Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination)

990:

they've never heard of it either). And if this page doesn't serve a useful function, what the fuck is it doing on the encyclopedia? It's certainly not a benign project page. I can learn nothing from it that I wouldn't be able to learn elsewhere and I should I rely on it for information I have to trust that it has been tended properly and kept up to date. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. As for the proposals to trim the list to just names and links, that's "better" in one sense and worse in another. It's better because we no longer have to patrol the page for sections of prose but worse because now the purported usefulness of the page shrinks even further. Again, the accounts are already blocked indefinitely so unless someone shows up on a new account and says "hey, I'm Willy on Wheels!" this list provides no real information on whether or not the human behind the new account is the same. Finally, I'm skeptical of the value which comes from recording bans for all time which were made by what is essentially a very different community. If we banned someone in 2008 and they return to a new account tomorrow, I'm not entirely sure why I should care. Yeah, Banned Mean Banned™ and all that but if no one remembers why they were banned or anyone who does has retired what's the value of saying "I found you on this list so it's off to the cornfield with you"?

3642:

to banned users far exceeds the benefit to users of the list. Let's say that there are 500 banned users and 500 people who regularly use the list when dealing with banned users (which is probably an overestimate). Further, let's assume that the interests of a banned user are only worth 1/10 of that of a normal user, so the number of banned users is equivalent to 50 normal users. If they receive -100 harm from the list (e.g. their name showing up on search engines, curious people stumbling upon a list and seeing something they did ten years ago, etc.), and those normal users receive +5 benefit from fighting abuse, then there is 50 * -100 = -5000 total damage and 500 * +5 = +2500 total benefit, which is a net negative. Obviously this is not an exact science, but I'm just giving a plausible explanation for why we might care more about the interests of banned users than others. --

3523:"I think the list should be deleted, as it serves no legitimate purpose. Many of the keep votes argued the "well they should have thought of that and take responsibility for their past actions" point, and I find that one unconvincing. Others say that the list is "useful" but I haven't seen a clear articulation of what it is useful *for*. Until we get consensus to delete it, we should at a minimum take care to keep it (and archives and subpages) out of search engines. For many of the names, even apparently real names, the page is readily found in a google search for their name. This is a problem in that it doesn't allow people to walk away with dignity and, as I said at Wikimania, tends to cause them to stick around forever trying to clear their name, etc. There's no value in that. 4199:

grave error and doesn't have a basis in policy. No one is forced to edit here, no one is forced to conduct themselves in a manner that eventually leads to a ban. I disagree with a number of those bans as being too premature, but there are no saints in that list, and at the end of the day, the list represents consensus. By virtue of accepting the extra bits, you and I have pledged to respect consensus, even if we disagree with it. We shouldn't grave dance about it, but it is entirely reasonable to have a central page that both lists banned persons and substantiates that status via a diff. Everything else should go away, which I've already stated in multiple places.

957:

to "get on the list" as a trophy to show how "successful" their disruption was. The potential for real names on the list magnifies these concerns greatly. The nominator has explained that other options exist to find out about bans, there is a category which can be maintained and used if desired, and at least one admin has opined on never having had a need to consult this list in several years of dealing with these matters. We just don't need this, and it reflects badly on us as a community, making us appear vengeful and unforgiving. We can do better. If it is, nevertheless, kept, then trim to name, date and link to ban decision. No mini-essays/ad-hoc descriptions.

1911:

saying the list should be kept say it is important for administration, but I see no indication that LTA and the banned templates wouldn't be much more useful. This list seems to serve little purpose except to permanently disparage those listed and given that it's continued existence flies in the face of the concept that a ban is preventative, not punitive. This list is nearly 100% punitive from an ethical standpoint. Useful information should be migrated to LTA and this page should be deleted and salted. I see no evidence at all that this list prevents banned users from continuing their abuse, and in fact it may have the exact opposite effect in many cases.

4183:

from Knowledge (XXG) are worthy of consideration; I am not one of them.) The list is pretty complete, yeah, but it's not actually any more authoritative than ban notices on one's userpage--it's just as easy to put a false entry/delete a true entry from the list as it is to do the same to a userpage, so to be honest, I'm not sure it really provides any particular value there that can't be found anywhere else. I'll concede your point that the list could be useful for research, but then the question becomes: how much benefit do we get from such research? Is it worth it? It seems to me that it is not, though as always, others can and will disagree.

3023:. I don't think Knowledge (XXG) should have any users who are banned for 10 years - we should have sanctions end much sooner than that automatically. I also don't think this is that great a resource; I have no idea how complete it is and it isn't set up to be easy to extract trends from. But the bottom line is that some editors chose to record this information for whatever reason, put some time into it, it concerns Knowledge (XXG) operations and admins should randomly rush in and make it unreadable by them (unless they happen to be admins) as a community gesture. We don't need gestures; we need a genuinely more forgiving culture. 3558:- it is the only record of the banning of an IP-hopping editor who intentionally harassed me. Not all users listed on it are editors with user names. Those with user names are not allowed back. Their user names in general do not identify individuals, only accounts. There is a defined process for banned users to return, and they remain banned until they follow that process. This is an important informational page recording the most egregious violations of policy and should be kept. Without it, we have nothing to reference in identifying long-standing vandals who use sock puppets to repeatedly return. 3822:. That is why we have page histories, archives etc. Bans are one of the processes that happen on WP, and they ought to be documented in the open as well, for the same reason. We do not want to do things behind a curtain, nor to give the impression we have anything to hide. There is also an intrinsic historical value in such a list: after all, this is one of the most important websites on the internet, and as such it is of academic and historical value to know who, how many and why have been banned. It is also obvious that such a list helps administrative work and know-how.-- 2800:- The page is useful as a list of editors that have exhausted community patience. It is helpful for reference in socking cases. It is also a cautionary page, where we see what happens when rules are broken. The argument that there are real names referenced here fails to carry weight: people have the option to use an identity that is nothing like their name, and if they do so and then commit actions that get them on the list, that is entirely their fault. I see nothing like a consensus to remove the page forming on the sixth attempt at deletion, and I suggest we close soon. 2150:, and individual templates which can be placed on the user page, linking to the ban discussion, so we do have another way to know these users' statuses without this list, which, in any case, has no guarantee of accuracy, and contains commentary on these users added by anyone at all. If the category is not up to date, well, neither is the list. The category does not contain the problematic "mini-essays", so is a better option to update and maintain, and maintaining a separate list is superfluous, and bound to be inaccurate, quite apart from the other issues discussed here. 898:

law which compels search engines and content providers to scrub information at the behest of subjects damages or improves the internet as a whole is not germane. As for the name/account distinction, I'm not sure that's doing as much for us as we might think. First, account names are often personally identifying. If an account name on wikipedia is shared by the same person across multiple sites someone can recover that person's name from a concerted search, correlating information across disparate resources until they get at a first or last name and location. That's

2585:. Although many editors do deal with banned editors, admins are ultimately responsible for minimizing their ability to disrupt Knowledge (XXG), so I'm likely to defer to their opinion on this matter. It seems like the vast majority of admins in this discussion do not find the page useful for their purposes (I've only counted one admin who supported keeping this page). Contextualizing the nature of their ban is the only uniquely useful part of this page, but it seems like a colossal waste of time to police and ensure the neutrality of about 450 ban descriptions. 2993:- As per my rationale before on the talk page. This page is nothing but a pillory with which we hang the long-banned accounts of our "wiki-enemies" to jeer and catcall at. What use is gained by this page? Every time I go to some banned user's page, I don't need to look here to see that he's banned! I don't know of any other group, organization, or website that publicly shames its banned users and lists them all by (account) name. Yes, some people do link their real names to their accounts—there's no need to try to hurt them off-wiki. 2730:

towards the encyclopedic endeavor in which we're all participating. I fail to see any reasonable argument given above for keeping, and that should be the criteria. We only keep articles when there's a compelling reason to keep (e.g. notability, etc.), so why is this list not subject to the same criteria? Many of the "keep" arguments are in most cases quite non-specific ("useful" but no description of how it's useful; "there must be a record kept somewhere", but no rationale provided for actually needing to keep a record).

1597:

SU, both of whom went semi-active at around the same time, meaning SU quietly racked up thousands of edits using hundreds of IPs and sockpuppet accounts over several years because of it. Obviously most of the names on this list aren't going to be doing anything like that, but if someone who was banned years ago decides to cause trouble, only the users who were involved at the time will be able to notice. In my opinion, having all the relevant links in one place should make it easier for people who aren't familiar with them. —

5151:, after they have moved on from Knowledge (XXG). What possible benefit is it to anyone to perpetually "memorialize" someone getting kicked off a website in 2003 or 2004? You bring up a good point, though, about the LTA list: we should examine it as well. No one's really objecting to tracking (via LTA pages or another method) people who are actively attempting to damage the site, but there's no reason, for example, to continue to list people after they have died. They are presumably not abusing the site from the afterlife. 2671:" remind me of listening to small children, who typically use "it's not fair" as a way of protesting things that are well-balanced and proportioned. "It's not fair" is usually a shorthand for "that's not nice" or "you aren't doing it my way", neither of which have anything to do with fairness. The idea that there's something inherently wrong with tying a real person's name to a real person's actions is ludicrous: a right to privacy does not extend to a right to misbehave publicly and not have people comment on it.— 4379:(the special:unwatched pages is the example I gave), which is just like a regular, editable page. You just can't view/edit/etc it without the admin bit. That is very different than reading a deleted page, which can't be updated or changed without recreating the page. A "special" page could be maintained and updated on a regular basis, non-admin just couldn't see it. Not my first choice, but better than outright deletion. 31: 3409:: I can see how this would be useful (i.e. for sock-hunting admins), but after X amount of time, the name should be removed. After a while, most vandals aren't really worried about continuing to make socks and continue vandalizing, so, say, 2 years later, they can be cleared off the list. Definitely prevent search engine indexing, per the below-mentioned discussion on Jimbo's page. 4219:(we respect policy because it's a reflection of that consensus, not just because it's there); if a consensus forms that a page is a net negative to Knowledge (XXG), why would we not implement that consensus and delete the page? I mean, this isn't article space, where the mere existence of an article is reason enough to outweigh many ills; this is MfD, where, at the end of the day, 293:"A lot of users cost more than they're worth, and they should be encouraged to leave, and not in a bad way. One of the things I've always believed is letting people walk away with dignity. We don't have to shame them and scream at them and make them leave and then they're sad and annoyed and then they make sock puppets and then they come back and harass us for years." 3115:

sight of the peons who worked on it, that I have a problem with. I am suspicious that the motive for hiding this file has nothing at all to do with protecting the dignity of the editors (which no one ever cared about before) but that some people were embarrassed that it was brought up that Knowledge (XXG) has all these people going on ten years banned. It's the

2757:. The proposal to delete it seems partly motivated by a desire to hide Knowledge (XXG)'s dirty laundry and conceal problems with the site's culture. I understand the thinking behind the move, but I can't say I'm sympathetic. The greater the problems with Knowledge (XXG)'s culture are, the less anyone should want to hide evidence that exposes them. 4291:

imply that outright deletion is required. The primary data is not, should not be removed, because the archives of AN/ANI should remain available for all editors to peruse. So there is no potential merit in removing access of ordinary editors to the history of this page, which is all that deletion actually means - even if you think that's merit.

1856:. Unfortunately, this is an essential tool, and, as has been pointed out by others above, some of these editors keep coming back after 7 or 8 years, never mind 2 or 5 years. Bans should be the last resort - it would be nice to see them happen less often - but covering up the fact a ban has happened is not necessary nor indeed deserved. -- 1582:? Are you saying that a banned user was socking and vandalizing Knowledge (XXG) for a number of years, and only half a dozen editors at most were capable of recognizing the edits as vandalism? Also could you please explain how this list could help to recognize a banned editor, if one isn't sure what editor to look for? 1928:. We must be kind and responsible in our treatment of other contributors. In general, long-term bans are unnecessary, and virtually no one ought to be banned for a decade or more. We shouldn't be treating people this way, and a page like this is just scribbling graffiti onto tombstones. Let's show some decency. 4990:

The existence of the list does not "provoke more sockpuppetry." Nonsense. Do you have some examples of this? People that wind up on the list tend to sock regardless of whether there's a list or not. It would be the very first time the list were removed here. Will socking actually stop (or diminish in

4214:

subjective?) If a sizable group of editors comes to a consensus that a page is not worth it during an MfD, why shouldn't we delete a page? If a consensus forms that a particular humor page/useful page isn't humorous/useful enough to outweigh any downsides it has, why shouldn't we delete it? Let's not

3641:

for any banned user with a username that contains or may reveal personal information, without exception.) A lot of the "keep" !voters are questioning why we are putting the interests of banned users above the interests of other users. I say that this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, if the harm

2729:

an editor in good standing, so I'm sure that my !vote won't carry the same weight as some but to address some of those who want to keep the page, I'll say that space on the site isn't limitless (it costs money, some of which I contribute) and the resources here should be dedicated as much as possible

1627:

Exactly, how does this list help? Isn't it much easier to revert vandalism, any vandalism, versus trying to figure out who did it? Vandalism is vandalism either it is done by a new user or by a sock of an old one. So could you please provide the links to let's say 10 edits out of thousands SU quietly

1450:

Apart from the fact that websites are not people, the blacklist serves a purpose, because the entry on the blacklist itself is what implements the block on adding links. If a URL is on the blacklist, users are physically prevented from adding it to an article; if it is not on the blacklist, users are

956:

I'm not convinced, after a lot of consideration, that any explained "utility" of the list outweighs its negative aspects, both as a "name and shame" list with little mini-descriptions of how "dreadful" these people were, and also, as a potential "shrine" for the type of disruptive user who would like

897:

when looking at whether or not to keep an individual page on wikipedia? No. This is just a discussion on whether or not the usefulness of this page (which near as I can tell has been asserted but not proven) outweighs the real cost of keeping a permanent shit list for banned editors. Whether or not a

631:

on the grounds that the page is useful, and that people are responsible for their own actions and the consequences thereof. Deleting the page would be a drastic step, and there would have to be a better basis for it than any alleged negative consequences the page's existence has for the banned users.

