341:(may be red for a moment while I get the first draft written up; it'll be turning blue shortly). Everyone's input is very welcome on it; it's not "mine" just because it's in my userspace. In the meantime, could we please all hold off on concrete proposals and !votes until we've got something fully baked? I don't, for example, want to ban the WMF accounts altogether—they handle issues like child protection, threats of violence and suicide, and such issues. I know the details of some of those issues, and while I can't discuss specifics of any of them, I can say in general some would turn your hair white. I have no reason to believe that they do not competently handle cases like that. Where they do fail is at intervening in matters that should be handled by the community, and it is that,
840:
threats of violence or suicide, or legal matters). WMF employees who hold volunteer admin accounts may continue to act as admins, but their actions will be regular admin actions subject to review or reversal by other administrators or community consensus. That may or may not stop them from doing so, but it would be rather hypocritical of them to impose a ban when in doing so they would themselves be defying a ban. The farther this goes, the more disgusted I'm getting, and the more this seems like a flat-out power grab rather than a misguided but good faith action. Let's not let that pass without taking every measure we've got at our disposal. At the very least, imposition of such sanctions would act as a strong
463:, I believe, as per ToU/Pillars/etc, WMF has a duty to respond to respective Project and Community guidelines/policies/requests. As such, I think it would be a good idea to have an official policy in place that the community can overturn an Office Action, provided that such Action was not instituted for clearly legal or safety reasons (e.g., stalking, pedophilia, copyright violations, etc); instances of general grumpiness ("hostility") could be overturned if the Community felt that the WMF had overstepped its authority. All this being said, however, we have to acknowledge that the ToU do state that they reserve the right to revoke anyone's account at any time, without or without cause. —
361:
similar format to ArbCom decisions with findings of principles, findings of facts, remedies, and enforcement. I think that we should adopt a position that the WMF should refer to ArbCom any local community violations, unless they believe that the complainant would face imminent and real harm from the disclosure to ArbCom or if the WMF is subject to legal requirements. I think that we should request that the WMF disclose to ArbCom the specifics of this case, as a local matter, without an immediate revocation. Then, ArbCom should pass a motion either supporting the action; supporting the result, but rejecting the process; or rejecting the action wholly.
537:
for future interaction between en.WP and the WMF. We need the WMF and T&S, and they need us too (probably more than we need them: we built the bloody place before they started getting paid big bucks for it!) Trust may have been fractured here, but if needs to be clear boundaries about where ArbCom ends and WMF begins - and that shouldn't be something foisted on us by faceless bureaucrats in the office, but after a discussion on where they should and should not act that leads to a mutual agreement. Consensus shouldn't just be about the content, it should be a major factor in the way we and the WMF interact. -
345:, that I think we are seeing "no confidence" expressed in here. So whether it's our statement, or whether community sanctions turn out to be necessary, let's take a moment to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Community sanctions can, after all, be bans on specific things rather than a full-on site ban, and I think we're perfectly capable of, if the need should arise, crafting a sanction that would allow T&S to do the work they should be doing, while restricting them from usurping areas where the community should be the final authority.
316:, that clearly outlines the community's concerns with the ban and requests it be overturned and any further sanctions pursued through the usual dispute resolution channels, which were left untried. This is a concrete next step that would display a united community front (as Rutebega noted, this is important) but is not as extreme as banning accounts or editor strikes.
1051:, I hear where you are coming from, but I think that there may be situations where they couldn't disclose more information than they have, why it's local only I'm not sure. I think that the process could have been different, but until we have information to the contrary, I have to be convinced that the action is wholly without merit.
