be betrayal of my conscience. This user–while with good intention of

7412:

camp. I can get on board with a self-nomination, but talking about oneself in the third person is not a good start. More seriously, his statement explains why he

6292:- I too reflected on the person behind the User page and so changed from oppose to support. History shows that this editor has earned the trust of the community ― 4732:

the user seems trustworthy and in an era of declining adminship any we gain, even if they don't do much with the tools, is a win. God knows I barely use the bit.

1176: 935: 12209: 10955: 8957: 8939: 8671: 8644: 8219: 8175: 8083:

I am happy with the new Q25 answer, which addresses all my concerns on Q12. Nevertheless, I am still opposing for other reasons, which I have previously stated.

7472:

Well, I have seen and interacted enough to be reasonable confident on that. The gender-neutral just feels more natural, dunno; they're obviously a dude, though.

7318: 6868: 6853: 6779: 1619:

Very pleased with the response to my question, showing that Peter intends to only make clear-cut deletions tagged by other people unless it's blindingly obvious.

11956: 11053: 10924: 9590: 8754: 8735: 7596: 5287:. The candidate can be trusted with the mop and may make some use of it so why not? The opposes (nom in 3rd person, only 1 uaa report etc) are, imo, very weak. 3592: 11801: 11247: 9623: 9608: 7582: 7548: 7531: 7038: 2236: 1520:

experience they'd stay away, and they'll respond well to concerns if they make mistakes, and thus I expect mainly/solely positives from them having the tools.

11988: 11817: 11671: 11141: 10519: 10497: 10473: 9971: 9701: 8002: 7613: 7481: 7467: 7361: 6903: 3423: 2178: 2155: 1544: 665:

It seems that, if it weren't for the portal system, you wouldn't have filed this request. Why do you think this case requires its own sysop given that these

425: 11705: 11693: 10905: 10891: 10833: 9911: 9466: 9422: 8460: 8441: 8039: 7266: 6950: 5433: 5388: 1883:

which shows enough understanding of the deletion process that he would never improperly influence a deletion discussion (I don't know how to put it better).

11903: 11578: 10865: 10851: 10660: 9884: 9372: 8982: 7450: 6816: 6801: 5477: 5451: 5176:. No concerns whatsoever. Despite the candidate's expressed need for one tool, I hope he will help in other areas, and I believe he will do so responsibly. 3672: 2328:- seems like a competent candidate. If they do evolve beyond portal work, I hope that they take it slow and review the relevant policies and guidelines. -- 2132: 1639: 789:

need for other tools, or a further need for the deletion button, and it would be rather pointless to do this all over again if there are no problems. · · ·

565:

involved in the deletion discussion. Discussions closed as delete by another person I would check if I agree with the closure, and delete if I agree. · · ·

11346: 11125: 11098: 10960:

Likely related to lack of projectspace participation — 90% of their edits are to Main/Talk/User, so it's not odd for folks to have limited interaction. ~

10368: 9686:...And the candidate's answer to Q25 further validates my concerns. I really don't think the candidate has an understanding of how XfD works on Knowledge. 9165: 7757: 7742: 7721: 7592: 6387:– mostly per Cullen328 and Iridescent. I understand most of the opposition's concerns, but still consider that the candidate can be trusted with the mop. – 4833: 1225: 1139: 1104: 903: 838: 501: 469: 375: 331: 299: 263: 245: 11943: 11929: 11874: 11377: 9516: 9489: 8511: 7396: 5922:

seems like a good character, will use the tools constructively as discussed, and there is no reason to believe this will be a negative for the project. --

4318: 4176:

Per all of the above. Needing the tools for one area of admin work is sufficient reason to have the mop in my book, so long as the editor is trustworthy.

4148: 10450: 9313: 9199: 9180: 7607:

The words "easier" and "desysop" do not belong in the same sentence together. I can think of a few that ought to be desysopped, but good luck with that.

5405: 5160: 4283:

than one way to handle writing an article, or performing an admin action, and just because someone does it differently to you does not make them wrong.

2072: 1068: 1035: 1003: 967: 796: 756: 724: 693: 643: 572: 226: 10353: 10338: 10125: 6613:, We need more helpful admins, especially someone with a task they can focus on. There have been no non-trivial demonstrated concerns with temperament. 3696: 11857: 11741: 11726: 11522: 11479: 11442: 11425: 11323: 11310: 11183: 9090:. No demonstrated permanent need for the tools at this time. I am also concerned about poor answers to some questions and inadequate edit summary use. 9038:

a list so that it is dead-easy for a sysop to delete them in an instant. That seems like what Just Chilling might have had in mind with that line. ~

7279: 6920: 4689:

mentioned that "I've done probably about 1000 of these deletions now with probably less than 20 clicks" I sat in the oppose camp for a while. But then

3642:

Without wanting to speak for the other opposers, I think the problem is that the candidate intends to work in deletion but doesn't have any experience

3478: 1803:

WikiProjectPortals needs someone to do this job and Peter's the right guy for it. He'll be great and only use his power for good. Unqualified support.

11211: 9942: 9389:

is about as rudimentary a statement as one can make, but it is correct, so fine. The real issue folks (myself included) have is with the final line:

8323: 7051:

saying that as well (and I'm not even a support !vote). Rather harsh on someone brave enough to come to RfA to refuse to even discuss his application

3004: 2087: 2027: 12253: 10211: 6660: 5707: 4814:

I've seen Peter's excellent content and non-content contributions on Knowledge and other Wikimedian wikis over many years. He will be a great admin.

406: 317:

How would being an administrator (specifically being able to use the delete button, but also in general) assist you with your content creation work?

11399: 9350:

what we require and look for from administrators. I'm not sure what kind of answer you would have liked, but I can't possibly imagine a better one.

8656:

This has been proposed before. What I really should have said is "It would be nice if we had some system to grant adminship for a temporary project

8272: 3711: 3488:. I'm more familiar with him from Wikivoyage, where he has been an admin for 5 years. I have no reason to think he can't be trusted with the tools. 6720: 887:

Rangeblocks are an occasionally necessary evil. Knowledge may be the 💕 that anyone can edit, but it is also the encyclopedia that anyone can edit

114:

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

7112:

What leads you to believe that a monologue (and an explicit refusal to even begin any kind of dialogue) constitutes "discussion" in this context?

3255:

It's a rare occurrence to see RfA candidates tackling areas other admins rarely deal with. And those work are desperately needed and appreciated.

12052: 7686: 7588: 6724: 6680: 6498: 4829: 2948: 8836:

On the up side, the editor is long-term, smart, conscientious, and not a hothead. Suggestion: finish your cleanup drive the normal way, get the

3615: 3532: 1497: 488:

which requests you would comply to, and what are the areas where you feel you are comfortable/knowledgeable enough to use the tools? Thanks :) —

7907: 6672: 6040: 4368: 11591: 10032: 9985:, one would find admins who had added themselves to the list well before the start of this RFA. Considering that this is the main reason that 7712:

Above it's noted that there isn't really a backlog. As someone involved in these deletions, does it seem like a backlog is likely to develop?

1840:, good work on short descriptions and participation at portal discussions. Thoroughly inconsistent use of edit summaries is the only concern. 70: 9946: 7625:, in the past few months, Pbsouthwood has requested a number of G6 deletions for redundant portal subpages and a few G7s. Beyond that, I see 5090:. Has reasonable grounds for requesting tools, and based on answers and temperament I see no reason to suspect they'll be abused or misused. 4000: 3062: 2470:

Well, I offered, for one, and without volunteering others by name, we have plenty of sysops who regularly delete a bunch of boring crap. As

2465: 2415: 11890:, please take note of this encouragement. I would also urge you to let this run its course, as stressful as that may be for the time being. 9799: 6451:. It is clear that the candidate requires the administrator mop bucket toolset in order to properly carry out the needful work intended for 6020:

Was thinking about sitting this one out but what the heck, we need more admins. This is a quality user who will be an asset with the mop. ~

2943: 2672: 11403: 11235: 10816: 8764:. Completely unnecessary request that can be adequately handled by the existing sysop userbase, not to mention the lack of AfD experience. 6652: 6251: 3637: 3192: 2744: 1580:

creation credentials look good (more than 100 articles, seeing several through to GA), there is a clean block log, and established tenure.

605: 12239: 11638: 11546: 10676: 7272: 6341:

as per Iridescent and ZettaComposer. My previous interaction with this editor showed him to be a conscientious and meticulous individual.

5327: 4741: 3845: 3284: 1659: 11273: 10784: 7897: 6140: 6031: 5943: 4974: 3894: 1795: 11554: 10141: 9101: 7183: 6632: 5002: 3083: 2474: 2398: 447:

matter. Would you consider finding and deleting unused pages by your own initiative, or would you limit deletions only to those already

104: 12271: 10629:- just placing a neutral vote here to register my participation. It's an edge case and I can't make my mind up. I would like to thank 10621: 10287: 9919: 9566:

of the tools that I'm only part-way confident about giving trust. Ultimately, then, I'm just slightly over the line into opposition. --

9012:

identified areas where there are backlogs, gained experience in those areas and volunteer to assist; not waiting and hoping to be asked

7809: 6676: 6656: 6012: 5880: 5821: 4579: 4456: 4312: 3309: 3209: 3147:

and since we’re closing in on four score votes without indication of anything disqualifying by that standard, I say, sure, and thanks!

2826: 2320: 1828: 1778: 711:

As required can you please confirm that have never edited for pay or any other form of compensation or rather "required to disclose"

10762: 9817: 9221: 9005: 8775: 8566: 8065:

I am, BTW, somewhat concerned by the Q12 answer, but that's not the biggest issue for me because it can be interpreted multiple ways.

7876: 7796: 6648: 5988: 5549: 5251: 5234: 5168: 5082: 5054: 4957: 4491: 4168: 4077: 3911: 3156: 2789:

candidate has s specific, large task they want to accomplish and has a long history as a respected able and contributor to Knowledge.

2381: 1717: 1693: 1442: 12141: 10571: 9118: 8375:" and then mentioning that you'll "hand your mop back" if people ask you to due to not using it after the cleanup tells me that your 6764: 6728: 6533: 5914: 5783: 5501: 5071: 4889: 4616: 4051: 4034: 3868: 3753: 3330: 3265: 2639: 1571: 109: 10711: 9742: 9337: 8881: 8858: 6481: 6408: 6345: 6333: 5715: 5698: 5591: 5570: 5279: 5193: 5138: 4788: 4755: 4566: 4439: 4359: 3925: 3828: 3789: 3038: 2999:. I am much more active at Wikivoyage than here & I know Peter from there as both a long-term contributor (e.g. large chunks of 2780: 2706: 2359: 1812: 1606: 1280: 11315:

Ah okay. I'm not aware of such a script, but if it exists and does what you describe please let me know where so I can add it! ;-)

10219: 10202: 9782: 9763: 9575: 9257: 8699: 7679: 7622: 6704: 6619: 6589: 6391: 6268: 6165: 6117: 5846: 5611: 5210: 4854: 4707: 4673: 4601: 4545: 4529: 3404: 3380: 2906: 2889: 2337: 1937: 1917: 1589: 1529: 1212: 591: 414: 10604: 10263: 10236: 9982: 9681: 9240: 9135: 8610: 8585: 6516: 6284: 6191: 6066: 5951:

after thinking about this for a day. I still find myself uncomfortable on principle with single-purpose admin candidacies, but as

5926: 5767: 5310: 5121: 5099: 4929: 4837: 4508: 4294: 4236: 4202: 3819:

Support, largely along the lines of Miniapolis. Some concerns, sure, but a long-term adminship on enwvoy cancels those out to me.

3358: 3226: 2989: 2956: 2800: 2655: 2252:

change your oppose, I'll immediately apply to get my admin flag back. What say? Love as always, Lourdes, 04:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

2052: 1981: 669:? Put another way, can you expand on your answer to question 8 by explaining what you specifically bring to the table aside from 462:

pages I created myself, or are part of a project in which I am sufficiently active to be well aware of their lack of value. · · ·

397:

or similar. Can you please explain what this is and how you have been doing and if you have been using a script for this. Thanks.

10741: 10642: 10554: 9857: 8900: 8793: 8713: 8629: 8426: 6915:

and there is nothing I've seen to date that indicates he will not morph into the kind of administrator the community expects and

6568: 6545: 6464: 6425: 6307: 6234: 6100: 6048: 5897: 5803: 5749: 5679: 5370: 5028: 4872: 4820: 4771: 4694:

So with such a solid track record, I think there is very little risk for the applicant to go off the rails. Best of luck, Peter.

4405: 4376: 4262: 4012: 3514: 3442: 3247: 3016: 2973: 2927: 2763: 2306: 2197: 2108: 1762: 10049:

there does not appear to be a real need for the tools (even more so with Dolotta's reasoning). The candidate also realizes that

9998: 9662:

closes a discussion to "delete", but forgets/neglects to perform the deletion themselves (though there are some exceptions with

9556: 9082: 8535: 8496: 7859: 7779: 7700: 7435: 7242: 6443: 6362: 6208: 5732: 5293: 4906: 4724: 4656: 4422: 4219: 4185: 3814: 3124: 3101: 2842: 2723: 1736: 10015: 9724: 9150: 8391: 8103: 6605: 5639: 5532: 4806: 4633: 4341: 4274: 3678:

literally never requested speedy deletion in some of our more nuanced categories (e.g. A7). I know it's not rocket science and

2689: 2444: 2004: 1964: 1702: 10324: 10099: 10077: 8921: 8294: 7987: 7014: 6736: 6732: 5863: 5662: 3497: 3463: 2860: 1676: 11649: 11197: 10694: 10129: 9902: 8928: 6379: 4715:

I see no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. I am unconvinced by the arguments (or lack of) of the opposers. --

4308: 4119: 3138:

to make a list of all Wikipedians with over 10,000 edits who are not admins, and give all the non-insane ones the permissions

2791:

The clincher for me is he has said he is willing to resign the tools if ever there is a community consensus for him to do so.

1899: 1476: 1321: 11661:

act like that; he admittedly lacks the involvement in that administrative area to judge one way or another, and while I did

10685:

tools. Headscratch. Maybe the comment that the project should compile lists for mass del by an admin is better solution? ☆

9644:. The candidate's answer to Q12 leaves me with the impression that the candidate has no understanding or prior knowledge of 7651: 7420: 5493:

Don't see why not. And paraphrasing one comment I saw in the Oppose section, I too won't respond to comments or questions.--

5201:. I believe the candidate is competent, committed, mature, reasonable, trustworthy, and would not abuse the sysop tools. -- 10053:

and there really is not so much need to add more admins at this point. Overall, I could not find a good reason to support.

9035: 8186:

for !voting based on familiarity with admin areas and then demonstrating that I'm not clear on them either. <m(__)m: -->

7499: 7342: 7150: 7113: 7030: 6859:

there is anything wrong with opposing as you are, because indeed not really participating at any admin area is concerning.

5996:

very little risk and high reward. Any additional assistance, even if limited to only certain areas, is greatly appreciated.

4996: 4302:

established editor, no serious issues, and adminship shouldn't require more. As to those worried about someone deigning to

3743: 3305: 452: 3388:

I am grateful when a respected, experienced editor is inspired to take on a task like this, which I'm sure he'll do well.

3007:) and someone who has been a competent (though I do not think particularly active) user of admin tools for several years. 1219: 10732:

deletions at some point. Meanwhile, outside of this issue, the candidate seems to be someone we should have as an admin.

9933:

due to it being an indefinite appointment (barring no trouble) and the wide range of tools granted. This is addressed at

8770: 5010:

Expect this editor to use the tools wisely and that the tools will better help this editor to improve this reference work

3301: 1761:. In the meantime, Peter would certainly learn about the toolset. This RfA is not a lot similar, but a little similar to 11335: 4516:, per Find Bruce. "Long-term, smart, conscientious, and not a hothead" is a pretty good summation of my RFA criteria.-- 2804:

Noticed he only agrees to recall for lack of activity. Asked question about willingness to be subject to general recall.

11780: 11077: 10975: 10408: 9930: 9416: 9053: 8145: 7817: 7576: 7525: 6983: 6944: 6847: 6758: 4094: 4071: 3568: 2492: 2271: 2230: 1752:

I didnt have any concerns before commenting in the comments section, nor during the time when I asked the question. As

742:

How would you assess whether there is a consensus for tasks that involve large-scale deletion of portal-related pages?

149: 10482:

support either. The candidate just needs more experience with boards/forums/etc. that needs administrators to handle.

5956: 5600: 2345:- this candidate has just about half of their contribs on this wiki, with another 40,000 or so on other WMF projects ( 1908:, I do have some issues with the candidate, but I believe they are net positive and can become a good administrator.-- 12083: 12027: 12012:

calmer than some RfAs. If it does tick back down into 'Crat territory, presumably they'd take a look at those as well

11430:

Ah, I've seen that before but... anyways, I understand what you were referring to now. Thanks for clarifying for me,

10310:

I was going to move to support following the answers to questions 5 to 8, but this part of the answer to question 12

9333: 8977: 8876: 8853: 6716: 6153: 4143: 1820:

Only minor concern is the edit summary usage, which isn't really enough to consider oppose. He'll make a fine admin.

1650:: Impressive work in mainspace area. The user already has adminship experience on other WMF. Nothing negative found. 1293: 1205: 90: 9436:, if he wanted to get involved in that area, we could trust him to familiarize himself with policies and procedures 3919:

Based on a short review of contributions, I support. I trust this editor to use the tools selectively and wisely. --

12230:

rather than the traditional numerical votes. It is always assumed that any Knowledge debate is 'not a vote'.

11645: 10584: 10228:

agree? The candidate's answer shows they are clueless about how articles are taken care of after a AFD is finished.

7850:

don't trust that this user would be using the tools constructively; I'd just like to see a need before supporting.

7158:

Rollback should use to revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear.

7147: 5274: 4562: 3611: 2367:

Well-rounded editor and an admin on other projects that will be a net positive as an admin here. I would encourage

2354: 1493: 1373: 33: 17: 10121: 3579:

Please let's not be mechanical here. I seconded Amory's question. Pease share with us –preferably with diffs– the

11163: 10258: 10028: 8582: 8472:

I have been thinking about this carefully and I decided to oppose. Firstly, my admin readiness score is 956 (see

7657:

for clean-up, issues of current deletion rate aside. Second, I'm worried about Peter's record of experience, but

7192:

edits, the 4th is from 6 months ago, and the 5th is reverting extreme spam and thus permitted as anti-vandalism.

6708: 5841: 5349: 3836:

Most of the opposes have no concerns other than narrowness of need, which I believe is a weak reason to oppose.--

3419: 3400: 2881: 1933: 1399: 1088:"Discussions closed as delete by another person I would check if I agree with the closure, and delete if I agree" 10393:

I think this is an under-appreciated thread, especially now in light of similar comments in response to Q25. ~

9715:, and in if you come back in a few months with more contributions to AfD I might be inclined to change my mind. 9391:

Discussions closed as delete by another person I would check if I agree with the closure, and delete if I agree.

1243: 913:

You are an administrator, the current date is May 23, 2016, and someone is asking you to help with a backlog at

604:

It is a long story, and not particularly entertaining, so I will try to keep it short. For more detail refer to

199:

Administrators are expected to be good at communicating their actions to avoid misunderstandings and bad blood.

11040: 10312:

Discussions closed as delete by another person I would check if I agree with the closure, and delete if I agree

9851: 7630: 3371:

tools that they wouldn't behave as responsibly as they have in other areas of their Knowledge endeavors. Best,

2609: 2575: 2048: 1786:

Looking to do a thankless job and definitely has the insight to do it. Would be a huge positive for Knowledge.

1153: 10790: 10536:

The low AfD participation and edit summary usage bothers me greatly. I've only had positive interactions with

11265:

would not yield any benefit ;-)... unless you were just referring to "nuking" as simply deleting one-by-one?

9795: 9552: 8962:

Perhaps more substantively: Raw number crunching about AfD is actually lamer than Compassionate727 suggests.

8383:. Your lack of experience in sudo-admin areas supports this assumption, and I'm sorry to have to oppose you. 7831:

capabilities cannot be unbundled and the community cannot desysop. What could possibly be clearer than that?

7422: 6631:

Quite familiar with Pete's excellent work, so I am surprised to see this. My RfA criteria are as low as the

6564: 6452: 6091: 3047: 2411: 365: 128: 94: 5375:

Reluctant opponent here. I can say that some of the other opposers' arguments, at first glance, sound like "

4159:

don't know the policies. I trust him to be appropriately conservative if/when he expands his areas of work.

