Knowledge (XXG):Editing policy pages

1880:- I was going to endorse options 3 or 4. In my substantially fewer than 1000 edits and six months here, I've seen a lot of debates about limiting some activity or another to a certain group of "properly qualified" people. It always sounds like a good idea (prevention would leave our time free to focus on content), but then someone makes the point that Knowledge (XXG) is not about segregating users. It's about working together (schmaltzy as that may sound). If someone goes astray, whether by inexperience or any other means, the "Knowledge (XXG) Way", if you will, is to guide them back on the path. The policy and guideline pages help form the core of what Knowledge (XXG) is or aims to be, and as such, it is tempting to guard them from any possible harm. But since these pages are so critical to the essence of Knowledge (XXG), let's make examples of them! I say leave them open to editing. They can be watched and reverted like any other page. -- 1924:

them just lurking and learning. If I hit a page that said "sorry, we don't think you're ready yet", I think I would have been a little insulted, and not have bothered with the next one. Maybe that's weak of me, but I was under the impression that Knowledge (XXG) is sort of an "all editors created equal" type of place. (Notwithstanding higher value placed on experienced users' votes, etc. which are judgements of people, not across-the-board policy.) This feels to me like an elitest thing; I'm not trusted because I haven't put in enough raw hours? That seems contrary to the ideal I took to be one of the key aspects of this project. --

2478:

policy. Then people can argue about wording. But the proposal should be detailed enough for people to basically see what the wording change is going to be. There is too much of a tyrannical inclination in society that as soon as an abuse arises, people go overboard and restrict freedom....ultimately leading to tying up everyone in society and then we won't have to worry anymore! We need freedom and responsibility, not laziness in being able to handle ordinary abuses of society. Knowledge (XXG) is not another planet. It is a cross section of society itself and we should try to reinvent the wheel. (

1823:. I would actually support retricting editing to admins *if* admins didn't insert their own opinions and views, and only followed community consensus. But let's be realistic. Admins are just regular editors, and when they edit, they are no more or less likely to reflect community consensus than anybody else. No policy should change meaningfully without community consensus, no matter who does it. Bad edits by admins are no better then bad edits by regular users. Recent nonsense over the 1840:. I have seen plenty of "established" users try to "reword" or "clarify" a policy, guideline, or process – whether in good faith or not – and thereby completely change its meaning. Therefore, I don't think there's sufficient cause to introduce a confusing and seemingly arbitrary cutoff simply to exclude well-meaning newcomers. Sure, we'll stop the blatant vandals, but this rule isn't going to help with what I see as the main problem – bad edits by "established" users. — 1107:(or even most) AWB users fell into this bracket, and I apologise if I did. It's also true that this sort of editing is perfectly possible without an external program - I think what I was mistaking for a user diving straight in with AWB was in fact, now I look again at the history I was thinking of, someone who already had a tendency towards this and merely found it easier when they got access to AWB. But yes, as you say; editcountitis. 2186:

arbitrary number of edits or length of being a user? Even protecting the page does little good as even admins do not follow consensus and are known to edit war the same as anyone else on policy pages. If anything, this proposal should be about setting guidelines for editing policy pages, not jumping to techinical or other restrictions. Token polls are evil response too.

1951:

forward a "real and present danger" that allowing anons to edit policy (which they've done for five years, to state the obvious) presents. All I'm hearing is that its rather annoying and that certain people can be sneaky. "Oh shit, I accidentally deleted 200 images because someone changed WP:SD and told me I should feel free." Do we have problems of this sort?

1492:. IP vandals and accounts four days old aren't the problem. It's editors who have been around long enough to get into a few scraps, have their hands slapped under some wiki policy or another (i.e. 3RR, NPOV, V, NOR) and arrive at the policy pages in a high dudgeon and seek to change them so that they can continue their bad behavior without consequences. · 2503:. Anons can make productive edits to policy pages - admins aren't perfect typists, and wording can almost always be improved. Unproductive changes can always be reverted. Just like with every single other page with the exception of the high-visibility pages (which these aren't, being only of relevance to editors and not to readers). -- 21: 1083:

A hasty editor can rack up 1,000 (perhaps ill-conceived) edits in their first week (indeed, an excellent way to rack up edits is to search-and-replace articles replacing an NPOV term with your preferred POV one - you can then double your edits when an admin tells you to you reverse it). A thoughtful

69:

talk pages were plagued for weeks by a user with very few main namespace edits, who was editing with three accounts and wanted to insert his OR and POV into articles, and so decided the policies had to be changed. He was joined by other new editors, sockpuppets, and one vandal, and NPOV and NOR ended

2527:. Devil's advocate: if someone manages to rewrite a policy page without anyone noticing for three weeks there may be something wrong with the policy. Policing a policy page (even a main one) against POV-pushers – welcome to the joy of policing a page on a scientific subject against cranks and kooks. 1748:

Yeah. We (theoretically) have enough people monitoring these things so that the pages don't change dramatically overnight. This just intimidates new users unnecesarrily. And like Friday says, we have protection of various levels if there is an active problem. Also, we probably didn't need to do this

85:

I'm therefore opening this up for a poll and discussion, with two proposals: (1) that policy pages be protected and edited by admins only; or (2) that policies should be edited only by users with a minimum of six months experience and 1,000 article edits. With the latter, there would be no technical

2984:

I really like this idea, it seems much more the "wikiway", and will go a lot further in resolving the issues that brought about this poll in the first place. Of course, it's also more work, but in a situation like this, no automation is going to handle things very well; this is definitely a job for

1950:

My God Taxman, it's the foundational principle of the entire project. "Knowledge (XXG): The encyclopedia anyone can edit". Editing limitations should be the option of absolute last resort. And if you want to compare policy pages to the Main page you need to compare relative harm: no one has yet put

1933:

How is that different from editing the main page? The only problem is in improper expectations built on the idea that every page should be able to be edited by everyone. Why should they be? If you let go of that expectation, then there is no offense in not being able to edit a page, just a positive

1102:

Sorry, I phrased that badly - I don't mean to imply that AWB was a bad thing. I suppose I should have said 'an external editor'; AWB simply seems to be the most widely-used. AWB makes editing Knowledge (XXG) easier; this applies to good and bad edits. All I am really saying is that many edits do

81:

It takes a certain amount of experience before the way the policies interact begins to make sense. There's no indication that allowing new editors to edit the policies provides any benefit to the project, as they're generally unfamiliar with both the rationale behind the policies, and how they work

1901:

even though many here seem to think I'm not qualified to judge what should be reverted and what shouldn't, some are already on my watchlist, and I am more than happy to do my best to help patrol them. I should also note that I just did the spoken version for three of the five pillars (if you count

1900:

Well, like I said, I'm relatively new here (well below all the proposed limits for restrictions). Having said that, one of the first things I ever did at Knowledge (XXG) was read all the policies and guidelines I could get my hands on, and I've lurked on many discussions where I saw them cited. So

2477:

What is anyone afraid of? Make a rule that nobody is to edit the policy unless first proposing it on the discussion page. If someone violated this, revert! If nobody responds to the proposal, give a certain amount of days (maybe 7) for the person to wait before incorporting that proposal into the

