1013:
can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're
American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Knowledge (XXG) is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Knowledge (XXG), so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of
1167:
referred to as "the elephant in the room." Partly because such decisions aren't binding on the committee (the committee is supposed to learn through experience) I'd like to be sure I know where incoming members of the committee stand. Whether or not they continue to uphold the principle that the community is subsidiary to the encyclopedia, I'd like them to know what is expected of them, and in turn I'd like to be sure that they're prepared to hold the line and support the encyclopedia, in the pinch, against the community. --
946:"I strongly believe that the Committee's real purpose is to prevent further damage to the project by taking measures as we see fit, not to mete out some form of 'justice' as punishment of those deemed to have done wrong. Where I have considered banning people, it is not because I think that they "deserve" it in some way, but more that I regretfully doubt that their continued presence is not damaging to the project."
1043:. Yes, there is an issue. But the ArbCom is not legislative, does not set policy, and only polices policy in the sense that when people bring cases the background is policy. I'm putting myself forward as an experienced Wikipedian who understands the editing process and the people issues. Not as someone who has a full policy platform for the English Knowledge (XXG). I would never claim to have all the answers.
468:? Whether you think it should be a formal policy or not, do you believe you would generally act in accordance with it? What aspects of it do you think should not be there, or to put it another way, are there any proposals there which you can think of good reasons to ignore on a regular basis? (Please date any replies to this question as the proposal may well change over time.)
1151:
as in a legal case. They may well come up in discussion, and be aired. Elect a new ArbCom and they can't be binding principles on the arbitrators. But I'm still not really comfortable with this. Of course if you want to say 'disruptive behaviour', which is the main remit of the ArbCom, you need to be
1057:
was an unfortunate grammar error. Thanks for your prompt and frank response. So you don't think that the arbitrators' work involves providing guidance, in the form of statements of principle that guide the interpretation of the fact in a case, on the values and policies of the encyclopedia project?
778:
If I didn't have confidence in people's ability to draw their own conclusions, and their good sense, I wouldn't stand in elections here. Try a spell-checker, if you are going to paste something all around the site; it shows some basic respect. And don't use policy as a cudgel. Of course the community
910:
Page is protected, 30 Talk archives, talk coming in at 20K daily. A magic wand would be good. I wouldn't want this sort of page protected for more than a week. My general feeling is that edit wars distract from the creation of specialised articles. People should engage. Arguments over prominence and
703:
As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community
1012:
when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we
963:
I agree with James. The ArbCom has a primary duty, and that is to protect the good work that goes on daily, in every time zone it seems, of building an awesome encyclopedic resource for all online folk. Our community is actually quite robust, but in the end the ArbCom does have to ban people (which
475:
I have given some answer above already. The ArbCom are 'arbitrators', rather than a judiciary or executive, whatever people may think. If the community wants the best out of them, they should lay off the hypothetical questions, and elect members with a clear stake in the success of
Knowledge (XXG).
306:
that ArbCom is "about getting the trains to run on time," which is a reference to a fulfulled promise of
Mussolini's fascist government. Do you agree that Knowledge (XXG) needs to become more orderly, and if so, do you think there are any options other than a move toward a more centrally controlled
93:
You stated "I haven't been quite as active in 2005 as in 2004, for a couple of reasons I won't go into." Fair enough, but could you tell us whether these reasons involve disputes with
Wikipedians, or person things unrelated to Knowledge (XXG)? Also, in what circumstances would you, if elected, step
1166:
Sorry if I seem to be giving you a hard time. I voted for you and I think you'll make a fine arbitrator, whatever your answers here. Nevertheless as a participant in this election I would like to know what the candidates think of what another prominent candidate in a conversation with me recently
1017:
does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?)
