173:
want's can look at how I handled your questionable motives when dealing with you, and take it as a very good indication of the position I am partial to. I said I would help, some things I'v already done, should I delete it because I'm not a model speaker?, or should you get a grip on why you are in an wp:rfc/u of your own. Let me share an Irony with you, "big guy", I wouldn't have even known about this questionnaire except that I noticed the rfc on you, popped in to see what was up, and stumbled to where I am standing now. So give yourself a little pat on the back that I'm here, and immediately get over the fact that I'm going to be here. Ans so I have been as stern with you, and as uncivil as I would endorse as reasonable. And pay attention to the "this discussion may get heated" and all the stuff that is being said. Be informed in your comments. Or show me one time I ever said I was impartial. Or why, because I have an opinion, I can't be fair? even though I'm not obligated to be fair either. Only reasonable. Best regards. --
1546:" But that would be mean. Being more open about it, I see the survey as perhaps having gained some more opinions on civility, incivility, and its consequences, IN ADDITION to those already presented. Opinions presented in the survey must carry no more weight than those presented before it existed. At least that way it has served a purpose. I see little value in trying to analyse, classify and combine results, unless you also include the thoughts of those who didn't respond. And that's mostly impossible. It's the individual responses that count, and always have, because we don't vote.
87:
more arguments about me than the actual issue and I had to just walk away and let the whole thing implode. Also, it is possible that by
January I will be an arbitrator so I should keep my distance from whatever proposal may come out of this, and I may be too busy to do any good here anyway. If I don't get on I will help out where I can moving forward, but don't think I, or any other single user, should be the "public face" of this process. I would like to offer my sincere thanks in advance to anyone and everyone who volunteers to help move this forward.
837:
as it relies on simple numerical replies. With the other two it seems like the reviewers should just start reading them and begin maintaining a list of common themes in the replies, noting how many total users made statements about a the scenarios or the opening questions that share the same characteristics. Of course the more urgent issue is who is going to do any of this work. Perhaps we should find some way to publicly recruit users to review the results? For reference here is everything that was in the category at the moment it was closed:
790:
close itself should be defined; as accepting no more responses into the category; but clearly allowing the page editor access, to clarify their own, at their leisure. What we transcribe from all of this, to a single page, is what will be presented for closure. I have some ideas for a closing quorum, to certify the close, and some logistics on how it could get accomplished, but I'll spare us all any further details, per normal disdain. Best regards. --
35:
1963:. Each username can be clicked to see what that user contributed. I'll go back and add more stats later. By my count, 108 editors took part in phase one, of which 80 did not complete a questionnaire. On the other hand, 75 completed a questionnaire who did not participate in phase one. (I am not counting editors who created the questionnaire page without giving any responses here.) –
2424:
viewing. IMPORTANT NOTE: At this time, anyone with that link can edit the Doc (so that all my collaborators here can do so), so do not be sending this link around. I also reserve the power to shut off the ability of others to edit it if vandalism occurs. However, the presence of a vandal on this page would be utterly shocking, and would also be good evidence in a
1491:
mean that their opinions now no longer matter. Their opinions MUST still matter. Ignoring them would be completely wrong. That would imply that the process you chose for proceeding was the only possible one, and it was perfect. Obviously that's not true. So, what do you intend to do about the opinions of those you've lost along the way?
71:
running for over a month and there are over 100 replies, so how about one day after the election, which would be 11 December? Also, we need to establish who will be doing the analysis. How many do we need? Does it matter if they replied themselves? Do they need to be admins or can anyone who wants to pitch in help?
1572:
parent of that talk page. The result of what we construe; will be the document that goes to a closing quorum for ratification; or otherwise. As I said earlier, I'll hold some of those thoughts for that discussion. If I have time this evening, I'll format a template shell to host the consolidation page. --
1921:
of this RFC, but did not complete a questionnaire. There are many reasons why editors might have skipped the questionnaire (e.g. IP address users were unable to create a response page). The reason doesn't really matter, but the views of these people are important and should not be ignored. I think we
1769:
No, you obviously haven't read or have forgotten my earlier comments here, which is quite understandable given the duration and size of this exercise. I was one of a number of people who looked at the survey, thought WTF?, and gave up, pointing out at the time that the absence of response from me did
1571:
One thing that I feel, is imperative, is to affix a significant relevance on the close you published. I believe that group should have the sole apportion of voice; in terms of !voting! for determining where the consensus goes. Anyone might comment on the talk page, but only this group should edit the
248:
Not because I say so, because it is. If and when my conduct is better blocked, than tolerated, block me, but it would be nice to define the standard, chances are if I am required to be more civil than I am, I will conform. That's what civilized people do, they conform. So conform me! But don't expect
86:
I would add that I think it is very important that I hand the reigns over to the group that volunteers to do this. My intention was always just to get the ball rolling, I don't want this to be "Beeblebrox's civility RFC". I made that mistake with the 2011 pending changes RFC, after a while there were
2294:
be the easiest part: the ratings section. All we need is a list of how many users rated each comment at each level from 1-5. I suggest a dedicated subpage where we work the list in alphabetical order until we have all the numbers. Then we'll have the first piece of the results, maybe that will help
1672:
I agree with your insight. In particular, I think it is necessary that we incorporate flexibility right up front. I have only accomplished a cursory review of a sampling from the responses. That alone convinces me that we will see answers to questions that were not specifically asked. Being flexible
1567:
I am planing to dedicate good portions of my available time to helping this particular phase to its completion. If I am correct, it will take time and effort to achieve the results this phase is looking to provide. There is work to do, but hurry, and deadlines would be crippling stress; for the sake
836:
Ok, I have just closed phase two. Now that it is over I am hoping we can manage to calmly discuss how to proceed here. We have over 100 replies to go through. With the questions divided into three sections it seems like three different tasks. The most straight forward one will be the ratings section
105:
Needless to say, I am interested in assisting you, and this process. I disagree that you should withdraw as the primary for this RFC. I understand that it's hot in the kitchen, and support your withdrawal if it is something you want, for yourself. The filibustering nay-sayers are going to have their
2476:
Furthermore, I can't edit the page you linked to; I get some nonsense about "unsupported browser". Google Docs probably works well in school and office environments where everyone uses the same OS and browser, but it isn't suitable for cross-Internet collaboration, since not everyone meets Google's
