| |
|
  |
 Community de-adminship RfC enters voting, Canvassed with a Wikipedia banner |
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
In all its glory. This is a fairly mild proposal, not a whole lot less cumbersome than taking an admin to RfAr, and the biggest argument against it, in my opinion, is that it might be almost useless, but it is not worse than the status quo, and might be better, and might be improved on review, which is built into the proposal, so I supported it after some thought, even though there are aspects that are inadequate. The arguments against are featured prominently at the top of the RfC, authored by TenOfAllTrades, who has provided plenty of reason, in the past, that someone might want him removed. Right now, Oppose votes are leading, with many of them based on an impression that There Is Nothing Wrong, Everything Is Peachy Keen, I've Not Encountered Any Rogue Administrators, So If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It. Which is probably true for most Wikipedia editors. Until they do encounter one or a few. I just thought it was odd that this wasn't being discussed here, given, etc., etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 22nd February 2010, 11:57pm)  If participation in the above-described system becomes mandatory and assuming there is no burden of evidence, I believe I could rally a 65% vote against any current admin, good, bad, or ugly (barring only the brand-new) with little difficulty. And they'd basically eliminate the policy after the first successful attempt, right? Or else make it "voluntary".... They'd claim it was all grossly unfair, "offsite canvassing" skewed the results, blatant sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry, and so on. That's the usual pattern, anyway. And just to be clear, there should be burden of evidence - without that, they'd lose more reformers than abusers, assuming they desysop anybody at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
| everyking |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 7:18am) QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 6:07am)
Impossible. I'd be surprised if you could find 65% against any admin at all. There are a few who might fail on a simple majority vote, but I think any admin could find support among 35% of participants. Any admin so deeply unpopular that they couldn't even find that much support would probably have already been desysopped by the ArbCom.
(IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Alrighty then, give me a name. Well, OK--if you could do something about Raul654, I might just fall in love. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif) It's probably not going to succeed, looking at the numbers as they stand now, but the reality is that even if it was adopted it would be so ineffectual that it would have to be strengthened later on. Still, though, it would be progress just to have a procedure "on the books". |
|
|
|
|
|
| Doc glasgow |
|
Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined:
From: at home
Member No.: 90
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 4:41am)
Community de-adminship is the basic solution to all of Wikipedia's problems related to administrators. That some people either don't see that, or are too self-interested to care, is appalling to me. This is actually a very weak proposal--it would be necessary to obtain 65% of the vote against an admin in order to desysop him or her--but the opposition to it is centered around the belief that any system at all, even a very weak one, is too threatening to accept.
Community de-adminship has always been the biggest wast of time discussion imaginable. The basic problem is, although everyone agrees there are "bad admins" who it should be easier to remove - everyone has different people in mind. If you need a "consensus to de-admin", then you'll never one for anyone, unless the admin has done such unquestionably bad things, that the current arbcom process would de-sysop by speedy motion. So, nothing gained. If the consensus is lower, you'll see all sorts of politically-motivates requests for deadminship. I'd have faced several by now - all of which would have failed (if narrowly). This would have been a wast of my time, and the community's time. However, it would certainly would have been fun and caused lots of drama - which is usually the point of creating new processes on wikipedia. That's the other reason these things fail. Whilst the bar to de-admin is set high, the bar to trigger the process is normally low. Wikipedia likes its processes to be open to all. That also means that you'd get lots and lots of spurious requests by disgruntled people - all of which would fail. Would I get de-admined by such a process? Highly unlikely. Would you find 3/6/9 or even 20 editors (or even admins) in good standing willing to trigger it? No problem. The same would go for Lar, Raul, SlimV, David Gerard, most of arbcom, indeed just about anyone with any type of profile on Wikipedia. For "community deadminship" read: "fruitless process of putting random admins in the stocks and throwing things at them for the fun of it. PS, the admins in question will usually (if not always) enjoy the notoriety/victimhood that ensues. Occassionally, this process will lead to the death of a victim, but no need to worry, because such victims were terminally ill anyway and would have died of natural causes in 24 hours had the stocks been unavailable. This is among the best types of entertainment on wikipedia." This post has been edited by Doc glasgow: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kevin |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 242
Joined:
From: Adelaide, Australia
Member No.: 10,522
|
The most insightful thing I read there was "Wikipedia is still in its political infancy". I thought it was a great idea, getting rid of abusive admins, until I remembered I was one of them. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
