4666:
transparent gauge of sysop activity and familiarity with relevant policies, and that's pretty important. Editors editing is not a very good gauge of activity: maybe they're an active reader who only edits when there's a major revision to be made or something important to say, or mostly edits logged out and only creates an account to participate in areas like RfA or edit semiprotected pages, or I don't know what else. I think it's fair to say that if an editor is genuinely inactive, they'll simply ignore the notice or not see it in the first place, unless they're inactive because they have an axe to grind, but elections are the place to grind axes. Anyway it's unlikely that a few such editors can significantly influence this sort of election, if participation is high. I really don't think this is a problem. That being said, I'd be more likely to support an activity criterion based on total number of edits and not on a period of time, as I think volume of edits is a better indicator of intention to be a member of the community than editing recently is.
1482:. As someone who ahs run for Arbcom under the old (pre-message) system and the current one, I can attest the higher turnout is essential in making this a genuinely democratic process. Entirely appropriately, only a tiny fraction of the editor base spend time thinking about Arbcom or checking Arbcom calendar dates; but a much higher proportion are affected by Arbcom decisions including with respect to disruptive editors or long-running disputes. Encouraging a larger voter base helps encourage a greater interest in how Knowledge dispute resolution works (or doesn't). And that can only be a good thing. Also, a higher voter awareness encourages more detailed and relevant questions, and makes the Q&A session more than just a rerun of recent cases. Keep the mass message, for the sake of worthwhile Arbcom ballots. --
3999:
editing very infrequently). Most of the time these people aren't problematic users, but users in good standing who haven't had time to edit but simply decided to show their support for other candidates who have done good work for the community. I also question how effective this measure will be: If a user is scrupulous enough to lay dormant for an entire year just to vote against people they don't like (or the reverse), then they'll surely notice a statement like this and make sure to make one or two edits to pass the requirement, rendering the whole thing moot. I don't think upping the required amount of logged actions/edits will counter this either since, once again, a user who waits an entire year just to spite-vote will probably be more than willing to edit enough to pass the requirements. Respectfully,
1045:
when balloting closes. That information is important both for editors like me who probably won't vote immediately for whatever reason, and also for editors who don't come across the notices until some time after the balloting period ends. Notices like this are vital to community function; editors concerned about having their watchlists spammed can very easily set their watchlists to ignore bot edits, and probably should. Furthermore, I don't support suppressing the notices from editors who are deemed inactive by an arbitrary standard but are otherwise eligible to vote. And as for blocked accounts, if an otherwise eligible editor is notified but is prevented from voting because they are blocked from editing at the time, well, tough. Don't do stuff that gets you blocked.
3444:
a role titled "Election
Administrators", of which there were three, which sort-of evolved into the Electoral Commission. "Election coordinators" is a little more amorphous. There are always persons who take it upon themselves to do the necessary "grunt work" liking setting up this page, setting up the candidate and question pages, etc. In past years these volunteers were called Election Coordinators, and they were separate from the Election Administrators/Electoral Commissioners, who decided disputes that arose. I am not sure whether anyone actually calls themselves an "Election Coordinator" anymore. I hope that clears things up. :)
2140:
good thing and although some will nearly always find a reason to complain about something, keeping people informed should be considered necessary in order to maintain literacy of the topic. As with any other website or forum, not everyone is going to follow along the whole time so I would suggest allowing them to opt in or out if they decide how much communication they want. Maybe a couple different possibilities. One to let them know as the topic progresses if they want that and maybe a separate one that only informs them once at the end of the topic so they know what the outcome is.
1903:
community, and that includes those people who have less than 100 edits a month. While arbs don't set policy, the decisions they make have impact on every editor on
Knowledge. That means giving the person who edits only on Weekends and sometimes skips a few months a voice. They have a right to have their preferences reflected on arbcom, and since it is a secret poll, I think most of them likely won't be joining any pile-ons, but will instead be voting based on their gut. Some might like it, but I don't think that is bad.
4957:, third check-box down. Let the users who keep complaining about bot edits polluting their watchlists figure out how to use that functionality, instead of imposing their niche preferences on the rest of us who are used to our watchlists performing a certain way, and (presumably) won't be able to "turn on" watchlist entries from this flagged bot. I occasionally monitor and report bots that are leaving notifications improperly (see current thread at AN about HostBot); this change will hamper that monitoring.
1177:: it will obviously done by a bot, so there can be solution for this. We usually have an option in watchlist to "hide edits by bot". I am not saying that everybody should turn it on. What I am proposing is, for this operation only, tweaks should be done somewhere so that edits by this particular bot would not show up in the watchlist (like autopatrolled users, and new pages feed). Once all the messages are sent, honourably revoke that flag from the bot. Everybody remains happy, including the bot. —
155:: In the case of proposals that change existing rules, or that seek to establish new ones, lack of consensus for a change will result in the rules from the 2016 RFC remaining in force. Some issues are not covered by the existing rules but will need to be decided one way or another for the operation of the election, in those cases it will be up to the closer to figure out a result, even if there is no clear consensus, as they have had to in the past.
305:
4694:
at all outside a particular topic. Editor X runs for Arbcom. One of said wikienemies notices, and promptly emails all the others, and/or posts on an online forum someplace. In response, other members of this group crawl out of the woodwork to cast negative votes. Now, to folks who work in uncontroversial areas, this may seem farfetched; to those who work on south Asian politics, Arab-Israeli politics, Gamergate, etc, this would be
30:
3032:. How can we be certain that this power will not abused and leveraged to remove questions which are simply inconvenient? I don't trust any proposal which proposes the creation of some new power, but which promises that it will be used only for limited purposes. That same promise was made when "extended confirmed" standard was created, and just as I anticipated, it was quickly expanded to allow virtually unrestricted use.
3373:"The mandate of the Electoral Commission is to deal with any unforeseen problems that may arise in the Arbitration Committee election process, and to adjudicate any disputes during the election. However, members of the Election Commission should intervene only when there is a problem that needs resolving, and either discussion is not working, the rules are unclear, or there isn't time for a lengthy discussion.
4775:
Maybe that's wrong, maybe I should reevaluate my priorities, maybe neo-Nazis should be made uncomfortable wherever they appear, I guess those are all matters of opinion. I think you're right that there's a debate to be had about who we consider members of this community, but I don't think we'll settle it here, and as long as we haven't settled it I don't think we should arbitrarily restrict who can vote.
3931:
while plenty of current editors do. (And sometimes the axe-grinding is understandable and not disruptive to the project). I recognize the good faith in which this was proposed, but the thought that disenfranchising longtime, constructive contributors whose real lives preclude them from editing for twelve short months is somehow preferable to welcoming them back to vote strikes me as unreasonable.
3061:
deserve much a reply then don't give them one, and let the community decide if that was the right course by voting for you or not. Questions from banned users, spammers, outing attempts or extreme personal harassment can be removed under IAR as being disruptive to the process. But otherwise, let's let people ask whatever they like, and Arb candidates can answer however they like too. --
4725:). In last year's election there were 1,942 votes, and the gap in net votes between the lowest-ranked elected member and the highest-ranked non-elected candidate was 180 net votes. Which means in last year's election 180 inactive editors would have had to "come out of the woodwork" for the sole purpose of voting against someone for it to have had any impact at all. There are about
3555:. It came close to having sufficient support, but the "numbers" show 58%/42% support, and I find it impossible to call that "consensus" on such a fundamental change to the status quo. In addition, the rationales of the supporters and the opposers are not significantly more persuasive than one another, so there's no reason to discount either argument. So,
4734:
be worked up enough to protest vote, and while it's not impossible I find it unlikely. I also think it's worth mentioning that the only candidate with a negative net vote was the one whose nomination statement was three words long, and who later stated in response to one of their questions that they weren't really taking it seriously.
1841:) that they got their talk page message a bit later in the process, after which they felt that candidates couldn't be bothered to answer their questions. If the notification messages are spaced out it shouldn't be for a significant amount of time to allow everyone ample time and opportunity to engage with the candidates. Respectfully,
2191:), and if other users "endorse" or agree with the statement, they would sign their name, no need to add any extra reasoning. In other words, users who sign their name under the "endorse" section are merely expressing their agreement with the statement that I wrote. No extra reasoning is required because I already provided it.
4509:, I think that this is probably an appropriate forum: its advertised on the watchlists, and has the stated purpose of considering changes to election rules. I also think having a parallel RfC would be distracting at best. Keeping all the activity in one place so it is read in context of the other proposals make sense to me.
2901:. and not only by the election committee, but also by any establshed user in good standing. Blatant harassment, baiting, and personal attacks are often disguised as questions. Unfortunately, the candidates are not permitted to defend themselves, and the lies and attacks are allowed to stand. Such comments should be removed
3210:, they need to be removed because these pages are already incredibly long, just counting the legitimate questions. If we practiced DENY and left them in place, we could easily wind up with an unnavigable mess. I suspect if anything gets inappropriately removed, enough users will be watching to ensure it's restored.
4623:
year away is enough time to be "out of touch", especially if they were very active in community discussions in the preceding years. To have any teeth I feel this proposal would need a longer time away and a requirement of more edits leading up to it, but those numbers are always going to be somewhat arbitrary.
1431:
ten edits in the last 6 months would strike me as a sensible figure, less active editors could still vote, but are unlikely to notice a talkpage message. It would also be nice if we could exclude sending messages to anyone with the retired or dead templates or publicly identified secondary accounts per
4898:
As of the time when I am posting this, the consensus is toward "yes, send the message". Some of the opposing voters are concerned about watchlists of "talk page stalkers" being flooded, while others are concerned about ability/competence of "random" editors. Who gets to vote is a different issue, but
4791:
My response to your organizing against a Neo-nazi is "yes, please keep doing that"; but the pedant in me wants to ask "but you can no longer vote against him, can you?" We're not removing a person's ability to advocate; just to vote, as a residency requirement would do in many (most?) countries where
4589:
Sorry folks, been meaning to get back on this. While I have to accept that changes to election rules have been and can be made here, I personally don't support something as serious as disenfranchisement being decided by such a small and self-selected set of editors. For that reason, I will personally
4397:
The vast majority of occasional contributors would not be disqualified by my proposal, so your oppose rationale does not actually address what I am proposing. Moreover, occasional contributors who go for a year or more without editing are going to have little to no interest in ArbCom elections. It is
4247:
I agree with filelakeshoe. While I usually do not like policy changes without some sort of proven justification, I could get behind a voting requirement for these elections, for the same reason we have them for steward and board elections. But I think it should be a meaningful standard, not something
3998:
While I think the underlying thoughts behind the statement are reasonable, I also believe that
Rivertorch makes some good points. My home wiki is a smaller one, and when we have CheckUser elections people sometimes "come out of the woodwork" to vote despite the fact that they haven't been editing (or
3563:
of the debate: If this is brought up again next year, something that would be useful to people trying to form an opinion is the relative % of voters who would have been affected by this. Both to determine the seriousness of the potential problem, and the extent of the effect it would have on people's
2315:
was about inappropriate questions being asked. Following an internal discussion after we were notified of these issues, it was decided we lacked the jurisdiction to remove the questions (although it was later done in my personal capacity, from memory). Therefore, I feel we specifically allow
Election
1934:
There will always be some votes that are not carefully considered, even among those who would have voted without the mass message. We could hope that some of those new voters would realise that they're not very clear on the candidates yet, and do a lot of reading to try to cast informed votes. I know
1866:
spacing is going to be an issue - too fast and you hit the API limit (and MassMessage cannot deliver the messages fast enough!), too slow and you flood peoples watchlists over several days. This year, I think it will be best to deliver over the space of 36-48 hours, and potentially straight after (or
1549:
I do not believe greater advertising would be beneficial. Users who are likely to give considered choices, with a knowledge of the candidates and why/not they would be a good choice for Arbcom, are the sort of people that should be voting. Editors that aren't aware of Arbcom elections are (generally)
679:
My support is somewhat tempered, however. Basically, I think that more participation is a good thing, so that's why I support. And my recollection is that there had been some kind of analysis that showed that first-time voters voted similarly to long-time voters (but maybe I'm wrong about that?). But
4980:
Yes. I am on the same page with you. Its not just about watching bots, but I prefer to keep track of every edit in my watchlist. Let it be by IP, or bot. So yes, I am never going to check "hide edits by bots" in my watchlist preferences. And for the same reason, I made it clear that this flag should
4774:
in the district in which I used to live, and even though I've moved away I continue to organize with activists who still live there against this person. Not that this particular individual stands any chance at election, but I personally feel that their life should be made difficult however possible.
4693:
Let me sketch out the sort of scenario I am hoping this would address. Editor X, over the course of doing good work in a controversial topic area, makes several enemies, who bear a grudge even if conflict is no longer ongoing. They do not edit regularly; indeed, they may not be interested in editing
3443:
The scrutineers are definitely separate from all the other titles or groups that you mention. My understanding is that they are stewards whose "home" wiki is not
English Knowledge. There is no "election committee" unless that is what you choose to call the Electoral Commission. There also used be
3362:
If we have a system that has worked for decades, that's a reason to keep the existing system, not create a new one. Right now, removals of questions are allowed by any editor, with the usual rules about BRD, Consensus, and
Dispute Resolution up to and including ANI. If there is a problem that cannot
3060:
No. From memory the message that was actually removed last year wasn't that offensive. And, bluntly, if you're running for Arbcom you will need to be able to deal with offensive questions and angry people. That doesn't mean that all questions should be treated equally - if someone's question doesn't
2470:
but really I would prefer it be left to the non-committee members running the election (i.e. the
Election Commission) if at all possible. I would only like to see the Arbitration Committee involved in regulating questions asked for candidates for election to itself as a last resort, but I agree that
1885:
Have we considered how most that receive these notices are likely to be pile-on voters? This is hardly beneficial for discussion, and essentially turns it into a numbers game. The users who are likely to do the questioning, reasoning, and considered voting are those who are already going to be aware
1659:
in the encyclopedia. Furthermore, if one day there is a truly serious need (Knowledge itself being in desperate need of immediate donations, for instance), I have a strong feeling opt-outs like that would not obtain community consensus for an override, at least not quickly. In that sense, this issue
4755:
be wrong would be for me to return to vote in the same election against the same candidate X after moving to a different town, which is what I see as happening here. In any case, I guess this ultimately comes down to the philosophical question of who we consider to be members of this community; and
4750:
That's not quite an accurate analogy though, is it? As long as I live in a certain community, I have a certain connection to its government, even if I choose to neglect it; and if you manage to rouse me out of my stupor because candidate X once looked at you funny, that's silly, but not wrong. What
4733:
more than twice (some are bots or blocked) out of about 500 total unique accounts; the stats don't show how many have not edited in the past year and/or are blocked. You'd need to get nearly all of them who were reasonably active or about two-fifths of all of the editors who ever edited the page to
4622:
While I understand the thrust of this proposal I am not sure it would target the editors mentioned. For example if I was an editor that fell under points 2 or 3 all I would need to do is make any edit prior to the 28th
October and then I would be able to vote anyway. I am also not sure that being a
4221:
Not sure what this really achieves. If we enact such a rule, people who were already planning to appear out of nowhere and vote in the ArbCom election will just click random article and remove some whitespace and become eligible, is there really a difference? If we are worried about inactivity then
4089:
May I point you to my RFA, in which there were multiple folks emerging from lengthy inactivity to cast votes, the nature of which I was far from the only person to object to. Whether that is disruption or the process taking its proper course might perhaps be debated, but I for one believe we may be
3460:
And for whatever its worth, I think the removal of disruptive questions is already within the scope of the
Electoral Commission's authority, as is the determination of disputes regarding the removal of questions by other editors. As others have said, the authority to remove questions should not be
2279:
personal attacks, etc., the determination of what is inappropriate or off-topic is clearly to be left to the
Commission. Multiple editors also emphasized their support was based on this exact wording; the Commission must decide to remove a question, not an individual commission member. Finally, it
2124:
There was concern expressed two years ago that the mass-messaging wound up being broadcast more broadly than was originally intended, and that this could have a major impact on the election results. At the end of the day, I think the feeling was that the same arbitrators were elected who would have
1917:
Sure, and I'm very much the infrequent editor myself. To clarify what I meant by pile-ons: it's fairly clear through the questions posed and their responses who has the popular support, at least in prior years. I'm hesitant to endorse anything that will bring votes that aren't carefully considered.
