Knowledge (XXG):Trolling poll

1359:. Think about how it would feel to be told this. I am guessing unless you are an unuasally calm person, your reaction would be something along the lines of "Those Explative liers. The say that anyone can contribute to Knowledge (XXG), but now they want to ban me. The will wish that they had never tried to ban me." Much better would be a comment to them like, "This Link contribution is useful, but your behavior Specific problem is harmful to wikipedia. We would like your useful contributions, but if you persist in doing Specific problem, then we may ban you. Feel free to discuss this Here if you have any questions." The goal of any trolling policy should be to gain as many new useful contributers as possible. As such, it sometimes might be necessary to ban a user if they are taking too much time from useful contributers, but this should be considered a failure of the system, and not a sucess. I think that trolling policy might just be sacrificing the future of wikipedia for the present. 2054:"Troll" and "trolling" are woolly terms that will forever invite arguments because of the shortcomings of their meanings. If a person behaves like a vandal – ultimately that is what it comes down to – but is called a troll he/she can quite likely return with an argument that hinges on technicalities allowed by the unclearness of the concept, and at the same time continue with their trolling/vandalism. The trouble also is that the words troll and trolling are about attitudes, those of the troll and those of the people treating him like a troll or what they believe to one, whereas a definition nearer to vandal and vandalism would be probably much more precise and much more likely to be acted upon by admins. I appeal to you to think about this before you consider the use of flawed words such as troll and trolling, the full meaning of which we will probably never know. They almost certainly will be re-interpreted every time they are being used. 2918:

equipment required, all contributors are equal (more or less). This War on Trolling risks ruining all that - it is the wet dream of all trolls. Trolling isn't a "law-and-order" issue, it is a psychological and social issue. What do trolls want? They want to frustrate others, waste their time and ruin their work. How do you combat trolls? By frustrating them and ruining their troll activities, not by feeding them with long bureacratic banning procedures ! That's a language they will understand, as opposed to bans which will only encourage them. We can frustrate the trolls by listing the worst and most persisent offenders and then putting them under constant and systematic scrutiny by the whole community. This means checking all their actions, instantly reverting recurring POV edits and personal attacks, repeated invitations to productive involvement.

1672:

trolling isn't actually against the rules at all. Which means even if you're wary about individual judgment on the part of sysops (Though I don't think you should be, since the vandalism policy already calls for such judgment), some policy along these lines is important to have. In general, I think Knowledge (XXG) needs as a bare minimum policies that will enable it to remove users who actively seek to harm Knowledge (XXG). At the moment, we don't have said policies on any level - not just on the level of "sysops don't have the power to block X.' No one has the authority to block "trolls" as it stands. (Except Jimbo himself, obviously, but my impression is that he'd like to make fewer blocking decisions.)

559:

policy at the appropriate location, they are probably not a troll. If they declare the policy "wrong" (but make no effort to amend it) or simply ignore it, it's possible that they are a troll" sounds suspiciously like being forced to accept "re-education" in Maoist China, or even "if it floats it's a witch!" Finally, by making even asking ("pestering" -- who defines what is pestering) questions, it creates a chilling effect on speech on Knowledge (XXG). Wiki is attractive precisely because the hierarchy is relatively flat, and all are welcome to criticize or be criticized, with a consensus slowly (sometime painfully slowly) emerging. Bureaucratic rules, and worse,

2786:(seems pretty good actually, lets enforce it?), etc... Ideas aren’t the problem, it's the will to action that appears lacking. I see an "us old hands" against "those trollish newbies" mentality that encourages abusive behavior by admins (I needn't name names, most of you have at least one in mind ;), their bad example spilling over onto the lay people. In conclusion, set a good example, enforce clear rules fairly (that means against yourselves as well!) and stop jumping all over wacky newbies, most will turn into quality contributors one day, 2143:

an open community encyclopedia...decisions on problem users don't necessarily need to be decided democratically to serve the purposes of wikipedia; it can be done by smaller groups of active users and still be fair...not perfect. Other checks and balances can be put in place to keep wikipolice from abusing their discretion. We just need to be creative. Knowledge (XXG) has matured such that at this point it makes sense to require users to register...otherwise enforcing policies will always be a joke given proxy servers, etc.

1407:. Active disrupters are not trolls. Trolls are relatively passive. And they have passion, which vandals more often lack, so banning will have less effect, and possibly counterproductive effect. Blocks seem more effective to me. The strong reaction to the 'cabal' label is surprising to me. I think it is just an unfortunate fact of life that people who feel beset are apt to invoke conspiracy theories. Trying to inhibit such talk by banning on this basis seems very counterproductive and wrong. 1382:

become counterproductive. How to achieve this? Simply by making it highly likely that a troll's edits will be reverted. Introduce a "trolling index" for each user, averaged from assessments of that user's adherence to Knowledge (XXG) ideals by fellow Wikipedians. Then make a list of the people with the worst "trolling index", and their recent edits. Fellow Wikipedians can then easily check and revert them. This would enable systematic scrutiny of trolls and discourage their behaviour.

2476:

as a problem. Few Wikipedians have chosen to be involved much in policy discussions here and at the meta, and those are among the areas where trolls make it so unpleasant. By the "don't feed the trolls" aphorism is patently false, at least in communities of any size (over about 20 active contributors) (c.f. Shirky et al). I also share the sentiments of those who point out that we have only a handful of troublemakers that are creating the poor climate.

871:. We do not need new words!! my goodness. There are plenty of words already that deal with specific problem or disruptive behaviours. Why do we need new words purely intended to condemn each other? We need to be describing the actual behaviour: clearly, calmly, and (to the greatest extent possible) in a non-condemning manner. Call someone a troll and they'll be upset. Tell them their edits are: 2225:" ? Well this poll has got to be the biggest, most delicious troll feast - all sponsored by Wikipedianity ! Trolls love bureaucracy because they will always find ways to disrupt bureaucratic measures like this. That's why this kind of approach is doomed to fail. Instead we need to find ways that put off trolls and limit their ability to disrupt productive Knowledge (XXG) process. 2234:

said second round of voting, I intend to offer the proposal to change all mentions of "troll" to "disruptive user" in the policy. If people have other objections/additions along these lines but basically support the policy, I encourage people to note them, and we can deal with them in the second round of this. Or, I suppose, third round, since this is already the second round.

21: 547:"Troll" is the wrong word. Because it is a pejorative reference to the person, not the behavior, it escalates the situation. It is also unfit for the described behaviors: trolls only catch folks who bite. Netnews and wikis are very different, and borrowing this term for use in wikis, at least for this set of behaviors, contributes to confusion. 1824:

enforcement by the Arbitration Committee (although I would like to see their views on that too). I also wonder what validity this poll actually has. I think this may be a question only Jimbo can answer, he has basically set banning policy in the past and I would suspect that he would need to endorse any policy voted on here. --

2274:. For me this is a minor problem, but I think there are several people for who it is significant. If you want my vote next time around, don't say either "A troll is someone who..." or "A disruptive user is someone who...", but rather say "Disruptive behaviors for which one may eventually be banned include..." Peace, -- 2942:

You're right Pir - blocks and bans are not an effective remedy for trolling, they are food for it. Not only does denying people a voice cause them to look to more radical and unhelpful methods of being heard, but the act of blocking sets up a challenge, creating a vicious cycle. Much better to remove

2375:, not about editors' egos or editors' behaviors ... and any "policy" should be evaluated on how well it lets people get back to contributing productively to the text, and how much it keeps ego out of it. Creating a system of "criminal justice" here, to evaluate people's intentions and behaviors, is a 2142:

A quick and efficient means of discouraging problem users needs to be employed if we care about encouraging positive contributions and keeping wikipedia from being seriously bogged down by a few or alot of troublemakers. Knowledge (XXG) isn't a government created for welfare of the masses...it's just

2017:

I interpreted the meaning as more like "if an admin sees an obvious trolling attempt, a ban can be among the tools available to him to stop it" - such a ban wouldn't be a "sentence", it'd be an "arrest" and would still be the subject of full debate. Presumably an admin who frequently bans people that

1951:

We already have too many hair-trigger sysops. Let's not encourage them. The policy is based on being guilty until proven innocent, rather than the other way around. Perhaps a sysop who peremptorily bans someone who is later found to be innocent should be banned for the same amount of time that the

972:

I guess if in the definition of a troll there was the requirement that the individual so labelled had been shown where she/he made mistakes, given some advice, then given some warnings, & only after a clear history that said person is not here to contribute to creating an encyclopedia but only to

2932:

how we enforce justice. and, personally I don't think that 'oh the sysops just shoot the trolls on sight' is an overly confidence building explanation... I know you don't advocate that either, but lots of wikipedians seeem to. So if we need an enforcement system then let us (a) admit that and (b) do

2242:

The concept of "disruptive user" is even worse than "troll" because it is less specific. If I have a POV that is opposed by many others but I insist on it being in an article, thereby making the writing process more difficult - does that make me a "disruptive user"? In fact, by opposing this concept

1671:

I think the problem is actually a hair worse than you describe, blank. Not only are sysops not empowered currently to do anything about trolls, but, barring a policy that trolling is a bannable offense, the arbitration committee can't do anything. This, to me, is the much bigger problem - right now,

1650:

While I respect your opinion, deciding things on a "case to case basis" has been basically the policy for two years or so and it's gotten us nowhere. Trolling is a huge problem and if we want to cut down on it, we have to put together a system to cut down on it; otherwise, we're too unorganised to

1350:

14:39, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) The troll label is too vague. I think that any reason give for banning a user should be actionable. For example, some reason like, "Please discuss any change of yours that is reverted in talk before unreverting it", is much better than "Don't troll". The message "Trolling

966:

The problem with defining what a troll unfortunately cannot be separated from the fact that it too often must needs be a case of "I know it when I see it": successful trolls know exactly what the detailed, legal definitions are, & expend much care keeping to the letter while violating the spirit

2489:

I personally have not seen any significant problem with trolling on wikipedia. I see vandalism, and biting newcommers and other problems, but not trolling. I looked at the Knowledge (XXG):Missing Wikipedians page and I most of the reasons did not seem to specifically address trolls. Maybe I am a

2475:

I see it as one of several community-related problems that we presently face. Trolls and other problem editing affect certain articles and activities more than others, and so every Wikipedian is likely to have a different personal experience of trolls. I believe this is why some do not see trolls

2382:

What should be done about trolls? Revert 'em. Everyone can do that. It is the nature of a true troll to go away when he realizes he isn't going to get a rise out of people. Giving the troll a hierarchy of policies and courts to appeal to is playing into his hands -- it lets him tie up more and more

2367:

Creating complex policies and attempting to enforce them will be more disruptive than the behaviors that are being called "trolling". The more complicated the site policies, the more people will attempt to use them litigiously as a weapon against others -- see how edit-warriors currently use "NPOV"

2310:

does many things right, including focusing on the behavior rather than the person, and condemning persisent bad behavior rather than condemning bad intent. It is counter-productive to ever tell someone that they have evil designs and/or are flawed human beings. What is important is that there are

2114:

06:12, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)Knowledge (XXG) most definitely needs a new way to deal with disruptive users. The current system is barely functional. Our solution, however, must not lump vastly different sorts of offenses under a single, inaccurate title. Most especially we must not label behaviors we

496:

This definition allows for meta-trolling. I.e. now, if you want to be disruptive, accuse someone of being a troll. I know that I have certainly done a thing or two that could be considered a troll (ditto for vandalism). I am sure that most people on Knowledge (XXG) have done the same as well. I

2423:

04:35, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) I think a small number of users waste the time of many, and show no inclination to stop doing so, despite the patient attempts of other people to deal with them constructively. That's a significant problem. (That said, I think "trolling" is a poor word for describing the

2233:

As a note to everyone, I encourage people in the camp of "This is basically a good definition but could use X" to vote in favor of the definition. It's already pretty clear that there's going to have to be another round of voting because the blocking policy as proposed isn't going to pass. And, in

2134:

I think that the proposal just misses the point, because it focusses on banning trolls. Banning is not particularly effective, as it can be easily circumvented by anyone who really wants to. It can make dealing with trolls more difficult, rather than less, because it leads them to come back with

1381:

work towards consensus and value opposing views. At the moment, the Wikipedians who are most unco-operative tend to get closer to their goal than those who seek consensus. For this reason many Wikipedians who have made valuable contriutions have also engaged in some form of trolling. Trolling must

3056:

OK, quickpolls were bad, but I think there were a lot of good ideas, and I think there is need for quick action in some instances of trolling. The problems with quickpolls were that they were enforced selectively, they enforced rules ex post facto, and they rarely worked in changing behavior. I

2927:

Gedday Pir, i guess I don't know what wiki-like is, to be honest. What I see is a complex debate trying to address too many issues all lumped together. Half the community is happy to 'ban on sight' and the other half is very concerned about it. I think I'm just trying to bring in practices that I

1890:

be undone when they are obvious mistakes. Sysops who make too many mistakes, that is blocking or banning against consensus, can be removed from blocking and banning, if the community so decides. Let's have fast decisions on such behavior quickly and case by case on the individual incidents rather

1823:

I'm voting no on the banning policy. I feel that, even with the excellent summary of the problem provided, deciding when someone is trolling is too subjective to be left to individual administrators. In my view this would inevitably lead to abuse. I would, however, support this as a policy for

558:

No, no, no. The policy is arbitrary; it makes repeated reference to what is "obvious" when those things (such as what is a candidate for VfD) are not always obvious, as a causal perusal of the controversy of some VfDs shows. Further, the bit about "If they accept the policy, or seek to change the

3184:

my concern about open community polling is making justice into a form of entertainment. This should NOT be a form of entertainment and, IMHO, the less people dragged into these sordid matters the better. Bans and blocks are serious matters that need considered action, but we don't need Knowledge

2099:

The sorts of trolling that are already described and the actions that should be taken in those caes are, I feel, already covered by the nature of policies that have already been put in place, if not by the letter of the policies. As I've said above, it will depend entirely on the nature of the

732:

the progress of Knowledge (XXG) in a mish-mash of otherwise unrelated ways, plus a catch-all for means of hindrance we haven't thought of yet. Erich is absolutely right that we should ban persistent disruptive behavior. Collecting stuff we don't like and calling it "trolling" doesn't help us

2427:

I agree with Fritzlein. While the problem is manageable at the moment it is a great frustration to many people. However I fear that this problem will become incraesingly unmanageable as Knowledge (XXG) grows and establishes itself as an Internet institution. If this prediction is correct, the

2917:

I disagree with the (will-intentioned but IMO misguided) way you are trying to frame the debate. "Crime", "punishment", "enforcement" that's all completely un-Wiki-like. Knowledge (XXG) works because it is so easy for any visitor to contribute, no registration or official approval or special

3196:

When bad decisions are made, as will happen, then, of course, everybody should get involved to satisfy themselves that remedial steps are taken... especially to try to avoid repeats... but that is different from having expectation that there will be wide involvement in decisions about who

2128:

Engaging in behavior that a particular admin considers destructive -- This surely must be decided, by the community, based on the type of behavior, but under the current definition of trolling, admins may call it "creative trolling" and ban a user without more clearly defining the

739:

18:08, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC) Same as abouve. Calling it disruptive behavior is much more helpful in that it lets everyone know what is meant. Just substitute the word disruptive behavior for the word troll is definition 2 and you have a great standard under which to stop disruptive

2965:

Pir, ah, since I'm a newcomer this is the first example I've seen of why everybody think's it cool to have Jimbo as a deity. Well I agree with him and have suggested the idea as well. I'd strongly support putting Jimbo's idea to a poll. I think its an idea whose time has come!!

2604:-- There are trolls. There are trolls that cause problems. There is a need to deal with the trolls that cause problems. But it's not like we're suffering under some onslaught of trolls. It's usually the same handfull of usual suspects we can't seem to reform or get rid of. 2124:

Raising accusations of cronyism -- I vote to tolerate this behaviour, yet it is listed as one of the surest indicators of trolling! Thus, if I consider myself to be a persecuted minority, I could be banned for stating that opinion, even if my behavior is in no other wise

2928:

know work in the real world, so we can have a fair, open system that can deal with complex issues in a just way. Right now we cannot explain to the outside world how we deal with people... 'oh if they really piss us off, Jimbo or the AC ban them.' We need to be able to

1969:

I agree with this policy up until the last part, "sysops may enforce this policy at their discretion." Allowing a single sysop to act as judge, jury, and executioner is not acceptable and will lead to problems. Whether abuses exist or not, trolls will still be able to

516:". A troll should simply be defined in the context of (non-)compliance with policy, and the current definitions may be better employed as examples of trolling...or being "disruptive" whatever you want to call it although there are better alternatives than "troll". 512:(e.g. "deliberate") into the equation which amounts to mind reading. No one can read another person's mind with indisputable certainty...at best it is an informed guess. The focus of the definition should be on (non-)compliance with WP policies like NPOV...think, " 1310:

Too strong. Sorry, but I don't trust the simple discretion of individual admins this far. This seems to me to give blanket permission for an admin in any disagreement to ban his or her opponent, even another admin, and claim it was within his/her "discretion." --

634:, it seems clear that this policy is merely a weapon to use against people who, to the 'common sense' of admins, should be banned, and this definition is so broad in trying to accomplish that that it could be applied to nearly anyone. Whether or not such people 3106:

Jimbo is referred to the arbitration committee. In addition, the user is warned not to make any nominations on RfC until the arbitration committee has accepted or denied the referral. Doing so will result in a 24 hour temp ban after a successful quickpoll.

973:

cause troble, then we should consider her/him a troll & treat the person accordingly. Otherwise, the word "troll" becomes nothing more than another way of describing someone who is both annoying & is asserting a POV different from the speaker. --

1908:

Strong agreement. Such a face would be much needed if the policy is applied. The page may be on Meta, being linked to from the trolls User-Page, so that it is easily avaible for him (and he is still technically able to write on it after a banning)

1635:

I oppose this concentration of authority and power which, I think, would inevitably lead to abuse. Whether someone is trolling or not should be decided upon in a case by case basis with an appropriate punishment being determined by the community.

1891:

than letting it continue. That also means bad behavior by sysops if they overstep. Let's have fast full re-instatement and apology if consensus decides a block or ban is not justified, with no particular blame on a sysop who has honestly errs

1376:

Banning trolls and similar attempts will not work. Trolling is not so much a problem of bannable people but their behaviour. IMHO the only way to solve this problem is to improve Knowledge (XXG) culture so that all disagreeing contributors

1937:

These suggestions would greatly ease my concerns about abuse and allegations of abuse. Needing to find X-1 sysops would help prevent sysop abuse, and having X sysops agreeing on a ban would reduce the credibility of false abuse claims. --

2213:

Trolling is a straw man. No one has been able to provide any evidence of a large scale problem that can't be dealt with by the existing policy. This is a power grab by a few people who would like the ability to ban people who annoy them.