521:
TRM, for clarity, can you say what you'd want the outcome of such an RFC to be? Would you see it as merely feedback from the community to the office (like this page already is)? Or if you think the office has some obligation to take the advice on board, what is the nature of the obligation and what
1065:
If that were the case then they would have immediately expanded Fram's ban for divulging details on
Commons. That they have not done that to my knowledge thus far tells me that this is an excuse, and while I won't contest that there may be some private information involved it's asinine to think that
536:
Rather than asking about the (specific) outcome—which is in cart before the horse territory—what are the boundaries of the RfC, or the points to be discussed. My personal opinion is, rather than this page, which is a blunderbuss of discomfort and anger at their actions, a proposed positive framework
420:
that an independent panel, including one member of the Trust and Safety Team, one member of the
Community Relations team, one member of the Legal team, one member of the Board, three members elected globally by the community, and one member of the Arbitration Committee from each project on which the
987:
This would not be a long-term policy, but a temporary stance until everything gets more under control. There's a lot going on right now. The Board is looking into the issue, the higher-ups at the WMF presumably know how inappropriate T&S's actions have been and are likely trying to fix whatever
983:
I propose, as a temporary measure, that certain classes of office actions taken by WMFOffice be undone. Specifically, blocks, bans, and userrights changes that relate to the current issue. These include the block, ban, and desysop of User:Fram, the retaliatory temporary desysop of User:Floquenbeam,
773:
This was suggested above. I don't think it's a good way of clarifying things to the WMF. Incidentally, the community is completely capable of undoing illegitimate office actions. Fram was already unblocked. The WMF has virtually no power except what the community gives it, regardless of whether all
625:
I'm not formulating the RFC here and now, I just want to make sure we don't get another spontaneous 1-year ban applied completely covertly to any editor because some klutz in the Office decides to press a button. It's abundantly apparent that the levels of incompetence here rise to a new high, and
394:
the WMF is permitted to take office actions, in order to protect the safety of users of
Knowledge and enforce the Terms of Use and other legal obligations, or in order to enforce local and global policies, when local processes have failed or the disclosure of details to local processes could pose a
401:
the WMF should refer to local processes any complaint it receives that they could effectively handle, share with
Stewards and any relevant local privileged users, such as the Arbitration Committee and Check Users, as much information as legally and safely possible regarding any office actions, and
221:
this was a particularly bad decision, but WMF staff accounts, and in particular T&S play a vital role behind the scenes dealing with real issues. I’m personally shocked that they would ruin the goodwill they’ve created over an incident that did not need their intervention, but preventing them
360:
Without commenting on the specifics of the situation, given the unknowns of the situation, I'll leave some thoughts here on the general response. I think that we need to avoid paranoia or blanket statements, given out lack of information. I think that we should draft a petition that would take a
1455:
So the enwiki community can harass them like they are Laura and
Raystorm? No. I applaud the WMF for taking reasonable measures, such as the use of the WMFOffice account, in an attempt to shield their employees from the toxicity of the enwiki community at this current time. It is a credit to the
839:
I do not think we should ban people from WMF from editing in their volunteer role. I do, however, see merit in considering community sanctions specifying that the WMF may not take Office actions on the
English Knowledge outside the areas where they have traditionally done so (child protection,
891:
We won't improve our autonomy by degrading our processes. Either someone did something blockable/bannable or not. If we ban somebody out of spite, politics, as a favor, out of clannishness, we've sunk to the level we accuse the WMF of being at. And then where's our case? Of course, if you
1440:
to review postings? Do they have to provide expedited access to official or covert government agencies to make these decisions? Are they subject to a coordinated program of censorship with other social media that requires a uniform business model, terms and conditions, and procedures for
991:
At some point in the future, we need to clarify exactly how much authority is delegated toward the major off-wiki/corporate arm of
Wikimedia, and the WMF's Trust and Safety in particular, but for right now, I think we just need to get everything back to normal as smoothly as possible.
1384:
I understand that you act in official capacity when you edit with this account; however, it would help set a positive tone if it would be clear who the person speaking is? Generalisations like "we" or "the WMF Office" sound official, but they also add a distance between you and "the
260:
There are times when WMF action is necessary to prevent legal issues or to safeguard someone's health or wellbeing. While outside of these very clear areas they should stay out of things completely, blocking the accounts would have no real benefits and could cause actual harm.
