261:
credible candidate than seats then you might well have a runner up with over 80% of the vote. If we had a glut of good candidates we could find that none achieved 50% simply because of the size of the field. Minimum percentage supports simply mean the more good candidates you have the less likely you are to fill every seat....
1268:
This is my first choice, and I regret that it looks like we're heading to 60%. Another problem is that we've been dropping below 60% lately, which is marginal IMO anyway and isn't a level that reflects the community trust we expect of arbs, considering the serious nature of personal and confidential
650:
Given that many opposes will unfortunately be tactical rather than personal objections to the candidate, anyone who manages to get more active support than opposition clearly should be appointed. There is no evidence to suggest that approved candidates with lower rates have been a significant problem
804:
Pretty much per
Ironholds. I'd put it higher but I don't think that it'd get enough support, so I'm hedging my bets, so to speak. Arbs are some of the most powerful users on this site, and to say that my faith in them has been shaken this term is an understatement. I'd prefer a smaller, more trusted
771:
of those userrights and acting as a "court of last resort" which is made up of people who, in some cases, can claim nothing more than "out of the entire community, 60 more like me than hate me". This is not designed to offend individual arbitrators - simply to point out that if we're going to have a
315:
I normally would prefer a higher percentage, but have to go with majority for the simple reason that there are too many "tactical oppose" votes being cast. (For those who are unaware, there are those who try to maximize the impact of their votes on getting their top candidates elected by only voting
176:
Maybe an interesting question to survey is the proportion of people who did/did not vote tactically. I voted tactically last year, and will continue to do so as long as the rules do not prohibit it – it's impossible to prove one way or another. In such cases, an 'oppose' doesn't mean what it appears
766:
seventy, although even that would make arbcom seemingly a less important thing than adminship. What I'd like is a committee which can be said to have the confidence of far more than a simple majority of the community - it's what we ask of RfA candidates, it's what we ask of RfB candidates, and it's
623:
First and only choice. With a secret poll and candidates running against each other to fill the same position, 50% does the best job of filling out the seats, and giving us arbitrators who are seen as qualified by a large enough percentage of the community to have there decision making hold weight.
494:
I prefer this level over the higher ones. It is possible even likely that to achieve a full committee we would need to promote candidates with 55-59% supports and I think that this is better than leaving the spots unfilled. On the other hand, when a plurality of voters clearly rejects a candidate
394:
Requiring more supports than opposes is sufficient and has worked reasonably well. A higher threshold allows an organized minority to veto a candidate who has majority support. (I realize this is the case for other positions on
Knowledge (XXG), but we aren't talking about those right now. I also
99:
What Tony says makes sense. In fact, it's made me wonder whether we've got the right formula (or the right description of the options) to start with. Can't think of anything better right now, but I would draw attention to my statement somewhere up above, about making it clear to voters that if they
296:
a secret ballot where editors are free to oppose any candidate without consequences, there is no badgering of opposes. Opposes are not thrown out for a lack of appropriate rationale, so a vote can be simply an "I don't like this candidate's stance on X". As such, it's a very different world than
206:
As has been stated its impossible to interpret the why and wherefore of the results in this current voting set up - so minimum set limits are confusing the issue even more. If you are fearful that a nominee might be elected by default, or you think you could do better than a nominee then volunteer
742:
a big deal, it's not as big a deal as ArbCom membership. So it's only reasonable to think people will struggle to achieve the level of support RFA requires. I still support this cutoff because I don't think anyone with less than 50% support should sit on the committee, even if it means a smaller
86:
Tony is right. Last year, I voted tactically. I specifically opposed a couple candidates that I did not feel belonged anywhere near Arbcom, and I specifically supported a couple whose works I knew well. But for the majority, I registered no vote at all. All vacancies need to be filled during
364:
In the past elections, we have had relatively few candidates, and I fear that setting the absolute percentage too high will mean we are short of qualified people after the elections are over. However, if more than half the community is opposed to a candidate we are probably better served with a
260:
Minimum percentage support thresholds are not a sensible feature in this system. If the field contains twice as many credible candidates as there are Arb seats to fill then we could easily need to elect someone with less than 50% of the vote. If the field was narrow and there was only one more
624:
It also prevents people who are seen as unqualified by the majority of the community from being seated. This is important because there is no pre-election run off (like a primary election), or pre-vetting for qualification by skill set or trust by a selection committee.
463:
Anything higher means we will have to deal with fewer candidates passed than seats open. But we should decide in advance whether this is 50% of {Support + Oppose}, or 50% of {Support + Oppose + Neutral} if there is a "Neutral" or similar option on the ballot.
