1493:
with a diff showing what led up to it. A cherry picked policy diff can be rebutted with quoting the left out part, and so on. A ganging up in article space can frequently be addressed by an RFC. Simply posting to a besieged editor talk page something like "Sorry, you shouldn't be treated that way..." goes a long way to make an individual feel like they're not isolated. It is far too often when R insults G, the entire focus becomes about R: see ridiculously long ANI thread, to which I contributed a single general comment early on suggesting a more collegial way to raise concerns; when the recipient of the accusation seemed more concerned with something about licensing than the comment per se, while the rest of the thread went off to be the rest of thread, I asked for clarification. At that point, with blatant disregard for WP:TPO, I courtesy blanked the section, an action which was accepted by the community because it made sense.
1401:'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
544:(paraphrasing eloquent Bradspeak). My greatest issue will be time. I do not intend to spend very much time on ban appeals; for arbcom blocked editors I'm likely to use a time heuristic -- has been a few years? For community bans, I'd only be interested in reviewing process -- was the discussion open for a sufficient period on AN or ANI? Was there evidence of canvassing sufficient to affect the outcome. For clarity, this would be strictly a due diligence check, not any anticipation we'd be overturning bans. Vis-a-vis the criticism portion, participating in ANI as a non-admin, non-content contributor has provided me with ample opportunity to develop
1966:
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?
378:) clearly indicate it is the consistency, not severity, of a sanction that makes it effective. Empowering uninvolved admins to simply remove violations and ban further participation in a discussion with short blocks for violations would be far more efficacious; because they'd be less controversial there would be less hesitation to impose them on "technical" violations, and less drama after a block. I would not care if a sanction resulted in repeated short blocks. If there's long term evidence that's not working, then more severe sanctions should be requested from the committee itself via
1912:
implications. With fairly extensive discussion and multiple requests to oversight the information, the decision was made not to oversight the information with the stated reason being that gender does not explicitly fall under any of the
English Knowledge (XXG)'s oversight criteria. In a similar situation, would you support either interpreting the oversight criteria more broadly in general, IAR oversighting a situation like this, rewriting the oversight criteria to be more inclusive, or would you choose to not oversight the information in question? (As background, according to the
1103:
I'd like to know, and I think the electorate should know, why you decided to step forward now, what you motivations are, and what you hope to accomplish, both for yourself and for the project.You know that I have been a harsh critic of "free riders" such as yourself who do not contribute substantially to the encyclopedia, but who spend their time dealing with the minutia of the administration of the project, but you also know that I posted on your talk page the suggestion that the skillset you display might be very appropriate for ArbCom. I'm
102:
legislature, not a leadership council, it will inevitably be perceived by outsiders as some combination of those roles. Because the committee has an inherent responsibility to maintain the reputation of the project, I think it best individual arbitrators not interact with the press and other outside agencies (except at sponsored wiki conferences). When the committee as a whole feels misconceptions should be addressed, it should work via WMF -- I'm counting nine professionals in the Office of
Communications
1828:
online evidence is obnoxious and can be condescending. I think the best we can do is engage all editors with dignity and respect; give it our best shot to explain things but accept sometimes the message may not get through and, in some cases, well meaning editors will have to be blocked if they don't respond to a reasonable but not excessive amount of feedback and continue to disrupt the project. Of course, if there's an indication of possible self-harm or harm to others WMF should be contacted per
1575:
widely depending on the cultural background of the individual. I see the civility conundrum as a chronic wiki-disease that well never be resolved unless the community converges on common standards and expectations. Unfortunately, dispute resolution/policy forums on
Knowledge (XXG) don't do well in the abstract, but lots of folks have lots of opinions when discussing individuals; such discussions have not proven to be beneficial to achieving consensus. Arbcom is
1388:. It's important for the committee to consider not just the case at hand, but how it fits into the larger scheme of dispute resolution. Sanctioning a user for the actions of an off-wiki account without strong evidence that it is actually the same person would lead to it being a tactic in future disputes. In any event, even if Foo had a reasonable concern reddit Bar was actually wiki Bar, such evidence should be mailed to the committee rather than posted online.
1559:
you see bullying and other aggressive behaviors that take place over time, and aren't just things like using "cuss words" but deeper psychological manipulations by some editors, to the detriment of the general editing environment? And if so, what can we do about this issue? Would you support an anti-bullying task force made up of volunteers who get some training about how to recognize bullying and how to bring some resolution when they see it? Thank you.
1116:
1091:
1016:
129:
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?
1812:
sought to advise this editor on why they were blocked but struggle to get the editor to understand. I'd like to hear your thoughts about how
Knowledge (XXG) works with those who suffer from such disorders. This is an open ended, and deliberately vague, question that will no doubt be difficult to answer, but is more for me, and presumably other editors, to get a grasp of your thoughts.
1944:
29%. Five digit zips raised the uniqueness to 69%, and nine digit zips raised it to 97% -- so clearly birth dates and zip codes, which I would assume are currently covered in oversight policy, are the key elements which should be suppressed. It's the role of arbcom to settle disputes, not to change policy by fiat, so I'm not sure what the relevance of the question is.
376:
1006:
1727:, ArbCom implemented a "500/30" limit on edits to the Palestine-Israel (the 3rd topic space in which this remedy has been used). What are the positives & negatives of this remedy as written? Would a more technical/formal implementation (akin to semi-protection) be an improvement? What other improvements, if any, might be made?