491:

If your suggestion is that socks nominating the page for deletion would bias the resulting discussion, then I'm not necessarily sure that it would be correct. I have seen cases where an article was nominated for deletion by a sock, the sock was eventually discovered and blocked, and the article wound

468:

Please do have a look at the previous nominations before making that assumption. 3 of the previous 5 were made "in bad faith by a sockpuppet". The facts that consensus can change and that there has been significant support on the talk page means that this warrants a genuine discussion, and dismissing

188:

NB: This is the 6th nomination of this page. Looking at the previous nominations, they were often made by people with a vested interest and SNOW closed. As I said before, there has been some discussion on the talk page of the list, sufficient to lead me create this nomination. Please do take the time

180:

Each community ban has a bit of commentary associated with it. These include phrases like "too unstable", "shocking rampage", "competence issues", "made noxious and ridiculous claims". The commentary is written at times of high tension and often by non-neutral parties. It's inappropriate to keep such

4775:

Agreed. If anything this list incites people to continue being disruptive who would otherwise just move on to another site and forget about Knowledge (XXG). And for the kind of folks who get off on building up their sock logs to show of for their friends it's like a badge of honor. The list does far

4390:

Actually, I'm not sure that's possible without developer intervention. I think UnwatchedPages is a thing unto itself; it's not a result of some different and generic level of protection or something, but a specific right called "unwatchedpages". Moreover, since it is in fact a special page, it can't

4290:

My vote to Keep the page was not an endorsement that we have to keep it in its current form. Summaries could be revised, even removed, real names could be concealed on request, even the whole thing could be drastically stripped down to a simple table of statistics and links. But these things don't

3487:

Perhaps a bot? I wouldn't think it'd be too hard to have a bot scan the dates of addition/modification, and remove them after X amount of time. I don't know a whole lot about the background vandal-fighting (i.e. checkusers), but I'd think that having a list page like this would make things easier to

3387:

And I submit that having it under ArbCom fully satisfies such needs. And we do keep the records - the issue here is the list itself. Any "administrative needs" can surely be as easily met by using the direct records currently kept instead of this secondary list. Do you feel that it is necessary

3257:

to the Arbcom list. The delete proposal essentially makes it harder to have information on community actions but obscuring community actions is not a good idea for a number of reasons including individual and group accountability, improvement of process, understanding wikipedia, etc. If we make the

3114:

I'm OK with revising, repurposing, moving, and deleting (in the sense of normal editing out) the contributions. It's the part where you mark the history versions inaccessible to everyone but the exalted Admins, who may well continue to make decisions based on the data in the file but keep it out of

3098:

Thanks for the clarification. It doesn't really address the "just a gesture" bit, but that's not so important, I guess. We delete contributions, revise contributions, repurpose, move, revise and delete articles and pages according to consensus all the time. That's how this place works. It happens to

2563:

and tell-tale signs of a reincarnation can be recognized. Also when reviewing unban requests it is necessary to keep a record of the reason for the ban in the first place so that we can consider whether, and if so how, such a request should be entertained. Certainly, being placed on such a list does

2237:

As a reasonably busy admin for around 4 years, often tied up with complex SPI and tracking other trolls, serial vandals, and spammers, my answer to that is 'No'. Over the years I have added three or four names to the list but quite honestly while doing so, I couldn't think of a reason

1976:

So the argument now is that being "mean" to people who, for excellent reasons, have been banned from editing Knowledge (XXG) is worse than the meanness involved in deleting a page that a large number of legitimate users have made clear that they find a useful resource? I don't see that as being even

1910:

With particular consideration to SlimVirgin's rationale. There are entries that are under people's real names and many more from which a real name can easily be deduced. Keeping this list brings to mind a significant question of our priorities and ethics as a very popular website. Many of the people

1387:

It's shameful that something like this still exists on Knowledge (XXG) in 2014. This list is not now, nor has it ever been objective and complete. Instead it amounts to an "pwned" list, in many cases for people to publicly mock their "enemies", and at best to publicly shame and punish those who have

1230:

about it. This list is something that works against that, and I don't see any actual benefit to us in return that might make up for it. Those that are saying that we need to keep this list for institutional memory or to keep track of banned editors or whatever might do well to ask themselves: why is

832:

The nominator has provided no evidence regarding the supposed "costs" and he and other editors have pointed out how the list is useful. Suggesting search is a possible replacement disregards how bad search is when it comes to noticeboards. A less descriptive list removing inflammatory phrases is the

765:

It helps to have a list of users which have been banned, so the community knows. Users whose names do not belong on the list can be removed, and other problems can be dealt with by editing. Users who do not wish to have their name on this page should not do things they knew would get them banned.

712:

and other such actual policy pages exist for such "research"? You seem to be saying the little mini-essays added about individual users are the most useful thing about the page, when even several voting and commenting to keep (here and in the talkpage discussion) seem to see them as problematic, and

184:

There are 3 arguably useful bits of information on this list, confirmation that the user is banned, the date it happened and a link to the discussion. We have other places to record the information, however, Arbcom bans are recorded at Arbcom cases, the block log is often updated, the users page and

98:

that there are other ways of compiling this information. I see no strong evidence that this project will be harmed with the loss of this badly-maintained page. I do see the possibility of harm if it is allowed to continue. I am not swayed either by the minority who want to keep this page as a public

5165:

As 28bytes points out, LTA is better curated taking into account when an individual gives up and that's definitely a big difference, but the entire outlook of the LTA list is different. It also focuses on the behaviour of the abusive editors, allowing identification of new editors by the behaviour,

4923:

Hold on a second, you're saying that a person listed in the list is dead, and wikipedians are still looking for his socks? It is worse than I thought it was, but, Black Kite, if you're know the person is dead, why don't you remove his name from the shameful list? Why not to let at least his soul to

4182:

Well, I don't think "reasonably useful" is enough of a bar: I think one should make a case that such a list is "worth it"; that is, whether such a list is useful enough to outweigh its downsides. (I know that there are many among us who don't think that the feelings of those we've chosen to exclude

3999:

It's not an unreasonable question to ask how it's useful. "I find it useful" is helpful as "I like it", again, not a valid argument in deletion discussions. If the answer to how it's useful is "so that I can do X, Y or Z", that's fine. If the answer is "so that we can keep a record", I'd argue that

2902:

A tough one......I have looked at it occasionally. Part of me is reluctant to get rid of anything that might hamper tracking of long term users yet I am sympathetic to people who see it as a 'wall of shame'. One way might be that it lives in deleted-space yet is regularly updated (?) - that way any

2866:

I never knew the list existed and most editors probably did not either. But admins can't be everywhere and editors working in areas with people just bold enough to come in an edit under their own names should be able to know their is such a list. Almost all are anonymous handles. At worst Knowledge

2752:

The page is useful, to be specific about it, in that it provides an easily-accessible list of banned users and descriptions of their behavior. There is more information here than could be found in the long-term abuse pages, for example. I realize that many people may not like this argument, but the

1991:

It actually is very reasonable, because this page isn't a useful resource for anybody and it perpetuates a vicious culture of exclusion, division and demonization. A great many banned users were banned for very poor reasons under very questionable circumstances, and it's about time we confront that

569:

No, I'm not dismissing your arguments for that reason alone, simply suggesting that agreeing with socks of banned users is problematic. As I said, there would have to be a better reason for deleting the page than any negative consequences it might have for people who have been banned from the site.

4471:

We could just have the name, and a link to the discussion that authorized the ban. There really is no reason for more. The list is a shame list, but a necessary evil for the purpose of administration, and otherwise, there will be confusion when someone reverts someone for being "a banned sock" and

4378:

I don't think OSing blanks it from the database either, so no option makes a difference, space wise. My saying we agree was on the point that it needs keeping but stripping down to basics and manage it better, we do agree on that. And there is a way to make an active page viewable by admin only

2885:

Admins have enough power and privileges as it is. There is no reason why the dirt on banned users (and if we are going to be honest, we do need to admit that that is what the list is all about) should be for admin eyes only. Let everyone see the nastiness that has developed on Knowledge (XXG) over

2821:

I'm surprised by the last sentence - the previous deletion requests were not made in good faith (look at them), as I stated in my nomination statement. The keep/delete votes are not numerically not that different, and the reasons for deletion are more varied and I believe stronger than the reasons

1611:

So, in this scenario, how does this list help? Someone who is familiar with the sockmaster in question doesn't need the list, and someone who isn't familiar doesn't realize that they could look at this list or even that there is anything to look up. Either way, this list doesn't help. (And really,

1596:

Anyone is capable of figuring out this particular ban evader since they have so many patterns. But if you've never heard of them in the first place, you're not going to suspect anything untoward unless someone familiar with them points it out to you. Historically, only two admins really dealt with

1412:

Saying that someone came to Knowledge (XXG) and acted so disruptively that we had to ban them is not a "public shaming", it is a record of shameful behavior in public. These people shamed themselves. Calling us assholes for banning and recording that ban is nothing more than blaming the victim and

1221:

or, failing that, at least get rid of everything but username and link to discussion, per Dennis. I don't actually see much value in having a list of banned editors; the only ostensible reason is to match socks up with banned masters, but I personally have never understood why that is important or

264:

as nominator. I've been an administrator for 4 years, and on Arbcom for 2 and not once have I had need to use this list. Whenever I've needed the information, I've used other sources, primarily user talk pages or search functions of AN, Arbcom or SPI. Publicly keeping what can only be described as

5055:

I don't think removing the list will stop the socking, but I'm sure that agreeing a default limit on how long someone should be banned by deault is sometime that should be discussed. If they know how long they are to stay off, then it's less likely they'll try to come back sooner and at a lot of

4975:

I strongly support deleting this, per the founder. The last thing we need is a "Wall of Shame" where the people listed become targets of editors they've dealt with. I also believe that bans -- by default -- should last one year (based on the term the Arbcom gives when they bans users). Far too

4305:

You and I are probably of a like mind on this. I do want to see the opinions and prose removed, but want it visible to all with just name and link. Making it invisible except to admin isn't my first choice, it is just better than deleting it. I'm not a fan of making pages visible only to admin,

4246:

Saying we need nothing but article pages is hyperbole, so I don't see the point. Same for implying I'm saying something that I'm not. I've been clear in my position, I don't need yet one more person putting (misleading) words in my mouth. Anyway, this isn't a hill I would choose to die on (nor

4198:

That is a slippery slope. "Worth it" is in the eye of the beholder, thus entirely subjective, and if used, would be hung over dozens of pages here, including many useful and/or humor pages. You would be creating a new standard that has never been used at MFD before, something I think would be a

4042:

banned editor (i.e. may only be indef blocked but not banned). Especially so when several of them hang out together off-wiki, plan and discuss their on-wiki antics including unblock and unban requests with varying degrees of sincerity, their real life meetings with various arbitrators in order to

3759:

for editors who have been banned...many of whom were banned before I even created an account. While nearly all of the editors listed on the page probably deserved their bans, I don't see any need to shame and insult them. They're blocked and long-gone. If this page is kept, at the very least, the

1774:

Why is being "neutral" an issue here? Neutrality is a reasonable policy when we want to be fair to two sides in a dispute, each of which has a legitimate position or claim. But banned users don't have a legitimate position or claim. They're prohibited from taking part in the project, and we don't

97:

Here's why I think this discussion shows consensus to delete. The evidence that this page is potentially harmful, made by several, to me outweighs the arguments that the page is "useful". I don't doubt that it is, but admins can still see the page history and read it there, and it has been stated

4166:

You can't prove a negative with that list, although the list is pretty complete over the last few years. You can also use the list to research who was banned in a particular time period, which can be useful for reasons that would take more space to explain than is necessary or reasonable here.

4124:

I've used it when I clerked at SPI more than a couple times (research), and twice to verify that someone was actually banned after someone put a "banned" banner on their page. In both cases, they weren't banned, the editor just took it upon themselves to plaster the badge of shame on their page

4022:

If someone wants to confirm whether or not an editor is banned and not just blocked why can't they just visit the userpage? If this editor is considered a long-term abuser, why can't they be added to LTA? If an IP is posting abusive comments at the noticeboards or elsewhere about "dirty lies" or

4876:

For a real-world analogy, one of the pubs in our village has a list of barred customers on the wall. It's completely pointless. Why? Well, if the staff don't actually recognise the person, they're hardly going to ask everyone their name before they serve them. Not only that, but many of the

3063:

Tricky, isn't it? Wnt appears to be saying that the list is no good really, and unreliable, hard to use, badly maintained, but that because this Mfd can't fix the unforgiving nature of our culture in one fell swoop, we should keep the list, because deleting it would only be a "gesture". I think

2127:

I do not see how we will know which user is banned if we do not have a page for this. Ban is not block so unless we have some other way to know what is the status of some editors I am in favour or keeping this list. Discussion on long-term bans is no the subject of this Mfd. Here we discuss the

1728:

this page is extremely helpful if you have to deal with someone evading a block. It provides confirmation that the individual concerned is definitely banned and provides background for editors unfamiliar with that person. The suggested alternatives in the nomination are not remotely comparable,

1689:

This word "unfair"... I do not think it means what you think it means. If someone disrupts Knowledge (XXG) to the point of being banned, it would be unfair to help them sweep that information under the rug and help them pretend that they hadn't actually done it. There is no relationship between

989:

it does that. I've been an admin here for a long time and I've never heard of this page until today. Not once. I've never seen it linked in AN/I (though I'm sure it has been) nor have I seen anyone comment that they're off to update this list following a community ban discussion (likely because

920:

I'm not trying to convince anyone, just adding my comments to the discussion. Drawing a parallel between this and "right to be forgotten" is not a rationale for my keep, I'm just pointing out the similarities—perhaps it will save us some time when we realise we are arguing around a pre-existing

854:

is a more relevant venue. I am particularly wary of the fact, per nom, that many of these entries are under real names and contain non-neutral or even pejorative language. If this MfD does not result in a Delete outcome, I strongly recommend a refactoring of it per option #2 on the talk page.

