570:
pro-PC users (mostly antivandals) seem rabid on wide-scale implementation even when it is technically still in trial. Wasn't the whole point of the trial to get a clearer view on the impact and to formulate actual guidelines on usage? (Like say, exactly how do we determine which users are ideal for reviewer status and which aren't? How do we report a reviewer who abuses his position? How do we ensure it's all fair? How do we explain it to new users? etc. So yeah, where are they? Rather than arguing on keep/delete and statistics, the editors/programmers who want to keep PC should instead be proposing guidelines and scope by now for discussion by now rather than just slamming a fist on the table, glaring at everyone else, and growling
735:
foundation members and a couple of comedy comments etc. As such my assessment was not to do a keep or reject position but to assess the number of users that are commenting in regards to the trial has ended so switch off the tool. To give a percentage of commenter that are insisting on that and the reasons they want it, as you say some of those users just dislike the tool and also have repeatedly polled against it. It would be interesting to cross reference the 26 names you have that polled to close in the last poll against the 24 users in my list that are commenting to close in this discussion.
652:
topics (e.g. "If PC is implemented, should it never be used on any articles other than BLPs"), and then allow users to vote on which topics they would like to see discussed. This would give us a good idea of what users actually consider important, and would allow us to take things at a sensible pace, discussing each aspect individually, and only discussing those which users actually feel is relevant. If other users are willing to try this idea out, I'm happy to take a shot at setting up a page where topics can be proposed and voted on, and eventually discussed. -
720:
previous poll, and 26 of them voted to close then, and only 17 to keep. Yes, I do think it would be a good idea to stop using PC while we discuss it, and don't see the point of just keeping it on 10 pages, why not just remove it from all pages? I think you misunderstand what the issue is with the devs having to switch it on and off, it would not be an issue if we remove it from all articles; it would be an issue if we turn it off properly, so it's not even possible to use it any more (I'm happy to help with any bot-coding for this). -
1075:- What about moving all the content on this RFC page to this talk page and starting clean and fresh on the page we have now with all the discussion that has occurred already in the RFC still available for continued discussion on this talkpage, the only issue would be clearly knowing that no one objects. I am thinking only to keep the focus on a single page. Although the focas may shift to the new RFC format there is still active discussion on the current page and it would be a shame to archive active threads.
1353:
35:
704:
any issues the tech guys have with switching on and off and imo there is no need at all to remove all the user rights until the community has clearly rejected the tool which as yet they absolutely have not) and have a couple of more weeks discussion and then a Keep or reject poll. After that if the tool is kept and anyone want to suggest a new trial for perhaps specific directed expansion or whatever they can RFC and poll again.
1016:
one-sentence comments in endorsements will make it easier to determine a consensus. Open dialogue can continue as normal on the talk page, but only the RFC itself will be used to gauge consensus. This should also invite wider participation as users can simply add their endorsements without having to read extremely lengthy conversations if that is what they prefer to do.
667:
what articles were placed under PC and on what criteria, problems encountered if any. Stuff like that. After that, proposals should then be made (probably by the dev team) and then discussion on the merits of the individual components. Then another round at the toolshed and finally implementation that might actually have the weight of consensus behind it.--
492:. Both times what the clear majority wanted was not done. And saying we shouldn't "temporarily" turn it off for fear of it never being turned back on again is hypocritical, since you're fine with temporarily turning it on and then purposely keeping it on permanently, and we aren't asking that it be "temporarily" turned off anyway; we're asking that it be
926:
That is true, and I already stated I would not object, When valid opposition presents itself however, if compromise is available perhaps it should be pursued. No subsequent action can rectify the procedural discrepancies from the past. That these discrepancies exist is a fact. Whether mistakes of the
894:
I'm disappointed. I think vandalism on
Knowledge (XXG) is evil. I don't assume good faith if someone proposes to turn off PC, turning off PC is complicity with vandalism. Filibusting is vandalism. PC is being filibuster since August 2009. People interested on constructive editing (rollbackers and the
818:
Again I agree. Whatever support has been lost to a procedural is not worth the loss. For my part I wouldn't stop supporting PC as a net positive simply because the tool had been turned off during the consensus phase. On the other hand many have expressed the simple fact the tool has been left on as a
734:
I was very careful in my assessment of users comments so as as not to attribute a position to them unless it was imo absolutely clear. Users that support the tool clearly and have voiced that in the discussion are also 24, the others are unclear, and such as one user who just corrected a typo and two
698:
So far there are 96 commenters in the discussion - 24 of them have stated they want the tool switched off. Around just over half of these users have stated they don't want the tool at all, leaving around 10 users that have commented stated they want the tool turned off and then they will also want to
