Knowledge talk:Administrators

1442:

Contentious Topic be considered a single topic for this rule, but then it was correctly pointed out that some CTs, such as Eastern Europe, are too broad for this to be reasonable. Some, however, such as Israel-Palestine and Abortion are not too broad. The thing that makes Israel-Palestine (my domain ARBPIA, poor me) a single topic is that almost all articles in that domain are related, even if the relationship may not be clear to someone unfamiliar with it. I also think we should be strict about what "minor" involvement means. In dispute-ridden areas, any edit that is not merely clerical (fixing a citation, implementing an RM, etc) is likely to be challenged and should be considered involvement. Stuff like !voting in RMs is involvement beyond question.

865:

reasonable person hat, B is bonkers, and, for that matter, so is all the text after the boldface "Over two years with no edits". The specific inactivity rule shouldn't matter; and if you accept that, then I can't for the life of me think of a situation where you can get desysopped without it being either involuntary (and thus ineligible), for inactivity, or making an edit to request it. And I doubt I'd be the only person to look far askance at a resysop request saying the two-year-zero-edits rule should start from the desysop timestamp instead of the actual last edit solely because you asked to resign on Discord or IRC or whatever instead of even bothering to log on and ask at

1374:

opinion is that ArbCom's rules for CTOPs are applicable only to the extent that the community fails to handle things (because that's ArbCom's remit and the entire rationale for them in the first place.) And that in turn means that when the community makes coherent policy capable of reaching a consensus, ArbCom is supposed to defer to it; this would include stuff touching on CTOPs. We cannot allow ourselves to work "around" them; policy is supposed to flow from the community to (in cases of last resort) ArbCom, not the other way around. --

2058:

merely clarifies in one instance with one particular admin whether they are involved or not. It is premature to say what the result of that discussion will be, but it clear that many respected editors have contradictory understandings of what a dispute area is in current wording, which we should hope to resolve here. No one has raised any confusion or contradictory proposals regarding what is considered trivial/minor edits in themselves so I hope this addresses your concern of avoiding misapplication of WP:INVOLVE. ~ 🦝

1834:. I have not familiarized myself with desysop'ing procedures, but my hunch is it is quite appropriately a high hurdle and stressful avenue to pursue. It's true most policies cannot preemptively foresee new situations, but this current proposal here is explicitly inspired by a current unresolved ambiguity that is regularly recurring and possibly applicable to other scenarios as well. As a whole, this is meant as an incremental improvement, not a revamp of existing community practices or written text of INVOLVED. ~ 🦝 151: 130: 569: 377: 341: 99: 928: 310: 271: 239: 675:, I suggest adding more explicit language to the vandalism and "purely administrative" areas concerning involvement to the effect that any administrator may take appropriate measures to deal with any editor who makes threats against them or anyone else. I'm sure somebody can argue how "threats" may be parsed, but we can certainly agree on violence, stalking, or doxxing as obvious candidates. 1705:

to the topic area. In some cases the number of disputes in the topic area since your involvement will also be relevant (if your last contribution was being involved in a similar dispute 5 years ago, it makes a difference whether that was the last similar dispute you could have been involved with or whether there was half a dozen in between).

1484:; the implication is that for more serious things, even the appearance of involvement ought to be a red line. I think this is necessary because ultimately the community can only act on what it sees - outside of very unusual circumstances where there are extenuating circumstances that are not immediately obvious, the appearance of involvement 1238:

of articles" would go a long way toward clarifying the original intention. Editors would still be free to hold the interpretation that INVOLVED applies to the contentious topic areas—it's not an unreasonable position—they'll just be less likely to assert their position using language that was never meant to mean what they think it means.

2166:, for instance, even though there is no RL dispute that covers it, my edits - in my view - do not show bias, and there haven't really been on-wiki disputes about my writing either. I would support adjusting the wording of the policy to that effect. However, I think it would be a serious mistake to set the scope of an admin's involvement 2203:

establish consensus here that this is what we want to do. Armenia/Azerbaijan, Falun Gong, ARBPIA are all in my mind, single disputes. Whereas, I do not see it that way with GenSex or American politics, even though they do fall down to several common, but distinct disputes, however the community can hash those details in subsequent RfCs.

2170:; that is, without regard to where their edits have actually been. I also think it would be a mistake to make a special case for ARBPIA. We have many CTOPs, some narrow, some broad. I see no reason why admin involvement here should be treated any differently from, say, gun control, or Falun Gong, or the article titles situation. 706:)...". However, lists of examples tend to expand with time and end up being read as definitive statements. In the recent incident linked in the OP, I doubt that anyone would have reacted differently if "or threats" were present—the people concerned have no idea and would have made the same fuss regardless of what this page said. 1830:, however multiple respected editors have given contradictory opinions on what is supposed to be common sense, and the underlying problem is when an admin sincerely claims they are not involved. Either get into a wiki-lawyering discussion on whether they are policy compliant or not, and or resistance to optics of 2030:

I strongly believe that one typo correction is a trivial exception, but for sake of argument let's say it's considered a major edit (perhaps an admin has a history of editing hundreds of articles with "minor typos) and appears to be involved int eharea", the question being addressed in this thread is

1983:

Special care must be taken by administrators in contentious topic areas that they do not show bias. There are many ways this can manifest itself, and I won't get into them here. But one surefire way of showing bias is by editing in the topic area. Therefore I would agree that the INVOLVED rule should

1932:

in an entire topic area. This is not an obscure dispute over some odd corner-case, it's a fundamental disconnect over the core purpose of the policy. It seems like something that could be cleared up in a single sentence, so we should probably do that if consensus exists for it. (And if it doesn't, we

1704:

While I can see why such would be desirable, I don't think they are possible because whether someone is INVOLVED or not always involves a degree of subjectivity. It's a combination of the extent, nature, number, duration, time since and similarity of the present dispute of your previous contributions

1454:

Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute ... it is still the best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the