1794:
On the point of reaching sockpuppets, the frank answer is yes - I've no doubt there are many undetected sock puppet accounts out there, and it would be futile to try and get this bot to deliver to them. If this question relates to detected and blocked socks, I'm sure some arrangement can be reached
1790:
The main reason used last year to notify blocked users was that some of these were likely to be unblocked, and therefore eligible to vote, before the end of the period. I could look at, if desired, only delivering to users whose blocks are scheduled to expire before the end of the voting period if
1749:
I'm not sure about the particulars of the technical implementation, but if I recall correctly, last year a few notices were indeed sent to a few blocked users due to a difficult-to-avoid technicality. The effect of notifying blocked users is nullified, however, by the fact that the scrutineers will
5284:
votes? I wonder how many voters can see through the mechanics of the voting system being used, specifically that an oppose vote carries more weight than a support vote. I believe we should abolish oppose votes altogether and determine the exact voting regimen in case this change passes. I know I'm
4646:
Yes, obviously so, for any editor who is deliberately gaming the system, but the value in the suggested new rule is to get rid of deadwood, people who just don't edit anymore. Presumably anyone gaming the rule at least comes around often enough to see that an election is about to take place. I's
3955:
Regarding stale accounts, they may not necessarily be more likely to be compromised, but I submit that it would be easier to get away with compromising a stale account. After all, on an active account, the person who operates the account would likely notice the funny business, but in the case of a
2952:
Echoing AlexEng's concerns about vague criteria for removal. Other than blatant trolling, vandalism, and I suppose content which we would remove anyway (personal attacks, outing, ban evasion, etc.) I don't feel it's constructive for the election committee to be deciding what is a valid question or
2139:
As I mentioned in a previous comment I want to be clear that I am new and only created my account today and only came here because I saw the link in the top so I don't really know much about this. What I can say from personal experience is that deliberate and constructive communication is always a
1902:
I strongly suspect most people, like in real life elections, vote on their gut and for people they like and think represent them. While those of us who are the most active Wikipedians might not like that, I actually think it is a good thing in many ways: we want arbs who have the confidence of the
1581:
Per Keira1996. Asking people who know nothing about the Arbitration process, or that it even exists, to vote does not seem like it would have much of a beneficial effect to me. We can assume good faith that people will read up about the process and the role of the positions (and then read up about
1566:
Looking at some major votes (Brexit comes to mind), I am not convinced that a larger participation results in more informed votes. I remove the messages on pages of users who are not active, messages of 2015 and 2016 (sometimes more than one per year) which claim today "elections are now open". If
1430:
150 mainspace edits and not currently blocked. I'd like to see the currently active filter raised slightly, I'm sure last years test of one edit in the last twelve months will have meant the invite going to a bunch of people who retired or died almost a year ago. Either 1 edit in the last month or
1044:
An election of this sort can't be considered valid if the persons eligible to vote are not informed that the vote is occurring. Per Gerda Arendt in the section below, I support modifying the statement from "elections are now open" to "elections are open until ...", because it's not otherwise clear
4906:
this task. Because of that flag, the posting of this message should not be visible in watchlist (similar to auto-patrolled users, and new pages feed). This flag can be (honourably) revoked from the bot after task of sending this message is done. This way, everybody gets happy. Message is sent (to
4716:
Sure, I understand that scenario, but that's how elections are supposed to work. Say I find out a candidate is running in a local election in my district who I feel strongly about making sure they don't get elected. Maybe they're a neo-Nazi, maybe they drove over my lawn, maybe they wear a stupid
878:
Not only would this remind people to vote, but it will only be acted upon by people who care enough about it to follow the link and add their opinion. I see no drawbacks to the mass-invite. Editors who don't know much about it will most likely not vote anyway. But they might become interested and
250:
Very clear consensus to send the message out again. There were some suggestions for tweaking the way we did it last year - minor wording changes, trying not to send it to blocked editors, limit the number of accidental posts to odd pages, etc - but none were presented as separate suggestions, so
5453:
interacted with him (or read his answers to questions), 66.37% thought he was qualified for Arbcom. Obviously it wouldn't be desirable for someone to get 3 support votes, 1000 neutral votes and 1 oppose and win with 75% support, but that's an extreme edge case and I believe it's desirable to let
4190:
Which goes on to further the point I'm trying to make, this proposed rule is arbitrary and might potentially exclude genuine voters too and that should not happen. Also the fact we're assuming everyone with one edit in the stipulated period will be a genuine voter is also a dangerous assumption.
3930:
Inactivity is a funny thing. (1) Lack of edits don't necessarily indicate that a user is "out of touch with community proceedings". (2) I'm unaware of data suggesting that "stale" accounts are more likely to be compromised than active accounts. (3) Lots of "former editors" have no axes to grind,
3695:
I was considering this myself. This would by far be one of the less restrictive arbcom voter activity policies when compared to other language Wikipedias. If this is the first year doing it, I think activity within a year of the official "election season" is a good cutoff. This could simply be a
3606:
I will leave it to others to discuss whether the number of required edits/actions should be higher, but I believe we should at least institute this minimum requirement to prevent votes from users who are (1) out of touch with community proceedings; (2) stale accounts that are vulnerable to being
3390:
has the authority to remove a question if the current system isn't working, but so far we have not had to exercise that emergency authority. If we ever do, I fully expect a huge amount of drama from editors who are fine with "to deal with any unforeseen problems that may arise in the Arbitration
2985:
I just created an account today and only came here due to the link at the top but I echo the concerns above and only wonder what if any measures will be taken to prevent this being used to remove comments that are merely disagree or don't go along with the popular vote. There should be some very
2969:
Instead, I suggest to mark such questions, making it easier to ignore them. For example: "3 out of 5 election committee members regard this question as inappropriate. Candidates are not expected to reply. To make it easier to see which questions were posed in total, the question is not removed."
2526:
Yes, I support this idea very strongly. The Election Committee is set up to have the requisite independence and cluefulness, so I see no problem with that. And the overload of questions actually makes it harder for most members of the community to find the information that they want, so let's at
5601:
Assume I'm voting for A and B, and you are voting for C and D. If I'm opposing your candidates (a.k.a. 'tactical voting') and you remain neutral on mine, then A and B stand at 100% and C and D at 50%. Effectively, my vote carried more weight than yours. If everyone is opposing all not-supported
4469:
Though I agree in principle, I believe this is the wrong forum for this. This forum is surely for deciding on the practical running of the election, and not for changing the underlying election rules. I think such a proposal would need to go to a wider (RFC?) discussion somewhere, where I would
3340:
I understand your perspective, but I don't know how necessary it is to formalize the procedures for dealing with inappropriate questions. Some questions are obviously inappropriate and ought to be removed quickly. If the appropriateness is borderline, the elections people can discuss whether to
2090:
Technically, MassMessage is an extension, not a bot, and as nobots is not a standard feature of MediaWiki, this is why it is not respected (AFAIK - it's been a while since I read up on this, and this may have changed). Depending on how this is implemented, and what people think, either, both or
5396:
If we have candidates whom voters think are definitely not suitable for Arbcom then there needs to be a mechanism for expressing that. Also, I don't see how an oppose vote carries more weight than a support vote, given that the minimum Support level measured as Support/(Support+Oppose) is 50%.
649:
A handful of people may have complained about receiving the talk page invites, but people will complain about everything... including the complaints of other people. I think we are better served if more Wikipedians exercise their right to have a say in the governance of their community. I also
5010:
bots to malfunction, but it happens. In my role I end up watching a lot of blocked users' pages, and if the bot is placing notices where it shouldn't I'll probably be one of the first to see it, and flag it quickly so that it can be fixed quickly. I won't see it at all if we hide the notices.
4665:
I hope nobody minds I bulleted the discussion mini-threads above, to keep things clean. Demoting a sysop for lengthy inactivity is very much a different thing from excluding editors from community processes who haven't edited recently. Sysops performing admin actions is a very good and highly
3380:
In addition, while the Electoral Commission is not responsible for logistics of the election, the Commissioners should also help ensure that preparations for the election—such as setting up the relevant pages, posting notices of the election in the appropriate places, and asking the Office to
2109:
I'm amazed that people are voting against people being notified that they are eligible to vote in these elections. Most of the arguments are along the lines of "they won't be able to make a good decision about the candidates", which seems outrageous - why shouldn't they be able to make a fair
4418:
Without evidence to show how this is a problem, this just seems to disenfranchise editors who might have interest in the project, but for whatever reason, don't' edit (e.g. real life commitments, preferring to just read, lack of access to reliable sources in their area of interest, etc.)----
390:
that they didn't like having their user talk page or their watchlists spammed with these messages. However, I think greater participation in the election is a good thing, and the numbers clearly show that mass messages are effective at informing eligible voters that an election is happening.
2953:
not based on standards defined in this way (basically not defined at all). Although I would trust the committee to make such a judgement, I would prefer if the criteria were more fulsome in advance of endorsing this statement. I would likely reconsider if such criteria were written first.
1375:. It is important that ordinary, behind-the-scenes editors be given the chance to participate. Since they do most of the real work on Knowledge, they can bring a fresh and rational perspective, unlike the groupthinkers who spend all their time haunting the ANI and ArbCom discussion pages.
5710:, Kelapstick (who got modest support but a relatively low number of opposes) would not have been elected, Gamaliel would have been elected to a 2-year term rather than 1-year. And Rich Farmbrough, who polled the fourth highest number of opposes, would have been elected for a 1-year term.
1567:
they seem necessary please find a wording that doesn't grow stale in a few weeks. - I'd prefer a notice similar to the information that an RfA is open, or time for monument images. - Side note: can we we edit supports and opposes separately, please? You see above what happens if not. --
906:
election measurably benefits, encouraging participation is vital for the ongoing health of our processes. I feel confident that there will be thoughtful, informed votes cast in this election by people who wouldn't have done so had they not been drawn in by the previous years' messages.
5519:
No, the current system works fine. If we were struggling to fill spots because hardly anyone made the threshold then fine, but that hasn't been a problem in any recent elections. I also like the way the current system allows a voter to say "none of the above" by opposing everyone. --
5692:, had there been no Oppose votes allowed and the result determined solely by Support votes (which is really all that would be left), we'd have voted in the same set of ragamuffins and ne'er-do-wells ;-) The only difference would have been in the relative placings of Ks0stm and DGG.
2207:
It's probably possible to filter the list of users (based on some automated criteria like blocked users, bots, etc.) and to only send it to people in the SecurePoll lists, etc. If there was a ticket in Phabricator with suggested requirements with some advance notice, we can do it.
3841:
One current problem with the current rules is the possibility of having your account stop editing, creating a new account a couple months later, and using your first account only for voting in ArbCom elections - which you do from an IP address you never use for your new account.
5751:
It's certainly not a problem-free approach, I'll happily concede to that. But neither is counting support votes only. Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about support / oppose on RfA nominations? Is it different because it isn't purely a numbers game like ACE? Respectfully,
3479:
That is my understanding as well. I was on the Electoral Commission the last two years and all three of us strongly agreed that using that power was to be a last resort. I would like to see more voters who are committed to rejecting any commissioner who doesn't feel that way.
573:
The more participation we get the more accurate the results are likely to be, true we may get some people just choosing randomly from the list of available candidates but I would hope the people voting after reading the statements etc outweighs their affect on the results.
2054:
gets checked? If so, was that a conscious decision, or just the way it was implemented? I could see a case for making mass-delivery messages go through nobots because they are so much more important, but I strongly lean in the opposite camp (i.e. that someone who slapped
859:
The mass-notifications taking up my watchlist was a major issue and if I'm being honest annoyed the life out of me however as noted above we should get wider participation instead of a selected few so despite my groans as a whole the mass-notifications are a good thing.
4931:
The wording is a bit confusing here, but it seems that the user is proposing that the account sending the massmessage be flagged as a bot to avoid spamming watchlists with the ArbCom election notifications. That sounds reasonable to me. Maybe it's already happening? --
3607:
compromised; (3) former editors with an axe to grind against one of the candidates. Quite simply, if an editor wishes to exercise his rightful voice in matters of community governance, this editor should be expected to demonstrate some involvement in the community.
3341:
remove them or not. In theory I can understand why question-removals might become controversial and a distraction to the elections process, but in practice we've been holding these elections for more than a decade now and I don't recall many such problems. Regards,
161:: This RfC is divided into portions, each of which contains a discussion point for the community. The standard RfC structure will be used, in which any user may make a general statement that other users may endorse if they so agree. The points will be listed in the
5630:
You're right, but with a different voting system certain tactical options can be removed, or at least be made explicit. For instance, giving an amount of "tickets" equal to the number of available positions, and then counting total votes only. Or, someone made the
3807:
Somebody who isn't part of the community shouldn't be choosing ArbCom members for people who are. The standard here is extremely low, I don't think there will be anyone who can claim to be an active participant in the community who doesn't make any edits at all.
5448:
is cited as an example where the election would have turned out differently, and it actually illustrates why I disagree with this statement: Presumably, Kelapstick wasn't widely known which is reflected by the high number of Neutral votes, but of the people who
4568:
2229:
The way this has previously worked is that the WMF generate the list of eligible voters, and I merely applied an inactivity sieve to this - in theory, bots and ineligible users should already be removed, as they "should" be filtered out by the WMF script.
