8963:- a tragedy given a famous reading by Hegel. I remember taking a train in the city, sitting down to read in anticipation of an hour-long trip, noting with a smile a young couple of kids smooching opposite, and burying myself in my book. Three stops down, the train pulled up at a station opposite a football ground - and the compartment was filled with drunken fans disappointed in their side losing that day. One of the group of 6, full as a bull's bum from an afternoon of beers but built like a brick shithouse, eyed enviously the boy smooching with his girlfriend, and without much ado, went over, grabbed him in a headlock and began punching him in the head. The girl screamed, the kid wept - and I, opposite, made the natural rapid calculation. If I intervene, there are five of his mates who will join and and beat the shit out of me. But one had no option - you can't watch passively as someone is mercilessly beaten or ill-treated. With a sickening feeling in the pit of my stomach, I reached out and caught his wrist as it drew back to land another punch. I won't recount the following 25 minutes,-a stand-off with me holding my grip while palavering to stop the other five from doing anything other than menacing me, but no other person of the 20 or so male adults in the carriage looked up from their newspapers. It's not that folks are generally unethical - it's that before acting according to their inner lights, they tend instinctively from a self-survival biological reflex to calculate their own interests. The banning of Fram in obscure circumstances created, for some, an ethical dilemma, and Floqueanbeam, Bishonen and WJBScribe essentially said that the high risk of silent complicity in the exercise of blind power gave them little option but to do what they did, challenge the higher body by overruling it. I expect that the assertion of secretive powers will automatically translate into a very small minority being compelled in conscience to desist from donating (I'm not a tenant on this property) their labour to a charitable institution. I know that a bureaucracy doesn't worry about marginal attrition, a number of analyses like your's will tell them it will have a negligible impact. That others see no problem, and just move on with their hobby is the normal reaction one would expect. And all this crisis of conscience because? because somewhere across the world a small board is obsessed by legislating to objectify what is a cultural variable, good manners, and enforce an Americanocentric code globally regardless of what communities elsewhere may, if they ever do, think. It is unlikely to step back because there is a question of
7464:
cleanup. As hopefully most of us know, if this were a formal iban, not noticing is rarely an excuse. When you have an iban you do need to make sure you check stuff before editing. It may impose additional work but that's the nature of the best when the community have decided you need to stay apart. What will happen in this case? And if the identity is secretive, even handling it is fraught. And notably, if a perceived violation of the quasi-voluntary iban results in re-imposition of the WMF site ban, even if the community can't figure out who it is from the timing, if Fram feels they were unfairly treated, there's nothing stopping them revealing the details they know including, as mentioned before, the identity of who the iban was with. And one thing which should have occurred to me with Fram's earlier responses but didn't. For any 2 way iban there are additional complications. Even if the other party involved in the iban wants to respond, there are complications. While the community accepts ibans don't preclude the raising of issues about the iban in appropriate places and within limits; WTF happens if lots of other people are talking about the iban on en.wikipedia, based on details perhaps revealed on other communities or outside the WMF universe, somewhat akin to what has happened in this case with one particular person and their private life? Again if you've been around AN/ANI enough you know the community general rejects anyone with an iban getting too much involved in discussions surrounding the iban relating to the person they were ibanned from. While to some extent this is the case even without an iban, it's much more acute when there is an iban. So assuming there is a 2 way iban, and such details were not mention in the original proposal so I have no idea, the complainant finds themselves in an IMO very bad situation.
7245:
on enwiki believe, that letting him back into the community without investigating those allegations is appropriate. My feeling is that as regards the specific case of Fram in this incident, that ArbCom should take over the ban, and hold a case investigating his behaviour. I said that right at the start to Jan. I would prefer that to shrugging the whole thing off as "he's learnt his lesson" because I'm not sure anyone other than those who complained to the
Foundation and those within the Foundation who saw the report knows exactly what that lesson is, particularly not Fram himself. How is Fram to know exactly what he should avoid if he's not aware of it? The only aspect of this that I support is dialogue between the Foundation and enwiki/arbcom, but we have already made that clear. I have suggested that the current ArbCom request be made a focus for that discussion, while OR has suggested a RfC. Dialogue cannot happen until a venue is accepted and agreed. That appears to be the stage we're at. My preference is for the ArbCom case to be the venue because the Clerks have both experience and appropriate authority to maintain decorum, ArbCom are involved (and ArbCom is fairly central to this as the current main point of contact between WMF and enwiki, and the community authorised body to deal with situations like this), and private evidence, if appropriate, can be handled by ArbCom. If the consensus is against that as a venue, then let us do a RfC (and please let us not have any other suggestions for a venue, otherwise time and energy will be dissipated while we argue among ourselves over a venue, thus justifying any concerns the Foundation may have that we are not equipped to deal with serious issues). I think this is a nice gesture NYB, and I appreciate it, but I don't think it addresses the real issues.
6817:
procedure on enwiki separately from the appropriateness or otherwise of the punishment meted out on Fram. Let me be clear, I've butted heads with Fram probably as many times as anybody in the past, but I still respect and appreciate their work in defending
Knowledge, and acknowledge that they have make efforts to respond to civility criticisms over the last year or so. I'm opposed to seeing punishment imposed by a body that is not accountable to the community in other than the most egregious and exceptional cases, so I won't feel comfortable with any result for Fram that does not involve ArbCom taking over the sanctions, enforcement and appeal in the specific case. Secondly, there exists the general problem of the perception among T&S that enwiki has not dealt adequately with civility and harassment issues because complainants fear the transparency of our systems will further disadvantage them. I believe that the only long-term solution to that must lie in using T&S as an alternative means of raising and investigating those issues in a confidential way, but that the final decision on sanctions, enforcement and appeal should remain with ArbCom, apart from those cases which are genuinely exceptional. If that means we have to make ArbCom proceedings somewhat less transparent to preserve the privacy of complainants in some cases, so be it. I'd find that a far less bitter pill to swallow than the present situation, and I'm damned sure that both Fram and the complainant in this specific case would agree, particularly since T&S have failed abjectly to preserve the complainant's anonymity in this test case. --
3778:. I was trying to think of what would be comparable numbers for arbcom, but it's hard to compare apples to apples. Looks like case request acceptance has been in the 10-20% range for the last few years, but we don't keep outcomes data like that for private complaints/requests/etc. I see in that chart a lot of stuff about who approves what in which order, but I wonder if the box where the actual investigation happens can be opened up a little more. What does an "investigation" consist of? What would the investigator look at? Assuming we're talking about a harassment case, would it include things like contacting other possible victims if you discover them, or asking the opinion of others who were affected by the problem behavior but who did not get in touch with T&S? Or is the decision about whether a particular behavior is harassing made by the person doing the investigation? Under what circumstances would a particular report be referred back to arbcom (or to community processes) rather than pursued internally? The chart tells us how WMF staff communicate internally about these things, but not about communication with or information-gathering from anyone other than the directly affected parties. (The table has a bit more, but to be honest I can't understand the "Dissemination of information relevant to the office action to specific groups" row at all. That's quite a mouthful, but since it's separate from the reporter and the affected user, I assume that means other interested parties, but "conduct warning" gets a checkmark for that one and "interaction ban" doesn't? Is that right?)
8884:
different conceptions of authority. In
Hegelian-derived philosophy, authority belongs at the collective-subjective level, as the final judgment of history at the end of time is unavailable. Authority bleeds in at many levels, wherever people act rationally and in good faith. In Kantian thought, authority derives from the chief executive down through subordinates. Both concepts are used today--for example, in science, an authority is someone who is has established themselves as knowledgeable through hard work, study, and a good track record. Their authority is channeled down through to TAs, teachers, journalists to the public. On wikipedia, we call them "reliable sources." On the other hand, appeals to "the community" to enforce something is an example of the collective-subjective form of authority. Appeals towards passive aggression are consistent with Hegelian thought, as in Hegelianism an irrational governance can be legitimately subverted (think Red-Scare style infiltration). In contrast, in Kantian governance the resistance must be allowable in a constitutional sense where opposing parties can act against each other in an orderly fashion (e.g. Kant's "nation of devils" quote), or the resisting parties may be
13452:
more disappointed that so few in our community did write to her, especially in view of how many people have been involved in this page, either to propose ideas or support or comment on those ideas, or just to read. We can't blame the CEO for not getting the message if people didn't send her the message. Please, folks, do it now. Contact her in whichever manner you prefer or feel is appropriate - email, twitter, or her account here on enwiki or on Media. But whichever means you do, please, please, please, be civil. You can indicate you are angry, emotional, disappointed, frustrated, whatever. But don't be hostile, don't be insulting, don't be rude. She has said that our community is a "monolith misnomer" because 10 Wikipedians come up with 20 different opinions. Can we show her that we are a unified community, and what we want is improved communications and a better ongoing relationship between WMF and enwiki. We don't wish to be ignored, insulted, and treated as fractious and toxic. We want to be treated with respect and equality, and for enwiki and WMF to work together to continue our existing work on building this project.
5883:
understanding, and they correctly anticipated this community response; or the WMF power who issued the ban is incompetent, and failed to recognize the great likelihood of the community raising these objections. So far as I know, the wiki community observers who are withholding judgement are waiting in faith for the WMF to explain the extraordinary circumstances which necessitated such an extraordinary action. I have no opinion whatsoever about Fram, their actions, or anything specific to these circumstances. I only endorse this remedy because I want to see due process and rule of law in opposition to opaque authoritarianism. The problem is not that the WMF took an action, but that the WMF took an obviously extraordinary action seemingly unaware of how bizarre it was. At this point my fear is that the people at the WMF who are operating the levers of power are ignorant of what they are doing and outsiders to community values. I could be wrong - the WMF could have had a unique and dramatic reason for extrajudicial action. I hope that as a result of this the WMF increases its collaborative infrastructure.
3148:"You have clearly misunderstood what I said. Nothing about "facilitating and guiding community consultations" even remotely implies that I think they should be "judge, jury, and executioner". I don't even know what chain of thought got you from one to the other. The point is that there are things we know to be true: there are very few admins created and while most people (the vast majority) think that's a problem, there is no consensus and no process towards consensus towards resolving that issue. It's a thankless task to take on and run a project to work through various options to find something that would get us to a better place - no one has stepped up to do that (a few have tried, and thank goodness for them). WMF community support people have done a great job on consultations around terms of service and so on - we do have some positive examples of how to do this right. It isn't about ramming things down people's throat - it's about taking on the hard job of listening and framing debate, convening real-life groups to work on issues, etc.--
4108:"As far as the ability for others to avoid making mistakes and finding themselves unexpectedly sanctioned, unfortunately, we cannot publicly disclose details of this or any particular case, for all the reasons previously discussed. This means that, as much as we understand your wanting the information, we cannot tell you what specific behaviors by Fram brought about this action. We can, however, say that abiding by the ToU is required of everyone who edits a Wikimedia site. That includes refraining from behaviors described by the ToU, including “ngaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism”. In cases where we believe a user may not be aware that they are violating expected behavioral standards, even repeatedly, we give conduct warnings prior to any action being taken. In Fram’s case, as noted on Commons, we did send more than one of those warnings/reminders before the most recent step."
3131:"This is pretty accurate as a too-brief summary of the history. This is an edited version of the key sentences as I would put it myself: "Jimbo's goals then were for the community to be self-sustaining and self-governing such that it would fulfill its mission with less of his involvement as time went on. It was never a goal for the WMF to have any sort of authority over or involvement in community or content decisions beyond the removal of libellous material and copyright violations and other limited actions for public safety of various kinds, which the WMF took on for reasons of compliance." And that isn't the whole of it really, I would also argue that the WMF can and should have a role of facilitating and guiding community consultations to help the community resolve sticky issues where there is a failing of process. Reading between the lines here, you can likely guess my view of the current situation.--
14335:
accountable. They've been stonewalling and ignoring us, but rest assured, that doesn't mean anything. They're taking accountability and transparency seriously. Just like her tweet, the obvious evidence to the contrary is completely meaningless. Just ignore it. They're on our side. Oh, by the way, "harassment". That's right, "harassment". Oh, and "victims". Don't forget about the "victims". WMF is getting serious about it, that's what this is all about. No, they still haven't confirmed that this incident has anything to do with harassment as opposed to incivility, but don't question that. They're gonna drop the buzzword in a generic, nonspecific way instead—draw your own conclusions! I have to give
Katherine credit for the most human-sounding response to date, but this still boils down to empty rhetoric, which is more than likely necessary to save her job and/or reputation at this point.
8888:(in this case, Floquenbeam and Bishonen are acting as resisting lesser magistrates). Subversion is not allowable because honesty and truth are too valuable and lying is extremely wrong. In contrast, Hegelians tend to be more relativist and see honesty and truth as being at least somewhat compromised in the dialectic process, which will not resolve as long as history endures. One Kantian approach would be to let some of the other higher-ups deal with it, and to not take a position one way or another, or to just leave wikipedia and not think about it to maintain moral purity, maybe to go to a rival wikipedia website instead. Because in Hegelianism, "whatever is, is right," there can be a tremendous need to win, while in Kantianism maintaining your individual moral purity and establishing the truth is more important because what is right is determined through careful ethical analysis.--
8224:- it sounds like this plan entails the WMF disclosing to Fram the names of those who reported him. I highly doubt they'll ever do that, unless the reporters themselves agree to it... whatever else may come out of this, the foundation's privacy policy for people who contact them will remain sacrosanct, and I would have thought rightly so. Other than that this may be a reasonable way forward if the WMF and Fram both buy into it, but let's not forget there are other avenues already being explored through Jimbo, DocJames and the board. As for Headbomb's point, I disagree. I've never really got into the discussions over language and tone before, and it offends me not at all, but we should be mindful that Knowledge has a diverse range of ages, genders, races, creeds and cultures, and if WMF enforce a stricter guideline on the tone we use then I for one won't be complaining. Thanks —
9732:
they raised their concerns with the WMF, possibly in order to avoid being revealed as the ones raising the complaint, I can't see that they would want this shared with Fram. And if, as we have every reason to assume, they believe that Fram has been harassing them, how can we ask them to trust that Fram will never tell anyone else who they are? You say that Fram has never betrayed anyone's trust, but I imagine to them Fram has betrayed theirs (especially if Fram had previously been warned), so I can't see how we can expect them to trust Fram in this way. I don't know what the solution is, but saying to Fram that "these are the people who complained about you - don't interact with them and don't tell anyone who they are" seems very unlikely to be happen if it depends on getting the permission of the people Fram is accused of harassing, and unethical if it doesn't.
2911:"I'd like to remind everyone that it is my long established view that all bans are appealable to me. I seldom intervene, even if I have some minor disagreement with a ban, because no major constitutional issues or errors are at stake. It is too early to know what is going on in this particular case, but please if anyone is planning to "fall on their sword" for principle, let it be me. But, I really don't think that will be necessary here. The WMF staff are diligent, thoughtful, and hard working. If an error has been made, I'm sure they will revert and work out procedures to make sure it didn't happen again. If the ban was justified, I'm sure they will find a way to make it clear to - at a minimum, if privacy issues play a role, to me, to the board, and to the Arbitration Committee. Therefore, dramatic action would not be helpful at the present time.--
5980:
action plan – Especially if the intended scope of #5 relates solely to the incident that had occurred on en-wiki. The WMBE situation amounts to a plausible accusation that a WMF grants-committee member had weaponised the T&S team to unfairly target the WMBE treasurer with vexatious allegations, that were not adequately investigated, resulting in the treasurer feeling obligated to leave the project. Hence, I can't help but think that these incidents (Whether found to be true or otherwise) must be considered as a whole, and need to be a catalyst for a broader discussion about the T&S team, that encompasses the en-wiki concerns with the concerns relating to how it conducts its business with foundation projects more generally-speaking. Perhaps someone could help me understand how this proposal achieves that discussion?
3199:"I will raise the issue. As you can imagine, I'm trying not to cause any additional problems by making any firm declarations of what I am and am not empowered to do in my traditional role in English Knowledge, but I can indicate that I share the view that I could do that - or should be able to do that. One reason we have kept some vestiges of a "constitutional monarch" system is precisely to have pressure relief valves for highly unusual situations. One reason I haven't tried to be forceful with it is that I don't believe in it as anything other than a safety mechanism. So long as other avenues exist for me to try to help everyone reach reconciliation and find a solution in which almost everyone says "we are now in a better place than we were when this whole mess started" - I'm going to try.--
11925:? And other WMF officials are endorsing her? What kind of sad joke is this? I mean, that Tweet is not even as respectable as Trump Tweeting "fake news!" at an unfavorable story. The self-awareness is nonexistent. The professional competence is nonexistent. This is who we're trying to reason with? This is who's at the helm? Honestly, what's the point? This kind of shameful public conduct isn't tolerated in any professional field, at any level. I mean, seriously, a fast food chain wouldn't even tolerate this from an acne-faced shift manager. It really is stunning that the WMF Executive Director is not held and does not hold herself to even a basic standard of civility, maturity or professionalism in the public eye, particularly as the staff purports to hold Knowledge to a higher standard.
9075:
if it risks being muzzled. "Without admitting any wrong-doing" - quasi legalistic reference to WoP - which while in a technical legal sense is no admission of liability, it is *always* taken as such by everyone - "I'm not admitting anything but im doing what you say anyway" just instantly means everyone goes "Oh hes totally guilty". If there is an editor that Fram needs to be interaction banned with, then Frams interactions in relation to that editor need to be scrutinised by either the community or arbcom. The stealth interaction ban-but-not-ban by the WMF in communication with Fram is one of the more disturbing things to come to light as a result of this. Its saying the WMF is ready to prevent scrutiny of editors on the encyclopedia - directly interfering with editorial control.
7095:
that refuses to answer questions about its procedures or explain basic case evidence that was always public and has no need to be handled like they were the NSA trying to take out terrorists, is wide open for corruption and the deliberate burying of mistakes by banning those that have been treated badly. In comparison, an hour ago I reported a porn revenge
Twitter post made by a woman who claimed to be a victim, the process that Twitter follows is open and accountable whilst the cases they remove can remain confidential. Our expectations for T&S should be no less than the incredibly basic and straightforward policies that Twitter follows, just because they are jolly nice people with good intentions who believe they are good at their jobs and protect each other... --
8919:
community asks you to do something within your remit, but don't try to rule enwiki as if you have the right and the competence to do so." does not reflect this understanding with reflect to the ArbCom. ArbCom, due to both the democratic character of its selection and the rationality of its actions, could be considered a broader level of synthesis than the ordinary
English Knowledge community. Fran rejects this completely on the basis of past experience with ArbCom. This form of argument is an Existentialist critique of Hegelianism. His appeal to an impartial jury is compatible with both Existentialist and Kantian forms of authority, but should ArbCom grant it, they are admitting that they are not the broadest and most supreme level of collective-subjective authority.--
14480:
indicated she didn't know that well what was going on here or the level of reaction but it also looks to me like a lot of the direct approaches to her are fairly recent. Of course emailing or similar was likely a better bet anyway, and I see some discussion about that above but it sort of looks like that also only took off on the 25th i.e. very recent, although it's difficult to know how many did before then. It does seem things have really taken off now with the Tweet and the controversy surrounding it. For clarity, I make no comment whether she should have known from the BoT meetings or other means. It's more that I'm surprised given how strongly some here feel about the WMF's actions that approaching the ED directly seems to potentially be a fairly recent thing.
5336:- A reasonable compromise that will allow everyone to walk away having made their point and learned something: The WMF needs to understand that enforcing smiles and sunshine with an iron fist is not going to work here. We've adopted a culture of communication- and it's served us well- that forthright language, for the sake of the actual article contents, is welcome and expected. Handing out arbitrary and capricious bans to alter that culture ultimately will not work. All you'll accomplish is to lose a lot of good editors and make everyone hate you. At the same time, fixating on certain editors and their (admittedly dubious) edits can border on cruelty even if that's not the intent. Admins and rank-and-file editors can definitely work on our approach there.
3267:"Indeed. We've made it abundantly clear. I ask everyone who sees fire to try to soothe people. This is going to go the right way. My own personal view is that drama never helps, but making it clear (through strikes/retirements) that something is unacceptable is a totally respectable and useful way to move the needle in an important way. "There's a giant flame war on the Internet" never really makes a dent. "Our best administrators are writing essays about why this is wrong, and many of them have indicated they will quit" makes a big dent. Also: "The good people protesting are not, for the most part, defending bad behavior. They are asking the WMF to consider how this action undermines our efforts to improve behavior" is helpful."
8938:
website, and yes there are a number of content creators here that have helped make this place something that the WMF can say hey give us millions of dollars to keep running. But as of this writing there have been 365 editors to this page. I posit that if every single one of these people, and every single person who has edited the AC case request page, including the arbitrators, suddenly stopped editing
Knowledge tomorrow the effect would be negligible, at least as far as WMF is concerned. There will be articles that get either vandalized, or skewed to a POV, BLP violations will be undealt with. But for the most part Knowledge will continue on. Im not trying to be Debbie Downer, just a realist on the limits of my own power here.
5583:, not as a satisfactory solution, but as a start. As for the perceived problem of #2, regarding identifying those allegedly aggrieved editors: we can be pretty certain at this point that there aren't any. We know of exactly one case of somebody who complained to the foundation about harassment (no secrecy, because she said so herself); we know that the foundation took that complaint at face value; we know they were wrong in doing so because in fact there was no harassment. Per Occam's razor, there is no reason whatsoever to assume there are any more genuine complainants, at least none whose complaint would be seriously enough to warrant a demand for privacy, or if there are, their complaints are just as wrong as the first.
7779:
Fram will be back in June 2020 anyway, and a year isn't such a long time in
Wikitime. #2 I Oppose. Aside from the fact that WMF will never in a million years give Fram the names of his accusers, it would be a bad plan anyway. Even assuming good faith on all sides, it would represent a betrayal of those who thought they were communicating with the WMF in confidence. And we've seen what would happen if the community got wind of who the complainants were. We don't need more vengeance seeking, and it's far better to draw a line under the matter. #3, 4 and 5 are reasonable and I hope they will happen anyway. So, taken as a whole, and with thanks to NYB for making the proposal, but I don't see this as a viable plan. —
5735:
with appeared to be justified. Cases like continued harassment of users outside of our projects, huge zoos of sockpuppets across multiple wikis, upload of very problematic material etc. are indeed best handled by T&S. However, usual on-wiki misbehaviour should be still handled through community processes where those responsible to handle it are elected (admins, checkusers, oversighters, and arbcoms). WMF staff should go forward and communicate their concerns if they see shortcomings in our processes. Such an outside view can be helpful and would allow us to develop our processes into a better direction where needed. Secondly, I've some concerns in regard to
7278:. I cannot endorse this degree of extension of good faith to Trust and Safety or the WMF as a whole after these events and their statements. Nor can I agree to muzzling anyone's criticism of Arbcom, or to going against an RfC that explicitly recognized our right to say "fuck" on-wiki. There are governance issues here, but also classism issues and an abundant assumption of bad faith on the part of the WMF and some of its defenders. I cannot endorse anything that endangers individual editors by endorsing their treatment as pawns, or as subjects without rights. ArbCom has been bad enough in this respect, but at least we can seek to remedy wrongs done by ArbCom.
6710:- that is a ridculous all or nothing argument. Firstly, we're not saying revoke the standard areas of WMF ban-control. Secondly, the WMF is free to amend their ToS however they wish, once legal requirements are met. We argue that they have no other ownership than legal - which is not the be all and end all. We have various methods to act against them, and it makes no sense not to at least consider their usage. It's like telling employees at a company who don't like management's actions that their only option is to create a startup. This suggested solution may well be wrong - but it doesn't lead to (all of) your statement's logical conclusions.
5213:. Let me be clear. I am NOT happy if this is the outcome. This leaves unresolved major questions involving COI, the communities trust in the WMF, and how we prevent similar scenarios from re-occuring. I will note that point 5 is insufficient, and also the most important one here. The foundation exists to serve the community, and that relationship must be respected, or we're wasting each others time. That said, this is a compromise negotiation and a good compromise makes everyone unhappy, so even though I'd have liked to see the result include a more major wakeup call to the WMF, I can hold my nose and accept this.
592:, and why is it simultaneously so urgent it needs to be done instantly without discussion, but so unproblematic it expires after a year? "We're the WMF, we can do what we like" may be technically true, but the WMF only exists on the back of our work; absent some kind of explanation this looks like a clear-cut case of overreach. As Floq says, if there's an issue here that can't be discussed publicly then fine, but given the history of questionable decisions by the WMF I'm not buying it unless and until I see a statement from Arbcom that they're aware of the circumstances and concur with the actions taken. ‑
9411:"I don't believe Laura Hale has had anything directly to do with this" and pigs might fly. Given the only evidence given to Fram so far by the T&S team points to his interactions with her previously as a causitive factor for the ban. We all know the reason why T&S have no wish for Arbcom to get involved, it is because arbcom (despite its many flaws) will take a look at all editors in a dispute/complaint and judge actions by their context. And that basic principle of fairness is directly at odds to T&S and certain editors ideological totalitarian approach to dealing with those not of the body.
3488:"However, in the hopes of avoiding any future issues and in the spirit of Laura’s own request on her talk page, we would like to ask that you refrain from making changes to content that she produces, in any way (directly or indirectly), from this point on. This includes but is not limited to direct editing of it, tagging, nominating for deletion, etc. If you happen to find issues with Laura’s content, we suggest that you instead leave it for others to review and handle as they see fit. This approach will allow you to continue to do good work while reducing the potential for conflict between you and Laura.
2688:
In other words, Wikidata is no different than
Knowledge, where admins are mindlessly reactive instead of proactive. This helps to explain why, in the end, no one will really care, despite the hundreds of thousands of words expended on this so far. The graphic in another thread below containing the phrase "topics no one cares about" and the scattershot enforcement of policies, one example of which I refer to above, should alert anyone to the fact that this community is not NPOV no matter how hard some may attempt to assert otherwise. Perhaps some of you missed the coincidence of timing of
7178:
defense of an admin who may have crossed a line into harassment. The thing about harassment being that the perpetrator doesn't get to define it. Even if Fram believed sincerely they hadn't crossed a line, they may have. And I find the demands that a volunteer suspension be treated with the same gravity and seriousness as a criminal trial cringe-worthy at best. Perhaps Fram will take the year to reflect on how their actions impacted people and will make a change when they return - that door has certainly been left to them by T&S and it's probably the best course of action at this point.
5926:'s two possibilities, I'd guess somewhere in the middle: they cannot have been quite so unaware as to think there would be no response, but obviously they didn't anticipate anything like the extent of it. Myself, I think the extent of it is not just because of the action itself or T&S in general, but the skepticism of all WMF actions focussed on the enWP, such as superprotect, or VE, or Flow--all of which derived from other elements of the Foundation than T&S. This may not have been obvious to T&S, who are devoted to a particular set of problems, not to problems generally.
1494:, I don’t see any recent suppressed contributions that raise red flags. I don’t know any more than anyone else other than “Yes, this was intentional, and yes, it looks valid” from people who are generally sensible. Of the WMF departments, T&S is usually one of the most sensible. My objection here is that I know they’re pretty sensible because I’ve worked with them in the past on other things and trust them. Most en.wiki users don’t know that T&S is any different than and so communicating with the local ArbCom so at least some name recognition here could say they know why.
1430:
work and I trust them and have a good working relationship with them, but local only blocks should be disclosed to the local ArbCom, not a global user group that is mostly behind the scenes on en.wiki. This action was guaranteed to get local pushback, and having users who were trusted locally be able to explain it. I’m someone who has a good relationship with the WMF and stewards, and as I said, from what I’ve been told by sensible people this was justified, but if I was trying to think of a better way to make the WMF intentionally look bad on their biggest project, I couldn’t.
9138:
pattern). Assuming that's the case, and that T&S was stepping in to address something which, in their judgment, was severe enough and which the community failed to address, then they should release a big data dump showing (a) a long-term pattern of behavior and (b) community efforts failing to address it sufficiently. I suspect you already have that data. Releasing it would at least would shift the discussion of evidence from what Fram provided to a bigger picture that's harder to point to and say "that's it?" By casting a wide net as such, it's possible you'd actually be
5905:
role-accounts (it's always easier to rant against "WMF" than against the person actually communicating behind the account.). Knowledge editors (as a group) are right to intervene here, as some of the fundamental principles of wikipedia (I know, we are not a legal system, but we have established principles like to "due process"): possibility of appeal, sufficient clear and to the point warnings and right to a clear explanation, were not applied here. This way forward is creating an ad hoc appeals option, and it shows something more definite needs to be implemented.
3656:
9191:
information, is never going to have that ability. I don't see a way out of this that does not involve a community-appointed body (ideally, ARBCOM; but it could be someone else) investigating the situation in full, including the private evidence, and determining whether the ban is necessary. Also, Fram should be unbanned while such a determination is made. Obviously, the nature of the complaint process means that the identity of the complainant cannot be revealed to Fram; but anything claiming that it cannot be revealed to ARBCOM is legalistic nonsense.
7449:
T&S share info with Fram they feel they cannot disclose. As others have noted, there's nothing nor anything in the proposal stopping Fram disclosing the identity of the person. (See also later.) While
Newyorkbrad has acknowledged that what we don't know may mean the proposals don't work, I am concerned from what I've seen that if we come up with a proposal that is not going to work and send it to the WMF and then they reject it because it was never going to work, this will generate way more heat than light and so is not helping anything.
3890:, we know what happens when volunteers cross the line and become salaried employees (or contractors). In 2013 one was desysoped for particularly egregious behaviour, right in the middle of an outgoing ED's valedictory speech at a Wikimania in which she was presenting a prerecorded video that specifically praised the individual's work (the surpressed sniggers in the lecture theatre were audible). Needless to say, although the community called for it, that individual was not sacked from their paid job. I am reminded of this recent comment by
2962:"Yes, I'm firmly recommending that we all relax a notch or two. It's not even 9am in California. There is no emergency here. I have raised the issue with the WMF, and so has Doc James. I am also talking to ArbCom. It is really important that we not take actions to escalate conflict - nor are such actions necessary. If there comes a need for a time for the community to firmly disagree with the WMF and take action, then that time is only after a proper reflection on the full situation, with everyone having a chance to weigh in.--
14641:, It may not be an IBAN violation by the traditional definition. The WMF told Fram "we would like to ask that you refrain from making changes to content that she produces, in any way (directly or indirectly), from this point on. This includes but is not limited to direct editing of it, tagging, nominating for deletion, etc." This is a special sanction the WMF cooked up. I wonder if we could ask T&S if they used this diff in justification of the 1 year ban. I guess there's no chance they would ever answer that though.
8239:
But are we just kicking the can down the road in the event that, a little later, someone secretly contacts T&S asserting that a recent comment by Fram violates his "quasi" commitment? Yes, the community should be cooperative with WMF staff, rather than adversarial. But I actually think the overwhelming majority of us have been willing to do that all along, and no amount of consensus will dissuade those who really want to be adversarial. And the problem arose from T&S not being willing to cooperate with
397:
that specific user. Given the way the WMF stepped in, I expected something similar to here, may be an experienced editor who was blocked. But they only seem to have around 900 edits. True the ban there was indef though unlike this one and it doesn't seem the editor is particularly interested in editing elsewhere however as others said, it was technically also only a partial ban since it didn't affect other projects suggesting whatever it is wasn't severe enough to prevent editing any WMF projects.
994:
8781:
community response was negative. So I'm not sure why you'd call "community condemnation" a "personal attack". Why would I personally attack you? As I said at the time, I think you're one of our best administrators. I'm not sure why you're being so hostile and defensive. You resigned, citing an essay that the community does not treat Arbcom with the same assumption of good faith that is the standard. Not sure how all of a sudden the community had nothing to do with your resignation.
10706:. Knowledge, now a recognizable treasure of civilization, changes the world for the better at an accelerating rate. In 2024, give or take a year or three, when the members of the Nobel Peace Prize committee fully analyze the effect our project has had, and will continue to have, on every person, household, and the historical advancement of knowledge and ethics it provides to every corner of the Earth, the recognition of Knowledge and Wikipedians will be an obvious and easy choice.
84:
6214:. Fram is in general factually correct, even when his attitude gets in the way on occasion. I highly dislike the Foundation meddling in the community. We must have communication, it would have been better for the person who was feeling harrassed to find a third party to approach Fram and ask if this is the case. Corrections can hurt and feel like harrassment, even if they are not. That's why it is so important to keep a respectful tone, and to assume no bad intentions. --
3564:
intended to be a less heavy handed option than indefinite global bans for cases that fall within the established scope. Their intention has been to close the gap between conduct warning office actions, which played a role in this case more than once, and indefinite global bans. The community’s reaction here to these more gradual bans has been clear that such less-”nuclear” options are both confusing and not felt to be acceptable and I will consider that carefully (and
2945:"I'd like to remind you that it is not even 9am in California. I think it quite clear that unblocking before they've had a chance to even get into the office will simply serve to escalate matters. I suspect that Fram himself would agree that there is no emergency. Rather than cloud the waters and make it even harder (emotionally) for a backdown (if such is warranted - we don't know yet!), it will be best to take the high road and wait until a more appropriate time.--
9934:
4123:
3598:
3542:
3515:
3419:
3392:
3365:
3328:
2731:
2638:
2419:
246:
3111:"We on the board are in active conversations. I think you will receive a comprehensive, cogent reply, but we are looking to be thoughtful, reflective, to examine every aspect of this, and neither allow invalid precedent to be set, nor to set invalid precedent. The best way to avoid a bad outcome is to look to first principles, look at what has gone wrong, and to propose a process for healing but also for building a process that works better in the future.
3665:
information, we cannot tell you what specific behaviors by Fram brought about this action. We can, however, say that abiding by the ToU is required of everyone who edits a Wikimedia site. That includes refraining from behaviors described by the ToU, including “ngaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism”. In cases where we believe a user may not be aware that they are violating expected behavioral standards, even repeatedly, we give
10687:
having started her account in 2010 and created hundred of articles (about which very many people have had complaints) by 2017. I think her period as wikipedian-in-residence predated 2017 too. The so-called "transgender editor" (for it is xe) makes a point about not identifying in any direction online, but I know xim quite well & have never thought of xim as anything but a gay male, although of course xe often addresses transgender issues.
5149:. On the point of "these people", I would also request the WMF explain what training/education is given to members of the team. Having former editors among them is a great idea, but what steps have been added to get them to the point from being an ordinary editor to such a crucial and sensitive role. (And globally it's an increasingly high-profile and important one, given the same type of departments popping up in Facebook, Twitter, etc). -
8356:
Foundation will not deny it, nor will they even suggest that there's more to the story. If they will not even try to defend the ban against alleged blatant corruption, then why should we assume that it is legitimate? I would much rather have them simply explain that the ban is for legitimate reasons. But it's highly suspect that they will not do so. It goes beyond simple refusal to explain a ban when the ban is alleged to be unjust.
4056:? Regardless of the (HNMCP)'s recommendations and that the community should absolute see to strengthening those boards in-house, noticeboards are generally a good first stop, help to get more eyes on a situation and prevent a single editor who is working unilaterally from becoming overly frustrated and from being subjected to "anecdotal" stories. Again, if the question is not something you're able to answer, I'll understand fully.
1882:... "excessive monetisation of the site (a plan to put links to a booking engine on every page was one example) and the poor and worsening technical support offered by the site's owners" is given as the main reason. So maybe a sort of ongoing low-level constitutional crisis? The trouble is, it hasn't really worked. Last time I checked Wikitravel always appears way further up the Google hits than WV, and has more daily edits. —
2477:, less intrusive office actions were introduced. Those options include time-limited and partial (project-specific) bans to address serious concerns that are, however, temporary or project-specific in nature. For example, if a user has been problematic on one project in particular while contributing without concerns to another community wiki, this can now be addressed in a more targeted way than a full Foundation global ban.
8588:
true, and that there's a higher level of offense, but it's clear that both Fram's and the community's impression that this is civility policing and nothing more has disrupted the project, demonized the complainant, demonized the Chair, vilified the T&S team, resulted in admins resigning, and harmed community relations. Why, if there was more to the story than "civility policing", has the Foundation simply not said so?
6597:. Blofeld was a solid editor. Like most WP editors, his later work was better than his earlier efforts. Fram, however, became obsessed about edits dating back a decade, mostly close paraphrasing more than straight plagiarism, and it perfectly illustrates Fram’s obsession about people who violate his personal guidelines. Just because he may be technically right doesn’t grant him carte blanche to hound people like he did.
5196:- Not as rough-and-tough an outcome as I would prefer, which would involve a unilateral retreat of WMF from matters that are not within their purview followed by some sort of internal penalty against those WMF employees who threw gasoline on the fire in the first place; but, all things considered, probably the best outcome we can hope for at this juncture, given the incredibly weak performance of the WMF Board and Arbcom.
6770:, WMF can, I suppose, tell us that they have laid down the law, and we should go fork ourselves. And how would that affect WMF's projects? Is it really in their best interests to encourage their most productive contributors to go and form a competing website? (Hint: no.) The fact that WMF has the legal right to assert their rights of ownership does not mean that it is sensible, practical, or ethical for them to do so. --
9113:: There are a lot of users that WMF will never convince -- people who has a strong distrust for the WMF in general, people who don't think the WMF should ever supersede community process, people who don't think there's any reason to ever keep things private, people who worry about themselves if WMF is starting to issue blocks for long-term behavioral problems, etc. But there are also a lot of people you
4543:- The main issue here is the question of whether and where our policies are deficient, and that is something the ArbCom is best equipped to figure out (as this may well require assessing past cases where private communications were involved). That said, such an ArbCom case should stick to fact-finding on this subject and interpreting that as much as possible to make recommendations to the community. —
9083:
history. Jan certainly has zero credibility after the superprotect fiasco, and the place-that-shall-not-be-named has links about other members of the staff involved in this situation that are extremely problematic for what are supposed to be employees engaged in ensuring the safety of wikipedians. Their actions so far lead me to conclude that they are there to protect wikipedians they approve of.
3029:"To be clear, to the best of my knowledge, there haven't been any direct requests by board members to line workers through middle management here. Certainly, James and I are speaking to the board and CEO, not attempting to intervene at that level at all. The board should only operate at the level of broad principles and through the top management, not detailed management of specific issues.--
4612:: if and when an editor with an instance of problematic editing such as WP:CopyVio is identified, en-WP admins and editors – including Fram – may scrutinize other edits of that editor. WMFOffice accepts that this is neither stalking nor evidence of hostility or harassment, rather such efforts are in good faith and necessary to maintain or improve the "Quality and Reliability" of the en-WP.
9833:
would talk to them on their talk page and if that didn't work bring it up at AN, but while discussing it I would stop immediately. This is the main reason why I have gone 13 years with zero blocks. Any block would have to be without warning, or me doing something that is grounds for an immediate block like doxing someone. (I have never done that sort of thing anywhere on the net. See
3899:
and may not overrule it, any more than we could walk into the San Francisco offices, point to an employee, say "You're fired", and expect that to have any effect. WMF is a separate body, but it is not "higher" than the English Knowledge community. We don't can your employees, you don't can our editors or admins. You also do not overrule or bypass our editorial or community processes.
14393:
closely monitoring, but saying nothing. Er, thanks for watching? And then there's the transferral of some responsibility from one's own words to the medium that carries them (Ms Maher doesn't go quite so far as to say 'Twitter made me do it', but it's not far off). Still, there is an apology in there, and an acknowledgement that the WMF has handled this badly, which is something.
8547:, with the email explicitly noting that it was part of a repeated pattern continued after the past warning. One example diff - likely the least relevant example diff, even, since the worst diffs likely had to be hidden to protect the reporter - does not mean that's "the offending comment that triggered his ban". You are trying to apply the ToU and determine whether it applies to
11996:. K. Maher has worked for Knowledge's benefit for years, and giving her the business because of a quickly worded probably off-the-cuff tweet does throw more unneeded fuel on this campfire. She'll answer at some point, and Jimbo is probably going to have to step in to take command of this entire situation soon, but we should all be reminded that this is all inside-baseball.
10702:
jumping off the deep end, has surprisingly tapped into an unprecedented marriage of societal wisdom, advancing technology, and an almost unfathomable basic trust in the potential of collective unselfishness in the human race. Knowledge's creation was soon joined by millions of inquisitive sharing minds, and is constantly being recreated, polished, and improved by a literal
7160:
credibility). Point 3 is also very unsatisfactory: admins are expected to have a high standard of behaviour and encourage constructive discussions - being only a "little bit" better than ranting about ArbCom is not at all the standard admins should set. A better solution would be to refer this matter to ArbCom, which is where it should have gone in the first place.
8593:
saying "there was harassment" or "there was stalking". But instead they said "there was abusive communication", which is no different except for the fact that it does not invoke the ToU. That's the only issue here. If there's evidence they can't disclose that's in breach of the ToU, I don't need to see it. I don't need to know about it. I just need to know that it
6483:
many years' standing and it seems to me that we owe at least that much, especially in an area which is very much a hot-button issue for some people. I disagree that the office has no right to do this (they clearly do), but having the right to do something doesn't make it sensible or appropriate when the case is ambiguous and there are trusted processes available.
3866:
always two sides). However, as with others who have commented, the lack of consultation with the accused person seems odd. How have the legal and moral rights of the accused been balanced against the legal and moral rights of the accuser? We have heard it stressed that the accuser is to be protected, but what consideration has been given to protecting the accused?