176:

should be deleted because its costs severely outweigh the benefits. There are about 450 names in the community bannned list, 89% are over 2 years old and nearly 60% are over 5 years old. There are names on that list from 2003, over 10 years old. Knowledge (XXG) has significantly changed in that

1729:

especially the suggestion that people search the very large administrators' noticeboard archives where a name often crops up frequently instead. The fact that someone was banned years ago doesn't mean they aren't still considered banned, or even that they aren't still evading that ban to edit.

223: 1811:

It's not about being deliberately disrespectful or rude or saying mean things just for the sake of it. It's about providing helpful information, easily available to all users (unlike information buried deep in ANI's archives), that is useful in preventing banned users from editing. If that

3466:

The problem with this argument is that nobody is going to manage the page and there's no way it's ever going to be anything but a coatrack for people to publicly humiliate enemies of the state indefinitely. I have yet to see a "keep" argument that explains why the ban category and LTA are

5196:

Who is deceased on the list of banned users? Better yet: how is decease even determined for a banned user? "Well-wishers" in good standing will duly notify the community when a banned user dies, and we take that at face value? Mind you, the "deceased" thing from above was concerning a RL

3010:

It's a necessary tool to help users distinguish from a user engaged in a content dispute and a sock of a banned editor. Additionally, several of these users have been active for years, and both rank-and-file users and administrators need to know who should be blocked/reverted on sight.

3330:

viewable by others. Note this is specifically a policy-based !vote, and the opinions of others that we should keep a "wall of shame" is contrary to Knowledge (XXG) fundamental policy. While it might help ArbCom, it is of no value to others as far as I can tell, thus must be deleted.

875:, it should be noted that these are accounts rather than people — in the case of a renamed banned user who edited under their real name, I'd have no issues with the renamer updating the relevant username in this list at their discretion (not necessarily with a note, as some have now). 166:, my first change suggested was that the entire list was deleted and I said that I would nominate the page for deletion if there was significant support. From what I've seen, there has been and I invite participants in this discussion, along with the closing administrator, to read the 2260:

strange that there would be any support for deleting a page that non-banned users say they find useful on the grounds that banned users might be upset by its existence. How can anyone reasonably say that the page is not useful when people have said clearly that they find it useful?

2649:

in the talkpage discussion.) Just the facts, ma'am. But deleting is better. I'll just chime in with Worm about never having had occasion to use the page, and I've been an admin more than twice as long as his measly four years, and have dealt a bit with ban appeals and ban evasion.

4247:

would I suggest anyone else). I've stated my perspective and out of respect for Worm, provided additional information to add some clarity, something I now regret and it is turning into badgering. I'm really not up for a debate or a discussion where we just talk past each other.

4841:

Has uses, has problems. Is clearly useful for recent bans. It harmful to record in a public place negative information with no ongoing value. Recommend archiving, or blanking, the old stuff so as to hide, or have the arbs or checkusers take ownership and move it out of view.

704:, could you clarify a bit? Is your reason to keep, then, that users who might get banned may instead use this page as a "research tool" and thus learn how to behave appropriately? I'm not sure how likely that is, but, even in that case, why is this needed for that purpose when 1942:

I'm sorry, but I really can't accept that. There are large numbers of users whose behavior makes it unmistakably clear that they need to be banned forever. There would have to be a better rationale for getting rid of the page than the alleged undesirability of long-term bans.

3703:. I can certainly understand where the deletion supporters are coming from, but I feel that the page has some reference value. However, I am strongly against using the page as a "wall of shame". I'd advocate de-indexing the page from Google and deleting excess commentary. -- 1204:

It does serve a purpose by having all the names in one spot rather than making editors (old or new) search for the other two or three areas where the names might be found. I agree with Dennis Brown that it should be stripped down to names and links, removing the opinions.

4056:. I need an aide-mémoire more than others, as tone and intent are clearer to me than technical distinctions; just remember I'm the person who mixed up Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning when attempting to warn someone about an arbitration remedy that applied to one but 3171:: I see nothing wrong with having a central location in which people can see who is banned. It should be hidden from the search engines and any "opinionated" material should be deleted; but if a person has been socking after being banned, that should be left in. 4037:

I find it difficult to believe that someone could fail to understand the distinction between grammatical blunders so hideous and trolling memes so obvious that they give the editor away every time, and the exact status at a particular point in time of a particular

979:

is banned, not the account. Listing account names is largely pointless (as the individual accounts are already blocked). As for the usefulness of the page, is this a resource which is regularly referred to by admins and editors to keep tabs on banned users? Are we

1564:. Like I said on the talk page, one banned editor from 8 years ago was socking extensively as recently as last year. The majority of editors are not capable of identifying ban evaders from X years ago, myself included, so why make it even harder for people? — 5122:

I'm all for us holding hands and singing Kumbaya at the tops of our lungs in hopes that the "baddies" will get the hint. Sadly, this list really does not encourage any editor on it to continue their bad behaviors. And it causes no actual harm at all.

4429:

Special:Unwatchedpages is useless anyway; it is limited to 5000 articles in alphabetical order, by which time we haven't even got to "A" - the 5000th is something like "2010 Andorran Netball Championships (round of 16) or something equally pointless.

398:

This has only been open just over 24 hours, consensus is still emerging. Numerically, I agree it's tending (but not overwhelmingly) towards keeping, but I'd say there are more and stronger arguments to delete. It's not an MfD I'd be keen on closing.

248: 243: 238: 233: 228: 666:- List provides an idea. People who have been suggested about site ban, they would like to know about others who have been banned from en.wiki. You get some idea about the consequences that would lead to site ban. In many ways this list is helpful. 5076:

of "achieving consensus") by being bold and doing the "NOINDEX" thing? Why does it have to be so black and white? Keep or Delete? "Wall Of Shame" vs. "No Record At All". Even the staunchest "Keep" would be hard-pressed to fight the no-index thing.

3083:

don't see much use in the collaborative effort these editors have made does not mean it should be deleted. We shouldn't have a system where your comments get deleted unless a majority of people decide they like and appreciate what you had to say.

1369:

I don't understand why lists of facts and evidence are being targeted recently, I see no policy based reason for it. We need to keep track of these things. If there are specific issues with how it is being used then it can be edited by consensus.

3818:, and keep indexed. For openness of the process, historical purposes, administrative purposes. One of Knowledge (XXG) foundational principles should be the openness not only of the result (the encyclopedia under a libre license) but also of the 1451:

not. But here, banned people are banned whether they are listed on this page or not, and the ban is usually indicated (and subsequently looked up) by the standard ban notices that people are so eager to place on the banned user's userpage. What

1884:

Preventing banned users from editing is not bullying. Actually, as the list makes clear, a number of the banned users were banned for harassment, among other things. Harassment is a form of bullying. You're inadvertently making a good case for

4310:

due to the potential abuse of making it public. I don't see that high of a potential for abuse for the banned page under the situation you have outlined, ie: removing real names by request and the like. It isn't about spite, just usability.

2559:. I have used this page sometimes when looking at AN or ANI threads that report on sockpuppets of banned users. Keeping a record of why they were banned, and the discussion that led to the ban, is useful when investigating those cases so that 3435:

I think this is a good point, and further we should view this deletion debate in the light of policies, not just "like it" or "don't like it". For article space (and some project space criteria) we make good use of policy; criteria include

790:. While I do find the list useful, others have given good alternative sources for the same information (categories, LTA, or users webpage). I have no other reason really strongly to keep this, and am thus changing my vote to "delete". -- 4333:

an admin, so I just misunderstood what you said) Either you're confused or I'm confused, because I was pretty certain that deletion IS making something visible only to admins. When something is completely struck from the database

1408:

What about our external link blacklist? That blacklist is used by countless forums and search engines. When we put a site on that it actually is "shamed" in that search engines penalize it and forums block it. Is that also being an

1612:

that's what LTA is for, anyway; if that's the only reason to keep this list, then the relevant parts should be moved to LTA and the rest deleted. After all, you yourself said that most of this list isn't useful for that purpose.)

4857:

Everything has it's good and bad points, this page is no different. We could put a show/hide tab with the page like how it is for Jimbo's bans, that way it's not a "wall of shame", since the names are now hidden until accessed.

3716:

Who would decide what constitutes "excess commentary"? It seems to me that most of the information on the page has very good reasons for being there. Wouldn't what you are recommending undermine the purpose of having the page?

1180:

I can't see where this would be useful at all, aside for the curious newbie. LTAs belong at LTA. Socks belong at SPI. Most people who have added entries here have a vested interest in that user being banned and staying banned.

542:

I'm sorry, you're dismissing my arguments on the basis that "banned users" agree with them? I suggest you focus on actually discussing why this page should or should not be deleted and stop trying to discredit the nominator.

4825:

I vote that we keep the page, no harm in it, a user who was banned obviously did something to deserve it, and they have to own up to their actions, and be reminded that they're listed on the page because of their own fault.

1251:

per nom. Bottom line, this list is not needed for administrators to quickly determine if a specific user has been banned. Any elements of the list that may be helpful for identifying long-term abuse should be migrated to

4406:

My, Knowledge (XXG) does love hierarchy nowadays. Oversighters to delete stuff from admins, superprotectors to protect stuff from admins, and still, there must be somebody higher than them! Because if someone actually

3064:

that's it, but like you, I'm confused. Maybe he thinks deleting the list would be used as an "excuse" not to make the real changes he thinks are needed, rather than a step in the right direction? Perhaps he'll explain.

2931:, it wouldn't be such a big deal. It's the "all or nothing, delete" that poses a problem,forcing me to say keep. I feel that we jumped from the talk page to MFD way too quick, before other ideas could be explored. 1225:

Expanding on my !vote: I don't think that there's anything wrong with wanting to consider banned users as human beings--albeit human beings that "we" don't want around here anymore--and, in fact, there's quite a bit

735:

per my comments on the talk page. I am supportive of changing this into a less descriptive list per option #2 of the talk page. The list can be improved; its outright removal is to me unnecessary revisionism for no

1957:

I did: "We must be kind and responsible in our treatment of other contributors. ... We shouldn't be treating people this way, and a page like this is just scribbling graffiti onto tombstones." In other words, it's

3242:

but refactor. This only needs to be a simple table, much like the "Banned by Jimbo Wales" section. Certainly can be tagged for noindex; suggest additionally splitting people over 5 years to a collapsed table. —

984:

using it or do we just think it looks useful? I'm pretty skeptical that the page "aids institutional memory", partially because that claim is too vague to be falsifiable in any sense but also because I don't see

605:

because of the amazing MFD track record of the page. Community decisions aren't necessarily written in stone, as are the policies and guidelines that govern Knowledge (XXG), so why should this be any different?

3583:

generally link back to whichever account they are suspected to be controlled by, creating an intricate and complex web of blocked/banned users that does the same job as this list (albeit way more effectively).

218: 2185:

Well, frankly, yes, perish the thought. The commentary is unnecessary, and often inappropriate, as explained in the nomination. Most commenters seem to agree with that, even those who favour keeping the list.

3275:: It states that it is an "incomplete list", and gives no criteria for inclusion or exclusion. As such it is worse than useless. The list should be complete, and constantly updated, or should not exist at all 3914:. That's just in the last few minutes, and I imagine some active administrators may have reason to use it more often than I do (for example if they often deal with sockpuppets of returning banned users). -- 1231:

that a thing that needs to be kept track of? To what end? Sure, this list allows users to more easily locate the names of banned editors--but why do they want to look for banned editors in the first place?

1392:, and keeping this list that amounts to little more than public shaming makes us just that. The right and good and humane thing to do is to delete. We already have LTA for long-standng problematic trolls. 4047:

recently as to which they were talking about (one of them was banned and one only indef blocked), so it's easier than you think. Knowledge (XXG) chooses to maintain the tripartate distinction of banned,

4697:, it's good to have your perspective. You say that it helped in the same way as the huge templates on your Userpage and talk page. So why would the Userpage and talk page huge templates not be enough? 2238:

why I was doing it apart from following what I assumed was supposed to be done. Don't get me wrong - I have zero sympathy for anyone who ends up on that list, but where it's best not to

4210:

The slope ain't that slippery. Of course it's subjective, but that doesn't mean that we can't come to a consensus about it. (As an aside, how is the conclusion that something is "entirely reasonable"

528:

Yes, I've glanced at them, but I'm still not sure what your point is. The fact that you would agree with the socks of the banned users that the page should be deleted is not particularly encouraging.

440:

the page has been nominated for deletion suggests that deleting is a bad idea. If the page were really harmful, and any harm was obvious and uncontroversial, then it would have been deleted long ago.

2966:

I do like the idea of it being deleted and updated regularly, but is it practical? Similar options would be an admin only namespace or an admin wiki, but the potential for abuse there is monumental.

4469:

I am a bit mixed when it comes to the fate of this page. It seems evident that this page is used by at least some users... some of the time. The only other comment that I can *sort of* agree on is

906:

identifying, the value of that list item drops dramatically. A banned editor will as a rule have to start under a new account, so listing the old account here isn't useful in maintaining that ban.