The proposal is not a rigid voting process, and discretion remains with a closing bureaucrat. A guideline is provided that suggests bureaucratic discretion between 65% and something like 80%, I forget. Not easy to accomplish a desysop with socks, sorry to disappoint you. However, if you take the socks off and go in completely naked, it might distract everyone enough.The basic problem here is common with communities that set up a consensus standard for decisions and then don't realize that consensus changes and if a consensus is required to reverse an earlier decision, that sets up a severe bias toward the status quo. I've seen many times that the "consensus organization" status quo becomes displeasing to the majority, but it benefits enough members that they will steadfastly oppose change and be able to prevent a new consensus from forming. And this happens even more often than is easily visible, because disgruntled members leave. So it's even possible that, if all the original members were to assemble and consider the matter, the earlier consensus would be overturned by consensus (which necessarily means, here, "rough consensus," some organizations insist on complete consensus, and they either abandon that or they die as organizations, becoming only a shell of their former position, with a few people wondering where everyone else went or dismissing them as "trolls" and "malcontents" and "whiners.") What's really silly is that all this was worked out centuries ago, and "the consensus was" majority rule. No situation continues without the continued consent of a majority. Some decisions require "absolute majority," but even the most basic laws of an organization can be changed by an absolute majority (a vote of more than half of all eligible members. This presumes that membership is active in some way). And then short of absolute majority, the same fundamental changes can be implemented by a supermajority, typically two-thirds, of those assembling and voting after notice. That a situation -- any situation -- would continue in the face of a two-thirds majority of those voting upon notice is preposterous, but this proposal only allows a decision beginning at two-thirds. Normally, officers can be elected or removed by simple majority vote; that is because officers are positions requiring trust, and majority trust is minimal, wider trust for some officers is important. Sophisticated organizations that value consensus, then, set up consensus as a goal, not a fixed restriction. They will discuss in depth, and may back off from making quick decisions based on a mere majority. But who decides when enough is enough? The majority of those voting on the subject! Wikipedia's adhocratic structure is not conducive to this, it needs supplementary structure that is more formal and reliable, such as a Wikipedia Assembly. Proposals to form one have long existed, and were even supported by quite a number of arbitrators, but it was assumed that consensus was necessary to form such a representative body. That's the error, which locks the status quo in place. An Assembly should be formed, probably off-wiki, and this would not require on-wiki consensus. It would have no specific power, only the power to advise, but if properly constituted, this power would be overwhelming. It would be a representative body, and there are devices that can be used to create that efficiently. It is possible for such an Assembly to be fully representative, not merely representative of a majority, and classic organizational rules can be used effectively, all that is needed is representation in deliberation, to keep discussions manageable. And the Assembly could recommend that an admin be desysopped, and, if the Assembly was truly representative, even if only of a large faction, without there being any larger faction opposed, it would happen unless it were an abusive recommendation. The Assembly itself could and would set up a committee to examine any particular issue, delegating the task to a relatively small number of members, who would then prepare a report, based on collected testimony and its own investigation. The report would include recommendations, which would go back to the Assembly for an acceptance vote. Standard deliberative process! The result of that vote, absent some sort of "official recognition" of the Assembly, would simply be coherent advice, backed with evidence and considered argument, the best that could be assembled. Ultimately, it would be Completely Stupid for the WMF to ignore this, it would be practically suicidal. For if the Assembly represented enough editors, it could, should it run into a brick wall on-wiki (unlikely, actually), simply recommend to its members, back through the chosen representatives, to the full community of Wikipedia editors represented, that they start their own damn wiki, picking up all the Wikipedia content they choose to port (start with all, by default), and having enough labor and resources available to maintain and grow the thing beyond that. But this would be the big stick carried, actually using it would be unlikely to be necessary. On the other hand, large factions could do this anyway, if organized, and that's what scares the shit out of some arbitrators and administrators about "cabals." (Short of forking, they can seriously push and influence on-wiki activity.) May the faction with the best ideas and the will to implement them win! But it is generally better to find ways to cooperate, it is more powerful. "Majority" is a minimal standard for where advisability of action begins, other things being equal. QUOTE(Kevin @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 5:14am) The most insightful thing I read there was "Wikipedia is still in its political infancy". I thought it was a great idea, getting rid of abusive admins, until I remembered I was one of them. Look, I've served nonprofits as an officer, and when it appeared that I no longer represented at least a majority, I've been happy to step down. In fact, I prefer to step down well before that point, it's terribly frustrating to struggle with a disunited organization, where every significant action becomes controversial. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Malleus |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined:
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716
|
QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 7:40pm) QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 6:53pm)
I looked at the figures a couple of hours ago and came up with 52% of opposes from admins vs 27% of the support votes, so no surprises there.