1923:

At the risk of continuing a conversation that's probably better moved to the talk page, of course I could have made the actual recordings. And then what, ask someone to post them? I try to have a pretty thick skin, but even as a newish user, I've put many, many hours into Knowledge (XXG), many of

2829:

I endorse the idea of this proposal, but I'd like some discussions on the details. For example, if the only problem are sockpuppets, a much lower number of edits (say, 300) and time (1 month) may be sufficient. In general, I feel that a time bound is necessary, but 6 months are probably too much

2647:

Impressive red herring there. I'm assuming you're using a generic "you" there because I doubt you can find a time I haven't followed policy. And you're leaning on these guidelines as if they're bedrock policies. They're not, they're just somebody's idea that didn't get full consensus. Therefore,

2265:

within the past couple of months. I notice that pretty much every single person who was involved in those battles on all the pages I just referenced (myself included) are here voting for stricter standards. If you don't like what's been proposed, then please, please, propose something else. I'd

2070:

Open editing has contributed to getting us this far. It may not be the best thing to get us farther and to where we need to be to be a respected reference work. No one really thinks Knowledge (XXG) material on the whole is accurate enough to be relied on. The same old methods may not produce the

2021:

Aside from the fact that people can (and hopefully do) revert bad changes, the actual wording of policy pages is not that big a deal. The actual policy is established by common practice. If limitations are placed, editing should be limited to bureaucrats only -- people who have been specifically

1983:

I find this a little baffling. Who's playing nomic? Those who want to change the rules, obviously. And what is the red herring here? It's up to those who think we need the most radical editing restriction the Wiki has seen to present a reason why. The red herring is presenting uncertain newbies

476:

This just gives a small group of users more powers. Many users with plenty of experience and the ability to set policy are not administrators. If the ability to edit is restricted to administrators then many other users will have their chance to set policy reduced. I also think we need to watch

56:

While Knowledge (XXG) is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, there's no reason that principle should extend to the structure of the project, which is what our policies are. We've recently had a spate of new users, and in one case a notorious sockpuppeteer, turn up at policy pages in order to

2616:

I skipped to the end to make my point. I don't know about you, but I see plenty of discussion on this page. Rounds of discussion before a final vote isn't guaranteed to be better than just tallying views as the conversation evolves. People can change based on what they see in other comments. -

1997:

All I'd like to say is this is not an experiment in democracy or social science, it's a reference work founded on freedom if information. Which should take precedence I would think should be obvious. As for evidence of the problem there is plenty of vandalism on all the major policies. A large

2185:

This proposed policy doesn't even make sense. Only the protection or semi-protection ones are even actionable. If someone is going to watchlist the pages and check everyone's edits why can't they just look at the edits to see if it reflects consensus rather than relying on some bizarre and

2857:

This is a misguided notion. Read the discussion at the top of the page. It's not about sockpuppets -- it's about editors who have run afoul of a Knowledge (XXG) policy who then seek to change it to make it easier for them to continue their bad behavior. Yes, one of those disruptions was at

1020:

That's assuming edit count has much of anything useful to tell how responsible an editor is. At least new admins have a bunch of people that trust them to do the right thing. I can show you hundreds of editors with plenty of very bad edits. Just look at the edits on the banned users list. -

1827:

page regarding templates, convinces me, admins are not, as class, any better (or worse) than anybody else. It's tempting to support a rule that tightnes things just enough to include me (based on edits or duration), but excludes newbies, but I guesse that would make me a hypocrite.

1010:

What you are saying with a time constraint is that someone who has a 1000 edits after 6 months and does not know what to do yet is entitled to make changes, but someone who has 5000 after 3 months not while I think the last one is probably far more capable of making sensible edits.

169:. People will cry anti Wiki here, but there's just not that much that needs to be done to the policy pages that can't be done by an admin after consensus on the talk page. It will add stability and reduce wasted time. All policies should be move protected if they're not already. - 2412:

Knowledge (XXG) is a wiki. The policies are a creation of this wiki. Where is the evidence of a persistant problem with edits to policy pages? These proposals are yet another salami slice towards the loss of the 'anyone can edit' principle, in other words, the loss of the wiki.

2198:: A few things, probably already mentioned. You can't enforce the 6 months or 1,000 edit rules. Admins do not always edit policy pages in good faith (that is, with the consensus of the community in mind). There are plenty of anons who are probably better and more experienced 2923:

That's right. Polls are problematic, because you can only have slogan sized sound bites, and you have to "vote" on which slogan you like best. The clever trick invented by Elian and recommended by Jimbo is to add the additional slogan, which makes the problem more obvious.

2599:

policies/guideline by vote... this new idea is up for a few hours, the earliest stages of a guideline/policy proposal, the start of a creation process – and we're already in the middle of a vote. The initiators of the page surely know how to fuse off an instant

181:- Knowledge (XXG) is not an experiment in democracy - Knowledge (XXG) is not an experiment in anarchy. Will we really need an admin anymore in wikipedia? Other options suggest that adminship should be halted! We are voting a policy about policies here! -- 2462:

means we are constantly moving away and away from democracy, sometimes with good reasons - but this would not be it. Don't let a few incidents force us to make such a fundamental change: new editors can make good additions to our rules just as old

2606:

that creates a large noise at the start, but because of the controversial & clumsy way the thing was initiated will likely be more of an energy drain than something that brings anything beneficial to the community & to Knowledge (XXG).

477:

carefully about who votes for this option. If it gets the support of the wider community that is good. I just think we should be careful that it doesn't look like people with extra powers (administrators) voting themselves even more powers. --

385:: This would give admins just more power that they don't need. Lots of examples of admins edit warring, or even changing policy to suit their immediate needs. Note above also, that only 2 of the endorse votes come from non-admins (hmmm...). 989:(last of three). I'm pretty much fine with KimvdLinde's point. After witnessing a couple of extremely poor decisions made recently by new admins, I don't necessarily disagree that very new admins ought possibly to steer clear too. · 1327:. This is basically a watered down version of #2 (and now #3, which was posted while I was writing this) which captures their ability to protect against vandalism, but avoids their unnecessarily high bar for who can contribute. 341:

I'm not an admin BTW, but I agree with Taxman that policy pages should be protected. Almost by definition policy is what admins are enforcing. Having admins control the edits means that the enforcers agree with the policy.

2364:

As a user with 20,000+ edits who has no interest in being an admin and sees a great deal of misconduct by arrogant admins, I am appalled that some of them want to tighten their stranglehold over Knowledge (XXG) even further.

327:- The privileges administrators have over ordinary users who do much of the work on Knowledge (XXG) should be minimized. Some of Knowledge (XXG)'s best articles were written by users who were not administrators. 2634:. Why should you write new policies, when you can't keep to the existing ones? Because you're a sysop? ...have more than 1000 edits? ...are a wikipedian for more than six months? - all irrelevant. Keep to the 1938:. You'd clearly be able to gain that trust. And I'm not saying this proposal is going to succeeed. I doubt it will, so please don't take an offense, this is just discussing some different ideas in abstract. - 273:: Even this, the most restrictive choice, would not have prevented the situation with Zephram Stark and WP:SOCK, since he was able to delude others into making the edits. I will elaborate on the talk page. -- 1654:

can you say cabalism to the extreme, this is an awful idea as it would limit all control of policies to only a handful of people which defeats the idea of having policies drafted and created by the editors.