2254:

And that would be why we're looking at passing a nice big definition of the term, whatever the term may be. So that the arguments about how specific the word is stop being an issue, because we all have a nice big definition to look at.

2908:

on what the questions ought to be. I’d suggest we need at week (absolute minimum) to get consensus on the questions. Then we can vote. But to clarify what I’m suggesting here are the sorts of topics that fall out of the debate on this

1389:

Replace "troll" above with "disruptive behavior" standard set forth above and then I am all for this banning policy. Anarchic freedoms sound great but there are just too many people that want to cause trouble just because they can. -

1959:

I disagree with your assertion that the policy is about an assumption of guilt. Quite the opposite, the policy, at least as I was intending it, is about assuming innocence, and about giving alleged trolls as many chances as possible.

1418:

been defined, this would result in banning based on the completely subjective opinions of whomever had the power to ban. Arbitrary governance is unstable and breeds resentments. I'd prefer, frankly, to have to deal with "trolls".

1881:

Provide a page where anyone blocked or banned for any reason can protest the ban, or someone else can do it for them if they don't want to. Let the message remain for 5 days. Let people vote and comment on it like they do now in

1806:

this is already the case - note that the definition of vandalism there specifies that it is a bad faith addition, not a merely inept good faith addition. Sysops already have to judge whether something is in good or bad faith.

1276:

block persistently bad users. IMO this needs to be done by triads of admins and/or through quickpolls. Any action like that would then have to be reviewed by the AC, who could, at their discretion, uphold or extend the ban.

2578:

06:26, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC): That better way is mostly a matter of being clear about what patterns of behavior are considered unacceptable and unproductive, not by radically enhancing the power of admins to unilaterally ban

2778:, a continuous vote for admins (where votes can be added or taken away by users who interact w them, and their admin status being removed if it drops below a certain level), having responsible moderation of #wikipedia, 1763:

a major problem, for it occupies the time of good contributors and starts to drive them away. Just because it doesn't directly or permanently mangle an article every time does not preclude it from being significant. -

2009:

Would people prefer if we also had an option along the lines of "Trolling is not permitted on Knowledge (XXG). Sysops may use temporary blocks to enforce this policy." And leave it to the arbcom to make the bans?

967:

of the rules. And in trying to refine the rules to catch trols, too often we run the risk of ensnaring someone who annoyed one or more people due to lack of inexperience or because of a moment's injudicious anger.

1492:. Scratch that, some folks disrupt the wikipedia for others and definately should be bannable. I still oppose here, because the proposed policy is too arbitrary yet, but I might vote yes to less arbitrary policy. 1324:

I believe the policy should be more flexible and depend strictly on the nature of the trolling in the specific case. A blanket rule is not going to be able to cover every single incident of trolling properly. --

1620:

21:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) I'm strongly inclined to support, but there needs to be a more detailed and clearer policy that what is outlined above. Alternately, I would support a ban under the definition above if

1693:

This covers trolling. Historically, the arbitration committee tends to warn people before banning, but they clearly have the authority to ban persistent trolls, despite violation of previously written rules.

723:

05:44, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) The problem with using the word "troll" is that it already has a meaning which is more specific than, and different from, the meaning we are voting on here. A troll is someone who is

1995:

As I said above, that would make me a lot happier. Needing threeish sysops to act would prevent most potential "heat of the moment" sysop abuse and help quiet complaints about wrongful troll labelling. --

3190: 1298: 1287:

23:15, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) I consider some of the counter-measures detailed below mandatory, especially the restriction to not yet involved admins and the possibility to ask for a vote to reverse the ban

1111:

04:37, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC), with similar caveats to Mav's vote against below - the use of this power should be accompanied by responsibility, and the banning admin should not being the final arbiter.

689:

The two types "edit warring" and "misuse of process" would have been enough; the others are overly broad or outright dangerous, such as the one aimed at discouraging criticism of Knowledge (XXG).

3253:

sure if you think you need to. To be honest I think laying out a process that allows peer-review and public scrutiny (not to be confused with public lynching) will be adequate and less divisive.

2135:

different usernames, making it hard to track who they are. What is needed is a strong community consensus that if someone is trolling, they should just be ignored and their bad edits reverted.

638:

be banned—which is a separate issue, so I will not comment on it here—such a policy does not put Knowledge (XXG) in a good light, and does nothing but lend support to the “cabal” point-of-view.

1351:

is not allowed. Persistant trolling is a bannable offense, and admins may enforce this policy at their discretion." sounds to me like there is a Knowledge (XXG) cabal. Notice that you have

3294: 3287: 2323: 2307: 2283: 1404: 1344:

09:19, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC) Banning is ineffective, and often even counterproductive, against trolls. The policy should focus on ignoring them and reverting their edits, rather than banning.

1304: 47: 1974:

allege that their ban was an unjustified action by a rogue sysop. This will lead us into wasting our time dealing with complaints and having to investigate the actions of other sysops. --

1926:(in order to preven sysops from banning someone in anger). Still, as said, I agree to the policy though I think it's not perfect - because I think, it is more important not to loose any 958:" - As far as I can see this is simply not true. None of these users list trolls as the reason for their departure, whereas several list overzealous admins as a contributing factor. 3297:. So I'm lifting it up here as a top-level header, and encourage people to go discuss these issues there. Some of us think of talk of "trolls" and "banning" as disruptive :-) -- 2774:

for some more thoughts on the matter. Just off the top of my head, a warning followed by a 24hr block for anyone being excessively cranky & mean, a ranking system similar to

2743: 1727:

Whether or not Blankfaze has been here two years, the portion qualified by that duration says merely that things have been decided "on a case by case basis". Is that false? -

1462:

Way too broad a definition of what constitutes a troll. This is the kind of bureaucracy by stealth which is creeping insidiously into Knowledge (XXG). Q.V. the self-appointed

2448:

Not due to any sheer number of trolls, but due to our inability to deal with the ones we have. How long has (your choice of annoying user) been pestering us? It's absurd. -

1816:

I'm voting for this, but I think it needs to be made sure that a person accused of trolling has a means to appeal. Everything else *will* lead to abuses of sysop power. --

2027:

We need a section on what people oughta do if they're blocked for trolling and don't consider themselves trolls: where to go, where not to go, not to evade blocks, etc. -

2458:

Currently I think there is a lot of time spent on issues which are best described as trolling. I think the solution in most cases is to ignore the behavior, though.

696:

Too many things are being subsumed into "troll". Let's not psychoanalyze others by leaning on our conceptions of "good faith" or "reasonableness" too much, either. --

2558:

No, but Knowledge (XXG) would still benefit from a better way of encouraging civility and dealing with the handful of users who do more harm than good by their edits

847:

described there is accurate, that's another thing- perhaps you don't think that users of this sort should be discouraged? Or is there something inherent in the word

497:

know that there is no wikipedia cabal, but I firmly believe that it can appear that way to a newcommer. In short, I do not think that this definition is helpful.

405:

13:17, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) Sure there is subjectivity in the definition, and there may yet be gray areas at the edges, but I strongly agree with the general outline.

1400:

21:34, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) Concentrates too much subjective power in the hands of admins. There are much better ways to address disruptive behaviour than banning.

1985:

Suppose we made that pural mandatory, and made it sysops-plural? Then we come up with a place where we organize the pluralization of a definition of trolling? -

956:

Trolls and the problems they cause have had tangible negative consequences for Knowledge (XXG) - one look at Knowledge (XXG):Missing Wikipedians can confirm thus

3185:(XXG)'s equivilant of Jerry Springer. We already have AC forming as an ultimate arbitor of issues and the community should healthily conduct hearty debate on 1466:

which seem to have arrogated policy making in their pronouncements. (I am going to expand on this in an article soon, but am still marshalling my resources).

867:

to respond... I've commented on the definition at it's page. I found the definition educational. I definitely think we need to discourage this behaviour. See

2311:

some behaviors that the Knowledge (XXG) community should not tolerate regardless of who is doing it and what their motives are. See the dispute surrounding

928:

Strongly agree. Those four standards and collective them under the term "disruptive behaviors" is much more helpful. Then the criticism is contructive. -

1664:

Ermm - you've only been here since April 2004. I don't see trolling as a huge problem, rather a high profile one. This looks like IRC group think - sorry.

935:

Agree, I think it is much better to say, this person is a persistent personal attacker, than a persistent troll. The more specific the reason, the better.

66:

by people who do not admit to being trolls. Trolls and the problems they cause have had tangible negative consequences for Knowledge (XXG) - one look at

614:

Trolls exist, but this isn't the right definition for it. Suggest people edit and think about the definition some more before re-polling at some point.

2549:

Nope, haven't seen many true trolls around at all recently. If there's a couple perhaps the standard wikipedia conflict resolution can deal with them.

35:

Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the

3227:". Great question. Absolutely nothing. IMHO, admins, will do a just fine job, most of the time. As would any editor. For the exceptions, the proposed 2797:

except for the bit about wacky newbies miraculously becoming valuable editors, I agree Sam. This has got me thinking about moving forward (see below)

2503:

No, but I am willing to be convinced by an objective summary. Indeed, I think such a summary should be provided to outline the extent of the problem

70:

can confirm thus. Until now, attempts to prohibit it have failed primarily because there was no consistent defintion of what constitutes trolling.