822:
This would not have prevented the ban currently in question, nor will it have any bearing on future WMF bans. The community cannot revoke the authority that the WMF has over the project. It can only work with the WMF to encourage that future bans are communicated more clearly.
1530:
There is no need for whoever T&S employee pushed the button to reveal who they are. We'll gain no useful information, and expose that person to harassment, doxxing, and worse. The criticism is directed at the T&S team collectively, and ultimately, the WMF.
948:
I'd see it as a valid form of protest. I could see myself supporting a blanket ban/block of all official WMF accounts on enwiki. However, we're not there yet. At the very least, we need to see what happens from that board meeting, and if we get actual answers.
176:, directing aggression at a specific identified person when complaining about an action that was made by a group of people would probably be pretty unhelpful ("attacking the messenger"). This may be the reason for having an WMFOffice account in the first place.
1370:
1456:
Foundation that they are respecting the duty of care they owe their employees by preventing a single individual employee from facing widespread harassment for merely publishing a statement that is coming from the WMF as a whole. Perhaps reflect upon
1559:
As a person who have sought help, I would say, no. Pushing that one single blue button is not what anyone single staff can instantly do, but is a collective decision of members of the Trust and Safety Team (and also other teams that may be possibly
652:
1323:
730:
684:
670:
698:
876:
This doesn't seem like it will help anything, and will just give the WMF stronger evidence that the
English Knowledge can't solve its own problems. They shouldn't have blocked Fram like they did, but this is not how we should respond.
421:
targets are active (or a locally-active Check User or
Steward if no arbitration committee exists), be called to review and approve each office action and prepare a statement to be released to the Community regarding the action; and
593:
1394:
1086:
I'm still waiting to hear from the WMF whether they contest Fram's account. It's also possible, and likely from my interpretation of current policy, that they may not have fully disclosed to Fram the exact diffs for the ban.
531:
635:
620:
1441:
enforcement, as well as a gag on their motivations and procedures? Yeah, they're not going to answer those either. But my paranoia can, and my paranoia is more reliable than most other sources of information I have here.
1155:
1001:
239:
this violates the office actions policy and therefore should be a last resort if it is clear all discussion has stalled; not all our options are exhausted yet (e.g. petitioning or waiting for the 14 June board meeting). –
1127:
1112:
1096:
1081:
1060:
275:
1425:
1278:
472:
1043:
884:
301:
231:
1521:
564:
546:
213:
1503:
1189:
1019:
602:"only tenants", and let's not let them spread that bullshit. We built the building. Before the WMF even existed, community members were running the servers, handling issues that came up (at that time on a much more
355:
78:
45:
1554:
1471:
1244:
1208:
850:
370:
252:
1225:
941:
921:
163:
147:
101:
1295:
869:
127:
1577:
815:
783:
1450:
972:
185:
1261:
1117:
I'm not confident in that, given the potential privacy issues. Sometimes prosecutors, or in this case, WMF, have to let the defendant make false or uninformed statements to avoid breaching their obligations.
799:
1301:
905:
832:
642:
A thought. Anyone can edit, therefor if a community wide decision is made, we can very much make this encyclopedia less encyclopedic quite easily in protest. In short, we can shut this motherf***er down.
1031:
If the WMF was serious about addressing this they wouldn't have given us content-free responces, nor would they have shit on the consensus of the community and deopped Floq or wheel-warred the unblock.
767:
1480:
A secret trial, with secret and unaccountable judges, no opportunity for the accused to defend themselves, secret accusers, secret accusations, secret evidence, and to top it off, no appeal possible?
17:
515:
447:
479:
928:
This would be a terrible, monumentally hypocritical, idea. We complain about community processes being bypassed, actions taken with conflicts of interest and general injustice. Even if we
331:
1432:
Assuming they won't do that, I wonder if they would tell us whether they intend to limit access to the account and control over the "Trust and Safety" bans to personnel within the actual
1101:
If they were going to contest Fram's account they would have done so by now. They've made two statements since Fram replied. Both have been more or less boilerplate and content-free. —
313:
806:
I think a discussion on what part WMF (or "Office" or whatever) should be allowed to play here is due and warranted, but isn't this proposal premature and perhaps going too far? ---
1302:
626:
we don't want to go through this pain again, on the whim of an incompetent WMF employee. Who wants to contribute to WMF while "under the gun", and an invisible one at that?