515:
Agree completely with WAID. There is consensus to us this tool. There is no consensus to turn it of. We should really get back to improving
Knowledge (XXG). If we could even agree on a voting procedure which is fair / ethical maybe we could move forwards but one side keeps calling for twice too three
311:
support an option, I included them as being opposed to that option. This was partly to show how badly designed the poll was, rather than to demonstrate any kind of consensus which had been reached through the poll. I find it vaguely amusing that so many users (such as yourself) said it wasn't fair of
1223:
Can we please stop pushing for polls again? Polls were what got us into this mess in the first place. Jimbo has no more authority than any of you. Though his advice is respected of course, his word is not law. Why don't you all start listening to the concerns for once so we still might have a chance
803:
If we need to remove PC from all articles is currently on in order to get people to agree to move forward personally I'm ok with that. I can't say I like it but if that's what has to be done let's just do it. We can always put it back if that is the decision reached, and the fact that it is still on
766:
comments as they do so. Threaded discussion will be confined to the talk page. This is kind of a hybrid approach and I have seen it work at user RFCs. I've seen it fail too, but I think it has got to be a better option than the mess we have now. I'm willing to put in the needed work to get it up and
666:
Before that though, I'd rather really hear the experiences of the reviewers first (I wasn't even active yet when PC was first polled). As mentioned in the main page, things like number of vandalisms stopped, good faith edits that didn't get through, edit wars with other reviewers if there are some,
403:
Putting aside the practicalities of this issue for the moment, consider the effect of failing to follow up on commitments when another trial on anything is proposed. Many more words and assurances will have to be stated and more time spent to rebuild confidence that agreements are indeed meaningful.
340:
Actually there is one thing which can be concluded: A large majority think "pending changes" should be done in some form or another. I still like my 'automobile self-starter analogy" - the current "pending changes" maybe flawed, but that was true of the self-starter as well. The principle is that it
266:
Which rather suggest that, at the time, you recognized that opposition to PC was, indeed, a minority position. I do consider that the claim that "anyone who only stated support for one of the pro-PC positions is therefore automatically opposed to all the other pro-PC positions." (paraphrasing your
877:
The point is that disagreement over what should have happened already is impeding forward progress. If we temporarily take it off all articles it is currently on that should satisfy that concern and allow us to focus conversation on the larger issue of if this project should have pending changes at
703:
to end at least that will put an end to those specific objections and then we can get a clearer comment as regards keep or reject, instead of the added unclarity of some users saying turn off and discuss. Perhaps a compromise would be, to remove the tool from all but ten articles (as this will stop
569:
The first time I heard of what PC was and what it was for I thought 'seems like a good middle area between semi-protect and full-protect'. So no, the assertions against the 'anti-PC crowd' is rather baseless. I still think it's a good idea on certain very sensitive articles. The problem is how some
285:
Honestly
Collect I don't want to discuss this all over again. So I'll just point out what I feel to be the relevant parts of my comments on the page I linked to above. Regarding your quote, please note the phrases "what you claim" and "what appears to be". While you say my claim doesn't make sense,
437:
I realize that it's difficult to admit defeat, but the anti-PC side has already lost: a clear majority of the community wants to keep and use this tool (in some form or another). Their energy would be better applied towards regulating it to death. Pounding on the table about "broken promises" is
959:
several-month test and look what happened. But there was no storm, no ship's wheel spinning out of control, just a crew that either deliberately or thoughtlessly—certainly not accidentally—steered us toward the strange place we now find ourselves in. And on this ship (as on the Island) there's no
964:
we'll work on finding consensus vis-à-vis future implementation. That way, the spirit of the consensus for the trial period is honored. Any other way, it looks very much like the goal posts have been moved. Fwiw, while I oppose PC in general, I am quite willing to cheerfully live with it if it's
757:
I got this ball rolling because this issue has got to be settled. It has to. The one thing all sides seem to agree on is that we need to end the "trial." Where we disagree is clearer as well, so some purpose has been served here already. I believe what we have already can be used to construct a
298:
they did not support the other options, but were still counted up as supporting the other options. That is a gross misrepresentation of the way those users feel, it's basically lying about how they voted. I, on the other hand, actually took the time to read through every single support vote, and
855:
I wonder if it would be a valid compromise to reduced the amount of articles under PC protection by half. The removed half can satisfy those who need to know what happens with the tool removed while the remaining half can satisfy their interests in retaining the benefits of the system in place?