2386:
that so it never happened. Really, anyone could just start doing it and if another user preferred a different method, they could do theirs as well. Actually that would probably give us better results, but any way it is done is going to be fairly time-consuming, and personally I don't have that kind
2365:
I only noticed this a few minutes ago and it already seems that two phases are finished. I am sure such a topic would generate interest among even more editors in the community, if they only knew this RFC exists. I'd venture a guess that most who would potentially be interested in contributing have
2149:
I'm thinking we could pre-read the responses to determine the best categories to use, before we start categorising things. Only once we have agreed a list of categories to use, would we go through assigning responses to categories. The categories could probably be grouped into two super-categories:
1648:
I suppose it would also be useful, and would satisfy much of HiLo's concerns, if at the same time a more thorough analysis was done of phase one. Factors to consider would be number of endorsements for particular position statements, and a somewhat more informal review of common elements across all
1618:
I agree, unless dissuaded, that is the direction I feel we are going, and the shell I am going to format will follow that model; subject to further modifications, to incorporate the other good ideas that are likely to emerge. We have a very good basis to work with, and reason to believe that we can
1509:
Greetings, HiLo48. I have considered the things you rightfully suggest. To a reasonable degree, I have implemented active, and proactive mitigation. What ideas do you have to best handle the circumstances you described? I was planning to post some thoughts, I have about it; soon. I am glad that you
2327:
I was planning to write a script to gather the ratings data onto a single page, but now its my turn for hectic times at work, so I've not had much of a chance. I'd advise against waiting for me – you might get the job done faster manually than the time you'd spend waiting... (RedSoxFan2434, thanks
2111:
And that brings us to that part. It would be nice if each form could be read, reread, and read again by someone else to check their results. I don't imagine we are going to have the resources to do that in anything resembling a timely manner. We should find a way to avoid duplicating each others'
1701:
Just checking in here. Things kind of flip flopped on me at work and I have been working more or less all day, every day and between that and the holidays I have not had adequate free time to work on this any further. Hoping others can pitch in with at least beginning the collation of the results.
1652:
As to how to group the replies to the questionairre, I could see grouping them as Elonka suggests. Then the individual responses could be further divided into subgroups based on the nature of their reply. For example for the scenarios, group all responses that suggest any kind of formal sanction,
789:
I don't object to closing this on 12/11. I'd prefer 12/14; finishing on the Friday after AE, allowing any changes in perspective that post election may warrant; and inviting a last call invitation to enter this phase before it closes. Even an unedited form substitution is enough to give voice. The
172:
I don't think I ever said I was impartial, in fact I am rather vocal regarding my preference. That doesn't mean I am incapable of all the things that you are implying I couldn't handle. In fact I handled you, a guy that has been on the receiving end of a lot of this civility discussion. Anyone who
2555:
Well, this is pretty well stalled out. As I have just been elected to serve on arbcom for the next year I am pretty much walking away from this, it is one of over 1,500 pages IO have just removed from my watchlist. It probably wouldn't be appropriate for an active arb to be running something like
1490:
I've still seen no sensible proposal for dealing with the fact that a number of people (obviously including myself) who were involved in earlier discussions did not participate in the survey. Many gave reasons. There were many reasons. I cannot know them all. Nor can you. Non-participation cannot
213:
Oh dear. How sad. Partial AND uncivil (but only to the extent that's completely acceptable by definition because My76Strat says it is). It's obvious why this isn't going anywhere. And I won't bother to try to discuss with you why there is an RFC/U about me, apart from saying that accusations from
70:
I've started this page to give those interested in coordinating this and the next phases of this process a place to do away from all the noise on the main talk page. The timeline has been brought up a few times, I think right after the ArbCom election is over is as good a time as any. It has been
2530:
Thanks for doing that, that's clearly a better idea. I know
Beeblebrox had desired a spreadsheet, and I had decided that I agreed, so I boldly went ahead with it. I'm sorry if Google Drive doesn't work for you, I get the same "bad browser" nonsense yet it still works fine for me. Meanwhile, I've
2350:
That script would be fantastic, as gathering this data by hand is rather difficult work. However, I will press on, as my personal schedule and computer battery charge allow! However, it is clear that when we are evaluating most other questions, we will need more volunteers. The three of us (plus
2153:
Various respondents say they support some things while opposing others, so we'd probably have support/oppose or agree/disagree categories for most things. (E.g. support RFC/U, support hatting and oppose blocks could be three categories.) Categorising conditional statements (e.g. support blocking
2492:
will eventually resolve this, but it's not there yet). There is nothing wrong with using another program to create all or part of a table, then convert to a wiki table for putting on the wiki. There are many tools for converting from other formats to MediaWiki markup. (Or for a simple approach,
1754:
I thought that it was quite clear that the purpose of this was to gauge each interested user's viewpoints, from which one or more
Civility Enforcement policies could be proposed. The only unsure aspect of the survey, in my opinion, is how the many, varied responses would be boiled down to a few
1722:
I just happened to check in on this and was a little disheartened by the apparent lack of activity. So, if needed, I'd like to volunteer my services towards helping sort out these responses into a final RfC proposal or series of proposals. If my help is desired, I only ask that I be directed to
2423:
Okay, so manually tallying ratings from the questionnaires to the questionnaire analysis page is too tiresome, so I've created a Google Doc to tally ratings by user or by question, which can then be inserted into the analysis page, which is organized only by question for ease later and ease of
1913:
has twice raised concerns on this page that the opinions of users who did not complete a questionnaire should not be ignored. I think these concerns are a significant factor affecting how we should analyse the results, so deserve further discussion. Should opinions outside of the questionnaire
470:
Thanks for the kind sentiments. I was going to mention that table in my first response, but it got very long, and didn't make the cut. Then I got side tracked by Hilo, and a little hot about it, I'm getting better, blood pressure is coming down, I feel it. But that's a personal problem, almost
630:
I definitely intend to monitor changes, that is why it included the live link, which would indicate a change right away. Anyone who is willing to help can update it and add consolidation fields into the table as they develop. It's just a basis of something to work with. And definitely can be
2571:
My end comment from my own questionnaire, over a year ago now, seems a pertinent enough epitaph for this RfC: "Unfortunately, I've seen these mass RfCs before, and recall vividly the one regarding the RfA process. Nothing came of it then, and I don't anticipate anything coming of this now."