1376:
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
1943:
analyzed birthdate and zip without gender. Using
Cambridge, Massachusetts alone, they found birth date identified 12% of individuals -- which is why I lie to many websites and give my date of birth as Jan 1 instead of the actual date -- and gender only increased by slightly more than a factor of 2 to
1811:
in the past. An editor who self identifies as having a mental disability or disorder has been indefinitely blocked for a variety of violations, take your pick of edit warring, NPA, disruption, CIR, POINT, Godwin's etc, and is now seeking to return to editing. Quite a few members of the community have
1574:
The current civility policy on
Knowledge (XXG) goes something like this: how much of an insult an editor can get away depends on the wiki-status of both the speaker and the insulted. What is considered "an insult" and "honest speech," or what is "appropriate conduct" or "political correctness" varies
1396:
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
1144:
The committee's potential to do good is limited. This is not tragic, is an affirmation the community which built a 5,000,000 article 'pedia doesn't really need much "help" or "supervision." Arbcom has ability to do harm, however. First by discouraging the morale of editors observing its machinations
706:
No, I do not, and I find the term offensive. This is not a video game, editors who submit to the Rfa flogging necessary to achieve the role of wiki-janitor, as a class, deserve more respect that comparing them to a cartoon character. Since grave dancing is obnoxious, I'll limit myself to observing it
684:
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
667:
The nature of disruption provided in evidence. If the disruption is limited to particular areas, and there's evidence of acting like a grownup outside that area, I'd support a topic ban in lieu of site ban. Concurrent with that, following closing a case with a topic ban, I'd be very open to extending
101:
The role of the committee is to resolve conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. Full stop. Knowledge (XXG) culture is unique, such that all mappings to real world entities are inevitably flawed in some way. This puts the committee is a difficult position -- while not a court, not a
1532:
problems can be resolved not by editors necessarily "getting their way," but simply by affirming that someone actually cares about their concerns. I've resolved disputes between editors "stuck" between versions of content by contributing a "middle ground" edit, or by simply starting or suggesting an
841:
noted, "The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Knowledge (XXG) and broaden its coverage." (Note also he properly characterizes en-wiki as
523:
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"
128:
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
78:
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
1610:
approach where editors calmly, respectfully engage individual who behave in the "gray zone" between sanctionable personal attacks and polite behavior. Unfortunately too many folks thinks someone else's poor behavior justifies poor behavior towards. This isn't some "don't block editors" utopia, it's
1102:
Because we have been at loggerheads with some frequency in the past, you may think my question above is a dig at you -- it isn't. I really would like to know why you decided to run, and the "Why run?" section of your statement doesn't really answer the question. (It's actually more "Why not run?")
449:
Evidence is not a debate; on wiki truth is diffs. Per the previous answer, evaluation of diffs includes review of what led up to them, it is the strength or weakness of the evidence itself, not the accompanying rhetoric, which carries weight. Therefore, I'd say no to any blanket changes to the word
446:
If a case is about a specific individual, it should be suspended if they are unable to participate. This implies, of course, they're not editing. If a case is about a larger group, it would not be fair to everyone else to hold it, so it should proceed, possibly with a "the individual is directed to
114:
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
1994:
Furthermore, adminstrators are not a collective hive mind, so collectively the worst excesses of single administrators are checked by the rest of them. I think what you describe as walled gardens has more to due with the featured article / good article / did you know / featured topic status of the
1827:
Yes, more than once I've been struck by the thought that person behind that account simply does not process information in the manner expected by a mentally heavy individual. It's a difficult situation; no one should want to be mean for the sake of being mean, but "diagnosing" a condition based on
1558:
and i'm trying to make heads or tails of your position and methods about it. In particular, i wonder whether you're saying "It's all relative so we can't do much" or whether you think there are some basic strong standards of behavior around civility? More specifically, i would like to know whether
1515:
that you post a lot at ANI, while not being an admin. I'm not a regular user of English Knowledge (XXG), so I don't know whether that claim is true or not. I even don't consider involving yourself in administrative tasks a pad point. I'm just curious to know why not to request for adminship if you
1375:
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
416:
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
92:
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
1635:
The en.Knowledge (XXG) community has been likened to that of a gaol (US:prison), with members of various gangs aggressively supporting each other in disputes, which are policed by trusted inmates. Do you agree with this view? If so, why so? If not, why not? To what extent are the behaviours which
1492:
I had not previously seen that essay; I believe the suggested approaches are reasonable. During an active dispute on a noticeboard, for example, I've evolved a set of techniques: if there's an unsupported accusation, I simply say "Please provide diff of..." An out of context diff can be addressed
1714:
regardless of any suspicions that creep into my cynical mind -- it's a code of conduct, not a probably assessment. Even if there's a 90% chance a new editor is a sock, I think it's more important to prevent losing the one real potential editor than worrying about the sock; if they are who people
83:
I don't think determining such a line is useful. Incivility/harassment impacts our ability to retain editors both when the culture is so coarse the environment is unpleasant to work in, and when direct honest speech is inhibited. Because both language and mores of propriety are highly culturally
1771:
No. I'm not sure you're getting the whole "Ent" thing, we don't like hasty. During the first case I observed closely (Civility Enforcement), I thought arbcom making decisions slowly wasn't good. Then I saw some quicker decisions, and decided slower is often good. I do think committees should do
1285:
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
689:
I'd want to look into what happened with Civility Paroles. Bans are the tools the committee has, so my focus would be trying to apply them more surgically. For example, arbcom endorsed block lengths should be short enough that all reasonable parties realize it's not a good use of time arguing a
1531:
I participate in dispute resolution because as a non-admin because, while blocks, deletions, revision deletes and page protections are sometimes the necessary means to solving disputes, they are not the only ones, and I prefer combinations of patience, empathy, logic, and engagement. Sometimes
1965:
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
1892:
strongly discourages paid editing. Torvalds, per our article, self describes himself as "really unpleasant person," whereas Knowledge (XXG) holds collegiality as an important ideal. The inputs to my work in Knowledge (XXG) space are real life experience as documentation in prior questions and
1031:
arbcom cases; there should be no expectation the committee is in any way smarter to the community, it's just assumed to pick a reasonable "least bad" solution. A couple indicators of poor solutions are the subsequent need for clarifications from the enforcement community, or failure to uphold
1911:
Recently a situation came up where the gender of an editor, which had not been disclosed by the editor anywhere on-wiki, was posted on several pages. The gender of the editor given the nature of their background is a potentially quite sensitive piece of information, with potential real-life
407:
It is highly likely sanctions will be indicated; it's what the committee does. Failure to apply sanctions implies either than committee accepted a case it shouldn't have, or that it's not resolving the issue. On Knowledge (XXG), sanctions should not be the first steps to resolve issues, but
251:
instructions, I must go by the position with "the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it." Seeing ~four editors who support removing it and two suggesting including it, the current consensus is for removal. Given the usually small number of editors participating in this
437:
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
1869:, 3 times more than 10 years ago. innovative technologies are added to the kernel first from universities, individuals, companies, bearing the GPL. what do you see as the key success factors of that development, and what can you take off that into your work at wikipedia? --
1689:, getting yelled at because OMG! they didn't post the required notice or some such nonsense. When I'm ANI-active I'll often slap a close tag with a hopefully firm but polite on such a thread before the grumpy people get involved. There are some folks, of course, whose
863:
says to remove comments, and if Smallbones was simply removing edits by those-who-have-sorta-talkpage-banned-by-Jimbo -- preferrably with a neutral edit summary --I'd be supportive. Rather, they replace the comments with statements in the form of "Removed comment by
1189:
A hasty, non-emergency desysop motions, essentially due to mob rule -- eventually declined, but serious discussion about possibly doing it went on too long and too far. (Note: given sufficient time for reason to sink in, the editor saw the writing on the wall and
1026:
Before I get into specific examples, let me make it perfectly clear that, regardless if I'm elected to Arbcom 2016 or not, I fully expect it will issue bad decisions. The very nature of arbcom cases is that if good solutions to problems existed, they wouldn't
804:
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?