2314:, see no reason to suspect abuse will happen. If he wants a mop to clean things up with, then give him one. 717:

I can confirm that I have never edited for any form of compensation other than personal satisfaction. · · ·

590:

Hello Peter, this ties in with Q9. Apart from your portal work you have also been among the prime movers of

6490: 6057:

one’s own comfort zone). I trust him with the tools and I think the project will benefit if he has them. --

2940: 2668: 11922: 11514: 11471: 11417: 11369: 11302: 10086: 10068: 8315: 8286: 7340: 7259: 6960: 6247: 6039:

It looks to me like he's genuinely trying to help, and I see no reason to fear he might abuse the tools.

5632: 4736: 3628: 3607: 3526: 2885: 2739: 2437: 2023: 2000: 1959: 1485: 703: 595: 11609:

Look at the page history, several comments and votes have been removed rather than struck (probably per

8354:

and extremely little work in CSD, AFD, UAA, and other places) where experience (let alone, presence) is

7626: 1409: 12252:

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

10672: 10024: 9941:, or by seeking an experienced editor familiar at RFA to nominate them. Until the tools are unbundled, 9271: 8338:

use of the tools draws me pause, and your lack of experience in sudo-administrative areas (no edits to

7893: 7441:

indeed; however I do have confidence that they would quickly resign if things go south with the tools.

3841: 1655: 64: 11934:

It has risen 2 percent since a low of 72% - could even get past the magic number of 75% at this rate!

10842:

I may be mistaken or missing somthing, but X-tools appears to show a different figure. See talk page.

7634: 5888:

A long-term, solid content contributor who's level-headed, conscientious, and can clearly be trusted.

10780: 10137: 10117: 9096: 9071:

per above, unfortunately. Concerns with limited experience in administrative areas of the project. -

7308: 7173: 6134: 6004: 5939: 5323: 4970: 4389: 3888: 2868:

I am sure they will grow into the admin tools. Strong editor with a long history of community trust.

1791: 1314: 1237: 10046:"there are potentially a very large range of tasks where I would not be comfortable with the tools," 6182:'s judgement and integrity. (First time vote here, if I technically did it wrong please advice me.) 12190: 12145: 12099: 12048: 11752: 11193: 11153: 10875: 10280: 9915: 9791: 8066: 7201: 7098: 4991: 4246: 3553:? I have been unable to find much, whether around deletion or other sysop-relevant activities. ~ 2533: 2511: 2458: 2407: 2394: 2078:

particular, I resonate with Steel1943, Double sharp, and Iffy's votes and discussion underneath. --

1347: 1264: 1187: 806: 75: 8476: 6639:

to deal with portalspace cleanup. We do not give the sysop bit to humans for one-off projects or

6635:, but I'd like to see an actual need. This RfA is, as Pbsouthwood has admitted frequently above, 12079: 12023: 11966: 11665:

the candidate, I sincerely hope he will not make me regret that vote if he succeeds in this RfA.

11016: 10946: 10617: 9813: 9712: 9217: 9001: 8640: 8561: 7998: 7872: 7836: 7792: 7349: 7070: 6883:

will be limited, it's still useful. Plus he could get involved in other areas at a later point.

5876: 5817: 4452: 3297: 3205: 2936: 2822: 2735:

editor. I'm sure he'll use the tools well. No doubt, he will expand use of them as time goes on.

2664: 1769: 1368: 989:

and give some examples of content you would consider for redaction under criteria two and three?

492: 10025:

The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.

7144: 7141: 7138: 2663:

The purpose is positive for the project and given his track record I see no danger of misuse. --

12119: 11776: 11073: 11049: 10971: 10404: 9412: 9294: 9114: 9049: 9019: 8230: 8215: 8141: 8112: 8088: 8074: 8056: 8035: 8024: 7821: 7572: 7521: 7344:), but notice how the sentence you quoted in your vote says that it can also be used to revert 7232: 6979: 6940: 6899: 6843: 6754: 6243: 5984: 5566: 5562: 5545: 5247: 5164: 5049: 4952: 4733: 4164: 4088: 4065: 3907: 3623: 3564: 3182: 3167: 3152: 2488: 2454: 2377: 2267: 2226: 1880: 1714: 1689: 1635: 1438: 1363: 782:

should the community ever form a consensus that you no longer have the community's confidence?

11613:). I probably shouldn't have even said anything because it encourages them, but I am curious. 10381:

differently on the other wikis you edit, as discussions probably receive much less attention.

9873:. That essay is for real newbies to the site, not editors of nine years with over 40k edits. - 8473: 1667:, what I've seen of their work was good and gives confidence that they won't abuse the tools. 1484:. Great and experienced editor. Very active since 2016. Make sure to use more edit summaries. 12175: 11953: 11600: 11138: 10993: 10921: 10668: 10567: 10384: 10365: 9738: 9329: 8974: 8945: 8935: 8873: 8850: 8126:' Q25 to be very much in agreement with his previous statements (Q12, the discussion down in 7889: 7621:

experience with the deletion process, which is the area that he wants to work in. Looking at

7287:. He just used rollback for 6 time without any significant clear case of vandalism. So it is 7084: 7065:”Per Amory” means they endorse that user’s objections. That’s contributing to the dicussion. 7056: 6529: 5910: 5558: 5159:(#96):"Trusted editors with a great editing history can easily be trusted with admin tools." 5067: 4885: 4613: 4385: 4140: 4047: 4029: 3864: 3837: 3326: 3280: 3261: 2635: 1651: 1567: 1506: 1454: 1199: 1173: 1136: 1101: 1065: 1032: 1000: 964: 932: 900: 835: 793: 753: 721: 690: 640: 569: 514: 466: 422: 372: 328: 296: 260: 223: 101: 84: 56: 10293: 4193:. Trusted editors with a great editing history can easily be trusted with admin tools. -- 3450:- I don't know this user, but there's some heinous opposes down there that need cancelling. 1421: 12071: 12015: 10776: 10707: 10215: 10133: 9778: 9619: 9586: 9571: 9253: 9091: 8695: 7942: 7671: 7633:

in November 2017 – but it doesn't look like his next successful deletion tag appears until

7325: 7297: 7215: 7162: 6477: 6404: 6326: 6127: 6023: 5935: 5711: 5585: 5473: 5384: 5319: 5269: 5185: 5134: 4966: 4784: 4558: 4435: 4355: 3923: 3882: 3824: 3780: 3731: 3031: 2776: 1808: 1787: 1602: 1307: 1123: 1045: 860: 10871: 10647:

Yep, it's a tricky one. Thought about it for a few days before I finally made up my mind.

7884:- I see a lot of the "great editor" comments in support, but you have to be a little (ok, 6625: 3142: 2346: 1342: 1231: 8: 12186: 12111: 12095: 12044: 11939: 11897: 11677: 11565: 11342: 10901: 10861: 10829: 10654: 10515: 10493: 10469: 10446: 10274: 10252: 10233: 9934: 9870: 9697: 9677: 9604: 9486: 9161: 8579: 8437: 8171: 7925: 7915: 7477: 7463: 7446: 7418: 7392: 6864: 6821:

I don't really disagree with either of you but I think there's a vast difference between

6812: 6775: 6614: 6585: 6264: 6161: 6149: 6113: 5851:

There is nothing that indicates to me that the candidate would abuse the tools. — Martin

5837: 5829:

Per ZettaComposer. We need more admins, and I would trust Pbsouthwood with the tools. —

5607: 5345: 5206: 4986: 4983: 4897:

as there's no reason to believe that this editor will not be trustworthy with the tools.

4850: 4845:

This user is reasonably qualified for this important task, and I’m happy to support him.

4701: 4669: 4594: 4543: 4523: 3798: 3668: 3663:

away, which is my impression so far from reading the statement and answers to questions.

3415: 3396: 3376: 3076: 2903: 2897:

Suitable candidate, I am not phased by the issues presented by those in the oppose camp.

2877: 2390: 2333: 2174: 2151: 2128: 1913: 1585: 1540: 1525: 45: 10085:

Not enough involved in admin-related activity. Too careless in editing and implementing

8417:

no adequate metric to assess his competency objectively, except I like him, give him. –

5740:- Believe he will be a good candidate. Admin skills will come with time and experience. 5648:

oppose to support. I am reminded that the fundamental truth that the human element that

1404: 12127: 11962: 11908:

That's also what I was going to say. Your support percentage is going back up of 0.8%.

11386: 10986: 10887: 10809: 10613: 10600: 10072: 9879: 9843: 9809: 9636: 9248:. Lack of experience in administrative areas. Answer to the question 12 is incomplete. 9213: 8997: 8896: 8826: 8789: 8765: 8651: 8636: 8556: 8456: 8422: 8016: 7994: 7868: 7832: 7813: 7803: 7788: 7753: 7717: 7492: 7094: 7066: 6786: 6512: 6281: 6187: 6062: 5998: 5872: 5813: 5763: 5689:"—which appears to be a significant proportion of the opposes—completely unconvincing. 5306: 5260: 5117: 5095: 4924: 4576: 4504: 4448: 4289: 4232: 4198: 3588: 3351: 3293: 3222: 3201: 2986: 2952: 2818: 2798: 2601: 2567: 2315: 2042: 1977: 1822: 1747: 1553: 1289: 870: 616:

Some of these descriptions were seriously inappropriate, so some Wikipedians objected,

479: 11717:

Thought this is firmly in crat chat territory I hope the candidate will not withdraw.

8478:). However, this is not my main concern. My main concern is that there are 0 edits to 7685:

template editors) - that I'm not comfortable with the request. I've been working with

395:

Revert redundant short description template as now included in disambiguation template

12235: 12205: 11916: 11870: 11797: 11772: 11737: 11634: 11539: 11206: 11121: 11069: 11059: 11045: 10967: 10847: 10750: 10737: 10638: 10592: 10435:

has me sitting here, and at the present time, I'm unsure if that is going to change.

10432: 10400: 10177: 10160: 9994: 9989:

requested the mop, there is regretfully no possibility that I am able to support. --

9548: 9481:

shows they are clueless about how articles are taken care of after a AFD is finished.

9408: 9176: 9110: 9072: 9045: 9015: 8742: 8723: 8530: 8507: 8492: 8226: 8211: 8197: 8157: 8137: 8108: 8084: 8070: 8052: 8031: 8020: 8012: 7855: 7735: 7693: 7675: 7658: 7568: 7543: 7517: 7430: 7292: 7288: 7253: 7228: 6975: 6936: 6895: 6839: 6797: 6750: 6560: 6542: 6460: 6421: 6302: 6230: 6087: 6044: 5980: 5893: 5799: 5745: 5675: 5541: 5429: 5365: 5359:

It's disturbing how acceptable it's become to put words in the mouths of opposers. –

5243: 5038: 5024: 4939: 4868: 4483: 4372: 4258: 4160: 4084: 4061: 4008: 3903: 3652: 3560: 3510: 3474: 3438: 3244: 3163: 3148: 3012: 2969: 2923: 2524: 2505: 2484: 2431: 2373: 2303: 2263: 2222: 2194: 2104: 1753: 1711: 1685: 1631: 1447: 1434: 1276: 821:

and with the additional benefit of clarifying a potential ambiguity, can you tell us

734: 657: 402: 191: 11961:

The tide appears to be turning. A flurry of supports today and two opposes struck.--

11039:

I didn't place this in my support, which I like keeping succinct because I think my

9034:) meticulously going through portal pages, tagging them with a specialized tag, and 12171: 12090: 12075: 12019: 11975: 11950: 11887: 11812: 11700: 11685: 11666: 11614: 11586: 11573: 11242: 11222: 11135: 11109: 11003: 10990: 10918: 10667:

I think more experience in admin areas would make me feel better about supporting.

10630: 10580: 10563: 10540:

however, and they appear technically competent, so it's regretful I can't support.

10537: 10375: 10362: 9986: 9826: 9734: 9720: 9325: 9123:

Based on the concerns expressed above regarding need for the tools and experience.

8969: 8868: 8845: 7638: 7608: 7561:

have been deleted. The overwhelming bulk of those took place on just two days. ~

7384:

be used: 1. To revert ... edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear.

7080: 7052: 6888: 6525: 6441: 6358: 6204: 6179: 6174: 6095: 5906: 5776: 5728: 5495: 5443: 5108: 5063: 4915: 4902: 4881: 4720: 4649: 4610: 4418: 4215: 4181: 4135: 4043: 4022: 3860: 3806: 3767: 3748: 3539: 3322: 3256: 3119: 3097: 3046:

Let the ayes have it, they indeed can see that this is a good choice for an admin.

3000: 2719: 2631: 2368: 1727: 1624: 1563: 1503: 1451: 1195: 1170: 1133: 1098: 1062: 1029: 997: 961: 929: 897: 848: 832: 790: 779: 750: 718: 687: 637: 566: 511: 463: 419: 369: 325: 293: 257: 220: 98: 80: 10882:

only, and that's actually where it is important and hence what people care about –

7221:

To revert edits that you have made (for example, edits that you accidentally made)

7198:

To revert edits that you have made (for example, edits that you accidentally made)

4384:, tentatively. The candidate's use of the admin tools would certainly make them a 10703: 10194: 10095: 10060: 9774: 9757: 9752: 9652: 9615: 9595: 9582: 9567: 9511: 9461: 9377:

It's mostly technically correct, but while that may be what we might look for at

9367: 9249: 8953: 8917: 8810: 8691: 7983: 7667: 7010: 6473: 6400: 6375: 6342: 6316: 5976: 5695: 5621: 5579: 5527: 5469: 5422:

there is no way of knowing whether he will be able to use admin tools responsibly

5380: 5264: 5177: 5130: 4802: 4780: 4750: 4682: 4629: 4624:

There doesn't seem to be any reason for opposing, as per general comments above.

4554: 4431: 4351: 4337: 4250: 3920: 3820: 3771: 3707: 3026: 2772: 2703: 2685: 2349: 2117:. Has clue, net positive, etc. Obviously would know how to properly use the mop. 2019: 1996: 1955: 1804: 1598: 10588: 6643:

s. I am unconvinced that the need is dire — as Pbsouthwood has admitted, these

2771:

Because volunteering for maintenance jobs is something that should be supported

11935: 11892: 11852: 11808: 11721: 11610: 11498: 11353: 11338: 10910: 10897: 10857: 10825: 10649: 10505: 10483: 10459: 10436: 10349: 10320: 10305: 10246: 10229: 9969: 9957: 9938: 9687: 9667: 9645: 9600: 9482: 9429: 9382: 9378: 9231: 9187: 9157: 9126: 8912:?, I am 17/12 more efficient at AfD than the candidate. This shouldn't happen. 8598: 8576: 8483: 8433: 8343: 8301: 8268: 8205: 8181:(I didn't like the first versions of this reply, so I rewrote the whole thing.) 8161: 7921: 7911: 7689:

on this whole portal subpage deletion thing, so I do understand the situation.

7473: 7459: 7442: 7388: 7331: 6860: 6808: 6771: 6581: 6577: 6388: 6260: 6157: 6109: 6075: 5952: 5858: 5831: 5660: 5603: 5377:

I don't implicitly trust Peter with admin tools because he won't use them often

5341: 5336: 5202: 5152: 5148: 4846: 4696: 4690: 4665: 4589: 4539: 4518: 3664: 3493: 3457: 3411: 3392: 3372: 2915: 2898: 2869: 2855: 2329: 2164: 2141: 2118: 1927: 1909: 1672: 1581: 1536: 1521: 1114: 986: 236: 200: 11227:

You might want to review the rules. You can only ask 2 questions + follow up.

8358:

in potential administrator candidates - is far below what I want to see. When

1433:! I trust that you won't block (if at all) without talking to a user first. -- 12265: 12246:

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

12123: 11811:. I wouldn't take rejection so personally that I would withdraw to avoid it. 11230: 11179: 11094: 10914: 10883: 10797: 10690: 10596: 10333: 9874: 9864: 9830: 9663: 9428:

most of what's required. So he doesn't even know about the technicalities of

9308: 9285: 9267: 8892: 8830: 8815: 8802: 8785: 8708: 8661: 8619: 8595:

I need the deletion button mainly for the WikiProject Portals upgrade project

8479: 8452: 8418: 8351: 8347: 8339: 7749: 7713: 7647: 7375: 7357: 7224: 7193: 7153: 6711:); as for CSDs, I see only four (in addition to yesterday's portal taggings) 6508: 6277: 6183: 6058: 5972: 5923: 5759: 5401: 5302: 5156: 5113: 5091: 4919: 4500: 4284: 4228: 4194: 4117: 3692: 3584: 3339: 3218: 2982: 2981:

with extra points for the self-nomination which shows laudable independence.

2793: 2732: 2650: 2588: 2554: 2038: 1973: 1894: 1870: 1851: 1472: 914: 766: 555: 551: 548: 544: 540: 536: 444: 341: 8448:

lacking the minimum experience which can be used to assess him objectively.

3851:

admin criteria stricter than that is really doing the project a disservice.

778:

are would you be willing to expand that to make yourself subject to general

12231: 12201: 11866: 11824: 11793: 11733: 11630: 11536: 11288: 11262: 11201: 11157: 11131: 11117: 10843: 10733: 10634: 10591:

is one of the hardest of the speedy deletion criteria to apply as noted by

10541: 10168: 10151: 10041: 9990: 9532: 9299: 9276: 9172: 8524: 8503: 8488: 8098:

For the record, incidentally: I did support a user with little experience (

7851: 7772: 7732: 7705: 7690: 7538: 7425: 6793: 6554: 6539: 6456: 6417: 6293: 6226: 6217: 6080: 5889: 5792: 5741: 5671: 5458: 5425: 5411: 5360: 5016: 4864: 4815: 4765: 4686: 4393: 4254: 4004: 3647: 3506: 3470: 3434: 3236: 3008: 2965: 2919: 2753: 2528: 2510:

Yes, I was wondering whether to suffix my post as "Per Bbb23" as well :D

2471: 2296: 2100: 1885: 1861: 1842: 1272: 1013: 977: 945: 816: 582: 448: 398: 385: 287:

More accurately, I will be willing to consider other admin work on request

9387:

I would not delete an article if I was involved in the deletion discussion

7374:

that this seems a perfectly legitimate deletion that satisfies the bit of

6370:

felt the need to register my support for this one; trustworthy candidate.

5335:. It is disturbing how the prevailing attitude seems to have changed from 3292:. I would trust them with the tools, based on my interactions with them. 11681: 11569: 11494: 11449: 11435: 11393: 11330: 11316: 11281: 11266: 10008: 9716: 9195: 9146: 8384: 8359: 7961: 7558: 7554: 7371: 7276: 6884: 6438: 6354: 6200: 5724: 5462: 5439: 5289: 4898: 4716: 4642: 4414: 4307:

Seriously, people, this isn't appointing a Special Counsel for the FBI.

4211: 4177: 3802: 3583:

that he has. Be it AfD, CSD, UAA, AIV and any other admin-related work. –

3110: 3093: 2836: 2715: 2626:

for obvious reasons. I don't think he will be a single issue admin. The

1620: 527: 435: 273: 11171: 7188:

To clarify re rollback: Your examples 1–3 are of the candidate rollback

6576:. The content creation is good. Ultimately, this user appears to have a 3143:

the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved

11910: 11506: 11463: 11431: 11409: 11361: 11294: 11256: 10091: 10055: 9495: 9475: 9445: 9351: 8949: 8913: 8307: 8278: 8123: 8099: 8047: 7979: 7553:

I got curious. In the seven days prior to this RfA being transcluded,

7247: 7046: 7021: 7006: 6770:

the tools they need/can use to help, even if it is somewhat "one-off".

6598: 5511: 4798: 4625: 4333: 4271: 3703: 2681: 2425: 2079: 2064: 2014: 1991: 1946: 1078: 878: 12061:

Two points come to mind (beyond effort needed to put it in place etc):

3074:

portal drug," then let's do it. Haven't seen any cause for concern. —

1535:

be done, but that doesn't undermine the benefit accrued in that time.

12256:

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

11849: 11718: 11676:

We get it, you're anti schoolblock, but this is starting to verge on

11261:

If the portal page creations were each performed by different users,

10358: 10345: 10316: 10301: 9963: 9951: 9896: 8261:- I do not believe another mop needs to be created because " work is 8127: 7731:, then we've got bigger problems than whether Peter should be admin. 5854: 5654: 4588:

I say, give them the tools and let them do the work they want to do.

