Talk:Internet Society

The Internet Society and ISOC

I have never seen the Internet Society referred to as "the ISOC". ISOC is, I think, "not quite an acronym". --Alvestrand (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. I guess it's the official abbreviation. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Anonymity

I'm just curious about the Internet Society's stance on user anonymity on the internet.

It is my opinion that an alias can allow us to share the feelings we have without trying to conform to society's expectation of us. Furthermore, without anonymity, the internet would offer nothing new. Schalos (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet with anonymity comes all kinds of problems, people hiding behind false identities, and the general believe that nothing which happens on the internet matters. When you remove your identity, the notion follows, you are immune to anything and everything. Which is largely a myth perpetuated by the idea that most people are either too lazy to care or don't know how to find out someone's identity.--68.6.182.39 (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes 41.113.221.63 (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

External Links

Can we get a consensus to remove the external links to the chapters? There is a tag on that section, but before I remove what looks like a lot of hard work, I want to make certain that it is appropriate, and that I am interpreting Wikipedia's external link policy correctly. Lynden Price (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

Is this the proper Wikipedia article for this discussion?

Headline-1: GOP cannot give in to Obama's 'great Internet giveaway'

• http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/245704-gop-cannot-give-in-to-obamas-great-internet-giveaway

QUOTE: "The government's job is simple: to protect freedom and promote free markets. And the Republican Party — which currently controls both chambers of the U.S. Congress — bills itself as the party of individual responsibility and economic growth" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

New Internet Society Logo

In 2016 the Internet Society launched a new logo, which is visible at the top of https://www.internetsociety.org/ The logo now on this Wikipedia page is no longer accurate. I can provide a new logo as I work for the Internet Society Communications team. However because of that affiliation I am hesitant to update the page directly. Does anyone object if I make that change? Dyork (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dyork, I would refer you to WP:BOLD. What I will do is define you as a 'connected contributor' above, so it is all above board. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and, correct form is to add new talk sections at the bottom of the page. Thus I have moved this down. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internet Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080217060615/http://www.isoc.org/educpillar/ to http://www.isoc.org/educpillar/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

training and IPv6 .. only issues?

. . .

This page reads rather ... public relationsish.

For example, the only references I can find on this Wikipedia page under "issues" relate to training and IPv6 implementation. There is a lack of other major events in ISOC history that would seem fairly essential to reader understanding of where the society fits into global internet governance.

Here's a few more issues here.

Avaiki (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Page obviously needs work. Perhaps you would like to step up? Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Page has been edited by an Internet Society employee without declaring this conflict

This page has been edited by Wwwhatsup, who is on the payroll of the Internet Society. It is not appropriate for me to name them here, but I am reversing their edits as they have an obvious conflict of interest which should prevent them from making revisions to this wiki page. Ferdeline (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

And I have reversed your reversal. My edits were prompted by your earlier edits which served to push a non-neutral POV i.e. opposition to the sale of PIR, plus some added cruft. I fleshed out some of the history, and current activities, in a neutral way. I am not on the "payroll" at ISOC, but a vendor. The services I provide to them have nothing to do with wikipedia editing, but they do mean I am familiar, and yes, support the work of this organization. Wwwhatsup (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ferdeline. I should make you aware of WP:3RR which you will violate if you revert again. I note yours is a single purpose account. May I ask you which of my edits you consider does not reflect WP:NPOV? Wwwhatsup (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Wwwhatsup. I am new to Wikipedia, but I am a subject matter expert and thus have been revising this article to be an accurate history of the Internet Society. I have added sources to support many of my statements, and where these are lacking, I will go through now and add links to additional primary sources. I note that you are the administer of at least one official Internet Society social media account, and represent the organization (as a vendor you claim) in its communications work. Members of the Internet Society's senior leadership team have retweeted your tweets in the past week. I believe you have a conflict of interest and should retain from editing this page. I will be reverting your most recent bad faith edits now. If you continue to revert mine, I would like to know why you are removing my edits, such as incorporating finances from the 2018 IRS form 990 into the info box, and changing these to the outdated 2016 figures. No one is served by an article with out-of-date information. Ferdeline (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ferdeline, I understand you are new to Wikipedia, and perhaps don't fully understand its tenets. The fact is, it doesn't matter who you are, what matters is the nature of your edits. In your case, in the cause of your opposition to the PIR sale, you appear to have scraped around to find a number of negative sources, to which you then applied further negative analysis. If you look at my edits. You'll see I started by removing some of the more egregious examples. This left the article thin. As pointed out by Avaiki over a year ago, there was already a lack of information about ISOC, so I remedied that, in a neutral manner. If we swap reversions again you will have violated the 3RR. I will ask admins to step in. Please read up on edit warring. Wwwhatsup (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I notice that you have asked the admins to step in before I made any additional edits, but that is okay. I hope they are able to help us reach a place we are all happy with. I noticed that you have written about this incident on Facebook, outing me as the author in an attempt to shame me into leaving these edits as is, which I believe violates Wikipedia's rules on identifying individuals. I did not "scraped around to find a number of negative sources" - I did a comprehensive literature review of respected publications, and I am afraid even if you search you will not find any praising ISOC. If you do, please send my way - if I've missed one I'd like to know and would be very sorry about that.Ferdeline (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