356:
1397:
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
1219:
Passing remedies with titles such as "At wit's end" -- dealing with the tough cases is your job, committee, and "Reinstating a sanction reversed out of process," which reads like a pathetic plea to get an admin to reblock Eric Corbett, which hasn't
925:
In your own words, please explain the purpose of the Arbitration Committee and why its existence is necessary. And what, if any, changes or reforms would you support regarding the structuring and processes of Knowledge (XXG)'s arbitration system?
408:
non-sanction solutions would fall into the realm of policy making, which is specifically not the committee's purview. For the sake of discussion here, I'm including any modification of normal editing process, e.g. 1RR restrictions, as a sanction.
1758:
Not sure what AE would have to do with it? Hard to say without seeing particulars, but I'd suggest putting together comprehensive of the behavior in totality and presenting a case. Failing that, filing an arbcom case request, of course, is an
1512:
1701:
We see regular use of WP:DUCK/WP:SOCK to justify indefinite blocks of new editors entering contentious topic spaces, without those editors being explicitly linked to banned accounts. Is this use justified? If so, why so? If not, why not?
2037:
607:, 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?
1160:"With their commentary they have on several occasions corrected the committee's course for the better." While flattering, of course, more importantly here it reflects favorably on past arbcoms who were receptive to feedback. Note I'm
1227:
When I was a high school teacher, occasionally I'd have a student volunteer to attempt a task and fail miserably. When the inevitable snark and comments from other students started, rather than correct them directly, I'd simply read
133:"many are attracted to Knowledge (XXG) in part due to its countercultural, even transgressive nature of subverting traditional gatekeepers to knowledge...." That's not a question. You're welcome to try again with a neutral version.
25:
849:, I care about a) the encyclopedia as a whole, and b) the editors who write it, so to the extent bullying affects editors I care about it, but not necessary more than anything else which negatively impacts the editing experience.
1164:
saying I was smarter than those committees; without the burdens of responsibility the committee has, I was able to focus my wiki-time on one or two specific aspects of cases the committee had not had brought to their attention.
1236:. At this point, continued arbcom criticism from me strikes me as being more useless wiki-noise than something useful, and the community would be right to call me out unless I was willing to step up and offer to serve myself.
364:
1999:
policy is particularly coherent: "ownership" is bad but "stewardship" is good?? In any event, this is all content and policy and community practice, which is beyond arbcom's remit. For clarity a topic ban on redirects was
1591:
states "Knowledge (XXG)'s hope for banned editors is that they will leave Knowledge (XXG) or the affected area with their pride and dignity intact," arbcom banned editors, for no reason I've ever understood, must have the
1772:
better at updating status dates, even if it's simply to say "no status, still in progress." The 1/3 thing is not a good idea; imagine a five person subgroup hears a case; then there's an amendment or clarification while
1480:, and how would you respond to it if you saw diffs demonstrating repeated aspersions cast against an editor by a group of editors aligned with each other (patterned behavior) to get that editor site banned or blocked? --
1136:
who just chugs along, no account, no drama, no ANI threads...). So why enter a race with only two bad outcomes? I could lose, or worse, I could "win." If admining is "the mop," the committee has got to be "shovel out the
1286:
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
1207:
Ridiculous case management -- repeatedly drawing lines in the sand, e.g. only post evidence about parties, no thread conversation, hatting critical remarks, and then rewarding, rather than enforcing such restrictions.
532:. Seriously, I've thought long and about the commitment required if I'm elected. It's long been evident to me from on wiki observation that it chews people up. It is was suggested in prior years I run, after reviewing
21:
2021:; I don't think it actually matters much because, if the editor does return to editing he'll be under sufficient scrutiny that any indication of POV editing would be noted and quickly addressed by the community.
974:
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?
167:, Malcolm Gladwell noted the importance of practice in a particular skill. I've been practicing wiki-disputes for years, observed what works well, what doesn't, and so on. I am not asking to be elected to pick
895:
9:39 am, 14 November 2015, last Saturday (7 days ago) (UTC−5) Rather than heeding such obliviously good advice, they then doubled down on the hypocrisy by justifying their bullying by calling the other editor
1724:
154:
Ent, let's get this out of the way: what do you say to those who claim that only "content editors" (maybe defined by some ratio between edits in article space and elsewhere) are qualified to run for office?
1668:
Do you believe that our current processes & procedures encourage adversarial methods of dispute resolution? If so, is this a good or bad thing? If bad, what role should ArbCom play in addressing this?
1431:
It's been too long to be sure; I suspect it was after starting to volunteer at WQA and starting to read policies, some of which referenced arbcom decisions. See answer to Beyond My Ken's question, above.
