1890:'s forums, and makes a thread informing them of this porn site account. She asks them if they can guess which Knowledge (XXG) editor is behind it, and mentions that she also knows his real life identity. They independently come to the conclusion that it is User:Bob and figure out his real life identity without Alice giving the game away. Alice confirms that this is the case. Nobody in the forum finds it remotely questionable that Bob owns the account in question. In such a situation is it appropriate for Arbcom to pass a finding of fact stating "Alice posted inappropriately to an off-wiki website apparently with the objective of having the participants identify a Knowledge (XXG) editor by name." Furthermore is it appropriate for them to then use this supposed violation of
1216:
candidate's style of work rather than the authority level he/she holds. Being an admin happens to be coincidental in this case. Well, although not an admin, I have my fair share of being subjected to "character assassination" and have been accused and abused several times (that too at times for a simple revert). Its all a learning curve and as time progresses. As a matter of fact, a very impartial and cruel assessment (+ constructive criticism) of my work and abilities already begun the moment I nominated myself here. Admin or no admin, we all need the character and skills to tell right from wrong, handle situations and dedicate substantial time every week. I hope this answers your question and please do let me know if you have further questions. Cheers,
1386:. This will give my views in general on adminship. To answer your question more specifically, I think the removal process should be multi-layered (I am not saying that all of this is not happening currently but I am just summing it up). a) In-activity b) Performance based periodic reviews (very important) c) Self opt-out and d) Abuse of administrator privileges. Out of the four broad points mentioned, only second point will attract community involvement. Arbcom has a very good policy of appointment for 1 or 2 years. Perhaps a 3 to 5 year term for adminship should be considered so that 1) It does not become "grandfather's right" and 2) We weed out the "hat-collectors". I hope I covered your question. Let me know if I missed something here. Cheers,
656:, thanks for pointing out. I did notice that yesterday itself. I am not saying that arbitrators were right and you were wrong OR the other way around. I have simply put my independent opinion, free for any biases and "appeasement" (why I used the word appeasement is that under the circumstances of election, someone might be inclined to go with the popular choice). If I cannot have an independent, unbiased and balanced opinion then I don't think I should be contesting for ArbCom because it will be a sheer waste of everyone's time. I know the risk I took when I supported the info-box, especially in a forum which is full of arbitrators and my views are opposite of what the arbitrators felt then. But then, thats what my judgement is. Cheers,
568:, Prima facie, I think everyone on the article talk page had one common objective - collection and display of relevant and useful information in the article. Where some people differed is the methodology and technicality. Allow me to go one step back from the discussion on that talkpage; what is the objective of an "infobox"? To capture and display important information and highlights about a subject. So if the infobox was serving the purpose, then it should have been retained; if the infobox had erroneous information, then it should have been cleaned up and if the infobox had technical errors, then the infobox should have been corrected.
2246:
redirect spam, including building walled gardens and violation of WP guidelines concerning advocacy in editing. This led to accusations of a double standard for admins and regular editors. (If a non-admin had done the same, there could be no such easy dismissal as we don't have tools to resign). Neelix never acknowledged or agreed to stop any of this behavior, simply (eventually) apologized for the redirects only and then later resigned with no further comment. There was significant support for at least a topic ban at the ANI. Do you believe a topic ban or other measure should have been applied in this case?
952:. After writing my nomination, I was actually thinking of adding that, but then left it. See, its very simple a) We all know what Arbcom does and that's the reason why we came here, so why increase the word count. b) Obviously every candidate will say how valuable their contribution to Arbcom would be. I just did not want to add carefully worded "promises and claims" and instead kept the write-up small and focused on what I have done so far. Trust this explains.
2181:
the edit discussion above illustrates that I personally do not believe you are fit to become an administrator; and it's important that I put this on the record. I am entitled to hold this opinion, and I am entitled to express it. You reverted an edit because you argued it was not supported by the source; you then admitted that you had not read the source. If I had concerns about other candidates, then rest I assured that I would likewise raise them.
269:
2106:. You need to understand that my point is that firstly the edit was "speculative" and secondly there are no online sources to support the speculation. As advised on my TalkPage, I have opened a discussion on the article TalkPage and the community needs to build consensus for the edit. Not my call (alone) to make. I hope I answered what you asked me and do let me know if you have any further questions. Cheers,
464:
notice on the top of the page clearly reads what is expected of editor. Notice clearly reads "do not please do not restore any removed text without first ensuring that....." and the same was followed. Not even a single character was added back and no attempts were made to hinder the "investigation". Trust this answers your question. Let me know if I can be of further help on this subject. Cheers,
2065:
academic and cultural institutions. This is perhaps causing some angst that the community and its interactions may become "professionalized" to the exclusion of established editors. Do you feel this fear is warranted? How can volunteers and professionals with different standards of conduct be made to coexist on
Knowledge (XXG) with the minimal disruption to our existing contributor base?
583:
that we are not bothered about. I prefer information. Rather than making life easier for an average reader, people got busy with "crossing the t's and dotting the i's". What editors also forgot is that the encyclopedia is built so that an average reader can find it useful. An average reader does not bother about technicalities. The end result in Wagner was that key information was
944:(This sounds flippant and it's not meant to be.) Every other candidate thus far has made a statement regarding why they feel their presence on the committee would be a benefit to Knowledge (XXG); you've just given a list of what you've done, most of which is irrelevant to Arbcom. Do you understand what Arbcom actually does and what you're committing yourself to?