651:
Actually, I will expand a bit further on some of my ideas. I think it's vital that we take this slowly, step by step. These "yes or no" poll proposals are not going to work, simply because there are too many elements in play here. I think it would be interesting to split this into very specific
719:
Actually, 96 users have edited the page (although a few are not actually commenting). Your stats are useless unless you also show how many of them support PC (because otherwise, you are yet again simply assuming people support it). Also, interestingly, 43 of the users on this page voted in the
1015:
It still wouldn't be a poll. The idea is that by using this somewhat more restricted methodology we avoid the sort of free-for-all we are seeing now. Many users may endorse multiple views, or may find that none of them represent them accurately and they can add their own. Allowing only brief
617:
I agree, this RfC is not - and in some ways never was - helping. I think it's about time we closed it, and discussed better ways of preceding. I have a few ideas of my own, but at this stage nothing would come of them, everybody's attitudes are much too confrontational at the moment. My only
452:
So you're pretty much saying the anti-PC crowd, in attempting to point out that the consensual trial has twice been clearly violated, is disrupting the debate to prove a point? If that's disruption to prove a point, I don't wanna see what disruption for the sake of disruption is.
1322:
Please avoid reference to childishness and such like even if you think that is honest - it is still considered to be close to a personal attack. I might think you are a primary school user but it is better if I keep my opinions to myself, as it is for you to do also. -
496:
turned off until there is actually a consensus to have it on. That's how
Knowledge (XXG) works, you need consensus to implement something new, you don't need consensus to not implement something new, turning it off would be not implementing a new feature, keeping it on
1000:
I hope that he did not mean "score" in the sense of "vote" so much as using the various levels of support as a starting point for a more structured discussion, resulting (hopefully) in consensus. If that is what is being proposed then I think it could work.
840:
If something is working well you shouldn't turn it off. I don't understand why a wikipedian supports the use of
Knowledge (XXG) as a vandalism noticeboard. But we can use it on 10,000 low profile BLPs only and learn on the job. Pending changes are needed.
1298:
majority the third time around would only mean another extension of the trial. It hasn't led to anything in the past two polls, why exactly do you think it'll make a difference now? I mean, cripes, there is a rather prominent appeal at the top of the RfC
1141:
When there is no consensus (and we're looking at about 65% pro and the rest contra judging from the outcomes of the last two polls so it is close to no consensus) it all boils down what should we default to for pending changes. We have two options:
1044:
I'm prepared to do this as early as tomorrow if there are not significant objections to it. I'm thinking that everything we have now will be collapsed but still available, the other option being closing this page and starting a entirely new one.
762:. The main viewpoints can be written up, and users could add individual "views" if their outlook does not fit within the any of the other views already expressed. User can then endorse as many viewpoints as they find they agree with, leaving
601:
I think that both this talk page, and the main page, have pretty much reached a stalemate, with editors just repeating their own settled opinions at one another, and becoming increasingly exasperated with one another. What should we do?
204:
Sorry, I'm slightly confused, when you say "all who supported some version of ongoing PC", do you mean "all who supported some version of PC until
December 31, 2010 (two months ago)". Or are you referencing some vote I am unaware of? -
1401:
1393:
1388:
83:
75:
70:
909:
A dozen people now ask PC to be turned off. I don't have a good feeling. 80% of 259 users asked for PC in August 2009. Reviewers and
Rollbackers should vote if PC helps them fighting vandalism. Too much filibusting/harassment here.
927:
past should impede progress is its own issue. So while I am willing to turn the tool of and discuss, I am also willing to leaving it on absent some clear consensus to turn it off. Lastly, but not least, I am willing to compromise.
960:
distinction between crew and passengers; we're all in this together. A sizable contingent, myself included, are making what seems to us to be a reasonable request: better late than never, turn PC off as was agreed upon, and
140:
Only thing is, we're almost 9 months into a two month trial. That's why there's calls to at the least remove PC from all articles first - at present the only reason it's still running is because of dungeon master's fiat.
