Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:02, 29 March 2013

Latest revision as of 04:42, 4 February 2023

(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Casenav|case name=SchuminWeb|clerk1=AlexandrDmitri|clerk2=|draft arb=|draft arb2=|active=14|inactive=1|recused=0}}

{{Casenav}}

==Arbitrators active on this case==

#AGK

#Casliber

#Courcelles

#David Fuchs

#Elen of the Roads

#Hersfold

#Jclemens

#Kirill Lokshin

#Newyorkbrad

#PhilKnight

#Risker

#Roger Davies

#SilkTork

#SirFozzie

'''Inactive:'''

#Xeno

{{discussion top}}

==Additional statements==

=== Statement by MBisanz ===

Line 17 ⟶ 38:

=== Statement by Hahc21 ===

As a participant of the RFC, and after investigating SchuminWeb's past administrative actions, as well as they way he interacts with users (administrators included) that question his actions, I consider that an arbitration case is needed. To try not to rewrite what has been said in the RFC, seems like Web's behaviour when heavily confronted because of his questionable actions is to take an unannounced wikibreak, and return when things have calmed down to avoid any procedure to take effect against him in a preventative way. There is a clear concern by a considerable part of the community about the way he uses personal preferences over policy when it comes to delete images. As Mangoe states in the RFC, seems like Web's ''modus operandi'' is to silently orphan the images and then tagging them as such before deleting them, although he has also showcased move visible actions against consensus in deletion discussions. In my personal opinion, this is a very alarming way to game the system and to achieve his goals against the standard procedure for the deletion, and discussion of deletion, of images (and non-free content in general). This is not a new behaviour recently spotted from SchuminWeb; previous issues out of his behaviour have been appointed in the last 5 years, starting from his very request for adminship in 2007, when one of the opposers stated that he'd "be worried that his actions as an admin would be more about him than the encyclopaedia", which has been demonstrated by his actions. — [[User:Hahc21|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#333333;">'''ΛΧΣ'''</fontspan>]][[User_talk:Hahc21|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#336699;">'''²¹'''</fontspan>]] 18:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

:'''Update''': [https://twitter.com/Razr_Nation/status/280763311228854272 I have tweeted SchuminWeb]. As he seems to be very active on Twitter, there is no way he cannot be aware now. — [[User:Hahc21|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#333333;">'''ΛΧΣ'''</fontspan>]][[User_talk:Hahc21|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#336699;">'''²¹'''</fontspan>]] 19:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

:'''Update #2''': I have established communication with SchuminWeb and [https://twitter.com/SchuminWeb/status/280764334232174593 he aknowledges] his awareness of this case. — [[User:Hahc21|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#333333;">'''ΛΧΣ'''</fontspan>]][[User_talk:Hahc21|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#336699;">'''²¹'''</fontspan>]] 20:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

:'''Update #3''': I have no intentions to hurry up the committee; this is not an emergency case and there is no need to rush procedures. That said, I'd like to add [https://twitter.com/SchuminWeb/status/280764605905637378 another tweet]. From this information, I won't expect any response from SchuminWeb anytime soon, so this case will have to follow without him. — [[User:Hahc21|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#333333;">'''ΛΧΣ'''</fontspan>]][[User_talk:Hahc21|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#336699;">'''²¹'''</fontspan>]] 00:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

::'''@Centpacrr''': The case is already accepted, and all further needed information should be provided when it begins. There is no need to keep expanding your statement in this moment, as it will look like you have a great personal interest in the matter. What needs to be done, will be done, and what doesn't need to be done, won't. Arbitrators have already expressed their willingness to suspend SW's administrative tools as a preventative measure until the case is started, so my opinion is that no more additional information is needed by now. I may be incorrect, of course. — [[User:Hahc21|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#333333;">'''ΛΧΣ'''</fontspan>]][[User_talk:Hahc21|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#336699;">'''²¹'''</fontspan>]] 03:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

::'''@ArbCom''': Although not needed, I'd like to express my satisfaction with the passing motion. It prevents SchuminWeb from performing any administrative action until this matter is solved, and sets a limit of three months for a desysopping in case he is really retired from the encyclopedia. I agree that an immediate desysopping may be too fast, and these restrictions, although acting as a ''quasi''desysopping, leave grounds to alternate solutions in case SW wants to avoid a future RFA, or to address all the concerns raised here. Regards. — [[User:Hahc21|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#333333;">'''ΛΧΣ'''</fontspan>]][[User_talk:Hahc21|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#336699;">'''²¹'''</fontspan>]] 03:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Youreallycan===