2894:"I can assure you that my commitment to, and support of, appropriate principles and our established constitutional order is far far more important than any personal conflict that I may have ever had with anyone. I'm not taking any position on this yet, because the reasonable thing to do is to listen to all sides calmly and come to an understanding of the issues.--
3862:
over ArbCom members who have signed that they agree to being legally pursued? If the distinction is a paid contract, then would paying ArbCom members a token amount per year, overcome the legal hurdles to allowing ArbCom to view such material? Or is the reluctance to share harassment complaints with ArbCom more to do with procedural qualms rather than legal ones?
3250:"The Board met yesterday to work on a full statement about this. It's not easy getting to consensus with a large group, but overall I think people are going to be happy with the statement and with the things we are asking the WMF staff to do going forward. As one board member wasn't present, we decided to give a bit more time so that we can get to unanimity.--
3094:" I wasn't trying to contrast or compare the necessity/valuation of the WMF with the community at all. I agree with you that they aren't easily separable, and I also believe that when we fall into a too hasty 'WMF vs community' narrative - either in the community, or in the WMF, we are probably making it harder to see how to optimize and resolve problems.--
4087:, you have provided some background about the position you hold in the WMF. Basically admitting that you are in charge of T&S but are not aware of what goes on there. Perhaps you could let Arbcom and the community know who your immediate superior is. It might help towards establishing lines of responsibility and communication for the future.
1833:- there is one other step we've seen before. In the wake of the Superprotect saga, and the failure of the Community board members to act, all three were replaced. But before we get that far, and waiting on T&S' "we can't tell you anything for your own good" - perhaps we reach out both to community liasions and to our board members?
3182:"Without commenting at this moment on any of the rest of it, I can say that I do not know, and don't personally consider it particularly relevant or interesting, whether legal was consulted beforehand. I don't think legal is the right avenue for any of us to be thinking about how to improve things in this or in related circumstances.--
6344:, it must be responsible to maintain conduct. Any paid organizational maintenance of TOU should be as narrow and as transparent as possible. The methods and interpretations T&S has taken upon itself is harmful to the editing environment and should be developed further within the editing community, not the serving bureaucracy. The
5664:. Seems a perfectly reasonable compromise. If the WMF had just said "it's a private matter, we can't talk about it" and issued an indefinite ban, then I would assume something Really Bad happened, but since that isn't what WMF did, their explanation has been highly lacking. WMF should admit that it was an overreach and move on.
3440:. My experience of this sort of cross-wiki communication with a single-project banned user is that it can get out of control, so it should be minimised (but it is still important to keep an eye on what is being said). This is particularly important in this case, because the head of the WMF's T&S team have said they will enact a
12133:
articles at this point is hard & often tedious work. But when I read such a casually & flippantly nasty response from one of the people who are supposed to set an example for the rest of us ... well, it sucks to discover I've been a sucker. I hope she enjoys that job with a 6-figure salary I helped to create for her. --
8625:. The original email to Fram did not cite ToU violations. The WMF basically never cites ToU violations for office actions, because such statements could open them up to defamation lawsuits, theoretically. I know of one that is making its way through federal district court now, and it will probably be dismissed with prejudice
8400:. You're tempting me to argue the other side to my intended thrust, that the way forward should not require a resolution of the Fram question. I think the resoltuion need only deal with the process of WMF bans, the scope of WMF-only decisions, Community (inc. ArbCom) only decisions, and where there may be overlap. I think
7386:
could do to form their own conclusion whether the ban was proper or not (even if they can't enforce the unbanning). The three uses of tools to overturn Office actions is all on-wiki behavior and we don't have a case on it. At this point, I wouldn't trust them to sift through Fram's edits to examine his on-wiki behavior. —
9312:
12825:: No, I am being entirely serious. Quick question, before the incident with Fram, did you ever check her Twitter for updates about the Foundation? Because if you look at her timeline, I would think you'd stop going there for updates since she doesn't frequently post updates on it but rather her every day life. —
9164:
this communicative dissonance to occur with a real state. The outcome is usually brinksmanship to see who is bluffing. We huff here, and have no means to bluff. I'm sure that was not the WMF's intention, but their failure to perceive the obvious implications of their communication 'strategy' is deeply disturbing.
6673:. "Undo everything you've done, abdicate your duty/ability to enforce the Terms of Use, and don't do anything we don't like in the future, despite owning the site." This is not a compromise. It is a takeover. Fork the site if you disagree with the WMF enforcing the Terms of Use. That is your recourse. ~
7597:- it's a Foundation with enormous responsibility, and we are simply volunteers doing whatever it is that motivates us to be here. There is nothing I'd like to see more than a harmonious community, but I am simply not convinced that the way we're going about it is the right way, much less the best way.
1745:
the question, but if we don't like the answer then our only options are to (a) keep quiet and toe the line, or (b) fork the whole encyclopedia under CC licence on to a new set of servers... (and if Wikivoyage vs Wikitravel is anything to go by, such an exercise would probably not end up a success). —
13513:
When did I say no one should say anything? I never once said no one should comment, and really fail, to see how my Post could in any read be seen in that way. I am not saying there is a silent majority who holds an opinion, I have said most users have no commented, and so only a few have really shown
13007:
To be honest, I am not sure that writing directly to all WMF employees is in any way a good idea. All of them have certain job descriptions, and most job descriptions do not include communication with volunteers. One can argue that they should include this, and any request, onwiki, on a mailing list,
12992:
I find it rather rude to say that very few people had asked her directly when she failed to respond to any of those that did (including myself). For that matter, none of the WMF staff I emailed did, except 1 who I asked about an interpretation of a WMF ToS explanation and redirected me to the general
12363:
is an archive of both relevant tweets, for reference.) Otherwise - there's a lot of interest in this thread about likes and replies and such; let's please all continue to be careful about off-wiki identities. (Also, I have no idea how the WMF works, but there are workplaces where liking, sharing, and
12288:
Well that's kind of my point. Yeah, fair enough, we can't take anything she says as a confirmation because she's not gonna outright do that. But if we were completely incorrect and she was just cursing the darkness a little bit, or complaining about someone else, it would cost her nothing to say "You
11835:
Since I've spent 12 years of my life contributing in some way shape or form to Knowledge and Wikimedia, I would hope I can in some way lay claim to that fact I am an advocate for free knowledge. I've not publicly commented on this whole Fram issue and another voice is not going help on either side of
9750:
You know, I really don't like the idea of harassment going one way like this. People accusing others of harassment should be forced to reveal themselves, or otherwise both the accused and accuser should be secret. That's the only fair way, otherwise the accused loses any degree of anonymity while the
9716:
Nobody seems to have suggested that Fram has ever betrayed anyone's trust, so perhaps the Foundation would be willing to ask them if they would consent to letting Fram know who they are to effect an interaction ban. Frankly though, this is silly. Fram's original compromise proposal for an independent
9701:
It would still require the WMF to disclose those names to Fram, which they explicitly state they will not do, and doing so - after informing those who complained that they won't - would be highly unethical. And to ask those who believe that they've been harassed by Fram to trust that Fram would never
9171:
has summed up concisely what I also think are the basic reservations about an otherwise sensible attempt at compromise. I have no problem with leadership, but in critical times, leaders who have made a mark do so for the fact that, if they err, they made a difficult gesture, symbolic or otherwise, of
8759:
in anyone on the project, apparently. Again, fork the project if you don't like the fact that the WMF has legal obligations. Or, better yet, approach the Foundation and offer to take on all legal liability that Fram's future actions may bring them in exchange for his unban. If you are so certain that
8661:
Especially because the terms are somewhat subjective. Let's take "stalking," for example. At RFA voters routinely go check through a candidates past contributions, sometimes in great detail, to find edits that reveal a mindset not suitable for the tools. Rob himself, at RFA not too long ago, had this
8247:
need to communicate with the community about what they intend, but we need to expect that the community response will be complex, and WMF needs to expect that, if they express it as a top-down take-it-or-leave-it kind of thing, it won't work. I'd actually prefer to decide on all of this only after we
7688:
Not is not, its that it odd that we have (in effect) weak IBANS in all but name, but only if we tell him who did it to him. Nothing that prevents him acting playing silly buggers. Given the fact he has been told more then once to tone it down I have no reason to believe it will work this time either.
7618:
because as written this would require disclosing the people who filed complaints against Fram, which is a nonstarter on several levels. First, there's valid reasons for an anonymous reporting system to exist; second, it would put them at risk; third, even aside from the risk to them, and even if you
6482:
this. I can see why the office would get involved in level 1 desysops and the like, but there are ways of handling this privately between office and arbcom that at least allow some kind of independent review of what is otherwise a single person's view of the situation. Fram is a valued contributor of
5510:
of diffs available). That said, let's not lose sight of the fact that this this entire debacle is not so much about Fram or other admins who fell on their swords in support, but more about the sleazy hegemony and exploitation by the WMF of the volunteers who provide their raison d'être, salaries, and
4348:
This feels reasonable and responsive to issues on multiple sides and so I support it. I would hope that this reasonableness would receive a positive response from the foundation rather than it being seen as a negotiating posture (e.g. "well you you asked for immediate reinstatement and we said a year
3994:
And more broadly, it is important that office actions be used only for the kinds of purposes for which they have historically been intended. Office actions, especially those involving the larger projects, should never be an alternative forum for a dispute that could instead have been handled locally.
3865:
Several members of the T&S Team are experienced and trusted Wikipedians, including two admins from Knowledge who have been functionaries, one of whom has served on ArbCom, so I have no doubt that investigations were done with some insight and understanding of both sides of the issue (as there are
3792:
That's definitely not enough. I am rather disappointed because I saw a certain hope in Jan's last posting. He only gives a diagram of the internal process but nothing, literally nothing, about communication to others and also nothing about the reasonings for any decision at any point. So they seem to
3752:
User:X decides to run for a seat on the Arbitration Committee. Just as with most other roles requiring identification, it is possible to run for ArbCom and not identify until after election (steward elections are the only exception I can think of). The WMF T&S team is responsible for updating the
3650:
We have heard your concerns about fairness to Fram of the case as it proceeded. Balancing fairness to the accused party with the safety of the accusing party is something we have been working on for quite a long time, and it’s not something we’ve perfected. Generally, we will reach out to the accused
3493:
We hope for your cooperation with the above request, so as to avoid any sanctions from our end in the future. To be clear, we are not placing an interaction ban between you and Laura at this time. We ask that her request to stay away from her and the content she creates be respected, so that there is
3448:
if they wish the local block to be re-enacted to avoid accidentally triggering that (this is a pragmatic response to what the WMF said, not a judgement either way on whether the WMF should have said that or the principles involved). I believe self-requested blocks are still allowed (and can be lifted
3345:
First, our privacy provisions do not always allow us to "pass back" personal information we receive to the community; this means there are cases where we cannot pass on to Arbcom things like the names of complaining parties or the content of private evidence that might support a concern. As a result,
3299:
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 users
3009:
I applaud those who have kept separate in their minds and words the separate issues here. The issue of Fram's behavior and whether desysopping and/or some form of block are appropriate is separate from the "constitutional issue" of process and procedure. Conflating the two would, I fear, only serve
2687:
The particular diff Fram refers to on Kavanaugh's Wikidata entry has been suppressed. However, you can look at the revision history for the past nine months and variations of "creep", "molest" and "rape", plus "white privilege" are evident and visible in numerous other revisions and edit summaries.
2379:
I will tell you exactly what is going on, imo. We, the people, are being systematically brainwashed into giving up ( not having them taken away ) all of our precious freedoms of thought, speech, press and association, and its not just some kind of happenstance. It is an orchestrated self perpetuating
1632:
It does not matter at this point what the action was as WMF acted only in a local capacity and not the global capacity that they should act under. There is no action as far as I'm concerned that would warrant WMF Office involvement in just a local project, this is black and white in my opinion and if
1398:
accepted practice at Knowledge in extreme circumstances; there are sometimes good reasons we want someone gone and don't want to discuss it publicly for their own privacy's sake. What's unique here is that the WMF are saying that Fram is untrustworthy here, but trustworthy on every other WMF project,
1216:
Early betting at Wikipediocracy is that this is preliminary to some sort of centralized imposition of either Superprotect or Flow or Visual Editor, Fram being one of the most outspoken critics of WMF technological incompetence and bureaucratic overreach -- not that there is much room for debate about
1156:
Speculation can take us anywhere of course. Keep in mind there could be additional T&S terms that we are unaware of (such as a speculative "may not hold admin or above access on any project for a year") - functionally, enwiki is the only project where advanced access provisioned, so may have been
460:
I'm with you on this. Fram and I have butted heads a time or two (I think?) but I just am trying to wrap my mind around a decision like this with no real explanation. I understand the nature of WMFOffice blocks but I would think that anything egregious enough for an emergency decision like this would
432:
Which reminded me of something I'd read about but completely forgot when replying. It sounds like the editor concerned was already either blocked or banned by the community so it probably wasn't quite like here where plenty feel any ban of the editor concerned is unjusitified. Of course concerns over
12542:
The backpedaling is pathetic. I wholeheartedly echo Dan's call for her resignation. It is, on multiple levels, necessary at this point. A Twitter cyberbully with the regrettable title of "WMF Executive Director" is an embarrassment to the WMF and to the enwiki community alike, and will do nothing to
10701:
To set the record straight, the Buzzfeed article contains a glaring error when referring to my "sarcastic references to a forthcoming Nobel Peace Prize". The certain fact that Wikipedians will eventually be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is the furthest thing from sarcasm. This grand experiment, born
9107:
between what this says and what people have been proposing/demanding throughout this page. First of all, the last bulletpoint should happen regardless. But as for the rest, it's perhaps more diplomatically worded to allow a little bit of face-saving with ~"everyone admit they can do a little better"
9027:
Assuming Fram gets unbanned there seem to be three options: 1) he gets the sysop bit back automatically 2) we have an RfA to decide, or 3) ArbCom case decides. I don't see much wrong with any of these options, a nice change from the lose-lose scenarios surrounding pretty much everything else in this
8958:
In politics, decisions are strongly influenced by a numbers game: in ethics, calculations of numbers are ignored. General human behavior tends to think and act politically, 'can I get away with this,'; 'they are wrong, but if I protest, and no one else does, I'll cop it too.' etc. Ethics, as opposed
8937:
It isnt about owning the website that makes whether or not we all stop editing irrelevant. Its the tiny proportion to the wider community that is present here. Yeah, a lot of us are active in the WP namespace and a ton of the admins here do a huge amount of work in the day to day functioning of this
8587:
there is. They simply did not cite to Fram or even claim in any of their explanations that he breached the ToU. They cited petty incivility towards Arbcom. So, that gives the impression that Fram was banned for his pattern of petty incivility, rather than breach of the ToU. You trust that that's not
7998:
not being fair, it's got nothing to do with with your 'evidence'. As I said, you'd have to come up with some hard evidence for your overly-cosy clique of senior editors - before they became 'cosy' many of them were making as many edits a month as you have done in 12 years and they probably deserve a
7951:
The approximate equivalent of an edit a day for twelve years being thought insufficient to even comment on this matter is very demonstrative evidence of what I'm talking about. I did, also, cite an example of the kind of behaviour I criticised as well. Whether you want to take it seriously or not is
7463:
BTW, an additional problem is that since this is all quasi-voluntary and short on details, it's not clear what happens if everyone agrees to it and then it falls apart. For example, from Fram's reponse they agree to it but have noted they may not notice who's page it is when they edit during routine
7448:
while I understand Newyorkbrad is trying to do, I am not convinced the proposals will be enough to address whatever concerns there are with Fram's behaviour without knowing more details of that behaviour which I can't and don't know. I am also concerned that for this proposal to work, it may require
7385:
I think it's fairly obvious at this point. They can't even agree right now to create a case based on the banning of Fram and/or the three uses of tools to overturn Office actions. The ban is complicated. Creating a case and reaching out to the WMF for details in private is the base minimum that they
7177:
on two grounds: first, because it's a moot point; T&S has seen what the community has to offer in this regard and has chosen not to blink. Another demand for the same is not going to change things, it'll just draw out the drama. Second, because I'm increasingly uncomfortable with the impassioned
6816:
these suggestions are attempting to address two separate issues, the general and the specific, as if the resolution to the former was dependent on the other. That's not a tenable negotiating position and we need to consider the problem of the imposition of a parallel unaccountable dispute resolution
6130:
of sections of WMF having disagreements with Fram on perfectly legitimate opinions. WMF should also conduct a thorough investigation of any conflict of interest or other unproper procedure which led to this failure (I hope that a number of WMF employees who had a history with Fram recused themselves
5071:
per Black Kite. I considered opposing because I'm not persuaded that Fram has done anything to warrant even an unofficial IBAN, but an oppose would seemingly put me in the same camp as the Fram-bashers, and I'm not interested in that. I'm also amused that some keep bringing up the Terms of Use as if
4859:
The base line from which we have to operate is good will and good faith on both sides - because without that, this project is already systemically screwed and will crumble (and it doesn't matter whether that ultimately happens via bottom-up or top-down processes). This suggested bundle provides room
3980:
Although it's good to have multiple layers of review, it's not clear from the information here whether all of the layers involve serious and independent evaluation of the complaint. There is a serious risk that some of the later, higher-level review steps may just be something like "Well, it's looks
3959:
We have a long-established principle on WP that blocks and bans are intended to be preventative, not punitive. How is a ban like Fram's supposed to prevent future misconduct after it has expired, if it is not made expressly clear to the banned editor in what areas their actions went over the line?
3563:
on February 19, 2019 as part of the documentation on Meta. It has not been our practice, historically, to report changes to T&S policy to the hundreds of local communities we work with. As I have noted previously, the use of local and time-limited bans is not a change of the team’s scope but was
3065:
And of course, if I were to take a dramatic action, some would cheer, and some would scream. And if I go slow and deliberate, some will not like that, either. But it is my way, the only way that I know, and when I stick to slow and thoughtful deliberation I have learned in my life that the outcome
2387:
You must force yourselves to open your eyes to see this incident as just 1 little cancer cell amongst millions; you must recognise and attack the totality of the cancer and must create and/or join a global force to do that. The current banning/& lack of transparency is like a mosquito bite; its
2383:
Voltaire said "the comfort of the rich depends upon an abundance of the poor". I'd say, the power of the top 1/1000 of 1 % depends upon a shallow, self centred and limited focus by us, the masses of people. Its a huge error in judgment and perspective to look at this Fram event as an isolated event;
1744:
Not really. I agree that the shroud of darkness around this matter is regrettable (they haven't even gone to the extent of telling us "we can't tell you anything" yet...), but as long as we sit on the WMF's servers then we as a community are ultimately powerless to do anything about this. We can ask
1668:
Ditto, see my comments above. If T&S have to be involved, why are they doing time-limited bans? Thats how ENWP deals with serial problem users. If its a T&S issue they should either not be involved in day-to-day misbehaviour or should be enacting permanent bans. Time-limited either indicates
1596:
I've emailed them - I suggest everyone do the same to push some weight on that route. There are actions that could warrant this - but they'd have to be confident it was Fram not a compromised account. That normally requires a bit of time consideration. Which let's us ask...why such a dramatic sudden
14545:
has now been made. To be fair, it's less biased and significantly better than most of the publication's usual articles. It doesn't consider the other side as much, and has more errors, but is still not miles off. Not the 2nd news source I'd have liked to have cover it. It's also starting to twig up
11942:
Eh Maher's former PR so responding to the press is kinda expected. As a response it does seem rather odd although given the conditions under which she took over the foundation I can understand it would be important to be seen as having her employee's backs. Still if the tweet is about what we think
9731:
The problem is that Fram is accused of harassing one or more editors to the point that those editors lodged a complaint with the WMF under the guarantee that their details would not be provided to Fram. Obviously, the WMF can't then release those details. I agree that the WMF could ask them, but as
9621:
I don't know exactly where it's been, to be honest. I gather that there has been a huge amount of negative coverage and digging into her personal life off-Wiki somewhere, probably some of it by people who also edit here, some of which has spilled into accusations and undue pressure on-Wiki. I don't
9082:
Point 4 - Evidence not provided that T&S are there with good intentions. While I agree that its unlikely any of them joined the WMF specifically to take over ENWP - that doesnt mean they wont take the chance to do so given the opportunity. And given who they are is public knowledge, so is their
9078:
Point 3 - Completely pointless and appears to just be a sop to the 'Fram is awful' crowd with past axes to grind. Fram's editing record is already out there. Take a look at the last's years interactions with other editors and compare it to say the previous 2 or 3. Its effectively holding Fram to an
9074:
Point 2 - this sets a dangerous precedent in that it both encourages and enables problem editors (who are pulled up on their actions) to go running to the WMF. It rewards them for not following dispute resolution and chills future discussion - what admin or editor is going to risk dealing with them
8918:
In Hegelianism, the broader levels of authority encompass the lower levels. For example, the state is expected to have an antithetical relationship to the authority of the family, and this is expected to be a good thing. Fran's request that the ArbCom "Just crawl into a corner and shut up until the
8432:
Lengthen? ArbCom can already do that, if they receive reports related to harassment. Otherwise alter/shorten? That would now put the WMF in very sketchy territory. If they have become aware of an editor harassing others on this site, taken action they felt necessary to enforce the Terms of Use, and
7244:
because this is not about Fram, it's about the relationship between the Foundation and ArbCom, and the Foundation and enwiki. Fram is one of the symptoms, yes, but we need to be looking at the causes and treating those. I don't think if Fram has been so toxic as the Foundation believe and some here
7094:
is too wooly, an Americanism that just kicks the can down the road. T&S are ungoverned, unaccountable and based on this bizarre case, may well routinely take actions that if assessed in the cold light of day would be found incompetent or perversely unjust. A system with no published procedures,
6929:
any admin, desysopped by an Office Action, shall be expected to edit normally for a period equivalent to the length of their ban - up to a max of 6 months - before submitting a new RfA (in order to give the broad community time to decide if it now has confidence in that person being handed back the
6885:
It is obvious Fram disagrees with the warnings he was given, rescinding the ban because the community feels it was communicated poorly is just kicking the can down the road. The underlying problem the WMF has raised with Fram in two warnings has not been addressed, and there's no sign that Fram has
5882:
This is the reasonable action. There is a Knowledge Justice System and it operates according to a defined process. The WMF actions are the cause of a cascade of transgressions against this process. I am only able to imagine two possibilities: either the WMF power who issued the ban is competent and
5839:
as a place to start -- but the T&S committee's unilateral action remains unacceptable, & the WMF needs to acknowledge this. AFBrochert raises the important point that Jan Eissenfeldt was involved in 2 Foundation actions that offended the en.wikipedia community; if he was critically involved
5816:
WMF to do anything, but should they decide it's a good idea to start mending some fences, we need to offer them some sort of consensus-based way to move forward. There are some issues with this proposal, but if we assume a assume a modicum of good faith on all sides then I can't see why any of them
5551:
as a good-faith start to re-building the bridges summarily destroyed by WMF in their actions. However, what bothers me the most is that the WMF could take this kind of bizarre unilateral action again, at any point, for any reason. The clear questions over some members of WMF and various COI still
4723:
as a positive way forward. However, bullet 4 sticks in my craw. The only insight we have into whether Trust and Safety's actions were taken with good intentions are the actual results of their actions, and their written response. The results are what they are, but the written response and inability
4164:
The Office opens, or reopens, or expands a dialog with the community about what it is trying to accomplish and how to get there (assuming it's somewhere it's desirable to be). It's been pointed out that various consultations have been open for awhile, but have flown under the radar of many editors,
3988:
mean that this should be public, but it can be important to keep internally in the event of subsequent scrutiny from the WMF Board or others, as is happening here. I think it should memorialize any off-the-cuff discussions, to have a record if someone not officially involved in a particular step of
3861:
in which it is agreed that "The Wikimedia Foundation may pursue available legal remedies, including injunctive relief or, in the case of willful intent, monetary damages." What extra legal powers do the Foundation have over those individuals who are permitted to see the report that they do not have
3735:
Actually I think it's quite fair to only give percentages, especially over time rather than merely one quarter of results. I found the information quite informative and pretty reassuring and thank Jan for that. It wasn't, however, quite what I had asked for. What I had hoped for was once we entered
3622:
Roughly 90% of the outreach to T&S does not result in T&S cases. There are two big reasons for that: community self-governance and the hurdle for opening T&S cases being consequently pretty high. Much of the outreach we receive therefore can be routinely addressed by others and is being
3571:
Regarding questions on balancing fairness to the accused party with the safety of the accusing party, this is something we have been working on for quite a long time, and it’s not something we or anyone else has perfected. By default, we reach out to the accused party for information if doing so is
3068:
I suppose if I had to decide "whether the community or the foundation is my true heir" I'd go with community. But I actually don't think in that way. My true heir is Knowledge, the 💕. That's what I think we all care the most about, or anyway it is what we should all care the most about. One of
2117:
says we should assume good faith on the part of editors. Absent of any further information from the WMF (or indication that there are privacy issues involved), my default assumption is that he did nothing wrong. Unless the WMF issues a real explanation, there's no proof that this isn't just the WMF
1034:
to act in what appears to be a local matter, why is there no concern about this a year from now? Why, if whatever happened is so bad, is there no concern about ill intent on the hundreds of other projects Fram could edit? I'm not suggesting Fram be indeffed but I think some transparency from WMF is
396:
I don't want to import drama from other projects into here but is there any more public info (i.e. discussed on de.wikipedia in a public location and still available) on what went on there? As mentioned, the timing of the policy change suggests it was likely at least partly done to allow a block of
14453:
Over the course of these discussions, some editors have expressed dissatisfaction with the slowness of getting a clear statement from ArbCom. I think it's important to take note of the comments that multiple Arbs put on Maher's talk page. Those comments show unambiguously that they understand what
14312:
I want to say thanks to the arbs, former arbs, admins and veteran editors who have engaged with Maher on her talk page over this crisis. I am proud of you and although I am not nearly as active or committed to this project as you are, your frankness with her makes me feel represented and that I am
13818:
you should spend your time on Twitter! The WMF Office has tried its best to make plots to redesign Knowledge to look a little more like Twitter so we can get used to it so we can stop talking here and move over to where All The Big Stuff Happens. There, under the watchful eye of Twitter censors,
13767:
way of attracting her attention was to go to Twitter. I really shouldn't say any more. But I will, I am appalled at her behaviour. I don't think she gives a flying fuck about editors. And I'm sure she'll come out with a load of "we're listening, we want to bring you with us" bullshit when she does
13451:
Yes, I just read that. It's probably true. There were only a handful of us who wrote to her directly, and she appears not to have noticed the emails, only that which was in public view. While I am disappointed that she still hasn't acknowledged (except via Twitter) that we contacted her, I am even
12845:
So? Someone usually uses their gun for target practice; one day they accidentally shoot someone in the face. The fact that they generally don't shoot at people means they didn't really shoot someone in the face? Come on...there is absolutely no realistic interpretation that this tweet wasn't about
12022:
of the organization is no longer "inside baseball". What it is, is unprofessional and a fine example of "Do as I say, not as I do" that will not, shall we say, serve to help the situation. She could have expressed disagreement with what was written without doing it like that. (Not to mention she's
11961:
This a joke? Ignoring a community controversy over your own actions, to the point where it gets so out of control that the press picks it up, and then only breaking your silence to call the article a "shitty pseudo-thinkpiece" that "nobody cares" about is about the farthest thing from competent PR
10739:
Fram's partial ban wasn't the first (something Buzzfeed claimed to be). Someone pointed out above in one of the collapsed section that 2 users in Germany Knowledge received partial ban back in February, shortly after partial ban was introduced. The parital ban is probably not something WMF created
10256:
You know it’s not a bad idea. Unflattering material about T&S in articlespace as a result of media coverage might force their hand by making T&S less-able to achieve its mission—if you can’t trust them, why report to them? That may or may not bode well for us but I think that’s better than
9777:
I've seen enough situations where people are scared to complain due to the fear of retaliation, and live with harassment rather than face something worse. I've also seen enough situations where that fear was realised. Having some channel that allows people to confidentially raise their concerns is
9455:
I'm almost certain I know who triggered the recent T&S involvement (95%+ if I was a betting man), and if I'm correct, it's not Laura. I won't share how I was able to put the puzzle together because I could well be wrong, and if I'm right, well, I'm not going to reveal their identity either for
9163:
This whole story has nothing to do with Fram. (a)A principle is at stake, (b) massive open discussion by one affected party has been met with oracular comuniqués by the other.(c) in conflict theory this disparity is something everyone here and at the WMF office would deplore were the face-off with
9144:
The other way forward, which isn't very likely but about the only compromise I can see being at all possible, is through a hand-off to ArbCom with conditions, including the understanding that some of the material will still be private and the understanding that it's about a long-term pattern (it's
9046:
Over the particular discussion about Security-Circular, nearly everyone was at their non optimal behaviours. And, tone-deafness from a few arbs compounded it. Given that Fram's conduct definitely improved throughout the year, it's unfortunate that he be put to an ArbCom case because of this mess.
8883:
An issue with this is that you lose moral influence by condoning wrongdoing. Acting as if nothing has happened is a form of condoning. In other words, the guilt of the WMF rests on us all if we know what is going on and yet act as if things are normal. Reflected in the comments above are radically
8336:
I don't understand why is it important to terminate Fram's ban. It is not the ban per se, it is the lack of explanation. Give a proper explanation. Details need not be given. If the details of the reason are out of scope for ArbCom and the community, then say so, otherwise refer it back to the
8319:
enforce anything, then this entire discussion is for nothing. If they read this and reach this conclusion themselves and start engaging, then that's the starting point. With as many suggestions that have been thrown about though, it's unlikely this one is going to stand out though anymore than the
8314:
unless your final bullet point "the Office opens, or reopens, or expands a dialog with the community about what it is trying to accomplish and how to get there" happens first. Like I said in my statement at the pending ArbCom request, it's the Foundation who has the ball in their court to act. You
8238:
It's hard to find fault with the overall thrust of this proposal, but I think a bit of skepticism needs to be added. Yes, it would undoubtedly be helpful if WMF drops the stick over the ban. Yes, it would unquestionably be a good idea for Fram to be more empathetic in his interactions with others.
7840:
Very premature and everyone just needs to take a big breath. I think the foundation should lay out what it is aiming to do more explicitly to stop abuse. Chill pill in the interim. I think this won't be noticed by most editors. Just accept it, don't take a sledgehammer to the project, IMHO. Teacup
7645:
So Fram is unblocked gets (in effect though oddly not in wording) more IBAns (does he not have one already) yet retains admin status, despite having IBANS?. Maybe if Fram had been told (not asked nicely, told) to treat others with the same courtesy ans respect (and tolerance) we are being asked to
7137:
My point was a general one. The Framban case does have public evidence, lots of it actually, including emails the WMF sent to Fram for which there is no NDA in place nor should there be, and folks are still debating whether the claims about secret evidence are credible or represent any significant
6196:
fully. I have been skimming over the arguments presented, and I feel that the Office should back down a bit in the interest of rebuilding community confidence. You know, the "Trust" part of "T&S". Anyway, I get the impression that this was blow up out of proportion, and the the resolution (aka
5979:
NYB’s proposal sounds perfectly reasonable and shows the level of good faith that will be required to move things forward. However, the information provided by WMBE has left me concerned that there are broader issues with how the T&S team conducts itself that may go unaddressed under the above
5456:
the matter is examined by ArbCom. Otherwise, I agree with those in opposition that this basically ignores the real problems that were apparently raised to lead to this action. My problem with the T&S action was never the ban itself but that established community processes were not followed. If
5171:
and assured us that their block of him was not revenge. As for the interaction ban, yes T&S may not be able to tell Fram who the complainant was, so that bit may not be possible. But if they deemed that the incident only merited a 12 month single project restriction on Fram, T&S presumably
4917:
in general, and especially the last point. While it will be good if this particular issue gets resolved and we can stop seeing if we can set a page size record, we have to resolve things going forward so that this will not happen again (or, if we decide it should, it happens in a way that will not
3898:
JEissfeldt (WMF), while I appreciate you at least being willing to put your name on this statement, it is still more of the same. I will be posting a response as to why shortly, point by point to what you said, but in short: The WMF is not a "higher authority" than the English Knowledge community,
3349:
Secondly, we believe it would have been improper to ask the Arbcom to adjudicate a case in which it was one primary target of the person in question, as this could put volunteers into a very difficult position and create the appearance of a conflict of interest regardless of the actual handling of
1049:
Well, the term "Poisoning the Well" comes to mind. Fram comes back, has to go through an RFA if they want the tools back (where they did a hell of a lot of good on preventing shitty code and tools from being unleashed here). There is a substantial population here that will vote against them simply
886:
In the absence of any explanation, the cynic in me guesses that at some point in the next 12 months the WMF are going to reattempt to introduce the forced integration of either Wikidata, VisualEditor or Superprotect, and are trying to pre-emptively nobble the most vocal critic of forced changes to
789:
action so we can't overturn it. Per my comments above, I can't even imagine the circumstances in which this is legitimate, since if it were genuinely something so problematic he needed to be banned instantly without discussion, it would be something warranting a global rather than a local ban, and
527:
Per Iri. It's also so unproblematic that he's not banned on any other WMF projects?! Banning from en.wiki only seems like something ArbCom gets to do, not WMF. And I see he's already been desysopped by WMF, instead of locally, too. If there are privacy issues involved, I certainly don't need to
267:
This section holds the original announcement of Fram's one-year ban on the bureaucrats' noticeboard, and the comments of many editors. Most of these comments were made prior to follow-up statements from Fram and the WMF and may be outdated. Further discussion probably belongs in a newer section of
14295:
It's unclear to me who she's apologizing to, or for what, and if she's told the members of T&S who hastened to associate themselves with her tweet that her present stance is that she was not criticizing the BuzzFeed article. Aside from that, to stay on the Shakespeare meme, it would have been
13941:
Clarifcation: I was definitely blocked for inappropriate questions asked on en.wiki of two WMF staffers, definitely considering a warning for inappropriate questions I asked of a former Arb. A question to a WMF staffer on meta.wiki may have also contributed to the block. Obviously, I am unblocked
13543:
You asked me if I said something that there was no possible way you could have read into my comment. Someone asked why she said X, I ...no because you will just strawman whatever I say. This is my last response to you on this subject, if you cannot debate honestly then I cannot be arsed to debate
11370:
I think we know well enough. Someone tweeted three times to promote an article that was rather critical of the WMF. Not but a couple hours later, the ED of the WMF is complaining that a "shitty" article got three tweets to promote it. I don't think we have to draw the line very damn far from that
10686:
The Buzzfeed article is a pretty good summary until "Much of that blame fell, perhaps predictably, on a woman and a transgender editor. In 2017, a fledgling Wikipedian accused Fram of monitoring her activity on the site to such an extent that felt like harassment." The "woman" was no "fledgling",
9515:
is still an indictment of T&S here because all they have done here is ban a user in (presumably) good standing with little warning, no explanation of anything, and limited to one wiki for a year. If a T&S member (using the WMFOffice account) had done the outrageous and unthinkable step of
9121:
a role to play for T&S to address intractable long-term behavioral problems that the community has failed to address -- people who support the concept, but who are confused or bothered or concerned about what has happened in this particular case. "Severe enough to keep everything a secret and
8592:
is for the Foundation to confirm that Fram actually breached the ToU. I have no personal affinity towards Fram, but this harms my perception of the WMF. Why would they not simply confirm that Fram breached the ToU, unless it would be a lie? Like I said, there's no privacy considerations in simply
8355:
According to Fram, he received a one year ban for saying "fuck Arbcom", and that the Foundation likely employed this draconian move because a grudging complainant against him has connections to the WMF and the Chair herself. This is an oddly specific, extremely outrageous narrative. And, yet, the
7778:
I didn't realise this had turned into a !vote. Seems fairly pointless, as the plan proposes things we have no power to enact. On #1 I am neutral, given that we don't specifically know what prompted the ban. Letting Fram back early in return for better behaviour would be a useful olive branch, but
7428:
Also I can imagine the press coverage that could easily happen if Fram is unbanned and the media starts talking to the people he allegedly harassed. Chances are they'll report the allegations, maybe find the diffs (if the victims are willing), and then conclude that on Knowledge, if the community
5734:
as a possible move forward to a more constructive relationship between the projects and WMF. I've some reservations, though. Firstly, this is not just about Fram, it is about our relationship with WMF in regard to the enforcements of the ToU. Most global WMF bans in regard to cases I was familiar
4936:
IBAN against any complainants who felt they've been harassed (the mere existence of which remains unconfirmed), paired with a general civility mandate, which would presumably address the root of the ban. If the Foundation is to take a no-compromise approach even in the most contentious situation,
4438:: I do admit that Headbomb has a point. However, having read through enough AN/I and AN threads with Fram's involvement, I'm sure that Fram can improve somewhat in terms of decorum. At least, I do hope so. Now, setting that point aside: I'd like to amend the proposed resolution to provide for the
2506:
However, on occasion community members submit evidence strongly indicating cases where local communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use, too. We will continue to consider these rare cases brought to our attention under the framework of the
1458:
Stewards are informed the reason for every WMF ban, including this one. They can’t say what it is, but considering that this was such an extraordinary event, letting the local group that would be most comparable know the reason would have been the very least that could have been done. Then an arb
1429:
People I trust say this is warranted, but I do object that this was communicated to stewards and not the local ArbCom. Most en.wiki users don’t even know what a steward is, and the local arb with the least support here has more voters for them than even the most popular steward. Stewards do great
1268:
Since it doesnt appear anyone has asked the question: Has anyone asked Fram? I am sure at least one of the admins and/or arbcom has had off-wiki correspondence with them at some point. While obviously asking the subject of a ban for their version of events has its own drawbacks, in absence of any
1170:
Add me to the list of those who said "WTF" out loud after seeing this. The scope of the ban is baffling, too; if Fram has violated the terms of use, why only a year, and why only the English Knowledge? If they haven't, then why a ban at all? Also, the WMF is doubtless aware that Fram was an admin
14479:
For clarity you're referring to comments starting about the 27th? Looking at both meta and en talk pages those look to be when people started commenting, I mean not just arbcom members. I'm not complaining, just trying to understand the timeline here because a lot of people are surprised she has
14392:
is linguistically slippery; it implies that the result didn't match the intention, and thus shifts the focus from observable fact (the tweet) to something with more wriggle room (the intention). And "I’ve been closely monitoring what’s been going on here on en-wiki, and will continue to do so" -
9951:
Yeah, a good summary. Hopefully this will start to impact on WMF's pockets when they realise they can't treat the community like this and donations start to dry up. In short, if all the evidence is available on-wiki, it's Arbcom's turf. If not, then WMF will be contradicting Fram, effectively
9832:
Alarm bells go off in my head whenever I hear "without giving any real notice beforehand". Whenever any admin (or someone from T&S) tells me to stop doing something, I stop immediately. Even if I am 100% convinced that they are wrong, I stop immediately. If the warning was way out of line, I
8643:
you for sympathizing with the WMF in a similar situation. However, I'm just asking for a cursory acknowledgment of my concern, which the WMF refuses to provide. You are unable to provide that beyond blind trust, and while I don't hold your position against you, I don't think it's necessarily the
8406:
A. The assertion "violated the ToS" is sufficient justification for the WMF to act. I am asking for an explanation for why, without details, the ban, ongoing, can't be referred to ArbCom or the community generally. I think it would be very reasonable for WMF to declare a ban, and then refer to
7822:
is one of the five pillar policies of Knowledge. Only asking Fram to "improve his decorum a little bit" doesn't square with that policy. Incivility drives new editors away. Admins should be exemplars of civility. Maybe the Foundation over-reached here, but I cannot support asking them to reduce
6175:
Still, it gives a sense of the scale of misinformation in the anti-Fram campaign. WMF has a history of taking such biased information at face value when it comes from people personally connected to some employee (there's even a past post by Sue Gardner where she says she learnt to only listen to
4941:
to justify that decision, which they have refused to do, in spite of the fact that basic transparency and privacy protection are not and have never been mutually exclusive. Either the ban is outright unjust, or it is arguably just but the community disagrees with it. In that case, the Foundation
4799:
disagrees with global bans for those editors who have violated certain community norms, especially where that concerns such things child protection or serious off-wiki harassment. And there are plenty of those. But here, we have the WMF granting themselves a new "partial ban" ability, where such
4467:
I've got a few issues with a detail or two (for example, if I understand right, WMF would refuse to tell Fram who to avoid, though I imagine he could guess as well as the rest of us by now). The overarching idea of the WMF vacating the ban, leaving any action (if needed) against Fram to en.wiki
14330:"shitty pseudo-thinkpiece" that "no one cares" about. That has nothing to do with Knowledge or the article. It was just a philosophical meta-commentary on Twitter culture. She knows she directly attacked it, but that has nothing to do with her intent. If she wanted to criticize the article, she
13668:
The point is why she said "so few people". Now it may well be true this has generated more controversy then any other single issue here. But that does not mean that it is still a lot of people commenting (or contacting her), just a lot more then usual. So it does not make her statement false or
9989:
It's a nice, unbiased article. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's positive in the way you think. The only off-wiki discussion of the article I've seen so far from outside the MediaWiki community seemed to be fairly on the side of the WMF, because people outside the community look at Fram's
9547:
I can also guess my way to a story where what happened (including the secrecy) makes sense to the complainant and to T&S, without involving any long-term conspiracies, gender wars or gamergate relations. But I still wouldn't agree with the outcome, nor that this issue was worth damaging the
9440:
Given their history I just dont agree with you on that one. T&S however wont reveal that information so its a pointless dispute. What is relevant is that editors above are trying to claim that this is a result of long terms actions on the part of Fram. And arguing on the one hand that its a
8187:
is the most effective way of showing that, I'll leave up to debate). So I don't think Fram should be required (based on what I know of the publicly available evidence, at least) to self impose an interaction ban / clean up his act, especially if that interaction ban leads to the other editor(s)
7919:
WMF's actions are a healthy intervention against an overly-cosy clique of senior editors, interested only in pursuing personal projects and who now barely engage in editing of the encyclopedia, and who chase away new editors by vindictive application of the rules against them whilst essentially
5904:
This way forward opens the option of something good coming out of this: a shared view of goals between wikipedia editors and the foundation, a shared array of methods of achieving those goals, and clarity on who fulfils which roles. It also brings back the sense that there are people behind the
4140:
The Office terminates Fram's ban. We don't argue any more about whether it was right or wrong, legitimate or outrageous, although everyone can maintain their individual feelings about that. But the ban is just terminated as of now, on the grounds that (1) it seems to remain counterproductive to
1323:
Well I pinged him before you posted this and offered same. I have no fucks to give and lets see if he likes me more ;) In more seriousness, I am concerned that the WMF has enacted a wiki-specific limited-time ban, which indicates two things: Firstly its a local en-wp issue, possibly linked to a
1171:
with a long an prolific history of productive editing. Any office action against them was always going to be controversial; so why wait to post a statement at all? I see that the de.wiki bans were also to a single wikimedia project; but I haven't enough German to find any subsequent discussion.