1418:

sounded like many are no longer interpreting "topic area" as they would in common language, for all situations. I still don't agree with the premise that this language is causing an interpretation that in situations with a contentious topic, the minimum scope of a topic area is the entire contentious

1346:

The community can do it. Arbcom will go along, unless our decision is unreasonable. What should come from this discussion is some clear and specific ideas about how we could interpret WP:INVOLVED, which we can then put to the community as a whole at a well-publicised RfC for a decision. It strikes

1237:

The language predates the contentious topics/discretionary sanctions regimes, and editors back then would have been likely to interpret "topic area" as they would in common language. These days, many take it to refer to the contentious topic areas. I think substituting something like "related cluster

1162:

That's an interesting scale for INVOLVED, but I don't love that even the most minimalist version says "you can't close a discussion...about an article you've made non-trivial edits to". That doesn't appear to be in the current policy, and I think it's more complicated than that. Imagine, e.g., that

2057:

challenge if indeed someone once fixed a typo. The enforcement of WP:INVOLVE even today is theoretically broad, but the amount of energy into enforcing it is still a sufficient hurdle. I personally do not enjoy participating in a 140+ comment thread clarifying a question about WP:INVOLVE which which

1882:

The real life advice is that it doesn‘t matter if one is technically not INVOLVED. When the pitchforks are out, not everyone is careful with interpreting timelines and AGFing, and any slight association can be misconstrued as involvement. In 99% of the cases, best intentions works out fine and the

1581:

I see the discussions at AN on a caase by case scenario as helpful, because they help to look at the individual case in (hopefully) all of its merits. On the other hand: every time we try to regulate things as precisely as possible, we get problmes with interpretation anyway. Same thing when we stay

864:

is part, is a summary of policy, so where they conflict it has to be RESYSOP that's incorrect; and B) the shorter 1-year period for no-edits only applies if "an administrator desysopped due to a year of inactivity" - that is, the one year total inactivity rule, not the 5-year/100-edit one.Wearing my

2225:

any time in the last decade? Why isn't more effort made to define policies so a box-ticking exercise could rule on whether someone should be blocked? The answer is that it is not possible. More words thrown at a policy creates more confusion and wriggle room. Completely uninvolved admins often have

2096:

should not be an excuse to never have to help with admin tools in the Palestine-Israel topic area ever again. Bright line rules like that would only benefit wikilawyers and people gaming the rules. And concentrate power in the hands of those few admins who do little or no content editing. Who would

1324:

No one is claiming WP:INVOLVE would only include contentious areas. With the above example about Crosby, seems reasonable, and even if it was too broad/narrow, I would not know how to constrain that in a policy, beyond soliciting feedback other editors of what the "topic area" might be. Again, this

735:

While I agree with you, there was some sentiment for a leisurely consultative approach, or for a put-up-with-it-or-resign approach, citing the policy, an interpretation with which I profoundly disagree. But I'm sensitive to instruction creep too, which is equally subject to philosophical gaming. I

1516:

I think the community has similar standards for INVOLVED. We don't want someone to say, "Oh, you can't block that user, because when they were a brand-new editor many years ago, you reverted a test edit they made" or "Oh, you can't close that RFC discussion with 50 editors in it, because you once

1163:

while doing some RecentChanges patrol work years ago, you summarized a bloated paragraph down to two sentences. That's a "non-trivial edit". You haven't seen the article since, and you don't even remember doing it. Are you "WP:INVOLVED" for that article until you die? That summary says you are.

1857:

refers solely to disputes over wiki content, or whether it refers to any sort of underlying dispute, including real-world ones. My belief is that it is meant to be the latter, and that all that is needed is a few additional words in INVOLVED to that effect, eg. adding a sentence at the end of the

1508:

I think that we are fairly strict about personal conflicts with individuals, but I think we also define those fairly narrowly. I think we also define those only for conflicts (not positive relationships), and in practice, for situations that someone remembers. For example, I don't ever remember

1097:

Administrators should not act as administrators when they are involved with a dispute, regardless of whether that dispute has any relevance to CTOP areas. Just because a dispute is within a CTOP topic area doesn't impact how broad that dispute is - for example administrators involved in a dispute

2206:

The written policy here needs to be updated, but the enforcement also shape its worth. Currently, we have a super vague policy. Even with good intentions, enforcement of INVOLVE remains a challenge, because no one is able to explain in policy terms what a dispute area is. Some have intentionally

2184:

Completely agreed. Measuring perceived and actual bias is quite thorny, albeit necessary especially in personal conflicts between editors. There are easier metrics we can rely on though regardless of editor interactions like involvement in discussions, non-trivial edits, participation in content

1373:

Policy is ultimately set by the community, not ArbCom. Truthfully, I'm a bit concerned about how important CTOPs have become policy-wise; there is a definite risk that they could turn into ArbCom writing policy-by-fiat, which they're not supposed to do and which I don't think anyone wants. So my

1073:

exactly, sorry for the confusion. My initial proposal was clearly on workable, so I started new discussion here of what I see the problem as and let others propose some wording for the solution. Already as you can see in responses here. Not everyone agrees whether “topic areas” can or should be

869:

like a normal person. Just look for a two-year period with zero edits - simple rule, easy to check, makes sense.Not that any of that, or the rfc about the 5-year-no-logged-actions rule, deal cleanly with the 5-year/100-edit inactivity rule - you can be inside the limit of either or both of the

2188:

Regarding dispute area, we won't be able to carve out a well defined topic area for every single topic imaginable on Knowledge. I do think that CTOPs are helpful in that they are well defined scope, but more custom/local areas of dispute areas are commonly defined, e.g scopes of topic-bans (a

2161:

In my experience we have considered admins INVOLVED in an area when they have made substantive content edits in it, and the broader the set of pages they have edited, the broader the scope of their involvement. As such the use of "dispute" and "show bias" in the policy as written are somewhat

2202:

article, unless they had reasons. Whether those reasons are legitimate concerns or nonsensical wiki-lawyering is something the community can clarify. For a large set of CTOPs, I imagine we can identify if they are about one primary dispute or not. But, before going down that route, we should

1441:

I'm sure that the community at large would prefer the Involved rule to be strict rather than lax. I also wonder why we would want it to be otherwise. Are there so few topics that administrators won't have anything to do if we adopt a strict standard? Anyway, it was me who suggested that a

736:

find the parlor game of "is this admin involved because they 'disagree' " tiresome and time-wasting, and I view the language of the policy as a bit equivocal. I may be influenced by spending the past couple of days writing contracts, which causes anyone to second-guess every word they write.