1872:
Bar. The Bar account on
Knowledge (XXG) is older than the Bar account on reddit by several years, however the Knowledge (XXG) account had only really begun active editing a few years after the reddit account had been created. Foo notices these posts and complains on Bar's talk page and ANI. Bar responds by accusing Foo of
2180:
I'm afraid you are the only candidate I have genuine concerns about. None of the other candidates have given me cause to worry in the same way. It is simply ill-judged to dismiss this as "prejudice", and I don't like the perceived threat in the last line of your comment. Your questionable handling of
1885:
User:Alice is a party in an Arbcom case. She is browsing the internet one day and decides to google her
Knowledge (XXG) username. She finds that somebody has uploaded naked photos of another woman to a pornsite and labelled them "Alice of Knowledge (XXG)." She looks into the account that has uploaded
1540:
in some way. At one time, a remedy call a "Civility Parole" existed but it fell out of vogue. Today, the only tools in the current
Arbitrator's toolboxes to deal with civility issues are interaction bans, topic bans, and site bans. What new and creative ways would you bring to the table to solve this
1215:
voters are / were more biased towards the administrators but then on closer examination I realized that was not the case. It all depends on the personal capabilities and past work of the individual and had little to do with the authority levels - so the "qualification" so to say has more to do with a
2064:
One last question. Knowledge (XXG) relies primarily on volunteer labor, and many are attracted to
Knowledge (XXG) in part due to its countercultural, even transgressive nature of subverting traditional gatekeepers to knowledge. Recently there has been increasing participation by professionals from
2026:
Yes and No both. ArbCom are not employees of
Knowledge (XXG) and only do voluntary work and hence cannot be (direct) official spokesperson on behalf of Knowledge (XXG) to give clarifications to press. Having said that, I would also like to mention that the method adopted in the example cited it very
1993:
Well, we can keep on debating whats what till cows come home. As a community we need to keep the bigger picture in mind and follow the spirit and not the letter (of policies). What we need to ensure is that people don't get abusive, don't insult each other, act without prejudice, don't harass fellow
1704:
Hi, I'm Dave, I was on Arbcom between 2013 and 2014. I can tell you now that being an arbitrator is tough - you become a target. Comments you make will be taken out of context, your motives and abilities will be insulted, you may be threatened or harassed. Have you thought much about the "dark side"
1369:
In 2015, the
English Knowledge (XXG) remains among the few projects (if not the only project) where the process for removal of adminship is not community-driven. What are your thoughts about how adminship is reviewed on this project, and do you think this should be changed, or are you happy with the
582:
atleast has a navbox, article for Wagner only has a picture and a signature?? Let's assume that me and you are readers only and have never edited on WP. What would me and you prefer? An infobox with key information OR some lengthy discussion on article talkpage about technicalities and editor jargon
2050:
This question is optional, since candidates don't necessarily like to talk about current cases. But imagine that you are a current member of the Arbcom and you are delegated the task of writing a succinct, neutral primer for the press, of no more than a few paragraphs, on the circumstances leading
1194:
While it is possible for a user who is not and never has been an administrator to be a member of the committee, there are sure to be those who would worry that a user who has never held any advanced permisssions or, form the look of it, ever been involved in dispute resolution, may not be qualified
463:
Having said that, now the only question I am asking myself is what is the validity of opening such an investigation report which itself is flawed and full of factual inaccuracies? It was an "investigation" and the investigators had to take action; we don't expect the "accused" to be the "jury". The
2084:
There is a continued problem on wikipedia with homophobic vandalism - particularly the use of insulting and derogatory language within articles. But also a resistance to covering the issue of homosexuality within articles, despite supporting sources etc. Can you clarify how you would deal with the
1988:
It's been pointed out that incivility and harassment are not precisely the same thing. What is the line between incivility and harassment? How much does incivility, when it doesn't cross the line into harassment, affect our ability to retain editors, including but not limited to its effects on the
1871:
User:Foo get's into an edit conflict on
Knowledge (XXG) with User:Bar, and end up as parties to a large Arbcom case. Soon afterwards on reddit someone going by the username Bar begins posting lots of critical and disparaging threads about Foo. In these threads they claim to be Knowledge (XXG) user
1409:
The purpose of the
Arbitration Committee is to provide lasting dispute resolution in difficult cases that the community has difficulty resolving. However, of course Wikimedia is a community-driven project. To that end, what are your views regarding what should be handled by the community, and what
1331:
and related pages several times, I personally have never been involved in one. We all know that some cases "linger on" for months and months. There is no easy, quick and simple answer to what you asked and the solution needs to "evolve" over a period of time rather than just pop up one fine day. I
1056:
If an administrator states (hypothetically) "You will vote however you like, and I am frankly not interested in changing your mind, but you should at least be honest about why you are opposing me. At the moment, you are not", would that administrator be considered "involved" or "impartial" in any
2017:
Arbcom's actions have come under scrutiny from the outside press lately. Do you think the Arbcom has a role in educating reporters about cases when they come under such scrutiny, to reduce the factual inaccuracies that sometimes creep into these articles? For example, do you think that releasing
910:
I am not sure what a "secure email address" means? If by secure we mean that my computer / devices is not accessed by others - then yes; I am not only user. If by secure we mean some extra encryption / security on the server level - then no. I use standard gmail like everyone else. I however have
1414:
Well, the main purpose of
Arbitration Committee is to handle issues that cannot be resolved by community discussions / consensus. Over and above this, grant of certain (related) permissions are also handled. I don't think currently there is any overlap nor is there a pressing need for an overlap
1610:
if you want, but a country or continent will do just fine — even just "Southern Hemisphere" or "Western Hemisphere" is helpful); whether you have any condition considered a disability (even if you're not so disabled you're unable to work) including deafness, physical disabilities, developmental
2159:
on the same subject and lines (of our edit discussions). Surprisingly I happen to be the only ArbCom candidate you asked a question to and that too after our edit discussions. Whilst you are welcome to evaluate any candidate; you must refrain from initiating such actions arising out of an edit
2245:
Many editors were unhappy with the results of the recent Neelix fiasco, in which the AC closed the case as soon as Neelix resigned as an admin, despite the fact that many of the issues brought up in the evidence page had nothing whatsoever to do with misuse of administrative tools or even his
2095:
1) Homophobic Vandalism: A vandalism is a vandalism. To simplify matters, I would not assign a further category of sex, sexual orientation, caste, race et cetera to a vandalism and would deal with it on case to case basis (and on merits / demerits) and not judge it based on sexual orientation
1319:
Case management has been an issue in many elections, with some cases stalling for weeks with little reply, and others coming to a quickly-written proposed decision that received little support from other arbitrators due to concerns about it being one-sided. What is your familiarity with the
90:
Hello everyone. I am withdrawing my candidature as I personally (and honestly) feel that there are lots of good contestants with higher experience who can do better justice to ArbCom. There are a few who I really liked and I am sure that they will make it to ArbCom this year. I wish all the
2027:
apt. Under extreme circumstances and without citing and ArbCom member, a generic statement / clarification must be issued; primarily with the aim to make Knowledge (XXG) and ArbCom's stand clear. Unfortunately, there is no straight answer to this and it largely depends on the situation.
