Knowledge

:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 12 - Knowledge

Source 📝

8052:
been a confrontation between the WMF and this community, rather than blame some hapless staffer for the whole thing we are moving to the discuss phase of a rather big BRD scenario. I like that ARBCOM now get to review the case, I'm not that bothered that some evidence may be withheld, providing that all involved, including the complainant(s) accept the principle that if you have a complaint but aren't prepared to give evidence, then there is less evidence to consider. I am concerned that "We encourage Arbcom to assess the length and scope of Fram’s ban, based on the case materials that can be released to the committee." If read literally, doesn't mean that case materials can be released to Fram. This raises various concerns about natural justice that should annoy lawyers and those who care about civil liberties. But it should also worry those who want to make Knowledge a less toxic editing environment. Fram is currently on a one year ban, unless Arbcom turns that into an indefinite ban, if Fram isn't told what behaviour he needs to change, you risk him coming back to the community as an editor who is now careful not to tell Arbcom to F*** itself and instead has to remember to describe them as a bunch of gormless bampots and screenagers with damaged attentions spans, but who hasn't learned not to do whatever is that so riled up the T&S people. I'm OK with someone on a permanent ban never being quite sure whether they got that ban for their outing, harassment or their paedophile advocacy as we aren't trying to rehabilitate someone we permanently ban. But if we are going to temporarily ban someone it is rather important that they know what behaviour they need to change if they are ever to return to the community. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the board talks about dealing with unblockables, but without defining who the unblockables are. Since a key predictor of where one stands on the Framban is whether one admires/respects/fears Fram as a Beowulfian character who fearlessly pursues
9168:, Sorry, but I need to push back on this — both the content and the curious timing. I trust you're aware that we have a long-awaited statement from the board and from the ED talking about a path forward that seems promising to many. It seems an odd time to repeat complaints that have literally been made 100 times before. Let no one misread this to think I believe the WMF handled this perfectly, but this diatribe doesn't even hint that there may have been some less than ideal handling by the community. While we frustratingly don't know the full details, it seems likely we know a lot about the history of the interactions, and a fair question is why the community was unable to respond. Regarding the time-limited ban, that has been explained in some detail. While there may be some open questions about why it's 365 days and not 90 or not five years, there has been substantial explanation of the new concept of ban that are both limited in time and scope. I still have some unanswered questions but that one is not near the top of my list. You challenge Jan for not engaging on three issues. I'll bet a weeks salary he has been directed not to and I support that instruction. You suggest the board cannot as if it's a deficiency but that simply means you don't understand the board's function. I see positive signs of a path forward and I strongly disassociate myself with just about everything in your post. 9023:, one where metaphors which tend to ring a stronger tinkle in people's ears win over the dull logic of propositional cogency. The tendency to go for ballistic hyperbole, even in discussing rather humdrum situations, is now so thoroughly ingrained in mainstream speech and writing that we no longer even recognize how the ground has shifted under our feet. What is being promoted is the intimidation of tolerance of the vernacular and the shoehorning of thought into a bureaucratically regulated straightjacket. 'Toxic' as in McTavish's essay can embrace any phrase an interlocutor might bridle at because, to their minds, it is disrespectful or slightly irritating, through to the other extremity of the linguistic diapason where real-life threats are uttered. The use of words like 'toxic' to span verbal behaviour so loosely inclusive that it embraces anything from a put down, a snarky aside, anything smacking of a lack of total focus of your interlocutor on your personal pursuit of blandishment, consideration or dignity - to incitements to suicide, pedophilic innuendoes and death threats, can only translate into a flustercuck of exasperation. No one can define 'toxic' as used here, but non-toxicity is what is being used to define 'civility'. Don't take it, or the people who use it, seriously. 13048:, prefaced by a remark along the lines, 'Knowledge is a work-in-progress dedicated to building a comprehensive encyclopedia which anyone may edit. All are welcomed to join the community in contributing material. At times, through impatience, confusion over whether Knowledge is a social forum or a work-place, conflict arises. All conflicts will be judged according to whether the behavior of involved editors contributes to article construction, or hinders it. Obstructive behavior encompasses trolling, unprovoked rudeness, hounding a contributor over numerous pages, refusing to listen or focus on the core problems raised by other editors, consistent carelessness in citing sources, the abuse of arbitration and conflict resolution boards to get at editors one disagrees with, outing the real life identity of users' and such like. We are a community, not of like-minded people, but of people from highly diversified backgrounds united in a common aspiration to compile the default resource for a global community seeking rapid access to readable information, vetted for accuracy and the quality of its sourcing. Personal animosities have no place in our culture which is premised on civil engagement with others towards the shared goal of producing accurate articles. 5148:
is a recipe for disaster. If ArbCom reduces the ban based on incomplete evidence, then WMF is up shit creek without a paddle, because they either have to admit they used inadmissible evidence and take their lumps, or else they will have to claim secret evidence and overrule ArbCom, thus inflaming the situation even more. If the issue is that some people don’t want to grant permission for ArbCom to see their complaints and know their identity, then someone has a serious problem with distrust of ArbCom. My suggestion: either ArbCom gets ALL evidence, with a clear understanding, in writing, signed by everyone on ArbCom, that any disclosure will see the wrath of god descend on the offender (and probably significant legally scary consequences); Or, admit WMF doesn’t trust ArbCom, stick to the ban regardless, overrule the decision to review, and give opponents of the Framban fodder for the next decade. In either case, start now on something more coherent than the current mess to assure correct due process and avoid something like this in the future. There are any number of legally-trained editors on WP, we are all probably willing to put in our two bits, and I suspect that a first-year law student could have come up with something superior to this.
13107:'Toxic' is an hyperbolic metaphor, referring to the putative atmosphere created by certain disputes between a few editors, which all those present (watching or participating) cannot avoid being contaminated by. Most people aren't sucked in or up by such ostensible 'toxicity'. You're correct that saying someone is 'incapable of presenting reasonable arguments' lends itself to queries about civility. But at least it is specific, doesn't refer to some epidemic or contagion that affects everyone, like it or not. Everyone is immediately swept up into a sense of shared victimhood by asserting they're exposed to a toxic atmosphere - it presumes no one can escape it. Cavalryman was saying recourse to the toxic metaphor tends to nudge out specific, focused discussion by deploying a strategic 'poisoning of the well' alarmist discourse which inhibits rational exchange. You are also right that we should not identify a list of bad words - an Orwellian approach. I have struck my thoughtlessly hasty use of 'banned'. We should simply discuss, and be made aware of, the problems in the terminology that quietly tends to creep into our exchanges and, by being used reflexively, 'contaminates' clarity of exposition. 7705:- taking advantage of a chance to justify something as being within T&S scope to ban someone they believed should have been banned by the community for incivility long ago. If that was the case, it should be obvious by now why (regardless of whether you think Fram should have been banned or not) that was a terrible approach, since it put them in a position where they couldn't give their real reasons for Fram's ban, couldn't explain to the community how we could change our policies to avoid this in the future, and couldn't even articulate what the underlying problem was beyond vague references to the community "failing" in some non-specific way, since admitting that they didn't trust ArbCom to ban Fram on the evidence would undermine their argument that this was a T&S issue solely because of privileged information and would essentially be admitting that even with all the evidence the community as a whole probably still wouldn't have gone for a ban, at least under our current policies. If the goal was to encourage the community to strengthen its enforcement of 6571:
neutral in their statements on the specific case. I believe the same applies to the Head of the Orwellian-sounding "Trust and Safety" function, who obviously decided to extend the team's activities into an area which has always been community regulated. That did not just happen. I fear that this also raises a question for the "CEO"-type role of ED, as that person must have signed off on all this, in some way, but we cannot change too many leaders at once. I am wholly sympathetic to anyone genuinely harassed but I am worried that an important concept is being stretched by some. Modern society, in some few countries where there is leisure for it, and a culture which allows, has become perhaps over-sensitive. I have no tolerance for rudeness, for example, but I do not think we can allow chasing of editors because someone's feelings were inadvertently hurt. I would, in such a case, apologise and carry on. I hope the list of lost Administrators shortens rapidly now and that the important work on English, and all, Wikipedias and related projects, rolls on.
9957:
of the site's geek roots. In other words, the women/POC who (on the whole) would demand a more collegial environment are not adequately represented in our current democratic system. This favors the retention of unblockables. It also means that the people who are designing our systems instinctively put themselves in the position of the accused, rather than the victim, and therefore overemphasize due process rather than the creation of an environment that is welcoming to the newcomers who will ultimately sustain this site. (What other volunteer environment requires a public hearing before you are sent home for antagonizing other volunteers?) (4) Our processes do not allow for the private hearing of public evidence. To be honest, I don't think this is critically important. If we solve #1 by allowing arbitrators to initiate cases, then there may be less antagonizing/revictimization of people who have previously interacted with the unblockable. There could be a public hearing that includes evidence submitted anonymously and then presented publicly.
11923:
matters for established users-up. The rest of them make a lot of mis-actions in those situations. . You quoted about 7 arbcom desysops, the nuclear option. I'm not saying that there should be more than that. I'm saying that there should have been about 500 minor actions in response to admin behavior and mis-actions and there have been somewhere near zero of those. I'm talking about warnings, advice, critiques, admonishments etc. Too small for arbcom cases. And the "code of silence" was just shorthand for the norm which is that it's considered impolite for an admin to criticize or act against another admin, so it only happens when the problem is unusually clearcut and severe. Combined with this is the general culture that just having the mop makes them a superhuman that one should generally not question. IMO there are only about 100 superhuman admins, the rest are just trustworthy with the tools, and make lots of mistakes in tough and disciplinary situations, as well as having the normal amount of behavioral issues.
3537:
specifically excludes giving sustained scrutiny to an editor for quality control purposes from counting as harassment. That said, it does appear that from the perspective of several excellent and prolific content creators, Fram's actions were experienced as harassment. And it is a good thing if those folk feel their concerns have been recognised. Hopefully this will indeed catalyse changes to make our community more inclusive, so that in the future sustained hostile scrutiny to individual editors is no longer supported by policy. Perhaps changes can be made to slightly nudge our culture in a kinder, more tolerant direction, while avoiding anything so radical that it threatens what makes this community so special, and which mostly retains our existing quality control standards. Long term, it would be regrettable if we had to address the harassment issue with more litigation. If we do have to go down that route, we might need structural changes to Arb recruitment, so that the existing Arbs don't get over worked.
11048:, I think everyone, me included, has to accept that we will never get answers to all of the questions we might have. You are free to ask questions but I think it is unrealistic to expect any organization of WMF's size to satisfy our curiosity. If you have ever worked for a large corporation or nonprofit, you know that every employee doesn't have access to personnel decisions or how all decisions get made, and I think that dealing with harassment complaints is as much, if not more, sensitive that these subjects. You can keep asking, but I think if you have these unrealistic expectations of complete responsiveness, you are bounded to be disappointed. Knowledge isn't a democracy and even in democracies, individuals do not have access to all information that exists but only that information that is chosen by the organization to give out or that media groups can dig up. I don't think we can expect any organization to have 100% transparency. You will probably have to live with some questions being unanswered. 270:, I agree. Couple quick points about board responsibilities. Some contributors have groused that the board statement is short on specifics. That's an unrealistic expectation. Some have expressed the belief that the board ought to be identifying people to be fired. That's not the proper function of the board, with the singular exception of the Executive Director. And with respect to the ED, I hope that the boards general view is "we want you to be bold. If you never make a mistake, that might be a sign you want being bold enough. If you do make a mistake, we're going to judge you on how you rectify the mistake, not simply dismiss you based on the first false step". Obviously, there are mistakes and there are mistakes and one can imagine a mistake so serious that it alone requires termination by the board but this issue is not remotely at that level. Things were mishandled, apologies have been forthcoming, the key will be to see how the community works with WMF and T&S to find a way forward. 8037:
makes can now be considered harassment. It's like, I dunno, someone complaining about police harassment, but every time they're stopped and searched, they're found to be carrying a knife and a bag of heroin. And then the police officers being sacked. I know, sadly, that many of the employees now working for WMF have precious little knowledge and understanding about what actually goes on here, they're not experienced editors, they're not experts in copyright policy, they're not writers with a deft touch for accurate prose that can't be misinterpreted. They're people I can sadly believe can mistake essential administration for harassment. In short, I've absolutely no fucking confidence AT ALL that Jan and his group would know proper harassment if it fell out of the sky and hit them square between the eyes. And that's a massive problem, given there's very definitely proper harassment going on. And it's a massive problem given WMF Office acts as judge, jury and jailer.
13775:, I am also a bit disappointed, but "bifurcated proceedings" can't reliably protect secrets. If there is an onwiki issue that Arbcom wish to keep secret, they can't allow any publicly submitted evidence, or somebody might submit that very evidence, and then they can't delete it unless they wish to Streisand-publicise it. I can't quite imagine what type of issues might force the complete secrecy (while not being a matter for Oversight or an indefinite global ban), so I can't tell whether the committee made the right choice. By opting for secrecy, the committee has asked for an immense about of trust from us, and although I would have preferred a standard open case, I am willing to extend that trust for now. It is not an enviable situation to be in, and I don't think there is an easy way out of this mess, and I am happy the Arbcom volunteered to deal with this. We don't have enough evidence to say they are volunteering wrong at this point. — 215:
messages contain suggest that this affirmation is not just pablum. To wit: An appealable ban will now be reviewed by a community process (ArbCom). Trust and Safety's February policy change is on indefinite hold pending community consensus about it. The foundation is going to work with, rather than direct to, en-wiki about how to counter harassment. The foundation is going to offer training and resources about harassment to "community leaders". The foundation has acknowledged it made mistakes, including Katherine personally owning the most important of her mistakes. I can quibble about some parts of the messages I love less or about areas I don't see addressed, but that list seems more than sufficient to me to be assured. I understand that they're not enough for others, and look forward to the foundation continuing to make through follow through of these promises and other actions in a way that hopefully rebuilds trust for all of us. Best,
7413:
confirms that Fram did not breach the ToU clause that he was banned under, but was instead a "toxic" "unblockable" who the Foundation wanted to make an example out of. It's not about harassment. It never was. It wasn't that serious. The board instead wants us to focus on eliminating uncivil behavior, not so much on self-determination or editorial independence. That's the clear message they're sending. And that's not the answer we're looking for. Shame. Behavioral standards vs an encyclopedist's value has always been a grey area. The notion that we err too far on the side of the latter and need to shift more towards the former is not a foreign one. In fact, I agree with it. But this statement is not a solution. This is an insulting, lecturing response where we needed an apology and promises of amends. Any such changes that the community needed to make should have been the caveat to the acknowledgment of the damage caused. Not the
9952:, an arbitrator says that arbitration requests should be filed by parties, not "busybodies". This is a completely ineffective approach. There should be some way for ArbCom (or someone) to undergo a comprehensive review of an editor's record without demanding that a reporter step forward to be a target of abuse for that editor's fans--or even worse, that a victim of the unblockable step forward to be the reporter/re-victim. Perhaps arbcom could accept private/anonymous complaints/evidence, and when they see enough from editors in good standing that relate to a particular person, they could open a public case about that person in which some of the evidence is presented by the committee itself. (2) Our processes typically entail the evaluation of one event or set of events rather than an editor's pattern of editing over a career. (3) Our representative bodies represent only existing members of the community and not those who 4718:. Rather an omission, in my opinion. Convenient however if ones' sole objective is to promote fluffy-bunny niceness amongst the 'community' and eradicate all those nasty toxins. Convenient because it omits having to face the obvious fact that not all 'good faith editors' will necessarily have the attributes to usefully contribute to an online encyclopaedia. And sometimes having to tell people this isn't nice, even if done wearing a fluffy-bunny suit. If the WMF wants this to be a free-to-all niceness club, it should say so explicitly, take away all the admins mops, and rename the encyclopedia as 'Uncle Jimmy's wonderful write-what-you-want website'. And if it doesn't, and still wants something which bears even a vague resemblance to an encyclopaedia, it should acknowledge this, and stop trying to kid people that you can create something as complex as Knowledge without people's feelings getting hurt. 12893: 181:), I appreciate the tone of it. Hopefully this will enable a smoother rapport between the community and the WMF. That brings me to a more meta question, so to say, of the interplay between the community and the WMF, which are inextricably linked. The WMF has been in the past (and I assume in the present as well) supportive of new language wikis and on-ground outreach, for instance, which I find to be quite useful and often necessary. At the same time the very reason why we even need a WMF is because we as a community have made this project what it is today (not to be too Hegelian about it). I hope that this sort of an existential question remains at the fore of your thoughts and efforts to work closer with the community. In plain English: how does the WMF perceive the community? In what role? And how do you want the community to perceive the WMF in turn? 12982:, but you did not provide a source. As Knowledge is a very visible website we have to be very careful with biographies of living people. In fact, our ToU describes us to thoroughly reference all information about BLPs. I have therefore removed the sentence, if you want to add it again can you please provide a suitable RS?'. So, that was very friendly. However, the editor moves on to another living person and does something similar. They collect another, bit more direct warning. Third time .. fourth time with increasing warnings. Yes, they become increasingly impolite, but looking at the start of it, not heeding the remark that you have to source BLPs is the first impoliteness. I agree that we have to 'ban' the word 'toxic', and likely be very careful with 'harassment' and even 'incivility' .. but where do we end? -- 6428:
many feel that the WMF has acted unilaterally without proper community consultation or adherence to existing community procedures. My general observation is that there is concern by community members that the WMF might be overstepping its powers and this is a significant reason why so many people are concerned. In short this banning issue has brought up a potential bigger underlying issue of the WMF's growing administrative presence in what would otherwise be a community function. It seems to me that support for the declaration or the disciplinary action against Fram by many people does not equal comfort with the WMF's growing administrative presence in what would otherwise be a community function. Also that is it leading many people who would otherwise support the disciplinary action to dispute it due to this fear.--
13372:"Unblockable" is a practical reality of the corporate situation. If a user has a long term track record of improper editing, and abusing WMF funding policies, but is the spouse of a WMF Board member, as a practical matter, neither the community nor an admin can block them. I think that T&S staff was in an impossible situation: on the one hand if they failed to take action against the admin, both spouses would go after the staff member politically, and on the other hand, if T&S takes action against the admin they are sending a loud message that there are "unblockable" families." The typical community AN or ANI can be a way around this problem because most editors and admins do not know who is married to whom, and the family can't file T&S complaints against all of the participating editors. 10473:... I thought that was the case when I returned in early 2013 from a 1-year wiki break (extremely busy life and annoyance over an incompetent Arbcom, especially Jclemens). My impression then was that many admins had forgotten about me and some were new and had never known me. And that this was the main reason for the unconstructive behaviour I was dealing with, which ultimately led to my following 4-year break. However, things seem much better now. And looking at those 2013/2014 conflicts today, it seems that somehow always Jhm649 = Doc James was involved – who has since fallen up the stairs, it appears, Maybe it wasn't a sudden influx of incompetent admins with a contempt for normal users, after all, but a bunch of admins specifically supporting Doc James on his POV crusade through baiting behaviour. 6693:
before we're safely out of the woods (the way this is worded gives me the impression that T&S hasn't been looped into or signed off on a particular implementation for this decision yet, which means there could still be some pushback or resistance), but this is still a hopeful step forwards - it's pretty clear the board doesn't unhesitatingly have Jan's back on the whole "T&S is handling conduct issues now, no appeals are possible, no additional information is available, goodnight" thing. I mean - yes, it's not an unambiguous "you screwed up, do what the community says", but if you were the head of T&S, would you push forwards the way they behaved in the early parts of this after reading a statement like that from the board that is ultimately in charge? I certainly wouldn't. --
9673:, I agree that we need to remove the incentives for poor behaviour. I talked about how the shortcomings in English Knowledge's content dispute mechanisms result in bad behaviour, but another motivation for abrasiveness is essentially to brush off users who aren't effective as editors and who don't appear to show potential to improve. If English Knowledge can develop better ways to sort editors into those who can use time to become effective and those who should be discouraged from continuing to edit, and to provide more active guidance for a new editor, then abrasiveness wouldn't be needed to discourage editors. (Due to the immense amount of time required to provide active guidance, this might be an area where the Wikimedia Foundation could help with paid mentors.) 7177:
light of this. In the absence of strong community guidelines on how to deal with harassment, we consider the ban done in good faith with due diligence from T&S, and, out of precaution, the ban will remain in effect until ARBCOM can decide whether or not they agree in light of the evidence we can make available and their own investigation. If ARBCOM thinks the ban is warranted, it will remain in place under ARBCOM's authority. If ARBCOM thinks it is unwarranted, or that alternatives to bans exists, they can overrule us and impose something else. Finally, we consider the current ways of dealing with harassment to be lacking and in need of an update. Updating the relevant policies and processes is something that needs to be done together, rather than separately.
5315:
private reassurances to the complainants that they wouldn't be shared with anybody (including Arbcom), then the WMF is in a really tough bind. Either they go back to the complainant and say "if you don't agree to let us share with Arbcom then we will vacate the ban", which would be a pretty bad thing to do if the harassment was real, or the question of Arbcom's jurisdiction will be subject to the whims of a few people who have absolutely no incentive to cooperate, meaning that the WMF has effectively conceded nothing and is saying "we will still micromanage behavioral complaints unless the complainant allows us not to". Anyways, hopefully this isn't the case and Arbcom can get the evidence they need to perform a thorough review. --
9288:, so far as that goes, many of the names which come to mind when I think of "highly skilled and mistreat others" aren't admins (and probably wouldn't want to be). I also don't think that we should confuse frankness with incivility. If someone is edit warring to reinsert a BLP violation, for example, they are not going to get (at least from me) a "Will you stop that, pretty please?", they are going to get "You must stop that, and if you do it once again, I'll block you." Sometimes, delivering a stern warning like that can forestall the need to actually use the block button, so I see it as a less-bad outcome at least. My problem is more with editors who seem, for whatever reason, to feel the need to attack the 10872:
and more persistant than some people would like. I now suspect that we have people at one, and possibly both ends of the inclusionist deletionist spectrum who meet some people's definition of unblockable. I.E someone they would like to block but who they are not sure the community would agree. Those four or five groups each have their own friends and foes. I'm not going to name any specific "unblockables" here, and I urge others not to either. But I would point out that the names quoted earlier in this section belong to very different definitions of unblockable, and that agreeing that we don't want to protect any subset of unblockables is easy, but only until you start defining what you mean by unblockable.
4305:"the unnblockables", the statement does not entirely allay my fears that we are still looking at "we in the WMF have decided what civility is, and we are planning to educate the rest of you about it, but you are going to have to abide by what we decide". I'd like to see some acknowledgement that it's possible that the communities will insist that WMF modify their assessment of a "safe and respectful environment", as in "cases which obviously need some form of sanctions, in which sanctions have not occurred", and that WMF will actually respect that. That said, I want to say explicitly "thank you" to those board members, particularly Doc James, who have fought to make the statement what it is. -- 4483:
received a complaint about Fram they decided to use it as a test case for going ahead with banning, themselves, people they felt the community wouldn't. This isn't to say that the complaint didn't necessarily justify it on its own - but it does heavily imply that it wouldn't justify it by our existing standards, since by this reading, the reason the T&S decided that ArbCom couldn't handle it, and the reason they went far beyond their traditional role in responding to it, was because they concluded we had already dropped the ball on Fram and therefore didn't trust ArbCom to deliver a ban that they considered absolutely necessary. As a result, their justification for the ban was at least
151:, hats off to the Director for that. I only have some concern about a hint that there might be some compatability "gap" between the original, and by far the largest project, the English language Knowledge, and the broader movement. This makes no sense to me, and has a vague odour of something being used as an excuse to try to push the Knowledge culture in some way. This happens in some EU initiatives too, and always ends badly, as we see with Brexit. Now I'd like to see a freshening up of the Board, and a "normalising" of the "Trust and Safety" unit, and a red carpet rolled out to bring back resigned and prematurely retired editors and administrators, and I hope Ms Maher can do that too. 13159:
manage to do this - write with impeccable focus of neutral description of a problem - they often come from scientific backgrounds. But, at the same time, they rarely allow themselves to get sucked into debate with obdurately non-listening reverters. They make their point and go. I can't manage this kind of empirical address, except as a rhetorical exercise in imitation which makes me feel somewhat dead inside, and worry it will affect my natural habit of mind. I live in a culture where it is customary to second or third guess the secret message in otherwise superficially straightforward banter. Even speciously neutral speech can be read as aggressive, even if it is not.
8758:(dispute resolution 'et al') and approach the WMF directly. It is to be remembered that Framgate was initiated by a party going to T&S. I think it imperative that the concerns of anyone wishing the anonymity of going outside of the local community to a body tasked with dealing with issues in camera is considered, while also ensuring that any findings and evidence do not form the basis of actions without input and review by members of any community that is directly effected (preferably by those with a demonstrated degree of trust) is fundamental. Only in this way can we ensure a safe environment for all parties. I hope this can be clarified as soon as possible. 6110:. While it's true office actions traditionally can't be appealed, it seems some people take issue with that, to put it mildly. I have faith in ArbCom's ability to review this case fairly, and a verdict from a body that is in some true sense accountable to the community will help calm things down. Instead of letting ArbCom's hands stay tied, I'd argue we should say "hang the code" and do what will be best for the encyclopedia. If you really do think this is a bad idea, by all means say it loudly, but the fact that it's outside established norms isn't enough. This is as exceptional as a case can get, and the rules are already changing, one way or another. — 9185:(mixed); I'm in the camp that it's deficient, but still an attempt at trying to help deescalate things and remand the ban to the community (via ArbCom). I also note that the LauraHale situation would likely not have escalated as much as it did were it not for Wikipediocracy's accusations and Raystorm's invocation of GamerGate; both of those directly led to the community scrutinising LauraHale far beyond any reasonable point. And as for Jan being instructed not to, such an order seems absurd on its face, as those three topics are very specifically (a) ones that could be answered without risking the anonymity/privacy of the complainant and (b) 8303:. I think that's an important concession. I would like to see a firmer statement in the end but as someone else said a page or two back (I have read for 10 minutes solid) too clear a position by the Board could have led to a crisis within the Foundation. If the Director is not being fired then they need to be allowed to fix their house and if they were fired, a new Director would insist on this even more. The Board's job, in a charity same as in a company, is to set policy and only to intervene operationally in emergencies and then only as much as needed. I do think this "T&S" unit should have been 3159:
core sticking point in discussions up until now. I, also, would like to see an unambiguous statement from Jan that recognizes ArbCom's authority over conduct-related bans; acknowledges that conduct-related bans are always subject to appeal; and a recognition that this establishes the precedent that ArbCom remains the final court of appeal for such bans even when they originate from T&S (aside from the Board itself, of course, which this serves to remind us remains the ultimate place to appeal regardless.) Presumably, given the precedent that this establishes, the section of
13177:" is surely a fantasy. At least, I think it's so hard that nobody has yet mastered it, and I don't see the WMF people (with the best will) being able to achieve what nobody else has. I've worked in managing online communities, and it was for a company that didn't even try to define any objective standards, but instead issued guidelines that were to be interpreted on a contextual basis - the way Knowledge policy is supposed to be used. I think that worked as well as any I've seen, but it did still frequently draw the ire of literalists who'd complain along the lines of " 553:. It tries to model itself on the post-war/60s-70s German flat-hierarchy (or heterarchy) model, which might have been fine in pre-2007 days when there were only 7 paid employees, but with today's bloated force of 300 employees is no longer a sustainable management system. What they now have is an anarchic hybrid system of departments competing with each other, overlappinng with each other, and all vying for importance, and all of them believing themselves to be software engineers and sociologists while all of them only tell the CEO what they want her to know. 8597:. It's possible though that once your consulting experience goes all the way to multilateral institutions, you might better appreciate the difficulties in achieving perfect precision in a statement from a multilingual board, which obviously has internal differences of opinion, and was under time pressure to produce this statement. It's still my view the board statement was rather good all things considered, other than the omission to recommend an immediate un-ban. And hopefully you're not so critical about the outstanding follow up statement from the ED? 7957:
child protection, legal issues etc, need to be reviewable by ArbCom in every case. T&S should share all the evidence, inculpatory and exculpatory, with ArbCom so they can conduct a valid review and Fram should be afforded natural justice before a decision is made. If this needs to be done in private because of the nature of the evidence, I trust ArbCom to do it properly. T&S should not be in the business of accepting harassment/behavioural complaint evidence from complainants that is not disclosable to ArbCom, otherwise ArbCom cannot do its job.
6478:
today. For those of you wondering about board-ED relationships: Katherine will have been involved a great deal in discussions around this, and I very much doubt that the Board would have said this unless they were sure she had bought into it - particularly as this involves directly reversing some of the things that WMF have previously said about e.g. OFFICE bans being non-appealable. Now all we need to do is to get our own act together on creating an environment where admins are responsible for setting a good example of calm and constructive conduct.
11256:(voluntary demission) might have been preceded by a request, but self asking for desysop within that month (most are really voluntary due to job, health, family or other reasons). Some cases are from a kind of misusing this instrument; it happened that admins from the early 2000 years, making the project great, but almost inactive during recent years, did not candidate again and were kicked out by a very indecent and deliberately disrespecting appointment of a certain user group. Names of those participants are not forgotten, on the record forever. 12469:
community has failed to develop effective means to deal with them. Policies that effectivelty deal with harassment will need to be applied even-handedly (without regard to how productive an editor is). Of course, first, we need to determine what constitutes harassment. I think we need to be clear that paying close attention to an editor's contributions for violations of policy is not harassment, per se, but the response to such an editor must be proportionate to the cumulative damage to Knowledge caused by such violations of policy. -
6598:
apologetic enough under the face-saving surface, and does what it can do without kissing our asses to undo what has been done and allow the community to continue once again to police itself. It puts T&S back to its former mission, without decimating it or disheartening the workers there; they have essentially been told that they fucked up. This statement is about the best we're going to get, and is sufficient in all its aspects for us to move forward. People who are agitating for something better are just pissing into the wind.
3963:"focus" on their traditional roles. They will not overturn the ban themselves. "as we have cases which obviously need some form of sanctions, in which sanctions have not occurred" - please cite them. Hell, cite one. The community and the WMF obviously have a huge disconnect on this point. Following this statement, I have no confidence in the WMF as a whole. I will not be contributing further outside of this dispute until this issue is satisfactorily resolved, and at this point I suspect that's equivalent to a retirement. 710:
high horses and with no interest or clue about writing the actual encyclopedia, are taking control of the WMF. I guess for the writers, there is a fleeting satisfaction seeing the administrator caste being treated by the WMF parallel to the way administrators treat writers. But the satisfaction is short lived. Knowledge is already on shaky grounds, having alienated most of its better writers. It cannot afford an additional blitzkrieg on the administrator's themselves. As to what this is really about, there must be silence.
10056:, is typically the place where toxicity spins out of control. The easy cases, the ones that fall into one of the "negative contributor" categories, are usually dealt with pretty efficiently. But the difficult cases turn into multi-day shout fests, and can leave well-meaning complainants feeling awfully beaten up. I think we all feel like "I know who is right and who is wrong when I see it", but if we were to compare notes, we would find that when something is obvious to me, it will be obvious to someone else that the 5000:
and hair shirts. BUT from my reading there are holes in this big enough to drive a battleship through. In short, I think they are kinda sorta backing down, but leaving the door open to future interventions if they believe them to be necessary. And, I'm not sure that's enough. But again, these are just first impressions and if nothing else I will accept the statement in good faith as at least a half step in the right direction. For now I will think on it and see what other editors with sharper minds have to say. -
8737:
typical with WP matters, dozens of quibbles can be made about possible remaining ambiguities, but basically, 1)The ED admits she was wrong, 2) the arb com gets the decision, and 3) they won't do it again--the areas mentioned where they will continue to act are their traditional areas. Just as the WMF original action made evident the way their manner of working is inappropriate for routine community affairs, the subsequent objections here makes evident the way our manner of working has long prevented action.
31: 5227:
of "Somewhere, something or someone failed. It wasn't done out of bad faith, but rather because the process sucked somewhere. As such, we told the powers that be to stick to the obvious until we have better guidance on how to deal with the contentious, and get a better process for it. We told the powers that be to follow status quo for this one, leave things to ARBCOM as the community expected, and we've directed them to work with you to find a good process that works for everyone."
8822: 4774:. You can have an online encyclopaedia (or other useful repository of 'knowledge') or you can allow anyone to edit. Not both. This is the fundamental flaw in the WMF's 'mission'. It is at the heart of this dispute, and it is at the heart of so many disputes on En Knowledge and elsewhere in the WMF's fiefdom. It is a contradiction built into the very heart of the project, and one that cannot be resolved by fine words about 'good faith'. Or by nit-picking irrelevances... 12734:
policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to harassment and hostility on the English Knowledge
6308:"We do not consider any of the admin resignations related to the current events to be 'under a cloud' (under suspicion) though we also realize that the final decision with respect to this lies with the community." Who considers any of them "under a cloud"? The community considers their resignations principled acts of bravery. There is no way around it: this is an insult to each & every one of them. The board would have done far better not to even raise the idea. 9348: 322:
from the statements (and personal views expressed by Jimbo and Doc James) it seems clear that WMF accept that this is ArbCom's domain, both in terms of the current FRAMBAN and any similar issues that might arise, until a process of consultation has been completed and there is consensus here to change that. I'm satisfied for the time being knowing that ArbCom will review this, and am eager to see what proposals are brought forward in the consultations to come.
1063:
to the community, or why it could not be handled by community processes. AFAIK, they have not even confirmed whether the alleged harrassement happened on-wiki or off-wiki. If it happened on-wiki (which currently seems to be the assumption) then it is already a matter of public record. Hiding behind victim protection just won't wash. That looks like they are afraid of scrutiny of their decision, which implies their decision has a very rickety basis.
8994:, attention-deficient gossips, and kill-time boredom sufferers, worry-warts, and, mostly, nice folks who don't have a sufficiently stimulating social life and think talking with the former can be a fascinating ersatz for the deterioration of companionship in our 'neighbourhoods'). We even have comical attempts to theorize it, that gather up anything from expressions of mild distaste to death threats under that omnium gatherum rubric (Anne McTavish, 10858:'bad words' when it makes sense. This is one of the things the 'Trust & Safety Committee' apparently accused Fram, a Dutch editor, of. It's even more absurd because if he had used th abbreviation 'n*' instead – which for anyone who might plausibly be 'triggered' is easily decipherable but for some other users of this international site might be a complete mystery – then they would presumably have had to look for something else instead. 8056:, or whether you consider Fram himself to be one of the unblockables, this is a bit of an omission. I have previously made the point that if the WMF want to make the community a less toxic place, a good point to start would be to acknowledge that just a few years ago under the last ED but one, it was Arbcom who had higher standards of civility and could only desysop but not ban an admin who was also a WMF employee. In that case it was 4596:. There are a lot of people who intentionally do not follow this page, but are concerned about the overall state of the encyclopedia and community. This statement is significant enough that it should be on our main noticeboard for people who don't come to this page. A link directing discussion here at the bottom like is often done for ArbCom motions would work to centralize the discussion while making the statement more visible. 13265: 12123:
that work for them in their specific cultural surroundings. There should be dissertations comparing the different outcomes. The centralization attempts of the WMF of the last years, starting with the unnecessary introduction of the new TOS, which are now abused as the basis of further centralization initiatives such as T&S office actions or site-wide civility rules are destroying something very valuable, in my opinion. --
7608:
perpetrating a fake trial by withholding evidence are and should be subject to professional discipline. I am fairly confident, actually, that someone inside the organization will get in some minor legal trouble in the future, and having insider knowledge of these events will offer up WMF lawyers if they do engage in such skulduggery. Just remember counsel: You may have a duty to report the ethical violations of other lawyers.
6299:
measure of self-confidence to challenge another member of the community, especially if they've been around longer. And this is a characteristic of all groups.Since this is a well-known aspect of all groups of people, I wonder at the point of this phrase. Is it intended to address a known problem, or as a subtle message to senior members of the community that they not welcome, to stop speaking our minds, or we will be banned.
7376:
publicly force the interim ED into a certain way of doing things. Those things happen in discussions with the board and ED, and then are communicated to other staff. I think everything you say is true, and likely will happen in the future, but what I was saying here was that as an initial statement in a moment of crisis, I don't think we could have asked for much more without waiting longer and suffering more hemorrhaging.
2820: 2370: 11789:, even. They're hard-to-block because they're longstanding contributors who have added a lot to the encyclopedia, and because it's easier for people to see those contributions than it is to see the harm they've done by driving people off. This is also why "unblockability" applies particularly clearly to policies that are hazy and whose negative impacts when ignored can be hard to collect into a single clear picture - 6445:
sets expectations for the ED. In that context, it's no surprise that the statement has holes you could "drive a battleship through". The aspirations are great, but implementation is difficult. The community hasn't figured out how to handle harassment, while WMF hasn't figured out how to communicate with the community. Both things need to happen if this statement is going to be worth the paper it is(n't) written on.
11573:
auto-confirmed or even extended-confirmed to sign the petition seems like another common-sense safeguard. We already have established that 'crats can clerk at the RfX so it seems reasonable that they would at something like this too. It's not a recall but a reconfirmation with the presumption of good conduct since the petition itself (similar to impeachment in the US) is required before the !vote of confidence.
13228:"But which is less civil ...?" - I don't think we need a competition of inappropriateness. Not using "toxic" (= "poisening" = "contaminating") in official statements would be a step forward. In the pictured 2014 speech, "incredibly toxic contributors" was used to promote "kindness, generosity, forgiveness and compassion", which I found an incredible contradiction in terms. I am sure that we can do better. -- 8308:
people who actually understand self-governing large-scale volunteer movements. I would actually suggest a history lesson. The Foundation has grown from single digits when I first met Knowledge, to around 300. I believe that maybe someone must remind staff they the Foundation was created to support the volunteer work, not try to direct it. Knowledge predates the Foundation, and may well outlast it.
8020:), I'm now seeing this board statement as actually significantly better than I had hoped. It gives ArbCom the final say in Fram's ban, and we have concrete assurances that there will be no more similar T&S actions without community agreement. Jimmy has come down strongly in support of the community here, and we should recognize that and thank him for it (and the rest of the board, of course). 12378:, at least with enough of the people who tend to involve themselves in wonky process stuff that it's hard to sanction them. And this means that recalls (even done cautiously) could actually make the process worse. Lots of admins would be far more unwilling to make the call to block a popular editor under DS (or some other situation that allows for admin discretion), which would throw it back to 10084:
sometimes willing to put up with jerks if they're seen as being either productive jerks or jerks who are furthering a cause they approve of (for instance, if the jerk claims that that what's actually unpleasantness is an act of defiance against political correctness). If these jerks weren't coddled, most would probably improve their conduct fairly quickly and we'd be better off without the rest.
10420:. I don't normally say so because I am aware that that's a subjective value statement that stems from a personality clash. However, some of them seem to have no restraint labeling people with a different personality as toxic. From my point of view that creates an inequality in power between the nice people on one hand and the toxic people who keep calling the nice people toxic on the other hand. 10201:
not only diagnose it but solve it. Yet he has a very abrasive personality, & habitually refers to any software he is working on at the moment as a steaming pile of crap. As a result, my acquaintance goes thru a lot of jobs. As a mutual friend once described him, "He always quickly finds a job, yet he just as quickly loses the job." I wonder just how well he would fare here on Knowledge. --
2257:
is also something that's more important as you go up the WMF ladder. The techie that's responsible for toolserver maintenance has much less of a need to be kept up to date on matters related to say dewiki governance. But the Executive Director, Chairman, and anyone with a bigwig should follow the broad strokes of what is going on the projects, and not just what's going on at the WMF.
3552:
given that ArbCom is a party to the same NDAs that T&S staff are subject to. Without the full panoply of case materials, how can ArbCom hope to accurately evaluate the ban? Any decision they make is bound to be seen by either side in the controversy as illegitimate, as it will not be based on the entirety of the facts. I would urge the WMF Board to instruct T&S to turn over
4301:
make me uneasy, and given how long it took for this statement to come out, I think we are entitled to assume that everything in it is intentional. They seem to be saying that they think it was just fine for the statement to have taken this long to come out, and that's disappointing. Although there is considerable validity to the overall concept that the communities need to do better
11362:, the main objection to the proposal was fears about admins being forced to continually defend themselves against the kind of usual popular outrage that naturally comes up when moderating controversial issues (even if the admin's actions were totally correct). I think the general idea is good, but it could use some tweaking. Two ideas off the top of my head: requiring editors to be 13391:
to mean something very different: an experienced editor about whom we might know nothing personal, but who is either an administrator or a very accomplished content contributor, and who typically attracts a large number of defenders from the community at places like AN or ANI, and therefore is (supposedly) able to get away with misconduct that would get a novice editor blocked. --
8874:
basing actions on it. What is toxic behaviour? What is perceived as toxic behaviour, and by whom? I have my conflicts with editors but would not say "toxic" of anybody I encountered. This includes Fram, who was more often right than I was, and always factual. I am no native speaker of English, - do I have a language problem? - I am a content writer, so had no idea of
9234:
make a fair and defensible decision. From there, let's see if we can at least find a silver lining in the whole thing. I think we can make improvements to the way we handle people who are both very skilled and repeatedly mistreat others. I can't say that I know exactly what that looks like, but it's true that it is a question we should give some careful thought to.
