1011:
oppose rationale, I actually take the opposite view that is we had a bunch of new admins who weren't sure what they'd do with the mop beforehand after a while we'd look back and say "who'd have thought our new history merger and appointer of autopatrollers were going to come from that batch". But I don't consider "no need for the tools" as either a common oppose rationale or one that limits our ability to appoint new admins who are ready to get involved in the main admin areas of blocking and deletion. As for standards inflation and unhelpful RFA criteria, Yes I'd agree that we have a problem there, but I wouldn't take the cited example of someone's RFA criteria as indicative of that - that particular one is atypical in being far too prescriptive. Occasionally we get opposers grandstanding at RFA with non standard criteria such as "oppose all self noms, oppose if you don't have the initiative to self nom you aren't ready for adminship, oppose no articles created from scratch, oppose vandalfighting and writing FAs is a nice combination, but I expect to see activity at deletion/ files/ UAA/insert hobby horse here" usually it doesn't get traction, the candidate can ignore it and it degenerates into threads on the talkpage and elsewhere. There was an era when we had admin coaching and a bunch of candidates emerged who had ticked the various boxes of so many AFD votes, AIV reports etc, but most people see such levelling up as very
1166:'s data be that as time progresses, those who play future administrative roles with less fellow admins to help share their burdens will become more efficient, in that they need only be semi-active in order to maintain the same level of control that their predecessors had with more active co-admins? I think something has to be driving the semi-active numbers higher. I find it hard to believe that these dedicated future administrators, hardened to a greater sense of loyalty through increasingly rigorous RfA's, would so easily switch from very active to semi active roles if they didn't sense that Knowledge (XXG) was able to handle it. Perhaps a growing sense of confidence is the driver of this switch.
1073:
1088:
1058:
178:
1223:
time. They would then be evaluated for full admin privileges based on the work they actually did during the apprenticeship. One thing I would never approve is an admin request to gain access to resources not publicly available for purposes other than maintaining
Knowledge (XXG), such as research. That is not a knock on the applicant, but any such research should be formally proposed and approved by the community and/or the foundation, with strong privacy safeguards and formal
110:
130:
865:, you would have noticed that while it is long, taken as a whole it's nothing more than the very bare, all-round minimum just spelled out - our anti-admin people should rejoice in that some people do at least exercise some basic but realistic criteria. But Where on the list are the ridiculous three years, 30,000 edits, and half a dozen FA that some users are calling for nowadays since the new rules allowed all the publicity for every RfA ?
471:
90:
348:
120:
36:
140:
263:
915:
to say the least. It took a while for the sting to fade and feel like I was a welcome contributor again. You didn't feel that way? In other words: do you think the current process is OK the way it is – healthy and beneficial to the project and the people involved? Depending on your answer I might try to explain a more relaxed set of criteria I developed for
100:
1119:
signing up to do a lot of unpaid work with potential to be abused regularly), why would anyone at all put themselves through such a degrading process to get there? Surely there's an easy fix: have a process to agree on a minimum standard for new admins, then rigorously apply it - no laundry lists, no voter discretion (indeed, no voting).
150:
283:, which has provided more than 800 million people with access to Knowledge (XXG) free of mobile data charges. The reasons given by WMF for ending the program were "drop off in adoption and interest... due, in part, to the rapidly shifting mobile industry, as well as changes in mobile data costs". Zero had been
389:"August 2011 saw only one promotion, a monthly low that has only been reached one other time in RfA history". So, a phenomenon that was alarming or even worth reconsidering the whole RfA process then, seems to be getting barely any attention at all at this time. Or is it? Your comments are invited below.