1095:
from a case, any delays in considering cases concerning them? If such a person is given only 1000 words to rebut 1000 words from each of five or more "evidence providers", is that a reasonable limit to place on the defendant, or ought the limit be raised to allow rebuttal of
72:. I have never used derogatory language towards anyone, no matter what the circumstances are and have always tried to respond to all the meaningful messages sent to me. I am hopeful that the voters will approve of my candidature. Many thanks for your time. Cheers,
1758:
Are you willing to take serious steps to stop bullying of editors on Knowledge (XXG)? especially bullying directed toward women editors? Is this one of your top 2 priorities? What would you consider to be a more important priority than stopping the bullying?
1338:, taking quick decisions and not always following "the popular path" would certainly help. We get too bureaucratic at times and I have seen people change opinions just because that was not the popular choice. If I were to handle it; I would be more focused on,
1994:
editors (newcomers as well as senior editors), don't discriminate based on sex, region, religion, skin and caste and contribute freely and constructively on Knowledge (XXG). Once when the intentions are clear, the definitions will automatically be a non-issue.
317:
312:
2129:
Thank you for your response. From your answers above it doesn't suggest to me that you have a strong awareness or particular sensitivity relating to the subject of sexual orientation. I didn't ask you to refer specifically to our discussion elsewhere about
771:
1886:
these files and comes to the conclusion that it is owned by Knowledge (XXG) User:Bob, an editor she had clashed with heavily on wiki. In the process she also finds out his real life identity. She emails her evidence to Arbcom. Alice then decides to go to
322:
678:
Thank you, but please keep in mind that your opinion is one thing, seeing a consensus in a discussion a different one, and there may be situations when your view opposes the consensus (not this one, though), when an arbitrator should be strictly
1195:
for such a position. In other words, although you seem to have done a lot of good content work, you've not been "through the fire" of RFA or adminship, not been tested by the various persons that will begin attacking your character the
1498:, and extend it for another year. The current auditors terms expired on 1 October, 2015 and they have been continuing in their roles without formal authorization. What would you do about the subcommittee if you were elected to ArbCom?
2204:
that Starr was a lesbian who had a particularly close relationship with Addams". Unquote. You need to understand that Knowledge (XXG) is not a gossip column / tabloid where one can "speculate" about someone's sexual orientation (read
1713:, many thanks for your question and also the word of caution. All I can say is (and having edited on Knowledge (XXG) for years) is that I have a fair idea of what I am trying to get into. I hope I will be able to do justice. Cheers,
55:
apart from my attempts in building the encyclopedia. I have never been blocked neither do I have any site-bans. Furthermore, I my work will show that I have been contributing positively to Knowledge (XXG) and have never worked with
2085:
issue of homophobic vandalism, and whether you are able to demonstrate more generally about how you deal with material concerning homosexuality and sexual orientation in a neutral and objective way? Giving examples where possible.
597:(and I am not going by the popular vote), I am of the opinion that an infobox may be used with apt information. We atleast have a Navbox which gives some "quick read" but in case of Wagner, it was completely washed. I also sensed
638:
in 2007, which was well before my time here. I was considered disruptive for having suggested to have one to stay on the talk page! The majority of arbitrators then (2013) found that I needed to be restricted. Be careful ;)
1611:
disabilities and mental illnesses, again being only as specific as you wish; and what social class you belong to (e.g. working class, middle class, etc.). ¶ If you prefer not to answer any or all of those categories, I
2330:
21:
1161:. It does not matter if the person has written a million GAs and FAs and / or is a Bureaucrat, Administrator or a normal editor; one cannot ignore civility - especially because it is one of the five pillars of WP.
1061:
Well, why should I judge him based on a simple request made? I don't see anything wrong when the administrator stated "....but you should at least be honest about why you are opposing me". This statement should
1249:
In the past couple of years, the ArbCom has closed various cases, passed motions, and such. Is/Are there any outcome/s that you disagree with? If yes, which? And, what result/s would you have rather preferred?
38:
Hello. I have been actively contributing on Knowledge (XXG) since Jan 2014 and have fair bit of constructive contributions (17,500+ edits). I am also actively involved in various "housekeeping" tasks such as
1831:, in my personal life I have held senior positions in several companies (including being COO of three companies). I now run my business and all I can say is I am not new to "disputes" and situations. Cheers,
496:
2052:
2055:. Write that primer below. Do not cover or express an opinion on the proposed or actual decision, but concentrate on how you would help a reporter understand what happened before the case was filed.
1660:
male, currently running my own business (hotel) and aviation consulting. I am sure I don't need to write about what my hobby is. Let me know if there is something else you would like to know. Cheers,
1511:
exists to hear appeals of community bans and long-term blocks. There have been moves to divest this role from the committee. What would you do about the subcommittee if you were elected to ArbCom?
823:
Thank you for your thoughts. I would like to hear if you have ideas how to avoid such an action next time around. I offered some thoughts in August (please follow the link above), how about you? --
432:
335:
NOTE: I HAVE WITHDRAWN MY NOMINATIONS. PLEASE DON'T POST ANY ELECTION RELATED QUESTIONS ON THIS PAGE. IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUIRES, THEN PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DROP A MESSAGE ON MY TALKPAGE. THANKS,
1551:
1379:
2019:
17:
291:
1286:
above. At the cost of sounding repetitive, "Honestly, I never thought about it (I know strategically it is a wrong answer but then that's the truth and is honest answer as well)". Cheers,
1466:
Thank you for running for the hardest and most thankless job on the project. Many of these questions are sourced from actual cases, discussions, and problems over the past year. Enjoy!