11600:, that is indeed quite interesting. Basically a cumulative pile-on of crap (with I presume socks and other problematic accounts removed from the tally), until a threshold is reached, and the RFA process occurs automatically. People can then opine if it's worth removing the tools, or letting them keep it. Interesting indeed. That's certainly worth thinking about. 10397:
act nice, I can be sure they feel that way and aren't dissembling. If I make a serious mistake and hurt them, I can rely on them to tell me so in a way that I can't miss and then immediately forgive me under the assumption that I got the message – without the need for any groveling on my side. It's enough if I say: "You are right, that was a mistake." (And I
195:"Alternative approaches to supporting communities dealing with onwiki harassment"? "Offering training opportunities for community leaders (including ArbCom) involved in dealing with harassment"? "We also believe strongly in the principle that no one participating on the Wikimedia projects should be subject to harassment, abuse, or intimidation"? Is she 7315:
ArbCom. Short of firing someone, they couldn't have done anything else more concrete. They weren't going to fire Katherine as it isn't practical, and Jan is way too low level to be fired by the board. This is a step in the right direction. It isn't the end of it, we still need to see how the staff will implement it, but this is non-profit board speak for
9828:
particpate much because I'm not quite mean enough or tough enough, but also because I see absolutely no will to address that root cause. The notion that we even approximate true self-governance is a mass delusion—if not for that barrier to entry in these discussions, I'm fairly confident there would be a very large degree of support for your comment. ―
6305:"T&S has established a track record for managing highly complex situations." Until T&S banned Fram, few of us had even heard of T&S, let alone thought it had a track record. In fact, as debate raged here, three other cases of its misjudgment in other projects have come to light. I'd say that, at best, T&S has a mixed record of success. 7991:", that has to be respected. ArbCom can reach its own decision based on the available evidence, and we'll have to see what happens then. I really don't see what more we could have expected, I think this is the best we could have hoped for, and I think it's time for a bit of AGF. Let's not dismiss the proposed process until we've seen the result. 9006:(1962:pp.31ff) that electronic media would lead to a retribalization on a global scale of humanity, 'constricted into a space resonant with tribal drums', meaning the new expressive inclusiveness of communications would transform from modernity's metropolitan urbanity into squabbling hothouses of village resentments. Even he was anticipated by 11903:, I think I might ask you why you think both of those things. When I was on the ArbCom, I can recall four desysops, one of which was a functionary who had other permissions removed as well. This year, I can recall I believe three. (Which seems to beg the question as to ArbCom actions being "too rare"; one would hope there wouldn't be more of a 8090:
banning anyone who makes an occasional unwise joke or passionate outburst (Which is sometimes a healthy response to passive aggression.) Other than this, I strongly endorse this statement by WSC. It's especially impressive there is no sign of the scapegoat play, a great many lesser orgs would have stooped to that effective but unfair tactic.
13329:. If there are specific issues with users, call them out. Eg he is harassing someone via near-constant stalking and reverting of their edits. Or he is using profanities in his comments / edits. The term is loosely defined by design, its a feature, not a bug, and both us and WMF should avoid using it and instead use specific examples of 11260:
confidence a while ago. If confirmed again, the procedure is disabled for a while. Those who are doing a good job for the community will succeed, even if unpopular decisions were made and stepping on the feet of some user groups might have triggered the election. In some edge cases the community came to another result than I did expect.
10849:
hounded for not following American cultural norms but their own cullture's. Those instances in which this is done in the name of editor diversity would be hilarious if this didn't come from powerful people who actually have a chance to destroy the project's internationality this way. (As a concrete example, the idiocy of ignoring the
1325: 9698:
controversial topic areas nearly unworkable. The answer is very, very easy, people just don't want to accept it - if you are consistently abrasive to other editors, you should get a permanent block, and your other contributions have absolutely no bearing on this whatsoever. We wouldn't allow an editor with absolutely no respect for
11278:”, a standardized way to complain about admin decisions of any level which seem to violate rules and might be influenced by personal conflict. That will be decided by an admin who is not involved in any struggle and is a lower stage than our ArbCom. Sometimes the decision is that the action is marked as questionable or even reverted. 7053:
to just one project. I think it definitely makes sense to try to establish procedures that are community-driven in some cases (and we have some good start in steward organization as well as ombudsman commission), but we need to start moving. Also, I think there is still a lot we can do about harassment handling within the community.
8537:
unblockables, and you have not defined it here. Never us the term 'in fact' with out a reference- such imprecision is anathema on WP. It usually flags up an 'unsupported proposition as it does in this case. The last sentence the verb is 'may', but the conjecture 'needed steps' that have just been parachuted in is toally meaningless.
3311:- you are presuming that ArbCom will not be given enough evidence to be satisfied that the current remedy is sufficient. Per my comment below - I think at this point we need ArbCom to let us know if they have satisfactory information to at least certify the existing remedy, or if T&S is preventing them from being productive. — 7806:. That is not a mandate. That is not a requirement. That is not a prohibition. That is aspirational language. Just as that same sentence does not render it a violation of the TOU to engage in non-encyclopedia-building activities like writing the Signpost, it does not render any acts of impoliteness or incivility TOU violations. —/ 13847:"Will this recommendation have a negative impact?" and "What could be done to mitigate this risk?" appear to be part of the standard form for reporting recommendations in this project. The diversity team, across its various proposals, consistently answers those with, paraphrasing, "No." and "Convince people it's a good change." 12237:, and so it struggles with making decisions if there isn't a large majority in favour of one option, or if there are highly aggressive opponents. Unco-operative behaviour is, as a result, a viable strategy, as it takes advantage of the good faith of more collaborative editors, and can discourage their participation. Clay Shirky 10428:
the spectrum, I think we have no choice. Because if we let the law-and-order-and hierarchies crowd drive us all out of the project, this will result in a tremendous loss of diversity. Articles on sports personalities or warships will thrive as before, but ultimately something will be off in the articles on most arts subjects.
6291:
expect the Foundation can somehow solve this problem is to invite failure: the Foundation can order the members of the several communities until its staff is blue in their faces, but it won't work. We are volunteers, not unpaid employees. Involve us at every step. If staff members can't figure out how to make this work --
12016:
Knowledge". Moreover, swearing can be a sign of trouble, but is not really the problem. I don't need swear words to insult other people, and I don't need uncivil language to harass them. On the other hand, there are plenty of people (me probably at least somewhat included) who are not aware of all the cultural taboos
12981:'I find your remarks impolite'?? 'The way you are addressing me makes me want to leave this place'?? I am sorry, by far most of us will be gentle on a first encounter with someone who does something that is not in line with our core policies/guidelines. 'Hi, I saw you adding this sentence to <living person: --> 11826:, to generally make it clearer that it's a core policy, and to make it unambiguous that repeated, constant incivility will eventually get you a permanent block regardless of any other factor (just like trying to ignore any other core policy would.) We would not accept editors who routinely and unambiguously ignored 13416:
Wikimania, and I can recall being bullied, insulted, and nearly pushed down the stairs by a C-level employee at a 2013 Wikimania - 'safe spaces'? Pah! So lets not believe that butter wouldn't melt in the mouth of the WMF - quelle ironie. On the other hand I know some really nice WMF staff but most of them have left.
1006:
I've seen the difficulties in building organizations with inclusive goals for society and memberships—but, unlike Knowledge, with common, basic political goals. Editors from across the political spectrum come here. Editors can not be excluded for their ideology unless their writing can never follow consensus and
9293:
ANI seconds after someone finally has enough and tells them to fuck off. So, I think it's a complex problem to solve, but well—we figured out how to make a reasonably reliable encyclopedia when anyone in the world can edit it, so I think we're capable of solving complex problems. We just need the will to do it.
9864:
other editor is a subject expert who has only just appeared on WP? As we can't even agree a simple policy that some language (i.e. objective words) is outright unacceptable, then we can't make progress in such a greyer area (Probably the most offensive racially-loaded word was used just recently, and it was a
5939:"In exceptional circumstances, typically where significant privacy, harassment or legal issues are involved, the Committee may hold a hearing in private. The parties will be notified of the private hearing and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made." 12910: 12724:"If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with harassment on the English Knowledge, it is one that is fundamentally misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus, and self-governance." 5190:"We're handing this stuff back over to the community" as possible without in someway putting the Foundation at legal risk or firing someone. On the whole, it is a move in the right direction, and now we need to see what the staff-level actions will be to comply with the board's directives and requests. 13561:
Just my personal opinion, but having seen literally dozens of similar "ambitious" discussions, none of which have ever resulted in any actual changes, I have come to the conclusion that any ambitious discussion should be on a sub page of an individual user's pages -- a user who is able to wisely (and
13390:
of it, but my concern is more in terms of applying it to individuals. And in fact, your comment illustrates how the term can so readily be misunderstood. You use the example of an editor who is a family member of a WMF Board member. But historically, the WMF themselves, and others, have used the term
12433:
Thank you for pointing that you; you are right :) This class of problems does deserve solving; it is fed in part by the retention of good rules-lawyers and the rejection of those who don't like such interaction, and in part by the steady growth in 'countering bad edits' as a proportion of total time
12272:
Which is why the consensus model needs to be fixed. I'm all for forestalling massive change and keeping things at the status quo rather than advancing some massive social improvement project. But what we've got now is an oligarchy on one hand (unblockable admins, WMF people riding rampant over us and
12232:
I'll agree the community should bear in mind what it's learned through experience. But as a project grows and evolves, its needs change as well. English Knowledge's success has made it a magnet for editors pushing a particular point of view, be it for advertising or just in support of their favourite
12178:
These are all matters that could be balanced out in some way given a committee approach where there are actually people who understand how rulemaking works outside of Knowledge. The clusterfuck approach we've used for so long is really, really ill-suited to large-scale rulemaking. Anything other than
12122:
For me, this is one of the most fascinating things about Knowledge: There are many different communities that are only very loosely coupled due to the language barriers, all of them have the same goal of creating an encyclopedia, and all had to develop models of self-governance and civility standards
12052:
that I think ArbCom has gotten a lot better at handling this than they used to be. Sometimes, when editors say that they don't think ArbCom handles it well, it's because those editors disagree with a particular case outcome, but it doesn't mean that those editors are right. I think any proposal for a
11980:
But it many ways it is not fair comparing us, being 1/30 the size of enwp, and we all living in a limited area/culture. We used yearly reappointmet of sysop as technique to "get rid off" the handful using bad languauge etc, not so different from what is discussed above (it was also introduced in nowp
11838:
any differently. Basically, we should try to clearly enumerate what is beyond the pale (so there aren't any surprises like this one), and write the policies for it clearly and strictly enough that even the friends of longstanding editors will have trouble arguing why they could stay without crossing
11762:
This approach only deals with admins and its only possible sanction is to remove their tools. Admins are a small and dwindling part of our community, and desysopping on its own isn't always the answer. Some transgressors merit a reprimand, some a ban. If we want a more civil editing community we need
11028:
ArbCom's been doing its level best to keep us in the loop within the limits of any applicable confidentiality agreements/NDAs as far as Framgate goes. To be fair, if I were in their shoes, I'd be doing the same thing after a quick read of the room, as the excessive privacy is what caused this to blow
10962:
If accusations of corruption are false, no sane person would refrain from categorically denying them. Recusal or not, an innocent person does not just casually submit to false accusations without denying them, and that's a ridiculous notion. Did Raystorm categorically deny having a COI? The answer to
10917:
As far as (1) goes, I would suspect Raystorm recused because, true or not, the allegations regarding LauraHale required she do so. It's a good idea to recuse from any case/situation where there's a question about your impartiality, even if it's just because of rumours targeting you, close associates,
10871:
I used to think that we had three competing and occasionally overlapping definitions of "unblockables": Quality content contributors with long block logs and a posse of admin protectors willing to unblock them, WMF Staff and people who follow the rules closely enough that they are able to be snarkier
10811:
over the world, but I'm getting a little bored and tired with the claim that Americans dominate en.wiki. With 300 million of the 2 billion English speakers in the world being from the US (by far the biggest slice of that pie), and with the wide spread of American culture throughout the world, not to
10427:
I don't know if it is constructive if we, the other half of Knowledge, also starts labelling behaviour that we don't like due to personality clashes as toxic. Probably not. But so long as the term is being pushed by the WMF, which is situated in the US and therefore has a bias for the opposite end of
9319:
baiting and gaming than I have vituperation or intolerant hostility. Everyone is asked to focus on the latter (shorn of the long context) and, since what we call content disputes are beyond arbs remit,-content disputes read carefully with some topic knowledge would tell any neutral admin who is being
9292:
of others. "You're a shill for $ X/activist for $ Y", "You want to screw up the article", and so on. The other thing I think we need to solve is the issue of editors who are unfailingly civil, at least on the surface, but still constantly engage in disruptive and tendentious behavior, and then are at
9184:
I view the community's handling of this as something that can be addressed simultaneously with adjusting our harassment policies - a conversation we are only now starting because of how unhelpful Jan has been. I have read the board statement, and if you hadn't noticed I did address its reception here
8772:
I agree with that, and I want to add that there is a very thorny issue that will have to be worked out: how to deal with forum-shopping in this regard. Sometimes, "I don't trust ArbCom, so I'm going to T&S" really means "I think ArbCom will see that my complaint has no merit, so I'll see if I can
8307:
to stick to its limited tasks and that the assignment to the ED should have been more specific but it is obvious that there is an element within the Board which supported this expansion of "T&S" reach. Any such Board members should probably now resign, and allow the community to replace them with
7956:
If this is a statement that ArbCom can review and vary the decision about Fram's ban, then this is a move in the right direction. Doc's comments indicate that is the Board intent, so I hope that is right. These new harassment/behavioural office action bans, as distinct from the long-standing ones for
7358:
Well, they could have created some rules for the next time T&S oversteps instead of focusing just on this case. One of the problems with how Jan and his team handled the case was the "our word is final, deal with it" approach that made them immune to the criticism and forced the board to step in.
7052:
It is really difficult to assume that ALL cases, without knowing their nature, will be delegated to ArbCom. Quite clearly e.g. combating child molesters or severe copyvio, as well as possibly some cross-wiki harassment requires either well-established and lawyer-backed institutions or a body external
6850:
While I'm all for the "sacrificial lamb" school of public relations in some situations, we can't just sit here and let ourselves be placated with some poor scapegoat's bladder on a stick. The Board has proved with this letter just how little they get it, both by treating ArbCom as an advisory opinion
6427:
I think the boards declaration is spot on and am happy with it. I am also personally inclined to give the WMF benefit of the doubt on this issue regarding the ban even if I think it is a bit harsh. However I can also see and sympathise with the other point of view on this issue. It seems as though
6362:
a partnership. This statement, I regret to say, is written as if it were issued by corporate PR department. I can't fully trust any statement written in that voice. Why not explicitly state, for the record, that a partnership exists? Unless that would prevent the Foundation from further arrogation of
6290:
Further, the problem of solving the "toxic environment" is presented as if only the Foundation can do anything about it, which seems to be how so many of their unsuccessful initiatives fail. A partnership would recognize the community is a stakeholder in this effort, if not the most important one. To
6004:
First of all, no, this is calling for review of a WMF office action which is EXPLICITLY outside the arbitration policy. This is not the Foundation’s call at this point. They do not dictate our arbitration policy. Secondly, this is not a request to make a decision that is either FINAL or BINDING: This
5856:
A question to the legal people reading here: could T&S co-opt some/all of the ArbCom members or make them contractors for the duration of the case, with the result that they were legally T&S employees for disclosure purposes? I've frequently handled highly sensitive & confidential data as
5700:
I was going to point out the same thing. When your higher up "asks" you to do something, you're not really going to get much option to say no because you explicitly signed your contract stating that you agree to submit to the authority of your manager and so on upwards. The higher up doesn't sound as
5574:
Utterly inadequate and I'm out of here. It leaves the hands of ArbCom tied, it posits something akin to Chinese political correction methods, it makes vague promises couched in legalese (= loopholes), sees no need to acknowledge clear failings of WMF staff members, it doesn't really address what they
5496:
Exculpatory evidence would include things like evidence that the complainant is a frequent flyer, or there are some facts that indicate that the complainant’s cause for complaint is unreasonable or harassed Fram in return, or any number of other things. And no, WMF is under no legal obligations here.
5263:
I also agree with that. People need to understand what the purpose of a board is. They set the big picture vision, rules, etc. staff does the specifics. I think this is a good first step in the right direction. The next step is for the WMF staff to say how they will implement the ideas conveyed here.
4610:
Don’t be ridiculous. It says nothing that you think it does. All it does is ask for the ArbCom’s opinion based on a subset of evidence that T&S will pick and choose. This is moreover not a contract. It’s a gratuitous promise. And even then there’s no promise to abide by an exoneration. I hope and
4152:
sounds to me that the Chair is not fully endorsing the "unanimous" decision. It's unclear to me that whether the board affirms that ArbCom has the power to overturn the WMF T&S or th WMF T&S has the power to overturn the ArbCom. This is the key constitutional issue yet not completely clear to
3767:
It would have been much better if this had been written in plain English, but this is a positive statement. I'm heartened by a) the suggestion that resources be invested in training community members to deal with harassment and b) the recommendation that the T&S team stick to its traditional role
2965:
So, to be clear, do ArbCom have the discretion to overturn the ban if they find that the circumstances do not warrant it? If so, then At first glance this appears quite reasonable, although I would personally like to see a more rock-solid commitment to involve the community in these matters routinely
2293:
announcing "New Code of Conduct committee candidates". Hmm, I thought, this looks like something we need to have someone from en.wikipedia involved with. Only to discover that it was announcing the results of the selection process. And that "the deadline for the public feedback was yesterday ." Kinda
2256:
in their involvement. Being proactive is not a small effort (it would involved that relevant noticeboards first get identified, then summarized daily/weekly/monthly/as needed), which is why I suggest that someone specific is assigned the role of seeking out such discussions and summarizing them. This
1000:
editing community of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". Unlike most (All?) volunteer organizations with the influence of Knowledge, activists can work here without ever having face-to-face discussions with other editors. There is no guide to how we interact save for the Five Pillars. What each of us
13861:
The scary thing is that the question seems not to be getting taken seriously, or perhaps that the people writing this are mistaking their role of brainstorming for advocacy. Though, even as advocacy, treating the “what is weakness of this proposal?” question like this really hurts the credibility of
12451:
We may be thinking of different problems; rather than tool changes, I am thinking of improving community processes and procedures so that there would be no advantage to acting unco-operatively, and it would be better to work collaboratively. There could be a role with tools for reputation management
12241:; attempts to make them non-hierarchical by replacing human judgement exercised by administrators with rules interpreted by everyone eventually fail as the rules become overly complex. Sound familiar? We need to unlock the stalemate produced by English Knowledge's current decision-making traditions. 11922:
My post was imprecise for / due to brevity which I'll now fix. The "why I think that way" is thousands of observations over 10 years, combined with a lot of analyzing and an aptitude for such. IMO there are probably about 200 admins who should be trusted with really tough situations and disciplinary
11545:
I'm not sure this is the place to debate it, but my issue with limiting it to bureaucrats is that they are selected largely to judge consensus in RfAs, rather than (as ArbCom) to look into conduct disputes. Historically I have rarely participated in RfBs, because I know nothing of bots, and consider
10848:
I agree that the dominance of Americans on this site is not a problem per se. (It makes me feel uncomfortable because I like many aspects of American popular culture even less than many aspects of German popular culture, but that's my personal problem.) It only becomes a problem if other editors are
9956:
members of the community but are not. Given our current editing environment, that means that people voting are going to be people who, when faced with a toxic editing environment, chose to keep editing here rather than find another hobby. They are also going to be people who are a demographic legacy
9875:
There's also the problem of friends and cliques. Moments after the block you speak of, two other names popped up, both exemplars of this same "We are better editors than you are" clique. Such a self-supporting group is persistent and generally tends to dominate any discussion seeking to sanction any
9697:
a positive contributor. Even if they have good edits in other ways, this doesn't change the fact that they've hard-failed one of the essential criteria for contributing, nor is it likely to make up for the large number of editors they drove off or the contribution such incivility has on making some
8361:
Arbcom has been given (actually, always had, under our longstanding traditions which predate the existence of the WMF) to make an independent, final, binding determination of the path forward here. In ArbCom policy there is still the possibility of appeal to me personally, which I think is important
8263:
I dont quite see that as the win you do. A consultation is not a commitment to seeking an agreement with the community, and there still seems to be their view, implied at least, that such actions remain in the WMF toolkit in the future. The ArbCom letter asked for a commitment that enWP only actions
7438:
This. We've had good reason to suspect it since WMF made a statement to BuzzFeed News claiming that he was blocked for incivility and that incivility is contrary to the TOU (protip: It isn't). I was hoping on some level that it was a mistake. We now know with a high level of certainty that WMF views
7333:
I disagree that Jan is too low-level to be fired by the board. This is the second time he has pissed off a major Knowledge community (de.wp being the first) and he has proven himself either unable or unwilling to address whatever reasonable demands for information that the community has requested. I
6982:
I've read a lot of the comments above, and a lot of them are assuming that the worst possible scenario will happen. People are worried that T&S won't give ArbCom all the evidence. Well, let's cross that bridge when we come to it. We are still waiting on a statement from both WMF and then ArbCom.
6663:
I don't know why you would say it is moot. Arbcom has been given (actually, always had, under our longstanding traditions which predate the existence of the WMF) to make an independent, final, binding determination of the path forward here. In ArbCom policy there is still the possibility of appeal
6243:
That is clearly intended as a suggestion (and perhaps as a nod to the fact that some on Knowledge might be reluctant to take any action with regard to that out of fear of re-inflaming the issue; hence their intentionally distancing themselves from it twice-over by both stating their personal opinion
5781:
The board may handle grand strategy and vision but at the end of the day, they can only do that if the people at the coal face are giving them the info they need to make such statements. If they're making statements without the commitment from the involved parties then we're talking napalm on a fire
5421:
Also withholding 'exculpatory' evidence makes no sense. No complaint the WMF will have received is going to have "Fram blocked me! That's so unfair, I only threatened to follow him home and slash his tires." If ARBCOM receives "Fram hounded me here, here, here, and here on these articles, and called
5226:
the reason is far simpler. It is vague because the role of a board is to provide vision and general direction, not provide specific instructions or mandate outcomes. As far as board statements go, for those that aren't well versed in corporate speech, this is a pretty fucking big one along the lines
4502:
to do is to have the honest discussion the board is suggesting (with regards to tightening our rules on chronic incivility and harassment) - but they locked themselves into a position of "Fram is banned because reasons; we can't show them to you but they're very very good. We'll keep banning people
3647:
I'm still processing this statement, though at first glance it seems even-keeled. I suppose I'll wait until tomorrow, too, as I note only two signatories of this statement. Is that by design, or just due to the vagaries of life? (In short: does the above statement have the full backing of the Board?
3158:
This seems like a key question. I assume that it's a given that if the ban is being referred to ArbCom, then they have the authority to shorten or overturn it per their longstanding position of oversight for conduct-related matters on enwiki, but that needs to be made explicit given that it was the
2462:
Putting this kind of message into the copyright license header (as Xaosflux points out) would be intrinsically inappropriate, regardless of the exact text used. Even if Knowledge were to come to a consensus that we should make a formal protest message of some kind, using the copyright license header
1062:
The WMF has every right to ban whomsoever they choose. They run the site and are legally responsible for it. I would hope that is accepted by all (even if you don't like it). What is really disconnected here is that T&S seem to think they don't need to give a meaningful explanation of the ban
321:
I'm inclined to agree that the board's and Katherine's statements are an indication that there is a way out of this mess. There is obviously a lot more to discuss with regards to how we all go forward from this point, but Katherine has personally apologised, acknowledged that WMF got this wrong, and
231:
Is there not a WMF en-Wiki notice board (like the ArbCom noticeboard), on which major WMF communication to en-Wiki, like the above, (and including the BOT statement) can be properly and formally posted. Give that "communication" is a core part of the issue in this whole affair, how come there is no
13525:
Although both ways can work, I think it would be helpful to start establishing groups of editors interested in different areas, to facilitate co-ordination with the arbitration committee. Personally, I'd rather start converting this swell of interest into action now. The community is supposed to be
13508:
I'm not saying dictate, but I think it makes sense to cooperate. It would be silly to work at cross purposes, or to duplicate efforts. It should be obvious from my continuing participation on this page that I'm very much in favor of the community continuing to brainstorm on our own, but things will
12733:
Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the arbitration
12114:
As a dewiki veteran who has read many of the recent discussions around FRAMBAN, I don't think that the general level of civility of the german wikipedia is in any way better than it is here, and of course we have our own share of problematic users. Our admin recall system has its downsides too, for
11813:
in general, since they recognize that letting any one of them get banned could lead to a precedent that eventually gets all of them banned. There isn't an easy silver-bullet solution to this - it requires changing our basic culture. But I think a good start would be to, first, have an overt policy
11719:
A de-adminship process would likely not have resulted in much here, since whatever Fram's been accused of is not being aired in public. "Hey, let's de-admin that guy!" "Why?" "He's harassing people!" "Diffs?" "Can't, people don't want to come forward, but trust me, he's harassing people. / We tried
11425:
I've been thinking about this for a few months actually, and one of the ways to ensure that mob mentality is not at play would be to have an admin recall motion judged by a bureaucrat to see if it has merit or not. If it does the motion goes through and admin recall is initiated. If bureaucrats are
11266:
I recall cases of repeated offensive language, partially leading to desysop, or to be explicitly understood as a clear warning sign. However, since several hundreds of voters participate, some with pro and some with contra, there is always a mixture of reasons for a decision and I do not remember a
11259:
While filing an ArbCom case for DESYSOP that will be decided by high level representatives, initiated by one or a few persons, requiring a detailed charge text – Request for Re-election is run by many users, cheap in preparation, and decided by the entire community and the same voters who had shown
10934:
Do you realize what heat WMF/BoT would have received if she hadn't recused herself? I'm not sure it matters why she recused herself, it's important that she did. Now that BoT have released their statement and ArbCom has all of the details of the case, I don't think the Board will be involved. There
10559:
tactics at AN to prevent this from being corrected. Today, more than 5 years later, the article still has the same POV problem, which seems to have been originally introduced by a circumcision fetishist editor (in the clinical sense!) and never completely removed. It does not exist in the German or
10406:
I would not want to work for a Knowledge without users of this type. In some cultures such as the UK or the Netherlands they are the norm. In the US they are rare. Extreme specimens of this type will not be afraid of blocking Jimbo Wales for edit warring or an arbitrator for harrassing an editor on
10396:
to be a victim and a perpetrator. For me, a lot of those who are often mentioned as examples of toxic behavour or 'unblockables' are actually why I think of Knowledge as a second home with nice people after all, despite all the chaos and conflict. These are nice people who tick like I do. When they
10391:
you find them depends on your POV on the problem. And IMO that's the real problem with 'toxic behaviour'. It's just an ill-defined fighting word. Some people operate clearly outside the norms of acceptable behaviour. Sometimes it takes a year or more, but ultimately we get rid of them if they don't
10200:
Funny thing is that I had an example from my off-Wiki life of a very useful person who is, however, a toxic person -- if one can equate "toxic" with "abrasive". This person probably knows the most computers of anyone I personally know; he can be presented with practically any computer problem &
9863:
As (unfortunately) we've already turned this into a named and personalised issue, then look at the question of "bad language" and the impossible question of whether that breaches CIVIL. Is telling another editor to 'naff off' acceptable? Is it acceptable 'if the other editor deserved it'? If the
8736:
In connection with Jimmy's statements, even the current wording offers everything practical that is needed. Sure, it s worded it's worded in a bureaucratic fashion, but it's coming from a bureaucratic body, and, by the standards of the way such groups say things, it's quite straight-forward. As is
8553:
Para 12 Looks good until you read it. ArbCom should be charged to review the case and T&S should submit there case in writing, if they decide they want to pursue the issue. If they do they must be prepared to release all the papers to ArbCom, having first got their witnesses written consent. As
8546:
Para 10 Scratch the first sentence- T&S is unheard of, outside the WMF, and when writing the WP article the phrase 'over-reached' themselves will be prominent. Limiting them to a far less prominent role is a very good idea- I would go further and suggest that 'technical compliance to the law in
8364:
I would note both a clear statement of the position and the note that this "predates the existence of the WMF" as well as the option of a further appeal. I have missed what seems to have been a fraught few weeks but I would hope people would give this small Foundation organisation a chance to show
7522:
Emphasis mine. Encourage. Not command, not require, not mandate. Moreover, look at the other items in the list: Make edits/contribs aimed at furthering the mission of the shared Project. Do any of us believe WMF can ban you for making edits/contribs aimed at something other than furthering enwiki's
6513:
The real test is what will T&S do if ArbCom determines the length of 0 days, resysop, and an unconditional apology is in order? Will they again, take control of the reins of their unilateral control, or accept that the community disagreed with their actions and respect that? Legal issues, child
5189:
Yes, thanks BMK. I misread it. Speaking personally, my reading is that it is vague for the legal reasons (they may not be able to turn over everything), but that the statement conveys a set of principles that will govern this going forward, and is about as close as the WMF Board could get to saying
5159:
I'm unsure if your lawyer comment was good or bad, but several have made it, so I'll say this: a lawyer likely did look over it, which is a good thing. Do we really want the WMF being sued by all the pedophiles and harassment LTAs they have banned? It might not be fun for us as a community to read,
5147:
IMHO, this isn’t lawyerese, it looks like it needed a lawyer to look it over! Most folks here know I am not a fan of Fram and I think his behavior required consequences, but if this is the WMF board’s response, it’s NOT a solution. The #1 problem is allowing ArbCom to review partial evidence. This
5093:
While the aforementioned conversations between T&S and our communities take place, we recommend T&S focus on the most severe cases, for instance: the handling of legal issues, threats of violence, cross-wiki abuse, and child protection issues until consultation and agreement between T&S
5035:
I agree with Ad Orientem. It was always my belief that the hold up in a Board statement was primarily about finding a face-saving way of getting out of the morass T&S and the Board chair created. I think the ball's in our hands now (ArbCom's hands, specifically) and that we run with it on the
4845:
IMHO, this stands out as the key phrase. It essentially sends T&S back to their traditional role. This implicitly concedes that T&S and by extension the WMF overstepped their reach. Also noteworthy is the inclusion of "agreement" rather than just "consultation". I don't see the community to
4492:
isn't something that would get a ban if it were public. And this poisoned the entire discussion; it was no longer possible to talk about reaching any sort of agreement or compromise, because by starting from a presumption that the community could never solve this problem, T&S had locked itself
4477:
AFAIK nothing the WMF or T&S mentioned up until now has mentioned this at all, but I suspect that that sentence reflects a major concern that came up in discussions between them and the board, and therefore reflects the real rationale behind T&S' actions in this case. That is to say - they
4300:
I'm pleased by the statement that the admins and crats are not "under a cloud", and I hope very much that ArbCom and the community here will ratify that. We need to be able to move on, in that regard. I have an overall positive reaction to the statement as a whole, but there are several things that
3808:
imho, it would be absurd to read this as implying T&S can ignore the board's direction. I agree with Nick-D's reading that T&S is being asked to keep to its "traditional role" until the community has had an opportunity to discuss the issue thoroughly and reached a consensus about what other
3522:
My initial take is that this is a little too vague for something that took three weeks to come up with. However, I am encouraged by the phrases "consultation and agreement between T&S and the community" and "close collaboration with the communities". That will require a pretty radical change in
3285:
Understood, but that still prompts the question: How does Arbcom make a legitimate decision to override T&S, when T&S are the only body with all of the evidence? I don't see how Arbcom could even accept a case under these circumstances. They either unban Fram with the understanding that his
2304:
Yes! I very much support adding the diffusion of WMF-related stuff to wikimedia projects by that same person. They'd be in effect, a community liaison/communications officer or whatever you want to call that. Maybe such a position already exists, in which case something like this should become part
2200:
We already do some of this this, although somewhat less systematically, not on a specific schedule (or at least it's not on a schedule for me; others might take a different approach). I'm always happy when anyone pings me to a discussion that someone in the WMF might want to know. Usually, I pass
619:
I don't think your description of the WMF is completely accurate. They certainly have published organigrams in the past, though I don't know of any recent one. If I understand correctly, T&S has two subteams led by subteam managers, who presumably report to T&S head Jan who reports to Chief
250:
I think she has just admitted personal responsibility, and everything she does is for the board to review. Normally, staff changes and the like happen later, not immediately. As for the general relationship, this requires longer and more deliberate discussion than can be done in the context of one
12204:
Hey if you don't think addressing harassment or unblockables is a priority, that's not something I'm going to change your mind on. But what I will say is that merely because something "worked" (and I think that's a bit charitable if we're talking about community health) doesn't mean it's the right
12149:
sides of the issue if they are acting fairly. I know I certainly would not continue to do any work in that if there were a procedure like that. I certainly might pass an RfA if done today (at very least, no one's come along to tell me they think I'm doing a terrible job at being an admin), but I'd
11487:
The idea would be to not have ARBCOM involved every time, and have a less nuclear and more RFC-like option. Get say, ~X people saying there's a concern that an admin is no longer fit to be an admin. If the treshold is met, bureaucrats look at it (the same amount that look at a RFA), and determine
10179:
Regarding Roy's analogy (which I don't read as comparing any Knowledge editors to sexual predators given that the working is quite specific - VM, please stop trying to stir up trouble), companies are increasingly not putting up with high performing jerks as it's now widely recognised that doing so
10078:
I agree that that's part of the problem. ANI simply doesn't work for even vaguely complex matters as it's a peanut gallery, but there's nothing between it and arbitration (and the Arbs, quite rightly, don't want to take cases which haven't gone through ANI, etc, first). Moving the format of ANI to
9314:
by editors, or abundant sockpuppets, who are quite polite but consistently use false edit summaries, tagteam, revert at sight solid edits out of ideologuical distaste? I think I could name, but I won't about a dozen solid contributors in the area I mainly worked (some of them extremely precise and
8873:
whose work seems related. I try to assume good faith, very generally so, and believe that the statement we discuss was written in good faith. I have serious problems with the concept of "toxic behaviour" on which it is all based. I think it's a vague term that we better avoid altogether instead of
8757:
Whatever it is what the statement means, I am concerned by one issue that is not addressed; that WMF:T&S is an option for persons who perceive themselves as targets of Harassment - there is no indication I can see what process will be in place who do not wish to go through a local wiki process
7661:
Completely false and provably so just by reading the contract. And honestly, your own argument disproves itself: If WMF wants to be able to ban any user for any reason or no reason, then everything in Section 4 is superfluous. That's not how contracts work. WMF wrote this contract of adhesion, and
7637:
If you read section 12, it quite clearly is referring to terminating the ability of an individual to access the site as the entire TOU is written in that way, and that particular section is particularly focused on bans. Your other arguments basically fall apart when you realize this: they can kick
7412:
It's not a bad statement. By far the best we've seen so far. But I agree that this statement is still woefully inadequate. This is clearly a calculated statement of neutrality, attempting to take some sort of middle ground between the Foundation's action and the community's disgust. It essentially
7022:
I was mostly waiting at the sidelines but this statement is unsatisfactory. It contains no clear commitment to defer any and all cases to ArbCom that are related to behavior on this project nor does it provide any changes to the stated "T&S decisions are final" policy. It's nice that ArbCom is
6570:
seems appropriate. I believe I'm a pretty moderate person, despite life's challenges, but I do also believe that there the Board Chair probably needs to, as they say, consider her position. I see clearly a case that they failed to support the community, the first priority, to lead, and to remain
6298:
The phrase "enforcement processes to deal with so-called 'unblockables'" -- I'll admit there are some Wikipedians who get away with more than others, but there are many reasons for this. One that I don't see any acknowledgement of here is that most people are simply not confrontational; it takes a
6274:
This is a poorly-written document. Assuming Good Faith, one would conclude this is an attempt to undo some of the damage; however, there are too many points that frame this as a condescension from people in power, rather than as something that would both acknowledge our grievances while adequately
5522:
Would it be exculpatory evidence to know that the complainer (or one of their wikifriends) was previously sanctioned after Fram presented evidence against them at arbitration? Of course T&S would not know such context, and by holding their proceeding in secret, we would have no opportunity to
5314:
Note that the Privacy Policy of the site explicitly allows them to share info with functionaries, so the reason for confidentiality must be something we don't know yet. We can only hope that the reason WMF refused to share anything before was merely internal corporate policy; if they actually made
4999:
This reads like it was drawn up by a lawyer (or three). Lots of language that looks intentionally vague and designed to leave strategic wiggle room. My gut says the WMF is looking for a face saving way to climb down from this mess w/o having to unambiguously admit they were wrong and don sackcloth
4887:
Very much so. This is the important part. They stay on their turf while the community formulates an approach/policy/guideline/whatever in consultation with them. Then we can either choose to deal with civility issues through our own process (likely via ARBCOM), or choose to empower the WMF to take
4274:
Thank you. I hope this is the first in a series of conversations that will lead to greater cooperation between the WMF and the community, and allow us to handle behavioral issues in a way that is fair to all. The devil is in the details, of course; hopefully over the next few weeks we will see the
3851:
To be clear: ArbCom could overturn the ban. I will personally back ArbCom in whatever they decide. Any further action of this type from T&S will not happen without agreement from the community. There should be no fear here that T&S would defy the board, me, ArbCom, and the gathered best
3410:
To those below who remain unimpressed by this statement: I'm not sure what to tell you. I feel like it needs repeating that this is a volunteer board trying their best here. At some point we need to stop moving the goalpost and just accept people are trying their hardest to respond to our numerous
3201:
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Mendaliv. This appears to be the official neutering of ArbCom. ArbCom is a signatory to the exact same NDAs that T&S are held to. Why can't they see all of the evidence? It would appear that our community processes no longer matter unless they agree with
3044:
Given the wording that says the ban will remain in effect during the proceedings, and that its length and the like will be assessed, it would seem to acknowledge that it may not be afterwards. So, it would seem that ArbCom would have the authority to either void the ban entirely, or decide that it
1510: 1005:
can be signs of relatively common and harmless character expression—or signs of political (in the broad sense) conflict. In my experience, Knowledge is unique. From where could you staff T&S with people with experience relevant to pbeing part of the Knowledge editing community? From experience
709:
Knowledge's governance and administration has never had a real interest facilitating the actual writing of the encyclopedia. It has always been about controlling and silencing the writers. Now political activists, lost in and intoxicated by social justice ideologies, mounted happily on their moral
562:
she believes herself to be in the know, and that she and her departments are answerable to the BoT, but we know otherwise - what she is not aware of, she learns through the press. In addition to the Trustees, the WMF should have a small executive committee or board which is directly elected by the
428:
The Board oversees the activity of WMF. It has three members elected by the community (currently James, Dariusz, and Maria), two elected by chapters and thematic organizations (currently Nataliia and Christophe, with Shani soon to replace Christophe), and more members appointed by the Board itself
354:
I do not believe Katherine Maher is qualified to keep her job. I think her statement has no contrition and gives me no confidence she will not screw up again ( she signed off on the Fram ban ). Her reference to its being ok for something to be a shock as long as its not a surprise is reflective of
11784:
Recalls are an option with a lot of good and bad points (as others have pointed out, admins do have to sometimes be willing to take actions that will, at least, be unpopular with a small but motivated group of people.) But either way I don't think it's actually the solution here. "Unblockables"
10998:
Without knowing the truth about the recusal, is it possible to protect the community from harassment? I don't think any solution would depend on the specifics of the recusal. Without knowing about the recusal, is it possible for ArbCom to do their job with regard to the case now referred to them?
