Hi Coren, I have come here to faithfully request that Penyulap to be unblocked and released from the imprisonment of his own talk page. I get the impression that no one has looked into this, but Penyulap himself is ready and willing to come out of being blocked and wishing to return to editing. He has removed the WikiBreak template from his page, and that there is no policy called 'not here to create an encyclopaedia'. It is not the way to block people who have left for a break in the first place; now Penyulap has returned, all Penyulap has returned to is a block on his own editing. Courcelles had recently blocked him last month and dismissed it as "trolling", I, Rich Farnborough had objected it to it but we were not heard, and I suspect that Courcelles only had thought of "trolling" because Penyulap was sticking to his talk page too much, but that is all he can do. I kindly ask you to look into this, and consider the option. Many thanks, ☠ Jaguar ☠ 23:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to do so, at least not without a convincing argument from Penyulap. The last several weeks before my block, they had done little but – pardon the frankness – stir shit up on various noticeboards and cause (or stoke) drama in many venues. I'm entirely willing to hear an appeal from Penyulap, or they can request community (or ArbCom) review of the block, but their behaviour since the block leaves me little hope that unblocking is plausible for the time being. — Coren ^(talk) 23:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you did go a little further than most admins in trying to get the right noises out of Pen, but I also think our basic process is dysfunctional. (I'm just looking at an editor who I actually think behaved worse than he is accused of, and I also believe is worth unblocking. He says "Is 6 months going to really change an editor? Probably not. If I were to come back I would probably be editing like I have, being extra careful to not run into situations like this. I just don't understand the need for 6 months." This editor too is unable to utter the shibboleth required for unblocking, but this statement makes it clear his intentions are perfectly in line with what we need. Sure often an editor like this will get carried away and "re-offend" but then they just get booted for good - if they actually can control themselves they can contribute for years. Pragmatically, according to pay-off, we should unblock.)

I think also that Pen has learned the sad truth that humour on Wikipedia can bring dire consequences (and rather than de-fanging his sometimes extremely accurate criticism of process, turned into TLDR). I understand there was some contretemps on the ISS talk page, though I have never investigated.

The pay-off from unblocking Pen is not so clear. In somes way I would hope that he stick to running PALZ9000 and working on images, and maybe joking around with his friends on his talk page (I don't follow it, but it seems a congenial place most of the time), rather than contribute his expertise on space stations and risk getting into more conflict.

I have never expressed an opinion on your block, because I don't know the details (and this is a flaw in our present system), it might be better to either assume that he has learned that these are not good places to be (or to be in that manner), or specifically discuss your concerns, as a colleague, rather than as an "authority figure" which is how "Do you understand..." questions come across.

Maybe something as simple as "I blocked you because it seemed to me that for the last several weeks before my block, you had done little but stir shit up on various noticeboards and cause (or stoke) drama in many venues. I would like to unblock you, if you could allay my concerns about this I will be able to do so."

Note that Pen has not asked for an unblock as far as I know. That does not mean that an unblock is a bad thing. We value Pen as a contributor to the project. Clearly if you have concerns about some of his contributions then they need to be addressed. Fundamentally we should not be fettering our members by other than community norms except in the most extreme cases.

Rich Farmbrough, 15:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC).

I would like to support this request, Marc. I've had a good deal of off-wiki communication with Penyulap over the past few months, and the more I talk with him, the clearer it becomes to me that it would be better not to insist on getting what Rich calls "the right noises" out of him — you know, an argument for unblocking, eating a bit of crow, and such. Editors have pride — all of them — and indeed, also, some may have a more vulnerable sense of pride than others. Penylap's pride has not been indulged since your block. Rather, it has been greatly buffeted on many hands. Some indulgence after all this time — say, something like the consideration for human pride that admins tend to get at arbcom — wouldn't hurt IMO. Of course, refraining from insisting on the noises needn't prevent you from making an unblock conditional. Bishonen | talk 23:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC).

There are two obstacles that I can see: first is that this was, fundamentally, a community decision and not just my own, and second is that even a conditional return really needs at least a minimal level of engagement from Penyulap. I'm not one for demanding auto da fé from editors, but at least some willingness to temper the rhetoric is necessary; it would do Penyulap a poor favour indeed to unblock him only to have him end up in a worse predicament mere days later.