1653:
another for those that advise against sanctions, and a third for those that do not firmly come down as in favor of or opposed to sanctions. Once we have it down that far we could determine if it is desirable to take it a step further and subdivide those groups for each scenario.
2210:
I am here as well, Beeblebrox, but I have been very busy with various projects on-wiki and off-wiki as well, causing a recent lack of my activity here. I have reviewed some of the phase one responses, which PartTimeGnome wonderfully organized (along with the questionnaires)
2009:
The two weeks I expected to be busy at work turned into a month and a half. Good for my wallet, not so great for this thing apparently. I will have a break in a few days and would like to try and use part of that time to finally get going with analyzing this. So,
2035:
On that note, a bot or a script may be able to do some of that for us. If anyone knows anything about that I'm sure everyone would appreciate whatever could be done. Some users also left comments in that section so at some point they will need to be read as
249:
the line of conformance to be like one that you would author, because there is a strong consensus emerging that is fed up, with both you and me, so how about we skip some of the BS for our own sanity, or pray for someone to mandate it for us. Best regards. --
2480:
I can at least read the top left corner of it, but Google seem to think I don't need scrollbars, so I can't see the rest. I eventually got the data by ripping it from the HTML source. In any case, I've now added this to a regular wikitable on the
447:. It gives a summary of each response (number of edits, dates of first and last edits, number of bytes added, etc). I now know that my response is the longest of the lot... My apologies to whoever reads it! And thanks for the table, My76Strat! –
1599:(e/c) How about a page somewhere that groups the answers by question? For example, create a page or section, "Enforcement Scenario #1", and then list all of the answers below it. Then another page or section, "Enforcement Scenario #2", etc. --
685:
I only had the category to base the table, I think any form that's not in the category should add a tag and get in before it closes, or at least make sure that a link gets to the table which I was offering for use, and will be using.
2482:
2310:
59:
2212:
1960:
862:
751:
659:
440:
54:
502:
2556:
this, and I won't have the time anyway. I still think WP could benefit from continuing this discussion and coming up with some sort of results from the previous phases, but somebody else is going to have to do it.
1814:, but "may have more time available in a week or two" (i.e. might be back some point in the next week). As for myself, I'm waiting to see how we decide to analyse the questionnaires, and will help out if I can. –
1568:
of folly, so I can't deliver on that. I'm the tl;dr guy, who thinks the whole concept of tl;dr is itself uncivil; under the sole sanction of a rebuke of course. But I'll stick around until it's done; and help!
2045:
At the same time we should figure out how to parse the responses to the open ended questions and enforcement scenarios. My thinking on that is to distill the responses into broad categories, something like
2025:
I think the place to start is with the comment ratings section as it used a numerical scale. What we need first is just the numbers, this will hopefully provide us with some clue of the general tone of the
858:
2116:
or something like that. When you are ready to read and evaluate one you remove it from the category and others will know it is being worked on. When it is empty we double check nothing got left behind.
1770:
not mean I was no longer interested in the topic. I pointed out that it would be wrong to believe that only those who completed the survey had opinions, and even worse to act as if that was the case.
2154:
after 3 warnings, oppose blocking without community discussion) might be a bit tricky, though we could have separate categories or sub-categories for conditions that are used in multiple responses.
1918:
866:
2382:
Well, the discussion isn't really ongoing, we were 'supposed' to be in a "quiet phase" where the replies were analyzed and commonalities in them identified, but we never even agreed on how to
1945:
Hmmm... I think it's a good idea. Since the idea seems to be to create a proposal most likely to have community consensus, the more input we put into it, the more acceptable it should be.
719:
143:
41:
21:
1922:
should group the comments made in phase one by user, then analyse each user's comments as if they had been added to the general "Comments" section at the end of the questionnaire. –
2195:
A spreadsheet would be nice, to see each question, and then the variety of responses to that question. Even if not a spreadsheet, just having it in list format would be helpful. --
2508:
commands followed by a bit of manual tweaking to convert the HTML to wikicode. Google's HTML is scarily inefficient – I reduced 400KB of Google HTML into just 15K of wikicode.) –
106:
say regardless; they already are. And you've done a might fine job with this from what I see, especially considering that you've had as much help as is apparent. Best regards. --
1673:
will allow us to recognize those responses as well, and as you say: "Once we have it down that far", to incorporate those subdivisions of good counsel, that become apparent. --
662:
yet. When going through the responses, we mustn't forget these. It might be worth adding the category to those where answers are present, to avoid missing them later on. –
2089:
I hate your RFC and despise you for ever creating it/you should be blocked for writing this question/Ii wish to compare you to various historical figures in a negative way
549:
The following users responded to some of the questions. They might return later to finish the questionnaire, or might have no intent to answer the questions they skipped:
2016:
Anyone still here? If you are at all interested in helping to look all this over and try to figure out what it means please leave a message or at least a signature below.
2128:
I feel that we need not even discuss what to do with whatever results we get just yet. We don't know what they will be or if we will be able to do anything with them.
2485:, so anyone can read or edit it now. The table extends somewhat excessively both horizontally and vertically, but this was the case with the original spreadsheet too.
2443:
ADDITIONAL NOTE: Not all participating users are listed in that spreadsheet; only those who rated one or more hypothetical comments are included in the spreadsheet.
1985:
Alright, I've now officially begun reviewing of Phase One responses (I figured that would be a good place to start, and then we can move on to reviewing Phase Two).
386:
blatant POV on display here, suggesting that it was inappropriate. You insist that it's not. Just grow up! I won't post again in this discussion. My point is made.
1790:
To answer RedSoxFan2434's original comment about the lack of activity, we don't have 15 volunteers yet, so your help is definitely welcome! How many do we have?
