User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2013/Aug

'Crat's noticeboard

As the candidate withdrew, making your request moot, I have asked for clarification as to what the rule will be should this situation arise in the future. WP:NOTNOW clearly states the candidate has the right to have the RfA remain open until the full amount of time elapses. I'm not saying this is how it should be, and I have no doubt your request was aimed at the best interests of both the community and the candidate. I'm posting this here in case you wanted to comment. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll comment there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, August 24!

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, August 24 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 04:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

split decision?

I take it that you might "agree in part and dissent in part" on the proposed motion? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that if I start to take the motion apart in terms of supporting it vis-à-vis some editors but not others, I have the feeling I'm going to make the current situation worse instead of better.

I've been an arbitrator for a (too?) long time now, and I've never seen a case that was this much of a morass. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

But you can dismiss those who had nothing to do with the original dispute that KC was called to mediate. I wasn't even on the talk page at that point and I don't believe Collect was, or WLRoss, etc. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for not voting for the proposed motion. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

At wits end

Hello Brad, I appreciate everyone's frustration with this case, but please do not let frustration determine the final outcome of the TPm case. All of you have had quite a job to do, but so have all of us who sincerely worked on that moderated discussion. In addition, where there is no evidence of wrong-doing, or participation in the dispute on the TPm where KC mediated and was likely the seed of this dispute, those editors rightfully should be dismissed from the case. And please do review Goethean's comments that I've posted on the evidence page and on the PD talk page. That is the environment editors were working in. I had no idea that was going on until I took the time to examine all 191 of his posts to the TPm talk. If you go to the threads where his comments are and read the comments from others as they are trying to work their way through a discussion, his comments are even more striking. Please consider the environment they were working in. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I've seen your extended post on the Proposed Decision page. If you don't mind, I'm going to fisk the bloody daylights out of it. I hope this will help you to make the right decision.

• As one of the originally designated drafters in this case, I did my best to study the evidence as it came in and formulate individual findings of fact. Very encouraging. I have also drafted some proposed FOFs on the Workshop page. I have some experience in similar matters in real life. Several years of experience in fact. More than I'd care to admit. I stopped working on them when the current motion was posted but if the motion is defeated I'd really like to get back to work on them.
• To a greater extent than in almost any case we've dealt with in my six years on the Arbitration Committee, the evidence demonstrates that the editing environment on this article is in a disastrous state—but that we can't single out a particular editor or handful of editors and say that he or they are the problem and that topic-banning them would solve it. Oh, yes you can. AGK and Fuchs have "voted" for sanctions on a few editors. They have pointed the way. I said the same thing on Worm_That_Turned's User Talk page: he has indicated that there are a "very few" who clearly deserve individual sanctions. I asked him to focus on the Very Few. I would wager a month's pay that these are the very same individuals who have a long track record — proven with overwhelming, reliable evidence — of bad behavior on many other articles. They push their POVs relentlessly. They're tendentious as hell. They editwar, usually stopping just short of a 3RR block, and picking up such tricks as the slow-moving editwar and the tag team editwar. They developed these habits and demonstrated these habits outside the Tea Party movement environment. Therefore other editors at TPm cannot be blamed for the behavior of the Very Few. So ... indefinite topic bans for this small handful of people would go a very long way to improve the atmosphere at Tea Party movement.
• The traditional solution to these situations is discretionary sanctions (formerly "article probation")—but in this case we know that similar, community-based sanctions have been insufficient to solve the issues with this article. Put some teeth in the post-ArbCom sanctions. Specify that the minimum penalty to be imposed is a 30-day block and a six-month topic ban. That, coupled with indefinite removal of the worst offenders, is worth a try. Far more worthy of a try than this motion, which is clearly experimental.
• Nor did an extraordinary effort at mediated discussion, led by one of my fellow arbitrators, make progress. I must vigorously disagree. First, we removed the "On issues of race, bigotry and public perception" section, spun off the Perceptions of the Tea Party article (which is the removed section, substantially rearranged), and reached consensus on the content of the paragraph that replaced it. Then we did the same thing to the "Agenda" section, but it was replaced with four paragraphs, not just one. Yes, it was difficult and frustrating due to the relentless obstructions and delaying tactics by the Very Few. But these were the two sections that were the absolute worst, and they've been substantially improved. That's progress. Major progress. I don't see how the fact of that progress can be denied.
• To either discuss the case without action would do nothing to resolve the current morass. To close it with a decision that simply replaces the current community-based sanctions regime with ArbCom-endorsed discretionary sanctions would be somewhat better, but it would shift some of the burden here from ourselves to the already-overburdened Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard and AE volunteer administrators. Give those admins the tools they need. See above: minimum one-month block and six-month topic ban.
• For this reason, I am leaning toward supporting this motion (which I helped to draft), not out of enthusiasm but strictly as an "at wit's end," faute de mieux resolution to a situation that may be unfortunately impervious to resolution any other way. The current motion ensures that the next six months will be very much like the last, but without moderation. A fresh team of POV warriors, spearheaded by Binksternet, is already starting to appear at Talk:Tea Party movement. They'll duke it out for six months — different names, same games — then the same old crew of POV warriors will return, rested and refreshed and ready to do battle. SilkTork referred to a "chilling effect" which causes good editors and even admins to hesitate to become involved. That chilling effect, plus this motion, will ensure that only the most battle-hardened POV warriors will show up. It's a recipe for disaster. I cannot argue against it strongly enough.
• I hesitate to add my support partly out of concern about whether the list of parties included in the temporary page-ban may include some who should not be included, and partly because I think six months may be too long a time period for this sort of remedy. I couldn't agree more, and I did propose something along those lines: topic bans for the worst offenders (the Very Few, including my Wikistalker), and for the rest of the gang, a mandatory Wikibreak from the article for two months rather than six. Restore moderation with an ArbCom member or a neutral admin. And let's finish what we got half done, which is improving the article. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

