244:
fewer than 10 opposes. RFA is almost like an inverted bell curve, with most results being very clear rejections or very clear passes and very few being borderline. That's why the lowering of the discretionary band has had little effect, there just aren't many RFAs where the community is undecided or close to being undecided. The newer trend is that unanimous passes are now a thing of the past. There have been none in the last two years and only three in the previous three years. By contrast in 2014 nearly half (10 of 22) of all the successful RFAs were unanimous passes. I'm pretty sure that the older trend, that those who pass usually do so with little or no opposition, is partly down to RFA's reputation, most successful candidates don't run until many months or years after they were first ready to be admins. The end of unanimity I believe to be down to a small number of individuals with particular non standard criteria such as "must have an FA or GA". RFA is a dynamic process, it doesn't have agreed criteria such as we have for
Rollback, account creator or other individual tools. Sometimes an RFA !voter will come along with a new criterion such as "must not be a self nomination", "must have created new articles" or "must have a certain percentage of manual edits"; over a series of RFAs the new test usually fades away, sometimes after a phase as part of our default expectation, sometimes as a test that never attracts more than one or two adherents. So the odd thing about the last few years is that we no longer have unanimous RFAs, not that most successful RFAs are almost unanimous.
1003:
think, "I watched this movie the other day, maybe I could look at that" and read through it thoroughly, eventually work out a small improvement you can make, and then find for some reason it won't let you edit it (semi-protection)! Most of our guidelines for newbies really do have the wood-for-the-trees issue. And of course there are brilliant tools like TWA or that
Special page recommended to newbies which leads them to a random page in a few cleanup categories (e.g. needs copyediting) that even I can't find anymore. But these tools are only obvious to a newbie if they're the first thing they accidentally stumble across. The other thing is that I feel "if they're really interested..." is exactly backwards of what we want. We want to be persuading people that they do want to edit, not making themselves prove that they do. I wasn't that interested in editing 6 years ago, but I had a decent initial experience and here I still am, and hopefully I've been a good asset to the site in that time. Another thing is that I'd rather see autoconfirmed people still using AFC rather than creating articles directly—I think it's a lot better to have a draft rejected or a helpful comment left rather than the scary "WE'RE GOING TO DELETE YOUR PAGE" tags. What has been happening a lot more recently is NPP patrollers moving things to draftspace, the editors submitting them to AFC and then... nothing... for months and months... and then a rejection, and the editor is long gone. So in a way, NPP won't work unless AFC works as well. —
1146:, and a number of guidance pages for potential admin candidates who think they might be ready to take on the role. But we have nothing whatsoever that allows editors to self-test their knowledge and understanding of our many policies and procedures, or to help them gauge for themselves how ready they might be to become an administrator. This could be something as simple as a 25-50 question multiple choice page, giving a helpful indication and scoring, but without any of the public exposure, criticism or even embarrassment that an ORFA can bring. I firmly believe we should turn our attention to creating this sort of resource, or maybe finding a way for other (extended-confirmed?) users to flag up or praise other editors who they think show good admin-like abilities. (On a different note,
175:
988:, there's a lot of truth in what you are saying but unlkike NPP with its much tighter deadline, AfC is not the gatekeeper of Knowledge (XXG) - it's a concession we make to IPs and those who can't wait until their accounts are autoconfirmed. Now, autoconfirmed is an extremely low threshold, so anyone who really wants to see their article published can surely register an account or make those 10 edits in 4 days and if they don't know how to do it, there is a plethora of help pages and venues. Perhaps that's one of the problems: there's so much help and a forest of links to it and confusing policies and guidelines they can't see the wood for the trees.
1130:
because of the increased use of edit filters and the move of links between different language versions of
Knowledge (XXG) to Wikidata as well as the difficulty of editing Knowledge (XXG) on a smartphone. The 2015 rally seems to have ended with Knowledge (XXG) editing levels stable at a significantly higher level than in 2014. But the decline in active admin numbers has continued. However I take your point that lots of Wikipedians simply don’t want to be admins, and I’m OK with that. My fear is that there are qualified candidates out there who would easily pass RFA but have been deterred by myths that have arisen re the process.