2137:
509:
The following users removed the questions to give an unprompted response. They probably removed the category by accident when they removed the questions:
2113:
1723:
whichever page(s) where the work is being done (if any). I know the number of "15 editors" to do this has been thrown around, but where are these 15?
325:
For the love of God, please don't do this here. The whole point of creating this page was to have a quiet place to discuss coordination of the RFC
1802:
that they would be interested in assisting, though their user page says they are now "semi-active" and I am unsure if they still participate here.
2233:
started the table of questionnaires. I added and updated a few things in that table, and created the second table for phase one contributions. –
2488:
I can understand you wanting to avoid wiki markup for this – it is a bit of a pain to create large or complicated tables using wiki markup (the
1888:
So... all work is being done here, then? Only six individual editors have edited this page. It seems that a recruitment process is necessary.
2165:
category instead, as a sub-category of the existing category. As each response is categorised, we would move it from the main category into
382:
OK by you. If it was, you wouldn't post such critical, negative crap about those who disagree with you. I didn't start this. I responded to
1110:
2582:
2565:
2540:
2525:
2452:
2437:
2396:
2375:
2360:
2345:
2322:
2304:
2280:
2250:
2224:
2205:
2190:
1994:
1980:
1954:
1939:
1897:
1883:
1859:
1831:
1779:
1764:
1748:
1732:
1711:
1692:
1662:
1638:
1609:
1591:
1555:
1529:
1500:
1484:
824:
809:
771:
745:
705:
679:
650:
622:
490:
464:
428:
395:
370:
338:
306:
268:
223:
192:
155:
125:
96:
80:
2520:
2340:
2245:
2185:
1975:
1934:
1878:
1854:
1826:
766:
740:
674:
592:
The following users have a copy of the questions with no answers. It might be worth checking back to see if they add any answers later:
459:
17:
406:
2462:
1438:
1350:
1346:
1042:
2267:...Is anyone left here? I've been away for awhile because of a series of incidents, culminating in a power outage from the
906:
2202:
1606:
1378:
1002:
998:
1446:
1106:
711:
542:
2504:(Personally, I tend to roll my own scripts to generate large tables as I need them. In this case, I used a series of
2351:
maybe My76Strat, HiLo48, and Elonka?) will not be enough, especially with the busy schedules we all apparently have.
505:. Some might be users who haven't finished their response, while others might have omitted the category by mistake.
40:
This page is for discussing the coordination of the RFC only. If you wish to comment on the process please do so at
1466:
1430:
1390:
1386:
886:
815:
Friday works for me. I guess we'll give this till the end of today and if nobody has any objections go with that.
579:
2466:
1186:
1162:
609:
2290:
Me too. We seem to be having trouble establishing how to proceed. Why don't we just back up and start with what
1382:
1358:
1266:
1246:
1078:
1038:
573:
1046:
1302:
946:
930:
2536:
2516:
2448:
2433:
2356:
2336:
2318:
2276:
2241:
2220:
2181:
1990:
1971:
1950:
1930:
1893:
1874:
1850:
1822:
1760:
1728:
1422:
1322:
1310:
1058:
926:
898:
762:
736:
670:
455:
1342:
1314:
2494:
2489:
1402:
1362:
1274:
1198:
1130:
1054:
1022:
1014:
902:
593:
561:
1066:
1062:
2470:
1418:
1410:
1394:
1366:
1330:
1294:
1290:
1262:
1254:
1222:
1190:
1166:
1126:
1018:
954:
938:
914:
878:
536:
1210:
2573:
2561:
2392:
2371:
2300:
2133:
1707:
1658:
1480:
1458:
1442:
1374:
1354:
1334:
1286:
1242:
958:
950:
874:
820:
521:
510:
334:
92:
76:
2313:. We can use that page for analyzing responses by question, starting easy with the ratings section.
1086:
978:
882:
551:
530:
50:
In addition to this discussion page, the following pages also form a part of the RFC analysis work:
1688:
1634:
1587:
1525:
1454:
1406:
1398:
1306:
1206:
1118:
1030:
990:
982:
894:
805:
701:
646:
585:
515:
486:
424:
366:
264:
188:
121:
2501:" would give you something wiki-like; it shouldn't be too much work to then add the other markup.)
1542:
As someone who opposed the idea of a survey from the start, my immediate gut response was to say "
471:
off-topic, except that it goes to the core of this discussion, right off the bat. Best regards. --
2532:
2510:
2444:
2429:
2352:
2330:
2314:
2272:
2235:
2216:
2175:
1986:
1965:
1946:
1924:
1889:
1868:
1844:
1816:
1756:
1724:
1326:
1250:
1238:
1194:
1178:
1154:
1150:
1138:
1094:
1082:
1010:
986:
974:
966:
890:
756:
730:
714:
was already in the category (my mistake), though is absent from the table. I haven't categorised
664:
616:
449:
346:
214:
people pushing opposing political views do not equal guilt. (Well, not in most justice systems.)
2112:
work. I am thinking a subcategory might be a way to organize that. All pages would be added to
1961:
Knowledge:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire table#Phase one contributions
1414:
1270:
1230:
1170:
1158:
1142:
1090:
1070:
1006:
922:
918:
597:
567:
2268:
2199:
1775:
1744:
1603:
1551:
1496:
1338:
1318:
1278:
1214:
1034:
934:
715:
556:
391:
302:
219:
151:
2557:
2458:
2457:
I don't like work like this taking place off-wiki. Your comments about vandals are rather
2388:
2367:
2296:
2129:
2100:
I'm actually hoping even that is too many, but we do have over a hundred pages to look at.
1805:
1703:
1654:
1476:
1282:
1226:
1134:
1122:
1102:
962:
816:
605:
528:
The following users answered all questions, so appear to have finished the questionnaire:
330:
88:
72:
2271:. But now I'm back (for now at least), and I'd like to see this get back off the ground.
2425:
2230:
1793:
1674:
1620:
1573:
1511:
791:
783:
687:
632:
472:
444:
410:
352:
250:
174:
107:
1755:
proposed policies, so I am willing to help out with this to help solve this problem.