1921:, no sir, I am not that green too. Have been on WP for five years now (including my inactive account). To answer your question, yes I think I have enough experience for ArbCom. Cheers,
451:, where a possible vandalism was reverted by Arunsingh16 and this page too fell in the copyright investigation report. Why is reverting vandalism reported as a copyright violation?
557:
Arbitration findings and the wishes of principal editors govern the use of infoboxes in articles. If you want to win my "neutral" please say how you would close the discussion at
1211:
All successful candidates were administrators and that made me think too why only administrators are being selected / elected for this responsibility. At first I thought that
578:
has been removed with consensus. Being a neutral observer, my opinion is that in case of Wagner, an infobox was certainly more informative for a reader (me included). Whilst
603:
To sum it up, there is no easy "close" on such mattress however, I would be more inclined in retaining important templates like infobox and putting it to better use. Cheers,
1913:
You are fairly green to Knowledge (XXG), starting last year, do you feel you have enough experience to take the demanding position of being on the arbitration committee?
1489:. Currently, neither the community nor the committee can decide how to handle. There have been calls to completely disband the subcommittee, transfer its role to the
69:
439:
187 pages were indiscriminately marked for copyright investigations under Arunsingh16 when lots of pages were not even created under this username. For example,
196:
284:
895:
Do you have a very secure email address that can handle several hundred mails per day(and several thousand mails in total if you have to take a small break)?--
1619:. However, when deciding between two otherwise equally qualified candidates, I would prefer to be able to vote for more diversity on ArbCom rather than less.
1207:, thanks for your question (incidentally the first I am replying). Well, right after my nomination yesterday, I digged into the results of 2014 and 2013.
1025:
presuming that sanctions will be necessary? Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?
2209:). What you think of me is your personal opinion and there is nothing I can do. Your actions on this page are nothing but a reaction to the edit reverts.
405:
1965:, what has civility (enforcement) got to do with free speech? Does free speech mean being abusive, rude and being uncivil? I don't think so. Cheers,
782:
action" a bit harsh for a passing statement. Having said that, I am not very clear of what you ask from me. Can you please come back again? Thanks,
277:
180:
2313:
2288:
2266:
2222:
2190:
2173:
2143:
2119:
2040:
2007:
1978:
1934:
1844:
1803:
1772:
1726:
1673:
1598:
Please divulge as much of your demographic information as you are comfortable making public. Specifically: your gender, including whether you are
1453:
1428:
1399:
1359:
1299:
1272:
1229:
1174:
1121:
1079:
1046:
1005:
992:
965:
924:
904:
885:
862:
832:
816:
795:
719:
669:
648:
616:
538:
516:
477:
421:
350:
104:
85:
220:
872:, I currently spend 20-30 hours / week on Knowledge (XXG). If elected, I see myself spending majority of this time on Arbitration Committee.
188:
448:
2134:, but seeing as you have brought it up here I would like to express my serious concerns about the way that you have dealt with the matter.
453:
706:
Agreed. Actually me and you said the same thing - being neutral. I have also stated that several times in several different ways. Cheers,
91:
contestants all the best for the elections. I would also like to thank everyone for taking out time and asking me the questions. Cheers,
65:
1876:
and claims that the account might not even be his. Is it OUTING to connect the Bar reddit account with the Bar Knowledge (XXG) account?
1865:. For the purposes of these questions please assume the editors' usernames are far more distinct and unique than the ones I have given.
751:
440:
212:
172:
979:
Honestly, I never thought about it (I know strategically it is a wrong answer but then that's the truth and is honest answer as well).
601:
of "ownership" in Joseph article and rather than focusing on improving the quality of the article, some people were busy pushing POV.
384:
These are questions that would've been asked at RfA but we're here and not there. Can you explain why you abandoned your old account
750:
for an analogy. If you want to win my "support", please - on top of #1 - suggest improvements to get from arbitration enforcement (
1753:
755:
2160:
disagreement and based on a prejudice. You are an experienced editor and I don't really need to elaborate any further. Cheers,
124:
1320:
arbitration process, and how do you believe cases should be handled? Do you plan to propose any reforms in this regard?
204:
2200:, you are engaging in this ArbCom discussion just because I reverted your edit where you wrote Quote "and it has been
1264:
1091:
Are arbitators under any reasonable obligation to afford editors who are out of the country on a trip, or have other
911:
complex password which is changed regularly and almost never use a public computer. Trust this answers your question.
447:
and the edits were CSD and AfD nomination - how is that a copyright violation by Arunsingh16? Another example is
1943:
Thankyou, I thought that on your candidate statement you said you started last year. Good luck in the election.
1606:
or other; your sexual orientation; your race and/or ethnicity; where you live (feel free to specify you live in
1635:
503:
Well, the article you have quoted is about a "murder case" and not a BLP so I am not sure how do I relate both.
2206:
1527:
What are your standards for banning someone from the project compared to a topic ban or some lesser sanction?
532:
1746:
Knowledge (XXG) is starting to have a reputation for bullying and misogyny, see, e.g the recent article in
1627:, Although my User profile provides all the details but I don't mind writing it down again since you asked.
397:
900:
858:
828:
812:
644:
1482:
1710:
1695:
1615:
count it against you. My intention in asking for this information is not to out anyone or try to force
2186:
2139:
1765:
132:
299:
1624:
1589:
1415:
between what should be handled by the community, and what should be handled by arbitration. Cheers,
740:
An editor has been blocked for a month in the name of arbitration enforcement for having said that
458:
2253:, thanks for your question. I don't think you noticed but I have withdrawn my nomination. Cheers,
1891:
1873:
1862:
2307:
2260:
2216:
2167:
2113:
2098:
2) Supporting sources: When you mentioned this, I am sure you are referring to our conversation
2034:
2001:
1972:
1928:
1838:
1797:
1720:
1667:
1616:
1422:
1393:
1353:
1293:
1223:
1168:
1115:
1073:
1040:
986:
959:
918:
879:
789:
713:
663:
610:
526:
510:
471:
415:
393:
375:
344:
118:
98:
79:
1537:
1279:
1254:
1240:
1158:
1142:
1378:, thanks for your time. I am taking this question first, since very recently I was involved in
2131:
896:
869:
854:
846:
824:
808:
747:
653:
640:
565:
545:
1508:
1490:
1478:
1334:
1328:
61:
1918:
1904:
1643:
444:
385:
488:
57:
52:
44:
40:
2297:
2277:
2250:
2236:
2197:
2182:
2148:
2135:
2090:
2075:
1855:
1828:
1814:
1779:
1760:
1737:
1460:
1439:
1375:
1324:
1310:
1283:
1259:
1204:
1185:
1150:
1132:
1002:
949:
935:
1486:
48:
268:
213:
181:
1962:
1948:
1887:
1823:
Do you have experience in successfully resolving disputes, either on-wiki or off-wiki?