1066:
Should really be the minimum to ensure a decent level of confidence in every arbitrator. However, anything higher is not realistic with the secret ballot. A possible compromise could be users with between 50% and 60% support being limited to a one year term.
860:
As per
Ironholds. I want to see that more than a simple majority of people who took the time to go to the vote page support a Arbitrator. As said before, ArbCom is the "Court of (next to) last resort". The last appeal line is
737:
Since this is a highly scrutinized election, we must expect a high degree of opposition. I don't think this election should be compared with RFA, as some who support higher thresholds seem to be doing. While adminship probably
334:(which would mean that higher is automatically better) but also on representativeness and "philosophical" stances. It's entirely possible for a valid candidate to get low numerical support mostly by virtue of others being
865:
who typically declines requests that come to him. These users have the power to levy very significant restrictions of privilages on the site, we want to be sure that a super-majority supports them in their role.
52:
voting we now have, but is not, IMO, a reason for not using it). Many opposes are registered not because a voter actively opposes candidates for whom they might otherwise have opted out of expressing a vote.
350:
An election is not a consensus, it is an election. If we use consensus criteria for ACE, we would never get qualified people in, as there is often not a relationship between competence and popularity. --
340:
The 50% limit is really there only as a safety net; it's arguable that someone who – even in a wide field of candidates — is opposed by a majority is too controversial to be an effective arbitrator. —
87:
these elections, or the process risks breaking down entirely. As such, I viewed my non-votes as tacit supports, i.e.: I had no reason to oppose them, but that would not appear on a percentage chart.
509:
We need to fill vacancies, hopefully those actually elected will have much higher percents then 50, but as a floor I don't think anyone with more people opposed then in support should be an arb.
338:
to them without implying that they are seen as unsuitable or untrustworthy. This is why the selection is ultimately those with the highest support and not "all who past some arbitrary goalpost".
395:
realize that "more supports than opposes" is not exactly the same as 50%, which would include a tie, but it's close enough and I don't want to start another section over just one vote.)
558:
719:
Only choice for me - at least HALF must be supported. 40% isn't good at all (allows users who have been opposed more than supported). As long as there's more support than opposition.
45:
32:
The percentage rating that the support divided by support + oppose formula produces might be ok as a comparison between candidates; but to suggest that it's a measure of community
316:
a number of supports for the number of seats open, and then voting oppose on the rest, even if they think they'd make a good arbitrator). JClemens makes a good point there too.
1052:
Has to be. Any lower would reduce the community's confidence in the committee too much; any higher and we might not be able to fill all the spaces.
660:
Second choice. What if we have a batch of candidates at 58-59% and not enough over that to fill seats? Would prefer 60 in principle per
Ironholds.
379:
Realistically, high enough to prevent unqualified candidates from passing while not making 'winning' the election an impossible task
192:
I'm astonished to find out that good faith voters are being disadvantaged by a system that requires a basic knowledge of the 'game'.
1170:
671:
1306:
I think that wse should make absolutly sure the user is good for ArbCom and the vast majority thinks the user is good for AC. ~~
964:
851:
I think this is the most sane level at which to set it, however, one would hope they would have significantly more than 60%.
793:
772:
committee with all these whizzy rights and powers the people who sit on it should probably have the community's trust, too.
1324:
568:
40:
factor, in which many voters do the only rational thing to maximise the effect of their votes: they click to register a
1205:
709:
268:
454:
17:
1121:
652:
726:
640:
237:
177:
to be on the surface, and we would be condemning ourselves perpetually to arb shortages or the Royal veto. --
1342:
1242:
820:
1277:
852:
263:
162:
Because of the way the votes are tallied, this is the only way to make the system fair for all involved.
1257:
1043:
983:
974:
Start as you mean to go on—"half the community doesn't want me on ArbCom" is not a good place to start.
911:
450:
439:
184:
139:
117:
1181:
1117:
1106:
1057:
546:
500:
469:
212:
197:
126:
604:
This must be the absolute minimum, as users with more opposes than support should not be on ArbCom.
576:
To make it more likely all places can be filled than 60%, but candidates must have majorit support.
1200:
1075:
958:
777:
747:
721:
704:
636:
612:
413:
369:
321:
233:
101:
1338:
1290:
1239:
998:
806:
791:
767:
simply ludicrous that we have a body tasked with granting high-flying userrights, overseeing the
628:
581:
515:
386:
355:
330:
It's important to not raise the bar further than this: ArbCom candidates are not picked only on
306:
105:
91:
1217:
I'd prefer 75 or higher to be honest, but it seems we can hardly get 75 in an election anymore.