10411:
that is appropriate. – And then there is the other type of users. I will not try to describe them because I find it hard to do so fairly. I just don't get them. Some of them are OK, actually, but some of them constantly rub me the wrong way. Some admins of this type apparently try to make me feel
10261:
I think any moderately active editor, particularly those who try to help/guide problematic new editors or who act as quality controls on any form of content, might be a potential target for T&S; and perhaps particularly those whose cultural background does not mesh well with the West-coast US
9233:
I think, from here, we let ArbCom handle the situation with Fram, as that's what should have been happening from the beginning but at least it's what will happen now. They'll be able to hear all the evidence, and especially with the amount of attention, I believe that they will be very careful to
8089:
is a more realistic interpretation on the so called death threat. Can't really believe so many usually insightful editors have such a dim view of the de-sysoped but unbanned former WMF employee. We ought to be on guard that our renewed desire to avoid harassment doesn't result in us insta perma
8051:
The only way to end a Mexican standoff peaceably is for deescalation. I read this as the WMF at least pointing their gun at the floor and would like to thank them for that. I note that no one on the WMF side seems to be being made a scapegoat, unlike some I take that as a positive; this is or has
8036:
It's a particularly poor statement - we still have no indication what T&S are treating as harassment, we still have no idea whether tough but necessary enforcement of copyright or BLP policies which can necessitate an administrator going through every upload or every edit to a BLP that a user
7934:, Someone up thread explained it well, but my summary is: someone on the board wondered if these resignations might be considered "under a cloud" by the WMF or T & S or the board, and they wanted to clarify they didn't feel that way and any such decision could be made by the community itself. 7375:
I think we actually agree (largely). The board certainly can do that, and should, but stepping in with sweeping resolutions now without thinking through it could cause more problems, and there are issues with undermining staff: even if they had fired Katherine, they likely wouldn't have wanted to
6692:
the board) says that he interpreted this to mean that ArbCom now has final jurisdiction over Fram's fate. His statement was cautiously-worded given the sensitivity of the topic, and I agree that we really need a formal statement from T&S backing down from some of the positions Jan took above
6616:
have conducted an independent review of the Fram situation on its own weeks ago, or even days ago. It refused to do so, rightly, because it was moot. It is still moot after this statement. All that the Board is doing is treating ArbCom as its Solicitors General and requesting that they give their
6444:
I would like to thank the board for this statement. I wish it had come out a week or two ago, but I'm happy it's here. I know a consensus statement from a large group of people is almost impossible. I also respect the fact that it's not appropriate for the board to manage line workers - the board
4865:
I take some pride in having personally added the word "agreement". It's crucially important. I wanted to cut off any fear and any possible avenue for a meaningless "consultation". Where I live I got a delightful letter from the local council about a change to the road configuration which would
3962:
I am not at all satisfied with this response. The only substantive thing in here is allowing ArbCom to review the ban, and even then it's unclear if they can overturn it. They will not turn over all of the evidence to Arbcom, they will not direct T&S to stay out of this area, only saying to
3551:
I am concerned with "We encourage Arbcom to assess the length and scope of Fram’s ban, based on the case materials that can be released to the committee.," which implies that there are some materials that T&S used which they will not release to ArbCom. I dont see why that should be the case,
306:
Thank you for these statements. As a community member who both feels that more needs to be done to handle uncivil behavior on Knowledge, and that the events of the past month were poorly handled by the WMF, I appreciate the acknowledgments of the problems that were created by the Fram ban and the
12478:
While I agree that better procedures are needed to handle poor behaviour, my point is to eliminate the incentive for it in the first place. If, for example, English Knowledge had better content dispute mechanisms (as an example, a non-optional binding mediation board; feel free to think of other
12468:
Much of what I dislike about Knowledge is the way that strategies to win arguments work. There many ways to intimidate opponents to one's position. For some, such as legal threats, the community has long had an effective strategy; for others, including what many of us would label harassment, the
12140:, thanks for your perspective on it. I think that particular issue, of admins being less likely to be willing to work in controversial areas, is one concern that's often been raised in regards to "admin recall" procedures. I don't know if de.wp has anything comparative to the English Knowledge's 11233:
who did the quota within two weeks, did not candidate and has been desysopped on basic request of community regulars. The incident has been objections on dealing with local admin tasks, later the role as community advocate for WMF but not really an advocate for the community, and questions about
8237:
The two new office action policy tools introduced during the last change (temporary and partial Foundation bans). Under the approach noted on June 17th, we will seek further community feedback on those changes. These new tools will not be used again until community consultations to clarify their
7176:
Knowledge and other large projects should come up with their own ways to deal with harassment, and we'll help you with that. We care and support projects being self-governing and having their own standards. We'll restore the status quo, and we'll be re-assessing our newer contentious policies in
6477:
I think this is a sensible and helpful statement. In fact it's the best response to this kind of issue I can remember from any WMF board - if conversations about the Image Filter or Superprotect had been conducted with this level of maturity and reflection, we'd all be in a much happier position
6086:
Sorry, that is simply not the case. The WMF's Board of Directors has just written that ArbCom can look at the case, and that T&S should given them the evidence they need. In the scheme of things,, that permission outguns any standing WMF policy. But the proof of the pudding will be in the
5630:
them to turn over all relevant evidence to ArbCom. What is the point of arbCom working under a non-disclosure agreement when the left hand is deliberately trying to cut off the right one? T&S and ArbCom need to be on the same side here, but since T&S's reaction to ArbCom has been just as
4482:
actions to date justify a ban, and that the fact that he hadn't already been banned represented a failure by the community so severe that they felt compelled to step in. My guess is that they'd been wrestling with that problem for a while ("unblockables", not anonymous reporting), and when they
4005:
that's covered by 'scope and length' of the ban. As someone else said, 0 days is a length. Time served is a length. Indef is a length. Likewise for scope. Complete enwiki ban is a scope, copyright enforcement ban is a scope, interact ban with is a scope, admin action ban is a scope, no ban is a
106:
The two new office action policy tools introduced during the last change (temporary and partial Foundation bans). Under the approach noted on June 17th, we will seek further community feedback on those changes. These new tools will not be used again until community consultations to clarify their
13415:
remember a certain episode when a particular Wikimedia online workspace was turned into a highly 'toxic' environment by the WMF themselves. I and other 'cosy senior editors' can also remember some extremely distressing behaviour by a WMF contractor using profanities towards volunteers at a 2012
13158:
The problem surely is, can we really ever work out, draw up, a comprehensive guide that people should adopt, a kind of objectivist wikispeak all should be obliged to master? I think something insidious like that is at the heart of the WMF proposal. I know that a few of the palmary collaborators
12739:"We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English Knowledge community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to resign." 10775:
I think most of these "geographic" assignments are unhelpful. Even in my area, sure, it's referred to as the "Mountain West", but Denver does not have the same culture as Colorado Springs, and neither would equate to Helena. (And if you think those on the coast are the same, try mistaking a New
10318:
Well, no, people should be assessed on the whole of their contributions when it comes to sanctioning. But in terms of culpability, you're right, they should only be assessed on the specific acts. And with respect, your analogy is a bit off: If a charity worker is caught speeding, the government
10083:
help. A key problem is that ANI can lead to threads which are daunting for admins to wade into, and the debates can rile up people who then harass the admin who makes a call on the matter. That said, the broader problem with "unblockables" is that for some reason a noisy minority of editors are
9827:
I couldn't agree more.Further, a fatal flaw in our system is the assumption that a tiny subset of editors who are mean enough or tough enough to participate in discussions like this can be representative of the editing community. And yet they determine policy and practice for everybody. I don't
7582:
as you've claimed above. They should because it is fair, but there is no legal duty for a private organization to turn it over. There are many valid reasons to critique the WMF for this situation, but insinuations that they're breaking the law or are likely to break the law are off-base and not
7314:
Guys, this is the literal best they could do. I'm racking my brain for a better way to say it and still operate effectively as a governing board and I can't think of one. They basically threw T&S under the bus, told them to back down, and said that the unappealable ban should be reviewed by
6907:
In ArbCom's open letter they wrote "We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints pertaining solely to the English Knowledge to established local processes.". The WMF responds with "We support ArbCom reviewing this ban". Wow, thanks. And maybe give people some training too? WMF,
6890:
I am 100% OUT on doing another site maintenance task of any type until this is resolved properly. This includes for me particularly New Page Patrolling, Articles for Deletion, RFA commentary, vandal revision (of which I do very, very little anyway), and notice board participation. I am not your
4558:
Contrary to the comments above, I think it's very clear that the board is giving ArbCom the remit to can do whatever it sees fit to do to the Fram sanction. "Assess the length and scope" means just that. "Zero days" is a length, "time served" is a length, "indefinite" is both a (indeterminant)
4487:
a lie (if only a lie of omission) - they vaguely hinted that they were disappointed in the community because the people talking to us were involved in the ban and their real feelings leaked through, but they couldn't come out and say "we banned Fram because you wouldn't do it", since that would
840:
I wouldn't object to staggered terms, quite frankly: more chances to elect new members means (possibly) more qualified editors who can vote, and that can only be a good thing in terms of greater discussion and sharing of ideas (regarding candidates, etc.). Of course, for that matter, asking for
214:
While these two statements aren't everything I wanted it does basically satisfy the minimum I needed. It reaffirms the right of en-wiki to self-govern, as this was the biggest sticking point for me. It does this with some qualification, hence not everything I wanted, but the other actions these
199:
that someone has engaged in harassment? Or is this just a random statement that has nothing whatsoever to do with the controversy, as if I were to suddenly stand up and say "by the way, Boston is the capital of Massachusetts"? Because one of the problems with this whole case is that nobody in
11589:
indeed it's not, but my point is that it's an idea that might stick if we get 'crats involved as arbiters against frivolousness. Crats get elected trough an RFA-like process, and the threshold is much higher (I think like 80% ish). In their mandate is specifically to evaluate if admins that go
11572:
It seems like one of the keys to the German system that may have been missed is that the recall time period is arbitrary. Whether it be one year or an even longer period; the page is not opened at the whim of disgruntled editors, which seems to be a key in guarding against frivolity. Requiring
9797:
contributions!" is nonsense. Incivility drives off users, and sustained, consistent incivility from a highly-active user is going to drive off far more valuable contributors than any one editor could ever make up for with their individual edits. Furthermore, the nature of factionalism around
7607:
You're right, WMF probably doesn't have a clear legal duty to do so, though they do have a legal duty to treat Fram with good faith and fair dealing in executing the TOU, and furthermore any attorneys involved in the preparation of any documents or any of these actions who are assisting WMF in
6194:
decline any request explicitly and state that it is contrary to the Arbitration Policy to undertake case requests in the absence of a case or controversy. It should then demand that the Board explicitly and expressly make clear that any "kicking" this issue to ArbCom is a reversal of T&S's
5845:"This could include current and upcoming initiatives, as well as re-evaluating or adding community input to the two new office action policy tools (temporary and partial Foundation bans)." might mean re-evaluating the existence of the new office tools, i.e., maybe take them away, ideally, imo. 4943:
I think you are mistaken there. There is a strong push from the board that the WMF actually invest money in this area. My own view is that they can and should facilitate conversations and votes, they should be flying key people from the community to workshop ideas and get buy in for areas of
4172:
good point. Yes everyone but the chair agreed to this statement as the chair had recused herself. She was not involved in drafting this statement in any way. Jimmy has confirmed that arbcom can overturn the WMF T&S in this situation. And that T&S is not going to make similar bans until
12015:
are a very US-American feature based in FCC regulations? As such, the very concept is alien to most non-US English speakers. What may (or may not) work on the Russian Knowledge is bound to fail on the much more diverse and cosmopolitan English Knowledge, which is effectively nearly the "World
11151:
I understood that there was a long term problem with inappropriate wording or behaviour of the admin in question, but no suitable way for users to cope this with good prospects. From both WMF and locals I read that local procedures and tools might be insufficient to deal with some problems in
10893:
Sure, but there is a common thread of problems among the groups (in the eyes of those who would consider them unblockable). The perceived circumstances are essentially the same, so the (expected) solution to the general problem would be the same, regardless of which particular individuals the
8536:
Para 6. This paragraph needs to be rethought. It may be the belief of non-wp members of the WMP but this is contentious. The community sees this as their remit, and would like to ask the WMF for assistance on a case by case basis. Assistance not imposition. The community does not use the term
8060:
if they continued to issue death threats on IRC. I think the WMF has come a long way since then, having them now thank Fram for his actions six years ago would be a good way to start a discussion as to who if anyone is "unblockable" in this era, and who we should cut more slack for or be less
7843:
I did not know what to expect, but the statement leaves me......slightly underwhelmed; probably it's all they could agree on in good conscience. On one hand, seems like they are kind of bending over backwards to leave a good impression towards the community, but on the other hand the at least
6597:
going to happen, and it never will. Bureaucracies and social organizations simply do not work that way, especially considering that (from their point of view) the Board works hard to raise the money that keeps the lights on and the servers running. The statement they issued is clear enough,
3536:
Thank you. A good statement in many respects. I'm disappointed that Fram will not be immediately released from the ban – to be relocked only if the Arbs agree with the T&S decision after their review. I hope that during the Arb review, much weight is given to the fact that existing policy
12038:
In spite of a lot of the discussion being about admin recall, I think it's important to note that a considerable number of so-called "unblockables" (a term I personally dislike because it's too easy to misapply) are not admins, but rather, editors who have accumulated a lot of defenders. And
7207:
What it needed to say was "we're sorry we destroyed the community, destroyed the faith they might have had in us, and yes, we will now defer to Arbcom to do the job they were elected to by the community which should have been the approach from the very start, and we're sorry about that too".
6810:
This is what the word 'agreement' in the statement means. My own view is that T&S works for the community in the same way that the WMF works for the community. (And what that means is, as I have said in the past, is that the WMF, T&S, and the community all work for the goals of the
13349:
In thinking about this, another term that we should perhaps also regard this way is "unblockable". Although I think we all know what it means, directing it at an individual editor tends to put that person into a classification that is more about perception than about reality. Anyone can, if
12321:
I think a recall procedure where a consensus is required to desysop, rather than consensus required to retain adminship, would go a long way to addressing fears of making unpopular decisions. This way only admins who truly deserve to go will go. I think Commons does a decent job at this. --
11843:
violations, and if you have to resort to that then the person you're defending should probably be permanently blocked.") I have seen even ArbCom use longstanding service as a justification for leniency, and I think that an unambiguous policy (not merely an essay, but hard policy) would help
9784:
and their ability to convince the community that they are serious in that regard and capable of doing so, just as with any other editor who has a history of problems following Knowledge policy. While editors don't have to like policy, if an editor has indicated repeated, direct contempt for
10001:
Many editors accept the concept of geographic differences and register. You speak a different language with the squaddies than in the officers mess- a different language in Ćheetham Hill than Didsbury. If you want to be inclusive you don't criticise the squaddie when he answers back in his
6366:
To your second, I had to look carefully to find that phrase mentioned there. About three people mention someone else claiming that there was a "cloud" over this one resignation -- which is insufficient proof a negligible number of people thought this. Instead, by repeating this rumor of an
10750:
True about "West Coast Americans". While there are many shared attitudes amongst inhabitants of the West Coast -- California dominates cultural attitudes in the US west of the Rocky Mountains -- there are also many subtle yet significant differences. One thing is the Northwest's love-hate
5808:
In computer security there are two dirty words: trust me. ArbCom should evaluate whatever evidence is submitted by T&S plus whatever they collect from the community. Anybody who sent evidence to T&S can also send their evidence to ArbCom. Evidence not submitted to ArbCom should be
6557:
I am coming late to this, and maybe that is a good thing, as it seems that I was just editing away normally while all this storm was blowing up. It did not intrude at all, and I have texted several other editors, who also did not know. It is good to arrive at a moment of resolution. I
5450:
basically, if they can’t share everything, then they need to either drop the review, or else provide ArbCom a sense of what cannot be shared and why—say something like “not included are X complaints from individuals who can no longer be contacted/refused to allow ArbCom to know who they
6518:
of sentiment. Here's the truth: The community disagrees with your unilateral, initially unappealable level of moderation. Every single negative T&S action regarding Fram should be undone, and the community and Fram issued a clear and unconditional apology. This statement is not it.
11101:. I think impartiality could certainly be ensured with a limited redaction copy being provided (it could also be ensured by other, odder, means we haven't yet mooted). Fairness however, is questionable even if ARBCOM gets a full copy, because ensuring fairness for the accused requires 2222:
I appreciate efforts to keep staff up to date, and I'm happy to be pinged (though probably best to do so on my Staff account so the streams don't cross too much). I'll pass along things that seem potentially relevant to other staff who otherwise might miss them, as I see them. Thanks!
8520:
Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Knowledge to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution
13301:
Point taken, and I agree that a list of forbidden words may not be the way forward. But branding certain unpleasant (but not necessarily inappropriate) behaviours with buzzwords as a mechanism to stifle legitimate debate or escape criticism is unproductive and should be called out.
13211:
and be used as evidence to earn whosoever uttered that rashly uncivil remark a 1 month ban? How does one get round that in impeccable (immune to sanctions) wikispeech? Presumably, the key is to prohibit the use of personal pronouns. 'The specific problem mentioned here is not being
9648:
Because if you file an ArbCom case about an editor who has a sizable support group, you better have at least several dozen diffs of really, really bad behavior. Ef you only have a dozen, or if the behavior is not really, really bad, but just really bad, you typically do not stand a
4944:
improvement. We all know the difficult fault lines that have impeded progress - having full-time people to help facilitate and move forward decision making can help a lot. The role of the WMF will not be to dictate to us, but to provide a framework in which we can move forward.--
4435:
acknowledge that Fram hasn’t contacted or discussed with any complainant or alledged victim or “anyone he was in conflict with” off-wiki, and that he never threatened to do so, and that therefor all alledged infringing behaviour happened on-wiki, has not been answered (as far as I
7023:
supposed to review their actions in this specific case but what about the next person banned without ArbCom involvement? Will they have to wait for a few months and millions of lines of discussion as well before the Board decides that in their case they might allow ArbCom review?
3572:
Some may have provided materials in the understanding that it would be shared with no one else. So T&S may need to check with those who provided these materials to see if they are okay with it being shared with arbcom first. I am not sure how much material like this there is.
4541:
Possibly T&S concluded that en.Knowledge may no more boast about its allegedly excellent and effective self-governance. The old elites made insufficient efforts to combat the unblockables’ phenomenon, and the Corporation shows them that they are not, in fact, indispensable.
1321: 10246:
You're most likely right, although he posted on a previous version of this page. But I think you'd agree that, based on his history, EC would also be a target of an unchecked Foundation T&S? And if Sidaway & Betacommand were still active on Knowledge, so would they? --
9189:
in order for us to even start discussing how to change policies on our end. I do not accept Jan's boilerplate responces as suitable explanation for the ban's limits, in part because, as others have noted, Fram was abiding by any interaction bans, taking on board criticism, and
6302:"Even the larger projects struggle to effectively address the most difficult and controversial cases." -- A banal statement. If they weren't difficult & controversial, it would not be a struggle to solve them. So I don't know what the point of the paragraph that follows is. 13242:
Indeed, yes, that was the point of my question. We can't simply base it on proscribed words with any kind of objective ranking in terms of offensiveness. (Oh, and yes, I think that 2014 presentation was poorly thought out and marked one of Jimmy's most disappointing moments.)
11907:
than that for desysops.) Of those four cases that I recall participating in, the one against the functionary was brought by another functionary, and two of the three against administrators by other administrators, so I would also question the assertion of a "code of silence".
11720:
doing that before but you people just don't believe us!" would have gone nowhere fast. That said, it might have well resulted in a compilation of borderline cases where people may have gone "yeah, individually, it's all borderline, but collectively, it shows a problem." too.
9119:
This statement from the board, together with the director's statement and comments from Jimbo and Doc James, restores my confidence in the WMF. I am very grateful for it. The language is rather vague and bureaucratic, but the commitments are clear and very helpful. Thank you,
6087:
eating. If ArbCom takes the Board's urge for them to evaluate the sanction, and WMF and the Board allows it to happen, then you'll have been shown to be wrong in your interpretation of the situation. Repeating what you think it is numerous times isn't going to chanage that.
5497:
That said, I think it should be clear on the record, if anyone at WMF legal is involved here and permits the WMF to withhold exculpatory information, their state bar needs to discipline them. Also be aware that you may be a mandatory reporter. Don’t fuck your career people. —/
5174:
I could be wrong, and Montanabw should correct me if I am, but I think the thrust of her "lawyer" comment was that any lawyer looking over the statement should have realized that giving ArbCom only partial evidence to base their assessment and evaluation on was a non-starter.
3701:
Yes it has the full backing of the board. Schiste signed as he chaired the board as they produced the statement, per Raystorm's recusal. The Doc signed as he's our local board member. There's no need for the other board members to sign, though perhaps one or two will anyway.
2692:
Right now there is no appropriate place for it, so please stop shitting on the hard work of so many people and take your vindictiveness elsewhere. I have nothing more to say in response to your bad faith dismissal of the hard work done by so many constructive contributors.
754:
Like Rschen7754, I fully share your concerns; folks who don't have any experience on the ground won't know what it's like. (If I may opine: I've always found it strange that, at very least, a majority of the board isn't elected by the constituent communities of Wikimedia.)
13150:
I know of several editors, some highly productive and perhaps a net gain to the encyclopedia, whom I judge to be indeed 'incapable of presenting reasonable arguments' in one specific area. That is an impression gained over several years. It's not bad faith, (as often with
3060:- if ArbCom are able to review the length and scope, then it would be possible for them to reduce it to 'time served' (or, conversely, to lengthen it to indef). Regarding the scope, presumably they could change it from a siteban to an iban, or whatever they deem necessary. 7359:
If there had been an established appeals process for T&S actions that Fram could have used, I'm certain a large amount of the current unpleasantness could have been avoided. This is where the statement is lacking and which could definitely have been included. Regards
934:
I am commenting relatively regularly and responding to questions about the topic. Short of making statements on my own, I am making everything I can to result in a situation when the Board makes a statement soon, and I've been working on this on daily basis for a while.
13619:
about the "unusual secret proceedings". Everything that has been going on has been unusual, and Arbs are not the enemies here. But yes, the community should be attentive to the need for fairness, especially in terms of the need for adequate rebuttal of secret evidence.
9792:
has overtly indicated that they wouldn't follow it, that should be an immediate, on-the-spot block until they can convince the blocking admin that they've changed their mind; some things are tricky, but "I refuse to follow policy" is clear-cut. "Oh, but they have such
9134:
Though I agree with the comments that this statement is vague and bureaucratic, the substance of it as well as Jimbo’s comments assure me that this situation will be satisfactorily resolved and something like this will not happen again. As such, I have ended my strike.
8989:
Gerda. 'Toxic', like 'going viral' and a host of other words, is an example of the pathologization of speech modes. It is beloved of 'social media' (networks of tacky self-boosterism, exponents of braggadocio in learning mode and trollish antipathies shared by assorted
7577:
So can we please stop playing legal games here? They are 100% within their legal right to ban anyone they want for no reason whatsoever. They shouldn't because it'd be idiotic, but they can. They are also not the government, so they don't have a legal duty to turn over
12373:
As I said above, though, the "unblockables" issue is really distinct from the "admin recall" issue - in fact, to a certain extent, solutions to the two are at cross-purposes. Unblockables aren't unblockables because they're admins, they're unblockable because they're
10114:. In industry, they measure lines of code written, or revenue generated, or quarterly increase in widget production. Here we measure edit count. What we don't measure is new editor recruitment, or current editor retention. Or even, collective editor time wasted at 5014:
It was written by the board, not by WMF lawyers. If there are vagaries in it, that's down to trying to write as a group. I would have personally written a much more pointed statement but I also think that this statement is better in many ways than what I would have
8532:
Para 5. This is hand wringing, an internal management issue and should just be omited. Nothing is obvious except under an extreme right wing political paradigm, perhaps the WMF needs advice from the Quaker community on how to manage, or failing that from the en:wiki
8514:
Para 2. Name Fram, you do later. ToCs be specific, which? The call for a response, specify, enumerate, and expand- that wasn´ t the only call for response. This artificially limits the scope of the statement- reading between the lines this is an admission of general
6165:—then it is making clear that the Arbitration Policy is not binding, and is spitting in the face of all the people whose requests it has denied citing that policy over the years. It is furthermore cementing its own subservience to the Board by jumping on its command. 1422: 13544:
To my mind, the key aspect is getting editors with common interests to start work together on generating and refining ideas in their areas of interest. There could be a single umbrella page for all the initiatives or just lots of separate ones. Either way is good.
3831:
On first reading that looks very much like the Board saying they and T&S are right, and they were right to respond as slowly and obscurely as they have, but they'll throw Arbcom the bone of being allowed to fiddle with the length of the ban. They very clearly
970:
Maybe it is not the board of trustees that is too weakly connected to the Knowledge community—perhaps working groups like T&S should have representatives from the editing community who have a transmission belt and auditing function through frequent, scheduled
10549:
The first warning was sort of justified, but you were exactly the wrong person to make it and I doubt that anyone else would have seen a need at this point. The second warning was totally beyond the pale and is a good illustration for what I explained earlier.
9802:) leads people to underestimate the value of the editors who get driven off by incivility or the pointless disputes that waste our time and energy due to a few high-maintenance "diva" editors refusing to follow the fairly simple and lightweight requirements of 8611:
It was in the right place when I did the preview! -- but then a couple of edit conflicts, and a burst of intrusive real life and the world had changed. Whoosh. Thanks for the fix. I´ll have a look at the follow up statement when I get the next thinking window.
5079:
At this point it appears the ball is in ArbCom's court. Our committee will need to let us know if they are making progress in this area or not, we need to give them time - and understand that there may be privileged information that can't be shared with us. —
9706:
is no different. It's absurd and we need an unambiguous policy stating such. Of course, occasional slip-ups shouldn't get you blocked, and someone who has a lot of edits is likely to have more mistakes; but when it's clear that someone is being consistently,
10110:, I agree with this, and the situation is not unique to projects like wikipedia. It's seen in industry too. Lots of big companies have their high-performing people, who also happen to be anything from just plain jerks to sexual predators. It's a case of, 3809:
situations (if ever) T&S should be expected to issue sanctions or perform other office actions. That's not to say it will necessarily be left ultimately to the community alone; both the WMF staff and the board have continuing roles in this as I see it. —
10134:
Aquillion above was asked specifically about "Eric Corbett, Tony Sidaway, & Betacommand". As for some reason prototypes of "toxic editors'. Annnnd you just compared them to "sexual predators". WTF??? Just... be careful of the words you write man. Think
5658:'asked' and 'compelled' is pretty much the same in the corporate world. I have asked/directed my assistant to waive the fee is basically telling them 'your job is to waive the fee, and if you don't you will have sucked at your job, with all that implies'. 4924:
is not at all accurate. Almost three years ago, the board published a "thoughts and prayers" type statement with no discernible effects and wrung its collective hands. It is informative to see that the board is resolute in pursuing this ineffective course.
13591:
I've seen discussions that eventually proved effective incubated both within project space and user space, but whatever the initiator wants to do is fine—let's do it! Who wants to launch a discussion in their user space, project space, or any other space?
12047:
controversy, abruptly turned into "people are harassing Fram". When there are two "sides", it's not easy to sort out which is correct, because the noise is coming from all directions. And as for admin recall, I'm going to say as the long-ago organizer of
11283:
With these tools of the community, I think all admins are aware of a sudden reset of their bits. Almost every of our admins is civil, not everybody polite, but not ad personam even when necessary to be bold, blocking users, deleting articles, protecting
6763:
Ridiculous. The intent of the writer is meaningless on something that's adopted by a vote. The clearest indicator of its meaning is the meaning of the words. If you need to look to intent, no individual board member's voice is any stronger than another.
1436: 3614:
bound by the conditions people sent them evidence/complaints under. T&S should take a maximalist approach to sharing (basically share everything they are not ethically/legally bound to keep private), and the statement seems to go along those way.
13294: 12545:
Since there is no election limited to five years or whatever by the communities in question, it might turn out that admins behave different than guessed at the time of the one and only election. Hard to get rid of them after a decade. Elected on life
9692:
I strongly disagree with this framing. Knowledge is a collaborative project, and the ability to work well with others is therefore part of being a positive contributor; if someone is constantly abrasive and drives off people they work with, they are
4827:
Meaningless without buy-in by management, that is T&S, in other words Jan. Awaiting statement that I would want to include a willingness, in advance, to be bound by outcomes he doesn't like. Otherwise an excessive number of words were used to say
12118:
Many of the differences in the power structure between enwiki and dewiki are due to the fact that the WMF has left dewiki on their own for many years thanks(!) to the language barrier, plus we never had anyone like Jimbo with his special role in the
12906: 10022:
RULE FOUR: The language of sanction is inappropriate for volunteers with a decade or so of positive contributors, so require a full report to ArbCom of any such action, and a published redacted version of sufficient depth that would satisfy a local
4421: 513:
I was more interested for organizational structure than individuals in different parts and how whole thing works. Now when i found it i noticed also that there is navigation boxes in meta for each departments including persons which is pretty cool.
11270:
BTW, it is not uncommon to report at AN/I (called VM, vandalism message, the fast indicating channel for incidents) about “personal attack” of an admin, which might result in a warning by another admin to watch wording in the future, or even by an
7597:
That clause means "suspend or end the services". "The services" are Knowledge. It's not a blanket authorization to ban anyone for no reason, it's a blanket authorization to go out of business. It's also not a blanket authorization to engage in bad
5734:
I agree on the point about wording. Given the wide background of editors on ENWP, many who do not speak English as a first language, the statement should have been as unambiguous as possible. Instead, the ambiguity has led to this huge discussion.
12887: 5415:
bound by the conditions people sent them evidence/complaints under. T&S should take a maximalist approach to sharing (basically share everything they are not ethically/legally bound to keep private), and the statement seems to go along those
13562:
reluctantly!) exercise his right to archive and/or delete comments and threads on his own user pages, with the discussion advertised at places like village pump idea lab. And if someone has a radically different vision, he should do the same on
6829:
I may be old fashioned, and it may be modern, IT era, jeans-and-T-shirt methodology, but there is something decidedly lacking in good business practice. The very next logical step in professional protocol would be a letter to the Community from
5715:
I was about to say the same as well. If your boss "asks" you to do something, it's not really optional. I see some problems in the wording here (though I'm taking a bit to reread it before going into them), but I don't think that's one of them.
5044:, without being prejudiced by T&S's sanction, and make whatever judgment they see fit to make, as if none of this mess ever happened. Then, if ArbCom's sanction, or lack of sanction, differs from T&S's, we see how they respond to it -- 1035:
The current breakdown indicates corrective action must be started more quickly than a board's cycle time (and management's also)! With better reporting from T&S, the board can be in volved. I do not see any role management need play here. —
9256:
to be teachers, ambassadors of good will, and exemplars of good behavior. Sadly, that doesn't always happen, and we are not good about dealing with that. I see the hesitancy to reign in rogue admins even in my own behavior. I mostly work on
6795:
I would be content if the Board openly acknowledged that the project communities are partners with the Foundation, not somehow subordinate to its whims & decisions. I believe that is what lies at the root of this affair & our anger. --
6155:? This will be anything but. It is a request for an advisory opinion and it is as such contrary to the policy and practice of the Arbitration Committee. If the Committee does this without following the process to modify its own policy—and that 3433:
So basically ArbCom gets to review and chime in on the ban, don’t get to overturn, and get only what evidence T&S decide is disclosable. And there’s no promise whatsoever of self-governance. Great. Why did we have to wait so long for this?
11209:
Otherwise a regular election will be made. It is up to the community to judge on circumstances, and decide whether complaints are meaningful or not. They may or may not elect again. In case of misuse for no reason no re-election again for 12
355:
some way of thinking, or kidding around, that tells me that this job is not a good fit for her. Obviously, depending upon her contract, the Board, even if they agree, may need to bide their time, but keep up close supervision in the meantime.
7124:
IMO, a key issue is that it needs to be as clear as possible where the demarcation between ArbCom and T&S lies. One of my main concerns with this matter is that T&S didn't explain why they didn't trust ArbCom to resolve the problem.
3981:
T&S is not going to be making any more moves like this without the agreement of the community. This is very firm from the board, and I will personally act, upon the advice of ArbCom, and with the backing of ArbCom and the community, if
3457:
From the responses to my query above, I think the consensus is that Arbcom can overturn if they so decide. And the statement says that office actions of this sort won't be repeated until we've established the model under which they operate.
13350:
justified, be blocked. And we should be clear, going forward, that no one is above it. But having previously not been blocked does not mean that there is a stronger case for blocking now. In fact, it's generally a bad idea to block someone
8642:
There are no exceptions listed. I realize this is a tricky spot and a bit of wiki-lawyering, but if this is not done the correct way with the correct documentation then it opens the door for who knows what from other globally banned users.
889:
What about two other apparent experienced Wikipedians at the Board, namely N. Tymkiv and D. Jemielniak (not sure who of them was "selected by the community")? Have they commented on the issue? Unfortunately I don't know their aliases here.
13702:
I’d honestly expected it to be a bifurcated proceeding, with nonprivate submissions being debated (as they should be) publicly, while issues pertaining to privacy being handled via email. I’m really disappointed in the Committee’s choice.
4866:
eliminate 2 parking spaces from my street. It very politely said that a survey of street residents found that 80% opposed the changes. It then went on to unapologetically say "So we are going forward with it" - and they did. Nonsense.--
549:, there is actually no proper hierarchy within the WMF, not in the sense that one would expect in a proper company anyway. And that is why, in spite of all the pretty pictures and laudatory CVs, they will not publish an arborescent 10999:
Probably. Without knowing about the recusal, is it possible for us all to really know why WMF got us into this mess in the first place? No. Secondly, I don't think the WMF could possibly state what they thought their informants presumed.
8564:
This seems to be in the wrong section. Not that I can connect it much to the board statement (or make much sense of what this is supposed to be in the first place), but you mention pillars, and only the board statement referred to them.
6625:
the Board's attempts to arrogate to itself ArbCom's legitimacy to carry out its own dirty work. Unless and until ArbCom is given the power to make an independent, final, binding determination of Fram's guilt or innocence, and is provided
6617:
input as to what the penalty should be. That is not self-governance, that is integrating ArbCom into WMF. Chief Justice Jay did the right thing when he refused to issue an advisory opinion to President Washington. Here too, ArbCom should
728:
These elections (apparently every 3 years now) really do matter. There are two additional seats that are chosen by Wikimedia chapters, which does provide some community input (and I have contacted them, though they don't edit that much -
13962: 10554:
you behaved in good faith, which I find very hard to believe. You were on the side of a tag team that removed a well-reasoned NPOV template from an article while a discussion was going on at the NPOV noticeboard, then used other typical
6928:
Further on in that letter: "If the Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an equivalent process of community consensus-building".
1278: 11158:
I have never noticed the nick Fram nor other potentially involved volunteer before. I might have read it in context of MediaViewer, Flow or similar dicussions about new technical developments. I came here from a note in German Signpost
6542:
To be clear, if ArbCom determines the length of 0 days, resysop, etc., I will fully support it. T&S would have to defy the board, me personally, ArbCom, and the assembled group of good people in the community. That's not going to
6462:
Is it a step in the right direction, or just turning to look in the right direction? At least it is a good faith effort. A Code of Conduct is needed, with a grievance procedure that respects both confidentiality and natural justice.
2829:
which alter Knowledge's dispute resolution rules to include secret behavioral standards applied by secret judges based on secret accusations, with no right of representation, defense, or appeal. You may be subject to such rules. Please
2379:
which alter Knowledge's dispute resolution rules to include secret behavioral standards applied by secret judges based on secret accusations, with no right of representation, defense, or appeal. You may be subject to such rules. Please
11013:
Is it possible for ArbCom to do their job with regard to the case now referred to them? I have complete confidence that Arbcom will either be able to do a good job or that they will announce that they can't along with the reasons why.
5826:
request for Arbitration? If not, then I suppose either one of the complainants (unlikely, since if there's no ArbCom case the T&S sanction stands) or Fram himself (via e-mail or statement on another project) who requests the case?
13940:
Loving that the link points to the bit where sinebot is appending the editors name to the announcement... For our potential newly self appointed masters, they are a little deficient at some of the finer points of using project space.
11963: 4666:
To be fully clear (I'm saying this multiple times in the thread) this is not asking ArbCOm for an advisory opinion. It is a recognition that the traditional rights of the ArbCom remain valid. ArbCom has the authority to review this
9767:
it, but nobody can just ignore our policies. Likewise, an editor whose history shows a consistent, sustained refusal to follow a core policy should be blocked until / unless they can convince the community they're going to change.
12684:
for a case that is outside its remit. Technically it can, because the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is and they can twist the words to mean whatever they want, but that would be a serious violation of norms. --
12144:
process, but here, anyone participating in that will step right into the middle of very heavily contested partisan conflicts, and often make unpopular decisions. Those who work in that area, and do it well, often anger partisans on
10717:
Well, some stereotypes are just accurate reflections of reality. I mean, Brits have bad teeth, Asian-American women drive recklessly, blacks all have rhythm, and Americans are loud and obnoxious -- and, apparently, the citizens of
7858:
They also said that while they don't consider it to be under a cloud, whether or not the community considers this under a cloud is up to us, so if we want to resysop or desysop people, you won't see WMFOffice wheelwar over this.
10079:
something along the lines of arbitration enforcement where the complainant makes a statement, the editor being complained about responds and the community and reviewing admins have clearly demarcated places to discuss the matter
6707:
Doc James has no authority to interpret that statement, and his claim of "legislative intent" (presuming that's a thing with joint statements) is meaningless. What matters is what the words are, and those words are insufficient.
4448: 4056:
signed this statement "On behalf of the board", which would imply it's unanimous. Then you signed it, which implies that it will be signed individually by board members. Is this a unanimous statement or did only some support it?
3782:
We need a black and white commitment for the future from the WMF. Nothing less. The WMF needs to agree that outside of the obvious cases that were in their remit (before someone edited the page this year), it is left to en.wiki.
825:
I would also advocate asking the board to go to staggered terms for community-designated members beginning at the next election. It's ridiculous that a community as dynamic as this has been only would get to weigh in every three
7407: 13957: 7613:
I never made any such insinuation. Breach of contract is not a criminal violation of the law, and having employees engage in unethical acts that could subject them to professional license discipline is also not a criminal act.
12382:
where discussions would inevitably stall. It's a culture issue, not just a policy issue, and to the extent that policies can help it depends on making it unambiguous that you can't eg. make up for constantly falling short of
12296:
Even small changes are hard to enact if there are a few vociferous opponents. Most editors seek solutions that approach real-world consensus, and so are loathe to push for a change when they know some are strongly against it.
4651:
Tony: I believe it may have been meant for my comment just above yours. Needless to say that I entirely disagree with Mendaliv's interpretation of what seems to me to be quite clearly and plainly said in the Board's message.
121: 8767: 8354: 8000: 6148:
do this without first amending the Arbitration Policy. Moreover, undertaking this review with it being an effective, final, or binding outcome is expressly contrary to the Arbitration Policy as Bradv has so helpfully quoted
10423:
I realise that for explaining how these things feel for me I will of course be labelled as toxic by those at the other end of the spectrum who so far didn't mind me much. That's OK. I have come to expect this kind of toxic
8891: 8974:
That could be, against someone who pursued what would be a risky course of action in going against the flow. After all, you don't file a noise complaint about late-night knocks on the doors of the other apartments in 1937
8077: 4497:
to say what it really wanted, why they had actually acted, or even to lay out a coherent rationale for its actions beyond "we're handling user conduct issues now. No further information is available." What they actually
841:
greater (possibly more proportional) representation is also good; and more attention paid to all communities over, say, the vagaries of fundraising can't hurt. In short, both are good points. I hope to see them addressed.
9745:, you'd support the outright ban of the three editors I listed above -- Eric Corbett, Tony Sidaway, & Betacommand? No matter just how valuable their contributions may be shown to be by a disinterested third party? -- 8481: 7154: 2625:
However, until they actually do so I reserve the right to propose wording that other editors feel is more accurate. May I ask that you not get upset unless there is a reason to believe that the petition would cause harm?
4428: 11981:
a few years ago). Our learning is that the key to any change of the general community is to change the behaviour of the people at the top of our internal hiercharchy, they are the ones who set the tone of the community.
10935:
might be some follow-up on their suggestions, but the case has been handed to ArbCom and they are taking it over. Besides, Hale has been driven off Knowledge, I think it is better to move on from that tragic situation.
7435:
It essentially confirms that Fram did not breach the ToU clause that he was banned under, but was instead a "toxic" "unblockable" who the Foundation wanted to make an example out of. It's not about harassment. It never
6282:
between the communities & the Foundation. We each have our strengths & weaknesses. Some duties need to be assumed by the Foundation, some by the communities. Use of words such as "partnership" would acknowledge
6607: 5342:
And if ArbCom does uphold the ban, based on incomplete evidence, the issue will not die down, because then the argument could be raised that the WMF withheld exculpatory evidence. This is a no-win folks, can’t work.
13155:). It is just that they either do not believe or understand that construing an argument in propositional terms can afford a valid set of objections to what they are doing, and which they should feel obliged to answer. 8449: 8029: 7966: 7328: 2673: 13832:
It sounds like the individual(s) behind such sentiments see any opposition as bad-faith and illegitimate. That doesn't fill me with hope that they'll be open to feedback (aside from supportive feedback, of course).
6968: 3836:
say that Arbcom could overturn the ban. And Maher - not us, and not anybody who has the Community's confidence - gets to propose "solutions" to our problems. It's a PR release, not a serious response to the issues.
89: 84: 72: 67: 8748: 8501: 7653:
If you read section 12, it quite clearly is referring to terminating the ability of an individual to access the site as the entire TOU is written in that way, and that particular section is particularly focused on
6885: 8469: 8230: 8203: 8187: 7853: 6528: 3177:
No, they’re just kicking it to ArbCom to review the penalty. And with no grant of jurisdiction this is a request for an advisory opinion. I would urge ArbCom to decline to make itself into a powerless moot court.
97: 59: 13102: 6900: 6845: 675: 13181:" (and we do have quite a few literalists in the community here too). I don't know how this will all work out, but the one thing I'm certain of is that a lot of people will be dissatisfied whatever the outcome. 11997:
In the Russian Knowledge swearing (using analogs of seven words in English) is prohibited, and the prohibition is strictly enforced. It has a lot of other problems, but at this one was solved once and forever.--
6923: 6286:
No one is in favor of a toxic environment here. The way this is presented implies that there are members of this community who are. No one has ever argued for this. This dispute is entirely over the division of
5160:
but we can hardly blame them for having legal counsel review a formal statement about what is arguably the largest controversy in the history of the project and one that could have very real legal implications.