949:
This priority will focus on deeper evolutions to the core product — integrating content from Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource and other projects into Knowledge. This will be accompanied by rich authoring tools and content creation mechanisms for editors that build upon new capabilities in AI-based
14329:
Okay, she was not intending to criticize the article. She just so happened to be using it as an example to make a general criticism about media and Twitter culture. Nothing even to do with Knowledge. Pay no attention to the fact that the article's about her, or to the fact that she called it a
12132:
I've been contributing to Knowledge for over 16 years, & there have been times when I've drifted away & seriously considered finding another hobby, but I come back because I basically believed in Knowledge's mission -- making information free for everyone -- despite that writing useful
9796:
counterproductive to this, in that they banned them without giving any real notice beforehand (it was mentioned in minutes in a conference call OR took), nor giving a justification as to why the ban is project- and time-limited as opposed to a global ban. It should come as no surprise that the
9585:
the vitriol directed at Laura is not only "quite unpleasant", it is also exactly the sort of thing WMF are talking about when they made their decision to repatriate some powers to block users for abuse. There should be action taken against people who have hounded her during this saga, based on
9137:
The approach I think would be most effective -- which would've been best at the outset of this case -- is premised on the idea that this isn't actually just about the LH diffs and the diff directed at arbcom that Fram supplied (that those were tipping points but it was more about a longer-term
8780:
Wait, what? "I don't believe you" was a typo, I meant "I don't blame you". But that said, "overwhelming community condemnation" was quite obviously and unequivocally the response to wording of the Arbcom circular. I don't recall a single person speaking up in favor of it. Virtually 100% of the
7356:
The first bullet point itself is ludicrous. There is no real reason why the Office should unban Fram. If Fram were ever to receive the "clean up your act" message, that would have happened years ago. Their statement on Commons, "of course it is rather hard for me to avoid " doesn't inspire any
6765:
I think that it misses the real point to say that the community should either: (1) say "please sir, can I have some more?" or (2) go fork ourselves. If there's anything that WMF should care about, it's the crowdsourcing framework of all WMF projects. As such, it's entirely appropriate that the
6655:
While clarification is needed on the roles of enforcing civility, the fact of the matter is that behavior is addressed in the Terms of Use and within the purview of the foundation to step in if the community has failed to address repeated problems. One would hope that clearly defined roles and
6559:
outlines the problems better than I could here. If the community thinks the existing system should have been allowed to run its course, too late now. Perhaps an alternative would be to allow ArbCom to review evidence “under seal,” at least what they can legally be permitted to access, and then
3642:
On questions on better communications of office action procedures: Going forward, news of all substantive changes to the office actions policy will be going out to all communities; just like technical changes already do. T&S will work with ComRel to make sure it follows the usual setup and
12775:
It's funny because you think being a public figure gives you any more right to go after other people. At any rate, she can say what she wants on her own social media account any more than you can. If we're holding people accountable for what they say on Twitter now, I suggest we talk to those
2384:
its just part of an injected cancer that's spreading into and around every single aspect and segment of humanity. Its actually trite to call it "evil"; I'd call it an aggressive and global and terminal attack upon every speck of potential goodness that rests within our collective human spirit.
14411:
It's an apology that really isn't, as it is not directed at anyone and it doesn't say what it is for. It's actually worse than the WIR apology, which apologized to the empty air, rather than to Fram, for implying "crimes" on the grounds that it was imprecise. I must say I am impressed by the
950:
content generation, structured data, and rich media to augment the article format with new, dynamic knowledge experiences. New form factors will come to life here as the outcomes of earlier experimentation. We will showcase these developments in a launch for Knowledge’s 20th birthday in 2021.
14334:
would have directly referenced it. Perhaps it wasn't the wisest tweet, but that's Twitter, you guys get that, right? Anyway, I'm glad we're all forgiven for the misunderstanding. I really feel like this has been a come together moment. On that note, she really appreciates us holding the WMF
7623:
disclose them in this case without putting itself in legal jeopardy. Finally, the first few points of this resolution all assume that whatever private evidence exists fails to justify Fram's ban, which we don't know. What we need is a system to evaluate (and, yes, accept appeals for) such
7159:
I can't agree with points 1 and 2, which basically gives Fram a slap over the wrist (I'm AGFing here that the T&S team acted on a serious and legitimate concern, as they don't have a history of doing otherwise, and the claims they targeted Fram for being a trouble maker for the WMF lack
6904:
basis after off-wiki warnings. WMF clearly believes this community has failed to get to grips with certain behavioural issues amongst certain long-established editors or admins (that possibly we ourselves wouldn't tolerate coming from new editors?). It seems unreasonable to propose complete
6508:
This doesn't sound realistic to me. I'm sure that the Trust and Safety team had good reasons for banning Fram, and I have no reason to think a long, angry discussion between editors who don't know the situation constitutes a reason to overturn that ban. I also don't think it's realistic (or
6135:
which show a surreal level of straw men and evidence fabrication against Fram: a post where he said writing the n-word is unacceptable was labeled a racial slur! (I hope I dreamed that.) By this token, soon whoever says "Wiki Loves Pride" on the wiki will be instantly banned for homophobia.
2012:
of them has to be a reasonable human being that we can actually communicate with? I find it hard to believe that "Trust" & Safety has no problem (further) decimating community relations without any attempt at damage control. Then again, WMF never fails to disappoint in these situations.
9190:
I appreciate the thought that went into this proposal, but it goes a touch too far for me. Obviously, a large number of people here believe Fram to be completely innocent, but the fact is that the community does not have the ability to make that judgement, and given the presence of private
3672:
There have been suggestions that T&S should have piloted the newer office action measures first before proceeding with a potentially controversial case like Fram’s. I don’t agree with that as I think that bending the selection of cases to cherry-pick a good “starter” case endangers the
6935:
But I do absolutely endorse the need for a better dialog between WMF's T&S Team, ArbComm and the community (so that we can properly appreciate and act on their intended message, especially if they believe we are 'institutionally failing' in some parts of our editing or admin culture).
3664:
As far as the ability for others to avoid making mistakes and finding themselves unexpectedly sanctioned, unfortunately, we cannot publicly disclose details of this or any particular case, for all the reasons previously discussed. This means that, as much as we understand your wanting the
2611:
spending my free time: that's editing Knowledge until resolution of this incursion by San Francisco on behalf of a well-connected power player over the head of the community's established discipline procedures. The lame semi-punt to ArbCom is not enough, the ban should be ended forthwith.
8578:
Okay. I read it all. It doesn't claim or imply that that clause of the ToU was actually breached. Go back and look, it literally doesn't even imply that Fram was outside the ToU. Actually, no where, from what I see, and no one, has tried to argue that point. The Foundation cited "abusive
10079:
I think that was a well-written and reasonable summary. That's quite a pleasant surprise; journalism about Knowledge is not always the greatest. Of course, if the media attention keeps up, just imagine how things will get when we find ourselves actually writing an article about FRAMBAN.
4724:
to engage in meaningful dialog falls short. Trust and Safety is a very serious role for an organization to undertake. A company with $ 100+ million in annual revenue has no business staffing such a department with amateurs. Thank you NYB for trying to turn this in a positive direction.-
3113:
In those board discussions, I am stating my own views directly and clearly, but it would be inappropriate to share them here and now, because as we all know, there are those who like to engage in "Jimbo said" argumentation, which doesn't clear the air but instead often only creates more
12083:
That seems the only way that this drama will have to shake out, as the concept of putting the encyclopedia first guides well. I think today's events have moved the dial towards unification of purpose and the probable solutions to this energized crisis, no matter how it looks right now.
14607:, actually the Breitbart piece contains a very interesting clue to all of this. It appears Fram violated their WMF imposed IBAN on May 8, which leads me to assume the WMF saw it and banned for that violation (or someone brought it up to them), not any of the other possible complaints.
8433:
then allow another body to overturn that action without having the full evidence, I think that may open them up to liability. (It's worth noting that the WMF's existing procedures/policies prevent them from disclosing the reporter even to ArbCom. That confidentiality may have been the
8320:
others. At any rate, the rest of it reads as "everyone gets a slap on the wrist and let's discuss terms of use more", which isn't the problem. Civility is the problem on this website, which is why T&S stepped in. If you don't handle civility on the website, then they will again. —
3499:"This decision has come following extensive review of your conduct on that project and is an escalation to the Foundation’s past efforts to encourage course correction, including a conduct warning issued to you on April 2018 and a conduct warning reminder issued to you on March 2019. "
461:
have had some indication prior to it happening, like a community discussion about bad behavior or abuse of tools which would reveal PII (os, cu), but Fram was neither of those. I can't seem to think of a single thing that would warrant such unilateral action that could also result in
14509:
It's interesting that, in her statement above, Maher says the following: "Even if I’ve not been vocal here on my talk page or on other discussions, I’ve been closely monitoring what’s been going on here on en-wiki, and will continue to do so" - dated 28 June. Though she didn't state
11070:
See, the Maher tweet is not telling us anything new. I thought it was already clear from the previous statements that the WMF has considerable disdain for Knowledge editors and views us as subhuman (I wanted to use the proper German term but that would lead to Godwin being invoked).
4629:. In my opinion, this focusses too much on the individual case, not on the general relationship between the foundation and the communities. But it might rebuild some bridges and de-escalate the situation to allow for a constructive dialogue. Thanks for a useful contribution, Brad! --
3630:
For historical context: T&S cases historically used to come mainly from the English language projects but that has steadily declined to less than a third of cases (again Q1 and 2 18/19 data). The main cause for the trend has been a consistent rise in requests from other language
3797:
As to fairness, this is a word-by-word repetition of the last statement. What I first saw as an offer for discussion seems to be hollow phrase. I intend to open an RfC at Meta but wanted to wait in the hope that something relevant comes up from the side of T&S. This is not so.
411:
I suspect this isn't going anywhere further but for the benefit of others I had a quick look at machine translations of one of the discussions linked and think that possibly the account linked above was just one of the accounts the editor used which may explain the low edit count.
2979:"I continue to advise calm and slow movement. Further wheel warring will not be productive and will only tend to escalate matters further. I am recommending the same to WMF, as is Doc James. We are discussing the situation with them in the hopes of finding the right way forward.--
1408:
Not to mention that "disappearing" someone like Fram is going to cause a shitstorm, unlike the Great Purge, where you just purged those causing the shitstorm too. I'm afraid to say, and Arbcom may now ban me forever, but this looks like incompetence of the highest order by WMF.
2373:
of the widespread crackdowns on freedom of speech, thought, and press (Assange, perhaps); wherever they might be, the foundation of our freedoms will be washed away 1 little stone at a time. To quote Dylan, "something is happening here but you don't know what it is, Do you, Mr.
1300:(where he's not banned) if he wants to make any public statement, and offered to cut-and-paste it across if he does. Technically that would be proxying for a banned editor, but I very much doubt the WMF wants the shit mountain banning Fram and me in the same week would cause. ‑
4313:
If behavior is inappropriate, WMFOffice should bring it and evidence to the appropriate board immediately (such as ArbCom). The undoing of the ban need not be instantaneous if exigent circumstances are present (such as a death threat and WMF is working with local authorities).
3626:
Within these ~10% that become investigations, T&S cases resulted in actions in 48.18% of all investigations conducted over the last four years. That number includes both types of office actions: secondary like a private conduct warnings, and primary, like Foundation global
2252:" camp - I cannot wrap my head around how or even why a veteran admin such as Fram was blocked by the WMFOffice.... I also find it slightly bizarre that the block only goes on for a year and not indef ? (Not that I want it indef but I just find it odd and somewhat pointless). –
8457:"Confidentially prevents WMF from sharing details with ArbCom", if true, with "violated the ToS", is the minimal sufficient statement I would ask them to give. Have they said that? If they say that, then the Fram ban comes of the table for the purpose of this discussion. --
3793:
simply want to continue as before. Everything relevant remains a secret, regardless whether this is necessary or not. No one, literally no one is able to get insight, not even ArbCom or a trustworthy representative. Even the "accused" remains uninformed. Appeal is impossible.
14454:
the rest of us have been so upset about, and that they really are trying to get that message across to WMF. So I want to say that it's not ArbCom's fault that we have gotten so little in the way of adequate responses from WMF. The fault rests squarely with WMF themselves. --
3638:
I know some of you have expressed concerns about the new reporting system and the universal code of conduct here and on ArbCom’s talk page. T&S staffer Sydney Poore, who has been pinged by several editors already, will be engaging directly about these initiatives in the
1338:
To expand a little on the above: I want the WMF to ban editors permanently if there is a *safety* issue. I dont want them interfering in local wikis because someone got their feelings hurt. If they want to do that, they can do the rest of the work policing the userbase too.
4148:
Fram also quasi-voluntarily agrees to improve his decorum a little bit. It may only be a surface issue, but there really are better ways to say "I disagree with ArbCom's action" than "Fuck you, ArbCom" (and I would say that even if I hadn't been a long-time ArbCom member
9145:
not atypical to see older diffs dismissed or limited consideration to particular types of behavior). ArbCom cases are reasonably well equipped to handle lots of diffs and lots of evidence, on-wiki and off. This has been articulated better by others already, of course. —
5612:
I am not perfectly happy with item 1, but maybe I missed something in the last few days and the WMF has been in contact with ArbCom to let them handle the ban ("take over" if there really is meat on that unidentified bone), and we have to start somewhere. Thank you NYB.
7002:
That makes sense if you operate from the principle that the WMF is the sole authority and that their word is automatically law. But from my vantage point, it is not a compromise for long-term encyclopedia-builders like Bish and Floq to not be banned. It's common sense.
5166:
I'd also like to see an assurance from the WMF that they have cleaned their act up to at least our standards, and that the WMF will no longer stand by staff who make personal attacks, on IRC or elsewhere. It would be nice if they also assured us that they had forgotten
9586:
unproven allegations that she was involved in the banning of Fram, because by no stretch of the imagination is it acceptable. You and I, and the majority of Wikipedians don't act this way, and it's expressly against policy, so why should we tolerate those who do? —
8315:
can have "consensus" to do anything here like unblocking Fram's account (even though he still can't edit en.wiki) but it's still the Foundation who gets to decide because they hold the technical access to enforce their decisions at the end of the day. Unless you can
14355:-ish. When I make a mistake I own it but there is precious little owning here and if indeed we have misinterpreted the intent then perhaps that indicates the ED as being someone who is not fit to hold a post for which communication skills surely are a prequisite. -
9735:
The WMF don't need to compromise at all, so choosing between revealing who the people are to Fram, and revealing who the people are to Fram and others, isn't a choice that they need to make. They can work out their own solution, or enforce this one, or walk away. -
9367:
Agree on the first aspect. But, to be mild, d/dt(Laura's learning curve) was too negligible. Mis-use of sources, incoherent paragraphs, weird synthesis, writing unsourced stuff ..... And I went through only a few of his crrations. Sometimes, we need to realise that
6560:
prepare a statement (perhaps with majority and minority opinions) for the community expressing whether they concur with the ban or if they recommend another solution. “Tell Fram to be nicer” is not going to cut it; if it had, he would have toned it down long ago.
4043:
explains the function of specialized noticeboards (page 9). In the initial "warnings" to Fram (not sure whether I'm using the correct term), I'm wondering whether anyone on your team considered suggesting s/he report issues with users to relevant noticeboards (i.e,
1478:, given that it only affects en-wiki it must relate to en-wiki. I no longer have Magic Oversight Goggles, but can see nothing remotely problematic in Fram's contributions or deleted contributions in the past month; is there anything in the contributions of Fram (or
8755:"Overwhelming community condemnation"? This is just false, and a personal attack. Nice. I resigned from the Arbitration Committee for a variety of reasons, none of which included pressure from the community. Moreover, you are demonstrating plainly that you fail to
4144:
If there is a specific editor or two with whom the Office believes Fram was interacting problematically, Fram quasi-voluntarily agrees, without admitting any wrongdoing, to stay away from that editor(s). The editor's or editors' name(s) do not need to be disclosed
14573:
T. D. Adler edited Knowledge as The Devil’s Advocate. He was banned after privately reporting conflict of interest editing by one of the site’s administrators. Due to previous witch-hunts led by mainstream Wikipedians against their critics, Adler writes under an
9751:
accuser is protected. As much as I hate the way Universities define harassment (like I said earlier), at least they keep the names of both individuals secret. I don't know why Wikimedia couldn't have come up with something less arduous than a yearly ban, anyway.
7624:
privileged evidence without disclosing it publically and without keeping the entire process inside the silo of T&S, ensuring at least some degree of community involvement by allowing us to appoint trusted representitives ala ArbCom - I doubt everyone will be
13226:
Even when I disagree with “the community” - which is a monolith misnomer, not least because one thing I love about Wikimedia is a room full of 10 Wikipedians usually has 20 opinions - I always respect that we each person brings their opinion earnestly and with
9351:
I don't believe Laura Hale has had anything directly to do with this and the vitriol directed at her is quite unpleasant. If a bunch of people shouted at you, "your work sucks, don't let the door hit you on the way out", would you ever want to contribute again?
13481:
It may be relative, if we all wrote to her (who are participating here) what percentage of Wikipedians would that be? If it is over 100,000 this would be less the 1% (of 1%), by any stretch of the imagination that is "very few" people who actually care or have
13847:
her about this issue three days ago. She might claim that in the crush of emails she (presumably) receives she had missed seeing them, but (presumably) her subordinates did update her that there was some serious pushback on en.wikipedia about this matter. --
1611:
Yes yes, I emailed them hours ago. Nothing at all, of course. I do wonder how much thought went into this on behalf of WMF. Perhaps the UK government have paid them to create some kind distraction from Brexit? It's probably the only rational explanation.
5566:), that might be an ask too far. So let's at least undo the damage the WMF have done, and then we can move on, but with a much more cautious eye on WMF, their behaviour and the various inter-relations in an attempt to avoid more such community devastation.
2368:
This is a cancer, not an injury. I hope the community looks at this issue in the context of epidemic crackdowns on freedom of speech throughout our world by millions of bureaucratic fiefdoms, big and little. You see, unless we all start paying attention to
819:
and asked for an explanation. I would suggest that perhaps other people might want to do the same. I imagine that T&S has valid reasons, but I believe that some sort of summary explanation to the community, at a minimum, is called for in this case.
14412:
competence of WMF and in particular Katherine, and possibly Legal. When I, in the course of my legal practice, have written a blow-off letter, I was never successful in making it half as long as this one. It takes talent to say nothing in so many words.--
7259:
The issue is, and has always been, about the relationship between Knowledge editors' elected governing body, the Arbitration Committee, and the Foundation. I'm glad to see some Committee members rising to that occasion. The position the Committee takes
13496:
So no-one should do anything, Slatersteven? Not sure what your point is but the issue of an alleged silent majority has been raised here before and one outcome of that was an influx of previously silent people acknowledging that they have concerns. -
12972:
of Minimum Prosecutable Units without details or context being sprayed back and forth in conversations you can't follow or figure out. Knowledge has Talk Pages, it has a mailing list, it has Bugzilla -- why the hell are we finding out that all the
12799:
is thoroughly, deliberately disingenuous. We are holding the head of the WMF for what she says on her Twitter account, where she posts as WMF head, for statements she makes about Knowledge. Your counter here is intellectually dishonest dissembling.
3005:
Remember that there is no emergency here - the phrase "important but not urgent" fits very well - getting this right and fixing this situation is incredibly important, but it doesn't have to happen in 4 hours (and it also, of course, shouldn't take
2317:
Guido is already confirmed as a sockpuppeteer, many times in fact, so that's no news. Also confirmed as lying about their socking. Blocked, unblocked and quickly reblocked. And if I was wrong about Lyrda, they would have no reason not to deny it. -
2581:
This is the most vague statement/response I have ever seen. WMF has mostly described the policies like when, and they can block/ban some individual (not one account by the way ), but they still have not adequately explained why did they ban Fram.
202:
9441:
result of long term interaction issues onwiki while trying to exclude editors involved in that time period, despite that they are the cause of one of the few direct interactions between Fram and the T&S team, is being deliberately deceptive.
8476:
get the project in legal trouble; Fram has been doing the dirty work of cleaning it up (it's a fight no one else wants to fight), so preventing a major liability mitigator from doing their work is ironically exposing the project to liability. --
12556:
I wouldn't go so far as to call for a resignation for this tweet. This is her livelihood, after all, and I don't think this was egregious enough to warrant a resignation. But we do need a full explanation, and an apology if a mistake was made.
8519:, which was certainly uncivil, but not "harassment or abuse" as is defined by the ToU clause that is supposedly being enforced. So, yes, additional explanation beyond "see the ToU" is quite obviously needed, as it doesn't even seem applicable.
3681:
on Meta and is always followed. I hope that the graphic puts the number I detail in the first bullet of this edit above into its context. ~10% go through the process visualized here and less than half thereof result in office actions taken.
1847:
Indeed, if a sufficient number of admins agree this should be reversed, WMF will be committing suicide to act against them. This will go to the press (I can guarantee that given questions I've received offwiki) and WMF will look stoopids.
2558:
Oooh, this sounds like a whole new way of getting rid of people we don't like... without going through the tedium of due process, ANI, ArbCom or anything. Just badger the WMF with complaints and, hey presto, the user is vanished. Winning!
12432:
Yep, they're gonna keep posting on Twitter to keep their donors believing that they're trying to do something, rather than actually putting out this fire. I'm this close to just saying "Let it burn." This project may need to end tonight.
3575:
To address questions about how the T&S investigations procedures work, I have asked my team to put together some public documentation that is easier to digest than the approval path table already available on Meta together early next
7937:, that's a highly bold and contentious statement from someone who has only made 3,400 edits in 12 years. You're going to need to come up with some very hard and compelling evidence if you want your vote and claims to be taken seriously.
9510:
I wouldn't expect T&S to expose their identities regardless of who filed the complaint, and, speaking as someone who has pushed the Laura theory, you're right about not revealing your sources or who the putative suspect is. But you
4036:
3651:
party for information if doing so is possible without violating the privacy of the accusing - or other involved - parties, but our efforts do remain a work in progress when it comes to finding the right balance in each individual case.
2485:
The removal of administrator access is intended as enforcement of the temporary partial Foundation ban placed on Fram. It is the community’s decision what to do with Fram’s administrator access upon the expiration of the Office Action
1597:
action . ARBCOM can handle off-wiki information, so that's even fewer possible actions that could lead to this. We should also ask ARBCOM to discuss it at their monthly chat - I suspect several requests from us would have more impact.
192:
13008:
by e-mail, whatever, to any WMF employee must be immediately answered, but then they will be all the time answering the requests and not doing their job. I think by this time we have enough evidence that Katherine Maher is aware of
12270:
Yeah, I don't see her coming out and saying "You got me, it was referring to the Buzzfeed article". But if she doesn't come out with an explicit denial within 24 hours, or deletes the tweet, I think we can draw our own conclusions.
8188:
resuming their poor encyclopedic behaviour or Knowledge institutions failing to hear that something is unacceptable when it is unacceptable. That said, that doesn't mean I'm not in favour of Fram generally improving their behavior (
8243:, not the other way around. Yes, there needs to be dialog between the community and T&S, as well as between ArbCom and T&S. But a lot of that is already being initiated, and the proof will be in the proverbial pudding. WMF
3676:
There have been questions about the investigation process itself. As indicated on Friday above, my team has built a graphic to visualize the overall process to make it easier to navigate. Traditionally, it has been documented as a
13642:- it's true that the 460 editors who have weighed in here are only small subset of the community. But, how many singular issues in the community can even generate a response from 460 editors? According to Newyorkbrad, we have now
7796:
We can't actually force an ultimatum on the Foundation. Clearly the vast majority of the community would like something like this as a solution, but it's been clear for weeks that we are not going to get it by !voting on it here.
2333:
I don't understand this by the way. If Fram has done something terrible and unforgivable, they should be blocked indef. If they didn't, WMF should let the community handle it. What possible purpose does a 1-year ban serve here? -
13466:
When we've had ArbCom in telephone meeting with the WMF, and we've had Jimmy Wales and Doc James working on this as board members (and having had a meeting covering it), it's hardly our fault if the ED isn't getting the message.
12543:
heal the deep wounds that have been created in the community and in the public eye. His call for the board's resignation would be a plus as well. Though Jimbo can stay. He retweeted the article, rather than attacking the author.
9067:
Unfortunately I disagree with 3/5's of the proposal - however since the oppose section above appears to be made of people who are opposing any resolution because they have issues with Fram I am sticking my response here instead.
6176:
Knowledge editors who were liked by Jimbo), and the ban decisions are completely non-transparent. So we can only assume that bad information was used, until proven otherwise by a transparent report on how the decision was taken.
207:
197:
672:
14494:
I didn't have any particular comments about ArbCom in mind. Indeed, at this point I can hardly even keep track of who has said what. So I wasn't so much criticizing any particular comments, as praising the work done by ArbCom.
4067:
not posted a series of links here there wouldn't have been a starting point. Would it be feasible to have more information available here on en.wp? Links are easy to post and easy to find, and it is, after all, a wiki. Thanks,
13827:
of Knowledge with Twitter and if you think something is a good source on ghost imaging or seventeenth-century iron smelting you can just retweet the citation -- ought to work so much better than our system of article writing!
12211:
I guess I don't know. I mean, I have a Twitter account (with an easily guessable handle) but I rarely post anymore. I don't really get all the nuances of this subtweeting thing. It doesn't read to me like an explicit denial.
10440:
I mean, if the press are making individuals in the community feel less safe to contribute, I would think that falls within T&S's bailiwick, and merit some office action. Perhaps a press release explaining the situation.
9875:
8996:
4576:
I view any action that leads to Fram no longer being office-banned as progress, although much of this proposal accepts a level of office involvement in the community that I, and probably many other users, feel is excessive.
11893:
wow.... just... wow. Have those at WMF gone on a "How to piss off your volunteers" course? Between that, the Gamergate accusation and the heavy-handed power grab, they seem to be making such a ham-fisted mess of absolutely
9889:
4031:
If it's within your purview can you tell us whether the OFFICE action and override of local governance was necessary to protect the community? A simple yes of no is fine, or simply indicate if you're unwilling or unable to
14350:
The reply makes no sense to me: lots of being "kind" and corporate twaddle but little substance that gels with any logical reading of the tweets. It seems to be an attempt to square a circle, and perhaps even a little bit
8868:
is our lever, not whether we "own" the website or who can turn it off if they want to. People really don't appear to be understanding this, which is as much a part of the real worl as who possesses the keys to the place.
8959:
to morality and politics, is not 'realist' - proceeding only after carefully assaying whether one has sufficient support or not. The crux was illustrated by Antigones' clash with Creon,-her stance is echoed in Luther's
2278:
contains the note "I have revoked your talk page access after phony claims of rape". Did they proceed to do something to get Fram banned? I can't say for sure. All I'm saying is, I don't like the smell of any of this. -
8861:
is. Gandhi had no control over the British in India, M. L. King had no control over Jim Crow laws in the South or the Federal government, what they both had, and built up more of as time went on, was moral influence.
6578:
I took the liberty of fixing an obvious typo in your link. I think it only fair to point out that the summation was authored by an editor who had been caught in a great many copyright violations by Fram over the years.
14369:
This is why WMF needs to be careful. I recalled Frams name, but could not recall form what dispute, now I know. A dispute that involved (as I recall) one of the proles getting warned for (what in effect) Fram was also
9011:
before I can support this. It would allow everyone to have their say and if the consensus is that Fram hasn't done anything terrible enough to take any long term action, then at least everyone will have had their say.
7295:. Did Fram harass and abuse people? If the T&S thinks so, I trust their judgement. The identities of his victims should be protected, especially considering the utter vitriol that has been on display on this page.
13528:
I asked you a question as to the point of your post. I didn't say you believe no-one should do anything. You're writing quite a lot of irrelevant and/or repetitive stuff here and, as is common, obfuscating matters. -
4808:. And especially when the diff given as a main reason for their ban is telling ArbCom to "fuck off". A lot of editors have said that, many times, in many different ways. We don't ban them for it. And we never should.
1019:. As Fram's sysop access removal is not recorded as "voluntary", the way I see it is that a new RfA, after the prohibition period, would be the path to regaining admin access (outside of another WMF Office action). —
14118:
to say that she is in meetings this afternoon (Pacific Time) but will take a look at her talk page after. I want a response as well, but it's not unreasonable to give her some time to attend to her meeting schedule.
12977:
is being said by various hotshots I never heard of like Women in Red and Executive Directors, out on this wasteland blogosphere medium? Exalted glitterati of Wikimedia, get back on the bus before you get run over!
8471:
What kind of liability? Assuming that Fram is truthful that there was no off-wiki harassment, there isn't really anything in his on-wiki activity that would be enough to involve the law. On the other hand, copyvios
6531:
as I don't see this as a realistic proposal, and I do not support the unauthorized revealing of private information or the reversal of a ban on the basis of objections from people who don't know the reasons for it.
4860:
for everyone to demonstrate that; roll back the drama; undo a few bad decisions; and allow the community to have a calm go at improving some things. Good effort by Newyorkbrad, and thanks for thinking it through. --
3817:
This means that T&S is willing to, in some cases, rule against someone completely in absentia. This is not an acceptable system, and T&S needs to make major modifications to it before accepting new cases.
668:
173:
168:
161:
156:
151:
13243:
I know this will sound odd, but until today, very few folks have asked me directly. I see that’s changed tonight with a number of questions on my talk page, which I’ll have to answer tomorrow - it’s past midnight
10606:
I'm almost certain it was there when I read it, between Floq's and TRM's comments at the start of this section. The Wayback Machine's 19:22:34 archive agrees. Fram declined comment; are you misremembering that?
7869:, which for some reason is in a hidden archive?? I say it is high time the foundation stepped in and did something. If people want to strike or leave over this I say, that is your right and I'll wave as you leave.
642:
528:
know what's going on, but I do want ArbCom informed of what is going on and get their public assurance that they agree with the action, and this isn't bullshit. They even preemptively removed talk page access. --
144:
139:
134:
127:
122:
117:
110:
105:
100:
9817:
You assume they care. They plainly believe that imposing this on the community is worth whatever heat it generates. I doubt the metrics we saw cited in the Board minutes have shifted much if at all. The rest is
5476:- an ArbCom case is probably a good idea but is not a condition on my part (I don't think it's likely that one would not be filed). Encouraging actual communication and actual respect for the people involved on
4782:) 22:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Clarification: all I'm supporting here is the effort to work out a temporary truce. It's hard to keep up with everything. I'll come back to this after we hear from the Board. - Dank (
11912:
Ha. This just gets more and more bizarre. She won't even try to justify the office action that shattered the project's stability far more than Fram ever could, but when the press inevitably runs the story, she
10559:
of those TOS labels. I hope the relevant parties have contacted WMF to request litigation holds of all relevant records. This is incoherent enough that I can see this situation becoming very ugly very quickly.
282:
ban without discussion, I find it hard to imagine problems that are simultaneously so bad they warrant an emergency ban without discussion but simultaneously so unproblematic that the ban will auto-expire in a
8141:
Please don't chastise me about policy, meaningless wording is concerning in a proposal the community has to endorse and I removed it for that sole reason. I personally don't care about being reverted so, meh.
7344:
7329:
7315:
4152:
The community hopefully accepts that even if this one was mishandled, Trust and Safety actions are generally taken with good intentions, and that there is a reason many of them can't be publicly discussed. As
1151:
187:
2203:
Based on my interactions and what I've observed on-wiki, it's easy for me see multiple people sending complaints to the WMF - just because those people aren't speaking up here, doesn't mean they don't exist.
12635:
I'm OK with getting up a collection to send Jimmy and the three board members who supposedly represent the community a matched set of second-hand fiddles with a request for their resignation burned into the
10059:'s comment at the Fram case, that there is nothing further to be done by ArbCom on the affair; therefore, wrongly or rightly, WMF will reserve the right to conduct their own civility actions in the future.
7409:
This kind of remedy has been floating around Knowledge's dispute resolution processes since time immemorial, and it's not effective. If this sort of action is what it takes to get the message through, I say
5778:. I think that applies here. This is a good start. It may have to be tweaked along the way, there may be stumbling blocks, but it's a hell of a lot better than doing nothing and the best proposal we've got.
4508:(if I may, as I'm mainly active in German-language Knowledge and on Commons, so I don't feel wholly part of English-language Knowledge's community - although my first edits were made here, back in 2003 :-) )
3046:" This is not about individual people, this is a question about our constitutional order. This is not about this specific situation, but a much more important and broader question about project governance.--
10759:
I think they were just misusing "Knowledge" to mean "English Knowledge", which is fairly common even on here, especially when talking about policies or precedent that is actually only applicable to enwiki.
3855:
Is there a provision for asking the notifier if they wish ArbCom to be involved, or is it assumed that they do not? If it is assumed they do not, what was the data and rationale behind making that decision?
831:
810:
14434:" (~1am EST 5/29) I have no idea where she tried, or what she has planned this afternoon (or what time zone she is in for "afternoon"). I haven't seen anything, but will reserve judgement for 24 hours.
9460:
made the right call in withholding who made the complaint. I'm still really not sure T&S had the moral authority to make that call over the community, and I'm still not sure it doesn't involve putting
7748:
means; I guess it's just more evasive trolling like at that recent ANI thread (or that other, current, ANI thread) or on your talk page. So I guess it probably be better to just not feed into it any more.
3714:
of requests (only percentage). If you are authorized to make that statistic public, please do so and be sure to ping me. Either way, thank you for this response and the infographic from the team. Regards,
13235:
So, in short - I regret tweeting something that members of our community felt was directed st them, and disrespectful to their efforts, contributions, or perspectives. That certainly was not my intention.
2346:
That ban took place while I was on a wikibreak. I never see anything controversial that involves Fram at all. Looking at the statements, I don't see what rules Fram has violated or caused controversy on.
13210:
The part two years have been electrified on various issues. There’s a rich tradition of crappy thinkpieces out there, and I live in the Bay Area, which is full of bad takes on gender, income, and equity.
9840:
I would hope that T&S would make the same commitment that our administrators have made to give me warning and allow me to stop doing what I am doing. My clean block record is very important to me. --
9134:
provided, but only a handful, and they came from Fram, not from T&S. Those diffs shaped the narrative, and makes the conversation about whether those diffs merited action. That's not a good place to
7533:
In that case... mistakes happen, get over it. Personally, I have done more than twice the amount of time Fram is being asked to serve for nothing more than posting authorship information and asking if
4328:
Addendum: It would also be acceptable to keep a ban in place on all en.wiki activities until such time as an ArbCom case is resolved (consider this the equivalent of house arrest while the case is heard
3787:
2509:
So does that mean you have determined that the ENWP's community failed to uphold its own rules or the TOU in relation to Fram, despite no actual case, action or report being raised against Fram on ENWP?
1386:
1278:
1209:
771:
522:
2397:
2363:
1439:
686:
658:
13663:
13308:
13285:
12283:
12224:
12206:
9404:
9385:
9060:
8636:
Okay, so you believe the WMF without any question, evidence, or explanation. I really don't believe the same thing. You resigned from Arbcom in the face of overwhelming community condemnation. I don't
7039:
T&S make a commitment not to release details to the person accused of harassment. You can't then ask then to tell that person who complained, even if couched in the terms of "stay away from...". -
5757:. Like before, this was not an emergency, this could have been resolved through communication. I've absolutely no trust in anyone who resorts to wheel-warring without even attempting to communicate. --
3381:
2877:" Both Doc James and I are on the case, trying to understand what happened here, and the ArbCom is discussing it as well. Drama will not be necessary, but more importantly, drama will not be helpful.--
2338:
2283:
2146:
1606:
1182:
780:
537:
391:
13039:
10815:
4077:
1710:
1577:
1044:
880:
478:
351:
326:
287:
12265:
9108:
but still boils down to T&S backing down and Fram making non-binding assurances that he'll take criticism on board. If everything else wasn't persuasive, I don't see why one more !vote would be.
8721:
8701:
2265:
1263:
12403:
12373:
9425:
I mean that I don't believe Laura Hale has directly complained to T&S about Fram, or at least not recently enough in the last 18 months which is the timeframe that seems to be under discussion.
9270:
8928:
4161:." Most of them come from the Knowledge communities, many from this community. They're not perfect, but they didn't accept jobs at the Foundation for the purpose of perpetrating a hostile takeover.
3807:
2194:
2180:
1985:
1025:
11716:
9007:, and that many people have criticised the WMF getting involved and overriding the community / Arbcom with no possible appeal, rather than Fram's actual conduct, I would like to see a guarantee of
4004:
3827:
3769:
2216:
2162:
1348:
1333:
1292:
1226:
14128:
12959:
12934:
12901:
11823:
11800:
11786:
11748:- do whatever you want. I merely wanted you to be informed. Maybe I should have pinged you after I found the list of people who publicly liked the tweet (this is public info on Twitter) including
11736:
11645:
9323:
8897:
13615:
hasn’t told her, it reflects poorly on the internal communication at the WMF, or strengthens the point that the WMF sees this as so inconsequential that they don’t need to inform the management.
13476:
10175:
9961:
9306:
7397:
3882:
3504:
2021:
1857:
1621:
1163:
845:
700:
14523:
13678:
13576:
13442:
13428:
13398:
12511:
11556:
11538:
11462:
10935:
10550:
4096:
2062:
2048:
1418:
1318:
1133:
985:
749:
14593:
13002:
12787:
12766:
12728:
12704:
12667:
11688:
11586:
11515:
11219:
11201:
6959:. I also agree that since this was done in such as way that caused a huge problem for relations between en.Wiki and the T&S team that further communication is necessary to repair the rift.
6617:
3969:
3623:
redirected - including to OTRS, ArbCom, other community processes. Last quarter, for example, the percent of T&S cases opened relative to outreach received was 8.1%, the quarter before 11%.
2322:
2308:
14260:
14200:
14054:
13720:
12427:
12184:
12009:
11664:
11377:
10715:
9984:
8277:
6804:
4165:
and certainly were not expected to culminate in this type of action. WMF, if you didn't before, you have our attention now. What are you trying to do, and how do you plan to go about doing it?
4018:
3691:
2099:
863:
14421:
14402:
14244:
14033:
13326:
12855:
12836:
12809:
12047:
12029:
11394:
10996:
10307:
10284:
10197:
10137:
9450:
9435:
9420:
9181:
8992:
2568:
1678:
1403:
1304:
1244:
14105:
13461:
12485:
12330:
12127:
11907:
11445:
11431:
11347:
11329:
11275:
11171:
11157:
10981:
10831:
10578:
10533:
10358:
10344:
10275:
9535:
8497:
7380:
6719:
6184:
6170:
3730:
3309:
3292:
3276:
3259:
3242:
3225:
3208:
3191:
3174:
3157:
3140:
3123:
3103:
3086:
3055:
3038:
3019:
2988:
2971:
2954:
2937:
2920:
2903:
2886:
2595:
2519:
1531:
1503:
1486:
663:
Office has full-protected Fram's TP in the midst of this discussion; it is hard to believe they do not know it's going on, but certainly easier to believe that they feel they can ignore it.