If I started scraping around looking for articles praising ISOC, I'd be falling into the same POV trap as you. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like an ISOC employee may be trying to cover up crimes relating to the .ORG sale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.147.252 (talk) 05:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Never mind the bad faith and edit warring. Which is the better article?

Rather than continue to edit war, I reported User:Federline to the Admins. Hence the current protected status. I would welcome comments on which version more neutrally informs wikipedia readers, and why. Their version or mine. In my opinion, rather than reverting, User:Fedeline should have taken my bare bones just the facts rewrite, and further edited it to make their points, which could then be judged on their merits WP:N, NPOV etc. Myself, I would characterize much of it as "dirty washing" and not worth of inclusion. But other editors can make that determination. I do feel myself to be a victim of WP:AOBF. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I welcome the involvement of other editors in reviewing the changes that we have both made, and bringing us to a neutral place. I think that is the best outcome here. But the article must be an honest one. Whether you are an ISOC employee, contractor, or vendor, you have a deep financial relationship with ISOC, and that in my opinion should disqualify you from editing this page. While I realise your duties do not include editing Wikipedia on behalf of ISOC, as someone who administers at least one of their Twitter accounts and performs other activities (which I am not mentioning here as it would lead to your identifiability), you are performing communications work for ISOC and thus should not be editing this page lest it appear you are attempting to manipulate public opinion. One could easily reach that conclusion from your edits. Ferdeline (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You are avoiding this question. What is it about my edits, that made them appear so manipulative? They were very basic facts, unlike the spin you reverted to, repeatedly. If there was something I took out that you thought should be back in, you were free to do so. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 December 2019

I suggest that this version be instated as the current protected page, since its content is neutral. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I oppose this edit. Wwwhatsup is an Internet Society vendor/contractor and has an undeclared conflict of interest. Ferdeline (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I think I have a COI declaration on this page. I have placed that version at User:Wwwhatsup/Sandbox/Internet_Society where further proposed edits may be made. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 03:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe that given the newsworthyness and high tensions around this topic protecting this article for the moment would be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:2461:1658:CCFC:7C8D:69B6:9B0B (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. What we need here are editors willing to get their hands dirty.Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

POV much?

Sustaining a POV-damaged article is of dubious merit. POV that IMO should be taken out.

1) It has consistently struggled for recognition and influence. (Cherry-picked 1999 paper used in lede to cast shade on the organization's entire 27 year existence.)

2) The Internet Society is an independently-funded trust consisting of individual members, organizational members, and Chapters. Individual members do not get to vote determine policy, but organizational members are represented on an Advisory Council that can determine policy and the direction that the Internet Society will take. The function of the Internet Society's chapters is to execute their own plans where they align with Internet Society policies created by the Advisory Council, subject to approval and funding from the central body. (This is in there to serve the editors POV which is that Internet Society did not adequately consult before committing to sell PIR)

3) While once boasting a large global membership base, the Internet Society lost 40,000 members in 2018 alone, and as of December 2019, the Internet Society indicates on its homepage that membership has declined to 64,538 members. (The membership number fell due to rigorous GDPR compliance, in 2018 all members were required to opt in to a new privacy policy This is added to the article to portray ISOC as a failing organization.)