4953: 13252: 13237: 11779: 7429: 7244:
I have much more faith in the WMF than I do in en.WP's broken, dysfunctional structures. The hysteria is making fools of us, damaging the brand, and likely to prompt embarrassing international coverage. Chill.
7093:
Any further action of this type from T&S will not happen without agreement from the community. There should be no fear here that T&S would defy the board, me, ArbCom, and the gathered best users in the
7047: 7015: 3511: 10888: 10664: 10651: 10635: 10237: 8046: 7844:
slightly condescending tone when they state that no admin resignation is to be considered under a cloud...not their point to make at all. It's morning in Europe, so I need coffee and more time to digest this.
4934: 2294:
hard to participate in a process when one doesn't hear about it in time. (And the two new members selected were announced by their legal names, not their user names, making it harder for us to contact them.)
11091: 8464:
I quite agree, but that is not what is proposed here. The unilaterally imposed tools are to remain in place, albeit temporarily unused during a consultation about how they should be used. That is inadequate.
8099: 4989: 1418: 438:
Wheres the whole thing understandably concentrated on T&S, there are a lot of WMF people who has no relation to this whatsoever and can be doing, for example, software development or deal with short-term
241: 13190: 13168: 13138: 13116: 11329: 11145: 10359:
It would be better if the notions of "positive contributor", "net positive", "net negative" etc. were abandoned in these cases, and people were only assessed on specific behaviour, rather than their overall
9536: 9037:
I understand all that, thank you. But the whole ban and what followed is built on it, and as the low end of aspersion wouldn't explain the secret handling, we are led too assume worse, no? Where did AGF go?
8410: 8374: 8317: 8165: 6950:
I'm honestly not sure what I think about the Board statement - I think I need some time to process it but I do know this...Isn't it kind of sad that we all have to sit at our keyboards and parse out what we
4551: 4084: 12671: 12662: 12079:
On resolving disputes of fact or procedure, ArbCom is both doing their job, and it leads to positive results. However, on issues of harassment or civility, these issues sometimes are not resolved. I regard
10853:
for certain 'bad words' based on some vague, never tested claims this might 'trigger' some people is virtually unknown in Europe. And because it is stupid, Europeans tend ignore this idiocy and continue do
10693:
I'd normally agree, but considering the same sort of stereotypical bashing of and invective towards attorneys has been effectively endorsed by at least one arbitrator, I see no reason to speak up for them.
9933: 9240: 8289: 209: 13087: 12527:
That might be taken as an indicator for the admin. If the number grows, some less controversial fields might be chosen until folks calmed down. Or own methodology might be checked and perhaps improved and
10903: 10444: 10435: 10413: 9098: 9076: 8882:. In the name of that, and for more transparency, I believe that Fram should be unbanned (best by those who banned him), and then the normal community procedures of conflict resolution could take place. -- 7656:
Not at all. Section 12 describes the technical and legal effects of bans and terminating the TOU (i.e., as part of winding down business operations), it has absolutely nothing to do with authorizing bans.
7353: 7031:
Was creating an appeals process for people sanctioned by T&S discussed at all or is this a one-time exception because so many people made a fuss about it? Because this is a constitutional question, as
4512: 4259:
that she will be following up with "next steps" I am withholding judgement for now as this seems like the first part of the move forward, with hopefully that follow-up taking us the rest of the way. Best,
2865: 2702: 2687: 2649: 2635: 2616: 2602: 2588: 2574: 2560: 2217: 13912: 12582:
The admin on recall was wiping out consequently personal attacks, misconduct and violations of rules for discussion pages, especially from article discussions which are perhaps more exposed to the public.
11879: 11482: 10626: 9562: 9431: 8945:
If those things were defined, Gerda, then the banned would be able to argue that they didn't do anything wrong, you see. But it's a moot point, as no appeal or reconsideration is allowed. That simplifies
5199: 5184: 4661: 4528: 1098: 13664:
We said we wanted ArbCom to handle it. They're elected by the community to deal with the tough cases. This being an unusual case, I do not see a reason to be alarmed about an unusual way of handling it.
12976: 12922: 12233:
topic. I imagine there was a greater uniformity of purpose amongst contributors at the start, making a consensus-based decision making process more manageable. The community is too large now to have the
11763:
to make it easier to take certain types of case to Arbcom. For example we would allow people to email harassment accusations straight to arbcom without the filter of dispute resolution and drama boards.
11514:
We serve at the behest of the community. We shouldn't be able to say 'If we have consensus to appoint me, great, but if we have consensus to remove me, I don't have to accept it because it's not in the
11404: 11349: 10351: 10337: 9496: 9228: 9209: 9179: 9129: 8782: 7774:
We encourage you to be civil and polite in your interactions with others in the community, to act in good faith, and to make edits and contributions aimed at furthering the mission of the shared Project.
7217: 7202: 5868: 5065: 4676: 4466: 3951: 349: 224: 190: 13842: 13827: 13671: 12820: 12029: 11857: 11557: 11540: 11040: 10504: 10477: 10464: 10170: 10156: 10144: 10125: 9590: 9576: 9513: 9153: 8390:, and as such you will desist from attempting to patronise people. Those of us still approaching the WMF's actions with a semblance of good faith are—certainly were—in a rapidly decreasing demographic. 5896: 5646: 5335: 4113: 3937: 3141: 3112: 1074: 396: 336: 13950: 13856: 13721: 13697: 13436: 12479:
possibilities), then there would be no payoff to intimidating opponents, and a greater benefit to working collaboratively with them. As a result, the environment would select for co-operative editors.
12419:
At least WMF has now a part in finding a solution of that problem. Maybe WMF could find a software solution to better manage conflicts in Knowledge. For example, Knowledge:Thank you is a big success.
11934: 11914: 11895: 11023: 10841: 10544: 10273: 10256: 10043: 9550: 9522: 8722: 8621: 6142:
meant that "words are meaningless." Process matters, and that's what we've been demanding from day one. Here WMF is directly and deliberately requesting ArbCom to violate its own policy. ArbCom should
5836: 5744: 5681: 5373: 5105: 5024: 4230:
The Chair is recused on this matter, that's why she delegated it. For the rest, there have been multiple clarifications from, among others, Jimbo that Arbcom can overturn the sentence if they find so.
3756: 3711: 3594: 3098: 13765: 13342: 13311: 13071: 13057: 13031: 12273:
vomiting money at things they perceive to be problems) and a permanent stalemate on the other ("consensus" where being really loud and uninformed wins the day). What we have is not working anymore. —/
12227: 11298: 10929: 10821: 10741: 10712: 10342:
It depends on the type of sanctioning - in my comment, I wasn't thinking about an all-or-nothing situation (i.e. bans that kick someone off the site), but of lower level disruptions and consequences.
10303: 10287: 9893:
You appear to be the only one who doubts the existence of these four categories. Everyone else in this thread accepts the validity of this categorization. Handwaving alone will not make your case. --
9888: 9299: 9280: 9051: 7297: 7236: 6650: 6096: 5722: 5445: 5299: 5210: 5169: 5140: 4727: 4565:
of the case materials. If the WMF board wants to show the community that it trusts us and our elected ArbCom to police behavior within the community, then they must treat it like responsible adults.
4475:
We believe that the communities should be able to deal with these types of situations and should take this as a wake-up call to improve our enforcement processes to deal with so-called "unblockables".
4453:
What we can say in this case is that the issues reported to us fell under section 4 of the terms of use, as noted above, specifically under the first provision entitled “harassing and abusing others.”
3991: 3875: 3861: 3383: 2280: 2232: 13659: 13645: 13363: 13062:
There is a lot to like about this. I would add that persistent POV-pushing is also an obstructive behaviour. We should use an open-ended "includes" definition, rather than a restrictive "means" one.
13000: 12986: 12959: 11008: 10782: 10766: 10751:
relationship with California (e.g. Tom McCall's quip: "Welcome to Oregon. Visit, but don't stay.") Another is that most Portlanders have little similarity to the characters or situations parodied in
10684: 10378: 9461: 9442: 8606: 8156:. A hero who fought against unblockables? Very dubious. As for Ironholds, IRC is generally a nasty place and historically never held to anywhere near the standards of civility that Knowledge enjoys. 7680: 7647: 7632: 6805: 6580: 6552: 5273: 5258: 5009: 4875: 4783: 4757: 4701: 4646: 4629: 4611:
pray that no exculpatory evidence is withheld on WMF legal’s watch (or anyone with a law license). This is dirty pool of the lowest order and everyone attached to this statement should be ashamed. —/
4400: 4387: 4348: 3051: 1377: 882: 857: 820: 806: 785: 771: 749: 719: 142: 13880: 12648: 12488: 12473: 12250: 12070: 10594: 10564: 9966: 9916: 9902: 9329: 8984: 8969: 8955: 8936: 8913: 8807: 7717:
a terrible idea, both because it's impractical for them to do so and because if they can't state the real reason for the ban then it's not going to have the impact they want on enwiki's culture.) --
6995: 6977: 6740: 6673: 6031:, which is why I said above I'd prefer if the board had used the word "appeal". I trust the forthcoming statement from T&S will make this clear. Either way, ArbCom can and should handle this. – 4396:
Has the reason for the ban been provided - other than the generic statement referring to the Terms Of Use? I've seen posts hinting at harassment - but was the word harassment ever used by the WMF?
4206:
Thank you for clarifying. That sounds right. In that, I'd like to humbly ask if Chair (I can't find her User name, anyone help me ping here if she has?) have a dissent / minority opinion similar to
3921: 3690: 2457: 2428: 17: 13629: 13518: 13503: 13221: 12705: 12368: 12342: 12291: 12197: 12105: 12006: 11577: 11466: 11383: 10971: 10862: 9658: 8960:
If they are not defined how come that I'm the only who doesn't swallow it? - Next could be that 3 people complain about the obnoxious things I allegedly did, or you, and I, or you, get silenced? --
8728: 8652: 8588: 7945: 6820: 5813: 5791: 5769: 5621: 5391: 5349: 5154: 4856: 4029: 3803: 3733: 2989: 2191: 695: 301: 13933: 13430: 12156: 11952: 11118: 11059: 10946: 10073: 9843: 7824: 7789: 7756: 7592: 7385: 7370: 6782: 6758: 6726: 6702: 6537: 6472: 6457: 6253: 5950: 5925: 5710: 5555: 5527: 5489: 5461: 5086: 4911: 4295: 4194: 4162: 4066: 3822: 3638: 3196: 2749: 2542: 835: 13535: 13480: 13459: 13400: 13381: 12306: 12267: 11692: 11659: 11623: 10957: 10401:
say this when it is true. It is a sign of strength. No, not of weakness.) It is understood that I will try to set it right or at least not repeat it. Next time it may well be the other way round.
10093: 9815: 9763:
to do so, is perhaps, part of the problem.) Clearly, an editor who refuses to follow a core policy should be blocked until they indicate that they;ll follow it; they don't have to support it or
9754: 9732: 9643: 9478: 9032: 8274: 8258: 7924: 7896: 7882: 6941: 6514:
protection issues, and more complicated copyright issues are one thing. It's another to be told that they view this whole thing as a matter of a "debate on toxic behavior", demonstrating a clear
6487: 6414: 6380: 6345: 6215: 6123: 5604: 5515: 4973: 4837: 4574: 4223: 3567: 3295: 3280: 3252: 3172: 2934: 2804: 2783: 2357: 2032: 633: 607: 414: 316: 13741: 13601: 13585: 13554: 12719:"As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from Knowledge editing in relation to this issue." 12505: 12414: 11420: 10210: 6869: 6437: 5584: 4605: 3546: 3490: 3467: 3338: 3317: 3238: 3211: 2729: 2523: 2509: 2328: 1045: 929: 899: 12461: 12428: 12173: 11975: 11848:, and sometimes to evaluate whether a particular issue is a mistake that is unlikely to repeat itself, but should never simply excuse a clear rules violation or result in lighter sanctions. -- 11139: 10985: 10431:
In short, toxic unblockables are unblockable because they are not actually toxic. Show me a toxic unblockable editor, and I will show you an editor who thinks that you are a toxic unblockable.
10189: 8543:
Para 9 show that the WMF is attempting to get to grips with focussing its staffs attention, but using a Trump top-down paradigm, which is inappropriate. 'Propose' could be replaced by accept.
7726: 7117: 6501: 4822: 4236: 2849: 2766: 2486: 2472: 2411: 1339: 913: 730: 523: 508: 482: 262: 160: 47: 13790: 12452:
that would fit this direction, though Clay Shirky argued that our brains were able to do the appropriate reputation evaluation as long as users were given incentives to commit to an identity.
12396: 12132: 11449: 9682: 7541: 7477: 7457: 7283: 6079: 6047: 6023: 5999: 4331: 4314: 3972: 3907: 3846: 3664: 2950: 1432: 281: 11743: 11714: 8462:
Any changes in the long-established practices of dealing with toxic behavior within the communities should be introduced carefully and only following close collaboration with the communities.
4269: 3789: 947: 12081: 7134: 7081: 7065: 3452: 961: 12446: 12402: 10911: 9320:
obstructive- this suggests to me we are just getting entangled in one more trap likely to hinder encyclopedic work rather than persuade nice kids to join and make superlative contributions.
7557: 7510: 7256: 5382:
It isn't a matter of choice - once T&S offered confidentiality for reports, they need to maintain that. This was always going to be the fundamental restriction on what they could do. -
4751:
is to "share in the sum of all knowledge" - the encyclopedias, even with the English Knowledge encyclopedia being the flagship project right now, is only a part of their overall mission. —
4369: 3032: 3017: 2975: 1484: 383:
on the road seems contrary in principle to representing the concept of people meeting, discussing, and deciding issues even if they can't afford to travel anywhere in order to do so. Its a
12115:
example there seems to be a tendency for admins to simply ignore certain conflicts: They know they would get votes for recall whatever they would do if they stepped in, so they do nothing.
11990: 3777: 12205:
way forward. As you say, people don't really ask you "Knowledge, what's that?" anymore. And similarly, we've got a foundation raking in over a hundred million dollars a year. I say we're
5117:
It's in ARBCOM's court right now, but we as a community might want to give ARBCOM guidelines on how we want these processes to occur, specifically when/how to have proceedings to occur.
12667:
My back of envelope figure puts that at 38:62, but the error margin could be rounded in favour of males (as is tradition) to a neat 40:60. I'm comfortable with that, for the time being.
8476:
My first thought on the statement was that it was a whole load of waffle, nothing was changing and that the Arbcom thing was more of an advisory thing however reading the replies Arbcom
7701:
matter, at least in terms of dissecting what happened here. I do think that T&S legitimately thinks Fram violated the term they banned them under, but I also suspect they saw it as
6664:
to me personally, which I think is important as a matter of checking any potential future tyranny by ArbCom, but in this particular case, I am saying that their decision will be final.--
3364: 10008:
Many editors believe years of service making positive contributions carries more weight than an imposed judgement made using an alien legal system made by officers with limited service.
9337: 6507: 5760:
I'm not sure the board can compel, instruct, or discipline line workers. They hire and manage the ED. They approve the strategy and the annual plan. All implementation falls to the ED.
3531: 3426: 3405: 2887: 9194:
behaviourally. The Board cannot answer these questions because the Board, per Doc, Raystorm, and Jimbo, were largely kept out of the loop on this until this blew up; I suspect if they
8362:
as a matter of checking any potential future tyranny by ArbCom, but in this particular case, I am saying that their decision will be final.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
2966:
going forward, rather than three weeks later and just because the project threatened to implode. We are much better when we work as a team rather than in a top down fashion. Cheers  —
2622: 13325:
Its mostly invention of american academia and also HR offices. Sure, the term existed in one way or another for a long, long time, but it became a catch-all term that basically means
12790: 11959: 10416:.I don't know if it's true, but it appears to me as if they are more interested in power structures and powerplay than in actually building an encyclopedia. For me, these people feel 9670: 9596: 131:
is a good step in the right direction and I sincerely hope that this includes the possibility that an appeals process is required to exist for any such actions in the future. Regards
13746:
In this case, it's more likely that NDA and the privacy of the complainant precludes a case fully in the open. We've already had two editors leave over this due to how badly T&S
5907:
governs whether you can do this advisory opinion request. Just because WMF gives you permission is not enough to overcome the jurisdictional limitations in the Arbitration policy. —/
13924:
To be clear, the consultation itself is not going to happen until "early September". The draft of how the consultation is going to work is now live for comments, until August 30. --
12405:, we need to foster an environment where there isn't an advantage to acting unco-operatively. Without an incentive for poor behaviour, the unblockable issue becomes less important. 11263:
Every entry may be explained and accompanied by reference to incidents, diff etc. or not. If request is out of the blue with no visible cause, election will not lead to termination.
7981:
ArbCom will review the ban, WMF won't unilaterally issue any more like it, and WMF will work a lot more closely with ArbCom and the community over the harassment issue in the future
3912:
Presumably because some here might suggest that the Chair would have difficulty being impartial about this issue, due to accusations that were thrown around earlier on this page. --
13918: 7971:
I saw this last night, and decided to sleep (and think) on it before commenting. I have to say I'm disappointed by all the negativity I've seen here. We were never going to get a "
376:
put her squarely into the ideology of American hegemony globalization, which is just as bad as if there were a person in her position here who was ideologically anti-globalization.
12853: 6566:
as this all seems to have been quite unnecessary. But I do also find it reassuring that the founder of the whole show takes a clear position right here. We have never "met" but
1506: 13015:'Waal, gen'lemn, the hard world of warfare ain't cut out for beaten about the bush, so frankly, lemme shoot straight and cut to the chase. I think it's the asshole of the world.' 1182: 11635:
well we could straight term limit them (and prevent the excrement) but that would force many who don't need to go through the process again to go through it. Or we can use the
9261:
these days. Sometimes we'll get a case where an admin did something that's totally outrageous, and I'll issue the mildest possible rebuke. Is it because I'm just a sucker for
9424: 2909: 448: 13143:
Correct, the difference is between contextual behavior and ontological description. I've often seen the latter sidestepped by prefacing the assertion with 'seem..here'. I.e. '
10894:
circumstances actually apply to. (In any case, I plan to solve many of the issues surrounding this some time in the next week or so. I'll post to VPR or VPM when I'm done.) --
8634:
I appreciate Jimbo's comments stating that Arbcom has the power to reverse the ban or order a re-sysop, but the Office actions meta page will need to be updated. Currently at
6128:
If we couldn't overturn WMF actions before because of the precise wording of the Arbitration Policy, there is absolutely no reason to do so now. The Policy speaks in terms of
3794:
I really can't tell whether or not it does say that. Is the "recommendation" to T&S effectively an order? Does "focusing on" the severe cases mean only working on them? --
200:
T&S was willing to say exactly what Fram was being accused of, and this seems to be yet more "we'll insinuate that Fram did something but we still won't actually say so".
11801:
editing, and so on. They also have a lot of friends among the most active "policy wonks", which makes it hard to reach a consensus to do anything about it; and, furthermore,
10976:
She said on this very page she did not file the complaint, but she was recused because the discussions of the whole affair made her involved. I think this closes the issue.--
4972:
just over 2 months after the board statement was approved on November 13. Whether the community health initiative has had any impact is somewhat open to debate, though it is
2514:
It is a template for explaining to editors information about the rules which they can't easily learn about by reading our documentation. In that sense it is fit for purpose.
11359: 9217:, I am totally on-board with a reassessment of how we handle harassment, include the challenging task of defining it, as well as rethinking our standard DR escalation model. 6811:
encyclopedia, i.e. the WMF doesn't work on the basis of an assembled mob, anymore than the community is an assembled mob. It is the values and work that takes precedence.--
3523:
the attitude of that T&S has projected so far. I'm less encouraged by the phrase "This could include...". I would have hoped for something more concrete at this point.-
2832:
join in asking the Knowledge Arbitration committee to allow editors with advanced permissions the opportunity to participate in their own defense when accused of harassment.
2448:
how would you balance it, in terms of alternative text with links? How much longer do we need to wait before the Foundation allows Fram to participate in their own defense?
2389: 9690:
But what do we do with those who fall into the intersection of "toxic member" & "positive contributor"? This is where the problem lies, & there are no easy answers.
13750:
the situation; do you REALLY want them to post shit publicly and Streisand the actual complainant, in light of the fact that the T&S document is specifically redacted
3390:
I am more than satisfied by this response from the board. I hope others take it to mean things are hopefully going to move in a more positive direction from here on out. –
2980:
To be clear, ArbCom do have the discretion to overturn the ban. They are fully authorized to hear the appeal, and I will personally back ArbCom on whatever they decide.--
2579:
ArbCom has only just been given authority over this, so give them a fucking chance, won't you? And stop trying to poison the very significant progress that has been made.
1679: 1173: 405:
Her job in the first place was to glue the WMF back together after various issues left by the previous ED. This appears to have been done at least reasonably successfully.
8875: 3472:
With respect, that’s not what anybody has said, and consensus is meaningless in interpreting what’s NOT a document subject to our own internal rules of interpretation. —/
3359:
The three paragraphs that begin "We recognize" save this, for me at least ... provided they follow through and Arbcom does in fact get the information they need. - Dank (
13005:
Was the English don being uncivil in WW2 when, according to the soldiers' anecdote, an American General was treated with all honours, including a visit to the exclusive
12828: 12745: 12347:
You missed the specifics I think, the first is to find a consensus to open a discussion to find consensus for desysop/+sysop, making it an automatic two-step process. --
10812:
mention the US's post-World War II near-hegemonic political position, it really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that many articles reflect the interests of Americans.
10387:
I note that there are several examples of toxic behaviour exhibited in this very section. I needn't tell you which they are because you can easily find them. Of course,
9666: 8554:
the victim in this case, Fram should be reinstated until a judgement has been by ArbCom. ArbCom should still have the option of dismissing the case for lack of evidence.
1084: 1080: 922: 456: 251:
case. And since various people here have different expectations of that, no outcome will satisfy all of us. The principle of decision at WP is consensus, not unanimity.
113:
Working closely with the community to identify the shortcomings of current processes and enforcement mechanisms, and to support the development of appropriate solutions;
12434:
spent on the projects . There are definitely ways to build tools that make helping, thanking, and protecting easier; and hounding, chastising, and destroying harder .
11409:
Oh, unlike the vigilante justice meted out by some admins now? I can't take en.WP's governance system seriously unless something like the German system is established.
6188:
Accepting this case request is tantamount to capitulating to the Board. It is contrary to the very open letter that the Committee published not long ago. The Committee
5809:
disregarded. It's time to end all the cloak and dagger games. Who's going to file the request for arbitration? I tried once already. How about somebody else this time.
8796:
Sometimes, "I don't trust ArbCom, so I'm going to T&S" really means "I think ArbCom will see that my complaint has no merit, so I'll see if I can convince T&S"
1370: 641: 422: 12150:
still rather not go through the hassle of it once a year. If that were the case, I'd just stick to deleting spam, and hope the spammers don't catch on where to sign.
10656:
Geography is a very weak subject for me, but I'm inverting it for the austral hemisphere and visualising t'othersiders of the (East Coast) Australia and think I know
7070:
You are correct of course. I was talking about behavior related cases where there are no legal requirements to act immediately. I should have clarified that. Regards
6591:
It seems as if some here would not be satisfied unless the WMF Board came to the community on its knees, tugging its forelock, and begging for forgiveness. That was
3768:
unless there is agreement from the community to expand it. Hopefully these are followed up with actions, and hopefully the community engages with them in good faith.
3259:
T&S may need to get permission from those who sent in complaints before they can release those complaints to arbcom. And not all people may give such permission.
3232:- I highly doubt this, there are many types of NDA's - and most of the volunteer ones don't require actually presenting identification or providing your real name. — 1353: 13421:
I digress too, nevertheless I happen to know exactly who or what was the catalyst for Wales' speech and in that particular context I find it more than appropriate.
13009:. After preliminaries, speeches had been delivered and dinner served, they took their post-prandial drinks over cigars, and the elderly gentleman politely inquired:- 12620: 8900:
Well Gerda, it's like this. You can say you have a language problem about yourself, but you mustn't say that about someone else. There's probably bits about that in
12991:
I agree "toxic" is a loaded term and should be avoided. However, harassment and incivility happen and we need to have policies and processes for dealing with both.
8438: 8435: 8432: 8429: 8015: 8012: 8009: 8006: 5364:
the evidence that T&S relied on to reach their sanction. I can't understand why they would think that turning over only partial evidence would satisfy anyone.
3926:
Yeah, Raystorm explicitly stated she would recuse in this matter in her statement, so I am not surprised that she did not sign it or have any involvement with it. —
13411:
This is beginning to detract from the entire purpose of this page - let's not get carried away with lexical and conceptual semantics. Suffice it to say that I and
11698:
I’m not really convinced that a community de-adminship process would have changed anything about the current situation, but there is an as-yet-unproposed draft at
10951:
Avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest is often as important as avoiding an actual conflict. I think this situation is one where that was very much true.
9780:- and I don't think we should give individual editors a pass to ignore core policies based on their history. So it would depend on their willingness to adhere to 6973:
I recommend interpreting ambiguities the way we would like them to be, and run with it. If WMF sees good things happening, they are unlikely to try to stop them.
3329:
Can't argue with that. I certainly wouldn't want to be an Arb right now though. T&S has made a pretty bad sandwich that Arbcom is now being offered a bite of.
1800: 1470: 13726:
This shows complete disregarding of the WP Community,...."unusual secret proceedings" usually means "...something stinks and we can't let the public smell it'". ―
11590:
through RFA have succeeded or not. Having 'crats decide if an re-comfirmation RFA is warranted or not seems a natural extension of their current responsibilities.
11130:
could be of use, with clearer guidelines. Though the explanation about why it was dismantled is an excellent summary of why this issue is so difficult to manage.
7515:
That's right. The clause of §4 that was supposedly breached doesn't even talk about civility. Moreover, the context of §4 makes absolutely clear that civility is
5612:
No it's not "obvious". You don't get to decide if it's "obvious". Knowledge isn't ruled by the staff of the wikimedia foundation, it's ruled by its community.. --
116:
Offering training opportunities for community leaders (including ArbCom) involved in dealing with harassment to strengthen their ability to meet these challenges.
12084:. On one hand, the conclusion given by Softlavender is quite fair, but the end result was nothing was done. I think we can hold each other to a higher standard. 10573:
Well actually you brought it up. And I think this illustrates clearly why the community is hesitant to allow private deliberations regarding issues of civility.
4559:
length and a scope, no ban is a scope, re-sysoppping is a scope, leaving the sanction as it is is a length and scope. My concern remains that T&S turn over
1795: 776:
As an alternative to waiting for elections, perhaps we could have a petition page calling for more representation, and perhaps a lot of editors would sign it. --
364:
of NYC where the population is 95% white and the household income is over 3 times the national average. Her American University of Cairo experience centred upon
9435: 4417: 1394: 13805: 7394:
This is a decent statement (and I don't agree with some of the hysterical reactions) but it could have been better. Waiting for the arrival of Jan's tomorrow.
5532:
ARBCOM is well-equipped to dig around the contributions of those involved and see if they were indeed sanctioned and what the context for their actions were.
1480: 499:, and then click on the individual people to get to their user page on meta, which link to their user pages on their home wikis (provided that they have one). 8518:
Para 3. Before quoting the 5 pillars, make sure you have read them . I assume you are not talking WP:5P5 but mean WP:5P4. It links to WP:CIVIL but also says-
7709:, especially when it comes to longstanding editors, then this was one of the worst possible ways to go about it. (And if their goal was to take on enforcing 2381: 6195:
determination as exceeding its authority and that this is a matter that will be treated solely at ArbCom's discretion. There are no other acceptable options.
11337: 1311: 11706:, pointing out that it may deter candidates and also deplete the existing administrative pool (i.e. it would have the opposite effect that was intended). – 9719:
to build a collaborative encyclopedia. (And, as mentioned above, it's a particular problem because the nature of conflict-resolution on Knowledge actually
9159: 7659:
Your other arguments basically fall apart when you realize this: they can kick anyone off this website for any reason or no reason, with or without notice.
1185:
with other routine discussions involving scripts. Some users found the search API to be lacking in certain ways. The tech teams may want to look into this.
13471:
I think it will be a lot easier to go to the next steps once ArbCom announces how they want to go about their promised community RfC(s) on the subject. --
12913:
and directed the Wikimedia Foundation teams to work to make Wikimedia communities safer for all good faith editors." - Also late: thanks for the image. --
12209:
past the point where this community can function as an ad hoc free-for-all and just leave policymaking for another day. That period of history is over. —/
11546:
most long-term editors to be able to judge RfA consensus in nearly all cases, but I make a point of voting on ArbCom elections even when I'm hibernating.
9310:
Has anyone ever made a calculation of how many excellent editors/admins have been driven away, thrown in the towel in sheer exasperation at the amount of
9019:
But, rein in (not, as I have frequently observed here 'reign'). The outcome of any debate or argument hinges, in most social places, on the groundtone of
1408: 6851:
generator and by claiming the right to absolve anyone of resigning adminship under a cloud. That isn't ArbCom's job, and that isn't the Board's right. —/
5040:
in respect to the relationship between Staff and Community has been restored. ArbCom should deal with the Fram situation as if it had just come to them
2738:
this painfully obviously non-neutral scaremongering banner, in any form and in any location. "The secret police are coming to get you!" No, they're not.
904:
Pundit and Antanana. Dariusz commented several times here. Nataliia did not comment here, as far as I know, but she is sufficiently aware of the issue.--
387:
bad fit, imo, whereas I think she has tremendous leadership potential in most other areas of work, especially politics, and I mean that as a compliment.
7004:
I have nothing against Fram, and I don't know enough of the facts (no one here does, apparently). But I'm so, so glad the WMF took the original action.
1498: 12653:
It varies over time, but to be more general, how about we just aim for a proportion similar to that of the internet-connected, English-speaking world.
11509: 7338:
for an organisation so wholly dependent on willing volunteers to do the heavy lifting. Jan needs to go (or at least be kicked into a position where he
1828: 7546:
Lists that start with "These activities include" are by definition incomplete and behavior not on the list might still be a violation of ToU. Regards
3558:
of the case materials to ArbCom, and to instruct ArbCom to then deal forthrightly and diligently with any privacy issues inherent in those materials.
12967:
It's potentially just as offensive, yet far vaguer even than the H word (at least one editor seems to think "aggrandizing other editors" is toxic!)
12576: 12096:
if "good faith" were better enforced as a stand-alone problem, rather than treated as secondary to the edits being factually/procedurally justified.
11241: 10510: 4439:
I wonder how long it will take T&S to acknowledge or refute that to ArbCom, and if at least that acknowledgment or refutation will become public.
2831: 13093:
But which is less civil, calling someone "toxic" or "incapable of presenting reasonable arguments"? Civility is not defined by a list of bad words.
10392:
reform. Others are in the acceptable range but clash with others who are at the other end of the acceptable range. When that happens, there doesn't
7776:
It's clearly described as part of the purpose of section 4 in both the abridged and complete version. Actually, the only way I misspoke in that it
7638:
anyone off this website for any reason or no reason, with or without notice. Stop making this legal: it is doing nothing to advance the discussion.
1744: 12857: 6385:
The goal was to try to return us to where we were before these recent events and invite back those who took admin actions in protest, specifically
3942:
Again, this is something the statement could have made clear - it doesn't say she recused herself, rather that she delegated it to the vice-chair.
996:
My image of the journey of how we got here includes a rather crude concept of where harassment and discrimination enter the process of building an
790:
I won't object, but I know the Board wouldn't like that. Asking for folks in power to leave is a difficult and delicate task. Still, worth a shot.
7975:" statement, so those who would not be satisfied with any less than that were always going to be disappointed. I also strongly disagree with the " 13863: 13772: 13704: 13486: 12942: 12274: 12210: 12180: 10695: 10320: 10034:
It appears to be necessary to explain the opinion of a content provider of 15 years standing who never had any desire to become an administrator.
8295: 8241: 7807: 7739: 7663: 7615: 7524: 7440: 7266: 6909: 6852: 6765: 6709: 6633: 6198: 6103: 6062: 6028: 6006: 5930: 5908: 5498: 4684: 4634: 4612: 3495: 3473: 3435: 3179: 1836: 12043:
opens up a difficult problem that will require a lot of careful consideration. It's like how "Fram is harassing people" has, in the wake of the
11191:
One year after election of regular sysop (not going for CU, OS and ’crats, since they have two years term anyway) a request page will be opened.
6005:
is a request for an opinion without authority. These are basic concepts in jurisdiction that neither the Committee nor WMF are free to waive. —/
4794:
Although I would have liked to see the word "appeal" used in this statement rather than "review", I am satisfied with this as a way forward. To
4843:... we recommend T&S focus on the most severe cases, (...) until consultation and agreement between T&S and the community are achieved. 4458: 1198: 8280:
Sure, but you make demands, you listen to the offer, and you compromise - anyone expecting a 100% capitulation from WMF was living a fantasy.
6317:
This text "to move forward together to ensure the health and vitality of our communities" indicates that we want to move forwards as partners.
1841: 13593: 13546: 13527: 13121:
More specific certainly, and far less of a generalized insult than "toxic", yes. But I think there's a categorical difference between, say, "
12869: 12480: 12453: 12406: 12298: 12242: 9674: 9252:
I'm glad you made that point. I fully agree that as users gain more experience and advanced capabilities (adminship, etc), they also assume
8126: 2879: 1823: 12560:
Therefore no authority, no crat is judging whether that motion is permitted or reasonable or not. Just count valid entries within time span.
9715:, they should get a block without regard for any other part of their history, because a refusal to edit collaboratively means that they are 6749:
that statement. His indication of what it means is as authoritative as we're likely to get short of another statement by the full board. --
563:
communities who should also directly oversee and elect the appointment of practically all staff except the cleaners and elevator operators.
12638: 11426:
empowered to judge if there is consensus to appoint an admin, they should be empowered to judge if there is consensus to initiate recall.
8878:
existed, where "hostile" and "toxic" are used in a summary, - not in the header. Can we do better? - A 2014 Wikimania speech aimed at more
8550:
Para 11: could be made stronger by starting with "we endorse the long-standing practices ....;a should be introduced carefully any changes.
4846:
agree (by consensus in a RFC?) to T&S taking actions that remotely resemble the star chamber approach demonstrated in the Fram case. --
4075:
to T&S—am I to assume that T&S has agreed to follow up with a statement soon indicating whether they agree with this path forward?
2957: 12531:
Naturally you are standing on the feet of POV pushers, personal attackers, COI, SEO, whatever. Naturally they complain. No problem at all.
9858:@Aquillion - there are not "four boxes". At most, they're fluffy clouds. If they had clear, rigid, barriers then things would be clearer. 9759:
I don't think it's a good idea to write policy around individual editors (and the fact that we'd consider doing so, or feel that we might
8218: 7697:
Incivility is absolutely a clause in the ToU (as it should be.) But it wasn't what they initially said they banned Fram under. And that
2344:
Very BOLDLY Closing as this isn't ever going to happen, Ellen I'm sure the time and effort spent here could be better spent on articles. –
10443:"Some admins of this type apparently try to make me feel small and worthless because they somehow imagine I have lower status because of 5074:
I have no idea on the discussion about the matter for which this statement was released I just want to express my opinion on a paragraph.
4319:
Giving this a quick read I think it is a step in the right direction. I do agree with those who want to see the official WMF response. --
1815: 1790: 12892: 12731:
We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints pertaining solely to the English Knowledge to established local processes.
10757:, speaking as a third-generation inhabitant of Portland, Oregon -- although I'll concede we have a few shallow hipsters living here. -- 8456:
For me, the issue is not Fram (sorry), but the extension to conduct management of the star chamber procedures originally introduced for
5422:
me a fuddler and a poortlash!", they can fully dig around and review Fram's behaviour and decide if that crossed a civility threshold.
365: 12524:
You will identify a good and busy admin by a continuous sediment of ten or fifteen grantling and grumbling entries on the recall page.
9702:
to continue editing just because they have excellent spelling and grammar; suggesting that writing good contributions excuses ignoring
7973:
Fram's unbanned, we've fired someone, we've disbanded the T&S team, and WMF will never again play any part in addressing harassment
7096:" There will not be further cases until there is agreement from the community. Thus no need to commit to defer future cases to arbcom. 1133:
were raised (people are supportive of this), and there is a discussion setting up a place to report errors for the mainpage similar to
11225:
already mentioned on this page has been requested for re-election (in context of his role in the superprotect and mediaviewer issue);
8365:
that it has learned, and understands its limited role now. As one of the basics I learned in this very community, Assume Good Faith.
7901:
So we can calm down, and stop wondering or making meta arguments about whether or not we're allowed to choose. Their answer: We can.
3721:
I'm signing, as I've been involved in the discussion here on en-wiki and I want to make myself available for a meaningful discussion.
13609: 12778: 12554:
It may be helpful to provide diffs and incidents and reasons and hope this will convince other people, but there is no need for that.
11702:
that seeks to address some of the concerns with such a process that were raised above. I never submitted the proposal because Risker
10019:
until it has been shown that Arbcom has failed to fix the problem, and requests assistance- which should come in the form of advice.
9949: 8593:
It was in the wrong section- I took the liberty of moving it. Clem - good to see someone seems to have mastery of the teachings in
8458:
the most severe cases, for instance: the handling of legal issues, threats of violence, cross-wiki abuse, and child protection issues
8398: 8342: 7342:
interact with the communities writ large) to make way for someone who is at least willing to answer direct questions within reason. —
1810: 1553: 3163:
that previously implied that the WMF and T&S could make such bans not-subject-to-appeal will need to be updated or corrected. --
2774:
and examine EllenCT's edit history to see it there is a pattern of disrupting Knowledge to make a point that should be addressed. --
432:
The board talks to the CEO. They do not talk to T&S, or, to that part, to any other department, though they can make statements.
10005:
Many editors don't attempt to rachet up irritations into the offences and use aggressive language using clinical terms like 'toxic'
7439:
contracts with its users as optional, and will breach them to remove an editor that it finds inconvenient. This cannot continue. —/
7288:
I am chill. In fact, since the destruction, I've been so chill about Knowledge, I wish I'd done it 14 years and 150,000 edits ago.
3103:"That is also my understanding of what we meant" does not really inspire confidence in the clarity or strength of the statement... 2336: 5631:
adversarial as it has been to us "asking" them to do it isn't going to do a damn thing. This looks more and more like Knowledge's
621: 13200: 12255:
This is the same as the inactivity debate: small minor changes are more likely to gain consensus rather than a radical change. --
11703: 11643:
or this very page, would we? I suppose the only answer is to give everyone the power to block, protect and delete and see which
11182: 6236:
Er, did you read that entire section? They specifically recognize that the final determination of that is up to the community:
4336:
I never really expected the Board to provide a detailed plan, just a big picture vision of what they would like to see happen. --
1805: 12601: 10226:
I consider it insensitive to drag a blocked editor into a high-visibility page such as this one, when they cannot participate.
8120: 8086: 1335: 4806:
and all the others who worked on this, thank you for listening to the community. I look forward to our next steps together. –
2248:
It's good that there's some mini version of this at the level of individual teams, but the idea here is that the WMF would be
2201:
those links along to interested people/teams, and sometimes to larger groups, including C-levels. You might consider the new
1104: 11275: 11162:
I would like to point to a procedure which is used on German Knowledge for a decade now, and I regard it as important in the
10118:
and the like. I'm sure we do measure those somewhere, but we have no way to tie the cost back to any particular editor. --
1714: 1544: 1255: 460: 435:
The CEO runs an organization on a daily basis and can give orders to the level-A employees (essentially, to the departments).
380: 178: 11340:. It may be time to revisit this, but those previous discussions are a good place to look before we formally propose this. 11197:
Only “electing users” may apply; these are non-newbies, some months on-wiki and several 100 reviewed edits in article space.
8703:
I have hope in the statement, given the annotations and explanations provided by board members such as Jimbo and Doc James.
6632:
the information (which is trivial given everyone on ArbCom is bound by NDA), then this matter is nowhere near resolution. —/
5971:
1. To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve;
2551:, and my contempt for trying to stir up shit when the community/ArbCom/WMF/board/Jimbo have made very significant progress. 1130: 12699: 12336: 11814:
that experience here can never be considered as a mitigating factor (though in some cases it can be used to argue over the
8876:
Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/November 2016 - Statement on Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces
8460:. This is represented by the two new "tools" the office awarded themselves in February, namely temporary and partial bans. 5329: 5235:
can confirm/clarify if those aren't the broad lines of the statements when translated from corporate speak to the layman.