242:
4564:
318:
is open from Monday, 00:00, 20 November through Sunday, 23:59, 3 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Saturday, 00:00, 28 October 2017 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 00:00, 1 November 2017.
758:
Support with the proviso that notifications are made before the beginning of the voting period. This will prevent users who have already voted from receiving a message. (I distinctly remember discussing this before, but I can't find any record of it.)
2255:
4847:
4104:
I appreciate that reference, thanks. It's kind of a known problem at RfA that inactive users with a grudge pop in to oppose candidacies, but they do that without being notified by a bot. How do they know? My assumption has to be that they're active
3710:
Only those who are active should have voting rights, to prevent canvassing, and to make sure that only editors who are "in touch" with the community and who would actually be affected by ArbCom are voting. German Knowledge's RFA standards (and even
2510:-- only those questions genuinely unrelated to the process should be removed. The moment we start removing questions for any other reason means we enter a grey area where genuine questions may be removed, which is not a good thing for this process.
2485:
I support this up to a point: clearly inappropriate/offensive questions should be removed, but critical questions (even if POINTy) shouldn't be removed, and it's then up to the candidates to decide whether they want to answer them or not. Thanks.
3014:
Is there a "meh" option? We don't need an RfC to authorize people to remove blatant trolling. If a question isn't blatant trolling, but is just kind of stupid, meh. The job does involve dealing with dumb/inappropriate/annoying questions a lot...
205:: Normally, these RfCs begin on September 1 and last for 30 days. However, these elections are volunteer-run, and this year, the RfC is starting a bit behind schedule. In order to preserve the timetable above, we'll see whether a consensus after
3421:
3416:
3411:
3406:
3401:
1209:
As well as improving participation, this has had a positive effect on the quality of discussions around the ArbCom elections and the committee more generally by diluting the impact of the group of editors who tend to engage with/obsess over it.
469:
Unfortunately, there isn't an easy way to get a list of those who have voted from the SecurePoll system used in this election, so this feature is not possible without manually checking each entry, which I'm sure you can agree is not workable.
4867:
2289:
268:
3427:
Request for clarification: I keep seeing phrases like "election committee members" and "election coordinators". are these different from the electoral commission or the scrutineers? If so, who are the members and where is their page?
4371:
I read the proposal. I understood the proposal. I considered the proposal. And I made my decision. Knowledge very much depends on its occasional contributors (in aggregate, they do far more for Knowledge than do the obsessive and
3746:
It seems unfair to allow people to !vote etc who haven't been here for a year or more, Ofcourse not everyone can edit here 24/7 / 365 I get that but simply put if you want to !vote you should be an active member of the community.
4792:
democratic elections occur. Still, I think we can agree to disagree on whether a year's absence from Knowledge should operate in the same way: I'd be the first to acknowledge that my experience with such folks is influencing me.
3573:
3539:
3363:
be resolved the usual way, there is the Electoral Commission, which I have been a member of for the last two years. And of course there are always the scrutineers to double check that the electoral commission has not gone crazy.
1299:
Zero issues with this; if I don't want to vote, a simple revert of the message takes three seconds. Just as long as it's not going to socks or block/banned accounts, that's the only case I would think it's a waste of resources.
4149:
Current levels of inactivity should never undermine prior experience. I mean if the returning editor shows a lack of understanding, sure, but it makes no sense to senselessly punish someone because they just chose to return.
3827:, because I agree that inactive editors can come back to pursue grudges, and it's such an easy standard to meet. But as noted by some of the opposing editors, it's also ridiculously easy to game, just by making one edit. --
2186:
This RfC was actually not intended to use the support/oppose/discussion breakup – it just kind of happened. Instead, if another editor had an alternative view, they would submit a new statement with a level 3 header (e.g.
1582:
the candidates), but I doubt most users who aren't as concerned with governance will go to such lengths. Encouraging people to vote on instinct is bad, especially when they make up a significant proportion of the votes. –
2312:
3274:
I would like a clear definition of who would be allowed to remove a question, whether one person could do so or whether you would need two or more people to agree to the removal, and the proposed criteria for removal.
4307:
Is there any evidence that this (1 through 3 above) is a problem that needs a solution? Even if this is a reasonable proposal—which others have made a good case that it is not—there should be a problem it solves.
5602:
candidates then it is fair, but if some apply the 'tactical voting' (without really having something to say against other candidates, just to strengthen their own stance), and some don't, then it is not fair. --
1838:
4599:
4501:
566:
4884:
1471:
2181:
4518:
2125:
been elected by the smaller voter group, somewhat reducing the worries that arose at the time. I think the revised distribution that was agreed upon last year was generally accepted as a reasonable one.
556:
I want to add that greater participation reduces the possibility of organized groups successfully pursuing a political platform - when very few vote, it's easier for political canvassing to win the day.
5719:
5701:
1681:
Please note that the ArbCom does not organize or run the election process, which is done by non-arbitrator community volunteers, and had nothing to do with the decision to start posting these messages.
664:
Sending notices to people who are eligible to vote to let them know that they can vote is something that was resolved many years ago by most voting systems, hopefully we can catch up with them! Thanks.
3265:
5178:
3076:
3006:
1719:
5644:
5625:
5611:
4902:
The point of this statement is: I think we should send the mass message with a particular criteria for recipients. To avoid the watchlist spamming, we can give the bot some sort of "flag", or access
1978:
387:
330:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
479:
2595:
1705:
1691:
551:
457:
5406:
5072:
4580:
4059:
2740:
1104:
726:
375:), sending it only to editors who have edited at least once in the 12 months before the start of the nomination phase (6 November), as opposed to every eligible voter. The turnout was still high:
5022:
4994:
4138:
1450:
962:
256:
4044:
4029:
2306:
1669:
1634:
1142:
1090:
5805:
5672:
Well I thought the principal unfairness (as perceived by me) should go first. If there is no consensus for doing away with the opposes, suggesting a specific system does not make much sense. --
5217:
4821:
4801:
4786:
4765:
4745:
4707:
4407:
4392:
4366:
4331:
4317:
4120:
4099:
3989:
3965:
3350:
3024:
2986:
specific criteria for when this can be used such as Vandalism, trolling, etc. It shouldn't be an open ended invitation for anyone to remove a comment they disagreement on their own discretion.
2029:
1944:
1929:
1912:
1255:
5775:
5761:
5591:
5440:
I don't agree with the reasoning here. Firstly it's incorrect to say that oppose votes carry more weight than support votes since the end calculation does not weigh the votes differently (see
4656:
4479:
4302:
3590:
2368:
1033:
I think this communication is useful, however I don't think it is warranted for fairly inactive users and should have a cut off of 1 (first choice) or 3 (second choice) years of inactivity. —
644:
5681:
5255:
5125:
4274:
3877:
3741:
3519:
3505:
3320:
2878:
2768:
1876:
1612:
1544:
1232:
1190:
5557:
5391:
5054:
4463:
3802:
3705:
3302:
2893:
2820:
2568:
2398:
2149:
2015:
1767:
1424:
1294:
897:
792:
617:
522:
5492:
5463:
5419:
5172:
5111:
5097:
5040:
4920:
4429:
4242:
4008:
3863:
3690:
3652:
3635:
3251:
2754:
2680:
2452:
Per Amortias, above, but on balance this seems like a sensible way to keep discussions on track. The "following discussion among the committee" caveat is essential to my support, mind you.
2200:
1576:
1028:
999:
753:
659:
5365:
5327:
3904:
3849:
3836:
3727:
3489:
3470:
3453:
3055:
2979:
2864:
2554:
2536:
2384:
1964:
1744:
1504:
1384:
1204:
1056:
778:
697:
5477:
5435:
5377:
5351:
5157:
5143:
4968:
4941:
4348:
4212:
4185:
4081:
3950:
3891:
3760:
3676:
3041:
2964:
2726:
2702:
2653:
2635:
2582:
2521:
2495:
2167:
1324:
1167:
1128:
873:
854:
820:
708:
674:
5543:
5514:
5313:
4257:
3774:
3192:
3135:
2781:
2416:
2239:
2100:
2068:
In any case I think a bit of pedagogy wouldn't hurt: writing about the notification process and its opt-out somewhere on the ArbCom election pages (at the bottom of an obscure page, but
1595:
1561:
1517:
1491:
1245:
1158:
1039:
587:
285:
5571:
5529:
5202:
5083:
4457:
3918:
3818:
3788:
3616:
3178:
3160:
3070:
2914:
2849:
2834:
2795:
2667:
2616:
2463:
2447:
2348:
1850:
1791:
desired? Unfortunately, with a messaging run such as this, context tends to be lost relating to the delivery - the bot last year purely looked at edit count and account age from memory.
1409:
1353:
1338:
1269:
985:
916:
806:
603:
372:
360:
5666:
4617:
4608:
The last sentence of the instructions here says "The results will determine the structure, rules, and procedures for the election." This is germane and within the scope of the notice.
2947:
2658:
Absolutely, although I think the removal criteria should be intentionally narrowly tailored per above comments, or (perhaps less preferably) some avenue for appeal should be provided.
2480:
2134:
1367:
1219:
630:
504:
4677:
4443:
4288:
3229:
2686:
1008:
346:
4557:
In the case of proposals that change existing rules, or that seek to establish new ones, lack of consensus for a change will result in the rules from the 2016 RFC remaining in force.
3437:
3284:
2119:
1897:
1886:
of the Arbcom Elections -- there is no need to reach out to those. Increasing participation is not in and of itself a good thing, I feel, unless it actually benefits the discussion.
1804:
1783:
Whether I take a role in this years election or not, I'll be happy to fire the bot up again to send out notification again this year - I could probably spread them out a bit more as
947:
835:
739:
5745:
4171:
3681:
In principle I'd like no restrictions at all, but after personal experience with folks emerging from lengthy inactivity to resurrect old personal feuds, I think this is reasonable.
1072:
419:
4637:
3111:
2970:
Marking inappropriate questions would even allow for automatically hiding them on the klick of a button. Also agree with Alex, can see no real danger that is not already covered.--
2217:
2078:
1821:
199:
There is one topic from last year that was raised on the talk page. Anyone is free to raise any new topics that they feel need to be addressed by adding them as level two headers.
5294:
213:, an uninvolved editor(s) will evaluate the RfC and determine whether a consensus has developed. The results will determine the structure, rules, and procedures for the election.
87:
2329:
217:
Use the following format below; post a new statement at the BOTTOM of the section in which you want to make a statement. Endorse by adding a hash symbol (#) and your signature.
5766:
No, RfA is fine imho because there is no minimum or maximum number to be elected. There I find that a well-motivated oppose rightfully counts more than a 'support, why not'. --
255:. Minor tweaks/clarifications to last year's message that don't alter this decision or the general thrust of the message can be discussed prior to sending the message out at
4590:
not take a side in making such a change here - obviously, that doesn't stop the rest of you from going ahead with it, but I do hope I'm not the only one who thinks this way.
2269:
Allow Electoral Commission members to remove offensive (eg. WP:POLEMIC-style statements) or off-topic questions from question pages, following discussion among the EC members
2926:
I am concerned with the broadness of the removal criteria, which sounds like it opens the possibility of abuse. Moreover, I don't find the change necessary. Why not simply
1077:
Sure, but Gerda's suggestion on the wording is a good one. As for the question of filtering out recipients who've already voted, it seems better to me to send the messages
1817:. Could the notifications at least be spread out over a couple of days? Or maybe a sitenotice or watchlist notice with css to display only to extended-confirmed users? —
440:
07:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC) --- BUT I hope there is some technical means of not sending the message out after one has voted, which is a waste of time. Happened to me.
5707:
5689:
3970:
That might be true. Then again, stale accounts may be less likely to be compromised in the first place. In any event, I think this is a solution in search of a problem.
2003:
400:
376:
368:
364:
5454:
people who have legitimate concerns voice those concerns by opposing, instead of voting for another candidate to make sure they get more support votes. Respectfully,
4448:
No. People's motivation comes and goes. That's the nature of volunteering. If you skew the community toward hardcore editors then you are out of touch with reality.
825:
I'm also supporting in my capacity as an editor. I have always felt that ArbCom should be based upon the will of the community rather than a smaller interest group.
1529:
I don't think greater participation is a good thing. I am specifically opposed to spamming user talk pages but I generally don't think asking for voters is useful.
3909:
A good suggestion. It happens too often that people who have lost interest in Wikipedi still come out of the woodwork to vote on various discussions and elections.
3256:
I also fear there would be knee-jerk oppose votes for not answering all the questions, however trollish - I've certainly seen RfA opposes for that kind of reason.
1455:
If possible we should do two versions of the message, one for people who also qualified to vote last year and the other for people who are newly qualified voters.
1147:
As a candidate in 2015, I had people phone me as a result of this message. It engaged a lot of people who would not have otherwise known. I strongly support it.
5800:
4376:
drama lovers), and we should not go down the path of disenfranchising them. Everything here eventually seems to go down a slippery slope; the rapid expansion of
1814:
145:
80:
4925:
1787:
suggests below - I would probably move away from using mass-message this year however (as you lose some control over spacing of messages and throttling these).
635:
The more participation the better. I often worry about discussions that only take place among people who happen to watch AN/VP/etc. to know they're happening.
5006:
I see what you're saying, but my point is I want to monitor the placement of this notice as well. I think you found the thread about HostBot already: I don't
4947:
3621:
5616:
There's always going to be tactical voting, and it can swing things either way - like, for example, supporting everyone except the one you want to oppose.
3924:
1696:
While that may be true, there seem to be several past and present ArbCom members !voting in the support section for this statement (and none in this one).
5299:
5231:
5577:
2334:
5333:
4129:, but a moment's thought will probably make clear how an editor with an animus against another can use their watchlist to be notified of a future RfA.
3086:
2920:
2403:
On the assumption that those removing the content should be those uninvolved in the process this year (not anyone running in this batch of elections).
990:
Yes, please message us. In general, for any vote, I think it makes sense to message any user who was active since the previous vote of the same type.--
101:
744:
I support notifying all eligible voters. Encouraging engagement and participation in community voting processes is healthy for the Knowledge project.
5272:
405:
5498:
5468:
I strongly oppose this idea. As noted above, users need to be able to register opposition, and to do so in a manner distinct from being neutral. --
2839:
It makes sense to have somebody with the power to remove clearly inappropriate questions, and the election committee are the best people to do so.
2745:
This was in fact done last year. I think it's a good idea and is likely to be necessary. I think we can trust the commissioners not to abuse this.
2110:
assessment of the candidates based on their election statements? If this is a concern, then can we ask better questions of the candidates? Thanks.