292:
699:. RfA is still the snake pit it's been for well over a decade. You only need to take a look. The only reason candidates pass with flying colours (or most of them anyway nowadays) is because the only ones who are prepared to come forward nowadays are the ones who are are almost certain to pass and are brave enough to shake the evil behaviour off like water from a ducks back. There is no 'doom', aspiring candidates only need to look at a few RfA and they can draw their own conclusions. Any 'gloom' is what we get from from the users themselves when we try to talk them into running.
261:
111:
131:
869:, which has the unfortunate intersection of being a boring task that requires a good amount of expertise to handle (at least, I think that's what the problem is). As I write this there are 3,763 unreviewed submissions, including over 1,000 of which are at least two months old, so I dread to think of what would happen if some of our most diligent and hard-working editors who do an incredible job at AFC were not able to continue. —
487:
91:
1026:, again, I can't disagree with you. I and one or two others have been working hard these past 12 months or so to dispel the traditional rivalry between NPP and AfC. Their approach to new pages is fundamentally different but the mechanics of the processes are as dissimilar as they are alike - but we do now have them cohabiting on the same feed interface sharing all the filters and ORES. But NPP is basically a
948:
AFC submitters (other than paid ones) stick around, and the explanation for that is that our reviews are taking months. The second reason I have is that we do have a deadline: drafts are deleted after six months, information can become stale over time and the queue is getting longer, which means that if the trend were to continue indefinitely then there would be many drafts that would
917:
ago (which I usually don't do, but have done in the past) and was promptly called out by a now-banned editor for "You are an Admin? Never seen you at MfD or take any other Admin action ever." With that kind of attitude and treatment, why would admins feel like they should continue doing admin work while being attacked? This isn't going to be fixed even with RfA reforms or more admins.
121:
37:
141:
1035:
either task once they have been at it long enough to be fed up with the arrogance and insults from people who believe 'anyone can edit' gives them a constitutional right to claim a slot in mainspace for just whatever purpose they like. I have no qualms telling such people to bugger off, but I'll bend over backwards to offer some genuine help to those who deserve it..
101:
151:
731:, you won't agree if all you have only examined the most recent RfAs. Solid knowledge comes from solid - and long - empirical experience. Admittedly I've only been following RfA matters for 10 years and only voted on 400 or so, but I believe it's enough for me to have been able to notice any trends and changes. Oh, and I
1168:
I just joined AFC. It's super easy with the helper gadget - don't forget to sign up first - I got to help some articles along that probably deserved to exist, and there's always a backlog! If you've been around long enough to have a good nose for what would live or die at AFD, then you're qualified -
1002:
I agree that NPP also has a big backlog which causes a lot of trouble. A pet peeve of mine, however, is your position that anyone who's truly interested can easily get autoconfirmed. I think you're really underestimating how easy it is to find places to edit when you've never edited before. You might
960:
I think this experience points to a really hostile culture we have all over
Knowledge (XXG) when it comes to ownership and a perceived need for control. Admins often receive the worst of this but in general I think it's a huge editor retention problem, which in the end is a big contributing factor to
844:
Very interesting article. I have a sense (or maybe just hope), that the body of admins is kind of stabilizing from a "bubble" in the early days? Knowledge (XXG) should have some clear graphs on the front page showing the trend in articles, which I think keeps rising – E.g. we should keep re-selling
1141:
Whilst a small number of admins actively seek out potential candidates and encourage them to put themselves forward, we could probably do more to actively mentor them, as I think once used to happen, or even to train any new or existing admin in complex areas that they might become interested in. Of
916:
It doesn't matter whether the backlog is at AfC, NPP or elsewhere. A problem I found is that some editors really don't like unknown admins showing up the area that they frequented (possibly because they don't know if the admin is an inclusionist or deletionist). For example, I closed an XfD 9 months
850:
My biggest concern is for the smaller group of 30-50 admins who do 90% of the admin work, and who dominate individual AIV, RPP, UAA, XfD, ANI, CCI, CSD, SPI, etc. boards. The loss of any of these admins who be serious, and given the inevitable "burn-out" of many admins, is almost a certainty. Part