4289: 129:
These new tools will not be used again until community consultations to clarify their purpose and mechanisms are completed;
12753: 9355: 8330:
Let's be clear: if the WMF is "giving permission" to the arbco to review the ban but not to effect any change to it, then
2875:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
9948:
I think there are a few related problems. (1) Our processes require a reporter who is going to endure a lot of abuse. In
8529:. It would be a stronger statement if a sentence were included to the effect, after taKing advice from the WP community. 3606:
This. Someone may have agreed to send something to T&S. They have not agreed to send this to ARBCOM. T&S is both
9315:
mild mannered) who got banned from Knowledge due to that kind of behaviour? In my own experience, I have seen far more
8557:
Paragraph 14: reads as if the board is trying to limit the scope of the debate, and is folled by unrealistic aspiration.
6731:
I have the authority to interpret that statement for myself. And I'm telling you, it says what Doc James say it says.--
5204:
That isn’t lawyerese, it’s bureaucratese. There’s a difference. My comment below and the followups explain it better.
811:
No, not asking for anyone to leave. Rather, asking for more people to be added, as well as for paying more attention. --
11822:, but it doesn't excuse repeated incivility.) It would also help to try and establish some more clear "red lines" for 11500:, the issue is dismissed. But if X (auto-confirmed/extended confirmed) people agreeing they lost faith in an admin for 6238:
We do not consider any of the admin resignations related to the current events to be “under a cloud” (under suspicion)
9020: 6136:
are incapable of comprehending what these very specific words mean, you should not be participating in this discussion
2205:
as a central space. An area for "What's going on right now?" might be interesting to far more than just WMF managers.
1673: 559: 12877: 12711: 12542:
After each election recall is suspended for one, perhaps two years. Time to work without looking at recall barometer.
11089: 10830:
Further to that, about 360 million speak english as a first language and US is about 300 million of the 360 million.
9149: 8185: 8132: 8018: 7405: 4210:? The constitutional nature of this argument (who has the jurisdiction, the ArbCom or the T&S), make me think of 3509: 2661: 2607:
They will surely be working out a fair way to approach their review of the ban, so - Give. Them. A. Fucking. Chance!
2500: 2385: 1692: 13078:
I could not agree more, the term has been weaponised for use by those incapable of presenting reasonable arguments.
9265:
and can't bring myself to say anything harsher? Or is it that I'm unconsciously playing my part as a member of the
8057: 3373:
I think it's the two paragraphs beginning with "We support ArbCom", although the last paragraph is also interesting.
1764: 13640: 12263: 12169: 11462: 11400: 11336:
I also like this and would support it. That said, things like this have been proposed multiple times before - see
7575:
We reserve the right to suspend or end the services at any time, with or without cause, and with or without notice.
6991: 6937: 5407:
Someone may have agreed to send something to T&S. They have not agreed to send this to ARBCOM. T&S is both
4965: 4344: 4327: 3751: 3659: 3286:
transgressions could be far greater than they know, or they keep him banned without enough evidence to support it.
2744: 878: 852: 801: 766: 745: 10675:
I have toyed with the idea of extendng the {{use British English}} tag-, so we have a {{use British civility}} tag
3045:
was valid but commute it to "time served". (Presumably, they could even lengthen it if they thought it required).
2593:
I'm sorry, did I miss that Arbcom has been allowed to unblock Fram so that they may participate in their case(s)?
2477:
I respectfully disagree, and again ask for alternative wording you or others feel would be more accurate, please?
13968: 13581: 11699: 10586: 10536: 10149:
I was just using that as a random example. I certainly wasn't implying it applied to anybody in particular. --
7109: 6562:
wish the Board statement were less "lswyerish" and more directive, and I really wonder why it did not begin with
6406: 6337: 6321: 6186:
dictated our adminship or readminship policies, nor been permitted to define what a resignation under a cloud is.
5291: 4930: 4186: 4105: 3682: 3586: 3272: 3133: 3090: 2926: 2419:
Ridiculously one-sided and, in any event, let's see how the current process plays out before taking rash action.
1349: 13044:
frowned on as highly loaded language. Perhaps we should draw up a linguistic stemma, beginning with the header '
12088:
that actually went to ArbCom on a similar point. Especially for admins or long-standing users, it's critical to
12020:
of any particular subculture (where e.g. one has to ask for a room to rest when one needs to take a piss ;-). --
11886:
Fully agree. I might personally suggest "Arbcom is afraid" but not to alter the above with which I fully agree.
8144: 6244:
that it wasn't under a cloud and making it clear that the final determination of that is up to he community.) --
1774: 13874: 13715: 13497: 12953: 12285: 12234: 12221: 12191: 11730: 11639:(in which case it only matters that 7 specific editors like you) but if that approach worked, we wouldn't have 11610: 11527: 11488:
if, at face value, if the complaint has merit, or if it's frivolous. 10 people complaining that they there's a
11436: 11230: 11226: 10706: 10331: 8575: 8527:
the staff acted in good faith, but we hadn't given them clear enough guidelines, and will revise the procedures
8252: 8138: 7911: 7869: 7818: 7750: 7674: 7626: 7535: 7451: 7277: 7189: 6863: 6776: 6720: 6644: 6209: 6073: 6017: 5919: 5883: 5668: 5632: 5542: 5509: 5476: 5432: 5245: 5127: 4898: 4695: 4623: 4016: 3625: 3484: 3446: 3190: 2315: 2267: 2178: 2019: 1759: 1156: 662: 13012:
Well General, you've now had a week in London. We'd be interested in hearing of your impressions of our city?'
12860:. (Disclosure: I made a statement in the latter case, and also participated in the related discussion at ANI). 8927:
How can we avoid aspersions as to what may have happened and who complained, caused by the secret handling? --
5278:
Agree the "the role of a board is to provide vision and general direction, not provide specific instructions"
13800: 13760: 13692: 13248: 13186: 13175:
comprehensive guide that people should adopt, a kind of objectivist wikispeak all should be obliged to master
13134: 13098: 12881: 12785: 11324: 11035: 10924: 9997:
Many editors not only accept but actively encourage toxic behavior(sic) if they think the target deserves it.
9204: 8445: 8405: 8349: 8285: 8025: 7996: 7348: 5641: 5601: 5358:
Montanabw, you are correct. For ArbCom to properly judge whether Fram should be sanctioned, it needs to have
3932: 2861: 2698: 2669: 2645: 2612: 2584: 2556: 2503:
is specifically designed to hold copyright license information, and this has nothing to do with copyright. —
1639: 11237:
This is a further method to complain about admins and check whether they are still trusted by the community.
10560:
French articles on the same topic. The nerve to bring this issue up by yourself, 5 years later, is amazing.
9555:
Based on the available information this seems entirely reasonable, and I support this wholeheartedly. · · ·
9039: 8879: 3023:
A statement from Jan could easily clear up most of these issues. After all, this must have been discussed.--
1734: 11303:
Something like this has been proposed off and on throughout the years. The issue arises when you factor in
11079: 10108:
if someone is constantly abrasive and drives off people they work with, they are not a positive contributor
8175: 7395: 4969: 3499: 3498:, the statement was a bit hazy but I agree about Amakuru's impressions. And, now Jimbo has confirmed it:-) 2565:
How much longer do you want to wait before the Foundation allows Fram to participate in their own defense?
2213: 1754: 1729: 1466: 1363: 369: 12907:
Knowledge:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Official statements#Board statement
12539:
For enWP size perhaps 100 senior editors within one month might be a meaningful treshold. Hard to predict.
10319:
should prosecute despite that worker's good deeds, but the charity probably shouldn't fire that person. —/
9623:
RULE ONE: No ANI until it has been shown that ordinary talk page discussion has failed to fix the problem.
8488:
The wording could've been better or atleast simpler but meh I guess this is a step forward in some ways. –
7987:
the evidence is problematic - but if there was evidence presented to T&S with the explicit condition "
6448:
So thanks to the board for doing this. It's an opportunity to break this terrible, soul-crushing impasse.
4410:
Has the reason for the ban been provided - other than the generic statement referring to the Terms Of Use?
870:
It may be worth trying to contact the affiliate members through the pages above, it may be worth a try. --
13786: 12570:
The final decison is made by the community, by all voters at RfA. Once again: This is not an ArbCom case.
12089: 11770: 10879: 10850: 10590: 10540: 9879:"Toxic constructive editors must go" is a red herring. It's never going to be a useful yardstick for us. 8068: 7113: 6410: 6341: 5575:
think constitutes harassment but clearly expects us to abide by their view in the long run, and so on. -
5295: 4190: 4109: 3686: 3590: 3276: 3137: 3094: 2930: 1921: 11471:
Something akin to this but with the full bureaucrat group or Arbcom reviewing it might be made to work.
11185:
but it is mandatory for all common admins and the procedure and criteria are not the choice of anybody.
9610:
Many editors not only accept but actively encourage toxic behavior if they think the target deserves it.
6836:
in the WMF and preferably including an announcement of the resignation of one or more department heads.
6151:
I mean you yourself are contradicting yourself and the Board statement: You think this is going to be a
12361: 10347: 8114: 7293: 7213: 7150: 6612:
Preposterous. This is a power grab disguised as a consolation. Not a goddamn thing has changed. ArbCom
4926: 4153:
me what Board's position is. The wording of the Board Statement sounds pretty vague on this key issue.
1860: 38: 10060:
is true. I wish I could offer a solution, but I honestly have no idea what to do about it (other than
8426:
if the WMF is "giving permission" to the arbco to review the ban but not to effect any change to it...
7780:
the summary of the clause they said they banned Fram for, though not the specific reason they gave. --
7611:
insinuations that they're breaking the law or are likely to break the law are off-base and not helpful
12668: 12645: 12238: 11552: 11477: 10661: 10646: 10632: 10631:
They would seem a likely casualty, what other articles would be most susceptible to loss of quality?
10621: 10298: 10268: 10232: 10166: 10140: 9930: 7174:
that statements seems pretty clear about what the WMF sees as the way forward. Here's how I read it:
6831: 5863: 2140: 2048: 1769: 1248: 172: 11818:
of someone's actions, eg. having years of productive edits means it's hard to argue that someone is
11392:
This is a great way to promote vigilante justice that reacts emotionally to super-charged issues. --
7738:
I stopped reading right there. Actually read the TOU before posting next time. It's not a clause. —/
7265:? Do you seriously believe this should rise and fall on the value of WMF's intellectual property? —/ 13946: 13908: 13755: 13687: 13307: 13244: 13182: 13152: 13130: 13094: 13083: 12865: 12796: 12771: 12694: 12331: 12025: 11319: 11030: 10919: 9925:
Did that username inspire the description as fluffy categorisation? It works for me, so it is just
9798:
controversial topics (and the fact that they're going to obviously be most abrasive to people they
9532: 9311: 9214: 9199: 9165: 9072: 8763: 8594: 8441: 8419: 8391: 8335: 8281: 8021: 7992: 7343: 5755: 5688: 5653: 5636: 5324: 4284: 4080: 4062: 3927: 3108: 2857: 2694: 2665: 2641: 2608: 2580: 2552: 1610: 1571: 594: 237: 12493:
Proportionate, and kind. It is as easy to be kind while making a correction as it is to be cruel.
5466:
Well, that's what the statement pretty much says. They'll provide ARBCOM what they can provide.
2660:
I'll just add that, were any such notice appropriate (which it clearly is not at this point) then
2289:
It also works the other way. This morning while I was reading the Wikimedia-L list, I happened on
13509:
need to get more organized the closer we get to setting up RfCs on actual changes to policies. --
12470: 11891: 11004: 10817: 10737: 10500: 10487:
You're going to have a really hard time, at this moment, convincing most of the people here that
10460: 9602:"Toxic member" & "positive contributor" & "many supporters" can be traced to two effects: 9394: 8151: 7463: 6603: 6367:
allegation, the Board has given it some validity. A cynic would describe this as weaponizing the
6092: 5832: 5369: 5180: 5101: 5061: 4657: 4570: 4383: 3563: 3243:
As idle info, the Arbcom NDA does require provision of formal identification and a real name. --
2894: 2239: 2228: 2209: 2160: 2156: 2104: 1981: 1933: 1601: 1093: 1069: 346: 12760: 9723:
editors to be abrasive to people they disagree with if they think they can get away with it.) --
8240:
I think that's a big win for us tonight. Can't say this is the end of it, but it's a big one. —/
7977:
Someone should be fired over this - it doesn't matter who specifically did what, someone must go
7417:. Fuck. Not good. Not self-aware. Not attached to the community culture. Not hopeful. We waited 6134:. That is a very specific word with a very specific meaning in the English language, and if you 4927:
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.
1661: 1387: 147:
I like the tone of this, from that apology at the start right through. As they say in cycling,
13896: 13823: 13233: 13067: 13006: 12996: 12972: 12918: 12658: 11765: 11644: 11640: 10874: 10753: 10374: 9962: 9912: 9884: 9125: 9094: 9047: 8965: 8932: 8887: 8717: 8602: 8105: 8095: 8063: 7962: 7643: 7588: 7381: 7324: 5850: 5590:
we have cases which obviously need some form of sanctions, in which sanctions have not occurred
5269: 5195: 5165: 4779: 4723: 4642: 4601: 4397: 4256: 3707: 3542: 3374: 3069: 2424: 2064: 1855: 1126: 392: 331: 205: 12799:, there has been extensive discussion on Wikimedia-l, although the discussion has slowed. See 11289:
I like it, and would appreciate it being implemented here (with numbers looked at, for sure).
11203:
If quota has been reached within that period, a new election is to be launched within a month.
8108:
invokes this example from 2013(!), he then should know that the very same hour Fram unblocked
6225:
that it considers our local policies to be subservient to its edicts by brazenly stating that
6171:
that it considers our local policies to be subservient to its edicts by brazenly stating that
4637:, was this reply meant for me? I just asked that it be posted at AN, which Primefac has done. 4488:
undermine their prior justifications by implying that, yes, they think the evidence they have
1532: 13963:
meta:Talk:Office actions/Community consultation on partial and temporary office actions/draft
13852: 13838: 13577: 13526:
self-governing; let's take that opportunity to decide for ourselves how we want to progress.
13338: 12681: 11930: 11875: 11798: 11363: 11308: 11114: 10837: 10776:
Yorker for a Bostonian sometime, or vice versa, and let me know how that works out for you.)
10343: 9559: 9412: 9389: 9145: 8199: 8161: 8109: 7289: 7241: 7209: 7169: 7146: 6816: 6736: 6669: 6548: 5977:
4. To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons
5020: 5005: 4949: 4871: 4672: 4547: 4524: 3987: 3857: 2985: 2068: 1957: 1749: 1307: 13485:
I think it’s a better idea not to let ArbCom dictate the scope of the coming discussions. —/
12839: 11943:
Since the board talked about "communities", what is the situation in the other communities?
11870:
reason-providing when adding signatures - otherwise how could they accurately determine it?
9876:
of them, yet I'd love to see those two gone and to spare the rest of us from their toxicity.
6240:
though we also realize that the final decision with respect to this lies with the community.
5935:"To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons" 4275:
extent to which WMF is committed to working with us, as actions speak louder than words. --
13900: 13655: 13625: 13569: 13514: 13476: 13396: 13359: 12840: 12833: 12829: 12712: 12632: 12625: 12621: 12614: 12607: 12260: 12166: 12066: 11584: 11547: 11472: 11459: 11397: 11345: 10859: 10680: 10641: 10616: 10561: 10474: 10432: 10293: 10263: 10227: 10162: 10136: 10069: 10039: 9492: 9399: 9270: 9223: 9174: 9086: 9003: 8778: 8617: 7940: 6988: 6964: 6934: 5858: 4803: 4341: 4324: 4310: 3968: 3947: 3903: 3871: 3842: 3747: 3655: 2538: 2290: 1977: 1273: 1241: 1041: 875: 848: 816: 797: 781: 762: 742: 715: 691: 276: 168: 12631: 12613: 12606: 6324:
among other places mention it. I consider resigning to be a legitimate method of protest.
496: 8: 13942: 13929: 13904: 13303: 13217: 13164: 13112: 13079: 13053: 13027: 12873: 12804: 12800: 12689: 12686: 12680:
Thank you for your great insights. A better analogy would be the Supreme Court accepting
12392: 12326: 12323: 12021: 12002: 11853: 11809:
issues, I feel that there is sometimes a degree of solidarity between people who dislike
11648: 11497: 11019: 10981: 10899: 10582: 10532: 9811: 9728: 9654: 9639: 9629:
RULE THREE: No T&S until it has been shown that Arbcom has failed to fix the problem.
9586: 9572: 9528: 9509: 9368: 9325: 9068: 9028: 8803: 8759: 8370: 8313: 7785: 7722: 7105: 6881: 6754: 6698: 6576: 6468: 6453: 6402: 6333: 6249: 6052:
You can “prefer” all you want. It makes no difference. Even if they did put it that way,
5946: 5787: 5765: 5740: 5706: 5617: 5319: 5316: 5287: 5096:- surely an acknowledgement that conduct issues should be handled by Arbcom not T&S. 4852: 4683:
Yeah you’re right, I meant it for BMK above. Teach me to sound off while at dinner. 😂 —/
4508: 4279: 4276: 4265: 4182: 4128: 4101: 4089: 4076: 4058: 3917: 3799: 3678: 3582: 3268: 3168: 3129: 3117: 3104: 3086: 2922: 2797: 2779: 2120: 2116: 1961: 1941: 1905: 1893: 1739: 1630: 1589: 1404: 1150: 909: 649: 629: 586: 504: 444: 233: 220: 186: 156: 13958:
meta:Office actions/Community consultation on partial and temporary office actions/draft
7523:
mission? Seriously, search the TOU for the word "civil". It's not commanded anywhere. —/
2202: 13666: 13465: 12424: 12151: 12101: 11948: 11919: 11909: 11887: 11726: 11606: 11523: 11432: 11379: 11194:
If 25 users sign within one month, or 50 within six months, a re-election is necessary.
11135: 11045: 11000: 10952: 10813: 10777: 10733: 10520: 10496: 10470: 10456: 10153: 10122: 9838: 9546: 9379: 9316: 9294: 9277: 9247: 9235: 8648: 8571: 8466: 8267: 8223: 7907: 7892: 7865: 7849: 7564: 7185: 6599: 6524: 6483: 6117: 6088: 5963: 5879: 5828: 5729: 5717: 5664: 5538: 5472: 5428: 5402: 5365: 5241: 5176: 5123: 5097: 5057: 4983: 4894: 4653: 4566: 4379: 4219: 4211: 4207: 4158: 4040: 4012: 3816: 3621: 3601: 3559: 3248: 3057: 3046: 3039: 2722: 2311: 2263: 2243: 2224: 2174: 2164: 2084: 2072: 2015: 1989: 1953: 1945: 1204: 1088: 1064: 658: 590: 13634:
Editors assuming good faith about the Committee's activities would indeed be unusual.
12847:
Discussion about related issues continues on English Knowledge at , , , and elsewhere.
9012: 7319:, and if the staff doesn't implement it satisfactorily, they can intervene as needed. 7092: 7036:
put it and it needs to be resolved for all future actions, not just this one. Regards
6371:. These merely emphasize my opinion that the Board's statement was poorly written. -- 4922:
Almost three years ago, the board published a strong statement against toxic behaviors
2888:
Knowledge talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Update from the Arbitration Committee
2791:
Completely non-neutral wording in the wrong place at the wrong time. A terrible idea.
2252:
in seeking out mid- and high-level discussion to know what's going on, rather than be
686:
Replying to the hatnote: The issues as I see them have nothing to do with software. --
13819: 13736: 13443: 13426: 13330: 13290: 13229: 13063: 12992: 12968: 12914: 12880:. There may be further changes to that page; some related discussion may be found on 12654: 12012: 11819: 11294: 11173: 10762: 10517: 10370: 10252: 10206: 9958: 9908: 9898: 9880: 9750: 9716: 9121: 9090: 9062: 9043: 8980: 8961: 8951: 8928: 8909: 8883: 8704: 8598: 8174:, do you know what a wheel war is? It is reversing an already-reversed sysop action. 8091: 7958: 7639: 7584: 7377: 7320: 6896: 6841: 6801: 6433: 6376: 5846: 5597: 5451:
are/whatever.” Or, redact identifying information but forward the gist of it (think
5265: 5217: 5191: 5161: 4833: 4775: 4734: 4719: 4638: 4597: 4462: 4365: 3718: 3703: 3538: 3463: 3411:
collective concerns. We'll hear from staff soon, so let's be patient again for now. –
3334: 3291: 3207: 3061: 3028: 2971: 2905: 2845: 2826: 2762: 2683: 2631: 2598: 2570: 2519: 2482: 2468: 2453: 2435: 2420: 2407: 2376: 2144: 2132: 2124: 2112: 2060: 2052: 2044: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1929: 1917: 1913: 1885: 1881: 831: 603: 568: 388: 323: 297: 201: 10640:
Anything that is primarily of interest to people who are not (West coast) American?
8635: 7502:
So, no. Petty incivility, or the Civility policy in general, is not even mentioned.
7145:
As feared, mainly boilerplate and no contrition for the violation of the community.
13848: 13834: 13747: 13597: 13550: 13531: 13377: 13334: 12484: 12457: 12410: 12302: 12246: 12049: 11871: 11839:
a red line (eg. "longstanding service is never a valid argument against consistent
11738: 11636: 11618: 11535: 11444: 11315: 11110: 10719: 10283: 10185: 10089: 9678: 9626:
RULE TWO: No Arbcom until it has been shown that ANI has failed to fix the problem.
9556: 9456: 9136: 8999: 8583: 8195: 8171: 8157: 7919: 7877: 7197: 7130: 7060: 7033: 6914: 6912:
is right: a power grab disguised as a consolation. Thanks, but no thanks. I'm out.
6812: 6732: 6665: 6544: 6515: 6497: 6390: 6368: 6162: 6107: 5904: 5891: 5676: 5580: 5550: 5484: 5440: 5253: 5135: 5016: 5001: 4945: 4906: 4867: 4799: 4668: 4543: 4024: 3983: 3853: 3773: 3728: 3633: 3160: 2981: 2945: 2323: 2275: 2186: 2108: 2088: 2040: 2027: 2005: 1985: 1949: 1925: 1723: 1719: 1134: 942: 670: 11229:. Since no candidature was launched desysop followed. There is another example of 8995: 8918:
If everybody but me knows what the term means, could someone then please explain:
8798:
That's the concern. Actually, that's what many people think happened with Fram. --
6876:
I am a bit late to the party, but I think this statement is a good step forward.--
4473:
If you read closely, this letter actually has what I feel is a very strong hint:
4420:
is the entire reason, as that edit is the only reason Fram is given (according to
360:
I think she was a poor choice in the first place. She grew up in a small affluent
13782: 13651: 13635: 13621: 13510: 13472: 13412: 13392: 13355: 12384: 12257: 12163: 12093: 12062: 11971: 11840: 11835: 11823: 11810: 11806: 11790: 11493: 11489: 11456: 11415: 11394: 11341: 11099:"to insure fairness and impartiality without requiring in full with the Arbcom?" 10676: 10514: 10065: 10035: 9803: 9786: 9781: 9769: 9712: 9703: 9488: 9266: 9262: 9253: 9218: 9169: 9082: 8774: 8613: 7935: 7710: 7706: 7702: 7552: 7472: 7365: 7251: 7231: 7076: 7042: 7010: 6985: 6960: 6931: 6042: 5994: 5387: 4817: 4338: 4321: 4306: 4000: 3964: 3943: 3899: 3867: 3838: 3743: 3651: 2739: 2534: 2439: 2076: 1937: 1901: 1897: 1037: 957: 895: 872: 844: 812: 793: 777: 758: 739: 711: 687: 574: 519: 478: 468: 312: 271: 137: 12905:
late explanation because obviously not everybody read what prompted this: as in
12888:
Civil and respectful people should not apply the word "toxic" to fellow editors.
11374:
cool off for some time before being able to sign against the involved admin(s).
11109:
redacted version. Proceedings can't claim to be fair until they are fully fair.
10412:
small and worthless because they somehow imagine I have lower status because of
9541:
Thank you for your efforts; now to wait for a response...if one is forthcoming.
5873:
That's ethical fuckery and T&S should be sacked and sued if they did this.
4748: 110:
Alternative approaches to supporting communities dealing with onwiki harassment;
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
13925: 13573: 13453: 13213: 13160: 13108: 13049: 13023: 12814: 12588:
Okay, recall is going on, seems as if the voting community is supporting brave
12388: 12355: 12128: 11998: 11986: 11900: 11849: 11734: 11712: 11614: 11531: 11440: 11127: 11015: 10977: 10895: 10574: 10524: 10490: 10103: 9977: 9822: 9807: 9740: 9724: 9650: 9635: 9582: 9568: 9505: 9321: 9024: 8799: 8579: 8489: 8381: 8366: 8309: 8042: 7915: 7873: 7781: 7718: 7601:
They are also not the government, so they don't have a legal duty to turn over
7193: 7097: 7026: 6974: 6877: 6750: 6694: 6572: 6534: 6464: 6449: 6394: 6386: 6353: 6325: 6245: 5942: 5887: 5810: 5783: 5776: 5761: 5751: 5736: 5702: 5672: 5613: 5546: 5524: 5480: 5456: 5452: 5436: 5398: 5344: 5279: 5249: 5230: 5221: 5205: 5149: 5131: 4902: 4882: 4847: 4795: 4587: 4504: 4261: 4201: 4174: 4120: 4093: 4047: 4020: 3913: 3893: 3795: 3784: 3670: 3629: 3574: 3360: 3260: 3164: 3121: 3078: 2914: 2792: 2775: 2345: 2319: 2271: 2182: 2152: 2148: 2128: 2096: 2023: 1965: 1909: 1580: 1562: 1295: 1233: 1194: 905: 666: 625: 544: 536: 500: 440: 410: 216: 182: 152: 12644:
Support, or oppose whatever prevents that, but think we should aim for 48:52.
11366:
to sign, or requiring users who have been recently subjected to things like a
10455:
saying that some admins don't respect you because you've never stood for RfA?
9634:
We are doing pretty good on rule one and rule two. Rule three, not so much. --
9439: 8659:
I've annotated the Foundation's statement with Jimbo's comments on the matter:
926: 13616: 12983: 12420: 12379: 12097: 11944: 11794: 11722: 11689: 11684: 11656: 11630: 11602: 11595: 11574: 11519: 11505: 11428: 11375: 11371: 11367: 11131: 10369:
It's objective, and the four-box categorization approach has already failed.
10150: 10119: 10115: 10053: 9829: 9542: 9519: 9425:
Knowledge talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Open letter to the WMF Board
9405: 9285: 9274: 9258: 8744: 8644: 8567: 7931: 7903: 7888: 7861: 7845: 7222: 7181: 6520: 6479: 6135: 6111: 5875: 5695: 5660: 5534: 5468: 5424: 5237: 5119: 5112: 5081: 4977: 4890: 4752: 4215: 4169: 4154: 4008: 3810: 3617: 3527: 3418: 3397: 3324: 3312: 3308: 3244: 3233: 3009: 2504: 2307: 2259: 2170: 2056: 2011: 1969: 1188: 1178: 1169: 654: 373: 307:
openness to engaging with the community on improving civility going forward.
258: 11966:
is currently in process to make easier to desysop the problematic admins. --
2757:
per PackMecEng and Ivanvector, and suggest speedy close of this discussion.
13727: 13422: 13286: 12589: 12499: 12440: 12141: 11831: 11304: 11290: 10758: 10556: 10248: 10221: 10202: 9992:
Many editors are willing to accept toxic behavior by positive contributors.
9894: 9777: 9746: 9620:
What is missing here is the fact that we need the following ironclad rules:
9607:
Many editors are willing to accept toxic behavior by positive contributors.
9472: 9374: 8976: 8947: 8905: 7800:
This summary is not a part of the Terms of Use and is not a legal document.
6892: 6837: 6797: 6429: 6372: 5593: 4829: 4593: 4583: 4361: 4053: 3886: 3459: 3330: 3302: 3287: 3218: 3203: 3024: 2997: 2967: 2901: 2841: 2758: 2679: 2627: 2594: 2566: 2515: 2478: 2464: 2449: 2443: 2403: 2299: 2100: 1889: 1007: 827: 614: 599: 564: 293: 18:
Knowledge:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram
9615:
Typically, ANI can deal with this. In cases where they cannot, Arbcom can.
8821: 6320:
With respect to "under a cloud", some of those who have commented on this
361: 13373: 11827: 10723: 10279: 10181: 10180:
leads to a toxic culture and exposes the company to compensation claims.
10085: 9773: 9699: 9450: 9007: 8870: 8834: 8829: 7770:
Civility – You support a civil environment and do not harass other users.
7126: 7054: 6493: 5576: 4231: 3769: 3722: 3226: 2939: 2080: 1973: 936: 918: 98:
Response by Katherine Maher, WMF Executive Director, on behalf of the WMF
12161:
Yes, this lines up with what other dewiki users have told me as well. --
10161:
Ok then. Be more careful with your "random examples" in the future then.
9347: 8547:.... I would be mindful of the laws relating to 'malicious allegation's' 8428:", these follow-up clarifications from Jimmy Wales provide the answer - 1650: 13777: 11967: 11410: 11213:
Figures and time spans are adapted to the German Knowledge environment.
10964: 9772:
is absolutely a core policy - every bit as important to our mission as
8991: 7570: 7547: 7503: 7467: 7422: 7360: 7246: 7226: 7165: 7088: 7071: 7037: 7005: 6032: 5984: 5974:
2. To hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users;
5383: 4807: 2136: 953: 952:
Thank you! We need more people like you and DocJames at the Board IMO.
891: 550: 540: 515: 490: 474: 464: 342: 308: 132: 13201:'You are not focusing on the specific problem raised in this section,' 12557:
It is not a charge at ArbCom and it is an entirely different approach.
11146:
The Unblockables and how German Knowledge has at least one more option
9872:
before that editor (with a long alt-right track record) was indeffed).
9198:
answer the three questions posed they would have in their statement. —
7497:
Engaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism; and
7494:(Prohibited behavior per this ToU clause that was supposedly breached) 6106:, I think this is a good time to remember that Knowledge policies are 5857:
a contractor, on behalf of a company that never directly employed me.
455:
Is there somewhere organizational structure of Wikimedia or WMF? Like
13448: 12809: 12767: 12585:
Some of those who were cut assembled quite soon to run a re-election.
12349: 12179:
minor incremental changes can take years under the current system. —/
12137: 12124: 11982: 11707: 10615:
Seconded, except that I don't think it's just arts-focused articles.
9449:
Thank you for the letter. I'm passing it on to fellow Board members.
9384: 8038: 6275:
explaining the position of T&S or the Foundation. These include:
2092: 582: 406: 12057:
with carefully thought out and convincing documentation that ArbCom
11785:
aren't hard-to-block because they have the admin bit - some of them
11647:
comes out on top when the dust settles. (But really, it's good that
11314:
who view things in a more black and white manner. Currently we have
13437:
Announcement of forthcoming temporary/partial ban tool consultation
12567:
a good reason. No matter whether a crat is sharing this impression.
11508:
violations, a re-confirmation RFA goes through. I wrote concerning
11050: 10937: 8739: 5941:
I think these circumstances are as exceptional as they come. Best,
3524: 3413: 3392: 3004: 578: 267: 253: 13264: 13129:". In civil discussion, I'd say one is acceptable and one is not. 12085: 11206:
If no candidature has been started, automatic desysop will follow.
1523: 1460: 1079:
The response that gives me the greatest hope of a good outcome is
13892: 12496: 12437: 11075:
and did not recuse herself until after there was public push-back
9711:
abrasive, or when it's clear they have no intention of following
9469: 8053: 13123:
This specific argument you present is not reasonable, because...
12858:
a related case that is under consideration but might be declined
12536:
The parameters need to be adjusted to the particular community.
8636:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/Office_actions#Primary_office_actions
8264:
be dealt with by enWP, and I dont see a whiff of that anywhere.
5036:
principle that they're now backed down and we can act as if the
734: 473:
edited my comment. Added answer and removed the redundant part--
13018:'Well, of course, sir,' the don replied quietly, 'you are just 11454:
I think it would have to be multiple bureaucrats, or ArbCom. --
11155:
I am looking at this issue from outside, from German Knowledge.
9466:
Thank you for this thorough letter and for publishing it here.
7736:
Incivility is absolutely a clause in the ToU (as it should be.)
13285:. Silly me. I did think Jimbo had darker hair than that ..."-- 13179:
But in your rules you don't prohibit the specific words I used
9518:
Good statement. I am looking forward to the WMF response. --
8924:
What behavior is so "toxic" that it can't be discussed openly?
8219:
User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)#Response_on_behalf_of_the_Foundation
7466:#4 seems pretty clear that civility is a requirement. Regards 4251: 2623:
missing Jimbo's announcement that the Arbcom may unblock Fram.
429:
due to their expertise. None of them gets salary from the WMF.
12872:, including being changed to communicate that it describes a 11360:
Knowledge:Administrators/RfC for binding administrator recall
10912:
Necessary and sufficient conditions for preventing harassment
10726:– both located on the West coast of the United States – have 9067:
Milk is toxic to flora, and so fauna cannot be permitted it.
4888:
action on our behalf (perhaps only in specific situations).
127:
This contains only little concrete commitments to change but
13268:
There's always this civility policy we could fall back on...
12866:
The English Knowledge page that describes WMF Office actions
12563:
If there are e.g. 100 senior editors within one month there
10052:
In my experience, one of the "steps" in any process, namely
8508:
The Greeting- placeholder, be more specific and less chummy.
232:
use of a WMF en-Wiki noticeboard (at least that I can see).
11267:
case where uncivil wording has been the one and only cause.
9985:
I can accept most of this anaysis, till the the final lists
9338:
Open letter from the Arbitration Committee to the WMF Board
9021:
the terms interested parties promote to govern any argument
8480:
overturn the ban and essentially can do whatever theyplease
7499:
Transmitting chain mail, junk mail, or spam to other users.
13145:
You seem incapable here of presenting reasonable arguments
8359:
I'm no expert on this topic, but did you see this above:
6908:
you're spoiling us. This is classic 'divide and conquer'.
11358:
That's a valid concern. I see the most recent iteration,
9907:
Take a look at PaleCloudedWhite's comments further down.
8729:
Discussion (board statement) another random section break
8005:
Having now seen the follow-up clarifications from Jimmy (
6959:
have meant... I wish everything were just a tad clearer.
5610:
we have cases which obviously need some form of sanctions
4092:
All board members have agreed to it. More may sign here.
3002:
you just beat me to making this subsection. Dang it lol –
2678:
Where would a more appropriate location be in your view?
12235:
strong alignment of goals required for consensus to work
11517:
I don't see why admins should able to say that either.
11318:, which is opt-in but very similar to what de.wp uses. — 11227:
within 64 minutes the necessary quota has been collected
8525:
Para 4. This paragraph should be recast to accept that
368:
from an American perspective and her internships at the
12551:
It is a grassroot motion and does not need any reason.
8388:
have missed what seems to have been a fraught few weeks
7802:
And from the very language you quote out of the Terms:
6161:
necessary; it can't be childishly waved away by citing
1001:
has inside our head and heart is unknown. Rudeness and
13615:
I hope that editors will exert a reasonable amount of
12752:
The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also
925:
and thanked the ArbCom for the Open Letter. Grüße vom
6061:. This is NOT changed by this worthless statement. —/ 1493: 13127:
You are incapable of presenting reasonable arguments
8540:
Para 7 & 8 can be considered content free waffle
8058:
Fram who threatened to block one of the unblockables
6138:. Knowledge is "not law", but that does not and has 2640:
And may I ask you to not be so fucking patronizing?