So I'm a POV warrior who is fresh to the page, and I'm leading a warrior team? This assessment, Phoenix and Winslow, is ridiculous on its face. I was previously involved in editing the article, making six changes to it in February and March 2013, and you can find my discussion entries in talk page archives 20 through 23, so I'm not "fresh". I have no "team" to support me, "fresh" or otherwise, which is easy to see if you look at the near total lack of support for my merge proposal; the only proposal I have made about the article in five months. My notionally "POV" views are simply that scholars should be given top importance in defining/describing the topic of interest, a view that I consistently voice across many articles. I would have no issue with the TPm article if it faithfully represented scholarly thought with proper weight.

Phoenix and Winslow, if I were an arbitrator looking for "the few" editors who were causing trouble at the TPm article you would top the list. You have a bullying/badgering/bulldozer style of interaction which causes unnecessary friction. Your style invites combative reactions and eventually drives away reasonable editors. Regarding content, what I have seen of your changes to the article makes me think you are there to show the Tea Party in as positive a light as possible, to the point of padding the importance of Sarah Palin, and pushing against the scholarly but negative views of Ronald Formisano. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I should introduce both of you to the concept of "Exhaustion of Community Patience". Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This is very serious, please read

At the bottom of the PD Talk page, there has been a new discussion regarding the likelihood that ArbCom is exceeding its authority by closing the TPm case with a motion like this. Several uninvolved senior editors have spoken out against this motion, including a former ArbCom member.

This is not a threat. Just a statement of fact. Please take action to derail this motion. If it does succeed and the TPm ArbCom case is closed on this basis, I believe there will be a serious, community-wide discussion about this and the people who initiated this motion will not fare well in such a discussion. In fact, removal from the Arbitration Committee for one or more members is a very real possibility.

Essentially, what you are saying is that ArbCom can do whatever it wants to do, regardless of the evidence, without making any findings of fact to support what it wants to do. This is a very dangerous precedent, and I've said so ever since the motion was first proposed. I am amazed and deeply disappointed that it has gained so much traction.