3489: 3451: 2852: 1668: 309: 11585:

What's up with the sockpuppets voting? Is that typical in RfAs now?

9266:

per answer to question 12, which shows that he is not familiar with

11175: 11090: 10686: 10300:

Placeholder comment while waiting for answers to Questions 5 to 8.

9530:

mostly because I don't believe there is a need for adminship here.

9010:

I realize you name other concerns but just to the matter of having

7708:, the candidate statement refers to "a specific and current need." 7643: 7353: 6912:

administrators of the quality that Pbsouthwood brings to the table.

6371: 5652:

come first and ahead of all our policies, guidelines, and worries.

5397: 4112: 3688: 1468: 1292:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 8909: 6699:). In that time period, there have been only two succesful PRODs 5934:

happy to support, not seen anything that shows he will abuse them.

1299: 1132:

Mostly harmless? Not a thing that I have thought about much.· · ·

11113: 10044:'s above oppose among other reasons. Due to the response to Q11, 9440:. Yes, most RfA candidates are familiar with most of these areas 8379:

is to perform deletions of Portal space content, and pretty much

4982:. I trust him to use the admin tools within his capabilities. -- 3314: 2248:

it's more about maturity, which in my opinion PBS has dollops of.

11008:

Maybe I should start disagreeing with editors more often lol. I

8413: 8404: 2299:

Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!}

443:

You say you plan to assist in deleting portal pages, which is a

10344:

how admins close and implement deletion discussions right now.

8818:

closures, a deep understanding of CSD, and a solid and diverse

4130:

Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship/Pbsouthwood#"No big deal"

3390:

Giving Peter the mop will save other admins many hours of work.

1836:. Featured vital article automatically passes content creation 996:

whether it is a good match I would ask a second opinion. · · ·

11167: 8547:

and echoed by others amongst opposers, I decidedly oppose per

8369:. It is somewhat premature to speculate how things may change 7346:

other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear

4430:

Am unconvinced by the reasons others have given for opposing.

4270:

No reason to believe they will misuse the tools or position.--

2630:

metaphor applies. Once in, other tasks will magically appear.

1972:- a sensible editor and a sensible requirement for the tools. 1021:

What do you think the hardest part of having the mop will be?

7152:. I don't see any vandalism in these revisions. According to 4021:

happy to see the tools in the hands of any capable editor. --

2527:'s arguments phenomonally convincing; I am further minded by 1169:

No, not my style. I am more of a mop and bucket person.· · ·

292:

would be a good thing, I will cheerfully hand it back. · · ·

12200:

We need more admins and we may just be about to get one. —

11530:

than 20 clicks. Going through and checking and marking them

9937:

and the candidate would have also received this feedback at

8814:

inherently problematic, too. We'd need to see well-reasoned

8690:

need to perform blocks/page protections on a regular basis.

6433:- At the risk of sounding like a relic from a bygone era, I 2680:

No good reason not to. Not the first single-use rfa either.

127:

For some time I expect to be busy with subpage deletion for

9750:

I am not convinced by the way he answered the questions. -–

8225:(I moved to support above after thinking further on this.) 7455: 4664:. I trust the user not to misuse additional user rights. -- 4478: 3005:

voy:Talk:Cruising_on_small_craft/Archive#Any_sailors_about?

10874:

is for general edits, all namespaces inclusive. While the

8365:

I will be willing to consider other admin work on request

3683:

his lack of practical experience might lead to accidental

3469:

but clearly there are some who still like it this way. —

2702:

to use 25% (or less) of the technical options included. --

620:, and WMF gave the impression they would stop, but didn't. 7005:

per Amory. I will not respond to comments or questions.--

5353: 2099:

No concerns. Good to see an established content creator.

29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

11456: 7808:

I don't think I follow your reasoning here - given that

4466: 4003:. Good luck, and please ride this to the finish line. – 142:

What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?

121:

What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

11400:

Knowledge:Administrators' guide/Deleting#Batch deletion

11058:

This is more appropriate as a response to your support

9030: 393:

Several thousand of your recent edits have the summary

11984:

ability to think and respond reasonably under pressure

6927:

he evidence of this editor's capabilities is before us

3982:

deletion of something in the order of 150 000 subpages

10431:. I'm leaning support, but the "Oppose" comment from 6679:(although he tried to participate after-the-fact for 11597:

Am I missing something? I see only one vote struck.

6829:

has no measurable track record at any admin activity

2012:

per adminship experience on other Wikimedia wikis. —

11503:Moved this down here to keep up there uncluttered. 10896:Thanks, I didn't know about that section of Xtools 7352:the comments you've made which you know are wrong. 7160:But he just used rollback to revert his own edits. 2211:of experience" whereas here many are for "complete 1627:) 08:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 10:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 9324:The answer to Question 12 really just put me off. 5037:Seems to be trustworthy, and we need more admins. 4472: 10719:With an urging that the person get active in the 9342:I know you're new here, but the answer to Q12 is 6472:based on their temperament and need for the mop. 4537:. Perfectly fine candidate. Happy to support. -- 177:You may ask optional questions below. There is a 12263: 11162:Regarding Q18, that information is available at 9399:what we require and look for from administrators 6173:. I am convinced by the comments that candidate 5955:has written above, I cannot oppose someone with 5775:A trustworthy contributor may as well have them. 5723:Solid candidate with good answers to questions. 1262:Edit summary usage for Pbsouthwood can be found 606:Knowledge:WikiProject_Short_descriptions#History 11572:wannabes (which I admittedly was at one time). 10773:willing to consider other admin work on request 7637:in November 2016. They've only participated in 7271:If you look closely at that one false positive, 6538:Zero harm will arise from providing the tools. 5975:. Based on this and the excellent rationale of 4779:– Should be a net benefit to the encyclopedia. 3606:Has been around since 2009.As per Net Positive. 985:Could you please discuss your understanding of 12142:Wp:Perennial proposals#Hierarchical structures 11404:Knowledge:Administrators' guide/Deleting#Tools 10315:deletion policies before venturing in to AFD. 9028:Well, as noted on this page, there is a user ( 8910:https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/afdstats.py 7908:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth 3338:.A few words- Would be a fine administrator. 11732:hopefully we're safe from that for now... — 8543:. Beginning with the well-reasoned oppose by 1315: 357:..." which you said are impetus to this RfA. 8841:to just be an over-focus reason – next time. 7027:I will not respond to comments or questions. 4042:likely to be a net positive with the tools. 3742:their mop). Furthermore, I urge you to read 2241:Hi Amory, as I wrote earlier (about friends 1090:. Could you clarify what you meant by that? 831:English Wikivoyage and Wikimania 2018.· · · 825:you are an admin "on other WMF projects"... 11200:him to remove that part of his question. – 7867:Lack of experience in admin-related areas. 5706:- Per nomination and answers to questions. 5540:No reason to think they'd misue the tools. 3970:no drama at the administrators' noticeboard 3433:I trust the editor with the admin tools. -- 3141:(...said, I trust, with only affection for 1502:Since you ask so nicely, I will try. · · · 1086:As part of your answer to Q12, you stated: 11807:I would take it to the end unless it were 11012:familiar with your name, but not much :) — 10579:. I have had productive interactions with 5561:, and that's why I support his candidacy. 1322: 1308: 214:I have made an edit, If they want to know 11108:I don't think I've had interactions with 10723:of AfD discussions, and not just seek an 9297:demonstrating enough deletion knowledge. 8658:and it had no negative effects whatsoever 7137:This user is misusing rollback flag. Re: 5967:of policies, while not understanding the 535:If you are admin, how will you deal with 11844:situation is pretty bad, to be this low 11644:Define "misuse." Is blocking the entire 10232:, is the complaint department really on 9485:, is the complaint department really on 8784:admins that are handling the deletions. 7623:Special:DeletedContributions/Pbsouthwood 7537:apparently been deleted with no fuss. – 6827:Won't use 'em much, can be trusted, and 1288:Please keep discussion constructive and 8523:heavily invested in those very projects 8475:) while Pbsouthwood's is only 839 (see 53:Final (213/62/12); Closed as successful 14: 12264: 10126:Request_for_Huawei_Honor_8_Pro_article 11650:New York City Department of Education 10114:Richard Dawkins regarding creationism 5218:net positive. every little bit helps. 1303: 1271:Some user stats posted to talk page. 9658:is only supposed to be used when an 7947:2800:370:72:8D10:2CD6:D554:C18F:CDFE 7500:User:Wpgbrown/Portal Pages to Delete 3933:. 76% of contributions to mainspace 3744:Knowledge:Why I Hate Speedy Deleters 3200:, per Johnbod, Bish, Cas, etc. etc. 9947:a widely discussed Signpost article 8822:fD record, but it's just not there. 8680:Unfortunately, I will also have to 8122:Interesting! I take the answer to 5107:. Committed, mature, reasonable. 1329: 23: 12140:still won't achieve anything; see 11196:to ask that on my behalf and I've 6823:Won't use 'em much, can be trusted 6553:per all. Good enough for the mop. 6199:: The candidate is trustworthy. -- 5410:That sounds a fairer description. 2647:per nom and answers to questions. 891:, and the only tool available for 150:Knowledge:WikiProject Scuba diving 24: 12283: 12272:Successful requests for adminship 11241:Thank you for pointing that out. 11112:unless it's to delete portals at 6743:to show ability and interest. ~ 6259:This is a trustworthy candidate. 6154:Special:Contributions/Pbsouthwood 5973:often may as well not be mistakes 3109:- no concerns about this editor. 349:Please shed more light on those " 11825:Lourdes 00:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 11646:Kentucky Department of Education 11560:That's a big reason why I voted 11455: 10585:Knowledge talk:Short description 10504:(...And now moved to "Oppose".) 7810:wikipedia is a volunteer service 7200:is a legitimate use. Take care! 7029:Is this a vote or a discussion? 6597:, no concerns with this editor. 6076:do something monumentally stupid 5412:Lourdes 23:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 4309:The Blade of the Northern Lights 3993:That's certainly something that 3985: 3972: 3961: 3952: 3943: 3934: 3003:and its child articles, and see 2163:(...And now moved to "oppose".) 219:difference, I will change.· · · 18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship 12114:'s idea about having a role of 11809:clear I wasn't going to succeed 11751:promote, if you get my drift). 11164:Special:CentralAuth/Pbsouthwood 6655:, and participated in: 5 AfDs ( 6645:will not be controversial cases 5352:) 13:39, Sunday, June 3, 2018 ( 3549:Could you share what comprises 1838:(I hope you enjoyed writing it) 667:will not be controversial cases 11192:Just to clarify, I didn't ask 9949:, I do not see this changing. 8555:for adminship. All the best, 8067:Closures are subject to review 7506:. Well over 1,000 pages have 3317:is a bit odd, but Jonathunder 592:WikiProject Short descriptions 415:WikiProject Short descriptions 13: 1: 11980:"It is not very stressful..." 9910:The tools are not necessary. 8405:Vague answer to question (Q8) 6453:Knowledge:WikiProject Portals 4553:, fully-qualified candidate. 3581:plenty of relevant experience 3551:plenty of relevant experience 2256:Ahh you know me too well! ~ 129:Knowledge:WikiProject Portals 95:Knowledge:WikiProject Portals 11166:. Pbsouthwood is a sysop at 8371:by the time the work is done 7958:Striking - sock puppet user. 3951:98% of edits are still live 2037:- likely to be net positive 7: 11978:- when I read your comment 10633:for answering my question. 10308:-- 08:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 10130:Featured_article_candidates 10087:Knowledge:Short description 8964:Moving details to talk page 6526:Jc86035's alternate account 5957:this level of introspection 2580:) 16:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2423:not a jerk and has a clue. 2140:(Moved back to "neutral".) 1149:As an admin, would you use 110:Questions for the candidate 10: 12288: 11652:for several years without 11336:batch deletion of twinkle? 9293:Moved back to support per 8346:, only two total edits to 8027:) 03:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 7953:) 00:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 7918:) 00:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 6891:) 14:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 3538:trust" in administrators. 1113:Additional questions from 847:Additional questions from 682:I don't think the project 12228:sterngth of the arguments 10118:Wikipedia_talk:Harassment 9853:stand clear of the doors! 8107:Vin09's RfA today, FWIW. 8102:) in admin areas in this 7510:in the last 24 hours. ~ 6416:per Iridescent, others.-- 5687:insert name of admin task 4749:. Trustworthy candidate. 3876:, having the admin tools 2611:stand clear of the doors! 2577:stand clear of the doors! 1856:13:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1392: 1356: 1335: 1077:Additional question from 1044:Additional question from 1012:Additional question from 976:Additional question from 944:Additional question from 856:What is your thoughts on 805:Additional question from 765:Additional question from 733:Additional question from 702:Additional question from 656:Additional question from 581:Additional question from 526:Additional question from 478:Additional question from 434:Additional question from 384:Additional question from 340:Additional question from 308:Additional question from 272:Additional question from 235:Additional question from 190:Additional question from 12249:Please do not modify it. 12240:06:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC) 12210:06:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC) 12195:15:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 12180:10:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 12153:10:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 12132:03:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 12104:09:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 12053:16:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 11989:22:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 11971:15:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 11957:06:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 11944:05:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 11930:02:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 11904:01:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 11875:09:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 11858:01:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 11818:21:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 11802:20:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 11787:18:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 11760:17:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 11742:12:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 11727:12:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 11706:20:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 11694:23:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 11672:21:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 11639:21:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 11620:02:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 11605:02:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 11592:02:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 11579:14:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 11555:13:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 11547:06:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 11523:06:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 11480:06:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 11443:06:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 11426:06:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 11378:06:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 11347:05:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 11324:05:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 11311:05:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 11274:05:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 11248:21:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 11236:21:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 11212:20:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 11184:20:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 11142:16:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 11126:15:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 11099:16:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 11084:13:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 11054:11:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 11026:12:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 10997:11:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 10982:10:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 10956:08:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 10925:11:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 10906:08:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 10892:08:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 10866:08:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 10852:08:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 10834:07:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 10817:06:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 10785:14:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 10763:14:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 10742:20:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 10712:15:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 10695:14:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 10677:01:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 10661:05:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 10643:05:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 10622:01:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 10605:17:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 10577:Neutral, leaning support 10572:15:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 10555:14:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 10520:20:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 10498:14:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 10474:14:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 10451:13:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 10415:18:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 10389:01:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 10369:15:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 10354:14:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 10339:13:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 10325:13:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 10288:02:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC) 10264:00:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC) 10237:21:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 10220:13:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 10203:07:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 10183:12:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 10165:05:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 10142:01:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 10100:19:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 10078:16:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 10033:17:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 10016:03:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 9999:01:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 9972:03:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 9959:00:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 9943:a very recent discussion 9920:23:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 9903:23:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 9885:14:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 9858:22:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 9818:17:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 9800:13:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 9783:08:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 9764:03:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 9743:22:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 9725:21:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 9702:20:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 9682:20:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 9624:16:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 9609:16:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 9591:15:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 9576:20:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 9557:18:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 9517:22:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 9490:21:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 9467:01:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 9423:01:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 9373:00:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 9338:18:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 9314:19:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 9290:15:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 9258:14:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 9241:13:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 9222:12:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 9200:15:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 9181:12:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 9166:11:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 9151:11:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 9136:10:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 9119:00:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 9102:00:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 9083:22:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 9060:00:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 9024:00:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 9006:21:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8983:01:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 8958:21:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8940:21:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8922:20:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8901:20:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8882:20:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 8859:19:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8794:19:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8776:17:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8755:14:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 8736:15:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8714:15:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8700:14:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8672:12:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 8645:20:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8630:14:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8611:14:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8586:13:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8567:13:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8536:08:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8512:08:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8497:08:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8461:20:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 8442:09:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8427:07:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8392:06:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8367:during the cleanup drive 8324:21:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 8295:03:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8235:03:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC) 8220:06:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 8176:20:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 8152:18:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 8117:14:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 8093:13:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 8079:03:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 8061:11:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 8040:15:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 8003:02:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 7988:01:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 7969:01:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 7930:02:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 7898:23:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7877:23:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7860:21:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7841:05:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 7826:21:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 7797:21:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7780:20:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7758:20:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7743:20:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7722:20:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7701:19:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7680:18:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7652:18:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7614:12:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 7597:20:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7583:18:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7549:18:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7532:18:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7482:08:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 7468:05:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 7451:18:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7436:18:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7397:04:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 7362:21:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 7319:05:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 