He is aware of this and had not commented at all - he failed to comment at his RFC user and here also- he claims he is close to ''putting up the retired template'' - I say remove his advanced permissions immediately - his lack of communication and effort to explain his edits which as an admin he has a responsibility to do are damning = deysop - I will add that I agree completely with his cautious interpretation of the wikipedia foundations copyright and non free use statements but he needs to comment to defend them and his admin actions here. [[User:Youreallycan|<fontspan colorstyle="color:purple;">[[User:Youreallycan|You]]</fontspan>]]<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">really</font><font color="red"span>[[User talk:Youreallycan|<span style="color:red;">can]]</fontspan>]] 20:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

===Question from Beyond My Ken===

Line 37 ⟶ 58:

I do want to point out that when one steps away from the mass closure, the individual closes that SchuminWeb did followed normal practice at FFD for most of the images given. That is, they only has 2-3 !votes, one from the nominator and a couple others - this is typical of FFD (and a possible issue, as we really should have more input, which I'm trying to figure out how to address by a slight change in FFD nominating practice). The nom gives a policy reason, the two others do not, and because we're talking NFC policy where we usually default to delete if we can't prove the image meets NFC, the deletions were generally appropriate. The ones that were subsequently individually challenged sometimes did, sometimes didn't, have more discussion and Schumin should have closed those no consensus (hence the trout for doing this too fast). But of about 260 others, Schumin had every reason and support from previous FFDs to close those as he did.

This is no way to approve or disapprove any other action Schumin may be investigated with. --[[User:Masem|M<fontspan sizestyle="font-3size:x-small;">ASEM</fontspan>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 21:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

:In response to Elen's statement below: ''The relevant Foundation policy does not have anything in it that resembles clause 8. Perhaps it's time to hold another discussion about NFCC.'' Our en.wiki NFCC policy has had #8 prior to the Foundation Resolution, and in fact the Foundation used our NFCC as an example of an appropriate EDP. Yes, #8 is the most subjective of the NFCC clauses, but most editors basically have come to understand that "if there is sourced discussion of the image or what the image represents in the article the image is used in, it meets NFCC#8". That said, I point to my statement above: FFD has normally operated on very little input with defaults to delete if there's no counterstatements to the nominator's statement that reflect policy. That itself is a problem that needs to be addressed by better notification of interested parties (as right now the only requirement for notification is the uploader, who may be long-gone as an editor). I do not believe that a NFCC discussion would be needed, given that the policy is always under some type of review, and that my perception is that the bulk of editors know what they need to provide for NFCC#8. Schumin's closure of these, outside of rapid fire closing, under NFCC policy really isn't the issue, since any other admin that regularly closes FFD would likely have closed these the same way. --[[User:Masem|M<fontspan sizestyle="font-3size:x-small;">ASEM</fontspan>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 16:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

:@Kurtis: We have [[WP:NFCR|non-free content review]] to discuss images with questionable NFCC-meeting uses but without the demand of admin action to complete. --[[User:Masem|M<fontspan sizestyle="font-3size:x-small;">ASEM</fontspan>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 16:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

=== Statement by Kww (peripherally involved) ===

Line 97 ⟶ 118:

===Comment by Previously involved and how-did-I-miss-the-Rfc KillerChihuahua===

In October of 2011, I had my one and only encounter with SchuminWeb; in that encounter he was high-handed, dismissive, insulting, and generally obnoxious to the several admins and editors (myself as one) who tried to discuss an action of his, which was within the letter of the law, I suppose, but amazingly [[Wikipedia:Cluocracy|CLUE]]less. The discussion on his talk page was moved, then blanked, then redirected, but you can see it (albeit with the retired banner above, as that is templated across all his pages using an earlier template) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchuminWeb/Archive_32&oldid=456995651#Changes%20to%20Template:Di-replaceable%20fair%20use here], scroll down to the first section, ''Changes to Template:Di-replaceable fair use'' in which Future Perfect at Sunrise, followed by myself and others, voiced concern that he had completely and utterly negated the speedy for fair use, by his changes in the verbiage of the template, hamstringing the speedy process for fair use, which would of course have grave concerns for all of Wikipedia. There was [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive724#Changes_to_Template:Di-replaceable_fair_use|further discussion]] on ANI, in which IDHT was the response. The issue is the same as in the Rfc; high-handed admin action, and hostility to all who have concerns, which he then later buried. I have grave concerns about allowing this admin to "retire" and be able to come back to Wikipedia with the bits intact, without having addressed any concerns at all; this seems to have been a tactic used in the past and I have no reason to believe that he will come back with any change in attitude or approach; his past history would indicate the opposite will occur. Recommend removing admin bits under a cloud, forcing a new Rfa. We are not hard up enough for admins that we need accept this type of deafness to community concerns. One puppy's opinion. [[User:KillerChihuahua|Killer]][[User talk:KillerChihuahua|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#415651;">Chihuahua</fontspan>]] 15:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

===Comment by Collect===

Line 143 ⟶ 164:

:# I cannot support in this form and in the absence of a statement from the admin. I'll try to work up instead something based on the Aitias motions. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]} 12:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