804:
has become a rather large distraction from the real issues. Further delay is in nobody's best interest, let's push on and settle this matter, we can always work out any lingering details after the big decision is made.
1155:
For me, I prefer the second option because it seems plain and simple and it represents the status quo; that is, the state of affairs in which we dealt with problems on
Knowledge (XXG) before the introduction of PC.
1251:
If you think there are more than those two basic options I would respectfully disagree, also we are not in any mess at all, stop shouting. Also give over with the attacking edit summaries like this recent one -
21:
433:
to get it turned off "temporarily". I predict that if it were turned off "just to keep the promise", then we would see an endless supply of further procedural complaints to prevent it ever being turned on
1303:, yet you have attempted it twice in the parent page already and once here. Even after apparently agreeing to Beeblebrox's proposal, you still think there are only two options with no gray area. *shrugs*--
245:
632:
Yes please.The results of the trial (doesn't matter if it stays in place for now), recommendations, and plans of future coverage and implementation of the dev team would be a nice starting point. --
1059:
I would much prefer it's archived rather than hidden - perhaps a cut and paste archive procedure. It's a big old page already, and too much useful stuff gets hidden by collapsing these days. --
542:
No, there was consensus for a two-month trial, and then an extension of that trial to the end of 2010. Never was there consensus for a full and complete rollout. Anyone who says there was is
176:
demonstrated consensus for pending changes. Even if you say that the polls demonstrate consensus, the polls were actually only for keeping PC on for a limited time, that time is now up. -
1091:
Those are both better ideas, thanks for pitching them. Archiving might be our best bet, that way we will have a clean slate but we can easily link directly to what has gone before.
488:
been demonstrated that a clear majority want "to keep and use this tool". It's been demonstrated that a clear majority wanted (twice) to use this tool for a certain period of time,
264:
I'm not saying we should ignore what you claim is a majority, I'm simply saying that you shouldn't ignore what appears to be the minority, just on the basis that it's a minority.
190:
Care to recite tha last figures including all who supported some version of ongoing PC v. those who opposed all versions of PC? I think the actual count speaks for itself.
991:
So, you propose that we endorse (lets not call it a vote) specific positions, and at the end, we score the endorcements for the various positions and implement that? --
965:
implemented in an open, aboveboard way that respects consensus. Failing to shut down a test run as agreed, with no compelling reason given, doesn't meet that standard.
349:
take place if we do not allow anyone to use the 'self-starters" in the first place. Experience will, I trust, lead us to better improvements than continued discussion
1178:
Well, Jimbo has already ordained that it is turned on. So, I think we better talk about HOW it is going to be implemented, not whether it will be implemented. --
618:
suggestions at this time would be for a more collaborative, accessible approach. This RfC is providing neither of these, and so I think it's run its course. -
767:
running, although if anyone wants to write up any one of the views expressed here as a position to be endorsed they are more than welcome to do so.
312:
me to count those users as being opposed to the other options, but don't seem to mind counting them as supporting the other options (even when they
294:
implementation. To make it slightly more clear why it makes more sense: the way that poll was counted meant that some users supported one option,
699:
continue discussing. Is this a good reason to switch the tool off? Perhaps it is, even though a small minority, they are vocal and the trial was
1332:
1317:
1265:
1246:
1218:
1196:
1182:
1172:
1114:
1100:
1084:
1063:
1054:
1039:
1025:
1010:
995:
974:
943:
919:
904:
887:
872:
850:
835:
813:
798:
776:
744:
729:
713:
681:
661:
646:
627:
611:
588:
558:
537:
510:
479:
465:
447:
413:
394:
362:
333:
280:
257:
235:
214:
199:
185:
167:
153:
135:
113:
1167:
426:
people who are demanding that it be turned off "just to keep the promise" are the people who very much want it to be turned off permanently.