52:
Q: If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With
1025:
I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of
Knowledge (XXG) policy in the light of
1120:
I find CM's response to Tony's orginal question a little bit strange: I recall that ArbCom precedents are explicitly regarded as having force. I can understand many ArbCom members wanting to avoid general pronouncements, but to try to claim that ArbCom has nothing to do with making policy seems
1072:
The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information to its readers. Although
Knowledge (XXG) has a strong community of editors, it is important to remember that Knowledge (XXG) is primarily for its readers, and that the activities of the community must be dedicated to that
258:
In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this
104:
These things get intrusive. The reasons were (a) a book to write (b) an intermittent fault with my
Internet connection, only sorted out two weeks ago (rain in a cable box). I could imagine numerous life-changes that would make me step down from the ArbCom. Nothing that I anticipate.
783:
at the door here; not be probed about it once they are in. I think those who use these polarizing tactics on
Wikipedians are destructive. I reject the whole business of putting Wikipedians on a left-right or any other spectrum. Judge people only on their work in improving articles.
856:
659:
of deprivation of admin powers is usefully something the ArbCom can use. I feel currently that it is most appropriate when admin powers have been abused. Clearly admin powers and their abuse is something the ArbCom has to look at, but there is no like-for-like
1185:. We all probably have nuanced forms of 'mission statement' in mind, but people work together here anyway without signing up to an exact wording. I can assure you that I'm against divisive developments, and for getting the encyclopedia written.
409:
in the process of building a factually accurate encyclopedia? How do you view editors who are normally correct in article namespace, but who may be perceived as rude – including to longtime, popular editors and admins – on Talk pages and the
277:
Would it be right therefore to conclude that you do not feel the committee always has a duty to consider whether the actions of parties other than the individual in question are to blame for their action? (this is a question about fair
21:
434:
Do you have an academic background of any kind, and if so, in what field? How do you handle critiques from your peers and professors (assuming those aren’t one and the same), which may be sharply worded or otherwise skirt the edges of
61:, an obvious target for POV edits, in reasonable shape since Ed Poor created it. I don't seek out contentious matters, but neither do I run away from them if they get on my watchlist. (One exception was getting involved with
779:
should have a mechanism for removing any powers, at a pinch, but petitions are not a sound way. What you suggest is wide open to obvious abuse and demagogy, and could do huge damage to WP. And people should leave their
450:
I have a doctorate in mathematics, and around 15 years of rubbing shoulders in that field. I'm pretty much aware of the kind of language used by experts - I could name some of the top guys who I have seen close up. .
1138:
So you don't think that the arbitrators' work involves providing guidance, in the form of statements of principle that guide the interpretation of the fact in a case, on the values and policies of the encyclopedia
283:
It would be fair to conclude that I'm not going to come down one way or the other on questions posed in general terms. (The ArbCom is not a legal body, and I think it is unhelpful to phrase things as if it is.)
1091:
381:
What it really says is - we are given discretion round here. We are very much judged by how we use that discretion; that's how the wiki idea works. I don't think it's an admin thing. It says the rules are
720:
your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?
188:
Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?
698:
Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?
964:
simply means they can no longer edit the
English Knowledge (XXG)). It can be best for everybody, or just for the thousands of good editors. Anyway punitive considerations are a distraction.
211:
Not a reasonable question - I have plenty of opinions but to answer you I'd have to figure what others might judge to be significant. I'm against torture, by the way, judicial or otherwise.
17:
845:
The ArbCom can be expanded within reason, to meet demand. I'm not going to make pledges in ignorance of the facts, which I think would be apparent to an ArbCom member but not outside.
321:
worked perfectly. No Golden Age - and Jimbo agrees. I'm not for centralising because it's absurd to think anyone could manage the
English Knowledge (XXG), for sheer reasons of scale.
162:
I would try to do something sensible and compatible with the overall mission. WP's policies are not drafted professionally, so let's not pretend they're engraved on stone tablets.
841:
3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?
670:
in an abstract way. It's always going to be case-by-case. I've edited thousands of articles, and come across hundreds of Wikipedians. I'm not going to tie my hands on this.
824:
802:
465:
332:
130:
I could mention small group teaching in a university, and attendance at meetings in academia and a voluntary organisation. Also UseNet in an area or two of my expertise.