I could see a return that includes a ban away from project space for a while as a possibility, but I'm not going to do that unilateraly, or without some token effort from Penyulap. — Coren ^(talk) 00:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Coren, the manual search bot [here] does not appear to be working. There are several unprocessed requests and the last one appears to have run on 3 August 2012. Blue Riband► 04:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Me too I'd like to use the bot for a GA review I'm doing, but the bot hasn't seemed to been working on the queue in months. Is this a known thing? Is there an alternate way to get it to check? Zad68 16:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Sorry for the delay, I had forgotten I hadn't replied to this yet. For lack of time to maintain it, CSBot's code has been managed by Madman with one of his bots and it's now MadmanBot that does the checking for copyvios. You can find its manual check page at User:MadmanBot/manual. — Coren ^(talk) 17:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• • • When I notice that MadmanBot is down I also try to run VWBot at User:VWBot/manual. I have too many connectivity issues for it to stay on all the time, but it is also sometimes an option. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please check your email for a message concerning an article that needs delicate attention. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Got it. — Coren ^(talk) 00:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I am interested in the positive proposals you make. When I started looking at this particular FoF, I was rather expecting there to be dozens of unblocks to trawl through, and that I would have screwed the pooch on a couple - and would be asking for "many" to be changed to "twice" or "once". I remember now that, even though most of the blocks were completely unnecessary (since SmackBot could be stopped by leaving a talk page message), I was very reluctant to unblock, or even ask for an unblock. There is of course a whole load of background to the blocks themselves and we could be here for years talking about that.

That is precisely why I wish to "unwind" this mess a small step at a time. Attempting to reopen the case as a whole would bring floods of new accusations, counter accusations, cross referrals to editing sanctions, AN/I posts and diffs left, right and centre. It should be possible (though currently there is even more defensiveness than I had anticipated) to remove from the findings of fact those items, and only those items which are false. If what is left is enough to support the remedies, then so be it. Otherwise it is only right that they be struck.

However if you can suggest an alternative solution, that neither leaves me hamstrung, nor leaves what is essentially libel listed as statements of the committee, that would of course be far preferable to my expending hundreds more hours.

All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 17:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

The way forward is deceptively simple: appeal on the substance. Make a case that you understand the original concerns that led to the sanctions, and give convincing arguments that you will adjust the manner in which you operate automated processes in order to address them. — Coren ^(talk) 14:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As I say this leaves damning indictments which will be dredged up time and again. You can see this chilling effect taking place on Wikipedia talk:BAG. Rich Farmbrough, 16:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC).

Well, for one, an appeal would take precedence. Secondly, I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of blanking the case pages if you think they are that prejudicial, but amended or not the original findings will always be in the page history – ultimately, they were agreed upon by the arbitrators sitting during that case and, while we can see room for improvement, there is no point (nor benefit to you) in pretending they weren't. — Coren ^(talk) 00:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The only mechanism for appeal is to Jimbo. Is that what you mean? Rich Farmbrough, 21:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC).

Wait, what? No, I mean that if you make an appeal for the decision as a whole, whatever might have been in the previous one is rendered moot since it gets superseded. — Coren ^(talk) 23:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no appeal mechanism (except to Jimbo), only amendment/clarification. Rich Farmbrough, 00:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC).

(←) Well, you're right that there isn't a set procedure for filing appeals per se; mostly because it is relatively rare that anyone has even tried – most either appeal directly to Jimmy or by email for bans. I don't think it's necessary to invent a whole bureaucracy just for this: I'd think the simplest thing would be to file a request for a case to reevaluate de novo. I've no doubt that the Committee will be more receptive to an appeal of the sort than your current approach of picking at the previous case – though I cannot offer any guarantee that it would be heard at all or be successful if it is. You need to do your homework first, and provide a good basis for appeal.

I'll give you a free bit of advice, however: trying to find fault in the previous case is entirely the wrong approach. No matter how erroneous you think it may have been, it was passed through the normal process and is just as legitimate as an eventual appeal would be. You need to bring forth substantive arguments that the situation has changed and that a new approach is beneficial to the project, and you need to be ready to respond to concerns from the community (who would likely provide evidence in a case). — Coren ^(talk) 00:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The substantive change is that I will no longer trust the processes of Wikipedia. In the old days I even let AN/I reports run their course, leaving neutral third parties to defend me, successfully. Now it seems anyone who does not fight every inch of the way is screwed. I am castigated for making amendment requests too soon after the case, I am castigated for making them to long after the case. I am told that derogations will be on a case by case basis, and then told that if I request a derogation I will be classed as a vexatious litigant.