1256:

Personally, I don't agree with the premise that many interpret the use of "topic area" to be limited to designated contentious topics. The page doesn't mention the contentious topic system, and editors haven't been shy in raising concerns about administrators being involved for any area.

1681: 1677: 835:

That involved a different inactivity rule (five-years-from-last-tool-use), but you're right that it's basically the same question. I think the best way to follow the logic of that RfC is to make the change I suggested above, which hopefully won't be too controversial.

1786:

instead of doing it myself because I'm a major contributor to the article, even though in pretty much every situation I didn't really care about the content that was being edit-warred over to make the protection or blocking necessary. However, for an article like the

1204:

I find the idea that an admin editing anywhere in a CTOP area makes them INVOLVED and therefore their tools are off the table in the entire topic area to be a very dangerous re-interpretation of the policy. If anything I'd like to see it formalized that this is

2226:

no clue what conflicts are about and cannot reasonably take an admin action without first mastering the topic to some extent. That is why some involvement has to be tolerated and we have to debate the corner cases. Anything an admin can do can be reversed.

1117:

Involved should always be interpreted broadly but reasonably. If there is doubt about whether you or someone is involved with respect to a given topic, then either assume that you are or ask for the opinion of admins who are definitely uninvolved with that

720:

The things Drmies was having to deal with were 100% covered by the "straightforward cases" exception, no questions asked. I agree with Johnuniq that a wording change wouldn't have made a difference in this situation (or in any others I can envision).

1719:

Right, but that doesn't mean we can't illuminate this a bit. We can at least write an essay that gives people some guidance on the extent, nature, number, duration, time since, and similarity of the interventions that combine to disqualify you as

1605:

and would shift the burden of proof onto the person being considered "involved" to seek input from wider community, if they strongly believe they're not involved; at a Close Review, or Administration Noticeboard or wherever else applicable. ~ 🦝

1867:

allows people to still eg. admin PIA / AP2 stuff that doesn't cut at that underlying core dispute, while still making it clear enough where the general line is and that broad involvement with those sorts of topic areas is a thing.

767: 879:

If people are fine with replacing the bullet point with "a new RfA is required if the admin was totally inactive during any two-year period ending after the desysop" (or some more elegant wording), I agree that'd be even better.

1227:

purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or

1325:

would only come up, if people felt an admin or NAC was overreaching in their closures/admin actions on Crosby related content. And in 99.999% of cases, this is not an issue, even when people do have differing opinions.

2250:. So editing that might not raise an eyebrow in a non-CT around INVOLVED might be very much considered troubling with-in a CT. I don't think, however, that needs to be incorporated into the admin policy itself. Best, 1121:

I don't think we can usefully define "dispute" or "topic area" more precisely at this level. So all in all I don't understand what you think we would gain by making things more complicated than they currently are?

2035:(and immediately related articles -- a weakly defined relations) make the admin involved, or one of the proposed alternative, is that all other ARBPIA articles are also then covered under INVOLVE admin-recusal. 1860:

This includes both on-wiki and real-world disputes; if an administrator's actions show involvement in a particular real-world dispute, they should avoid acting as an admin in any topics where that dispute is

2197:

in the policy sense, but if there's a reason to be concerned, someone should raise it to your attention first. Similarly, no one would likely raise concerns about your (hypothetical) edits to an adjacent

870:"Lengthy inactivity" subitems while still qualifying to be desysopped for having under a hundred edits. But that's one of the things that the "bureaucrat is not reasonably convinced" rule is for. — 1883:

community is all the better for it; its the 1% when all hell breaks loose. So it's a matter of whether you are prepared for what you are opening yourself up to by the mere appearance of INVOLVED.—

1563:

in P&Gs. As an alternative, make an essay, and if it gets cited often enough, it'll be a formality to promote because people will have already been treating it like a guideline anyways, e.g.

798:

to "In the case of an administrator desysopped due to inactivity, the two-year clock starts from the last edit or log action prior to the desysop" or something like that. (This came up previously

2141:

that summarises what we're saying here. Anyone is welcome to help me clarify it, including by editing it directly (it's in my userspace but that doesn't mean "hands off"), or by commenting here.—

1798:

an admin reacts to being accused of being INVOLVED. If the reaction is, "okay, fair point, I'll undo my actions", then I don't think there's a problem. It's only when somebody acts INVOLVED

1392:

You may have misinterpreted me. I wouldn't assert that "many interpret the use of 'topic area' to be limited to designated contentious topics". I'm concerned that many interpret the term to

1531:

I think "may be seen to be involved" inherently means "may (reasonably) be seen to be involved". I don't know if it's possible to forsee, or even worth it, to brainstorm every scenario. —

1332:. Who should be able to determine what a topic area is, in one of the most well defined domains? Is it the community, is it Arbitration Committee? Is it vibes (what we have now)... ~ 🦝 1863:

The point here is "if your actions show a clear opinion on PIA / AP2 / the Troubles / etc, you mostly shouldn't be acting as an admin in those areas." Including cautious wording like

1275:) is participating in a dispute/dispute resolution. I think we want the INVOLVED restrictions to encompass non-CTOP areas. So, e.g., if you have been involved in discussions about 1791:, which I don't think I've touched much at all, I think I'd be on reasonable ground blocking anyone edit-warring over them being British / Manx / Australian (delete as applicable). 786:

suggests)? It doesn't really matter which answer we choose, but it's important to resolve the ambiguity one way or another so there are no issues when it inevitably comes up at

1937:

exist for.) There will always be disagreement in specific cases, and some aspects of INVOLVED are complicated and situation; but the broad question of whether involvement even

2264:

It also doesn't mean that any edit to a CT will be construed as making an admin (or anyone else) involved in the whole of that CT area, especially not in the broader ones.