7280:18:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7267:16:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7237:16:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7209:16:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7184:16:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7122:20:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 7106:14:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 7089:08:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 7075:23:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7061:20:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7039:20:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 7015:14:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 6990:01:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 6951:00:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 6921:21:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 6904:14:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 6869:14:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 6854:14:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 6817:14:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 6802:14:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 6780:14:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 6765:13:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 6620:06:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC) 6606:05:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC) 6590:04:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC) 6569:04:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC) 6546:03:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC) 6534:03:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC) 6517:03:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC) 6499:01:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC) 6482:00:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC) 6465:22:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 6444:22:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 6426:20:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 6409:17:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 6392:16:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 6380:16:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 6363:14:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 6346:13:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 6334:12:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 6308:12:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 6285:12:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 6269:12:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 6252:11:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 6235:06:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 6209:05:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 6192:04:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 6166:00:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 6141:00:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 6118:22:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 6101:19:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 6067:18:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 6049:17:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 6032:17:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 6013:16:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 5989:15:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 5944:15:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 5927:15:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 5915:15:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 5898:14:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 5881:14:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 5864:13:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 5847:12:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 5822:12:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 5804:11:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 5784:11:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 5768:10:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 5750:07:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 5733:07:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 5716:06:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 5699:06:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 5680:04:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 5663:03:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 5640:03:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 5612:02:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 5592:00:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 5571:21:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 5550:20:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 5533:19:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 5502:17:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 5478:23:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 5452:18:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 5434:16:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 5406:17:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 5389:15:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 5371:14:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 5328:12:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 5311:10:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 5294:08:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 5280:08:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 5252:07:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 5235:06:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 5211:06:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 5194:04:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 5169:04:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 5139:02:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 5122:00:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 5100:23:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 5083:23:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 5072:23:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 5055:22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 5029:20:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 5003:20:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 4975:20:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 4958:19:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 4930:17:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 4907:16:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 4890:16:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 4873:07:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 4855:05:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 4838:04:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 4821:01:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 4807:00:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 4789:22:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4772:22:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4756:21:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4742:21:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4725:21:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4708:21:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4674:19:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4657:13:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4634:11:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4617:10:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4602:05:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4580:03:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4567:02:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4546:02:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4530:01:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4509:01:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4492:00:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4457:00:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4440:00:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4423:00:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 4406:23:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 4377:23:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 4360:22:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 4342:22:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 4319:21:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 4295:21:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 4275:21:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 4263:21:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 4237:20:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 4220:20:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 4203:20:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 4186:19:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 4169:17:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 4149:20:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 4120:17:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 4101:17:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 4078:17:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 4052:16:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 4035:16:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 4013:16:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3926:15:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3912:15:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3895:14:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3869:14:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3846:14:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3829:14:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3815:13:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3790:13:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3754:12:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3712:22:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3697:14:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3673:12:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3658:11:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3638:10:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3616:10:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3593:19:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 3575:14:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3545:13:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3533:10:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3515:09:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3498:09:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3479:09:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3464:07:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3443:06:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3424:05:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 3405:04:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3381:04:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3359:03:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3331:03:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3310:02:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3285:01:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3266:01:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3248:01:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3227:00:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3210:23:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 3193:23:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 3172:20:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 3157:23:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 3125:23:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 3102:22:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 3084:21:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 3063:20:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 3039:20:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 3017:20:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2990:20:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2974:20:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2957:19:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2944:19:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2928:19:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2907:19:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2890:19:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2861:19:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2843:19:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2827:18:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2810:18:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2801:17:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2781:17:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2764:17:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2745:17:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2724:17:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2707:16:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2690:16:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2673:16:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2656:16:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2640:16:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2616:22:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 2541:12:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 2519:15:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2499:15:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2466:15:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2445:15:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2416:15:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2399:15:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2382:15:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2360:14:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2338:14:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2321:14:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2307:14:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2278:10:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 2237:00:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 2198:14:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2179:20:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 2156:14:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 2133:14:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2109:14:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2088:20:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 2073:14:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2053:13:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2028:18:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 2005:13:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1982:13:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1965:13:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1938:13:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1918:13:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1900:19:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 1875:15:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 1829:12:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1813:12:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1796:12:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1779:12:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1737:11:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1718:11:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1703:10:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1694:10:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1684:not a jerk, has a clue. 1677:09:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1660:09:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1640:14:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1607:08:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1590:08:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1572:07:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1545:11:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 1530:07:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1510:10:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1498:07:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1477:07:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1458:10:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1443:07:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1281:08:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 1177:11:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 1140:11:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 1105:11:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 1069:11:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 1036:08:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 1004:07:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 968:16:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 936:05:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 904:05:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 839:05:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 797:05:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 757:06:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 725:05:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC) 694:12:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 644:13:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 573:11:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 518:10:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 502:08:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 470:10:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 426:10:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 407:08:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 376:10:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 332:10:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 300:10:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 264:10:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 227:10:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 105:06:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC) 71:07:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC) 12122:, I will vote support. 12118:If you propose that in 11041:incredibly low standard 9869:You might want to read 4060:new-page-patrol mines. 3181:, don't see why not. -- 1879:Moving back to support 1193:Links for Pbsouthwood: 917:. Someone has reported 201:Usage of edit summaries 38:Please do not modify it 12116:Assistant admin needed 12040:Assistant admin needed 11402:and the first item in 10458:(Moved to "Support".) 8432:qualified candidates. 7370:I entirely agree with 7245:a couple minutes ago. 6677:Harrias reconfirmation 5232:User talk:Dlohcierekim 3608:Pharaoh of the Wizards 3527:Insertcleverphrasehere 3275:et cetera ad infinitum 2731:– a conscientious and 1488:Abelmoschus Esculentus 1122:How do you feel about 704:Pharaoh of the Wizards 8946:User:Compassionate727 8350:, one report made to 7676:ping me in your reply 7635:this uncontested PROD 7559:357 portal talk pages 1154:Administrator topicon 674:the project talk page 594:, a project to add a 34:request for adminship 10122:Portals_are_moribund 10110:suicide/asphyxiation 9494:See my reply above. 9036:manually maintaining 7816:'s !vote rationale. 7508:already been deleted 6713:(sorry, sysops only) 6701:(sorry, sysops only) 3984:in the portal space 1405:Global contributions 11194:Serial Number 54129 11172:Wikimania 2018 wiki 11154:Serial Number 54129 10167:Moved to support. ― 9983:participating users 9792:Senegambianamestudy 9270:, in this case the 8741:Moving to neutral. 8030:(moved to Support) 7920:Moving to support. 7043:I got concerned by 6721:malformed page name 4247:Boing! said Zebedee 2964:. Based on review. 2523:To clarify, I find 2450:Incorporeal support 2408:Boing! said Zebedee 2372:misunderstandings. 2215:of experience." ~ 2193:GoldenRing part 2. 1369:Non-automated edits 1294:their contributions 807:Serial Number 54129 684:needs its own sysop 366:WikiProject Portals 12148:—SerialNumber54129 11848:have 5 days left. 11755:—SerialNumber54129 11168:English Wikivoyage 10254:Talk to me, Billy 9961:Moved to support. 9931:jack of all trades 9929:adminship to be a 8635:specific reasons. 7631:1 uncontested PROD 7555:2,100 portal pages 7204:—SerialNumber54129 7101:—SerialNumber54129 6687:; and three TfDs ( 3942:Over 43,000 edits 3136:recent suggestion 2752:, a model editor. 2665:Crystallizedcarbon 2553:- No issues here. 2536:—SerialNumber54129 2514:—SerialNumber54129 2461:—SerialNumber54129 1925:- no issues here. 1859:(Moved to oppose) 1348:Edit summary usage 1296:before commenting. 