489:

The thing we really need to do is to abolish admin status altogether, not to give them more power. I don't trust admins at all as the status seems to do bad things to them, even if they were alright before.

2897:

Polls are evil. It is a terrible failing of Knowledge (XXG) that content disputes are settled by weight of numbers (or if this sort of guideline passed, weight of edits) rather than the merits of the case.

1984:

editing policy pages as a reason. Open editing on the main page compromises our public face; I have yet to read one clear example of how open editing on policy presents anywhere near the same problem.

2287:

This is probably the best point on this page. I don't see almost anyone that is opposing the restrictions that was significantly involved in the mess on the policy pages over a period of months. -

2037:. Egalitarianism is one of the cornerstones of Knowledge (XXG). In practice, policy is what's obeyed, not what's written, and it's easy to sniff out fraud in a few minutes' history-delving. 261:. Less bad than most of the other suggestions. But it creates a caste system. Even users who do not want to do any administrative duties will suddenly have an incentive to become admins. -- 2515:- vandalized pages including policies can be (temporarily) (semi-) protected, and if controversial changes of a policy page aren't noticed it's time to demote the page to "historical". -- 2830:(some people become administrator in three months or even less). Also, the time should be evalutated by the number of months of active editing, not the time from the account creation. - 1783:

True enough. But I don't think this poses such a huge problem as to warrant this, in my opinion. Just add a bunch of pages to your watchlist and there won't be much of a problem :).--

1363:

if its a choice between this and the much, much too heavy rules above. Only four day old accounts, so be it. Remember we already have that enormous filter in place: the watchlist.

1630:

Erm, 99% of the editors who had their first edit in 2001 are extremely experienced admins, bureaucrats, or members of the board or whatnot. Are you sure you want to oppose this?

2202:

editors than some admins, but choose to stay anonymous (which is completely allowed on Knowledge (XXG)). And lastly, protecting pages is used to stop vandalism, not prevent it.

541:

It makes perfect sense. Plus a newcomer would always have the option to make suggestions in Talk until they had the requisite minimal experience at WP to make policy change. --

910:

from editing policy pages as they have their own axes to grind and like to engage in power play with each other (Wheel wars) whilst stifling proper discussion of the policies--

2120:

There are anon users who have been contributing to Knowledge (XXG) for years and have 'the necessary background', but would be excluded by any of the first four scenarios. --

1962:

This is a red herring. Knowledge (XXG) is the encyclopedia where anybody can contribute information. It's not the encyclopedia where anybody can play nomic with policies. ·

1103:

not always make quality edits, and giving one sort of editing approach where this may be so; which AWB just happens to make easier. I certainly didn't mean to imply that

930:

The 6 months is ridiculous, as it excludes active editors who have by 6 months sometimes already 5000 edits. It includes actually a large number of new admins as well.

2039:

A trusted user who changes a policy page without consensus should be reverted. An untrusted user who changes a policy page to reflect consensus should be permitted. —

595: 411:

per Taxman's reasoning. The policy should also say, that apart from grammar and spelling corrections admins only change policies after a consensus has been reached.

2648:

they're not necessarily the best way to do things. Even worse, this is continuing meta discussion that does nothing but purely distract from the issue at hand. -

1856:

suhc as only admins and arbitrairy non-sensible 6 months restrictions. These strickter version creep me out, if a middleground is impossible, leave it as it is.

894:

Everyone would still be able to post their views about policy changes on the talk page. The group who could directly edit the pages would still be quite large.

1296:

option 3. Sometimes the policy pages need minor tweaks and they aren't updated in a timely manner. So it's good to allow experienced editors to lend a hand. —

591: 106:

The result of the debate was that no consensus could be established on any of the alternatives to current guidance on editing of policy pages, for example

2638:

guideline, gently lead newcomers there if needed, and if you're a sysop or otherwise experienced user, don't forget you have to keep to the same rules. --

1579:

we semi-protect the page? Is there any reason why option 4 couldn't be enforced at the same time as one of the other options? Sorry to be a bit dense.

310:

some respected editors are not administrators (sometimes because they do not want to be), and these should not be disallowed editing policy pages. -

2442:) for style. Not restricting the editing of policy pages will allow anonymous users to continue to save us all from reading poorly written policy. 459:

Is that really required? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and denigrating other's in a forum such as this is at the very least impolite.

53:

This is a proposal to limit the editing of policy pages (but not guidelines) to administrators, or to editors with a certain amount of experience.

2132:. It does not work. If you witnessed the mess and royal waste of everybody's time in these attempts to change policy, you would agree to oppose a 2100:. Without at least minimal WP experience (time and edits), I don't see how a newbie would have the necessary background to formulate WP policy. -- 1534:

as unworkable and easily bypasseble as pointed out by JCarriker, if not for that fact this would be in my opinion the best of all the proposals.

1739:. Anybody can easily rack up 1000 meaningless edits. This isn't necessary and prevents barriers to well-meaning newbies because of paranoia. 645:. Removes most of the potential for bad behavior associated with policy pages. You must be this tall to ride Knowledge (XXG)'s policy pages. · 3016: 111: 39: 2902: 2839: 2789: 435:

A bad idea, some good edits to policies come from non admins and it would even more so make it seem like there is a cabal even though TINC.

43: 28: 1868:- Seems to have worked for the last five years. Somehow I don't see why one person with a couple of sockpuppets should change that. -- 633:. Admins-only is too restrictive, and you can rack up a thousand mainspace edits in a hurry by stubsorting or reverting vandalism. -- 2751: 2719: 2635: 2631: 107: 2048: 2975:, policy patrol *would* have. (and the ad-hoc policy patrol we had before in fact eventually did, that's how we know about it.) 1914:

Sure you could have done those. You just wouldn't have been able to do the final housekeeping edit to the policy page itself. -

521:

The editing of policy pages should be restricted to editors with a minimum of six months experience and 1,000 edits to articles.

2491:

If something is open to manipulation, it should not only be open to manipulation by administrators. That just creates inertia.

2034: 38:

for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use

2846:

As I noted on the talk page, the sockpuppet problem will not be prevented by even the strictest of the proposed changes. --

947:

That's fine, it does take time to get a handle on the policies around here. And we can add admins to the above choice. -

2026: 2944:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2870:

by an editor irritated by not being able to give equal weight to a tiny minority view. You see where this is going. ·

2794:

No one said the policy was going to be decided by this poll. This is only to get a sense of who prefers which options.