1478:
Rob, I agree with everything you say about harassment and I also agree that the level of aggression and foulmouthed abuse being hurled around is too high here at enWP. BUT:
1486:
practices. At a minimum, ArbCom should have been informed, with Fram being allowed to defend themselves, again at a minimum, by email to the Arbs. It's not so much the
689:
There are already proposals above regarding editor and admin "strikes", where folks refuse to edit until the situation is resolved. Perhaps place your efforts there?
676:
644:
1349:
1345:
1341:
408:
the WMF to brief the
English Knowledge Arbitration Committee and the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation regarding the office actions taken against Fram;
1375:
1352:
identify themselves and who they represent? For transparency and accountability to the community. Also requesting future identifications while using the account.
92:
would be a good start. If the WMF is going to be blocking / banning editors, they should at least be doing it with an account operated by an identified person.
1437:
912:
There have been requests that the WMF staff respond on-wiki to concerns raised. It would be inconsistent to ban them, which would prevent them from responding.
67:
657:
One thing that is in agreement among most of the parties involved in this matter is that acts to intentionally disrupt the encyclopedia or its contents are
1028:
26:
This subpage is limited to proposals, including archived proposals, that specifically concern the future privileges and editing status of the WMF Office,
978:
414:
that the English Knowledge Arbitration Committee pass a motion expressing their support or lack thereof for the office actions taken against Fram;
459:
I think WMF, as owners/operators of the websites, should retain all first cause actions available to them, for obvious reasons stated previously.
988:
went wrong in their internal processes, and right now what we need is a calm assertion of authority before the WMF gets completely out of hand.
222:
from doing their necessary work, even if only symbolically, is not the answer. To be blunt: we don’t want ArbCom dealing with pedophiles again.
1330:
349:, maybe you could give me a hand writing that rather than getting yourself needlessly desysopped; your input would certainly be very valuable.
675:
I was not meaning to indicate violence, so I am sorry for coming across that way. I was trying to think in the area of protesting with signs.
70:
which would have gotten him blocked for a day at most, and how they apparently completely overstepped arbcom in doing so, I am proposing that
680:
648:
427:
that the WMF conduct an investigation into their communication practices and take steps to improve communication regarding office actions.
610:, and we continue to improve it. WMF's role is accounting and plumbing. They do not own this place and they do not own the content on it.
551:
That's what I'm getting at: now that they are receiving the big bucks, what do they need us for? Yes of course we built the place, but
402:
publicly disclose, except when prohibited by law or precluded by safety concerns, which policy was being enforced by an office action;
33:
581:
1233:
Even if we wanted to (and I'll admit I'd like to), its literally not possible. Office actions cannot be overruled by the community.
338:
30:
and/or other WMF accounts. Content that deals more broadly with Fram, the role of Arbcom or other issues has not been moved here.
1337:
984:
and any further such actions taken in response to implementing any unblocks or user rights changes supported by consensus here.
573:
Agree. We may only be tenants in their place, but we're the tenants that made it the place that their doners want to support.
62:(Feel free to move if this is the incorrect venue) Yes, you read that right. In light of the WMF's nonsensical 1 year ban of
290:
Given the responces from the Office and the radio silence otherwise, I think we need to seriously discuss doing this. Now. —
1414:
1359:
722:
556:
523:
488:
57:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
285:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1010:- Given the unknowns, we should assume good faith in the WMF and wait until we have more information to take any action.
742:
209:
1460:
a WMF employee would want/need a degree of separation from the atrocious behavior of the community at the moment. ~
1241:
865:
158:
122:
152:
That exception also clearly indicates that the accounts are for contact purposes and are not to be used to edit.
1541:
959:
1199:- This is gross overreach by the WMF, and the proposal is a reasonably measured response to that overreach.