2169:. This approach would avoid having to go through and add all the responses to an
329:. If you want to fight or discuss any other topic please do it somewhere else.
2461:, but taking it off-wiki loses the anti-vandalism tools available on Knowledge (
2328:
for creating the framework page for us to gather/analyse the responses, BTW.) –
2196:
1910:
1771:
1740:
1600:
1547:
1492:
601:
387:
298:
215:
147:
2309:
For the questionnaires, this could be a good start. I can go ahead and create
1914:
responses be analysed? If so, how? Where should we look for other opinions?
2311:
Knowledge:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire analysis
754:
as well now. I did not count my edits to add the category in the table. –
60:
Knowledge:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire analysis
2531:
deleted the link since the Google stuff clearly won't work for everyone.
1959:
I've put together a table listing users who contributed to phase one at
44:. Any off topic comments or threads may be removed to that page. Thanks.
863:
Knowledge:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire table
55:
Knowledge:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire table
2215:(Elonka, you may find something like what you are looking for there).
1866:
HiLo48, I've started a new section below regarding non-respondents. –
1838:
750:
I've added the responses I categorised (and also Worm That Turned) to
501:
I've found several responses to the questionnaire that are not in the
724:
404:
If you are free a moment will you look at the edit request I posted?
2114:
Category:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Unread
718:, since they have been indefinitely blocked for personal attacks (
859:
Knowledge:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire
1842:, so it's a good bet they no longer want to participate here. –
2505:
29:
867:
Knowledge:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questions
146:. And hardly labels you as an objective, impartial observer.
2150:
attempts to define incivility, and responses to incivility.
710:
I've added the non-blank responses to the category now.
42:
Knowledge talk:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement
2063:
keep an eye on it but don't really do anything just yet
1810:
1798:
2497:
then using a text editor to replace the commas with "
2066:
talk to them about it, see if you can open a dialogue
1839:
asked for their questionnaire response to be deleted
1718:RedSoxFan2434 Volunteering to Help Out If Needed
1702:May have more time available in a week or two.
1619:achieve the goals of this endeavor, IMHO. --
8:
2084:block and ask for a community or arbcom ban.
2229:I can't take all of the credit for that...
2366:no idea this discussion is even going on.
2060:Do nothing/no response warranted/ignore it
841:
2387:of time at the moment. Maybe next month.
658:None of these responses are shown on the
1917:My own view: Many users contributed to
1739:Still trying to understand the survey.
844:
625:) — (continues after insertion below)
7:
2161:category, I would prefer to have a
2069:issue a written warning or template
1649:the various sections of that phase.
846:Pages included at close of phase II
18:Knowledge talk:Requests for comment
2057:It depends entirely on the context
1351:Steelpillow/civility questionnaire
1043:Francophonie&Androphilie/CERFC
28:
2551:anyone want to adopt this thing?
297:Best regards? Hypocritical too.
33:
2072:report for community discussion
1111:Isarra/Civility Enforcement RFC
2004:
1544:Ignore the results completely.
1:
2566:22:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
2541:23:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
2526:22:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
2453:22:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
2438:22:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
2361:23:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
2346:22:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
2323:21:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
2305:20:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
2281:19:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
1811:they are lacking in free time
1712:05:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
1693:05:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
1663:01:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
1639:04:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
1610:00:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
1592:23:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
1556:23:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
1530:23:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
1501:22:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
1485:20:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
825:20:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
772:23:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
746:21:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
2583:13:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
2251:22:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
2225:19:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
2206:16:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
2191:23:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
2173:category as a first step. –
2138:05:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
810:00:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
706:01:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
680:00:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
651:01:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
623:00:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
491:01:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
465:23:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
429:02:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
396:02:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
371:02:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
351:Okay by me. Best regards. --
339:02:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
307:01:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
269:01:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
224:01:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
193:01:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
156:23:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
140:The filibustering nay-sayers
126:22:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
97:00:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
81:00:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
2483:questionnaire analysis page
2075:report to admins for action
1995:00:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
1981:20:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
1955:03:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
1940:22:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
1898:01:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
1884:22:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
1860:02:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
1832:22:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
1780:07:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
1765:06:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
1749:05:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
1733:03:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
2599:
2428:sockpuppet investigation.
2397:15:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
2376:10:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
1439:WaitingForConnection/CERFC
631:improved. Best regards. --
2295:motivate us to press on.
1836:Unfortunately, My76Strat
1347:Squeamish Ossifrage/CERFC
497:Responses not in category
2005:Ok, let's try this again
907:AutomaticStrikeout/CERFC
142:", eh? That seems a bit
1379:ThatPeskyCommoner/CERFC
1003:Elen of the Roads/CERFC
999:Ebe123 on the go!/CERFC
2157:Rather than having an
1447:Worm That Turned/CERFC
1107:Intothatdarkness/CERFC
1467:Zenswashbuckler/CERFC
1431:Volunteer Marek/CERFC
1391:TheRedPenOfDoom/CERFC
1387:Thegreatgrabber/CERFC
887:Alanscottwalker/CERFC
66:Timeline, etc, again
2463:vandalism patrollers
1383:The Anonymouse/CERFC
1359:StringTheory11/CERFC
1187:Martinevans123/CERFC
1163:Kim Dent-Brown/CERFC
22:Civility enforcement
2419:Ratings Spreadsheet
1267:RedSoxFan2434/CERFC
1247:PartTimeGnome/CERFC
1079:Hamiltonstone/CERFC
1047:Fylbecatulous/CERFC
1039:Fluffernutter/CERFC
660:questionnaire table
435:Questionnaire table
2426:Good hand/bad hand
2078:block then discuss
1323:Secretlondon/CERFC
1311:SarahStierch/CERFC
1303:SandyGeorgia/CERFC
947:Carolmooredc/CERFC
931:Bluerasberry/CERFC
899:Anthonyhcole/CERFC
2146:Well, I'm here...