495:
You probably need to cross-reference that page with
292:
This statement is a step in the right direction. --
13752:
for ArbCom's eyes and not the general editor corps'
11305:
those who work in arbitration/sanctions enforcement
7421:for this non-committal statement? Not good enough. 7317:
Our staff really screwed up, we're trying to fix it
6508:
Discussion (board statement) - Random section break
1621: 1137:(there seems to be a lack of interest in the idea). 1115:
Summary of local issues and discussions - June 2019
652:has been created to address some of these issues. 11490:rouge neo-Marxist admin working for the reptilians 11078:is at all true. From where do you ascertain that? 9581:Thank you. This is why the ArbCom is respected. -- 9527:Not perfect, but plenty good enough to endorse! -- 8998:). The consequences of its advent were set out by 8880:"kindness, generosity, forgiveness and compassion" 6492:Why did it take so long to release this statement 6231:considers the resignations not to be under a cloud 6177:considers the resignations not to be under a cloud 5455:) explaining what and why something was withheld. 4521:^This seems to hit the nail squarely on the head. 1207:- June 31 issue published. In particular, note ... 1010:. We get only narrow glimpses of the whole person. 642:The WMF is disconnected from the editing community 12909:: "Almost three years ago, the board published a 12387:by being really active or something like that. -- 4964:For the record, while it could be unrelated, the 4747:to write an encylopedia, but the WM Foundation's 3120:I will also back ArbCom on whatever they decide. 2208:(Your ping list includes several former staff.) 13199:Do newbies know that even saying something like, 12239:has discussed the problems of online communities 9597:The reason "unblockables" are, well, unblockable 7334:would imagine that someone like that would be a 3866:It's a shame the Board did not make that clear. 3077:That is also my understanding of what we meant. 1263: 5626:Don't "ask" T&S to co-operate with ArbCom. 6363:the project communities rights & freedoms. 5983:I'd say this is well within ArbCom's remit. – 5933:, Good thing it seems to clearly be a case of 12092:, and I think it would be easier to maintain 2463:to do so wouldn't be the way to go about it. 1249: 558:According to Katherine Maher's replies to me 13919:It's happening: The community "consultation" 12595:After that, one year term to be cruel again. 11655:would have been wrong for appointing them.) 11250:nach Wiederwahlaufforderung nicht kandidiert 9160:A stunning lack of perspective by the office 8638:, under "Partial Foundation ban," it states 5782:that has already had gasoline poured on it. 4592:would one of you mind cross-posting this to 4443:as the word harassment ever used by the WMF? 4052:Perhaps a nitpicky question, but I see that 3648:I ask this out of curiosity, nothing more.) 11866:" requests. This is fine, but we'd have to 11862:People are mooting using 'Crats to screen " 11200:No reason necessary, just drop a signature. 9430:I linked this on meta at the talk pages of 7983:". I agree that not allowing ArbCom to see 7887:As it should be, so why mention it at all? 5822:Can't the Board's statement be cnsidered a 4714:Words missing from the board statement: #1 620:of Community Engagement who is part of the 11338:it's entry on our perennial proposals page 11307:. Our controversial areas tend to attract 9016:which forecasts much of what we have here. 8820: 8511:Para 1. An acceptable content free filler. 1256: 1242: 7519:grounds for terminating service. I quote: 3669:Yes the entire board signed off on this. 2664:would obviously not be the place for it. 13263: 12911:strong statement against toxic behaviors 12891: 11504:poor judgment (with diffs) and repeated 10732:the same interests, likes and dislikes. 122:Discussion (Katherine Maher's statement) 12082:this issue with Ymblanter as an example 11169:It is called “Request for Re-election”. 9354:This section is pinned and will not be 8194:Was unaware if this definition. Sorry. 4429:Fram’s invitation to T&S on 12 June 2533:Completely unnecessary and disruptive. 2392:of the compromises proposed. Thank you. 14: 12896:Not just toxic; "incredibly toxic"...? 10793:BTW, I believe Knowledge should cover 8483:.... which I'm generally pleased with, 1197:- Bigger items of discussion included 1183:an expansion of Account Creator Rights 1181:- Bigger items of discussion included 461:meta: Wikimedia_Foundation_departments 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 12878:an English Knowledge community policy 8238:purpose and mechanisms are completed; 7979:" line. What we effectively have is " 7179:That seems pretty reasonable to me. 2880:Update from the Arbitration Committee 2856:It's CLOSED and not going to happen! 1237: 107:purpose and mechanisms are completed; 13806:"There will be resistance to change" 12086:Another similar issue with Gatoclass 9341: 9273:? Sometimes it's hard to tell. -- 9081:I learned two things today: we have 8017:) and the statement from Katherine ( 7462:I don't know which ToU you read but 6057:outside the Committee’s jurisdiction 2814: 2364: 2305:of their regular responsibilities. 25: 9929:everyone else who thinks that way. 6745:Doc James is one of the people who 3202:the decisions already made by WMF. 23: 11234:establishing WMF Community health. 10516:and again in 2014 for edit warring 8869:Late reply - yesterday I was busy 8640:They are final and non-negotiable. 6197:For God's sakes, don't do this. —/ 3898:- Why was the Chair not involved? 1199:Phase 2 of talk page consultations 737:. But I do share your concerns. -- 24: 13979: 13610:Fram arbitration case is now open 13386:I have no quarrel with using the 12575:Currently one recall election is 7703:getting Al Capone for tax evasion 7662:they can be held to its terms. —/ 6393:. There was no nefarious intent. 5937:and that they have the option to 4173:agreement is reached on process. 4125:, I also have same question with 2662:MediaWiki:Editpage-head-copy-warn 2501:MediaWiki:Editpage-head-copy-warn 13812:People who do not wish to comply 11370:or had their article go through 11172:I did not find that approach in 11166:to avoid power misuse by anyone. 10513:back in 2013 for civility issues 9487:letter. Thank you, well done. -- 9346: 9089:, and we know what to prefer. -- 6278:First, there is no mention of a 4493:into a position where they were 2871:The discussion above is closed. 2818: 2368: 2337:Editpage-head-copy-warn petition 571:) 03:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Add: 29: 13682:I was expecting the case to be 12053:new desysop mechanism needs to 11844:immensely. It can be used for 11700:User:EVula/opining/RfA overhaul 10064:handing it over to T&S). -- 7989:Do not share with ArbCom/anyone 6221:In fact, the Board has made it 6167:In fact, the Board has made it 4503:like this because reasons." -- 3056:I interpret it the same way as 1174:moving (local) files to commons 9271:call out a colleague in public 9010:, in his early post-war poem, 5094:and the community are achieved 1157:de:Knowledge Diskussion:Kurier 13: 1: 11183:Administrators open to recall 9950:this edit from a few days ago 9567:Thank you for saying this. -- 7415:primary theme of your message 6688:Doc James (who is, remember, 6180:. The Board does not and has 2825:The Wikimedia Foundation has 2621:Please accept my apology for 2375:The Wikimedia Foundation has 1172:- Bigger items of discussion 1111:For distribution to WMF Staff 12602:Pine's emails to Wikimedia-l 11126:Perhaps re-establishing the 10918:or family. As for (2), no. — 10799:the subjects of interest to 9667:discussed in another section 8332:that is no permission at all 4133:. In particular the sentence 2958:Discussion (board statement) 1264:Active Wikimedia newsletters 370:Council on Foreign Relations 7: 13951:12:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC) 13934:18:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC) 13913:12:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC) 13881:23:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC) 13857:23:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC) 13843:22:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC) 13828:16:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC) 13040:I concur 'toxic' should be 12090:Knowledge:Assume good faith 11181:It is similar to voluntary 11128:personal attack noticeboard 10112:be careful what you measure 9042:, in case you missed it. -- 8294:I would like to agree with 5592:– any specific examples? – 5091:I think the key section is 4966:community health initiative 4449:WMFOffice’s 11 June comment 471:) 11:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 167:Thank you for this letter, 10: 13984: 13818:. Yeah, no fallacy there. 13442:Thank you for the update, 12061:is failing in some way. -- 11252:(no candidature) and some 10963:that question is central. 8851:trying to conduct business 7573:says, the TOU also state: 2827:recently adopted processes 2377:recently adopted processes 645: 13791:09:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC) 13766:21:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC) 13742:12:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC) 13722:19:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC) 13698:19:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC) 13672:15:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC) 13660:14:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC) 13646:14:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC) 13630:14:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC) 13602:01:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC) 13586:01:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC) 13555:23:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC) 13536:21:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC) 13519:20:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC) 13504:20:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC) 13481:20:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC) 13460:18:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC) 13431:20:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC) 13401:18:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC) 13382:13:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC) 13364:19:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC) 13343:20:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC) 13312:13:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC) 13295:12:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC) 13253:10:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC) 13238:10:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC) 13222:12:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC) 13191:10:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC) 13169:10:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC) 13139:10:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC) 13117:10:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC) 13103:09:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC) 13088:09:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC) 13072:09:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC) 13058:09:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC) 13032:09:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC) 13001:08:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC) 12987:08:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC) 12977:07:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC) 12960:07:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC) 12923:22:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC) 12821:01:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC) 12706:21:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 12672:01:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 12663:22:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 12649:21:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 12011:May I point out that the 11231:current WMF T&S staff 11221:In August 2015 a certain 9514:19:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC) 9497:17:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC) 9479:15:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC) 9462:10:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC) 9443:09:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC) 8845:unresponsive bureaucracy, 8841: 8828: 8819: 6358:, the sentence you quote 3852:users in the community.-- 1850: 1783: 1705: 1449: 1294: 1269: 948:17:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC) 930:13:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC) 914:13:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC) 900:12:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC) 883:23:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC) 858:04:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC) 836:03:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC) 821:22:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC) 807:22:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC) 786:22:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC) 772:22:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC) 750:22:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC) 13897:Twenty Seconds to Comply 13686:given prior precedent. — 12882:the associated talk page 12791:03:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 12506:23:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC) 12489:18:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 12474:13:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 12462:14:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 12447:16:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC) 12429:09:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 12415:08:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 12397:06:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 12369:05:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 12343:05:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 12307:08:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 12292:06:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 12268:05:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 12251:04:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 12228:00:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 12198:23:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 12174:23:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 12157:23:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 12133:22:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 12106:21:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 12071:16:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 12030:20:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 12007:17:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 11991:15:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 11976:15:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 11953:13:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 11935:21:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 11915:15:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 11896:12:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 11880:12:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 11858:05:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 11780:05:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 11744:21:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 11715:16:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 11693:06:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 11660:06:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 11624:05:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 11578:05:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 11558:05:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 11541:04:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 11483:04:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 11467:04:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 11450:03:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 11421:02:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 11405:02:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 11384:22:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 11350:21:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 11330:21:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 11299:21:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 11188:Workflow in a nutshell: 11140:15:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC) 11119:11:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC) 11092:06:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC) 11060:04:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC) 11041:00:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC) 11024:22:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 11009:20:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 10986:06:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC) 10972:04:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC) 10958:20:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 10947:20:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 10930:18:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 10904:21:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 10889:15:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 10863:13:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 10842:13:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 10822:11:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 10805:English-speaking people 10783:22:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 10767:18:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 10742:10:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 10713:09:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 10685:00:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 10665:23:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC) 10652:23:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC) 10636:22:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC) 10627:22:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC) 10595:04:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC) 10565:17:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 10545:15:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 10505:13:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 10478:13:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 10465:10:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 10436:20:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC) 10379:12:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC) 10352:13:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC) 10338:13:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC) 10304:22:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC) 10288:09:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC) 10274:05:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC) 10257:04:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC) 10238:03:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC) 10211:04:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 10190:08:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC) 10171:01:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC) 10157:01:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC) 10145:00:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC) 10126:00:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC) 10094:23:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 10074:20:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 10044:20:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 9967:19:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 9934:21:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC) 9917:21:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC) 9903:20:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC) 9889:12:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC) 9844:20:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 9816:21:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 9755:20:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 9733:19:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 9683:18:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 9659:18:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 9644:18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 9591:19:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC) 9577:17:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC) 9563:11:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC) 9551:09:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC) 9537:09:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC) 9523:03:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC) 9330:17:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC) 9300:20:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 9281:19:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 9254:increased responsibility 9241:23:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 9229:18:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 9210:22:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 9180:21:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 9154:14:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 9130:10:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 9099:21:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 9077:20:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 9052:13:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 9033:13:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 8985:11:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 8970:11:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 8956:10:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 8937:10:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 8921:What is toxic behaviour? 8914:08:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 8892:07:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 8808:01:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 8783:22:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8768:21:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8749:15:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8723:11:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8653:11:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8622:14:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8607:11:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8589:10:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8502:10:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8470:10:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8450:10:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8411:09:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8375:09:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8355:09:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8318:09:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8290:08:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8275:08:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8259:08:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8231:08:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8217:Should probably look at 8204:09:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8188:08:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8166:08:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8100:08:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8078:07:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8047:07:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8030:10:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 8001:07:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7967:07:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7946:17:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7925:08:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7897:08:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7883:07:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7854:07:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7825:08:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7790:07:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7757:07:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7727:07:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7681:08:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7648:08:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7633:07:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7605:as you've claimed above. 7593:07:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7558:07:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7542:07:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7511:07:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7478:07:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7458:07:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7430:07:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7408:07:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7386:07:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7371:07:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7354:07:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7329:06:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7298:06:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7284:06:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7257:06:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7237:06:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7218:06:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7203:06:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7155:06:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7135:07:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7118:14:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7082:07:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7066:06:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7048:06:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 7016:06:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6996:06:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6978:06:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6969:05:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6942:05:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6924:05:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6901:05:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6886:05:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6870:05:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6846:05:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6821:07:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6806:06:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6783:07:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6759:05:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6741:07:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6727:05:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6703:05:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6674:07:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6651:05:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6608:04:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6581:08:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6553:07:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6538:04:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6529:04:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6516:I didn't hear that level 6502:22:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6488:07:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6473:05:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6458:04:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6438:04:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6415:23:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6381:06:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6346:04:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6254:05:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6216:04:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6124:04:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6097:04:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6080:03:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6048:03:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6024:03:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 6000:03:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5951:03:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5926:03:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5897:03:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5869:03:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5837:03:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5814:02:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5792:05:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5770:04:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5745:03:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5723:03:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5711:02:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5682:02:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5647:02:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5622:02:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5605:02:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5585:02:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5556:02:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5528:02:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5516:02:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5490:02:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5462:02:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5446:02:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5392:01:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5374:01:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5350:01:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5336:02:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5300:03:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5274:02:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5259:02:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5211:02:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5200:02:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5185:01:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5170:01:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5155:01:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5141:01:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5106:01:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5087:01:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5066:01:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5025:07:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 5010:01:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4990:04:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4954:07:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4935:01:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4912:01:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4876:07:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4857:01:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4838:01:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4823:01:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4784:01:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4758:01:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4728:00:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4702:01:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4677:07:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4662:01:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4647:01:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4630:01:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4606:00:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4575:00:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4552:08:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4529:14:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4513:02:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4467:01:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4422:Fram’s 11 June statement 4401:00:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4388:00:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4370:00:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4349:00:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4332:00:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4315:00:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4296:00:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4270:00:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4237:17:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4224:01:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 4195:23:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4163:17:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4114:01:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 4085:23:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 4067:23:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 4030:01:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 3992:07:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 3973:23:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3952:17:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 3938:02:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 3922:23:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3908:23:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3876:17:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 3862:07:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 3847:23:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3823:05:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 3804:23:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3790:23:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3778:23:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3757:01:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 3734:06:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 3712:23:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3691:01:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 3665:23:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3639:01:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 3595:01:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 3568:23:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3547:23:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3532:23:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3512:07:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 3491:00:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 3468:23:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3453:23:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3427:01:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 3406:23:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3384:23:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3365:23:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3339:06:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 3318:01:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 3296:01:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 3281:01:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 3253:18:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 3239:01:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 3212:23:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3197:23:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3173:23:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3142:15:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 3113:23:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3099:23:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3074:23:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC 3052:23:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3033:23:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 3018:23:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 2990:07:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 2976:23:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 2951:04:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 2935:23:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 2910:23:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 2873:Please do not modify it. 2866:18:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2850:18:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2805:18:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2784:17:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2767:17:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2750:17:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2730:17:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2703:17:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2688:17:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2674:17:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2650:18:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2636:17:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2617:17:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2603:17:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2589:17:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2575:17:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2561:17:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2543:17:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2524:17:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2510:17:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2487:17:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2473:17:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2458:17:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2429:17:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2412:17:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2358:18:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC) 2329:23:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC) 2281:22:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC) 2233:18:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC) 2218:18:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC) 2192:17:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC) 2033:17:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC) 1131:special casing on mobile 1099:10:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 1075:10:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 1046:19:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC) 962:12:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC) 720:02:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 696:16:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 676:17:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 634:03:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 608:03:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 524:13:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 509:13:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 483:12:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 449:11:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 415:11:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 397:03:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC) 350:20:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 337:19:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 317:18:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 302:18:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 282:18:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 263:15:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 242:09:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 225:15:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 210:15:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 191:11:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 161:09:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 143:09:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC) 13969:Unified Code of Conduct 13281:Oh. The picture on the 13173:Yes, I agree, and the " 12941:Wise words on words. —/ 12142:arbitration enforcement 11029:up as much as it did. — 10851:use–mention distinction 9870:and discussion about it 8860:controlling systems ... 