1523:
4070:
Is there any actual problem that this solves? Have any of our processes ever been disrupted by a sudden wave of inactive editors casting ballots?
1955:
Is it possible to instead of sending out a mass talk page message, place a notification on a user's Watchlist, like I had that lead to this RFC?
5077:
No, this would require special software changes for something so minor. The mass-message extension is the best way to deliver bulk messages. —
5370:
We need some distinction between an outright oppose and a n "I haven't had time to examine all the candidates, so I don't know abut this one".
4717:
hat, whatever. I'm going out and rallying everyone I know who is eligible to vote to go vote against this person. The security against this is
2786:
Yes, support per Chris Troutman, however, Beyond My Ken raises a valid point that there should be some oversight or consensus when it is done.
253:
Send the notification to everyone who is eligible to vote and who has made at least one edit in the 12 months before the sending of the message
5599:
A support vote carries more weight if accompanied by opposing all or some other candidates, compared to remaining neutral on other candidates.
4017:
also requires a minimum of 25 support votes, I'm not sure that people who "come out of the woodwork" on your wiki is a good example here. --
2707:
This sounds like a good idea which will make the process simpler and more 'friendly' for candidates. I also support Amortias' suggestion.
5382:
For much the same reason we can oppose an RFA. We should also be able to clearly oppose a candidate we think is unfit for this position.
5339:
No. It does not allow voters to express disapproval of a candidate (and there have been several clearly unqualified ones in the past). --
3604:
An editor is eligible to vote who: has made at least one edit or logged action between 00:00, 28 October 2016 and 00:00, 28 October 2017.
4222:
we need to set the bar a lot higher than one edit, and I would oppose a similar proposal with a higher threshold for other reasons. –
1163:
Essential to broaden the voter base and prevent the election from being dominated by super-power-users and those with axes to grind.
452:
435:
4035:
How come? My home wiki only has about 100 active editors, most of which don't participate in the meta side of things. Respectfully,
1550:
not the sort that would be making this considered choice in voting, and would vote purely on a basic impression of the candidate.
797:
Information is needed before participation is possible. Small cliques operating and self-selecting in the dark are to be avoided.
4357:. I understand and accept most of the responses in this section, but you don't seem to grasp at all what this proposal is about.
2905:. In many cases, Arbcom elections are more toxic than RfA, and this is not a way of encouraging candidates to run for office.
2051:
1625:
4176:
I don't think we can draft a workable criterion for establishing whether the returning editor lacks sufficient understanding.
3712:
4726:
4339:. This is just a way to eliminate the voting rights of those normal people who are not part of the addict class of editors.
1999:
972:
I look upon higher participation as a favorable outcome. The spam caused by the mass message is minimal and non-disruptive.
731:
I support this for sure - the community at large should be informed that it's happening so they can voice their opinion. --
5267:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
4879:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
4770:
I'll extend the analogy with an anecdote, only because I'm finding this exchange enlightening. In fact there is a neo-Nazi
3585:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2301:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
280:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
5787:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
5227:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
4843:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3535:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2857:. Of course, it should be obvious that any ArbCom member running for re-election should recuse himself/herself from this.
2736:
2541:
One could quibble that the bounds of propriety are too subjective, as stated, to support carte blanche. Nevertheless, per
2280:
seems clear that people believe this should be used sparingly, and that overuse would probably cause Outrage and Drama. --
2251:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2042:, whose user page gives instructions to opt out. Am I correct in assuming that the message delivery process does not obey
2025:
1195:
One-time heads up messages are good, even those who are somewhat engaged in the process can use a poke from time-to-time.
1100:
527:
Yes, I think wider participation is good, though I support restricting it to those who have been active in the past year (
182:
Per the consensus developed in previous request for comments, the arbitration committee election timetable is as follows:
3854:
Yes. The proposed text includes logins, it's a very, very low threshold and that can prevent users to vote "on demand".
3696:
trial and not done if it doesn't work in the future, but you never get reform of these type of things if you don't try.
5488:
5168:
5116:
If we're going to spam the talk pages of unsuspecting users, let's do our best to not make it worse for them at least.
4806:
This individual consistently brings in less than 1% of the vote, so the vote isn't really what matters. He's more of a
4425:
4231:
2889:
2809:
1420:
1283:
3364:
5657:
that should be done beforehand IMO. I wouldn't support any change of this sort without knowing what's replacing it.
4981:
remain active only for sending this message. If that bot makes any other edit, it should show up in the watchlist. —
4647:
really the same problem as the Admin desysopping for non-activity conundrum, and there's really no solution for it.
5430:
5347:
5017:
4963:
4816:
4781:
4740:
4672:
4270:
4115:
4076:
4025:
3980:
3941:
3723:
3500:
3220:
3140:
Yes, that was what I assumed too. I can't imagine it's supposed to be anything else, so I've changed it; hopefully
2959:
2380:
1051:
769:
5562:
No. Why allow one side of a decision a platform for speech, and the others none? This would be uneven and unfair.
5102:
The MassMessage "account" already has a bot flag which users can choose to hide in their watchlist. Respectfully,
5190:
3668:
2718:
2039:
2006:. In other words, it doesn't look like a watchlist notice would be an equivalent replacement for a mass message.
1603:
I absolutely despise those messages, after having to scrub them from my alternative accounts two years in a row.
1591:
1120:
34:
2732:
2021:
1096:
491:
Couldn't a bot check the list and then compile the mass-message list from those who have not yet voted? Regards
168:
Per the consensus developed in previous requests for comment, the electoral commission timetable is as follows:
4756:
there may be different but reasonable answers to this question. Thanks for an interesting discussion. Regards,
2412:
583:
139:
17:
650:
strongly agree with Boing! said Zebedee about removing voter eligibility from those who are not contributing.
363:) informing most eligible voters that the election was happening. As a result, voter turnout skyrocketed from
5715:
5697:
5621:
5587:
5402:
5068:
4595:
4497:
4475:
3261:
3130:
2611:
2591:
2458:
2177:
1109:
It's important that we include people who don't normally watch the administrative/meta areas of the project.
958:
598:
562:
547:
537:
448:
431:
1392:- No question that the information should be distributed to those of us who are not "in the loop" as well.
1173:
Support: This is a one time message. It is not multiple messages in very short duration of time. Regarding
722:
339:
228:
4050:
Actually, I don't quite understand why the CU minimum is relevant to my comment whatsoever? Respectfully,
3238:
Possibly readability would suffer, but I'm not convinced the change in policy is a net positive addition.
1643:
message like that I have ever received despite not having any such opt-outs at all, and while undoubtedly
2991:
2320:-style statements) or off-topic questions from question pages, following discussion among the committee.
2158:
the several !votes in a row without any reasoning at all under support? This is just getting ridiculous.
2145:
1995:
1462:
1441:
1095:
Endorsing per opinion that high voter turnout is generally desirable. Actually, I got two messages 2015.
1081:
voting starts - preferably quite a bit before, so recipients have time to participate and ask questions.
1432:
1061:
High participation is essential for afair election. The cutoff level last year seems about right to me.
4327:
4313:
4205:
4164:
3020:
1758:
a ping, as I believe he was the one who set up the mass message and would better answer your question.
1138:
1086:
529:
in fact, I'd like to see eligibility to vote in any one year withdrawn from those who don't contribute
5208:
Ah perfect, so this has basically been done already, save for users who choose to show bot edits. --
4298:
3311:
I agree, this looks like a fine idea, but it needs fleshing out into an actually workable proposal.
1960:
1253:
4353:
You couldn't be more off-base with your hyperbole. All that the proposal requires at this time is a
5711:
5693:
5617:
5583:
5398:
5121:
5064:
4591:
4537:
4506:
4493:
4471:
4235:
3599:
3394:
I am very wary of an RfC that changes the above mandate. Do we even have the authority to do that?
3257:
2813:
2587:
2361:
2173:
2163:
1701:
1665:
1608:
1537:
1287:
954:
640:
558:
543:
533:
464:
441:
424:
386:
sending the message. The reason I'm starting this discussion is because a few editors commented at
4563:
Changing the underlying election rules have also been proposed at the previous Election RFCs (see
4398:
unfortunate that you chose to assume bad faith regarding my motives for presenting this proposal.
3868:
I agree with the nomination statement. At least one edit in the last year is hardly unreasonable.
359:
The 2015 election was the first ArbCom election in which we sent out a mass message (which looked
5553:
5387:
5050:
4985:
4911:
4652:
4134:
3873:
3737:
3422:
Knowledge:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Electoral Commission
3417:
Knowledge:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Electoral Commission
3412:
Knowledge:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Electoral Commission
3407:
Knowledge:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Electoral Commission
3402:
Knowledge:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Electoral Commission
2874:
2764:
2063:
or any default-to-ban variant on its talk page probably doesn't want that kind of notifications).
1228:
1181:
714:
2038:
Digging a bit the previous editions, I found that such messages have in the past been signed by
5757:
5459:
5415:
5323:
5319:
5198:
5153:
5149:
5107:
5093:
5036:
4576:
4514:
4388:
4384:
4344:
4340:
4227:
4055:
4040:
4004:
3798:
3701:
3037:
3033:
3002:
2987:
2805:
2564:
2394:
2141:
1974:
1940:
1908:
1846:
1572:
1479:
1457:
1436:
1380:
1376:
1279:
889:
788:
613:
518:
128:
5662:
5441:
5361:
5251:
4863:
4797:
4761:
4730:
4722:
4703:
4613:
4403:
4362:
4323:
4309:
4181:
4095:
3961:
3859:
3686:
3672:
3648:
3631:
3612:
3569:
3346:
3051:
3016:
2975:
2751:
2722:
2676:
2285:
2130:
1687:
1134:
1124:
1082:
1024:
995:
749:
655:
327:
264:
3602:
above, I am proposing that we add a clause to the requirements for being an eligible voter.
59:
5473:
5374:
5344:
5139:
4294:
4293:
This seems like a questionably effective solution for a problem no one has shown to exist.
4267:
4022:
3982:
3943:
3900:
3846:
3832:
3720:
3316:
3222:
2861:
2550:
2532:
2377:
1985:
1956:
1778:
1737:
1500:
1250:
1200:
771:
693:
338:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
52:
121:
8:
5539:
5213:
5117:
4937:
4771:
4253:
3887:
3664:
3515:
3485:
3433:
3298:
3280:
3103:
2714:
2698:
2630:
2578:
2545:: we can depend on the committee's comprise in expecting diligence and sound judgement.--
2516:
2491:
2439:
2355:
2159:
2115:
1924:
1892:
1834:
1697:
1676:
1661:
1619:
1604:
1587:
1556:
1531:
1315:
1116:
849:
816:
706:
670:
636:
5635:
suggestion, but I haven't had enough time to think through if that was a good option. --
2002:
in 2014, the year before the first mass message, and that only resulted in a turnout of
1867:
even just before!) the polls open. Again, this is an area where suggestions are useful.
1732:--Does this message reaches out to sockpuppets and/or sock-puppeteers? That is a strict
688:
somewhat spammy, which makes me think that a watchlist notice might really be better. --
5771:
5741:
5677:
5640:
5607:
5567:
5549:
5525:
5383:
5309:
5290:
5046:
5001:
4886:
4648:
4544:
4453:
4130:
3869:
3770:
3733:
3391:
Committee election process, and to adjudicate any disputes" until it actually happens.
3066:
2870:
2777:
2760:
2408:
1813:
Complaints about this flooding the watchlist are likely to be exacerbated this year by
1513:
1487:
1241:
1224:
1153:
579:
243:
Should we continue or modify the practice of notifying eligible voters by mass message?
113:
44:
4954:
5753:
5727:
5483:
5455:
5445:
5411:
5244:
No consensus to change; support/oppose/neutral options for each candidate will remain
5194:
5163:
5103:
5089:
5032:
4858:. This will show up on watchlists that don't have the "hide bots" option enabled. --
4634:
4572:
4510:
4420:
4223:
4051:
4036:
4000:
3914:
3794:
3784:
3697:
3466:
3449:
3188:
3174:
3128:
3121:
2998:
2910:
2884:
2830:
2801:
2791:
2663:
2606:
2573:
Yes please. Removing obviously point-y questions helps keep the process on-focus. --
2560:
2456:
2390:
2344:
2325:
2317:
2235:
2213:
2096:
1970:
1936:
1904:
1872:
1861:
1842:
1800:
1568:
1415:
1401:
1334:
1275:
1265:
912:
880:
802:
784:
609:
596:
514:
475:
314:
220:===Statement #N by ]=== Comment ~~~~ ==== Users who endorse statement #N: ==== #~~~~
4571:), so it's not outside normal practice to discuss these changes here. Respectfully,
840:
I do not see how this, with restrictions to active editors, cannot be a good thing.
149:
and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. 22:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
5658:
5357:
5247:
4859:
4793:
4757:
4699:
4609:
4439:
4399:
4373:
4358:
4285:
4177:
4091:
3957:
3855:
3682:
3644:
3627:
3608:
3592:
3565:
3494:
Who elects the commissioners? I don't recall ever being informed of that election.
3342:
3154:
3047:
2971:
2746:
2672:
2281:
2256:
Should election committee members be allowed to remove questions where appropriate?
2126:
1683:
1648:
1363:
1215:
1020:
991:
937:
Did you mean to put yourself in the endorse section rather than the reject/oppose?
745:
651:
592:
One of the rare instances where I'm actually a in favour of mass-messaging people.
323:
260:
251:
it's not possible to say any of them have consensus. So this section is closed as
2353:
We shouldn't allow ne'er-do-wells to ask POINTy questions and derail the process.
143:
is to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the
5469:
5425:
5371:
5341:
5135:
5060:
5012:
4975:
4958:
4848:
While sending mass message, should we exclude that particular bot from watchlist?
4811:
4776:
4735:
4688:
4667:
4485:
4264:
4126:
4110:
4086:
4071:
4019:
3971:
3932:
3896:
3843:
3828:
3765:
Seems a good threshold to trial; could be removed or raised based on experience.
3717:
3495:
3335:
3312:
3211:
2954:
2858:
2546:
2542:
2528:
2374:
2058:
2045:
2020:
Speaking as one editor, I´m much less likely to notice a watchlist notification.
1496:
1196:
1046:
760:
689:
498:
175:
Evaluation period: Saturday 00:00, 14 October – Friday 23:59, 20 October (7 days)
4899:
we can decide/narrow down the criteria for the recipients of this mass message.
3557:
no consensus to limit eligible voters to people who have edited in the past year
189:
Setup period: Wednesday 00:00, 15 November to Sunday 23:59, 19 November (5 days)
5535:
5209:
5185:
4933:
4249:
4199:
4158:
3883:
3748:
3659:
3511:
3481:
3429:
3331:
3294:
3276:
2927:
2709:
2693:
2641:
2622:
2574:
2511:
2487:
2111:
1919:
1887:
1624:
just FYI you can opt-out of all massmessages per account by adding the page to
1583:
1551:
1303:
1164:
1111:
945:
932:
925:
861:
841:
833:
812:
703:
666:
335:
5148:
Is it really that time-consuming just to see a bot message on your watchlist?