13802:
13139:
13106:
13088:
12645:
12142:
10842:
10696:
10435:
10417:
10396:
10232:
10074:
9827:
9696:
9678:
9492:
8948:
8878:
8849:
7012:
6779:
5506:
whose institutional memory will recall at least one instance when the community desysoped a foul-mouthed contractor who all but killed off the efforts to improve NPP and introduce ACTRIAL (
3697:
2239:
1958:
1646:
1589:
1468:
1453:
915:
794:
614:
551:
13777:
13758:
13737:
13491:
13021:
11876:
11846:
11365:
11127:
11021:
10788:
10769:
10750:
10086:
8266:
A fair assessment, and if they come out of the board meeting with something that throws more fuel on the fire it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect this option to be taken off the table. —
7763:
7737:
7723:
7698:
7683:
4602:
4591:
A fair assessment, and if they come out of the board meeting with something that throws more fuel on the fire it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect this option to be taken off the table. —
3560:
3461:
2553:
2474:
1739:
1719:
1663:
1251:
Every block needs to be given a reasonable explanation. Without an explanation, we cannot know if a block is valid or not. This entire situation is suspect until an explanation is given. ―
891:
14616:
14504:
14489:
14446:
14281:
14086:
14072:
13696:
12575:
12535:
12160:
11933:
11099:
10963:
10954:
10730:
10321:
9908:, close down the central place where people still want to talk about this and watch as dozens of discussions on dozens of pages are started. We still don't know how this will play out. --
9812:
8136:
7568:
below, about the concerns WM Belgium has had with T&S, is enough that I'd say that anything short of a full audit of the WMF, and T&S in particular, is going to be insufficient.
6760:
6746:
6698:
3931:
2085:
1585:, I was thinking something similar but that seems unlikely, as stewards have indicated that the ban was justified, and the wmfoffice account doesn't seem compromised, based on its edits.
1444:
I can not recall a single instance an explanation was given in the case of WMF ban (and being active on Commons, I have seen them a lot). I do not expect this situation to be different.--
406:
305:
14379:
14230:
13742:
If I may note what follows, I'd rather the conversation be here on-wiki, too. I have significant concerns regarding the usage of off-wiki sources to handle on-wiki matters in this case.
13553:
13538:
13523:
13506:
13372:
12599:
12451:
12307:
12247:
12093:
12074:
11497:
10475:
10459:
10376:
10119:
7473:
5089:- Whether Fram's activity on the English Knowledge warrants action is something that needs to be address by the appropriate channels. WMF overstepped in attempting to circumvent that. -
3948:
2869:
2185:
I'm a software engineer with a part-time contract with the WMF (technically not an employee), though I've been a Wikipedian for much longer, and it's in that role that I'm writing here.
1971:
1078:
506:
443:
421:
14650:
14633:
14463:
14141:
14019:
13995:
13960:
13932:
13837:
12987:
11318:
11300:
10312:
Article-writing would be a nightmare - almost every editor who's participated in this discussion would have a COI! It might have to be an article written by the newcomers to Knowledge.
10104:
9662:
9362:
8976:
8466:
8448:
8416:
8387:
7920:
exempting themselves from those same rules. I think the Daily Mail ban was a classic example of this kind of behaviour and brought a lot of bad publicity down on the Knowledge project.
6431:, this whole situation seems to have been mishandled phenominally, and this is the only way that I can see forwrd without continuing to drive a wedge between the WMF and the community.
5072:
that's some kind of magic bullet. Yeah, we know about the Terms of Use, and we still aren't going to let ham-handed actions from the WMF go unchallenged. That should be obvious by now.
1842:
1786:
1754:
717:
13624:
12364:
otherwise signal-boosting your boss's or organization's social media is part of the expectations of the job, so please don't be tempted to draw undue conclusions about other editors.)
12056:
If we consider WMF execs and the like to be part of "each other" we're really doomed. There's a damn good reason execs and management aren't given a vote when a workplace unionizes. —/
11044:
10673:
10601:
10482:
The news article talks about Wikipediocracy, an almost moribund site (though it links to some others), as if it were a major forum. But if the WMF keeps this up, these sites will not
10024:
10001:
9849:
9787:
9772:
8735:
8376:
The WMF has already said Fram violated the Terms of Use section that prohibits "harassing and/or abusing others". What more do you want than that, if you're not looking for details? ~
8026:
8012:
6603:
6588:
4800:
issues are not as serious as those I've just mentioned. Who is the first target on enwiki? Someone who has been a serious (and usually accurate) critic of the WMF. Whether or not that
3477:
I have not discussed anyone I was in conflict with in any offwiki way (e.g. I have not contacted employers, I haven't discussed editors or articles at fora, twitter, reddit, whatever).
2621:
1926:
1324:
specific ENWP individual editor, and secondly that its punishment not a genuine concern for safety. If it was, you would just ban someone permanently, and from all wikimedia projects.
956:
941:
734:
13263:
The world is full of bad takes, and bad take pushers. It is a good thing when people start tuning them out in favor of critical information, challenging opinions, and informed debate.
12551:
11059:
10638:
10611:
9653:
Is there any reason the WMF or Arbcom can't ask the complainant(s) whether they object to a confidential disclosure of their identities to Fram in order to effect an interaction ban?
7147:
7132:
6976:
dot points 1, 2 & 3. The facts underlying the ban may be confidential, although I wish WMF would explicitly that if true. Moving forward from here should not depend on Fram. --
3912:
3841:
3736:
the approval process grey box, what percentage ultimately end up at all approvals received and what percentage end up with no office action recommended/office action declined. Best,
2034:
1657:
Repeated misconduct within a single Foundation-supported project, with considerable impact either on that project overall or on individual contributors who are active in that project.
596:
576:
562:
14430:
Katherine has replied to a couple of my tweets (the less pointed ones, @dennislbrown). When I told her we should be having this conversation onwiki and not on twitter, she replied "
14322:
9635:
9609:
9595:
9041:
8364:
7986:
7438:
6875:
1553:
278:
What the hell? There had better be a damn good explanation; Fram is arguably the best admin in Knowledge's history, and while I can imagine problems so bad they warrant an emergency
14364:
14171:
13119:
Twitter is a very different beast from Knowledge, and one whose community has long been toxic to each other. I don't see the benefit of publicizing this within the Twitterverse. --
10153:
9917:
9563:
8815:
I don't mind the proposal, but it's not our position to compromise. I hate to say it, but unless all of us stop contributing to the project, we really don't have control over this.
8789:
8771:
8675:
8652:
8605:
8562:
8527:
8337:
community (which includes ArbCom). Fram's possible negotiations to end the ban should be completely separate from resolving issues of WMF heavy-handedness and non-transparency. --
3858:
What is the legal distinction for privacy in these investigations between those who can see the report and those who cannot? ArbCom members have signed the Confidentially Agreement
2813:
2666:
2539:
1891:
1821:
1109:
776:(moved from an) Holy shit, what? That’s insane. It appears that their admin rights have also been removed... can only wmf restore the rights, or will fram have to go through an rfa?
14555:
14343:
12626:
11077:
9745:
9726:
9711:
9505:
9249:
8163:
8121:
7961:
7946:
7268:
5264:. I am not happy with the communication or action from Trust & Safety so far, and this would restore my willingness to continue to perform administrative work on en Knowledge.-
3745:
2682:
2271:
1064:
11858:- my wording was too vague. I've never questioned that you are an advocate for free knowledge. What I meant is, you didn't say you were part of Wikimedia on your Twitter profile.
9338:
9288:
9071:
Point 1 - should be a demand regardless. The WMF should not be banning people from the ENWP community unless there is an actual safety issue or child protection issue. That is it.
2443:, we investigate the need for an office action either upon receipt of complaints from the community, or as required by law. In this case we acted on complaints from the community.
1803:
433:
WMF's over reach or getting unnecessarily involved in project governance as well as other issues like the WMF ban unlike the community block or ban being unappealable still arose.
13867:
12038:
All true, but at some point we all have to calm down and stop jumping on each other. I have a felling that "The Tweet" may be the twig that moves this mudslide back up the hill.
11252:
10499:
8102:
5840:
in these offensive acts then his dismissal from the Foundation should be added to this resolution. We must be able to reasonably trust all of the employees of the Foundation. --
4338:
2711:
1637:
for the English Knowledge, it should have been dealt with by measures that are in place on the English Knowledge and not by a WMF employee/global group acting as a rogue arbcom.
13026:
AFAIK, a board meeting can't be held w/o her. And, since the BoT discussed this on the 14th, she ought to have been aware of the circumstances, from that point of time onwards.
12112:
tonedeaf and entirely inappropriate. Entirely separate from the WMF's original action, this comment should not be coming from any WMF employee, let alone the person at the top.
11982:
11952:
10053:
said that the information that ArbCom would need to get to be able to make an independent judgment on the WMF action is not likely to be forthcoming; in that case, it clarifies
5002:
Also, can we make two subheadings for those who "endorse" vs "oppose"? It's harder to gauge consensus this way. (I'd move all of them but I think that would be too disruptive.)
13978:
7227:
for his measured and reasonable response to the situation, and his efforts to drive us forwards towards a constructive resolution. I can provide moral support, at least. :-) --
3165:"Yes, the ED is aware. The board is still discussing with each other and with staff. I'm a participant in this but not in a position to say when it will come to a conclusion.--
2494:
As a this time-limited Foundation ban is an outcome of a regular office action investigation, it is governed by the same rules already familiar from Foundation global bans: it
5590:
3436:
For the record, since Fram has wisely not been saying too much over on Commons (apart from dealing with some trolling directed against them), but has said some more, there is
7301:
1659:, but that seems unlikely here, and if there were some kind of misconduct going on, if it were at the level the WMF needed to intervene I'd expect the ban to be permanent. ‑
14305:
13149:
7195:
per many above, not least Simonm223. Though perhaps after voting to overturn T&S's office action, we could vote for peace in the middle east and a unicorn for everyone?
4410:
3483:
I don't know who made complaints about me to the WMF, and I won't speculate on it. The information I gave in my original post here just repeated the info I got from the WMF.
8289:- The WMF has already claimed ownership of bat, ball, and the field - they aren't going to give any of it back. I'm sorry - really I am - but that's just the way it is. —
2802:
664:
14388:
Like Swarm and Sitush, I find this message somewhat underwhelming. "My tweet wasn't really meant to be about the BuzzFeed article". Either it was about it or it wasn't -
14010:
Well if the block notice is correct he had already been warned about this sort of thing before. But it does seem to be an overreaction, is there a history of outing here?
11114:
wrote and am deeply disappointed by this tweet, which I see as completely dismissive of the legitimate concerns expressed by many highly respected editors. I am shocked.
9667:
This would be self-defeating - Not only would this expose them to Fram, but Fram isn't gagged (per T&S' own actions) so this would end up blowing up in their faces. —
5286:
3283:
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.--
2274:
on Commons who immediately started to accuse me of having been canvassed by Fram. (which I wasn't) I suspect Lyrda is a sock of Guido (Guido refuses to even deny it) and
6254:
5457:
ArbCom can independently and impartially review the case against Fram, I think the WMF should allow it to do so. If that fails, T&S can still step in again. Regards
5328:
3441:
3312:
3295:
2833:
2756:
10512:
Uncivil behavior, including harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism, is against our Terms of Use, which are applicable to anyone who edits on our projects
9126:
difficult to reconcile with "you can still use all the other projects and you can come back to this one after a year." If this were a global ban I dare say it would be
6922:
that T&S inform ArbComm whenever any editor or admin is issued with an off-wiki warning (possibly extending to sanction implementation by ArbComm, not T&S, per
6631:"Fram’s incivility has been longstanding and has affected multiple people" - Fram will be nicer is not really cutting it, they also have not agreed to be nicer anyways
5438:
4841:
but will note that the proposal does not address the issue of Fram's admin-bit and whether the de-sysop should be endorsed, overturned, or decided through a fresh RFA.
2749:
6436:
5188:
4892:
13823:
posters who have networks of PR bots behind them can get the upvotes they need to be accepted as Serious Players worthy of the WMF's respect! Someday we can replace
12229:
Maher is no idiot. If she wanted to say we were completely wrong, she'd outright say it. She wouldn't muse at how we squirmed at the knife in our collective backs. —/
7646:
treat him with we would not have been the in the first place. As far as I can see Fram has been told nicely not to do any of this, and has up till now not taken heed.
5575:
4909:
12312:
I absolutely do not buy that explanation in the follow-up tweet. If she wants me to believe her, she needs to post a link to the actual article she was criticizing.
7083:
3815:
Generally, we will reach out to the accused party for information if doing so is possible without violating the privacy of the accusing - or other involved - parties
3666:
3216:"I think of our constitutional arrangements as being very like those in the UK. A broad array of written and unwritten rules, policies, guidelines, and traditions.--
2465:
of the office actions page, we also prioritize the safety of involved parties and legal compliance. Therefore, we do not disclose who submitted community complaints.
11791:
Yep, the link to this section has been shared on our email list. For what it's worth, James Alexander has not worked at the Wikimedia Foundation for some time now.
9456:
more or less the same reasons T&S won't. I'll say that the complainer wasn't necessarily wrong to contact T&S if they are who I think they are, and T&S
6993:
per BU_Rob13, you wanted compromise, you have a compromise, nobody other than Fram is banned even though they should have as per the original statement of the ban.
6968:
6640:
6440:
6410:
5141:
4638:
4621:
4554:
3023:
2958:
2941:
2924:
2907:
2890:
10583:
Also, I think when this article was first posted WMF hadn't made a statement. I distinctly remember it saying that WMF hadn't responded to requests for comment. —/
8017:
I agree with Yair rand. The statement "that's a highly bold and contentious statement from someone who has only made 3,400 edits in 12 years" is not being fair. --
7832:
7589:
as some have alleged to be the only motivation to oppose. I am also undecided if it is proper protocol for so many in the community to be WMFBashers. WP isn't the
6267:
6206:
5804:
5690:
4924:
4681:
3449:
at any time), so if that gets requested (no idea what Fram's response will be), maybe someone else could look out for that as I am logging off soon for the night.
12717:
You can say that, but she's explicitly denied it being related to any one piece or author in further tweets. If you don't believe her then that's your problem. —
11436:
I suspect if a WMF staff member was going to make an official statement, they would not do it on their Twitter account and not link to it from anywhere onwiki...
9154:
7894:
7215:
6278:
5896:
5831:
5421:
5370:
5256:
4994:
4518:
2763:
11145:
9257:, Fram is communicating from Commons. Not sure about how he can edit en.wiki, given that T&S have threatened to impose a global-ban, shall he ever try that.
9095:
8834:
7911:
7877:
7655:
6423:
5874:
5787:
5607:
5239:
5081:
5019:
4885:
It's a good way to bring all of this chaos to an end. I don't think telling Fram to be more careful will fix their civility issues, but at least it's progress.
4664:
4481:
4250:
4231:
1522:
Pretty sure WMF has never made a unilateral decision on a local matter that resulted in a long term editor and sysop being removed for local issues either. So...
10006:
Oh really? Well MY personal echo chamber says the article is unabashedly anti-WMF and they’re all clamoring for Xavier Beccera to launch an investigation. /s —/
9966:
So much for the earlier perception that we'd be viewed as a bunch of entitled self-interested volunteers by the popular press. Keep talking to them everyone! —/
9895:
9142:
complainants than by forcing speculation through Fram's diffs. It would take time to compile, but I suspect you're already spending quite a lot of time on this.
8999:
where Fram was strongly criticised (if not actually admonished as such) for controversially blocking two longstanding editors. Combined with "fuck the Arbcom",
8516:
7510:
I do agree with some of the reasoning behind Fram's "campaigns," I have never once agreed with their sharp wording in what I've read from them. Let's imagine:
7287:
6795:
You're suggesting the community is trying to takeover? The community existed before the WMF ever did. There is only one possible direction a takeover could go.
6547:
6524:
6474:
6381:
6357:
6003:
5954:
5766:
5394:
5222:
4977:
4812:
4715:
4462:
2779:
9202:
8331:
7554:
7492:
6997:
6945:
6332:
6315:
6223:
6117:
6081:
6012:
5656:
5115:
4850:
4829:
4568:
4498:
4377:
4358:
4271:
4214:
2408:
9022:
8257:
7637:
7458:
7187:
7031:
6985:
6566:
6369:. I'm not totally happy with #1 but at least it would be a path forward without further deteriorating the community and administrators' faith in the Office.--
6140:
5726:
5673:
5543:
5158:
4985:
At this point, WMF has to make a good faith step forward if they're ever going to start regaining our trust. Platitudes and corporate double-speak aren't it.
4535:
4199:
9626:
knows more of the details, I believe. Apologies for being vague, but I'm not accusing any specific individuals it's just based on what I've heard. Thanks —
8346:
7811:
7577:
7254:
6849:
6731:
The compromise, as I see it, is that you and Bishonen haven't lost your sysop flags, and WJBscribe hasn't lost their bureaucrat flag. And that compromise is
6684:
6457:
6298:
6060:
6033:
5971:
5849:
5639:
5520:
5494:
5304:
5270:
5205:
5063:
4877:
4753:
4184:
2847:
12656:
followers likes, and inflaming the situation by tying a vague tweet to the block of Fram, even after denial it had to do with anything on-wiki. Good job! —
10037:+1. That is a decent article imho which captures the many sides of this affair without coming down heavily in any direction. I note from the just declined
9647:
9167:
Emotionally, I would endorse. But I see strong sense also in SilkTork's oppose, but disagree strongly with most other comments and editors in that section.
8216:
8055:
7885:
WMF clearly handled this poorly (the idea that ArbCom couldn't handle the case because Fram insulted ArbCom is silly) but not something to escalate over. --
7788:
7423:
7236:
5707:
5622:
4770:
4698:
4586:
4305:
3279:
10836:
Breitbart is "journalism" in the same sense that Taco Bell is "Mexican food". They try to make it look vaguely like it, but it's nothing actually like it.
8233:
7366:
7169:
6892:
6665:
5914:
5774:
Maybe it's not perfect, but it's a reasonable start. One aphorism I used to use when teaching Master's degree students about government policy making was
5468:
5098:
4950:
4430:
4323:
2928:"I think you and I can both forecast that a wheel war will not serve as a useful introduction to a calm and reasonable discussion. Give it a little time.--
10065:
also clarified at the Fram case that there has been no contact between ArbCom and WMF since the 19 June, but that there was a call set up for the 3 July.
7929:
7610:
7066:
7048:
6905:
termination of the ban for this individual editor, but I could endorse the resolution if the following changes (except #1) applied to everyone in future:
6826:
5349:
5036:
4787:
4288:
648:
14535:
9226:
6496:
6263:
6098:
5937:
5406:
4732:
928:
14287:
13198:, or being accused of ill intent. I’d prefer the transparency of being held to account, and to leave it up, but that requires being taken at face value.
8306:
8088:
7850:
7660:
Fram is not currently blocked, and actually Fram being blocked or not has very little to do with this. If what what is meant above is that Fram being un
3669:
prior to any action being taken. In Fram’s case, as noted on Commons, we did send more than one of those warnings/reminders before the most recent step.
1945:. It would probably work even less here given that the English Knowledge is the world's 5th-(?)largest website and that any fork would likely fizzle. –
11966:
professional setting, with or without PR professionals. So the fact that you'd actually go so far as to point out that "she's PR", as if that makes it
7104:
4102:
547:, I know you're heartily sick of my pinging you, but if ever there was a situation that needed an explanation from Commmunity Relations, this is it. ‑
14206:
8664:
Trust me, in the future, I'll go through every single edit and highlight every potentially objectionable one when an editor has less than 4,000 edits.
7335:
9687:
and take additional steps to avoid them which would not ordinarily be part of Fram's new page patrolling, if the WMF were to accept this compromise.
6913:
no disclosure of any other editors' names to anyone, on or off-wiki (victims shouldn't become targets. Limited disclosure to ArbComm a possibility );
2453:
Office actions are covering individuals and not just individual user accounts. Therefore, the measure covers more than one user account in this case.
1142:. Without one, people will assume the worst, either about Fram, or the WMF. I'm ashamed to admit my mind already went to same place as Iridescent's.
235:
11840:
is going to severely misrepresent my views on this matter and arbitrarily and somewhat incorrectly place me on "a side", I've reversed that action.
8437:
reason a reporter came forward, because Fram's influence - see this entire page - has a chilling effect on those he chooses to harass and abuse.) ~
7858:
The dispute resolution process is absolutely broken and biased. The community has failed to implement a fair and impartial system. Who has not read
1094:
this has the comment I most agree with on the subject. It never was preventative, and I think that being the case is what caused much of the stir. –
11356:, we may never know for sure. Perhaps one (or more) of the WMF staff members who "liked" it could share what they believed it was in reference to.
2791:
14624:
14622:
13763:
I don't think I've ever gone off-wiki to ask something that should be asked on-wiki before. I disliked having to do it, but it was clear that the
12652:
For a community who claims they can handle their own disputes on harassment, you sure did a good job of following someone onto Twitter, following
8093:
Change reverted. "A little bit" is material. Fram is not being asked to promise to be a saint, but he would be being asked to be more careful.
7022:
as, quoting Mx. Granger, "I don't see this as a realistic proposal". I am also open to considering some of the elements suggested by NickMoyes. --
3974:
I can identify a few things that give me significant concerns, and I urge that these receive attention as WMF continues to work on the procedure.
976:, they knew this would blow up. So waiting is inappropriate really, they should have already been in a position to respond immediately to this.
14213:
12609:
12434:
12290:
12230:
12057:
11472:
11414:
11413:
Hmm. I wonder if that makes it an official statement. Please remember to archive official statements of the WMF just in case anything happens. —/
11283:
11258:
11067:
11027:
11004:
10621:
10584:
10561:
10442:
10290:
10258:
10007:
9967:
7846:
4385:
but pending BoT statement. It might be very plausible that Fram actually did something quite serious enough (in which case, the ban shall stand)
14093:
She hasn't replied to mine, but I didn't expect she would. For that matter, she should be too busy dealing with this onwiki to check Twitter.
13186:
I am not someone who shies from criticism or holding ground for my own perspectives. Had that been my intention, I’d have spoken to it directly.
7689:
Giving him the names of those who got him banned, without giving them any kind of meaningful protection is not (to my mind ) a solution to this.
5378:
By no means a fan of thoughtless "fuck you" comments, but this bolt-from-the-blue action leaves us needing reassurance that the staff concerned
3580:
2770:
10850:
7430:
7415:
5740:
1763:
Everything you post is true, Amakuru, and I'm still open to the fact that WMF's silence to Fram's advantage. My point is just because the WMF
7429:
kicks up enough of a fuss, they can overrule the WMF's actions. Maybe some will like this kind of portrayal, but I find it very unflattering.
2297:. Accusing someone of being a sockpuppeteer without showing any hard evidence is at the least incivil and at the worst a sign of harassment. —
11282:
I think because Bernstein tweeted it out three times, which is what Ms. Maher is making light of. There's no direct link as far as I know. —/
313:- Any clue about whether Fram's ban is the first exercise in implementing these or have other editors been subject to these P-bans, earlier?
8192:
indeed poor behaviour has occurred), or that I don't acknowledged that it is unpleasant to be on the ass end of a "FUCK <INSTITUTION: -->
7535:
6919:
recognition by any banned editor that their 'decorum' must 'improve' (NYB's words), and that further Office Actions may ensue if they don't;
6509:
desirable) for the WMF to disclose private information that they're not authorized to disclose. The other suggestions seem like good ones. —
2292:
1138:
Could this have been self-requested? I can't imagine T&S saying yes, but you never know. In any case, piling on here. An explanation is
1030:
At ths point I don't even care about the reasoning but there is no way that the WMF can claim this is preventative. If it's so bad that WMF
876:
been banned from en.wiki and not globally locked suggests it's regarding something that's happened regarding this wiki. So, we're waiting.
12889:
10778:
It gives a different perception though. The current story reads like WMF created a tool to specifically target Fram but in fact it wasn't.
6652:. There seems to be mass amnesia where Fram is concerned, as the focus of their attentions were not simply at newbies, as is clearly shown.
6401:
are fundamental legal principles, not exile by a despotic administration for an arbitrary term for unknown crimes against unknown parties.
3444:
if Fram edits over here, and arguably proxying here for them can be seen as enabling that, so some care is needed here. Please note I have
2840:
14146:
Yeah. The feeling I get is that this all came as a great surprise to her and she is just now trying to get back onto a good footing. Even
12289:
have it wrong," or even in that exchange say, "The crazy thing is that they're going crazy about something I'm not even talking about." —/
10968:
In comparison with the rest of her tweets it's pretty good. But only in that comparison. And it's a low bar. I'd be interested to know if
9172:
stepping back. They drop the issue of face-saving. Do that, and you will find people far more accommodating than otherwise seems the case.
4761:
too many hours have already been spent on this. If WMF wants to destroy Knowledge, I guess no one can stop them; but we can at least try,
3579:
Regarding the desysoping action taken, my team's reasoning was guided by the precedent set in 2016. You can find a bit more on that in my
3346:
the best we could have given Arbcom in this case would have been a distillation of the case, severely limiting their ability to handle it.
13891:
6916:
removal of the words "hopefully" and "generally" from our community accepting that T&S Office Actions are taken with good intentions;
3531:
3437:
3317:
1011:
right now. The WMF Office action indicates a 1 year prohibition on administrator access at this time that we would not override. Per the
11768:
EDIT: Joseph Seddon unliked the tweet). I don't want to ping every Arb again, so could you help me inform the rest of the Arbs on this.
8067:
I removed "a little bit" entailing the "improve his decorum" bit as it means nothing additional compared to an arbitrary improvement. --
5172:
did not consider that any harassment merited a longer term interaction ban such as the global, permanent bans that they give harassers.
3977:
As already noted by others, there needs to be a clearer and more substantive part of the workflow for responses from the accused editor.
2380:
cultural shift away from aspirational and community empowered governing bodies toward protective, moralizing and pushy governing bodies.
11026:
Something else just struck me: If "no one" cares about this Buzzfeed News article... what does that make all of us here in her eyes? —/
10181:
9313:
Knowledge:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Statement from Jan Eissfeldt, Lead Manager of Trust & Safety
7842:
4141:
Foundation-community relations, and (2) one presumes that any "clean up your act" message that was intended for Fram has been received.
2822:
13858:
Just saw the thread above. I plead lack of sleep week nights for way too long in defense of repeating information clearly visible. --
7264:
however, is indeed what's key to safeguard against questionable overlap. To do that, the Committee is going to need to assert itself.
3474:
I have not contacted anyone I was in conflict with in any offwiki way (be it through email, social media, real life contact, whatever)
2604:
Trust and Safety starts cases from the position that it is up to volunteers to decide for themselves how they spend their free time...
1942:
567:
Which goes back to my original point: if it's egregious enough (T&S) to warrant a unilateral decision like that, why only a year?
14432:
You’re right, that is where we should be having that conversation, and that’s what tried to start this afternoon. I plan to continue.
9923:
6248:
6056:
3587:
10426:
The article refers to Fram at one point as being an "asshole". I think someone should alert T&S about this harassing of Fram. --
9600:
Are people going to her talk page or emailing her to harass her, or abusing her because of this as she edits? That would be wrong.--
7506:) #1 is unacceptable. WMF has the right to deny service to anyone, just like any website or 24-hour diner. Parenthetically, while
3832:
I too find this problematic. Being unable to defend yourself effectively puts someone in a kangaroo court with no means of defense.
12360:
11652:
I can confirm that. Personally, while this does not look good, I would prefer to ask what she meant before making an assumption. --
9008:
2716:
10986:
I doubt it, she clarified later that she was editing something that had been prepared by a vendor. (And apparently the turnaround
11382:
I totally get that, but because of the logical consequences, I am reluctant to draw any conclusions without more confirmation. --
10724:(e/c) It's more likely that this marks this end of Knowledge as we know it than for anyone involved to be getting a Nobel Prize.
6122:
Support points 1 and 5. The rest is unnecessary: any opinion or action by WMF on Fram should be discounted just like that of an
5750:
1297:
13643:
11998:
Here is the real Knowledge. Please everyone, take a minute, or even 20 seconds, to take it in and remember what we are here for
3984:
It's not spelled out, but there really ought to be a sort of "minutes" or other written record of decisions at each step. I do
12466:
seems to imply that it was indeed related to Knowledge (after all, why else would anything rise to the level of Wikidrama...)
10822:
There's another article about all this kerfuffle, but I can't post a link because of the spam filter (it's on breitbart.com).
10044:
6177:
12685:
seems to imply that it was indeed related to Knowledge (after all, why else would anything rise to the level of Wikidrama...)
3992:
As noted by others, there needs to be evaluation of whether the problem could be referred to the local project (ArbCom etc.).
2689:
222:
13645:
achieved a record number of statements for an Arbitration case request at over 120. This is momentous in Knowledge history.
2627:
1012:
14582:
13949:
13885:
13652:
13565:
13417:
13361:
13297:
13133:
13077:
13062:- no no no! You will be accused of supporting a harasser and maybe even sexism. You will lose the optics war. It should be
12923:
12755:
12693:
12564:
12500:
12392:
12319:
11865:
11812:
11775:
11634:
11575:
11506:
I've asked Jimbo, who I know tweets from time to time, to confirm this. I don't do Twitter so I can't see who liked it. --
11241:
11190:
10924:
10522:
8491:
6432:
6159:
5130:
2091:
1954:
677:
Like everyone else, I simply fail to understand why the Foundation would ban a good-standing admin for no apparent reason.
14666:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
12356:
10811:
9941:
5434:
4130:
3605:
3549:
3522:
3426:
3399:
3372:
3335:
2738:
2645:
2426:
1905:
actually Wikivoyage is now significantly more popular than Wikitravel and has received way more edits for a long time :-)
253:
8829:
8760:
the Foundation is acting with sinister intentions and that Fram has done nothing wrong, that should be no problem, no? ~
7339:
7324:
7296:
7211:
7128:
6197:
the ban) was achieved by filling in check boxes in a very bureaucratic manner (as in Kafka's Bureaucratic Nightmares...)
5587:
4795:. In the end, regardless of what Fram has or hasn't done, this has been appallingly badly handled by T&S. Absolutely
3920:
Sorry, but what does "ED" stand for here? Executive Director? If so I take it you're referring to Sue Gardner's keynote?
1381:
14077:
She's still using Twitter instead of answering editors on wiki. I think her priorities are clear, and they're not here.
12886:
10915:
7867:
7322:
If I were to guess I'd say it's because ARBCOM's civility standards aren't stringent enough to enforce the Terms of Use.
364:
13921:
11478:
11003:
Welp, I rescind my earlier endorsement of the idea that writing her personally will be helpful. It clearly will not. —/
8991:
What's not clear from above is what happens to Fram's status as an editor, and as an admin? I was recently reminded of
7728:
That is not the full sentence. As such I am not going to try to explain anymore what I meant, I will let others decide.
5366:
3408:
339:
12946:
We are all aware of that; however, many editors (incl. Katherine I am guessing), may not be aware of its status as an
9079:
unrealistic and intangible standard given he has already improved beyond which many respected editors already operate.
5744:
4942:
should have no problem accepting a reasonable alternative offered by the community, and that is exactly what this is.
3263:
3063:" If we characterize this as a clash between ArbCom and the WMF, we are factually in error. It's not as easy as that.
2230:
a good idea. Even when the reasons for blocking are clear. I'm sure Fram must feel he has been treated very unjustly.
1035:
needed here, the optics are very bad and no matter which way I connect the dots on this, it seems extremely punitive.
13514:
any interest in this issue (you will note, I did fact include the possibility they just have not heard of this case).
13037:
12263:
12204:
9684:
9383:
9304:
9268:
9058:
8699:
6543:
6520:
4741:
4660:
4443:
4408:
3757:. Unbeknownst to the community, X has already received two conduct warnings for WMF. How will WMF respond to this? --
3445:
3002:
Do express your opinions clearly and firmly and factually, with kindness - it's the best way to get your point across
2853:
2388:
the cancer that needs your attention. If you look at it that way, the way to deal with the mosquito will be obvious.
2178:
2142:
911:
859:
767:
640:
324:
7862:
and found themselves nodding in agreement with every word. There is one rule for some and one rule for others. e.g.
5168:
513:
Yes, saying "email us" is not sufficient explanation for banning a well-known veteran editor and admin like this.--
14198:
13753:
12423:
12279:
12220:
12180:
11660:
11493:
11390:
10412:
9433:
9360:
9020:
8997:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive991#Personal attacks, a block and an unblock: review requested
6376:
5950:
4457:
4415:
Sounds like a good plan, and much more sensible than the ArbCom case request. Headbomb makes a good point though. —
3765:
1572:
12913:- just because a source is perennial doesn't mean it is reliable (there are unreliable perennial sources), though
11086:
Talk about pouring flaming napalm on troubled waters... This was a communications director before being promoted?
10367:
I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the article. A few factual errors but pretty accurate on both sides.
9469:. But if the complainer was who I think they are, it at least makes me believe that T&S acted in good faith.
6127:
2996:"Doc James and I have been pursuing this with diligence. I continue to recommend the following to everyone here:
2482:
Why did the Foundation de-sysop? Does this mean that Fram will not be an administrator when his ban ends in 2020?
14277:
12151:
Yeah, that's basically how I feel. I had even been mostly on the WMF's side, but now I want to burn it all down.
12023:
apparently got time to be tweeting about all manner of things, but none to respond to the concerns raised here.)
11343:
11314:
6131:
from the decision and asked some neutral employees without a COI to take their place). I came here after reading
4489:
with similar qualms and wimpy caveats as Headbomb and Floquenbeam. But peace matters. Thank you, Newyorkbrad! ---
3246:
3229:
3212:
3195:
3178:
3161:
3144:
3127:
3107:
3090:
3059:
3042:
2999:
Don't wheel war - it isn't going to be helpful in achieving the goals you want, and could actually make it harder
2992:
2975:
2873:
2707:
1918:
755:
483:
Going to echo this as well. This is a very cryptic block, which seems very hard to tie to any public behaviour.
10807:
8248:
find out what the outcome of the Board meeting Friday was, and what the upcoming WMF-ArbCom meeting leads to. --
6132:
5430:
2692:
being taken to MFD and the parting shot of "Valid project space expression" reflecting consenus in that matter.
2495:
293:
14224:
14190:
would write. I would be thoroughly unimpressed if an admin said it, much less the editing director of the WMF.
12620:
12445:
12385:- you're welcome. So, you asked on en.wiki, I asked on meta.wiki. Let's just see what replies she have for us.
12301:
12241:
12068:
11425:
11294:
11269:
11038:
11015:
10660:
10632:
10595:
10572:
10453:
10301:
10269:
10018:
9978:
9520:
we wouldn't be speculating as much as to whose cereal Fram pissed in. Their secrecy in this case resulted in a
9479:
8203:
7806:
7758:
7718:
7678:
6306:. Both sides need to relax, clear the air, and come up with a consensus solution. This is a good first step. --
5584:
5539:
5282:
4112:
3678:
2447:
493:
17:
13915:
9232:
9004:
5747:
4472:
having this much talked-about, calm, no-deadline, respectful discussion seems better than what we have now. --
14255:
13472:
13281:
9807:
9673:
9530:
8272:
6340:
Here to build an encyclopedia—not a bureaucracy—if the editing community is trusted to edit and maintain the
6242:
5487:
5313:
5060:
4872:
4597:
4549:
3354:
2462:
2461:
The Foundation always aims to be as transparent as possible with office actions. However, as outlined in the
2303:
1482:, who the WMF have also ejected) that raises the slightest concern? (You obviously don't need to specify.) ‑
1235:
outside any "office actions". That's called "repression" where I come from, should it be in any sense true.
1147:
13903:
13611:
To echo Boing’s point, if the ED isn’t aware of this conflict between the community and the WMF because the
9130:
controversial in that way (which is not to say uncontroversial, obviously). The other problem is that diffs
8579:
communications such as X". X is a problem, but it's not a breach of the ToU. There's no mention of anything
4039:
on page 23, the failures in our noticeboard practices are noted (findings, which, generally seem spot on). [
1399:
and will become trustworthy here in exactly 365 days' time, both of which are confusing to say the least. ‑
13909:
13027:
12253:
12194:
9390:
9373:
9294:
9258:
9048:
8689:
7539:
7138:
evidence for the ban action, considering that our elected and trusted Arbcom members do not know of any. --
5775:
4838:
4398:
4040:
2168:
1192:
I wasn't aware of any misconduct from Fram that warranted this. I'm eager to know what prompted this ban.—
630:
358:
331:
314:
13218:
But all of that doesn’t change the fact that people now feel diminished and diesregarded. That’s terrible.
10647:
9000:
7586:
5528:
as a start. And presuming that arbcom is privy to the basis of T&S's actions and supports this route.
292:
And also only applicable to enwiki, meaning Fram can communicate on other wikis. I note that the WMF only
9559:
9393:, The way I would put it is that "everyone can edit" doesn't necessarily mean that "Everyone should edit"
9222:
8964:
8111:, if youd like NYBrad's comment changed you should ask him to change it instead of changing it yourself.
5179:
4889:
4426:
4397:
will be somewhere around 2, on a scale of 10, if we are rating various forms of harassment and bullying.
1922:
6556:
5630:- It's a way forward, beyond the "fork off or fuck off" mentality that some other people seem to have.--
4169:
3859:
3233:"In the current situation, I think that the composition of the board is not a big part of the problem.--
14519:
14398:
13897:
13049:
12369:
11210:
for harassment ourselves. Knowing what we do about the kind of environment they would like us to be. --
9957:
8156:
8081:
7376:
7311:
7079:
6613:
6398:
5753:
was his only comment where he pointed to a statement by someone else. This pattern of a wheel war just
5571:
4905:
4208:
Sounds good to me. If the Office is acting in good faith, I do not see why they would not accept this.
3783:
3687:
2549:
2044:
1981:
1853:
1617:
1414:
1314:
1288:
1240:
1074:
981:
827:
806:
11323:
Her tweet was in direct response to one of the journalist's tweets promoting that particular article.
6502:
5051:
I had little hope any productive change would come out of the discussion, but this is a good start. –
1007:
While it is useful to have a notice here about this action, there isn't really anything for 'crats to
14627:
13194:
Dan, I entirely concur with Jimmy. I regret the timing of the tweet, but I’m now in between deleting
11711:
11683:
11533:
10341:
10281:
8924:
8893:
6964:
6636:
6448:. This proposal is the most sensible contribution I have read anywhere in this whole extensive mess.
5278:
2027:
60:
14154:
could anyone with her job have been so oblivious to what has been going on, for all this time? It's
8061:
4158:
3644:
3615:
On the question of how many cases reaching T&S result in office actions, the answer is two-fold:
3565:
1976:
I think it would earn immeasurable respect for unblocking Fram and dealing with the consequences.
647:
As above. I am not Fram's biggest fan (the feeling is more than mutual, don't worry) but when I saw
368:
363:
It is not. The first WMF partial bans were done in German Knowledge. The earliest that I know of is
14588:
14250:
14124:
13955:
13879:
13658:
13571:
13468:
13423:
13367:
13303:
13277:
13128:
13083:
12955:
12929:
12897:
12761:
12699:
12570:
12506:
12398:
12325:
11871:
11818:
11796:
11781:
11732:
11640:
11581:
11441:
11247:
11196:
10930:
10528:
10171:
10115:
10070:
9802:
9668:
9525:
8486:
8267:
8175:
I endorse this in spirit, although the specifics make me queasy. The main point I disagree with is
7828:
6406:
6390:
6236:
6165:
5136:
4634:
4617:
4592:
4544:
2298:
2235:
2095:
1950:
1143:
589:
13710:
13683:
The point isn't that 460 editors have responded. It's the proportion of the top 10% or even 5% of
9311:
The Foundation blocked him with Talk revoked, so presumably the ban extends to his talk page. See
8629:
the WMF so clearly did not make any statements of fact that even have the potential to be false.
8407:
ArbCom to review or modify. Surely, ArbCom should have the option to extend the 1 year ban? --
4389:
that the staff were plainly incompetent in a bid to discipline and micromanage the community. We
3069:
the reasons that Knowledge has succeeded is that we don't take anything as absolutely permanent.
342:; the timing of those dewiki bans suggests the policy was put into place to ban those two people.
14249:
I thank you for your candour and for helping with the article. It turned out surprisingly well. —
10886:
9885:
9548:
WMF-Community relations even further. Unappealable secret bans have no appeal to me whatsoever. —
9524:
which has the potential to (if it hasn't already here or on off-wiki fora) out the complainant. —
9446:
9416:
9091:
8874:
8821:
7890:
7607:
7207:
7124:
6910:
a c.75% reduction in the duration of the ban as a sensible compromise to immediate reinstatement;
6800:
6202:
5800:
5743:
including the application of super-protect at de:wp for which his regular account was desysoped:
5686:
4677:
4073:
3272:
3255:
3238:
3221:
3204:
3187:
3170:
3153:
3136:
3119:
3099:
3082:
3051:
3034:
2984:
2967:
2865:
2814:
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#Where to write to tell the WMF that they have violated the ToU?
2586:
2515:
1674:
1376:
1344:
1329:
1274:
1202:
1069:
Yes, WMF has poisoned the well and provided precisely zero justification for doing so. Heinous.
855:
763:
544:
518:
12412:
Some comments from Jimmy Wales himself, and some more from Katharine down further on the thread
9518:
explaining just why Fram was banned at the time of the block and the unusual limits on the block
9241:
I note that neither Fram or Laura Hale have edited (EN) WP for ten and eight days respectively.