1151:
1107:
1076:
1038:
588:
328:
296:
249:
144:
506:
We should discuss the role of the Office and whether or not this kind of episode is allowed to be repeated.
1407:- you okay with merging your topic into mine? It seems that we both had similar ideas at the same time...?
881:
74:
I don't care if this is wikicide, I think that this is the right thing to do in light of recent events.
1572:
1172:
as per Jéské, they are now resorting to wheel-warring with no explanation and against clear consensus.
631:
511:
72:
All WMF accounts be topic banned from taking action on accounts without consultation from ARBCOM first.
1274:
269:
1420:
1365:
1147:
1102:
1071:
1048:
1033:
726:
574:
560:
527:
494:
291:
41:
Putting this on hold for now per teratix, If WMF gives a bad response or such, I'll unfreeze this.
135:
has a clear-cut exception for WMF-approved accounts and Office and Legal are both on the list. –
319:
This will be my last edit for the night; I hope the situation improves by the time I wake up. –
1517:
1184:
1123:
1092:
1056:
1015:
878:
857:
This seems revengeful and vindictive to me. I don't think that this sends the right message. --
468:
443:
366:
227:
1390:
937:
917:
627:
507:
205:
1252:
for the same reason as in all of the other places where this same thing is being !voted on.
1499:
1270:
1204:
862:
263:
8:
1409:
1354:
997:
841:
810:
779:
483:
307:
1537:
1221:
1164:
955:
845:
615:
542:
501:
350:
181:
1513:
1313:
1291:
1173:
1119:
1088:
1052:
1011:
795:
666:
464:
439:
362:
324:
245:
223:
140:
844:
to show that we will not accept San Fran Bans for regular on-wiki editing disputes.
1549:
1512:
It seems that ArbCom was informed that action was being investigated against Fram.
1402:
1386:
1029:
we're not going to assume good faith towards someone who's not going to respect it.
967:
933:
913:
763:
751:
718:
694:
552:
346:
196:
97:
75:
42:
1495:
1234:
1200:
859:
153:
117:
1482:
Sorry, but for me that's a bridge too far and I will not stand for this kind of
1566:
1545:
1377:
1333:
1309:
1257:
993:
963:
807:
775:
132:
110:
106:
89:
85:
27:
754:...but we can community ban people from en.wp. Eg editors who are on WMF, say
1533:
1461:
1446:
1217:
951:
901:
896:
good reason to take any of those people to ANI, you're always free to do so.
828:
755:
538:
312:
I propose the construction of a petition to the WMF, in a similar fashion to
177:
1287:
791:
790:
This is a recalcitrant idea that cannot be considered feasible. Thank you,
662:
320:
241:
136:
113:. Those seem to be the only two violating accounts with staff permissions (
18:
Knowledge:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram
1490:
that I object to (for all I know, it was completely justified), it's the
759:
690:
173:
93:
1561:
1483:
1253:
63:
1442:
1303:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard#User:WMFOffice - Ban Proposal
897:
824:
114:
314:
meta:Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer
747:
I find the WMF actions agains Fram completely unacceptable.
1436:, or whether they are using or will use subcontractors like
606:
basis), and doing pretty much everything the WMF does now.
1286:
and very glad to see the admins and crats who've done so.
1144:
right now what we need is a calm assertion of authority...
1494:
that is completely, utterly, and totally unacceptable. --
717:
Seraphimblade and TRM, I admire your idealism but see
661:
kosher here. Non-violent civil disobedience only.--
1146:What you propose is neither calm nor assertive. --
1308:Hi all, I've proposed a indef ban & block on
337:I'm already in the process of drafting one, at
1070:is privileged given what we know from Fram. —
774:individual WMF employees are aware of it. --
979:Revert WMF actions related to this conflict
555:might illustrate the current situation.
522:do you want us to do if they ignore it?
339:User:Seraphimblade/Draft petition to WMF
172:Regarding the wish for identification,
14:
53:The following discussion is closed.