2387:

A person who wants to disrupt Knowledge (XXG) fatally could do no better than to pull all other contributors into arguments over his own status. --

1774:

Trolls require food and people seem to be desperate to feed them. Desist - ignore and revert if necessary. They are not worth this amount of time.

3323: 1338:

06:12, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) I like the idea of more and faster banning than at present, but not if everything is lumped in as trolling. (see below)

2759: 1502:

18:25, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC) Trolls should be ignored, not banned. Banning them merely gives them the attention that they are looking for. See

540:

The word troll is unhelpful. Consider disruptive behavior and the standards set forth below for the term. That would be much more useful. -

2520:

No, and none of the people on 'missing wikipedians' listed it as one of their reasons for leaving either. Some did list overzealous sysops.

1738: 36: 1864: 2428:

bureaucratic banning approach will cost the most dedicated users more and more time, and they will leave. A different approach is needed.

1272:. This will cause more problems than it solves. That said, the AC is not a police force and I do support giving admins more authority to 3293:

There has been much support here for reframing this question in less loaded and more specific and constructive language as described at

2190:

Again, these votes may be premature since the policy page being voted on is only two days old. Like some others, I don't like the word

2958:. That's the way to go I believe, with negative marks for trolls and disruptive users.Plus everyone can do with this kind of feedback. 1803: 2171:"Persistent disruption is a bannable offense": Yes. Banning is the last resort against persistence. I see one month as persistence. 1883: 489:

This is a recursive definition. It basically says that a troll is someone who does ... or anything else to deliberately be a troll.

1742: 2781: 2751: 1927: 74: 67: 3313: 286:

04:37, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) A solid basis, though I'm sure there will be refinements over time (this is Knowledge (XXG) after all)

3242:

I like this latest twist above, but agree w Orthogonal's thoughts about admins. How about increasing accountability? Like the

3216:

or even to arbitrate, what makes you think they'd do a better job that the common, salt of the earth, non-admin class editor?

3159: 2771: 1503: 988:"Trolling is not allowed. Persistent trolling is a bannable offense, and admins may enforce this policy at their discretion." 3328: 3318: 1526:

Admins don't have discretion, the arbitration committee does. Admins are only to act upon the consensus of the community.

504:

Definition by outward behavior alone would be very difficult, but the current definition complicates the matter by bringing

3167: 3163: 746:

21:31, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) Specifying the particular unproductive behaviour and trying to address it is much more helpful.

3231:

has checks and balances and requires transparency... for that few percent of cases where an admin is having a bad day.

3155: 2063:

See my proposal above in the other comments section: we should replace all instances of the word "troll" with the word

530: 319: 217: 97: 3265: 802:

We're not trying to prevent certain people from participating; we're trying to eliminate disruptive behavior itself.

2177:"at their discretion": No. If it's clearly disruptive and persistent, it won't be hard to get a consensus, or cabal 1520: 646: 3279: 3148: 2470: 1698: 1534: 813: 625: 2775: 2037:

I imagine they would do what they do when they get blocked for vandalism and don't consider themselves vandals...

1556:

Not enough safeguards in the process, and banning should be the last resort, if temporary blocks etc have failed.

1918:

I vote for this, although I am not totally happy with it. I would prefer that the banning policy would be, like,

1895:. Let the message be something like: "You have been blocked for << aadfadefmabbaourabaerouaraeararar : --> 1685:

Knowledge (XXG)'s "laws": terms of use, submission standards, bylaws, general disclaimer, and copyright license.

2490:

troll, and so I do not see it; but I will gladly look at lists of specific edits and pages if told about them.

1868: 1513: 639: 2881: 1426:

No. Even if I agreed with question 1, banning should require more than an individual admin's judgement. --

330: 46:

This was a poll to determine our policy with regard to trolls. A more recent proposal is being discussed at

2541:

No. Agree with above sentiments. Knowledge (XXG) is really a very different entity than Usenet or Slashdot.

2243:

even before it's even introduced, thereby "disrupting" future polls, does that make me a "disruptive user"?

1791:

Far too broad and liaible for abuse. What would happen in practice is that people would be banned for doing

843:- Well, that's what Question 2 is supposed to solve, and make the word helpful. If you don't think that the 3276: 3145: 2467: 2379:

idea! It will tie up valuable contributor time in arguing about egos rather than working together on text.

2077:

Fennec, I think you've missed out point. Maybe we didn't make our selves clear. Hopefully the above helps.

1695: 1531: 810: 622: 570:

I agree with the above objections. It is impossible to deduce intent, and too many issues are combined. --

59: 3144:

I dunno, maybe it's too complicated. But then again, maybe that will cut down on the spurious quickpolls.

2497: 2459: 1449: 796: 594: 2620: 1898: 3057:

think this can be fixed. My proposal would look like a mini-arbitration, something like the following:

2477: 2334:

This poll would have to qualify as the best troll I have seen in wikipedia this month. Congratulations

2207: 1901:

as mistakes are sometimes made and Knowledge (XXG) wishes to give blocked editors a chance to respond."

1580: 1154: 761: 683: 323: 322:

but there should be more time for discussion before a vote takes place. The page is but two days old.

2755: 28: 20: 2680: 2256: 2235: 2085: 2038: 2011: 1961: 1808: 1673: 1004: 115: 851:

that makes it unhelpful? Suppose we invented a new word for the matter, would that help? I reccomend

2417:

03:32, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) I already spend too much of my time dealing with those engaged in trolling.

2347: 1656: 1014: 125: 2853:

We can then work on reaching consensus on what constitutes a blockable offence in the context of:

3189:. But healthy debate on policy is different from community lynching. This is why the proposal at 2944: 2521: 2388: 2355: 2215: 2151: 2019: 1953: 1795:

of the things listed. We are asking administrators to guess intent, rather than judging actions.

1443: 1370: 1253: 1108: 959: 789: 697: 587: 524: 470: 306: 283: 3228: 2591: 2115:

haven't even thought of yet as bannable offenses. Let's split out the issues and vote on each:

1499: 408: 3254: 3232: 3200: 2967: 2951: 2934: 2910: 2798: 2671: 2563: 2535: 2299: 2078: 2055: 1796: 1775: 1719: 1665: 1482: 1436: 1290: 1232: 1165: 943: 911: 782: 714: 586:

Oppose - too vague - a troll is anyone 'we' call a troll ('we' is anyone who agrees with me).

580: 490: 477: 442: 402: 341: 177: 2514: 2206:

or some other clearer langauge. "Users who persistently edit in bad faith can be blocked."

1644: 1637: 1226: 982:

Question 2 "Admins may ban persistent trolls at their discretion " (Yes 28, No 39, Neutral 1)

886: 456: 2601: 2582: 2569: 2550: 2452: 2071: 2048: 2031: 2001: 1989: 1979: 1943: 1841: 1828: 1817: 1768: 1753: 1746: 1731: 1712: 1577: 1557: 1493: 1263: 1241: 1195: 1090: 1072: 1054: 859: 788:

Indeed - the word is used in many different ways, here, it is a term of abuse. Not helpful.

680: 615: 415: 388: 376: 248: 236: 227: 198: 189: 165: 77:, failed because there was no clear definition of trolling. This issue has now been fixed. 1625:

sysops agreed (it wouldn't have to be software-based or reversible to get my suppory, FYI.)

3217: 2508: 2442: 2414: 2104: 1617: 1420: 1414:

No. Since the definition of trolling is assumed by this question, and as I don't think it

1329: 1278: 1189: 1118: 564: 382: 370: 293: 271: 2294:

come and have a look! If it doesn't look like something you will be able to support when

1643:

I think what this comes down to is whether you prefer trial by judge or trial by jury. --

1852: 1737:

The also claims that trolling is a huge problem are perhaps influenced by pages such as

3247: 3243: 2821: 2791: 2655: 2642: 2528: 2507:

a solution is offered. Mere statement that "trolling is a problem" is not informative.

2420: 2316: 2275: 2136: 2111: 1835: 1652: 1591: 1341: 1335: 1318: 1247: 1213: 1207: 1182: 1145: 1125: 1044: 1010: 803: 750: 720: 690: 483: 463: 433: 427: 358: 300: 155: 121: 63: 855:

as the new term for people who seek not to help Knowledge (XXG), but to disrupt it. -

3307: 2607: 2491: 2339: 2327: 2147: 2144: 1540: 1366: 1363: 1347: 1293:

23:17, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC). come on, we're Knowledge (XXG)! we can do much better than

1131: 1066: 936: 773: 653: 520: 517: 498: 312: 183: 2044:

Well, that way we can officially tell them they're wrong to evade blocks, etc. :) -

1897:

for XX hours. It is possible that this is unjust. If you feel so, please protest at

3298: 3208:

I dunno, like throwing Christians to the lions? It might well be entertaining. And

2767: 2636: 2335: 1474: 1433: 1408: 1284: 1170: 1160: 1138: 1096: 1022: 998: 974: 779: 767: 631: 577: 552: 439: 394: 346: 336: 254: 242: 133: 109: 81: 3225:

what makes you think (admins)'d do a better job (than) ... non-admin class editor?

2084:

I suspect this problem will be heavily alleviated by defining trolling, as above.

414:

This isn't the only possible definition of troll, but it is one we can work with.

3275:. Any solution which attempts to give sysops special authority is unacceptable. 2619:

Natually someone should be more civil to another no matter what, it's called the

1473:

While I agree with #1, I think the phrase "at their discretion" is unacceptable.

