Msnicki and I certified it. Please restore. NE Ent 01:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, I was just coming to explain to you in detail why I deleted it. And no, it was not properly certified because your diffs of alleged attempt at dispute resolution were from 2012. You can't point back two years and start an RFC now. Msnicki's diffs were from 2014 and did not appear to be the same dispute. If you want to have an RFC/U you need to make sure you follow the minimum requirements. I have more thoughts on the matter and would be happy to discuss this with you, and if necessary, recover any deleted content which you don't have a copy of in case you want to try again. Jehochman ^Talk 01:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute is about General user conduct, not simply the specific instance. There is no time requirement in the requirements about how long before an RFC/U the discussion had to take place for it to be valid. NE Ent 01:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this section carefully Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Minimum_requirements and tell me how your discussion in 2012 and Msnicki's discussion in 2014 could relate to "the same dispute". Could you give me a recent and perhaps egregious example of behavior? If we can find two users who discussed that incident, it would form a proper basis for an RFC/U. Once you've got two people disputing the same issue with the subject, the past pattern of behavior can be presented to show that it's not an isolated incident. I am definitely not saying you can't have an RFC/U, but you need to follow the requirements, and I could help if you wish. Jehochman ^Talk 01:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your interpretation is reasonable. The issue is not a specific instance but the long term pattern of behavior. In any event, I'm out of wiki time for awhile, and I'll have to address it when I get more time. NE Ent 02:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, I'd like to help you resolve your concerns about that user. When you get time, if you point me to a recent issue with them that concerns you, I will investigate. Please don't look upon me as an adversary; I'm open to persuasion. Jehochman ^Talk 02:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC/U that you just sent to the black hole had several recent examples of problematic behavior. Any reason why you can't just look at those? - MrX 02:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've left notices for Msnicki and DangerousPanda about this discussion and invited them to join us here. Jehochman ^Talk 01:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• If Jehochman is willing to mediate, an informal discussion here on neutral ground would be an excellent idea. Here or a subpage of this talk page. No one is claiming DP is perfect, but it is my opinion that trying to find common ground off the boards is a better first step. This is also in line with the idea of solving problems at the lowest possible level. If it doesn't work, the RFC/U can be restarted. Like Jehochman, I'm happy to userfy the old page at that time if needed. Dennis 2¢ 02:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the many reasons why RFC/U is such a horribly useless process is because of the presumption that all user conduct issues orbit around a single dispute. I agree with NE ENT that there is a long term pattern of behavior. Many editors, including myself, have confronted DP about specific issues. Are we so rule-bound that we require that two editors to actually open a discussion of DPs talk page about the entirety of his long term behavior and how it doesn't comport with WP:ADMIN? - MrX 02:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jehochman: May I supply the required diff? In that same incident I described regarding DP's indefinite block of Barney, NE Ent tried to explain to DP why DP's initial response to me was improper. Here is the exchange. I believe his "Thanks for playing though Ent ... usually you're better at doing your research, which is why I respect you" and edit remark, "laughable" is WP:INCIVIL and a violation of WP:IUC and satisfies the letter of our guidelines in the same spirit as your insistence on applying the letter of our guidelines.

• The policy says Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.. What Msnicki got was That's the most ridiculous paragraph ever written in the English language. ... Give your head a shake if that's what you're really saying. I do not consider such discourse "calm and rational," and, as an editor in good standing, Msnicki deserves better. Administrator conduct states Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.... Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another. ...Administrators should bear in mind that they have hundreds of colleagues. Therefore, if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct. NE Ent 19:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was quite obviously nothing wrong with that statement - Msnicki even dropped by my talkpage to discuss it because she too read something into it that was obviously not there. It was by no means uncivil, contained no personal attacks (indeed, it commented on CONTENT, and not the CONTRIBUTOR), but wholly questioned the LOGIC of her paragraph and personal attacks against me that by her own admission, was based on not-reading the entire situation that led to BtBB's sanctions. Thanks for playing though Ent ... usually you're better at doing your research, which is why I respect you the panda ₯’ 18:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should you not be willing to reinstate the page, may I request, at minimum, that provide me a copy of my own statement either by userfying it or emailing it to me or by some other means? I put quite a lot of work into that, cognizant of the deadline and in that face of quite a backlog at work and I don't have a copy. I had a good faith expectation that my complaint would get considered and I should have a chance to repost more suitably if I can determine how without having to rewrite from scratch. Msnicki (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I add that I think NE Ent did include a link to a diff of DP's rude remarks to me in the section he wrote. Those are the same remarks that NE Ent tried to discuss with DP and was unable to resolve. I think the requirements were met. Msnicki (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm willing to reconsider, and I will certainly give you or anybody else a copy of their own statement. How would you and NE Ent feel if I were to refactor the RFC to focus on the issue where you had common concerns? Did NE Ent discuss with DP those rude remarks? An RFC could also include any evidence of past issues. I'd strongly recommend excluding hearsay--such as criticism from ArbCom guides and such. The RFC should focus on diffs of DP's edits that cause concerns. Also, you can't request sanctions via RFCU. You can request that DP behave properly. If he subsequently doesn't, you can then go to ArbCom and request sanctions. I am very concerned that DP should be held accountable if they have done wrong. Jehochman ^Talk 03:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, NE Ent did attempt to discuss DP's behavior toward me. That's the unhelpful exchange I quoted above in which DP blew him off for his "laughable" concern.