If someone wants to know if I will attempt to be more civil in future, the answer is yes. If someone wants to know if I will attempt to be more responsive in future, the answer is yes.

But it does not follow that I was "incivil" in the past, nor that I was "unresponsive" - certainly not to the level where a pattern of behaviour can be adduced.

Having this put around, I submit, influences even (especially) the committee, they "know" I am "mad, bad and dangerous to know", my submissions are looked at askance, assumptions are made, and wrong conclusions are drawn.

I am amazed that the amendment I submitted passed, especially with such a majority, given the statements of some arbitrators. And I don't know the unwritten motivation for this, which makes me uneasy. Nonetheless starting a whole new case would take longer for all concerned than a series of amendments. Moreover by removing the fallacious idea that I was blasé about unblocking my bot accounts I would hope that arbitrators will now view me in a very slightly more positive light.

Rich Farmbrough, 19:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC).

There are no unspoken motives, although that they aligned with your request is more chance than design. Simply put, there were procedural problems with the prior amendment that needed fixing, but no desire to quibble over the wording of the finding given that it had very little material impact on the case as a whole. Striking it was simply the most expedient alternative. — Coren ^(talk) 02:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you confirm if you also looked for sleeper accounts on this one and if not is it worth requesting it is done ? ✍ Mtking ✉ 19:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I did a light sweep; the range highly dynamic and I doubt a deep search will return anything probative – I'm afraid whack-a-mole will be necessary for a while. — Coren ^(talk) 02:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

When I say "unilateral" I mean specifically by one editor, with no !vote supporting it. Rich Farmbrough, 14:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

• Perhaps, but you either didn't notice or forget to mention that that Xeno's proposal is less restrictive than the one that had explicit support in the same discussion? Also, that in itself would not have been cause to deem it invalid – "unopposed" is an entirely valid basis upon which to rest a decision provided it had been sufficiently visible and discussed.

  But you're missing the point and arguing at the wrong things entirely: the previous committee validated and included by reference those sanctions and arguments that it was not are moot. I counselled you, several times over the past few weeks, that an appeal on the substance was the only way forward and you just did the exact opposite: a shopping list of unsupported assertions about why the previous decision was wrong (and most of them on totally specious grounds that would not justify overturning them even if they were supported) is exactly the worst possible way to appeal. The arbitrators saw the evidence (including what proposals may have been on the workshup) and picked those findings and remedies explicitly. They are read as a given. You need to either demonstrate material error (i.e.: show evidence that they are incorrect on their face, not that you just disagree with their conclusion) or provide us with a convincing argument that the circumstances have changed and that they are no longer needed. You did none of those things. — Coren ^(talk) 14:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  • It was stated clearly in the discussions that "most arbitrators do not read the workshop". I may be wrong about some details of my own case, but I am certainly not making things up.
  • I agree demonstrating material error is the way forward, but that was seen as onerous on the committee (can't see why myself) so I was prepared to try a broad-brush approach. It would certainly be less onerous on me. You might also be interested in my comments at User_talk:Worm_That_Turned#What.27s_changed. Rich Farmbrough, 15:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC).
    
    • Okay, we're talking past each other here. Let me try a different tack by making an (imperfect) parallel with common law procedure: the Committee is deferential to past findings of facts unless clearly erroneous (that is, indisputably so – not as a matter of opinion or interpretation). An appeal on the record is only going to be successful if you demonstrate that there was a reversible error, otherwise the only possible result is that we will affirm the previous decision. We're not going to retry this de novo.

      If you want those sanctions reviewed, you need to request that we review them according to the current situation and you need to convince us that things have changed since the case for us to do so. The argument that the sanctions are just as unneeded now as they were then isn't going to gain you any traction; the previous case has already established them as necessary at the time and if you argue nothing significant has changed then you argue against lifting the sanctions. This is what I mean by "on the substance". — Coren ^(talk) 16:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

      • As I say, the committee has vacated its findings in the past. I have found two cases, though I can only lay my hands on OrangeMarlin right now. Rich Farmbrough, 18:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC).
        