947:
rejected, rather than sitting stale for as long as it takes for them to forget that they submitted it. Of course this only applies to some types of people who submit AFCs (e.g. not paid editors) but it's still a huge base. The reason you might have overlooked this factor is that currently almost no
663:
please do me a favour and do some fact checking before you launch into personal attacks. I am one of the rarest nominators, and I only bristle at the trolls. I would never say a word against a genuine, non vengeful, or well researched oppose vote. It might not sway my position if I'm upstairs in my
639:
If you proceed with the belief that almost all candidates are worthy, then it's no wonder would-be kingmakers like you bristle at any dissent from the working classes. RFA stopped being meaningful once bureaucrats decided that the numbers don't matter, so anyone that participates now does so in an
623:
No trend AFAICS. Just a sudden bunch of RfA on which the usual trolls were either not able to cause a stampede of pile-on oppose votes, or simply got bored and stayed away. Undeniably however, most potential candidates won't run nowadays unless they have a very, very strong reason to assume they'll
243:
I see two trends here, a very longstanding one that those who pass usually do so uncontentiously, and a newish one that unanimous RFAs are now rare. The community is rarely ambiguous at RFA, this year two out of twenty two successful RFAs were so close as to involve cratchats, whilst 12 ended with
845:
ourselves to ex-admins that the project, staffing issues aside, continues to be in high demand by its readers. I know people in
Microsoft who tell me that they gave up years ago trying to "compete" with Knowledge (XXG) (e.g. proprietary and/or other platforms), and that Google is of the same view.
680:
Frankly, I disagree. From my vantage point, RfA has become far less of a gauntlet than it was a few years ago. Most solid candidates pass easily. The problem lies in identifying these candidates and persuading them to run. It probably doesn't help matters that some editors are still repeating the
280:
invalid. We will have to cover the full implications of this in more detail in a future issue. Suffice to say that we (Wikipedians) think that it is important for people to be able to access our content, and the fact that a national court agreed is significant. To our knowledge, this is the first
1129:
Hi Eddie, yes there other metrics, such as how much editing activity and how the editing community as a whole is growing or declining. When the editing community as a whole appeared to be dwindling there was a lot of fuss about that, even though much of the apparent decline from 2007 to 2014 was
1086:
If you haven’t written a featured article you are very unlikely to get 100% support. But you could get well over 95% and the passmark is much lower. I am not convinced that the de facto criteria are actually rising, with the possible exception of tenure where several editors seem to vote against
1034:
aid workers will understand) while AfC is more of a field hospital. It would naturally be ideal if all new pages were to be put through AfC, but that would require thousands of reviewers rather than just 200 or so (of whom like at NPP only a fraction are truly active). Nobody really likes doing
1110:
I've always felt that number of active administrators isn't the only way we should judge the health of the site as a whole. There can be many strong contributors who will not run to be an administrator, because they either fear the process or simply have no interest in it, or feel unqualified.
1067:
based on what I read on these pages, I'd huve to give up full-time work and spend a couple of years editing to again feel ready to stand. By the time I retire, that bar will likely be much higher. I'm never going to write a feature article, and no one needs to do that to serve as a good
624:
pass. Of course, we nominators don't get it right all the time, but nobody is perfect. This year has seen a few more new admins than what has become 'normal', but on average I don't see it as bucking any trends. Perhaps remind The
Signpost readers of the RfA trilogy I wrote last year.
749:
Fine. I'll rephrase. I've been following RfA for years (which includes the recent one, as I'm sure you would agree) and I base my comments on the observations I have made while following RfA for years. Oh, and I have also been through the process myself. Twice, in fact.
30:
What's up (and down) with administrators, articles and languages: Active administrators and articles achieved are marking milestone metrics, but in diverging directions. Plus, the first time any court has found there exists a constitutional right to read
Knowledge
664:
House of Lords, but I would respect it. Times have changed since the days when my early votes on an RfA would have an influence; nowadays I generally vote late, and the outcome by then is pretty much already secure (one way or the other.)