May I propose that the page be reinstated with the understanding that NE Ent will provide a statement similar to what I provided, outlining specifically what he observed on that Barney incident and how he tried unsuccessfully (as shown above) to seek resolution, that he will also add a proper signature in certification section, and that we leave everything else as background?

When I amended my statement, User:Bbb23 suggested posting notices for anyone who already endorsed, allowing them to decide if they still wished to endorse, which we could certainly do again. Would that be agreeable? Msnicki (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to help you both refile it in a correct format. After that I could leave a note for each prior participant. You want to do this right to get a good result. Jehochman ^Talk 04:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I would very much appreciate your help, as I'm sure NE Ent would as well. I've been to a lot of AfDs and other discussions, but this is completely foreign territory for me. Msnicki (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew my "Outside view" (via striking) from the Rfc-in-question. If the Rfc is restored, I request my 'striked view' be excluded from the restoration (if possible), thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is a re-factored version that just contains the content provided by NE Ent and Msnicki: User:Jehochman/Draft. I've taken out some stuff that was inflammatory, irrelevant or just plain not good evidence (eg Hearsay). Less is often more. It's better to focus on the facts, which can speak for themselves. You are welcome to copy that page, edit, and refile. You'll want to re-sign your statements and check it over. You don't need to follow my advice, but I think you'll find that you get better results if you do. The decision is yours. If you need me to restore any other contents, just let me know and I'll deliver it to you. If you'd like me to notify the editors who commented before, I will. If you'd like me to check it over when you are done and move the RFC/U from the candidate section to the certified section, I will (so long as the minimum requirements are met). I regret the bureaucracy, but this is serious stuff so we should do our best to be fair to all concerned. Sincerely, Jehochman ^Talk 04:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please keep this in mind: The purpose of Wikipedia dispute resolution isn't to get somebody else into trouble; it's to get them out of trouble. Jehochman ^Talk 05:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is very helpful. But why is my account an "outside view" given the instructions, "This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute"? (Obviously, I really do need and appreciate your help navigating this.) Msnicki (talk) 05:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove the word "Outside". You could also say "View by certifier Msnicki". Point being, the section with your certification diffs should be kept short. Your view is a view like anybody else's. NE Ent already took up the space for the filer's view. Additionally, to get more eyeballs to read what you are saying, I suggest you trim it to 500 words, if you can. Jehochman ^Talk 05:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want to add a comment here (I was pinged for other reasons, actually). I realize things have evolved since the beginning of this topic, but I had the identical reaction to Jehochman. I felt that the RfC/U was fatally flawed. I said as much in my statement. However, I didn't feel comfortable (confident?) deleting it, but I would have endorsed such an action.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I'd really appreciate your suggestions, too. I'd like to know about the flaws you've spotted so I can understand whether they might be corrected. I think it's clear enough what I experienced and that NE Ent saw and experienced as well in the Barney incident. We're either restricted to one incident or not. If we're restricted to one incident, it doesn't seem fair to complain (as I think some did but I don't remember who) that we're picking a single incident and who knows if it's typical. If it's one incident, I think I have the goods on DP, that his behavior was completely unacceptable and that he made some very poor decisions, then refused to discuss them, contrary to Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_conduct, precisely as NE Ent told him at ANI. But what do I know about how this works, much less how to file my report. Msnicki (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I wanted to pop by to simply say I completely agree with Jehochman's deletion, I also agree with Bbb23 in that the entire RFC/U was just flawed and would've had my full support for deletion, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll just say that I'm pleased to review the contents of the draft and make some amendments to my actions - indeed, seeing as those are primarily ancient it's already been