209:
the current AC in everything but the manner in which it was created. As long as it is the community's decision, that's fine. As I mentioned above, though I have problems with much of how the ArbCom operates, that's nothing compared to my problem with the circumstances surrounding its creation. I'd be totally willing to accept as legitimate a replacement that operates in exactly the same manner as the ArbCom operates today, even if it included the particular aspects of the current ArbCom that I loathe most, so long as it was created and instituted through the will of the community rather than the fiat of Mr. Wales. I would certainly argue against those aspects during the initial discussion of it, and I would continue to advocate for reform if it was created with those particular facets included, but as it was created by the community I would still accept its authority as legitimate.
196:
authority is something he never should have held or exercised to begin with, because he simply asserted it for himself rather than having it explicitly granted to him by the community. There are several specific problems with the workings of the AC (first and foremost of which is the shroud of secrecy and lack of accountability surrounding it), but those are not on nearly the fundamental level as the manner by which ArbCom came to be in the first place.
146:
contributing to this attitude, and how might you attempt to modify ArbCom procedures and policies to regain that trust? (Note: I recognize that many of the disaffected are simply apathetic or permanently cynical on the subject, and nothing ArbCom could do would restore a trust that was never there to begin with. My question relates to those members of the community who might be persuadable if their specific objections were addressed.)
978:, is checking their watchlist and sees many asteroid articles being nominated for deletion. The WikiProject member asks the first editor on the first editor's talk page to please stop nominating asteroid articles for deletion. The first editor tells the WikiProject member that he will not stop until every asteroid article is deleted from Knowledge (XXG). The WikiProject member starts a thread at
974:, with the reason for deletion "Asteroidcruft." The AFD is closed early by an admin, and the admin tells the editor not to bundle so many articles together in a single AFD. The next day, the editor nominates 200 asteroid articles for deletion using an automated tool, with the reason for deletion for each being "Asteroidcruft." A second editor, who is a member of
991:. At AN, several admins think the first editor is being disruptive, but several admins agree with what the first editor is doing, and several editors express their disdain for the WikiProject in general. A third admin unblocks the first editor, and the first editor continues to nominate 200 asteroid articles for deletion every day. Several threads at
117:
680:
which case I don't see why whether or not it's a sockpuppet is important. Oversight is a bit less noxious...however, its potential for abuse by an unscrupulous oversighter is sufficient cause to not make it too convenient to remove edits from history (not to mention the obvious problems this causes with GFDL compliance--a book in itself).
995:
follow, some initiated by members of WikiProject
Astronomical objects, some initiated by editors, but no user RFC is filed on the first editor. The first editor never comments at AN/I, but replies again and again on their user talk page that they feel that Knowledge (XXG) should not have any articles
877:
and indicate how much you agree or disagree with its points? If it helps at all, the essay was originally written as a response to an admin who insisted that I was not permitted to make my talk page a redirect to my user page. He did so even though there is (or was at that time?) no rule or guideline
579:
No, because that is not what gives a body legitimacy. It's just voting to minimize the bad in an inherently bad and illegitimate system, either because these people have not developed the revolutionary consciousness and instead are operating under a false consciousness that keeps them from realizing
111:
For a variety of reasons (mostly because they are questions that are irrelevant to my candidacy) I have declined to answer several questions that have been asked of me; I see no point in wasting time answering many mostly irrelevant questions, and I have removed them so they don't clutter up the page
986:
about the ANI thread. WikiProject members show up to the AFDs and argue to keep in all of them. At the ANI thread, several WikiProject members and several editors feel that the first editor is being disruptive. A second admin blocks the first editor for disruption, but asks for a review of the block
580:
this, or because they have developed the revolutionary consciousness but have not yet developed the revolutionary courage to speak out against what is in fact illegitimate, as I and a few others have. It appears that you fall into the first category; I look forward to your revolutionary development.