4096:

I keep seeing others trying to discredit deletion rationales by claiming it's really a merge vote. I guess that's the latest way to wikilawyer down your opposition. It's nonsense, please stop it.

2667:: This list isn't extremely useful. Like other admins that have commented, I don't normally make use of it. That said, most of the "delete" arguments don't hold any water. The cries of "It's not 2641:, Worm's own arguments are highly persuasive to me. This is a name and shame list, and as Worm says, it's full of comments made at times when emotions ran high. If it's kept, it should certainly 2296:. Loathsome archaic public shaming vehicle. And the support arguments are meritless. (Like, "If they didn't want to be on that list, then they shouldn't have done what they did to get banned." ) 850:. Serves no useful purpose. The editors are banned, so even if they return under another name this list is not helpful. If there are still issues with such editors via sockpuppetry etc., then 4391:

be edited, which is true of any page in the Special: "namespace; they're not real pages. I don't think there's a way to extend something like that to an editable page without dev intervention.

3349:

No. If anything, it would be the ban ( or the underlying conduct) that "might cause harm" (and that is a discretionary standard, by the by) -- listing cannot therefore cause substantive harm.

2620:. I'd be wasting my finger energy typing out reasons that have already been more than adequately set out above, by WTT, Black Kite, Begoon and others. I incorporate their reasons as my own. -- 4074:

As for Kindzmarauli's comment, this is a major flaw with some of the Delete arguments here. If the reason for deleting the article is that the parts of it worth keeping can just be moved to

3188:

Not an appropriate page for an encyclopedia, possible BLP minefiled, not the kind of page that helps the project, as if to say to new volunteers "behave or this is whare you will end up." ♫

3735:

a plain list and not a place where people can place biased, negative content about the banned users. If people wish to know more about the ban, they can read the archived ban discussion. --

4474:. I guess, if this list is necessary in order to maintain the system of banning users, then we have to keep it, but it just doesn't stop the fact that this is either a Hall of Shame, or 106:

may have said "grub first, then ethics", but we as encyclopedists need to maintain the moral high ground, both for our own self-esteem and to maintain our reputation in the wider world.

454:

Not really. This only demonstrates that so called wikipedia community is not mature and not sane enough to stop harming itself and its site by stopping an absolutely needless bullying.

3902:

Yes, I just now saw the same IP making multiple comments on this MfD using broken English and multiple particular key phrases like "dirty lies" and "bullies", and I therefore visited

597:. Just because the page has been nominated for the second, the third, the sixth, the hundredth, or the millionth time does not necessarily mean that the community will obviously spam 544: 3148:. I'm willing to be convinced that this has some essential use that is not fulfilled by the block log, but until then I think the potential damage outweighs the list's usefulness. 2034:

In other words, you are placing the interests of banned users above the interests of other Knowledge (XXG) users, those who have not been banned and actually have a right to edit.

3448:

of the list (the summaries of behaviour written in haste by biased parties, amongst other aspects), which is true, but there has been no convincing argument that these problems

1295:

We need to keep a record somewhere. Bans aren't as simple as blocks which are automatically logged, so why not have a page to list bans? If you don't like it, don't look at it.

146: 1482:

If a user is banned, how do we know when and why and for what reason a person was banned? What is an easy way to find that information, unless we have it all in one place? --

1837:

Limiting the information we publicly hold on blocked users simply means that it takes more admin time to deal with them as admins have to spend more time getting up to speed.

2847:

Just like ancient times then, right ?: "Six thousand survivors of the revolt captured by the legions of Crassus were crucified, lining the Appian Way from Rome to Capua."

177:

period. At present, these names are kept forever, with no prospect of removal. Consider that some names on this list are people's real names, recorded forever as "banned".

142: 2128:

existence of the page based on the current status/consensus. Also the discussion on whether is list is up-to-date should be done on the page's talk page and not here. --

2431:

A list of banned users is the easiest way to determine a ban status, really. There's no good reason to make it more difficult for people to "determine" ban status.

134: 5217:

Check my recent contributions. If it's not clear which user I'm talking about, or why I don't doubt that they've died, we can discuss it further on my talk page.

4499:

FWIW, during the 13 months (April 2013 to May 2014) that my moniker was included on this list, I didn't feel any humiliation. Nobody was to blame, but me, for my

4627:

Who is being referred to by word "We"? (We editors? Well that's just great. Because the entire English-speaking world has access to the page, not only editors.)

2942:

And yet again highlights the stupidity of the dichotomous "X for deletion" rather than "X for discussion" (which includes other options) but hey...another time.

40: 942:

but strip down to names and links, removing the opinions. It does serve a purpose, but only needs to only serve that purpose and not be a grave dancing page.

328:

Is this last bit "pulling the ol' Jimbo card"? As in: Jimbo might endorse your side of the dispute, so we should all give that a lot of extra weight? Tut, tut.

3760:

descriptions should be cut down to when the users were banned and the only other information should be a link to their ban discussion; remove all the insults.

348:

I don't think Jimbo does endorse my side (per Benmoore's argument below), but the statement resonated strongly with my point of view and was worth mentioning.

5147:

and you will see stale entries being removed from time to time. On the contrary, people remain on the List of Banned Users years, and in at least one case, a

1789:

I couldn't disagree more that because an editor is banned, being disrespectful is justified. Link to the discussion closure diff and let it speak for itself.

5226: 5212: 5187: 5160: 5138: 5107: 5092: 5065: 5050: 5020: 5006: 4985: 4964: 4933: 4912: 4881: 4867: 4851: 4835: 4813: 4785: 4770: 4756: 4732: 4714: 4687: 4650: 4636: 4607: 4593: 4579: 4565: 4551: 4533: 4512: 4493: 4434: 4424: 4401: 4385: 4366: 4351: 4317: 4300: 4253: 4241: 4205: 4193: 4177: 4161: 4139: 4103: 4091: 4069: 4032: 4017: 3994: 3976: 3945: 3923: 3893: 3861: 3830: 3810: 3793: 3764: 3743: 3726: 3711: 3693: 3679: 3662: 3627: 3602: 3567: 3534: 3505: 3474: 3461: 3426: 3397: 3382: 3358: 3340: 3304: 3290: 3267: 3249: 3234: 3217: 3198: 3180: 3163: 3128: 3109: 3093: 3074: 3050: 3032: 3015: 3002: 2983: 2957: 2937: 2922: 2895: 2880: 2856: 2839: 2816: 2788: 2766: 2747: 2713: 2694: 2680: 2658: 2629: 2612: 2595: 2573: 2550: 2489: 2463: 2446: 2424: 2410: 2380: 2362: 2330: 2305: 2284: 2270: 2251: 2221: 2196: 2180: 2160: 2137: 2119: 2090: 2057: 2043: 2029: 2015: 2001: 1986: 1971: 1952: 1937: 1920: 1898: 1879: 1865: 1846: 1821: 1806: 1784: 1769: 1739: 1720: 1699: 1680: 1666: 1637: 1622: 1606: 1591: 1573: 1550: 1526: 1497: 1473: 1438: 1422: 1399: 1379: 1361: 1344: 1314: 1287: 1265: 1241: 1213: 1196: 1161: 1146: 1119: 1104: 1078: 1051: 1012: 999: 967: 948: 930: 915: 884: 859: 842: 824: 805: 781: 755: 723: 692: 657: 641: 621: 579: 564: 537: 523: 501: 486: 463: 449: 416: 393: 365: 343: 315: 282: 206: 115: 3318:

for any person whose real name might be educed, as implying that they have committed wrongful acts. As such, it might "cause harm". This noted: it is

4231:

is disingenuous, nonetheless; that implies that all bans are deserved and that bans are never placed in error. I'm not willing to assert that; are you?

5170:. LTA is a completely different beast to this list, it's useful, current and allows the individual a way out (ie stop abusing). They are not the same. 3467:

insufficient and why we need a third page that won't be maintained by anyone except those with axes to grind or by socks of trolls who want attention.

4976:

many times I've seen disruption as a result of a suspicion. It only provokes more sockpuppetry and more disruption. The vicious cycle has to stop.

4761:

I don't think most people are shamed by it; I think it generally just makes people more angry and bitter and alienated, which does us no good at all.

4556:

Your fallacies are not seeing the other ways that "keep track", and access to that page is not limited to "we" but the entire English-speaking world.

2822:

for keep. Perhaps there is not yet a consensus, but the right thing to do there is keep discussing until one is formed, not cut the discussion short.

1455:

purpose does this list of banned editors serve? Many people have said that it's necessary, or that it serves a purpose, but nobody seems to be saying

5166:

each individual on the LTA list has been abusive enough to have a detailed sub-page, with a variety of links. The page carries the following warning

4167:

Granted, these aren't daily uses and not something every editor would do, but still useful. I don't think it is necessary to prove the page is the

2212:- Essential site maintenance tool. It is fine to make this invisible to Google search, but the list needs to exist and be visible to WP volunteers. 1744:

While I am undecided about the future of the page itself, I strongly agree with Worm (and many other commenters) that at the very least, we should

2645:

be cleaned up: blank any entry more than (for instance) three years old, and blank the comments, only keeping the ban dates and the links (as per

2685:

Sadly, people typically say nothing about unfairness until they themselves are treated unfairly, and then of course they aren't taken seriously.

1222:

helpful; if they're misbehaving, they should be blocked for their misbehavior regardless of who their master is, and if they're not, who cares?

374:

to delete here. So... we can keep it open for many weeks; but there still will not be a consensus to delete the list, for the 7th time. And, we

1541:

and serves a purpose nearly every minute of every day on wikipedia. The list of banned editors doesn't seem to do anything remotely as useful.

2506:. However, the page should be reviewed to eliminate negative weasel-words (useful expamples provided by nom), and made as NPOV as possible. 5143:

If by "oppose" you mean "delete", I will be happy to try to answer your question. The LTA list is better curated, for one thing. Look at the

1065: 5035:

list just a "Wall Of Shame" too? Maybe we should have no record whatsoever of people that abuse this site. Then we can't track them at all.

2564:

carry a stigma, but it is one that users usually brought upon themselves through repeated egregious behavior so I feel no guilt about that.

4948: 4896: 4859: 4827: 3656: 3586: 3543: 3295:

Every article, list, category etc. in the project is incomplete. In this case, criteria for inclusion appears to be "is a banned account".

1871: 1629: 1628:

racked up? I'm simply trying to understand what kind of edits you're talking about and how the list helped you in this specific situation.

1583: 455: 2235:"As for the usefulness of the page, is this a resource which is regularly referred to by admins and editors to keep tabs on banned users?" 902:

a theoretical concern. And I'm sure we have "noindexed" the page, but that's not really a solution. Second, insofar as an account name is

17: 3928:

I find it difficult to believe that you have the ability to identify a user by key phrases but not recall if they are banned or blocked.

5118:

different and/or preferable to this list? Or is that list next on the chopping block, because it's similarly... "mean-spirited", maybe?

4723:, motivated me to reform my behaviour, proove doubters wrong & get my name removed. Being shamed into reforming, isn't a bad thing. 3801:

An authoritative list of currently active bans is useful, since it saves having to dig through old archives to find the details of one.

5167: 2638: 4925: 871:, which Jimbo was quoted as saying would lead to "an internet riddled with memory holes". A more salient point is that while WTT says 3576: 2582: 2147: 1775:

have to be concerned about being "neutral" to them. Of course the information on the page reflects badly on them - and so it should.

893:

unconvincing. The rationale of the nomination seems like the right to be forgotten so therefore we should impute the dangers of that

5270: 4518:

Perhaps for you, but not everyone will think this way. Some may find it humiliating, and we need to think about other people too. --

4398: 4363: 4238: 4190: 3500: 3421: 1619: 1523: 1470: 1238: 3903: 594: 129: 121: 2020:

Even if some people do find it useful, that is outweighed by the harm caused to other contributors and to our culture in general.

3444:. What a great many people are saying here, even those who prefer deletion, is that in fact there are many things wrong with the 1357: 683: 4674:

my moniker, after my site-ban was lifted. During the time my moniker was there, it helped me reform my behaviour. as it was an

4023:"bullies", it seems RBI would be used in most cases, whether or not the IP could be tied to someone who was previously banned. 3195: 2581:

I'm convinced enough that the relevant information can be pretty easily found elsewhere per WTT's arguments and the note about

1431:

URLs aren't humans, while most or all of the people being shamed at the ban list are, so I don't find this analogy persuasive.

650: 167: 138: 82: 4415:' book, then they must have to have some way to remove it so oversighters can't see it either, only (I assume) the police... 3786: 2953: 2918: 2811: 2454:

is far more complete, requires less maintenance, is populated automatically, etc. It's obviously much better than this list.

1283: 4356:

Just FYI, that's not oversight, either; oversighted edits are still in the database and are viewable by other oversighters.

2771:

Could you point to anyone who's motivations appear to be hiding dirty laundry? Casting aspersions does not help the debate.

4342:. I think some editors have this notion that deleting material somehow "makes room on the disk", but that's not the case. 3755:

I don't recall ever using this page in my 7+ years of being an administrator. I don't see the need to keep a Hall of Shame/

4890:

Not to mention if a barred customer saw his name on that list he could easily say he was someone else and avoid scrutiny (

2739: 185:

talk page, a fully searchable Adminstrators' Noticeboard, sockpuppet investigations pages, sockpuppet categories and more.

2387:

Banned users cannot be discerned from blocked users on the list you provided. That's for all blocked users. This list is

378:

keep it if there is no solid consensus to delete it. Therefore the only viable option is to modify how it is maintained.

3258:

community list a subsection of the arbcom page, then arbcom clerks can curate it, which should eliminate abusive posts.