4)The central unit of standardization in Internet standards is performed by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). The IETF is split into numerous working groups covering various functional areas. A steering body, the Internet Engineering Steering Group, coordinates the activities of the working groups, assigns group chairs and approves the results of the groups' work. Before standards are adopted, at least two independent implementations must have demonstrated that they really work. Moreover, when a standard is proposed, it is published electronically and at some stage of the standards track it is introduced as a "Request for Comments" (RFC) in the RFC document series. Thus, a broad and unrestricted discussion of the proposal is made possible. (This is cruft. This information is available in the wikipedia IETF article. The reason it was posted was to lead in to the nest para.)

5) However, in 2018 the IETF began to become independent of the Internet Society, by forming its own legal entity (IETF Administration LLC). The Internet Society has committed to making payments to the IETF until 2020 to help it build up an endowment and reserve fund, after which time it will be financially independent. (This is worded to give the impression that the IETF is breaking away from ISOC, to reinforce POV that ISOC is no longer a responsible steward. If you read the ref, which is a draft, it says " Specifically, the IETF LLC is a single-member Limited Liability Company created in Delaware (USA) in August 2018. The member (i.e., its legal owner) is ISOC." )

6) The Internet Society is the parent company for the Public Interest Registry, which manages the .ORG top-level domain. They are currently in the process of selling this public good to a venture capital company, Ethos Capital. (The casting of this registry business as a 'public good" is POV. I replaced this with the neutral "In 2019 the Internet Society agreed to the sale of Public Interest Registry to Ethos Capital for $1.135 billion. a transaction expected to complete in early 2020. The Internet Society has said it plans to use the proceeds to fund an endowment. The sale has met with some opposition, since it involves the transfer of what is viewed as a public asset to a private equity investment firm.

7) The Internet Society is not a membership-driven organization, but an independent trust. Individual members have little capability to be able to control the direction taken by management. Similarly, Chapters of the Internet Society have struggled for funding where their positions do not align with the views of management or the organizational member Advisory Council. The Chapters work together in a Chapters Committee to develop recommendations and to share best practices. However, their recommendations are not always acted upon by the Board of Trustees. In 2017, all Chapters endorsed a proposal that Chapters should have control of 3% of the overall Internet Society budget with sensible provisions against financial abuse introduced. Currently, the Internet Society spends five dollars "administering" each dollar controlled by its Chapters. However, in a closed Board meeting this recommendation was rejected with no explanation offered. (Spun cherry-picked dirty washing from a well-known internal dissenter in ISOC used to cast a bad light, reinforce the editors POV)

8) The Internet Society claimed on its homepage to have over 100,000 members in 2018. As of December 2019, the Internet Society claims to have 64,538 members. Questions have been raised as to why over 40,000 members left in 2018. (Yet again with the membership decline!)

9) The board of trustees consists of 13 members. Four members are appointed by Internet Society chapters, four members are appointed by the Internet Engineering Task Force, and four members are appointed by organizational members of the Internet Society. In addition, the President and Chief Executive Officer serves ex officio. (Cruft posted to support the following statement.)

10) As a result, a majority of the board of trustees are appointed by corporate interests. (Supporting editor's POV that ISOC's board is tainted, as is its decision to sell PIR).

11) Until 2001, there were also trustees elected by individual members of the Internet Society. Those elections were "suspended" in 2001. This was ostensibly done as a fiscal measure due to the perception that the elections were costing too much (at the time, the organization was in a dire financial situation). In later Bylaw revisions, the concept of individual member-selected trustees went from "suspended" to being deleted altogether. (Indeed ISOC changed structure at this time from a "professional" cause-based organization, to an open and free membership model with a multistakeholder structure of board election. However, the way this is written, and why it is in there, is to suggest that ISOC disenfranchised its members and to further the POV that its sale of PIR is illegitimate.)