896:, AfC has problems, but not the ones you mention here. There is no urgency at AfC - have you seen the stats of accepted vs declined/rejected?. What the community should be focusing on right now is the huge backlog at NPP, our
1184:
I can't remember if I ever ran. I've written FAs, GAs, and whatnot. I think I did run and I got a bunch of "doesn't need the tools". It's hard to hear someone's vocal inflection in text, but I swear it was "fuck you!"
828:. While a new strategy might be best, that number probably is acheivable. Perhaps combined with some efforts of actually trying to re-engage admins, especially those still active on the site in any fashion.
602:
576:
566:
536:
561:
546:
531:
511:
556:
541:
521:
474:
465:
408:
204:
77:
952:
be reviewed. This forecast isn't actually that unlikely, as
Knowledge (XXG) continues to scare off and burn out its long-term editors, whilst paid editing and POV editing is on the increase.
824:. That discussion moved on to consider how many applications we'd need. In total numbers, we'd need loads, but to match the declining rate of active admins (rate as of that point), we'd need
851:
of the issue is that we need more technology (e.g. more
Cluebots in different areas), however, there are many areas that need "human" judgment. I am not sure how this is going to work out?
526:
504:
1332:
1068:
administrator. That's clear in part because it's a process that isn't particularly dependent upon administrator authority at any point. I've always found that to be a curious test.
498:
56:
45:
551:
1201:
208:
1228:
a list of thirty-four prospective admin candidates, but I've decided to allow any admin to make good use of the list in the hopes of fixing
Knowledge (XXG)'s admin problem.
571:
1383:
94:
778:
21:
1359:
1354:
1349:
1087:
anyone with less that 15 months tenure. It is still possible to become an admin with a level of activity that fits in with also having a full time job.
217:
183:
451:
1077:
1344:
1306:
399:
both requested the voluntary removal of their admin rights while NCurse and Matthewedwards were dysysopped under inactivity rules in December.
407:: The English Knowledge (XXG) will reach six million articles by January 15, according to our estimate. Previous milestones were noted in
713:
I've followed recent RfAs fairly closely and I can't say that I agree with your conclusions. 'Evil behaviour' is definitely a stretch.
1339:
486:
174:
50:
36:
17:
943:
there's urgency for two reasons that I see. The first is that editor retention will improve if an editor sees their draft accepted
865:
This is a huge concern, and it's not limited to admin backlogs either. We're currently experiencing an unprecedented crisis at
291:
277:
1118:
273:
375:
compared to only 10 in 2018. 22 new sysops in one year is below replacement levels, but the highest annual total since 2014.
324:
246:
239:
1074:
900:
firewall against inappropriate new articles, and subjected to a harsh deadline. It's an uphill battle, and it's losing.
1318:
1299:
1275:
1249:
1235:
1213:
1194:
1178:
1163:
1134:
1124:
1103:
1094:
1081:
1044:
1018:
997:
976:
927:
909:
884:
860:
837:
811:
790:
759:
744:
722:
708:
690:
673:
655:
633:
1245:
1190:
224:
for the entire month. It does not appear likely to rise above 500 again, unless there is a major change in trend.
187:
781:
significantly enough in December, January, and February that we would also expect a moving average to increase.
372:
1365:
856:
821:
648:
1071:
1174:
1131:
1089:
1031:
800:
I also nominated the Turkish court overruling Erdogan's decision on banning Knowledge (XXG) in ITN section
421:
exceeded 700,000 articles. Good work: its editors created the last 100,000 pages during about 13.5 months.
227:
1260:
1241:
1232:
1186:
923:
833:
755:
718:
686:
1265:
260:
1209:
1159:
440:
1272:
852:
660:
642:
281:
time any court has found there exists a constitutional right to read Knowledge (XXG) specifically.
71:
786:
378:
104:
1295:
1170:
1040:
993:
905:
777:, as well as for the full first week of this month, FWIW. Usually the number of active admins
740:
704:
669:
629:
598:
332:
312:
124:
1143:
1229:
1223:
1011:
969:
955:
918:
877:
829:
807:
751:
728:
714:
696:
682:
348:
866:
231:
134:
1205:
1155:
356:
320:
299:
154:
799:
1269:
396:
1377:
1314:
1112:
782:
384:
352:
1291:
1290:
Knowledge (XXG) is still blocked in Turkey. You might want to correct the article.