4109:
who don't edit much any more. More below, this is getting long for threading.
192:
Voting period: Monday 00:00, 20 November to Sunday 23:59, 3 December (14 days)
5794:
5767:
5737:
5673:
5636:
5603:
5563:
5521:
5305:
5286:
5274:
5078:
4449:
4377:
3766:
3062:
2773:
2422:
2404:
2196:
2011:
1763:
1629:
1509:
1483:
1329:
Aiming to involve active editors, but not disturb inactive editors, is best.
1237:
1148:
1068:
1034:
575:
415:
396:
331:
5497:
How else is one supposed to express their opinion if they cannot oppose it?
1994:
the mass message. Administrators can post such watchlist notices by editing
186:
Nominations: Sunday 00:00, 5 November – Tuesday 23:59, 14 November (10 days)
4807:
4624:
3910:
3811:
3780:
3462:
3445:
3381:
configure the SecurePoll voting interface—move forward in a timely fashion.
3239:
3207:
3184:
3170:
3141:
3125:
3095:
3082:
2935:
2906:
2842:
2826:
2825:
Making the process less hostile towards potential candidates must be good.
2787:
2659:
2601:
2453:
2431:
2340:
2321:
2231:
2224:
2209:
2092:
2085:
2073:
1935:
I would do that, though I suspect that I am very much in the minority. ^_^
1868:
1857:
1828:
1818:
1796:
1784:
1755:
1394:
1346:
1330:
1261:
973:
908:
798:
593:
486:
471:
1751:
702:
Fully supportive of encouraging more participation and more transparency.
371:
in 2015. In the 2016 election, we modified the mass message (which looked
5632:
4282:
3166:
3148:
2473:
1359:
1211:
623:
5285:
late to the party but I also wonder why nobody brought this up in time.
1429:
Providing this only goes to people who are eligible to vote - i.e. : -->
1358:
increasing awareness and the opportunity to participate is a good thing
953:
I've boldly moved this, as it clearly belongs in the "endorse" section.
342:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
257:
Knowledge talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/MassMessage
172:
Nominations: Friday 00:00, 6 October – Friday 23:59, 13 October (7 days)
5582:
In what way does an oppose vote carry more weight than a support vote?
4856:
No consensus to change; message will be treated as a normal MassMessage
4437:- "solution" to a "problem" that has not been demonstrated to exist. --
3183:
If the emphasis is on the second syllable, polmec sounds like Klingon.
811:
I like the mass message idea, as it helps get more people involved. --
493:
3540:
Should we prohibit editors with a full year of inactivity from voting?
4193:
4152:
4125:
Regarding the RfA problem, I don't want to say anything specific per
2072:), writing about that special case in the nobots documentation, etc.
939:
827:
733:
304:
4553:
at the beginning of the RfC allows for changing the election rules?
2691:
Sounds like a good idea; trust this to be used only when necessary.
5134:
don't want a mass talkpage message, then let's not do it at all. --
4953:
We already have functionality to turn off bot edits in watchlists.
4896:
is about whether or not to notify eligible voters by mass message.
4893:
3551:
something that can be decided in this RFC; that's what this RFC is
2759:
Although abuse of this discretionary power should be sanctionable.
2640:
Pointy and unrelated questions should be removed without a doubt. –
2192:
2007:
1774:
1759:
1727:
1063:
411:
392:
2265:(nitpick: that's "Electoral Commission", not "Election Committee")
224:
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
5655:
and determine the exact voting regimen in case this change passes
5597:
Sorry, that was inexact wording from my side. I should have said
4698:
And if we have a method to deter it, we should make use of such.
4262:
I wish it was stricter too, but perfect vs. good and all that. --
1343:
It definitely improves turnout and high turnout is a good thing.
1990:
It's indeed possible, and it's been done for the past few years
1133:
Any given electorate should know that an election is occurring.
5708:
Knowledge:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015#Results
5690:
Knowledge:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016#Results
345:
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review
5806:
Knowledge Arbitration Committee elections requests for comment
4014:
146:
December 2017 English Knowledge Arbitration Committee election
4810:
for bigots with larger audiences. But I'm getting off-topic.
5031:
I don't see a reason to do this. Per Ivanvector, I suppose.
2869:
A good idea. This will keep questions focused and relevant.
924:. I agree that a wider participation is generally suitable.
5732:
I think you just gave a wonderful example why counting the
4484:
I should add that I reject points 2) and 3), above, as per
178:
Commission selection: completed by Friday 00:00, 27 October
684:
troubling that disruptive users get such messages, and it
98:
It is currently 13:48 (UTC), Saturday, 21 September 2024 (
5193:'s edits are already flagged as bot edits. Respectfully,
1750:
strike any ballots made by them. Last year, according to
1016:
4090:
better off without such the possibility of such things.
2527:
least get rid of the overtly inappropriate questions. --
2502:
2506:
1998:. Scrolling through the history of that page, a notice
622:
In my personal capacity as a regular community member,
326:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
81:
Knowledge:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017
2267:
to remove inappropriate questions; or, more precisely
608:
Wide participation is a positive thing. Respectfully,
165:
below, along with the users who have made statements.
75:
Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is
4907:
worthy candidates), yet watchlists are not flooded. —
2389:
Lets avoid making this a de facto exemption from NPA.
879:
next year show more interest than this current year.
234:
Any editor may add new discussion topics as level 2 (
1795:
relating to blocked users being delivered messages.
5688:Just for interest, if we look at 2016's results at
5482:Being able to oppose candidates is important. ----
4721:the size of the electorate, not decreasing it (see
4383:I am not changing my vote, and I need say no more.
3510:
I posted links to the last five elections above. --
1754:, only 8 such votes were struck. I'd like to give
3559:. FWIW, since I'm here, some advice to people on
1655:important that they take priority over literally
5792:
3089:is a redlink. Which page did you mean to link?
5801:Knowledge Arbitration Committee Elections 2017
195:Scrutineering: Begins Monday 00:00, 4 December
4355:single edit over the course of an entire year
3715:) have a much stricter activity criterion. --
3165:Indeed, the perils of mobile working! Thanks
513:Yes, please. More voters is a firm positive.
349:and submit your choices on the voting page.
4322:No evidence that this is an actual problem.
3643:activity in a year is a very low threshold.
2271:. While other editors can obviously remove
5736:support of a candidate is not desirable. --
5130:I appreciate the intention here, but if we
3368:Consider the Electoral Commission mandate:
2316:Committee members to remove offensive (eg.
5548:No. I see no need to make this change.
3461:exercised unless absolutely necessary.
2263:Clear consensus to allow the EC members
713:Yes, the more participation the better.
86:Feedback on the election may be left on
4892:The first discussion here initiated by
1660:goes well beyond my personal feelings.
311:Hello, {{SAFESUBST:<noinclude /: -->
102:
14:
5793:
2052:Category:Opted-out of message delivery
1626:Category:Opted-out of message delivery
3956:stale account that seems improbable.
2930:inappropriate questions? Why do they
5263:The following discussion is closed.
4875:The following discussion is closed.
3581:The following discussion is closed.
2297:The following discussion is closed.
1019:focused on the most active editors.
532:Struck after further consideration.
315:2017 Arbitration Committee elections
276:The following discussion is closed.
2471:that last resort should be allowed.
23:
5424:Per Rschen7754 and ZettaComposer.
5162:Per Ivanvector, Biblio, etc. ----
2091:neither options could be checked.
1815:this recent change in the software
79:. The results have been posted to
24:
5817:
5444:note 3). Kelapstick's success in
2189:===Statement by Modernponderer===
1647:it is incredibly presumptuous of
5783:The discussion above is closed.
5223:The discussion above is closed.
4839:The discussion above is closed.
3598:Based on the suggestion made by
3531:The discussion above is closed.
2994:) 14:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
2247:The discussion above is closed.
540:) 12:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
303:
28:
5300:Users who endorse statement #5:
4926:Users who endorse statement #4:
3622:Users who endorse statement #3:
2335:Users who endorse statement #2:
406:Users who endorse statement #1:
5776:08:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
5762:05:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
5746:20:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
5720:18:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
5702:18:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
5682:20:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
5667:23:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
5645:08:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
5626:20:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
5612:20:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
5592:20:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
5558:15:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
5544:10:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
5530:05:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
5515:02:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
5493:22:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
5478:21:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
5464:18:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
5436:18:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
5420:17:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
5407:17:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
5392:17:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
5378:02:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
5366:01:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
5352:21:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
5334:Users who reject statement #5:
5328:21:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
5314:20:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
5295:20:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
5218:20:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
5203:07:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
5173:22:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
5158:20:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
5144:20:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
5126:04:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
5112:07:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
5098:06:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
5084:04:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
5073:13:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
5055:07:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
5041:03:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
5023:12:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
4995:20:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
4969:19:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
4948:Users who reject statement #4:
4942:22:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
4921:19:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
4822:21:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
4802:07:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
4787:12:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
4766:05:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
4746:13:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
4708:13:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
4678:12:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
4657:07:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
4638:18:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
4618:17:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
4600:12:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
4581:16:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
4519:16:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
4502:16:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
4480:08:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
4444:07:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
4430:22:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
4408:01:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
4393:21:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
4367:20:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
4349:20:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
4332:07:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
4318:02:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
4303:23:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
4289:01:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
4275:05:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
4258:22:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
4243:20:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
4213:12:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
4186:17:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
4172:17:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
4139:22:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
4121:12:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
4100:06:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
4082:19:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
4060:17:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
4045:17:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
4030:17:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
4009:16:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
3990:03:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
3966:20:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
3951:15:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
3925:Users who reject statement #3:
3919:03:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
3905:18:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
3892:10:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
3878:17:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
3864:23:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
3850:06:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
3837:20:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
3819:18:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
3803:06:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
3789:13:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
3775:17:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
3761:12:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
3742:07:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
3728:17:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
3706:16:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
3691:06:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
3677:03:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
3653:23:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
3636:22:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
3617:22:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
3520:16:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
3506:12:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
3490:06:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
3471:19:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
3454:19:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
3438:19:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
3351:16:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
3321:00:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
3303:22:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
3285:15:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
3266:16:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
3252:16:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
3230:16:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
3193:19:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
3179:20:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
3161:11:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
3136:15:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
3112:15:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
3071:05:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
3056:23:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
3042:20:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
3025:08:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
3007:16:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
2980:08:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
2965:21:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
2948:07:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
2921:Users who reject statement #2:
2915:03:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
2894:22:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
2879:17:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
2865:06:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
2850:18:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
2835:15:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
2821:20:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
2796:13:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
2782:17:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
2769:07:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
2755:18:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
2741:12:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
2727:11:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
2703:22:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
2687:10:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
2681:05:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
2668:19:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
2654:18:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
2636:17:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
2617:12:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
2596:07:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
2583:07:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
2569:05:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
2555:03:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
2537:00:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
2522:00:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
2496:00:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
2481:22:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
2464:15:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
2448:15:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
2417:12:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
2399:00:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
2385:23:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
2369:21:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
2349:20:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
2330:20:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
2240:18:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
2218:19:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
2201:22:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
2182:22:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
2168:21:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
2150:15:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
2135:22:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
2120:02:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
2101:21:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
2079:15:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
2030:12:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
2016:22:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
1979:13:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
1965:12:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
1945:04:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
1930:08:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
1913:01:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
1898:01:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
1877:21:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
1851:19:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
1839:Dcs002's message as an example
1822:17:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
1805:19:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
1768:19:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
1745:14:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
1706:06:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
1692:05:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
1670:05:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
1635:04:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
1613:03:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
1596:00:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
1577:19:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
1562:08:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
1545:18:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
1524:Users who reject statement #1:
1505:17:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
1492:05:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
1472:08:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
1451:15:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
1433:Knowledge:Sock_puppetry#NOTIFY
1425:22:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
1410:17:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
1385:20:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
1368:18:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
1354:18:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
1339:15:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
1325:01:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
1295:20:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
1270:13:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
1256:21:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
1246:17:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
1233:07:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
1220:02:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
1205:00:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
1191:18:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
1168:23:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
1159:20:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
1143:20:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
1129:11:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
1105:10:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
1091:06:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
1073:01:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
1057:21:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
1040:13:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
1029:01:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
1009:10:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
1000:08:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
986:07:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
963:19:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
948:17:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
917:19:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
898:18:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
874:18:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
855:17:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
836:17:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
821:07:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
807:08:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
793:05:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
779:05:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
754:04:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
740:03:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
727:02:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
709:00:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
698:00:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
675:00:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
660:23:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
645:23:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
631:22:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
618:19:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
604:15:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
588:12:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
567:08:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
552:20:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
523:14:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
505:07:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
480:19:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
458:07:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
388:last year's election talk page
382:Personally, I think we should
312:BASEPAGENAME}}. Voting in the
18:Knowledge:Requests for comment
13:
1:
4248:that can be easily gamed. --
420:22:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
401:22:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
328:Knowledge arbitration process
4549:Surely the paragraph titled
3386:So the Electoral Commission
2559:Support per Chris Troutman.
7:
5572:18:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
5256:19:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
4868:19:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
4458:18:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
3574:19:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
2290:19:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
1996:MediaWiki:Watchlist-details
1651:to think its elections are
1518:17:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
902:Regardless of whether this
269:18:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
10:
5822:
5578:Discussion on statement #5
5191:MediaWiki message delivery
5179:Discussion on statement #4
4464:Discussion on statement #3
3779:A reasonable requirement.
3293:...Sound of crickets... --
3077:Discussion on statement #2
2997:Strike CU confirmed sock.
2040:MediaWiki message delivery
1835:some users were frustrated
1720:Discussion on statement #1
1601:STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSE:
1007:- reminders are helpful.
347:the candidates' statements
111:
42:
783:Support per Dreamyshade.
5785:Please do not modify it.
5265:Please do not modify it.
5225:Please do not modify it.
4877:Please do not modify it.
4841:Please do not modify it.
3583:Please do not modify it.
3533:Please do not modify it.
2299:Please do not modify it.
2249:Please do not modify it.
1969:I like this idea a lot!
278:Please do not modify it.
162:
4281:Per Rivertorch.--v/r -
3547:Just to be clear, this
2307:Statement #2 by Mdann52
1740:Winged Blades of Godric
3793:Eminently reasonable.
2425:' suggestion is used.
1175:the watchlist spamming
4731:Gamergate controversy
4723:signal-to-noise ratio
324:Arbitration Committee
35:Arbitration Committee
3732:Activity is a must.
