912:
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
571:
wannabe-legalistic manner, and is apt only for those who wish to "wiki-lawyer" their way out of the disrepute they so often manage to find themselves in. Certainly, yes, I do not think that it should be formally expressed as a written policy document. In terms of particular issues with the document, suggesting that
Arbitrator may not "present evidence to the case themselves" - where, exactly, are CheckUser findings meant to come from, then? - nor point out to interested parties that a case is going on are notable issues that I managed to find with just a cursory glance at the current version of one section alone.
825:"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."
567:"academic background", but... Criticism, when constructive and not merely divisve, is of course always welcome to me - the lengthy road to perfection, which perhaps we can all say we seek to travel, is a narrow one, and any help towards that is absolutely great and, I would like to think, well-received. As to whether my betters would say the same of me, that's not really something I could judge; sorry.
800:
violting NPA and AGF all the time, and genereally being a nuisance, and doing so despite repeated requests for them to cease such behaviour, then de-sysoping could well be appropriate (having lost the support and trust of the community to continue to carry out one's functions as a syop), despite (quite possibly) never having actually used the particular powers thereso entrusted.
549:? 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.)
799:
I do not agree with some of my colleagues on the
Committee who suggest that sysop and editor actions are wholly distinct, and specific abuse of the former, regardless of the actions within the scope of the later, is necessary before de-sysoping can be justified. For example, were a sysop to go around
791:
De-sysoping is a preventative measure that the
Committee can and does use as it sees fit. My personal opinion of de-sysoping is perhaps a little complicated: that being a sysop is "no big thing" creates an asymetric relation with its removal - if it's no major point to be sufficiently trusted to have
691:
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
566:
Academically, I have just finished an undergraduate degree (MEng) in
Computer Science. I am considering doing another degree, perhaps more. My parents are heavily involved in national and international education policy, and my uncle is an Oxbridge don. I suppose that that doesn't exactly count as an
177:
I do not think that the RfC had "consensus" of those who turned up to change the name. But this is irrelevent. Whether or not the RfC had consensus, there was outstanding unwritten policy (which, it should be pointed out, has evidently been rescinded, because there is no longer consensus support for
34:
Naturally, the duty of serving on the
Committee is a great one, both to Jimbo for the responsibility delegated to us, and to the Community, in representing its beliefs. Over the years that I have held an account on Knowledge (XXG), I have become very much attached to the community, and this focuses
911:
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
456:
Possibly. No, actually, almost certainly. The "spirit" is about working together to make something better for the world. If people can't do that because the feel the need to "stick it to the man" or whatever other clap-trap and nonsense, it may not necessarily be in
Knowledge (XXG)'s best interests
427:
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
368:
Could you therefore explain why you considered the case against me to be closed with all matters dealt with, when only a few days previously this very question had been raised and you failed to answer it, or indeed question in any way the editors opposing me that I had highlighted as having dubious
334:
As can be seen publically, and to much the same extent privately (on the private mailing list and IRC channel), I probably object and/or discuss possible changes to more items than the other
Arbitrators (though this is likely an artefact of working on more cases than many). I would continue this if
313:
Yes, quite a few, but this is irrelvent to the work of an
Arbitrator. Our job is to examine behaviour, not content, so personal opinions are not important. Of course, if someone ever managed to be so detestable to me that I would be unable to judge impartially (or, of course, if I were unable to be
916:
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?)
89:
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
924:
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
655:
I currently spend pretty much all of my Knowledge (XXG) (as opposed to Wikimedia) time on Arbitration business, though I include in that keeping up with policy changes and current events inside the bubble. I would envisage this continuing were I to be re-appointed by Jimbo following this election
562:
Civility is absolutely vital to the creation of community - it is the basis by which we can collaborate rather than merely argue, to create instead of destroy. It underpins every element of communication on Knowledge (XXG). It cannot be overstated. And yes, this does ultimately mean that we will
830:
On the other hand, you voted for banning me for one month "for creating irreversible page moves". Putting aside the question whether and how much the "irreversible page moves" disrupt Knowledge (XXG), I promiced do not do it anymore. How and in which way the one-month-ban would "prevent further
570:
As I have said before, at length, the proposed "code of conduct" is inappropriate, as it both sets the bar far too lowly in places, and also removes the ability of the system to react flexibly, as well as being inappropriate or just plain daft in others. In particular, it is written in a highly
38:
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
401:
The point I am referring to is "duty to investigate all users" where you reply that you agree that there is one, and that your actions in subsequent cases reflect this. Therefore, if your actions reflect this in subsequent cases, could you explain why you closed the case against me without (a)
298:
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
39:"deserve" it in some way, but more that I regretfully doubt that their continued presence is not damaging to the project. Of course, 'damage' is in the eye of the beholder, and so I hope that my decisions have reflected well the overall opinion of our Community.