96:
I'm seeing a handful of people insisting that pending changes must be turned off while a decision is being made. This reminds me of
1369:
51:
17:
1290:
kind of diplomacy, sorry. The concerns on PC are valid. Ignoring them and pretending we're not all actually in a mess over this
429:
The opponents already know that there is no consensus to get rid of it permanently, so I believe that they're trying to use
1294:
childish. An argument that has stretched for almost a year and has actually made it into mainstream news is not a mess? A
320:
support the other options). In summary, that poll was flawed, it would be best to simply let it go, and not try to reach
1224:
of actually implementing a version of PC that everyone can be happy with? Making people think that the only choices are
529:
244:
not willing to get into another big debate about what the result in that poll meant, you can read my thoughts on it at
782:
I would not object, and I would gladly participate under a more defined structure. Good luck in defining it however.
544:
willfully misinterpreting both the initial consensus and the vote that started the second, 5-month phase of the trial
1360:
404:"Say what we do and do what we say" is an important principle to help ensure an organization can work effectively.
42:
548:
455:
143:
533:
443:
109:
878:
all. If it is decided to keep it we can put it back and if it is decided not to keep it then we're done.
158:
and a significant consensus of editors in favor of keeping it (albeit seeking to improve it over time).
1192:
1157:
915:
900:
846:
470:
Actually, the picture described here does not at all describe what I have been saying on this page. --
1328:
1261:
1214:
1179:
1110:
1096:
1080:
1050:
1035:
1021:
992:
970:
883:
809:
772:
740:
709:
607:
475:
937:
866:
829:
792:
725:
657:
623:
506:
329:
253:
210:
181:
129:
1209:
poll in the near future and User:TeleComNasSprVen will get his opportunity to reject soon enough.
1306:
1235:
1070:
952:
670:
635:
577:
405:
543:
385:
Funny, because right now we are doing it "your" way. The two month trial was over months ago.
1006:
439:
390:
358:
276:
231:
220:
195:
163:
105:
955:
nature of the
Pending Changes trial. (I'm dating myself here, I realize.) We signed up for a
759:
1188:
911:
896:
842:
525:
409:
430:
1324:
1257:
1210:
1162:
1106:
1092:
1076:
1046:
1031:
1017:
966:
879:
805:
768:
736:
705:
603:
471:
1286:
LOL I'm not trying to hide it if that's what you're getting at. I'm really not into the
1288:
act-like-we're-all-at-a-polite-dinner-party-while-I-bait-someone-into-losing-their-cool
929:
895:
ones never blocked) should decide on the anti-vandalism politics of
Knowledge (XXG). --
858:
821:
784:
721:
653:
619:
502:
325:
249:
206:
177:
121:
286:
as I noted on that page, it makes more sense then presuming that anyone who supports
951:
Yes. There are a lot of issues here, but the primary sticking point seems to be the
97:
1002:
386:
354:
272:
227:
191:
159:
1368:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1060:
517:
50:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
240:
Oh dear, I thought that poll had been discarded by pretty much everybody. I'm
246:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost/2010-09-13/News and notes
222:
407 (or 409) to 217. For some odd reason, I thought that meant a
1347:
29:
100:
about Linux distro wars: 'First, you have to do it my way.
1146:
Keep PC on (in trial form or whatever it ought to be). Or
1253:
422:
Yes, it's a bad procedural precedent. But AFAICT, the
516:
times the say of the other. Not the way things work.
307:
options they supported/opposed. Yes, if they did not
758:re-start RFC which would be structured more like a
8:
1254:"stop the frakking childishness already"
1366:Do not edit the contents of this page.
48:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Pending changes
1030:This sounds like a very good idea.
324:conclusion on consensus from it. -
303:to see if they had specified which
753:Re-start with different structure?
28:
22:Request for Comment February 2011
1351:
1201:Yes, imo there is going to be a
33:
501:implementing a new feature. -
290:implementation of PC supports
104:we can have a discussion...'
1:
1232:is deliberately misleading.--
345:be improved on -- which can
1137:No consensus defaults to...
1420:
353:using a tool we have now.
1333:21:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
1318:20:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
1266:17:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
1247:17:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
1219:15:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
1197:00:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
1183:00:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
1173:00:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
1115:21:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
1101:19:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
1085:18:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
1064:18:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
1055:18:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
1040:16:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
1026:22:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
1011:15:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
996:15:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
975:05:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
944:05:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
920:11:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
905:09:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
888:04:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
873:04:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
851:04:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
836:04:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
814:04:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
799:04:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
777:03:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
745:13:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
730:12:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
714:03:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
682:00:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
662:23:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
647:23:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
628:23:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
612:22:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
589:19:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
559:02:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
538:17:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
511:10:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
480:21:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
466:10:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
448:20:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
414:17:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
395:18:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
363:21:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
334:20:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
281:18:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
258:17:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
236:17:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
215:17:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
200:15:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
186:13:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
168:12:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
154:07:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
136:23:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
114:23:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
267:apparent argument) does
819:main reason for oppose.