1195:
638:
116:
119:. 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.
1693:
justifies sanctions, but far too often it's a mob scene. That said, it's really not something I can do much about (except for mitigating on a case by case basis), and it's beyond the scope of arbcom.
611:
633:
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?
1244:
1939:, so identifying gender alone would logically change the potential identification of an individual from 1 in 1,840 million to about 1 in 920 million. Unfortunately, it does not appear that the
699:
1584:
1580:
1476:
Thank you for volunteering. Perhaps the first question we should ask all candidates is whether they consider themselves of sound mind. 😊 On a serious note, what are your thoughts about
94:
17:
1211:
The one non-party added following allegedly prohibited evidence stands out not for their snark, which is banally common in Knowledge (XXG):: spaces, but their target: the committee itself.
179:
Where do you stand on BASC, and what do you think it takes for a banned editor to return to Knowledge (XXG)? Can you tell what the conditions are, and what do you think they ought to be?
1585:"Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. These violations of the community's standards of conduct are unevenly, and often ineffectively, enforced."
575:
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!
1214:
The "no threaded" conversation simply resulted in one case of threading-by-pinging by two editors throwing mud at each other, in some cases be refactoring, in other cases being iar'd.
742:
Yes, but not necessarily in its current format. The committee must balance reasonably efficient operation with sufficient community engagement to maintain the trust of the community.
723:
Yes. If an editor's conduct has been problematic but below the threshold where harsher sanctions are justified, a single warning provides the opportunity for that editor to improve.
208:
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
1133:
registered content editors who have better things to do than get involved in wiki-politics is also indicative. (Incidentally, I consider the best possible editor(s) someone like
1130:
598:. Currently, neither the community nor the committee can decide how to handle it. There have been calls to completely disband the subcommittee, transfer its role to the
263:
Do we look at the same discussion, of 2015, which asked restore or not? The infobox was removed in 2013, before the related arb case, on a "consensus" of 4:2. Compare
1044:
903:
To answer the question, if elected, I'd be happy to vote to site ban anyone who consistently engages in bullying behavior, e.g. calling other editors in trolls.
1936:
1767:
Would you be prepared to recuse from 1/3rd of cases, and encourage other Arbs to do likewise, so that each case might be addressed faster, and by fewer Arbs?
1294:. 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.
1109:
that's not why you threw your hat into the ring -- so why did you, especially since a non-admin has never been an arbitrator (although this maybe the year).
1929:
1878:
1821:
1787:
1568:
1525:
1486:
1455:
1345:
1257:
1083:
1057:
997:
954:
909:
818:
772:
646:
619:
558:
503:
487:
306:
290:
276:
258:
238:
403:
presuming that sanctions will be necessary? Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?
1243:
candidates and nine open slots, I'm asking for your vote. I've a demonstrated track record as team player; although I may strenuously argue a point, e.g
1145:
when it behaves poorly. Secondly, because the outside often doesn't really grok how wikipedia works, arbcom is perceived as managing or directing -- the
1754:
on new editors. Administrators have failed to address this editor's behaviour; WP:AE has failed to address the editor's behaviour. What should be done?
84:
dependent, and English Knowledge (XXG) spans multiple cultures, achieving the appropriate balance has proven to be a perennial challenge to the project.
1201:
Due to a well intentioned but poorly thought out prior sanction, the committee was embarrassed by an administrator intentionally burning her sysop bit.
2003:
was imposed. The close of the ANI thread, while extremely helpful in stopping the hubbub, was less than perfect; the closing admin apparently used a
375:
is a tough climb because its 12 metres (39 ft) high. I would improve sanctions by limiting the upper end; research in both crime and education (e.g.
1273:
Please divulge as much of your demographic information as you are comfortable making public. Specifically: your gender, including whether you are
183:
I supported the committee's recent getting rid of it. Long term, we need to work out some sort of amnesty system -- there's a half-baked draft at
367:
the block showed a lack of judgement, to state 'the block was for saying he creates half of his featured content with women' is like saying the
1640:
No. If one spends time in the dark places (ANI, arbom space) it's easy to fall into that mode of despair. The prison reference reminds me of
1036:
An example of the former is the automation case which prohibited an editor from using "automation" -- whatever that is. Please see one of my
762:
Yes, both. Real world, commissioned officer US Navy, high school (US secondary school) teacher. Wiki -- many WQA / ANI discussions. See also
1885:
1336:
1380:
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?
1369:. For the purposes of these questions please assume the editors' usernames are far more distinct and unique than the ones I have given.
336:
476:" song, or would you prefer to sing it in another style? Will you be releasing your performance under the CC-by-SA 3.0 licence? :-)
335:
for an analogy. If you want to win my "support", please - on top of #1 - suggest improvements to get from arbitration enforcement (
799:
340:
2008:
248:
846:
763:
160:
67:
No and yes, respectively. However, that's a simplistic answer because we have no meaningful consensus on civility; please see
842:"leaderless collection of volunteers" so if anyone thinks arbcom is a solution to community wide problems they're mistaken.)
943:
direct election by community of CU/OS user access levels, although the committee members should have access to those tools
1681:
What are the advantages and disadvantages of WP:BOOMERANG? Would you support it's retention, restriction or abolition? Why?
1309:
I really don't think it makes that much difference, as long as the candidate as reasonable experience in dispute resolution.
1940:
68:
1974:
after the ANI discussion opened up. There is an admin / non-admin double standard, but not the one people think. Because
1240:
284:, the 2013 discussion. I didn't realize there was more than one on the page, and stopping looking when I found that one.
989:
1987:
1588:
450:
limit, while supporting the current practice of the drafting arbitrators to extend the limit on a case by case basis.
433:
Are arbitators under any reasonable obligation to afford editors who are out of the country on a trip, or have other
1776:
subgroup is active. Cases need to have the support of the majority of the entire committee to maintain continuity.
1884:
Not a good comparison, for multiple reasons. An operating system and an Encyclopedia are vastly different things.
