Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 66: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs) create Tag: Disambiguation links added |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 75:
* I guess we should have specified "some audited content" a bit more, but to be more proscriptive seemed to me at the time to be overkill. That said, my idea was that it'd be a more substantial body of work. I think working on [[Bradwall]] was a ''big'' step in the right direction and I see some work on [[Cerne Abbas Giant]]. The former article I think would be tricky to get to FA unless some more content were forthcoming, but the latter is definitely feasible. The initial idea was a substantial body, so see [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=406311047#Motion here and scroll up for Jayjg's initial body of work which resulted in the committee lifting restrictions]. So maybe not as much as that, but I think some more material would be great. I am happy to give some feedback for a GA push on the giant, a really wonderful landmark in southwestern England. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 04:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
* Repeating my comments from last time: "It seems the original ban was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive10#Iantresman in July 2007]. It was a community ban for POV pushing in pseudoscience topics after having been [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Iantresman_placed_on_Probation placed on Probation] in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience]]. He was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iantresman&oldid=451128252 unblocked after an appeal] six months ago, on condition he refrained from editing fringe science and physics-related subjects, and informed he could appeal that topic ban after six months. Provided he has met the conditions, and nobody provides any evidence of wrong doing in the past six months, then I would agree to the appeal. It would be fair to warn Iantresman that if he is found once again engaging in POV pushing the community are likely to ban him, and after being twice bitten, it would be much more difficult to get unblocked."
*:Iantresman is running a risk by asking to go back into an area that resulted in a site ban, and which if he causes problems again will likely result in another site ban, from which a second return would be much harder; but if he feels he can enter that area without causing problems, and has calmly accepted four GA fails on the same article, taking the fail comments on board to go back and improve the article to a pass standard, then it seems fair and appropriate to give him that opportunity. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
* Waiting for more opinions from the community, but I'm inclined to grant this, probably with a probationary 1RR as My76Strat suggests just to ensure there are no difficulties - something along the lines of "''The topic ban placed against Iantresman as a condition of unblocking in September 2011 is hereby lifted. In its place, Iantresman is subject to a standard 1RR restriction on all articles covering fringe science- and physics-related topics, broadly construed, for six months. This restriction may be enforced by escalating blocks up to and including one month in length, and up to and including indefinite length after the fifth such block. After each block is lifted or expires, the six-month period shall reset. Additionally, the original topic ban shall be reinstated if Iantresman is subjected to an indefinite block as a result of this restriction.''" [[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><sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 22:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
: My76Strat's suggestion seems good here. For all we know, Iantresman is of an age where the five years between the original ban and now would have a considerable impact. Let's give him a chance. [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 23:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
*Inclined to support per Hersfold and Elen. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 03:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
*I ask Iantresman to be a little bit more specific about how he plans to edit articles about "fringe science and physics-related subjects" if this request is granted? Is this an "I don't plan to dive back into the maelstrom, but I don't want to have to risk an inadvertent violation" type of appeal, or are you going to dive right back into spending much of your time in the content areas you were banned from? If the latter, how will you edit those articles differently from the manner that previously caused problems? [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 22:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
* Iantresman, thank you for responding to Newyorkbrad's question. Like my colleagues, I am minded to accept this request. I am keen on the piecemeal approach to restoring the appellant's ability to contribute to fringe science and physics articles. Hersfold, I like your suggested amendment; would you like to propose that as a motion? [[User talk:AGK|<
**Since the community doesn't appear to hold any objections, sure. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 17:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
*Willing to lift per Silk. Seems we're in agreement. Motion time?