914:
Carrite, I'd like to probe in all possible collegiality about the statement "the problem with RFA isn't the process". You and I have both been to RfA, aren't currently admins, and are (still) long-term contributors, so we probably have a unique perspective. I found it to be very vexing and stressful,
894:
I agree, the standards expected over the years and years have been creeping ever high, perhaps not in itself a bad thing for the standards to grow as the site itself grows but the growth hasn't been kept in check. Now it is at totally unreasonable levels, as seen by some months having zero new admins
731:
Finally, and most importantly, people don't join the army just because they want to shoot guns, and they don't join the police force just because they want to drive a fast car with a blue light and a siren and hand out speeding fines. Which means, for those who don't get the metaphors, that users who
1010:
I supported
Carrite's RFA, so obviously I don't agree with much of the opposition to it, but I could have predicted that opposition if I'd been the nominator. Wanting to view deleted edits is a very limited use of the admin toolkit, and comes close to "no need for the tools". I don't agree with that
879:
I think I acquitted myself well and I respect the perspective of the dissenting views of most of the 52 of those who voted against me — and, of course, the 82 who voted for me. But that's a digression from my basic observation that you are completely off base pointing fingers at the structure of RFA
620:
The maturity level of a responsible adult (18+) - evaluation of maturity is highly critical, but subjective, and I believe that minors who are admins should demonstrate an exceptional level of maturity that is beyond average for their real age. This also means that the candidate should have at least
1118:
Wow. I applied for admin a long time ago. Ten years? It was a crappy process that seemed to involve a lot of people yelling at me for all kinds of reasons, and it sounds like things have deteriorated a lot since then. Considering that there are essentially no rewards for adminship (you're literally
1046:
almost 50 more to keep the same number of admins. The activity data is slightly seasonal (a few percent). Not shown in the graphs are seasonally adjusted activity data which gives a better fit, but as the trend is exactly the same I've left out that complexity. In the next year the trend is to have
979:
The slogan "Adminship is No Big Deal" is a joke. Actually, RfA is a 7 day proctological exam conducted by a tag team of 150 people of differing intentions — some of whom wish to subject the patient's rectum to blunt-force trauma during the process. Only people who REALLY like proctologists would be
1015:
like and would prefer a candidate who has been here long enough and done enough that we can assess them and has enough activity in an admin related area to show that they are ready to use the tools. Such candidates still exist, and when they do run often get 98-99% support, my concern is how do we
934:
unexpected howling, much of it from the CCI people who wanted to hang the guy I was defending at ArbCom, some of it from the
Foundation from a legal perspective that I hadn't anticipated, a little of it from Wikipedians whose oxen I had punctured over the years. But all in all, I found the process
650:
At least 4 created articles of at least 500 words, perfectly sourced and formatted - no outstanding maintenance tags on any creations where the candidate is still the major contributor. FA, GA, or DYK are not prerequisites, but a very minimum of article creation and/or an equivalent amount of new
214:
The committee appreciates and values the long standing interest of
Wikimania Sweden to host an event, and we believe that hosting Wikimania will be an opportunity to boost Wikimedia projects there with a specific focus on public art, a field in which the Swedish Sverige team has been particularly
1222:
I've long wanted to see an apprenticeship system, where people with modest and clear experience requirements could be granted limited privileges (assistant admin or such title) and work with an existing admin for some period, say a year, and be asked to work in several different area during that
933:
I ran for city council when I was 22 or something and I know from that that losing elections sucks. Running through RFA and failing in the effort wasn't a personal blow — I was seeking the toolbox for a limited time for a limited purpose and was going to turn it in when I was finished. There was
743:
No, that's not a joke, that's actually one voter's laundry list. Gee, I can't imagine why there are only 20 people a year willing and able to take off their pantaloons and successfully run the gauntlet to become a site janitor... So no, don't blame the process — blame those with unrealistic
1194:
There's scope to double the number of active admins without recruiting anyone. That could be a good short-term fix. If a fix for numbers is needed, I do not know. Response times and backlogs at boards would be useful metrics. With low numbers of fresh blood, this is
971:
With respect to your actual question: I think the process is more or less fine the way it sits. Too many arcane questions about policies and procedures, I suppose, and not enough emphasis on track record and editing history. But the basic process is fine. See also:
1072:
1087:
598:, which incidentally I started and largely facilitated until the trolling finally forced us to abandon it, all the ills of the system were revealed and meticulously explained and sourced. Even the current RfA still suffers from the same problems.
1057:
320:
880:
as the cause of the steady attrition of the
Administrator count, when in actual fact it is the unreasonable expectations of some Wikipedians that is the primary cause of the plague. Look no further than your own mirror. Reflect.