1751:
1473:
1472:
1423:TutterMouse/CERFC
1363:Sue Rangell/CERFC
1275:RegentsPark/CERFC
1131:Jezhotwells/CERFC
1059:GeorgeLouis/CERFC
1055:Gandydancer/CERFC
1023:Ever wonder/CERFC
1015:Eraserhead1/CERFC
927:Binksternet/CERFC
903:Art LaPella/CERFC
627:
441:this lovely table
350:
48:
47:
2590:
2579:
2524:
2500:
2344:
2269:Blizzard of 2013
2249:
2189:
1979:
1938:
1882:
1858:
1841:
1830:
1813:
1801:
1738:
1682:
1628:
1581:
1519:
1419:Tryptofish/CERFC
1411:Tom Morris/CERFC
1367:Swatjester/CERFC
1343:Sphilbrick/CERFC
1331:Smallbones/CERFC
1315:Scottywong/CERFC
1295:Rschen7754/CERFC
1291:Rivertorch/CERFC
1263:Ravenswing/CERFC
1255:Primergrey/CERFC
1223:Od Mishehu/CERFC
1127:Jennavecia/CERFC
955:Chaosdruid/CERFC
915:Beeblebrox/CERFC
879:Agathoclea/CERFC
842:
799:
770:
744:
727:
712:Worm That Turned
695:
686:Best regards. --
678:
640:
626:
619:
613:
600:(NB: created by
543:Worm That Turned
480:
463:
443:put together by
439:I've just found
418:
409:Best regards. --
408:
360:
344:
258:
182:
115:
37:
36:
30:
2598:
2597:
2593:
2592:
2591:
2589:
2588:
2587:
2575:
2553:
2514:
2498:
2421:
2334:
2265:
2239:
2179:
2007:
1969:
1928:
1908:
1906:Non-respondents
1872:
1848:
1837:
1820:
1809:
1803:
1797:
1720:
1678:
1624:
1577:
1515:
1474:
1465:
1459:YOLO Swag/CERFC
1453:
1443:Wikidemon/CERFC
1437:
1429:
1403:Thryduulf/CERFC
1373:
1335:SmokeyJoe/CERFC
1301:
1287:Richwales/CERFC
1261:
1237:
1221:
1205:
1199:My76Strat/CERFC
1185:
1177:
1149:
1117:
1101:
1077:
1053:
1029:
997:
973:
951:Chaos5023/CERFC
945:
913:
875:Adjwilley/CERFC
873:
857:
847:
833:
795:
787:
760:
734:
723:
691:
668:
636:
617:
614:
588:
582:
580:Volunteer Marek
576:
570:
564:
554:
545:
539:
533:
524:
518:
499:
476:
453:
437:
414:
405:
356:
254:
178:
111:
68:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2596:
2594:
2586:
2585:
2552:
2549:
2548:
2547:
2546:
2545:
2544:
2543:
2502:
2486:
2478:
2474:
2420:
2417:
2416:
2415:
2414:
2413:
2412:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2407:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2401:
2400:
2399:
2264:
2261:
2260:
2259:
2258:
2257:
2256:
2255:
2254:
2253:
2155:
2151:
2147:
2143:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2122:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2082:
2079:
2076:
2073:
2070:
2067:
2064:
2061:
2058:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2027:
2020:
2019:
2018:
2017:
2006:
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1907:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1791:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1719:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1667:
1666:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1613:
1612:
1596:
1595:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1504:
1503:
1471:
1470:
1461:
1455:Ynhockey/CERFC
1449:
1433:
1425:
1407:Timtrent/CERFC
1399:Thparkth/CERFC
1369:
1307:Sarah777/CERFC
1297:
1257:
1233:
1217:
1207:NaBUru38/CERFC
1201:
1181:
1173:
1145:
1119:Jayron32/CERFC
1113:
1097:
1073:
1067:Gobonobo/CERFC
1063:Ghmyrtle/CERFC
1049:
1031:Fifelfoo/CERFC
1025:
993:
991:DreamGuy/CERFC
983:Djembayz/CERFC
969:
941:
909:
895:Ansumang/CERFC
869:
853:
849:
848:
845:
840:
839:
838:
832:
831:Moving forward
829:
828:
827:
786:
782:Comments from
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
656:
655:
654:
653:
590:
584:
578:
574:The Anonymouse
572:
566:
560:
550:
547:
541:
535:
529:
526:
520:
514:
513:(blank page),
498:
495:
494:
493:
436:
433:
432:
431:
401:
400:
399:
398:
342:
341:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
202:
201:
200:
199:
198:
197:
196:
195:
163:
162:
161:
160:
159:
158:
131:
130:
129:
128:
100:
99:
67:
64:
63:
62:
57:
46:
45:
38:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2595:
2584:
2581:
2580:
2578:
2570:
2569:
2568:
2567:
2563:
2559:
2550:
2542:
2538:
2534:
2533:RedSoxFan2434
2529:
2528:
2527:
2522:
2518:
2513:
2512:
2511:PartTimeGnome
2507:
2503:
2496:
2491:
2487:
2484:
2479:
2477:requirements.