:#:I've put together the following, which derives from the Aitias case.<ul>"Absent an emergency, the committee is reluctant to remove administrative tools without first providing the administrator with an opportunity to respond. Accordingly, this case is suspended until after 5th January 2013. If, between the passing of this motion and 5th January 2013:<ol><li>SchuminWeb resigns his administrator tools, such resignation will be irrevocable, and the case will be closed without further action; any return of his tools may only take place following a successful RfA.<li>SchuminWeb fails to communicate with the committee, his administrative tools will be temporarily withdrawn on 6th January 2013, pending a hearing of this case upon his return to editing. If the committee hears nothing by 20th January 2013, the temporary removal of the tools will be become permanent and may only be restored following a successful RfA.<li>SchuminWeb notifies the committee that he wishes to participate in a case, the case will open SchuminWeb's earliest convenience and in any event no later than 20th January 2013.<li>In the meantime, SchuminWeb is prohibited indefinitely from making any administrative action of whatever nature. In the unlikely event that this prohibition is ignored, SchuminWeb's administrative tools may be summarily removed by motion of any three arbitrators pending the hearing of a full case."</ol></ul>Any thoughts? &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]} 19:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

:# Desysopping without the case and without a pressing emergency feels too much like judgement before a hearing. If Schumin is not editing, there's no threat of tool misuse. I will post an alternate motion tonight; while I think the issue of new vs. old admins is a difficult one to foresee, I think we can still handle it a bit more elegantly. <font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|<span style="color:#cc6600;">Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]]</fontspan>]]^{<small>(<font color="#ff6600">[[User talk:David Fuchs|<span style="color:#ff6600;">talk]]</fontspan>]])</small>} 17:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

:#I have to agree with David; plus, if he should return at any point, he needs the opportunity to present his defense, as it were. This motion presumes guilt. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <small>[[User:Hersfold non-admin|non-admin]]</small>^{([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])} 17:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

:#Here's what I'd rather pass: "The request for arbitration filed on 17 December 2012 concerning SchuminWeb is accepted. As he is not actively editing, the case will be held pending his return to active editing. SchuminWeb's admin tools are removed until he returns to editing and agrees to participate in this case. Once he indicates he is willing to proceed, his admin tools will be restored; though he will be under a temporary injunction not to delete any page from the File Namespace. This injunction will expire when the case closes. The Arbitrators in office when the case resumes shall hear the matter Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within one year of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the desysop will be considered permanent, and he will only be able to gain the tools again through a fresh Request for Adminship." This would solve the immediate problem, ensure there would be no more, and yet neither presupose guilt or move the goalposts if/when the admin decides to face the case. I think this motion as proposed does improperly assume guilt, when what we have is proof there are things to be concerned about, and the ''case'' should look into whether the admin tools should be removed. Yet, the hard stop date does mot prolong this ad infinitum. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 18:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

:# Prefer the later motions. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<fontsup colorstyle="color:#347C2C;">^{✔Tea time}</font>]]''' 07:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

:#Prefer motion 4. [[User talk:AGK|<fontspan colorstyle="color:black;">'''AGK'''</fontspan>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

;; Other

Line 160 ⟶ 181:

;; Support

:# As proposer--this addresses the issues brought by the filing parties regarding improper deletions, and provides an incentive to engage with the case. Per Courcelles' idea in the previous motion, it comes with a built-in expiration date (we shouldn't expect future arbs to have to deal with stale messes.) Copyedits are welcome. <font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|<span style="color:#cc6600;">Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]]</fontspan>]]^{<small>(<font color="#ff6600">[[User talk:David Fuchs|<span style="color:#ff6600;">talk]]</fontspan>]])</small>} 14:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

:# I can support this, but would also prefer that the time frame be reduced to somewhere from three-six months. Roger's suggestions sound good as well. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] ^{([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])} 19:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC) (Second choice) [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] ^{([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])} 22:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

:# I find this sufficient. The request and subsequent comments contain information that warrants a case; however, I do not believe that the threshold has been reached that would require immediate desysop. The case will proceed should SchuminWeb return to editing at any time in the next year. <small>Minor copy edit, which I do not think changes the meaning of the motion. </small> [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 20:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Only choice that I support. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 05:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Line 172 ⟶ 193:

:# In favor of motion 3. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 19:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

:#No, the tools should be ''removed''. Who is going to take the responsibility of watching for use? [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 20:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

:# One year is too long. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<fontsup colorstyle="color:#347C2C;">^{✔Tea time}</font>]]''' 07:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

:# Why are we "instructing" SchuminWeb not to use his tools? If we wish him not to use his sysop permissions, then we should revoke them. This sort of "gentlemen's agreement" is rather silly, and I would prefer that anything we do with permission removals be watertight. [[User talk:AGK|<fontspan colorstyle="color:black;">'''AGK'''</fontspan>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