1925: 980: 180: 1941:

apply to a topic area, ever, seems to me to be straightforwards and ought to be made as clear as possible if there are veteran editors expressing disagreement over it. --

2113:

But your point is well taken. There needs to be commonsense rules and also perhaps editors who have abided by the INVOLVED rule as it is now should be grandfathered in.

666: 1416:

editors back then would have been likely to interpret "topic area" as they would in common language. These days, many take it to refer to the contentious topic areas.

1545:

I see that here we want to be as general as possible, then do we want to have discussions like the cited AN discussion every time there is a potential conflict?

906:? I anticipate there will be some concerns because the Discord server's public logs are oversightable here, and some support because IRC is so thirty years ago. 2044:

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are

1955:

Whether it is possible to be INVOLVED in a whole topic area depends on the size of the topic area. Is it possible to be INVOLVED with the whole topic of, e.g.

1180:

Right. So it should say something like "an article you've made non-trivial edits to in the last two years"? Something as specific as that would be preferred.—

692: 1106:

article, despite both being with in the post-1992 US politics CTOP area. An administrator who is engaged in a wide-ranging dispute about the legacy of the

1451:(Restating from the earlier VPP thread) I believe it is already covered by the "construed broadly" and "may be seen to be involved" portions of INVOLVED: 818: 1347:

me that, although Knowledge policy isn't law, there are nevertheless useful principles about fairness and transparency in decision-making to be found in

799: 821:

getting at what you wanted (which wasn't formally closed only because consensus was clear so it didn't feel like a formal close was necessary)? Best,

253: 39: 766:

Admins removed for inactivity have to run a new RfA if they want to be resysopped after a two-year period of inactivity. For admins removed under

1016: 358: 162:, a collaborative effort to improve Knowledge's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit 932: 1251: 1110:

probably should not act as an administrator regarding French overseas territories, the articles about former French colonies/territories, and

993:

Avoid over-restricting admins from making common sense edits or effectively banning them from entire contentious area unless explicitly stated

1420: 1258: 811: 1816: 915: 1877: 1009: 1918: 897: 389: 249: 1892: 1166:

As one metric, if a proposed rule would declare most admins to be "WP:INVOLVED" on hundreds of articles, it's probably not a good rule.

1963:? Almost certainly not. Most topic areas will be somewhere in between - e.g. I can imagine good arguments both ways for something like 920: 74: 217: 1405: 1247: 753: 730: 349: 1215: 845: 830: 520: 515: 508: 503: 498: 491: 486: 481: 474: 469: 464: 457: 452: 447: 1428: 1409: 1328:

In the case of contentious topics, namely ARBPIA, contentious disputes and editing are in abundance with different definitions of

1266: 889: 874: 1517:

disagreed with one of the editors in a discussion on a completely unrelated subject". There must be a sense of proportionality.

440: 435: 430: 423: 418: 413: 406: 401: 396: 248:

on Knowledge. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review

1348: 1195: 1175: 294: 2128: 2087: 2025: 1341: 2318: 2313: 2259: 2216: 2003: 1671: 1653: 207: 80: 2179: 2072:

No, not correcting a typo but a substantive edit, yes. There are no uncontroversial substantive edits in this subject area.

1843: 1749: 1735: 1714: 1699: 1635: 1540: 1526: 1366: 1157: 1051:

I see what happened. This turned into a new workshop here, not "moved" per se. I restored the deleted comments at VPP per

2287: 2273: 2156: 2067: 1976: 1928:, there is clear disagreement among veteran editors and even veteran administrators over whether it is even possible to be 1576: 1554: 1383: 1319: 1131: 903: 761: 715: 2235: 2106: 2048:, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. 1950: 1615: 1513:

requires that it be "significant personal involvement" and not "routine editor, administrator or arbitrator interactions".

1446: 1028: 1684:. It would be better if there were clear community-defined boundaries that you can tell for yourself if you've crossed.— 1497: 1467: 1083: 625: 1591: 1046: 2123: 2082: 1998: 1064: 620: 613: 607: 601: 595: 245: 2152: 1814: 1782:

The extent of where INVOLVED implies is clearly open to interpretation. In the past I've requested admin action of

1731: 1695: 1631: 1362: 1191: 1153: 1909:. No objection to changing the language in order to clarify or emphasize that a "dispute" can be about a "topic". 1620:

That's too easy to game. INVOLVED mustn't enable POV-pushing editors to pick and choose their discussion closer.—

2308: 2013: 1988:

that editors who have edited in the topic area, broadly defined, should not take administrative actions therein.

2189:

completely different context). I do not believe anyone would raise a concern about your (hypothetical) edits of

20: 1401: 1243: 69: 791: 775: 1300: 1220:

I agree. One thing I think could help with that is rewording "topic area" when it's mentioned in INVOLVED:

1213: 1099: 968: 950: 885: 841: 807: 726: 323: 110: 656: 553: 167: 60: 983:

I would propose we workshop an updated text. In my opinion, updated text should contain the following:

902:

How do people feel about creating a list of administrators who can be contacted on Discord, similar to

2038:

Now, why do I believe in this case it is trivial/not involvement (for anyone) is because in current

1397: 1239: 587: 24: 1509:

seeing an ArbCom member say "I'm recusing because I voted in their RFA more than a decade ago".