8127:
If possible, let's focus on the bigger picture here rather than nuances of the wording. Thanks.
5754:
1963:
Do you think enwp would fare any better if the unpaid administration went on a general strike? –
1724:
Then they need to get their collective asses in gear before someone does something regrettable.
14441:
14375:
14100:
14015:
13990:
13674:
13549:
13519:
13487:
13438:
13394:
12851:
12805:
12480:
12156:
11544:
11459:
11452:
10545:
10227:
9834:
8688:
like textbook stalking; our self-proclaimed-retired friend might have something to state .....
7907:
7902:
we have a way forward via ArbCom, which has accepted the case. We will get a result from them.
7874:
7859:
7733:
7694:
7651:
5891:
5826:
5503:
5418:
5362:
5252:
5174:
4990:
4886:
4778:, with the disclaimer that I haven't been able to keep up with all the relevant pages. - Dank (
4514:
3467:
2393:
2357:
1499:
1464:
1435:
713:
682:
655:
11142:
4366:
Perfect / brilliant. We should mention this in the other places that it is being discussed.
1809:
465:
a one year ban (as opposed to indefinite, if that makes sense) and so narrowly focused on one
14551:
14515:
14394:
14238:, the article turned out well, so apparently your information was helpful and well-received.
14029:
12998:
12831:
12782:
12723:
12662:
12413:
12380:
12365:
11552:
11511:
11361:
11215:
11167:
11153:
10909:
10871:
10784:
10746:
10372:
10317:
9953:
9763:
9197:
8326:
8179:"I am angry" in a "calm collected manner" can be in many situations much less effective than
8132:
7392:
7372:
7307:
7283:
7075:
7008:
6756:
6715:
6694:
6609:
6537:
6514:
6394:
5869:
5784:
5736:
5603:
5567:
5235:
5077:
5010:
4901:
4656:
4477:
4373:
4246:
4227:
4154:
4084:
4063:
Finally, I've spent quite a few hours finding documents, reading, checking sourcing, but had
4012:
3927:
3849:
3803:
3779:
3775:
3707:
3683:
3305:
3288:
3015:
2950:
2933:
2916:
2899:
2882:
2703:
2545:
2335:
2319:
2280:
2138:
2040:
1977:
1849:
1838:
1633:
Fram's behavior (or non-behavior, considering we don't know what has happened) was a problem
1613:
1602:
1410:
1310:
1284:
1236:
1177:
1070:
977:
907:
841:
822:
802:
730:
610:
533:
53:
14500:
14459:
14196:
14167:
14082:
13773:
13749:
13733:
13716:
12420:
12276:
12217:
12177:
12089:
12043:
12005:
11706:
11678:
11657:
11528:
11490:
11387:
11207:
11139:
10977:
10711:
10643:
10506:
In a statement to BuzzFeed News, the organization said it had leveled the ban to maintain "
10466:
Good stuff, thanks. I had put off reading it thinking it would be crap and was surprised.--
10431:
10408:
10391:
9431:
9399:
9358:
9018:
8920:
8889:
8543:
I encourage you to read. Fram has posted the email he received, and it contained that diff
8253:
7488:
6960:
6941:
6775:
6632:
6470:
6373:
6353:
6275:
6000:
5947:
5762:
5389:
5218:
4968:
4809:
4711:
4453:
4000:
3823:
3762:
3457:
2695:
1779:
1732:
1703:
1642:
1527:
1040:
877:
651:
in my watchlist it was an actual spoken 'WTF' moment. We need a good explanation, quickly.
572:
556:
This is T&S business and I am not sure if Community Relations knows better. — regards,
474:
384:
46:
12892:, as designated in 2019. Why does this crisis keep self-perputating at very opportunity?
11674:
11527:
One of the likes is from "Joe Sutherland@jrbsu Trust & Safety @Wikimedia/@Knowledge."
11138:
So, out of idle curiosity, what does T&S do when they receive anonymous reports about
10209:
exists, but I think we need a few more reliable sources until it gets mainspace. However,
9792:
And like it or not, T&S is going to be that outlet - but the way they handled this is
6593:
Ellen, thanks for the tweak. But FYI I worked with Blofeld on some FAC projects ( such as
5681:. It's refreshing to hear such a calm, reasonable, respectful, and compromising proposal.
3981:
like did a good job of checking all the boxes, so we'll just sign off on it and move on."
3655:
2526:
Of all the non-answers I've seen in my life, that's possibly one of the most long winded.
2039:
40% of the T&S team don't trust us to let us know what they look like. Enough said.
8:
14577:
14485:
14273:
14120:
14115:
14068:
14060:
14047:
13944:
13874:
13791:
13726:
13647:
13560:
13412:
13356:
13292:
13265:
13254:
13246:
13237:
13229:
13220:
13212:
13200:
13188:
13177:
13123:
13120:
13072:
13017:
12951:
12941:
12918:
12908:
12893:
12750:
12688:
12559:
12495:
12387:
12352:
12314:
12170:
11860:
11830:
11807:
11792:
11770:
11743:
11728:
11724:
11629:
11570:
11437:
11339:
11310:
11305:
Uh, there are a lot of articles that someone might have tweeted about three times today.
11236:
11185:
11120:
11093:
10969:
10919:
10867:
10765:
10517:
10191:
10167:
10133:
10111:
10066:
9913:
9845:
9177:
9147:
8972:
8666:
One could consider that stalking, a violation of ToU Section 4, and worthy of a WMF ban.
8481:
8478:
8462:
8412:
8342:
8022:
7982:
7824:
7633:
7469:
7454:
7183:
7027:
6981:
6402:
6328:
6311:
6219:
6154:
6114:
5652:
5125:
5111:
4846:
4825:
4630:
4613:
4564:
4493:
4354:
4265:
3741:
3643:
feedback reviewed on the policy’s talk page on Meta. We are also reviewing, in line with
2440:
2231:
2081:
2054:
Not entirely fair—40% of them just haven't copied their photo across from Meta yet (e.g.
1946:
1914:
1449:
1261:
602:
439:
417:
402:
347:
301:
67:
5380:
didn't accept jobs at the Foundation for the purpose of perpetrating a hostile takeover.
2803:
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#There is no contact information for Trust & Safety
1562:
This might sound a bit like conspiracy theory nonsense but has anyone checked to see if
39:
14646:
14612:
14239:
13620:
13457:
12024:
11903:
11372:
11324:
10991:
10901:
10837:
10827:
10656:
10251:
10206:
10081:
9881:
9475:
9442:
9412:
9168:
9087:
8941:
8870:
8842:
8816:
8731:
8671:
8199:
8114:
7886:
7803:
7755:
7715:
7675:
7628:
happy without knowing all the facts, but it could be far better than things are now. --
7573:
7250:
7198:
7115:
6842:
6796:
6198:
6123:
5796:
5721:
5682:
5669:
5533:
5445:
5154:
5043:
4919:
4673:
4531:
4192:
4069:
3891:
3878:
3813:
This is grossly insufficient. I'd like to call attention to the following statement:
2662:
2511:
1866:
1670:
1391:
1371:
1361:
1340:
1325:
1270:
1193:
851:
759:
583:
514:
489:
31:
5382:
Without a substantive response from the WMF, they'll be getting no more work out of me
850:
Seems like we are in good company as well. Probably better to wait now for any reply.
14435:
14417:
14371:
14318:
14301:
14094:
14011:
13984:
13863:
13853:
13798:
13692:
13670:
13637:
13545:
13515:
13483:
13434:
13405:
13390:
13338:
13102:
12847:
12820:
12801:
12641:
12531:
12490:
12467:
12462:
I read that that as tacit acknowledgement that it does indeed relate to the article.
12152:
12138:
11456:
10950:
10692:
10539:
10471:
10354:
10214:
9823:
9722:
9692:
9658:
9631:
9605:
9591:
8885:
8229:
8050:
8008:
7942:
7903:
7870:
7784:
7729:
7690:
7647:
7547:
7515:
an alternate universe in which the WMF did not have the right to "DO WHAT THEY WANT"
7434:
7419:
7232:
6901:
6900:
I'm pretty confident the Office Action was done with good cause, and on some sort of
6584:
6453:
6294:
6050:
6029:
5967:
5923:
5884:
5845:
5818:
5635:
5516:
5490:
5415:
5358:
5266:
5248:
5201:
5056:
4986:
4868:
4749:
4510:
4180:
4092:
3944:
3908:
3572:
possible without violating the privacy of the accusing - or other involved - parties.
2834:
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive_235#Did you establish the current version of WP:OFFICE?
2757:
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#Semi-humorous aside, not to be taken too seriously.
2678:
2617:
2564:
2389:
2349:
2212:
2190:
2158:
1887:
1750:
1715:
Not in a software sense, but the WMF will insta-desysop anyone who overturns them. ‑
1536:
1495:
1475:
1460:
1431:
1222:
709:
678:
652:
13252:
Being marginalized in change, intentional or otherwise, is a truly terrible feeling.
10740:
specifically to address Fram's behaviour, but something they used in their toolkit.
9801:
unusual circumstances caused a Streisand effect that they should have seen coming. —
7619:
disagree with the idea of an anonymous reporting system, it's unlikely the WMF even
6152:
that racial slur thing was probably Jehochman at the Arb Com case request, not WMF.
4918:
cause a blowup like this). I don't think anyone, WMF included, wants a repeat here.
2750:
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#Admin Fram locally banned by T&S for one year.
2070:
Not that it is important for this matter now, but Karen Brown is the same person as
2030:(you need to scroll down to reach T&S); pick one you think looks trustworthy. ‑
14604:
14566:
14547:
14360:
14025:
13534:
13502:
13353:
I know this will sound odd, but until today, very few folks have asked me directly.
13012:, and I do not see how another 357 e-mails, tweets and pings would do any better.--
12994:
12826:
12777:
12739:
12718:
12674:
12657:
11805:
Oh... Trust and Safety at Twitter and Periscope. I got confused. I'm sorry, James!
11548:
11522:
11507:
11357:
11211:
11178:
11163:
11149:
11111:
10779:
10741:
10668:
10368:
10313:
9756:
9521:
9487:
9193:
8401:
8321:
8211:
8128:
8098:
7387:
7362:
7279:
7224:
7165:
7004:
6871:
6855:
6752:
6726:
6711:
6690:
6661:
6533:
6510:
6420:
6366:
5861:
5779:
5703:
5618:
5599:
5552:
exist. But given the utter recalcitrance from WMF to show any kind of openness to
5231:
5073:
5003:
4766:
4694:
4647:
4581:
4473:
4301:
4240:
4223:
4025:
3965:
3936:
3923:
3799:
3301:
3284:
3268:
3251:
3234:
3217:
3200:
3183:
3166:
3149:
3132:
3115:
3095:
3078:
3047:
3030:
3011:
2980:
2963:
2946:
2929:
2912:
2895:
2878:
2861:
2129:
1834:
1816:
1652:
1598:
1586:
1173:
1002:
936:
898:
837:
786:
777:
726:
606:
529:
501:
279:
9275:
Well, Fram is currently banned and probably couldn't edit even his own talk page.
7709:, and not to anything the above "response" addresses. I thought that was obvious.
1879:
14496:
14474:
14455:
14265:
14235:
14191:
14163:
14078:
14051:
13974:
13769:
13745:
13729:
13712:
13346:
12417:
12273:
12214:
12174:
12085:
12039:
12001:
11654:
11487:
11384:
11183:- this is a serious issue, I think we should go straight to the WMF CEO on this.
11051:
Unbelievable, but it explains a good part of why the WMF culture is what it is.-
10973:
10851:
10804:
10707:
10427:
10404:
10386:
10148:
10126:
10099:
9783:
9741:
9707:
9685:
Fram agreed to keep the names of such subjects of an interaction ban confidential
9580:
9555:
9426:
9394:
9353:
9216:
9013:
8993:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1001#Block of Martinevans123
8249:
8003:
something I can back up with hard evidence and name names without being uncivil.
7957:
7925:
7819:
7601:
7565:
7551:
7528:
Fram was likewise "right" to use extreem language in every case they ever argued.
7484:
7061:
7044:
6994:
6956:
6937:
6834:. I really expected a smarter solution from you than "ask people to be nicer".
6822:
6771:
6466:
6370:
6349:
6271:
5981:
5944:
5910:
5758:
5463:
5383:
5214:
5094:
4959:
4707:
4449:
4422:
4334:
4319:
3996:
3837:
3819:
3759:
3647:, whether to include individual public office actions, which is more complicated.
3453:
2275:
2059:
2031:
1772:
1725:
1716:
1696:
1660:
1638:
1582:
1567:
1523:
1491:
1483:
1400:
1301:
1089:
1036:
953:
923:
888:
791:
696:
593:
568:
548:
470:
375:
284:
11762:
Liker Joseph Seddon didn't say they were part of Wikimedia, but apparently is a
9717:
binding evidence review is less lenient, so the Foundation should go with that.
7357:
confidence either. And they still seem to be obsessed about their admin status.
7143:
7100:
1941:
I don't think forking has ever really worked in the long run. See, for example,
14638:
14630:
14481:
14352:
14269:
14064:
13320:
13184:
This tweet was not a comment on the gravity of concerns of English Wikipedians.
13097:
OK, I've deleted my tweet. #Wikigate is a good suggestion, let's go with that.
13013:
13009:
12593:
12113:
11948:
11335:
11306:
11234:
about Knowledge? Because if I cared about Knowledge, I would read the article.
11115:
11072:
10875:
10761:
10725:
10664:
10202:
10186:
10129:
9909:
9841:
9483:
9282:
9173:
9035:
8968:
8458:
8427:
8408:
8371:
8338:
8298:
8207:
8150:
8075:
8018:
7978:
7629:
7590:
7465:
7450:
7179:
7023:
6977:
6649:
6598:
6573:
6561:
6324:
6307:
6215:
6110:
6069:
6009:
5648:
5343:
5107:
5032:
4842:
4821:
4783:
4779:
4560:
4490:
4350:
4284:
4260:
4209:
4045:
3737:
2860:"I was entirely unaware of this before just now. I'm reviewing the situation.--
2699:
2533:
2253:
2077:
1969:
1906:
1801:
1563:
1445:
1252:
1127:
747:
497:
435:
413:
398:
343:
335:
310:
297:
11547:, egging on our model of wikipedia etiquette. I'm not outing anyone, right? --
6751:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. --
6045:
towards possibly regaining community confidence that is very badly damaged. --
3921:
2764:
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#Request for action regarding the ban of Fram
1808:
Actually, Wikivoyage was a fork of Wikitravel, not the other way around. (See
1017:
former administrators may re-request adminship subsequent to voluntary removal
218:
14642:
14608:
14183:
14137:
14059:
I'm not sure that she does. In the tweet that this one replies to, she says:
13928:
13833:
13616:
13453:
13342:
13334:
12983:
12947:
12882:
12117:
12116:, I hope this will be a topic of conversation at a future Board meeting... ~
11899:
11055:
10905:
10823:
10652:
10495:
9991:
9623:
9542:
9471:
8761:
8756:
8727:
8711:
8667:
8573:
8552:
8508:
8438:
8397:
8377:
8195:
8108:
7798:
7750:
7710:
7670:
7569:
7246:
6835:
6790:
6736:
6705:
6674:
6594:
6491:
6485:
6181:
6147:
6137:
6094:
5933:
5717:
5665:
5560:
5529:
5150:
4728:
4527:
4053:
4049:
3887:
3874:
3722:
3074:
3070:
2658:
2114:
1158:
1101:
1020:
485:
83:
11353:
4037:
report written by Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program (HNMCP)
2780:
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#What was the outcome of the board meeting?
2128:, site administration acting this tyranically would be a forkable offense. —
14413:
14314:
14297:
14158:
our fault for failing to do a good enough job of reaching out to her. It's
13859:
13849:
13794:
13688:
13170:
This wasn’t even meant to be something that rose to the level of Wikidrama.
13098:
13070:(the most relatable). No FRAM, please, no one out there knows who Fram is.
13057:
12681:
This wasn’t even meant to be something that rose to the level of Wikidrama.
12637:
12527:
12464:
This wasn’t even meant to be something that rose to the level of Wikidrama.
12134:
11087:
10960:
10946:
10890:
10688:
10608:
10467:
10350:
9819:
9718:
9688:
9654:
9627:
9616:
9601:
9587:
9498:
9332:
9254:
9243:
8225:
8045:
8004:
7968:
7938:
7780:
7228:
6580:
6555:
Fram’s incivility has been longstanding and has affected multiple people.
6465:
we need to move on and this seems to be a very sensible way of doing so. --
6449:
6289:
6232:
6046:
6025:
5963:
5841:
5631:
5512:
5482:
5297:
5197:
5052:
4862:
4745:
4176:
4088:
3940:
3917:
3904:
3852:. The questions I have regarding the harassment investigation process are:
2674:
2613:
2560:
2436:
What made the Foundation take action at all and why at this specific time?
2208:
2186:
2154:
2122:
1902:
1883:
1828:
1746:
1547:
1479:
1218:
1058:
993:
12880:
tweet from Katherine Maher; does she not realise that the article is from
11485:
it is tagged properly so Commons won't delete it. I can't guarantee it. --
8404:'s dot points 4 & 5 should be the focus. But your question is fair:
3989:
the review has nonetheless commented to an involved staff person about it.
14356:
14187:
13530:
13498:
11853:
11842:
10538:
There is so much wrong with that statement, I don't know where to start.
10210:
9905:
8094:
7863:
7585:: the proposal is premature, and for the record, it is not about being a
7483:
as per Montanabw and endorse proposal by Nick Moyes, especially point 6.
7358:
7161:
7074:
Disappointing proposed resolution. Only the last point is a good idea.--
6887:
6867:
6657:
6021:
5699:
5614:
4762:
4690:
4578:
4297:
3961:
2848:
User talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_235#Forthcoming FRAM-related case at ARBCOM
2718:
2118:
trying to suppress criticism of its various failed experiments. Also, on
1813:
1539:, now that at least Fram's side is out, do you still trust those people?
1367:
933:
14048:
now admitted that the initial tweet was directed at the Buzzfeed article
11962:
that I can even imagine. Like I said, this behavior is not tolerated in
10616:
I may have just missed it. Doesn't matter either way. This statement is
9933:
9315:-- If he edits enwiki, he will be globally blocked and globally locked.
5962:
Obviously that ship has sailed, but I'll add my name to the roll call.--
4672:
as a way forward, not perfect, but hopefully acceptable by all parties.
4122:
3597:
3541:
3514:
3418:
3391:
3364:
3327:
2730:
2637:
2418:
1655:, the WMF have the right to ban from a single project on the grounds of
1217:
that at this point. I share the views expressed above: we need answers.
245:
224:
14336:
14212:
Thank you for helping make that article good. I for one commend you. —/
13970:
12544:
11975:
11926:
10143:
10094:
9779:
9737:
9703:
9550:
9316:
9212:
9047:
Obviously, anybody might propose a case but I will urge for a decline.
8782:
8750:
8645:
8616:
8598:
8538:
8520:
8357:
7991:
7953:
7934:
7921:
7823:
their ban without a strong commitment to change by the banned editor.--
7598:
7056:
7040:
6923:
6818:
5906:
5458:
5090:
4943:
4417:
4330:
4315:
4064:
3833:
3494:
no need for any form of intervention or punitive actions from our end."
2125:
2014:
2008:
T&S team members who would be responsive to the community? Surely
705:
692:
557:
12683:
isn't a very strong denial. I agree with Bellezzasolo that it instead
8515:. According to Fram, the offending comment that triggered his ban was
7223:
per Mx. Granger. However, I wish to extend appreciation and thanks to
7139:
7096:
2446:
All office actions are only taken after a thorough investigation, and
722:
691:
T&S: training and simulation? Very confused. Talk English please.
13314:
12605:
12587:
11944:
10882:
9752:
9502:
9276:
9029:
8293:
8144:
8069:
7664:
is "oddly not in wording", the first bullet point of the proposal is
7594:
7543:
7265:
5337:
5028:
4280:
4019:
m:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019
2527:
2090:
Also, Sydney Poore is FloNight and her picture is on her user page.
1964:
1873:
1796:
1669:
its punishment or that its not an issue that rises to T&S level.
1121:
816:
742:
14182:
Katherine Maher's tweet is unacceptable and reminds me of something
12797:
If we're holding people accountable for what they say on Twitter now
11614:
Advocate / policy wonk / tech geek / @Wikimedia Foundation employee.
6859:
4157:
reminded us in her comments on the arbitration request, "T&S is
14150:
she comes around on it, this is breathtakingly unsatisfactory. How
14134:
13925:
13829:
12979:
11052:
10897:
10504:
Did everyone miss WMF’s statement to BuzzFeed News in the article?
10491:
9876:
Comments to keep this proposal from being archived to the talk page
6648:"quasi-volunteering to improve decorum" is insufficient. Thank you
6090:
5928:
5556:
discussing this (no more boilerplate, perhaps they're not aware of
5403:
4725:
3717:
3382:
Reinstatement of Office Action and temporary desysop of Floquenbeam
2119:
1096:
427:
220:
9990:
behavior and think "Yeah, we wouldn't want that around either". ~
6653:
1309:
I'll do it, then no harm no foul if TRM gets permanently banned.
14543:
Knowledge Editors Revolt over Site’s Ban of Veteran Administrator
13159:
These are her responses. Bolded parts describe her initial tweet.
12189:
I perceive it as declining any connection with Bernstein's piece
11206:
Or, we could be good little sheep, like the WMF wants, and block
10648:
harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism as bannable
7742:
1. Stop breaking the !vote count. 2. I have no earthly idea what
7706:
So Fram is unblocked gets (in effect though oddly not in wording)
5480:
sides seems like the only way forward. Thank you, Newyorkbrad. --
1541:
1052:
5169:
it was Fram who threatened to block a WMFer for personal attacks
3505:
Statement from Jan Eissfeldt, Lead Manager of Trust & Safety
2055:
13290:
More tweets I didn't notice. Hold on guys! I'm still updating!
2792:
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#Yet more WMF questions raised
13942:
now. However, my contributions to this page will be cut down.
13410:- I thought you personally emailed her. Did I get that wrong?
13174:
This was just garden variety the world is burning subtweeting.
11974:, and yet she literally can not give two shits anyways! Lol!!
11705:
That's an incredibly disappointing piece of double standards.
10646:
the terms of use do not list incivility as bannable. It lists
3754:
296:
gave themselves the power to do partial bans/temporary bans..
225:
11997:
10703:
10055:
9086:
Point 5 - About the only point I agree with in its entirety.
7538:" had anything to do with Cirt's extensive contributions to "
6766:"crowd" should speak out about problems that concern us. And
5749:. At that time he was nearly entirely unable to communicate,
4446:. Of course, I may be able to accept it without this change.
12915:
There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable.
11670:
2771:
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#Who put the WMF in charge?
2491:
What kind of appeal is possible against this office action?
2072:
872:
Uh, yeah. Explanation required, please WMF. The fact he's
13843:
That is an odd response, inasmuch as at least three people
13172:
Had I wanted to do that I would have taken it on directly.
11162:
Prediction: Not a fucking thing. Not. A. Fucking. Thing. --
8726:
Correcting an error prone editor's mistakes is harassment?
8551:. Do you understand how that is an exercise in futility? ~
4296:
Seems a reasonable way to try to walk back this situation.
3659:
The process T&S cases go through within the Foundation.
801:"HELLO? IS THIS THING WORKING???" Explanation required.
758:, I believe that is the place for a wiki-talkpage-request.
13768:
eventually manage to remember how to log in to Knowledge.
12193:
the original coincidence was too well, to be an accident.
10803:
Good article. I note it has been put to use in mainspace:
10340:
errors". Standards have really slipped around this joint.
6608:
Then it should have been handled on-wiki through Arbcom.
3673:
independent investigations approach T&S has to uphold.
3451:
Maybe put this in new section if it needs more prominence.
2657:+clear right so content fills width: no content change. --
14546:
more elsewhere (Quora, reddit etc) from non-participants
14313:
part of a community that it is a privilege to belong to.
11970:
understandable, is hilarious. All that means is that she
10401:
Mhmm. Appreciate you bringing it to our attention, Floq.
8967:
that, as usual, rules out creative conflict resolution.
8662:
to say about candidates with a somewhat low edit count -
6689:
That doesn't really sound like a compromise either.... --
5739:, lead manager of T&S. In 2014, he participated in a
5453:
1157:
the only one where rights modifications was warranted. —
11756:, Joe Sutherland, jdforrester and Gregory Varnum. These
11565:
three likers claiming to be part of Wikimedia, plus one
10990:
is not 24 hours, and we might be lucky to hit 24 days).
10142:
That's a good one. SANFRANFRAMBAN? SANFRANJANBANSFRAM?
10061:
10039:
6955:
though I am open to the suggestions for modification by
6419:, a sensible way to de-escalate the situation. Regards,
14541:
A breitbart news article (can't directly link), titled
13196:
something that was not intended to be wiki-inflammatory
12748:
is not related to any one author, that's your problem.
11921:
the journalist with childish insults? WTF? This is the
10336:
The user claims to be a pedant, but says, "… I counted
2841:
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive_235#Bungling incompetence
13558:
Break it up guys, let's not fight over this, alright?
10049:
9293:
He can certainly edit over en-wiki; unblocked, he is.
5647:- a reasonable suggestion to de-escalate this crisis.
4258:
as a reasonable and good faith way out of this mess.--
2450:
by staff. This process usually takes about four weeks.
367:
in February. Policy regarding partial bans were added
12586:
That looks like the sort of thing Trump would tweet.
11760:
3 stated on Twitter that they are part of Wikimedia (
9622:
have the time to keep up with all that drama though.
8513:
harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism
6008:
Endorse. Punching up is different from punching down.
371:(about two hours prior to the bans' implementation).
338:
contributions, I checked de wiki and found some more
13983:Odd that he was blocked longer than Fram, however.
13433:
Still not seeing why I should find this interesting.
11230:
It just occurred to me. Is our WMF CEO arguing that
10704:
second-by-second outpouring of intellectual strength
9122:
take office action without involving the community"
2673:"empathically"? I suspect you meant "emphatically".
1120:
from me as well. What the hell are they playing at?
77:
14626:but I don't see a violation of the IBAN. This one
13276:At least she hasn't actually said "Fake news" yet.
10490:prone to paralytic moralizing over victim privacy.
6089:I'm late to the party, but it seems obvious to me.
4279:
I like the good faith part and it being reasonable.
3939:, 'ED' in this context means Executive Director.
3873:Thanks in advance for considering these questions.
3480:
I haven't threatened to do any of the above either.
952:Nice of them to ask if we wanted this, isn't it? ‑
929:
The cynic in you has some evidence in its favor ...
13790:I couldn't sleep so I also responded to her tweet
12018:A public tweet in response to a journalist by the
10125:I'm surprised no Australian editors have proposed
8710:Vetting an RfA candidate is stalking? Get real. ~
8511:The ToU clause that you're referring to prohibits
8044:. This is a better community without Fram in it. –
7550:). Sometimes, life just isn't fair. ;( ^^ 🌿
6864:And lots of us think it is plenty smart, actually.
4646:. This seems reasonable. Neutral on ArbCom case. —
3559:The changes to our Office Action policy were made
12746:retweet your shitty pseudo-thinkpiece three times
7371:Then why didn't they allow Arbcom to arbitrate?
7338:it seems it was due to privacy and COI concerns.
7306:Then why didn't they allow Arbcom to arbitrate?
6024:, although less reluctantly (for the moment…). ——
5942:Probably symbolic anyway, but per Doug Weller. --
4393:to learn the rough details. Also, echo Headbomb;
3706:This all seems pretty par for the course; but to
1795:Was that fork borne of a constitutional crisis? –
815:I sent a note to the WMF email address listed on
14571:- I see that the bottom of that article states:
12776:launching personal attacks at her on Twitter. —
5715:– seems like a sensible course of action to me.
8839:Even if, if we're being honest with ourselves.
4837:A sensible path. I'll resist the temptation to
4175:All of that sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
1459:could say “We’ve seen why and it’s warranted.”
428:#FYI: Similar incident in de.wp some months ago
11917:stoop to respond—not to make her case, but to
10959:Well, we'd all been waiting for a statement. —
10914:. Extremely likely reference to a media piece
10422:Thanks from me too, for bringing the article.
2409:Statement from the WMF Trust & Safety Team
2294:YOU accused him of being a sockpuppeteer first
14296:helpful to have more matter, with less art.--
14024:Poor blighter was indeffed for lèse-majesté.
13208:it wasn’t about a specific author or article.
9207:We don't know what is behind the ban, so I'm
7703:To be clear, I was referring specifically to
7525:Fram was "right" about every case they argued
3710:, you never gave a figure as to describe the
2206:(my third attempt at leaving a comment here.)
1767:take an action, doesn't necessarily mean the
12890:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
12526:So the T&S people liked it by mistake?--
9372:ought not be taken in a very-literal sense.
5294:a sensible compromise if all parties agree.
5123:- a possible way forward for the community.
4041:Reporting systems on English Knowledge (pdf)
3698:Community questions, responses, and comments
2475:Improving Trust and Safety processes program
2470:Why did the Foundation only ban for a year?
1050:because of this action, being right or not.
13814:. If you want to have a say in Knowledge,
11148:offline about a Knowledge-related issue? --
8583:such "abusive communications". You're just
6735:generous, given your collective actions. ~
6389:, for most of the English speaking world a
5357:. I guess this is a sensible compromise. –
4349:so let's compromise on six months"). Best,
12744:- if you actually believe that this quote
10972:was anything to do with our current woes.
5812:per Doug Weller and many others. We can't
2458:Who made the complaint to the Foundation?
1394:, disappearing people without explanation
14268:, Great job. Thanks for taking that on.
13924:. His talk page access was also revoked.
13808:"Very few people have asked her directly"
12493:- thank you for that astute observation.
11596:Trust & Safety @Wikimedia/@Knowledge.
9117:convince: people who do think that there
7320:Sounds like a question to ask the WMF...
236:User:Fram banned for 1 year by WMF office
9497:So it's a riddle, wrapped in an enigma,
9009:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram
4742:Fram suggested a less lenient compromise
4559:Makes sense to me as a possible option--
4440:opening of an Arbitration Committee case
3654:
3066:is better than if I do something sudden.
588:If it's a T&S issue, then why is he
14629:is close but probably not a violation.
13351:- you may be interested in this quote:
10945:Wow. That's pretty stunning, actually.
9940:This section is pinned and will not be
7994:, don't take my words out of context -
4129:This section is pinned and will not be
3604:This section is pinned and will not be
3548:This section is pinned and will not be
3521:This section is pinned and will not be
3425:This section is pinned and will not be
3398:This section is pinned and will not be
3371:This section is pinned and will not be
3334:This section is pinned and will not be
2737:This section is pinned and will not be
2644:This section is pinned and will not be
2425:This section is pinned and will not be
2167:Noting that you are *employed* by WMF.
1943:Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español
741:A big ‘ole whiskey tango from me too. –
252:This section is pinned and will not be
14:
8961:Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders,
6656:reporting policies will come of this.
4442:, pursuant to Fram's request, as seen
790:permanent rather than time-limited. ‑
665:2A02:C7F:BE76:B700:C9AE:AA89:159B:8D17
14514:she started "closely monitoring" it.
12606:the same taste in corporate law firms
10280:You could do that, or read a book :|
9702:reveal who that are seems foolish. -
2690:Knowledge:Knowledge does not need you
2223:Overly harsh and punitive blocks are
1368:repressing people with no explanation
13150:Katherine Maher responses on Twitter
11943:it is about it is kinda unfortunate.
10385:Pretty much what I was going to say.
9927:
7110:case evidence that was always public
5598:as a way forward from this debacle.
4744:the better part of a week ago, now.
4116:
3795:This is unfair trial par excellence.
3591:
3535:
3508:
3412:
3385:
3358:
3321:
2724:
2631:
2412:
629:WTF? Echo everything that Iri says.
590:still trusted on every other project
239:
14162:job to be aware of these things. --
13389:Why should I find that interesting?
12993:email (no reply from them either).
12355:. I've asked a question about this
11627:(UPDATE: Seddon reversed the like)
9896:Suggestion to archive this proposal
8183:that you are angry (Whether or not
5776:"the best is the enemy of the good"
5027:Although I'm not overly optimistic.
3645:Vermont’s suggestion from last week
3532:Further comments from Jan Eissfeldt
3318:Further comment from the Foundation
2439:As described on the Metapage about
2056:here's what Sydney Poore looks like
24:
11836:the argument. Given that a single
11479:File:Krmaher tweet 27 Jun 2019.png
10864:Arbs, you need to see this above.
6323:That's the obvious way forward. --
4689:. Also support the ArbCom case. --
4610:Endorse with an additional request
708:, T&S means Trust and Safety.
340:de:Special:Contributions/WMFOffice
25:
14676:
10555:I wasn't aware that civility fit
9924:Interesting BuzzFeed News article
9648:Response from Fram to Newyorkbrad
7977:don't think that's being fair. --
7667:The Office terminates Fram's ban.
6178:Sunlight is the best disinfectant
3588:Jan Eissfeldt update (06/17/2019)
2854:Special:Contributions/Jimbo Wales
1810:Wikitravel#Community fork in 2012
972:Actually, if the WMF office knew
14662:The discussion above is closed.
13261:This was not a directed comment.
9932:
7564:: The new information shown by
6930:tools, based upon that editing).
5429:- Not perfect, but good enough.
4121:
3596:
3540:
3513:
3417:
3390:
3363:
3326:
2729:
2636:
2417:
992:
601:I've asked ArbCom to comment at
244:
82:
14061:This was not a directed comment
13920:was just blocked, I assume for
11451:I don't know. It seems, well,
7521:concerning access to their site
947:This is worth quoting in full:
756:meta:User talk:JEissfeldt (WMF)
334:, first on enwiki at least per
13810:-- well of course not. We're
11677:or someone impersonating him.
9837:for some reasons why (smile).)
7745:That is not the full sentence.
13:
1:
11257:I guess we're "no one". 😢 —/
10257:stagnation and status quo. —/
10180:Is it too early to call this
9005:picking a fight with BU Rob13
6348:of oversight is important' —
6286:as a compromise way forward.
5402:– A good way to cool down. —
4958:per Swarm and so many above.
4506:Sounds perfectly reasonable.
1298:I've already asked on Commons
14621:May 8 had some ugly diffs.
10289:Why not do both?! Genius! —/
7540:And you are lynching Negroes
6854:Heh. I see you've never met
6068:as a sensible way forward. –
1370:now? What did they violate?
7:
13856:) 14:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12351:Thanks for the ping above,
10166:Don't give me ideas ;-). --
9443:Only in death does duty end
9413:Only in death does duty end
9227:12:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
9169:Only in death does duty end
9088:Only in death does duty end
8056:23:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
4900:as a sensible way forward.
2512:Only in death does duty end
2463:general information section
1695:prevented from unblocking?
1671:Only in death does duty end
1341:Only in death does duty end
1326:Only in death does duty end
1271:Only in death does duty end
897:Don’t forget Media Viewer —
203:/Proposals about WMF Office
10:
14681:
14536:A less desired news source
14046:For the record, Maher has
8549:evidence you have not seen
6399:right to face your accuser
5698:. Get a fresh "re-start".
5414:- a sensible way forward.
4932:A sensible compromise. An
4541:Endorse - with ArbCom case
4015:. I have a few questions:
3409:Further response from Fram
2628:Fram's response on Commons
2270:Just recently we ran into
2026:The whole lot of them are
29:
14617:09:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
14594:05:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
14556:17:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
14524:17:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
14505:17:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
14490:17:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
14464:21:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
14447:12:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
14422:09:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
14403:08:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
14380:08:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
14365:06:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
14344:05:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
14323:04:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
14306:02:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
14282:04:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
14261:04:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
14245:02:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
14231:01:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
14201:22:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
14172:19:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
14142:19:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
14129:17:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
14106:17:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
14087:17:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
14073:17:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
14055:16:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
14034:17:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
14020:14:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13996:14:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13979:14:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13961:01:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
13933:14:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13868:14:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13838:10:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13803:10:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13778:19:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13759:18:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13738:17:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13721:09:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13697:10:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13679:09:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13664:09:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13625:09:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13577:09:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13554:09:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13539:09:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13524:09:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13507:09:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13492:09:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13477:09:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13462:08:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13443:08:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13429:08:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13399:08:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13373:08:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13327:08:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13309:08:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13286:08:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13140:13:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13107:07:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13089:07:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13040:12:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13022:12:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
13003:11:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12988:10:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12960:09:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12935:09:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12902:09:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12856:15:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
12837:17:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12810:14:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12788:10:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12767:08:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12729:07:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12705:07:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12668:07:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12646:06:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12627:06:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12600:06:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12576:07:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12552:06:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12536:06:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12512:07:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12486:06:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12452:06:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12428:06:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12404:07:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12374:06:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12331:07:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12308:06:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12284:06:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12266:06:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12248:05:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12225:05:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12207:05:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12185:05:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12161:05:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12143:05:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12128:05:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12094:05:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12075:05:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12048:05:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12030:05:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
12010:05:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11983:06:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11953:05:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11934:04:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11908:04:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11877:07:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11847:05:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11824:04:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11801:04:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11787:03:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11737:03:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11717:03:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11689:04:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11665:04:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11646:04:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11587:04:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11557:03:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11539:03:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11516:03:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11498:07:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11463:03:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11446:03:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11432:03:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11395:04:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11378:04:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11366:03:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11348:03:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11330:03:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11319:03:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11301:03:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11276:02:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11253:02:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11220:02:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11202:02:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11172:02:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11158:02:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11128:03:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11100:02:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11078:11:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11060:02:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11045:02:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
11022:01:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10997:01:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10982:01:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10964:01:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10955:01:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10936:03:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10843:17:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
10832:00:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
10816:09:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10731:16:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10716:04:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10697:02:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10674:02:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10639:02:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10612:02:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10602:01:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10579:01:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10551:01:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10534:01:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10500:01:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10486:moribund -- and they are
10476:01:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10460:00:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10436:00:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10418:22:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
10397:22:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
10377:22:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
10359:23:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
10345:22:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
10322:22:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
10308:21:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
10285:21:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
10276:21:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
10233:22:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
10198:21:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
10176:20:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
10154:14:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10138:06:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10120:04:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10105:02:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
10087:20:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
10075:20:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
10025:22:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
10002:22:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
9985:19:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
9962:19:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
9918:22:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
9890:21:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
9850:22:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
9828:04:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
9813:04:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
9788:21:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
9773:19:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
9746:06:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
9727:05:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
9712:21:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
9697:21:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
9679:05:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
9663:03:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
9636:20:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
9610:12:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
9596:11:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
9564:19:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
9536:09:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
9506:17:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
9493:17:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
9451:13:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
9436:12:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
9421:12:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
9405:15:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
9386:11:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
9363:11:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
9339:07:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
9324:07:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
9307:07:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
9289:07:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
9271:07:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
9250:07:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
9203:20:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
9182:17:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
9155:15:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
9096:12:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
9061:11:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
9042:11:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
9023:10:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8977:09:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8949:05:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8929:04:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8898:03:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8879:02:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8855:"Control" is irrelevant,
8850:01:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8835:01:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8790:08:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
8772:15:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8736:06:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
8722:21:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8702:15:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8676:13:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8653:13:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8623:because they already have
8606:06:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8563:03:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8528:03:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8498:04:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8467:02:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8449:02:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8417:01:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8388:01:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8365:01:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8347:00:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8332:00:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
8307:22:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
8278:20:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
8258:20:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
8234:19:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
8217:19:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
8164:19:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
8137:19:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
8122:19:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
8103:19:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
8089:19:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
8027:19:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
8013:19:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
7987:17:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
7962:13:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
7947:20:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
7930:19:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
7912:03:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
7812:15:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
7789:14:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
7724:23:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
7699:15:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
7684:15:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
7656:14:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
7638:05:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
7611:04:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
7578:23:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
7555:06:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
7493:08:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
7474:05:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
7459:05:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
7439:02:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
7424:02:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
7398:23:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
7381:21:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
7367:19:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
7345:01:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
7334:Actually after rereading
7330:01:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
7316:21:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
7302:18:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
7288:18:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
7269:14:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
7255:13:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
7237:13:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
7216:12:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
7188:12:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
7170:10:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
7148:13:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
7133:12:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
7105:08:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
7084:04:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
7067:04:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
7049:03:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
7032:03:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
7013:03:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
6998:02:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
6986:02:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
6969:02:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
6946:02:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
6893:00:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
6876:16:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
6850:00:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
6827:23:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
6805:06:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
6780:22:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
6761:14:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
6747:01:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
6720:22:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
6699:22:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
6685:22:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
6666:21:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
6641:21:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
6618:14:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
6604:03:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
6589:23:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
6567:21:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
6548:23:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
6525:21:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
6497:10:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
6475:13:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
6458:08:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
6441:02:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
6424:16:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
6411:09:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
6255:16:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
6224:14:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
6207:10:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
6185:10:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
6171:10:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
6141:09:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
6118:18:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
6099:11:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
6082:00:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
6061:15:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
6034:15:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
6013:08:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
6004:17:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
5972:03:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
5955:03:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
5938:03:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
5915:07:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
5897:18:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
5875:02:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
5850:21:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
5832:18:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
5817:would be insurmountable.