1685:
Please list at least one pro and one con of having non-administrators serve on ArbCom.
1382:. You can see my detailed comments and vote on this page at several places; especially
1108:
raised but with caution that the enhanced word limit does not become counterproductive.
594:
590:
579:
575:
571:
558:
221:
2324:
2302:
2255:
2211:
2162:
2108:
2029:
2022:, should be considered in the future? If so, how could they be made more effective?
1996:
1967:
1923:
1833:
1792:
1715:
1662:
1653:
1417:
1388:
1348:
1288:
1218:
1163:
1110:
1068:
1035:
981:
954:
913:
874:
784:
708:
658:
605:
505:
466:
410:
339:
304:
189:
114:
93:
74:
31:
1748:
1657:
1030:
1012:
173:
1563:
Do you see value in Admonishments and Warnings as remedies at the end of a case?
197:
1607:
1603:
1599:
205:
853:
How many hours per week do you plan to work for the Arbitration Comitee?--
1631:
779:
574:
can be debated either way, I am bit surprised to see that the Infobox on
1957:
In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it?
1630:
My full name is "Arun Kumar SINGH". An Indian, I was born and raised in
1199:
you were to become an arb. what would you say to assuage such concerns?
404:
of the articles created under Arunsingh16 have been edited by AKS.9955.
2151:, you are very much involved in an edit discussion with me and it is a
1639:
1494:
1141:
To what extent should people who write many GAs and FAs be exempt from
1346:
rather than worrying about what others think of my statements. Cheers,
975:
What, in you opinion, was the best achievement of this year's Arbcom?
1647:
1282:, Your question is similar (if not exactly the same) as one asked by
754:) to arbitration supervision, where such a thing would not happen. I
772:
The edit was unproblematic and actually made Knowledge (XXG) better.
1861:
Hi, and thank you for running for Arbcom. These questions focus on
760:
1104:
Obligation = No. As far as raising the limit is concerned, yes it
2276:
Yes, I did not see. You should make a large notice on this page.
64:. As per the requirements, there are no issues in qualifying for
1638:
and then worked with few airlines in India. Lived and worked in
433:
Knowledge (XXG):Contributor copyright investigations/Arunsingh16
2331:
Knowledge (XXG) Arbitration Committee Elections 2015 candidates
2093:, good to see you here. I will take your question in two parts.
1481:
was created in 2009 to investigate improper tool usage of our
1380:
Knowledge (XXG):2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC
1057:
way with the editor in whose talk space he made such an edit?
766:
360:
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
263:
18:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015
1209:
Out of all the successful candidates, only one was non-admin
2102:
which is about me reverting your edit (for homosexuality)
461:
and yet this article reflects in the Investigation report.
431:
Can you explain what actions you've taken with regard to
1705:
of being an arbitrator? How have you prepared for this?
2155:
that you ask me a question on ArbCom election which is
2103:
2099:
1894:
as part of their justification for site banning Alice?
1579:
Does the workshop serve as a useful portion of a case?
1383:
742:
634:
492:
256:
250:
244:
238:
230:
164:
156:
148:
140:
1066:
influence the decision and merits of the case should.
593:
in this discussion but it was important. In case of
133:
746:. I find it kafkaesque and remember the opening of
743:he creates half of his featured content with women
495:of yours in the context of that policy as well as
1786:. Everyhthing else (including Hostility to Women
1033:, Yes and Yes (for both parts of your question).
457:is a classic case. ZERO edits by Arunsingh16 on
125:
1782:, Thanks for your question. My priorities are
285:
149:
8:
408:report demonstrates it very clearly. Cheers,
231:
443:were the only two edits by Arunsingh16 on
292:
278:
165:
157:
587:tabulated (which could have easily been).
66:"criteria for access to non-public data"
1332:can say only one thing for now; being
141:
764:'s "no foul, play on" more often, or
7:
1754:Knowledge (XXG)'s Hostility to Women
632:Richard Wagner had an infobox until
2018:statements, such as been done once
400:in good faith and best intentions.
300:Arbitration Committee Election 2015
70:executing confidentiality agreement
1790:men) will fall into place. Cheers,
1646:for few years before returning to
1410:should be handled by arbitration?
28:
1784:"Be Fair, Be Kind and Seek Facts"
1538:violations of the civility policy
551:Thank you for stepping forward!
267:
1093:substantial reasons for absence
559:Joseph (opera)#Restore infobox?
1554:exists? How would you fix it?
1:
2314:08:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
2289:06:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
2267:05:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
2223:09:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
2191:08:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
2174:09:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
2144:09:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
2120:17:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
2041:14:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
2008:14:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
1979:14:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
1935:14:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
1845:14:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
1804:14:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
1773:17:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
1727:14:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
1674:07:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
1340:what is the right thing to do
720:08:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
670:07:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
351:08:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
105:07:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
1454:15:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1429:15:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1400:13:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1360:14:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1300:10:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1273:05:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1230:05:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1175:05:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1122:05:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1080:05:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1047:05:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
1006:20:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
993:05:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
966:05:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
925:05:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
905:18:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
886:05:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
863:18:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
833:14:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
817:18:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
796:09:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
649:16:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
617:06:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
539:18:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
517:10:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
478:10:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
422:10:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
86:05:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
1536:Nearly every case involves
1153:, my personal view is that
778:At the outset, I find the "
589:I am sorry to have dragged
318:Questions for the candidate
2347:
1520:Current Disputes and Cases
2053:Arbitration enforcement 2
1636:Banaras Hindu University
1550:Do you believe that the
1509:Ban Appeals Subcommittee
1650:where I live currently.