1126:
930:
1917:
1862:
839:
1477:
1427:
How did you first come across Arbitration, and how do you feel your services will aid the community if elected?
1281:
or other; your sexual orientation; your race and/or ethnicity; where you live (feel free to specify you live in
1343:
1986:. (We're not so great at maintaining that standard, but it can be done). The only time "authority" appears in
1707:
663:
What are your standards for banning someone from the project compared to a topic ban or some lesser sanction?
690:
block. It is the consistency of application, not the severity of a sanction, that provides its effectiveness.
421:
The question lacks sufficient context for a meaningful answer. I learned very early on while volunteering at
106:-- to ensure the message is both accurate and not easily misconstrued by those unfamiliar with wiki-culture.
2011:. However, as no one challenged the close at the time, the community accepted it, so what's done is done.
1874:
1079:
103:
1685:
I despise the term. I've often seen it applied to well meaning but somewhat clueless folks who wander into
1048:
792:
Knowledge (XXG) is starting to have a reputation for bullying and misogyny, see, e.g the recent article in
545:
244:
1925:
1742:
A hypothetical editor, involved in a contentious topic space, regularly derails Talk page discussion with
1451:
766:
of my candidates statement for historic and recent examples of addressing editing differences of opinion.
302:
272:
234:
1983:
1829:
1129:
in explaining the duality of the committee's concurrent unimportance / importance. The perceived need to
860:
591:
1607:
514:
1979:
1290:
count it against you. My intention in asking for this information is not to out anyone or try to force
1889:
1596:
874:
811:
1686:
1817:
1328:
1264:
1239:
You should not vote for me because I'm best candidate, because I'm not. But in a field filled with
856:: If Smallbones is concerned with bullying, their first step should be to stop acting like a bully
325:
An editor has been blocked for a month in the name of arbitration enforcement for having said that
184:
1402:
1377:
1366:
834:
First of all, Knowledge (XXG) is not "starting to" have a reputation; Tim Simonite's far superior
1870:
1841:
1626:
Thank you for stepping forward; your commitment to serving the community is greatly appreciated.
1291:
1233:
1075:
1065:
916:
707:
is often the case that editors whose conduct was most egregious while assigned the administrator
482:
1996:
1743:
979:
965:
681:
1921:
1902:
1564:
1447:
835:
332:
298:
268:
252:
discussion, the should be no prejudice against revisiting the discussion in the near future."
230:
196:
1916:, the triumvirate of date of birth, zip code, and gender are sufficient to uniquely identify
1690:
669:
630:
599:
587:
379:
1971:
1644:: "we all prisoners of our own device." Real prisons keep people who don't want to be there
1641:
1521:
1253:
1053:
950:
905:
891:
768:
642:
615:
554:
533:
499:
286:
254:
1978:
is very big deal, a desysop is a very big deal. In addition, admins are burdened with both
1975:
1808:
1751:
1711:
1533:
758:
Do you have any experience in successfully resolving disputes, either on-wiki or off-wiki?
708:
672:
request if evidence is presented of a pattern of the editor nibbling at the edges of a ban.
422:
168:
2018:
Okay, so perhaps the close wasn't the best per the closing admin's retrospective analysis
1956:
1359:
1229:
984:
869:
806:
783:
751:
569:
297:
You wanna play? - If you don't want to answer this, you might comment on my first line, --
264:
164:
1804:
1747:
1185:
Unfortunately, as of late arbcom has been none of these. In recent months I've observed:
595:
1656:
no only can you check out at any time, you can, and probably should, leave, if it's not
1850:
1813:
1794:
1398:
1305:
Please list at least one pro and one con of having non-administrators serve on ArbCom.
54:
2031:
1418:
478:
459:
372:
97:, should be considered in the future? If so, how could they be made more effective?
1803:
This is a hypothetical that is somewhat based on real threads that have occurred on
1715:
think it'll come out sooner or later. Note, this too, is beyond the scope of arbcom.
1555:
1513:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/NE Ent
1224:
A committee which is talks overly tough but acts weak does not inspire confidence.
1854:
1560:
1545:
794:
494:
390:
368:
1606:'s military origins; that is not a good title. As an individual, I would support
719:
Do you see value in Admonishments and Warnings as remedies at the end of a case?
473:
148:
Thank you for running, Ent--we know Ents don't run gladly and only of necessity.
1602:
badge of shame posted on their talk page. Outside of arbcom, I'll note the term
1517:
1502:
1324:
1282:
1278:
1138:
1051:
guideline makes no reference to authorship to determine placement of an infobox.
548:
skills; it real life, I have decades of experience of being wrong -- please see
529:
142:
946:
simplified approached to banned editors (see answer to Drmies question, above)
1784:
1725:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#Remedies
1620:
1603:
1481:
1274:
1446:
How many hours per week do you plan to work on the Arbitration Committee?--
1385:
1047:, which endorsed the concept of article ownership contrary to policy: the
425:
that proper evaluation of a diff must include review of what led up to it.
549:
2038:
Knowledge (XXG) Arbitration Committee Elections 2015 candidate questions
63:
In general, does enforcing civility harm free speech? Does it help it?
1150:
603:
1746:
on the subject, anecdotes of their off-Wiki involvement in the topic,
1652:(as a necessary side effect of maintaining encyclopedic quality.) At
339:) to arbitration supervision, where such a thing would not happen. I
1461:
As little as possible while meeting the responsibilities of the job.
357:
The edit was unproblematic and actually made Knowledge (XXG) better.
2007:, rather than strictly judging community consensus as specified at
1365:
Hi, and thank you for running for Arbcom. These questions focus on
345:
1858:
247:
provides no policy preference for inclusion or exclusion, per the
889:, who is bad person, inferior to us enlightened folk!" nonsense.
2016:, I may have mis-interpreted the closing administrators remarks.
1629:
Please accept my apologies for the lateness of these questions.
1913:
1146:
637:
You're mistaken; the current committee has disbanded BASC per
590:
was created in 2009 to investigate improper tool usage of our
417:
way with the editor in whose talk space he made such an edit?