480:User:Usernamekiran 39: 12087: 12074:comment added by 12031: 12018:comment added by 11951:Peter (Southwood) 11855: 11785: 11724: 11521: 11478: 11424: 11390: 11376: 11309: 11291:but I guess not. 11210: 11136:Peter (Southwood) 11130:Just to clarify, 11082: 10991:Peter (Southwood) 10980: 10919:Peter (Southwood) 10603: 10522: 10476: 10413: 10363:Peter (Southwood) 10076: 9640: 9508: 9458: 9421: 9364: 9316: 9134: 9100: 9058: 8884: 8827:If you care a lot 8669: 8627: 8322: 8293: 8237: 8182: 8150: 8119: 8042: 8011:on principle per 7959: 7954: 7945:comment added by 7756: 7720: 7639:a handful of AfDs 7629:in January 2018, 7581: 7557:were deleted and 7547: 7530: 7496: 7434: 7317: 7313: 7284:Please see this: 7182: 7178: 6988: 6949: 6906: 6852: 6790: 6763: 6725:self-created typo 6714: 6702: 6567: 6244:JoshMuirWikipedia 6099: 5862: 5845: 5638: 5524: 5369: 5192: 5191: 5052: 5031: 5026: 4955: 4754: 4655: 4488: 4218: 4001:adminship's sails 3878:is not a big deal 3858: 3725:Very weak support 3656: 3573: 3529: 3146: 2858: 2811: 2805: 2740:The Transhumanist 2618: 2497: 2455:his reply to Tony 2319: 2294:Happy to support 2280: 2276: 2235: 2181: 2158: 1902: 1876: 1839: 1751: 1642: 1557: 1504:Peter (Southwood) 1452:Peter (Southwood) 1418: 1417: 1171:Peter (Southwood) 1134:Peter (Southwood) 1099:Peter (Southwood) 1063:Peter (Southwood) 1030:Peter (Southwood) 998:Peter (Southwood) 962:Peter (Southwood) 930:Peter (Southwood) 898:Peter (Southwood) 833:Peter (Southwood) 791:Peter (Southwood) 751:Peter (Southwood) 719:Peter (Southwood) 688:Peter (Southwood) 638:Peter (Southwood) 596:short description 567:Peter (Southwood) 512:Peter (Southwood) 464:Peter (Southwood) 420:Peter (Southwood) 370:Peter (Southwood) 326:Peter (Southwood) 294:Peter (Southwood) 258:Peter (Southwood) 221:Peter (Southwood) 99:Peter (Southwood) 37: 12279: 12251: 12150: 12069: 12013: 11928: 11900: 11895: 11853: 11815: 11769: 11768: 11757: 11722: 11703: 11690: 11669: 11617: 11603: 11601:Compassionate727 11589: 11576: 11544: 11517: 11511: 11504: 11502: 11474: 11468: 11461: 11459: 11453: 11439: 11420: 11414: 11407: 11397: 11384: 11372: 11366: 11359: 11357: 11334: 11320: 11305: 11299: 11292: 11285: 11270: 11260: 11245: 11234: 11226: 11204: 11161: 11066: 11065: 11024: 11023: 11021: 11007: 10964: 10963: 10954: 10953: 10951: 10814: 10807: 10802: 10791:General comments 10760: 10755: 10669:NinjaRobotPirate 10657: 10652: 10599: 10552: 10548: 10538:User:Pbsouthwood 10512: 10503: 10490: 10466: 10457: 10443: 10397: 10396: 10387: 10385:Compassionate727 10379: 10337: 10286: 10283: 10277: 10261: 10255: 10249: 10201: 10199: 10180: 10175: 10163: 10158: 10066: 10063: 10058: 10013: 9966: 9954: 9926:Reluctant oppose 9899: 9882: 9877: 9868: 9848: 9840: 9835: 9760: 9755: 9730:Reluctant Oppose 9694: 9674: 9657: 9651: 9634: 9544: 9541: 9538: 9535: 9514: 9509: 9502: 9479: 9464: 9459: 9452: 9405: 9404: 9370: 9365: 9358: 9311: 9307: 9305: 9302: 9292: 9288: 9284: 9282: 9279: 9272:Deletion process 9236: 9191: 9133: 9131: 9124: 9094: 9080: 9079: 9076: 9042: 9041: 9033: 8981: 8938: 8936:Compassionate727 8880: 8863: 8857: 8752: 8747: 8733: 8728: 8665: 8655: 8623: 8608: 8603: 8596: 8533: 8388: 8318: 8312: 8305: 8289: 8283: 8276: 8224: 8209: 8201: 8180: 8168: 8134: 8133: 8097: 8029: 7965: 7957: 7940: 7890:TheGracefulSlick 7807: 7775: 7752: 7740: 7716: 7698: 7611: 7565: 7564: 7541: 7514: 7513: 7490: 7428: 7329: 7315: 7311: 7306: 7296: 7265: 7219: 7206: 7180: 7176: 7171: 7161: 7103: 7050: 7025: 6972: 6971: 6968:in question. ~ 6933: 6932: 6893: 6836: 6835: 6784: 6747: 6746: 6712: 6700: 6617: 6603: 6559: 6524:per Iridescent. 6496: 6376:tea and biscuits 6330: 6323: 6320: 6305: 6300: 6137: 6130: 6085: 6083: 6026: 6011: 6007: 6001: 5852: 5835: 5797: 5781: 5779:💸Money💸emoji💸 5657: 5635: 5630: 5627: 5624: 5588: 5582: 5530: 5525: 5518: 5466: 5448: 5363: 5320:Inter&anthro 5277: 5272: 5267: 5227: 5224: 5188: 5183: 5182: 5050: 5047: 5044: 5041: 5027: 5023: 5019: 4999: 4994: 4989: 4953: 4950: 4947: 4942: 4927: 4922: 4818: 4768: 4753: 4739: 4734:Sabine's Sunbird 4704: 4699: 4652: 4647: 4645: 4599: 4597:Let's discuss it 4542: 4528: 4486: 4481: 4475: 4469: 4403: 4398: 4367:per Find bruce. 4315: 4292: 4287: 4214: 4147: 4115: 4097: 4091: 4074: 4068: 4032: 4027: 3992: 3989: 3988: 3979: 3976: 3975: 3968: 3965: 3964: 3960:clean block log 3959: 3956: 3955: 3950: 3947: 3946: 3941: 3938: 3937: 3852: 3838:I am One of Many 3811: 3785: 3776: 3751: 3736: 3730: 3650: 3635: 3631: 3626: 3557: 3556: 3542: 3525: 3356: 3349: 3344: 3283: 3281:Compassionate727 3189: 3186: 3140: 3117: 3081: 3079: 3060: 3055: 3034: 3001:voy:Scuba diving 2874: 2856: 2839: 2806: 2803: 2796: 2761: 2757: 2743: 2654: 2628:foot in the door 2606: 2598: 2593: 2582: 2572: 2564: 2559: 2538: 2516: 2509: 2481: 2480: 2475:points out below 2463: 2443: 2369:User:Pbsouthwood 2318: 2305: 2300: 2260: 2259: 2255: 2219: 2218: 2171: 2162: 2148: 2139: 2125: 2085: 2070: 1951: 1897: 1893: 1891: 1888: 1878: 1873: 1869: 1867: 1864: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1848: 1845: 1837: 1825: 1777: 1776: 1774: 1745: 1733: 1730: 1629: 1551: 1490: 1364:Articles created 1324: 1317: 1310: 1301: 1300: 1267: 1259: 1218: 1162: 1158: 1152: 875: 869: 865: 859: 849:User:PCHS-NJROTC 500: 499: 497: 249: 246:Per the AfD tool 186: 132:my comfort zone. 12287: 12286: 12282: 12281: 12280: 12278: 12277: 12276: 12262: 12261: 12260: 12254:this nomination 12247: 12232:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 12146: 12120:WP:Village pump 11909: 11898: 11893: 11854:◊distænt write◊ 11813: 11766: 11753: 11723:◊distænt write◊ 11701: 11686: 11667: 11615: 11598: 11587: 11574: 11540: 11520: 11515: 11507: 11492: 11477: 11472: 11464: 11447: 11437: 11423: 11418: 11410: 11391: 11375: 11370: 11362: 11351: 11328: 11318: 11308: 11303: 11295: 11279: 11268: 11254: 11243: 11228: 11220: 11151: 11063: 11017: 11014: 11013: 11001: 10961: 10947: 10944: 10943: 10844:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 10810: 10803: 10798: 10793: 10777:BlackcurrantTea 10756: 10751: 10655: 10650: 10635:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 10546: 10542: 10506: 10484: 10460: 10437: 10394: 10382: 10373: 10331: 10296: 10281: 10275: 10273: 10259: 10253: 10247: 10195: 10193: 10178: 10169: 10161: 10152: 10134:Z75SG61Ilunqpdb 10065: 10061: 10056: 10009: 9964: 9952: 9897: 9880: 9875: 9862: 9844: 9836: 9831: 9758: 9753: 9688: 9668: 9655: 9649: 9542: 9539: 9536: 9533: 9512: 9501: 9496: 9473: 9462: 9451: 9446: 9402: 9368: 9357: 9352: 9309: 9303: 9300: 9298: 9286: 9280: 9277: 9275: 9234: 9185: 9127: 9125: 9092:Espresso Addict 9077: 9074: 9073: 9039: 9029: 8967: 8933: 8908:- According to 8866: 8843: 8821: 8805: 8773: 8748: 8743: 8729: 8724: 8668: 8649: 8626: 8604: 8599: 8594: 8531: 8482:and 0 edits to 8409:emergency admin 8386: 8321: 8316: 8308: 8292: 8287: 8279: 8203: 8195: 8162: 8131: 7963: 7801: 7773: 7736: 7694: 7609: 7562: 7511: 7326:Siddiqsazzad001 7323: 7309: 7298: 7246: 7216:Siddiqsazzad001 7213: 7202: 7196:also says that 7174: 7163: 7099: 7044: 7019: 6969: 6930: 6833: 6744: 6653:1 report to UAA 6649:1 report to SPI 6628: 6615: 6599: 6491: 6489:per Iridescent. 6328: 6321: 6318: 6303: 6294: 6135: 6129:Julietdeltalima 6128: 6081: 6024: 6005: 6000:« Gonzo fan2007 5999: 5997: 5936:Govindaharihari 5795: 5777: 5655: 5633: 5625: 5622: 5586: 5580: 5528: 5517: 5512: 5456: 5444: 5275: 5270: 5265: 5225: 5222: 5190: 5186: 5045: 5042: 5039: 5017: 4997: 4992: 4987: 4967:5 albert square 4948: 4943: 4940: 4925: 4920: 4816: 4766: 4737: 4702: 4697: 4650: 4643: 4595: 4538: 4517: 4489: 4477: 4471: 4465: 4399: 4394: 4313: 4290: 4285: 4133: 4113: 4095: 4089: 4072: 4066: 4030: 4023: 3990: 3986: 3977: 3973: 3966: 3962: 3957: 3953: 3948: 3944: 3939: 3935: 3807: 3783: 3774: 3749: 3734: 3728: 3633: 3629: 3624: 3554: 3540: 3462: 3352: 3345: 3340: 3278: 3187: 3184: 3132:I rather liked 3111: 3077: 3075: 3056: 3049: 3037: 3032: 2870: 2857:◊distænt write◊ 2837: 2794: 2759: 2755: 2736: 2648: 2602: 2594: 2589: 2568: 2560: 2555: 2534: 2512: 2503: 2478: 2459: 2424: 2357: 2298: 2295: 2257: 2216: 2165: 2142: 2119: 2080: 2065: 1963: 1947: 1936: 1895: 1889: 1886: 1884: 1871: 1865: 1862: 1860: 1852: 1846: 1843: 1841: 1823: 1788:RickinBaltimore 1770: 1767: 1766: 1731: 1728: 1710:- no concerns. 1486: 1424: 1419: 1414: 1388: 1352: 1331: 1330:RfA/RfB toolbox 1328: 1273:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1263: 1211: 1194: 1190: 1160: 1156: 1150: 1046:5 albert square 919:this IP address 873: 867: 863: 857: 493: 490: 489: 399:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 244: 176: 112: 78: 50: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 12285: 12275: 12274: 12259: 12258: 12224: 12223: 12222: 12221: 12220: 12219: 12218: 12217: 12216: 12215: 12214: 12213: 12212: 12185:reconsider.)-- 12160: 12159: 12158: 12157: 12156: 12155: 12112:ArnoldReinhold 12108: 12107: 12106: 12065: 12062: 12056: 12055: 12035: 12033: 12009: 12008: 12007: 12006: 12005: 12004: 12003: 12002: 12001: 12000: 11999: 11998: 11997: 11996: 11995: 11994: 11993: 11992: 11991: 11880: 11879: 11878: 11877: 11861: 11860: 11838: 11837: 11836: 11835: 11834: 11833: 11832: 11831: 11830: 11829: 11828: 11827: 11714: 11713: 11712: 11711: 11710: 11709: 11708: 11688: 11626: 11625: 11624: 11623: 11622: 11583: 11582: 11581: 11550: 11527: 11526: 11525: 11513: 11490: 11489: 11488: 11487: 11486: 11485: 11484: 11483: 11482: 11470: 11416: 11382: 11381: 11380: 11368: 11301: 11252: 11251: 11250: 11218: 11217: 11216: 11215: 11214: 11187: 11186: 11148: 11147: 11146: 11145: 11144: 11105: 11104: 11103: 11102: 11101: 11086: 11036: 11035: 11034: 11033: 11032: 11031: 11030: 11029: 11028: 10939: 10938: 10937: 10936: 10935: 10934: 10933: 10932: 10931: 10930: 10929: 10928: 10927: 10880:main namespace 10837: 10836: 10792: 10789: 10788: 10787: 10765: 10744: 10714: 10697: 10679: 10665: 10664: 10663: 10624: 10607: 10574: 10557: 10531: 10530: 10529: 10528: 10527: 10526: 10525: 10524: 10523: 10425: 10424: 10423: 10422: 10421: 10420: 10419: 10418: 10417: 10295: 10292: 10291: 10290: 10276:Chris Troutman 10266: 10260:Transmissions 10239: 10222: 10205: 10187: 10186: 10185: 10102: 10080: 10054: 10035: 10018: 10001: 9976: 9975: 9974: 9912:Sportsfan 1234 9905: 9889: 9888: 9887: 9820: 9802: 9785: 9767: 9745: 9727: 9706: 9705: 9704: 9632: 9631: 9630: 9629: 9628: 9627: 9626: 9559: 9525: 9524: 9523: 9522: 9521: 9520: 9519: 9497: 9471: 9470: 9469: 9447: 9353: 9319: 9318: 9317: 9243: 9224: 9206: 9205: 9204: 9203: 9202: 9168: 9138: 9121: 9104: 9085: 9066: 9065: 9064: 9063: 9062: 8991: 8990: 8989: 8988: 8987: 8986: 8985: 8903: 8886: 8842: 8839: 8819: 8803: 8796: 8778: 8769: 8759: 8758: 8757: 8739: 8702: 8678: 8677: 8676: 8675: 8674: 8666: 8624: 8613: 8588: 8569: 8538: 8516: 8515: 8514: 8467: 8466: 8465: 8464: 8463: 8394: 8328: 8327: 8326: 8314: 8285: 8256: 8255: 8254: 8253: 8252: 8251: 8250: 8249: 8248: 8247: 8246: 8245: 8244: 8243: 8242: 8241: 8240: 8239: 8238: 8187: 8183: 8005: 7973: 7972: 7971: 7932: 7879: 7862: 7847: 7846: 7845: 7844: 7843: 7782: 7766: 7765: 7764: 7763: 7762: 7761: 7760: 7682: 7678:on this page) 7654: 7618: 7617: 7616: 7605: 7604: 7603: 7602: 7601: 7600: 7599: 7488: 7487: 7486: 7485: 7484: 7405: 7404: 7403: 7402: 7401: 7400: 7399: 7368: 7367: 7366: 7365: 7364: 7312:<Talk/: --> 7211: 7177:<Talk/: --> 7132: 7131: 7130: 7129: 7128: 7127: 7126: 7125: 7124: 7114:72.139.206.172 7110: 7109: 7108: 7031:72.139.206.172 7000: 6999: 6998: 6997: 6996: 6966:WikiVoyage RfA 6957: 6956: 6955: 6954: 6953: 6879: 6878: 6877: 6876: 6875: 6874: 6873: 6872: 6871: 6681:Cordless Larry 6627: 6624: 6623: 6622: 6608: 6592: 6571: 6548: 6536: 6519: 6501: 6484: 6467: 6446: 6428: 6411: 6394: 6382: 6365: 6348: 6336: 6310: 6287: 6271: 6254: 6237: 6211: 6194: 6168: 6143: 6120: 6103: 6069: 6051: 6034: 6015: 5991: 5946: 5929: 5917: 5900: 5883: 5866: 5849: 5824: 5806: 5786: 5770: 5752: 5735: 5718: 5701: 5685:experience of 5682: 5665: 5642: 5614: 5594: 5573: 5552: 5535: 5513: 5507:Strong support 5504: 5488: 5487: 5486: 5485: 5484: 5483: 5482: 5481: 5480: 5446: 5436: 5418: 5417: 5416: 5415: 5414: 5330: 5313: 5296: 5282: 5254: 5237: 5213: 5196: 5184: 5171: 5142: 5124: 5102: 5085: 5074: 5057: 5032: 5005: 4977: 4960: 4932: 4909: 4892: 4875: 4857: 4840: 4823: 4809: 4791: 4774: 4758: 4744: 4727: 4710: 4676: 4659: 4636: 4619: 4604: 4582: 4569: 4548: 4532: 4511: 4494: 4485: 4459: 4442: 4425: 4408: 4386:WP:NETPOSITIVE 4379: 4362: 4344: 4321: 4297: 4277: 4265: 4240: 4222: 4205: 4188: 4171: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4127: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4054: 4037: 4015: 3928: 3914: 3897: 3871: 3855:seek out drama 3848: 3831: 3817: 3809: 3792: 3756: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3618: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3517: 3500: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3456: 3445: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3383: 3361: 3333: 3312: 3287: 3268: 3250: 3229: 3212: 3195: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3127: 3104: 3086: 3078:Rhododendrites 3065: 3041: 3029: 3019: 2993: 2976: 2959: 2946: 2930: 2909: 2892: 2863: 2845: 2829: 2812: 2783: 2766: 2747: 2726: 2709: 2692: 2675: 2658: 2642: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2447: 2418: 2401: 2384: 2362: 2353: 2340: 2323: 2309: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2032: 2031: 2030: 1984: 1967: 1953: 1940: 1932: 1920: 1903: 1831: 1815: 1798: 1781: 1739: 1720: 1705: 1696: 1679: 1662: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1592: 1574: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1479: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1423: 1420: 1416: 1415: 1413: 1412: 1407: 1402: 1396: 1394: 1390: 1389: 1387: 1386: 1381: 1376: 1371: 1366: 1360: 1358: 1354: 1353: 1351: 1350: 1345: 1339: 1337: 1333: 1332: 1327: 1326: 1319: 1312: 1304: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1269: 1260: 1189: 1186: 1184: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1117: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1081: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1048: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1016: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 980: 973: 972: 971: 970: 948: 941: 940: 939: 938: 908: 907: 906: 851: 844: 843: 842: 841: 809: 802: 801: 800: 799: 774:Above you say 769: 762: 761: 760: 759: 737: 730: 729: 728: 727: 706: 699: 698: 697: 696: 660: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 633: 629: 621: 618:started an RfC 614: 585: 578: 577: 576: 575: 530: 523: 522: 521: 520: 482: 475: 474: 473: 472: 438: 431: 430: 429: 428: 388: 381: 380: 379: 378: 344: 337: 336: 335: 334: 312: 305: 304: 303: 302: 276: 269: 268: 267: 266: 239: 232: 231: 230: 229: 194: 174: 173: 172: 171: 170: 156: 155: 154: 153: 136: 135: 134: 133: 111: 108: 77: 74: 49: 44: 43: 42: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 12284: 12273: 12270: 12269: 12267: 12257: 12255: 12250: 12244: 12243: 12242: 12241: 12237: 12233: 12229: 12211: 12207: 12203: 12198: 12197: 12196: 12192: 12188: 12183: 12182: 12181: 12177: 12173: 12168: 12167: 12166: 12165: 12164: 12163: 12162: 12161: 12154: 12151: 12149: 12143: 12139: 12135: 12134: 12133: 12129: 12125: 12121: 12117: 12113: 12109: 12105: 12101: 12097: 12092: 12089: 12088: 12085: 12081: 12077: 12073: 12066: 12063: 12060: 12059: 12058: 12057: 12054: 12050: 12046: 12041: 12038: 12037: 12036: 12032: 12029: 12025: 12021: 12017: 11990: 11985: 11981: 11977: 11974: 11973: 11972: 11968: 11964: 11963:Pawnkingthree 11960: 11959: 11958: 11954: 11952: 11947: 11946: 11945: 11941: 11937: 11933: 11932: 11931: 11926: 11925: 11920: 11919: 11914: 11913: 11907: 11906: 11905: 11902: 11901: 11896: 11889: 11886: 11885: 11884: 11883: 11882: 11881: 11876: 11872: 11868: 11863: 11862: 11859: 11856: 11851: 11847: 11842: 11841: 11840: 11839: 11826: 11821: 11820: 11819: 11816: 11810: 11805: 11804: 11803: 11799: 11795: 11790: 11789: 11788: 11784: 11782: 11778: 11774: 11763: 11762: 11761: 11758: 11756: 11750: 11745: 11744: 11743: 11739: 11735: 11730: 11729: 11728: 11725: 11720: 11716: 11715: 11707: 11704: 11697: 11696: 11695: 11691: 11683: 11679: 11675: 11674: 11673: 11670: 11664: 11660: 11655: 11651: 11647: 11643: 11642: 11641: 11640: 11636: 11632: 11621: 11618: 11612: 11608: 11607: 11606: 11602: 11596: 11595: 11594: 11593: 11590: 11580: 11577: 11571: 11567: 11563: 11559: 11558: 11557: 11556: 11549: 11548: 11545: 11543: 11538: 11533: 11524: 11518: 11512: 11510: 11500: 11496: 11491: 11481: 11475: 11469: 11467: 11458: 11451: 11446: 11445: 11444: 11441: 11440: 11433: 11429: 11428: 11427: 11421: 11415: 11413: 11405: 11401: 11395: 11388: 11387:edit conflict 11383: 11379: 11373: 11367: 11365: 11355: 11350: 11349: 11348: 11344: 11340: 11337: 11332: 11327: 11326: 11325: 11322: 11321: 11314: 11313: 11312: 11306: 11300: 11298: 11290: 11283: 11278: 11277: 11276: 11275: 11272: 11271: 11264: 11258: 11249: 11246: 11240: 11239: 11238: 11237: 11232: 11224: 11213: 11208: 11203: 11199: 11195: 11191: 11190: 11189: 11188: 11185: 11181: 11177: 11173: 11170:and also the 11169: 11165: 11159: 11155: 11150: 11149: 11143: 11139: 11137: 11133: 11129: 11128: 11127: 11123: 11119: 11115: 11111: 11107: 11106: 11100: 11096: 11092: 11087: 11085: 11081: 11079: 11075: 11071: 11061: 11057: 11056: 11055: 11051: 11047: 11042: 11038: 11037: 11027: 11022: 11020: 11015:usernamekiran 11011: 11005: 11000: 10999: 10998: 10994: 10992: 10988: 10987:Usernamekiran 10985: 10984: 10983: 10979: 10977: 10973: 10969: 10959: 10958: 10957: 10952: 10950: 10945:usernamekiran 10941: 10940: 10926: 10922: 10920: 10916: 10912: 10909: 10908: 10907: 10903: 10899: 10895: 10894: 10893: 10889: 10885: 10881: 10877: 10873: 10869: 10868: 10867: 10863: 10859: 10855: 10854: 10853: 10849: 10845: 10841: 10840: 10839: 10838: 10835: 10831: 10827: 10822: 10821: 10820: 10819: 10818: 10815: 10813: 10808: 10806: 10801: 10786: 10782: 10778: 10774: 10769: 10766: 10764: 10761: 10759: 10754: 10748: 10745: 10743: 10739: 10735: 10731: 10726: 10722: 10718: 10715: 10713: 10709: 10705: 10701: 10698: 10696: 10692: 10688: 10683: 10680: 10678: 10674: 10670: 10666: 10662: 10659: 10658: 10653: 10646: 10645: 10644: 10640: 10636: 10632: 10628: 10625: 10623: 10619: 10615: 10611: 10608: 10606: 10602: 10598: 10594: 10590: 10586: 10582: 10578: 10575: 10573: 10569: 10565: 10561: 10558: 10556: 10553: 10551: 10545: 10539: 10535: 10532: 10521: 10517: 10513: 10511: 10510: 10502: 10501: 10500: 10499: 10495: 10491: 10489: 10488: 10479: 10478: 10477: 10475: 10471: 10467: 10465: 10464: 10455: 10454: 10453: 10452: 10448: 10444: 10442: 10441: 10434: 10430: 10426: 10416: 10412: 10410: 10406: 10402: 10392: 10391: 10390: 10386: 10377: 10372: 10371: 10370: 10366: 10364: 10360: 10357: 10356: 10355: 10351: 10347: 10342: 10341: 10340: 10335: 10328: 10327: 10326: 10322: 10318: 10313: 10309: 10307: 10303: 10298: 10297: 10289: 10284: 10278: 10270: 10267: 10265: 10262: 10256: 10250: 10243: 10240: 10238: 10235: 10231: 10226: 10223: 10221: 10217: 10213: 10209: 10206: 10204: 10200: 10198: 10191: 10188: 10184: 10181: 10176: 10174: 10173: 10166: 10164: 10159: 10157: 10156: 10149: 10145: 10144: 10143: 10139: 10135: 10131: 10127: 10123: 10119: 10115: 10111: 10106: 10103: 10101: 10097: 10093: 10088: 10084: 10081: 10079: 10074: 10070: 10064: 10059: 10052: 10047: 10043: 10039: 10036: 10034: 10030: 10026: 10022: 10019: 10017: 10014: 10012: 10005: 10002: 10000: 9996: 9992: 9988: 9984: 9980: 9977: 9973: 9970: 9968: 9967: 9960: 9958: 9956: 9955: 9948: 9944: 9940: 9936: 9932: 9927: 9923: 9922: 9921: 9917: 9913: 9909: 9906: 9904: 9901: 9900: 9893: 9890: 9886: 9883: 9878: 9872: 9866: 9861: 9860: 9859: 9855: 9854: 9849: 9847: 9841: 9839: 9834: 9828: 9824: 9821: 9819: 9815: 9811: 9810:QueerFilmNerd 9806: 9803: 9801: 9797: 9793: 9789: 9786: 9784: 9780: 9776: 9771: 9768: 9765: 9762: 9761: 9756: 9749: 9746: 9744: 9740: 9736: 9731: 9728: 9726: 9722: 9718: 9714: 9713:not quite yet 9710: 9707: 9703: 9699: 9695: 9693: 9692: 9685: 9684: 9683: 9679: 9675: 9673: 9672: 9665: 9661: 9660:administrator 9654: 9647: 9643: 9638: 9637:edit conflict 9633: 9625: 9621: 9617: 9612: 9611: 9610: 9606: 9602: 9597: 9594: 9593: 9592: 9588: 9584: 9579: 9578: 9577: 9573: 9569: 9565: 9560: 9558: 9554: 9550: 9546: 9545: 9529: 9526: 9518: 9515: 9510: 9507: 9506: 9500: 9493: 9492: 9491: 9488: 9484: 9477: 9472: 9468: 9465: 9460: 9457: 9456: 9450: 9443: 9439: 9435: 9431: 9426: 9425: 9424: 9420: 9418: 9414: 9410: 9400: 9398: 9392: 9388: 9384: 9380: 9376: 9375: 9374: 9371: 9366: 9363: 9362: 9356: 9349: 9345: 9341: 9340: 9339: 9335: 9334:contributions 9331: 9327: 9323: 9320: 9315: 9312: 9306: 9296: 9291: 9289: 9283: 9273: 9269: 9265: 9261: 9260: 9259: 9255: 9251: 9247: 9244: 9242: 9239: 9238: 9228: 9225: 9223: 9219: 9215: 9214:wikitigresito 9210: 9207: 9201: 9198: 9197: 9189: 9184: 9183: 9182: 9178: 9174: 9169: 9167: 9163: 9159: 9154: 9153: 9152: 9149: 9148: 9142: 9139: 9137: 9132: 9130: 9122: 9120: 9116: 9112: 9108: 9105: 9103: 9098: 9093: 9089: 9086: 9084: 9081: 9070: 9067: 9061: 9057: 9055: 9051: 9047: 9037: 9032: 9027: 9026: 9025: 9021: 9017: 9013: 9009: 9008: 9007: 9003: 8999: 8998:Just Chilling 8995: 8992: 8984: 8979: 8976: 8973: 8972: 8965: 8961: 8960: 8959: 8955: 8951: 8947: 8943: 8942: 8941: 8937: 8930: 8925: 8924: 8923: 8919: 8915: 8911: 8907: 8904: 8902: 8898: 8894: 8890: 8887: 8885: 8883: 8878: 8875: 8872: 8871: 8861: 8860: 8855: 8852: 8849: 8848: 8837: 8834: 8832: 8828: 8817: 8812: 8807: 8800: 8797: 8795: 8791: 8787: 8782: 8779: 8777: 8772: 8767: 8763: 8762:Strong oppose 8760: 8756: 8753: 8751: 8746: 8740: 8738: 8737: 8734: 8732: 8727: 8721: 8717: 8716: 8715: 8712: 8711: 8706: 8703: 8701: 8697: 8693: 8688: 8683: 8679: 8673: 8670: 8664: 8659: 8653: 8652:Beyond My Ken 8648: 8647: 8646: 8642: 8638: 8637:Beyond My Ken 8633: 8632: 8631: 8628: 8622: 8617: 8614: 8612: 8609: 8607: 8602: 8592: 8589: 8587: 8584: 8581: 8578: 8573: 8570: 8568: 8565: 8564: 8560: 8559: 8558:Fylbecatulous 8554: 8550: 8546: 8542: 8539: 8537: 8534: 8529: 8528: 8521: 8517: 8513: 8509: 8505: 8500: 8499: 8498: 8494: 8490: 8485: 8481: 8477: 8474: 8471: 8468: 8462: 8458: 8454: 8449: 8445: 8444: 8443: 8439: 8435: 8430: 8429: 8428: 8424: 8420: 8415: 8410: 8406: 8402: 8398: 8395: 8393: 8390: 8389: 8382: 8378: 8374: 8372: 8368: 8361: 8357: 8353: 8349: 8345: 8341: 8336: 8332: 8329: 8325: 8319: 8313: 8311: 8303: 8298: 8297: 8296: 8290: 8284: 8282: 8274: 8271: 8270: 8264: 8260: 8257: 8236: 8232: 8228: 8223: 8222: 8221: 8217: 8213: 8207: 8199: 8192: 8188: 8184: 8179: 8178: 8177: 8173: 8169: 8167: 8166: 8159: 8155: 8154: 8153: 8149: 8147: 8143: 8139: 8129: 8125: 8121: 8120: 8118: 8114: 8110: 8105: 8101: 8096: 8095: 8094: 8090: 8086: 8082: 8081: 8080: 8076: 8072: 8068: 8064: 8063: 8062: 8058: 8054: 8049: 8044: 8043: 8041: 8037: 8033: 8028: 8026: 8022: 8018: 8017:Beyond My Ken 8014: 8010: 8006: 8004: 8000: 7996: 7995:Beyond My Ken 7991: 7990: 7989: 7985: 7981: 7977: 7974: 7970: 7967: 7966: 7960: 7955: 7952: 7948: 7944: 7937: 7933: 7931: 7927: 7923: 7919: 7917: 7913: 7909: 7905: 7901: 7900: 7899: 7895: 7891: 7887: 7883: 7880: 7878: 7874: 7870: 7869:Pawnkingthree 7866: 7863: 7861: 7857: 7853: 7848: 7842: 7838: 7834: 7833:Beyond My Ken 7829: 7828: 7827: 7823: 7819: 7815: 7814:James Allison 7811: 7805: 7804:Beyond My Ken 7800: 7799: 7798: 7794: 7790: 7789:Beyond My Ken 7786: 7783: 7781: 7778: 7777: 7776: 7767: 7759: 7755: 7751: 7746: 7745: 7744: 7741: 7739: 7734: 7730: 7725: 7724: 7723: 7719: 7715: 7711: 7707: 7704: 7703: 7702: 7699: 7697: 7692: 7688: 7687:User:Wpgbrown 7683: 7681: 7677: 7673: 7669: 7665: 7660: 7655: 7653: 7649: 7645: 7640: 7636: 7632: 7628: 7627:1 correct G11 7624: 7619: 7615: 7612: 7606: 7598: 7594: 7590: 7586: 7585: 7584: 7580: 7578: 7574: 7570: 7560: 7556: 7552: 7551: 7550: 7545: 7540: 7535: 7534: 7533: 7529: 7527: 7523: 7519: 7509: 7505: 7501: 7494: 7493:edit conflict 7489: 7483: 7479: 7475: 7471: 7470: 7469: 7465: 7461: 7457: 7454: 7453: 7452: 7448: 7444: 7439: 7438: 7437: 7432: 7427: 7423: 7421: 7419: 7415: 7411: 7406: 7398: 7394: 7390: 7385: 7383: 7377: 7373: 7369: 7363: 7359: 7355: 7351: 7347: 7343: 