548: 2861:

enforcement mechanism, then I think (nose picking) should be a blockable offence

2630: 2613: 2597: 2575: 2542: 2449: 2312: 2182: 2118:

Persistently engaging in edit wars with multiple opponents -- I vote for banning

2068: 2045: 2028: 1997: 1986: 1975: 1939: 1924:"the banning sysop must not have dealt with the so-called troll user previously" 1920:"a sysop needs agreement from X other sysops in order to ban a user on trolling" 1902: 1838: 1825: 1765: 1750: 1728: 1709: 1570: 1563: 1456: 1391: 1312: 1259: 1238: 1201: 1078: 1050: 929: 922: 856: 736: 673: 659: 601: 541: 534: 421: 261: 233: 223: 204: 195: 161: 2326:

much more useful and much better than this poll and the definition of trolls.

2624: 2441:

interest in building a serious encyclopedia and should be permanently exiled.

2408: 2315:

for an example of the prime importance of focusing on behavior, not intent. --

2101: 1931: 1910: 1611: 1550: 1397: 1326: 1114: 1102: 1084: 1060: 1034: 1028: 823: 743: 666: 513: 364: 318:

I support the page, however, this vote is premature. I applaud the effort at

289: 277: 268: 210: 171: 145: 139: 2766:(not just crazies and social outcasts). How? I'm pretty open. Have a look at 607:

The word troll is subject to vagaries of interpretation. Oppose. Vehemently.

2955: 2174:"admins may enforce this policy": Yes. Vanilla users can't do blocks anyway. 1872: 1856: 1427: 1178: 1142: 1040: 571: 354: 151: 809:

There are as many definitions of troll as there are people using the word.

621:

There are as many definitions of troll as there are people using the word.

2839:

This debate is raging, with much misunderstanding and "I agree, except"s,

2654:

A better way than what? My suggestion is that we enforce existing policy.

2959: 2919: 2429: 2244: 2226: 1860: 1598: 1467: 1455:

Oppose. I feel these problems should be handled on a case-by-case basis.

1383: 608: 509: 3040:

aim for consensus, but go fairly rapidly to voting if there is dissent?

3212:

is a groundbreaking work. But since admins weren't elected to dispense

2121:

Refusing to accept decisions of a large majority -- I vote for banning

2999:

Engaging in behaviour that a particular admin considers destructive?

1708:

How does "IRC groupthink" compare to accusations of cabalism? :) -

3191:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors

1299:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors

80:

This poll will last for two weeks, ending at 08:00 July 24 (UTC).

868: 15: 3295:

Knowledge (XXG):Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors

3288:

Knowledge (XXG):Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors

3070:

Users should not disrupt RfC by making spurious nominations.

2842:

I think the way to make progress is to separate the issues:

2395:

Question 3 "Significant Problem" (Yes 6; No 8; No, but... 12)

2324:

Knowledge (XXG):Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors

2308:

Knowledge (XXG):Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors

2284:

Knowledge (XXG):Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors

1597:

I wouldn't trust certain 'eager' admins with this much power

1405:

Knowledge (XXG):Dealing_with_disruptive_or_antisocial_editors

1305:

Knowledge (XXG):Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors

48:

Knowledge (XXG):Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors

2399:

I see trolling as a significant problem on Knowledge (XXG).

3123:

Jimbo made a nomination on RfC at 15:04, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

2943:

the fuel than try to fight fires by drenching them in gas.

2900:

And before anybody just throws up yet another poll, can we

2298:, please help us shape it into somthing you could support. 476:

It seems far to easy to hang the label "troll" on someone.

260:

Could be refined a little more, but basically on the mark.

91:

Question 1 "Definition of troll" (Yes 41, No 32 (27+14-9) )

3002:

Disobeying a formal warning which has received consensus?

1682:

Established Knowledge (XXG) customs and common practices.

1250:

20:48, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) bad definition, bad word, etc...

3179: 3088:

Jimbo has repeatedly made spurious nominations on RfC.

3026:

At least three sysops, in the absence of sysop dissent?

760:

may be a poor choice. I'd rather use "troublemaker."

1834:

Jimbo has replied to this concern on the mailing list

2880:

For implementing blocks up to a maximum of xxx days,

2683: 2610:

14:09, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) I've never had any problems.

2018:

shouldn't be banned wouldn't stay an admin for long.

96:

I agree with the definition of troll as set forth in

2168:"Disruption is not allowed": Yes. It's a bad thing. 1886:. Yes, mistakes will be made ... and can reasonably 1508:

This can't be enforced without a good definition of

27:

This page is currently inactive and is retained for

2876:At the same time we can work on enforcement rules: 2737: 1930:than my unease with some details of the policy. -- 329:What Bryan said. We really need a policy on this. 220:be not part of the definition, I do agree with it) 2993:Refusing to accept decisions of a large majority? 1679:The arbitration committee has jurisdiction over: 1362:I agree along the lines of Mav's comments above. 2100:trolling as to what should be done about it. -- 2067:, if the word itself is inherently flawed. :) - 1528:Sysops are not imbued with any special authority 899:they have something to something to think about. 728:, but we are trying to try stretch that to mean 600:Oppose - unnecessary, and seems prone to abuse. 533:doesn't have to be the red flag to our bull. -- 3199:hang today.... Just some thoughts for comments 3180:Erich's views on policy versus individual cases 3175:comunity involvement in justice and enforcement 2462:(by creating polls like this), and the problem 1355:who have the power to lock a user out at their 3124: 1759:If trolling is a high profile problem then it 2306:Yes, everyone, please look. The proposal at 1590:job, not judge, jury and executioner in one. 942:Thanks. Maybe you'd like to register a vote! 8: 1855:... change from #14053 to #14076 might be a 1749:, as well as traffic on the mailing list. - 1153:Yes, with some reservations; see comments. 213:20:47, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC) (although I would 1718:Is that bannable? Well it's on the list... 563:rules, will take the fun out of wikipedia. 462:Terrible definition, completely subjective 2534:It's been blown up out of all proportion. 1303:Absolutely not. See a better proposal at 776:12:44, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) See below comment 593:Oppose - Total crap. And factually wrong. 2682: 3162:with the same rules. And we could have 2760:Knowledge (XXG):Don't bite the newcomers 2662:gedday Sam, would you mind expanding on 2527:I strongly agree w Mark Richards above. 1739:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration 795:It's the name of the guy i want to ban. 652:Agree with Orthogonal. This is foolish. 3270:Sysops are not imbued with any special 3264:I'll say it again. It's straight from 2835:Suggestions for a way forward from here 2282:And if you haven't noticed, editing of 2266:Rather than defining a certain type of 2157:This seems like four questions. Using 1861:temporal rip in the fabric of spacetime 1549:abuse of power by sysops is possible!-- 907:is my current favourite alternative to 630:Absolutely not. After discussion with 3115:15:04, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) by 9-1 vote. 3007:How long should people be blocked for? 1804:Knowledge (XXG):Dealing with vandalism 3119:Violation at 15:04, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2286:is continuing until about midday UTC 2270:, we should define a certain type of 7: 3168:Knowledge (XXG):Archived ban debates 3061:Quickpoll on Jimbo's RfC nominations 1743:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment 986:Our troll-banning policy should be: 3164:Knowledge (XXG):Votes for unbanning 3017:Who decides on guilt? and penalty? 2782:Knowledge (XXG):No personal attacks 2752:Knowledge (XXG):No personal attacks 2346:Yes, perhaps we need an article on 895:then we're calling a spade a spade 75:Knowledge (XXG):Dealing with trolls 73:The previous poll on this subject, 68:Knowledge (XXG):Missing Wikipedians 3160:Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion 3037:no action unless there is consent? 3020:Single sysops, at their discretion 469:Lumps too many issues together. -- 14: 3324:Knowledge (XXG) surveys and polls 3156:Knowledge (XXG):Votes for banning 2738:{\displaystyle Insertformulahere} 2383:other people in his ego problem. 1569:No, Troll definition is to vague 2996:Raising accusations of cronyism? 2857:If the community also adopts an 2784:policy (unlike what we have now) 2371:Knowledge (XXG) should be about 1859:re-numbering bug, or possibly a 1488:Well trolls are annoying, sure, 549:Dictionary definitions for troll 19: 3060: 3034:we pillory the sysop afterwards 320:Knowledge (XXG):What is a troll 98:Knowledge (XXG):What is a troll 3266:Knowledge (XXG):Administrators 2296:voting starts, on 23 July 2004 1576:Far too vague and subjective. 879:upsetting valued contributors, 1: 3031:How is disagreement handled? 2984:What is a blockable offence? 2776:Knowledge (XXG):Trust network 2750:Gladly! I suggest we enforce 2435:Of course. These people have 2363:Trolling policies help trolls 1851:Corrected link as of 2017 is 1802:I think that, if you look at 455:Too broad. Too subjective. -- 58:As they currently exist, the 3126:and is banned for 24 hours. 1873:13:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC) 1853:to this archived Jimbo email 1403:I vote against, and support 1307:. ] 23:44, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1952:banned person was banned. 1688:Sensible "real world" laws. 733:towards that laudable goal. 62:do not explicitly prohibit 3345: 3193:limits voting to admins. 3043:what are the voting rules? 2588:] 17:05, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2238:04:59, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC) 2041:23:25, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC) 1934:20:47, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC) 1676:14:25, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC) 84:07:47, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC) 3301:00:26, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC) 3250:04:54, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) 3220:04:34, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2947:17:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2933:it properly... rant over 2922:16:43, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2913:07:47, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2794:05:11, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2658:03:34, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2621:Knowledge (XXG):Wiki-love 2594:18:27, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC) 2342:02:01, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2302:07:15, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2259:23:39, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC) 2139:09:20, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC) 2088:00:32, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC) 2058:23:51, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2034:23:12, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2014:22:51, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC) 1992:22:36, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1982:22:26, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1964:21:44, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC) 1956:21:22, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1913:20:47, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC) 1905:20:04, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1831:18:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1811:14:13, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC) 1799:12:20, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1771:23:35, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1734:23:33, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1715:23:33, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1661:11:59, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1640:10:26, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1490:but you needn't ban them 1394:18:08, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC) 1315:01:03, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC) 1210:02:29, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC) 1185:13:25, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC) 1139:strict no-trolling policy 1121:05:49, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC) 1105:02:51, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC) 1093:23:40, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC) 1087:20:47, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC) 1007:07:49, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC) 1001:07:47, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC) 962:15:16, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 939:22:03, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) 932:18:08, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC) 544:18:08, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC) 445:15:17, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC) 430:02:26, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC) 411:18:18, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC) 361:13:24, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC) 296:05:48, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC) 280:02:50, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC) 264:01:00, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC) 251:23:39, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC) 118:07:49, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC) 112:07:47, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC) 3329:Knowledge (XXG) trolling 3319:Knowledge (XXG) archives 3257:07:25, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) 3235:07:25, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) 3203:02:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) 3154::-) There you have it: 2970:12:47, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2962:18:34, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2937:12:47, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2846:Crime and Punishment and 2824:18:35, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2801:07:47, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2756:Knowledge (XXG):Civility 2674:03:52, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2645:03:37, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2639:00:30, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC) 2633:02:31, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2627:07:13, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2616:22:24, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2585:10:48, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2572:04:33, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2566:03:30, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2545:19:35, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2538:19:24, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2531:18:36, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2524:15:59, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2517:05:37, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2500:03:45, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2494:02:17, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2455:20:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2445:05:06, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2432:16:11, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2391:15:51, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) 2358:17:51, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2330:13:08, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2319:00:52, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2278:00:37, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2247:23:13, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2229:22:49, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2218:22:42, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2210:02:30, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2185:18:05, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC) 2154:16:36, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2107:02:26, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC) 2081:00:27, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2074:23:56, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2051:23:56, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2022:04:49, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2004:01:27, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1946:22:26, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1844:19:51, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1820:18:27, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1778:03:22, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1756:23:33, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1745:, particularly the late 1722:03:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1668:12:22, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1647:20:57, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1601:00:59, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) 