1189:
1175:
1160:
1125:
1102:
1047:
1034:
978:
968:
957:
929:
919:
904:
879:
867:
849:
835:
817:
788:
770:
738:
728:
681:
638:
587:
571:
557:
543:
520:
509:
491:
480:
455:
425:
390:
375:
353:
343:
325:
311:
288:
272:
251:
235:
215:
206:
197:
166:
156:
134:
124:
109:
98:
550:
If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom deliberations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?
386:
than taking some personal responsibility within the project. You don't therefore 'invoke' it. You appeal to wiki-experience in sticking your neck out, on occasion.
673:
Jimbo can review them, no? You want an appeal court? If the trend to legalism prevails, it will do WP no good, even if it looks like a tidy constitution on paper.
303:
417:
A lack of civility narrows the range of likely editors (rudeness is accepted mostly by the young and male) and I would therefore say it is detrimental on the
193:
Yes, I have opinions. I think they are not such as to make me recuse, and in any case personal connections with people are much more likely to affect that.
1131:
I have twice above given my comments on precedent. I certainly don't think what the ArbCom has done in the past should necessarily be done in the future.
1058:
Suppose you were an arbitrator in a case in which one of the parties proposed the following principle in a workshop, what would be your comment on it?
202:
Could you give us a rough idea of what subject area these opinions fall under. (You needn't tell us exactly which side of the fence you fall on)? --
53:
reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator.
152:
makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do?
953:
Are you agree with your colleague? If not, please explain you view on the purpose of the Arbitration Committee and the role of punishment.--
74:
1141:
This is about 'WP is an encyclopedia', with a link to Jimbo's talk page about an AfD closure. An ArbCom decision of today. OK, maybe what
1069:"Our fundamental goal here is to write a comprehensive high quality encyclopedia, and our social rules are in service to this mission."
242:
Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?
758:
Thank-you. I'm sure the readers will be able to draw their own conclusions from your lack of response, and your apparant violation of
992:
567:
I might do 20%-25% less. My basic belief remains that those who provide content are good guardians of the Knowledge (XXG) mission.
302:
Many people have noted that Knowledge (XXG)'s original communitarian structure is no longer functioning very well. One editor has
759:
502:
120:
Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease?
763:
44:
Q: How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?
231:
I'm a naturally obstinate person, in general, but I have had much less friction with Wikipedians than in other contexts.
307:
authoritarian system? Do you think that the spirit of cooperation in Knowledge (XXG) would survive such a change?
264:
I have no comment, other than the ArbCom should do its job and not get tangled in precedents. By the way I added
628:
265:
863:
I have not voted there. I like to edit articles and improve the encyclopedia. That's what I come here for.
1172:
1099:
1031:
439:
even if they are correct? Considering those professors who have recently had you as a student, what would
604:
Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions?
582:
553:
Well, there should be time to spare. My main areas have been mathematics, poetry, adding bibliographies.
1186:
1157:
1044:
965:
916:
864:
846:
832:
814:
785:
735:
678:
568:
554:
540:
517:
477:
452:
422:
387:
350:
336:
322:
285:
269:
248:
232:
212:
194:
163:
131:
106:
436:
406:
516:
No, it's too legalistic, expects too much from precedents, and resembles a charter for wikilawyering.
226:
How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?
121:
488:
398:
1009:
36:
Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)
607:
Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of
991:, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on
1168:
1095:
1027:
655:
Admins should not be held to different standards as far as everyday editing is concerned. The
624:
1014:
709:
926:
901:
857:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules
1005:
704:
in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?
608:
368:
149:
874:
827:
that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.
340:
915:. Hive things off, get the smarter folk working on detailed parts of the bigger picture.
153:
142:
1041:
interpreting the interpretation of Knowledge (XXG) policy in the light of this concern
66:
663:
Quite likely that they are not assuming good faith. Why use a word like 'violation'?
1147:
975:
954:
893:
621:
594:
506:
364:
I'll probably end up posing this question to all whose views I don't already know:
308:
95:
677:; wiki is a system of permissions, from which a co-operative community can arise.