747:
30:
As one of the original members of the Arbitration Committee, helping to formulate and pursue the Arbitration Policy, I would like to think that my actions and decisions over the past year speak for themselves, but I will try to distil my thoughts about it:
94:
A: I'm not entirely sure that this is aimed at me; I think my actions speak for themselves. If my experience as an Arbitrator does not convince people that I am able to continue to do so, then I don't think they should in all conscience support me.
529:
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
317:
What if the case involved behaviour by an editor which indicated they were (whether justifiably or not) acting in a manner strongly opposed to your political and religious opinions? Would you still refuse to recuse yourself, or would you do
251:
That is a good question. Essentially, I have used my common sense combined with historical perspective of how and why our policies have come about, and so what purpose they are actually intended to serve in our community. I hope that that
386:
I'm sorry, what? I agreed with your leading sub-text question that not "all requests to re-address cases are without merit". I didn't agree that all requests to re-address cases are not without merit, however. They are rather different
21:
533:
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
122:
As a current arbitrator, you're particularly well-suited to know the current problems with the arbcom. In your mind, what is the biggest problem with the arbcom, and what what will you do differently if reelected to help fix it?
500:
As I said on my talk page to you when you asked this question of me, I consider it unnecessary instruction creep, and feel that it goes nothing like far enough in what I hold as expectations of the behaviour of members of the
659:
As to projects, well, it's been over two years since I've not been an Arbitrator; I don't think there are any projects left (;-)) that need my attention over anyone else's; I am, after all, merely a small cog in a very great
563:
value the well-mannered over the 'expert'. Rudeness must be strongly discouraged at all times (though there are levels of it; mild curtness is not brilliant behaviour, but certainly isn't grounds for permanent banning :-)).
341:
Certainly not. We Arbitrators are human, and busy ones at that - it is absolutely imperative that we take the time to consider whether decisions we have made were in the project's best interests, and correct them if
42:
With this in mind, I would like to ask if you think me a suitable candidate to continue to represent us all in this most vital task of protecting the project from ourselves in our attempts to enlighten the world.
133:
I think the biggest problem is finding people suitable for the role who are both able and willing to dedicate the required amount of time to helping out. There's not really much that can be done about that,
606:
In it's current form (22:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)) there's nothing to "support"; they are statements of fact. In its earlier forms it was yet another pointless attempt to try to codify the uncodifiable.
708:
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?
283:
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?
686:
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?
796:
wrist-slapping exercise on the soon-to-be-former sysop. As such, I consider it a significant move, but certainly not an unimaginable one - as seen by my voting in favour of such application before.
17:
158:
vote regarding a forced username change. I would like to again ask the question which followed your vote. Where is the community policy which you referred to? Also, did you think there
743:
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?
77:
A: I am 22 years old; I have just finished studying an MEng in Computer Science, and may well take up futher educational study, in Computer Science but possibly also in Law.
737:
730:
546:
483:
181:
I am puzzled that you wish to "ask again", given that you never asked me a question in the first place. :-) I hope, however, that I have answered sufficiently for you.
348:
Yes, I do stand by our decision, and again, yes, I feel that my actions in subsequent cases has reflected this (though see my above comment about flawed individuals).
457:(if it is felt that such "ordering" is required) for them to remain therewithin. But, again, I'm not entirely convinced, shall we say, that this is in fact the case.
634:
If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?
85:
A: Currently I spend perhaps 20-30 hours a month or so on Arbitration duties, and I think that this is sufficient. I am happy to continue putting in said time.
424:
933:
874:
854:
835:
809:
785:
759:
716:
669:
649:
615:
599:
580:
556:
510:
494:
471:
432:
406:
396:
373:
359:
322:
261:
245:
223:
205:
190:
171:
143:
127:
112:
831:
damage to the project"? Would not just saying "Do not do it any more!" do the same job? Is there no contradiction between your statement and your vote?--
90:
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.
241:
makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do?
211:
Difficult one. I suppose I've muddled through so far, and would continue to do so were I re-appointed. I do rather love politics, though, so...
314:
seen to be judging impartially), then I would recuse; I have not yet, in two years of serving on the Committee, had cause to do so, however.
293:
Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?
891:
423:
Many people have noted that Knowledge (XXG)'s original communitarian structure is no longer functioning very well. One editor has
103:
A: None, beyond a few that I have created to prevent inappropriate posing as me and have edited merely to say that they are mine.
781:
841:
It would be inappropriate for me as an Arbitrator to publically comment on on-going cases, and I won't insult you by commenting
592:
201:
Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease?
402:
responding to the very same point that I made in the workshop (b) appearing to have investigated any user other than me. --
81:
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?