5805:16:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
5788:14:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
5767:09:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
5727:09:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
5708:08:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
5691:06:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
5674:05:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
5657:00:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
5640:18:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5623:18:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5608:16:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5591:15:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5576:14:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5544:14:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5521:13:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5495:12:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5469:10:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5439:10:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5422:09:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5407:09:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5395:08:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5371:08:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5350:07:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5329:07:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5305:06:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5287:05:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5271:05:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5257:05:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5240:05:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5223:05:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5206:05:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5189:04:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5159:04:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5142:04:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5116:02:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5106:dot points 4 & 5. --
5099:02:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5082:02:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5064:02:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5037:02:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
5020:01:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
4995:01:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
4978:00:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
4951:00:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
4925:23:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4910:23:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4893:23:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4878:22:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4851:22:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4830:22:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4813:22:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4788:16:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
4771:22:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4754:21:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4733:21:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4716:21:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4699:21:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4682:20:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4665:20:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4639:20:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4622:20:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4603:20:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4587:20:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4569:20:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4555:19:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4536:19:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4519:19:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4499:19:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4482:19:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4463:19:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4431:19:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4411:19:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4378:19:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4359:19:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4339:22:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
4324:19:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4306:19:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4289:19:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4272:19:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4251:18:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4232:18:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4215:18:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4200:18:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4185:18:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4103:Response from Fram to Jan
4097:09:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
4078:00:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
4005:22:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
3970:14:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
3949:03:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
3932:00:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
3913:00:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
3883:12:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
3842:15:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
3828:10:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
3808:09:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
3788:08:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
3770:03:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
3746:03:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
3731:02:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
3692:21:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
3462:23:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
3243:12:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
3226:12:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
3209:14:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
3192:13:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
3175:13:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
3158:19:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
3141:11:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
3124:10:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
3104:13:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
3087:09:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
3056:06:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
3039:15:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
3020:08:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
2989:08:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
2972:15:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
2955:15:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
2938:14:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
2921:14:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
2904:14:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
2887:14:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
2870:09:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
2667:17:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
2622:04:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
2596:20:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
2569:21:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
2554:21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
2540:21:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
2520:21:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
2498:an opportunity to appeal.
2398:23:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
2364:21:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
2339:22:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
2323:22:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
2309:19:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
2284:19:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
2266:19:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
2240:19:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
2217:03:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
2195:02:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
2181:02:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
2163:02:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
2147:00:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
2100:07:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
2086:21:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
2063:21:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
2049:20:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
2035:20:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
2022:20:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1986:22:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1972:22:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1959:21:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1927:03:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
1892:20:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1858:20:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1843:20:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1822:20:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1804:20:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1787:21:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1755:20:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1740:20:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1720:20:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1711:20:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1679:20:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1664:20:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1647:20:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1622:20:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1607:20:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1590:20:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1578:20:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1554:13:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
1532:20:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1504:20:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1487:20:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1469:20:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1454:20:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1440:20:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1419:20:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1404:20:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1387:20:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1349:20:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1334:20:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1319:20:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1305:20:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1293:20:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1279:20:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1264:20:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1245:20:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1227:20:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1210:20:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1183:19:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1164:19:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1152:19:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1134:19:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1110:13:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
1079:22:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1065:22:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1045:19:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1026:19:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
986:19:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
957:19:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
942:19:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
916:23:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
892:19:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
881:19:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
864:19:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
846:19:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
832:19:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
811:19:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
795:19:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
781:19:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
772:19:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
750:19:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
735:18:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
718:18:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
701:18:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
687:18:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
673:18:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
659:18:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
643:18:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
615:18:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
597:18:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
577:18:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
563:18:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
552:18:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
538:18:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
523:18:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
507:19:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
479:18:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
444:22:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
422:10:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
407:06:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
392:18:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
352:18:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
327:18:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
306:18:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
288:18:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
27:Community discussion page
14664:Please do not modify it.
14651:09:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
14634:03:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
11543:Thanks, I assume that's
10789:17:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
10770:03:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
10751:02:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
10650:. Not mere incivility.
10213:could do with updating.
10093:JANFRAMBAN? JANBANFRAM?
9683:I asked about this, and
7895:21:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
7878:23:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
7851:10:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
7833:01:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
7764:11:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
7738:10:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
6391:presumption of innocence
6382:17:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
6358:15:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
6333:19:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
6316:17:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
6299:12:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
6279:08:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
3810:(from German Knowledge).
3310:07:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
3293:07:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
3277:12:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
3260:11:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
2712:04:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
2683:16:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
14288:Katherine Maher's reply
14207:Comment from Guerillero
13258:12:28 AM - 28 Jun 2019
13250:12:20 AM - 28 Jun 2019
13241:12:08 AM - 28 Jun 2019
13233:12:03 PM - 28 Jun 2019
13224:11:59 PM - 27 Jun 2019
13216:11:56 PM - 27 Jun 2019
13204:11:54 PM - 27 Jun 2019
13192:11:12 PM - 27 Jun 2019
13181:11:09 PM - 27 Jun 2019
13167:10:21 PM - 27 Jun 2019
12846:the current situation.
11764:Free Knowledge advocate
11624:Free Knowledge advocate
11567:Free Knowledge advocate
9755:, I'm rooting for you.
9391:Winged Blades of Godric
7536:a bit of today politics
5230:- This seems sensible.
4706:- sensible compromise.
4627:Endorse as a first step
4035:In the findings of the
2607:— I'll tell ya how I'm
545:User:Whatamidoing (WMF)
359:Winged Blades of Godric
332:Winged Blades of Godric
14292:
11545:User:JSutherland (WMF)
11334:How do you know that?
9942:automatically archived
9904:. If you like playing
9835:South Park (season 20)
9001:incivil edit summaries
7860:Knowledge:Unblockables
7542:" (and by implication
6886:taken these on board.
4131:automatically archived
4113:A suggested resolution
4030:
4023:
3660:
3606:automatically archived
3550:automatically archived
3523:automatically archived
3502:
3427:automatically archived
3400:automatically archived
3373:automatically archived
3336:automatically archived
2823:User talk:Jimbo Wales#
2739:automatically archived
2654:
2646:automatically archived
2507:office actions policy.
2427:automatically archived
1269:other information....
254:automatically archived
14291:
13969:Not just that post.--
13709:My tweet to Ms Maher
11723:Appreciate the ping,
11673:appears to be either
9952:calling him a liar.
6395:right to a fair trial
6262:Makes sense to me.
5795:A fair compromise.--
5755:re-appeared now again
4222:as a fair compromise
4029:
4022:
3658:
3471:
3355:Further clarification
2653:
1118:whiskey tango foxtrot
13725:And her reply to me
13687:who have responded.
11352:Given that it was a
11208:User:Katherine (WMF)
10644:User:Katherine (WMF)
10510:" on the platform. "
10508:respect and civility
6860:this is what he does
5279:Absconded Northerner
4436:Endorse with changes
3774:Interesting, thanks
3010:to raise emotions.--
2717:Responses by Jimbo (
1013:administrator policy
369:around the same time
193:/Official statements
61:WP:CANSANFRANBANFRAM
14390:wasn't really meant
13469:Boing! said Zebedee
13278:Boing! said Zebedee
10805:User_revolt#Framban
9513:being able to do so
7908:click to talk to me
5451:Conditional support
4395:fuck an institution
3583:to the ArbCom case.
3300:in the community.--
1144:Suffusion of Yellow
785:Neither; this is a
754:I've put a note on
14252:A little blue Bori
13206:Well, no, because
12020:Executive Director
11923:Executive Director
10887:Premeditated Chaos
10808:Gråbergs Gråa Sång
10349:Well played, sir.
10110:Whoa, Black Betty
9804:A little blue Bori
9670:A little blue Bori
9527:A little blue Bori
9111:Advice for T&S
9105:Unclear difference
8886:Lesser magistrates
8269:A little blue Bori
7112:Was it? Says who?
5922:. With respect to
5431:Gråbergs Gråa Sång
4839:suggest any tweaks
4594:A little blue Bori
4546:A little blue Bori
3661:
2300:A little blue Bori
1771:take that action.
1366:So what, are they
208:/Off-wiki coverage
198:/General proposals
14243:
14227:
14219:
14127:
13272:
13271:
12970:fucking wasteland
12623:
12615:
12483:
12448:
12440:
12304:
12296:
12244:
12236:
12169:A further reply:
12125:
12071:
12063:
12028:
11994:Assume good faith
11919:personally attack
11799:
11735:
11715:
11687:
11537:
11465:
11444:
11428:
11420:
11376:
11328:
11297:
11289:
11272:
11264:
11146:another WP editor
11041:
11033:
11018:
11010:
10995:
10938:
10841:
10635:
10627:
10598:
10590:
10575:
10567:
10456:
10448:
10304:
10296:
10272:
10264:
10255:
10230:
10118:
10085:
10021:
10013:
9999:
9981:
9973:
9948:
9947:
9768:
9499:wrapped in a vest
9370:Everyone can Edit
9140:better protecting
8951:
8852:
8769:
8757:assume good faith
8719:
8560:
8446:
8385:
8304:
8124:
7809:
7794:Procedural oppose
7761:
7721:
7681:
7604:
7548:Fake news website
6865:
6848:
6744:
6682:
6495:
6379:
6059:
5504:WereSpielChequers
5493:
5449:
5069:Reluctant endorse
5047:
5015:
4923:
4887:ThePlatypusofDoom
4876:
4810:Black Kite (talk)
4574:Reluctant Endorse
4526:per Floquenbeam.
4509:
4496:
4383:Reluctant Endorse
4311:Generally Endorse
4202:
4137:
4136:
3612:
3611:
3556:
3555:
3529:
3528:
3452:
3433:
3432:
3406:
3405:
3379:
3378:
3342:
3341:
3077:spring to mind.--
2818:
2807:
2796:
2785:
2745:
2744:
2714:
2698:comment added by
2652:
2651:
2433:
2432:
2405:
2404:
2276:Lyrda's talk page
2272:Guido den Broeder
2065:
1870:
1552:
1365:
1231:Which is clearly
1063:
1006:
1001:(and response to
959:
931:
894:
887:the interface. ‑
878:Black Kite (talk)
587:
434:
260:
259:
231:
230:
179:
178:
16:(Redirected from
14672:
14585:
14580:
14570:
14516:PaleCloudedWhite
14478:
14395:PaleCloudedWhite
14341:
14258:
14242:
14223:
14217:
14123:
13952:
13947:
13919:
13892:deleted contribs
13757:
13655:
13650:
13641:
13568:
13563:
13420:
13415:
13409:
13364:
13359:
13350:
13300:
13295:
13155:
13154:
13136:
13131:
13126:
13080:
13075:
13061:
13035:
13030:
12945:
12926:
12921:
12912:
12876:That was a very
12834:
12829:
12824:
12785:
12780:
12758:
12753:
12747:
12743:
12726:
12721:
12696:
12691:
12682:
12678:
12665:
12660:
12619:
12613:
12567:
12562:
12549:
12503:
12498:
12481:
12478:
12475:
12470:
12444:
12438:
12395:
12390:
12384:
12381:Opabinia regalis
12366:Opabinia regalis
12322:
12317:
12300:
12294:
12261:
12256:
12252:That's a point.
12240:
12234:
12202:
12197:
12121:
12067:
12061:
12027:
11980:
11931:
11868:
11863:
11857:
11834:
11815:
11810:
11795:
11778:
11773:
11747:
11731:
11709:
11681:
11637:
11632:
11605:Coder @Wikimedia
11578:
11573:
11531:
11526:
11476:
11450:
11440:
11424:
11418:
11375:
11327:
11293:
11287:
11268:
11262:
11244:
11239:
11193:
11188:
11182:
11125:
11123:Let's discuss it
11096:
11037:
11031:
11014:
11008:
10994:
10927:
10922:
10913:
10910:Opabinia regalis
10894:
10879:
10872:Worm That Turned
10863:
10840:
10672:
10631:
10625:
10594:
10588:
10571:
10565:
10525:
10520:
10452:
10446:
10416:
10394:
10389:
10300:
10294:
10268:
10262:
10249:
10228:
10225:
10222:
10217:
10196:
10122:
10114:
10084:
10064:
10058:
10052:
10042:
10017:
10011:
9995:
9977:
9971:
9954:The Rambling Man
9936:
9928:
9810:
9770:
9766:
9761:
9676:
9620:
9584:
9546:
9533:
9522:Streisand effect
9491:
9463:feeling harassed
9402:
9397:
9381:
9376:
9335:
9321:
9302:
9297:
9266:
9261:
9246:
9201:
9152:
9150:
9056:
9051:
8944:
8939:
8845:
8840:
8832:
8824:
8787:
8765:
8754:
8715:
8697:
8692:
8650:
8620:
8603:
8577:
8556:
8542:
8525:
8494:
8489:
8484:
8442:
8431:
8402:User:Newyorkbrad
8381:
8375:
8362:
8329:
8324:
8303:
8301:
8290:
8275:
8215:
8162:
8159:
8153:
8147:
8117:
8112:
8087:
8084:
8078:
8072:
8053:
8048:
7972:
7802:
7754:
7714:
7674:
7602:
7522:
7395:
7390:
7373:The Rambling Man
7342:
7327:
7308:The Rambling Man
7299:
7214:
7205:
7201:
7131:
7122:
7118:
7092:expands a dialog
7076:I am One of Many
7064:
6863:
6856:User:Newyorkbrad
6845:
6840:
6838:
6794:
6740:
6730:
6709:
6678:
6610:The Rambling Man
6601:
6577:
6564:
6489:
6377:
6297:
6292:
6162:
6157:
6151:
6116:
6079:
6074:
6054:
5997:
5995:
5993:
5991:
5977:Partial Endorse:
5894:
5889:
5873:
5872:
5867:
5864:
5824:
5821:
5782:
5724:
5568:The Rambling Man
5565:
5559:
5486:
5466:
5461:
5443:
5392:
5326:
5321:
5312:Seems sensible.
5300:
5269:
5186:
5182:
5177:
5133:
5128:
5041:
5017:
5013:
5008:
4973:
4964:
4948:
4939:able and willing
4922:
4866:
4865:
4820:, per Huldra. --
4653:
4650:
4600:
4552:
4507:
4494:
4461:
4406:
4401:
4270:
4243:
4195:
4190:
4155:Opabinia regalis
4125:
4117:
3816:
3780:Opabinia regalis
3729:
3720:
3667:conduct warnings
3600:
3592:
3544:
3536:
3517:
3509:
3450:
3421:
3413:
3394:
3386:
3367:
3359:
3330:
3322:
2810:
2799:
2788:
2776:
2733:
2725:
2693:
2640:
2632:
2594:
2593:
2591:
2546:The Rambling Man
2544:Award-winning.
2448:extensive review
2421:
2413:
2360:
2354:
2306:
2263:
2258:
2176:
2171:
2135:
2132:
2075:
2053:
2041:The Rambling Man
2019:
1978:The Rambling Man
1911:
1877:
1864:
1850:The Rambling Man
1832:
1783:
1776:
1736:
1729:
1707:
1700:
1614:The Rambling Man
1587:💵Money💵emoji💵
1566:is compromised?
1550:
1544:
1540:
1411:The Rambling Man
1359:
1311:The Rambling Man
1285:The Rambling Man
1259:
1237:The Rambling Man
1208:
1205:
1197:
1181:
1161:
1108:
1099:
1093:
1071:The Rambling Man
1061:
1055:
1051:
1023:
1003:User:Money emoji
1000:
998:Bureaucrat note:
996:
978:The Rambling Man
946:
927:
920:
904:
901:
885:
825:
803:The Rambling Man
778:💵Money💵emoji💵
638:
633:
581:
560:
505:
431:
387:
380:
374:
362:
322:
317:
263:
262:
248:
240:
226:
97:
96:
86:
78:
70:
63:
56:
49:
42:
21:
14680:
14679:
14675:
14674:
14673:
14671:
14670:
14669:
14668:
14667:
14583:
14578:
14564:
14538:
14472:
14337:
14290:
14256:
14228:
14209:
13950:
13945:
13877:
13812:not on her site
13743:
13653:
13648:
13635:
13566:
13561:
13418:
13413:
13403:
13362:
13357:
13332:
13325:
13298:
13293:
13273:
13160:
13152:
13134:
13129:
13124:
13078:
13073:
13055:
13052:
13031:
13028:
12939:
12924:
12919:
12906:
12832:
12827:
12818:
12783:
12778:
12756:
12751:
12745:
12737:
12724:
12719:
12694:
12689:
12680:
12672:
12663:
12658:
12624:
12608:, after all. —/
12598:
12565:
12560:
12545:
12501:
12496:
12476:
12471:
12468:
12449:
12393:
12388:
12378:
12320:
12315:
12305:
12257:
12254:
12245:
12198:
12195:
12124:
12072:
11976:
11927:
11866:
11861:
11851:
11828:
11813:
11808:
11776:
11771:
11750:James Alexander
11741:
11707:Espresso Addict
11679:Espresso Addict
11635:
11630:
11576:
11571:
11529:Espresso Addict
11520:
11470:
11429:
11298:
11273:
11242:
11237:
11191:
11186:
11176:
11121:
11110:I support what
11094:
11042:
11019:
10925:
10920:
10895:
10880:
10865:
10856:
10852:Katherine Maher
10651:
10636:
10599:
10576:
10523:
10518:
10457:
10402:
10392:
10387:
10342:cygnis insignis
10305:
10282:cygnis insignis
10273:
10223:
10218:
10215:
10185:
10109:
10060:
10054:
10048:
10038:
10022:
9998:
9982:
9937:
9926:
9898:
9878:
9808:
9764:
9757:
9674:
9650:
9614:
9578:
9540:
9531:
9470:
9400:
9395:
9377:
9374:
9333:
9317:
9298:
9295:
9287:
9262:
9259:
9244:
9235:
9192:
9148:
9146:
9052:
9049:
9040:
8942:
8921:Epiphyllumlover
8890:Epiphyllumlover
8858:moral influence
8843:
8828:
8820:
8783:
8768:
8748:
8718:
8693:
8690:
8646:
8614:
8599:
8571:
8559:
8536:
8521:
8492:
8487:
8482:
8445:
8425:
8384:
8369:
8358:
8327:
8322:
8299:
8291:
8273:
8194:
8157:
8151:
8145:
8143:
8115:
8082:
8076:
8070:
8068:
8064:
8051:
8046:
8005:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
7966:
7939:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
7606:
7520:
7517:with or without
7393:
7388:
7340:
7325:
7297:
7203:
7197:
7196:
7120:
7114:
7113:
7062:
6961:Megalibrarygirl
6902:'three strikes'
6843:
6836:
6788:
6743:
6724:
6703:
6681:
6633:Govindaharihari
6599:
6571:
6562:
6527:To be clear, I
6505:
6288:
6287:
6252:
6246:
6240:
6160:
6155:
6145:
6107:
6075:
6070:
6041:as a necessary
5989:
5987:
5985:
5983:
5892:
5885:
5862:
5860:
5859:
5858:
5829:
5822:
5819:
5780:
5722:
5563:
5557:
5513:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
5464:
5459:
5390:
5348:
5322:
5315:
5298:
5265:
5184:
5180:
5175:
5131:
5126:
5011:
5004:
4971:
4962:
4944:
4937:they should be
4861:
4651:
4648:
4598:
4584:
4583:it has begun...
4550:
4468:processes, and
4447:
4402:
4399:
4259:
4241:
4193:
4172:
4126:
4115:
4105:
4089:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
3941:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
3905:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
3903:Oh, the irony.
3814:
3718:
3716:
3700:
3601:
3590:
3566:these two ideas
3545:
3534:
3518:
3507:
3470:
3422:
3411:
3395:
3384:
3368:
3357:
3331:
3320:
2734:
2723:
2641:
2630:
2587:
2584:
2583:
2538:
2473:As part of the
2422:
2411:
2406:
2358:
2353:
2350:
2304:
2259:
2254:
2172:
2169:
2133:
2130:
2071:
2015:
1907:
1871:
1826:
1819:
1818:it has begun...
1781:
1774:
1734:
1727:
1705:
1698:
1575:
1548:
1542:
1283:Yes, no reply.
1253:
1203:
1200:
1195:
1191:
1172:
1159:
1132:
1097:
1095:
1087:
1059:
1053:
1021:
939:
938:it has begun...
921:
902:
899:
823:
634:
631:
558:
484:
390:
385:
376:
372:
356:
318:
315:
269:
249:
238:
227:
221:
212:
91:
74:
73:
66:
59:
52:
45:
38:
34:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
14678:
14661:
14660:
14659:
14658:
14657:
14656:
14655:
14654:
14653:
14599:
14598:
14597:
14596:
14559:
14558:
14537:
14534:
14533:
14532:
14531:
14530:
14529:
14528:
14527:
14526:
14467:
14466:
14450:
14449:
14427:
14426:
14425:
14424:
14406:
14405:
14385:
14384:
14383:
14382:
14353:reverse ferret
14347:
14346:
14326:
14325:
14309:
14308:
14289:
14286:
14285:
14284:
14263:
14247:
14233:
14222:
14208:
14205:
14204:
14203:
14179:
14178:
14177:
14176:
14175:
14174:
14121:GorillaWarfare
14114:Katherine has
14111:
14110:
14109:
14108:
14091:
14090:
14089:
14043:
14042:
14041:
14040:
14039:
14038:
14037:
14036:
14003:
14002:
14001:
14000:
13999:
13998:
13967:
13966:
13965:
13964:
13963:
13875:Starship.paint
13872:
13871:
13870:
13805:
13787:
13786:
13785:
13784:
13783:
13782:
13781:
13780:
13706:
13705:
13704:
13703:
13702:
13701:
13700:
13699:
13685:active editors
13633:
13632:
13631:
13630:
13629:
13628:
13627:
13600:
13599:
13598:
13597:
13596:
13595:
13594:
13593:
13592:
13591:
13590:
13589:
13588:
13587:
13586:
13585:
13584:
13583:
13582:
13581:
13580:
13579:
13479:
13449:
13448:
13447:
13446:
13445:
13380:
13379:
13378:
13377:
13376:
13375:
13319:
13311:
13270:
13269:
13268:
13267:
13256:
13248:
13239:
13231:
13222:
13214:
13202:
13190:
13179:
13162:
13161:
13158:
13153:
13151:
13148:
13147:
13146:
13145:
13144:
13143:
13142:
13112:
13111:
13110:
13109:
13092:
13091:
13051:
13048:
13047:
13046:
13045:
13044:
13043:
13042:
12990:
12966:
12965:
12964:
12963:
12962:
12952:Britishfinance
12942:Starship.paint
12909:Britishfinance
12894:Britishfinance
12873:
12872:
12871:
12870:
12869:
12868:
12867:
12866:
12865:
12864:
12863:
12862:
12861:
12860:
12859:
12858:
12840:
12839:
12813:
12812:
12791:
12790:
12770:
12769:
12732:
12731:
12710:
12709:
12708:
12707:
12649:
12648:
12632:
12631:
12630:
12629:
12618:
12592:
12583:
12582:
12581:
12580:
12579:
12578:
12540:
12539:
12538:
12519:
12518:
12517:
12516:
12515:
12514:
12457:
12456:
12455:
12454:
12443:
12409:
12408:
12407:
12406:
12353:starship.paint
12348:
12347:
12346:
12345:
12344:
12343:
12342:
12341:
12340:
12339:
12338:
12337:
12336:
12335:
12334:
12333:
12299:
12239:
12166:
12165:
12164:
12163:
12146:
12145:
12130:
12122:
12105:
12104:
12103:
12102:
12101:
12100:
12099:
12098:
12097:
12096:
12078:
12077:
12066:
12051:
12050:
12033:
12032:
12013:
12012:
11990:
11989:
11988:
11987:
11986:
11985:
11956:
11955:
11937:
11936:
11910:
11890:
11889:
11888:
11887:
11886:
11885:
11884:
11883:
11882:
11881:
11880:
11879:
11831:Starship.paint
11793:GorillaWarfare
11744:GorillaWarfare
11729:GorillaWarfare
11725:Starship.paint
11720:
11719:
11702:
11701:
11700:
11699:
11698:
11697:
11696:
11695:
11694:
11693:
11692:
11691:
11675:Joe Sutherland
11649:
11648:
11622:@JosephSeddon
11616:
11610:Gregory Varnum
11607:
11598:
11592:Joe Sutherland
11503:
11502:
11501:
11500:
11468:
11467:
11466:
11438:GorillaWarfare
11423:
11410:
11409:
11408:
11407:
11406:
11405:
11404:
11403:
11402:
11401:
11400:
11399:
11398:
11397:
11292:
11279:
11278:
11267:
11229:
11228:
11227:
11226:
11225:
11224:
11223:
11222:
11135:
11134:
11133:
11132:
11131:
11130:
11103:
11102:
11084:
11083:
11082:
11081:
11080:
11049:
11048:
11047:
11036:
11013:
11001:
11000:
10999:
10966:
10957:
10943:
10942:
10941:
10940:
10939:
10917:by Bernstein.
10868:GorillaWarfare
10855:
10849:
10848:
10847:
10846:
10845:
10819:
10818:
10800:
10799:
10798:
10797:
10796:
10795:
10794:
10793:
10792:
10791:
10773:
10772:
10754:
10753:
10734:
10733:
10719:
10718:
10699:
10684:
10683:
10682:
10681:
10680:
10679:
10678:
10677:
10676:
10630:
10593:
10570:
10553:
10503:
10502:
10480:
10479:
10478:
10464:
10463:
10462:
10451:
10420:
10399:
10380:
10379:
10364:
10363:
10362:
10361:
10334:
10333:
10332:
10331:
10330:
10329:
10328:
10327:
10326:
10325:
10324:
10299:
10267:
10242:
10241:
10240:
10239:
10238:
10237:
10236:
10235:
10168:Stephan Schulz
10164:
10163:
10162:
10161:
10160:
10159:
10158:
10157:
10156:
10112:GorillaWarfare
10077:
10067:Britishfinance
10056:GorillaWarfare
10034:
10033:
10032:
10031:
10030:
10029:
10028:
10027:
10016:
9996:
9976:
9946:
9945:
9938:
9931:
9925:
9922:
9921:
9920:
9897:
9894:
9893:
9892:
9877:
9874:
9873:
9872:
9871:
9870:
9869:
9868:
9867:
9866:
9865:
9864:
9863:
9862:
9861:
9860:
9859:
9858:
9857:
9856:
9855:
9854:
9853:
9852:
9838:
9733:
9649:
9646:
9645:
9644:
9643:
9642:
9641:
9640:
9639:
9638:
9576:
9575:
9574:
9573:
9572:
9571:
9570:
9569:
9568:
9567:
9566:
9538:
9508:
9467:being harassed
9409:
9408:
9407:
9346:
9345:
9344:
9343:
9342:
9341:
9328:
9327:
9326:
9281:
9273:
9234:
9231:
9230:
9229:
9205:
9187:
9186:
9185:
9184:
9165:
9158:
9157:
9149:Rhododendrites
9143:
9136:
9109:
9101:
9100:
9099:
9098:
9084:
9080:
9076:
9072:
9065:
9064:
9063:
9044:
9034:
8988:
8987:
8986:
8985:
8984:
8983:
8982:
8981:
8980:
8979:
8953:
8952:
8934:
8933:
8932:
8931:
8907:
8906:
8905:
8904:
8903:
8902:
8901:
8900:
8809:
8808:
8807:
8806:
8805:
8804:
8803:
8802:
8801:
8800:
8799:
8798:
8797:
8796:
8795:
8794:
8793:
8792:
8775:
8774:
8766:
8745:
8744:
8743:
8742:
8741:
8740:
8739:
8738:
8716:
8705:
8704:
8679:
8678:
8656:
8655:
8631:
8630:
8609:
8608:
8566:
8565:
8557:
8531:
8530:
8505:
8504:
8503:
8502:
8501:
8500:
8469:
8452:
8451:
8443:
8420:
8419:
8405:
8391:
8390:
8382:
8367:
8350:
8349:
8334:
8309:
8283:
8282:
8281:
8280:
8261:
8260:
8236:
8219:
8170:
8169:
8168:
8167:
8166:
8139:
8105:
8063:
8060:
8059:
8058:
8039:
8038:
8037:
8036:
8035:
8034:
8033:
8032:
8031:
8030:
8029:
7914:
7897:
7880:
7853:
7835:
7814:
7791:
7776:
7775:
7774:
7773:
7772:
7771:
7770:
7769:
7768:
7767:
7766:
7640:
7613:
7600:
7580:
7559:
7558:
7557:
7531:
7530:
7529:
7526:
7523:
7503:ristrettomente
7495:
7478:
7477:
7476:
7443:
7442:
7441:
7404:
7403:
7402:
7401:
7400:
7351:
7350:
7349:
7348:
7347:
7336:this statement
7332:
7290:
7273:
7272:
7271:
7239:
7218:
7190:
7172:
7154:
7153:
7152:
7151:
7150:
7086:
7069:
7051:
7034:
7017:
7016:
7015:
6988:
6971:
6950:
6949:
6948:
6933:
6932:
6931:
6927:
6920:
6917:
6914:
6911:
6895:
6880:
6879:
6878:
6829:
6811:
6810:
6809:
6808:
6807:
6786:
6785:
6784:
6783:
6782:
6741:
6722:
6679:
6668:
6643:
6626:
6625:
6624:
6623:
6622:
6621:
6620:
6557:This summation
6550:
6529:do not endorse
6504:
6501:
6500:
6499:
6477:
6467:Dom from Paris
6460:
6443:
6433:114.110.34.162
6426:
6414:
6403:Cavalryman V31
6384:
6360:
6335:
6318:
6301:
6281:
6257:
6250:
6244:
6238:
6235:'s reasoning.
6226:
6209:
6191:
6190:
6189:
6188:
6187:
6120:
6101:
6084:
6063:
6057:old fashioned!
6036:
6015:
6006:
5974:
5957:
5940:
5917:
5899:
5887:Blue Rasberry
5877:
5857:per proposal.
5852:
5834:
5827:
5807:
5790:
5769:
5729:
5710:
5693:
5676:
5659:
5642:
5625:
5610:
5593:
5578:
5546:
5523:
5497:
5471:
5441:
5424:
5409:
5397:
5373:
5352:
5342:
5331:
5307:
5289:
5273:
5259:
5242:
5225:
5208:
5191:
5161:
5144:
5118:
5101:
5084:
5066:
5039:
5022:
4997:
4980:
4953:
4927:
4912:
4895:
4880:
4854:
4832:
4815:
4806:looks terrible
4790:
4773:
4756:
4735:
4718:
4701:
4684:
4667:
4641:
4631:Stephan Schulz
4624:
4614:Ms Sarah Welch
4607:
4606:
4605:
4582:
4571:
4557:
4538:
4521:
4501:
4484:
4465:
4433:
4413:
4380:
4361:
4343:
4342:
4341:
4308:
4291:
4274:
4253:
4234:
4217:
4203:
4187:
4171:
4168:
4167:
4166:
4162:
4150:
4146:
4142:
4135:
4134:
4127:
4120:
4114:
4111:
4110:
4109:
4104:
4101:
4100:
4099:
4081:
4080:
4060:
4059:
4058:
4057:
4033:
4009:
4008:
4007:
3993:
3990:
3982:
3978:
3972:
3956:
3955:
3954:
3953:
3952:
3951:
3915:
3901:
3895:
3870:
3869:
3868:
3867:
3863:
3856:
3846:
3845:
3844:
3811:
3790:
3772:
3750:
3749:
3748:
3699:
3696:
3695:
3694:
3674:
3670:
3653:
3652:
3648:
3640:
3639:conversations.
3635:
3634:
3633:
3632:
3628:
3624:
3617:
3616:
3610:
3609:
3602:
3595:
3589:
3586:
3585:
3584:
3577:
3573:
3569:
3554:
3553:
3546:
3539:
3533:
3530:
3527:
3526:
3519:
3512:
3506:
3503:
3501:
3500:
3496:
3495:
3490:
3489:
3485:
3484:
3481:
3478:
3475:
3469:
3466:
3465:
3464:
3431:
3430:
3423:
3416:
3410:
3407:
3404:
3403:
3396:
3389:
3383:
3380:
3377:
3376:
3369:
3362:
3356:
3353:
3352:
3351:
3347:
3340:
3339:
3332:
3325:
3319:
3316:
3315:
3314:
3297:
3281:
3265:
3248:
3231:
3214:
3197:
3180:
3163:
3146:
3129:
3112:
3109:
3092:
3067:
3064:
3061:
3044:
3027:
3026:
3025:
3007:
3003:
3000:
2994:
2977:
2960:
2943:
2926:
2909:
2892:
2875:
2857:
2856:
2851:
2844:
2837:
2830:
2819:
2808:
2797:
2786:
2774:
2767:
2760:
2753:
2743:
2742:
2735:
2728:
2722:
2715:
2686:
2685:
2670:
2669:
2650:
2649:
2642:
2635:
2629:
2626:
2625:
2624:
2599:
2598:
2578:
2577:
2575:
2574:
2573:
2572:
2571:
2532:
2523:
2522:
2502:
2501:
2500:
2499:
2496:does not offer
2489:
2488:
2487:
2480:
2479:
2478:
2468:
2467:
2466:
2456:
2455:
2454:
2451:
2444:
2441:Office actions
2431:
2430:
2423:
2416:
2410:
2407:
2403:
2402:
2401:
2400:
2385:
2381:
2376:
2375:
2366:
2351:
2341:
2330:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2312:
2311:
2287:
2286:
2268:
2246:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2232:Martinevans123
2201:
2200:
2199:
2198:
2197:
2152:(self-removed)
2149:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2103:
2102:
2092:67.164.113.165
2088:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1988:
1974:
1947:John M Wolfson
1939:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1817:
1806:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1571:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1534:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1397:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1336:
1295:
1266:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1213:
1212:
1187:
1185:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1136:
1126:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1028:
990:
989:
988:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
937:
918:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
813:
799:
798:
797:
774:
752:
739:
738:
737:
720:
689:
675:
661:
645:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
579:
542:
525:
511:
510:
509:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
382:
354:
336:User:WMFOffice
276:
271:
270:
266:
261:
258:
257:
250:
243:
237:
234:
233:
232:
229:
228:
223:
219:
217:
214:
213:
211:
210:
205:
200:
195:
190:
184:
181:
180:
177:
176:
171:
165:
164:
159:
154:
148:
147:
142:
137:
131:
130:
125:
120:
114:
113:
108:
103:
93:
92:
87:
81:
76:
72:
71:
64:
57:
50:
43:
35:
30:
26:
18:Knowledge:FRAM
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
14677:
14665:
14652:
14648:
14644:
14640:
14637:
14636:
14635:
14632:
14628:
14625:
14623:
14620:
14619:
14618:
14614:
14610:
14606:
14603:
14602:
14601:
14600:
14595:
14592:
14590:
14586:
14581:
14575:
14568:
14563:
14562:
14561:
14560:
14557:
14553:
14549:
14544:
14540:
14539:
14525:
14521:
14517:
14513:
14508:
14507:
14506:
14502:
14498:
14493:
14492:
14491:
14487:
14483:
14476:
14471:
14470:
14469:
14468:
14465:
14461:
14457:
14452:
14451:
14448:
14445:
14444:
14439:
14438:
14433:
14429:
14428:
14423:
14419:
14415:
14410:
14409:
14408:
14407:
14404:
14400:
14396:
14391:
14387:
14386:
14381:
14377:
14373:
14368:
14367:
14366:
14362:
14358:
14354:
14349:
14348:
14345:
14342:
14340:
14333:
14328:
14327:
14324:
14320:
14316:
14311:
14310:
14307:
14303:
14299:
14294:
14293:
14283:
14279:
14275:
14271:
14267:
14264:
14262:
14259:
14254:
14253:
14248:
14246:
14241:
14240:Seraphimblade
14237:
14234:
14232:
14226:
14220:
14216:
14211:
14210:
14202:
14199:
14197:
14195:
14194:
14189:
14185:
14184:Katie Hopkins
14181:
14180:
14173:
14169:
14165:
14161:
14157:
14153:
14149:
14145:
14144:
14143:
14139:
14136:
14132:
14131:
14130:
14126:
14122:
14117:
14116:replied to me
14113:
14112:
14107:
14104:
14103:
14098:
14097:
14092:
14088:
14084:
14080:
14076:
14075:
14074:
14070:
14066:
14062:
14058:
14057:
14056:
14053:
14049:
14045:
14044:
14035:
14031:
14027:
14023:
14022:
14021:
14017:
14013:
14009:
14008:
14007:
14006:
14005:
14004:
13997:
13994:
13993:
13988:
13987:
13982:
13981:
13980:
13976:
13972:
13968:
13962:
13959:
13957:
13953:
13948:
13940:
13939:
13938:
13937:
13936:
13935:
13934:
13930:
13927:
13923:
13917:
13914:
13911:
13908:
13905:
13902:
13899:
13896:
13893:
13890:
13887:
13884:
13881:
13876:
13873:
13869:
13865:
13861:
13857:
13855:
13851:
13846:
13841:
13840:
13839:
13835:
13831:
13826:
13822:
13817:
13813:
13809:
13806:
13804:
13800:
13796:
13792:
13789:
13788:
13779:
13775:
13771:
13766:
13762:
13761:
13760:
13755:
13751:
13747:
13741:
13740:
13739:
13735:
13731:
13727:
13724:
13723:
13722:
13718:
13714:
13711:
13708:
13707:
13698:
13694:
13690:
13686:
13682:
13681:
13680:
13676:
13672:
13667:
13666:
13665:
13662:
13660:
13656:
13651:
13644:
13639:
13634:
13626:
13622:
13618:
13614:
13610:
13609:
13608:
13607:
13606:
13605:
13604:
13603:
13602:
13601:
13578:
13575:
13573:
13569:
13564:
13557:
13556:
13555:
13551:
13547:
13542:
13541:
13540:
13536:
13532:
13527:
13526:
13525:
13521:
13517:
13512:
13511:
13510:
13509:
13508:
13504:
13500:
13495:
13494:
13493:
13489:
13485:
13480:
13478:
13474:
13470:
13465:
13464:
13463:
13459:
13455:
13450:
13444:
13440:
13436:
13432:
13431:
13430:
13427:
13425:
13421:
13416:
13407:
13402:
13401:
13400:
13396:
13392:
13388:
13387:
13386:
13385:
13384:
13383:
13382:
13381:
13374:
13371:
13369:
13365:
13360:
13354:
13348:
13344:
13340:
13336:
13330:
13329:
13328:
13324:
13323:
13318:
13317:
13312:
13310:
13307:
13305:
13301:
13296:
13289:
13288:
13287:
13283:
13279:
13275:
13274:
13266:
13264:
13262:
13257:
13255:
13253:
13249:
13247:
13245:
13240:
13238:
13236:
13232:
13230:
13228:
13223:
13221:
13219:
13215:
13213:
13211:
13209:
13203:
13201:
13199:
13197:
13191:
13189:
13187:
13185:
13180:
13178:
13176:
13175:
13171:
13166:
13165:
13164:
13163:
13157:
13156:
13141:
13137:
13132:
13127:
13122:
13118:
13117:
13116:
13115:
13114:
13113:
13108:
13104:
13100:
13096:
13095:
13094:
13093:
13090:
13087:
13085:
13081:
13076:
13069:
13065:
13059:
13054:
13053:
13041:
13038:
13036:
13034:
13025:
13024:
13023:
13019:
13015:
13011:
13006:
13005:
13004:
13000:
12996:
12991:
12989:
12985:
12981:
12976:
12971:
12968:Twitter is a
12967:
12961:
12957:
12953:
12949:
12943:
12938:
12937:
12936:
12933:
12931:
12927:
12922:
12916:
12910:
12905:
12904:
12903:
12899:
12895:
12891:
12888:, one of the
12887:
12885:
12884:
12883:Buzzfeed News
12879:
12875:
12874:
12857:
12853:
12849:
12844:
12843:
12842:
12841:
12838:
12835:
12830:
12822:
12817:
12816:
12815:
12814:
12811:
12807:
12803:
12798:
12795:
12794:
12793:
12792:
12789:
12786:
12781:
12774:
12773:
12772:
12771:
12768:
12765:
12763:
12759:
12754:
12741:
12736:
12735:
12734:
12733:
12730:
12727:
12722:
12716:
12715:
12714:
12713:
12712:
12711:
12706:
12703:
12701:
12697:
12692:
12686:
12676:
12671:
12670:
12669:
12666:
12661:
12655:
12651:
12650:
12647:
12643:
12639:
12634:
12633:
12628:
12622:
12616:
12612:
12607:
12603:
12602:
12601:
12597:
12596:
12591:
12590:
12585:
12584:
12577:
12574:
12572:
12568:
12563:
12555:
12554:
12553:
12550:
12548:
12541:
12537:
12533:
12529:
12525:
12524:
12523:
12522:
12521:
12520:
12513:
12510:
12508:
12504:
12499:
12492:
12489:
12488:
12487:
12484:
12479:
12474:
12465:
12461:
12460:
12459:
12458:
12453:
12447:
12441:
12437:
12431:
12430:
12429:
12426:
12425:
12422:
12419:
12414:
12411:
12410:
12405:
12402:
12400:
12396:
12391:
12382:
12377:
12376:
12375:
12371:
12367:
12362:
12358:
12354:
12350:
12349:
12332:
12329:
12327:
12323:
12318:
12311:
12310:
12309:
12303:
12297:
12293:
12287:
12286:
12285:
12282:
12281:
12278:
12275:
12269:
12268:
12267:
12264:
12262:
12260:
12251:
12250:
12249:
12243:
12237:
12233:
12228:
12227:
12226:
12223:
12222:
12219:
12216:
12210:
12209:
12208:
12205:
12203:
12201:
12192:
12188:
12187:
12186:
12183:
12182:
12179:
12176:
12171:
12168:
12167:
12162:
12158:
12154:
12150:
12149:
12148:
12147:
12144:
12140:
12136:
12131:
12129:
12126:
12120:
12115:
12111:
12107:
12106:
12095:
12091:
12087:
12082:
12081:
12080:
12079:
12076:
12070:
12064:
12060:
12055:
12054:
12053:
12052:
12049:
12045:
12041:
12037:
12036:
12035:
12034:
12031:
12026:
12025:Seraphimblade
12021:
12017:
12016:
12015:
12014:
12011:
12007:
12003:
11999:
11995:
11992:
11991:
11984:
11981:
11979:
11973:
11969:
11965:
11960:
11959:
11958:
11957:
11954:
11950:
11946:
11941:
11940:
11939:
11938:
11935:
11932:
11930:
11924:
11920:
11916:
11911:
11909:
11905:
11901:
11897:
11892:
11891:
11878:
11875:
11873:
11869:
11864:
11855:
11850:
11849:
11848:
11845:
11844:
11839:
11832:
11827:
11826:
11825:
11822:
11820:
11816:
11811:
11804:
11803:
11802:
11798:
11794:
11790:
11789:
11788:
11785:
11783:
11779:
11774:
11767:
11765:
11759:
11755:
11754:Joseph Seddon
11751:
11745:
11740:
11739:
11738:
11734:
11730:
11726:
11722:
11721:
11718:
11713:
11708:
11704:
11703:
11690:
11685:
11680:
11676:
11672:
11668:
11667:
11666:
11663:
11662:
11659:
11656:
11651:
11650:
11647:
11644:
11642:
11638:
11633:
11626:
11625:
11621:
11620:Joseph Seddon
11617:
11615:
11611:
11608:
11606:
11603:@jdforrester
11602:
11599:
11597:
11593:
11590:
11589:
11588:
11585:
11583:
11579:
11574:
11568:
11564:
11560:
11559:
11558:
11554:
11550:
11546:
11542:
11541:
11540:
11535:
11530:
11524:
11519:
11518:
11517:
11513:
11509:
11505:
11504:
11499:
11496:
11495:
11492:
11489:
11484:
11480:
11474:
11469:
11464:
11461:
11458:
11454:
11449:
11448:
11447:
11443:
11439:
11435:
11434:
11433:
11427:
11421:
11417:
11412:
11411:
11396:
11393:
11392:
11389:
11386:
11381:
11380:
11379:
11374:
11373:Seraphimblade
11369:
11368:
11367:
11363:
11359:
11355:
11351:
11350:
11349:
11345:
11341:
11337:
11333:
11332:
11331:
11326:
11325:Seraphimblade
11322:
11321:
11320:
11316:
11312:
11308:
11304:
11303:
11302:
11296:
11290:
11286:
11281:
11280:
11277:
11271:
11265:
11261:
11256:
11255:
11254:
11251:
11249:
11245:
11240:
11233:
11221:
11217:
11213:
11209:
11205:
11204:
11203:
11200:
11198:
11194:
11189:
11180:
11175:
11174:
11173:
11169:
11165:
11161:
11160:
11159:
11155:
11151:
11147:
11144:
11141:
11137:
11136:
11129:
11126:
11124:
11119:
11118:
11113:
11109:
11108:
11107:
11106:
11105:
11104:
11101:
11097:
11091:
11090:
11085:
11079:
11076:
11075:
11069:
11065:
11064:
11063:
11062:
11061:
11057:
11054:
11050:
11046:
11040:
11034:
11030:
11025:
11024:
11023:
11017:
11011:
11007:
11002:
10998:
10993:
10992:Seraphimblade
10989:
10985:
10984:
10983:
10979:
10975:
10971:
10967:
10965:
10962:
10958:
10956:
10952:
10948:
10944:
10937:
10934:
10932:
10928:
10923:
10916:
10911:
10907:
10903:
10902:KrakatoaKatie
10899:
10892:
10888:
10884:
10877:
10873:
10869:
10862:
10861:
10860:
10859:
10858:
10857:
10853:
10844:
10839:
10838:Seraphimblade
10835:
10834:
10833:
10829:
10825:
10821:
10820:
10817:
10813:
10809:
10806:
10802:
10801:
10790:
10787:
10786:
10783:
10782:
10777:
10776:
10775:
10774:
10771:
10767:
10763:
10758:
10757:
10756:
10755:
10752:
10749:
10748:
10745:
10744:
10738:
10737:
10736:
10735:
10732:
10729:
10728:
10723:
10722:
10721:
10720:
10717:
10713:
10709:
10705:
10700:
10698:
10694:
10690:
10685:
10675:
10670:
10666:
10662:
10658:
10654:
10649:
10645:
10642:
10641:
10640:
10634:
10628:
10624:
10619:
10615:
10614:
10613:
10610:
10605:
10604:
10603:
10597:
10591:
10587:
10582:
10581:
10580:
10574:
10568:
10564:
10558:
10554:
10552:
10549:
10548:
10543:
10542:
10537:
10536:
10535:
10532:
10530:
10526:
10521:
10515:
10513:
10509:
10501:
10497:
10493:
10489:
10485:
10481:
10477:
10473:
10469:
10465:
10461:
10455:
10449:
10445:
10439:
10438:
10437:
10433:
10429:
10425:
10421:
10419:
10414:
10410:
10406:
10400:
10398:
10395:
10390:
10384:
10383:
10382:
10381:
10378:
10374:
10370:
10366:
10365:
10360:
10356:
10352:
10348:
10347:
10346:
10343:
10339:
10338:about a dozen
10335:
10323:
10319:
10315:
10311:
10310:
10309:
10303:
10297:
10293:
10288:
10287:
10286:
10283:
10279:
10278:
10277:
10271:
10265:
10261:
10253:
10252:edit conflict
10248:
10247:
10246:
10245:
10244:
10243:
10234:
10231:
10226:
10221:
10212:
10208:
10204:
10201:
10200:
10199:
10195:
10193:
10188:
10183:
10179:
10178:
10177:
10173:
10169:
10165:
10155:
10152:
10151:
10147:
10146:
10141:
10140:
10139:
10135:
10131:
10128:
10124:
10123:
10121:
10117:
10113:
10108:
10107:
10106:
10103:
10102:
10098:
10097:
10092:
10091:
10090:
10089:
10088:
10083:
10082:Seraphimblade
10078:
10076:
10072:
10068:
10063:
10057:
10051:
10046:
10041:
10036:
10035:
10026:
10020:
10014:
10010:
10005:
10004:
10003:
10000:
9994:
9988:
9987:
9986:
9980:
9974:
9970:
9965:
9964:
9963:
9959:
9955:
9950:
9949:
9943:
9939:
9935:
9930:
9929:
9919:
9915:
9911:
9907:
9903:
9900:
9899:
9891:
9887:
9883:
9882:Beyond My Ken
9880:
9879:
9851:
9847:
9843:
9839:
9836:
9831:
9830:
9829:
9825:
9821:
9816:
9815:
9814:
9811:
9806:
9805:
9800:
9795:
9791:
9790:
9789:
9785:
9781:
9778:important. -
9776:
9775:
9774:
9771:
9769:
9762:
9760:
9754:
9749:
9748:
9747:
9743:
9739:
9734:
9730:
9729:
9728:
9724:
9720:
9715:
9714:
9713:
9709:
9705:
9700:
9699:
9698:
9694:
9690:
9686:
9682:
9681:
9680:
9677:
9672:
9671:
9666:
9665:
9664:
9660:
9656:
9652:
9651:
9637:
9633:
9629:
9625:
9618:
9613:
9612:
9611:
9607:
9603:
9599:
9598:
9597:
9593:
9589:
9582:
9577:
9565:
9561:
9557:
9553:
9552:
9544:
9539:
9537:
9534:
9529:
9528:
9523:
9519:
9514:
9509:
9507:
9504:
9500:
9496:
9495:
9494:
9489:
9485:
9481:
9477:
9473:
9468:
9464:
9459:
9454:
9453:
9452:
9448:
9444:
9439:
9438:
9437:
9434:
9432:
9430:
9429:
9424:
9423:
9422:
9418:
9414:
9410:
9406:
9403:
9398:
9392:
9389:
9388:
9387:
9384:
9382:
9380:
9371:
9366:
9365:
9364:
9361:
9359:
9357:
9356:
9350:
9349:
9348:
9347:
9340:
9337:
9336:
9330:Thanks both.