7341: 7338: 7333: 7327: 7322: 7321: 7320: 7316: 7314: 7307: 7305: 7301: 7295:. Thank you, 7294: 7290: 7286: 7283: 7282: 7281: 7278: 7273: 7270: 7269: 7268: 7263: 7262: 7257: 7256: 7251: 7250: 7244: 7240: 7239: 7238: 7234: 7230: 7226: 7222: 7217: 7212: 7210: 7207: 7205: 7199: 7195: 7191: 7187: 7186: 7185: 7181: 7179: 7172: 7170: 7166: 7159: 7155: 7151: 7148: 7145: 7142: 7139: 7136: 7133: 7123: 7119: 7115: 7111: 7107: 7104: 7102: 7096: 7095:WP:BLUDGEONed 7092: 7091: 7090: 7086: 7082: 7078: 7077: 7076: 7072: 7068: 7067:Pawnkingthree 7064: 7063: 7062: 7058: 7054: 7048: 7042: 7041: 7040: 7036: 7032: 7028: 7023: 7018: 7017: 7016: 7012: 7008: 7004: 7001: 6993: 6992: 6991: 6987: 6985: 6981: 6977: 6967: 6962: 6958: 6952: 6948: 6946: 6942: 6938: 6928: 6924: 6923: 6922: 6918: 6913: 6908: 6907: 6905: 6901: 6897: 6894:Strike sock. 6892: 6890: 6886: 6880: 6870: 6866: 6862: 6857: 6856: 6855: 6851: 6849: 6845: 6841: 6831: 6830: 6824: 6820: 6819: 6818: 6814: 6810: 6805: 6804: 6803: 6799: 6795: 6788: 6787:edit conflict 6783: 6782: 6781: 6777: 6773: 6768: 6767: 6766: 6762: 6760: 6756: 6752: 6742: 6738: 6734: 6730: 6726: 6722: 6718: 6710: 6706: 6698: 6694: 6690: 6686: 6682: 6678: 6674: 6670: 6666: 6662: 6658: 6654: 6650: 6646: 6642: 6641:cleanup drive 6638: 6634: 6633:next person's 6630: 6629: 6621: 6618: 6612: 6609: 6607: 6604: 6602: 6596: 6593: 6591: 6587: 6583: 6579: 6575: 6572: 6570: 6566: 6562: 6558: 6557: 6552: 6549: 6547: 6544: 6541: 6537: 6535: 6531: 6527: 6523: 6520: 6518: 6514: 6510: 6505: 6502: 6500: 6497: 6495: 6494:Winged Blades 6488: 6485: 6483: 6479: 6475: 6471: 6468: 6466: 6462: 6458: 6454: 6450: 6447: 6445: 6442: 6440: 6436: 6432: 6429: 6427: 6423: 6419: 6415: 6412: 6410: 6406: 6402: 6398: 6395: 6393: 6390: 6386: 6383: 6381: 6377: 6373: 6369: 6366: 6364: 6360: 6356: 6352: 6349: 6347: 6344: 6340: 6337: 6335: 6332: 6331: 6325: 6324: 6314: 6311: 6309: 6306: 6301: 6299: 6298: 6291: 6288: 6286: 6283: 6279: 6275: 6272: 6270: 6266: 6262: 6258: 6255: 6253: 6249: 6245: 6241: 6238: 6236: 6232: 6228: 6223: 6219: 6215: 6212: 6210: 6206: 6202: 6198: 6195: 6193: 6189: 6185: 6181: 6176: 6172: 6169: 6167: 6163: 6159: 6155: 6151: 6147: 6144: 6142: 6139: 6138: 6132: 6131: 6124: 6121: 6119: 6115: 6111: 6107: 6104: 6102: 6097: 6093: 6089: 6084: 6077: 6073: 6070: 6068: 6064: 6060: 6055: 6052: 6050: 6046: 6042: 6038: 6035: 6033: 6029: 6028: 6027: 6019: 6016: 6014: 6010: 6008: 6002: 5995: 5992: 5990: 5986: 5982: 5978: 5974: 5970: 5966: 5962: 5958: 5954: 5950: 5947: 5945: 5941: 5937: 5933: 5930: 5928: 5925: 5921: 5918: 5916: 5912: 5908: 5904: 5901: 5899: 5895: 5891: 5887: 5884: 5882: 5878: 5874: 5873:Spike Wilbury 5870: 5867: 5865: 5860: 5856: 5850: 5848: 5843: 5839: 5834: 5833: 5828: 5825: 5823: 5819: 5815: 5814:ZettaComposer 5810: 5807: 5805: 5801: 5794: 5790: 5787: 5785: 5782: 5780: 5774: 5771: 5769: 5765: 5761: 5756: 5753: 5751: 5747: 5743: 5739: 5736: 5734: 5730: 5726: 5722: 5719: 5717: 5713: 5709: 5705: 5702: 5700: 5697: 5692: 5688: 5683: 5681: 5677: 5673: 5669: 5666: 5664: 5661: 5659: 5658: 5651: 5646: 5643: 5641: 5636: 5629: 5628: 5618: 5615: 5613: 5609: 5605: 5601: 5598: 5595: 5593: 5589: 5583: 5577: 5574: 5572: 5568: 5564: 5560: 5556: 5553: 5551: 5547: 5543: 5539: 5536: 5534: 5531: 5526: 5523: 5522: 5516: 5508: 5505: 5503: 5500: 5498: 5497: 5492: 5489: 5479: 5475: 5471: 5464: 5460: 5455: 5454: 5453: 5449: 5441: 5437: 5435: 5431: 5427: 5423: 5419: 5413: 5409: 5408: 5407: 5403: 5399: 5395: 5394: 5392: 5391: 5390: 5386: 5382: 5378: 5374: 5373: 5372: 5367: 5362: 5358: 5357: 5355: 5351: 5347: 5343: 5338: 5334: 5331: 5329: 5325: 5321: 5317: 5314: 5312: 5308: 5304: 5300: 5297: 5295: 5292: 5291: 5286: 5283: 5281: 5278: 5273: 5268: 5262: 5261:Beyond My Ken 5258: 5255: 5253: 5249: 5245: 5241: 5238: 5236: 5233: 5230: 5228: 5217: 5214: 5212: 5208: 5204: 5200: 5197: 5195: 5189: 5181: 5180: 5175: 5172: 5170: 5166: 5162: 5158: 5154: 5150: 5146: 5143: 5140: 5136: 5132: 5128: 5125: 5123: 5119: 5115: 5110: 5106: 5103: 5101: 5097: 5093: 5089: 5086: 5084: 5081: 5078: 5075: 5073: 5069: 5065: 5061: 5058: 5056: 5053: 5048: 5036: 5033: 5030: 5025: 5022: 5021: 5020: 5013: 5009: 5006: 5004: 5000: 4995: 4990: 4985: 4981: 4978: 4976: 4972: 4968: 4964: 4961: 4959: 4956: 4951: 4946: 4936: 4933: 4931: 4928: 4923: 4917: 4913: 4910: 4908: 4904: 4900: 4896: 4893: 4891: 4887: 4883: 4879: 4876: 4874: 4870: 4866: 4861: 4858: 4856: 4852: 4848: 4844: 4841: 4839: 4835: 4831: 4827: 4824: 4822: 4819: 4813: 4810: 4808: 4804: 4800: 4795: 4792: 4790: 4786: 4782: 4778: 4775: 4773: 4770: 4769: 4762: 4759: 4757: 4752: 4748: 4745: 4743: 4740: 4735: 4731: 4728: 4726: 4722: 4718: 4714: 4711: 4709: 4706: 4705: 4700: 4692: 4688: 4684: 4680: 4677: 4675: 4671: 4667: 4663: 4660: 4658: 4653: 4646: 4640: 4637: 4635: 4631: 4627: 4623: 4620: 4618: 4615: 4612: 4608: 4605: 4603: 4600: 4598: 4593: 4592: 4586: 4583: 4581: 4578: 4577:TheCatalyst31 4573: 4570: 4568: 4564: 4560: 4556: 4552: 4549: 4547: 4544: 4541: 4536: 4533: 4531: 4527: 4525: 4520: 4515: 4512: 4510: 4506: 4502: 4498: 4495: 4493: 4490: 4480: 4474: 4468: 4463: 4460: 4458: 4454: 4450: 4449:Esquivalience 4446: 4443: 4441: 4437: 4433: 4429: 4426: 4424: 4420: 4416: 4412: 4409: 4407: 4404: 4402: 4397: 4391: 4387: 4383: 4380: 4378: 4374: 4370: 4366: 4363: 4361: 4357: 4353: 4348: 4345: 4343: 4339: 4335: 4330: 4325: 4322: 4320: 4317: 4310: 4305: 4301: 4298: 4296: 4293: 4288: 4281: 4278: 4276: 4273: 4269: 4266: 4264: 4260: 4256: 4252: 4248: 4244: 4241: 4238: 4234: 4230: 4226: 4223: 4221: 4217: 4213: 4209: 4206: 4204: 4200: 4196: 4192: 4189: 4187: 4183: 4179: 4175: 4172: 4170: 4166: 4162: 4157: 4154: 4150: 4145: 4142: 4139: 4138: 4131: 4125: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4118: 4116: 4109: 4106: 4102: 4098: 4092: 4086: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4075: 4069: 4063: 4058: 4055: 4053: 4049: 4045: 4041: 4038: 4036: 4033: 4028: 4026: 4019: 4016: 4014: 4010: 4006: 4002: 3998: 3997: 3983: 3971: 3932: 3929: 3927: 3924: 3922: 3918: 3915: 3913: 3909: 3905: 3901: 3898: 3896: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3886: 3885: 3879: 3875: 3872: 3870: 3866: 3862: 3856: 3849: 3847: 3843: 3839: 3835: 3832: 3830: 3826: 3822: 3818: 3816: 3812: 3804: 3800: 3796: 3793: 3791: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3769: 3766:seems like a 3764: 3760: 3757: 3755: 3752: 3745: 3741: 3733: 3726: 3723: 3713: 3709: 3705: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3694: 3690: 3686: 3681: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3670: 3666: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3654: 3649: 3645: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3636: 3632: 3627: 3619: 3617: 3613: 3609: 3605: 3602: 3594: 3590: 3586: 3582: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3572: 3570: 3566: 3562: 3552: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3543: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3531: 3530: 3528: 3521: 3518: 3516: 3512: 3508: 3504: 3501: 3499: 3495: 3491: 3487: 3484: 3480: 3476: 3472: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3461: 3460: 3455: 3454: 3449: 3446: 3444: 3440: 3436: 3432: 3429: 3425: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3394: 3391: 3387: 3384: 3382: 3378: 3374: 3370: 3365: 3362: 3360: 3357: 3355: 3350: 3348: 3343: 3337: 3334: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3316: 3313: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3295: 3294:Mike Christie 3291: 3288: 3286: 3282: 3276: 3272: 3269: 3267: 3264: 3263: 3260: 3259: 3254: 3251: 3249: 3246: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3233: 3230: 3228: 3224: 3220: 3216: 3213: 3211: 3207: 3203: 3202:Victoriaearle 3199: 3196: 3194: 3191: 3190: 3180: 3177: 3173: 3169: 3165: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3145:from the mop) 3144: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3128: 3126: 3123: 3122: 3118: 3116: 3115: 3108: 3105: 3103: 3099: 3095: 3090: 3087: 3085: 3080: 3073: 3069: 3066: 3064: 3061: 3059: 3054: 3053: 3045: 3042: 3040: 3035: 3028: 3023: 3020: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2991: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2977: 2975: 2971: 2967: 2963: 2960: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2947: 2945: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2931: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2910: 2908: 2905: 2902: 2901: 2896: 2893: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2875: 2873: 2867: 2864: 2862: 2859: 2854: 2849: 2846: 2844: 2841: 2840: 2833: 2830: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2813: 2809: 2802: 2799: 2797: 2792: 2787: 2784: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2770: 2767: 2765: 2762: 2758: 2751: 2748: 2746: 2742: 2741: 2734: 2730: 2727: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2710: 2708: 2705: 2701: 2696: 2693: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2676: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2659: 2657: 2652: 2646: 2643: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2622: 2617: 2613: 2612: 2607: 2605: 2599: 2597: 2592: 2586: 2581: 2579: 2578: 2573: 2571: 2565: 2563: 2558: 2552: 2548: 2542: 2539: 2537: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2517: 2515: 2507: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2496: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2476: 2473: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2464: 2462: 2456: 2451: 2448: 2446: 2441: 2440: 2435: 2434: 2429: 2428: 2422: 2419: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2402: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2385: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2370: 2366: 2363: 2361: 2356: 2351: 2347: 2344: 2341: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2324: 2322: 2317: 2316:Seraphimblade 2313: 2310: 2308: 2304: 2302: 2301: 2293: 2290: 2279: 2275: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2254: 2253: 2250: 2249: 2244: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2234: 2232: 2228: 2224: 2214: 2210: 2205: 2204: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2196: 2192: 2189: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2170: 2169: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2147: 2146: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2124: 2123: 2116: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2095: 2089: 2086: 2083: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2071: 2068: 2061: 2060: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2050: 2047: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2016: 2011: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1993: 1988: 1985: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1968: 1966: 1961: 1957: 1952: 1950: 1944: 1941: 1939: 1935: 1930: 1929: 1924: 1921: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1904: 1901: 1898: 1892: 1882: 1881:per this diff 1877: 1874: 1868: 1855: 1849: 1835: 1832: 1830: 1827: 1826: 1819: 1816: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1799: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1782: 1780: 1775: 1773: 1768:usernamekiran 1764: 1760: 1755: 1749: 1748:edit conflict 1743: 1740: 1738: 1735: 1734: 1724: 1721: 1719: 1716: 1713: 1709: 1706: 1704: 1700: 1697: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1680: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1663: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1646: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1630:Strike sock. 1628: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1593: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1578: 1575: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1560: 1555: 1554:edit conflict 1550: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1518: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1505: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1489: 1483: 1480: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1453: 1449: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1429: 1426: 1425: 1411: 1408: 1406: 1403: 1401: 1398: 1397: 1395: 1391: 1385: 1382: 1380: 1377: 1375: 1372: 1370: 1367: 1365: 1362: 1361: 1359: 1355: 1349: 1346: 1344: 1341: 1340: 1338: 1334: 1325: 1320: 1318: 1313: 1311: 1306: 1305: 1302: 1298: 1297: 1295: 1291: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1261: 1257: 1254: 1251: 1248: 1245: 1242: 1239: 1236: 1233: 1230: 1227: 1224: 1221: 1217: 1214: 1210: 1207: 1204: 1201: 1197: 1192: 1191: 1185: 1178: 1174: 1172: 1168: 1165: 1164: 1163:icon option? 1155: 1148: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1135: 1131: 1128: 1127: 1125: 1124:WP:Wikipe-tan 1121: 1118: 1116: 1112: 1111: 1106: 1102: 1100: 1095: 1092: 1091: 1089: 1085: 1082: 1080: 1076: 1075: 1070: 1066: 1064: 1059: 1056: 1055: 1052: 1049: 1047: 1043: 1042: 1037: 1033: 1031: 1026: 1023: 1022: 1020: 1017: 1015: 1011: 1010: 1005: 1001: 999: 994: 991: 990: 988: 984: 981: 979: 975: 974: 969: 965: 963: 958: 955: 954: 952: 949: 947: 943: 942: 937: 933: 931: 927: 924: 923: 920: 916: 912: 909: 905: 901: 899: 894: 890: 886: 883: 882: 880: 872: 862: 855: 852: 850: 846: 845: 840: 836: 834: 830: 827: 826: 824: 820: 818: 815:On behalf of 813: 810: 808: 804: 803: 798: 794: 792: 787: 784: 783: 781: 777: 773: 770: 768: 764: 763: 758: 754: 752: 747: 744: 743: 741: 738: 736: 732: 731: 726: 722: 720: 716: 713: 712: 710: 707: 705: 701: 700: 695: 691: 689: 685: 681: 678: 677: 675: 672: 668: 664: 661: 659: 655: 654: 645: 641: 639: 634: 630: 626: 622: 619: 615: 612: 611: 610: 609: 607: 603: 600: 599: 597: 593: 589: 586: 584: 580: 579: 574: 570: 568: 563: 560: 559: 557: 553: 550: 546: 542: 538: 534: 531: 529: 525: 524: 519: 515: 513: 508: 505: 504: 503: 498: 496: 491:usernamekiran 486: 483: 481: 477: 476: 471: 467: 465: 460: 457: 456: 454: 450: 446: 442: 439: 437: 433: 432: 427: 423: 421: 416: 413: 410: 409: 408: 404: 400: 396: 392: 389: 387: 383: 382: 377: 373: 371: 367: 362: 359: 358: 356: 352: 348: 345: 343: 339: 338: 333: 329: 327: 322: 319: 318: 316: 313: 311: 307: 306: 301: 297: 295: 290: 286: 283: 282: 280: 277: 275: 271: 270: 265: 261: 259: 254: 251: 250: 247: 243: 240: 238: 234: 233: 228: 224: 222: 217: 213: 208: 205: 204: 202: 198: 195: 193: 189: 188: 187: 184: 183:two questions 180: 167: 164: 163: 161: 158: 157: 151: 147: 144: 143: 141: 138: 137: 130: 126: 123: 122: 120: 117: 116: 115: 107: 106: 102: 100: 96: 92: 89: 86: 82: 73: 72: 68: 67: 62: 61: 60: 54: 48: 41: 35: 32: 27: 26: 19: 12248: 12245: 12227: 12225: 12147: 12137: 12115: 12070:— Preceding 12039: 12034: 12014:— Preceding 12010: 11983: 11979: 11923: 11917: 11911: 11891: 11845: 11770: 11754: 11748: 11678:WP:FORUMSHOP 11662: 11658: 11653: 11627: 11584: 11566:WP:Vandalism 11561: 11551: 11541: 11531: 11528: 11508: 11465: 11436: 11411: 11363: 11317: 11296: 11289:Special:Nuke 11267: 11263:Special:Nuke 11253: 11219: 11067: 11046:TonyBallioni 11018: 11009: 10965: 10948: 10879: 10811: 10804: 10799: 10795: 10794: 10772: 10767: 10757: 10752: 10746: 10729: 10724: 10720: 10716: 10699: 10681: 10648: 10626: 10609: 10593:Amorymeltzer 10576: 10559: 10549: 10543: 10533: 10508: 10507: 10486: 10485: 10480: 10462: 10461: 10456: 10439: 10438: 10433:Amorymeltzer 10428: 10427: 10398: 10311: 10299: 10268: 10241: 10224: 10207: 10196: 10189: 10171: 10170: 10154: 10153: 10147: 10146: 10113: 10109: 10104: 10082: 10050: 10045: 10037: 10020: 10010: 10003: 9978: 9962: 9950: 9935:WP:RFAADVICE 9925: 9924: 9907: 9895: 9891: 9871:WP:NOTNOTNOW 9852: 9845: 9837: 9832: 9822: 9804: 9787: 9769: 9751: 9747: 9729: 9708: 9690: 9689: 9670: 9669: 9659: 9641: 9563: 9531: 9527: 9504: 9503: 9498: 9454: 9453: 9448: 9441: 9437: 9433: 9406: 9396: 9395: 9390: 9386: 9360: 9359: 9354: 9347: 9343: 9321: 9263: 9262: 9245: 9232: 9226: 9208: 9194: 9145: 9140: 9128: 9111:Softlavender 9106: 9087: 9068: 9043: 9016:Innisfree987 9011: 8993: 8970: 8905: 8888: 8869: 8862: 8846: 8835: 8823: 8798: 8780: 8761: 8749: 8744: 8730: 8725: 8719: 8718: 8709: 8704: 8685: 8681: 8662: 8657: 8620: 8615: 8605: 8600: 8590: 8571: 8562: 8557: 8552: 8548: 8544: 8540: 8526: 8519: 8469: 8447: 8414:chief reason 8408: 8400: 8396: 8385: 8381:nothing else 8380: 8376: 8370: 8366: 8364: 8355: 8334: 8330: 8309: 8280: 8273:batch delete 8267: 8262: 8258: 8227:Double sharp 8212:Double sharp 8198:Amorymeltzer 8190: 8164: 8163: 8158:Amorymeltzer 8135: 8109:Double sharp 8085:Double sharp 8071:Double sharp 8053:Double sharp 8032:Double sharp 8021:Double sharp 8008: 8007: 7975: 7962: 7956: 7941:— Preceding 7935: 7934: 7903: 7902: 7885: 7881: 7864: 7818:148.87.23.13 7784: 7771: 7770: 7737: 7728: 7709: 7695: 7663: 7566: 7515: 7507: 7413: 7409: 7381: 7379: 7345: 7336: 7310: 7303: 7299: 7293:Amorymeltzer 7260: 7254: 7248: 7229:TonyBallioni 7220: 7203: 7197: 7189: 7175: 7168: 7164: 7157: 7134: 7100: 7026: 7002: 6973: 6961:diff du jour 6934: 6926: 6916: 6911: 6896:TonyBallioni 6881: 6837: 6828: 6826: 6822: 6748: 6740: 6717:G11 userpage 6644: 6640: 6636: 6610: 6600: 6594: 6573: 6555: 6550: 6521: 6503: 6493: 6486: 6469: 6448: 6434: 6430: 6413: 6396: 6384: 6367: 6350: 6338: 6327: 6317: 6312: 6296: 6295: 6289: 6273: 6256: 6239: 6221: 6218:User:Kudpung 6213: 6196: 6170: 6150:WP:NOBIGDEAL 6145: 6133: 6126: 6122: 6105: 6071: 6053: 6036: 6022: 6021: 6017: 6003: 5993: 5981:Double sharp 5968: 5964: 5961:in mainspace 5960: 5948: 5931: 5919: 5902: 5885: 5868: 5830: 5826: 5808: 5788: 5778: 5772: 5754: 5737: 5720: 5703: 5690: 5686: 5667: 5653: 5649: 5644: 5620: 5616: 5596: 5575: 5559:net positive 5554: 5542:FeydHuxtable 5537: 5520: 5519: 5514: 5506: 5499: 5494: 5490: 5421: 5376: 5332: 5316:Weak Support 5315: 5298: 5288: 5284: 5256: 5244:Robertgombos 5239: 5220: 5215: 5198: 5178: 5173: 5161:MarginalCost 5144: 5126: 5104: 5087: 5080: 5079:Seems sane. 5076: 5059: 5034: 5015: 5014: 5011: 5007: 4979: 4962: 4945:Bellezzasolo 4944: 4934: 4911: 4894: 4877: 4859: 4842: 4825: 4811: 4793: 4776: 4764: 4760: 4746: 4729: 4712: 4695: 4678: 4661: 4638: 4621: 4606: 4596: 4590: 4584: 4571: 4550: 4534: 4521: 4513: 4496: 4479:Gerda Arendt 4461: 4444: 4427: 4410: 4400: 4395: 4390:RfA Criteria 4381: 4364: 4346: 4328: 4323: 4303: 4299: 4279: 4267: 4242: 4224: 4210:per BD2412. 4207: 4190: 4173: 4161:Calliopejen1 4155: 4136: 4107: 4085:power~enwiki 4062:power~enwiki 4056: 4039: 4024: 4017: 3995: 3994: 3981: 3980:Has a need: 3930: 3916: 3904:No such user 3899: 3889: 3883: 3881: 3877: 3873: 3854: 3833: 3799:WP:NOBIGDEAL 3794: 3782: 3781: 3773: 3772: 3768:net positive 3762: 3758: 3739: 3724: 3684: 3679: 3643: 3622: 3603: 3580: 3558: 3550: 3524: 3523: 3519: 3502: 3485: 3458: 3452: 3447: 3430: 3389: 3385: 3368: 3363: 3353: 3346: 3341: 3335: 3318: 3289: 3274: 3270: 3262: 3257: 3252: 3239: 3238: 3231: 3214: 3197: 3183: 3178: 3164:Innisfree987 3149:Innisfree987 3137: 3129: 3120: 3113: 3112: 3106: 3088: 3071: 3067: 3057: 3051: 3050: 3043: 3021: 2996: 2978: 2961: 2932: 2911: 2899: 2894: 2871: 2865: 2847: 2835: 2831: 2814: 2808:Last edited: 2807: 2790: 2785: 2768: 2754: 2749: 2738: 2728: 2711: 2699: 2694: 2677: 2660: 2644: 2627: 2623: 2610: 2603: 2595: 2590: 2584: 2576: 2569: 2561: 2556: 2550: 2549: 2535: 2525:Amorymeltzer 2513: 2506:Amorymeltzer 2482: 2460: 2449: 2438: 2432: 2426: 2420: 2403: 2386: 2374:OhKayeSierra 2364: 2342: 2325: 2311: 2297: 2291: 2261: 2247: 2246: 2242: 2220: 2212: 2208: 2190: 2167: 2166: 2144: 2143: 2138: 2121: 2120: 2114: 2113: 2096: 2081: 2066: 2058: 2057: 2045: 2034: 2013: 2009: 1990: 1986: 1969: 1948: 1942: 1926: 1922: 1905: 1857: 1833: 1821: 1817: 1800: 1783: 1771: 1758: 1741: 1726: 1722: 1707: 1698: 1686:TonyBallioni 1681: 1664: 1647: 1632:TonyBallioni 1616: 1612: 1611: 1594: 1576: 1558: 1516: 1487: 1481: 1464: 1435:Gerda Arendt 1427: 1287: 1286: 1252: 1246: 1240: 1234: 1228: 1222: 1215: 1208: 1202: 1183: 1166: 1146: 1129: 1119: 1093: 1087: 1083: 1057: 1050: 1024: 1018: 992: 982: 956: 950: 925: 910: 892: 888: 884: 853: 828: 822: 817:User:Joe Roe 814: 811: 785: 775: 771: 745: 739: 735:Power~enwiki 714: 708: 683: 679: 673: 670: 666: 662: 658:Amorymeltzer 601: 587: 561: 532: 506: 494: 484: 458: 440: 411: 394: 390: 360: 355:current need 354: 350: 346: 320: 314: 288: 284: 278: 252: 241: 215: 211: 206: 196: 192:OhKayeSierra 182: 175: 165: 159: 145: 139: 124: 118: 113: 87: 79: 65: 58: 57: 52: 51: 46: 30: 28: 12172:Nosebagbear 12091:nosebagbear 12076:Nosebagbear 12020:Nosebagbear 11888:Pbsouthwood 11814:PCHS-NJROTC 11702:PCHS-NJROTC 11668:PCHS-NJROTC 11616:PCHS-NJROTC 11588:PCHS-NJROTC 11575:PCHS-NJROTC 11570:Barney Fife 11244:PCHS-NJROTC 11223:PCHS-NJROTC 11110:Pbsouthwood 11004:Pbsouthwood 10878:one is for 10730:uncontested 10721:broad range 10631:Pbsouthwood 10581:Pbsouthwood 10564:Nosebagbear 10376:Pbsouthwood 9987:Pbsouthwood 9735:Ad Orientem 9326:VibeScepter 9274:guideline. 8971:SMcCandlish 8870:SMcCandlish 8847:SMcCandlish 8189:Now that I 8156:Similar to 7666:as well. — 7610:PCHS-NJROTC 7504:wikiproject 7302:iddiqsazzad 7167:iddiqsazzad 7081:Nosebagbear 7053:Nosebagbear 6180:Pbsouthwood 6175:Pbsouthwood 5907:Kostas20142 5496:Jetstreamer 5064:Hrodvarsson 5051:(Channel 2) 4916:Steve Smith 4882:Steve Smith 4137:SMcCandlish 4044:Lepricavark 4025:Laser brain 3861:Floquenbeam 3750:PCHS-NJROTC 3732:schoolblock 3644:in deletion 3541:PCHS-NJROTC 3323:Jonathunder 3258:OhanaUnited 2904:Talk to me! 2632:scope_creep 1960:revolutions 1410:User rights 1400:CentralAuth 1196:Pbsouthwood 879:U.S. states 861:schoolblock 625:another RfC 148:My work on 81:Pbsouthwood 47:Pbsouthwood 10704:Frmorrison 10248:RadioKAOS 10230:...William 10212:Nanophosis 10197:HunterM267 9808:opinion.