182:
The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you
1122:
988:
634:
631:
617:
Do you think that Arbitration Committee decisions should be able to be reviewed?
579:
528:
70:
536:
How much of your Knowledge (XXG) time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?
371:? When, if ever, should the rule be invoked to justify administrative action?
813:
is pretty bad and an invitation to the wikilawyers to dicker on about 'bias'.
767:
725:
372:
203:
174:
81:
Q: Please list out what other Knowledge (XXG) usernames you have edited under.
58:
897:
885:
873:
Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —
831:
I have given an example. Don't ask me to draft someone else's manifesto.
62:
247:
No, but the Internet throws up plenty of the 'vexatious litigant' type.
1136:
Otherwise, I'm getting a little puzzled as to the exact question here.
750:
Whether you believe the community should be able to remove arbitrators
601:
What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?
666:
If closely and personally involved, I would recuse. I can't define
652:, in which case I think 'public hearings' would not be appropriate.
65:
in a face-off situation.) A recent example that came my way was at
614:
How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?
801:
1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at
911:
ordering should be secondary to improving content and coverage
148:
Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then
803:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct#Recusal
18:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006
539:
What I have answered above: at least half an hour per day.
294:--Victim of signature fascism 16:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
859:? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.
31:
Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk
1070:
1020:
1001:
939:
James F. have written in his statement the following:
734:
I'll answer when you learn to spell and not to troll.
688:
Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-
405:
How do you view the role (and relative importance) of
825:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct
466:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct
333:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct
443:
tell me if I asked them the same question about you?
73:
to keep it informative. I run a major clean-up from
712:. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a
349:I doubt a code would add to community confidence.
1008:. In particular, I feel that these templates are
564:To what extent would those projects be affected?
317:I've only been here two-and-a-bit years, but it
1018:where it is more appropriate and less divisive.
798:I am asking these questions of all candidates:
1090:As per unanimous decision (8-0) in the recent
48:A: 15 or more; yes, I'll make that commitment
8:
497:Support Knowledge (XXG):User Bill of Rights?
367:What is, in your opinion, the proper use of
1181:Like I say in my statement, I believe it's
1004:surviving AfD that appear to contrast with
464:What are your views on the proposed policy
675:Wiki does not work on the basis of rights
648:should be transparent; you may mean the
337:User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question
984:Concerns over personal attack templates
1039:I think I might have been spared the
993:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy)
7:
1145:is that such things are mostly like
935:Punishment (a question from AndriyK)
811:any significant conflict of interest
75:User:Charles Matthews/Imperial Japan
794:Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion
760:Knowledge (XXG):No personal attacks
753:Whether you edit according to NPOV.
503:Knowledge (XXG):User Bill of Rights
1063:Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia
28:
1152:able to answer 'disrupting what?'
1055:interpretating the interpretation
764:Knowledge (XXG):Assume good faith
331:Do you support the creation of a
781:political or religious viewpoint
397:Questions to many candidates by
335:as I have just now suggested at
747:So you are unwilling to answer
693:(Being asked of all candidates)
94:down before your term is up? –
710:wikipedia has a policy of NPOV
1:
682:19:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
639:16:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
588:06:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
572:07:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
558:07:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
544:07:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
521:10:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
510:05:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
492:08:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
481:09:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
456:09:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
426:09:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
391:18:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
376:17:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
354:00:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
344:18:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
289:00:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
216:16:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
207:16:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
125:21:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
1190:07:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
1176:23:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
1161:22:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
1126:22:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
1103:22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
1048:21:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
1035:20:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
979:07:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
969:20:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
958:19:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
930:19:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
326:19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
312:15:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
273:19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
268:, a long time ago it seems.