The opposes that amuse me the most are the "we don't want a popularity contest", but isn't that what RfA is?
This is irrelevant. The reason most experienced users will oppose this is that they know it is pointless. It will not desysop anyone who wouldn't get desysopped anyway, and it will cause pointless drama. Having said that, that it will cause drama is probably the reason it has so much support too. It may be irrelevant to you, but it confirms what many suspect, which is that any proposal for change will be blocked by sitting administrators, many of whom ought to have been chucked out on their ear already. So I agree with you that it's pointless, but not for the same reason. |
|
|
|
|
|
| GlassBeadGame |
|
Dharma Bum
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
|
QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 3:20pm) QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 7:40pm) QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 6:53pm)
I looked at the figures a couple of hours ago and came up with 52% of opposes from admins vs 27% of the support votes, so no surprises there.
The opposes that amuse me the most are the "we don't want a popularity contest", but isn't that what RfA is?
This is irrelevant. The reason most experienced users will oppose this is that they know it is pointless. It will not desysop anyone who wouldn't get desysopped anyway, and it will cause pointless drama. Having said that, that it will cause drama is probably the reason it has so much support too. It may be irrelevant to you, but it confirms what many suspect, which is that any proposal for change will be blocked by sitting administrators, many of whom ought to have been chucked out on their ear already. So I agree with you that it's pointless, but not for the same reason. But I agree it is pointless for the real reason. The ordinary Wikipedian is as much of a problem as the Admins. No amount of internal "democracy" is going to make Wikipedia more responsible and answerable to stakeholders outside the project. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Doc glasgow |
|
Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined:
From: at home
Member No.: 90
|
QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 8:20pm) QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 7:40pm) QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 6:53pm)
I looked at the figures a couple of hours ago and came up with 52% of opposes from admins vs 27% of the support votes, so no surprises there.
The opposes that amuse me the most are the "we don't want a popularity contest", but isn't that what RfA is?
This is irrelevant. The reason most experienced users will oppose this is that they know it is pointless. It will not desysop anyone who wouldn't get desysopped anyway, and it will cause pointless drama. Having said that, that it will cause drama is probably the reason it has so much support too. It may be irrelevant to you, but it confirms what many suspect, which is that any proposal for change will be blocked by sitting administrators, many of whom ought to have been chucked out on their ear already. So I agree with you that it's pointless, but not for the same reason. It confirms it only to idiots who are not thinking. I will oppose this and it will not be fear of accountability or whatever nonsense you want to infer. It will be because it cannot work. |
|
|
|
|
|
| radek |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
|
Voted against it, partly based on the expectation that any future attempts at improving, discussing, reforming the whole admiship/deadminship process are going to be shut down with "we already have this (half-assed, ill thought out, badly conceived and mostly ineffective) policy in place we don't need nothing else!" if this was to pass.
I'm a big believer in not making the perfect an enemy of the good but this seems to run into the opposite fallacy: "Something must be done (about deadminship)! This is something. Therefore this must be done!"
I still think other proposals (requiring admins to be content creators, requiring a re-approval of the tools, requiring a periodic hiatus, setting up a completely separate committee to deal with admin tool abuse) would work much better and hopefully as time passes, things get worse, will become viable too (that's the crazy naive idealist talking)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 10:52pm) QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 24th February 2010, 3:38am) QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 10:10pm)
I think there's some merit in the "let's just sit back and wait until things get so bad that even the administrators realise that this is going tits up" approach.
Always the best approach to take with fascist regimes, Neville. I think your apparent equivalence of the Nazi threat in the late 1930s to the condition that wikipedia now finds itself in is rather telling. Do you really believe that a conflict that cost the lives of tens of millions can really be put in conjunction to a few jumped up dickheads having their beloved "admin tools" taken away from them? Some fights are worth fighting, but sometimes there's no need to fight, just sit back and watch.
Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Doc glasgow |
|
Wikipedia:The Sump of All Human Knowledge
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined:
From: at home
Member No.: 90
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 24th February 2010, 11:56am) QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 3:52pm) QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 8:45pm)
I will oppose this and it will not be fear of accountability or whatever nonsense you want to infer. It will be because it cannot work.
I imagine you can guess what I think, which is that you are selfishly propping a corrupt system. Has there ever been an example in history of a corrupt leadership voting itself out of power? I'd be at least as happy with term limits for administrators; at least that way the crap won't be around forever. It's been pointed out many times here that if Wikipediots were even remotely sincere about their Non-Elitism BS they would have strict term limits for all management positions — but of course we all know they are not even remotely sincere about that. Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) Let me say quite categorically. I am not interested in non-elitism. If you want to write an encyclopedia, you want the best. I am not interested in democracy. If you want to write an encyclopedia, you want what works not what's popular. That doesn't mean I'm interested in propping up a cabal. I do think admins being more accountable would be a good thing - providing they are accountable to suitably proven and experienced people. I also think a mechanism to make it easier to remove substandard admins is not a bad idea. However, I oppose this because it will bring out the worst in the anti-authoritarian democratic drama-mongers in wikipedia, and will do NOTHING to remove bad admins, since the only admins it will remove are ones so bad they are currently removed. Am I "selfish" in opposing this? No - because even if I care about the possibility of being desysopped (and I don't) there is no chance that I would get desysopped by such a process, wheras I would inevitably have my (and the community's) time wasted by being dragged through it. Again, in the grand scheme of things, who gets to be an admin on wikipedia is irrelevant. Removing a few dozen bad eggs is also fairly irrelevant. It may improve the gaming experience of a few people here, but it does nothing to make Wikipedia a better, or less harmful, product for the reader or the subject. This is another piece irrelevant MORPG playing by WP and WR alike. |
|
|
|
|
|
| powercorrupts |
|
.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
|
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Wed 24th February 2010, 12:09pm) QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 24th February 2010, 11:56am)
It's been pointed out many times here that if Wikipediots were even remotely sincere about their Non-Elitism BS they would have strict term limits for all management positions — but of course we all know they are not even remotely sincere about that.
Some are, some aren't; as I've said before, because WR is where problems are raised, it has a systemic bias towards covering the bad apples. When I was a WP admin I always argued in favor of a maximum two-year term for all management positions, and resigned as soon as I reached that limit, and I can't be the only one. Did you put yourself back up for rfa? There is also the matter of whether some people even want to stay on being admin after a point, but for one reason or another just carry on. Adminship for a set term could be a much better sell than the status quo. I question everyone who wants to be an admin at the moment, as the company is so bad, the job is so disrespected, yet the rewards are such an arsenal. I don't they should dish out all those block tools straight away - maybe after a period CDA on analysis has proved to be a waste of time as far as I'm concerned. Admin have to practically bugger someone online to get into trouble on a day to day basis, and the amount of cranky admin (which must be getting to breaking point now), will make CDAs mayhem in practice. Far too many admin routinely behave like surly teenagers (with as little regard for Policy they can get away with), and there is no reason they wont carry it on at a CDA, either in support of an admin of use to them, or in opposition to an admin who's pissed them off. That can't be good for wikipedia, whatever you think about it - admin just pop up, and no rules can stop them from doing what they want. It's the poor quality of administrators overall (not per individual), combined with the huge freedom they have, that makes CDA impossible to implement. The good thing about CDA proposal is that it was just about serious enough to get people voting from across the board (including a Crat). It can't be easily ridiculed (iffy though it was as a proposal), and it will prove that there is a serious desire for change. If momentum is kept up after it fails, people could use it to force attention upon Rfa and the adminship term issue (and some kind of 'admin review' too, esp for some utter fruitcakes who have been winging it for years). Wikipedians have to fight for it though - in many respects they've got the wikipedia they deserve. QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Wed 24th February 2010, 2:46pm) QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 24th February 2010, 11:56am) QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 3:52pm) QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 8:45pm)
I will oppose this and it will not be fear of accountability or whatever nonsense you want to infer. It will be because it cannot work.