1157:should be exempted for
1327:, although I have see
570:Whilst the infobox in
323:Discuss this candidate
1021:Can a case be opened
756:offered some thoughts
2051:to the current case
1344:what my judgement is
491:and can you explain
356:Individual questions
1552:Super Mario Problem
459:Ravidassia religion
313:Candidate statement
2020:on a previous case
1617:affirmative action
1479:Audit Subcommittee
487:Do you understand
406:Editor interaction
2304:Arun Kumar SINGH
2257:Arun Kumar SINGH
2213:Arun Kumar SINGH
2164:Arun Kumar SINGH
2153:great coincidence
2132:Ellen Gates Starr
2110:Arun Kumar SINGH
2031:Arun Kumar SINGH
1998:Arun Kumar SINGH
1969:Arun Kumar SINGH
1925:Arun Kumar SINGH
1919:user: Catmando999
1905:user: Catmando999
1835:Arun Kumar SINGH
1794:Arun Kumar SINGH
1752:by Emma Paling, "
1717:Arun Kumar SINGH
1664:Arun Kumar SINGH
1419:Arun Kumar SINGH
1390:Arun Kumar SINGH
1350:Arun Kumar SINGH
1290:Arun Kumar SINGH
1220:Arun Kumar SINGH
1165:Arun Kumar SINGH
1112:Arun Kumar SINGH
1070:Arun Kumar SINGH
1037:Arun Kumar SINGH
983:Arun Kumar SINGH
956:Arun Kumar SINGH
915:Arun Kumar SINGH
876:Arun Kumar SINGH
786:Arun Kumar SINGH
758:, wishing to see
752:"not a fun place"
748:The Metamorphosis
710:Arun Kumar SINGH
660:Arun Kumar SINGH
607:Arun Kumar SINGH
507:Arun Kumar SINGH
468:Arun Kumar SINGH
412:Arun Kumar SINGH
366:|Q=Your question
341:Arun Kumar SINGH
331:
330:
95:Arun Kumar SINGH
76:Arun Kumar SINGH
2338:
2310:
2305:
2285:
2263:
2258:
2219:
2214:
2170:
2165:
2116:
2111:
2037:
2032:
2004:
1999:
1975:
1970:
1931:
1926:
1841:
1836:
1800:
1795:
1768:
1723:
1718:
1696:Worm That Turned
1670:
1665:
1644:Richmond, London
1572:Insider Baseball
1450:
1447:
1446:
1442:
1425:
1420:
1396:
1391:
1356:
1351:
1296:
1291:
1269:
1267:
1262:
1257:
1226:
1221:
1171:
1166:
1118:
1113:
1076:
1071:
1043:
1038:
989:
984:
962:
957:
921:
916:
882:
877:
792:
787:
769:
763:
745:
716:
711:
666:
661:
637:
613:
608:
535:
529:
513:
508:
474:
469:
445:Jeetumoni Kalita
418:
413:
386:User:Arunsingh16
369:
364:#{{ACE Question
347:
342:
294:
287:
280:
271:
264:
260:
233:
223:
215:
207:
199:
191:
183:
175:
167:
159:
151:
143:
135:
127:
101:
96:
82:
77:
2346:
2345:
2341:
2340:
2339:
2337:
2336:
2335:
2321:
2320:
2308:
2303:
2300:, done. Cheers,
2278:
2269:
2261:
2256:
2240:
2237:User:Wikimandia
2217:
2212:
2168:
2163:
2122:
2114:
2109:
2079:
2076:User:contaldo80
2074:Questions from
2043:
2035:
2030:
2010:
2002:
1997:
1981:
1973:
1968:
1952:
1947:Questions from
1937:
1929:
1924:
1908:
1903:Questions from
1859:
1847:
1839:
1834:
1818:
1806:
1798:
1793:
1771:
1766:
1741:
1729:
1721:
1716:
1699:
1676:
1668:
1663:
1634:. Attended the
1593:
1588:Questions from
1574:
1522:
1472:
1464:
1459:Questions from
1448:
1444:
1443:
1440:
1431:
1423:
1418:
1402:
1394:
1389:
1362:
1354:
1349:
1314:
1302:
1294:
1289:
1265:
1260:
1255:
1253:
1244:
1232:
1224:
1219:
1189:
1177:
1169:
1164:
1136:
1124:
1116:
1111:
1082:
1074:
1069:
1049:
1041:
1036:
1016:
1011:Questions from
995:
987:
982:
968:
960:
955:
939:
934:Questions from
927:
919:
914:
888:
880:
875:
850:
845:Questions from
798:
790:
785:
765:
759:
741:
714:
709:
664:
659:
633:
619:
611:
606:
549:
544:Questions from
533:
527:
519:
511:
506:
497:this discussion
480:
472:
467:
424:
416:
411:
379:
374:Questions from
363:
358:
345:
340:
327:
298:
226:
113:
99:
94:
80:
75:
35:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2344:
2342:
2334:
2333:
2323:
2322:
2319:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2292:
2291:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2270:
2249:
2243:
2239:
2235:Question from
2233:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2227:
2226:
2225:
2207:WP:SPECULATION
2177:
2176:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2097:
2094:
2088:
2082:
2078:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2062:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2048:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2025:
2015:
2013:
2012:
2011:
1992:
1986:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1960:
1955:
1951:
1945:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1916:
1911:
1907:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1888:Wikipediocracy
1883:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1869:
1858:
1854:Question from
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1826:
1821:
1817:
1813:Question from
1811:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1777:
1763:
1757:
1744:
1740:
1736:Question from
1734:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1708:
1702:
1698:
1694:Question from
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1683:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1652:
1651:
1629:
1628:
1625:GrammarFascist
1622:
1596:
1592:
1590:GrammarFascist
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1577:
1573:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1561:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1548:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1534:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1525:
1521:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1505:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1475:
1471:
1468:
1463:
1457:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1413:
1407:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1373:
1367:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1323:
1317:
1313:
1309:Question from
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1277:
1247:
1243:
1239:Question from
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1202:
1192:
1188:
1184:Question from
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1148:
1139:
1135:
1131:Question from
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1103:
1100:such section?