252:19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
236:19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
198:19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
167:19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
157:18:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
135:19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
116:Form question by Snowspinner
110:16:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
99:15:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
974:Thanks. I'll support you.--
920:23:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
905:18:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
880:06:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
868:09:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
855:4. Have you voted over at
850:09:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
836:09:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
823:2. Are there any parts of
818:09:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
789:15:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
771:15:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
768:Victim of signature fascism
739:09:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
729:01:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
726:Victim of signature fascism
204:Victim of signature fascism
85:A: I only use my real name
1206:
892:How would you resolve the
69:. I have done plenty with
527:Questions being asked by
1183:mainly about the content
1078:Comment by Arbitrators:
266:argument from precedent
1000:I am concerned about
716:opinion or fact that
298:Question from Marsden
57:A: I think I've kept
1087:Comment by parties:
22:Candidate statements
1111:Comment by others:
141:Form Question from
1010:Poisoning the well
1006:established policy
384:not more important
925:You get my vote.
637:
531:to all candidates
1197:
1187:Charles Matthews
1158:Charles Matthews
1053:Yes, the phrase
1045:Charles Matthews
1026:this concern? --
966:Charles Matthews
917:Charles Matthews
865:Charles Matthews
847:Charles Matthews
833:Charles Matthews
815:Charles Matthews
786:Charles Matthews
736:Charles Matthews
679:Charles Matthews
627:
585:
569:Charles Matthews
555:Charles Matthews
541:Charles Matthews
518:Charles Matthews
478:Charles Matthews
453:Charles Matthews
423:Charles Matthews
388:Charles Matthews
351:Charles Matthews
323:Charles Matthews
286:Charles Matthews
270:Charles Matthews
249:Charles Matthews
233:Charles Matthews
213:Charles Matthews
195:Charles Matthews
164:Charles Matthews
132:Charles Matthews
107:Charles Matthews
89:Commitment level
1205:
1204:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1123:Charles Stewart
1065:
986:
937:
890:
809:The part about
796:
690:
598:
593:Questions from
583:
533:
501:Do you support
499:
402:
362:
300:
178:
173:Questions from
146:
118:
91:
33:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1203:
1201:
1193:
1192:
1164:
1163:
1154:
1153:
1133:
1132:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1092:webcomics case
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1064:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1023:
1022:
985:
982:
972:
971:
951:
950:
949:
948:
936:
933:
923:
922:
889:
883:
871:
870:
853:
852:
839:
838:
821:
820:
795:
792:
776:
775:
774:
773:
756:
755:
754:
751:
742:
741:
689:
686:
685:
684:
671:
664:
661:
653:
619:
618:
615:
612:
605:
602:
597:
591:
577:
576:
575:
574:
562:
561:
560:
548:
547:
546:
532:
525:
524:
523:
498:
495:
489:PurplePlatypus
486:
485:
484:
483:
470:
469:
461:
460:
459:
458:
445:
444:
431:
430:
429:
428:
412:
411:
401:
399:PurplePlatypus
395:
394:
393:
361:
358:
357:
356:
329:
328:
299:
296:
292:
291:
281:
280:
279:
255:
254:
239:
238:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