5249: 2344: 371: 69: 46: 5011:

The fact that many of these people come up on the SPI forum speaks for itself and LazyBastardGuy mentioned it above.

2545: 2522: 2470:

That cat is populated by a bunch of IPs, duplicates (like Editor X and Editor X's talk page), templates... as well as

1353: 2340: 705: 4144:

Thanks Dennis. Though, as the list is incomplete - how could you be sure that the editor in question wasn't banned?

2529:

I'm re-thinking this. Not yet ready to change to delete, but I'm no longer sure the benefits outweigh the damage.

5181: 4708: 4529: 4489: 4155: 4011: 3970: 3939: 3887: 2977: 2833: 2782: 617: 558: 517: 480: 410: 359: 309: 276: 200: 2721:. I see no meaningful purpose for this page and in fact, see it as a detriment to the project. WormTT and others 1992:

reality instead of continuing on this self-destructive path of slurring our own contributors for years and years.

1329:

per Binksternet. This list serves a purpose. Destroying this list will only serve to hide Knowledge (XXG)'s past.

1273:. Many of these editors are rightly banned, but it's time for Knowledge (XXG) to move past keeping a trophy case. 1109:

Scary stuff, back in the day. Great reference, and, come on, cult sci-fi, perfectly targetted at the demographic.

3675: 3354: 3263: 3225:: Good to have database of banned users, at least you are aware of those who have no place in wikipedia anymore. 868: 815:. This page aids in maintaining institutional memory. The overly negative descriptions can be tweaked as needed. 4229:

No one is forced to edit here, no one is forced to conduct themselves in a manner that eventually leads to a ban

3910:

was banned or merely indefinitely blocked (and why), before removing a comment that had not been replied to per

2903:

admin can see it if needed and share with folks sockhunting etc. Otherwise I possibly err (just) on the side of

1674:. I can't see how this list would be helpful, and it's unfair to those whose real names can be deduced from it. 4953: 4901: 4632: 4589: 4561: 3736: 3704: 3651: 3591: 3547: 3046: 2998: 2852: 2301: 1875: 1633: 1587: 1337: 459: 4863: 4831: 3684:

Just to point out, the page has been noindex'd for several years (note the magic word in the article source).

3119:

who want to be protected from embarrassment, that they preside over such a vindictive and unforgiving system.

93:

33, but in weighing the arguments I find those of the delete side more compelling than those of the keepers.

4929: 3990: 3722: 3212: 2891: 2762: 2266: 2039: 2011: 1982: 1948: 1894: 1817: 1780: 1662: 1306: 1183: 637: 575: 533: 497: 445: 5061: 5016: 4981: 3539: 4781: 4380: 4312: 4307: 4248: 4200: 4172: 4134: 4087: 4065: 4028: 3919: 3457: 3378: 2932: 2928: 2874: 2459: 2420: 2280: 2133: 2086: 1916: 1861: 943: 687: 298:

This list does not allow people to walk away with dignity. This list causes more problems than it solves.

4678:

reminder of my banned status. Just like the huge templates that were on my Userpage & User talkpage.

4339: 3842:. The page is historical but efforts should be made to remove the page from search engines to facilitate 58:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below.

5245: 5171: 4698: 4395: 4360: 4235: 4187: 4145: 4001: 3960: 3929: 3877: 3530: 3494: 3415: 2967: 2823: 2772: 2625: 1716: 1616: 1520: 1467: 1235: 820: 548: 507: 470: 400: 349: 299: 266: 190: 65: 5057: 5012: 4977: 4878: 4431: 4100: 3806: 3671: 3471: 3373:". I think listing banned users falls under the handling of administrative issues by the community. 3350: 3259: 2709: 2593: 2242:, I see no reason either why we should feed a lust for bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. 1800: 1763: 1711:- per most of the Delete comments above. No convincing benefit to be had from maintaining this list. 1516:

template will presumably provide all the information you require. It doesn't need to be centralized.

1510: 1435: 1396: 1009: 856: 679: 3985:

useful. Indeed, if some editors say they find it useful, why would anyone reasonably question that?

3670:

Keep, but remove those entries older than seven years. Certainly should not be indexed on Google.

3366: 709: 5104: 4958: 4906: 4847: 4766: 4628: 4585: 4557: 3690: 3646: 3643: 3637:, or at least strip down to a list of names and links. (In the latter case, we should always allow 3596: 3301: 3230: 3192: 3042: 2994: 2848: 2690: 2568: 2297: 2112: 2053: 2025: 1997: 1967: 1933: 1331: 1210: 1008:

used that page. If a banned editor is mentioned I tend to look at their userpage for information.

927: 881: 5198: 5124: 5078: 5036: 4992: 4804:

My stance hasn't changed. But, it's good to have different perspectives from different editors :)

2475: 2432: 2396: 2348: 2166: 1132: 1090: 1037: 1004:

I meant to mention that, actually. I've been an admin for seven years now and I don't think I've

741: 379: 329: 4373: 3986: 3828: 3780: 3718: 3207: 3156: 2947: 2912: 2887: 2806: 2758: 2655: 2339:

So... there's really no distinction between a blocked user and a banned user? How ludicrous. See

2262: 2035: 2007: 1978: 1944: 1890: 1813: 1776: 1658: 1490: 1445: 1321: 1297: 1278: 798: 774: 633: 571: 529: 493: 441: 295: 265:"negative information" on people for over 10 years is unacceptable, no matter what they've done. 95:

I did not count Jimbo's opinion as one of those supporting delete, though I did read his comment.

2098:

as lets be honest we do need a list, IMHO we ought to preserve things like this not delete it. –

3876:

could one of the supporters please describe a situation where they've actively used this list?

3579:

which is updated precisely when a new user is banned. Furthermore, any confirmed & blocked

5222: 5205: 5156: 5131: 5085: 5043: 5031:

list, could it not? Some would say merge this list into that rather than delete it. But isn't

4999: 4809: 4777: 4752: 4728: 4683: 4646: 4603: 4575: 4547: 4508: 4324: 4083: 4061: 4024: 3915: 3453: 3393: 3374: 3336: 3284: 3176: 3012: 2870: 2608: 2482: 2474:

banned users. How is that mess preferable to the current list? It's sloppier from what I see.

2455: 2439: 2416: 2403: 2355: 2318: 2276: 2247: 2217: 2173: 2129: 2082: 1912: 1857: 1602: 1569: 1546: 1414: 1371: 1261: 1139: 1097: 1044: 995: 911: 748: 386: 336: 4891: 4641:

My stance hasn't changed. But, it's good to get differing opinions from different editors :)

4475: 3756: 3580: 2503: 2368: 4619:, since as other posters here have pointed out, there are alternative ways to "keep track". 4392: 4357: 4232: 4184: 3959:. I'm asking this genuinely, is there a situation where this list has actually been useful? 3526: 3490: 3411: 3106: 3071: 2621: 2193: 2157: 1712: 1654: 1613: 1517: 1464: 1232: 1158: 1127: 1116: 1075: 964: 816: 720: 288: 5028: 4075: 3911: 3843: 3638: 3315: 2239: 1253: 851: 5244:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's

4412: 4097: 3802: 3563: 3468: 2725:!voters have made the argument well, so I won't repeat it all here. I recognize that I'm 2705: 2586: 2541: 2518: 1792: 1755: 1675: 1432: 1393: 701: 667: 224:

Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users/Banned by the Arbitration Committee

64:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's

3206:: The information can be found elsewhere. We do not need a list of convicted criminals. 3371:

some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community

5100: 4843: 4762: 4525: 4485: 4336:(or at least, that's what they say... I wouldn't bet on it if court asked for the data) 3761: 3686: 3620: 3297: 3226: 3189: 2686: 2565: 2452: 2376: 2326: 2099: 2049: 2021: 1993: 1963: 1929: 1842: 1206: 923: 877: 654: 613: 111: 103: 2275:

Except that multiple people, admins included, have stated that the page has no value.

5264: 4472:

there is no way to substantiate or disprove it. Dennis 13:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

4420: 4347: 4296: 4133:

banned. So yes, it prevented badges of shame from being put on blocked user's pages.

3823: 3774: 3244: 3149: 3124: 3089: 3028: 2943: 2908: 2801: 2676: 2651: 1695: 1483: 1274: 791: 767: 1131:

This is getting more interestingly thought-provoking with the Twilight Zone refs...

5218: 5152: 4805: 4748: 4724: 4694: 4679: 4642: 4599: 4571: 4543: 4504: 3389: 3332: 3276: 3172: 2731: 2604: 2243: 2230: 2213: 1732: 1598: 1565: 1542: 1257: 991: 907: 4598:

I didn't understand your response at 18:13, 21 Sep. Would you clarify it, please?

4538:

We must think of it as a way to keep track of who is/isn't banned & not as a

292: 4223:

pages are needed for an encyclopedia to be a thing. And I know you don't really

3848: 3101: 3099:

my contributions, and yours, every day. It's a pillar, or something, I think...

3066: 2188: 2152: 2048:

When someone falls overboard, you don't worry about the ones still in the boat.

2006:

In other words, you accuse those who say they do find the page useful of lying?

1352:

Per Binksternet and above and further no policy-based reason for deletion given.

1153: 1111: 1070: 959: 715: 4478:, who find it nothing more honorable to have their name on the Hall of Fame. -- 4215:

get lost down the "not-policy" rabbit hole; as you said, we pledged to respect

2415:

Many examples of better ways to determine ban status have been given up above.

1812:

information reflects poorly on the banned users, then that's too bad, frankly.

4411:

find material that is genuinely illegal to post, something like excerpts from

3731:

By "removing excess commentary", I'm saying that we should turn the list into

3559: 2845:

It is also a cautionary page, where we see what happens when rules are broken.

2530: 2507: 834: 4946:

I think Black Kite was talking about the pub, not the page under discussion.

4670:(res to WTT's question) Yes, I've used the list. I asked an administrator to 3369:, "Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, 713:

agree they could be removed, leaving a name and link to ban discussion only.

506:

My suggestion is that you read the previous nominations, and their closures.

4520: 4480: 3907: 3613: 2372: 2322: 1838: 1151:

Heh, very good - I'll collapse us as off-topic, before someone else does...

873:

keeping … "negative information" on people for over 10 years is unacceptable

608: 107: 3772:

if the users are long gone, there isn't really much point in listing them.

5114:

Interesting. Could any of the opposes clarify for me how the LTA list is

4416: 4343: 4292: 4052:

banned, and indef blocked; don't be too surprised if some people need an

4043:

advance these various agendas, and so on. Two of these even got mixed up

3120: 3085: 3024: 2672: 2313:- What this has wound up as is a Hall of Shame list. Anyone researching 1691: 2165:

Commentary on these users added "by anyone at all". Perish the thought.

2637:

with fire. Much as I dislike anything that smacks even a little bit of

249:

Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination)

244:

Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (5th nomination)

239:

Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (4th nomination)

234:

Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (3rd nomination)

229:

Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (2nd nomination)

99: 2603:- is a useful list & Knowledge (XXG) has limitless storage space. 3452:

by editing and improving the page. Thus deletion is not warranted. --

1537:

The EL blacklist is a great example because it's a resource which is

2502:

I have found this useful in the past to identify various species of

4877:

people have moved away years ago and at least one of them is dead.

3612:- I don't think we should be encouraging "shit lists" of editors. 5238:

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

5072:

Why doesn't someone make some sort of progress (at least in the

3981:

I think we've just had a good faith demonstration that the list

2367:

Then strike-though my mention of "blocked", yeesh. Way to be a

1413:

frankly a personal attack against those that created the page.

651:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:List of banned users#Option 1: Discussion

25: 1036:

How many editors get the "off to the cornfield" reference?

5027:

The rationale to delete the list could be extended to the

2704:. We should build an encyclopedia, not a wall of shame. -- 3950:

Especially as you have reverted the user before as banned

5144: 4892:

which is essentially what banned Wikipedians tend to do

3956: 3953: 3951: 3522: 2646: 1579: 154: 150: 2867:(XXG) could make a hidden list for the aid of admins. 1870:

This list is a very, very useful tools...for bullies.

219:

Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users

287:

In addition, I'd like to include this statement from

2907:

ing but would understand and not oppose a deletion.

1388:

been deemed to be not good matches for the project.

469:

it as "it would have been done" is a poor argument.

162:

I recently started some proposals for change at the

1025:

You unlock this door with the key of imagination...

867:The given rationale appears to tie in closely with 181:

commentary on users, especially after they've left.