;; Other

Line 180 ⟶ 201:

;; Arbitrator comments

:* May I suggest two copy-edits? They are: (i) deleting "<i>to close deletion discussions</i>" and inserting "<u>for any purpose</u>" in its place; and (ii) replacing "<i>Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within one year of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped; returning the tools will require a [[WP:RFA|new request for adminship]].</i>" with "<u>Should SchuminWeb resign his administrative tools, the case will be closed and no further action taken. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within one year of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped. In either event, restoration of the tools will require a [[WP:RFA|new request for adminship]].</u>" I still think a year is an eternity but can probably live with it. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]} 14:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

::*I included the specific mention just because I haven't seen indications that Schumin had blocked his opposition or abused rollback, etc; the issue is with his nature towards opens/closes of FFD/deletion discussions. I'd be interested in input from other arbs, however. <font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|<span style="color:#cc6600;">Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]]</fontspan>]]^{<small>(<font color="#ff6600">[[User talk:David Fuchs|<span style="color:#ff6600;">talk]]</fontspan>]])</small>} 19:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

:* I can accept this approach in principle, but I think that a year is too long. We must be respectful of the (perhaps temporary, perhaps not) disaffection of the administrator whose conduct has been challenged, but we must also be fair to others who would participate in the case if it proceeds. To ask those parties to revisit their issues with SchuminWeb in (hypothetically) a month or two might be reasonable to all; to ask that they do it a year from now, perhaps less so. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 14:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

::*Would six months be a decent compromise? I definitely see your point on being fair to all parties, and that's what the motion is an attempt at. The time period is an absolute outside limit, but I don't know if Schumin is more or less likely to come back in X months after he's spent Y months away. <font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|<span style="color:#cc6600;">Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]]</fontspan>]]^{<small>(<font color="#ff6600">[[User talk:David Fuchs|<span style="color:#ff6600;">talk]]</fontspan>]])</small>} 19:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

==== Motion regarding SchuminWeb (4) ====

Line 193 ⟶ 214:

:#First choice [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 00:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

:# Equal first choice. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 02:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

:#: <s>First</s><s>[Second] choice. I think this is closer to what the community were looking for. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<fontsup colorstyle="color:#347C2C;">^{✔Tea time}</font>]]''' 07:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)</s>

:# First and only choice. SchuminWeb's conduct as an administrator is so concerning that we have accepted the arbitration request; it is quite unthinkable to decide it is appropriate that, upon our realising he will not respond to the arbitration case, we should leave his administrator tools alone. Without prejudging the outcome of the arbitration, nor wishing to treat SchuminWeb unkindly, I merely consider it ''sensible'' that we desysop this administrator until he is ready to engage in the arbitration process. [[User talk:AGK|<fontspan colorstyle="color:black;">'''AGK'''</fontspan>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

;;Oppose

:#For same rationale as mentioned above. <font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|<span style="color:#cc6600;">Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]]</fontspan>]]^{<small>(<font color="#ff6600">[[User talk:David Fuchs|<span style="color:#ff6600;">talk]]</fontspan>]])</small>} 21:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

:#I'm frankly afraid that the distinction among all these motions may be moot, as SchuminWeb's comments elsewhere do not suggest he will be returning to Wikipedia, and certainly not that he'll be looking to take on the burdens of administration again. That being said, I understand the point that Jclemens and Courcelles are making that for an administrator repeatedly to walk away from the project when his or her actions are being criticized is not useful. Nonetheless, I would prefer to err on the side of allowing an administrator in this position some more time to be heard from before we remove the tools for good. (I think this is what the community was trying to say to us in response to our motion in the EncycloPetey case, as well.) Whether to suspend adminship pending SchuminWeb's return, or to leave it in place but direct him not to use the tools or not to use them controversially, is a fine point. On balance, I don't see a likelihood that he's going to come back and immediately start deleting things, knowing the drama that this would cause. This is the case of a dedicated long-time administrator who may have gotten carried away and burnt out, but AGF still applies; we aren't talking about Archtransit here. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

:#Per my oppose to motion 1, although this is worded significantly better. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] ^{([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])} 22:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Line 204 ⟶ 225:

:# Per SirFozzie. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]]&nbsp;^{[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]} 00:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

:# Per above, &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]} 12:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

:# To bring this to a close. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<fontsup colorstyle="color:#347C2C;">^{✔Tea time}</font>]]''' 13:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

;;Other

Line 216 ⟶ 237:

It's been three months since the motion passed - should the case be closed? --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 01:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

:Yes. I am pinging the arbs to make the close. Thanks for ther update. — [[User:Hahc21|<span style="color:#333333;">'''ΛΧΣ'''</span>]][[User_talk:Hahc21|<span style="color:#336699;">'''²¹'''</span>]] 02:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)