Please consider this very carefully and take action to stop this motion. I can draft whatever findings of fact, etc. you feel are necessary, and will help you in any way I reasonably can to expedite a fair and appropriate resolution of this proceeding. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I have been reviewing the discussion on the proposed decision talkpage (I was unexpectedly offline for much of the weekend, but am catching up now). The fact that experienced editors, uninvolved in this dispute, are in disagreement with the proposed approach and fear it would set a bad precedent is significant to me, although it may or may not figure in my ultimate vote. I do not agree, however, that adopting the motion, if the Committee votes to do so, would be outside the Committee's authority, much less that it would lead to the removal of arbitrators from office. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't make heads or tails out of that talk page now, but I do have to say that it might set a bad precedent. If someone edits a particular subject area, and ArbCom starts topicbanning people based on this precedent, what does this do to editor retention? --Rschen7754 22:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems in the least to be a major policy / power / authority change without prior precedent. One could claim it's the only solution you can find, and justify it that way, but I don't know that that's necessarily right.

I would suggest an alternative evidence method.

The problem seems to be identifying the specific edit diffs that justify action against particular users. I would suggest an alternative; identify a reasonably broad set of example specific discussion topics / threads / headings / etc, which reviewed in toto exceed the bounds of reasonable discussion. It should be fairly easy to do that. Ask everyone to nominate their favorite ones that they think went out of bounds, and then see if any which have been previously listed and got your attention were missed. Define these as disruptive discussions.

Once you have done that, list all contributors to that particular topic / thread / heading / etc. Categorize their thread contributions as to whether they were narrowly within expected decorum, in a grey area of misbehavior, or exceeded reasonable bounds, for that thread.

Combine the results across the examined threads, on a per user basis, probably in a table.

I would not put someone "on the list" for a single thread excessive response, but patterns should be clear.

If people were only sometimes grey, they perhaps should be left off a final sanctions list. If they were mostly or always grey, they should probably be found to be contributing to a disruptive environment and the six-month sanction you're currently applying as a blanket sounds about right. If they're grey or black all the time, then they're over the line.

If this seems like a lot of work for one, allocate the analysis on a per-discussion/thread/heading/etc basis with some overlap, to the individual arbitrators, so that several independent people review each one (say, 3), and statistically this will spread reviews of an individual editor out among the arbs reasonably well.

Then you have a table with a lot of blanks in it, but you still see patterns reasonably well.

The findings would then start with the problem discussions and flow outwards to individual contributions to that, rather than visa versa.

Yes, this would be a lot of work. But I think it's a reasonable extrapolation of existing standards rather than creating a new cause for action.

Don't listen to the parties; they're still sniping at each other. Listen to the conversations. Some of them are and were bad. The worst of them are and were disruptive. That makes them actionable. Take an overview, and act away.

My $2 and change, hopefully enough for coffee somewhere.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The precedent set by including SilkTork in the list of banned editors is unsettling. SilkTork set up a mediation after the arbitration case was set up and, as he says, his mediation was unsuccessful. Does that mean that for example editors who respond to today's RfC on the Tea Party protests may be banned, if their efforts are unsuccessful?[1] If so, I suggest we include a warning to editors responding to the RfC. TFD (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

TFD, SilkTork himself decided he was an involved editor who should be listed in the motion. However, I think he did it mainly to demonstrate that there is no shame in being named in this motion, because it isn't a finding of guilt but an attempt – made when we're "at wit's end" – to solve the dispute and improve the article.

Editors who are relatively new to Wikipedia may not be familiar with the committee's decision in the Scientology case. The individual users of the Church of Scientology's IP addresses had not necessarily committed any fault at all, but it was still necessary to block them en masse. The community recognised that ArbCom's decision in that case was the only possible one, and lent its support. AGK [•] 18:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The Church of Scientology decision blocks IPs not editors. Anyone editing from a scientology IP is free to edit from another location or to request exemption for their IP. While SilkTork added himself and therefore cannot claim unfairness, the precedent is that editors can be blocked with no evidence or findings. One can even add editors who did not edit an article. And please explain why KillerChihuahua who set up the ARBCOM request and is therefore an involved editor is excluded? And why exclude MastCell, who set up a discussion thread 17 June 2013?[2] TFD (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the editor who first suggested mass topic bans for a disparate group at [3] was User:Binksternet who might actually have a grudge based on his failed RfA as well. I see no way that he was not "involved" at this point far more than are TFD or myself. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC) (on Wikistrike)

Actually, Killer Chihuahua said this at the top of the page you linked to:

"Now, I'm thinking a week or two topic banning North8000, Azrel, and Malke 2010 is called for, per WP:BATTLE and WP:NPA on an article on probation."