102:for those who have sinned against Knowledge (XXG). 4503:situation & so I had no problem being listed. 72:). No further edits should be made to this page. 5252:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1690:"fairness" and what you seem to think it means.— 1578:Could you please clarify the comment you made 4171:useful page we have, just reasonably useful. 3957:request for the banned account to "disappear" 2755:showing what kind of place Knowledge (XXG) is 1459:it's necessary or what that purpose actually 8: 3442:is it intended solely to disparage or harass 3438:would it have to be fundamentally re-written 2587: 81:. I have read all the arguments here and at 4743:Though the Templates were humiliating. The 5197:situation/list that is unrelated to this. 4613:We must think of it as a way to keep track 1018: 4329:(NOTE: Never mind -- I just realized you 5056:trouble could be avoided to begin with. 2927:If it were made "admin read only", like 216: 45:For an explanation of the process, see 18:Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion 5168:Knowledge (XXG):Long-term abuse/Header 4620: 4612: 4470: 4228: 3038: 2844: 210: 4338:and made inaccessible to all, that's 3577:Category:Banned Knowledge (XXG) users 2583:Category:Banned Knowledge (XXG) users 2148:Category:Banned Knowledge (XXG) users 7: 3904:Knowledge (XXG):List of banned users 492:up being deleted in the end anyway. 130:Knowledge (XXG):List of banned users 122:Knowledge (XXG):List of banned users 5097:It is noindex'd, has been for : --> 3322:for ArbCom to maintain such a list 1748:and slim it down to a more neutral 1506:Go to person's userpage, where the 77:The result of the discussion was 4227:it to be disingenuous, but saying 1390:Wikipedians should not be assholes 24: 4991:any way) because of its removal? 2753:list serves a helpful purpose in 2081:for the reasons given by WTT. -- 1419:Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 1376:Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 41:deletion review on 2019 March 19 29: 2527:16:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 436:The very fact that this is the 47:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 5108:10:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC) 5093:07:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 5066:01:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 5051:01:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 5021:00:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 5007:00:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 4986:00:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 4965:00:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 4934:20:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC) 4913:00:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 4882:19:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC) 4868:02:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC) 4852:01:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC) 4836:02:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC) 4814:22:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 4786:15:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 4771:02:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 4757:01:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 4733:18:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 4715:11:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 4688:22:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 4651:23:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 4637:03:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 4621:We must think of it not as a 4608:01:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 4594:01:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 4580:01:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 4566:18:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 4552:13:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 4534:12:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 4513:12:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 4494:23:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 4435:22:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 4425:21:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 4402:21:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 4386:20:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 4367:20:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 4352:20:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 4318:15:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 4301:23:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 4254:00:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 4242:20:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 4206:20:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 4194:19:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 4178:18:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 4162:13:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 4140:13:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 4104:01:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC) 4092:20:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 4070:20:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 4033:15:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 4018:13:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3995:08:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3977:07:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3946:07:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3924:07:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3894:07:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 3811:21:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 3794:23:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 3765:19:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 3744:19:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 3727:07:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 3712:01:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 3694:10:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC) 3680:19:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC) 3663:16:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC) 3628:09:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC) 3603:17:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC) 3568:06:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC) 3535:14:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3506:16:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC) 3497: 3475:01:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC) 3462:20:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 3427:16:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 3418: 3398:22:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 3383:19:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 3359:15:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 3341:13:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 3314:It is implicitly violative of 3305:14:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 3291:11:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 3268:10:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 3250:03:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 3235:16:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 3218:15:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 3199:04:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 3181:21:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3164:14:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 3129:18:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC) 3110:20:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 3094:20:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 3075:19:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 3051:19:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 3033:19:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 3016:18:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 3003:17:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2984:10:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 2958:13:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2938:12:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2923:06:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2896:05:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2881:04:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2857:01:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2840:10:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 2817:01:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2789:10:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 2767:00:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2748:22:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 2714:21:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 2695:01:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2681:18:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 2659:15:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 2630:09:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 2613:02:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 2596:00:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 2574:20:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 2551:18:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC) 2490:03:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 2464:16:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 2447:15:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 2425:14:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 2411:13:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 2381:13:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 2363:13:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 2331:13:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 2306:11:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 2285:14:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 2271:01:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 2252:14:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 2222:13:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 2197:11:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 2181:11:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 2161:11:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 2138:13:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 2120:13:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 2091:03:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 2058:01:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC) 2044:06:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 2030:00:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC) 2016:02:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 2002:02:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 1987:01:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 1972:00:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 1953:03:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 1938:01:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 1921:14:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 1899:05:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 1880:04:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 1866:00:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 1847:22:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1822:03:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 1807:03:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 1785:03:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 1770:21:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1740:20:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1721:19:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1700:01:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 1681:19:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1667:19:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1638:19:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1623:19:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1607:19:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1592:18:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1574:18:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1551:20:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1527:20:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1498:19:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1474:18:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1439:17:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1423:17:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1400:17:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1380:17:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1362:17:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1345:17:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1315:18:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1288:17:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1266:15:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1242:15:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1214:15:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1197:15:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1162:14:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1147:14:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1120:14:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1105:14:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1079:14:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1052:14:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1013:18:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1000:13:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 968:12:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 949:12:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 931:14:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 916:13:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 885:12:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 860:12:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 843:12:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 825:12:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 806:16:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC) 782:10:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 756:10:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 724:10:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 706:Knowledge (XXG):Banning policy 693:09:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 658:09:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 642:09:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 622:23:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 580:10:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 565:10:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 538:10:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 524:09:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 502:09:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 487:09:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 464:04:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 450:09:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 417:09:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 394:09:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 366:08:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 344:08:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 316:08:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC) 283:09:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 214:All prior XfDs for this page: 207:09:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 1: 4776:more harm than it does good. 4078:, then you are arguing for a 3757:"Hall of Fame for the Damned" 3079:I'm saying that just because 2317:banned users can make use of 4719:Seeing myself listed on the 2146:Well, fortunately, there is 5227:02:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 5213:02:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 5188:08:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 5161:02:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 5139:01:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 3862:21:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 3844:wikipedia's right to vanish 3831:17:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 1653:- per my previous comments 889:I'm sorry, but that's just 116:22:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC) 5287: 4306:except the rare page like 4082:result, not a deletion. -- 172:In summary, I believe the 3906:to remind myself whether 1746:remove the notes/comments 869:the right to be forgotten 213: 5271:Pages at deletion review 5241:Please do not modify it. 4693:Thanks for the response 3518:A comment by Jimbo Wales 61:Please do not modify it. 5120:"I just don't like it." 3840:{{NOINDEX|visible=yes}} 2347:. Some list you offer. 