1089:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1060:
1054:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1028:
1019:
1015:
1009:
999:
998:
997:
996:
978:
973:
971:
970:
969:
947:
942:
938:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
909:
892:
891:
890:
889:
867:
849:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
802:
801:
800:
799:
777:
738:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
673:
672:
623:
622:
621:
620:
602:
595:Joseph (opera)
591:Richard Wagner
588:
580:Joseph (opera)
576:Richard Wagner
572:Joseph (opera)
569:
563:
555:
548:
542:
523:
522:
521:
520:
502:
485:
483:
482:
481:
462:
438:
429:
427:
426:
425:
391:
382:
378:
372:
371:
367:
365:
357:
354:
329:
328:
326:
325:
320:
315:
309:
308:
297:
296:
289:
282:
274:
272:
262:
261:
225:
110:
109:
108:
107:
34:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2343:
2332:
2329:
2328:
2326:
2315:
2312:
2311:
2306:
2299:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2293:
2290:
2286:
2284:
2283:
2275:
2274:
2268:
2265:
2264:
2259:
2252:
2248:
2247:
2244:
2242:
2241:
2238:
2234:
2224:
2221:
2220:
2215:
2208:
2203:
2199:
2196:
2195:
2194:
2193:
2192:
2188:
2184:
2179:
2178:
2175:
2172:
2171:
2166:
2158:
2154:
2150:
2147:
2146:
2145:
2141:
2137:
2133:
2128:
2127:
2121:
2118:
2117:
2112:
2105:
2101:
2092:
2087:
2086:
2083:
2081:
2080:
2077:
2073:
2067:
2066:
2063:
2061:
2057:
2056:
2054:
2049:
2047:
2042:
2039:
2038:
2033:
2024:
2023:
2021:
2016:
2014:
2009:
2006:
2005:
2000:
1991:
1990:
1987:
1985:
1980:
1977:
1976:
1971:
1964:
1959:
1958:
1956:
1954:
1953:
1950:
1946:
1944:
1936:
1933:
1932:
1927:
1920:
1915:
1914:
1912:
1910:
1909:
1906:
1902:
1896:
1895:
1893:
1889:
1884:
1882:
1878:
1877:
1875:
1870:
1868:
1867:
1866:
1864:
1857:
1853:
1846:
1843:
1842:
1837:
1830:
1825:
1824:
1822:
1820:
1819:
1816:
1812:
1805:
1802:
1801:
1796:
1789:
1785:
1781:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1769:
1762:
1755:
1751:
1750:
1745:
1743:
1742:
1739:
1735:
1728:
1725:
1724:
1719:
1712:
1707:
1706:
1703:
1701:
1700:
1697:
1693:
1687:
1686:
1684:
1682:
1681:
1675:
1672:
1671:
1666:
1659:
1655:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1626:
1621:
1620:
1618:
1614:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1595:
1594:
1591:
1587:
1581:
1580:
1578:
1576:
1575:
1571:
1565:
1564:
1562:
1560:
1556:
1555:
1553:
1549:
1547:
1543:
1542:
1539:
1535:
1533:
1529:
1528:
1526:
1524:
1523:
1519:
1513:
1512:
1510:
1506:
1504:
1500:
1499:
1497:
1496:
1492:
1491:functionaries
1488:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1474:
1473:
1470:Subcommittees
1469:
1467:
1462:
1458:
1456:
1455:
1452:
1451:
1437:Thank you. -
1430:
1427:
1426:
1421:
1412:
1411:
1408:
1406:
1401:
1398:
1397:
1392:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1372:
1371:
1368:
1366:
1361:
1358:
1357:
1352:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1336:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1321:
1318:
1316:
1315:
1312:
1308:
1301:
1298:
1297:
1292:
1285:
1281:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1271:
1270:
1268:
1263:
1258:
1248:
1246:
1245:
1242:
1238:
1231:
1228:
1227:
1222:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1201:
1200:
1198:
1193:
1191:
1190:
1187:
1183:
1176:
1173:
1172:
1167:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1147:
1146:
1144:
1140:
1138:
1137:
1134:
1130:
1123:
1120:
1119:
1114:
1107:
1102:
1101:
1099:
1094:
1090:
1088:
1087:
1081:
1078:
1077:
1072:
1065:
1059:
1058:
1055:
1053:
1048:
1045:
1044:
1039:
1032:
1027:
1026:
1024:
1020:
1018:
1017:
1014:
1010:
1008:
1007:
1004:
1001:Thank you. ‑
994:
991:
990:
985:
977:
976:
974:
972:
967:
964:
963:
958:
951:
946:
945:
943:
941:
940:
937:
933:
926:
923:
922:
917:
908:
907:
906:
902:
898:
894:
893:
887:
884:
883:
878:
871:
866:
865:
864:
860:
856:
852:
851:
848:
844:
834:
830:
826:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
814:
810:
806:
805:
804:
803:
797:
794:
793:
788:
781:
776:
775:
773:
768:
762:
757:
753:
749:
744:
739:
737:
736:
721:
718:
717:
712:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
677:
676:
675:
674:
671:
668:
667:
662:
655:
652:
651:
650:
646:
642:
636:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
618:
615:
614:
609:
600:
596:
592:
586:
581:
577:
573:
567:
562:
561:
560:
556:
554:
553:
552:
547:
543:
541:
540:
537:
536:
530:
518:
515:
514:
509:
501:
500:
498:
494:
490:
486:
484:
479:
476:
475:
470:
460:
456:
455:
450:
446:
442:
437:
436:
434:
430:
428:
423:
420:
419:
414:
407:
403:
399:
398:WP:CLEANSTART
395:
394:SpacemanSpiff
390:
389:
387:
383:
381:
380:
377:
376:SpacemanSpiff
373:
370:
361:
355:
353:
352:
349:
348:
343:
337:
336:
324:
321:
319:
316:
314:
311:
310:
307:
306:
301:
295:
290:
288:
283:
281:
276:
275:
273:
270:
266:
265:
258:
255:
252:
249:
246:
243:
240:
237:
234:
229:
224:
219:
216:
211:
208:
203:
200:
195:
192:
187:
184:
179:
176:
171:
168:
163:
160:
155:
152:
147:
144:
139:
136:
131:
128:
123:
120:
116:
112:
111:
106:
103:
102:
97:
89:
88:
87:
84:
83:
78:
71:
67:
63:
59:
54:
50:
46:
42:
37:
36:
33:
30:
23:
19:
2301:
2281:
2280:
2254:
2210:
2201:
2161:
2156:
2152:
2107:
2028:
1995:
1989:gender gap?