430:
As long as they're not being used for malicious purposes, I don't see a problem with them. I don't have a problem with a sock--outed or not--being a community servant or anything else; as long as this particular account is only used for good purposes, why do we care whether or not the person behind
423:
Is it appropriate for editors to create joke accounts, role accounts, "personality" accounts, etc., to have fun or to make a point? Should socks be allowed to edit policies, engage in RfCs and ArbCom cases, or seek positions of trust in the community? Or should undisclosed alternate accounts be used
821:
In light of the fact that
Knowledge (XXG) is a volunteer project, how do you consider anything here to be "forced"? Unlike the political system of one's country, which you are born into and therefore forced to accept until enfranchised (or not) as a voter, no individual that I am aware of is forced
657:
The most rational path is for me to promote what I know to be right, in any way possible. Even if I lose, my ideas will be spread to individuals who may not otherwise have heard of them, thus helping to develop the revolutionary consciousness of the community and make a future run more viable, and
530:
They participate in it because it was forced upon them. That is not what creates legitimacy. It is only legitimate if it was created in the first place by the community, on the community's own initiative. Participation in the AC does not automatically give it legitimacy, any more than my handing
438:
Aside from the easy-to-spot vandalism, a large percentage of disruption to the project comes from a relatively small number of harder-to-spot users engaged in POV pushing, trolling, etc. After their first incarnation they keep coming back as socks and causing problems. (We call them socks but they
208:
If you're asking about what I think the specifics of what an ArbCom replacement (if any arises) would be, it's not an area I have given too much thought to. Creating dispute-resolution systems is not something I'm particularly well-suited for. It may be that whatever arises is exactly similar to
160:
I wouldn't try to restore their trust, because if it ever existed it was misplaced. The community at large needs to develop the revolutionary courage and heave off Jimbo's chains, abolishing this body once and for all. I'm not interested in restoring trust. I'm just interested in minimizing its
679:
Neither should exist in the first place. Tracking down sock puppets should not be such an important concern. Either the sockpuppet is engaging in improper behavior itself, in which case it can be dealt with on those grounds alone, or it's not being used for anything that is wrong in itself, in
560:
You said that users "participate in it because it was forced upon them". I agree that users are forced to abide by Arb Com decisions, but they are not forced to participate in elections. I believe that if several hundred members of the community have voluntarily elected a person to a position of
331:
I see you removed NYB's (very germane) questions. On what basis do you justify removing questions from an eligible voter? You can decline to answer them, as you like, (although I suspect it will win you few votes) but I don't think that it is justifiable at all to completely remove them. Please
93:
commences. You are, of course, welcome to refuse to answer a question if you feel uncomfortable doing so, but do remember that that may well result in a voter choosing to oppose you. If a question is a near-duplication of another, you are—of course—welcome to as an answer to that question simply
693:
like ArbCom. '...the idea that that small, insular group of editors that frequent the page (including the nominator)' 'are the "community" and can achieve "consensus," adding substance-less votes to what should be consensus discussions on bans' . Quite amusing, coming from a former arbitrator.
195:
Fundamentally, the problem with the AC is the manner in which it was created. It was not something the community created because the community saw a need, but rather something Jimbo Wales created to delegate his exercise of authority that was becoming too time-consuming for him. However, this
297:
Assuming that you are elected as an
Arbitrator, I don't think it's likely that your votes to not hear cases are always going to result in cases not being heard. So, how do you plan to "minimize negative impact on the community" in cases that the Committee still elects to hear and decide on?
621:
I am more than a little concerned that my questions will be perceived as... Bad Faith questions, hints or suggestions, and perhaps even as attacks... but I assure you they are sincerely well-intended, Good Faith questions. Specifically, I am not mounting a sneaky/dishonest opposition to your
145:
There seems to me to be a significant portion of the community that has lost, or is beginning to lose, trust in the ability of the
Arbitration Committee to fairly and effectively adjudicate cases. Do you agree with that basic assessment? If so, what do you think might be the major factor
214:
I've watched WT:RFA, and a number of different proposals (that have nothing to do with adminship) that have been interesting and well thought out, yet get shot down pretty fast with questionable logic. With this in mind: Do you think the community can decide on a replacemtent for Arb Com?
634:
If the answer to the second question is "Yes", then is it fair to suggest that this candidacy may be described as life-draining or enervating; may place strain on (or at the very least, do nothing to improve) your spirits, encouragement, attitude, etc., and might in fact be described as
131:
68:
42:
894:
A bit pretentious, if well-intended. But you're right--the only relevant question when determining whether or not an action is acceptable should be, "Does this hurt the encyclopedia?" Not that this has any relevance to the
Arbitrary Committee elections, of course.