1461: 1316: 1049:. This supports editcountitis. Moreover, number of edits is a lousy criterion for either participation or experience.-- 728:. This supports editcountitis. Moreover, number of edits is a lousy criterion for either participation or experience.-- 101:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2397: 1583: 1225: 1193:- I don't see what this adds. I don't like the precedent here of creating on official line for "respected editor" 807: 775:- I don't see what this adds. I don't like the precedent here of creating on official line for "respected editor" 372: 2959: 2835: 2439: 1460:- no page should be semi-protected "as a matter of course". This sentiment seems to be supported by the page on 1448: 1169: 716: 315: 2859: 1401:- of the offered alternatives, this is the least bad. At least it's simple and less arbitrary than the rest-- 2305: 2208: 2145: 2023: 1762:

over about four months until I added the page to my watchlist, noticed what he was doing and reverted it. ·

1692:. Make it 2002, and you've got a deal. Also I'd like to make this retroactive. -Dan 15:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 1431: 1152: 751: 391: 298: 2831: 1444: 1165: 712: 311: 2728: 883: 509: 2955:

If you have a better, thought out or alternate solution, please add it here, and please discuss options!

2159:. This is the wiki way. Semiprotection - or even full protection - can be used for pages under attack. 35: 2639: 2608: 2574: 2459: 2438:. Once, one of my friends anonymously edited a Knowledge (XXG) policy (it may even have been one of the 2426: 2394: 2164: 1800: 1580: 1482: 1222: 1197: 804: 779: 369: 346: 119: 922:

The editing of policy pages should be restricted to editors with a minimum of 1,000 edits to articles.

2798: 2504: 2044: 1893: 1857: 1846: 1727: 1379: 1339: 1012: 979: 939: 931: 610: 568: 463: 203: 2682: 2447: 2422: 1740: 1402: 1050: 729: 451: 262: 86:

means of stopping other edits, so it would be up to the regular editors on the page to monitor it.

2764:

Policy should be determined not by the 0.06% who are admins but by the 99.94% of us who are not.

2187: 74:, one of WP's most notorious sockpuppeteers, managed to initiate, then take part in, a rewrite of 2972: 2971:

An additional advantage is that while all the above (as of this writing) would *not* have caught

2882: 2771: 2539:. Policy pages are the same as any other wikipedia article. They don't need special protection-- 2327: 2278: 2249:. I challenge anyone who doesn't think there's a problem to look back through the discussions at 2238: 2213: 1974: 1774: 1625: 1526: 1504: 1353: 1248: 1001: 965: 911: 830: 701: 657: 622: 530: 396: 225: 191: 71: 450:

Not only a bad idea, but anyone who thinks this is a good idea should be ashamed of themselves.

2337: 2227: 1643: 1257: 839: 424: 2994: 2874: 2722: 2708: 2467: 2353: 2270: 1966: 1766: 1496: 993: 879: 649: 505: 217: 2867: 2595:" was surely a slip of the tongue... the "how to create policy" guideline is clear about not 2250: 1759: 1282:

easy to run up a 1000 edits. If we need an experience restriction that option 2 is better. --

75: 58: 2976: 2963: 2925: 2847: 2806: 2786: 2694: 2693:- we appear to be voting before even discussing the effectiveness of the listed measures. -- 2414: 2296:

Agree. As it is always the case, only those that feel the itch have the urge to scracth it.

2160: 2121: 2089: 2062: 1869: 1715: 1668: 1657: 1631: 1604: 1598:

The editing of policy pages should be restricted to editors who had their first edit in 2001

1536: 1479: 1390: 1301: 1269: 1194: 851: 776: 711:; 6 months are too much, but a combined edits/time bound seems otherwise the best choice. - 437: 343: 274: 110:. Note however that as a result of the debates there was a spin-off of new initiatives, see 2914:

Slogans are evil, we need reasoned comments regarding a serious problem here, not slogans.

2863: 2814:

This one has rather thoroughly demonstrated that there is no consensus for anything. :-) --

2262: 2258: 1902: 1824: 1711:. We already have semiprotection, which we use when neccessary. This is just rulecruft. 1084:

editor may take a year. That doesn't make the latter less qualified to comment on policy.

1078: 66: 2899: 2795: 2669: 2382: 2301: 2141: 2040: 1890: 1842: 1784: 1758:

Theoretically is key. A user had made a series of small changes, some quite dramatic, to

1750: 1724: 1677: 1427: 1376: 1148: 976: 747: 607: 565: 460: 294: 200: 1998:

proportion of edits to the project is vandalism reversion instead of productive edits. -

78:

using two sockpuppet accounts, and was busy at it for three weeks before it was noticed.

2443: 1667:

Well percieved. So how is this option any different from any of the other options? :-)

1411: 1130: 1117: 1094: 2999: 2979: 2966: 2928: 2918: 2886: 2852: 2818: 2809: 2800: 2774: 2732: 2699: 2685: 2673: 2652: 2642: 2621: 2611: 2586: 2577: 2543: 2531: 2519: 2507: 2495: 2482: 2469: 2450: 2430: 2417: 2402: 2385: 2369: 2356: 2340: 2322: 2309: 2291: 2282: 2254: 2241: 2230: 2218: 2190: 2180: 2168: 2149: 2124: 2115: 2092: 2075: 2065: 2052: 2029: 2002: 1988: 1978: 1955: 1942: 1928: 1918: 1909: 1895: 1884: 1872: 1860: 1848: 1832: 1815: 1803: 1787: 1778: 1753: 1743: 1729: 1718: 1680: 1671: 1662: 1646: 1634: 1620: 1607: 1588: 1555: 1541: 1521: 1508: 1484: 1468: 1452: 1435: 1414: 1405: 1393: 1381: 1367: 1355: 1342: 1331: 1307: 1286: 1274: 1260: 1243: 1230: 1213: 1199: 1185: 1173: 1156: 1133: 1120: 1111: 1097: 1088: 1067: 1053: 1041: 1025: 1015: 1005: 981: 967: 951: 942: 914: 898: 886: 870: 856: 842: 825: 812: 795: 781: 767: 755: 732: 720: 703: 685: 673: 661: 637: 625: 613: 598: 582: 570: 556: 533: 512: 494: 481: 466: 454: 442: 427: 415: 401: 377: 360: 348: 331: 319: 302: 279: 265: 253: 241: 229: 205: 186: 173: 122: 62: 3010: 2877: 2871: 2815: 2516: 2492: 2479: 2319: 2273: 2267: 2203: 1985: 1969: 1963: 1952: 1829: 1812: 1769: 1763: 1617: 1518: 1499: 1493: 1364: 1350: 1240: 1064: 996: 990: 962: 822: 694: 652: 646: 634: 412: 386: 220: 214: 183: 2866:

by a user who was irritated at having been blocked for edit warring. Another was at

2707:- Nothing wrong with the current system of use-the-talk-page-save-for-minor-edits. — 693:

First choice. Actual preference is "six months and 3000 edits or an administrator".

2986: 2464: 2458:. Knowledge (XXG) was built and runs quite well with current rules. Of course, the 2349: 1925: 1906: 1905:), which I couldn't have done on my own if these restrictions had been in place. -- 1881: 1328: 1210: 792: 357: 238: 2649: 2618: 2583: 2540: 2528: 2288: 2177: 2101: 2086: 2072: 2059: 1999: 1939: 1915: 1712: 1465: 1297: 1182: 1022: 948: 895: 764: 682: 542: 328: 170: 147:

an option, please prepend your vote with #: so that the automatic numbering of

606:. It really takes that long to have a firm grasp of policy in the first place. 2915: 2378: 2366: 2297: 2137: 1723:

Semi-protection only stops anon IPs and accounts up to four days old, Friday.