945:
Having underwent the RFA process through no fault of my own (trying to get temporary reading rights for deleted material in connection with an ArbCom case) I can say this with authority: "Yes, Virginia, there is a cabal." (July
700:
Users have very different opinions as to what constitutes incivility - I judge this for myself and I'm not very tolerant. Note however that there is a big difference between being blatantly rude and just not mincing one's
799:
hasn't even got the courage to say whose list it is. It's actually one of the mildest set of criteria. He should see the others before he puffs his non-admin chest out. Perhaps he should try his own luck at RfA...
551:
505:
520:
725:
No possible signs that the candidate has joined
Knowledge (XXG) with the express intention of working towards adminship (includes hat-collecting and over-enthusiastic participation on admin boards).
515:
1042:
with the latest admin numbers. To correct the article, the current loss rate is almost 50 a year. But that's already including any new admins, i.e. if we've had 20 successes at RfA, we still need
500:
510:
458:
449:
371:
76:
861:
paradigm of what's really wrong with the process rather than 'laundry lists'. IMO it should have passed. If you'd bothered to read the laundry list rather than simply copying and pasting it,
488:
624:
The ability to communicate in proper standard
English (non-native and/or creole users take note), understanding that WP is not built by teenagers for teenagers or for mobile phone SMS.
1248:
614:
Actually, the problem with RFA isn't the process at all, it's the unrealistic expectations of some voters. Let's take a look at what it takes to get over the hurdle with one voter:
434:
482:
55:
44:
525:
762:
that people set ridiculous expectations for something that is supposed to be no big deal. The only criterion that matters is "is the candidate generally trustworthy?"
732:
join
Knowledge (XXG) with the sole intention of working their way towards adminship don't get my support, which also means that 'I wanna be an admin someday' userbox.
1300:
1136:. Someone else would reward you from outside, say a Russian, same as on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc. Knowledge (XXG) is broken, just like Twitter. At least
93:
21:
1276:
1227:
approval, since it may involve access to material that never should have been here in the first place, such as personal information, harassment or libel.--
1271:
1266:
324:
676:
10 edits to RfA (although this number might be difficult to achieve for newer users) with adequate rationale that demonstrate knowledge of the process.
651:
content should demonstrate that we are here first and foremost to build an encyclopedia and not a WP:MMORPG. See also Why admins should create content.
857:
Indeed - one of the very few RfA I haven't voted on over the last 9 years. Wasn't a particularly savoury moment for you, I'll grant you - in fact the
426:
284:
30:
The future is
Swedish with a lack of administrators: Sweden selected for Wikimania 2019; research report on shaping the future; a scarcity of RfAs.
1261:
382:
319:
The
Wikimedia Foundation has released a research report on "Wikimedia's role in shaping the future of the information commons", available
694:
A clean block log of at least 12 months, but this could be longer depending on the severity of the issue and the length of the block(s).
1256:
470:
49:
35:
17:
1096:
English Knowledge (XXG) administrator numbers 2011-2028, black: total, green: active, orange: semi-active, red: inactive, dashes: %
1081:
English Knowledge (XXG) administrator numbers 2011-2019, black: total, green: active, orange: semi-active, red: inactive, dashes: %
1066:
English Knowledge (XXG) administrator numbers 2003-2019, black: total, green: active, orange: semi-active, red: inactive, dashes: %
581:
672:
50 edits to AfD with adequate rationale that demonstrate knowledge of the policies (hit rate over 75% on Scottywong's tool)
328:
217:
210:
201:
will be held in Sweden, although the exact location is yet to be determined. Announcing the decision, Ellie Young of the
1133:
422:
1236:
1211:
1189:
1149:
1123:
1112:
1032:
1023:
999:
956:
928:
899:
889:
874:
852:
835:
809:
790:
753:
607:
585:
1137:
438:
1224:
177:
916:
360:
331:
held last year, presents insights, recommendations, and discussion points from the WMF's staff and consultants.
1282:
1232:
430:
578:
1018:
363:. If we have another year of under 20 successful RfAs, things will not look good. Commentary to June 2017
418:
1145:
408:
1093:
1078:
1063:
1039:
593:
1228:
841:
297:" and for serving free porn and pirated movies. Early comments on the post brought up the issue of
574:
202:
225:
103:
1207:
1120:
1108:
995:
952:
885:
870:
848:
831:
805:
783:
749:
603:
547:
294:
123:
627:
12 months autoconfirmed user or at least 6,000 non-automated edits in the preceding 6 months.