627:
In the context of this self-nom, would it be fair to say that you might be perceived as standing alone, or nearly alone, against something resembling a super-consensus that supports the continued existence of ArbCom (in something generally resembling its current
25:
668:
Who in your opinion should decide who is granted CheckUser/Oversight rights? Community, or a group of 15 people in a super-secret discussion that no-one is allowed to see? Bear in mind, every other Wiki without an ArbCom conducts CU/OS elections publicly,
225:, and the protestations of those with a vested interest in it remaining so. While the irony of me borrowing a Marxist-Leninist concept is quite palpable, by abolishing the AC altogether we would create a "blank slate". There would be no inertia of the
318:
You're right; however, I have to try. When it doesn't work (which will probably usually be the case), I can protect those who wish to defy the final decision, and do whatever I can to make any "temporary injunctions" unenforceable or toothless,
710:
Former
Arbitrators - should they lose CU/OS privs, and access to the Mailing list? After all, they resigned, so aren't interested in doing the work. Therefore, they have no need for such rights. If you resigned, would you surrender such privs?
60:
21:
439:
seem more like ghosts: still haunting the place after their departure and just as hard to eradicate.) How can we minimize the impact of banned users who won't go away? How can we improve the handling of sock checks and blocks?
954:
Imagine a situation where an editor consistently nominates 50 articles from the same category for deletion every day with a nearly identical reason for deletion. Other editors object to this, and several threads at
240:
It may be difficult to get a husband and wife to agree on how to remodel an existing house, but if a tornado comes through and blows it away they can come to an agreement on a new house to build in its place pretty
698:
going to ArbCom? (From what I can determine from Dmc's message, he doesn't like the idea the community can ban people, but would rather a "small, insular group of editors that frequent the page" do it instead).
201:
You say a vote for you is a vote for restoring power to where it rightfully belongs. Lets say we scrapped Arb Com, and kept Jimbo out of it. Then what? (basically, where do we go from here/your ideas or vision)
134:, and copied over and answered by the candidate as s/he sees fit. Editors should ask general questions at that link, and not here; only the candidate should place questions here. (See top of page for guidance.)
870:
I'm asking this of everyone; it didn't occur to me to ask 'til after the "general questions" were closed. This also isn't a vanity question intended to pump my essay. I'm hoping for thoughtful responses.
90:
35:
638:
If the answer to the third question is "Yes", then would it be fair to suggest that maximizing your self-benefit by discontinuing this self-nom might be described as the most rational path to pursue?
1027:
885:
856:
831:
806:
783:
746:
647:
602:
570:
543:
521:
494:
465:
404:
372:
309:
276:
189:
In regards to Arb Com you say that you wish to "minimize its negative impact on the community". I was wondering if you could go into more detail. What exactly causes the negative impact and why?
150:
1041:
17:
285:
Starting from scratch is the only way, because it'd be the only way to ensure that the decision is free of any institutional inertia that could put a stranglehold on truly open discussion.
996:
on individual asteroids. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
339:
I explained why in the edit summary. Please do not restore questions I have removed. There's no sense in leaving them there if I'm not going to answer them; they only add clutter.
89:
Candidates are requested to answer all questions that are put to them, including all general questions, to ensure the
Community is as fully informed as it wishes to be before
992:
979:
956:
943:
Do you think the statement "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" (which appears on the WMF's
963:
is filed. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?
705:
There's no need for the community to "overturn" AC decisions, because they have no legitimate weight. The community is the ONLY entity that can legitimately ban someone.
246:
Why, when a community so diverse can not agree on simple matters such as reform and change, would you suggest that a decision such as this be left in their very hands?
631:
If the answer to the first question is "Yes", then do you think it is fair to suggest that a negative outcome with respect to your candidacy is in fact quite likely?
75:
the candidate hasn't yet copied it over to his or her individual question page), or indeed an individual question that has already been asked of this candidate.
63:, click the "Questions for the candidate" link, go to #Individual questions, and post the question there. Only this candidate will respond to that question.
988:
363:
All (or almost all, I'm not 100% sure) previous electees to ArbCom have been administrators. How will you manage ArbCom duties without admin tools?
130:
Questions that an editor would like a majority of the—or all—candidates to answer should be asked as general questions. General questions are asked
611:
Not familiar with the specifics, and don't care enough to find out. My own interactions with him have left a very unfavorable impression, though.