1036:
989:
938:
901:
736:
700:
665:
625:
360:
359:(December 23). All had approvals above 90%. Adminship was procedurally restored to
144:
1240:
What's a cratchat, and why did such an odd combination of letters pass copy edit?
1023:
1005:
985:
963:
893:
871:
803:
418:
392:
327:. One of the prerequisites for the new wiki was the January registration of an
114:
1152:
Suffice to say that we (Wikipedians) think that it important for people to...
368:
364:
328:
1310:
1285:
1147:
164:
798:
I would also like to become an admin after reading this. Apart from that
1030:
triage (a concept that people with with front line army experience or
1027:
72:
What's up (and down) with administrators, articles and languages
55:
347:
welcomes the English Knowledge (XXG)'s newest administrators,
236:
485:
290:
259:
173:
35:
220:
was established in its current form in 2014, the tally of
802:. Hope this Signpost would encourage to post it in ITN.
1202:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Peregrine Fisher
774:
614:
607:
587:
388:
323:
are one of sixteen Taiwanese tribes recognized by the
612:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
452:meta:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Sakizaya
1150:please not a small typo in the Turkish article:
820:For a discussion on this held in November, see
316:
8:
439:Probably for the first time since 2005, see
773:There were 500 admins classified as active
207:from the July issue, or other items in the
205:"Administrator cadre continues to contract"
197:A sad milestone for English Knowledge (XXG)
1200:Yes, you did run; t'was back in 2007. See
1384:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2019-12
371:(a bureaucrat). This year saw a total of
298:Indigenous groups in Taiwan include the
222:active administrators has been under 500
216:This December, for the first time since
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
615:
591:
432:
302:who now have their own Knowledge (XXG).
1151:
381:passed away in November. He is missed.
29:
7:
254:Turkish Knowledge (XXG) block lifted
1305:Unblocked yesterday, according to
278:block of Knowledge (XXG) in Turkey
272:Just before we went to press, the
57:
28:
1331:is written by editors like you –
735:been through the process myself.
597:These comments are automatically
149:
139:
129:
119:
109:
99:
89:
230:sent us this commentary on the
608:add the page to your watchlist
331:language code for Sakizaya by
274:Constitutional Court of Turkey
1:
1179:22:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
1164:22:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
1125:15:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
1082:13:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
1045:13:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
1019:16:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
998:15:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
977:13:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
928:03:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
910:03:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
885:01:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
861:11:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
838:10:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
812:04:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
791:03:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
760:18:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
745:15:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
723:04:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
709:03:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
691:23:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
674:09:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
656:15:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
634:13:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
325:Council of Indigenous Peoples
1319:17:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
1300:20:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
1276:03:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
1250:06:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
319:) launched in November. The
1236:03:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
1214:23:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
1195:06:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
1135:08:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
1104:20:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
695:That's not quite accurate,
409:last month's news and notes
203:For deeper background, see
193:with a few seats left over.
1400:
182:English Knowledge (XXG)'s
961:every backlog we have. —
822:RfA - Rising Success Rate
1266:Knowledge (XXG):CRATCHAT
681:doom-and-gloom mantra.