1289: 1210: 1139: 881: 837: 803: 722: 672: 2246:

are going to play out differently than other areas, which is reflected in the LEAD of that page

2119: 2078: 1994: 1803: 1522: 1315: 1283: 1171: 1107: 257: 163: 158: 135: 698:

One simple addition would be to add "or threats" so it reads "In straightforward cases (e.g.,

2175: 2138: 1649: 1550: 116: 1644:

used to mean "you disagree with me and I don't like it" many times before in close reviews.

1209:

the way the policy has been generally understood, both by ArbCom and the broader community.

1102:

article should not be enjoined from acting as an administrator regarding a dispute over the

2248:

When editing a contentious topic, Knowledge's norms and policies are more strictly enforced

2148: 1812: 1727: 1691: 1627: 1602: 1358: 1187: 1149: 946:

policy regulates permissible conduct of Admins and editors performing non-admin closures.

745: 684: 8: 2283: 2269: 2255: 2212: 2063: 2021: 1972: 1946: 1873: 1839: 1831: 1745: 1710: 1667: 1611: 1493: 1379: 1337: 1127: 1079: 1015:

Just noting that prior to posting this here, there were a half-dozen replies at VPP, see

1005: 911: 826: 287: 50: 2231: 2194: 2053:

I highly absolutely doubt anyone in the community would raise and successfully mount a

2039: 1929: 1914: 1905:, not just disputes about particular edits, editors, pages, or discussions, but entire 1854: 1641: 1587: 1024: 943: 711: 65: 2190: 2163: 2114: 2073: 1989: 1888: 1572: 1536: 1518: 1510: 1463: 1311: 1167: 1060: 1042: 861: 783: 46: 1223:"One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or 639: 536: 2171: 2054: 1682:

Knowledge:List of editors who're INVOLVED in the Israel-Palestine contentious topic

1678:

Knowledge:List of editors who're INVOLVED in the Israel-Palestine contentious topic

1645: 1546: 1424: 1262: 972: 703: 2207:

argued this is a good thing in the above discussion. We need better options. ~ 🦝

1676:

At least three unambiguously uninvolved people with 30/500 accounts. Do you want

981:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard#Possible_involvement_of_Admin_in_ARBPIA_area

2142: 2102: 1823: 1807: 1721: 1685: 1660:

If several unambiguously uninvolved people say you are involved, you probably are

1621: 1560: 1352: 1181: 1143: 1111: 853: 739: 678: 2279: 2265: 2251: 2243: 2208: 2199: 2093: 2059: 2032: 2017: 2009: 1968: 1960: 1959:? Almost certainly. Is it possible to be INVOLVED with the whole topic of e.g. 1942: 1869: 1835: 1783: 1741: 1706: 1663: 1607: 1489: 1375: 1333: 1296: 1123: 1075: 1034: 1001: 907: 857: 822: 699: 635: 532: 2302: 2227: 2222: 1910: 1806:

that we get real problems and trips to Arbcom to get a desysop on the table.

1583: 1564: 1443: 1272: 1055:, as other people's comments should remain and will eventually get archived.— 1052: 1020: 976: 707: 568: 376: 327: 175: 1964: 1956: 1884: 1568: 1532: 1459: 1070: 1056: 1038: 871: 866: 787: 1037:: Why was an ongoing discussion moved, and then deleting prior comments? — 1276: 796:

In the case of an administrator desysopped due to a year of inactivity...

150: 129: 2162:

misleading. I am unquestionably involved with respect to the writing of

641: 538: 2098: 1827: 996:

Provide clarity who/when dispute scopes can be redefined e.g by ARBCOM?

340: 252:

before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to

170:

and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the

2193:

related articles, even if you edited them currently which is patently

2012:

article would make an administrator INVOLVED with a dispute regarding

171: 1901:, adequately communicates that WP:INVOLVED can apply to disputes on 1788: 1279:, then INVOLVED should stretch far enough to encompass actions at: 1142:, and I wonder if that might be a useful framework for discussion?— 1103: 637: 534: 1019:

for the last version of that discussion before it was moved here.

790:. Probably the easiest solution would be to change the sentence 938:

Knowledge:Village pump (policy) § Update wording of WP:INVOLVED

933:

Knowledge:Village pump (policy) § Update wording of WP:INVOLVED

244:

The project page associated with this talk page is an official

1455:

matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.

979:

are not narrow in scope. Inspired by the larger discussion at

642: 539: 2092:

That's just absurd. Adding a person to the Births section of

1740:

Unfortunately the only reliable advice is that "it depends".

238: 1306:

but not for singers, actors, the music genres he sang, etc.

1017:

Special:PermaLink/1244500139#Update_wording_of_WP:INVOLVED

1598:

If several people say you are involved, you probably are

956:

In general, editors should not act as administrators in

2050:

which continues to remain the discretionary grey-zone.

2221:

Enforcement of anything is a challenge—have you seen

1396:

to and include some of the large contentious topics.

562: 370: 15: 990:

Defined definition of disputes with regards to CTOP

353:by a notable professional or academic publication: 768:the recent 5-year/100-edit inactivity requirement 2300: 2031:either the status quo, where solely the article 1849:By my reading, the dispute here is over whether 1779:I think the wrong question is being asked here. 1094:I don't really understand what the goal is here. 967:is not well defined, despite the fact that some 949:This policy was created before the existence of 283:the place to post questions for administrators. 1295:parts of articles directly about him, e.g., if 1138:Some time ago, I drafted an RfC about this in 667:"Involved" exception when dealing with threats 1926:the discussion that sparked this conversation 650:This page has archives. Sections older than 547:This page has archives. Sections older than 322:the place to request access to administrator 2046:minor or obvious edits that do not show bias 1299:says anything about Crosby, or the entry at 987:Minimal maintenance changes once implemented 359:Information Quality Discussions in Knowledge 293:For administrator specific questions, go to 179: 1897:Personally, I think the current language, 1582:too general. It will end up at AN anyway. 852:Wearing my full formal wikilawyer hat, A) 2042:wording, important exception highlights: 1601:could be a decent proxy without entering 109:does not require a rating on Knowledge's 898:Knowledge:List of administrators/Discord 921:Proposal to update WP: INVOLVE language 2301: 1794:What I think is far more important is 1349:R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy 1114:, even though this is not a CTOP area. 660:when more than 4 sections are present. 557:when more than 4 sections are present. 778:suggests), or does it mean two years 295:Knowledge:Administrator's noticeboard 186:and a volunteer will visit you there. 156:This page is within the scope of the 1640:Agreed with S Marshall. I have seen 1303:about him – but not the other parts; 971:are exceptionally well defined, e.g 904:Knowledge:List of administrators/IRC 335: 304: 265: 233: 98: 96: 92: 1858:first paragraph along the lines of 1282:articles directly about him, e.g., 776:WP:ADMIN#Restoration of admin tools 115:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 13: 326:. For requests for adminship, see 14: 2330: 2137:I'm tentatively starting work on 960:in which they have been involved. 762:Two-year inactivity rule phrasing 654:may be automatically archived by 551:may be automatically archived by 926: 780:from the last edit or log action 772:after the removal of admin tools 567: 375: 339: 308: 269: 237: 149: 128: 97: 40:Click here to start a new topic. 2014:Palestinian National Initiative 1933:should find out what consensus 1680:? Because this is how you get 195:Template:Knowledge Help Project 2288:18:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 2274:18:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 2260:18:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 2236:08:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 2217:23:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 2180:15:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 2157:11:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2129:20:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 2107:21:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 2088:20:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 2068:23:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2026:22:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2004:21:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 1977:20:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 1951:17:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 1919:17:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 1844:20:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 1498:17:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 963:(bold emphasis mine) the term 250:policy editing recommendations 182:ask for help on your talk page 1: 1924:I mean, the issue is that in 1893:23:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1878:20:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1817:17:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1802:doubles down to the point of 1750:18:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1736:17:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1715:17:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1700:16:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1672:15:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1654:15:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1636:13:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1616:12:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1592:12:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1577:12:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1555:11:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1541:11:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1527:01:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1468:11:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 1447:04:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 1429:17:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1410:12:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1384:20:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1367:09:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1342:08:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1320:00:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1271:Imagine that the admin (or a 1267:03:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 1252:01:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 1216:19:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 1196:08:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1176:00:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1158:19:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 1132:18:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 1084:13:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 1065:11:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 1047:11:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 1029:17:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 1010:14:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 362:. University of Illinois U-C. 286:For general questions, go to 37:Put new text under old text. 2319:Knowledge Help Project pages 2314:Top-importance Help articles 1476:Also note that the advisory 1301:Academy Award for Best Actor 953:. Inside the first sentence 