185:
184:
177:
171:
170:
169:
145:
139:
138:
137:
117:
114:
113:
112:
90:
87:
40:A: 51, writer
32:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1202:
1191:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1174:
1170:
1162:
1159:
1156:
1155:
1150:
1149:
1144:
1140:
1135:
1134:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1124:
1113:
1112:
1110:
1109:
1104:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1088:
1086:
1085:
1080:
1079:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1071:
1062:
1056:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1046:
1042:
1037:
1036:
1033:
1029:
1021:
1019:
1016:
1011:
1007:
1003:
998:
997:
996:
994:
990:
983:
981:
980:
977:
970:
967:
962:
961:
960:
959:
956:
947:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
934:
932:
931:
928:
921:
918:
914:
909:
908:
907:
906:
903:
899:
895:
887:
884:
882:
881:
878:
877:
869:
866:
862:
861:
860:
858:
851:
848:
844:
843:
842:
837:
834:
830:
829:
828:
826:
819:
816:
812:
808:
807:
806:
804:
799:
793:
791:
790:
787:
782:
772:
769:
765:
761:
757:
752:
749:
748:
746:
745:
744:
743:
740:
737:
733:
732:
731:
730:
727:
722:
721:
719:
715:
711:
706:
705:
700:
699:
695:
694:
687:
683:
680:
676:
672:
669:
665:
662:
658:
654:
651:
647:
643:
642:
641:
640:
636:
633:
630:
626:
623:
616:
613:
610:
606:
603:
600:
599:
596:
592:
590:
589:
586:
581:
573:
570:
566:
565:
563:
559:
556:
552:
551:
549:
545:
542:
538:
537:
535:
534:
530:
526:
522:
519:
515:
514:
513:
511:
508:
504:
496:
494:
493:
490:
482:
479:
474:
473:
472:
471:
467:
463:
462:
457:
454:
449:
448:
447:
446:
442:
438:
433:
432:
427:
424:
420:
419:systemic bias
416:
415:
414:
413:
408:
404:
403:
400:
396:
392:
389:
385:
380:
379:
378:
377:
374:
370:
365:
359:
355:
352:
348:
347:
346:
345:
342:
338:
334:
327:
324:
320:
316:
315:
314:
313:
310:
305:
297:
295:
290:
287:
282:
276:
275:
274:
271:
267:
263:
262:
261:
260:
253:
250:
246:
245:
244:
243:
237:
234:
230:
229:
228:
227:
217:
214:
210:
209:
208:
205:
201:
200:
199:
196:
192:
191:
190:
189:
183:
180:
179:
176:
172:
168:
165:
161:
160:
159:
158:
155:
151:
144:
140:
136:
133:
129:
128:
127:
126:
123:
122:Phil Sandifer
115:
111:
108:
103:
102:
101:
100:
97:
88:
86:
83:
82:
78:
76:
72:
68:
67:David Hilbert
64:
60:
55:
54:
49:
46:
45:
41:
38:
37:
30:
23:
19:
1182:
1169:Tony Sidaway
1165:
1148:obiter dicta
1146:
1142:
1137:
1119:
1096:Tony Sidaway
1068:
1066:
1054:
1040:
1038:
1028:Tony Sidaway
1024:
999:
987:
973:
952:
945:
938:
924:
912:
891:
875:
872:
854:
840:
822:
810:
800:
797:
780:
777:
723:
717:
713:
708:
707:
702:
701:
697:
696:
692:
691:
674:
667:
656:
649:
645:
620:
578:
500:
487:
440:
418:
383:
366:
363:
330:
318:
301:
293:
257:
256:
241:
240:
225:
224:
187:
186:
181:
147:
119:
92:
84:
80:
79:
56:
51:
50:
47:
43:
42:
39:
35:
34:
1121:naive. ---
989:User:Improv
927:Harrypotter
902:Harrypotter
718:contradicts
714:substantial
635:Eventualist
632:Darwikinian
629:Wishy Washy
437:WP:Civility
407:WP:Civility
71:Anglosphere
913:as a whole
341:Ted Wilkes
175:User:-Ril-
59:Mark Steyn
1002:templates
898:anarchism
894:situation
886:Anarchism
646:decisions
304:suggested
259:decision?
154:karmafist
143:karmafist
1139:project?
1073:purpose.
876:James S.
657:sanction
360:Question
63:Opus Dei
20: |
1143:I think
976:AndriyK
955:AndriyK
896:on the
668:closely
650:process
622:Zordrac
595:Zordrac
507:SEWilco
309:Marsden
96:Quadell
660:there.
625:(talk)
609:WP:AGF
529:Titoxd
421:side.
369:WP:IAR
278:trial)
150:WP:IAR
900:page?
410:like?
373:Xoloz
319:never
16:<
1173:Talk
1100:Talk
1094:. --
1032:Talk
1015:NPOV
888:page
766:. --
762:and
644:The
580:Tito
441:they
339:? -
1067:1)
505:? (
995::
805:?
724:--
584:xd
512:)
77:.
1171:|
1098:|
1030:|
611:?
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.