2313:was raised last year
229:Points of discussion
137:The purpose of this
5712:Boing! said Zebedee
5694:Boing! said Zebedee
5618:Boing! said Zebedee
5584:Boing! said Zebedee
5399:Boing! said Zebedee
5236:votes be abolished?
5065:Boing! said Zebedee
4772:perennial candidate
4592:Boing! said Zebedee
4538:Boing! said Zebedee
4507:Boing! said Zebedee
4494:Boing! said Zebedee
4472:Boing! said Zebedee
4380:is a case in point.
3600:Boing! said Zebedee
3564:ability to vote. --
3258:Boing! said Zebedee
2588:Boing! said Zebedee
2421:Agreed, as long as
2174:Boing! said Zebedee
2172:No, of course not!
955:Boing! said Zebedee
559:Boing! said Zebedee
544:Boing! said Zebedee
534:Boing! said Zebedee
465:My name is not dave
295:Sample mass message
286:Statement #1 by Mz7
140:request for comment
5442:WP:ACE2016#Results
5280:Should we abolish
5266:
4878:
3823:I'll support this
3584:
2733:Gråbergs Gråa Sång
2300:
2022:Gråbergs Gråa Sång
1097:Gråbergs Gråa Sång
340:arbitration policy
279:
5264:
4955:It's on this page
4876:
4548:
3988:
3987:
3949:
3948:
3713:steward elections
3582:
3228:
3227:
3120:Pretty sure it's
3009:
2988:Billbo T. Baggins
2600:Without a doubt.
2298:
2266:
2142:Billbo T. Baggins
1480:WereSpielChequers
1478:Yes, largely per
1405:
1322:
965:
893:
885:
777:
776:
724:
643:
541:
456:
444:
439:
427:
356:
355:
277:
163:table of contents
88:the feedback page
5813:
5731:
5511:
5508:
5505:
5502:
5356:Per Rschen7754.
5273:Statement #5 by
5189:
5088:Per Ivanvector.
5081:
5005:
4993:
4992:
4990:
4979:
4919:
4918:
4916:
4885:Statement #4 by
4729:who have edited
4692:
4632:
4542:
4541:
4490:
4442:
4324:Opabinia regalis
4310:I am One of Many
4295:-Starke Hathaway
4240:
4211:
4208:
4202:
4196:
4170:
4167:
4161:
4155:
4015:global CU policy
3979:
3978:
3976:
3940:
3939:
3937:
3814:
3758:
3753:
3591:Statement #3 by
3339:
3249:
3244:
3219:
3218:
3216:
3159:
3124:that was meant.
3107:
3099:
3093:
3017:Opabinia regalis
2996:
2945:
2940:
2845:
2818:
2749:
2731:Per Tryptofish.
2651:
2646:
2633:
2628:
2614:
2609:
2604:
2519:
2514:
2509:
2478:
2443:
2435:
2429:
2367:
2364:
2358:
2264:
2228:
2190:
2089:
2076:
2062:
2050:, that is, only
2049:
1989:
1927:
1922:
1895:
1890:
1865:
1832:
1782:
1742:
1731:
1680:
1639:No. This is the
1632:
1623:
1559:
1554:
1543:
1540:
1534:
1469:
1465:
1460:
1448:
1444:
1439:
1408:
1406:
1403:
1399:
1349:
1323:
1318:
1312:
1311:
1306:
1292:
1189:
1188:
1186:
1156:
1151:
1135:PaleCloudedWhite
1083:Opabinia regalis
1037:
983:
978:
952:
942:
936:
891:
883:
871:
866:
852:
847:
830:
768:
767:
765:
736:
723:
720:
717:
639:
628:
531:
501:
496:
490:
468:
446:
442:
429:
425:
377:1942 valid votes
369:2674 valid votes
307:
291:
290:
237:
131:
124:
106:
104:
62:
55:
38:
32:
31:
5821:
5820:
5816:
5815:
5814:
5812:
5811:
5810:
5791:
5790:
5789:
5788:
5725:
5580:
5509:
5506:
5503:
5500:
5491:
5433:
5336:
5302:
5278:
5269:
5260:
5259:
5258:
5238:
5229:
5228:
5183:
5181:
5171:
5079:
5020:
4999:
4986:
4983:
4982:
4973:
4966:
4950:
4928:
4912:
4909:
4908:
4890:
4881:
4872:
4871:
4870:
4850:
4845:
4844:
4819:
4784:
4743:
4686:
4675:
4626:
4535:
4486:
4466:
4438:
4428:
4239:
4236:
4206:
4200:
4194:
4192:
4165:
4159:
4153:
4151:
4118:
4079:
4013:Given that the
3985:
3972:
3946:
3933:
3927:
3911:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
3812:
3754:
3749:
3624:
3596:
3587:
3578:
3577:
3576:
3542:
3537:
3536:
3503:
3329:
3245:
3240:
3225:
3212:
3158:
3145:
3133:
3105:
3097:
3091:
3079:
2962:
2941:
2936:
2934:to be removed?
2923:
2907:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
2892:
2843:
2817:
2814:
2747:
2647:
2642:
2631:
2623:
2612:
2607:
2602:
2517:
2512:
2501:
2474:
2461:
2441:
2433:
2427:
2362:
2356:
2354:
2337:
2309:
2303:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2258:
2253:
2252:
2222:
2188:
2083:
2074:
2056:
2043:
2004:593 valid votes
1986:RickinBaltimore
1983:
1957:RickinBaltimore
1925:
1920:
1893:
1888:
1855:
1826:
1779:Godric on Leave
1772:
1738:
1725:
1722:
1674:
1657:everything else
1630:
1617:
1557:
1552:
1538:
1532:
1530:
1526:
1467:
1463:
1458:
1446:
1442:
1437:
1423:
1402:
1395:
1393:
1347:
1316:
1309:
1304:
1301:
1291:
1288:
1251:Miles Edgeworth
1182:
1179:
1178:
1154:
1149:
1054:
1035:
979:
974:
940:
930:
867:
862:
850:
842:
828:
774:
761:
734:
718:
715:
624:
601:
499:
494:
484:
462:
408:
365:593 valid votes
357:
352:
351:
308:
296:
288:
282:
273:
272:
271:
245:
235:
231:
221:
135:
134:
127:
120:
116:
109:
100:
96:
66:
65:
58:
51:
47:
40:
29:
27:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
5819:
5809:
5808:
5803:
5782:
5781:
5780:
5779:
5778:
5723:
5722:
5706:And for 2015,
5704:
5685:
5684:
5652:
5651:
5650:
5649:
5648:
5647:
5579:
5576:
5575:
5574:
5560:
5546:
5532:
5517:
5495:
5487:
5480:
5466:
5438:
5429:
5422:
5409:
5394:
5380:
5368:
5354:
5335:
5332:
5331:
5330:
5316:
5301:
5298:
5277:
5271:
5270:
5261:
5242:
5241:
5240:
5239:
5237:
5230:
5222:
5221:
5220:
5180:
5177:
5176:
5175:
5167:
5160:
5146:
5128:
5118:Modernponderer
5114:
5100:
5086:
5075:
5057:
5043:
5029:
5028:
5027:
5026:
5025:
5016:
4962:
4949:
4946:
4945:
4944:
4927:
4924:
4897:
4889:
4883:
4882:
4873:
4854:
4853:
4852:
4851:
4849:
4846:
4838:
4837:
4836:
4835:
4834:
4833:
4832:
4831:
4830:
4829:
4828:
4827:
4826:
4825:
4824:
4815:
4780:
4739:
4711:
4710:
4681:
4680:
4671:
4662:
4661:
4660:
4659:
4641:
4640:
4620:
4605:
4604:
4603:
4602:
4587:
4586:
4585:
4584:
4583:
4561:
4560:
4559:
4526:
4525:
4524:
4523:
4522:
4521:
4465:
4462:
4461:
4460:
4446:
4432:
4424:
4416:
4415:
4414:
4413:
4412:
4411:
4410:
4381:
4334:
4320:
4305:
4291:
4279:
4278:
4277:
4245:
4237:
4219:
4218:
4217:
4216:
4215:
4147:
4146:
4145:
4144:
4143:
4142:
4141:
4114:
4075:
4068:
4067:
4066:
4065:
4064:
4063:
4062:
3996:
3995:
3994:
3993:
3992:
3983:
3944:
3926:
3923:
3922:
3921:
3907:
3894:
3880:
3866:
3852:
3839:
3821:
3805:
3791:
3777:
3763:
3744:
3730:
3708:
3693:
3679:
3655:
3638:
3623:
3620:
3595:
3589:
3588:
3579:
3546:
3545:
3544:
3543:
3541:
3538:
3530:
3529:
3528:
3527:
3526:
3525:
3524:
3523:
3522:
3499:
3474:
3473:
3457:
3456:
3425:
3424:
3419:
3414:
3409:
3404:
3384:
3383:
3376:
3375:
3360:
3359:
3358:
3357:
3356:
3355:
3354:
3353:
3324:
3323:
3306:
3305:
3288:
3287:
3271:
3270:
3269:
3268:
3254:
3233:
3232:
3223:
3204:
3203:
3202:
3201:
3200:
3199:
3198:
3197:
3196:
3195:
3152:
3144:doesn't mind.
3131:
3115:
3114:
3078:
3075:
3074:
3073:
3058:
3044:
3027:
3012:
3011:
3010:
2967:
2958:
2950:
2922:
2919:
2918:
2917:
2896:
2888:
2881:
2867:
2852:
2837:
2823:
2815:
2798:
2784:
2771:
2757:
2743:
2729:
2705:
2689:
2683:
2670:
2656:
2638:
2619:
2598:
2585:
2571:
2557:
2539:
2524:
2498:
2483:
2466:
2459:
2450:
2419:
2401:
2387:
2371:
2357:Chris Troutman
2351:
2336:
2333:
2308:
2305:
2304:
2295:
2262:
2261:
2260:
2259:
2257:
2254:
2246:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2205:
2204:
2203:
2184:
2160:Modernponderer
2154:Can we please
2152:
2137:
2122:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2103:
2065:
2064:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2032:
1992:in addition to
1981:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1824:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1792:
1788:
1721:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1698:Modernponderer
1677:Modernponderer
1662:Modernponderer
1620:Modernponderer
1605:Modernponderer
1598:
1579:
1564:
1547:
1533:Chris Troutman
1525:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1507:
1494:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1427:
1419:
1412:
1387:
1370:
1356:
1341:
1327:
1297:
1289:
1272:
1258:
1248:
1235:
1222:
1207:
1193:
1171:
1161:
1145:
1131:
1107:
1093:
1075:
1059:
1050:
1042:
1031:
1011:
1002:
988:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
919:
900:
876:
857:
838:
823:
809:
795:
781:
772:
756:
742:
729:
711:
700:
677:
662:
647:
637:GorillaWarfare
633:
620:
606:
599:
590:
571:
570:
569:
525:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
422:
407:
404:
354:
353:
309:
302:
301:
298:
297:
294:
289:
287:
284:
283:
274:
249:
248:
247:
246:
244:
241:
230:
227:
219:
215:
209:; on or after
197:
196:
193:
190:
187:
180:
179:
176:
173:
133:
132:
125:
117:
112:
110:
97:
94:
92:
91:
84:
71:
64:
63:
56:
48:
43:
41:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
5818:
5807:
5804:
5802:
5799:
5798:
5796:
5786:
5777:
5773:
5769:
5765:
5764:
5763:
5759:
5755:
5750:
5749:
5748:
5747:
5743:
5739:
5735:
5729:
5721:
5717:
5713:
5709:
5705:
5703:
5699:
5695:
5691:
5687:
5686:
5683:
5679:
5675:
5671:
5670:
5669:
5668:
5664:
5660:
5656:
5646:
5642:
5638:
5634:
5629:
5628:
5627:
5623:
5619:
5615:
5614:
5613:
5609:
5605:
5600:
5596:
5595:
5594:
5593:
5589:
5585:
5573:
5569:
5565:
5561:
5559:
5555:
5551:
5550:Beyond My Ken
5547:
5545:
5541:
5537:
5533:
5531:
5527:
5523:
5518:
5516:
5513:
5512:
5496:
5494:
5490:
5489:contributions
5485:
5481:
5479:
5475:
5471:
5467:
5465:
5461:
5457:
5452:
5447:
5443:
5439:
5437:
5432:
5427:
5423:
5421:
5417:
5413:
5410:
5408:
5404:
5400:
5395:
5393:
5389:
5385:
5384:ZettaComposer
5381:
5379:
5376:
5373:
5369:
5367:
5363:
5359:
5355:
5353:
5350:
5349:
5346:
5343:
5338:
5337:
5329:
5325:
5321:
5317:
5315:
5311:
5307:
5304:
5303:
5297:
5296:
5292:
5288:
5283:
5276:
5268:
5257:
5253:
5249:
5245:
5235:
5226:
5219:
5215:
5211:
5207:
5206:
5205:
5204:
5200:
5196:
5192:
5187:
5174:
5170:
5169:contributions
5165:
5161:
5159:
5155:
5151:
5147:
5145:
5141:
5137:
5133:
5129:
5127:
5123:
5119:
5115:
5113:
5109:
5105:
5101:
5099:
5095:
5091:
5087:
5085:
5082:
5076:
5074:
5070:
5066:
5062:
5059:I agree with
5058:
5056:
5052:
5048:
5047:Beyond My Ken
5044:
5042:
5038:
5034:
5030:
5024:
5019:
5014:
5009:
5003:
5002:Usernamekiran
4998:
4997:
4996:
4991:
4989:
4984:usernamekiran
4977:
4972:
4971:
4970:
4965:
4960:
4956:
4952:
4951:
4943:
4939:
4935:
4930:
4929:
4923:
4922:
4917:
4915:
4910:usernamekiran
4905:
4900:
4895:
4888:
4887:Usernamekiran
4880:
4869:
4865:
4861:
4857:
4842:
4823:
4818:
4813:
4809:
4805:
4804:
4803:
4799:
4795:
4790:
4789:
4788:
4783:
4778:
4773:
4769:
4768:
4767:
4763:
4759:
4754:
4749:
4748:
4747:
4742:
4737:
4732:
4728:
4724:
4720:
4715:
4714:
4713:
4712:
4709:
4705:
4701:
4697:
4690:
4685:
4684:
4683:
4682:
4679:
4674:
4669:
4664:
4663:
4658:
4654:
4650:
4649:Beyond My Ken
4645:
4644:
4643:
4642:
4639:
4636:
4633:
4631:
4630:
4621:
4619:
4615:
4611:
4607:
4606:
4601:
4597:
4593:
4588:
4582:
4578:
4574:
4570:
4566:
4562:
4558:
4555:
4554:
4552:
4546:
4545:edit conflict
4539:
4534:
4533:
4532:
4531:
4530:
4529:
4528:
4527:
4520:
4516:
4512:
4508:
4505:
4504:
4503:
4499:
4495:
4491:
4489:
4483:
4482:
4481:
4477:
4473:
4468:
4467:
4459:
4455:
4451:
4447:
4445:
4441:
4436:
4433:
4431:
4427:
4426:contributions
4422:
4417:
4409:
4405:
4401:
4396:
4395:
4394:
4390:
4386:
4382:
4379:
4375:
4370:
4369:
4368:
4364:
4360:
4356:
4352:
4351:
4350:
4346:
4342:
4338:
4337:Strong oppose
4335:
4333:
4329:
4325:
4321:
4319:
4315:
4311:
4306:
4304:
4300:
4296:
4292:
4290:
4287:
4284:
4280:
4276:
4273:
4272:
4269:
4266:
4261:
4260:
4259:
4255:
4251:
4246:
4244:
4241:
4233:
4229:
4225:
4220:
4214:
4209:
4203:
4197:
4189:
4188:
4187:
4183:
4179:
4175:
4174:
4173:
4168:
4162:
4156:
4148:
4140:
4136:
4132:
4131:Beyond My Ken
4128:
4124:
4123:
4122:
4117:
4112:
4108:
4103:
4102:
4101:
4097:
4093:
4088:
4085:
4084:
4083:
4078:
4073:
4069:
4061:
4057:
4053:
4049:
4048:
4047:
4046:
4042:
4038:
4033:
4032:
4031:
4028:
4027:
4024:
4021:
4016:
4012:
4011:
4010:
4006:
4002:
3997:
3991:
3986:
3981:
3977:
3975:
3969:
3968:
3967:
3963:
3959:
3954:
3953:
3952:
3947:
3942:
3938:
3936:
3929:
3928:
3920:
3916:
3912:
3908:
3906:
3902:
3898:
3895:
3893:
3889:
3885:
3881:
3879:
3875:
3871:
3870:ZettaComposer
3867:
3865:
3861:
3857:
3853:
3851:
3848:
3845:
3840:
3838:
3834:
3830:
3826:
3822:
3820:
3817:
3816:
3815:
3806:
3804:
3800:
3796:
3792:
3790:
3786:
3782:
3778:
3776:
3772:
3768:
3764:
3762:
3759:
3757:
3752:
3745:
3743:
3739:
3735:
3734:Beyond My Ken
3731:
3729:
3726:
3725:
3722:
3719:
3714:
3709:
3707:
3703:
3699:
3694:
3692:
3688:
3684:
3680:
3678:
3674:
3670:
3666:
3662:
3661:
3656:
3654:
3650:
3646:
3642:
3639:
3637:
3633:
3629:
3626:
3625:
3619:
3618:
3614:
3610:
3605:
3601:
3594:
3586:
3575:
3571:
3567:
3562:
3558:
3554:
3550:
3534:
3521:
3517:
3513:
3509:
3508:
3507:
3502:
3497:
3493:
3492:
3491:
3487:
3483:
3478:
3477:
3476:
3475:
3472:
3468:
3464:
3459:
3458:
3455:
3451:
3447:
3442:
3441:
3440:
3439:
3435:
3431:
3423:
3420:
3418:
3415:
3413:
3410:
3408:
3405:
3403:
3400:
3399:
3398:
3395:
3392:
3389:
3382:
3378:
3377:
3374:
3371:
3370:
3369:
3366:
3365:
3352:
3348:
3344:
3337:
3333:
3328:
3327:
3326:
3325:
3322:
3318:
3314:
3310:
3309:
3308:
3307:
3304:
3300:
3296:
3292:
3291:
3290:
3289:
3286:
3282:
3278:
3273:
3272:
3267:
3263:
3259:
3255:
3253:
3250:
3248:
3243:
3237:
3236:
3235:
3234:
3231:
3226:
3221:
3217:
3215:
3209:
3206:
3205:
3194:
3190:
3186:
3182:
3181:
3180:
3176:
3172:
3168:
3164:
3163:
3162:
3157:
3156:
3151:
3150:
3143:
3139:
3138:
3137:
3134:
3129:
3127:
3123:
3119:
3118:
3117:
3116:
3113:
3109:
3108:
3101:
3100:
3094:
3088:
3084:
3081:
3080:
3072:
3068:
3064:
3059:
3057:
3053:
3049:
3045:
3043:
3039:
3035:
3031:
3030:Strong oppose
3028:
3026:
3022:
3018:
3013:
3008:
3004:
3000:
2995:
2993:
2989:
2983:
2982:
2981:
2977:
2973:
2968:
2966:
2961:
2956:
2951:
2949:
2946:
2944:
2939:
2933:
2929:
2925:
2924:
2916:
2912:
2908:
2904:
2900:
2897:
2895:
2891:
2890:contributions
2886:
2882:
2880:
2876:
2872:
2871:ZettaComposer
2868:
2866:
2863:
2860:
2856:
2853:
2851:
2848:
2847:
2846:
2838:
2836:
2832:
2828:
2824:
2822:
2819:
2811:
2807:
2803:
2799:
2797:
2793:
2789:
2785:
2783:
2779:
2775:
2772:
2770:
2766:
2762:
2761:Beyond My Ken
2758:
2756:
2753:
2750:
2744:
2742:
2738:
2734:
2730:
2728:
2724:
2720:
2716:
2712:
2711:
2706:
2704:
2700:
2696:
2695:
2690:
2688:
2684:
2682:
2678:
2674:
2671:
2669:
2665:
2661:
2657:
2655:
2652:
2650:
2645:
2639:
2637:
2634:
2629:
2626:
2620:
2618:
2615:
2610:
2605:
2599:
2597:
2593:
2589:
2586:
2584:
2580:
2576:
2572:
2570:
2566:
2562:
2558:
2556:
2552:
2548:
2544:
2540:
2538:
2534:
2530:
2525:
2523:
2520:
2515:
2508:
2504:
2499:
2497:
2493:
2489:
2484:
2482:
2479:
2477:
2472:
2468:Per Amortias
2467:
2465:
2462:
2457:
2455:
2451:
2449:
2445:
2444:
2437:
2436:
2430:
2424:
2420:
2418:
2414:
2410:
2406:
2402:
2400:
2396:
2392:
2388:
2386:
2383:
2382:
2379:
2376:
2372:
2370:
2365:
2359:
2352:
2350:
2346:
2342:
2339:
2338:
2332:
2331:
2327:
2323:
2319:
2314:
2311:A point that
2302:
2291:
2287:
2283:
2278:
2274:
2270:
2250:
2241:
2237:
2233:
2226:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2215:
2211:
2206:
2202:
2198:
2194:
2185:
2183:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2170:
2169:
2165:
2161:
2157:
2153:
2151:
2147:
2143:
2138:
2136:
2132:
2128:
2123:
2121:
2117:
2113:
2108:
2107:
2102:
2098:
2094:
2087:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2077:
2071:
2067:
2066:
2060:
2053:
2047:
2041:
2037:
2031:
2027:
2023:
2019:
2018:
2017:
2013:
2009:
2005:
2001:
1997:
1993:
1987:
1982:
1980:
1976:
1972:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1928:
1923:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1910:
1906:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1896:
1891:
1884:
1883:
1878:
1874:
1870:
1863:
1859:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1840:
1836:
1830:
1825:
1823:
1820:
1816:
1812:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1793:
1789:
1786:
1780:
1776:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1765:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1743:
1741:
1735:
1729:
1724:
1723:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1689:
1685:
1678:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1633:
1627:
1621:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1599:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1580:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1565:
1563:
1560:
1555:
1548:
1546:
1541:
1535:
1528:
1527:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1508:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1495:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1470:
1466:
1461:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1449:
1445:
1440:
1434:
1428:
1426:
1422:
1421:contributions
1417:
1413:
1411:
1407:
1400:
1398:
1391:
1388:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1371:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1355:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1342:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1326:
1321:
1319:
1308:
1307:
1298:
1296:
1293:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1257:
1254:
1252:
1249:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1236:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1225:Beyond My Ken
1223:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1208:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1192:
1187:
1185:
1180:usernamekiran
1176:
1172:
1169:
1166:
1162:
1160:
1157:
1152:
1146:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1113:
1108:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1065:
1060:
1058:
1053:
1048:
1043:
1041:
1038:
1032:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1015:
1012:
1010:
1006:
1003:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
987:
984:
982:
977:
971:
964:
960:
956:
951:
950:
949:
946:
944:
943:
934:
929:
928:
927:
923:
920:
918:
914:
910:
905:
901:
899:
895:
894:
887:
886:
877:
875:
872:
870:
865:
858:
856:
853:
848:
845:
839:
837:
834:
832:
831:
824:
822:
818:
814:
810:
808:
804:
800:
796:
794:
790:
786:
782:
780:
775:
770:
766:
764:
757:
755:
751:
747:
743:
741:
738:
737:
730:
728:
725:
721:
712:
710:
707:
705:
701:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
678:
676:
672:
668:
663:
661:
657:
653:
648:
646:
642:
638:
634:
632:
629:
627:
621:
619:
615:
611:
607:
605:
602:
597:
595:
591:
589:
585:
581:
577:
572:
568:
564:
560:
555:
554:
553:
549:
545:
539:
535:
530:
526:
524:
520:
516:
512:
506:
503:
502:
497:
488:
483:
482:
481:
477:
473:
466:
461:
460:
459:
454:
450:
445:
437:
433:
428:
423:
421:
417:
413:
410:
409:
403:
402:
398:
394:
389:
385:
380:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
350:
348:
343:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
320:
317:
316:
306:
300:
299:
293:
292:
281:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
240:
239:
226:
225:
218:
214:
212:
208:
204:
200:
194:
191:
188:
185:
184:
183:
177:
174:
171:
170:
169:
166:
164:
160:
156:
154:
150:
148:
147:
142:
141:
130:
129:WP:ACERFC2017
126:
123:
119:
118:
115:
107:
105:
95:
89:
85:
82:
78:
74:
73:
72:
70:
61:
57:
54:
50:
49:
46:
39:
36:
19:
5784:
5754:InsaneHacker
5733:
5728:InsaneHacker
5724:
5654:
5653:
5598:
5581:
5499:
5484:Patar knight
5456:InsaneHacker
5450:
5412:TonyBallioni
5340:
5281:
5279:
5262:
5243:
5233:
5224:
5195:InsaneHacker
5182:
5164:Patar knight
5131:
5104:InsaneHacker
5090:Double sharp
5033:TonyBallioni
5007:
4987:
4913:
4903:
4901:
4891:
4874:
4855:
4840:
4808:useful idiot
4752:
4718:
4695:
4628:
4627:
4573:InsaneHacker
4556:
4550:
4511:TonyBallioni
4487:
4434:
4421:Patar knight
4354:
4336:
4263:
4224:filelakeshoe
4106:
4052:InsaneHacker
4037:InsaneHacker
4034:
4018:
4001:InsaneHacker
3973:
3934:
3825:in principle
3824:
3810:
3809:
3795:Double sharp
3755:
3750:
3716:
3698:TonyBallioni
3658:
3640:
3603:
3597:
3580:
3560:
3556:
3552:
3548:
3532:
3426:
3397:Background:
3396:
3393:
3387:
3385:
3379:
3372:
3367:
3361:
3246:
3241:
3213:
3153:
3147:
3104:
3096:
3090:
3029:
2999:TonyBallioni
2984:
2942:
2937:
2931:
2902:
2898:
2885:Patar knight
2854:
2841:
2840:
2802:filelakeshoe
2708:
2692:
2648:
2643:
2624:
2561:Double sharp
2475:
2469:
2440:
2432:
2426:
2391:TonyBallioni
2373:
2310:
2296:
2276:
2272:
2268:
2248:
2155:
2069:
1991:
1971:Double sharp
1937:Double sharp
1905:TonyBallioni
1862:InsaneHacker
1843:InsaneHacker
1756:User:Mdann52
1739:
1733:
1656:
1652:
1644:
1640:
1600:
1569:Gerda Arendt
1456:
1435:
1416:Patar knight
1396:
1389:
1372:
1345:
1344:
1313:
1302:
1276:filelakeshoe
1183:
1174:
1110:
1078:
1062:
1013:
1004:
980:
975:
938:
921:
903:
890:
881:
868:
863:
843:
826:
785:Double sharp
762:
732:
685:
681:
625:
610:InsaneHacker
528:
515:TonyBallioni
492:
383:
381:
358:
344:
321:
313:
310:
275:
252:
233:
232:
223:
222:
216:
211:September 30
210:
206:
202:
201:
198:
181:
167:
158:
157:
152:
151:
144:
138:
136:
99:
93:
76:
68:
67:
26:
5659:Saturnalia0
5633:Schulze STV
5358:Lepricavark
5248:Floquenbeam
4860:Floquenbeam
4727:197 editors
4610:Jonathunder
4400:Lepricavark
4359:Lepricavark
4178:Lepricavark
3958:Lepricavark
3856:Saturnalia0
3645:Jonathunder
3628:Lepricavark
3609:Lepricavark
3593:Lepricavark
3566:Floquenbeam
3343:Newyorkbrad
3048:Saturnalia0
2972:RainerBlome
2748:Doug Weller
2621:Of course.
2608:Consermonor
2282:Floquenbeam
2275:vandalism,
2127:Newyorkbrad
1752:the results
1684:Newyorkbrad
1021:Jonathunder
992:RainerBlome
884:EMMENDINGER
746:Dreamyshade
652:Lepricavark
367:in 2014 to
261:Floquenbeam
60:WP:ACE 2017
5795:Categories
5470:Tryptofish
5426:Ivanvector
5375:Od Mishehu
5136:Tryptofish
5061:Ivanvector
5013:Ivanvector
4976:Ivanvector
4959:Ivanvector
4812:Ivanvector
4777:Ivanvector
4736:Ivanvector
4719:increasing
4689:Ivanvector
4668:Ivanvector
4551:Background
4488:Rivertorch
4111:Ivanvector
4087:Ivanvector
4072:Ivanvector
3974:Rivertorch
3935:Rivertorch
3897:StonyBrook
3847:Od Mishehu
3829:Tryptofish
3561:both sides
3496:Ivanvector
3336:Courcelles
3313:Courcelles
3214:Rivertorch
3122:WP:POLEMIC
2955:Ivanvector
2862:Od Mishehu
2632:parlez moi
2547:John Cline
2543:Tryptofish
2529:Tryptofish
2318:WP:POLEMIC
2000:was posted
1497:StonyBrook
1197:Courcelles
1047:Ivanvector
904:particular
851:parlez moi
763:Rivertorch
690:Tryptofish
336:topic bans
153:Background
77:now closed
53:WP:ACE2017
5536:Bluehotel
5372:עוד מישהו
5318:Why not?