212:This page has been rated as 7: 1986:for contentious topics only 770:, does that mean two years 673:WP:AN#More admin misconduct 45:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 10: 2335: 2185:related discussions etc... 1658:Yeah, it would have to be 1478:may be seen to be INVOLVED 924: 218:project's importance scale 916:13:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC) 890:03:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC) 875:01:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC) 846:23:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC) 831:23:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC) 812:23:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC) 211: 166:, where you can join the 144: 123: 75:Be welcoming to newcomers 2008:So fixing a typo on the 1100:Clinton–Lewinsky scandal 754:14:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC) 731:03:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC) 716:02:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC) 693:19:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC) 588:Knowledge talk:Wheel war 1290:Bing Crosby discography 1140:User:S Marshall/sandbox 671:Based on what I see at 2309:NA-Class Help articles 1457: 1285:Bing Crosby Entertains 1234: 1108:French colonial empire 1074:broadly defined. ~ 🦝 657:Lowercase sigmabot III 554:Lowercase sigmabot III 254:keep cool when editing 192:Knowledge:Help Project 159:Knowledge Help Project 70:avoid personal attacks 2278:Certainly not. Best, 1452: 1221: 1098:about wording on the 969:WP:Contentious topics 951:WP:Contentious topics 1398:Firefangledfeathers 1240:Firefangledfeathers 356:Stvilia, B. et al. 346:This page has been 288:Knowledge:Questions 2244:Contentious topics 1899:disputes on topics 1826:this would be the 1211:Just Step Sideways 975:while others like 882:Extraordinary Writ 838:Extraordinary Writ 804:Extraordinary Writ 723:Extraordinary Writ 318:This talk page is 279:This talk page is 111:content assessment 81:dispute resolution 42: 2242:FWIW, I do think 2191:Ursula K. Le Guin 2164:Ursula K. Le Guin 2155: 2127: 2086: 2002: 1734: 1698: 1634: 1365: 1194: 1156: 750: 700:blatant vandalism 689: 664: 663: 561: 560: 526: 525: 367: 366: 334: 333: 303: 302: 264: 263: 232: 231: 228: 227: 224: 223: 91: 90: 61:Assume good faith 38: 2326: 2147: 2117: 2076: 2047: 1992: 1726: 1690: 1626: 1480:language is for 1357: 1186: 1148: 961: 939: 930: 929: 751: 748: 744: 742: 690: 687: 683: 681: 659: 643: 571: 563: 556: 540: 393: 392: 379: 371: 343: 336: 312: 311: 305: 273: 272: 266: 241: 234: 200: 199: 196: 193: 190: 185: 164:the project page 153: 146: 145: 140: 132: 125: 124: 102: 101: 100: 93: 16: 2334: 2333: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2299: 2298: 2045: 1559:I'd be wary of 1488:involvement. -- 1482:trivial actions 1112:La Francophonie 955: 940: 937: 935: 927: 923: 900: 764: 746: 740: 738: 685: 679: 677: 669: 655: 644: 638: 576: 552: 541: 535: 384: 309: 270: 197: 194: 191: 188: 187: 138: 87: 86: 56: 12: 11: 5: 2332: 2322: 2321: 2316: 2311: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2204: 2200:Octavia Butler 2186: 2159: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2094:1950 in Israel 2070: 2051: 2036: 2033:1950 in Israel 2010:1950 in Israel 1981: 1980: 1979: 1961:Eastern Europe 1847: 1846: 1784:Genesis (band) 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1638: 1514: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1471: 1470: 1449: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1414:My apologies; 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1370: 1369: 1326: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1304: 1297:Ingrid Bergman 1293: 1235: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1164: 1135: 1134: 1119: 1115: 1095: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 998: 997: 994: 991: 988: 925: 922: 919: 899: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 856:is policy and 850: 849: 848: 763: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 718: 668: 665: 662: 661: 649: 646: 645: 640: 636: 634: 631: 630: 629: 628: 623: 591: 590: 582: 581: 578: 577: 572: 566: 559: 558: 546: 543: 542: 537: 533: 531: 528: 527: 524: 523: 518: 512: 511: 506: 501: 495: 494: 489: 484: 478: 477: 472: 467: 461: 460: 455: 450: 444: 443: 438: 433: 427: 426: 421: 416: 410: 409: 404: 399: 386: 385: 380: 374: 365: 364: 354: 344: 332: 331: 313: 301: 300: 299: 298: 291: 274: 262: 261: 242: 230: 229: 226: 225: 222: 221: 214:Top-importance 210: 204: 203: 201: 189:Knowledge Help 176:Help Directory 154: 142: 141: 139:Top‑importance 136:Knowledge Help 133: 121: 120: 114: 103: 89: 88: 85: 84: 77: 72: 63: 57: 55: 54: 43: 34: 33: 30: 29: 28: 25:Administrators 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2331: 2320: 2317: 2315: 2312: 2310: 2307: 2306: 2304: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2224: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2205: 2201: 2196: 2192: 2187: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2160: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2145: 2140: 2136: 2130: 2125: 2121: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2095: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2084: 2080: 2075: 2071: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2056: 2052: 2049: 2041: 2037: 2034: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2000: 1996: 1991: 1987: 1984:be clarified 1982: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1895: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1880: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1866: 1862: 1856: 1852: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1815: 1813: 1811: 1810: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1792: 1790: 1785: 1780: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1724: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1688: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1624: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1604: 1603:WP:SCOPECREEP 1600: 1599: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1515: 1512: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1456: 1450: 1448: 1445: 1440: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1417: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1372: 1371: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1355: 1350: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1310: 1305: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1291: 1287: 1286: 1281: 1280: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1236: 1233: 1231: 