677:2001:4898:80E8:2:A5F:2E62:10E4:D7D1
645:2001:4898:80E8:2:A5F:2E62:10E4:D7D1
23:
1312:. Comments/!votes are welcomed. -
930:knew the individuals were involved
34:Community TBAN on all WMF accounts
24:
1589:
388:The English Knowledge Community,
281:The discussion above is closed.
395:real and imminent danger; and
13:
1:
1027:and with respect to Studies,
1380:posters identify themselves?
1329:Will the posters behind the
7:
10:
1594:
743:Ban WMF people from en.wp?
1578:09:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
1555:14:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
1522:12:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
1504:12:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
1472:12:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
1451:11:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
1426:11:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
1395:11:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
1371:11:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
1324:08:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
1296:01:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
1279:17:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
1262:10:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
1245:08:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
1226:06:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
1209:04:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
1190:01:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
1156:01:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
1128:10:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
1113:02:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
1097:02:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
1082:01:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
1061:01:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
1044:01:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
1020:01:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
1002:01:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
973:14:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
942:14:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
922:13:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
906:13:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
885:13:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
870:01:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
851:01:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
833:23:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
816:23:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
800:23:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
784:23:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
768:23:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
731:22:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
699:20:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
685:20:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
671:20:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
653:20:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
636:20:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
621:20:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
594:20:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
565:22:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
547:20:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
532:19:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
516:19:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
473:15:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
448:15:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
371:14:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
356:14:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
332:14:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
302:05:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
276:13:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
253:13:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
232:13:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
214:13:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
186:13:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
164:13:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
148:13:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
128:13:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
102:13:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
79:13:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
46:13:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
932:it should not be taken.
283:Please do not modify it.
55:Please do not modify it.
481:08:20, 13 June 2019 by
750:Ok, so we cannot undo
608:We built the building
1148:AntiCompositeNumber
842:shot across the bow
614:, the editors, do.
1104:A little blue Bori
1073:A little blue Bori
1035:A little blue Bori
293:A little blue Bori