694:
Anyway, my point is, Community vs. ArbCom
Decisions. Can the community overrule an ArbCom decision? Can the community choose to ban someone
416:
Other than some IP edits I have made when I was logged out without realizing it, no. And no, I don't remember what those IP addresses were.
358:
By declining all cases up front it will no longer be engaged in rendering "decisions," thus making giving it absolutely no practical effect.
822:
to participate in
Knowledge (XXG). Couldn't the establishment of a Kurtopedia, or a Fullyconsensuspedia just as easily achieve your goals?
512:
Hundreds of users participate in each Arb Com election. Does this not show that these users believe the Arb Com is a legitimate body?
456:
Is it a fair summary of your campaign platform to state that if elected, you will do your best to sabotage the work of the committee?
1014:? Do you think Jimbo Wales has the power to make them do so? Do you think the arbitration committee has the power to make them do so?
395:
267:, on the legitimacy of the ArbCom? Or is getting rid of it and starting fresh the only way to get a legitimate ArbCom in place?
771:
764:
was in on some scheme. Can you elaborate here on how the present AC election is rigged against you, when all votes are public?
926:
878:
to this effect, and far more importantly, even though my actions were harming neither the encyclopedia nor any of its editors.
1010:. Do you think Knowledge (XXG) editors should be required to publicly disclose if they are employees/shareholders/editors of
757:
116:
answered. If you want to see what they are (with an explanation of why I have declined to answer them), I have moved them
922:
Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to
Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines?
936:
be "notable" in order for there to be a Knowledge (XXG) article about them? If so, how does one determine if a subject
916:
What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?
847:
Thank you for your response. Would you also care to entertain responding to my first question? Thanks, and good luck.
252:
Because they're the only ones with the legitimate authority to make this decision. There is simply no other choice.
689:
oppose vote on SirFozzie's RFA, from 2007. I laughed when I read it, because he's opposing something that sounds
852:
827:
52:
candidates will then be able to copy the question over to their Question page and will respond as they see fit.
490:
To what extent is this statement valid, and to what extent should things change to reflect this statement? --
368:
983:
534:
Am I to believe that users are being forced to vote in the elections? No one is holding me at knifepoint.
491:
480:
874:
461:
401:
67:
Please keep questions succinct and relevant, and do make an effort to ensure you aren't overlapping a
594:
445:
I'm afraid we can't, short of total lockdown, which I would hope we would all agree is unacceptable.
1023:
848:
823:
814:
777:
598:
566:
539:
517:
221:
Sure it can. A lot of the resistance to change we are seeing is due simply to the intertia of the
722:
Recall - if the community have an issue with your use of CU/OS, or actions as an Arbitrator, what
967:
304:
975:
948:
380:
What duties? Remember, I'm not actually going to be doing anything except running interference.
919:
Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines?
761:
457:
398:
388:
971:
960:
951:
collection of information" or with Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines? Why or why not?
352:
How do you think that your intention to decline all ArbCom cases will accomplish anything?
272:
841:
No, because my goal is to achieve openness and honesty and accountability and legitimacy
1019:
900:
765:
562:
535:
513:
410:
Have you used other accounts this year? Are those accounts disclosed or transparent?
394:
This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election.
1035:
882:
740:
644:
299:
291:
147:
760:
that if you lose the AC election, it is rigged, and even went so far as to say that
793:
179:
999:
726:
way can they address this? (Taking it to ArbCom is the wrong answer, by the way).
61:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements
1007:
966:
Considering the following scenario: An editor nominates all 17,000+ articles in
944:
488:"The Knowledge (XXG) Arbitration Committee exists to promulgate the good times."
364:
345:
590:
268:
59:: pick the statement of the candidate you wish to pose the question to from
561:
authority, then that authority is legitimate. Is this not a fair belief?
325:
34:
This utility is for asking a question of a candidate. Editors who are
1011:
1003:
172:
Questions asked individually to each candidate may be placed here.
906:
I am asking all candidates the following additional questions:
1018:
Thank you for your time, and good luck with your candidacy. --
910:
How many arbitrators do you think Knowledge (XXG) should have?
593:, his POV pushing and former work in Arbitration Committee. --
18:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008
873:
Would you please read the (very, very, very short) essay at
925:
Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit
38:
may also ask a question, via one of the following methods:
94:
refer the editor to your response to the similar question.
658:
eventually overthrow the Arbitrary Committee altogether.