-- 9775:Exemplo347 9616:Tryptofish 9596:Tryptofish 9583:Tryptofish 9568:Tryptofish 9483:...William 9442:beforehand 9346:. That is 9250:Capitals00 9129:Sandstein 8692:epicgenius 8377:only focus 8104:March 2017 7668:Javert2113 7378:that says 7289:WP:HATSHOP 6675:); 1 RfA ( 6474:Deadman137 6401:ebbillings 6343:Cwmhiraeth 5977:Iridescent 5708:Akhiljaxxn 5696:Iridescent 5694:people. ‑ 5581:Giants2008 5470:epicgenius 5381:epicgenius 5179:Rivertorch 5131:Xxanthippe 4781:EdJohnston 4683:Tryptofish 4555:kewlgrapes 4432:Brustopher 4352:Find bruce 4251:kelapstick 3921:joe decker 3821:Courcelles 3219:~ ToBeFree 3027:Smallbones 2773:Zarasophos 2733:good faith 2704:kelapstick 2350:Ivanvector 1805:Ganesha811 1763:Cobi's RfA 1599:Tazerdadog 1494:talk to me 1393:Cross-wiki 1384:AfD closes 1188:Discussion 893:preventing 623:There was 76:Nomination 31:successful 11940:pingó mió 11936:Galobtter 11499:Galobtter 11354:Galobtter 11343:pingó mió 11339:Galobtter 10911:Galobtter 10902:pingó mió 10898:Galobtter 10862:pingó mió 10858:Galobtter 10830:pingó mió 10826:Galobtter 10589:WP:CSD#G6 10509:Steel1943 10487:Steel1943 10463:Steel1943 10440:Steel1943 10234:the roof? 9827:WP:NOTNOW 9691:Steel1943 9671:Steel1943 9648:, or how 9601:Alex Shih 9487:the roof? 9295:this diff 9188:Galobtter 9162:pingó mió 9158:Galobtter 8583:(contrib) 8577:Eggishorn 8518:Sorry to 8438:pingó mió 8434:Galobtter 8206:Steel1943 8165:Steel1943 7922:Alex Shih 7912:Alex Shih 7674:; please 7478:pingó mió 7474:Galobtter 7460:Tlhslobus 7456:Galobtter 7447:pingó mió 7443:Galobtter 7389:Tlhslobus 7380:Rollback 6865:pingó mió 6861:Galobtter 6813:pingó mió 6809:Galobtter 6776:pingó mió 6772:Galobtter 6741:something 6616:The Moose 6582:Ejgreen77 6389:FlyingAce 6261:Vexations 6222:Signpost 6158:JustBerry 6110:Natureium 6041:Dr. Vogel 5953:Alex Shih 5832:BillHPike 5604:Alex Shih 5342:SwineHerd 5203:Rosiestep 5153:Schwede66 5149:Barkeep49 5109:WP:NONEED 4847:Zingarese 4691:Barkeep49 4681:To quote 4666:Gereon K. 4651:talk page 4519:Mojo Hand 4467:Vanamonde 4291:(discuss) 3665:Alex Shih 3412:Clayoquot 3393:Clayoquot 3373:Barkeep49 3185:Amaryllis 3033:smalltalk 2916:Doc James 2900:Winner 42 2872:Doc James 2714:per nom. 2587:, sorry. 2583:Moved to 2330:Ajraddatz 2168:Steel1943 2145:Steel1943 2122:Steel1943 2039:Cas Liber 1928:Jauerback 1910:Ymblanter 1582:Chetsford 1564:Vanamonde 1541:pingó mió 1537:Galobtter 1526:pingó mió 1522:Galobtter 1379:AfD votes 1374:BLP edits 1238:block log 1159:with the 1115:Billhpike 871:anonblock 780:WP:RECALL 628:Wikidata. 558:and why? 237:JustBerry 12266:Category 12124:Xinbenlv 12084:contribs 12072:unsigned 12028:contribs 12016:unsigned 11454:Anytime 11438:~Oshwah~ 11319:~Oshwah~ 11269:~Oshwah~ 11231:zchrykng 11118:— Maile 10915:Ammarpad 10884:Ammarpad 10597:Dekimasu 10334:zchrykng 9865:Class455 9553:contribs 9031:Wpgbrown 8893:Jusdafax 8786:Valeince 8771:contribs 8710:NsTaGaTr 8453:Ammarpad 8419:Ammarpad 8401:deleting 8387:~Oshwah~ 8356:expected 8335:shit ton 8263:expected 7964:~Oshwah~ 7943:unsigned 7750:Dekimasu 7714:Dekimasu 7589:Wpgbrown 7502:per the 7330:As your 6925:You say 6727:, and a 6595:Support' 6509:Ca2james 6319:Imminent 6278:Ealdgyth 6225:admins). 6184:Xinbenlv 6059:MelanieN 6054:Support. 5924:LukeSurl 5842:contribs 5760:Donner60 5350:contribs 5303:Johnuniq 5157:Edgar181 5114:Kablammo 5092:Station1 5008:Support. 4830:Outriggr 4563:contribs 4501:Pichpich 4286:Hawkeye7 4229:SilkTork 4199:Edgar181 3634:Chequers 3585:Ammarpad 3420:contribs 3401:contribs 3319:supports 3302:contribs 3188:Gardener 3048:talk to 2983:Bishonen 2949:Mahveotm 2882:contribs 2838:— jmcgnh 2678:Support. 2651:zchrykng 2049:contribs 2010:Strongly 1974:Hchc2009 1652:Pratyush 1431:precious 1357:Analysis 1336:Counters 1206:contribs 767:Jbhunley 351:specific 342:Ammarpad 91:contribs 12202:Amakuru 12110:I like 11894:Schwede 11867:Amakuru 11794:Amakuru 11734:Amakuru 11663:support 11631:Amakuru 11611:WP:DENY 11562:support 11158:Joe Roe 11132:Maile66 11114:CAT:CSD 10768:Neutral 10753:Striker 10747:Neutral 10734:Collect 10717:Neutral 10700:Neutral 10682:Neutral 10651:Schwede 10627:Neutral 10610:Neutral 10560:Neutral 10534:Neutral 10429:Neutral 10294:Neutral 10172:Buster7 10155:Buster7 10042:Dolotta 10038:Oppose: 9991:Dolotta 9939:WP:ORCP 9748:Oppose. 9709:Oppose. 9646:WP:NACD 9430:WP:NACD 9397:exactly 9383:WP:CVUA 9379:WP:PERM 9348:exactly 9344:spot on 9173:Martinp 8929:analyze 8745:Striker 8726:Striker 8553:not now 8532:(talk), 8527:Noyster 8504:Pkbwcgs 8489:Pkbwcgs 8484:WP:RFPP 8302:WP:NACD 7852:Vermont 7774:Hut 8.5 7706:Ansh666 7659:Amory's 7332:WP:CVUA 7190:his own 7135:Oppose: 6959:As the 6794:Amakuru 6729:self-G7 6685:one MfD 6611:Support 6578:WP:CLUE 6574:Support 6556:Stikkyy 6551:Support 6522:Support 6504:Support 6487:Support 6470:Support 6457:MPS1992 6449:Support 6431:Support 6418:Wehwalt 6414:Support 6397:Support 6385:Support 6368:Support 6351:Support 6339:Support 6313:Support 6297:Buster7 6290:Support 6274:Support 6257:Support 6240:Support 6227:Icewhiz 6220:on the 6214:Support 6197:Support 6171:Support 6146:Support 6123:Support 6106:Support 6082:ƒirefly 6072:Support 6037:Support 6018:Support 5994:Support 5949:Support 5932:Support 5920:Support 5903:Support 5890:Fraenir 5886:Support 5869:Support 5827:support 5809:Support 5793:Diannaa 5789:Support 5773:Support 5755:Support 5742:Conlinp 5738:Support 5721:Support 5704:Support 5672:Dhtwiki 5668:Support 5645:Support 5617:Support 5597:Support 5576:Support 5555:Support 5538:Support 5491:Support 5459:Amakuru 5426:Amakuru 5337:WP:WTHN 5333:Support 5299:Support 5285:Support 5257:Support 5240:Support 5229:'s sock 5216:support 5199:Support 5174:Support 5145:Support 5127:Support 5105:Support 5088:Support 5077:Support 5060:Support 5035:Support 5018:Painius 4984:King of 4980:Support 4963:Support 4954:Discuss 4935:Support 4912:Support 4895:Support 4878:Support 4865:Poltair 4860:Support 4843:Support 4826:Support 4812:Support 4794:Support 4777:Support 4767:Spencer 4761:Support 4751:SarahSV 4747:Support 4730:Support 4713:Support 4698:Schwede 4687:Ansh666 4679:Support 4662:Support 4639:Support 4622:Support 4607:Support 4585:Support 4572:Support 4551:Support 4535:Support 4514:Support 4497:Support 4484:Cameron 4462:Support 4445:Support 4428:Support 4411:Support 4382:Support 4369:Banedon 4365:Support 4347:Support 4324:Support 4304:suggest 4300:Support 4280:Support 4268:Support 4255:Loopy30 4245:as per 4243:Support 4225:Support 4208:Support 4191:Support 4174:Support 4156:Support 4128:. See 4124:But it 4108:Support 4057:Support 4040:Support 4018:Support 4005:wbm1058 3931:Support 3917:Support 3900:Support 3874:Support 3834:Support 3795:Support 3770:to me. 3759:Support 3604:Support 3520:Support 3507:Martinp 3503:Support 3486:Support 3471:Amakuru 3448:Support 3435:Enos733 3431:Support 3386:Support 3364:Support 3336:Support 3315:Illeism 3306:library 3290:Support 3271:Support 3253:Support 3232:Support 3215:Support 3198:Support 3179:Support 3130:Support 3107:Support 3089:Support 3072:gateway 3068:Support 3044:Support 3022:Support 3009:Pashley 2997:support 2995:Strong 2979:Support 2966:Kierzek 2962:Support 2933:Support 2920:Amakuru 2912:Support 2895:Support 2866:Support 2848:Support 2832:Support 2815:Support 2786:Support 2769:Support 2750:Support 2729:Support 2712:Support 2695:Support 2661:Support 2645:Support 2624:Support 2551:Support 2529:Ansh666 2472:Maile66 2421:Support 2404:Support 2387:Support 2365:Support 2343:Support 2326:Support 2312:Support 2292:Support 2195:Lourdes 2191:Support 2115:Support 2101:Johnbod 2097:Support 2059:Support 2035:Support 1987:Support 1970:Support 1956:spin me 1943:Support 1923:Support 1906:Support 1834:Support 1818:Support 1801:Support 1784:Support 1742:Support 1723:Support 1715:Snowman 1708:Support 1699:Support 1682:Support 1665:Support 1648:Support 1617:Update: 1613:Support 1595:Support 1577:Support 1559:Support 1517:Support 1482:Support 1465:Support 1428:Support 1422:Support 1213:deleted 1014:Dolotta 987:WP:CFRD 978:AlexEng 946:Pkbwcgs 583:Noyster 386:Kudpung 11682:Ahecht 11495:Oshwah 11450:Oshwah 11394:Oshwah 11331:Oshwah 11282:Oshwah 11019:(talk) 10949:(talk) 10872:94% ES 10812:(Chat) 10725:ad rem 10269:Oppose 10242:Oppose 10225:Oppose 10208:Oppose 10190:Oppose 10148:Oppose 10128:, and 10105:Oppose 10083:Oppose 10021:Oppose 10011:Nihlus 10004:Oppose 9979:Oppose 9908:Oppose 9892:Oppose 9823:Oppose 9805:Oppose 9788:Oppose 9770:Oppose 9754:Angelo 9717:Tamwin 9664:WP:TFD 9653:Db-xfd 9642:Oppose 9528:Oppose 9322:Oppose 9304:umbolo 9281:umbolo 9268:WP:PAG 9264:Oppose 9246:Oppose 9237:jones 9227:Oppose 9209:Oppose 9196:Bungle 9147:Bungle 9141:Oppose 9107:Oppose 9088:Oppose 9078:ASTILY 9069:Oppose 8994:Oppose 8906:Oppose 8889:Oppose 8831:WP:WIN 8816:WP:NAC 8799:Oppose 8781:Oppose 8720:Oppose 8705:Oppose 8682:oppose 8616:Oppose 8591:Oppose 8580:(talk) 8572:Oppose 8549:Oshwah 8541:Oppose 8520:oppose 8480:WP:AIV 8470:Oppose 8397:Oppose 8360:Yintan 8331:Oppose 8259:Oppose 8009:Oppose 7976:Oppose 7936:Oppose 7904:Oppose 7882:Oppose 7865:Oppose 7785:Oppose 7664:oppose 7410:oppose 7376:WP:RBK 7372:zzuuzz 7350:strike 7339:done: 7277:zzuuzz 7225:WP:RBK 7194:WP:RBK 7154:WP:RBK 7003:Oppose 6885:JLJ001 6637:solely 6626:Oppose 6439:Kurtis 6355:RL0919 6329:(talk) 6201:B dash 6136:(talk) 6006:(talk) 5969:letter 5965:spirit 5725:JMHamo 5563:Biblio 5463:Ahecht 5440:Ahecht 5290:DexDor 5046:insane 4899:schetm 4717:rogerd 4611:Deryck 4591:Cullen 4415:Enwebb 4314:話して下さい 4212:Hiding 4178:Vadder 4031:(talk) 3890:Karate 3803:Ahecht 3784:apolis 3354:(Chat) 3245:(talk) 3114:bd2412 3094:Sadads 2941:(talk) 2716:Froswo 2585:Oppose 2209:length 1890:umbolo 1866:umbolo 1847:umbolo 1772:(talk) 1621:JLJ001 1343:XTools 915:WP:AIV 866:s and 556:WP:SPI 554:, and 552:WP:CSD 549:WP:RPP 545:WP:AIV 541:WP:AfD 537:WP:MfD 528:Hhkohh 495:(talk) 453:listed 449:tagged 445:CSD G6 436:JLJ001 289:during 274:Yintan 11976:Peter 11912:L293D 11767:Amory 11659:won't 11509:Godsy 11466:Godsy 11432:Godsy 11412:Godsy 11364:Godsy 11358:Yes! 11297:Godsy 11257:Godsy 11198:asked 11064:Amory 10962:Amory 10876:49.9% 10800:Bingo 10758:force 10614:O3000 10544:Cesde 10395:Amory 10092:Daask 9833:Class 9476:Swarm 9438:first 9403:Amory 9401:. ~ 9040:Amory 8950:Pldx1 8944:Dear 8914:Pldx1 8838:broad 8811:gnome 8766:James 8750:force 8731:force 8687:zone. 8601:Davey 8545:Amory 8310:Godsy 8281:Godsy 8132:Amory 8124:Tavix 8100:Vin09 8048:Godsy 8013:Amory 7980:DonFB 7886:a lot 7729:isn't 7710:Below 7563:Amory 7512:Amory 7414:wants 7249:L293D 7047:Bbb23 7022:Bbb23 7007:Bbb23 6970:Amory 6931:Amory 6917:needs 6834:Amory 6745:Amory 6601:Nakon 6435:still 5634:Meep? 5187:WATER 5040:-A la 4817:Gizza 4799:Ceoil 4626:Nigej 4487:11598 4334:RexxS 4329:needs 4272:MONGO 3704:RexxS 3687:use. 3630:Spiel 3555:Amory 3342:Bingo 2886:email 2817:. -- 2760:Train 2682:Sro23 2591:Class 2557:Class 2479:Amory 2427:L293D 2355:Edits 2258:Amory 2243:et al 2217:Amory 2015:Kusma 1992:Kusma 1949:78.26 1934:dude. 1754:Amory 1732:intan 1712:Giant 1448:Gerda 1290:civil 1220:count 1079:Tavix 889:badly 823:where 671:watch 179:limit 69:) at 16:< 12236:talk 12206:talk 12191:talk 12176:talk 12128:talk 12100:talk 12080:talk 12049:talk 12024:talk 11967:talk 11871:talk 11850:L3X1 11798:talk 11738:talk 11719:L3X1 11689:PAGE 11687:TALK 11635:talk 11537:ansh 11516:CONT 11497:and 11473:CONT 11434::-) 11419:CONT 11398:See 11371:CONT 11304:CONT 11229:{{u| 11207:talk 11180:talk 11156:and 11122:talk 11095:talk 11060:Tony 11050:talk 10888:talk 10870:The 10848:talk 10781:talk 10738:talk 10708:talk 10691:talk 10673:talk 10639:talk 10618:talk 10568:talk 10516:talk 10494:talk 10470:talk 10447:talk 10359:Iffy 10350:Chat 10346:Iffy 10332:{{u| 10321:Chat 10317:Iffy 10306:Chat 10302:Iffy 10282:talk 10216:talk 10138:talk 10096:talk 10062:ross 10040:per 10029:talk 9995:talk 9965:Mkdw 9953:Mkdw 9916:talk 9898:Dane 9881:Nott 9876:Nott 9846:talk 9814:talk 9796:talk 9779:talk 9759:6397 9739:talk 9721:talk 9698:talk 9678:talk 9620:talk 9605:talk 9587:talk 9572:talk 9549:talk 9505:warm 9455:warm 9361:warm 9330:talk 9254:talk 9218:talk 9177:talk 9115:talk 9097:talk 9020:talk 9002:talk 8954:talk 8918:talk 8897:talk 8790:talk 8696:talk 8641:talk 8606:2010 8563:talk 8508:talk 8493:talk 8457:talk 8423:talk 8344:RFPP 8317:CONT 8288:CONT 8269:nuke 8231:talk 8216:talk 8172:talk 8128:Iffy 8113:talk 8089:talk 8075:talk 8057:talk 8036:talk 8025:talk 8015:and 7999:talk 7984:talk 7951:talk 7926:talk 7916:talk 7894:talk 7873:talk 7856:talk 7837:talk 7822:talk 7793:talk 7733:ansh 7691:ansh 7672:talk 7648:talk 7593:talk 7544:talk 7464:talk 7431:talk 7393:talk 7358:talk 7243:here 7233:talk 7149:and 7118:talk 7085:talk 7071:talk 7057:talk 7035:talk 7011:talk 6900:talk 6889:talk 6825:and 6798:talk 6737:here 6735:and 6733:here 6723:, a 6719:, a 6715:: a 6707:and 6586:talk 6540:Step 6530:talk 6513:talk 6478:talk 6461:talk 6422:talk 6405:talk 6359:talk 6282:Talk 6265:talk 6248:talk 6231:talk 6205:talk 6188:talk 6162:talk 6114:talk 6096:who? 6063:talk 6045:talk 6025:EDDY 5985:talk 5940:talk 5911:talk 5894:talk 5877:talk 5859:talk 5855:MSGJ 5838:talk 5818:talk 5800:talk 5764:talk 5746:talk 5729:talk 5712:talk 5676:talk 5656:Mkdw 5650:must 5608:talk 5587:Talk 5567:talk 5546:talk 5521:warm 5474:talk 5461:and 5447:PAGE 5445:TALK 5430:talk 5402:talk 5385:talk 5366:talk 5346:talk 5324:talk 5307:talk 5248:talk 5226:ekim 5223:cier 5221:Dloh 5207:talk 5165:talk 5151:and 5135:talk 5118:talk 5096:talk 5068:talk 4971:talk 4926:Nott 4921:Nott 4914:per 4903:talk 4886:talk 4869:talk 4851:talk 4834:talk 4803:talk 4785:talk 4738:talk 4721:talk 4670:talk 4644:Zoom 4630:talk 4559:talk 4524:talk 4505:talk 4476:and 4464:per 4453:talk 4436:talk 4419:talk 4396:Alex 4373:talk 4356:talk 4338:talk 4259:talk 4249:and 4233:talk 4182:talk 4165:talk 4048:talk 4009:talk 3908:talk 3884:Fish 3865:talk 3842:talk 3825:talk 3810:PAGE 3808:TALK 3797:per 3775:Mini 3740:lose 3708:talk 3693:talk 3669:talk 3653:talk 3646:. – 3625:Ϣere 3612:talk 3589:talk 3511:talk 3494:talk 3490:Nurg 3475:talk 3453:Reyk 3439:talk 3416:talk 3397:talk 3377:talk 3327:talk 3298:talk 3240:corn 3223:talk 3168:talk 3153:talk 3134:this 3098:talk 3058:dave 3013:talk 2987:talk 2970:talk 2953:talk 2924:talk 2914:per 2878:talk 2853:L3X1 2823:talk 2777:talk 2720:talk 2700:want 2686:talk 2669:talk 2649:{{u| 2636:talk 2604:talk 2570:talk 2412:talk 2395:talk 2378:talk 2334:talk 2213:lack 2175:talk 2152:talk 2129:talk 2105:talk 2084:avix 2069:avix 2043:talk 1978:talk 1914:talk 1809:talk 1792:talk 1690:talk 1673:talk 1669:Fram 1656:talk 1636:talk 1625:talk 1603:talk 1586:talk 1568:talk 1556:× 2) 1473:talk 1439:talk 1277:talk 1265:here 1250:rfar 1232:logs 1200:talk 403:talk 353:and 310:Iffy 216:what 85:talk 66:talk 59:Worm 12187:agr 12144:. 12138:and 12136:... 12096:agr 12045:agr 11846:and 11749:not 11654:any 11648:or 11542:666 11233:}} 11202:Joe 11176:Mz7 11091:Mz7 10805:bro 10687:Bri 10583:at 10352:-- 10336:}} 10323:-- 9945:on 9856:) 9838:455 9564:all 9434:But 9381:or 9332:) ( 9310:^^^ 9287:^^^ 9233:Ron 8980:😼 8879:😼 8856:😼 8663:Rob 8621:Rob 8352:UAA 8348:SPI 8342:or 8340:AIV 8304:). 7738:666 7696:666 7644:Mz7 7539:Joe 7426:Joe 7382:may 7354:Mz7 7337:has 7304:001 7169:001 6919:. 6683:); 6543:hen 6372:jcc 5626:Hef 5569:) 5420:Re 5398:Mz7 5361:Joe 5354:UTC 5276:Dui 5271:Mac 5266:Ben 4473:SQL 4401:Eng 4146:😼 4114:SQL 3763:was 3689:Mz7 3685:mis 3680:can 3648:Joe 3459:YO! 3369:mop 3347:bro 3304:- 3237:AIR 3082:\\ 2937:PMC 2819:JBL 2795:Jbh 2653:}} 2614:) 2596:455 2562:455 2391:agr 1896:^^^ 1872:^^^ 1853:^^^ 1824:JTP 1469:Deb 1256:spi 1226:AfD 1161:tan 1147:27. 1120:26. 1084:25. 1051:24. 1019:23. 983:22. 951:21. 911:20. 854:19. 812:18. 772:17. 740:16. 709:15. 663:14. 588:13. 533:12. 485:11. 451:or 441:10. 212:why 181:of 55:by 12268:: 12238:) 12208:) 12193:) 12178:) 12130:) 12102:) 12086:) 12082:• 12051:) 12030:) 12026:• 11969:) 11955:: 11942:) 11921:• 11899:66 11873:) 11800:) 11779:• 11775:• 11740:) 11692:) 11637:) 11532:is 11505:— 11462:— 11460:. 11408:— 11406:. 11360:— 11345:) 11293:— 11182:) 11174:. 11140:: 11124:) 11097:) 11076:• 11072:• 11052:) 11010:am 10995:: 10974:• 10970:• 10923:: 10913:, 10904:) 10890:) 10864:) 10850:) 10832:) 10783:) 10740:) 10710:) 10693:) 10675:) 10656:66 10641:) 10620:) 10601:よ! 10570:) 10518:) 10496:) 10472:) 10449:) 10407:• 10403:• 10367:: 10218:) 10140:) 10124:, 10120:, 10116:, 10112:, 10098:) 10071:· 10031:) 9997:) 9918:) 9829:. 9816:) 9798:) 9781:) 9741:) 9723:) 9700:) 9680:) 9656:}} 9650:{{ 9622:) 9614:-- 9607:) 9589:) 9581:-- 9574:) 9555:) 9551:• 9543:bl 9540:ee 9537:zw 9432:. 9415:• 9411:• 9336:) 9256:) 9220:) 9179:) 9164:) 9117:) 9052:• 9048:• 9022:) 9004:) 8968:— 8966:. 8956:) 8920:) 8899:) 8867:— 8844:— 8806:fD 8792:) 8774:) 8768:(/ 8698:) 8667:13 8643:) 8625:13 8525:: 8510:) 8495:) 8459:) 8440:) 8425:) 8306:— 8277:— 8233:) 8218:) 8202:, 8191:am 8174:) 8144:• 8140:• 8115:) 8091:) 8077:) 8059:) 8038:) 8001:) 7986:) 7928:) 7896:) 7875:) 7858:) 7839:) 7824:) 7795:) 7754:よ! 7718:よ! 7650:) 7595:) 7575:• 7571:• 7524:• 7520:• 7480:) 7466:) 7449:) 7395:) 7360:) 7258:• 7235:) 7227:. 7156:, 7146:, 7143:, 7140:, 7120:) 7087:) 7073:) 7059:) 7037:) 7013:) 6982:• 6978:• 6943:• 6939:• 6902:) 6867:) 6846:• 6842:• 6815:) 6800:) 6778:) 6757:• 6753:• 6695:, 6691:, 6671:, 6667:, 6663:, 6659:, 6651:, 6588:) 6532:) 6515:) 6492:~ 6480:) 6463:) 6424:) 6407:) 6378:) 6361:) 6322:77 6280:- 6267:) 6250:) 6233:) 6207:) 6190:) 6164:) 6148:. 6116:) 6094:· 6090:· 6086:( 6065:) 6047:) 6030:~ 6009:@ 5987:) 5971:, 5942:) 5913:) 5896:) 5879:) 5857:· 5840:, 5820:) 5802:) 5796:🍁 5766:) 5748:) 5731:) 5714:) 5691:No 5678:) 5623:El 5610:) 5590:) 5548:) 5476:) 5450:) 5432:) 5404:) 5387:) 5356:) 5326:) 5309:) 5250:) 5209:) 5167:) 5147:- 5137:) 5120:) 5098:) 5070:) 5043:d 5001:♠ 4973:) 4905:) 4888:) 4871:) 4853:) 4836:) 4805:) 4787:) 4723:) 4703:66 4672:) 4632:) 4614:C. 4565:) 4561:• 4507:) 4470:, 4455:) 4438:) 4421:) 4392:. 4375:) 4358:) 4340:) 4261:) 4235:) 4201:) 4195:Ed 4184:) 4167:) 4134:— 4132:. 4126:is 4099:) 4093:, 4076:) 4070:, 4050:) 4011:) 3910:) 3867:) 3859:-- 3844:) 3827:) 3813:) 3735:}} 3729:{{ 3710:) 3695:) 3671:) 3614:) 3591:) 3567:• 3563:• 3513:) 3496:) 3477:) 3441:) 3422:) 3418:| 3403:) 3399:| 3379:) 3329:) 3321:. 3308:) 3300:- 3225:) 3208:) 3206:tk 3170:) 3155:) 3100:) 3015:) 2985:| 2972:) 2955:) 2939:♠ 2926:) 2888:) 2884:· 2880:· 2825:) 2779:) 2737:— 2722:) 2688:) 2671:) 2638:) 2491:• 2487:• 2436:• 2414:) 2397:) 2380:) 2358:) 2352:(/ 2336:) 2270:• 2266:• 2229:• 2225:• 2177:) 2154:) 2131:) 2107:) 2051:) 2026:) 2003:) 1980:) 1958:/ 1916:) 1811:) 1794:) 1744:: 1692:) 1675:) 1658:) 1638:) 1605:) 1588:) 1570:) 1543:) 1528:) 1508:: 1496:) 1475:) 1456:: 1441:) 1279:) 1244:lu 1175:: 1167:A: 1157:}} 1151:{{ 1138:: 1130:A: 1126:? 1103:: 1094:A: 1067:: 1058:A: 1034:: 1025:A: 1002:: 993:A: 966:: 957:A: 934:: 926:A: 902:: 885:A: 874:}} 868:{{ 864:}} 858:{{ 837:: 829:A: 795:: 786:A: 755:: 746:A: 723:: 715:A: 692:: 680:A: 676:? 642:: 608:. 602:A: 571:: 562:A: 547:, 543:, 539:, 516:: 507:A: 468:: 459:A: 455:? 424:: 412:A: 405:) 391:9. 374:: 361:A: 347:8. 330:: 321:A: 315:7. 298:: 285:A: 279:6. 262:: 253:A: 242:5. 225:: 207:A: 197:4. 166:A: 160:3. 146:A: 140:2. 125:A: 119:1. 103:: 36:. 12234:( 12204:( 12189:( 12174:( 12126:( 12098:( 12078:( 12047:( 12022:( 11965:( 11938:( 11927:) 11924:✎ 11918:☎ 11915:( 11869:( 11796:( 11783:) 11781:c 11777:t 11773:u 11771:( 11736:( 11684:( 11633:( 11599:— 11519:) 11501:: 11493:@ 11476:) 11452:: 11448:@ 11422:) 11396:: 11392:@ 11389:) 11385:( 11374:) 11356:: 11352:@ 11341:( 11333:: 11329:@ 11307:) 11284:: 11280:@ 11259:: 11255:@ 11225:: 11221:@ 11209:) 11205:( 11178:( 11160:: 11152:@ 11120:( 11093:( 11080:) 11078:c 11074:t 11070:u 11068:( 11048:( 11006:: 11002:@ 10978:) 10976:c 10972:t 10968:u 10966:( 10900:( 10886:( 10860:( 10846:( 10828:( 10779:( 10736:( 10706:( 10689:( 10671:( 10637:( 10616:( 10566:( 10550:a 10547:v 10514:( 10492:( 10468:( 10445:( 10411:) 10409:c 10405:t 10401:u 10399:( 10383:— 10378:: 10374:@ 10348:★ 10319:★ 10304:★ 10285:) 10279:( 10257:/ 10251:/ 10214:( 10179:☎ 10162:☎ 10136:( 10094:( 10075:) 10073:@ 10069:c 10067:( 10057:d 10027:( 9993:( 9914:( 9867:: 9863:@ 9850:| 9842:( 9812:( 9794:( 9777:( 9766:. 9737:( 9719:( 9696:( 9676:( 9639:) 9635:( 9618:( 9603:( 9585:( 9570:( 9547:( 9534:B 9513:♠ 9499:S 9478:: 9474:@ 9463:♠ 9449:S 9419:) 9417:c 9413:t 9409:u 9407:( 9369:♠ 9355:S 9328:( 9301:w 9278:w 9252:( 9235:h 9216:( 9190:: 9186:@ 9175:( 9160:( 9113:( 9099:) 9095:( 9075:F 9056:) 9054:c 9050:t 9046:u 9044:( 9018:( 9000:( 8978:¢ 8975:☏ 8952:( 8934:— 8916:( 8895:( 8877:¢ 8874:☏ 8854:¢ 8851:☏ 8820:X 8804:X 8788:( 8694:( 8654:: 8650:@ 8639:( 8506:( 8491:( 8455:( 8436:( 8421:( 8373:. 8363:" 8320:) 8300:( 8291:) 8229:( 8214:( 8208:: 8204:@ 8200:: 8196:@ 8170:( 8148:) 8146:c 8142:t 8138:u 8136:( 8111:( 8087:( 8073:( 8055:( 8034:( 8023:( 7997:( 7982:( 7949:( 7924:( 7914:( 7892:( 7871:( 7854:( 7835:( 7820:( 7806:: 7802:@ 7791:( 7670:( 7646:( 7591:( 7579:) 7577:c 7573:t 7569:u 7567:( 7546:) 7542:( 7528:) 7526:c 7522:t 7518:u 7516:( 7495:) 7491:( 7476:( 7462:( 7445:( 7433:) 7429:( 7391:( 7356:( 7328:: 7324:@ 7300:S 7264:) 7261:✎ 7255:☎ 7252:( 7231:( 7223:— 7218:: 7214:@ 7165:S 7116:( 7083:( 7069:( 7055:( 7049:: 7045:@ 7033:( 7024:: 7020:@ 7009:( 6986:) 6984:c 6980:t 6976:u 6974:( 6947:) 6945:c 6941:t 6937:u 6935:( 6898:( 6887:( 6863:( 6850:) 6848:c 6844:t 6840:u 6838:( 6811:( 6796:( 6789:) 6785:( 6774:( 6761:) 6759:c 6755:t 6751:u 6749:( 6709:2 6705:1 6703:( 6697:3 6693:2 6689:1 6673:5 6669:4 6665:3 6661:2 6657:1 6584:( 6565:c 6563:/ 6561:t 6528:( 6511:( 6476:( 6459:( 6420:( 6403:( 6374:( 6357:( 6304:☎ 6263:( 6246:( 6229:( 6203:( 6186:( 6160:( 6112:( 6098:) 6092:c 6088:t 6061:( 6043:( 5983:( 5938:( 5909:( 5892:( 5875:( 5861:) 5853:( 5844:) 5836:( 5816:( 5798:( 5762:( 5744:( 5727:( 5710:( 5674:( 5637:) 5631:( 5606:( 5584:( 5565:( 5544:( 5529:♠ 5515:S 5472:( 5465:: 5457:@ 5442:( 5428:( 5400:( 5383:( 5368:) 5364:( 5348:/ 5344:( 5322:( 5305:( 5246:( 5205:( 5163:( 5141:. 5133:( 5116:( 5094:( 5066:( 5012:! 4998:♣ 4993:♦ 4988:♥ 4969:( 4949:✡ 4941:∰ 4901:( 4884:( 4867:( 4849:( 4832:( 4801:( 4783:( 4719:( 4668:( 4654:) 4648:( 4628:( 4557:( 4540:œ 4526:) 4522:( 4503:( 4451:( 4434:( 4417:( 4371:( 4354:( 4336:( 4316:) 4311:( 4257:( 4239:. 4231:( 4216:T 4197:( 4180:( 4163:( 4144:¢ 4141:☏ 4096:ν 4090:π 4087:( 4073:ν 4067:π 4064:( 4046:( 4007:( 3996:I 3991:Y 3978:Y 3967:Y 3958:Y 3949:Y 3940:Y 3906:( 3887:+ 3863:( 3840:( 3823:( 3805:( 3706:( 3691:( 3667:( 3655:) 3651:( 3610:( 3587:( 3571:) 3569:c 3565:t 3561:u 3559:( 3509:( 3492:( 3473:( 3437:( 3414:( 3395:( 3375:( 3325:( 3296:( 3279:— 3221:( 3204:( 3166:( 3151:( 3121:T 3096:( 3052:! 3036:) 3030:( 3011:( 2992:. 2968:( 2951:( 2922:( 2876:( 2821:( 2775:( 2756:A 2718:( 2684:( 2667:( 2634:( 2608:| 2600:( 2574:| 2566:( 2508:: 2504:@ 2495:) 2493:c 2489:t 2485:u 2483:( 2442:) 2439:✎ 2433:☎ 2430:( 2410:( 2393:( 2376:( 2332:( 2274:) 2272:c 2268:t 2264:u 2262:( 2233:) 2231:c 2227:t 2223:u 2221:( 2207:" 2173:( 2150:( 2127:( 2103:( 2082:T 2067:T 2046:· 2041:( 2024:c 2022:· 2020:t 2018:( 2001:c 1999:· 1997:t 1995:( 1976:( 1962:) 1954:( 1931:/ 1912:( 1887:w 1863:w 1844:w 1807:( 1790:( 1750:) 1746:( 1729:Y 1688:( 1671:( 1654:( 1634:( 1623:( 1601:( 1584:( 1566:( 1552:( 1539:( 1524:( 1492:( 1471:( 1437:( 1323:e 1316:t 1309:v 1275:( 1268:. 1258:) 1253:· 1247:· 1241:· 1235:· 1229:· 1223:· 1216:· 1209:· 1203:· 1198:( 819:, 401:( 88:· 83:( 63:( 40:.

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

Knowledge

:Requests for adminship/Pbsouthwood - Knowledge

Index