**There's a motion being voted on now, see below. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 15:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
***That's what I get for canceling my page load. :)
=== Motion regarding Iantresman ===
Line 95:
# Proposed; added a few bits for clarity. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 17:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
#:@Iantresman: There is no currently approved bot that identifies revert restriction violations of any sort; those often require human judgment which a computer program is incapable of making, so I can't imagine one would ever be approved for that purpose. [[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><sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 16:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
#[[User talk:AGK|<
#:Iantresman: (a) Yes. (b) You may make ''no more than one revert'' per page per 24 hours, within this topic area. I don't think that restriction needs any explanation. Partial or full reverts are included. (c) Somebody else could make the revert, but you would be unable to do so. Remember that if the restriction does not require enforcement, it will expire in 6 months. Remember also that the restriction applies only to pages within this topic area, and not to your edits within other topics. [[User talk:AGK|<
# [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 19:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
# On balance, I consider this proposal to be worth trying. If Iantresman's can demonstrate that he is able to edit this topic area in a manner that isn't problematic, then he deserves to be able to edit without any restrictions. Conversely, if his editing of this topic area raises serious concerns, we could reinstate the topic ban. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 20:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
# '''[[User:SilkTork|<
# Support as amended. Worth a try. --[[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 17:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
#
; Oppose
Line 118:
==== Community comments regarding Motion 1 ====
Will unrestricted editing automatically ensue after six months with no violations, or will it be necessary to file an additional amendment? <font color="#FF4500;"><i>76</i></font><u>Strat</u> <small><sup>[[User:My76Strat|String]]</sup> da <sub>[[Special:Contributions/My76Strat|Broke]]</sub> da</small> ([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 19:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
: If the appellant does not violate his 1RR restriction, the restriction will expire after 6 months and he will be as free as you and me to edit that topic area. [[User talk:AGK|<
::Exactly. Conversely, if an indefinite block is instated at any point during the restriction, ''for a violation of the restriction'', the topic ban will be reinstated without need for further amendment. [[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><sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 16:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
----
Line 217:
=== Clerk notes ===
: ''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
* I've asked the clerks to delist this request as declined after 24-48 hours, absent any change in the balance of arbitrator opinion in the next section (or objection to archival from my colleagues). [[User talk:AGK|<
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Without a clear pattern of abuse and disruption, and evidence of the community trying and failing to deal with that disruption, ArbCom would not get involved. ArbCom are not the Wikipedia police, nor any form of authority - we are a group of fellow Wikipedians who have volunteered to temporarily act in a committee which by agreement of the community makes ''final'' and binding decisions in cases of dispute which the community have been unable to resolve. The nature of our role is that we do not step in too early. This request appears to be too early. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
*In the Race & Intelligence case, a set of banned editors were continuing to cause a great deal of problems with wholly disruptive edits being restored by editors in breach of their own topic bans. The evidence doesn't suggest that we are at this stage yet in this area. --[[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 23:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
*I think the request here demonstrates that the former prohibition should be appropriately narrowly drawn: since edits relating to a topic made by a banned editor and later removed would be considered edits on that topic, editors topic banned from that particular topic would be in breach of that topic ban by restoring them. Blanket prohibitions on non-sanctioned editors restoring banned user edits would foreclose the ability of editors in good standing to proxy the ''useful'' contributions of banned editors, an option the committee has extended to banned editors in the past. Full disclosure: I did not support that motion, for this reason and other concerns. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 03:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
*I would decline this amendment request, per my three colleagues above. [[User talk:AGK|<
* Agree with my colleagues - I think we should decline this amendment request. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 23:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
*I agree with most of the commenters and with my colleagues that we should not act on this request. With regard to the more general issue, the observations by Richwales and the other administrators who have commented are generally sound. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 23:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Line 273:
* Mathsci, the presence of this on arbitration-related pages is a magnet for drama. Recent developments mean the motion is not passing and hence we have a pathway to clearing the decks. I fear and strongly suspect examining things further at this time would prolong unpleasant interactions. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 21:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
*Agreed with NYB and Cas, this case and topic area needs a rest, and I see no value in re-examining the Review items questioned here at this point in time. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 21:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
* It was a mistake for Mathsci to submit this request. Unless any arbitrator disagrees, I echo my colleagues' calls for this request to be delisted by a clerk. [[User talk:AGK|<
----
{{abot}}
Line 308:
==== Comment by Durova ====
Have customs changed? Or is it no longer customary for clerks or arbitrators to notify the principal party of a case when a request for clarification arises?