947:) conflicts with the policy "Knowledge (XXG) is not an
686:
673:. Your opinion please, not what so-and-so policy says.
1006:
is a for-profit wiki and both were founded in part by
993:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
980:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
957:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
913:
How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?
1042:
Knowledge (XXG) Arbitration Committee Elections 2008
431:
it is using other accounts as well, for any purpose?
112:and make it more difficult to find the questions I
982:about the situation, and later starts a thread at
970:for deletion at once and bundles them in a single
932:Do you think it is a requirement that subjects
551:That is not what I said. Please pay attention.
756:You indicated today on Knowledge (XXG) Review
263:Is it possible to get a community consensus,
8:
989:Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard
424:only with care in limited circumstances?
792:Oh, I just got bored between classes.
185:Thank you in advance for your answers.
643:I am not calling for you to drop out.
531:over my wallet legitimizes a mugging.
7:
161:negative impact until that happens.
107:Questions I have declined to answer
927:Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration policy
622:candidacy. Here are the questions:
32:
976:WikiProject Astronomical objects
843:specifically on Knowledge (XXG).
48:: post a question on that link.
229:because there would no longer
1:
886:15:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
857:05:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
832:17:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
807:04:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
784:20:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
747:19:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
738:Good luck with the election!
648:10:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
603:21:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
571:08:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
544:03:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
522:04:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
495:01:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
466:21:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
405:11:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
373:16:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
310:18:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
277:01:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
151:13:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
71:that has already been asked (
1028:00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
865:Question from Ling.Nut (new)
1058:
899:Additional questions from
1002:is a non-profit wiki and
881:Thank you for your time.
452:Question from Newyorkbrad
140:Question(s) from LtPowers
589:What do you think about
585:Question from Milop Den
752:Question from Rootology
732:Ehh...see answer to #1.
717:Ehh...see answer to #1.
663:Questions from Al tally
616:Questions from Ling.Nut
508:Question from Raven4x4x
486:Assess this statement:
85:Guidance for candidates
959:follow, but no user
166:Individual questions
22:Candidate statements
57:individual question
968:Category:Asteroids
875:User:Ling.Nut/3IAR
671:without any issues
124:General questions
99:
98:
95:
1049:
803:
800:
780:
774:
768:
762:User:Newyorkbrad
743:
635:"self-damaging"?
83:
80:
79:
69:general question
45:general question
36:eligible to vote
1057:
1056:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1032:
1031:
1000:Knowledge (XXG)
904:
867:
818:
801:
798:
778:
772:
766:
754:
741:
665:
618:
587:
510:
484:
454:
392:
387:Questions from
349:
344:Questions from
329:
295:
261:
183:
178:Questions from
168:
142:
126:
109:
30:
29:
28:
12:
11:
5:
1055:
1053:
1045:
1044:
1034:
1033:
1016:
1015:
997:
964:
952:
949:indiscriminate
941:
930:
923:
920:
917:
914:
911:
903:
897:
889:
888:
879:
871:
866:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
849:Hiberniantears
835:
834:
824:Hiberniantears
817:
815:Hiberniantears
813:Question from
811:
810:
809:
753:
750:
736:
735:
734:
733:
720:
719:
718:
708:
707:
706:
683:
682:
681:
664:
661:
660:
659:
651:
650:
640:
639:
636:
632:
629:
624:
623:
617:
614:
613:
612:
586:
583:
582:
581:
559:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
509:
506:
505:
504:
483:
479:Question from
477:
476:
475:
453:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
435:
434:
433:
432:
420:
419:
418:
417:
391:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
361:
360:
359:
348:
342:
341:
340:
332:explain this.