351:
39:
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
1992:
I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position.
1866:
1648:
Knowledge (XXG) sanctions are very much about keeping people
18:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015
1893:
experience within Knowledge (XXG) dispute resolution forums.
1168:
For the sake of the project, an arbcom committee should be:
187:, but the fly in the ointment is what to do vis-a-vis socks.
1935:
There are 1,840 million speakers of English, according to
1750:
for exclusion of material, "hatting" of discussions, and
1013:
this little box doesn't work very well, sorry, answer is
711:
cease to participate in the community after its removal.
524:
of being an arbitrator? How have you prepared for this?
2019:
2014:
2004:
2001:
1888:
source indicates 80% of linux developers are paid; the
1732:
1405:
as part of their justification for site banning Alice?
1248:
1157:
1134:
1037:
897:
857:
853:
738:
Does the workshop serve as a useful portion of a case?
541:
536:
et. al. I concluded it would be insane to do this. The
469:
468:
In your statement, you said that if elected, you would
327:
282:
209:
2005:
a balance of the consensus and my personal assessment
1611:
simply, "when necessary to block editors, be polite."
1587:
Arbcom the institution itself isn't polite: although
831:
Not a well thought out question, for a few reasons.
215:
Not sure I would close it -- was it listed as an RFC?
1636:
lead to this view enabled by AN/I, AE & ArbCom?
1579:
the solution: Arbcom 2011/2012 took on the issue in
447:
contact the committee upon their return" provision.
331:. I find it kafkaesque and remember the opening of
1853:created a community of programmers working on the
328:he creates half of his featured content with women
1734:; I believe pending changes is a better solution.
1857:1991. the community grew since then to nowadays
1247:, once a consensus is reached I get onboard and
1149:of en-wiki when it's really just the tough-job
171:, I'm volunteering to resolve conduct disputes.
1970:For the record, I encouraged Neelix to resign
2009:Knowledge (XXG):Closing_discussions#Consensus
1982:, which the community polices very well, and
474:Australian Customs and Quarantine Regulations
161:User:NE_Ent/Candidate_Statement#Metamorphosis
8:
1861:, 5 times more than 10 years ago. alone the
668:a topic ban to a site ban in response to an
881:," which reads like grandstanding "Look at
1783:Many thanks in advance for any answers. -
1748:epistemological first principle reasoning
1115:
1090:
1015:
542:It doesn't suck as much as they're saying
1516:are interested in administrative tasks.
470:"sing the WMF confidentiality agreement"
1245:prohibiting IPs from filing IP requests
1204:Another hasty, non-emergency desysop.
852:Finally, as previously explained at
349:'s "no foul, play on" more often, or
7:
1995:editor. Honestly, I don't think the
1583:and didn't come up with much beyond
845:Secondly, as I clearly stated in my
800:Knowledge (XXG)'s Hostility to Women
210:Talk:Joseph (opera)#Restore infobox?
93:statements, such as been done once
940:eliminating BASC (already done)
32:
682:violations of the civility policy
1554:Hello, NE Ent. I just read your
1114:
1089:
1014:
1004:
202:Thank you for stepping forward!
435:substantial reasons for absence
702:exists? How would you fix it?
1:
1879:15:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
1822:02:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
1788:15:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
1569:14:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
1526:01:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
1487:03:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
1456:19:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
1258:23:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
1084:11:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
1058:02:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
1043:An example of the latter was
998:20:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
955:01:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
931:Knowledge (XXG):The Committee
910:22:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
819:17:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
773:01:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
647:16:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
620:16:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
559:12:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
504:11:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
488:11:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
307:12:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
291:17:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
277:22:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
259:22:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
239:19:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
1930:02:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
1673:Yes, probably bad, not much.
1346:01:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
540:I've heard is Newyorkbrad's
1074:Why did you decide to run?
680:Nearly every case involves
2054:
656:Current Disputes and Cases
472:. Will it sound like the "
1918:87% of American citizens.
1863:linux kernel mailing list
937:my words. I'd support:
117:Arbitration enforcement 2
104:wmf:Staff and contractors
1125:I've already referenced
1032:Knowledge (XXG) policy.
698:Do you believe that the
631:Ban Appeals Subcommittee
1867:20'000 messages a month
1323:Thanks for responding,
1156:A long time arbitrator
885:removing comments from
528:No problem! please see
1654:Hotel Knowledge (XXG),
1230:"The Man in the Arena"
1859:5'000 commits a month
1731:I opposed the notion
1608:Amnesty International
1439:Question by Müdigkeit
399:Can a case be opened
341:offered some thoughts
281:No. I was looking at
1990:is the Wale's quote
1890:Wikimedia Foundation
1581:Civility enforcement
365:previously indicated
115:to the current case
35:Individual questions
1865:receives more than
1241:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS
847:candidate statement
700:Super Mario Problem
371:near the summit of
185:User:NE_Ent/Extinct
1842:User:ThurnerRupert
1292:affirmative action
1234:Theodore Roosevelt
1158:has noted about me
1066:User:Beyond My Ken
588:Audit Subcommittee
249:closing discussion
229:Imagine it was, --
95:on a previous case
1988:WP:Administrators
1712:assume good faith
1556:notes on civility
1469:Question by Atsme
1256:
1181:Strong, Steadfast
1056:
953:
908:
894:
836:Technology Review
798:by Emma Paling, "
771:
709:user access level
645:
618:
557:
502:
343:, wishing to see
337:"not a fun place"
333:The Metamorphosis
289:
257:
45:|Q=Your question
2045:
1642:Hotel California
1601:
1595:
1589:community policy
1536:in article talk.