1594:00:41, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1583:12:07, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1573:07:10, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1566:02:29, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1560:17:09, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1553:07:10, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1543:14:09, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1523:21:02, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC) 1496:17:41, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1485:13:27, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1470:05:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1459:03:59, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1452:03:44, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1446:22:38, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1439:21:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1430:18:06, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC) 1423:04:49, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1411:04:34, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC) 1386:17:37, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1373:16:36, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1332:02:23, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC) 1321:02:13, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1281:22:29, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1266:21:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1256:21:22, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1244:18:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1235:12:20, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1229:10:26, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1216:03:38, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1204:22:23, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1198:10:50, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1192:05:03, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1175:04:44, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1157:02:30, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1150:00:12, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1134:18:11, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1128:09:56, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1099:00:27, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1081:20:04, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1075:18:27, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1069:17:19, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1063:12:12, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1057:12:08, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1047:10:17, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1037:08:24, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1031:08:12, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1025:08:09, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1019:07:55, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 977:03:15, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) 946:09:08, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 925:17:54, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC) 914:00:23, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) 882:wasting everybodies time 862:23:54, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 826:07:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) 806:00:09, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) 799:03:44, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 792:22:37, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 785:21:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 770:04:34, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC) 764:02:30, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 753:21:36, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) 726:deliberately provocative 717:23:19, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 693:00:41, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) 686:11:59, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) 676:07:10, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) 669:07:06, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) 662:22:22, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) 656:14:09, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) 649:21:02, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC) 618:17:38, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) 611:05:21, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 604:03:56, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 597:03:44, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 590:22:37, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 583:21:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 574:18:02, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC) 567:04:44, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 555:04:34, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC) 537:17:54, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC) 527:16:36, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) 501:14:14, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) 493:12:35, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) 486:02:13, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) 480:23:26, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 473:21:04, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 466:20:46, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 459:10:26, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 436:03:33, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) 424:02:33, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) 418:17:06, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) 391:10:48, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) 385:05:01, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) 379:00:32, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) 373:21:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 351:04:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 333:03:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 326:02:30, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) 315:18:10, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) 309:10:35, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) 303:09:56, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) 274:02:23, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC) 257:00:27, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) 245:23:10, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 239:22:33, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 230:21:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 207:19:37, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 201:18:37, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 192:18:27, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 186:17:19, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 180:12:18, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 174:12:12, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 168:12:08, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 158:10:17, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 148:08:24, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 142:08:12, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 136:08:09, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 130:07:51, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) 2882:numnut's justice system 1539:No, this is misguided. 1512:, which we don't have. 700:15:17, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) 3314:Inactive project pages 2739: 1504:Bird/Brain Controversy 730:persistently hindering 531:Accusation of cabalism 2740: 2460:Don't feed the trolls 2385:That's what he wants. 2223:Don't feed the trolls 1464:arbitration committee 3023:At least two sysops? 2979:Crime and Punishment 2888:enforcement system: 2820:nurtured" is key ;) 2681: 2666:you think we should 2368:claims as a weapon. 1651:get anything done. 1516:Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile 642:Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile 3052:Reviving quickpolls 1928:worthy contributors 1899:Blocking Complaints 1295:at their discretion 2780:creating a strict 2735: 2204:edits in bad faith 1884:Votes for Deletion 876:a personal attack, 818:Nope (Also sounds 331:Ambivalenthysteria 3244:continuous voting 2670:existing policy? 2498:Eric B. and Rakim 2194:and would prefer 1659: 1450:Eric B. and Rakim 1017: 797:Eric B. and Rakim 749:I strongly agree 595:Eric B. and Rakim 128: 44: 43: 3336: 2987:Personal attack? 2790:their nurtured. 2744: 2742: 2741: 2736: 2478:UninvitedCompany 2466:be significant. 2413: 2208:UninvitedCompany 2200:disruptive edits 1747:User:Mr. Treason 1705:Several things: 1657: 1616: 1586:No: admin is an 1481: 1442:Absolutely not. 1173: 1168: 1163: 1155:UninvitedCompany 1015: 762:UninvitedCompany 401: 369: 349: 344: 339: 324:UninvitedCompany 126: 40: 23: 16: 3344: 3343: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3304: 3303: 3291: 3182: 3177: 3142: 3137: 3132: 3121: 3113: 3104: 3099: 3094: 3086: 3081: 3076: 3068: 3063: 3054: 3014: 2981: 2884:proposal is an 2837: 2679: 2678: 2652: 2411: 2397: 2365: 2350:, as well as a 1932:denny vrandečić 1911:denny vrandečić 1632: 1614: 1477: 1270:Strongly oppose 1188:YES, YES, YES. 1171: 1166: 1161: 1137:Yes, we need a 1085:denny vrandečić 984: 869:my earlier rant 833: 679:Far too vague. 397: 367: 347: 342: 337: 211:denny vrandečić 93: 56: 34: 12: 11: 5: 3342: 3340: 3332: 3331: 3326: 3321: 3316: 3306: 3305: 3290: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3210:Jerry Springer 3181: 3178: 3176: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3141: 3138: 3136: 3133: 3131: 3128: 3120: 3117: 3112: 3109: 3103: 3100: 3098: 3095: 3093: 3090: 3085: 3082: 3080: 3077: 3075: 3072: 3067: 3064: 3062: 3059: 3053: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3038: 3035: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3024: 3021: 3013: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3000: 2997: 2994: 2991: 2988: 2980: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2963: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2892: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2868: 2851: 2850: 2847: 2836: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2734: 2731: 2728: 2725: 2722: 2719: 2716: 2713: 2710: 2707: 2704: 2701: 2698: 2695: 2692: 2689: 2686: 2676: 2675: 2651: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2640: 2634: 2628: 2617: 2611: 2605: 2595: 2589: 2586: 2580: 2573: 2567: 2555: 2554: 2546: 2539: 2532: 2525: 2518: 2511: 2501: 2495: 2481: 2480: 2473: 2456: 2446: 2433: 2425: 2418: 2396: 2393: 2364: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2332: 2331: 2320: 2280: 2279: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2249: 2248: 2231: 2230: 2219: 2211: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2175: 2172: 2169: 2155: 2140: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2119: 2108: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2082: 2075: 2052: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2015: 2007: 2006: 2005: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1865:47.222.203.135 1846: 1845: 1821: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1757: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1686: 1683: 1669: 1648: 1631: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1603: 1602: 1595: 1588:administrative 1584: 1574: 1567: 1561: 1554: 1544: 1537: 1524: 1506: 1497: 1486: 1471: 1460: 1453: 1447: 1440: 1431: 1424: 1412: 1401: 1395: 1387: 1374: 1360: 1345: 1339: 1333: 1322: 1316: 1308: 1301: 1288: 1282: 1267: 1257: 1251: 1245: 1236: 1230: 1218: 1217: 1211: 1205: 1199: 1193: 1186: 1176: 1158: 1151: 1135: 1129: 1123: 1112: 1106: 1100: 1094: 1088: 1082: 1076: 1070: 1064: 1058: 1048: 1038: 1032: 1026: 1020: 1008: 1002: 983: 980: 979: 978: 969: 968: 952: 951: 950: 949: 948: 947: 933: 926: 916: 915: 902: 901: 900: 890: 889: 883: 880: 877: 873: 872: 865: 863: 832: 829: 828: 827: 816: 807: 800: 793: 786: 777: 771: 765: 754: 747: 741: 734: 718: 702: 701: 694: 687: 677: 670: 663: 657: 650: 628: 619: 612: 605: 598: 591: 584: 575: 568: 556: 545: 538: 528: 502: 494: 487: 481: 474: 467: 460: 447: 446: 437: 431: 425: 419: 412: 406: 392: 386: 380: 374: 362: 352: 334: 327: 316: 310: 304: 298: 287: 281: 275: 265: 258: 252: 246: 240: 231: 221: 208: 202: 193: 187: 181: 175: 169: 159: 149: 143: 137: 131: 119: 113: 92: 89: 87: 55: 52: 42: 41: 33: 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3341: 3330: 3327: 3325: 3322: 3320: 3317: 3315: 3312: 3311: 3309: 3302: 3300: 3296: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3280:(see warning) 3278: 3274: 3273: 3267: 3263: 3262: 3256: 3252: 3251: 3249: 3245: 3241: 3240: 3234: 3230: 3226: 3222: 3221: 3219: 3218:-- orthogonal 3215: 3211: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3202: 3194: 3192: 3188: 3174: 3169: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149:(see warning) 3147: 3139: 3134: 3129: 3127: 3125: 3118: 