328:
324:Question from
322:
321:
320:
294:
290:Question from
288:
287:
286:
260:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
244:
243:
242:
238:
212:
211:
210:
199:
198:
197:
182:
176:
175:
174:
167:
164:
163:
162:
154:
153:
141:
138:
137:
136:
125:
122:
108:
105:
103:
101:
100:
97:
96:
88:
65:
64:
53:
31:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1054:
1043:
1040:
1039:
1037:
1030:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
998:
994:
990:
985:
981:
977:
973:
969:
965:
962:
958:
953:
950:
946:
945:donation page
942:
939:
935:
931:
928:
924:
921:
918:
915:
912:
909:
908:
907:
902:
898:
896:
893:
887:
884:
880:
876:
872:
869:
868:
864:
858:
854:
850:
846:
845:
844:
840:
837:
836:
833:
829:
825:
820:
819:
816:
812:
808:
804:
795:
791:
788:
787:
786:
785:
781:
775:
769:
763:
759:
751:
749:
748:
745:
744:
731:
728:
727:
725:
721:
716:
713:
712:
709:
704:
701:
700:
697:
692:
688:
684:
678:
675:
674:
672:
667:
666:
662:
656:
653:
652:
649:
646:
642:
641:
637:
633:
630:
626:
625:
620:
619:
615:
610:
607:
606:
605:
604:
600:
596:
592:
584:
578:
575:
574:
573:
572:
568:
564:
550:
547:
546:
545:
541:
537:
533:
532:
529:
526:
525:
524:
523:
519:
515:
507:
502:
499:
498:
497:
496:
493:
489:
482:
478:
473:
470:
469:
468:
467:
463:
459:
451:
444:
441:
440:
437:
436:
429:
426:
425:
422:
421:
415:
412:
411:
409:
408:
407:
406:
403:
400:
397:
390:
386:
379:
376:
375:
374:
370:
366:
362:
357:
354:
353:
351:
350:
347:
343:
338:
335:
334:
333:
327:
323:
317:
314:
313:
312:
311:
308:
307:
303:
302:
293:
289:
284:
281:
280:
279:
278:
274:
270:
266:
258:
251:
248:
247:
245:
239:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
217:
216:
213:
207:
204:
203:
200:
194:
191:
190:
188:
187:
186:
181:
177:
173:
170:
169:
165:
159:
156:
155:
152:
149:
144:
143:
139:
135:
133:
128:
127:
123:
121:
119:
115:
106:
104:
92:
86:
82:
81:
78:
77:
76:
74:
70:
62:
58:
54:
51:
47:
46:
41:
40:
39:
37:
27:
23:
19:
1017:
937:
933:
905:
891:
890:
842:
838:
797:
789:
755:
739:
737:
729:
723:
714:
702:
695:
690:
676:
670:
654:
608:
588:
576:
558:
548:
527:
511:
500:
487:
485:
471:
455:
442:
427:
413:
393:
377:
355:
336:
330:
315:
305:
300:
296:
282:
264:
262:
249:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
205:
192:
184:
171:
157:
129:
113:
110:
102:
84:
72:
66:
56:
49:
44:
33:
1008:Jimbo Wales
458:Newyorkbrad
399:Will Beback
389:Will Beback
940:"notable"?
794:Kurt Weber
259:From Giggy
235:status quo
227:status quo
223:status quo
1020:Pixelface
901:Pixelface
767:rootology
724:effective
595:Milop Den
563:Raven4x4x
536:Raven4x4x
514:Raven4x4x
1036:Category
984:WT:ASTRO
883:Ling.Nut
742:Al Tally
645:Ling.Nut
503:...what?
301:lifebaka
292:Lifebaka
241:quickly.
24: |
20: |
696:without
180:Synergy
73:even if
55:Ask an
26:Kmweber
802:Colts!
628:form)?
365:Stifle
346:Stifle
148:Powers
91:voting
43:Ask a
1012:Wikia
1004:Wikia
591:Jayjg
492:harej
481:harej
269:Giggy
16:<
1024:talk
934:must
853:talk
828:talk
758:here
691:just
687:this
685:See
599:talk
567:talk
540:talk
518:talk
474:Yes.
462:talk
396:·:·
369:talk
319:etc.
273:talk
132:here
118:here
114:have
987:at
972:AFD
961:RFC
402:·:·
326:Lar
265:now
50:All
1038::
1026:)
938:is
892:A.
855:)
839:A.
830:)
805:)
799:Go
790:A.
782:)
776:)(
730:A.
715:A.
703:A.
677:A.
655:A.
609:A.
601:)
577:A.
569:)
549:A.
542:)
528:A.
520:)
501:A.
472:A.
464:)
443:A.
428:A.
414:A.
378:A.
371:)
356:A.
337:A.
316:A.
306:++
283:A.
275:)
250:A.
233:a
231:be
219:A.
206:A.
193:A.
158:A.
120:.
1022:(
929:?
851:(
826:(
796:(
779:T
773:C
770:(
597:(
565:(
538:(
516:(
460:(
367:(
271:(
237:.
87::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.