12) This sale to private equity was concerning to civil society, because the sale of PIR to a private entity will significantly alter the Domain Name System and further weaken the Internet Society's influence. PIR played an important role, as the only remaining non-commercial top-level domain registry operator, in serving as a counterbalance against commercial exploitation. PIR ran .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG for the benefit of its users, whereas other top-level domains are run by private companies with purely financial objectives. While the interests of companies and users do at times overlap, they can also conflict, and when this occurs there are significant human rights implications. PIR, as a subsidiary of the Internet Society, could be relied upon to do what was best for domain name registrants, and had a proud history of doing just that. However, PIR also gave ISOC legitimacy and influence. It allowed the Internet Society to take an active role in shaping Internet infrastructure. In relinquishing its control over PIR, the Internet Society loses its ability to directly impact how millions of people around the world positively experience the Internet every day. (POV via WP:SYN)

References

Activities

Also there's this

13) The Internet Society conducts a range of activities under the categories of public policy, access, and education.

Under the public policy category, the Internet Society works with governments, national and international organizations, and the private sector to promote policies about the Internet that conform to its core values. The Internet Society has been criticized for not supporting net neutrality and for not engaging with civil society.

Under the access category, the Internet Society works with community partners to support network development, interconnection, and Internet traffic exchange, and to train individuals who can build and maintain the Internet infrastructure in their regions.

Under the category of education, the Internet Society pursues its goals by coordinating and delivering hands-on technical training, seminars and conferences on topical Internet issues; supporting local and regional Internet organisations; issuing briefings and white papers on Internet technologies; and funding participation opportunities for Internet experts in developing countries. (Not posted by User:Federline, but this is a an edit of vintage copy pasted from the ISOC site. ISOC's action plan has advanced more than once since then. I included a summary of the latest one in my rewrite.[1])

Once one takes most of this out. There isn't a lot left. Hence my rewrite of a brief neutral article.[2]. Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC on proposed base version of this article.

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Editors prefer Version #1 to #2 by a small margin. One editor mentioned the 'unsourced editorializing' in Version #2. User:Rhododendrites favored taking out the sidebar and nobody else commented on that, so I removed the sidebar. (i.e. removed {{Internet}} and {{Internet history timeline}}). Since this was only a vote on what to use for a 'base version' it is possible that further RfCs may be advisable for specific questions. Though I reverted the article to Version #1, it is not protected and is only intended as a starting point for further editing. Try to ensure that your additional changes have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The RFC is whether to restore this version as a base upon which a good article can be built, or keep the current version, protected as a result of earlier edit warring. I have a COI and will not do the restore myself, consensus is required on the change. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you summarize the arguments in favor of each version? EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued interest! I think I've fairly comprehensively delineated the problems with the current version above: 1) it's a synthesis to portray the subject negatively, 2) it doesn't give a history of the organization, 3) the 'Activities' section is out of date. The proposed revision remedies all of those. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

So version #1 is the one you are proposing, and #2 is a version proposed by User:Ferdeline. So, if I try to condense some of the opinions above, #1 is likely to be written more from the ISOC's own point of view, and version #2 is likely to include some criticism, and possibly some original research. (See for example the Controversies section, which does not exist in #1). It's not my place to rule on any of this, we just need to get others' opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

In case you want to break down #1/#2 into a series of more specific questions, analogous to the numbered itsms in #POV much?, how about asking: Should the Public Interest Registry be described as a public good in Wikipedia's voice? EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for your continuing interest. My theory is that in #1, unlike #2, there is no point of view, ISOC or otherwise, and thus it is a good base for the article. That's what I tried to achieve. It's just a brief collection of facts, a fair portion of the history merely links ISOC to other existing Wikipedia articles on its activities. As to further questions, if individual edits are added to that base, then they can be asked. Thus this RFC is, given the flawed nature of almost the entire article as it stands, shouldn't it be replaced by #1. The choice is Keep or Restore, can we get consensus on that? Further comments welcome. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I have very limited knowledge of ISOC these days, although IIRC I was a member briefly several decades ago when it first started. As to these two versions, it seems clear that #2 is by someone who has an axe to grind with it, and makes several deliberate misrepresentations to make ISOC look bad (e.g. casting the creation of a separate company for the IETF as an attempt by the IETF to separate itself from ISOC). As such, it is wholly unsuitable as the base for a neutral article about the organization.