1226: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1214: 1212: 1208: 1203: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1184: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1146: 1141: 1137: 1136: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1120: 1116: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1096: 1093: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1072: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1007: 1003: 995: 992: 989: 986: 985: 984: 982: 978: 974: 970: 966: 962: 959: 952: 947: 945: 934: 918: 917: 913: 909: 905: 891: 887: 883: 878: 877: 876: 873: 868: 863: 859: 855: 851: 847: 843: 839: 834: 833: 832: 828: 824: 820: 816: 815: 814: 813: 809: 805: 801: 797: 793: 789: 785: 781: 777: 773: 769: 755: 752: 749: 743: 734: 733: 732: 728: 724: 719: 717: 713: 709: 705: 701: 697: 696: 695: 694: 691: 688: 682: 674: 658: 653: 648: 647: 633: 632: 627: 624: 622: 618: 615: 612: 609: 606: 603: 600: 597: 593: 592: 589: 586: 585: 584: 583: 580: 579: 575: 570: 565: 564: 555: 550: 545: 544: 530: 529: 522: 519: 517: 514: 513: 510: 507: 505: 502: 500: 497: 496: 493: 490: 488: 485: 483: 480: 479: 476: 473: 471: 468: 466: 463: 462: 459: 456: 454: 451: 449: 446: 445: 442: 439: 437: 434: 432: 429: 428: 425: 422: 420: 417: 415: 412: 411: 408: 405: 403: 400: 398: 395: 394: 391: 388: 387: 383: 378: 373: 372: 369: 363: 360: 357: 352: 351: 345: 342: 338: 337: 329: 325: 321: 317: 314: 307: 306: 296: 292: 289: 285: 284: 282: 278: 275: 268: 267: 259: 255: 251: 247: 243: 240: 236: 235: 219: 215: 209: 206: 205: 202: 198:Help articles 184: 183: 177: 173: 169: 165: 161: 160: 155: 152: 148: 147: 143: 137: 134: 131: 127: 126: 122: 118: 112: 108: 104: 95: 94: 82: 78: 76: 73: 71: 67: 64: 62: 59: 58: 52: 48: 47:Learn to edit 44: 41: 36: 35: 32: 31: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2247: 2167: 2143: 2115:Figureofnine 2097:want that? — 2074:Figureofnine 2043: 1990:Figureofnine 1985: 1965:The Troubles 1957:tree shaping 1938: 1934: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1896: 1881: 1864: 1859: 1850: 1848: 1832:WP:ADMINACCT 1808: 1799: 1795: 1793: 1781: 1778: 1722: 1686: 1659: 1622: 1597: 1596: 1519:WhatamIdoing 1485: 1481: 1477: 1453: 1415: 1393: 1353: 1329: 1312:WhatamIdoing 1284: 1229: 1224: 1222: 1206: 1182: 1168:WhatamIdoing 1144: 999: 964: 957: 954: 948: 941: 901: 795: 779: 771: 765: 737: 676: 670: 651: 616: 610: 604: 598: 573: 548: 381: 368: 361: 355: 347: 319: 315: 280: 276: 213: 181: 157: 117:WikiProjects 107:project page 106: 19:This is the 2195:WP:INVOLVED 2172:Vanamonde93 2040:WP:INVOLVED 1930:WP:INVOLVED 1855:WP:INVOLVED 1642:WP:INVOLVED 1547:Selfstudier 1277:Bing Crosby 944:WP:INVOLVED 931:Moved from 860:, of which 348:cited as a 324:user rights 258:don't panic 2303:Categories 2211:(he/him • 2144:S Marshall 2062:(he/him • 1838:(he/him • 1828:happy path 1824:Ritchie333 1809:Ritchie333 1723:S Marshall 1720:INVOLVED.— 1687:S Marshall 1623:S Marshall 1610:(he/him • 1511:WP:RECUSAL 1354:S Marshall 1336:(he/him • 1330:topic area 1230:topic area 1225:topic area 1183:S Marshall 1145:S Marshall 1078:(he/him • 1004:(he/him • 942:Currently 862:WP:RESYSOP 794:beginning 784:WP:RESYSOP 741:Acroterion 680:Acroterion 626:Proposal 1 521:Archive 23 516:Archive 22 509:Archive 21 504:Archive 20 499:Archive 19 492:Archive 18 487:Archive 17 482:Archive 16 475:Archive 15 470:Archive 14 465:Archive 13 458:Archive 12 453:Archive 11 448:Archive 10 168:discussion 2280:Barkeep49 2266:Thryduulf 2252:Barkeep49 2209:Shushugah 2060:Shushugah 2055:WP:Pointy 2018:Thryduulf 1969:Thryduulf 1943:Aquillion 1870:Aquillion 1836:Shushugah 1742:Thryduulf 1707:Thryduulf 1664:Thryduulf 1608:Shushugah 1490:Aquillion 1376:Aquillion 1334:Shushugah 1124:Thryduulf 1076:Shushugah 1035:Shushugah 1002:Shushugah 973:WP:ARBPIA 908:Folly Mox 823:Barkeep49 441:Archive 9 436:Archive 8 431:Archive 7 424:Archive 6 419:Archive 5 414:Archive 4 407:Archive 3 402:Archive 2 397:Archive 1 172:Help Menu 83:if needed 66:Be polite 21:talk page 2228:Johnuniq 2168:a priori 2139:an essay 2124:contribs 2083:contribs 1999:contribs 1911:Levivich 1861:central. 1804:deafness 1800:and then 1789:Bee Gees 1584:Lectonar 1561:WP:CREEP 1406:contribs 1248:contribs 1104:JD Vance 1021:Primefac 958:disputes 854:WP:ADMIN 819:this RfC 708:Johnuniq 594:Archive 574:Archives 382:Archives 51:get help 1885:Bagumba 1865:central 1851:dispute 1569:Bagumba 1533:Bagumba 1460:Bagumba 1419:topic. 1071:Bagumba 1057:Bagumba 1039:Bagumba 965:dispute 872:Cryptic 858:WP:CRAT 704:threats 652:30 days 549:30 days 216:on the 2223:WP:ANI 1907:topics 1903:topics 1565:WP:ATA 1421:isaacl 1394:expand 1259:isaacl 1053:WP:TPO 977:WP:BLP 747:(talk) 686:(talk) 350:source 328:WP:RfA 256:, and 246:policy 113:scale. 2099:Kusma 1118:area. 1000:~ 🦝 867:WP:BN 788:WP:BN 390:Index 316:NOTE: 277:NOTE: 178:. Or 105:This 79:Seek 27:page. 2284:talk 2270:talk 2256:talk 2232:talk 2213:talk 2176:talk 2120:talk 2103:talk 2079:talk 2064:talk 2022:talk 1995:talk 1973:talk 1947:talk 1935:does 1915:talk 1889:talk 1874:talk 1840:talk 1746:talk 1711:talk 1668:talk 1650:talk 1646:Loki 1612:talk 1588:talk 1573:talk 1551:talk 1537:talk 1523:talk 1494:talk 1464:talk 1444:Zero 1425:talk 1402:talk 1380:talk 1338:talk 1316:talk 1263:talk 1244:talk 1172:talk 1128:talk 1080:talk 1061:talk 1043:talk 1025:talk 1006:talk 912:talk 886:talk 842:talk 827:talk 808:talk 800:here 792:here 782:(as 774:(as 727:talk 712:talk 68:and 1939:can 1853:in 1796:how 1567:. — 1288:or 1273:NAC 1207:not 817:Is 802:.) 702:or 320:not 281:not 208:Top 174:or 2305:: 2286:) 2272:) 2258:) 2234:) 2215:) 2178:) 2122:• 2105:) 2081:• 2066:) 2024:) 2016:? 1997:• 1975:) 1967:. 1949:) 1917:) 1891:) 1876:) 1868:-- 1842:) 1748:) 1713:) 1670:) 1662:. 1652:) 1614:) 1590:) 1575:) 1553:) 1539:) 1525:) 1496:) 1486:is 1466:) 1427:) 1408:) 1404:/ 1382:) 1351:.— 1340:) 1318:) 1265:) 1250:) 1246:/ 1232:." 1174:) 1130:) 1082:) 1063:) 1045:) 1027:) 1008:) 936:– 914:) 888:) 844:) 829:) 810:) 729:) 714:) 619:* 49:; 2282:( 2268:( 2254:( 2230:( 2174:( 2153:C 2151:/ 2149:T 2126:) 2118:( 2101:( 2085:) 2077:( 2020:( 2001:) 1993:( 1971:( 1945:( 1913:( 1887:( 1872:( 1822:@ 1744:( 1732:C 1730:/ 1728:T 1709:( 1696:C 1694:/ 1692:T 1666:( 1648:( 1632:C 1630:/ 1628:T 1586:( 1571:( 1549:( 1535:( 1521:( 1492:( 1462:( 1458:— 1423:( 1400:( 1378:( 1363:C 1361:/ 1359:T 1314:( 1292:; 1261:( 1242:( 1192:C 1190:/ 1188:T 1170:( 1154:C 1152:/ 1150:T 1126:( 1069:@ 1059:( 1041:( 1033:@ 1023:( 910:( 884:( 840:( 825:( 806:( 725:( 710:( 621:5 617:· 614:4 611:· 608:3 605:· 602:2 599:· 596:1 330:. 297:. 290:. 260:. 220:. 119:: 53:.

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