=== Clerk notes ===
Line 314:
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*If the community cannot reach a consensus on the publication of e-mails, then I am loathe for this committee to adjudicate policy its behalf unless an unresolvable dispute compels us to do so. Should you press me, I would answer that no user should publish an e-mail on-site (without the sender's consent). In particular, any e-mail that contains personal or sensitive information should never be published on-site. One function of the Arbitration Committee is to decide a matter on behalf of the community if the making of that decision must take into account sensitive or confidential information, such as an e-mail. This arrangement is working well, so I don't think this question is especially important at this time. [[User talk:AGK|<
:* Further comment: This is one of only a few arbitration "principles" that have been adopted as psuedo-policy. Typically, our decisions are intended only to resolve the dispute at hand; generally, we hope that, in time, our decisions will become a historical irrelevancy. The ''Durova'' principle cited here seems to have become more important with time, not less, and I don't think that was a desirable development. If the editor who filed this request wants to change site policy about off-wiki communications, I would advise him to engage the full community in a discussion to that effect. As a personal view, I concur with my colleagues that the principle in question was a sound one, but I maintain that the ''Durova'' principle is irrelevant because it has no formal weight in policy and can easily be overridden by a proper community decision to adopt or reject a proposal to change those policies that affect off-wiki communications. In short, this request is the wrong way to go about policy-making of any kind. [[User talk:AGK|<
:* Durova, it was never customary for arbitrators to notify the parties to a request that they were named, and in any event this request is substantively unrelated to you or your actions. This decision is one of only a few that has transcended the original dispute, and therefore when the community speaks of the "''Durova'' ruling" we refer to the "off-wiki communications" principle—not you or the incidents that resulted in that case. [[User talk:AGK|<
* I generally agree with AGK's comments. The Arbitration Committee has several functions, including settling matters that are unusually divisive amongst the community in general, and admins in particular. In the situation mentioned in this request, the community, including admins, weren't especially divided on how to proceed. In this context, I don't think there is any urgent need to rescind the remedy from the 2007 case. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 12:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
*ArbCom does not make policy, so the Committee who passed that principle must have been basing it on existing Wikipedia policy. There is a link in the principle to [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]], which is a "Wikipedia policy with legal considerations". On looking at that page it seems to relate to work, including emails, which may be classed as creative, and which are used in Wikipedia main space. In instances of copyright violation Wikipedia (not just ArbCom) does encourage all editors (not just admins) to remove the violations. Without knowing the case I don't know what the use of the emails were, but I see that Giano was found to have caused concern by publishing on wiki some private correspondence, so I assume that is what is being referred to, and I assume the private email was from one Wikipedian to another, and likely not to have come under the Copyright policy, but more appropriately under the Harassment policy, which is where [[WP:EMAILPOST]] is located. The Harassment policy says that "There is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence." We do then appear to have an inconsistency. If the 2007 Committee were dealing with a use of an email that was considered harassment, and were using [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] to enforce it because the community do not have consensus regarding such use of emails, then that seems an awkward fit. On the whole I am not in favour of people forwarding emails without permission let alone posting on wiki - it is not something I do. However, in the world of Wikipedia, I feel that there are many who are very supportive of the openness of the project, the collaborativeness, and the sense that the project comes before any one individual; and if an email is from one Wikipedian to another, I can see that some would regard that as part of the project as a whole rather than belonging to the individuals concerned. Personally, I see the email system as a means of communicating in private - this may be done for a variety of legitimate reasons; and I would regard passing such emails on without permission as bad manners at the least, and would usually be a violation of privacy. I would support any community discussion which aimed to make violation of email privacy a sanctionable offence. But as it stands, despite the 2007 ArbCom principle, I don't think it is sanctionable under Wikipedia policy. Remove copyright violations on sight, yes. Remove unapproved Wikipedian communications - down to the editor on the spot to make a judgement, but I don't think removal can be blanket supported by ArbCom. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
*The principle as articulated in the ''Durova'' case was sound, and I see no reason to modify it. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 16:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
**Responding to some of the other comments, I think this issue is more usefully viewed primarily as a matter of courtesy and expectations of privacy, rather than through the lens of technical issues under the copyright laws (some of which are situation-dependent and some of which are unsettled). [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Line 456:
*Same as Courcelles, I have zero interest in lifting this topic ban. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 22:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
*While Nina Green has done some good work, no doubt about that, I am horribly suspicious that everyone appearing here so far is trying to argue from a premise that the '''original '''ban and topic ban were unwarranted. That just isn't going to wash, and raises deep concerns about the reason for this request. I'd want to hear from some of the people she has actually edited with since the ban ended. --[[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 23:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
*There is a lot of community support for this, however I feel that more time is needed than two months to assess someone's behaviour. In NinaGreen's case, the language of the Findings of fact is very strong: "{{User|NinaGreen}} ... has engaged in a persistent pattern of disruptive behavior, including advocacy rather than neutral editing, misuse and extreme monopolization of talkpages to the point of rendering them useless, repeated false and unsupported allegations against fellow editors, failure to improve her behavior after having been repeatedly counseled in the past, and continued disruptive behavior during this arbitration case itself." Generally, six months is considered a minimum amount of time to assess someone's behaviour. '''[[User:SilkTork|<