done - but will not play "double jeopardy" and accept this being filed a second time whatsoever. I'm truly happy to try and resolve things between Msnicki and myself - I tried, and she went to ANI and unfortunately got stomped by the community, and is angry at me because of that. As such, any concern that was quashed at ANI cannot be brought up in this manner. In terms of the Lecen incident, I cannot have apologized in a more heartfelt manner for my I believe first-ever AE enforcement action. What you're looking for in RFC is for the party to understand their actions, and work to resolve them - that requires BOTH sides to work on the resolution aspects. RFC/U will not bring about a desysop - but those who file/certify and truly fail to try and work things out have truly failed the process the panda ₯’ 09:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why was this deleted rather than hatted or struck through? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Because it was a huge mess. And it wasn't properly certified. I'm trying to help the users file a proper page. DP, if you are still watching, I urge you to answer it sincerely if refiled or you can answer here and now on the substance and see if that satisfies Msnicki. Jehochman ^Talk 11:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "double jeopardy" is in play Jehochman - I will not participate in a re-filed RFC because we're not at the point where any RFC is required. I don't think that Msnicki understands that she is required to have an open mind and try to work things out by commenting in the RFC. She has shown no signs of trying to do so before now. She's flat-out saying "desysop" - well, RFC doesn't do that. I know that English isn't my first language, but many of Msnicki's complaints are that she either a) misunderstood the meaning of what I said, or b) she added her own meaning to what I said. So yes, I'm VERY happy to try and resolve the communication issues - but it has to work both ways. Once I see commitment from her to re-read and work with an open mind, I'll re-engage. But shotgun approaches don't work, not does the hit-and-run seen so far. the panda ₯’ 12:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DP, Wikipedia is not a court of law, but is very much a bureaucracy. My observation of your demeanor as an admin leads me to believe that you don't have the temperament for the role, a concern was also raised in your RfAs. You do a lot of good work here, but your interpersonal skills need improvement. Your judgement is sometimes questionable, and you sometimes act in haste. I will post a good faith effort to resolve these long term issues on your talk page, with diffs, later. Perhaps a RFC/U will not be necessary.- MrX 12:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DangerousPanda:, there are concerns about your interactions with other editors. Your best path forward is to listen to them and reply politely. Claiming various procedural defenses (which don't apply here) isn't going to help you resolve things. You should address concerns on the merits. I will do my best to make sure you get fair treatment, that any discussions aren't tainted with irrelevant, inflammatory content. @MrX:, thank you very much for your input. I encourage @Msnicki: and @NE Ent: to join you in one more effort to resolve things via talk page discussion. If that's successful, it would be better for all concerned (less work, less stress). Remember, please try to focus on the facts, avoid rhetoric, and keep comments short so that they can be read easily. Jehochman ^Talk 12:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "procedural defense"? Is that the one where if the case doesn't go your way (and this one clearly wasn't going for the certifiers), you get to delete it completely and start again until it does give the right answer? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no policy that says "When there is some technical error in an administrative discussion, delete the entire thing and blank it from the public record". Please restore it, for that reason alone.

There are several problems with this deletion. You claim it was done for not being certified, yet two editors claim to have certified it. The grounds for this "non certification" are seriously challenged. There was no discussion of your single-handed deletion. There is the issue of "double jeopardy". Much worse than that though is the issue that this RfC clearly was already up and running and was being treated as such by other editors (myself included). What happens to their input? Is it also blanked? Will their contributions be re-added? Are they permitted to re-add their contributions, or will you find a reason to blank them again, until they start giving the right answers? Worst of all though, this is yet another example of the "infallible admins" problem that we are rife with. If there is criticism of an admin, blank it and blank it so firmly that plebian editors can't even see its contents, contributors or that it was even there.