428:
authoritarian system? Do you think that the spirit of cooperation in Knowledge (XXG) would survive such a change?
930:
538:
even if they are correct? Considering those professors who have recently had you as a student, what would
644:
851:
806:
666:
612:
577:
507:
487:
468:
393:
356:
258:
220:
187:
140:
109:
52:
535:
526:
288:
How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?
202:
124:
777:
553:
518:
166:
908:
73:
Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)
890:, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on
926:
913:
697:
870:
I wonder, how much your vote in a specific case can be far from your general statements.;)--
848:
803:
748:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules
663:
609:
574:
504:
465:
390:
353:
255:
217:
184:
137:
106:
49:
904:
692:
in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?
238:
773:
766:
754:
740:
that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.
491:
242:
231:
163:
871:
832:
596:
429:
277:
The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you
887:
792:
the delete and block privs, then to be actively disbarred from having them is a
641:
623:
447:
Can the Knowledge (XXG) community become more orderly without a central system?
713:
631:
How much of your Knowledge (XXG) time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?
403:
370:
319:
269:
99:
Q: Please list out what other Knowledge (XXG) usernames you have edited under.
35:
my mind when considering whether we can discard people like so much chaff.
753:
Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —
162:
a consensus at that RFC to change the username away from "Trollderella"?
729:
1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at
441:
Does the Knowledge (XXG) community need to become more orderly?
237:
Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then
731:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct#Recusal
820:
I liked very much your statement. Especially the following
18:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006
303:--Victim of signature fascism 16:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
772:
What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty? —
750:? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.
68:
Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk
919:
900:
155:
676:
Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-
525:
How do you view the role (and relative importance) of
738:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct
547:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct
484:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct
453:
Would Knowledge (XXG)'s spirit survive such a change?
542:
tell me if I asked them the same question about you?
700:. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a
907:. In particular, I feel that these templates are
637:To what extent would those projects be affected?
917:where it is more appropriate and less divisive.
726:I am asking these questions of all candidates:
8:
587:Support Knowledge (XXG):User Bill of Rights?
903:surviving AfD that appear to contrast with
845:when you have asked me a specific question.
545:What are your views on the proposed policy
338:Requests for re-opening being without merit
488:User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question
883:Concerns over personal attack templates
450:Probably not, indeed, but... see above.
867:is OK with me. It will not insult me.
331:Contesting other Arbitrators' thoughts
892:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy)
369:behaviour leading to the conflict? --
7:
722:Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion
593:Knowledge (XXG):User Bill of Rights
28:
482:Do you support the creation of a
517:Questions to many candidates by
486:as I have just now suggested at
310:Political and religious opinions
681:(Being asked of all candidates)
698:wikipedia has a policy of NPOV
1:
650:06:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
600:05:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
557:09:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
511:23:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
495:18:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
472:23:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
397:23:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
374:19:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
345:Duty to investigate all users
323:19:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
206:21:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
934:20:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
875:12:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
855:11:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
836:17:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
810:11:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
786:01:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
433:15:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
360:19:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
262:19:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
246:18:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
224:19:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
197:Form question by Snowspinner
191:17:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
172:07:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
144:17:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
128:19:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
113:17:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
760:06:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
746:4. Have you voted over at
736:2. Are there any parts of
717:01:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
714:Victim of signature fascism
670:22:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
616:22:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
581:22:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
407:01:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
404:Victim of signature fascism
371:Victim of signature fascism
320:Victim of signature fascism
178:it) behind the name change.
949:
622:Questions being asked by
118:Question from Snowspinner
55:22:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
478:Question from Ted Wilkes
154:I'm a bit curious about
150:Question from Sjakkalle
462:I hope this helps you.
63:Questions and comments
899:I am concerned about
816:Question from AndriyK
704:opinion or fact that
419:Question from Marsden
22:Candidate statements
765:Form question from
230:Form Question from
909:Poisoning the well
905:established policy
626:to all candidates
444:Not particularly.