9329:
9325:
9322:
9320:
9314:
9310:
9309:
9308:
9305:
9303:
9301:
9292:
9291:
9290:
9286:
9285:
9280:
9279:
9274:
9272:
9269:
9267:
9265:
9256:
9253:
9252:
9251:
9248:
9247:
9240:
9237:
9236:
9228:
9224:
9221:
9218:
9214:
9211:on this one.
9210:
9206:
9204:
9199:
9195:
9189:
9188:
9183:
9179:
9175:
9170:
9166:
9162:
9161:
9160:
9159:
9156:
9151:
9141:
9133:
9129:
9125:
9120:
9116:
9112:
9106:
9103:
9102:
9097:
9093:
9089:
9085:
9081:
9077:
9073:
9070:
9069:
9066:
9062:
9059:
9057:
9055:
9045:
9043:
9039:
9038:
9033:
9032:
9026:
9025:
9024:
9021:
9019:
9017:
9016:
9010:
9006:
9002:
8998:
8994:
8990:
8989:
8978:
8974:
8970:
8966:
8962:
8957:
8956:
8955:
8954:
8950:
8946:
8945:
8936:
8935:
8930:
8926:
8922:
8917:
8916:
8915:
8914:
8913:
8912:
8911:
8910:
8909:
8908:
8899:
8895:
8891:
8887:
8882:
8881:
8880:
8876:
8872:
8871:Beyond My Ken
8867:
8866:
8860:
8859:
8854:
8853:
8851:
8847:
8846:
8838:
8837:
8836:
8833:
8831:
8825:
8823:
8818:
8817:SportingFlyer
8814:
8811:
8810:
8791:
8788:
8786:
8779:
8778:
8777:
8776:
8773:
8770:
8764:
8758:
8752:
8747:
8746:
8737:
8733:
8729:
8725:
8724:
8723:
8720:
8714:
8709:
8708:
8707:
8706:
8703:
8700:
8698:
8696:
8687:
8684:Umm.... This
8683:
8682:
8681:
8680:
8677:
8673:
8669:
8665:
8660:
8659:
8658:
8657:
8654:
8651:
8649:
8642:
8639:
8635:
8634:
8633:
8632:
8628:
8624:
8618:
8613:
8612:
8611:
8610:
8607:
8604:
8602:
8596:
8591:
8586:
8582:
8575:
8570:
8569:
8568:
8567:
8564:
8561:
8555:
8550:
8546:
8545:as an example
8540:
8535:
8534:
8533:
8532:
8529:
8526:
8524:
8518:
8514:
8510:
8507:
8506:
8499:
8495:
8490:
8485:
8480:
8475:
8470:
8468:
8464:
8460:
8456:
8455:
8454:
8453:
8450:
8447:
8441:
8436:
8429:
8424:
8423:
8422:
8421:
8418:
8414:
8410:
8403:
8399:
8395:
8394:
8393:
8392:
8389:
8386:
8380:
8373:
8368:
8366:
8363:
8361:
8354:
8353:
8352:
8351:
8348:
8344:
8340:
8335:
8333:
8330:
8325:
8318:
8313:
8310:
8308:
8302:
8296:
8295:
8288:
8285:
8284:
8279:
8276:
8271:
8270:
8265:
8264:
8263:
8262:
8259:
8255:
8251:
8246:
8242:
8237:
8235:
8231:
8227:
8223:
8220:
8218:
8213:
8209:
8205:
8201:
8197:
8191:
8186:
8182:
8178:
8174:
8171:
8165:
8160:
8154:
8148:
8140:
8138:
8134:
8130:
8126:
8125:
8123:
8119:
8118:
8110:
8106:
8104:
8100:
8096:
8092:
8091:
8090:
8085:
8079:
8073:
8066:
8065:
8057:
8054:
8049:
8043:
8040:
8028:
8024:
8020:
8016:
8015:
8014:
8010:
8006:
8002:
7997:
7993:
7990:
7989:
7988:
7984:
7980:
7976:
7970:
7965:
7964:
7963:
7959:
7955:
7950:
7949:
7948:
7944:
7940:
7936:
7933:
7932:
7931:
7927:
7923:
7918:
7915:
7913:
7909:
7905:
7901:
7898:
7896:
7892:
7888:
7887:The Cunctator
7884:
7881:
7879:
7876:
7872:
7868:
7865:
7861:
7857:
7854:
7852:
7848:
7844:
7839:
7836:
7834:
7830:
7826:
7821:
7818:
7815:
7813:
7808:
7805:
7800:
7795:
7792:
7790:
7786:
7782:
7777:
7765:
7760:
7757:
7752:
7747:
7746:
7741:
7740:
7739:
7735:
7731:
7727:
7726:
7725:
7720:
7717:
7712:
7708:
7707:
7702:
7701:
7700:
7696:
7692:
7687:
7686:
7685:
7680:
7677:
7672:
7669:
7668:
7663:
7659:
7658:
7657:
7653:
7649:
7644:
7641:
7639:
7635:
7631:
7627:
7622:
7617:
7614:
7612:
7609:
7605:
7599:
7596:
7592:
7588:
7584:
7581:
7579:
7575:
7571:
7567:
7563:
7560:
7556:
7553:
7549:
7545:
7541:
7537:
7532:
7527:
7524:
7518:
7514:
7513:
7512:
7511:
7509:
7505:
7504:
7499:
7496:
7494:
7490:
7486:
7482:
7479:
7475:
7471:
7467:
7462:
7461:
7460:
7456:
7452:
7447:
7444:
7440:
7436:
7432:
7427:
7426:
7425:
7421:
7417:
7413:
7408:
7405:
7399:
7396:
7391:
7384:
7383:
7382:
7378:
7374:
7370:
7369:
7368:
7364:
7360:
7355:
7352:
7346:
7343:
7337:
7333:
7331:
7328:
7323:
7319:
7318:
7317:
7313:
7309:
7305:
7304:
7303:
7300:
7294:
7291:
7289:
7285:
7281:
7277:
7274:
7270:
7267:
7263:
7258:
7257:
7256:
7252:
7248:
7243:
7240:
7238:
7234:
7230:
7226:
7222:
7219:
7217:
7213:
7209:
7204:Pigsonthewing
7200:
7194:
7191:
7189:
7185:
7181:
7176:
7173:
7171:
7167:
7163:
7158:
7155:
7149:
7145:
7141:
7136:
7135:
7134:
7130:
7126:
7121:Pigsonthewing
7117:
7111:
7108:
7107:
7106:
7102:
7098:
7093:
7090:
7087:
7085:
7081:
7077:
7073:
7070:
7068:
7065:
7060:
7059:
7055:
7052:
7050:
7046:
7042:
7038:
7035:
7033:
7029:
7025:
7021:
7018:
7014:
7010:
7006:
7001:
7000:
6999:
6996:
6992:
6989:
6987:
6983:
6979:
6975:
6972:
6970:
6966:
6962:
6958:
6954:
6951:
6947:
6943:
6939:
6934:
6928:
6925:
6921:
6918:
6915:
6912:
6909:
6908:
6907:
6906:
6903:
6899:
6896:
6894:
6891:
6889:
6884:
6881:
6877:
6873:
6869:
6861:
6857:
6853:
6852:
6851:
6846:
6839:
6833:
6830:
6828:
6824:
6820:
6815:
6812:
6806:
6802:
6798:
6792:
6787:
6781:
6777:
6773:
6769:
6764:
6763:
6762:
6758:
6754:
6750:
6749:
6748:
6745:
6739:
6734:
6728:
6723:
6721:
6717:
6713:
6707:
6702:
6701:
6700:
6696:
6692:
6688:
6687:
6686:
6683:
6677:
6672:
6669:
6667:
6663:
6659:
6654:
6651:
6647:
6644:
6642:
6638:
6634:
6630:
6627:
6619:
6615:
6611:
6607:
6606:
6605:
6602:
6596:
6595:Frank Sinatra
6592:
6591:
6590:
6586:
6582:
6575:
6570:
6569:
6568:
6565:
6558:
6554:
6551:
6549:
6545:
6542:
6539:
6535:
6530:
6526:
6522:
6519:
6516:
6512:
6507:
6506:
6498:
6493:
6488:
6487:
6481:
6478:
6476:
6472:
6468:
6464:
6461:
6459:
6455:
6451:
6447:
6444:
6442:
6438:
6434:
6430:
6427:
6425:
6422:
6418:
6415:
6412:
6408:
6404:
6400:
6396:
6392:
6388:
6385:
6383:
6380:
6374:
6372:
6368:
6364:
6361:
6359:
6355:
6351:
6347:
6343:
6339:
6336:
6334:
6330:
6326:
6322:
6319:
6317:
6313:
6309:
6305:
6302:
6300:
6296:
6291:
6285:
6282:
6280:
6277:
6273:
6269:
6265:
6261:
6258:
6256:
6253:
6247:
6241:
6234:
6230:
6227:
6225:
6221:
6217:
6213:
6210:
6208:
6204:
6200:
6199:GastelEtzwane
6195:
6192:
6186:
6183:
6179:
6174:
6173:
6172:
6169:
6167:
6163:
6158:
6149:
6144:
6143:
6142:
6139:
6134:
6129:
6126:admin, given
6125:
6121:
6119:
6115:
6113:
6112:
6105:
6102:
6100:
6096:
6092:
6088:
6085:
6083:
6080:
6078:
6073:
6067:
6064:
6062:
6058:
6052:
6048:
6044:
6040:
6037:
6035:
6031:
6027:
6023:
6019:
6016:
6014:
6011:
6007:
6005:
6002:
5999:
5998:
5978:
5975:
5973:
5969:
5965:
5961:
5958:
5956:
5953:
5952:
5949:
5946:
5941:
5939:
5935:
5931:
5930:
5925:
5921:
5918:
5916:
5912:
5908:
5903:
5900:
5898:
5895:
5890:
5888:
5881:
5878:
5876:
5871:
5865:
5856:
5853:
5851:
5847:
5843:
5838:
5835:
5833:
5830:
5825:
5815:
5811:
5808:
5806:
5802:
5798:
5797:Pawnkingthree
5794:
5791:
5789:
5786:
5783:
5777:
5773:
5770:
5768:
5764:
5760:
5756:
5752:
5748:
5745:
5742:
5738:
5737:Jan Eissfeldt
5733:
5730:
5728:
5725:
5720:
5719:
5714:
5711:
5709:
5705:
5701:
5697:
5694:
5692:
5688:
5684:
5680:
5677:
5675:
5671:
5667:
5663:
5660:
5658:
5654:
5650:
5646:
5643:
5641:
5637:
5633:
5629:
5626:
5624:
5620:
5616:
5611:
5609:
5605:
5601:
5597:
5594:
5592:
5589:
5586:
5582:
5579:
5577:
5573:
5569:
5562:
5555:
5550:
5547:
5545:
5541:
5538:
5535:
5531:
5527:
5524:
5522:
5518:
5514:
5509:
5505:
5501:
5498:
5496:
5492:
5489:
5488:contributions
5485:
5484:
5479:
5475:
5472:
5470:
5467:
5462:
5455:
5452:
5447:
5446:edit conflict
5442:
5440:
5436:
5432:
5428:
5425:
5423:
5420:
5417:
5413:
5410:
5408:
5405:
5401:
5398:
5396:
5393:
5388:
5387:
5381:
5377:
5374:
5372:
5368:
5364:
5360:
5356:
5353:
5351:
5347:
5346:
5341:
5340:
5335:
5332:
5330:
5327:
5325:
5320:
5319:
5311:
5308:
5306:
5303:
5302:
5301:
5293:
5290:
5288:
5284:
5280:
5277:
5274:
5272:
5268:
5263:
5260:
5258:
5254:
5250:
5246:
5243:
5241:
5237:
5233:
5229:
5226:
5224:
5220:
5216:
5212:
5209:
5207:
5203:
5199:
5195:
5192:
5190:
5187:
5183:
5178:
5170:
5165:
5162:
5160:
5156:
5152:
5148:
5145:
5143:
5140:
5138:
5134:
5129:
5122:
5119:
5117:
5113:
5109:
5105:
5102:
5100:
5096:
5092:
5088:
5085:
5083:
5079:
5075:
5070:
5067:
5065:
5062:
5059:
5058:
5054:
5050:
5045:
5044:edit conflict
5040:
5038:
5034:
5030:
5026:
5023:
5021:
5018:
5016:
5009:
5007:
5001:
4998:
4996:
4992:
4988:
4984:
4981:
4979:
4976:
4975:
4974:
4967:
4966:
4965:
4957:
4954:
4952:
4949:
4947:
4940:
4935:
4931:
4928:
4926:
4921:
4920:Seraphimblade
4916:
4913:
4911:
4907:
4903:
4899:
4896:
4894:
4891:
4888:
4884:
4881:
4879:
4874:
4870:
4864:
4858:
4855:
4852:
4848:
4844:
4840:
4836:
4833:
4831:
4827:
4823:
4819:
4816:
4814:
4811:
4807:
4803:
4798:
4794:
4791:
4789:
4785:
4781:
4777:
4774:
4772:
4768:
4764:
4760:
4757:
4755:
4751:
4747:
4743:
4739:
4736:
4734:
4730:
4727:
4722:
4719:
4717:
4713:
4709:
4705:
4702:
4700:
4696:
4692:
4688:
4685:
4683:
4679:
4675:
4674:Beyond My Ken
4671:
4668:
4666:
4662:
4658:
4654:
4645:
4642:
4640:
4636:
4632:
4628:
4625:
4623:
4619:
4615:
4611:
4608:
4604:
4601:
4596:
4595:
4590:
4589:
4588:
4585:
4580:
4575:
4572:
4570:
4566:
4562:
4558:
4556:
4553:
4548:
4547:
4542:
4539:
4537:
4533:
4529:
4525:
4522:
4520:
4516:
4512:
4505:
4502:
4500:
4497:
4492:
4488:
4485:
4483:
4479:
4475:
4471:
4466:
4464:
4459:
4455:
4451:
4445:
4441:
4437:
4434:
4432:
4428:
4424:
4420:
4419:
4414:
4412:
4409:
4407:
4405:
4396:
4392:
4388:
4384:
4381:
4379:
4375:
4371:
4370:
4365:
4362:
4360:
4356:
4352:
4347:
4344:
4340:
4336:
4332:
4327:
4326:
4325:
4321:
4317:
4312:
4309:
4307:
4303:
4299:
4295:
4292:
4290:
4286:
4282:
4278:
4275:
4273:
4269:
4267:
4262:
4257:
4254:
4252:
4248:
4244:
4238:
4235:
4233:
4229:
4225:
4221:
4218:
4216:
4213:
4212:
4207:
4204:
4201:
4197:
4196:
4188:
4186:
4182:
4178:
4174:
4173:
4163:
4160:
4156:
4151:
4147:
4143:
4139:
4138:
4132:
4128:
4124:
4119:
4118:
4107:
4106:
4098:
4094:
4090:
4086:
4083:
4082:
4079:
4075:
4071:
4066:
4062:
4061:
4055:
4051:
4047:
4042:
4038:
4034:
4027:
4024:Furthermore,
4020:
4017:
4016:
4014:
4010:
4006:
4002:
3998:
3991:
3987:
3983:
3979:
3976:
3975:
3973:
3971:
3967:
3963:
3958:
3957:
3950:
3946:
3942:
3938:
3935:
3934:
3933:
3929:
3925:
3922:
3919:
3916:
3914:
3910:
3906:
3902:
3900:
3896:
3893:
3892:Seraphimblade
3889:
3886:
3885:
3884:
3880:
3876:
3872:
3871:
3864:
3860:
3857:
3854:
3853:
3851:
3847:
3843:
3839:
3835:
3831:
3830:
3829:
3825:
3821:
3812:
3809:
3805:
3801:
3796:
3791:
3789:
3785:
3781:
3777:
3773:
3771:
3768:
3767:
3764:
3761:
3756:
3751:
3747:
3743:
3739:
3734:
3733:
3732:
3728:
3726:
3721:
3713:
3709:
3705:
3702:
3701:
3693:
3689:
3685:
3680:
3675:
3671:
3668:
3663:
3662:
3657:
3649:
3646:
3641:
3637:
3636:
3629:
3625:
3621:
3620:
3619:
3618:
3614:
3613:
3607:
3603:
3599:
3594:
3593:
3582:
3578:
3574:
3570:
3567:
3562:
3558:
3557:
3551:
3547:
3543:
3538:
3537:
3524:
3520:
3516:
3511:
3510:
3498:
3497:
3492:
3491:
3487:
3486:
3482:
3479:
3476:
3473:
3472:
3468:About the ban
3463:
3459:
3455:
3447:
3443:
3439:
3435:
3434:
3428:
3424:
3420:
3415:
3414:
3401:
3397:
3393:
3388:
3387:
3374:
3370:
3366:
3361:
3360:
3348:
3344:
3343:
3337:
3333:
3329:
3324:
3323:
3313:
3311:
3307:
3303:
3298:
3296:
3294:
3290:
3286:
3282:
3280:
3278:
3274:
3270:
3266:
3264:
3261:
3257:
3253:
3249:
3247:
3244:
3240:
3236:
3232:
3230:
3227:
3223:
3219:
3215:
3213:
3210:
3206:
3202:
3198:
3196:
3193:
3189:
3185:
3181:
3179:
3176:
3172:
3168:
3164:
3162:
3159:
3155:
3151:
3147:
3145:
3142:
3138:
3134:
3130:
3128:
3125:
3121:
3117:
3110:
3108:
3105:
3101:
3097:
3093:
3091:
3088:
3084:
3080:
3076:
3072:
3062:
3060:
3057:
3053:
3049:
3045:
3043:
3040:
3036:
3032:
3028:
3024:
3021:
3017:
3013:
3008:
3004:
3001:
2998:
2997:
2995:
2993:
2990:
2986:
2982:
2978:
2976:
2973:
2969:
2965:
2961:
2959:
2956:
2952:
2948:
2944:
2942:
2939:
2935:
2931:
2927:
2925:
2922:
2918:
2914:
2910:
2908:
2905:
2901:
2897:
2893:
2891:
2888:
2884:
2880:
2876:
2874:
2871:
2867:
2863:
2859:
2858:
2855:
2852:
2850:
2849:
2845:
2843:
2842:
2838:
2836:
2835:
2831:
2829:
2828:
2826:
2820:
2817:
2816:
2815:
2809:
2806:
2805:
2804:
2798:
2795:
2794:
2793:
2787:
2784:(no response)
2783:
2782:
2781:
2775:
2773:
2772:
2768:
2766:
2765:
2761:
2759:
2758:
2754:
2752:
2751:
2747:
2746:
2740:
2736:
2732:
2727:
2726:
2720:
2713:
2709:
2705:
2701:
2697:
2691:
2684:
2680:
2676:
2672:
2671:
2668:
2664:
2660:
2656:
2655:
2647:
2643:
2639:
2634:
2633:
2623:
2619:
2615:
2610:
2606:
2605:
2601:
2600:
2597:
2592:
2590:
2585:usernamekiran
2580:
2579:
2576:
2570:
2566:
2562:
2557:
2556:
2555:
2551:
2547:
2543:
2542:
2541:
2537:
2536:
2531:
2530:
2525:
2524:
2521:
2517:
2513:
2508:
2504:
2503:
2497:
2493:
2492:
2490:
2484:
2483:
2481:
2476:
2472:
2471:
2469:
2464:
2460:
2459:
2457:
2452:
2449:
2445:
2442:
2438:
2437:
2435:
2434:
2428:
2424:
2420:
2415:
2414:
2399:
2395:
2391:
2386:
2382:
2378:
2377:
2372:
2367:
2365:
2362:
2361:
2355:
2345:
2344:WOAH WHAT?!?!
2342:
2340:
2337:
2332:
2331:
2324:
2321:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2313:
2310:
2307:
2302:
2301:
2296:
2295:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2285:
2282:
2277:
2273:
2269:
2267:
2264:
2262:
2257:
2251:
2247:
2241:
2237:
2233:
2229:
2226:
2222:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2214:
2210:
2207:
2202:
2196:
2192:
2188:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2179:
2177:
2175:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2160:
2156:
2153:
2150:
2148:
2144:
2140:
2136:
2127:
2124:
2121:
2116:
2113:
2101:
2097:
2093:
2089:
2087:
2083:
2079:
2074:
2073:Fluffernutter
2069:
2068:
2067:
2066:
2064:
2061:
2057:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2046:
2042:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2033:
2029:
2025:
2024:
2023:
2020:
2018:
2011:
2007:
2003:
1999:
1987:
1983:
1979:
1975:
1973:
1970:
1968:
1967:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1956:
1952:
1948:
1944:
1940:
1928:
1924:
1920:
1916:
1912:
1910:
1904:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1889:
1885:
1881:
1875:
1868:
1867:edit conflict
1863:
1859:
1855:
1851:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1840:
1836:
1830:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1820:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1805:
1802:
1800:
1799:
1794:
1788:
1785:
1784:
1778:
1777:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1738:
1737:
1731:
1730:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1718:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1709:
1708:
1702:
1701:
1694:
1690:
1689:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1595:
1591:
1588:
1584:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1574:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1560:
1555:
1551:
1545:
1538:
1535:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1428:
1427:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1402:
1395:
1393:
1392:SemiHypercube
1390:
1389:
1388:
1385:
1384:
1380:
1379:
1375:
1374:
1369:
1363:
1362:edit conflict
1358:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1337:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1303:
1299:
1296:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1267:
1265:
1262:
1260:
1258:
1257:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1215:
1214:
1211:
1206:
1199:
1198:
1190:
1186:
1184:
1179:
1175:
1169:
1165:
1162:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1135:
1131:
1130:
1125:
1124:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1105:
1100:
1091:
1086:
1085:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1062:
1056:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1033:
1029:
1027:
1024:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1004:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
970:
969:
968:
958:
955:
951:
945:
944:
943:
940:
935:
930:
925:
919:
917:
913:
909:
905:
896:
895:
893:
890:
884:
883:
882:
879:
875:
871:
865:
861:
860:contributions
857:
853:
852:Jo-Jo Eumerus
849:
848:
847:
843:
839:
836:So have I. --
835:
834:
833:
830:
829:
826:
818:
814:
812:
808:
804:
800:
796:
793:
788:
784:
783:
782:
779:
775:
773:
769:
768:contributions
765:
761:
760:Jo-Jo Eumerus
757:
753:
751:
748:
746:
745:
740:
736:
732:
728:
724:
721:
719:
715:
711:
707:
704:
703:
702:
698:
694:
690:
688:
684:
680:
676:
674:
670:
666:
662:
660:
657:
654:
650:
646:
644:
641:
639:
637:
628:
627:
616:
612:
608:
604:
600:
599:
598:
595:
591:
585:
584:edit conflict
580:
578:
574:
570:
566:
565:
564:
561:
555:
554:
553:
550:
546:
543:
541:
540:
539:
535:
531:
526:
524:
520:
516:
515:Pawnkingthree
512:
508:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
482:
481:
480:
476:
472:
468:
467:local project
464:
459:
445:
441:
437:
429:
425:
424:
423:
419:
415:
410:
409:
408:
404:
400:
395:
394:
393:
388:
381:
379:
370:
366:
360:
355:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
330:
329:
328:
325:
323:
321:
312:
309:
308:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
290:
289:
286:
281:
277:
275:
274:
273:
272:
265:
264:
255:
251:
247:
242:
241:
216:
215:
209:
206:
204:
201:
199:
196:
194:
191:
189:
186:
185:
183:
182:
175:
172:
170:
167:
166:
163:
160:
158:
155:
153:
150:
149:
146:
143:
141:
138:
136:
133:
132:
129:
126:
124:
121:
119:
116:
115:
112:
109:
107:
104:
102:
99:
98:
95:
94:
90:
85:
80:
79:
75:
69:
65:
62:
58:
55:
51:
48:
44:
41:
37:
36:
33:
19:
14663:
14576:
14572:
14542:
14511:
14442:
14437:Dennis Brown
14436:
14431:
14389:
14372:Slatersteven
14338:
14331:
14251:
14214:
14192:
14159:
14155:
14151:
14147:
14101:
14096:Dennis Brown
14095:
14012:Slatersteven
13991:
13986:Dennis Brown
13985:
13943:
13912:
13906:
13900:
13894:
13888:
13882:
13844:
13842:
13824:
13820:
13815:
13811:
13807:
13764:
13684:
13671:Slatersteven
13646:
13638:Slatersteven
13612:
13559:
13546:Slatersteven
13516:Slatersteven
13484:Slatersteven
13435:Slatersteven
13411:
13406:Slatersteven
13391:Slatersteven
13355:
13352:
13339:Slatersteven
13321:
13315:
13291:
13260:
13259:
13251:
13242:
13234:
13225:
13217:
13207:
13205:
13195:
13193:
13183:
13182:
13173:
13169:
13168:
13071:
13067:
13063:
13032:
12974:
12969:
12917:
12914:
12881:
12877:
12848:Grandpallama
12821:Grandpallama
12802:Grandpallama
12796:
12749:
12687:
12684:
12653:
12610:
12594:
12588:
12558:
12546:
12494:
12491:Bellezzasolo
12473:Bellezzasolo
12472:
12463:
12435:
12416:
12386:
12313:
12291:
12272:
12258:
12231:
12213:
12199:
12190:
12173:
12153:Calliopejen1
12118:
12109:
12058:
12019:
11993:
11977:
11972:knows better
11971:
11967:
11963:
11928:
11922:
11918:
11914:
11895:
11859:
11841:
11837:
11806:
11769:
11763:
11761:
11757:
11753:
11749:
11669:The account
11653:
11628:
11623:
11619:
11618:
11613:
11612:@GregVarnum
11609:
11604:
11600:
11595:
11591:
11569:
11566:
11562:
11486:
11482:
11457:Arthur Rubin
11453:Presidential
11415:
11383:
11284:
11259:
11235:
11232:no one cares
11231:
11184:
11122:
11116:
11088:
11073:
11028:
11005:
10987:
10918:
10785:
10780:
10747:
10742:
10726:
10622:
10617:
10585:
10562:
10556:
10546:
10541:Dennis Brown
10540:
10516:
10511:
10507:
10505:
10487:
10483:
10443:
10424:Facetiously:
10423:
10337:
10291:
10259:
10220:Bellezzasolo
10219:
10189:
10149:
10144:
10100:
10095:
10008:
9992:
9968:
9901:
9803:
9798:
9793:
9765:
9758:
9669:
9549:
9526:
9517:
9512:
9466:
9462:
9457:
9427:
9378:
9369:
9354:
9331:
9318:
9299:
9283:
9277:
9263:
9242:
9238:
9219:
9208:
9139:
9131:
9127:
9123:
9118:
9114:
9110:
9104:
9053:
9036:
9030:
9014:
8960:
8940:
8864:
8863:
8857:
8856:
8841:
8827:
8819:
8812:
8784:
8762:
8712:
8694:
8685:
8663:
8647:
8640:
8637:
8626:
8622:
8600:
8594:
8589:
8584:
8580:
8553:
8548:
8544:
8522:
8512:
8473:
8439:
8434:
8378:
8359:
8316:
8311:
8292:
8286:
8268:
8244:
8240:
8221:
8193:" comment.
8189:
8184:
8180:
8176:
8172:
8113:
8041:
8000:
7995:
7974:
7916:
7904:Peacemaker67
7899:
7882:
7871:Morgan Leigh
7855:
7837:
7816:
7793:
7744:
7743:
7730:Slatersteven
7705:
7704:
7691:Slatersteven
7666:
7665:
7661:
7648:Slatersteven
7642:
7625:
7620:
7615:
7582:
7561:
7516:
7507:
7502:
7501:
7497:
7480:
7445:
7411:
7406:
7353:
7321:
7292:
7275:
7261:
7241:
7220:
7212:Andy's edits
7208:Talk to Andy
7199:Andy Mabbett
7192:
7174:
7156:
7129:Andy's edits
7125:Talk to Andy
7116:Andy Mabbett
7109:
7091:
7088:
7071:
7057:
7053:
7036:
7019:
6990:
6973:
6952:
6897:
6890:
6882:
6831:
6813:
6767:
6737:
6732:
6675:
6670:
6645:
6628:
6552:
6540:
6528:
6517:
6484:
6479:
6462:
6445:
6428:
6416:
6386:
6365:. Thank you
6362:
6345:
6341:
6337:
6320:
6303:
6283:
6264:Dlohcierekim
6259:
6231:. Following
6228:
6211:
6193:
6153:
6128:past history
6109:
6103:
6086:
6076:
6071:
6065:
6042:
6038:
6017:
5982:
5976:
5959:
5943:
5927:
5924:Bluerasberry
5919:
5901:
5886:
5879:
5854:
5836:
5813:
5809:
5792:
5771:
5731:
5716:
5712:
5695:
5678:
5661:
5644:
5627:
5595:
5580:
5553:
5548:
5536:
5525:
5507:
5499:
5481:
5477:
5473:
5450:
5426:
5411:
5399:
5385:
5379:
5375:
5359:filelakeshoe
5354:
5344:
5338:
5333:
5323:
5317:
5316:
5309:
5296:
5295:
5291:
5275:
5261:
5249:Gerda Arendt
5244:
5227:
5210:
5193:
5173:
5163:
5146:
5124:
5120:
5103:
5086:
5068:
5055:
5048:
5024:
5012:
5005:
4999:
4987:CoffeeCrumbs
4982:
4970:
4969:
4961:
4960:
4955:
4945:
4938:
4933:
4929:
4914:
4897:
4882:
4856:
4834:
4817:
4805:
4801:
4796:
4792:
4784:push to talk
4780:push to talk
4775:
4758:
4740:noting that
4737:
4720:
4703:
4686:
4669:
4643:
4626:
4609:
4593:
4573:
4545:
4540:
4523:
4511:Gestumblindi
4503:
4486:
4469:
4439:
4435:
4416:
4403:
4394:
4390:
4386:
4382:
4368:
4367:
4363:
4345:
4310:
4293:
4276:
4263:
4255:
4236:
4219:
4210:
4205:
4191:
4159:these people
4021:, tells us,
3985:
3897:
3794:
3758:
3724:
3711:
3703:
2846:
2839:
2832:
2824:
2821:
2812:
2811:
2801:
2800:
2790:
2789:
2778:
2777:
2769:
2762:
2755:
2748:
2694:— Preceding
2608:
2603:
2602:
2588:
2534:
2528:
2505:
2390:Nocturnalnow
2370:
2348:
2343:
2299:
2293:
2260:
2255:
2249:
2227:
2224:
2205:
2173:
2151:
2016:
2009:
2005:
2001:
1965:
1908:
1903:User:Amakuru
1878:The details
1797:
1780:
1773:
1768:
1764:
1733:
1726:
1704:
1697:
1692:
1656:
1634:
1537:TonyBallioni
1496:TonyBallioni
1480:User:EngFram
1476:TonyBallioni
1461:TonyBallioni
1432:TonyBallioni
1382:
1377:
1372:
1255:
1254:
1232:
1194:
1188:
1139:
1128:
1122:
1117:
1103:
1031:
1016:
1008:
997:
973:
948:
873:
821:
743:
710:funplussmart
679:funplussmart
635:
466:
462:
386:Message me.
377:
319:
88:
14605:Nosebagbear
14567:Nosebagbear
14548:Nosebagbear
14188:Ann Coulter
14026:Yngvadottir
13669:misleading.
13313:Or WMFEFE?
12995:Nosebagbear
12740:Moe Epsilon
12675:Moe Epsilon
11601:jdforrester
11549:Floquenbeam
11523:Floquenbeam
11508:Floquenbeam
11358:Killiondude
11212:Floquenbeam
11179:Floquenbeam
11164:Floquenbeam
11150:Floquenbeam
11140:a WP editor
11112:Newyorkbrad
10781:OhanaUnited
10743:OhanaUnited
10514:," it said.
10388:S Philbrick
10369:Nosebagbear
10314:Nosebagbear
10211:User revolt
10207:WP:FRAMGATE
9906:Whac-A-Mole
9767:talk to me!
9396:S Philbrick
8590:All we want
8287:Unrealistic
8185:FUCK ARBCOM
8129:Newyorkbrad
7952:up to you.