1552: 1423: 1283: 1144: 1038: 867: 743: 670: 579: 491: 478: 290: 250: 1093:

A new user wouldn't be allowed to use AWB, please sling your mud elsewhere.

1063:. This might be the middle point that nobody wants but we arrive at anyway. 2962:, which we should have had a long time ago already, so that's been set up. 2780:

Polls are evil , let's discuss and use consensus instead (ob. Elian clause)

2718: 237:- I'd rather have consistent policies than a chance to edit the policies. 1108: 1085: 161:

The editing of policy pages should be restricted to administrators only.

1567:

to the other options — i.e. we limit editing of policy pages to admins

1164:; the number of edits alone is not a reliable measure of trustiness. - 1478:- There is no reason someone without an account should edit policy 2779: 2058:

Wise words. It's always better to judge the edit than the editor.

2556:

Not sure what would be best, but this is not the way to achieve it

2266:

entertain every idea. But the way things are now doesn't work. ·

1749:

in the form of a poll quite so quickly, but it's not a big deal.--

1443:, anon and users newer than 4 days shouldn't edit policy pages. - 681:. Meant to add this here too, something is better than nothing. - 2805:

Policy is never determined by a poll. Polls are evil anyway. :-)

2938:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

95:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal.

15: 2628:

Neither policy nor guidelines are created by voting upon them

2564:

Neither policy nor guidelines are created by voting upon them

1116:

Ok, it's fine, I probably shouldnt have commented, thanks.

2582:

In the end, the communities views have to be discussed. -

2022:

selected for their ability to read community consensus.

2551:. Disturbing trend, this. -Dan 15:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 70:

up having to be protected. At the end of April, banned

2785:

There was no discussion on this as far as I can tell.

1676:

Some people need to adjust their irony detectors. :-)

1573:

we limit it to editors with a certain number of edits

115: 2681:. Policy should be made by consensus, not by vote. -- 1889:

I hope you'll start helping to do that then, Laura.