438:just a waste of time.
262:Ah yes - you asserted
1364:of past discussions.
431:procedural complaints
46:of past discussions.
490:and then turn it off
224:substantial majority
226:favoured PC. YMMV.
119:Very reminiscent.
1407:
1406:
1376:
1375:
1370:current talk page
1180:Kim van der Linde
1074:
993:Kim van der Linde
953:Gilligan's Island
950:
556:
463:
296:specifically said
151:
89:
88:
58:
57:
52:current talk page
1411:
1385:
1378:
1377:
1355:
1354:
1348:
1315:
1313:
1311:
1244:
1242:
1240:
1170:
1165:
1160:
1068:
949:(edit conflict)
948:
940:
935:
932:
869:
864:
861:
832:
827:
824:
795:
790:
787:
760:user conduct RFC
694:quick assessment
679:
677:
675:
644:
642:
640:
586:
584:
582:
557:
555:
551:
522:
464:
462:
458:
152:
150:
146:
132:
127:
124:
67:
60:
59:
37:
36:
30:
1419:
1418:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1381:
1352:
1309:
1307:
1305:
1238:
1236:
1234:
1168:
1163:
1158:
1139:
1105:Support. :-) --
957:three-hour tour
938:
933:
930:
867:
862:
859:
830:
825:
822:
793:
788:
785:
755:
696:
673:
671:
669:
638:
636:
634:
599:
580:
578:
576:
572:Keep, just cuz!
554:
549:
518:
461:
456:
149:
144:
130:
125:
122:
94:
63:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1417:
1415:
1405:
1404:
1399:
1396:
1391:
1386:
1374:
1373:
1356:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1199:
1153:
1152:
1149:
1147:
1138:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1066:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
924:
923:
922:
907:
816:
754:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
695:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
598:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
482:
468:
435:
427:
417:
416:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
93:
90:
87:
86:
81:
78:
73:
68:
56:
55:
38:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1416:
1403:
1400:
1397:
1395:
1392:
1390:
1387:
1384:
1380:
1379:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1362:
1357:
1350:
1349:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1316:
1314:
1302:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1245:
1243:
1231:
1227:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1181:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1171:
1166:
1161:
1151:Shut it down.
1150:
1148:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1136:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1072:
1071:edit conflict
1067:
1065:
1062:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1008:
1004:
999:
998:
997:
994:
990:
976:
972:
968:
963:
958:
954:
947:
946:
945:
942:
941:
936:
925:
921:
917:
913:
908:
906:
902:
898:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
885:
881:
876:
875:
874:
871:
870:
865:
854:
853:
852:
848:
844:
839:
838:
837:
834:
833:
828:
817:
815:
811:
807:
802:
801:
800:
797:
796:
791:
781:
780:
779:
778:
774:
770:
765:
761:
752:
746:
742:
738:
733:
732:
731:
727:
723:
718:
717:
716:
715:
711:
707:
702:
693:
683:
680:
678:
665:
664:
663:
659:
655:
650:
649:
648:
645:
643:
631:
630:
629:
625:
621:
616:
615:
614:
613:
609:
605:
596:
590:
587:
585:
573:
568:
560:
553:
552:
545:
541:
540:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
521:
514:
513:
512:
508:
504:
500:
495:
491:
487:
483:
481:
477:
473:
469:
467:
460:
459:
451:
450:
449:
445:
441:
436:
432:
428:
425:
421:
420:
419:
418:
415:
411:
407:
402:
396:
392:
388:
384:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
310:
306:
302:
297:
293:
289:
284:
283:
282:
278:
274:
271:make sense.