7798:Also from the summary: 7464:foundation:Terms of Use 6055:WMF office actions are 5903:NOTICE TO ARBITRATORS: 2384:asking them to endorse 1603:This Month in Education 13269: 12897: 12626:to another user's post 11962:seems to be friendly. 11651:because if they could 11649:admins can do no wrong 10017:RULE THREE: No T&S 9356:automatically archived 8842:... about alienation, 8693: 8689: 8685: 8681: 8677: 8061:confrontational with. 7521: 5701:overbearing that way. 5050:will tell us where we 4143: 1922:Faidon Liambotis (WMF) 1873: 1127:commons:Talk:Main Page 459:but updated? (Answer: 103: 13801:Next steps, continued 13267: 13046:Obstructive behaviour 12895: 12805:the July 2019 archive 12801:the June 2019 archive 12682:original jurisdiction 11834:; we shouldn't treat 11242:List of former admins 10523:thanks for the ping. 10407:an ArbCom case page. 9737:So, just to be clear 8854:with non-transparent, 8773:convince T&S". -- 8692: 8688: 8684: 8680: 8676: 8154:against another sysop 8054:assorted unblockables 7520: 6350:To your first point, 4142: 1796:Guild of Copy Editors 1467:Wikimedia Deutschland 1108: 102: 42:of past discussions. 13903:- music to edit by. 13901:Resistance is futile 13650:Ha! Sad but true. -- 12852:Arbcom has passed a 12834:another user's email 12746:has made a statement 11312:amounts of partisans 11254:freiwillige Rückgabe 11248:(not re-elected) or 9187:absolutely necessary 9087:respectful workplace 9004:The Gutenberg Galaxy 7603:exculpatory evidence 7580:exculpatory evidence 6891:unpaid intern, WMF. 6833:someone very high up 4478:believe that Fram's 2141:Trevor Parscal (WMF) 2049:MeganHernandez (WMF) 1831:The Hurricane Herald 1724:2nd Ias distribution 1647:Wikimedia Foundation 1287:) = Google Translate 921:answered just today 13245:Boing! said Zebedee 13183:Boing! said Zebedee 13131:Boing! said Zebedee 13095:Boing! said Zebedee 13068:click to talk to me 12997:click to talk to me 12797:Serial Number 54129 12639:Additional comments 11704:talked me out of it 11498:Real Ultimate Power 11274:One other tool is “ 11246:nicht wiedergewählt 11164:checks and balances 10484:Know your audience. 10469:Thanks for asking, 8857:seemingly arbitrary 8668:Annotated statement 8442:Boing! said Zebedee 8420:Serial Number 54129 8282:Boing! said Zebedee 8022:Boing! said Zebedee 7993:Boing! said Zebedee 7963:click to talk to me 7768:From the summary: 7713:themselves, it was 4920:The statement that 4090:User:GorillaWarfare 3307:that is assuming a 3118:User:GorillaWarfare 2858:Boing! said Zebedee 2810:Proposed revisions: 2695:Boing! said Zebedee 2666:Boing! said Zebedee 2642:Boing! said Zebedee 2609:Boing! said Zebedee 2581:Boing! said Zebedee 2553:Boing! said Zebedee 1829:Tropical cyclones: 1573:Research Newsletter 1481:Wikimedia Nederland 1151:de:Knowledge:Kurier 595:Serial Number 54129 13757:A little blue Bori 13689:A little blue Bori 13327:traits I dont like 13270: 12898: 11805:when dealing with 11321:A little blue Bori 11105:to get at least a 11032:A little blue Bori 10921:A little blue Bori 10521:User:Beyond My Ken 10106:'s comment above, 9395:Premeditated Chaos 9317:passive aggressive 9201:A little blue Bori 8848:the frustration of 8595:Gowers plain words 7345:A little blue Bori 5638:A little blue Bori 4770:Words missing #2: 4212:Marbury v. Madison 4208:Dissenting_opinion 3929:A little blue Bori 2240:Whatamidoing (WMF) 2210:Whatamidoing (WMF) 2161:WikipediaTutorials 2157:Whatamidoing (WMF) 2105:Ryan Kaldari (WMF) 2037:Pinging (part 2): 1982:KHammerstein (WMF) 1934:GeoffBrigham (WMF) 1878:Pinging (part 1): 1816:Military history: 1730:Discontent Content 1720:Bunbunmaru Shinbun 1612:This Month in GLAM 1534:Growth/Newsletters 362:Connecticut suburb 13877: 13869: 13718: 13710: 13670: 13588: 13572:comment added by 13500: 13492: 13153:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 12956: 12948: 12940: 12403:discussed earlier 12288: 12280: 12224: 12216: 12194: 12186: 12155: 12013:seven dirty words 11913: 11556: 11512:in the past that 11481: 10956: 10781: 10709: 10701: 10650: 10625: 10334: 10326: 10302: 10272: 10236: 9422:Discuss this at: 9362: 9361: 9312:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 9298: 9239: 8866: 8865: 8720: 8699: 8698: 8301: 8277: 8255: 8247: 8233: 8206: 8190: 8106:WereSpielChequers 7821: 7813: 7753: 7745: 7677: 7669: 7629: 7621: 7568: 7538: 7530: 7454: 7446: 7280: 7272: 6866: 6858: 6779: 6771: 6723: 6715: 6647: 6639: 6287:responsibilities. 6212: 6204: 6076: 6068: 6020: 6012: 5967: 5922: 5914: 5867: 5721: 5633:Mecca school fire 5512: 5504: 4997:First impressions 4698: 4690: 4626: 4618: 4433:at the very least 4398:Uncle uncle uncle 4083: 4065: 4044: 3487: 3479: 3449: 3441: 3193: 3185: 3111: 3050: 3043: 3020: 2885:Discuss this at: 2838: 2837: 2732: 2396: 2395: 2382:contact the Board 2203:m:Wikimedia Space 2065:Ops Monitor (WMF) 1870: 1869: 1861:Noticeboard links 1801:Lichen task force 1546:Books & Bytes 1461:Wikimedia Belgium 1129:- Concerns about 923:here on this page 698: 485: 381:200 days per year 379:In addition, her 366:foreign relations 95: 94: 54: 53: 48:current main page 13975: 13873: 13867: 13862:the advocate. —/ 13763: 13739: 13734: 13714: 13708: 13695: 13669: 13567: 13496: 13490: 13458: 13456: 13451: 12952: 12946: 12939: 12938: 12937: 12931: 12819: 12817: 12812: 12788: 12783: 12776: 12766:No replies yet, 12754:made a statement 12702: 12697: 12692: 12504: 12502: 12445: 12443: 12367: 12364: 12358: 12352: 12339: 12334: 12329: 12284: 12278: 12220: 12214: 12190: 12184: 12154: 11912: 11777: 11773: 11768: 11742: 11695: 11688: 11634: 11622: 11599: 11588: 11550: 11539: 11516: 11475: 11448: 11418: 11327: 11087: 11082: 11058: 11038: 10969: 10955: 10945: 10927: 10886: 10882: 10877: 10780: 10720:Portland, Oregon 10705: 10699: 10644: 10619: 10579: 10529: 10495:is a bad actor. 10494: 10344:PaleCloudedWhite 10330: 10324: 10296: 10266: 10230: 10225: 9981: 9841: 9836: 9826: 9744: 9477: 9475: 9459: 9453: 9413:Worm That Turned 9390:Opabinia regalis 9350: 9342: 9297: 9251: 9238: 9226: 9221: 9207: 9177: 9172: 9142: 9139: 9066: 9013:Under Which Lyre 9000:Marshall McLuhan 8824: 8817: 8816: 8718: 8715: 8712: 8707: 8664: 8663: 8587: 8499: 8494: 8423: 8408: 8403: 8396: 8385: 8352: 8347: 8340: 8299: 8270: 8265: 8251: 8245: 8226: 8221: 8193: 8183: 8178: 8170: 8148: 8127:deleted contribs 8110:Kiefer.Wolfowitz 8075: 8071: 8066: 7943: 7938: 7923: 7881: 7817: 7811: 7749: 7743: 7673: 7667: 7625: 7619: 7562: 7555: 7550: 7534: 7528: 7508: 7475: 7470: 7450: 7444: 7427: 7403: 7398: 7368: 7363: 7351: 7290:The Rambling Man 7276: 7270: 7254: 7242:The Rambling Man 7234: 7210:The Rambling Man 7201: 7173: 7170:The Rambling Man 7147:The Rambling Man 7102: 7079: 7074: 7063: 7057: 7045: 7040: 7030: 7013: 6920: 6917: 6862: 6856: 6775: 6769: 6719: 6713: 6643: 6637: 6533:Let's find out. 6399: 6391:User:Floquenbeam 6369:Streisand effect 6357: 6330: 6208: 6202: 6120: 6114: 6072: 6066: 6045: 6040: 6016: 6010: 5997: 5992: 5961: 5918: 5912: 5895: 5861: 5780: 5759: 5733: 5720: 5699: 5692: 5680: 5657: 5644: 5554: 5508: 5502: 5488: 5459: 5444: 5406: 5347: 5332: 5327: 5322: 5284: 5257: 5234: 5225: 5208: 5152: 5139: 5116: 5084: 4986: 4980: 4910: 4886: 4820: 4815: 4755: 4738: 4694: 4688: 4622: 4616: 4591: 4527: 4525:Compassionate727 4292: 4287: 4282: 4254: 4205: 4179: 4132: 4124: 4098: 4079: 4071:Also, these are 4061: 4051: 4038: 4028: 4004: 3935: 3897: 3890: 3819: 3813: 3755: 3740:Thank you both. 3731: 3725: 3675: 3663: 3637: 3605: 3579: 3507: 3502: 3483: 3477: 3445: 3439: 3425: 3416: 3404: 3395: 3328: 3315: 3306: 3265: 3236: 3231: 3225: 3222: 3189: 3183: 3126: 3107: 3083: 3067: 3064: 3049: 3037: 3016: 3007: 3001: 2994: 2948: 2942: 2919: 2822: 2821: 2815: 2802: 2800:Let's discuss it 2725: 2720: 2507: 2447: 2372: 2371: 2365: 2355: 2350: 2327: 2303: 2279: 2254:passive/reactive 2247: 2190: 2168: 2069:Ori Livneh (WMF) 2031: 2009: 1958:JEissfeldt (WMF) 1770:Knowledge Weekly 1745:New pages patrol 1700: 1697: 1685: 1682: 1666: 1644: 1635: 1618:Planet Wikimedia 1615: 1606: 1594: 1585: 1576: 1567: 1558: 1549: 1537: 1528: 1516: 1513: 1507:Wikimedia Taiwan 1501: 1494:Wikimedia Poland 1490: 1487: 1476: 1473: 1442: 1439: 1428: 1425: 1414: 1411: 1400: 1397: 1383: 1380: 1366: 1359: 1356: 1345: 1342: 1331: 1328: 1317: 1314: 1286: 1258: 1251: 1244: 1235: 1234: 1116: 1008:reliable sources 945: 939: 856: 805: 770: 685: 674: 618: 598: 548: 494: 472: 329: 326: 279: 274: 140: 135: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 13983: 13982: 13978: 13977: 13976: 13974: 13973: 13972: 13971: 13921: 13878: 13816:toxic behaviors 13808: 13803: 13761: 13737: 13728: 13719: 13693: 13643: 13612: 13501: 13468: 13454: 13449: 13447: 13439: 13423:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 13352:to make a point 13022:, of course...' 13020:passing through 12957: 12935: 12933: 12932: 12890: 12856:, and there is 12844: 12837: 12832:in response to 12815: 12810: 12808: 12786: 12779: 12772: 12763: 12716: 12700: 12695: 12690: 12669:cygnis insignis 12646:cygnis insignis 12641: 12636: 12629: 12618: 12611: 12604: 12500: 12494: 12441: 12435: 12362: 12356: 12350: 12348: 12337: 12332: 12327: 12289: 12225: 12195: 11775: 11771: 11766: 11721: 11682: 11680: 11641:WP:UNBLOCKABLES 11628: 11601: 11593: 11585:Espresso Addict 11582: 11548:Espresso Addict 11518: 11513: 11473:Espresso Addict 11427: 11416: 11325: 11148: 11083: 11080: 11049: 11036: 10965: 10936: 10925: 10914: 10884: 10880: 10875: 10710: 10662:cygnis insignis 10660:what you mean. 10642:Espresso Addict 10633:cygnis insignis 10617:Espresso Addict 10575: 10525: 10488: 10335: 10294:Espresso Addict 10264:Espresso Addict 10228:Espresso Addict 10219: 10163:Volunteer Marek 10137:Volunteer Marek 9982:(edit conflict) 9975: 9931:cygnis insignis 9839: 9830: 9820: 9738: 9671:on another page 9599: 9557:Peter Southwood 9473: 9467: 9457: 9451: 9419: 9418: 9404:Steve Pereira ( 9400:RickinBaltimore 9351: 9340: 9259:deletion review 9245: 9224: 9219: 9205: 9175: 9170: 9162: 9140: 9137: 9083:toxic workplace 9060: 8731: 8713: 8708: 8705: 8700: 8695: 8669: 8566: 8495: 8490: 8417: 8406: 8399: 8392: 8379: 8350: 8343: 8336: 8268: 8256: 8224: 8179: 8176: 8155: 8150:, conducting a 8112: 8073: 8069: 8064: 7941: 7936: 7902: 7860: 7822: 7772:From the body: 7754: 7678: 7630: 7569:On top of what 7553: 7548: 7539: 7504: 7473: 7468: 7455: 7423: 7399: 7396: 7366: 7361: 7349: 7281: 7252: 7232: 7180: 7163: 7098: 7091:As Jimmy says " 7077: 7072: 7061: 7055: 7043: 7038: 7024: 7011: 6918: 6915: 6867: 6838:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 6780: 6724: 6648: 6568:thank you Jimbo 6510: 6395: 6351: 6326: 6213: 6118: 6112: 6077: 6043: 6033: 6021: 5995: 5985: 5923: 5874: 5859:Espresso Addict 5774: 5749: 5727: 5693: 5686: 5659: 5651: 5642: 5533: 5513: 5467: 5457: 5423: 5411:and (probably) 5396: 5345: 5330: 5325: 5320: 5280: 5236: 5228: 5215: 5206: 5150: 5118: 5110: 5082: 5038:status quo ante 4984: 4978: 4889: 4880: 4848:-<)kmk(: --> 4818: 4808: 4804:Katherine (WMF) 4753: 4732: 4699: 4627: 4581: 4522: 4290: 4285: 4280: 4252:Katherine (WMF) 4250: 4199: 4175: 4126: 4118: 4094: 4073:recommendations 4045: 4007: 3998: 3933: 3891: 3884: 3817: 3811: 3741: 3729: 3723: 3671: 3649: 3616: 3610:and (probably) 3599: 3575: 3503: 3500: 3488: 3450: 3414: 3412: 3393: 3391: 3380: 3322: 3313: 3300: 3261: 3234: 3229: 3223: 3216: 3194: 3122: 3079: 3072: 3065: 3062: 3005: 3003: 2995: 2960: 2955: 2946: 2940: 2915: 2897: 2895:Board statement 2882: 2877: 2876: 2819: 2798: 2747: 2723: 2505: 2433: 2369: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2351: 2346: 2339: 2306: 2297: 2258: 2237: 2169: 2038: 2010: 1978:Katherine (WMF) 1879: 1872: 1871: 1866: 1865: 1846: 1779: 1701: 1691: 1680: 1672: 1660: 1638: 1629: 1609: 1600: 1588: 1579: 1570: 1561: 1552: 1543: 1531: 1522: 1511: 1505: 1497: 1485: 1479: 1471: 1465: 1454: 1445: 1437: 1431: 1423: 1417: 1409: 1403: 1395: 1386: 1378: 1369: 1362: 1354: 1348: 1340: 1334: 1326: 1320: 1312: 1306: 1290: 1284: 1274:All newsletters 1265: 1262: 1118: 1114: 1107: 943: 937: 842: 791: 756: 678: 653: 644: 612: 600:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 572: 565:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 534: 488: 425: 334: 327: 324: 277: 272: 169:Katherine (WMF) 138: 133: 124: 119: 100: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 13981: 13970: 13967: 13966: 13965: 13960: 13954: 13953: 13943:LessHeard vanU 13937: 13936: 13920: 13917: 13916: 13915: 13905:LessHeard vanU 13889: 13888: 13887: 13886: 13885: 13884: 13883: 13872: 13807: 13804: 13802: 13799: 13798: 13797: 13796: 13795: 13794: 13793: 13770: 13769: 13768: 13713: 13680: 13679: 13678: 13677: 13676: 13675: 13674: 13639: 13611: 13608: 13607: 13606: 13605: 13604: 13558: 13557: 13541: 13540: 13539: 13538: 13523: 13522: 13521: 13495: 13467: 13464: 13463: 13462: 13438: 13435: 13434: 13433: 13418: 13417: 13408: 13407: 13406: 13405: 13404: 13403: 13367: 13366: 13346: 13345: 13322: 13321: 13320: 13319: 13318: 13317: 13316: 13315: 13304:Cavalryman V31 13299: 13298: 13297: 13262: 13261: 13260: 13259: 13258: 13257: 13256: 13255: 13226: 13225: 13224: 13197: 13196: 13195: 13194: 13193: 13156: 13148: 13080:Cavalryman V31 13076: 13075: 13074: 13038: 13037: 13036: 13035: 13034: 13016: 13013: 13010: 13007:Athenaeum Club 12979: 12962: 12951: 12929: 12928: 12927: 12926: 12925: 12889: 12886: 12885: 12884: 12862: 12861: 12854:related motion 12849: 12848: 12843: 12838: 12836: 12827: 12826: 12825: 12824: 12823: 12762: 12759: 12758: 12757: 12749: 12748: 12744:The WMF Board 12741: 12740: 12736: 12735: 12726: 12725: 12721: 12720: 12715: 12710: 12709: 12708: 12678: 12677: 12676: 12675: 12674: 12640: 12637: 12635: 12630: 12628: 12619: 12617: 12612: 12610: 12605: 12603: 12600: 12599: 12598: 12597: 12596: 12593: 12586: 12583: 12573: 12572: 12571: 12568: 12561: 12558: 12555: 12549: 12548: 12547: 12543: 12540: 12534: 12533: 12532: 12529: 12521: 12520: 12519: 12518: 12517: 12516: 12515: 12514: 12513: 12512: 12511: 12510: 12509: 12508: 12491: 12466: 12465: 12464: 12449: 12319: 12318: 12317: 12316: 12315: 12314: 12313: 12312: 12311: 12310: 12309: 12294: 12283: 12230: 12219: 12189: 12159: 12120: 12116: 12111: 12110: 12109: 12108: 12074: 12073: 12035: 12034: 12033: 12032: 12022:Stephan Schulz 11995: 11994: 11993: 11956: 11955: 11940: 11939: 11938: 11937: 11898: 11883: 11882: 11860: 11846:interpretation 11816:interpretation 11799:WP:TENDENTIOUS 11782: 11759: 11758: 11757: 11756: 11755: 11754: 11753: 11752: 11751: 11750: 11749: 11748: 11747: 11746: 11669: 11668: 11667: 11666: 11665: 11664: 11663: 11662: 11591: 11570: 11569: 11568: 11567: 11566: 11565: 11564: 11563: 11562: 11561: 11560: 11494:suppress truth 11389: 11388: 11387: 11386: 11364:WP:AUTOCONFIRM 11353: 11352: 11333: 11332: 11301: 11286: 11285: 11281: 11280: 11279: 11272: 11268: 11264: 11261: 11257: 11238: 11235: 11216: 11215: 11214: 11211: 11207: 11204: 11201: 11198: 11195: 11192: 11179: 11178: 11177: 11170: 11167: 11160: 11156: 11147: 11144: 11143: 11142: 11121: 11095: 11094: 11072:I don't think 11069: 11068: 11067: 11066: 11065: 11064: 11063: 11062: 10996: 10995: 10994: 10993: 10992: 10991: 10990: 10989: 10988: 10913: 10910: 10909: 10908: 10907: 10906: 10868: 10867: 10866: 10865: 10846: 10845: 10844: 10825: 10824: 10790: 10789: 10788: 10787: 10786: 10785: 10770: 10769: 10745: 10744: 10704: 10690: 10689: 10688: 10687: 10673: 10672: 10671: 10670: 10669: 10668: 10667: 10613: 10612: 10611: 10610: 10609: 10608: 10607: 10606: 10605: 10604: 10603: 10602: 10601: 10600: 10599: 10598: 10597: 10509:Okay I warned 10429: 10425: 10421: 10403: 10402: 10384: 10383: 10382: 10381: 10363: 10362: 10355: 10354: 10329: 10315: 10314: 10313: 10312: 10311: 10310: 10309: 10308: 10307: 10306: 10241: 10240: 10216: 10215: 10214: 10213: 10195: 10194: 10193: 10192: 10177: 10176: 10175: 10174: 10173: 10129: 10128: 10102:Responding to 10099: 10098: 10097: 10096: 10049: 10048: 10047: 10046: 10029: 10028: 10027: 10026: 10025: 10024: 10020: 10011: 10010: 10009: 10006: 10003: 9999: 9994: 9986: 9983: 9970: 9969: 9945: 9944: 9943: 9942: 9941: 9940: 9939: 9938: 9937: 9936: 9920: 9919: 9877: 9873: 9860: 9859: 9853: 9852: 9851: 9850: 9849: 9848: 9847: 9846: 9686: 9685: 9663: 9662: 9661: 9632: 9630: 9627: 9624: 9621: 9618: 9616: 9613: 9611: 9608: 9605: 9603: 9598: 9595: 9594: 9593: 9579: 9565: 9553: 9539: 9529:Stephan Schulz 9525: 9516: 9499: 9481: 9464: 9446: 9445: 9428: 9417: 9416: 9409: 9402: 9397: 9392: 9387: 9382: 9377: 9372: 9369:GorillaWarfare 9364: 9363: 9360: 9359: 9352: 9345: 9339: 9336: 9335: 9334: 9333: 9332: 9308: 9307: 9306: 9305: 9304: 9303: 9302: 9231: 9215:Jéské Couriano 9166:Jéské Couriano 9161: 9158: 9157: 9156: 9132: 9116: 9115: 9114: 9113: 9112: 9111: 9110: 9109: 9108: 9107: 9106: 9105: 9104: 9103: 9102: 9101: 9069:LessHeard vanU 9058: 9057: 9056: 9055: 9054: 9017: 8996:Toxic Language 8940: 8939: 8925: 8922: 8895: 8894: 8864: 8863: 8862: 8861: 8858: 8855: 8852: 8849: 8846: 8839: 8838: 8826: 8825: 8815: 8814: 8813: 8812: 8811: 8810: 8788: 8787: 8786: 8785: 8760:LessHeard vanU 8754: 8753: 8752: 8751: 8730: 8727: 8726: 8725: 8697: 8696: 8674: 8671: 8670: 8667: 8662: 8661: 8660: 8656: 8655: 8631: 8630: 8629: 8628: 8627: 8626: 8625: 8624: 8559: 8558: 8555: 8551: 8548: 8544: 8541: 8538: 8534: 8530: 8523: 8516: 8512: 8509: 8505: 8504: 8485: 8484: 8473: 8472: 8454: 8453: 8452: 8415: 8414: 8413: 8328: 8327: 8326: 8325: 8324: 8323: 8322: 8321: 8320: 8250: 8214: 8213: 8212: 8211: 8210: 8209: 8208: 8207: 8149: 8102: 8081: 8080: 8049: 8034: 8033: 8032: 7969: 7954: 7953: 7952: 7951: 7950: 7949: 7948: 7928: 7927: 7840: 7839: 7838: 7837: 7836: 7835: 7834: 7833: 7832: 7831: 7830: 7829: 7828: 7827: 7816: 7793: 7792: 7760: 7759: 7748: 7730: 7729: 7694: 7693: 7692: 7691: 7690: 7689: 7688: 7687: 7686: 7685: 7684: 7683: 7672: 7624: 7609: 7599: 7544: 7533: 7501: 7498: 7495: 7485: 7484: 7483: 7482: 7481: 7480: 7449: 7410: 7392: 7391: 7390: 7389: 7388: 7356: 7311: 7310: 7309: 7308: 7307: 7306: 7305: 7304: 7303: 7302: 7301: 7300: 7286: 7275: 7158: 7157: 7143: 7142: 7141: 7140: 7139: 7138: 7137: 7122: 7121: 7120: 7019: 7018: 7002: 7001: 7000: 6999: 6998: 6947: 6946: 6945: 6944: 6904: 6903: 6888: 6874: 6873: 6872: 6861: 6827: 6826: 6825: 6824: 6823: 6793: 6792: 6791: 6790: 6789: 6788: 6787: 6786: 6785: 6774: 6743: 6718: 6681: 6680: 6679: 6678: 6677: 6676: 6656: 6655: 6654: 6653: 6642: 6589: 6588: 6587: 6586: 6585: 6584: 6583: 6509: 6506: 6505: 6504: 6490: 6475: 6460: 6446: 6441: 6440: 6424: 6423: 6422: 6421: 6420: 6419: 6418: 6417: 6387:User:WJBscribe 6364: 6318: 6312: 6311: 6310: 6309: 6306: 6303: 6300: 6296: 6288: 6284: 6271: 6270: 6269: 6268: 6267: 6266: 6265: 6264: 6263: 6262: 6261: 6260: 6259: 6258: 6257: 6256: 6207: 6196: 6187: 6166: 6150: 6101: 6100: 6099: 6071: 6015: 5981: 5980: 5979: 5956: 5955: 5954: 5953: 5917: 5901: 5900: 5899: 5854: 5842: 5841: 5840: 5839: 5817: 5816: 5805: 5804: 5803: 5802: 5801: 5800: 5799: 5798: 5797: 5796: 5795: 5794: 5756:Jéské Couriano 5713: 5689:Jéské Couriano 5654:Jéské Couriano 5624: 5607: 5587: 5571: 5570: 5569: 5568: 5567: 5566: 5565: 5564: 5563: 5562: 5561: 5560: 5559: 5558: 5507: 5494: 5493: 5492: 5453:Mueller report 5418: 5417: 5394: 5377: 5376: 5353: 5352: 5340: 5339: 5338: 5312: 5311: 5310: 5309: 5308: 5307: 5306: 5305: 5304: 5303: 5302: 5213: 5145: 5144: 5143: 5089: 5076: 5075: 5071: 5070: 5069: 5068: 5030: 5029: 5028: 5027: 4994: 4993: 4992: 4959: 4958: 4957: 4956: 4938: 4937: 4917: 4916: 4915: 4914: 4878: 4860: 4859: 4840: 4825: 4791: 4790: 4789: 4788: 4787: 4786: 4763: 4762: 4761: 4760: 4739:realistically 4711: 4710: 4709: 4708: 4707: 4706: 4705: 4704: 4693: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4621: 4578: 4577: 4556: 4555: 4554: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4516: 4515: 4480:publicly known 4470: 4469: 4455: 4445: 4440: 4437: 4425: 4413: 4412: 4404: 4403: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4390: 4373: 4372: 4353: 4352: 4351: 4317: 4298: 4272: 4247: 4246: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4197: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4129:GorillaWarfare 4077:GorillaWarfare 4059:GorillaWarfare 4035: 4034: 4033: 4032: 3995: 3994: 3976: 3975: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3780: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3549: 3534: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3482: 3444: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3376: 3368: 3367: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3188: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3105:GorillaWarfare 3070: 2992: 2959: 2956: 2954: 2953: 2937: 2912: 2898: 2896: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2881: 2878: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2853: 2852: 2836: 2835: 2823: 2813: 2812: 2807: 2786: 2769: 2752: 2743: 2733: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2545: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2414: 2394: 2393: 2373: 2363: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2338: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2220: 2206: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2121:Slaporte (WMF) 2117:SPringle (WMF) 2035: 1962:Jbarbara (WMF) 1942:HaithamS (WMF) 1906:DDunican (WMF) 1894:CMetoyer (WMF) 1868: 1867: 1864: 1863: 1858: 1852: 1851: 1848: 1847: 1845: 1844: 1839: 1837:Worcestershire 1834: 1826: 1821: 1813: 1808: 1803: 1798: 1793: 1787: 1785: 1781: 1780: 1778: 1777: 1772: 1767: 1762: 1757: 1752: 1747: 1742: 1737: 1732: 1727: 1717: 1715:Administrators 1711: 1709: 1707: 1703: 1702: 1699: 1698: 1694:Status updates 1689: 1686: 1670: 1667: 1658: 1655: 1648: 1645: 1641:Status updates 1636: 1627: 1624: 1619: 1616: 1607: 1598: 1595: 1591:Wikimedia News 1586: 1577: 1568: 1559: 1550: 1541: 1538: 1529: 1520: 1517: 1503: 1491: 1477: 1463: 1458: 1453: 1451: 1447: 1446: 1444: 1443: 1429: 1415: 1401: 1384: 1367: 1360: 1346: 1332: 1318: 1303: 1301: 1292: 1291: 1289: 1288: 1281: 1279:Recent Changes 1276: 1270: 1267: 1266: 1261: 1260: 1253: 1246: 1238: 1232: 1231: 1227: 1226: 1222: 1221: 1217: 1216: 1212: 1211: 1208: 1205:en:WP:SIGNPOST 1202: 1192: 1186: 1176: 1166: 1165: 1161: 1160: 1154: 1147: 1146: 1142: 1141: 1138: 1123: 1122: 1112: 1110: 1109: 1106: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1085:this statement 1081:this statement 1077: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 965: 964: 886: 885: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 838: 752: 725: 724: 723: 722: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 643: 640: 639: 638: 637: 636: 622:Executive team 587:King of Hearts 555: 554: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 452: 451: 436: 433: 430: 424: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 400: 399: 377: 357: 356: 352: 339: 332: 319: 304: 289: 288: 287: 286: 285: 284: 245: 244: 234:Britishfinance 228: 227: 212: 193: 165: 164: 163: 123: 120: 118: 117: 114: 111: 108: 101: 99: 96: 93: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 13980: 13964: 13961: 13959: 13956: 13955: 13952: 13948: 13944: 13939: 13938: 13935: 13931: 13927: 13923: 13922: 13914: 13910: 13906: 13902: 13898: 13894: 13890: 13882: 13876: 13870: 13866: 13860: 13859: 13858: 13854: 13850: 13846: 13845: 13844: 13840: 13836: 13831: 13830: 13829: 13825: 13821: 13817: 13813: 13810: 13809: 13792: 13788: 13784: 13780: 13779: 13774: 13771: 13767: 13764: 13759: 13758: 13753: 13749: 13745: 13744: 13743: 13740: 13735: 13733: 13732: 13725: 13724: 13723: 13717: 13711: 13707: 13701: 13700: 13699: 13696: 13691: 13690: 13685: 13681: 13673: 13668: 13667:Seraphimblade 13663: 13662: 13661: 13657: 13653: 13649: 13648: 13647: 13642: 13637: 13633: 13632: 13631: 13627: 13623: 13618: 13614: 13613: 13603: 13599: 13595: 13590: 13589: 13587: 13583: 13579: 13575: 13571: 13565: 13560: 13559: 13556: 13552: 13548: 13543: 13542: 13537: 13533: 13529: 13524: 13520: 13516: 13512: 13507: 13506: 13505: 13499: 13493: 13489: 13484: 13483: 13482: 13478: 13474: 13470: 13469: 13461: 13457: 13452: 13445: 13441: 13440: 13432: 13428: 13424: 13420: 13419: 13414: 13410: 13409: 13402: 13398: 13394: 13389: 13385: 13384: 13383: 13379: 13375: 13371: 13370: 13369: 13368: 13365: 13361: 13357: 13353: 13348: 13347: 13344: 13340: 13336: 13332: 13328: 13324: 13323: 13313: 13309: 13305: 13300: 13296: 13292: 13288: 13284: 13280: 13279: 13278: 13277: 13276: 13275: 13274: 13273: 13272: 13271: 13266: 13254: 13250: 13246: 13241: 13240: 13239: 13235: 13231: 13227: 13223: 13219: 13215: 13210: 13209:sensitivities 13206: 13202: 13198: 13192: 13188: 13184: 13180: 13176: 13172: 13171: 13170: 13166: 13162: 13157: 13154: 13149: 13146: 13142: 13141: 13140: 13136: 13132: 13128: 13124: 13120: 13119: 13118: 13114: 13110: 13106: 13105: 13104: 13100: 13096: 13092: 13091: 13089: 13085: 13081: 13077: 13073: 13069: 13065: 13061: 13060: 13059: 13055: 13051: 13047: 13043: 13039: 13033: 13029: 13025: 13021: 13017: 13014: 13011: 13008: 13004: 13003: 13002: 12998: 12994: 12990: 12989: 12988: 12985: 12984:Dirk Beetstra 12980: 12978: 12974: 12970: 12966: 12963: 12961: 12955: 12949: 12945: 12930: 12924: 12920: 12916: 12912: 12908: 12904: 12903: 12902: 12901: 12900: 12899: 12894: 12883: 12879: 12875: 12871: 12867: 12864: 12863: 12859: 12855: 12851: 12850: 12846: 12845: 12842: 12835: 12831: 12822: 12818: 12813: 12806: 12802: 12798: 12794: 12793: 12792: 12789: 12784: 12782: 12777: 12775: 12769: 12765: 12764: 12755: 12751: 12750: 12747: 12743: 12742: 12738: 12737: 12732: 12728: 12727: 12723: 12722: 12718: 12717: 12714: 12707: 12703: 12698: 12693: 12688: 12683: 12679: 12673: 12670: 12666: 12665: 12664: 12660: 12656: 12652: 12651: 12650: 12647: 12643: 12642: 12634: 12627: 12623: 12616: 12609: 12594: 12591: 12587: 12584: 12581: 12580: 12578: 12574: 12569: 12566: 12562: 12559: 12556: 12553: 12552: 12550: 12544: 12541: 12538: 12537: 12535: 12530: 12526: 12525: 12523: 12522: 12507: 12503: 12498: 12492: 12490: 12486: 12482: 12477: 12476: 12475: 12472: 12471:Donald Albury 12467: 12463: 12459: 12455: 12450: 12448: 12444: 12439: 12432: 12431: 12430: 12426: 12422: 12418: 12417: 12416: 12412: 12408: 12404: 12400: 12399: 12398: 12394: 12390: 12386: 12381: 12377: 12372: 12371: 12370: 12365: 12359: 12353: 12346: 12345: 12344: 12340: 12335: 12330: 12325: 12320: 12308: 12304: 12300: 12295: 12293: 12287: 12281: 12277: 12271: 12270: 12269: 12266: 12265: 12262: 12259: 12254: 12253: 12252: 12248: 12244: 12240: 12236: 12231: 12229: 12223: 12217: 12213: 12208: 12203: 12202: 12201: 12200: 12199: 12193: 12187: 12183: 12177: 12176: 12175: 12172: 12171: 12168: 12165: 12160: 12158: 12153: 12152:Seraphimblade 12148: 12143: 12139: 12136: 12135: 12134: 12130: 12126: 12121: 12117: 12113: 12112: 12107: 12103: 12099: 12095: 12091: 12087: 12083: 12078: 12077: 12076: 12075: 12072: 12068: 12064: 12060: 12056: 12051: 12046: 12042: 12037: 12036: 12031: 12027: 12023: 12019: 12014: 12010: 12009: 12008: 12004: 12000: 11996: 11992: 11988: 11984: 11979: 11978: 11977: 11973: 11969: 11965: 11961: 11958: 11957: 11954: 11950: 11946: 11942: 11941: 11936: 11932: 11928: 11927: 11921: 11920:Seraphimblade 11918: 11917: 11916: 11911: 11910:Seraphimblade 11906: 11902: 11899: 11897: 11893: 11889: 11888:Leaky caldron 11885: 11884: 11881: 11877: 11873: 11869: 11865: 11861: 11859: 11855: 11851: 11847: 11842: 11837: 11833: 11829: 11825: 11821: 11817: 11812: 11808: 11804: 11800: 11796: 11792: 11788: 11783: 11781: 11778: 11774: 11769: 11761: 11760: 11745: 11740: 11736: 11732: 11728: 11724: 11718: 11717: 11716: 11713: 11711: 11710: 11705: 11701: 11697: 11696: 11694: 11691: 11686: 11679: 11678: 11677: 11676: 11675: 11674: 11673: 11672: 11671: 11670: 11661: 11658: 11654: 11650: 11646: 11642: 11638: 11632: 11627: 11626: 11625: 11620: 11616: 11612: 11608: 11604: 11597: 11592: 11586: 11581: 11580: 11579: 11576: 11571: 11559: 11554: 11549: 11544: 11543: 11542: 11537: 11533: 11529: 11525: 11521: 11511: 11507: 11503: 11499: 11495: 11491: 11486: 11485: 11484: 11479: 11474: 11470: 11469: 11468: 11465: 11464: 11461: 11458: 11453: 11452: 11451: 11446: 11442: 11438: 11434: 11430: 11424: 11423: 11422: 11419: 11414: 11413: 11408: 11407: 11406: 11403: 11402: 11399: 11396: 11391: 11390: 11385: 11381: 11377: 11373: 11369: 11365: 11361: 11357: 11356: 11355: 11354: 11351: 11347: 11343: 11339: 11335: 11334: 11331: 11328: 11323: 11322: 11317: 11313: 11311: 11306: 11302: 11300: 11296: 11292: 11288: 11287: 11282: 11277: 11276:Admin Problem 11273: 11269: 11265: 11262: 11258: 11255: 11251: 11247: 11244:you may find 11243: 11239: 11236: 11232: 11228: 11224: 11223:Jan Eissfeldt 11220: 11217: 11212: 11208: 11205: 11202: 11199: 11196: 11193: 11190: 11189: 11187: 11186: 11184: 11180: 11175: 11171: 11168: 11165: 11161: 11157: 11154: 11153: 11150: 11149: 11141: 11137: 11133: 11129: 11125: 11122: 11120: 11116: 11112: 11108: 11104: 11100: 11097: 11096: 11093: 11090: 11088: 11086: 11077: 11076: 11071: 11070: 11061: 11057: 11055: 11054: 11047: 11046:Shhhnotsoloud 11044: 11043: 11042: 11039: 11034: 11033: 11027: 11026: 11025: 11021: 11017: 11012: 11011: 11010: 11006: 11002: 11001:Shhhnotsoloud 10997: 10987: 10983: 10979: 10975: 10974: 10973: 10970: 10968: 10961: 10960: 10959: 10954: 10953:Seraphimblade 10950: 10949: 10948: 10944: 10942: 10941: 10933: 10932: 10931: 10928: 10923: 10922: 10916: 10915: 10905: 10901: 10897: 10892: 10891: 10890: 10887: 10883: 10878: 10870: 10869: 10864: 10861: 10857: 10852: 10847: 10843: 10839: 10835: 10834: 10829: 10828: 10827: 10826: 10823: 10819: 10815: 10814:Beyond My Ken 10810: 10809: 10804: 10803: 10798: 10797: 10792: 10791: 10784: 10779: 10778:Seraphimblade 10774: 10773: 10772: 10771: 10768: 10764: 10760: 10756: 10755: 10749: 10748: 10747: 10746: 10743: 10739: 10735: 10734:Beyond My Ken 10731: 10730: 10725: 10721: 10716: 10715: 10714: 10708: 10702: 10698: 10692: 10691: 10686: 10682: 10678: 10674: 10666: 10663: 10659: 10655: 10654: 10653: 10648: 10643: 10639: 10638: 10637: 10634: 10630: 10629: 10628: 10623: 10618: 10614: 10596: 10592: 10588: 10584: 10580: 10578: 10572: 10571: 10570: 10569: 10568: 10567: 10566: 10563: 10558: 10553: 10548: 10547: 10546: 10542: 10538: 10534: 10530: 10528: 10522: 10518: 10515: 10512: 10508: 10507: 10506: 10502: 10498: 10497:Beyond My Ken 10492: 10486: 10485: 10481: 10480: 10479: 10476: 10472: 10471:Beyond My Ken 10468: 10467: 10466: 10462: 10458: 10457:Beyond My Ken 10454: 10453: 10448: 10446: 10441: 10440: 10439: 10438: 10437: 10434: 10430: 10426: 10422: 10419: 10415: 10410: 10405: 10404: 10400: 10395: 10390: 10386: 10385: 10380: 10376: 10372: 10368: 10365: 10364: 10361: 10357: 10356: 10353: 10349: 10345: 10341: 10340: 10339: 10333: 10327: 10323: 10317: 10316: 10305: 10300: 10295: 10291: 10290: 10289: 10285: 10281: 10277: 10276: 10275: 10270: 10265: 10260: 10259: 10258: 10254: 10250: 10245: 10244: 10243: 10242: 10239: 10234: 10229: 10223: 10218: 10217: 10212: 10208: 10204: 10199: 10198: 10197: 10196: 10191: 10187: 10183: 10178: 10172: 10168: 10164: 10160: 10159: 10158: 10155: 10152: 10148: 10147: 10146: 10142: 10138: 10133: 10132: 10131: 10130: 10127: 10124: 10121: 10117: 10113: 10109: 10105: 10101: 10100: 10095: 10091: 10087: 10082: 10077: 10076: 10075: 10071: 10067: 10063: 10059: 10055: 10051: 10050: 10045: 10041: 10037: 10033: 10032: 10031: 10030: 10021: 10018: 10015: 10014: 10012: 10007: 10004: 10000: 9998: 9995: 9993: 9990: 9989: 9987: 9984: 9979: 9974: 9973: 9972: 9971: 9968: 9964: 9960: 9955: 9951: 9947: 9946: 9935: 9932: 9928: 9924: 9923: 9922: 9921: 9918: 9914: 9910: 9906: 9905: 9904: 9900: 9896: 9892: 9891: 9890: 9886: 9882: 9878: 9874: 9871: 9867: 9862: 9861: 9857: 9856: 9855: 9854: 9845: 9842: 9837: 9835: 9834: 9824: 9819: 9818: 9817: 9813: 9809: 9805: 9801: 9796: 9791: 9788: 9783: 9779: 9775: 9771: 9766: 9762: 9758: 9757: 9756: 9752: 9748: 9742: 9736: 9735: 9734: 9730: 9726: 9722: 9718: 9714: 9710: 9709:intentionally 9705: 9701: 9696: 9691: 9688: 9687: 9684: 9680: 9676: 9672: 9668: 9664: 9660: 9656: 9652: 9647: 9646: 9645: 9641: 9637: 9633: 9631: 9628: 9625: 9622: 9619: 9617: 9614: 9612: 9609: 9606: 9604: 9601: 9600: 9592: 9588: 9584: 9580: 9578: 9574: 9570: 9566: 9564: 9560: 9558: 9554: 9552: 9548: 9544: 9540: 9538: 9534: 9530: 9526: 9524: 9521: 9520:Dirk Beetstra 9517: 9515: 9511: 9507: 9503: 9500: 9498: 9494: 9490: 9486: 9482: 9480: 9476: 9471: 9465: 9463: 9460: 9454: 9448: 9447: 9444: 9441: 9437: 9433: 9429: 9427: 9426: 9421: 9420: 9414: 9411:Dave Craven ( 9410: 9407: 9403: 9401: 9398: 9396: 9393: 9391: 9388: 9386: 9383: 9381: 9380:KrakatoaKatie 9378: 9376: 9373: 9370: 9367:Molly White ( 9366: 9365: 9357: 9353: 9349: 9344: 9343: 9331: 9327: 9323: 9318: 9313: 9309: 9301: 9296: 9295:Seraphimblade 9291: 9287: 9284: 9283: 9282: 9279: 9276: 9272: 9268: 9264: 9260: 9255: 9249: 9248:Seraphimblade 9244: 9243: 9242: 9237: 9236:Seraphimblade 9232: 9230: 9227: 9222: 9216: 9213: 9212: 9211: 9208: 9203: 9202: 9197: 9193: 9188: 9183: 9182: 9181: 9178: 9173: 9167: 9164: 9163: 9155: 9151: 9147: 9143: 9133: 9131: 9127: 9123: 9118: 9117: 9100: 9096: 9092: 9088: 9084: 9080: 9079: 9078: 9074: 9070: 9064: 9059: 9053: 9049: 9045: 9041: 9036: 9035: 9034: 9030: 9026: 9022: 9018: 9015: 9014: 9009: 9005: 9001: 8997: 8993: 8988: 8987: 8986: 8982: 8978: 8973: 8972: 8971: 8967: 8963: 8959: 8958: 8957: 8953: 8949: 8944: 8943: 8942: 8941: 8938: 8934: 8930: 8926: 8923: 8920: 8919: 8917: 8916: 8915: 8911: 8907: 8903: 8899: 8898: 8897: 8896: 8893: 8889: 8885: 8881: 8877: 8872: 8868: 8867: 8859: 8856: 8853: 8850: 8847: 8844: 8843: 8840: 8837: 8836: 8831: 8827: 8823: 8818: 8809: 8805: 8801: 8797: 8794: 8793: 8792: 8791: 8790: 8789: 8784: 8780: 8776: 8771: 8770: 8769: 8765: 8761: 8756: 8755: 8750: 8746: 8742: 8741: 8735: 8734: 8733: 8732: 8724: 8721: 8716: 8711: 8702: 8701: 8694: 8690: 8686: 8682: 8678: 8673: 8672: 8666: 8665: 8658: 8657: 8654: 8650: 8646: 8641: 8637: 8633: 8632: 8623: 8619: 8615: 8610: 8609: 8608: 8604: 8600: 8596: 8592: 8591: 8590: 8585: 8581: 8577: 8573: 8569: 8563: 8562: 8561: 8560: 8556: 8552: 8549: 8545: 8542: 8539: 8535: 8531: 8528: 8524: 8522: 8517: 8513: 8510: 8507: 8506: 8503: 8500: 8498: 8493: 8487: 8486: 8482: 8479: 8475: 8474: 8471: 8468: 8463: 8459: 8455: 8451: 8447: 8443: 8439: 8436: 8433: 8430: 8427: 8421: 8416: 8412: 8409: 8404: 8402: 8397: 8395: 8389: 8383: 8378: 8377: 8376: 8372: 8368: 8363: 8358: 8357: 8356: 8353: 8348: 8346: 8341: 8339: 8333: 8329: 8319: 8315: 8311: 8306: 8302: 8298: 8293: 8292: 8291: 8287: 8283: 8279: 8278: 8276: 8272: 8271: 8262: 8261: 8260: 8254: 8248: 8244: 8239: 8235: 8234: 8232: 8228: 8227: 8220: 8216: 8215: 8205: 8201: 8197: 8192: 8191: 8189: 8186: 8184: 8182: 8173: 8169: 8168: 8167: 8163: 8159: 8153: 8146: 8143: 8140: 8137: 8134: 8131: 8128: 8125: 8122: 8119: 8116: 8111: 8107: 8103: 8101: 8097: 8093: 8088: 8085: 8084: 8083: 8082: 8079: 8076: 8072: 8067: 8059: 8055: 8050: 8048: 8044: 8040: 8035: 8031: 8027: 8023: 8019: 8016: 8013: 8010: 8007: 8004: 8003: 8002: 7998: 7994: 7990: 7986: 7982: 7978: 7974: 7970: 7968: 7964: 7960: 7955: 7947: 7944: 7939: 7933: 7930: 7929: 7926: 7921: 7917: 7913: 7909: 7905: 7900: 7899: 7898: 7894: 7890: 7886: 7885: 7884: 7879: 7875: 7871: 7867: 7863: 7857: 7856: 7855: 7851: 7847: 7842: 7841: 7826: 7820: 7814: 7810: 7805: 7801: 7797: 7796: 7795: 7794: 7791: 7787: 7783: 7779: 7775: 7771: 7767: 7766:*headscratch* 7764: 7763: 7762: 7761: 7758: 7752: 7746: 7742: 7737: 7734: 7733: 7732: 7731: 7728: 7724: 7720: 7716: 7712: 7708: 7704: 7700: 7696: 7695: 7682: 7676: 7670: 7666: 7660: 7655: 7651: 7650: 7649: 7645: 7641: 7636: 7635: 7634: 7628: 7622: 7618: 7612: 7606: 7604: 7596: 7595: 7594: 7590: 7586: 7581: 7576: 7572: 7566: 7565:edit conflict 7561: 7560: 7559: 7556: 7551: 7545: 7543: 7537: 7531: 7527: 7518: 7514: 7513: 7512: 7509: 7507: 7500: 7493: 7492: 7491: 7490: 7489: 7488: 7487: 7486: 7479: 7476: 7471: 7465: 7461: 7460: 7459: 7453: 7447: 7443: 7437: 7433: 7432: 7431: 7428: 7426: 7420: 7416: 7411: 7409: 7406: 7404: 7402: 7393: 7387: 7383: 7379: 7374: 7373: 7372: 7369: 7364: 7357: 7355: 7352: 7347: 7346: 7341: 7337: 7332: 7331: 7330: 7326: 7322: 7318: 7313: 7312: 7299: 7295: 7291: 7287: 7285: 7279: 7273: 7269: 7264: 7260: 7259: 7258: 7255: 7250: 7249: 7243: 7240: 7239: 7238: 7235: 7230: 7229: 7224: 7221: 7220: 7219: 7215: 7211: 7206: 7205: 7204: 7199: 7195: 7191: 7187: 7183: 7178: 7171: 7167: 7162: 7161: 7160: 7159: 7156: 7152: 7148: 7144: 7136: 7132: 7128: 7123: 7119: 7115: 7111: 7107: 7103: 7101: 7095: 7090: 7087: 7086: 7085: 7084: 7083: 7080: 7075: 7069: 7068: 7067: 7064: 7058: 7051: 7050: 7049: 7046: 7041: 7035: 7028: 7021: 7020: 7017: 7014: 7009: 7008: 7003: 6997: 6994: 6993: 6990: 6987: 6981: 6980: 6979: 6976: 6972: 6971: 6970: 6966: 6962: 6958: 6954: 6949: 6948: 6943: 6940: 6939: 6936: 6933: 6927: 6926: 6925: 6922: 6921: 6911: 6906: 6905: 6902: 6898: 6894: 6889: 6887: 6883: 6879: 6875: 6871: 6865: 6859: 6855: 6849: 6848: 6847: 6843: 6839: 6835: 6834: 6828: 6822: 6818: 6814: 6809: 6808: 6807: 6803: 6799: 6794: 6784: 6778: 6772: 6768: 6762: 6761: 6760: 6756: 6752: 6748: 6744: 6742: 6738: 6734: 6730: 6729: 6728: 6722: 6716: 6712: 6706: 6705: 6704: 6700: 6696: 6691: 6687: 6686: 6685: 6684: 6683: 6682: 6675: 6671: 6667: 6662: 6661: 6660: 6659: 6658: 6657: 6652: 6646: 6640: 6636: 6631: 6630: 6624: 6623: 6622: 6615: 6611: 6610: 6609: 6605: 6601: 6600:Beyond My Ken 6596: 6595: 6590: 6582: 6578: 6574: 6569: 6565: 6561: 6556: 6555: 6554: 6550: 6546: 6541: 6540: 6539: 6536: 6532: 6531: 6530: 6526: 6522: 6517: 6512: 6511: 6503: 6499: 6495: 6491: 6489: 6485: 6481: 6476: 6474: 6470: 6466: 6461: 6459: 6455: 6451: 6447: 6443: 6442: 6439: 6435: 6431: 6426: 6425: 6416: 6412: 6408: 6404: 6400: 6398: 6392: 6388: 6384: 6383: 6382: 6378: 6374: 6370: 6365: 6361: 6355: 6349: 6348: 6347: 6343: 6339: 6335: 6331: 6329: 6323: 6319: 6316: 6315: 6314: 6313: 6307: 6304: 6301: 6297: 6294: 6289: 6285: 6281: 6277: 6276: 6273: 6272: 6255: 6251: 6247: 6242: 6241: 6235: 6233: 6232: 6230: 6224: 6223:crystal clear 6219: 6218: 6217: 6211: 6205: 6201: 6193: 6192: 6185: 6184: 6179: 6178: 6176: 6170: 6169:crystal clear 6164: 6160: 6159: 6154: 6147: 6146: 6141: 6137: 6133: 6132: 6127: 6126: 6125: 6121: 6115: 6109: 6105: 6102: 6098: 6094: 6090: 6089:Beyond My Ken 6085: 6084: 6083: 6082: 6081: 6075: 6069: 6065: 6060: 6059: 6058: 6051: 6050: 6049: 6046: 6041: 6039: 6038: 6030: 6027: 6026: 6025: 6019: 6013: 6009: 6003: 6002: 6001: 5998: 5993: 5991: 5990: 5982: 5978: 5975: 5972: 5969: 5968: 5965: 5964:edit conflict 5960: 5959: 5958: 5957: 5952: 5948: 5944: 5940: 5936: 5932: 5929: 5928: 5927: 5921: 5915: 5911: 5906: 5902: 5898: 5893: 5889: 5885: 5881: 5877: 5872: 5871: 5870: 5865: 5860: 5855: 5852: 5848: 5844: 5843: 5838: 5834: 5830: 5829:Beyond My Ken 5825: 5821: 5820: 5819: 5818: 5815: 5812: 5807: 5806: 5793: 5789: 5785: 5778: 5773: 5772: 5771: 5767: 5763: 5757: 5753: 5748: 5747: 5746: 5742: 5738: 5731: 5730:Seraphimblade 5726: 5725: 5724: 5719: 5718:Seraphimblade 5714: 5712: 5708: 5704: 5697: 5690: 5685: 5684: 5683: 5678: 5674: 5670: 5666: 5662: 5655: 5650: 5649: 5648: 5645: 5640: 5639: 5634: 5629: 5625: 5623: 5619: 5615: 5611: 5608: 5606: 5603: 5600: 5599: 5595: 5591: 5588: 5586: 5582: 5578: 5573: 5572: 5557: 5552: 5548: 5544: 5540: 5536: 5531: 5530: 5529: 5526: 5523:inform them. 5521: 5520: 5519: 5518: 5517: 5511: 5505: 5501: 5495: 5491: 5486: 5482: 5478: 5474: 5470: 5465: 5464: 5463: 5460: 5454: 5449: 5448: 5447: 5442: 5438: 5434: 5430: 5426: 5420: 5419: 5414: 5410: 5404: 5403:Beyond My Ken 5400: 5395: 5393: 5389: 5385: 5381: 5380: 5379: 5378: 5375: 5371: 5367: 5366:Beyond My Ken 5363: 5362: 5357: 5356: 5355: 5354: 5351: 5348: 5341: 5337: 5333: 5328: 5323: 5318: 5313: 5301: 5297: 5293: 5289: 5285: 5283: 5277: 5276: 5275: 5271: 5267: 5262: 5261: 5260: 5255: 5251: 5247: 5243: 5239: 5232: 5223: 5219: 5214: 5212: 5209: 5203: 5202: 5201: 5197: 5193: 5188: 5187: 5186: 5182: 5178: 5177:Beyond My Ken 5173: 5172: 5171: 5167: 5163: 5158: 5157: 5156: 5153: 5146: 5142: 5137: 5133: 5129: 5125: 5121: 5114: 5109: 5108: 5107: 5103: 5099: 5098:Pawnkingthree 5095: 5090: 5088: 5085: 5078: 5077: 5073: 5072: 5067: 5063: 5059: 5058:Beyond My Ken 5055: 5054: 5049: 5048: 5043: 5039: 5034: 5033: 5032: 5031: 5026: 5022: 5018: 5013: 5012: 5011: 5007: 5003: 4998: 4995: 4991: 4987: 4981: 4975: 4974:still ongoing 4971: 4967: 4963: 4962: 4961: 4960: 4955: 4951: 4947: 4942: 4941: 4940: 4939: 4936: 4932: 4928: 4923: 4919: 4918: 4913: 4908: 4904: 4900: 4896: 4892: 4884: 4879: 4877: 4873: 4869: 4864: 4863: 4862: 4861: 4858: 4854: 4850: 4844: 4841: 4839: 4835: 4831: 4826: 4824: 4821: 4816: 4814: 4813: 4805: 4801: 4797: 4793: 4792: 4785: 4781: 4777: 4773: 4769: 4768: 4767: 4766: 4765: 4764: 4759: 4756: 4750: 4746: 4742: 4736: 4731: 4730: 4729: 4725: 4721: 4717: 4713: 4712: 4703: 4697: 4691: 4687: 4682: 4678: 4674: 4670: 4665: 4664: 4663: 4659: 4655: 4654:Beyond My Ken 4650: 4649: 4648: 4644: 4640: 4636: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4625: 4619: 4615: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4603: 4599: 4595: 4589: 4585: 4580: 4579: 4576: 4572: 4568: 4567:Beyond My Ken 4564: 4563: 4557: 4553: 4549: 4545: 4540: 4539: 4538: 4537: 4530: 4526: 4520: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4514: 4510: 4506: 4501: 4496: 4491: 4486: 4481: 4476: 4472: 4471: 4468: 4464: 4460: 4456: 4454: 4450: 4446: 4444: 4441: 4438: 4434: 4430: 4426: 4423: 4419: 4415: 4414: 4411: 4408: 4407: 4406: 4405: 4402: 4399: 4395: 4394: 4389: 4385: 4381: 4380:Beyond My Ken 4378:In what way? 4377: 4376: 4375: 4374: 4371: 4367: 4363: 4359: 4358: 4354: 4350: 4347: 4346: 4343: 4340: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4330: 4329: 4326: 4323: 4318: 4316: 4312: 4308: 4304: 4299: 4297: 4293: 4288: 4283: 4278: 4273: 4271: 4267: 4263: 4258: 4253: 4248: 4238: 4235: 4233: 4229: 4225: 4221: 4217: 4213: 4209: 4203: 4198: 4196: 4192: 4188: 4184: 4180: 4178: 4171: 4170:User:Xinbenlv 4168: 4167: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4160: 4156: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4130: 4122: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4111: 4107: 4103: 4099: 4097: 4091: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4082: 4078: 4074: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4064: 4060: 4055: 4049: 4042: 4041:edit conflict 4037: 4036: 4031: 4026: 4022: 4018: 4014: 4010: 4002: 3997: 3996: 3993: 3989: 3985: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3974: 3970: 3966: 3961: 3953: 3949: 3945: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3936: 3931: 3930: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3919: 3915: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3905: 3901: 3895: 3888: 3883: 3877: 3873: 3869: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3859: 3855: 3850: 3849: 3848: 3844: 3840: 3835: 3830: 3824: 3820: 3814: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3801: 3797: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3788: 3787: 3781: 3779: 3775: 3771: 3766: 3765: 3758: 3753: 3749: 3745: 3739: 3735: 3732: 3726: 3720: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3709: 3705: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3680: 3676: 3674: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3661: 3657: 3653: 3646: 3640: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3623: 3619: 3613: 3609: 3603: 3602:Beyond My Ken 3598: 3597: 3596: 3592: 3588: 3584: 3580: 3578: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3565: 3561: 3560:Beyond My Ken 3557: 3556: 3550: 3548: 3544: 3540: 3535: 3533: 3529: 3526: 3521: 3513: 3510: 3508: 3506: 3497: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3486: 3480: 3476: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3465: 3461: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3448: 3442: 3438: 3432: 3428: 3424: 3422: 3417: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3403: 3401: 3396: 3389: 3385: 3382: 3379: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3366: 3362: 3358: 3340: 3336: 3332: 3326: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3316: 3310: 3309:false dilemma 3304: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3266: 3264: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3237: 3228: 3220: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3209: 3205: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3192: 3186: 3182: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3157: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3127: 3125: 3119: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3096: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3082: 3076: 3075: 3073: 3068: 3059: 3058:Seraphimblade 3055: 3054: 3053: 3048: 3047:Seraphimblade 3041: 3040:edit conflict 3036: 3035: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3021: 3019: 3015: 3013: 3008: 2999: 2993: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2952: 2949: 2943: 2938: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2918: 2913: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2900: 2899: 2890: 2889: 2884: 2883: 2874: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2854: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2840: 2839: 2833: 2828: 2824: 2817: 2816: 2811: 2808: 2806: 2803: 2801: 2796: 2795: 2790: 2787: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2770: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2753: 2751: 2746: 2741: 2737: 2734: 2731: 2727: 2726: 2719: 2716: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2624: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2508: 2502: 2499: 2496: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2415: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2402:as proposer. 