I imagine you can guess what I think, which is that you are selfishly propping a corrupt system. Has there ever been an example in history of a corrupt leadership voting itself out of power? I'd be at least as happy with term limits for administrators; at least that way the crap won't be around forever. It's been pointed out many times here that if Wikipediots were even remotely sincere about their Non-Elitism BS they would have strict term limits for all management positions — but of course we all know they are not even remotely sincere about that. Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) Let me say quite categorically. I am not interested in non-elitism. If you want to write an encyclopedia, you want the best. I am not interested in democracy. If you want to write an encyclopedia, you want what works not what's popular. That doesn't mean I'm interested in propping up a cabal. I do think admins being more accountable would be a good thing - providing they are accountable to suitably proven and experienced people. I also think a mechanism to make it easier to remove substandard admins is not a bad idea. However, I oppose this because it will bring out the worst in the anti-authoritarian democratic drama-mongers in wikipedia, and will do NOTHING to remove bad admins, since the only admins it will remove are ones so bad they are currently removed. Am I "selfish" in opposing this? No - because even if I care about the possibility of being desysopped (and I don't) there is no chance that I would get desysopped by such a process, wheras I would inevitably have my (and the community's) time wasted by being dragged through it. Again, in the grand scheme of things, who gets to be an admin on wikipedia is irrelevant. Removing a few dozen bad eggs is also fairly irrelevant. It may improve the gaming experience of a few people here, but it does nothing to make Wikipedia a better, or less harmful, product for the reader or the subject. This is another piece irrelevant MORPG playing by WP and WR alike. 36 bad eggs - care to name them? Name and shame. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 24th February 2010, 11:56am) It's been pointed out many times here that if Wikipediots were even remotely sincere about their Non-Elitism BS they would have strict term limits for all management positions — but of course we all know they are not even remotely sincere about that. That would be a good idea ... Use the Foundations multi-millions to employ professional and qualified editors to clean up the front end. Verified user name accounts only. All janitorial admins have to be re-elected every year. No more than 3 terms each. Any one not coming forward for review automatically, nor being employed professional editors, have their janitor status withdrawn from them. Should keep them busy. And cut out a lot of dead wood. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Wed 24th February 2010, 11:29am) QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 24th February 2010, 11:56am)
It's been pointed out many times here that if Wikipediots were even remotely sincere about their Non-Elitism BS they would have strict term limits for all management positions — but of course we all know they are not even remotely sincere about that.
That would be a good idea … Use the Foundations multi-millions to employ professional and qualified editors to clean up the front end. Verified user name accounts only. All janitorial admins have to be re-elected every year. No more than 3 terms each. Any one not coming forward for review automatically, nor being employed professional editors, have their janitor status withdrawn from them. Should keep them busy. And cut out a lot of dead wood. I hereby declare a Strong Consensus‡ for this principle. Jon (IMG: http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif) ‡ This means that anyone who dissents will be banned forthwith. |
|
|
|
|
|
| RDH(Ghost In The Machine) |
|
And the admins broke Piggy's glasses...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 613
Joined:
From: Hell, Your Majesty...
Member No.: 15,578
|
QUOTE(Apathetic @ Tue 23rd February 2010, 5:04pm)
I haven't really reviewed this in great detail, but I'd be interested in a running tally and proportion of admins vs non-admins voting for and against.
At a brief glance it looked like the turkeys were handily voting against Thanksgiving =)
edit: Did a quick'n'dirty check:
42 users (53%) 13 admins (25%) supporting
36 users (46%) 39 admins (75%) opposing
6 users 2 admins neutral (not included in above calculations)
Good job! No surprises there. Yet another example of how impossible peaceful reform is with the inmates running the asylum. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| powercorrupts |
|
.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
|
Nakon has created this script on the CDA results that auto-updates - http://toolserver.org/~nakon/cda.php The stats are at the top. The amount of opposing admin (v supporting editors) is striking when you see it in list form I must admit, but if you give them reasons to oppose (as this CDA proposal does) then of course a load of them are going to do just that. The poll is intended to run for 28 days - I cant image CDA winning, but there could be more drama yet, though no one on the CDA side seems to be great at leading the show. They've allowed the truly cranky TenofAllTrades to place reams of 'The flaws of CDA' at the top of the proposal! Cue numerous "per TenofAll" opposes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