595:WP:Consensus can change 4308:Special:UnwatchedPages 3039:But the bottom line is 2929:Special:UnwatchedPages 2639:Argumentum ad Jimbonem 1354:Pharaoh of the Wizards 1064:Any of a certain age, 3388:to be a public file? 2321:anytime they please. 1977:slightly reasonable. 4129:felt like they were 370:There is not even a 260:I obviously support 174:List of banned users 164:List of banned users 4476:food for the trolls 1539:incredibly valuable 975:. As BK notes, the 740:convincing reason. 85:. The raw count is 5145:the list's history 4101:---)Vote Saxon(--- 3955:and even raised a 3739:Writing Enthusiast 3707:Writing Enthusiast 3472:---)Vote Saxon(--- 2345:WP:Blocking policy 1436:---)Vote Saxon(--- 1397:---)Vote Saxon(--- 649:per my comment at 291:at Wikimania 2014 4879:Black Kite (talk) 4747:is even more so. 4432:Black Kite (talk) 4377: 4337: 3542:comment added by 3326:as long as it is 3162: 2879: 2745: 2571: 2341:WP:Banning policy 2319:Special:BlockList 1750:name(s)-date-diff 1679: 1449: 1325: 1313: 1286: 1173: 1172: 1085:Yes! It's a very 1010:Black Kite (talk) 857:Black Kite (talk) 786:Changing vote to 691: 257: 256: 96: 53: 52: 39:was subject to a 5278: 5243: 5210: 5203: 5184: 5178: 5136: 5129: 5090: 5083: 5048: 5041: 5004: 4997: 4961: 4956: 4951: 4909: 4904: 4899: 4711: 4705: 4371: 4335: 4328: 4158: 4152: 4060:to the other. -- 4014: 4008: 3973: 3967: 3942: 3936: 3890: 3884: 3857: 3854: 3851: 3841: 3826: 3789: 3783: 3777: 3741: 3709: 3659: 3654: 3649: 3618: 3599: 3594: 3589: 3551: 3504: 3499: 3425: 3420: 3324:in its own space 3287: 3282: 3247: 3159: 3154: 3152: 3108: 3104: 3073: 3069: 2980: 2974: 2868: 2836: 2830: 2814: 2809: 2804: 2785: 2779: 2742: 2737: 2734: 2591: 2569: 2537: 2536: 2514: 2513: 2487: 2480: 2444: 2437: 2408: 2401: 2360: 2353: 2256:I find it to be 2195: 2191: 2178: 2171: 2159: 2155: 2117: 2109: 2104: 1805: 1803: 1797: 1796: 1768: 1766: 1760: 1759: 1735: 1678: 1515: 1509: 1493: 1486: 1443: 1343: 1340: 1334: 1319: 1311: 1309: 1303: 1281: 1277: 1193: 1192: 1188: 1187: 1160: 1156: 1144: 1137: 1118: 1114: 1102: 1095: 1077: 1073: 1049: 1042: 1019: 966: 962: 921:divisive issue. 874: 839: 801: 794: 777: 770: 753: 746: 722: 718: 677: 674: 671: 561: 555: 520: 514: 483: 477: 413: 407: 391: 384: 362: 356: 341: 334: 312: 306: 294: 289:User:Jimbo Wales 279: 273: 211: 203: 197: 159: 158: 94: 63: 33: 32: 26: 5286: 5285: 5281: 5280: 5279: 5277: 5276: 5275: 5261: 5260: 5256: 5250:deletion review 5239: 5206: 5199: 5182: 5172: 5132: 5125: 5086: 5079: 5044: 5037: 5000: 4993: 4959: 4954: 4949: 4924:rest in peace? 4907: 4902: 4897: 4709: 4699: 4413:Phillip Greaves 4322: 4156: 4146: 4012: 4002: 3971: 3961: 3940: 3930: 3888: 3878: 3870: 3855: 3852: 3849: 3839: 3824: 3787: 3781: 3775: 3737: 3705: 3672:Unscintillating 3657: 3652: 3647: 3624: 3614: 3597: 3592: 3587: 3575:, redundant to 3537: 3503: 3489: 3450:cannot be fixed 3446:current content 3424: 3410: 3407:Keep and manage 3351:Alanscottwalker 3285: 3278: 3260:Alanscottwalker 3245: 3157: 3150: 3102: 3100: 3067: 3065: 3037:You lost me at 2978: 2968: 2834: 2824: 2812: 2807: 2802: 2783: 2773: 2744: 2740: 2732: 2719:Delete and Salt 2549: 2532: 2531: 2526: 2509: 2508: 2483: 2476: 2440: 2433: 2404: 2397: 2356: 2349: 2244:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 2240:feed the trolls 2189: 2187: 2174: 2167: 2153: 2151: 2113: 2105: 2100: 1801: 1794: 1793: 1790: 1764: 1757: 1756: 1753: 1733: 1513: 1507: 1491: 1484: 1338: 1332: 1330: 1307: 1302: 1298: 1279: 1190: 1189: 1185: 1184: 1178:Delete and salt 1174: 1154: 1152: 1140: 1133: 1112: 1110: 1098: 1091: 1071: 1069: 1045: 1038: 1027: 960: 958: 872: 837: 799: 792: 775: 768: 749: 742: 716: 714: 672: 669: 559: 549: 518: 508: 481: 471: 411: 401: 387: 380: 372:rough consensus 360: 350: 337: 330: 310: 300: 277: 267: 253: 201: 191: 132: 128: 125: 83:this discussion 70:deletion review 59: 37:This discussion 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5284: 5282: 5274: 5273: 5263: 5262: 5258: 5255: 5254: 5234: 5233: 5232: 5231: 5230: 5229: 5194: 5193: 5192: 5191: 5190: 5112: 5111: 5110: 5070: 5069: 5068: 5025: 5024: 5023: 4972: 4971: 4970: 4969: 4968: 4967: 4939: 4938: 4937: 4936: 4918: 4917: 4916: 4915: 4885: 4884: 4860:173.58.251.107 4855: 4854: 4828:173.58.251.107 4823: 4822: 4821: 4820: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4816: 4795: 4794: 4793: 4792: 4791: 4790: 4789: 4788: 4738: 4737: 4736: 4735: 4668: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4664: 4663: 4662: 4661: 4660: 4659: 4658: 4657: 4656: 4655: 4654: 4653: 4629:Ihardlythinkso 4586:Ihardlythinkso 4558:Ihardlythinkso 4497: 4496: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4459: 4458: 4457: 4456: 4455: 4454: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4442: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4369: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4072: 4020: 3948: 3897: 3896: 3869: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3833: 3813: 3796: 3767: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3665: 3631: 3630: 3622: 3606: 3605: 3570: 3544:196.201.217.49 3520: 3519: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3493: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3430: 3429: 3414: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3344: 3343: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3270: 3252: 3237: 3220: 3201: 3183: 3166: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3043:Ihardlythinkso 3021:Regretful keep 3018: 3005: 2995:Reaper Eternal 2988: 2987: 2986: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2849:Ihardlythinkso 2842: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2738: 2716: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2662: 2632: 2615: 2598: 2576: 2561:modus operandi 2539: 2516: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2451:This category 2429: 2428: 2427: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2334: 2333: 2308: 2298:Ihardlythinkso 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2224: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2141: 2140: 2122: 2093: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 1923: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1872:103.245.88.248 1850: 1849: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1742: 1723: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1684: 1683: 1669: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1630:196.201.217.49 1584:196.201.217.49 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1501: 1500: 1477: 1476: 1441: 1426: 1425: 1410: 1403: 1402: 1382: 1364: 1347: 1333:Chris Troutman 1317: 1300: 1290: 1268: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1216: 1199: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1029: 1028: 1022: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1002: 970: 951: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 862: 845: 827: 810: 809: 808: 758: 729: 728: 727: 726: 696: 695: 661: 644: 626: 625: 624: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 583: 582: 547:may help you. 466: 456:103.245.88.248 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 321: 320: 319: 318: 255: 254: 252: 251: 246: 241: 236: 231: 226: 221: 215: 168:comments there 161: 160: 124: 119: 104:Bertolt Brecht 75: 74: 54: 51: 50: 44: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5283: 5272: 5269: 5268: 5266: 5259: 5253: 5251: 5247: 5242: 5236: 5235: 5228: 5224: 5220: 5216: 5215: 5214: 5211: 5209: 5204: 5202: 5195: 5189: 5185: 5179: 5177: 5176: 5169: 5164: 5163: 5162: 5158: 5154: 5150: 5146: 5142: 5141: 5140: 5137: 5135: 5130: 5128: 5121: 5117: 5113: 5109: 5106: 5103: 5102: 5096: 5095: 5094: 5091: 5089: 5084: 5082: 5075: 5071: 5067: 5063: 5059: 5054: 5053: 5052: 5049: 5047: 5042: 5040: 5034: 5030: 5026: 5022: 5018: 5014: 5010: 5009: 5008: 5005: 5003: 4998: 4996: 4989: 4988: 4987: 4983: 4979: 4974: 4973: 4966: 4963: 4962: 4957: 4952: 4945: 4944: 4943: 4942: 4941: 4940: 4935: 4931: 4927: 4922: 4921: 4920: 4919: 4914: 4911: 4910: 4905: 4900: 4893: 4889: 4888: 4887: 4886: 4883: 4880: 4875: 4872: 4871: 4870: 4869: 4865: 4861: 4853: 4849: 4845: 4840: 4839: 4838: 4837: 4833: 4829: 4815: 4811: 4807: 4803: 4802: 4801: 4800: 4799: 4798: 4797: 4796: 4787: 4783: 4779: 4774: 4773: 4772: 4768: 4764: 4760: 4759: 4758: 4754: 4750: 4746: 4745:wall of shame 4742: 4741: 4740: 4739: 4734: 4730: 4726: 4722: 4721:wall of shame 4718: 4717: 4716: 4712: 4706: 4704: 4703: 4696: 4692: 4691: 4690: 4689: 4685: 4681: 4677: 4673: 4652: 4648: 4644: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4634: 4630: 4626: 4624: 4623:wall of shame 4618: 4614: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4605: 4601: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4591: 4587: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4577: 4573: 4569: 4568: 4567: 4563: 4559: 4555: 4554: 4553: 4549: 4545: 4541: 4540:wall of shame 4537: 4536: 4535: 4531: 4527: 4523: 4522: 4517: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4510: 4506: 4502: 4495: 4491: 4487: 4483: 4482: 4477: 4473: 4468: 4467: 4436: 4433: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4422: 4418: 4414: 4410: 4405: 4404: 4403: 4400: 4397: 4394: 4389: 4388: 4387: 4384: 4383: 4375: 4374:edit conflict 4370: 4368: 4365: 4362: 4359: 4355: 4354: 4353: 4349: 4345: 4341: 4332: 4326: 4321: 4320: 4319: 4316: 4315: 4309: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4298: 4294: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4255: 4252: 4251: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4240: 4237: 4234: 4230: 4226: 4222: 4218: 4213: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4204: 4203: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4192: 4189: 4186: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4176: 4175: 4170: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4159: 4153: 4151: 4150: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4138: 4137: 4132: 4128: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4105: 4102: 4099: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4089: 4085: 4081: 4077: 4073: 4071: 4067: 4063: 4059: 4055: 4051: 4046: 4041: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4030: 4026: 4021: 4019: 4015: 4009: 4007: 4006: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3992: 3988: 3987:ImprovingWiki 3984: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3974: 3968: 3966: 3965: 3958: 3954: 3952: 3949: 3947: 3943: 3937: 3935: 3934: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3921: 3917: 3913: 3909: 3905: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3895: 3891: 3885: 3883: 3882: 3875: 3872: 3871: 3867: 3863: 3859: 3858: 3845: 3837: 3834: 3832: 3829: 3827: 3821: 3817: 3814: 3812: 3808: 3804: 3800: 3797: 3795: 3792: 3790: 3784: 3778: 3771: 3768: 3766: 3763: 3758: 3754: 3751: 3745: 3742: 3740: 3734: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3724: 3720: 3719:ImprovingWiki 3715: 3714: 3713: 3710: 3708: 3702: 3699: 3695: 3692: 3689: 3688: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3677: 3673: 3669: 3666: 3664: 3660: 3655: 3650: 3645: 3640: 3636: 3633: 3632: 3629: 3626: 3625: 3619: 3617: 3611: 3608: 3607: 3604: 3601: 3600: 3595: 3590: 3582: 3578: 3574: 3571: 3569: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3536: 3532: 3528: 3524: 3517: 3516: 3507: 3502: 3496: 3492: 3488:cross-check. 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3476: 3473: 3470: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3459: 3455: 3451: 3447: 3443: 3439: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3428: 3423: 3417: 3413: 3408: 3405: 3404: 3399: 3395: 3391: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3365:According to 3364: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3329: 3325: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3310: 3306: 3303: 3300: 3299: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3289: 3283: 3281: 3274: 3271: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3256: 3253: 3251: 3248: 3241: 3238: 3236: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3221: 3219: 3216: 3215: 3211: 3210: 3209:Fylbecatulous 3205: 3202: 3200: 3197: 3194: 3191: 3187: 3184: 3182: 3178: 3174: 3170: 3167: 3165: 3160: 3153: 3147: 3144: 3143: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3118: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3107: 3105: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3082: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3072: 3070: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3052: 3048: 3044: 3040: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3019: 3017: 3014: 3009: 3006: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2991:Strong delete 2989: 2985: 2981: 2975: 2973: 2972: 2965: 2964: 2959: 2955: 2952: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2936: 2935: 2930: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2920: 2917: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2889: 2888:ImprovingWiki 2884: 2883: 2882: 2878: 2876: 2875:Talkie-Talkie 2872: 2865: 2862: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2843: 2841: 2837: 2831: 2829: 2828: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2815: 2810: 2805: 2799: 2796: 2790: 2786: 2780: 2778: 2777: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2759:ImprovingWiki 2756: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2746: 2743: 2735: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2717: 2715: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2663: 2660: 2657: 2653: 2648: 2647:alternative 2 2644: 2640: 2636: 2633: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2616: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2599: 2597: 2594: 2592: 2590: 2584: 2580: 2577: 2575: 2572: 2567: 2562: 2558: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2547: 2543: 2538: 2535: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2515: 2512: 2505: 2501: 2491: 2488: 2486: 2481: 2479: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2445: 2443: 2438: 2436: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2409: 2407: 2402: 2400: 2394: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2361: 2359: 2354: 2352: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2309: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2292: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2263:ImprovingWiki 2259: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2236: 2232: 2228: 2225: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2208: 