2377:. What Cal said (except about the 20,000 edits). 134:Please vote for the option or options you support. 1934:system where people that have demonstrated trust 1703:Policy pages should be open for anyone to edit. 2085:. All pages should be open to anyone to edit. 143:only. However, if you have a strong desire to 8: 2176:. Page protection destroys the Wiki ethos. 934:19:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC) (To add: At RFA: 1389:- This would be marginally acceptable. -- 590:would stop a lot of unneeded confusion.- 57:change them in their own interests. The 2743: 2317:-- Read my vote at Option 1. Cheers -- 2071:necessary results. Change is needed. - 1615:-- Read my vote at Option 1. Cheers -- 1516:-- Read my vote at Option 1. Cheers -- 1238:-- Read my vote at Option 1. Cheers -- 820:-- Read my vote at Option 1. Cheers -- 592:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 2465:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1181:- restricts the freedom of the Wiki. 763:- restricts the freedom of the Wiki. 529:This would halt a lot of disruption. 7: 2752:Knowledge (XXG):How to create policy 2636:Knowledge (XXG):How to create policy 2632:Knowledge (XXG):How to create policy 139:This poll was perceived as counting 108:Knowledge (XXG):How to create policy 1811:. In principle, this is my choice. 116:#More Plans (No Poll, discussions) 14: 2951:More Plans (No Poll, discussions) 906:except that all ADMINS should be 3017:Knowledge (XXG) failed proposals 2717: 938:. Not enough policy page edits.) 19: 1854:Prefered over stricter versions 1: 2960:Knowledge (XXG):Policy patrol 1603:2nd Choice (also, see talk) 2860:Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppets 3033: 123:10:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 3000:13:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC) 2980:13:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC) 2967:13:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC) 2941:Please do not modify it. 2929:12:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC) 2919:23:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 2903:00:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 2887:02:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 2853:00:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 2840:00:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 2819:01:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 2810:23:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 2801:23:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 2790:23:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 2775:02:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 2733:22:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 2700:22:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 2686:22:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 2674:20:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 2653:11:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 2643:22:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 2622:22:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 2612:20:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 2587:19:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 2578:19:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 2544:21:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 2532:11:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 2520:07:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC) 2508:12:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 2496:10:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 2483:10:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 2470:03:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 2451:17:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC) 2431:01:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC) 2418:19:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC) 2403:23:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC) 2386:16:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC) 2370:16:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC) 2357:12:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC) 2341:21:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 2323:17:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 2310:21:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 2292:21:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 2283:15:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 2242:15:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 2231:11:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 2219:09:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 2191:07:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 2181:00:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 2169:00:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 2150:00:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 2125:00:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 2116:23:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 2093:23:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 2076:22:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 2066:21:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 2053:21:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 2030:21:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 2003:14:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1989:21:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1979:15:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1956:12:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1943:11:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1929:00:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1919:22:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1910:21:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1896:20:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1885:20:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1873:20:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1861:20:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1849:20:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1833:19:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1816:19:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1804:19:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1788:20:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1779:19:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1754:19:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1744:19:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1730:19:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1719:19:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1697:Current rules sufficient 1681:02:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC) 1672:00:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC) 1663:21:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1647:21:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1635:17:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1621:17:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1608:13:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1589:23:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC) 1556:06:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC) 1542:21:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1522:17:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1509:15:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1485:01:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1469:00:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1453:00:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1436:00:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1415:23:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1406:22:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1394:20:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1382:19:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1368:19:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1356:19:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1343:19:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1332:19:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1308:19:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC) 1287:06:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC) 1275:21:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1261:21:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1244:17:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1231:10:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1214:06:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1200:01:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1186:00:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1174:00:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1157:00:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1134:23:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1121:08:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1112:02:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 1098:23:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1089:23:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1068:22:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1054:22:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1042:20:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1026:22:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1016:20:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1006:19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 982:19:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 968:19:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 952:19:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 943:19:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 915:02:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 899:19:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 887:11:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC) 871:06:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC) 857:21:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 843:21:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 