        • Yes, it happens. Not in cases like yours, and not under those circumstances. — Coren ^(talk) 18:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Coren,

In you responses to editors concerns you often mention the Wikipedia community. For example "or they can request community (or ArbCom) review of the block" and "you need to be ready to respond to concerns from the community", but what is the Wikipedia community? According to Meta "In a larger sense, the Wikipedia community includes all casual and/or anonymous editors, ideological supporters, current readers and even potential readers of all the language versions of Wikipedia-the-encyclopedia. According to Wikipedia "The Wikipedia community is a network of volunteers, sometimes known as "Wikipedians", who make contributions to the online encyclopedia Wikipedia." According to one of the most prominent Wikipedians "*There is really no such thing as "the community". There is a small subset of editors - probably only a couple of hundred at the most - who participate regularly in the noticeboards, policy pages, RFCs and so on. " According to a former arbitrator "We don't hear from a lot of the community, because they keep their heads down and just create content, gnome away or whatever. There are admins whose name never appear at ANI, who beaver away doing stuff with images, blocking penis vandals or deleting spam pages. We rarely hear from any of these people, but they are a large part of what makes this encyclopaedia keep running." So, Coren, I'd like to ask you please what is the Wikipedia community in your opinion? Thanks.71.202.123.185 (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"The community" is shorthand for "all the other editors who may wish to state an opinion on the matter". It's not context-free, of course, but it's never exclusive: anyone who feels they have something to add may chose to do so. This admittedly make things like "consensus of the community" relatively ambiguous (I don't think there could possibly have ever been a consensus of the community-at-large on anything) but anyone who's been around on Wikipedia for a while will understand the need for context. — Coren ^(talk) 21:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this very interesting response that prompts me to ask you a few more questions please. You say: "The community" is shorthand for "all the other editors who may wish to state an opinion on the matter" and "(I don't think there could possibly have ever been a consensus of the community-at-large on anything)" OK, let's for example take the community sanctions. Is there any legitimacy in the community bans that are supported by "all the other editors" who are usually involved with a discussed editor? Why a relatively small group of anonymous regulars is allowed to speak for the community that numbers tens of thousands editors, and excommunicate a person? Also while we are talking about bans, why there are bans on Wikipedia at all? A regular person (not A Wikipedian) and probably most of Wikipedians do not not understand the difference between block and bans. Why the Arbitration Committee do not simply blocks users, but bans them instead? Is this done to humiliate a person? I believe that bans should be used only in extreme circumstances, for example for criminals or pedophiles, but why WillbeBack was banned for example? Would have he presented a danger for Wikipedia, if he simply were blocked, not to say that the so called community bans discussions have simply became breeding grounds for bullies and psychopaths.71.202.123.185 (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

At this point, you're not so much "asking questions" as "expounding an histrionic manifesto". I've no interest in joining you in this exercise. — Coren ^(talk) 23:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is your choice of course, but I think that you simply do not know the answer, and I do not blame you for this, because it is all but impossible to explain why Willbeback and others for that matter were banned versus blocked and why a few involved bullies are allowed to speak for the Wikipedia community during community bans discussions. Thanks anyway, after all sometimes no response is a response in its own right. 71.202.123.185 (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Coren! Just before you posted your idea that issues around dashes need to be looked into via a different ArbCom case, I had a very similar idea. However I suspect that your approach (that both parties need to come together and propose a case jointly) won't work. Two reasons: 1) one side believes that the issues are done and dusted, so they are not interested in ArbCom reopening old wounds and looking into their own conduct, so they won't come to the party, and 2) the two sides can barely talk to each other, let alone collaborate in presenting something together. I think it would be sufficient if one side (Apteva and supporters of his views) presents a arb request against the other side. As usual, ArbCom will look into conduct of all parties, but initiative may come from one side. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is that if the best either said can say "We're right and they're wrong" it doesn't leave us with much of a matter to arbitrate. A case in point, you're presuming here that "the other side" doesn't feel they have justified grievances against yours, and that they wouldn't welcome examination of their behaviour. They may well feel exactly the same.

Hi Coren, I am surpised that you refer to one side as yours. I am completely uninvolved here, and only learned about this a couple days ago. One side seems happy with the status quo (including the topic ban on Apteva, etc), while the other is challenging it. I do not know what side is right or wrong, but they are not symmetric. One side claims there is a consensus, the other is saying that this consensus is manifactured. I think one side would be keen to go to arbitration, the other not. That is not an indicator as to who is right or wrong. - BorisG (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to Committee to look at the matter, you need to sit down and find the actual point of contention, not simply (on both sides) say how bad the other side is. — Coren ^(talk) 17:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit doubtful that this would work, to be honest, because Apteva and Wikid77's perception of the matter is so far off base (I'm not sure whether to take User_talk:Apteva#Welcome_again_to_our_planet seriously, for example, and the other comment "I would suggest that the only appropriate direction would be to address the topic of the incivility of the MOS". --Rschen7754 18:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely there are people on both "sides" of the issue that are moderate enough about their positions that they can discuss the matter at least far enough to delineate the basic issues? — Coren ^(talk) 19:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the issue is that we have these editors who won't stop their battleground mentality, against consensus; most everyone else has accepted the consensus regardless of their opinion. (For the record, I haven't been following what exactly Apteva is proposing, or know what the MOS even says). --Rschen7754 19:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