Thus, I am not first to call for topic bans for disruptive editors at the TPm article. After KC's call for banning three editors, she asked for help:

"Looking for community views on this, as I'm new to this probation area."

Jusdafax said Malke 2010 was a problem, Ubikwit said an "affinity group of editors" was targeting Goethean, Viriditas said North8000 was a problem, North8000 said Xenophrenic and Goethean were problems, Nathan Johnson listed five editors as deserving of topic bans (Arzel, Goethean, Malke 2010, North8000 and Xenophrenic), and finally I commented on what I thought of the article, telling my viewpoint as a new observer who was only nine days into looking at the article. I suggested that Collect, Thargor Orlando and Arthur Rubin be added to the list of those to be topic-banned, based on their style of editing and talk page interaction. The assertion that I am involved in the article is weak: I was at first interested only in the tobacco industry article, then I was shocked to see how much fighting was occurring at the article. I was amazed to see that some scholarly sources were dismissed by some editors who did not like this or that scholarly view. Coming to the conclusion that the article was a snake pit / tar baby, I decided in late March to take it off my watchlist and leave it in the hands of those who cared more than I did. I never participated in the subsequent moderated discussion. The only reason I noticed the article again was at the DYK nomination page where I saw P&W's new Agenda article being questioned. I'm an outside observer, here, still, not an involved editor wrapped up in whether the Tea Party is made to look good or made to look bad.

The barb about my RFA is just nasty conjecture, not worthy of consideration. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I was not involved in any of these conversations that led to the current arbitration request, which is probably why I am not mentioned in the arbitration case, except to be listed as a party at the end. TFD (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This whole case has been blown out of proportion and should be dismissed. If there is a true issue with real evidence, then the case can be brought again. The moderated discussion has made progress. Editors will always disagree and that's part of Wikipedia. Unlock the page and leave it to AE to sort. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

As I've written elsewhere, one or more arbitrators are going to go through the evidence and recent developments again with fresh pairs of eyes. Let's see what they make of the case.

Incidentally, I haven't forgotten about your other request that you e-mailed to me, but I think it will be better to leave that to handle until the arbitration case is over, at least if you want me to be the one handling it. I apologize for not having gotten back to you sooner about that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Since the Arbs are planning to sort evidence, it might be best to open a new evidence phase for two weeks so that all named editors may present their side of things. On the other matter, I assumed as much. I'll send you an email on that shortly. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Strangesad

You were involved in a past discussion about this user, so you may be interested in this: WP:ANI#Request swift admin intervention to prevent further disruption to the Jesus article by User Strangesad.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know of the discussion. The points I would make so far have already been expressed by others, but if I think of anything else to say I will do so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Brad: I don't quite understand why you're having a discussion with KW on his talk page. Talk pages are provided to editors to help facilitate their editing, and a certain amount of general conversation and so on is not a problem, but Wikipedia is not a forum and, in any case, KW is no longer an editor. Since he is banned, he has no use for his talk page, since he cannot ask for an unblock using it, but must go through BASC or ArbCom to be reinstated. I object to his using the talk page to further comment on his case and promulgate his views. His talk page access should be removed until such time as he asks for, and receives, reinstatement to the status of editor. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know of your concern. I'm sure you noticed that what I posted on that talkpage was completely unrelated to the arbitration case or other contentious topics. I don't anticipate anything further. Since I was recused in the arbitration case, I'll leave the question of whether to remove talkpage access to others. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer is not an "unperson" because he was banned from Wikipedia. This smacks of the "untouchable" mindset in caste India. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Even as one who had the unfortunate duty of deciding what to do with Kiefer, I think it is entirely unnecessary to prevent Kiefer from tying up his loose ends and chatting on his talk page for a few more days. Somebody will probably remove his talk page access in a couple of days, but let's not fret about it until then. AGK [•] 23:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Mail