826:17:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 813:10:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 796:06:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 782:01:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 768:00:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 756:00:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 733:22:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 721:00:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 704:23:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 686:22:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 674:20:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 662:19:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 638:19:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 626:19:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 614:19:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 599:19:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 583:19:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 578:as per MPerel above. -- 571:19:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 557:17:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 534:16:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 513:11:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC) 495:16:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC) 482:06:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC) 467:23:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 455:21:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 443:21:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 428:21:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 416:14:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 402:10:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 378:10:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 361:06:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 349:01:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 332:00:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 320:00:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 303:00:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 280:22:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 266:22:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 254:20:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 242:20:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 230:19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 213:(also second choice). · 206:19:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 187:19:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 174:19:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 98:Please do not modify it. 42:or initiate a thread at 1315:Policy pages should be 1129:Oppose, editcountitis. 876:Endorse (Second choice) 155:New restrictions needed 1563:. Is this meant as an 1319:as a matter of course. 502:Endorse (First choice) 2862:. But another was at 2460:iron law of oligarchy 2035:Protection is harmful 961:per Kim's reasoning. 151:votes is maintained. 1948:"Why should they be? 1690:Conditional endorse 1642:see option 1 vote. 1410:I agree with this. 1256:see option 1 vote. 838:see option 1 vote. 2973:User:Zephram Stark 2024:Christopher Parham 1082: 72:User:Zephram Stark 2885: 2731: 2725: 2715: 2711: 2672: 2429: 2329: 2308: 2281: 2148: 1977: 1858:Kim van der Linde 1777: 1660: 1627: 1539: 1528: 1507: 1434: 1340:Kim van der Linde 1272: 1250: 1155: 1076: 1013:Kim van der Linde 1004: 940:Kim van der Linde 932:Kim van der Linde 854: 832: 754: 660: 440: 301: 228: 193: 51: 50: 3024: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2943: 2909:Slogans are evil 2881: 2754: 2748: 2727: 2723: 2721: 2713: 2709: 2668: 2640:Francis Schonken 2609:Francis Schonken 2575:Francis Schonken 2425: 2326: 2300: 2277: 2211: 2140: 2113: 2110: 2107: 2104: 1973: 1801:Francis Schonken 1773: 1656: 1624: 1535: 1525: 1503: 1426: 1268: 1247: 1147: 1000: 866:(2nd choice). -- 850: 829: 803:. First choice. 746: 699: 656: 554: 551: 548: 545: 436: 394: 293: 224: 190: 120:Francis Schonken 100: 44:the village pump 23: 22: 16: 3032: 3031: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3007: 3006: 2995: 2991: 2987: 2953: 2948: 2939: 2911: 2782: 2762: 2757: 2749: 2745: 2558: 2209: 2136:on this issue. 2111: 2108: 2105: 2102: 1699: 1462:semi-protection 695: 621:. per MPerel. ← 552: 549: 546: 543: 392: 157: 130: 96: 47: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3030: 3028: 3020: 3019: 3009: 3008: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 2982: 2952: 2949: 2947: 2946: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2910: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2781: 2778: 2761: 2758: 2756: 2755: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2736: 2735: 2702: 2688: 2683:Stephan Schulz 2676: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2557: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2546: 2534: 2522: 2510: 2498: 2486: 2472: 2453: 2433: 2420: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2393:per Katefan0. 2372: 2359: 2343: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2312: 2294: 2285: 2244: 2221: 2193: 2183: 2171: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2127: 2118: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2068: 2032: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1875: 1863: 1851: 1835: 1818: 1806: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1746: 1741:SchmuckyTheCat 1734: 1733: 1732: 1698: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1665: 1649: 1637: 1628: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1529: 1511: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1438: 1422:(4th choice). 1417: 1408: 1403:Stephan Schulz 1396: 1384: 1370: 1358: 1345: 1334: 1317:semi-protected 1311: 1310: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1277: 1263: 1251: 1216: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1188: 1176: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1091: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1051:Stephan Schulz 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 984: 970: 956: 955: 954: 918: 917: 901: 889: 873: 861: 860: 859: 845: 833: 798: 786: 785: 784: 770: 737: 736: 735: 730:Stephan Schulz 706: 688: 676: 664: 640: 628: 616: 601: 585: 573: 559: 536: 518: 516: 515: 499: 498: 497: 484: 471: 470: 469: 452:SchmuckyTheCat 445: 430: 406: 405: 404: 363: 351: 336: 335: 334: 322: 284: 283: 282: 271:Oppose/Comment 268: 263:Stephan Schulz 244: 232: 208: 194: 176: 156: 153: 137: 136: 129: 126: 104: 103: 91: 89: 49: 48: 34: 33: 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3029: 3018: 3015: 3014: 3012: 3001: 2998: 2990: 2983: 2981: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2965: 2961: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2950: 2945: 2942: 2936: 2935: 2930: 2927: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2917: 2913: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2901: 2896: 2888: 2884: 2879: 2876: 2873: 2869: 2865: 2861: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2851: 2850: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2837: 2833: 2828: 2820: 2817: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2808: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2799: 2797: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2788: 2784: 2783: 2777: 2776: 2773: 2772:Light current 2769: 2765: 2759: 2753: 2747: 2744: 2738: 2737: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2720: 2716: 2706: 2703: 2701: 2698: 2697: 2692: 2689: 2687: 2684: 2680: 2677: 2675: 2671: 2666: 2654: 2651: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2620: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2610: 2605: 2604: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2585: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2576: 2572: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2555: 2550: 2547: 2545: 2542: 2538: 2535: 2533: 2530: 2526: 2523: 2521: 2518: 2514: 2511: 2509: 2506: 2502: 2499: 2497: 2494: 2490: 2487: 2484: 2481: 2476: 2473: 2471: 2468: 2466: 2461: 2457: 2454: 2452: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2434: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2421: 2419: 2416: 2411: 2408: 2404: 2401: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2373: 2371: 2368: 2363: 2360: 2358: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2344: 2342: 2339: 2336: 2333: 2328: 2325: 2324: 2321: 2316: 2315:Strong oppose 2313: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2293: 2290: 2286: 2284: 2280: 2275: 2272: 2269: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2245: 2243: 2240: 2239:FeloniousMonk 2237: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2229: 2225: 2224:Endorse fully 2222: 2220: 2217: 2216: 2212: 2207: 2206: 2201: 2197: 2194: 2192: 2189: 2184: 2182: 2179: 2175: 2172: 2170: 2167: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2128: 2126: 2123: 2119: 2117: 2114: 2099: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2091: 2088: 2084: 2081: 2077: 2074: 2069: 2067: 2064: 2061: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2036: 2033: 2031: 2028: 2025: 2020: 2004: 2001: 1996: 1990: 1987: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1976: 1971: 1968: 1965: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1954: 1949: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1941: 1937: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1927: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1917: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1908: 1904: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1894: 1892: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1883: 1879: 1876: 1874: 1871: 1867: 1864: 1862: 1859: 1855: 1852: 1850: 1847: 1845: 1844: 1839: 1836: 1834: 1831: 1826: 1822: 1819: 1817: 1814: 1810: 1807: 1805: 1802: 1798: 1795: 1789: 1786: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1776: 1771: 1768: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1752: 1747: 1745: 1742: 1738: 1735: 1731: 1728: 1726: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1717: 1714: 1710: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1696: 