2475:
2472:
2468:
2464:
2460:
2456:
2455:
2454:
2450:
2446:
2445:RedSoxFan2434
2442:
2441:
2440:
2439:
2435:
2431:
2430:RedSoxFan2434
2427:
2418:
2398:
2394:
2390:
2385:
2381:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2373:
2369:
2364:
2363:
2362:
2358:
2354:
2353:RedSoxFan2434
2349:
2348:
2347:
2342:
2338:
2333:
2332:
2331:PartTimeGnome
2326:
2325:
2324:
2320:
2316:
2315:RedSoxFan2434
2312:
2308:
2307:
2306:
2302:
2298:
2293:
2289:
2288:
2287:
2286:
2285:
2284:
2283:
2282:
2278:
2274:
2273:RedSoxFan2434
2270:
2262:
2252:
2247:
2243:
2238:
2237:
2236:PartTimeGnome
2232:
2228:
2227:
2226:
2222:
2218:
2217:RedSoxFan2434
2214:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2204:
2201:
2198:
2194:
2193:
2192:
2187:
2183:
2178:
2177:
2176:PartTimeGnome
2172:
2168:
2164:
2160:
2156:
2152:
2148:
2145:
2144:
2139:
2135:
2131:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2115:
2110:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2088:
2083:
2080:
2077:
2074:
2071:
2068:
2065:
2062:
2059:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2034:
2033:
2032:
2031:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
1996:
1992:
1988:
1987:RedSoxFan2434
1984:
1983:
1982:
1977:
1973:
1968:
1967:
1966:PartTimeGnome
1962:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1952:
1948:
1947:RedSoxFan2434
1944:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1936:
1932:
1927:
1926:
1925:PartTimeGnome
1920:
1915:
1912:
1905:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1890:RedSoxFan2434
1887:
1886:
1885:
1880:
1876:
1871:
1870:
1869:PartTimeGnome
1865:
1861:
1856:
1852:
1847:
1846:
1845:PartTimeGnome
1840:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1828:
1824:
1819:
1818:
1817:PartTimeGnome
1812:
1807:
1800:
1795:
1789:
1788:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1762:
1758:
1757:RedSoxFan2434
1753:
1752:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1725:RedSoxFan2434
1717:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1700:
1699:
1694:
1690:
1686:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1665:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1650:
1646:
1645:
1640:
1636:
1632:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1611:
1608:
1605:
1602:
1598:
1597:
1594:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1569:
1565:
1564:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1469:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1395:Thincat/CERFC
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1327:Skyring/CERFC
1324:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1251:Piotrus/CERFC
1248:
1244:
1240:
1239:Pablo X/CERFC
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1195:Moriori/CERFC
1192:
1191:Mdann52/CERFC
1188:
1184:
1180:
1179:Legoktm/CERFC
1176:
1172:
1168:
1167:Kudpung/CERFC
1164:
1160:
1156:
1155:Keilana/CERFC
1152:
1151:Kaldari/CERFC
1148:
1144:
1140:
1139:Johnbod/CERFC
1136:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1095:Hut 8.5/CERFC
1092:
1088:
1084:
1083:Hasteur/CERFC
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1019:ErrantX/CERFC
1016:
1012:
1011:Epbr123/CERFC
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
987:Doctree/CERFC
984:
980:
976:
975:DCI2026/CERFC
972:
968:
967:Collect/CERFC
964:
960:
956:
952:
948:
944:
940:
939:Buster7/CERFC
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
916:
912:
908:
904:
900:
896:
892:
891:Andrewa/CERFC
888:
884:
880:
876:
872:
868:
864:
860:
856:
851:
850:
843:
835:
834:
830:
826:
822:
818:
814:
813:
812:
811:
807:
803:
802:
798:
794:
785:
781:
773:
768:
764:
759:
758:
757:PartTimeGnome
753:
749:
748:
747:
742:
738:
733:
732:
731:PartTimeGnome
726:
721:
717:
713:
709:
708:
707:
703:
699:
698:
694:
690:
684:
683:
682:
681:
676:
672:
667:
666:
665:PartTimeGnome
661:
652:
648:
644:
643:
639:
635:
629:
628:
624:
620:
618:PartTimeGnome
611:
607:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
581:
575:
569:
563:
558:
553:
548:
544:
538:
532:
527:
523:
517:
512:
508:
507:
506:
504:
496:
492:
488:
484:
483:
479:
475:
469:
468:
467:
466:
461:
457:
452:
451:
450:PartTimeGnome
446:
442:
434:
430:
426:
422:
421:
417:
413:
407:
403:
402:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
368:
364:
363:
359:
355:
348:
347:edit conflict
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
323:
308:
304:
300:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
270:
266:
262:
261:
257:
253:
247:
246:
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
225:
221:
217:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
206:
205:
204:
203:
194:
190:
186:
185:
181:
177:
171:
170:
169:
168:
167:
166:
165:
164:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
136:
135:
134:
133:
132:
127:
123:
119:
118:
114:
110:
104:
103:
102:
101:
98:
94:
90:
85:
84:
83:
82:
78:
74:
65:
61:
58:
56:
53:
52:
51:
43:
39:
32:
31:
23:
19:
2576:
2574:
2554:
2509:
2490:VisualEditor
2471:edit filters
2422:
2383:
2329:
2291:
2266:
2234:
2174:
2170:
2166:
2162:
2158:
2121:
2008:
1964:
1923:
1916:
1909:
1867:
1843:
1815:
1721:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1651:
1647:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1543:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1510:are here! --
1475:
1462:
1450:
1434:
1426:
1415:TParis/CERFC
1370:
1298:
1271:Refdoc/CERFC
1258:
1234:
1231:Orlady/CERFC
1218:
1211:NE Ent/CERFC
1202:
1182:
1174:
1171:Kurtis/CERFC
1159:Kilopi/CERFC
1146:
1143:Jon C./CERFC
1114:
1098:
1091:HiLo48/CERFC
1074:
1071:GRuban/CERFC
1050:
1026:
1007:Elonka/CERFC
994:
970:
942:
923:Bejnar/CERFC
919:Begoon/CERFC
910:
870:
854:
852:
800:
796:
792:
788:
755:
729:
696:
692:
688:
663:
657:
641:
637:
633:
500:
481:
477:
473:
448:
438:
419:
415:
411:
383:
379:
361:
357:
353:
343:
326:
259:
255:
251:
183:
179:
175:
139:
116:
112:
108:
69:
49:
2577:Ravenswing
1804:Last week,
1339:SoWhy/CERFC
1319:Scray/CERFC
1279:RexxS/CERFC
1035:Fjozk/CERFC
935:Boson/CERFC
720:AN/I thread
610:Ever wonder
594:Ever wonder
562:Gandydancer
2558:Beeblebrox
2493:saving as
2389:Beeblebrox
2368:MezzoMezzo
2297:Beeblebrox
2263:So, umm...
2130:Beeblebrox
2026:responses.