1270:
1150:
1090:
1012:
871:
483:
400:
251:
167:
77:
1253:
1039:
975:
942:
907:
842:
684:
565:
435:
223:
179:
136:
114:
1346:
1332:
1294:
1281:
1261:
1247:
1226:
1210:
1186:
1176:
1154:
1140:
1125:
1111:
1096:
1079:
1061:
1047:
1033:
1016:
1002:
988:
969:
945:
930:
915:
901:
889:
875:
855:
846:
829:
798:
781:
750:
732:
714:
688:
677:
655:
644:
631:
616:
599:
585:
571:
550:
539:
522:
504:
487:
473:
458:
443:
429:
417:
404:
389:
374:
359:
344:
325:
310:
277:
255:
241:
227:
216:
201:
187:
171:
157:
142:
130:
120:
109:
94:
81:
68:
1102:
1053:
895:
595:
496:
465:
423:
208:
193:
147:
62:
590:
I lean toward having no limit but think below 50% would be bad for the faith in
Arbcomm.
1195:
1160:
1135:
1068:
951:
773:
744:
699:
661:
605:
561:
that if we don't have a cutoff at 50%, we won't be able to fill all necessary seats. --
409:
366:
317:
544:
50% is my second choice - any higher and we'll fail to elect a decent size committee.
1286:
994:
786:
625:
577:
510:
381:
351:
302:
100:
want their vote to carry full weight, they need to tick the "oppose" boxes as well.--
88:
1146:
1086:
1008:
867:
479:
396:
247:
163:
73:
1307:
937:
838:
562:
647:
While I would support quorum of 50%+1, this seems to be a bit more appropriate.
1134:
60% of the community support, they have no business serving in this capacity.
1024:
862:
591:
530:
341:
55:
495:
as unsuitable they should not be seated even if an empty seat would remain.
880:
365:
smaller commitee than an arbitrator who is lacking community support.
180:
1191:
695:
36:
is erroneous. The numbers are significantly suppressed by the
1337:
I think 70% is needed.75% is too high while 50% is a bit low.
1218:
294:
has been in past years and seems likely to continue to be
959:
952:
1159:
First choice; any higher and we'd never have any arbs.
1221:
297:
RfA; to the best of my knowledge, Arbcom election has
557:
First choice. It's clear from looking at last year's
246:
Pluralities should be fine if it is a massive slate.
44:
for every candidate they're not actively supporting (
148:
27:No minimal percentage: just rank the candidates
153:
1130:Per Ironholds. If someone can't come up with
8:
965:
478:Second choice, as an absolute minimum.
1087:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
1084:Better err on the side of caution. --
7:
926:
24:
301:been billed as "not a big deal".
896:
424:
382:
1347:08:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1333:19:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
1282:14:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
1262:16:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1248:14:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
1243:
1126:03:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
1112:01:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
1097:18:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
1080:14:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
1062:21:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1048:16:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1034:11:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1017:11:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
1003:01:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
989:17:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
970:21:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
946:21:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
931:12:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
916:10:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
902:02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
890:23:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
876:17:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
856:16:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
847:11:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
830:02:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
799:08:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
782:01:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
656:23:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
645:09:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
632:14:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
617:14:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
600:02:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
586:11:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
572:15:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
551:11:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
540:11:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
523:19:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
505:19:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
488:11:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
474:22:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
459:11:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
444:10:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
430:02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
418:01:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
405:23:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
390:18:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
375:16:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
360:04:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
345:03:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
326:03:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
311:02:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
202:09:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
188:15:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
172:14:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
158:12:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
143:01:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
131:10:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
121:18:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
110:11:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
95:14:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
82:12:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
69:06:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
48:in the confidential/automated
1:
881:
1295:18:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
1227:04:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
1211:12:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
1187:00:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
1177:20:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
1155:16:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
1141:19:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
751:05:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
733:17:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
715:12:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
689:06:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
678:20:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
278:22:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
256:02:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
242:16:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
228:06:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
217:16:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
46:it's easy with click-buttons
1269:issues they are privy to.
1363:
18:User talk:Timotheus Canens
985:Penny for your thoughts?
993:60% makes sense to me.
698:it's closed voting. --
1145:Ironholds said it. --
762:Sixty percent. I'd
1172:Operation Big Bear
837:60 per Ironholds.