2207: 2198: 2194: 2192: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2179: 2177: 2172: 2170: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2158: 2156: 2149: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2126: 2123: 2121: 2118: 2116: 2110: 2108: 2103: 2097: 2094: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2077: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2036:ImprovingWiki 2033: 2032: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2008:ImprovingWiki 2005: 2004: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1979:ImprovingWiki 1975: 1974: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1945:ImprovingWiki 1941: 1940: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1924: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1909: 1906: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1891:ImprovingWiki 1888: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1852: 1851: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1833: 1832: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1814:ImprovingWiki 1810: 1809: 1808: 1804: 1798: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1777:ImprovingWiki 1773: 1772: 1771: 1767: 1761: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1741: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1727: 1724: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1707: 1706: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1682: 1677: 1673: 1670: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1649: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1621: 1618: 1615: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1560: 1559: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1535: 1528: 1525: 1522: 1519: 1512: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1499: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1487: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1475: 1472: 1469: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1447: 1446:edit conflict 1442: 1440: 1437: 1434: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1424: 1421: 1420: 1417: 1411: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1401: 1398: 1395: 1391: 1386: 1383: 1381: 1378: 1377: 1374: 1368: 1365: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1348: 1346: 1341: 1335: 1328: 1323: 1322:edit conflict 1318: 1316: 1310: 1305: 1304: 1294: 1291: 1289: 1285: 1282: 1276: 1272: 1269: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1250: 1247: 1243: 1240: 1237: 1234: 1229: 1224: 1223: 1220: 1217: 1215: 1212: 1208: 1203: 1200: 1198: 1195: 1194: 1179: 1176: 1175: 1163: 1159: 1157: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1145: 1143: 1138: 1136: 1130: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1115: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1103: 1101: 1096: 1094: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1074: 1067: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1053: 1050: 1048: 1043: 1041: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1026: 1021: 1020: 1014: 1011: 1007: 1003: 1001: 997: 993: 988: 983: 978: 974: 971: 969: 965: 963: 955: 952: 950: 947: 946: 941: 938: 932: 929: 926: 925: 919: 918: 917: 913: 909: 905: 901: 896: 892: 888: 887: 886: 883: 880: 879: 870: 866: 863: 861: 858: 853: 849: 846: 844: 841: 840: 833:way to go. -- 831: 828: 826: 822: 818: 814: 811: 807: 804: 803: 802: 795: 789: 785: 784: 783: 780: 779: 778: 771: 764: 763: 759: 757: 754: 752: 747: 745: 739: 734: 731: 730: 725: 721: 719: 711: 707: 703: 700: 699: 698: 697: 694: 689: 685: 684:Contributions 681: 676: 675: 665: 662: 659: 656: 652: 648: 645: 643: 639: 635: 634:ImprovingWiki 630: 627: 623: 619: 615: 611: 610: 604: 600: 596: 593: 581: 577: 573: 572:ImprovingWiki 568: 567: 566: 562: 556: 554: 553: 546: 541: 540: 539: 535: 531: 530:ImprovingWiki 527: 526: 525: 521: 515: 513: 512: 505: 504: 503: 499: 495: 494:ImprovingWiki 490: 489: 488: 484: 478: 476: 475: 467: 465: 461: 457: 453: 452: 451: 447: 443: 442:ImprovingWiki 439: 435: 432: 431: 418: 414: 408: 406: 405: 397: 396: 395: 392: 390: 385: 383: 377: 373: 369: 368: 367: 363: 357: 355: 354: 347: 346: 345: 342: 340: 335: 333: 327: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 317: 313: 307: 305: 304: 297: 290: 286: 285: 284: 280: 274: 272: 271: 263: 259: 258: 250: 247: 245: 242: 240: 237: 235: 232: 230: 227: 225: 222: 220: 217: 212: 209: 208: 204: 198: 196: 195: 186: 182: 178: 175: 169: 165: 156: 152: 148: 144: 140: 136: 131: 127: 126: 123: 120: 118: 117: 113: 109: 105: 101: 92: 88: 84: 80: 73: 71: 67: 62: 56: 55: 48: 42: 38: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5257: 5240: 5237: 5207: 5200: 5174: 5173: 5148: 5133: 5126: 5119: 5115: 5099: 5087: 5080: 5073: 5045: 5038: 5032: 5001: 4994: 4947: 4926:119.4.40.105 4895: 4873: 4856: 4824: 4778:Kindzmarauli 4744: 4720: 4701: 4700: 4675: 4671: 4669: 4622: 4616: 4539: 4519: 4500: 4498: 4479: 4408: 4381: 4340:WP:Oversight 4330: 4325:Dennis Brown 4313: 4249: 4224: 4220: 4216: 4211: 4201: 4173: 4168: 4148: 4147: 4135: 4130: 4126: 4084:Demiurge1000 4079: 4062:Demiurge1000 4057: 4054:aide-mémoire 4053: 4049: 4044: 4039: 4025:Kindzmarauli 4004: 4003: 3982: 3963: 3962: 3932: 3931: 3916:Demiurge1000 3880: 3879: 3873: 3847: 3835: 3819: 3815: 3798: 3773: 3769: 3752: 3738: 3732: 3706: 3700: 3685: 3667: 3634: 3621: 3615: 3609: 3585: 3572: 3555: 3538:— Preceding 3521: 3454:Demiurge1000 3449: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3406: 3375:Ken Arromdee 3370: 3327: 3323: 3319: 3311: 3296: 3279: 3272: 3254: 3239: 3222: 3213: 3208: 3203: 3185: 3168: 3145: 3116: 3080: 3020: 3013:HangingCurve 3007: 2990: 2970: 2969: 2950: 2933: 2915: 2904: 2871:Carolmooredc 2869: 2863: 2826: 2825: 2797: 2775: 2774: 2754: 2736: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2701: 2668: 2664: 2642: 2634: 2617: 2600: 2588: 2578: 2560: 2556: 2533: 2510: 2499: 2497: 2496: 2484: 2477: 2471: 2456:Kindzmarauli 2441: 2434: 2417:Kindzmarauli 2405: 2398: 2392: 2388: 2357: 2350: 2314: 2310: 2293: 2277:Kindzmarauli 2257: 2234: 2226: 2209: 2175: 2168: 2130:Magioladitis 2124: 2114: 2106: 2101: 2095: 2083:MichaelMaggs 2078: 1959: 1925: 1913:Kindzmarauli 1907: 1886: 1858:Demiurge1000 1853: 1834: 1749: 1745: 1731: 1730: 1725: 1708: 1671: 1650: 1561: 1538: 1489: 1488: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1418: 1415: 1389: 1384: 1375: 1372: 1366: 1349: 1326: 1296: 1292: 1270: 1248: 1227: 1218: 1201: 1182: 1177: 1141: 1134: 1126: 1099: 1092: 1086: 1046: 1039: 1024: 1005: 986: 981: 976: 972: 953: 944: 939: 922: 903: 899: 894: 890: 876: 864: 847: 835: 829: 812: 797: 796: 787: 773: 772: 761: 760: 750: 743: 737: 732: 668: 663: 646: 628: 607: 602: 598: 551: 550: 510: 509: 473: 472: 437: 433: 403: 402: 388: 381: 375: 352: 351: 338: 331: 302: 301: 269: 268: 261: 193: 192: 189:to read it. 187: 183: 179: 173: 171: 163: 90: 86: 78: 76: 60: 57: 36: 5058:RWCasinoKid 5013:RWCasinoKid 4978:RWCasinoKid 4393:Writ Keeper 4358:Writ Keeper 4233:Writ Keeper 4185:Writ Keeper 3581:sockpuppets 3527:Jimbo Wales 3491:Supernerd11 3412:Supernerd11 2886:the years. 2622:Mkativerata 2589:I, JethroBT 2546:revolutions 2523:revolutions 1713:TheOverflow 1614:Writ Keeper 1518:Writ Keeper 1511:banned user 1465:Writ Keeper 1233:Writ Keeper 1128:"Obsolete!" 1023:Off Topic: 817:Binksternet 788:weak delete 603:Speedy Keep 4676:in my face 4098:The Master 4045:themselves 4000:it's not. 3868:Discussion 3803:Jackmcbarn 3469:The Master 3367:WP:BLPTALK 3320:reasonable 2706:AFBorchert 1889:the list. 1795:Salvidrim! 1758:Salvidrim! 1676:SlimVirgin 1433:The Master 1394:The Master 1299:Rcsprinter 891:profoundly 710:WP:CONDUCT 702:OccultZone 545:This essay 438:sixth time 5246:talk page 5098:3 years. 4844:SmokeyJoe 4763:Everyking 4615:is not a 4217:consensus 3908:User:Mbz1 3762:Acalamari 3701:Weak keep 3227:Noteswork 3190:SqueakBox 2944:Cas Liber 2909:Cas Liber 2687:Everyking 2566:Sjakkalle 2258:extremely 2050:Everyking 2022:Everyking 1994:Everyking 1964:Everyking 1930:Everyking 1207:MarnetteD 1066:I'd guess 655:Lankiveil 66:talk page 5265:Category 5248:or in a 4530:contribs 4490:contribs 4131:de facto 4125:because 4050:de facto 4040:de facto 3874:Question 3838:and add 3825:cyclopia 3776:Snuggums 3540:unsigned 3495:Firemind 3416:Firemind 3246:xaosflux 3196:contribs 3151:Gamaliel 2954:contribs 2919:contribs 2741:and done 2652:Bishonen 2643:at least 2570:(Check!) 2504:quacking 2472:actually 2315:blocked/ 1409:asshole? 1186:Konveyor 982:actually 618:contribs 262:deletion 68:or in a 5219:28bytes 5153:28bytes 4955:Bastard 4903:Bastard 4874:Comment 4806:GoodDay 4749:GoodDay 4725:GoodDay 4695:GoodDay 4680:GoodDay 4643:GoodDay 4600:GoodDay 4572:GoodDay 4544:GoodDay 4505:GoodDay 3820:process 3644:King of 3593:Bastard 3501:Pokedex 3422:Pokedex 3390:Collect 3333:Collect 3280:Noyster 3173:Neutron 2733:Vertium 2665:Comment 2605:GoodDay 2542:spin me 2519:spin me 2395:users. 2371:, Doc. 2231:Protonk 2214:Carrite 1887:keeping 1734:Hut 8.5 1599:Xezbeth 1566:Xezbeth 1543:Protonk 1416:Chillum 1373:Chillum 1308:(speak) 1275:Andreas 1258:28bytes 1089:thing! 992:Protonk 908:Protonk 434:Comment 143:history 100:pillory 5149:decade 5074:spirit 5029:WP:LTA 4672:remove 4584:What? 4570:What? 4382:Dennis 4314:Dennis 4250:Dennis 4202:Dennis 4174:Dennis 4136:Dennis 4076:WP:LTA 3912:WP:BAN 3770:Delete 3753:Delete 3639:WP:RTV 3635:Delete 3610:Delete 3573:Delete 3316:WP:BLP 3312:Delete 3286:(talk) 3273:Delete 3204:Delete 3186:Delete 3146:Delete 3117:admins 3103:Begoon 3068:Begoon 2934:Dennis 2723:delete 2702:Delete 2635:Delete 2618:Delete 2579:Delete 2393:banned 2311:Delete 2294:Delete 2229:. Per 2227:Delete 2190:Begoon 2154:Begoon 2115:(talk) 2079:Delete 1926:Delete 1908:Delete 1752:list. 1709:Delete 1672:Delete 1485:Jayron 1453:actual 1385:Delete 1271:Delete 1254:WP:LTA 1249:Delete 1219:Delete 1155:Begoon 1113:Begoon 1072:Begoon 977:editor 973:Delete 961:Begoon 954:Delete 945:Dennis 895:policy 852:WP:LTA 848:Delete 793:Jayron 769:Jayron 717:Begoon 670:Occult 647:Delete 87:delete 79:Delete 5105:moore 4080:Merge 3788:edits 3691:moore 3560:Yworo 3302:moore 3255:Merge 2534:78.26 2511:78.26 2102:Davey 1839:©Geni 1228:right 928:moore 882:moore 296:video 151:watch 147:links 16:< 5223:talk 5208:talk 5183:talk 5175:Worm 5157:talk 5134:talk 5088:talk 5062:talk 5046:talk 5033:that 5017:talk 5002:talk 4982:talk 4950:Lazy 4930:talk 4898:Lazy 4864:talk 4848:talk 4832:talk 4810:talk 4782:talk 4767:talk 4753:talk 4729:talk 4710:talk 4702:Worm 4684:talk 4647:talk 4633:talk 4617:must 4604:talk 4590:talk 4576:talk 4562:talk 4548:talk 4526:talk 4521:k6ka 4509:talk 4501:then 4486:talk 4481:k6ka 4421:talk 4409:does 4348:talk 4297:talk 4225:mean 4169:most 4157:talk 4149:Worm 4127:they 4088:talk 4066:talk 4029:talk 4013:talk 4005:Worm 3991:talk 3972:talk 3964:Worm 3941:talk 3933:Worm 3920:talk 3889:talk 3881:Worm 3856:coxn 3846:. - 3836:Keep 3816:Keep 3807:talk 3799:Keep 3782:talk 3733:just 3723:talk 3676:talk 3668:Keep 3616:Reyk 3588:Lazy 3564:talk 3556:Keep 3548:talk 3531:talk 3458:talk 3440:and 3394:talk 3379:talk 3355:talk 3337:talk 3264:talk 3240:Keep 3231:talk 3223:Keep 3214:talk 3193:talk 3177:talk 3169:Keep 3158:talk 3125:talk 3090:talk 3047:talk 3029:talk 3008:Keep 2999:talk 2979:talk 2971:Worm 2948:talk 2913:talk 2905:keep 2892:talk 2864:Keep 2853:talk 2835:talk 2827:Worm 2798:Keep 2784:talk 2776:Worm 2763:talk 2727:only 2710:talk 2691:talk 2677:talk 2669:fair 2656:talk 2626:talk 2609:talk 2601:Keep 2557:Keep 2500:Keep 2485:talk 2460:talk 2442:talk 2421:talk 2406:talk 2391:for 2389:only 2377:talk 2373:Tarc 2369:dick 2358:talk 2343:vs. 2327:talk 2323:Tarc 2302:talk 2281:talk 2267:talk 2248:talk 2218:talk 2210:Keep 2176:talk 2134:talk 2125:Keep 2107:2010 2096:Keep 2087:talk 2054:talk 2040:talk 2026:talk 2012:talk 1998:talk 1983:talk 1968:talk 1960:mean 1949:talk 1934:talk 1917:talk 1895:talk 1876:talk 1862:talk 1854:Keep 1843:talk 1835:Keep 1818:talk 1791:☺ · 1781:talk 1754:☺ · 1726:Keep 1717:talk 1696:talk 1663:talk 1655:here 1651:Keep 1634:talk 1603:talk 1588:talk 1580:here 1570:talk 1562:Keep 1547:talk 1367:Keep 1358:talk 1350:Keep 1339:talk 1327:Keep 1293:Keep 1262:talk 1211:Talk 1202:Keep 1191:Belt 1142:talk 1100:talk 1087:good 1068:... 1047:talk 1006:ever 996:talk 940:Keep 912:talk 865:Keep 836:Neil 830:Keep 821:talk 813:Keep 762:Keep 751:talk 738:good 733:Keep 680:Talk 673:Zone 664:Keep 638:talk 629:Keep 614:talk 609:k6ka 601:and 599:Keep 576:talk 560:talk 552:Worm 534:talk 519:talk 511:Worm 498:talk 482:talk 474:Worm 460:talk 446:talk 412:talk 404:Worm 389:talk 376:must 361:talk 353:Worm 339:talk 311:talk 303:Worm 278:talk 270:Worm 202:talk 194:Worm 155:logs 139:talk 135:edit 112:talk 108:John 91:keep 89:35, 5201:Doc 5127:Doc 5116:any 5101:ben 5081:Doc 5039:Doc 4995:Doc 4960:Guy 4908:Guy 4894:). 4532:) 4492:) 4417:Wnt 4344:Wnt 4331:are 4293:Wnt 4212:not 4058:not 3687:ben 3623:YO! 3598:Guy 3498:^_^ 3419:^_^ 3328:not 3298:ben 3121:Wnt 3086:Wnt 3025:Wnt 2813:fax 2803:Jus 2673:Kww 2478:Doc 2435:Doc 2399:Doc 2351:Doc 2169:Doc 1692:Kww 1659:BMK 1457:why 1301:123 1284:466 1135:Doc 1093:Doc 1040:Doc 987:how 924:ben 904:not 900:not 878:ben 744:Doc 688:Log 653:. 620:) 382:Doc 332:Doc 5267:: 5225:) 5186:) 5159:) 5064:) 5019:) 4984:) 4932:) 4866:) 4850:) 4842:-- 4834:) 4812:) 4784:) 4769:) 4755:) 4731:) 4713:) 4686:) 4649:) 4635:) 4606:) 4592:) 4578:) 4564:) 4550:) 4542:. 4528:| 4511:) 4488:| 4423:) 4350:) 4299:) 4221:no 4160:) 4090:) 4068:) 4031:) 4016:) 3993:) 3983:is 3975:) 3944:) 3922:) 3892:) 3860:\ 3809:) 3785:/ 3725:) 3678:) 3661:♠ 3566:) 3550:) 3533:) 3525:-- 3460:) 3396:) 3381:) 3357:) 3339:) 3288:, 3277:: 3266:) 3233:) 3179:) 3127:) 3092:) 3049:) 3041:. 3031:) 3001:) 2982:) 2956:) 2921:) 2894:) 2855:) 2838:) 2808:da 2787:) 2765:) 2712:) 2693:) 2679:) 2654:| 2628:) 2611:) 2544:/ 2521:/ 2462:) 2423:) 2379:) 2329:) 2304:) 2283:) 2269:) 2250:) 2233:: 2220:) 2136:) 2111:• 2089:) 2056:) 2042:) 2028:) 2014:) 2000:) 1985:) 1970:) 1962:. 1951:) 1936:) 1919:) 1897:) 1878:) 1864:) 1845:) 1820:) 1799:· 1783:) 1762:· 1719:) 1698:) 1665:) 1657:. 1636:) 1605:) 1590:) 1572:) 1549:) 1514:}} 1508:{{ 1492:32 1463:. 1461:is 1360:) 1280:JN 1264:) 1256:. 998:) 914:) 823:) 800:32 776:32 766:-- 708:, 686:• 682:• 640:) 616:| 606:-- 578:) 563:) 536:) 522:) 500:) 485:) 462:) 448:) 415:) 364:) 314:) 281:) 205:) 170:. 153:| 149:| 145:| 141:| 137:| 114:) 43:. 5221:( 5180:( 5155:( 5060:( 5015:( 4980:( 4928:( 4862:( 4846:( 4830:( 4808:( 4780:( 4765:( 4751:( 4727:( 4707:( 4682:( 4645:( 4631:( 4625:. 4602:( 4588:( 4574:( 4560:( 4546:( 4524:( 4507:( 4484:( 4419:( 4399:♔ 4396:⚇ 4376:) 4372:( 4364:♔ 4361:⚇ 4346:( 4327:: 4323:@ 4295:( 4239:♔ 4236:⚇ 4191:♔ 4188:⚇ 4154:( 4086:( 4064:( 4027:( 4010:( 3989:( 3969:( 3938:( 3918:( 3886:( 3853:u 3850:t 3805:( 3791:) 3779:( 3721:( 3674:( 3658:♣ 3653:♦ 3648:♥ 3562:( 3546:( 3529:( 3456:( 3392:( 3377:( 3353:( 3335:( 3262:( 3229:( 3175:( 3161:) 3155:( 3123:( 3088:( 3081:I 3045:( 3027:( 2997:( 2976:( 2951:· 2946:( 2916:· 2911:( 2890:( 2877:) 2873:( 2851:( 2832:( 2781:( 2761:( 2708:( 2689:( 2675:( 2661:. 2624:( 2607:( 2548:) 2540:( 2525:) 2517:( 2498:* 2458:( 2419:( 2375:( 2325:( 2300:( 2279:( 2265:( 2246:( 2216:( 2132:( 2085:( 2052:( 2038:( 2024:( 2010:( 1996:( 1981:( 1966:( 1947:( 1932:( 1915:( 1893:( 1874:( 1860:( 1841:( 1816:( 1802:✉ 1779:( 1765:✉ 1715:( 1694:( 1661:( 1632:( 1620:♔ 1617:⚇ 1601:( 1586:( 1568:( 1545:( 1524:♔ 1521:⚇ 1471:♔ 1468:⚇ 1448:) 1444:( 1356:( 1342:) 1336:( 1324:) 1320:( 1312:@ 1260:( 1239:♔ 1236:⚇ 1209:| 994:( 910:( 838:N 819:( 690:) 678:( 660:. 636:( 612:( 574:( 557:( 532:( 516:( 496:( 479:( 458:( 444:( 409:( 358:( 308:( 275:( 199:( 157:) 133:( 110:( 49:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Miscellany for deletion/Knowledge (XXG):List of banned users (6th nomination) - Knowledge (XXG)

Index