I do think the dust-up over the sale of the PIR should be covered in more detail than #1 does, including giving details on why some consider it bad (just saying it "will significantly alter the Domain Name System" makes it sound like the technical functioning of the DNS will be affected, which is extremely unlikely), although the linked Register article is a good source. Those details must be clearly labelled as claims by the opponents of the sale (who don't seem to be offering to step up to fund the operation of the IETF, so the ISOC wouldn't need to sell the PIR). Noel (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Arguably, it would better to include further info about proposed changes in Public Interest Registry, or even Ethos Capital, rather than this article. I interpret your comments as a Restore. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, you could treat it as an invitation to add your own description of the PIR dispute to your version, the one currently labelled #1. Unclear why you would want to immediately exile this material to the other two articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed I did note the controversy, as quoted in 6) above. Speculation probably doesn't belong anywhere, although it could be notable, I guess. But if it's about PIR, and its future under Ethos Capital ownership, surely it doesn't belong here. Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

And EdJohnston, I'm tempted to regard your comment as at least a weak Restore :) My purpose here was/is to establish a good base article. My admitted COI probably precludes me from doing much more than that. Once #1 is restored, other editors are free to make edits, which can be judged on their own merits. Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

As an admin I'm not voting in this RfC. Your COI may restrict you from changing the article, but you are free to advocate for anything you want on the talk page. But if you don't subdivide the issues more finely, it is unclear how progress can be made. EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Well. I already did that above. If each of those pieces were removed, as they should, there would be nothing left but the lede and the ELs! Hence this RFC. What's needed here is more editors. I don't know what else to do to recruit eyeballs. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Version 2 has a block of unsourced editorializing in a "controversies" section. No, that obviously should not be there. The "Today" section is also mostly unsourced. Several claims rely on NetPolicyNews, whose reliability is unclear to me. That said, there are many more sources criticizing the sale that aren't included yet. How much of that should be here, I don't know, but since I see several sources which talk about ISOC in relation to that sale, it makes sense to include in nontrivial detail. Not a single controversy in a plural "controversies" section, of course. Version 1 seems more straightforward, but itself has the problem of relying too much on primary sources. It also turns the article into a sort of timeline with too many lists. Too many factors to just say "version 1" or "version 2" here. Neither is ideal. Speaking of timelines, get rid of the sidebar. It's absurdly long and seems intended as a navbox, but isn't -- it's just a tangential timeline tacked onto the side (and bottom, and wayyy bottom). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for comments. I take your point about the list, but I was constrained to 'just the facts' minimalism by my COI. My aim was to construct the basic elements of what might become a good article, rather than the current axe grinding. Hopefully further editing might smooth that out, perhaps into sections e.g. 'Protocol Advocacy' and "Community Networks' . The first step is to establish #1 as a base. Can we get consensus on that? Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the content of the lede: the current version is succinct, hence, more appropriate for me. As previous posts noted the second version tended to editorialize. It also had specific details that should just be included in the body such as the info about membership and policymaking. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

"the current version is succinct" Don't you have that back to front? Can you give an opinion -- Keep #2 or Restore #1? Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

My bad. I meant the old version (the shorter one) and not the current version. As previously stated, the current one editorializes (e.g. the org struggles for influence). Let us just describe the organization and if there are criticisms, you can always create a section in the body except if such criticisms eclipse the organization in terms of notability. And, again, details like membership and policymaking should also be included in the body. Darwin Naz (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd interpret that as a Restore #1. Could we be approaching consensus? Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I have put in a Request for closure on this, which will hopefully establish #1 as a base. Once that is done, work can begin on improvement, including the suggestions above. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I see today that in this diff DustinICW has amended #2 with a partial restoration of #1. It would be helpful if DustinICW responded to the RFC, in particular, why they think only that section merits restoration, rather than the whole thing. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

My "partial restoration" was not intended to be an endorsement of any other parts of the article, but was just me not being up-to-date with the talk page and not realizing it would be interpreted in such a way. I've self-reverted my edits, pending a resolution of this discussion.

DustinICW (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully that comes sooner rather than later! Might you care to make your opinion known on the overall Keep vs Restore question? Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.