109:is also violating
88:as a violation of
56:
1576:
1569:
1469:
1187:
1168:
879:ThePlatypusofDoom
849:
813:
619:
432:
431:
354:
195:per everything. —
54:
1585:
1571:
1564:
1553:
1465:
1417:
1412:
1406:
1362:
1357:
1321:
1320:
1317:
1239:
1185:
1182:
1179:
1176:
1162:
1110:
1079:
1041:
971:
848:
811:
758:. Any thoughts?
628:The Rambling Man
618:
591:
586:
579:
508:The Rambling Man
491:
486:
377:
376:
353:
299:
202:
199:
76:💵Money💵emoji💵
43:💵Money💵emoji💵
1593:
1592:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1532:
1468:
1415:
1410:
1400:
1382:
1360:
1355:
1318:
1315:
1314:
1306:
1271:Megalibrarygirl
1235:
1180:
1177:
1174:
1108:
1077:
1039:
981:
950:
745:
589:
582:
575:
504:
489:
484:
433:
382:
310:
297:
287:
286:
200:
197:
161:
125:
59:
50:
49:
48:
36:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1591:
1581:
1580:
1557:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1507:
1506:
1475:
1474:
1466:
1453:
1429:
1428:
1381:
1378:User:WMFOffice
1374:
1334:User:WMFOffice
1328:
1305:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1281:
1264:
1247:
1228:
1211:
1193:
1192:
1159:
1158:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1049:Jéské Couriano
1022:
980:
977:
976:
975:
945:
944:
925:
924:
909:
908:
888:
887:
873:
872:
854:
853:
836:
835:
819:
818:
803:
802:
787:
786:
744:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
723:67.164.113.165
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
640:
639:
638:
596:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
557:67.164.113.165
524:67.164.113.165
503:
500:
476:
475:
455:
453:
452:
451:
450:
430:
429:
384:
383:
380:
375:
374:
373:
358:
309:
306:
305:
304:
280:
279:
278:
255:
234:
216:
190:
189:
188:
170:
169:
168:
167:
166:
157:
121:
60:
51:
40:
39:
38:
37:
35:
32:
28:User:WMFOffice
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1590:
1579:
1574:
1568:
1563:
1558:
1556:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1529:
1528:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1476:
1473:
1470:
1464:
1459:
1454:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1430:
1427:
1424:
1422:
1418:
1413:
1404:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1385:community".--
1379:
1373:
1372:
1369:
1367:
1363:
1358:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1332:
1326:
1325:
1322:
1311:
1304:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1282:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1265:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1248:
1246:
1243:
1240:
1238:
1232:
1229:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1212:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1195:
1194:
1191:
1188:
1183:
1171:
1166:
1165:edit conflict
1161:
1160:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1142:You say that
1141:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1111:
1106:
1105:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1080:
1075:
1074:
1069:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1042:
1037:
1036:
1030:
1026:
1023:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1008:Strong oppose
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
999:
995:
989:
985:
974:
969:
965:
961:
957:
953:
947:
946:
943:
939:
935:
931:
927:
926:
923:
919:
915:
911:
910:
907:
903:
899:
895:
890:
889:
886:
883:
880:
875:
874:
871:
868:
867:
864:
861:
856:
855:
852:
847:
846:Seraphimblade
843:
838:
837:
834:
830:
826:
821:
820:
817:
814:
809:
805:
804:
801:
797:
793:
789:
788:
785:
781:
777:
772:
771:
770:
769:
765:
761:
757:
756:User:Raystorm
753:
748:
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
700:
696:
692:
688:
687:
686:
682:
678:
674:
673:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
655:
654:
650:
646:
641:
637:
633:
629:
624:
623:
622:
617:
616:Seraphimblade
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
595:
592:
587:
585:
580:
578:
572:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
549:
548:
544:
540:
535:
534:
533:
529:
525:
520:
519:
518:
517:
513:
509:
499:
498:
496:
492:
487:
480:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
457:
456:
449:
445:
441:
438:First draft:
437:
436:
435:
434:
428:
426:
422:
419:
415:
413:
409:
407:
403:
400:
396:
393:
389:
386:
385:
379:
378:
372:
368:
364:
359:
357:
352:
351:Seraphimblade
348:
344:
343:in particular
340:
336:
335:
334:
333:
330:
327:
326:
322:
317:
315:
303:
300:
295:
294:
289:
288:
284:
277:
274:
273:
272:
267:
266:
259:
256:
254:
251:
248:
247:
243:
238:
235:
233:
229:
225:
220:
217:
215:
211:
207:
203:
194:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
165:
160:
155:
151:
150:
149:
146:
143:
142:
138:
134:
131:
130:
129:
124:
119:
115:
112:
108:
105:
104:
103:
99:
95:
91:
87:
83:
82:
81:
80:
77:
73:
69:
65:
58:
47:
44:
31:
29:
19:
1560:involved).--
1514:StudiesWorld
1491:
1487:
1479:
1462:
1457:
1433:
1408:
1383:
1353:
1331:role account
1327:
1307:
1283:
1269:AGF of WMF.