7864:user:Jytdog
7280:Yngvadottir
7262:as a whole,
7225:Newyorkbrad
7005:Lepricavark
6753:Floquenbeam
6727:Floquenbeam
6712:Nosebagbear
6691:Floquenbeam
6421:Sun Creator
6367:Newyorkbrad
6133:some quotes
5870:Talk to me!
5863:Oshawott 12
5781:Doug Weller
5600:Jonathunder
5232:Killiondude
5074:Lepricavark
5014:talk to me!
4474:Floquenbeam
4242:CoolSkittle
4224:Atlantic306
3937:IntoThinAir
3924:IntoThinAir
3800:Mautpreller
3755:noticeboard
3442:global lock
3302:Jimbo Wales
3285:Jimbo Wales
3269:Jimbo Wales
3252:Jimbo Wales
3235:Jimbo Wales
3218:Jimbo Wales
3201:Jimbo Wales
3184:Jimbo Wales
3167:Jimbo Wales
3150:Jimbo Wales
3133:Jimbo Wales
3116:Jimbo Wales
3096:Jimbo Wales
3079:Jimbo Wales
3048:Jimbo Wales
3031:Jimbo Wales
3012:Jimbo Wales
2981:Jimbo Wales
2964:Jimbo Wales
2947:Jimbo Wales
2930:Jimbo Wales
2913:Jimbo Wales
2896:Jimbo Wales
2879:Jimbo Wales
2862:Jimbo Wales
2719:Jimmy Wales
2336:Alexis Jazz
2320:Alexis Jazz
2281:Alexis Jazz
2248:+1 to the "
2028:listed here
1835:Nosebagbear
1693:technically
1691:So, are we
1599:Nosebagbear
1116:Yeah,a big
838:Floquenbeam
727:Killiondude
607:Floquenbeam
530:Floquenbeam
365:Judith Wahr
54:WP:FRAMGATE
14497:Tryptofish
14475:Tryptofish
14456:Tryptofish
14266:Guerillero
14236:Guerillero
14193:Ritchie333
14164:Tryptofish
14079:DuncanHill
14052:Iridescent
13910:block user
13904:filter log
13770:DuncanHill
13746:Javert2113
13730:DuncanHill
13713:DuncanHill
13347:Rschen7754
13227:integrity.
12679:- writing
12604:They have
12110:stunningly
12086:Randy Kryn
12040:Randy Kryn
12002:Randy Kryn
11896:everything
11477:Now done:
10974:DuncanHill
10708:Randy Kryn
10428:Tryptofish
10405:Javert2113
9794:completely
9581:Ritchie333
9428:Ritchie333
9355:Ritchie333
9233:Discussion
9015:Ritchie333
8250:Tryptofish
7999:rest. Now
7626:completely
7587:FramBasher
7566:Carcharoth
7552:SashiRolls
7485:Cwmhiraeth
6995:Sir Joseph
6957:Nick Moyes
6938:Nick Moyes
6772:Tryptofish
6371:Cúchullain
6350:Neonorange
6043:first step
5990:Promethean
5759:AFBorchert
5386:Bhunacat10
5215:Tazerdadog
4708:PhilKnight
4579:* Pppery *
4450:Javert2113
4189:Samesies.
4028:tells us,
3997:Tryptofish
3820:Tazerdadog
3454:Carcharoth
3446:asked Fram
2060:Iridescent
2032:Iridescent
1814:* Pppery *
1717:Iridescent
1661:Iridescent
1639:Praxidicae
1583:Ivanvector
1568:Ivanvector
1524:Praxidicae
1492:Iridescent
1484:Iridescent
1401:Iridescent
1302:Iridescent
1196:CYBERPOWER
1090:Praxidicae
1037:Praxidicae
954:Iridescent
934:* Pppery *
924:Iridescent
889:Iridescent
792:Iridescent
594:Iridescent
569:Praxidicae
549:Iridescent
471:Praxidicae
378:PlyrStar93
285:Iridescent
268:this page.
174:Archive 14
169:Archive 13
162:Archive 12
157:Archive 11
152:Archive 10
47:WP:FRAMBAN
14639:Jehochman
14631:Jehochman
14482:Nil Einne
14332:obviously
14270:Clayoquot
14065:Guettarda
13922:this post
13916:block log
13821:competent
13816:obviously
13613:community
13544:with you.
13066:or maybe
13014:Ymblanter
12975:BIG STUFF
12878:tone deaf
12114:Doc James
11336:Clayoquot
11307:Clayoquot
11143:harassing
10876:Callanecc
10762:Aquillion
10203:Mojo Hand
10187:Mojo Hand
10130:Blackmane
10062:Silk Tork
10045:Fram case
10040:Jehochman
9910:Guy Macon
9842:Guy Macon
9799:extremely
9759:Rockstone
9458:certainly
9194:Vanamonde
9174:Nishidani
8969:Nishidani
8459:SmokeyJoe
8428:SmokeyJoe
8409:SmokeyJoe
8372:SmokeyJoe
8339:SmokeyJoe
8173:Uncertain
8019:Guy Macon
7979:Yair rand
7841:storm. --
7799:Hijiri 88
7751:Hijiri 88
7711:Hijiri 88
7671:Hijiri 88
7630:Aquillion
7595:Teamsters
7544:Fake news
7508:sometimes
7466:Nil Einne
7451:Nil Einne
7341:AdA&D
7326:AdA&D
7298:AdA&D
7180:Simonm223
7024:Rosiestep
6978:SmokeyJoe
6650:Montanabw
6600:Montanabw
6574:Montanabw
6563:Montanabw
6325:RaphaelQS
6308:Coemgenus
6216:WiseWoman
6111:Racconish
6020:per user
6010:Jehochman
5828:(blether)
5741:wheel war
5649:GermanJoe
5585:Fut.Perf.
5530:Cas Liber
5511:junkets.
5108:SmokeyJoe
5006:Rockstone
4902:T. Canens
4843:Abecedare
4822:MZMcBride
4561:Ymblanter
4491:Sluzzelin
4369:North8000
4351:Barkeep49
4261:Mojo Hand
4026:WP:OFFICE
3738:Barkeep49
3708:Jan (WMF)
3704:Question.
3684:Jan (WMF)
3631:projects.
3581:statement
3350:the case.
2827:Two weeks
2700:RadioKAOS
2078:Ymblanter
1909:Doc James
1653:WP:OFFICE
1564:WMFOffice
1446:Ymblanter
1256:Susmuffin
1174:Vanamonde
824:Uninvited
817:User:Fram
787:WP:OFFICE
723:m:T&S
436:Nil Einne
414:Nil Einne
399:Nil Einne
348:pingó mió
344:Galobtter
311:Galobtter
302:pingó mió
298:Galobtter
280:WP:OFFICE
145:Archive 9
140:Archive 8
135:Archive 7
128:Archive 6
123:Archive 5
118:Archive 4
111:Archive 3
106:Archive 2
101:Archive 1
32:Shortcuts
14643:Mr Ernie
14609:Mr Ernie
14579:starship
14278:contribs
14152:on earth
14133:Swell.-
13946:starship
13886:contribs
13649:starship
13617:Mr Ernie
13562:starship
13482:noticed.
13454:SilkTork
13414:starship
13358:starship
13343:Haukurth
13335:SilkTork
13294:starship
13074:starship
13068:WIKIGATE
12920:starship
12752:starship
12690:starship
12561:starship
12497:starship
12389:starship
12316:starship
12108:This is
11900:SchroCat
11898:here. -
11862:starship
11809:starship
11772:starship
11631:starship
11572:starship
11561:We have
11473:Mendaliv
11354:subtweet
11344:contribs
11315:contribs
11238:starship
11187:starship
11068:Mendaliv
10921:starship
10906:SilkTork
10824:Adam9007
10653:Headbomb
10618:dynamite
10519:starship
10182:FRAMGATE
10127:this one
9818:words.--
9624:BU Rob13
9543:Headbomb
9472:Headbomb
9223:Contribs
8943:nableezy
8844:nableezy
8728:Mr Ernie
8668:Mr Ernie
8585:assuming
8574:BU Rob13
8509:BU Rob13
8398:BU Rob13
8317:actually
8196:Headbomb
8116:nableezy
7820:WP:CIVIL
7570:rdfox 76
7247:SilkTork
6837:Gamaliel
6797:Benjamin
6791:BU Rob13
6706:BU Rob13
6544:contribs
6521:contribs
6321:Endorse'
6260:Endorse'
6156:starship
6148:Nemo bis
6124:involved
5683:Benjamin
5666:SnowFire
5554:actually
5540:contribs
5314:talk to
5185:Chequers
5151:SchroCat
5127:starship
4934:de facto
4873:contribs
4804:bad, it
4661:contribs
4194:nableezy
4149:myself).
4145:on-wiki.
4070:Victoria
3888:SilkTork
3875:SilkTork
3712:quantity
3561:publicly
2825:Ten days
2708:contribs
2696:unsigned
2659:Mirokado
2143:contribs
2004:know of
1955:contribs
1919:contribs
1880:are here
1160:xaosflux
1140:required
1022:xaosflux
974:anything
912:contribs
486:Headbomb
294:recently
283:year. ‑
188:/Summary
89:Archives
68:WP:CSFBF
14414:Wehwalt
14339:~Swarm~
14315:Smeat75
14298:Wehwalt
14218:endaliv
13860:llywrch
13850:llywrch
13845:emailed
13795:llywrch
13750:Siarad.
13689:Mjroots
13345:, and
13121:King of
13099:Mjroots
13064:WMFGATE
13058:Mjroots
13050:Hashtag
13010:WP:FRAM
12833:Epsilon
12784:Epsilon
12725:Epsilon
12664:Epsilon
12638:Wehwalt
12636:wood.--
12614:endaliv
12547:~Swarm~
12528:Wehwalt
12482:Discuss
12439:endaliv
12295:endaliv
12235:endaliv
12135:llywrch
12062:endaliv
11978:~Swarm~
11929:~Swarm~
11594:@jrbsu
11419:endaliv
11371:point.
11288:endaliv
11263:endaliv
11095:discuss
11089:Tarl N.
11032:endaliv
11009:endaliv
10961:Cryptic
10947:28bytes
10908:, and
10891:Joe Roe
10889:, and
10874:, and
10689:Johnbod
10626:endaliv
10609:Cryptic
10589:endaliv
10566:endaliv
10468:Wehwalt
10447:endaliv
10409:Siarad.
10351:28bytes
10295:endaliv
10263:endaliv
10229:Discuss
10050:Joe Roe
10047:, that
10043:ArbCom
10012:endaliv
9972:endaliv
9820:Wehwalt
9719:EllenCT
9689:EllenCT
9655:EllenCT
9628:Amakuru
9617:Wehwalt
9602:Wehwalt
9588:Amakuru
9334:Lugnuts
9319:~Swarm~
9255:Lugnuts
9245:Lugnuts
9239:Comment
9209:neutral
9028:drama.
8813:Neutral
8785:~Swarm~
8648:~Swarm~
8644:truth.
8638:believe
8627:because
8601:~Swarm~
8523:~Swarm~
8479:King of
8360:~Swarm~
8328:Epsilon
8226:Amakuru
8222:Comment
8181:showing
7969:Kudpung
7781:Amakuru
7519:reason
7431:Banedon
7416:Banedon
7394:Epsilon
7229:Deskana
6581:EllenCT
6534:Granger
6511:Granger
6480:Endorse
6463:Endorse
6450:Maproom
6446:Endorse
6429:Endorse
6417:Endorse
6387:Endorse
6363:Endorse
6342:content
6338:Endorse
6304:Endorse
6290:Widefox
6284:Endorse
6276:renamer
6233:Dweller
6229:Endorse
6212:Endorse
6194:Endorse
6104:Endorse
6087:Endorse
6066:Endorse
6055:Become
6047:Dweller
6039:Endorse
6026:Chalk19
6018:Endorse
5964:Wehwalt
5960:Endorse
5920:Endorse
5902:Endorse
5880:Endorse
5855:Endorse
5842:llywrch
5837:Endorse
5810:Endorse
5793:Endorse
5772:Endorse
5732:Endorse
5713:Endorse
5696:Endorse
5679:Endorse
5662:Endorse
5645:Endorse
5632:WaltCip
5628:Endorse
5596:Endorse
5581:Endorse
5549:Endorse
5526:Endorse
5500:Endorse
5483:bonadea
5474:Endorse
5427:Endorse
5419:Snowman
5412:Endorse
5400:Endorse
5391:(talk),
5376:Endorse
5355:Endorse
5334:Endorse
5310:Endorse
5299:Hut 8.5
5292:Endorse
5276:Endorse
5267:gadfium
5262:Endorse
5245:Endorse
5228:Endorse
5211:Endorse
5198:Carrite
5194:Endorse
5164:Endorse
5147:Endorse
5121:Endorse
5104:Endorse
5087:Endorse
5049:Endorse
5025:Endorse
5000:Endorse
4983:Endorse
4956:Endorse
4946:~Swarm~
4930:Endorse
4915:Endorse
4898:Endorse
4883:Endorse
4863:Elmidae
4857:Endorse
4835:Endorse
4818:Endorse
4793:Endorse
4776:Endorse
4759:Endorse
4746:EllenCT
4738:Endorse
4721:Endorse
4704:Endorse
4670:Endorse
4644:Endorse
4524:Endorse
4504:Endorse
4487:Endorse
4454:Siarad.
4364:Endorse
4346:Endorse
4294:Endorse
4277:Endorse
4256:Endorse
4237:Endorse
4220:Endorse
4206:Endorse
4177:28bytes
4170:Endorse
4046:WP:AN/I
4032:answer.
4011:Thanks
3918:Kudpung
3848:Thanks
3568:, too).
3114:heat.--
3006:months)
2675:Maproom
2614:Carrite
2561:Amakuru
2374:Jones."
2359:Support
2209:Legoktm
2187:Legoktm
2155:Legoktm
2017:~Swarm~
1884:Amakuru
1829:Amakuru
1747:Amakuru
1219:Carrite
1189:WTF????
828:Company
656:Snowman
603:WT:AC/N
40:WP:FRAM
14584:.paint
14574:alias.
14370:doing.
14357:Sitush
14125:(talk)
13951:.paint
13654:.paint
13567:.paint
13531:Sitush
13499:Sitush
13419:.paint
13363:.paint
13331:Done.
13299:.paint
13079:.paint
12948:WP:RSP
12925:.paint
12757:.paint
12695:.paint
12566:.paint
12502:.paint
12394:.paint
12321:.paint
11867:.paint
11854:Seddon
11843:Seddon
11814:.paint
11797:(talk)
11777:.paint
11733:(talk)
11636:.paint
11577:.paint
11460:(talk)
11442:(talk)
11243:.paint
11192:.paint
11117:Cullen
11074:Enigma
10926:.paint
10727:Enigma
10524:.paint
10484:remain
10393:(Talk)
10116:(talk)
9902:Oppose
9401:(Talk)
8621:Cool,
8595:exists
8581:beyond
8177:saying
8109:WP:TPO
8095:Jheald
8042:Oppose
8001:that's
7996:that's
7975:really
7917:Oppose
7900:Oppose
7883:Oppose
7856:Oppose
7838:Oppose
7817:Oppose
7662:banned
7643:Oppose
7616:Oppose
7583:Oppose
7562:Oppose
7546:&
7498:Oppose
7481:Oppose
7446:Oppose
7407:Oppose
7359:SD0001
7354:Oppose
7293:Oppose
7276:Oppose
7242:Oppose
7221:Oppose
7193:Oppose
7175:Oppose
7162:Nick-D
7157:Oppose
7089:Oppose
7072:Oppose
7063:(talk)
7054:Oppose
7037:Oppose
7020:Oppose
6991:Oppose
6974:Oppose
6953:Oppose
6926:); and
6898:Oppose
6888:MLauba
6883:Oppose
6868:GRuban
6832:Oppose
6814:Oppose
6671:Oppose
6658:SusunW
6646:Oppose
6629:Oppose
6553:Oppose
6503:Oppose
6397:and a
6346:source
6161:.paint
6022:Pppery
6001:(talk)
5893:(talk)
5823:Summit
5718:Graham
5700:Kante4
5615:Drmies
5508:plenty
5502:- per
5247:AGF --
5132:.paint
4972:apolis
4890:(talk)
4797:no-one
4763:Huldra
4691:GRuban
4649:python
4528:Haukur
4298:Jheald
4239:Fair.
4211:Enigma
4054:WP:CCI
4050:WP:RSN
3962:Jheald
3075:WP:5P5
3071:WP:IAR
2589:(talk)
2225:rarely
2131:python
2115:WP:AGF
2002:anyone
1769:should
1543:spryde
1054:spryde
900:python
14257:v^_^v
13971:MONGO
13793:. --
12654:their
11945:©Geni
11671:jrbsu
11483:think
11455:. —
10854:tweet
9809:v^_^v
9780:Bilby
9738:Bilby
9704:Bilby
9675:v^_^v
9551:Kusma
9532:v^_^v
9465:over
9213:Nigos
8751:Swarm
8686:seems
8641:blame
8617:Swarm
8539:Swarm
8274:v^_^v
8062:Other
8052:_IV†♠
8047:♠Vami
7992:FOARP
7954:FOARP
7935:FOARP
7922:FOARP
7412:do it
7041:Bilby
6924:RexxS
6819:RexxS
6733:quite
6492:Help!
6272:admin
6072:Davey
5934:talk
5907:L.tak
5820:Girth
5814:force
5416:Giant
5181:Spiel
5091:Aoidh
5029:©Geni
4652:coder
4599:v^_^v
4551:v^_^v
4418:Kusma
4331:Buffs
4316:Buffs
4065:RexxS
3834:Buffs
3679:table
3627:bans.
3576:week.
2305:v^_^v
2256:Davey
2228:never
2134:coder
2123:other
2058:). ‑
2000:Does
1923:email
1782:rolls
1735:rolls
1706:rolls
1651:From
1573:Edits
1378:Hyper
903:coder
706:DrKay
693:DrKay
653:Giant
605:. --
14647:talk
14613:talk
14589:talk
14552:talk
14520:talk
14512:when
14501:talk
14486:talk
14460:talk
14418:talk
14399:talk
14376:talk
14361:talk
14319:talk
14302:talk
14274:talk
14168:talk
14083:talk
14069:talk
14050:. ‑
14030:talk
14016:talk
13975:talk
13956:talk
13898:logs
13880:talk
13864:talk
13854:talk
13834:talk
13819:the
13799:talk
13774:talk
13765:only
13734:talk
13717:talk
13693:talk
13675:talk
13659:talk
13621:talk
13572:talk
13550:talk
13535:talk
13520:talk
13503:talk
13488:talk
13473:talk
13458:talk
13439:talk
13424:talk
13395:talk
13368:talk
13316:Reyk
13304:talk
13282:talk
13244:now.
13103:talk
13084:talk
13018:talk
12999:talk
12984:talk
12956:talk
12930:talk
12898:talk
12852:talk
12806:talk
12762:talk
12700:talk
12642:talk
12589:Reyk
12571:talk
12532:talk
12507:talk
12424:7754
12421:chen
12415:. --
12399:talk
12370:talk
12361:Here
12357:here
12326:talk
12280:7754
12277:chen
12221:7754
12218:chen
12181:7754
12178:chen
12157:talk
12139:talk
12090:talk
12044:talk
12006:talk
11968:more
11949:talk
11915:will
11904:talk
11872:talk
11838:like
11819:talk
11782:talk
11712:talk
11684:talk
11661:7754
11658:chen
11641:talk
11582:talk
11563:four
11553:talk
11534:talk
11512:talk
11494:7754
11491:chen
11391:7754
11388:chen
11362:talk
11340:talk
11311:talk
11248:talk
11216:talk
11197:talk
11168:talk
11154:talk
10988:here
10978:talk
10970:this
10951:talk
10931:talk
10883:Mkdw
10828:talk
10812:talk
10766:talk
10712:talk
10693:talk
10620:. —/
10529:talk
10496:talk
10472:talk
10432:talk
10373:talk
10355:talk
10318:talk
10192:talk
10172:talk
10134:talk
10071:talk
9958:talk
9914:talk
9886:talk
9846:talk
9824:talk
9784:talk
9753:Fram
9742:talk
9723:talk
9708:talk
9693:talk
9659:talk
9632:talk
9606:talk
9592:talk
9503:El_C
9447:talk
9417:talk
9278:Reyk
9217:t@lk
9198:Talk
9178:talk
9132:were
9128:less
9092:talk
9031:Reyk
9003:and
8995:and
8973:talk
8965:face
8925:talk
8894:talk
8875:talk
8865:That
8732:talk
8672:talk
8517:this
8463:talk
8435:only
8413:talk
8343:talk
8312:Moot
8294:Ched
8254:talk
8245:does
8230:talk
8146:qedk
8133:talk
8107:See
8099:talk
8071:qedk
8023:talk
8009:talk
7983:talk
7958:talk
7943:talk
7926:talk
7891:talk
7875:Talk
7866:see
7847:talk
7829:talk
7785:talk
7734:talk
7695:talk
7652:talk
7634:talk
7603:Talk
7574:talk
7500:: (
7489:talk
7470:talk
7455:talk
7435:talk
7420:talk
7377:talk
7363:talk
7312:talk
7284:talk
7266:El_C
7251:talk
7233:talk
7184:talk
7166:talk
7144:talk
7101:talk
7080:talk
7058:Tony
7045:talk
7028:talk
7009:talk
6982:talk
6965:talk
6942:talk
6872:talk
6844:talk
6823:talk
6801:talk
6776:talk
6768:then
6757:talk
6716:talk
6695:talk
6662:talk
6637:talk
6614:talk
6585:talk
6538:talk
6515:talk
6471:talk
6454:talk
6437:talk
6407:talk
6393:, a
6354:Phil
6329:talk
6312:talk
6295:talk
6268:talk
6220:talk
6203:talk
6182:Nemo
6166:talk
6138:Nemo
6095:talk
6077:2010
6051:talk
6030:talk
5968:talk
5951:7754
5948:chen
5911:talk
5868:)==
5846:talk
5801:talk
5785:talk
5763:talk
5751:this
5704:talk
5687:talk
5670:talk
5653:talk
5636:talk
5619:talk
5604:talk
5572:talk
5561:DTTR
5534:talk
5517:talk
5491:talk
5435:talk
5339:Reyk
5324:dave
5283:talk
5253:talk
5236:talk
5219:talk
5202:talk
5176:Ϣere
5155:talk
5137:talk
5112:talk
5095:talk
5078:talk
5053:Tera
5033:talk
4991:talk
4963:Mini
4906:talk
4869:talk
4847:talk
4826:talk
4767:talk
4750:talk
4712:talk
4695:talk
4678:talk
4657:talk
4635:talk
4618:talk
4565:talk
4532:talk
4515:talk
4495:talk
4478:talk
4470:then
4444:here
4391:need
4374:talk
4355:talk
4335:talk
4320:talk
4302:talk
4285:talk
4281:Yger
4266:talk
4247:talk
4228:talk
4181:talk
4093:talk
4001:talk
3966:talk
3945:talk
3928:talk
3909:talk
3879:talk
3838:talk
3824:talk
3804:talk
3784:talk
3766:7754
3763:chen
3742:talk
3725:Talk
3688:talk
3458:talk
3438:this
3306:talk
3289:talk
3273:talk
3256:talk
3239:talk
3222:talk
3205:talk
3188:talk
3171:talk
3154:talk
3137:talk
3120:talk
3100:talk
3083:talk
3073:and
3052:talk
3035:talk
3016:talk
2985:talk
2968:talk
2951:talk
2934:talk
2917:talk
2900:talk
2883:talk
2866:talk
2704:talk
2679:talk
2663:talk
2618:talk
2565:talk
2550:talk
2529:Reyk
2516:talk
2486:ban.
2394:talk
2356:Need
2261:2010
2250:WTF?
2236:talk
2213:talk
2191:talk
2159:talk
2139:talk
2126:wiki
2096:talk
2082:talk
2045:talk
1982:talk
1966:xeno
1951:talk
1915:talk
1888:talk
1874:Xeno
1854:talk
1839:talk
1798:xeno
1775:Tide
1751:talk
1728:Tide
1699:Tide
1675:talk
1643:talk
1635:only
1618:talk
1603:talk
1549:talk
1528:talk
1500:talk
1465:talk
1450:talk
1436:talk
1415:talk
1383:cube
1373:Semi
1345:talk
1330:talk
1315:talk
1289:talk
1275:talk
1241:talk
1223:talk
1204:Chat
1178:Talk
1148:talk
1123:Reyk
1104:Talk
1075:talk
1060:talk
1041:talk
982:talk
908:talk
874:only
856:talk
842:talk
807:talk
764:talk
744:xeno
731:talk
714:talk
697:talk
683:talk
669:talk
649:this
611:talk
573:talk
559:Revi
534:talk
519:talk
475:talk
463:only
440:talk
426:See
418:talk
403:talk
14225:Δ's
14186:or
14160:her
14156:not
14140:🖋
13931:🖋
13830:Wnt
13825:all
13322:YO!
13033:WBG
12980:Wnt
12828:Moe
12779:Moe
12720:Moe
12659:Moe
12621:Δ's
12595:YO!
12446:Δ's
12359:. (
12302:Δ's
12259:WBG
12242:Δ's
12200:WBG
12191:but
12119:Rob
12069:Δ's
11964:any
11426:Δ's
11295:Δ's
11270:Δ's
11058:🖋
11039:Δ's
11016:Δ's
10898:AGK
10633:Δ's
10596:Δ's
10573:Δ's
10557:any
10492:Wnt
10488:not
10454:Δ's
10302:Δ's
10270:Δ's
10150:Eng
10101:Eng
10019:Δ's
9993:Rob
9979:Δ's
9379:WBG
9300:WBG
9284:YO!
9264:WBG
9153:\\
9135:be.
9115:can
9054:WBG
9037:YO!
8763:Rob
8713:Rob
8695:WBG
8554:Rob
8474:can
8440:Rob
8396:Hi
8379:Rob
8323:Moe
8305:—
7843:E.3
7825:agr
7621:can
7593:or
7591:UAW
7389:Moe
7206:);
7123:);
6738:Rob
6676:Rob
6486:Guy
6270:),
6251:(c)
6245:(t)
6239:(u)
6091:Deb
5929:DGG
5866:==(
5478:all
5465:Why
5454:iff
5404:JFG
5345:YO!
5057:tix
4731:🖋
4404:WBG
4085:Jan
4013:Jan
3986:not
3850:Jan
3776:Jan
3719:MJL
2609:not
2559:—
2535:YO!
2371:all
2174:WBG
2120:any
2010:one
2006:any
1812:).
1765:can
1233:way
1129:YO!
1098:MJL
1032:had
636:WBG
373:-★-
320:WBG
14649:)
14615:)
14554:)
14522:)
14503:)
14495:--
14488:)
14462:)
14443:2¢
14440:-
14420:)
14401:)
14378:)
14363:)
14321:)
14304:)
14280:)
14276:|
14229:/
14221://
14170:)
14148:if
14135:Mr
14102:2¢
14099:-
14085:)
14071:)
14063:.
14032:)
14018:)
13992:2¢
13989:-
13977:)
13926:Mr
13866:)
13836:)
13801:)
13776:)
13736:)
13728:.
13719:)
13695:)
13677:)
13623:)
13552:)
13537:)
13522:)
13505:)
13490:)
13475:)
13460:)
13441:)
13397:)
13341:,
13337:,
13284:)
13138:♠
13105:)
13020:)
13001:)
12986:)
12958:)
12950:.
12900:)
12854:)
12808:)
12644:)
12625:/
12617://
12534:)
12450:/
12442://
12433:—/
12418:Rs
12372:)
12306:/
12298://
12274:Rs
12271:--
12246:/
12238://
12215:Rs
12212:--
12175:Rs
12172:--
12159:)
12141:)
12123:13
12092:)
12073:/
12065://
12046:)
12008:)
12000:.
11951:)
11906:)
11752:,
11727:.
11655:Rs
11555:)
11514:)
11488:Rs
11481:I
11430:/
11422://
11385:Rs
11364:)
11346:)
11342:|
11317:)
11313:|
11299:/
11291://
11274:/
11266://
11218:)
11170:)
11156:)
11098:)
11053:Mr
11043:/
11035://
11020:/
11012://
10980:)
10953:)
10904:,
10900:,
10885:,
10870:,
10830:)
10814:)
10768:)
10760:--
10714:)
10695:)
10667:·
10663:·
10659:·
10637:/
10629://
10600:/
10592://
10577:/
10569://
10560:—/
10547:2¢
10544:-
10498:)
10474:)
10458:/
10450://
10441:—/
10434:)
10375:)
10357:)
10320:)
10306:/
10298://
10274:/
10266://
10205:,
10174:)
10136:)
10073:)
10023:/
10015://
9997:13
9983:/
9975://
9960:)
9916:)
9888:)
9848:)
9826:)
9786:)
9744:)
9725:)
9710:)
9695:)
9661:)
9634:)
9608:)
9594:)
9562:)
9501:.
9486:·
9482:·
9478:·
9449:)
9419:)
9225:)
9180:)
9124:is
9119:is
9094:)
8975:)
8947:-
8927:)
8896:)
8877:)
8848:-
8767:13
8734:)
8717:13
8674:)
8597:.
8558:13
8496:♠
8465:)
8444:13
8415:)
8383:13
8345:)
8300:?
8297::
8256:)
8241:us
8232:)
8210:·
8206:·
8202:·
8190:if
8155:桜
8142:--
8135:)
8120:-
8101:)
8080:桜
8025:)
8011:)
7985:)
7973:I
7960:)
7945:)
7928:)
7910:)
7893:)
7873:|
7849:)
7831:)
7810:)
7807:やや
7787:)
7762:)
7759:やや
7736:)
7722:)
7719:やや
7697:)
7682:)
7679:やや
7654:)
7636:)
7608:📧
7576:)
7491:)
7472:)
7457:)
7437:)
7422:)
7414:.
7379:)
7365:)
7314:)
7286:)
7253:)
7235:)
7210:;
7186:)
7168:)
7146:)
7140:Fæ
7127:;
7103:)
7097:Fæ
7082:)
7047:)
7030:)
7011:)
6984:)
6967:)
6944:)
6874:)
6866:--
6862:!
6858::
6825:)
6803:)
6778:)
6759:)
6742:13
6718:)
6697:)
6680:13
6664:)
6639:)
6616:)
6587:)
6546:)
6523:)
6473:)
6456:)
6439:)
6409:)
6356:)
6331:)
6314:)
6293:;
6274:,
6222:)
6205:)
6180:.
6108:—
6106:.
6097:)
6053:)
6032:)
5996:»
5970:)
5945:Rs
5936:)
5913:)
5848:)
5803:)
5765:)
5746:,
5723:87
5706:)
5689:)
5672:)
5655:)
5638:)
5621:)
5606:)
5574:)
5564:}}
5558:{{
5542:)
5519:)
5460:So
5437:)
5384::
5369:)
5365:/
5285:)
5255:)
5238:)
5221:)
5204:)
5157:)
5114:)
5097:)
5080:)
5035:)
4993:)
4908:)
4871:·
4849:)
4828:)
4802:is
4786:)
4769:)
4752:)
4726:Mr
4714:)
4697:)
4687:+1
4680:)
4663:)
4659:|
4637:)
4620:)
4567:)
4534:)
4517:)
4480:)
4429:)
4387:or
4376:)
4357:)
4337:)
4322:)
4304:)
4287:)
4249:)
4230:)
4198:-
4183:)
4095:)
4076:)
4074:tk
4052:;
4048:;
4003:)
3995:--
3968:)
3947:)
3930:)
3911:)
3881:)
3840:)
3826:)
3806:)
3786:)
3760:Rs
3744:)
3690:)
3460:)
3308:)
3291:)
3275:)
3262:"
3258:)
3241:)
3224:)
3207:)
3190:)
3173:)
3156:)
3139:)
3122:)
3102:)
3085:)
3054:)
3037:)
3018:)
2987:)
2970:)
2953:)
2936:)
2919:)
2902:)
2885:)
2868:)
2710:)
2706:•
2681:)
2665:)
2620:)
2567:)
2552:)
2518:)
2396:)
2238:)
2215:)
2193:)
2161:)
2145:)
2141:|
2098:)
2084:)
2076:--
2047:)
1984:)
1957:)
1953:•
1925:)
1921:·
1917:·
1890:)
1856:)
1841:)
1753:)
1677:)
1645:)
1620:)
1605:)
1576:)
1570:(/
1546:|
1530:)
1502:)
1467:)
1452:)
1438:)
1417:)
1396:is
1347:)
1332:)
1317:)
1291:)
1277:)
1243:)
1225:)
1150:)
1077:)
1057:|
1043:)
1015:,
1009:do
984:)
932:.
914:)
910:|
862:)
858:,
844:)
809:)
770:)
766:,
733:)
725:.
716:)
699:)
685:)
671:)
613:)
575:)
536:)
521:)
500:·
496:·
492:·
477:)
469:.
442:)
430:.
420:)
405:)
350:)
304:)
14645:(
14611:(
14591:)
14587:(
14569::
14565:@
14550:(
14518:(
14499:(
14484:(
14477::
14473:@
14458:(
14416:(
14397:(
14374:(
14359:(
14317:(
14300:(
14272:(
14215:M
14166:(
14138:X
14081:(
14067:(
14028:(
14014:(
13973:(
13958:)
13954:(
13929:X
13918:)
13913:·
13907:·
13901:·
13895:·
13889:·
13883:·
13878:(
13862:(
13852:(
13832:(
13797:(
13772:(
13756:)
13754:¤
13752:|
13748:(
13744:—
13732:(
13715:(
13691:(
13673:(
13661:)
13657:(
13640::
13636:@
13619:(
13574:)
13570:(
13548:(
13533:(
13518:(
13501:(
13486:(
13471:(
13456:(
13437:(
13426:)
13422:(
13408::
13404:@
13393:(
13370:)
13366:(
13349::
13333:@
13306:)
13302:(
13280:(
13135:♣
13130:♦
13125:♥
13101:(
13086:)
13082:(
13060::
13056:@
13029:∯
13016:(
12997:(
12982:(
12954:(
12944::
12940:@
12932:)
12928:(
12911::
12907:@
12896:(
12850:(
12823::
12819:@
12804:(
12764:)
12760:(
12742::
12738:@
12702:)
12698:(
12677::
12673:@
12640:(
12611:M
12573:)
12569:(
12530:(
12509:)
12505:(
12477:✡
12469:∰
12436:M
12401:)
12397:(
12383::
12379:@
12368:(
12328:)
12324:(
12292:M
12255:∯
12232:M
12196:∯
12155:(
12137:(
12088:(
12059:M
12042:(
12004:(
11947:(
11902:(
11874:)
11870:(
11856::
11852:@
11833::
11829:@
11821:)
11817:(
11784:)
11780:(
11766:.
11758:4
11746::
11742:@
11714:)
11710:(
11686:)
11682:(
11643:)
11639:(
11584:)
11580:(
11551:(
11536:)
11532:(
11525::
11521:@
11510:(
11475::
11471:@
11416:M
11360:(
11338:(
11309:(
11285:M
11260:M
11250:)
11246:(
11214:(
11199:)
11195:(
11181::
11177:@
11166:(
11152:(
11092:(
11066:@
11056:X
11029:M
11006:M
10976:(
10949:(
10933:)
10929:(
10912::
10896:@
10893::
10881:@
10878::
10866:@
10826:(
10810:(
10764:(
10710:(
10691:(
10671:}
10669:b
10665:p
10661:c
10657:t
10655:{
10623:M
10607:—
10586:M
10563:M
10531:)
10527:(
10494:(
10470:(
10444:M
10430:(
10415:)
10413:¤
10411:|
10407:(
10403:—
10371:(
10353:(
10316:(
10292:M
10260:M
10254:)
10250:(
10224:✡
10216:∰
10194:)
10190:(
10184:?
10170:(
10145:E
10132:(
10096:E
10069:(
10009:M
9969:M
9956:(
9944:.
9912:(
9884:(
9844:(
9822:(
9782:(
9740:(
9721:(
9706:(
9691:(
9657:(
9630:(
9619::
9615:@
9604:(
9590:(
9583::
9579:@
9560:c
9558:·
9556:t
9554:(
9545::
9541:@
9490:}
9488:b
9484:p
9480:c
9476:t
9474:{
9445:(
9415:(
9375:∯
9296:∯
9260:∯
9220:•
9215:(
9200:)
9196:(
9176:(
9090:(
9050:∯
8971:(
8923:(
8892:(
8873:(
8830:C
8826:·
8822:T
8753::
8749:@
8730:(
8691:∯
8670:(
8619::
8615:@
8576::
8572:@
8541::
8537:@
8493:♣
8488:♦
8483:♥
8461:(
8430::
8426:@
8411:(
8374::
8370:@
8341:(
8252:(
8228:(
8214:}
8212:b
8208:p
8204:c
8200:t
8198:{
8161:)
8158:c
8152:t
8149:(
8131:(
8097:(
8086:)
8083:c
8077:t
8074:(
8021:(
8007:(
7981:(
7971::
7967:@
7956:(
7941:(
7924:(
7906:(
7889:(
7845:(
7827:(
7804:聖
7801:(
7783:(
7756:聖
7753:(
7732:(
7716:聖
7713:(
7693:(
7676:聖
7673:(
7650:(
7632:(
7572:(
7534:"
7487:(
7468:(
7453:(
7433:(
7418:(
7375:(
7361:(
7310:(
7282:(
7249:(
7231:(
7202:(
7182:(
7164:(
7142:(
7119:(
7099:(
7078:(
7043:(
7026:(
7007:(
6980:(
6963:(
6940:(
6870:(
6847:)
6841:(
6821:(
6799:(
6793::
6789:@
6774:(
6755:(
6729::
6725:@
6714:(
6708::
6704:@
6693:(
6660:(
6635:(
6612:(
6583:(
6576::
6572:@
6541:·
6536:(
6532:—
6518:·
6513:(
6494:)
6490:(
6469:(
6452:(
6435:(
6413:.
6405:(
6378:c
6375:/
6352:(
6327:(
6310:(
6266:(
6249:C
6243:w
6237:C
6218:(
6201:(
6168:)
6164:(
6150::
6146:@
6093:(
6049:(
6028:(
5994:l
5992:|
5988:|
5986:l
5984:«
5966:(
5932:(
5909:(
5844:(
5799:(
5761:(
5702:(
5685:(
5668:(
5651:(
5634:(
5617:(
5602:(
5588:☼
5570:(
5537:·
5532:(
5515:(
5448:)
5444:(
5433:(
5367:c
5363:t
5361:(
5318:!
5281:(
5251:(
5234:(
5217:(
5200:(
5153:(
5139:)
5135:(
5110:(
5093:(
5076:(
5061:₵
5046:)
5042:(
5031:(
4989:(
4904:(
4875:)
4867:(
4853:.
4845:(
4824:(
4765:(
4748:(
4729:X
4710:(
4693:(
4676:(
4655:(
4633:(
4616:(
4563:(
4530:(
4513:(
4476:(
4460:)
4458:¤
4456:|
4452:(
4448:—
4427:c
4425:·
4423:t
4421:(
4400:∯
4372:(
4353:(
4333:(
4318:(
4300:(
4283:(
4268:)
4264:(
4245:(
4226:(
4179:(
4133:.
4091:(
4072:(
3999:(
3964:(
3943:(
3926:(
3907:(
3894::
3877:(
3836:(
3822:(
3802:(
3782:(
3740:(
3727:‐
3723:‐
3715:–
3686:(
3608:.
3552:.
3525:.
3456:(
3429:.
3402:.
3375:.
3338:.
3304:(
3287:(
3271:(
3254:(
3245:"
3237:(
3228:"
3220:(
3211:"
3203:(
3194:"
3186:(
3177:"
3169:(
3160:"
3152:(
3143:"
3135:(
3126:"
3118:(
3106:"
3098:(
3089:"
3081:(
3058:"
3050:(
3041:"
3033:(
3022:"
3014:(
2991:"
2983:(
2974:"
2966:(
2957:"
2949:(
2940:"
2932:(
2923:"
2915:(
2906:"
2898:(
2889:"
2881:(
2872:"
2864:(
2741:.
2721:)
2702:(
2677:(
2661:(
2648:.
2616:(
2582:—
2563:(
2548:(
2514:(
2429:.
2392:(
2352:I
2234:(
2211:(
2189:(
2170:∯
2157:(
2137:(
2094:(
2080:(
2043:(
1980:(
1949:(
1913:(
1886:(
1876::
1872:@
1869:)
1865:(
1852:(
1837:(
1831::
1827:@
1749:(
1673:(
1641:(
1616:(
1601:(
1526:(
1498:(
1463:(
1448:(
1434:(
1413:(
1364:)
1360:(
1343:(
1328:(
1313:(
1287:(
1273:(
1239:(
1221:(
1207:)
1201:(
1180:)
1176:(
1146:(
1106:‐
1102:‐
1092::
1088:@
1073:(
1039:(
1005:)
980:(
926::
922:@
906:(
854:(
840:(
805:(
762:(
729:(
712:(
695:(
681:(
667:(
632:∯
609:(
586:)
582:(
571:(
532:(
517:(
504:}
502:b
498:p
494:c
490:t
488:{
473:(
438:(
416:(
401:(
389:←
383:→
361::
357:@
346:(
316:∯
300:(
256:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.