1966:
1942:
1922:
1860:
1832:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1749:The Atlantic
1747:
1714:
1661:
1658:heterosexual
1612:
1493:
1487:Oversighters
1465:
1438:
1436:
1416:
1387:
1370:status quo?
1347:
1343:
1339:
1333:
1287:
1252:
1251:
1217:
1212:
1208:
1196:
1162:
1154:
1109:
1105:
1097:
1092:
1067:
1063:
1034:
1022:
1000:
980:
953:
912:
873:
825:Gerda Arendt
809:Gerda Arendt
783:
707:
657:
654:Gerda Arendt
641:Gerda Arendt
604:
598:
584:
566:Gerda Arendt
550:
546:Gerda Arendt
531:
525:Thank you. —
524:
504:
465:
452:
409:
401:
362:
359:
338:
334:
333:
332:
303:
253:
247:
241:
235:
227:
217:
209:
201:
193:
185:
177:
169:
161:
153:
145:
137:
129:
121:
92:
73:
1608:Triesenberg
1483:Check Users
761:Floquenbeam
635:this revert
302:candidate:
150:target logs
2298:Wikimandia
2251:Wikimandia
2202:speculated
2198:Contaldo80
2183:Contaldo80
2149:Contaldo80
2136:Contaldo80
2091:Contaldo80
1856:Brustopher
1829:Biblioworm
1815:Biblioworm
1780:Smallbones
1761:Smallbones
1738:Smallbones
1461:Guerillero
1376:Jim Carter
1325:Jim Carter
1311:Jim Carter
1284:Iridescent
1205:Beeblebrox
1186:Beeblebrox
1151:BethNaught
1133:BethNaught
1003:iridescent
950:Iridescent
936:Iridescent
22:Candidates
1963:Antony–22
1949:Antony–22
1892:WP:OUTING
1874:WP:OUTING
1863:WP:OUTING
1767:smalltalk
1541:problem?
948:Good one
897:Müdigkeit
870:Müdigkeit
855:Müdigkeit
847:Müdigkeit
493:this edit
251:deletions
214:checkuser
158:block log
2325:Category
2282:Мандичка
1632:Varanasi
1159:WP:CIVIL
1143:WP:CIVIL
780:punitive
679:neutral.
528:Spaceman
305:AKS.9955
245:protects
126:contribs
115:AKS.9955
32:AKS.9955
20: |
2309:(Talk)
2262:(Talk)
2218:(Talk)
2169:(Talk)
2157:exactly
2115:(Talk)
2036:(Talk)
2003:(Talk)
1974:(Talk)
1930:(Talk)
1840:(Talk)
1799:(Talk)
1722:(Talk)
1669:(Talk)
1640:Colombo
1495:en banc
1424:(Talk)
1395:(Talk)
1355:(Talk)
1329:WP:RFAR
1295:(Talk)
1225:(Talk)
1213:perhaps
1197:instant
1170:(Talk)
1117:(Talk)
1075:(Talk)
1042:(Talk)
1031:Collect
1023:without
1013:Collect
988:(Talk)
961:(Talk)
920:(Talk)
881:(Talk)
791:(Talk)
767:Yunshui
715:(Talk)
665:(Talk)
612:(Talk)
512:(Talk)
473:(Talk)
417:(Talk)
346:(Talk)
100:(Talk)
81:(Talk)
68:or for
62:WP:BIAS
2096:alone.
2089:Hello
1961:Hello
1917:Hello
1827:Hello
1778:Hello
1654:Single
1648:Mumbai
1623:Hello
1374:Hello
1278:Hello
1203:Hello
1155:no one
1149:Hello
1106:may be
1029:Hello
868:Hello
564:Hello
489:WP:BLP
392:Hello
368:|A=}}
239:blocks
232:rights
58:WP:COI
53:WP:CUV
45:WP:NPP
41:WP:AfD
1613:won't
1604:trans
1280:Yash!
1241:Yash!
599:a bit
534:Spiff
441:these
257:moves
222:socks
134:count
49:WP:PC
16:<
2187:talk
2140:talk
2104:here
2100:here
1711:Dave
1656:and
1642:and
1507:The
1485:and
1477:The
1384:this
1342:and
1335:bold
1098:each
901:talk
859:talk
829:talk
813:talk
770:'s "
645:talk
454:This
449:this
402:None
142:logs
119:talk
2287:😜
1788:and
1756:”.
1709:Hi
1600:cis
1449:ter
1445:Car
1441:Jim
1064:not
585:not
206:lta
198:rfc
190:arb
182:rfb
174:rfa
60:or
2327::
2189:)
2142:)
1602:,
1261:sh
1256:Ya
1145:?
903:)
861:)
831:)
815:)
807:--
774:"
647:)
639:--
499:?
435:?
396:,
388:?
166:lu
51:,
47:,
43:,
2279:—
2185:(
2138:(
1770:)
1764:(
1266:!
899:(
857:(
827:(
811:(
643:(
293:e
286:t
279:v
259:)
254:·
248:·
242:·
236:·
228:·
218:·
210:·
202:·
194:·
186:·
178:·
170:·
162:·
154:·
146:·
138:·
130:·
122:·
117:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.