5210:Ajraddatz
5186:Ajraddatz
5045:No need.
4934:Ajraddatz
4794:Vanamonde
4758:Vanamonde
4700:Vanamonde
4696:expected.
4470:support.
4250:Ajraddatz
4092:Vanamonde
3884:Bluehotel
3882:I agree.
3844:עוד מישהו
3683:Vanamonde
3660:Callanecc
3512:Guy Macon
3482:Guy Macon
3430:Guy Macon
3332:Guy Macon
3295:Guy Macon
3277:Guy Macon
3087:WP:POLMEC
2859:עוד מישהו
2710:Callanecc
2694:Lord Roem
2673:Vanamonde
2613:Opus meum
2575:Ajraddatz
2503:Mike Peel
2488:Mike Peel
2277:egregious
2112:Mike Peel
2070:somewhere
1649:WP:ARBCOM
1645:important
1584:Train2104
1260:Support.
1165:Lankiveil
1155:(discuss)
1112:Callanecc
933:AsadUK200
926:AsadUK200
813:Ajraddatz
719:Pessimist
716:Sparkling
704:Alex Shih
667:Mike Peel
379:in 2016.
373:like this
361:like this
332:site bans
238:) headers
159:Structure
122:WP:ACERFC
114:Shortcuts
45:Shortcuts
37:Elections
5768:Pgallert
5738:Pgallert
5734:relative
5674:Pgallert
5637:Pgallert
5604:Pgallert
5522:Euryalus
5306:Pgallert
5287:Pgallert
5275:Pgallert
5080:xaosflux
4904:only for
4127:WP:BEANS
3767:Ralbegen
3669:contribs
3063:Euryalus
2774:Ralbegen
2719:contribs
2507:Amortias
2423:Amortias
2405:Amortias
1833:In 2015
1631:xaosflux
1484:Euryalus
1468:Chequers
1447:Chequers
1238:Ralbegen
1150:Hawkeye7
1121:contribs
1036:xaosflux
576:Amortias
453:contribs
436:contribs
384:continue
203:Duration
5232:Should
4107:readers
3813:Hut 8.5
3781:Kierzek
3463:Neutron
3446:Neutron
3388:already
3208:AlexEng
3185:Neutron
3171:Mdann52
3142:Mdann52
3126:Yunshui
3098:Gestrid
3083:Mdann52
2903:quickly
2899:Support
2855:Support
2844:Hut 8.5
2827:Maproom
2788:Kierzek
2660:Layzner
2603:Iazyges
2454:Yunshui
2434:Gestrid
2341:Mdann52
2322:Mdann52
2232:Mdann52
2225:Legoktm
2210:Legoktm
2093:Mdann52
2086:Tigraan
2075:Tigraan
1869:Mdann52
1858:Cryptic
1829:Mdann52
1819:Cryptic
1797:Mdann52
1785:Cryptic
1736:for me.
1397:Aloha27
1390:Support
1373:Support
1348:Hut 8.5
1331:Maproom
1317:chatter
1262:Kierzek
909:Layzner
799:Carrite
594:Yunshui
487:Mdann52
472:Mdann52
207:20 days
5320:Biblio
5282:oppose
5234:oppose
5150:Biblio
5132:really
5008:expect
4988:(talk)
4914:(talk)
4635:(talk)
4440:Begoon
4435:Oppose
4385:Biblio
4374:vested
4341:Biblio
3167:Bilorv
3155:(talk)
3149:Bilorv
3034:Biblio
2928:ignore
2476:Ks0stm
2156:strike
2059:nobots
2046:nobots
1377:Biblio
1360:Jytdog
1212:Nick-D
1184:(talk)
1079:before
641:(talk)
626:Ks0stm
69:Status
5431:Edits
5018:Edits
4964:Edits
4817:Edits
4782:Edits
4753:would
4741:Edits
4673:Edits
4116:Edits
4077:Edits
3984:WATER
3945:WATER
3751:Davey
3657:Yep.
3501:Edits
3224:WATER
2960:Edits
2883:----
2685:Yes
2644:Davey
2627:slava
2513:Keira
2273:clear
1921:Keira
1889:Keira
1837:(see
1553:Keira
1464:Spiel
1443:Spiel
1414:----
1069:talk
1052:Edits
1014:Agree
864:Davey
846:slava
773:WATER
103:Purge
33:2017
16:<
5772:talk
5742:talk
5716:talk
5698:talk
5678:talk
5663:talk
5641:talk
5622:talk
5608:talk
5588:talk
5568:talk
5564:prat
5554:talk
5540:talk
5534:No.
5526:talk
5474:talk
5446:2015
5416:talk
5403:talk
5388:talk
5362:talk
5348:7754
5345:chen
5324:talk
5310:talk
5291:talk
5252:talk
5246:. --
5214:talk
5154:talk
5140:talk
5122:talk
5094:talk
5069:talk
5051:talk
5037:talk
4938:talk
4864:talk
4798:talk
4762:talk
4704:talk
4653:talk
4629:corn
4614:talk
4596:talk
4569:here
4567:and
4565:here
4515:talk
4498:talk
4476:talk
4454:talk
4450:prat
4404:talk
4389:talk
4363:talk
4345:talk
4328:talk
4314:talk
4299:talk
4271:7754
4268:chen
4254:talk
4195:QEDK
4182:talk
4154:QEDK
4135:talk
4096:talk
4026:7754
4023:chen
3962:talk
3915:talk
3901:talk
3888:talk
3874:talk
3860:talk
3833:talk
3799:talk
3785:talk
3771:talk
3756:2010
3738:talk
3724:7754
3721:chen
3702:talk
3687:talk
3673:logs
3665:talk
3649:talk
3632:talk
3613:talk
3570:talk
3516:talk
3486:talk
3467:talk
3450:talk
3434:talk
3347:talk
3334:and
3317:talk
3299:talk
3281:talk
3262:talk
3242:Alex
3189:talk
3175:talk
3106:talk
3067:talk
3052:talk
3046:No.
3038:talk
3021:talk
3003:talk
2992:talk
2976:talk
2938:Alex
2932:need
2911:talk
2875:talk
2831:talk
2792:talk
2778:talk
2765:talk
2752:talk
2737:talk
2723:logs
2715:talk
2699:talk
2677:talk
2664:Talk
2649:2010
2625:Dsch
2592:talk
2579:talk
2565:talk
2551:talk
2533:talk
2518:1996
2505:and
2500:Per
2492:talk
2442:talk
2395:talk
2381:7754
2378:chen
2363:talk
2345:talk
2326:talk
2286:talk
2236:talk
2214:talk
2197:talk
2178:talk
2164:talk
2146:talk
2131:talk
2116:talk
2097:talk
2026:talk
2012:talk
1975:talk
1961:talk
1941:talk
1926:1996
1909:talk
1894:1996
1873:talk
1860:and
1801:talk
1777:and
1764:talk
1702:talk
1688:talk
1666:talk
1641:only
1628:. —
1609:talk
1573:talk
1558:1996
1539:talk
1514:talk
1510:prat
1501:talk
1488:talk
1459:Ϣere
1438:Ϣere
1404:talk
1381:talk
1364:talk
1335:talk
1305:Nate
1266:talk
1242:talk
1229:talk
1216:talk
1201:talk
1139:talk
1125:logs
1117:talk
1101:talk
1087:talk
1025:talk
996:talk
976:Alex
959:talk
941:Mkdw
913:Talk
892:talk
869:2010
844:Dsch
829:Mkdw
817:talk
803:talk
789:talk
750:talk
735:Dane
694:talk
671:talk
656:talk
563:talk
548:talk
538:talk
519:talk
476:talk
449:talk
432:talk
416:talk
397:talk
322:The
265:talk
259:. --
5501:Nik
5486:- /
5451:had
5326:)
5166:- /
5156:)
4894:Mz7
4625:AIR
4423:- /
4391:)
4378:ECP
4347:)
3641:Any
3553:for
3247:Eng
3040:)
2943:Eng
2887:- /
2697:~ (
2193:Mz7
2008:Mz7
1775:Mz7
1760:Mz7
1728:Mz7
1418:- /
1383:)
1064:DGG
1017:iff
1005:Yes
981:Eng
922:Yes
680:it
542:).
500:Why
443:not
426:not
412:Mz7
393:Mz7
5797::
5774:)
5760:)
5758:💬
5744:)
5718:)
5700:)
5680:)
5665:)
5643:)
5624:)
5610:)
5590:)
5570:)
5556:)
5542:)
5528:)
5510:Ho
5507:ai
5504:ol
5476:)
5462:)
5460:💬
5434:)
5428:(/
5418:)
5405:)
5390:)
5364:)
5342:Rs
5312:)
5293:)
5254:)
5216:)
5201:)
5199:💬
5142:)
5124:)
5110:)
5108:💬
5096:)
5071:)
5063:.
5053:)
5039:)
5021:)
5015:(/
4967:)
4961:(/
4940:)
4866:)
4820:)
4814:(/
4800:)
4785:)
4779:(/
4764:)
4744:)
4738:(/
4706:)
4676:)
4670:(/
4655:)
4616:)
4598:)
4579:)
4577:💬
4517:)
4500:)
4492:.
4478:)
4456:)
4406:)
4365:)
4330:)
4316:)
4308:--
4301:)
4265:Rs
4256:)
4234:)
4230:/
4204:•
4191:--
4184:)
4163:•
4150:--
4137:)
4119:)
4113:(/
4098:)
4080:)
4074:(/
4058:)
4056:💬
4043:)
4041:💬
4020:Rs
4007:)
4005:💬
3964:)
3917:)
3903:)
3890:)
3876:)
3862:)
3835:)
3801:)
3787:)
3773:)
3740:)
3718:Rs
3704:)
3689:)
3675:)
3671:•
3667:•
3651:)
3634:)
3615:)
3572:)
3549:is
3518:)
3504:)
3498:(/
3488:)
3480:--
3469:)
3452:)
3436:)
3428:--
3349:)
3319:)
3301:)
3283:)
3275:--
3264:)
3191:)
3177:)
3169:!
3146:—
3110:)
3085:,
3069:)
3054:)
3023:)
3005:)
2978:)
2963:)
2957:(/
2913:)
2877:)
2833:)
2812:)
2808:/
2800:–
2794:)
2780:)
2767:)
2739:)
2725:)
2721:•
2717:•
2701:)
2679:)
2666:)
2594:)
2581:)
2567:)
2553:)
2535:)
2494:)
2446:)
2415:)
2411:)(
2397:)
2375:Rs
2347:)
2328:)
2288:)
2238:)
2216:)
2199:)
2180:)
2166:)
2148:)
2133:)
2118:)
2099:)
2061:}}
2057:{{
2048:}}
2044:{{
2028:)
2014:)
1977:)
1963:)
1943:)
1911:)
1875:)
1849:)
1847:💬
1803:)
1766:)
1734:no
1704:)
1690:)
1668:)
1653:so
1611:)
1594:)
1590:•
1575:)
1516:)
1503:)
1490:)
1366:)
1337:)
1286:)
1282:/
1274:–
1268:)
1244:)
1231:)
1218:)
1203:)
1141:)
1127:)
1123:•
1119:•
1103:)
1089:)
1071:)
1055:)
1049:(/
1027:)
998:)
961:)
915:)
896:)
819:)
805:)
791:)
752:)
696:)
686:is
682:is
673:)
658:)
616:)
614:💬
586:)
582:)(
565:)
550:)
521:)
495:So
478:)
418:)
399:)
334:,
267:)
236:==
5770:(
5756:(
5740:(
5730::
5726:@
5714:(
5696:(
5676:(
5661:(
5639:(
5620:(
5606:(
5586:(
5566:(
5552:(
5538:(
5524:(
5472:(
5458:(
5414:(
5401:(
5386:(
5360:(
5322:(
5308:(
5289:(
5250:(
5212:(
5197:(
5188::
5184:@
5152:(
5138:(
5120:(
5106:(
5092:(
5067:(
5049:(
5035:(
5004::
5000:@
4978::
4974:@
4936:(
4862:(
4796:(
4760:(
4702:(
4691::
4687:@
4651:(
4612:(
4594:(
4575:(
4547:)
4543:(
4540::
4536:@
4513:(
4496:(
4474:(
4452:(
4402:(
4387:(
4361:(
4343:(
4326:(
4312:(
4297:(
4286:P
4283:T
4252:(
4238:
4232:c
4228:t
4226:(
4210:)
4207:海
4201:愛
4198:(
4180:(
4169:)
4166:海
4160:愛
4157:(
4133:(
4094:(
4054:(
4039:(
4003:(
3960:(
3913:(
3899:(
3886:(
3872:(
3858:(
3831:(
3797:(
3783:(
3769:(
3747:–
3736:(
3700:(
3685:(
3663:(
3647:(
3630:(
3611:(
3568:(
3514:(
3484:(
3465:(
3448:(
3432:(
3345:(
3338::
3330:@
3315:(
3297:(
3279:(
3260:(
3187:(
3173:(
3132:水
3102:(
3092:—
3065:(
3050:(
3036:(
3019:(
3001:(
2990:(
2974:(
2909:(
2873:(
2829:(
2816:
2810:c
2806:t
2804:(
2790:(
2776:(
2763:(
2735:(
2713:(
2675:(
2662:(
2590:(
2577:(
2563:(
2549:(
2531:(
2490:(
2460:水
2438:(
2428:—
2413:C
2409:T
2407:(
2393:(
2366:)
2360:(
2343:(
2324:(
2284:(
2234:(
2227::
2223:@
2212:(
2195:(
2176:(
2162:(
2144:(
2129:(
2114:(
2095:(
2088::
2084:@
2024:(
2010:(
1988::
1984:@
1973:(
1959:(
1939:(
1907:(
1871:(
1864::
1856:@
1845:(
1831::
1827:@
1799:(
1781::
1773:@
1762:(
1730::
1726:@
1700:(
1686:(
1679::
1675:@
1664:(
1622::
1618:@
1607:(
1592:c
1588:t
1586:(
1571:(
1542:)
1536:(
1512:(
1499:(
1486:(
1379:(
1362:(
1333:(
1320:)
1314:(
1310:•
1290:
1284:c
1280:t
1278:(
1264:(
1240:(
1227:(
1214:(
1199:(
1170:.
1137:(
1115:(
1099:(
1085:(
1067:(
1023:(
994:(
957:(
935::
931:@
911:(
888:(
882:S
860:–
815:(
801:(
787:(
748:(
692:(
669:(
654:(
612:(
600:水
584:C
580:T
578:(
561:(
546:(
536:(
517:(
489::
485:@
474:(
467::
463:@
455:)
451:/
447:(
438:)
434:/
430:(
414:(
395:(
263:(
108:)
90:.
83:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.