605:. To follow comments,
490:
295:
264:
178:
40:
826:31/year or 2.55/month
489:
417:: In early December,
415:Wikispecies milestone
294:
263:
232:request for adminship
184:active administrators
177:
39:
601:from this article's
441:User:Widefox/editors
373:22 new sysops by RfA
209:Reforming RfA series
1220:A while ago I sent
1142:course, we do have
191:(balcony not shown)
1307:The New York Times
592:Discuss this story
577:WikiProject report
567:On the bright side
537:Arbitration report
491:
478:"News and notes" →
351:(December 2); and
296:
265:
179:
46:← Back to Contents
41:
1132:WereSpielChequers
1123:
789:
616:purging the cache
562:From the archives
547:Technology report
532:Discussion report
459:
405:Article milestone
387:was desysoped by
333:SIL International
317:szy.wikipedia.org
315:Knowledge (XXG) (
251:
250:
228:WereSpielChequers
192:
51:View Latest Issue
1391:
1368:
1289:
1264:
1261:BeenAroundAWhile
1242:BeenAroundAWhile
1227:
1187:Peregrine Fisher
1115:
1101:
1097:
1092:
1014:
972:
959:
942:
880:
785:
654:
651:
645:
619:
617:
611:
590:
512:From the editors
509:
501:
499:27 December 2019
494:
477:
470:"News and notes"
469:
454:
449:
443:
437:
429:
389:Committee motion
267:Censored no more
237:
190:
167:
153:
152:
143:
142:
133:
132:
123:
122:
113:
112:
103:
102:
93:
92:
63:
61:
59:
58:27 December 2019
1399:
1398:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1364:
1362:
1357:
1352:
1347:
1342:
1335:
1325:
1324:
1283:
1258:
1221:
1121:
1099:
1095:
1090:
1037:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
1012:
990:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
970:
953:
936:
902:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
878:
737:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
701:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
666:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
649:
643:
641:
626:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
621:
613:
606:
595:
594:
588:+ Add a comment
586:
582:
581:
580:
557:Recent research
502:
497:
495:
492:
481:
480:
475:
472:
467:
461:
460:
458:
457:
450:
446:
438:
434:
428:
321:Sakizaya people
304:
303:
300:Sakizaya people
288:
287:
269:
268:
257:
256:
199:
194:
180:
169:
168:
162:
161:
160:
159:
150:
140:
130:
120:
110:
100:
90:
84:
81:
70:
66:
64:
54:
53:
48:
42:
32:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1397:
1395:
1387:
1386:
1376:
1375:
1363:
1358:
1353:
1348:
1343:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1327:
1326:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1253:
1252:
1238:
1217:
1216:
1182:
1181:
1166:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1117:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
980:
979:
931:
930:
888:
887:
853:Britishfinance
847:
846:
841:
840:
817:
816:
815:
814:
775:just yesterday
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
678:
677:
676:
661:Chris troutman
644:Chris Troutman
640:empty manner.
596:
593:
585:
584:
583:
579:
574:
569:
564:
559:
554:
549:
544:
542:Traffic report
539:
534:
529:
524:
522:Special report
519:
517:News and notes
514:
508:
496:
484:
483:
482:
473:
464:
463:
462:
456:
455:
444:
431:
430:
427:
424:
423:
422:
412:
402:
401:
400:
382:
376:
339:Administrators
336:
305:
297:
289:
286:
283:
270:
266:
258:
255:
252:
249:
248:
245:
241:
214:
213:
198:
195:
181:
172:
171:
170:
158:
157:
147:
137:
127:
117:
107:
97:
86:
85:
82:
76:
75:
74:
73:
69:News and notes
68:
67:
65:
62:
49:
44:
43:
34:
33:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1396:
1385:
1382:
1381:
1379:
1367:
1361:
1356:
1351:
1346:
1341:
1334:
1330:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1287:
1277:
1274:
1271:
1267:
1262:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1237:
1234:
1231:
1225:
1219:
1218:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1167:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1140:
1136:
1133:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1122:
1120:
1114:
1109:
1105:
1102:
1098:
1093:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1076:
1073:
1066:
1065:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1015:
1008:
1007:
1001:
1000:
999:
995:
991:
987:
984:
983:
982:
981:
978:
974:
973:
966:
965:
957:
951:
946:
940:
935:
934:
933:
932:
929:
926:
925:
922:
921:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
907:
903:
899:
895:
892:
891:
890:
889:
886:
882:
881:
874:
873:
868:
864:
863:
862:
858:
854:
849:
848:
843:
842:
839:
835:
831:
827:
823:
819:
818:
813:
809:
805:
801:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
788:
784:
780:
776:
761:
757:
753:
748:
747:
746:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
725:
724:
720:
716:
712:
711:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
693:
692:
688:
684:
679:
675:
671:
667:
662:
659:
658:
657:
652:
646:
638:
637:
636:
635:
631:
627:
618:
609:
604:
600:
589:
578:
575:
573:
570:
568:
565:
563:
560:
558:
555:
553:
550:
548:
545:
543:
540:
538:
535:
533:
530:
528:
525:
523:
520:
518:
515:
513:
510:
506:
500:
493:In this issue
488:
479:
471:
453:
448:
445:
442:
436:
433:
425:
420:
416:
413:
410:
406:
403:
398:
394:
390:
386:
383:
380:
379:Angusmclellan
377:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
343:
342:
340:
337:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
307:
306:
301:
293:
284:
282:
279:
275:
262:
253:
242:
238:
235:
233:
229:
225:
223:
219:
212:
210:
206:
201:
200:
196:
189:
186:could fit in
185:
176:
166:
156:
148:
146:
138:
136:
128:
126:
118:
116:
108:
106:
98:
96:
88:
87:
79:
60:
52:
47:
38:
23:
19:
1329:The Signpost
1328:
1282:
1183:
1171:David Gerard
1116:
1088:
1069:
1010:
1004:
968:
962:
949:
944:
924:
919:
897:
876:
870:
825:
772:
732:
622:
527:In the media
516:
505:all comments
447:
435:
414:
404:
345:The Signpost
344:
338:
309:New language
308:
271:
226:
221:
215:
202:
188:Lincoln Hall
95:PDF download
1366:Suggestions
1224:Vanamonde93
956:OhanaUnited
920:OhanaUnited
830:Nosebagbear
752:Lepricavark
729:Lepricavark
715:Lepricavark
697:Lepricavark
683:Lepricavark
599:transcluded
419:Wikispecies
349:Dreamy Jazz
285:Brief notes
145:X (Twitter)
1206:Nick Moyes
1156:Nick Moyes
727:Obviously
426:References
357:Newslinger
276:ruled the
234:process:
83:Share this
78:Contribute
22:2019-12-27
1360:Subscribe
1270:Athaenara
603:talk page
397:Athaenara
329:ISO 639-3
1378:Category
1355:Newsroom
1350:Archives
1333:join in!
1113:Eddie891
1100:Chequers
783:Dekimasu
468:Previous
385:Edgar181
353:Rosguill
313:Sakizaya
218:the list
135:Facebook
125:LinkedIn
115:Mastodon
20: |
1292:Kaldari
1144:WP:ORFA
939:Kudpung
552:Gallery
361:Spartaz
1028:binary
1024:Bilorv
1006:Bilorv
986:Bilorv
964:Bilorv
894:Bilorv
872:Bilorv
867:WP:AFC
804:Abishe
393:clpo13
367:, and
155:Reddit
105:E-mail
31:(XXG).
1345:About
1268:. –
1096:Spiel
950:never
779:rises
572:Op-Ed
16:<
1340:Home
1315:talk
1296:talk
1246:talk
1210:talk
1191:talk
1175:talk
1160:talk
1119:Work
1091:Ϣere
1041:talk
1013:talk
994:talk
971:talk
906:talk
898:only
879:talk
857:talk
834:talk
808:talk
756:talk
741:talk
733:have
719:talk
705:talk
687:talk
670:talk
650:talk
630:talk
476:Next
395:and
369:Xeno
365:Deor
355:and
1311:Bri
1286:Bri
1154:.)
1148:Bri
1032:MCI
391:.
165:Bri
163:By
80:—
1380::
1317:)
1309:☆
1298:)
1273:✉
1248:)
1230:ミラ
1212:)
1204:.
1193:)
1177:)
1162:)
1043:)
1017:)
996:)
975:)
945:or
908:)
883:)
859:)
836:)
810:)
787:よ!
758:)
743:)
721:)
707:)
689:)
672:)
632:)
466:←
363:,
341::
311::
247:”
240:“
1313:(
1294:(
1288::
1284:@
1263::
1259:@
1244:(
1233:P
1226::
1222:@
1208:(
1189:(
1173:(
1158:(
1078:W
1075:P
1072:T
1070:~
1039:(
1009:(
992:(
967:(
958::
954:@
941::
937:@
904:(
875:(
855:(
832:(
806:(
754:(
739:(
717:(
703:(
685:(
668:(
653:)
647:(
628:(
620:.
610:.
507:)
503:(
411:.
335:.
211:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