1266:
1249:
1236:
1230:
1213:
1196:
1169:
1143:
1120:StudiesWorld
1103:
1089:StudiesWorld
1072:
1067:
1053:StudiesWorld
1034:
1024:
1012:StudiesWorld
1007:
990:
986:
982:
929:
893:
858:
749:
746:
658:
611:
607:
603:
599:
584:SerialNumber
583:
576:
505:
482:
477:
465:Trumblej1986
460:
454:
440:StudiesWorld
424:
423:
417:
416:
411:
410:
405:
404:
398:
397:
391:
390:
387:
363:StudiesWorld
342:
323:
318:
311:
292:
282:
270:
264:
262:
257:
244:
236:
224:TonyBallioni
218:
192:
139:
71:
61:
52:
25:
1403:Schreibvieh
1387:Schreibvieh
1350:Statement D
1346:Statement C
1342:Statement B
1338:Statement A
1237:Captain Eek
1186:(Channel 2)
934:Nosebagbear
914:Newyorkbrad
381:My Proposal
308:Petitioning
1496:Randykitty
1201:Tazerdadog
553:this story
502:Office RFC
406:CALLS UPON
178:~ ToBeFree
154:Ivanvector
118:Ivanvector
1484:Stalinist
1438:Cognizant
1336:posts of
1310:WMFOffice
1068:all of it
994:Yair rand
808:Sluzzelin
776:Yair rand
752:WP:OFFICE
399:BELIEVING
392:ACCEPTING
107:WMF Legal
86:WMFOffice
84:Blocking
1534:Headbomb
1411:starship
1356:starship
1218:The Land
952:Headbomb
539:SchroCat
485:starship
418:REQUESTS
210:contribs
1288:EllenCT
1284:Support
1197:Support
1170:Support
1025:Support
792:Vermont
663:WaltCip
598:We are
461:However
193:Support
133:WP:ROLE
111:WP:ROLE
90:WP:ROLE
1492:method
1488:action
1434:office
1416:.paint
1361:.paint
1348:, and
1319:ASTILY
1267:Oppose
1250:Oppose
1214:Oppose
1181:insane
882:(talk)
760:Huldra
691:Waggie
604:ad hoc
490:.paint
478:Moved
271:Karate
258:Oppose
237:Oppose
219:Oppose
198:python
174:EdChem
94:EdChem
1376:Will
1175:-A la
1109:v^_^v
1078:v^_^v
1040:v^_^v
590:54129
298:v^_^v
201:coder
159:Edits
123:Edits
16:<
1562:1233
1518:talk
1500:talk
1447:talk
1421:talk
1391:talk
1366:talk
1292:talk
1275:talk
1258:talk
1254:ST47
1222:talk
1205:talk
1152:talk
1124:talk
1093:talk
1057:talk
1016:talk
998:talk
938:talk
918:talk
902:talk
894:have
866:7754
863:chen
829:talk
812:talk
796:talk
780:talk
764:talk
727:talk
719:here
695:talk
681:talk
667:talk
649:talk
632:talk
561:talk
543:talk
528:talk
512:talk
495:talk
469:talk
444:talk
425:ASKS
412:ASKS
367:talk
347:Floq
321:Tera
265:Fish
242:Tera
228:talk
206:talk
182:talk
137:Tera
98:talk
68:this
66:for
64:Fram
1463:Rob
1458:why
1443:Wnt
898:Wnt
825:Mz7
721:.
659:not
600:not
325:tix
246:tix
141:tix
116:).
1570:/
1565:(
1548:·
1544:·
1540:·
1520:)
1502:)
1467:13
1449:)
1393:)
1344:,
1340:,
1294:)
1277:)
1260:)
1231:Mu
1224:)
1216:.
1207:)
1178:d
1154:)
1126:)
1095:)
1059:)
1018:)
1000:)
992:--
966:·
962:·
958:·
940:)
920:)
904:)
860:Rs
831:)
798:)
782:)
766:)
729:)
697:)
683:)
669:)
651:)
634:)
612:We
577:——
563:)
545:)
530:)
514:)
471:)
446:)
369:)
230:)
212:)
208:|
184:)
162:)
156:(/
126:)
120:(/
100:)
1575:）
1573:C
1567:T
1552:}
1550:b
1546:p
1542:c
1538:t
1536:{
1516:(
1498:(
1445:(
1423:)
1419:(
1405::
1401:@
1389:(
1368:)
1364:(
1316:F
1290:(
1273:(
1256:(
1242:⚓
1220:(
1203:(
1167:)
1163:(
1150:(
1122:(
1091:(
1055:(
1032:—
1014:(
996:(
970:}
968:b
964:p
960:c
956:t
954:{
936:(
916:(
900:(
827:(
794:(
778:(
762:(
725:(
693:(
679:(
665:(
647:(
630:(
559:(
541:(
526:(
510:(
497:)
493:(
467:(
442:(
365:(
329:₵
268:+
250:₵
226:(
204:(
180:(
145:₵
96:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.