169:
940:
925:this concern? --
647:
214:
167:
948:
947:
943:
942:
941:
939:
938:
937:
885:
818:
770:
724:
678:
645:
628:
591:Do you support
589:
522:
480:
421:
273:
268:Questions from
235:
212:
199:
152:
120:
70:
65:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
946:
944:
922:
921:
884:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
868:
858:
857:
846:
828:
827:
817:
814:
813:
812:
801:
797:
769:
763:
723:
720:
677:
674:
673:
672:
661:
657:
639:
638:
635:
632:
627:
620:
619:
618:
607:
588:
585:
584:
583:
572:
568:
564:
554:PurplePlatypus
551:
550:
543:
531:
521:
519:PurplePlatypus
515:
514:
513:
502:
479:
476:
475:
474:
463:
460:
459:
458:
454:
451:
448:
445:
442:
420:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
388:
379:
378:
377:
376:
363:
362:
351:
350:
349:
346:
343:
339:
336:
332:
328:
327:
326:
325:
311:
280:
279:
272:
266:
265:
264:
253:
234:
228:
227:
226:
215:
198:
195:
194:
193:
182:
179:
151:
148:
147:
146:
135:
119:
116:
69:
66:
64:
61:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
945:
936:
935:
932:
928:
920:
918:
915:
910:
906:
902:
897:
896:
895:
893:
889:
882:
876:
873:
869:
866:
862:
861:
860:
859:
856:
853:
850:
847:
844:
840:
839:
838:
837:
834:
826:
823:
822:
821:
815:
811:
808:
805:
802:
798:
795:
790:
789:
788:
787:
783:
779:
775:
768:
764:
762:
761:
758:
757:
751:
749:
744:
741:
739:
734:
732:
727:
721:
719:
718:
715:
710:
709:
707:
703:
699:
694:
693:
688:
687:
683:
682:
675:
671:
668:
665:
662:
658:
654:
653:
652:
651:
648:
643:
636:
633:
630:
629:
625:
621:
617:
614:
611:
608:
605:
604:
603:
601:
598:
594:
586:
582:
579:
576:
573:
569:
565:
561:
560:
559:
558:
555:
548:
544:
541:
537:
532:
528:
524:
523:
520:
516:
512:
509:
506:
503:
499:
498:
497:
496:
493:
489:
485:
477:
473:
470:
467:
464:
461:
455:
452:
449:
446:
443:
440:
439:
437:
436:
435:
434:
431:
426:
418:
408:
405:
400:
399:
398:
395:
392:
389:
387:propositions.
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
375:
372:
367:
366:
365:
364:
361:
358:
355:
352:
347:
344:
340:
337:
335:re-appointed.
333:
330:
329:
324:
321:
316:
315:
312:
309:
308:
306:
305:
304:
301:
300:
295:
294:
290:
289:
285:
284:
278:
275:
274:
271:
267:
263:
260:
257:
254:
250:
249:
248:
247:
244:
240:
233:
229:
225:
222:
219:
216:
210:
209:
208:
207:
204:
203:Phil Sandifer
196:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
176:
175:
174:
173:
170:
165:
161:
157:
149:
145:
142:
139:
136:
132:
131:
130:
129:
126:
117:
115:
114:
111:
108:
104:
101:
100:
96:
92:
91:
86:
83:
82:
78:
75:
74:
67:
62:
60:
58:
56:
54:
51:
47:
44:
40:
36:
32:
23:
19:
927:Tony Sidaway
923:
898:
886:
864:
863:Commenting
842:
829:
824:
819:
793:
771:
755:
752:
745:
742:
735:
728:
725:
711:
705:
701:
696:
695:
690:
689:
685:
684:
680:
679:
640:
590:
552:
539:
481:
422:
302:
297:
296:
292:
291:
287:
286:
282:
281:
276:
236:
200:
159:
153:
121:
105:
102:
98:
97:
93:
88:
87:
84:
80:
79:
76:
72:
71:
59:
57:
48:
45:
41:
37:
33:
29:
888:User:Improv
706:contradicts
702:substantial
656:proceedure.
536:WP:Civility
527:WP:Civility
134:though. :-(
125:Snowspinner
865:in generis
843:in generis
774:Simetrical
767:Simetrical
501:Committee.
492:Ted Wilkes
438:In order:
307:In order:
270:User:-Ril-
901:templates
425:suggested
299:decision?
252:suffices.
243:karmafist
232:karmafist
164:Sjakkalle
849:James F.
804:James F.
782:contribs
756:James S.
664:James F.
660:machine.
610:James F.
575:James F.
505:James F.
466:James F.
391:James F.
354:James F.
256:James F.
218:James F.
185:James F.
168:(Check!)
138:James F.
107:James F.
50:James F.
20: |
872:AndriyK
833:AndriyK
597:SEWilco
430:Marsden
46:Yours,
852:(talk)
807:(talk)
667:(talk)
624:Titoxd
613:(talk)
578:(talk)
508:(talk)
469:(talk)
394:(talk)
357:(talk)
259:(talk)
239:WP:IAR
221:(talk)
188:(talk)
141:(talk)
110:(talk)
53:(talk)
794:major
530:like?
318:so?--
16:<
931:Talk
914:NPOV
778:talk
642:Tito
540:they
490:? -
156:this
595:? (
342:so.
213::-)
160:was
894::
784:)
780:•
733:?
712:--
646:xd
602:)
929:|
776:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.