673:Operation Big Bear
434:Second choice. --
151:
1331:
1327:
1194:vote is open. --
1185:
1078:
935:Per Ironholds. —
906:First choice. --
888:
827:
682:Second choice. --
615:
520:
372:
186:
149:
42:"tactical" oppose
1354:
1330:
1329:
1323:
1318:
1315:
1314:
1311:
1274:
1252:Second Choice --
1245:
1225:
1220:
1208:
1203:
1198:
1184:
1173:
1167:
1138:
1109:
1093:
1074:
1071:
1032:
1027:
986:
980:
967:
961:
954:
944:
940:
929:
928:
898:
887:
885:
826:
821:
818:
789:
745:Heimstern Läufer
729:
724:
712:
707:
702:
674:
668:
611:
608:
549:
538:
533:
527:Second choice. —
516:
513:
426:
384:
370:
275:
271:
266:
221:First choice. --
182:
178:
155:
152:
129:
67:
65:
60:
1362:
1361:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1328:
1320:
1319:
1312:
1309:
1308:
1303:
1272:
1238:Per Ironholds.
1235:
1206:
1201:
1196:
1182:KillerChihuahua
1175:
1171:
1161:
1136:
1107:
1095:
1091:
1072:
1038:First Choice --
1025:
1022:
1021:First choice. —
984:
976:
938:
936:
925:
920:Per Ironholds,
822:
815:
811:
807:
796:
787:
759:
727:
722:
710:
705:
700:
676:
672:
662:
609:
547:John Vandenberg
545:
531:
528:
519:
511:
422:Second choice.
286:
273:
269:
264:
127:John Vandenberg
125:
63:
56:
54:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1360:
1358:
1350:
1349:
1335:
1322:
1321:
1302:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1284:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1240:Kittybrewster
1234:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1179:
1169:
1157:
1143:
1128:
1114:
1099:
1085:
1082:
1064:
1050:
1036:
1019:
1007:First choice.
1005:
991:
972:
948:
933:
918:
904:
894:First choice.
892:
878:
858:
849:
832:
813:
809:
802:
794:
784:
758:
755:
754:
753:
735:
717:
693:
692:
691:
680:
670:
648:
637:Ampersandestet
634:
621:
620:
619:
588:
574:
559:voting results
555:
554:
553:
542:
517:
507:
492:
491:
490:
461:
448:
447:
446:
432:
407:
392:
377:
362:
348:
328:
313:
285:
282:
281:
280:
258:
244:
234:Michaeldsuarez
230:
219:
204:
190:
174:
160:
145:
135:The Easiest --
133:
123:
112:
97:
84:
71:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1359:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1339:Palaxzorodice
1336:
1334:
1326:
1316:
1305:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1285:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1246:
1241:
1237:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1216:
1212:
1209:
1204:
1199:
1193:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1183:
1180:
1178:
1174:
1168:
1166:
1165:
1158:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1142:
1139:
1133:
1129:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1113:
1110:
1104:
1100:
1098:
1094:
1088:
1083:
1081:
1077:
1070:
1065:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1035:
1030:
1028:
1020:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
990:
987:
981:
979:
973:
971:
968:
963:
962:
956:
955:
949:
947:
943:
941:
934:
932:
923:
919:
917:
913:
909:
905:
903:
899:
893:
891:
886:
884:
879:
877:
873:
869:
864:
859:
857:
854:
850:
848:
844:
840:
836:
833:
831:
828:
825:
819:
817:
803:
800:
797:
792:
790:
785:
783:
779:
775:
770:
765:
761:
760:
756:
752:
749:
746:
741:
736:
734:
731:
730:
725:
718:
716:
713:
708:
703:
697:
694:
690:
687:
686:
681:
679:
675:
669:
667:
666:
659:
658:
657:
654:
649:
646:
642:
638:
635:
633:
630:
627:
622:
618:
614:
607:
603:
602:
601:
597:
593:
589:
587:
583:
579:
575:
573:
570:
567:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
543:
541:
536:
534:
526:
525:
524:
521:
514:
508:
506:
502:
498:
493:
489:
485:
481:
477:
476:
475:
471:
467:
462:
460:
456:
452:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
431:
427:
421:
420:
419:
415:
411:
408:
406:
402:
398:
393:
391:
388:
387:
385:
378:
376:
373:
368:
363:
361:
357:
353:
349:
347:
346:
343:
337:
333:
329:
327:
323:
319:
314:
312:
308:
304:
300:
295:
292:
288:
287:
283:
279:
276:
272:
267:
259:
257:
253:
249:
245:
243:
239:
235:
231:
229:
226:
225:
220:
218:
214:
210:
205:
203:
199:
195:
191:
189:
185:
183:
175:
173:
169:
165:
161:
159:
156:
146:
144:
141:
138:
134:
132:
128:
124:
122:
119:
116:
113:
111:
107:
103:
98:
96:
93:
90:
85:
83:
79:
75:
72:
70:
66:
61:
59:
51:
47:
43:
39:
35:
31:
30:
26:
19:
1222:
1163:
1162:
1131:
1023:
977:
957:
950:
921:
882:
853:Orderinchaos
834:
823:
808:
788:Sir Armbrust
768:
763:
739:
723:HurricaneFan
720:
683:
664:
663:
651:on arbcom.--
529:
380:
339:
335:
331:
298:
293:
290:
262:
222:
57:
49:
41:
37:
33:
1254:Cube lurker
1040:Cube lurker
978:HJ Mitchell
908:Eraserhead1
743:committee.