But what if I have no real proof of who the master is? Do you think the diffs I provided are evidence enough of disruptive editing/wikihounding to justify a block? If not why not? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

My point is that, given that there is no confidential information in what you sent, it is better to do it on-wiki. If you're not sure about who the master is, perhaps AN/I is the best venue. — Coren ^(talk) 01:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

But do you think the diffs I provided are evidence enough of disruptive editing/wikihounding to justify a block? Or would I be needlessly putting myself at the whims of AN/I when nothing will likely come of it anyway? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you feel you're being hounded, it's your right to express it. Best get a fresh pair of eyes on the matter. Personally, I have no opinion: I didn't look at the substance of your request, I prefer to avoid involvement off-wiki given that I'm currently sitting on the committee. — Coren ^(talk) 01:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, good point about ArbCom. Can you please suggest someone with a "fresh pair of eyes" who might be willing to look at the substance of my request? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Any of the SPI clerks are good at seeing patterns and generally nice peeps. — Coren ^(talk) 01:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Do you think I should e-mail them the diffs, or post them on-wiki? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

On wiki is always better when there is nothing confidential in play. — Coren ^(talk) 01:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been told by others that since there is a possible sockmaster involved, that off-wiki is better in this case, that's why I e-mailed you. Maybe I should ask the clerk which they prefer. Thanks for your time. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have sent an email to arbcom-l, and this should confirm I have sent it. Would you mind letting me know if it arrives? Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The list admins moderate email through several times a day, so it should pop up shortly. I'll wave once it's there. — Coren ^(talk) 02:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

SilkTork sent me an email to respond, so my message must have arrived. I will send another message shortly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I'm afraid I was fast asleep when it got through. — Coren ^(talk) 13:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's no problem at all - I was also asleep at the time. I just wanted to make sure at least one person on the committee knew to expect it; once I got the response I knew it had arrived. Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to blank it, I won't revert. I'm generally unwilling to allow people to courtesy blank themselves, especially when all that is on the page is declined unblocks.—Kww(talk) 02:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As a general rule, I'd agree with you; but given the amount of scrutiny this account is under I very much doubt it's likely that it's material that the unblock requests are in the history rather than on the page, and I'd rather give this attempt at disengaging all the help it can get. — Coren ^(talk) 02:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

An IP editor, 83.42.210.64 has posted an unblock request. He is caught in a range block posted by you. He has a username which is Brocklin, but says he has forgotten his password. This account has only 25 edits, all made in 2010, but is not individually blocked. I am somewhat unhappy at giving an unblock exemption; advice, please? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Lemme look into it, I'll get back to you shortly. — Coren ^(talk) 22:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, not counting the fact that the editor really doesn't have a long history to grant IPBE, my first concern is why he'd be editing from a server farm range? That whole AS was blocked because it held a fair number of abused proxies and legitimate users (normally) do not edit from dedicated hosting.

If he's using a proxy, then simply editing Wikipedia directly will solve the problem for him. — Coren ^(talk) 23:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I have notified the IP. I was aware of the inadvisability of IPBE, as I meant to indicate in my earlier message.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick question: if a user suspects that another user with whom they have an IB is socking in order to harass them, are they allowed to name them as a master at SPI, or would this violate said IB? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is reasonable and would fall under "reasonable dispute resolution" provided that (a) you do not use the venue to rehash the dispute and (b) the report is clearly credible. — Coren ^(talk) 13:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if you could review a discussion re: the exclusion of the National Women's Soccer League on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues and provide your feedback? Discussion is available here. I'm seeking some impartial feedback from an administrator. Thank you for your consideration. Hmlarson (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've commented there. — Coren ^(talk) 14:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Seeking outside input in a neutral fashion isn't a problem (although it does reek of throwing one's toys out the pram when you seek it after multiple other editors point out a consensus against one's opinions), but Hmlarson did not ask many of those she canvassed in a neutral fashion, but rather said "I would like to request your support". Number 57 23:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In some cases, as I've noticed after the fact. But look just two section up. — Coren ^(talk) 23:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)