269:
1141:
133:
1196:
289:
153:
1170:
298:
1294:
989:
Then again, proctological exams do help ward off certain types of cancer. (Oct. 2012)
924:
668:
10 advice edits to a help desk that demonstrate knowledge of the policies/guidelines.
280:
1202:
1163:
1103:
991:
948:
881:
866:
862:
844:
827:
801:
796:
763:
759:
745:
599:
375:
272:
143:
359:
With zero RfAs in January, this year looks more like 2016 than 2017 according to
1162:
Looking at the graph featuring the projected future rates, could one reading of
896:
334:
308:
249:
163:
347:
113:
728:
No canvassing on- or off-Wiki (off-Wiki discussion with your nominator is OK).
386:
198:
186:
621:
a basic user page but not one that looks like a 14-year-old's bedroom wall.
262:
920:
716:
No unnecessary 'clerking' of admin areas - such as, for example, WP:PERM.
661:
No warnings or comment about wrong NPP tagging in the preceding 6 months.
392:
304:
167:
354:
Too late for this one. Maybe there's another RfA about to come forward?
235:
710:
No CSD, PROD, or AfD notices for own creations 6 months preceding RfA.
1049:
Summary: we're currently losing half the admins about every 20 years.
1012:
243:
1132:
One of the reasons you would sign up for admin is because you are a
758:
That list is utterly preposterous and I agree wholeheartedly with
722:
2nd or subsequent RfA not less than 1,500 new manual, major edits.
239:
234:
The Swedish proposal beat out three other proposals from teams in
54:
207:
435:
Wikimedians of North American Indigenous Languages User Group
469:
346:
261:
176:
34:
411:, and will remain open until 28 February 2018, 13:59 (UTC).
697:
No confirmed personal attacks reported to a notice board.
688:
No sockpuppetry (unauthorised use of multiple accounts).
563:
556:
536:
713:
No reverted non-admin closures of any debate types.
561:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
71:
The future is Swedish with a lack of administrators
573:I like the title because it sounds like a recipe.
641:...25 more criteria – hidden for page readability
980:advised to run. (July 2012; modified Jan. 2016)
719:2nd or subsequent RfA not sooner than 3 months.
707:No warnings of any kind 3 months preceding RfA.
427:Wikimedians of Romania and Moldova User Group
8:
704:Only 1 3rr warning, and older than 6 months.
631:30% edits to Talk and Knowledge (XXG) space.
381:In the great 2011 RfA Reform debate, it was
664:<5% declined CSD at New Page Patrolling.
1047:more semi-active admins than active ones.
635:
1301:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2018-02
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
1053:
564:
540:
281:ending the Knowledge (XXG) Zero program
70:
679:99% edit summaries in the main space.
654:No mass creation of very short stubs.
421:announced the approval of the newest
29:
7:
1016:tempt more of them to come forward.
691:No L3, L4, or single issue warnings.
341:Wandering in the RfA desert of 2018
329:Wikimedia 2030 strategy discussions
56:
28:
546:These comments are automatically
378:said 50 is a replacement number.
1086:
1071:
1056:
256:Zeroing out Knowledge (XXG) Zero
148:
138:
128:
118:
108:
98:
88:
557:add the page to your watchlist
1:
1113:23:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
1033:12:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
1000:19:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
957:19:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
929:18:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
890:19:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
875:17:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
853:17:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
836:16:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
810:16:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
791:15:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
754:15:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
608:12:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
586:23:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
439:Wikibase Community User Group
423:Wikimedia movement affiliates
407:: Voting is now open for the
361:Knowledge (XXG):RFA by month
938:more than anything. See my
327:. The report, based on the
1317:
1237:14:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
1225:Institutional review board
1212:23:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
1190:05:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
900:01:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
682:No warnings for vandalism.
431:Don Wikimedians User Group
1150:04:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
1124:03:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
222:
293:magazine as embodying "
1249:looking for new talent
740:
554:. To follow comments,
474:
419:Affiliations Committee
409:2018 Steward elections
351:
266:
181:
39:
895:approved whatsoever!
795:And the joke is that
685:No warnings for spam.
658:100 New Page Patrols.