3116: 3110: 3108: 3101: 3096: 3091: 3089: 3083: 3078: 3073: 3071: 3065: 3058: 3051: 3042: 3041: 3039: 3036: 3033: 3032: 3030: 3025: 3022: 3019: 3018: 3016: 3015: 3011: 3006: 3001: 2998: 2995: 2992: 2989: 2986: 2985: 2983: 2982: 2978: 2969: 2964: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2948: 2946: 2945:Mark Richards 2941: 2936: 2931: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2921: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2912: 2907: 2903: 2893: 2890: 2889: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2869: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2848: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2840: 2834: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2800: 2796: 2795: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2783: 2777: 2773: 2769: 2765: 2761: 2757: 2753: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2732: 2729: 2726: 2723: 2720: 2717: 2714: 2711: 2708: 2705: 2702: 2699: 2696: 2693: 2690: 2687: 2684: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2657: 2649: 2644: 2641: 2638: 2635: 2632: 2629: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2615: 2612: 2609: 2606: 2603: 2599: 2596: 2593: 2590: 2587: 2584: 2581: 2577: 2574: 2571: 2568: 2565: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2553: 2552: 2547: 2544: 2540: 2537: 2533: 2530: 2526: 2523: 2522:Mark Richards 2519: 2516: 2512: 2510: 2509:-- orthogonal 2506: 2502: 2499: 2496: 2493: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2479: 2474: 2472: 2471:(see warning) 2469: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2454: 2451: 2447: 2444: 2440: 2439: 2434: 2431: 2426: 2422: 2419: 2416: 2410: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2400: 2394: 2392: 2390: 2386: 2380: 2378: 2374: 2369: 2362: 2357: 2356:Mark Richards 2353: 2352:Trolling Poll 2349: 2348:Polling troll 2345: 2344: 2343: 2341: 2337: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2318: 2314: 2309: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2264: 2258: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2246: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2237: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2217: 2216:Mark Richards 2212: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2173: 2170: 2167: 2166: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2138: 2133: 2127: 2123: 2120: 2117: 2116: 2113: 2109: 2106: 2103: 2098: 2087: 2083: 2080: 2076: 2073: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2057: 2053: 2050: 2047: 2043: 2042: 2040: 2036: 2035: 2033: 2030: 2026: 2021: 2016: 2013: 2008: 2003: 1999: 1994: 1993: 1991: 1988: 1984: 1983: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1968: 1963: 1958: 1957: 1955: 1954:Eclecticology 1950: 1945: 1941: 1936: 1935: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1912: 1907: 1906: 1904: 1900: 1894: 1889: 1885: 1880: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1843: 1840: 1836: 1833: 1832: 1830: 1827: 1822: 1819: 1815: 1810: 1805: 1801: 1800: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1777: 1773: 1772: 1770: 1767: 1762: 1758: 1755: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1735: 1733: 1730: 1726: 1721: 1717: 1716: 1714: 1711: 1707: 1706: 1704: 1700: 1699:(see warning) 1697: 1692: 1687: 1684: 1681: 1680: 1678: 1677: 1675: 1670: 1667: 1663: 1662: 1660: 1654: 1649: 1646: 1642: 1641: 1639: 1634: 1633: 1629: 1624: 1619: 1613: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1600: 1596: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1582: 1579: 1575: 1572: 1568: 1565: 1562: 1559: 1555: 1552: 1548: 1545: 1542: 1538: 1536: 1535:(see warning) 1533: 1529: 1525: 1522: 1518: 1517: 1511: 1507: 1505: 1501: 1498: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1458: 1454: 1451: 1448: 1445: 1444:Mark Richards 1441: 1438: 1435: 1432: 1429: 1425: 1422: 1421:-- orthogonal 1417: 1413: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1399: 1396: 1393: 1388: 1385: 1380: 1375: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1361: 1358: 1354: 1349: 1346: 1343: 1340: 1337: 1334: 1331: 1328: 1323: 1320: 1317: 1314: 1309: 1306: 1302: 1300: 1297:. Please see 1296: 1292: 1289: 1286: 1283: 1280: 1275: 1271: 1268: 1265: 1261: 1258: 1255: 1254:Eclecticology 1252: 1249: 1246: 1243: 1240: 1237: 1234: 1231: 1228: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1215: 1212: 1209: 1206: 1203: 1200: 1197: 1194: 1191: 1187: 1184: 1180: 1177: 1174: 1169: 1164: 1159: 1156: 1152: 1149: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1133: 1130: 1127: 1124: 1122: 1120: 1116: 1113: 1110: 1107: 1104: 1101: 1098: 1095: 1092: 1089: 1086: 1083: 1080: 1077: 1074: 1071: 1068: 1065: 1062: 1059: 1056: 1052: 1049: 1046: 1042: 1039: 1036: 1033: 1030: 1027: 1024: 1021: 1018: 1012: 1009: 1006: 1003: 1000: 997: 996: 995: 994: 990: 989: 981: 976: 971: 970: 965: 964: 963: 961: 960:Mark Richards 957: 945: 941: 940: 938: 934: 931: 927: 924: 920: 919: 918: 917: 913: 910: 906: 903: 898: 894: 893: 892: 891: 888: 884: 881: 878: 875: 874: 870: 866: 864: 861: 858: 854: 850: 846: 842: 840: 835: 834: 830: 825: 821: 817: 815: 814:(see warning) 812: 808: 805: 801: 798: 794: 791: 790:Mark Richards 787: 784: 781: 778: 775: 772: 769: 766: 763: 759: 755: 752: 748: 745: 742: 738: 735: 731: 727: 722: 719: 716: 713: 712: 711: 710: 708: 699: 695: 692: 688: 685: 682: 678: 675: 671: 668: 664: 661: 658: 655: 651: 648: 644: 643: 637: 633: 629: 627: 626:(see warning) 624: 620: 617: 613: 610: 606: 603: 599: 596: 592: 589: 588:Mark Richards 585: 582: 579: 576: 573: 569: 566: 565:-- orthogonal 562: 557: 554: 550: 546: 543: 539: 536: 532: 529: 526: 522: 518: 515: 511: 507: 503: 500: 495: 492: 488: 485: 482: 479: 475: 472: 471:Eclecticology 468: 465: 461: 458: 454: 453: 452: 451: 444: 441: 438: 435: 432: 429: 426: 423: 420: 417: 413: 410: 407: 404: 400: 396: 393: 390: 387: 384: 381: 378: 375: 372: 366: 363: 360: 356: 353: 350: 345: 340: 335: 332: 328: 325: 321: 317: 314: 311: 308: 307:theresa knott 305: 302: 299: 297: 295: 291: 288: 285: 282: 279: 276: 273: 270: 266: 263: 259: 256: 253: 250: 247: 244: 241: 238: 235: 232: 229: 225: 222: 219: 216: 212: 209: 206: 203: 200: 197: 194: 191: 188: 185: 182: 179: 176: 173: 170: 167: 163: 160: 157: 153: 150: 147: 144: 141: 138: 135: 132: 129: 123: 120: 117: 114: 111: 108: 107: 106: 105: 101: 100: 99: 90: 88: 85: 83: 78: 76: 71: 69: 65: 61: 53: 51: 49: 38: 32: 30: 25: 22: 18: 17: 3292: 3286:Redirect to 3271: 3269: 3224: 3213: 3209: 3198: 3195: 3186: 3183: 3158:- just like 3143: 3122: 3114: 3105: 3087: 3069: 3055: 2990:POV editing? 2929: 2905: 2901: 2899: 2885: 2875: 2862: 2858: 2852: 2841: 2838: 2817: 2787: 2779: 2763: 2677: 2667: 2663: 2653: 2583:David Cannon 2557: 2556: 2548: 2536:Secretlondon 2513:Not really. 2504: 2483: 2482: 2463: 2437: 2436: 2402: 2401: 2398: 2384: 2381: 2376: 2372: 2370: 2366: 2351: 2336:User:Raul654 2333: 2295: 2291: 2288:23 July 2004 2287: 2281: 2271: 2267: 2232: 2222: 2203: 2199: 2196:troublemaker 2195: 2191: 2178: 2162: 2158: 2064: 2056:Dieter Simon 1971: 1923: 1919: 1893:occasionally 1892: 1887: 1797:Secretlondon 1792: 1776:Secretlondon 1760: 1720:Secretlondon 1666:Secretlondon 1622: 1605: 1604: 1587: 1546: 1527: 1515: 1509: 1489: 1478: 1463: 1415: 1378: 1356: 1352: 1294: 1273: 1269: 1233:Secretlondon 1220: 1219: 1196:David Cannon 1146: 1117: 992: 991: 987: 985: 955: 953: 908: 904: 896: 852: 848: 844: 841:is unhelpful 838: 836: 822:childish!)-- 819: 757: 729: 725: 709:is unhelpful 706: 704: 703: 641: 635: 560: 505: 491:Steven jones 478:Dieter Simon 449: 448: 398: 389:David Cannon 292: 214: 178:Secretlondon 103: 102: 95: 94: 86: 79: 72: 57: 54:Introduction 45: 37:village pump 26: 3012:enforcement 2950:Just found 2849:enforcement 2551:Kim Bruning 2322:I find the 2313:User:168... 2257:Snowspinner 2236:Snowspinner 2161:instead of 2125:disruptive. 2086:Snowspinner 2039:Snowspinner 2012:Snowspinner 1962:Snowspinner 1809:Snowspinner 1674:Snowspinner 1558:Warofdreams 1494:Kim Bruning 1274:temporarily 1091:Fred Bauder 1035:Sean Curtin 1005:Snowspinner 616:Kim Bruning 416:Warofdreams 249:Fred Bauder 146:Sean Curtin 116:Snowspinner 3308:Categories 2904:have some 2886:acceptable 2859:acceptable 2453:(はさばくのきつね) 2443:Neutrality 2159:disruption 2072:(はさばくのきつね) 2049:(はさばくのきつね) 2032:(はさばくのきつね) 1990:(はさばくのきつね) 1769:(はさばくのきつね) 1754:(はさばくのきつね) 1732:(はさばくのきつね) 1713:(はさばくのきつね) 1599:Dmn / Դմն 1357:discretion 1190:Neutrality 905:Disruptive 860:(はさばくのきつね) 845:definition 672:Too vague 514:actus reus 383:Neutrality 237:(はさばくのきつね) 31:reference. 29:historical 3272:authority 2772:elsewhere 2643:gracefool 2623:policy.-- 2424:problem.) 2421:Fritzlein 2317:Fritzlein 2276:Fritzlein 2137:Enchanter 2112:Fritzlein 1857:pipermail 1658:(беседа!) 1653:blankfaze 1592:AxelBoldt 1379:genuinely 1342:Enchanter 1336:Fritzlein 1319:Acegikmo1 1214:gracefool 1208:bodnotbod 1126:Everyking 1016:(беседа!) 1011:blankfaze 921:Agree. -- 837:The word 804:DanKeshet 756:The word 740:behavior. 721:Fritzlein 705:The word 691:AxelBoldt 484:Acegikmo1 434:gracefool 428:bodnotbod 301:Everyking 218:Pestering 127:(беседа!) 122:blankfaze 3229:WP:DWDAE 3140:Comments 3102:Solution 3084:Behavior 2768:the talk 2764:everyone 2650:Comments 2608:Intrigue 2579:someone. 2492:Jrincayc 2464:wouldn't 2377:terrible 2373:the text 2340:Jrincayc 2328:Jrincayc 2272:behavior 2165:, then: 2163:trolling 2129:offense. 1630:Comments 1578:James F. 1541:Intrigue 1348:Jrincayc 1132:Cribcage 1067:Alex.tan 999:→Raul654 937:Jrincayc 909:Trolling 831:Comments 774:Jrincayc 681:James F. 654:Intrigue 510:mens rea 499:Jrincayc 313:Cribcage 184:Alex.tan 110:→Raul654 82:→Raul654 64:trolling 3299:NealMcB 3277:anthony 3214:justice 3146:anthony 3130:Support 3111:Adopted 3092:Support 3074:Support 2930:explain 2668:enforce 2637:NealMcB 2468:anthony 1888:quickly 1696:anthony 1606:Neutral 1532:anthony 1409:NealMcB 1285:Pjacobi 1143:—No-One 1097:gadfium 1023:Viajero 975:llywrch 887:WP:NPOV 885:or not 811:anthony 768:NealMcB 632:Raul654 623:anthony 553:NealMcB 440:Quadell 255:gadfium 243:Pjacobi 134:Viajero 3246:idea. 3187:policy 3135:Oppose 3097:Oppose 3079:Oppose 3066:Policy 2906:debate 2902:please 2631:Eequor 2598:Cyrius 2576:Jmabel 2570:Schnee 2543:Jeeves 2505:before 2450:Fennec 2415:Брайен 2292:Please 2183:Zigger 2105:(talk) 2069:Fennec 2046:Fennec 2029:Fennec 1998:Cyrius 1987:Fennec 1976:Cyrius 1972:easily 1940:Cyrius 1903:Jallan 1842:(talk) 1839:sannse 1829:(talk) 1826:sannse 1818:Schnee 1766:Fennec 1751:Fennec 1729:Fennec 1710:Fennec 1618:Брайен 1581:(talk) 1571:FrankH 1564:Eequor 1457:Jeeves 1392:Taxman 1353:sysops 1330:(talk) 1313:Jmabel 1260:Cyrius 1242:(talk) 1239:sannse 1079:Jallan 1073:Schnee 1051:Morwen 930:Taxman 923:Zigger 857:Fennec 737:Taxman 684:(talk) 674:FrankH 636:should 602:Jeeves 542:Taxman 535:Zigger 506:intent 443:(talk) 422:Eequor 377:— Matt 371:Брайен 272:(talk) 262:Jmabel 234:Fennec 224:Cyrius 215:prefer 205:Jallan 199:(talk) 196:sannse 190:Schnee 162:Morwen 3255:Erich 3233:Erich 3201:Erich 2968:Erich 2935:Erich 2911:Erich 2909:page: 2799:Erich 2762:with 2672:Erich 2625:Plato 2592:Theon 2564:Erich 2409:BCorr 2354:. ;) 2300:Erich 2192:troll 2102:Grunt 2079:Erich 2065:freem 2020:Bryan 1896:: --> 1623:three 1612:BCorr 1551:Plato 1510:troll 1500:Theon 1483:wiser 1475:older 1398:moink 1327:Grunt 1291:Erich 1147:Jones 1109:Bryan 1103:TonyW 1061:Danny 1029:JoJan 944:Erich 912:Erich 853:freem 849:troll 839:troll 824:Plato 758:troll 744:moink 715:Erich 707:troll 667:Plato 561:vague 409:Theon 403:wiser 395:older 365:BCorr 284:Bryan 278:TonyW 269:Grunt 172:Danny 140:JoJan 60:rules 3166:and 2956:this 2954:and 2952:this 2758:and 2614:dave 2268:user 2181:. -- 2152:Talk 1869:talk 1793:some 1741:and 1521:Talk 1434:Guan 1428:Crag 1371:Talk 1202:dave 1183:Talk 1179:Dori 1115:Rick 1055:Talk 1045:talk 1041:Thue 820:VERY 780:Guan 660:dave 647:Talk 578:Guan 572:Crag 525:Talk 359:Talk 355:Dori 290:Rick 166:Talk 156:talk 152:Thue 3268:. 3248:Sam 2960:pir 2920:pir 2891:YES 2867:YES 2822:Sam 2792:Sam 2770:or 2664:how 2656:Sam 2529:Sam 2430:pir 2403:Yes 2389:FOo 2338:;) 2245:pir 2227:pir 2202:or 2198:or 2179::-) 1922:or 1863:? 1837:-- 1468:Sjc 1437:aco 1416:has 1384:pir 1279:mav 1248:Sam 1172:urε 1162:Tεx 993:Yes 897:and 783:aco 751:Sam 698:FOo 609:Sjc 581:aco 508:or 464:Sam 348:urε 338:Tεx 267:-- 104:Yes 3310:: 3197:we 2894:NO 2870:NO 2818:if 2788:if 2754:, 2515:GD 2484:No 2438:NO 2290:. 2110:-- 1909:-- 1871:) 1761:is 1655:| 1645:GD 1638:GD 1636:-- 1547:NO 1530:. 1519:| 1277:-- 1227:GD 1221:No 1181:| 1141:. 1053:- 1043:| 1013:| 665:-- 645:| 551:. 457:GD 450:No 357:| 164:- 154:| 124:| 50:. 3223:" 3170:. 2863:: 2816:" 2733:e 2730:r 2727:e 2724:h 2721:a 2718:l 2715:u 2712:m 2709:r 2706:o 2703:f 2700:t 2697:r 2694:e 2691:s 2688:n 2685:I 2602:✎ 2600:| 2412:| 2221:" 2150:| 2148:B 2146:— 2002:✎ 2000:| 1980:✎ 1978:| 1944:✎ 1942:| 1867:( 1615:| 1514:— 1479:≠ 1369:| 1367:B 1365:— 1264:✎ 1262:| 1167:τ 1119:K 954:" 640:— 523:| 521:B 519:— 399:≠ 368:| 343:τ 294:K 228:✎ 226:| 39:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Trolling poll - Knowledge (XXG)

Index