You've got email from me. (Pinging here in case that helps). Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you free on Wednesday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Wednesday, August 24 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 12:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

mail

Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Malke 2010 (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed decision

Hello Brad, would you be kind enough to review my comments regarding the FOF on me at the PD talk page before you vote? I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

CE request

In the arbcom case Infoboxes, you proposed to copy-edit the finding about me:

"If that's the thrust of the finding, I think it would be good to copyedit it or create a new version saying so. Otherwise this risks being taken out of context as a statement that advance discussion is required before adding an infobox to any article. Perhaps adding the words "including articles where she understood or should have understood that including an infobox would be controversial"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)"

My problem is the "should have understood". How should I have understood that adding an infobox to Bach cantata BWV 71 would be controversial (latest example, last night)? (Most Bach cantatas have one, for example GA BWV 103.) How should I have known that replacing a duplicate side navbox for an opera (duplicate where a footer navbox exists) by an infobox that the project offers as an option would be controversial? How should I have known that an infobox for a Mozart mass would lead to an edit war while all Schubert masses have one? - I am relatively new to the controversy, know both sides, with no memory for "This has been going on for eight. bloody. years" (bloody?), and in the case miss looking at recent evidence a lot. Thank you for insisting on it:

"To support a site-ban, I would want to see evidence of relatively recent or ongoing poor behavior by Pigsonthewing outside the infobox realm. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)."

If you ask me, you can drop the "outside the infobox realm", - I don't even see "poor behaviour" within the infoboxes realm in 2013. Asking "Why does this article not have an infobox." on The Rite of Spring a day after TFA (TFA 29 May) was about the most "disruptive" I noticed. - I agree with his critics that it was poor timing - before appearing would have been better ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Policy question

Hi Newyorkbrad, yesterday I asked Jehochman this question. To my surprise he doesn't know the answer. I'm sure that as an arbitrator you do. Thank you. --50.174.76.47 (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)He didn't say he didn't know, he refused not engage on the subject, probably due to the fact that you are being coy and not telling us what this is really about. You obviously are not just a curious new user. It is easier to answer such questions if you're honest about the basis for asking them, so, why don't you just be honest about what it is you are referring to, and what previous identities you have used on WP? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm simply trying to understand, if there are any circumstances under which a user could be accused in harassment in case he has never violated anything listed in this policy, and if there are what are the circumstances? If one is honest, one should have no problem to respond a general question like the one I asked, no matter what is my reason to ask this question. Thank you.50.174.76.47 (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Those are examples of some of the more common types of harassment. It is not an exhaustive list of every conceivable way a person might harrass someons. So yes, it is entirely possible to harrass someone without engaging in one of the specific behaviors listed there. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It's rather convenient to read the policy like that, isn't it? So could you please provide one or two examples of harassment that are missing from the list? Thank you.50.174.76.47 (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are not laws. All policies are read that way, as has always been the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it" is a great policy, but I am afraid it has nothing to do with my question. --50.174.76.47 (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I’m not qualified to speak to WP policy, but in ordinary terms personal attacks and harassment are distinct, albeit sometimes overlapping, behaviours. Personal attacks can be purely circumstantial, unmotivated by any grudge or long-term scrutiny of the target, while harassment can be conducted ‘coldly’, in a civil and neutral tone—in theory at least. Indeed, some of the conduct described in the harassment policy could be termed ‘passive-agressive‘. So it’s unclear to me how an answer to the initial question would have furthered an understanding of the scope of the harassment policy, unless it boils down to ‘How many personal attacks does it take to constitute a pattern of repeated offensive behaviour?’—Odysseus1479 19:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe the comments above from Odysseus1479 and Beeblebrox are correct and I have nothing to add to them in this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Meet up with local Wikipedians on September 14!

Are you free on Saturday, September 14? If so, please join Wikimedia DC and local Wikipedians for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages are welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please visit the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll try to make this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Newyorkbradblog is back

New post: Forgery and Wikiality. I hope it's of interest; comments welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)