Please restore this. There is no justification for its blanking and it runs directly against open governance here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Andy, I also was unpleasantly surprised to see the page deleted, but I'm now quite satisfied that Jehochman is trying to be constructive and even-handed and that he intends to be helpful. I thought there was a deadline when I saw that NE Ent had posted the RFCU and requested my certification (we obviously had not discussed or planned this together, which perhaps explains the flaws Jehochman, Bbb23 and others have mentioned) but just this second, it looks like Wikipedia as usual and no deadline again as we re-assess how and what to report. We have time to get this right. Jehochman has already promised to provide a copies of any statements that were deleted to the editors who wrote them. If you want yours, I'm sure he'll give it to you. Cheers, Msnicki (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DP, of course I'd be willing to discuss a resolution. But I need some reason to think there's a zone of agreement. You need to offer me some hope that your behavior will change. In the one case I observed, I tried raising concerns about your management of the Barney incident, at 1, you instantly became personal and insulting. Just so we're clear, here's the entire exchange, taken from Barney's talk page right after he'd started insulted you, too, calling you Bearcat's "pet admin", and you responded by blocking him.

Respectfully, DangerousPanda, I think this was unhelpful and I hope you will reconsider. You should at least have let another uninvolved admin review the situation before ratcheting the sanctions again. There's starting to be an appearance you could be too WP:INVOLVED, that it may have become personal to you that, gosh darn it, you are going to make Barney behave.

But also, a block shouldn't turn into an announcement that we'll hold him down while anyone who doesn't like him gets to take a free swing. Yes, of course Barney's response is insulting and unhelpful. But frankly, I'm more appalled by Bearcat's behavior here. Why is he here picking at a scab on Barney's own talk page? Why does he get a free pass? He also needs to learn how to drop the stick and slowly back away from the horse. The right outcome here is that these two editors, who obviously don't like each other, can learn either to avoid each other or at least play nice. The right outcome is not that one of them gets to pick fights and the other isn't allowed to respond, not even on his own talk page. Msnicki (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Msnicki: That's the most ridiculous paragraph ever written in the English language. 1) There's no humanly possible way of calling me "involved"; 2) I have no desire to "make" anyone do anything: Barney agreed to the rules, and no personal attacks was one of them, no matter what the situation; 3) I've obviously monitored the discussion, and you cannot honestly be suggesting that Barney is allowed to make snide remarks and insults towards Bearcat, but that Bearcat is not allowed to return to discuss rationally and politely their side of the story? Give your head a shake if that's what you're really saying. If Barney had focused on their own behaviour and how it violated community norms, Bearcat wouldn't have had to come near this page...and Barney likely would have been unblocked by now, wouldn't they? Instead, false accusations and personal attacks were the words of the day ... and thus, protection was necessary. the panda ₯’ 22:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It's tedious to have explain why anyone who speaks English (even if it a second language) should instantly recognize your response as uncivil (c.f., the example at WP:IUC, "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen".) When you continue to deny so implausibly that there could possibly have been anything at all insulting or improper in your response (to both me an NE Ent, as quoted above), you give me no hope whatsoever for a meaningful discussion on the deeper questions of judgment that I care about. I think you made a lot of poor policy choices, starting with your initial block, and that you got a poor outcome because of your poor choices. Most admins should have been able to resolve that dispute. Instead, we lost a contributor. That didn't happen just because you were uncivil, it's because I don't think you have the social skills necessary to moderate as opposed to escalate disputes. Some of us should social workers and some of us should be engineers. We should do what we're good at. If we can't even make progress on basic stuff, like simple civility, I think we're at that question of what you're good at. This is something you're not good at and you shouldn't do. Msnicki (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm neutral as to the deletion, I can understand the reasoning behind it, as well as the reasoning by the two parties to have kept it going. I do think it was a train wreck as written, for reasons I already expressed. If it is to be restarted, it probably should be restarted from scratch (copying the relevant parts of the filing), as the comments after the fact may not fit a new RFC/U. The "Running for Arb" stuff absolutely doesn't belong, as it looks like admitting hearsay and drags unsuspecting editors into a discussion to which they had expressed no desire to take part in. It simply isn't relevant and looks like mud slinging for the sake of it: It is simply too far out of the context of a behavioral RFC/U. Otherwise, I've been around to understand why people have concerns, and again, said as much there. My opinion is that prior to an RFC/U, proper procedure would be to try to hash out issues either here, or a similar neutral place. If that doesn't work, then THAT can listed as prior attempts to resolve the issues, and no one would question the validity of the effort. If the true intent of the process is to get DP to listen and be given an opportunity to address the concerns of the community, that seems to be the most obvious way to proceed. If we are just punching tickets on the way to Arb, I suppose it wouldn't matter. If that is the intent, I don't think RFC/U should be used that way. Dennis 2¢ 14:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's my attempt to recycle the beneficial parts of the RFCU: User:Jehochman/Draft. The filing party and the certifying party could copy this, modify it to their liking and then repost. If any other party needs any of the deleted content, they can ask me and I will drop it on whichever of their userspace pages they specify. Jehochman ^Talk 17:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay to wait and see what DP does with the feedback we've given him. Some things we're good at and some we're not. We should do what we're good at, especially when insisting on doing things we're not good at means we drive people out of the project instead of helping them be productive. It sounds like RFCU has no more force than an opinion poll anyway. If DP's going to have to decide this on his own, it doesn't sound like an RFCU offers anything I care about that I don't get right here. Msnicki (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I do sincerely appreciate the time and effort you've put into this. I see how your interpretation is reasonable based on the wording of the policy, but it doesn't make sense in the big picture. Two of the five pillars are in play here -- that Editors should treat each other with respect and civility and Wikipedia does not have firm rules. The standard for administrators is not perfect. Had the Barney situation been an isolated incident, a simple note on DP's talk page explaining how / why they mishandled the incident would be the appropriate response. But this is about a long term pattern of behavior, which is what RFC/U is for. Accordingly please undelete. NE Ent 00:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if you've seen it, but MrX has a very interesting post on DP's page, attempting to have a one on one discussion (so I won't interfere, and perhaps none of us should). I was impressed by the sincerity and thoroughness and it is easy to see he isn't being confrontational. It is my hope that DP will take it seriously, and address the issues there. This is exactly the kind of discussion that should happen (in my own opinion) before an RFC/U goes forward. Without prejudice to whether this RFC/U is restored or restarted, I do think waiting just a little bit for a response will genuinely be beneficial. I strongly recommend that DangerousPanda take it to heart and calmly consider MrX's perspective, which I think is reflective on more than just himself. Dennis 2¢ 01:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I will consider both requests today. Let's not be hasty. Jehochman ^Talk 10:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Rfcu_deletion_review NE Ent 08:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DangerousPanda:. I think that recent events have clarified what people's concerns are. Please answer, if you wish, the following questions:

1. Do you accept that these incidents (see assortment of diffs in User:Jehochman/Draft) reflect standards that fall below what's expected for a Wikipedia administrator?
2. Would you be willing to make an effort to change your style?

My own advice to you is that it pays to be polite to everybody alike: trolls and fools and good faith editors. Insulting a troll gives them a feeling of glee and energizes them to do more trolling. Arguing with a fool makes it difficult for an observer to tell who's who. Cursing out a good faith editor will discourage them from participating and get their friends to chase you with pitchforks and torches. Nothing good comes from being rude, ever. The momentary satisfaction is empty. Do you agree? Jehochman ^Talk 23:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DP can answer when he wishes, but I'm very uncomfortable with the draft. It's not the same as the original RFC/U, and it's not clear to me who's creating it. If you want to coach NE Ent and Msnicki about how to create a valid RFC/U, that might be acceptable, but you're doing it for them, and, in my view, that's not.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's very clear about who is creating it is that those editors who previously gave outside views, or supported others' views, have now been erased from the public history. Why has Jehochman taken this power upon himself to exclude other editors? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else can have their comments returned to them on request, should they wish to use them to take part in the new draft - I have not asked for my comments, as I was commenting on something that I thought should have no part in the RFC (and now, thankfully, doesn't). Neatsfoot (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure I've disagreed with all involved on this one at some point, but I don't see anything exceptionally bad, or even outside the norm for admins, in any complaints against the Panda. FWIW. Arkon (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sigh. I know the section above is long and hard to follow so let me repeat. I will gladly give any user a copy of their prior sttement which they can repost where ever and whenever appropriate. The draft page I created is for Msnicki who needs a copy of her statement and who wanted my advice on how to form a proper RFCU. It's up to her and one other editor to go do that if they wish. My question here to DP is a chance for him to try to resolve questions short of an RFCU. Maybe I'm overly optimistic that he will answer and that Msnicki and others would be satisfied with the answer. The original RFCU page was deleted per the rules because it wasn't properly certified. This is normal, long-standing practice. Jehochman ^Talk 10:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]