1806:Beeblebrox
1796:indicated
1704:Beeblebrox
1655:Beeblebrox
1477:Beeblebrox
1375:Tarc/CERFC
1355:Stfg/CERFC
1283:Reyk/CERFC
1243:PamD/CERFC
1227:Op47/CERFC
1135:John/CERFC
1123:Jc37/CERFC
1103:Ijon/CERFC
963:CMBJ/CERFC
959:Ched/CERFC
817:Beeblebrox
537:Smallbones
331:Beeblebrox
89:Beeblebrox
73:Beeblebrox
2459:WP:BEANSy
2231:My76Strat
1919:phase one
1794:My76Strat
1087:Hex/CERFC
979:DGG/CERFC
883:AGK/CERFC
784:My76Strat
752:the table
725:block log
445:My76Strat
2521:contribs
2341:contribs
2246:contribs
2186:contribs
1976:contribs
1935:contribs
1879:contribs
1855:contribs
1827:contribs
1215:Nø/CERFC
767:contribs
741:contribs
675:contribs
586:Ynhockey
516:Djembayz
503:category
460:contribs
20: |
2473:, etc).
144:uncivil
2467:blocks
2292:should
2171:Unread
2159:Unread
1911:HiLo48
1792:Well,
1772:HiLo48
1741:HiLo48
1548:HiLo48
1493:HiLo48
602:NE Ent
598:HiLo48
568:Kilopi
388:HiLo48
299:HiLo48
216:HiLo48
148:HiLo48
2081:block
2046:this:
2036:well.
1808:said
1799:above
1684:Strat
1630:Strat
1583:Strat
1521:Strat
801:Strat
728:). –
716:Fjozk
697:Strat
642:Strat
557:Fjozk
482:Strat
420:Strat
378:It's
362:Strat
260:Strat
184:Strat
117:Strat
16:<
2562:talk
2537:talk
2517:talk
2449:talk
2434:talk
2393:talk
2372:talk
2357:talk
2337:talk
2319:talk
2301:talk
2277:talk
2242:talk
2221:talk
2213:here
2182:talk
2167:Read
2163:Read
2134:talk
1991:talk
1972:talk
1951:talk
1931:talk
1894:talk
1875:talk
1851:talk
1823:talk
1776:talk
1761:talk
1745:talk
1729:talk
1708:talk
1689:talk
1659:talk
1635:talk
1588:talk
1552:talk
1526:talk
1497:talk
1481:talk
821:talk
806:talk
763:talk
737:talk
702:talk
671:talk
647:talk
606:Ijon
522:Tarc
511:Ched
487:talk
456:talk
425:talk
392:talk
384:YOUR
367:talk
335:talk
327:only
303:talk
265:talk
220:talk
189:talk
152:talk
122:talk
93:talk
77:talk
2506:sed
2499:||
2495:CSV
1590:)
1528:)
1463:(Z)
1451:(Y)
1435:(W)
1427:(V)
1371:(T)
1299:(S)
1259:(R)
1235:(P)
1219:(O)
1203:(N)
1183:(M)
1175:(L)
1147:(K)
1115:(J)
1099:(I)
1075:(H)
1051:(G)
1027:(F)
995:(E)
971:(D)
943:(C)
911:(B)
871:(A)
855:(*)
808:)
704:)
649:)
604:),
552:AGK
531:DGG
489:)
427:)
380:NOT
369:)
267:)
191:)
124:)
2564:)
2539:)
2519:|
2469:,
2465:,
2451:)
2436:)
2395:)
2384:do
2374:)
2359:)
2339:|
2321:)
2303:)
2279:)
2244:|
2223:)
2203:ka
2200:on
2197:El
2184:|
2136:)
1993:)
1974:|
1953:)
1933:|
1896:)
1877:|
1853:|
1825:|
1778:)
1763:)
1747:)
1731:)
1710:)
1691:)
1680:76
1676:My
1661:)
1637:)
1626:76
1622:My
1607:ka
1604:on
1601:El
1579:76
1575:My
1554:)
1517:76
1513:My
1499:)
1483:)
1457:–
1445:–
1441:–
1421:–
1417:–
1413:–
1409:–
1405:–
1401:–
1397:–
1393:–
1389:–
1385:–
1381:–
1377:–
1365:–
1361:–
1357:–
1353:–
1349:–
1345:–
1341:–
1337:–
1333:–
1329:–
1325:–
1321:–
1317:–
1313:–
1309:–
1305:–
1293:–
1289:–
1285:–
1281:–
1277:–
1273:–
1269:–
1265:–
1253:–
1249:–
1245:–
1241:–
1229:–
1225:–
1213:–
1209:–
1197:–
1193:–
1189:–
1169:–
1165:–
1161:–
1157:–
1153:–
1141:–
1137:–
1133:–
1129:–
1125:–
1121:–
1109:–
1105:–
1093:–
1089:–
1085:–
1081:–
1069:–
1065:–
1061:–
1057:–
1045:–
1041:–
1037:–
1033:–
1021:–
1017:–
1013:–
1009:–
1005:–
1001:–
989:–
985:–
981:–
977:–
965:–
961:–
957:–
953:–
949:–
937:–
933:–
929:–
925:–
921:–
917:–
905:–
901:–
897:–
893:–
889:–
885:–
881:–
877:–
865:–
861:–
823:)
797:76
793:My
765:|
739:|
722:,
693:76
689:My
673:|
638:76
634:My
615:—
608:,
596:,
583:,
577:,
571:,
565:,
559:,
555:,
540:,
534:,
519:,
478:76
474:My
458:|
416:76
412:My
394:)
358:76
354:My
337:)
305:)
256:76
252:My
222:)
180:76
176:My
154:)
113:76
109:My
95:)
79:)
2560:(
2535:(
2523:)
2515:(
2447:(
2432:(
2391:(
2370:(
2355:(
2343:)
2335:(
2317:(
2299:(
2275:(
2248:)
2240:(
2219:(
2188:)
2180:(
2132:(
1989:(
1978:)
1970:(
1949:(
1937:)
1929:(
1892:(
1881:)
1873:(
1857:)
1849:(
1829:)
1821:(
1774:(
1759:(
1743:(
1727:(
1706:(
1687:(
1657:(
1633:(
1586:(
1550:(
1524:(
1495:(
1479:(
819:(
804:(
769:)
761:(
743:)
735:(
700:(
677:)
669:(
645:(
621:(
612:.
589:.
546:.
525:.
485:(
462:)
454:(
423:(
390:(
365:(
349:)
345:(
333:(
301:(
263:(
218:(
187:(
150:(
138:"
120:(
91:(
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.