617:
473:
350:
265:
180:
38:
1138:Twitter has moved on
1094:User:Widefox/editors
1079:User:Widefox/editors
1064:User:Widefox/editors
550:from this article's
270:Knowledge (XXG) Zero
321:as a PDF on Commons
295:digital colonialism
203:Wikimania Committee
193:A Swedish Wikimania
541:Discuss this story
506:Arbitration report
475:
462:"News and notes" →
352:
315:Shaping the future
267:
182:
45:← Back to Contents
40:
1188:
840:P.S. Been there.
788:
738:
737:
642:
565:purging the cache
521:Technology report
405:Steward elections
395:
337:
311:
252:
232:
231:
50:View Latest Issue
1308:
1285:
1210:
1205:
1186:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1167:
1111:
1106:
1090:
1075:
1060:
1030:
1026:
1021:
985:Timbo's Rule 17.
975:Timbo's Rule 16.
941:Timbo's Rule 19.
784:
657:Preferably : -->
640:
636:
630:Preferably : -->
595:Great RfA Debate
584:
568:
566:
560:
539:
516:Featured content
493:
485:
483:20 February 2018
478:
461:
454:"News and notes"
453:
390:
369:
332:
302:
247:
228:
208:
170:
152:
151:
142:
141:
132:
131:
122:
121:
112:
111:
102:
101:
92:
91:
62:
60:
58:
57:20 February 2018
1316:
1315:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1281:
1279:
1274:
1269:
1264:
1259:
1252:
1241:
1240:
1201:
1200:
1197:natural wastage
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1169:
1140:from denial. -
1102:
1101:
1097:
1091:
1082:
1076:
1067:
1061:
1028:
1024:
1019:
867:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
802:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
739:
643:
600:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
577:
570:
562:
555:
544:
543:
537:+ Add a comment
535:
531:
530:
529:
501:Recent research
486:
481:
479:
476:
465:
464:
459:
456:
451:
445:
444:
415:New user-groups
401:
367:
356:
355:
344:
343:
317:
276:
275:
259:
258:
224:— Ellie Young,
223:
195:
190:
183:
172:
171:
161:
160:
159:
158:
149:
139:
129:
119:
109:
99:
89:
83:
80:
69:
65:
63:
53:
52:
47:
41:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1314:
1312:
1304:
1303:
1293:
1292:
1280:
1275:
1270:
1265:
1260:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1243:
1242:
1239:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1134:paid operative
1127:
1126:
1099:
1098:
1092:
1085:
1083:
1077:
1070:
1068:
1062:
1055:
1052:
1051:
1040:Here's a graph
1036:
1035:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
838:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
744:expectations.
736:
735:
734:
733:
729:
726:
723:
720:
717:
714:
711:
708:
705:
702:
698:
695:
692:
689:
686:
683:
680:
677:
673:
669:
665:
662:
659:
655:
652:
645:
644:
639:
634:
633:
632:
628:
625:
622:
616:
615:
611:
610:
589:
588:
545:
542:
534:
533:
532:
528:
523:
518:
513:
511:Traffic report
508:
503:
498:
496:News and notes
492:
480:
468:
467:
466:
457:
448:
447:
446:
443:
442:
412:
400:
397:
372:News and notes
357:
353:
345:
342:
339:
316:
313:
299:net neutrality
277:
268:
260:
257:
254:
230:
229:
220:
219:
216:
212:
194:
191:
184:
175:
174:
173:
157:
156:
146:
136:
126:
116:
106:
96:
85:
84:
81:
75:
74:
73:
72:
68:News and notes
67:
66:
64:
61:
48:
43:
42:
33:
32:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1313:
1302:
1299:
1298:
1296:
1284:
1278:
1273:
1268:
1263:
1258:
1250:
1246:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1213:
1209:
1204:
1198:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1187:
1185:
1178:
1165:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1125:
1122:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1110:
1105:
1095:
1089:
1084:
1080:
1074:
1069:
1065:
1059:
1054:
1050:
1045:
1044:an additional
1041:
1038:
1037:
1034:
1031:
1027:
1022:
1014:
1009:
1008:
1001:
997:
993:
990:
987:
986:
981:
977:
976:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
958:
954:
950:
947:
943:
942:
937:
932:
931:
930:
926:
922:
918:
913:
901:
898:
893:
892:
891:
887:
883:
878:
877:
876:
872:
868:
864:
860:
856:
855:
854:
850:
846:
843:
839:
837:
833:
829:
826:Courage? Ha.