2401: 2398: 2397: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2378: 2374: 2367: 2366: 2359: 2356: 2354: 2349: 2330: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2301: 2296: 2295: 2292: 2288: 2287: 2282: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2255: 2251: 2245: 2244:Jmorgan (WMF) 2241: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2225:Jmorgan (WMF) 2221: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2204: 2199: 2198: 2193: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2166: 2165:Wolliff (WMF) 2162: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2085:RMiller (WMF) 2082: 2078: 2074: 2073:PEarley (WMF) 2070: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2036: 2034: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1990:KMistry (WMF) 1987: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1954:JCrespo (WMF) 1951: 1947: 1946:Heather (WMF) 1943: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1862: 1859: 1857: 1854: 1853: 1849: 1843: 1840: 1838: 1835: 1833: 1832: 1827: 1825: 1822: 1820: 1819: 1814: 1812: 1809: 1807: 1804: 1802: 1799: 1797: 1794: 1792: 1789: 1788: 1786: 1782: 1776: 1775:TheWikiWizard 1773: 1771: 1768: 1766: 1763: 1761: 1758: 1756: 1753: 1751: 1748: 1746: 1743: 1741: 1738: 1736: 1733: 1731: 1728: 1725: 1721: 1718: 1716: 1713: 1712: 1710: 1704: 1696: 1695: 1690: 1688:Wikifunctions 1687: 1683: 1677: 1676: 1671: 1668: 1665: 1664: 1659: 1656: 1654: 1653: 1649: 1646: 1643: 1642: 1637: 1634: 1633: 1628: 1625: 1623: 1620: 1617: 1614: 1613: 1608: 1605: 1604: 1599: 1596: 1593: 1592: 1587: 1584: 1583: 1578: 1575: 1574: 1569: 1566: 1565: 1560: 1557: 1556: 1551: 1548: 1547: 1542: 1539: 1536: 1535: 1530: 1527: 1526: 1521: 1518: 1514: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1495: 1492: 1488: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1468: 1464: 1462: 1459: 1456: 1455: 1452: 1448: 1440: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1392: 1391: 1385: 1381: 1375: 1374: 1368: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1309: 1305: 1304: 1302: 1300: 1298: 1293: 1282: 1280: 1277: 1275: 1272: 1271: 1268: 1259: 1254: 1252: 1247: 1245: 1240: 1239: 1236: 1229: 1228: 1224: 1223: 1219: 1218: 1214: 1213: 1209: 1206: 1203: 1200: 1196: 1193: 1190: 1187: 1184: 1180: 1177: 1175: 1171: 1168: 1167: 1163: 1162: 1158: 1155: 1152: 1149: 1148: 1144: 1143: 1139: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1125: 1124: 1120: 1119: 1117: 1100: 1097: 1096: 1092: 1091: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1076: 1073: 1072: 1068: 1067: 1061: 1060: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1009: 1004: 999: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 969: 968: 967: 966: 963: 959: 955: 951: 950: 949: 946: 940: 933: 932: 931: 928: 924: 920: 917: 916: 915: 911: 907: 903: 902: 901: 897: 893: 888: 887: 884: 881: 880: 877: 874: 869: 859: 854: 850: 846: 839: 837: 833: 829: 824: 823: 822: 818: 814: 810: 809: 808: 803: 799: 795: 789: 788: 787: 783: 779: 775: 774: 773: 768: 764: 760: 753: 751: 748: 747: 744: 741: 736: 732: 727: 726: 721: 717: 713: 708: 707: 706: 705: 697: 693: 689: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 679: 677: 672: 668: 664: 660: 656: 651: 648: 635: 631: 627: 623: 616: 611: 610: 609: 605: 601: 596: 592: 591:Seraphimblade 588: 584: 580: 576: 570: 566: 561: 557: 556: 552: 546: 542: 538: 533: 532: 525: 521: 517: 512: 511: 510: 506: 502: 498: 492: 487: 486: 484: 480: 476: 470: 466: 462: 458: 454: 453: 450: 446: 442: 437: 434: 431: 427: 426: 423:WMF structure 416: 412: 408: 404: 403: 402: 401: 398: 394: 390: 386: 382: 378: 375: 374:Eurasia Group 371: 367: 363: 359: 358: 353: 351: 348: 347:Donald Albury 344: 340: 338: 335: 330: 320: 318: 314: 310: 305: 303: 299: 295: 291: 290: 283: 280: 275: 269: 266: 265: 264: 260: 256: 255: 249: 248: 247: 246: 243: 239: 235: 230: 229: 226: 222: 218: 213: 211: 207: 203: 198: 194: 192: 188: 184: 180: 177: 174: 170: 166: 162: 158: 154: 150: 146: 145: 144: 141: 136: 130: 126: 125: 115: 112: 109: 105: 104: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 13864: 13820:Grandpallama 13815: 13811: 13776: 13756: 13751: 13730: 13729: 13705: 13688: 13683: 13568:— Preceding 13566:user pages. 13563: 13487: 13444:Kbrown (WMF) 13387: 13351: 13326: 13282: 13230:Gerda Arendt 13208: 13204: 13178: 13174: 13144: 13126: 13122: 13064:Peacemaker67 13045: 13041: 13019: 12993:Peacemaker67 12969:FeydHuxtable 12964: 12943: 12915:Gerda Arendt 12870:been changed 12781:SerialNumber 12780: 12773: 12730: 12655:StudiesWorld 12624:in response 12592:enforcement. 12564: 12375: 12275: 12256: 12211: 12206: 12181: 12162: 12146: 12058: 12054: 12044: 12040: 12017: 11925: 11924: 11904: 11867: 11863: 11845: 11815: 11802: 11786: 11764: 11708: 11652: 11637:star chamber 11501: 11455: 11411: 11393: 11320: 11316:admin recall 11309: 11253: 11249: 11245: 11222: 11218: 11163: 11123: 11106: 11102: 11098: 11084: 11074: 11073: 11052: 11051: 11031: 10966: 10939: 10938: 10920: 10873: 10855: 10832: 10831: 10807: 10806: 10801: 10800: 10795: 10794: 10752: 10728: 10727: 10696: 10657: 10576: 10551: 10526: 10483: 10482: 10451: 10450: 10445:this redlink 10442: 10417: 10414:this redlink 10408: 10398: 10393: 10388: 10371:Andy Dingley 10366: 10358: 10321: 10111: 10107: 10080: 10061: 10057: 10016: 9996: 9991: 9959:Calliopejen1 9953: 9926: 9909:Andy Dingley 9881:Andy Dingley 9869: 9865: 9832: 9831: 9799: 9794: 9789: 9764: 9760: 9721:incentivizes 9720: 9708: 9694: 9689: 9501: 9484: 9438:. Grüße vom 9423: 9289: 9269:, loathe to 9200: 9195: 9191: 9186: 9122:GreyGreenWhy 9091:Gerda Arendt 9063:Gerda Arendt 9044:Gerda Arendt 9011: 8962:Gerda Arendt 8929:Gerda Arendt 8901: 8884:Gerda Arendt 8833: 8795: 8738: 8710:Bellezzasolo 8709: 8691: 8687: 8683: 8679: 8675: 8639: 8599:FeydHuxtable 8526: 8519: 8496: 8491: 8477: 8461: 8457: 8425: 8424:Concerning " 8401:SerialNumber 8400: 8393: 8387: 8360: 8345:SerialNumber 8344: 8337: 8331: 8304: 8296: 8266: 8242: 8236: 8222: 8180: 8141: 8135: 8129: 8123: 8117: 8092:FeydHuxtable 8062: 7988: 7984: 7980: 7976: 7972: 7959:Peacemaker67 7808: 7804:We encourage 7803: 7799: 7777: 7773: 7769: 7765: 7740: 7735: 7714: 7698: 7664: 7658: 7652: 7640:TonyBallioni 7616: 7610: 7602: 7600: 7585:TonyBallioni 7579: 7574: 7525: 7516: 7505: 7496: 7441: 7434: 7424: 7418: 7414: 7400: 7378:TonyBallioni 7344: 7339: 7335: 7321:TonyBallioni 7316: 7267: 7262: 7247: 7227: 7175: 7099: 7006: 6984: 6956: 6952: 6930: 6913: 6853: 6832: 6766: 6746: 6710: 6689: 6634: 6628: 6627: 6620: 6619: 6618: 6613: 6593: 6592: 6567: 6564:we are sorry 6563: 6559: 6396: 6359: 6327: 6292: 6279: 6239: 6237: 6228: 6227: 6226: 6222: 6220: 6199: 6190: 6189: 6182: 6181: 6174: 6173: 6172: 6168: 6157: 6156: 6152: 6144: 6143: 6139: 6131:jurisdiction 6130: 6129: 6063: 6056: 6054: 6053: 6036: 6034: 6007: 5988: 5986: 5976: 5973: 5970: 5938: 5934: 5909: 5847:Nocturnalnow 5823: 5637: 5627: 5609: 5596: 5589: 5499: 5412: 5408: 5360: 5359: 5281: 5266:TonyBallioni 5218:TonyBallioni 5192:TonyBallioni 5162:TonyBallioni 5092: 5052: 5051: 5046: 5045: 5041: 5037: 4996: 4921: 4842: 4811: 4809: 4776:AndyTheGrump 4771: 4744: 4740: 4735:AndyTheGrump 4720:AndyTheGrump 4716:encyclopedia 4715: 4685: 4639:TonyBallioni 4613: 4598:TonyBallioni 4561: 4560: 4499: 4494: 4489: 4484: 4479: 4474: 4452: 4442: 4432: 4409: 4360:acceptable. 4356: 4355: 4337: 4320: 4302: 4234: 4176: 4095: 4072: 3982:necessary.-- 3928: 3833: 3785: 3719:FeydHuxtable 3704:FeydHuxtable 3672: 3611: 3607: 3576: 3554: 3553: 3539:FeydHuxtable 3504: 3474: 3436: 3420: 3399: 3377: 3361:push to talk 3262: 3180: 3123: 3080: 3011: 2916: 2886: 2872: 2809: 2799: 2793: 2788: 2771: 2754: 2735: 2721: 2717: 2548: 2530: 2497: 2436:Calliopejen1 2421:Calliopejen1 2416: 2399: 2352: 2347: 2253: 2249: 2145:VBamba (WMF) 2133:Tbayer (WMF) 2125:Srikanth WMF 2113:SPoore (WMF) 2061:Ocaasi (WMF) 2053:Mobrovac-WMF 2045:MPopov (WMF) 2002:LLogan (WMF) 1998:Keegan (WMF) 1994:KSmith (WMF) 1930:GDubuc (WMF) 1918:Erosen (WMF) 1914:EYoung (WMF) 1886:BBlack (WMF) 1882:Awight (WMF) 1856:Noticeboards 1830: 1824:Tree of Life 1817: 1784:WikiProjects 1760:VisualEditor 1755:The Signpost 1693: 1674: 1662: 1651: 1640: 1631: 1611: 1602: 1590: 1581: 1572: 1563: 1554: 1545: 1533: 1524: 1389: 1372: 1296: 1135:en:WP:ERRORS 1113: 1094: 1089: 1070: 1065: 1002: 997: 871: 738: 646: 389:Nocturnalnow 384: 252: 202:Ken Arromdee 196: 175: 148: 128: 78: 43: 37: 13849:Someguy1221 13835:Lepricavark 13748:Streisanded 13335:EllsworthSK 13333:behaviour. 13212:addressed'. 11872:Nosebagbear 11510:BAG recalls 11111:Nosebagbear 10724:Los Angeles 9220:S Philbrick 9171:S Philbrick 9008:W. H. Auden 8871:Franz Kafka 8835:Das Schloss 8830:Franz Kafka 8521:procedures, 8196:Incnis Mrsi 8172:Incnis Mrsi 8158:Incnis Mrsi 7937:S Philbrick 6813:Jimbo Wales 6733:Jimbo Wales 6666:Jimbo Wales 6545:Jimbo Wales 6280:partnership 5017:Jimbo Wales 5002:Ad Orientem 4946:Jimbo Wales 4868:Jimbo Wales 4800:Jimbo Wales 4669:Jimbo Wales 4544:Incnis Mrsi 4416:No, unless 3984:Jimbo Wales 3854:Jimbo Wales 2982:Jimbo Wales 2109:SLien (WMF) 2089:Reedy (WMF) 2041:MCruz (WMF) 2006:Leila (WMF) 1986:KLove (WMF) 1950:ITait (WMF) 1926:GByrd (WMF) 273:S Philbrick 36:This is an 13652:Tryptofish 13636:Ivanvector 13622:Tryptofish 13511:Tryptofish 13473:Tryptofish 13466:Next steps 13413:Scottywong 13393:Tryptofish 13356:Tryptofish 13331:WP:UNCIVIL 12874:WMF policy 12761:Discussion 12119:community. 12063:Tryptofish 11820:WP:NOTHERE 11803:especially 11492:trying to 11342:Tazerdadog 11174:WP:DESYSOP 11152:civility. 10860:Hans Adler 10754:Portlandia 10677:ClemRutter 10562:Hans Adler 10475:Hans Adler 10433:Hans Adler 10424:behaviour. 10367:Absolutely 10278:Eg: me. - 10066:Tryptofish 10036:ClemRutter 9988:You write 9717:WP:NOTHERE 9489:Tryptofish 8992:Hikikomori 8946:matters.-- 8775:Tryptofish 8614:ClemRutter 8533:community. 8139:block user 8133:page moves 7094:community. 7089:User:SoWhy 6961:Shearonink 6955:the Board 5015:written.-- 4828:nothing.-- 4307:Tryptofish 4001:Tazerdadog 3965:Tazerdadog 3944:DuncanHill 3900:DuncanHill 3868:DuncanHill 3839:DuncanHill 3744:Javert2113 3652:Javert2113 2834:Thank you. 2772:Snow Close 2740:Ivanvector 2535:PackMecEng 2440:Ivanvector 2291:this email 2077:Pginer-WMF 1938:Greg (WMF) 1902:Chip (WMF) 1898:Chad (WMF) 1791:Doctor Who 1675:Actualités 1669:Wiktionary 1657:Wikisource 1195:en:WP:CENT 1087:by Jimbo. 1038:Neonorange 1003:incivility 845:Javert2113 813:Tryptofish 794:Javert2113 778:Tryptofish 759:Javert2113 712:Epipelagic 688:Tryptofish 575:Sphilbrick 551:organigram 343:User:Tdslk 90:Archive 14 85:Archive 13 79:Archive 12 73:Archive 11 68:Archive 10 13926:Yair rand 13684:in camera 13574:Guy Macon 13214:Nishidani 13161:Nishidani 13109:Nishidani 13050:Nishidani 13024:Nishidani 12528:adjusted. 12389:Aquillion 12050:WP:CDARFC 11999:Ymblanter 11926:North8000 11901:North8000 11864:frivolous 11850:Aquillion 11159:(Kurier). 11107:minimally 11016:Guy Macon 10978:Ymblanter 10896:Yair rand 10833:North8000 10729:precisely 10577:Doc James 10527:Doc James 10491:Doc James 10452:seriously 10360:presence. 10262:culture. 10104:Aquillion 10023:solicitor 10002:register. 9978:Ymblanter 9823:Aquillion 9808:Aquillion 9741:Aquillion 9725:Aquillion 9651:Ymblanter 9649:chance.-- 9636:Guy Macon 9583:RaphaelQS 9569:Coemgenus 9506:Yair rand 9504:👏👏👏 -- 9485:excellent 9432:the board 9322:Nishidani 9192:improving 9025:Nishidani 8975:Moscow.-- 8902:The Trial 8800:RaphaelQS 8386:Yes, you 8382:Twilson r 8367:Twilson r 8310:Twilson r 8152:wheel war 8145:block log 7782:Aquillion 7719:Aquillion 7583:helpful. 7336:liability 7100:Doc James 7027:Doc James 6975:Jehochman 6878:Ymblanter 6751:Aquillion 6695:Aquillion 6573:Twilson r 6543:happen.-- 6535:Jehochman 6465:SmokeyJoe 6450:Guettarda 6397:Doc James 6354:Doc James 6328:Doc James 6246:Aquillion 6229:the board 6175:the board 6163:WP:NOTLAW 5943:Barkeep49 5905:WP:ARBPOL 5811:Jehochman 5784:Blackmane 5777:Guettarda 5762:Guettarda 5752:Blackmane 5737:Blackmane 5703:Blackmane 5614:RaphaelQS 5525:Jehochman 5458:Montanabw 5409:ethically 5399:Montanabw 5346:Montanabw 5282:Doc James 5231:Doc James 5222:Montanabw 5207:Montanabw 5151:Montanabw 5042:ex nihilo 4970:announced 4883:KaiMartin 4796:Doc James 4772:knowledge 4588:Doc James 4505:Aquillion 4418:this rant 4262:Barkeep49 4202:Doc James 4177:Doc James 4121:Doc James 4096:Doc James 4048:Doc James 3914:Yair rand 3894:Doc James 3796:Yair rand 3673:Doc James 3608:ethically 3577:Doc James 3263:Doc James 3165:Aquillion 3161:WP:OFFICE 3124:Doc James 3081:Doc James 3071:(blether) 2917:Doc James 2776:Guy Macon 2250:proactive 2153:WMFOffice 2149:WMF Legal 2129:TLi (WMF) 2097:RobLa-WMF 1966:Jon (WMF) 1910:Derrickmd 1842:Yorkshire 1818:The Bugle 1750:Scripts++ 1740:Goings-on 1708:Knowledge 1582:Tech News 1564:Goings-on 1519:MediaWiki 1450:Wikimedia 1433:Ukrainian 1308:Alemannic 1189:en:WP:VPR 1179:en:WP:VPT 1170:en:WP:VPP 998:inclusive 906:Ymblanter 626:Yair rand 545:Guettarda 537:Ymblanter 501:Guettarda 441:Ymblanter 439:grants.-- 333:(blether) 217:Barkeep49 183:MikeLynch 153:Twilson r 60:Archive 5 13773:Mendaliv 13582:contribs 13570:unsigned 13207:peoples 12876:and not 12841:Email 12 12830:Email 11 12713:Email 10 12421:Goldzahn 12385:WP:CIVIL 12098:Forbes72 12094:WP:CIVIL 12045:Signpost 11945:Goldzahn 11868:obligate 11841:WP:CIVIL 11836:WP:CIVIL 11824:WP:CIVIL 11811:WP:CIVIL 11807:WP:CIVIL 11791:WP:CIVIL 11776:Chequers 11723:Headbomb 11690:Crazynas 11685:Headbomb 11681:re ping 11657:Crazynas 11631:Headbomb 11603:Headbomb 11596:Crazynas 11575:Crazynas 11520:Headbomb 11515:policy.' 11502:repeated 11429:Headbomb 11376:Forbes72 11219:Example: 11132:Tutelary 10885:Chequers 10587:contribs 10537:contribs 10449:Are you 10151:RoySmith 10120:RoySmith 10058:opposite 9954:could be 9868:process 9833:Mandruss 9804:WP:CIVIL 9795:valuable 9787:WP:CIVIL 9782:WP:CIVIL 9770:WP:CIVIL 9713:WP:CIVIL 9704:WP:CIVIL 9543:Lectonar 9502:Applause 9440:Sänger ♫ 9406:SilkTork 9286:RoySmith 9275:RoySmith 9267:WP:CABAL 9263:WP:CIVIL 9150:contribs 9040:See also 8645:Mr Ernie 8568:Headbomb 8515:failure. 8467:Kanguole 8305:directed 8269:nableezy 8225:nableezy 8121:contribs 8074:Chequers 7932:Lectonar 7904:Headbomb 7889:Lectonar 7862:Headbomb 7846:Lectonar 7711:WP:CIVIL 7707:WP:CIVIL 7223:Headbomb 7182:Headbomb 7110:contribs 6910:Mendaliv 6747:authored 6521:Tutelary 6480:The Land 6407:contribs 6338:contribs 6113:Rutebega 6104:Mendaliv 6029:Mendaliv 5931:Mendaliv 5876:Headbomb 5824:de facto 5696:Headbomb 5661:Headbomb 5535:Headbomb 5469:Headbomb 5425:Headbomb 5292:contribs 5238:Headbomb 5120:Headbomb 5113:Xaosflux 5083:xaosflux 5053:actually 4979:Rutebega 4891:Headbomb 4754:xaosflux 4635:Mendaliv 4490:probably 4216:Xinbenlv 4187:contribs 4155:Xinbenlv 4106:contribs 4009:Headbomb 4006:scope. 3812:Rutebega 3683:contribs 3618:Headbomb 3587:contribs 3496:Mendaliv 3325:Xaosflux 3314:xaosflux 3273:contribs 3245:Euryalus 3235:xaosflux 3134:contribs 3091:contribs 2927:contribs 2724:nableezy 2547:Obvious 2506:xaosflux 2308:Headbomb 2260:Headbomb 2171:Headbomb 2057:Moizsyed 2012:Headbomb 1970:Jtmorgan 1811:Medicine 1806:Malaysia 1626:Wikidata 1622:Homepage 1597:Outreach 1555:Bulletin 1457:Chapters 1388:French: 1371:French: 1322:Assamese 1297:Signpost 1090:Spinning 1066:Spinning 971:contact. 927:Sänger ♫ 826:years.-- 655:Headbomb 497:this one 372:and the 345:said. - 197:claiming 179:contribs 13893:mash up 13868:endaliv 13731:Buster7 13709:endaliv 13491:endaliv 13388:concept 13287:Wehwalt 13125:" and " 12947:endaliv 12687:King of 12633:Email 9 12622:Email 8 12615:Email 6 12608:Email 1 12577:running 12376:popular 12324:King of 12279:endaliv 12215:endaliv 12185:endaliv 12018:du jour 11645:faction 11310:obscene 11291:Elfabet 11271:excuse. 11210:months. 11124:Comment 10967:~Swarm~ 10856:mention 10759:llywrch 10700:endaliv 10658:exactly 10325:endaliv 10292:Or me. 10249:llywrch 10222:Llywrch 10203:llywrch 9895:llywrch 9747:llywrch 9436:T&S 9434:and of 9375:Joe Roe 9290:motives 9002:in his 8977:Wehwalt 8948:Wehwalt 8906:Wehwalt 8719:Discuss 8300:endaliv 8246:endaliv 7812:endaliv 7744:endaliv 7668:endaliv 7620:endaliv 7529:endaliv 7506:~Swarm~ 7445:endaliv 7425:~Swarm~ 7271:endaliv 6893:Carrite 6857:endaliv 6798:llywrch 6770:endaliv 6714:endaliv 6638:endaliv 6430:Discott 6373:llywrch 6360:implies 6203:endaliv 6153:verdict 6108:not law 6067:endaliv 6011:endaliv 5913:endaliv 5503:endaliv 5413:legally 5317:King of 5056:stand. 4830:Wehwalt 4689:endaliv 4617:endaliv 4584:Schiste 4485:in part 4459:Adhemar 4362:Carrite 4277:King of 4054:Schiste 3887:Schiste 3748:Siarad. 3656:Siarad. 3612:legally 3478:endaliv 3460:Amakuru 3440:endaliv 3331:Sperril 3303:Sperril 3288:Sperril 3219:Sperril 3204:Sperril 3184:endaliv 3025:Wehwalt 2998:Amakuru 2968:Amakuru 2902:Schiste 2842:EllenCT 2759:Gimubrc 2680:EllenCT 2628:EllenCT 2595:EllenCT 2567:EllenCT 2516:EllenCT 2479:EllenCT 2465:Gimubrc 2450:EllenCT 2444:Gimubrc 2442:, and 2404:EllenCT 2400:Support 2300:Llywrch 2163:, and 2101:Robmoen 2004:, and 1890:Bryonyj 1765:WikiCup 1706:English 1390:Wikimag 1364:English 1336:Chinese 1121:commons 849:Siarad. 828:Wehwalt 798:Siarad. 763:Siarad. 650:T227204 615:Kudpung 593:, and 543:, and 294:llywrch 149:chapeau 39:archive 13891:Oh, a 13617:WP:AGF 13594:isaacl 13547:isaacl 13528:isaacl 13374:Hlevy2 13205:injure 13042:banned 12481:isaacl 12454:isaacl 12407:isaacl 12380:WP:ANI 12299:isaacl 12243:isaacl 12059:really 11964:Fiwiki 11960:Svwiki 11795:WP:POV 11506:WP:ABF 11496:about 11417:(talk) 11372:WP:AFD 11368:WP:BAN 11284:pages. 10280:Sitush 10182:Nick-D 10154:(talk) 10135:first. 10123:(talk) 10116:WP:ANI 10086:Nick-D 10054:WP:ANI 9927:nearly 9675:isaacl 9452:Pundit 9278:(talk) 9225:(Talk) 9176:(Talk) 9138:python 7942:(Talk) 7598:faith. 7340:cannot 7253:(talk) 7233:(talk) 7127:Nick-D 7056:Pundit 7012:(talk) 6621:refuse 6494:Abote2 6293:ask us 6149:above. 5628:Compel 5577:Sitush 4749:vision 4667:ban.-- 4500:needed 4495:unable 4436:know). 4257:stated 4232:MLauba 4081:(talk) 4063:(talk) 3834:didn't 3786:Enigma 3770:Nick-D 3724:Pundit 3109:(talk) 3066:Summit 2941:Pundit 2794:Cullen 2789:Oppose 2755:Oppose 2736:Oppose 2549:Oppose 2531:Oppose 2498:Oppose 2417:Oppose 2386:either 2081:Phuedx 1974:K4-713 1419:Hebrew 1405:German 1350:Danish 1215:frwiki 1164:enwiki 1145:dewiki 938:Pundit 919:Pundit 624:... -- 385:really 328:Summit 278:(Talk) 13778:Kusma 13762:v^_^v 13694:v^_^v 13641:Edits 12787:54129 12590:WP:WQ 12546:time. 12401:As I 12055:begin 11968:Zache 11832:WP:RS 11787:don't 11772:Spiel 11326:v^_^v 11037:v^_^v 10926:v^_^v 10881:Spiel 10591:email 10557:WP:DR 10541:email 10418:toxic 10389:where 10081:might 10013:Then 9778:WP:RS 9665:As I 9458:utter 9206:v^_^v 9196:could 9141:coder 8745:talk 8492:Davey 8407:54129 8351:54129 8070:Spiel 7715:still 7654:bans. 7571:SoWhy 7419:weeks 7350:v^_^v 7263:brand 7225:Yup. 7166:SoWhy 7114:email 7062:utter 7034:Jimbo 6957:might 6953:think 6919:intan 6614:could 6594:never 6411:email 6342:email 6283:this. 6183:never 6140:never 5643:v^_^v 5384:Bilby 5296:email 4594:WP:AN 4447:From 4427:Even 4303:in re 4191:email 4110:email 3934:v^_^v 3730:utter 3687:email 3591:email 3277:email 3138:email 3095:email 3063:Girth 2947:utter 2931:email 2745:Edits 2348:Davey 2137:Tfinc 1299:-like 1191:- ... 1159:- ... 1153:- ... 1095:Spark 1071:Spark 954:Ain92 944:utter 892:Ain92 647:Note: 541:Zache 516:Zache 491:Zache 475:Zache 465:Zache 407:©Geni 341:What 325:Girth 309:Tdslk 259:talk 16:< 13947:talk 13930:talk 13909:talk 13899:and 13853:talk 13839:talk 13824:talk 13656:talk 13626:talk 13598:talk 13578:talk 13551:talk 13532:talk 13515:talk 13477:talk 13450:Pine 13446:. -- 13427:talk 13397:talk 13378:talk 13360:talk 13354:. -- 13339:talk 13308:talk 13291:talk 13249:talk 13234:talk 13218:talk 13203:can 13187:talk 13165:talk 13135:talk 13113:talk 13099:talk 13084:talk 13054:talk 13028:talk 12973:talk 12919:talk 12868:has 12811:Pine 12807:. -- 12803:and 12768:Pine 12659:talk 12485:talk 12458:talk 12425:talk 12411:talk 12393:talk 12351:qedk 12303:talk 12264:7754 12261:chen 12247:talk 12207:well 12170:7754 12167:chen 12147:both 12138:Tinz 12129:talk 12125:Tinz 12102:talk 12067:talk 12041:that 12026:talk 12003:talk 11987:talk 11983:Yger 11972:talk 11949:talk 11931:talk 11905:need 11892:talk 11876:talk 11854:talk 11828:WP:V 11767:Ϣere 11709:xeno 11553:talk 11478:talk 11463:7754 11460:chen 11412:Tony 11401:7754 11398:chen 11380:talk 11346:talk 11295:talk 11136:talk 11115:talk 11103:them 11020:talk 11005:talk 10982:talk 10900:talk 10876:Ϣere 10838:talk 10818:talk 10763:talk 10738:talk 10722:and 10681:talk 10647:talk 10622:talk 10583:talk 10533:talk 10511:Hans 10501:talk 10461:talk 10399:will 10394:have 10375:talk 10348:talk 10299:talk 10284:talk 10269:talk 10253:talk 10233:talk 10207:talk 10186:talk 10167:talk 10141:talk 10090:talk 10070:talk 10040:talk 9963:talk 9913:talk 9899:talk 9885:talk 9866:long 9812:talk 9806:. -- 9800:hate 9776:and 9774:WP:V 9765:like 9761:have 9751:talk 9729:talk 9700:WP:V 9679:talk 9669:and 9655:talk 9640:talk 9587:talk 9573:talk 9547:talk 9533:talk 9510:talk 9493:talk 9385:Mkdw 9326:talk 9146:talk 9126:talk 9095:talk 9085:and 9073:talk 9048:talk 9029:talk 8981:talk 8966:talk 8952:talk 8933:talk 8910:talk 8888:talk 8804:talk 8779:talk 8764:talk 8649:talk 8618:talk 8603:talk 8497:2010 8446:talk 8371:talk 8314:talk 8286:talk 8200:talk 8162:talk 8115:talk 8096:talk 8087:Here 8065:Ϣere 8043:talk 8039:Nick 8026:talk 7997:talk 7893:talk 7850:talk 7786:talk 7723:talk 7699:does 7644:talk 7589:talk 7436:was. 7382:talk 7325:talk 7294:talk 7261:The 7248:Tony 7228:Tony 7214:talk 7168:and 7151:talk 7131:talk 7106:talk 7007:Tony 6992:7754 6989:chen 6965:talk 6938:7754 6935:chen 6897:talk 6882:talk 6842:talk 6817:talk 6802:talk 6755:talk 6737:talk 6699:talk 6670:talk 6604:talk 6577:talk 6549:talk 6525:talk 6498:talk 6484:talk 6469:talk 6454:talk 6434:talk 6403:talk 6389:and 6377:talk 6334:talk 6322:here 6250:talk 6191:must 6119:talk 6093:talk 6035:brad 5987:brad 5947:talk 5864:talk 5851:talk 5833:talk 5788:talk 5766:talk 5754:and 5741:talk 5707:talk 5618:talk 5594:Tera 5581:talk 5416:way. 5401:and 5388:talk 5370:talk 5288:talk 5270:talk 5220:and 5196:talk 5181:talk 5166:talk 5102:talk 5062:talk 5047:that 5021:talk 5006:talk 4985:talk 4968:was 4950:talk 4931:talk 4872:talk 4853:talk 4834:talk 4810:brad 4780:talk 4745:here 4743:are 4724:talk 4673:talk 4658:talk 4643:talk 4602:talk 4586:and 4571:talk 4548:talk 4509:talk 4463:talk 4384:talk 4366:talk 4345:7754 4342:chen 4328:7754 4325:chen 4311:talk 4266:talk 4255:has 4220:talk 4183:talk 4159:talk 4102:talk 3988:talk 3969:talk 3948:talk 3918:talk 3904:talk 3872:talk 3858:talk 3843:talk 3818:talk 3800:talk 3774:talk 3708:talk 3679:talk 3583:talk 3564:talk 3543:talk 3464:talk 3421:Talk 3400:Talk 3381:Lose 3335:talk 3292:talk 3269:talk 3249:talk 3208:talk 3169:talk 3130:talk 3087:talk 3029:talk 3012:Talk 2986:talk 2972:talk 2923:talk 2906:talk 2862:talk 2846:talk 2780:talk 2763:talk 2699:talk 2684:talk 2670:talk 2646:talk 2632:talk 2613:talk 2599:talk 2585:talk 2571:talk 2557:talk 2539:talk 2520:talk 2483:talk 2469:talk 2454:talk 2425:talk 2408:talk 2390:both 2353:2010 2242:and 2229:talk 2214:talk 2093:RobH 1735:GLAM 1663:News 1652:News 1632:News 1540:Meta 1525:News 1225:wikt 1105:Idea 1083:and 1042:Phil 958:talk 910:talk 896:talk 879:7754 876:chen 832:talk 817:talk 782:talk 746:7754 743:chen 735:here 733:and 731:here 716:talk 692:talk 630:talk 604:talk 583:Pine 569:talk 560:here 520:talk 505:talk 479:talk 469:talk 463:) -- 457:this 445:talk 411:talk 393:talk 313:talk 298:talk 238:talk 221:talk 206:talk 187:talk 173:talk 157:talk 13895:of 13875:Δ's 13754:? — 13716:Δ's 13564:his 13498:Δ's 13455:(✉) 13283:top 12954:Δ's 12816:(✉) 12795:Hi 12286:Δ's 12222:Δ's 12192:Δ's 11830:or 11797:or 11240:On 11085:WBG 10808:all 10802:all 10796:all 10707:Δ's 10332:Δ's 10062:not 9790:and 9695:not 9483:An 8904:.-- 8740:DGG 8478:can 8253:Δ's 8181:WBG 8104:If 7985:all 7819:Δ's 7778:was 7751:Δ's 7675:Δ's 7627:Δ's 7554:Why 7536:Δ's 7517:not 7474:Why 7452:Δ's 7401:WBG 7367:Why 7278:Δ's 7078:Why 7044:Why 6864:Δ's 6777:Δ's 6721:Δ's 6645:Δ's 6629:all 6210:Δ's 6145:not 6074:Δ's 6018:Δ's 5920:Δ's 5635:. — 5598:tix 5510:Δ's 5361:all 4976:. — 4696:Δ's 4624:Δ's 4562:all 4431:to 4357:NOT 4249:As 3555:all 3530:🖋 3505:WBG 3485:Δ's 3458:— 3447:Δ's 3415:MJL 3394:MJL 3378:Not 3191:Δ's 3006:MJL 2718:lol 2388:or 1373:RAW 1230:... 1220:... 1210:... 1201:... 1140:... 579:DGG 268:DGG 254:DGG 139:Why 13949:) 13932:) 13911:) 13879:/ 13871:// 13855:) 13841:) 13826:) 13814:= 13789:) 13720:/ 13712:// 13703:—/ 13658:) 13644:) 13638:(/ 13628:) 13620:-- 13600:) 13584:) 13580:• 13553:) 13534:) 13517:) 13502:/ 13494:// 13479:) 13429:) 13399:) 13380:) 13362:) 13341:) 13310:) 13293:) 13251:) 13236:) 13220:) 13189:) 13167:) 13137:) 13115:) 13101:) 13090:. 13086:) 13070:) 13056:) 13030:) 12999:) 12975:) 12965:+2 12958:/ 12950:// 12921:) 12774:—— 12770:? 12704:♠ 12661:) 12579:. 12565:is 12497:SJ 12495:– 12487:) 12460:) 12438:SJ 12436:– 12427:) 12413:) 12395:) 12360:桜 12341:♠ 12305:) 12290:/ 12282:// 12258:Rs 12249:) 12226:/ 12218:// 12196:/ 12188:// 12164:Rs 12131:) 12104:) 12069:) 12028:) 12005:) 11989:) 11974:) 11951:) 11933:) 11894:) 11878:) 11856:) 11793:, 11737:· 11733:· 11729:· 11653:we 11617:· 11613:· 11609:· 11534:· 11530:· 11526:· 11457:Rs 11443:· 11439:· 11435:· 11395:Rs 11382:) 11348:) 11297:) 11138:) 11117:) 11056:iz 11022:) 11014:-- 11007:) 10984:) 10943:iz 10902:) 10840:) 10820:) 10765:) 10740:) 10711:/ 10703:// 10694:—/ 10683:) 10593:) 10589:· 10585:· 10552:If 10543:) 10539:· 10535:· 10519:. 10503:) 10463:) 10447:." 10409:If 10377:) 10350:) 10336:/ 10328:// 10286:) 10255:) 10209:) 10188:) 10169:) 10143:) 10092:) 10072:) 10042:) 9965:) 9915:) 9901:) 9887:) 9814:) 9753:) 9731:) 9681:) 9657:) 9642:) 9589:) 9575:) 9561:: 9549:) 9535:) 9512:) 9495:) 9470:SJ 9468:– 9328:) 9152:) 9148:| 9128:) 9097:) 9075:) 9050:) 9031:) 8983:) 8968:) 8954:) 8935:) 8912:) 8890:) 8832:: 8806:) 8781:) 8766:) 8747:) 8651:) 8620:) 8605:) 8582:· 8578:· 8574:· 8448:) 8440:. 8437:, 8434:, 8431:, 8394:—— 8373:) 8338:—— 8334:. 8316:) 8288:) 8273:- 8257:/ 8249:// 8229:- 8202:) 8164:) 8098:) 8045:) 8028:) 8014:, 8011:, 8008:, 7999:) 7965:) 7918:· 7914:· 7910:· 7895:) 7876:· 7872:· 7868:· 7852:) 7823:/ 7815:// 7788:) 7755:/ 7747:// 7725:) 7679:/ 7671:// 7646:) 7631:/ 7623:// 7614:—/ 7591:) 7549:So 7540:/ 7532:// 7469:So 7456:/ 7448:// 7384:) 7362:So 7327:) 7296:) 7282:/ 7274:// 7216:) 7196:· 7192:· 7188:· 7153:) 7133:) 7116:) 7112:· 7108:· 7073:So 7039:So 6986:Rs 6983:-- 6967:) 6932:Rs 6929:-- 6899:) 6884:) 6868:/ 6860:// 6844:) 6819:) 6804:) 6781:/ 6773:// 6764:—/ 6757:) 6739:) 6725:/ 6717:// 6708:—/ 6701:) 6690:on 6672:) 6649:/ 6641:// 6606:) 6579:) 6560:do 6551:) 6527:) 6500:) 6486:) 6471:) 6463:-- 6456:) 6436:) 6413:) 6409:· 6405:· 6379:) 6344:) 6340:· 6336:· 6252:) 6214:/ 6206:// 6158:is 6122:) 6095:) 6078:/ 6070:// 6044:🍁 6022:/ 6014:// 5996:🍁 5949:) 5924:/ 5916:// 5890:· 5886:· 5882:· 5835:) 5790:) 5768:) 5743:) 5709:) 5675:· 5671:· 5667:· 5620:) 5583:) 5549:· 5545:· 5541:· 5514:/ 5506:// 5483:· 5479:· 5475:· 5439:· 5435:· 5431:· 5390:) 5372:) 5334:♠ 5298:) 5294:· 5290:· 5272:) 5252:· 5248:· 5244:· 5198:) 5183:) 5168:) 5134:· 5130:· 5126:· 5104:) 5064:) 5023:) 5008:) 4988:) 4952:) 4933:) 4905:· 4901:· 4897:· 4874:) 4855:) 4836:) 4819:🍁 4802:, 4798:, 4782:) 4741:we 4726:) 4700:/ 4692:// 4675:) 4660:) 4645:) 4628:/ 4620:// 4604:) 4573:) 4550:) 4511:) 4465:) 4457:— 4451:: 4424:). 4386:) 4368:) 4339:Rs 4322:Rs 4313:) 4294:♠ 4268:) 4222:) 4214:. 4193:) 4189:· 4185:· 4161:) 4112:) 4108:· 4104:· 4023:· 4019:· 4015:· 3990:) 3971:) 3950:) 3920:) 3906:) 3874:) 3860:) 3845:) 3821:) 3802:) 3776:) 3710:) 3689:) 3685:· 3681:· 3632:· 3628:· 3624:· 3593:) 3589:· 3585:· 3566:) 3545:) 3525:Mr 3489:/ 3481:// 3466:) 3451:/ 3443:// 3434:—/ 3375:Us 3363:) 3337:) 3294:) 3279:) 3275:· 3271:· 3251:) 3230:}} 3227:cn 3224:{{ 3210:) 3195:/ 3187:// 3178:—/ 3171:) 3140:) 3136:· 3132:· 3097:) 3093:· 3089:· 3031:) 2988:) 2974:) 2933:) 2929:· 2925:· 2908:) 2864:) 2848:) 2782:) 2765:) 2748:) 2742:(/ 2728:- 2701:) 2686:) 2672:) 2648:) 2634:) 2615:) 2601:) 2587:) 2573:) 2559:) 2541:) 2522:) 2485:) 2471:) 2456:) 2438:, 2427:) 2410:) 2322:· 2318:· 2314:· 2274:· 2270:· 2266:· 2231:) 2216:) 2185:· 2181:· 2177:· 2159:, 2155:, 2151:, 2147:, 2143:, 2139:, 2135:, 2131:, 2127:, 2123:, 2119:, 2115:, 2111:, 2107:, 2103:, 2099:, 2095:, 2091:, 2087:, 2083:, 2079:, 2075:, 2071:, 2067:, 2063:, 2059:, 2055:, 2051:, 2047:, 2043:, 2026:· 2022:· 2018:· 2000:, 1996:, 1992:, 1988:, 1984:, 1980:, 1976:, 1972:, 1968:, 1964:, 1960:, 1956:, 1952:, 1948:, 1944:, 1940:, 1936:, 1932:, 1928:, 1924:, 1920:, 1916:, 1912:, 1908:, 1904:, 1900:, 1896:, 1892:, 1888:, 1884:, 1044:) 960:) 912:) 898:) 873:Rs 834:) 819:) 784:) 740:Rs 718:) 694:) 669:· 665:· 661:· 632:) 606:) 589:, 585:, 581:, 577:, 539:, 522:) 514:-- 507:) 481:) 447:) 413:) 395:) 315:) 300:) 261:) 240:) 223:) 208:) 189:) 159:) 134:So 64:← 13945:( 13928:( 13907:( 13865:M 13851:( 13837:( 13822:( 13787:c 13785:· 13783:t 13781:( 13738:☎ 13706:M 13654:( 13624:( 13596:( 13576:( 13549:( 13530:( 13513:( 13488:M 13475:( 13425:( 13395:( 13376:( 13358:( 13337:( 13314:. 13306:( 13289:( 13247:( 13232:( 13216:( 13185:( 13163:( 13147:. 13133:( 13111:( 13097:( 13082:( 13066:( 13052:( 13026:( 12995:( 12971:( 12944:M 12936:1 12934:+ 12917:( 12756:. 12729:" 12701:♣ 12696:♦ 12691:♥ 12657:( 12501:+ 12483:( 12456:( 12442:+ 12423:( 12409:( 12391:( 12366:) 12363:c 12357:t 12354:( 12338:♣ 12333:♦ 12328:♥ 12301:( 12276:M 12245:( 12212:M 12182:M 12127:( 12100:( 12065:( 12024:( 12001:( 11985:( 11970:( 11947:( 11929:( 11890:( 11874:( 11852:( 11741:} 11739:b 11735:p 11731:c 11727:t 11725:{ 11687:: 11683:@ 11633:: 11629:@ 11621:} 11619:b 11615:p 11611:c 11607:t 11605:{ 11598:: 11594:@ 11587:: 11583:@ 11555:) 11551:( 11538:} 11536:b 11532:p 11528:c 11524:t 11522:{ 11480:) 11476:( 11447:} 11445:b 11441:p 11437:c 11433:t 11431:{ 11378:( 11344:( 11293:( 11176:. 11134:( 11113:( 11081:∯ 11053:L 11018:( 11003:( 10980:( 10940:L 10898:( 10836:( 10816:( 10761:( 10736:( 10697:M 10679:( 10649:) 10645:( 10624:) 10620:( 10581:( 10531:( 10499:( 10493:: 10489:@ 10459:( 10373:( 10346:( 10322:M 10301:) 10297:( 10282:( 10271:) 10267:( 10251:( 10235:) 10231:( 10224:: 10220:@ 10205:( 10184:( 10165:( 10139:( 10088:( 10068:( 10038:( 9980:: 9976:@ 9961:( 9911:( 9897:( 9883:( 9840:☎ 9825:: 9821:@ 9810:( 9749:( 9743:: 9739:@ 9727:( 9677:( 9653:( 9638:( 9585:( 9571:( 9545:( 9531:( 9508:( 9491:( 9474:+ 9455:| 9415:) 9408:) 9371:) 9358:. 9324:( 9250:: 9246:@ 9144:( 9135:— 9124:( 9093:( 9071:( 9065:: 9061:@ 9046:( 9027:( 8979:( 8964:( 8950:( 8931:( 8908:( 8886:( 8802:( 8777:( 8762:( 8743:( 8714:✡ 8706:∰ 8647:( 8616:( 8601:( 8586:} 8584:b 8580:p 8576:c 8572:t 8570:{ 8444:( 8422:: 8418:@ 8384:: 8380:@ 8369:( 8312:( 8297:M 8284:( 8243:M 8198:( 8177:∯ 8160:( 8147:) 8142:· 8136:· 8130:· 8124:· 8118:· 8113:( 8094:( 8041:( 8024:( 7995:( 7961:( 7922:} 7920:b 7916:p 7912:c 7908:t 7906:{ 7891:( 7880:} 7878:b 7874:p 7870:c 7866:t 7864:{ 7848:( 7809:M 7784:( 7741:M 7721:( 7665:M 7642:( 7617:M 7587:( 7567:) 7563:( 7526:M 7442:M 7397:∯ 7380:( 7323:( 7292:( 7268:M 7212:( 7200:} 7198:b 7194:p 7190:c 7186:t 7184:{ 7172:: 7164:@ 7149:( 7129:( 7104:( 7059:| 7029:: 7025:@ 6963:( 6916:Y 6895:( 6880:( 6854:M 6840:( 6815:( 6800:( 6767:M 6753:( 6735:( 6711:M 6697:( 6668:( 6635:M 6602:( 6575:( 6547:( 6523:( 6496:( 6482:( 6467:( 6452:( 6432:( 6401:( 6375:( 6356:: 6352:@ 6332:( 6295:. 6248:( 6234:. 6200:M 6116:( 6091:( 6064:M 6037:v 6008:M 5989:v 5966:) 5962:( 5945:( 5910:M 5894:} 5892:b 5888:p 5884:c 5880:t 5878:{ 5866:) 5862:( 5853:) 5849:( 5831:( 5786:( 5779:: 5775:@ 5764:( 5758:: 5750:@ 5739:( 5732:: 5728:@ 5705:( 5698:: 5694:@ 5691:: 5687:@ 5679:} 5677:b 5673:p 5669:c 5665:t 5663:{ 5656:: 5652:@ 5616:( 5602:₵ 5579:( 5553:} 5551:b 5547:p 5543:c 5539:t 5537:{ 5500:M 5487:} 5485:b 5481:p 5477:c 5473:t 5471:{ 5443:} 5441:b 5437:p 5433:c 5429:t 5427:{ 5405:: 5397:@ 5386:( 5368:( 5331:♣ 5326:♦ 5321:♥ 5286:( 5268:( 5256:} 5254:b 5250:p 5246:c 5242:t 5240:{ 5233:: 5229:@ 5224:: 5216:@ 5194:( 5179:( 5164:( 5138:} 5136:b 5132:p 5128:c 5124:t 5122:{ 5115:: 5111:@ 5100:( 5060:( 5019:( 5004:( 4982:( 4948:( 4929:( 4909:} 4907:b 4903:p 4899:c 4895:t 4893:{ 4885:: 4881:@ 4870:( 4851:( 4849:- 4832:( 4812:v 4778:( 4737:: 4733:@ 4722:( 4686:M 4671:( 4656:( 4641:( 4614:M 4600:( 4590:: 4582:@ 4569:( 4546:( 4523:— 4507:( 4461:( 4382:( 4364:( 4309:( 4291:♣ 4286:♦ 4281:♥ 4264:( 4218:( 4204:: 4200:@ 4181:( 4157:( 4131:: 4127:@ 4123:: 4119:@ 4100:( 4050:: 4046:@ 4043:) 4039:( 4027:} 4025:b 4021:p 4017:c 4013:t 4011:{ 4003:: 3999:@ 3986:( 3967:( 3946:( 3916:( 3902:( 3896:: 3892:@ 3889:: 3885:@ 3870:( 3856:( 3841:( 3815:( 3798:( 3772:( 3754:) 3752:¤ 3750:| 3746:( 3742:— 3727:| 3706:( 3677:( 3662:) 3660:¤ 3658:| 3654:( 3650:— 3636:} 3634:b 3630:p 3626:c 3622:t 3620:{ 3604:: 3600:@ 3581:( 3562:( 3541:( 3528:X 3501:∯ 3475:M 3462:( 3437:M 3423:‐ 3419:‐ 3402:‐ 3398:‐ 3333:( 3327:: 3323:@ 3305:: 3301:@ 3290:( 3267:( 3247:( 3221:: 3217:@ 3206:( 3181:M 3167:( 3128:( 3085:( 3042:) 3038:( 3027:( 3014:‐ 3010:‐ 3000:: 2996:@ 2984:( 2970:( 2944:| 2921:( 2904:( 2860:( 2844:( 2778:( 2761:( 2697:( 2682:( 2668:( 2644:( 2630:( 2611:( 2597:( 2583:( 2569:( 2555:( 2537:( 2518:( 2481:( 2467:( 2452:( 2446:: 2434:@ 2423:( 2406:( 2326:} 2324:b 2320:p 2316:c 2312:t 2310:{ 2302:: 2298:@ 2278:} 2276:b 2272:p 2268:c 2264:t 2262:{ 2246:: 2238:@ 2227:( 2212:( 2189:} 2187:b 2183:p 2179:c 2175:t 2173:{ 2167:: 2039:@ 2030:} 2028:b 2024:p 2020:c 2016:t 2014:{ 2008:: 1880:@ 1726:) 1722:( 1684:) 1681:t 1678:( 1515:) 1512:t 1509:( 1502:) 1499:t 1496:( 1489:) 1486:t 1483:( 1475:) 1472:t 1469:( 1441:) 1438:t 1435:( 1427:) 1424:t 1421:( 1413:) 1410:t 1407:( 1399:) 1396:t 1393:( 1382:) 1379:t 1376:( 1358:) 1355:t 1352:( 1344:) 1341:t 1338:( 1330:) 1327:t 1324:( 1316:) 1313:t 1310:( 1285:t 1283:( 1257:e 1250:t 1243:v 1040:( 956:( 941:| 908:( 894:( 855:) 853:¤ 851:| 847:( 843:— 830:( 815:( 804:) 802:¤ 800:| 796:( 792:— 780:( 769:) 767:¤ 765:| 761:( 757:— 714:( 690:( 673:} 671:b 667:p 663:c 659:t 657:{ 628:( 617:: 613:@ 602:( 597:: 573:@ 567:( 547:: 535:@ 518:( 503:( 493:: 489:@ 477:( 467:( 443:( 409:( 391:( 311:( 296:( 257:( 236:( 219:( 204:( 185:( 176:· 171:( 155:( 50:.

Index

Knowledge:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram
archive
current main page
Archive 5
Archive 10
Archive 11
Archive 12
Archive 13
Archive 14
So
Why
09:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Twilson r
talk
09:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Katherine (WMF)
talk
contribs
MikeLynch
talk
11:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Ken Arromdee
talk
15:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49
talk
15:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Britishfinance
talk
09:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

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