1484:
1341:
1334:
1252:
1127:WP:The Committee
1118:
1117:
1093:
1092:
1052:
1018:
1017:
1012:
1008:
1007:
994:
992:
987:
982:
949:
904:
890:
877:
814:
767:
731:Insider Baseball
641:
614:
612:already answered
553:
534:User:AGK/ACE2012
515:Worm That Turned
498:
485:
354:
348:
330:
285:
253:
69:Note on civility
48:
43:#{{ACE Question
2053:
2052:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2028:
2027:
2022:
1960:
1957:User:Wikimandia
1945:
1906:
1894:
1845:
1833:
1798:
1777:
1760:
1735:
1716:
1710:. Personally I
1694:
1674:
1661:
1624:
1619:Questions from
1612:
1599:
1593:
1549:
1537:
1506:
1494:
1482:
1478:WP:POV_railroad
1471:
1462:
1441:
1432:
1422:
1410:
1389:
1363:
1340:
1337:
1329:
1310:
1268:
1263:Questions from
1194:The debacle of
1119:
1095:
1094:wait for it ...
1069:
1020:
1005:
1003:
990:
985:
980:
978:
969:
957:
920:
880:
875:
817:
812:
787:
775:
755:
743:
733:
724:
712:
691:
673:
658:
649:
622:
581:
573:
568:Questions from
561:
518:
506:
483:
463:
451:
426:
409:
394:
389:Questions from
382:
350:
344:
326:
265:Gianni Schicchi
216:
200:
195:Questions from
188:
172:
165:Outliers (book)
146:
141:Questions from
134:
107:
85:
71:
58:
53:Questions from
42:
37:
30:
29:
28:
12:
11:
5:
2051:
2049:
2041:
2040:
2030:
2029:
2026:
2025:
2024:
2023:
2017:
2012:
1969:
1963:
1959:
1955:Question from
1953:
1951:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1934:
1909:
1905:
1901:Question from
1899:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1883:
1851:linus torvalds
1848:
1844:
1840:Question from
1838:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1826:
1801:
1797:
1795:User:Blackmane
1793:Question from
1791:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1770:
1765:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1757:
1744:personal views
1740:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1730:
1721:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1708:WP:Three steps
1705:
1699:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1684:
1679:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1672:
1666:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1639:
1633:
1623:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1573:
1552:
1548:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1530:
1509:
1505:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1491:
1474:
1470:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1460:
1444:
1440:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1430:
1425:
1421:
1417:Question from
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1408:
1399:Wikipediocracy
1394:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1383:
1373:
1362:
1358:Question from
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1338:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1308:
1303:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1271:
1267:
1265:GrammarFascist
1261:
1222:
1221:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1212:
1205:
1202:
1192:
1191:
1183:
1182:
1179:
1176:
1173:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1112:
1100:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1088:
1072:
1068:
1064:Question from
1062:
1061:
1060:
1041:
1038:prior comments
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1002:
972:
968:
964:Question from
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
948:
947:
944:
941:
929:
923:
919:
915:Question from
913:
872:
826:
825:
824:
823:
809:
803:
790:
786:
782:Question from
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
764:editor portion
761:
754:
750:Question from
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
741:
736:
732:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
722:
717:
715:
714:
713:
705:
696:
694:
693:
692:
688:
678:
676:
675:
674:
666:
661:
657:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
636:
627:
625:
624:
623:
610:
584:
580:
577:
572:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
527:
521:
517:
513:Question from
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
492:
466:
462:
458:Question from
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
448:
445:
442:such section?
431:
429:
428:
427:
420:
414:
412:
411:
410:
406:
397:
393:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
362:
323:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
295:
294:
293:
220:
219:
218:
217:
214:
206:
199:
193:
192:
191:
190:
189:
182:
177:
175:
174:
173:
158:
152:
145:
139:
138:
137:
136:
135:
132:
126:
124:
123:
122:
112:
110:
109:
108:
100:
90:
88:
87:
86:
82:
76:
74:
73:
72:
66:
61:
57:
51:
50:
46:
44:
36:
33:
31:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2050:
2039:
2036:
2035:
2033:
2020:
2015:
2010:
2006:
2002:
1998:
1993:
1989:
1985:
1981:
1977:
1973:
1968:
1967:
1964:
1962:
1961:
1958:
1954:
1952:
1942:
1938:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1919:
1915:
1910:
1908:
1907:
1904:
1900:
1891:
1887:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1871:ThurnerRupert
1868:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1849:
1847:
1846:
1843:
1839:
1831:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1810:
1806:
1802:
1800:
1799:
1796:
1792:
1790:
1789:
1786:
1775:
1769:
1768:
1766:
1764:
1756:
1755:
1753:
1752:snide attacks
1749:
1745:
1741:
1739:
1733:
1729:
1728:
1726:
1722:
1720:
1713:
1709:
1704:
1703:
1700:
1698:
1692:
1688:
1683:
1682:
1680:
1678:
1671:
1670:
1667:
1665:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1643:
1638:
1637:
1634:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1627:
1622:
1618:
1609:
1605:
1598:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1557:
1553:
1551:
1550:
1547:
1543:
1535:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1514:
1510:
1508:
1507:
1504:
1500:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1485:
1479:
1475:
1473:
1472:
1468:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1443:
1442:
1438:
1429:
1428:
1426:
1424:
1423:
1420:
1416:
1407:
1406:
1404:
1400:
1395:
1393:
1387:
1382:
1381:
1379:
1374:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1368:
1361:
1357:
1347:
1344:
1342:
1335:
1332:
1326:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1307:
1306:
1304:
1302:
1301:
1296:
1295:
1293:
1289:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1270:
1269:
1266:
1262:
1260:
1259:
1255:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1237:
1235:
1231:
1225:
1218:
1213:
1210:
1209:
1206:
1203:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1180:
1177:
1174:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1166:
1163:
1159:
1154:
1152:
1148:
1142:
1140:
1135:
1132:
1128:
1111:
1110:
1108:
1107:
1101:
1099:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1071:
1070:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1050:
1049:WP:INFOBOXUSE
1046:
1042:
1039:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1030:
1011:
1001:
1000:
999:
996:
995:
993:
988:
983:
973:
971:
970:
967:
963:
956:
952:
945:
942:
939:
938:
936:
932:
928:
927:
924:
922:
921:
918:
917:Rcsprinter123
914:
912:
911:
907:
901:
899:
893:
888:
884:
878:
871:
867:
862:
858:
855:
850:
848:
843:
840:
837:
832:
830:
822:
821:
820:
815:
808:
801:
797:
796:
791:
789:
788:
785:
781:
774:
770:
765:
760:
759:
757:
756:
753:
749:
740:
739:
737:
735:
734:
730:
721:
720:
718:
716:
710:
704:
703:
701:
697:
695:
687:
686:
683:
679:
677:
671:
665:
664:
662:
660:
659:
655:
648:
644:
640:
635:
634:
632:
628:
626:
621:
617:
613:
609:
608:
606:
605:
601:
600:functionaries
597:
593:
589:
585:
583:
582:
579:Subcommittees
578:
576:
571:
567:
560:
556:
551:
547:
546:WP:Other duck
543:
539:
535:
531:
526:
525:
522:
520:
519:
516:
512:
505:
501:
496:
491:
490:
489:
486:
481:
480:
475:
471:
467:
465:
464:
461:
457:
444:
443:
441:
436:
432:
430:
424:
419:
418:
415:
413:
405:
404:
402:
398:
396:
395:
392:
388:
381:
377:
374:
373:Mount Everest
370:
366:
361:
360:
358:
353:
347:
342:
338:
334:
329:
324:
322:
321:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
283:
280:
279:
278:
274:
270:
267:, perhaps? --
266:
262:
261:
260:
256:
250:
246:
245:WP:INFOBOXUSE
242:
241:
240:
236:
232:
228:
227:
226:
225:
224:
223:
222:
221:
213:
212:
211:
207:
205:
204:
203:
198:
194:
186:
181:
180:
178:
176:
170:
166:
162:
157:
156:
153:
151:
150:
149:
144:
140:
131:
130:
127:
125:
121:
120:
118:
113:
111:
105:
99:
98:
96:
91:
89:
81:
80:
77:
75:
70:
65:
64:
62:
60:
59:
56:
52:
49:
40:
34:
27:
23:
19:
1991:
1984:WP:ADMINCOND
1950:
1941:source paper
1922:Kevin Gorman
1903:Kevin Gorman
1855:linux kernel
1830:WP:EMERGENCY
1782:
1773:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1628:
1625:
1576:
1544:Question by
1501:Question by
1386:wikt:joe job
1364:
1330:
1287:
1238:
1226:
1223:
1193:
1184:
1167:
1161:
1155:
1143:
1124:
1105:
1104:
1028:
1025:
1009:
977:
976:
934:
902:
886:
882:
865:
861:WP:BANREVERT
854:Founder talk
851:
844:
833:
828:
827:
795:The Atlantic
793:
602:
596:Oversighters
574:
537:
495:Vogon poetry
477:
439:
434:
400:
369:Hillary Step
299:Gerda Arendt
269:Gerda Arendt
231:Gerda Arendt
201:
197:Gerda Arendt
147:
79:gender gap?
41:
38:
1980:WP:INVOLVED
1706:Please see
1597:Banned user
1283:Triesenberg
1139:septic tank
639:this motion
592:Check Users
346:Floquenbeam
159:Please see
2013:Note: per
1687:WP:CESSPIT
1604:Task Force
1511:I read on
1360:Brustopher
1249:support it
1190:resigned.)
1178:Thoughtful
1175:Deliberate
1172:Minimalist
870:Smallbones
807:Smallbones
784:Smallbones
752:Biblioworm
570:Guerillero
530:wikt:naive
22:Candidates
1814:Blackmane
1448:Müdigkeit
1403:WP:OUTING
1384:Yes, see
1378:WP:OUTING
1367:WP:OUTING
1220:happened.
1045:Infoboxes
898:"a troll"
876:smalltalk
813:smalltalk
685:problem?
55:Antony–22
2032:Category
1997:WP:OWNER
1660:anymore.
1419:SNUGGUMS
1339:contribs
1151:janitors
866:Naughty,
829:Answer:
550:marriage
460:Graham87
363:As I've
24: |
20: |
1774:another
1759:option.
1691:WP:IDHT
1561:SageRad
1546:SageRad
1333:Fascist
1331:Grammar
868:signed
670:WP:ARCA
604:en banc
401:without
391:Collect
380:WP:ARCA
352:Yunshui
1976:WP:Rfa
1809:WP:ANI
1534:WP:RFC
1518:4nn1l2
1503:4nn1l2
1325:NE Ent
1254:NE Ent
1113:tada!
1054:NE Ent
951:NE Ent
935:mostly
906:NE Ent
892:NE Ent
838:piece
769:NE Ent
643:NE Ent
616:NE Ent
555:NE Ent
500:NE Ent
479:Graham
423:WP:WQA
287:NE Ent
255:NE Ent
169:WP:TFA
143:Drmies
47:|A=}}
26:NE Ent
1805:WP:AN
1785:Ryk72
1621:Ryk72
1483:Atsme
1288:won't
1279:trans
1019:there
966:Yash!
163:. In
16:<
1972:here
1926:talk
1886:This
1875:talk
1818:talk
1807:and
1565:talk
1522:talk
1452:talk
1409:Yes.
1141:."
1131:spam
1106:sure
1080:talk
1010:Done
629:The
594:and
586:The
538:best
493:See
440:each
355:'s "
303:talk
273:talk
243:"As
235:talk
1914:EFF
1723:In
1658:fun
1650:out
1646:in,
1577:not
1327:. —
1275:cis
1232:by
1196:AE2
1162:not
1147:CEO
1076:BMK
933:is
887:him
802:”.
2034::
1937:us
1928:)
1920:)
1877:)
1820:)
1600:}}
1594:{{
1567:)
1524:)
1454:)
1277:,
1251:.
1153:.
1082:)
1029:be
986:sh
981:Ya
900:.
883:me
859:.
552:.
497:.
484:87
359:"
305:)
275:)
237:)
1924:(
1873:(
1832:.
1816:(
1563:(
1520:(
1450:(
1078:(
1040:.
991:!
879:)
873:(
816:)
810:(
301:(
271:(
233:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.