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
811:
807:
803:
798:
794:
793:
792:
789:
787:
782:
781:
778:
775:
772:
769:
766:
761:
757:
756:
755:
751:
747:
742:
741:
730:
727:
724:
721:
718:
715:
712:
709:
706:
703:
699:
696:
693:
690:
687:
684:
681:
678:
674:
670:
666:
663:
660:
656:
653:
649:
648:
647:
646:
638:
637:
629:
626:
623:
619:
618:
613:
612:
609:
605:
601:
597:
596:
591:
590:
587:
583:
580:
576:
575:Barbara (WVS)
572:
571:
567:
558:
553:
549:
538:
527:
524:
522:
519:
517:
514:
512:
509:
507:
504:
502:
499:
497:
494:
490:
484:
477:In this issue
472:
463:
455:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
413:
410:
406:
403:
402:
398:
396:
394:
388:
384:
379:
377:
373:
366:
362:
349:
340:
338:
336:
330:
326:
322:
314:
312:
310:
306:
300:
296:
292:
291:
286:
282:
274:
271:
264:
255:
253:
251:
245:
241:
237:
227:
221:
213:
209:
206:
204:
200:
192:
188:
179:
169:
165:
155:
147:
145:
137:
135:
127:
125:
117:
115:
107:
105:
97:
95:
87:
86:
78:
59:
51:
46:
37:
23:
19:
1245:The Signpost
1244:
1176:
1168:
1100:
1048:
1043:
1017:
988:
984:
983:
978:
974:
973:
944:
940:
939:
936:illuminating
935:
858:
785:
779:
776:
773:
770:
767:
764:
594:
495:
489:all comments
414:
404:
380:
364:
358:
318:
288:
278:
273:eighty-sixed
233:
196:
94:PDF download
1283:Suggestions
1142:Shiftchange
548:transcluded
399:Brief notes
279:The WMF is
226:Wikimedia-l
144:X (Twitter)
842:Done that.
437:, and the
82:Share this
77:Contribute
22:2018-02-20
1277:Subscribe
1179:pintendo
917:this list
552:talk page
325:on Medium
285:critiqued
199:Wikimania
197:In 2019,
187:Wikimania
185:Lunch at
1295:Category
1272:Newsroom
1267:Archives
1029:Chequers
452:Previous
365:Signpost
215:active.
134:Facebook
124:LinkedIn
114:Mastodon
20: |
1203:Widefox
1164:Widefox
1121:Stevage
1104:Widefox
992:Carrite
949:Carrite
882:Carrite
863:Carrite
845:Carrite
828:Carrite
797:Carrite
760:Carrite
746:Carrite
592:In the
376:Widefox
236:Armenia
1013:MMORPG
897:Mathmo
701:words.
526:Humour
433:, the
429:, the
425:: the
417:: The
244:Prague
242:, and
205:said:
164:Evad37
154:Reddit
104:E-mail
1262:About
1025:Spiel
946:2013)
675:: -->
671:: -->
667:: -->
387:Swarm
383:noted
240:Perth
189:2019?
16:<
1257:Home
1233:talk
1208:talk
1146:talk
1109:talk
1020:Ϣere
996:talk
953:talk
925:talk
919:. ☆
886:talk
871:talk
859:very
849:talk
832:talk
806:talk
786:TALK
750:talk
604:talk
460:Next
290:Vice
166:and
1247:is
1229:agr
921:Bri
385:by
374:by
323:or
287:by
168:Bri
162:By
79:—
1297::
1235:)
1206:;
1199:.
1148:)
1107:;
998:)
982:+
955:)
927:)
888:)
873:)
851:)
834:)
808:)
774:ge
752:)
606:)
582:✉
579:✐
450:←
370:s
307:,
301:.
246:.
238:,
218:”
211:“
1251:.
1231:(
1177:S
1144:(
994:(
951:(
923:(
884:(
869:(
847:(
830:(
804:(
780:s
777:r
771:g
768:a
765:W
748:(
602:(
569:.
559:.
491:)
487:(
441:.
393:B
391:–
368:'
335:E
333:–
309:E
305:B
303:–
250:E
248:–
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