685:Philosopher
436:Eraserhead1
289:Since this
224:Philosopher
181:Ohconfucius
1103:Guerillero
1092:talk to me
1054:Alzarian16
863:User:Jimbo
497:Eluchil404
466:Tryptofish
209:Off2riorob
207:yourself.
194:Lightmouse
50:SecurePoll
1164:Wizardman
1137:Trusilver
1069:CT Cooper
774:Ironholds
665:Wizardman
653:Scott Mac
606:CT Cooper
451:T. Canens
410:Sole Soul
367:Sjakkalle
336:preferred
318:SirFozzie
1325:Contribs
1287:M4gnum0n
1132:at least
1029:• 9:43pm
995:Al Lemos
922:at least
835:at least
795:Contribs
626:FloNight
578:Davewild
535:• 9:44pm
383:Jebus989
371:(Check!)
352:Cerejota
303:Jclemens
274:Chequers
102:Kotniski
1317:~~ (+)
1273:Georgia
1147:Dweller
1118:Biophys
1108:My Talk
1009:Jafeluv
868:Hasteur
816:anguard
805:group.
480:Jafeluv
397:Neutron
248:Carrite
164:Akjar13
74:Epbr123
34:support
953:Eagles
839:Ipsign
764:prefer
748:(talk)
150:ŞůṜīΣĻ
118:yck C.
64:(talk)
38:oppose
1271:Sandy
1219:Mitch
1026:James
927:Swarm
914:: -->
897:sonia
592:Hobit
532:James
512:Monty
442:: -->
425:sonia
342:Coren
332:trust
299:never
270:Spiel
16:<
1343:talk
1291:talk
1278:Talk
1258:talk
1202:(t)
1151:talk
1122:talk
1076:talk
1058:talk
1044:talk
1013:talk
999:talk
960:24/7
939:Kudu
924:60.
912:talk
910:<
872:talk
843:talk
824:Wha?
812:ven
778:talk
706:(t)
641:talk
629:♥♥♥♥
613:talk
596:talk
582:talk
501:talk
484:talk
470:talk
455:talk
440:talk
438:<
414:talk
401:talk
356:talk
322:talk
307:talk
265:Ϣere
252:talk
238:talk
213:talk
198:talk
168:talk
154:¹98¹
140:¬_¬™
137:Ald™
106:talk
92:lute
89:Reso
78:talk
58:Tony
1313:123
1310:Ebe
1301:70%
1233:66%
1207:(e)
1192:Iff
966:(C)
883:AGK
769:use
757:60%
711:(e)
696:Iff
518:845
284:50%
115:Der
1345:)
1293:)
1280:)
1260:)
1223:32
1197:DQ
1153:)
1124:)
1116:--
1105:|
1101:--
1060:)
1046:)
1015:)
1001:)
982:|
900:♫
874:)
845:)
780:)
740:is
728:25
701:DQ
643:)
598:)
584:)
569:ka
566:on
563:El
503:)
486:)
472:)
464:--
457:)
428:♫
416:)
403:)
358:)
324:)
309:)
291:is
254:)
240:)
232:--
215:)
200:)
170:)
108:)
80:)
1341:(
1289:(
1276:(
1256:(
1244:☎
1149:(
1120:(
1089:|
1073:·
1056:(
1042:(
1031:•
1011:(
997:(
870:(
841:(
814:M
810:S
801:\
776:(
639:(
610:·
594:(
580:(
537:•
499:(
482:(
468:(
453:(
412:(
399:(
354:(
320:(
305:(
250:(
236:(
211:(
196:(
166:(
104:(
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.