1691: 1688: 1682: 1679: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1670: 1666: 1664: 1659: 1653: 1652:Strong Oppose 1650: 1648: 1645: 1641: 1638: 1636: 1633: 1629: 1626: 1623: 1622: 1619: 1614: 1613:Strong oppose 1611: 1610: 1609: 1606: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1590: 1587: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1577: 1572: 1571: 1566: 1562: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1554: 1550: 1547: 1543: 1538: 1533: 1530: 1527: 1524: 1523: 1520: 1515: 1514:Strong oppose 1512: 1510: 1506: 1501: 1498: 1495: 1491: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1483: 1481: 1477: 1474: 1470: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1439: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1418: 1416: 1413: 1409: 1407: 1404: 1400: 1397: 1395: 1392: 1388: 1387:Second choice 1385: 1383: 1380: 1378: 1374: 1373:Fourth choice 1371: 1369: 1366: 1362: 1359: 1357: 1354: 1352: 1349: 1346: 1344: 1341: 1338: 1335: 1333: 1330: 1326: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1318: 1309: 1305: 1304: 1299: 1295: 1292: 1288: 1285: 1281: 1278: 1276: 1271: 1267: 1264: 1262: 1259: 1255: 1252: 1249: 1246: 1245: 1242: 1237: 1236:Strong oppose 1234: 1233: 1232: 1229: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1217: 1215: 1212: 1208: 1205: 1201: 1198: 1196: 1192: 1189: 1187: 1184: 1180: 1177: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1143:(3rd choice) 1142: 1139: 1135: 1132: 1128: 1122: 1119: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1110: 1106: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1096: 1092: 1090: 1087: 1080: 1074: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1066: 1062: 1061:Second choice 1059: 1055: 1052: 1048: 1047:Strong oppose 1045: 1044: 1043: 1040: 1036: 1033: 1027: 1024: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1014: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1003: 998: 995: 992: 988: 985: 983: 980: 978: 974: 971: 969: 966: 964: 960: 957: 953: 950: 946: 945: 944: 941: 937: 933: 929: 926: 925: 924: 923: 916: 913: 912:Light current 909: 905: 902: 900: 897: 893: 890: 888: 885: 881: 877: 874: 872: 869: 865: 862: 858: 853: 849: 846: 844: 841: 837: 834: 831: 828: 827: 824: 819: 818:Strong oppose 816: 815: 814: 811: 810: 806: 802: 799: 797: 794: 790: 787: 783: 780: 778: 774: 771: 769: 766: 762: 759: 758: 757: 753: 749: 745: 742:(1st choice) 741: 738: 734: 731: 727: 726:Strong oppose 724: 723: 722: 718: 714: 710: 707: 705: 702: 700: 698: 692: 689: 687: 684: 680: 679:Second Choice 677: 675: 672: 668: 665: 663: 659: 654: 651: 648: 644: 641: 639: 636: 632: 629: 627: 624: 623:Humus sapiens 620: 617: 615: 612: 609: 605: 602: 600: 597: 593: 589: 586: 584: 581: 577: 574: 572: 569: 567: 563: 560: 558: 555: 540: 537: 535: 532: 531:FeloniousMonk 528: 525: 524: 523: 522: 514: 511: 507: 503: 500: 496: 493: 488: 485: 483: 480: 475: 472: 468: 465: 462: 458: 457: 456: 453: 449: 446: 444: 439: 434: 431: 429: 426: 422: 419: 418: 417: 414: 410: 407: 403: 400: 399: 395: 390: 389: 384: 381: 380: 379: 376: 375: 371: 367: 366:Second choice 364: 362: 359: 355: 354:Second choice 352: 350: 347: 345: 340: 337: 333: 330: 326: 323: 321: 317: 313: 309: 306: 305: 304: 300: 296: 292: 289:(2nd choice) 288: 285: 281: 278: 277: 272: 269: 267: 264: 260: 257: 256: 255: 252: 248: 247:Second choice 245: 243: 240: 236: 233: 231: 227: 222: 219: 216: 212: 209: 207: 204: 202: 198: 197:Second choice 195: 192: 189: 188: 185: 180: 177: 175: 172: 168: 165: 164: 163: 162: 154: 152: 150: 146: 142: 135: 132: 131: 127: 125: 124: 121: 117: 113: 109: 102: 99: 93: 92: 90: 87: 83: 82:in practice. 79: 77: 73: 68: 64: 60: 54: 45: 41: 40:the talk page 37: 32: 30: 25: 18: 17: 2954: 2940: 2937: 2848: 2767: 2766: 2763: 2746: 2704: 2695: 2690: 2678: 2627: 2602: 2601: 2596: 2592: 2570: 2563: 2561: 2559: 2548: 2536: 2524: 2512: 2505:Sam Blanning 2500: 2488: 2474: 2455: 2440:Five Pillars 2435: 2409: 2398: 2390: 2374: 2361: 2345: 2334: 2318: 2314: 2246: 2235: 2223: 2214: 2204: 2199: 2195: 2173: 2163: 2156: 2133: 2129: 2097: 2082: 2038: 1947: 1935: 1877: 1865: 1853: 1841: 1837: 1820: 1808: 1796: 1736: 1708: 1702: 1700: 1689: 1651: 1639: 1616: 1612: 1597: 1595: 1584: 1575: 1574: 1569: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1548: 1531: 1517: 1513: 1489: 1475: 1457: 1440: 1419: 1398: 1386: 1372: 1361:Third choice 1360: 1347: 1336: 1324: 1314: 1312: 1302: 1293: 1279: 1265: 1253: 1239: 1235: 1226: 1219:Third choice 1218: 1207:Third choice 1206: 1190: 1178: 1161: 1140: 1104: 1072: 1060: 1046: 1035:Third choice 1034: 986: 973:Third choice 972: 958: 935: 927: 921: 919: 907: 903: 891: 880:Slrubenstein 875: 863: 847: 835: 821: 817: 808: 800: 788: 772: 760: 739: 725: 708: 696: 690: 678: 667:First Choice 666: 642: 630: 618: 603: 587: 575: 561: 538: 526: 520: 517: 506:Slrubenstein 501: 486: 473: 447: 432: 420: 409:First Choice 408: 397: 387: 382: 373: 365: 353: 338: 324: 307: 286: 275: 270: 258: 246: 234: 210: 196: 182: 178: 166: 160: 158: 148: 144: 140: 138: 133: 105: 97: 94: 88: 84: 80: 55: 52: 26: 2985:people. -- 2977:Kim Bruning 2964:Kim Bruning 2926:Kim Bruning 2849:Philosophus 2807:Kim Bruning 2787:Kim Bruning 2696:Philosophus 2463:'pedians.-- 2415:Alan Pascoe 2161:Warofdreams 2122:CBDunkerson 1870:CBDunkerson 1669:Kim Bruning 1658:Pegasus1138 1632:Kim Bruning 1605:Kim Bruning 1565:alternative 1537:Pegasus1138 1532:Weak Oppose 1480:jbolden1517 1391:CBDunkerson 1270:Pegasus1138 1195:jbolden1517 1075:/Comment. 852:Pegasus1138 777:jbolden1517 438:Pegasus1138 423:too cliquey 344:jbolden1517 276:Philosophus 2996:talk to me 2900:Grace Note 2832:Liberatore 2796:SlimVirgin 2593:In the end 2560:Option 7: 2298:≈ jossi ≈ 2138:≈ jossi ≈ 2134:status-quo 2041:Simetrical 1891:SlimVirgin 1843:Rebelguys2 1785:Sean Black 1751:Sean Black 1725:SlimVirgin 1701:Option 6: 1678:SlimVirgin 1596:Option 5: 1476:2nd choice 1445:Liberatore 1424:≈ jossi ≈ 1399:Nth choice 1377:SlimVirgin 1313:Option 4: 1166:Liberatore 1145:≈ jossi ≈ 977:SlimVirgin 920:Option 3: 744:≈ jossi ≈ 713:Liberatore 608:Rockpocket 566:SlimVirgin 519:Option 2: 461:Rockpocket 312:Liberatore 291:≈ jossi ≈ 201:SlimVirgin 159:Option 1: 27:This is a 2750:Intro of 2444:NatusRoma 118:below. -- 112:talk page 36:Consensus 31:proposal. 3011:Category 2816:Carnildo 2760:Option 8 2603:Wikimeme 2597:creating 2562:Pardon? 2517:Omniplex 2493:Honbicot 2480:Diligens 2423:Ashibaka 2049:contribs 1986:Marskell 1953:Marskell 1813:Marskell 1561:Confused 1365:Marskell 1351:Garion96 1348:Endorese 1065:Marskell 963:Garion96 697:FloNight 635:Carnildo 539:Endorse. 527:Endorse. 413:Captainj 2988:Laura S 2868:WP:NPOV 2768:Support 2710:THIS IS 2705:Endorse 2691:Endorse 2679:Endorse 2626:Sorry, 2571:Endorse 2541:Dr.Worm 2537:Endorse 2525:Endorse 2513:Endorse 2501:Endorse 2489:Endorse 2475:Endorse 2456:Endorse 2436:Endorse 2410:Endorse 2375:Endorse 2362:Endorse 2350:Palmiro 2346:Endorse 2335:Endorse 2251:WP:NPOV 2236:Oppose. 2196:Endorse 2188:Kotepho 2174:Endorse 2157:Endorse 2083:Endorse 1926:Laura S 1907:Laura S 1882:Laura S 1878:Endorse 1866:Endorse 1838:Endorse 1821:Endorse 1809:Endorse 1797:Endorse 1760:WP:NPOV 1737:Endorse 1709:Endorse 1549:Endorse 1441:Endorse 1420:Endorse 1337:Endorse 1329:Postdlf 1325:Endorse 1294:Endorse 1211:Bhadani 1141:Endorse 987:Endorse 959:Endorse 928:Endorse 904:Support 892:Endorse 864:Endorse 801:Endorse 793:Bhadani 789:Endorse 740:Endorse 709:Support 691:Endorse 643:Endorse 631:Endorse 619:Endorse 604:Endorse 588:Endorse 576:Endorse 562:Endorse 358:Bhadani 339:Endorse 287:Endorse 239:TheronJ 235:Endorse 211:Endorse 179:Endorse 167:Endorse 149:endorse 141:support 76:WP:SOCK 59:WP:NPOV 2916:Jayjg 2864:WP:3RR 2729:(TALK) 2650:Taxman 2619:Taxman 2584:Taxman 2529:Dr Zak 2391:Oppose 2320:Szvest 2289:Taxman 2263:WP:3RR 2259:WP:NOR 2247:Oppose 2178:Cedars 2130:Oppose 2098:Oppose 2087:Angela 2073:Taxman 2063:(talk) 2060:Friday 2027:(talk) 2000:Taxman 1940:Taxman 1916:Taxman 1903:WP:IAR 1825:WP:CSD 1716:(talk) 1713:Friday 1640:Oppose 1618:Szvest 1519:Szvest 1490:Oppose 1466:Cedars 1458:Oppose 1412:Martin 1280:Oppose 1266:Oppose 1254:Oppose 1241:Szvest 1191:Oppose 1183:Cedars 1179:Oppose 1162:Oppose 1131:Martin 1118:Martin 1095:Martin 1073:Oppose 1039:Jayjg 1023:Taxman 949:Taxman 936:Oppose 908:barred 896:Nesbit 848:Oppose 836:Oppose 823:Szvest 773:Oppose 765:Cedars 761:Oppose 683:Taxman 671:Jayjg 611:(talk) 487:Oppose 474:Oppose 464:(talk) 448:Oppose 433:Oppose 421:Oppose 383:Oppose 329:Cedars 325:Oppose 308:Oppose 259:Oppose 251:Jayjg 184:Szvest 171:Taxman 145:oppose 67:WP:NOR 65:, and 29:failed 2878:efan0 2739:Notes 2724:OCKER 2714:ESSED 2670:Drini 2379:Noisy 2367:CalJW 2338:Homey 2274:efan0 2200:users 1970:efan0 1770:efan0 1661:---- 1644:Homey 1553:MarkS 1540:---- 1500:efan0 1284:MarkS 1273:---- 1258:Homey 997:efan0 868:MarkS 855:---- 840:Homey 653:efan0 580:Yamla 492:CalJW 479:MarkS 441:---- 425:Homey 221:efan0 2883:poll 2630:per 2573:. -- 2448:Talk 2427:tock 2395:AnnH 2383:Talk 2354:Talk 2279:poll 2261:and 2255:WP:V 2228:heqs 2165:talk 2045:talk 1975:poll 1799:. -- 1775:poll 1581:AnnH 1505:poll 1303:talk 1223:AnnH 1209:. -- 1081:user 1002:poll 884:Talk 805:AnnH 791:. -- 658:poll 596:Talk 510:Talk 370:AnnH 356:. -- 226:poll 128:Poll 114:and 63:WP:V 2667:-- 2549:Aye 2112:el 1936:can 1830:Rob 1298:RJH 1109:TSP 1105:all 1086:TSP 1079:AWB 1077:An 882:| 553:el 508:| 3013:: 2872:Ka 2838:) 2770:-- 2607:-- 2446:| 2381:| 2352:| 2348:. 2304:• 2268:Ka 2257:, 2253:, 2226:. 2215:ck 2205:Ch 2144:• 2109:er 2051:) 2047:• 1964:Ka 1828:-- 1764:Ka 1576:or 1570:or 1551:-- 1494:Ka 1464:. 1451:) 1430:• 1375:. 1306:) 1221:. 1172:) 1151:• 1037:. 991:Ka 975:. 878:. 750:• 719:) 669:. 647:Ka 594:| 564:. 550:er 504:. 398:ck 388:Ch 368:. 318:) 297:• 249:. 215:Ka 199:. 61:, 2992:| 2880:/ 2875:t 2836:T 2834:( 2712:M 2591:" 2485:) 2399:♫ 2306:@ 2302:t 2276:/ 2271:t 2210:u 2146:@ 2142:t 2106:P 2103:M 2090:. 2043:( 1972:/ 1967:t 1772:/ 1767:t 1585:♫ 1502:/ 1497:t 1449:T 1447:( 1432:@ 1428:t 1300:( 1227:♫ 1170:T 1168:( 1153:@ 1149:t 999:/ 994:t 809:♫ 752:@ 748:t 717:T 715:( 655:/ 650:t 547:P 544:M 393:u 374:♫ 316:T 314:( 299:@ 295:t 223:/ 218:t 46:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Editing policy pages - Knowledge (XXG)

Index