270:
265:
261:
260:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
238:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
218:
217:
216:
212:
208:
203:
202:
201:
197:
193:
189:
188:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
170:
169:
165:
161:
157:
156:
155:
148:
147:
139:
138:
137:
134:
133:
128:
118:
117:
116:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
98:a comic strip
92:Meta comments
91:
85:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
66:
62:
61:
53:
49:
45:
44:
39:
32:
31:
23:
19:
1382:
1365:
1359:
1304:
1300:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1206:
1202:
1154:
1140:
961:
956:
928:
857:
820:
783:
763:
756:
700:
697:
668:
633:
600:
575:
571:
547:
519:
498:
494:indefinitely
493:
489:
485:
454:
440:WhatamIdoing
423:
350:
346:
342:
321:
317:
313:
309:specifically
308:
304:
300:
295:
291:
287:
268:
263:
241:
223:
173:
142:
120:
106:WhatamIdoing
101:
95:
64:
47:
41:
1358:This is an
1301:not to poll
1189:Chris.urs-o
912:Chris.urs-o
897:Chris.urs-o
843:Chris.urs-o
40:This is an
1325:Off2riorob
1258:Off2riorob
1211:Off2riorob
1107:Tryptofish
1093:Beeblebrox
1077:Off2riorob
1047:Beeblebrox
1032:Off2riorob
1018:Beeblebrox
967:Rivertorch
880:Beeblebrox
806:Beeblebrox
769:Beeblebrox
737:Off2riorob
706:Off2riorob
604:Tryptofish
597:Stalemate?
472:Tryptofish
314:explicitly
1402:Archive 5
1394:Archive 3
1389:Archive 2
1383:Archive 1
1187:Agree. --
520:Doc James
316:say they
172:There is
84:Archive 5
76:Archive 3
71:Archive 2
65:Archive 1
1159::| TelCo
701:supposed
530:contribs
305:specific
20: |
1361:archive
1003:Revcasy
722:Kingpin
654:Kingpin
620:Kingpin
503:Kingpin
484:It has
387:Protonk
355:Collect
351:without
326:Kingpin
273:Collect
250:Kingpin
228:Collect
207:Kingpin
192:Collect
178:Kingpin
160:Collect
43:archive
1308:Obsidi
1237:Obsidi
1230:delete
1207:Reject
1061:zzuuzz
672:Obsidi
637:Obsidi
579:Obsidi
550:Jeremy
457:Jeremy
434:again.
406:isaacl
242:really
145:Jeremy
1169:Ve :|
939:Strat
868:Strat
831:Strat
794:Strat
764:brief
534:email
486:never
318:don't
131:Strat
16:<
1329:talk
1296:keep
1262:talk
1228:and
1226:keep
1215:talk
1203:Keep
1193:talk
1164:NaSp
1111:talk
1097:talk
1081:talk
1051:talk
1036:talk
1022:talk
1007:talk
971:talk
962:then
916:talk
901:talk
884:talk
847:talk
810:talk
773:talk
741:talk
726:talk
710:talk
658:talk
624:talk
608:talk
526:talk
507:talk
476:talk
444:talk
424:only
410:talk
391:talk
359:talk
343:will
330:talk
301:look
277:talk
254:talk
232:talk
219:See
211:talk
196:talk
182:talk
164:talk
110:talk
102:Then
1205:or
574:.--
546:. —
347:not
322:any
292:any
288:one
269:not
1398:→
1331:)
1292:is
1264:)
1256:-
1217:)
1195:)
1113:)
1099:)
1083:)
1053:)
1038:)
1024:)
1009:)
973:)
934:76
931:My
918:)
910:--
903:)
886:)
863:76
860:My
849:)
841:--
826:76
823:My
812:)
789:76
786:My
775:)
743:)
728:)
712:)
660:)
626:)
610:)
602:--
536:)
532:·
528:·
509:)
499:is
478:)
446:)
412:)
393:)
361:)
332:)
279:)
256:)
248:-
234:)
213:)
198:)
184:)
174:no
166:)
126:76
123:My
112:)
80:→
1372:.
1327:(
1312:n
1310:♠
1260:(
1241:n
1239:♠
1213:(
1191:(
1109:(
1095:(
1079:(
1073:)
1069:(
1049:(
1034:(
1020:(
1005:(
969:(
914:(
899:(
882:(
845:(
808:(
771:(
739:(
724:(
708:(
676:n
674:♠
656:(
641:n
639:♠
622:(
606:(
583:n
581:♠
524:(
505:(
474:(
453:—
442:(
408:(
389:(
357:(
328:(
275:(
252:(
230:(
209:(
194:(
180:(
162:(
141:—
108:(
54:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.