*I authored the original decision in this case, and I am confident that the decision we reached in that case was well-supported: NinaGreen engaged in a significant pattern of disruptive behavior, all of it related to her strong advocacy for the Oxfordian hypothesis. The remedies that were adopted—a period of separation from the project, followed by a topic-ban upon her return—were entirely warranted. Since her return, NinaGreen has abided by the topic-ban and has focused on editing historical articles, although her historical interests also are ultimately linked to her belief (which she has every right to hold, though not to press on-wiki) about who wrote Shakespeare's plays. It is obvious that NinaGreen has a thorough base of well-documented historical knowledge and it appears that she is capable of improving Wikipedia articles about English history and biography with reliably sourced writing based on that knowledge. On the other hand, I think it would be a mistake to lift the topic-ban altogether, which could allow NinaGreen to edit about who wrote the plays, which I don't think she is looking to do right now anyway. Thus, I could see a basis for somewhat narrowing the topic-ban but not for lifting it altogether, and I'd welcome thoughts on this. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
*This is much too soon. I would decline this amendment request. [[User talk:AGK|<
:* On Newyorkbrad's suggestion: I oppose any change (incremental or not) to NinaGreen's sanction unless at least six months have passed. [[User talk:AGK|<
:* Six months of trouble-free editing would be a starter. Evidence of collaborative behaviour such as GA or FA article production would be helpful too. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 21:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
----
Line 606:
:#Asking AE to decide whether something is pseudoscience or merely fringe science is a waste of time; the concepts are so closely related that having the applicability of the sanctions turn on deciding which term applies to an article is a distraction at best, and pure wikilawyering at worst; this nullifies the issue, and puts the focus back on conduct, and not terminology. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 22:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
:# Just in case there is any doubt. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 19:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
:#Support. Also, '''I've added two sentences to the motion:''' I've copy-edited this motion so that it says any previously-authorised discretionary sanctions that are subsumed by these new ones may simply be <s>stricken</s> and marked as redundant (in the usual way). If we think separate motions to deprecate those sanctions are needed (''Homeopathy'' and ''Cold fusion'' are mentioned below as two decisions that this motion would deprecate), then please revert my copy-edit—but as this is a matter of keeping our records in order more than anything else I think it might be sufficient for us or the community to use common sense in deciding how to implement this motion vis-a-vis existing decisions. [[User talk:AGK|<
:# [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 13:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
:# [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 21:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
:# [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 23:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
:#
:# [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]</sup> 09:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Line 683:
*I agree with Courcelles, while I can certainly understand why we would wish to do such a thing, I would suggest without it being disclosed previously, or with the family's ok, I would hesitate greatly to say "there's no problem with it". [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 03:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
:I've had a bit of time to think about it.. I would tenatively see nothing wrong with it, but I think I'd be happy if we did a RfC (not a long one, just a quick say, seven day one with a link to the usual places.. and until a decision one way or the other, I would say, "Tenative ok" with the caveat that should the decision be against it, that the identifying info be removed. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 09:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
*We respect users' wishes to conceal their real identity in order to prevent harassment, and will suppress edits in which the real life identity is revealed for otherwise anonymous accounts. Policy, however, is not clear on deceased users. While the user can not be harassed, their family could be. I can see a possibility that the family of an admin who had blocked trouble makers might experience harassment at a sensitive time. When asking a family permission to use the real name, consideration should be given to informing the family of possible negative interactions as a consequence. A guideline on dealing with these matters should be drawn up; and that is for the community to do. As regards the Committee's involvement in these matters. If the real life identity of a deceased user were suppressed when there was no clear indication of permission being given, I would view that as an appropriate interpretation of policy. If another user tried, after suppression, to again reveal the identity, and this became a dispute which escalated until it was before the Committee, I would support the suppression and be inclined to support sanctions against a user edit warring to reveal a real life identity without evidence that this was the wishes of the deceased user or their family. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<
*Most of the time that I see a pseudonymous user named as deceased, it is at the behest or notice of the user's relatives or friends. Where such approval is ''not'' given, I think it's best to err on the side of caution and avoid tying the account to the real-world identity. While I think it's unlikely that the kind of harassment Silk mentions would actually happen, there's no reason to give an opening for that harm either. If it's considered important enough, I'd recommend an RfC for a line mention to be added to the policy or whatnot; as it is this doesn't seem like a clarification that we can decide as a Committee.
*I would also recommend that community input be sought into this; my personal thoughts are similar to SilkTork's in that the family of the deceased should give consent prior to anything being posted. [[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><sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 19:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
**Reply to A Quest For Knowledge: If providing such an obituary link is determined to constitute outing, then that is not a feasible alternative and could result in more problems; any person with the email could very easily forward it on to someone else, and so on, until the point of using email is entirely defeated. [[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><sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 19:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
| |||